More "BA" questions, split from The end of the maintenance branch - Page 3

More "BA" questions, split from The end of the maintenance branch

Post just about everything that isn't directly related to Spring here!

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Beherith
Moderator
Posts: 5010
Joined: 26 Oct 2007, 16:21

Re: The end of the maintenance branch

Post by Beherith »

Ares wrote: 10 Dec 2020, 11:10 it's only for BAR and friends, Ivand do you give me permission?

BA would not exist right now if not for us stepping in. Exact same is now about to happen to engine. Privatised to raise donations for BAR.
You are an absolute nutjob, Ares. How do you not realize the massively inflammatory nature of your post above? First you mockingly ask for permission, then you insult people doing actual development, then accuse them of something completely unrelated. Engine is GPL by the way.
saturnV
Posts: 79
Joined: 03 Dec 2020, 07:58

Re: Splitting Ares's lies from: The end of the maintenance branch

Post by saturnV »

Bad analogy. A car crashes and it is damaged forever.
Software crashes and you restart it.

The safety concern is just about the exploit to close battlerooms?
saturnV
Posts: 79
Joined: 03 Dec 2020, 07:58

Re: The end of the maintenance branch

Post by saturnV »

Ares wrote: 10 Dec 2020, 11:10BA would not exist right now if not for us stepping in. Exact same is now about to happen to engine. Privatised to raise donations for BAR.

User received a 2 week ban for this post. Felony 1.
This is not wrong though.
When the BA10 ragequitted and moved to the more exciting BAR-models, they left BA in an unplayable state on the server: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=40040
The autohosts are unuseable (engine download not working) and not updated anymore. Not a problem unique to BA, other autohosts are broken too.
Without springfightclub server, BA would be unplayable.

There has not been a stable engine release since a long time. The test-versions are not really useable for playing as above thread shows. (get autodeleted, hosts not updated, some builds missing etc)
I do not see it as impossible that eventually BAR will make their own engine releases. Even zero-K had talked about that idea in the past.

Developers disliked to see continued useage of old engine versions. Maybe in future they will have to see the useage of private engine forks.
What would this mean for future of official engine version?
saturnV
Posts: 79
Joined: 03 Dec 2020, 07:58

Re: Splitting Ares's lies from: The end of the maintenance branch

Post by saturnV »

Beherith wrote: 02 Dec 2020, 17:15 103 engine restrictions predate resurrection of BAR by 1 year, violating the temporal causality of your argument.
No.

BAR re-started somewhen here:
"Add BAR repo to this organization" on 24 Aug 2017
https://github.com/Balanced-Annihilatio ... /issues/74
(also with a comment that seems to refer to barmodels in BA as modoption?)

15 Dec 2019, 10:49
"FYI: BAR has been worked on continuously in the past year and a halve."
viewtopic.php?p=592966#p592966
(that also fits with all the BAR screenshots, videos and chat during that time)

103-ban happend in early 2019: viewtopic.php?f=64&t=38922 - right in the middle of all this.
User avatar
ivand
Posts: 251
Joined: 27 Jun 2007, 17:05

Re: The end of the maintenance branch

Post by ivand »

Would you mind discussing your game at wherever you dwell these days or at least in your subforum, please ?
saturnV
Posts: 79
Joined: 03 Dec 2020, 07:58

Re: The end of the maintenance branch

Post by saturnV »

ivand wrote: 14 Dec 2020, 20:53 Would you mind discussing your game at wherever you dwell these days or at least in your subforum, please ?
The posts I replied to were in this thread and so I replied here, too.
Also you were the first to bring up games and "private BAR branch" in this thread: viewtopic.php?p=596140#p596140
So what is the BAR-branch all about?
User avatar
ivand
Posts: 251
Joined: 27 Jun 2007, 17:05

Re: The end of the maintenance branch

Post by ivand »

I think it was discussed extensively, but let's reiterate:

"Private" branch is private in a way that it's not hosted on spring's github (to which I have no access). Otherwise it's open-source, same GPL license, hosted on github, binaries are available for download, etc. The reason it has BAR name is also simple: It's a game under active development and dev leads there are just awesome folks. It would have been total waste of my time to do any work without a game to see my changes in.

