The State of MacroQuest - 2/24/03

azwildfire · Post by **azwildfire** » Tue Feb 25, 2003 5:32 pm

as far as testing MQ goes, that is easy... download a free CD key, setup a level 1 char, run some scripts and play around a bit. after you are banned, download another free CD key... rinse repeat.
thouse of you that think they are mapping IP addys blah blah, dial up changes IP about every time... so that does not seem reasonable.

just an idea for testing.

cheers!

Learning · Post by **Learning** » Tue Feb 25, 2003 7:04 pm

I understand that the /click is gona take alot of work to fix. But what about the other wonderfull functions, Like /who npc and /face. How hard would it be to make atleast a temp fix for these?

kaz · Post by **kaz** » Tue Feb 25, 2003 7:29 pm

well you can do the trick with getting the free accounts to test, my point was when you think you got everything all shiny and perfect and you go and use it on your *good* account and it F*#$s up and some info gets back to sony, poof.

I've actually been dasm / debugging this thing alot the past several days and they have added alot of sneaky stuff, I know I wouldnt feel safe at all logging in my main using any 3rd party program right now.

azwildfire · Post by **azwildfire** » Tue Feb 25, 2003 8:01 pm

ah i see Kaz, thanks for the clarification. and it is nice to know someone is working on the project...

good luck to you! give you a case of beer if you get this thing "fixed" by the weekend! i hate playing just one char at a time

Zaviar · Post by **Zaviar** » Tue Feb 25, 2003 10:27 pm

/click is already fixed.

Zav

schue · Post by **schue** » Wed Feb 26, 2003 6:07 am

Hiyas.

About the idea with a free account for testing... Never underestimate the other side. SoE aint stupid. When they see a lvl 1 char testing MQ on a trial-account... Maybe they just leave it alone because banning would be pointless anyway... Maybe they just lurk you into safety and wait till you login your "real" account...

If it was my job to catch as much MQ-Users as possible, I would do so... And I am not very smart to begin with... Not that I ever would want to do such a job, just for arguments sake

)

If SoE really is onto MQ, getting paranoid might be a good way to survive...

Mckorr · Post by **Mckorr** » Wed Feb 26, 2003 10:31 am

/click is already fixed Zav? When?

To my knowledge no new code has been posted which corrects the problems with /click. I do know several people who claim to have fixed it, but so far no proof.

If you have working code for /click, please post it so we can get on to fixing the new anti-offset code.

As for that little problem, seems like what we need is a second app, one that waits for the server to send it's check, intercepts it, and sends back the appropriate response. That way MQ could continue to function as normal, without massive modifications.

lifewolf · Post by **lifewolf** » Wed Feb 26, 2003 10:51 am

Zav is just being a trolling I-cant-say-it-it-would-just-print-smurf.

He will just go on and on and say he is right with no proof (because there isnt any) that click was fixed. CLICK IS NOT/WAS NOT FIXED.

The only applicable exception is the fiew (2) people i'v heard that made a DX injected click that would only work once per client if it was released. And it wasnt.

Go look through Zav's posts too heh. You'll notice he hasnt positivly contributed to a discussion on either MQ or HQ yet. Or i'll award $10 to prove otherwise.

azwildfire · Post by **azwildfire** » Wed Feb 26, 2003 11:30 am

I personally can go with or without click, it was great having spellbook.mac but i can rough it. i just want to be able to effectively dual box again *sob* oh well... figure if fate doesnt kick in by end of week, 3 more accounts SOE looses they dont care about

eqjoe · Post by **eqjoe** » Wed Feb 26, 2003 1:49 pm

Ok... after looking at this closely, it is my opinion that the changes that I have been considering will be too radical to be made part of MQ as it is today. Oh sure, reading memory from an offset is easy, but memory values change during gameplay. If that data is to have any relevance, a passive method to determine what data to read and when to read it would need to be developed. The data “reads” would need to co-ordinate with the data updates. Reading memory values from the client passively is no easy undertaking.

The idea of using Windows APIs similar to what Xylobot does has been tossed around… have you ever seen Xylobot work? After looking into this, I understand why there are two mouse pointers when using Xylobot that must be calibrated so that they “look” like one. This solution is not even close to being as elegant or usable as what we had in MQ.

I am considering the idea of creating a COM object that would plug into Xylobot that will passively read data from EQ client memory that can be used in Xylobot scripts. There are several other things that we might be able to do with COM that might make Xylobot a much more usable alternative, such as a COM object that triggers events based on chat text directly and is used in a script without the need to read that text from the EQ log.

Either way... the solutions floating around in my head are new projects that need to be started from scratch.

Zaviar · Post by **Zaviar** » Thu Feb 27, 2003 12:01 am

You got an e-mail I can send something too? or an AIM name?
Contact me at Numb3r0nestunn4

Thanks,

Zav

nukem419 · Post by **nukem419** » Thu Feb 27, 2003 9:11 pm

I realy suck at code, i can ballei spell <hehe> but i think your going at the situation the wrong way. your trying to convince the code on your computer that your not using macroquest, and therefore it will tell sony not to boot you. have you tried attacking the part of eq wich looks for changes in EQ and making it just constantly tell sony that everything is good to go? i'm sure it would be more difficult, your use to dealing with a different aspect of the program, however, i do not see how they could change there security function every patch, i'm sure that they will change small parts of it so that when hacks atempt to replace it they won't work but the basic function will more than likely stay the same. just an idea, feel free to backhand me if it's not phesable<or however you spell it> BTW would surpressing there security function be illegal? or would it have the same legality of old MQ?

eqjoe · Post by **eqjoe** » Fri Feb 28, 2003 12:33 am

Code something into MQ that disables the offset protection? No no no... personaly I would never run that. I want a solution that is not detectable remotely.. passive...reads but does not change MQ memory. If Plaz was still supporting this project I might have a different opinion. Personaly, MQ does way more than I need a macro program to do for me. I am hoping to have some time to play EQ rather than work on a way to keep my macros running 100% of the time. The Perl stuff was cool.. but I dont need it... /click is another feature I could do without. MQ is dead because it did so much and was too powerfull... morons exploited that power and SoE took action. I don't think SoE had a problem with me playing 3 accounts at the same time with the skill and effectivness of a normal group of 3. That is what I lost ... and that is what I am working on getting back in a way that will be very tough to take away again.

ap50 · Post by **ap50** » Fri Feb 28, 2003 3:57 am

If there were just two things in MacroQuest working, I'd be happy, I can live without the rest quite adequately.

modified /WHO and /TARGET

Not having these two simple commands is like having an arm amputated.. my EQ experience is lessened by their demise.

OldNecro · Post by **OldNecro** » Fri Feb 28, 2003 8:37 am

Both of which use detours, which is at the heart of the problem with MQ... If we could get those two things working, the rest of MQ (pretty much) would work too.