I foresee a hip, retro 2D MUD fad which, with a little word of mouth, causes BYOND to become a global sensation. Hopefully.

Ham Doctor wrote:

I honestly don't think it is "unfair" to say BYOND hasn't really advanced at all. Because it really hasn't. To be honest, I actually run two versions of BYOND on my PC, 3.5 and the current version. I only use the current version because most of the online games use it.

So you keep an outdated unsupported and potentially security flawed piece of software because? There's a slight chance some of the older games still work with this version and... that's it? The difference between the 3.5 Dream Seeker and the 4.0 default skin isn't really worth running such an outdated piece of software...

I don't like the new set up for a lot of the features of the updated BYOND, and with the way the community responds, I don't bother emoting these criticisms because I feel it would just be another "go somewhere else" response.

Probably because they're correct... The new features supported by BYOND have opened up hundreds of possibilities and improved the games that have bothered to use them ten fold. What did we have prior to the skin options? An output, an input, a browser and a verb panel. What do we have now? Buttons and creative interfaces which make the overall feel of a game seem far more professional (once again, those who have bothered to use it).

Sure the newest version of BYOND supports Isometric graphics. People were able to do that in BYOND before. As a matter of fact, some of the libraries available for Isometric graphics seem to do it better then the built in BYOND engine right now. Of course this might be because it's still in early stages, but I found the system overall a hassle to use. The mapping system in Iso mode felt clunky and unresponsive and the feature itself can be frustrating at times.

You are aware that the isometric libraries (that are now outdated), IIRC, substituted lots and lots and lots and lots of objects to do what they did. And the multiplayer of such isometric games was shoddy if existent at best. Not to mention that there was no isometric map support at all, so all the objects were placed in top-down view OR coded directly into the game. Therefore making the mapping process OR the game start up far more tedious and difficult than it now is.

As for the feature being frustrating. It's new, excessively new. And people aren't used to it yet. Private beta wise, we got the hang of it pretty quickly.

Let's not forget the new GUI feature where people can customize the way the whole interface works. While it works "alright" and we have seen few amazing interfaces designed, most of them simply even more ugly then the default style.

Blame the developer. This is in no way a fault of BYOND at all. And is in fact, pretty much the same with any language that comes with an interface creator (see C# or Visual Basic).

Perhaps if there was a section specially designed for people to submit stylized, free interfaces for people to download it wouldn't be such an issue for me, but right now the GUI editor is a hassle to use, some features I feel that should have been supported from fay one still haven't. That feature simply feels like sugar coating.

Person A's interface will be absolutely useless to me. As will every other submitted interface. Because my naming procedures for objects are different to theirs. Because they don't know how my game will work or what I want to do with it. The interface can't just be slapped on at the end of the day, it has to be worked into the game, properly. If you want the standard verb panel and output that's fine, but don't assume that every game will work in such a way.

Besides these two things, I haven't really felt BYOND has made any leaps or bounds. There are several engines out there that do almost exactly what BYOND is just now implementing and they do it better.

This paragraph is meaningless without links to backup your claim. I'm betting that every engine you link to will have some flaw or lose in some way to BYOND. Be it learning curve, ease of use, or the fact that apps like Game Maker have what is essentially a decompiler available to the general public (according to an article I read a little while ago, reverse engineering a Game Maker game isn't all that difficult).

I like BYOND, I'll always have a soft place for it it, I am actually working on a game in 3.5 right now. But it simply isn't anything I'd invest any real money in it. I feel you should get what you pay for and right now I don't feel BYOND is even worth $15.00 a year..

You wouldn't invest money in it because you're working in outdated software that, in all honesty, doesn't tread water to what the current stable release of BYOND has. Let alone the public beta of 455.

The only part of the membership I find any real interest in is the forum avatar. I would (and have done) pay the $18.00 USD just for that. The blog I can live without (I have my own website), the file hosting I can live without (I still have my own website) and I've never been inside a game that actually uses client.IsByondMember() (so that doesn't concern me at all). But I guess I'm the lucky loyal one, I have the resources I need, and am loyal to the place that kept me for all but one and a half of my teenage years.

Tom wrote:

Foomer wrote:

I would like to not be seeing BYOND anymore in 10 years unless they're paying me. :)

Preach to the choir, brother.

So Tom, where do you see BYOND in 10 years and where would you *like* to see it? Both from the user end and on your end!

Ham Doctor wrote:

You can knock whatever you want, it's a matter of opinion, like it or not.

Actually, it's a matter of fact, like it or not. There being X improvements in BYOND version Y over BYOND version Z is an indisputable fact. The fact there was a lot of progress does not relate to opinion.
What you feel about the progress is your own opinion. You can say that the heaps of progress doesn't feel to you like progress at all. And that's fine. You can also say that you feel that there was no progress at all from the first release of Windows NT (on 1993) to Windows 7, because it's really still the same old Windows NT. And that's fine too - because either way, I don't care.
Feel free to have a ridiculous opinion; to use your own words, "you can knock whatever you want": it doesn't affect the facts. And really, this isn't the first time you have one - you're there on the list with other people who often have what was called in this thread "a skewed perspective", along with Falacy and Vic Rattlehead.

So what if I use outdated software for a hobby?

Nothing. Your problem. It's not even relevant to the current discussion.

Half the games on BYOND are only compiled in the newest version to be the newest.

Okay, if you say so. I trust your aforementioned statistics, sources and evidence.

Most of them ran just fine in the older edition and most likely could have continued to do so.

Sure, there was nothing for them to gain in the newer versions, other than tons of bug fixes and new features. Why bother update?

I have had no issues with the older version and being that I feel more comfortable with it and already know my way around, why bother?

Hey, there's no reason to! I take it you're running machines with DOS and Internet Explorer 2. Gotta stay with what you're used to, the good ol' and comfortable. =)

I suspect this setup is easier for you to browse because it's very familiar and perhaps aside from a few pages, more tailored to existing power users such as yourself.

It's very hard for me to present any concrete recommendations for layout until I (or willing parties) trial them, gather feedback on them and iterate. Being an existing user I also don't exactly find it difficult to get around on BYOND, although my browing habits have entirely disconnected me from the main point of the site for a good number of other users, playing games.

But what does stand out to me is the "chrome", the style itself. It really is just a preference thing and the weight of opinion on BYOND itself seems to be against me, however the colour scheme and applied backgrounds / borders make me think of kid's toys and novel plastic lunchboxes.

SuperAntx wrote:

I see BYOND as the go-to tool for 2D games. There will be support of shading, lighting, and all sorts of neat stuff. One huge bonus would be the fully customizable client-side processing needed to support it all. Games would be able to run at 60fps without having to modify the tick_lag and pixel movement will be supported natively.

The site itself will be much more flexible and interactive with full ajax support. There will be video reviews, 5-star user ratings, a spotlight area for new releases, tournaments and contests, cross-game clan support, Facebook/Twitter integration, and hopefully a neater front page.

My own projects mirror the progress BYOND has made over the last 10 years. I feel BYOND as a whole is much tighter and more suited for professional quality games. I just hope the name changes someday so I no longer have to explain what a net dream or dream maker is.

Best response so far, very well said SAx! If that's what BYOND is like in 10 years, I wouldn't complain!

Comparing DOS to BYOND 3.5 is outrageous. I run Windows 7, and I already notice performance increases. And I can safely say I never noticed any performance increases between 3.5 and the newest version. I have never had any problems with 3.5, never had any crashes or save losses.

So unless BYOND implements a new feature that makes me say "I gotta have it" I won't use the newer versions. Of course I test newer versions, I have to since so many games use it, like I said, I have both versions installed.

There are several features of the new BYOND I could enjoy, but several old features they changed in the way I simply just dislike them now. Using them feels like a hassle and I'd rather just not deal with it.

BYOND will never make anyone any money. It is going to be a black hole that just constantly consumes money. You don't have a right to hassle me because of an opinion I have with software I use.

Yes you are right, but a few of those developers earned money, in less then legit ways. Of course, no one ever reminds you of that do they?

Ham Doctor wrote:

Yes you are right, but a few of those developers earned money, in less then legit ways. Of course, no one ever reminds you of that do they?

I've made a couple of hundred on BYOND by simply asking, maybe a few dollars here and there for helping people and the occasional paid service.

Stephen001 wrote:

It's very hard for me to present any concrete recommendations for layout until I (or willing parties) trial them, gather feedback on them and iterate.

I would be both, willing to trial, and seek you other testers for your ideas.


Stephen001 wrote:

But what does stand out to me is the "chrome", the style itself. It really is just a preference thing and the weight of opinion on BYOND itself seems to be against me, however the colour scheme and applied backgrounds / borders make me think of kid's toys and novel plastic lunchboxes.

That should make for a nice feature request.
The 'professional' clientèle would likely not have an issue with purchasing a membership.
So, why not suggest a new membership peek, which allows for a custom CSS to be used on the general page (maybe with a few alternate templates to choose from)?
As it is used locally and with a membership only, you can ensure that neither removing adverts, nor trying to 'screw up' others is any problem and it would grant you exactly what you wanted.