Supreme Cmdr

*moved from another thread* quote: Originally posted by LostInSpace: Just a quick question. Have the servers 2,3 and 4 been taken down because I'm only picking up server 1 in my server list. I'm fairly sure that they are being worked on but just want to make sure nothings wrong at my end. Thanks. I just checked it out. Apparently when Hypernia did their upgrading and whatever, they forgot to plug the mice back into the servers. And without a mouse, the game won't work. SERVER1 had the mouse on the whole time, but 2-4, didn't. Anyway, I just spoke to them and they are going to reboot the machines of this post. Hopefully they will be back up in a few mins. I will check it again in a bit just to make sure. EDIT: All servers are back up now

quote: Originally posted by Takvah: You had the SC, you really had him. He was all happy and whatnot thinking, hey let me help this guy out by updating a webpage with info surrounding in game events. And then, what happened? Now it's basically a dead deal. You're right. But I won't call it a dead deal just yet. I will add in the data feed to a web page. Thats not a big deal. I just lost interest when I started seeing more difficult and ambitious things that would extend beyond what I thought would be adequate for an initial small start. From that point on....because it garnered my interest....it just got worse because somehow Zane lost sight of where he was going. quote: Here's my thoughts on the matter. You can take them or leave themWell, for someone who has already done it, maybe you should add a URL pointing to your page. At least then those who don't know who you are, won't just think you're just some n00b spouting unrealistic ideas. quote: and I might start my own thread about my terminally simple idea for multiplayer interaction but I'm going to toss this out here.I would advise that you start your own anyway - and let Zane have his over-ambitious pipedreams. Besides, its always good to have various ideas. The one that I can do - with ease - always gets my vote. Right now, I am willing to do the following (in between my other tasks, so don't think they are high priority)... Feed player stats directly from a server to a web page. That data - depending on how it is formatted on the web page - can then be saved to disk and used as anyone sees fit. This data of course will only work for fleet enabled servers (I will use the INI setting to determine this) because then you are guaranteed that clients will always use the same player/asset names. And can also follow tasking instructions from fleet/wing leaders. Provide instructions to fleet leaders who are also members of the Beta team and can use GBS-III which can then show how to alter the alliance matrix for the world, change the race/caste of assets (e.g stations), regions etc. This would then allow them to create new scenarios which can then be run on the server and all clients. From time to time, change the world partition as required by whatever the situation is e.g. the entire Tapestran region could change from Ter/Ins prevalence to Ter/Mil. Thats it. Nothing more.

quote: Originally posted by Zane Marlowe: SC, can you post an example link for me to look at? No. But if you go to Jumpgate or Darkspace, you will see live stats from the game world being fed to web pages. Its not a big deal. quote: Let me know what you think.[/QB] I don't. I have no interest in this, nor do I even have the time to pay ANY attention to it. All I said was that I could feed some information from the server to a web page. You guys can do what you want with that info. So, whatever you guys end up doing, good luck. You'll be needing it.

quote: Originally posted by Zane Marlowe: When I look at my server config tool, there's a scenarios tab that shows mp0000 loaded, and what I'm wondering is if the change you're suggesting is something that we might choose (or not) by using this "scenarios" part of the interface you've already created. (Is this tab only used for GBS?) Those are scenarios. Nothing to do with the world. That scenarios tab determines what scenario the server and all clients are running. e.g. the scenario could be one in which the Paladian station is owned by Ter/Ins instead of Ter/Mil and the Ter/Mil folks have to recapture it etc. The mp scenarios (as far as scripting is concerned) are identical to the sp scenarios - except that the server runs the scenario and all clients get the info from it. In fact, the server could be running a roam, acm or ia scenario for all it cares. The default scenario currently in mp, is roam. Since I never implemented the ability for the server to cease running one scenario and start another (in much the same way other mp games load/unload maps across sessions), only one scenario (the one the server is started with) can be started and run. In order to run another, you have to stop the server, change the INI (to the new script) and restart the server. quote: My concern is that if we amplify the requirements to run the game in MP, then we risk losing some of the people who might be able to join us in MP because they don't have the system for it. If it's optional, we keep more people in the multiplayer game.What people? You mean the few who come to the servers? Anyway, I'm not sure why I have to spell this out. I never said I was going to do ANYTHING with the existing mp world. I simply asked if a seamless world is something that some (e.g. fleets) would like to see. And if/when I do it, it would be an option for those who want to use it - and only one server would be running it. quote: Originally posted by neograymatter: What are the chances of being able to play in a seamless mp region useing dial-up? Fairly good I think - but 56K dial-up for mp, is like meeting the minimum requirements for the game. I have very little interest in it and you use it at your own risk.

