Yeah I tested Cultris a while back but was pretty dissatisfied with it and thought "I could do this better", but right now I've got exams coming up and dont have so much time left over so it will be a while yet before I can release something which works.
I would say TetriNet probably has the best basing in terms of the way the multiplayer works, and the fact it has adjustable DAS. I'd scrap the rotation though, and the 12-width playing field, and the 1000ms ARE when you're not playing on the fast mode.
For ARS rotation the hard drops automatically lock but for SRS the hard drops don't and the pieces disappear when they hit the ground until you rotate them, is this intentional? i prefer SRS for 40 line clear but if hard drop doesn't automatically lock then i don't think it will work well for Sprint mode.
Oh yeah, I was messing about with the rotation code and forgot to test it properly. I've mainly been working on the graphics these past days and never got around to fixing gameplay issues I created along the way but that is of course not an intended behaviour. I will fix this as soon as I find the time for it. Also, I added the 3 frame lock flash and 3 frame delay between ARE and the piece actually appearing, this is present in Sprint mode even though it will slow down the gameplay. I'm planning on letting the servers decide ARE, Lock and Clear delays while the client chooses rotation system and DAS. One of the main issues which I've not decided how to solve is how frequent the client-server updates are (i.e. should you be able to see your oppenent move his tetrominoes in real-time or only see when he has locked a piece). All suggestions/requests are very welcome! Edit: I found the reason why the pieces disappeared after a hard drop in SRS. It was a quick fix and I am uploading it in a moment. As for hard drop locking that is a direct consequence of the lock delay in Sprint mode defaulting to zero.
wow that's brilliant. consider me: psyched about netplay mode. things that i wish current authentic games would take mind to make things fair: everyone gets the same sequence of tetrominoes n-1 garbage (single sends 0, double sends 1, triple sends 2, tetris sends 3) everyone gets the same sequence of random garbage with one hole per garbage line. meaning the hole in each independent row of garbage is random, but all players receive the same sequence of these. this way "player a" doesn't get a lucky four in a rower while "player b" gets deadly trills.
That makes "card counting" easier. Why not tetris sends 4? And why no reward for T-spins? Oh, so that's why you don't want a reward for T-spins: so you can't exploit TSS/TSD to send ridiculous amounts of garbage while drilling through garbage.
I like the suggestion about giving the same sequence of tetrominoes. It somewhat simplifies the synchronization of client/server.
With the reduced amount of garbage sent from n-1 in combination with completely random garbage, the matches would be quite boring and slow. Back-to-back tetrises will most likely be reduced. Players will be too busy drilling through the scattered garbage most of the time to send any damaging attacks. Also, with this little garbage, I don't see a countering system working very well either. Matches will be extremely gradual as players slowly push each other into a topout. It essentially becomes a turtling game. I guess that's why combos are central in some other online clones (to allow pros to speed things up). I doubt T-Spins can be exploited that much more with random garbage than with aligned garbage. If the game is so slow, as in it's so hard to send garbage through tetrises, that T-Spins become broken, then I doubt single row random garbage is a good thing. Perhaps have two row high random garbage to give things some balance.
You're thinking too small! I want server-side options for: n-1 garbage (single sends 0, double sends 1, triple sends 2, tetris sends 3) TDS style garbage TGM style garbage And for the first 2 options, I want the ability to configure the probability of a duplicate column being chosen for 2 consecutive garbage rows. You'd want it to be 1/10, but it could be tweaked to satisfy all tetris players.
Personally, I would love to see TAP versus mode cloned in online play. It even has items, though the option to play "pure" (in TetriNET lingo) should be available.
"With the reduced amount of garbage sent from n-1 in combination with completely random garbage, the matches would be quite boring and slow." couldn't be further from the truth! these matches are the fastest, most mind-twisting ones around. TDS-style garbage matches are long and slow, but i tell you random garbage games don't last very long at all, since it's harder to get rid of. n-1 is there to slow it down actually. a lot of top-skill tnet guys wanted this. you'll see that with random garbage, you'll be using your mind a whole lot more than with "gimme tetris" garbage, and it's a lot more rewarding. t-spins? are you crazy? tell me you don't actually want to play with t-spins. anyway, no matter what you do, quad, keep in mind that despite what people tell you, despite all the options you allow, what you decide is "default" will have more influence on how people play the game than anything else.
Have you ever played TNet? Even with our amateur playing the games are lightning fast, usually over before even a minute has elapsed. That is partially because we have more than two people playing, and garbage is sent to everyone, but even when I was having 1 vs 1 with Edo the games would rarely drag on. If they did, it'd simply be because it'd be a close match. I can't recall a game lasting longer than about three or four minutes. I disagree with n-1 garbage to include Tetrises. I think a Tetris should send four lines. It just makes sense that way. Maybe back-to-back rewards aren't necessary, but I feel there should be an extra advantage for sending four lines.
I'd go for n-1 garbage, and n-0 for back-to-back triples or tetrises. So two tetrises in a row would send 7 lines of garbage, 3 for the first tetris and 4 for the back-to-back, and two triples in a row would send 5 lines, 2 for the first, 3 for the back-to-back. Or maybe only apply the b2b rule to tetrises, and not triples. I dunno, we'd have to try it in gameplay to see which plays better.
"I'd go for n-1 garbage, and n-0 for back-to-back triples or tetrises. " that sounds cool too. but don't forget that with n-1, tetrises are still the best by far, and are worth going for.
I had a 1v1 against edo last 162 seconds. That didn't feel like it was "dragging on" so much as "epic". I am reminded of the game between chaos and z-flo in the tournament in Honolulu that took something like 3 minutes, because it had the same feeling about it. If you want dragging on, just watch 2 people playing Panepon. In theory, that can last forever between 2 skilled players...
For once, I'm too lazy to do any refuting. I'll just take the easy way out and let the final product adjust itself. We can have a lot of theoretical debates but I'm sure the game will sort itself out in the long run. Afterall, it won't be hard to notice actual concrete flaws or exploits.
Here's an idea. n-1 garbage to start, but an increasing back to back bonus of 1 line, requiring a double or greater to start. so after sending 1 liner of garbage, you then clear one single, that will be worth 0+1 lines. you immediately follow it with a double that will be worth 1+2=3 lines. and THEN you drop a tetris, for 3+3=6 lines. This may be exploitable. On second thought, i'd have singles not send any garbage, but not break the back to back either. in this case, the double would be 2 lines, and the tetris would be 5 lines. In any case, to deal with the advantage a slow player has in seeing pieces in advance, the aggressor should get an avantage of some sort to balance it out.
the aggressor already has the time advantage, and the "i've seen what's coming ahead" thing is not a big deal at all. it's not like dtet players plan more than a few blocks ahead anyway. also i think you've confused b2b with combos.
