StealthBot.net: The Future Of StealthBot - StealthBot.net

Jump to content

  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • This topic is locked

The Future Of StealthBot

#1 User is offline   SugarD-x Icon

  • Around Since 2.4...
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Beta Testers
  • Posts: 172
  • Joined: August-20 09

Posted May 06, 2011 - 09:02 PM

Okay, how about we stop being lazy and actually discuss this. We have a lot of options out there, some of which even HDX said he'd look into. We have Battle.Net 2.0, bot design improvements, the idea of a brand new recoding of the bot, multiple OS support, tabbed bot windows, GUI skins, and various other things that have been thrown around for years. If not then, why not consider them now? It's not like there's much else that could be done at this point anyway. StealthBot already supports everything else.

Let's be serious here. There's a few things users have consistently begged for for years. Why not let them finally have it? StealthBot is still highly useful and there's still a lot that can be done with it, even while keeping it in the focus of it's original vision to be only a Chat/Moderation Bot. With so much new information out there yet to conquer, why give up now?

#2 User is online   PhiX Icon

  • Notice the ownage.
  • Icon
  • Group: Administrators
  • Posts: 8,388,607
  • Joined: July-31 09

Posted May 08, 2011 - 04:54 PM

Because the project is dead, just like classic Battle.net is dead (see also my post in the other topic). StealthBot had its time and it was great, but that's about it. If you want to keep the project alive, go ahead and start coding. It's not a simple update we're talking about, it's a complete new program, which pretty much has to be redesigned and thought through from scratch. This is a lot of work and the original coders are busy with other things nowadays.

This is a community for the classic Battle.net. It is characterized by its underlying games and several changes over the past few years. If it's about to die due to the platform it's based on is dying, so be it. I'm sure there will be complete new Battle.net 2.0 communities, which will establish and go their own way in the next couple of years. You can either decide to join them or to let the Battle.net era die on your part. But you can hardly expect that this community will continue the same way and just adapt to the new platform.
PhiX

BNLS: phix.no-ip.org

Please refrain from sending me personal messages regarding technical support issues. Use the forums, that is what they are there for.

#3 User is offline   Distant Icon

  • Forum Concierge
  • Icon
  • Group: Administrators
  • Posts: 177
  • Joined: August-01 09

Posted May 08, 2011 - 05:38 PM

Beyond that, with all the new functionality in the newer Blizzard games, a moderation / chat bot isn't entirely necessary.
Because of the dynamic change of the gaming community, this product isn't going to roll with the punches, so to speak.
Everyday I'm shufflin'.

#4 User is offline   SugarD-x Icon

  • Around Since 2.4...
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Beta Testers
  • Posts: 172
  • Joined: August-20 09

Posted May 09, 2011 - 05:06 AM

View PostDistant, on May 08, 2011 - 10:38 AM, said:

Beyond that, with all the new functionality in the newer Blizzard games, a moderation / chat bot isn't entirely necessary.
Because of the dynamic change of the gaming community, this product isn't going to roll with the punches, so to speak.

Tell that to the thousands of users that still use this bot every day.

#5 User is offline   Distant Icon

  • Forum Concierge
  • Icon
  • Group: Administrators
  • Posts: 177
  • Joined: August-01 09

Posted May 09, 2011 - 10:28 AM

Correct, however it is being used on an old platform.
Everyday I'm shufflin'.

#6 User is offline   SugarD-x Icon

  • Around Since 2.4...
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Beta Testers
  • Posts: 172
  • Joined: August-20 09

Posted May 09, 2011 - 09:35 PM

And it can be expanded easily...

#7 User is offline   Novynn Icon

  • Silver Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Senior Members
  • Posts: 872
  • Joined: October-07 09

Posted May 09, 2011 - 11:02 PM

A total rewrite in a higher level code is still a better option to allow expansion to other operating systems and devices.

#8 User is offline   SugarD-x Icon

  • Around Since 2.4...
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Beta Testers
  • Posts: 172
  • Joined: August-20 09

Posted May 10, 2011 - 12:20 AM

View PostNovynn, on May 09, 2011 - 04:02 PM, said:

A total rewrite in a higher level code is still a better option to allow expansion to other operating systems and devices.

Thank you! Someone actually agreed with me for once!

#9 User is offline   Novynn Icon

  • Silver Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Senior Members
  • Posts: 872
  • Joined: October-07 09

Posted May 10, 2011 - 12:48 AM

View PostSugarD-x, on May 10, 2011 - 01:20 PM, said:

Thank you! Someone actually agreed with me for once!
I'm not agreeing with you, I'm just pointing out that any language is better than VB6 (we have to acknowledge that Stealthbot was just a school project originally, and so higher level coding was not implemented from the start).

I personally don't care about Battle.net 1.0 anymore since the various communities that were once good have gone to shit.

This post has been edited by Novynn: May 10, 2011 - 12:49 AM


#10 User is offline   SugarD-x Icon

  • Around Since 2.4...
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Beta Testers
  • Posts: 172
  • Joined: August-20 09

Posted May 10, 2011 - 09:38 AM

View PostNovynn, on May 09, 2011 - 05:48 PM, said:

I'm not agreeing with you, I'm just pointing out that any language is better than VB6 (we have to acknowledge that Stealthbot was just a school project originally, and so higher level coding was not implemented from the start).

I personally don't care about Battle.net 1.0 anymore since the various communities that were once good have gone to shit.

Because the community killed itself and Blizzard didn't want to deal with it's problems anymore :P

Still though, support for both should still exist. It's not like they are going to throw anything new at Battle.Net 1.0 at this point anyway, so everything is pretty much figured out hahaha...

#11 User is online   Pyro Icon

  • Militant Asshole
  • Icon
  • Group: Administrators
  • Posts: 602
  • Joined: July-31 09

Posted May 10, 2011 - 03:45 PM

View PostSugarD-x, on May 09, 2011 - 05:35 PM, said:

And it can be expanded easily...


View PostSugarD-x, on May 09, 2011 - 08:20 PM, said:

Thank you! Someone actually agreed with me for once!


So which one do you want? Do you want us to expand it or do you want us to completely re-write it? If you're implying that completely re-writing the program from the ground up to support a platform that nobody quite fully understands yet is easy, you have a lot to learn about programming.
Pyro
StealthBot Developer
Chieftain of Clan BoT
Host of pyro.no-ip.biz

#12 User is offline   SugarD-x Icon

  • Around Since 2.4...
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Beta Testers
  • Posts: 172
  • Joined: August-20 09

Posted May 10, 2011 - 07:27 PM

View PostPyro, on May 10, 2011 - 08:45 AM, said:

So which one do you want? Do you want us to expand it or do you want us to completely re-write it? If you're implying that completely re-writing the program from the ground up to support a platform that nobody quite fully understands yet is easy, you have a lot to learn about programming.

What are you talking about? If you rewrite it using existing knowledge, that knocks out the Battle.Net 1.0 part. The Battle.Net 2.0 part obviously would take time, but why would that be a "this or that" situation? Even this website's title says "The Home Of Battle.Net's Premier Chat Bot". It doesn't say which Battle.Net. ;)

#13 User is online   PhiX Icon

  • Notice the ownage.
  • Icon
  • Group: Administrators
  • Posts: 8,388,607
  • Joined: July-31 09

Posted May 11, 2011 - 08:47 PM

Your logic is flawed. Only because the classic Battle.net protocol is well-known and transparent nowadays doesn't make it easier to write a complete new bot. The implementation of the connection sequence to Battle.net 1.0 is probably the easiest part of the coding. It has nothing to do with the new additions (ideas/suggestions) you mentioned though.
PhiX

BNLS: phix.no-ip.org

Please refrain from sending me personal messages regarding technical support issues. Use the forums, that is what they are there for.

#14 User is offline   SugarD-x Icon

  • Around Since 2.4...
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Beta Testers
  • Posts: 172
  • Joined: August-20 09

Posted May 11, 2011 - 09:58 PM

View PostPhiX, on May 11, 2011 - 01:47 PM, said:

Your logic is flawed. Only because the classic Battle.net protocol is well-known and transparent nowadays doesn't make it easier to write a complete new bot. The implementation of the connection sequence to Battle.net 1.0 is probably the easiest part of the coding. It has nothing to do with the new additions (ideas/suggestions) you mentioned though.

That's the "easy" part I was referring to. The Battle.Net 2.0 part is the challenge that would take the most time, hence why a full rewrite might be a good place to start if that was implemented.

#15 User is offline   Distant Icon

  • Forum Concierge
  • Icon
  • Group: Administrators
  • Posts: 177
  • Joined: August-01 09

Posted May 12, 2011 - 01:03 AM

Then it becomes a matter of time, resources and energy.
Frankly, with the knowledge pool here and the desire for a quality product, it would take a mass amount of all of the above.
Along with that, someone willing to step up and run the project.
Then, IF the above happens, you have requirements, development, testing and deployment.
After that we have to deal with post-implementation, support and documentation.

Of course, this is while overcoming the obstacles that will likely come up and put a large delay in the project.
Based on the limited community these days, I doubt any of this will happen.
Everyday I'm shufflin'.

#16 User is offline   Novynn Icon

  • Silver Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Senior Members
  • Posts: 872
  • Joined: October-07 09

Posted May 12, 2011 - 02:44 AM

I would be perfectly happy to be part of such a project, the only failing being that my previous attempts of using BNCSUtil.dll with Qt have fallen short of passing basic login...

If any such a thing would be to happen, I would prefer the application to be completely module-based to allow protocols other than Battle.net to be added so the product has more uses than just one.

This post has been edited by Novynn: May 12, 2011 - 02:45 AM


#17 User is online   riffruff Icon

  • Newbie
  • PipPip
  • Group: Beta Testers
  • Posts: 19
  • Joined: August-15 09

Posted May 12, 2011 - 02:50 AM

You can go about creating a new bot if you want, but I don't see the point. Battle.net 2 channels aren't even that popular yet. I for one hardly ever use them. Battle.net classic is dieing. Whenever I log on, I see less and less games. If it were two years ago, before Starcraft 2 came out, I'd be all for helping to make a new bot. But now, it seems like a waste of time.

#18 User is offline   SugarD-x Icon

  • Around Since 2.4...
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Beta Testers
  • Posts: 172
  • Joined: August-20 09

Posted May 12, 2011 - 05:10 AM

Well with everyone having that attitude, that's why the forums are in the state they are in now. I don't see why this is such a big deal. Everyone is complaining about how hard it would be yet it's not like this isn't the first time it's been done ;)

#19 User is offline   tunefisch Icon

  • thunfisch/turnfisch
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 181
  • Joined: October-07 09

Posted May 13, 2011 - 06:10 PM

will it come 2015? :P
Game Over! Final score: 29699

#20 User is offline   SugarD-x Icon

  • Around Since 2.4...
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Beta Testers
  • Posts: 172
  • Joined: August-20 09

Posted May 13, 2011 - 11:01 PM

Better than never...

#21 User is offline   tunefisch Icon

  • thunfisch/turnfisch
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 181
  • Joined: October-07 09

Posted May 14, 2011 - 01:34 AM

yes so true
Game Over! Final score: 29699

#22 User is offline   Ribose Icon

  • Fire wants to be free.
  • Icon
  • Group: Global Moderators
  • Posts: 282
  • Joined: July-31 09

Posted May 23, 2011 - 07:08 AM

SugarD-x, you seem to be the only one who thinks that "expanding" this to Battle.net 2 would be easy. Do you know how wrong you are?

I'm all for making a "good bot" on Battle.net 2 that's modular, super powerful, and super whatevermagical. But nobody here's organized to do so. Besides nobody here should call it StealthBot if its a rewrite written without Stealth.




I don't think this community has been active enough since Stealth lost interest...

This post has been edited by Ribose: May 23, 2011 - 07:37 AM
Reason for edit:: "would be easy"

~Ribose
[ Download ] [ Wiki ] [ Support ] [ Scripting ]
[ Chrome ] [ Notepad++ ] [ fedora ]
[ Homepage ] [ BNLS ♯ ]

#23 User is offline   SugarD-x Icon

  • Around Since 2.4...
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Beta Testers
  • Posts: 172
  • Joined: August-20 09

Posted May 23, 2011 - 07:22 AM

Well then what is stopping any of you from doing that? Don't tell me it's because there's a lack of devs, because it could easily happen if everyone actually wanted to do it.

#24 User is offline   Ribose Icon

  • Fire wants to be free.
  • Icon
  • Group: Global Moderators
  • Posts: 282
  • Joined: July-31 09

Posted May 23, 2011 - 07:39 AM

Well I personally will write stuff, such as the plugin for Pidgin I've made (Battle.net 1). With some docs I found I could probably hack a B.net 2 version... eventually...

But no, I think you have the wrong idea about there being any team or potential for one here.
~Ribose
[ Download ] [ Wiki ] [ Support ] [ Scripting ]
[ Chrome ] [ Notepad++ ] [ fedora ]
[ Homepage ] [ BNLS ♯ ]

#25 User is offline   SugarD-x Icon

  • Around Since 2.4...
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Beta Testers
  • Posts: 172
  • Joined: August-20 09

Posted May 25, 2011 - 08:46 PM

Believing that there is no team capable is the reason why no one is bothering to do anything here.

  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • This topic is locked

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users