Halflife 2 question.....

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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...

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Shadows]

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

 

[Guest]

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...

 

[Guest]

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...

 

[Shadows]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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...

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Shadows]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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 //

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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?

 

[Guest]

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