Theoretical Multiplayer Setup

[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.

[Kayoz]

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]

*Throws EaglePryde a can o'*


Good luck buddy.

[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.

[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 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]

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

[EaglePryde]

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

[Kayoz]

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"?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

To no one in particular...

[Data]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[EaglePryde]

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.