Somethings that bug me about the BZ1 community...

[SnakeEye]

"there's no one playing now"

this isn't true, ppl play both bz and Dx's Bze. it's not many ppl but...the game is atleast still alive. Do any one know how many copies of battlezone activision sold? i'm getting the feeling that bz sold really bad. I thought battlezone's facebook group would attract more ppl but it seems not. I have posted about battlezone on a few swedish forums and the once who remember it really liked it. But I only got one player to actually come and play and he was for the most part a bz2 player.

[Psychedelic Rhino]

I guess you got caught up in selective comprehension.

I said for 'all practical purposes'.

Seeing as I play at least 10x more BZE than you, I think I have a grasp who plays and who doesn't

The community now is so utterly small that losing or gaining 2 or 3 people constitutes 10-30% of available players. When there's all of 9 people, at most, at anytime. . .in any lobby, you can subjectively say 'no one is playing'. And those that are, as I said, are well aware of the antics that have gone on in the BZ1 world. And please let's not go into the false numbers both at 'the other server' as well as the 911 server. I too contribute to it because I usually have 2 or 3 instances, as I have 2, sometimes 3 PCs going much of the time.

[SnakeEye]

it's hard to get new player to stay, one player may come but next week two old players might leave. another ploblem is that the community is split apart thanks to a few ppl and their differences.

[Firestorm29]

I'd argue against BZ1 selling poorly, if it did, BZ2 would never have existed.

And I was under the impression the reason the community fell apart was more because of hax. As for reasons why they go, I think I mentioned a few.

Part of the reason why I think a new server would help, it'd be one created with the intent of staying out of this whole split business.

[Ultraken]

BZ was a niche title but sold more than enough copies to break even. Though critically acclaimed, it wasn't a runaway success and appeared in several "best games nobody played" lists...

Take a niche title and add 13 years and the player base is naturally going to be small.

[HitchcockGreen]

I'd argue against BZ1 selling poorly, if it did, BZ2 would never have existed.

And I was under the impression the reason the community fell apart was more because of hax. As for reasons why they go, I think I mentioned a few.

Part of the reason why I think a new server would help, it'd be one created with the intent of staying out of this whole split business.

I really don't think it did sell that well and due in part to the lack of a marketing campaign. BZ1 got out there because it was a giveaway game with some graphics cards. That's how I got my first copy.
It was critically acclaimed - fantastic reviews, but in regards to how much money it pulled in for Activision/Atari I'd say it was a negligible amount. Remember that BZ2 came out fairly quickly after BZ1 and was probably pushed through to development because of that critical acclaim.

Both games have their loyal fanbases, and both I'd say are primarily made up of people who have been playing a long time. Yes, there are new players for both, for sure. I'm not as familiar with the BZ2 community as I don't think I've played it in several years now (my disk is still in immaculate condition, stashed away in storage atm).
BZ2 seems to have a more active development and modding community (or at least it did) but that may be due by and large to a few individuals' efforts to make the game easier to modify.
The other allure of BZ2 was it's level of DX support. I still remember buying bz2 then having to go out and hunt down a graphics card that would handle it.
All to much disappointment in the end (no offiense!)

[Ultraken]

BZ1's small development team and low cost certainly helped it break even; I think we had a little over a dozen full-time developers. These days only an XBLA, PSN, or indie game could be made with such a small team. (We got away with it mostly because we started with the nearly-complete Interstate '76.)

[Firestorm29]

BZ1's small development team and low cost certainly helped it break even; I think we had a little over a dozen full-time developers. These days only an XBLA, PSN, or indie game could be made with such a small team. (We got away with it mostly because we started with the nearly-complete Interstate '76.)

I noticed things like the key control was listed as Interstate '76. I could imagine that using that engine helped slice away alot of the dev time.

The idea that Ken and me were discussing through was for me to do a LP series on BZ. The objective is to spread this name through the LP community, even if it's little things like a link here and there, asking for tips on how to LP better. Maybe get some well known guys to give the game a whirl. I have a general idea of how I'd do this, but me and Ken came to an agreement not to do much with 1.5 until it's finalized, to help make the patching process easier.

BTW, does anyone have a listing of all the changes made in one place? I've lost track over the year or so what's changed and what hasn't.

[SnakeEye]

what is LP?

"BTW, does anyone have a listing of all the changes made in one place? I've lost track over the year or so what's changed and what hasn't."

download the latest executable, there should be a changelog in the .z7 archive.

[Psychedelic Rhino]

I have been befuddled for many years as to why BZ never caught on since it was regarded as genius *tips hat to Ultraken* and a genre changer.

The only answer I can come up with is those people who love RTS' may not have wanted to deal with the FPS aspect. . . and visa-versa. But I wonder how many of the FPS fans who never tried BZ realized BZ evolved to be 60-70% DM FPS.

[Firestorm29]

what is LP?

"BTW, does anyone have a listing of all the changes made in one place? I've lost track over the year or so what's changed and what hasn't."

download the latest executable, there should be a changelog in the .z7 archive.

An LP is a Let's Play. Basically, a play through of the game, with commentary. It can be used like a visual FAQ, a demo, or just something to get a chuckle off of. Really depends on one's style.

