Jump to content


  • Please log in to reply
Online Modes
11 replies to this topic - Started By Skyrunner65, Sep 25 2014 11:28 AM

#1 Skyrunner65

Skyrunner65
  • Members
  • 8 posts
  • Pip
  • Steam ID:skyrunner65
  • LocationUSA

Posted 25 September 2014 - 11:28 AM

Online Modes

 

Survival

Just essentially the Original mode, but with other people.

 

Deathmatch

Players will be forced to use their people to defeat others.

(Note: Some type of weaponry will have to be implemented. I say sticks and rocks at first, then eventually to Stone weaponry.)

 

Co-op

The people are split up among the players to use together.

This will be harder, since there are more Players.

 

A little note

This would probably be best with Servers, but I suppose client-to-client could work too.


  • 1

#2 Luka

Luka
  • Members
  • 506 posts
  • Pip
  • Steam ID:cheeselumps
  • LocationIreland.

Posted 25 September 2014 - 12:05 PM

 

Online Modes

 

Survival

Just essentially the Original mode, but with other people.

 

Deathmatch

Players will be forced to use their people to defeat others.

(Note: Some type of weaponry will have to be implemented. I say sticks and rocks at first, then eventually to Stone weaponry.)

 

Co-op

The people are split up among the players to use together.

This will be harder, since there are more Players.

 

A little note

This would probably be best with Servers, but I suppose client-to-client could work too.

 

Im only just one that try's to keep as up to date with the game as i can,

but i feel like co-op will be the most likely one to be implemented.

 

Not sure if you know how to code. But making a multiplayer sort of thing is very hard, that i know of. And i'm sure these are all good ideas but i wouldn't get my hopes up just yet!

 

After the kickstarter is finished and hopefully funded, then maybe by then it's a good idea to have a little hope, unless he says it's not gonna happen, But still i feel like that might be a good idea, Oh and i do believe that there was going to be warriors. I underlined this because in such early dev almost nothing is sure to be implemented, even the things he says will be, He might run into  problem that says it can't happen.

 

But still, I think we can count on ray, He seems like he knows what he's doing for sure, So i'm sure he'll work a way around most problems like he already has! :)


  • 0

#3 Dasbuba

Dasbuba
  • Members
  • 35 posts
  • Pip
  • Steam ID:dasbuba
  • LocationGermany

Posted 25 September 2014 - 12:53 PM

Mehrspieler wäre super aber ich denke der Fokus sollte die fertigstellung des spiels sein! Es ist auch die frage ob ein Mehrspieler modus von anfang an geplant war, da er sich sonst später meist nur schwer implementieren läßt. 

 

 

I must leave google to translate because my grammar in English is really bad:

 

Multiplayer would be great but I think the focus should be the completion of the game! There is also the question whether a multiplayer mode from the start was planned because it is usually very difficult to implement otherwise later.


  • 0

Complications arose, stopped and were overcome.


#4 Skyrunner65

Skyrunner65
  • Members
  • 8 posts
  • Pip
  • Steam ID:skyrunner65
  • LocationUSA

Posted 25 September 2014 - 01:28 PM

i feel like co-op will be the most likely one to be implemented.

 

Not sure if you know how to code. But making a multiplayer sort of thing is very hard, that i know of. And i'm sure these are all good ideas but i wouldn't get my hopes up just yet!

 

But still, I think we can count on ray, He seems like he knows what he's doing for sure, So i'm sure he'll work a way around most problems like he already has! :)

 

 

I feel that way too. It's the best idea out of the three.

 

I know my way around code(making it is another story).

I know you would need to make a system or make an entire server executable (Tough!), and it would probably cover the basics (if person1 moved to 107,258, then send "p1107258" or something like that).

 

Yeah, but I wonder how much experience he has?


  • 0

#5 Luka

Luka
  • Members
  • 506 posts
  • Pip
  • Steam ID:cheeselumps
  • LocationIreland.

Posted 25 September 2014 - 02:10 PM

 

i feel like co-op will be the most likely one to be implemented.

 

Not sure if you know how to code. But making a multiplayer sort of thing is very hard, that i know of. And i'm sure these are all good ideas but i wouldn't get my hopes up just yet!

