Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Room construction/selling delayed effect #155

Open
tonihele opened this issue Feb 24, 2016 · 2 comments
Open

Room construction/selling delayed effect #155

tonihele opened this issue Feb 24, 2016 · 2 comments

Comments

@tonihele
Copy link
Owner

Room construction/selling delayed effect. As we discussed with @ArchDemons we should only construct / sell one tile at the time. Actually DK II does everything in ticks, this is most visible when building / selling.

Our current API & everything supports this already. Now that we have the World as a state, it is simple to just queue the build/sell per tile. They need to be sorted like the original does, and execute one from the queue per tick (tick is a level variable & possibly game speed setting, money & validity subtracted before). First one straight up, rest queued? Per tick currently means that we could just calculate this on the update loop before #147.

This relates to #154 issue but does not overlap nor block it.

@tonihele
Copy link
Owner Author

This has been implemented in 2879ba2.

It is mostly a fake thing but allows us to add some bling for now, sounds and effects. The original probably really processed these in ticks. Unlike ours. The server builds everything, deducts the player money and changes the map. This makes it hard to fake the building in a client. Since the money is changed and the objects appear, only the tiles are delayed. But good enough for now.

I was thinking that we could have data on the objects that they belong to a room. In order, mainly the pillars, to be patched. But this also would allow us to just build the object if the room is there, still not like original, but maybe ok, or not... Well. Good for now.

@Trass3r
Copy link
Collaborator

Trass3r commented Apr 12, 2023

Linking #368.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants