RE: Theoretical Multiplayer Setup (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds 1 Series



Message

EaglePryde -> RE: Theoretical Multiplayer Setup (4/9/2011 10:28:00 PM)

Just stop this nonsense. It has gone far enough. I've seen no proof or evidence your talking about but only twisting words to your needs because your only strengh is the better usage of the english language. Only true proof i have seen is your ability to treat others disrespectfully (as has been seen in other threads). The term "kid" is very much false regarding my person and through your ill usage of words and thread highjacking/trolling you continue to go against board rules.I call your ill offensive behaviour by the name -> Harassment.

I hope someone from Matrix takes some actions against that kind of non appropriate talk.



Kayoz -> RE: Theoretical Multiplayer Setup (4/9/2011 10:42:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: EaglePryde

Just stop this nonsense. It has gone far enough. I've seen no proof or evidence your talking about but only twisting words to your needs because your only strengh is the better usage of the english language. Only true proof i have seen is your ability to treat others disrespectfully (as has been seen in other threads). The term "kid" is very much false regarding my person and through your ill usage of words and thread highjacking/trolling you continue to go against board rules.I call your ill offensive behaviour by the name -> Harassment.

I hope someone from Matrix takes some actions against that kind of non appropriate talk.


I would welcome the chance to discuss it.

You come on the forums, you make false and misleading statements - then when someone calls you on the lies you spout, you defence is to run crying to Matrix bods, claiming harassment and whimpering about how difficult English is? That's about it, eh?

If you can't back up your statements, then don't post them. If you can't handle English - then stick to forums in your native tongue. Nobody forced you to post here. Nobody put a gun to your head and tortured an admission of error out of you. Everything that has happened here has been entirely your choice. I have not harassed you, I have not flamed you. While I haven't been terribly polite, I haven't been overtly rude. And yet you're claiming harassment?

You want to stop this "harassment"? Simple. Be prepared to back up your statements. I believe I'm well within my rights to point out the flaws and falsehoods you present.



J HG T -> RE: Theoretical Multiplayer Setup (4/9/2011 10:51:14 PM)

*Throws EaglePryde a can o'*
[image]http://thetruthnews.info/Troll_spray.jpg[/image]

Good luck buddy.



adecoy95 -> RE: Theoretical Multiplayer Setup (4/9/2011 11:00:12 PM)

its nice to dream, but from what i understand about game design (hearsay and wee-gee boards mostly), multiplayer is usually something that has to be part of the design goal when a game is being made, otherwise it takes a lot of work to get it implemented in even the lightest of forms.



EaglePryde -> RE: Theoretical Multiplayer Setup (4/9/2011 11:26:50 PM)

How about you continue using wikipedia as a source and take a look what harassment is.Where has my topic been misleading until you started ignoring facts where i told you what "easy" is and that it would be much work.

You just twisted statement after statement while ignoring the things i wrote thus claiming failure because of my simplistic writting.My expressions might not have been proper english but even then you didn't even try to ask what i'm trying to tell but you ignored it after i told you that i'm not native english.How about you try using my language and i'll very much make you the "lier".

Until you showed up it has been a fair discussion. Linux is a bit more than just an OS.Do you think someone falls for your "i know it all stuff" after you told us how less you know?.It doesn't even make sense claiming to know that much because the entire stuff is far more you could ever know about.

Even the COBOL discussion was pure fail on your side. Programming things like "space" had to be done manually in the old days.A machine only understands 0 and 1 and i hope you know why? Do you think even the smallest of characters where present from the start?Everything had to be done at some point.Modern Programms are justan expansion. You failed on so many attempts and still live in the illusion of have proven something?

Even the game comparison that was from a pure technical point where you continued to talk BS.

I could write BS for every line you have written but it really got lame to the point where it even started to get on my nerves.And after you didn't quit harassing i'll leave you in the hands of matrix. Maybe you'll grow up someday.



EaglePryde -> RE: Theoretical Multiplayer Setup (4/9/2011 11:29:19 PM)

Yes thats true.Very much was also my statement in the beginning.



EaglePryde -> RE: Theoretical Multiplayer Setup (4/9/2011 11:31:05 PM)

Thank you but i need a bigger one[:D]



Kayoz -> RE: Theoretical Multiplayer Setup (4/10/2011 12:47:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: EaglePryde

How about you continue using wikipedia as a source and take a look what harassment is.Where has my topic been misleading until you started ignoring facts where i told you what "easy" is and that it would be much work.


You said that the networking component was easy. I agreed - but coordinating the data across server and client(s) is only part of the problem - you completely ignored the game balance and potential for introducing bugs into the existing code, that such a kludge would invariably create. You then went on to argue that you knew so much about programming - that somehow looking down from the peak of your enlightened position - an OS and a programming language and a compiler become all one in the same. Maybe it's some sort of new-age zen programming thing.

My initial statement was that it would be a disproportionate amount of work - which you refuted - and we got sidetracked from there. Now it seems you're reversing your position. So who's "ignoring facts"?

quote:


You just twisted statement after statement while ignoring the things i wrote thus claiming failure because of my simplistic writting.My expressions might not have been proper english but even then you didn't even try to ask what i'm trying to tell but you ignored it after i told you that i'm not native english.How about you try using my language and i'll very much make you the "lier".


It isn't your writing. I write very poorly in Portuguese. My spelling is atrocious and my grammar is a mishmash of English and Portuguese grammar - but people understand my writing because I tend to be excessively verbose in my explanations. Why you have chosen to be rather terse with your language is beyond me. But I can't divine your purpose. All I can do is go with what's written on my screen. I go by what you say - and if you wrote wrong due to a linguistic difficulty - then perhaps you might consider restating your position and clarifying what you meant to say rather than arguing the point and calling into question the statements of your opponent. Or is that too reasonable for you to do? Not ONCE did you return to a statement to clarify it - you just pressed on and made derogatory statements, claiming yourself to be the paragon of programming.

quote:


Until you showed up it has been a fair discussion.


There were a total of 4 posts by persons other than yourself - each of which could be put in a single line (crazy_guy was the one poster who used 2 lines, but they were short) - and the substance was pretty much "it'd be nice, but it ain't gonna happen". I don't see how it was "fair" - it wasn't a discussion. In face-to-face terms, you got a couple of non-committal shrugs and that's about it. That's a "fair discussion" for you?

quote:


Linux is a bit more than just an OS.


No, it is not. It is, by definition an OPERATING SYSTEM (or rather a family of operating systems using the same kernel). Your statement is completely false and flies in the face of Linux's own documentation. Your statement contradicts the dictionary definition of Linux.

Maybe you're having language problems again, but you clearly don't understand what the words mean when you put them into a sentence.

quote:


Even the COBOL discussion was pure fail on your side. Programming things like "space" had to be done manually in the old days.A machine only understands 0 and 1 and i hope you know why? Do you think even the smallest of characters where present from the start?Everything had to be done at some point.Modern Programms are justan expansion. You failed on so many attempts and still live in the illusion of have proven something?


It's not a "technique" - on a 80x86, it's int 21h - no more a "technique" in programming than falling down is with gravity. It's the way things are. What takes a few lines in ASM is a line in C. What's a few lines in C is a line in C++. But you err in your statement that it's an expansion - C# is not a derivative of COBOL, nor is Prolog built on Pascal. But back to the purpose of this statemet - what's your point?

Do I think the smallest characters were present from the start? Well, actually - yes. The "start" being the OS, characters are defined by the ASCII set - so yes indeed, they do indeed have a start. Development of an OS and the differences between them isn't within the scope of this discussion, so I fail to understand how it has any relation to the subject at hand. So, I again ask - what's your point? How does this relate to how easily multiplayer can be kludged into DW?

You have a "unique" view on "fail" - you've alternately referred to COBOL as a language, as a program - and perhaps I'm misinterpreting you, but you seemed to identify it as a compiler as well. How can you say I've "failed" if you can't even understand what it is you're discussing?

quote:


Even the game comparison that was from a pure technical point where you continued to talk BS.


The whole game comparison started because you claimed, "You could very well make anything in C#/.NET" - which is quite misleading, since there's no way in heck you could write the Crysis engine in C#. You don't have the speed, you don't have the low-level control. You can't write Crysis 2 in C# - despite your claims to the contrary.

quote:


I could write BS for every line you have written but it really got lame to the point where it even started to get on my nerves.And after you didn't quit harassing i'll leave you in the hands of matrix. Maybe you'll grow up someday.


Once again, I fail to see how challenging your claims is "harassment" - you've made some patently false statements - and others which are so confusing as to be indecipherable. It's harassment to question and challenge your statements?



Kayoz -> RE: Theoretical Multiplayer Setup (4/10/2011 1:12:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: J HG T

Good luck buddy.


He needs to go and research the issue he's arguing.

