You did say you don't remember Battle.net of a certain amount.

Not sure if you were old enough to remember but back when Battle.net was working with ease there was some problems with some players getting an error message even though they have all that is needed. I do remember a bug was causing this and I do remember there was some technical problem. During that time of the release and years forward both problems were fix. Then it happen again with a different bug that happen due to left overs meaning it wasn't properly fix and they properly fix it. In the end it wasn't properly fix as it keeps popping up I will get to that later.

The whole clicking the "option in the gateway screen" is correct even now. It's another way to get on multi player with out Lan. The kicker is there's two things that will happen. First, an error will pop up saying a long message on how one can't connect. Second, another error will pop up due to updating the version of the game. Both will appear still. By randomly clicking the selection in the gateway screen it will by pass both errors and enter multi player screen of the chat room. By this point two things will happen. First, the player username will have an outlet with a plug next to it this means the player is able to access Battle.net but can't play games. Second, player user name will display no outlet with plug next to meaning they're able to access everything by hosting and playing games.

Spawn accounts can be access if a player has it. Spawn accounts allow the player to chat online only and unsure if they had access to offline.

Here's where it will get sticky. The technical issue you're describing doesn't cover the remaining bug that is displaying the errors nor it covers how players are able to by pass the errors to play multiplayer by clicking random order in gateway screen. What you're describing is some aspects of how the server to the player computer and player to server works. Both are true for a certain point. Now, let's look at cheating because there's certain trainers that has some powerful stuff it can do outside of the game that heavy damage the bridge from Lan to multiplayer. Players were heavy affected by it since many players were using different type of trainers to alter the game constantly. Battle.net has been hack over 3 times and 100% successfully brought it down twice. This can make the problem worse for all parts of the whole. As the nature of it it will lead to technical problems. This cheating problem was the smoking gun to ruin Diablo to the point Blizzard had shutdown the servers for it. Offline works still. It's common for a company not announcing what has happen and how it happen for security reasons.

The results after the shut down: It's known fact for a long time Blizzard didn't support multiplayer until they decided to work with GOG. How much of data GOG got to recreate the access to the multiplayer is unknown. What can be seen is different amount of players were able to access through different degrees of it. It's true there's still legit technical issues and on player side. How long players are able to maintain the access varies because of the two bugs I mention. The common misconception is if a player can't access it by doing different alternative therefore no one can. This is true for most people can't while some can. For the new players who never use Battle.net multiplayer for Diablo before the shut down this will sound foreign to you. For those who don't remember all of it by paying close attention of a young age you may not of known it was happening.

Not too long ago I bought Diablo 1 on GOG and found I can't access Battle.net. Knowing how to get on it before of the same trick in the gateway screen was useful to host couple of games before the error bug came the next time I try to get in. The random responds of the server will decide how much I have to encounter it again, since this is tie to all players regardless "I never seen the errors or encounter the errors" this is something a player don't have control over. Unless GOG Devs can't fix the problem the bugs will still appear and if they fix it it may stop the errors so players can enjoy the online experience of what is left of it. Until then offline have to do for now meaning a player won't have full access online. They can obtain some access of it.

Actually spawn allows people to play the two first levels as the warrior both online and in single player. But they can only play with other spawn.

Could you elaborate on this? What was the bug, and why did it cause players to receive a bogus report? The only connectivity bug I know of was the infamous UDP thread death bug, which was never fixed in Diablo (but was fixed for Starcraft), and which would not manifest like this. This sounds very unlikely. What do you mean by "randomly clicking the selection"? Are you suggesting that switching among west, east, europe, and asia was a workaround? This doesn't make any sense. The game has known crash bugs, yes, but those are completely independent of what network transport you're using. A cheater in a LAN game can crash you just as readily as a cheater over the Internet. "The bridge from Lan to multiplayer" doesn't make sense either. LAN is one form of multiplayer. UDP/IP over the Internet, coordinated through battle.net, is another form of multiplayer. There is no bridge between those two.
Citation needed for this one. Diablo was ridiculously vulnerable to client-side hacks, but those couldn't hurt the server. Or it could be that they didn't see the value in continuing to allow Diablo users onto the server because so few remained, and because the game's protocol allowed third party clients to log on in a way that cannot be banned, since Diablo never had CD keys. They didn't really need any access. There were reimplementations of battle.net more than 10 years ago, and any of those could have easily serviced the GOG Diablo release. All GOG would need is permission to run one of those.
I'd be very interested to see a concise description of these bugs.
If your network is set up properly, errors should be very rare. You get the error dialog if the server's UDP probe doesn't reach you in a timely manner. If your network is set up correctly, the failure should only happen if the network is so overloaded that it manages to drop all the probe packets. If even one arrives, you will be fine.

Hi!

