Battlezone Universe

Thank you....

I would like to second that.  Thanks for all of the hard work you two put into this patch.  Even with the public reaction, there are those of us that appreciate the work you two put into the patch.

Huh?  You mean there are people who *don't* like the patch?!?  This patch is probably one of best things ever to happen to any game.  This reminds me of finding System Shock II in the "bargain bin" after the co-op multiplayer patch was released.

BZ II was too much for pretty much any machine back in the day.  Now, I crank the graphics options up with 64 channels of sound and superb multiplayer action.

How many games get a second chance like this?  I've been telling all my friends about this game (and patch)!

I'd like to send Ken and Nathan a personal "thank you," but I don't want to spook them.  :lol:

There are quite a few players that are upset that static hovering, the ability to fly, was removed in the 1.3 patch.  To be more accurate, partially removed.  The strafe thrusters can still be used to static hover.  They also don't like the physics since ships aren't as maneuverable as they were in 1.2.  

A few players are also upset about the mauler driving smoother.  I have no idea when this was changed.  My guess is that it was changed in the first build since that is where there is a mention about the mauler's animation being fixed.

Changing the Mauler's motion is a little thing, removing persistant nose down hovering is a medium thing; reducing manoueverabilty is a big thing.  I still haven't got to grips with the way warp is manifested now, can't work out if it's better or worse.

But still, it certainly is good to have 1.3 available.   8)

I'll agree that the warping is pretty bad.  I kind of like that the static hovering is gone.  I never used it and I only encountered it in multiplayer once.  Luckily the player that used it was a newbie so my rocket tank grounded him pretty quickly.  Too bad there isn't an odf switch or something that tells a ship to use the new physics or the old physics.  That way the stock physics will stay and mod makers can take advantage of the old physics, if they choose to.

From my experience MWF=1 gives almost no lag on 3 v 3 or <

The mauler? God damn it i hate the new mauler. It is stratigically identical...

but now it feels like riding a bike...not the Rollercoaster that it used to be.

I didn't get any lag *at all.* Not a single visible sync.

all the games i was in were laggy as hell.. no metter how long they were...
had a game this morning with rip fried... blast was useless...
even spray and pray is useless.. the only thing that works is mdm radious dmg... :s

PhoeniX warping is bad, but it gets worse when you target a unit whether it is a human unit or an ai unit.  Try it and compare the warping.  For me, units warp more frequently when I target them to use the TLI.

so im supposed to play without targeting? :\

Just compare ship movement while the ship is target then observe the ship's movement when it isn't targeted.  See if it is worse while targeting or not.  On my computer, it makes a difference.  It may not on your computer.  Even 1.2 was affected by this, but it was less noticeable in 1.2.

Or mabey you just noticed it more? Or mabey its a 'little bit' worse...and you notice this alot more cause its targeted.

I think the ships warp more when targeted, especially ai ships.  I can watch an ai scav drive in a straight line and it will drive relatively smoothly.  Once I target the scav, the scav will get graphically behind where it should be, and it will be forced to the correct position.  This occurs constantly on my computer.  It is noticed more on higher mwf settings.  I haven't messed much with a mwf setting of 1.

Confirmed, i was just in an mpi, as i was plasma streaming Scavs i noticed that it was totally smooth (neigh on Singleplayer), but when i targeted them they began jerking along.

Same thing , consitantly happened when any target was selected....it seemed to only affect the 'targetee' though.

I would like to say that I don't enjoy getting beat up by the AI in MPI at all.  And thank you for that.

Getting good at it before made it pretty boring.

Boy, this reminds me of people harping about the "horrible physics changes" from BZ1 to BZ2.  LOL!

I dunno why people would get upset over lack of flying.  It was an exploit, and in a *strategy* game especially, it ruins the game to have one uber unit that kills everything.  Changes to a unit's speed, strength, etc. happen all the time in other strat games, so people shouldn't rant about it.

Granted BZ is a first-person RTS, but this isn't Doom or the like.  There's gotta some balance.

And when it comes to movement, I think the 1.3 movement is okay.  I mean it's a futuristic (second generation) hovertank, and it should have motion-compensation programs to ensure the vehicle doesn't bob around excessive.  Especially in the more "advanced" Scion crafts.

I'm sure some "vets" don't like changes to the way they play, but just because a vehicle is more "challenging" to drive doesn't mean it's good for the game in general.  Yeah it bites, but BZ is a lot more than just driving and shooting.

I agree totally, however, as I have said before, i actually enjoy piloting the hover tanks more than ever now.

Re: Mauler getting changed, a few models had small problems fixed, eg bad UV mapping, incorrect pivots etc. All that's happened there is that the maulers hp_eyepoint has lost its animation. Should be easy enough to fix that in notepad...

*sigh* this is the hmm 10000 time i say this

we dont complain only about hover, and 1.3 more challenign?
its just boring

hovering is FUN, and the speed / agilty was sense of freedom that 1.3 took....

"a ubber unit that kills all"

well fix the all AKA AI to shoot strigt up (turrets) and problem solved

This isn't Chuck Yeager's futuristic flying school.  The game BZ is about tanks, tanks and more tanks.  Hell, orbital bombarment would be even cooler and offer even more freedom, but it doesn't (necessarily  :cool: ) make for a better strategy game.

The game doesn't work right with tanks as aircraft... there's all sorts of problems like terrain, defenses, AI, etc. which all assume tanks do *not* fly.

The fact this is even issue astounds me.  Think original BZ... have to stay at least somewhat true to its origins.

The strange thing about the 'lack of agility' is that many of the ODF's haven't been touched, the physics changes that have been made don't necessarily affect speed, and overall the FPS has been cranked due to rendering improvements.  Even so, some animations play slower and there's occasionally a sort of a rendering 'stutter'.

Same thing with the warp.  When Ice and I play (and he's in London) I don't see any warp.  He's 256K DSL and I'm Cable and we have a good connection between us, and both our rigs can handle  MWF of 5 in GAIPS without trouble.  (well, until all 256 AI Sabres roll into our base...hehe).

There's more going on here that needs to be looked at, which is why it's a BETA....  The cutting of bugs and such had long-reaching effects, some of which will only show up for certain combinations of machines and connections.

-Av-

Wug, that is a pile of crap.

Actually Mower man, i have to agree with Wug.....'hover' tanks hover, they dont 'fly'....arc though the air? sure...fall 100s of meters and then spin round, fire a blast shot that punches a hole though a scout (and would happily burn a hole though any modern day tank) and make a soft landing followed by a quick acceleration to full speed?

sure

but fly though the air with the greatest of ease?

no!

Unless you're in one of these...

(http://unsinkablecork.com/chitty/images/prodpic03-chittyfly.jpg)

*sarcasm* Yea a lot of people fly with blast tanks...... */sarcasm*

well, since your going to be nit picky, ill point out how the Blast tank was not flying...it was falling 100s of meters on to hard ground whilst firing an extremely high energy weapon at a small fast moving target...

not flying. 'falling' a drop that would quite happily kill any modern day tank

Well then Jwk, you're full of hoot then too.  Flying was in the Demo for BZ2, and there is absolutly nothing in Physics that say they wouldn't act that very way.  I know guys that can ride a wheelie on a Harley forever.  Guess what?  Harly's were never designed to ride on their back wheel only (I also know guys that can stop their crotch-rockets and balance the bike on their front wheel).

Modern tanks don't have any anti-gravity generators, or non-atmospheric thrusters.  Present day tanks have as much to do with BZ2 as present day tampons do!

And the rest of the ways tanks work in the BZ2 world contradict flying, despite what you say the physics say. Since there is no ground in physics for the fictional substance biometal you can't apply any physics you can come up with that goes against what we already see. What we see says that crafts shouldn't be able to fly as the field around them can't possibly work that way with the other ways it works.

For instance: The field can right a craft. But only if the craft is on the ground. And then it doesn't right the craft to the ground, but to the center of the planet/moon/asteroid/whatever. Thus, the field must interact with the GROUND in some way for hovering, and the OVERALL planet/moon/asteroid/whatever is used for alignment. The field thus doesn't counteract gravity as much as it does the ground itself, and thus would not promote flying.

Explain how the field interacts with the ground the way it does and promotes flying with physics that make sense, including mathmatical equations that can be tested, and I MIGHT concede your point mowerman. Until then, the visual evidence goes against ya :p

You know, maybe Jwk is right. Maybe we should add in realistic handling. Yeah, we can make it so that if a tank drops nose-down from a height of more then 40 meters, his entire front gets dented, the tank takes 50% damage and his weapons become inoperable because the cannon is dented. I mean, thats what would happen in real life, right?

A lot of fun that would be. Get a grip Jwk.

Well by your estimation of Physics, we could never get a communications satellite into orbit.

What ever the force creating the hovering, you combine that with thrust, and the craft will go up.  If one could creat a anti-gravitational field, said field would have asymtotic behaviout when it came into close proximity with any matter.  The field would even push air molecules out of the way, making the ship have no atmospheric drag.  The field would also work against the center of mass/gravity to the mass it was working against.  For me to have to explain this over and over again is just silly.  People are forcing themselves to disregard Physics totally to make their arguements.

So how about Blink, Scion shields, Phantom VIR and Rocketeers not using parachutes?  Maybe remove them unless present day physics can produce an explanation?

Pilots/rocketeers use gravchutes. It's the same BZ physics (whatever that is), except you cannot maneuver your pilot the way you do with ships, i.e. tumbling in the air. Hmm, someone build an antigrav skateboard for the pilots.  :D

I'm not arguing whether the physics are real or not... that's not the point.  Being about to launch into the air and coming down anywhere is not how the *game* was designed.

In any strategy game, you gotta have rules that apply to all units.  In a pure FP shooter, it wouldn't be a problem, but BZ is not a pure FP shooter.  In a FP shooter, it would be called a "power-up"; in a strategy game, it's an *exploit*.

Since BZ is a FP RTS, it has to conform to the stricter requirements of the two genres.

QuoteYou know, maybe Jwk is right. Maybe we should add in realistic handling. Yeah, we can make it so that if a tank drops nose-down from a height of more then 40 meters, his entire front gets dented, the tank takes 50% damage and his weapons become inoperable because the cannon is dented. I mean, thats what would happen in real life, right?

Ey? I said that the Biometal tanks as is, ROCK(hense why i said 'sure'). They are increadibly powerful units (and i have my own explanation on how they can survive impacting into a solid rock at 80Kph and only lose *2%* of their overall structural integrity...long winded and has to do with how biometal reacts to its enviroment)

I think 'flying' is a pointless addition that just screws up the balence, does not make 'as much' sense as having proper hover tanks does, and TBH, I think 'arcing' across the sky is far more exilerhating now that it was to 'fly'.

Anyhow, when i first started playing BZII multiplayer, i decided to never learn to fly, and i had great fun. I won quite a few games and work fine with my team mates, i dont see the need for it personally.

In responce to mower mans good point, yeah...i can comprehend that any technology will be pushed beyond its orginal abilities, however...A submarine isnt going to be able to start riding along the shore of a beach... and a Harly isnt going to learn how to fly (despite some rather brave inderviduals attempts involving 'rings of fire' )

BZ2 demo had flying? yeah...and....it wasnt completed.

BZI didnt , nailed.

And with reguards to physics? Hover tanks 'hover' above the ground, i.e. they push against it with thrusters and possiably electromagnetics.

If the ground is too far away, then the thrusters /whatever have nothing to push against but air...which is only enough to 'slow down' the fall.

Jwk...  You really need to take Physics 101 (and pay attention to Newton's third law of Physics).

So what if BZ1 didn't have flying?  So what!!!  BZ1 craft are less advanced, heavier.  Not all BZ2 craft can fly either.

BZ2 tanks were absolutly were designed to be livelier and catch morte air than BZ1 tanks.

Jwk, I BETA tested BZ1, and BZ2.  All the way through the development of BZ2, I was talking to George Collins and wiL Stahl on almost a daily basis (the designers of the game).  Quit talking hoot...  you don't have a clue (not trying to be mean, just factual).

Actually, BZ1 did have flying tanks...with rave guns...after it got hacked up.

Physics schmisics....the guys that built the game came out and said hovering was never intended, and is a bug that unbalances the game according to their vision.   Being as the community is pretty much divided on the issue, who better to make the call than the people that DESIGNED THE FRIGGIN GAME!!  

Trying to argue real world physics in a game based on units built out of 'BioMetal' is ridiculous.  It's a game set in an IMAGINARY world.  The physics is designed to serve the gameplay...not serve as a demonstration of Newtonian physics.

Even if they were to miraculously reverse their decision and put hover back, the other half of the community would be screaming like napalmed monkies about it.  They would gain nothing by reversing the design decision...and lose the original vision.

Hover isn't coming back...no matter how the other batch of napalmed monkies hollers.  We've heard the arguments...and I think they're somewhat valid, but we've HEARD them all.  Again.  And again.  And again.  AND AGAIN.  The decision is made.  The arguments are meaningless.

I never really cared one way or another about hovering...and I find 1.3 to be MUCH MUCH better in SO many ways than 1.2.  I won't be playing 1.2 anymore...1.3 is just that much better.

The decent thing for everyone to do is THANK Ken and Nathan for the TENS OF THOUSANDS of dollars worth of programming time they have donated on our behalf.  If you don't like 1.3, play 1.2...but fer Chrissakes, be a man and say THANK YOU to the guys that worked their butts of for no pay in an effort to make our favorite game better.

AV if it is all the same to you, I have thanked them both personally many times.  I was thanked by them for putting thousands of hours of MY time into the game.  Nathan knows that when BZ2 first came out, I personally took tons of heat for the BZ2 design team (to the point where wiL Stahl sent me a personal email to thank me for doing so).

Ken and Nathan did not design the game.  wiL Stahl was responsible for game design, and he answered to George Collins.  Don't believe me?  Check the credits (you'll find my name in there too)

I have said over and over flying doesn't mean that much to me.  What means a lot to me is truth.  The truth is  that flying is fun to many people.  What kind of nazi hoot is this to dictate to everyone how to have fun with the game.  A simple shell switch would have made EVERYBODY happy.  I just can't get over how some people want to ruin other people's fun, even when it has zero effect on themselves.

Don't tell me about the "designers vision".  When BZ1 came out and then when BZ2 came out, the "designers" of the game were advocating spawn killing, power-up mining, and base rushing.

Well, i hear what your saying mower man, and im not saying your wrong, but 'Fighting' flying isnt fun. Its extremly difficult, and late-game stratergies are rarely imployed in a game where flyers attack.

Anyway, Battlezone  I was my first *ever* game...so its like a holy grail to me. And when i first saw all these scouts hovering above my base tearing it to pieces becasue the turrets could not aim high enough....i was a little disheartened. Its also why i never learnt to fly.

using exploits is disrespectful to the other play, it is rude, rudeness is unacceptable, dont use exploits. Thats how i think.

I think 1.3 rocks. Its more fun playing normal BZII than ever.

QuoteI have said over and over flying doesn't mean that much to me. What means a lot to me is truth. The truth is that flying is fun to many people. What kind of nazi hoot is this to dictate to everyone how to have fun with the game. A simple shell switch would have made EVERYBODY happy. I just can't get over how some people want to ruin other people's fun, even when it has zero effect on themselves.

Don't tell me about the "designers vision". When BZ1 came out and then when BZ2 came out, the "designers" of the game were advocating spawn killing, power-up mining, and base rushing.

Amen, MM! Disable hovering by default sounds OK to me, but why stop it from being put back in as a separate recy varient?  What is the point of ruining a good portion of the true communities fun for the sake of 'squashing a bug' and nothing more?

Flying doesnt mean that much to me either, as long as the rest of the physics remain as fun as they were in 1.2, but squashing it completely, for its own sake, and deliberately standing in peoples way who get around that "fix"... That sounds spiteful to me...

And GSH is known for being spitefull apprently....

but still, i think that people should at least play without flying for a few months.

And really...how can you disagree that nailing a really good arc in 1.3 is less fun than pressing a few buttons in 1.2 to get a fairly similar affect.
in 1.3 it is a challenge to arc above their base, and it is rewarded, and really diffcult

We have heard the arguments against flying and I think the majority of BZ2 players can learn to live without it. But what is the argument for making the units less agile? There was no agility bug! For the most part I love 1.3, there are so many improvements over 1.2, it's a great patch. Flying is gone, so be it, who cares... But I have yet to hear any explanation of why the vehicles needed to become more sluggish. If this result was strictly a side effect of the crusade to eliminate flying, well then... All I can say is: surely there was a better way?

Quote
Don't tell me about the "designers vision".  When BZ1 came out and then when BZ2 came out, the "designers" of the game were advocating spawn killing, power-up mining, and base rushing.

Were they advocating hovering?  That's what the discussion is about.

If you're down with George and Wil, what have they told you about the original vision?  D'you think that Ken and Nathan would go against that?  They were long gone by the time anybody figured out how to hover....or there was a chance at another patch.

Who's better aquainted with them and what they were trying to build...you, who corresponded with them on message boards, or Ken and Nathan, who worked with them every day?

Somebody has to have the authority to make the decision.  The community is pretty much split on it, so 'Democracy' is out (even allowing for the ridiculous idea that democracy applies to game development).  Who does that leave?

Nobody's trying to wreck anybody's fun.  Ken and Nathan didn't spend hundreds of hours writing code so they could make a bunch of crybabies go boo hoo.  They did it to improve the game for everybody.  If they were out to wreck people's fun, they could damn well write code to crash every 1.2 game listed on gamespy, forever,  in an afternoon.

1.3 doesn't take 1.2 away from anybody.  If people must hover, they can play 1.2, just like they've happily been doing for years.  Life is full of tradeoffs...this is one.

Nathan could have been more tactful about all this, but he reached this conclusion over a year ago, and is understandably testy at having to explain it for the 900th time to people that just aren't GETTING it.

1.3 is gathering steam...I see more people on every time I play.  I suspect for the majority of players, the pro's outweigh the cons.  We'll see in a few months.

AV I was flying before the game was released, and the "designers" of the game knew it.  I was shown how to fly in the demo by someone on the old Pandi board.  I was flying the very first week the game was out (as I was through the whole BETA testing time).  I was BETA testing BZ2 about three months before Nathan was hired.  I have never once indicated that I did not appreciate all their efforts.

No the designers did not advocate flying, they advocated much cheaper, skilless tactics.  A guy as smart as you I would have expected to correctly get the point.

Av I hate to tell you this, but the designers of the BZ2 looked to the community a great deal for design specifics of the game.  And yes AV, George Collins talked to me an aweful lot about design specifics of BZ2.  I also played BZ1 with him.

Quote from: MowerMan
No the designers did not advocate flying

There we have it....from a reputable source.

The discussion is not about cheaper, skill-less tactics.  The discussion is about hovering.  I'm bright enough not to accept a flawed inferential argument.  You wouldn't go for it either, if it wasn't your own.

And the point would be AV?  

The point was brought up about the "designer's vision" and I was debunking it.  Sad I have to explain that to you AV.

They did advocate human piloted Mortarbikes however...

I think we'd have to go all the way back to the original Battlezone to get the "design vision".  The arcade version (from what I can recollect), and subsequent clones from the Apple II onwards was a *tank* game.  Tanks, by definition are _ground_ vehicles; "flying tanks" are called bombers.

Okay, let's shift gears for a moment and say that BZ II tanks can and should fly.  You know, that's fine in DM... in fact, it's probably preferable in DM (and even enhanced).  But in MPI or Strat, flying is not good for gameplay.

Many games have a "realistic" vs. "arcade" driving mode, and I think that would solve a lot of problems (as others have mentioned before).  But I don't think it'd ever make it into the code. :s

Well, this will be my 1 and only post in this topic. I find it funny how supposedly "mature" adults and adolescents refuse to accept something that had been "written in stone" from the very beginning of this patch. Below is a copy\paste of yet another hover whiner from TV's board that I responded to. Funny how they're mostly from the same clan.

Quote from: BZZERKER

Quote from: Pyromane'Anything that unbalances the game should be changed!
Whether it's skill, or abuses! Be gone with people who have trained themsleves
for many years, trying to become good! I play 1 week and I want to beat them!
I only play once a week but I need to kill those who play each day!
Kill them so called vets, who needs them?'



Getting any idea what I mean, and who I'm imitating?

