Author Topic: Battle.net Instant Messenger! (Read 18978 times)

Joe · « **on:** January 02, 2006, 06:07:05 pm »

Think AIM. Think Battle.net. Imagine.

More to come!

Eric · « **Reply #1 on:** January 02, 2006, 06:08:33 pm »

... ridiculous?

Newby · « **Reply #2 on:** January 02, 2006, 06:10:31 pm »

ROFL. This is almost as bad as that Battle.net Trillian plugin that I forget who (I think it was Yoni) wrote for someone else I forgot.

trust · « **Reply #3 on:** January 02, 2006, 06:28:29 pm »

Quote from: Newby on January 02, 2006, 06:10:31 pm

ROFL. This is almost as bad as that Battle.net Trillian plugin that I forget who (I think it was Yoni) wrote for someone else I forgot.

Dante.

And, so essentially, this Battle.net Instant Messenger is pretty much what LoRd put in his bot that utilized the whisper system. Yeah.

Joe · « **Reply #4 on:** January 02, 2006, 06:36:36 pm »

This isn't a bot. Its basically a clone of AOL Instant Messenger with more reliable servers, and a different protocol. And yeah, it utilizes the whisper system.

Newby · « **Reply #5 on:** January 02, 2006, 06:42:22 pm »

Quote from: Joe[e2] on January 02, 2006, 06:36:36 pm

This isn't a bot. Its basically a clone of AOL Instant Messenger with more reliable servers, and a different protocol. And yeah, it utilizes the whisper system.

Battle.net servers are more reliable than AOL servers? Hah! I beg to differ.

Sidoh · « **Reply #6 on:** January 02, 2006, 06:54:55 pm »

This is stupid, sorry.

Joe · « **Reply #7 on:** January 02, 2006, 06:59:08 pm »

Quote from: Newby on January 02, 2006, 06:42:22 pm

Quote from: Joe[e2] on January 02, 2006, 06:36:36 pm
This isn't a bot. Its basically a clone of AOL Instant Messenger with more reliable servers, and a different protocol. And yeah, it utilizes the whisper system.

Battle.net servers are more reliable than AOL servers? Hah! I beg to differ.

Yeah, I don't know where I was going with that. =p

But yeah, theres.. 64 of them (16 machines per DNS, IIRC) in four locations, compared to whatever AOL has in one. Not to mention that theres TestBNCS and PvPGN, which haven't been done with AOL's protocol.

Sidoh · « **Reply #8 on:** January 02, 2006, 07:09:32 pm »

Quote from: Joe[e2] on January 02, 2006, 06:59:08 pm

But yeah, theres.. 64 of them (16 machines per DNS, IIRC) in four locations, compared to whatever AOL has in one. Not to mention that theres TestBNCS and PvPGN, which haven't been done with AOL's protocol.

I don't think the delay due to electricity/light traveling accross a medium at 299,792,458 m/s will account for any amount of "annoying" lag when you're IM'ing people. Maybe when fractions of a second count (like in a FPS) I'd understand you complaining, but not here...

Joe · « **Reply #9 on:** January 02, 2006, 07:15:39 pm »

I never said lag hurt anybody while IM'ing. I said servers that are down hurt people.

Sidoh · « **Reply #10 on:** January 02, 2006, 07:16:56 pm »

Quote from: Joe[e2] on January 02, 2006, 07:15:39 pm

I never said lag hurt anybody while IM'ing. I said servers that are down hurt people.

You don't think AIM has more than one machine running to service their IM protocol?

You're funny.

rabbit · « **Reply #11 on:** January 02, 2006, 07:29:31 pm »

Quote from: Sidoh on January 02, 2006, 07:16:56 pm

Quote from: Joe[e2] on January 02, 2006, 07:15:39 pm
I never said lag hurt anybody while IM'ing. I said servers that are down hurt people.

You don't think AIM has more than one machine running to service their IM protocol?

You're funny.

Well, it is AOL...

Ryan Marcus · « **Reply #12 on:** January 02, 2006, 08:18:39 pm »

I wrote about two years ago... pretty much retarted.

Warrior · « **Reply #13 on:** January 02, 2006, 08:48:17 pm »

IT'S STUPID JUST GIVE UP YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO DO IT.

wires · « **Reply #14 on:** January 02, 2006, 08:50:01 pm »

Already been done multiple times, don't think any of them were very successful either. :/

http://www.sclegacy.com/features/exclusive_programs.php

iago · « **Reply #15 on:** January 02, 2006, 09:32:01 pm »

Quote from: Newby on January 02, 2006, 06:10:31 pm

ROFL. This is almost as bad as that Battle.net Trillian plugin that I forget who (I think it was Yoni) wrote for someone else I forgot.

