My wish for X-3 Terrain Conflict

[Makita]

I know it's been mention before, some of you said no way some other wanted it, so do i. Mutliplayer that is.

My idea of it would be a coop version of it to make more simple, both worlds (assuming 2 player mode) would connect to a single sector, let's call it Terra Nova. Terra Nova would be the connection hub to both worlds which seta could obviously not be used. Each player could own 1 trading dock each for the purpose of trading and a sort of embassy station for some sort of application to enter the other players territory (preventing seta interruption and anything else you could be doing)

I know what you're thinking what's the point, well you couldn't build any station in the other players space so the game could still be played in single mode without any side effect, but when connected with an other player then you could call in for military support, or resupply .

Obviously Terra Nova would be a secret location unknown to all enemies (npc) no UT's could enter either players sector except for Terra Nova sector

Just something i'd like too see, among many other

ps:no "go play Eve" comments either plz they not the same 28 mil sp toon

[Fresshness]

Obviously (no degrading intended) multiplayer is a MUST (no monthly fee-based multiplayer ONLY however!!).

In addition here is my wishlist:

- Newtonian physics
- Seamless landable planets
- Seamless Universe (NO gates. This is obviously used as a plot-technique to hide the fact the game engine cannot handle a seamless universe)


HOWEVER,

I do not think the game engine will be changed in any significant way in Terran Conflict. It's going to be an 'official XTM'.

[Nightwatch]

38 mill eve toon and multiplayer would be a very bad idea.

Not to mention the development resources to make it happen would push the game development well into nest year at least for not really much benefit or increased sales.

[surferx]

HOWEVER,

I do not think the game engine will be changed in any significant way in Terran Conflict. It's going to be an 'official XTM'.

One can only hope.
[EDIT- for the flip response] From looking at the video it didn't appear to be just an XTM injected game. Some things in it don't exist in XTM.
I do hope they add a lot more wares and stations to the economy. As far as Newtonian physics: it's been brought up before and a game modeled on true physical laws would be extremely hard to play.
I would like to see a little more reality but not a game killer. If you are flying and wanted to do a 180 and kill the power you could be able to continue drifting while firing backwards. I would also like to have a way to divert weapon power to the shields and vice-versa, so your guns have a little faster recharge rate but the shields would be slower. Just my 2 cents.

[Lancefighter]

I personally think multiplayer would kill this game.

The basic premise of the game is that it is a sandox: While eve is a similar sandbox, in x3 you can change the color of the sand, so to speak.
You can use the modding tools provided, the script editor, the galaxy editor to make the sandbox the size you want, and fill it with just enough sand. Then... You can share your sandbox with others, talk about it on the forums, ect.

If nothing new ever came to eve, would you keep playing? (ps, i only have a 25m sp char ) The same applies to x3. the difference is just that the PLAYERS make the new content (most of the time), and the Devs are too busy making the next installment. (or blatantly ripping ships out of xtm, either way... ok maybe not)

With multiplayer, you cant make new content. Every script would have to be either signed, or not happen... and we all know how many signed scripts there are compared to the total number of scripts.

So my vote is no, no muliplayer.

[Nightwatch]

(ps, i only have a 25m sp char )

If you have 25 mill skill points you are far more powerful than the average player in eve. The average time people play eve is 6 months which means about 6-7 million skill points. Remember that.

[Usenko]

[EDIT- for the flip response] From looking at the video it didn't appear to be just an XTM injected game. Some things in it don't exist in XTM.
I do hope they add a lot more wares and stations to the economy. As far as Newtonian physics: it's been brought up before and a game modeled on true physical laws would be extremely hard to play.
I would like to see a little more reality but not a game killer. If you are flying and wanted to do a 180 and kill the power you could be able to continue drifting while firing backwards. I would also like to have a way to divert weapon power to the shields and vice-versa, so your guns have a little faster recharge rate but the shields would be slower. Just my 2 cents.

I like what you used to be able to do in X-Wing all those years ago - you're travelling along, someone puts a few bolts into your ship, you can dump the guns' energy into the shields and buy yourself those five critical seconds you need to get behind the bad guy.

Of course, you can't do much till your guns recharge, but at least you have time to wait.

[surferx]

I like what you used to be able to do in X-Wing all those years ago - you're travelling along, someone puts a few bolts into your ship, you can dump the guns' energy into the shields and buy yourself those five critical seconds you need to get behind the bad guy.

Of course, you can't do much till your guns recharge, but at least you have time to wait.

Or get away to fight another day. Never played X-Wing, but I guess that energy dump would have to be hot keyed since you don't have much time to shift thru menus; but yeah, that's what I'm talking about.

[SieurNewT]

+60M skillpts but bored to death in eve

What i really wants in X3 is more "life", not juste "new text / flying stuffs" but something that speak, have a life, could die... the X3 universe for me now is too synthetic, i am still trying to understood how this world could be more challenging and living... maybe what is needed is a lot of human voiced, in X2 / X3 the "communication" parts are totaly useless, you could connect to any station / ship but then their is no point trying to discuss...

So I am not asking to put a real player in each flying object and docked part (like eve) but if it's possible to have more interaction / dialogs / nice chat & exchanges like in old game stiles "privateers" and others i will really be happy to discover a new X universe. But not again a script pack with extra effects and new texts to read before to get bored again.

[Tenlar Scarflame]

A 2-4 player LAN mode wouldn't be unwelcome to me, though I imagine it would be quite a chore to include it.

Also, there wouldn't have to be any sort of global unity of scripts- it would just have to be that each player on a single LAN game would have to have exactly the same scripts. Not necessarily the same mods, if the mods don't add ships or content and such. (if one guy likes his HUD one way and the other likes his HUD the other way, well, great. Go ahead.) Which would essentially mean that you'd have to coordinate before-hand what scripts and gameplay-altering mods would be in your X.

As far as more life... very much agreed. More voice-over would certainly be welcome. Especially if other ships would speak to you more often without you having to prompt it in some way, eg. comming them or shooting them etc.
It would certainly be fun if a pirate would comm you and demand you surrender your goods, or if he'd taunt you before he began shooting. Or if your wingmen in-sector would comm-in to report a kill, or if they're in trouble, or returning to base etc...
Now THAT would be fun.

[xeon_1]

Or like in freelancer that you heard the freighter captains chatting to one an other.
Ships saying entering trade lane ,requesting premission to dock
You could here these things in the background and they added a bunch of atmosphere to the game

[Sandalpocalypse]

Multiplayer simply isn't practical. The server would have to run collision detection in as many sectors as there are players. It would destroy your CPU. Terran Conflict isn't even going to be multithreaded, there is no way that is going to work.

That's just on a technical basis. The gameplay issues are worse...ugh.

[The Boz]

TC isn't going to support multicore CPUs!? Aww, crap.

[xeon_1]

TC isn't going to support multicore CPUs!? Aww, crap.

How can it they are using the same game engine.
If they modify this engine to run on dual core they are better of creating a new engine from the ground up.
It would take a bit longer but pay of in the long run.

[The Boz]

I have some limited knowledge on the issue of engines, programming and the way a computer works. It's not impossible to make an designed to work as a single thread work as several. It's not even extremely hard. Only fairly hard, from what I gather.
But then again, my knowledge on the issue is limited. So take this with a fistful of sand.

[Tenlar Scarflame]

Multiplayer simply isn't practical. The server would have to run collision detection in as many sectors as there are players. It would destroy your CPU. Terran Conflict isn't even going to be multithreaded, there is no way that is going to work.

That's just on a technical basis. The gameplay issues are worse...ugh.

Not really... you'd still only have to run collision detection in your own sector, for your own playership. You'd just see OOS players the way you see OOS NPC's, with their stats and position updated every few seconds.

Now of course, OOS combat for you might be IS combat for someone else. So in a sector that you're not in but someone else is, if you send your ships to go kill him expecting them to obey OOS combat rules, you'll be in trouble. But your computer still wouldn't need to run IS collision detection for them- that would be done by whoever's in that sector, and your computer would just receive periodic updates a la OOS.

Actually, playing on a LAN game if you're not the server would be a GREAT deal, as the server would be the one doing all the OOS calculations and scripts and such and beaming them to you. That's like having your cake baked by someone else and eating it too.

[Cycrow]

I have some limited knowledge on the issue of engines, programming and the way a computer works. It's not impossible to make an designed to work as a single thread work as several. It's not even extremely hard. Only fairly hard, from what I gather.
But then again, my knowledge on the issue is limited. So take this with a fistful of sand.

depends if that knowledge actually covers games programming.

making a single threaded game run in multiple threads is alot harder than making your average program run in multiple threads.

generally the engine has to be designed from the ground to to work properly as a multithreaded game.

such a change would need a massive rewrite to the existing engine, and generally just better to start again with it

[rafi23]

What should be in TC:
- multiplayer, GTA4 like style, 4-16 players, just dogfight deathmatch, team deatchmatch, co-op missions against NPC, etc., in single sector (or 2-3 sectors but not whole universe), simple but IMHO very entertaining,
- customized ships, not just change colours, but add part here, change part there or something like that (like NFS maybe ?), maybe possibility to add your own graphics on ships,
- more variety of ships,
- more living in universe, more comm-chat, CB Radio style communication (different channels),
- more variety of missions, I know there are incredible scripts, but it should be in vanilla, (trader attacked by a pirates could call for help, etc.), and that would imply more living in universe,
- trails after ships, homeworld like style, (XTM has it), it's not that important, but it's nice ,
- landable planets, but not necessarily


What shouldn't be in TC:
- multiplayer build, trade thing ... lack of SETA would be horrible,
- endless universe, what for ? as someone said somewhere else, the fun thing happen in a certain points of universe, so the rest is just empty space, but there is a solution to that. You could be able travel for loooooong time in one direction then in some point the sector would change, and then after a veeery loooong trip you would aper in the other sector. But even that seems pointless,
- Newtonian physics,

[andrewas]

depends if that knowledge actually covers games programming.

making a single threaded game run in multiple threads is alot harder than making your average program run in multiple threads.

generally the engine has to be designed from the ground to to work properly as a multithreaded game.

such a change would need a massive rewrite to the existing engine, and generally just better to start again with it

The thing is, X3 is not a typical game. The OOS system is an obvious candidate for multithreading, since it naturally breaks down into smaller problems. If they were coding X3 today, multithreading OOS would be a no brainer. Its obviously harder to change it at this stage, but not impossibly so, and the payoff would be much higher framerates, and perhaps a more detailed OOS simulation.

[Hinder]

I personally don't know if I'm going to dive into the new release. I'm thinking it's nothing more than X3 on steroids. With the new modern CPU's available at dirt cheap prices, the technology restraints aren't really restraints anymore like they were a few years back.

My point being..

I'm ready for a space sim that allows me to wander around in my ship (Mass Effect Style), Have a crew that actually has decent AI (Oblivion style) and be able to interact with the internals of the ship and patrons aboard. I'm wanting planet landings, Taking my alterain vehicles out to explore, etc ie.. I'm wanting seamless space (IWAR2 Style), NO MORE GATES.. And im wanting a more life-like feeling in the game, not just another faceless space jockey with no body or personality.

So I don't think i'll be playing anymore space sims until I get a...

IWAR2 universe with Oblivion AI with Mass Effect in-ship eyecandy with a sim-city economy all rolled up into 1 package...

X3 is a great game but why reinvent the wheel, Unless egosoft releases something just beyond mind blowing, I don't think I'll be able to stomach any more X...

*ducks for cover*

Hinder