When you sign up and login to WormNET for the first time on your PSP, your account will act in 1 of 2 ways for the entire duration of its existance:

Type 1) All of your scores will update to the Leaderboards immediately after finishing games and your connection percentage won't reset back to 100%.

Type 2) Scores will never update to the Leaderboards and your percentage is reset back to 100 everytime you log back into WormNET.

This is the explanation why your scores aren't updating. Half of the people on my buddy list who have won games don't even have a single score on the leaderboard.

My first account ever made was a Type 2 account and after finishing offline mode with 100%, playing around 50+ online games, and winning almost every medal, not one score was updated to the leaderboards. My connection percentage would always reset back to 100% as well.

Then after making a brand new account to see if something was wrong, my first score updated flawlessly.

So to all of the people that are wondering why your scores aren't uploading, check which type account you have. If your connection percentage keeps resetting back to 100% then you have a Type 2 and it means you have to start over. Sorry for the bad news.

Update 9/16/07

It seems that whatever bug is causing this works on every other account you make. That means your first account can either be infected or not. Then the next account you make will be the opposite.

We are looking into this.

Critically fatal??? Any other development terms you'd like to abuse?

I think it's pretty fatal bug for enjoyment of infrastructure gaming in wow2. But i'm happy they are looking for it.

Critically fatal??? Any other development terms you'd like to abuse?

Yes, hopefully when I come around to them.

for me it was the other way around. my first account had me on the leaderboards after playing 1 of the 2 games i played total for that account.
said this is cool, started a new account with the name i really wanted, and then havent had any points yet.

any word from the dev team if this is fixable with our current accounts, or if its just easier to start a new account? it doesnt matter to me too much if the current data is lost as long as i can keep the records from here on out.

When you sign up and login to WormNET for the first time on your PSP, your account will act in 1 of 2 ways for the entire duration of its existance:

Type 1) All of your scores will update to the Leaderboards immediately after finishing games and your connection percentage won't reset back to 100%.

Type 2) Scores will never update to the Leaderboards and your percentage is reset back to 100 everytime you log back into WormNET.

This is the explanation why your scores aren't updating. Half of the people on my buddy list who have won games don't even have a single score on the leaderboard.

My first account ever made was a Type 2 account and after finishing offline mode with 100%, playing around 50+ online games, and winning almost every medal, not one score was updated to the leaderboards. My connection percentage would always reset back to 100% as well.

Then after making a brand new account to see if something was wrong, my first score updated flawlessly.

So to all of the people that are wondering why your scores aren't uploading, check which type account you have. If your connection percentage keeps resetting back to 100% then you have a Type 2 and it means you have to start over. Sorry for the bad news.

You're a busy boy fariswheel...all this whinging about never getting to finish online games in other threads on this forum, and now you post that you were able to play 50+ online games and win almost every medal! Two questions. First, if you've been able to play over 50 online games, why complain about not being able to play online well enough with this title? Second, if I was playing online games and had reached say 10 games with no score uploading to the leaderboards I would think, hmmm maybe there's a bug here, and start again...why play over 50 before doing something about? Or is it just so you have another reason to get on here and complain about the game you obviously enjoy playing so much or you would've given up on it by now!! BORING!

You're a busy boy fariswheel...all this whinging about never getting to finish online games in other threads on this forum, and now you post that you were able to play 50+ online games and win almost every medal!

Downunder1, you have to understand that not all people play only for fun. When a game is implemented with a Leaderboard feature some people ACTUALLY like to strive to get on them while having fun doing it.

Also, there is nothing wrong with whinging over something that is broken or buggy. Live with it? Then the problems will never get fixed and the developers will continue to spew out buggy games. I payed money for this game, hence I deserve what I payed for. Paying $30 for a game with bugs that severely hamper a feature that people will aim for isn't a very good trade.

Two questions. First, if you've been able to play over 50 online games, why complain about not being able to play online well enough with this title?

