- April 12, 2016 at 1:47 am #7065
I suppose the demo code would have to change then. Instead of recording relative to the player recording, it could instead record in absolute terms relative to the level, then figure out the relative to the camera during playback. Distance and visibility of events should not matter for observers and always be sent, same with some events that are otherwise handled by each individual client. Though I’m sure all of this is far easier said than done!April 12, 2016 at 3:23 am #7067tueidjParticipantTopics: 1
Instead of hacking up the existing demo code you could probably make a “stream recording” feature that dumped all the network packets received (with timestamps) and then replay them back at the original rate. But a possible issue would be that any future changes to the game’s code would also affect the replay, since it wouldn’t be a “static” recording like the demos are.April 12, 2016 at 10:50 pm #7088EauxcaighKickstarter BackerTopics: 10
So this thread is active again. Interesting. Firstly I want to throw out that starcraft 2 has the same issue where replays are affected by future changes to the code. They get around it by actually reverting to the version of the game that the replay was made in. I can’t imagine this is easy on the hard drive space to keep all those versions around, but hey, it works.
Secondly, I wanted to reminisce in the rich history of this great thread. Remember the time when OP could see the future and knew the KS would fail and only he had the keys to managing this game to success?
When the kickstarter fails (and it will – because it currently needs 68 people an hour pledging $25 each to make the goal) you will need to rethink the process. What you will need to do is begin an early access program – with the SP completely gone from the picture, until your sales goal is reached…
Oh man, good times…
In all seriousness I know you just cared about the game OP and you really wanted it to succeed, I understand bro – honestly it actually was looking really dire. So know this is just friendly jest. Nonetheless hopefully you learned your lesson not to deal in absolutes! Remember, “there’s always hope!”April 19, 2016 at 8:44 pm #7273M1CombatKickstarter BackerTopics: 0
Yeah I gotta jump on the SP>Co-Op>MP band wagon here too…
I actually have a few friends who are chomping at the bit to do Co-Op with me who have not played much 6DoF before. If I threw them in a MP match they’d be done with 6DoF in minutes…April 20, 2016 at 5:13 am #7282spookParticipantTopics: 3
I definitely want SP first. To be honest I’m not really interested in MP – at least competitive one. Cooperative robot ass-kicking would be cool though 🙂April 20, 2016 at 10:08 am #7288
Maps specifically designed for coop would be neat. Usually maps designed for single player gets cramped when played cooperatively.
Also why not have Anarchy/CTF/Coop with computer controlled player ships? Quake3 and TF2 had this. You can control the difficulty to your liking and you always have a good connection to the server (if you host.) You could even mix human controlled players with computer controlled players (computer controlled players would be used to fill in voids.)May 5, 2016 at 2:56 pm #7504WingmanKickstarter BackerTopics: 1
Both ways can work, a lot depends upon the scale of the game you are making – we chose MP first because we have 9 ships with specials to balance – I think the Overload guys chose the right path for their game, and we for ours, both can work, just depends upon scope and planning.
Can’t wait to play Overload, the demo was fun!
WMMay 5, 2016 at 3:49 pm #7505DarkwingDivaKickstarter BackerTopics: 29
We’re getting both! It doesn’t get better than that.
This pretty much sums it up for me as well. Even though I am more of SP personally, the fact that I have the option for both games with different directions and backgrounds is really the best of both worlds.May 6, 2016 at 4:18 pm #7515
Not as often as in Anarchy and Team Anarchy, but Co-Op play from time to time certainly interesting 🙂May 9, 2016 at 4:47 am #7533Massacre360ParticipantTopics: 3
This is not Call of Duty.
Descent is known due to its single player campaign.
Focusing in MP and then if this goes well in SP is a failure.
SP it the only reason i backed.
The 21th century MP game prototype is base game free and a lot of expensives dlc.
Sorry but i don’t share your opinion.
SP is da best!May 9, 2016 at 8:38 am #7534
SP Descent is an axiom. However, after the passage of the single player game, multiplayer is a good continuation. Not to mention the fact that it is very fun))) It is also an axiom that needs no proof, for those who know 🙂May 9, 2016 at 8:56 am #7535
Multiplayer could be the exact same gameplay as singleplayer. The only difference: are the robots/player ships computer or human controlled, like in Quake 3.
It would be neat to have human controlled robots fighting human controlled player ships. After a robot is destroyed the human controller moves on to controlling a robot in the next room. Or imagine a computer controlled player ship, and you control the robots trying to stop the player ship!May 9, 2016 at 9:03 am #7536
And I once again ask the developers to create a good server-manager with a good anti-cheat.May 9, 2016 at 9:12 am #7540Massacre360ParticipantTopics: 3
it is not the same to play in an arena vs bots ( human controlled or AI) to achieve kills than play a single player map with its quest, events, keys, secret doors, ->the pause<-, load, save, etc.
SP is needed and enough
MP is needed but not enough
As i see.May 9, 2016 at 9:15 am #7541
Forums are currently locked.
Previous Topic: A quick survey Next Topic: Gamepad support