Techubus, most RTS are *not* peer to peer. Starcraft and Warcraft III are not peer to peer. There is one host who everyone is connected to in WC3. They do not have everyone connect to everyone else. That would be dumb...
I'm sorry, but the stuff about demigod having just as good networking as "other RTS" is just flag out wrong. Anyone who has played starcraft or warcraft knows you are wrong. I know you need to market your game, but please don't insult my intelligence by feeding me obvious falsehoods. At the very least, you make yourself sound uninformed. You guys went with a peer to peer networking model, which does not work well for games, and which starcraft and warcraft 3 *do not use*. You tried to
Denominus, yes, that's the impression I got playing the game. I don't know why Frogboy seems to think that RTS are peer to peer... I wish they had just gone with the tried and true model. Peer to peer sounds sexy... but it is not a good idea for a video game. Video games != bittorrent. Working around NAT *sounds* like a good idea too, but I have yet to see anyone do it reliably, and people have been trying for years.
>Every RTS I know of, other than Sins of a Solar Empire, is P2P. I think you guys are making some eroneous assumptions about how other major RTS developers make their games (blizzard). Blizzard doesn't host the game on their servers, but their topology doesn't look like yours either, as near as I can tell. In WCIII there are no shenanigans trying to work around NAT. If you don't forward your ports, you can't host, but you can still connect as a client. Also, I don't think e
WTF? Every time I try to set up a "multiplayer" skirmish game, the game starts *immediately* with me playing against bots. Skirmish was finally working fine yesterday, but now it's not even trying to connect me to anyone, just dumping into a bot game. If I wanted to play single player, I would have chosen that option... This bot thing is super annoying. I have port forwarding set up, so why won't it just wait around for some players to become available? There's no netwo
Thanks, I play a lot of starcraft and warcraft III and these charts are my bible. Could you please put these things up in a more public place than the developer's forum? WCIII has a nice strategy guide online where you can look up each units armor type, damage, upgrades, etc. It would be really great if there were a strategy section on the main page, even if it just led to these charts and nothing else.
The biggest area that I've seen that needs room for improvement is ICO. I see two major problems that fixes for would make my experience *so* much better. 1. ICO matchmaking is where battle.net was in 1998 with starcraft. Ranked anonymous matchmaking like warcraft III, and Halo 2, have is the way to go, as it makes it *much* faster to find a game. People like me who play strategy games play warcraft III, and so that sets the bar for our expectations of online service.
I'd seen on interviews and older versions of the faq that anonymous matchmaking would be offered, but I can't find it anywhere on ICO. Are anonymous matchmaking, ladders or some kind of ranking coming in a patch, or is ICO staying the way it it? I've got to say I was pretty disappointed logging into ICO and seeing that there was no way to get automatically matched for a game. Warcraft III, Halo, and all of the major online games have automatic matchmaking that keep the ladder f
how do we *get* the beta? thanks
Hamanu: If you don't have the base game without the expansion, you might as well get that. That seems to run ok on my system. The framerate isn't spectacular, but it's very playable and certainly fun. Turning off point sprites doesn't seem to solve it for me. I should note that I'm seeing the framerate issue in first part of the DA campaign where there are a number of ships, and some big ships on the screen simultaneously since that's as far as I've gotten in the game. <br/
I really wish they'd pick alpha centauri back up. It was a really good game, but they didn't support it very well (there were lots of bugs). On the mac, multiplayer didn't even work although it said otherwise on the box. I wish someone, maybe stardock, would put together a similar game (read alien planet colony simulation) and do it right.
I'm looking forward to increased performance on low end hardware as I really haven't been able to play since upgrading to dark avatar. For me it doesn't take that many ships on screen to really slow things down. Can you maybe give us some more graphics options to control performance? I suspect that low performance on my machine might have to do with how the ships are being lit and shaded, and I'd like to turn number of lights, and any shader stuff you might be doing down or off. <br
I played around with DA again today to see if I could pin down the problems more (I was the original poster for this thread), and I've made a few discoveries. In brief, it seems to be a problem with the way ships are lit. It's definitely the ships that are slowing things down. If I destroy all my ships, then everything else runs smooth as butter even with graphics turned all the way up. Planets and asteroids don't seem to slow anything down at all. Ships slow things down even w
GalCiv2 Forums
I'd like to see improved performance. A big reason why I play indy games is so that I don't have to buy a ridiculously expensive video card. My embedded intel card (GMA850) works well enough for all of the games I play, and it worked fine for dread lords. However, the upgrade to dark avatar made map use unplayable choppy even with graphics settings turned all the way down. I'd like to see some serious work on getting dark avatar working on lower end systems. The graphics aren't nearly f
Sorry for the late replay. Here's my debug.err. Debug Message: Version v1.5 last updated on: Thu Jan 11 13:39:19 2007 Debug Message: GalCiv2 is activated. Debug Message: Checking DX Version. Debug Message: *********DXDiag info follows.********* System Info Time: 2/18/2007, 18:45:36 DirectX Version: DirectX 9.0c (4.09.0000.0904) Machine Name: B-PORT Operating System: Windows XP Professional (5.1, Build 2600) Service Pack 2 (2600.xpsp_sp2_gdr.050301-151
I'm running on a 1.5 ghz pentium m with integrated graphics (intel 850). I found death lords to be very playable on my system even with graphics turned all the way up. Moving and rotating space when zoomed in on the map didn't result in spectacular frame rates, but it wasn't that bad at all. Now when I launch dark avatar, I find that there are long pauses when I try to move, rotate or anyting, and that it's completely unplayable. These problem persists with all graphics options turned d
Your example of Japan actually makes my point: 1. The Japanese *did* surrender, this is a historical fact. It is true that the Japanese government made a lot of noise about fighting to the end beforehand. I think it reveals how some aspects of Japanese culture have been trumped up to legendary proportions that even in the modern day people take this seriously... Soldiers might fight to the death... if they have no alternative, but civilians
I don't see how the surrender to ally thing makes the game more interesting. It certainly doesn't make it more realistic... Really, at some point the enemy should surrender to you... why else would you waste all that time conquering them if not to see them beaten into submission? Also, after I conquer planets, their popuations seem to be very low. What's the deal? Did I kill off all the aliens? I've noticed in a lot of space strategy games y
Demigod Forums
Sins Forums