Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Developer risk (Score 1) 480

by Raptor851 (#31245494) Attached to: Why Are There No Popular <em>Ultima Online</em>-Like MMOs?
Pretty much everything you listed DID exist in UO with the later expansions (soulbind, WoW-like quest system, instancing (bosses only though, not the entire level). Not sure what the UI complaint is though, UO's UI was fully customizable, you could drag anything anywhere onto the screen, spend a few minutes and you could make the UI look exactly like WoW if you wanted to. Personally I didn't like the additions though, they really took away from the open world feel of the game. (you have to remember, soulbinding wasn't NECESSARY, as gear meant almost nothing at first, you lose yours just buy another set from a vendor on the cheap)

Comment Re:Siege Perilous (Score 1) 480

by Raptor851 (#31245328) Attached to: Why Are There No Popular <em>Ultima Online</em>-Like MMOs?
Role-playing is the big one, I've yet to see that...at all in any current game. I miss setting up the conference table and chairs in the middle of our guild castle and having a (in character) meeting about the state of our alliance. I know about the UO freeservers too, they'd be great if they weren't so vacant of life, laggy, plagued by cheating, and the AI being ridiculously dumb even in comparison to the original. Not to mention there doesn't seem to be any role-players on them anyways.

Comment Re:Also WoW keeps it sane (Score 1) 480

by Raptor851 (#31245158) Attached to: Why Are There No Popular <em>Ultima Online</em>-Like MMOs?
^ This ^ God i wish i had modpoints when i actually wanted to use them.. Every time i hear about the complaints about ganking and the like, that's UO past the release of WOW when they decided to make "WOW 2.0" really, and it sucked in every way. Looting armor was useless before, at best you did it to make sure they guy had to go back to town before coming back. And who traveled alone in UO anyways? It was all about the player run cities, and aside from small tasks you'd always have at least one person watching your back.

Comment Re:This beta should be...fun? (Score 1) 182

by Raptor851 (#31106186) Attached to: <em>StarCraft II</em> Beta To Begin This Month

As for the LAN issue... I really don't get the stink. How many multi-player PC games even have a LAN option for multi-player anymore? Really, how hard is it to just connect to a match making server, set up a private room, and play from there? Hell, everyone can still be in the same room. I think the whole (uh-oh, I'm gonna get a "troll" mod, oh dear!) LAN thing is nothing but a bunch of silly nostalgic niggling, the inclusion, or lack of LAN play does absolutely nothing to add to or hurt the quality of a game.

Almost all of them? And yes, exclusion of LAN is a BIG deal to some of us, even if it's not to you, it kills our ability to have local tournaments...

Comment Re:bias (Score 1) 246

by Raptor851 (#30947260) Attached to: Freeciv As Benchmark of HTML5 Canvas Javascript Performance

2) People running it on crap hardware. Vista has a much higher minimum bar than XP for good performance. You really want a dual core and 2GB minimum for a nice system (as opposed to a P4 and 1GB being fine for XP). .

Uhh...how exactly is that supposed to prove that vista isn't slower than xp? The OS itself is dog slow on identical hardware...we're downward directed to deploy vista to all workstations 10 minutes ago at my work and we're having to upgrade the hell out of or buy entirely new machines just to get the same level of usability we had before... If we want to go that route though, solaris 10 is WAYYY faster than windows xp or vista... i run it on 8 spark 64 processors with 256 gigs of ram, it's way faster than my old P4 box running xp!

Comment Re:Channel 14 (Score 1) 250

by Raptor851 (#30927186) Attached to: Has 2.4 GHz Reached Maximum Capacity?
True, but remember the 22MHz it squishes on also works both ways for that, with 12 effectively 1/4 of the bandwidth would be completely clear, and 13 a half would be clear. (no other channels interfering. Channel 14 in itself isn't illegal, so the parts of 12 and 13 that step on it are fine)
It's 2483.5 MHz that's the beginning of the "illegal" band, 12 can't possibly hit that, and 13 comes to a max of 2483 MHz. While it's true you'll still get interference from channel 11 (and tiny bits from 9 and 10), it will be far...far less than the lower channels

Comment Re:Channel 14 (Score 1) 250

by Raptor851 (#30925978) Attached to: Has 2.4 GHz Reached Maximum Capacity?
I believe channels 12-14 are reserved due to them being adjacent to satellite communications frequencies, and can potentially interfere. 14 is illegal to use (it actually overlaps with satellite frequencies) but 12 and 13 actually aren't, they're merely disabled for being too close that they could POTENTIALLY interfere. As long as you're running at fairly low power (no external antenna with linear amplifier), those channels are legal to use and should be near 100% clear of traffic.

I would recommend using 12 , it's legal and nobody else will be on them due to only DD-WRT and other modded firmwares being able to set them :)

Slashdot Top Deals

If God had not given us sticky tape, it would have been necessary to invent it.

Close