Joined: 04 Dec 2006 Location: Chicago, IL Hangout: #DarkAlley @ OFTC
Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 2:02 pm Post subject:
The slow connection would be one's own fault to live with. also, you don't have to respawn right away. You could agree on holding out until say, 15 seconds in?
Welkin: my understanding of your proposal is that it touches on 2 things:
Ensuring that people all start the game at the same time
What happens when someone crashes/goes out temporarily.
The map reset solves the first problem and that's all I meant by a solution to the "warmup". I didn't make any comment about the second problem because I am not sure how and if I want to handle it. For example, suppose we do stop the game temporarily till the guy comes back; what prevents people from doing it on purpose to stop the momentum of opponents? one can come up with elaborate scenaria and rules: however... if it's complicated to implement/use OR can be exploted, it won't happen. Sorry, but that's the way it is.
1. Modification of maxplayersperteam. Considering -1 is autobalance, -2 could enforce auto-balancing. This would move players from the larger teams automatically to smaller teams, which could be based on points level, in order to try and keep a balanced number of players on each team. This should occur perhaps every 30 seconds if an unbalance occurs, or 30 seconds after an unbalance, perhaps a centermessage 5 seconds before the balance occurs a centermessage "Auto-balancing teams..." might be desirable.
Alternatively a new cvar sv_autobalanceteams may be used in place of this, which auto-juggles the teams at the end of each match, based on their points performance on the previous one. Bear in mind auto-juggling like this would not be desirable during a round, as it would cause people to change teams quite often during any particular match. Perhaps different behaviour here is needed.
2. A change to the behaviour of gamemode flags, implementing team coop and 1-flag CTF. In the condition that teamplay=1 and deathmatch=0, team coop would be the gamemode. Personally the only changes I think that should occur here is of course the addition of teams, the use of team starts (with a fallback to coop starts if no teamstarts exist) and the winning team is specifically the team that the player belongs to that hit the exit switch. Maps can be created around this scenario, and would already be compatible with Worst's wSnake. This, if desired, would already be possible to enable in 1.08.xx, however it would break compatibility with older clients that would not understand the condition, which is probably not desirable. However the only difference they would encounter would be that the game would appear as normal coop, plus of course team colors - everything else would occur as normal.
In the condition that teamplay=0 and ctf=1, 1-flag CTF would be the gamemode. Unfortunately I don't think this agrees with the 'Capture' idea of the gamemode, preferring to think of 'hold the flag' gamemodes implemented in similar FPS games. In 1-flag CTF there would still be teams, so there'd need to be some other method of defining this (teamplay=0 would be technically wrong).
EDIT: Welkin has suggested to me something else for the first idea of team balance during the round - an obvious callvote addition. I'm not sure whether this is desirable (personally automatic would be preferred as if they're not going to balance themselves, it's likely they'll vote no to being forced to as well). I'll add that the balance in-game is desirable for public CTF mostly, with the juggle at end of each round being more suited for private, or even public too
Anyone got any comments, ideas or improvements to my suggestions I'd be happy to hear them
Joined: 05 Jan 2005 Location: off the grid, but still fighting for the users!
Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 4:05 pm Post subject:
Good thoughts Stealth, I'd just like to add a couple of things to them:
1. Occasionally it would be beneficial to set different player limits for the various teams. Examples of this are SpoilerCTF, Capture the BFG and some of the other weird shit that gets run like Assault-based maps.
However even at the most simple level then it'd mean adding 4 more cvars (maxplayersperredteam, maxplayerspergreenteam, etc). It becomes even more awkward if you want to do funkier stuff like say capping red and blue at one value and forcing green to thatvalue-1. The alternative would be to have this kind of thing handled by the proposed TEAMINFO lump.
2. I disagree that team co-op should only consider exiting to be the 'match point'. Surely number of kills should be an option here too?
I agree with your points shark, I read your thoughts on limits per team, however fairness could still be ensured on wads like SpoilerCTF if members of the green team were forced to other teams to play on in my opinion unless you really need the sheer flexibility of players per team, I can see it being messier to implement for a tiny gain in functionality
Cybershark wrote:
2. I disagree that team co-op should only consider exiting to be the 'match point'. Surely number of kills should be an option here too?
It's up to you. Team coop hasn't been implemented yet, I'm thinking of race style coop, or for maps designed on the thing duplicate runs to get to the exit, requiring team cooperation, like bridges n stuff. Think - the goal of coop/sp is to get to the exit, why penalize the winner that achieves that goal just because he refused to kill all the monsters (what if there aren't even any? /me thinks of the stuff worst would create, of which monsters are old hat nowadays...
