A note to team 17 [damn those quitters]

[jepp027]

Hello Team 17,
This should be fixed if possible. Online matches are a thing of frustration when you spend 1/2 hour on a tough opponent and win only to have that person quit and thus leave you with nothing. If I or anyone else quit it should be a forefit to the oposing player. I dont play worms much anymore because of the quitters. Please fix this if possible and it was the DS version.

[Plasma]

Sorry. It isn't rationally possible to fix. We at this forum have gotten that complaint numerous times!

[FeXd]

This thread explains all: http://forum.team17.co.uk/showpost.php?p=611322&postcount=9

We are well versed in this topic.

[Ariiel]

I hope they do fix it

[RetroBob]

I hope they do fix it

See post #2.

[Ariiel]

See post #2.

There must be a way to do so

if they dont fix it the online its gonna die :(

[bonz]

if they dont fix it the online its gonna die :(
Well, online play still works in WA to this day.
(It did die once though, but that was a case of hacking.)

[mrchampipi]

There must be a way to do so

if they dont fix it the online its gonna die :(
This problem happens with every single ds game that has online: remember mario kart and how everyone was braging about the quiters problem?
Unless we where playing through servers with our handhelds (and that's not going to happen), there is no solution for this but to play with trustable friends that won't quit last second.

[quakerworm]

Sorry. It isn't rationally possible to fix.
lies. there has been a number of suggestions that would work better than current solution.

[AndrewTaylor]

You know, one solution is to simply stop caring about it. Why has nobody though to just not care about it? You still get to play the game, you just don't see the results screen. And if nobody can finish a game then your percentage will be no lower than anyone else's, so what difference does it make?


Edit: quaker, sure, they might work incrementally better, but there is no way to make this work that couldn't or wouldn't be exploited. As such, it's perfectly reasonable to say that there's no way to fix it.

[Run]

You know, one solution is to simply stop caring about it. Why has nobody though to just not care about it? You still get to play the game, you just don't see the results screen. And if nobody can finish a game then your percentage will be no lower than anyone else's, so what difference does it make?

for some reason people forget that worms is a game and start to believe that it's some sort of life achievement, like a real sport, where results matter and trophies have to be earned, otherwise they can't convince everyone else (and themselves) that they're good at something

this is why people get so hung up about ranks on WA

[Plasma]

lies. there has been a number of suggestions that would work better than current solution.
Hm. And I suppose it's only a coincidence that you're the one that suggested all of them?
And I suppose it's just another coincidence that Team17 said that they didn't work, right?

[quakerworm]

there is a way to solve it completely. run it through a server. tcp connection to central server from both sides, and neither player even knows the ip of the opponent. any disconnect is non-ambiguous. you know which player disconnected, and one player cannot force the other to disconnect. yes, sometimes players will lose percentage because of a bad network. cest la vie. at least, nobody would be able to cheat intentionally like just about everyone does now.

of course, server upkeep costs money, and that is what it comes down to. it is simply cheaper for t17 to stick you with network play that lets people cheat left and right than to do it proper via a server. in other words, make money now, forget the damage done to the name. in my opinion, that says everything that needs to be said about the current state of the worms franchise.
Hm. And I suppose it's only a coincidence that you're the one that suggested all of them?
And I suppose it's just another coincidence that Team17 said that they didn't work, right?
i suggested one of them, and it would make an improvement, just like many other suggestions made by other people. if you'd rather believe t17, who have been putting out games each with more problems ever since wwp, go ahead.

[AndrewTaylor]

there is a way to solve it completely. run it through a server. tcp connection to central server from both sides, and neither player even knows the ip of the opponent. any disconnect is non-ambiguous. you know which player disconnected, and one player cannot force the other to disconnect. yes, sometimes players will lose percentage because of a bad network. cest la vie. at least, nobody would be able to cheat intentionally like just about everyone does now.
...and it would multiply the running costs by about ten thousand.

i suggested one of them, and it would make an improvement,
No, it wouldn't. You only think it would. But parsely's already explained to you that and why it wouldn't.

[Plasma]

i suggested one of them, and it would make an improvement, just like many other suggestions made by other people. if you'd rather believe t17, who have been putting out games each with more problems ever since wwp, go ahead.
Hmm... who to believe... someone who made the actual game, and has a lot of experience working with online play, or someone who believes nothing exists and doesn't even use capital letters... tough call!

[810Damage]

I Agree ^^^^^100%

[wave]

You know, one solution is to simply stop caring about it. Why has nobody though to just not care about it? You still get to play the game, you just don't see the results screen. And if nobody can finish a game then your percentage will be no lower than anyone else's, so what difference does it make?


