Author Topic: Skulltag v Odamex v Zdaemon  (Read 20158 times)

SwiftShot

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
Re: Skulltag v Odamex v Zdaemon
« Reply #90 on: June 28, 2011, 09:23:51 pm »
Mobius you've created a monster!

Mobius

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 229
    • View Profile
Re: Skulltag v Odamex v Zdaemon
« Reply #91 on: June 28, 2011, 09:33:45 pm »
Quote from: Madgunner
Nothing at all. We simply will not promote any league that uses them. Those are the rules, if you don't like it, then there's always Odamex. If we granted one league or server host an exception, pretty soon everyone would want an exception, so as a result, we cannot give in to the IDL's request as it currently stands.

Chillax. I wasn't defending IDL by asking, but I wanted to know if the only reason you guys don't want it unadvertised is to enforce the master server's banlist (which would mean Ralphis doesn't play IDL). What difference does it make to Zdaemon whether or not it is advertised though? I know it's a rule, but why exactly is it a rule?

Quote from: Cybershark
Isn't it kind of down to the individual to say what their 'port of choice' is?  Or perhaps for your next trick you could tell everyone that their favourite colour is pink, just because it may be yours?  lol

Also, how about you drop the absolutes?  You wanna go look at something like Worst's 'Snakes' game and then tell me that ZD has zero 'modability'?  And that's just one piece of funky shit he alone has cooked up.  You want to see how 'unmoddable' Zdaemon is then just come along to ZDS #200 on Saturday.  Bones and Cup will testify to just how revolutionary that is gonna be  wink

I highly doubt it has any or near the same prospects as Skulltag has :3
« Last Edit: June 28, 2011, 09:40:24 pm by Mobius »
<@Jenova> im pretty sure jenova loves mlp

tm512

  • ._.
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 102
    • View Profile
Re: Skulltag v Odamex v Zdaemon
« Reply #92 on: June 28, 2011, 09:35:22 pm »
Quote from: Mr-Cheater
A group of people already try to do that with skulltag called: Liberty Doom. It was created by Theta's group. The reason it didn't go out as planned because it was pointless having two master servers.(no offense)
Haha, yeah, I'm sure lots of people wanted to play with that group. I'm not sure whether there would be enough demand for an alternative ZD master in order to keep one going. Obviously there was not for Skulltag, however.

AlexMax

  • Benevolent Dictator for Life
  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 224
    • View Profile
Re: Skulltag v Odamex v Zdaemon
« Reply #93 on: June 28, 2011, 09:45:30 pm »
good to see you on these forums lyfe, hope you're not letting the riff-raff get to you. :)

Quote from: Lyfe
A lot of zdaemon is closed source because we don't want massive forking.

i'm not sure if I agree with your reasoning there, maintaining a significant fork of a large project is quite an undertaking.  usually if a project forks it either dies quickly or dooms the parent project as the majority of the community picks one side or the other.  there are exceptions of course, but the only one i can think of off the top of my head is punbb and fluxbb, and forum software is a whole lot larger market than doom ports (and it's hard enough getting people to install more than one port as it is).

oh and i guess there are 4-5 different BSD variants and a million linux distros but those are freaking huge undertakings from large groups people who are interested in solving real-world problems as opposed to playing a 15+ year old video game, and realistically only about a dozen see any use and they all descend from a half-dozen common codebases.

besides, wasn't X-Doom a fork until it was pulled into ZDaemon mainline?  iirc that wasn't even incompatible with zdaemon proper.  not all forks need to require the average joe to install another client.

Quote from: tm512
Yes, I'm sure if an alternative master server came up, people would use it. Tell me what would happen if I, or someone else, programmed an alternative master server for others to use?

I'm sure IDL might probably use it.  I could host it for you guys.  Hell, if you can wireshark the protocol I can probably implement the master myself, i just don't have the patience to reverse engineer the master <-> server protocol.  It would probably be re-obfuscated in time for 1.09, but it's not like the IDL has to upgrade.

Quote from: Mr-Cheater
You fuckin cretin. A group of people already try to do that with skulltag called: Liberty Doom. It was created by Theta's group. The reason it didn't go out as planned because it was pointless having two master servers.(no offense)

the reason nobody played on the servers on theta's master is because he had a bad reputation and his servers were full of cheaters.  also for the most part in spite of the large retarded ban ranges the skulltag master seemed to have a lot less vindictive bans.
altdeath - multiplayer doom respawned

Mr-Cheater

  • Interent's troll product
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 110
    • View Profile
Re: Skulltag v Odamex v Zdaemon
« Reply #94 on: June 28, 2011, 09:54:25 pm »
Quote
the reason nobody played on the servers on theta's master is because he had a bad reputation and his servers were full of cheaters.  also for the most part in spite of the large retarded ban ranges.

Indeed, I have to say theta has grown a bad rep. not even I hope to reach. But he did had good intentions why he made the master server. More freedom and whatnot... but I guess that also can be a problem because as you stated out, there were cheaters in the masterlist.

dew

  • check out my bfg
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
    • View Profile
Re: Skulltag v Odamex v Zdaemon
« Reply #95 on: June 28, 2011, 09:54:47 pm »
Quote from: AlexMax
It would probably be re-obfuscated in time for 1.09, but it's not like the IDL has to upgrade.
it's either 1.09 or oda with slopes. keeping the current version with clearly better options around would be laughable and the lingering bugs are getting on everyone's nerves.

AlexMax

  • Benevolent Dictator for Life
  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 224
    • View Profile
Re: Skulltag v Odamex v Zdaemon
« Reply #96 on: June 28, 2011, 10:09:23 pm »
Quote from: dew
Quote from: AlexMax
It would probably be re-obfuscated in time for 1.09, but it's not like the IDL has to upgrade.
it's either 1.09 or oda with slopes. keeping the current version with clearly better options around would be laughable and the lingering bugs are getting on everyone's nerves.

good point, i can't even start 1.08 on 64 bit windows 7.

heck now that i think about it I bet that 1.09 will irreversibly break doomseeker.

so i guess tm512 keep working on obsidian or something and forget about recreating zdaemon's master.
altdeath - multiplayer doom respawned

Lyfe

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Skulltag v Odamex v Zdaemon
« Reply #97 on: June 28, 2011, 10:38:59 pm »
Quote from: tm512
Quote from: Lyfe
A lot of zdaemon is closed source because we don't want massive forking.
I don't think anybody working on ZDaemon deserves any sympathy if a fork offers enough to get people away from ZDaemon. You keep it closed source because you know that there is probably significant interest in forking ZDaemon. The reasons for this should be obvious, and closed source just keeps survival of the fittest from taking place.

I knew this one statement was going to get me into a conversation I didn't want to be in.  Should've deleted it when I had it in the editor.
To your actual point: we keep it closed because it helps us prevent cheating.  Between our known anti-cheat measures and obfuscation down to machine code (yes, disassemble if you like, but it's still ugly compared to the origins), it has obviously helped.  Has it been 100% successful?  Of course not.  But it has helped.

Regardless, I don't want to see a fork.  You know why there's only a handful of BSD ports?  Because that community is mature enough to understand that you can get good code back from users, actually integrate it into the system, and release it again.  Plus, unlike Linux, it's a full fledged OS.  GNU/Linux is a full-fledged OS as well, but obviously people have issues with that particular implementation, hence the ridiculous amount of forking in that community.
But something that neither BSD nor Linux have is a need to not trust the end-user.  Eg, the guy that runs the OS on his own hardware.  That's the person you wish you could trust.  We can't trust a client running the software on his own machine, because he's interacting with someone else's system to play the game.  And the other clients are relying on the server to be correct, so that their interpretations of the world are valid too.  This is why open source fails in games.  (Anyone who remarks about Sauerbraten shall be smacked. Do your research if you even think of bringing this up.)

Regardless, I don't want to see forking of a source port that I work on.  It makes it harder for the end-users to decide which one they're supposed to take, and it makes it harder for developers to keep up on "who's doing what, and how can I use their code, if I like it?"

Additionally, quit framing your quote of survival of the fittest.  I can reapply that same damn quote to describe the current state of source ports, without you trying to apply it to a would-be theory of zdaemon being forked.  You don't get to conveniently choose the starting point for where survival shall begin to have that support you.

Quote from: tm512
Quote from: Lyfe
I don't want to share the master server code.  I'm frankly slightly embarrassed at how terrible the code is.
Yes, I'm sure if an alternative master server came up, people would use it. Tell me what would happen if I, or someone else, programmed an alternative master server for others to use?

You'd have some slightly obnoxious directions for server admins, as well as having to write a server browser.  Obviously, the server-browser side would be pretty easy, given the existence of several server browsers being out there.
Additionally, you'd have to keep up with any changes made to the server protocol we'd adjust (and I think we adjusted it for 1.09).  I'm sure anyone as smart as you can easily see that we're not going to tell anyone what changes we made.  Which means you're always playing catch up.  On the plus side, we do a release what, once every 8-14 months?

Regardless, that's your prerogative.  If you want to go build your own tools, have at it.  If it uses ours, fine.  Just don't expect help building them when you're not getting permission to do it beforehand.  It's not an IP by any means, but I certainly don't need to tell you how I did something just so that you can recreate it; and that's my prerogative.

Lyfe

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Skulltag v Odamex v Zdaemon
« Reply #98 on: June 28, 2011, 10:43:10 pm »
Quote from: AlexMax
good point, i can't even start 1.08 on 64 bit windows 7.

heck now that i think about it I bet that 1.09 will irreversibly break doomseeker.

so i guess tm512 keep working on obsidian or something and forget about recreating zdaemon's master.

ZDaemon 1.08.08b should have proper support for windows 7.  I dunno, I run it on windows 7 64-bit, without any issues.

1.09 will probably break doomseeker's minimal support of zdaemon, I'm pretty sure we made some changes to the protocol.

AlexMax

  • Benevolent Dictator for Life
  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 224
    • View Profile
Re: Skulltag v Odamex v Zdaemon
« Reply #99 on: June 28, 2011, 11:18:44 pm »
Quote from: Lyfe
ZDaemon 1.08.08b should have proper support for windows 7.  I dunno, I run it on windows 7 64-bit, without any issues.

i see a process in the task manager's process list and if I try to start more than one client I get a message telling me that it's already running.  past that, nada.
altdeath - multiplayer doom respawned

hate

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: Skulltag v Odamex v Zdaemon
« Reply #100 on: June 29, 2011, 02:13:12 am »
Quote from: "Madgunner"
First things first, don't make up any shit here. We have always allowed topics relating to ZDDL and have had no issue with them in the past (in fact I'm an admin for ZDDL and ZDaemon). You are correct in the fact that there is no acknowledgement on the homepage of ZDDL, but until a few months ago the website has been completely broken. I have talked to Kilgore in the past about having a section on the new website for ZDDL and other related tournaments and he had no issue with it as long as they agreed to play on PUBLIC servers. Unfortunately, this will have to wait until after 1.09 is released, there is only so much the programmers can do and they have to prioritize things. Once this is done I'm sure the ZDaemon admins would have no problem with having an official section or link to ZDDL or any other tournament organization that chooses to use public servers.

While it's true that the ZDaemon Staff has never shunned away from the ZDDL like it does the IDL, some of the staff members (Raider comes to mind here) are not in favor of it. Actually, I suspect my most recent ban from ZDIRC is due to me advertising ZDDL matches. In the past year, very seldom have I connected to ZDIRC (only time I really connect is to find sedlo). In fact, I think I've probably only connected 4 or 5 times in the past 6 months and only on a few occasions did I say anything while I was there. Anywho, long story short, I hadn't connected to ZDIRC in months up until about 2 months ago when I was about to play Chew for our ZDDL regular season match. I advertised the match a few times about 30 minutes before and at one point, Raider himself said "who cares, just a bunch of guys with huge egos playing." At the time, I didn't think much of it but then I tried connecting again when I wanted to advertise a match I was casting with Blair only to receive this message:

Quote from: "ZDIRC BAN MESSAGE HOORAY"
01:39:44  Connecting to irc.zdaemon.org:6668 ...
01:39:45  *** ZDaemon IRC Server. Wed Jun 29 05:39:46.849 UTC 2011
01:39:46  Connected
01:39:46  *** Looking up your hostname...
01:39:46  *** Found your hostname
01:39:46  hate: learn some manners
01:39:46  Closing Link: hate (~hate@zdaemon.user) has quit IRC [hate: learn some manners]
01:39:46  * Disconnected

What's the significance of this? Well, up until the last point I connected to advertise that match between myself and Chew, I hadn't connected to ZDIRC in months. So I doubt I was banned for anything prior to that which leads me to believe that I was banned for advertising ZDDL matches. I especially consider that when Raider said what he said. So while I think they don't put ZDDL and IDL in the same class of their black-list, I wouldn't say they exactly support it. To make matters worse, when Ralph joined (which I'm not saying it was worse because I like Ralph and his time spent was worth-while and made ZDDL even more attractable than it's ever been because of all the talent we had in div1 this season), that probably turned them off to it even more. Also, you guys keep using the term "play on public servers." Here's a few reason why most of us prefer to play on private, unadvertised servers:

-We can control the amount of trolls who attempt to ruin an organized regular/post-season game
-Some of the "black-listed" players can actually spectate and help cast, these players are actually pretty significant as well
-Overall, it's just a more controlled environment for everyone involved making the game itself more spectacular and worth watching.

And to add onto that, there were a ton of regular season games (even a few post-season games) played on the public servers. And by public, yes we mean servers hosted by Ladna. I suspect that the staff probably wouldn't want to be invested much in a league where Ladna has control over the servers. Eventually it'd do like the IDL and go completely unadvertised. It's probably best, too.

That being said, I do see where the staff comes from when they want "more control," if you will. But the reality is, a community where IDL/ZDDL are publicly supported and suggested by ZD Staff is most likely impossible to obtain. It all comes down to control. ZDDL/IDL want full control over their leagues and ZD wants more control than the IDL/ZDDL are willing to offer. For the leagues, this works best. The players they allow to play can play on their own terms and the guys running the leagues and servers don't have to answer to anyone since they aren't advertised. However, I'm not sure it's a good move for the ZDaemon itself to shun away from these leagues. Competition helps communities thrive, it's why the IDL/ZDDL communities are currently thriving and the ZDaemon public community really isn't, at least not to the extent of the IDL/ZDDL communities. ZDaemon has never really done much of anything to support competitive play other than host random tournaments once a month (a good portion of them don't get finished) and that's about as far as it goes. They don't really let one of the biggest by-products of competition to be present in their community: hostility. There's nothing wrong with that but competitive players want to go and play where they don't have to worry about their threads/posts disappearing. So what ends up happening is that they leave. They go where the competition is. So the ZD Staff can't accuse IDL/ZDDL of stealing their players, the hardcore ZDaemon players went where the competition was. The rest who aren't interested in it stick around some but mostly fade out. This is what they created, so it's my belief that ZDaemon wants to run a kindergarten and spank children with wooden paddles when they say bad words. The one's who don't want to be a part of this leave to other fractions of the community or just quit. If ZDaemon is okay with this, there really isn't much to discuss. But if they aren't, well then I don't really understand why they're complaining about. Either way, I don't see them co-existing.

But, in closing, I do want to point something out. Dannyboy has been busting his ass to run the new TDM league, which seems to be doing okay. You know what I say to that? Good for you, ZDaemon. I genuinely hope it works out for the best. While I wouldn't say I'm on the Staff's black-list, I will go out on a limb and say I'm not their favorite. I especially want nothing to do with them since my forums account was deactivated for literally nothing and I was banned from ZDIRC for something I don't really understand either. Either way, I find it best to stay away from to avoid the headache. I'm perfectly happy with my situation now in the Doom community and that's about that. I didn't really mean to ramble on much, Madgunner, but it was kind of an explanation as to why we get the impression ZDaemon isn't an advocate for the ZDDL. Much less, they're probably not even going to allow it being mentioned anymore. I should also point out I mean no hostility towards you or anyone from the ZD Staff for that matter, just merely pointing a few things out. We'll see what happens from here but that's my story. And the rest, as they say, is history.

cybershark

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Skulltag v Odamex v Zdaemon
« Reply #101 on: June 29, 2011, 05:50:05 am »
Oh, hey Hatred :)

Quote from: legion
how are those videos "dumbass"?????? by what guidelines are YOU going by
This one?
Quote from: legion
they might have been rage-induced
The points may have been valid, but you totally nerfed the presentation.

Quote from: Mobius
I highly doubt it [Zdaemon] has any or near the same prospects as Skulltag has :3
Not the same as it having zero prospects - which was why I said that talking in absolutes was ridiculous here :4
The fact is that it's never looked for the same 'prospects' as Skulltag - ie the possibility of eventually having nobody left playing anything that remotely resembles Doom as we know it.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2011, 05:59:03 am by cybershark »

legion

  • sexual guru
  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 55
    • View Profile
Re: Skulltag v Odamex v Zdaemon
« Reply #102 on: June 29, 2011, 06:22:23 am »
so I'm guessing there is ONE AND ONLY ONE way to state that bugs exist. cool

Ladna

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 57
    • View Profile
Re: Skulltag v Odamex v Zdaemon
« Reply #103 on: June 29, 2011, 07:43:51 am »
Hey Lyfe.  Thanks a lot for coming by.  Like Ralphis said, everything could get a lot better if we were all as reasonable and magnanimous as you were in your posts here, and I personally really appreciate it.

Apropos, I think there's a lot of bad blood on all sides, mostly for pretty good reasons.  It's perhaps easy to forget that some pretty ridiculous things have happened in the multiplayer Doom community, the "Black csDoom Launcher" to CodeImp's various escapades, or Skulltag stealing Skulltag from itself (and then half giving it back again...).  And sure, some people care only about themselves or their reputation or whatever.  But I think it's clear that the majority of us - on all sides - really love Doom and want to see the community grow.

=== Control

I think it's absolutely right that the ZDaemon administration is in control of its services, like ZDIRC, the forums or the master, and its products like ZLauncher, GetWAD, ZSL, and ZDaemon itself.  I think the administration is absolutely right to exercise that control in whatever way it likes.  For example, you believe that allowing cheaters to play is ultimately not beneficial (I'm not saying I disagree), and you use the master banlist accordingly.  However, I disagree with some of the decisions you've made.

==== Permission to interact

I agree it would have been nicer if Blzut3 (Doomseeker's developer) asked for permission and information about the query protocol, but I think you do yourselves a disservice alienating a smart, active developer like him, because unless explaining the ZD query protocol exposes security holes there's no benefit to you; in fact he might be interested in fixing them if they exist.  Furthermore he's the developer of an extremely popular launcher in the multiplayer Doom community, and now everyone who knows about Doomseeker also knows that the ZD administration was upset that it could... list ZDaemon servers....  This is terribly, awfully, extremely bad PR for, again, no gain whatsoever for you.

I think the larger point is one of perspective though.  When IDE and Doomseeker added support for Odamex we helped the devs and appreciated their efforts - even though we have our own launcher.  When Blzut3 added support for ZDaemon he got... well whatever it is he got.

I think you're within your rights to do whatever you like to your query protocol, but I think it's harmful for ZDaemon and the greater multiplayer Doom community.

==== Closing the source

I think you've articulated the argument for closing the source pretty well, and there are a lot of things I agree with; for one, it's certainly easier to write exploits and cheats with access to the source code.  However, I believe that the tradeoffs - turning off otherwise interested developers and bad PR are not worth it, because closing the source has ultimately been ineffective in stopping the use of cheats.

Indeed cheats exist for ZDaemon and because cheat detection doesn't extend to non-advertised servers, the IDL requires all players to submit demos for every game they play.  Of course, this method works because there are a finite amount of IDL games, and it's nowhere close to 100% accurate.  However, ZDaemon's tactic of closing the source is far from foolproof as well.  ZDHook is the most famous cheat package released since the source was closed, but I personally know of another that's undetected and in use since late 2008, and other utilities using the same basic principle are in circulation.

I think if the goal of closing the source was to prevent cheating, and the community has to live with cheats anyway, then the tactic was a failure and the tradeoff is no longer worth it.

==== Advertising

I, along with others, believe IDL is a hugely great thing for the multiplayer Doom community - specifically for ZDaemon - and we would very much like to work together with the ZDaemon administration to make it even better.  Our feature requests as well as our discussions with administrators and moderators (yes, often times about Ralphis) are all in this spirit.  A good example is the advertising issue.  We want to advertise our servers on the ZDaemon master so more people will know about us, but our main disagreement is this:

  - IDL requires that it controls who can and can't play in the league.
  - ZDaemon requires that it controls who can and can't play in the league.

Both sides feel as though they're right because both sides feel they're the best judge of this issue, but ZDaemon wins because you control the master server; the decision is absolutely up to you guys.  As far as I know, Kilgore was open to the idea of advertising most of IDL's servers but still allowing us some private servers so our banned players could still play, but then he changed his mind, is that not the case?

I should also make it clear I'm no longer a member of the IDL Board or administration, so if this issue is going to move forward, you'll want to speak with HumanBones, Goatface, Mikehail, Mantis-X, dewww, or MassVC.

==== Overall

I think it's fair to say that the ZDaemon administration wants as much control over ZDaemon as it can possibly get, like who queries the master, what you can or can't talk about on the forums/IRC, or who plays on advertised servers.  This, of course, is your prerogative, its your services and programs, and I think you have every right to exercise that control.  My issue is that I think many of the ways in which you do so are harmful to the ZDaemon and multiplayer Doom community, and I wish you'd stop.

=== Feature Request

Now for something a little less serious :)

I'll be blunt, the idea with serverside sayto was so I wouldn't have to wait 40 years for 1.09 to actually use new ZDaemon features, and this was nearly 2 years ago.  In fact, that was really the whole motivation behind writing ZDStack; I could've asked the ZDaemon development team for better stats, or better config/process management, or a web management interface, or event plugins (all of which ZDStack has) but it was actually just faster to write it myself.  You can do a lot more with serverside sayto than just implementing finer-grained passwords; ultimately it's a way to interact with ZDStack directly from the client.

And again, I really don't understand the cheating issue.  The only things the server knows that the client doesn't are IP addresses and team/sayto chat, and if I'm interested in spying on that stuff I don't want it fed directly to my client while I'm in a game, I'll have it on tail on a laptop or something.  Serverside sayto allows non-server admins to interact with the server; server admins don't need the server to send anything back to the client, they can just keep an SSH window open or whatever.

But I thought, "OK, so the argument is that servers sending information privately to one client could be used for some kind of cheating, even though I can't figure out what exactly, so why not make it really annoying?  If you want to spy on someone's team chat, every time the server sends a 'sayto', make a huge noise and block the screen out with a HUD message."

Specifically with passwords, serverside sayto would be used to inform the user whether or not they authenticated correctly.  Otherwise it has to be broadcast to all players, which is a big pain in the ass.  Who cares if [UD]RottKing can't remember his password is "asukamyl0ve"?

All of which I would've explained (maybe with less hyperbole about 1.09's prolonged development period) had Kilgore not locked the thread.  It's worth saying that it's pretty lame to argue with someone in an "I'm locking this thread" post.  Then the other party has to start a whole other thread to respond, they look like a crybaby, and the administration feels like they're being harassed.  Or, like me, they just give up.

=== "It makes me heated"

I use this famous Tai quote to kick off my own apology.  I have a tendency to only post when something makes me angry, and thus I also have a tendency to go too far.  I apologize if I've offended you Lyfe, or really anyone I didn't specifically mean to offend (that is you Mobius, I mean to offend you always).  I do my best not to take anything on the internet personally (even though my love for multiplayer Doom sometimes makes it hard), and I hope you all do the same.

Ladna

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 57
    • View Profile
Re: Skulltag v Odamex v Zdaemon
« Reply #104 on: June 29, 2011, 08:47:49 am »
OK Madgunner.

Quote
We have always allowed topics relating to ZDDL and have had no issue with them in the past (in fact I'm an admin for ZDDL and ZDaemon).

Not deleting everything mentioning ZDDL from the ZD forums isn't exactly the same thing as supporting ZDDL.

Quote
Unfortunately, this will have to wait until after 1.09 is released, there is only so much the programmers can do and they have to prioritize things.

