Why can't we get more people working on Soldat?

[-Major-]

the code is messy, that's what eC is whining about. it's hard for more than 1 to code something that is poorly coded.

No it isn't, what are you on? Have you people never heard of teamwork?

have you EVER coded before? no? then STFU

have you EVER tried working in a team? no?

yes, that's even required from you ins school.

[jrgp]

Major, Loner, cool it. Let's not turn this thread into even more of a flamewar.

[The Geologist]

Consider things cooled.  He gets to STFU for a bit.

[L[0ne]R]

Eh.. as much as I disagree with -major-, I don't think his comments were that much against the rules (even though expressed not in the best of ways).

on topic: Like I said, if everyone works towards learning to cooperate well, a good teamwork can be achieved whether the code is messy or not. The problem is not in difficulty of cooperation, but in the fact that NSC doesn't want to cooperate.

[The Geologist]

Personally, I don't care about his opinion.  If he can't explain his stance beyond "STFU" in this section of the forum, after being told to shape up and focus, then it's no surprise he got whacked for a bit. 

[demoniac93]

Eh, no one's discussing your point Geo, nor will I, let's just get back on topic;
How messy is the code to be more exact? How many bugs to lines of code are we talking here? (When the first official soldat release was out)

[Clawbug]

If the code really is that messy, theres a thing to do: structurize and organize it better, rewrite the most messiest parts and try to get it into a proper shape.

For a developer this is quite a pain to do as it can bring in bugs, break different parts of the application and well and usually is very boring. However, they can(and usually do) in turn address some awkward bugs, provide deeper understanding of the underlying workings of the codebase and make the code much easier to work with in the future.

[SpiltCoffee]

If the code really is that messy, theres a thing to do: structurize and organize it better, rewrite the most messiest parts and try to get it into a proper shape.

Which would require a huge amount of time and an extensive knowledge of the code that only MM probably has.

[Veritas]

If the code really is that messy, theres a thing to do: structurize and organize it better, rewrite the most messiest parts and try to get it into a proper shape.

Which would require a huge amount of time and an extensive knowledge of the code that only MM probably has.

Which is why you open source it, so you can have a large number of people look at the code instead of one.

[Snow]

The thing is, that these days people want more than Soldat can offer. And meaning of Soldat varies alot between different players.

If I could choose, remove scripting, remove all the useless garbage and bring back the Soldat from 2004-2006. Fix the bugs and keep up with BatllEye, provide more bug fixes and update the weapon mod. Thats it.

Man, Clawbug, I couldn't agree with you more. I love moddability as well and I love neat things like animated sceneries. However I do miss Soldat from that era. Then again all I ever did was play CTF on pubs for hours on end. For newer game modes I also like Trenchwars - but it's one of those things that only a certain few like.

All in all, other than perhaps clean up code and kill bugs, I think Soldat is good where it's at or get rid of unused or little used features and revert it back to the way it was intended. It does not have to be any more advanced beyond this point. Otherwise, then yes, it's not going to be Soldat anymore.

Which is why you open source it, so you can have a large number of people look at the code instead of one.

Good point, but the problem is trust. Source code in the wrong hands, makes for a major headache for the rest of us. Remember what happened with the Quake games, when their source code was released?

I wouldn't mind though if Enesce, Michal and whoever else was currently working on Soldat - to share the source with other trusted members of the community, such as long time beta testers (those that can program). Within this community, there's got to be quite the number of experienced programmers. Plus, if you're a true Soldat fan, you probably wish you could work on Soldat.

[Veritas]

Which is why you open source it, so you can have a large number of people look at the code instead of one.

Good point, but the problem is trust. Source code in the wrong hands, makes for a major headache for the rest of us. Remember what happened with the Quake games, when their source code was released?

I wouldn't mind though if Enesce, Michal and whoever else was currently working on Soldat - to share the source with other trusted members of the community, such as long time beta testers (those that can program). Within this community, there's got to be quite the number of experienced programmers. Plus, if you're a true Soldat fan, you probably wish you could work on Soldat.

I don't know what happened with the Quake games, enlighten me.

[Snow]

Which is why you open source it, so you can have a large number of people look at the code instead of one.

Good point, but the problem is trust. Source code in the wrong hands, makes for a major headache for the rest of us. Remember what happened with the Quake games, when their source code was released?

I wouldn't mind though if Enesce, Michal and whoever else was currently working on Soldat - to share the source with other trusted members of the community, such as long time beta testers (those that can program). Within this community, there's got to be quite the number of experienced programmers. Plus, if you're a true Soldat fan, you probably wish you could work on Soldat.

I don't know what happened with the Quake games, enlighten me.

Lately it's become debatable... yay me for keeping up with facts and stories, but supposedly, one of the reasons why online multiplayer for the quake games - namely Q1 and Q2 dwindled to almost nothing was because of rampant cheating. When the source was released - the servers became flooded with cheats shortly after. Now this is being debated and there are even programmers who are saying that the games would have been better open-source from the beginning as then the ability for cheating could have been better circumvented. I won't get into that.

Fact or fiction of the Quake source aside, if Soldat was open-source, would that make it easier for hackers to make cheats, hacks and whatever else that could be undetectable by BE or any other preventative measure? Of course, if it was open-source, then perhaps, those working on the code could implement many preventative measures.

[Veritas]

Which is why you open source it, so you can have a large number of people look at the code instead of one.

Good point, but the problem is trust. Source code in the wrong hands, makes for a major headache for the rest of us. Remember what happened with the Quake games, when their source code was released?

I wouldn't mind though if Enesce, Michal and whoever else was currently working on Soldat - to share the source with other trusted members of the community, such as long time beta testers (those that can program). Within this community, there's got to be quite the number of experienced programmers. Plus, if you're a true Soldat fan, you probably wish you could work on Soldat.

I don't know what happened with the Quake games, enlighten me.

Lately it's become debatable... yay me for keeping up with facts and stories, but supposedly, one of the reasons why online multiplayer for the quake games - namely Q1 and Q2 dwindled to almost nothing was because of rampant cheating. When the source was released - the servers became flooded with cheats shortly after. Now this is being debated and there are even programmers who are saying that the games would have been better open-source from the beginning as then the ability for cheating could have been better circumvented. I won't get into that.

Fact or fiction of the Quake source aside, if Soldat was open-source, would that make it easier for hackers to make cheats, hacks and whatever else that could be undetectable by BE or any other preventative measure? Of course, if it was open-source, then perhaps, those working on the code could implement many preventative measures.

The source being opened does make it easier to develop cheats, but as you said, it also allows more people to develop anti-hack measures.

[jrgp]

Which is why you open source it, so you can have a large number of people look at the code instead of one.

Good point, but the problem is trust. Source code in the wrong hands, makes for a major headache for the rest of us. Remember what happened with the Quake games, when their source code was released?

I wouldn't mind though if Enesce, Michal and whoever else was currently working on Soldat - to share the source with other trusted members of the community, such as long time beta testers (those that can program). Within this community, there's got to be quite the number of experienced programmers. Plus, if you're a true Soldat fan, you probably wish you could work on Soldat.

I don't know what happened with the Quake games, enlighten me.

Lately it's become debatable... yay me for keeping up with facts and stories, but supposedly, one of the reasons why online multiplayer for the quake games - namely Q1 and Q2 dwindled to almost nothing was because of rampant cheating. When the source was released - the servers became flooded with cheats shortly after. Now this is being debated and there are even programmers who are saying that the games would have been better open-source from the beginning as then the ability for cheating could have been better circumvented. I won't get into that.

Fact or fiction of the Quake source aside, if Soldat was open-source, would that make it easier for hackers to make cheats, hacks and whatever else that could be undetectable by BE or any other preventative measure? Of course, if it was open-source, then perhaps, those working on the code could implement many preventative measures.

Consider for a sec, Linux, OpenBSD especially. They're 100% open source from the beginning and almost never get hacked. Compare that to Windows which gets hacked constantly.

Statistically speaking, open source software is less likely to get hacked and screwed with as you've got many, many more eyes (some malicious, some not) on the code.

Yeah, if you open source Soldat right now, all sorts of s**t'll spring up immediately. But after several months of work, they'll start dying down.

[Clawbug]

The analogy of OS being hacked is somewhat skewed though, it's easy to trick Windows users due to their average ignorace hence even simplest of malicious software can be "profitable", meaning that it's very easy to "start out" with writing malicious software. Also Windows supplies tools with WinAPI. Practically impossible to base an opinion on such a comparison.

However, opening Soldat's source would have both good and bad effects. First of all, it would spring up so-called forks, when someone takes the source and modifies it and releases it as an another game. Multiple similar forks of same software just disort the market, lose-lose for everybody. Second, possibly more progress and faster progress with the development. Third most likely increased cheating.

Opening Soldat's source would not be an option in my opinion. I see that the future of Soldat is in it's players, this community and EnEsCe. Community tells what they want to see, and EnEsCe tries to implement it. Thats it. But then again, if only things were that easy.

If the code really is that messy, theres a thing to do: structurize and organize it better, rewrite the most messiest parts and try to get it into a proper shape.

Which would require a huge amount of time and an extensive knowledge of the code that only MM probably has.

Start simple. If something is hard to understand then work trough the code piece by piece until there is basic understanding. Then start implementing it in a possibly better way. Finally replace the old code with own code which is more readable and makes more sense.

No, no code is "unreadable" from a programmers perspective, and I am sure EnEsCe is skilled enough to understand most of the code. I've got to say he is not a beginner with it.

[Veritas]

The analogy of OS being hacked is somewhat skewed though, it's easy to trick Windows users due to their average ignorace hence even simplest of malicious software can be "profitable", meaning that it's very easy to "start out" with writing malicious software. Also Windows supplies tools with WinAPI. Practically impossible to base an opinion on such a comparison.

...are you saying there isn't an API for the Linux kernal? Because you would be incredibly wrong.

First of all, it would spring up so-called forks, when someone takes the source and modifies it and releases it as an another game. Multiple similar forks of same software just disort the market, lose-lose for everybody.

Not if the developers in control of the main branch are competent.

Third most likely increased cheating.

Only initially.

[n2j3]

I want all the people in the world

[scarface09]

That could potentially worsen Soldat.

[jrgp]

The analogy of OS being hacked is somewhat skewed though, it's easy to trick Windows users due to their average ignorace hence even simplest of malicious software can be "profitable", meaning that it's very easy to "start out" with writing malicious software. Also Windows supplies tools with WinAPI. Practically impossible to base an opinion on such a comparison.

...are you saying there isn't an API for the Linux kernal? Because you would be incredibly wrong.

Well, with Linux/BSD there isn't really a centralized API that does everything (eg: widgets, graphics, sound, everything-in-one), like the WinAPI. Instead there are several smaller ones to pick from, and when you stick them together you get a working app.

(the actual specific Linux Kernel API is pretty much just for including hardware drivers)

That could potentially worsen Soldat.

That's only if you get a load of forks.

[scarface09]

I want all the people in the world

Quote speaks for itself...doesn't it?