I'm still mystified as to how it's "trolling" to challenge his statements which are demonstrably false. Is this the same line of thought that labls anyone (in America) who asks, "Why are our soldiers dying in Afghanistan and Iraq?" - a traitor? Asking questions, clallenging false statements is.... trolling?



crazyguy -> RE: Theoretical Multiplayer Setup (4/10/2011 2:25:31 AM)

Guys be peaceful:

1.) A lot of the writtings of Kayoz and EaglePride could be differently interpreted
2.) This style of discussion will not add anything to the subject
3.) Kayoz, EaglePride PLEASE stop discussing as no one will ever be a "winner" - thats because no one wants to be the "loser" of this discussion.


Back to the subject:

In my opinion the only week point in a possible multiplayer implementation will be the actual way how data is stored in runtime: Just because no one but Elliot knows which of the thousend possible ways this datasource and the communication with it is coded. So maybe it needs just a few changes or massive redesign.

As I stated earlier I don't see any problems in the network communication layer as there are a lot of good, cheap/free libraries for that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: adecoy95

its nice to dream, but from what i understand about game design (hearsay and wee-gee boards mostly), multiplayer is usually something that has to be part of the design goal when a game is being made, otherwise it takes a lot of work to get it implemented in even the lightest of forms.



Thats true in some context:

1.) When dealing with competive multiplayer everything must be well balanced and furthermore unhackable and such things.
2.) IF you have some timebending, time acceleration or slow down or any kind of time modification. Think about the fast travel feature of X3.

As the wished MP feature of DW is just for fun games this don't apply.
Please tell me some features or behavior that must be changed for MP in DW that will have an major impact on SP.

This lines are just my opinion and I don't claim them to be absolutely correct as I know nothing is absolute correct in the Internet [8|]



J HG T -> RE: Theoretical Multiplayer Setup (4/10/2011 7:02:25 AM)

Outside of technical problems, the only problem I see in DWs MP is the way how human players play. When I would find human player in my DW game I would divert all of my available firepower to take him/her down. AI empires are just dummies on the way to other players.

'Cause of this, it would be nice if there would be an option to mask human players if they want, so you couldn't instantly tell which empire is under human control.

The problem is somewhat similar to Shakturis arrival issue. You know ecxatly where to hit hard.

Of course this problem can be avoided by either making AI better and competitive (WIP) or players using some house rules and RPing.



Bingeling -> RE: Theoretical Multiplayer Setup (4/10/2011 8:01:33 AM)

To no one in particular...

[image]http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0902/never-argue-with-an-idiot-demotivational-poster-1234055852.jpg[/image]



Data -> RE: Theoretical Multiplayer Setup (4/10/2011 8:07:36 AM)

AI better will be WIP for some time but for whoever loves the game RPing rules could be quite fun and useful. That brings another question to mind but that is for a new thread [:)]



EaglePryde -> RE: Theoretical Multiplayer Setup (4/10/2011 9:14:54 AM)

Very good point.

This brings up an idea that would be also usefull for Singleplayer. Let's say Player A is going all out war to crush player B and ignores the AI.

If the AI see's such violent behaviour he could react and could go against Player A because he is being a bigger threat.

I'll try to make this a bit clearer by comparing it a bit to Real Life. If you have a very aggressive nation who seem to seek out "World Domination", this could lead to the point where other nations go against this nation together because indirectly it could harm them too in the long run.

Depending on the AI's setting and motivations they could step in. Maybe first give you a warning through Diplomacy and then simply attack. Or player B could even pull some diplomatic strings himself. The masking of players could also be a nice feature if you wish to use it. Highly depends on how the players would want to play. This could turn out to be an interessting game of "Risk".

Sure there are other points that influence this whole part. What if only Player A and B have meet and haven't meet the AI. How far is the distance between Player A+B and what is between them.

I suppose the added RP tuning of the AI would provide usefull for both Singleplayer and Mutliplayer while there could be an option to let "allied" players start close together (if wished) or in the case of non allied players the'll be distributet in a rather far distance to eachother. In the last case they sure would meet some AI players and the RP value would rise. An attack from the distance would then be not so easy anymore. Chossing if players are allready Allied or start neutral should be set up prior to game start.



J HG T -> RE: Theoretical Multiplayer Setup (4/10/2011 10:00:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: EaglePryde


I'll try to make this a bit clearer by comparing it a bit to Real Life. If you have a very aggressive nation who seem to seek out "World Domination", this could lead to the point where other nations go against this nation together because indirectly it could harm them too in the long run.




Excatly my point. If weaker AI empires could see the things this way and form temporary alliances to try keep big, aggressive empires in check, it would be a great feature. Of course this should depend on reputation and other things, so you could have large but peaceful empires also. Some races would also be more or less likely to behave like this.



Data -> RE: Theoretical Multiplayer Setup (4/10/2011 11:01:41 AM)

In the weaker AI empires category we could also include the independents which are always weak. Imagine an independent colony of your own race fighting against you.
Great idea, it certainly gets my vote.



Bingeling -> RE: Theoretical Multiplayer Setup (4/10/2011 11:11:14 AM)

The AI needs some love, we all know that right? This is about trivial things like shipbuilding, fleet setup, refueling strategies, trivial stuff...

Another side is diplomacy. The trick is to make the AI have plans and be good, without being transparent and predictable.

Things I don't think exist in DW.

Proper Alliances.
Understanding of empire goals.
Probably more.

What exists is opinions, rules by race settings. Size and past behavior influences race settings, but the conquested base trumps everything. I think there is no plan, empire goals, proper alliances. There is no value to peace. This is the main weakness of the DW AI.

Btw, this one does have an AI with badboy mechanism. But it lacks a lot of DW features...
http://www.gamedesign.jp/flash/dice/dice.html

When a player is big enough, everyone will attack only that one.



Kayoz -> RE: Theoretical Multiplayer Setup (4/10/2011 4:33:39 PM)

The amount of data traffic would be horrendous. You have to remember that most games restrict what you're aware of to keep this amount of data down. In WoW, for example, you aren't aware of the happenings that are outside your character's range of sight. In DW, however, you could potentially be faced with the server having to update your position as well as the updates from 10 deep cover agents - so in essence, almost everything happening everywhere has to be bundled into packets and squirted over the connection from server to client. Given that it's a real-time strategy game, this has to be done efficiently enough that you can react in a timely manner to updates.

But according to our acclaimed networking guru, this is a trivial task.

This is just one aspect - introducing a multiplayer facet to DW would require so many game mechanics changes that it may as well not be called DW any more. If it's going to be done, DW really needs to be redesigned from scratch.



EaglePryde -> RE: Theoretical Multiplayer Setup (4/10/2011 4:40:15 PM)

This would be nice to have in DW. Would make things even more interessting.



EaglePryde -> RE: Theoretical Multiplayer Setup (4/10/2011 4:49:47 PM)

I'm fully with you on this one.

In the end only Elliot knows how much has to be done but if anyone can do it than him.

Because we can't determine how this game has been build up we can only develop a theoretical Mulitplayer from the gameplay side.

Even if we'd knew how this game has been build up it wouldn't change anything because even if it would be only a minor tweak, Elliot could still decide to leave it out an vice versa.

But just like you said. It sure could be done. And to strenghen your arguments there are also games that go well with them. Those are the one's ->

Do you know the game Armada 2526. It started out singleplayer fully until with the first expansion that's comming out, LAN and PBEM has been integrated. Sure it's turnbased on the Map and Realtime in Battles but it's only one of those games where Multiplayer got added.

Another thing that reminds me is Just Cause 2 that's singleplayer only. The modding team behind the GTA San Andreas Mod decided to Mod Multiplayer into the game and although still working they have proven the community with videos of their working progress.

Star Ruler is basicly a similar game like DW just in full 3D Realtime with Multiplayer..very much sandbox and i've played it together with friends against the AI on a 2000 Solar System big Universe. So basicly it is also technicly possible to play DW on the largest scale with other human players in Multiplayer.

2 things are very much true. 1.) It can be done 2.) It's a hell of work

From a Gameplay perspective there sure don't need to be changes other than the natural one's that would benefit/expand Singleplayer too.






EaglePryde -> RE: Theoretical Multiplayer Setup (4/11/2011 8:12:36 AM)

I've thought about another point that makes early assaults very unlikely. If you set the distance far enought between players what wouldn't be that far compared to the biggest game where you have enough space, most ships would run dry because out of fuel unable to attack.

Funny i remembert this part during my work @ work [:D] scripting with linux shell...

And to not make any language mistakes i'll write the last stuff in my native language.Has nothing to do with you. Not very important and only for my own expression but i suppose anyone could try and google it up [:D]


-------------------------
My native language:

Dadurch das manche einfach nur ihren Senf dazu geben wollen und umgangssprachliche Erklärungen verdrehen und zurechtbasteln und es bei mir das Faß zum überlaufen bringt wenn jemand ohne tieferes Verständniss der Materie 0815 Antworten zum besten gibt und mir sogar weis machen will das das können einer Sprache keinen Vorteil gegenüber einem anderen verschafft, steht bei mir in der Evolutionsleiter ganz unten.

