Theoretical Multiplayer Setup (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds 1 Series



Message

EaglePryde -> Theoretical Multiplayer Setup (4/6/2011 10:40:41 PM)

This should act as a sort of Blueprint for a Multiplayer feature if we ever get to the point of having one and how it could work.

Connection Types: direct IP and LAN

Basic setup:

Upon hosting you'll be brought to a player gathering lobby from where you'd be able to setup the game universe/starting conditions just like in singleplayer.
The host also determines the amount of AI players.
This lobby is a place where joined players who have connected to the host can customize their race like in singleplayer and mark themself as "ready".
If every player has been marked ready, the host can start the game.

One tiny addition would be important. The host chooses a standard player distribution among the galaxy or can choose them to start in close proximity to other human players. Very much important for cooperative gameplay.

A basic Multiplayer feature would be that it is ensured that everyone has the same game files and the same is used among players "custom theme/mod etc." for the current game. It's just a basic safety think to ensure that no desyncs happen if modding or else is expanded in the future.

Ability to set a Lobby password as a host.

On the fly join/drop taking over 1 AI player.

constant connection retry if connection drops until connection has been established or host cancels the retry process. Upon connection loss the game should be "paused" and instantly "saved" just for security.

Gameplay:

Very much is like in singleplayer with a minor tweak that the game doesn't stop in menus. For comfort the host can pause/unpause the game and kick players out. A kicked players property is instantly erased and planets get empty.

Players can send others messages through diplomacy.

Players get the ability to set beacons on the galaxy map "attack this", "defend this", "rally here" to be seen by their allies. It serves as better communication tool between human players. It serves no purpose for the AI.

save/load:
If the host "saves" , the game pauses and distributes a savefile to each player. This way anyone could act as the host next time. (could be disabled by on option if players fear bigger file transfers.

Upon loading a Multiplayer savegame you'd sit in the Multiplayer lobby with the game allready setup/loaded and every joining player could pick their race or if the system is smart enough you are automaticly placed to your race. After everyone is done and marked as "ready" the game continues from the point it where it has been saved.

Let's say you want to load a Multiplayer game but 1 player or more have dropped permanently out and don't want to continue playing in the future. If a Multiplayer game is loaded and all players are marked as "ready", the host can "force" a start and all missing players are erased from the galaxy.

closing words:

Although it may sound as much it really isn't. Everything else regarding the game is 100% like in singleplayer. Except for the Multplayer basic core stuff we only have 4 minor things. Starting points for human players (close,even distribution) -> done by the system,no pause in menus,beacon placement and message writing to others. I hope it is as much detailed as it can get. This isn't some super fancy Multiplayer but more isn't needed.






crazyguy -> RE: Theoretical Multiplayer Setup (4/7/2011 12:21:09 AM)

Just one thing to add:

Would be nice to have an optional jump in feature... Something like the one in Sword of the Stars where you can always join a MP game and take control over a AI player.



MartialDoctor -> RE: Theoretical Multiplayer Setup (4/7/2011 12:53:35 AM)

You're really gung-ho on this whole MP part, aren't you Eagle [:)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazy_guy

Just one thing to add:

Would be nice to have an optional jump in feature... Something like the one in Sword of the Stars where you can always join a MP game and take control over a AI player.


Ah, that is a nice feature they have there.



Data -> RE: Theoretical Multiplayer Setup (4/7/2011 6:07:58 AM)

Well, this type of MP should not be so demanding to implement imho.



EaglePryde -> RE: Theoretical Multiplayer Setup (4/7/2011 7:03:51 AM)

Yes i think so too. This stuff is very basic and taken from my various experiences of similar games. Really the last intention is to change the game. MP should only be there as a further option but should never change a game.

I'm into coding myself and although such things are "easy" to make, coding is always very time consuming even if you can code blindfolded.