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 Location: Netherlands Clan: [QnB]
Posted: Sat Mar 28, 2009 9:52 am Post subject:
Indeed Stealth and Cybershark, these are very interesting thoughts. However, I'm sure many mappers would like to see this happen, but I doubt many players do. From what I can tell, they prefer new gamemodes in which they have to kill each other, like Last Man Standing for instance.
Back in the 90's, I had a program called D! which allowed the player to load maps from multiple wad files. It would make a temporary wad file with those maps combined and rearranged in the order specified by the player, and then delete it when the player finished playing.
It would be really cool if ZDaemon could do that, maybe making the Frankenstein wad combining the maps from the other wads only in memory. The player would need to have all the separate wads, and the client would combine them on the fly in the same way that the server did.
Of course, there are complications that we didn't have back then: what to do with the other stuff in the wads from which the maps are coming, like textures, sprites, sounds, and dehacked lumps. One solution would be to load only the maps (and the music and custom textures that are actually used in the map) from the list of wads that are used for maps, and let the server operator specify another wad (or perhaps one of the same wads) from which would be loaded the other stuff. Another solution would be to automatically use the all other stuff from the wad that a map came from only during that map, unless overridden by another wad loaded the more conventional way.
I know that this would be a major undertaking, but the result would be so awesome that it just might be worth it.
Joined: 07 Feb 2009 Location: Installing ZDaemon on the school computers
Posted: Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:21 pm Post subject:
that would be pretty sweet if someone could do it. as for textures and dehacked it would be best to have it take all that from the wad of the current map. So instead of making a temporary WAD, it would be more like switching WADs every time you go to a new map.
EDIT: by the way, this is probably on here but...is full Hexen support a possibility?
Joined: 10 Mar 2007 Location: United Kingdom Clan: [BK]
Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 6:33 am Post subject:
Ronald wrote:
Indeed Stealth and Cybershark, these are very interesting thoughts. However, I'm sure many mappers would like to see this happen, but I doubt many players do. From what I can tell, they prefer new gamemodes in which they have to kill each other, like Last Man Standing for instance.
Has this already been mentioned and / or implemented?
Sounds like a nice idea
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 Location: Netherlands Clan: [QnB]
Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 11:24 am Post subject:
Sniper wrote:
Ronald wrote:
Indeed Stealth and Cybershark, these are very interesting thoughts. However, I'm sure many mappers would like to see this happen, but I doubt many players do. From what I can tell, they prefer new gamemodes in which they have to kill each other, like Last Man Standing for instance.
Has this already been mentioned and / or implemented?
Sounds like a nice idea
Mentioned several times, but also denied several times. Not sure why though.
Last man standing, elimination, and survival coop can all be implemented with a single cvar, possibly called sv_maxlives. Likely to be in 1.09.
Doomguy, your idea is a little more messy than it needs to be. I see where you're coming from though. For now, look at how Odamex handles it - ie. dynamically loading/unloading wads on the fly. ZDaemon will eventually have something like this, hopefully better / less taxing on teh server/client.
Possibly already implemented, not 100% sure though. It's a modification of the set command that allows more than two parameters. How it works is simple, the first parameter is obviously the name of the cvar you're setting, normally the second is what you want to set it to. This still applies, however if there's a third parameter it will set the cvar to the value of the third parameter IF it already is the same as the second parameter., So for example, if you bind the following to a key:
Code:
bind mouse5 "set crosshair 4 0"
It will toggle between the two values each time pressed, which is 4 and 0.
While you are spectating, can it be made so that a number is kept above the active players which says how long you've had your crosshair over them? It's a sort of practice thing, and it'd make 1-1 more interesting.
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 Location: Netherlands Clan: [QnB]
Posted: Sun Apr 12, 2009 10:55 pm Post subject:
Don't know if it has been mentioned before, but how about a skip button in GetWad that skips the host it's currently (trying to) download from? Can be useful when a host is really really slow and the wad is uploaded elsewhere too.
Don't know if it has been mentioned before, but how about a skip button in GetWad that skips the host it's currently (trying to) download from? Can be useful when a host is really really slow and the wad is uploaded elsewhere too.
I have to agree this would be very nice. In fact, speaking of Getwad, how about making it so that it checks the file size of a wad before downloading it so that you don't get the incorrect version of a wad. Unfortunately some servers have wads that are either outdated or modified. Of course you'd probably want it so that it doesn't do this for Iwads.
How about making the GetWad not a modal form? I'm sure it's been said over and over again, but I've heard no argument as to why this is necessary. Show the window in the taskbar and load it like a normal window so players don't have to sit there and wait for the wad to be downloaded before they can do anything else in the launcher. Personally, I'd rather spend my time downloading a wad by chatting, browsing the server list, or something more constructive.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum