<![CDATA[Zandronum]]>

<![CDATA[Zandronum]]> https://zandronum.com/forum Fri, 13 Jun 2025 16:53:45 +0000 Smartfeed Extension for phpBB 3.1 https://zandronum.com/forum/styles/darkass_green/theme/images/site_logo.gif <![CDATA[Zandronum]]> https://zandronum.com/forum en-GB Fri, 13 Jun 2025 16:53:45 +0000 60 <![CDATA[Re: On the topic of newer mapping/modding standards... :: Reply]]> https://zandronum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=11372&p=119055#p119055
The first Zan version released in August 2012 roughly had a code base of gzdoom 1.2/zdoom 2.3, (I'm not entirely sure since it's not well documented), which was released in March 2009. Zan 2.0 came out 2.5 years later on March 2015 and it's code base was upgraded to gzdoom 1.5/zdoom 2.5 (dated August 2010). Another 2.5 years later yielded 3.0 on September 2017 which aligned with gzdoom 1.8.6/zdoom 2.8pre-441-g458e1b1 dated 2014. So here we are in 2025 still on this code base and even though a lot of work has gone into 3.1 and even more work into 3.2, it's going to be a long time before Zandro even reaches gzdoom 4.7 (which was the first version that had the beginnings of MBF21 support). Currently there is no target set in stone for Zandronum 4.0 and the only thing that has been hinted at as a possible code base goal is gzdoom 2.2 which is from 2016. Since we have seen that major updates to the code base takes roughly 2.5 years, we're looking at late 2027 to move our base out of 2014 into 2016, maybe 2017 if we're lucky.

What does this all mean? Well it means it's going to take a very long time to reach support of many mapping and modding specifications that a good chunk of the community is already on board with. Additionally many of these specifications have been implemented into various source ports including our contemporaries. Even though it is a bit humorous to say, the fact is Odamex and ZDaemon have already surpassed Zan in this department. Make no mistake, there is a lot of MBF21 content being made and tallies to a great amount of content that Zandronum cannot run properly without some bootleg conversion patch. It's not to say that other multiplayer ports cannot have unique features or capabilities, but it does paint a certain picture that a port which was once touted as cutting edge, when compared to its contemporaries, is now starting to lag behind. Specifications like MBF21, DEHEXTRA, DSDHacked and ID24 (and others I'm missing) aren't exactly doing things that cannot be replicated with Zandronum ACS & DECORATE, but that's only the case for now and more importantly, these specifications have been embraced by the rest of the community and map creators that aren't of the g/zdoom breed.

Some might argue that chasing ZScript is more important and that Zandro should just focus on making ZScript work within its C/S structure. However, as previously shown above, the dream of having working ZScript in Zandronum is still far away and will take many years to make it a reality. Recall that the initial beginning of ZScript was in 2016 and the first usable version was in 2017. Hypothetically if Zan were to reach parity with GZdoom 2.3 or 2.4, that old specification it would potentially support would be considered outdated when compared to the modern implementation of ZScript. So regardless if you're team MBF21 or team ZScript, it'll probably take approximately 5-6 years before Zandronum can reach a point where its support for either can be considered 'adequate'. As we have seen with GZdoom's history, a lot will happen in 5 years. Although it doesn't need to be pointed out, Zandro doesn't exactly have the same dev firepower that existed between 2012-2015. So it would be wise to curb expectations of development time and progress. Unfortunately, all the posturing people made back in the day about how ST moving to an OSS model would bring in vast amounts of help from all over never came to fruition.

As previously mentioned, this is only one development route that Zandronum can choose from. What is the other option then? Well, that would be detaching from the tired, traveled path of playing catch up with GZdoom. This means going rogue and not being tied to whatever GZDoom is doing upstream and making decisions in the present without having to worry about causing code base conflicts. This route is a bit reckless and it could very well be throwing away the practice that Zandro development has embraced for past 13+ years. However, the benefit of this route would be removing the shackle that has limited the development's direction and would allow Zandro to carve out its own identity. Zandronum would no longer have to worry about chasing GZDoom which has been both futile and doomed from the start (1.0 was already a few years behind the latest GZDoom at that time). It's worth noting that GZDoom has recently made improvements to it's netcode and there's a good chance in 5-6 years that C/S could be on the table which would spell disaster for Zandronum. So a reckless pathway such as this wouldn't be as reckless considering the changes GZDoom has currently undergone and will go through in the near future with regards to multiplayer.

