The multiplayer megapacket Twinsen Last month I joined KatherineOfSky's MMO event as a player. I noticed that after we reached a certain number of players, every few minutes a bunch of them got dropped. Luckily for you (but unluckily for me), I was one of the players who got disconnected every, single. time, even though I had a decent connection. So I took the matter personally and started looking into the problem. After 3 weeks of debugging, testing and fixing, the issue is finally fixed, but the journey there was not that easy. Multiplayer issues are very hard to track down. Usually they only happen under very specific network conditions, in very specific game conditions (in this case having more than 200 players). Even when you can reproduce the issue it's impossible to properly debug, since placing a breakpoint stops the game, messes up the timers and usually times out the connection. But through some perseverance and thanks to an awesome tool called clumsy, I managed to figure out what was happening. The short version is: Because of a bug and an incomplete implementation of the latency state simulation, a client would sometimes end up in a situation where it would send a network package of about 400 entity selection input actions in one tick (what we called 'the megapacket'). The server then not only has to correctly receive those input actions but also send them to everyone else. That quickly becomes a problem when you have 200 clients. It quickly saturates the server upload, causes packet loss and causes a cascade of re-requested packets. Delayed input actions then cause more clients to send megapackets, cascading even further. The lucky clients manage to recover, the others end up being dropped. The issue was quite fundamental and took 2 weeks to fix. It's quite technical so I'll explain in juicy technical details below. But what you need to know is that since Version 0.17.54 released yesterday, multiplayer will be more stable and latency hiding will be much less glitchy (less rubber banding and teleporting) when experiencing temporary connection problems. I also changed how latency hiding is handled in combat, hopefully making it look a bit smoother.
The many lessons learned from testing the new tutorial We have already pointed out, that we are trying to make a new campaign (FFF-245), and part of it is the core beginning, the NPE/tutorial. The tutorial is one of the very critical parts of the game, as if the first 15 minutes of a game feels shitty, there is big chance that the player will not play any further. I had this experience in many games myself. So the challenge could be articulated like this: "The current tutorial is okay, but can we make it great?" The approach in the current tutorial is to feed the player with the basic knowledge of how to control the basics of the game (the first mission and the start of the second mission) in the fastest way possible. The player is even given descriptive info like this, to diminish the chance of not understanding how the basic entities work. After few steps in the 2nd level, the player can start exploring his first self-feeding loop (make iron to make more iron). The tools used to this is mainly: The message dialog that stops the game and explains the player various things. Minimization of the amount of things the player can interact with to absolute minimum, so he can't start doing other things before the basics are clear. The possible drawbacks: The constant interruptions can get really annoying (typically around 22 message dialogs before the player starts to play relatively freely in the 2nd level). The possibility, that the player will mindlessly follow the step-by step tasks without understanding it, so he can become really lost later on, and the tutorial basically wouldn't help him to understand things. So the question is: Can we make a tutorial that makes these problems go away?, and alternatively, How big are these problems actually? The current direction of the new tutorial attempt is to never use the message dialogs, so the player can learn the game more fluently, and to leave way more things to explore, as learning things yourself has a better chance of success than force-feeding generally. We made a few tests of the new approach with a few people, the main takeaway, is that nothing is for free, and this approach created new drawbacks. If the player doesn't figure out something basic, it can be very frustrating for him to figure out what is going on when not moving forward for a long time. It might be possible, that some things are just not fun to learn by exploration, and it is more comfortable if they are force fed to you. I would compare this to a friend explaining you how to play a game for 5 minutes compared to 2 hours of trial and error. There are more possible outcomes from this, and we shall see how different tweaks of both strategies work in the testings. It might be interesting if you mentioned your experience with the tutorial in the comment section as well.
Hello, We have another exciting batch of facts for you today.
New hope demo levels Klonan A few weeks ago we discussed the changes to the demo and tutorial in the game (FFF-342). One piece of feedback we received after publishing the news was about the old 'New hope' campaign levels, and specifically the 'Abandoned rail base/Broken rail map'. It seems a lot of you in the community really really enjoyed the new hope campaign levels, and several of the team here share the same feelings. After we scrapped the plans for a new campaign and reverted to the old demo, we had initially dismissed the idea to revive the New hope campaign... However due to popular demand... we have decided to bring back the favourites, the first 2 levels of the new hope campaign. This time though, they will also be included in the demo version of the game. This represents a very significant increase in scope for the demo, increasing the demo content to include research, red science, green science, trains, and much more. These levels should be ready for release within a week (but no promises).
We have a long history of trying to bring Factorio to other platforms, including consoles and mobile phones (not including April Fools). We even worked with some external companies, but the projects never even got to the point where they would run technically, let alone the complicated part of making the game playable using controllers or touch screen. After all the attempts, we even had a Friday Facts prepared that was going to say something along the lines of "we don't plan to bring Factorio to other platforms".
Playtesting kovarex We have been playtesting a few days this week. There were some things we had to fix on the fly, but we still were able to play quite a lot, so I would say that it went surprisingly well. We have been able to get 3 multiplayer bases into a late game stage.
Hello, long time no see :) We obviously have a lot to talk about when it comes to the game changes we recently did, or plan to do, but we don't want to share any of it yet. Yet, there is currently a topic very relevant to us and we can share it without revealing any specific changes to the game. Today's post will be quite technical and related to programming, so if you just came for the game news, you can safely skip this one.
GUI progress update (kovarex) This is a continuation of the last status report from FFF-269. As it might not be a surprise, the biggest bottleneck of the 0.17 release is the GUI. I like to believe, that we have learned a lot from the pitfalls of the collaborative creative process of GUI. This is the typical way we were redesigning the GUI: Two to three people started discussing what could be cool to change in the particular GUI. Some people randomly joined and left the ongoing discussion. Arguments to discard certain ideas have to be repeated over and over. Then the discussion is ended because of something. A week later people start talking again, most of them forgot most of the stuff, or were discussing it with different people, so they assume some details of the changes to be understood by everyone, while they aren't. They come to an agreement how it should be done. They have a random discussion about it a week later and figure out, they had completely different ideas about how it should be done, they just didn't articulate them precisely. Both are kind of angry to have to reopen and re-negotiate the subject again. Someone starts to implement the GUI, but half-way through it is uncovered, that there was another layer of misunderstanding when specifying how should the work be done, and we need to go to step 1 again and repeat. Since many GUIs are thought and worked on in parallel, these situations overlapped and amplified the problems of mixing things up in our heads about what we agreed on in which GUI. Luckily, we eventually figured out, that it can't be done like this, and since there is a lot of work in the GUI, we need to make a process. It goes like this: First, there is some general discussion about the GUI, all team members can share their ideas. kovarex + Twinsen sit alone in the office, and discuss for some time (can be hours), all the pros and cons of how things should be done, and make some agreement. Twinsen writes a detailed UX document about the GUI containing the structure, and more importantly the behaviour, in a detailed manner. Twinsen + kovarex discuss the UX document and propose changes until they agree on the final version. Albert + Aleš take the UX document and create a UI mockup based on it. kovarex + Twinsen + Albert agree on the UI mockup or propose changes. Someone is assigned to implement the GUI based on the UX document and UI mockup kovarex reviews that the implementation is correct and points out some inconsistencies that he can see. Part of this step is making sure, that we share as many GUI styles and code as possible across different GUIs. kovarex + Albert have a final look on the implementation and fix final details until they both agree that the screen is fully finished. Having the UX documents/UI mockups always available proved to be a huge time saver. Not only it helps us to solve the communication problems, we also don't have to remember and re-articulate decisions from some time ago as we can just open the document and see what we agreed on and instantly continue where we left off. A good part of this strict pipeline is that we now have better knowledge of the state of the work progress. These are the GUI screens that we hope to deliver for 0.17: .header_cell { text-align:center; font-weight: bold; } .finished { text-align:center; font-weight: bold; } .not_finished { text-align:center; font-weight: bold; } .finished_gui_table { border-spacing: 10px; } .finished_gui_table td { border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding: 5px; } General UX UX draft UX review UI mockup UI review Implementation draft Implementation review Final review Load map Save map Graphics settings Control settings Sound settings Interface settings Other settings Map generator Technology GUI Technology tooltip Recipe/item/entity tooltip Action bar Shortcut bar Train GUI Manage/Install mods Main screen chat Recipe explorer Character screen Menu structure New game Help overlay Chat icon selector Blueprint library You can see, that there is still a lot of to do, but the work tends to accelerate as more and more of the GUI layouts/tilesets/standards are being finalized and reused. The conclusion is that 0.17 experimental in January is possible, but it might be February as well :).
The release plan (kovarex) This week was the time to close and finish all the things that will go to 0.17.0. Not all of the things that we originally planned to be done were done (surprise), but we just left any non-essential stuff for later so we won't postpone the release any further. The plan is, that next week will be dedicated to the office playtesting and bugfixing. Many would argue, that we could just release instantly and let the players find the bugs for us, but we want to fix the most obvious problems in-house to avoid too many duplicate bug reports and chaos after the release. Also, some potential bugs, like save corruptions, are much more easily worked on in-house. If the playtesting goes well, we will let you know next Friday, and if it is the case, we will aim to release the week starting 25th February.
