Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Supreme Cmdr

Multiplayer Issues

Recommended Posts

I created this topic based on a PM Marvin sent me earlier today and based on recent comments from this rthread.

quote:


Sir. If I can, I'd like to clarify some of the things that have recently come to light concerning multiplayer in Universal Combat.

First off, the options available in this game go beyond what can be done elsewhere. Boss, you stated in the open forum that, "...if you guys come up with a mode of play that doesn't fit in with what is available, don't do it." The thing is: all of the stuff we do is available ... or, at least, would be available if the MP environment was as steady as single player.

In no other MP arena (BCMG aside), that I know of, can you deploy shuttles. Nowhere else can you go from space to a planetary surface, climb out of your craft and roam around. For gaming options, UC is numero uno.

All this stuff makes for great scenarios. All this stuff is available. But, Boss, we can't use it effectively. Granted, all the reasons why are already listed in the VCF, one way or another. But that doesn't help when guys are trying to gin up support for Fleet activity ... or even MP activity on an individual basis.

Here is what I've observed and what Shin and Denny were trying to convey earlier today: in a fire fight (in space) between more than two ships, maneuvering is quick and fast ... evidently too quick and fast for the MP environment to keep up. Updates don't come fast enough. As a result, when updates do come, the ship you've targeted is moved from where the computer thought it was a few seconds ago to where it really is. To the player, the target appears to jump around ... going from, for example, directly in front of you at 3km to above-left at 15km. Then, as you turn toward it, the target might jump further out or right up next to you, or behind.

Our current solution is to use PTA and continually maneuver to keep the target's blip in the sweet spot. We figure (perhaps not correctly) that computer-controlled weapons have a better chance of hitting a target who's position is being tracked by the computer. Better, anyway, than trying to aim and fire at the jumping target itself.

Granted, also, the lag increases when some of the players are using dial-up connections but, if the server has been up for a long time without being reset, it can happen even if all players are on broadband.

Which is why hard-core Fleet players eagerly await the "silver bullet" MP patch for UC.


I am well aware of the issues with multiplayer and they will be eventually be addressed at some point.

The issue with warping of objects is common in all mp games. It is magnified in UC because of the vast speed at which ships can travel at. The fact that the server tries to keep everyone (regardless of bandwidth) in synch and at relative 56K dial-up speeds, also compounds the problem.

While mp in UC is vastly more advanced than in BCM Gold, the decision Dreamcatcher made to ship the game when it wasn't fully ready, coupled with the fact that it was then sold at $19.99, all help to stiffle the amount of work that can be done. At $19.99 - half the price that was originally agreed upon - the earning potential of the game was halved and didn't make it feasible for us to continue working solely on it. In fact, at that budget price, I would have been well within my rights to not release a single patch for it; but a quick glance at the VCF shows that a tremendous amount of work has gone into the game since it was released in February. Those are all resources that could have very well gone into our follow-up games.

The reason the single player aspects are priority (to fix) is because more people are interested in single player than in multiplayer and because problems occuring in single player have to be fixed there so that they are reflected in multiplayer as well.

If you are on a good connection, the game performs as well as any other multiplayer game, except where the fp action (on planets) is concerned, due to the sheer amount of objects on the planet and the size of the planet area itself.

So, I'm not interested in fixing multiplayer just because of one particular aspect (fleet play). The ppen issues (listed at the bottom of the VCF) will be resolved - in time - and based on priority as time and resources permit. Right now, our primary resources are allocated to our follow-up products instead of a product for which we were literally cheated out of our potential financial rewards.

[ 10-25-2004, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: Supreme Cmdr ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, for what it's worth, my attitude has been that since I know SC's working on the newer UC products, and since they share a similar codebase to the existing offering, then as those products are polished, we'll continue to see the improvements in shared code for the current UC offering.