All I'm going to do - when I get the chance - is send the information to a web page (e.g. a link via the fleet dB). Nothing more. Nothing less. Just like I said above. Everyone in this damn community, talks about doing things. And then not. In the end, I have to find people to actual do it. Then pay for it. So, forgive me if I don't hold my breath about anyone doing anything on the backend. Php or not. Volunteers (?) around here just like to talk. I guess it makes them look cool or something. You'll see.

quote: Originally posted by Mano Faber: I'm all for it!. Does this mean that a player won't be able to oversee the entire seamles mp region (from TACOPS)? Rubbish. Going to Tacops will give you the entire region map. quote: Originally posted by Zane Marlowe: Would this be an option set in server config such that you could choose seamless or divided, or would this be a replacement for the current divided regions? No server option. No coding - and I'm not doing any. Its all content. All I'm doing is creating a single region from the current collection of MP regions.

I have changed SERVER4 to a console server in order to remotely research the on-going persistent hyperspace issue. Some have reported that this issue is on SERVER4 only. Thats rubbish. The only difference between that server and 2&3 is that it has AG turned on. And that has nothing to do with the hyperspace timer. And SERVER3 (graphics mode) now also has AG turned on. So, thats two servers with AG turned on. One graphics and one console. So far, I can't reproduce it reliably, which leads me to my original and current conclusion : If you are sent a hyperspace packet which hasn't finished for the object - and you get another - it will reset it. This will happen usually with 56K connections, since you are on a slow connection. So, now that S4 is a console server, I'd like some reports from EXPERIENCED AND REGULAR MP PLAYERS ONLY - WHO HAVE PLAYED MP SINCE v2.00.00 AND REGULARLY. This way I can at least isolate the problem and rule out the graphics server from being the problem. If you even THINK of posting in this thread - and I check my server logs and you haven't spent enough time to warrant the status in bold above, you will be banned from posting. NO EXCEPTIONS. I don't mind banning everyone who doesn't follow my rules, from this forum. If nothing else, it will reduce my bandwidth. So please, try me. [ 06-10-2004, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: Supreme Cmdr ]

quote: Originally posted by MojoOjom: i really did enjoy dealing with Interplay games, never once had any problems myself. Same here.

quote: Originally posted by Zane Marlowe: quote:Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr: One thing I can probably do with minimum ease, is to have the server send a client's name, ship, rank, location and EPs to a webpage. I can also feed the race/caste of a station/base to the web page. This would be good for station captures etc. Of course, something like this would require clients to always use their same name/asset name each time they connect to any server. Hey SC, given that technology exists to load databases with text file inputs through email, this would be an easy automation step (as long we get the database to read the input correctly). The database could then calculate winners on the basis of EP, possession of a base, etc., and submit the results to the site admin for approval (the same way news sites currently allow admins to review news submissions through a MySQL/php back end). Admins could approve, and then the results could be posted to the website and the galaxy map could be automatically updated with new possession overlays. At least that's how the music sounds in my head! ZM out. Congratulations. You've just confirmed the reason why I don't get involved in discussions like this. Instead of staying within the scope of what is available and what I suggest, you ladies come up with all kinds of insane things - as if I don't have better things to do with my time, but to make more work for myself. For a $19.99 game. Right. I talked about something as simple and trivial as a data sent to a webpage, you want a dB backend. Right. For that, you should be playing Jumpgate or Darkspace.

quote: Originally posted by Zane Marlowe: I don't think you have to have the entire MP world, just a given system (Eluria system for example) and use existing solutions for jumping for everything out-system; i.e., load/unload regions per star instead of per planetary zone. Did I ask for opinions on how it would/should be done? I don't remember that. Lemme go back and read my post again. Nope, I didn't think so. Siddown. quote: Originally posted by Zane Marlowe: It helps the intelligence gathering part, and it requires fleets to perform recon in-game. Rubbish. Going to Tacops will give you the entire region map. If anything, an intel gathering works best with divided regions - the way it is now. quote: Originally posted by Marvin: quote:Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr: What I mean is, I can have a server which is running the entire MP region as a single world space i.e. without having to jump to multiple connected regions. Roger, Boss. I think I've got it now: a method to reduce the need for jumpgates. Gee, lemme check my post. Nope. Didn't say that either. quote: Originally posted by Marvin: ... relying on hyperspace to get from one star system to another. Wot?

quote: Originally posted by Marvin: Would there be just one planet/moon in this region? And the space around it populated with numerous starstations of different castes ... in much the same way that a planet's surface is populated with numerous bases, cities, and starbases? What I mean is, I can have a server which is running the entire MP region as a single world space i.e. without having to jump to multiple connected regions.

How do you guys feel about a seamless mp region? What I mean is, I can have a server which is running the entire MP region as a single world space i.e. without having to jump to multiple connected regions. This would also mean that all the stations would be in the same region but all will be outside the radar range of each other (or they will engage each other). There will still be jump gates linking each quad (you'd be insane to fly the distance between the Terran and Gammulan quads for example) so you can jump from one to the other. And they will be outside the turret range of stations and ODS systems. WARNING: Machines which don't meet the game's recommended requirements won't have the processing power to handle such a region.

Yeah, its probably curtains. Its been a long time coming actually and I'm surprised that they lasted this long. Sad really.

quote: Originally posted by Zothen: Basicly a very good idea for UC-multiplayer, Zane, but like Eclipse I think it can be too complicated to organize. I would suggest to start it on a smaller scale with basic battles for sectors and extend the campain as needed for the participating players. I would start it without planetfalls and without the complex battleflow diagram. Just one fight for the dominance of a sector and so a progress through the sectors of the galaxy. I agree.

I have moved this out of tech support. Anyway, as I was saying above, since I have no plans on releasing another BCM/G patch, anyone who wants to be able to launch probes from the LRT-10, can use GBS-II (included with latest patch) to add a /missile tag to the LRT10.3D model. That is what Kamen (above) ended up doing after reading my post. Unfortunately (as was pointed out to me in PM), when I deleted his post in which he was claiming this to be a bug, asking me why I disabled probe launches from transports etc, I also deleted that part of his post in which he indicated that he had done what I suggested and could launch probes from the LRT10. So, here are my instructions on how to do it - without having to go through the tedium of creating a new tag. Copy bcstudio.exe and bcstudio.ini from the GBS folder to your game folder. Make a backup copy of modelslrt10.3d e.g. copy it over to lrt10.bak Fire up BCS and load the lrt10.3d model Toggle ON model/tags/primitives so that you can see the tags in the model. Go to model/tags/taglist and left-click on the /ship:1 tag In the tagname box, remove the tag name and change it to /missile:0 then click on the SET button and then the OK button. Notice that the /ship:1 tag has now been changed to /missile:0 Go to File/Save and click OK when prompted. Thats it. The reason for modifying an existing tag is because the transport does not need two /ship vectors. This is there so that if launching shuttles simultaneously, there is no delay i.e. when one shuttle is launching from one tag, another can be launching from the other. With only one tag, the first shuttle has to be launched first before the next one can. The /missile vector is used for launching missiles and probes. Previously probes were launched via the /pod tag (used for launching escape shuttles when the object is destroyed etc), but this was changed because not all objects require this tag and it was inconsistent in its use. If you want to prevent transports from using probes (my original intent), then you would load up all the transports (refer to the objdefs.ini file for the .3D model file names) as above, then instead of using the SET button to rename a selected tag, you would use the DEL button to delete the tag, then save the model as indicated above. Probes are launched using the fire control system, which has power allocation requirements. That particular system was not previously present on transports (since unarmed transports do not have weapon control systems etc) and armed transports do not have missile launchers (only turrets). Thats why I decided to make the change global and not allow any transports to have probes (its not like they need them) which are in fact, military assets. Apparently when the models were done, only the LRT10 (which is what was used to test the inability to launch probes) ended up without this tag. Someone (yours truly) forgot to remove this tag from the other transports once the test was confirmed to work and without any adverse effects. Thats that.

The servers will be down between 1pm - 4pm EST today. Hypernia are installing remote rebooters and other stuff on the network.

Zane, I like it. (now why can't all the newbies trying to get on my last nerves, be productive like this). If there is anything - within reason - that I can do within the game, let me know. One thing I can probably do with minimum ease, is to have the server send a client's name, ship, rank, location and EPs to a webpage. This could be updated regularly, as long as the server was up. I can also feed the race/caste of a station/base to the web page. This would be good for station captures etc. Of course, something like this would require clients to always use their same name/asset name each time they connect to any server. Once I iron out the kinks on the planetary mp section, this would be something to do (along with the captains log idea I had earlier).

Its not freezing up. Give it time to initialize. It can take a while. Be patient. It is an almost 500GB install compressed into 300MB. When all else fails, hit the Installshield site or type in "installshield" on Google.

Nobody is on my bad side (you've been around long enough to know how I operate) - I just have a very low tolerance threshold for foolishness and I rarely give second chances. There is a good reason why a LOT of people post/read here (and chew up my bandwidth in the process) without ANY problems. They abide by the rules and respect the fact that THIS is my damn house and any person coming here HAS to play by MY rules. And I don't owe anyone a goddamn thing. You buy the game and you don't like something about it, take it back, burn it, roast it, cook it, toss it out of an airplane etc. I don't care. Just don't tell me about it or b*tch at me just because.

