The system I'm suggesting only works if the griefers make up a small minority of the player population. Say under 25%. Then when the system is implemented, many of the non-griefers go out and repeatedly kill the griefers. After the Greifer War settles down, the griefer characters should now be impotent, and the game unenjoyable to those grifer players. So they quit playing.
If they decide to quietly build up legitimate alts and start a new war, the GMs can assist the non-grifers and put down the insurrection.
I hardly want a system where actions have consequences. I just want a system to reduce or remove the grifers. I don't even play MMOs, I'm just theorizing ways of handling the griefer problem.
Off the top of my head, how about a built-in KOS (kill on sight) system that people could add griefers to. Since there aren't as many griefers, they couldn't unbalance the list too much.
Also, change things so death by another player hurts stats. In some games death costs Exp, but they don't knock the character down a level. It just creates a deficit. Well if death knocked people down by a level, then griefers could be killed 60 times and lose 60 levels. WoW players probably wouldn't like that, but it would be effective when combined with KOS.
Also, link characters on a player's account together abstractly. Make it known to everyone that some users have characters flagged as griefers. Just an icon or colored dot would be the indicator. If a player decides to change his or her ways and stop griefing, then all of his or her characters will have a "probationary" icon or dot associated with them. Eventually that dot or icon goes away if the user refrains from griefing.
How do I see what version my extensions are compatible through? Preferably in a simple list. I'd rather not go through them one-by-one but I just might. Yeah I've heard about disabling firefox's checking.
Re:What you see isn't what you get
on
Is AMD Dead Yet?
·
· Score: 1
I would assume Nvidia will be pressing game developers to implement their physics technology just so they could force more people to buy their cards. I doubt ATI would have any of that.
Back ten years ago, when games were ten times cheaper to make, 3dfx had games that only worked on their cards.
Then around 2000, games ran on both the Riva TNT 2 Ultra and the GeForce 256. Except the second card had hardware T&L and the Riva did not. Games with the effects looked better on the GeForce.
Once half the cards on the market (nVidia) support physics acceleration, there will be games that look awesome with the effects. Cards without the acceleration won't deliver as pretty an experience. Consequently gamers will buy more nVidia cards.
I don't think the current effects look good enough. What about when walking through ferns or small bushes? Touching a few inches of the plant or a foot of it means it should bend less or more.
Animating player collisions is why they don't look good enough. In a football game, the angles of collision are always going to be different. The arm positions are going to be different as a defender and receiver reach for the ball. When the people collide ought to look different each time.
Just saw the trailer for Dirt. Pretty impressive. I could say it's good enough for that game, where the race must go on after a crash. How about in a game where there's lots of accessory cars? When I run over them in a tank, the hood, passenger compartment, or trunk is going to crush differently depending on if I run over it from the front, side, or diagonal. Or how about if I crash a car into a telephone pole or instead of crashing dead-on into a building, it's an offset crash?
I don't know where people get the notion animation can happen on its own without people sitting down and keying in everything beforehand.
People get that cloth can be simulated. So it's easy to imagine that a body panel is made up of polygons, because it is. Give the material ratings of how easily it bends and deforms, then calculate for the length of the side of the triangles and the angle of attack. If there's too many polygons, then give the object a low-poly mesh the deform instead.
I've also seen walls explode in animation. It looks like crap because the wall is a solid panel, or maybe it breaks into two or so pieces. Except it doesn't match the force of energy applied to it. Add 2x4s every 18 inches, or make it 36 for easier rendering. Animate the drywall near the explosion disintegrating, but farther from the blast there should be small chunks, and ragged chunks still hanging on the structure left standing.
Something else I thought of, couldn't physics acceleration be used to do water right? I've seen Crysis and it's water looks half way real and half way fake. Why is it that Wave Race 64 for the Nintendo 64 could actually animate the surface of the water, but basically everything since still uses a flat plane? A person or vehicle traveling through should generate more than just a ripple animation or froth of the flat surface and for larger vehicles some particle splashes. The surface should deform, which physics can do nicely.
Also, when something exits water, it doesn't look wet. Or on beaches, I've seen wave animations on the sand, but the sand doesn't look wet, because the pixel shaders aren't making it any shinier. The most that happens is the texture on the beach appears to show the edge of the waves going up the sand.
Unlike Winblows and Micro$oft, Digital Restriction Management is a more accurate description of what the term means. It's also not trying to be juvenile. It sounds like it could be the correct term. If it caught on among enthusiasts, it could redefine how people think about the acronym and counter the bullshit of the consortium that made it up.
DVD once meant either digital video disc or digital versatile disc. Then people agreed what it should stand for. We could yet decide DRM should stand for something different. We could get recognition to the point where tech-columnists write "DRM stands for Digital Rights Management or Digital Restrictions Management, depending on your point of view."
The computer drive supports movies in that format. The computer can process the data from those discs and output the correct video from discs without a particular bit enabled. The monitor can accept 1080i or 1080p video from any of those discs and the videostream. Every part of the system supports playback, except for a software restriction. The hardware supports what users are trying to do. The software supports what users are trying to do, and if a bit wasn't enabled, it would do exactly what the users are trying to do. That bit is a restriction.
Ever since 3D hardware acceleration took off, leaving software rendering behind, the gaming market has been in its own world of accelerator cards.
I think looking back at how 3dfx and glide-only games shows some important similarities. 3dfx managed to capture enough of the gamer market that games were made that would only work on their cards. Maybe only a dozen, but it was still notable that only part of the total market supported having those games. Many of the other games could be run in either Glide or OpenGL. The Glide version usually looked and ran the best.
These days games cost possibly ten times as much to make, and I don't expect a new incarnation of Glide. What I do think is likely is nVidia will add PhysX acceleration to its GeForce 10xxx line of cards. Meaning perhaps half of the video cards bought during that time will have physics acceleration. Around the time the GeForce 11xxx line comes out, games that really take advantage of PhysX will come out. Now hardcore gamers are willing and able to pay $300-600 for a new card. When those games come out and deliver neat effects that only nVidia cards can show off, they'll buy the 11xxx cards or be happy they got 10xxx cards already.
In fact, think back to the original GeForce 256. Do you know what made it different from a Riva TNT 2 Ultra? One had hardware Transform and Lighting (T&L), the other didn't. That's right. When it game to games back then, the last generation card (the Riva) ran games just as well as the GeForce. Back then PC Gamer told people they ought to get the older card if they were on a budget. Then the GeForce 2 came out along with the games supporting hardware T&L. Of course the GeForce line made games look much better than the Riva and at better framerates.
So I think this is a really good move on nVidia's part. They're positioning themselves to devour the high end of the market from ATI when those cards and the games are available. Meanwhile it will probably take ATI at least a generation longer to catch up.
Re:Why do we need physics cards?
on
NVIDIA To Buy AGEIA
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
With physics acceleration, the little things that don't feel real could be done.
Running through grass could cause it to deform and brush the character, and some of it gets stepped on and stays bent down. Or in sports games, each limb could have a better defined clipping box and rules for how it can flex.
Then when two players collide going for a ball, they hit more realistically and don't clip through each other. Especially on the slow motion replays it would look nice.
Or in a racing game, when cars crash, they could really crash. Imagine bodywork deforming and "real" parts going flying, instead of only a flash of sparks.
Also, it would be cool for grenades and other explosives to properly damage the room and buildings in games that want realism. Walls that crumble into rubble. Tables that break into chunks and splinters. Ceilings that collapse when the supports are destroyed or weakened too much.
Then outside, no more indestructible walls. When I ram a truck or tank into an unreinforced building, something actually happens. As in the vehicle crashes through the wall, or continues through the building with momentum.
And then you find out the Motorola guy was doing the same five minute demo a thousand times during the convention, and only one of those demos was messed with, and it becomes funny again.
Why not shorten that process by getting the same hardware as the other servers, and ghosting the software on them, then adding them to the load-balancing network?
Intrusive ads still work to get a name or phrase into people's heads. Most people don't click on ads, but if they vaguely remember the website or product, then when they just might be interested in that type of product or service, they're more likely to seek out what was in the ad.
Slashdot Mirror
you just never saw Worf tap "Yes" at the "Are You Sure?" prompt.
Just download the video comparison on the page and that's awful enough.
down-rez is different from re-compressing. DirecTV was doing HD Lite at a lower res. Comcast is compressing the channels too much.
The system I'm suggesting only works if the griefers make up a small minority of the player population. Say under 25%. Then when the system is implemented, many of the non-griefers go out and repeatedly kill the griefers. After the Greifer War settles down, the griefer characters should now be impotent, and the game unenjoyable to those grifer players. So they quit playing.
