1. ok lets see here, i hear that the discussions that vegastrike is going to be a massivly multiplayer game, with players being able to host it.
the problem with servers that are expected to hold more than 32 players, you might need some advanced network arcitecture to hold as many players as possible.
because when I remember hosting a freelancer multiplayer server, my high-end computer with DSL connection became unstable when the numbers of players hit 32.
2. also, you might not want to add too much realistic distances with planets. make it 1/4 the earth and make it have the same earth gravity. i know its not realistic like that but lets say there are different types of phsyics in each universe/galaxy. i can tolerate 50 to 250 million distances between planets as such. though i have no clue how you can find another players secret base while in warp mode. mabie larger radar range or some notification what objects you have passed while traveling from one place to another. though it requires a lot of raw ore source to keep a station up and running.
3. single player can have at least an ability to have a large wingman on the players wing. i would say no to wingman, and flying capital ships because we need to have much as player with player interaction going on as possible.
4. i was thinking, players won't be able to fly giant destroyers/drednaughts or anything large in multiplayer but it would be possible to have some sort of multi-person ships where more than 1 player can fly a single ship like a gunboat, or a small capital ship with just 7 turrets. players are limited to owning no more than 1 capital ship(not destroyers or drednaughts, those belong to the military), or a station in multiplayer mode because again, we need more player interaction then a person using single player aspects in a multiplayer game. some cool things we can do as a capital ship, a person can own and fly any type of star ship no larger than TCS Hades(from wing commander secret ops), like if you were to control it like using small fighter controls, the player flying it has no control over any turrets that are on this cap ship. other players are required to take control of the turrets.. it will make the game more fun like that. it kind of reminds me of driving a hellbender in ut2k4 where you have no control over the guns except for when driving the truck itself.
single player on the other hand you can just simple get AI guys to control the turrets for you. i think commanding a wingman fleet falls in the single player catagory aspects as well.
what are your thoughts on this?
random discussion
-
AnaxGuest
Okay, firstly, for VS to really live up to it's full potential, it really needs to be perpetual. Otherwise you're just talking about a multiplayer space sim like xwing etc. and your right, for that reason the distances would make interaction difficult....
So, if VS was perpetual:
1. Network infrastructure:
This is a fairly typical way of hosting big things like this:
Each system (or part of a system??) is hosted on a separate computer. When the player hyperjumps to a new system, they are actually connecting to the new server. I know this part sounds a shame but it's more or less a reality: each server needs to have a capacity limit, whether that be 8 players to start with and 800 players once it evolves. If the server is down or overcrowded, the hyperlink simply will not work. something like "temporary hyperspace anomally". sounds a little dodgy, but it's more or less a standard and easy way to implement the achitecture. Been done before this way. Also, when a player initially starts, they should start in a randoom system, not in a set system as in SP, otherwise obviously we're gonna get overcrowding.
2. Distances and gravity:
VS Perpetual Multiplayer should be essentially the same as SP. the differences should be ADDITIONS, not subtractions.
Distance and gravity should remain the same. AI traffic etc should stay the same. Multiplayer should not so much be about interacting with other players, as it is about offerring the opportunity to interact with other players. You take out that AI stff and it's gonna be an empty universe.
Gravity you should leave alone....
Remember - perpetual. If a player has a secret base, that player doesnt need to be connected for you to find it - it will always be there! players should be able to hire craft to protect their bases, and other players should be able to hire wingmen and hire/fly bigger ships to attack them with! (obviously the 'what happens if i lose my base while i'm away' question may need to be discussed...).
3. big ships and wingmen:
Like I said - it's about the option of interaction. There are other ways of encouraging interaction other than restricting players. eg through the news - tip offs for battles or big trade events, hiring mercenaries, so on so on - for 1 example. Also you can have interaction on a grander scale - rather than interaction on a purely fighter vs fighter level, have interaction on a fleet vs fleet level. I can pit my fleet against yours!!
4. Big ships and multiplayer ships
Yes, allow big ships to be piloted (see above point - makes mre sense to command your fleet from a tough ship rather than a pissy little fighter that can get blown to shreds in 2 mins and leave your fleet with AI command for the rest of the battle!!)
