Messages

Well, I hope it works on my wall of 12 linked 50" plasma displays...

Oh, wait, that was a dream.

Never mind... 

-Av-

Players?  Or average age?    

Wally!  It's getting to be old home week around here!  Someone needs to wake up Mower and FON, and drag FPA out of wherever he retired to...  

Hey, post that pic of the homemade NSDF spacesuit you or Scrappy had...  

-Av-

OK, I'm getting nostalgic.  True story:

We had an experimental map that allowed Team Strat in the BZ1 engine.  Basically a DM map such that each side had a Walker placed on the map that could 'shoot out' a Recycler via a custom weapon.  The 'Commander' would hop in the Walker and head for the base area, deploy the Recy and start gathering respawning scrap (DM map = respawning scrap, worked the same as pools pretty much)...

Anyway, we're all messing around in there one day and I gave Scrapmaker a skyride, totally forgetting that Scrappy was much more dangerous OUTSIDE a Tank than INSIDE one.  I'm heading back to base, dodging and weaving and he types "What are you doing?".  Now, this is a clever way of getting me to straighten out and type while performing evasive action, but I type reallyreallyfast...   

I type "trying", dodge, type "to keep", weave, "from being", dodge, "sniped".

"Lol, it won't <<SPLAT>> help" is what I get back as I respawn.

Hope he liked my tank, I was smoking and out of ammo if I remember right.   

Ah, the good old days...

Stock animation support is by classLabel.  If the class you're using doesn't support the type of animation you want it won't animate.  "Wingman", for instance, only supports the 3 strafe animations.

Unfortunately you can't just add 'missing' ODF entries to get animations to play.  If you have a unit that needs something the stock classes don't give you it's time to jump into DLLs...   

Helicopters, for instance, are easy to add rotating blades to via DLL...

-Av-

I think owning the CD is the ultimate proof of the right to play the game.  Licenses and keys are great, but emailed keys can work against you if someone else gets ahold of your number.  At that point you fall back on "Hey...  look...  I have the CD in my hand.". 

-Av-

The usual, moved, divorced, different job... tho not in that order.  

RL can be harsh, there's no ejection seat for when things fall apart around you.

-Av-

Remember kids, never drink and type, especially while you're driving! 

The COW games were the most fun I've ever had online, and I've had a LOT of online fun...  TTO and po going at it in the forums...  Mowerman breaking every SP mission anyone made...  FON zipping around in a Grizzly, dropping Golems instead of Navs...  ah, those were the days...

I miss Scouts and Rockets the most, and watching Mowerman lure dozens of my AI to their doom despite my frantic attempts to call them back. 

Part of that is the magic of those days, when Quake was about the only decent online experience, and part of it is the magic of BZ.

-Av-

Balancing to me, NOW, only means certain ships are forgotten in DM.

In a vague way, one other aspect I was suggesting was the CHOICES a vet makes over a noob.

IMHO, it's easy to balance ships in DM playing BZ.

I'd have to agree with this other than sometimes the 'forgotten' ships can be fun.  Turrets vs Walkers was always fun, depending on the map, but nobody in their right mind would pick a turret for a normal DM. 

As to choices, that's a good point.   I've found that the experienced player has a plan...  the newb is just joyriding.  The experienced player is thinking several steps ahead when he chooses terrain, ship, weapon, damage and ammo states, where the newb just charges in and enjoys the skyride.

Balance in DM should be as simple as numbers, adding up ammo usage, damage/sec, etc..  Weapon linking made this a lot more complex, though, and things like nav blocking and lag armor tossed in unknowns that made each game a little random.  You can balance it by the numbers and still not be balanced when humans grab the controls.

Toss in Strategy play being heavily dependant on the AI and balancing for Strategy becomes very difficult.

I've always felt the best thing is to balance everything by the numbers and then let the players hash it out.  If some combo or weapon proves too effective it's patch time.  Of course, this means someone has to be around still supporting the game and making the patches...

-Av-

The thing is, most especially about BZ1, after release the community had DAYS upon DAYS into WEEKS into MONTHS into YEARS of 2-4-8 hours A DAY of actual gameplay. . . so while the devs knew the code, the players know the 'game'.

So, regarding that, I don't regard the devs as doing any big 'mistake' back in '97.  But now that we have players that have 4000. . . 6000+ HOURS of gameplay. . . they certainly should be listened to, or walk into another arguably BZ2 type mistake. 

Well, the size of either the BZ1 or BZ2 Communities are SO small that it really doesn't matter what is done from a practical point of view.  Considering that it's not being sold anymore it would be crazy not to listen to the few dozens of people actually playing it.  That is, not if you actually want the work put into it to mean anything.