The reason I'm not advertising it too much is because I truly believe that its purpose is to serve mostly as a sandbox and testing ground. Also the main goal is to craft an API compatible with the develop branch, so I don't see any reason for games not interested in switching to new GL to switch into this branch. Though if you are even tinily interested then it's not hard to find it on the github.

Overall I don't feel like it's worth repeating myself. Here is much better description of what's going on and what I personally plan to do.
User avatar
Beherith
Moderator
Posts: 5010
Joined: 26 Oct 2007, 16:21

Re: The end of the maintenance branch

Post by Beherith »

saturnV wrote: 14 Dec 2020, 19:27
Ares wrote: 10 Dec 2020, 11:10BA would not exist right now if not for us stepping in. Exact same is now about to happen to engine. Privatised to raise donations for BAR.

User received a 2 week ban for this post. Felony 1.
This is not wrong though.
When the BA10 ragequitted and moved to the more exciting BAR-models, they left BA in an unplayable state on the server: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=40040
The autohosts are unuseable (engine download not working) and not updated anymore. Not a problem unique to BA, other autohosts are broken too.
Without springfightclub server, BA would be unplayable.

There has not been a stable engine release since a long time. The test-versions are not really useable for playing as above thread shows. (get autodeleted, hosts not updated, some builds missing etc)
I do not see it as impossible that eventually BAR will make their own engine releases. Even zero-K had talked about that idea in the past.

Developers disliked to see continued useage of old engine versions. Maybe in future they will have to see the useage of private engine forks.
What would this mean for future of official engine version?
You seem to be very mistaken, and taken the ares bait hook, line and sinker.
Let me break it down further for you:
Ares wrote:BA would not exist right now if not for us stepping in.
The entire split was driven mainly by Ares, to serve as a casus belli for a power grab.
Ares wrote:Exact same is now about to happen to engine.
So ares needs to step in to take over engine development so the engine doesn't cease to exist?

If you are so entrenched into the future of BA on Spring official host, it has been stated a thousand times what needs to be done, by anyone who wishes to, and there is absolutely nothing blocking you (or anyone) from doing this:
1. Pack up a BA version compatible with a downloadable engine.
2. Run your autohost on official engine.
3. Play, enjoy your game!

Pointing at how other games have non-working autohosts is completely irrelevant to you wanting to play your game.
saturnV
Posts: 79
Joined: 03 Dec 2020, 07:58

Re: The end of the maintenance branch

Post by saturnV »

Beherith wrote: 15 Dec 2020, 09:44The entire split was driven mainly by Ares, to serve as a casus belli for a power grab.
No.
You were already wrong about timeline of engine restrictions
( viewtopic.php?p=596263#p596263 ) and now you are mispresenting again.
The split was driven by:
1) BA10 team continiuning to release game versions with gameplay changes not accepted by players; teams attitude.
2) ban of engines <104
3) BA10 team ragequitting BA and moving to BAR. They left behind nonfunctional hosts, messed git, shrunken playerbase.
Ares & Co picked up the pieces.
Pointing at how other games have non-working autohosts is completely irrelevant to you wanting to play your game.
Other games are in similiar situation as BA:
It is relevant to spring's situation.
Engine developers have not released a new stable version in a long time. No problem with that in itself.
Test-versions can not be used for playing because they get deleted too soon. Fine, no problem with that in itself. Afterall they are test-versions, meant for testing and not for longterm playing. Sadly nobody cares to update old nonfunctional BA10 hosts that were left behind.
Stable release 104 is already too old (or whatever) so appearently it is not possible/wanted to use still have that as mainly used version.
(only one host uses 104 viewtopic.php?p=596081#p596081)
Usage of old version is restricted because engine devs dislike seeing old versions played.
Put it all together and it is no wonder the server is dead.
MasterBel
Posts: 262
Joined: 18 Mar 2018, 07:48

Re: Splitting Ares's lies from: The end of the maintenance branch

Post by MasterBel »

saturnV wrote: 06 Dec 2020, 23:00 The story about "toxic players" that the BA10 told is bullshit. If the problem was only with a few toxic trolls, as they say, why did they leave BA broken like that? They made it unplayable for everyone because of a few trolls?
1. BA 10 wasn’t received well by a certain few because of a series of honest mistakes made by Floris, which he quickly sought to rectify. The first and foremost was releasing a test version in the same manner as a real version. He was very upfront about this mistake, and if there’s anything I’ve learned about maturity, the mature thing to do is do what you think is right, and then admit your error and seek to fix things. SaturnV, in your pursuit of reinstating BA to its former glory, it would do you very well to grow some maturity in this respect.

I have some evidence to support saying “a select few” which I’ll share when I get my computer back (put it in for repairs this morning, and typing this on a phone is painful). Adolf was the largest reason that BA9 was played more, because he would generally idle in lobby all through BA’s quiet period, and then everyone would just join his battle because that’s where the people are. 2 in one lobby is a lot more in attractive than 2 split across 2.

2. Floris didn’t leave BA broken. He just left. The BA developers also didn’t own the BA hosts. One set were owned by BA9 supporters, the other by Fabrice. Fabrice’s are the only ones left now. He does care about the state of his hosts, as discussed in the thread about the undownloadable engine versions. (Sry no link - as said above I’m on my phone)

FYI it is fully possible to host games with 104.0 without facing restrictions. The 104 download will be there for longer than anyone would worry about using it.

Also the Spring devs don’t have to be responsible for ensuring games can always access whatever download they want. ZeroK (and now BAR, I believe) host otherwise nondownloadable maintenance versions for their lobby clients to download. It’s a little less convenient but I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. It seems to give everyone a little more flexibility. (Except people who want all of the work done for them)

Finally Ares wasn’t the only one in on the power grab. Mando was heavily involved, and his first bout of DoS attacks were against BA10. (Back when it still ran on 103 engine, and I could play it without booting up linux)
saturnV
Posts: 79
Joined: 03 Dec 2020, 07:58

Re: Splitting Ares's lies from: The end of the maintenance branch

Post by saturnV »

MasterBel wrote: 16 Dec 2020, 10:00 and if there’s anything I’ve learned about maturity, the mature thing to do is do what you think is right, and then admit your error and seek to fix things.
You have much to learn then.
Doing what you think is right is easy. There was too much of that. The mature thing would have been to listen to what others think.
Adolf was the largest reason that BA9 was played more, because he would generally idle in lobby all through BA’s quiet period, and then everyone would just join his battle because that’s where the people are.
One guy idling in lobby was the largest reason that BA10 failed? Silly.
BA10 got enough playtime or test time. After a while the trust of players was used up. Especially when you join a BA10 host to "test" and then read all the celebration that BA9 room is finally "lifeless and empty."
Also the Spring devs don’t have to be responsible for ensuring games can always access whatever download they want. ZeroK (and now BAR, I believe) host otherwise nondownloadable maintenance versions for their lobby clients to download. It’s a little less convenient but I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. It seems to give everyone a little more flexibility. (Except people who want all of the work done for them)
zeroK used outdated engines in the past, did I miss the big outcry over that? EvolutionRTS released on steam with two year old engine, nobody cared.
BA uses an engine version that is one year older than current and so it needs to be banned. :roll:
Funny you talk of "flexibility" while defending restrictions. If spring devs want to keep pushing games and players to private servers then they can feel free to do so. Just never moan again why spring is dead or or why no new developers are coming or why all the player have disappeared.
As if getting into spring was not difficult enough for newcomers, entry is artificially made even harder because of too big egos.
User avatar
Silentwings
Moderator
Posts: 3686
Joined: 25 Oct 2008, 00:23

Re: More "BA" questions, split from The end of the maintenance branch

Post by Silentwings »

zeroK used outdated engines in the past, did I miss the big outcry
Seems you didn't realize that engine developers were very unhappy with that situation, for years, and at times reduced the amount of cooperation they gave to ZK. Kudos to all those who eventually got out of that mess, using hard work and in a civil and basically drama free fashion, which is perhaps why your search for a "big outcry" is fruitless: nobody acted that way.
EvolutionRTS released on steam with two year old engine, nobody cared.
Ofc they did, but with the Steam launch there were so many logistics/infra problems on top that it didn't take priority until a while after; it also was eventually fixed in a civil and basically drama free fashion.

So, I imagine my next observation is obvious, but by this point it looks like a long road back for BA. Best of luck with it.
saturnV
Posts: 79
Joined: 03 Dec 2020, 07:58

Re: More "BA" questions, split from The end of the maintenance branch

Post by saturnV »

Silentwings wrote: 16 Dec 2020, 22:45
zeroK used outdated engines in the past, did I miss the big outcry
Seems you didn't realize that engine developers were very unhappy with that situation, for years, and at times reduced the amount of cooperation they gave to ZK. Kudos to all those who eventually got out of that mess, using hard work and in a civil and basically drama free fashion, which is perhaps why your search for a "big outcry" is fruitless: nobody acted that way.
That is what I said. zeroK and evolutionrts used old engines but nobody made a big drama out of it. When BA uses old engine it suddendly becomes a big deal and people make dramatic posts threating to leave spring and put restrictions.
User avatar
Silentwings
Moderator
Posts: 3686
Joined: 25 Oct 2008, 00:23

Re: More "BA" questions, split from The end of the maintenance branch

Post by Silentwings »

Not really - the engine devs made their decision, made a small number of civil posts explaining it, and had nothing more to say then or since.

Afaics for them what matters is the future of 104->105 and the need to either (1) use more modern openGL or (2) call time on the whole engine project. Unlike the other games with sizeable playerbases, BA fell behind without even reaching the starting line, of 104, and was sadly still behind when the engine devs felt it was time to set that (1)/(2) choice in motion. The 103->104 transition is not hard; I think the engine devs (rightly) judged that there is little hope/future for a game that can't manage that bit, and which chose to ignore a long and well advertised grace period. I wasn't even reading this stuff anymore until there were multiple requests to off-topic moderate it, and I intend to return to that happy state of affairs.
saturnV
Posts: 79
Joined: 03 Dec 2020, 07:58

Re: More "BA" questions, split from The end of the maintenance branch

Post by saturnV »

To me the decision to ban was dramatic. Also crying of to quit engine development because some games did not update, is drama too.
So far nobody got give reasons why old versions need to be banned - except that some people wanted to do ban it, were able to ban it, and so they banned it.
Just some vague "We need to move forward." Okay, do that. Was a game with some low hundred of players holding you back?
No. So why ban it?
The 103->104 transition is not hard;
Great, so it will not be a problem to update games from 103 to 105, when needed.
Which makes the ban even more stupid. At time of ban 104.0 was already old and the test-versions had (still have) the problem of getting deleted too soon.
MasterBel
Posts: 262
Joined: 18 Mar 2018, 07:48

Re: More "BA" questions, split from The end of the maintenance branch

Post by MasterBel »

saturnV wrote: 20 Dec 2020, 22:24 So far nobody got give reasons why old versions need to be banned …
Just some vague "We need to move forward."
The reasons for the restrictions have been detailed in full by the people who made the decision. The intended effect was not to remove BA (or other games) from the server but to make BA (and other games) move to 104+. This is still the intended effect. Until everyone moves to 104, I don't see that it would make sense for 103 to be un-restricted. The engine developers and Official Server maintainers have (as far as I can see) no other way to motivate stubborn game developers to use the latest versions on the official server, and hosting old versions is a liability. Of course they're going to restrict old versions, when they (and their communities) become a problem. BA is free to do what they want on their own server. But the Spring devs have no obligation to support you if they don't want to.

