Supreme Cmdr

quote: Originally posted by Remo Williams: All were going to do Boss is have six players login to the server as usual using the same weopons rules that we've been using and try to kill each other in a free for all match. The free for all will occur in the Procon region near the tapestran jump gate. GalCom players will launch from Paladian and Insurgents will launch from Farpoint and jump into Procon where they will meet GalCom at the gate. We won't be keeping score or anything but trying to kill each other. This will be the fleet server btw, not the other two public servers, right? Remo (and all FLs in the Beta program), check Area 51. I have released a Beta of the games channel app which we will use tomorrow for pre- and post- chat. I was going to modify UC so that you can launch into the fleet server from it, but I took one look at the [uC] multiplayer code and went .... nah, ah. I then went to take a nap. ONLY the [six] people (and any other Beta testers who just want to mess around with it) who are part of this meet should have access to that GameCQ lobby. NOBODY else.

As a previous paid owner and user of Opera, I have to say that I have NO idea what you're talking about Nomad. I have zero crashes with Firefox. It is conventionally faster and more streamlined than Opera - which happens to be bloated beyond belief and is far more incompatible with more websites than Firefox. But, as they say, to each his own; go with what works for you. For me, now that - while not perfect - Firefox is where is should be, I'm never looking back. Ever.

Its coming in THREE days. In the meantime, read this absolutely awesome and well written GameSpot article about the final hours of Half Life 2 [ 12-01-2004, 09:52 AM: Message edited by: Supreme Cmdr ]

Finally got to see episode 8. Wow!!! Now I get Sawyer. For me, LOST is shaping up to be the greatest drama series in a long, long time.

Gentlemen, there should be no matches on the server when I'm on it tomorrow. I'm sure that you folks can organize a scenario whereby I can see what the heck is going on without having to keep track of your usual fleet related shenanigans. I will stay for about an hour and after that, you folks can start your usual fleet related stuff. Also, I don't need any weapons changes; you guys should be playing exactly as you have done in the past. Make sure also that everyone is running the game in fullscreen mode. I also need the FLs to send me a PM advising me of the connection that each participating member is on e.g. DSL/Cable (how fast? 256K, 512 etc), Dial-Up etc

Future single player games with a multiplayer component (UCHI, UCHTL....) use a completely re-written multiplayer engine using new middleware networking engines (instead of GameCom used in BCMG and UC). In the case of GCO, it uses a totally different multiplayer and networking engine being that it is - first and foremost - a multiplayer game and requires something more advanced. Terms: Multiplayer Engine: This is the tech in the game that actually uses the networking engine to do what it needs. e.g. to send player position over the network, this engine needs to make [uDP or TCP] calls to the networking engine to do it. Think of it like a graphics engine. A graphics engine which does fancy things on the screen, needs a layer to handle it. That layer can be OpenGL or DirectX. i.e. you can't have a graphics engine without using a layer which allows the engine to do its work. Likewise when developing a game sound engine, you could use DirectSound - which is part of DirectX - or any other (e.g. OpenAL, FMOD etc) layer. Networking Engine: This is the licensed middleware tech that handles the actual networking layer which the multiplayer engine uses. In all cases, for our games, the multiplayer engine uses UDP (guaranteed and not) via the networking engine. It does not use TCP or the game would be unplayable. TCP is not used in real-time networking games which rely on a tremendous amount of packets being sent rapidly and frequently. With the UC add-on, I was simply planning on just ripping out the multiplayer engine and replacing it with the current [WIP] version from UCHI/HTL; both of which use a new networking engine. Like everything else, multiplayer is just like graphics, gameplay and what not; it is usually trial and error until you get it right. If you compare the multiplayer (internal, features etc) between BCMG and UC, you will find that they are vastly different; thats because I re-wrote about 95% of the multiplayer engine for UC; but used the same [GameCom] networking engine. Also.... With our multiplayer games channel about 99% completed and ready to be launched with the new UCHI game next year; the UC add-on would also support this interface, alleviating the need for an in game browser since servers could be joined either using the stand-alone ASE browser or our all-in-one multiplayer lobby. The lobby has chat (you can also access this forum and other areas of the site, directly from it) and a bunch of features that neither BCMG nor UC have. You can chat, browse for servers, join servers etc. e.g. you could be in a game, get killed, log-off back to the lobby chat room, and laugh about it, discuss it etc. All in a single workspace. That lobby also supports subscription and registration based access so that when GCO rolls around, it too can be joined from here if you have a subscription. If you don't, you can still use the lobby to chat, join the public servers for other games (e.g. UCHI, HTL or whatever). Part of doing the UC add-on was implementing support for it via the lobby; something I don't plan on doing for BCMG or UC since they both use totally different multiplayer and networking engines.