(not much to do with this discuss, just count it as a lil spam post, sry :P

Pyro, I'm hoping your referring to the changes to the "agility" of the ships when you say "skill". If your referring to "nose down hover" then I think you and every one else that thinks like that need to redifine your definition of skill. YES, I can hover. NO, I don't think it's fun. If fact, to me, it became boring and quite droll after a very short period. Now, like I said before, if it's the "agility" you refer to, I recently posted a PM to someone about this. Here is that part of that PM.

Quote from: BZZERKER's PMAHHhhh physics. The thing with GSH is....he NEVER mentioned anything about slowing the ships down in any direction. All he said was infinite flying (nose down hovering) "was a bug". Yes it's regrettable that the ships did slow down a bit but as wardog has stated. "it was considered to be part of the balance issue which was going to be part of the public's job". I personally disagree with this thinking.

To back this statement up, I DARE ANYBODY, go through the changelog.txt and find where Ken purposely changed the "AGILITY" to DOWNGRADE it. I tried with notepad using the find function using the words "hover", agility", and "maneuver". Plain and simple, the "agility" got broken and fixing it got put off or nobody really noticed.

btw,THANK YOU Nathan & Ken

Another anti-flying nazi flinging insults...

Quote from: MowerMan
The point was brought up about the "designer's vision" and I was debunking it.  
.

By acknowledging the main point?

Quote
No the designers did not advocate flying

You can wrap as much bread around it as you want, but it's still a hoot sandwitch. :P

I can see you an expert at missing the point, and then not making any point to clarify or back up your position, AV.

It is your opinion that it is a "hoot sandwich".    As we all know opinions are like assholes...  Everybody's got one, and they all stink!

Calm it down folks...

Mower, quit picking on these guys, they know not what they do...

:)

-Av-

Well AV, I was not debating the merits of flying or not flying.  Mostly the semantics, and this weird concept of the "designer's vision".

Quote from: MowerManAs we all know opinions are like assholes...  Everybody's got one, and they all stink!

That phrase is the only good thing I got out of this debate.  Gonna have to use that sometime in a board meeting.  :D

I'm not really debating Techie...  Just goofing around...  (he he he)

Had to scrape some dinosaur hoot off that one TechieDude...  It's an oldie!!!

Well, just as long as you and Acne shake hands in the end.  And I don't mean "end" as in "behind", hehe.  It's bound to stir up some Klingons orbiting Uranus.

I know for a fact that Mower has a whole COLLECTION of chains he's jerked off of people...  he takes 'em out on Sundays and shines them...

:)

I think serious discussions of flying (whatever) are necessary, but keep it as non-personal as you can.  There's good and bad on both sides and discussing it like adults is a good thing.  If it turns into Klingon-slinging the thread'll have to be put out of it's mysery.

And don't argue physics with Mower...  he's so old I think he and GOD actually worked out the whole physics thing...  hehe

-Av-
(that's big-A little-v, not AV as in big-A, big-V AcneVulgaris)

QuoteMostly the semantics, and this weird concept of the "designer's vision".

By 'designers vision'  I mean the mental picture the guys had when they were dreaming up the game.  Do you have a more pedestrian term for that concept you'd prefer to use?  "Game-builder-guy's big idea", perhaps?  

Quote from: MowerManWell AV, I was not debating the merits of flying or not flying.

Neither was I.  My point was that the decision Ken and Nathan made was in line with was originally intended for the game.  

It looks like we agree on that.

The purpose of making that point was to make people understand why the pro/anti hover issue was decided the way it was, and that further histronics are just a pointless way of annoying the hell out of the guys that worked so hard on that patch.

I don't have to shake hands with AV, he knows he's my bud.  So does Av. (AV and Av)

AV and I have done this so many times (not limited to flying) that I would think everyone who has been around for a while would know how we poke at each other.  I've never taken it personally, and I don't think he has either.  It's part of the "game"  (he he he).

I won't get into the pros and cons of the whole foolishness about "Fixing" physics..But I will say this, the end result for me is UN-playable warp.

1.3 is a FUN MPI game I can play with my 10 year old son, but MP against real players?..is a unplayable warp fest.   THAT warp is the real killer for 1.3(aside from 50 other little issues I have with it) But basically The warp is a direct result of the physics change and the whole "Tho shalt not hover" Mania has resulted in this particular phyics package, and that "package" for me is virtually unplayable.

Man, I see now how discussions around here can degrade real fast. :shock:

I still think that by using the name "Battlezone", the game pretty much *has* to be a tank-based, ground-based, first-person game (by intellectual property rights?), since that was the original game.  How the modern BZ morphed into a full 3D RTS game is still amazing.

If the game was really about flying, Atari could/would have been called it something else, like "Armored Skies" or something.

P.S. It's nice to see people still like and get worked up over this game. :lol:

Quote from: MowerManI don't have to shake hands with AV, he knows he's my bud.  So does Av. (AV and Av)

Thats right...I only do it because I know I can get away with it...and I love to hear Mower's AlGore-esqe condescending sighs  :lol:


Feeb...that sucks about the warp for you...it has been rock solid for me and everybody I've been playing with...minimal re-syncs, too.  Your problem reminds me of the trouble Aaron Horrocks had with 1.2 and multiple machines...it just would NOT behave for him.  Had him at the house three times with 2 different machines and it was absolutely fugbuck for him.  None of the assembled nerds could help him...we never did figure out what the common factor was.

It seems lagless for me, but I usually play with people that I have about a 40ms latency with as well, I have played with Technoid once or twice and even him and hix 56k played well, although he did warp a few times.

Quote from: wugi could/would have been called it something else, like "Armored Skies" or something.

Atari did make  a similar looking vector game called Red Baron.  I had it mastered...could play it as long as I wanted on a single quarter.  The guy that ran the arcade would hit the breaker switch to get me off it...and act like nothing had happened.  One day I'm gonna find that little dweeb and beat him senseless...

You go AV!!!  (heh heh)

I would caution people about blaming the new physics for the new warp just yet, you may be proven wrong.

I do wish I were Silver....I hope someone can prove me wrong....

Wow...  AV can hear those *sighs* throught a message board...  Amazing!!!

Soliciting thanks here are we?

I wanna thank TV for ZST.  Theres a patch that took care of hovering without destroying the rest of the online gameplay.  And it was completed in some small fraction of the time it took to put out this latest MPI/Modder's wet dream.

Thank the passive agressive devlopers of the so-called 1.3 beta?  Sure,  Thanks.

As programmers I'm sure you aren't in touch with fiscal reality anyway, so working on a failed patch for free shouldn't have been a big deal for you.  Perhaps the next patch you decide to take 4 years to complete will reflect a little of the community's desires.

But as they always say: "you get what you pay for"

Dont take much time to read do you recon?

1.3 is not complete yet and if you have any real gripe with 1.3 besides flying say so, it will most likely be looked at. Even with flying being removed the fix does not decrease the max speed a unit can do. Yes the ships felt slower and less agile but that was fixed by a couple odf tweaks by people who actually tried to help out everone insted of just complaning like a whiney 2 year old.

you might want to join Major Toms map team so you can all play 1.2 together.