I didn't manage to have Batle.net working on my side, since we must select the "GLOBAL" server and i don't have one, only "EUROPE", "ASIA" "WEST COAST" and "EAST COAST"

Moreover, each time i tried to connect on one of those server i get an update windows from battle.net said that this program cannot launch update or something else (BNUpdate 2.2.4 version it seems) and everything close (i mean everything related to diablo or gog)

Any help is welcome!

Yeah, you want to play on global only these days.... This fix is supposed to allow you to connect to all the servers, but Global has worked for all while the other ones work sometimes, other times users get the exact issue your describing.

How to guide:

https://d1legit.com/2019/04/04/diablo-1-connecting-to-battle-net-gog-net-with-v1-09b/

Most of the stuff won't make snese to you On side note I can only talk about what I'm allow too so there's that. It will halt any more answers. I will try my best.

I don't blame you for not knowning what has transpare but the gateway random clicking is correct. For some reason palyers were able to login on to battle.net even though an error pops up stating they can't contuine due to connection issue this was a main problem for others. When tech took a look at it most players were able to login so they thought it was ISP problem on their side. While that is true its also true for those who had everything correct but still being deny. More players experenicing this problem and its known fact for a company not to take lower majority seriously, since they care about the majority. They couldn't find nor repercate the problem that's basics of correcting a bug to happen. This didn't sit well for players who keeps messaging them and the problem for the players was there's hardly they can tell with so little information that they can obtain.

Rememeber many players are young and don't know the first thing of computers to give Blizzard tech a picture to work with. The year was 1996 and onwards where technology was young for this type of game. There was liminitons on both sides so it was bound to happen to encounter an error and bugs. Players found a work around by clicking on the gateway options and back to ok to be on battle.net. This allow them to play the game and this was an main issue since then. You're coming at it as cut and dry. A bug appears regardless who is affected. The information you seek is burried with many others since it has to do with the security issues on Blizzard side. Blizzard is very tight when it comes to security information.

The bridge between online and Lan. There's information where both shared and information how its different. You cover as well others cover the simliarity and difference. There's even other topcs about it. So, why is it so special? Lan appear with game systems and computers. It conntect the expereince between players who can play togeather. which was a huge deal. The problem lies else where.

The bridge The bridge is a metophr that I use to explained the security issue wiht Lan and the issues Blizzard were having at that time. These issues affects everyone and how the structures works. When the technology is still young there were those who will break rules by adding illeagal stuff to the game. This means to find other ways to go about it and get players to use thier stuff. This is what caught Blizzard off gaurd and make them stop supporting the game due to how much it cost. The damge was deep enough and it was all because these people find a way to use Lan. With this damge it creates problems for the players due to where the target is at. Ripple effects can happen and that is why different precentage were able to encounter compare to others. Many things were happening at once.

Blizzard like many other game companies of its time they face this stuff. Blizzard had a repution of keep things quiet menaing not everything is going to be on the update of patches, being spoken to palyers, and being on the forums. Players will only know through effects and little bit of ban waves. That's how they roll. For other information they burried it along with the forums and other information surorunding it. Its common for companies to do this.

GOG comes into play where Blizzard left off. Its clear that the information was tight or otherwise online will be easy to function for players to paly togeather. Instead GOG has to work from ground up to make it work.

Just remeber talking tech stuff on paper isn't the same in pratice. Put in pratice many things can appear even when it sounds strange to others who're not fimilar with it like this game load of problems. I've stated my stuff and explained what I can. I was a huge fan of this game who expereince the worse sides of things that many haven't. For the time of what it was worth I'm happy to enjoy the game for what it is.

Indeed, it does not. I get the sense you are just throwing phrases together to see what sticks. Are we talking about something that was true back when Diablo was v1.00, and is long since fixed, or are we talking about something that you think is still broken in Diablo v1.09 / GOG Diablo? Players who fail the UDP check can login, but they will not be permitted to create or join a game, as it is presumed to be pointless. As far as I know, this is how it has always been. This is true, but also extremely vague. Companies ignore problem reports until they get big enough. Troubleshooting without the ability to reproduce the problem or get reasonable details about it is hard. This sounds like a history lesson. I thought from your earlier posts you were talking about something that is still a problem today. Most companies are secretive about security, but so far, you have presented nothing to suggest this was in any way a security problem. UDP is known to be an unreliable transport protocol, and applications need to handle that. Blizzard's games handle it pretty well, but there are known issues, such as the UDP thread death bug that I referenced above. This section makes no sense. Blizzard supported Diablo for a long time, and tolerated it online even longer. Yes, they eventually decided it was not profitable enough to continue to tolerate it, but that was well after its popularity had faded.