That said, I'm glad there's a sticky topic for this so we can talk about how to design MP scenarios (fleet scenarios or even just some fun stuff for random enthusiasts to play). One question I have is that since the computer seems to manage the PTA system adequately, then is there some reason why we wouldn't use FC assets as a primary means of attack since they are also AI controlled? FC assets + PTA systems end up doing a lot of work for me in SP play, and this could give us something to build scenarios around until the other coding issues are resolved (or the next game comes out, etc.)

Thanks for the post BTW Derek, I'm glad to know you're keeping tabs on this even though your backend support for doing so isn't there. Hope the new products give you more flexibility and payoff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by Zane Marlowe:

One question I have is that since the computer seems to manage the PTA system adequately, then is there some reason why we wouldn't use FC assets as a primary means of attack since they are also AI controlled? FC assets + PTA systems end up doing a lot of work for me in SP play, and this could give us something to build scenarios around until the other coding issues are resolved (or the next game comes out, etc.)


I'm not sure what the question is since I don't know why you can't use FCs.

As for turrets, they are precomputed on both client and server and don't do any prediction; thats why they are more accurate than you [player] trying to use guns. Its the same way in single player, you can't dodge turret fire like you can regular gun fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr:

I'm not sure what the question is since I don't know why you can't use FCs.

Well, this was more of a question for Marvin and the guys in Prime who had written Prime's ROE around their experiences playtesting MP. Their ROE discouraged using FC assets for reasons I'm not entirely clear about, but had the impression it had to do with technical concerns.

I've actually used FC assets in MP against a single opponent, but I haven't tried testing a 3 on 3 match with everybody deploying all their FC assets (24 AI FC's battling it out, that would be cool!), and I thought some of the guys who had spent time working through Prime's ROE could shed some light on why they set their ROE up that way (if indeed it was technical rather than just for reasons related to scenario balance).

That said, I am also curious (if the answer doesn't require a dissertation) whether the load for AI-controlled player assets (such as the aforementioned FC's) is managed on the server or the client-side. AI's fighters don't have to deal with prediction warping do they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by Zane Marlowe:

That said, I am also curious (if the answer doesn't require a dissertation) whether the load for AI-controlled player assets (such as the aforementioned FC's) is managed on the server or the client-side. AI's fighters don't have to deal with prediction warping do they?


AI is computed client side. Only the server has to update all clients as to the positions of all the clients. So if have 3 clients all launching 4 fighters, thats a lot of positions to update and is down to the server to handle it (which it can, just fine) and the connection (which may croak on low bandwidth clients) to keep it flowing constantly and consistently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Remo Williams

quote:

One question I have is that since the computer seems to manage the PTA system adequately, then is there some reason why we wouldn't use FC assets as a primary means of attack since they are also AI controlled?

The primary reason they are not used is due to lag. It works fine in a head to head match but when you have six players in-game all using FC, SC and missiles lag is very severe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, what Remo said. And if a player forgets to first unload the missiles each fighter normally carries and the FCs employ all of 'em, lag can get ...

.

Personally, I don't mind the lag. Normally, I'm a lousy shot. Without the lag, Remo would probably require us to play with our PTA off ... which would surely be my ruination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Culled from PM with Shingen

quote:


Shingen:

What do you mean by "warping"? If you mean that it is common in most mp games that have ships and objects to jump around the screen, then I don't know of any mp games that do that.

In fact, speaking strictly of "space-sims", I just got through playing Terminus over the internet. Surprisingly, there were other people online (usually the Terminus servers are empty for the most part), anyway, a few of us decided to get into a battle and there wasn't any "warping" at all. Targets stayed where they were supposed to be.

Now, Terminus uses "Newtonian" physics, so the flight model is a little more advanced then UC's, but still, the ships weren't jumping all over the place on the screen as they tend to do in UC MP.

Just for the hell of it, I tried Freelancer over the Internet, and those ships don't jump around either. So, I log into a server4, and no one is online. So, I try to attack an AI hostile. That ship doesn't jump around at all. Combat is stable and predictable. The AI ships don't move (other than hyperjumping), but at least they didn't jump around in the screen while I was fighting them. So I guess it mainly happens when it's PvP combat.


