Staredit Network

Yep cheeze, this is a hack.. I didn't know SEN supported hacks

Yeah, blizzard patched it, and we are completely ripping that patch off, blizzard will be extremely ticked off as I said in my previous post... Just a heads up for anybody who downloads/recommends.

Everyone who knows this knows of the accompanying risks.

We don't support bad hacks.

I do not know what action Blizzard will take if they find out, but EUD's are very important and should be kept alive.

He's got a point. As much as we would like to play with these woithout considering the consequences, they ARE THERE. Blizzard did infact look out for us as we should think, by patching EUDs. They may know more about these than we do, and releasing such information would jeopardize Battle.net. Such actions we have taken are not very considerate or appreciative. It also would be poor for the people who could not play EUDs maps: MAC users, people who don't play EUDs on a wide amount of time, and those so simply didn't read this post.

On the other hand, it would be a wonderful access to a great series of tools that we have lost and have recovered. If blizzard decides to not punish us, we shouldn't party all night and the next day just to have something we did even know the potential of. Such malicious codes that Heimdal found maight be patched out, and the program that Heimdal wrote would be kept intact. Blizzard could automatically add this program to help us, and not actually have it as a separate program.

The other problem from number two also arises in the legitimization of hacking. This is in essence, hacking. It would also allow other people to use hacks and defend themselves with a nuclear sized explosion. Blizzard wouldn't take such a risk of this nature. There are after all in charge of the relative safety of its Battle.net users, although they do state any who violate the EULA would be considered responsible for their own actions if anything bad could happen to them; malicious coding and execution.

Indeed we should think aboutt his some more. But for those in which thinking is not the strong suit, go nuts with what little time we have left, or rejoice at the time we will have: eternity of the life of Starcraft: Brood War on Battle.net. I for one cannot take a position on this, so don't bother to argue with me. I am merely stating the obvious, and the arguments for both sides as of this point.

ADDITION:


Indeed.

ADDITION:


But in essence, we are by releasing this program. However, there are two sides of the argument: the bad for the melee, infrequent, and the MAC; the good for the map making community.

My previous post highlights some of these arguments.

This isn't harmful at all to melee or mac's it doesn't even affect them. This is for UMS PC users who want to play EUD maps.

This doesn't affect melee, and I apologize for my false statement. But itr does affect MACs if the maps with EUDs are not properly labeled. It would not let them play EUD maps, which if this program were allowed some time on Battle.net, would expand the EUD map phenomenon. But you are right for the most part chuOS. This is something we MUST consider.

EDIT: We must also consider the malicious programs that could beexecuted becasue of this program. Always one should be aware of his enemy.

Blizzard released a patch because they needed to "Fix a Bug that caused certain maps to crash." What they meant was, causes EUD maps to crash mac users. This program I've released has no effect on mac users. They can play a EUD map (why would they want to?) and they won't crash, but they won't see anything special.

And as for whether it's a hack and SEN shouldn't support it...it depends on what your definition of a hack is. According to Blizzard, this program is a hack and you could be banned for using it. I define a hack as a program that gives a player an unfair advantage. But of course it's not my definition that matters.

Exactly, it has nothing to effet with Melee or Mac's. We just want some EUD UMS Maps, because using mods take longer, and EUD's are a short way to play without mods.

The No-CD "hack" is a bad hack?

What if a MAC player joined a game with non-MAC players on a EUD map that was not label properly? If MAC users can join them at all...
And EUDs are indeed such a way. But if Blizzard patched them for a reason, shouldn't we respect that decision? Although I myself would be happy so see the ever-expanding map making community grow as a result of EUD playability. I wouldaso enjoy playing these maps and seeing people to let loose their dogs of creativity.

ADDITION:


Just like the EUD program and patch 1.13b this could be thrown around forever and ever. I recognize the usefulness of the no CD-hack, but it also violates the whole point of publishing a game that is cracked by the no-CD hack.

why not just get a drive emulator? I do. It runs much faster than normal CD and it has a similar premise as a NO cd Hack, but it's not a hack.

WHy hack when you can Cheat?

The point that Iwas attempting to get across was that the good and bad of using a no-CD hack could be thrown around forever without a solid agreement. I was also attrempting to get people torealize that they must think about this topic. This is not about what hack can accomplish whatever purpose faster, this is about the dangers and problems of using this EUDEnabler program.

EDIT: This is essentally hacking as I have stated earlier, just like the no-CD hack. But what implications do we succeed in making a problem out of if we use this program? We all know the risks.

This is a hack, straight and narrow, and can get you banned.

But you can play it differently. Heim, what you must do is say this is a MOD, no joke, it'll provide some grounds on why you think it should be allowed to play on the Internet.

If people don't have the "MOD EUD" they cannot play with those who have it, therefore like a normal MOD.