Yes, Blizzard was repeatedly caught unprepared on the security front. Early versions of Diablo 2 were embarrassingly vulnerable, considering how much time Blizzard spent claiming that "This time it will be different." "This time, people can't cheat.", etc. Blizzard never seriously tried to harden Diablo 1. (I'm ignoring the odd data structure shifting they removed after the trainers overcame it.)

LAN has nothing to do with their problems. LAN, short for Local Area Network, was one possible transport the game could use for multiplayer. The problems on the client side were (mostly) in the general purpose code shared across all the multiplayer transports, which is why I said above that a cheater in LAN can cause you just as much trouble as a cheater connected over battle.net. They had a few transport-specific problems, but as far as I know, those were all in the battle.net transport, not the LAN transport. (This is unfortunate, as problems in the battle.net transport are a bigger issue.) Yes, Blizzard was secretive. However, the immense popularity of their games means there are a lot of people who spent a great deal of time and effort learning things the public was never officially told. Look at the extensive Diablo and Starcraft mod-making communities. Blizzard never released mod-making tools for Diablo, and the closest they came to mod-making for Starcraft was that they shipped a usable map editor. The mod-making community has done things that weren't even close to possible with the official tools. Those people are why we know many of the things we know about Diablo. There have been unauthorized battle.net clones for more than a decade, maybe even almost two decades by now. Blizzard always put a huge amount of effort into shutting them down every time they popped up, but they existed, and they aren't even that complicated. The protocols are not standard, but they are not encrypted, and the only authentication is the user/password check at logon. Game clients will readily talk to unauthorized servers that speak the protocol, and most of the protocol could be derived just from watching the network traffic the games sent to the real servers. All GOG should have needed was official permission to run a server, and maybe a little bit of help finding one of the old projects that had released a custom server.
I am sorry to say that you really haven't explained anything. The only parts of your story that align with what I remember from those days is that Blizzard was early to the Internet multiplayer scene, and that they were secretive. Your description of the networking problems doesn't line up with any of the well documented bugs in the game. The closest explanation I can give for your reported symptoms is clients who had unreliable UDP connectivity to the server, and so they would intermittently fail their connectivity test. Retrying would eventually work, if their connection was not dropping UDP completely. Even so, connections that lost UDP often enough for this to be anything more than a rare occurrence probably lost packets so often that trying to play with that person would be an exercise in frustration due to the resulting desync and/or lag cursor stalls. Although, if the loss was isolated to the path between the client and the server, other players might be able to join the affected player with little or no issue.

First off, stating your opinions and speaking in technical manner as possible doesn't debunk what I've explained to you. Second, to procliam you know me very well that alot of what I'm saying never happen because you disgree with it by explaining to me what you belive that happen with me during all of this. This is condecing to be talk down upon and gettign very critcal when explainning how a compay works with protocol. Third, you keep proclaiming no players will be effected by this last time I check you didn't know any of this. You only know one bug and to be frank lot of information has been deleted off by Blizz. Fifth, a lot of this stuff happens with in the game and the tech channels. Also, Blizz chat room. When a company stop supporting thier game and shuts down the server everything goes with it. Blizzard is tight when it comes to information of security of any degree so there is no way for any palyer to give you what you're so desprating trying to get info out of me.

The kicker is I was also responding to the whole thread discussion on the matter and providing a deeper nsight that many here don't know. I choose not to respond to some of your stuff since it was all opinions and I have nothing to say about it. I highlight on things I can't say in detial not because of blizzard its more of upholding the responsiblity that each person has by not ruin a game. You took everything I said to be about your post which I quoted but not everything was about your post on the matter.

For your information you don't know me at all and were not there. You never expereince what I've went through among others. Its clear you know nothing about what I'm talking about so to personal attack me like you're doing by speaking technical as possible is uncall for. You research and citing it as if it holds merit which it does not. There's a difference between being there when it occured compare to researching to find out what has happen afterwards. If you want to tlak about Lan and how problems arise with the login issue then learn the basics. Here's a tip for you UPD is a protocol only one aspect of the network and another aspec of the history of problems with this game. Anything relating to problems within the server and the game has a complex stracutre where anything can go wrong. if the right conditions rise up.

All in all, you keep putting words in my mouth and keep talking down to me as if I know nothing about technology. Making huge acusations about me personally base on disagree which is opinons. I've warned you most of this won't make sense to you and explained plenty. So, if I was you cut out with the know it all and tlaking down to me. Enough of the cut and dry talk. You're hung up on UPD and can't see past what you want to talk about instead of trying to understand where I'm coming form. Your last paragaprh is noise of personal attacks against me. This is only thing I'm going to reply from you and due be careful how you speak since you're touching a slippery slope.

Have a good day and enjoy Diablo for what it is.

