|
Post by Evil Spock on Jul 15, 2007 10:36:02 GMT -5
Just trying to feel out what folks think.
Six ship stacks would mean always team combat. AI running a stack is not acceptable as we discovered in the Empires at War campaign.
|
|
|
Post by Head Fur Shalafi on Jul 15, 2007 14:05:48 GMT -5
I'd be for it AS long as testing proves everyone can still fly
|
|
|
Post by Maximus Plasma on Jul 16, 2007 20:48:31 GMT -5
Six stack may prove a bit much for lag . but again won'y know till we try it .
|
|
|
Post by Evil Spock on Jul 17, 2007 7:37:28 GMT -5
Yes we have a year for testing, and I am curious.
We certainly broke it with 18 ship battles. I am curious how 12 ship battles go. I think Postman will have issues and am looking for a test night with him to try.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Hellus, Council Chairman on Jul 17, 2007 11:02:00 GMT -5
I'm home today, but the honey-do list is killing me
|
|
|
Post by ISN War Reporter (Embedded) on Jul 17, 2007 11:05:45 GMT -5
Ahhh, a familiar struggle...Honey-Do...a deadly beastie! (from the Garage Bound One on Cleaning Detail)
|
|
|
Post by Maximus Plasma on Jul 17, 2007 20:54:56 GMT -5
i think the honey do list is best compared too fighting medusa, for evry task you finish anthor takes it's place
|
|
|
Post by ISN War Reporter (Embedded) on Jul 18, 2007 13:36:39 GMT -5
Trouble with Tribbles....... ;D
|
|
|
Post by DeathFrog on Jul 18, 2007 15:40:40 GMT -5
there is no such thing as a "honeydonelist"
Also, hmm. 12 ships, in plasma races only, with no carriers, sure.
12 ships, drones, fighters, not gonna happen is my guess.
Although I was in one some 5 years ago with a 9 ship stack limit, and speed 6 games. It held for some of the 56kers, like I was then, but mostly you needed highspeed even at speed 6. BTW, some games were at speed 4 to hold while others never held and we then had to break it down to 4 matches. This was done by flying 3 games of 3v3, and then taking the leftovers and flying them vs each other. Each team secretly put in writing what 3 ships they chose(using ezini), and the other team documented(wrote down) what was taken on the other team to verify for the 3 matches.
|
|
|
Post by Count Blademaster on Jul 19, 2007 1:43:47 GMT -5
Ok, a few things on network gaming so we can all get rid of the old myths. 1st: Games really use very little bandwidth, in general they all use under 100 kbps (thats kilo BITS per second). SFC in particular, being an old game (with an even older multiplayer engine) was made in the time where modem 56k was the fastest popular connection. 2nd: What does this means? That matches SHOULD scale really well. Meaning that a huge 12 ship battle shouldn't take more than 200 kbps or so which we all have (I guess). 3rd: If this is so, why do we get lag so often? Cause lag is not a problem of bandwidth. Lets think about what the network does when you fire a phaser: 1st your computer sends a tiny package with the instruction to the host machine that you've fired that phaser, this is a very tiny package a few bits long. 2nd: the host machine calculates damage and then sends you back another package with damage, sheild reaction, etc. Even in heated battles there should be no more than a dozen or so packages per player traveling on the network. So what makes lag you say? The time those packages take to reach you. This has nothing to do with bandwidth, which is a measure of how many packages you can receive at the same time. The time a tiny packages takes to travel between two computers on the Internet is called "latency" or, as you may have heard: "ping" (cause its measured by "pinging" the other computer with a tiny package and measuring the time ). So in theory, if Shalafi and me were both at the same distance from the host, both my 256 kbps and his gazillion kbps connection should have the same performance when playing games like SFC. There are many other aspects involved such as distance, medium, traffic, compression, but lets leave it at that. There is one detail though. The traffic the host must handle increases a lot when there is more ships and players. That is why we should be picky about hosts. And remember there are good and bad days on the net. Especially for me that I'm so far away and the data has to hop around a lot of traffic centers.
|
|
|
Post by Supreme Leader Vanguard on Jul 19, 2007 7:53:33 GMT -5
Do 56kers still exist in the gaming world?
|
|
|
Post by Count Blademaster on Jul 20, 2007 2:08:17 GMT -5
The problem of 56kers is not their bandwidth limit per se. Its the modem they use. Modems (Modulator-Demodulator) process the digital data your computer is trying to send to the internet and convert it to audio that can travel through a regular phone line. The problem is that the analog processes the data goes through take a lot of time (hundreds of miliseconds) to complete, and thus adds a lot of latency.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Hellus, Council Chairman on Jul 20, 2007 8:29:01 GMT -5
Whew, Too tech for me
|
|
|
Post by ISN War Reporter (Embedded) on Jul 20, 2007 17:06:05 GMT -5
WOW! Andres, I'm an IT guy and couldn't have said it better, in fact couldn't have even said it. I'm impressed, when my German, Polish, and French are good enough to so effectively convey such information I'll be probably like 90 years old...WoW!
|
|
|
Post by Head Fur Shalafi on Jul 20, 2007 17:07:27 GMT -5
The modem has to think for a split second before it can send the info on to the other players but a split second can mean death lol
|
|