[quote who="just_dont_do_it" reply="3" id="2212230"] NETWORKING IS COMPLICATED. 1) No, it's not. [/quote]Sure, whatever you say! You seem to be an authority on the subject. [quote who="just_dont_do_it" reply="3" id="2212230"] 3) I'm still not buying new equipment specially for Demigod, too [/quote] [quote who="ShunKeets" reply="16" id="2207796"] Realize I'm hesitant to recommend you buying something else especi
[quote who="just_dont_do_it" reply="24" id="2209174"] Either way, it's clearly a piece of shit. At least we've identified some hardware that will only be trouble with Demigod. I'd say that given a hard choice between a modem and Demigod, the choice will be "modem". If some shitty network code can't do it on my equipment, then the blame lies on the code, not on equipment. ESPECIALLY given the fact that the same code worked quite decently (if not very fast) befo
Try just 6100, 6101, and 6102. I think in one of the recent patches, they've stopped using the whole range and mostly use 6102.
[quote who="Jeferex" reply="14" id="2210901"] I am in the US, my Internet connection is DLS (Provided by Qwest) and my DSL modem is an Actiontec M1000. [/quote]No, you don't have only a modem. I'm seeing a large trend for those with connection problems: if you have a combo router/modem (which you do), it is likely to have problems due to shoddy routing/NAT functionality. Follow these instructions to disable it: <a href="http://www.qwest.com/internethelp/modem
The idea is to play aggressively against the rook. Ever since I've seen how the towers CAN be OP, whenever I play against a rook we all just gang up on him until he's useless and they don't have any control over neutral terrority anyway to place towers. You have to keep rook submissive from the beginning--a tower rook's goal is to maintain control over middle territory, so if you don't give him a foothold he is never a threat.
Concede needs to be a team vote option. It's usually pretty pointless to continue playing if one person is going to ragequit/concede, because their AI will just feed themselves to the other team's bank, decreasing the likelihood of a win even further. No, a concede needs to be done as a team. Game over. I wouldn't implement the vote as "majority rules," but I don't think consensus would be necessary, either. If more than one person votes no to a concede vote, then the game should continu
It's pretty weird that there seems to be at least a couple people that get disconnected during the refresh login transaction. What could be so different about it with the first login? Perhaps you're supposed to disconnect, but you just failed to reconnect. If there is a disconnect and reconnect during that transaction, it could be that the routing table on your device is too slow or it gets confused. Either way, it's clearly a piece of shit. At least we've identified some hardware that will o
One issue is that going to Menu->End Game looks like a disconnect to peers--everyone has to wait 30 seconds, etc. Will you not be distinguishing between someone dropping due to connection problems, and ragequitting? If it's End Game, there really should be some message sent to other players that they've actually left and we shouldn't have to wait and make it count as a loss. But a true lost connection or crash becoming a loss will be a guaranteed frustration for many players. On the other
[quote who="Spooky" reply="13" id="2207392"]Ah, hang on, is spamming (fragmented?) UDP packets (apparently something called an "opentear attack"), like the Stardock server does, something that would be detected and blocked by an SPI Firewall? [/quote]Potentially, yes. The router would have to inspect (SPI = stateful packet inspection) the packets to determine how they're fragmented. A false positive for that attack on the Demigod/Impulse packets would definitely cause this. That said, I
[quote who="Spooky" reply="9" id="2207126"] It's not that simple, at least in my case. As already said, I can connect to the NAT facilitator, but lose the connection right after and then get the "Cannot connect to a NAT facilitator" error. This was the state before the May 7th patch. After the May 7th patch it worked. I have been told that they throttled down the traffic being sent from their server to the users. This seems to have fixed it for me. It seems that Stardock's server i
[quote who="Shink" reply="5" id="2206947"]@ShunKeets He's got 3Mbps Verizon DSL, ends up really only performing at about 180 kb/s down, 40-50 kb/s up. [/quote]Here's the thing: UDP packets are not inherently reliable, and judging by somewhat inconsistent connection problems between peers as well as the facilitator, no reliability has been built on top of the UDP packets. If your speed is underperforming, this is often indicative of a lossy connection--most of the speeds you se
If this was working for any of you at some point, I wonder if you have an old IP stored in your DNS cache from when they were doing all the work on NAT facilitation. Give this command (either in cmd.exe or Start->Run) a try: ipconfig /flushdns Really, I don't see how you can consistently not connect to a server that others have no problems connecting to. Either there's something happening with outgoing UDP connections being blocked, or you're not hitting the right serv
Beautiful. Still some rejoins needed here and there--it is increasingly obvious who needs to rejoin once everyone's in and ready. The bottom line: the time needed to start a game has been reduced monumentally, at least for me. Thank you so much!
Those are the client ports. So if your game is sending an update to players, it shoots the data through sockets bound on those ports so that the traffic will end-up on 6112 or whatever on the other players' computers. These do not need to be forwarded on your router because the traffic flows outward. One weird thing about this, which is probably characteristic of UDP ports (OR MAYBE THE ONE BUG THAT IS HAUNTING US ALL?!), is that it appears that they are in a listening state, because
[quote who="KenoLFD" reply="23" id="2206422"] Told off by the CEO... [/quote] Told off? Do retailers, much less publishers, offer refunds on their games? If they all did, people would be using the Netflix model of piracy: burn and return! I'd say he's doing this fine poster a favor.
[quote who="Tridus" reply="11" id="2204904"]So out of curiousity, if you're replacing all the third party code anyway, why do you have the dev from Raknet there? Seems like that's a bit redundant. [/quote]I'm not sure the 100% transfusion means a 100% replacement of RakNet code. But if that's what it does mean, then I don't blame them one bit. It seems that integration of their code has given Stardock nothing but problems, from the NAT punchthrough to the lobby system. By the wa
[quote who="novex" reply="16" id="2202097"]personaly i think when you login for multiplayer the login server should test if your ports are open. if it finds you have them opened correctly then it should keep you the fuck away from the useless peice of shit NAT servers which are still giving me errors / kicks even though i have a direct open connection and no need whatsoever for anything the fuck to do with NAT. (there you finaly drove me to swearing) you could also set y
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="23" id="2199179"] Will investigate. They're supposed to be fixed. [/quote]I think we're talking about two different bugs here. There's one where you stop chasing or start hitting creeps when the DG you're attacked moves. Then there's one where your ability doesn't work unless you move or do something else then try the ability again.
Demigod Forums