Topic: For whoever locked the GAW thread  (Read 6997 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

CptCastrin

  • Guest
Re: For whoever locked the GAW thread
« Reply #20 on: March 13, 2004, 11:41:24 pm »
Quote:

Quote:



But that would be an MMOTSG and few have the kind of server resources necessary...  





But I thought everyone had a Cray up on blocks in the back yard  




Nope, only have a AS400 ... now if I could run the kit on *nix ...


...


and no, I'm not kidding ... I do have an AS400 ... along with 2 dual CPU servers and a bunch of other stuff. But the AS400 hasn't been run for a while and I'm a tad out of practice regarding it. But it has enough moxy to do the job ... if it could run the kit that is ... which it can't.  

   

Maxillius

  • Guest
Re: For whoever locked the GAW thread
« Reply #21 on: March 14, 2004, 01:51:13 am »
So tell me, O Castrin, Keeper of the Machines....






What's an AS400?  

ActiveX

  • Guest
Re: For whoever locked the GAW thread
« Reply #22 on: March 14, 2004, 05:42:45 am »
REALLY big scientific calculator...

Proximo

  • Guest
Re: For whoever locked the GAW thread
« Reply #23 on: March 14, 2004, 11:35:10 am »
Quote:

So tell me, O Castrin, Keeper of the Machines....






What's an AS400?    




And all of those IT geeks who have had to convert EBCDIC to ASCII fall of their chairs  

But seriously,  If the servers are the bottleneck; remove them from the equation.  Since this is all wishful thinking, convert the system from client/server ( what you have now ) to a Grid/P2P model.  All systems in the grid provide CPU and memory to the pool and the client machines talk to each other; the larger the number of players the the faster the game shold run ( Theoretically ).  The server only holds snapshots for persistence of the game when users drop offline.

Just a thought  

ActiveX

  • Guest
Re: For whoever locked the GAW thread
« Reply #24 on: March 14, 2004, 11:43:02 am »
Mainframing is insecure though...

Crimmy

  • Guest
Re: For whoever locked the GAW thread
« Reply #25 on: March 14, 2004, 12:31:29 pm »
Quote:

Mainframing is insecure though...  




For a new game with hundreds of thousand of potential hackers...yes...

For an old game with a few hundred known active players....I dont think so....

 

ActiveX

  • Guest
Re: For whoever locked the GAW thread
« Reply #26 on: March 14, 2004, 12:38:53 pm »
Quote:

Quote:

Mainframing is insecure though...  




For a new game with hundreds of thousand of potential hackers...yes...

For an old game with a few hundred known active players....I dont think so....

 




You got yerself a point...

Dizzy

  • Guest
Re: For whoever locked the GAW thread
« Reply #27 on: March 15, 2004, 07:04:49 am »
Quote:


6. Complete overhaul in fighters. A seperate essay in itself, but mainly getting rid of fighter regen, making them smarter, ships having the correct number of fighters, etc
 





I cant really follow this thread, but taking away deck crews solves the regen ftr issue, and balancing that SFC2 change would be to mb add the correct # of ftrs? The sh*tplist supports 4x ftr squads only, but each squad can hold 6. So that 24 ftrs max.

Oh, and DH already did the PF's for all races.

What are drogues? immobile ftrs or something? I can do that...

Hey, max, I wont be following this thread much, mb u can PM me about whatever if u want.

SSCF_LeRoy

  • Guest
Re: For whoever locked the GAW thread
« Reply #28 on: March 15, 2004, 08:44:39 am »
Actually, Dizzy, one could have up to seven fighters per squadron for a total of 28 fighters. Anything more than that doesn't work. Fighters won't launch if squad count is too high.  

Dogmatix!

  • Guest
Re: For whoever locked the GAW thread
« Reply #29 on: March 15, 2004, 09:12:57 am »
Quote:

Quote:


6. Complete overhaul in fighters. A seperate essay in itself, but mainly getting rid of fighter regen, making them smarter, ships having the correct number of fighters, etc
 





I cant really follow this thread, but taking away deck crews solves the regen ftr issue, and balancing that SFC2 change would be to mb add the correct # of ftrs? The sh*tplist supports 4x ftr squads only, but each squad can hold 6. So that 24 ftrs max.

Oh, and DH already did the PF's for all races.

What are drogues? immobile ftrs or something? I can do that...

Hey, max, I wont be following this thread much, mb u can PM me about whatever if u want.  





Yeah DH did it already...but wouldn't it be nice not to have to jump through wild hoops to have something like that?


I didn't play on his quickie PF server....but did that go without any bugs or oddities?

Kroma_BaSyl

  • Guest
Re: For whoever locked the GAW thread
« Reply #30 on: March 15, 2004, 09:46:10 am »
Quote:

Quote:

JOIN MISSION IN PROGRESS!!!!!!!!!!!!  




Hmmmm....

wouldn't that require some serious server power thus limiting the number of players who could be hosts because of the prohibitive cost of the server needed?  




Not if written and tested properly. The number of DB and server transactions is actually pretty low, if properly coded there is no reason an average PC shouldn't be able to host a server. There is definitley quite a bit of DB code optimization that could be done.

Dizzy

  • Guest
Re: For whoever locked the GAW thread
« Reply #31 on: March 15, 2004, 01:58:39 pm »
Its a shiplist thing.

The ships are all there. You hust have to pick the one you want in the yard. What could be easier? And yeah, DH was brilliant. It all worked.

The_Infiltrator

  • Guest
Re: For whoever locked the GAW thread
« Reply #32 on: March 17, 2004, 08:13:10 pm »
Quote:

Quote:


6. Complete overhaul in fighters. A seperate essay in itself, but mainly getting rid of fighter regen, making them smarter, ships having the correct number of fighters, etc
 





I cant really follow this thread, but taking away deck crews solves the regen ftr issue, and balancing that SFC2 change would be to mb add the correct # of ftrs? The sh*tplist supports 4x ftr squads only, but each squad can hold 6. So that 24 ftrs max.

Oh, and DH already did the PF's for all races.

What are drogues? immobile ftrs or something? I can do that...

Hey, max, I wont be following this thread much, mb u can PM me about whatever if u want.  




The IC has 40 fighters. It doesn't work. And the reason that you have fighter regeneration is because of 2 reasons:

1. Reduces lag due to less units
2. Because fighter AI is totally abysmal. I've been debating if I should write out (again) how to fix that, but it's at least an hour's worth of typing and probabally 2. Very annoyingly the old forums are gone so I can't just link to when I wrote it out last time.

The ideal situation would have fighters that would be intelligent, be able to be controlled by the player easily, and most importantly, have easily predictible behavior. Plus of course having a game that could support many many objects over the internet. That would allow the elimination of the cheesy regeneration and the restoration of the normal scheme of things.

As for drogues, that's a J2 thing which I haven't gotten in the mail yet. So I don't know. Unless it's a name for a ECM drone that I haven't heard.  

Rod O'neal

  • Guest
Re: For whoever locked the GAW thread
« Reply #33 on: March 18, 2004, 02:05:02 am »
From module J2,
Drogues: First developed by the Klingons in 2278 (Y178) as an outgrowth of mech link technology, these were quickly copied by other races and came into widespread use by 2280 (Y180). The basic idea was a structure that could be towed about 5km behind the ship on a "tractor-tether". The drogue could then be used for various purposes (launching drones or plasma torpedoes, electronic warfare, and other purposes). There were several types of drogues, each with their own unique abilities.  

Dizzy

  • Guest
Re: For whoever locked the GAW thread
« Reply #34 on: March 18, 2004, 06:05:05 am »
So basically, you have an immobile PF that you can trac and tow round with you that fires stuff at the enemy?You could have a ship carry 4x drogues and since PF's are hot playable, you could trac the mother ship and it could fly along tractored to all 4x... That'd be cool. Wonder how much 4x drogues would slow a ship down?

Mr. Hypergol

  • Guest
Re: For whoever locked the GAW thread
« Reply #35 on: March 18, 2004, 10:02:20 am »
 
Quote:

 Same on you. I and Hyper didn't even have a chance to begin attempting to preach to the masses yet.




