1. #35441
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    And you should stop talking, if you have no idea what you're talking about.
    OK.

    (Going to unchop the bits of my own code now. You see, they are "scattered among many, many version control saves". Because that's totally how version control saves work, they scatter bits of code. And chop them up.)

  2. #35442
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    On that same token, anything is easy to deliver, even the defunct Project Titan. Every new project they create negatively impacts their profits, until said project is finished and returns its investment (either through micro-transactions and/or by having a box price.)

    The vanilla code is not only fragmented through various version check saves, but also some bits and pieces have been lost to time. And depending on how fragmented it is and how many parts of it have been lost, it might be "easier to deliver" and get a bigger investment return to make a new game altogether.

    - - - Updated - - -


    And you should stop talking, if you have no idea what you're talking about.
    Said a guy who has no idea what he's talking about

  3. #35443
    Legendary! Deficineiron's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Forum Logic
    Posts
    6,576
    So, blizzard leased classic to The9 for china. What are the odds the9 has relevant metadata still, or that netease still has tbc metadata? TBC metadata, for classic zones, would be pretty darn close to 1.12 (not identical) pre-2.3 esp mob-side. player-side would need adjusting...

    the9 may have agreed to delete all such data when they lost the license, which doesn't mean they may not have it but does mean it may be more complicated to get.
    Last edited by Deficineiron; 2016-11-30 at 01:22 PM.
    Authors I have enjoyed enough to mention here: JRR Tolkein, Poul Anderson,Jack Vance, Gene Wolfe, Glen Cook, Brian Stableford, MAR Barker, Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, WM Hodgson, Fredrick Brown, Robert SheckleyJohn Steakley, Joe Abercrombie, Robert Silverberg, the norse sagas, CJ Cherryh, PG Wodehouse, Clark Ashton Smith, Alastair Reynolds, Cordwainer Smith, LE Modesitt, L. Sprague de Camp & Fletcher Pratt, Stephen R Donaldon, and Jack L Chalker.

  4. #35444
    The Unstoppable Force Ielenia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    21,869
    Quote Originally Posted by Deficineiron View Post
    So, blizzard leased classic to The9 for china. What are the odds the9 has relevant metadata still, or that netease still has tbc metadata? TBC metadata, for classic zones, would be pretty darn close to 1.12 (not identical) pre-2.3 esp mob-side. player-side would need adjusting...
    I sincerely doubt Blizzard would leave any files with The9 after their contract ended. Not to mention that I don't think they (The9 or NetEase) have any version control of the game. I'm fairly sure they don't develop anything, and at best do localization?
    "Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons" by Varodoc
    "You sit in OG/SW waiting on a Mythic+ queue" by Altmer <- Oh, the pearls in this forum...
    "They sort of did this Dragonriding, which ushered in the Dracthyr race." by Teriz <- the BS some people reach for their narratives...

  5. #35445
    Quote Originally Posted by Deficineiron View Post
    So, blizzard leased classic to The9 for china. What are the odds the9 has relevant metadata still, or that netease still has tbc metadata? TBC metadata, for classic zones, would be pretty darn close to 1.12 (not identical) pre-2.3 esp mob-side. player-side would need adjusting...

    the9 may have agreed to delete all such data when they lost the license, which doesn't mean they may not have it but does mean it may be more complicated to get.
    I guess it all depends on what is missing. In a video linked here a few weeks ago Mark Kern seemed to think that Blizzard have all they need to implement a classic server but I tend to take what he has to say with a rather large dose of scepticism.

    The old world remained largely unchanged until 4.0 and Battle.net 2.0 was introduced in March '09 meaning that 3.3 would include the old world as well as battle.net integration so it is possible that they would not have to go as far back 1.12.

  6. #35446
    Legendary! Deficineiron's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Forum Logic
    Posts
    6,576
    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    I guess it all depends on what is missing. In a video linked here a few weeks ago Mark Kern seemed to think that Blizzard have all they need to implement a classic server but I tend to take what he has to say with a rather large dose of scepticism.

    The old world remained largely unchanged until 4.0 and Battle.net 2.0 was introduced in March '09 meaning that 3.3 would include the old world as well as battle.net integration so it is possible that they would not have to go as far back 1.12.
    by 2.3 outdoor and instance mobs had been modified in level and dmg quite a bit, so thinking ideal would be 2.2 or prior (which netease might have? not sure what patch they were on when they switched over). having a 3.3 metadata to work from and 2.2 numbers to plug in (or 1.12 etc) would be ideal perhaps.

    if it happens I do think it is likely they use a much later engine (3.3 like you mention, or maybe even the current engine and just change maps/metadata values.)
    Last edited by Deficineiron; 2016-11-30 at 02:01 PM.
    Authors I have enjoyed enough to mention here: JRR Tolkein, Poul Anderson,Jack Vance, Gene Wolfe, Glen Cook, Brian Stableford, MAR Barker, Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, WM Hodgson, Fredrick Brown, Robert SheckleyJohn Steakley, Joe Abercrombie, Robert Silverberg, the norse sagas, CJ Cherryh, PG Wodehouse, Clark Ashton Smith, Alastair Reynolds, Cordwainer Smith, LE Modesitt, L. Sprague de Camp & Fletcher Pratt, Stephen R Donaldon, and Jack L Chalker.

  7. #35447
    Quote Originally Posted by Deficineiron View Post
    by 2.3 outdoor and instance mobs had been modified in level and dmg quite a bit, so thinking ideal would be 2.2 or prior (which netease might have? not sure what patch they were on when they switched over). having a 3.3 metadata to work from and 2.2 numbers to plug in (or 1.12 etc) would be ideal perhaps.

    if it happens I do think it is likely they use a much later engine (3.3 like you mention, or maybe even the current engine and just change maps/metadata.)
    True but those changes were mostly cosmetic I doubt modifying the health and damage of mobs would require specialist skill. I hear the guy who knocked up the selfie patch in his lunch break is looking for something a bit more challenging so you never know he might be up for it.

    I would have thought that the current client and server versions would be the best way forward, it has all the latest bells and whistles and has proven that it can run zones and instances from classic. Also the 10th anniversary patch shows that they are able to alter the mobs' HP, damage, etc in these zones without much trouble.

    As far as I see the problem with launching a classic realm is not ability, it is desire.

  8. #35448
    I don't really understand what scenario you are discussing. Suppose The9 have the code / database / everything for vanilla or TBC. What then?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    I would have thought that the current client and server versions would be the best way forward, it has all the latest bells and whistles and has proven that it can run zones and instances from classic. Also the 10th anniversary patch shows that they are able to alter the mobs' HP, damage, etc in these zones without much trouble.
    But that wouldn't return former class abilities / talent trees / stats and mechanics like hunter pets taking food and being teached skills (there are hundreds of such things).

  9. #35449
    Legendary! Deficineiron's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Forum Logic
    Posts
    6,576
    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    True but those changes were mostly cosmetic I doubt modifying the health and damage of mobs would require specialist skill. I hear the guy who knocked up the selfie patch in his lunch break is looking for something a bit more challenging so you never know he might be up for it.

    I would have thought that the current client and server versions would be the best way forward, it has all the latest bells and whistles and has proven that it can run zones and instances from classic. Also the 10th anniversary patch shows that they are able to alter the mobs' HP, damage, etc in these zones without much trouble.

    As far as I see the problem with launching a classic realm is not ability, it is desire.
    The good thing about using a modern engine is they could easily integrate flying, achievements, LFD/LFR, pet battles, arenas, and the modern, less-confusing talent system that has real choices like the players demand.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by rda View Post
    I don't really understand what scenario you are discussing. Suppose The9 have the code / database / everything for vanilla or TBC. What then?

    - - - Updated - - -



    But that wouldn't return former class abilities / talent trees / stats and mechanics like hunter pets taking food and being teached skills (there are hundreds of such things).
    blizz stated that they dont have metadata and wold have to rebuild it. My comment was that such data may in fact exist in some form with either the current or former wow licensee in china. if such were true, it would alter the need to rebuild it, or provide a much more complete starting point. The issue is that it would remove one of the hurdles they would face, thus it might be less work and effort (and money) involved.
    Authors I have enjoyed enough to mention here: JRR Tolkein, Poul Anderson,Jack Vance, Gene Wolfe, Glen Cook, Brian Stableford, MAR Barker, Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, WM Hodgson, Fredrick Brown, Robert SheckleyJohn Steakley, Joe Abercrombie, Robert Silverberg, the norse sagas, CJ Cherryh, PG Wodehouse, Clark Ashton Smith, Alastair Reynolds, Cordwainer Smith, LE Modesitt, L. Sprague de Camp & Fletcher Pratt, Stephen R Donaldon, and Jack L Chalker.

  10. #35450
    Quote Originally Posted by Deficineiron View Post
    The good thing about using a modern engine is they could easily integrate flying, achievements, LFD/LFR, pet battles, arenas, and the modern, less-confusing talent system that has real choices like the players demand.
    Why not just play live then?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Deficineiron View Post
    blizz stated that they dont have metadata and wold have to rebuild. My comment was that such data may in fact exist in some form with either the current or former wow licensee in china. if such were true, it would alter the need to rebuild it, or provide a much more complete starting point.
    Got it.

    I don't know what metadata you are talking about, perhaps that was some idiot CM who told what he thought he understood of it, and got it worded awkwardly. If you happen to remember the wording, I'll look up the original quote (or if you have it ready, that's even better). It is true they'd have to rebuild, but not because they lost something - they have to write new code to accommodate vital services and fix deal-breaking bugs / backport existing fixes and quality-of-life changes to the old code.

    The issue of "where can we find the bits that Blizzard are missing" does not exist, what they are missing is the code that has never been written and could not have been written before.

  11. #35451
    Legendary! Deficineiron's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Forum Logic
    Posts
    6,576
    Quote Originally Posted by rda View Post
    Why not just play live then?

    - - - Updated - - -



    Got it.

    I don't know what metadata you are talking about, perhaps that was some idiot CM who told what he thought he understood of it, and got it worded awkwardly. If you happen to remember the wording, I'll look up the original quote (or if you have it ready, it's even better). It is true they'd have to rebuild, but not because they lost something - they have to write new code to accommodate vital services or fix deal-breaking backs / backport existing fixes and quality-of-life changes to the old code.

    The issue of "where can we find the bits that Blizzard are missing" does not exist, what they are missing is the code that has never been written and could not have been written before.
    The 'idiot CM' you refer to is Chilton.
    Authors I have enjoyed enough to mention here: JRR Tolkein, Poul Anderson,Jack Vance, Gene Wolfe, Glen Cook, Brian Stableford, MAR Barker, Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, WM Hodgson, Fredrick Brown, Robert SheckleyJohn Steakley, Joe Abercrombie, Robert Silverberg, the norse sagas, CJ Cherryh, PG Wodehouse, Clark Ashton Smith, Alastair Reynolds, Cordwainer Smith, LE Modesitt, L. Sprague de Camp & Fletcher Pratt, Stephen R Donaldon, and Jack L Chalker.

  12. #35452
    Quote Originally Posted by Deficineiron View Post
    The idiot you refer to is Chilton.
    And what was the quote? I guess he simply tried to put it in words that non-devs would understand.

  13. #35453
    Legendary! Deficineiron's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Forum Logic
    Posts
    6,576
    Quote Originally Posted by rda View Post
    And what was the quote? I guess he simply tried to put it in words that non-devs would understand.
    about to be busy here, will find it later though.
    Authors I have enjoyed enough to mention here: JRR Tolkein, Poul Anderson,Jack Vance, Gene Wolfe, Glen Cook, Brian Stableford, MAR Barker, Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, WM Hodgson, Fredrick Brown, Robert SheckleyJohn Steakley, Joe Abercrombie, Robert Silverberg, the norse sagas, CJ Cherryh, PG Wodehouse, Clark Ashton Smith, Alastair Reynolds, Cordwainer Smith, LE Modesitt, L. Sprague de Camp & Fletcher Pratt, Stephen R Donaldon, and Jack L Chalker.

  14. #35454
    Quote Originally Posted by rda View Post
    But that wouldn't return former class abilities / talent trees / stats and mechanics like hunter pets taking food and being teached skills (there are hundreds of such things).
    Why can't the new server/client work with the old database(s) or why can't they import or rewrite the old database(s) to work with the new sever/client. This seems a hell of a lot easier and cheaper than rewritting the old client/server to bring it up to today's standard or be compatible with battlenet.

  15. #35455
    Quote Originally Posted by Deficineiron View Post
    about to be busy here, will find it later though.
    I actually found it going from the name:

    http://kotaku.com/blizzard-talks-wor...mor-1781753136

    The relevant portion:

    "So that’s really cool, and we like that idea, but it is extremely challenging to actually execute. A big part of the reason is that our database, the way it works is live data. So when somebody goes in there and says ‘Fireball does 200 damage now instead of 100,’ that’s it: Fireball has changed forever.

    In the past, there was no archiving of older data. So while we have the capability of doing that now, and in more recent years when we make changes we can ‘version’ the data, we didn’t have that back in 2004. And so as data changed, we effectively lost that stuff to history. And so we would have to go back and try to reverse-engineer it ourselves."

    He's talking about the database, not code. It's the database that they didn't archive all that well until some time. The stuff in the database are spell coefficients, NPC positions, quest texts, etc. The mechanics, the actual spell actions, etc, etc, etc, are all in code. Filling the missing database stuff is much easier - it is still an effort, because there are lots of things to fill (and because sometimes you don't even know that you have to change the new value to an old value), but it's safe and easy.

    In this respect, yes, "where can we possibly find the missing bits of the database" makes sense.

    But, and that's important - it's not the biggest issue in all this.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    Why can't the new server/client work with the old database(s) or why can't they import or rewrite the old database(s) to work with the new sever/client. This seems a hell of a lot easier and cheaper than rewritting the old client/server to bring it up to today's standard or be compatible with battlenet.
    The new server / client can't work with the old database, because database structure changes. Rewriting / converting the database is possible, yes. But using the new server / client won't get you 90% of the things people seem to want from vanilla - old mechanics are a good example. It's not the database doing them, it's the server / client.

