Chainsaw
Joined: Aug 31, 2005
|
 Posted:
Apr 04, 2008 - 01:40 |
 
|
UPDATE: WIP screenshots here:
http://fumble.sourceforge.net/screens/
ORIGINAL POST:
Ok, a while ago there was a bit of a stir with some people (including myself) threatening to create a new BB client.
This project was registered for it:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/fumble
After a sabbatical from BB due to personal reasons (well it's addictive and I had to get away from it) I'm returning but not really to play - instead to create a nice little BB client. This is the brainstorming thread for it.
Note: I'm not looking for help at this stage, I'd prefer to prototype alone - the last effort quickly nose dived when everybody wanted to go in a different direction (personally I felt those involved did not understand the technologies involved and this caused too much diversion).
Some thoughts:
- I'm planning an isometric representation of the pitch. I have some nice isometric grass textures and I think it could be a nice way to create a nicer visual style than JavaBB but at the same time be easy to create graphics for - photos of painted models should do just fine and I know that painted models are not in short supply around here!
- It will be client-server. All dice rolls made by the server. If this thing works, it will be hosted. No cheating possible, games really easy to organise, and resumable without having to save/load (it's just stored on the server).
- I want a single client to have the ability to watch multiple games at once, and to replay matches.
- It will be open source.
Hopefully I'll be reporting back here over the next few weeks/months with some progress.
If you have any ideas or features you'd really like to see generally in a BB client, feel free to leave them here and I'll respond when I make updates. |
Last edited by Chainsaw on %b %17, %2008 - %21:%May; edited 1 time in total |
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Apr 04, 2008 - 01:49 |
|
Hi, sounds great..... you making a new client wouldnt really be a threat, more a blessing.
Some key points you'll want to bear in mind:
- make it LRB5 or LRB6 or no one will bother with it
- a client is already part built, maybe you could take it on from where it is? Check it out
- be careful about "no cheating possible", dont assume.
- the website name is spelt fumbbl not fumble
With those in mind it sounds fantastic  |
_________________
Putting the "eh?" back into Sexeh.
"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield. There are those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced." |
|
Meech
Joined: Sep 15, 2005
|
| Posted:
Apr 04, 2008 - 02:23 |
|
| Quote: |
- make it LRB5 or LRB6 or no one will bother with it
|
Untruth |
_________________
Putting the FU in fumbbl since 9/2005 |
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Apr 04, 2008 - 02:32 |
|
Ok, or FUMBBL wont bother with it (I think) |
_________________
Putting the "eh?" back into Sexeh.
"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield. There are those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced." |
|
Optihut
Joined: Dec 16, 2004
|
| Posted:
Apr 04, 2008 - 02:35 |
|
| SillySod wrote: | | Ok, or FUMBBL wont bother with it (I think) |
Well, of course fumbbl would - if a better client comes out, odds are it would get adopted. But of course, I personally would prefer an LRB5 client, simply because I want to see Uber's and Shadow's head explode when fumbbl switches over. |
|
|
nonchalance
Joined: Dec 20, 2005
|
| Posted:
Apr 04, 2008 - 02:40 |
|
If it's LRB5/6, the FUMBBL community is likely to migrate; though I'm not speaking for anyone else.
It it's LRB4, the best case is a split community.
It should be inherently cross-platform - Mac/Windows/Linux should be the aim, and the ideal is easy portability.
The ability to add new stuff for the Stunty people would be helpful. OSS helps in this, obviously.
Easy ability to switch out models and so forth, for specific players and for specific teams; for those who love custom icons. |
|
|
Tor_AlKir
Joined: Oct 10, 2003
|
| Posted:
Apr 04, 2008 - 03:31 |
|
This would have been better served by posting two days ago... |
|
|
CorporateSlave3
Joined: Feb 07, 2004
|
| Posted:
Apr 04, 2008 - 03:31 |
|
| Chainsaw wrote: | Ok, a while ago there was a bit of a stir with some people (including myself) threatening to create a new BB client.
|
Who are you to waltz in here and threaten the Fumbbl community?!? 
Throwing around all your fancy Big City talk like 'isometric' and 'brainstorming'! Too much big vocabumalary! There are hobgoblins on this site for Nuffle's sake!
Well, I for one wish your project all the best of luck, and hope it will be completed some day so we can all look back across your isometric pitch and realize just how great an idea it was! Wait! I mean heretical idea! Burn the witch!
 |
_________________
***Did you know? 42.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot? |
|
princevaliant
Joined: Nov 12, 2006
|
| Posted:
Apr 04, 2008 - 03:42 |
|
This is probably too much...but in my ideal world, this new client would be able to handle any set of rules, LRB4, 5, or whatever. Let people play as they like.
I like the isometric view much more than strictly birds-eye, so this sounds great. Best of luck. |
|
|
catmando
Joined: Feb 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Apr 04, 2008 - 04:01 |
|
Why not integrate the best of the LRB's. For example, use the rules for fouling from LRB5. Allow Wight access to strength skills as per LRB5 and so on. But, say keep Zombies at 30K, instead of the 40K LRB5 has them. Also, include more star players and allow Ramtut III to play for the Undead team, not just Necro and Khemri, that has never made sense. Do not use the team value, petty cash, or player value rules from LRB5. It just over complicates the game!!! And for the god's sake get rid of that *bleep*ing aging rule crap, with all that can happen to a player during a game of BB, it makes no sense to roll for a possible injury right after playing a game!!! |
_________________
"The World makes the Man makes the World." |
|
Candlejack
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Apr 04, 2008 - 10:09 |
|
there is also the bb arena project by Teg, which seems to already consist of a proper backend logic and rules engine. which is imo the most promising approach |
_________________
--
The Sanity Resort |
|
HippoKing
Joined: Jun 01, 2007
|
| Posted:
Apr 04, 2008 - 10:43 |
|
It's a nice idea, and an open-source, actively developed client is definitely a step forward. Thanks to the platform independence, Java really is probably the best client language despite its horrible overhead. The really major advance this would offer is being up to date with LRB5 (or 6 when that comes up).
I'm slightly concerned by your apparent intention to have all dice and rules logic done on FUMBBL's servers though: I don't know how much load it would generate, but it could be a problem. You also really wouldn't want anything server side running in Java, so you'll need to be able to build a decent interface for the java client and the server (quite apart from the current FUMBBL API used for submitting results).
Isometric with photos of models seems like an interesting development, but I'm not convinced it will look nicer or be in any way more functional than the current system. The "true 2d" representation at the moment is a really accessible and functional system - by all means trial another system but unless it's a tangible improvement, don't change it just for the sake of differentiating your client from javaBB.
| catmando wrote: | | Why not integrate the best of the LRB's. For example, use the rules for fouling from LRB5. Allow Wight access to strength skills as per LRB5 and so on. But, say keep Zombies at 30K, instead of the 40K LRB5 has them. Also, include more star players and allow Ramtut III to play for the Undead team, not just Necro and Khemri, that has never made sense. Do not use the team value, petty cash, or player value rules from LRB5. It just over complicates the game!!! And for the god's sake get rid of that *bleep*ing aging rule crap, with all that can happen to a player during a game of BB, it makes no sense to roll for a possible injury right after playing a game!!! |
Guessing this is a troll (your sig feels like a warning) but I'll bite. It is not the place of a client builder to make rules, just to implement them. Specialist Games deal with making the LRBs, and the best surefire way of ensuring that a client never gets accepted is to have it following some half-baked rule version made by a codemonkey who is angry because his team got nerfed in LRB5 or whatever. |
|
|
koadah
Joined: Mar 30, 2005
|
| Posted:
Apr 04, 2008 - 11:10 |
|
|
shadow46x2
Joined: Nov 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Apr 04, 2008 - 13:16 |
|
| catmando wrote: | | Why not integrate the best of the LRB's. For example, use the rules for fouling from LRB5. |
because the fouling rules from lrb5 suck?
congrats! let's make a movement towards changing the landscape into a foul-heavy free-for-all...yeah...brilliant...
who wants tactical fouling? not me! i want no skill BS boot throwing on every turn!
--j |
_________________
| origami wrote: | | There is no god but Nuffle, and Shadow is his prophet. |
  |
|
pac
Joined: Oct 03, 2005
|
| Posted:
Apr 04, 2008 - 14:14 |
|
| catmando wrote: | | Why not integrate the best of the LRB's. |
Because no one agrees what the best is.
Because site policy is to use official rules (outside Stunty and as far as is possible). |
|
|
|
|
| |
killing by fun?
Search
