End of SWBFII Multiplayer

[TFA]Padawan_Fighter · Sat Apr 12, 2014 7:02 am

I heard EA is looking into the possibility of taking over the master servers.

Still, though...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTzBlT0hL6M

(It would be nice if a mod could turn that into an embedded video, seeing as I'm not allowed)

Marth8880 · Post by **Marth8880** » Sat Apr 12, 2014 11:52 am

Oh my... Really?

That would be great!

Twilight_Warrior · Post by **Twilight_Warrior** » Sat Apr 12, 2014 1:28 pm

I think EA is just rerouting Battlefield multiplayer to their servers, not taking over GameSpy master servers.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/04/10/ ... py-servers

Battlefield might be safe. Battlefront is not.

Marth8880 · Post by **Marth8880** » Sat Apr 12, 2014 2:08 pm

Oh thank goodness. I still play BF2 (Battlefield 2, not SWBF2 :V) pretty often and I would HATE to see it go, especially considering its still-massive multi-player community.

BF2-Master · Post by **BF2-Master** » Fri Apr 18, 2014 6:15 am

I was never much of one for multiplayer as a kid and for a long time my CD key had been banned from servers after I lent it out to some crappy friends. I had a hard time finding servers I enjoyed playing on and time's been gone recently. This is pretty sad news but it's great the community's taking initiative to keep things going.

Kingpin · Post by **Kingpin** » Fri Apr 18, 2014 8:53 pm

We try our best

_DeltaForce_ · Post by **_DeltaForce_** » Sat Apr 19, 2014 5:33 pm

Led wrote:What we learned from SWBF with regard to Gameranger is that [...] we were unable to use dedicated server software with Gameranger.

This ruled out the possibility of using Gameranger on our rented, dedicated servers.[...]

I suspect you will encounter the same issue with SWBF2.

I doubt that. If you were to fire up GameRanger and take a look at the SWBF2 servers there (unfortunately only a handful, but hey...), you will notice some sort of "dedicated server", or at least a server that name states it were dedicated. The guy that owns that server told me on the GameRanger forums (you may find the thread here, however you do need a GameRanger account to access the forums) that he managed to do this with writing a simple batch file that starts up BattlefrontII.exe with all the command line parameters needed for a dedicated server with the desired settings. Then he transfered that Batch file with Bat2Exe into an exe file and renamed it BattlefrontII.exe, so that GameRanger, when trying to start SWBF2 when you host a game, actually starts a SWBF2 dedicated server. I did not try it out, however there definitely is a dedicated server currently running in GameRanger (if you join it you will notice there is one player less than in the GameRanger lobby; therefore a dedicated server).

Here is the answer of this guy to my question on the GameRanger forums, explaining what he had done to get a dedciated server up and running:

Hidden/Spoiler:

Actually a quite simple trick, but if it does work - which it obviously does - why not?

However, this does not mean you can use the server manager application from blackbagops with your server, swbf2sm.exe.
Also, I doubt this would work (and Tunngle either) on a normal cheap game server, that only provides you access to the server via the Remote Manager. You would need to install GameRanger on that server, or Tunngle if you were to use Tunngle, but this is not possible with simple game servers, is it? You would need a root server or a virtual private server to install software like GameRanger or Tunngle.
@ Led: You wrote, you installed Tunngle on your servers - do you have root servers or VPS', or was that possible on a normal game server (I am unfortunately not as experienced in these topics as I would like to be...).

Twilight_Warrior wrote:It was already stated earlier in the thread that [connect-to-IP] didn't work for SWBF1. If anything, that means we shouldn't expect it to work here.

Isn't GameRanger also based on the direct connect feature of their supported games? As I understood it, GameRanger is basically only a server browser that manages all of the connection details - but basically still establishes a direct connection.
Some one please tell me I am wrong with this. It would mean that VPNs (Tunngle...) were the only alternative (I hate all those virtual adapters flying around my network configuration and each once in a while a poorly programmed game picks up the wrong network adapter instead of the one my lan cable is plugged in to...)

Also, I want to drive attention here to a project some guys on the german website swbf3.de (which is also about other SWBFI+II related stuff) are working on. See this thread on swbf3.de (I put it into a google translate url already, as it is German).
It's aim is to provide a server browser, which automatically connects you to the selected server. However, it relies on direct connect...
The advantage of this approach in comparison to GameRanger for example is that it is easier for game server owners to get their game show up in the list. Normal game servers (the ones that simply provide you with access to the Remote Manager) would still work without problems - the server owners would only need to enter ip address and port number of their server(s) into a form and all players using that program will see the server on their list.
The weak point of the project is that it needs to gain much attention. If most of the server owners aren't willing to provide their server addresses, the project is useles.

As some people here said, the best way would be to agree on one solution everyone uses. Tunngle, GameRanger, the project I just promoted (by a guy actually called Kalle), OpenSpy probably, etc. However, it is never that easy to unite many people - whether it is concerning war or hunger in africa... or a way to prevent financial interests to ruin part of our beloved game Star Wars Battlefront II.
So we should all best know of all the different solutions to the problem we have, so that we can utilize all of them, if we can not agree on one way to go.

Led · Post by **Led** » Sat Apr 19, 2014 10:24 pm

My experience is with SWBF and not SWBF2, so this may not play out for you the same way it did for the SWBF players. That said, I think SWBF2 and SWBF are more alike than different as far are hosting goes.

Sorry for not quoting items, maybe I can go back and add them. But here are some comments:

On Gameranger, you can have dedicated servers that run with the game disk with SWBF, I assume the same is true with SWBF2. However, I have not been able to get the stand-alone dedicated server *software* to run with Gameranger for SWBF. The dedicated server software does not use graphics like the disk, and so it can be run over remote desktop. When I tried to use an executable file that was not the actual games exe, GameRanger seemed to somehow "know" about it, and did not work with it for me.

Gameranger is a VPN software, similar to tunngle. Gameranger does not use direct connection for SWBF. Gameranger and tunngle each have their own advantages/disadvantages. (VPN or VLAN software does not seem to like to be used at the same time as each other, either.) In my opinion, tunngle is more fully featured and is more amenable to hosting in certain situations (detailed below).

Tunngle runs on my VPS, hosted at NFOservers. I access it and the SWBF dedicated server software by remote desktop connection. The advantage that a remotely hosted VPS has for SWBF, is that it stays on 24/7 and we can log into it and manage the server (there are no in-game administrator commands available in SWBF). So when I talk about my server that works with tunngle, this is the type of server I am referring to--one where I can interact with the desktop and install the extra VPN layer.

Again, much to my surprise, Direct Connection does not work without GameSpy being operational (for SWBF). Although the players do not log into Gamespy to access a server browser when using DC's, the host does get registered through Gamespy. Perhaps a way you can check this right now for SWBF2 is to try running a DC on a LAN at home--one that has been completely disconnected from the internet--and then connecting to the DC from another LAN computer.

We were sorely disappointed that our Macintosh friends could no longer play SWBF with us due to this issue--and I know Gameranger says that Mac and PC can play together, but it is not true for SWBF.

(multiple post edits for typos, organization and additional text)

[TFA]Padawan_Fighter · Sun Apr 20, 2014 5:35 pm

Does anybody play IL-2 Sturmovik: 1946? Official server support has long since been ended, but it still has a popular multiplayer base.

What the community there did was create a client program that connected to their own private lobby, and then you'd just click on a server, and it would launch the game with instructions to connect to that particular server.

Maybe something similar could be done for SWBF2.

_DeltaForce_ · Post by **_DeltaForce_** » Sun Apr 20, 2014 6:02 pm

I do not know the game IL-2 Sturmovik: 1946. However, what you are describing sounds similiar to the project Kalle on swbf3.de, the project I mentioned at the end of my last post, is working on. The idea is that you have an application which has an own server list. You can choose a server to connect to and SWBF2 starts up and connects you to that server directly. Game server hosters can enter their server address into a form (on a website or wherever) and the server will show up in the list, so everyone can connect to it.
(One bigger goal of the project is also to replace the direct connect with some sort of local replacement of the gamespy masterserver; I actually do not understand it completely yet. What I do know is that it is not entirely dependant on the direct connect feature, in case this option will be ruled out like it is suspected.)

=BT=What! · Post by **=BT=What!** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 5:24 pm

Direct connect requires game spy for the cd-key authentication and validation packet so direct-connect will have to be hex-edited.

(Almost done reverse engineering game-spy servers just need to tweak the stupid encryption for the in-game browser, for some reason gs. has to be difficult)

A problem with the swbf3.de is the server are hosted in Germany which will cause users in the united states to lag.