IUP weighs in News.com weighs in Gameindustry Biz weighs in ....and now this http://www.eaovertimecase.com/

quote: Originally posted by Remo Williams: It would be nice to use the DB in someway though thatÔÇÖs for sure. Maybe there could be a box to check in the user profile as you said and a submit button that would send the users player name to a dynamic page that can be viewed by all members. Then the page could be wiped at the end of the month to start a new roll call. Then the FL's could go to the DB and issue a roll call through the comms system telling all their members to login to the DB and check in. Don't know just a thought maybe it would be too much work for Mark to implement. I'll brain storm some more and let you know if I can think of anything easier. Mark and I are tossing some ideas back and forth about this right now. Your suggestion about sending the responses to a dynamic HTML page is an excellent one and which I hadn't thought of. Thats a brilliant idea and I've just sent email to Mark about it. The current plan is to have a check mark in the fleet dB entry for the person. When a roll call goes out, they check the box and log out. It then gets sent to the HTML page; when then gets cleared either automatically or manually when needed (e.g. every month).

OK, so who didn't see this coming?

This has spread like wildfire across the net, to print and news media etc. Here are some links GameSpot CNET Some top level ex-EA guy

quote: Originally posted by DennyMala: However just to get back on topic...I suggest we shut down the PTA on the fleet matches (and Marvin will hate me for this.....sorry chief... ) and allow the use of missiles....hoping that this will reduce the spinning effect we were seeing.... While that is a good suggestion, it will only serve to mask the problem. I want to be able to (this weekend) see and experience the problem for myself so that I know what you folks are talking about. Also, without having to disable PTA in the code, all people on the server could simply turn off their PTA system and run the tests that way. The PTA system won't fire unless it is active; I think you all know that by now, so I shouldn't have to do anything in this regard.

quote: Originally posted by Ockham: OK so... There are only very specific types of problems SC is willing to work on (ie: bugs & minor revisions). We need to know what these workable problems are and list them. And it needs to be determined if those specific problems SC is willing to work on, once fixed will improve MP enough for fleet members to enjoy their MP gaming experience. Obviously, if the bug fixes/minor revisions wonÔÇÖt create an enjoyable MP experience for those who are complaining, SC would be wasting his time trying to implement them. Do I have everything straight? You could start by going to the end of the VCF where all known issues (confirmed or not) are listed. quote: The Devil's Hand Raiders, if they are to be held to the same expectations as other fleets, should have access to the ships that other fleet members can access in MP IMO. The only time raiders should be limited in ship selection and disadvantaged is if it is specificly stated in a MP scenario's ROE. It seems unfair that there could be an official fleet match where one fleet would be able to use huge hulking death ships while the other fleet can only use *sigh* heavy cruisers. Please don't take this thread off-topic. This has nothing to do with the scope and premise of this thread. Go to the general fleet discussions forum and take it up there.

News is up on The Register and on BetaNews

100% agreed

Here we go again. Oh and then there's this. Another JFK type conspiracy and our generation will never learn the truth.

