Battlezone Forums

Zax wrote:

GSH wrote:Given that Ken would be doing all the work if switching matchmaking servers, my comment is only a suggestion. But, ~12 years ago, going w/ Gamespy for BZ2 was the right decision compared to whatever matchmaking provider Dark Reign 2 had, etc. Gamespy has remained running and added features over time. Just about everything else in 1998/1999 has bitten the dust.

-- GSH

It's more of the unsaid things that you haven't seen. The other crowd which we don't see is largely the main group testing it. Give news like that and it will be spun as "programmer tries to destroy bz1.net server" which is his testing base. That being gone = lack of progress.

And they would revolt, too. It isn't an if.

Well they specifically being a couple of individuals and a number of others who may go along with it. But if Ken got behind the idea and wouldn't be deterred by certain individuals then there really wouldn't be much anyone could do, is there?
Players are going to flock to a stable environment, especially if it has built in features like those mentioned above without anyone having to download/install additional software or have to put up with server politics.

The Gamespy idea is actually a good one because it guarantees a neutral server environment which has been the major issue the last few years.
Ken has also stated he's just about wrapping up 1.5 and I can guarantee he won't be changing up BZ to use gamespy instead of anet in the patch...not this one, anyway (if at all).

Once 1.5 is done (which we are assured is not that far off) Ken has stated he wants to take a break and do some work on other projects, but has also expressed interested in doing a 1.5.1 or maybe 1.6.

I'm no programmer, but I would assume such a fundamental change to the source code would be a pretty big undertaking. Even if Ken were to take on that project it might take longer than 1.5 has

Now changing BZ to Gamespy, does this mean that Anet must be removed? Isn't there a way to add it in as another protocol.

I'm not sure if it'd be THAT much of a overhaul now I think of it. It did use HEAT.net which is essentially an older version of Gamespy. I can't see it needing a total redo.

Zax wrote:

GSH wrote:Given that Ken would be doing all the work if switching matchmaking servers, my comment is only a suggestion. But, ~12 years ago, going w/ Gamespy for BZ2 was the right decision compared to whatever matchmaking provider Dark Reign 2 had, etc. Gamespy has remained running and added features over time. Just about everything else in 1998/1999 has bitten the dust.

-- GSH

It's more of the unsaid things that you haven't seen. The other crowd which we don't see is largely the main group testing it. Give news like that and it will be spun as "programmer tries to destroy bz1.net server" which is his testing base. That being gone = lack of progress.

And they would revolt, too. It isn't an if.

It's a good idea but there isn't a need for it atm. I think anet will still work in linux for many years to come but if this kind of thing isn't done sooner, rather than later, you can end up sol. I would like to see the lobby remain if it ever was switched over. (fyi I'll still support Ken if he did switch to gamespy)

As for their revolt, they tried that before and Ken told them it would book end the development. (you can't push a string)

Ken! do it.

General BlackDragon wrote:Ken! do it.

Peer pressure!

This is the theoretical flying patch for bz1.

Apples and oranges.
The flying bug is an exploit, anet is not. And most people should like the gamespy idea, if Ken was to do it. (with exception of those that lose control of their subjects)

Gamespy could let us have in game voice over ip i believe.

Apollo wrote: Gamespy could let us have in game voice over ip i believe.

Yes, BZ2 has it.

Gamespy support would be a long-term project at best and I haven't looked into it yet. I might implement it as an Anet wrapper transport library so it can coexist with other Anet transports. (That's how Anet supported Heat.)

Apollo wrote:Apples and oranges.
The flying bug is an exploit, anet is not. And most people should like the gamespy idea, if Ken was to do it. (with exception of those that lose control of their subjects)

Gamespy could let us have in game voice over ip i believe.

Completely missed the point.

It would be the flying bug in which it separates the community by patch even worse than it is now. Except it would split a fractured community into a 3 way fractured community.

Zax wrote:Completely missed the point.

It would be the flying bug in which it separates the community by patch even worse than it is now. Except it would split a fractured community into a 3 way fractured community.

I'm not so sure.
It will give players a different option from what has been the traditional server ecosystem since the demise of heat.
heat was far more popular than the anet servers while it was around.

If everyone sees a separate server system in gamespy, then they may also see being able to play without having to worry about the **** politics.

Zax wrote:

Apollo wrote:Apples and oranges.
The flying bug is an exploit, anet is not. And most people should like the gamespy idea, if Ken was to do it. (with exception of those that lose control of their subjects)

Gamespy could let us have in game voice over ip i believe.

Completely missed the point.

It would be the flying bug in which it separates the community by patch even worse than it is now. Except it would split a fractured community into a 3 way fractured community.

I don't see it happening that way unless Dx or Eddy starts banning people who using gamespy.

That flying bug is a gameplay thing, gamespy is just another connection option.

Firestorm29 wrote:I don't see it happening that way unless Dx or Eddy starts banning people who using gamespy.

That flying bug is a gameplay thing, gamespy is just another connection option.

That's not going to happen. Eddy certainly isn't going to ban anyone for using someone elses' server (gamespy or otherwise) and he has other, very good reasons for this that are not related to battlezone.

Zax wrote: Completely missed the point.

It would be the flying bug in which it separates the community by patch even worse than it is now. Except it would split a fractured community into a 3 way fractured community.

I get your point, it's not the same thing.
Battlezone is already split hmm.. 6 or more ways, gamespy won't make any difference, it's just another server.

Firestorm29 wrote:I don't see it happening that way unless Dx or Eddy starts banning people who using gamespy.

That flying bug is a gameplay thing, gamespy is just another connection option.

Don't you mean Spock and Spectre as that is what they do now and the people you brought up never banned anyone for what server they play on nor does anyone but the server owner have control to ban.

Apollo wrote:

Firestorm29 wrote:I don't see it happening that way unless Dx or Eddy starts banning people who using gamespy.

That flying bug is a gameplay thing, gamespy is just another connection option.

Don't you mean Spock and Spectre as that is what they do now and the people you brought up never banned anyone for what server they play on nor does anyone but the server owner have control to ban.

You misunderstood me.

What I was attempting to tell Zax was; for a 3-way split, either the Gamespy or 911 guys would have to put into play the same politic games that's been happening for awhile now to force a decision. I don't think neither would care if you moonlight with another service to multiplay.