With this said i hope we'll get this nice little feature and i can focus on my ideas regarding the game itself [:D] Hoooorrayy for the Animal Farms



J HG T -> RE: Theoretical Multiplayer Setup (4/7/2011 7:17:30 AM)

I think something like this could be added in the future. Even if I ain't the biggest fan of multiplayer for DW, this might actually work quite nicely. As long as it won't affect the quality of the SP. 



Kayoz -> RE: Theoretical Multiplayer Setup (4/7/2011 11:15:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: EaglePryde

closing words:

Although it may sound as much it really isn't. Everything else regarding the game is 100% like in singleplayer. Except for the Multplayer basic core stuff we only have 4 minor things. Starting points for human players (close,even distribution) -> done by the system,no pause in menus,beacon placement and message writing to others. I hope it is as much detailed as it can get. This isn't some super fancy Multiplayer but more isn't needed.


Actually it would require a distressing amount of work. Coding real-time multiplayer support is non-trivial. It might not look like a lot, but there's actually quite a bit to it. It's something worth considering for a future release of DW-2, but probably not worth doing with DW as it stands.

There is also the issue of play balance. For example, ping speed will give the host a distinct advantage, being that he can have an immediate response to his requests to retreat ships or re-focus his attacks. While there are ways to accomodate this, it's only the tip of the iceberg.



EaglePryde -> RE: Theoretical Multiplayer Setup (4/7/2011 11:28:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz


quote:

ORIGINAL: EaglePryde

closing words:

Although it may sound as much it really isn't. Everything else regarding the game is 100% like in singleplayer. Except for the Multplayer basic core stuff we only have 4 minor things. Starting points for human players (close,even distribution) -> done by the system,no pause in menus,beacon placement and message writing to others. I hope it is as much detailed as it can get. This isn't some super fancy Multiplayer but more isn't needed.


Actually it would require a distressing amount of work. Coding real-time multiplayer support is non-trivial. It might not look like a lot, but there's actually quite a bit to it. It's something worth considering for a future release of DW-2, but probably not worth doing with DW as it stands.

There is also the issue of play balance. For example, ping speed will give the host a distinct advantage, being that he can have an immediate response to his requests to retreat ships or re-focus his attacks. While there are ways to accomodate this, it's only the tip of the iceberg.


Yes i know it's time consuming but that's something i have allready written. We aren't really talking about competitive multiplayer here and ping speeds really don't count unless someone connects with far to high ping that would make in not possible to play. You don't gain any advantage through it and this is no FPS where ping counts are of such a high importance. Because you can automate nearly everything it lessens the importance towards ping even more. You don't even have to tweak something for balance because if you play with or against humans it won't be any different than against the AI only. You basicly can choose your allies and enemies during the entire game, wage war or band together. It's like a game of "Risk" with AI players if you'd like to see it this way.

Realtime Multiplayer is a pushover regarding coding if you know your stuff. It's by far not a complex matter. Coding AI players is by far the most complicated stuff in any game but Multiplayer ain't. Specially if it changes nothing and doesn't have to change something.

We all know that a DW-2 won't come that soon because you'd be foolish to start a sequel if the actuall game is very well going and is still being expanded and worked on. Because of the high time frame this game will live, a multiplayer addition even if it's inside an expansion is worth every bit.




Bingeling -> RE: Theoretical Multiplayer Setup (4/7/2011 11:53:27 AM)

Ping may matter.

If you try taking down defense bases and space port of a planet that has single bases matching your attack force, you may notice that. Edge forward, shoot, turn, retreat, watch closely for someone going astray into range for another... Micro management can pay off.



EaglePryde -> RE: Theoretical Multiplayer Setup (4/7/2011 12:09:43 PM)

If you have to project a bullet in realtime and physic included, ping will indeed matter but such a game isn't ping sensitive or else there would have never been an realtime 4x game that worked. Even MMO's can run very well on ping's around 100 and those are another level up and not an 4x game with let's say 4+ human players.