No one can tell what the future holds, but we can control how we get there. A serious decision about the port's direction should be made sooner rather than later and be divulged to the community. I'm not trying to push for any specific direction, I'm just putting the choices out there so people can be aware and so the discussion within the dev team gets rolling. If the decision to double-down on how development had been led so far will be made, then at least an official word should be posted so the community is at least aware of what to expect from the port moving forward. However, I do believe that it would be a grave mistake to underestimate the continued advancements made to GZDoom's multiplayer capabilities.]]> no_email@example.com (Ru5tK1ng) https://zandronum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=11372&p=119055#p119055 Tue, 03 Jun 2025 04:31:32 +0000 https://zandronum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=11372&p=119055#p119055 <![CDATA[Re: On the topic of newer mapping/modding standards... :: Reply]]> https://zandronum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=11372&p=119057#p119057
What Rust mentioned about Zandronum's former glory days resonated with me. We used to be the masters of a very hyper specific niche - which was being the most sophisticated online port for Doom with arguably the easiest setup. This is now currently under severe attack by multiple fronts.

1. Bethesda/Nightdive now ships a polished, plug-and-play source port with official multiplayer support: https://store.steampowered.com/app/2280/DOOM__DOOM_II/
2. GZDoom is actively exploring better netcode, shrinking Zandronum's remaining technical advantage: https://bsky.app/profile/nashmuhandes.b ... lk75mjns2t
3. And Roblox, yes really, is absorbing the younger modding generation. It’s multiplayer-first, highly moddable, and creators can earn real money: https://www.rolimons.com/games

Here's my hot take: Zandronum isn’t just competing with other Doom ports. The real competition is engines like Roblox, Garry’s Mod, even Minecraft; platforms where people can build and play custom multiplayer experiences with ease. Zandronum already has that potential. It’s lightweight, moddable, and built for online play. But for years, it’s felt like we’re stuck with the only path forward being backporting changes from GZDoom and praying to god that some insanely talented individual drops a killer mod that breathes life back into the port. And I feel the guiding principle for this project needs to move away from that mindset to survive.

Since the release of Mega Man 8-Bit Deathmatch or Brutal Doom back in 2010, has there been another breakout mod that truly put Zandronum back in the spotlight? Has there been a new CutmanMike or Sgt Mark IV? Nope. And it pains me to say it as a modder myself, but it’s hard to argue otherwise. Because right now, if you have a great idea, you need to go through absurd lengths just to get it in front of players:

No unified way to bundle or distribute your game.
No installer.
No out-of-the-box game content.
No real platform support.
And no license that even lets you try fixing that.

It shouldn’t be this hard.

Making a Zandronum mod in 2025 feels like trying to ship a full indie game with duct tape and carrier pigeons. You have to explain to people how to find and install the port, how to set up IWADs, how to configure a server, and then maybe, maybe, they get to actually play. All while hoping the engine doesn’t break under modern OSs or input APIs. And god forbid you want to ship it somewhere like Steam or mobile, right now, that’s legally murky at best.

The silver-bullet in my eyes? If we want Zandronum to thrive, we need to modernize the license, something clean and GPL-compatible. That unlocks everything:

We can bundle a flagship mod again, like Skulltag once did; fully decoupled from Doom assets, with its own identity and hook. Something no port can ever offer.
We can ship it on Steam, Itch, Android, etc., just like other engines do.
We can stop praying for miracle mods and actually build a platform that supports creators and attracts new talent.
People can make fully-fledged indie games that they can sell and pour their life into.

That last point is what really stings. We’re in the middle of a boomer shooter renaissance. There’s a real, paying audience hungry for games that feel like classic Doom: fast, tight, and moddable. And yet, there isn’t a single commercially shipped game using Zandronum for multiplayer. Not one. It gets worse: Sgt. Mark IV, the creator of Brutal Doom, is literally building his own indie shooter and has publicly said he wanted to ship it with Zandronum pre-packaged, but legally can’t. He spells it out here. This is someone with the clout, the audience, and the will to support the engine and even he has to walk away. If that guy can’t make it work, what chance does a new modder or small indie dev have?

