Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:

Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:

shortcuts: alt+s submit/post or alt+p preview

Topic Summary

Posted by Legend
 - Oct 26, 2016, 04:55 PM
Nah, it'd be great for certain kinds of games.  
Like say for Avatar the last Airbender.  You could hit a directional button to change the entire moveset.  
Maybe up turns all moves to fire, down turns all moves to water. Etc.  Up+down turns all moves to ____.

Is it possible to send the audio directly to the PS4 controller?  Each controller would get its own sound with its own specific volume based off that specific players distance and angle data.  
Yup I plan/hope to have that audio option but most players will want the sound coming out of their speakers like it does for every other multiplayer game. I've been pulling out all my old splitscreen games to experiment and see how they do it. It's surprising how well the brain can ignore other player's audio.
Posted by the-pi-guy
 - Oct 26, 2016, 04:38 PM
I'm still planning to have fully customizable controls so if you want to play the game with everything mapped to combinations, be my guest  ;)

Nah, it'd be great for certain kinds of games.  
Like say for Avatar the last Airbender.  You could hit a directional button to change the entire moveset.  
Maybe up turns all moves to fire, down turns all moves to water. Etc.  Up+down turns all moves to ____.

The audio problem is that you don't want sounds playing twice. Instead for each sound you determine the closest/highest priority player and play it based off that distance and angle data.
Is it possible to send the audio directly to the PS4 controller?  Each controller would get its own sound with its own specific volume based off that specific players distance and angle data.  
Posted by Legend
 - Oct 26, 2016, 03:14 PM
What would be really cool is using every button several times over.  ;)
(I actually wanted to do something kinda like that.  Every button except the directional buttons.)
Clearly the solution is to switch between each one.  Just enable and disable each one like 60 times a second!
(I know nothing.)
I'm still planning to have fully customizable controls so if you want to play the game with everything mapped to combinations, be my guest  ;)


The audio problem is that you don't want sounds playing twice. Instead for each sound you determine the closest/highest priority player and play it based off that distance and angle data.
Posted by the-pi-guy
 - Oct 26, 2016, 01:10 AM
Right now the game feels like it has a good amount of strategy options so that's nice. I'm using every button except L3 and R3 though so hopefully I can optomize that a bit. Just today I added a mechanic that uses all of the d-pad so it was lucky I wasn't already using that.
What would be really cool is using every button several times over.  ;)
(I actually wanted to do something kinda like that.  Every button except the directional buttons.)

Unity doesn't support multiple audio listeners. Splitscreen just isn't that popular I guess. So now I'm having to create my own audio system for Battle.
Works out I guess but it'll be pretty basic.
Clearly the solution is to switch between each one.  Just enable and disable each one like 60 times a second!
(I know nothing.)
Posted by Legend
 - Oct 26, 2016, 01:03 AM
Unity doesn't support multiple audio listeners. Splitscreen just isn't that popular I guess. So now I'm having to create my own audio system for Battle.

Works out I guess but it'll be pretty basic.
Posted by Legend
 - Oct 24, 2016, 04:37 AM
Has it really been over a year since the last post in this thread? Developing a multiplayer game is odd.

Almost all my time with Battle has just been spent refining the gameplay. I prototype new mechanics and throw away old ones so often. Making an arcade FPS is so fun.

Right now the game feels like it has a good amount of strategy options so that's nice. I'm using every button except L3 and R3 though so hopefully I can optomize that a bit. Just today I added a mechanic that uses all of the d-pad so it was lucky I wasn't already using that.

More or less though I think Battle is pretty close to its final form. Now if only raw gameplay of it wasn't so confussing...
Posted by the-pi-guy
 - Jul 08, 2015, 07:29 AM
I've on played the CoD zombies.  Your complaints seem to be reminiscent of turned mode, but your positive suggestions are much like the original mode.  
At least in the first comment.  
Posted by Legend
 - Jul 07, 2015, 01:31 AM
What if players could fight the infection?

Every human is a real player and the alpha zombie is also a real player. When a humen is killed, they don't respawn. Instead their body stays there for a few seconds as the infection takes over. Soon a CPU is in charge and trying to kill humans. However the player is still in there too, trying to fight off the CPU and not kill the humans. CPU has 75% of control, player has 25%. Maybe have player control fade in and out.

Thus the goal never changes, and no players are stuck on the sidelines once killed. Also would make for fun voice chat, warning the humans you're coming.
Posted by Cute Pikachu
 - Jul 06, 2015, 10:11 PM
Looking good!
Posted by Legend
 - Jul 06, 2015, 10:04 PM
Actually I think it's quite easy. So the way I'm thinking about it would be the Zombie team is always going to loose the match. The goal is not to be a Zombie when the Match ends. RNG is used to detriment Who gets placed on the Zombie team at the start and how long the match is. Grantee a match of at least 3-4 mins but beyond that who knows when the buzzard will ring. Anyone who's a zombie at the end of the game looses. So Zombie kills a Human Becomes Human While the killed Player becomes Zombie and vice versa.
But that would keep the teams even. There's no sense of the zombie team getting bigger and bigger, while the ods of the humans winning get lower and lower.

Sweet mode on its own, but not an infection mode alternative.


Glad to see I'm not the only one that finds problems with traditional Zombies!
Posted by Mmm_fish_tacos
 - Jul 06, 2015, 09:57 PM
I don't like infection/zombie modes. It feels off to me that as a human your only goal is to survive, yet if you fail you just switch to the winning team. I'd love it so much more if one team or the other was purely AI controlled. That way when you died and turn into a zombie, it's now a different being controlling your character. You've failed and that's that. Only negative of this approach compared to classic zombies is that dead players don't get to keep playing.

I'm sure I'll include a traditional Infection mode and one could always make one with the custom mode creation tool, but it doesn't sound fun to me.

How about any of you guys. What are your thoughts on Infect/Zombie modes?
Actually I think it's quite easy. So the way I'm thinking about it would be the Zombie team is always going to loose the match. The goal is not to be a Zombie when the Match ends. RNG is used to detriment Who gets placed on the Zombie team at the start and how long the match is. Grantee a match of at least 3-4 mins but beyond that who knows when the buzzard will ring. Anyone who's a zombie at the end of the game looses. So Zombie kills a Human Becomes Human While the killed Player becomes Zombie and vice versa.
Posted by Xbro
 - Jul 06, 2015, 09:46 PM
I don't like infection/zombie modes. It feels off to me that as a human your only goal is to survive, yet if you fail you just switch to the winning team. I'd love it so much more if one team or the other was purely AI controlled. That way when you died and turn into a zombie, it's now a different being controlling your character. You've failed and that's that. Only negative of this approach is classic zombies is that dead players don't get to keep playing.

I'm sure I'll include a tradition Infection mode and one could always make one with the custom mode creation tool, but it doesn't sound fun to me.

How about any of you guys. What are your thoughts on Infect/Zombie modes?
I think you hit something on the head there, but I'm not sure of a remedy for it.
Posted by Legend
 - Jul 06, 2015, 09:45 PM
I don't like infection/zombie modes. It feels off to me that as a human your only goal is to survive, yet if you fail you just switch to the winning team. I'd love it so much more if one team or the other was purely AI controlled. That way when you died and turn into a zombie, it's now a different being controlling your character. You've failed and that's that. Only negative of this approach compared to classic zombies is that dead players don't get to keep playing.

I'm sure I'll include a traditional Infection mode and one could always make one with the custom mode creation tool, but it doesn't sound fun to me.

How about any of you guys. What are your thoughts on Infect/Zombie modes?
Posted by Legend
 - Jul 02, 2015, 05:51 PM
But will you be able to share your modes??
That would make it the next MM game!
Not sure how to handle the modes online. You'll at least be able to play in online private matches using them.

LBP coding is kinda similar to my mode coding...
Spoiler for Hidden:
nodes ftw
Posted by Dr. Pezus
 - Jul 02, 2015, 05:39 PM
But will you be able to share your modes??
That would make it the next MM game!