Edit: quaker, sure, they might work incrementally better, but there is no way to make this work that couldn't or wouldn't be exploited. As such, it's perfectly reasonable to say that there's no way to fix it.

well yes that would work, however that kinda chucks the whole thing in the bin though, people enjoy competition whole heartedly as well as the worms games so to be able to play people around the world is a dream come true for many. Seeing 'this session is no longer avaialble' on the screen because you know some petty minded quitter assh*le has just selected the quit option when you are doing so well kinda sucks major winky.

Another option could be t17 just not bothering wasting peoples time bringing out online games, either that or take the lead and come up with helpful solutions that do make increments to the annoying quitting problem.

[quakerworm]

...and it would multiply the running costs by about ten thousand.
consider the size of wa replays. total traffic will not exceed that per player. take number of copies sold (100k?), times the average games each player plays per day (10 at the most), that gives you total traffic. considering the fact that you can have a server with 5000gb/month for less than $10/month, this is very manageable. considering peaks, etc, it might total to a few hundred/month in running costs. sure, it would increase costs. there is no argument about that, but unless t17 is barely breaking even anyways, and the whole thing is spinning down the drain, they'd be able to afford it.
No, it wouldn't. You only think it would. But parsely's already explained to you that and why it wouldn't.
actually, parsley's entire argument consistent of, "it won't work". if you want, you can take a swing at it, but there is no question that the method of detection i suggested would decrease the number of quitters, whether significantly or not. a sound argument is sound no matter how many 'experts' say otherwise.

[Plasma]

consider the size of wa replays. total traffic will not exceed that per player. take number of copies sold (100k?), times the average games each player plays per day (10 at the most), that gives you total traffic. considering the fact that you can have a server with 5000gb/month for less than $10/month, this is very manageable. considering peaks, etc, it might total to a few hundred/month in running costs. sure, it would increase costs. there is no argument about that, but unless t17 is barely breaking even anyways, and the whole thing is spinning down the drain, they'd be able to afford it.
Even if it was only £300 a month, that's 3.5 grand a year. Keep that up for, let's say, a decade, and that adds up to a lot of money! 35 grand just to keep some people happy because they don't like people quitting on them? And that's not even taking in the amount of quitters there are that would hate to have to be punished for what they can easily get away with now.

[AndrewTaylor]

consider the size of wa replays. total traffic will not exceed that per player.
Well, not really. There may not be map compression, plus you have overheads like protocol, connection upkeep, redundancies, checks, corrections and all kinds of stuff you don't need to store in a replay.

take number of copies sold (100k?), times the average games each player plays per day (10 at the most), that gives you total traffic. considering the fact that you can have a server with 5000gb/month for less than $10/month, this is very manageable. considering peaks, etc, it might total to a few hundred/month in running costs. sure, it would increase costs. there is no argument about that, but unless t17 is barely breaking even anyways, and the whole thing is spinning down the drain, they'd be able to afford it.
Something being affordable and something being profitable are not the same thing. Team17 shouldn't spend money just because they have it. That's the Stupid way to run a business. You spend money on that which will generate more money in the future. I can see how pumping $100 into an already-finished game every month indefinitely didn't look tempting. It also means that the moment you take the server down you have people whining at you for taking away the most important part of the game (even though it isn't), demanding their money back (from the wrong company), threatening boycotts (which they won't bother with) and generally being obnoxious. Good plan, that'd be real good for business.

actually, parsley's entire argument consistent of, "it won't work". if you want, you can take a swing at it, but there is no question that the method of detection i suggested would decrease the number of quitters, whether significantly or not. a sound argument is sound no matter how many 'experts' say otherwise.
No. If you want to discuss the alleged merits of your plan then do so in the thread where you suggested it. All I will say here is that making cheating awkward will not stop it; only making it impossible or disadvantageous will do that. But since you say things like "there is no question" I assume that you don't want to discuss it in any real sense.

[quakerworm]

Well, not really. There may not be map compression, plus you have overheads like protocol, connection upkeep, redundancies, checks, corrections and all kinds of stuff you don't need to store in a replay.
taken care of in tcp protocol which is the same protocl used every time you connect to a http server, so it is already accounted for.
Something being affordable and something being profitable are not the same thing. Team17 shouldn't spend money just because they have it. That's the Stupid way to run a business. You spend money on that which will generate more money in the future. I can see how pumping $100 into an already-finished game every month indefinitely didn't look tempting.
so keeping a good name for a franchise is not an investment anymore? look at how many people complain about the cheating. i can't get a good estimate of the number of people this affects strongly, but i, for one, have not bought wow2, and that is one of the reasons. good networking would have swayed me over. now consider people who have bought wow2, and might not want to have anything to do with future worms games, because they were attracted by availability of network play, and severely disappointed by it.
All I will say here is that making cheating awkward will not stop it; only making it impossible or disadvantageous will do that.
stop, no. limit, yes. as i said, i suggested an improvement, not a total solution. total solution pretty much requires client-server. but if you put together all good improvements that were suggested, things could have been noticeably better, even if not sufficiently so as to be able to stop complaints.
Even if it was only £300 a month, that's 3.5 grand a year.so in a decade that adds up to a year salary of an incompetent code monkey. what was your point again?

