Spring:1944 dev and testing
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Posts: 81
- Joined: 18 Jul 2007, 07:06
Community feedback is only really useful once we've exhausted all the problems we can find with limited testing. Additionally, the community as a whole tends to give crappy feedback along the lines of "omgz why there no tiger?" and such nonsense.
Therefore, we're not going to be posting a build until we're good and ready.
Edit: to be fair, many individuals are fine. which is why we have lots of people outside the S44 team helping to test. the issue is that the general public sucks at giving useful feedback.
In other news, in rewriting the run script I've made it about three times as efficient on the move (from 1.5% CPU usage from scripts with 50 guys on the move to 0.5% CPU usage with 50 guys on the move), and way more efficient on stopping (old scripts go up to 5% of CPU usage when they stop, then slowly go down to 2-3% while idle, new ones go straight to 0%). This should make a fairly noticeable difference in large games for people with mid-low end CPUs. For those with ridiculous CPUs that can handle it, they'll just look better and be less buggy.
I'm still working out the kinks, but once it's all set expect some better, less buggy, and way more efficient run cycles.
Therefore, we're not going to be posting a build until we're good and ready.
Edit: to be fair, many individuals are fine. which is why we have lots of people outside the S44 team helping to test. the issue is that the general public sucks at giving useful feedback.
In other news, in rewriting the run script I've made it about three times as efficient on the move (from 1.5% CPU usage from scripts with 50 guys on the move to 0.5% CPU usage with 50 guys on the move), and way more efficient on stopping (old scripts go up to 5% of CPU usage when they stop, then slowly go down to 2-3% while idle, new ones go straight to 0%). This should make a fairly noticeable difference in large games for people with mid-low end CPUs. For those with ridiculous CPUs that can handle it, they'll just look better and be less buggy.
I'm still working out the kinks, but once it's all set expect some better, less buggy, and way more efficient run cycles.
- Pressure Line
- Posts: 2283
- Joined: 21 May 2007, 02:09
-
- Imperial Winter Developer
- Posts: 3742
- Joined: 24 Aug 2004, 08:59
Heh, reminds me of the schiltron from R:TW Barbarian Invasion ^_^
-
- MC: Legacy & Spring 1944 Developer
- Posts: 1948
- Joined: 21 Sep 2004, 08:25
-
- MC: Legacy & Spring 1944 Developer
- Posts: 1948
- Joined: 21 Sep 2004, 08:25
-
- MC: Legacy & Spring 1944 Developer
- Posts: 1948
- Joined: 21 Sep 2004, 08:25
Spiked, there are three likely causes of your desync issues...
I quit the game to even up the teams after you left, so I may as well drop some possibilities here.
1. Different version of the client.
2. LUA differences.
3. Map/Game differences.
If you check all of those again, and the problem persists, we may need to ask the bigwigs.
I quit the game to even up the teams after you left, so I may as well drop some possibilities here.
1. Different version of the client.
2. LUA differences.
3. Map/Game differences.
If you check all of those again, and the problem persists, we may need to ask the bigwigs.
-
- MC: Legacy & Spring 1944 Developer
- Posts: 1948
- Joined: 21 Sep 2004, 08:25
Here's an idea for Logistics:
A) Unprotected logistics structures, like the two we currently have, should be extremely weak. Afterall, they are mainly made up of a bunch of fuel barrels and boxes of ammunition. The small one should be so weak that a single spray or two from a submachinegun will blow it; the large one should be similarly weak.
B) Ontop of the two logistics structures we currently have, we could give each side a "re-enforced logistics stockpile", something with sandbags or logs or whatever to protect it more than the others. It could give as much logistics as the larger one we currently have, perhaps take twice as long to build and take quite a pounding...
C) The "Logistics Park" could also be given to everyone -- essentially this is a giant structure of barrels and ammo boxes strewn about. Kind of like the "Fusion", it would serve as something capable of handling most of a player's logistics needs. But, being unprotected, it'd also still be kinda weak.
D) Double the logistics output of the small logistics, and up it's buildtime by 50-100%.
A) Unprotected logistics structures, like the two we currently have, should be extremely weak. Afterall, they are mainly made up of a bunch of fuel barrels and boxes of ammunition. The small one should be so weak that a single spray or two from a submachinegun will blow it; the large one should be similarly weak.
B) Ontop of the two logistics structures we currently have, we could give each side a "re-enforced logistics stockpile", something with sandbags or logs or whatever to protect it more than the others. It could give as much logistics as the larger one we currently have, perhaps take twice as long to build and take quite a pounding...
C) The "Logistics Park" could also be given to everyone -- essentially this is a giant structure of barrels and ammo boxes strewn about. Kind of like the "Fusion", it would serve as something capable of handling most of a player's logistics needs. But, being unprotected, it'd also still be kinda weak.
D) Double the logistics output of the small logistics, and up it's buildtime by 50-100%.