Multiplayer
by Unlisted · in Torque Game Builder · 09/29/2007 (7:56 pm) · 5 replies
Why does TGB have bad multiplayer capabilities? TGE has one of the best multiplayer systems around. Yet TGB gets slapped with "TORQUENET LITE" which has the power to "incorporate turn-based multiplayer functionality", "adapted from the powerful Torque Network Library code."
Heres my question, why not adapt the WHOLE TORQUE NETWORK LIBRARY CODE instead of just PART OF IT? If need be people would pay more money just for this feature since its very useful and opens a wide range of game options. I'm sure most of the gg staff knows this from the many successful TGE multiplayer games that have been made and sold at their very shop.
Heres my question, why not adapt the WHOLE TORQUE NETWORK LIBRARY CODE instead of just PART OF IT? If need be people would pay more money just for this feature since its very useful and opens a wide range of game options. I'm sure most of the gg staff knows this from the many successful TGE multiplayer games that have been made and sold at their very shop.
About the author
#2
I have used the TGE to make a turn based card game that sported a 3d world. 2d projects like this are what sparked the idea to make a 2D version of the engine. Its just too bad it lost alot of its functionality in the morph.
*CT is no longer available.
11/12/2007 (4:06 am)
T2D (later known as TGB) are simply gutted versions of the TGE. Networking was one of the items that was seriously reduced. There used to be a thread here explaining why but I haven't been able to find it. Had something to do with some problems they encountered and that they might one day revisit it (not gonna happen). That said, most projects one would want to make with TGB don't need a real time network transfer anyways. If one wanted to say create a sports game, or even a RTS one would be better off using the TGE and making their own adjustments to get the look they wanted. Simply look at Critter Tennis* and Tribal Trouble in the GG store for examples of both styles done in TGE (Critter Tennis* was wicked fun). I have used the TGE to make a turn based card game that sported a 3d world. 2d projects like this are what sparked the idea to make a 2D version of the engine. Its just too bad it lost alot of its functionality in the morph.
*CT is no longer available.
#3
11/12/2007 (8:02 am)
Tribal Trouble wasn't made in Torque. It was a Java-based engine.
#4
It "could"have been done with Torque, hows that. :)
11/12/2007 (2:58 pm)
Ahh cool, thanks David. it sure looks alot like the engine in the game though. It "could"have been done with Torque, hows that. :)
#5
Heh. Yeah, the terrains especially have a "Torque-y" look to them!
@Pload
A decision was made during the development process to increase the ease of use with the engine. TNL, while robust, is not non-network initiate friendly. It assumes a base level of network knowledge to use, and that base level is significantly higher than TGB's entry-level knowledge assumptions.
As to why multiple levels of TNL were not included, I think it has more to do with dev time than anything. It would be nice if there were multiple levels of networking included in TGB for advanced users, but it would be a support nightmare for users with no network knowledge. Explaining ghosting in TGE is a nightmare, let alone getting into the details of it. Combining the original physics model into a robust networked framework is the kind of thing that would give me documentation nightmares. Perhaps with tick-based physics, it will be easier to implement. But I don't know. I haven't looked that deeply into adding more robust networking to TGB other than playing with Tom Bampton's TGE/TGB real-time networking resource.
11/12/2007 (3:12 pm)
@Tank DorkHeh. Yeah, the terrains especially have a "Torque-y" look to them!
@Pload
A decision was made during the development process to increase the ease of use with the engine. TNL, while robust, is not non-network initiate friendly. It assumes a base level of network knowledge to use, and that base level is significantly higher than TGB's entry-level knowledge assumptions.
As to why multiple levels of TNL were not included, I think it has more to do with dev time than anything. It would be nice if there were multiple levels of networking included in TGB for advanced users, but it would be a support nightmare for users with no network knowledge. Explaining ghosting in TGE is a nightmare, let alone getting into the details of it. Combining the original physics model into a robust networked framework is the kind of thing that would give me documentation nightmares. Perhaps with tick-based physics, it will be easier to implement. But I don't know. I haven't looked that deeply into adding more robust networking to TGB other than playing with Tom Bampton's TGE/TGB real-time networking resource.
Torque Owner Pesto126