Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Halflife 2 question.....

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 10:05:25 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

A friend was complaining that he and a friend were pissed cause they
bought the game but there's no single player, and it didn't say so on
the box yada blah blah yada.

I haven't bought the game so I have no idea what he's talking about.
I can't believe what he babbling about is true.

Could someone give me the scoop on what's up with it ?

Thanks

Jim

More about : halflife question

Anonymous
January 30, 2005 10:05:26 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:05:25 GMT, bombelly@wahs.ac (foamy) wrote:

>A friend was complaining that he and a friend were pissed cause they
>bought the game but there's no single player, and it didn't say so on
>the box yada blah blah yada.
>
>I haven't bought the game so I have no idea what he's talking about.
>I can't believe what he babbling about is true.
>
>Could someone give me the scoop on what's up with it ?
>
>Thanks
>
>Jim

You have to let it connect via Steam (which was/is apparently offline) to
validate the game or something. However there are both single and
multiplayer modes. Single player mode is quite linear but it does have a
plot.

--
Michael Cecil
http://home.comcast.net/~macecil/
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 10:05:26 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

foamy wrote:

> A friend was complaining that he and a friend were pissed cause they
> bought the game but there's no single player, and it didn't say so on
> the box yada blah blah yada.

There is single player. You just have to validate your game through
Steam...did you miss the Steam posts foamy? ;-)

> Could someone give me the scoop on what's up with it ?

You've been scooped...
Related resources
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 10:14:31 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

foamy wrote:
> A friend was complaining that he and a friend were pissed cause they
> bought the game but there's no single player, and it didn't say so on
> the box yada blah blah yada.
>
> I haven't bought the game so I have no idea what he's talking about.
> I can't believe what he babbling about is true.
>
> Could someone give me the scoop on what's up with it ?

It is a single player game but you need net access to activate it through
steam.

--
Morgan.
----
* ...The funny thing is, on the outside, I was an honest man, straight as an
arrow. I had to come to prison to be a crook.

Mail: Morgan.Sales@ntlworld.com
Webpage: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/msales
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 10:14:32 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Morgan Sales" <morgan.salesDIESPAMMER@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:364pucF4uecrgU1@individual.net...
> foamy wrote:
>> A friend was complaining that he and a friend were pissed cause they
>> bought the game but there's no single player, and it didn't say so on
>> the box yada blah blah yada.
>>
>> I haven't bought the game so I have no idea what he's talking about.
>> I can't believe what he babbling about is true.
>>
>> Could someone give me the scoop on what's up with it ?
>
> It is a single player game but you need net access to activate it through
> steam.
>

Don't pass your CDs through steam, it may damage the plastic and make them
unreadable!
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 11:37:42 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <4gcqv0tc3v8andl542vvtohu5nu3pogjc
4@4ax.com>, macecil@comcast.net wrote:

>You have to let it connect via Steam (which was/is apparently offline) to
>validate the game or something. However there are both single and
>multiplayer modes. Single player mode is quite linear but it does have a
>plot.


Thanks. So a person without internet access couldn't play single player ?
Does the connection have to be active to play it--or is it a one-time activation ?

This sounds nuts to me. Any idea why they dreamt this up ?

Jim
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 11:37:43 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 20:37:42 GMT, bombelly@wahs.ac (foamy) wrote:

>In article <4gcqv0tc3v8andl542vvtohu5nu3pogjc
>4@4ax.com>, macecil@comcast.net wrote:
>
>>You have to let it connect via Steam (which was/is apparently offline) to
>>validate the game or something. However there are both single and
>>multiplayer modes. Single player mode is quite linear but it does have a
>>plot.
>
>
>Thanks. So a person without internet access couldn't play single player ?
>Does the connection have to be active to play it--or is it a one-time activation ?

I'm not sure. There are quite a few cracks and Steam emulators running
around that you can use.

>This sounds nuts to me. Any idea why they dreamt this up ?

To make things difficult for paying customers?

--
Michael Cecil
http://home.comcast.net/~macecil/
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 11:37:43 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

foamy wrote:

> In article <4gcqv0tc3v8andl542vvtohu5nu3pogjc
> 4@4ax.com>, macecil@comcast.net wrote:
>
>
>>You have to let it connect via Steam (which was/is apparently offline) to
>>validate the game or something. However there are both single and
>>multiplayer modes. Single player mode is quite linear but it does have a
>>plot.
>
>
>
> Thanks. So a person without internet access couldn't play single player ?
> Does the connection have to be active to play it--or is it a one-time activation ?

One time activation...it is quite painless and nothing that major.

> This sounds nuts to me. Any idea why they dreamt this up ?

Not nuts...keeps the lamers and l33t ha><0r5 down to a dull roar online...
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 11:38:25 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <364pucF4uecrgU1@individual.net>,
"Morgan Sales" <morgan.salesDIESPAMMER@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>It is a single player game but you need net access to activate it through
>steam.


Thanks Morgan.

Jim
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 11:52:04 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

foamy wrote:
> In article <364pucF4uecrgU1@individual.net>,
> "Morgan Sales" <morgan.salesDIESPAMMER@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> It is a single player game but you need net access to activate it
>> through steam.
>
>
> Thanks Morgan.

NP

--
Morgan.
----
* Oh, God, no. Ugh. Did you know that having a hangover is... is not having
enough water in your body to run your krebs cycle? Which is exactly what
happens to you when you are dying of thirst. So, dying of thirst would
probably feel pretty much like the hangover that finally bloody kills you.

Mail: Morgan.Sales@ntlworld.com
Webpage: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/msales
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 12:30:52 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <loiqv05uiomp8fa3a22t5srovlo3e83mjs@4ax.com>,
macecil@comcast.net wrote:

>I'm not sure. There are quite a few cracks and Steam emulators running
>around that you can use.
>
>>This sounds nuts to me. Any idea why they dreamt this up ?
>
>To make things difficult for paying customers?


Heh. Sure sounds like it.

Jim
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 1:04:36 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 20:37:42 GMT, bombelly@wahs.ac (foamy) wrote:

>In article <4gcqv0tc3v8andl542vvtohu5nu3pogjc
>4@4ax.com>, macecil@comcast.net wrote:
>
>>You have to let it connect via Steam (which was/is apparently offline) to
>>validate the game or something. However there are both single and
>>multiplayer modes. Single player mode is quite linear but it does have a
>>plot.
>
>
>Thanks. So a person without internet access couldn't play single player ?

I don't think so, unless it's already been cracked. When you install it,
steam downloads a fair bit and then alters your installed files using
what it downloaded.

>Does the connection have to be active to play it--or is it a one-time activation ?

By default, it tries to connect every time you start the game, though it
only transfers much data the first time it's started. There is a setting
available to put it into 'Offline mode', which means that it doesn't
need to connect to play any more.

>This sounds nuts to me. Any idea why they dreamt this up ?

It seems to be a security thing to go along with their plans for
distributing games themselves over the net rather than through a
publisher.
January 31, 2005 3:54:22 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Steam is an online-only content delivery service intended to pretect
the intellectual property rights the creators.

Summary: Allows you to download and install games without ever buying a
physical product

Valve is not the only one to do this...there is a series of war
simulation/games that have been released online only, Stardock is a
different thing that is similar to Steam

Steam has certain peculiarities, however.

The most irritating is that you cannot play a physical game you bought
at a store without an internet connection. Installation requires Steam
to be functional. This means if Valve dies and there is no Steam, you
cannot install the game you bought, period. These are probably the
biggest problems.



Valve has had a particular problem with its HL2/Steam launch in
handling information. When changing formats like this, it is important
to use media to make clear to your customers what is going on, how
things work and so forth.

The fact that people are buying a game, not realizing it is unplayable
and worthless without an internet connection is a HUGE problem. They
will get a lot of angry people. And guess what? These are the people
least likely to communicate with you...because they don't have a
connection, so they don't email or use forums.

Which means a whole sector of potential customers have been/will be
alienated and angry, AND VALVE WON'T EVEN REALIZE IT.

