Yes I believe you are right. In fact the posts are so bitter the poster just looks stupid instead of the more desirable superior that s/he was going after.
I'm not much of a critiquer, but I really enjoyed Any Given Sunday. I thought it offered a glimpse into the NFL that we all pretty much knew was there, and then added some insight as well. I like watching football, but I've never played it. AGS showed some of the good and bad in the sport (depending on your perspective). If you are a football fan, go see it. If not, stay home.
lol, when is TF II supposed to be out? I've been playing Starsiege Tribes in the meantime. I wonder if TF II will be that good when it comes out or if they just keep changing it and improving it and never releasing it similar to other games mentioned earlier in this thread.
FWIW, the HX chipset which was very popular cached up to 512 megabytes I believe. I think the HX chipset was pretty popular. It's always frustrating when a corporation releases a supposedly more advanced solution (TX chipset) that is crippled in certain areas (64 M of cacheable memory)
"It's going to be tough for Digital to edge into Intel's market, mainly because nearly all consumers have been brainwashed to look for the "Intel Inside" Logo."
I disagree. AMD was having great success earlier this year with the K6-2 in the retail market. Outselling Intel if I remember correctly. The K6-2 ran at higher clock speeds for a while. It's the easy and common answer that marketting is responsible for Intel's success. Intel's product is the reason why they are successful.
For a layman who is choosing AMD vs. Intel, they know Intel is the original and AMD is the clone. Intel is proven, AMD has struggled.
The problem here is that we who know a lot about computers don't think with a layman's perspective. Pretend you know nothing about cars, but you had a Honda that was good. Now someone shows you a Hyundai or a Kia and tells you it is just as good as your old Honda, but cheaper. I know that I would prefer the Honda. I don't like messing with cars. I like having something that is reliable and just runs. I might research the Kia and Hyundai, but I would still probably go with the Honda.
When people choose Intel over competitors for non technical reasons it is not always marketting. Many people don't choose AMD over Intel for any reason at all. They just choose the processor with the fastest Mhz.
When you bring a different instruction set to the table it is a whole new beast.
Ohh yes, I do remember this quote. However I do believe that my original statement is true. Originally multiplayer quake was just between clients before quakeworld and dedicated servers came about. I started playing quake online after quakeworld had come out. I guess what I'm really trying to say is that multiplayer was secondary to single player when quake was being developed.
In Carmack's plan he doesn't specify what kinds of cheating have been used since it was open sourced. Or what kind they are afraid of. Is the open source client more vunerable to aim bot type cheating? Or is it just more vulnerable in general?
Quake was written for single player and for multiplayer over a lan like doom. When internet play became an issue and quake's inability to do it well, especially for modem connections, quakeworld was written. Keep in mind that Quake wasn't designed with internet play in mind. It was hacked in afterwards.
IMO just being at 1 is more important than trying to get above that.
I don't have any moderator points so I'm quoting it so it's at least at one. An AC above this reply posted this:
Identity can give weight to undemonstratable evidence, but otherwise it's just a crutch for "readers" too lazy to think for themselves. Accountability is a euphemism for the ability to harass holders of unpopular opinions.
Yet disputed but correct arguments are the only ones we can learn from. All identity can do is stifle debate and draw attention towards arguments that can't stand on their own merits, and we're much better off without it.
"Cute, but off the mark. A successful and difficult space mission repairing a costly piece of taxpayer-funded hardware is a cause for celebration and should be lauded as such. Modern media only celebrates Tradgedy and Celebrity"
While you may appreciate the difficulty and the true nature of this mission, to someone who doesn't know it just looks like a routine service mission. Sure it seems difficult because it is in space but it isn't something new and exciting. It's ok for people to not be excited about this.
This post should be marked up as informative. I mostly played team fortress not dm so maybe I just don't get it, but I don't agree that the sky is the limit. Or I should say I don't believe it because I don't know. Does the server send the full state of the current level to a client? I thought that in some version of qw, in the interest of saving bandwidth, the server only sent information that was pertinent to the client. basically just what the client could display at that point in the game.
The client does not dictate whether or not the rocket hits. I've played qw games where because of client prediction, it seems to me that I blasted the person I was shooting at. On my screen I hit the player. But the player who would have surely died, didn't die, because my client did not know the true position of the player only the predicted position. In other words it was an illusion. The server decides what rockets hit who.