After thinking about it, I don't think that dropping players from a fleet for non-participation, is such as bad idea. After all, there must be a reason they joined to begin with. There are many ways to contribute to a fleet without actually being involved in online matches. e.g. DREADA pointed out Reed's website work. Others point out RP etc etc. At the very least, fleet membership should be like being in the National Guard; you gotta show up once in a while - especially during rollcalls - or fleet meetings (not to be confused with actually online game participation). So, you guys can use this as a guideline when determining who to drop from a fleet. e.g. if I get an email from DennyMala saying that he got dropped from a fleet, I'd be pissed; because he is an active community member who shouldn't be penalized just because he can't be at each and every fleet meet.

To put it mildly, if I didn't want anyone to play multiplayer, why would I be paying $1,000 per month - out of my own pocket - for servers? And Mark (aka Voltiac) who manages the fleet dB (and all the other site dBs, backend etc) doesn't do it for free. He gets paid. Thats money nobody is giving me; it comes from my pocket. The fact is, the game was released at an inopportune time and the pricing has made it all the more impossible for me to allocate time and resources to fixing multiplayer. Unlike single player, multiplayer is an entirely different beast; more so that even larger companies with bigger budgets and smaller games, can't get theirs right. If I spent time focusing on eternally tweaking multiplayer, the vast majority of people who play the game for its single player, would be even more put off. Believe it or not, they outnumber the mp wanting people by a very, very wide margin. And identifying and fixing bugs in single player is very different than for multiplayer; hence the reason both have completely different executables. The mp in UC is not going to get significantly better than it already has and I have already explained - in detail - why that is. In fact, one of the reasons I was even considering doing a UC add-on of sorts, was so that the networking layer could use the new one in upcoming games. With the added revenue, it makes economic sense. As it stands, multiplayer works relatively well (especially on a LAN which does *not* have issues with lag, updates and whatnot) and you don't have to jam 32 people on a Net server to enjoy it. So, its not like multiplayer is unplayable in any regard as some would like others to believe. Its just that some people - who are USED to playing mp games with quirks here and there - are better used to it than most who expect it to be as smooth and the same as single player. Ain't gonna happen. I'll strive to fix whatever bugs I can as I always do. So, whoever doesn't want to play mp shouldn't play it. If you don't enjoy mp as it is, you have no business being in or running a fleet. In fact, my first impulse was to disable the fleet dB; kill the mp servers and save my resources when I feel that mp in the next game is sufficient to warrant fleets. The reason I haven't done that is because there ARE those who are playing it, know what the quirks are and have learned either to deal with them or find ways around them. So I'm not going to penalize them just because others feel differently. At least not yet.

Why your fabulous job sucks

quote: Originally posted by Race Bannon IV: SC you may want to change the priority setting on your season pass list so it will record over lower priority series and movies. Yeah, that might be it actually. Thanks for reminding me. I take it you have Tivo too? quote: And I still think it was the french chick who hit Sayeed! Wait, they didn't show who did it?!?! quote: Originally posted by Cc: quote:Originally posted by Race Bannon IV: No luck on the re-airing..seems Harry Potter is the Saturday movie of the week on ABC It's every other weekend.And they show the previous 2 shows.If they stay true to schedule it will be on the 20th. Thanks!!

quote: Originally posted by Papi: Because of the current issues I find the mp matches quite frustrating and it supposed to be fun. You know, there is a thread open for this if you wanted to point out what is quite frustrating for you.

My thoughts are over here And this comes on the heels of the IGDA quality of life report which has these statistics Some of the unfortunate statistics reported: * 34.3% of developers expect to leave the industry within 5 years, and 51.2% within 10 years. * Only 3.4% said that their coworkers averaged 10 or more years of experience. * Crunch time is omnipresent, during which respondents work 65 to 80 hours a week (35.2%). The average crunch work week exceeds 80 hours (13%). Overtime is often uncompensated (46.8%). * 44% of developers claim they could use more people or special skills on their projects. * Spouses are likely to respond that "You work too much..." (61.5%); "You are always stressed out." (43.5%); "You don't make enough money." (35.6%). * Contrary to expectations, more people said that games were only one of many career options for them (34%) than said games were their only choice (32%).

One for the record books

heh, I wonder if the US forces in Falluja got to preview this briefing before going in.