Posted by
timothy
on from the please-give-me-a-driving-simulator dept.
PokeBlor writes: "Arena.net has an article by Patrick Wyatt, a Blizzard ex, that goes into depth about the creation of multiplayer games, ranging from replayability to lag. He uses good examples from Starcraft and Warcraft 2, two games that Wyatt was a designer on."
I think this is more to stop people writing their own binaries to cheat...
Re:Avoid lag?!
by
Telastyn
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I wouldn't say suck really. They're just overutilized. I'd also assume they come under attack fairly often.
When you get a few hundred thousand users on a server it's going to slow down, no matter the code or connection... While 3rd party server apps might be faster for small groups, I doubt they will be as fast as the 'official' server on compriable equipment with a few hundred thousand users. And if it is faster, I'd be suspicious about what features/preventative measures were not included to get the speed gains.
Re:Avoid lag?!
by
Gailin
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Off Topic:
Figured I would post the email that I received from a Blizzard employee in response to the letter I wrote them regarding bnetd
Hello.
Certain programs have been developed that allow users to bypass Battle.net's CD-key-authentication process. Although these programs might have been made with good intentions, they directly promote software piracy by allowing users who have illegitimately obtained our games to play them as if they'd been legitimately purchased. Furthermore, because these programs allow access without a CD key, they render malicious users unaccountable, thereby eliminating Blizzard's ability to protect legitimate consumers. Therefore, Blizzard has taken an aggressive stance opposing the use of these programs.
Please take a moment to read through our FAQ regarding these issues at http://www.battle.net/support/emulationfaq.sht ml if you have any questions or concerns about Blizzard's stance on software piracy.
{WR655}
Thank you for your email, Kenny Z. Technical Support Blizzard Entertainment PS. If you plan to reply to this message, please include all previous messages between us.
That same message is posted on blizzard's website. Blizzard did not have a problem with BnetD until it cracked the Warcraft 3 Beta Test. Once it did that, I think they just drew the line.
I agree with you. It seems in many ways Blizzards popularity is becoming too much of a burden, what with the 1000's of people who play their games. Even if you please the majority of that group, there's always subgroups to piss off. Now, if they'd sucked from the beginning, maybe we wouldn't be having all these conversations now. Oh well.:-)
Maybe Blizzard should create a CD key server that third party game servers could connect to for authentication. It seeems like that would be more desireable for Blizzard. That would take some of the heat off of their servers (by allowing the third party servers), and provide cd key checking. Then they could just crack down on servers that don't do the checking.
>Thank you for your email, >Kenny Z.
I wonder if he's related to Kenny G?
-- "... the advance of civilization is nothing but an exercise in the limiting of privacy" - Janov Pelorat
Once [bnetd allowed Warcraft II beta], I think they just drew the line.
Yes, but (a) bnetd and FSGS didn't allow cracking; and (b) Blizzard doesn't have a legal leg to stand on anyway. These programs reverse engineering and reimplement Blizzard's protocol, which is perfectly legal. It was someone else who created the Warcraft hacking patch, and as I understand it neither bnetd nor FSGS directly linked to said patches. If anything, it was sites providing those patches that should have been pursued.
-- Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Not true. Blizzard's response was directed at the people questioning why they don't tell the bnetd people how to check the keys themselves. At least that's the way it seems.
What the above poster was referring to was having the bnetd servers forward the keycheck to a blizz server. Not perfectly secure, but better.
What i think would work best is forcing the client to do the keycheck at a Blizzard server, but allowing the user to select what game/chat server to connect to, be it one of the battle.net realms, or a bnetd server.
Of course, this is all completely off topic.
-- "Upon attaching the waterblock to my penis, I began to notice that I know nothing about computers." -- JRockway
Funny, and I could have sworn my friend and I logged in under the same key once on the regular servers. I don't know if it was only a one-time thing or we actually weren't using the same key, but that would nullify their argument.
-- My life's goal is to get a score of +3!
Re:Avoid lag?!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
blizzard doesn't have to run battle.net, and they certainly don't make any money from it! unless blizzard plans to make battle.net a source of revenue, for example with a subscription fee, then it really isn't an issue if anyone can run their own master server. regardless of these arguments, anyone can reverse engineer the functioning of the battle.net server and implement their own version, like bnetd, and use and distribute it, unless it is protected by patent.
Re:Avoid lag?!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
please mod this person with the very extremely low user id up several points as they are a voice of reason amidst blathering fanatics. thank you.
It really doesn't make sense. If they use CD Keys that are secure at all they could easily create a Key server and let people submit keys all day without losing security.
Look at Q3. There are many ways to play online with a valid key, but there haven't been any attacks against the keys directly.
I don't know specifically what they did, but I assume it's something like this.
Generate random number (as securely as possible) SHA1 the number (hash it) Write down the hash
Distribute the original number as a CD key, the game hashes this and sends the hash to the keyserver which checks that this hash is valid. The keygen then notes that for the next five minutes, the client's IP is allowed to play.
Servers check with the keyserver when a client tries to connect. If the keyserver says to allow them, they do. (A cracked server skips this step.)
There's pretty well no way for this to be compromised. (Well, as long as your original random numbers are random. But this is pretty easy, considering you can use physical devices, your choice of algorithms, etc, etc)
Blizzard could easily implement this. In fact, it's probably easier than having some special pattern of numbers that's secure. There's also no secret that they must keep (except the list of valid #s, and that doesn't have to sit online).
So really, no, it doesn't make a lot of sense.
What about a rating
by
asmithmd1
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
The article doesn't mention cheating or a peer rating system like Ebay. This is something an online gaming community can add so that when you are tring to find a partner you have some idea how he has behaved in the past
The way cheating is handled in chess.net is that an account is marked as an abused after a couple instances of cheating. Of course people can and do create new accounts, but it is at least something.
-- I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Re:What about a rating
by
Rudeboy777
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I've considered this in the past, and I think it would really help a game like Starcraft where there are many hackers out to spoil everyones fun (most notably using the dreaded 'map hack' which reveals all hidden terrain). Some sort of a system where players who suspect another player can make an 'accusation' which will stay on the opposing players record for X amount of time. Only one accusation per player of course, and perhaps some way of preventing all of a players buddies from making accusations because their friend said to (this is a little more tricky...)
What appeals to me most about this is that it's ultimately the community spirit working against cheaters as opposed to trying to stay ahead of them technologically (we've all seen how well that works)
Personally, I don't regularly "shop" at EBay, but I've heard that some of the ratings are inflated quite a bit, and that actual comment feedback is the thing to read up on (e.g. if they have more than 3 really bad comments, don't buy/sell to them).
If you add comments to players, this can lead to all sorts of abuse especially in a competitive envirornment (what you won against me? you're a cheater!), and who wants to read up on comments about playing someone? Shouldn't we just play the game?
Um, if you read the bottom of the piece, it says that the March article will deal with online cheating.
-- Is this thing on? Hello?
Re:What about a rating
by
Klatma
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Its not that tricky to keep all of someones friends from giving one guy a bad rating. You must have actually played a game with the player before you can rate the player.
This system sounds appealing to me. I could see someone who is accused of cheating because he clobbers everyone, and know that it will be a challenge to beat this guy, because he is either really good or he cheats. So then I can either accept a challenging game or not play against this person.
But it is so easy to sign up for accounts on most systems that if someone is accused of cheating too much they can just create a new account and start with a fresh rating. But overall a system like this would be good.
Re:What about a rating
by
demo9orgon
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
You have a great idea here. I stopped playing Starcraft/Broodwar against anonymous vermin a long time ago because some d00d thought that after we had destroyed the enemy that I was the enemy. I beat his ass so bad he dropped, but it still didn't do much for the feeling that this punk thought he could beat my ass after being my _buddy_. That crap does not fly in my book, so I only play with honorable people. The same stuff happened to my wife, and she found the whole online sc/bw scene repugnant and hasn't bothered going back.
In general, there's a whole asshole brigade of young online gamers who don't feel their online actions matter. That is a bad attitude, and a terrible way to conduct oneself.
The merit of a such a system lies in how identities are tied to a CD-Key. So if someone is an asshole, their bad karma is going to tail them unless they pay Blizzard and their Vivendi handlers for another chance at redemption. Sure there should be some kind of amnesty plan, but the whole system is going to require some kind of lock-step policing; a policy which would automatically invalidate bogus ratings. So that at the end of the game, when you're looking at the "Save Replay", or "Exit" options, there would be another, "Rate Players", which would bring up an interface that would include all of the MEAT players you just threw down with, some simple radio buttons for each (rate the behavior of your friends/opponents --based on the Alliance status when the game concluded) with 1 to 5 (1 being fscking sphincter to 5 being excellent), and a 255 character "comment" field, suitable for nice words like, "turncoat,cheating, bastard".
In the end, with a free service, and a very non-free implementation cost, to Blizzard, the ends are probably not worth the cost to implement. This is to be expected, and maybe there's a niche here for a 3rd. party to step in and provide a most excellent service which arbitrates the honor of people who would feel better about getting into a game with someone who is really interested in a "3 vs. 3 CPU!!!" instead of "1 vs. 2 vs. 3 CPU!!!", or the ever popular variant "2 cheaters vs. 1 pigeon", or the "Newbie!" games.
Hey, where's a venture capitalist when you need them!!!?
-- Every new form of media has it's own Requirimento
I find that todays game players are spoiled and demand more and more from a game in both graphics and robustness.
You can always judge the quality of a game player by asking if they have ever used a MUD. I honestly think this is a genres of Multiplayer gaming which has been tossed to the wayside by 13 year olds who have never heard of a BBS and want to push the limits of their new GeForce4 as to show off to their friends.
Talk about robustness, anyone who can remember MajorMUD or Tele-Arena know what I'm talking about.
I just honestly think game makers need to look back and reignite the Text Based RPG craze. I honestly feel there's money to be made in it.
Only reason text based was popular was because there wasn't enough horse power for graphics. It was the quality of the game that made it poular. There were probably a few bad text based games. Just like today's graphically rich games. There are good and bad, just like in all products. Text based isn't better than graphics. And what's wrong with trying to see what your new $300 video card is capable of? Some of us can't wait for the day when game graphics will be indistinguishable from real life.
Re:My comment..
by
WndrBr3d
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Many of todays game makers have tried to pack the robustness of old Text Based games into a graphcial interface but they're failed miserably. There's only so much you can do with the mouse.
What, are we going to turn this into an argument akin to the Command Shell camp vs. the GUI Shell camp? Come on, they're different beasts. If you like text games, that's great. But there are tonnes of us out here that WANT graphics and don't give 2 shits about text based games, especially in this day and age.
Besides, whether it's text based or graphical really has NOTHING to do with a games multiplayer capabilities at all.
Really, have you ever transmitted plain text vs. graphical XYZ coordinates over an analog line ?? Yeah, call me when you do. Until then, get back on the short bus.
bah, I was around when MUDs were fairly popular. I never played one. Never. They did not appeal to me. The days of text gaming ended w/my Vic20 and the cartridge of Dracula's Dungeon.
Granted, I don't show off my GeForce4 b/c I don't own one (I don't play anything except Quake1CTF and due to extremely high ping times for some reason *cough* woh.rr.com *cough* I can't even do that).
But how the hell could you compare gaming of yester-millenium to games of today?
I am waiting for broadband GT3. Now that would be fucking sweet.
I played a MUD for 5 years, damn near cost me my degree I got so addicted. Now though I never touch it.
There are still loads of MUDs about, if you want to play one, then go ahead.
You can hardly have a text based FPS though can you?
Flight sim? Car game?
Conceeded, you do have a point about the amount of data transferred for a plain text vs graphical multiplayer system but, this still doesn't change the fact that me and millions others really don't give a shit how fast a MUD transmits data at all because we aren't going to play anyways, period.
Sigh. I miss the old days of playing Galactic Warzone. It wasn't widely played, but it blew Tradewars away completely.
Does anyone remember a game called Omega as well? It was like Ultima with ASCII graphics, where you could traverse the actual world, not just the dungeons. One of the coolest (and most frustrating features) was that after the sun went down, the ghosts of the monsters you killed came looking for you again.
Now THAT was gameplay:)
Re:My comment..
by
FortKnox
·
· Score: 1, Redundant
How true your comments are.
I am a MUD admin, and am, currently, building a mud from scratch using Java1.4 (using all the OO goodness).
Compairing a MUD player today in a graphical game universe is like talking about someone that reads books instead of (or in addition to) watching movies. They prefer to use imagination instead of being led the route.
I always ended up scripting muds. Not that i didn't like the gameplay but for godsake 832300232 exp needed for my quad 30 to level and a cap of 250,000 per battle(not grouped)... give me a freakin break! give me a quake3 game where i can just pop in get a few frags and pop out. sweet salvation! btw, every played nethack? oooooh now THAT will push a geforce4 to it's limits.
I don't know if spoiled is quite it. More to the point, I think some games spend too much attention on graphics, sounds, special effects, and not enough on making a good, playable game. That's true of all game genres, not just multi-player online games.
If you're looking for a MUD, even a text-based one, they're still out there:
NetHack - successor to Rogue, the granddaddy of them all
If what you're looking for isn't listed, check out the The MUD Connector
Re:My comment..
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
If you think there's still a market, then why don't you write one for a text only medium such as pagers or cells, or something like that. Then you'll be able to see whether or not it is indeed financially feasible.
I'll say what I said then when I was on top of it: Programming MUDs is one of the best ways to learn how to program. First you need to understand how the MUD works internally, then you add features to it until you actually have to refine it so that your feature can be implement it. And oh yeah, you don't have to be an artist or a mathematician to program it, you just need some fantasy and understand a fair amount of logic.
I somehow think you are missing a bit of the point. Today's graphic on-line universes are being plagued by players who are destroying the world. The reason (in my opinion) being the designers are concentrating too much on the coolest graphics and not enough on the consequences of cheating and the like. So, the designers should look to the MUDs on how to run a community instead of a free for all deathmatch.
But that is just my opinion, I could be wrong.
-- The flying hamster of DOOM rains coconuts on your pitiful city.
Re:My comment..
by
EvilKat
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Frankly, I would like to see some multiplayer graphical games out there that take the concepts presented in text-based games and make them available in an image-based form.
Things like, allowing private individuals to design worlds and host games (without having to pay the company except to buy a copy of the game), setting up the rules and scripts/code the way they want it for their domain, being able to add areas onto the worldmap as they wish, just like in text-based RPGs, being able to make players apply for characters, so that you don't just get the trigger-happy PKers, the ability for admin who are not employed by any software company to boot/fire undesirables from the game (the ones that are ruining it for everyone else)... What I'd like to see is a graphical game which centers more on roleplay and less on getting stats/artifacts/levels-up. But then, I've always been big on MUSHes (RP-centered text-based games). I guess I just wish someone would make a graphical version of PennMUSH.:)
Your use of the word 'was' is somewhat disturbing. The use of text based MUDs is still very alive and very kicking, plus it has a number of advantages over your silly graphics. 1. Everythin looks the way I think it should look. 2. People on MUDs seem to be more involved with helping one another and enjoying the game as a community. Versus your version where people seem to play to see who can come up with the best scam. 3. The majority of the reason for this discussion: lag. Yes, on-line lag happens even with text based games. But, I promise you that it is only momentary and doesn't happen often enough to become a nuisance. (Sometimes I even enjoy the break) 4. With experience comes wisdom. Text based games have probably been around longer than you have, they have had more time to develop and grow.
Personally I am afraid of the day that graphics will be indistinguishable from real life, then people like you will have no reason to leave it and gain other real life skills; such as conversing without using the words 'shit' or 'fuck'.
But thats just my opinion, I could be wrong.
-- The flying hamster of DOOM rains coconuts on your pitiful city.
If, by GT3 you mean Gran Turismo, then wait patiently for about a year and a half...
GT4 has been officially announced and will be network-ready (it replaces the GTN expansion) and will ship in Japan mid-2003 and will probably be in North American hands a few months later.
GT4 is said to include variable weather and time as well as new tracks from China and somewhere I can't recall at the moment. All this I got from my latest PSM2 maazine.
There's also going to be a PC GT as well.
GTRacer
- Time to subscribe to broadband, no?
-- Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
You could try to make the same analogy between books and television -- but as you can tell, books are still fairly popular.
Text based isn't better than graphics.
The original poster didn't say that they were. He just said that he thought that there was a still a decent market for them, and I think that he's probably right.
Re:My comment..
by
Zathrus
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
And what's wrong with demanding more robustness and graphics from modern games? Oh, that's right, you have fallen into the delusion that text based games are inherently better than their graphical counterparts. The belief that there will never again be as good of an adventure game as Zork (or Dungeon for that matter), that text MUDs were the apex of the ORPG genre, and that first person shooters are inherently sucky.
Of course, we will ignore the thousands upon thousands of MUDs, text-based adventure games, and so forth that outright sucked because they didn't have a cohesive world, storyline, had a broken interface, impossible-to-decipher riddles, broken code, or any one of a number of other issues. Clearly the fact that successful games usually had all of the above in working order doesn't mean anything.
Do you work for Hollywood? You know, that group of "big brains" that thinks the next Big Thing is to make computer generated movies, since Pixar and Dreamworks have been so successful (and thus ignoring that Toy Story, Bug's Life, Shrek, and Monster's, Inc. succeeded due to a combination of script, acting, direction, AND technology; not technology alone).
Yes, I played a text mud long, long ago. And found it boring and uninteresting. I quit after a couple weeks at best. Verant, on the other hand, has commanded $10/mo from me for nearly three years because EverQuest, despite it's flaws, has proved to be enjoyable for the most part. There are tons of things in EQ that annoy me, but the good bits outweigh the bad most of the time (and when they don't, I take a break, as I'm doing currently).
Future MMORPG designers not only have to get the carrot-stick model right (which is pretty much the only thing I think Verant did), but also incorporate a rich world, an intriguing storyline (as much as you can given the MM part), a good interface, and a rich graphical world. Oh, and yes, it'll have to be robust too. Or you'll have to have deep pockets to run in the red until it becomes robust (c.f. Anarchy Online - I hear it doesn't suck rocks now. I don't care to find out.)
And, slightly offtopic, but one of the biggest challenges they'll find is convincing jaded MMORPG players to come to them. I know that after playing EQ I have no desire to play another MMORPG, since I understand exactly how much of a time investment it implies.
Not terribly impressed w/GT3's handling but I assume that will improve in GT4.
I have been playing GT1 for years, just got GT3 this past December. I will patiently wait for GT4:)
Re:My comment..
by
Ixohoxi
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
You don't even realize that you are agreeing with him, 100%, do you? Game quality was essential when the focus WAS the game. Now the focus is usually the graphics first, then network play, then the gameplay. The games that get the awards are the ones who don't exactly follow that recipe.
Games these days are quite like women. They keep getting prettier, but not necessarily any better; they may provide more stimulus, but that doesn't guarantee more pleasure. Just some free association there... take offense only if you're the offensive type.
And speaking of the ladies, I know why you can't wait for the day when graphics are indistinguishable from real life... you naughty little boy. Get a real life, don't rely on graphics to make it look like you have one. "And what's wrong with trying to see what your new $300 video card is capable of?" Are you by chance the exact 14 year-old the previous poster was referring to?
--
What's a second? An hour? A day? It has much more to do with the Earth's rotation than with cesium.
and some of us like to use our imagination. not leave it to the game developer's art department.
I still love q3 and rtcw, but I still love to fire up Supernova and Zork! It's all about personal preference... don't just assume text games are all worse-off than their graphical counterparts.
Sure, 3D effect-laden graphics that need the Ti4600 to run are certainly far more popular, but don't generalize so much
Omega, the roguelike, is still floating around.
Old versions can be had from the
official distribution page.
The game is still under on-again,
off-again development by William
Tanksley (the third person to helm
its development). More recent builds
of his work can be found over at
Sourceforge.
Re: game makers needing to focus more on text-based games
There is at least one company out there that focuses on text-based gaming. They're called Simutronics and they're based in St. Louis.
They do some interesting work. The game I'm most familiar with is called Dragonrealms (a fantasy RPG) and though the complexity is amazing, that has made for a decently steep learning curve.
I certainly have my issues with some of the approaches they've taken to developing the games, but I have to admit that the sheer size and detail involved is impressive.
I'm personally more comfortable in text than graphics most of the time, so I was very pleased to find a professionally run game of this type. If anyone is aware of other companies doing similar work, I'd be interested to see them.
And if anyone wants to take a look at the Simutronics games, their website is http://www.play.net
Only reason text based was popular was because there wasn't enough horse power for graphics.
Nope. MUDs are alive and kicking today. And FWIW you will still find a significant number of players on a mud.
Yeah. The only reason people made text-based games was because they couldn't do graphics.
It's the same with books and films. Now that we can do cool special effects in films, no-one bothers writing novels anymore.
Right.
-- If you can't see this, click here to enable sigs.
This would've helped when...
by
Ron+Harwood
·
· Score: 2
I was planning BlackNova Traders... there's a couple of points that aren't covered in a lot of game design books (a lot of which think everything is either RTS or FPS).
Even the basics are hard
by
SilentChris
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I remember trying to do a simple multiplayer turn-based game in CS class a few years ago (a Risk clone) and even that was hard. Creating the network tools by hand, it was a challenge to get the server to properly handle the back and forth timing required (send move request, wait for request, take in request/send out another one?) I can just imagine a realtime game where every second counts.
Although, I don't think some of the algorhythms in place right now for latency (for example, Quake III Arena) are much better. I don't think it's fair to allow the computer to "judge" modem players' moves, and try to determine "if" the player would have got the hit. Not only is this unfair to the player (when they get to a real LAN tournament they'll be roasted), it's also unfair to the vet with a decent connection, because the newbie in essense gets a free hit. I would propose figuring out better ways to communicate over the network instead of trying to second guess the players' moves with algorhythms.
Re:Even the basics are hard
by
Jack_of_Hearts
·
· Score: 1
Your proposal couldn't be less realistic. Instead of a game company trying to make allowances for lag within the game, you think that they should simply try to improve networking? Is this a joke? Game companies couldn't dream of making even a small improvement with the budget they have. Kludgy or not, the little in-game hacks that they use are the best method available to them.
Also, it's algorithm, not algorythm. We're not talking about music.
Re:Even the basics are hard
by
SilentChris
·
· Score: 2
I can use the analogy of security which is frequently told on Slashdot: it can't be bolted on, it has to be designed from the beginning. What's better? Fixing the underlying network code or tacking-on an improvement which, in fact, gives an intentionally vastly different game experience for each player?
I'm also not really sure where your insult is being targetted, or even what it is. Not all game makers rely on the default DirectNet or TCP/IP stacks to create their games. Some create their own stacks (I recall Carmack saying they had to create their own IP stack for Quake on Dreamcast). If you rely on the existing network code, you're relying on what someone else perceived as the best way to optimize the packets were - whether this was a game or not. The better programmers (for example, in first-person shooting, id and Epic) create highly-optimized, usually UDP-based solutions. If they relied on the exact same code as the original, for example, used to spit out web pages, most players would be toast.
Re:Even the basics are hard
by
Zathrus
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
You're still not making sense. In fact, less sense than you were originally.
First you say not to "rely on the existing network code", and then you talk about creating "highly-optimized [...] UDP-based solutions". What do you think UDP is? It's existing network code. The only magic being perfomed is the data inside of the packets. Everything else - from the trivial handshaking to the deeply important things like encoding, transport, routing, etc. utilize existing code. What the previous poster was saying is that you are asking them to rewrite THAT code, and that is outright absurd. Go ahead and do so, but if you expect people to actually use it beyond a home LAN then they're going to stuff it into a TCP/IP packet which is not only going to undo any magic you may've done, but add additional overhead on top of it.
To go back to your original complaint, if you'd like to see how things work without having everyone using prediction, just turn it off. You can you know (and sorry, I'm not enough of a Quakehead anymore to recall the correct variable). Welcome to hell. There's a reason that id, Epic, and everyone else has started using player prediction on both the servers and the clients. Without it you're limited to the lowest common denominator for network traffic. Think back to Doom and how much it sucked when someone with a shitty computer or ethernet drivers connected to the game.
The key to player prediction is the right balance. Too much prediction and you get a lot of silly things like modem players shooting people on OC-3's after they're down the hall and around 3 corners. Too little and you make it unusable for anyone not on an OC-3.
Re:Even the basics are hard
by
Score+Whore
·
· Score: 1
Rewriting any kind of IP/UDP/TCP level stack is just stupid. The overhead that you incur, on the local system, is measured in microseconds. It's the activity "out there" on the net that starts adding the hundreds of milliseconds. At the software level, on the local machine, there just isn't much you can do to fix external network problems. For dialup users you have the issues of your modem collectiong data until it gets a full buffer for compression and error correction (and the buffer size can't typically be determined programatically.) These are hardware issues and software won't fix it.
Re:Even the basics are hard
by
mrpotato
·
· Score: 2
algorhythm: a computer process making a computation that must be done repetively over a fixed period of time.
--
cheers
Oxymoron...social gamers
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0, Funny
"On-line gaming is a very social experience" Does anyone else find this statement amusing? Granted, this might be high socialization for the average geek. Many folks still insist that a social experience requires actual 3-Dimensional people! Is this statement indicative of a cultural shift?
Re:Oxymoron...social gamers
by
artemis67
·
· Score: 5, Funny
True, most of the "social interaction" in online games consists of the following statements:
"You f***ing lagger! Relog now!" "Stupid newbie!" "WTF? You hacker!" "Camper!!! Kick that f***ing camper!" "0wned!" "Ha ha you suck!" "You #!@% Q#% @!#%$ piece of @#%$!"
Re:Oxymoron...social gamers
by
alcmena
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I used to run my own Counter-Strike server, and I couldn't agree with your post more. It got so bad that I eventually wrote a program that punishes people when they would complain about laggers, campers, cheaters, etc. The punishment was 50% of your health. Do it three times, you're gagged and can only talk to your team. Three more, you're kicked. Three more, you're banned for an hour.
I'm usually one who is strongly against filters, but I have to admit, this one did wonders. People learned to either be civil towards each other, or they learned to be quiet.
Re:Oxymoron...social gamers
by
Slowping
·
· Score: 1
I agree with you completely, and I think this raises an interesting point about people on the web in general.
I remember years ago, when the web was first booming into the average home, I saw a comic in the local newspaper describing how funny it was that grandma was flaming someone on the Net.
It raises the question of why people act so ugly on the web when hidden behind the anonymity of an alias. In real life, your identity is harder to disguise or change, and there is a real threat of some kind of meaningful retailation/consequence for how you behave socially. But it is usually not so online. I am against filters too, but maybe people in general really are incapable of acting civil without fear of consequence. I've seen plenty of cases of mature 14 year olds and immature 60 year olds. I don't think we can blame it all on the teen-kiddies.
Anyways, just my 2 cents tacked on to your good post.
-- (\(\
(^.^)
(")")
*beware the cute-bunny virus
Re:Oxymoron...social gamers
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
>> People learned to either be civil towards each other, or they learned to be quiet.
Well, it didn't work very well: one person -- you -- didn't learn to be civil towards the others.
Cheaters really bother, and if I had the displeasure of using your server, I would leave before your lame filter did its act on me.
You can ban anyone for being unpolite, no doubt. But ban those who complain and allow the cheaters to stay! WTF?
Players are guests. Don't treat them bad. -Moral- comes before -law- (and manners, in this case).
Re:Oxymoron...social gamers
by
alcmena
·
· Score: 2
I had no problem banning cheaters by WON ID and by IP, if they really were cheating. I ran two different cheater detection systems (TSC and PunkBuster, when it worked). The problem was that any player who had been on the server more then a month was constantly being accused of cheating by the new players. People who had played with each other for a while would form teams and use stratagy (gasp!) would whomp on the new people. The classic run and shoot didn't work, so rather than learn and get better, people would shout "[insert player who killed you] is cheating!"
I'd venture to say that less than one out of twenty players accused of cheating actually was. And I know from personal experience that being called a cheater every time you play, when you know you are not cheating, makes the game less fun in a hurry.
When the filter was installed, a lot of the accusations disappeared. The game became more pleasant as those who thought they had skill, but didn't, left when they realized their cries only brought them more grief. The average skill on the server kept rising, and it became more fun for everyone.
I think the number one problem with online games is cheating. There have been countless times where I have been totally addicted to a game, and then a cheat ruins all the fun. People play online games because it is so much more exciting to compete against a real person. If the game becomes unbalanced, players will either move on to another game or use the cheat themselves.
I think the number one problem with online games is cheating.
And the number one reason for that is
underestimation of
the number one security rule,
i.e. Never trust the client.
The reason for that, I believe, is
trying to get better performance at the cost of
security,
but with online multiplayer games,
the risk can be often to high.
That's a bit much though. If you aren't some world class Quake player, having some bot using lamer always shoot you with the railgun the first time your model's clipping plane is in sight (then calling you a "fag") just isn't very fun.
We hope you have enjoyed this article. Check back in March for our upcoming article on one of the most controversial issues in Internet gaming today: Dealing with Online Cheating.
The idea behind setting up a game and giving it rules to create an artificial constraint that everyone agrees to work within. The important part is that agreement. Sure, you can technologically bend and break the rules, but that doesn't make it right. The idea is to level the field somewhat and then make it a battle of skill and wits WITHIN the constraints of the game.
The big problem with cheating is identification. If you want to go out and duel against other bot builders then it's a fair competition. Other people are out there trying to move and react as quickly as they can but within the rules. If you present yourself as one of those people (the "nearly undetectable" comment) then you should play within those rules.
So, I'm glad that you get a huge power kick out of being able to dupe people trying to play within the bounds, but you've completely missed the point. Note: The Matrix is a horrible example to justify your actions. The Matrix is about revolution and fighting tyranny, not getting the highest number of frags.
-- ---
I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
I would maintain that you've missed the point of games. If it was true that in games "You are supposed to win by any means necessary," then I would posit that most games would be unplayable. If you took the field in Football and the other team's coach shoots you with a sniper rifle, that would be winning by any means necessary. Games have rules for a reason.
The example you brought up to support your point isn't valid. Even if we disregard that Matrix is a movie, not a game, the premise is closer to a war than a game. The war is between humans and the machines. Any means necessary can be more valid in a war setting than a game setting.
I would also say that you've completely missed the point of gaming. I can out ride a 3 year old, but it doesn't make it fun. Maybe you can take your obvious skills and pit them against other bot-makers and try to see how fun that might be. Which bot maker is the best, etc. Try it, you may have something that you've been missing -- real fun.
Just in case you are not just trolling....
Given your assumptions, your conclusion seems to make sense. However, another possibility is that people play games to have fun, not to win by any means necessary. If hacking is fun for you that is great, however it does seem to ruin the experience for many other players. I don't mind losing at a game as long as I play my best, and I do not get a thrill from winning if I know I have cheated. It feels great to win, if I am playing a challenging opponent though.
That's one way to look at it... a shitty way, but one way.
Alternatively, why not look at it like a sporting contest, such as tennis. When you go out to play tennis (or raquetball, or whatever) with someone, is your goal to bend the rules and win at all costs? Or is the goal to have fun competing within the mutually agreed upon ruleset?
f you took the field in Football and the other team's coach shoots you with a sniper rifle, that would be winning by any means necessary.
Exactly. This already happens. Look at Ohio State Buckeyes coach John Cooper, who was fired because the NCAA was investigating him for ordering his defensive players to damage/maim the opposing quarterback in a bowl game. Sure, he got busted by the NCAA, but for years he did the same thing with a great deal of success; in fact, training to damage and maim oppsing players was a key to his success. He is an example of a man who knew how to break through and think outside the box.
Try it, you may have something that you've been missing -- real fun.
Trust me, every time I get to play a deathmatch against you "level playing field" people I have LOTS of fun splattering you up against the wall.
-- If guns kill people, then CmdrTaco's keyboard misspells words.
You can't be serious. You are not living in a computer generated construct, you are not Neo. You aren't going to wake up one day and suddenly discover you have god-like powers. Trust me on this.
As far as gaming goes, there's something called sport. You might not be familiar with it, but the object of a computer game is not to "win by any means necessary." It's a game, not social reform. The object is to enjoy yourself, preferably with like-minded competitors who are in it for the fun of friendly competition.
The beauty isn't in winning any way you can, it's in winning within the agreed upon parameters of the game. If it's life and death, anything goes. If it's a game, follow the rules.
-- "When it rains, it pours." --Morton's Salt
Re:cheating
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
you are really a fuckin idiot, do you realize it? the aim of the game is to have fun, not to win. eh, sucks to be you.
I think this is because they don't understand that they're thinking inside the box. A computer game is a construct; a player is someone attempting to defeat that construct.
You're the one who seems to be lacking a great deal of understanding, as well as maturity. People play games because they want to think "inside the box." They set up that situation to test their abilities at a certain task. The real world is what's "outside the box," where almost anything goes. I'm sorry you can't bring your super-duper-ultra-l33t Quake bot to McDonald's to flip burgers for you so you can stay home working on new ways to DDoS people trying to play a game and otherwise bring your miserable anti-social tendencies into everyone's face. If you think that the ability to write an undetectable cheatbot makes you akin to some sort of fictional movie character, or a God, or someone who controls the Universe, all things you've said, you've got some sort sort of delusional disorder. You're one thing: an immature, snotty little punk who, if you were one tenth as good as you think you are, would be the one creating those games, working with the developers whose gift to the players you destroy, and earning the adulation of those players you sneer at. But you're not. You're sitting at home, writing your little bots and developing a god complex simply because you're unable to accept your own personal failings and blame the world for what's wrong with your life so you seek to bring it down to your own level. It's the only way to feel good about yourself. Congratulations on your contribution to humankind.
> I can walk into nearly any deathmatch in the world and win with nearly no effort at all. Like Neo. Like God!
I have a game you'd really like. The UI consists of a "play" button and a high-scorers widget. Every time you click "play" you win, and your name is added to the top of the high-scorers list, with a score one point higher than the highest score already there.
This is the most fun game I've ever played. I've never lost! My score gets better every time I play!!! I feel like God's own God when I played it!!!!!
Well, he might be Neo. Only someone really anal retentive would make a bot. To keep himself regular, he has to eat a liquid diet of that slop they ate on the Nebudchanezzar.
The object of taking part (as an amateur) is to have fun playing the game.
The object of the game is to win, within the rules of the game.
Playing outside of the rules means you are quite happy with the concept of spoiling the game for other people. They are not sore losers, because you cheated. Children cheat because they don't fully appreciate the need for rules, and are testing their boundaries.
Summary: Adults have no excuse for cheating, other than that they haven't fully grown up yet.
Back to the article:
It's well written. And only today, there was memepool mentioning an article on why modern video games are rubbish. but it does show that game design and balance is at least as important as flashy graphics.
It's the cheating aspect (item farmers, lag hackers) that turns a lot of people off multiplayer games - and when the company moderating steps in to stop it, what do we see. They get sued (see previous/. article) by the childish idiots who are getting their jollies at the expense of the people who paid expecting a "game".
I'd say let the troll alone. But if all the people who wanted to play within the rules left, there wouldn't be anyone left but the cheaters - and they're not interested in playing each other as they might lose (god forbid)!
Reading the other comments, I would suspect that most people just don't understand that Exmet Paff Daxx is just another grief player. Just another guy that gets kicks ruining your good time. Maybe mother dropped him/her/it on the ground one too many times as a baby. We'll never know, but it's a simple fact that a small (but very annonying) group of players always will be grief players. You don't get these guys in board games, cause people just wont play with them. However, the anonominity and scale of the internet has allowed these people to fully express their hatred for other people's good time. Quake, EQ, UO, UT, SC, whatever game you like, they will be there to stop you from having fun. Fortunatly most game developers have programmed their games in such a way as to hinder/stop most grief players. UO had lots of problems with players killing and maming players, but they worked through the problems and now the grief players don't have the impact on the game they once had. You can't get rid of them, but you can minimize their impact. That's why you can start a private server.
And I believe most people disagree with you. You are creating your own rules. You are not supposed to win by any means necessary. What you describe, is akin to bringing an extra queen to a chess match and putting it on the board when you want. I can see it now. "Hey you can't just put that queen there and checkmate me." You reply, "Well, I just did and I won. Haha." To use the Matrix analogy... We are all outside the Matrix and choose to enter it to test our abilities to win, within the rules that we have agreed to. Not by reprogramming the Matrix to play for us.
And the number one reason for that is underestimation of the number one security rule, i.e. Never trust the client.
No doubt that most network game designers need to read some good network programming books (or just Stevens), but even if games had a 100% solid protocol you'd still have auto-aimers in FPS games. I'm sure there are plenty of other cheats that don't involve taking advantage of the network.
I try to help them, but like Neo knew, sometimes the best solution is just to kill them as many times as you can.
Actually I find cheating to be boring and obnoxious. It's not really a test of skill or intellect. I prefer to win games by simply being better than my opponents.
No one wins when you cheat, because by cheating you've removed any chance to win.
I like to annoy cheaters in Half-Life TFC. Most common (or most obvious) is the auto aim or auto trigger cheats that net a sniper a headshot every time. I'll switch teams and play something really spammy like a demoman or soldier and bounce my new cheating teammate all over the place. If he switches teams so do I. If he switches characters he's suddenly lost most of his advantage (auto aim does wonders with the shotgun but isn't the instant death that the sniper deals). I've run more cheaters off that way than any other.
If you Never trust the client. then you absolutely cannot create an online game. At some point you have to trust the client. And there is absolutely no way to prevent someone from hacking the client for auto-aim, auto-dodge, etc. And if somebody wants to spend the time, it becomes ever more difficult to detect the difference between a person using a highly advanced auto-aim and a good player.
Actually, having played a lot of Quake over the years, I can tell you that there comes a point, that no matter how well you played, it's not fun when the other team is cheating. It would kind of be like playing tug of war with a Peterbuilt: for 99.9999% of the population it's just a pointless exercise in defeat, and no matter what you do, you can't have any effect on the outcome of the contest.
Re:cheating
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I wouldn't call this guy's post a troll. As a matter of fact, I'd mod it up if I could. Winning and having fun is the point of a game.
If you Never trust the client. then you absolutely cannot create an online game. At
some point you have to trust the client. And there is absolutely no way to prevent
someone from hacking the client for auto-aim, auto-dodge, etc.
I was talking more about
strategy and MMORPG games than about FPS.
Remember that online game is a term
describing much more than just Quake.
So I mean situations where human intellect
is more important than auto-dodge.
I don't play FPS games, I find them boring
and repetitive
(please take no offense,
this is strictly my personal opinion),
but if I was designing one,
I would include scripting of characters behavior,
as an integral part of the game.
Players would focus on the strategy
instead of manual skills.
But then again, maybe it's not what
FPS fans would like.
even if games had a 100% solid protocol
you'd still have auto-aimers in FPS games.
Of course, but this is the kind of cheat which
will always be possible.
That is because of the nature of the problem.
Shooting to the target
is the kind of problem which is
better solved by the machine than by a human.
I would solve it in a different way:
characters could be set to automatically aim
to the enemies (as an integral part of the game,
not as a cheat) but when he shoots,
the decision if the target was hit
is made by the server,
depending on many factors
(like if the character and target are running,
if the character is tired, hurt, far from
target, etc.).
It would not only solve the auto-aim
cheat problem, but would also make the game more
realistic.
My point is that when you have online
multiplayer game,
where people from the whole planet
play the game on their own computers,
the only sane assumption is that
sooner or later
(usually sooner than expected)
someone will use a hacked client.
So if you don't want cheats,
you can't depend on strictly manual skills,
which would be extremely easy for a machine,
like aiming to targets.
Otherwise, you'll have big trouble
when someone finally learns your protocol
or alters the client binary.
That could mean the end of fun for many people
and an endless fight against cheaters
for the game developers.
I like the idea of WorldForge project, which I think will be introduced
with Mason
and Werewolf, i.e.
to integrate into the game
the AI scripting of PCs
with identical possibilities as the AI of NPCs.
There'll be lots of ready to use scripts
and some GUI script builder, as well as
a possibility to write the scripts
(currently in Python).
So you'll be able to program your character
to always run away when he's attacked by someone
taller than him,
or otherwise always instantly hit the offender
in the face.
But also more general tasks, like eat when
he's hungry, buy food when he has no food,
find food when he has no money, etc.
That way when you don't play the game,
your character can still do something
useful, unlike most of MMORPGs where the
character usually just stands still or
disappear.
Thanks to that,
there's no point in cheating with
the client by e.g.
setting your character to automatically
train his skills for many hours,
because everyone can
easily program his character to do the same,
probably with just few clicks in the GUI.
Check out the Cyphesis,
WorldForge AI/ALife engine.
There's still not much of documentation,
so the Cyphesis source code is the best reference.
So that's about the client itself.
On the other hand,
from the side of network protocol and
the clean client-server architecture,
the client never gets to much info,
and it's never trusted to make any decisions,
other than just send to the server what the
character wants to do (not even what he actually
does, just what he wants).
I'll quote part of the Atlas protocol summary,
my emphasis:
Atlas is standard protocol between server and client. It should
work with simple/complicated server and simple/complicated
client and with all combinations. ASCII version will use XML.
Server might be thought as body for character and client might
be thought as mind for character and protocol is neurons
connecting these.
Features
Flexible and transparently extensible
Works at the same time with old and new clients
Initially XML used for easy debugging and later
optimized binary format.
Transmits only changed information and server doesn't
need reveal any more it wants.
Usually assumption is
made that clients are hacked and thus are not
trustworthy.
See also the
Atlas Tutorial.
The standard implementation of Atlas is Atlas-C++,
the source code of which
can be great for anyone who wants
to learn multiplayer games related network
programming, and high quality network programming
in general.
For more about Atlas, check out the
Battleplan and
protocols at worldforge.org
mailing list
(see the archives of scripting@ for
discussion before 1999, and protocols@ for later and actual discussion).
So, the point is that not trusting the client is
the fundamental aspect of game design,
not just a feature to be added later.
There are and will be games designed around
open protocols (where you can easily
read and change the client-server traffic in
both ways),
free software clients
(which you can easily change),
and servers (which you can easily read
and find out how they work),
but those games
won't have problems with cheating
because of their design,
not because of
security through obscurity
like in most of games today.
That's why I always talk about WorldForge
when there's a discussion about
multiplayer games design, security and cheats
- these folks do it
exactly the way how it should be done.
Every time you click "play" you win, and your name is added to the top of the high-scorers list, with a score one point higher than the highest score already there.
I hacked your crappy game so that it presses the play button for me, in an infinite loop. Now, I can get a higher high score, much faster.
I'm like Neo's God now!
the number one problem with online games is cheating
Let the mists of time roll back to the early 1990's. A open source X11 game called Netrek was all the rage. It involved little spaceships flying around shooting at each other and capturing planets.
Now, I loved Netrek, but I sucked badly at it. So I decided to crack it and write a cyborg client that did all the hard stuff for me. Netrek had (has) a fairly robust RSA authentication scheme to try and stop this, with some clever tricks that a most commercial games still haven't caught on to. But I perservered, and managed to insert a spoofing borg in between a blessed client and a server. Hurrah!
So then I added all my borg features. Cloaked ships showed up on the tactical screen. My torpedoes auto-aimed. My shields flicked up and down by themselves, and my phasers would get and keep a mortal lock with one keypress. I even coded up complex behaviour, like engaging a suicide attack that coordinated engines, helm, weapons, defences and tractors to practically guaranteed mutual destruction against a more valuable ship. And what was the net result?
I was able to dedicate more time to read messages and become a better team player. And that was it. Because Netrek had been designed from day 1 to be cheat proof. There was simply very little advantage to be had from it.
Examples: I fired perfect vector torps, aimed precisely where my target was going to be. Only that was pointless against anyone halfway decent, because they would dodge them. Every time. Torpedoes in Netrek are used to deny areas of space, not just to destroy. I couldn't do that.
I could see cloaked ships on the tactical, sure, but the information I got from the server was bogus. Speed, direction and position were all wrong. The server only gave enough information to display vague ?? marks on the galactic map, so all I could do was to make myself more aware of an incoming cloaked ship.
I had defensive systems that were optimal at keeping me alive in a 1 on 1 duel, but Netrek is a team game. Sometimes you have to come in screaming at warp 9, yelling "Damn the torpedoes!" and take the bullet for your buddies. Or you drop shields to take a single hit on the hull, because you can repair hull and shields simultaneously. You don't always want to split damage though, it depends on the strategic situation, whether you think you can defeat your opponent and whether you need to keep your hull intact to maintain top speed to get somewhere else in a hurry. It's all about context.
Lesson learned. Each aspect of Netrek is simple. You shoot. You move. You carry armies. But the interactions are so complex as to make any automated response to any given situtation counterproductive. Add to that a paranoid server that trusts nothing, and tells the client the bare minimum (and occasionally lies) and you have a game that is effectively cheat proof. All that a hacked client could do was give a clueless player the illusion of being competent, and nothing more. It could make a small difference when used in the right place at the right time, but it couldn't get you to the right place at the right time, nor could it decide to hold fire and suck it up in preparation for getting you the hell out of there and off to somewhere more useful. Those decisions took skill and judgement. The best players still whipped my ass in personal combat, and the best teams absolutely creamed the teams that I played in.
Those really were the days, my friends.
-- If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
public class HelloWorld {
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("Hello World.");
} }
basic??
10: print "Hello World"; 20: goto 10
always looked good on a BBC:)
[for those of you who don't know, the ; on the end of the print line turned it into "print" rather than "println", i.e. it didn't append a CR, so the screen filled up totally]
--
----
Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
I think Blizzard is within its rights to try to stop these emulators.
First off, B.Net is a free service run at Blizzard's expense. The only catch is that you need a licensed copy of the game to connect to it. Second, they already have basic LAN connectivity (which doesn't require valid CD key's btw) for LAN parties and office shenanigans. Finally, they've been relatively responsive to upgrades to improve connectivity.
The use of B.Net ensures that everyone's patched to the same level and you don't have to worry about compromised servers trying to hack your client. Sure you need a licensed copy of StarCraft or other, but that's pretty small compared to the others with monthly access fees.
-- ---
I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
First off, B.Net is a free service run at Blizzard's expense. The only catch is that you need a licensed copy of the game to connect to it.
First off, a Bnet clone does not infringe on Blizzard's copyright. Secondly the clones generate no load on Bnet, so any arguments as to its freeness are specious.
I don't agree that Blizzard is justified in its efforts to shut down Bnet clones; all arguments i've seen in support of it seem to base themselves on Blizzard's business model. If multiple Bnet clones are created and it fragments Blizzard's audience to the point that people stop buying Starcraft and Warcraft 3, that's unfortunate, but it's not illegal.
-- "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala,
it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
A b.net clone can let people with pirated serial numbers for games play a b.net game. Say I run a popular b.net clone server that doesn't check for the game's serial number, a hundred people regularly connect to it and only twenty five of them have valid copies of the game. Blizzard has lost out on seventy five sales of the game and the pirates have no penalties for pirating the game. Blizzard makes megabucks you say and thus seventy five less sales isn't even a market statistic. What happens when there's thousands of people running b.net clones each with a hundred regular users a majority of which don't have valid copies of the game. That amounts to appriciable percentages of revenues being lost. It makes sense to disallow b.net clone servers even if those developers personally aren't infringing on any of Blizzard's copyrights. Warez copies of Warcraft 3 are going to hit servers weeks or days before the game is actually released, if these people can connect their warez copy of it to a b.net server that doesn't give a shit who copies the game Blizzard is going to lose out on a ton of sales because there's thousands of college and high school students with fat connections who don't feel they ought to pay for a video game.
-- I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Re:cool.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
So your argument is that everything that's bad for Blizzard should automatically "be disallowed" (made illegal)? Either that or you were attempting to dance around that guy's point and you ran smack into it.
Blizzard's claim seems to be that reverse-engineering a protocol that has security features is already illegal under the DMCA (copyright law). If true, then good-bye Samba, because after all that cuts into MS's CAL revenue stream...
A b.net clone can let people with pirated serial numbers for games play a b.net game
No, it can't. The people who use b.net clones are not playing battle.net games - that's the whole point.
But if your point is that bnetd allows people to play internet games with a "pirated" CD-Key, I have news for you - people can already do that! For example, with Diablo2, they just have to click the button that says "Other game", then "TCP/IP Game", and they can play with other people with their "pirated" CD-KEY.
The argument that the CD-KEY mechanism prevents people without official keys from playing multiplayer games is wrong.
Re:cool.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Blizzard is within its rights to try to stop these emulators
OK, please back up that assertion. I assert that Blizzard is NOT within its rights to try to stop these emulators.
B.Net is a free service run at Blizzard's expense. The only catch is that you need a licensed copy of the game to connect to it.
OK, granted, but what does this have to do with the emulators?
they already have basic LAN connectivity (which doesn't require valid CD key's btw) for LAN parties and office shenanigans.
OK, they already have internet connectivity (that doesn't require valid CD keys) as well. What's your point?
they've been relatively responsive to upgrades to improve connectivity
And what does this have to do with an emulator? Answer: NOTHING, just like the rest of your "argument."
Now, here's my reasoning:
Blizzard is NOT within it's rights to go after third party developer, because their rights are not being abused. Their copyrights are not being abused, their IP rights are not being abused, the emulators do not allow anyone to do anything they could not already do.
So by your logic, if b.net checking CD keys doesn't prevent piracy it should be allowed to be encouraged? My magic 8-ball tells me you're destined to run a company into the ground. I hope you don't have any authority somewhere I have a stake in. You don't seem to grasp the concept anyhow, if a thousand b.net servers pop up and a majority of them have people playing with pirated copies of b.net games Blizzard stands to lose megabucks.
Where did I say everything that's bad for Blizzard ought to be illegal? Maybe it is just my reading comprehension skills or something but I gleamed from rereading my post that I was providing a counterpoint to the claim of the original poster. It seems you like far too many slashdot readers think everything is free. Blizzard used the DMCA to shut down b.net clones, it is a shitty law and it is sad they had to resort to using it. However they're protecting their property by means of law. If you're so fucking worried about the DMCA nuking Samba out of existance donate some money and write some letters so people do some lobbying to strike down the DMCA so companies have to protect their property by more geek favorable means.
-- I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Re:cool.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
okay, but just because it's hard for you to sue the people who are redistributing your game illegaly and the people who are using those copies, and the people who are running the unauthorised clone servers, you go after the people who wrote the clone server code? while it may be the most effective way to "stop the bleeding" it would seem to have the weakest legal footing.
Re:cool.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
i may not be a lawyer, a judge, or a legislator, but i can assert with some confidence that the DMCA does not ban the reverse-engineering of software for the purpose of producing interoperable programs unless those programs attempt to prevent the copying of proprietary material (or if they covered by patent law, of course). this is obviously not true of the battle.net server, which authenticates users and allows them to participate in online games with other users. you could distribute as many illegal copies of blizzard's software as you like and use them to play games on battle.net or a bnetd clone with equal facility. it is not an "effective copy protection mechanism."
No, I'd have to say that by his logic, if Blizzard was concerned about this whole CD key issue, they would've put a simple check into their client code that would not let them play with other clients that are using the same CD key. Granted, this, like anything else, can and will be hacked around, but then we wouldn't be as upset about Blizzard shutting down a group of people that simply reverse engineered their matchmaking service. It has nothing to do with playing games at all...it's all matchmaking. The game itself doesn't care if it plays with other clients using the same key.
Re:cool.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
blizzard could lose money when they don't sell as many copies of their software as they expected, but the people who wrote a battle.net clone are not obligated to protect blizzard's source of revenue! if blizzard wants to hold the software "pirates" liable for lost (potential) sales, then it would seem they have some legal standing.
for example, let us say that i produce software A, which is designed to interoperate with service B, which i provide for free. now suppose someone else provides service B by way of a reverse-engineered widget C. some of my customers who have purchased software A decide to use service B from an alternate provider, someone who has acquired widget C. there are no "lost sales" in this hypothetical scenario. now suppose someone distributes illegal copies of software A, for which i receive no payment. who here is at fault? widget C is not doing the copying or distributing of software A.
Re:cool.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
1 pirate copy != 1 lost sale. i have shitloads of software i've pirated that i never would have bought normally... i have plenty of games that i've tried out pirate versions that ruled so i had to buy them (system shock 2, deus ex, halflife) and many that sucked so much ass that i'd feel ripped off if i had (serious sam).
Re:cool.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
yes, this is blatantly obvious, but blizzard would like to believe that everyone with a computer really wants to buy a copy of their software, they just don't know about it, haven't got around to it yet:) this doesn't mean they can't sue for you copyright infringement, since it's the act, not the intent. please don't try to reconcile that with the war on terrorism, where the act is secondary to the (fabricated/supposed/blatantly false) intent to destroy the free world/sap our precious bodily fluids.
Actually thousands of college and high school students cannot afford $50 copies of every game under the sun. I believe a study was done 2 years ago(?) that showed that most warez was done at college (big pipes), usually private ($$$), engineering (saavy), places.
Most buyers of the games were parents of younger soon to be private engineering college students, or former private engineering college students. Go figure.
It's simple.. If I can buy the game and actually play it in an enviroment without lag and cheating then I wouldn't have to run a bnetd because what would be the point? Bnetd exists simply because of Blizzard, battle.net sucks.. I used to be an avid starcraft player until everyone started cheating, cheating sucks.. I got fed up and decided I would never buy another Blizzard game until they fixed battle.net. I haven't bought diablo/diablo2/whatever else they have out and I wont buy warcraft 3. So if thats 150 dollars based on one person times that time the 25 people who you say really did buy the game in your example; that's 3,750 USD lost to blizzard (and those 75 that would of pirated the game; still gonna pirate it). So Blizzard gains absolutely nothing and I know there are people like me.
Blizzard will start to lose market share in the game market soon. If they'd take an example from ID and simply allow people to run their own servers they'd do themselves a service. ID software is more pirated than Blizzard shit; they don't complain because they know a game has a life cycle, you can't make money off of it forever so they provide a quality product and a quality game and let you play it where you want, when you want how you want. The customers who are gonna buy their games are still gonna buy them and the pirates will still pirate, and hopefully eventually they'll grow up and purchase ID games.
Blizzard is just putting nails into their own coffin.
It makes sense to disallow b.net clone servers even if those developers personally aren't infringing on any of Blizzard's copyrights
It may make sense, but it's not very LEGAL (or moral for that matter). It's quite possible b.net clones are bad for Blizzard bottom line, but that doesn't make them illegal. If I do something legal that hurts a company, it's the company's problem (In an ideal, non corporate-owned world anyway).
That's what I was saying. The people with the fattest pipes and least money are going to be the biggest pirates. I would bet that most people who've ever complained about bandwidth caps on their internet connection do so not because they supposedly can't browse the net at high speed but have less bandwidth for warez, mp3s, and porn.
Lots of people "can't" afford it but they don't have the T3 connection to their bedroom that lets them download an ISO of a video game in less than an hour or a file sharing network within the campus network where they can grab ISOs and zip files of games at 100Mbps. The ones with the fat pipes just about anywhere are going to do more than their share of warezing simply because they can download for free overnight an ISO or hacked image rather than go pay upwards of 60$ for a game. I know people that have a cable modem specifically so they can grab zip images of games from warez IRC channels. They could easily afford the game but chose instead to get an illegal copy of it.
Bnetd doesn't stop cheating any more than battle.net does. If you're willing just to play with a small group of non-cheaters on your bnetd, then I don't see what your problem is with playing with the same small group of people on battle.net. In both cases, you can play a cheat-free game with a close group of people. The only difference is that on battle.net, you also have the option of going out and playing with other people who aren't dedicated enough to connet to your server.
-- It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
*nod* though the survey pointed that most people that could afford the games (and live in the US, or other place where the game are available) bought the games rather than burning them.
id Software makes money off of a game that's distributed with a server. They even built in CD Key checking (which is easy to disable, but they simply count on enough non-cheating admins.)
This totally blows Blizzard's claim that there's no way to do it out of the water. id is doing it and making a ton of money.
Furthermore, even if Blizzard might lose money, that shouldn't justify their controlling how people use a product that they've legally purchased. What's the real difference between making a Diablo2 mod that adds a new character race, and making a server?
Why should we care what they want us to do with the game? People say that if we don't want to play by their rules we shouldn't buy the game. Perhaps, if they stated their rules up front, we might not. But now they took our money, so shouldn't they play by our rules? Or at least not impose and unfairly on us?
And what gives them the right to possess those games if they can't afford it? Do you support the right to break into a Ferrari dealership to steal a car because you can't afford it?
Gaming is a luxury, not a necessity of life. If you can't afford it, live without it.
Maybe if these kids didn't spend 400 bucks on the latest greatest videocard, they could afford a couple of $50 games.
I don't support it, but if I were a game designer, I'd prefer those to buy my game that could, and if they could not I'd at least like them to play it.
Battle.net is slow, everyone isn't gonna have the same ping or even close to it. It's also easier to deal with cheaters with a bnetd server.. You ban their ip, it's that simple.
The difference with battle.net is that it's slow, it allows cheaters to keep cheating even if you complain etc etc etc. I paid for a game, even if it's just the right to play it. I'd like to exercise that right to play the game, if I can't play the game what exactly have I paid for?? I might have the right to play it but can't do so because of the above and can't do so now because bnetd doesn't exist. What are my options; you tell me.
Battle.net being slow has nothing to do with games. All Blizzard games are played over a p2p protocol, where battle.net's speed has nothing to do with the quality of the game.
As for cheaters - on bnetd, you ban them, on b.net, you just don't play with them. It's not as if you're gonna get anyone other than people you already know to connect to your server anyway. So you get the same effect by just adding your friends to your b.net friends list and only playing with them.
-- It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
Ummmm Battle.net being slow has everything to do with games; this is one of the prime reasons to use/play their games, Blizzard games are played over tcp/ip lets not convolute shit with "p2p protocol" (they just recently added udp support to starcraft).. The quality of the game has everything to do with battle.net, people don't buy starcraft or diablo to play by themselves. Maybe you do.. you're a small percentage.
As for cheaters, they usually come in the form of clans.. I don't have to play with them but after a couple of times having that happen it becomes pointless to play on battle.net. If someone is gonna cheat on a bnetd server they usually are more accountable. The people that play on that bnetd server wouldn't stand for it as they wouldn't be the ones cheating.. If the majority is cheating then you just remember to never play on that server and choose a different server. Much like quake/quake2/quake3.. All different types of servers, you play on the ones with the lowest pings and the least cheaters.
You try to make valid points but your points have flaws.. serious flaws.. If you wanna play a battle.net game with a 450 ping and then on top of that have people cheat then thats your business but thats not what I expect from a game I paid 50 or more dollars for.
With that.. I'm done with this conversation; no offense but you aren't really providing any rebuttal with valid points except to say that I and others should except battle.net for the shit that it is and just deal with it.
Blizzard games are played over tcp/ip lets not convolute shit with "p2p protocol"
Blizzard games are played over IP (I believe they use TCP and UDP), and I don't know exactly how they implement it. But (possibly with the exception of Diablo II realms, I've never played it), game data does not pass through Battle.net during the course of a game. When a game is done, the computers involved tell battle.net who won (in the case of starcraft/broodwar). That's the only thing battle.net has to do with the actual playing of a game. So someone's ping time to b.net is irrelevent. All that matters is your ping times to the other players.
Feel free not to respond.
-- It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
Re:cool.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
They do state the rules up front, dickhead. Remember that EULA you signed (or clicked on)?
The big problem comes in with the CD-Key checker. Obviously bnetd cannot implement and/or enforce this.
So, this all comes to down to why. Why is bnetd being written? Is Battle.Net really that unresponsive? Has Blizzard suddenly started trying to charge money for it? What exact need does bnetd address? It would seem the main advantage to bnetd these days is to allow Internet play of non-licensed versions of Blizzard's products.
So, what is the "signifigant non-infringing use" for bnetd?
Additionally note: Licenses aren't "if it's not enumerated then it's excluded". Blizzard does have a pretty good case that one of the main uses of bnetd would be to abuse their copyrights (non-licensed use).
-- ---
I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Wait one second. How could multiple Bnet clones lead to people stop buying Starcraft and Warcraft?
The argument for bnetd is that it allows licensed game owners to use an alternative network. You're making Blizzard's argument with your last line. People STILL NEED TO BUY Starcraft, et. al. even if they use bnetd to play over the internet. If people are using bnetd because they don't want to buy the software and have a valid CD key then they're breaking the law.
Arguments about freeness are to bring up the question of why bnetd is needed. B.Net's use only requires a licensed copy of the software. No monthly fee or anything else. So, if the system is available to all legal owners of the game, there's no additional costs, and the system is relatively responsive, again, why are we creating a clone?
-- ---
I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Re:cool.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
And you remain entitled to use the software, in single-player mode on your own computer. You did sign or click on a separate EULA to use the online service, which you shouldn't have done if you weren't willing to abide by its terms. Hypocrite.
If they advertised Battle.net usage as a feature of the product then the EULA for that is unenforceable too because it's an integral feature of the product.
That's so that you can't get around first-sale restrictions by selling a book which turns out to be a blank coupon which you redeem for the real thing (even instantly at the counter) after signing a contract... You could do that, but the contract would be unenforceable because you were essentially selling the book, not the coupon.
Ditto with Battle.net and Diablo2.
That said though, there was no sale with Warcraft 3 betas and the contracts were agreed to beforehand. In that case, EULAs probably are binding.
I wish I was a moderator,
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
If I was I would give this one a Plus for funny. I guess I have a corny sience of humor.
Re: I wish I was a moderator,
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Informative
You should use the subjunctive rather than the indicative voice here since you are expressing a wish...
I wish I were a moderator
How *not* to make a game site..
by
Tukai
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
If you're planning to make a multiplayergame, or even a site that has something to do with the subject: you definitely dont want to make a site that is only browseable with some fancy browsers that support CSS.(NS 6.x+, IE whatever). Cant believe this arena.net crap not letting people read the article with good'ol Netscape 4.76.. Even some plain text would have satisfied me but now I only get to read the "upgrade your browsers and come back". Yeah, very likely. Hope they werent trying to sell anything because this is not the way.
/T
Re:How *not* to make a game site..
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Looks fine to me. Maybe you should use a browser that isn't 6 years old?
Re:How *not* to make a game site..
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
As if you're going to buy anything anyway...
You're running an obsolete browser on a free operating system.
Re:How *not* to make a game site..
by
xjimhb
·
· Score: 1
Right on!! Damned browser snobs that won't even let you LOOK at their page without the RIGHT browser! I suggest they take their Cascading Style Sheets and CSStuff Them Where the SUN Don't Shine. Hey, I have Netscape 6.2 on this machine... so why am I running 4.79? Because 6.2 runs like molasses in Antarctica! I suppose I could try Opera, but they didn't mention that as a "acceptable" choice so it probably wouldn't work (although it has the nice feature that it can lie about its identity). Of course Internut Exploder isn't even a choice, it doesn't run too well on this Linux box...
Hey, guys, get with it. I don't give a SH*T about your "gaming experience", I just want to read the article.
It's interesting reading, including "Lesson four: UDP is better than TCP, but it still sucks" and "Lesson five: Whenever you think the Internet can't get any worse, it gets worse". It's good stuff.
And those of us who'd developed Netrek way back in the day read this article and fell about laughing. I mean, these guys could have saved themselves six months easy just by reading the change comments in socket.c;-)
-- If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Multiplayer Games Overrated?
by
slipkid
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
This article should be mandatory reading for game designers everywhere. It seems that more and more games are coming out with gratuitous multiplayer functionality just to sell copies. The criteria in this article should be a pre-release checklist for any game including a multiplayer option.
There are certain games whose genre or interface makes multiplayer functionality completely cumbersome to the point of being unplayable. The Baldur's Gate series comes to mind as beautiful single-player games with horribly implemented multiplayer modes... IMO of course.
I'm a fan of multiplayer when multiplayer works, but I won't be a party to Monkey Island on Kali.
Re:Yeha, right
by
powerlinekid
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
Oh how about:
print "hello world"
Thats it in python, damn I love that language.
--
can't sleep slashdot will eat me
Re:Yeha, right
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Ok, How about C now?
What's the User/Password?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
well?
Re:What's the User/Password?
by
Bytenik
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
It's a free signup. Just do it!
--
"Scientists prove we were never here." -- Devo
Re:What's the User/Password?
by
limbostar
·
· Score: 1
Nothing in life is free.
I don't think my real name, address, email address, phone numbers, job information, etc, is worth the ability to read an article on any website, no matter how upscale.
Yeah, use fake information, blah, but it's still stupid.
-- this is a sig.
Re:What's the User/Password?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I don't think this is off topic (maybe a little). In some games you are somewhat free to build a personality with skins and so on. I hope this will evolve because I think that it is a nice feature. I found a protocol that delivers many 3D features in a compact way. The protocol has a design that enables loading up objects with shape and behavior.
The protocol is called Verse and is a network protocol, for three-dimensional, client/server graphic - Quote: "A typical way to communicate in Verse is to let clients upload or use existing objects as avatars, and then communicate by moving and animating these avatar objects".
Be carful on what you call cheating
by
jellomizer
·
· Score: 2, Funny
I am sure you are talking about when people hack the program or break there word on the rules of the game. But some people accuse other for cheating for playing with a different stradigy. I have been accused for cheating because in StarCraft I didn't build any fighting units (except for cannons) and snuk in a Probe and build cannons around his base. So if there is a way to stop cheator it can also be a way to give an advantage to Sore loosers who rather unplug thier computer then admit defete.
-- If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Re:Be carful on what you call cheating
by
jandrese
·
· Score: 2
I would just accuse you of being dumb actually, and your opponent was even dumber. I reserve the word "cheating" for people who actually hack the client or the protocol and give themselves an unfair adavantage. Like the old "high lag multiple refund bug" lots of RTSes suffered from (and some still do).
--
I read the internet for the articles.
Re:Be carful on what you call cheating
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Christ kid, learn how to spell! Use a friggin dictionary.
It's:
strategy snuck built cheater defeat
Re:Be carful on what you call cheating
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
and "their".
"there" and "thier" were good tries, and partial credit is awarded. But he's still a moron.
Re:Be carful on what you call cheating
by
Xerithane
·
· Score: 2
You don't cheat, you just suck ass at starcraft. Big difference. You may want to actually learn to play and join some newbie games so you can actually enjoy the game. The problem with people like you is that you don't actually take the time to learn the game but you just play with cheap tactics that really screw the game up and don't make it any fun. Any 2 bit chimp can build cannons up in someones base -- it's no fun. Most people should be able to stop it, but it offsets the game... you are the same type of people who rush in with SCVs right in the beginning.
This is actually covered in the article somewhat, which is making the game fun and balanced. You need to make it so it has an easy learning curve, but something that doesn't allow "bitch tactics" but still will allow other rush tactics. Same thing with War2 and the lumber mill in front of the gold mine...
Re:Be carful on what you call cheating
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Don't forget losers
NOT loosers for chrissake; how the hell do people get this one wrong so often??
Re:Be carful on what you call cheating
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
His use of the word 'for' is a bit annoying also...lets try 'of'
Re:Be carful on what you call cheating
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
What do you expect? The guy even misspelled his UID.
Re:Be carful on what you call cheating
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"Re:Be carful on what you call cheating" Be full of car? wahhh?
Re:Be carful on what you call cheating
by
The_dev0
·
· Score: 1
Even his sig is spelt incorrectly, For fuck's sake.
-- Never fight naked, unless you're in prison...
Re:Be carful on what you call cheating
by
Pxtl
·
· Score: 2
I found TA had an excellent approach - you have one main builder to start, and he has a spell that can do incredible damage, but you don't attack with him 'cause if he dies its game over (if you don't play with that option turned on, its your own fault for screwing up the gameplay). Also, if two of these Commanders fight, they blow up extra-big when they die, so its impossible to kill one with another, as it'll always make a tie.
Re:Be carful on what you call cheating
by
Gibbys+Box+of+Trix
·
· Score: 1
Even his sig is spelt incorrectly, For fuck's sake.
Never fight naked, unless your in prison...
So is yours... that should be "unless you're in prison.
Improved graphics spoiled Ultima series
by
October_30th
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Ultima series was not exactly a multiplayer game, but I think it serves as an excellent example of how a brilliant game is destroyed by demands for "realistic" graphics.
With bare-minimum graphics like Ultima III on C64 all the action took place in your own mind -- the best virtual reality/graphics engine ever developed.
When the series moved onto a sort of 3d graphics in Ultima VI the whole atmosphere changed. Suddenly you had these STUPID, squeaky-clean looking characters on the screen instead of the rough bunch of veterans you always had imagined. All the monsters were pitiful caricatures of the nightmares I had fought in the earlier Ultima episodes. In short, the whole game was fucked up because you were being forcefed the (annoying) vision of the game developers.
game graphics will be indistinguishable from real life
Sigh. And what's the point in that when the purpose of the games is to help you to spend some time away from the reality!?
-- The owls are not what they seem
Re:Improved graphics spoiled Ultima series
by
Isldeur
·
· Score: 0
I wish I had some moderator points to bump this one up. He's dead on.
Re:Improved graphics spoiled Ultima series
by
J23SE
·
· Score: 1
>>>Sigh. And what's the point in that when the purpose of the games is to help you to spend some time away from the reality!?
Niet!
Uhh, the point is that in reality you can't plant C4 explosives under skyscrapers and watch them crumble, you can't engage in high speed police chases/gunfights, nor can you screw your favorite three supermodels at the same time (Unless your name is Cowboyneal. . . let me check. . . no, it isn't;). Real life graphics would immerse you more in this world rather than remind you of reality.
I don't know if StarCraft is 'balanced' . . .
by
stevarooski
·
· Score: 3, Informative
. . . or if it is, its very subtly so and outside the range of your average player. The article makes a great statement as to the importance of balance, and this is exactly what turned me off StarCraft.
Every time I played on Battle.net, anyone with half a brain simply played the Zerg and rushed the hell out of everyone else. Usually, the Zerg won. In a war of 'resource command' it would seem that those who can expand the fastest would win.
Just to convince people I'm not blowing hot air, look at the StarCraft Season III Ladder Tournement results and count the occurances of Zerg versus occurances of other races. By my count, of the top players, there was 1 instance of Humans, 2 of Protoss, and 21 people playing the Zerg.
--
- - - - - - - - Don't worry, being eaten by a crocodile is just like going to sleep in a giant blender.
Re:I don't know if StarCraft is 'balanced' . . .
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Your argument is a tournament played in 1998?
Are you actually serious?
Re:I don't know if StarCraft is 'balanced' . . .
by
coyul
·
· Score: 1
Every time I played on Battle.net, anyone with half a brain simply played the Zerg and rushed the hell out of everyone else. Usually, the Zerg won.
That hasn't been true since Brood War was released (1.04 patch for Starcraft also slowed down the Zerg considerably). Personally, I think StarCraft/Brood War is an amazing example of balancing three wildly different races.
Re:I don't know if StarCraft is 'balanced' . . .
by
stevarooski
·
· Score: 2
My argument based on personal experience, since obviously I wasn't at these tournements. However, if you require more than my previous post, go to google and look for yourself. Also take into account that there have been many balance tweaks via patches, addons, etc to StarCraft since I last played--although the necessity of these fixes might be seen as evidence for what I discussed above.
Bear in mind I'm NOT NOT NOT saying its a bad game! I loved StarCraft. ..Just that I didn't think it provided a balanced multiplayer experience, since the Zerg rush back when it came out stopped me from playing online. Since then maybe its changed, but I don't play anymore so I wouldn't know.
--
- - - - - - - - Don't worry, being eaten by a crocodile is just like going to sleep in a giant blender.
Re:I don't know if StarCraft is 'balanced' . . .
by
gspeare
·
· Score: 1
I have seen the "-1 Troll" in a vision, but am compelled to post anyway.
It seems to me that Blizzard has solved much of their "balance issues" (and probably network lag/latency, for that matter) by effective re-implementing the same game with better graphics and other minor refinements. Warcraft III started out as a new (at least for Blizzard) type of RPG, but look at the old screenshots and you can see the camera slowly creeping upward from an interesting semi-first-person view to the same old isometric RTS above view from their earlier games. If you're using the same basic model and making the same basic assumptions, tweaking and balancing are going to be very easy.
Re:I don't know if StarCraft is 'balanced' . . .
by
Phantasmagoria
·
· Score: 1
Blizzard made many patches since then to fix the "4-zergling rush" and many other cheeze rushes that almost guaranteed a win. You stopped playing very very early on. Starcraft Broodwars is still very actively played today (especially in my dorm) - with everyone playing all the races. The beauty of Starcraft is not that it's balanced. It's that it's balanced even though the 3 races are completely different and use completely different strats.
-- Loban Amaan Rahman ==> Anagram of ==> Aha! An Abnormal Man!
Re:I don't know if StarCraft is 'balanced' . . .
by
Magius_AR
·
· Score: 1
I disagree, its simply a matter of statistics/probability...the reason most people play zerg is because zerg are the easiest to play and win with. Protoss and, moreso, terran races require an inordinant amount of micro-management to be truly GOOD with them...you can't simply swarm inane numbers of units as you can with zerg. Quite frankly, there aren't that many people out there who simply have the talent to play terran/protoss. (not saying I do)
"Expanding fast" may be easier with zerg, but it leaves you _incredibly vulnerable_...300 minerals for a second hatchery buys 3 zealots for a toss or a pack of 6 marines for a terran, both of which would make SHORT WORK of an undefended base (in wiping out peons). Add in the fact that some zerg like to build an Extractor before even getting a SPAWNING POOL...these "early advance" tactics work well if your opponent is too dumb to simply attack. For a race that's ALREADY significantly weaker unit-wise than the others, early expansions/early tech advance can get you slaughtered. Why do you think its so easy for a terran to get away with an early tank/marine rush choke right next to a zerg's base? Zerg power comes with bulk, and the time (and resources) to build it...deny them that, and they're easy to take out.
Anyways, my point is that zerg is an easy race to be incredibly good at, simply using base units...hell, if you notice most of those same zerg "championship wins", you'll notice that not many even make use of the defiler, one of the most viciously powerful (dark swarm) units in the game...and the reason is that such a unit REQUIRES MICROMANAGEMENT, something most zerg players lack in incredible quantities. Early mut rushes or hydra swarms are tried tactics that work against the masses, they've been around forever, and are quite frankly not too hard to stop, you simply need SOME degree of talent micromanaging things such as templars or tank/marine/medic groups.
Find a _truly_ elite SC player and you'll see that...I've played a few of them (the terrans especially) as zerg...I knew I was dead before my hydralisk den/lair was even finished. I could SEE them building bunkers/etc right outside my base, and there wasnt JACK I could do about it that early. Even with some lings/hydras, you stand no chance against bats/marines/medics this early. So you have to sit there and LET THEM build their little bunker system right outside your base, slowly working their way in. Once the tanks came out, it was over...there's no way I could have had guardians in time, and there's no way to get enough mutalisks/hydras/whatever to take out a few packs of marines in bunkers that early in the game (especially with tank/scv support)
Magius_AR
Re:I don't know if StarCraft is 'balanced' . . .
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Get off it. Someone posts something serious that you think is incorrect and your solution is to censor the guy as a troll? If anything the real troll is replying by telling the guy to go buy Warcraft III, when his post is about Starcraft. And, right, I just bit.
Re:I don't know if StarCraft is 'balanced' . . .
by
Restil
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
If you played on a rush map, then yes, rushing was the name of the game and zerg were best suited for rushing. But on a larger map, where it takes longer to locate your enemies, it is relatively simple to defend against a rush, especially with terrans.
I remember people bitching because I would load 8 firebats up in a dropship and dump them into the supply lines, and once all the peons were killed off, pick the bats up, and head off to the next enemy. It was always a good 10 minutes into the game before I was able to do this (due to the build order to get a starport for a dropship, and an academy for firebats). Yet, people still had undefended bases and bitched that this activity somehow represented rushing.
When you play, you have to take rushing into account. If you send out all your soldiers to attack some other base, leaving yours open for attack, thats your problem. Same as if someone uses a feature of a race you're unfamiliar with (like comsats), it doesn't mean they're cheating. It just means you haven't done enough research to "understand your enemy" and you deserve what you get.
main dosen't return a value in your code, so void main() would be more appropriate. Moron.
void main(void) is invalid under the ANSI standard. Look it up.
Cheers,
Ian
(in Karma-burning mode - it's dull just staying at the cap)
Unit VS Race Balancing
by
Guru1
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
It wasn't until we changed from Warcraft's "unit equivalence" to StarCraft's "race equivalence" that we were able to correct the most egregious play imbalance issues.
I find this to be a very important statement he made in regards to the development of multiplayer and RTS games. After warcraft, the piles of RTS games that came out all had some thing in common. A few races (or civs, etc) that had different units that all did basically the same thing.. the "ranged unit" the "fast unit" the "strong unit that is really expensive", etc. Other than some small games that didn't really make it off the ground, Starcraft was the first mainstream game that said "this race can do this and this other race is completely different". I believe that Starcraft is replayed so often because there is an incredible amount of flexability with each race and when combined with fighting against another diverse race, it creates an incredible amount of possibilities.
What makes this a great money maker for games such as Diablo and Starcraft (if they'd get off their buttocks), is that they can reuse the same engine they already had written, code in another race (or couple classes as in Diablo II LoD), and have people scrambling to buy it, since it adds an exponential amount of excitement to the game. If Starcraft added one single race (sold at the price of $25 in stores), I would instantly buy it.. not only would I be able to learn all about the new "Dotslash" race, but I would be able to figure out piles of strategies about how to fight Dotslashes with Terrans, or Protoss.. Just as the message boards are filled with people asking how to fight Druids with Necromancers, etc etc.
The game industry needs to focus more on additions to their games, instead of starting from scratch every single time. Not only would the players be happier, but I imagine the pocketbooks of the game makers would be happy as well.
Dave
Re:Unit VS Race Balancing
by
jandrese
·
· Score: 2
I think Command and Conquor would be the first Mainstream game where the sides weren't mirror images of each other. Starcraft was the first game to get it right with 3 races though, which was mindblowing at the time, especially since the races _are_ so different.
--
I read the internet for the articles.
Re:Unit VS Race Balancing
by
Graymalkin
·
· Score: 2
While Baldur's Gate isn't an RTS or anything they do almost exactly as you suggest and release different games all based on the same engine. If you play Planescape:Torment or Icewind Dale everything but the graphics and command frame are pretty much identical with maybe a few improvements or tweaks here and there. Tales of Sword Coast and Heart of Winter were just a couple of additional maps on top of the original game. I think the problem with adding a new race to games like Starcraft and Diablo is they are balanced from the beginning. While the three races of Starcraft play differently they balance out in the end because you adjust to strategy or play style to suit a specific race. Adding a new one in the middle throws that system out of whack for a very long time because you've changed the dynamics of the whole game. Even in Diablo the added characters were justy cheap additions which combined traits of different classes into a new character, the new amalgam didn't really have a big advantage over any of the original classes for the most part. Expansions get really critically reviewed when they change every aspect of the game rather than just providing a little extra play time for those who've already been at it for a while.
What you've just described is basically the style of table top wargames, especially ones from Games Workshop different races have different abilities. The only drawback to this type of system is for the game designers to make each new race super powerful in comparison to make it atractive for purchase. The games do turn out to be pretty well balanced, despite cry's to the contrary, a good player will usually win over a bad one regardless of the armies involved.
This concept fleshed out in a computer game would be EXCELLENT. Not only do the gamers win, but the publishers have a way to make a good profit off of coninuing a game's expansion. Consider a computer version of a table top wargame, once the initial engine is written there is little work involved in creating new races, weapons, equipment, vehicles, powers, ect. Rather than spending several years in developement of the sequel release an expansion pack for $20 several times a year. Rather than wait four years to collect $50 for the sequel collect $200 or so for all of the expansions. A new compatible version of the engine could be released every couple of years at that point to keep up with technology.
-- I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
Re:Unit VS Race Balancing
by
ProfBooty
·
· Score: 1
you are right on. Warcraft I and II basically had sides that were clones of one another. C&C was far more "balanced" i.e. you could build tons of mammoth tanks which could destroy almost any unit or building in the game, but yet regular troops could take them out.
Then again with the original C&C (Tiberian Dawn) rushing didint really work as there were so many defensive units. I liked the fact that to really win you had to use your engineers or commandos. That and the whole lack of C&C's power element(and the unit limit) of blizzards rts games would frustrate me to no end.
I'd argue in some ways blizzards games were definitley far more primitive to westwoods earlier efforts although they have more or less caught up.
-- Bring back the old version of slashdot.
Re:Unit VS Race Balancing
by
Alsee
·
· Score: 3, Funny
the new "Dotslash" race
No, I'm sorry but the "Dotslash" race is intrinsicly unbalanced. The Dotslash Effect incapacitates any target enemy.
-
-- - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Arg! "You cannoy view this page, because your browser doesn't support XXXXXX"
Anyone else think it's totally lame to block a while website, just beacuse I'm using netscape 4.77 in HPUX?
--
Moderation: Put your hand inside the puppet head!
Sorry, I don't buy it.
by
No+Such+Agency
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Don't be a MUD snob. I know it's difficult, we are all snobs about something, but it's not a 13 year old's fault if they haven't played some ancient text game that you liked so much. Hell, I've never played a MUD (I'm 27yo), though I've heard some were *great*. But they weren't necessarily good because they didn't rely on graphics. They were good, because like some cutting edge 3D games, they were designed and coded with care and concern for gameplay.
-- Freedom: "I won't!"
Re:Sorry, I don't buy it.
by
(trb001)
·
· Score: 1
They were also great because, unlike today's games, most of them didn't have a 'bottom line' they had to worry about. They weren't worried about getting the game out as quick as possible so they could turn a profit. They'd beta test for as long as it took, get a bunch of people to help sort out buggy code, add on stuff that people asked for, etc.
I think the best example of any MUD/BBS game I ever played was Tradewars. I played the original, 2002, just about every version in there and they were all great. Martech just kept adding stuff on that people asked for. By the last release of TW2002, you practially had a MUD...there was experience, NPCs, hidden stuff (the underground? the grimy trader?) and an entire game layered on top of that that involved trading, planet building and defending from the Ferrengi. Wonderful game, and it didn't require a speck of graphics (as a matter of fact, graphics would have HURT the gameplay something fierce).
--trb
Gamespy Sux !!!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Medal of Honor's solution to multiplayer gaming was to use Gamespy as the host server...
Re:Gamespy Sux !!!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The All Seeing Eye fixes that problem... try it out, it is awsome. I hate gamespy too... avoid it like the plague.
I don't think Counterstrike is really representative of all online gaming. If it was, every flat surface in EQ would be covered in pornographic spray logos.
-- Freedom: "I won't!"
Re:Right
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It's C. You don't need <stdio.h>, a return type for main, or prototypes for anything.
Certainly the zergling rush is the easiest good strategy, but it isn't the only valid one, or even the best. If the zerg don't win early, they're in a lot of trouble - it's hard for them to match up with the powerful late-game units other races have.
(Also remember your workers can attack if ordered; this is surprisingly useful in thwarting the early zergling rush!)
The map makes a big difference; in a highly constricted map, the rush is a lot harder. On an island map they're in deep trouble.
Re:Yeha, right
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Oh how about:
echo hello world
That's in shell, damn I love that language. Plus it's 3 chars shorter than perl!:-)
Seems to me you're blaming the developers for what the legal department and the marketing folks are doing. How many Blizzard designers do you think really care which network the gamers use, as long as they play the game?
Unsupported Browser?
by
evand
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Seeing as my using OmniWeb to view arena.net resulted in a quick glance at the requested page (which looked fine) and then a bounce to ArenaNet Error: Unsupported Browser, I thought I'd respond in kind (note: I didn't actually send HTML email; I had to replace some of the hyphen characters with just bolding the topics so that I wouldn't get blocked by the lameness filter):
To: webmaster@arena.net
Subject: ArenaNet Error: Unsupported Webmaster
Why am I getting this instead of a friendly, congratulatory email?
You are here because the webmaster you are using is apparently too lazy to create pages that work in most browsers, regardless of their support for the full HTML 4.0 specification, including Cascading Style Sheets (CSS).
Most likely, you're losing a decent hunk of viewers because of this.
Why does that matter?
In the pursuit of giving web surfers the kind of experience that you want them to have, as opposed to simply letting them control the experience for themselves (as would tend to be suggested by the HTML and CSS standards), you tried to use the best technology available, which I heartily commend. HTML 4.0 and CSS are examples of some of the best and most widespread standards-based technology available for presenting interactive media to the world. However, you have decided that, rather than simply using these technologies and letting the user decide if and how to implement them on the client-side, your webserver will detect browsers that you haven't tested with and will send the user of said browser to a completely useless page rather than actually delivering the content that the user requested.
What should I do?
If your webmaster can't figure out how to get pages to display at all in browsers other than those created by Netscape and Microsoft, you might want to hire a better one.
If you are running a smart webmaster who has simply gone astray from the vision of the web, you will want to either ask them to change their policies or follow the advice above.
Hear hear! That's telling them. I just hit "Back" and "Stop" quickly (lucky there was some latency:) so I could read the damn article.
Bollux
Re:Unsupported Browser?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
On the flip side, his response should be:
To the lame, uncompatable browser using, whiner from slashdot,
Hi, and thank you for your feedback. It has been filed appropriately in the circular file bin for reference by the night cleaning staff. Your comments are noted and dismissed out of hand since our server log shows you to be using a browser with a less than 1% browser share worldwide, and on a system that has less than.5% of all users connected to the internet.
In other words, you wouldn't be playing games we talk about or review (that's pretty much any software written today for 99% of all game playing individuals), so we don't bother to lower our design standards to accomidate your outdated computer and browser.
Good day, and please come back when you are using a browser written in the past five years,
Webmaster
Re:Unsupported Browser?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Most likely, you're losing a decent hunk of viewers because of this.
HA! if i were the receiving webmaster, this
would have made my day! Unbelievable
that there are people on this planet that are stupid enough to believe in the above quote.
You've got to be kidding me.
Re:Unsupported Browser?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The really stupid thing is that in OmniWeb, if you go to preferences->Compatibility and set Identify to HTTP servers as to "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0b; Windows 98)" (IE 6.0 Windows), it'll load and display properly.
Bah, I don't usually respond to trolls, but I have an hour to kill, so...
To the lame, uncompatable browser using, whiner from slashdot,
We'll skip the "lame," since that's pretty objective, but as for "uncompatable (sic)," OmniWeb appears to actually render the page well if the browser identification is faked or if the page is loaded from the browser's cache.
Hi, and thank you for your feedback. It has been filed appropriately in the circular file bin for reference by the night cleaning staff. Your comments are noted and dismissed out of hand since our server log shows you to be using a browser with a less than 1% browser share worldwide, and on a system that has less than.5% of all users connected to the internet.
And, of course, this is true, because the minority never matters, even if they're arguing for correctness.
In other words, you wouldn't be playing games we talk about or review (that's pretty much any software written today for 99% of all game playing individuals), so we don't bother to lower our design standards to accomidate your outdated computer and browser.
Oddly enough, I was interested in the article linked to by Slashdot (which is, after all, why I attempted to read it), even though I'm running this "outdated" iBook 2001 with the similarly "outdated" OmniWeb (see below).
Good day, and please come back when you are using a browser written in the past five years,
That's odd; my browser was released on Feburary 22, 2002, which certainly seems to be within the last five years. I must be getting old...
Hrm, still more time to kill (and trolls to debunk), so...
I don't think there's anything wrong with saying that the site could be losing a decent hunk of users because of their browser detection algorithm. Anyone who has a browser which identifies itself differently than the way they're expecting it to is going to find themselves unable to read the article. Hence, it is "likely" that they're losing a "decent hunk" of viewers, simply because there are known cases where the page will fail to load on browsers that can definitely display the content.
Looks like they've fixed it, anyway:-)
Re:Unsupported Browser?
by
dosun88888
·
· Score: 1
People see everything in different ways. Here's how I see it:
When I request a web page, I'm requesting whatever HTML they're providing me, or whatever XML/Stylesheet they "support". If it doesn't look right, then tough. But I should get that HTML. Especially for a damn text article. I will not return to a site - ever - if they pull this bullshit. That's just me.
Not allowing you to see ANYTHING is pretty retarded, so there has to be a business angle. Customers will be more dissatisfied if they see NOTHING than if they see a poor rendering of crappy HTML, because the customers who do NOT use IE and so on are used to it.
What is the business angle? Maybe these companies have stakes in Microsoft or whatever browser they choose to allow HTML to be sent to. Other than that, I can't understand it.
~D
Eh, hardly.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
M*'s being tossed to the wayside by 13 year olds? Good. You know what that means?
Less stock crap.
Let's face it. Merc, Envy, Rom, etc. were great when they came out. Then came the epic boom in the M* community, when every arse with a shell account could start their own M*. Where did that leave us?
Take a peek at the Mudconnector sometime. Try and find a M* that stands out from the others. It's not that easy. Why? People taking a code base, adding ANSI color and calling it 'totally custom'. This is why many great M*'s have low populations, because people can't *find* them.
If the commercial world wants to push graphics, good. It'll draw certain types away from M*'s, which in turn, will decrease the number of stock M*'s out there.
I do agree with robustness, though. The current offering of commercial m*'s with graphics can't dare stand against some of the worlds I've played on. *chuckle*
Pah, luxury
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
my networking protocol is simply to send the key presses every game frame - 60 bytes per second (plus handshaking) - none of this luxury of sending co-ordinates or text...
Of course this does rather reduce its scalability:-) But I think you can guess which machine I am doing this for.
people who read books are diong the same thing, only the pictures are in your head.. but the author tells you what to see..
same thing
the only difference is books can be more detailed because people who read books have a longer attention span (ever seen waterworld or dances with wolves? i went to see waterworld when it first opened and i was one of 3 people in the theatre.. why? because it was like 4 hours long and pop culture can't even tolerate 30 seconds commercials much less a good story)
personally i read and watch (some) movies..
"Hello World" in VB
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Funny
PHYSICAL MEMORY DUMP, PLEASE CONTACT YOUR SYSTEM ADMINSTRATOR.
Aggressive play
by
Broccolist
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
That was a bit of a disappointing article. I was expecting some major insights from a developer of such great games, but he mostly just reiterated banalities that any long-time gamer is aware of.
But I would add one more crucial point: gameplay should be fast-paced and aggressive. Sitting in your base and defending against unsuccessful attacks is just boring. In Warcraft 2, defending almost never worked and attacking was always to your benefit. The result was an edge-of-your-seat game where, among skilled players, every unit you pumped out was immediately sent to the battlefield and you were constantly trying to stop one of your bases from being trashed. I have yet to see an RTS which, all balance issues aside, is just plain more exciting than a good game of multiplayer War2. This is why I continue to consider it the greatest RTS ever made.
But Blizzard seems to have lost sight of this in later games. In Starcraft, sitting in your base and defending actually works, which makes for terribly boring games. Am I the only one who finds that games after Quake 1/Warcraft 2 have subtly become more and more slow-paced and boring?
Frankly, I would object to the "balance" business, which seems to be taken for granted by all game developers nowadays. Of course, games should be mostly balanced, but saying that ideally a game should be 100% balanced is going too far. A bit of imbalance serves to focalize the players' energies. E.g., in the original Quake, the most important thing was to control the rocket launcher and red armor, and this made for exciting games where players desperately vied for control of the key resources. In later Quakes, you can just pick up any weapon, since they're all just as good.
In sum, I don't think "balance" is the holy grail modern developers make it out to be. IMHO, the attitude of "balance above all" epitomizes all that's wrong with modern games. If a bit of imbalance is necessary to make a game that's more aggressive, fast-paced and fun, I say game developers shouldn't be afraid to sacrifice the principle.
I agree with you about WC2, that game was so much fun to play at all levels. Starcraft is better in so many ways like interface and deeper gameplay and units, but for some reason WC2 kept me on the edge more.
Re:Aggressive play
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Balance in FPS and other genres such as RPG, RTS, Racing, fighting, et al are very different beasts. In FPS it has everything to do with level design. Say you have two items (rocket launcher and red armor) that are superior to their counterparts. In a poorly balanced world the rocket launcher, rocket ammo and red armor would all be right next together in the most controllable spot in the map, oh and one player spawns next to it. Sucky map huh?
The other extreme is racing or fighting. Where balance is all about the cars or fighters. If one car is accelerates better, handles better, and has higher top speed everyone picks that car all the time because it is unbalanced.
RPG and RTS have balance elements in both map design and character/race deisgn. You see lots of tweaking to balance in patches to these games as a result:) One character class might have inherent advantages but the map is layed out to minimize that or items might not be as good for that class. In a RTS the effects of bonuses or race stats is dependent on the map layout. One can have a RTS race that is clearly superior to others; and one can have maps that clearly favor one player over another. One could have maps that depend on races to help balance (I do not know of a RTS that does this), buy say penalizing the strongest race with a bad starting position (say all resouces are -20% in amount and 20% further away).
The changes to quake weapons and power ups are a type of meta-balancing that generate a different feel to the game (much as playing most sports in 0.5g would drastically change the feel of the sport without changing the rules). It is in my opinion a style question that is distinct from in gmae balance.
Re:Aggressive play
by
o6dukeleto
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
In response to Balance:
I would say the importance of play balance is directly proportional to the amount of time it takes to play a different side effectivly.
In the case of FPS such as CS, a little imbalance is probably ok. As all I have to do, is switch sides. Some people even like to play the underdog.
In the case of most MMORPGs, I would say imbalance can cause a lot of problems. The reason for this is that people spend hours, days, months, years on particalar characters, and to play another character takes a hugh investment. Therefore people will become disenchanted because of the time investment.
Importance of balance is directly proportional to the time required to play a different side.
In Starcraft, sitting in your base and defending actually works
No it doesn't. There is virtually no way to defend effectively (with basic defense units - bunkers, turrets, cannons, *colonies) against mass carriers, battlecruisers, or guardians. And when I see someone going defensive, I just go for high-end units, because I know I have time and they won't attack me while I'm building them.
-- It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
Re:Right
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
#include <stdio.h>
void main(void) { printf("Hello, world!\n"); }
...
bash$ gcc -Wall -ansi -o hello hello.hello.c hello.c:4: warning: return type of `main' is not `int' bash$./hello Hello, World! bash$
That dosen't seem to be a crime to me either, Moron. At any rate, who the fuck cares? I was referring to writing more readable and coherent code, not conforming to some elitist bullshit standard.
P.S. You are a jelly-spined retard. Cruising around in your electric retard-wheelchair has obviously impared your ability to write code. Please do the world a favor and kill yourself.
I'm running an older browser on a 4-year-old sgi. It sees stylesheets just fine, but I get this bizarre error page everytime I load arena.net.
In fact, [and this is the annoying bit] during the 2 second meta-refresh pause, my browser acutally loads the page. But since it could not display just the right version of Arial, I could not view the page for long.
I'm sure the article is very interesting. I thought of loading on the laptop sitting behind me, but since they're being so snotty about it I think I'll pass.
I just honestly think game makers need to look back and reignite the Text Based RPG craze.
Well, I don't know about re-igniting the craze, but there are certainly examples out there of people trying to do just that. See The Eternal City, for example.
Maybe YOU couldn't say HELLO WORLD in C, but I'd bet that 80% of slashdot users can, or at least would vote they could in a/. poll.
OTOH, you can't even spell yeah.
BASIC is lame, obsolete, and Microsoft, and ASM is just obsolete.
--
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World" 1 John 4:14
I completely agree that more recently games have been a lot more bells and whistles then down right responsive playability. The original quakeworld is the _best_ graphical multiplayer game I've ever had the experience of playing. If you weren't on the edge of you seat the entire time you were playing it then you weren't playing it right.
I think it has a lot to do with the new technical resources available to developers. When you look at simple strategy, or adventure games, the best around will be old 8-bit nintendo games. More time had to be put into the game design and playability since there was only so much you could do with graphics and sound. Now everyone spends all night worring about graphics and sound and forgets to develop the rest of the game.
Excellent troll! There's about a half-dozen of us (mostly coders, plus an interface designer) sitting here who've discussed your messages and we've decided you''ve got a brilliant troll going.
Of course, if this is how you *really* feel, you should also be smart enough to know that attitude will bite you in the ass really hard one of these days, but, at some level you probably realize that. In any case, good job. Well written and executed.
Call me a n00b, I've never played StarCraft, but I don't see that in other games, just interesting.
In the Age of Empires series, there are Civ advantages, which really make all the civs balanced. Of course there's a lot more than 4 civs in those games.
For Instance, if you are franks and I'm tutons, I'll win. But if I'm Tutons, and you're Myans, you'll probably win.
--
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World" 1 John 4:14
I've designed many non-computer games for a few years now, and I see all the same issues discussed in this article that we've seen in face-to-face multi-player games. He covers the basics quite well. There are two aspects that he does not discuss which I believe are important.
First, good games are cohesive. The rules and the plot and the mechanics should flow together. The fundamental structure should dictate the higher behaviors in the game. This creates a game world that makes sense and learning a few basic guidelines are all that you need to get started.
Second, many games with three or more players and player interaction can suffer from petty diplomacy. If someone gets ahead in the game, other players can take time to squash the leader. If bad enough, there is a disincentive to get ahead. Balancing this problem can be quite tricky, and I would like to see more discussion about how designers deal with it on-line. IRL, we use hidden information, randomness, or high complexity to keep petty diplomacy from breaking a game.
Still, a good article, and it distills years of game design experience very well.
Re:Game Design
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
are you suggesting that there is some diplomacy which is not petty? allowing explicit diplomacy ingame would seem to be a better choice than trying to ignore/deny its existence, don't you think?
Not all diplomacy is petty. King making and simple attack-the-leader come up in games with petty diplomacy. Good games with diplomacy, such as Diplomacy, involve complicated deals, short and long term alliances, and sophisticated planning. Boring and obvious diplomacy can kill any game, and good diplomacy can really enhance one.
The "new" Games icon... (offtopic)
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
So, am I the only one who noticed that the Atari 2600 joystick image shows the joystick pointing the wrong way? The trigger should be one the LEFT HAND SIDE if the joystick is somewhat "properly" oriented...
Re:The "new" Games icon... (offtopic)
by
Klatma
·
· Score: 1
While you are correct that the "standard" 2600 joystick had the button on the left corner, the left handed joysticks had the buttons on the right corner. Also there is no cable coming from this joystick, so you can not tell which side is the top. That means that the button could very well be in the correct location, you just can't tell because there is not cable to indicate that.
Arena.net doesn't seem to like netscape 4.x too. The good thing is lynx loads it right up, no problems.
He has a point
by
Srin+Tuar
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
The primary things done by cheats (looking through walls, etc) are things that the game does not prevent.
When you design a game you have to consider the players hardware to be untrusted. You cannot prevent a persons computer from telling him all it knows, nor can you prevent it from obeying his commands.
So to limit the information a person knows, you have to limit the information that is given to his computer. (If you dont want someone to know the location of all the other players in an FPS, you simply dont send them that information.)
Taken to its logical conclusion, The player's PC would end up being thin terminals doing I/O, while all the game logic is hosted on a central trusted server.
For games with a central server, then the game is only as fair as the server is. This does break down a bit with servant-peer topology- such as starcraft. In this, since everyone's computer has total knowledge of the game state knowledges cheats are possible (knowing how many resources everyone has and where they are).
However, if anyone cheats in a detectable way the game is aborted by all.
Re:He has a point
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
if you wrote out your game logic onto a chip on a pci card, and included on this same board a secret algorithm and key for encrypting the network traffic, as well as the 3d graphics processor or what have you, then you could trust, to some degree, the hardware of the end user. although ultimately, this still only raises the level of difficulty involved to break the system. and i'm not sure how it would go with the users, who would have to buy "quake4+geforce5 256MB" boards:)
Re:He has a point
by
j7953
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The primary things done by cheats (looking through walls, etc) are things that the game does not prevent.
So what? A chess board also doesn't prevent you from moving the pawns sideways.
-- Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
Re:He has a point
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"The primary things done by cheats (looking through walls, etc) are things that the game does not prevent."
This is probably the best argument I ever heard, when talking about cheating and I thank you for it.
The only bad thing is that if you tried something like this in real-world chess games, nobody would play with them, because they will remember it. However, in online games is creating a new ID as easy as clicking the mouse and pressing a few keys...
Huh? Digital Crack my friend is not the answer...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Seriously... with little exception, placing the judgment of a players quality and experience on teh fact of them playing or not playing a MUD in the past is simply ludicrous. I am 31, and I hated MUDs. I love DnD and other adventure oriented thought type pen and paper games (I probably played more in terms of time and game genre's/types than 90% of the people on this board), but found the cliquish and rigid MUD world too silly to really play.
Some of the best players I have played against have been half my age or more... they have immagination, discipline, skill, and are friendly people.
Furthermore, while I acknowledge the vicious cycle of hardware/software in the gaming industry today, and I fully realize I am quite guilty of being a bleeding edge type of hardware person, I don't really find your argument valid regarding the demands of gamers. What a gamer demands is what they are willing to pay for, and money talks loudest of all. Wanting great visuals and solid gameplay, while not exclusive of each other in order to make a great game, is/are what attracts gamers.
I have spent many an hour online in Ultima Online, WWIIOL, EverCrack, UT/Quake (plus mods), Aces High, and games your probably never heard of. I demand good quality, engaging, relatively stable games with solid visuals and replay value. Does that make me a poor gamer?
I doubt it. I have founded and run online guilds, played in most genre's of games both electronic and otherwise, and generally would be considered a solid online gaming partner by any community I have engaged in.
If you feel superior, think again... and judging someone by their tastes or their long term experience is ridiculous. Judge them by their community interaction and online ability in the game instead.
He missed the biggest problem of all...
by
EricLivingston
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I find I have zero interest in MMO games. I diddled around in EQ when it first came out, and UO when it first came out, and cancelled both quickly. I've since realized that the key problem I had with both games is an inherent problem in all MMO games: You're just a small cog in a huge machine, with no compelling reason to exist in the world.
After running around killing bats for a while in EQ this realization hit me - my character could come, go, exist, or not and nothing really changes in the world. It just doesn't matter. This is by necessity - the game cannot make anything pivotal happen based on my character, 'cause it can't assume I'll be around or even that I'll exist (as a player).
So, what you wind up with is a bunch of folks running around killing things and so on, but really to no purpose at all ultimately.
yeah, you can gain levels and become some 50th level powerhouse, but who cares? There are hundreds of others just like you. You might even go out with some buddies and kill some big thing like a dragon or whatnot, but who cares? It'll just respawn in a while anyway. The world is essentially unchanged. It just winds up feeling so pointless.
I guess I've just been bred on single-person games that make you feel like you're truly at the center of the universe (such as Deus Ex, where you literally save reality). Even Half-life, which arguably has a lot going on besides your own sorry butt's survival, makes you feel like you're right in the middle of the action all the time. I guess I'm just spoiled that way.
I find in the MMO games I'm just wandering around in a very static world wondering what vermin to kill next or whatever - it's all quite boring really. I suppose guilds might help to some extent, in that they present a nice social environment of bonding, etc, but you really just click the futility up a notch: instead of simply having a character that doesn't matter to the world at all, you have a whole guild that really could exist or not and nothing would really change.
I've read that games like DAOC have a multi-year storyline that will play out some kind of plot, but again, I'd imagine that for 99% of the "population," it just won't matter what they do, find, or accomplish.
Re:He missed the biggest problem of all...
by
ellem
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
the key problem I had with both games is an inherent problem in all MMO games: You're just a small cog in a huge machine, with no compelling reason to exist in the world.
instead of simply having a character that doesn't matter to the world at all, you have a whole guild that really could exist or not and nothing would really change.
I'd imagine that for 99% of the "population," it just won't matter what they do, find, or accomplish.
eeriely like real life, huh?
-- This.sig is fake but accurate.
Re:He missed the biggest problem of all...
by
EricLivingston
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Exactly! That's really my point: I want my game experiences to be much more centered around me. It gives me more incentive to continue and complete whatever it is I'm trying to do if I think that the whole deal hinges on my actions. Sure, sometimes in real life there are actions I take or things I do that have larger impacts on the world or folks around me, but for the most part my day-to-day life isn't really epic in nature (frankly, to be honest, I can't think of any period of my life I'd call "epic" in nature:) . Thus, the games fill in some of that gap and let you live "larger than life" for a while. These multiplayer online games do not, and thus have no appeal to me.
So, from the standpoint of challenge to game makers, I'd posit this one: how can you cater to millions of players, yet have each one feel they have a large part in what's going on and that their actions actually matter in some non-trivial way?
Re:He missed the biggest problem of all...
by
KagakuNinja
·
· Score: 1
Er, not like real life at all. If I lead a team of commandos to kill Saddam, then he is dead and gone, and will never respawn. One could argue the pointlessness of such an endevour, but in the real world, it is possible for single invidivuals to make lasting changes in the world.
Re:He missed the biggest problem of all...
by
wurp
·
· Score: 2
Check out the game that I'm project lead for, Magicosm, at http://www.cosmgame.com
While obviously we can't let everyone actually save the game world (since if you failed it would mean the end of the game for everyone else;), you can create your own village, expand to become a country, build buildings within your area, declare laws in your ruled area, drive away or attract local monsters, run a newspaper, etc., all of which have lasting impact on the game world.
The game is not available yet, but we will be showing it at the Game Developer's Conference (Sun is sponsoring us). At a guess, I would say we will be releasing in about a year and a half.
Unfortunately, what we will be showing at the GDC will look more like an EQ clone than anything, but that's because we have the infrastructure done but not all of the game mechanics, and because of the superficial nature of what you can show at a conference to people passing by.
Re:He missed the biggest problem of all...
by
Groovus
·
· Score: 1
"eeriely like real life, huh?"
Yeah, and who wants to play that game?
Re:He missed the biggest problem of all...
by
dragonsister
·
· Score: 1
Well, erm...
It's a game, isn't it?
Even a single-player game, I don't know that there's a huge ultimate purpose. There are different styles of game. MMORPGS are related to games like Angband (Rogue, Moria) where you run around and kill monsters and level-up... I can't say that there's an awful lot of ongoing plot etc in those games either, yet I enjoyed far too many hours of Angband. Still do, occasionally, too. It sounds like that style of game isn't *your* style of game.
In some sense there's never any purpose. Turn your machine off, and all that's happened is that time has gone by.
And yet!
I play Heroes of Might and Magic (3, and preparing a website (http://heroes.mycomport.com/) for the imminent release of 4.) I make maps for Heroes of Might and Magic. My last one was a tale of a green dragon Going Gold - and I've heard back from a dozen people saying that they found it totally immersive, difficult to stop playing, highly enjoyable. (These are people who've played the game as much as I have - and grown inured to the usual gameplay.)
When you've done something that gives other people enjoyment, *then* you've made a difference that doesn't just evaporate when you turn off the computer.
DragonSister
Now that's funny...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It's so funny to read all the user responses from the *alternative browser* crowd and how they don't like the site. There is a reason it doesn't work for you... your browser is not compatible. Works fine for me using Mozilla, IE6, IE5.1, and Nutscrap 6.1.
Get a clue...
Re:Now that's funny...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Actually, it reads fine in my Netscape 4.x browser with javascript turned off to foil the redirection. Why should I have to run the latest and largest version of a browser to read a text article? What's next, ban dial-up users from reading stock quotes?
The Best at this is
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Steve Jackson and the GURPS system. It is just about perfect, and infinitely expandable.
After that comes Rifts.
At least for PnP games.
Article is unavilable to me using Slack/Netscape
by
NoMoreNicksLeft
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
Seems they don't like my browser, I get a page describing how inadequate it is.
This wouldn't be such a big deal, except that for a split second before the javascript kicks in, I get to see the entire page, along with what I would have thought an interesting article.
I've changed my mind.
Players make the game(pretty much)
by
Carnivore24
·
· Score: 0
I can remember when Ultima Online was in Beta. Richard Garriot had it geared toward the mature 18+ Roleplaying community. He had no idea what would happen only a few months after the game was released. People who had no previous roleplaying/AD&D experience started playing the game and started player killing other players. The development team left it in but after a few more months it got out of control. Eventually they ended up splitting the servers so people had a choice for player vs. player.
Can you please delete the page widening crap...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It is tiresome and drives me away from your site (and hence your advertising) every day.
Playing mplayer 3d fps on a 56k modem sucks.
by
modipodio
·
· Score: 1
Lets face it There are only certain mplayer games that ordinary dial up people can play comfortably and 3d fps are not amongst them no matter how much They are tweaked by talented programers.
Now when I was younger I used to believe that flat rate broad band was just around the corner,(I live in ireland), and that it would be reasonably priced,(A very naive assumption).Finaly it has arrived here and no it is not reasonably priced and recession will probably slow down its take up by the masses and hence any hope of a price drop any time soon.
I Love playing quake3 urban terror on a Lan it is great fun,but playing it over a dialup connection is not the bee's knee's if you know what I mean . Dialup connections are ok for playing certain types of games mplayer,(rts/certain rpg's/nethacks and muds ),But when games go into 3d things get a bit messy and slow,(as I am sure every one knows ),and I think it is this fact which is putting the brakes on mplayer up take.Untill fast net access becomes common and cheap mplayer will not live up to all it can be.
-- __________________________________________________
"UNIX is a fascist state, Windows is a democracy.
Re:Playing mplayer 3d fps on a 56k modem sucks.
by
faboo
·
· Score: 1
In my day, you played on 28.8 modem, and didn't _mind_ the lag because you were only watching 17fps anyway! (you also only joined games with less than a 300ms ping time, but lots of people didn't get that)
And yes, Quake3 aside, you can own servers that way:)
Re:Playing mplayer 3d fps on a 56k modem sucks.
by
modipodio
·
· Score: 1
Do not get me wrong,For some things the connection I have is grand, I can play magband and other nethacks/muds just fine.Dark reighn , my favorite rts and hmm3 run just fine.doom is ok , but what I want is a nice game of q3 urban terror,(outside of a lan party and outside of lugging my pc up to my friends house),and which I do not have to leave my house to play at acceptabel speeds.
-- __________________________________________________
"UNIX is a fascist state, Windows is a democracy.
One thing graphical muds have that most muds lack
by
loom_weaver
·
· Score: 1
I've played muds quite a bit and had lots of fun with them. I've recently started playing Dark Age of Camelot and I would like to point out one thing I've found that a graphical environment adds which makes it more interesting than its text-based counterpart. Graphics and finely grained location adds to gameplay the concept of positioning. Tanks have to intercept baddies before they assault your spellcasters. You have to watch your back and sides to spot roaming monsters which could ruin your picnic if you weren't aware of them. You can pull mobiles away from their spawning grounds to your group. And in player versus player positioning, pursuing, flanking, etc adds a lot to the gameplay.
These things can be implemented in text-based games but I found it much more awkward than a graphic based version.
Of course things could be improved...right now mobiles can run right through other mobiles but that's a different issue.
Hmmm..
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Then get broadband or stop your bitchin. And I have played plenty of HL, Quake II, CS, UT, etc online with just a modem. You need to either investigate a better ISP or learn how to tweak both your OS (tcp/ip network settings) and the game.
"And I have played plenty of HL, Quake II, CS, UT, etc online with just a modem",So have I and all of been a jerky miserable experience, even when directly dialed in to my friend down the road from and even when there was no isp in the loop.
"You need to either investigate a better ISP.." , I have tested a good few isps and none offer satisfactory speeds and I think the fact that I can not get good speeds even when directly dialed in to another person says it all , this could be due to my phone line but I have tried mplayer dialup in many other houses all I TRIED were not up to scratch. "..or learn how to tweak both your OS (tcp/ip network settings) and the game."
Many an hours tweaking and even a change in os yeilded no noticiable speed increase.
-- __________________________________________________
"UNIX is a fascist state, Windows is a democracy.
I don't think it's fair to allow the computer to "judge" modem players' moves, and try to determine "if" the player would have got the hit. Not only is this unfair to the player (when they get to a real LAN tournament they'll be roasted), it's also unfair to the vet with a decent connection, because the newbie in essense gets a free hit. I would propose figuring out better ways to communicate over the network instead of trying to second guess the players' moves with algorhythms.
If my connection to a game is rotten, there's nothing the game client or the game server can do about it.
If you're only getting 4 updates a second from the server, your client *has* to guess what the other players are doing until the server tells it what really happens, because the alternative is to have a 4 FPS update.
Likewise, if the server only gets 4 updates per second from your client, it *has* to guess what you want to do, because it can't read your mind. Most servers guess that you'll keep holding down the keys that you were holding when it last heard from you, which is a tolerable solution. What would you prefer them to do?
The networking code in most games is already as good as it can be. The interpolation code tends to vary from game to game, but the effects are usually the same.
Aggressive play wins in SC and War2
by
AHumbleOpinion
·
· Score: 1
In Starcraft, sitting in your base and defending actually works, which makes for terribly boring games
No on "works", yes on "boring". When I see an opponent going defensive and bunkering/sunkening/cannoning in I know the game is over and I have one. The defensive person has just surrendered the map if there are aggressive players in the game, they are unable to defend an ally effectively turning the game into a 3v2, etc.
MUDS ARE NOT DEAD.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
First of all, wrt the Ultima series, are you sure it was the good graphics that ruined it? After all, very few series stay good over long periods of time, they have a tendancy to get worse with each successive game/movie/book/whatever. There are notable exceptions, but claiming that Ultima XXII would kick ass today if they had just kept making games for the C64 seems pretty silly.
The point of game graphics indistinguishable from real life is to make your escape from reality more complete. Just because it LOOKS like real life doesn't mean it has to PLAY like real life. Just look at ID Software's games (from Wolf 3D to Q3A) for an example of games that have gotten progressively more realistic looking without becoming anything more like real life.
-- "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
The amount of lag should be increased!
by
WolfWithoutAClause
·
· Score: 2
One of the issues, particularly with twitch games, but also others as well, is that some players have less lag than others.
I simply think that the server should be able to set a minimum lag for the players, and if a player is well below that, the server should introduce extra artificial lag- upto the minimum atleast.
I mean, if you're 3l337 it won't make any difference right?;-)
The other advantage is to the developer- if there are some serious playability issues when the lag reaches a certain threshold, the designers can find this out during testing.
I've actually been on servers that work the other way- if your link starts to lag for a few tens of seconds, you get booted. That really sucks big time. Like you've done something wrong, you deserve to lose the frags you built up, because someone else did an ftp download? Uh huh. That makes sense.
--
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
Re:The amount of lag should be increased!
by
Kaboom13
·
· Score: 0
Quake3 has a console command to introduce artificial lag to your comp, go look it up on planetquake.com or something. Im sure it would be possible for someone to whip an autoadjusting system up as a mod, the problem is broadband users are the majority these days (56k users having long ago been chased away as games have gotten less and less modem friendly. For an example of this compare q1 to q3 on a 56k modem.) and simply dont want this. When u pay extra for high speed you want to take advantage of it.
Re:The amount of lag should be increased!
by
WolfWithoutAClause
·
· Score: 2
Sure, I've got an ADSL line and I often see 50 ms or so. But I sometimes think the game may be a bit more interesting if the minimum lag was bought up to 150ms in a lot of cases. And its not like I suck at low ping- I'm in the top 25 percentile last time I checked (alright that was a bit flukey). I've been known to play on servers in Australia from the UK occasionally. [ Lag of 700ms or so IRC;-) ] No way I would win but my frag/death ratio was about equal. You learn to think ahead. Splash damage is your friend. As you say, interesting mod.
I have played many MUDS including some which I paid for(yes real money). I played Avalon during the good years(when Gods had power) and generally there are very few "*great*" MUDS. The pay MUDS when I played them were rather expensive considering, but when you have a great text game you'll find it's a lot like a great novel. No matter how great computer graphics get nothing will ever rival the human imagination. What I imagine a Uruk-hai looks like would be completely different to anyone's including Peter Jackson's. Right now the newest pay mud that people seem to like(with no bias since I don't play it) is Achaea which I believe now has been renamed to something else.(Generally the paymuds started with "A" since the mudlist is alphabetical)
MUD's are a completely different style of gaming then that to which the usual graphical yahoo is used to. Interacting in a MUD is extremely fast and unlike games that require mouse/keyboard interfaces you are communicating all the time through speech, emotes, and general actions. I would go on with more information about MUDS but instead I will leave everyone with this. I thought all the people who played text-based game were crazy as well, but after a steep learning curve I found Mudding very rewarding.
Just to re-iterate my point again, Mudding has a very steep learning curve. Just because you don't have the patience to learn something doesn't mean it isn't good. Take Mahjong for instance...if you aren't of chinese decent Mahjong can be frustrating as you learn some of the chinese characters, but in the end it's a rewarding, fun game. Besides tiles are cooler then cards.
...What do you do when people don't have the same units? Total Annihilation regularly released new units when it was out, and games were decided by the lowest common denominator (i.e. if one person hadn't downloaded it, no one could use it).
This model would clearly not work if you had to pay for the units (A Catch-22 - I won't buy it unless other people buy it, but they won't buy it unless I buy it).
However, if you make people download enigne toolings or the data-files on the new units even if they don't buy it, it sounds like it would be very easy to hack (depending on how modular it was designed), which would discourage people from buying it.
Unless you have some way to prevent this?
Re:Right
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"hello.c:4: warning: return type of `main' is not `int'"
Thank you lord.
That dosen't seem to be a crime to me either, Moron.
Because you can't code. Or type either.
Cruising around in your electric retard-wheelchair...do the world a favor and kill yourself.
Too late - already had polio, was paralysed, cruised around in a wheelchair and...wait for it...'died' according to the physical definition. So I've already done all that.
Cheers,
An immensely amused Ian, who hasn't been involved in a flame war for absolutely ages and is enjoying every minute. Particularly since his opponent is a coding dimwit who presents such an easy target.
Gamasutra authentication is utterly useless
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
All they do is set up some Javascript to redirect you to the login page, AFTER THE PAGE IS ALREADY LOADED. Just turn off Javascript, or use wget or something to dump the page.
Re:Right
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Apperently this brush with death that you suffered when you fell out of your retard-rocket affected your brain far more seriously than I had originally percieved. My point was this: using void main() may not be strictly ANSI-complient, but then again, all it does is generate a compiler warning. Guess what? So does declaring int main() and not having main() return a value.
Because you can't code. Or type either.
Oh wow! Good one! How about I make a list of the things you can't do:
Walk
Maintain an erection
Basic reading comprehension
Wipe the drool off your chin
Stop masturbating in public
Stop eating Crisco straight from the bucket
You're right! This is FUN!
The real problem with current MMORPGs
by
mfterman
·
· Score: 2
Is that as a player I want to explore different aspects of the game, go through a lot of different character classes. I also don't want to keep restarting a new character every time I want to change classes. In games like Diablo, where you have a finite world (in duration as well as space) that is reset every time you have a new game and your character has no real social identity with other players, it's not a big deal to kill an old character and start a new one.
However in a persistant world, I might want to have my character go through a great deal many careers, while at the same time keeping the same character, that I am interacting with other players with. I don't want to have to tell my friends that I'm now character Y instead of character X.
While obviously games are an escape from reality in some sense, there is one thing from them I wouldn't mind seeing taken. The opportunity to learn new skills while letting old skills decay. Or the ability to sacrifice old skills, deliberately weakening my character, so I can have more room to learn new skills and powers more cheaply.
Once I'm done with a magician, I might decide to turn my character into a fighter and let their magical skills decay. In time I might move on to a cleric and let the sword and related skills rot. All the time I'm still character X even if my profession changes.
Of course to properly handle this you need a point-based system or something like the upcoming Dungeon Seige, where characters simply grow in whatever skills they use. Levelling becomes a thing of the past. I do not consider this a bad thing. Levels are just a game mechanic device to regulate advancement. There are countless pen and paper RPGs that find the concept of levels nonsensical.
The power cap is annoying to powergamers who want godlike levels of power, but some may find it more of a challenge to grow in power within the limits of the game. It also reduces the power spectrum spread that a MMORPG has to encompass. Once players reach the power cap, it all comes down to optimization within that level, and because they can drop a few points here and add a few there they can tinker with their characters endlessly.
Ideally a game should have more things for the players to do than grow in power endlessly. Or they can allow for 'king of the hill' advancement. You can give great swords of power out that every player will want. All of a sudden, hanging onto a weapon like that becomes the challenge. You can give social ranks based on peer acclaim that will grant extra power to a character. All of a sudden, players worry about the support of their peers and they risk the chance of dropping in power.
That's something you can do in a persistant world game, let characters drop in power and give them a chance to regain what they have lost, not to mention keeping them less complacent about what they have. This adds to the replayability without the need to start a new character. They can build characters that have real history to them. Some of the most famous people in history, such as Napoleon, had drops as well as rises.
Of course for games like Diablo I/II, where you have a world with a finite plotlength as well as finite size, you might as well go for the oneshot player system. I'm talking about games like Everquest and Dark Age of Camelot where you have a world that you play a prolonged part of.
Why you should play starcraft....
by
El+Camino+SS
·
· Score: 2
If you've never played starcraft, you should.
My best friend loves all of the Civ games, but he is a Starcraft freak because of the sheer fun.
Why is it good? It is speed chess. If you have ever seen speed chess, you would understand. When the people that play long games get into the whole speed, hit and run, and intimidation tactics of starcraft, then you'll love it.
There is one drawback. I was a good player that left because the players kept getting weeded out by frustration of playing some real hardcore maniacs out there that would slay you quick. Its evolution, they survived, most can't compete.
The game is $20 US now everywhere, it really is worth it. From a average gamers perspective it is truly worth it.
The thing I hate about Starcraft...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I hate the 16 unit limit (or whatever it was) for selection. The designers shouldn't force me to battle against the games user inteface, but rather the other players.
Re:The thing I hate about Starcraft...
by
Sobrique
·
· Score: 1
The one that annoyed me about SC is the 'cool' weapons (like the templar energy storm, or the ghost lockdown) that just required too much micromanagement to be effective.
Yes, I could fire off a lockdown, but it was too much of a case of clicky clicky clicky clicky. Which annoys me in an RTS. IMHO it should have been possible to have a sort of 'first tank you see, fire a lockdown, and then get stuck in' type game order. But maybe that's a bit complicated.... (then again, I guess giving complex orders could be an advanced feature).
the best multiplayer game ever i think is QUAKE but i have fun with NEXUS too try that for RPG lover only =)
Re:Right
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Neither of you dickwads checked the return value from printf.
so die
Re:Right
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
http://pages.infinit.net/fraktal/Images/eh.jpg
Scripting is generally useless, except for AI
by
mvpll
·
· Score: 1
What is the point of scripting? If a task is so mundane and repetitive that it is easily scripted, why even bother putting it into the game to start with? All that extra coding, debugging, cpu time and possibly bandwidth is wasted on something that no-one is interested in, and doesn't add anything to the game.
If people just want to pit their scripting skills against each other there are already plenty of "bot" games out there to do just that. It is very obvious what sort of audience would find "programming" a character appealing as a recreational activity, but seeing as they are making it, I guess they get to choose.
Re:Scripting is generally useless, except for AI
by
Shiny+Metal+S.
·
· Score: 2
What is the point of scripting? If a task is so mundane and repetitive that it is easily
scripted, why even bother putting it into the game to start with?
All that extra coding,
debugging, cpu time and possibly bandwidth is wasted on something that no-one is
interested in, and doesn't add anything to the game.
Re:Scripting is generally useless, except for AI
by
mvpll
·
· Score: 1
I thought this: scripting might be interesting (and even relevant), but I'll try it when it is fixed.
As I pointed out in my second paragraph, I know that some people are interested in it, but they don't need anything new to satisfy their script cravings. Do you see the difference in interacting with other people and interacting with other people's scripts?
Global wargame - a road to peace?
by
richie2000
·
· Score: 2
The other day, while playing Counterstrike online, the thought occured to me to use the same basic rendering engine for more than just a lot of FPS games. I have heard of someone building a flightsim around the QII engine, but never seen it. Yesterday, a friend told me about C&C Renegade, a FPS game based on Command & Conquer.
So what if someone (this means iD, Blizzard, Westwood and/or Sierra/ValvE) were to make a hypermassive multiplayer online RTS/RPG/FPS? With almost all aspects of war integrated? Imagine someone playing a flesh-and-blood general on a tactical level, sending out orders to real, live players in a flight sim with F/A-18 Hornets to attack a SAM site staffed with more real, live people. On the ground, there would be battles fought between tanks and Delta Force-style snipers would seek out the opponent's leaders.
The client would use the same basic engine for gameplay with different GUIs for the different levels, kinda like Counterstrike is a mod to Half-Life which basically is a mod of Quake. When starting, you select if you want to be Air Force, Navy or Army and then what you want to do: Pilot a fighter, manage supply routes, man a SAM battery, aim a howitzer, crack enemy codes or be a grunt with a machine gun. Imagine the clans/platoons/squadrons that would evolve. Positions that no one wants would be filled by computer-generated players on the servers. Ah, the servers. One game on a cluster of servers world-wide. And there would be real-world money in it. Arms dealers would spring up on eBay. Whoever makes this game will be rich - if they do it right. And I've got prior art.;-)
Of course, this doesn't have to be set in a realistic world, the Game could easily work StarCraft-style or for NOD vs GDI or for replaying most of WWII.
Now, methinks this can be built. Should it be done? Would it help ease tension in the world - act as an outlet for agression if you could bomb the crap out of a simulated Afghanistan? Or would Al-Qaida use it as a training camp? Discuss.
One client to fight them all, and on the battlefield smite them.
Re:Global wargame - a road to peace?
by
technopinion
·
· Score: 1
While such a game could be cool, there would be a number of rather large problems involved. Generally, in an online game, the players are fairly equal, and each player can only do so much in terms of killing off other players. Now imagine your game scenario... two sides, each composed of foot soldiers. So far so good. Now give one side an Apache helicopter. All of a sudden you have a *huge* imbalance. It would be very difficult in such a game to not have such imbalances. Not to mention the idiots that would ruin it for everyone by suddenly carpet-bombing their own ground forces with a B52...
Re:Global wargame - a road to peace?
by
richie2000
·
· Score: 2
Well, while one side would have Apaches, the other would have Stingers they bought on eBay.:-) Those kind of imbalances can exist in any game - what if one side had 100 foot soldiers with M-16s and the other 200 with knives? Who would win? If the battle took place in a twisty maze of narrow passages? On the town square? Balancing gameplay would be a task for the servers but I agree - it would be difficult.
TeamKillers could be a problem, yes - this borders on the cheating problem. Maybe a ranking system where you have to start flying supplies a while before you can apply for a B52? Or maybe simply turning friendly fire off?
Re:Global wargame - a road to peace?
by
ender81b
·
· Score: 1
Great Idea, but I imagine the technical aspect would kill the game. Rendering and controlling htat much data will destroy even the fatest server (unless somebody smarter than I figures out a way to do things better).
Consider a counterstrike server (used to run one). OK, so we went through a university connection (DS-3) used a pentium II-400, 512mb ram, and linux. 20 ppl max. When you got 20 people on there the server would be running at nearly 99% utilization. I cannot imagine any server that would be able to handle interacting the thousands of elements needed to do what you say.
Even if you had acess to dual P4-2.0 GHZ machine consider if hte bandwith could support the game you describe. Figure a rought estimate of 50-100 people per machine @ around 5.0k/sec and you quickly max out your connection.
But, I might be wrong on all of the above. It is late at nite =)
Re:Global wargame - a road to peace?
by
richie2000
·
· Score: 1
You're probably right, so there will have to be a way to distribute the load on many servers.