Multiplayer ships should have the option of player/ai gunner positions etc. Main problem with banning AI turrets in multiplay is that the player numbers will not always be available to crew ships. say if the server is quiet and there's only 1 or 2 ppl on. or maybe nobody wants to join forces with you (and only want to blow you to bits!). You're left with a big vunerable ship with only a forward cannon and missiles and a bunch of dead cannons... not a happy thing.
5. What should be discussed:
There are much heavier MP issues to be discussed. most of these are fairly superficial and major features, and you'll find that most can continue to exist without any problems. It's the little things that will have to be looked at, such as:
How can we encourage player interaction without restricting or changing the universe?
What happens to me when i disconnect/when i'm not there? (protection of property issues? handicap system to defend newbies from established vets ie bullying)
What happens when I die?? (big one... look at other games for this)
Just to name a few....
Of course, this all only counts if it's a perpetual universe. If it's not gonna be perpetual then i feel it really loses it's appeal....
oh, btw, one idea for easy interaction should you just wanna go online for a quick dogfght: simulators on stations/planets. Think of it as a network game within a network game.
So, if VS was perpetual:
1. Network infrastructure:
This is a fairly typical way of hosting big things like this:
Each system (or part of a system??) is hosted on a separate computer. When the player hyperjumps to a new system, they are actually connecting to the new server. I know this part sounds a shame but it's more or less a reality: each server needs to have a capacity limit, whether that be 8 players to start with and 800 players once it evolves. If the server is down or overcrowded, the hyperlink simply will not work. something like "temporary hyperspace anomally". sounds a little dodgy, but it's more or less a standard and easy way to implement the achitecture. Been done before this way. Also, when a player initially starts, they should start in a randoom system, not in a set system as in SP, otherwise obviously we're gonna get overcrowding.
2. Distances and gravity:
VS Perpetual Multiplayer should be essentially the same as SP. the differences should be ADDITIONS, not subtractions.
Distance and gravity should remain the same. AI traffic etc should stay the same. Multiplayer should not so much be about interacting with other players, as it is about offerring the opportunity to interact with other players. You take out that AI stff and it's gonna be an empty universe.
Gravity you should leave alone....
Remember - perpetual. If a player has a secret base, that player doesnt need to be connected for you to find it - it will always be there! players should be able to hire craft to protect their bases, and other players should be able to hire wingmen and hire/fly bigger ships to attack them with! (obviously the 'what happens if i lose my base while i'm away' question may need to be discussed...).
3. big ships and wingmen:
Like I said - it's about the option of interaction. There are other ways of encouraging interaction other than restricting players. eg through the news - tip offs for battles or big trade events, hiring mercenaries, so on so on - for 1 example. Also you can have interaction on a grander scale - rather than interaction on a purely fighter vs fighter level, have interaction on a fleet vs fleet level. I can pit my fleet against yours!!
4. Big ships and multiplayer ships
Yes, allow big ships to be piloted (see above point - makes mre sense to command your fleet from a tough ship rather than a pissy little fighter that can get blown to shreds in 2 mins and leave your fleet with AI command for the rest of the battle!!)
Multiplayer ships should have the option of player/ai gunner positions etc. Main problem with banning AI turrets in multiplay is that the player numbers will not always be available to crew ships. say if the server is quiet and there's only 1 or 2 ppl on. or maybe nobody wants to join forces with you (and only want to blow you to bits!). You're left with a big vunerable ship with only a forward cannon and missiles and a bunch of dead cannons... not a happy thing.
5. What should be discussed:
There are much heavier MP issues to be discussed. most of these are fairly superficial and major features, and you'll find that most can continue to exist without any problems. It's the little things that will have to be looked at, such as:
How can we encourage player interaction without restricting or changing the universe?
What happens to me when i disconnect/when i'm not there? (protection of property issues? handicap system to defend newbies from established vets ie bullying)
What happens when I die?? (big one... look at other games for this)
Just to name a few....
Of course, this all only counts if it's a perpetual universe. If it's not gonna be perpetual then i feel it really loses it's appeal....
oh, btw, one idea for easy interaction should you just wanna go online for a quick dogfght: simulators on stations/planets. Think of it as a network game within a network game.
-
Wireless Caller
- Merchant
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 7:31 pm
this falls into a single player feature catagory. i would rather stick with a small ship most most of the time due to player skill wise instead of falling into a stragety aspect. because in multiplayer, is what you have players for... for a GM orianted event.. there could be a few AI ships there but all of the players would have to do the rest of the jobs.3. big ships and wingmen:
Like I said - it's about the option of interaction. There are other ways of encouraging interaction other than restricting players. eg through the news - tip offs for battles or big trade events, hiring mercenaries, so on so on - for 1 example. Also you can have interaction on a grander scale - rather than interaction on a purely fighter vs fighter level, have interaction on a fleet vs fleet level. I can pit my fleet against yours!!
you can do this in single player though.
i never played fighter vs fighter these type of games since tachyon the frindge.. since it was always fun like that.
just remember, anyone in multiplayer mode can have ungodly amounts of money and they could do almost anythingthey want with the cash...
if you have a problem with not enough players playing on your side, and flying a capital ship, there could be a hotkey where you could switch from one turret to another. otherwise, taking controll of turrets and stuff are restricted to players in order to make it balanced. heck, allegiance had this feature.4. Big ships and multiplayer ships
Yes, allow big ships to be piloted (see above point - makes mre sense to command your fleet from a tough ship rather than a pissy little fighter that can get blown to shreds in 2 mins and leave your fleet with AI command for the rest of the battle!!)
Multiplayer ships should have the option of player/ai gunner positions etc. Main problem with banning AI turrets in multiplay is that the player numbers will not always be available to crew ships. say if the server is quiet and there's only 1 or 2 ppl on. or maybe nobody wants to join forces with you (and only want to blow you to bits!). You're left with a big vunerable ship with only a forward cannon and missiles and a bunch of dead cannons... not a happy thing.
if there was a player flying a capital ship with AI turreting them in multiplayer, then everyone would be wanting to flyone of them eventhough its not larger than Hades class and the game would be unbalanced and pretty much, flying small ships would be obsolete for those who have tons of cash.
oh yes, there should also be entry/exit docking ports for capital ships too for small ships to dock at to take control of one of the turrets.
since this will be a free mmopg, i think a LOT of players will flock here since its a free game. though the bandwidth and the player limitation would be a problem. so I doubt there would be lack of players.
-
Wireless Caller
- Merchant
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 7:31 pm
ok here is my idea for a massivly online multiplayer version of vegastrike:
* AI will get to stay in the multiplayer version of VS as long as players are not controlling them in anyway. However, they could be fun to shoot.
* For taking combat missions in multiplayer version, not only the enemy ships will spawn but a few good AI ships will spawn to help you kill the enemy, however they are not permently with you, only with the missions.
* Capital ships are OK for VS, but they are restricted to players only so we could have more of a player vurses player aspects in the game.
* AI wing man belongs to a single player type game. It's actually what you have players for(i said this 3 times already).
my main point of the multiplayer version of VS is to get PvP(player vs. player, no AI fighting or flying with the player fleet) the main point in VS.
me seeing a recorded video of eve-online with PvP action is what got me to type this. i have never been that excited before when watching this video.
as what kaine said about multiplayer:
"Remember, the more player-to-player interaction we have, the more distinction on-line play will have from off-line play."
* AI will get to stay in the multiplayer version of VS as long as players are not controlling them in anyway. However, they could be fun to shoot.
* For taking combat missions in multiplayer version, not only the enemy ships will spawn but a few good AI ships will spawn to help you kill the enemy, however they are not permently with you, only with the missions.
* Capital ships are OK for VS, but they are restricted to players only so we could have more of a player vurses player aspects in the game.
* AI wing man belongs to a single player type game. It's actually what you have players for(i said this 3 times already).
my main point of the multiplayer version of VS is to get PvP(player vs. player, no AI fighting or flying with the player fleet) the main point in VS.
me seeing a recorded video of eve-online with PvP action is what got me to type this. i have never been that excited before when watching this video.
as what kaine said about multiplayer:
"Remember, the more player-to-player interaction we have, the more distinction on-line play will have from off-line play."