It changes memory states of a lot of things Starcraft uses but so do MODs.

Also just like MODs its user made and no responbility of Blizzard to its consumers, you use it at your own risk.

And so for that matter, I say now, rename it as a MOD, everyone will still use it like it is, more for Party Friend games than anything else, but it'll save a lot of grief.

[EVERYONE for godsake support this idea...]

Stay on your toes.

Wow it's so simple, not complicated, and it involves changing seven letters! This is a gift to the lazy and the burdened: it now types with three letters (M-O-D), instead of four! (H-A-C-K) So simple, why did we not think of it earlier? Ohh, wait that's right, it isn't a straightout modification. It's a program that essentially hacks. Risks involved we all are aware of for those who use this program. Are we willing to accept the consequences? It is a hack becuase it affects the playability of many players on Battle.net, not just those who use it. Many would not be aware of EUDEnabler map restrictions, after all the patch was very vague in wording, most people who were not already in the know had no idea what it did, just that something won't crash anymore, and would have no idea what to do with this information. I have kept twenty four out of twenty five of my friends on my list in the dark, as to avoid knowledge contamination, thinking something is after knowing that it isn't, and being told so. Rumors would fly like white on rice, and we would be beset against a strain of TRUE internet hacking on a system that does not have such a problem; being able to execute malicious programs, trojans, viruses, etc. And we are aware of the responsibility we take while using this program. Although if no one tells Blizzard, we could always call it our own special little "modification", he he he... it's rather under the radar, hopefully. You all can keep a secret, right? Yeah, too bad it is Blizzard's game. They WILL find out. And when that time comes, we pray and hope for the best. I know I will; EUDs are insanely useful especially for me and my map making peers.

*cough*
http://www.staredit.net/index.php?showtopic=16548
http://www.staredit.net/index.php?showtopic=19077
http://www.staredit.net/index.php?showtopic=17768

http://www.blizzard.com/support/?id=asi0460p

That would be Blizzard's definiton of a hack, meaning essentially almost everything on battle.net is a hack. "Hacks" by Blizzard's definition are keeping Blizzard alive. From the Bounds with the square terrain, to the Special Mode in Extra Editor, the calcualtor that tells you your APM, the bots Warrers use to flood and load, and even the dang bot that tells your ping, all were not made by Blizzard. Imagine if Starforge, SCMDraft, and Xtra Editor did not exist. We wouldn't even be here right now discussing this issue. The only people on Battle.NeT would be all the non money melee players.

im scared of being banned =S, who's gonna use this?? it depends on how many ppl use this, i will

Everyone who uses this knows the risks that accompany it. We all fear banning, but only becuase we do not know what else to do. Have faith that your actions will lead to a brighter tomorrow. Don't stand in the gray of living life and not living life, led by the actions fo others. Take action. Do freely. and when something doesn't work, do something else, or as yeow says it in the text beneath his avatar, call it version 1.0 and continue onwards. Lots of people are going to use it. In our minds, the benefit outwieghs the risk. After all if Blizzard bans us permanently, we can always go back to reading. God forbid we actually read text on a paper instead of a nineteen inch pixelseries that consists of combinations of red, green, and blue.

Ha, good point.

How about this, an ultimatum to keep double standards to a minimum:
1. You either unlock those threads and modify the SEN rules about "hacks".
-or-
2. You lock this thread and not support this program.

You can't have it both ways.

But we up to this point have had it both ways. Why use SCXE or SF to make a map if we hadn't? Nice ultimatum, but most people would prefer option number three: when something does not apply, make up a rule.

It applies. You have 2 programs: HanStar and this. HanStar isn't a malicious program but violates the SC EULA (the reason stated for not supporting it). Threads get locked, people decide not to support it. In case of this, it also isn't a malicious program, and violates the SC EULA as well. People hail it as a great addition.

Am I missing something here?

In any case, we are damned if we do, and damned if we don't. Might as well do something besides eat our Ritz crackers and Cheddar cheese.

ADDITION:


The fact that we are missing is that there will always be the double standard: to use something that violates the EULA, and something that does not. Both fall under the same violation, but both are hailed in different ways. To choose what we want to condemn is is our third option, and to choose what we wish to use for embetterment too is our third.
I myself would fall under this agreement of hypocrisy, but it's a damn good hypocrisy, and I aim to keep it.

What the hell are you talking about?

"...and something that does not" <-- In my examples, everything violated the EULA. This sentence has no purpose.

The rest is just saying "Yeah, you're not missing anything, it is a double standard, and that's what people do: they decide what they want to support subjectively, and don't follow the rules set forth by themselves." Which is what I said, albeit implicitly.

...except you said it without agreeing for some reason.

Besides, it's not a "damn good hypocrisy"; it locks out one program for no reason and hails another.