I garauntee you, as a result of this there will be all kinds of wierd
and hostile rumors floating around. Your friends' belief that it was a
multiplayer only game (probably a result of some confusion with Quake)
is one example of this.

This kind of "tone-deafness"/business stupidity is not uncommon in the
PC business.

It should have said, on the top of the front of the box, in giant red
letters: REQUIRES AN INTERNET CONNECTION TO PLAY THE SINGLEPLAYER GAME




Its actually very smart, from their POV.
They are leveraging a Mega-Hit title/license in order to become an
online publisher. Valve intends to compete with EA, with
Sierra/Vivendi (their own publisher), and so on.

The way to make their content distribution system attractive to
potential developers is to demonstrate tight control of the IP, which
is why use is so restrictive. The problem is that HL2 was cracked
within a week, so it didn't really stop pirates.

The fact is, the harder something is to crack, the harder people try to
crack it, because doing so confers status/prestige within the
hacker/warez community.



turloughdubh
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 4:08:25 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"foamy" <bombelly@wahs.ac> wrote in message
news:VdaLd.222511$6l.115362@pd7tw2no...

> Could someone give me the scoop on what's up with it ?

Hey Jim, how ya been? I'm playing EverQuest II and World of Warcraft now.
My wife and I are playing them both and having a great time with each. This
is my nightmare come true, TWO MMOGs at once! Damn those guys ...

Sorry, I can't offer much insight into the HL2 question because I stayed
far, far away from it once I read about Steam. It's a bold new idea but then
so was Blizzard's ill-fated attempt to attach spyware to their titles long
ago, before people realized what they were doing. In retrospect, the
Blizzard move seems incredible and they've never gone back to it after their
public apology, but at the time it probably seemed like a good idea. Kind of
like Steam does today, for some. Like most new technologies, it's got some
upside for the user and some downside, and a lot of upside to the
developer-publisher community so don't expect it to go down without a fight.
And the fight is underway. You can read any of the numerous posts here on
the topic of Valve, Steam, etc. There's a guy named difool who is on a
personal crusade to make it a hot topic here, and the flamewars are pretty
active on both sides.

I'm staying on the sidelines for the most part, chiming in with an
occasional comment, but since I have no desire to use it or have it anywhere
near my network, I won't have much to say about the implementation. The
concept was enough to keep me away from HL2.


--
Bob Perez

"Men do not quit playing because they grow old; they grow old because they
quit playing."
- Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 5:15:48 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

mike wrote:

> The most irritating is that you cannot play a physical game you bought
> at a store without an internet connection. Installation requires Steam
> to be functional. This means if Valve dies and there is no Steam, you
> cannot install the game you bought, period. These are probably the
> biggest problems.

Once again:
How many gamers DO NOT have an internet connection. Also it says right
on the box under min spec: INTERNET CONNECTION REQUIRED

> The fact that people are buying a game, not realizing it is unplayable
> and worthless without an internet connection is a HUGE problem. They
> will get a lot of angry people. And guess what? These are the people
> least likely to communicate with you...because they don't have a
> connection, so they don't email or use forums.

????????????? I'd have to see some statistics on this one...I mean come
on...how many people that are GAMERS (you have to have a beefy machine
to play HL2) don't have an internet connection?

> This kind of "tone-deafness"/business stupidity is not uncommon in the
> PC business.

Or any business for that matter ;-)

> It should have said, on the top of the front of the box, in giant red
> letters: REQUIRES AN INTERNET CONNECTION TO PLAY THE SINGLEPLAYER GAME

It says that in the min specs

> Its actually very smart, from their POV.
> They are leveraging a Mega-Hit title/license in order to become an
> online publisher. Valve intends to compete with EA, with
> Sierra/Vivendi (their own publisher), and so on.

IRRC they are moving away from having a publisher as they are going to
be their own publisher.

> The way to make their content distribution system attractive to
> potential developers is to demonstrate tight control of the IP, which
> is why use is so restrictive. The problem is that HL2 was cracked
> within a week, so it didn't really stop pirates.

But it has made online play far more fun and easy to get to. Not only
that, but the games are less laggy and the time to connect is far quicker.

> The fact is, the harder something is to crack, the harder people try to
> crack it, because doing so confers status/prestige within the
> hacker/warez community.

Sure...why not...to an extent this is true, but mostly cracks happen
because "it is there."
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 12:16:46 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"mike" <seraphic8x@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107204862.905530.306910@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Steam is an online-only content delivery service intended to protect
> the intellectual property rights the creators.

If that is the stated purpose, I'd say it failed miserably.
But I've already been over that about a hundered times, so I'll
give it a rest.
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 7:15:50 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <10vt7aeh0u8igcc@news.supernews.com
>, "Bob Perez" <myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> wrote:

>Hey Jim, how ya been? I'm playing EverQuest II and World of Warcraft now.
>My wife and I are playing them both and having a great time with each. This
>is my nightmare come true, TWO MMOGs at once! Damn those guys ...


Hi Bob, good to hear from you. :-)

I was thinking of joining the WOW community, but have been holding off
to see how the probs they are having work out.

A friend who plays told me they have 80 something servers and about
280K players. Is that about right ? An average of 3500 per server ? If that's
so, it doesn't sound like their servers have much of a capacity before being
overloaded.

Jim
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 8:12:31 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

bombelly@wahs.ac (foamy) once tried to test me with:

> A friend who plays told me they have 80 something servers and about
> 280K players. Is that about right ? An average of 3500 per server ? If
> that's so, it doesn't sound like their servers have much of a capacity
> before being overloaded.

I'm on a high-pop server. If you put any more than what they have on our
server you'd have issues with crowding, regardless of whether or not the
servers themselves could actually handle more players or not. The game
WORLD really isn't designed for more than what they max out at now.


--

Knight37

The gene pool could use a little chlorine.
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 9:32:03 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <Xns95EFEC18F98BEknight37m@130.133.1.4
>, Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> wrote:

>I'm on a high-pop server. If you put any more than what they have on our
>server you'd have issues with crowding, regardless of whether or not the
>servers themselves could actually handle more players or not. The game
>WORLD really isn't designed for more than what they max out at now.


Ahh, thanks.

Jim
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 4:27:18 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"foamy" <bombelly@wahs.ac> wrote in message
news:WnDLd.240700$Xk.206350@pd7tw3no...

> A friend who plays told me they have 80 something servers and about
> 280K players. Is that about right ? An average of 3500 per server ? If
> that's
> so, it doesn't sound like their servers have much of a capacity before
> being
> overloaded.

Yeah I've heard the 80 server number too but I haven't actually counted them
up, there's a *lot* of em. Unfortunately I'm on one of the high pop servers
and it's a nightmare to get on. Every time we log in we wait in a queue of
several hundred to get in, with an average of around 20-30 minutes just to
log in, sometimes an hour or more. Places like the Auction House in
Ironforge are unbearably laggy, but fortuanately you don't spend that much
time there, most of the time is spent out adventuring and lag out in the
game world has been a less problematic issue. Still annoying (like a weapon
switch macro, or a /tell may take a few seconds to happen), but not
crippling.

If the game didn't have these technical problems it would be near perfect.
As it is, the overall experience is still a major positive and if I were
playing on the one of the low pop servers it would probably be near perfect.

One of the problems all these MMOG guys have is the peak factor. Right after
a release of a new game (or server) you get this huge peak of activity while
everyone is trying it out, and then the activity recedes to a point where it
stabilizes and becomes more or less consistent. If you build for the peak,
you wind up overinvesting in overkill for the aftermath, and if you plan on
building to the aftermath you suffer during the peak. Given all the
uncertainties, it's not surprising to me that there's a bias toward
conservative optimism that tries to anticipate a peak. Blizzard's game broke
all records and so demolished any conservative peak expectations and we're
all paying for it now. It's not the first time Blizzard's had to do this,
you'd think they'd have learned the same lesson from the D2 release (where
similar excuses were made about failure to anticipate just how successful
they would be).

