Mongo222
12-17-2001, 08:02 PM
Ratt,
I was one of the more vocal people disagreeing with your stance when you first decided to block decodes in SEQ (was bigfoot222 on the other forum). Mostly I was pissed off that my favorite eq toy didn't work like it should anymore. While I still disagree with the decision to "nerf" the decodes, I've cooled down and have some serious questions and comments.
COMMENTS:
1. WinSEQ is a bad idea. We all know why. I wouldn't worry about it though.. binary and his vapor group don't strike me as able to write WinSEQ.
2. libEQ.a should stay privately held. I would LOVE to have the source for the lib and play around with coding some toys with it. I'd love to have a copy on hand to make changes quickly when Verant rotates opcodes. However, if I were to have a copy, that most likely means anyone here who wanted a copy could get it. That's just asking for verant to change the ecryption, so keep it hidden.
3. SINS is fully operational with the leaked libEQ.a. Multiple patch methods exist to make SEQ work again, and are widely known. I don't see how either of your goals of reducing SEQ to discover luclin sercrets, or reducing Verants likelyness of new encryption methods is being served.
4. You've been the target of a lot of flames, and other hardship over the last couple of weeks. Yet you continue to work for the betterment of SEQ in general. This new forum shows that. I may not agree with all your actions, however your and all the members of the dev team's work here is greatly apreciated. Running a project like this is a lot of work. THANKS.
QUESTIONS:
At one point you claimed that it would only be a couple of weeks after the release of luclin until SEQ was de'nerfed. That day has come and gone. So my question is... what are the terms required by you and the dev team to de'nerf it? Do you yourselves have a set of condictions to be met, or are you relying on a 'gut' feeling?
I was one of the more vocal people disagreeing with your stance when you first decided to block decodes in SEQ (was bigfoot222 on the other forum). Mostly I was pissed off that my favorite eq toy didn't work like it should anymore. While I still disagree with the decision to "nerf" the decodes, I've cooled down and have some serious questions and comments.
COMMENTS:
1. WinSEQ is a bad idea. We all know why. I wouldn't worry about it though.. binary and his vapor group don't strike me as able to write WinSEQ.
2. libEQ.a should stay privately held. I would LOVE to have the source for the lib and play around with coding some toys with it. I'd love to have a copy on hand to make changes quickly when Verant rotates opcodes. However, if I were to have a copy, that most likely means anyone here who wanted a copy could get it. That's just asking for verant to change the ecryption, so keep it hidden.
3. SINS is fully operational with the leaked libEQ.a. Multiple patch methods exist to make SEQ work again, and are widely known. I don't see how either of your goals of reducing SEQ to discover luclin sercrets, or reducing Verants likelyness of new encryption methods is being served.
4. You've been the target of a lot of flames, and other hardship over the last couple of weeks. Yet you continue to work for the betterment of SEQ in general. This new forum shows that. I may not agree with all your actions, however your and all the members of the dev team's work here is greatly apreciated. Running a project like this is a lot of work. THANKS.
QUESTIONS:
At one point you claimed that it would only be a couple of weeks after the release of luclin until SEQ was de'nerfed. That day has come and gone. So my question is... what are the terms required by you and the dev team to de'nerf it? Do you yourselves have a set of condictions to be met, or are you relying on a 'gut' feeling?