I have been befuddled for many years as to why BZ never caught on since it was regarded as genius *tips hat to Ultraken* and a genre changer.

The only answer I can come up with is those people who love RTS' may not have wanted to deal with the FPS aspect. . . and visa-versa. But I wonder how many of the FPS fans who never tried BZ realized BZ evolved to be 60-70% DM FPS.

I personally think it might have been ahead of it's time myself. Most RTS games I played around the 2000 time frame were more laid back, sorta didn't allow for fierce front-line combat. FPS dudes just wanted something to shoot, not think. (I know I've said this before...) I know nowadays when I mention it in passing, I've had alot of comments saying "Huh, that sounds interesting." I just think BZ needs to go viral.

Though I think BZ2 had an excellent idea melding the two by giving one command and others a tank and maybe a few units.

I'd ask for something like that in BZ1, but I could imagine it'd be a little tricky to give units to allied pilots like it is in BZ2.

[Apollo]

I was under the impression the reason the community fell apart was more because of hax. As for reasons why they go, I think I mentioned a few.

Part of the reason why I think a new server would help, it'd be one created with the intent of staying out of this whole split business.

That is not the reason the community fell apart. (There wasn't many hackers even around)

Not sure why you would think making another server could stay out of "this whole split business", it devides players into many locations thus defining a split.

I also can't see a server that bans players being neutral, Activision didn't ban anyone, that is the way it should be, atleast.. not at the server level. Banning at the server level is a recipe for abuse no matter the intent.

[Psychedelic Rhino]

I personally think the BZ numbers really began to fall when BZ2 was released. The other moderately big blow was the release of XP. Hackers definitely played a part, but probably a much smaller part than the problems of OS conflicts. Hacking was, and is, an ongoing problem with all games, so I think if that was all there was to deal with, BZ would still have several dozen playing. The video card issue didn't really begin to become a real issue till the nvidia 8 series around 2006-07, if I recall correctly.

The other blow to BZ was what this thread is mostly about, and that is the few aberrant individuals that had no job, was not in school and had nothing better to do than to ride roughshod on BZ players all day, every day week in and week out. But to be fair, BZ was well on the decline before that kicked into full swing, beginning in earnest around 2006.

[HitchcockGreen]

The only answer I can come up with is those people who love RTS' may not have wanted to deal with the FPS aspect. . . and visa-versa. But I wonder how many of the FPS fans who never tried BZ realized BZ evolved to be 60-70% DM FPS.

I don't know if that was it, exactly. There were TONS of stratters. I don't know if it was the decline of the community that drove them away but I suspect it played a part. I assume many of them went back to just SP or IA or other games altogether.

There may have been a lot of hard-core RTS players, and they could be readily identified by their use of the satellite view. That always screamed "starcraft player" to us. Many of them tended to be consummate base-sitters. They'd sit there commanding their forces from their unmoving tank and then get pissy when you'd just jump up an overlooking ridge and snipe them.

It was such a mixed bag of people I'm surprised the community didn't collapse in on itself faster.

I was never much of a DM'r so I can't comment on how that aspect of the community was. If at all, I played occasional games of stomp because it was ludicrously fun. You just couldn't take that type of game too seriously. If you weren't in that game style to have fun, you were just wasting everyone's time.

Strat was more difficult in the earlier days - even with that many players you had slower net speeds to contend with and lag was ALWAYS an issue. You could be playing a neighbour but once your game got up to a certain length, the sheer number of units in-game would run the playability down.

So I suspect that wearied a lot of players, and then they got hit with XP, which, from personal experience, crippled my ability to play until we got a hold of the xp patch.

Not sure why you would think making another server could stay out of "this whole split business", it devides players into many locations thus defining a split.

I also can't see a server that bans players being neutral, Activision didn't ban anyone, that is the way it should be, atleast.. not at the server level. Banning at the server level is a recipe for abuse no matter the intent

This is also true. But it also assumes that if another server shows up people are going to leave the one they are already on.
Let's propose a scenario;
Say someone from that other server gets banned for whatever reason (and I think we all know there doesn't really need to be one). They load up BZ, if they have the wherewithall to replace their servers.dat file, or make their copy 0777 ( ) they'll see another three. What they might not see is any players on those servers.
Eddy maintains the 911 servers for 1.4 and 1.5 sessions, as well as bze sessions. They're uncensored, unmoderated and open. In the past six months I may have seen a few people on them, and maybe one game that was probably for testing (excluding 1.5 session, which has more activity, and the bze session, which has it's regulars). That leaves the 1.4 sessions that are empty.
Unless there is something (i.e. a forum/website) that people will actively visit and participate in that promotes 'neutral' servers, they likely will never see any activity.
The other challenge you'll face opening up another server is that you'll surely be asked nicely to take it down. If you refuse, you may be labelled a "dummy" or a "hacker" and the smear campaign will begin.
Which isn't to say I don't support the idea, but given the dysfunctional state of the community, you'd have plenty of challenges against you.