This is a great argument for open source!  Open it up, I'll do it tonight.

Quote
Furthermore, we have done stuff for ZDDL in the past. Jehar (one of the announcers) requested one or two features to help him with recording, and Kilgore implemented them for him.

Uh, that spectator stuff I'm assuming?  That's a 1.09 feature and AFAIK Jehar had a beta client, so while I admit that is support, it's pretty weak because Jehar's the only person who can do it and we can't use TastySpleen anymore because ZDaemon is non-commercial use only and TSTV is ad-supported.  Fair point though.

Quote
...and said that we'd be more than happy to support them if they'd just agree to play on advertised servers. Well they decided against it...

At the time I was head of the IDL Board, and I said this:

Quote
I'm personally fine with a "fallback" unadvertised server.  I don't get the feeling that the ZD administration is though.

That's still my understanding, but feel free to correct me.

Quote
even though there was only like 2 people in the entire league who were permabanned from ZDaemon (1 of those was Ralphis of course)

I can recall at least 5 people who've been banned while actively playing in IDL:

  - Ralphis
  - Kandy_Kid
  - Envy/Versatile
  - Doomguy666
  - Nostar (via my cheating ban)

Ralphis has won 2 masterbowls and was league commissioner for over 4 years.  Envy's had 2 masterbowl appearances, Doomguy666 was a steadfast captain for at least 3 seasons, and Nostar has 1,000,000 masterbowls.  Any one of those bans drastically changes IDL's history and, were IDL public, might even have destroyed a season.

If you extend this idea and presuppose that IDL were dependent on ZDaemon for forums and IRC, then something as innocent as a forum ban or IRC ban can impede your ability to communicate with your team and the league, which is pretty critical.

Banning even 1 player in this fashion is unacceptable, and your attitude of, "oh what the hell ever, it's only a couple people" is insensitive, ignorant, offensive, and exactly the reason we don't want to be subject to the whims of people like you.

Quote
Although personally, I think it was pretty obvious from the start that the IDL had no intention of getting our support and was just trying to find a way to force us to say no, so that they could say, "Hey look everyone! The ZDaemon admins are a bunch of tyrants and nazis! They won't publicly support us!"

I will answer you with your own words:

Quote
First things first, don't make up any shit here.

;)

Quote
You conviently left out the fact that you literally made around 10 feature requests at ONE time when you posted that thread, without even bothering to do a simple search.

Such a "simple search" would reveal that I made 5 feature requests, none of which had ever been made before.  I know this, because I performed said search, both now and when I posted them.  If there's a more acceptable rate of feature request submission, keep it to yourself, because I find such a concept ridiculous.  "Oh the feature requests... 5... it's so many!!!"

Quote
And yes he didn't accept that request you made, move on man.

I work for Odamex now, you might have heard of it.

Quote
they aren't your personal servant

I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word "request".

Quote
Besides, there's nothing preventing you from implementing it yourself

Unless they don't want it implemented, as Kilgore says about serverside sayto.

Quote
the staff has stated on multiple occasions that if you can get a patch working with 1.06

ZDaemon 1.06 is illegal.  It contains GPL code from Quake 2 (vectors.cpp) and incompatibly-licensed code from BUILD (slopes).  I don't feel legally safe developing with it.  It's also old as fuck.

Quote
and even release that portion of the code if you want it to be open source

That's news to me, where are the other open sourced patches?  What license are they under?

Quote
See wouldn't it be nice to not have to worry about using demos to monitor cheats?

We would still do it, because AFAIK ZDaemon's cheat detection system only detects ZDHook.

Quote
Is Ralphis and a few other banned people truly worth that much to you and the rest of the board?

100% yes.  But even if they weren't, it's still the principle.  IDL controls who plays in the league, not ZDaemon, not LeBron James, not Lexi Belle, only IDL.

===

Oh and I should say that GetWAD directing to this page is crazy great news.  That page is goddamn awesome as fuck, go page rank go!

EDIT: Forgot I have a master ban in addition to my forum ban.  Takes a little getting used to ;) .
« Last Edit: June 29, 2011, 08:49:24 am by Ladna »