I have taken it upon myself to create a custom URL Protocol Handler for my bot. It allows users to pass command line arguments through a URL. For example, mine is simply "bot:"
By adding arguments to this URL, it can tell the bot what to do when it loads, mine has the current option to do the following:
Enter Ops Mode - Disables all un needed parsing and whatnot. Bot is now a designated Ops Bot.
Enter Silent Mode - Disables all GUI and visual effects. Very useful when combined with Ops Mode for maximum optimization.
So my URL would then be "bot:mode-ops+silent"
This is just an example. If we were to utilize this, our applications could be controlled with alot more power. Think of a WebBot for example. Simply creating a URL to pass to the first bot running on the local system, to do things like "Say" "Ban" "Lookup Profile" etc etc etc.
If we created a uniform specification for this structure, all our bots could utilize this same protocol. It could be extremely bad-ass.
Here is a picture of mine in action:
http://highbrow.no-ip.org/My%20Shared%20Folder/botprotocol.GIF
Feedback?
I honestly don't see your point? Why allow the bot to be controlled through a URL query string?
Quote from: Sidoh on January 28, 2006, 06:08:37 PM
I honestly don't see your point? Why allow the bot to be controlled through a URL query string?
WebBot-Lite. Duhhh.
Console bots using a web interface would be very neat. :)
Quote from: Sidoh on January 28, 2006, 06:08:37 PM
I honestly don't see your point? Why allow the bot to be controlled through a URL query string?
Why not? My point that im proposing is not just for "my" bot.
I'm talking about several bots being able to utilize this bot: protocol. One protocol, that a handful of bots adapt too, is another step in making a greater, more organized and feature friendly community of users. Duh.
Quote from: Mesiah on January 28, 2006, 06:55:30 PM
I'm talking about several bots being able to utilize this bot: protocol. One protocol, that a handful of bots adapt too, is another step in making a greater, more organized and feature friendly community of users. Duh.
I guess I don't have enough experience or care to see a practical purpose in that. Oh well.
Seems useless, and there would be a lot of issues concerning permissions and exploits.
Not really. Specifications would reveal the entire system to the programmer. If the programmer programs it right, exploits would be of no concern. Don't base that on the general idea.
What if he purposely tries to exploit? Of course it can be handled :)
Seems crappy. Most people run multiple bots so the protocol will have to be able to specificy. This also opens up the possibility of people adding links/whatever to pages to add themselves to peoples bots.
I think you guys are thinking a bit too far out of the box here... This protocol idea of mine is intended for control from other applications. Not FULL control... for example, aim:goim?screenname=SCREENNAME&message=MESSAGE
If you use aim, you probably know there are quite a few different parameters that can be used in it's protocol. I have never heard of REAL exploits being caused from this, as they still continue to use it and add too it.
Why do we add scripting control to our bots? Custom commands? Plugins? So the user can control each little peice more and more. If you think somebody is going to use this protocol for an exploit idea, what the hell do you think scripts could do???
Like I stated zorm, if there were to be a set specification on this protocol, including things like bot identifier, uhm.. web interfacing, bcp integration, botNET integration, etc etc; I think it would be very useful. But I don't think you guys agree, so I'll just use it for my own application. Thought I'd share the idea anyways.
Don't take it the wrong way, most likely we/they are questioning it to make you think it out further incase you havn't.
Quote from: Mesiah on January 29, 2006, 12:01:46 PM
I think you guys are thinking a bit too far out of the box here... This protocol idea of mine is intended for control from other applications. Not FULL control... for example, aim:goim?screenname=SCREENNAME&message=MESSAGE
Sorry, I just don't think it's very useful. :\
Good luck anyway!
[X] <-- Box :) <--- You
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=4679.msg52819#msg52819 date=1138558406]
[X] <-- Box :) <--- You
:D. Thinking out of the box got me screwed me over a few days ago, but it was still a good thing. :)
Quote from: Sidoh on January 29, 2006, 01:01:18 PM
Quote from: Mesiah on January 29, 2006, 12:01:46 PM
I think you guys are thinking a bit too far out of the box here... This protocol idea of mine is intended for control from other applications. Not FULL control... for example, aim:goim?screenname=SCREENNAME&message=MESSAGE
Sorry, I just don't think it's very useful. :\
Good luck anyway!
You could control a bot through a web interface, from the looks of his example.
That would be neat. Being able to modify your bot from a web interface. It reminds me of JavaOp's web interface, though instead of being for chat, it could be like an options menu.
Quote from: Newby on January 29, 2006, 07:42:39 PM
You could control a bot through a web interface, from the looks of his example.
That would be neat. Being able to modify your bot from a web interface. It reminds me of JavaOp's web interface, though instead of being for chat, it could be like an options menu.
Thats somewhat of the idea, however you can only control the bot on your local computer.
Quote from: zorm on January 29, 2006, 08:28:52 PM
Thats somewhat of the idea, however you can only control the bot on your local computer.
Haha, sorry... that's really stupid. I just don't see the point. Oh well.
Sounds sort of like he's aiming for something like SphtBotv3 with ProfileLauncher, where you can hide the bot whenever you want, and bring it back up. Of course, he could also add auto-start (not that Spht couldn't).
A web interface for user managing/live streaming would be REALLY neat. :)
You could do remote managing that way. :P
Quote from: Blaze on January 29, 2006, 11:06:19 PM
A web interface for user managing/live streaming would be REALLY neat. :)
You could do remote managing that way. :P
You could do so many cool things with a web interface. Its just a shame exposing your computer to the internet is scary :p
It's windows, I could careless. Just have to reimage my HD and Poof, back to working condition. :)
Quote from: Blaze on January 29, 2006, 11:22:04 PM
It's windows, I could careless. Just have to reimage my HD and Poof, back to working condition. :)
Yeah, but how long does that take? Three hours? Got that time to spare? SM Cath @ 4CST tonight, then! =p
Quote from: Joe on January 30, 2006, 08:00:35 AM
Quote from: Blaze on January 29, 2006, 11:22:04 PM
It's windows, I could careless. Just have to reimage my HD and Poof, back to working condition. :)
Yeah, but how long does that take? Three hours? Got that time to spare? SM Cath @ 4CST tonight, then! =p
*raises eyebrow*
SM Cath? pansy!
Three hours~!? Twenty minutes max!
Twenty minutes will get my hard drive half formatted. You may be leet, but computers sadly aren't there yet.
EDITQuoteSM Cath? pansy!
Eh, Blaze can't solo Uldaman, and I'm only level 40.
Quote from: Joe on January 30, 2006, 06:40:07 PM
Eh, Blaze can't solo Uldaman, and I'm only level 40.
That's what I was referring to! The games been out for more than a year! Get moving!
Quote from: MyndFyrex86] link=topic=4679.msg52994#msg52994 date=1138664626]
Quote from: Joe on January 30, 2006, 06:40:07 PM
Eh, Blaze can't solo Uldaman, and I'm only level 40.
That's what I was referring to! The games been out for more than a year! Get moving!
Ever wondered what it's like to play a lock, but don't want to start at level 1? You're free to level me if you want~
PS: Get on AIM! =)
Quote from: Joe on January 30, 2006, 07:39:24 PM
Ever wondered what it's like to play a lock, but don't want to start at level 1? You're free to level me if you want~
PS: Get on AIM! =)
I don't get it? Warlocks are easy to play... they're even easier to solo with.
Quote from: Joe on January 30, 2006, 07:39:24 PM
Ever wondered what it's like to play a lock, but don't want to start at level 1? You're free to level me if you want~
PS: Get on AIM! =)
Nope, the only time I wondered what it was like to play a warlock was before Closed Beta Push 3, at which point I rolled one.
I can't get on AIM. Seems like I need to explain this over and over, but most nights I'm at work and have internet, but because of proxy port filtering I can't get on AIM except through HTTP, and I don't want to use Meebo.com like I have on occasion because I don't want them to block that if I absolutely need it.
And stop stalking me to other forums (fora?).
Quote from: zorm on January 29, 2006, 08:28:52 PM
Thats somewhat of the idea, however you can only control the bot on your local computer.
So? You could run the bot as a service, and never have to interface with it outside of a simple web interface it has listening or so.
See, you guys are getting the idea. The main concept your missing though, is it is not ONLY limited to web interfacing. I only referred to it, because its popular, its been done before, and this would allow even more power through that type of interface. People often write configuration utilities for bots to help setup config files. This could do it in one line. You could command the bot to enter a game. You could command the bot to perform a ban. Not only from other web interfaces, but from other applications, command lines, shortcuts, anything that will launch a URL. You can integrate a battle.net bot into so many different applications and services, its not even funny. Plus, its totally secure! There can be no "remote" control though a protocol listen on a local machine. It's like creating your own "localhost" which points to your local IP. This is your own URL that points to your own Application. If specifications were wrote, you could control 10 bots at the same time, on completely different servers, through one URL. One hit, one kill. Power. Endless Power. Non Exploitable. Perfect Sense. Say your bot uses local hashing, and it uses local hashing for a reason. If you didn't want users using BNLS, but still wanted to use it to check for updates, You could add support for your bot to connect to BNLS simply to check for updates. Instead of writing an entire new application to do this, you could do it from the URL. Create a shortcut, enter the bot URL (bot:checkupdate?client=STAR&SEXP)... What would take many, many lines in HTML and other web coding languages, could be done simply through a URL, and handled by the core application. Instead of, Web interface communicating with the application, instructing the application, waiting for a return from the application, then outputting again. With a URL, you could simply click a button or link, the application would handle it invisibly, and the web interface would do the work its already been designed to do... It's a really, really, really nifty concept...
Sometime a few years back or so I planned on implementing a system like this into my bot. I don't know about many other users, but using the run dialog in the start menu on Windows is quite convenient, especially if you have hotkeys set up for it. The idea its self is unique, keep up the good work.
I never said it wasn't unique. I said it was useless.
Honestly, I really see no use in this. Oh well. I guess I'm just skeptical. Have fun anyway! :)
It would be worthwhile if you could implement this protocol to work over IP (such as bot://bot.javaop.com:2047/op?blarg). But then the question arises as why don't you just use something established such as HTTP?
That would give it alot of power from remote users, and would make it exploitable. Yes it would be excellent, but I personally would like to avoid that path. Useless? Well Sidoh, since you've stated that you think its useless at least 4 times already, I think we got your opinion down pretty good... No offense. But you do have a pheasable point of view, one protocol, for one application, yeah... probably a waste of time. But I put the word Universal in the topic's subject name because if there were a handfull or more bots that used this, it would become powerful, fast, efficient, and very useful to a numerous amount of people. And we add things like Botnet support to our bots, which most of the time goes without even being used.. This protocol is very simple to implement, and, it only requires a very minimal modification of the Windows Registry. Perhaps after I get a few more people who may be interested, I will post the Idea on the vL forums, and see what they think of it... Thanks for the feedback guys.
If it is only allowed to be used on the local machine, what good does it do to have a "universal" standard?
Quote from: Mesiah on January 31, 2006, 04:52:04 PM
Well Sidoh, since you've stated that you think its useless at least 4 times already, I think we got your opinion down pretty good... No offense.
And people have defended their points each time. My opinion remains intact. This
is a waste of time. I'm sure you could think of several better things to do instead of this.
Quote from: Mesiah on January 31, 2006, 04:52:04 PM
But you do have a pheasable point of view, one protocol, for one application, yeah... probably a waste of time. But I put the word Universal in the topic's subject name because if there were a handfull or more bots that used this, it would become powerful, fast, efficient, and very useful to a numerous amount of people.
How many bots would actually implement this? I'd wager that at least 95% of people can figure out how to configure a bot, given the configuration system is intuitive and there is documentation available. I don't see the purpose in telling a bot to ban something through means of this. Sure, I suppose it's pretty neat, but it's useless. Maybe find a better use for something like this?
Quote from: MyndFyrex86] link=topic=4679.msg53126#msg53126 date=1138746694]
If it is only allowed to be used on the local machine, what good does it do to have a "universal" standard?
Exactly...
