CnCNet 5 is eviiiil n' stuff

[Volksjager]

Can we make this more like Kali where there is a "main lan lobby" and private rooms can be created if needed? This way perhaps we could still launch games without having to use an additional interface (which requires installation of new programs and adds an overlay, which are burdens when  running this on public computers.)

 

Also the idea that you have to re-launch the game for every game you start may sound tempting but could be a disaster. With 50 or so maps in my RA directory, starting minira already takes 30 seconds. I would imagine someone using discs or fullra would have even more trouble. Once a game is over, are the players going to be thrown back into the lan lobby? If that is the case then allowing for a "main room" and private rooms seems to make more sense since the people who are playing with themselves can continue to do so without quitting the game. I could imagine (if possible) having the lobby messages connected into the custom interface so you could either stay in the RA lobby and chat or see those messages and chat outside.

 

Currently not enough people are even aware of this so it would be good to spread the word.

[hifi]

Can we make this more like Kali where there is a "main lan lobby" and private rooms can be created if needed? This way perhaps we could still launch games without having to use an additional interface (which requires installation of new programs and adds an overlay, which are burdens when  running this on public computers.)

 

There is no LAN lobby at all, it is completely controlled by the browser. I'm also taking portability into account and will provide a way to launch the game through the browser with some manual work without installing anything into the Windows registry. It will probably involve copying and pasting the launch command into cncnet.exe.

 

Also the idea that you have to re-launch the game for every game you start may sound tempting but could be a disaster. With 50 or so maps in my RA directory, starting minira already takes 30 seconds. I would imagine someone using discs or fullra would have even more trouble.

 

I'm also planning distributing a small RA just for CnCNet play that is independant from your single player game. There will be no maps in the game, they will be transferred on-demand when the game is launched. This will keep the games consistent and supplying updates to the game code is easier.

 

Once a game is over, are the players going to be thrown back into the lan lobby? If that is the case then allowing for a "main room" and private rooms seems to make more sense since the people who are playing with themselves can continue to do so without quitting the game. I could imagine (if possible) having the lobby messages connected into the custom interface so you could either stay in the RA lobby and chat or see those messages and chat outside.

 

There is no in-game lobby at all, none, zip. The game will directly start when it is launched and it will quit after you have finished. The spawner code what I call it is already in ask-and-you'll-get-it-semi-public testing that does the game side of stuff and it seems to work well.

 

CnCNet 4 will probably run in the background for quite some time so if you really insist using the old way, it will still be there. You haven't yet seen the final product so it's a bit early to shoot it down, don't you think?

[Volksjager]

"There is no LAN lobby at all, it is completely controlled by the browser. I'm also taking portability into account and will provide a way to launch the game through the browser with some manual work without installing anything into the Windows registry. It will probably involve copying and pasting the launch command into cncnet.exe."

 

This might be the biggest objection for the people that prefers a Red Alert Lan Lobby.

 

"CnCNet 4 will probably run in the background for quite some time so if you really insist using the old way, it will still be there. You haven't yet seen the final product so it's a bit early to shoot it down, don't you think?"

 

I am not shooting anything down but this idea is quite new and foreign so I am trying to clearly picture it in my mind first.

However, when this was brought to the RA lobby there *was* a swarm of objections for the lack of a LAN lobby.

 

This brings me to the *reason* on why I was suggesting the Kali like interface: This may achieve what we want (i.e., control over rooms) *without* having to resort to a new interface that some people may find objectionable...

 

"I'm also planning distributing a small RA just for CnCNet play that is independant from your single player game. There will be no maps in the game, they will be transferred on-demand when the game is launched. This will keep the games consistent and supplying updates to the game code is easier."

I suppose if you keep a separate map directory things will be made easier. Does RA still transfer maps using its own system whenever the game starts? From all this it sounds like this is actually a really great system maybe for C&C but maybe redundant for Red Alert.

 

"There is no in-game lobby at all, none, zip. The game will directly start when it is launched and it will quit after you have finished. The spawner code what I call it is already in ask-and-you'll-get-it-semi-public testing that does the game side of stuff and it seems to work well."

 

So I have heard about Heat.net doing something like this but how do you ensure game quits after it's finished? I must say it sounds like magic but does it have anything to do with the code used for quitting after an Internet game?

 

"This will keep the games consistent and supplying updates to the game code is easier."

 

Now wait a minute... updates to the GAME code? If you are actually talking about modifying the game itself then there might again be a whole swarm of objections from players who shudder at such an idea. This does seem to detract away from CNCNET's original motto of "CNCNET works with your game, not the other way around." 

 

 

 

[hifi]

This might be the biggest objection for the people that prefers a Red Alert Lan Lobby.

 

WHY? It's just meant for LAN games. It has no neat features like WOL had. You will have completely private rooms and games in the new web interface, it will not be anything less than WOL.

 

However, when this was brought to the RA lobby there *was* a swarm of objections for the lack of a LAN lobby.

 

I doubt they undrestand what it means, nor you yet.

 

This brings me to the *reason* on why I was suggesting the Kali like interface: This may achieve what we want (i.e., control over rooms) *without* having to resort to a new interface that some people may find objectionable...

 

You are ok with another application but not with a web interface? Didn't you just say installing new software to handle games was a bad thing?

 

I suppose if you keep a separate map directory things will be made easier. Does RA still transfer maps using its own system whenever the game starts? From all this it sounds like this is actually a really great system maybe for C&C but maybe redundant for Red Alert.

 

Maps are transferred from the website, not within the game. It ensures everyone will get the map without delay and allow us to have a huge online database and to even add automatic rules modifications on-the-fly like Tiberium Alert. No maps are *stored* in the client, a temporary file is used instead.