Instead of locking threads, perhaps Taldren should be locking in a deal with Paramount and a new publisher to make Galaxies at War.

Since Trek doesn't seem to be doing well these days, perhaps Paramount should hand the franchise over to Steven Cole of ADB.  If a guy can keep a board game going strong for over 20 years, why not give him a shot at a T.V. show?  At least let him port his game over to computer.....what's the harm in that?

Oh by the way.......The Infiltrator is right on the money.  
« Last Edit: March 18, 2004, 10:05:48 am by Mr. Hypergol »

Rod O'neal

  • Guest
Re: For whoever locked the GAW thread
« Reply #36 on: March 18, 2004, 10:53:00 am »
I feel that Paramount is stuck in the, "We won't make  enough money from XYZ to want to be bothered to do it." mentality to issue a license that ADB or Taldren could afford for GaW. Not to mention the years of bad blood between Paramount and ADB that would have to be set aside for them to be able to work it out. Some of these big companies IMO need to look at Walmart and South West Air, for example, on how they're doing business. Walmart started building stores in markets that the major retailers said that they couldn't make  enough  money from. Now they are the largest retailer on the planet. South West Air charges rates that the other airlines believe they couldn't make  enough money from. Throughout the airline crisis since 9/11 South West has been the only profitable airline and hasn't had to lay off a single employee. In todays business enviroment there isn't a single dollar that's not worth earning. If a company can't figure out a way to earn that dollar profitably then they need to realize that it's their fault, not the consumers, and figure out a way to do it.    

DH123

  • Guest
Re: For whoever locked the GAW thread
« Reply #37 on: March 18, 2004, 06:05:49 pm »
Quote:



The ships are all there. You hust have to pick the one you want in the yard. What could be easier? And yeah, DH was brilliant. It all worked.  




I stole the method from Mortificous Grin and Rod O'Neil.   They figured it out, I was just the first to throw up a D2 with PFs for all.  

The_Infiltrator

  • Guest
For whoever locked the GAW thread
« Reply #38 on: March 12, 2004, 03:54:47 am »
Same on you. I and Hyper didn't even have a chance to begin attempting to preach to the masses yet.

Having said that, never lose an opportunity! GAW would hopefully include:

1. Missing races (Tholians, Seltorians, The 312 Neo-Tholian squadron, Andromedans)
2. Reserve power that actually works as it's supposed to
3. Plasma bolts, plasma sabot, plasma carronade, working dual purpose plasma-D
4. Stasis generator ships
5. G racks that work the way originally designed and don't cause balance problems
6. Complete overhaul in fighters. A seperate essay in itself, but mainly getting rid of fighter regen, making them smarter, ships having the correct number of fighters, etc
7. Advanced capability to mod things
8. Mission editors where you don't have to feel like you need to sacrifice a chicken to get a working mission
9. Option to have single internals
10. Option to have SFB like shield regen (IE, none unless you allocate power to do so)
11. Missing weapon fire modes (direct fire hellbore comes immeaditely to mind, there are others)
12. Specialty drones (swordfish, starfish, even the nearly useless stingray)
13. Missing drone types (Type-IIIXX magnum, Type-VI)
14. Missing drone racks (E rack, H rack)
15. Ability to customize drone loadouts so you can fire what you want, ability to customize drones as SFB
16. Working scout sensors - scouts are an enormous force multiplier in SFB
17. Ability to lend ECM/ECCM
18. Fighter pods
19. Ready racks
20. Scrapping the Dwhatever concept and coming up with something like F&E - IE, where economy is a big deal, limited production capacity, etc
21. Much greater numbers of players in a mission at the same time. Ideally 10 per side or so would be nice (IE, 20 human players at once)
22. And a totally new UI and scripting system to make all of this much easier to use.

For starters anyway.  Just what I can think up in less than 5 minutes.
 

Teeth_03

  • Guest
Re: For whoever locked the GAW thread
« Reply #39 on: March 12, 2004, 05:40:14 am »
Thats nice, but did ya get the clue that maybe people dont want ya to talk about it nemore,I really dont care,but someone must have if they locked that thread.

Just to make one comment on the subject tho,its a real pain on the arse having non-playable races,so make em all playable