ZDaemon Forum Index ZDaemon
Client/Server DOOM
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Wish-list for ZDaemon development #2
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 34, 35, 36, 37  Next
 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    ZDaemon Forum Index -> ZDaemon Development
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
cha0tix
Unstoppable!


Joined: 04 Dec 2006
Location: Chicago, IL Hangout: #DarkAlley @ OFTC

PostPosted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 2:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kilgore
Air Cavalry


Joined: 17 Jun 2003
Location: Up the river

PostPosted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 12:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Stealth
Gone with the wind


Joined: 09 Nov 2004

PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 1:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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 Smile

Anyone got any comments, ideas or improvements to my suggestions I'd be happy to hear them Rolling Eyes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Cybershark
Spamming!


Joined: 05 Jan 2005
Location: off the grid, but still fighting for the users!

PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 4:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Stealth
Gone with the wind


Joined: 09 Nov 2004

PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 4:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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 Smile 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 Surprised

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 Smile (what if there aren't even any? /me thinks of the stuff worst would create, of which monsters are old hat nowadays...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Ronald
Rontard


Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Location: Netherlands Clan: [QnB]

PostPosted: Sat Mar 28, 2009 9:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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 to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Empyre
Unstoppable!


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Location: Texas, USA

PostPosted: Sat Mar 28, 2009 9:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
theDooMguy
On a Rampage!


Joined: 07 Feb 2009
Location: Installing ZDaemon on the school computers

PostPosted: Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
EarthQuake
Wicked Sick!


Joined: 02 Apr 2004
Location: Athens, Ohio. Dieblieber gonna getcha!

PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 3:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

How about leaving team-specific parameters to TEAMINFO instead of adding 4 more cvars?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sniper
God like!


Joined: 10 Mar 2007
Location: United Kingdom Clan: [BK]

PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 6:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ronald
Rontard


Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Location: Netherlands Clan: [QnB]

PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 11:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Stealth
Gone with the wind


Joined: 09 Nov 2004

PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 12:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ok, clearing a few things up here:

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
cha0tix
Unstoppable!


Joined: 04 Dec 2006
Location: Chicago, IL Hangout: #DarkAlley @ OFTC

PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 2:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Possible for "toggle crosshair" to remember the last crosshair used?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Stealth
Gone with the wind


Joined: 09 Nov 2004

PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 4:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
BestOfTheWorst
Unstoppable!


Joined: 02 Jun 2006

PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 7:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

actually you can already do it like this: Razz

Code:
alias xhairoff "set xhairsave $crosshair; crosshair 0; rebind xhairon"
alias xhairon "crosshair $xhairsave; rebind xhairoff"

bind mouse5 xhairoff


make sure you have a crosshair selected when you use it though, so that it saves a value other than 0 Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DeathArrow
has entered the game!


Joined: 06 Apr 2009

PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ronald
Rontard


Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Location: Netherlands Clan: [QnB]

PostPosted: Sun Apr 12, 2009 10:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
rygrass
God like!


Joined: 06 Nov 2005
Location: Aussie Clan:eV

PostPosted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 12:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not sure how good this idea is, or if its possible mabye when the demo logs are created mabye adding in when you get a monster kill or killing spree ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Madgunner
Dominating!


Joined: 23 Nov 2003
Location: Atlanta,GA

PostPosted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 5:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ronald wrote:
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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
EarthQuake
Wicked Sick!


Joined: 02 Apr 2004
Location: Athens, Ohio. Dieblieber gonna getcha!

PostPosted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 11:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    ZDaemon Forum Index -> ZDaemon Development All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 34, 35, 36, 37  Next
Page 35 of 37

 
Jump to:  
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


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group