I thank Ken and GSH, but this has been said before its time we all hunker down and find bugs.

AGAIN I call on people to play games with different combinations of Broadband and Dial up settings. please check if even when your on dial up setting it to BB helps reduce lag.

i dont think people cared much for what i said / sais so telling him



if you have any real gripe with 1.3 besides flying say so, it will most likely be looked at.

is preaty much errr hmm wrong

oh and fixing the odf... well - its just a temp fix cause in the next beta or the finals it was going to be deleted :) so nice of nathan / ken

No it wont be removed, just you wont be able to hold yourself in the air and gain altitud with side thruster.

Quote from: MowerManWow...  AV can hear those *sighs* throught a message board...  Amazing!!!

I also know when you're picking your nose...so STOP IT RIGHT NOW!

*pulls finger out of nose*

Quote from: ReCoN(content removed by spam filter)

Perhaps the next patch you decide to take 4 years to complete will reflect a little of the community's desires.

But as they always say: "you get what you pay for"

Has BZ2 been out for 4 years?  Has it been that long?

Or is reality distorted in the vicinity of this post?   lol...

-Av-

*5 years

5 years???  This is the year 2005?  (Dec. 27 1999 BZ2 hit the shelves)

o, ur right ive been just looking around some sites... i found this


Release Date: November, 1999


but i remember some1 telling me he plays 5 years...
he seemed to be so confident i guess i fell for it :oops: ;)

We did have that beta towards the end of '99.

Well do I remember Psycho Chiuauah's 'Demo Rage'.

Beta?  You mean the demo?

Anyone remember who originally found that demo?

:)

-Av-

Yeah!!!  I know who found it...  Intel!!!!

BZ2 hit the shelves 2 days after Christmas (not November)

Yes, Av, I meant Demo.

Its not fair...you guys had the game two days after Christmas, but *I* had to wait until Jan 2.   Us ruralites are always discriminated against...

Quote from: ReCoN
I wanna thank TV for ZST.  Theres a patch that took care of hovering without destroying the rest of the online gameplay.  And it was completed in some small fraction of the time it took to put out this latest MPI/Modder's wet dream.

I'm sending Nathan/Ken my laundry bill...

If these facts are right:

Ken Miller has not been heard from in months.

Nathan Mates has not been heard from in days.

Then the possibility exists there was a disagreement between Ken and Nathan.

Nathan has been fiercely determined with definite goals which may not have been what Ken envisions.

I don't know if I would speculate that.  They are both very good guys, with good hearts.  They do have "real" jobs, and they are probably just sick of the name calling hoot (all around, but especially directed toward them).

There's no ill will between them.  Ken's interests and Nathan's are pretty different and they fill in the gaps in each other.

If they could have gotten Brad Pickering to join them (and I hear he may have helped here and there) full time the last few AI/pathing annoyances might have been eliminated also...

I think they both are ready to move on to other projects, and I know that the petty crap dished out by some around here did nothing to help keep their interest going.

I wouldn't blame either if they just walked away, truthfully.

-Av-

Ken and Nathan are not gone.

No, but they're very very close...  the abuse here surely didn't help where Nathan is concerned, although Ken seems very immune to it.

-Av-

Nathan took a beating when BZ2 was first released too, as he was a major presence on the boards.  It's really too bad that some people have to be jerks to such well meaning people, just because they disagree with them..

Well I would like to thank Ken and Nathan for patching this game after all they have put up with I just hope they haven't gone forever  although I wouldn't blame them if they did

Quote from: Der Vampyr EngelWell I would like to thank Ken and Nathan for patching this game after all they have put up with I just hope they haven't gone forever  although I wouldn't blame them if they did

Ditto. BTW wonderful job on the patch best thing to happen to BZ2 since FE IMO, great job. :mrgreen:

Quote from: apcs_r_evil

Quote from: Der Vampyr EngelWell I would like to thank Ken and Nathan for patching this game after all they have put up with I just hope they haven't gone forever  although I wouldn't blame them if they did

Ditto. BTW wonderful job on the patch best thing to happen to BZ2 since FE IMO, great job. :mrgreen:

Darn. You guys beat me to it. :D

Its bound to happen sooner or later, these guys have been with the game for more than 4 years now. They are working on new projects, are their interest is deminishing.

Nathan and Ken's leave could come quite soon, but I would see 1.3 coming out as a final version atleast first.

Quote from: MowerManNathan took a beating when BZ2 was first released too, as he was a major presence on the boards.  It's really too bad that some people have to be jerks to such well meaning people, just because they disagree with them..

I don't think it had to do with his presence so much as his obnoxious attitude and his ultimate responsibility for the screwed up "net code". Ken was fairly active on the forums but never got tagged the way Nathan did. People liked what he had done and how he conducted himself.

You know Nathan wasn't the only guy who did the netcode...so you can't tag all of the blame on himself for that...

GSH should be more polite and considerate, it is the spark that has constantly started the flame wars. If he was more polite and considerate (and perhaps more lenient) then things would be very different...

and there is no excuse for rudeness, i dont want someone to come in next post and go on about how '' he is just being blunt'' or whatever.

LOL JWK...

OK, I won't do that...

:p

Regardless of who did what the BZ2 engine is a mess.  I don't think anyone really realizes how much work it was for Nathan, or the areas he poked into that he had no prior exposure to, all to try to fix the game.

Ken avoids all the board BS, which is why he's usually in a much better mood.  He's also more of an artistic sort, which is why he's more open.  

Nate is a coder, and likes logic, examples, and consistancy, all of which have been in short supply where BZ2 is concerned.

In all, most of the burden was Nathans, so I cut him major slack when it comes to his conduct.  You don't beat someone who's volunteering to haul your garbage for free...

-Av-

Oh of course, i respect Nathan and am very gratefull of what he has done. I just dont think that he should do so many self-righteous stunts and abuse the communities trust in him to solve problems for said community.

E.g, i hate flying, but i dont even slightly agree that ships should be damaged above a certain height. I also think that there should be the abilty to 'partially fly'....just not as obsene as it is in 1.2....

And i HATE flying. I consider it an insult to the other player (as with all exploits). And being insulting is rude. Rudeness is unacceptable.

However, i accept that some people really enjoy it, and it is just as much their game as it is mine. So .'. although flying should be changed from its obsene power of 1.2...it should still be thier in some shape or form.

However i would rather 1.3 came out with 1.2 physics and all the other bugs crushed...than not be accepted by the community at all.

As to reguards to GSH's conduct....
Well...i think the list of respectable players who have left the beta along the way is a track record.
What is that list anyway, has anyone compiled it?