 

So I have heard about Heat.net doing something like this but how do you ensure game quits after it's finished? I must say it sounds like magic but does it have anything to do with the code used for quitting after an Internet game?

 

I have made a modification to the game that allows me to do this. It can even start a skirmish game or any scenario for that matter. We could even have custom online campaigns with it that just keep track of your progress and sends the next campaign map when you finish one. It's a neat magic box.

 

Now wait a minute... updates to the GAME code? If you are actually talking about modifying the game itself then there might again be a whole swarm of objections from players who shudder at such an idea. This does seem to detract away from CNCNET's original motto of "CNCNET works with your game, not the other way around." 

 

What motto is that? Never heard of it or at least signed it. I can and I have updated the game code, heard of 3.03p series? No one objected about using that. In fact, it is packaged in redalert1.com package and most players use it. The new spawner code is included in 3.03p4 and works side-by-side with LAN and WOL, you don't need to use it at all.

 

I understand that people are ALWAYS against change regardless what it is. You just need to sell them enough good things about the new interface for them to understand it's the way of the future and in fact better than the old one.

[Volksjager]

Hifi, first I wish to thank you for all the efforts you have put into making this possible, without which we wouldn't have today.  However, I feel like perhaps you are slightly detached from the general attitude of the players. 

WHY? It's just meant for LAN games. It has no neat features like WOL had. You will have completely private rooms and games in the new web interface, it will not be anything less than WOL.

The thing is, people prefer the current LAN lobby right now and they wouldn't care less for the WOL interface. I am not objecting to the possibility of a new interface that can also be used but to use it *exclusively* is too much too soon.

 

I doubt they undrestand what it means, nor you yet.

I am quite sure I understand this. It is like launching games from WCHAT with maps selected directly into game.

 

Maps are transferred from the website, not within the game. It ensures everyone will get the map without delay and allow us to have a huge online database and to even add automatic rules modifications on-the-fly like Tiberium Alert. No maps are *stored* in the client, a temporary file is used instead.

This actually sounds like a terrible idea. What if I just made a map that I wanted to test on the fly? I suppose I would have to upload that first and you probably would have to set the server up so that no duplicate filenames are done. There are at least 10 different variations of P4 with different names but same map. There are also many maps with the same name but different content. For may mods it's not simply a rules modification but also graphics, sounds modification, etc so the only sane course of action is for the players to download the 20MB file ONCE and not every time he launches the game. However, I do favor the possibility of on the fly custom rules loading (especially if the launcher *denotes* the mod used) so that it would be like WCHAT where you know the game type (Aftermath, Regular, etc) right away.

 

 

I have made a modification to the game that allows me to do this. It can even start a skirmish game or any scenario for that matter. We could even have custom online campaigns with it that just keep track of your progress and sends the next campaign map when you finish one. It's a neat magic box.

Now this is actually a neat thing and maybe in the future we can even implement something like the World Domination Tour or Coop campaign games.

 

What motto is that? Never heard of it or at least signed it. I can and I have updated the game code, heard of 3.03p series? No one objected about using that. In fact, it is packaged in redalert1.com package and most players use it. The new spawner code is included in 3.03p4 and works side-by-side with LAN and WOL, you don't need to use it at all.

 

Now I have actually seen that either in a readme file or on someone's website (ehy's or this one? I forgot but I definitely have seen something like that.) You have definitely missed the debates over the rules.ini fix and even the 3.03p series. The fact is that OVER HALF the people in the 20 something people in the lobby *vehemently* objected to updating rules.ini and the 3.03p patches may still be open to debate (on the side, currently my main objection to that is that although it doesn't make the game not crash anymore, the game actually becomes unplayable with broken builds, so it's not exactly a solution. IE someone could spam submarines or helis and max out units and then the game engine would be stuck.)

 

You are ok with another application but not with a web interface? Didn't you just say installing new software to handle games was a bad thing?

The different thing about Kali is that it's a Chat and virtual Network interface. Once the game is launched the game runs like it's on a LAN. It doesn't strong hand the user into a new launcher.

 

 

I understand that people are ALWAYS against change regardless what it is. You just need to sell them enough good things about the new interface for them to understand it's the way of the future and in fact better than the old one.

When you tout something as being better (which may or may not be true) and way of the future (a self fulfilling prophecy, since you develop ) I don't really see why these changes must be forced on (which may become the case if you start loading rules.ini that make the game incompatible with existing versions) My main objection to a web interface is:

1) Too complicated. CNCNET is used currently over other services like Tunngle, Kali because it doesn't require a launcher. I think despite early speed issues, the ease of interface is what really killed Tunngle.

2) It works with any version of Red Alert that the *client* chooses, and in this case the commonly used 3.03 that are compatible with each other, not anything special.

 

 

The point I really want to bring forth is what prompted the development of version 5? The only people that complained about version 4 are pros who think new players and occasionally spammers ruin the game. The vast majority of players didn't actually think there is much wrong with the current situation.  I wouldn't really object to any of this and would be glad to experiment if we work under the premise of not making the game incompatible with the existing versions, which I am not being assured of at all.

With the possible exception of Ehy it seems like none of the people who actually regularly play this game in its classical multiplayer form are having any input or even getting involved with this development process. I am not exaggerating when I say there are many people who cringe at the idea that the game exe file is being modified but do not know enough about it.

I would really welcome the idea of a third party interface (not necessarily web) that allows me to chat with the people in the RA LAN lobby and launch straight into the game (so that I do not have to open RA and then tab out) provided that it remains fully compatible with the existing game interface.

