Sphere / Torus and in-game respawn; limitations

Risasi · Post by **Risasi** » 04 Oct 2006, 20:45

Okay, okay. I know this has been talked to death. And I believe the whole globe/sphere/torus concept has been thrown to the MTA wolves.

So let me start by saying I'm not here to start another "hey it would be cool to have a globe map" thread.

I decided to throw an intro as to who I am, that can be found here:

<I can't link

> ://taspring.clan-sy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=130009#130009

Anyway, I'm nothing special. I just geek out on some stuff. Mostly cars, guns, and video games. Anyway...

I understand the path finding limitations, and why no devs want to touch the whole globe map discussion with a ten foot pole. Let me say I don't really care if it happens. However my only intention is to find an in-depth, yet fairly intuitive and fast playing RTS. Two titles meet my initial criteria. Spring, and Rise of Nations. However if you read my hello thread you will find I still have some other issues. 1. I play LAN only. With friends. 2. Sometimes it's lots of friends. So here is my goal:

1. I'm looking for something that still meets the above criteria, yet allows for more than 8 players. So far that's Spring. I also would like to eliminate players hiding in a corner. I believe these two items go hand in hand. If it's 1v1 or 2on2 it's not a problem. But if you have 20 people on one map, well let's just say you have some issues. More thoughts on this later.

2. The second criteria is that in-game joins are allowed. Much like your run of the mill FPS titles. After all if you are LAN partying, you are there to play, not get your butt kicked in a RTS and sit out for the next four hours.

So my goal is to set up a persistent RTS server the allows for a decent number of connections 16 is fine, 24 is even better. The game play would be more of a king of the hill style, rather than complete conquest. With this that means I'd also want to eliminate corners to hide in. A globe is the best option, but I understand not very realistic. Anyway I don't know how old most of you are. But I think of Netrek style play, only it's an RTS. Might be too far back for people to remember...

Anyway. These are my goals, and I'm here to understand what the limitations of the spring are. I realize my dream is more of a mod to the game rather than standard features. And likely on customized maps.

One immediate thought regarding the no corners problem seems easy enough to me. Forget the whole globe/torus argument. Cut your corners off and make circular maps. I think the new RON: Rise of Legends title did a pretty good job of addressing this. I'd like to find a way to build a map shaped like a dome. Or a hemisphere. The big question in my mind is whether or not the water table can be warped or curved to allow this?

So I'm curious anybody know game engine limitations? Or can someone point me in where to go to find out?

I'm curious;

How big can a map be made?

Can a map be made circular?

Is it practical to build a mod that would support more players?

And is it practical to mod and allow for in-game join?

Thank you,

Risasi

Guessmyname · Post by **Guessmyname** » 04 Oct 2006, 21:01

Theoretically, a map could be made circular with clever use of the voidwater tag...

esteroth12 · Post by **esteroth12** » 04 Oct 2006, 21:25

a map can be as big as your computer can run... the problem is, more ATI cards do not support shadows beyond 30x30, and its uncharted territory past that too (theres a limit somewhere...)

if you share commanders, i believe there is no limit to the number of players. however, I thing there are only 16 teams total (can you .team above 15?)

if you set it to choose start locations and set boxes (which are definetely in the normal client, but the lan client can't, or so I have heard) you can make anyone start anywhere

In-game join has been gone over before, and... you can't now, but it may be possible in the future, with either 1 of two things...

1. Joiner downloads 7-zipped replay, runs it quickly without rendering and tries to catch up while game is paused for everyone else.
2. Joiner downloads current state of units, weapon shells, etc. <---(The one I think is better)

also... the reason you can't supporrt too many player is because there is no server; the host controls everything. The game's capacity is decided by the host's upload speed.

Risasi · Post by **Risasi** » 04 Oct 2006, 21:43

guessmyname,

Hmm, voidwater tag...check. Will look into.

--------

esteroth12,

Big as I can support. Okay, that means I can probably get them pretty dingus-dangest big then. When I commit myself to a project I tend to go overboard. I've already got six working AMD XP 2500+ with a mix of 9800 pros and Geforce 5700-6200's. And I bought a stack of other motherboards. I think 14 in all. They all support AMD 3000+.
In my book hardware is cheap.

In my case bandwidth is also cheap, I'm on a LAN. And as for the lack of server issue, I have no problem setting a single machine up as a server and putting it in spectator mode. I figure I load up the CPU and give it about 2-4GB of memory, maybe put it on a gig network switch. Gotta remember, I'm going for persistent server...

------

Thanks for the info so far, keep it coming if anybody has any ideas. It sounds like the first thing on the agenda will be to take a look at mapmaking and see what I can come up with there. I forsee that I will have some time a month or so from now where I can sit down and start playing with map building.
The first item on that agenda will be a small 2-4 player dome shaped map with water in the four corners, and sort of a round shaped "mound" in the middle, perhaps like warped continents in a circular fashion. Maybe I'll try to create a polar region in the middle. That means piling the water up into a mound shape too. We'll see if that's possible I guess.

I'm going to shoot for sort of a hemi-global thermo nuclear war map

knorke · Post by **knorke** » 04 Oct 2006, 22:41

Sorry, didnt read everything but:
Try netPanzer.

Risasi · Post by **Risasi** » 04 Oct 2006, 22:53

Been there, done that...years ago. However I wwent digging about a month ago after our last LAN brawl and found they finally ported to Windows.

It's, uh okay. Not exactly what I would call in depth.

Thanks for the heads up though.

Risasi · Post by **Risasi** » 04 Oct 2006, 23:37

I believe I've found another potential problem. Not only does the water need to be "warped", but gravity is likely to be an issue. Reading through the map making section of the wiki it appears that gravity is always down. What I'd like to do is warp this also. Almost as if it's inward. Hmm, interesting predicament.

Okay, I'm building mental buffers now, any further mapmaking talk I'll banish to the mapmaking forum (where it belongs, duh). But if anyone has any conceptual ideas that might help me realize my fantasy by all means please post here, or shoot me a PM.

Thanks

[EDIT] Wow. After investigating the voidwater tag I'm not so sure that's what I am after either. I'm trying to think of a way to warp or add a curvature to the map base. Then atop the base would sit your height map, resources map, features map, etc.
It looks like voidwater doesn't do this. Merely hides the water table. What I'm after is as if the map base were a piece of paper and I'm curving the outer edge and corners. This would be the actual gravitational force and water table also. Kind of hard to explain. Regardless I don't think it's possible with the engine in it's current state.

Globes are out, curving forces of nature is out. Time for Plan C. Back to thinking mode.

Min3mat · Post by **Min3mat** » 05 Oct 2006, 02:15

Two titles meet my initial criteria. Spring, and Rise of Nations

read that and read no further, saying s**t like that is just asking for someone to SCREAM 'NOOB' at your noob face. Maybe tommrowo i'll re read it. but i doubt it, you threw away any chance you had with that RoN comment

Neddie · Post by **Neddie** » 05 Oct 2006, 02:22

Don't mind Min3Mat, he's a little protective of things. Random things.

Shadowfury333 · Post by **Shadowfury333** » 05 Oct 2006, 02:50

esteroth12 wrote: 1. Joiner downloads 7-zipped replay, runs it quickly without rendering and tries to catch up while game is paused for everyone else.
2. Joiner downloads current state of units, weapon shells, etc. <---(The one I think is better)

regardless of which method is used, wouldn't that cause either the joiner to be inconvenienced with being behind or the other players to be inconvenienced with the intermittent pausing?

Neddie · Post by **Neddie** » 05 Oct 2006, 02:54

It would indeed.

Jumping in to any game always has flaws. I know that despite an outrageously powerful computer and a 5 mb/s connection, I nearly always end up dead the first minute before I can do anything as my computer loads the game data of an FPS.