  16. #35456
    Legendary! Deficineiron's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Forum Logic
    Posts
    6,576
    Quote Originally Posted by rda View Post
    In this respect, yes, "where can we possibly find the missing bits of the database" makes sense.
    I do have brief moments of lucidity




    The new server / client can't work with the old database, because database structure changes. Rewriting / converting the database is possible, yes. But using the new server / client won't get you 90% of the things people seem to want from vanilla - old mechanics are a good example. It's not the database doing them, it's the server / client.
    I think an often-unspoken concern here is that blizzard would find it preferable to actually just use new engine and new systems and old classic 'themes and zones' in a new, linear, more accessible format for a larger group of potential players. The cynical among us refer to this type of scenario as the 'frankenstein' server scenario.

    a fast example - would they REALLY allow old scholomanc, with confusing layout, optional bosses everywhere, viewing room key/rattlegore tandem, etc., to be in, or would they opt for the new carnival-haunted-house/talking skull instance, which can provide the (alleged) spirit of old scholomance while offering more accessibility?

    Looking at all design decisions from this company overall in the last several years, what do you think they would tend to want to do?
    Last edited by Deficineiron; 2016-11-30 at 03:35 PM.
    Authors I have enjoyed enough to mention here: JRR Tolkein, Poul Anderson,Jack Vance, Gene Wolfe, Glen Cook, Brian Stableford, MAR Barker, Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, WM Hodgson, Fredrick Brown, Robert SheckleyJohn Steakley, Joe Abercrombie, Robert Silverberg, the norse sagas, CJ Cherryh, PG Wodehouse, Clark Ashton Smith, Alastair Reynolds, Cordwainer Smith, LE Modesitt, L. Sprague de Camp & Fletcher Pratt, Stephen R Donaldon, and Jack L Chalker.

  17. #35457
    yeah sure no mob health specialsit, just re-code vanilla to make it run optimized for the new servers/battle.net/fix the bugs or you want the bugs?

  18. #35458
    Quote Originally Posted by Nokami View Post
    Who cares Stress Test? For Blizzard this crap needs like 100k+ Players to be even on the Screen.
    Not just online for a Hour and count to a statistic, sorry to burst your bubble.
    Your talking about making it worth keeping a server up for. Depending how many servers they have up, the smallest populated server is around 70k characters(not individual players) at top level. So whatever the average amount of alts per person at top level, you then find that the number would need to be a lot less then 100k to run one server.

    So then we look at some of these private servers, Nost had 150k active accounts. This is just one private server with that number of people actively playing each month, this then takes away the number of players on other private servers and people like myself who wont touch a private server. You have way more then enough to keep a server running and having a lot of money left over to design the servers.

    Comparing this server to a WoW live server, it would be profitable.

    The issue is when would the right time to launch a legacy server be. Legion still being fresh, blizzard should be mainly focusing on it. This would mean that the server would not be optimal to release anytime soon for blizzard to make the most money from it that they can.

    So all in all, it doesn't take 100k players to keep a server running, it is a lot less then that. It is all about timing, it will eventually happen, just a question of how long.

  19. #35459
    Legendary! Deficineiron's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Forum Logic
    Posts
    6,576
    Quote Originally Posted by bubbadubba View Post
    So all in all, it doesn't take 100k players to keep a server running, it is a lot less then that. It is all about timing, it will eventually happen, just a question of how long.
    and in what final form. See my frankenstein scenario comments above.
    Authors I have enjoyed enough to mention here: JRR Tolkein, Poul Anderson,Jack Vance, Gene Wolfe, Glen Cook, Brian Stableford, MAR Barker, Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, WM Hodgson, Fredrick Brown, Robert SheckleyJohn Steakley, Joe Abercrombie, Robert Silverberg, the norse sagas, CJ Cherryh, PG Wodehouse, Clark Ashton Smith, Alastair Reynolds, Cordwainer Smith, LE Modesitt, L. Sprague de Camp & Fletcher Pratt, Stephen R Donaldon, and Jack L Chalker.

  20. #35460
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by otaXephon View Post
    I'm all for turning a blind eye to things which do not affect me. But the implication that Blizzard needs to drop everything it's doing to develop Legacy realms is one which should alarm any paying retail customer since it's the kind of thing which would cause fragmentation of the playerbase on top of potentially delaying currently scheduled content. I don't think many of the people who argue against Legacy are arguing because they can't stand other people liking different things than themselves but more that there's a collective selfishness about the importance of Legacy supporters' viewpoint.
    I don't see or want them dropping *everything* to develop Legacy. A small team should suffice - they do not even have to bring it on-line in the next year. Just letting us know that they are definitely going to do it will be brilliant and I for one will be quite happy to wait.

    But I do need the confirmation that it *is* going to happen.
    Last edited by mmocc955237267; 2016-11-30 at 03:45 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •