Is this game dead? What does the future hold?

[Gorb]

Note that I was talking about THQ, not Relic. THQ are likely to be the ones funding official dedicated servers. As for third-party dedicated servers; I also covered that in my post.

Finally, the game is also not dead; the activity in this topic along should tell you that. Don't arbitrarily decide if the game is dead; it's almost like you made this thread to push your own viewpoint forwards or something

(also, S2Games and Valve both own/rent out their own servers for the community to play on. The former rents, because of the exorbitant cost of managing overseas servers directly, and I'm guessing the latter owns their servers because of their huge income stream)

[titlams]

The point you seem to miss is dedicated server code development costs money. As such it costs Relic/THQ money to make dedicated servers available. Shocker right, I know.

Edit: It's happening again

[Shuma]

The point you seem to miss is dedicated server code development costs money.

That's just an excuse, yeah, it costs money and effort, i doubt there's anyone stupid enough to believe that Relic or THQ just has a bunch of unused game servers laying around or that they made the code but chose to never use it, and i also know there's no way that Relic or THQ is going to spend money and effort into adding dedicated server support for this game now(why would they?), but that's not a good thing, why are you excusing or defending their actions? or why wouldn't you want dedicated server support? it's not like it would've made the game worse.

I know the discussion is getting tiring, if i never posted on the threads discussing dedicated servers was because i know it's not going to happen now, not for this game, but this kind of comments are not helping anyone but Relic, because they can just say "why implement dedicated server support in Space Marine 2? We can get away without it!" or they can just use the same excuse "It costs money, it costs time, it costs effort", we shouldn't be happy about that, why the hell should we conform? We should want the game to be better, not excuse Relic or THQ's bad actions(or inaction) just by saying "it costs money", especially when you consider that many people can't fucking play the game with the current system, sure you might not have any problems with online connectivity, a lot of people don't, but a lot of us do, i can barely play the game, so i might as well have flushed 60 bucks down the toilet, i wouldn't want that to happen again in Space Marine 2, if there is one.

[Hirmetrium]

Given that THQ's share price is almost nothing, and they have still not been bought out by EA for example, is a very, very, very bad indicator for the future of any dedicated servers, let alone a space marine sequel. Saint's Row 3 failed to revive the companies dying portfolio, and even now the analysts are stating that "The Old Republic" will be the last true MMO, making Dark Millenium's fate all but sealed.

I don't know what is going on at THQ, but I can guess that it is Bad. With a capital B. They have pushed the "announcement" for a new Relic game back for almost 6 months now, and still not announced the December game in December. Granted this is guess work, but I don't think anybody is going to prove me wrong.

At this point, expecting anything else for Space Marine is folly. The Warhammer audience just doesn't have the money or time to waste on video games, and we ourselves are of a dying breed with so many other excellent choices out there.

That said, there are many lessons to be learned here - I don't need to list them, but off the top of my head is that a long ass campaign with nothing but Orks and Space Marines is uninteresting to some, and second is that lag kills multiplayer, and internal tests are NOT ENOUGH. I feel like Space Marine is stuck in a forever state of multiplayer beta.

[titlams]

Money is just a excuse now? Fine. Space Marine sucked because it was not released with it's own dedicated console. I will write hundreds of threads stating this, as this is the only reason Space Marine is now "dead". Admittedly I defend this point more than most people, because in my job I hear the same (valid) arguments with the same amount of ignorance to the real world as here. Things cost money, you might not like it but it is true. Companies run cost to profit statistics on everything and if they don't add up it won't happen period. It might make the game better (not for me personally). It might make the game survive longer. It WOULD of cost a lot more money. It WOULD of taken more time. It WOULD of ended up with them supporting 2 network codes (this is by far the worse potential for me). Denying cost as irrelevant in any industry for any decision is extremely naive.

I'm hardly defending or excusing them, I'm stating a point he seems to deny (my post was pointed at a particular person about their particular post). Heck I didn't even tell you not to complain.

Their is a major difference between:
" This game died because of a lack of dedicated servers"
and
" This games p2p did not work as well as I would like. Next time I suggest putting dedicated servers, so we can build a local community to play with."

One of these comments is helpful to both you and relic. The other is unhelpfully to both you and relic. Can you guess which is which?

[Hamsterminator]

I'm not sure what the future holds, if anything for this game, but I for one have just picked it up as part of Steam's Christmas sales offers. I've just finished the campaign within the last hour and I must say it was a very impressive piece of work. Not perfect of course- there is only so much appeal to hack and slash arcade style games, but with a tiny injection of problem solving and tactical environments I think the game would easily be a competitor to other popular 3rd person shooters.

With any luck others will have been tempted as I was to pick up the reduced copy and perhaps sales may nudge up enough for them to consider continuing the franchise. I think it would be a dire loss to the gaming world if they were to simply let it go.

[Misiok]

So I was thinking - what dedicated sever cost? I mean, it costs alot of money to implement and keep it up for a while, but then it's self-sufficient. All you need is a master server. I mean, the ancient game Jedi Academy has no official servers anymore, and yet it still has a playerbase.

According to Xfire Jedi Academy has about 777 players playing the game per day. A game that was released in 2003.

According to Steam Statistics Space Marine has 1,081 players playing right now with the peak reaching 1,469 players. A game that was released in September 6-9 in 2011.

Treating the gaming community like stupid children unable to host their own servers because whatever surely helps to keep it alive.

I don't think I want to revive the discussion about how dedis would help or not, but I just had a brainwave I wanted to share.

[Kien]

Maybe we can hope for an expansion where one of the features is dedicated servers , along with a new weapon for each class. Flamer, rocketer and clawer I want.

[Mantaray]

of course i cannot speak for everyone. but i personally know 11 people with space marine who dont play online due to lack of dedicated servers. that potentially could add another 1% of the current regular playerbase..

and that only people i know personally! XD
i'd love to think that there are a good many others that think the same.
for instance. tactical only servers. or assault only servers could be plain hillarious. could add so much more life!

[Gorb]

Or admin-griefing servers, or servers whose players know the admin and get him to kick you if you're doing well.

Furthermore, the inclusion of dedicated servers would not solve the connectivity issues inherent within this game. The game's low playerbase, combined with how spread out said playerbase is, is to blame for that. Host migration also needs work - I'd wager if Relic improved how the game selects a host, peoples' playing experiences would be much improved.

[Kalimac]

Yeah, I doubt that dedicated servers would fix anything now. The host migration, and how the server handles geographical differences between the players would however solve many of the current problems, I believe.

[Mantaray]

Or admin-griefing servers, or servers whose players know the admin and get him to kick you if you're doing well.

and playing in a game where the host is in Australia and everyone else is in Britain is much better.
naturally this is quite rare. but so is what your implying.

of course its too late now. they've let it go on for far too long. in my opinion (read: not fact) the only reason the p2p system works in call of duty is sheer number of players. the pool of clients and potential hosts is so great that it -normally- works out for all involved.

Furthermore, the inclusion of dedicated servers would not solve the connectivity issues inherent within this game.

actually. it would. dedicated servers would require an entirely new network code in which the hard work is done by a separate client on a dedicated machine that in most cases is situated in a building with a DECENT upload bandwidth. there is alot of people [generalisation] on ADSL which is completly unsuitable for being a host in that circumstance. the host wont notice since all sync is done host side(lol) so he can smash heads before people have even seen him jump down in mid-lag situations (im talking 100-200ms) giving him a heftily unfair advantage. this is why we (my peer group) have stopped playing.

[Gorb]

I'm guessing you completely missed the part of my post where I stated the host migration and/or selection needs work? That happens when you chop up a post and only respond to specific parts.

On dedicated servers, people who teleport across the map will still teleport across the map.

