Re: Autohosts operating non-downloadable engines - Page 4

Re: Autohosts operating non-downloadable engines

Various things about Spring that do not fit in any of the other forums listed below, including forum rules.

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
ThinkSome
Posts: 387
Joined: 14 Jun 2015, 13:36

Re: Autohosts operating non-downloadable engines

Post by ThinkSome »

saturnV wrote: 16 Dec 2020, 19:47 Ok, so because I picked the wrong side in BA9-vs-BA10 I am a BA-centric whiner and all my posts are complaining. :roll:
If you had read my posts then you might have noticed I was upset what effect the BA-ban etc had on other games, too.
MF and S1944 I mentioned as "other games", I see no use to go into details of every small game with handful of players at most.
(Certainly not enough players to be hit by teamsize restrictions) ...
1) You picked a side and are complaining to push an agenda. Your complaining is not constructive complaining. However, I do like that at least some people are complaining. That's a start.

2) MF and S1944 are not hit by teamsize restrictions because they don't hug 103 to death. That said, the restrictions probably weren't a very good idea, and should probably be removed. There are better ways to discourage older engines that do not alienate communities and players.
saturnV
Posts: 107
Joined: 03 Dec 2020, 07:58

Re: Autohosts operating non-downloadable engines

Post by saturnV »

ThinkSome wrote: 18 Dec 2020, 08:442) MF and S1944 are not hit by teamsize restrictions because they don't hug 103 to death.
No, because they never get played in large teamgames because those games have no real playerbase.
That said, the restrictions probably weren't a very good idea, and should probably be removed. There are better ways to discourage older engines that do not alienate communities and players.
If you think so, why do you not tell the developers to remove the restrictions?
ivand wrote: 16 Dec 2020, 21:22 Not sure what you want, saturnV.

Why are you asking these questions? Everyone is aware about the issues you mentioned.
If you want to improve something, go ahead and improve. No need to whine and demand what you have not paid for.
I want to see restrictions on using old engines removed.
I think not everyone is aware of the issue, as shown by several posts.

Everybody was interessted in BA10's balance changes - even the people who never play BA. At the end only the people who never play BA were still talking about BA10 gameplay. Did you also tell them to shut up like you now tell me to shut up when I ask things about engine or server? No, you did not.
ivand
Posts: 310
Joined: 27 Jun 2007, 17:05

Re: Autohosts operating non-downloadable engines

Post by ivand »

saturnV wrote: 20 Dec 2020, 22:29 I want to see restrictions on using old engines removed.
You are free to want whatever you want. But here you can only politely ask. Others asked the same before and the answer was always "no".
Nothing has changed since then, quite opposite spring leads decided to move forward with the new engine. So what makes you think that if you ask for 10th time, then you'll get any different answer?
saturnV wrote: 20 Dec 2020, 22:29 Everybody was interessted in BA10's balance changes - even the people who never play BA. At the end only the people who never play BA were still talking about BA10 gameplay. Did you also tell them to shut up like you now tell me to shut up when I ask things about engine or server? No, you did not.
I read this at least 5 times and failed to figure out how your logic flows from one statement to another.

In any case you are wrong about the scale of BA drama. Basically it's a venerable, but a small spring game given away into wrong hands. By now one of the many spring games. A lot of people like myself never played BA(besides a match or two many years ago) or cared how it changed as far as balance. The only reason BA is mentioned here more often than it should is that a few trolls put BA agenda in in every topic. These trolls should have been perma banned long ago as they bring nothing of value and only distract, but the moderators tolerance seems infinite.
saturnV
Posts: 107
Joined: 03 Dec 2020, 07:58

Re: Autohosts operating non-downloadable engines

Post by saturnV »

ivand wrote: 21 Dec 2020, 17:35
saturnV wrote: 20 Dec 2020, 22:29 I want to see restrictions on using old engines removed.
... Others asked the same before and the answer was always "no".
Nothing has changed since then, quite opposite spring leads decided to move forward with the new engine. So what makes you think that if you ask for 10th time, then you'll get any different answer?
One thing has changed: time.
Time has passed and no matter what the idea behind the ban was , we can see the outcome now.

Maybe forcing games & players to move to 104.0 or 104-testversions would have worked if:
- 104.0 had not been so old already. (unattractive to update to a "newer" version that is itself years old)
- the download of testversions had been more reliable.
As is, something was banned without providing a real alternative.

(I had typed a reply to the rest of your post but it is off topic here. Perhaps repost it in the other thread ("BA questions"), if you care)
saturnV
Posts: 107
Joined: 03 Dec 2020, 07:58

Re: Autohosts operating non-downloadable engines

Post by saturnV »

"keep the last n builds" - https://springrts.com/mantis/view.php?id=6361
2020-12-21 16:17 Status => closed
No builds will be re-uploaded and the script will not be switched off or changed.

red = undownloadable test
orange = old stable
Phoenix is on 104.0
others are on currently downloadable test

Image
lobby_26_12_2020.png
(138.56 KiB) Not downloaded yet
User avatar
Forboding Angel
Evolution RTS Developer
Posts: 14673
Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43

Re: Autohosts operating non-downloadable engines

Post by Forboding Angel »

Evo has it's own distribution system for the engine.
saturnV
Posts: 107
Joined: 03 Dec 2020, 07:58

Re: Autohosts operating non-downloadable engines

Post by saturnV »

and who uses that? :roll:
For everyone who does not use, it is just six more lines of clutter in the battle list.
https://springrts.com/wiki/Botflags#Bat ... _a_botflag :
Hosts with a botflag are normally expected to use the latest stable engine version, or a later developmental version, and to host content that is made available for automated download.
BA on new serve has its own distribution system for the engine and other files, too: https://www.springfightclub.com/data/
User avatar
ThinkSome
Posts: 387
Joined: 14 Jun 2015, 13:36

Re: Autohosts operating non-downloadable engines

Post by ThinkSome »

Wonderful, cannot comment on closed mantis issues. So I write my comment here: The same issue will happen again post 105. Or rather, it will continue happening, since this apparently wont ever be fixed.

Everyone with time & willpower to fix issues does not have access to do so. Everyone with access has either no time or no willpower (or lacks both). That's the real issue and why things are falling into disrepair left and right. GIVE PEOPLE ACCESS AND STUFF WILL GET FIXED.

As a result, every game now maintains their own infrastructure and the work is duplicated. Congratulations on creating this time waste.


As for the <= 103 limit: It was a bad idea and should be replaced. Probably by hiding old engines behind lobby "advanced user" setting.

As for unmaintained hosts: BAN THEM ALL! BA 8v8 on 103 does not hurt spring's image as much as the sea of unmaintained rooms with UNDOWNLOADABLE content!!
raaar
Metal Factions Developer
Posts: 1094
Joined: 20 Feb 2010, 12:17

Re: Autohosts operating non-downloadable engines

Post by raaar »

As for unmaintained hosts: BAN THEM ALL! BA 8v8 on 103 does not hurt spring's image as much as the sea of unmaintained rooms with UNDOWNLOADABLE content!!
Banning should only apply to old unmaintained hosts, not the ones using 1553 who got recently screwed by the latest developments.

If Evo uses a separate download system then that's a separate problem. People are still likely to join their servers using SL.
User avatar
ThinkSome
Posts: 387
Joined: 14 Jun 2015, 13:36

Re: Autohosts operating non-downloadable engines

Post by ThinkSome »

Yes, this applies to actually unmaintained autohosts that nobody uses. Everything that is on the official host should be downloadable, but it is not Forb's problem that -1344- has been deleted. -1344- should be restored back.

Since, evidently, noone has time to write a proper auto-delete script, the easiest solution is to simply delete it. Do that.
User avatar
FLOZi
MC: Legacy & Spring 1944 Developer
Posts: 6240
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 01:14

Re: Autohosts operating non-downloadable engines

Post by FLOZi »

ThinkSome wrote: 26 Dec 2020, 13:11 Wonderful, cannot comment on closed mantis issues. So I write my comment here: The same issue will happen again post 105. Or rather, it will continue happening, since this apparently wont ever be fixed.

Everyone with time & willpower to fix issues does not have access to do so. Everyone with access has either no time or no willpower (or lacks both). That's the real issue and why things are falling into disrepair left and right. GIVE PEOPLE ACCESS AND STUFF WILL GET FIXED.

As a result, every game now maintains their own infrastructure and the work is duplicated. Congratulations on creating this time waste.
Agree 1000%.
As for the <= 103 limit: It was a bad idea and should be replaced. Probably by hiding old engines behind lobby "advanced user" setting.

As for unmaintained hosts: BAN THEM ALL! BA 8v8 on 103 does not hurt spring's image as much as the sea of unmaintained rooms with UNDOWNLOADABLE content!!
Agree 100%.
User avatar
ThinkSome
Posts: 387
Joined: 14 Jun 2015, 13:36

Re: Autohosts operating non-downloadable engines

Post by ThinkSome »

Actually, old hardware and to a lesser extent, Mac, are a problem. How much effort would it be to have a 104-legacy branch that is sync-compatible to 105 but without post-103 graphics?

I don't think players on perfectly working old hardware will upgrade it on a large enough scale, just because spring no longer works. They may not afford it or they will go play one of the other thousands of games out there that do work. I haven't seen a massive new player influx to replace the old, loyal, player base that would be/was decimated. Perhaps the <=104.0 restrictions should be lifted entirely until either a 104-legacy is produced or a sufficient % (95%?) of player base supports new OpenGL. The latter should be supported by lobby client telemetry data, which we you lack.
ivand
Posts: 310
Joined: 27 Jun 2007, 17:05

Re: Autohosts operating non-downloadable engines

Post by ivand »

I don't see why anyone would spend their time (which is very-very scarce) on something that is not forward looking. Quite opposite: we are moving towards catching up of what the industry has been enjoying past 15 years. This means we eventually will set hardware/driver standards higher, not lower.

Old GPUs can be replaced at marginal cost of 50$-150$. Our (devs) time is worth several magnitude higher than that. Yes, we give away the code at no cost, but it doesn't mean our time is a free resource as a consequence.

Macs represent certain issue, but Mac users knew what they signed for and at least they can reload into Linux and play.
ThinkSome wrote: 28 Dec 2020, 07:13 I haven't seen a massive new player influx to replace the old, loyal, player base that would be/was decimated.
Perhaps this is how it looks if you gauge based on the level of forum, IRC, Matrix, etc activity. But in reality people use other communication means and if you used them, you would know new players are coming every day. I wouldn't call the influx massive, but I wouldn't paint it in grim colors either.
User avatar
ThinkSome
Posts: 387
Joined: 14 Jun 2015, 13:36

Re: Autohosts operating non-downloadable engines

Post by ThinkSome »

I understand that time is scarce and that maintaining a legacy engine is probably not worth it, hence the question on the time cost of doing so.

I am happy that Spring is moving forward, but I am concerned about the cost of doing so. Is having BA players on a different server better than having them on the official one? I do not see this changing any time soon.

Having the BA player base on the official server makes it easier for those players to play in 104+ rooms at the expense of some of those 104+ players more easily playing in 103.0 ones. As long as more players are gained from the 103 rooms than are lost from 104, this is a win.

We You should discourage use of old engines, but doing it more softly could be a better approach over all. Hence me suggesting in-lobby hiding, perhaps putting them at the bottom of lists or discouraging in other ways that do not fracture this community even further.




I gauge activity based on how many new users play s44 and how many stay there. The number of chatturbators in discord / IRC / Matrix is completely irrelevant.
User avatar
ThinkSome
Posts: 387
Joined: 14 Jun 2015, 13:36

Re: springrts.com infrastructure admins are actively hurting the community

Post by ThinkSome »

Adjusted thread title to better reflect the issue at hand.
saturnV
Posts: 107
Joined: 03 Dec 2020, 07:58

Re: Autohosts operating non-downloadable engines

Post by saturnV »

ThinkSome & FLOZi:
nice, at least two people who realize what has been going on and change their view.
However it is a bit late: Everything that you now agreed to moan about had already been said by others. They said it at a point in time when it might still have been possible to take a different course. That is why for example some players got so frustrated.
Even if things were to change now, it would take a long time for players to come back. It would take a long time for trust in spring to come back.
ivand
Posts: 310
Joined: 27 Jun 2007, 17:05

Re: Autohosts operating non-downloadable engines

Post by ivand »