I'm also surprised that they didn't architect a system that's more scalable
and dynamic, using virtual server boundaries that could contract and expand
to accommodate load variance. As it is now, they have discrete systems that
are vastly under utilized (low pop servers) and those that are vastly over
utilized (high pop servers). In this era of peer-to-peer loadshare (they
even use bittorrent!) you'd think they'd have a more modern approach to
server architecture. Another indication of their relative inexperience at
MMOG design.

--
Bob Perez

"Men do not quit playing because they grow old; they grow old because they
quit playing."
- Oliver Wendell Holmes
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 4:34:09 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Hey Bob, how goes it?

"Bob Perez" <myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> once tried to
test me with:

>
> "foamy" <bombelly@wahs.ac> wrote in message
> news:WnDLd.240700$Xk.206350@pd7tw3no...
>
>> A friend who plays told me they have 80 something servers and about
>> 280K players. Is that about right ? An average of 3500 per server ?
>> If that's
>> so, it doesn't sound like their servers have much of a capacity
>> before being
>> overloaded.
>
> Yeah I've heard the 80 server number too but I haven't actually
> counted them up, there's a *lot* of em. Unfortunately I'm on one of
> the high pop servers and it's a nightmare to get on. Every time we log
> in we wait in a queue of several hundred to get in, with an average of
> around 20-30 minutes just to log in, sometimes an hour or more. Places
> like the Auction House in Ironforge are unbearably laggy, but
> fortuanately you don't spend that much time there, most of the time is
> spent out adventuring and lag out in the game world has been a less
> problematic issue. Still annoying (like a weapon switch macro, or a
> /tell may take a few seconds to happen), but not crippling.

Wow. I'm on a High pop server also but it is nowhere near that bad. I've
had to wait a TOTAL time of maybe 20 minutes on login queues. That's not
20-minutes per session, that's 20-minutes since i've been playing WoW
(started the Sunday after release). I tend to play in the evenings on week
nites and I play on the weekends off and on all day, especially in the
evenings. The Auction House in Ironforge is pretty laggy during peak hours.
But it's more or less usable most of the time. I rarely put up with it
though to be honest.

About 95% of my WoW time has been very enjoyable. I've had a few real
annoying lag-related problems, a few crashes, a few queues to wait in, and
by far the most annoying thing that has happened are a couple of cases of
"roll-back" where I lost maybe 20 min of progress on my character due to a
server bug that dropped me to the char login screen and when I came back in
it had lost some xp and skill-ups and stuff.

But BY FAR the majority of my time in WoW has been pure pleasure.

> If the game didn't have these technical problems it would be near
> perfect. As it is, the overall experience is still a major positive
> and if I were playing on the one of the low pop servers it would
> probably be near perfect.

No you wouldn't. I have toons on a low-pop server for when my main server
is down (Argent Dawn is my main and Thunderhorn is my alt server). TH is
just plain BORING to play on. There's never anyone around to group with. Of
course unless my real-life friends who also play on TH are there too, I
don't have anyone there I know. Finding a pickup group is extremely
challenging. I am playing Horde there and that might have something to do
with it, I've heard that Horde are like about 25% as popular as Alliance or
something to that effect. That's definitely true on AD.

What would be nice is a server that is maxed out WITHOUT ANY OF THE LAG
PROBLEMS. In other words, a server that has just the right number of
players to where there's no lag during prime time and no login queues but
still easy to find players. Maybe the Medium pop servers are like this, not
sure. My thing is, I go for Argent Dawn since it's an RP server. Plus now
I'm guilded there.

I do agree that if WoW had no technical problems it would be absolute
heaven to play. I'm loving the actual gameplay. There's a few things I
think that need changed but overall I'm very happy with it.

> One of the problems all these MMOG guys have is the peak factor. Right
> after a release of a new game (or server) you get this huge peak of
> activity while everyone is trying it out, and then the activity
> recedes to a point where it stabilizes and becomes more or less
> consistent. If you build for the peak, you wind up overinvesting in
> overkill for the aftermath, and if you plan on building to the
> aftermath you suffer during the peak. Given all the uncertainties,
> it's not surprising to me that there's a bias toward conservative
> optimism that tries to anticipate a peak. Blizzard's game broke all
> records and so demolished any conservative peak expectations and we're
> all paying for it now. It's not the first time Blizzard's had to do
> this, you'd think they'd have learned the same lesson from the D2
> release (where similar excuses were made about failure to anticipate
> just how successful they would be).

There really is no excuse for some of their load balancing problems. They
HAVE enough servers.

> I'm also surprised that they didn't architect a system that's more
> scalable and dynamic, using virtual server boundaries that could
> contract and expand to accommodate load variance. As it is now, they
> have discrete systems that are vastly under utilized (low pop servers)
> and those that are vastly over utilized (high pop servers). In this
> era of peer-to-peer loadshare (they even use bittorrent!) you'd think
> they'd have a more modern approach to server architecture. Another
> indication of their relative inexperience at MMOG design.

All they need to do to fix their problems are:

1. Have a (free) way for a group of players to, as a GROUP, move their
characters from one server to the next. This should only be allowed ONE
TIME. And only to a similar server (i.e. PVP to PVP, RP to RP, etc). They
also need a few extra new RP servers to help balance out the existing ones
(which are pretty rare).

2. Put Auction House in EVERY CITY so that you do not have to congregate in
one area and lag that area out just to participate in the game economy.

They've talked about #1 on the boards already but so far hasn't been done.
And they've said that #2 is coming in a patch.

So my guess is this WILL get fixed, the question is, will I already be
tired of WoW before they fix it? :) 

--

Knight37

The gene pool could use a little chlorine.
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 4:34:10 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Knight37" <knight37m@email.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95F0C7136C5C3knight37m@130.133.1.4...

> Hey Bob, how goes it?

Hey Knight, goes well, long time. ;-) I saw in another post of yours that
you put WoW ahead of Planescape: Torment as the best RPG of all time, that's
some endorsement! I wonder what it's like playing on one of the RP servers
as so far I've only been exposed to the PvP servers (btw, why are these
mutually exclusive, bah!)

>> If the game didn't have these technical problems it would be near
>> perfect. As it is, the overall experience is still a major positive
>> and if I were playing on the one of the low pop servers it would
>> probably be near perfect.
>
> No you wouldn't. I have toons on a low-pop server for when my main server
> is down (Argent Dawn is my main and Thunderhorn is my alt server). TH is
> just plain BORING to play on. There's never anyone around to group with.

Well I only play WoW with my wife and occasionally with my son and his
friends. Our daughter also plays now. So if we were all playing on a low pop
server, I suspect we would indeed be pretty happy but I hear what you're
saying. AC2 was depressing to play because the whole world was always EMPTY.
What's the point to playing an MMOG if it's not M?

> I am playing Horde there and that might have something to do
> with it, I've heard that Horde are like about 25% as popular as Alliance
> or
> something to that effect. That's definitely true on AD.

Yep, I'm sure that's a big contributing factor. Horde is way outnumbered by
Alliance from what I can tell and probably more so on RP servers. PvP
servers might be different (Shamans remain a popular PvP favorite).

> What would be nice is a server that is maxed out WITHOUT ANY OF THE LAG
> PROBLEMS. In other words, a server that has just the right number of
> players to where there's no lag during prime time and no login queues but
> still easy to find players.

LOL me too. But as long as we're making wish lists, I'd ask for a game that
plays like WoW for the most part but has the questing of EQ2, the crafting
system of SWG or Horizons, the player population of EverQuest, the housing
customizability of The Sims Online, and the server stability of DAoC. :) 

> I do agree that if WoW had no technical problems it would be absolute
> heaven to play. I'm loving the actual gameplay. There's a few things I
> think that need changed but overall I'm very happy with it.

Me too. It's a stunning accomplishment and really exemplifies the kind of
polish that Blizzard can put on a game, any game. And to think, this is
their 1.0, it's only going to get better. It'll be fun to watch as it
develops.

> So my guess is this WILL get fixed, the question is, will I already be
> tired of WoW before they fix it? :) 

No worries, by then Vanguard will be in beta and you'll have another one to
try out. That's the one I've got my eye on for the future, and given the
heritage (Brad McQuaid and crew), the publisher (Microsoft), and the timing
(post WoW-EQ2), it's bound to have some impact. Until then, WoW and EQ2 have
me plenty busy. I don't know when I'll ever play a single player game again
....

--
Bob Perez

"Men do not quit playing because they grow old; they grow old because they
quit playing."
- Oliver Wendell Holmes
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 9:07:19 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 13:27:18 -0800, "Bob Perez"
<myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> wrote:

>
>"foamy" <bombelly@wahs.ac> wrote in message
>news:WnDLd.240700$Xk.206350@pd7tw3no...
>
>> A friend who plays told me they have 80 something servers and about
>> 280K players. Is that about right ? An average of 3500 per server ? If
>> that's
>> so, it doesn't sound like their servers have much of a capacity before
>> being
>> overloaded.
>
>Yeah I've heard the 80 server number too but I haven't actually counted them
>up, there's a *lot* of em. Unfortunately I'm on one of the high pop servers
>and it's a nightmare to get on. Every time we log in we wait in a queue of
>several hundred to get in, with an average of around 20-30 minutes just to
>log in, sometimes an hour or more. Places like the Auction House in
>Ironforge are unbearably laggy, but fortuanately you don't spend that much
>time there, most of the time is spent out adventuring and lag out in the
>game world has been a less problematic issue.

Blizzard seems to have gotten the problem under control on Icecrown,
which was one of the original and worst servers out there (stability
wise) through about the middle of january. Icecrown was pretty much
unplayable for about 2 weeks after Christmas.

Since they took it down about 2 weeks ago for a hardware upgrade and
replaced one of the boats with a teleporter, all the problems seem to
have gone away.

I agree that it's frustrating as hell when it happens to your server,
I'd actually cancelled my WoW subscription at one point because I just
wasn't willing to put up with it any more. But the good news is that
Blizzard does seem to be getting a handle on things. I dunno why they
haven't applied the fixes to all the servers yet

>One of the problems all these MMOG guys have is the peak factor. Right after
>a release of a new game (or server) you get this huge peak of activity while
>everyone is trying it out, and then the activity recedes to a point where it
>stabilizes and becomes more or less consistent. If you build for the peak,
>you wind up overinvesting in overkill for the aftermath, and if you plan on
>building to the aftermath you suffer during the peak. Given all the
>uncertainties, it's not surprising to me that there's a bias toward
>conservative optimism that tries to anticipate a peak. Blizzard's game broke
>all records and so demolished any conservative peak expectations and we're
>all paying for it now.

I don't buy it. Blizzard knew how many copies of WoW they were gonna
print so they knew ahead of time exactly how many players to expect.

Rgds, Frank
February 2, 2005 2:55:25 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Bob Perez" <myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> writes:

> LOL me too. But as long as we're making wish lists, I'd ask for a game that
> plays like WoW for the most part but has the questing of EQ2, the crafting
> system of SWG or Horizons, the player population of EverQuest, the housing
> customizability of The Sims Online, and the server stability of DAoC. :) 

I've never played Horizons, but crafting-wise I'd like to see sort of
a combination of the EQ2 and SWG crafting.

I like the way different resources in SWG have different qualities,
but I also like the way resource nodes work in EQ2 and WoW - it's more
fun to go out looking for those little nodes out in the world than to
run around surveying and following the concentrations. Rare resources
in EQ2 are also a nice thing.

I like that there is a little crafting minigame in EQ2, though they
could have made it more interesting with a specific minigame for each
craft where e.g. you heat, hammer and quench your sword while
smithing.

SWG experimentation is a nice idea, so you can focus on the qualities
that you care for in an item, as long as it doesn't end up where there
is an optimal build for everything (I don't know if SWG has this
problem, as I've only played for a week). This could be integrated
into the crafting minigame, instead of being a design-stage thing.

Oh, and the harvesting from Saga of Ryzom, where there is a tradeoff
between (if I understood correctly, I didn't play much) how much you
harvest and how well you treat the resource node - if you harvest
aggressively, you get more resources but might die, gently you get
less resources but run significantly lower risk.
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 3:16:06 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

<patrik@nordebo.com> wrote in message
news:87y8e7dyea.fsf@pluto.elizium.org...

> I've never played Horizons, but crafting-wise I'd like to see sort of
> a combination of the EQ2 and SWG crafting.

Yes, that would approach the ideal for me, too.

> I like the way different resources in SWG have different qualities,
> but I also like the way resource nodes work in EQ2 and WoW - it's more
> fun to go out looking for those little nodes out in the world than to
> run around surveying and following the concentrations.

I *liked* surveying, but what I didn't like about it was the apparent
irrelevance of location to the spawn. In UO, EQ2 and WoW, you could usually
determine where the best locations were to hunt for harvests by the nature
of the terrain. That was logical and satisfying. In SWG it was purely
random, and anything could spawn anywhere (even in the middle of town!) and
for me that diluted the immersion factor considerably.

> Rare resources
> in EQ2 are also a nice thing.

Yeah, I agree about random rarity as a factor. Anything that gives me the
ability to make something different and better than the next guy based on my
resourcefulness and industry as a crafter, is good. In general, the more
effort you put into harvesting the better chance you have of coming away
with a rare.

> SWG experimentation is a nice idea, so you can focus on the qualities
> that you care for in an item

Yes, experimentation was a great idea, and one of the things that set one
crafter apart from another. The other thing that made it even more succesful
was the whole system of schematics and factories that allowed you to capture
your successful experiments into something that was enduring for a period of
time (while the current resource spawns were still available). That was
brilliant.

--
Bob Perez

"Men do not quit playing because they grow old; they grow old because they
quit playing."
- Oliver Wendell Holmes
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 3:37:06 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Frank E" <fakeaddress@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fdoAQtMYzCGfq9PnuonB4iSpXack@4ax.com...

>>One of the problems all these MMOG guys have is the peak factor. Right
>>after
>>a release of a new game (or server) you get this huge peak of activity
>>while
>>everyone is trying it out, and then the activity recedes to a point where
>>it
>>stabilizes and becomes more or less consistent. If you build for the peak,
>>you wind up overinvesting in overkill for the aftermath, and if you plan
>>on
>>building to the aftermath you suffer during the peak. Given all the
>>uncertainties, it's not surprising to me that there's a bias toward
>>conservative optimism that tries to anticipate a peak. Blizzard's game
>>broke
>>all records and so demolished any conservative peak expectations and we're
>>all paying for it now.
>
> I don't buy it. Blizzard knew how many copies of WoW they were gonna
> print so they knew ahead of time exactly how many players to expect.

That's a fair response and I'm not going to try and defend Blizzard, lol.
But to be fair let's explore this thought a moment. It's one thing to know
how many copies you're going to print. It's another to know how they'll be
distributed. Let's say you print 1 million copies and you intend to provide
50 servers. This results in an average of 20,000 copies per server, a very
reasonable figure when you consider that at any given time only some
percentage of the total number of players will actually be onlne at the same
time. If that percentage is, say, 20%, and the servers have the capacity to
hold 5,000 players, then the numbers all add up and even provide a small
buffer for overrun. Then reality hits and several things happen:

1) The players don't distribute randomly. Instead they all congregate at the
servers with the "coolest" names, or the first ones on the list, or for
whatever reason there are big lumps in the distribution. Some servers are at
immediate capacity and some others are underpopulated.
2) Everyone rushes to play immediately after the launch and so the usual
expectations regarding how many will be online at once aren't applicable and
the actual percentage is something like 60%.
3) The game turns out to be more fun, and the players more dedicated, than
anyone expected. So there's another reason the usual expectations on
simultaneous online players goes out the window and maybe the average,
post-peak percentage is more like 40%.

