47 replies to this topic

[Mr Mantis]

TopDawg, on 22 January 2013 - 09:16 PM, said:

You should feel bad, or read the thread (likely both, though).

It isn't simply to have a workaround for bugs, it's that it has the opportunity to be debilitating for competitive endeavors.

I don't think people should be disconnected from the server in the first place, that would be the issue. The work around would be to let people reconnect to the server. It is rare for server disconnects to happen and although it affects the outcome of the game should not be happening.

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough on my last post .

Also it just raises more question on how it could be implemented fairly, due to the lack of spawning, and would open up the game to uncontrollable abuse.

[Lonestar1771]

toxx1790, on 22 January 2013 - 09:31 PM, said:

If that wasn't what you were saying then your post makes even less sense.

At the start of a project (budget cycle/release phase/ whatever you want to call it) you budget X for art assets and Y for server code.

In the middle, people work on stuff.

At the end of the project (budget cycle/release phase/ whatever you want to call it) you find that your art assets are done but your server is not done.

And you are saying what exactly? You don't release the art stuff because your server budget was wrong?

I'm not really following you.

First of all it was sarcasm and secondly I was implying that the budget heavily favored useless things instead of going towards more important things.

[TopDawg]

Mr Mantis, on 22 January 2013 - 09:37 PM, said:

I don't think people should be disconnected from the server in the first place, that would be the issue. The work around would be to let people reconnect to the server. It is rare for server disconnects to happen and although it affects the outcome of the game should not be happening.

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough on my last post .

Also it just raises more question on how it could be implemented fairly, due to the lack of spawning, and would open up the game to uncontrollable abuse.

No worries, but, how do people have any control over whether or not their ISP drops for a few seconds sometimes? Or if the power flickers during a storm or something (SSD and load times could put you back in game in ~2 minutes)? Or anything else from a myriad list of reasons that someone may not have control over (not least of all CTDs and the like - sometimes they happen)?

I don't follow the last part. If you disconnect, and aren't killed, then you just regain control of your Mech upon reconnecting? If you are killed (then there's not much point in reconnecting anyway really), then you're just put into spectator mode for your team like you normally are when you die?

I just really don't understand how this could be abused in any way. And not to poke fun at you, but others have made that claim, but never name a single way in which it could be abused.

[toxx1790]

Lonestar1771, on 22 January 2013 - 09:37 PM, said:

First of all it was sarcasm and secondly I was implying that the budget heavily favored useless things instead of going towards more important things.

Ok -- I missed the sarcasm.

[Thirdstar]

Wow, lotta people in this thread who have absolutely perfect internet connections and/or are in the US.

Colour me surprised, once again the MWO community fails to see past its own nose.

[cmopatrick]

i think it should be available.

as for the coding, the pointers are already there as long as the mech has not been destroyed. the mech is tied to the game in both the user's mechlab and ingame. for that to be the case, the pointers have to still be intact. returning the pilot to his/her mech where it is at ingame should not be a headache... if anything, it should be easier because of the lock they added to the mech back when (CB, if i remember correctly). the three pieces (user/pilot, mech, map/location) , whether implemented in tables or simply combined into an instantiation in a database, are there and relinking the user back to the game should not be rocket science.

[Mr Mantis]

TopDawg, on 22 January 2013 - 09:50 PM, said:

No worries, but, how do people have any control over whether or not their ISP drops for a few seconds sometimes? Or if the power flickers during a storm or something (SSD and load times could put you back in game in ~2 minutes)? Or anything else from a myriad list of reasons that someone may not have control over (not least of all CTDs and the like - sometimes they happen)?

I don't follow the last part. If you disconnect, and aren't killed, then you just regain control of your Mech upon reconnecting? If you are killed (then there's not much point in reconnecting anyway really), then you're just put into spectator mode for your team like you normally are when you die?

I just really don't understand how this could be abused in any way. And not to poke fun at you, but others have made that claim, but never name a single way in which it could be abused.

if you were to drop from server the positioning info of your mech is lost so you would not take damage during the time you were disconnected, that is what i would expect, and i assume most people who have posted before about the abuse would think that also. This is how other multiplayer games, that i have played, function.

[TopDawg]

Mr Mantis, on 22 January 2013 - 10:22 PM, said:

if you were to drop from server the positioning info of your mech is lost so you would not take damage during the time you were disconnected, that is what i would expect, and i assume most people who have posted before about the abuse would think that also. This is how other multiplayer games, that i have played, function.

Then how do people kill disconnected Mechs all the time? Have you never noticed 'Mr Mantis killed ' with a blank name indicating said person had disconnected, despite his name still being listed on the scoreboard (even with a 'disconnected' written next to it)?