I have realized that some games can actually be finished when playing with people you don't know online when there is only 1 round. Combined with having to play with a strict group of friends, finished games can add up quickly, so I don't have much of a problem with the majority of games finishing anymore.

Second, if I was playing online games and had reached say 10 games with no score uploading to the leaderboards I would think, hmmm maybe there's a bug here, and start again...why play over 50 before doing something about?

Logically, one might also think that it takes awhile for scores to update. A moderator even said this in one of the posts:

I think that you are having a problem with the leaderboards. The leaderboards take a short while to update. Try checking again tomorrow.

So one could assume that it takes awhile to update. Also, after a few days, finished games can really add up if you play with the one round method or with just friends.

Or is it just so you have another reason to get on here and complain about the game you obviously enjoy playing so much or you would've given up on it by now!! BORING!

I never said anything about enjoying or not enjoying this game. All I have stated were bugs, problems, and faults that a lot of the people on this board agree with and are having. Is there something wrong with that?

I think it's pretty fatal bug for enjoyment of infrastructure gaming in wow2. But i'm happy they are looking for it.
that will only help if the bug is on the server side. the odds of t17 updating psp client are not in your favor.

i don't know why this is, but i do not remember a single t17 title that worked on-line the way it was meant to. the closest was wa, but people kept hacking the game, and t17 had to drop the leader board. and it isn't like you could blame the same person for the troubles. the net team has changed over the years.

just because thres no leader board for W:A doesnt mean the online portian never worked as intended. it just meant that a certain aspect of it was impaired.

This is only my opinion, but, yeah, I think there is something wrong with just coming on here and stating "bugs, problems and faults" time and time again. It seems over the past week that the only time I see one of your threads or your comments in other threads on this forum it's to complain about something else with the game. You're obviously playing the game, frequently...you're obviously getting some enjoyment out of your experience or you wouldn't keep playing. It sounds like you're getting your $30 worth and more. All I ask is that you balance out some of your commentary on here.
I too like to play the game with the hopes of getting on the leaderboard, I was in 9th place earlier in the week and was 13th last night...it definitely adds something to the game to be playing towards that goal, and I understand that it must have been frustrating to play and not have your scores upload to the boards...I still don't think I would've played 50 games before doing something about it though. I'm glad you've found the 1 game match is the best way to go, that's the only way I've found to play a full match without someone dropping out. Keep enjoying the game, see you on the leaderboard!

This is only my opinion, but, yeah, I think there is something wrong with just coming on here and stating "bugs, problems and faults" time and time again. It seems over the past week that the only time I see one of your threads or your comments in other threads on this forum it's to complain about something else with the game. You're obviously playing the game, frequently...you're obviously getting some enjoyment out of your experience or you wouldn't keep playing. It sounds like you're getting your $30 worth and more. All I ask is that you balance out some of your commentary on here.
I too like to play the game with the hopes of getting on the leaderboard, I was in 9th place earlier in the week and was 13th last night...it definitely adds something to the game to be playing towards that goal, and I understand that it must have been frustrating to play and not have your scores upload to the boards...I still don't think I would've played 50 games before doing something about it though. I'm glad you've found the 1 game match is the best way to go, that's the only way I've found to play a full match without someone dropping out. Keep enjoying the game, see you on the leaderboard!

indeed one game matches are the way foward, i think fariswheel is just making constructive criticisms.

just because thres no leader board for W:A doesnt mean the online portian never worked as intended. it just meant that a certain aspect of it was impaired.
if you implement a feature and then drop it because of problems with it, i call it not working as intended. if you think there is a better definition, i would like to see it.

...i do not remember a single t17 title that worked on-line the way it was meant to...
LOL. Has any game from any source ever achieved this?

There's nothing quite like tens of thousands of people hitting the servers at the same time to find the smallest problem... and usually to devastating effect!