If 50,000 players signed up on server "CoolName" and any more than 10% of
them are trying to play at once, you've got a big problem. There are things
they can do, like limit the number of new accounts that could be created on
a given server but then they generate *huge* support costs as people call,
post, and generally complain about not being able to join their guild on
server X, their family or friends, etc.

Again, I'm not defending Blizard here, I think these problems are very
solveable with some good planning and architecture. But I do think they are
complex problems that require some thought and given Blizzard's lack of
experience with the MMOG world it's not surprising to me that they bungled
this. Just like they bungled the D2 release.

Of course, the *punishment* they receive is industry-wide awards and
accolades, shameless hysteria from media coverage, active virulent fanboyism
on the popular sites and record-breaking sales. So you tell me, what's the
motivation for them to stop counting their money long enough to do this ...
differently?

--
Bob Perez

"Men do not quit playing because they grow old; they grow old because they
quit playing."
- Oliver Wendell Holmes
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 10:05:13 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

James Garvin wrote:
> mike wrote:

> Once again:
> How many gamers DO NOT have an internet connection. Also it says
> right on the box under min spec: INTERNET CONNECTION REQUIRED

How many people with a modern machine bother to read the system requirements
on the back of the box. I don't think I've bothered to read a minimum spec
since the days of my old Pentium 120.

>> The fact that people are buying a game, not realizing it is
>> unplayable and worthless without an internet connection is a HUGE
>> problem. They will get a lot of angry people. And guess what? These are
>> the people least likely to communicate with you...because
>> they don't have a connection, so they don't email or use forums.
>
> ????????????? I'd have to see some statistics on this one...I mean
> come on...how many people that are GAMERS (you have to have a beefy
> machine to play HL2) don't have an internet connection?

You'd be surprised. A lot of younger gamers in particular don't have a net
connection. Even when they do it's often not broadband. I've read that it
can take ages to activate on dial-up. But I don't speak from experience.

> But it has made online play far more fun and easy to get to. Not only
> that, but the games are less laggy and the time to connect is far
> quicker.

This won't be anything to do with steam. It will have more to do with the
net code of the game, the distance to the server, and the datarate of your
connection.

>> The fact is, the harder something is to crack, the harder people try
>> to crack it, because doing so confers status/prestige within the
>> hacker/warez community.
>
> Sure...why not...to an extent this is true, but mostly cracks happen
> because "it is there."

I'm just fed up with ineffectual piracy prevention techniques that only
result in incontinence to the people who actually lay out money for a legit
copy of a game.

--
Morgan.
----
* ...The funny thing is, on the outside, I was an honest man, straight as an
arrow. I had to come to prison to be a crook.

Mail: Morgan.Sales@ntlworld.com
Webpage: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/msales
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 1:53:18 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Morgan Sales" <morgan.salesDIESPAMMER@ntlworld.com> looked up from
reading the entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good,
the signs say:

<snip>
>I'm just fed up with ineffectual piracy prevention techniques that only
>result in incontinence to the people who actually lay out money for a legit
>copy of a game. ^
|
Oh what a lovely typo.

No anti-piracy technique has managed to have quite that effect on me
yet.

Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 2:43:33 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Morgan Sales wrote:

> You'd be surprised. A lot of younger gamers in particular don't have a net
> connection. Even when they do it's often not broadband. I've read that it
> can take ages to activate on dial-up. But I don't speak from experience.

Never had that problem. I've had my dialup accounts activated in a
matter of seconds. I don't what you are talking about. I've used
Earthlink, People PC, and Netzero.

> This won't be anything to do with steam. It will have more to do with the
> net code of the game, the distance to the server, and the datarate of your
> connection.

Then you don't know what Steam is...You are making things up and you
haven't a clue.

> I'm just fed up with ineffectual piracy prevention techniques that only
> result in incontinence to the people who actually lay out money for a legit
> copy of a game.

This has been going on since I can remember (mid-80's) with code wheels
and page numbers and such...blech.

The more things change the more they stay the same.
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 2:54:52 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Xocyll wrote:

> "Morgan Sales" <morgan.salesDIESPAMMER@ntlworld.com> looked up from
> reading the entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good,
> the signs say:
>
> <snip>
>
>>I'm just fed up with ineffectual piracy prevention techniques that only
>>result in incontinence to the people who actually lay out money for a legit
>>copy of a game. ^
>
> |
> Oh what a lovely typo.
>
> No anti-piracy technique has managed to have quite that effect on me
> yet.

I had some serious runs the other day...but it might have been bad fish
rather than Steam...
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 4:48:56 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 11:43:33 -0700, James Garvin wrote:

> Morgan Sales wrote:
>
>> You'd be surprised. A lot of younger gamers in particular don't have a net
>> connection. Even when they do it's often not broadband. I've read that it
>> can take ages to activate on dial-up. But I don't speak from experience.
>
> Never had that problem. I've had my dialup accounts activated in a
> matter of seconds. I don't what you are talking about. I've used
> Earthlink, People PC, and Netzero.
I think he meant for Steam to activate the game, not to activate a new ISP
account.

<snip>
> This has been going on since I can remember (mid-80's) with code wheels
> and page numbers and such...blech.
So that was for copy protection?? I always thought it was a game within a
game. <g>

--
RJB
2/3/2005 1:47:24 PM

When I get real bored, I like to drive down town and get a great parking
spot, then sit in my car and count how many people ask me if I'm leaving.
--Steven Wright
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 8:40:46 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Xocyll wrote:
> "Morgan Sales" <morgan.salesDIESPAMMER@ntlworld.com> looked up from
> reading the entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is
> good, the signs say:
>
> <snip>
>> I'm just fed up with ineffectual piracy prevention techniques that
>> only result in incontinence to the people who actually lay out money
>> for a legit copy of a game. ^
> |
> Oh what a lovely typo.
>
> No anti-piracy technique has managed to have quite that effect on me
> yet.

LOL, never could proof read my own writing.

--
Morgan.
----
* ...The funny thing is, on the outside, I was an honest man, straight as an
arrow. I had to come to prison to be a crook.

Mail: Morgan.Sales@ntlworld.com
Webpage: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/msales
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 10:22:45 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

James Garvin wrote:
> Morgan Sales wrote:
>
>> You'd be surprised. A lot of younger gamers in particular don't
>> have a net connection. Even when they do it's often not broadband. I've
>> read that it can take ages to activate on dial-up. But I don't
>> speak from experience.
>
> Never had that problem. I've had my dialup accounts activated in a
> matter of seconds. I don't what you are talking about. I've used
> Earthlink, People PC, and Netzero.

You don't appear to understand what I'm saying here. I'm not talking about
activating a dial-up account. (what the hell would that have to do with
steam) I'm talking about activating a steam game through a dial up account.

>> This won't be anything to do with steam. It will have more to do
>> with the net code of the game, the distance to the server, and the
>> datarate of your connection.
>
> Then you don't know what Steam is...

Yes I do.

> You are making things up and you haven't a clue.

I have a clue, also a degree in Computer & Network Engineering. Care to
explain how steam reduces network latency? Care to explain how it speeds up
connection time? At the minute it sounds like you're the one making things
up.

>> I'm just fed up with ineffectual piracy prevention techniques that
>> only result in incontinence to the people who actually lay out money
>> for a legit copy of a game.
>
> This has been going on since I can remember (mid-80's) with code
> wheels and page numbers and such...blech.

And it has never worked. Just because something has been going on for a
long time doesn't mean that it's a good thing.

--
Morgan.
----
* Work is the curse of the drinking classes. :- Oscar Wilde

Mail: Morgan.Sales@ntlworld.com
Webpage: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/msales
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 10:22:46 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Morgan Sales wrote:

> You don't appear to understand what I'm saying here. I'm not talking about
> activating a dial-up account. (what the hell would that have to do with
> steam) I'm talking about activating a steam game through a dial up account.

Ok..I misunderstood. However, it doesn't take THAT long to validate.
Hell, for the most part it is thrashing on your HDD rather than sending
data back and forth.