I believe that qw does limit some knowledge of the world to a player's immediate vicinity. But the whole point of a FPS is that you can see what's coming. If your computer draws it on the screen, a cheat can be made to avoid it.
You are assuming that the client is sending result information to the server. This is untrue. The client is sending control information back to the server. Hacking that info is practically impossible to stop
I don't think there is any way to play a "virgin" game against others online, at least not in the games I've played. Primarily I play quakeworld teamfortress and starsiege tribes. Not too much tf anymore. In neither game did I have the illusion of everyone else playing it in it's "virgin" form as I do. Both had the capability to do scripting. Where sequences of commands are bound to keys. Neat and powerful, but now the game is a competition between who can make or find better scripts and play better than just a pure competition based on gameplay.
When playing a standard game modified clients shouldn't be able to connect. If you make a modified client, you should run a server that allows that client to connect. If you made a substantial improvement you could try to convince other people to run that on their server.
I waste too much time playing quake and quakestyle games and one of the most frustrating feelings is wondering if your opponent has some advantage that you don't know about.
Client machines are not trusted in this manner at all. I'm not at all an expert in this area, but I'm certain that ID does not trust clients to tell the server that a kill has been made. I am talking about quakeworld here not regular quake. I haven't played regular quake in multiplayer more than once. Quakeworld basically sends control response back to the server. The server sends the clent information about his position with respect to the world and the position of others.
The biggest issue I see is autoaim type cheating. I can't imagine a completely secure method to prevent this type of cheating. In the end the game will *always* be sending input supposedly from the user back to server. How could we possibly prevent that from being hacked?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes I believe you are right. In fact the posts are so bitter the poster just looks stupid instead of the more desirable superior that s/he was going after.
I'm not much of a critiquer, but I really enjoyed Any Given Sunday. I thought it offered a glimpse into the NFL that we all pretty much knew was there, and then added some insight as well. I like watching football, but I've never played it. AGS showed some of the good and bad in the sport (depending on your perspective). If you are a football fan, go see it. If not, stay home.
Wasn't this the issue that was specifically resolved? Am I completely confused or is it you?
I think I found a bug in slashdot. When I click on #include's user info, my user info page is loaded. I experimented a little bit and it appears that
http://slashdot.org/users.pl?op=userinfo&nick=#
followed by anything after the # loads up my user page. I'm assuming that it will load other people's user page as well? Can anyone verify this?
Why don't you explain why you hate GNU so much instead of all these assinine posts? Sounds like it is personal if I had to guess.
lol, when is TF II supposed to be out?
I've been playing Starsiege Tribes in the meantime. I wonder if TF II will be that good when it comes out or if they just keep changing it and improving it and never releasing it similar to other games mentioned earlier in this thread.
Actually I believe many of the popular overclocking boards were based on the HX chipset. Of course you probably meant official clock speeds.
FWIW, the HX chipset which was very popular cached up to 512 megabytes I believe. I think the HX chipset was pretty popular. It's always frustrating when a corporation releases a supposedly more advanced solution (TX chipset) that is crippled in certain areas (64 M of cacheable memory)
"It's going to be tough for Digital to edge into Intel's market, mainly because nearly all consumers have been brainwashed to look for the "Intel Inside" Logo."
I disagree. AMD was having great success earlier this year with the K6-2 in the retail market. Outselling Intel if I remember correctly. The K6-2 ran at higher clock speeds for a while. It's the easy and common answer that marketting is responsible for Intel's success. Intel's product is the reason why they are successful.
For a layman who is choosing AMD vs. Intel, they know Intel is the original and AMD is the clone. Intel is proven, AMD has struggled.
The problem here is that we who know a lot about computers don't think with a layman's perspective. Pretend you know nothing about cars, but you had a Honda that was good. Now someone shows you a Hyundai or a Kia and tells you it is just as good as your old Honda, but cheaper. I know that I would prefer the Honda. I don't like messing with cars. I like having something that is reliable and just runs. I might research the Kia and Hyundai, but I would still probably go with the Honda.
When people choose Intel over competitors for non technical reasons it is not always marketting. Many people don't choose AMD over Intel for any reason at all. They just choose the processor with the fastest Mhz.