Hugely meandering, but there is a coherent point:

At the end of the PSP project, I did a quick estimate:
Core tech code: 450,000 lines
WoW2 PSP code: 480,000 lines
of which:
250,000 lines of network code
of which
190,000 lines, DemonWare
50,000 lines, WoW2 network
(This is calculated on total lines of text, multiplied by a rough estimate of the code/non-code density of the various parts; aiming for a rough estimate of actual code size. For my own stuff, I estimated that 60% of the total lines used contained meaningful code; not high, by any means.)

So, roughly a 25% of the WoW2 codebase (and *half* of the WoW2 code!) is network.

And the point is... it's a bloody wonder that any game comes even close to working the way it was meant to on release date!

...and it isn't like you could blame the same person for the troubles...
You don't identify what, "the troubles," are, so I cannot comment upon that. But for W3DSE, W4M, WoW I and WoW II, you can blame me.

I am proud of each and every one of them. None of them are perfect, but in some way, each and every one of them represents an important evolution in the stability, robustness and functionality of the network system. But you need to have a clear idea about network, use of network and design.

Due to the years, I now know more about networking that most games programmers, but in two years time, if I look back at my own code and think, "Oh balls, what was this know nothing thinking of?" I'll be happy. Complacency is disastrous.

a coherent point
Umm...

I think this may be logged as rant #452.

if you implement a feature and then drop it because of problems with it, i call it not working as intended. if you think there is a better definition, i would like to see it.
Not working as intended != not working against the stuff you'd never imagined.

Not working as intended != not working against the stuff you'd never imagined.
people trying to hack leader boards is hardly something that defies imagination. either the team thought they have the security handled when they did not, or they simply didn't think of it. either way, you can hardly blame someone other than dev team for the fact that wa leader boards tanked.
Has any game from any source ever achieved this?
no, but there are some that come close, and then get fixed. you knew that psp version would have problems. did you integrate a secure system to update the code?
But for W3DSE, W4M, WoW I and WoW II, you can blame me.
will do.

people trying to hack leader boards is hardly something that defies imagination. either the team thought they have the security handled when they did not, or they simply didn't think of it. either way, you can hardly blame someone other than dev team for the fact that wa leader boards tanked.
You make a valid point there, but utterly disconnected to: Not working as intended != not working against the stuff you'd never imagined.
no, but there are some that come close, and then get fixed. you knew that psp version would have problems. did you integrate a secure system to update the code?
Missed the point (perhaps I wasn't clear). The question is, "would T17 be allowed to by the manufacturer or financed by the publisher to implement such a system? (Assuming that, for a given system, such was possible)."

will do.
:o

You make a valid point there, but utterly disconnected to: Not working as intended != not working against the stuff you'd never imagined.
i know what you mean. but the whole point is that the devs thought they have it handled, and they didn't. it is an error in judgment either way. perhaps unavoidable, but i'm not talking about whether or not it could have been done better. for all i know, t17 just had a bad streak of luck with networking.
Missed the point (perhaps I wasn't clear). The question is, "would T17 be allowed to by the manufacturer or financed by the publisher to implement such a system? (Assuming that, for a given system, such was possible)."
implement it anyways; see if publisher lets you create an update later. if you use rsa, add a header check, and keep the private key secure, there is no way to exploit it. none.

Hmmm.

i know what you mean. but the whole point is that the devs thought they have it handled,
No, they didn't... they didn't realise that they didn't have it handled (non-excluded middle!).

"and they didn't."
Aha! Yup.

it is an error in judgment either way.
No, not error. It cannot be an error of judgement to be bested by others, having given your best effort at thinking the subject through.
perhaps unavoidable, but i'm not talking about whether or not it could have been done better.
I did read that into your posts...

for all i know, t17 just had a bad streak of luck with networking.
Every iteration of T17 networking has been better than the last (although I fear you may be talking about something different here).

implement it anyways; see if publisher lets you create an update later. if you use rsa, add a header check, and keep the private key secure, there is no way to exploit it. none.
If only we could. Money and deadlines. Money and deadlines.