Right now, Zandronum is still alive, barely, because of what it was. But that’s not enough anymore. We need to decide: are we preserving a relic? Or building something people can actually use in 2025?

The licensing problem isn’t just a legal quirk. It’s an existential threat. It’s the brick wall between Zandronum and any real future outside its own bubble. And honestly, that bubble is the real issue. Too many people still see Zandronum only in relation to GZDoom or other Doom ports like we’re fighting for a piece of the same tiny pond. But that mindset is killing us. We should be looking at the ocean: Roblox, Garry’s Mod, Unity, Godot; engines and platforms that people are using to create entire ecosystems of multiplayer content. That’s where the energy is. That’s where we should be. Zandronum has all the raw ingredients to be a powerful, lightweight, moddable, online-first 2.5D sandbox engine. Not just a "Doom port with multiplayer" but a foundation for entirely new games and ideas. And yet we're still stuck with our primary goal to slowly catch up to GZDoom versions that are many years behind. That’s creative stagnation. We need to stop measuring ourselves by what GZDoom is doing and start thinking about what people outside the Doom scene actually want: an engine that's multiplayer-first, easy to mod, easy to distribute, and easy to build new ideas on top of. And none of that can happen until the license is fixed.]]> no_email@example.com (Catastrophe) https://zandronum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=11372&p=119057#p119057 Tue, 03 Jun 2025 06:46:31 +0000 https://zandronum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=11372&p=119057#p119057 <![CDATA[Re: On the topic of newer mapping/modding standards... :: Reply]]> https://zandronum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=11372&p=119058#p119058

Ru5tK1ng wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 03, 2025 4:31 am

As previously mentioned, this is only one development route that Zandronum can choose from. What is the other option then? Well, that would be detaching from the tired, traveled path of playing catch up with GZdoom. This means going rogue and not being tied to whatever GZDoom is doing upstream and making decisions in the present without having to worry about causing code base conflicts. This route is a bit reckless and it could very well be throwing away the practice that Zandro development has embraced for past 13+ years. However, the benefit of this route would be removing the shackle that has limited the development's direction and would allow Zandro to carve out its own identity. Zandronum would no longer have to worry about chasing GZDoom which has been both futile and doomed from the start (1.0 was already a few years behind the latest GZDoom at that time). It's worth noting that GZDoom has recently made improvements to it's netcode and there's a good chance in 5-6 years that C/S could be on the table which would spell disaster for Zandronum. So a reckless pathway such as this wouldn't be as reckless considering the changes GZDoom has currently undergone and will go through in the near future with regards to multiplayer.

I know my opinion doesn't really matter but I wholeheartedly support ^THIS dev philosophy for Zandronum going forward. "Catching up to GZ" is essentially a Sisyphean effort at this point. And the end result will be a port that's still obsolete compared to GZ with no unique features to draw people here versus there. Making mods for the latest GZ would be infinitely easier for modders like me, and I realized this way back in the Skulltag era, but I continued to stick with Zandronum because 1) my mods are multiplayer-focused and 2) I appreciate the amount of unique features and code that we do currently possess, and I enjoy playing other Zandro-specific mods that use these features as well.

At the end of the day when it comes to port "visibility" and getting new players/modders on board, the question is usually "what do I need to download to play this mod I saw on Youtube/TikTok?", and the mod in question is usually singleplayer Brutal Doom so they reach for GZDoom. If it's MM8BDM then they come here but I generally don't see a lot of that in my feed. So ultimately we should lean in hard on promoting mods/features that are unique to us like voice chat, etc.

The analogy I like to use amongst myself is that of a 15+ year-old car. You can maintain it as often as possible and replace all of the parts with new ones just to keep it in the same running order as the newer cars on the road, but for an increasing amount of effort and not much benefit aside from being able to say that you're still driving the same car. When you go to sell it, that effort goes to waste because nobody wants it for more than $1000, UNLESS you've tricked it out with some unique parts under the hood, or a custom body kit, sound system, or if it's a rare model that isn't made anymore. The point is that you'd have to convince someone that your obsolete car offers them something they wouldn't find at a dealership or in any other used car.]]> no_email@example.com (Ænima) https://zandronum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=11372&p=119058#p119058 Tue, 03 Jun 2025 06:28:37 +0000 https://zandronum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=11372&p=119058#p119058 <![CDATA[Re: On the topic of newer mapping/modding standards... :: Reply]]> https://zandronum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=11372&p=119059#p119059

Ru5tK1ng wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 03, 2025 4:31 am
It's worth noting that GZDoom has recently made improvements to it's netcode and there's a good chance in 5-6 years that C/S could be on the table which would spell disaster for Zandronum.