[FunkyFr3sh]

Quote

The thing is, people prefer the current LAN lobby right now and they wouldn't care less for the WOL interface. I am not objecting to the possibility of a new interface that can also be used but to use it *exclusively* is too much too soon.

 

the most people DO NOT prefer the bad LAN lobby cause you can't mute spammers and you can't create private games/ban people from your games...

 

I told you before that we could create a poll and let people decide, but your answer was that you don't want any polls. Cause you know this poll would go 98% to 2% against you

 

 

Quote

This actually sounds like a terrible idea. What if I just made a map that I wanted to test on the fly? I suppose I would have to upload that first and you probably would have to set the server up so that no duplicate filenames are done. There are at least 10 different variations of P4 with different names but same map. There are also many maps with the same name but different content. For may mods it's not simply a rules modification but also graphics, sounds modification, etc so the only sane course of action is for the players to download the 20MB file ONCE and not every time he launches the game. However, I do favor the possibility of on the fly custom rules loading (especially if the launcher *denotes* the mod used) so that it would be like WCHAT where you know the game type (Aftermath, Regular, etc) right away.

 

You just make the map and it's uploaded within 1sec, it's just a few kb .. so no problem at all

There can be 100 different p4 maps, you just play the one you want .. nothing will change

This is for vanilla RA, not for mods.. Mods will have their own websites and downloads like it always was

 

 

Quote

Now I have actually seen that either in a readme file or on someone's website (ehy's or this one? I forgot but I definitely have seen something like that.) You have definitely missed the debates over the rules.ini fix and even the 3.03p series. The fact is that OVER HALF the people in the 20 something people in the lobby *vehemently* objected to updating rules.ini and the 3.03p patches may still be open to debate (on the side, currently my main objection to that is that although it doesn't make the game not crash anymore, the game actually becomes unplayable with broken builds, so it's not exactly a solution. IE someone could spam submarines or helis and max out units and then the game engine would be stuck.)

 

Over the half ?! it was you, ifuc and douin out of 30 people....

 

Why the hell you want the game to crash? We could also create a poll  "Do you want the game to crash randomly?" Do you really think anyone wants a crash in the mid of a game that ruins all fun ? .. this would be another 99% to 1% vote against you

 

 

Quote

The different thing about Kali is that it's a Chat and virtual Network interface. Once the game is launched the game runs like it's on a LAN. It doesn't strong hand the user into a new launcher.

 

Makes no sense, please read this again: "You are ok with another application but not with a web interface? Didn't you just say installing new software to handle games was a bad thing?"

 

So you say installing new software is a bad thing, but then u say installing kali is ok ? .. its going nowhere ...

 

and btw, with the webinterface you don't need to install anything

 

 

 

 

Quote

When you tout something as being better (which may or may not be true) and way of the future (a self fulfilling prophecy, since you develop ) I don't really see why these changes must be forced on (which may become the case if you start loading rules.ini that make the game incompatible with existing versions) My main objection to a web interface is:

1) Too complicated. CNCNET is used currently over other services like Tunngle, Kali because it doesn't require a launcher. I think despite early speed issues, the ease of interface is what really killed Tunngle.

2) It works with any version of Red Alert that the *client* chooses, and in this case the commonly used 3.03 that are compatible with each other, not anything special.

 

CnCNet is used over tunngle/kali cause on those both networks no one gives a shit about the games, they will never ever fix any bugs nor do any updates nor give any support regarding the game itself.  Also there is no one promoting the game on these networks

 

It will be still 3.03, nothing will change, and if you wanna play mods you can just keep on doing

 

Quote

The point I really want to bring forth is what prompted the development of version 5? The only people that complained about version 4 are pros who think new players and occasionally spammers ruin the game. The vast majority of players didn't actually think there is much wrong with the current situation.  I wouldn't really object to any of this and would be glad to experiment if we work under the premise of not making the game incompatible with the existing versions, which I am not being assured of at all.

With the possible exception of Ehy it seems like none of the people who actually regularly play this game in its classical multiplayer form are having any input or even getting involved with this development process. I am not exaggerating when I say there are many people who cringe at the idea that the game exe file is being modified but do not know enough about it.

I would really welcome the idea of a third party interface (not necessarily web) that allows me to chat with the people in the RA LAN lobby and launch straight into the game (so that I do not have to open RA and then tab out) provided that it remains fully compatible with the existing game interface.

 

 

 

You always talk like almost everyone is against it, so are you fine now with creating a poll and let people decide if they want spam in the lobby or not?

 

 

 

 

 

[Volksjager]

Reposting this since my previous post seemed to be gone...

 

No I am sure most people here in the US who cared about the game objected to a liberal modding of the game. Only you, ehy and Know Name explicitly supported that.

 

The thing is also, you DIDN'T actually fix the game with p2. Sure the game doesn't crash but it also becomes unplayable and sometimes it STILL CRASHES.  An UNPLAYABLE game is NO FUN.  XD I actually downloaded p2 and tried it on Mississippi River with 8 players and we decided the problems still wasn't fixed. Nonetheless, the price of modding the exe file itself is too high to justify these modest gains. Modding the exe and changing game behavior is a matter of principle but I can live with it because it does not cause an incompatability.

 

Quote

I told you before that we could create a poll and let people decide, but your answer was that you don't want any polls  Cause you know this poll would go 98% to 2% against you

Again, why can't there be a solution like Kali? If I ignore all the spammers I can have the look and feel of a RA LAN lobby AND not have to deal with spammers and unwanted players.

 

Quote

Makes no sense, please read this again: "You are ok with another application but not with a web interface? Didn't you just say installing new software to handle games was a bad thing?"

So you say installing new software is a bad thing, but then you say installing kali is ok ? .. its going nowhere ...

and btw, with the webinterface you don't need to install anything

My point is not necessarily against software but I think TWO major principles made CNCNET popular: 1) It DOESN'T *require* an external interface. 2) It theoretically works with ANY valid RA I have and *does not* touch the game file in anyway. Does web interface require me to log in and open up my browser? If so that's already cumbersome and annoying. I may also have to enable scripts on my computer, which is invasive and requiring the end user to commit too much. Honestly I'd prefer a custom GUI than some web based stuff (no need to open up a 200MB browser for CNCNET.)

Quote

You just make the map and it's uploaded within 1sec, it's just a few kb .. so no problem at all 

You as a modder must SURELY realize that if you upload a map with a duplicate filename the server has to change it. Once it's changed, are you going to get the map back? Will it be untouched? Tell me *how* are you going to distinguish between 100 different versions of P4 that have MAP NAME on the server? Which one is yours? Are you actually going to show map content to distinguish the minor differences in rules? Will there be a preview feature? (But maybe the maps are similar terrain wise. Do I have to squint and sift through all that?) This is essentially denying the player the task of managing his own maps. Are you really willing to embrace the task of map management for ALL the maps that everyone could possibly submit?

 

Quote

CnCNet is used over tunngle/kali cause on those both networks no one gives a shit about the games  they will never ever fix any bugs nor do any updates nor give any support regarding the game itself.  Also there is no one promoting the game on these networks

It will be still 3.03, nothing will change  and if u wanna play mods u can just keep on doing

Kali was almost dedicated to RA. Tunngle had a terrible (and bloated) interface and took a long time to log on. Adding webinterface (and Javascript!?) seems to be pushing CNCNET into the path of Tunngle.

 

Quote

You always talk like almost everyone is against it, so are you fine now with creating a poll and let people decide if they want spam in the lobby or not ?

Once again, the currently proposed solution is neither proven to be the best nor the only solution. Spam is only a minor nuisance right now. Changing the game so that people who are nostalgic can't find their way around start leaving may soon lead to an empty lobby that that would be hungry even for spam. Currently CNCNET draws some new players but many more old players that are coming back. This service should be allowed to grow and not let a radically new interface confuse/ turn old players away.

 

I understand that the developers are perhaps more enthousiastic about the programming perspective than actually playing the game but why should the players have to bear the burden of experimentation? 

Bottom line: Whatever you do with the new interface, GURANTEE compatability with  the game as it is.

[Volksjager]

Now I must apologize that being caught up in all of this heat, I forgot to state something obvious. 

 

For the solutions to the problems we are facing, what about the solution where we use the WOL interface in 3.03? 

 

This fixes almost ALL of our problems (private rooms, banning, Aftermath support, etc)

Furthermore, this solution was NEARLY working not too long ago and in fact so close that games worked under it!

If we just tweak it about slightly, I could see that we could allow the current LAN lobby to run *as is* WHILE enabling the WOL interface so people who are pissed off about spammers or need private games could just "log on" into WOL 3 menu clicks away.

 

Now if you are really up to it, perhaps we should make a poll on people favoring tweaking the WOL interface to make it working or implementing something completely new and foreign?  :laugh:

[FunkyFr3sh]

ok im not reading it through.. So you want to create a poll and people decide?

[hifi]

The thing is also, you DIDN'T actually fix the game with p2. Sure the game doesn't crash but it also becomes unplayable and sometimes it STILL CRASHES.  :mad: An UNPLAYABLE game is NO FUN.  XD I actually downloaded p2 and tried it on Mississippi River with 8 players and we decided the problems still wasn't fixed. Nonetheless, the price of modding the exe file itself is too high to justify these modest gains.

 

What? No one guaranteed the p series fixes ALL crashes, it just fixes the most frequent ones. The worst being unit build limit that didn't work. It does not change the gameplay in any way, it is not intended to either. It just fixed FATAL bugs like crashing, it will not change gameplay stuff like the England/France one.

 

Again, why can't there be a solution like Kali? If I ignore all the spammers I can have the look and feel of a RA LAN lobby AND not have to deal with spammers and unwanted players.

 

Because I don't like Windows GUI programming. A web interface is easier to set up and is more 2012 than anything else. Everyone has a browser open these days so I don't see a problem.

 

My point is not necessarily against software but I think TWO major principles made CNCNET popular: 1) It DOESN'T *require* an external interface. 2) It theoretically works with ANY valid RA I have and *does not* touch the game file in anyway. Does web interface require me to log in and open up my browser? If so that's already cumbersome and annoying. I may also have to enable scripts on my computer, which is invasive and requiring the end user to commit too much. Honestly I'd prefer a custom GUI than some web based stuff (no need to open up a 200MB browser for CNCNET.)

 

Again, things evolve, browser is the way to go today. If you have a problem with JavaScript, you don't use Facebook or anything else made in the past 5 years? JavaScript makes the internet tick today.

 

You as a modder must SURELY realize that if you upload a map with a duplicate filename the server has to change it. Once it's changed, are you going to get the map back? Will it be untouched? Tell me *how* are you going to distinguish between 100 different versions of P4 that have MAP NAME on the server? Which one is yours? Are you actually going to show map content to distinguish the minor differences in rules? Will there be a preview feature? (But maybe the maps are similar terrain wise. Do I have to squint and sift through all that?) This is essentially denying the player the task of managing his own maps. Are you really willing to embrace the task of map management for ALL the maps that everyone could possibly submit?

 

Now you are just proving my point you don't know what you are talking about. Multiple maps with the same filename and same internal name does not matter.

 

Kali was almost dedicated to RA. Tunngle had a terrible (and bloated) interface and took a long time to log on. Adding webinterface (and Javascript!?) seems to be pushing CNCNET into the path of Tunngle.

 

You have not tried it yet.

 

Once again, the currently proposed solution is neither proven to be the best nor the only solution. Spam is only a minor nuisance right now. Changing the game so that people who are nostalgic can't find their way around start leaving may soon lead to an empty lobby that that would be hungry even for spam. Currently CNCNET draws some new players but many more old players that are coming back. This service should be allowed to grow and not let a radically new interface confuse/ turn old players away.

 

500 players in the RA LAN lobby? I *don't* want to see that.

 

I understand that the developers are perhaps more enthousiastic about the programming perspective than actually playing the game but why should the players have to bear the burden of experimentation? 

Bottom line: Whatever you do with the new interface, GURANTEE compatability with  the game as it is.

 

Nuff' said. You can boycott the new interface when finished if you want, but the majority will be the target, not you. If the majority does not like the new interface, it will be put back to drawing board.

 

I won't guarantee compatibility with vanilla 3.03. If I made a launcher that does the job by modifying the game on-the-fly you would be happy with it but if I integrate the changes into the game, you aren't. I chose integration over even nastier hacks. What I could do is add the same modifications to vanilla 3.03 without p series fixes but that would be absurd, it doesn't have any benefits.

 

I do this for my own amusement and all CnCNet versions have started from some random idea I've had. I'm also only one person so I have a lot of responsibility over the RA players and I work with good intentions. The thing is I don't see any better way to expand the game beyond 100 online players than to redesign everything completely using the skills I have.

 

One good thing is that the spawner code is *entirely* independent of the CnCNet implementation. If the interface sucks so bad, someone can make a better one. Writing desktop applications is so 90's I'm not going to even think about it. Writing cncnet.exe as it currently is was a big stretch and I didn't enjoy it at all.

[hifi]

Now I must apologize that being caught up in all of this heat, I forgot to state something obvious. 

 

For the solutions to the problems we are facing, what about the solution where we use the WOL interface in 3.03? 

 

This fixes almost ALL of our problems (private rooms, banning, Aftermath support, etc)

Furthermore, this solution was NEARLY working not too long ago and in fact so close that games worked under it!

If we just tweak it about slightly, I could see that we could allow the current LAN lobby to run *as is* WHILE enabling the WOL interface so people who are pissed off about spammers or need private games could just "log on" into WOL 3 menu clicks away.

 

Now if you are really up to it, perhaps we should make a poll on people favoring tweaking the WOL interface to make it working or implementing something completely new and foreign?  :laugh:

 

Never again. I'd rather eat donkey diarrhea than touch WOL again.

 

Adding tunneling support to WOL is almost impossible and it is one of the reasons CnCNet is so popular - it just works. With the spawner code I can redesign tunneling in a way it doesn't depend on a single server and can be localized to different regions in the world so people will have less lag when playing tunneled more local games than international.

 

Also it won't fix TD as it only had Westwood Chat support. You remember CnCNet was originally only for TD?

 

I don't play TD, I hate the gameplay (though I don't play RA either to be fair) but TD is still important part of CnCNet. This makes CnCNet unified between TD and RA and hopefully the new code will be ported to TS and RA2 to make CnCNet complete again. Total modding support is also easier as we don't need per-mod hacks to CnCNet or the mod exe itself, just the unified generic launcher code and a small addition to CnCNet so they have their own lobbies.

[Volksjager]

1) 3.03p2 DID NOT fix crashes in general cases. Building over unit limit makes the game *unplayable* as no more units or buildings of any sort could be built at that point and many times it still crashes. Modding the exe file is a HUGE price to pay especially when you get something that does not completely work. This is why I said when you violate a matter of principle you should seriously consider the benefits and harms before touching something "sacred."

 

2) To Funky: Why don't you put a vote to see whether people prefer the WOL interface or a WEB interface or make things stay the way it is? I am not against voting but then again WHO are the regular RA players? We get 30 people on average. How many of them play frequently? If the 10-15 most regular RA players don't care about this or are against it then what purpose do you serve by making a interface aimed towards the 20-40 "majority" players that may not even be here next month?

 

3) When there are 500 RA players then tell me about it. That is to say I am not against development of this new interface in the meantime. However, you *could* delay launching it when we ACTUALLY have that many people. RA LAN lobby ran w/o much problems the other weekend when we had record 92 players. Nobody is advocating a boycott but I am actually not convinced that the majority of people here will like what is in store for them.

 

4) Yes I see how this new interface is more useful for TD instead of just RA but is a unified interface even necessary? If 4.0 is stable enough w/o the need for updates for now then I could see the situation for RA being left as is.

 

5) PLEASE give me a detailed explanation about uploading maps online. This is a separate issue altogether. Even you convince me a web interface is good I am miles off from seeing why online map downloading is good. How will the maps be presented? If I see the list of 300 maps in the online data base, how should I differentiate between the 10 different versions of p4? Surely two files cannot have the same name in the online database if they are in the same directory. In that case if two people uploaded two different maps with the same names you have to rename, correct?

 

6) If Javascript and web interfacing are Hifi's area of expertise and there is not other option then that is all a good reason to adopt this but to argue that web interface is acceptable because it is 2012 then that is a terrible argument. This is the logic of "new is good, old is bad, and anything current must be acceptable." If that is the case then why the hell are we still playing RA1 and not RA3? This again goes to my argument about good engineering principle: a *minimalistic* approach to the interface is what made CNCNET popular. Why add overlay and new unnecessary burdens? Maybe we could get someone to volunteer for Windows interface design or keep it to a minimum for now and only implement the features of "ignore" (so people can play their private games, ban, etc) though a small command window that injects to CNCNET after it starts.  :roll:

 

7) If WOL is really not feasible, I am not one to pursue it. I just thought we were close to completing it but I guess not. Nonetheless I still think what we had before is sufficient to allow private games when the lobby gets spammed and people decide to play by themselves on WOL. The people who complain about spam and want private games are probably smart enough to open ports, etc and do not constitute a majority. The ones who aren't are causing spam anyway.

 

Finally, if anyone besides Hifi, Funky and me are reading this, PLEASE add your input. I wouldn't be here if I didn't feel that some people will have strong  opinions about what is coming but we need more voice from *all* sides of the issue. 

[Volksjager]

Funky you do realize that in a real democratic system issues are supposed to be debated or at least discussed before calling for a vote? Lack of a turn out also de-legitimizes a vote (and just how many people/ which people must turn out to make this legitimate is not at all clear right now.) To me it seems like not enough people are reading about this and you want to dole out a vote of "do you wish to have spam, crashes, etc or do you wish to have *our* solution?" Not exactly a fair and unbiased polling system is it? 

[hifi]

1) 3.03p2 DID NOT fix crashes in general cases. Building over unit limit makes the game *unplayable* as no more units or buildings of any sort could be built at that point and many times it still crashes. Modding the exe file is a HUGE price to pay especially when you get something that does not completely work. This is why I said when you violate a matter of principle you should seriously consider the benefits and harms before touching something "sacred."

 

5) PLEASE give me a detailed explanation about uploading maps online. This is a separate issue altogether. Even you convince me a web interface is good I am miles off from seeing why online map downloading is good. How will the maps be presented? If I see the list of 300 maps in the online data base, how should I differentiate between the 10 different versions of p4? Surely two files cannot have the same name in the online database if they are in the same directory. In that case if two people uploaded two different maps with the same names you have to rename, correct?

 

1) If it did not fix something completely then give me a test that proves the unit build cap is broken and I'll see about fixing it for good. AFAIK it properly capped to the limit and when units died you could rebuild up to the cap. It's a cap, it should work like a cap. Going over the cap is a bug and causes the game to crash.

 

5) How do YOU distinguish between 10 different versions of P4? Even if it meant giving them extra long online names to state the differences, it's not a problem. The maps are not stored in a directory with their original file names, you could tag them however you want when you upload. I haven't designed it yet but as far as the uploader can somehow tell people what's so different about this version, it is doable.

 

You could have your personal map repository that only contains your uploaded maps. There are endless possibilities. Map uploading is not a problem.

 

Also, this is getting ridiculous. We will just need to see how it goes, aye?

[Guest ehy]

-

[Volksjager]

Volksjager, why should there be solution like Kali? There is still Kali.

You are free to choose between Kali and CnCNet like in a democratic system.

Just because few old Kali players miss "the perfect" Kali, we don't need to turn CnCNet to that sinking ship.

Exactly, otherwise it wouldnt die. And it was popular in 90's only because there wasn't CnCNet.

 

And stop threatening along with douin, grinders and smurf that you're leaving back to Kali when something doesn't go your way.

You're free to leave there, because by looking your arguments for a while, your arguing just seems more and more obsessive and not constructive

 

Not obsessed with Kali or else we would have gone back to it already. You keep saying it's democratic when hifi is almost unilateraly deciding the future of CNCNET without even 10% of the users making a discussion of it. What do you mean by "perfect Kali"? All I am saying is that the Kali approach makes more sense and in my opinion is a better solution *if* a UI is desired. Kali was not more popular just due to lack of CNCNET but rather you have to ask "WHY IS CNCNET POPULAR?" I can always say Kali lacks players due to fees and registration so it's not "sinking" because of its interface but due to pricing. However, there was also Tunngle. Why did people abandon that? I argue it's because of CNCNET's features a LACK of registration, NO external UI and simple "plug-n-play" style of usage. To me I am *not* opposing CNCNET5 because of nostalgia for Kali but because I think the CURRENT CNCNET is the best solution that we have (which could be improved by only minor tweaks.)

 

However, since you really want to add a UI and essentially negating what made me chose CNCNET over Kali in the first place, I started advocating for the features that would make a good UI, aka the features from Kali. Basically, if I have to use a complicated/ bloated UI, is there still sufficient reason for me to continue using CNCNET over Kali? Remember, RA can run on really old computers. Why design CNCNET to the point that old computers can no longer run RA or that existing computers may be slowed down? (A web browser that takes 200MB of memory that must be opened certainly would affect some older computers, and people from ALL over the world play this game, including from third world countries that may not have the best ease of upgrade.)

 

No one is threatening anything nor conspiring anything but I do want to get the word out to everyone (as most people are oblivious) and the response that I am getting (especially from some of the newer players who are returning to the game) is that they would be annoyed if the HAVE to give up their RA LAN lobby.

 

Finally, regarding actual development for CNCNET5. If a new UI is desired, I am suggesting that we allow the UI to be an external component instead of being inherent. Whether this is by UNIX like text paramters or PC like return values we may implement ALL of our desired features in a Console box that could be controlled by command line and then people are free to develop whatever GUI they wish on top of this layer (or the lack thereof.)

