next »

[st33d]

The change in the lighting algorithm seems justifiably awesome for taking more time.

By the way, which fov algorithm originally was it? I found a paper a while ago which helped me decide on shadowcasting as a good fit in as3 (because it's stonking fast):

http://www.robotacid.com/flash/red_rogue/shadow_casting/fov.pdf

I had to mirror the paper because it got taken down on the original site, but it makes for very interesting reading.

[AndySchatz]

At the time I couldn't find anything to work off of, so I invented my own:

Code:

       public bool CanSeeTile(MapPoint a, MapPoint b)
        {
           
            if (a == b)
                return true;

            if (a.X < 0 || b.X < 0 || a.Y < 0 || b.Y < 0 || a.X >= Data.worldData.MapDimensions.X || b.X >= Data.worldData.MapDimensions.X || a.Y >= Data.worldData.MapDimensions.Y || b.Y >= Data.worldData.MapDimensions.Y)
                return false;

            if (TileEngine.VCache != null)
                return CanSeeCachedTile(a, b);

//            const float maxDist = 20;

            for (int i=0; i<3; i++)
            {
                Vector2 offset = new Vector2(0,0);
                Vector2 currentPos = new Vector2(a.X + 0.5f, a.Y + 0.5f);
                Vector2 dest = new Vector2(b.X + 0.5f, b.Y + 0.5f);
                switch (i)
                {
                    case 0:
                        if (a.X == b.X || a.Y == b.Y)
                            continue;

                        if (a.X > b.X)
                            offset.X = 0.45f;
                        else
                            offset.X = -0.45f;
                        if (a.Y > b.Y)
                            offset.Y = 0.45f;
                        else
                            offset.Y = -0.45f;
                        break;
                    case 1:
                        if (a.X > b.X)
                            offset.X = 0.45f;
                        else
                            offset.X = -0.45f;
                        if (a.Y > b.Y)
                            offset.Y = -0.45f;
                        else
                            offset.Y = 0.45f;
                        break;
                    case 2:
                        if (a.X > b.X)
                            offset.X = -0.45f;
                        else
                            offset.X = 0.45f;
                        if (a.Y > b.Y)
                            offset.Y = 0.45f;
                        else
                            offset.Y = -0.45f;
                        break;
                }
                dest += offset;
                Vector2 slope = new Vector2(dest.X - currentPos.X, dest.Y - currentPos.Y);

                bool blocked = false;

                while (!blocked)
                {
                    float distX;
                    distX = (currentPos.X % 1);
                    if (distX == 0 && slope.X != 0)
                        distX = 1;
                    else if (slope.X > 0)
                        distX = 1 - distX;

                    float distY;
                    distY = (currentPos.Y % 1);
                    if (distY == 0 && slope.Y != 0)
                        distY = 1;
                    else if (slope.Y > 0)
                        distY = 1 - distY;

                    if (Math.Abs(dest.X - currentPos.X) < distX && Math.Abs(dest.Y - currentPos.Y) < distY)
                    {
                        currentPos = dest;
                    }
                    else
                    {
                        float moveX = distX / Math.Abs(slope.X);
                        float moveY = distY / Math.Abs(slope.Y);
                        if (Math.Floor(dest.Y) == Math.Floor(currentPos.Y) || slope.Y == 0 || moveY > moveX)
                        {
                            currentPos += slope * moveX;
                        }
                        else
                        {
                            currentPos += slope * moveY;
                        }
                    }
                    MapPoint tilePos = new MapPoint((int)Math.Floor(currentPos.X), (int)Math.Floor(currentPos.Y));
                    if (tilePos == b)
                    {
                        return true;
                    }
                    else
                    {
                        blocked = GetVisibility(tilePos)>0;
                    }
                }
            }
             
            return false;
        }

[eyeliner]

It's frustratingly easy to accuse the IGF organizers or judges of being lazy or corrupt.

Nope I believe they are neither.

I believe they (the ones who bail on their duties) have no method or just do not know what kind of mess they put themselves in. I have no beef with the IGF. Heck, let them charge 1225 grand. That's ok for me.

The judges should me more straightforward. But ultimately, it's the IGF that burns like a piglet in a roast because of it's team.

A PIGLET!
IN A ROAST!

EDIT:
I will win that shit one day.

[Paul Eres]

What is important is finding the right finalists and winners.  What is important is promoting the importance of independent game development.

It's frustratingly easy to accuse the IGF organizers or judges of being lazy or corrupt.

nobody was accusing them of being corrupt or lazy, that i can remember. rather i think they are rationalistic (in the sense of explaining away what a huge number of people see as problems) and uncompassionate (by not empathizing with those whose games are not judged competently), and too lenient towards bad judges. any judge who is admits to playing a game for only 5 minutes should be permanently banned from the igf judging roster, or at the very least given a warning not to repeat that behavior in the future. that one change would save the igf

even if the igf staff disagrees that the judges did anything wrong, they should still make that change for public relations reasons, since i believe the vast majority of people who enter the igf expect that judges should play their game for more than 5 minutes. if a person puts a year into a game, a judge can put an hour into playing it

[Rob Lach]

How about the IGF just improve the judges.

Keep some metrics on them. Weed out the bottom percents.

Instead of assigning a list of games to people, just have their current assigned games show up and nothing else when they log into the judging page (until they complete their assigned games). I fathom some judges just exploit the opportunity to play some unreleased indie games.

Why not require a short write-up (50-100 words) that gets sent to each entrant. Just some direct feedback in a critical environment like that is worth $100 (to me at least). Then you can have the entrant review the feedback so they can tell you if they actually played the game or not.

[hanako]

if a person puts a year into a game, a judge can put an hour into playing it

It will never happen that every game gets played by multiple judges for an hour each, not unless the IGF hires paid interns to play the games as a job - which probably means hugely increasing the entry fees and capping the number of entries allowed into the competition. These changes would drastically alter the character of the IGF, not 'save' it.

(I am obviously not privy to the finances and am simply guessing here, but very few people are going to put in twenty hours unpaid work in a three-week time period, and the overhead of actually hiring playtesters is not cheap.)

How about the IGF just improve the judges.

Keep some metrics on them. Weed out the bottom percents.

They do that already. Aren't you paying attention?

Why not require a short write-up (50-100 words) that gets sent to each entrant. Just some direct feedback in a critical environment like that is worth $100 (to me at least). Then you can have the entrant review the feedback so they can tell you if they actually played the game or not.

They did that previously. Aren't you paying attention?

[Paul Eres]

if a person puts a year into a game, a judge can put an hour into playing it

It will never happen that every game gets played by multiple judges for an hour each, not unless the IGF hires paid interns to play the games as a job

i already gave an estimate previously for this. let's say a judge is assigned to 18 games. 18 hours in the span of one month is half an hour a day. thats's hardly a job -- even a part time job. so i'm not sure what you mean here

[st33d]

What if you submitted a game that was ten seconds long? Would they have to play it for an hour?

But of course no one would be that mean 

[JMickle]

i dont think anyone would spend $95 for that.

but as part of a pirate kart...

i wonder how much play that got

[Dragonmaw]

Keep some metrics on them. Weed out the bottom percents.

Don't really like this.

Instead of assigning a list of games to people, just have their current assigned games show up and nothing else when they log into the judging page (until they complete their assigned games). I fathom some judges just exploit the opportunity to play some unreleased indie games.

This is actually what happens. Judges have to find a tiny little link if they want to see all of the games.

Why not require a short write-up (50-100 words) that gets sent to each entrant. Just some direct feedback in a critical environment like that is worth $100 (to me at least). Then you can have the entrant review the feedback so they can tell you if they actually played the game or not.

They did this my first year, then stopped. I liked it, but I guess it wasn't working.

[Paul Eres]

What if you submitted a game that was ten seconds long? Would they have to play it for an hour?

But of course no one would be that mean 

'to completion or one hour' is what i meant. although any good 5 minute art game has multiple endings / outcomes, too

[Paul Eres]

Keep some metrics on them. Weed out the bottom percents.

Don't really like this.

yeah, i don't either. i think it's better to change the attitude and setting a more positive tone, expelling bad judges as examples to the rest of them, and having a general guideline to give each game a fair shake -- not tracking people

[phubans]

So in light of this issue with the judges, is it possible that people will be seeking (and receiving) refunds?

[peanutbuttershoes]

har har har har

seek and ye shall recieve an email telling you "no"

[cynicalsandel]

It is all a conspiracy by the IGF to get less entries next year.