| | Richard
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 621 |
Cracker Charts
I'm starting to get really confused now. Some diskmags, such as Vandalism news, do cracker charts with no points to any fake groups (Lamer Labels) however, Arachnophobia puts fake groups as well as proper groups on to the cracker charts. I don't think lamer labels should be added to the cracker charts, the lamer labels should represent the cracker groups, and they should get points. I think it is very silly the way Arachnophobia does the charts, and that it is right what Onslaught said in Vandalism news, regarding the charts. |
|
... 43 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| | T.M.R
Account closed
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 749 |
Well, if the crackers can't do it the oldie crackers certainly can... Maybe there should be points awarded for anyone who can put a half decent disksystem in...? =-) |
| | Cupid
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 83 |
Quote: Hmm...but what can we do without sacrificing usability? For example, let's take an one-part game taking 1/4 of the disk side. How it can be reliably protected from introlinking?
In an extreme case (lame, but in fact most efficient regarding bypass of protections), the "crack"-intro would be a separate program that would load the unmodified game. It would be hard to distinguish the intro's "load command" from the legitimate user's "load command". So, the protection would have to be disk-based instead, and the user would be forbidden from saving anything else on the disk. Therefore 3/4 of the disk side would be wasted.
IMO, it'd be a bit ridiculous to limit the legitimate user's actions in that case, just to provide challenge for today's crackers. In the case of multipart programs taking almost whole diskside, it's a different story.. then the diskside can be considered "dedicated" to that program.
A onefiler could check it's own checksum or filesize and compare this with the real data stored somewhere on the disk (the extra unused tracks in the dir for example).
Rather stupid protection but I believe some of the introlinkers would have trouble with it.
As for me taking this serious, no, I don't!
I just consider it really hillarious how some people keep flogging this dead horse. Get over it, do some "quality cracking" or even more to the point "oldie cracking" charts and replace the crack charts with that one.
|
| | taper
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 119 |
I wrote a long post here some days ago, but it seems like it didn't get saved. Just my luck. Anyway, I'd like to add some of my views about cracking of today.
As most of you know, TRIAD is one of the few groups left still releasing new/before unreleased games. Now and then we also put out "mailversions" of certain games we find worthy, even if someone else got the firstrelease. Sadly it seems like we are the only ones still doing that these days (not counting the groups doing oldie-cracks).
We don't put out a PD game if our version ain't much improved over the publically available game (examples;Metal Warrior 3 +IFFL+trainers, BOFH megatrained and so on). Just linking an intro, making the release bigger than the original without adding any goodies is not the TRIAD way. What other groups do is their business though, and it's up to the public to decide what they appriciate the most, also when voting in the cracker charts.
There are for sure talanted people only involved in the oldie-cracking scene these days that deserves to be voted for in the cracker charts, but there are still some talanted people cracking new games aswell. I would especially want to point out two of my groupmates:Quorthon (again for his versions of MW3, BOFH and a lot of other games) and iopop (cool versions of the old, but never before released, Helijump & Devils Gallery, both bi-lingual and others). They deserve votes aswell for showing that it's still important to do good versions also of new/unreleased games!
When it comes to the releasecharts, speed is what brings the points, not quality. This is the way of the list, and always was. TRIAD always put quality before speed, and we still do - by choice. We rather loose a firstrelease than to put out a bad version of the game. But whenever we can have both quality and speed, we love to be first aswell! Again, other groups have other philosophy's regarding this, but if you look at the present firstrelease list, I think you'll see that it's very possible to have both...
There seems to be a lot of people here who don't really care about the newer games anymore. I have respect for those who just want to play the old classics, but it's a little shame that they miss out on good newer games like the Metal Warrior series, Alea Jacta, The Run, It's Magic 2, Linko, Aniso, BOFH and so on. You should give new stuff another chance.
Anyone who wants to recieve all future TRIAD releases instantly via e-mail, both demos and "cracks" (Hey Fungus, I put the " " in just for you :) should apply to the TRIAD spreadlist by throwing a mail to me, taper@triad.nu
By the way, we appreciate the many nice reactions we get after spreading something new to the list, don't hesitate to mail me your opinions in the future aswell! |
| | cadaver
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1160 |
Hi Taper!
Well MW4 is kind of far away yet, but would Quorthon prefer it with protection or not? I could do sort of an obscure protection regarding modification of the main executable file with very little effort to me :)
|
| | Fungus
Registered: Sep 2002
Posts: 680 |
Rough: Bah, I cannot understand your bad english! :P and stop calling me an itiot, I am not, and you know it. BTW< do you want your f****** disks or what? Im sick of em in my disk box.
email me.
Taper: yes I want the cracks, how about spreading the ories aswell? this keeping ories to yourself biz is disheartening :)
Cadaver: Nice games indeed, also nice articles. If you want some ideas on easy disk protections, email me. DIsk Error protection with EOR routines are quite easy to do., add some timers with your irq load/depack, and youve got yourself a nice protection that will fool most :) Changeing it to t/s loader and not directory of coz. This doesnt upset anything in terms of playability. You can include a protection installer, and the game simply wont run until you install it :)))
much like a paramter.
/Fungus
|
| | cadaver
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1160 |
Fungus: Thanks for suggestions, but I've a habit of including optional Kernal-based disk operations (non 1541/1571 users), this kind of rules out unusual disk access methods. My ideology is widest possible userbase "out of the box", and for that I'm prepared to sacrifice protection (never used it before anyway :)) |
| | Cupid
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 83 |
Quote: Fungus: Thanks for suggestions, but I've a habit of including optional Kernal-based disk operations (non 1541/1571 users), this kind of rules out unusual disk access methods. My ideology is widest possible userbase "out of the box", and for that I'm prepared to sacrifice protection (never used it before anyway :))
Mate, that is scary, you got to use protection these days, mkay? |
| | Rough
Account closed
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1829 |
@fungus: hehe, i want my disks of course. you are not an idiot. 8) |
| | taper
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 119 |
Cadaver:Most crackers likes challenge, but if you want to add protection or not is entirely up to you. I never saw System3 ask the crackingscene if they wanted LN3 with or without protection. :)
Fungus:Hmm, aren't you allready added to the TRIAD spreadlist? Better doublecheck that! We haven't put anything out for a few weeks now, we are working on some stuff in the silent. |
| | cadaver
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 1160 |
Taper:
Well, I've never really added protection before, so it's interesting to see what it will cause this time. I know (as mentioned earlier) there'll be lame ways around it for pure introlinking, as it won't be a real *copy*protection. But for any modification, trainers or such, one will have to face it :D |
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 - Next | |
