Hi Coroner,

referring to your latest blog entry, i think above all a standalone version of CQB would be the best to revive the community and get more people back playing.
At least for me, the complicated Installprocess is the main obstacle preventing me from playing cqb/tce right now (> im on arch linux and the available install packages for cqb/tce simple don't work).

you mentioned some sound issues ET:L has at the moment, taking a quick look at their changelog the only thing i can find sound related so far is this line:
maybee only some sort of game configuration has to be altered to get it to work better with cqb?

I personaly would prefer ET:L rather than the stock ET, because i think it would make it easier to implement more features and specific optimizations for a standalone cqb in the long run ( such like .md5 model support, sophisticated physics libary->ragdoll behavior? etc.). Even if it would be more work at the beginning to get it to run in combination with the cqb modification for the first time. Once done and setup in a git driven dev enviroment also the engine itself could be changed and adapted, your engine modifications could be integrated too. Or at least the egine basis could be streamlined and stripped of all not needed to run cqb etc. It would also serve the people behind the dimmod to integrate their work and bring them out of the illegality

It would also serve the guys at ET:L to show them where they realy are braking compatiblity with the stock ET, as they claim stock compatibility as one of their goals. Of course a communication basis with that dev team would be necessary to archive this.

So i think if a standalone easy to install package for all 3major platforms (win, mac, linux) is the goal, then the ET:L engine would be the best base to start over with in terms of Customization.

ultimately its up to you Coroner: Should cqb stay a mod, or should it become a standalone project with a dedicated team behind it?


sorry for my english
JagdKampf

That's true, the installation process could be more simpler.

I have arch linux though and CQB works. Maybe you must be doing something wrong

*off topic

hmm, if i install cqb via yaourt it does start but the screen is messed up and it crashes short after that. Itried diffrent things but it doesnt work for me (checking user rights, editing pkgbuild etc.) -- maybee ill open a thread under the linux support section, because i had ubuntu running before on the same machine and it worked -- but was also a long complicated process to get it to run then.

*off topic

I just used the install files from the Downloads section. For CQB, I think I had to copy the cqbtest folder over to /usr/local/games/enemy-territory directory or else it wouldn't work.

I prefer games "TRUE" as is CQB.
I always wanted to understand, like Urban Terror is so successful?
UT just works online through a Pen Drive (UT is very simple start on Windows) is a very important difference, nobody can deny!

CQB is pretty cool IMO,anyway thats not why Im here.I just made the account to the forums and got mu CQB working but there are no servers.Is it just that there are no players or my game isnt showing the servers to me?!

There is actually. But for some reason empty servers don't show up in the list.

113.151.8.227:27964

113.151.8.227:27965

Played ET:L the other day. Has plenty of bugs. Maybe it is better to wait with ET:L and use vanilla ET for now to get CQB going as quickly as possible. Engine can be switched later, if ET:L is more stable and made compatible with CQB...

Could you please elaborate on that? Did you play stock "Legacy" mod or did you test CQB? Did you compile ET:L from source or used our installer/binaries? Since you are registered on our bugtracker, you can post a reply there. Thanks.

I played stock ET:L without CQB. But ET:L kept freezing on my computer.
But I have changed my mind about ET:L because it has got active dev team behind it, which can't be said about some other projects. That's why I support ET:L now.

Hah, that doesn't show ET:L in a good light for CQB users

Some people say ET:L has a worse performance than stock ET and others say it has a better performance, but you are the first to experience freezing. Well, at least you are right in the fact that it is actively developed, so there is a chance someone will fix it for you sooner or later.

What is the problem with stock ET?

I only know about one bug and It's that "invalid pk3 files referenced" after you reconnect after a kick from server. If you do vid_restart before reconnect, that doesn't happen.

Executing vid_restart could be added to the "Reconnect" button in error dialog. Actually I'm gonna do that for TC:E with a pk3 file.

Fix for this particular bug involves changing one line of code. Just search our git history. You don't need to make such hacks as using vid_restart on every reconnect.

I could say ET is an old game full of bugs, but after Coroner's and yks's experiences with ET:L you could retort with the same argument. The difference is we have commits coming into our repo everyday - changing, improving, fixing, and yes, breaking things as well. However, don't tell me there is only one bug in ET, because saying that is simply stupid.

One clear advantage of ET:L is the server part. Google for yourself how many Quake 3 exploits are there. We've patched most if not all of them. I am constantly surprised that there are any stock ET servers left running. I am not a real coder and I am less than capable hacker, but I could still start a genocide on the master server list.

Yea, I just meant it would be good for TC:E, because I don't believe it's going to be updated anymore and I made the pk3 file already. Better than getting the error.

What I said is that I only know one bug because I've faced only one bug - so any other bugs aren't a problem for me. If there is fixes for exploits on servers , thats good because it's possible to get so many players with the new CQB version some day that somebody will be the asshole and start exploiting stuff. Currently there is no problems like that. I have servers running on Windows without dutchfix or qmm just waiting for any simple attack.

Ok so now I think it's best to make decisions based on the possibility that it may be very popular game some day and choose ET:L. More players -> more problems. Less bugs -> less problems.

What I would personally like to see in ET:L is a chat with larger charset like ISO 8859-1. Would be easier to talk for us in Finland.

Yea, I would love to see that too. There is already a patch in Unvanquished for unicode text input, but life is not that simple. If we port it to ET:L then we will break compatibility with all mods, so mod developers (including CQB) would have to update to our SDK and break compatibility with 2.60b clients. Another solution would be to process this on the server side and let 2.60b clients see ISO-8859-1 text and ET:L clients UTF-8. Not exactly a piece of cake.

One more thing. If Coroner decides start off from ET GPL source release then you will have to drop OS X support or rewrite that whole part because it's not compatible with OS X 10.9+

Number of users ∝ number of developers.
More testing + more bugfixing = less bugs and more stability.