Submit
In response to reply on Call of Duty is dead?
B5262118b588a5a420230bfbef4a2cdf
0
Stainless 151 Apr 01, 2014 at 00:44
From what I understand: You’re making excuses, and playing word games. You have the exact 
same vantage point regardless of exit point to “flank” from. Halo and Halo 2 are both great  
examples of this. You can sit in the same spot, and spawn kill REGARDLESS of “which side” they 
move out from behind the rock.

Total bollocks.

In the case I am talking about the exits are so far apart you can’t see all of them from anywhere on the map. The castle map. You can’t even see the spawn point from outside the castle.

The only one showing immaturity here is you. You seem to have a vision of the way you want to play the game and if anyone wants to play differently, you force them out of the game.

Just take your ball home and see your mommy, she’ll explain that you are supposed to share.

As for lack of realism in the game, you need a certain level of reality in a game so the players can become absorbed in the game. This creates the suspension of disbelief that is required for immersion in a game. Something that is glaring wrong, like no-scoping in COD, or poor movement routines in other FPS I have played, break that absorption and ruin the game.

As someone who has been writing games for 30 years, I do actually know what I am talking about

In response to reply on Call of Duty is dead?
5ccedf5e0f538b594eb578f003ade3eb
-1
Hyper 96 Mar 31, 2014 at 17:13

And that’s why I dropped people, or made them lag horribly until they quit being a douche.

In other games: I’d just exploit other means to force them to stop, and actually play the game. Namely Diablo II’s “flash” packet.

From what I understand: You’re making excuses, and playing word games. You have the exact same vantage point regardless of exit point to “flank” from. Halo and Halo 2 are both great examples of this. You can sit in the same spot, and spawn kill REGARDLESS of “which side” they move out from behind the rock.

I can almost sense your immediate reply will be something on the lines of, “Then don’t move,” or “don’t get killed in the first place.” Which is just more of the same: I just dropped players or lagged them so hard they couldn’t abuse the system, and I’d stop once the game started again.

That or stand-by so I could move freely to a safe spot so the game could resume. :)

In regards to “NO SCOPING”: You’re comparing apples to oranges in attempt to make more excuses. I don’t even know how to categorize that… Sad, delusional, or just plain wrong.

Let’s just follow your silly “argument”: THAT GAME’S SO UNREAL! YOU CAN JUMP MORE THAN 2 FEET OFF THE GROUND! THAT’S ABUSING THE SYSTEM! I’d like to see YOU jump 2 feet off the ground with 200lbs of gear on you!

And as a final note: I was going to post a thread regarding programming, but after seeing this horrific display of immaturity: I think I’ll take my questions else-where, to a more adult audience. Not sure what kind of “advice” I’d be given, if I did ask a serious question. Probably something on the lines of, “Reformat your operating system to solve your problem.” Sounds about right.

In response to reply on Call of Duty is dead?
5ccedf5e0f538b594eb578f003ade3eb
0
Hyper 96 Mar 31, 2014 at 17:09

That’s like saying you’re going to stand there and LET somebody stab you, as opposed to walking away. It becomes a threat when they circumvent your simple defense tactic (in the case of audio: Muting that player). That’s sexual HARASSMENT.

And to quote Wikipedia: “Sexual harassment refers to PERSISTENT and unwanted sexual advances”

Has this said person ever verbally said to “STOP” it? And if so: Did they do anything other than that (muting them)?

In response to reply on Call of Duty is dead?
B5262118b588a5a420230bfbef4a2cdf
0
Stainless 151 Mar 31, 2014 at 00:43

Agreed.

I think it is only a matter of time before someone gets prosecuted based on in game communication.

If something isn’t done about it, governments will get involved, and when governments get involved they always go to far and screw everything up.

In response to reply on Call of Duty is dead?
B5262118b588a5a420230bfbef4a2cdf
0
Stainless 151 Mar 31, 2014 at 00:40

When is killing someone who is so stupid, they run into your field of fire 5 -6-7-8 times when there are four alternatives considered spawn killing? He could have run out of another door and tried to flank me. Sensible tactic which would have probably succeeded.

That’s not abusing the games system, that’s a player being brain dead.

To then send abusive messages is unacceptable.

I consider no-scoping abusing the system, even though it is actually part of the system. I find it ridiculous that firing a sniper rifle without aiming actually hits a target. Try holding a modern sniper rifle to your shoulder and aiming while stood up. You would be lucky to hit a barn door at 20 metres.

Yet people actually message asking for no scoping matches. No accounting for taste or intelligence.

In response to reply on Call of Duty is dead?
A8433b04cb41dd57113740b779f61acb
1
Reedbeta 167 Mar 30, 2014 at 22:55

“Just ignore/mute them” is not an acceptable solution to sexual harrassment.

In response to reply on Call of Duty is dead?
5ccedf5e0f538b594eb578f003ade3eb
0
Hyper 96 Mar 30, 2014 at 20:11

Lots of games implement this. Unfortunately ‘smurfs’ circumvent the system, and nothing happens to them (because they can always “derank” back to that low level and not be banned).

What they need to do is prevent deranking on such a massive scale. You should derank so slowly: It’ll take 200x as long, than it did to rank up!

In this sense: Those who are truly good go up, go up fast, and stay up!

That, and/or introduce a “TRAINING” system scheme. As in: You versus computers, or! You versus particular set of challenges (before being allowed to play against other players).

You could easily cut it up into sections: Strategy (determined by the path(s) taken by a player, compared against time) Aiming (the player’s ability to hit moving targets while standing still, or while the player is moving (increase in player base rank)) and more…

This would literally eliminate A LOT of problems off the bat! I would be able to play a new game, with other players ‘around’ my skill level, without having to play against a bunch of boring newbies who suck horribly and just camp all day long (thus ruining the enjoyment of any challenge).

In response to reply on Call of Duty is dead?
5ccedf5e0f538b594eb578f003ade3eb
-2
Hyper 96 Mar 30, 2014 at 20:09

I am pretty sure people are capable of muting their audio, or particular players… Sexual harassment is old news!

In response to Call of Duty is dead?
5ccedf5e0f538b594eb578f003ade3eb
-1
Hyper 96 Mar 30, 2014 at 20:06

And if you can’t see how pathetic spawn killing is, and destroys the enjoyment of a game: Perhaps you should stand back and look at other easily conceivable like-wise concepts.

Somebody in this “thread” mention the 1% owning 65 times more than the richest of the poor. You complain about that, but say it’s OK to spawn kill and abuse a game’s system?

If you follow the logic of abusing a game’s system: Why not just take one step further in that direction. Plenty of people have in the past. Auto-aim hacks make you “such a good player!” You’re so elite. Hehehe…

Or wait! There’s another step in abusing systems. Why not continue to exploit the system, thus destroying the fun, and make a wall-hack, so you can shoot any player during spawn while making yourself impunitble to damage by aversion (due to the nature of other players attempting to enjoy a game by NOT abusing it’s system)?

Or is that too much to ask?

5ccedf5e0f538b594eb578f003ade3eb
0
Hyper 96 Mar 30, 2014 at 19:50

You took the words RIGHT out of my mouth! I was going to post a lengthy post explaining my issue regarding a small project I just started (design related): But I’m not sure “where to post it” now… :(

I seriously prefer the former ‘image’ forum that DevMaster sported!

Fd80f81596aa1cf809ceb1c2077e190b
0
rouncer 103 Mar 30, 2014 at 06:17

does anyone like it? i love it! XD

Fd80f81596aa1cf809ceb1c2077e190b
0
rouncer 103 Mar 29, 2014 at 15:30

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqoFvwqpi-U&feature=youtu.be

Fd80f81596aa1cf809ceb1c2077e190b
0
rouncer 103 Mar 29, 2014 at 15:24

E7625df5216e5b77ef7a622837bfeaf2
0
mohsenrf 101 Mar 26, 2014 at 15:08

Hey Daniel,

Unity is an awesome and powerful, however it is really easy to get cought up in all its features if you are not clear about your goal (or game design in this case).

A while ago I was experimenting with unity and made a simple 3D tilt packman. It was fun. You may want to give it a try (just redesign all the rules!).

Cheers, Mohsen

3c5be51fdeec526e1f232d6b68cc0954
0
Sol_HSA 119 Mar 25, 2014 at 11:45

Yes, it’s crap. The way Microsoft went about it with an offline high level compiler may have been a better option. There’s still plenty of “low-level” compilation to do that will differ from driver version to another, but the differences shouldn’t be as drastic as you get from high level..

6532e3e5e09db6f966770fdf86c03345
0
hellhound_01 104 Mar 25, 2014 at 11:33

I solved this issue unrolling the for-loops by myself. It’s crap and blow up the code, but feasible for an expected maximum of 8 light sources without loosing the flexibility by avoiding constant definitions.

3c5be51fdeec526e1f232d6b68cc0954
1
Sol_HSA 119 Mar 25, 2014 at 10:39

For-loops that use an uniform as the range are known to cause problems on many shader compilers.. Basically they’d want to unroll loops but can’t do so because they don’t know the maximum range.

6532e3e5e09db6f966770fdf86c03345
0
hellhound_01 104 Mar 25, 2014 at 09:13

Thanks for your suggestions. I will give those a try, but I think I can’t use this. If I use a shader for each light count I will have to change each enlightable material shader if I could not share them.

On the other hand an iteration over the maximum number of lights will asume that I’ve to send any light to shader …

Hmm maybe the dirty workarround could help and perhaps I could unwind the loop …

015577f364b060c8a334990df9a29050
0
nosmirck 102 Mar 25, 2014 at 07:02

Unity is great! and no, I only use free version, I still have no money to buy the pro… But as soon as I get enough money I’ll buy it because making games is my job! (I live in venezuela, so it is hard to get dollars here).

015577f364b060c8a334990df9a29050
0
nosmirck 102 Mar 25, 2014 at 07:01

It had to be at least this hard, it was one of the requirements for the flapyjam, make it really hard. Thanks for the tip anyways :)

015577f364b060c8a334990df9a29050
0
nosmirck 102 Mar 25, 2014 at 07:01

Thanks! A friend of mine, who is a professional illustrator made the sprites for me, I’m not such a good artist XD

B5262118b588a5a420230bfbef4a2cdf
0
Stainless 151 Mar 24, 2014 at 14:53

Generate a shader with each light count , crap I know.

shader_l1.fx, shader_l2.fx, etc….

I would try one thing first.

Instead of changing the number of lights, always loop over the maximum number of lights.

Then turn off the ones you are not using

for (int i=0; i<16; i++)
{
    if (light_active[i] !=0)
    {
          // do lighting
    }
}
6532e3e5e09db6f966770fdf86c03345
0
hellhound_01 104 Mar 24, 2014 at 14:18

This is bad, because my number of lights could change every frame based on light culling results of the renderer. Any suggestion how I could solve this?

B5262118b588a5a420230bfbef4a2cdf
0
Stainless 151 Mar 24, 2014 at 13:39

It has a problem with a variable as the conditional value yes

6532e3e5e09db6f966770fdf86c03345
0
hellhound_01 104 Mar 24, 2014 at 10:48

Howdy! Thankds for your great explanation. It’s strange …

Using the define for the light count anything is working as expected. Am I right in thinking that the loop has problems with solving the condition at runtime?

Welcome to DevMaster, a community-driven game development website of posts and resources!

Recent Tags

indie × 5
game-development × 5
ios × 3
android × 3
iphone × 1
c# × 1
mobile × 1
physics-engines × 1
native × 1
macos × 1
sound × 1
music × 1
multiplayer × 1
networking × 1
testing × 1
game-programming × 1
design-patterns × 1
3d-engine × 1
shaders × 1
cross-platform × 1
gaming × 1
game-design × 1
game-industry × 1
graphics × 1
royalty × 1