On broadband it may haven taken 2 minutes...with dialup I would image it
would take 10-20 depending on the connection.

>>>This won't be anything to do with steam. It will have more to do
>>>with the net code of the game, the distance to the server, and the
>>>datarate of your connection.
>>Then you don't know what Steam is...
> Yes I do.

No you don't. You have less than a clue. Steam is the engine that
allows connectivity between the server and client. It is a "middle
man." It is far more efficient than WAN.

>>You are making things up and you haven't a clue.
> I have a clue, also a degree in Computer & Network Engineering. Care to
> explain how steam reduces network latency? Care to explain how it speeds up
> connection time? At the minute it sounds like you're the one making things
> up.

Ok...let's play "my dick is bigger than yours."
Sure. I have a MS and BS in Computer Science. I also have 5
publications. I've designed distance learning software that provides a
low bandwidth footprint and developed a service recovery scheme that is
efficient and low bandwidth. I'm currently working on a PhD in Computer
Science. You?

>>>I'm just fed up with ineffectual piracy prevention techniques that
>>>only result in incontinence to the people who actually lay out money
>>>for a legit copy of a game.
>>
>>This has been going on since I can remember (mid-80's) with code
>>wheels and page numbers and such...blech.
> And it has never worked. Just because something has been going on for a
> long time doesn't mean that it's a good thing.

My point exactly. You aren't going to change it, it isn't going away.
You just have to deal with it.
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 1:05:29 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

James Garvin wrote:
> Morgan Sales wrote:
>
>> You don't appear to understand what I'm saying here. I'm not
>> talking about activating a dial-up account. (what the hell would
>> that have to do with steam) I'm talking about activating a steam
>> game through a dial up account.
>
> Ok..I misunderstood. However, it doesn't take THAT long to validate.
> Hell, for the most part it is thrashing on your HDD rather than
> sending data back and forth.
>
> On broadband it may haven taken 2 minutes...with dialup I would image
> it would take 10-20 depending on the connection.
>
>>>> This won't be anything to do with steam. It will have more to do
>>>> with the net code of the game, the distance to the server, and the
>>>> datarate of your connection.
>>> Then you don't know what Steam is...
>> Yes I do.
>
> No you don't. You have less than a clue. Steam is the engine that
> allows connectivity between the server and client. It is a "middle
> man." It is far more efficient than WAN.

What, do you even know what a WAN is? Steam's not even part of the same OSI
layer.

Unless you are saying that steam bypasses the internet, and physically moved
computer closer together then it's going over a WAN. All on-line games
require some type of software to provide connectivity between a client and a
server. That's how they work, just hen same as any network.

>>> You are making things up and you haven't a clue.
>> I have a clue, also a degree in Computer & Network Engineering. Care to
>> explain how steam reduces network latency? Care to explain
>> how it speeds up connection time? At the minute it sounds like
>> you're the one making things up.
>
> Ok...let's play "my dick is bigger than yours."
> Sure. I have a MS and BS in Computer Science. I also have 5
> publications. I've designed distance learning software that provides
> a low bandwidth footprint and developed a service recovery scheme that
> is efficient and low bandwidth.

Strange that you don't appear to understand basic networking then.

> I'm currently working on a PhD in
> Computer Science. You?

I'm teaching.

Now explain how distance to a server, datarate of a connaction and the amout
data transmited *donesn't* effect conection time and latancy.

>>> This has been going on since I can remember (mid-80's) with code
>>> wheels and page numbers and such...blech.
>> And it has never worked. Just because something has been going on
>> for a long time doesn't mean that it's a good thing.
>
> My point exactly. You aren't going to change it, it isn't going away.
> You just have to deal with it.

I do deal with it. But I'm not going to pretend that I like it.

--
Morgan.
----
* Do you like our Owl?

Mail: Morgan.Sales@ntlworld.com
Webpage: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/msales
February 4, 2005 1:30:34 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 2005-02-03, Morgan Sales <morgan.salesDIESPAMMER@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> James Garvin wrote:

>> No you don't. You have less than a clue. Steam is the engine that
>> allows connectivity between the server and client. It is a "middle
>> man." It is far more efficient than WAN.
>
> What, do you even know what a WAN is? Steam's not even part of the same OSI
> layer.

You see, this is the part where you realize Mr. Garvin doesn't
know what he's talking about and you take a deep breath before
going back to whatever it was you were doing before reading his
posts.

> Unless you are saying that steam bypasses the internet, and physically moved
> computer closer together then it's going over a WAN. All on-line games
> require some type of software to provide connectivity between a client and a
> server. That's how they work, just hen same as any network.

Everyone knows that Valve stealth installs fiber cable at your
place connecting you to one of the ValveHubs(tm) which uses alien
technology for super duber speed, and this I believe is what
Mr. Garvin (and his many accolades, degrees, and publications) is
referring to as "FAR MORE EFFECIENT THAN WAN."

> Strange that you don't appear to understand basic networking then.

A certain person with a last name starting with S went around
claiming he was a Phd in all sorts of things. He didn't
understand the basics of anything :) 
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 2:13:13 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Morgan Sales wrote:

> What, do you even know what a WAN is? Steam's not even part of the same OSI
> layer.

Ok...great...You don't know what WAN is in this context.

> Unless you are saying that steam bypasses the internet, and physically moved
> computer closer together then it's going over a WAN. All on-line games
> require some type of software to provide connectivity between a client and a
> server. That's how they work, just hen same as any network.

The old style server system that came before Steam. IRRC it was called
WAN or WON network. It was the precursor to Steam.

>>Ok...let's play "my dick is bigger than yours."
>>Sure. I have a MS and BS in Computer Science. I also have 5
>>publications. I've designed distance learning software that provides
>>a low bandwidth footprint and developed a service recovery scheme that
>>is efficient and low bandwidth.
> Strange that you don't appear to understand basic networking then.

Strange that you don't know what the evolution from WON/WAN (whatever)
to Steam is...you haven't a clue.

>>I'm currently working on a PhD in
>>Computer Science. You?
> I'm teaching.

God help us all...

> Now explain how distance to a server, datarate of a connaction and the amout
> data transmited *donesn't* effect conection time and latancy.

WTF are you talking about? I never said this...
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 2:14:27 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

shadows wrote:

> You see, this is the part where you realize Mr. Garvin doesn't
> know what he's talking about and you take a deep breath before
> going back to whatever it was you were doing before reading his
> posts.

The precursor to Steam was called WAN or WON or some such...

> A certain person with a last name starting with S went around
> claiming he was a Phd in all sorts of things. He didn't
> understand the basics of anything :) 

Never claim to have a PhD...working on one...
February 4, 2005 10:51:06 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 2005-02-04, James Garvin <jgarvin2004@comcast.net> wrote:
> shadows wrote:
>
>> You see, this is the part where you realize Mr. Garvin doesn't
>> know what he's talking about and you take a deep breath before
>> going back to whatever it was you were doing before reading his
>> posts.
>
> The precursor to Steam was called WAN or WON or some such...

WON. Certainly not WAN.
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 8:14:55 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

James Garvin wrote:
> Morgan Sales wrote:
>
>> What, do you even know what a WAN is? Steam's not even part of the
>> same OSI layer.
>
> Ok...great...You don't know what WAN is in this context.

You claim to have a masters in Computer Science, yet you don't know stuff
that my year 10s (14 year olds) could explain to you. If you did just get
the name wrong, but still knew what a WAN was then you'd have made it pretty
damn clear what context you were speaking in.

>> Unless you are saying that steam bypasses the internet, and
>> physically moved computer closer together then it's going over a
>> WAN. All on-line games require some type of software to provide
>> connectivity between a client and a server. That's how they work,
>> just hen same as any network.
>
> The old style server system that came before Steam. IRRC it was
> called WAN or WON network. It was the precursor to Steam.

A WAN is a wide area network. Try looking these simple terms up.