Because network coding is one of the basic foundations you'd learn if you want to be a game coder this really is old school for the pro's in the game industry. They have the talent and the knowledge to do it. Everything else is hardware/connection dependant of the players.

Why we are talking about pings now? This is a direct connection/Lan setup where pings are very low unless you'd sit behind a crappy router or something from A-B is going wrong but that's hardly somewhere inside the code.



Kayoz -> RE: Theoretical Multiplayer Setup (4/7/2011 12:19:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: EaglePryde

Even MMO's can run very well on ping's around 100 and those are another level up and not an 4x game with let's say 4+ human players.


That's a situation where all players have ping issues. The situation you're referring to has the host of the game having ZERO ping, whilst others are subject to the whims of the Internet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: EaglePryde

Why we are talking about pings now? This is a direct connection/Lan setup where pings are very low unless you'd sit behind a crappy router or something from A-B is going wrong but that's hardly somewhere inside the code.


Well, your original statement was:


quote:

ORIGINAL: EaglePryde

Connection Types: direct IP and LAN


... so how does that preclude playing with someone on another continent? Nothing about your original statement restricted it to LAN play. I can play L4D with my friend using his router's IP address. How does your original statement preclude this?

As for coding multiplayer - you're talking about reorganizing the entire architecture of the game, to accomodate the moves of multiple players. setting up the sockets isn't the issue I'm talking about - I'm talking about coordinating the game's responses to incorporate multiple sources - it would very likely require a non-trivial architectural change. Have you actually DONE any coding? I rather doubt it, or you wouldn't fob it off as such a minor task.



crazyguy -> RE: Theoretical Multiplayer Setup (4/7/2011 12:20:19 PM)

Something a lot of non programmers don't know: A game programmer do NOT need to write everything himself...

There are network libraries out there that are written by specialists and are free for use.
Surely the implementation of the library to the game and the message handling must be done but thatare trivial tasks in comparison to network coding.




Kayoz -> RE: Theoretical Multiplayer Setup (4/7/2011 12:26:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crazy_guy

Something a lot of non programmers don't know: A game programmer do NOT need to write everything himself...

There are network libraries out there that are written by specialists and are free for use.
Surely the implementation of the library to the game and the message handling must be done but thatare trivial tasks in comparison to network coding.


Networking isn't an issue - I didn't say it was. What is being proposed is a radical architectural change to the game.

As for free libraries - you get what you pay for.



crazyguy -> RE: Theoretical Multiplayer Setup (4/7/2011 12:28:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
As for coding multiplayer - you're talking about reorganizing the entire architecture of the game, to accomodate the moves of multiple players. setting up the sockets isn't the issue I'm talking about - I'm talking about coordinating the game's responses to incorporate multiple sources - it would very likely require a non-trivial architectural change. Have you actually DONE any coding? I rather doubt it, or you wouldn't fob it off as such a minor task.


Kayoz I don't know the exact structure of the game's datasource but from my view it should be enought to just relink the access to this datasource from the clients to the hosts one.

The question here is just how much changes(messages) per 1/25 second happens. 100? 1k? 10k? 100k?

The host needs to be the fastest machine of all players as it needs to host the full game and AI calculations.
Furthermore with this concept players which are only able to play small maps in singleplayer would be able to play big maps if the host is a powerful rig.




crazyguy -> RE: Theoretical Multiplayer Setup (4/7/2011 12:29:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz

As for free libraries - you get what you pay for.


Ever worked with lidgren?



EaglePryde -> RE: Theoretical Multiplayer Setup (4/7/2011 12:50:25 PM)

for the slow readers once more. From a technical standpoint it's easy and very common. Doing so on the other side consumes much time. Is there anything unclear in my words for you because you don't seem to understand it. And that's what i stated from the beginning. AND if you haven't read it in my first post i also included it to be a basic working setup. I never spoke of getting it done tomorrow..haven't i?

