[QUOTE=laserguided;39917088]It won't unless they make a server emulator.[/QUOTE]
Except no server emulator is needed as shown. All we need to figure out how to do is force saves to be done locally. A server emulator would be a massive waste of time for a task like that.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;39917097]At risk of being a broken record:
I believe in accidents more than 'btw, you can totally just turn off the online component by editing this exposed var; it's cool.'
Thus, I'd like you to back that up with more than just blind faith. A developer saying as much; turning a blind eye towards a direct confrontation with that; etc.
Prove that it's more than just a 'oh shit, did we actually leave that in there?! I thought that was going to be hardcoded!'[/QUOTE]
Because they wouldn't give the task to a UI developer if they didn't plan to give it to a UI developer. How could you fuck up that much. They have to be dumb and/or lazy.
[editline]14th March 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=legolover122;39917107]Except no server emulator is needed as shown. All we need to figure out how to do is force saves to be done locally. A server emulator would be a massive waste of time for a task like that.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't save locally. They would need to emulate the server to save locally. Basing off of realistic speculated conclusions its a transaction log that gets saved locally and automatically send to the server when connected.
[quote]How could you fuck up that much.[/quote]
Do I [i]really[/i] need to post like eight videos showing obvious programming errors/faults that are incredibly obvious to, say, QA testers?
It's not like they're running a perfect score and [b]this[/b] is the only blemish.
[quote]It doesn't save locally.[/quote]
All the data that is sent to the server is saved locally for a few moments. Capturing that data, generating a response, and so forth is just a matter of interpretation.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39917121]They have to be dumb and/or lazy.[/QUOTE]
Ding ding ding motherfucker. They were either dumb or lazy and they fucked up big time. They are either going to try to stealth patch it out or try the bullshit "it's a feature" argument.
Gearbox did this with the golden BL2 keys. It was as simple as editing a text file to give you a bazillion golden keys. They got lazy and fucked up. People noticed. They patched it out.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;39917133]Do I [i]really[/i] need to post like eight videos showing obvious programming errors/faults that are incredibly obvious to, say, QA testers?
It's not like they're running a perfect score and this is the only blemish.[/QUOTE]
Its beyond the margin of error, they're dumb if they purposefully wrote it in Javascript instead of hardcoding it.
[quote]Its beyond the margin of error, they're dumb if they purposefully wrote it in Javascript instead of hardcoding it.[/quote]
[quote=(Perhaps) Albert Einstein]Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe.[/quote]
Incase you thought otherwise I'm not arguing for EA. If you thought me saying they're dumb was winning or something, I'm not a EA apologist.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39917121]
It doesn't save locally. They would need to emulate the server to save locally. Basing off of realistic speculated conclusions its a transaction log that gets saved locally and automatically send to the server when connected.[/QUOTE]
They wouldn't need to write a whole server, if it's not possible to get the game to save the region then it would be possible to write a dumb server that just saves the transaction log.
Kinda sucks because all this is going to kill the latest simcities sales and maxis' reputation. We aren't going to see another sim city game for quite some time if not ever.
[QUOTE=danharibo;39917187]They wouldn't need to write a whole server, if it's not possible to get the game to save the region then it would be possible to write a dumb server that just saves the transaction log.[/QUOTE]
The transaction log likely contains inputs from the client which is then sent to the server and coordinated at the region level from whats been concluded and talked about. Its going to take a assload of effort imho.
One can only assume that this is the case, as the only 'saving' the game does is in a folder with 1MB chunks of data that disappear once reconnected to the server. Its probably encrypted and who knows what happens after that. You can't load this shit, its beyond my capabilities to imagine how this works.
[quote]If you thought me saying they're dumb was winning or something[/quote]
Oh no, I'm perfectly sated by that remark. Just so long as you're not arguing for human altruism over human error in likelihood.
[quote] Its going to take a assload of effort imho.[/quote]
A full state save would work just as well. It'd just be an enormous save file.
Edit: Just so that I'm not mincing words: You could make that game save. Right now; with that mod. All you do is you dump the [i]entire[/i] section of memory the game has into a file and, later, start the process and inject all that same data back into the game. Bam. Instant save/load. Well... not instant. We are talking multi-GB files.
[Quote=Maxis]Woops[/quote]
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;39917228]Oh no, I'm perfectly sated by that remark. Just so long as you're not arguing for human altruism over human error in likelihood.
A full state save would work just as well. It'd just be an enormous save file.[/QUOTE]
VMWare could do that. But I think the game would get boring being stuck on a 1x1km tile. The benefits of regional play are tourists and stuff, the server coordinates the regional simulation based on the inputs the client gives the server.
[quote]But I think the game would get boring being stuck on a 1x1km tile. [/quote]
Signs are pointing to the ability for people who are modifying the game to make cities of near any size. As I wrote a while back, there was a ploppable discovered which allowed you to place a new city anywhere on the map (or was intended to anyway). That, and the ability to access other map chunks other than the one you're currently viewing, and the entirely exposed UI, means that sooner or later we're very likely going to see maps that far exceed the default map size.
Again, providing that they figure out a more efficient means of saving the game than a save state. Otherwise, testing and so forth for those non-standard maps would be gruesome. (A save state relies entirely on everything being as it was when the game shut down; if any of the things that it was using have been altered in the time since, you can't really use that data; basically it's very intolerant to changes you make in the files -- still possible to load and play fine, depending on how redundant they built everything)
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;39917274]Signs are pointing to the ability for people who are modifying the game to make cities of near any size. As I wrote a while back, there was a ploppable discovered which allowed you to place a new city anywhere on the map (or was intended to anyway). That, and the ability to access other map chunks other than the one you're currently viewing, and the entirely exposed UI, means that sooner or later we're very likely going to see maps that far exceed the default map size.
