[bf1942] Petition for BF1942!

Rick Thompson fortweb at fortweb.com
Tue Jul 27 18:55:41 EDT 2004

We had a steam CS server running with 14 people connected using 70% of a 
cpu on a dual. Right next to it was a BF server with 32 people connected 
using 60%. Granted, that was an aztec map but even the most efficient maps 
went well over 50%. We tossed that client off the network and discontinued 
all support for HL games, not only because of the horrendous cpu usage but 
also because of the asinine weekly update requirements.

Yes, pre-steam versions were fairly well maintained with an update every 3 
to 6 months but who wants to update a server every week? The last three 
weekly updates from valve  had such severe problems they had to be rolled 
back and that is nothing new. Since steam was implemented there have been 
many, many weeks with rollbacks because they dumped untested code on the 

What about their pathetic anti-cheat system that has never worked? They 
effectively and quite intentionally disabled all of the third party 
anti-cheat systems that *did* work so they could have a monopoly on it with 
their useless VAC only then to all but abandon it while cheating remained 

What about the last 4 exploits available for HL servers? They sat on a root 
exploit for over three months even though they knew about it and only took 
corrective action when it became public knowledge. That exploit was fixed 
by someone in the community long before they released code to fix it. Same 
with every exploit as far back as I can remember, they were all fixed by a 
community member before Valve got around to releasing a fix.

Valve has never been as responsive to the community as Dice has, not even 
in the good years.

The BF nix port we have is from user demand. Initially it used about as 
much cpu as a steam server does now but Dice made it their first order of 
business to reduce that dramatically because their userbase asked (begged) 
them to. Punkbuster was implemented because of userbase demand also. I have 
no doubt that BF1942 will continue to be supported with maint releases... 
why... because their userbase wants them to.

I am not crazy about BFV either, disappointed more than anything. Since 
there are still a lot more people playing BF than BFV, I am obviously not 
alone in that. None the less, I would much rather have them introduce 
another game than screw around with an old one like Valve does! We have 5 
BF clients and only 1 BFV client, what Valve is doing with steam would be 
the equivalent of Dice forcing all those BF clients to run BFV even though 
they hate the arcad'ish chopper controls, etc., etc., etc.

I don't want Dice to make the game "better". Maint releases should be to 
fix bugs and exploits, nothing more. Leave the old game alone, put a new 
game on the market and let it stand for itself, that is how it should be. 
If people don't like BFV, they will continue to play BF.


Steam is a sickness, Battlefield is the cure.

At 06:15 PM 7/27/2004 +0200, you wrote:

>I've been running HL servers for a long, long time. I do indeed agree that
>Steam is not what I'd like to see. Actually, wasn't it for the WON servers
>to be disabled this week, I wouldn't be changing at all. I liked the way it
>However, saying Valve should be screwed is dead wrong. They had their
>reasons to change to steam, and though many don't like it, it's a fact of
>gaming life. Valve DID something I don't see happening with Dice here
>though: Eversince the initial release of Half-Life, there were updates an
>patches, over and over again. Some were good, some should've been better.
>The reason why Valve's game was a solid success, was not only its terrific
>support on the linux platform (something BF had to do without for quite some
>time) but most importantly the continuous improvements of the engine.
>Nowaday's most people don't even recall the struggle with voice
>communication and all... it was put in there with a simple update.
>I can agree with the petition here, simply because I bought a game, BF1942,
>to see how I could support a good server running it. But most of the players
>I had decided to hop on the next game BFV... And when that sorta runs... the
>next game is there.... But will Dice or EA commit itself to new patches and
>improvements of old games, or can we just plain accept that this is what we
>have, won't get any better and thus if we want improvements on a gameserving
>box we simply run the next game? I sure hope not.  I subscribed to this list
>for 1942... I haven't seen a post about '42 in months. Seeing support of the
>original Battlefield, I don't even think about buying BFV... as soon as it's
>up, support is dropped in the benefit of the next version. I'd rather say
>Screw that then blaming Valve for the next step in HL-evolution (which - as
>opposed to BF - is a free update instead of an entirely new game.)
>-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
>Van: Rick Thompson [mailto:fortweb at fortweb.com]
>Verzonden: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 5:23 PM
>Aan: bf1942 at icculus.org
>Onderwerp: Re: [bf1942] Petition for BF1942!
>Well said!
>We also have tried most games out there and BF is as easy on the cpu as any
>of them, much better than many. (Steam is a sickness, BF is the cure! Screw
>you Valve)
>The idle cpu issue is insignificant, so what if it runs 15% when it is
>idling or with 10 people connected? We sell games to cover the max amount
>of load they can generate anyway so if every server was maxed out, the box
>can still breath... they can sit there and run 15% empty all day long if
>they want, we don't care. People not planning their bandwidth/cpu that way
>are gouging their customers.
-------------- next part --------------

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.720 / Virus Database: 476 - Release Date: 7/14/2004

More information about the Bf1942 mailing list