You also seem to compare a common person to one who actually IS working in the industry and is making this game and the knowledge and skill to pull such a game through is nothing you learn in 5 minutes. Even the most skilled programmers who can make any kind of application lack the fundamental knowledge of game design and creation.

what's wrong with direct IP connection? I don't seem to get your point here. With some "special" cases you can play very well cross continent but this is hardly used. Most players stay rather close to their country regarding direct IP sessions.

I really don't get your point in any bit of your post. Are you talking about it not being possible although indie programmers are doing such and game companies are doing such and not only for FPS but also for 4X games of any kind? Companies like maybe consisting of 2 people/coders and not more. Suppose you don't know how it works and you sure don't work in this part of the industry.

Hmm..if i have done any coding..well..i work with C#/.NET and the XNA Framework although i could offer you C++ and directx too. XML is nothing i need to mention and my skills at setting up linux based servers...blah blah blah...i hate this "you don't no anything" stuff where you always have to prove some guy who really doesn't know much, how well your background may be. I have even tried to pull of a game like this myself but it never got finished because doing it as a hobby with people from different countries won't work well. But that's something different.

Maybe you even want to know what a GDD is or even Tortoise SVN and how to set it up...what do you want to know?




EaglePryde -> RE: Theoretical Multiplayer Setup (4/7/2011 1:43:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crazy_guy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
As for coding multiplayer - you're talking about reorganizing the entire architecture of the game, to accomodate the moves of multiple players. setting up the sockets isn't the issue I'm talking about - I'm talking about coordinating the game's responses to incorporate multiple sources - it would very likely require a non-trivial architectural change. Have you actually DONE any coding? I rather doubt it, or you wouldn't fob it off as such a minor task.


Kayoz I don't know the exact structure of the game's datasource but from my view it should be enought to just relink the access to this datasource from the clients to the hosts one.

The question here is just how much changes(messages) per 1/25 second happens. 100? 1k? 10k? 100k?

The host needs to be the fastest machine of all players as it needs to host the full game and AI calculations.
Furthermore with this concept players which are only able to play small maps in singleplayer would be able to play big maps if the host is a powerful rig.




I have to agree with you. And in terms of host vs. clients the AI routines are host native and everything else is mearly "spawned" on the clients side.



Bingeling -> RE: Theoretical Multiplayer Setup (4/7/2011 2:31:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
As for coding multiplayer - you're talking about reorganizing the entire architecture of the game, to accomodate the moves of multiple players. setting up the sockets isn't the issue I'm talking about - I'm talking about coordinating the game's responses to incorporate multiple sources - it would very likely require a non-trivial architectural change. Have you actually DONE any coding? I rather doubt it, or you wouldn't fob it off as such a minor task.

When it comes to software, I am more familiar with architecture than networking, but I do also fail to see that making multiplayer should be anything near "easy".

If the game is not made with multiplayer in mind, why should it be easy adding it? If the game operates on data in a db, and you can have multiple people updating the db (and the db handles concurrent users), it is potentially possible, though. Then it is just input and multiple views.

It is easier for a developer that has made multiplayer before, and has multiplayer in mind as a future development. But considering DW does not have multiplayer, is there reason to believe the game is made with this in mind?

There is probably exactly one person that knows if multiplayer is impossible, hard, or easy in DW. That is Elliot. And it depends on the curent DW, his skills, and his areas of interest.

Remember that there is a lot of skills involved in making a game. Game design, backbone programming, making the logic work, making the logic balanced game wise, making good presentation, .... .... , providing multiplayer support, .... ... You build a team out of people with different skills. In a one man team, it would be amazing to have all. I think DW is amazing as a one man product, even without multiplayer.



EaglePryde -> RE: Theoretical Multiplayer Setup (4/7/2011 3:51:18 PM)

And imagine just the amount of lines Elliot had to write. That by itself is far above impressive. But doing the complete game alone shows very advanced skills.