I was lucky enough to have a chance to playtest a recent build and I'm very impressed by the potential of what GZDoom is working on. To the point where I find myself wondering if there's a possibility of a multiplayer bubble on that port that, while small and localized, could be great for the health of multiplayer Doom in general. I'm not quite sure I see it being a major threat to the current way of life with Zandronum mods. I think it'll be way more popular with the developers of indie games that use GZDoom as a base - quality peer2peer gameplay for coop/pvp that isn't tied to the infrastructure of a master server - so it helps their games out way more than it'll be super applicable to Doom multiplayer itself.

There are good points made about how difficult it can be to get someone used to modern convenience to get into Doom source ports and MP ports in general. It's just not that kind of crowd anymore where server browsers and digging into the system is super common... I feel I've seen this become more prevalent over recent years, probably something to do with things like Steam just clicking a button and it Works

. It'd be interesting to see if Zandronum eventually constructed kind of its own ecosystem, similar to the one that that has kept ZDaemon's public scene alive and well. That's...Probably a lotta work.

As it is tho, I don't believe Zan's MO of being a more modern based port (compared to Oda/ZD) with client/server architecture allowing always-on servers to be a thing is really that threatened. In 5-6 years if GZDoom people actually wanted to deal with all the cons of introducting multiplayer to their port with C/S offerings. Would it really be in line with GZDoom's way of thinking? I'd definitely be surprised. I just don't think they have people or the desire to dedicate the cost, staff, and infrastructure. If anything, don't those doomers come over to Zandronum instead?]]> no_email@example.com (Xenaero) https://zandronum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=11372&p=119059#p119059 Tue, 03 Jun 2025 07:06:50 +0000 https://zandronum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=11372&p=119059#p119059 <![CDATA[Re: On the topic of newer mapping/modding standards... :: Reply]]> https://zandronum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=11372&p=119060#p119060
I personally really enjoy spending my time making things using the engine, even if it has some major limitations. But I do have to say, what point is there if it's possibly not going to be played anyway?]]> no_email@example.com (Fused) https://zandronum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=11372&p=119060#p119060 Tue, 03 Jun 2025 07:18:29 +0000 https://zandronum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=11372&p=119060#p119060 <![CDATA[Re: On the topic of newer mapping/modding standards... :: Reply]]> https://zandronum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=11372&p=119062#p119062

Catastrophe wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 03, 2025 6:18 am

Making a Zandronum mod in 2025 feels like trying to ship a full indie game with duct tape and carrier pigeons. You have to explain to people how to find and install the port, how to set up IWADs, how to configure a server, and then maybe, maybe, they get to actually play. All while hoping the engine doesn’t break under modern OSs or input APIs. And god forbid you want to ship it somewhere like Steam or mobile, right now, that’s legally murky at best.

It's also worth noting that at one point circa 2012/2013 there was a Steam page for MM8BDM. Obviously, that page didn't last long because of licensing problems (and probably Capcom assets too) and we no longer see it up today. One can only imagine what kind of avenues that could have opened for Cutman had he been able to keep that page up. For those who weren't here at that time, the mod was scorching hot when it dropped and the activity you see today pales in comparison to what was seen in those early days. I'm not trying to speak for him and say what he would have or wouldn't have done, but it does led one to wonder what someone could have done if they were able to sale their Zandro mod back in that time. Also before anyone asks, no, he did not put a price tag on it; it was free to play.

Overall, I agree with your points and there is value in cleaning up the license of the port. Unfortunately, the license is a big mess to cleanup and if Zan stays on its current track, the cleanup doesn't happen until GZDoom 3.0 which is going to take around 4-6 years to reach. Even if everything was dropped and the focus was solely cleaning up the license issue, that's still going to take some time. It just depends on the position this issue resides on the development team's priority list. Though, I will point out that there have been a small amount of people asking in the Zan discord if they could sell their mod on steam. Even if the amount of modders who have a commercial interest in Zandronum isn't very high, the potential is still worth considering.