[Plasma]

i, for one, have not bought wow2
Right... so now you're conplaining about a game that you never actually got yourself... gee, real nice.

Also, we get it here loads of times. People refusing to buy a game because of X is rarely enough to actually add/remove X. Especially when you're comparing 'a frew people not buying it' which turns into about $50 less from T17, to a 35 grand server.

[Podgies]

I've just started playing WOW2 online and have to admit it is annoying when people quit. Even when I'm down to the last worm its still worth playing as its more fun that way. Makes u more resourceful.

Anyway, can't there be a sticky thread (is that the right term for a permanent post?) put up on here of 'trusted' people u know aren't going to quit and which we can add our names to? Found in the handful of games I've played so far that its about 25% of games where peeps quit.

[GhostToast]

this is kinda supposed to be that i think.

http://forum.team17.co.uk/showthread.php?t=34276

[JohnyQuest]

Right... so now you're conplaining about a game that you never actually got yourself... gee, real nice.

WTF?? so what if he didnt buy the game? maybe he borrowed it from a friend to see weather he should or not buy it? it is not relevant! i COMLETELY agree with quaker! the only reason t17 would have NOT to patch the game is so that in wow3 they could "fix" this and then sell 10x more game copies! well that's not gonna happen. cuz i won't be buying it again! and i DONT belive any "experts" that could publish a game with this much problems. i'm talking about game physics, aiming disalignment, buddy list stucks, etc etc. wtf were they doing in testing phase?! this problem is a result of a non-expert doing the network programming, nothing else! this is sad! and i think i'm not the only one to think like this. to be honest, f t17 if they don't give a f about me. fix this or you suck bad, t17!

Also, we get it here loads of times. People refusing to buy a game because of X is rarely enough to actually add/remove X. Especially when you're comparing 'a frew people not buying it' which turns into about $50 less from T17, to a 35 grand server.

and again, what are you talking about!? what kind of server costs 35grand/year?! lol! lol! if it would exceed 500$, you can punch me in the face. i mean, come on.

[Plasma]

Because we've already gone through this enough times as it is, and people completely ignore it and think their way is right, regardless of the fact that most of them have no experience in this matter whatsoever, I'm not going to point out what you did wrong in that complaint there. Instead, I'm just going to make one comment only:
buddy list stucks
I lawl'd.

what kind of server costs 35grand/year?!
Thank you for completely missing my explanation for what that figure represented.

[JohnyQuest]

Because we've already gone through this enough times as it is, and people completely ignore it and think their way is right, regardless of the fact that most of them have no experience in this matter whatsoever, I'm not going to point out what you did wrong in that complaint there. Instead, I'm just going to make one comment only:

I lawl'd.


Thank you for completely missing my explanation for what that figure represented.

i've seen your "enogh times". it is not about "enogh times". it is that you keep saying the same old "no, can't do" phrase. yes, you can. but you dont want to. i am no idiot.

[Plasma]

i've seen your "enogh times". it is not about "enogh times". it is that you keep saying the same old "no, can't do" phrase. yes, you can. but you dont want to. i am no idiot.
*sigh*
Fine, what do you think would be a solution so? Keeping in mind that if you remove the quit function, people will just turn off the WLAN switch, and that the game isn't able to tell who disconnected in a 1v1 match.

[wave]

*sigh*
Fine, what do you think would be a solution so? Keeping in mind that if you remove the quit function, people will just turn off the WLAN switch, and that the game isn't able to tell who disconnected in a 1v1 match.

oh plasma its too much for your simple mind leave it to the professionals, no offence or anything.

[Plasma]

oh plasma its too much for your simple mind leave it to the professionals, no offence or anything.
The professionals already said 'No, there is no recourseful way to solve this problem'.
And these professionals come from a variety of different companies too. This isn't a new problem at all.

Also, it's a bit hard to say someone has a simple mind without be offensive...

[JohnyQuest]

listen plasma, all im saying is that:
1)person disconnects
2)server detects who did it (so at this point it is not important how person did it, weather its quit or wlan off button)
3)server puts a white flag in that person's hand.

does that sound so tough? its a sour programming stuff, and changing some principles, as i have learned from our friend parsley here. only, noone seems to know how to "teach" the server to distinguish a client who has lost connection and the one who hasn't. i dont take that seriously. if this was to be done, maybe no patch would have to be required at all.. just some server readjustments :D

[quakerworm]

they can't tell who disconnected only when people are playing p2p. in server-client model, there is no question. you keep a tcp to both clients. whoever stopped responding is the one that disconnected. one player cannot cause the other player to disconnect, because they don't even know each other's ip addresses, nor have a way of finding it out, since no direct client-client connection exists. there is absolutely no way to cheat in server-client by any form of disconnect.

there is no question if server-client solves the problem entirely. it just does. there is only a question of whether or not it would be cost beneficial. it is affordable. question is, do t17 care about franchise enough to spend some extra money on the server, and the answer is no. they would rather stick you with a game that lets opponents cheat.

[AndrewTaylor]

they would rather stick you with a game that lets opponents cheat.

You really are taking this quite personally, aren't you?

[JohnyQuest]

there is no question if server-client solves the problem entirely. it just does. there is only a question of whether or not it would be cost beneficial. it is affordable. question is, do t17 care about franchise enough to spend some extra money on the server, and the answer is no. they would rather stick you with a game that lets opponents cheat.

not if we all react. thats my opinion.

[JohnyQuest]

You really are taking this quite personally, aren't you?

i payed for the game with my own money. so it is personal. if i could afford the game then its their duty to afford me an online play worth its name. not selling me some half-finished piece of material.

[Plasma]

Oh hey, now I remember the idea I had to prevent people disconnecting all the time:
Remove the leaderboards entirely!

Which, as far as I know, is what T17 are planning to do with W:aSO, because so many people were complaining.
Ah, the irony of it all...

they can't tell who disconnected only when people are playing p2p. in server-client model, there is no question. you keep a tcp to both clients. whoever stopped responding is the one that disconnected. one player cannot cause the other player to disconnect, because they don't even know each other's ip addresses, nor have a way of finding it out, since no direct client-client connection exists.
Correct.

question is, do t17 care about franchise enough to spend some extra money on the server, and the answer is no. they would rather stick you with a game that lets opponents cheat.
That's pretty harsh, considering the price the server would be to be running for all the time until people get completely bored of WOW2 compared to what it would achieve, which would just be "people can't cheat by disconnecting to get ahead in a leaderboard". And it's not really the franchise they'd care about either, it'd just be one game.
Heck, that only removes just one of the cheating methods too, the smaller one. As soon as people find out how to hack the leaderboards (which, IIRC, one or two already managed to do), the server's useless! And either they'll have to keep paying for it, or they'll have to shut off the online mode for WOW2.

i payed for the game with my own money. so it is personal. if i could afford the game then its their duty to afford me an online play worth its name. not selling me some half-finished piece of material.
Well, you do have a choice: play with disconnectors, or play without leaderboards.
Anyway, they already 'afforded' you your money's worth not long after production started. $50 or so won't get you a very good game. What they are doing is making a game that's incredibly great value (as did all the other publishers and developers), because it's incredibly cheap to reproduce.

[AndrewTaylor]

i payed for the game with my own money. so it is personal. if i could afford the game then its their duty to afford me an online play worth its name. not selling me some half-finished piece of material.

They took a business decision and it affected thousands of people. This is not personal.

Furthermore, they don't have any "duty" to "afford" you an online mode at all. They make a game with a feature list and a price, and you decide based on that, and based on reviews and possibly based on renting the game and playing it, whether to buy it or not. Nobody has a "duty" to do anything at any stage.

Also, you people really have to stop terming anything that doesn't work the way you'd like it to "half-finished" or "beta" or "buggy". The feature works exactly as designed. This is not broken. It is not incomplete. It's not ideal, but nothing is. The only problem here is that the feature hasn't been implemented in quite the way you would like. But it works. You can play online. If you don't like the people you meet there, then... well, then I'm not at all surprised. My experience is that people who play games online are mostly jerks.

But they're jerks whether they have a quit button or not. They'll put down the console and make you play through several minutes of boring target practice or quit yourself, or they'll blowtorch underground and hide. The fact that they're jerks is not Team17's fault and you can't expect Team17 to stop them.

The solution is to stop being so hung up on a couple of stats. They're quitting when you've beaten them. You're getting your game. You're just upset because your wins record is low. What do you care about that?

[quakerworm]

That's pretty harsh, considering the price the server would be to be running for all the time until people get completely bored of WOW2 compared to what it would achieve, which would just be "people can't cheat by disconnecting to get ahead in a leaderboard".
what was that high end estimate? $30k for 10 years?
And it's not really the franchise they'd care about either, it'd just be one game.
a single game can make or break the franchise. now, consider lost sales on future titles to the above number.

Heck, that only removes just one of the cheating methods too, the smaller one. As soon as people find out how to hack the leaderboards (which, IIRC, one or two already managed to do), the server's useless! And either they'll have to keep paying for it, or they'll have to shut off the online mode for WOW2.
leader boards get hacked because after p2p the game must report results to leader board server. if the match goes through the server, you cannot hack the leader board.

the only thing that is a challenge is the sync checks, but there are ways to make sure that nobody throws sync errors on purpose.


edit: here is a side thought. in the p2p case. lets say that winning the match gives you a point. losing a match gives you zero points. not finishing the match gives you loss of a point. two points? five points? would people still disconnect? you can take a gain of zero points, and let an opponent gain a point, or take both of you down five points. which makes more sense?

[AndrewTaylor]

a single game can make or break the franchise. now, consider lost sales on future titles to the above number.

Okay. Each lost sale loses Team17 pocket-change. To add up to $30k, you're looking at somewhere in the region of a hundred thousand sales. Not gonna happen. Not for online play on a handheld.


if the match goes through the server, you cannot hack the leader board.

That's nonsense. Your ability to hack the leader board depends on the server's OS, sever software, other software, and security measures. None of that is affected by whether the game is P2P or centrally bridged. It's harder but not impossible.

[quakerworm]

Okay. Each lost sale loses Team17 pocket-change. To add up to $30k, you're looking at somewhere in the region of a hundred thousand sales. Not gonna happen. Not for online play on a handheld.
over period of 10 years on all future titles? i'm talking about safety of the franchise, and not just about wow2.
That's nonsense. Your ability to hack the leader board depends on the server's OS, sever software, other software, and security measures. None of that is affected by whether the game is P2P or centrally bridged. It's harder but not impossible.
for all intents and purposes, a properly configured linux server running an SQL database, web interface for administering said database, and an FTP server is perfectly secure, as long as your database interface is non-injectable. as long as you manage to write a game server on top of it that is not going to be vulnerable, you are good.

[Plasma]

over period of 10 years on all future titles? i'm talking about safety of the franchise, and not just about wow2.
Oh. Well, in that case.... not a chance in hell!
Sorry, but very few people are going to be completely put off buying worms games just because some people disconnected on them in WOW2. Like Andrew said, T17 get very little profit per game.

[wave]

The professionals already said 'No, there is no recourseful way to solve this problem'.
And these professionals come from a variety of different companies too. This isn't a new problem at all.

Also, it's a bit hard to say someone has a simple mind without be offensive...

there are solutions to all problems, first identify exact problem and then fix. Is the problem people quitting or the fact that the quitter is penalised the same as the person still standing. Which is unfair.

[Run]

*

please tell me more about how you're more qualified to make business decisions for team17 than they are themselves

[AndrewTaylor]

over period of 10 years on all future titles? i'm talking about safety of the franchise, and not just about wow2.

Yeah, I know. But I honestly don't think people out there in Real Life care that much about this. People on the Internet care about it, but they're not representative.

[parsley]

Over on, "The disconnect list," there's two players each stating that the other quit from the game...

The humans can't even agree on what happened.

Enough said.

[JohnyQuest]

Over on, "The disconnect list," there's two players each stating that the other quit from the game...

The humans can't even agree on what happened.

Enough said.

thats your fault parsley.

[quakerworm]

and of course, they were both network specialists who were logging their ip transactions, and based on the packets sent and received, they both deduced that the other has purposefully disconnected? or were they both just players who saw a dropped connection, and because there are so many damn quitters, each just assumed that to be the case?

if you don't want to discuss the network, don't, but why intentionally come up with examples void of any meaning?
please tell me more about how you're more qualified to make business decisions for team17 than they are themselves
i'm not. i am qualified to make judgement on how to produce quality software. if making quality games is counterbeneficial to the business, then i am indeed wrong. i just don't understand why you, as a gamer, defend a business that is doing things that are better for business than what is better for the game. you should be providing with business these companies that care about making a game that actually works, thereby making sure that the making of good game and running good business doesn't contradict each other.

but apparently things have gone so backwards that it is easier for a business to get you to buy the game with brand names and addvertisement than with quality of the product. and this is probably a good place to respond to someone asking me eariler why i take this personally. this state of things is exactly why. i want to see good games on the market, but everyone follows the lead of corporations and buys games with cheaper development and flashier titles, making good games a bad business. so you tell me, why shouldn't i take this personally?

if for a fraction of development cost, one could add a server and resolve a lion share of network problems off the bat, including any requirements on nat, quitters, and leader board hacks in a game that is inherently about multi-player competition, shouldn't it be done? i've done all i can do about it. i didn't buy wow2. but that doesn't seem like enough if i don't at least try to convince other people that things can be done better.