 

But still, I think we can count on ray, He seems like he knows what he's doing for sure, So i'm sure he'll work a way around most problems like he already has! :)

 

 

I feel that way too. It's the best idea out of the three.

 

I know my way around code(making it is another story).

I know you would need to make a system or make an entire server executable (Tough!), and it would probably cover the basics (if person1 moved to 107,258, then send "p1107258" or something like that).

 

Yeah, but I wonder how much experience he has?

 

Come to think of it, Co-op might be the only one possible, Imagine this, what you said there right 

 

 

(if person1 moved to 107,258, then send "p1107258" or something like that).

Because there are A LOT of villagers it would be more like 

Spoiler

24 villagers, the starting amount, imagine that for 2 people, 48 villagers, all moving at once would lag like hell, now imagine 5 people... 120 villagers just walking around, Then 10 people

240. The list is endless, Even for just two people that would be very hard to make not lag, I feel like if there's going to be multiplayer or co-op, it will be a long time before that happens.

 

Oh then think about the monsters. Try sending like 240 packets to 10 people, it would lag and be a hell storm on the server, so i feel like the only way around would be only send the packets if the villagers where visible, and that would be hard and jumpy, cause that would still be sending 1 packet to each person, to stop it from being technically a doss, it would need time gaps and it would take time before you can see them(what i meant about jumpy) Then thats my idea out of the drawing board. So I can't think of a way... 

 

*feels like he came on so aggressive..*


  • 0

#6 Skyrunner65

Skyrunner65
  • Members
  • 8 posts
  • Pip
  • Steam ID:skyrunner65
  • LocationUSA

Posted 25 September 2014 - 06:04 PM

I don't try to be aggressive, sorry for any misguidance.

 

But think of the packet sizes, probably 1-2kb at most, and that's like "monster1 made person12 take 3 damage" or "player4 placed smallhovel at 278,456".

 

Actually,the format we are using is probably a good way to transmit data quickly, but could be condensed even further from "player2 chatted 'hello!'" to "p2chello!" or "monster3 made person5 take 5 damage" to "m3p5d5".

 

In fact, I have compared the byte sizes of 2 variations of a message, and here they are:

"player2 chatted 'hello!'" was 24 bytes.

"p2chello!" was 9 bytes.

 

 


  • 0

#7 Rayvolution

Rayvolution
  • Developer
  • 1,924 posts
  • Pip
  • Steam ID:Rayvolution
  • LocationTexas

Posted 25 September 2014 - 07:48 PM

Actually RPC is really intended to be a single player game, almost no consideration is given for balancing it for multiplayer right now.

 

But, if multiplayer was to be added, it would probably be in the way of co-op survival of some kind. The problem is bandwidth, in this game eventually there could easily be 500, 600 or even 1,000 mobs on the map wandering around. In a normal RTS that's not as big of a deal, because they only move when ordered to. So even if you have a very large scale warfare game (Like Supreme Commander) you don't need to send packets about the entire battlefield all at once, just when one of the players or the computer AI sends a command to the units. Then, the units react in a very predictable manner.

 

But in RPC, all the mobs all over the map are always moving, so their position data alone would be huge. There are ways to cut down some of it, like the "clients" don't need to know what is going on in the mob's "brain" they only need to know what the mob is doing at the moment, the reasoning isn't important. But overall that's still a huge amount of data.

 

Multiplayer would be fun though, but it's really not realistic to add. Bandwidth/technical issues aside (those could be overcome in time anyway), the actual style of the game play could really only support some limited co-op modes. Anything else would feel like I forced it. In the end, adding multiplayer will take away from my time to develop the single player experience, and since it's a single player game, I don't want to hurt the end core product. :)


  • 0
Rise to Ruins Developer

#8 Luka

Luka
  • Members
  • 506 posts
  • Pip
  • Steam ID:cheeselumps
  • LocationIreland.

Posted 25 September 2014 - 08:00 PM

I don't try to be aggressive, sorry for any misguidance.
 
But think of the packet sizes, probably 1-2kb at most, and that's like "monster1 made person12 take 3 damage" or "player4 placed smallhovel at 278,456".
 
