Can X2 The Threat go Multiplayer?

Bobaloochi · Post by **Bobaloochi** » Sat, 9. Oct 04, 01:20

I just bought X2 and dont see the option. Is there a way to get online with it?

Lorien · Post by **Lorien** » Sat, 9. Oct 04, 01:37

Bobaloochi wrote:I just bought X2 and dont see the option. Is there a way to get online with it?

No option available therefore no online play. Every game I've bought that had an online option mentioned on the box that you'd at least need a modem...

Tommy Gun · Post by **Tommy Gun** » Sat, 9. Oct 04, 01:57

though it would be good for some sort of X3

the only problem would be, who could host a HUGE online multiplayer like that...

unless the universe was made smaller again (about 4x4 sectors in a server) and have a good few number of people playing it, as part of different factions.
Though most games like this are turn based (EOCO, TVSonline etc) so what would happen to your ship/empire whilst you weren't on the computer, would they disappear or be open to attack, all things that need to be looked at before/if egosoft make an X3 online game.

Logaan · Post by **Logaan** » Sat, 9. Oct 04, 02:05

Theres all sorts of issues over how much somethign like that would cost and trying to find sponsers etc.

But I think as a stepping stone, many players would just enjoy joining a server and having a big battle in different ships. I did suggest alsorts of missions, bombing, capture the flag, kinda stuff a little while ago.

We'll just have to see how it goes.

Domoso · Post by **Domoso** » Sat, 9. Oct 04, 02:21

There are huge multiplayer environments like that up and running now. Only problem is they're fee based. Personally, I have problems with the concept of paying $50+ to purchase a new game and then having to pay $20+/month to play it. That is why I do not support or encourage such games by buying them in the first place. Now, if say I could download that game for free instead of paying for it then I'd seriously consider paying to play it online.

If you figure you pay $50+ dollars for the game + the $20/month service fee + your $50+ high speed internet access the first month of play is costing you $120+ if you don't amortize the initial purchase or adjust your internet access cost for the ratio of time you use it to play the game. Thats a rather hefty investment for a "game".

Lethrom · Post by **Lethrom** » Sat, 9. Oct 04, 03:22

Well technically you could do like a "shard" thing (a shard is where you setup your own computer/server running a special client so others can accsess the X2 thingy your running) and you could make your own small universe for you client. its a probable idea but the cool people at Egosoft would have to make the software/client for the servers

too much evill work

Constipated_Vigilante · Post by **Constipated_Vigilante** » Sat, 9. Oct 04, 03:25

Tommy Gun wrote:though it would be good for some sort of X3

the only problem would be, who could host a HUGE online multiplayer like that...

unless the universe was made smaller again (about 4x4 sectors in a server) and have a good few number of people playing it, as part of different factions.
Though most games like this are turn based (EOCO, TVSonline etc) so what would happen to your ship/empire whilst you weren't on the computer, would they disappear or be open to attack, all things that need to be looked at before/if egosoft make an X3 online game.

Well, in the Freelancer Multiplayer, the universe is the same size as that in single player, with all the same exploration rewards (jump holes, abandoned wrecks, etc.), and that game runs fine. Those servers hold anywhere from 8 to 120 people, depending on the server's power.

Domoso · Post by **Domoso** » Sat, 9. Oct 04, 04:29

I thought about the Shard idea but, it is really too small of a universe. For something so open ended as X2 you'd need two essential components. 1) A 24/7/365 server(s): a perpetual environment and 2) a larger universe to accomodate the players. Without those two components it wouldn't be worth much more than deathmatch or CTF.

With a single server you wouldn't have the redundancy to maintain a perpetual and large environment nor would you be able to handle more than a few players. No, something like X2 needs space, LOTS of space, many more sectors, perhaps make it a multiverse. And to really play the game the way it is meant to be played you'd need a perpetual environment so you don't lose what you've built when you left the game or God forbid the server had to be rebooted.

But, think about it. If X2 was online, had a perpetual environment and had hundreds, even thousands of sectors with hundreds or thousands of players it would be pretty awesome to play. Instead of the single trader environment of X2 you could form corporations of multiple players and work together as a team or a band of pirates, hell, people could even sign up to be Khaak. Then you could have galactic wars, price fixing, market manipulation, monopolies. X2, if it were online and perpetual would be by its nature much more dynamic.

That would be worth paying for but only if the game didn't cost you an arm and a leg to purchase in the first place. Otherwise I won't be playing it.

Combat · Post by **Combat** » Sat, 9. Oct 04, 04:37

Search for 'combat' as an author for a discusion of the bad side of MMORG.

