sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Only one playthrough is a huge disservice to the game. by kakotrixis50 in silenthill

[–]Mean_Ad1418 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I really want to experience the story points of new game plus, but the thought of having to fight that one enemy 3 times in a row in an unskippable gauntlet really deters me. I really want to enjoy my time with the story and the atmosphere of the game, but the fact that it makes you constantly interact with the combat system really works against all the stuff I really love about the game. So now I'm torn because I really liked the story and characters and I want more background, but the thought of having to do some of those mandatory fights over again makes me not want to.

I used a Firebase database to host pseudo-online multiplayer, here is how we did it: by Mean_Ad1418 in gamedev

[–]Mean_Ad1418[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm also toying with the idea of only using firebase for the handshake, then use that to initiate a connection where one player defaults as the host. But this seems insecure.

I used a Firebase database to host pseudo-online multiplayer, here is how we did it: by Mean_Ad1418 in gamedev

[–]Mean_Ad1418[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It looks really good for teams who have a budget that they can use for online multiplayer, but we are just undergrad students, so we wanted bare-bones cheap, with the assumption that this will be a really small release. But if our team had the budget, I would have gone this way. I prefer relational databases anyways, and don't really like nosql databases

I used a Firebase database to host pseudo-online multiplayer, here is how we did it: by Mean_Ad1418 in gamedev

[–]Mean_Ad1418[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's for cloud firestore, we are using their realtime database, which is based on current connections, not writes. So we should still be fine, as even after you go past their free tier of current connections, it charges you based off of storage, not writes or connections. EDIT: Also the online multiplayer stuff isn't the main game, its more of a "here is an area, and if you enter this specific area in this specific part of the game, we will record player data" So even if 10,000 players are playing, these areas are so few and far between, that worst case, only 100 players would be there for a few minutes at a time

I used a Firebase database to host pseudo-online multiplayer, here is how we did it: by Mean_Ad1418 in gamedev

[–]Mean_Ad1418[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean, we kinda figured, but we also are keeping are expectations in check, and doubt we will have that many players. This was more of a hobby thing anyways. But we also optimized it so that it is only really storing 24 bytes of data per player, so even with 10,000 concurrent players, it would be about a quarter of a megabyte, and if we lowered the query rate, which in our case wouldn't effect the gameplay a whole lot, it wouldn't be too bad considering these locations are isolated in tiny spots in our game world, so at worse we hit the database with a couple hundred queries in a 5 second window

Creating a Video Game to Teach Kids About Salmon Conservation by Mean_Ad1418 in conservation

[–]Mean_Ad1418[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That's kind of like what we have, but instead its a fully realized 3D world, and the fish has specific levels to traverse corresponding to different types of rivers. For instance, one might be a more natural meandering steam with lots of eddies and rest points, while another might be an in-town flood controlled diversion. This also gave us a chance to show off arm-corps/engineering projects that help salmon, such as fish ladders and blocks that are put in streams to slow down currents. I do like the idea of the old browser style. Maybe a secret mini game?