Talk:Gw.dat file format

Since Anet is okay with benign mods in general and a mod from GWOnline told me that they've tenatively okayed discussion of the gw.dat file I'm assuming they'll be okay with this. Most of the I've included here came indirectly from xentax.com and has all been more or less verified by me. ;) My personal interest in the gw.dat format is purely because I'm angry that Anet, after all this time, still does not publish the basic skill data available, in game from the priests of balthazar, in an accurate and timely manner.

So if you're interested in anything having to do with the graphics, don't ask me :) Cloud 04:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is this supposed to do? Please dumb it down for the less geek-savey of us. :PBlackie ewilson92 04:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Its information needed by the extremely geeky to create tools that manipulate the game data. The same audience that is interested in Skill template format et al, may be interested in this as well. Cloud 06:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Permission

Where did you get permission to create/move this to the main name space, i suggest moving it to your won name space until its approved ~ Kurd 08:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe permission for this content has been given, but am actively pursuing additional confirmation in regards to it being in this form. Not sure why you mentioned texmod below, and will leave your opinion of it's harmelssness for another day. Cloud 09:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I will see if I can get some information about this. I will let you know what I find out, but please do keep in mind my earlier comment -- let's not put stock in "I understand" or "permissions" inferred through indirect means. It's best to be sure that everyone can see our position, directly and visibly, on the GWW itself, and we're happy to make that happen, but please ask directly (as you did, albeit after the fact?) and wait for a response.. --Gaile 18:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but no fansite moderator has any authority whatsoever to okay -- tentatively or otherwise -- discussion of the gw.dat file. Have you authority from ArenaNet personnel? --Gaile 07:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

No I didn't get explicit permission first, under the assumption that it was probably okay, especially in light of the first sentence on this page. :P But what I did do was post on your (and Emily's) talk pages with a link here asking for an official opinion. Interesting that you found this page before the question about it on your talk :) Cloud 08:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I was told that you (Anet) had okayed discussion of gw.dat, which is why they are now allowing such discussion to take place at GWOnline. Cloud 08:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Anet approved Texmod, Texmod is harmless. This allows you to edit almost anything so you would need permission ~ Kurd 08:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Gaile, I think Cloud uses this message from a moderator on GWOnline to state that A.Net okay'ed the discussion of the gw.dat. He also made posts on your talk page and Emily's for an official statement. Whether that moderator on the GWOnline forum has a direct connection with someone from A.Net is not really clear of course. Personally I don't see any informative nature to this article myself, but an official statement will be very helpful. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 13:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'm going by what Teina (the author of link CoRrRan gave) PM'd me. :) Cloud 14:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, that's a possibility too of course. That info isn't to be found on GWO for others of course. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 15:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a very small PM box at GWO and must constantly delete messages, but I am writing to the fansite moderator and asking with whom such a permissions discussion took place. I know it was not me, and I can't imagine anyone else handling such a question. So I'll await clarification and will provide ours, in return, as soon as I know more. Sorry for the delay! --Gaile 18:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Emily specifically mentions modifying gw.dat in her response to modding as something you could do but would not be supported, and its unreasonable to think that it can be okay to modify the file, but not okay to know how. Followed by the explicit comment at GWO it didn't seem much inferring was required, as long as the "good citizen" rule is followed. Despite Kurds comment there really isn't any more evil in reading/modifying gw.dat then replacing data in memory (texmod). Something like the network protocol, which you'd pretty much have to be writing a bot to want, is one thing but the dat file is mostly just visual and audio data -- exactly what people want to muck with. You, of course, get the last word on whether this is appropriate, but try not to over complicate the guide lines, I find the current benign intent concept to be refreshing

Don't rush on my account ;) Cloud 19:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indentation) Just a note to make it clear that, after discussion to assure clarity and direction, ArenaNet is fine with the placement of this page in the body of the GWW. Thank you for the discussion and the consideration proffered in same. :) --Gaile 03:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Copied from XeNTaX?

Based on the topmost comment here, it would seem that this format description was at least partly copied from Guild Wars DAT on the XentaxWiki. While I understand that the file format itself is ArenaNet's, I'd like to point out that quite a bit of work was put into figuring out the format description over on XeNTaX, both on-wiki (on the page's talk page) and on our forum. Since this wiki seems to license its contributions under the GFDL, I'd like to ask that credit be given for this information - a link back to our wiki page (at the very least) and the discussion thread on our forum would suffice.

Related, but separate, I'd also like to ask that if anyone here makes advances with the format that they write about, they also post about it back at XeNTaX so we can be kept up to speed. =) Thanks in advance! --Dinoguy1000 as 66.116.27.35 16:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I rewrote the beginning a bit and added some information on the research at XentaxWiki, is that okay now? Also thanks for all your work at Xentax! :) poke | talk 16:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, thanks for your extremely speedy response! =) --Dinoguy1000 as 66.116.12.126 07:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Outdated infos

The infos for the "root block" are outdated. Yseron - 86.64.70.44 17:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)