No, that would be too easy. Why do that when you can just ***** about it?

You guys have got to be goddamn well shitting me. And DeeplyShrouded, I don't give a toss if Kamen is your brother, sister or boyfriend, please don't register on my site, just to tell me rubbish I have NO interest in.

quote: Originally posted by Kamen: You are telling me that in my version of BCM, I should not be able to launch probes from ANY transports. However, in my game, I can load and launch from two of them (MRT-15 and LRT-15), and load but not launch from the third (LRT-10). I am trying to understand why, and resolve the issue. Read what I wrote again. And while I don't plan on releasing any more patches for BCM Gold (it has reached its End Of Life, EOF, cycle), if I were to release a patch, it would be to correct it so that NO probe launches are possible from transports. And there is no coding involved. All I have to do is delete the missile tags from all transport (except LRT10) model. There are several other transports you can play with. Pick one. [ 05-28-2004, 05:41 PM: Message edited by: Supreme Cmdr ]

quote: Originally posted by Kamen: But at risk of sounding overly defensive, I am not an idiot nor am I new to tracking bugs, please do not dismiss me so casually. Are you trying to get yourself banned? Anyway, probe launching in BCM and BCM Gold on transports was disabled by removing the /missile tag used for probes. Obviously LRT10 is the only transport which in fact didn't have this tag. This is because previously, the /pod tag is what was used to launch probes. In UC (though I am planning on re-enabling this at some point), there are no /missile tags in any transports. So no probe launches. [ 05-28-2004, 02:09 PM: Message edited by: Supreme Cmdr ]

Warren Spector and Thief3 team laid off Shamelesss ganked from here quote: Quoting off Shacknews, Warren Spector has left Ion Storm. While Ion Storm Austin was a laughing stock producing the amazingly unprofitable Diakatana the "other" Ion Storm that Warren Spector worked for actually was successful. It made Deus Ex which was one of the best games of all time in my opinion and in an amazing feat of incompetence somehow screwed up the sequel. Deus Ex 2 will forever be remembered as one of the biggest and most profound disappointments in PC gaming and how anyone could screw up such a sure fire sequel remains beyond me. Messing up a sure thing hit like the sequel to the follow up "best game of the year" has to mean you did something wrong, which of course he has never admitted and in fact claims to be proud of the changes he made in the sequel. They just released Thief 3 which is based off the highly successful Looking Glass series and reviews are around 80. Seems they didn't **** it over like DX2 but they didn't try to make it that good either. They undoubtedly hurt sales by refusing to release a demo as well (mainly because the demo of DX2 probably cost them more sales than the game has made to date... it was that bad). I'll be getting the game today so expect to see some type of review on it in the next few days and a first impression later tonight. Really I have no sympathy for Mr. Spector. He still insists he did everything right with DX2 which is basically a kick in the nuts to all your fans because very VERY few people who bought Deus Ex bought Deus Ex 2. I have no problem with a designer wanting to take a creative license but when you make an incredible ground breaking new genre and then turn the sequel of it into a carbon copy action first person shooter your gunna take A LOT of shit for it. If he was so dead set on making a good console game (DX2 was clearly meant to be a console game and not a PC game see many forum posts on the issue on the Eidos forums) he should have just created one rather than trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. It takes a serious amount of ****ing up to destroy a game series as popular as Deus Ex but Mr. Spector managed to do it with only 1 sequel so I'm not surprised he left, was let go, or fired or whatever it may be. Really my only comment to him would be, "what the hell did you expect?". Ok after some AIMing and emails I'll elaborate on why dues ex 2 was such a goddamn failure. First let's see what made DX 1 a success. It was totally revolutionary. You had a first person shooter, stealth game play from Thief, cyberpunk hacking, rpg skills, interactive computer systems, and an amazingly deep story. You can read my review for more details. Basically DX 2 took all of this and ignored it. DX 2 had no rpg elements, had no sneaking, had shitty AI, a cheap hackneyed story where nothing you did mattered until the last level, and awful performance despite terrible graphics, and totally unrealistic and lame computer hacking (you had a button marked "hack" that always worked and then you had unlimited time to do whatever you want). The only things the original and sequel had in common was the general game world and the ability to collect and use cybernetic augmentations. While it would have been ok for the game to be a spin off series, marketing it as the sequel to one of the most successful and revolutionary games of all time was a very, very bad idea. The game was severely dumbed down to make it "more accessable" to the XBOX and new players and by doing so they killed the highly complex world and game play that made Deus Ex such a hit. You can't dumb down classical art and make it better. [ 05-28-2004, 01:39 PM: Message edited by: Supreme Cmdr ]

quote: Originally posted by Bobcat: Know i'll probably get crucified for this Nah, I should crucify myself for mentioning it