[Volksjager]

1) If it did not fix something completely then give me a test that proves the unit build cap is broken and I'll see about fixing it for good. AFAIK it properly capped to the limit and when units died you could rebuild up to the cap. It's a cap, it should work like a cap. Going over the cap is a bug and causes the game to crash.

 

5) How do YOU distinguish between 10 different versions of P4? Even if it meant giving them extra long online names to state the differences, it's not a problem. The maps are not stored in a directory with their original file names, you could tag them however you want when you upload. I haven't designed it yet but as far as the uploader can somehow tell people what's so different about this version, it is doable.

 

You could have your personal map repository that only contains your uploaded maps. There are endless possibilities. Map uploading is not a problem.

 

Also, this is getting ridiculous. We will just need to see how it goes, aye?

On the second issue: This is certainly not getting ridiculous. I have concerns about what I think are potential problems and I am glad things are finally being explained. Right now we have a stable platform. Switching to a new platform and then trying to fix the bugs afterwards is definitely not something we could afford to do (and may end up losing a whole bunch of players if things do go wrong.) What I do find ridiculous is that over half players don't know what's coming. Perhaps upload a server message to get them to read the forum?

 

I am still not seeing why online map database is necessary or better. Maintainence and upkeep is a difficult job, which requires resources that we may not currently have. If the player has to sift through 300 maps to find his own then that is a trade off for maintaining local maps. In fact it may even be better to exchange maps *before* the game is launched so that the players can have the maps on local machines (and possibly create the temporary file alongside.)  This could be done by p2p exchanges that do not have to require a server database.

 

When you start RA and the game registers all the maps in your directory, sometimes maps are exchanged when all players have the same map while other times they are not (not sure about mechanics here) In the best case scenario we could have all players having the maps on their local machines and then no maps are exchanged during start up. In any case map exchange is not the most pressing problem we are facing (and only becomes one when connections are laggy and players press 'esc', which they shouldn't do.)

 

About the crash: I am not sure how to reproduce this except to show it to you in 4 or 6 player games that build over unit limit. In many cases the game would not crash at first but it would be a long time before anything is buildable again even when only one type of unit reaches limit. In another case (I was using p2, not sure about others) the vehicle limit was reached but buildings were not buildable either and then the game spontaneously exited after a battle commenced (without additional units being built.) I am saying that if p2 doesn't fix the bug but instead introduces *new* unpredictable behavior then is it really worth having?

[hifi]

However, since you really want to add a UI and essentially negating what made me chose CNCNET over Kali in the first place, I started advocating for the features that would make a good UI, aka the features from Kali. Basically, if I have to use a complicated/ bloated UI, is there still sufficient reason for me to continue using CNCNET over Kali? Remember, RA can run on really old computers. Why design CNCNET to the point that old computers can no longer run RA or that existing computers may be slowed down? (A web browser that takes 200MB of memory that must be opened certainly would affect some older computers, and people from ALL over the world play this game, including from third world countries that may not have the best ease of upgrade.)

 

The more and more I think about the upgrade I've come to the conclusion it can't be forced because the style of the new CnCNet is so different auto-upgrade would be confusing. That said, play on 4 if you want to. Everyone wins.

 

Finally, regarding actual development for CNCNET5. If a new UI is desired, I am suggesting that we allow the UI to be an external component instead of being inherent. Whether this is by UNIX like text paramters or PC like return values we may implement ALL of our desired features in a Console box that could be controlled by command line and then people are free to develop whatever GUI they wish on top of this layer (or the lack thereof.)

 

Apparently you didn't read the actual first post where I described CnCNet 5 consists of separate parts that work independantly. So does the "spawner" code that actually launches the game and if someone wants to crap on my porch they are free to do so. I will say this again: you have not seen the final product, don't be so anal about it. It will more likely to be a manual update so you can keep on playing on 4 for some time. I'm still predicting people will switch to 5 because of the actual benefits.

 

I am still not seeing why online map database is necessary or better. Maintainence and upkeep is a difficult job, which requires resources that we may not currently have. If the player has to sift through 300 maps to find his own then that is a trade off for maintaining local maps. In fact it may even be better to exchange maps *before* the game is launched so that the players can have the maps on local machines (and possibly create the temporary file alongside.)  This could be done by p2p exchanges that do not have to require a server database.

 

Stop worrying about that. As I said ALREADY, you can have a PERSONAL map repository on the site that will not CONFLICT with anyone else. Please drop this argument as you have definitely NOT seen the final product. Your concerns HAVE been noted.

 

About the crash: I am not sure how to reproduce this except to show it to you in 4 or 6 player games that build over unit limit. In many cases the game would not crash at first but it would be a long time before anything is buildable again even when only one type of unit reaches limit. In another case (I was using p2, not sure about others) the vehicle limit was reached but buildings were not buildable either and then the game spontaneously exited after a battle commenced (without additional units being built.) I am saying that if p2 doesn't fix the bug but instead introduces *new* unpredictable behavior then is it really worth having?

 

And you tell me this now after I have to force you to describe the problem? No one ever reported this kind of behaviour and it is certainly something that should be fixed if that is what actually happens. If you had reported this long ago with accurate description of the problem and a possible test case for it I could have tried to fix it. Instead, you just whined p2 sucks.

[Guest ehy]

-

[Chad1233]

I like cncnet how it is... so smooth and simple and I would love having 3.03 internet lobby have cncnet support it's a shame that had to be ditched.

 

As much as I like how you try to improve cncnet but be really careful not to bloat it. All these extras just gets annoying and just rather have a .dll I can drop in and play thru network or internet.

 

EDIT: Good to know we will still have the cncnet we have.