If they decide to quietly build up legitimate alts and start a new war, the GMs can assist the non-grifers and put down the insurrection.
I hardly want a system where actions have consequences. I just want a system to reduce or remove the grifers. I don't even play MMOs, I'm just theorizing ways of handling the griefer problem.
Off the top of my head, how about a built-in KOS (kill on sight) system that people could add griefers to. Since there aren't as many griefers, they couldn't unbalance the list too much.
Also, change things so death by another player hurts stats. In some games death costs Exp, but they don't knock the character down a level. It just creates a deficit. Well if death knocked people down by a level, then griefers could be killed 60 times and lose 60 levels. WoW players probably wouldn't like that, but it would be effective when combined with KOS.
Also, link characters on a player's account together abstractly. Make it known to everyone that some users have characters flagged as griefers. Just an icon or colored dot would be the indicator. If a player decides to change his or her ways and stop griefing, then all of his or her characters will have a "probationary" icon or dot associated with them. Eventually that dot or icon goes away if the user refrains from griefing.
Should the department also have to port their software over?
But that doesn't help you if you're upgrading from 2.0.x
Doh! Ah well thanks anyway. Odd are pretty good things are compatible now that the betas have been going on for a while.
How do I see what version my extensions are compatible through? Preferably in a simple list. I'd rather not go through them one-by-one but I just might. Yeah I've heard about disabling firefox's checking.
So post in Plain Old Text.
Like this post was posted in.
I would assume Nvidia will be pressing game developers to implement their physics technology just so they could force more people to buy their cards. I doubt ATI would have any of that.
Back ten years ago, when games were ten times cheaper to make, 3dfx had games that only worked on their cards.
Then around 2000, games ran on both the Riva TNT 2 Ultra and the GeForce 256. Except the second card had hardware T&L and the Riva did not. Games with the effects looked better on the GeForce.
Once half the cards on the market (nVidia) support physics acceleration, there will be games that look awesome with the effects. Cards without the acceleration won't deliver as pretty an experience. Consequently gamers will buy more nVidia cards.
I don't think the current effects look good enough. What about when walking through ferns or small bushes? Touching a few inches of the plant or a foot of it means it should bend less or more.
Animating player collisions is why they don't look good enough. In a football game, the angles of collision are always going to be different. The arm positions are going to be different as a defender and receiver reach for the ball. When the people collide ought to look different each time.
Just saw the trailer for Dirt. Pretty impressive. I could say it's good enough for that game, where the race must go on after a crash. How about in a game where there's lots of accessory cars? When I run over them in a tank, the hood, passenger compartment, or trunk is going to crush differently depending on if I run over it from the front, side, or diagonal. Or how about if I crash a car into a telephone pole or instead of crashing dead-on into a building, it's an offset crash?
I don't know where people get the notion animation can happen on its own without people sitting down and keying in everything beforehand.
People get that cloth can be simulated. So it's easy to imagine that a body panel is made up of polygons, because it is. Give the material ratings of how easily it bends and deforms, then calculate for the length of the side of the triangles and the angle of attack. If there's too many polygons, then give the object a low-poly mesh the deform instead.
I've also seen walls explode in animation. It looks like crap because the wall is a solid panel, or maybe it breaks into two or so pieces. Except it doesn't match the force of energy applied to it. Add 2x4s every 18 inches, or make it 36 for easier rendering. Animate the drywall near the explosion disintegrating, but farther from the blast there should be small chunks, and ragged chunks still hanging on the structure left standing.
Something else I thought of, couldn't physics acceleration be used to do water right? I've seen Crysis and it's water looks half way real and half way fake. Why is it that Wave Race 64 for the Nintendo 64 could actually animate the surface of the water, but basically everything since still uses a flat plane? A person or vehicle traveling through should generate more than just a ripple animation or froth of the flat surface and for larger vehicles some particle splashes. The surface should deform, which physics can do nicely.
Also, when something exits water, it doesn't look wet. Or on beaches, I've seen wave animations on the sand, but the sand doesn't look wet, because the pixel shaders aren't making it any shinier. The most that happens is the texture on the beach appears to show the edge of the waves going up the sand.