The NPCs, when engaged, have the tendency to drastically alter their flight path during combat engagements. They tend to do it when others fire on them so that the inbound shots will miss. Thats the ONLY thing that would cause them to warp along any of the X/Y/Z axis in the game. And they do this in both sp and mp game. In space, there is no altitude limitations. On a planet, they won't do this below 1000 ft AGL because they stand a chance of hitting the ground.

If you played the recent patch update, you will notice that I have since disabled their ability to do this since 2.00.15 patch. Though, from looking at the code, it seems I forgot to document it in the VCF and I didn't disable it in mp. You can see this for yourself in sp by trying a scenario (e.g. an IA scenario in space e.g. IA0101 - IA0105) against hostile fighters.

Then, to enable their tactical dynamics which includes jinking (what were're observing as warping around) add -J or /J to the commandline and replay the same scenario.

Beyond that [jinking], I have NO idea what you're talking about; especially since mp has gotten progressively better since the first version of the game that Dreamcatcher rushed to market. And let me add that co-op play - not supported in MOST mp games - is only available in mp because of the ability to enable NPC generation. If I disabled that and also disabled the ability for stations to fire, launch threats etc etc; all you would be left with is a standard deathmatch mp game.

On the other hand, there is lag; and there's nothing that I can do about it. If Terminus and Freelancer have better multiplayer (in your experience), then you should be playing them for multiplayer and UC for its single player. I'm not interested in chasing shadows, nor do I have time.

The crafts in the game can move at drastic speeds and this makes prediction a nightmare to calculate. Terminus uses Newtonian physics so the speeds of crafts is not even 1/10th of what crafts in my games can fly at. Freelancer is, well, lets not go there because the crafts are even slower than in Terminus.

The slower speeds make prediction HIGHLY more accurate. And it is prediction (which is not an exact science and every single flight based game has to contend with it) that determines how smooth combat in a sim is. Add lag, extremely high speeds, a massive world (all of which has to be updated in real time) to the equation and you have a serious problem. Nick Caldwell, a friend of mine at MIT (see above URL), wrote the original spline based prediction model back in late 2000 and which I ended up revising and adapting (since I needed it to work in 3D, not 2D) for the networking kernel used in both BCMG and UC. It is highly efficient and works just fine. If this was not the case, given just how complex my games are, multiplayer would never - ever - work. And again, the new networking kernel (in UCHI and beyond) completely rips out a ton of things which I am in the process of re-writing and with a new networking transport layer (RakNet) instead of the highly restrictive and slightly buggy GameCom used in BCMG and UC.

I have absolutely NO intentions of making ANY drastic of major revisions in UC. At this point, all I'm interested in is fixing bugs. Nothing else. If the multiplayer experience is lagged; thats not a classed bug; its a technology issue which I have no intentions of addressing.

I will see about releasing the 2.00.17 patch later today or tomorrow which has jinking disabled in mp.

[ 10-31-2004, 06:48 AM: Message edited by: Supreme Cmdr ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Shingen

Culled from this thread:

quote:

It shouldn't be much of a discovery - especially if you know
what
the AP/AI mode actually does.

It wasn't much of a discovery at all, just a little strange that no one had thought of it. On the one hand, it makes sense that the server would handle AP mode better then manual mode, but still, once you turn off AP mode, then player ships go back to "spinning" in the VDD, and jumping all around. One second they'll be .05 km away, then the next 5kms or 10kms, left or right, up or down, all over the screen. AP mode seems to reduce this.

quote:

Naturally - as I've been saying all along - those complaining about dogfighting, have no clue what they're talking about because they have NOT spent time doing it. Issuing orders as a commander is a whole different kettle of fish from being engaged in actual combat.

There were no "newbies" playing at the testing yesterday. We ALL know about AI, dogfighting and issuing orders as a Commander.

quote:

If the AI assumes that role, it has a better understanding of the ship's dynamics, the world etc, so it knows what to do. A stupid - yes stupid - player who thinks he can grab a mouse or joystick on day one and expect to prevail, doesn't.