The point is that "easy" is because he knows how to do it and that i'm sure of. The ugly point is the amount of work but if he decides for it to be worth the cause i'm sure he would do it for an expansion. patching it in could also be done but patch processes don't involve that amount of work. But making a patch in DW where you add multiple new game mechanics isn't just a 5 line code either.

There's nothing impossible in coding. Even if the current database wouldn't be usable for Multiplayer it still isn't impossible. I suppose from Elliots point of view he would do it IF the change and amount of work and benefit for the game (time vs. paying customers) is worth it. If you would get only 50 bucks for adding Multiplayer you wouldn't do it but if you'd gain popularity, additional customers and high praise everywhere that keeps the money streaming in, you'd do it anytime.

I've seen companies add Multiplayer into games that wheren't designed for it from the start but because it turned out to be a very big need, it got added through an expansion.

And just by writing my inital post as how Multiplayer would work out, i didn't demand anything nor did i claim that it would be a weeks work. It's just possible from a coding point of view. The last word in anything would be Elliots. And given the fact that it's a legit vote in the polls makes talking about also valid (would be anyway unless deemed dead through Elliot himself).



Bingeling -> RE: Theoretical Multiplayer Setup (4/7/2011 3:54:33 PM)

Of course it is possible, everything seen in any game is for sure possible, it has been done.

He could write the game fresh from scratch, and claim it is an expansion. Not that it is going to happen.



EaglePryde -> RE: Theoretical Multiplayer Setup (4/7/2011 4:00:00 PM)

[:D] I also doubt he would do it. In any case. What he is doing allready deserves high praise. Like i said in another post, DW has something very special and somehow captures the mysterious big essence like Master of Orion did making the game really immersive and fun to play.

Last time i was doing some heavy coding i was dreaming about -> a* ..you get my "point(er)"? [:D]



Data -> RE: Theoretical Multiplayer Setup (4/7/2011 4:08:39 PM)

LOL....but you got out, "escaped" from it [:)]



EaglePryde -> RE: Theoretical Multiplayer Setup (4/7/2011 4:13:07 PM)

haha [:D] yes..luckily i managed this without crashing [:)]



Bingeling -> RE: Theoretical Multiplayer Setup (4/7/2011 4:30:21 PM)

What, you were dreaming about the A* algorithm?

A good search algorithm that, possibly useful for the AI. Not that path finding is such a matter in a space game, but one could imagine the path as different AI states...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A*_search_algorithm



EaglePryde -> RE: Theoretical Multiplayer Setup (4/7/2011 5:08:01 PM)

You got me on this one.very sharp. It's also because *a looks similar to a* but is very much different ;-) but yes.that was it and i like that kind of stuff



Kayoz -> RE: Theoretical Multiplayer Setup (4/8/2011 1:39:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: EaglePryde

for the slow readers once more. From a technical standpoint it's easy and very common. Doing so on the other side consumes much time. Is there anything unclear in my words for you because you don't seem to understand it. And that's what i stated from the beginning. AND if you haven't read it in my first post i also included it to be a basic working setup. I never spoke of getting it done tomorrow..haven't i?


So basically you're pulling the ideas out of your rectum, and they have no relation to the state of DW? If your post is nothing more than your mental diarrhea leaking out through your keyboard, then why stop with multiplayer? Why not ask for CodeForce to to incorporate fuzzy logic into the AI?

If it's fantasizing and wishful thinking - then you should indicate it is so, or people will quite fairly assume that you're talking about the game we have before us.

quote:


You also seem to compare a common person to one who actually IS working in the industry and is making this game and the knowledge and skill to pull such a game through is nothing you learn in 5 minutes. Even the most skilled programmers who can make any kind of application lack the fundamental knowledge of game design and creation.


