Jump to content
LOTROCommunity

SNy

Members
  • Posts

    251
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    12

Posts posted by SNy

  1. There's this one post that stands out as morbidly amusing.

    "I honestly believe SSG think their playerbase is full of stupid people. They think we can not see past things like this "

    Sitting on the sidelines here for a few years, and just enjoying the show, I can't help but notice that, after all the fail moves on Turbine's/SSG's part, and people STILL being there, and paying to be fed horse manure, that SSG are obviously correct in their assumption wrt. their playerbase. Or what is left of it, anyway.

    SNy

  2. 21 hours ago, Hurin said:

    Cordovan has repeatedly stated that they block IPs and subnets in order to combat spam on the forums and/or gold-selling in game.  An IP block can take many forms (as you probably know), at the application level, at the server firewall level, the network level, etc.  I got the sense that in egregious cases, they are blocking at the network level.  A block at their network border would block access to both the website and the game (gls.lotro.com and www.lotro.com are both on the same class C subnet).

    Right. I am, of course, out of touch with how former Turbine are running things, and how they still appear to be generally incapable of delivering appropriate solutions. Just smashing the Block-Hammer in that way makes total sense, seeing their own website wouldn't often be affected, seeing it isn't used for anything game-related anyway. I mean, why would you keep it accessible, if you just spit anything worth mentioning onto Twitter or that other cancerous site. /rant

    SNy

  3. 8 hours ago, Hurin said:

    I suppose it should be asked, do you have any reason to believe that you have been intentionally banned from either the game or the forums?

    Please explain how that should affect his ability to access the website itself?

    @OP: When debugging connectivity issues, don't use browsers, especially not their current incarnations that might "helpfully" hide what the actual reason might be.

    Use some low-level tools like mtr (or ping or tracert), curl, wget (or telnet, if need be) instead. That way, you get to tell them to be verbose about what happens which is a lot more helpful than "generic error page because we can't bother the user with any details lest he be overwhelmed and starts complaining".

    SNy

  4. Yeah, Wispsong. Read a few of their posts, wondering. This post you quoted above? Extra malus points for using a fucked-up unreadable font for the inline reply.

    That alone should be enough to know everything one needs to know.

    SNy

  5. On 14.8.2017 at 3:47 AM, psalm8818 said:

    I'm surprised no one has reverse engineered SoA and made an emulator the way people did for Everquest, WoW, Dark Age of Camelot, and Star Wars Galaxies.

    It goes to show you just how little interest there is in the gaming community for LOTRO, even in its prime.

    I seem to remember that, at least for the WoW server clones, the code wasn't actually reverse engineered, but obtained through a leak of sorts?

    Even if you decrypted and reverse-engineered the protocol, you would be very far from having the server side actually do things in a way the client expects. So I think it's rather not a big surprise this hasn't been done (attempted?).

    Also, don't forget DMCA etc. Slippery terrain there, not much to gain, much to lose.

    SNy

  6. 35 minutes ago, Doro said:

    At least they have a single fan out there willing to make a quick video in celebra- wait, is that supposed to be SSG's official attempt at an expansion trailer?!

    Haha, thanks for the laugh! MMD!

    Edit: I find it fascinating that this is about THE most iconic villain headquarters and they go about it by showing three people fighting single fights in a scene void of any other enemy.

    SNy

  7. 1 hour ago, Dorf said:

    While preparing over the weekend to release the expansion on Monday, we discovered an issue in the build that impacted the ability of monsters and NPCs to move around correctly. This problem was specifically identified in older content.

    So, turns out that their whole development "process" which had been put on a whiteboard to be photographed and put on the web for the unwashed masses to marvel at, was a lot of bull.

    Especially the part that said QA and testing, laughable as it had been for anyone paying attention.

    They are trying to tell their remaining players that they discovered it when they where about to release that shyte? It has just magically crept up with a last minute "fix" to something? But it can't be un-"fixed", because the process takes so much time? They expect anyone to actually believe this?

    Seems more alike to the "It builds, lets ship it." approach.

    SNy

  8. Hey,

    is it me or has an update to the forum broken the style? The header reaches across the whole width w/ white background.

    Since I stopped reading the OF and the style override plugin began tracking its users, I don't use it anymore, so... fix please?

    SNy

  9. On 25.7.2017 at 0:57 AM, Almagnus1 said:

    Since LotRO is clearly not abandonware

    Are you sure about that?

    On 25.7.2017 at 0:57 AM, Almagnus1 said:

    In the state that LotRO is in, it is functionally equivalent to abandonware

    Ah, I see. I would need to agree.

    And it will remain to be seen how long until it will not only be functionally equivalent.

  10. On 5.7.2017 at 6:11 PM, Darmokk said:

    For x86 64 bit code would be a bit faster generally, however doubling the RAM requirements for pointers by 2x can be a serious problem. For example, code that make use of linked lists, not to talk of double-linked lists which are the default kind of lists in C++1x.  If you cons up a list of 32-bit integers then 32 bit code would use 32+2x32 = 96 bits per cell, 64 bit code would use 32+2x64 bits = 160 bits, which is a solid 1.66x.

    1.66 times RAM usage of course sounds quite serious, but it is hardly the case that the whole 32bit address space is filled with pointer-heavy data structures.

    I don't know the internals, of course, but I would venture a guess that memory-mapped regions for faster access to data files etc. do have a much higher impact on the memory usage. Therefore, increasing the available address space could greatly increase the MTBCTD of the client without too much of an actual impact on physical memory. Not to mention that the age of 2GB physical memory has been over for a while.

    SNy

  11. OK, that was helpful and I can say that I can actually relate to most of the comments, especially wrt. the ones from the female developer.

    About the process to switch from Awesomium to CEF (Chromium Embedded), I need to do something similar, with the help of (hopefully) others, but from XULRunner (mozilla, basically) to CEF. Though I don't quite get why she finds it worth mentioning that it can now display web content. That doesn't appear to be the hard part, after looking into it a bit. The hard part would be interaction, scripting and connecting back- and front-end. Maybe I misunderstood.

    Anyway, wrt. to the 64bit-ness. She talks a lot about stuff that has, basically, nothing to do with the bitness issue, per se. What she says about them using an ancient version of MSVC (is it so ancient that it doesn't have a 64bit target? Is that conceivable?) and especially all the libraries they use... would be an issue for them either way. If I understand that correctly, they have not been updating their build system and dependencies in a long time, which would of course help explaining the issues at large to a great extent. Then again, while I haven't touched the client for ages, I don't remember them supplying a whole lot of external DLLs with the client, and short of static linking, those dependencies might actually lie more in the tooling for content creation and updates as well as stuff on the server than in code for the client. Then again, she spoke about client bitness, and don't I remember that they had been talking about server bitness when they announced their big move to the new datacenters?

    SNy

  12. On 9.6.2017 at 3:02 PM, warspeech said:

    People on the OF are saying it's from Cordovan's LOTRO Twitch stream.  I don't watch those so I haven't heard it myself, but that's what the source seems to be.

    Thanks.

    So not even some written piece at some 3rd party (a)social media site, but a mumbled piece in a live stream that the only other participant understood as an announcement? Nothing to see there, move along.

    SNy

  13. On 25.5.2017 at 1:44 AM, Almagnus1 said:

    That and also having the client consumes a crapton of RAM.

    The client is doing that NOW, and fails in trying to continue doing so at the 32bit limit.

    Also, it's like, 2017, if you hit bugs because of incorrect assumptions wrt. the size of ints or pointers, you have been doing something very wrong in the course of the last, like, 15 years. Types like size_t and (u)int[xy]_t have been a thing since C99.

    Of course, if you have been exclusively targetting Windows and used stuff like PULONGLONG and other horrors (of course, in sometime last millenium MS invented upper-case macros for just about any useless type) and all that nonsense, you might well end up in some trouble.

    Then, again, since we're talking Turbine legacy code here that likely stems from sometime around then, yeah.

    SNy

    PS. I meant to ask earlier, but since I now replied, anyway, care to elaborate on the source of these rumours?

  14. On 21.1.2017 at 9:18 PM, Mallorn said:

    but surely they could have been more original than this

    Well, no, they could not have been, obviously. It's the same team as before their departure into a new company, remember?

    I said it before, and maintain it: "development and operations of DDO and LotRO will continue as usual" was/is a threat, and not a promise.

    SNy

×
×
  • Create New...