| Author | Message | Time |
|---|---|---|
| soccerist | Does anyone know the details of the flood timeout on battle.net? Is there a set time that sends must be separated by? Or is that set time determined by other variables, such as message size? Thanks. | March 16, 2004, 5:07 AM |
| Myndfyr | http://botdev.valhallalegends.com/documents/vbantiflood.html VB anti-flood. Peering at the code: [code] Const PerPacket = 200 Const PerByte = 10 [/code] Self-explanatory IMHO. | March 16, 2004, 6:35 AM |
| LoRd | [quote author=soccerist link=board=17;threadid=5810;start=0#msg49681 date=1079413654] Is there a set time that sends must be separated by? Or is that set time determined by other variables, such as message size? [/quote] The required amount of delay is calculated by both the size of the message(s) and the time in between the sending of the message(s). Although there is no 100% accurate flood protection method, you should be a able to develop a rather decent one in an hour or so of experimentation. | March 16, 2004, 6:52 AM |
| tA-Kane | [quote author=LoRd[nK] link=board=17;threadid=5810;start=0#msg49697 date=1079419974]there is no 100% accurate flood protection method[/quote]Incorrect. To get 100% flood protection, don't send packets that count toward the server-side flood protection algorithm. Of course, this is quite limiting, but it works. :P | March 16, 2004, 5:39 PM |
| LoRd | [quote author=tA-Kane link=board=17;threadid=5810;start=0#msg49794 date=1079458751] [quote author=LoRd[nK] link=board=17;threadid=5810;start=0#msg49697 date=1079419974]there is no 100% accurate flood protection method[/quote]Incorrect. To get 100% flood protection, don't send packets that count toward the server-side flood protection algorithm. Of course, this is quite limiting, but it works. :P [/quote] Somewhat obvious, don't send packets which are backed by flood control and you can't flood, but in that case flood protection would not be needed or even not existant. | March 16, 2004, 7:17 PM |
| o.OV | Eh. I'll post it again. 61 or less in length (x<62) 4 seconds or more apart (4100ms) Simple huh? It works for me. If you find something better let me know :) | March 16, 2004, 10:24 PM |
| soccerist | Myndfyre, Thanks for that implementation. I will try that initially and see how it works out. LoRd[nK], I would love to experiment with this but from my experience, I'd get IP banned for 30 minutes if I flood even once. --- The reason I asked for this is I intend on implementing a friend's list as a function on the bot which is analogous to the friends list hosted on bnet. As you can see, !f m and !f l, could require quite a large number of packet sends/receives. | March 20, 2004, 12:27 PM |
| Lenny | [quote author=o.OV link=board=17;threadid=5810;start=0#msg49906 date=1079475851] Eh. I'll post it again. 61 or less in length (x<62) 4 seconds or more apart (4100ms) Simple huh? It works for me. If you find something better let me know :) [/quote] 4 Seconds apart, this seems a bit high... The amount of delay should be calculated based on last send time and the size of the last message, which is what the RequiredDelay algorithm does.... | March 20, 2004, 2:57 PM |
| o.OV | [quote author=Lenny link=board=17;threadid=5810;start=0#msg50575 date=1079794657] [quote author=o.OV link=board=17;threadid=5810;start=0#msg49906 date=1079475851] Eh. I'll post it again. 61 or less in length (x<62) 4 seconds or more apart (4100ms) Simple huh? It works for me. If you find something better let me know :) [/quote] 4 Seconds apart, this seems a bit high... The amount of delay should be calculated based on last send time and the size of the last message, which is what the RequiredDelay algorithm does.... [/quote] That is how it works.. I tested this a few months ago. I don't know if new rules have been set. If you want.. I could setup a bot to test my theories again. | March 21, 2004, 12:57 AM |
| Noodlez | Warcraft III has built in fool-proof flood protection. Works 100%. It's really fucking annoying, though. | March 21, 2004, 1:01 AM |
| kamakazie | [quote author=Noodlez link=board=17;threadid=5810;start=0#msg50628 date=1079830903] Warcraft III has built in fool-proof flood protection. Works 100%. It's really fucking annoying, though. [/quote] Any idea how it works? Is it a static or dynamic delay? | March 21, 2004, 3:50 AM |
| Networks | [quote author=o.OV link=board=17;threadid=5810;start=0#msg49906 date=1079475851] Eh. I'll post it again. 61 or less in length (x<62) 4 seconds or more apart (4100ms) Simple huh? It works for me. If you find something better let me know :) [/quote] 3150ms apart works fine to. I use it in my bot.... | March 21, 2004, 3:53 AM |
| LoRd | [quote author=Noodlez link=board=17;threadid=5810;start=0#msg50628 date=1079830903] Warcraft III has built in fool-proof flood protection. Works 100%. It's really fucking annoying, though. [/quote] ah yes, I had forgotten about that. | March 21, 2004, 4:00 AM |
| o.OV | [quote author=Networks link=board=17;threadid=5810;start=0#msg50639 date=1079841215] [quote author=o.OV link=board=17;threadid=5810;start=0#msg49906 date=1079475851] Eh. I'll post it again. 61 or less in length (x<62) 4 seconds or more apart (4100ms) Simple huh? It works for me. If you find something better let me know :) [/quote] 3150ms apart works fine to. I use it in my bot.... [/quote] You can send a message over 200_TIMES spaced 3150ms apart? Did you test it thoroughly? [quote author=Noodlez link=board=17;threadid=5810;start=0#msg50628 date=1079830903] Warcraft III has built in fool-proof flood protection. Works 100%. It's really fucking annoying, though. [/quote] If I had war3 I would test this myself. | March 21, 2004, 4:33 AM |