No, I raised one issue as an example, and you clamped onto it to the exclusion of all else. You seem to think that game balance in a multiplayer game is a trivial task - so perhaps you can go give Dave Sirlin a few lessons - he did a bloody hour-long talk on it and barely scratched the surface. Coding it is a simple enough task - making it efficient code, and a balanced game is quite another. Something anyone who has coded more than "hello world" would know - which you clearly don't.

quote:


what's wrong with direct IP connection? I don't seem to get your point here. With some "special" cases you can play very well cross continent but this is hardly used. Most players stay rather close to their country regarding direct IP sessions.


What BS is this? You said in your previous post:
This is a direct connection/Lan setup where pings are very low unless you'd sit behind a crappy router or something from A-B is going wrong but that's hardly somewhere inside the code.

First it's any direct connection - then it's ONLY on a LAN, and now you're waffling back to the bloke across the street. Your statements wobble back and forth with the wind. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

quote:


I really don't get your point in any bit of your post. Are you talking about it not being possible although indie programmers are doing such and game companies are doing such and not only for FPS but also for 4X games of any kind? Companies like maybe consisting of 2 people/coders and not more. Suppose you don't know how it works and you sure don't work in this part of the industry.


Once again, you're misquoting and misinterpreting. Do you speak ENGLISH? I said it was a drastic redesign and a non-trivial task to work multiplayer into DW. That doesn't make it impossible. That doesn't make it beyond Elliot's abilities. It DOES however make it a disproportionate task given the relative rewards for the work of kludgeing it into DW.

Learn to read, boy.

quote:


Hmm..if i have done any coding..well..i work with C#/.NET and the XNA Framework although i could offer you C++ and directx too. XML is nothing i need to mention and my skills at setting up linux based servers...blah blah blah...i hate this "you don't no anything" stuff where you always have to prove some guy who really doesn't know much, how well your background may be. I have even tried to pull of a game like this myself but it never got finished because doing it as a hobby with people from different countries won't work well. But that's something different.


That's interesting. In your previous paragraph, you said that I clearly don't "work in this part of the industry" - implying that you're working in computer game development. And now you're stating that you "tried to pull off a game" like DW, but did so as a hobby.

So what's "this industry"? You've already contradicted yourself - perhaps you'd like another chance at lying?

As for C#, I've never been too interested in it. All the limitations of Java, without the portability. A feeble attempt to pull programmers away from Java, without giving them a real language. No thanks, if I'm going to code for a M$ environment, I'll stick with C++ - far more control. And I have low level control, which C# does NOT have. XML is just a management jizz-word, when it does nothing that I can't do more reliably and simply in an ini file. In short, your spouting of acronyms doesn't impress me, but rather hilights your ignorance.

quote:


Maybe you even want to know what a GDD is or even Tortoise SVN and how to set it up...what do you want to know?


Dunno, don't care. I use SourceSafe or ClearCase. I'd rather spend my time coding, than messing around with some poncy 2-bit SCM system. I'm a code monkey - I'm far less concerned with the bells and whistles than with the actual process of software development.



Kayoz -> RE: Theoretical Multiplayer Setup (4/8/2011 1:45:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: EaglePryde

You got me on this one.very sharp. It's also because *a looks similar to a* but is very much different ;-) but yes.that was it and i like that kind of stuff


You were dreaming about an ancient path-finding algorithm? While developing a 4X space game???? Is there possibly a more USELESS algorithm in a game "like DW" (as you claimed)? Bingeling caught you out, and you're trying to lie your way out of being caught with yet another lie?

So now you're back to claiming you're working in game development... but it was a hobby you tried back a long time ago and now you're doing... what? Does the phrase "Would you like fries with your Coke?" pass your lips on a regular basis?



crazyguy -> RE: Theoretical Multiplayer Setup (4/8/2011 10:44:28 PM)

Hmm Kayoz I would be much interested in your work experience as you think you are like god here and know much more about anything than all others... Sorry but thats how you sound to me.

I am much more with EaglePryde than with you on this thread. Maybe thats because I am a Software Developer with the proper education and the proper work experience. Btw I worked with Java, C++ and C#/.net and from my perspective: I would shoot me in my leg rather than working with C++ or Java again. I worked the last 3 years with .net and it is so much more relaxed to work with it.