I don't think any RTS has seriously considered the feature, to be honest.

Shadowfury333 · Post by **Shadowfury333** » 05 Oct 2006, 03:15

neddiedrow wrote:It would indeed.

Jumping in to any game always has flaws. I know that despite an outrageously powerful computer and a 5 mb/s connection, I nearly always end up dead the first minute before I can do anything as my computer loads the game data of an FPS.

Maybe so, but with an FPS personal skill is the only important factor. A player will quickly reach the score that represents their relative skill level

neddiedrow wrote:I don't think any RTS has seriously considered the feature, to be honest.

Indeed, because with an RTS, personal skill doesn't matter as much as army size and production potential, which increase as the game progresses. The concept of an RTS which allows late joiners is only possible if the game allows for quick early setup, but that can ruin the depth for a longer game.

Neddie · Post by **Neddie** » 05 Oct 2006, 03:21

I wouldn't term anything required in FPS as skill persay. RTS requires thought and planning, even if you did speed it up to the detriment of gameplay it would never match up.

Shadowfury333 · Post by **Shadowfury333** » 05 Oct 2006, 03:23

neddiedrow wrote:I wouldn't term anything required in FPS as skill persay. RTS requires thought and planning, even if you did speed it up to the detriment of gameplay it would never match up.

Then we are in agreement

mehere101 · Post by **mehere101** » 05 Oct 2006, 03:30

I can't really wrap my mind around how joining late game would help much. You would be behind, cornered. I could see it for specing, and I can see it if you were in the game but dropped out.

redcoat · Post by **redcoat** » 05 Oct 2006, 09:19

It "only" makes sense on a LAN were your buds would be willing to overlook nuking your behind. In short, no RTS has seriously considered it and no RTS will ever seriously consider it for a long, long time. Its not just a technical issue, its first and foremost a gameplay issue. Truely: Why do it? And before someone says "because we can" i have to say "Spring has enough issues and things that need to be worked on and optomized before they decide to add another silly feature....."

-|2edcoa├óÔé¼┬á

And while Torous/Nonending maps have been talked to death, is there any work to create "boundaries" for unit and camera movement so maps can extend beyond my view and I don't have to stare at empty space? It looks incredibly ridiculous. And incredibly ameaturish.

Risasi · Post by **Risasi** » 05 Oct 2006, 14:35

neddiedrow wrote:Don't mind Min3Mat, he's a little protective of things. Random things.

Okay, I got thick skin anyway. However I might have to poke him with a sharp pointy stick a few times when he's not looking.

Shadowfury333 wrote: esteroth12 wrote:
1. Joiner downloads 7-zipped replay, runs it quickly without rendering and tries to catch up while game is paused for everyone else.
2. Joiner downloads current state of units, weapon shells, etc. <---(The one I think is better)

regardless of which method is used, wouldn't that cause either the joiner to be inconvenienced with being behind or the other players to be inconvenienced with the intermittent pausing?

Ah, but not in my fairytale RTS world. Remember we're talking LAN party.

I anticipate running a dedicated host server, which is loaded to the hilt with memory/CPU/network bandwidth. And again, not with the type of map I am thinking. First off how is someone going to nuke another player if he doesn't even know where he is? Radar in Spring cannot pass through mountains, etc. right? This is part of the reason I want a curvature to the map. Radar isn't going to shoot over the horizon.
Not only this, I want HUGE maps. Something that might take you 10-15 minutes to cross from one side to the other in an aircraft, nevermind tanks and k-bots. And metal would be scattered in nickel dime fashion in certain areas, then stockpiles in other areas. Perhaps 30 small caches, and a half a dozen big deposits.

I am willing to resign myself to flat maps for now. I believe I can break out of the "trapped in a box syndrome" with decent map design. Basically by making them huge, and by not providing a corner for players to hide in.

Okay, Mr. Nuke City, let's pretend you are the big dog in a game, and there are a couple other empires as large as you. How long do you think you could survive if:

A: You don't have a wall to back yourself up to.