The one thing I think BZC is doing right is having all games on the same session (albeit a different one from stock). That way, anyone who uses an installer from BZC will see other players no matter what version of the game they are in. This, at the very least, reinforces the sense of a community. Even if they aren't going to all play the same game together, they can chat, change the game they can make arrangements to play one version or the other.

Damnit I've gone off the rails again.

[Firestorm29]

I personally think the BZ numbers really began to fall when BZ2 was released. The other moderately big blow was the release of XP. Hackers definitely played a part, but probably a much smaller part than the problems of OS conflicts. Hacking was, and is, an ongoing problem with all games, so I think if that was all there was to deal with, BZ would still have several dozen playing. The video card issue didn't really begin to become a real issue till the nvidia 8 series around 2006-07, if I recall correctly.

/facepalm

I can't believe I totally forgot about this... I was around even when this happened, and made the move with my buddies. I think what stopped me from doing more BZ1 at the time was the downfall of HEAT.net. That was what I was gaming through.

The only answer I can come up with is those people who love RTS' may not have wanted to deal with the FPS aspect. . . and visa-versa. But I wonder how many of the FPS fans who never tried BZ realized BZ evolved to be 60-70% DM FPS.

I don't know if that was it, exactly. There were TONS of stratters. I don't know if it was the decline of the community that drove them away but I suspect it played a part. I assume many of them went back to just SP or IA or other games altogether.

There may have been a lot of hard-core RTS players, and they could be readily identified by their use of the satellite view. That always screamed "starcraft player" to us. Many of them tended to be consummate base-sitters. They'd sit there commanding their forces from their unmoving tank and then get pissy when you'd just jump up an overlooking ridge and snipe them.

It was such a mixed bag of people I'm surprised the community didn't collapse in on itself faster.

On HEAT.net, it was very hard to get a strat game going. The other game killer for me was a good chunk of the rooms after a year or so made having ISDN or Roadrunner mandatory. If you showed 56k pings, you got banned from that particular room. I also can't even remember the number of people who dropped the game because "Ewww, 56ker." MAG arena was one of those I never played when it was released due to that. That almost drove me out of the game right then and there.

I was never much of a DM'r so I can't comment on how that aspect of the community was. If at all, I played occasional games of stomp because it was ludicrously fun. You just couldn't take that type of game too seriously. If you weren't in that game style to have fun, you were just wasting everyone's time.

The guys I gamed with just called them sniper matches, never called it by it's real name. DM can be pretty fun, since you can make up multiple rules and get a completely different game. Like MAG safe, Bombers only, Sniper matches on Stomp... I think actual straight up DM matches were almost as rare at Strat in HEAT.

Not sure why you would think making another server could stay out of "this whole split business", it devides players into many locations thus defining a split.

I also can't see a server that bans players being neutral, Activision didn't ban anyone, that is the way it should be, atleast.. not at the server level. Banning at the server level is a recipe for abuse no matter the intent

This is also true. But it also assumes that if another server shows up people are going to leave the one they are already on.
Let's propose a scenario;
Say someone from that other server gets banned for whatever reason (and I think we all know there doesn't really need to be one). They load up BZ, if they have the wherewithall to replace their servers.dat file, or make their copy 0777 ( ) they'll see another three. What they might not see is any players on those servers.
Eddy maintains the 911 servers for 1.4 and 1.5 sessions, as well as bze sessions. They're uncensored, unmoderated and open. In the past six months I may have seen a few people on them, and maybe one game that was probably for testing (excluding 1.5 session, which has more activity, and the bze session, which has it's regulars). That leaves the 1.4 sessions that are empty.
Unless there is something (i.e. a forum/website) that people will actively visit and participate in that promotes 'neutral' servers, they likely will never see any activity.
The other challenge you'll face opening up another server is that you'll surely be asked nicely to take it down. If you refuse, you may be labelled a "dummy" or a "hacker" and the smear campaign will begin.
Which isn't to say I don't support the idea, but given the dysfunctional state of the community, you'd have plenty of challenges against you.

I've been to plenty of fan-based websites that state if a ban used properly isn't the recipe for abuse. A ban on someone who is being too disruptive is not corrupt. A ban because you got into a dispute with someone trying to troubleshoot a WiFi problem is. Personally, after seeing places like 4chan, I can't see an unmoderated server going well for too long.

And Apollo, this won't split the community. Why not? Because unlike some situations, I'm not going to block people coming in based on what server they come from, or they choose to associate with someone else. This is one thing that continues to baffle me is why people think once to go into one server, you've married it. To be frank, I see visiting one server or another the same as going from one town to another. If this is the only reason against it, then I see no reason why it shouldn't be attempted by someone who wishes it.

And Hitchcock, I've already been dummied by him before.

[qoute]
The one thing I think BZC is doing right is having all games on the same session (albeit a different one from stock). That way, anyone who uses an installer from BZC will see other players no matter what version of the game they are in. This, at the very least, reinforces the sense of a community. Even if they aren't going to all play the same game together, they can chat, change the game they can make arrangements to play one version or the other.

Damnit I've gone off the rails again. [/quote]

^ This is what I'm talking about. If you make a server a home, that doesn't mean you're forced to only play with those people by default. It's the guys who make the rules in that other home that make it so.