November 15th, 1999 - 3dfx's Voodoo 4 & 5: My Analysis

I'll start this raving with a disclaimer: I am an acknowledged NVIDIA fan. I have been since the advent of the original TNT (which powers the STB Velocity 4400 that is still my graphics card at the time of this post). I don't particularly dislike 3dfx, nor seek to slam them or anything, but I simply cannot respect any product they have produced since the original Voodoo Graphics, as I feel that nothing since the original Voodoo Graphics has been an original offering. The V2, the Banshee, the V3 line, all are still based off of the original Voodoo chipset, and to this day show both its strengths, and its limitations. 3dfx has, ever since competitors to the Voodoo2 (Read: TNT) showed up in the marketplace, relied on leveraging their proprietary GLide API, and marketing campaigns that stress name recognition as their means of competition, rather than giving consumers a superior product. They STILL don't have nearly as strong OpenGL support as other vendors, such as ATI and NVIDIA.

At Comdex today, 3dfx announced the names of their products that have been referred to the project name of "Napalm." They're the Voodoo4 and the Voodoo5. Blue's News has the full press release up with the details on the products, including estimated prices. 3dfx's own web site also has a page dedicated to "the New Voodoo" that has a summary of what each model of the V4 and V5 will be, and links to the individual product pages. The V4 and V5 will be using something 3dfx is calling "Voodoo Scalable Architecture," which is a scalable, programmable scan-line interleaving technique, otherwise known as SLI, which 3dfx did three years ago with the Voodoo2. Oh . . . and there was a nifty product called the Quantum Obsidian that put two Voodoo Graphics chips on one board that predated the V2 SLI setup.

So, what do we have here? A supposedly "new" Voodoo chipset with the new VSA-100 architecture, allowing for almost stupid amounts of scalability (at, apparently, a segmented memory limit of 32 megabytes of RAM per chip - 128 megs on a 4 chip product, 256 on an 8 chip product; scale upwards, in amount of RAM, and in price tag, and you get the idea . . .), 32 bit rendering, 32 bit texture support, true AGP support, DVD hardware assist, texture compression, support for larger texture sizes, and other miscellaneous features which 3dfx will be touting. Then there's the "big" new feature that 3dfx has made a lot of buzz over for Napalm, the T-buffer. The T-buffer's big contributions to the gaming world are supposed to be full scene anti-alialising, and "digital cinematic effects" which include motion blur, depth of field blur, soft shadows, and soft reflections.

Sounds pretty cool, eh? Well, here's issue #1: These products are slated to release beginning March of 2000. That's 4 and a half months away. Keep that in mind, particularly when you're thinking of prices - the prices 3dfx is estimating are for 4 months from now. By the end of first quarter or start of second quarter of 2000, NVIDIA will likely that the successor to the GeForce (the NV15?) ready to hit the market.

Issue #2: A great many of these features are things that other cards/chipsets have had for quite some time. 32 bit rendering, large texture support, true AGP support - all things that NVIDIA's TNT, and even ATI's Rage, have had for a long time. 3dfx said not too long ago that 32 bit color wasn't important in games, and only framerate was. They're also notorious for sacrificing visual quality for sheer speed. So, I guess these things are important now? Some of the other things they're emphasizing on the V4/V5 products, like DVD hardware assist, are already out there in the V3 3500. Innovation there, right? Oh, no, ATI had that too.

Issue #3: Still no hardware T&L (Transformation & Lighting). 3dfx's own people have said that, yes, T&L will be important, but it's not important NOW. Many people in the industry have said that it will probably take a few to several months for us to see very many games that will have a noted benefit from hardware T&L. Hmm, so, this will be around the time 3dfx's new products which lack T&L, come out?

Issue #4: The Napalm technology is STILL based on the original Voodoo Graphics core. 3dfx's Scott Sellers himself has said that "The VSA-100 is still based on the Voodoo Graphics core," and "we consider it to be really close to a new architecture." Really close, but still based on the original Voodoo, and still NOT a new architecture. Yet this is "new and revolutionary" product.

Issue #5: Price. Get ready for this one . . . the Voodoo5 6000 AGP, which is their only announced product that will deliver on their claim of more than a billion pixels per second fill rate is estimated to cost (around March of next year, remember) $599.99. Six Hundred bucks for their flagship product that will be the only product on their line to deliver on the numbers that they've been throwing around recently. Yes, their other products in the line cost less. Let's take a look at them, and see what they offer, compared to other things on the market for similar or less money:

Voodoo 4 4500 AGP and 4500 PCI - Estimated price of $179.99.
32MB Graphics Memory, 337-367 Megapixels per second, 32-bit color rendering. Other than the 32-bit color rendering, this is comparable in price and fill rate to current V3 products - and to current TNT2 products, which of course already have 32-bit color rendering. Oh, and it doesn't do the nifty T-buffer stuff.

Voodoo 5 5000 PCI - Estimated price of $229.99.
32MB Graphics Memory, 667-733 Megapixels per second. Yes, damn, that's a lot of fill rate. Quite probably even more than current (first) generation GeForce boards can manage, even with a bit of overclocking. The GeForce is here NOW, however, whereas the V5 won't be here for months, and the V5 will cost as much as GeForces do right now. The V5 still doesn't have T&L, and there is always the concern of the GeForce2 or whatever the NV15 is nipping at its heels by the time the V5 is in stores. This is also the lowest priced card that will be able to handle the T-buffer with its nifty effects.

Voodoo 5 5500 AGP - Estimated price of $299.99.
64MB Graphics Memory, 667-733 Megapixels per second. More RAM, more money, basically. Speeds pretty much the same as the PCI version of the card . . . but the entry level AGP V5 is going to cost $300? Ouch. You could buy a DDR GeForce card real soon now for that much money. Yes, this card still smokes current generation GeForce cards on fill rate (though the DDR GeForce narrows that margin a bit). It still lacks T&L, and it still won't be here for months.

Voodoo 5 6000 AGP - Estimated price of $599.99.
128MB Graphics Memory, 1.33 - 1.47 Gigapixels per second. Brute force approach to increasing speed and fill rate - twice as much memory as the 5500, and twice the processors. Yes, FOUR VSA-100 chips on this board (with segmented memory, 32MB per processor). If they can deliver on this, it's unbelievably fast. It's also unbelievably expensive. I have some trouble trying to justify the cost of a DDR GeForce to myself, which will probably be in the $250-320 range . . . a $600 graphics card is just way beyond acceptable for me.

Now, I'm going to say some nice things about the Napalm line. Well, at least one nice thing. I'd really like to see the full scene anti-aliasing catch on. Of ALL the hype, hoopla, and features announced by 3dfx on their new product line, the only one that I see as a good and useful thing is full-scene anti-aliasing. The motion blur, depth of field blur - all that mess of digital "theatrical" effects - means very little to me.

Given that 3dfx's new products are 3 to 5 months away from market, there is a great deal that could happen in that time. Prices for the high speed RAM used on graphics accelerators could plummet, for example, reducing the price on 3dfx's products. As an example, let's say that this occurs, and 3dfx is able to knock $200 off the price of their flagship card. It would still be $400, given their estimates. Oh, and such a drop in RAM prices would bring down the cost of competitors products as well.

I would dearly love to be proven wrong. I would love to see 3dfx come out with a new product that really blows everything else on the market away, that sells on its own merit as a superior piece of technology, and is a clear hands-down winner. If "The Next Big Thing" happens to be multiple graphics chips processing chunks of the screen at a time, with a lot of RAM divided into smaller chunks for each chip, with neat whiz-bang effects and a crisp anti-aliased look to contrast all the blurs and stuff that makes people forget T&L and more complex geometry entirely . . . then great. I'll happily buy the best product on the market then. I just don't see that happening from 3dfx, and especially not for $600.

Sound off and express your opinion on this Raving, past Ravings, or anything else marginally related to the site on yggdrasil.net's own discussion forum.

September 14th, 1999 - The Results of Listening to Alanis Morrisette While Reading the Battle.net Forums

"I Think"

I Think newbies are really a huge problem
I Think idiots are too much on my mind
I Think rushers have got a lot to do with why the world sucks
But what can you do?

Like a green rain, beating down on me
Like a Shel Silverstein line, which won't let go of my brain
Like Misty's ass, it is in my head
Blame it on Battle.net lamers
Blame it on Battle.net lamers
Blame it on Battle.net lamers

I Think disconnectors are gonna drive us all crazy
And jerks make me feel like a child
I Think koreans will eventually be the downfall of civilization
But what can you do? I said what can you do?

Like a green rain, beating down on me
Like a Shel Silverstein line, which won't let go of my brain
Like Misty's ass, it is in my head
Blame it on Battle.net lamers
Blame it on Battle.net lamers
Blame it on Battle.net lamers

Like a green rain, beating down on me
Like Misty's smile, cruel and cold
Like Shel Silverstein's ass, it is in my head
Blame it on Battle.net lamers
Blame it on Battle.net lamers
Blame it on Battle.net lamers

Sound off and express your opinion on this Raving, past Ravings, or anything else marginally related to the site on yggdrasil.net's own discussion forum.

June 21st, 1999 - Lameness on Battle.net (or: ZOAS's Day o' Frustration)

In a day of total apathy, really hating the world, and finding almost nothing interesting, motivating, or appealing to me whatsoever, a thought entered my mind "Hey, I sucked last night in those 2v2 games with Rick, I could go on battle.net and play some random people just to get back into practice." So, off to battle.net I go with one of my lesser-known account names, popping into the usual hangout, and I optimistically click on the "Join" button with the intention of looking for some non-Hunters/BGH game to play in for a bit of fun and just general play to remember what Templars do and things like that.

So, my first game into things looks interesting, the guy bills it as a 4v4 vs comp game, and it's on a homebrew map. It was actually named somewhat creatively and interestingly, and was a 192x192 map, so I decided I'd join it to at least get a look at someone's map if nothing else. The first time in, the map transfer percentage is doing strange things. It seemed to be moving very slowly, or getting stuck, but then would jump up like 20 to 30 percent at a time. Weird. While the transfer is going on, everyone else in the game gets impatient (all of, gosh, 25 or 30 seconds!) and bails. So at like 89% of the map transferred, the host quits the game with a notice of "remaking same name." *grumble* Ok, so I rejoin the same named game, and the map transfer starts all over again. I'm third in the game this time, so I have to wait for the guy above me to transfer it . . . and it's crawling. I mean modem-to-modem hell. Then, suddenly, I'm banned from the game, with no reason, explanation, or comment whatsoever. What the hell is up with this?

Ok, games 2, 3, and 4 . . . This is just too sad and annoying to make up. They're all 2v2 games, on Dire Straits, Desolation, and Winter Conquest. In ALL three games, I start to realize something is up after about the 2 minute point, when after not only me, but the other people in the game, have been trying to tell my ally that he's supposed to be allied with me, and to share vision and ally with me, and nothing has happened. Some memorable quotes from the Desolation game include "Are you zerg" "Is zerg on my team" "Did I kill the wrong person?" "zerg person in lower left corner are you my team" That game was particularly memorable because not only was my supposed ally an utter twit with no clue how to apparently play the multiplayer aspect of the game whatsoever where allied play is required, he also did an excellent job of informing our opponents precisely where I was and what race I was, as well as slaughtering two of my overlords with his marines, which was OH so helpful for my being able to defend the double zergling/zealot rush the other guys tossed at my corner, since they were saved the trouble of scouting by my "ally."

The other two games in that little trio of absolute hell were pretty much similar, though not quite as bad. I realize that everyone is a newbie sometime. This is still no excuse, in my opinion, for not being able to use the basic game interface, and tackle oh-so-advanced concepts like the diplomacy options menu. LEARN HOW TO PLAY THE BLOODY GAME, PEOPLE! I dunno, is it just me, or is there some basic, simple, common sense in learning about the "multiplayer" aspect of multiplayer online gaming?

Ok, next game up, I decide I'll *shudder* actually give one of these BGH games a shot, since I figure, at a minimum, the freaks who play these things constantly can probably at least manage to ally and share vision. Besides, I figure that I can use my superior skillset developed over more than a year's time of playing SC on REAL maps to annoy the heck out the BGH-freaks. I pick a "1on1 BGH" game with nice latency, pop into it, and the guy says "no rushing for 15 minutes, ok?" Naturally, I think "ok, he's going to expand like mad, make a ton of high-end units and then swarm over me - or try, anyway." I dig out the ol' stopwatch, and agree to this condition, and the game starts (as I click on the ol' stopwatch). Right before the cut off point, the guy switches his race to Protoss. Why do people do this? Do they think they're being ultra-sneaky or something and that their opponents are totally unaware of things and are going to miss this? Anyway, I see this, and think "whatever" and start to decide how I want to counter his likely mass-carrier or mass-dragoon swarm. I get into the game, and end up as Zerg (I'd chosen Random, which I do most of the time). So, I go with three hatches at my main base, and 4 totally undefended expansions while keeping an eye on the stopwatch. My overlords were out checking out everything going on, and by the 10 minute mark, I've spotted my protoss rival's clumps of 1 pylon and as many photon cannons as one can possibly pack into a psi-effect radius at any of the chokes leading towards his bases. Gosh, but there's a lack of cannons, or other noticeable defense at his expansions. so, with my tightly-packed ring of structures around the three hives at my home base, with a complete collection of zerg structures (including three simultaneously upgrading evo chambers), I decide to go with a mass ultralisk drop. When the first 14 ultras arrive at the Protoss guy's closest base (bottom center), I discover that it happens to be his unit production center. The guy had TWENTY-ONE Stargates there! 21, packed in as close as possible allowing room otherwise only for the occasional necessary pylon! The overlords unload far enough away from the massive collection of Scouts he had piled up over the stargates, and I just send my ultras attack-moving the general direction of the his strutures. While his scouts are really NOT cut out for taking on my highly-armored ultralisks, he had enough of them (2 dozen or more) that they were slowly killing the ultras, but not as fast as the ultras were destroying things. As I begin hatching a couple dozen scourge to toss into the mix, he oh-so-conveniently times out. Disconnect, anyone?

So, after all of this over about a mere hour and a half period, I've come to a new conclusion - Battle.net is now populated by a majority of lamers. It wasn't always this way, I know, because I was around when it wasn't. I'm not just talking the beta tests either, there was a decent period of time after StarCraft's release when battle.net was only "mildly annoying" as an environment. Maybe it's time I go give Kali a good look - are there such twits and lamers on Kali too, or is this something that is pretty much confined to battle.net?

Sound off and express your opinion on this Raving, past Ravings, or anything else marginally related to the site on yggdrasil.net's own discussion forum.

April 4th, 1999 - Response to DrLazardo's (of SC.org) Response to my April Fools Prank Raving

DrLazardo of StarCraft.org posted a response to my April Fools Prank Mini-Raving. You can read that response here. A great deal of that response will be duplicated here as I respond to it. As a point of interest and accuracy, the response originally misidentified me as a staff member of Infoceptor, though that has been corrected. I'd like to make it CLEAR that this is solely MY opinion, and does not reflect on the opinions or status of any other site I am involved in (as I AM a staff member of Tech-Base).

"After reading the rant I must say I can respect his views on the issue, but overall am very disappointed with his utter lack of tact in the delivery."

I'm glad you respect my views. I am, after all, stating opinion. One of the ideas of my Ravings page is to be opinionated and speak my mind on things as I see fit. I'd hope that the name "Ravings" in itself would make that clear. Perhaps it doesn't, but the delivery is in a style consistent with that of a rant or raving.

"I feel for those who experienced extreme "distress," but when the truth was realized I don't see why the reaction turned so bitter. The statements made were no different than playing a practical joke on your best friend. I consider all visitors/contributors/ etc... to our site friends (on a certain level), in that we share a common interest and pasttime, and can share that without ever actually meeting. Any "distress" caused just seems to be overreacting."

As with any joke, things can go wrong, or people can feel hurt or bitter when they realize they've been duped. I'm more concerned personally with the problems it created for Blizzard with them being swamped with tech support calls that otherwise would not have happened. As far as it being "no different than playing a practical joke on your best friend," it IS different as a web site with the traffic of SC.org reaches thousands in a given day. When you play a joke on your best friend, it is one person affecting another. When you do the same thing on a web site with the hit traffic of SC.org's, it is one person (or a few people) affecting hundreds or thousands. Yes, in an abstract, it's damned funny. The vaccuum for that abstract to exist in doesn't happen in the real world, however, and in this case it caused real repercussions that made it somewhat less funny for me. Perhaps I'm a little jaded in this regard, as I've worked in tech support call centers and have had to deal with twits calling in being paranoid because someone decided to have their jollies playing on the fears or gullibility of the masses. That meakes the prank a little less humorous from my POV.

""I've not been just too fond of "the evil empire of StarCraft," " - Is playground namecalling really necessary?"

My opinion is my opinion. The "evil empire" crack is a JOKE, a reference to the entire SC.org/SC Legacy fiasco. I included that crack simply because SC.org decided to include in the prank that the "credit" was all SC Legacy's. In my opinion, the joke was deserved. Legacy got tons of hate mail, and to me that aspect of the joke smacked of the childish "site wars" thing last year which I'd thought by now was dead, buried, dug up and beaten some more, then reburied.

""I think they're mainly a site that coasts on name recognition rather than real merit." - Again I can respect your opinion, but I would have to disagree. Our staff works very hard to provide the best site possible, and to belittle all the work we have done truly upsets me. In my opinion our site meets every need of the average Starcraft-er with high-quality content. Granted all sites have their strong and weak points, but to put down the time and effort which has been invested into this site seems to be a overtly self-righteous position."

I as well respect your opinion, and I don't mean to belittle the work done on the site (though I can see how my comment can be interpreted very easily as doing precisely that). I simply do believe however that there are other SC fansites that work harder and are, in my opinion, better sites. I'm also not what I would consider the "average" SC player, so my standards may differ. If I upset you by apparently demeaning the work and effort put into SC.org, I apologize. I do not, however, apologize for speaking my mind as I see fit here.

"In closing, I just want to make it known that I feel very privileged to work at a site with such dedicated people. Not only to presenting an appealing site, but to providing and sharing content on a subject we all have a deep interest in. I think the big picture is being overlooked."

I didn't really comment at all on the big picture. I was talking about a specific act and instance. I suppose in a roundabout way that could be considered "overlooking" the big picture by means of omission. I'm happy you're pleased with being a part of SC.org. I applaud you for speaking out on this as well. You show initiative and a strong opinion in speaking your own mind on the subject, which is all I was doing (speaking my mind on the subject) in what I'd hoped was a semi-humorous Raving. The Ravings of a Zealot page is here for entertainment, though I sometimes use it to address issues when I see something needs it.

"Bottom Line: We are fans, the same as anyone else, and work hard to bring others the information we have access to. The fabricated ego-trip which is portrayed in these statements couldn't be farther from the truth, and I believe ultimately aims to harm more than inform."

I'm not certain precisely where this "fabricated ego-trip" comment comes into play. I simply don't see my posts and my attitude in the same manner as another person. We have different perspectives and different modes of perception. I spoke my mind and stated my opinion (in case it was missed, the actual Mini-Raving below BEGINS the pertinent paragraph with the words "It's my opinion"). If doing so equates to an "ego-trip" in your mind, then so be it, I'm not likely to change your mind on that. I will say in my own closing statement however that there is at least one thing I do now respect about SC.org - or rather one person - DrLazardo for speaking out in a similar manner on it all. I just do hope now that this dies down relatively quickly, as I'm certain people are going to become very tired of it all very soon. I'm pleased that this is generating such a response (and for once, some real activity in my site's forum) but this has taken up far more time than I really have right now.

Sound off and express your opinion on this Raving, past Ravings, or anything else marginally related to the site on yggdrasil.net's own discussion forum.

April 1st, 1999 - Mini-Raving: SC.org's April Fools Prank

While a lot of people (including myself) missed the original posting on Starcraft.org, thousands of people saw a post there earlier today saying that Blizzard Entertainment had decided to shut down their free Battle.net gaming service. This was, quite obviously, SC.org's April Fools prank. Of course, at least a few hundred people fell for this, and of course reacted predictably, spreading the news other places - submitting the information to other SC news sites, posting on the battle.net forums, and so forth. Very shortly, it turned into a huge fiasco. It upset thousands of fans of Blizzard games, and Blizzard themselves were negatively affected by it, as their tech-support lines were flooded with phone calls, they got tons of e-mail about it, and of course there was considerable spam about it posted to the battle.net forums (ok, so the spam on the forums probably won't be noticed in two hours anyway with the volume of posts there).

It's my opinion that SC.org should bloody well have known better than to pull this particular form of an April Fools prank. They caused distress for thousands of gullible people who fell for this bit of news, and actually affected and interfered with Blizzard's operations due to all the people who didn't catch on that called or e-mailed in. Blizzard has better things to do than respond to a grossly false rumor started by an IRRESPONSIBLE fan site. The SC.org staff responsible for this should bloody well know better than to post something like that, even in jest, even on April 1st. Too many things have proven the gullibility of gamers who check the web pages and surf the forums over and over (take the Anti-map hack hack for an example, or numerous false patch reports), and SC.org should bloody well have known that they would create a huge amount of trouble for their little joke.

I've not been just too fond of "the evil empire of StarCraft," SC.org, since I joined Infoceptor and worked as news staff there, for many reasons. I think they're mainly a site that coasts on name recognition rather than real merit. Despite those opinions of mine, the staff of SC.org, and the site's owners WarZone, fully realize the power of the web, and the audience their site reaches, and the credibility given to it by readers simply because of its hitcount. I have lost what little respect SC.org still had from me from this today, as they capitalized on that power and the gullibility of some of their readers, then turned around and listed not one, but TWO posts with titles only of "gullible." The text in the posts reads neutrally and nicely enough, but it simply rankles me and comes across as an insult to their readers. "Ha ha, you gullible twits. First we tricked you, now we're going to rub it in your face. Twice." Way to go, SC.org, I now have NO respect for the site, whereas there WERE things about it I respected previously.

Sound off and express your opinion on this Raving, past Ravings, or anything else marginally related to the site on yggdrasil.net's own discussion forum.

March 15th, 1999 - Whiny Paranoiacs and Screwing With Latency Prematurely (or: How to Piss off ZOAS on Battle.net)

I've been playing StarCraft (well, Brood War when at all possible) a lot during the wee hours of the night with my editor from 3DGN, Rick, and a common and frequently recurring theme keeps happening in a lot of games. It's really been pissing me off for weeks now, so I'm going to rave about it here. There are two main themes that I see that are pretty stupid, and really, really annoy me. The first is whiny paranoiacs (ok, it's almost certainly not a real term, but I'm making it up) who bail from a game, and the second are those people who jack with latency when it's absolutely uncalled for.

What I term as "Whiny Paranoiacs" are people who join a game and them either freak, or even get just downright belligerent if the game's composition isn't to their liking. What I'm seeing is this: either Rick or I start a game, and call it something like "2v2 not BGH" - someone joins the game and they decide that since Rick and I are talking to each other about stuff - personal lives, 3DGN, whatever - while we're passing the time waiting for someone to join that we know each other, play together, and are OBVIOUSLY out to screw them over somehow. God FORBID that someone else beat one of us into joining a game, and then flip out when we say that we're going to play as a team, and NOT do tvb (Top vs. Bottom for those of you unfamiliar with the term).

LIGHTEN UP, PEOPLE! Yes, it may come as a shock to you, but FRIENDS and CLANMATES and the like DO play together, and certain people try to play together as teams/allies. They're not necessarily out to screw you over in some vague fashion, or slam you by doing quick, practiced double-team early rushes on a map they know like the backs of their hands (although some of this DOES happen, don't presume everyone is out to do it). If Rick and I really wanted to screw someone over, we'd play the hell out of one map, then create games with it, using smurf names, and act absolutely as if we didn't know each other at all. Then we'd use whatever cheese tactics and racial choices are most effective on the map and slam someone quickly. That's not what we're out for, though - we just want to play and have fun! It REALLY puts a BIG damper on the whole mood and the effort to have some fun to see someone join the game, then whine and bitch because *gasp* we KNOW each other and we PLAY together. They usually say something inane or obscene then quit in a huff, and it's really stupid. We're out to have fun, it's a GAME, right?

The second thing that really, REALLY irks me, is I believe largely due to ignorance. We finally get in a game (as we NEVER play Hunters/BGH since I broke Rick of that early on) and almost immediately, some twit on the other team sets latency to Extra High Latency setting. Probably about 70% of the games we play, when the game initially starts, there's a bit where we see "Waiting for Players" at the beginning of the game. Ignorant TWITS presume that this means we're lagging and set Extra High Latency, or they're otherwise under some sort of false impression that this SPEEDS THINGS UP. GAAAAHHHH!!!!!!! This almost makes me physically scream with rage, as it's so misinformed and SO WRONG!

Here's the deal, folks: that pause, the "Waiting for Players" screen at the beginning of the game, isn't generally lag related at all. It occurs because different people are playing the game on a wide variety of machines, with different configurations, speeds, and amounts of RAM. This means that some systems will take longer to load up the game, with all the art, the map, the units, and the program code. Those of us with faster machines thus get to sit there briefly watching a "Waiting For Players" dialog while the slower machines get everything up and running. So, please, PLEASE for my sanity and better gameplay, DON'T screw with the latency settings as soon as the game is underway and you've got your alliance and chat settings arranged.

Now, the second thing: How Latency Really Works. The Latency Settings in StarCraft and Brood War are designed to compensate for higher latency (lag) in the connections between game clients. The ONLY thing those latency settings in the game deal with are your connection (and thus latency) to the other people in the game - NOT to battle.net's servers. When the latency setting is increased from it's default setting (which is Low Latency) the delay between sending of packets of information from each client in the game is increased (and if ONE person changes the latency, it affects EVERYONE in the game. You don't ALL have to change it. Any change ANYONE in the game makes affects EVERYONE in the game.). The default is something like 1 quarter of a second delay between packets. Each higher setting, High Latency and Extra High Latency, increases the allowable delay between packets, up to something like 3 quarters of a second at Extra High Latency.

What does this mean? It means that if the game isn't lagging noticeably, DON'T TOUCH IT! LEAVE IT AT LOW LATENCY! Increasing the SC/BW latency settings COMPENSATES for lag by increasing the time between packets which reduces the responsiveness and control you have over things in the game. On Extra High Latency, commands you issue take longer to be processed. This can be critical in tight situations, particularly when fast response and action is required. Using special ability units is one glaring example of this - your High Templars or Ghosts or whatever are harder to control and use efficiently because there is a noticable delay from when you tell a unit to do something, and then it is processed, sent to the other players' systems, and actually done. Almost any micromanagement can suffer from the higher latency settings.

What people should do, is let the initial "Waiting For Players" screen pass, then get into the game and give it a few minutes - 2 at a minimum, but 5 minutes is a more reasonable number - and see how things are. If the game isn't lagging, DON'T JACK WITH THE LATENCY SETTINGS. If it's lagging, then move it up ONE setting to High Latency, and give that a bit to see how it is. It will take a little bit to see how the changes affect things. If it STILL sucks after a while, THEN go up to Extra High Latency, and see how it is there. Whatever you do, DO NOT immediately set the latency to Extra High Latency as soon as the game starts. You may be screwing yourself or your teammate over and not knowing it, and you're not even giving the other latency settings a chance, but you're immediately going to the highest (slowest) setting. If I haven't made it clear yet, if the game isn't lagging, you want it on Low Latency, as this is the fastest setting with the best response times to your commands. Next is High Latency, and the absolute last resort is Extra High Latency. You really should not WANT to use Extra High Latency unless there is enough lag that you have to work up to that setting after giving the other settings a reasonable chance.

Got something that pisses you off on Battle.net, or disagree with something I have to say about the above topic? Want to correct me on some technical detail regarding latency that you think I've missed? Sound off and express your opinion on this Raving, past Ravings, or anything else marginally related to the site on yggdrasil.net's own discussion forum.

February 25th, 1999 - Guest Raving by Smoke'n'MirrorZ: Signs of Diablo II Pre-release Addiction

yggdrasil.net's first Guest Raving is courtesy of Smoke'n'MirrorZ, webmaster and sole guru of the great Diablo 2 Skills and Spells site: AlterNet's Diablo 2 Crypt: The Lost Scrolls.

Greetings Traveler! I have important news. You may be in grave danger (Is there any other kind?). Yes you could be one of millions pre-addicted to Blizzard's Diablo 2 if...

1. Everything in your life is a quest.
2. If you've ever thought about sacrificing something to try make an iron golem (or even a polyester one)
3. If you've ever sacrificed a major electrical appliance to try to make a 'Lightning Golem'
4. If you have helped run a Diablo 2 website of any kind, (bonus marks for more than 1 site)
5. If you've considered redecorating your room in a sewer motif
6. If you ever bought a magazine JUST for a D2 article.
7. If you wonder why there aren't more Necromancers, Barbarians and Paladins swinging swords on TV.
8. If you think women on TV would look better wearing capes or carrying towering bows.
9. If you've seriously analyzed the physical accuracy of the character artwork
10. You call leaving the house 'Caravan to Act II'
11. If you've ever used frame advance on a D2 trailer
12. If your computer desktop has a Diablo 2 background even though none have been officially released
13. If you made your own background
14. You can name more than 1 each, producer, PR rep, support for D2
15. If you bought and painted a full set of foam D2 weaponry and use it on a regular basis
16. Have you ever considered dressing up as a necromancer and going out to 'Confuse' and 'Control' the masses?
17. If you've divided your home town into 'Acts'
18. You scoff at release dates.
19. You've wished for an 'Aura of Whiner Reflection'
20. You bought a 3DFX card because it's the only confirmed acceleration for D2 (HEY ADDICT! YOU CAN'T USE THAT YET!).
21. You consider staves and spears legitimate ways to move up in a line.
22. Barbarian no got good speak. Why me got to?
23. You run everywhere. Often changing directions suddenly, and never moving your arms while running.
24. You consider wool sweaters a kind of aura.
25. If you've considered going to a zoo to pretend everything is Fallen, Claw Vipers, and Razor Backs.
26. If you've wondered if your boss or teacher might be corrupted.
27. There are more monsters in your dreams than any time since you were five years old.
28. When you start screaming "Where's the ALT key!" when you can't find your wallet and shoes
29. When you can't start the day without visiting a D2 news site first.
30. If you wear "throw" and "kick" arm bands when playing sports. (no really! )
31. You switch from power ties to 'mastery' ties.
32. You wear mismatched socks to show off your component artwork system.
33. If you know the names and addresses of more than one Diablo 2 site by memory
34. If you have more than 4 Diablo 2 bookmarks... or don't need them because you memorized more than that.
35. If you've spent more than an hour trying to find a 9 minute video
36. If you don't care about gun control legislation so long as they don't limit your axe collection.
37. If you've redecorated your room in a palace motif (harem optional)
38. If you ever wondered about the strength or dexterity requirements for a peice of clothing (that's real life clothing for you addicts that misunderstood)
39. Have you ever tried to click on a button or scroll a D2 screenshot?
40. Given serious thought to why every day belts don't let you carry more items
41. If you've ever wished you could naturally glow in the dark.
42. You now wear chain mail on your morning jogs to increase your stamina.
43. You've bought a tanning bed for your Necromancer so he looks good after sacrificing everything he owns to make golems.
44. If you've ever claimed a quill rat ate your assignment
45. If you're a guy and can't leave the house without rings and amulets, you might be addicted
46. If you're a gal and need a good sturdy pair of boots and gloves to complete any outfit, you might be addicted
47. If you're afraid to stand near trees for very long.
48. You claim your delivery person is slower than a frosted zombie
49. If you've asked someone "Have you seen my friend Gheed?"
50. You think the beach is too dangerous due to the risk of Sand Maggots
51. If your friends are less excited about a new D2 preview than you are and won't even bother to read it.
52. If you avoid closed spaces because it's harder to see 'them' coming.
53. If you think anything might start generating monsters.
54. If you've read enough previews that you consider 'drooling' a mastery skill
55. Do you insist forks and knives be kept in the freezer so you can do cold damage to food?
56. If you are still reading this list... you are pre-addicted to Diablo 2

Any resemblance to persons or projects alive or dead, online or imaginary is probably intentional but I deny everything. Smile! You're on candid camera! None of the names have been changed to protect the guilty. No animals were harmed in the making of this list but several villages were pillaged and one guy ate some bad grog.

Smoke And MirrorZ
<*^*>

February 14th, 1999 - Love in the War Room (or: If people fear change, why do they demand it?)

If you haven't heard by now (maybe you live under a rock somewhere where Blizzard products aren't available, yet you have internet access), Blizzard Entertainment has given their Battle.net service's web site a major facelift. Some of the more notable changes include: a new page layout with SSI, so all pages have a nice menu structure on the left (making for MUCH easier navigation), the very aptly named War Room Forum, which is a combination of the former Pilot's Lounge, Brood War Discussion, and Ogden's Tavern, the Diablo Suggestions Forum has become the Diablo II Suggestions Forum, a separate Strategy and Tactics Forum for the Brood War, and the combination of the separate StarCraft and Diablo Technical Support Forums into one forum.

Now, first off, I have to give some props to the Blizzard crew for making the changes. All around, many improvements. Navigation is much better, you learn more, more quickly, when going to the battle.net web site now, due to the news stuff on the main battle.net page, and the additional sections and content are quite welcome. The little graphical blue Blizzard icons on posts from Blizzard staff are also a good move, and the ability to search the forums is a godsend, since you can look for specific things without wading through the massive amounts of short-lived posts. I do have to ask, though - what's with the green buttons? The green text colors for the links and visited links in the forums I like - but combined with the neon/lime green buttons, it's a bit overkill. The green glare from my monitor makes me think back to the early PC days when a green-screen monochrome monitor was standard fare. Wouldn't some other color, maybe a nice turquoise or something, be nice and add some contrast? That's really my only criticism of thing there - Shlonglor and crew agreed with my other suggestion and implemented it quickly. Good job, guys.

Now, coming to the point of this Raving . . . The War Room Forum is what I'll use as an example. In less than 2 hours after the changes occurred, The War Room was filled with 3 pages of posts, the majority of which were along a few recurring themes. The ones that still stick out in my mind are, "This sucks! The changes suck! I liked the old way better!" "NOOOO! Why did you codemn us Diablo/StarCraft/Brood War players to have to put up with the Ogden's Den/Pilot's Lounge/BW Discussion twits!?" "Omigod, what's this techno-StarCraft crap look? Where are our Diablo-themed forums?" and of course "Blizzard has no clue, they're estranging their fans/customers, we're the ones who are really important, WHY DIDN'T THEY ASK US WHAT WE WANTED?!" Now, to be fair, there were a few people congratulating Shlonglor, Warblade!, and the rest of the Blizzard crew who worked on creating the new look for battle.net, but they were far overshadowed by the whining and bitching.

So I have to ask the question - If people fear change, why do they demand it, then complain when they get it? Someone once said that "Ignorance is Bliss" - well, thanks to The War Room, we now know that the ignorant don't seem to be very blissful, judging by the amount of whining, complaining, and flaming they generate in their posts. Very few people seem to like the combination of three forums into one (The War Room), yet the posting volume seems to be as high as ever. True to its name, the War Room seems to be a masterstroke of genius from Blizzard. In one fell swoop, they've combined three of the most caustic player communities into one, combining their fan base a bit (since the Diablo weirdos have to put up with the StarCraft lamers now), and heightening the intensity and hazards to a new level. Now, if you post something stupid, you get two distinct groups (three, according to the Brood War devotees) who will flame you and thrash you for it in their own unique styles. Never more true than now, the War Room is truly a place for fighting, pointless (im)balance posts, flames, broken english, lame '|33+ sp33k' posts, and general verbal combat.

Perhaps the thing that most amuses me in all this is the outcry and presumption of "ownership" that many forum regulars seem to be exhibiting. Battle.net, both the online gaming service, and the web site, are both Blizzard's property, yet people seem to get extremely bent out of shape and demanding because Blizzard worked to try to improve THEIR web site. Perhaps this is one of the problems of offering a "virtual community" of this sort (the battle.net forums) as a service and feature to customers (and, quite technically, the battle.net forums are available to non-customers as well, as any twit with web access can post on them). Is it unfair of Blizzard to make changes to the virtual community that they have offered the environment to develop around their games without consulting the regular denizens? Is it delusional and impractical for the battle.net forum regulars to expect to be consulted about changes to something that they are only guests in?

What's your take on the new battle.net look and the changes to the forums? Are you anticipating the special Diablo Themed layout for the Diablo Forums that is yet to come? Sound off and express your opinion on this Raving or the changes to the battle.net forums in general on yggdrasil.net's own discussion forum.

January 22nd, 1999 - Reminiscences of a StarCraft Beta Tester (or: You wanna see imbalance?)

The latest thing the last week or so seems to be the so-called "big names" of the StarCraft community crying out about what they see as an almost criminal imbalance with the current state of the game. The SC fansites, perhaps a little starved for news, are dutifully reporting on such outcries of imabalance (usually battle.net forum posts which turn into massive thread lists taking up an entire page on the forum for a single thread) and inadvertantly spreading an impression that the game has some horrid imbalance or flaw.

Boy, some of these outcries of imbalance are just amusing to me. There have been cries about the game being imbalanced, about this race overpowering that race, about this race being too weak or that race being too strong, since before the game even got into the hands of beta testers. If you don't believe me, track down some of the people who populated the Starcraft forum (FORUM - singular, there used to be just one) on the battle.net web site pre-beta and ask them. Without even seeing the game, without even beta testers to report on the game and their impressions, people cried imbalance, and made detailed posts with whatever (often erroneous) information they had. It continued throughout the beta test, into the release of the game, every patch, and now the latest patch and Brood War's release.

Now, if you want some REAL imbalances . . . boy, we had some fun with those during the beta test . . . first there were the multiple varieties of the vulture bike cheese. The vulture, and spider mines, were probably changed the most throughout the beta of almost any unit in the game. Vultures used to have their incredible build speed, quick movement speed, and the wondrous spider mines, which launched out of the bikes practically like hovering torpedoes. You needed only to get your 6 to 18 vultures (cranked out like mad in early game, foregoing even marines) even close to enemy units, and "lay" mines with them for the mines to seek out the enemy units - and buildings - and lay wholesale waste to a base. They were changed not to damage buildings, then not to seek out enemies so aggressively, then finally to their final "lay - delay - set" mode of spider mines we're all familiar with. Until those changes, though - man, a Terran on a land map going hard vultures was simply godlike. That's an imbalance.

Another one of the popular tactics for Zerg during the SC beta was the "nothing but Queens" tactic. Maybe some token ground units to tech up to Queen's Nest, then hatch out nothing but Queens. Queens originally had the glaive wyrm attack that mutalisks have now, as well as all the Queen special abilities - which included an extremely powerful spawn broodling which was much cheaper, and a more effective ensnare (ensnare used to instantly HALVE movement AND attack rates). With a dozen queens airborne, a zerg player was nearly unstoppable. That's an imbalance.

Yet another fun tactic was one I liked a lot as Protoss - Psionic Storm used to be "stackable" - what I mean by this is that if you cast storm with multiple templars over the same area, each overlapping storm would deal damage simultaneously. Four templars casting storm at the same time (oh, it also did 150 hps, not the 130 it currently does, and dealt damage more quickly.) would be a concentrated area of 600 damage that just MELTED any unit in it. It was practically an instant death field that would immediately toast ANYTHING, even battlecruisers. That's an imbalance.

Now, some of the latest imbalance cries are about Zerg and Terran being too weak. "No, Protoss isn't too strong, the other races are too weak . . . a Terran CAN'T beat/defend this specific strategy used by a Protoss . . . Zerg can't compete with Protoss air . . ." Now I may take some flak on this for what I'm going to say, being a player known to prefer Protoss (I do, for reference, usually play Random however), but I tend to agree with a lot of the terse replies people give to the whines (and that's what they are, WHINES) about the supposed imbalances: Shut up and learn to play better.

Now, some of the cries about imbalance are warranted. Mutalisks have been pretty darned powerful in regular SC, particularly against Protoss, particularly before the change of Photon Cannons to normal damage. They were STILL counterable, but it took an inordinate amount of effort, and that was probably an imbalance. That case simply doesn't exist in Brood War, with Valkyries and Corsairs. People say that Zerg can't compete against Protoss air now, particularly in Brood War with Corsairs. Well, I can guarantee you that there is a damned effective means for a Zerg to DOMINATE and CONTAIN a Protoss in Brood War on island maps. I've spent hours, with several test games, trying to counter this certain tactic. It's counterable - it's REALLY hard to counter, but it is counterable. Yet, I don't cry and scream imbalance on it.

Some of the imbalance cries and claims that are made are things that only affect the really top-level players, or those who read the specific scenario they list in the "unbeatable strategy" posts and then do their best to replicate. Here's the wake-up call, folks . . . the game will NEVER be absolutely, perfectly, 100% balanced! It just won't happen, and crying and screaming about it rather than learning to work around the FEW, VERY MINOR imbalances in the game and counter them with non-conventional means, or simply more effort and micromanaging, is NOT helping the game or the game community. These outcries raise more paranoia, feed ignorance, and encourage more whining about whatever gives the vocal forum reading player trouble on a particular Tuesday. The game, in my opinion, will simply never be absolutely, perfectly balanced, and I don't think ANY RTS game that has unique, differing units on opposing races/sides/whatever will/can be perfectly balanced. I do think that StarCraft, and Brood War, are both extremely well balanced, and probably more balanced than any RTS game I've ever seen or played. I think that balance can only be taken so far, and beyond that, the quest for perfect balance reaches the point of being ludicrous (Oh my god! They've gone to plaid!).

Part of what irritates me so much with the recent trend of crying imbalance, is to not only cry imbalance, then suggest changes to a unit or structure or two to fix what they perceive as an absolutely criminal imbalance, but to continue on to demand changes to other units or structures unrelated to the problem. This reaches a particularly annoying level of irony for me when I think back to the Brood War beta test, and remember some of these same people posting agreement to the criticisms of Blizzard making TOO MANY balance changes on each patch, saying that changing so much at once was bad, and that it was too volatile, radically changing things where one or two small changes can affect the game in a big way. Gee, is it just me, or doesn't it seem like changing so many things at once, per their suggestions for fixing these all-too-horrid imbalances (however unrelated they may be) is also a horribly bad idea? Or have they decided that it worked for Blizzard, so it can work for their own pet peeves too?

January 12th, 1999 - Side Effects of Hack Publicity (or: What's worse, hackers or paranoia?)

Something that has become clear to me is that there is possibly even a worse effect from all the hacks, and the publicity given them, than there is from the corruption and lost games when the map hack and the like are actually used. Part of this is probably the fault of SC/Gaming news sites - the hacks, hack makers, and so forth are NEWS - which equal hits. The exposure and increased awareness that the hacks exist is both good and bad. It's good that people are wary that there are these cheating tools out there. It's bad in several ways, though. It alerts people that they are out there, and creates an impression that they're being used a LOT. This makes it easier for people (since they know they're out there, and what they do) to go and find them, and then use them. There are worse things coming from it, though.

I myself, in less than 10 ladder games, have been accused of cheating. Other players I know, and have played with (including several which are better than I am, and certainly have NO need to cheat, they can easily win without it), have been accused of cheating. I don't cheat, Deathwing (my boss at Infoceptor, and a recent example) doesn't cheat, and I don't know anyone personally who cheats or hacks. Yet we've been falsely accused of it, disconnected on (and screwed out of rightful, fairly fought wins), and generally been burned more from the paranoia and idiocy surrounding the mystique of the "almighty map hack."

Part of this comes from ignorance, or lack of skill (see my previous entries on signs you're not ready for Ladder games). Someone plays me and accuses me of cheating because I catch their dropships coming in and ambush their drop (when I play Protoss 85% of the time on ladder, and have been a HEAVY user of Observers since the SC beta yest). Someone accuses Deathwing of cheating because he did a good job scouting and moved to counter their fast mutalisk tactic, then his corsairs - on attack-move - kill their overlord on the way back to his base. I get accused of cheating (multiple accusations, from map hack to a fictional "cloak hack") because I bring in an Observer fairly early to combat the Lurkers my Zerg opponent is using, and then sending Dark Templar against the Hydralisks which are parading in a nice little line towards my expansion with nary an overlord nearby.

To those of you who've accused someone of cheating . . . be prepared to take offense, because I'm going to spew some vitriol here: Sit down, actually THINK for a moment, and use some bloody common sense! Are you just pissed because you lost, or were massively outclassed (which happens a lot in early season ladder games where ratings are NOT typically representative of true skill)? Are you being utterly, ridiculously paranoid and latching onto what has been (partially the fault of news sites for inadvertantly sensationalizing the hacks in just trying to what we view as our duty, to cover current news) a popular headline topic - the map hack? Are you NOT considering the scouting/observation possibilities of observers, burrowed zerglings, or good use of multiple comsats? Before you spew the vile word of accusation "CHEATER!" why don't you enhance your calm, and think for a minute how it would feel for YOU to have your opponent screw you out of a legitimate win because they're a twit and disconnect on you rather than thinking. How would it feel if YOU were falsely accused of cheating? You'd be pretty pissed, wouldn't you? Sheesh, and people wonder why so many people slam the ladder system . . .

In all fairness, YES, there are some people out there using the map hack and cheating otherwise (win trading, disconnecting). There is a FALSE popular myth that "All the top Ladder players map hack." That's one HELL of a nasty, big, erroneous generalization. You might as well say "All tortillas are more like deformed squares than they are anything approaching circular." It's a case of using the minority as a representation of the whole, and it's simply WRONG. Well, it might be THAT wrong, really . . . since when you make those false, rapid accusations of cheating without thinking a situation through and figuring out HOW and WHY your opponent is beating you (Protoss who don't use LOTS of Observers in mid and late game are simply twits, IMHO), then go and disconnect . . . you've just relegated yourself to being a cheater. Now, do you want to be a good player (a good player is one that learns from their mistakes and works to improve their game, irregardless of their comparative current skill level), or do you want to join the "masses" you criticize - disconnect and turn yourself into a cheater, the very thing you cry out against?

January 11th, 1999 - Addendum to Signs You're Not Ready for the Brood War Ladder

Some people sent in some more signs that I felt were fairly amusing, so I'm posting them here for your amusement as well. I've also posted another that I remembered seeing an individual try on me in ladder season 2:

• You use the map hack and still lose four out of five games. (Submitter wished to remain anonymous)

• Your Zerg opponent becomes angry because rather than futily throwing your ground units at his wall of Sunken Colonies, you choose to attack with 12 Guardians. (Josh Swint)

• Your Terran opponent tries to declare (quite adamantly) a "no bunkers. bunkers are cheap" rule. He then proceeds to build a ring of 7 bunkers at the primary entrance to his base, with three siege tanks in the middle. He neglects to build even a single missile turret. You're Protoss, and of course have no problem to agreeing not to make bunkers.

• You cry out when your battlecruiser started firing away from the big red cotton ball and at your own forces - and it changed color! (RedSword)

January 9th, 1999 - Signs You're Not Ready for the Brood War Ladder

Instead of my usual impassioned and slightly crazed ravings, I present you with some encapsulated levity. If you notice yourself experiencing some of the following, perhaps it's time you reconsidered your big foray into the Brood War Ladder Tournament:

• Your Protoss opponent sends hallucinated Devourers against your own Devourers. What's even worse, he made the hallucinations from his OWN real Devourers.

• You accuse your Protoss opponent of using a hack or cheat, because there are invisible things destroying your units and structures.

• Your Protoss opponent hits your Scouts with Stasis, and your initial reaction is "WTF? How'd you do that ice thing?"

• All of your games end with you accusing your (much higher ranked) opponent of using the map hack and disconnecting saying "no win 4u."

• You're absolutely confident your 6 Mutalisks should easily defeat 4 Corsairs.

• For some reason, your huge swarm of Hydralisks (8) can't handle a measly Dark Archon and a Reaver.

• You disconnect, screaming "CHEATER! HAKERS SUK!" when your Massive Spider Minefield of Doom(TM) doesn't absolutely waste the dozen Archons headed into your base.

• You comsat a Protoss base and see a lot of Corsairs hovering over an Observatory and Templar Archives. You then attack with Wraiths - and expect to win.

• You try to use Maelstrom to stop an invading force of Goliaths.

• You consider the "Hallucinated Probe Rush" a viable tactic. (with props to Tech-Base)

• Hey, what are those scorpion things? Why are my bunkers bleeding? What, Defilers? What are those?"

• You scout for Corsairs or Valkyries with Overlords.

• You spend your game time making cool base art then get upset when all those spine things shoot up from the ground and mess it all up.

• You test out your revolutionary new theoretical tactics in ladder games (the medic/vulture rush, the dreaded drone drop (DDD), the mass hallucinated carrier attack).

• You play ladder games while severely zonked on over the counter cold medication and get dejected when you lose.