ZooM Multiplayer Issues

For those of you who are following the ZooM thread or the project itself, you've probably picked up on the fact that it'll be multiplayer. I mean, what fun is it racing yourself? =P

Now, we have had a back-and-forth issue with how we're going to conduct the multiplayer part of the game. We currently have two options, since the mod will be for ZDoom:

1) Make it simply ZDoom 2.0 and add as many neat features as possible and rely on people to play it TCP/IP when they wish to play multiplayer games.

Or:

2) Make it ZDaemon compatible. This will however limit some of the features of the mod. The mod is also designed so that players with mlook will have an advantage and jump is almost certainly required. Last I recall, ZDaemon had problems with mlook.

Anyway, we're really like to see what everyone thinks. It would take more work for us to make it ZDaemon compatible, but if it's in the genral interest, we'd love to make everyone happy. Please vote!

(PS, I need a mod to move this to WADs and Mods for me, the people in #ZDoom instructed me on this. Oh, and Danarchy sent me. o_o Oh, and please delete this line)

Hint: ZDaemon uses TCP/IP.

We're trying to figure out if people would prefer to use ZDoom or ZDaemon's client-server ease of playing and server lists.

I could never get multiplayer to work. (ever) :(

Uh, heh, ZDaemon uses TCP/IP...

FIRST VOTE!

Hint: ZDaemon uses TCP/IP.

Uh, heh, ZDaemon uses TCP/IP...

somebody fails it!

Anyway, if you make it for zdoom 123, then it will work on 2.0 too right? So the answer is obvious...

Well, the second choice should read "ZDaemon! I want client/server" instead then, I guess.

Anyway, it looks so far like people wouldn't mind not using ZDaemon for our mod. Huh.

Zdoom sucks for gameplay.

999cop said:

Zdoom sucks for gameplay.

Care to elaborate?

I bet this is a dumb question because there's never any helpful information like this, but is there a list somewhere that tells what 2.0 has that 1.23 b33 doesn't have, so we can avoid using it and then later realizing it doesn't work and have to go back and change it?

The best places to look for details like that is the text files that come with the betas and the zdoom forums...

About zdoom/zdaemon; you could also annoy Heit by suggesting to add client/server support to zdoom... presently zdaemon is maintained only lightly, and who knows if it'll be updated much. Otherwise its network code is pretty stable, so Heit might want to add it to zdoom. Not sure how this goes in respect to licensing, but otherwise it certainly makes sense.

Nanami said:

I bet this is a dumb question because there's never any helpful information like this, but is there a list somewhere that tells what 2.0 has that 1.23 b33 doesn't have, so we can avoid using it and then later realizing it doesn't work and have to go back and change it?

I'm pretty sure, eh nothing.

I fail it

Nanami said:

I bet this is a dumb question because there's never any helpful information like this, but is there a list somewhere that tells what 2.0 has that 1.23 b33 doesn't have, so we can avoid using it and then later realizing it doesn't work and have to go back and change it?

I know that 1.23 beta33 did not support the "spawnspot" command which lets you bring non-doom (heretic, hexen) things into the game. Hexen support is meant to be complete in 2.0, it's not in 1.23. I think there is a significant number of minor details and fixes in 2.0, but you probably don't need to use them to make your mod complete.

My opinion is that you should concentrate on zdoom 2.0 since most of us don't want to keep a copy of 1.23 beta33 around. As far as I can tell, there's no more support for Zdaemon and bugs introduced with the recent version aren't being fixed.

Nanami said:

I bet this is a dumb question because there's never any helpful information like this, but is there a list somewhere that tells what 2.0 has that 1.23 b33 doesn't have, so we can avoid using it and then later realizing it doesn't work and have to go back and change it?

If you use 2.0, you can add tons of new things (scenery and fake pickups) without any trouble, via the decorate lump. (a very good reason to use 2.0)

999cop said:

Zdoom sucks for gameplay.

Flame war ahoy!

man, this oldchool vs modern gameplay discussion has stirred up quite a lot recently. Those two factions have their minds set on their current opinions and won't change them easily, so just keep silent about it. No flames will be accepted in this forum.

Biffy said:

As far as I can tell, there's no more support for Zdaemon and bugs introduced with the recent version aren't being fixed.

I kind of doubt what you found about freelook is really a bug. In csdoom Fly got rid of the possibility to shoot the BFG at the ground... this goes a step further but follows the same philosophy, as I see it. If you want to see such features in a client/server engine encourage Heit to do what I said, because zdaemon isn't zdoom (it's just based on it, like zdoom is based on doom.)

NiGHTMARE said:

Care to elaborate?

Disadvantages:
* silent sounds are missing
* plasma platform bug on map01
* sharp sounds, unlike the original which sounds a bit with echo

Advantages:
* smooth mouse sensitivity

That is all the issues I think of in my head right now.

After a bit of investigation, we'll probably end up gearing this so it'll work with ZDaemon. Still, the mlook bug annoys me. Oh well, I'm not the one using ZDaemon here. =P

Besides, if we made it work in ZDaemon, people could still play it with ZDoom 2.0

Nanami said:

After a bit of investigation, we'll probably end up gearing this so it'll work with ZDaemon. Still, the mlook bug annoys me. Oh well, I'm not the one using ZDaemon here. =P

Besides, if we made it work in ZDaemon, people could still play it with ZDoom 2.0

meh, mouselook sucks imo