Maybe their reasons were petty, but unless you're going to stand up and do the work, I think the people who spent hours of their free time so you could play a game for free are free to be as petty as they like.

Personally, I don't think they were petty. I think BA's crusade to justify itself is petty, especially when the actions of Mando – the person who hosts BA's server – was one of the largest contributors to the variety of messes BA created in this community. Keep in mind that Mando also made great use of an exploit in 103 to cause problems to a variety of hosts on the Official Server, which were complained about even after 104 was released and available. The solution was to upgrade. But BA refused to, and chose to complain about issues they could have solved themselves.

And you continue to complain about problems that you could fix yourself. We've all told you how to. It's time for you to start being part of the solution, instead of part of the problem.
User avatar
PtaQ
Posts: 173
Joined: 15 Sep 2009, 10:40

Re: More "BA" questions, split from The end of the maintenance branch

Post by PtaQ »

The 103->104 transition is not hard;
Great, so it will not be a problem to update games from 103 to 105, when needed.
Which makes the ban even more stupid. At time of ban 104.0 was already old and the test-versions had (still have) the problem of getting deleted too soon.
[/quote]

BTW. There is a "little" mistake in this logic. Namely:
- porting BA to 104 would take a few hours of work for any decent dev
- porting BA to 105 (or rather 106 which is what current spring develop will become as I understand) would take maybe a few months if you were to really push for it.
saturnV
Posts: 79
Joined: 03 Dec 2020, 07:58

Re: More "BA" questions, split from The end of the maintenance branch

Post by saturnV »

MasterBel:
In your posts you give four reasons to ban old versions:
1) "hosting old versions is a liability."
How so? This feature was added many years to server and lobbies and it worked fine.

2) exploits
I know of one exploit to close/crash hosts. It was rarely abused and imo is not very relevant.
There is one other exploit regarding antinukes. Someone from BA10-team tried to spread it so that BA9 would die from cheaters. That failed and is also not relevant.

3) make BA (and other games) move to 104+
Yes, but obviously that just sidesteps the question. Why do games need to use 104+? Why do engine devs decide what engine a game uses?

4) "games and their communities) become a problem" ... variety of messes BA created in this community.
What does this mean?What problems did BA create for spring? This just seems like the vague BA-hate that has been common in this forum since always.

PtaQ wrote: 21 Dec 2020, 20:49 - porting BA to 104 would take a few hours of work for any decent dev
- porting BA to 105 (or rather 106 which is what current spring develop will become as I understand) would take maybe a few months if you were to really push for it.
Yes, so it is as I said? Updating BA to 104 only takes a few hours. So there is nothing to win by updating to 104. When updating to 105/106 will take months then those few hours are irrelevant.
Super Mario
Posts: 820
Joined: 21 Oct 2008, 02:54

Re: More "BA" questions, split from The end of the maintenance branch

Post by Super Mario »

MasterBel:
In your posts you give four reasons to ban old versions:
1) "hosting old versions is a liability."
How so?
There is a thing calledSoftware Maintenance cost.
User avatar
Forboding Angel
Evolution RTS Developer
Posts: 14650
Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43

Re: More "BA" questions, split from The end of the maintenance branch

Post by Forboding Angel »

EvolutionRTS released on steam with two year old engine, nobody cared.
It was the most recent released version. Spring at that time regularly went years without a release. You are such a joke.
Post Reply

Return to “Off Topic Discussion”