Still...

In a new game, or one that was still being sold and actually had a future, balancing by 'Vets' is a very bad idea.  Yes, they know the game the way they play it, but doing so may make the game much more inaccessible for newb players as well as narrowing the gameplay into only the way they play it.  Many games evolve over the years as new players push the gameplay into new directions, and this helps keep such games alive.

BZ1 was primarily DM when it first came out, and then we started seeing more ST as the whole concept caught on.  Even so, after years of play we still had our Fuzzy Pink Armadillos, that had no idea what to do with wingmen if you gave him some...  or our Scrappy's, who had no idea that Armory thing actually had other weapons in it.  

-Av-

[So I not only can see both sides, I've lived through the flames when it came up for BZ2 1.3 AND I've experienced it myself while working on my own BZ2 mod.]

You big tease...  typical Code Elf™...

"If I could, I'd add the gold plated muffler bearings we used in 'Revenge of the Lemmings IV'..."



Get ready to flame me...



Spinning Golems, while spectacularly bizarre, are to me a part of the quirky, screwy game I love.  So are Scavenger Trap inclines, and Pilots that bounce forward faster than a Scout can fly. 

I'd LOVE to have a BZ1, exactly as it is, that simply ran perfectly under Windows 7 in both SP and MP mode.  I could finally scrap this Win98SE P3-500/Riva I've kept around just to keep BZ1 running.

Not because I'm crippled playing it if I don't have the exploits, (because after decades of online play in dozens of games I'm tired of attitude to the point where I only play MP with a very small circle of close friends who 'get' me), but because I love it just the way it is, spinning buildings, lag armor and all... it's part of the magic that makes me still mess with the game and spend years recreating every part of it even after a decade of playing it.

Believe me, I've agonized over every little bug in BZ1 and whether I should fix them for my own BZC mod for BZ2.  In the end I'd love to replicate every screwy part of it because all of those flaws have been part of the game for as long as I've played it.  You know, it turns out it's amazingly hard if not impossible to recreate some of those bugs... and I have a rabid quality control guy to deal with to boot... 

OTOH...   

I fully understand the desire to perfect the game, squash the bugs, and put a beautiful shine on the old girl.  It's maddening...  impossible, even...  NOT to expand and fix and enhance things when you're messing with their very essence.  For BZC I've added units, updated weapons, put the proper texture in place, and even added sections of things that didn't exist because they were under the ground in the original, or were never gotten back to in the rush out the door.  It's thrilling to make things work that never did before. 

These new and fixed things I'm including in an expansion to the original, or as part of a Recycler Variant, or the almost Total Conversion that the Ancients campaign is turning into.  And don't get me started on TRO, the Chinese units have tons of issues...   

So I not only can see both sides, I've lived through the flames when it came up for BZ2 1.3 AND I've experienced it myself while working on my own BZ2 mod.

You see...

I'm greedy when it comes to things I love. 

I've said it time and time again during the 1.3 patch, to the point where I was seriously getting a little ashamed. I want it all.  I want my cake and to eat it too...  I want my original, beloved game exactly as it is, just because I love it.  I want it fixed up, too, all shiny and perfect and ready to take my breath away again...

So I can understand both sides of the issue, and in the end I'd love to see it both ways... but I realize this might not be possible, or the best thing for an already tiny and divided community.  One version that heals all wounds would be the best thing for everyone.



So, if it can only be one way then it simply must be fixed as much as possible.  The past is done and can't ever be taken away from me (not while my P3-500 hangs in there), and the future deserves a running BZ1.  Maybe if it's fixed up nice and shiny AND runs great on modern hardware someone will pick it up again and publish it for the next generation.

-Av-

Charlie, well...  we all feel like Charlie sometimes.

The bannannas thing, is just, I don't know...

wrong.

-Av-

(I know art, I just don't know what I like)

My point was to protect the forum. I see i'm wasting my time.
But if a mod. is going to post the same thing Spock did and he was banned for it and now it's ok, you should unban Spock and apologize to him.

I would have to agree with this...  consistancy is very important in my universe.  The process in place should apply to all equally and be applied in the same steps and at the same pace.

Caution is understandably warranted since trouble is often just a selective enforcement away.

I gather that there has been some colorful history regarding links to that site--and I'm much too casual about these things myself--but my take is that hosting an all-in-one installer for a single ten-year-old game should not make one so radioactive that linking to their forum jeopardizes this forum.  The site administrators may see things differently, though...

I direct everyone to here:  http://www.bzuniverse.com/forum/index.php/topic,7724.0.html

It's exactly the "selective enforcement" issue that created the extremely sensitive environment here.  A casual link to the front page of a site that somewhere on it has a "grey area" all-in-one installer for a single ten-year-old game that the developer and publisher no longer cares about is exactly what started the whole thing, simply because someone took it on themselves to bring CmptrWz's provider into the fray.

That step is why we are where we are with this stuff.  The fact that I, too, am somewhat casual about such things is why there are radically different reactions depending on what Mod sees what post and when...

Still, I respect the Rend out of CmptrWz and will never knowingly do anything to cause him grief after ALL of the generosity and help he's given the Community.  I hope everyone here feels the same.

-Av-

[Heat.net was an online PC gaming system produced by SegaSoft, Sega's PC game division. Heat.net hosted both Sega-published first- and second-party games, as well as popular third-party games of the era, such as Quake II or Baldur's Gate. Heat.net was based on a licensed version of the MPlayer Internet multiplayer gaming system, which itself later became GameSpy.]

This is interesting...

Heat.net was an online PC gaming system produced by SegaSoft, Sega's PC game division. Heat.net hosted both Sega-published first- and second-party games, as well as popular third-party games of the era, such as Quake II or Baldur's Gate. Heat.net was based on a licensed version of the MPlayer Internet multiplayer gaming system, which itself later became GameSpy.

So, Heat.net is sortof Gamespy's Grampa???



-Av-

I think it'll all depend on what Ken intends to do...  that is, what Ken figures a 'bug' is.  Obviously running under Windows 7 and on modern hardware needs code changes... 

Code changes can create balance changes, though, especially if they're making something work for the first time ever.  For a BZ1 example the flash cannon performance over the network is a bug, but if it's fixed will people use it more in MP?  Will it imbalance MP if it finally works?  Personally, in my MP playing days, I never got a GT using either the BC or FC to actually HIT anyone.  This was in the day of dial-up, though, and P2-233's... where 'lag armor' was the ultimate weapon.

This makes me wonder if the netcode using UDP packets could be considered a bug, or if it's even an issue in these days of cable modems and Gigabyte CPUs?

Now, just fixing something simple that worked, but not totally correctly, can cause trouble.  Fixing Service Trucks in BZ2 meant they actually worked rather than just facing away and waving their arm around, but it caused balance issues to the point where further enhancements were needed to allow them to be tweaked back to not so perfect...

The last thing I'd like to point out is that, like BZ2, BZ1 is technically dead.  Without being able to buy it anywhere there's little chance of attracting new players (unless you embrace and then ignore the fact that it's widely pirated now).  So, if this is going to be done and be worth anything it will have to be accepted by the VERY small community that's already divided.

The bottom line is maybe Stage 1 could be just making it run under modern hardware, and then see if the Community can find any issues.

Stage 2 could then be fix the glaring issues like making the Flash Cannon work over the network, and see what people do with that.

Stage 3 could then be enhancements...  although I absolutely shudder to think of what a Code Elf ™ considers an enhancement when left on his own...   

Anyway, as I said, it's all up to Ken as to just what he intends to do.  I'd just like to see the lessons learned during the 1.3 patch AND what Dx's run into with BZE to do some good...

-Av-

[when FIXING issues with the game bumped heads with CHANGING parts of the game]

This part of a post by Ken begs a question:

On the other hand, it's all just ODF files.  If people are willing to come up with values that the community can agree on, I could include it in the package.  Getting the community to agree is the hard part.  

Now, I think anyone who's been around the various boards, both here and elsewhere, or been part of the 1.3 beta, or stood between Dx and Spock for any length of time, or or or...  

sorry, getting a bit off target...  hopefully you get the idea...

anyway, I think most will agree that the most controversy generated with the highest volume of BS thrown between attending monkeys has been...

(drum roll please)

when FIXING issues with the game bumped heads with CHANGING parts of the game.

C'mon, you have to admit that 99.999% of the controversy about the BZ2 1.3 patch has been the reaction of MP players coughVETScough to patch changes that affected unit performance and weapons balance.  Most of the complaints about BZE (Dx's BZ1) have been about similar changes to balance.

Every time things come to a head we see the same statement:  "Why can't you just FIX what's wrong and NOT change anything else?".

So, the question is, and it's all up to Ken, should 'extra' changes be made or should he take his own advice when it comes to anything other than bug fixes:

"Run away!  Run awaaaaaayy!"  

-Av-

It's also a setting for opacity in the XSI material section.  This setting can make things invisible under anything but the NONE LIGHT SOURCE game setting.

The ALPHA CHANNEL described above works in any light setting but affects anything that uses that texture.

-Av-