Problem with publishing 1.3 with 1.2 physics is that the only way to do it would be to start back at square 1. 1.3's physics changes intertwine with way too much code to simply cut and paste 1.2 code back in, everything would pretty much break and crumble. And nobody wants to take 1.2's code and refill all the data in the changelog aside from physics changes...

the current physics are acceptable...however i would make scouts like they had in the experimental rec as the defult.

Quote from: Tempest StormProblem with publishing 1.3 with 1.2 physics is that the only way to do it would be to start back at square 1. 1.3's physics changes intertwine with way too much code to simply cut and paste 1.2 code back in, everything would pretty much break and crumble. And nobody wants to take 1.2's code and refill all the data in the changelog aside from physics changes...

The only thing I hear you saying is Ken changed it and Ken knows where to unchange it. While GSH can only guess at exactly what Ken did even with documentation.

However, you and a few others would have us believe the 1.2 physics in the 1.3 patch is an impossibility just to get people to stop asking for it.

Sorry guys, but I just don't buy it.

Go into the changelog and count how many physics related changes there are.

Try and figure out how many of those work in the same area of the code. (Some of the entries even state what file was changed for them)

Then try and see how long it would take to change it back.

THEN tell me I'm BSing you.

Lets assume all physics are based on something simple. Like a vector.

Now, lets assume that, for some reason, vectors were changed slightly, to fix some obscure bug or something, or perhaps due to compile issues.

Now, if we assume that all the physics code was changed to work with the new vectors then the old vector code would not work, and as such 1.2 physics code could not just be dumped into 1.3.

Then take that several levels higher, with multiple fundamental things changing for important reasons, and try to explain how it is "easy" to put 1.2 physics back. When you fail you can finally shut up about it.

You are the people who used words like, cheating, morality, perversion in reference to the 1.2 physics and now you use the excuse it is too hard to put it back?

What you are saying is you guys have permanently set this stuff up to suit your own purposes and everyone else is just left out.

Sounds like a mess you don't want to clean up, a one sided mess.

OH and CmptrWz don't tell ME to shut,,,,,

This is just not right, just not right.

I can't believe people still believe it's some kind of problem to get reasonable flying back as a shell option.

*****IT'S ALREADY BEEN DONE*****

The latest build introduced air-damage to destroy the hopes of those that enjoyed the experimental rec. The people that stand by and say that a flying shell option for 1.3 is difficult to code are deluding themselves. Nathan and Ken didn't have to lift a finger to do it, it was done *for* them in the form of the experimental rec. Nathan put a fair bit of his own work in to introduce air damage simply to destroy the shell option approach to flying.

I personally like the public beta's physics better than the physics in the most recent betas.  The 1.2 physics were restored which caused a lot of new problems, such as strafe thrusters failing when the player attempted to fly.  This was not part of the no flying fix so it was a new bug caused by restoring the 1.2 physics.  GSH has attempted to restore the physics, but due to the code changes in 1.3, it won't work to simply copy and past the 1.2's physics into 1.3.  If this would work, that would be great.

DarkFox makes a good point, maybe the best alternative is to just allow the recycler variants to work for modified ships that fly. If a client has some way of being able to tell which variant is being used then he/she has an advanced choice before entering a game.

Then 1.3 can keep the current physics(1.3PB) it has and everyone is happy.

You can see what variant is being used, you just need to get into the game lobby first.

QuoteThen 1.3 can keep the current physics(1.3PB) it has and everyone is happy.

Not everyone is happy with it. But is it 'acceptable'....

Height induced damage is not, and will kill any chance of 1.3 being accepted by the community.

The LAST *Ammo*ing thing we need is a divided community.

Quote from: Jwk the Hemp Monkey

QuoteThen 1.3 can keep the current physics(1.3PB) it has and everyone is happy.

Not everyone is happy with it. But is it 'acceptable'....

Height induced damage is not, and will kill any chance of 1.3 being accepted by the community.

The LAST *Ammo*ing thing we need is a divided community.

Hieght Damage and that stupid "Hill" damage bull.

jwk... the community is not divided... we lost hmm 10 players to 1.3
thats about it

well, and there will be next to no more new mods for 1.2
but I guess thats no loss for you, Phoenix, right?
and since you dont play any mods, nobody else is, right?

tell me fishbone, what mod exactly is being played atm?

exept FE...


i trust the FE makers to know whats good for them and to what mod they'll devolp their next patch..
and even if they make a patch for 1.3 only i dont find much loss because still - FE isnt very active... 2 / 3 games a night... the only one i see hosting FE is aougli and sometimes some1 that no1 joins him anyways...

my point is that the only active FE server is by aougli...
and if no1 will play FE in 1.3 they will make their FE patch for 1.2...

i guess we'll have to wait and see...

'' only lost 10 players ''

Last time i checked 9/10 of those players were long-time vets. Also, if 1.3 comes out with stupid 'hill bump' stuff and height damage then there will be alot of people who will not install it.

Boom, you get a split community...one with 1.2 and one with 1.3.

To add to the split is that it is very unlikly a FE rev.d (1.3 compatabilty patch) will be made to the same standard as the other patchs (due to a lack of vets basically) if 1.3 has all the HB and HD stuff.

IMO the only way 1.3 stop itself from destroying the community's co-hesion is if it has the 'experimental rec scout' as the DEFAULT scout attributes and 1.3PB physics.

hmm 9 long time vets?
give me a list...


oh and g66? g66 is still a mpi which is getting boring after awhile... and its not something that will keep players like vets for more then 4 years!!!!
but ya, g66 was real fun at sometimes... and its nice when ur alone BUT with 1.3 physics and more stuff thast supposed to come (air dmg)  i prefer 1.2 even without g66 v2

because 1.2 does need some fixes... and we do want a better 1.2... just trying to achive some stuff that 1.3 will be nice for us... but it aint... most gave up - me 2.... well - kind off.. im still on forums.. not posting requests or anything anymore and *trying* not to get in argues about physics hover and more bla bla

back to jwk post... alot of vets (and other people) didnt install 1.3 yet
air dmg will make it worse... but i dont call it spliting the community - because its not that bad... i dont think theres any1 in 1.3 i miss... exept lms, speedy, df, you and bascily thats about it... because i dont know anymore vets in 1.3....

although i do see DF, you and lms playing 1.2 now anyways....

I think you will find most strat players from the 1.3 beta group are playing more 1.2 and fe than 1.3 currently and perhaps even more so in the future.

RIP as a clan has hmm 6 members in the closed beta yet we rarely play 1.3 were mostly on aougs server having fun with fe, Aegeis plays the occasional fe game and hosts some , though i must admit all the agro that came with 1.3 has put some long time players off, i even remember Buzz (grandpa) stopped playing sometime through the 1.3 dev and he voiced some serious concerns about the direction that 1.3 was going.

BTW the biggest buttwhipes ive ever had are from TV,Buzz,VNB Aegeis and VNB PZ

I cant think of any long term strat players who will soley play 1.3, strats are more about finding a game and having fun rather than proving a point with what version to play, if a version isnt fun then i doubt it will get played much.

Funny that people are discussing this still :) I'm so over 1.3, and most are. I think those still discussing 1.3 are deluded by the thought their comments will get through to those making this patch.

You're trying to reasoning with the wind here.

What i want to see is a future where the WHOLE community accepts 1.3

They do not have to be 100% happy with it, but it has to be acceptable.

Height damage, hill bump damage, not having the experimental rec's scouts as default....those things wont let 1.3 be accepted.

The same concerns have been voiced in the closed beta hemp, no point in trying any more m8. What will be will be.

Quote from: appelYou're trying to reasoning with the wind here.

I'm gonna have to co-sign on what appel said.

and I'm gonna have to stamp it and take it to da bank.

Hill bump damage isnt so bad. I know i complained about it early on, but then realized that it was way more reduced in public beta compared to the later private betas.

I still agree with much of PFs wind-reasoning.  :D

QuoteThe same concerns have been voiced in the closed beta hemp, no point in trying any more m8. What will be will be

Am i in the closed beta? NO! so how can i know what your saying....

And anyhow, it should be voiced anyway because its the correct.

...RAAA ...

Did i not just tell you what had been said, "DOH" :D

BTW last time i played i didnt have ground bump though i had something far nastier  :s

Quote from: Jwk the Hemp MonkeyAm i in the closed beta? NO!

I'm not a very religious man but , I have to thank God for that!

oy you! i am sure i would make a great addition to the Private beta....been told it is a bit empty now days though.

I quit bz2 for a while except when my clan wants to play for fun. I'm gonna come back over the summer when I'm not bogged down with 20 million things to do (comes with the resposibility and leadership positions).

I'm just sad to see you guys are still fighting over here. Hahaha its pathetic. 1.3 will not have hover in it. Too bad. Last time I checked GSH was trying to add 1.2 elements (manuverability) into the physics but its kinda hard when everything changed too. It will not hover. Get over it. Its not gonna happen. Stop fighting: its pointless.

Partial hovering should be allowed. Even i think that...someone who has always hated hovering. It is because i can accept other people have a right to enjoy the game as well.

Quote from: Jwk the Hemp MonkeyIt is because i can accept other people have a right to enjoy the game as well.

CO-SIGN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!    :twisted:

Quote from: Jwk the Hemp MonkeyPartial hovering should be allowed. Even i think that...someone who has always hated hovering. It is because i can accept other people have a right to enjoy the game as well.

By All means, that would include Star Rex and numerious other individouls who like Edited MPI games.  Lets make it an option to have the editor available in MPI!  I vote for that, this way we make the game enjoyable for everyone. :D

yeah!, nobody minds if you are editing in an MPI because your not facing another human being...your facing a CPU.

I mean, in FE on a miasma map speedy had this really fun edited game where we started off with a Cerberi Rec. It was so much fun running around shouting '' I AM GOD ''...and feeling like one too.

people tinkering around with a game is partially what makes a game fun.

Now...if i had been playing a *human* player it would of been unacceptable (unless they concented....lol...not likly).

Another example of edited games being good was when someone used to host FE DM games...with everyone on the same team vs like 6 drone carriors....god it was like sceans out of MAtrix Revolutions...single people fighting massive swarms of small robotic fighters!


Great fun....

I think Editing should be extremly similar to what it was (game.cheat bzeditor then pressing Control E in single player for example) and i think that only Multiplayer STRAT games should have Anti-Editing software (orwhatever) on them.

I found any edited game fine as long as it was stated in the server message that the game was edited- that way you know what to expect.

@ Hemp there are currently 50 plus people with access to the closed beta , check the member groups.
though it is quite but thats more to do with other reasons rather than actual tester numbers.

Quote from: Jwk the Hemp MonkeyI mean, in FE on a miasma map speedy had this really fun edited game where we started off with a Cerberi Rec. It was so much fun running around shouting '' I AM GOD ''...and feeling like one too.

But ... you are not GOD! Youre an all mortal peon who has to play the game as the GODs (GSH and Ken) and their priests (the modders worshipping them) meant it to be played!

(I guess thats the modders god-mode.)

You obviously STILL haven't read the Changelog, and/or added up how many changes killed bugs vs how many "modding priests" additions were made.  Virtually all of the changes addressed AVs, exploits, or optimization of code.  Most of the important work was moving memory and sound code to DX9, optimizing the rendering engine, and removing unhandled exceptions.

Sure, Ken added a few things that make modding better, but he and Nathan turned down tons of off-the-wall requests by Modders that would have taken time away from the more important things.  This attitude that 1.3 is an MPI/Modder's paradise is ignorant beyond words.

***

The change in physics wasn't deliberately coded.  Nathan's said time and time again that code that is exactly the same between 1.2 and 1.3 is producing different handling due to other changes.  I don't expect non-coders to understand how changing one line in 200K lines of code can produce unexpected changes elsewhere, but I'm sure people like OM understand...

***

The lack of MP support during the closed beta came from the MP playing members not understanding the term "Beta", or that testing is work and not always fun, and that the time for balance would come.  In fact, the time for balance SHOULD have been coming up, once the Community at large was onboard and playing MP games for feedback.  The MP players were largely looking ONLY at balance at first as their strengths were PLAYING MP, not digging into the engine.  This is understandable, and maybe they shouldn't have been brought onboard until the basic bug hunt was over.

MP playing during the closed beta faded away due to this attitude, and lack of patience.  'nuff said.

***

If this were a new game coming to market there would have been a timeline of sorts given to the testers.  They'd have been told specifically what to look at/for during each phase.  The bug hunters would have gone in first, then the MP players, and finally the Modders if there was any time left.  (often there isn't, which is why many games don't get modding tools until AFTER they go gold.)

Since this was a 'FREE' donation of Ken and Nathan's time it wasn't run in that way.  Nathan's given us a couple of hints at his timeline but not put anything out formally.  I believe this has led, in part, to some of the uncertainty felt by the MP players.  They were afraid that balance would never come.

Now it never will, as they've pretty much all turned their backs on 1.3.

THAT is the real shame.

-Av-

Avatar, I have read the changelog, I do appreciate most of the changes, I like 1.3, no, I LOVE it and Id deal the physics change for the rest of the changes anytime although I like 1.2 physics much better than 1.3. Also I AM a coder. Furthermore I pretty much guess that quite some of the MP testers will contradict to be lacking of patience.

My problem is that 1.3 wont be a success. And the reasons are
- most vets (these are the ones who host most MP games!) wont deal the physics change for any number of cool bug fixes, a fact already well known when the whole 1.3 thing started
- 1.3 took waaaay too long time to finish because somewhere on its way the patch makers lost the link to reality, although many people very soon warned intensly what would happen

Of course Ive no idea what amount of time exactly was invested in which issue. The mere fact that uncalled fixes like "squashing the hover bug" and removing the editor from the runtime - things that certainly do involve a big amount of coding and testing let alone balancing - have played a major role during the development shows everyone with more than 1 brain cell where to look for the culprits.

I would trade a 1.3 finished due 2nd half or end of 2002 that will be accepted by vet players anyday for this still unfinished 1.3 anytime.

Of course the good thing will never happen. 1.3 will remain a MPI mod, hopefully supported by a few map makers, and I bet If we join here in April 2005 nothing will have changed and the same discussions will be fought, only by again 50% fewer people.

QuoteMP playing during the closed beta faded away due to this attitude, and lack of patience. 'nuff said.

Actually, MP playing faded away because the testers, who were trying to help make 1.3 an enjoyable game in full knowledge of the fact that it was a beta and needed work, were told bluntly 'I know your opinion, I just don't care'.
What exactly is the point in continuing at that stage?
Well, I for one continued anyway. I went on for what seems like decades trying to do all I could, which was basically put forth suggestions to improve the detrimental effect the new physics had on the game, and put forth suggestions about exploits to be removed. The exploits I mentioned were all fixed in record time, but the main problem, the physics that ruined the experience - wasn't going to change, shut up about it.

Eventually I got the hint, and decided to abandon 1.3 as the nicer-coded, feature-laden, but ultimately unplayable pile of crap that it both is and *always will be*, even when it's not in beta any more.

Recipie for failure:

In the normal course of a beta the bugs would be top priority, with changes to vehicle handling close behind.  I think we'd have been much better off with a specific timeline that spelled out WHEN each issue would be addressed.  Not specific dates, just something like FIRST bug hunting, THEN physics tweaking, THEN modding additions.

In a real beta the Dev Team would have someone specific to work on each field, that had mad skillz in that area.  In this case we have Network and Weapons/Particles covered, but nobody for AI, Pathing, and most importantly OVERALL GAMEPLAY.  Give both Nate and Ken credit for jumping into areas they had nothing to do with in the original game.

Neither of these happened because of the 'sideline' nature of the work.  Given that the whole thing is donated time and effort we didn't get the same structure that would have accompanied an official, new body of work.

Throw in Nathan's total lack of "warm fuzzies" and you've got a lot of conflicts, uncertanties, and bad feelings.

Now top the whole thing off with flames, personal attacks, and a Community where each player thinks they're the only ones who know what the game SHOULD be, and you've got an insurmountable mess.

Put on high flame, let simmer, then watch it all evaporate.

-Av-

I disagree av, I think you misunderstand the problem. Timelines and such wouldn't have helped at all, 1.3 was just fine without them. The reason 1.3 flopped was because the biggest problem from a very early stage was one that the devs outright refuesd to fix, and was a problem that is not in 1.2. All the analysis of what ifs and maybe on the organisation isn't really necessary when you get down to the one issue. It's a lot simpler than timelines and such.

I apologise to people for posting about this again and again, it's just about the most on-topic we get on these boards, and as such I post. I know nothing will change, I know posting about ti doesn't help, but this post isn't here to help of change anything, I'm just discussing the reason 1.3 failed (or failed so far, perhaps).

I suppose, some are wondering "Isn't this about the place where BZ FE Steps in and joins in and Agrees with allthe points made by DarkFox and Mashes Nathan again?"


Naaaah....Like DF Said, the reasons why 1.3 crashed and burned have been spelled out and made clear....I play 1.2...I'm proud of it, the WHOLE Pandemic Team has reason to be proud of  that patch (even with its few minor flaws) still gives us the game we love and play still some near 4 years after its original release, Kudos to Ken, Wil, Brad, George (even Nathan) et al.

Long live 1.2/FE

Long live BZII! not a particular patch.

Only way its going to live is there is a patch that makes as many people happy as possiable.

Quote from: DarkFoxI disagree av, I think you misunderstand the problem. Timelines and such wouldn't have helped at all, 1.3 was just fine without them. The reason 1.3 flopped was because the biggest problem from a very early stage was one that the devs outright refuesd to fix, and was a problem that is not in 1.2.

I don't misunderstand, it's been done to death here.  Physics blah blah blah vehicle handling blah blah blah weapons balance etc..

Critical elements to the enjoyment of the game, yes.  I fully understand their importance and necessity, and what changing them does to the game.

I would agree that 1.3's version of them was totally disastrous IF the 1.3 patch were DONE.  It's NOT.  Well, Nathan's still working on it even if everything's pretty quiet...

Vehicle performance and even, to a great extent, gameplay, are not issues in a BETA TEST until the foundation is finished.  

IOW, the private Beta, up until the first Public Release of 1.3, should have been treated as the ALPHA test of a new game.  It shouldn't have hinged on any gameplay or physics issues while the bug hunt was ongoing.  It would have actually been quite proper to withhold any and all comments on physics and gameplay issues until such time as Nathan was satisfied that all possible bugs had been squashed and the engine as tuned as it was going to get.  In a beta for a new game that sort of instruction would have been given the testers so as to focus their work on the items currently being hammered on.

We should have:
Keep lists of gameplay/physics problems YES!
Prioritize those problems YES!
Playtest variations on our own YES!
Figure out what things SHOULD be set at YES!

But keep pounding non-bug issues after finding out that they weren't welcome NO!NO!NO    BIG mistake, especially with Nathan.

There's been some sort of sense of immediacy that I truly don't understand.  There was no need to panic, or make such a deal out of things up to and including the Public Beta.  All it did was add to Nathan's ire...

We're not supposed to post about things going on in the Private Beta but I'm going to state that right now Nathan is trying to restore 1.2 physics code (without flying) to 1.3.  I feel that's a mistake, cutting and pasting 'old' code into the engine, and some of the unintended results reinforce my feelings. It would have been better to finish the bug hunt, then have the MP players present a list of gameplay/physics changes needed to restore the fun to the game before the next public release.

*sigh*

That's what I meant about a proper timeline.  At the beginning Nathan should have said:

Private Beta
Stage 1: Bugs, AV's, exploits only.
Public Beta #1
Stage 2: Remaining Bugs and exploits, MP lag and network issues, gathering items for Stage 3.
Public Beta #2
Stage 3: Gameplay/performance tweaks and changes.  Balance issues.
Final Patch release

Had that been stated from the outset, well, it might not have made a difference but at least everyone would have known where they stood.  It could simply have been that the uncertainty of the amount of time that Nathan could donate made this sort of schedule impossible.

:(

-Av-

@Avatar, DarkFox...

Guys, please. Arguing who's right is pointless, because BOTH OF YOU are correct. The less-than-glamorous reputation of 1.3 isn't due to any one reason, it's because of a whole lot of contributing factors, many of which one of you or the other have already pointed out, that makes 1.3 all it is or isn't in the end.

actually that last disscussion has been the best i have read so far.

ooo! arguing...oh well.

Guess thats the pursuit of truth.

AH, well, it's a testiment to the game that it inspires such strong feelings in all of us.  When all's said and done we do what we do for the love of the game...

*sniff*

I love you guys...

*sniff*

-Av-

:D