To paraphrase, 'we' (the discussion group) reckon that the way forward is for people to build their own sectors / galaxies etc and share them.

It's a bit llike the old days of tabletop gaming. Build an environment, agree a starting set of rules and agree a 'win' point. After that it's up to your own honesty to play fairly.

I (/we) would love to see a LAN version but MMORG's are open to too much abuse to make it worthwhile.

hartas · Post by **hartas** » Sat, 9. Oct 04, 08:12

I think a LAN version is pretty much pointless anyway since they all have 5000+ players at anyone time, you would need from the moon and back in cables to start with, or the annual income of a small nation in wireless cards.

Rapier · Post by **Rapier** » Sat, 9. Oct 04, 12:04

hartas wrote:I think a LAN version is pretty much pointless anyway since they all have 5000+ players at anyone time, you would need from the moon and back in cables to start with, or the annual income of a small nation in wireless cards.

Or to be at university and live in Halls.

Cobraking001 · Post by **Cobraking001** » Sat, 9. Oct 04, 15:21

perhaps limiting it to 1 ship each and making people work in teams

keitsi · Post by **keitsi** » Mon, 1. Nov 04, 22:34

A Freelancer-like multiplayer support would be very nice - I have played Freelancer a lot on LAN parties (16 players) and over ADSL with few friends, and it was very fun. Too bad freelancer lacks a lot of things X2 - The Threat has.

I have not bought X2 the threat - yet. I don't know if I ever will unless there will be a multiplayer support. I hardly ever play single player games because most likely the game will be much more fun when playing with friends.

That's about my 5 cents.
//keitsi

Holywhippet · Post by **Holywhippet** » Mon, 1. Nov 04, 23:25

I suspect a decent sized multiplayer X2 game would be too large for any single machine. In the single player version, out of systems stuff isn't calculated 100%. In a multiplayer version you'd need to do calculations for every sector a player was in. You might be able to do it with a dedicated server but too many players would require too much power.

canazza · Post by **canazza** » Mon, 1. Nov 04, 23:29

Rapier wrote:
hartas wrote:I think a LAN version is pretty much pointless anyway since they all have 5000+ players at anyone time, you would need from the moon and back in cables to start with, or the annual income of a small nation in wireless cards.
Or to be at university and live in Halls.

yep. me and my flatmates are networked and we enjoy playing games all the time... mainly Battlefield although we sometimes play CnC Generals.

They don't 'get' X2 though - it requires too much thought

softweir · Post by **softweir** » Tue, 2. Nov 04, 01:11

Here's an idea....

A powerful home-based server with a high-quality connection could probably run a single sector, modelling it's economy and supporting a limited number of player ships. You then have a loose net of such servers. A player starts a session by logging on to the server running the sector he was in at the end of his last session. If he travels from one sector to another, then he reconnects to the server running the new sector! When AI ships travel from sector to sector then this is managed by the server running the start sector sending a message to the server running the destination sector, including info such as ship type, upgrades, current script running and related variables, cargo carried and so on.

As protection against overloading servers, a system could be implemented whereby gates would refuse to transfer players and AI ships to a sector which was overcrowded. This would, unfortunately, have knock-on problems, such as grand space-opera battles being unfeasible, and there would be problems with clans of players defending their sector simply by camping there, though I would hope that the inconvenience that could cause (imagine not being able to connect to a game because one AI ship entered while you were offline) would prevent this happening too much!

It could be assumed that every sector has a specialised navsat that sends economic data to all players in all sectors. To avoid bandwidth and other loading issues data would not be live but would be sent at intervals.

To improve the quality of delayed economic data, stations could be allowed to store far more wares units than ships are able to carry, so prices would fluctuate less rapidly. Data would propagate from sector to sector across the grid.

Egosoft could run a master server which maintains a database of the layout of the extended X universe. When a server tries to join up it is allocated a pre-designed sector layout and starting condition, and it must send updates to the Egosoft server at intervals so that if it goes offline then another server can be allocated a reasonably up-to-date status of the sector.

Failing the presence of a central server a fan community might be able to organise a server net, with fans who wish to contribute a server contacting existing server owners to arrange a link. If the software rigidly enforced the grid shape of the X universe then a server contributor would pick an X and Y coordinate and contact the servers surrounding that coordinate. This would be better than having a situation where sectors can be randomly linked to each other creating a complete tangle!

There would be problems with serves going down and parts of the universe becoming disconnected, but hopefully other servers could step in to fill the gap.

This suggestion would be a stink to implement, but would be feasible, scalable, flexible, and would allow for that highly desirable persistence. Above all, it would be a recognisable X Universe!

OK, so what's wrong with the idea? There must be something wrong with it!

Holywhippet · Post by **Holywhippet** » Tue, 2. Nov 04, 01:21

The main problem with that theory is that X2 isn't designed to run on more than one machine. Quite a while back I asked if X2 could be modified to take advantage of a multi-CPU system. The answer was no, it would require some major rewriting to make it work. The same applies here but even moreso. Sectors are so interdependant that you can't easily isolate them to a single server. When a ship acting on a scripted trade order is deciding where to go it needs to assess all sectors within range. When it gets the goods the servers need to keep track of goods moving between them. All up there's just too much overlap.

softweir · Post by **softweir** » Tue, 2. Nov 04, 01:58

The problems that may occur with implementing a distributed server system aren't the same as those of implementing a multi-processor system.

With a multiprocessor system you have two or more chips, both running the same program, each trying to access the same heap of data. The amount of work involved in making sure that, for instance, a given AI ship is updated by one or other processor and not BOTH is clearly not worth the benefits.

However, with the idea I proposed an AI ship only exists in one sector at a time, and is being managed by one processor at a time. For 99% of the time the running of scripts is unchanged - the AI ship needs to be aware of the current sector, and it needs to be aware of the economic situation in surrounding sectors, but running the scripts themselves need not be any different.

The one big difference comes when a ship jumps to the next sector. The code and data structures for an AI ship will need to be checked and possibly amended so that ALL data and states for the AI ship can be packed together into a message that can be sent to the next server. This won't be too difficult, I suspect. At present a ship is moved from sector to sector by deleting a link to it in the table for the start sector, and inserting it into the table of the destination sector. All data related to it such as scripts and variables, upgrades and cargo are accessible via that link. This would have to be recoded into "Gather data for this ship: Assemble Message: Send Message: If message sent successfully then delete ship, scripts and wares". What happens in the case a message fails I don't know - perhaps the ship would fly through the gate, disappear, then have to be re-created outside the gate boundary, as if it failed to jump. In this case there would be some awkwardness, as the script *might* have too many variables relating to where it expected to arrive. However, from what I've learnt of existing scripts they seem pretty dependant on repeatedly checking their current sector and would recover gracefully.

You are right that route-plotting needs careful work. One way would be for each server to maintain a map of the rest of the servers, complete with the (somewhat out-of-date) economic data of each sector. Remember, each server only runs its local economy, and its economic data is updated by messages from neighbouring sector servers. If an AI ship is trying to route-find then the script would be accessing the local server's copy of the universe map. If the on-line universe gets too huge for servers to hold a complete map, then there would need to be some localisation, so a server holds only the 50 to 100 nearest sectors, and AI ships would be limited to trading within that radius to avoid losing the way back home.

I'm not saying the project would be trivial, but it might well be doable and a lot less enormous than any other implementation of a MMOG X Universe.

keitsi · Post by **keitsi** » Tue, 2. Nov 04, 06:13

Holywhippet wrote:I suspect a decent sized multiplayer X2 game would be too large for any single machine. In the single player version, out of systems stuff isn't calculated 100%. In a multiplayer version you'd need to do calculations for every sector a player was in. You might be able to do it with a dedicated server but too many players would require too much power.

That just depends on "too many". How about 10? I'd find that okay.

The_T · Post by **The_T** » Tue, 2. Nov 04, 07:51

ignoring ALL the technical issues, there would still be problems. The economy doesn't work as is, so it would fall over and start twitching if multiple players were able to go at it. The complete lack of consumption for some products pretty much screws it all up. There'd need to be a massive resource sink (aka. money sucking black hole) built into the game, (ex. planets consume food, weapons, shields, and so on all on thier own) or nothing would work right, and there would be an unbelievable accumulation of certain resources. In terms of supply and demand, there'd be supply, but exactly 0 demand; that doesn't happen in the real world.
Then there'd be a problem with the accumulation of solid objects in the universe. I'm sure that anybody who's played a lot finds that their income, and thus thier empire size, increases almost exponentially as they start to build station empires... get enough people doing this and it would melt the servers just trying to dish out the data, and people's computers would melt from rendering the stations inside a sector. you'd need to set a limit of a couple stations per player if you were to have any hope of pulling that off.

egosoft.com

egosoft.com

Can X2 The Threat go Multiplayer?

Can X2 The Threat go Multiplayer?

Re: Can X2 The Threat go Multiplayer?

Multiplayer support