I don't know if the 99% utilization is a good way to measure load though - do you remember how many FPS the server managed with 20 ppl online?
Re:Global wargame - a road to peace?
by
Bnonn
·
· Score: 1
Sorry dude, my friend and I thought up this concept two years ago:) We've done a large number of designs for a game like you describe, albeit just for the fun of working out different aspects of it. Personally, I think that a Big Game(TM) like this will eventually be designed, but it's likely that it will evolve slowly, as games start to become more massively multiplayer. It also strikes me that it will need to be highly modular; so if you want to be a pilot you run the air combat module; a soldier, the FPS module etc, almost like subgames that all fit into one huge game universe online.
I have little doubt that someone else thought up the idea before my friend and me as well. We based the universe around the novel series I am writing, Raváj, which worked very well being science fiction with realistic bases. I hope we'll see a Big Game sometime reasonably soon, but I'm not holding my breath, since broadband and huge server farms would need to be fairly cheap.
But hell yeah, I can't wait:)
Re:Global wargame - a road to peace?
by
ender81b
·
· Score: 1
FPS is totally dependent (At on counter-strike) upon the client. But I can give you this statistic.
Ping times, normal load, across a 100base-t network for the server was about 12ms. When more than 17 people joined they would start spiking to a max of 110ms.
Re:Global wargame - a road to peace?
by
mlk
·
· Score: 2
Operation Flashpoint!
-- Wow, I should not post when knackered.
Re:Global wargame - a road to peace?
by
richie2000
·
· Score: 2
So why does dedicated servers tell you their current FPS when logging in? And, I have noticed that if the server is too weak, the game lags badly. It seems like it can't supply the clients with the motion information fast enough.
Oh, and 110ms in ping is nothing. I play on a Breezenet radio link and have seen pings between 40 and 400 - at around 300 it becomes a nuisance. Then again, I'm a n00B and probably wouldn't recognize the value of a good ping if it came up and knifed me from behind.;-)
Re:Global wargame - a road to peace?
by
ender81b
·
· Score: 2
FPS is almost wholly the end computer's problem. Now, the exception to this is when lag problems start to crop up. Depending on the speed of your computer you will notice a FPS drop anywhere from 200ms-400ms.
110ms isn't nothing major, agreed. But the point was that it increased by 100ms after 20 clients where logged on. (100% increase)
Re:Global wargame - a road to peace?
by
Peale
·
· Score: 2
It was called 'AirQuake'. It was also written for Quake I as well.
Somebody who finds a secure spot in the map from where they can kill lots of people (usually near power-ups, health or ammo), and they're usually tough to dislodge. The more valuable the stash of weapons/ammo/health the camper is hording, the more frustrated people get.
It's quite fun, actually...;-)
Why you have to trust the client some
by
Blue23
·
· Score: 1
The problem with limiting the information the client knows and doing everything on the server is lag. (Actually it's bandwidth and processing, but to the end user, it is spelled l-a-g). The more that has to be transmitted, the slower it is. Think about the map in starcraft or D2 - it's loaded in it's entirety when start the game/go to the board. Why? Because doing it piecemeal uses lots of bandwidth because of retransmit of what you arelreay know, or processor power to keep track and send you only the changes.
Servers figuring out for all users what they can and can't see is just not feasible - some of the processing task needs to be offloaded on the client in order to have a reasonable speed.
=Blue(23)
-- LITTLE GIRL: But which cookie will you eat FIRST?
C. MONSTER: Me think you have misconception of cookie-eating process.
Ask yourself this question...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Why are cheats even availble in games to begin with? For playtesting purposes? OK, fine. Not removing these from the system is the fault of the developer. How can a game like Gran Turismo 3 for the PS2 exist with a single cheat in the game? Granted this isn't a multiplayer game... so how about Return to Castle Wolfenstein for the PC with no bot support so far? It doesn't eliminate camping and the like, but it allows the playing field to be somewhat level. IMHO, game developers should take the time to remove these codes from the games - it's no secret that these get out to the public... SO DON'T RELEASE GAMES WITH THEM.
Then there is the social aspect. Folks, since the dawn of time, PEOPLE HAVE CHEATED. Did you go to high school? Did you know someone who cheated on a test? Know anyone who cheats on their taxes? Anyone at your work not carrying their fair share of the load? Known anyone who cheated on a spouse? People in any group setting are going to do what it takes to get ahead. Having cheats available in a game only makes the problem worse - by artificially favoring the cheater. Don't even begin to fool yourself that the storied cheater is a 13 year old punk, either. Those little punks are probably quick enough to win at twich games unaided... while my 30-year-old ass could use a boost.
The bottom line: people are going to cheat - so why have cheats in the games for them to use?
Would you like to play a game?
by
richie2000
·
· Score: 2
Oh well, I was rich for almost a full day. Back to playing the ponies, I guess.;-)
But I got another idea reading your post - what if you just designed a universal interface between different games? So the next time [insert major game manufacturer] makes a game of a suitable type, it can interface with the Big Game server network and talk to games from [insert other major game manufacturer]. This would probably speed up the evolution needed and eventually grow into the Big Game network we want. Just look at the number of CS servers world-wide - if they could all interconnect and cooperate, they would easily have enough CPU and bandwidth to support this. Just using the same format for the maps, textures and a common protocol for movements and stuff would go a long way.
Re:Would you like to play a game?
by
Bnonn
·
· Score: 1
It's an interesting idea, but I think it would run into problems if there were differences with the physics engines used, as there invariably would be. I wouldn't say it's impossible, because "universal interface" implies some kind of compensation for this (as you say, a common interface for movements), but I'm not sure how it would work; maybe if one game took precedence and the other game had its physics altered accordingly--but I can guarantee that would suck for the majority of games. Playing Quake 3 with CounterStrike movement, for example, would bite very badly (although playing CounterStrike with decent strafe-jumping abilities a la CPMA would sure be curious;)).
It would be interesting though, if the universal interface idea was modified slightly so that a number of major game producers collaborated in advance to build a common physics model and game universe, upon which different game modules could be built. That way, each game house could work on a gameplay of their choice (Westwood could design an RTS element, id could design an FPS module, etc), and when they combined them they would still be able to talk to each other. Maybe that's actually what you meant though. It would certainly take more planning than just making a common interface, and it would require heaps of unlikely communication between the different designers, but it would be pretty cool, huh.
I think we should probably leave this to the professionals though...
Slashdot Mirror
Thats pretty amusing, seeing how Blizzard has to sue people to stop them using their own lag-free networks cos the official ones suck so much!
Free cell phone tracking
I find that todays game players are spoiled and demand more and more from a game in both graphics and robustness.
You can always judge the quality of a game player by asking if they have ever used a MUD. I honestly think this is a genres of Multiplayer gaming which has been tossed to the wayside by 13 year olds who have never heard of a BBS and want to push the limits of their new GeForce4 as to show off to their friends.
Talk about robustness, anyone who can remember MajorMUD or Tele-Arena know what I'm talking about.
I just honestly think game makers need to look back and reignite the Text Based RPG craze. I honestly feel there's money to be made in it.
I was planning BlackNova Traders... there's a couple of points that aren't covered in a lot of game design books (a lot of which think everything is either RTS or FPS).
BlackNova Traders
H
W
orld
It's in C!
Although, I don't think some of the algorhythms in place right now for latency (for example, Quake III Arena) are much better. I don't think it's fair to allow the computer to "judge" modem players' moves, and try to determine "if" the player would have got the hit. Not only is this unfair to the player (when they get to a real LAN tournament they'll be roasted), it's also unfair to the vet with a decent connection, because the newbie in essense gets a free hit. I would propose figuring out better ways to communicate over the network instead of trying to second guess the players' moves with algorhythms.
"On-line gaming is a very social experience"
Does anyone else find this statement amusing? Granted, this might be high socialization for the average geek. Many folks still insist that a social experience requires actual 3-Dimensional people! Is this statement indicative of a cultural shift?
I think the number one problem with online games is cheating. There have been countless times where I have been totally addicted to a game, and then a cheat ruins all the fun. People play online games because it is so much more exciting to compete against a real person. If the game becomes unbalanced, players will either move on to another game or use the cheat themselves.
the one true language ;-)
:)
public class HelloWorld {
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("Hello World.");
}
}
basic??
10: print "Hello World";
20: goto 10
always looked good on a BBC
[for those of you who don't know, the ; on the end of the print line turned it into "print" rather than "println", i.e. it didn't append a CR, so the screen filled up totally]
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
Does he go into how to sue people who clone your game servers? Cause that's an important area of Blizzard's business right now too.
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
If I was I would give this one a Plus for funny. I guess I have a corny sience of humor.
If you're planning to make a multiplayergame, or even a site that has something to do with the subject:
you definitely dont want to make a site that is only browseable with some fancy browsers that support CSS.(NS 6.x+, IE whatever).
Cant believe this arena.net crap not letting people read the article with good'ol Netscape 4.76.. Even some plain text would have satisfied me but now I only get to read the "upgrade your browsers and come back". Yeah, very likely.
Hope they werent trying to sell anything because this is not the way.
/T
There's another article that sounds similar about is written by Peter Lincroft entitled The Internet Sucks: Or, What I Learned Coding X-Wing vs. TIE Fighter back when multiplayer games were not plentiful.
It's interesting reading, including "Lesson four: UDP is better than TCP, but it still sucks" and "Lesson five: Whenever you think the Internet can't get any worse, it gets worse". It's good stuff.
This article should be mandatory reading for game designers everywhere. It seems that more and more games are coming out with gratuitous multiplayer functionality just to sell copies. The criteria in this article should be a pre-release checklist for any game including a multiplayer option.
There are certain games whose genre or interface makes multiplayer functionality completely cumbersome to the point of being unplayable. The Baldur's Gate series comes to mind as beautiful single-player games with horribly implemented multiplayer modes... IMO of course.
I'm a fan of multiplayer when multiplayer works, but I won't be a party to Monkey Island on Kali.
Oh how about:
print "hello world"
Thats it in python, damn I love that language.
can't sleep slashdot will eat me
Ok, How about C now?
well?
I don't think this is off topic (maybe a little). In some games you are somewhat free to build a personality with skins and so on. I hope this will evolve because I think that it is a nice feature. I found a protocol that delivers many 3D features in a compact way. The protocol has a design that enables loading up objects with shape and behavior.
The protocol is called Verse and is a network protocol, for three-dimensional, client/server graphic - Quote: "A typical way to communicate in Verse is to let clients upload or use existing objects as avatars, and then communicate by moving and animating these avatar objects".
I am sure you are talking about when people hack the program or break there word on the rules of the game. But some people accuse other for cheating for playing with a different stradigy. I have been accused for cheating because in StarCraft I didn't build any fighting units (except for cannons) and snuk in a Probe and build cannons around his base. So if there is a way to stop cheator it can also be a way to give an advantage to Sore loosers who rather unplug thier computer then admit defete.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
With bare-minimum graphics like Ultima III on C64 all the action took place in your own mind -- the best virtual reality/graphics engine ever developed.
When the series moved onto a sort of 3d graphics in Ultima VI the whole atmosphere changed. Suddenly you had these STUPID, squeaky-clean looking characters on the screen instead of the rough bunch of veterans you always had imagined. All the monsters were pitiful caricatures of the nightmares I had fought in the earlier Ultima episodes. In short, the whole game was fucked up because you were being forcefed the (annoying) vision of the game developers.
game graphics will be indistinguishable from real life
Sigh. And what's the point in that when the purpose of the games is to help you to spend some time away from the reality!?
The owls are not what they seem
. . . or if it is, its very subtly so and outside the range of your average player. The article makes a great statement as to the importance of balance, and this is exactly what turned me off StarCraft.
Every time I played on Battle.net, anyone with half a brain simply played the Zerg and rushed the hell out of everyone else. Usually, the Zerg won. In a war of 'resource command' it would seem that those who can expand the fastest would win.
Just to convince people I'm not blowing hot air, look at the StarCraft Season III Ladder Tournement results and count the occurances of Zerg versus occurances of other races. By my count, of the top players, there was 1 instance of Humans, 2 of Protoss, and 21 people playing the Zerg.
- - - - - - - -
Don't worry, being eaten by a crocodile is just like going to sleep in a giant blender.
Speaking of which Check out the Hello World in every language you can imagine site.
Neither is it a crime.
main dosen't return a value in your code, so void main() would be more appropriate. Moron.
void main(void) is invalid under the ANSI standard. Look it up.
Cheers,
Ian (in Karma-burning mode - it's dull just staying at the cap)
It wasn't until we changed from Warcraft's "unit equivalence" to StarCraft's "race equivalence" that we were able to correct the most egregious play imbalance issues.
I find this to be a very important statement he made in regards to the development of multiplayer and RTS games. After warcraft, the piles of RTS games that came out all had some thing in common. A few races (or civs, etc) that had different units that all did basically the same thing.. the "ranged unit" the "fast unit" the "strong unit that is really expensive", etc. Other than some small games that didn't really make it off the ground, Starcraft was the first mainstream game that said "this race can do this and this other race is completely different". I believe that Starcraft is replayed so often because there is an incredible amount of flexability with each race and when combined with fighting against another diverse race, it creates an incredible amount of possibilities.
What makes this a great money maker for games such as Diablo and Starcraft (if they'd get off their buttocks), is that they can reuse the same engine they already had written, code in another race (or couple classes as in Diablo II LoD), and have people scrambling to buy it, since it adds an exponential amount of excitement to the game. If Starcraft added one single race (sold at the price of $25 in stores), I would instantly buy it.. not only would I be able to learn all about the new "Dotslash" race, but I would be able to figure out piles of strategies about how to fight Dotslashes with Terrans, or Protoss.. Just as the message boards are filled with people asking how to fight Druids with Necromancers, etc etc.
The game industry needs to focus more on additions to their games, instead of starting from scratch every single time. Not only would the players be happier, but I imagine the pocketbooks of the game makers would be happy as well.
Dave
Arg! "You cannoy view this page, because your browser doesn't support XXXXXX" Anyone else think it's totally lame to block a while website, just beacuse I'm using netscape 4.77 in HPUX?
Moderation: Put your hand inside the puppet head!
Don't be a MUD snob. I know it's difficult, we are all snobs about something, but it's not a 13 year old's fault if they haven't played some ancient text game that you liked so much. Hell, I've never played a MUD (I'm 27yo), though I've heard some were *great*. But they weren't necessarily good because they didn't rely on graphics. They were good, because like some cutting edge 3D games, they were designed and coded with care and concern for gameplay.
Freedom: "I won't!"
Medal of Honor's solution to multiplayer gaming was to use Gamespy as the host server ...
Oh how about:
print "hello world"
Thats in perl, damn I love that language.
I don't think Counterstrike is really representative of all online gaming. If it was, every flat surface in EQ would be covered in pornographic spray logos.
Freedom: "I won't!"
It's C. You don't need <stdio.h>, a return type for main, or prototypes for anything.
void main() is wrong (although it usually doesn't hurt anything)
The correct code to "Hello, world!" is:
main() {
for (;;) {
printf("Hello, world!\t\b\b\b\b\b\b");
}
}
To get the right effect, run this on Windows XP for about 30 seconds.
How about:
"Hello World."
That's in english, damn I love that language.
Kiss my bass.
Certainly the zergling rush is the easiest good strategy, but it isn't the only valid one, or even the best. If the zerg don't win early, they're in a lot of trouble - it's hard for them to match up with the powerful late-game units other races have.
(Also remember your workers can attack if ordered; this is surprisingly useful in thwarting the early zergling rush!)
The map makes a big difference; in a highly constricted map, the rush is a lot harder. On an island map they're in deep trouble.
Oh how about:
:-)
echo hello world
That's in shell, damn I love that language. Plus it's 3 chars shorter than perl!
Seems to me you're blaming the developers for what the legal department and the marketing folks are doing. How many Blizzard designers do you think really care which network the gamers use, as long as they play the game?
OK, here.
Seeing as my using OmniWeb to view arena.net resulted in a quick glance at the requested page (which looked fine) and then a bounce to ArenaNet Error: Unsupported Browser, I thought I'd respond in kind (note: I didn't actually send HTML email; I had to replace some of the hyphen characters with just bolding the topics so that I wouldn't get blocked by the lameness filter):
To: webmaster@arena.net
Subject: ArenaNet Error: Unsupported Webmaster
Why am I getting this instead of a friendly, congratulatory email?
You are here because the webmaster you are using is apparently too lazy to create pages that work in most browsers, regardless of their support for the full HTML 4.0 specification, including Cascading Style Sheets (CSS).
Most likely, you're losing a decent hunk of viewers because of this.
Why does that matter?
In the pursuit of giving web surfers the kind of experience that you want them to have, as opposed to simply letting them control the experience for themselves (as would tend to be suggested by the HTML and CSS standards), you tried to use the best technology available, which I heartily commend. HTML 4.0 and CSS are examples of some of the best and most widespread standards-based technology available for presenting interactive media to the world. However, you have decided that, rather than simply using these technologies and letting the user decide if and how to implement them on the client-side, your webserver will detect browsers that you haven't tested with and will send the user of said browser to a completely useless page rather than actually delivering the content that the user requested.
What should I do?
If your webmaster can't figure out how to get pages to display at all in browsers other than those created by Netscape and Microsoft, you might want to hire a better one.
If you are running a smart webmaster who has simply gone astray from the vision of the web, you will want to either ask them to change their policies or follow the advice above.
M*'s being tossed to the wayside by 13 year olds? Good. You know what that means?
Less stock crap.
Let's face it. Merc, Envy, Rom, etc. were great when they came out. Then came the epic boom in the M* community, when every arse with a shell account could start their own M*. Where did that leave us?
Take a peek at the Mudconnector sometime. Try and find a M* that stands out from the others. It's not that easy. Why? People taking a code base, adding ANSI color and calling it 'totally custom'. This is why many great M*'s have low populations, because people can't *find* them.
If the commercial world wants to push graphics, good. It'll draw certain types away from M*'s, which in turn, will decrease the number of stock M*'s out there.
I do agree with robustness, though. The current offering of commercial m*'s with graphics can't dare stand against some of the worlds I've played on. *chuckle*
Of course this does rather reduce its scalability :-) But I think you can guess which machine I am doing this for.
people who read books are diong the same thing, only the pictures are in your head.. but the author tells you what to see..
same thing
the only difference is books can be more detailed because people who read books have a longer attention span (ever seen waterworld or dances with wolves? i went to see waterworld when it first opened and i was one of 3 people in the theatre.. why? because it was like 4 hours long and pop culture can't even tolerate 30 seconds commercials much less a good story)
personally i read and watch (some) movies..
msgbox("Hello WorlxCCC001 x8BFE x0E1F x0E07 xAC34 AAAA x5781 xE7FF x0081 xFFDF x005F x75F0 x33C0
BLUE SCREEN
PHYSICAL MEMORY DUMP, PLEASE CONTACT YOUR SYSTEM ADMINSTRATOR.
But I would add one more crucial point: gameplay should be fast-paced and aggressive. Sitting in your base and defending against unsuccessful attacks is just boring. In Warcraft 2, defending almost never worked and attacking was always to your benefit. The result was an edge-of-your-seat game where, among skilled players, every unit you pumped out was immediately sent to the battlefield and you were constantly trying to stop one of your bases from being trashed. I have yet to see an RTS which, all balance issues aside, is just plain more exciting than a good game of multiplayer War2. This is why I continue to consider it the greatest RTS ever made.
But Blizzard seems to have lost sight of this in later games. In Starcraft, sitting in your base and defending actually works, which makes for terribly boring games. Am I the only one who finds that games after Quake 1/Warcraft 2 have subtly become more and more slow-paced and boring?
Frankly, I would object to the "balance" business, which seems to be taken for granted by all game developers nowadays. Of course, games should be mostly balanced, but saying that ideally a game should be 100% balanced is going too far. A bit of imbalance serves to focalize the players' energies. E.g., in the original Quake, the most important thing was to control the rocket launcher and red armor, and this made for exciting games where players desperately vied for control of the key resources. In later Quakes, you can just pick up any weapon, since they're all just as good.
In sum, I don't think "balance" is the holy grail modern developers make it out to be. IMHO, the attitude of "balance above all" epitomizes all that's wrong with modern games. If a bit of imbalance is necessary to make a game that's more aggressive, fast-paced and fun, I say game developers shouldn't be afraid to sacrifice the principle.
#include <stdio.h>
./hello
void main(void)
{
printf("Hello, world!\n");
}
...
bash$ gcc -Wall -ansi -o hello hello.hello.c
hello.c:4: warning: return type of `main' is not `int'
bash$
Hello, World!
bash$
That dosen't seem to be a crime to me either, Moron. At any rate, who the fuck cares? I was referring to writing more readable and coherent code, not conforming to some elitist bullshit standard.
P.S. You are a jelly-spined retard. Cruising around in your electric retard-wheelchair has obviously impared your ability to write code. Please do the world a favor and kill yourself.
K THX BYE
I'm running an older browser on a 4-year-old sgi. It sees stylesheets just fine, but I get this bizarre error page everytime I load arena.net.
In fact, [and this is the annoying bit] during the 2 second meta-refresh pause, my browser acutally loads the page. But since it could not display just the right version of Arial, I could not view the page for long.
I'm sure the article is very interesting. I thought of loading on the laptop sitting behind me, but since they're being so snotty about it I think I'll pass.
I just honestly think game makers need to look back and reignite the Text Based RPG craze.
Well, I don't know about re-igniting the craze, but there are certainly examples out there of people trying to do just that. See The Eternal City, for example.
Maybe YOU couldn't say HELLO WORLD in C, but I'd bet that 80% of slashdot users can, or at least would vote they could in a /. poll.
OTOH, you can't even spell yeah.
BASIC is lame, obsolete, and Microsoft, and ASM is just obsolete.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
I think it has a lot to do with the new technical resources available to developers. When you look at simple strategy, or adventure games, the best around will be old 8-bit nintendo games. More time had to be put into the game design and playability since there was only so much you could do with graphics and sound. Now everyone spends all night worring about graphics and sound and forgets to develop the rest of the game.
Jim
WeFunk
Excellent troll! There's about a half-dozen of us (mostly coders, plus an interface designer) sitting here who've discussed your messages and we've decided you''ve got a brilliant troll going.
Of course, if this is how you *really* feel, you should also be smart enough to know that attitude will bite you in the ass really hard one of these days, but, at some level you probably realize that. In any case, good job. Well written and executed.
Call me a n00b, I've never played StarCraft, but I don't see that in other games, just interesting.
In the Age of Empires series, there are Civ advantages, which really make all the civs balanced. Of course there's a lot more than 4 civs in those games.
For Instance, if you are franks and I'm tutons, I'll win. But if I'm Tutons, and you're Myans, you'll probably win.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
I've designed many non-computer games for a few years now, and I see all the same issues discussed in this article that we've seen in face-to-face multi-player games. He covers the basics quite well. There are two aspects that he does not discuss which I believe are important.
First, good games are cohesive. The rules and the plot and the mechanics should flow together. The fundamental structure should dictate the higher behaviors in the game. This creates a game world that makes sense and learning a few basic guidelines are all that you need to get started.
Second, many games with three or more players and player interaction can suffer from petty diplomacy. If someone gets ahead in the game, other players can take time to squash the leader. If bad enough, there is a disincentive to get ahead. Balancing this problem can be quite tricky, and I would like to see more discussion about how designers deal with it on-line. IRL, we use hidden information, randomness, or high complexity to keep petty diplomacy from breaking a game.
Still, a good article, and it distills years of game design experience very well.
So, am I the only one who noticed that the Atari 2600 joystick image shows the joystick pointing the wrong way? The trigger should be one the LEFT HAND SIDE if the joystick is somewhat "properly" oriented...
Arena.net doesn't seem to like netscape 4.x too. The good thing is lynx loads it right up, no problems.
The primary things done by cheats (looking through walls, etc) are things that the game does not prevent.
When you design a game you have to consider the players hardware to be untrusted. You cannot prevent a persons computer from telling him all it knows, nor can you prevent it from obeying his commands.
So to limit the information a person knows, you have to limit the information that is given to his computer. (If you dont want someone to know the location of all the other players in an FPS, you simply dont send them that information.)
Taken to its logical conclusion, The player's PC would end up being thin terminals doing I/O, while all the game logic is hosted on a central trusted server.
For games with a central server, then the game is only as fair as the server is. This does break down a bit with servant-peer topology- such as starcraft. In this, since everyone's computer has total knowledge of the game state knowledges cheats are possible (knowing how many resources everyone has and where they are).
However, if anyone cheats in a detectable way the game is aborted by all.
Seriously... with little exception, placing the judgment of a players quality and experience on teh fact of them playing or not playing a MUD in the past is simply ludicrous. I am 31, and I hated MUDs. I love DnD and other adventure oriented thought type pen and paper games (I probably played more in terms of time and game genre's/types than 90% of the people on this board), but found the cliquish and rigid MUD world too silly to really play.
Some of the best players I have played against have been half my age or more... they have immagination, discipline, skill, and are friendly people.
Furthermore, while I acknowledge the vicious cycle of hardware/software in the gaming industry today, and I fully realize I am quite guilty of being a bleeding edge type of hardware person, I don't really find your argument valid regarding the demands of gamers. What a gamer demands is what they are willing to pay for, and money talks loudest of all. Wanting great visuals and solid gameplay, while not exclusive of each other in order to make a great game, is/are what attracts gamers.
I have spent many an hour online in Ultima Online, WWIIOL, EverCrack, UT/Quake (plus mods), Aces High, and games your probably never heard of. I demand good quality, engaging, relatively stable games with solid visuals and replay value. Does that make me a poor gamer?
I doubt it. I have founded and run online guilds, played in most genre's of games both electronic and otherwise, and generally would be considered a solid online gaming partner by any community I have engaged in.
If you feel superior, think again... and judging someone by their tastes or their long term experience is ridiculous. Judge them by their community interaction and online ability in the game instead.
After running around killing bats for a while in EQ this realization hit me - my character could come, go, exist, or not and nothing really changes in the world. It just doesn't matter. This is by necessity - the game cannot make anything pivotal happen based on my character, 'cause it can't assume I'll be around or even that I'll exist (as a player).
So, what you wind up with is a bunch of folks running around killing things and so on, but really to no purpose at all ultimately.
yeah, you can gain levels and become some 50th level powerhouse, but who cares? There are hundreds of others just like you. You might even go out with some buddies and kill some big thing like a dragon or whatnot, but who cares? It'll just respawn in a while anyway. The world is essentially unchanged. It just winds up feeling so pointless.
I guess I've just been bred on single-person games that make you feel like you're truly at the center of the universe (such as Deus Ex, where you literally save reality). Even Half-life, which arguably has a lot going on besides your own sorry butt's survival, makes you feel like you're right in the middle of the action all the time. I guess I'm just spoiled that way.
I find in the MMO games I'm just wandering around in a very static world wondering what vermin to kill next or whatever - it's all quite boring really. I suppose guilds might help to some extent, in that they present a nice social environment of bonding, etc, but you really just click the futility up a notch: instead of simply having a character that doesn't matter to the world at all, you have a whole guild that really could exist or not and nothing would really change.
I've read that games like DAOC have a multi-year storyline that will play out some kind of plot, but again, I'd imagine that for 99% of the "population," it just won't matter what they do, find, or accomplish.
Please Rate my comment (and help support Fre
It's so funny to read all the user responses from the *alternative browser* crowd and how they don't like the site. There is a reason it doesn't work for you... your browser is not compatible. Works fine for me using Mozilla, IE6, IE5.1, and Nutscrap 6.1.
Get a clue...
Steve Jackson and the GURPS system. It is just about perfect, and infinitely expandable.
After that comes Rifts.
At least for PnP games.
Seems they don't like my browser, I get a page describing how inadequate it is.
This wouldn't be such a big deal, except that for a split second before the javascript kicks in, I get to see the entire page, along with what I would have thought an interesting article.
I've changed my mind.
I can remember when Ultima Online was in Beta. Richard Garriot had it geared toward the mature 18+ Roleplaying community. He had no idea what would happen only a few months after the game was released. People who had no previous roleplaying/AD&D experience started playing the game and started player killing other players. The development team left it in but after a few more months it got out of control. Eventually they ended up splitting the servers so people had a choice for player vs. player.
It is tiresome and drives me away from your site (and hence your advertising) every day.
Lets face it There are only certain mplayer games that ordinary dial up people can play comfortably and 3d fps are not amongst them no matter how much They are tweaked by talented programers.
.
,but playing it over a dialup connection
Now when I was younger I used to believe that flat rate broad band was just around the corner,(I live in ireland), and that it would be reasonably priced,(A very naive assumption).Finaly it has arrived here and no it is not reasonably priced and recession will probably slow down its take up by the masses and hence any hope of a price drop any time soon
I Love playing quake3 urban terror on a Lan it is great fun
is not the bee's knee's if you know what I mean . Dialup connections are ok for playing certain types of games mplayer,(rts/certain rpg's/nethacks and muds ),But when games go into 3d things get a bit messy and slow,(as I am sure every one knows ),and I think it is this fact which is putting the brakes on mplayer up take.Untill fast net access becomes common and cheap mplayer will not live up to all it can be.
_________________________________________________
I've played muds quite a bit and had lots of fun with them. I've recently started playing Dark Age of Camelot and I would like to point out one thing I've found that a graphical environment adds which makes it more interesting than its text-based counterpart. Graphics and finely grained location adds to gameplay the concept of positioning. Tanks have to intercept baddies before they assault your spellcasters. You have to watch your back and sides to spot roaming monsters which could ruin your picnic if you weren't aware of them. You can pull mobiles away from their spawning grounds to your group. And in player versus player positioning, pursuing, flanking, etc adds a lot to the gameplay.
These things can be implemented in text-based games but I found it much more awkward than a graphic based version.
Of course things could be improved...right now mobiles can run right through other mobiles but that's a different issue.
Then get broadband or stop your bitchin. And I have played plenty of HL, Quake II, CS, UT, etc online with just a modem. You need to either investigate a better ISP or learn how to tweak both your OS (tcp/ip network settings) and the game.
I don't think it's fair to allow the computer to "judge" modem players' moves, and try to determine "if" the player would have got the hit. Not only is this unfair to the player (when they get to a real LAN tournament they'll be roasted), it's also unfair to the vet with a decent connection, because the newbie in essense gets a free hit. I would propose figuring out better ways to communicate over the network instead of trying to second guess the players' moves with algorhythms.
If my connection to a game is rotten, there's nothing the game client or the game server can do about it.
If you're only getting 4 updates a second from the server, your client *has* to guess what the other players are doing until the server tells it what really happens, because the alternative is to have a 4 FPS update.
Likewise, if the server only gets 4 updates per second from your client, it *has* to guess what you want to do, because it can't read your mind. Most servers guess that you'll keep holding down the keys that you were holding when it last heard from you, which is a tolerable solution. What would you prefer them to do?
The networking code in most games is already as good as it can be. The interpolation code tends to vary from game to game, but the effects are usually the same.
In Starcraft, sitting in your base and defending actually works, which makes for terribly boring games
No on "works", yes on "boring". When I see an opponent going defensive and bunkering/sunkening/cannoning in I know the game is over and I have one. The defensive person has just surrendered the map if there are aggressive players in the game, they are unable to defend an ally effectively turning the game into a 3v2, etc.
SHEESH.
The point of game graphics indistinguishable from real life is to make your escape from reality more complete. Just because it LOOKS like real life doesn't mean it has to PLAY like real life. Just look at ID Software's games (from Wolf 3D to Q3A) for an example of games that have gotten progressively more realistic looking without becoming anything more like real life.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
One of the issues, particularly with twitch games, but also others as well, is that some players have less lag than others.
;-)
I simply think that the server should be able to set a minimum lag for the players, and if a player is well below that, the server should introduce extra artificial lag- upto the minimum atleast.
I mean, if you're 3l337 it won't make any difference right?
The other advantage is to the developer- if there are some serious playability issues when the lag reaches a certain threshold, the designers can find this out during testing.
I've actually been on servers that work the other way- if your link starts to lag for a few tens of seconds, you get booted. That really sucks big time. Like you've done something wrong, you deserve to lose the frags you built up, because someone else did an ftp download? Uh huh. That makes sense.
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"I have played many MUDS including some which I paid for(yes real money). I played Avalon during the good years(when Gods had power) and generally there are very few "*great*" MUDS. The pay MUDS when I played them were rather expensive considering, but when you have a great text game you'll find it's a lot like a great novel. No matter how great computer graphics get nothing will ever rival the human imagination. What I imagine a Uruk-hai looks like would be completely different to anyone's including Peter Jackson's. Right now the newest pay mud that people seem to like(with no bias since I don't play it) is Achaea which I believe now has been renamed to something else.(Generally the paymuds started with "A" since the mudlist is alphabetical)
MUD's are a completely different style of gaming then that to which the usual graphical yahoo is used to. Interacting in a MUD is extremely fast and unlike games that require mouse/keyboard interfaces you are communicating all the time through speech, emotes, and general actions. I would go on with more information about MUDS but instead I will leave everyone with this. I thought all the people who played text-based game were crazy as well, but after a steep learning curve I found Mudding very rewarding.
Just to re-iterate my point again, Mudding has a very steep learning curve. Just because you don't have the patience to learn something doesn't mean it isn't good. Take Mahjong for instance...if you aren't of chinese decent Mahjong can be frustrating as you learn some of the chinese characters, but in the end it's a rewarding, fun game. Besides tiles are cooler then cards.
...What do you do when people don't have the same units? Total Annihilation regularly released new units when it was out, and games were decided by the lowest common denominator (i.e. if one person hadn't downloaded it, no one could use it).
This model would clearly not work if you had to pay for the units (A Catch-22 - I won't buy it unless other people buy it, but they won't buy it unless I buy it).
However, if you make people download enigne toolings or the data-files on the new units even if they don't buy it, it sounds like it would be very easy to hack (depending on how modular it was designed), which would discourage people from buying it.
Unless you have some way to prevent this?
Thank you lord.
That dosen't seem to be a crime to me either, Moron.
Because you can't code. Or type either.
Cruising around in your electric retard-wheelchair...do the world a favor and kill yourself.
Too late - already had polio, was paralysed, cruised around in a wheelchair and...wait for it...'died' according to the physical definition. So I've already done all that.
Cheers,
An immensely amused Ian, who hasn't been involved in a flame war for absolutely ages and is enjoying every minute. Particularly since his opponent is a coding dimwit who presents such an easy target.
All they do is set up some Javascript to redirect you to the login page,
AFTER THE PAGE IS ALREADY LOADED. Just turn off Javascript, or use wget or
something to dump the page.
Because you can't code. Or type either.
Oh wow! Good one! How about I make a list of the things you can't do:
You're right! This is FUN!
Is that as a player I want to explore different aspects of the game, go through a lot of different character classes. I also don't want to keep restarting a new character every time I want to change classes. In games like Diablo, where you have a finite world (in duration as well as space) that is reset every time you have a new game and your character has no real social identity with other players, it's not a big deal to kill an old character and start a new one.
However in a persistant world, I might want to have my character go through a great deal many careers, while at the same time keeping the same character, that I am interacting with other players with. I don't want to have to tell my friends that I'm now character Y instead of character X.
While obviously games are an escape from reality in some sense, there is one thing from them I wouldn't mind seeing taken. The opportunity to learn new skills while letting old skills decay. Or the ability to sacrifice old skills, deliberately weakening my character, so I can have more room to learn new skills and powers more cheaply.
Once I'm done with a magician, I might decide to turn my character into a fighter and let their magical skills decay. In time I might move on to a cleric and let the sword and related skills rot. All the time I'm still character X even if my profession changes.
Of course to properly handle this you need a point-based system or something like the upcoming Dungeon Seige, where characters simply grow in whatever skills they use. Levelling becomes a thing of the past. I do not consider this a bad thing. Levels are just a game mechanic device to regulate advancement. There are countless pen and paper RPGs that find the concept of levels nonsensical.
The power cap is annoying to powergamers who want godlike levels of power, but some may find it more of a challenge to grow in power within the limits of the game. It also reduces the power spectrum spread that a MMORPG has to encompass. Once players reach the power cap, it all comes down to optimization within that level, and because they can drop a few points here and add a few there they can tinker with their characters endlessly.
Ideally a game should have more things for the players to do than grow in power endlessly. Or they can allow for 'king of the hill' advancement. You can give great swords of power out that every player will want. All of a sudden, hanging onto a weapon like that becomes the challenge. You can give social ranks based on peer acclaim that will grant extra power to a character. All of a sudden, players worry about the support of their peers and they risk the chance of dropping in power.
That's something you can do in a persistant world game, let characters drop in power and give them a chance to regain what they have lost, not to mention keeping them less complacent about what they have. This adds to the replayability without the need to start a new character. They can build characters that have real history to them. Some of the most famous people in history, such as Napoleon, had drops as well as rises.
Of course for games like Diablo I/II, where you have a world with a finite plotlength as well as finite size, you might as well go for the oneshot player system. I'm talking about games like Everquest and Dark Age of Camelot where you have a world that you play a prolonged part of.
If you've never played starcraft, you should.
My best friend loves all of the Civ games, but he is a Starcraft freak because of the sheer fun.
Why is it good? It is speed chess. If you have ever seen speed chess, you would understand. When the people that play long games get into the whole speed, hit and run, and intimidation tactics of starcraft, then you'll love it.
There is one drawback. I was a good player that left because the players kept getting weeded out by frustration of playing some real hardcore maniacs out there that would slay you quick. Its evolution, they survived, most can't compete.
The game is $20 US now everywhere, it really is worth it. From a average gamers perspective it is truly worth it.
I hate the 16 unit limit (or whatever it was) for selection. The designers shouldn't force me to battle against the games user inteface, but rather the other players.
.. while Clinton plays the saxamaphone.
the best multiplayer game ever i think is QUAKE but i have fun with NEXUS too try that for RPG lover only =)
Neither of you dickwads checked the return
value from printf.
so die
http://pages.infinit.net/fraktal/Images/eh.jpg
What is the point of scripting? If a task is so mundane and repetitive that it is easily scripted, why even bother putting it into the game to start with? All that extra coding, debugging, cpu time and possibly bandwidth is wasted on something that no-one is interested in, and doesn't add anything to the game.
If people just want to pit their scripting skills against each other there are already plenty of "bot" games out there to do just that. It is very obvious what sort of audience would find "programming" a character appealing as a recreational activity, but seeing as they are making it, I guess they get to choose.
So what if someone (this means iD, Blizzard, Westwood and/or Sierra/ValvE) were to make a hypermassive multiplayer online RTS/RPG/FPS? With almost all aspects of war integrated? Imagine someone playing a flesh-and-blood general on a tactical level, sending out orders to real, live players in a flight sim with F/A-18 Hornets to attack a SAM site staffed with more real, live people. On the ground, there would be battles fought between tanks and Delta Force-style snipers would seek out the opponent's leaders.
The client would use the same basic engine for gameplay with different GUIs for the different levels, kinda like Counterstrike is a mod to Half-Life which basically is a mod of Quake. When starting, you select if you want to be Air Force, Navy or Army and then what you want to do: Pilot a fighter, manage supply routes, man a SAM battery, aim a howitzer, crack enemy codes or be a grunt with a machine gun. Imagine the clans/platoons/squadrons that would evolve. Positions that no one wants would be filled by computer-generated players on the servers. Ah, the servers. One game on a cluster of servers world-wide. And there would be real-world money in it. Arms dealers would spring up on eBay. Whoever makes this game will be rich - if they do it right. And I've got prior art. ;-)
Of course, this doesn't have to be set in a realistic world, the Game could easily work StarCraft-style or for NOD vs GDI or for replaying most of WWII.
Now, methinks this can be built. Should it be done? Would it help ease tension in the world - act as an outlet for agression if you could bomb the crap out of a simulated Afghanistan? Or would Al-Qaida use it as a training camp? Discuss.
One client to fight them all, and on the battlefield smite them.
Money for nothing, pix for free
What's a camper?
Esli epei etot cumprenan, shris soa Sfaha.
The problem with limiting the information the client knows and doing everything on the server is lag. (Actually it's bandwidth and processing, but to the end user, it is spelled l-a-g). The more that has to be transmitted, the slower it is. Think about the map in starcraft or D2 - it's loaded in it's entirety when start the game/go to the board. Why? Because doing it piecemeal uses lots of bandwidth because of retransmit of what you arelreay know, or processor power to keep track and send you only the changes.
Servers figuring out for all users what they can and can't see is just not feasible - some of the processing task needs to be offloaded on the client in order to have a reasonable speed.
=Blue(23)
LITTLE GIRL: But which cookie will you eat FIRST? C. MONSTER: Me think you have misconception of cookie-eating process.
Why are cheats even availble in games to begin with? For playtesting purposes? OK, fine. Not removing these from the system is the fault of the developer. How can a game like Gran Turismo 3 for the PS2 exist with a single cheat in the game? Granted this isn't a multiplayer game... so how about Return to Castle Wolfenstein for the PC with no bot support so far? It doesn't eliminate camping and the like, but it allows the playing field to be somewhat level. IMHO, game developers should take the time to remove these codes from the games - it's no secret that these get out to the public... SO DON'T RELEASE GAMES WITH THEM.
Then there is the social aspect. Folks, since the dawn of time, PEOPLE HAVE CHEATED. Did you go to high school? Did you know someone who cheated on a test? Know anyone who cheats on their taxes? Anyone at your work not carrying their fair share of the load? Known anyone who cheated on a spouse? People in any group setting are going to do what it takes to get ahead. Having cheats available in a game only makes the problem worse - by artificially favoring the cheater. Don't even begin to fool yourself that the storied cheater is a 13 year old punk, either. Those little punks are probably quick enough to win at twich games unaided... while my 30-year-old ass could use a boost.
The bottom line: people are going to cheat - so why have cheats in the games for them to use?
But I got another idea reading your post - what if you just designed a universal interface between different games? So the next time [insert major game manufacturer] makes a game of a suitable type, it can interface with the Big Game server network and talk to games from [insert other major game manufacturer]. This would probably speed up the evolution needed and eventually grow into the Big Game network we want. Just look at the number of CS servers world-wide - if they could all interconnect and cooperate, they would easily have enough CPU and bandwidth to support this. Just using the same format for the maps, textures and a common protocol for movements and stuff would go a long way.
Money for nothing, pix for free
there are no secrets in chess: no info hacks
The game is turn based: not bots to give extreme reaction speeds.
The moves are all well defined, and making an illegal
move is so obvious as to be pointless: the server/peer will abort the game or refuse the move.
So that is a terrible example.