Talked with GMRZ C7 and they might be willing to host the U.S. Server list which would drop pings by ~30-90, also the server box has the resources to handle all the servers (~155).

the domain http://www.swbattlefront.com has been acquired by GMRZ so I working with the C7 to make it a portal for all swbf2 and list all the servers... will post once I get a working solution.

_DeltaForce_ · Post by **_DeltaForce_** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 5:32 pm

Led wrote:My experience is with SWBF and not SWBF2, so this may not play out for you the same way it did for the SWBF players. That said, I think SWBF2 and SWBF are more alike than different as far are hosting goes.
[...]
Again, much to my surprise, Direct Connection does not work without GameSpy being operational (for SWBF). Although the players do not log into Gamespy to access a server browser when using DC's, the host does get registered through Gamespy. Perhaps a way you can check this right now for SWBF2 is to try running a DC on a LAN at home--one that has been completely disconnected from the internet--and then connecting to the DC from another LAN computer.

In the end, unfortunately, you are right. I can confirm that DirectConnect via "-connect <ip>:<port>" command line parameter does not work for SWBF2 when the GameSpy servers are unreachable.
I blocked the GameSpy servers with an advanced windows firewall rule and was not able to connect to any game server nor an own server running on a different computer with a different internet connection (strangely enough I was not able to get a DirectConnect to work between two computers on the LAN (they had both access to the internet and the gamespy servers)).

EDIT: Too late...

Led wrote:On Gameranger, you can have dedicated servers that run with the game disk with SWBF, I assume the same is true with SWBF2. However, I have not been able to get the stand-alone dedicated server *software* to run with Gameranger for SWBF. The dedicated server software does not use graphics like the disk, and so it can be run over remote desktop. When I tried to use an executable file that was not the actual games exe, GameRanger seemed to somehow "know" about it, and did not work with it for me.

I was also refering to a dedicated server that was not started using the according option in the game menu, but with the /norender command line option so you can use it with remote desktop connections. However, I also did not get the dedicated server to work the way I was told on the GameRanger forums... he did not answer again.

I had no time to look into Tunngle once again... I was thinking GameRanger would not use VPNs, but obviously I was wrong with that. Still, GameRanger has the "advantage" that it does not install a whole bunch of virtual network adapters like Tunngle does - or at least Tunngle did so for me (quite some time ago actually, probably this not the case anymore with current versions). I have to admit, I am a bit prejudiced against Tunngle. However, GameRanger is probably no better - I tend to think the best option would be to not use either of these. At least not in the long run (dependent on 3rd party, only VPS or root servers usable with it...). Developing an own solution may be better.

[RDH]Zerted wrote:It looks like I might have to dust off my SWBF2 files and hack in better direct connect support into the shell. We can replace the server list with a list automatically loaded from saved game files. That way, you can send your lists of servers around without having to make everyone type them in all the time.

What exactly do you mean with hacking in better DirectConnect support? Would it really be possible to hack in a DirectConnect option that does not communicate with the GameSpy servers?
What actually IS possible to hack into the game?

=BT=What! wrote:(Almost done reverse engineering game-spy servers just need to tweak the stupid encryption for the in-game browser, for some reason gs. has to be difficult)

Wow, that's awesome!
Also you're right, Germany is not the best server location... however, the server does only host a simple list, does a ping of 30 - 90 make such a difference (I really do not know)? And it's not a working solution. It does work now, but it still relies on DirectConnect, so I think a huge step still needs to be done. Or is it that easy to hack in a gamespy independent DirectConnect?

=BT=What! · Post by **=BT=What!** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 5:46 pm

by "hacking" I've been having my server spoof an ok authentication aka i'm making the game still think game-spy is still online despite it's shutdown. which is done by capturing packets and using them to make a mock up server....

Post by **[RDH]Zerted** » Fri May 02, 2014 11:52 pm

I meant improving the UI, such as having a list of previously direct-connected servers.

There are some GameSpy related function calls in the shell, but I assumed the exe performs the GS authentication checks. I've never tried taking those out.

If someone can setup a fake GS server, that would be considerable better.

MileHighGuy · Post by **MileHighGuy** » Wed May 14, 2014 12:40 am

interesting article

http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/05/07/ ... y-shutdown

Twilight_Warrior · Post by **Twilight_Warrior** » Wed May 14, 2014 1:33 am

That's what we've already been discussing here, though.

Led wrote:What we learned from SWBF with regard to Gameranger is that it is fine if you are hosting from the game's graphical interface, but we were unable to use dedicated server software with Gameranger.

This ruled out the possibility of using Gameranger on our rented, dedicated servers. Tunngle, however, worked just fine for this purpose by installing it on the server then running the dedicated server software in LAN mode.

I suspect you will encounter the same issue with SWBF2.

The problem is both getting dedicated server software to run and getting the online community to download GameRanger. Even if we can "switch" to something else, it's a matter of getting the word out. The community's still gonna be A LOT thinner.

MileHighGuy · Post by **MileHighGuy** » Wed May 14, 2014 1:39 am

from reddit

Scott Kevill, Gameranger Dev wrote:Developer of GameRanger here. As mentioned elsewhere, people are already playing it just fine on GameRanger, and will continue to after May 31. (I've already simulated it with GameSpy blocked and cut-off.)
Edit: As an extra bonus, I've just released a GameRanger update that will prevent SWBF2 from crashing if you don't have an audio input device plugged in (eg. a microphone). This isn't a GameRanger bug, as it happens in single-player, too, but while you play through GameRanger you won't have to worry anymore.

Well if that is true then we can message him and he might look into it.

Twilight_Warrior · Post by **Twilight_Warrior** » Wed May 14, 2014 2:00 am

Their source is a guy on reddit. Gameranger dev or not, not everyone looks to reddit or even here for SWBF2 stuff. Some people will inevitably install the game, click Multiplayer, and go "oh hey, no servers, game must be too old," and call it quits.

MileHighGuy · Post by **MileHighGuy** » Wed May 14, 2014 2:06 am

Well he did release an update specifically for THIS game, so he obviously cares that people use gameranger with it. I pmed him on reddit about the dedicated server issue and pointed him to this thread. Hopefully he will respond.

_DeltaForce_ · Post by **_DeltaForce_** » Wed May 14, 2014 9:32 am

That IGN article is overly sensational - of course online multiplayer for each game can in most cases live on via LAN. And GameRanger is nothing more than a VPN solution, as is Tunngle. This is not a big deal... Hate those articles...

MileHighGuy wrote:Well he did release an update specifically for THIS game, so he obviously cares that people use gameranger with it. I pmed him on reddit about the dedicated server issue and pointed him to this thread. Hopefully he will respond.

But probably he cares only because he wants to gain more users that watch his ads or buy premium accounts. If he really cares he would release his information about fixing that sound issue, wouldn't he?

Mister Kevill will pretty sure not look into anything as he is extremely busy at the moment implementing compatibility for so many GameSpy affected games.

Also, GameRanger does not have an option to pass custom command line parameters to games, which makes it even harder to set up dedicated servers. Tunngle, however, does.

In my opinion people need to be informed about alternatives like GameRanger and Tunngle. They provide a (more or less) working alternative and more importantly do not shut down in three weeks. And then, when a fan made alternative is up and running which is independant of 3rd party software and VPN software (which I find is not the best way on a long-term, having problems with that on some computers), people could switch over to that final self-made alternative once again.
But you are right, many people will be lost on that way... especially those who didn't play for a long time or start playing in the future.
The best way of informing as many players as possible would be if all server admins could set up admin messages for that purpose. There are only some servers doing that already... Any way of getting all the server admins to do that? Or does someone have a server sitting around which could be used to "flood" the server list with servers with appropriate admin messages and probably server name?

End of SWBFII Multiplayer

Re: End of SWBFII Multiplayer

Re: End of SWBFII Multiplayer

Re: End of SWBFII Multiplayer

Re: End of SWBFII Multiplayer

Re: End of SWBFII Multiplayer

Re: End of SWBFII Multiplayer

Re: End of SWBFII Multiplayer

Re: End of SWBFII Multiplayer

Re: End of SWBFII Multiplayer

Re: End of SWBFII Multiplayer

Re: End of SWBFII Multiplayer

Re: End of SWBFII Multiplayer

Re: End of SWBFII Multiplayer

Re: End of SWBFII Multiplayer

Re: End of SWBFII Multiplayer

Re: End of SWBFII Multiplayer

Re: End of SWBFII Multiplayer

Re: End of SWBFII Multiplayer

Re: End of SWBFII Multiplayer

Re: End of SWBFII Multiplayer