8 comments

  • akersten 35 minutes ago
    I wish the author got more into the weeds of anitcheat and how it evolved over time. Jagex was banning bots based on mouse movement heuristics in like 2005. 20 years later and there's some JS framework on the front page here heralding that same kind of analysis as some revolutionary new approach. I can only imagine what the modern anticheat engine entails, especially in the era of LLMs that can reliably emulate a human player. (Some of them can even write quite technical blog posts that almost escape detection ;)
    • OSaMaBiNLoGiN 19 minutes ago
      I farmed tens of thousands of us dollars in modern RuneScape by unhooking the mousehook. It worked for decades.

      Find call to `SetWindowsHookEx` -> Find dword (`HHOOK`) it returns -> Inject module that calls `UnhookWindowsHookEx((HHOOK)(module_base + hhook_rva));` -> profit.

      Jagex has done some interesting things, but without fail, there is a blunder accompanying each.

    • hansvm 30 minutes ago
      It's gotten pretty good (finally good enough that you can observe it in the game's macroeconomics), but if you're any good as a programmer then it's no work whatsoever to build something which can bypass it indefinitely.
  • saejox 33 minutes ago
    Ultima online released in 1997 and required only a 28k modem.

    I also would argue it was a more complex game.

    • ectospheno 5 minutes ago
      I played EverQuest on the PS2 using a modem in 2003. Performance was fine.
  • NDlurker 23 minutes ago
    Phantasy Star Online on the Sega Dreamcast worked great on dial up
  • stux 1 hour ago
    > Before any networking occurs, the client runs a breadth-first search using the local collision map to build a path from where you are to where you clicked, and then writes the packet for the server to read. [...] The packet contains the absolute position of the first waypoint in the path, followed by the delta of each waypoint in the path against the first one

    How come the client sends waypoints rather than just the destination? Naively it seems like sending less data would be better. Is the pathfinding so expensive that you'd want to avoid doing it on the server? I suppose it works out as long as it's cheap to validate/correct the client's path?

    • fufi2022 47 minutes ago
      The algorithm is very cheap to run for a client (linear first, then diagonal to target, stitch together as many of these as it takes in the fewest number of hops), as they have full map data downloaded. For 2k concurrent players on mid range 2004 hardware (you have to remember they had kind of old school tech even for the time, though I'd love to be proven wrong on this), and with all the other interactions that needed to run before the next game cycle, I think they probably decided it was better to be clientside.

      It's also possible they could have made it work, and it would have been a technical win, but just didn't need to since they had an MVP.

    • connicpu 58 minutes ago
      Validating that a path on a grid doesn't move through impassable objects is definitely much cheaper than running a pathfinding algorithm, especially on 2004 hardware. You'd have to make those checks as well in order to run the pathfinding.
    • hansvm 26 minutes ago
      It's a trade-off, especially for longer paths, especially when you count the cost of server RAM cache misses.
  • OsrsNeedsf2P 2 hours ago
    Is this article just an analysis of the Lost City[0] codebase without linking Lost City?

    [0] https://github.com/LostCityRS

    • NeutralWanted 1 hour ago
      It is. Code snippets in the article are JavaScript as well, while only ever mentioning Java in the article
  • ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 2 hours ago
    not to take away from the article, but some did with similar fidelity on 14.4k

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_massively_multiplay...

    i think the author would find ultima online emulators interesting

    • reactordev 1 hour ago
      Oh Britannia, how you were so amazing before the Tramel/Felucia split.
    • YouGuysAreBorin 1 hour ago
      Ultima and Tibia are the references you are looking for.

      What you linked is nowhere near the same genre or remotely the same concept, nice try though

      ——-

      You edited good boy, however to call Tibia an Ultima emulator is even more ignorant (and arrogant the way you did it).

      I played this game in the 90s/00s but thankfully outside HN it blew up into a mega sensation and everyone who knows Tibia will know that calling it a mere Ultima emulator massively sells it short on the saga and era that was possibly the most beautiful and thorough MMORPG to ever exist.

      HackerNews is boring. The people here are stupid. All the “high levels” here are ignorant retards. You have the worst community here. I literally cannot believe this site is important at all - Idiocracy is upon us

      • stackghost 33 minutes ago
        The comment you're replying to links to a wiki article that explicitly mentions both Tibia and UO.
      • tibiamuch 22 minutes ago
        [dead]
  • tibiamuch 10 minutes ago
    HN: Stay in your lane!

    You do not know video games.

    And it shows lol these comments

  • percentcer 1 hour ago
    I don't understand how RuneScape managed to get the traction it did. 2004 was the same year World of Warcraft came out!
    • hansvm 24 minutes ago
      The other comments hit the big ones (didn't have to download, had a free tier, didn't have significant irreversible character choices, had meaningful solo or quasi-social activities, etc), but I think a major contributing factor was it appearing on miniclip.
    • VertanaNinjai 1 hour ago
      It was free to play when that wasn’t a popular financial model for games at the time. The memberships were also much cheaper than WoW and accepted different payment methods that would be more available to minors at the time.
      • junon 1 hour ago
        Also no need to install or commit to a guild or clan or whatever. You could just log in, screw around for an hour or ten, and log off. Then log in again from somewhere else. It was miraculous for a kid like me.
        • connicpu 56 minutes ago
          Could even run on the computers at my middle school, nobody thought to block it
    • cyphar 45 minutes ago
      As a kid, I didn't have a computer that could run WoW, nor would I have been able to convince my parents to pay for the subscription. I suspect most of the popularity was from kids in a similar situation, probably playing it on library computers when they should've been studying.

      MapleStory was also quite popular back then for similar reasons.

    • snovymgodym 11 minutes ago
      They were two very different games and target audiences, with the incidental commonality that both are MMOs.
      • tibiamuch 8 minutes ago
        No they were actually not different audiences.

        WoW got everyone

    • pton_xd 1 hour ago
      It's free and you could play it in the school library, for one. Also it came out a few years before WoW.
    • terribleperson 35 minutes ago
      Besides what everyone else said, it was a pre-WoW style sandbox MMO with a lot of freedom at the time. Those have their own appeal.
    • thothless 51 minutes ago
      in addition to what others said...

      2004 runescape, now "old school runescape", which is actually successor 2001 Runescape "Classic", were both playable in a browser.

      and my (parent's) PC couldn't even install, let alone run WoW. despite me trying with all my might.

      so I'm sure I wasn't alone.

      it was absolutely magical to me.

      • terribleperson 41 minutes ago
        Yep. You could play it almost anywhere. School, friends house, parents work laptop. It required little hardware and, as you said, ran in a browser.

        Meanwhile, WoW had to be installed, took a fairly large amount of space (I remember 14gb on my 28gb HDD), and Ironforge ran like garbage on my PC.