Granted, but still when you turn OFF THE AI, things get screwy. There were no "stupid" commanders there yesterday, and none of us are DAY-ONE players. We're just trying to help get Fleet play where it is fun and NOT frustrating.

We could use your help and support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, in support of Shingen and perhaps at the expense of my posting privileges I would like to say a thing or two about the multiplayer.

I would really play this game a lot in multiplayer if the space combat were more stable. I don't know if it is connection speeds from 56K players or what it is that causes the problems but they are there. They do make playing multiplayer games of UC a trying experience and the game experience doesn't exactly lend itself to one becoming enthused about fleet action.

Now I know that it has been said before that this is a single player game with a multiplayer option... ok. The deal is this though, I think the creation of fleets etc., has always been designed with the express intent and wish of the members of these fleets that at some point and time fleet action was going to be possible. If not I really do not see the point of fleets. So, with that in mind and seeing as this is the second title to offer multiplayer I think that it is a fact that has not escaped Derek either. To cavalierly declare that one can take it or leave it is fine if the approach had always been "the multiplayer will be marginal at best" but that was not how multiplayer was ever described in the buildup to the release. Conversely it could be said with a similarly cavalier attitude that we as consumers do not really care about the problems with Dreamcatcher etc as relates to the release of the game. I think that for the most part (if even a little late in my case) we came to understand and support your assertions that Dreamcatcher screwed the pooch on this title and also hampered your ability to see it achieve an economic success that could have allowed you to direct more time and resources to the project. In the end the criticisms as relates to MP have never been intended to color you as the villain Derek but more accurately have been nothing more than pleas for help so that the fleets (entities that support this game) could interact thereby expanding the BC/UC experience.

I have to reaffirm that the single player is great and I do enjoy it. I have even had a multiplayer experience or two that were so cool that they have maintained my desire and HOPE that real fleet ops could be a reality with this game. I am not talking about the "seamless multiplayer game modes with support for up to 64 players in a massive universe" that was thrown on the box. I would be happy if 4 on 4 was a doable reality with the game.

So, I guess what I am saying is this... we do love your game. We do support your game. Shingen might express his frustration mnore freely than others as to appear redundant but it isn't anything that people with mushier spines have not spoken privately. All we would like is to know if we're wasting our time or not. That isn't a demand that for the sake of our time you waste yours on a code that can't be improved... it's just a matter of getting and accepting the straight skinny.

I'll await my trout bashing *snickers*

Takvah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree with the SC regarding MP vs. SP. I feel I'm probably part of the silent majority. Although I'm intrigued by the concept of BC/UC multiplayer in-game and even moreso, the overall fleet community, I have refrained from getting involved in MP, simply because I have been playing the hell out of single player BCM and UC for over 2 years now and it is all I am looking for from the game at this time. As a single player game, I think we can agree that its pretty special.

Hopefully future BC/UC games can satisfy both communities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Remo Williams

I'm sorry I don't see what the big stink is. I enjoy MP very much for Christ sake itÔÇÖs a $19 game that is just blowing away the competition with features. Name one game that offers you anything even close to all the option available in UC MP. IÔÇÖm really tired of all the negative crap thatÔÇÖs floating around here on the board about MP.

If there are issues to report there are ways to do it without making every person that comes here to the board to read think that MP is flat lousy. Which is not the case by a long shot. Its not helping the fleets get new members its not helping a damn thing. Every quirk in MP has a work around that I've found. Maybe I haven't been to forth coming with how to get the most out of the MP experience but hey why would I tell my competition how to kick my ass, come on now.

Ben's starting to pick up on a few of the tricks and believe me I'm watching the ISS. I'm just glad theyÔÇÖre on my side and the insurgents and TDH haven't picked up on what he's doing quite yet. No offence red guys LOL!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Oh and one last thing

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Remo Williams

quote:

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.

Was a little fired up in my last post total forgot to ask about this statement. WhatÔÇÖs the difference between the new layer and the old layer? If you can answer that is without spoiling anything. Does it use something different than the standard UDP protocol that doesn't check if packets are received, or is there some enhancement?

