Blizzard bans more SC2 hackers

[Ameter]

So you think they should decide on a case by case basis after plunging the logs to find out if the person ever went to multiplayer instead of just banning people who break the terms of service?

Okay.....

Don't put words in my mouth; I never said that and I dislike multiplayer hackers as much as anyone.

I disagree with single player being linked to multiplayer.

I disagree that players are merely licensing single player usage for a full price game

I disagree that the only response is mass bannings

I disagree with the people who hack on the ladders as well.

Also the case by case basis is not as far-fetched as you seem to think, it is not Blizzard doing it but the players who lost games and then watch the replay to find out their opponent hacked. Once a player reaches a certain threshold of reports and/or the game sends a log of suspicious activity to blizzard their account is suspended from the ladder until an Admin reviews the replays at which point official action is taken.

I am one of the people who likes to adjust and mod my things until they suit my tastes so I suppose I am an amateur hacker but I don't think that is a bad thing.

Can I understand why they are doing this? of course.

Do I agree? Obviously not.

Is this the best choice? maybe it is.

My point, if I need to sum everything to a single line, is this:




Why does a company as successful and powerful as blizzard resort to the simplest and arguably worst punishments without regard to anything but online ladders

I can think of a bunch of other methods of dealing with this off the top of my head, so why can't blizzard?

So in the first half of this diatribe you state that blizzard itself isn't actually looking for hackers, its players who lose in multiplayer who report them, and then go on to say that blizzard shouldn't be banned them?

What the fuck?

 

[d3structor]

So in the first half of this diatribe you state that blizzard itself isn't actually looking for hackers, its players who lose in multiplayer who report them, and then go on to say that blizzard shouldn't be banned them?

What the fuck?

Sorry I was not being clear. it was 4 in the morning after several days of almost no sleep and I was not being as clear as I should have been.

The part you were referring to about Blizzard not looking for hackers was one possibility of a system that might work and take some of the load off of Blizzard.

As for the part about my saying Blizzard shouldn't ban them...

No, I don't think they need to ban them, they could erase their ladder records for a first time offense, and then Ban them from the ladder for a second or third offense.

If I was unclear about anything else feel free to bring it to my intention.
[small]still tired so will probably happen again[/small]

 

[adrian_exec]

however they are banning people who have never even played online in order to keep the integrity of the achievement system

Indeed. Some achievements in SC2 are quite hard to get, an example of that would be to finish the campaign on Brutal, the hardest difficulty.

Now some might ask, why do this people don't just use the in-game cheats made by Blizzard, well the reason for that is because if someone does that, achievements can't be earned with cheats! Achievements in the game are put there to give a challenge to the people who seek it, without the use of cheats .. makes perfects sense if you ask me.

Thus the reason why some person's prefer trainers or other 3rd party programs which are illegal, so they can get those hard achievements the easy way without spending hours and hours developing strategies and without disabling achievements earning.

If that isn't considered cheating then I don't know what is.

 

[d3structor]

however they are banning people who have never even played online in order to keep the integrity of the achievement system

Indeed. Some achievements in SC2 are quite hard to get, an example of that would be to finish the campaign on Brutal, the hardest difficulty.

Now some might ask, why do this people don't just use the in-game cheats made by Blizzard, well the reason for that is because if someone does that, achievements can't be earned with cheats! Achievements in the game are put there to give a challenge to the people who seek one, without the use of cheats .. makes perfects sense if you ask me.

Thus the reason why some person's prefer trainers or other 3rd party programs which are illegal, so they can get those hard achievements the easy way without spending hours and hours developing strategies and without disabling achievements earning.

If that isn't considered cheating then I don't know what is.

I can certainly understand this point. If I was the type to care about achievements people doing this would really piss me off.

I just wish there was an opt-out mechanism or something like that. This would then allow people to do what they want (in the single player at least) without anything effecting their record or being able to play online.

If I cant have my murloc sound effects in multiplayer I'll deal with it.
Not being able to change anything, except for individual maps, very annoying.

 

[adrian_exec]

If I cant have my murloc sound effects in multiplayer I'll deal with it.
Not being able to change anything, except for individual maps, very annoying.

Yes I know what you mean, I personally also wanted the Korean sounds on my client, since they are way more cool than the English ones, but I was very surprised to hear that I can't do that and it might even be illegal.

To be honest I still don't know what to make of it, murlock sounds would be cool to have but I guess it's just Blizzards way of not wanting people to fuck with their game. Can't blame them, if they would allow one person to do that, then everyone would want to change something and as soon the game stops working, guess who's forums will be filled of topics with game problems.

 

[Wicky_42]

It is not unlimited offline play, it may not constantly be checking but it still does periodically (every 30 days if i remember correctly, feel free to correct me).

And even if it was I still enjoy playing online so that is not really an option.

You are of course right about it sucking not having LAN.
such a shame

Yea that's correct. Once every thirty days. But playing offline doesn't impede your ability to connect to Battle.net at any time you wish. I'm just suggesting that if you want to do something silly (like replace Zergling noises with Murloc ones for the campaign), play in offline mode for that and then reconnect when you've restored the original files. You wouldn't have any chance of getting banned for that. Easy way to protect yourself.

Of course, if you forgot or if it reconnected early for whatever reason, then you'd apparently lose your entire game. You think that that's a risk worth taking? If there's no proof that someone was hacking online play then Blizz should back the fuck off. We live in an 'innocent until proven guilty' law system, and Blizz's approach here seems to be a blanket, one-size-fits-all one, which doesn't work in this situation. Unless, of course, they are going out of their way to ensure they're only getting online cheats. Which I doubt.