>>> Ok...let's play "my dick is bigger than yours."
>>> Sure. I have a MS and BS in Computer Science. I also have 5
>>> publications. I've designed distance learning software that
>>> provides a low bandwidth footprint and developed a service recovery
>>> scheme
>>> that is efficient and low bandwidth.
>> Strange that you don't appear to understand basic networking then.
>
> Strange that you don't know what the evolution from WON/WAN (whatever)
> to Steam is...you haven't a clue.

Well firstly *you* got the name wrong not me. Secondly *you* confused it
with what is about the most simple networking concept out there.

>>> I'm currently working on a PhD in
>>> Computer Science. You?
>> I'm teaching.
>
> God help us all...

We'll be fine, I'm successfully teaching them things that person who claims
to have an MSc in computer science can't understand.

>> Now explain how distance to a server, datarate of a connaction and
>> the amout data transmited *donesn't* effect conection time and
>> latancy.
>
> WTF are you talking about? I never said this...

I said that it did, and you said that I was "making things up".

Do you have memory problems, or do you just get confused by technical terms?
Maybe you're overdoing it, what with all that work you're pretending to do
for your imaginary PhD. :-)

--
Morgan.
----
* Look, you're encouraging morons to vote, that can't possibly be good.

Mail: Morgan.Sales@ntlworld.com
Webpage: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/msales
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 8:14:56 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Morgan Sales wrote:

> You claim to have a masters in Computer Science, yet you don't know stuff
> that my year 10s (14 year olds) could explain to you. If you did just get
> the name wrong, but still knew what a WAN was then you'd have made it pretty
> damn clear what context you were speaking in.

It was a mistake...I thought it was called WAN (as well as a WAN being a
term)....Yet you harp and harp on it...it is clear that you have no
argument as you can't move on past this semantical error.

> Well firstly *you* got the name wrong not me. Secondly *you* confused it
> with what is about the most simple networking concept out there.

Hey, you tried to play the game...you lost. How many peer reviewed
publications do you have? You apparently can't move past a simple
semantical error and continue to discuss the topic at hand.

> We'll be fine, I'm successfully teaching them things that person who claims
> to have an MSc in computer science can't understand.

I would guess you are a high school teacher...yes? I have major respect
for you teaching in such an environment...however, it is clear you are
being contrary to be contrary.

> I said that it did, and you said that I was "making things up".

You were. Steam is a middle man and you acted as if it did nothing for
connectivity...we magically connect to servers...

> Do you have memory problems, or do you just get confused by technical terms?
> Maybe you're overdoing it, what with all that work you're pretending to do
> for your imaginary PhD. :-)

Nope..you keep pushing your strange agenda...he is the long and the
short of it. Steam is a "middle man" that acts as a validator and
centralized repository for server information. It continues to update
and provide the user with useful information. Further, Steam is able to
track cheaters and lamers pretty easily...so that means somewhere in the
server/client architecture Steam is actually running on both ends and
talking...
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 8:17:34 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

shadows wrote:
> On 2005-02-03, Morgan Sales <morgan.salesDIESPAMMER@ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
>> James Garvin wrote:
>
>>> No you don't. You have less than a clue. Steam is the engine that
>>> allows connectivity between the server and client. It is a "middle
>>> man." It is far more efficient than WAN.
>>
>> What, do you even know what a WAN is? Steam's not even part of the
>> same OSI layer.
>
> You see, this is the part where you realize Mr. Garvin doesn't
> know what he's talking about and you take a deep breath before
> going back to whatever it was you were doing before reading his
> posts.

Does he make a habit of this then?

--
Morgan.
----
* "You didn't beat me. You ignored the rules of engagement. In a fair fight,
I would kill you." "That's hardly incentive for me to fight fair then, is
it?"

Mail: Morgan.Sales@ntlworld.com
Webpage: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/msales
February 4, 2005 8:27:27 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 2005-02-04, Morgan Sales <morgan.salesDIESPAMMER@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> shadows wrote:

>>
>> You see, this is the part where you realize Mr. Garvin doesn't
>> know what he's talking about and you take a deep breath before
>> going back to whatever it was you were doing before reading his
>> posts.
>
> Does he make a habit of this then?

He's a regular poster but I haven't seen him try to get technical
yet.
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 1:14:20 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"James Garvin" <jgarvin2004@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:5_GdnXJKNL4aRJ7fRVn-jg@comcast.com...
> Morgan Sales wrote:
>
>> You claim to have a masters in Computer Science, yet you don't know stuff
>> that my year 10s (14 year olds) could explain to you. If you did just
>> get the name wrong, but still knew what a WAN was then you'd have made it
>> pretty damn clear what context you were speaking in.
>
> It was a mistake...I thought it was called WAN (as well as a WAN being a
> term)....Yet you harp and harp on it...it is clear that you have no
> argument as you can't move on past this semantical error.

You've yet to back up the fact that you said that client/server distance and
connection data rate *wouldn't* affect latency or connection time. My
argument is that it does.

>> Well firstly *you* got the name wrong not me. Secondly *you* confused it
>> with what is about the most simple networking concept out there.
>
> Hey, you tried to play the game...you lost.

No, I simply made you aware of the face that you can't flog me off with
uninformed bollocks.

> How many peer reviewed publications do you have?

None. But I'm not the one displaying a lack of basic understanding about a
subject where I claim to be an expert. At this point in time, basically I
don't believe you about your qualifications. I may well be wrong but I'm
basing this one what you have written so far in this thread and nothing
else.

> You apparently can't move past a simple semantical error and continue to
> discuss the topic at hand.

This might have something to do with the fact that you continually say that
I "haven't a clue." People are inclined to respond in kind.

>> We'll be fine, I'm successfully teaching them things that person who
>> claims to have an MSc in computer science can't understand.
>
> I would guess you are a high school teacher...yes? I have major respect
> for you teaching in such an environment...however, it is clear you are
> being contrary to be contrary.

I'm English so we call it Secondary School, but yes.

Also I'm not being contrary. I simply pointed something out to you. You're
the one who became argumentative by telling me that I'm making things up
where I blatantly am not.

>> I said that it did, and you said that I was "making things up".
>
> You were. Steam is a middle man and you acted as if it did nothing for
> connectivity...we magically connect to servers...

At no point have I said anything like this. In a previous post I even said:

"All on-line games require some type of software to provide connectivity
between a client and a server."

I'm saying that steam doesn't improve network performance. And pointed out
that the performance of an on-line game is more to do with the hardware
being use and the netcode of the game. Now if you're saying that Steam
games have some edge over other on-line games in terms of net code, that
would be one thing. But you said (or at leasing inferred) that the hardware
doesn't even come into it, which is clearly incorrect as it would in fact be
the most influential component. This is a point which you have now avoided
at least twice, and is the main reason why I say that you don't appear to
know what you're talking about.

>> Do you have memory problems, or do you just get confused by technical
>> terms? Maybe you're overdoing it, what with all that work you're
>> pretending to do for your imaginary PhD. :-)
>
> Nope..you keep pushing your strange agenda...he is the long and the short
> of it. Steam is a "middle man" that acts as a validator and centralized
> repository for server information. It continues to update and provide the
> user with useful information. Further, Steam is able to track cheaters
> and lamers pretty easily...so that means somewhere in the server/client
> architecture Steam is actually running on both ends and talking...

Now if your original response hade brought up issues such as hacking
prevention and ease of updates then that would have been a reasonable and
fair argument, assuming you'd have put in across in a mature way.

--
Morgan.
----
* "You didn't beat me. You ignored the rules of engagement. In a fair fight,
I would kill you." "That's hardly incentive for me to fight fair then, is
it?"


Mail: Morgan.Sales@ntlworld.com
Webpage: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/msales
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 9:03:09 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

James Garvin <jgarvin2004@comcast.net> wrote:
>You were. Steam is a middle man and you acted as if it did nothing for
>connectivity...

Steam is several different things marketted together as a package.
That part that's a lobby client/server application does nothing for Half
Life 2's connectivity that WON didn't do for the original Half Life.
The parts of Steam that's a product activation application, an IM
application, and an online store do nothing to connect HL2 to servers.