Quote from: Mesiah on January 31, 2006, 04:52:04 PM
That would give it alot of power from remote users, and would make it exploitable. Yes it would be excellent, but I personally would like to avoid that path. Useless? Well Sidoh, since you've stated that you think its useless at least 4 times already, I think we got your opinion down pretty good... No offense. But you do have a pheasable point of view, one protocol, for one application, yeah... probably a waste of time. But I put the word Universal in the topic's subject name because if there were a handfull or more bots that used this, it would become powerful, fast, efficient, and very useful to a numerous amount of people. And we add things like Botnet support to our bots, which most of the time goes without even being used.. This protocol is very simple to implement, and, it only requires a very minimal modification of the Windows Registry. Perhaps after I get a few more people who may be interested, I will post the Idea on the vL forums, and see what they think of it... Thanks for the feedback guys.
www.javaop.com:8323
Add some links based on flags, bam.
Think of this in the same way that http:// is a link but as bot:// instead. The bot still has to handle to protocol so its infact more coding if you want to do something like have a way for it to fetch a new version byte from BNLS. Having this isn't going to magically make your bot be able to do more with less code. Further more it is exploitable all around, someone can post a link to bot://adduser-zorm-N (http://bot://adduser-zorm-N) or however you want to do it and in the event someone with a bot that supports this protocol clicks on it I'll get added with N access.
Perhaps my words are not clear enough, I think it's more of you guys not seeing it the way I see it, instead, seeing it as the way you see it. But I'm not going to explain it again, your right, it is a waste of time. Consider the topic closed. You people are worse than vL. Peace.
Quote from: Mesiah on January 31, 2006, 09:44:55 PM
Perhaps my words are not clear enough, I think it's more of you guys not seeing it the way I see it, instead, seeing it as the way you see it. But I'm not going to explain it again, your right, it is a waste of time. Consider the topic closed. You people are worse than vL. Peace.
No, I'm pretty sure I understand the potential of this. I'm sorry I'm so skeptical, but I truly feel this isn't a very useful idea.
If you poke around, you'll find most of our topics are pretty mild-tempered and complimentary. You just happened to start one that we didn't see much to compliment.
Quote from: MyndFyrex86] link=topic=4679.msg53016#msg53016 date=1138670846]
Quote from: Joe on January 30, 2006, 07:39:24 PM
Ever wondered what it's like to play a lock, but don't want to start at level 1? You're free to level me if you want~
PS: Get on AIM! =)
Nope, the only time I wondered what it was like to play a warlock was before Closed Beta Push 3, at which point I rolled one.
I can't get on AIM. Seems like I need to explain this over and over, but most nights I'm at work and have internet, but because of proxy port filtering I can't get on AIM except through HTTP, and I don't want to use Meebo.com like I have on occasion because I don't want them to block that if I absolutely need it.
And stop stalking me to other forums (fora?).
Oh, yeah, I forgot about the whole AIM thing. Anyhow, I'd like a copy of WoW bot as soon as it's stable or whatever. Looks like Sidoh has a copy?
As for the stalking, I didn't go to AoA just because of you. Wait..
Quote from: Joe on February 01, 2006, 11:04:34 PM
Oh, yeah, I forgot about the whole AIM thing. Anyhow, I'd like a copy of WoW bot as soon as it's stable or whatever. Looks like Sidoh has a copy?
As for the stalking, I didn't go to AoA just because of you. Wait..
So what if I have a copy? I'm on the development staff! (By the way MyndFyre: getting Windows back up and running as we speak).
Any updates on the unsyncying? I can't use it for much when it keeps doing that. :P
Quote from: Blaze on February 02, 2006, 12:06:53 AM
Any updates on the unsyncying? I can't use it for much when it keeps doing that. :P
I've been windows-less for a few days. Not sure.
Quote from: Mesiah on January 31, 2006, 09:44:55 PM
Perhaps my words are not clear enough, I think it's more of you guys not seeing it the way I see it, instead, seeing it as the way you see it. But I'm not going to explain it again, your right, it is a waste of time. Consider the topic closed. You people are worse than vL. Peace.
You posted your idea on this forum to get input on it. The input you received may not have been what you expected, but you got exactly what you wanted—input. Don't get butt hurt (or discouraged) just because your idea was unpopular.
Quote from: Lord[nK] on February 02, 2006, 12:18:05 AM
Don't get butt hurt
People around me keep on saying that... creepy. :-\
Quote from: Sidoh on February 01, 2006, 11:21:39 PM
Quote from: Joe on February 01, 2006, 11:04:34 PM
Oh, yeah, I forgot about the whole AIM thing. Anyhow, I'd like a copy of WoW bot as soon as it's stable or whatever. Looks like Sidoh has a copy?
