Karak will have to deliver it

cute

I might have the MMR to do that too!

Also, goofy, some badass made a 12 gate / 16 core demo video on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftJe-...ature=youtu.be

Chrono probes 2 times imo. Otherwise I'd probably go out of my way to just play super defensive against that.

can goofy or someone explain to me why blizzard doesn't handle things server side like a poker site to prevent lots of hacks? obviously all the sophisticated encryption isn't as necessary, but widespread hacking has been a big issue on ladder. apparently the last warden ban missed the most oft used multi-feature hack.

i mean my guess is that it's a bandwidth/server space issue to handle all the data, but would it really be that prohibitively expensive?

Did each build near flawlessly, got down to a 5:40 warp in with 2 CB on probes while I got down to a 5:35 warp in with only one. Not that big of a difference, and Goofy can do whichever he wants imo. They're practically the same build.

trey gospy showmatch

Way too easy. I got 99 problems but gospy ain't one.

hoooooooooo

is gospy man enough after his last embarrassing defeat?

Thanks for the video Thamel, that'll be helpful to have as a reference. I imagine if you did cb probes twice, that core would be coming out a little closer to 17? (even though it would happen at the same in-game time - perhaps even a little quicker, since your probes would be out and mining minerals slightly faster)

I guess that's the confusing thing about referring to timings in terms of supply rather than actual time. Like, hypothetically, a 17 core started at 2:40 >> a 16 core started at 2:45, right?

Earlier core = earlier warpgate, cmon now you know which is better! As for the question, you can get a 16 core at each time. In general, when you chrono twice, your probe is about to finish as you start your core, while if you only chrono once, your probe isn't half way done by the time you start your core. 16 core can still be done either way as gospy noted (Only valuable thing he's done obv)

Only toss who can beat me is Zefa, we all know that.

We should play some games later Karak, I could use the PvZ practice.

You won't know until you try. Just because we're discussing 4 gate and you can beat a 4 gate (Maybe...) doesn't mean that's all I can do (Though it may be all you can do, I'm not sure)

I don't know all the new pvp strats and stuff to defend 4 gates. It wouldn't be competitive from a strategical standpoint. Plus I don't know how good you actually are so I don't want to put my foot in my mouth.

Warning: it's about to get NERDY up in this bitch.

There are basically two different networking models that games use:
- client-server: most common in FPS games, the server holds the definitive game state and transmits that information to each client (player) each frame.
- lockstep: relies on the basic notion that computers are deterministic machines that, when starting from a given state and receiving the same sequence of input, will always wind up in the same state. Therefore, the game can just make sure all players start in the same state, transmit nothing but each player's input (mouse/key) between the two machines during the game, and ensure that the same game will play out on both machines.

I'm 99% sure Starcraft 2 uses the latter model, based on a couple things:
- the replay format - the fact that a.) replay files are incredibly small, and b.) you can only start watching from the beginning and FF to the end, rather than skipping directly to a point in the future, would seem to indicate that the game just records input and "plays it back" (in a deterministic manner) when you're watching a replay.
- this article, which gives deeper explanations of the network models above, says that most (all?) RTS games use lockstep. (though I doubt that the network state of an RTS game is still too large to transmit between machines btw, with this being the broadband age and all)

So, given the lockstep model's requirement that each machine maintain a full copy of the game state at all times, it would be very difficult to ensure that each machine ran the game the same way without exposing the full state of the game to those machines. Doing so would basically require a re-architecting of the entire network model to a client-server system.

Thinking idly in my head I can maybe think of some ways that the lockstep model could be executed for SC2 with incomplete information, but since I don't work for Blizzard there's not much of a point in fleshing them out to see if they'd work. But the general point is that the system depends on complete knowledge and execution of the game state, and even if it's possible for the game to work without that complete knowledge, it adds a whole new layer of complexity (and thus bugs) that make it more difficult to engineer.

I'd certainly like for Blizzard to take cheating in their games more seriously, and be better at detecting it/getting rid of it, but it's possible that they decided delivering a solid and bug-free online experience was more important than delivering a cheating-free online experience (and it's pretty difficult to have both).

I will vow not to make a montage video with awesome background music when I beat you.

jimfight.jpg

Actually, I might have to call out Fishnoob, he'll prob take it. He may pose a challenge as well.

It's times like these I wish I wasn't so busy all the time.

Actually now that I think about it, I want to say we have played before. I vaguely remember something.

I was probably terran back then too.

Well I may be around later tonight if anyone wants to play. Just depends on if if I pick up any games on steam or whatever. Also I'll be on Sunday night for sure.

Thanks for the information goofy.

Is there no way to install anything on the client side that will detect a previously unknown hack in the works? Like displaying through fog of war which obviously shouldn't happen and then auto-banning... or is that too imprecise or invasive?

I remember Party used to scan HDDs and even take screenshots of user end clients to make sure you weren't using banned software or hacks. At least they allegedly did.

Well, ruined my keyboard, suggestions?

Buy another one?

No ****. Hence my question.