[AndrewTaylor]

i'm not. i am qualified to make judgement on how to produce quality software. if making quality games is counterbeneficial to the business, then i am indeed wrong.
This argument is facile. It's not a matter of "making quality games"; it's a matter of returns. Adding a feature to a game, any feature, is an investment: people must be paid to do it, and it holds up development. Any investment will give a certain return: each feature or group of features will affect sales of this and other titles and therefore revenue. If the projected revenue exceeds the investment and the investment is viable then it is a good idea. Otherwise it is a bad idea. Whereas your argument could be used to defend any investment for any return. You're oversimplifying the situation.

i just don't understand why you, as a gamer, defend a business that is doing things that are better for business than what is better for the game.
I would presume because things that are better for business will ensure a stream of games in the future. Team17 cannot continue to produce quality games if they go out of business.

you should be providing with business these companies that care about making a game that actually works, thereby making sure that the making of good game and running good business doesn't contradict each other.
The game does work. Please stop saying it doesn't. What you are asking for is an improvement, not a fix.

but apparently things have gone so backwards that it is easier for a business to get you to buy the game with brand names and addvertisement than with quality of the product.
That's one possibility. Another is that people other than you don't actually care enough about online play to boycott an entire game based on that one feature not being implemented as well as you might hope.

and this is probably a good place to respond to someone asking me eariler why i take this personally. this state of things is exactly why. i want to see good games on the market, but everyone follows the lead of corporations and buys games with cheaper development and flashier titles, making good games a bad business. so you tell me, why shouldn't i take this personally?
Because the companies who are so aggrieving you mostly don't know you exist. I'm at a loss to understand how they can possibly have anything personal against you.

if for a fraction of development cost, one could add a server and resolve a lion share of network problems off the bat, including any requirements on nat, quitters, and leader board hacks in a game that is inherently about multi-player competition, shouldn't it be done?
That rather depends. If it's a game where online play is an important part then yes, probably. Otherwise no, because it won't generate sufficient return on the investment. I know you consider online play an important part of WOW2, but I don't, and I don't know if the average player does. If you do then please let me know, because without that information you have no basis to decide if Team17 should or should not have run a central server for this game.

Note that the people you meet on the internet are not a useful sample for this information.

[Plasma]

i am qualified to make judgement on how to produce quality software.
NO! That is not what you are doing! You are quite distinctly saying that T17 will make more money by purchasing and maintaining expensive hardware! There's no producing, no quality, and no software in what you said.

and of course, they were both network specialists who were logging their ip transactions, and based on the packets sent and received, they both deduced that the other has purposefully disconnected? or were they both just players who saw a dropped connection, and because there are so many damn quitters, each just assumed that to be the case?
if you don't want to discuss the network, don't, but why intentionally come up with examples void of any meaning?
That was obviously directed towards those who thought the problem could be solved in the game alone, not those who wanted an entire server to fix the problem.

i just don't understand why you, as a gamer, defend a business that is doing things that are better for business than what is better for the game.
That's because we care more about these 70-75 people being able to keep their weel-earned jobs and continue producing more 'low quality' games, as you would say, than to have one single excellent game for ourselves.

Note that the people you meet on the internet are not a useful sample for this information.
Well, except for those that you meet playing WOW2. And judging by the really high number of disconnectors, that's very little people.

Look, Quaker, good business is making more income than expenditure. Regardless of how many times you repeat the same thing, purchasing a server to stop disconnectors is not going to produce more income than expenditure. Not one bit.

[AndrewTaylor]

Well, except for those that you meet playing WOW2.

Actually, those people are an even poorer sample. Asking people you meet in WOW2's online lobby whether they play WOW2 online much is not a useful experiment.

[quakerworm]

This argument is facile. It's not a matter of "making quality games"; it's a matter of returns. Adding a feature to a game, any feature, is an investment: people must be paid to do it, and it holds up development.
and the business should be getting better returns by providing features that people want. when that doesn't happen, you know something is going wrong.
I would presume because things that are better for business will ensure a stream of games in the future. Team17 cannot continue to produce quality games if they go out of business.
nor should i care much about them staying in business if they don't produce quality games.
The game does work. Please stop saying it doesn't. What you are asking for is an improvement, not a fix.
leader boards is a designed feature. it doesn't work. game does not work as intended. ergo, it would require a fix to be operational. and without the network, can you honestly say that it is a great enough improvement from wow?

[Plasma]

leader boards is a designed feature. it doesn't work.
Leaderboards work perfectly. They just don't work the way you want them to.

[AndrewTaylor]

and the business should be getting better returns by providing features that people want. when that doesn't happen, you know something is going wrong.
Ah, but if nobody cares about leaderboards, this is not an issue.

nor should i care much about them staying in business if they don't produce quality games.
Ah, but if nobody cares about leaderboards, this is not an issue.

leader boards is a designed feature. it doesn't work. game does not work as intended. ergo, it would require a fix to be operational.
Ah, but if nobody cares about leaderboards, this is not an issue.

and without the network, can you honestly say that it is a great enough improvement from wow?
I don't own a PSP and haven't played either version so I can't say. But yes, probably -- presumably there's something there just in case nobody cares about leaderboards.


(edit: there are points I could be making now but I'm choosing to focus on one that I think you're having particular trouble grasping)

[wave]

Ah, but if nobody cares about leaderboards, this is not an issue.


Ah, but if nobody cares about leaderboards, this is not an issue.


Ah, but if nobody cares about leaderboards, this is not an issue.


I don't own a PSP and haven't played either version so I can't say. But yes, probably -- presumably there's something there just in case nobody cares about leaderboards.


(edit: there are points I could be making now but I'm choosing to focus on one that I think you're having particular trouble grasping)

are we still talking about quitting? leaderboard removal is one almost solution to 'quit problem'.

[AndrewTaylor]

are we still talking about quitting? leaderboard removal is one almost solution to 'quit problem'.

Didn't work on WormNet.

[wave]

Didn't work on WormNet.

but it stops people moaning about point unfair points systems, they still moan but just at the quitting itself - pure moaning.

[Pigbuster]

but it stops people moaning about point unfair points systems, they still moan but just at the quitting itself - pure moaning.
But they will also moan about how the leaderboards were removed, so not much improvement, there.

[matrona]

yes, buddy list stucks when you have too many friends, i didnt count how many, but i solve it through player list, deleting last plyrs from buddy list, then going back to buddy list deleting some i havent recently played with and then sending buddy invites to ppl i played few moments ago :)...

what is the capacity of buddy list anyway?

thanx

[wave]

yes, buddy list stucks when you have too many friends, i didnt count how many, but i solve it through player list, deleting last plyrs from buddy list, then going back to buddy list deleting some i havent recently played with and then sending buddy invites to ppl i played few moments ago :)...

what is the capacity of buddy list anyway?

thanx

the capacity of the buddy list is about 2million i think.

[parsley]

thats your fault parsley.
Sorry, it's *my* fault that two remote human intelligences don't agree? I'm interested in your ideas as to how I could program them!

what is the capacity of buddy list anyway?
100, iirc.

[ren666]

Well, as I have finished the single player modes and playing death matches against comps is boring after playing online against real people, I have decided to stop playing as my enjoyment of this game was destroyed when I was quit on 5 games in a row.

So for whatever the technicalities of servers and *magical* crap like that which I don't understand and really don't care to, from a person who loves worms, this game is ruined for me as a direct result of decisions made about how the servers work.

I don't want excuses or even explanations, but someone, somewhere, got it wrong.

Selling my copy on Ebay now, great game, let down by poor online implementation.

[Plasma]

By the way, was it just me, or did the game have a 'play for fun' online mode too?

[wave]

By the way, was it just me, or did the game have a 'play for fun' online mode too?

yeah people in that quit too eg when they f**k up. Which i think affects the others % quit score, not sure on that one. But in general i dunno how effective the % thing is at whatever its for.

To me buddy, block & match invites is the only effective solution to reduce quitting on peer to peer online gaming.

[franpa]

why cant they just use a server to start/end a game and during the course of the game it is mostly peer to peer but both clients keep a live connection to the host sending minimal data to it just to keep the connection alive (IE: the data can be anything, it doesn't have to be directly related to the game being played since its sole job is just to keep the connection to the server alive.) if someone disconnects then this connection to the server is gone and that player is registered as the loser while the other is the winner if they stayed connected.

im talking about a way to have a server yet substantially smaller amount of data transfer through the server per person then if the game data is sent through the server.

[quakerworm]

franpa, that is exactly what i suggested from the start. however, according to peeling, 100% of all these kids that are currently simply flipping the wi-fi switch to quit will magically learn how to selectively block traffic on their router, keeping tcp to the server, while breaking p2p to other player.

[MtlAngelus]

franpa, that is exactly what i suggested from the start. however, according to peeling, 100% of all these kids that are currently simply flipping the wi-fi switch to quit will magically learn how to selectively block traffic on their router, keeping tcp to the server, while breaking p2p to other player.
Who cares, nothing exists. :cool:

[dcuk7]

I think for the next game they should implement a system like EA have done in FIFA 08 whereby each player has a DNF percentage and you can see this percentage when they join. EA also have an option to not allow players with a certain DNF percentage.

I think this system is the way forward for worms!

[AndrewTaylor]

I think for the next game they should implement a system like EA have done in FIFA 08 whereby each player has a DNF percentage and you can see this percentage when they join. EA also have an option to not allow players with a certain DNF percentage.

I think this system is the way forward for worms!

Isn't that kind of the same as the system WOW2 uses already?

[wave]

what about a system where other players rate you after a game. You start off with zero stars and can progress to 5 stars !!

or a more complex rating system could be developed like (off the top of my head):

1 point for being valiant, eg like not quitting even though you hadn't a hope in hell of winning

2 points for coming close
3 points for doing very well and winning

or this could be an automated rating system, of which the history could be seen if selected

[AndrewTaylor]

what about a system where other players rate you after a game. You start off with zero stars and can progress to 5 stars !!
That's open to All Kinds Of Abuse.

or this could be an automated rating system, of which the history could be seen if selected
And that wouldn't work.

[quakerworm]

andrew, do you think there is a phase transition here? i mean, there are two obvious extreme cases:
1) most people don't quit, and nobody plays people with high quit percentage. so if you have high quit percentage, you can't get into leader boards anyways, and so people don't quit.
2) a lot of people quit. everyone has equally bad quit percentages, so they cannot be used to tell anything about the opponent, and there is nothing to stop the quitters from quitting.

both of these situations appear to be stable. obviously, there are things that can push situation in one direction or another. for example, if i you start resetting people's accounts for a 10th disconnect per day, it would start weeding out quitters. granted, it would also annoy the rest of the community greatly, because a lot of non-quitters will get their accounts reseted, but it will shift the equilibrium towards fewer quitters. can this equilibrium be shifted enough to induce a phase transition to state 1), after which you can remove account reset keeping the community in the stable state 1).

pre-emptive: no, i don't know how we'd define entropy here to verify that it is, indeed, a phase transition.

[Plasma]

*stuff*
Yes, that sounds like a good idea to me. I say go for it!

granted, it would also annoy the rest of the community greatly, because a lot of non-quitters will get their accounts reseted,
Especially this part. This part of your plan is the best!

[AndrewTaylor]

andrew, do you think there is a phase transition here?
Yes, I do.

for example, if i you start resetting people's accounts for a 10th disconnect per day, it would start weeding out quitters. granted, it would also annoy the rest of the community greatly--

There's your problem. I'd rather have a game that let me do what I wanted and never locked me out, even if people abused it, than one that mollycoddled me. I'm a big boy and I'm more than capable of looking out for myself. I find your idea rather patronising and I think it would be fantastically annoying for no particular gain -- because I don't care about leaderboards. (I feel sure I've covered that.)

You're deliberately introducing a system that will cut off people's access when they've done nothing wrong.

[quakerworm]

right, but if this is a genuine bi-stable system with a phase transition, then it would only be temporary, until the system stabilizes in a new state. after that, it goes back to current rules. would temporary annoyance be a reasonable price for not having to deal with any more complaints about all the quitters, even if you personally aren't bothered by quitters in the first place?

[AndrewTaylor]

I don't think that would work. I mean, the first day the game launched everyone had 100% and people still quit. I think you'd have to alter attitudes to trigger the phase transition.

[Shadowmoon]

If people are quitting because they are losing, then that is silly. I haven't been online in WOW 2, but i have in WA and people have quit there as well. But if they are quitting because they need to go, then thats ok. But anybody who quits when they are losing is to afraid to be beaten.

[quakerworm]

I don't think that would work. I mean, the first day the game launched everyone had 100% and people still quit. I think you'd have to alter attitudes to trigger the phase transition.
i don't think people quite realized how that stuff worked, allowing quitters to take advantage from day one. but you might be right. scientist in me just wants to see what would happen.

[Run]

if only there were no ranks or scores whatsoever, none of this would be an issue

[Plasma]

if only there were no ranks or scores whatsoever, none of this would be an issue
...or if people would pay attention to the 'play for fun' option too, then again there wouldn't be a problem.