Zombasite skills
Friday, 12 December 2014
I'm usually worried about cannibalizing sales of our previous games so I try to keep some of the bigger things unique per game. I'm thinking of making an exception for classes & skills this time around. I think I'm going to keep the classes and skills in Din's Curse for Zombasite, at least as a starting point.

The hybrid stuff worked really well in DC and I think it will work even better with the trait stuff I've been working on (probably my next blog). We will of course change some of the skills to better suit a zombie game and rebalance everything.

For a change, I'm blogging about this before I make very many changes so it's a great time to get feedback from you guys. For those that have played DC, what skills do you think we should keep, which should we lose, and which should we change?

Comments

 
Dangers of the zombie apocalypse
Thursday, 14 August 2014
The zombie apocalypse has occurred in Aleria. At least now we know who the enemy is and where all the danger is, right? Well, as is common in an apocalypse the instigator is just the first problem, but necessarily the most dangerous.

Don't get me wrong, the zombies are definitely a huge threat. Not only are they attacking and killing every living being they can find. Their attacks are highly contagious. Almost anything killed by them becomes a zombie. Even as little as a scrape from a zombie might infect someone and then they will inevitably turn sooner or later. The zombie tide seems indestructible.

The previous wars in Aleria didn't help, but the zombies have destroyed any semblance of society still left. There are no farms or supply chains still intact. Even much of the wild game has been killed or infected. The food supply has been decimated. You and your people must find enough food so that you don't starve. This will not be easy.

Unfortunately, everyone else is in the same situation as you and they don't want to starve to death any more than you. With everyone fighting over the limited amount of food left, humans and even some of the more intelligent monster races are forming clans to protect themselves. Some of them are gathering together so that they are strong enough to take what they want from others. It is possible to become allies with other clans, but when they are slowly starving to death, will they betray you?

Even within your own clan it isn't safe. Humans living on the edge are even more unstable than usual. Some people are just bad people and will betray your clan for gold, food, or for no discernible reason. Some will have personality conflicts with others that might lead to fights and maybe even killings. Some might not be happy with their share of supplies and get angry. Two men might like the same female and cause problems. You never quite know how different people thrust into a life and death situation will react, especially over time.

And last but not least, Aleria has always been full of monsters. They have survived wars, famines, plagues, disasters, heroes, gods, and many other things that have threatened their existence. A bunch of zombies isn't going to eradicate them either. Their numbers might dwindle, but they are surviving the apocalypse and still causing the usual mayhem: wars, uprisings, attacks, etc.

So what do you think is going to be the biggest danger to you surviving the Zombie Apocalypse in Aleria: the zombies, starvation, other clans, local in-fighting, or the surviving monsters?

Comments

 
Why programming is sometimes hard
Friday, 18 July 2014
I fixed some networking issues in our engine (specifically Drox Operative) a while back and the path I had to take to find the solution was interesting, so I thought I would write up a little of what happened.

The problem was that once a game progressed long enough, people were having a hard time joining the server hosting that particular sector. Easy enough, I thought, but no matter what I did I couldn't reproduce the problem. I even got some of our gamers to send me their save games that they were having trouble with, but still no luck.

Even though I couldn't reproduce the problem, I looked at the save games to see if there was anything interesting going on. What I found was one of the initial networking messages was so large that the networking system needed to create over 10 fragments for it (the system would send 10+ smaller messages). At the time, the system would throw out the entire message if it received an out of order fragment or any fragment got lost. I figured if the packet loss was very high, a message of that size would almost never get through. So I set my handy packet loss tool to drop 50% of the packets and sure enough, I could almost never get that message through.

So I go about making the system smarter about fragments. I made it so it would store all of the fragments and if it missed a fragment or got an out of order fragment, everything was fine and it would just wait for the other side to resend the message again. As long as the next message was the same as the first, it would ignore repeated fragments and just use the fragments it needed. This way sooner or later, even with bad packet loss, it will get all of the fragments.

So now everything should work great. I test it and the new stuff does exactly what it should, but it still doesn't work. Even weirder is I turn the packet loss tool off and it still doesn't work even though it used to when the tool was off. At least now I have a reproducible situation.

I debug the problem and see that it gets each fragment fine until a little after 8192 bytes. It wasn't exactly 8192, but it was near enough to that power of 2 that I was suspicious. I turned the packet loss stuff back on and now I started getting data after 8192 bytes but I noticed that I was getting the same number of fragments through each time. So the networking was only delivering a certain number of bytes before eating everything else. I did a little googling and found out that Windows defaults to a 8192 buffer size for incoming UDP packets.

Ok, so I've found the problem. I found the correct commands and now the networking is told to use a much larger buffer so it can at least hold one large message. I test again and it still doesn't work! :( I start debugging again. Now I see fragments coming through way past 8192, so that is fixed, but I get to around 32K and then one of the numbers goes negative. Again that sounds like another power of 2. In this case it sounds like a signed 16 bit value. Sure enough I find that fragments are using a signed 16 bit for an offset number. Again easy enough, I change it to a 32 bit value so that should never be a problem again, assuming we never generate messages that are over 2GB in size. :)

I test again and things finally work as they should! So in the end, my initial packet loss changes had nothing to do with the real problem that we were running into. The fixes to the actual problem were like 2 lines of code compared to probably 100s dealing with the packet loss. However, it still is a nice change because it handles packet loss much better on large messages. I'm still not quite sure why I couldn't reproduce the problem in the first place though.

Comments

 
Clans
Wednesday, 09 July 2014
It occurred to me the other day that our upcoming zombie game will be our 3rd game to have some kind of clans, however each one works very differently.

We have covenants in Depths of Peril. These covenants are in a direct competition to become leaders of their town. Barbarians essentially "elect" their leaders through combat to the death. You have to deal with the other covenants in order to win. They are a constant threat, especially since they are based in the same town and can raid your house at a moments notice.

The races in Drox Operative work like clans, but the player isn't really part of any of them. The player is a freelance Operative that works between the races. The races war, trade, and in general fight to control the galaxy, but the player isn't in the direct line of fire. Although it is very easy to get sucked into the conflicts.

In our upcoming Zombie game, the player again controls their own clan. There are other clans in the world, but unlike DoP, the other clans aren't direct competition for you. You don't have to destroy or ally with them to win. That doesn't mean that you can ignore them though. There are a finite amount of resources easily available and you just might be an easy target or they just might not like you very much.

Comments

 
Zombie game monsters
Tuesday, 03 June 2014
I've been pulling over monsters from previous games to the new game recently. Most of them showed up in Din's Curse, but a few of them haven't made an appearance since Depths of Peril because we haven't had any outdoors since then. Not counting zombies, which monsters from our previous games would you really like to see in the new game?

Comments

 
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>

Results 1 - 9 of 217


Newsletter

Sign up for our free newsletter!
Name
Email

Search

Current Poll

Biggest danger in zombie apocalypse?