 

@Funky I do play online with my cousins. And the web interface sounds alright just not really practical.

[FunkyFr3sh]

On 9/2/2012 at 5:28 AM, Chad1233 said:

I like cncnet how it is... so smooth and simple and I would love having 3.03 internet lobby have cncnet support it's a shame that had to be ditched.

 

As much as I like how you try to improve cncnet but be really careful not to bloat it. All these extras just gets annoying and just rather have a .dll I can drop in and play thru network or internet.

 

EDIT: Good to know we will still have the cncnet we have.

 

you don't really play online. It's a big problem that people can't make private games and just 1 spammer ruins all fun for everyone, we need to be able to mute them

 

[Killa57]

Web Developer should just create the html 5 and make it as many pages as there are games on cncnet with each of its site's to have its own distinct lobby that looks like the lan lobby of the game they choose to play, simple as that......Solves the crying here  XD

[Volksjager]

Now that's not fair. He plays CNC where this whole problem with spam isn't an issue and as far as I see it you guys don't play much lately either

[Volksjager]

Volksjager, the same Kali people have been opposing every CnCNet version and 5 is no different. Yesterday you desperately tried to ask from new players if they wanted to leave the current in-game lobby and I saw they also wanted a better one.

 

People abandoned Tunngle just like Kali, because CnCNet just works, no port forwarding is required (hifi has said this countless times) and not because of the fees (Tunngle was officially free). Of course simplicity had also little to do with it, but CnCNet 5 will be just as simple with all the new cool features and required fixes...

 

Is it undemocratic when hifi does something for free and doesn't force it on anyone? I think not.

If someone was actually interested in what we are doing on CnCNet he would atleast check the news occasionally without asking.

 

And why is the lobby sacred?

The broken lobby will just be replaced with better one, and no need to alt-tab everytime you change battle music from youtube.

 

Lastly if someone's computer is not powerful enough to open a web browser, I think we can afford that loss.

 

This is funny because the only people really complaining about the current CNCNET are the Kali players. Yet you guys are changing CNCNET against the wishes of the CNCNET fans...

Now you guys say it won't be forced but from all signs before I saw no indication that CNCNET 4 will be maintained (just like those previous versions right?)

If you don't wish to alt-tab you can just play windowed (then go full screen when game starts ) and again I am saying you *could* make a compatible system so that people can play with lobby or with an alternate version but actual gameplay integration will be seamless.

 

The reason I was calling this undemocratic because you guys keep using "democracy" and "voting" as a trump card when 90% of the players don't even know what is going on. You can't call a vote if the voters are uninformed about what they are voting for, which is why I am calling for more discussion (or post a message from the server so they see it in RA lobby.)

 

People LONG abandoned Tunngle before CNCNET got rid of port forwarding. People switched over for very clear reasons: easy interface and now login required, which is something you are removing.

 

Now about lobby sacredness and being "despearate." I really wanted to gauge the response of the general populace but the other day when you weren't here I also saw a lot of people complaining when I said the lobby will be gone. I do not wish to name names but I call talk to you in private about my assessment fo the situation so far.

[Volksjager]

The more and more I think about the upgrade I've come to the conclusion it can't be forced because the style of the new CnCNet is so different auto-upgrade would be confusing. That said, play on 4 if you want to. Everyone wins.

 

I see. Although if possible I really wish we could start with a "CNCNET 5 lite" that allows compatbility so we still have the same number of players.

 

Apparently you didn't read the actual first post where I described CnCNet 5 consists of separate parts that work independantly. So does the "spawner" code that actually launches the game and if someone wants to crap on my porch they are free to do so. I will say this again: you have not seen the final product, don't be so anal about it. It will more likely to be a manual update so you can keep on playing on 4 for some time. I'm still predicting people will switch to 5 because of the actual benefits.

I see what you are saying but I am calling for perhaps something that further aids this process ( for instance, allowing *all* new features to be accessible from a CONSOLE a la stdio with console commands (so no need for browser) and the GUI could be developed much later and /or improved independently of the new functions.)

 

Stop worrying about that. As I said ALREADY, you can have a PERSONAL map repository on the site that will not CONFLICT with anyone else. Please drop this argument as you have definitely NOT seen the final product. Your concerns HAVE been noted.

Thank you. I took at as my duty to point these things out since nobody else even bothered to read this or voice their opinion even if they had one.   

I am not sure why the argument should be dropped if we havn't weighed the merits and flaws of each solution completely. This is mostly for discussion's sake now since CNCNET 4 won't be dropped in the immediate future but I do want to point out that "Personal Map Depositories" could become a pain to manage (and potentially be exploited by malicious users.)

We have had people who hid behind VPN's before, I just thought that a WEB based interface could be infinitely more exploitable and the more complicated it is, the harder it would be to restore a crash. My opinion is that if implementing this makes the game incompatible and does not seem urgently needed then it could be sidelined for now.

 

And you tell me this now after I have to force you to describe the problem? No one ever reported this kind of behaviour and it is certainly something that should be fixed if that is what actually happens. If you had reported this long ago with accurate description of the problem and a possible test case for it I could have tried to fix it. Instead, you just whined p2 sucks.

I never said p2 sucks but I did say something along the lines of "I refuse to advocate the modification of exe files unless you have darn good reason." I am sure you could see the demons that accepting exe modding online could unleash upon the community (ie, if you can mod a exe, then why can't I? If modded exes exist, what prevents me from loading hacks that that are cheat?)  I keep getting struck down by the argument of "but it works and fixes crashes!" so I had to point out that in fact it *didn't* fix the crash so whatever validity that arguement had before goes away.