B: You have to fly multiple radar planes just to see a percentage of the battlefield.

C: The enemy you just killed will now appear entirely somewhere else on a huge map, in fact he may even team ally with one of your other enemies, giving better micromanagement of their armies. I can see this becoming all the more important. You have players becoming part of your team. This is one of the features in Spring that has real appeal. Even if you could in-game join another team after you lost would be huge for my friends and me.

D: What if you suddenly have four guys join in-game and they are pissed at you for destroying them. They decide to have a loose alliance and their only goal is to wipe your butt off of the map.

I forsee empires being built and lost, perhaps several times over in a given night. Remember I'm not thinking global conquest, I'm thinking King of the Hill. I'm dealing with a group of twenty guy who want to play, and they want to play NOW. Not wait around another hour and a half before they can join in another RTS.

I forsee stuff like this showing up in RTS's, the whole genre has kind of stagnated now. It needs something new, something fresh. I still prefer Advanced Civ and Tile Chess, however keeping track of board play sucks, hence computer strategy games. Why drag on a 30 hour game when you can settle it in four hours amongst a dozen buddies in an RTS.

10053r · Post by **10053r** » 05 Oct 2006, 18:50

First off, I applaud your vision. What you and I both want is globular maps with a 200 screen distance around the equator. In an area large enough, it wouldn't be that difficult to get a base somewhat defensible before you were discovered, particularly in a multiplayer game. I have several times played 4+ hour games where one or more of my teammates were almost killed off and had to restart and be sheltered by their teammates for a while, but came back to be the deciding factor in the game.

I am not a coder, nor have I looked at spring's code. However, I am given to understand that what you and I want is impossible with today's engine. Perhaps it would be possible if every computer on the network did not attempt to run the entire simulation? But that would add an enormous level of complexity to the game, since it would require that computers be able to trade off which areas of the gamespace they were responsible for in realtime. Alternatively, we can wait 3 years until computer power increases 4x. This will mean that the average computer will be have an upper limit of about 60 x 60 instead of 30 x 30 maps. Within 6 years, spring should be able to support maps large enough to play an RTS that allows restarting, unless the developers decide to spend that computing power on something else like maps that allow tunnels and bridges or non-spherical collision detection.

Globes, while I am sure they are possible given today's computer power, would require a new map format and a rewrite of the gravity code.

Since it sounds like you have a fair amount to spend on this project, why don't you put a $1000 bounty on globular maps? I'm sure it would get coded pretty fast, since it is a very cool project. Heck, if you put down $500 under the condition that the community matched it, I'm sure people would donate enough to get to $1000. I'll throw $20 at it.

Risasi · Post by **Risasi** » 05 Oct 2006, 19:06

Hmm, a $1000 bounty eh?

Interesting. It IS true, money answers all things. But how would we assure I would pay it?

As it is right now I want support for in-game respawn before I want the map making capabilities. You can always nerf resources or unit speeds to adjust for smaller map sizes. It's a bad solution but a decent workaround if nothing else is available.

Also I am willing to forego the whole torus/sphere issues. I get that. But I do want to push the map making to it's fullest. Curving the gravity field and water base if possible. And making maps as large as possible. The large maps sizes I see as more of a brute force issue. How much raw horsepower can you stuff into a machine to support larger maps. I believe the sky is the limit right now correct? It's just a matter of trying to see how big I can go.

Okay, you've REALLY got my wheels turning now. Bounty eh? Any bounty hunters out there? And how to we assure there is a fair payout. Mind you I haven't said there is a bounty yet....

Thoughts?

FizWizz · Post by **FizWizz** » 05 Oct 2006, 19:18

Bounties are bad news. They've been tried before for Spring, twice IIRC, and incited crap-storms without fail.

Spring RTS Engine

Sphere / Torus and in-game respawn; limitations

Sphere / Torus and in-game respawn; limitations