Of course not, because you haven't explained anything. You've made some vague assertions, some of which are obviously true, and the others don't make sense. You've then refused to provide any technical details to support your claims.
I never claimed to know you. I claimed your posts are inaccurate.
How do you know what I know? I said what you described didn't make sense, not that nobody ever had problems. I even described how problems could occur.
I know a lot more than one bug. I just haven't mentioned anything else, because it is not relevant to this discussion.
All I wanted from you was a coherent post that did not obviously contradict well known information about the game. The game's chat servers were always ephemeral. The client can't even log chat, and the server never offered the ability to see historical messages.
Where did you do that? Insights are typically both factual and useful.
How could you ruin anything about the game? It's been taken apart in far more detail than most other games.
If I don't know you, and by extension you don't know me, how can you possibly know if I was there?
I don't think you know anything about what you're talking about either, so I guess at least we're on the same page. :) I'm not being technical as an attack. I am writing precisely because I wanted to give you an opportunity to identify specifically what it is you think I have wrong. You have chosen not to.
I suspect I am quite a bit more familiar with the basics than you are, or at least more familiar than your posts would suggest you are. UPD is not anything. If you're going to claim technical superiority, at least spell the acronyms right.
Your rambling and generally inaccurate posts seem to support that.
You warned, and explained nothing.
I tried. I failed. Perhaps you could restate more clearly?
There no personal attacks there. I criticized your story, not you.

It seems pretty clear you either can't or won't go into sufficient detail, so perhaps we should simply ignore each other until you go away.

I am on battle.net, i can create and play. Join me, I started a warrior, lvl 21 now. It is going to be a lot of fun if you guys can join me!!

No. This is such remakes big problem. It rewrited, not improved. And for open-source bugs+ticket can exist in decade, and become feature. Actually it is about one RTS remake and for 17 years worse unit controlling\pathfinding\AI in general than in original game. Moreover, with new version it become even worse version than original. Bring more bugs that already worked fine early. Some versions of this rts remake remove some unit controlling features just because they not work at all, been broken. It restored for now. But is is way "more differ than just differ". Same for anything else i try for any game. Its always an fundamental differences and exactly one or more disadvantages.

Anyway. All remakes is absolutely differ things, obviously. And open-source free fan-made remakes - even more differ. Newest =/= better. Supported =/= better. Same for Warcraft 3. This is exactly literally BAD idea to unlimitted support such game. New updates broke campaign+skirmish\online balance differences been in Wc3. New updates change something to worse (video decoding) to support Win98, but now it not supported (similar for Mac updates).

Best application - that is finished, not maintained updated. You are wrong to call remake just-fixed basicaly same Diablo 1 with optional imrovments.
And for most contributors and project leaders - those fan-made's is just for own portfolio, for own experience.

At least for single-player - it is best to play original Diablo, if you want to play exactly Diablo. DevilutionX is not Diablo. To play something different - any remakes and remake-mods.
For multiplayer it is based on did you already find coop players or want to find them, where there is more to find, did you want to download 3rd party staff (gameranger - exception, if it already installed on PC, cause this is very old tool and probably already assist you in finding people for some games).

"DevilutionX is not Diablo" - yes it is. It wasn't written from 0 but based on the code of the original game so we know exactly what we've changed and how. It's still the same good old game but with fixed bugs and QoL features.
Also good job comparing it to the worst remaster in history (warcraft 3 reforged, bleh). You seem to have no clue about stuff you are talking about. But to each his own. Have fun playing the original. It's not like some uniques morphing into potions in new game / overwriting random game memory / scavengers looking for corpses to feed on only south of them / getting teleported to lazarus after stepping on a random tile are bugs right? The game is perfect after all!

qndel -

Some of us, such as myself, really appreciate all the hard work that you've put into DevilutionX.

Sending a big THANK YOU from the USA!

Im refering to Wc3 TFT 1.27b and Warzone 2100 Ressurection Project (especially since v.3.x.x). One is example of not always better pacthces history from offical devs, another is example of remake of rewrited originally open-sourced officilay published source-code.
Both have disadvatages from origianl older releases (Wc3 Classic 1.28+ im personally not count as original).
Official remakes and fan-mades - have some similaries: new =/= better, but =/= bad as well, yes. its just differ. Newest is newset. Some pros and cons, always like that.
Same for many else project. Empire Earth mods, CorsixTH, OpenXcom... they all have some bug\-o-feature's existed for long time and not possible to fixed. Although this all is strategy games, and it always more issues with them (new pathfinding and AI, not possible to directly port old ones).

Same for any official remakes. They all have pros and cons as something newest. And sometimes they are really good with not so many things are missed from original.
If you want new experience - everything is worth to try. Especially if its free. Just dont name it "replacment" to original.
At least for single-play experience.

Thanks :)