Unlike Winblows and Micro$oft, Digital Restriction Management is a more accurate description of what the term means. It's also not trying to be juvenile. It sounds like it could be the correct term. If it caught on among enthusiasts, it could redefine how people think about the acronym and counter the bullshit of the consortium that made it up.
DVD once meant either digital video disc or digital versatile disc. Then people agreed what it should stand for. We could yet decide DRM should stand for something different. We could get recognition to the point where tech-columnists write "DRM stands for Digital Rights Management or Digital Restrictions Management, depending on your point of view."
The computer drive supports movies in that format. The computer can process the data from those discs and output the correct video from discs without a particular bit enabled. The monitor can accept 1080i or 1080p video from any of those discs and the videostream. Every part of the system supports playback, except for a software restriction. The hardware supports what users are trying to do. The software supports what users are trying to do, and if a bit wasn't enabled, it would do exactly what the users are trying to do. That bit is a restriction.
Ever since 3D hardware acceleration took off, leaving software rendering behind, the gaming market has been in its own world of accelerator cards.
I think looking back at how 3dfx and glide-only games shows some important similarities. 3dfx managed to capture enough of the gamer market that games were made that would only work on their cards. Maybe only a dozen, but it was still notable that only part of the total market supported having those games. Many of the other games could be run in either Glide or OpenGL. The Glide version usually looked and ran the best.
These days games cost possibly ten times as much to make, and I don't expect a new incarnation of Glide. What I do think is likely is nVidia will add PhysX acceleration to its GeForce 10xxx line of cards. Meaning perhaps half of the video cards bought during that time will have physics acceleration. Around the time the GeForce 11xxx line comes out, games that really take advantage of PhysX will come out. Now hardcore gamers are willing and able to pay $300-600 for a new card. When those games come out and deliver neat effects that only nVidia cards can show off, they'll buy the 11xxx cards or be happy they got 10xxx cards already.
In fact, think back to the original GeForce 256. Do you know what made it different from a Riva TNT 2 Ultra? One had hardware Transform and Lighting (T&L), the other didn't. That's right. When it game to games back then, the last generation card (the Riva) ran games just as well as the GeForce. Back then PC Gamer told people they ought to get the older card if they were on a budget. Then the GeForce 2 came out along with the games supporting hardware T&L. Of course the GeForce line made games look much better than the Riva and at better framerates.
So I think this is a really good move on nVidia's part. They're positioning themselves to devour the high end of the market from ATI when those cards and the games are available. Meanwhile it will probably take ATI at least a generation longer to catch up.
With physics acceleration, the little things that don't feel real could be done.
Running through grass could cause it to deform and brush the character, and some of it gets stepped on and stays bent down. Or in sports games, each limb could have a better defined clipping box and rules for how it can flex.
Then when two players collide going for a ball, they hit more realistically and don't clip through each other. Especially on the slow motion replays it would look nice.
Or in a racing game, when cars crash, they could really crash. Imagine bodywork deforming and "real" parts going flying, instead of only a flash of sparks.
Also, it would be cool for grenades and other explosives to properly damage the room and buildings in games that want realism. Walls that crumble into rubble. Tables that break into chunks and splinters. Ceilings that collapse when the supports are destroyed or weakened too much.
Then outside, no more indestructible walls. When I ram a truck or tank into an unreinforced building, something actually happens. As in the vehicle crashes through the wall, or continues through the building with momentum.
So I guess you had to sleep or something to pass the time.
How about you go over to alexa.com like I did and check the numbers. If Engadget is kicking Gizmodo's ass, then 51% is a political mandate.
And then you find out the Motorola guy was doing the same five minute demo a thousand times during the convention, and only one of those demos was messed with, and it becomes funny again.
Why not shorten that process by getting the same hardware as the other servers, and ghosting the software on them, then adding them to the load-balancing network?
Too bad the topic is speed cameras, not red-light cameras.
As for red-light cameras, if they were designed properly, they wouldn't penalize cars that were already in the intersection when the light turned red.
countered with BB guns and a balaclava.
Intrusive ads still work to get a name or phrase into people's heads. Most people don't click on ads, but if they vaguely remember the website or product, then when they just might be interested in that type of product or service, they're more likely to seek out what was in the ad.
You could at least offer a credible link or something. That's common on slashdot too.
what about successful Mature games like GTA?
Oooh a whole 40%. Now they can match Amazon or Newegg's prices! :)