-
record
-
Mr.Motor
i played a few space combat multiplayer games that wasn't twitch based.
as for having npc wingman on you in multi also doesn't make any sense at all.. however, it would add dephs to a single player game. because really, having the ability to hire npc wingman and make them man turrets when flying a capital ship in multi would all boil down to what player has the most cash to get a bigger fleet in the game instead of what player has the most skills. what happens if the player who owns the wing man dies first in a fleet vs fleet battles? sure the ai would shoot bad guys but they would be unorganized at the point they would get easly defeted. in with 100% (human)player fleet vs. 100% player fleets, you don't have to worry about it.
as for having npc wingman on you in multi also doesn't make any sense at all.. however, it would add dephs to a single player game. because really, having the ability to hire npc wingman and make them man turrets when flying a capital ship in multi would all boil down to what player has the most cash to get a bigger fleet in the game instead of what player has the most skills. what happens if the player who owns the wing man dies first in a fleet vs fleet battles? sure the ai would shoot bad guys but they would be unorganized at the point they would get easly defeted. in with 100% (human)player fleet vs. 100% player fleets, you don't have to worry about it.
-
Shark
- Confed Special Operative
- Posts: 360
- Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 9:34 am
- Contact:
Re: random discussion
I think each ship should have slots: pilot, turret 1, turret 2, etc.Wireless Caller wrote: 4. i was thinking, players won't be able to fly giant destroyers/drednaughts or anything large in multiplayer but it would be possible to have some sort of multi-person ships where more than 1 player can fly a single ship like a gunboat, or a small capital ship with just 7 turrets. players are limited to owning no more than 1 capital ship(not destroyers or drednaughts, those belong to the military), or a station in multiplayer mode because again, we need more player interaction then a person using single player aspects in a multiplayer game.
And, one or more players should be able to switch to any slot at any time, letting the AI take over in one's absence.
-
Mr.Motor
-
Maxton2
-
Guest
mabie I could do tiny amounts of multiplayer brainstorming but i have never encounterd any types of massivly online multiplayer games where players have large numbers of AIs with them whereever they go.
ever since when X2-the threat had the ability for players to have a fleet fly with them and commanding it in a ship, and building their own empire.
people expect to have the same kind of features X2 has for every new privateer/elite game that comes by.
singleplayer might be ok for that type of feature if you want more of a stragety aspect type in the game.
but as for as multiplayer goes, all the multiplayer games I played so far(only including twitch based): terminus, tachyon, jumpgate, vendetta(not yet),have no ability to have AI for each player as such.
there are some aspecsts in a elite type game I like, and there are some aspects in an elite type game I don't like, and AI wingman(or commanding them) could be one of them..
but with an opensource game like this, there could be many different types of possibilities you could have..
anyways, in my opinion, having an AI fleet fly with another player doesn't make any sense in multiplayer especially this game is twitch based. it would also give disadvantages to either skilled players(who rescently played terminus, XvT, I-war2, privateer) who likes fly alone to either defend themselved against another lone player killer/pirate or just player kill, or players only wanting to fly in small fleet of 4 or so vursus one player + 10 AI wingman with good combat ship/weapons where the situation ends up with the certain number AI attacking each player while the opponet player runs away.
what would ruin vegastrike the most is having the ability for a pilot to cast magic spells inside a ship to cause damage to another ship...
ok thats it for me.
ever since when X2-the threat had the ability for players to have a fleet fly with them and commanding it in a ship, and building their own empire.
people expect to have the same kind of features X2 has for every new privateer/elite game that comes by.
singleplayer might be ok for that type of feature if you want more of a stragety aspect type in the game.
but as for as multiplayer goes, all the multiplayer games I played so far(only including twitch based): terminus, tachyon, jumpgate, vendetta(not yet),have no ability to have AI for each player as such.
there are some aspecsts in a elite type game I like, and there are some aspects in an elite type game I don't like, and AI wingman(or commanding them) could be one of them..
but with an opensource game like this, there could be many different types of possibilities you could have..
anyways, in my opinion, having an AI fleet fly with another player doesn't make any sense in multiplayer especially this game is twitch based. it would also give disadvantages to either skilled players(who rescently played terminus, XvT, I-war2, privateer) who likes fly alone to either defend themselved against another lone player killer/pirate or just player kill, or players only wanting to fly in small fleet of 4 or so vursus one player + 10 AI wingman with good combat ship/weapons where the situation ends up with the certain number AI attacking each player while the opponet player runs away.
what would ruin vegastrike the most is having the ability for a pilot to cast magic spells inside a ship to cause damage to another ship...
ok thats it for me.
-
Maxton is lazy
well nobody is responding because multiplayer must be on the bottom priority list of development but really, if multiplayer compatabilities were added to vegastrike, you don't have to make it a vegastrike universe when hosting a server.. you could just call it "Your Space game online" or something like that... as long as its original and not something like a fan game though.
and remember, the more originality of the game it is, the more fun.
don't forget to put a limit of users because of the bandwidth.. I'm thinking up to 64, 128 or 256 max users. and it requires a high speed connection to host a game.
so mabie its a good thing to skip seamless planetary flight, and find more of an alternative and simpler way for a ship to land on a planet instead of the ship going near a planet saying that "its docked" but really in space, and then you could go with the multi I guess.
i still miss those I-war, XvT, Privateer traditional type games.
and remember, the more originality of the game it is, the more fun.
don't forget to put a limit of users because of the bandwidth.. I'm thinking up to 64, 128 or 256 max users. and it requires a high speed connection to host a game.
so mabie its a good thing to skip seamless planetary flight, and find more of an alternative and simpler way for a ship to land on a planet instead of the ship going near a planet saying that "its docked" but really in space, and then you could go with the multi I guess.
i still miss those I-war, XvT, Privateer traditional type games.
-
dandandaman
- Artisan
- Posts: 1270
- Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 3:27 am
- Location: Perth, Western Australia
- Contact:
-
Rabiator
- Merchant
- Posts: 58
- Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2003 8:47 pm
What happens if you die in Multiplayer
Obviously, resetting the universe to your last gamesave is not an option because it would interrupt everyone else's games.
Freelancer has an (IMHO) acceptable solution: when you die, you will respawn at the base where you last docked, minus your freight.
Modifications that might be required for VS:
-In a universe where stations can be destroyed, respawn at the last hyperjump before landing if the station doesn't exist anymore.
-Maybe add another penalty to losing your freight when you die. Like some random hull damage, that would raise the stakes for headhunters who travel without freight.
Freelancer has an (IMHO) acceptable solution: when you die, you will respawn at the base where you last docked, minus your freight.
Modifications that might be required for VS:
-In a universe where stations can be destroyed, respawn at the last hyperjump before landing if the station doesn't exist anymore.
-Maybe add another penalty to losing your freight when you die. Like some random hull damage, that would raise the stakes for headhunters who travel without freight.
-
Duality
- Daredevil Venturer
- Posts: 583
- Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 12:58 am
- Location: West Coast of USA
- Contact:
-
Duality
- Daredevil Venturer
- Posts: 583
- Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 12:58 am
- Location: West Coast of USA
- Contact:
Another note for multiplayer:
For a multyplayer type game with a large game map, I suggest making the player movements, weapon firing and its shots client side because when the server lags, it will take between .3 to 1 second for anything(ship movements, weapon firing, etc) to actually respond after a key is pressed and in that case, the multiplayer game would not be fun anymore. The damaging can be on the client side as well. Freelancer has this.
Though the disadvantages about this is some people with bad connection can get a big advantages out of damaging other players.
Lets say this player with a better connection is was killed by another pilot(with bad connection) which is facing a different direction besides facing the victim. This can be called lag kill.. I played other space games and it happens occasionally. And the GMs cannot ban them for having a bad connection just because the weapons they use have a big advantage. A solution is that a GM will politely ask a person with bad connection to use weaker weapons rather than the ones everyone else use. If the player fails to comply.. then there is no choice but to temp ban a person.
But the advantage about this feature is that its user 56k friendly. Which dial-up users cannot play most multiplayer games without having the same problem.
For a multyplayer type game with a large game map, I suggest making the player movements, weapon firing and its shots client side because when the server lags, it will take between .3 to 1 second for anything(ship movements, weapon firing, etc) to actually respond after a key is pressed and in that case, the multiplayer game would not be fun anymore. The damaging can be on the client side as well. Freelancer has this.
Though the disadvantages about this is some people with bad connection can get a big advantages out of damaging other players.
Lets say this player with a better connection is was killed by another pilot(with bad connection) which is facing a different direction besides facing the victim. This can be called lag kill.. I played other space games and it happens occasionally. And the GMs cannot ban them for having a bad connection just because the weapons they use have a big advantage. A solution is that a GM will politely ask a person with bad connection to use weaker weapons rather than the ones everyone else use. If the player fails to comply.. then there is no choice but to temp ban a person.
But the advantage about this feature is that its user 56k friendly. Which dial-up users cannot play most multiplayer games without having the same problem.