I can't make a multiplayer game from griffpatch's tutorials.

IHEYLOOKOUTwhat

I want my game to support 100+ players, but I can't go on youtube and if I try to make a multiplayer game it only supports 2 players. Can somebody help me by tutoring me on this post?

han614698

It is insanely hard to make an MMO. Griffpatch doesn't have any videos on making an MMO.

AProductions

IHEYLOOKOUTwhat wrote:
I want my game to support 100+ players, but I can't go on youtube and if I try to make a multiplayer game it only supports 2 players. Can somebody help me by tutoring me on this post?

Not possible due to cloud variable limits I'm afraid, I think at max you can get away with ten or if latency doesn't matter you could get away with a few more. But definitely not anywhere near 100…

Last edited by AProductions (Sept. 25, 2023 02:06:38)

IHEYLOOKOUTwhat

AProductions wrote:
Not possible due to cloud variable limits I'm afraid, I think at max you can get away with ten or if latency doesn't matter you could get away with a few more. But definitely not anywhere near 100…

Maybe I could use lists instead of cloud variables.

griffpatch wrote:
Might try it sometime…

Could work, Could not.

IHEYLOOKOUTwhat

All at once.

AProductions

IHEYLOOKOUTwhat wrote:
AProductions wrote:
Not possible due to cloud variable limits I'm afraid, I think at max you can get away with ten or if latency doesn't matter you could get away with a few more. But definitely not anywhere near 100…
Maybe I could use lists instead of cloud variables.
griffpatch wrote:
Might try it sometime…
Could work, Could not.

You'd need to convert cloud variables to a list which I've done before so it is possible but you'll still be limited by the size restraint on cloud variables. Unfortunately there's no such thing as a cloud list, which is why I say you could get more than 10 people (cloud variable limit being I think 10?) but then you introduce latency as more than one person is using the same cloud variable which has I think a 0.1 second refresh time already? So with two people using the same variable you're looking at a 0.2 second refresh time which won't feel great. There's also a max size on each cloud variable which is significantly smaller than a normal variable, 256 digits rings a bell for some reason but could be wrong.

han614698

AProductions wrote:
(#3)
Not possible due to cloud variable limits I'm afraid, I think at max you can get away with ten or if latency doesn't matter you could get away with a few more. But definitely not anywhere near 100…

That's actually incorrect, theoretically, you can go up to 100+. Griffpatch has one that can support 100? (fact-check)

AProductions

han614698 wrote:
AProductions wrote:
(#3)
Not possible due to cloud variable limits I'm afraid, I think at max you can get away with ten or if latency doesn't matter you could get away with a few more. But definitely not anywhere near 100…
That's actually incorrect, theoretically, you can go up to 100+. Griffpatch has one that can support 100? (fact-check)

Sounds impossible, but consider me interested, could you link it please?

han614698

AProductions wrote:
(#8)
han614698 wrote:
AProductions wrote:
(#3)
Not possible due to cloud variable limits I'm afraid, I think at max you can get away with ten or if latency doesn't matter you could get away with a few more. But definitely not anywhere near 100…
That's actually incorrect, theoretically, you can go up to 100+. Griffpatch has one that can support 100? (fact-check)

Sounds impossible, but consider me interested, could you link it please?

Sure.
https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/392811906/ (His older one)
https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/612229554/ (His newer one)

AProductions

han614698 wrote:
AProductions wrote:
(#8)
han614698 wrote:
AProductions wrote:
(#3)
Not possible due to cloud variable limits I'm afraid, I think at max you can get away with ten or if latency doesn't matter you could get away with a few more. But definitely not anywhere near 100…
That's actually incorrect, theoretically, you can go up to 100+. Griffpatch has one that can support 100? (fact-check)

Sounds impossible, but consider me interested, could you link it please?
Sure.
https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/392811906/ (His older one)
https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/612229554/ (His newer one)

Thanks, will check it out later

IHEYLOOKOUTwhat

:):|:(:o:D;):/:P:lol::mad::rolleyes::cool:

That was everything at once

AProductions

Alright so I checked it out and happily I stand somewhat corrected it was the case that you could only support a few players but griffpatch found a neat workaround, since OP apparently can't access youtube I'll try my best and summarise what I understand. So rather than have each player be allocated a single cloud variable, instead what you want to do is have each player update any cloud variable at random with: their encoded username + position data + directional data + extra data (related to your game), next you have two lists setup using each players username as the key for updating the player data by continuously reading from all the cloud variables, so the idea is that over some time and enough random cloud variable changes from random updates you should have a complete list of all the players data who are currently on the game.

This however does come with a couple of drawbacks being:

1. The aforementioned latency issue (each player will now have an average of 0.5 seconds of latency as opposed to 0.1 seconds with 8-10 players
2. If a player logs out and a new player logs in their world will be out of sync with the no longer existing player's data compared to other players who were already logged in

Thank you again to @han614698 for correcting me and providing the project links!

If you do gain access to youtube you can find where griffpatch discusses this in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UA-W4Kwy_eo&ab_channel=griffpatch
Timestamp: 2:05

Otherwise, hopefully someone else comes along to help you who can explain it a bit better

CodeMaster126775

This discussion ended over 3 years ago, and since I can't really close discussions, it's until the mods come and close it. However, griffpatch made a cloud tutorial 2 years ago about cloud MMO so now if you want to try it you can! i've been a little late to the party it seems but if you still need this info, there u have it

soulinter_1

CodeMaster126775 wrote:
This discussion ended over 3 years ago, and since I can't really close discussions, it's until the mods come and close it. However, griffpatch made a cloud tutorial 2 years ago about cloud MMO so now if you want to try it you can! i've been a little late to the party it seems but if you still need this info, there u have it

Dude, your not the op, you had nothing to add to this.
Your logic is
“Oh when something else doesnt do the work, ima —– it up”
Respectfully stop talking
And then you say a litle late
YEAH BUDDY
ITS BEEN 3 YEARS
The op is prolly not even on scratch anymore

NeonG4

soulinter_1 wrote:
The op is prolly not even on scratch anymore

They were active yesterday, I assume they are still on Scratch.

CodeMaster126775 wrote:
This discussion ended over 3 years ago, and since I can't really close discussions, it's until the mods come and close it. However, griffpatch made a cloud tutorial 2 years ago about cloud MMO so now if you want to try it you can! i've been a little late to the party it seems but if you still need this info, there u have it

You can report posts; all that does is puts a flag asking for a moderator with a message. I reported this to be closed. You don't have to go through idle discussions and put comments on them to close that, you can either report to moderators to close or just ignore them.

Discuss Scratch