 

[FightThePower]

Can't they just use the map editor for these sorts of things? The single-player modders/hackers I mean.

 

[Wicky_42]

Using modifications/hacks for SP shouldn't be treated that harsly if you ask me. That's plain nuts. If these programs ALSO offered MP hacks, ban those idiots but if not, leave them the fuck alone.

Blizzards side of the argument is that many of the trainers can work in multiplayer, however they are banning people who have never even played online in order to keep the integrity of the achievement system

So you think they should decide on a case by case basis after plunging the logs to find out if the person ever went to multiplayer instead of just banning people who break the terms of service?

Okay.....

Well, yes? How else are you going to have a proportionate, targeted response to an issue plaguing your online game? Not hard to see on someone's profile if they've ever touched multiplayer -.-'

 

[Siyano_v1legacy]

I really dont understand how the gain of a singleplayer achievement affect the MP at all by any means?
I am one that completed all of them and I still suck in MP and I am a bronze league! I think I merely gained 10 point and it require like thousand just to change division.
SP is different than MP, SP hardly make you learn how to play a MP game
Achievement is not equal to skill.
Although if you cheat online, you deserve the ban.
Otherwise It would be great if you could choose a any portrait without those stupid achievement that require to play for a very long time (win 1000 matches with random and all races)

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

It's against the Terms of Use policy. They brought this on themselves.

but the terms of use are silly.
thats like saying people in a dictatorship are brining the law uppon themselves.

You agree to the rules the first time you start the game up. You're well within your rights to decline them and return the game.

But thats not a valid point. Once you open that game and install it you can nolonger return it. It doenst matter if you dont agree to the terms or not since you cant see them beforehand and once you purchase it its either agree or your out your money. It can also be even worse because often times with digital distribution they dont show them to you after they have your money, which again has no refunds.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/9.248158.9143840

You're a bit late to the party, mate.

 

[d3structor]

Right, so why would you do something stupid like that in the first place? I've never been tempted to switch out the sound effects of any single-player game. Ever. Add some mods with their own sound effects, maybe. But that's perfectly fine in Starcraft 2 as well. You won't get banned for making a custom map with your own sounds. That map might get removed from the online list if it violates any known copyrights, but your account won't be punished in any way.

So far, these are all very poor excuses as to why Blizzard shouldn't continue doing what they're doing. Their ENTIRE fanbase was complaining at one time about hacks in Diablo 2 or Warcraft 3, so they stepped up their enforcement. Online gaming would be infinitely better if every developer had the same policy.

I can't remember how many online games I chose to stop playing after a while even though I wanted to get competitive at them, because hackers always won in the end regardless.

First of all I need to make sure you understand that I don't want to create a map with the changes I want, I would like to make global modifications to my game. I don't want to create a custom map for every single map and campaign mission one by one when normally I could just swap out a couple sound files.

And I can certainly understand that you, like the vast majority of gamers, see no need for this. I think that is perfectly fine, Each person get their enjoyment from gaming in different ways Just because you have never been tempted to swap or edit files in the game doesn't mean that it is a bad thing.

Although we will probably have to agree to disagree on the point that every developer should act so harshly to occasions such as these.

I am afraid that I am clueless to the other competitive games you speak of that have been ruined by hacking. I would appreciate it if you get list some, as they may prove you right and I actually am curious how those developers responded to the hacking. Maybe my ideas wouldn't work, but if so then maybe we could learn a little from the past.

 

[Dogstile]

It's against the Terms of Use policy. They brought this on themselves.

but the terms of use are silly.
thats like saying people in a dictatorship are brining the law uppon themselves.

You agree to the rules the first time you start the game up. You're well within your rights to decline them and return the game.

But thats not a valid point. Once you open that game and install it you can nolonger return it. It doenst matter if you dont agree to the terms or not since you cant see them beforehand and once you purchase it its either agree or your out your money. It can also be even worse because often times with digital distribution they dont show them to you after they have your money, which again has no refunds.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/9.248158.9143840

You're a bit late to the party, mate.

Out of sheer curiosity, doesn't the eula marking have to be clearly visible on the case? I've looked at the case of starcraft 2 several times in the store and not noticed it. Aside from that the URL for this, do they expect customers to write down a long url to remember it later?

It just seems like a judge would rule against an eula purely due to the unusual amount of effort it takes to find out what it contains. But I know barely anything about law, so its wishful thinking at this point.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

It's against the Terms of Use policy. They brought this on themselves.

but the terms of use are silly.
thats like saying people in a dictatorship are brining the law uppon themselves.

You agree to the rules the first time you start the game up. You're well within your rights to decline them and return the game.

But thats not a valid point. Once you open that game and install it you can nolonger return it. It doenst matter if you dont agree to the terms or not since you cant see them beforehand and once you purchase it its either agree or your out your money. It can also be even worse because often times with digital distribution they dont show them to you after they have your money, which again has no refunds.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/9.248158.9143840

You're a bit late to the party, mate.

Out of sheer curiosity, doesn't the eula marking have to be clearly visible on the case? I've looked at the case of starcraft 2 several times in the store and not noticed it. Aside from that the URL for this, do they expect customers to write down a long url to remember it later?

It just seems like a judge would rule against an eula purely due to the unusual amount of effort it takes to find out what it contains. But I know barely anything about law, so its wishful thinking at this point.

It would really depend, I'm pretty sure someone who is buying SC2 would have the knowledge to just google, or navigate to it if they really had to. But I would say it really depends on precedent and the understanding of the matter that the judge has.