To bad TCP demands too much overhead to use for MP applications, then a single packet wouldnÔÇÖt be lost between server and client without being re-sent, but we all know thatÔÇÖs not feasible with any MP game in this day and age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of you who don't religiously troll the VCF, I have made good on my promise to address some of the mp issues. The most significant being the porting of the networking engine and the removal of the 56K transmission cap.

The Beta testers have had this version for a few days now, but I'll let them post their thoughts here. We're looking into a few quirks and hopefully this build we be released in the coming weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Remo Williams

This is a very cool update to the UC MP experience one well worth the wait. The new networking layer removes most of the issues that were spoken of here in this topic about the old networking layer. Nothing will remove some of the issues posted here though that were never present in the game.

I have a feeling this MP update will bring more of you to the 3000AD hosted servers since the MP experience is getting very close if not the same as playing a session of SP against the AI. With one exception the AI you'll be up against in MP will be even more unpredictable since it will be another person your trying to out think.

[ 01-27-2005, 11:45 PM: Message edited by: Remo Williams ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am getting 'unable to verify CD key' error on my home LAN after installing the .23 patch. I was having no problem getting mp running either from the same machine or with one set up as server and the other as client before I installed the patch. I did get server disconnects after running for 30 min or so.

But now, it finds the server fine, then I select accept and it comes up with an enter cd-key screen. When I do this, it says "checking with server" or a "unable to verify cd-key" window pops up and it hangs.

I have to either do an Alt-F4 or reboot to recover. I find a "bcerror.log" file and when I open it, it says "unable to verify cd-key error".

I have run it following the FAQ and VCF suggestions of to setup the "join MP" shortcut with +connect localhost and specifying the IP address. There is no firewall or internet router involved. The machines are not connected to the internet, only to each other via a switcher. Both machines are nearly identical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need a net connection for the CD-KEY to be verified. How did you miss that, when its clearly stated in the VCF?

Once verified, the key is stored on the machine.

Also, those machines you are using, should have a unique CD-KEY; meaning, each machine needs its own copy of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC,

Thanks very much for your clarification.

I knew that you needed a CD for each machine, except a server only machine. I have every intention of having a copy of the game for each machine. I am trying to troubleshoot and make sure that I can get MP going on my home LAN before I plunk down the hard earned cash for the other 2 copies.

The vcf says that you will need to have the CD-Key authenticated regardless whether it is a LAN game or a net game. And that verification is done only once.

I interpreted that to mean that when I started the server and then the client machine and then tried to join, the server would ask for the CD-key and that once entered it would associate it with the client machine. And it would then no longer ask for the CD-key when you joined that server. It does not specifically say that it is authenticated over the internet.

I also interpreted that to mean that once you authenticated, you didn't have to keep track of which CD you used in which machine. Is that true?

So, as I understand I must somehow get each of my LAN machines connected to the internet and join one of the 3000ad MP servers and get authenticated. Then the LAN will be able to run MP stand alone. Correct?

Thanks again for your help,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Each machine needs access to the Net in order to connect to our CD-KEY authentication server. At the moment, this authentication only occurs when you attempt to join a server. In the future, this will be changed so that the authentication occurs when you start the mp app.

The CD-KEY has nothing to do with the CD-ROM copy protection scheme.

[ 03-09-2005, 07:20 AM: Message edited by: Supreme Cmdr ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like one more clarification, please. Each of the machines has to connect to the internet ONE TIME and then join a server and authenticate with a unique CD-key.

Can I then

1)launch a server on the home LAN

2)launch clients on the machines and join that server

without the LAN (server or clients) being connected to the internet?

OR

Do all machines have to be connected to the internet whenever I want to run an mp game on the home LAN?

I do not keep the LAN on the internet because of the constant "probes" and "attacks" by hackers, adware, spyware, updateware and the firewall, virus scan, spy sweeper, etc. overhead that requires.

Thanks for your effort.

Sincerely,

Cdr. Tane

Again, thanks for all your effort.

Sincerely,

Cdr Tane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×