Btw I am NOT a native english speaker...



EaglePryde -> RE: Theoretical Multiplayer Setup (4/9/2011 1:09:07 AM)

1.) Ancient stuff is bad? Then let's look at COBOL for a moment. If you learned it back than you'd know much more about the tiny pieces of programming that are automated in the present. Why should i ignore the past or whipe it out of my memory. You speak of low level control..couldn't laugh more. And guess what..there are big companies still using COBOL.

2.) When did i say that i worked in the industry? Having a project or doing "indie" work isn't the high ranking industry or maybe it is..depends on how you see it. But then again your very much blind. When did i say that i used A* in a game or intended in doing so?...i dreamed about it..so what?

3.) Are we a bit premature? Seems very much like it. But hey. Bark as loud as you want.

4.) Then stick to C++. Your very much the ignorant here. A good comparison between C++ and C# is. "If you want to go to from greece to paris you could take the train, car, ship..whatever suits you...that's C++" and i'll take the plane because it's a direct route and fast...that's C#. And if you claim to know every bit and piece about .NET to be able to justify C++ being better than your very much lying. Do you know how huge .NET is ...boy? You could very well make anything in C#/.NET and you still can decide if you'd go managed or unmanaged

5.) So you use SourceSafe or ClearCase poor boy but ignore the fact that a GDD=Game Design Document is a basic standard in game development.

6.) I wish someone would lock you away because you seem to be one of those persons who a.) can't read and b.) don't think much.

7.) code monkey...hmm..i don't know about the code but the monkey fits you perfectly.

8.) I too am no native english speaker but i seem to read it better than you.

9.) Any additional word in your direction is very much a waste. Next time try to be a bit smarter or try to grow up. I hate this kiddy talk of yours but maybe this phrase fits to you "The pot calling the kettle black"




Kayoz -> RE: Theoretical Multiplayer Setup (4/9/2011 2:42:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: EaglePryde

1.) Ancient stuff is bad? Then let's look at COBOL for a moment. If you learned it back than you'd know much more about the tiny pieces of programming that are automated in the present. Why should i ignore the past or whipe it out of my memory. You speak of low level control..couldn't laugh more. And guess what..there are big companies still using COBOL.


Thee's a huge difference between maintaining a legacy financial system and developing a NEW game. If you're developing a NEW game, there's no logical reason to use an ancient tool. Given your stance, you'd use COBOL to rewrite DW. Sorry kid, but C++ is FAST and flexible. You need to optimize a section of code, you can tweak it to your heart's content - or if you're really daring, drop into inline asm if you think you know better than the compiler. Once again, you CANNOT do that with COBOL.

Now, is speed necessary? Working in the financial industry, it most certainly is. Why do you think the larger trading houses have their servers in the SAME BUILDING as the stock exchance servers? It's because their software is designed to take advantage of small variations in prices, and 1/10 of a second can mean the difference between a profit and a loss in some cases - and if you're doing millions of trades an hour, that adds up. Now let's bring this back to gaming - is speed important? Would you try to write the Crysis 2 engine in COBOL? Given what you've said, I rather suspect you would...

As to low level control, I'm at a loss to understand your humour. You laugh at low level control? You think writing device drivers is a giggle? It certainly would be in COBOL or C# - the giggling of a madman, that is.

quote:


2.) When did i say that i worked in the industry? Having a project or doing "indie" work isn't the high ranking industry or maybe it is..depends on how you see it. But then again your very much blind. When did i say that i used A* in a game or intended in doing so?...i dreamed about it..so what?


You brought the dream up. If it wasn't relevant, then it had no place. I dream of bending Michelle Rodriguez over a table and shagging her roughly from behind - that doesn't make it relevant to DW. Now that you've been caught out with your lies, you're trying to wriggle about by stating that your contradictory statements had no bearing on the discussion. That's a rather wretched attempt at an excuse.

