Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheOddAngel on 2005-04-25 at 21:22:32
If you use crashing for map hacks in the Melee games then it would be REALLY BAD... thats like if your about ot die lets activate my map hack 
Then I will get disconected and crash...
Blizzard would need to have a way to detect map hacks such as if a player can see evry unitspace on the map crash that one player...
Then I will get disconected and crash...Blizzard would need to have a way to detect map hacks such as if a player can see evry unitspace on the map crash that one player...
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Deathknight on 2005-04-25 at 23:16:57
Doesn't matter. Every player has the option to "disconnect himself". It's called the power button/bar. Plus the person is using hacks anyway, so he has other available methods of crashing himself- or rather crashing you instead, which would be a lot easier.
Anyway, I downloaded all the hacks and am re-writing some anti-hack methods.
Anyway, I downloaded all the hacks and am re-writing some anti-hack methods.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Deathknight on 2005-04-26 at 21:14:58
Ok. After some research, I made this:
I'll make triggers for you to create an anti-unit suicide hack when I feel like it.
QUOTE
FLOATING DRONE HACK - Create locations over invalid terrain to detect and destroy drones on invalid terrain.
Anti-hack level: B
MAP HACK - If you're making something like an anti-hack melee, then do this: Make several(depending on your map, I'd say about 9-12 on a 256x256 map) rectangle locations(about 25x20 tiles, or 800x640 in size). Next, is for the triggers. It doesn't matter who they belong to. The first two triggers are for an anti-crash involving a scanner sweep. (Assuming Force 1 are the players, you have a computer player in another force, and the "unit" is a good unit chosen, when disabled, will crash any Starcraft[it can also include the disable-enable trick as well])
[TRIGGER 1: [CONDITIONS: Command Force 1 at least 1 Comsat Station., Switch 1 is clear.] [ACTIONS: Set Switch 1., Remove all unit(that you will use for anti-maphack) for computer player., Preserve trigger.]]
[TRIGGER 2: [CONDITIONS: Command Force 1 at most 0 Comsat Station., Switch 1 is set.] [ACTIONS: Clear Switch 1., Preserve trigger.]]
> Now these triggers are to prevent an innocent soul from crashing for scanning in a random place with a scanner sweep.
> Next, we copy the next two triggers for every location we made, replacing 'location' with the location you actually used.
[TRIGGER 1: [CONDITIONS: Bring Force 1 at most 0 any unit to 'location'., Bring Computer player at most 0 unit to 'location'., Switch 1 is clear.] [ACTIONS: Create 1 unit(that you will use for anti-maphack) at 'location' for computer player., Disable doodad state for unit owned by computer player at 'location'., Preserve trigger.]]
[TRIGGER 2: [CONDITIONS: Bring Force 1 at least 1 any unit to 'location'., Bring Computer player at least 1 unit to 'location'., Switch 1 is clear.] [ACTIONS: Remove 1 unit(that you will use for anti-maphack) at 'location' for computer player., Preserve trigger.]]
> You can also add another action to enable the unit after being disabled, depending on what you used.
Anti-hack level: B
UNIT ALERT - This is easy to "block". All you do is create and remove three different units with hyper triggers. Guardian, Carrier, and Battlecruiser. What you do is make four actions, 3 to create each unit once for a computer player, the fourth to remove them all. Then copy those actions for the whole trigger and preserve it. There shouldn't be any change in "lag", and if the hacker still has the unit alert enabled, his screen will be flooded with messages like "Computer player has 1 Battlecruiser", etc.
Anti-hack level: A
DISABLE UNIT UNPLACABLE WARNING HACK - This is funny, because it's a very simple hack, unrelated to gameplay, but if you really intend to stop hackers, you can try this. This is suppose to disable unit warning messages right? Well it turns out, warning messages decide to fight back. Have this trigger timed, because it could get annoying. Do one simple create 255 units at invalid location for computer, two if you are unhappy with the numerical value of "one", and display a text message after, skipping about 12 lines to make it look nice. Now, if the hacker has the disable warning thing enabled, his Starcraft will crash.
Anti-hack level: A
Anti-hack level: B
MAP HACK - If you're making something like an anti-hack melee, then do this: Make several(depending on your map, I'd say about 9-12 on a 256x256 map) rectangle locations(about 25x20 tiles, or 800x640 in size). Next, is for the triggers. It doesn't matter who they belong to. The first two triggers are for an anti-crash involving a scanner sweep. (Assuming Force 1 are the players, you have a computer player in another force, and the "unit" is a good unit chosen, when disabled, will crash any Starcraft[it can also include the disable-enable trick as well])
[TRIGGER 1: [CONDITIONS: Command Force 1 at least 1 Comsat Station., Switch 1 is clear.] [ACTIONS: Set Switch 1., Remove all unit(that you will use for anti-maphack) for computer player., Preserve trigger.]]
[TRIGGER 2: [CONDITIONS: Command Force 1 at most 0 Comsat Station., Switch 1 is set.] [ACTIONS: Clear Switch 1., Preserve trigger.]]
> Now these triggers are to prevent an innocent soul from crashing for scanning in a random place with a scanner sweep.
> Next, we copy the next two triggers for every location we made, replacing 'location' with the location you actually used.
[TRIGGER 1: [CONDITIONS: Bring Force 1 at most 0 any unit to 'location'., Bring Computer player at most 0 unit to 'location'., Switch 1 is clear.] [ACTIONS: Create 1 unit(that you will use for anti-maphack) at 'location' for computer player., Disable doodad state for unit owned by computer player at 'location'., Preserve trigger.]]
[TRIGGER 2: [CONDITIONS: Bring Force 1 at least 1 any unit to 'location'., Bring Computer player at least 1 unit to 'location'., Switch 1 is clear.] [ACTIONS: Remove 1 unit(that you will use for anti-maphack) at 'location' for computer player., Preserve trigger.]]
> You can also add another action to enable the unit after being disabled, depending on what you used.
Anti-hack level: B
UNIT ALERT - This is easy to "block". All you do is create and remove three different units with hyper triggers. Guardian, Carrier, and Battlecruiser. What you do is make four actions, 3 to create each unit once for a computer player, the fourth to remove them all. Then copy those actions for the whole trigger and preserve it. There shouldn't be any change in "lag", and if the hacker still has the unit alert enabled, his screen will be flooded with messages like "Computer player has 1 Battlecruiser", etc.
Anti-hack level: A
DISABLE UNIT UNPLACABLE WARNING HACK - This is funny, because it's a very simple hack, unrelated to gameplay, but if you really intend to stop hackers, you can try this. This is suppose to disable unit warning messages right? Well it turns out, warning messages decide to fight back. Have this trigger timed, because it could get annoying. Do one simple create 255 units at invalid location for computer, two if you are unhappy with the numerical value of "one", and display a text message after, skipping about 12 lines to make it look nice. Now, if the hacker has the disable warning thing enabled, his Starcraft will crash.
Anti-hack level: A
I'll make triggers for you to create an anti-unit suicide hack when I feel like it.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by O)FaRTy1billion on 2005-04-27 at 20:33:08
For the battlecruiser and whetever, they can disable unit alerts.
And for suicide put some invincible units that should always be there, if they are gone, do whatever you feel needed.
And for suicide put some invincible units that should always be there, if they are gone, do whatever you feel needed.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Deathknight on 2005-04-27 at 20:43:12
QUOTE
For the battlecruiser and whetever, they can disable unit alerts.
I said that. That's what we WANT them to do.
QUOTE
And for suicide put some invincible units that should always be there, if they are gone, do whatever you feel needed.
... That doesn't do anything...
You have to calculate some stuff, like number of deaths/kills. Putting invisible units doesn't detect if he killed his unit without attacking it.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by O)FaRTy1billion on 2005-04-28 at 19:22:16
If it is missing, how would it have died if it was invincible?
I HIGHLY doubt you can kill an invincible unit. Seriously, thats the whole point.
If its missing, OMGS IT DIED!!! if it died, that means it was hacked. + if you kill a unit with trigger, it isn't counted. Same with hacks. (I have used suicide hack many times, I think I would know. It didn't respawn when you killed it like it normally should.)
I HIGHLY doubt you can kill an invincible unit. Seriously, thats the whole point.
If its missing, OMGS IT DIED!!! if it died, that means it was hacked. + if you kill a unit with trigger, it isn't counted. Same with hacks. (I have used suicide hack many times, I think I would know. It didn't respawn when you killed it like it normally should.)
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Deathknight on 2005-04-29 at 15:56:01
You don't understand. The whole point is to get antihack triggers for a melee game, not some invincible UMS crap.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by scwizard on 2005-04-29 at 20:19:37
Me thinks me will lock topic now...
Report, edit, etc...Posted by O)FaRTy1billion on 2005-04-29 at 20:45:35
melee? then why were people saying anti hack stuff with triggers? a melee-type map?
and as I have said before, triggers cannot detect hacked deaths.
and as I have said before, triggers cannot detect hacked deaths.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Ninebreaker on 2005-04-29 at 21:23:51
I see no point in using the triggers, i perfer using the "white dots" as some people call them, but i call em crashing units. 
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Deathknight on 2005-04-29 at 23:00:48
A melee based UMS. Duh?
Why not? Can't a system be designed? After all, you can use most basic mathematical functions in triggering.
QUOTE
triggers cannot detect hacked deaths
Why not? Can't a system be designed? After all, you can use most basic mathematical functions in triggering.