As for the stalking, I didn't go to AoA just because of you. Wait..
So what if I have a copy? I'm on the development staff! (By the way MyndFyre: getting Windows back up and running as we speak).
You, sir, have gotten yourself tied. Let me remind you who sparked this project (http://forum.valhallalegends.com/index.php?topic=12507.0).
Quote from: Joe on February 02, 2006, 08:03:46 AM
You, sir, have gotten yourself tied. Let me remind you who sparked this project (http://forum.valhallalegends.com/index.php?topic=12507.0).
Uhh, no, Joe, you just happened to have a little more information than UserLoser. As described in my wiki (http://robs-wow.game-host.org:3535/wiki/index.php/User:MyndFyre), I've wanted a third-party client to run WoW since closed beta. So you didn't "spark" the project.
When the program is stable and does something worthwhile, unless you start deciding to contribute to the project, you can get it when everyone else does. Unless you manage to get yourself voted back into x86, because I've opened the project to any x86 member who wants to add something.
/me adds Joe's name on his "people to kill" list.
Quote from: Joe on February 02, 2006, 08:03:46 AM
Quote from: Sidoh on February 01, 2006, 11:21:39 PM
Quote from: Joe on February 01, 2006, 11:04:34 PM
Oh, yeah, I forgot about the whole AIM thing. Anyhow, I'd like a copy of WoW bot as soon as it's stable or whatever. Looks like Sidoh has a copy?
As for the stalking, I didn't go to AoA just because of you. Wait..
So what if I have a copy? I'm on the development staff! (By the way MyndFyre: getting Windows back up and running as we speak).
You, sir, have gotten yourself tied. Let me remind you who sparked this project (http://forum.valhallalegends.com/index.php?topic=12507.0).
HAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAH
AHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHA
AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH
Based on review of negative vs positive feedback. People who voted it as a good idea: 5 People who voted it as a bad idea: 3 People who said "maybe, if..": 3. Unpoupular? Discouraged? I'm just making points, or I was. But like I said, I'm done now. So nothing to worry about.
Don't forget me! I abstained.
@MyndFyre: Posting the URL to the wiki on a public forum is a bad idea (if you still want it to be secret, as you told me).
Quote from: Joe on February 04, 2006, 12:48:42 AM
@MyndFyre: Posting the URL to the wiki on a public forum is a bad idea (if you still want it to be secret, as you told me).
It requires that you log in before you can view anything. I'm pretty sure MyndFyre has a lot more insight than you Mr "Bring a Knife to School" Lefrance.
Quote from: Sidoh on February 04, 2006, 01:51:38 AM
Quote from: Joe on February 04, 2006, 12:48:42 AM
@MyndFyre: Posting the URL to the wiki on a public forum is a bad idea (if you still want it to be secret, as you told me).
It requires that you log in before you can view anything. I'm pretty sure MyndFyre has a lot more insight than you Mr "Bring a Knife to School" Lefrance.
And only the sysop (me) can create an account.
QuoteIt requires that you log in before you can view anything. I'm pretty sure MyndFyre has a lot more insight than you Mr "Bring a Knife to School" Lefrance.
LaFrance*, silly.
QuoteAnd only the sysop (me) can create an account.
Eh, you told me to keep it private so eh?
Quote from: Joe on February 04, 2006, 09:25:21 PM
Eh, you told me to keep it private so eh?
Did you consider it was because of the fact he actually gave you an account to login? :P
Whats this I feel left out. *starts a "Give Zorm access today!" campaign*
Quote from: Joe on February 04, 2006, 09:25:21 PM
Eh, you told me to keep it private so eh?
Meaning, "Don't copy and paste this information publically."
Oh~
Why not just have it take input from commandline? not sure why you would want to do it from a browser...
Quote from: ink on February 19, 2006, 04:03:34 PM
Why not just have it take input from commandline? not sure why you would want to do it from a browser...
Dis topic is ded too!~ -_-
Haha, as previously discussed, I don't think much of this feature (at least in it's proposed application).