ThinkSome wrote: 28 Dec 2020, 14:22 I gauge activity based on how many new users play s44 and how many stay there.
I think you draw spring-wide conclusion based on a very specific gauge then. "Blind men and the elephant" essentially.
No offense, but S44 is very complex to learn and not visually appealing, it will never be densily populated. Also when was the last time you ran some advertisement campaign?
ThinkSome wrote: 28 Dec 2020, 14:22 chatturbators
Saying like this about people who collaborate and build spring games as a result is at minimum rude and generally not very smart.
User avatar
MasterBel
Posts: 271
Joined: 18 Mar 2018, 07:48

Re: Autohosts operating non-downloadable engines

Post by MasterBel »

Overall I think it's been beneficial for BA to be on its own server. Sure there were growing pains with players not knowing where we are, but that can and should change. Ideally if we had a sizeable lobby development team, we could design a better client that takes advantage of the new situation. The entire problem with split servers is not inherent with split servers, but that our entire infrastructure isn't designed for it.

BA's problems specifically come more from its management and the community dynamic. Mando/Ares are very opaque with their management which makes it hard for outsiders to see how they address problems etc, which promotes the feeling of there being a problem that needs to be fixed. The more transparent they are, the more people will see that we're working on fixing it

For other games – I can't really speak for them. I understand there is a discoverability benefit to being in the same lobby, but there are other ways we could make this more discoverable. (1) SL could pull a list of servers from the website or somewhere. Name them with the name of the games – "Beyond All Reason", "Balanced Annihilation", "Metal Factions", and possibly "Game Incubator" for the official server. Even better you could have icons for these, that would be awesome. (Even if these were hardcoded in, and were added via PR, this would at least be something)

(2) Along with this, these servers could provide an auto-download list that auto-downloads the game, engine and 1 or 2 maps. Providing some sort of a "Game Selector" in Single Player that will auto-download resources is crucial too.

If some infra devs are willing to cooperate with Lobby devs to this end, that would be awesome.

I don't think my suggestions should take a lot of work, but (2) sounds a lot less trivial than (1). I'm not in a position to contribute PRs for SL myself at the moment. (I haven't been able to compile it successfully in a while, alongside inexperience with C++).
ivand wrote: 28 Dec 2020, 20:06
ThinkSome wrote: 28 Dec 2020, 14:22 chatturbators
Saying like this about people who collaborate and build spring games as a result is at minimum rude and generally not very smart.
Agree, plus unhelpful chat hasn't seemed to be much of an issue recently. Thankfully.

I also get the impression there are like 3 different forks of SL at the moment – ThinkSome's, Tulipe's and the official one. I don't hear a lot about any of them so I'm not up to date on what's going on. Would be awesome if they could work out some way to collaborate with each other.
User avatar
ThinkSome
Posts: 387
Joined: 14 Jun 2015, 13:36

Re: Autohosts operating non-downloadable engines

Post by ThinkSome »

ivand wrote: 28 Dec 2020, 20:06 Saying like this about people who collaborate and build spring games as a result is at minimum rude and generally not very smart.
Are you saying that all of your 2000+ (or how ever many you have) users in your discord channel collaborate and build spring games? That's a lot of developers!
MasterBel wrote: 29 Dec 2020, 01:41
My "fork" is dead and was never meant to be a fork. It should be completely integrated to official SpringLobby by now.
ivand
Posts: 310
Joined: 27 Jun 2007, 17:05

Re: Autohosts operating non-downloadable engines

Post by ivand »

ThinkSome wrote: 30 Dec 2020, 07:44 Are you saying that all of your 2000+ (or how ever many you have) users in your discord channel collaborate and build spring games? That's a lot of developers!
I said what I said: It's written in a simple, international English. Everyone can read it and witness I never said what you imply I said. Moreover saying something like the quoted would sound totally stupid.

In reality around one out of 10 lurkers gives their newcomers feedback. And it's already awesome: you get 200-300 extra fresh perspectives.
We also have at least a dozen of people never had seen before joining and collaborating on the game, UI, language, web site, etc and bringing real measurable value.

You are welcome to see how it works, if you choose to leave your cave.
Locked

Return to “General Discussion”