Myrgard

Though it was a tie, I'm giving dantski the captain nod for week 1. Good effort LN, not bad for a first run!


So the challenge of dantski remains.. who will challenge this seemingly immortal myther?


Though I would like to its uncouth for me to host and cap, we need a leet challenger to step up!

Turns out Dantski won btw

Link for stats spreadsheet:

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/32997724/KB%20 ... k%201.xlsx

Well I am a pretty good captain, I ran a clan in myth TFL and myth 2 for 3 years, the 58TH Wild Cards.
O yea and I won some MWC like AGES ago ~8^)

If no ones steps up you got it

Since I would be the underdog, let me pick first! "The winner" (FUCKING BS! TERRIES SCORING IS BROKEN NOW POST BUNGIE WTF)
of last week should not pick first, as they are seeded to win again, or something.

O um BTW, I have not seen the time posted for the next match....Is it just 12 PM EST Saturday every weekend?

Well it was 3pm EST last week so would assume same time again.

p.s. I'm picking terries every map

How many weeks are you guys playing ? Want to get involved but working this weekend.

16 player cap is BS. Can't get in. Why hasnt magma fixed 16 player cap? Lazy!

Make what this guy ^^^^ said happen !!

Something came up, and I was unable to make it 3 pm EST ~8^(

Milk Man wrote:16 player cap is BS. Can't get in. Why hasnt magma fixed 16 player cap? Lazy!

Heh that's a metaserver issue So unless you want to move off of MariusNet (permanently)...

Also Renwood I should note that Pyro did test and Myrk is right... the current terries scoring is how it has always been (since 1.3). The change in 1.5.1 was a legitimate bug fix to a bug that had been introduced in 1.5.0. So 1.5.0 was the only version that was ever different (i.e. buggy). Just FYI.

punkuser, thanks for looking into this guys.

punkUser wrote:Heh that's a metaserver issue So unless you want to move off of MariusNet (permanently)...

What? Isn't there someone to blame for this? I wanna blame someone...

with more then 16 players, with like 32 in a game, I would think magma would need to increase the max number of monsters (units) that could be on the map at the same time. The current limit is just over 400 max on the map at any given time. increasing this limit would provide for much needed new gameplay options, on a 15 year old game.

If it was that easy I'm sure it would have been done already.

This isn't total war.

grim, it would be an option. do not derp out on me now!
LN, the biggest problem magma has said, it could break compatibility with older films.
They have broken it before for things not nearly as cool as bigger armies more epic battles.

I think it would be pretty easy to add if it only applied to NEW maps made to support it.
Unless its not just changing a number value like a lot of the OLD limits were.
People who never even play the game, doutfully are bothered by Myth's slow demise and starvation of players or good games going on.
Seems to me as long as mnet can support 1 full Mazz game they are perfectly happy with the state of myth.

Noone wants to play a map with over 400 units on it.

As has been said elsewhere, it's not just a matter of changing limit values.

Also, PunkUser already tried to emphasize that raising the player limit would essentially break metaserver compatibility with Mnet.

More than 16 players is also pointless, the only time there's a 16 player game is a tournament and even then its pretty rare.

I don't think it's pointless (I for one would love to see it happen!) but I don't know if the benefits clearly outweigh the costs like Ren seems to believe. I can see such a feature being used, but it's impossible to tell if the significant amount of work needed to make it happen would be justified, as Dant suggests, especially as the effort would essentially be diverted from work on other possible features.

I am a lot more interested in more monsters on the map/screen at the same time, then having more then 16 players in a game. I would NOT want to be one of the captains that had to pass out units to 16 people in 2:30 PT....I now LN/new mute cant get it done in 2:30 with 8 players ~8^)

How is it pointless? In such a small community it blows when there's only 1 game that's at capacity and one is among the only three or four people locked out...

The idea about having caps and sub-caps (lieutenants?) on bigger maps was pretty cool too (someone advanced this idea in the last thread about increased player limits)... maybe even with the captain (colonel?) having access to increased zoom without ability to have his own units? I doubt we could ever really get more than like 20 people wanting to play anymore though, *sigh.*

But whatevs, if its not gonna happen its not gonna happen. I blame someone.

If increasing the player limit in games takes a few hours to do fine. Not worth spending more time on a new feature that will see very little use.

Dantski wrote:If increasing the player limit in games takes a few hours to do fine. Not worth spending more time on a new feature that will see very little use.

Like I said, it's probably not hard to do, but it would be a *clean* break with older metaservers, so no more MariusNet. Don't think that's worth the trade-off, do you?

Yes, but couldn't the meta server code just be updated to support the myth 2.exe changes, as it has been in the past?

Well since there's noone to blame I'm just booting Dantski from the next full game I host!

Ill be there this weekend you stickydicks. Pick me last if you DARE

Renwood wrote:Yes, but couldn't the meta server code just be updated to support the myth 2.exe changes, as it has been in the past?

Yes, but MariusNet/PPE is not in a place where they are willing to do any updates at this point. They kindly leave it running for those of us who still play Myth, but they are not really engaged themselves. Totally fine and understandable, but updating their site is not an option, thus the only other option is a clean break.

I'll note that film and save game compatibility could be an issue too... might be able to work around that one, but again, we're talking about a lot of downsides here that need to be weighed carefully against the fairly moderate upside.

Well, punkuser..I get they are not currently supporting mnet, but maybe they would bother to make some new code if magma asked them nicely and it was for a cool new feature.
Remember, Myth people have a way of coming out of retirement now and again for short amounts of time.

I also support the idea of being able to zoom out all the way in multiplayer games for Observers, or people without units themselves.
Would be cool to have a unique SA (Situational awareness) for the people without units zoomed out further with the new camera style, and have them act as generals.
I would also like to support the idea Fury had to have the new Max camera distance for Singleplayer/COOP and or as a new mapmaking feature that would only be supported on NEW maps and plugins created to use the new zoom out.
Or at the VERY LEAST, it would be great to have the further max camera zoom out added to Loathing. Its really hard to make tall structures like big castles or mountains in Loating with the camera stuck at such a low height.

Renwood wrote:Well, punkuser..I get they are not currently supporting mnet, but maybe they would bother to make some new code if magma asked them nicely and it was for a cool new feature.

Have already been in touch with them, the situation is as I stated.

Renwood wrote:I also support the idea of being able to zoom out all the way in multiplayer games for Observers, or people without units themselves.

It does work for observers, but not for any team members (0% or otherwise). We already had this discussion and decided against it collectively last year.

Anyways we should move any further discussion out of the KB thread/forum.

That increased zoom would break the game.
It is an improvement for shoutcasts/replays though.

Besides watching people tunnel vision with 5x zoom on replays is hilarious

Renwood and Milk Man's avatars piss me off

Thats rich coming from you par