If only we could. Money and deadlines. Money and deadlines.
that's why i always argue for a completely dynamic code. if your code is built to either run on a fixed backbone or load code dynamically and re-link it anyways you want on the fly, you don't get problems like that. need an update system? you already have a content download (flags, maps) which might as well be generalized from the start, allowing to download code or any other file from other systems or central server, and add encryption on content that you might deem potentially hazardous. need an update of the net code? just put a new net module on the server. want to release a new crazy weapon? put it up for download and it will even be possible to use while playing against people who have not downloaded it.

if it is not entirely clear what i am talking about, i can probably throw together a small proof of concept code.
[edit: not tonight, though. i still have a ton of papers to grade.]

So the solution to not having the money or the time to write the code is to write the code *and* a whole load of other stuff as well...

that's like complaining about having to write a utility library.

An unused utility library.

you'd be surprised. but as i said, i'll try to throw together a proof of concept system some time soon.

Honestly, don't. I'm very familiar with dynamic code loading on many platforms.

I'm not just talking about dynamic code loading. I have no doubts that you'd be able to write a DLL format from scratch for an arbitrary platform. Anyone who knows anything about function calls could. I'm talking about the OO core that is flexible enough to self modify by picking up the binaries it needs from various combinations of available libraries. Potentially self-modifying to run better with the environment, but you'd need that more on PC than consoles.

Thanks, but I do know what you're writing of.

fair enough. but you seem to doubt the time efficiency of such design. granted, it is pretty pointless if you expect to get everything right the first time, but for modifications even during the development stage it would save tons of time.

fair enough. but you seem to doubt the time efficiency of such design. granted, it is pretty pointless if you expect to get everything right the first time, but for modifications even during the development stage it would save tons of time.

You talk with extensive experience in the modern games industry, obviously?

why do i need game industry experience to tell me what will take how much time to develop? i have enough experience with various 3d rendering and simulation programs, often running together. that's your basic game engine, minus the ai and networking, but with extra stress on performance requirements. it's one thing to have your frame rate drop, and another when your simulation takes a week instead of a day to run. so i know quite a bit on how to build an efficient engine that is easy to debug and/or tune with minimal development time.

now, what is cost efficient and what is not, i do not know. that's why i don't ask you questions along the lines of, "why didn't you spend more time debugging networking?" i'm sure you know better what gets you most profit there.

So should I create a new username, or will the no ranking problem be fixable?

We are looking into iit.

hey parsley, I just read this whole arguement and... why don't you guys just offer this guy a job? Seriously, he seems to know whats going on. If he talks big, get him to deliver. It could end up helping everyone out.

Also, should I just make a new account, then?

hey parsley, I just read this whole arguement and... why don't you guys just offer this guy a job? Seriously, he seems to know whats going on. If he talks big, get him to deliver. It could end up helping everyone out.
Because hiring people costs money, and iring them just because they're confident that they know stuff isn't a very good idea, especially when that 'stuff' contradicts with what the more experienced person's 'stuff'.

I just read this whole arguement and
Apparently you didn't because you would have noticed that they don't get along well and that parsley is quite aware of how to do his job. :p

hey parsley, I just read this whole arguement and... why don't you guys just offer this guy a job? Seriously, he seems to know whats going on. If he talks big, get him to deliver. It could end up helping everyone out.
I have no input with hiring but, abstractly, I'd prefer the one that knows that he's got a lot to learn.

Put it this way, for some questions, I am the only person to ask, but for others, I don't know my **** from my elbow... The knowledge and acceptance that you don't know everything is what I respect most.

Also, should I just make a new account, then?
We are looking into this.

You'd be amazed how much I don't know;)

I just feel sorry for the bloke at the start of this thread! Hope he's not got e-mail alerts or anything. :D

"Ah, a reply to my problem! Oh. Nope."

And yes, I do realise I'm not really helping...

hey parsley, I just read this whole arguement and... why don't you guys just offer this guy a job? Seriously, he seems to know whats going on. If he talks big, get him to deliver. It could end up helping everyone out.
who says i would accept, anyways? i would like an opportunity to prove a point, but i'll have more interesting things to work on once i have my ph.d.

You'd be amazed how much I don't know;)
Hardly, that's common knowledge by now. :p
*runs*

I'll let these wise men do the talking...

Men must be taught as if you taught them not, and things unknown proposed as things forgot.
Alexander Pope

You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him to find it within himself
Galileo

Be wiser than other people if you can; but do not tell them so.
Lord Chesterfield

One thing only I know, and that is that I know nothing.
Socrates

I don't pretend to be any smarter than Socrates, but telling people they're wrong and how your way is much better usually makes them dig their heels in and defend themselves further.

From the Quakeworm posts that I've read makes it clear that he thinks he knows better than everyone here and the dev team, I've met a few coders like that and they are hard to work with and cause problems. I think he would get a better response if he didn't push his ideas this way, but hey, what do I know?

Men must be taught as if you taught them not, and things unknown proposed as things forgot.
Alexander Pope

You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him to find it within himself
Galileo

One thing only I know, and that is that I know nothing.
Socrates
all of these are based on plato's works. i suggest reading a few of them, because these quotes are taken completely out of context. especially the one attributed to socrates.

all of these are based on plato's works. i suggest reading a few of them, because these quotes are taken completely out of context. especially the one attributed to socrates.

When can you start?

all of these are based on plato's works. i suggest reading a few of them, because these quotes are taken completely out of context. especially the one attributed to socrates.

I believe they are not. You act as if you know everything, while it's not true.

all of these are based on plato's works. i suggest reading a few of them, because these quotes are taken completely out of context. especially the one attributed to socrates.
...
Here's a better quote for you:

If A equals success, then the formula is: A = X + Y + Z ; X is work, Y is play, and Z is keeping your mouth shut.
Einstein.

all of these are based on plato's works. i suggest reading a few of them, because these quotes are taken completely out of context. especially the one attributed to socrates.

Socrates' name for false theories was "wind eggs". I love that.

Its all Greek to me though.

ba-dum

I believe they are not.
read plato's meno. it covers most of these points. once you read and understood it, if you still feel this way, feel free to tell me why my interpretation is wrong.
You act as if you know everything, while it's not true.
knowing and understanding are very different things. i don't know more than most people. in fact, my memory isn't all that great. i understand a lot more. i don't need to remember a bunch of useles facts when i can derive most of them on the spot from more fundamental principles. that, you'd have very hard time finding someone to surpass me in. and if someone tells me something that is not self-consistent, i am going to tell these people that they are wrong, even if they know more about the topic.
Its all Greek to me though.
heh. now you managed to pull shakespeare into it.

Knowledge does take a very important role tho, and you cannot judge someone's decision based purely on your understanding of things, especially when a lot of knowledge and experience are involved in said decision.

experience lies. tell me this, if i have a helium-filled balloon inside a car moving on a highway, and the car suddenly breaks, does the balloon go forward or backward? every bit of your experience will tell you that balloon moves forward, and it is wrong. understanding buoyancy, on the other hand, will give you a correct prediction right away. understanding always trumps experience. always. it is only when you do not fully understand something that you must rely on your knowledge, experience, and other empirics.

experience lies. tell me this, if i have a helium-filled balloon inside a car moving on a highway, and the car suddenly breaks, does the balloon go forward or backward? every bit of your experience will tell you that balloon moves forward, and it is wrong. understanding buoyancy, on the other hand, will give you a correct prediction right away. understanding always trumps experience. always. it is only when you do not fully understand something that you must rely on your knowledge, experience, and other empirics.
Right, so just because you can quote an instance of experience not helping, it means it never helps. That's a very stupid thing to say if you ask me.
You can understand a guitar all you want, for example, but you're not going to be good at it unless you practice a lot.

1) there isn't just one example. it is the most basic example, perhaps, but i can make a post several pages long simply outlining the cases when experience and common sense contradicts reality. in all of these cases, the understanding of the problem would give you correct predictions. you will not find one example where experience and understanding contradict with experience winning, by the very definition of understanding something.

2) we are not talking about experience helping/not helping. we are talking about cases when experience contradicts understanding. sure, often experience reinforces understanding, and lets you figure out what's going on quicker. but it isn't there for automatically giving you correct answers.

3) guitar is a horrible example. the 'experience' you get from practice has nothing to do with knowledge. it is the conditioning of your cerebellum for proper control of your fingers. as for the knowledge component of it, solid understanding of music theory does you a lot more good than raw experience with any instrument. string instruments in particular.

1) there isn't just one example. it is the most basic example, perhaps, but i can make a post several pages long simply outlining the cases when experience and common sense contradicts reality. in all of these cases, the understanding of the problem would give you correct predictions. you will not find one example where experience and understanding contradict with experience winning, by the very definition of understanding something.

What I meant, tough, is that it's not allways the case. And even if it was the case, it doesn't allways mean it's the best thing to do to go purely by the understanding.

2) we are not talking about experience helping/not helping. we are talking about cases when experience contradicts understanding. sure, often experience reinforces understanding, and lets you figure out what's going on quicker. but it isn't there for automatically giving you correct answers.

I never said it is. Just that neglecting experience is a stupid thing to do.
And for the record, we're not talking about cases when experience contradicst understanding, you are. I'm talking about it being stupid to judge someone's decision witouth having knowledge and experience that the person who made the decision has, based purely on how you understand things.

3) guitar is a horrible example. the 'experience' you get from practice has nothing to do with knowledge. it is the conditioning of your cerebellum for proper control of your fingers. as for the knowledge component of it, solid understanding of music theory does you a lot more good than raw experience with any instrument. string instruments in particular.
I didn't say it had to do with knowledge, I was speaking strictly about experience, relating to what you said "understanding always trumps experience". Merely to point out it doesn't always trump experience.
edit: to expand on this, there are a lot of factors that influence your decision making that cannot be understood most times. That's something you're not accounting for.

And I don't know where you get the idea that I think that experience and knowledge beat understanding, as this is not what I believe. My whole and only point here is that you cannot judge someone's decision based purely on your understanding of things, especially when a lot of knowledge and experience are involved in said decision.

now you are contradicting yourself. you say that experience is not more important than understanding, and yet when my understanding contradicts someone else's experience, they are right?

again, the issue is not whether or not you can make decision based on experience. the issue is which you chose in case of the contradiction, and empirical models never win.

in general: full self-consistent model > empirical model > induced model > educated guess > random guess. you only rely on the lower method of prediction when higher methods are not available. you can also use lower methods to reinforce higher ones if there is no contradiction.

now you are contradicting yourself. you say that experience is not more important than understanding, and yet when my understanding contradicts someone else's experience, they are right?

No, just that you are way over your head for assuming you are right witouth having the knowledge and experience they do.

1: Example of things requiring experience most: guitar.
Example of things requiring knowledge most: the alphabet.
Natch.

2: Experience would tell you that the balloon would move backwards too, because you saw it do so all those other times you saw a helium balloon in a crashing car. Unless, by 'experience', you mean a lack of experience.

3: Quakerworm, the chances that you have either more knowledge, understanding or experience than Parsley is still very small, whatever way you put it.

read plato's meno. it covers most of these points. once you read and understood it, if you still feel this way, feel free to tell me why my interpretation is wrong.

I meant by out of context. Since you'll never listen to anyone, I just decided not to read the rest.

3: Quakerworm, the chances that you have either more knowledge, understanding or experience than Parsley is still very small, whatever way you put it.
are we talking about networks specifically, or overall? because overall i can take him with no sweat. with networks, i can only pick on some details, which is what i do. if i was to write a network engine, i'm sure he'd be able to point out more mistakes in my work.
I meant by out of context.
i know. read meno. that's the only way you'll see why they are out of context. i cannot give you better proof than point you to the original source.