>we magically connect to servers...

The TCP/IP (or UDP/IP) protocol connects you to the servers.

Ross Ridge

--
l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo] rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/u/rridge/
db //
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 7:17:55 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Bob Perez" <myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> once tried to
test me with:

> Hey Knight, goes well, long time. ;-) I saw in another post of yours
> that you put WoW ahead of Planescape: Torment as the best RPG of all
> time, that's some endorsement! I wonder what it's like playing on one
> of the RP servers as so far I've only been exposed to the PvP servers
> (btw, why are these mutually exclusive, bah!)

Yes, actually I have enjoyed WoW more than PST, which is quite an
accomplishment. I still love PST but it's time in this world has passed. :) 

--

Knight37

The gene pool could use a little chlorine.
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 9:23:48 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

James Garvin wrote:
> Morgan Sales wrote:
>> You've yet to back up the fact that you said that client/server
>> distance and connection data rate *wouldn't* affect latency or
>> connection time. My argument is that it does.
>
> Show me where I said this. I've never claimed this.

I've already pointed this out to you (twice I think) but here we go again.

You said: "But it has made online play far more fun and easy to get to. Not
only
that, but the games are less laggy and the time to connect is far quicker."

I said: "This won't be anything to do with steam. It will have more to do
with the
net code of the game, the distance to the server, and the datarate of your
connection."

You said that I was making this up. Now if you're saying that I'm making it
up, then you're saying that it's not true.

>> No, I simply made you aware of the face that you can't flog me off
>> with uninformed bollocks.
>
> Flog you with uninformed bullocks? You said Steam has NOTHING to do
> with playing multiplayer...it is all on the server/client...that is
> bullocks.

No, I said that it doesn't optimise a network connection.

>> This might have something to do with the fact that you continually
>> say that I "haven't a clue." People are inclined to respond in kind.
>
> You are the one that started down a road of "Steam has nothing to do
> client/server connectivity."

Where did I say this? Yet again I'll point out that I said: "All on-line
games require some type of software to provide connectivity " a bit of a
difference.

>> Also I'm not being contrary. I simply pointed something out to you.
>> You're the one who became argumentative by telling me that I'm
>> making things up where I blatantly am not.
>
> You are...Steam is a middle man...much like WON or Gamespy. These
> earlier Steam-like services have an effect on the connectivity of both
> the client and the server.

Now you're changing the premise of the original argument from: Steam
improves a network connection, to: Steam is better than other online game
lobbies. Bit of a difference. I'm not convinced that steam is any
improvement over gamespy, or that either system *continually* communicates
with a game browser. but I'm not in position of any information regarding
this so I can't comment. However any small reduction in overhead would
still be next to negligible compared to hardware limitations.

>> At no point have I said anything like this. In a previous post I
>> even said: "All on-line games require some type of software to provide
>> connectivity between a client and a server."
>
> In context:
> Me: But it has made online play far more fun and easy to get to. Not
> only that, but the games are less laggy and the time to connect is far
> quicker.
> You: This won't be anything to do with steam. It will have more to do
> with the net code of the game, the distance to the server, and the
> datarate of your connection.

Netcode of the game would encompass any communication with steam/GS/ASE etc.
Remember steam is a big bunch of stuff, not just a game lobby.

> I'm saying Steam reduces overhead, which produces the appearance of
> increased network performance.

Like I said, net code would cover that.

> You've gone off on these OSI layer tangents

In reply to you saying that Steam had replaced *WAN* not WON

> and tangents about how I
> claimed hardware doesn't come into the picture.

Which you did.

> I've done nothing of the sort.

Yes you have.

> My claim was always that Steam has optimized the effort it
> takes to play online for both the player and the computer.

I don't find steam any better that ASE as a lobby. But that's a side issue.

--
Morgan.
----
* A bottle of vodka is also a necessity!!!

Mail: Morgan.Sales@ntlworld.com
Webpage: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/msales
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 2:33:22 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Morgan Sales wrote:

> I've already pointed this out to you (twice I think) but here we go again.
>
> You said: "But it has made online play far more fun and easy to get to. Not
> only
> that, but the games are less laggy and the time to connect is far quicker."
>
> I said: "This won't be anything to do with steam. It will have more to do
> with the
> net code of the game, the distance to the server, and the datarate of your
> connection."
>
> You said that I was making this up. Now if you're saying that I'm making it
> up, then you're saying that it's not true.

Ah...I see the problem now. You are assuming Steam and the network
coding are separate. From what I can tell Steam is "built in" to the
network portion of the game. So Steam, after authentication, then
continues to server and/or act as the client...it looks to be something
like a "proxy," for lack of a better term...it is "on top" and it
continues to do things while you play online....

> No, I said that it doesn't optimise a network connection.

If an only if it does nothing after connection, which it doesn't look
like it does. Have you play CS on WON and Steam? Did you notice the
difference, even on low lag servers? It has something to do with map
loading, but it also is something that Steam has it hands in as far as
connectivity...

> Where did I say this? Yet again I'll point out that I said: "All on-line
> games require some type of software to provide connectivity " a bit of a
> difference.

Me: "But it has made online play far more fun and easy to get to. Not
only that, but the games are less laggy and the time to connect is far
quicker."

You: "This won't be anything to do with steam. It will have more to do
with the net code of the game, the distance to the server, and the
datarate of your connection."

You are inferring that after Steam authenticates, that's it...I disagree.

> Now you're changing the premise of the original argument from: Steam
> improves a network connection, to: Steam is better than other online game
> lobbies. Bit of a difference. I'm not convinced that steam is any
> improvement over gamespy, or that either system *continually* communicates
> with a game browser. but I'm not in position of any information regarding
> this so I can't comment. However any small reduction in overhead would
> still be next to negligible compared to hardware limitations.

It is more than a simple lobby. I had to use lobbies as an example
because there is very little that I can think of that is similar to
Steam. Steam is more than a simple lobby. It seems to be tied into the
net code and how the game connects, rather than just a simple

> Netcode of the game would encompass any communication with steam/GS/ASE etc.
> Remember steam is a big bunch of stuff, not just a game lobby.

EXACTLY! Steam is more than just a game lobby....

>>and tangents about how I
>>claimed hardware doesn't come into the picture.
> Which you did.

Where?
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 3:27:35 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

James Garvin wrote:
> Morgan Sales wrote:

>> No, I said that it doesn't optimise a network connection.
>
> If an only if it does nothing after connection, which it doesn't look
> like it does. Have you play CS on WON and Steam? Did you notice the
> difference, even on low lag servers? It has something to do with map
> loading, but it also is something that Steam has it hands in as far as
> connectivity...

Like I said before you're now giving extra information to your original
post, and as a result you're changing the context. If you'd have said that
steam is better for on-line play than WON, then I wouldn't disagreed with
you. However your original statement was in the context of all online play.
Remember, if you know the IP address of a server then a lot of games will
let you connect directly to a server. So the software wouldn't really have
to do anything other than send data over a TCP/IP connection to a known IP
address.

> You: "This won't be anything to do with steam. It will have more to
> do with the net code of the game, the distance to the server, and the
> datarate of your connection."
>
> You are inferring that after Steam authenticates, that's it...I
> disagree.

Fair enough. But to say that I'm making stuff up is well over the top.
Especially as by making such a sweeping statement you were also saying that
hardware doesn't come into it.

> It is more than a simple lobby. I had to use lobbies as an example
> because there is very little that I can think of that is similar to
> Steam. Steam is more than a simple lobby. It seems to be tied into
> the net code and how the game connects, rather than just a simple

But how is this better than none WON/Steam games? I'm not saying that
you're wrong. I'm actually curious.

>>> claimed hardware doesn't come into the picture.
>> Which you did.
>
> Where?

I made a statement about both net code and hardware and you said that I was
making stuff up.

--
Morgan.
----
* No boom today, boom tomorrow, there're always a boom tomorrow.

Mail: Morgan.Sales@ntlworld.com
Webpage: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/msales
!