Ænima wrote: The point is that you'd have to convince someone that your obsolete car offers them something they wouldn't find at a dealership or in any other used car.

Currently the main drawing power Zandro has over GZDoom is its multiplayer functionality, database support and maybe some specific features like Client-Side scripting. With the amount of contributors and pace of development that GZDoom receives, it could very well be on par with all of the aforementioned features in a shorter time frame than most people expect. People still wander into the Zan discord asking about Brutal doom coop because the experience is better on Zandro than what can be had with GZdoom. The question is, how long will that last?

Xenaro wrote: As it is tho, I don't believe Zan's MO of being a more modern based port (compared to Oda/ZD) with client/server architecture allowing always-on servers to be a thing is really that threatened. In 5-6 years if GZDoom people actually wanted to deal with all the cons of introducting multiplayer to their port with C/S offerings. Would it really be in line with GZDoom's way of thinking? I'd definitely be surprised. I just don't think they have people or the desire to dedicate the cost, staff, and infrastructure.

The probability of GZDoom getting C/S added is small but it is not zero. A more likely scenario would be an internal browser that lists lobbies or rooms of current games being hosted by players. It may not be as robust or ideal as C/S infrastructure, but it would be serviceable, and you wouldn't really need clusters of paid servers. Regardless, C/S would still align with G's push to become a legitimate engine considering other, more mainstream, engines utilize client-server architecture. Even Godot has C/S capability. Once again, dismissing the idea of GZ+C/S isn't a good stance to take unless Graf officially says 'no' or some other roadblock kills the idea.

Xenaro wrote: If anything, don't those doomers come over to Zandronum instead?

If their favorite gameplay mods worked on Zandro they probably would. GZdoom modders and developers simply don't touch Zandro in any capacity. Modders don't want to work with limited DECORATE & ACS while developers and contributors don't want to dig around in an old (and messy) code base. It's unfortunate, but it's reality.

Fused wrote: Do we really want to continue making small steps and always stay behind? Why would anybody pick Zandronum when another engine has more features, possibly even better multiplayer in the future?

The port's development has just struggled a lot post 3.0. Although Kaminsky and other the devs have put in a lot of work for 3.1 and 3.2, it's not enough to steer the ship in the correct direction. There are a few key things that contributed to this situation the port currently faces:

Singular write access to Zan's repo with limited availability.
Moving to OSDN after Bitbucket kicked the Mercurial bucket.
Sticking to HG while the majority of the community uses Git.
Falling behind GZDoom at an increasing rate.

I'm not going to pretend I know what's best or what's the answer to resolve this situation. However, I do know that maintaining the status quo of how things are operated will not result in any significant change.

On a semi-related note, here a few things that have hurt Zandronum's community:

Lackluster community promotion and events from staff.
Social media age with no social media presence (bluesky doesn't count).
Little exposure to user created content
No hype anywhere

You can't attract new eyes if you don't put anything out there. Despite the Dark Ages, Doom is more popular than it was pre-2016 and Zan isn't doing much to draw from this burst of popularity. But I digress, since this topic is about port development.

#freedecay]]> no_email@example.com (Ru5tK1ng) https://zandronum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=11372&p=119062#p119062 Tue, 03 Jun 2025 17:01:02 +0000 https://zandronum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=11372&p=119062#p119062 <![CDATA[Re: On the topic of newer mapping/modding standards... :: Reply]]> https://zandronum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=11372&p=119063#p119063
Unbanning people, running community events, etc, is nice but these actions only attract people in our small Doom pond. They don't break this project out of the Doom bubble like MM8BDM did. That's what Zandro desperately needs. You gotta move away from the Doom bubble.

If you need a data-point I sincerely think freeing up this license is in everyone's best interest and should be the primary goal.

Community events, socials, updating the website does not benefit the project as much as freeing up the license does. If we free up the license people can just make standalone games of their own mods, run their own communities, upload their game on popular platforms, and breathe life into this wasteland more than any of that stuff ever could.

XSnake or Fused should be allowed to strip doom assets and upload his Zombie Horde 2 project on Steam.
Aenima should be allowed to strip doom assets and upload a rebranded Super Skulltag on Steam.
Cutman should be allowed to strip doom assets and upload GvH on Steam if he felt like it.
Someone should be allowed to strip doom assets, make their own weapons and maps, and create their own "Private CTF" onto Steam.
I should be allowed to strip doom assets and upload any of my mods onto Steam.

Do people understand what I'm getting at? Don't fall for the endless cycle of actions that just keeps this project inside the Doom bubble.]]> no_email@example.com (Catastrophe) https://zandronum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=11372&p=119063#p119063 Tue, 03 Jun 2025 17:29:51 +0000 https://zandronum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=11372&p=119063#p119063 <![CDATA[Re: On the topic of newer mapping/modding standards... :: Reply]]> https://zandronum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=11372&p=119064#p119064

Catastrophe wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 03, 2025 5:29 pm

I'm of the view that fixing that licensing issue should be the #1 goal for this project's longevity. You get this sorted out, you get more projects on steam and elsewhere rolling out with Zandronum. You get that going, then you get more active players. You get more active players, you get more contributors to the project. You get more contributors? Well now you're on a cycle to save this project forever basically.

The issue with what you're saying is determining how to go about executing it. This goes back to my original point of deciding whether Zan should continue to follow GZDoom or start doing its own thing. Should the license be cleaned up independently from code base updates or wait until Zandronum catches up to GZDoom 3.0? Both are going to take time and one path is going to break synergy with GZdoom. You fix the license, but now you are stuck having to cherry pick code into the engine. It just seems like a very hard sell for the Devs to focus on the license when people are still yearning for updated DECORATE and ACS dated 2016. Though to be fair, it's a hard sell to get the devs to do anything different from what's been done all this time. The only viable path I see is having someone or a group of people forking Zandro and doing the overhaul themselves. Good luck to whoever is out there.

Unbanning people, running community events, etc, is nice but these actions only attract people in our small Doom pond. They don't break this project out of the Doom bubble like MM8BDM did. That's what Zandro desperately needs. You gotta move away from the Doom bubble.

Community health is still important, in fact, many projects will list 'strong community support' as a pro. Even if you have a nice engine, a dead ass looking community isn't going to sway potential game makers or modders. Furthermore, Zandro isn't like your typical game engine, you can't easily separate it from Doom at this point. Plus if you have a strong, active scene, it would only benefit a potential game to have the Zan Community be capable of advertising and feeding in players.

Community events, socials, updating the website does not benefit the project as much as freeing up the license does. If we free up the license people can just make standalone games of their own mods, run their own communities, upload their game on popular platforms, and breathe life into this wasteland more than any of that stuff ever could.

It's still important to showcase what the port can do. If the license was magically freed up right now, what would there be to show for it? How are you going to get the port out there? How are you going to entice people to use the port over any other open source engine? Don't misunderstand, community health, media presence and events are not the most important thing but they do have weight and value; you can't just ignore them completely either. Aenima above even talked about how he sees Brutal Doom on Tiktok. Gotta play the game even if you don't like the rules.]]> no_email@example.com (Ru5tK1ng) https://zandronum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=11372&p=119064#p119064 Tue, 03 Jun 2025 19:00:56 +0000 https://zandronum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=11372&p=119064#p119064 <![CDATA[Re: On the topic of newer mapping/modding standards... :: Reply]]> https://zandronum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=11372&p=119065#p119065

Ru5tK1ng wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 03, 2025 7:00 pm

What would there be to show for it? An estimated 20,000 players on a game that could've shipped with Zandronum prepackaged. If we're hyper conservative and say 10% or less decide to play online co-op, you're throwing away about 2,000 potential new players using Zandronum, just on the short term alone (!!!). That's what's at stake. We have data to back this up, we have modders that have already asked if they can sell their games, etc. While I don't know if cherrypicking is the right move, it is absolutely the best interest to have this be the major focus so the project doesn't miss another high-profile game like Brutal Fate again.]]> no_email@example.com (Catastrophe) https://zandronum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=11372&p=119065#p119065 Tue, 03 Jun 2025 19:09:55 +0000 https://zandronum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=11372&p=119065#p119065 <![CDATA[Re: On the topic of newer mapping/modding standards... :: Reply]]> https://zandronum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=11372&p=119066#p119066
Regardless, the point still stands that it's a tough sale to get the dev team to buy into.]]> no_email@example.com (Ru5tK1ng) https://zandronum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=11372&p=119066#p119066 Tue, 03 Jun 2025 19:18:34 +0000 https://zandronum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=11372&p=119066#p119066