[Mantaray]

gorb. can you prove that host migration does or doesn't work? no. neither can i. we have no control over it and we cant conduct controlled tests. its not a point i can even begin to debate. but it would become irrelevant with dedicated servers.

On dedicated servers, people who teleport across the map will still teleport across the map.

of course they will.
but improved bandwidth and speeds from dedicated server providers helps prevent it from happening in the first place [to a slight extent] and also has a mechanism for an admin to kick him.

[Pseudonymn]

@Gorb:
That's scarcely ever been the point. The point has always been that people could have selected servers that match their own geographical and demographic preferences much more intelligently than p2p servers are capable of on a dedicated platform. Dedicated servers promote community. p2p networks are inherently transient in nature, not helped by poor host migration and regional filtering code.

Also, in his defense, why are you always getting after people for supposedly missing portions of your posts? He was showing why a dedicated server is a better choice than p2p solutions because of the upload bandwidth that is normally allotted to dedicated hosts, a characteristic that no amount of work on the p2p code will ever fix. More upload bandwidth is better and dedicated hosts have access to more than residential connections provide. I'm not reopening that topic, as it's already been discussed, but I believe that that was the point he was trying to make there. But if anything, he submitted his comments within the posting guidelines for these forums by not block quoting you or line quoting and addressing every last detail, a common complaint from you.

Finally,

Or admin-griefing servers, or servers whose players know the admin and get him to kick you if you're doing well.

Why is it that I get a new ass ripped out of me for making "poor arguments" in the eyes of some but then doozies like this one go on virtually unchecked? No answer is required. It's a rhetorical question.

[Gorb]

@Mantaray: considering the game selects people whose connections cannot handle hosting a game, yes, I would say host migration needs works. Whether or not it's possible to do is another matter, but as people are completely disregarding the technical difficulty in providing dedicated server support I'd say we can leave that debate for another time.

Fixing host selection and/or migration removes the need for dedicated servers, which is something that officially THQ are not in a position to provide, and with regards to the community requires game development that Relic and/or THQ did not feel was necessary (bearing in mind all of Relic's previous titles have been P2P in the strict sense, and have not suffered unduly because of this)/

What fix is more work? Dedicated servers, in my opinion. This is why I am eschewing the label of "lol dedicated servers fix everything" in favour of a more rationalised choice.

@Pseudonym: it is your opinion that dedicated servers promote a cohesive and/or active community. I could quite easily make a counter-argument in that it creates insular groups, that it promotes favouritism, and that in terms of useability it is no different from implementing a game browser (which I have suggested and/or agreed with with regards to Space Marine in the past). This, of course, is my opinion.

Secondly, I do not complain that people quote my entire post and respond to it. I prefer it when they do, and I regularly state this. If you're going to throw some sort of obscure attack my way, at least research the point first

Thirdly, that point is invalidated by the fact every single one of Relic's previous games have been P2P and have functioned perfectly fine, regardless of whom is host (there are lag issues with DoW II and perhaps CoH, but that is because the game is moderately resource intensive). Why should Relic build their netcode to support dedicated servers when their engineers and developers have experience with a P2P model that works?

Finally, I based that last comment on my own personal experience with games based on dedicated servers. The events I mentioned have happened, do happen, and I have seen them happen both to me and others. Just like I'm sure you can back your own positive experiences with dedicated servers up with experience of your own

[Misiok]

P2P didn't affect DoW 2 much as it wasn't a micro intensive RTS game or a twitch shooter like Space Marine. Neither was it implemented properly. I've had a lot of games where the host lagged the game with his bad connection/PC not designed to play anything else than minesweeper and the game kicked everyone else EXCEPT the lagger. Besides, it's not like RTS game do need dedicated servers as it's usually a game between 2 or four people at most. Not to mention P2P just fails badly in Space Marine because people do not play with state-of-the-art PC's and yet still get selected as hosts, their connection and systems are not for hosting a game for 16 or so people. Consoles have more or less working P2P because each console is basically the same, so you don't see much difference other than connection itself.
Dedicated servers are machines that have a great connections, are built to host a lot of players and do not require silly algorithms to find the best host according to connection, distance, system and whatever else. You just host it, and search for the best server available, yourself. If it's bad, you just go to another one. Not so in P2P games, where you often can get put into the same game you just left.

In any case, this discussion is stupid, and I'm done with it, the game is dying and I wouldn't care less anymore. You can all lie to yourself that 'lol p2p is best' and let developers give you shitty console ports. (For the record, I did like the SP, but I bought the game for the MP)

[Gorb]

Misiok, at no point did I say "P2P was best". You should perhaps reevaluate your statements in light of what people actually posted, instead of what you think they posted.

You can keep on complaining that the game is dying, that the MP is unplayable. I don't think a single person ever took me up on my repeated offer to play Space Marine MP with them (Jaimas, Pseudonym, and possibly others) so even if they don't experience my decent gaming experience, I can experience theirs. I will continue to play Space Marine MP, for as long as I am able.

Continue your doomsaying. Continue putting words into my mouth, and making up statements I patently didn't say. Nothing changes the fact that Relic released this game with a P2P architecture for networking (which by the by isn't even the premise of this thread, but people do love to hijack, don't they?). Nothing will ever change that. Keep on moaning about it. Keep on claiming that THQ can magic up dedicated servers at this point in time. Keep on claiming THQ should turn around and provide customer-ran dedicated server support.

I don't even know why I try sometimes. I guess I like arguing

[titlams]

Misiok: It may be self-sufficient once it's been made and released but they still have to front the costs upfront for something that may or may not of made a difference. Although you seem to contradict your self with your next sentence stating you need a master server to control the server list. This is a cost which will not be recouped. It will always lose money, how much it loses I have no idea but it will lose money the longer the master list is online.

This thread seems to have a lot of people suffering from "it's greener on the other side". This is no different from any other FPS really. Games with dedicated servers get bitched at for not having P2P and vice-versa.

[Misiok]

Guess I can't stop posting here

Let me be clear.

@Gorb - I know it's too late for Dedis, all I was trying to say is that this game could be saved with dedicated servers.

@Titlams - yes, Master server is such a ridiculously high cost that JKA, the game I gave as an example has one since it got released in 2003. Or even two, as there are two versions of the game you can freely play on, 1.00, the unpatched one, and patched one 1.01. Of course, you can now bring up the point that Space Marine master server would require a power plant to run and thus explain the high cost of implementing one. Oh well.

[titlams]

I never said high cost, I pointed out that it is not self-sufficient as it actually has a non-recoup-able cost. Reading is hard these days right?

Once again you don't know the costs, not so much of hosting, but of the extra development needed to make the dedicated code in the first place. Come out with some decent logical cost analysts and then people won't be dismissive of you having seemly no concept as costs to companies other than they can obviously afford it because they are a company. Shockingly companies don't want to spend money if they don't think it will make a worth while return.

[Pseudonymn]

Flip that argument on its head now. Take a game whose community was given dedicated servers to start with and find even one thread or argument anywhere demanding p2p servers and then explain to them that it would cost far too much to implement after the fact. Oh wait, you won't find such a thread. I guess that won't work after all. Let's flip that around again and just go ahead and say then that allocating time, money, and other resources toward providing a dedicated server platform from the beginning would have been the better choice after all. Oh, wait. We got a consolized port, so p2p was already in the bag. I guess that won't work either. Well, since neither argument is tenable, let's just go ahead and start bashing consoles for ruining the PC gaming industry. I say that only half jokingly. But it works.

@Gorb:Regarding this:

Secondly, I do not complain that people quote my entire post and respond to it. I prefer it when they do, and I regularly state this. If you're going to throw some sort of obscure attack my way, at least research the point first

I think you've misread my meaning. My point was not that you complain that people DO block quote or line quote the dozens of lines of text required to respond to each detail. Clearly you don't, as illustrated by your response that you DO prefer that people do so. My point was that most don't because a.) It's bloody tedious, b.) It falls outside the posting guidelines for these forums. It simply isn't possible to address every last point you make, especially on your longer posts but you insist on hounding people about it. I know because I've been down that road on several occasions. Anyway, this is probably better suited to PM, which I invite you to do if you feel I've erred somewhere here.

[Kalimac]

Steam just updated Space Marine for some reason, anyone know what was done to it?

[Ogra_Chief]

Bloody hope it's Relic announcing dedicated servers because if I read one more post about them... i'm pulling out my bolter.

[Gorb]

Nope.

[titlams]

Why would I flip it on it's head? Google "dedicated servers suck" I'm sure you will find hundreds of threads on why they suck. If this system was Dedicated Servers and people wanted p2p, I would still make the same arguments that coding two network systems will probably cost too much. The fact of it being console port means that it was always going to need p2p so why bother to making dedicated server which would costs more when they could of just got p2p right. I've previously pointed out I don't care if games are dedicated or p2p, so I can assure you I'm not arguing because of a love of either system. Some of your reasons are good and valid, but you are putting them in a demanding way with random facts with seemly no/flawed logic of getting to these facts. In particular arguments where people dismiss costs because they are a company. Which either side you are one and for whatever reason, even if I'm on your side, I will still call you out on flawed/biased or random arguments.

[Pseudonymn]

Googled it. Spent about 10 minutes browsing the first 5 or so pages of hits and saw a lot of people ranting about how such-n-such a setting stupid, or including so-n-so map(s) in the roster sucks or, worse according to them, 24/7 settings/maps are not to their liking; every subjective reason under the sun but none complaining about the things that are commonly complained about under the p2p model. (lol screenshot) I didn't see anything on the technical side, which is what this whole argument has been about; things like persistent, horrible lag; retarded host migration logic, etc.. Honestly, I don't see how this helps your case any. You can make your case for the whole "lol it costs money" side all you want, I honestly don't care, it's not my problem; although, it does color my receptiveness to Relic's future offerings. I'm not demanding anything at this point anyway. We all know Relic is pretty well done with the franchise by this point. I think it's safe to say that anyone still arguing in favor of dedicated servers does so with future games in mind, hoping that Relic will take a hint and elect to provide the community with better community-building tools down the road.

(also, I was being deliberately facetious in that last post, you shouldn't necessarily have taken it too seriously or have looked for unbiased/well reasoned arguments there. I thought it was obvious. Just saying.)

Anyways, I'm done with the whole dedicated server thing in this thread. Any meaningful argument I might have to make on the matter would only be restating what I've already said elsewhere.

[Mantaray]

@Gorb

considering the game selects people whose connections cannot handle hosting a game, yes, I would say host migration needs works. Whether or not it's possible to do is another matter, but as people are completely disregarding the technical difficulty in providing dedicated server support I'd say we can leave that debate for another time.

as far as i know. its an impossibility to know from a netcode point of view exactly what a users bandwidth is. ISP's all sell way more bandwidth then they can actually provide and we all know about the 'up to' 50mb broadband offers. this makes it impossible to judge who the 'best' host will be prima-facie. as far as i can see in space marine. the host migration -process- works fine. the host buggers off. someone else picks up the torch. people on ADSL quite often pull more download speed then me on my fibre cable just because of our shoddy infrastructure in the south UK. but i'd probably make a better host.

What fix is more work? Dedicated servers, in my opinion. This is why I am eschewing the label of "lol dedicated servers fix everything" in favour of a more rationalised choice.

i noted in post 62 that i agree that it's far too late to implement dedicated servers. it's far too difficult. it'd be a software developers nightmare. the bottom line point im trying to explain is that you cant 'fix' host selection and migration. simply because it's inherently flawed.

it'd take nothing short of stress-testing the bandwidth of every player in the room and generating a player connection database before the game starts to select the best host. and well.. even then the test would only be relevant to the pipeline the testing server used...

honestly if we could fix the P2P and it worked well i'd totally be up for that. and hell in the future we may achieve such internet speeds that this whole argument will be unsubstantial anyway.

i'd also like to say i have no problem with the way you post or respond to mine.

[dirtyprotest]

multiplayer option: create public game.
migration issue sidestepped.

[Civik]

Actually, what about just having a 17th player? One who doesn't have to render the game, won't quit and cause a migration, and can be controlled through console commands?

The netcode is there, we just need a 'host player' who only participates in the Host part, is forced to always be the host, and doesn't play the game. Kind of a kludge unless there isn't a way to have more than 16 players.

[Gorb]

@Mantaray: I also agree that dedicated servers is an unrealistic "fix", heck, I maintain that it was an unrealistic suggestion in the design phase considering Relic's history of using P2P connectivity (combined with the fact that they were building a new engine off of third-party technology. That's going to impact on the time they have to learn/try out new methodologies, in my humble opinion. Of course, this is pure guesswork on my behalf).

However, as unrealistic as improving host migration may be, it's a more realistic alternative than demanding dedicated servers. Which is why I've always been saying that's what Relic should focus on - if they can at all, of course. Any attempt at improvements is better than asking for something that is out of the question, right?

[dirtyprotest]

Actually, what about just having a 17th player? One who doesn't have to render the game, won't quit and cause a migration, and can be controlled through console commands?

The netcode is there, we just need a 'host player' who only participates in the Host part, is forced to always be the host, and doesn't play the game. Kind of a kludge unless there isn't a way to have more than 16 players.

Sounds very similar to host mode on the old xbox SWBF2. worked pretty well. Hosts with good connections had round the clock full 16v16 servers (ran for years till stinkers at M$ shutdown old xbox live).

Relic wouldn't have nightmares looking into host mode.

[Mantaray]

the thing is they took the darksiders engine (name escapes me) which had zero current net code. it was a blank slate and they could ahve just as easily done either of the 2.
as far as prior experience goes.

the p2p code they use here is completely different to the p2p code they use in RTS. in dawn of war 1 there was a 1-host system where whoever 'made' the game normally ended up as the host, but the way the sync netcode was written made 8plyr games allways lag... it was just too much info for the average connection at the dawn of the century(hurr hurr) shame, i enjoyed those big grinders. (back to kasyr luten anyone?)

in DoW2 they've got some weird 'everyone is host' system where everyone syncs with each other. makes resource fiddles and such completely impossible (they were aiming all big e-sport after all) but the game as a whole only runs as fast as its slowest part. so instead of everyone having crap because of a bad host, meaning that 1 guy could just try again and hope to not be host. everyone gets crap because of that one person who doesn't hit the mark, and he'll never get to play unless he lucks out with local buddies.

in both cases if the game stuttered a little bit it didnt matter too much. all the hefty micro is done with keyboard commands that get priority packets.

unfortunately they made the wrong gamble expecting the game to go super-AAA-awesome and went with the p2p system, whcih relies on a single thing to work well. the amount of potential hosts being so great that the system can throw together a handful of clients and pick one good host from a whole sack.
much as i hate to draw parallels between games, its just not fair, im going to just to illustrate the numbers.

back when MW2 came out.. we had hundreds of thousands of people playing the PC version online. i allways found myself in a good game with local clients.
recently (well.. since mw3) those numbers have dropped to the tens of thousands.. if i go to play the most populated playlist (team deathmatch) at anything less then 10,000 players i start getting bad matches roughly 60% of the time. of the other 40 its me being host. (this is the part where i admit i have 800 hours on that game's multiplayer)

naturally the above is only personal experience.. if i could find some solid mathematics on the subject i'll link it but all i can find is silly conjectures (bit like mine) relic probably went for p2p so they could port it over to PC easier.

to anyone who's calling for dedicated servers. whilst i do support the notion its not gonna be a magic wand. and THQ are floppin' quite hard at the mo so they wont be letting there developers go arround wasting effort if they can get away with it.
its just an unfortunate design decision that hasn't panned out too well.

all we can hope for is some minor streamlining in sync and host migration.

[Gorb]

I never had a problem with 8 player MP in DoW I, even when utilising resource-intensive modifications. The worst we got were sync errors, which were down to the specific files present in our mod installations. I fail to see how you state that the "way the sync netcode was written made 8plyr games always lag" . . . do you have any insight into how said netcode functioned or was written? Its fair enough to make assumptions, but at least label them assumptions first (sorry, pet peeve ).

I understand what makes P2P work as supposed to dedicated servers, however to expect them (THQ/Relic) to make the "right gamble" (dedicated servers?) they'd have to provide dedicated servers. At this point, providing the community with tools to host their own servers is good and well, but if they built the engine with dedicated servers in mind they would have to provide their own at launch. Which would cost money (though talking with Akranadas has illuminated me considerably with regards to dedicated servers), the amount of which I'm not sure.

My point was also that Relic developers (especially their network engineers) are familiar with developing for a P2P architecture. I'm unsure exactly of how client-server differs (though I can make a few educated guesses), but I would imagine the netcode is substantially different in terms of its design and implementation.

[Mantaray]

My point was also that Relic developers (especially their network engineers) are familiar with developing for a P2P architecture. I'm unsure exactly of how client-server differs (though I can make a few educated guesses), but I would imagine the netcode is substantially different in terms of its design and implementation.

the point im trying to get you too is that past experience in P2P programming is unfortunately not very enlightening to a new project. especially in an engine that wasn't designed with multiplayer in mind. in worst case scenario half the variables weren't stored conveniently and loads of work had to be done at the base level almost to the point of a whole new engine just to get it so i could accept some kind of netcode without instant desync. ive sat here trying to think of a good analogy but. well.. ii got nothing.

sorry that was the original point i was trying to reply to before i went on a nostalgia trip. its also quite possible that they did alot of sync in dawn of war 1 after i stopped playing it (just after DC) but i remember 8player back in dow1/wa being pretty laggy outside my control, in reflection the technical spec knowlege i have on that could well be heresay that ive accidentally adopted. but there's also a certain gamespy element there that im not technicaly familiar with short of maxing out my port forward limit on my router..

[dirtyprotest]

...THQ are floppin' quite hard at the mo so they wont be letting there developers go arround wasting effort if they can get away with it...

prob 1 guy's labour of love at relic, working on this netcode during his tea break. gonna be while waiting for this hail mary.

[Hirmetrium]

Ok, I'm going to try and be positive about space marine and steer this thread back.

Seems the twitter teased some dreadnought pictures - something I marginally interested in I suppose. What it is or how it will be added to the game is another matter - I suspect with the monetization fever going around its going to cost.

Dedicated server arguements are moot by this point, and if you want to argue about them I suggest you use PM - nobody really wants to have that discussion any more.

Has CTF mode improved the game somewhat since its release? How are the new maps?

[Master Flagg]

I seem to freeze when i got to play CTF, i have no clue why that happens.

[Kalimac]

Having played CTF some more now I'm mostly enjoying it. It is very different to Seize Ground, but there is a different intensity to CTF that can't be found in the other game modes. I still think that the random spawn locations make up for some weird scenarios and stupid kills/deaths, but this mostly happens on small maps (most often on Basilica for some reason), and is almost not an issue at all on larger maps. As for the new maps, they are all very open, and I think they are really well suited for the Assault class. All three maps work very well for CTF, I haven't played all of them in Seize Ground yet.

It still is unbelievably stupid by Relic to divide the player base by not giving the new maps away for free. It's somewhat more difficult to find games nowadays, and when I do I often face the same players each night. I'm still having no real lag issues though, so it's mostly fine by me.

[Ogra_Chief]

It still is unbelievably stupid by Relic to divide the player base by not giving the new maps away for free.

I'd agree except don't think Relic has much of a choice from a business standpoint.

1.) They have to venture into new genre or risk be swept aside... can't be just an RTS widget maker in this MMO/Shooter game age.

2.) They‘re probably looking for some steady dollars in-between titles... dlc does that, or can. Getting patches out Relic was tantamount to pulling teeth not to long ago. Heck Chinese eunuchs got more action than DoW I got patches and more frequently. So I’d say dlc helps to round out their rough edges.

3.) Also, if there going to branch into new genres, they need practice and practice at supporting those new genres... i.e. consoles/dlc. Let’s not forget… Relic likes to break its own games. It’s only one patch away…

4.) Also, given that the gaming market is pretty unforgiving... one bad game and it can be curtains if your publisher says that's that. Think THQ cares Relic produced one of the most revolutionary games of all time, Homeworld anyone? Never mind your core audience is a bunch of whiney, hormone-driven, adolescent boys? Ugh...

5.) If there is going to be an SM2, that's as good as promised. They need to go through the motions.

Just my opinion.

[Troubleshooter]

Relic has the license to make 40k games, they have RTS sown up... I'm surprised this didn't happen sooner (branching into other genres) ... sad to hear its dying already as I haven't bought the game yet, but I do see the numbers of DoW players creeping back to "normal" levels, so that's good for my other obsessions I guess.

[dirtyprotest]

...Has CTF mode improved the game somewhat since its release? ...

CTR seems to have enemy names above their heads, emblazoned more brightly.
No hiding for people skulking around in ugly camo armour sporting Ubuntu colours.
Pace of CTF is more hectic and face 2 face than other modes.
Jolly bright names would pick up elimination's pace.

[Pseudonymn]

Think THQ cares Relic produced one of the most revolutionary games of all time, Homeworld anyone?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't most if not all of the developers most directly responsible for that game long gone? I seem to recall some talk over on the HW forums, maybe even the quasi-official HW3 faq mentioning that that would be one of the major reasons why we won't see a HW3 game anytime soon or that if we did, it probably wouldn't be anything like its predecessors. I guess I should go on a fact-finding mission, but I'm out of time today.

Honestly though, that would be one game I'd be most intrested in hearing some positive news about.

[Mantaray]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't most if not all of the developers most directly responsible for that game long gone?

well all the art guys have gone to work on Hardware LM27 in blackbird interactive.
as for the original coders designers and crew? some are at relic but the rest are dotted about...
loyaly to a company from a person is fairly irrational these days the way staff move around.

[Kien]

At least they could fix the stupid thing that gore effects are only enabled for the host. I mean why the hell is this turned off just because I'm in a MP game where I am not the host?? Seeing orks turn to red glowing ash clouds from melta and laser makes combat much more satisfying.

[Liljagare]

Tried to play tonight, on the Ps3, a whopping 3 games going on..

1 hour later... I gave up.

On a saturday eve.. :/

Scaringly enough, launched up Resistance 2 (!) and found 30+ games to choose from.

[Argonaut]

I'm on PC and play at wierd times of day and night depending upon my shift pattern at work, I've never seen less than 5 potential matches and also never had to wait for a game. Similarly, I have only had 1 game suffer through lag. To say it is dead is a little premature. Host migration seems a bit stupid sometimes in that it picks the slower or weaker peer to jump to.

Having said that, it can get very boring playing the same maps etc over and over again.

[dirtyprotest]

...It still is unbelievably stupid by Relic to divide the player base by not giving the new maps away for free. It's somewhat more difficult to find games nowadays...

Possible solution:
allow all to join dlc multiplayer;
those who've not paid can be used as fillers;
fillers are kicked to make room for those who've paid.

Free samples & full servers for dlc maps. Better multplayer experience for everyone. Provides greater incentive for DLC uptake.

[Master Flagg]

I like the way Dirty thinks

[Gorb]

Alternatively, DLC purchasing drops because people fill up servers started by one person with the DLC who then invites their friends to play (who don't have the DLC) and prevents others from joining.