But back to your lie, you claimed to "work in this industry" - implying that you're currently working in a professional capacity as a programmer. Perhaps you think that dabbling with some open-source project qualifies you to identify yourself as an "industry member" - I posit that given your membership criteria, the janitor at the local solicitor's office can claim to be working in the legal industry. Your presentation of your industry affiliation is misleading and so vague as to be meaningless.

quote:


4.) Then stick to C++. Your very much the ignorant here. A good comparison between C++ and C# is. "If you want to go to from greece to paris you could take the train, car, ship..whatever suits you...that's C++" and i'll take the plane because it's a direct route and fast...that's C#. And if you claim to know every bit and piece about .NET to be able to justify C++ being better than your very much lying. Do you know how huge .NET is ...boy? You could very well make anything in C#/.NET and you still can decide if you'd go managed or unmanaged


Programming languages are TOOLS to develop software. They are means to an end, not ends in themselves. If you're writing a little calendar reminder app for your desktop, then by all means use Visual Basic, as it's probably a lot quicker to develop. But if that calendar is the production control of an automated production line that requires millisecond response times - then VB is probably a BAD choice. I have in the past, and currently work in an industry where speed is paramount - the issue that is paramount in the majority of game development. Look at Elite II - with its scale and physics - all bundled up on a single floppy disk and running on a C-64. Try to recreate THAT using C# or COBOL.

You're far too enamoured with the acronyms and new toys, and have lost sight of the real purpose of coding. The purpose of coding is to economically develop software suitable to the given task. The task defines what tool is most appropriate. Your position is that "new technology is better" - whereas I propose that the technology is nothing more than a tool, and you choose the most appropriate for the task.

quote:


5.) So you use SourceSafe or ClearCase poor boy but ignore the fact that a GDD=Game Design Document is a basic standard in game development.


"poor boy"? I'm admittedly not independently wealthy, but have you seen how much ClearCase costs?!?! Poor companies don't use Rational products. Their products come with a hefty price tag - ostensibly with the productivity returns to justify their prices. "poor" isn't a term I identify well with Rational.

I've worked in 3 languages on 4 continents (I mean "worked", as in a professional capacity as a software developer, and "on 4 continents" as physically living and working in countries on those continents - not as you would propose "some open source project hosted by someone in outer Mongolia" - which you'd claim to have worked in Mongolia). So, GDD has a variety of meanings depending on what language you're speaking and what industry you're talking about. How am I supposed to divine the meaning from 3 letters?

Somehow, you think you're quite clever by using an acronym. So does that mean I can hold up my head for my brilliance in the majority of people here not being able to identify "PDV" as ponto de venda (point of sale) in Portuguese? Hell, GDD can mean a number of things in English alone. It also means Gaseous Detection Device. It means Group Delay Dispersion. You think you're clever by dropping in an acronym with no explanation or context? Pathetically childish. But you should take what pleasure you can in your small "victory" - it's quite clearly a rare event in your life.

Spouting acronyms doesn't impress anyone other than the unwashed masses who know nothing of what they mean.

quote:


6.) I wish someone would lock you away because you seem to be one of those persons who a.) can't read and b.) don't think much.


For a programmer, your typing is atrocious. Rather revealing how often you misspell words and bollocks up your capitalization - something that most programmers do NOT do.

quote:


8.) I too am no native english speaker but i seem to read it better than you.


I never stated my native tongue, did I? But to clarify, my native language is bollocks.

quote:


9.) Any additional word in your direction is very much a waste. Next time try to be a bit smarter or try to grow up. I hate this kiddy talk of yours but maybe this phrase fits to you "The pot calling the kettle black"


An interesting choice of idiom. By your own admission then, my accusations and observations are entirely correct. Thank you for admitting that. You've put to rest any questions anyone might have about your qualifications.



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.6865234