Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (
More info?)
Pavel Mencik wrote:
> "Malte Helmert" <helmert@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote in message
> news:def2hf$q9g$1@news.BelWue.DE...
>
>
>>Personally, I don't see much wrong with black-box testing, and this is
>>where I would draw the line. If Thomas were known to speak out against
>>this kind of black-box testing, too, I might change my opinion, but he
>>hasn't, so I haven't.
>
> If I understand it correct, the "black box tests" are being done using an
> "out of luck" character, or an old version. How can you be sure, that the
> game does not behave completely different, in every aspect, to such a
> cheater? Or, that the particular aspect has not been changed since the last
> version without CRC checks?
Out of luck characters are not involved; see below.
Regarding old versions, I am not aware of any case where the game has
changed since g16pre2 without some mention of it in the change log.
However, it is of course impossible to be certain.
> If I understand it wrong, WADOMF does circumvent (or crack) the CRC check,
> in which case for cracking the CRC of course analysis of the code would be
> neccessary, in addition to analysis of saved games.
Sorry to say this again, but you are jumping to conclusions without
trying to get the facts straight first. I don't mind if people discuss
issues without being completely informed of relevant facts, but then
they should stay clear of language that would suggest otherwise.
Qualifying a factually wrong sentence with "of course" does not increase
your credibility.
First, WADOMF doesn't crack the CRC. However, there is a separate
program that used to be available on the same site that does that.
Second, creating the CRC crack program did *not* involve decompiling the
ADOM binary, although it did require a milder form of analysis of the
binary.
Third, Andy's experiment is perfectly feasible without using WADOMF at
all: Get two blessed scrolls of balance and go the High Mountain
Village. I don't know in which way he used WADOMF; maybe to wish for
scrolls of balance.
> Besides, I don't see any great difference between analyzing the game code
> and analyzing the savegame structure. How it is not evident the creator does
> not want people analyzing savegame structure, when he added such a CRC
> mechanism.
It is indeed evident that Thomas opposes saved game modifications.
However, my impression from speaking to him is that his motivation for
implementing the protection was keeping people from cheating in games,
e.g. by raising their Toughness to 99, not keeping people from
researching the game. This is speculation on my part, although it is
based on Thomas's earlier statements regarding these issues, so it is
not pure speculation. I would be willing to reassess my position if
Thomas spoke out about this, as I indicated in my previous post.
In any case, you asked for differences between reverse engineering and
black box testing. One difference is that while the one is illegal, the
other is not. I would consider black-box testing a compromise between
the wishes of players to gather knowledge and the wishes of Thomas not
to disclose his secrets. If there were a general consensus that it is
immoral, I would adjust my behaviour, but I don't believe this to be the
case.
Malte
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram