Ashley So is there a way for me to combat this on my end, or suggest to other users if they are unable to connect?

I'm currently working a single servre multiplayer games and I'm having some troubles that are starting to make it not worth it. When people try to connect, sometimes it will say they joined the room successfully on the client side but on the server side there are no problems. This does not always happen for everyone however. Some people can connect in Chrome and not Firefox, others can connect in either, and then some people can not connect in any browser. It also seems to be consistent with who cannot connect or can connect with certain methods. The people who can't connect anywhere won't ever be able to connect. The ones who don't have troubles will never have any troubles. Is this a problem on my end, and is there any way to fix it if it is?

All though the computer can run really fast, it can not do more than 1 thing at a time. If an event fires 3 times at the exact same moment, they will happen one after another, thus the instance variable can be altered each time and work fine.

Simplified it a whole bunch and put each key into one object. You could change the array.AsJSON to a loop within the array to tell the user exactly which keys they got wrong on each attempt.

EDIT: Didn't see the second and third page of replies, woops. If this helps at all go ahead and use it, if not just ignore

DatapawWolf Yeah I know actually having custom maps won't be an issue. But it's actually loading them and placing them down properly. I dont know if there will be 1 map active, or 100. If that makes sense. And having them created for each player that has their own custom map will end up producing a LOT of new tabs and clients if I also have one for each layout

Right now I'm working on a multiplayer game which will eventually require multiple layouts. Pretty much it's an RPG where players can go where they want. The problem is that the host can't be on multiple layouts if 2 players arent on the same layout. I've thoguht of 2 workarounds for this.

First one is to have every level on one layout, then set the players position to the new map when they change maps. However, even though the collision system is very well optimized I can see there being performance problems with too many players and too many maps. Another issue is if I wanted to add custom maps for players, that would not be possible.

The second option is to take the load of the player controllers off of the main server and have a new client that controls each map. Each player would be constantly talking to the main host, then depending on the level they are on, they will communicate with the other client which is handling that level. I could break "areas" into cells using the first method, so for example all of the indoor maps of a certain city would be on one layout which is handled by a seperate client. The problem with this method is that I wouldnt not be able to use the built in sync object position with the Multiplayer plugin. I would have to use my own method with instance variables and interpolation. I would also have to have a whole bunch of versions of the game for each set of levels, and have each of them running seperately which would require more resources from my computer.

So my question is, what is the best option? And are there any othe solutions? I don't think the Multiplayer plugin was really made with multiple layouts in mind, but there's usually workarounds for every problem, I'm just trying to find the best/most effective workaround.

Use console logs

It probably would actually be easier to have sprites on the host then just make the layers invisible so you dont have to bother with drawing them, yet still keep the advantages of having objects that exist.

Can you explain please? I'm not entirely sure that anyone makes data tables "look" good. And the style of your game? I saw a menu and couldnt do anything so not sure if I'm missing something.

> Ashley Thanks for the reply. I didn't expect this problem to occur when setting a value without doing any actual calculations to it. How come this doesn't happen if I use the Set Angle to 180 action then? Isn't that doing the same thing?

>

It's because 180 degrees is equal to 1 radian, so it's a simple conversion (so it's actually equal to pi, too).

Still confused. Does the engine set the angle when it's created differently than when you use the action?

Ashley Thanks for the reply. I didn't expect this problem to occur when setting a value without doing any actual calculations to it. How come this doesn't happen if I use the Set Angle to 180 action then? Isn't that doing the same thing?