Re: [hlds_linux] Command Line?
m0gely wrote: Alfred Reynolds wrote: By me changing the code :) Sorry, I should have said, Yes, I will make the change in code to increase that limit. - Alfred mp_forceautojoin for CS would be cool while you're in the feature adding mood. ;) -- - m0gely http://quake2.telestream.com/ Q2 | Q3A | Counter-strike I second that motion! -- KnowHow ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] Command Line?
increasing the command line buffer is nothing compared to what mp_forceautojoin will do. hard coding, game implications. these are 2 VERY different things to implement. /mike On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 08:57:05AM +0200 or thereabouts, KnowHow The NetCrawler wrote: m0gely wrote: Alfred Reynolds wrote: By me changing the code :) Sorry, I should have said, Yes, I will make the change in code to increase that limit. - Alfred mp_forceautojoin for CS would be cool while you're in the feature adding mood. ;) -- - m0gely http://quake2.telestream.com/ Q2 | Q3A | Counter-strike I second that motion! -- KnowHow ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] How hard would it be to make hlds 64 players?
True, but look at the intake of funds. It would more then cover the cost. Just my $0.02 - Original Message - From: localhost [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2004 7:57 PM Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] How hard would it be to make hlds 64 players? it would be hell for admins like us. you wouldnt be able to fit more than 4 servers on a good size box m0gely wrote: Would this be a huge undertaking? I realize it's pretty late in the game to even suggest such a revision if it is indeed that big. But it could make some great new mapping possibilities and game play. And I'm not talking about making Dust2 64 player. :P -- - m0gely http://quake2.telestream.com/ Q2 | Q3A | Counter-strike ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux . ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] Command Line?
I don't know exactly what you guys mean with the mp_forceautojoin, but i assume its similar to TFC where people are automatically joined to a team which helps with team stacking. I don't see how this would be hard to implement. Coming from a coding standpoint its just 1 extra variable to check for. A simple hack would be to just disable 1 and 2 from the team selection. Another slightly better option would be to just pass 5(or whatever variable selection 5 sets) to the corresponding classes or functions for team selection when mp_forceautojoin is true, however, this would require some other parts of the hlds and hl.exe binaries to be modified. All in all, I dont see how this could be difficult at all, unless the cs code is just horrible(which may be the case give the amount of bugs that show up with each update). This is however not a linux specific request and would probably get more attention on the general hlds mailing list. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: increasing the command line buffer is nothing compared to what mp_forceautojoin will do. hard coding, game implications. these are 2 VERY different things to implement. /mike -- Thanks, David Lee ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
RE: [hlds_linux] Command Line?
I have seen this in action. A couple of servers I have played on had a team limiting system where you could only join one team if they were uneven. I don't know what script was used but when the team selection screen came up then if you tried to go on the larger team it wouldn't let you. The servers were cs.axia.org.uk and csx.axia.org.uk - both good uk based servers as well! Regards, Matt White [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Lee Sent: 26 April 2004 10:25 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] Command Line? I don't know exactly what you guys mean with the mp_forceautojoin, but i assume its similar to TFC where people are automatically joined to a team which helps with team stacking. I don't see how this would be hard to implement. Coming from a coding standpoint its just 1 extra variable to check for. A simple hack would be to just disable 1 and 2 from the team selection. Another slightly better option would be to just pass 5(or whatever variable selection 5 sets) to the corresponding classes or functions for team selection when mp_forceautojoin is true, however, this would require some other parts of the hlds and hl.exe binaries to be modified. All in all, I dont see how this could be difficult at all, unless the cs code is just horrible(which may be the case give the amount of bugs that show up with each update). This is however not a linux specific request and would probably get more attention on the general hlds mailing list. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: increasing the command line buffer is nothing compared to what mp_forceautojoin will do. hard coding, game implications. these are 2 VERY different things to implement. /mike -- Thanks, David Lee ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] How hard would it be to make hlds
- -Original Message- - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - True, but look at the intake of funds. It would more then - cover the cost. - - Just my $0.02 - - Original Message - - From: localhost [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2004 7:57 PM - Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] How hard would it be to make hlds - 64 players? - - - it would be hell for admins like us. you wouldnt be able - to fit more - than 4 servers on a good size box - - m0gely wrote: - Would this be a huge undertaking? I realize it's pretty - late in the - game to even suggest such a revision if it is indeed - that big. But - it could make some great new mapping possibilities and - game play. - And I'm not talking about making Dust2 64 player. :P - LOLOLOL! I didn't know hlds was ported to sparc!! That's the only way you're gonna get 4 64-player servers on one box, let alone ONE!! Hell, you can barely fit a 32 on one x86 proc under 3.1.1.0 with a few addons. Wishful thinking at best. /BA /Michigan Burbs ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] Command Line?
Daniel Stroven wrote: mp_limitteams 1 mp_autoteambalance 1 I have my server running these values. As far as mp_forceautojoin be added or used, I really don't see the reason it would need to be added. Most autojoiner's never consider talent vs talent on a team and autojoin definitely doesn't do anything other than randomly choose the team. It doesn't prevent stacking and I usually consider it a poor excuse by any player to on a stacked team to say he used autojoin instead of looking at which team needed help. Where mp_foreceautojoin exists would be random from the getgo and thus impossible to *intentionally* stack. I can't understand how you would think this doesn't prevent stacking. Sure there will always be better teams but thats not what we're talking about here. You are relying on people making the 'right' choice. And if that works for you then great, you have very honorable players on your server. -- - m0gely http://quake2.telestream.com/ Q2 | Q3A | Counter-strike ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] Command Line?
M0gely, I figured you had those cvars already, I was replying to the Matt White who posted: I don't know what script was used but when the team selection screen came up then if you tried to go on the larger team it wouldn't let you. I think its possible it force autojoin would help, but then again if someone simply waits for one team to have as many as the other, or one more when he chooses..he has a good chance to get the team he wants anyway. Course if people weren't stack/stat whores..we wouldnt have to worry about it ;) - Original Message - From: m0gely [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 12:35 PM Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] Command Line? Daniel Stroven wrote: mp_limitteams 1 mp_autoteambalance 1 I have my server running these values. As far as mp_forceautojoin be added or used, I really don't see the reason it would need to be added. Most autojoiner's never consider talent vs talent on a team and autojoin definitely doesn't do anything other than randomly choose the team. It doesn't prevent stacking and I usually consider it a poor excuse by any player to on a stacked team to say he used autojoin instead of looking at which team needed help. Where mp_foreceautojoin exists would be random from the getgo and thus impossible to *intentionally* stack. I can't understand how you would think this doesn't prevent stacking. Sure there will always be better teams but thats not what we're talking about here. You are relying on people making the 'right' choice. And if that works for you then great, you have very honorable players on your server. -- - m0gely http://quake2.telestream.com/ Q2 | Q3A | Counter-strike ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
RE: [hlds_linux] How hard would it be to make hlds
That's odd. I can easily fir a 32 player server on one processor. Actually 2 on a 2.8ghz w/ HT. Of course that's on windoze. -Jon -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Ressen Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 10:00 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] How hard would it be to make hlds - -Original Message- - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - True, but look at the intake of funds. It would more then cover the - cost. - - Just my $0.02 - - Original Message - - From: localhost [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2004 7:57 PM - Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] How hard would it be to make hlds - 64 players? - - - it would be hell for admins like us. you wouldnt be able - to fit more - than 4 servers on a good size box - - m0gely wrote: - Would this be a huge undertaking? I realize it's pretty - late in the - game to even suggest such a revision if it is indeed - that big. But - it could make some great new mapping possibilities and - game play. - And I'm not talking about making Dust2 64 player. :P - LOLOLOL! I didn't know hlds was ported to sparc!! That's the only way you're gonna get 4 64-player servers on one box, let alone ONE!! Hell, you can barely fit a 32 on one x86 proc under 3.1.1.0 with a few addons. Wishful thinking at best. /BA /Michigan Burbs ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
Re: [hlds_linux] How hard would it be to make hlds
The architecture of the system has little to do with this. BTW hlds already has support for processors that blow the current sparcs away, the opteron. Don't think so? Check the sun website, they are offering opterons as an alternative b/c sparc is showing its age. The new sparc design may be better, but whats the point in talking about hardware that doesnt exist yet? Maybe you're suggesting the sparc b/c of its parallel processing capabilities. Well, the xeon and the opteron both support up to 8way smp, which should be able to run a lot more than 4 of these hypothetical 64 player servers. Heres the real problem with 64 player servers, map size. HLDS really starts to crawl when maps get large. A map large enough to hold 64 players at once would probably be the biggest issue with hlds and I'm not sure how much raw horsepower could help this. LOLOLOL! I didn't know hlds was ported to sparc!! That's the only way you're gonna get 4 64-player servers on one box, let alone ONE!! Hell, you can barely fit a 32 on one x86 proc under 3.1.1.0 with a few addons. Wishful thinking at best. /BA /Michigan Burbs ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux -- Thanks, David Lee ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
RE: [hlds_linux] How hard would it be to make hlds
I'd like to comment on the sun note. Sun boxes cost in the tens of thousands to hundred of thousands of dollars for anything decent by sun standards. But if your still bent on using sun equipment, this may be a start. http://www.theregister.com/2004/04/26/sun_certifies_windows/ :) Rich -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Lee Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 3:55 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] How hard would it be to make hlds The architecture of the system has little to do with this. BTW hlds already has support for processors that blow the current sparcs away, the opteron. Don't think so? Check the sun website, they are offering opterons as an alternative b/c sparc is showing its age. The new sparc design may be better, but whats the point in talking about hardware that doesnt exist yet? Maybe you're suggesting the sparc b/c of its parallel processing capabilities. Well, the xeon and the opteron both support up to 8way smp, which should be able to run a lot more than 4 of these hypothetical 64 player servers. Heres the real problem with 64 player servers, map size. HLDS really starts to crawl when maps get large. A map large enough to hold 64 players at once would probably be the biggest issue with hlds and I'm not sure how much raw horsepower could help this. LOLOLOL! I didn't know hlds was ported to sparc!! That's the only way you're gonna get 4 64-player servers on one box, let alone ONE!! Hell, you can barely fit a 32 on one x86 proc under 3.1.1.0 with a few addons. Wishful thinking at best. /BA /Michigan Burbs ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux -- Thanks, David Lee ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