That's a reallly good idea, and a super-useful plugin. I've been wanting to write one for Gaim for a very long time, but have never gotten around to it.

Newby · « **Reply #16 on:** January 02, 2006, 10:10:59 pm »

Useful if you implement some way to message the channel and basically open up a chat window for the channel that you can close at will but still be in the channel.

iago · « **Reply #17 on:** January 02, 2006, 10:27:18 pm »

Isn't that what Yoni's Trillian plugin did?

Chavo · « **Reply #18 on:** January 03, 2006, 10:38:54 am »

There is this plugin for gaim, but when I last tried to use it (some time ago), I wasn't able to get it to work. I didn't put any effort into discovering why at the time, but it would certainly be a better project than writing a client from the ground up.

If you just want some primitive AIM <-> BNET communication, my announce plugin for JavaOp2 already does that.

Furious · « **Reply #19 on:** January 04, 2006, 12:15:59 pm »

How much effort does it take to leave a bot open?

Mythix · « **Reply #20 on:** January 04, 2006, 06:17:35 pm »

Is it me or when someone suggests a new idea in their bot joe takes it and tries doing it?

igimo1 · « **Reply #21 on:** January 04, 2006, 07:02:33 pm »

It's been done already.

Newby · « **Reply #22 on:** January 04, 2006, 07:36:18 pm »

Quote from: Mythix on January 04, 2006, 06:17:35 pm

Is it me or when someone suggests a new idea in their bot joe takes it and tries doing it?

Something along those lines. It's joe!

iago · « **Reply #23 on:** January 04, 2006, 09:55:40 pm »

Quote from: Newby on January 04, 2006, 07:36:18 pm

Quote from: Mythix on January 04, 2006, 06:17:35 pm
Is it me or when someone suggests a new idea in their bot joe takes it and tries doing it?

Something along those lines. It's joe!

Joe likes to attempt to implement neat new ideas. Is that a bad thing?

Quote from: unTactical on January 03, 2006, 10:38:54 am

There is this plugin for gaim, but when I last tried to use it (some time ago), I wasn't able to get it to work. I didn't put any effort into discovering why at the time, but it would certainly be a better project than writing a client from the ground up.

If you just want some primitive AIM <-> BNET communication, my announce plugin for JavaOp2 already does that.

It worked fine for me, and there's also a binary version that works with Starcraft. I'd rather do it from scratch, though, I don't think it would be terribly difficult.

Warrior · « **Reply #24 on:** January 04, 2006, 10:07:25 pm »

Sure it is when you make a big fuss about it and never get it done.

Joe · « **Reply #25 on:** January 04, 2006, 10:47:37 pm »

Wow, you guys are real supportive.

Quote

You don't think AIM has more than one machine running to service their IM protocol?

You're funny.

Did you read my post? I said that it had a single location, not a single server. Ugh.

Newby · « **Reply #26 on:** January 04, 2006, 11:03:42 pm »

Quote from: Joe[e2] on January 04, 2006, 10:47:37 pm

Wow, you guys are real supportive.

We love you. Well, some of us do, anyhow.

If you want to try something new, write something useful. If you can't think of anything useful, try to write a program that emulates something you use every day. Something like, uh, an AIM client, or a web browser.

If you do like me and try and think of things you don't have, you'll get so bored and confused you'll quit programming.

Quote from: Joe[e2] on January 04, 2006, 10:47:37 pm

Did you read my post? I said that it had a single location, not a single server. Ugh.

Location? Elaborate, now you've confused me.

iago · « **Reply #27 on:** January 04, 2006, 11:29:30 pm »

Quote from: Newby on January 04, 2006, 11:03:42 pm

If you want to try something new, write something useful. If you can't think of anything useful, try to write a program that emulates something you use every day. Something like, uh, an AIM client, or a web browser.

That seems much more useless than making something interesting.

Sidoh · « **Reply #28 on:** January 04, 2006, 11:49:27 pm »

Quote from: Joe[e2] on January 04, 2006, 10:47:37 pm

Did you read my post? I said that it had a single location, not a single server. Ugh.

I really don't think it's in a single location anyway. And even if this is true, why does it really matter? In all the years of my life, I've had the internet backbone for my state go down... once, I think. And they fixed it within an hour. That was only for government buildings, too.

iago · « **Reply #29 on:** January 05, 2006, 12:17:35 am »

Quote from: Sidoh on January 04, 2006, 11:49:27 pm

Quote from: Joe[e2] on January 04, 2006, 10:47:37 pm
Did you read my post? I said that it had a single location, not a single server. Ugh.

I really don't think it's in a single location anyway. And even if this is true, why does it really matter? In all the years of my life, I've had the internet backbone for my state go down... once, I think. And they fixed it within an hour. That was only for government buildings, too.

What if there was a large-scale war that Blizzard survived and AOL didn't?

Quik · « **Reply #30 on:** January 05, 2006, 12:54:52 am »

Quote from: iago on January 05, 2006, 12:17:35 am

Quote from: Sidoh on January 04, 2006, 11:49:27 pm
Quote from: Joe[e2] on January 04, 2006, 10:47:37 pm
Did you read my post? I said that it had a single location, not a single server. Ugh.

I really don't think it's in a single location anyway. And even if this is true, why does it really matter? In all the years of my life, I've had the internet backbone for my state go down... once, I think. And they fixed it within an hour. That was only for government buildings, too.

What if there was a large-scale war that Blizzard survived and AOL didn't?

If they both started DDoSing eachother, AOL would win because of all their ~~drones~~customers.

Ergot · « **Reply #31 on:** January 05, 2006, 12:56:27 am »

But Blizzard has all those Koreans.

Sidoh · « **Reply #32 on:** January 05, 2006, 01:12:49 am »

Quote from: iago on January 05, 2006, 12:17:35 am

What if there was a large-scale war that Blizzard survived and AOL didn't?

I think the status of Instant Messaging servers would be one of the last concerns if a whole section of California was bombed. I'm pretty sure they're not that centralized anyway.

Blaze · « **Reply #33 on:** January 05, 2006, 03:34:18 am »

If aol went out, people would just use another real IM service.

Joe · « **Reply #34 on:** January 05, 2006, 08:00:54 am »

Like.. this..

Furious · « **Reply #35 on:** January 05, 2006, 10:49:12 am »

~~Is this something you plan on implementing in Revelation Bot?~~

Wow, I wasn't really thinking when I posted that. Good luck! I'd be willing to beta it if you get it done.

Newby · « **Reply #36 on:** January 05, 2006, 05:47:17 pm »

Insane idea: make a Gaim plugin for Battle.net!

Do it Joe! It would be something I would appreciate and it wouldn't be a stupid idea.

EDIT -- I fail to see why this was locked and no one has said anything about it, so it remains unlocked for the time being.

Chavo · « **Reply #37 on:** January 05, 2006, 06:45:16 pm »

* unTactical thinks newby didn't read unTactical's earlier post

Sidoh · « **Reply #38 on:** January 05, 2006, 06:48:42 pm »

Quote from: unTactical on January 05, 2006, 06:45:16 pm

* unTactical thinks newby didn't read unTactical's earlier post

I was thinking that too.

Newby · « **Reply #39 on:** January 05, 2006, 06:50:50 pm »

Quote from: unTactical on January 05, 2006, 06:45:16 pm

* unTactical thinks newby didn't read unTactical's earlier post

I talked with iago about that plugin a while ago, and if I recall correctly, that just logs in on the telnet/CHAT protocol. Not as a binary client.

Chavo · « **Reply #40 on:** January 05, 2006, 06:54:14 pm »

touché salesman, touché

I was more referring to the fact that I had already discussed the idea, so it's not all that "Insane" for you to mention it

Sidoh · « **Reply #41 on:** January 05, 2006, 06:54:57 pm »

Quote from: unTactical on January 05, 2006, 06:54:14 pm

touché salesman, touché

I was more referring to the fact that I had already discussed the idea, so it's not all that "Insane" for you to mention it

ROFL. Volcano insurance!

Newby · « **Reply #42 on:** January 05, 2006, 07:10:46 pm »

Quote from: unTactical on January 05, 2006, 06:54:14 pm

I was more referring to the fact that I had already discussed the idea

You didn't discuss the idea of writing a Gaim Binary Battle.net client! You discussed the idea of an already existing plugin, whether it was for a base or not!

Aha!

MyndFyre · « **Reply #43 on:** January 05, 2006, 07:41:44 pm »

Since someone didn't understand it from before, this thread is locked.

Newby · « **Reply #44 on:** January 05, 2006, 07:48:07 pm »

Quote from: MyndFyre[x86] on January 05, 2006, 07:41:44 pm

Since someone didn't understand it from before, this thread is locked.

Quote from: Newby on January 05, 2006, 05:47:17 pm

EDIT -- I fail to see why this was locked and no one has said anything about it, so it remains unlocked for the time being.

Any particular reason? =P

iago · « **Reply #45 on:** January 06, 2006, 11:47:56 am »

Eww @ locking it, there is still valid discussion going on here..

Anyway, there is already a Gaim Binary-Bot plugin. It can be found here:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/gaim-bnetg

It's pre-alpha and has a lame name, but at least it exists.

It would be a very cool project, definitely. I'd like to do it one day. :-/

News:

Author Topic: Battle.net Instant Messenger! (Read 18978 times)

trust