Selbst meine philosophischen Andeutungen und simplifizierungen des Programmierens, damit es die Allgemeinheit verstehn kann, wurden weitgehend als mumpitz abgestempelt. Ich wünsche dem jenigen Spaß dabei dies alles hier nach zu schauen und zu übersetzten da er einiges sicher nicht finden oder verstehen wird.

Das ein solches Nachtkastl hier frei herumrennen darf entbehrt jeder Logik. Wenn der eine Ahnung von irgendwas anderem auser Google und Wikipedia hat heiß ich Wenzel Petroleum. Und das ist noch bei weitem nichts was den Simmeringer Sprachgebrauch betrifft. Das könne soweit gehen das es wirklich niemand mehr nachschauen kann.

Allein schon die geistigen Ausgüsse einer Tomatensuppe und so ein massives Kleinkind Verhalten an den Tag zu legen ist predestiniert für den verbalen Schlachthof wobei ich weder die Zeit noch die Motivation dazu habe aber es mich schrecklich reizen würde.

Das mit Linux war auch nur an der Oberfläche gekratzt. Behauptet das Nackapatzl das es nur eine OS ist aber hat vom Scripten keine Ahnung und wie mächtig das Shell ist weswegen selbst Micropups es kopiert hat. In den Fachkreisen wird es normal auch als L.Programmieren bezeichnet.

Auch auf meiner Idee herum zu reiten und gleich alles als uh oh schlimm und schweißtreibend zu bezeichenen obwohl es aber für Programmierer die zur Elite zählen kaum erwähnenswert ist fällt mir die Lade zu.

Grundsätzlich sind viele Ansätze von besagten Individuen der Spezies "unnötig" ja richtig aber haben mit dem nichts gemein auser eines blöden Wortspiels gegen mich. Zeit den Spieß um zu drehen. Wenn Turnbeutelverlierer K. das hier übersetzt bin ich gespannt was er rausliest. Nicht leicht eine Sprache zu verwenden die man nicht intus hat.

Vielleicht trifft das auf andre Länder andre Sitten zu aber hier zerlegt niemand jedes Wort und jeder versteht sofort wasd meinst. Möglich das ma ned so versteift san wie ana der aus an andan Örtchen wo's mim Stabal im Hintan rumgurkn und vergleichn welches Zumpfi des längere is.

Für die die das hier lesen können wird es sicher sehr viel Sinn machen.
-------------------------------

That's all folks [:D]



Data -> RE: Theoretical Multiplayer Setup (4/11/2011 9:02:04 AM)

so scripting with linux shell leads to running dry on fuel [:)]



EaglePryde -> RE: Theoretical Multiplayer Setup (4/11/2011 9:33:17 AM)

in a certain way..yes...i'd like a beer please [:)]

Nah but when i'm doing creative stuff i come up with the best ideas. I don't know if i translate it correctly but in my language you would say "same things attract eachother"



TGS -> RE: Theoretical Multiplayer Setup (6/20/2011 12:02:30 AM)

Wow I am new to this game/community but this thread got a bit hot. I have been looking for info regarding potential multiplayer even to the extent of sending Erik a message to query about it.

Now I really really really really want multiplayer in this game as it would be extremely awesome and epic to have as a "long term" 4x strategic game.

Now a few things I want to point out should this game ever get a multiplayer component would be that it simply could not and probably should not work in a "Host" game environment IE the host clicks host and becomes a server whilst playing the game as well. The game is quite intensive and I don't think it would be overly appropriate on a pure resource level to have the host actually playing the game as well from that computer. So what that means is that optimally the game would utilize a dedicated server software. Which would also make great strides in resource handling of the actual game events.

Now when I think of this game as multiplayer I envision a game that isn't your average typical competitive 4x/RTS game. When I say competitive I mean that in most of those games you play it with the express intent of wiping out the other players and while some games might give you other potential victory objectives in most cases it's pure fighting. This game however being as large as it is in scale would lend itself to a much greater concept.

Have any of you ever played those web based persistent "MMO" type games? Well think DW in that context. Basically what I envision would be the game as it is where the dedicated server starts up and opens a "Galaxy" sets the various variables for the game. A few distinctive ones of note would be min/max AI players. Can new empires be formed 1. AI? 2. Player? And how many "slots" the server has. Now the idea behind this is that ultimately you wouldn't have hard limits but obviously for the sake of performance the server admin would set limits. This means that when the server starts up a galaxy is made and players can join/leave as they please. Now the main reason for this is to have a progressive and living galaxy. Assuming limits aren't hit if a player joins the player would join and get to customize their empire and they would be placed on a uninhabited planet somewhere in the galaxy with a starting colony/ship and would basically act in the same concept as new independent empires forming mid-game. As for the handling of players leaving it could be handled a few different ways perhaps configurable by the server admin but one way could be that the players agree to halt the game and the game is suspended in the form of a save to restart later. Or perhaps that player can set queues/autonomy as they normally would and leave their empire in the hands of the AI. Now to handle rejoining with the same empire could be done in a simple "set your empire password" dialog on empire creation and that is used to match players with their empires and stop anyone "stealing" their empire.

Now I know a lot of this would seem perhaps over the top or too complex but the idea is that this game isn't like most games in that it doesn't necessarily end quickly. Most large scale games last hours upon hours. This one could potentially last days. Now obviously the server admin could set victory conditions to reach in which case the galaxy ends and can be restarted or halted until the next "game". There could even be a backend score keeping of the players or event log that could be transposed to a website. Many possibilities there.

One of the biggest issues with this would potentially be performance. Even dedicated servers on big/large games can have trouble but the strength in a game like this is that the load could be spread fairly well. The server could handle all the major game data server-side and the people playing would essentially be clients with a few exceptions. The only real issue I could see with performance would be late game where you could potentially have quite a few empires all with massive amounts of ships all going around in hyperspace at relatively high speeds. But that could be handled in a somewhat simple way. Simply don't send that data to the client unless the client "requests" it by moving the screen over/near it.

Anyway I could go into a lot more detail and specifics on the concept and idea but the general jist of it would be basically giving a group of people a galaxy with which to rule an empire in, and rule it however they want. A good tag line for such a concept in this game could be "Empires may come and empires may go but the galaxy moves on."


quote:

ORIGINAL: EaglePryde

This should act as a sort of Blueprint for a Multiplayer feature if we ever get to the point of having one and how it could work.

Connection Types: direct IP and LAN

Basic setup:

Upon hosting you'll be brought to a player gathering lobby from where you'd be able to setup the game universe/starting conditions just like in singleplayer.
The host also determines the amount of AI players.
This lobby is a place where joined players who have connected to the host can customize their race like in singleplayer and mark themself as "ready".
If every player has been marked ready, the host can start the game.

One tiny addition would be important. The host chooses a standard player distribution among the galaxy or can choose them to start in close proximity to other human players. Very much important for cooperative gameplay.

A basic Multiplayer feature would be that it is ensured that everyone has the same game files and the same is used among players "custom theme/mod etc." for the current game. It's just a basic safety think to ensure that no desyncs happen if modding or else is expanded in the future.

Ability to set a Lobby password as a host.

On the fly join/drop taking over 1 AI player.

constant connection retry if connection drops until connection has been established or host cancels the retry process. Upon connection loss the game should be "paused" and instantly "saved" just for security.

Gameplay:

Very much is like in singleplayer with a minor tweak that the game doesn't stop in menus. For comfort the host can pause/unpause the game and kick players out. A kicked players property is instantly erased and planets get empty.

Players can send others messages through diplomacy.

Players get the ability to set beacons on the galaxy map "attack this", "defend this", "rally here" to be seen by their allies. It serves as better communication tool between human players. It serves no purpose for the AI.

save/load:
If the host "saves" , the game pauses and distributes a savefile to each player. This way anyone could act as the host next time. (could be disabled by on option if players fear bigger file transfers.

Upon loading a Multiplayer savegame you'd sit in the Multiplayer lobby with the game allready setup/loaded and every joining player could pick their race or if the system is smart enough you are automaticly placed to your race. After everyone is done and marked as "ready" the game continues from the point it where it has been saved.

Let's say you want to load a Multiplayer game but 1 player or more have dropped permanently out and don't want to continue playing in the future. If a Multiplayer game is loaded and all players are marked as "ready", the host can "force" a start and all missing players are erased from the galaxy.

closing words:

Although it may sound as much it really isn't. Everything else regarding the game is 100% like in singleplayer. Except for the Multplayer basic core stuff we only have 4 minor things. Starting points for human players (close,even distribution) -> done by the system,no pause in menus,beacon placement and message writing to others. I hope it is as much detailed as it can get. This isn't some super fancy Multiplayer but more isn't needed.








Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.796875