Again, providing that they figure out a more efficient means of saving the game than a save state. Otherwise, testing and so forth for those non-standard maps would be gruesome. (A save state relies entirely on everything being as it was when the game shut down; if any of the things that it was using have been altered in the time since, you can't really use that data; basically it's very intolerant to changes you make in the files -- still possible to load and play fine, depending on how redundant they built everything)[/QUOTE]
There is a limited debug menu still left in the shipping build. It has a 2048x2048 city ploppable, but it only denotes a city. Its basically a white marker.
[quote]Its basically a white marker.[/quote]
Since it's there, either it's leftover from development (in which case there may still be code floating around that was deprecated but not removed that would do what that meant to do) or it's an intended feature that they're planning on integrating at some point (which means it's likely that the framework for the thing that ploppable is designed to do is already in the engine -- somewhere).
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;39917370]Since it's there, either it's leftover from development (in which case there may still be code floating around that was deprecated but not removed that would do what that meant to do) or it's an intended feature that they're planning on integrating at some point (which means it's likely that the framework for the thing that ploppable is designed to do is already in the engine -- somewhere).[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't say that, they have 2 branches of the game, dev and shipping according to them. There is also a public works building and a magic casino that automatically repairs abandoned buildings and gives you free money. Under the "CHE ATS" section of the debug ui.
[quote]There is also a public works building and a magic casino that automatically repairs abandoned buildings and gives you free money. Under the "CHE ATS" section of the debug ui.[/quote]
That those things function and are likely to make it into the game (well the public works building, to a degree) given that they're fairly close to a 'complete' status (they can be built, they do things) makes my point that the ploppable may have functionality, but it's either not yet fully developed or deprecated (and possibly just commented out) funny to you, huh? :p
This really isn't the thread to be starting a five page argument in, and neither of you is going to change your minds so can you take it to PMs, I'm waiting for the release of this and inevitable press release from Maxis.
[quote]and neither of you is going to change your minds so can you take it to PMs[/quote]
I take it you didn't really read the above discussion.
Also, we're (as in we [i]were[/i] -- we resolved it) arguing over the subject of the thread. Why take it to PM?
Back on track: I'm waiting to see what they'll do too. Lots of ways to make a stink about this in either direction of accepting this or trying to get rid of it.
I hope that this doesn't detract from support for the game, or damage any possibilities of a good SimCty game n the future.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;39917453]I take it you didn't really read the above discussion.
Also, we're (as in we [i]were[/i]) arguing over the subject of the thread. Why take it to PM?
Back on track: I'm waiting to see what they'll do too. Lots of ways to make a stink about this in either direction of accepting this or trying to get rid of it.[/QUOTE]
You two have been going back, and forth now, and neither of you is close to agreeing with the other yet, and while it's related to the topic it's gotten pretty derailed, like arguing over what the definition of a crack is.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;39917453]I take it you didn't really read the above discussion.
Also, we're (as in we [i]were[/i] -- we resolved it) arguing over the subject of the thread. Why take it to PM?
Back on track: I'm waiting to see what they'll do too. Lots of ways to make a stink about this in either direction of accepting this or trying to get rid of it.[/QUOTE]
I thought they were lazy from the beginning. You only found out about that 10 minutes ago so you thought I was agreeing with everything you said.
[editline]14th March 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=plunger435;39917515]I hope that this doesn't detract from support for the game, or damage any possibilities of a good SimCty game n the future.
You two have been going back, and forth now, and neither of you is close to agreeing with the other yet, and while it's related to the topic it's gotten pretty derailed, like arguing over what the definition of a crack is.[/QUOTE]
Pretty much. I don't care that much though.
[QUOTE=G-Strogg;39909740]And we still have people defending EA for some insane reason.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't say it's "defending EA," I'd say it would be calling off needlessly angry morons and people with the shittiest reasons to hate things.
[editline]14th March 2013[/editline]
I'm more impressed about the removing of city limits than the online. That would make having a single megacity a lot more viable than it is in vanilla right now.
Saying
[quote] The developers intended for this sort of thing to happen as they have said.[/quote]
Doesn't imply that you thought they were lazy. It implies that you thought they were proactive and altruistic -- that they knew this was going to happen and so allowed it or not only allowed it, but made it easy. If they did, it wouldn't be laziness -- it'd be a strategy. Planning for and developing for that event in mind doesn't sound lazy to me.
[quote] and neither of you is close to agreeing with the other yet[/quote]
[quote=A few posts ago]Oh no, I'm perfectly sated by that remark. Just so long as you're not arguing for human altruism over human error in likelihood.[/quote]
Maxis, this would not have happened if you had just made the game playable offline
[QUOTE=Van-man;39910144]
More or less stable currently.
While it peaked at late 2004 - early 2005[/QUOTE]
That's funny, because the last time I bought an EA game was 2005 (BF2).
strongly considering throwing a lan-party celebration on the day EA self-destructs
[QUOTE=laserguided;39917519]I thought they were lazy from the beginning. You only found out about that 10 minutes ago so you thought I was agreeing with everything you said.
[editline]14th March 2013[/editline]
Pretty much. I don't care that much though.[/QUOTE]
stop posting moron
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