Actually,the format we are using is probably a good way to transmit data quickly, but could be condensed even further from "player2 chatted 'hello!'" to "p2chello!" or "monster3 made person5 take 5 damage" to "m3p5d5".
 
In fact, I have compared the byte sizes of 2 variations of a message, and here they are:
"player2 chatted 'hello!'" was 24 bytes.
"p2chello!" was 9 bytes.

  
Oh I'm so sorry I meant I was being aggressive! :( anyway I suppose your right. But now we know what rays said so either way it probably won't happen. Although maybe one day. Maybe there might be a series to this game? And one might have multiplayer? :3

Actually RPC is really intended to be a single player game, almost no consideration is given for balancing it for multiplayer right now.
 
But, if multiplayer was to be added, it would probably be in the way of co-op survival of some kind. The problem is bandwidth, in this game eventually there could easily be 500, 600 or even 1,000 mobs on the map wandering around. In a normal RTS that's not as big of a deal, because they only move when ordered to. So even if you have a very large scale warfare game (Like Supreme Commander) you don't need to send packets about the entire battlefield all at once, just when one of the players or the computer AI sends a command to the units. Then, the units react in a very predictable manner.
 
But in RPC, all the mobs all over the map are always moving, so their position data alone would be huge. There are ways to cut down some of it, like the "clients" don't need to know what is going on in the mob's "brain" they only need to know what the mob is doing at the moment, the reasoning isn't important. But overall that's still a huge amount of data.
 
Multiplayer would be fun though, but it's really not realistic to add. Bandwidth/technical issues aside (those could be overcome in time anyway), the actual style of the game play could really only support some limited co-op modes. Anything else would feel like I forced it. In the end, adding multiplayer will take away from my time to develop the single player experience, and since it's a single player game, I don't want to hurt the end core product. :)

Totally understand your perspective, I'm sure we all do. Altought like I said up there, is it possible for a series to this game?

Soon as monsters are In there won't be a day I'm not playing this game. :)
  • 0

#9 Rayvolution

Rayvolution
  • Developer
  • 1,924 posts
  • Pip
  • Steam ID:Rayvolution
  • LocationTexas

Posted 25 September 2014 - 08:41 PM

Altought like I said up there, is it possible for a series to this game?

 

 

Retro-Pixel Castles Ultra HD Online F2P Edition confirmed.

 

 

In all seriousness though, I have no way to answer that yet. :)


  • 0
Rise to Ruins Developer

#10 Luka

Luka
  • Members
  • 506 posts
  • Pip
  • Steam ID:cheeselumps
  • LocationIreland.

Posted 26 September 2014 - 05:59 AM

 

Altought like I said up there, is it possible for a series to this game?

 

 

Retro-Pixel Castles Ultra HD Online F2P Edition confirmed.

 

 

In all seriousness though, I have no way to answer that yet. :)

 

Haha, Half pixels 3 confirmed.

 

If it was HD and online, and more combat involved and less survival it would be a lot like the CNC series. :P but better! :D

 

Actually this gives me an idea for the suggestions section... to the about to break off my fingers typing!


  • 0

#11 Skyrunner65

Skyrunner65
  • Members
  • 8 posts
  • Pip
  • Steam ID:skyrunner65
  • LocationUSA

Posted 26 September 2014 - 07:37 AM

Well, Ray is making the game, so I don't have much room to argue.

However, this does not dampen the game for me at all, not one bit sir.

 

Pixel Babes MMORPG Online F2P Confirmed.

 

(Seriously, how many games out there have swords, babes, and are "Free To Play"? 5 million, that's how many.)


  • 0

#12 Luka

Luka
  • Members
  • 506 posts
  • Pip
  • Steam ID:cheeselumps
  • LocationIreland.

Posted 26 September 2014 - 07:59 AM

Well, Ray is making the game, so I don't have much room to argue.

However, this does not dampen the game for me at all, not one bit sir.

 

Pixel Babes MMORPG Online F2P Confirmed.

 

(Seriously, how many games out there have swords, babes, and are "Free To Play"? 5 million, that's how many.)

 

A lot, i was about to type out this whole list of 100 but i did like 20 and it got boring...


  • 0





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Multiplayer, Online, Modes

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users