When you bring a different instruction set to the table it is a whole new beast.
FWIW, I usually use order of magnitude to mean a factor of ten give or take.
Ohh yes, I do remember this quote. However I do believe that my original statement is true. Originally multiplayer quake was just between clients before quakeworld and dedicated servers came about. I started playing quake online after quakeworld had come out. I guess what I'm really trying to say is that multiplayer was secondary to single player when quake was being developed.
In Carmack's plan he doesn't specify what kinds of cheating have been used since it was open sourced. Or what kind they are afraid of. Is the open source client more vunerable to aim bot type cheating? Or is it just more vulnerable in general?
Quake was written for single player and for multiplayer over a lan like doom. When internet play became an issue and quake's inability to do it well, especially for modem connections, quakeworld was written. Keep in mind that Quake wasn't designed with internet play in mind. It was hacked in afterwards.
IMO just being at 1 is more important than trying to get above that.
I don't have any moderator points so I'm quoting it so it's at least at one.
An AC above this reply posted this:
Identity can give weight to undemonstratable evidence, but otherwise it's just a crutch for "readers" too lazy to think for themselves. Accountability is a euphemism for the ability to harass holders of unpopular opinions.
Yet disputed but correct arguments are the only ones we can learn from. All identity can do is stifle debate and draw attention towards arguments that can't stand on their own merits, and we're much better off without it.
*This* should be moderated up. Strong argument.
"Cute, but off the mark. A successful and difficult space mission repairing a costly piece of taxpayer-funded hardware is a cause for celebration and should be lauded as such. Modern media only celebrates Tradgedy and Celebrity"
While you may appreciate the difficulty and the true nature of this mission, to someone who doesn't know it just looks like a routine service mission. Sure it seems difficult because it is in space but it isn't something new and exciting. It's ok for people to not be excited about this.
This post should be marked up as informative. I mostly played team fortress not dm so maybe I just don't get it, but I don't agree that the sky is the limit. Or I should say I don't believe it because I don't know. Does the server send the full state of the current level to a client? I thought that in some version of qw, in the interest of saving bandwidth, the server only sent information that was pertinent to the client. basically just what the client could display at that point in the game.
The client does not dictate whether or not the rocket hits. I've played qw games where because of client prediction, it seems to me that I blasted the person I was shooting at. On my screen I hit the player. But the player who would have surely died, didn't die, because my client did not know the true position of the player only the predicted position. In other words it was an illusion. The server decides what rockets hit who.
I believe that qw does limit some knowledge of the world to a player's immediate vicinity. But the whole point of a FPS is that you can see what's coming. If your computer draws it on the screen, a cheat can be made to avoid it.
You are assuming that the client is sending result information to the server. This is untrue. The client is sending control information back to the server. Hacking that info is practically impossible to stop
Well put, the problem is unstoppable at it's core. And it's always been around.
I don't think there is any way to play a "virgin" game against others online, at least not in the games I've played. Primarily I play quakeworld teamfortress and starsiege tribes. Not too much tf anymore. In neither game did I have the illusion of everyone else playing it in it's "virgin" form as I do. Both had the capability to do scripting. Where sequences of commands are bound to keys. Neat and powerful, but now the game is a competition between who can make or find better scripts and play better than just a pure competition based on gameplay.
When playing a standard game modified clients shouldn't be able to connect. If you make a modified client, you should run a server that allows that client to connect. If you made a substantial improvement you could try to convince other people to run that on their server.
I waste too much time playing quake and quakestyle games and one of the most frustrating feelings is wondering if your opponent has some advantage that you don't know about.
Client machines are not trusted in this manner at all. I'm not at all an expert in this area, but I'm certain that ID does not trust clients to tell the server that a kill has been made. I am talking about quakeworld here not regular quake. I haven't played regular quake in multiplayer more than once. Quakeworld basically sends control response back to the server. The server sends the clent information about his position with respect to the world and the position of others.
The biggest issue I see is autoaim type cheating. I can't imagine a completely secure method to prevent this type of cheating. In the end the game will *always* be sending input supposedly from the user back to server. How could we possibly prevent that from being hacked?
Not to disrespect ID too much, cause they truly are a good company. Sueing to prevent people from cheating is shitty.