Multiplayer and New Rebuilt Engine. (Question to Dev's)

[Night Nord]

P2P doesn't mean everyone get's to share the same load.
graphics is done localy, all you need to send to "peers" are changes. as far as i can remember minimum bandwidth for a very very very high density environment was about 100kbps. that's peak, not average.
and if someone has a poor connection, only he/she suffers from it.

You have to calculate changes at few machines at least to prevent cheating. And deal with desyncs somehow.

Plus, slow machine means that it can't calculate even what it see right now. If it will expect someone else to send new data over - it will visually lag even more.

client-server is no good since host(server) would have to take to much of a load. now, someone could say that eve online does it in a persistent universe. well... not realy, since it's not real time. there are all sorts of gameplay tricks that mask the lag. kind of like windows animations in windows vista/7/8. not much but 200ms is enough to kill the mood in a FPS.

AI is hard, but physics and shooting calculations are trivial. They could be offloaded to the GPU and calculate dozens of ships at same time.

Sure, there will be network delay, but well... people are playing with delay above 300ms. It's hard, but ok - it's not the FPS after all.

P2P won't solve delay issues - if someone is in Australia it WILL lag. In case of client-server model it will lag only for him. In case of P2P model it will either slow down time (which is extremely annoying - see Supreme Commander) or will lag for everyone or will create "rubber-banding" effect, which is even worse (see Counter-Strike).

besides, i did say hybrid was better. that's mostly p2p, with node hierarchy and probably central auth & content servers. a super-node is a node that has more processing power and can coordinate ordinary nodes. super-node would also be responsible for a bigger share of the environment.

I'd rather see client-server model with server offloading some parts of generic calculations (without client acknowledging what exactly this calculations are about, to prevent cheating) to the clients with good delay. I.e. distributed computation.

But server should be designed in such way that it will be able to handle all this calculations itself, because clients are unreliable.

we are of course talking about MMO concept...

ordinary multiplay is obvious, but would still probably require some load sharing between adjecent nodes.

Ah, MMO... Yes, for MMO it would be just cost inefficient (i.e. you will make less super-profit then in general) to make all calculations on server.

[A5PECT]

The problem with client-server is that Egosoft would have to pay for servers, and that dredges the financial issue up even further.

[Night Nord]

The problem with client-server is that Egosoft would have to pay for servers, and that dredges the financial issue up even further.

MMO couldn't be done without any server at all, you'll need at least synchronization point. And if we are talking about small-scale multiplayer - it's not EgoSoft problem to create public servers. Someone else will do it.

[bluenog143]

Sigh... There we go again...

Look - this subject keeps coming back, because the same people start this nonsense over and over again. They simply do not want to hear and/or accept a "no" as answer, and just keep trying endlessly. Do not confuse the repentantly asking from a small minority with "everyone asking".

There have been countless polls around this subject and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM has the same result... the overwhelmingly majority of people here do NOT want a MMO. Maybe they want some add on for a local game with a few people, but only, and only, as a add-on - and only if it's done without noticeable effect on the single player game..

I also certainly do not want a MMO. This would ruin the game, because the X series is about a single player that has to find his way in a complicated universe, and want to use the environment and resources as he/she/it seems fit. Involving others in your private universe will ruin this, because other people simply have different wishes. I simply want to do my thing, without asking permissions from other players, been depended on other players, or be hindered or attacked by other players.

I have owned may games that at the end been ruined by going multi player. Examples? Take Quake. This game I really liked at the first two incarnations. It had a (kind of) story and a purpose for your actions. Then came Quake3. Oh man - what a huge disappointment that game was for me. No story (how small that would be) whatsoever, just mindless blasting in huge arena's - and was it. The same happened with Unreal. Yes - i know these games where a success, but for me they where completely ruined. Fortunately Quake 4 was back to the roots and again enjoyable.

So - while it might be possible to have some local multi-player (as long as it don't take resources away from single player development, and has no impact on the game engine), there is no way a MMO will be supported by the majority of people here - and I am happy with that.

Your words are those of righteousness

[vukica]

...

ah, you're not listening to what i'm saying
you say p2p is crap, C/S is ok, and i say they're both crap.

that's why you need to combine the architecture. i'm glad you mentiond distributed computing. that was the general direction i was shooting at, with hybrid architectures, where there are good solutions for most, if not all, of the problems you've mentioned.

the australia problem is the toughest, but i think i saw a way to fix that a while ago, using 2 overlay networks. one connects to peers close in-game, the other connects peers close IRL. two networks are connected at optimal** positions. not sure about the details and how efficient it really is.

**magic

i do belive client/server architecture will dominate for at least another 10 years... after that... idk. if phones really will connect at xyz+ Gbps in 10 years, then many constraints for multiuser applications will change.
there will always be lag, but if the network can handle that much of a load then it must handle individual packets really quickly. so... you never know...

[jkflipflop98]

As my FAQ clearly explains, time and resources are the issue, not gameplay behaviour.

Well dude here's the reality of the situation - either you guys make a multiplayer version of X that operates like Minecraft's setup, or you continue to scrape by in the minor leagues on the income from a very small niche market. If you thrive in obscurity, then so be it.

[Wraith_Magus]

As my FAQ clearly explains, time and resources are the issue, not gameplay behaviour.

Well dude here's the reality of the situation - either you guys make a multiplayer version of X that operates like Minecraft's setup, or you continue to scrape by in the minor leagues on the income from a very small niche market. If you thrive in obscurity, then so be it.

Yes, because all games should be made to be World of Warcraft, because that's the game that's the biggest and most popular.

Nobody makes money selling games that are different from whatever the most popular thing is - and all those games that just try to clone whatever WoW does all made MASSIVE amounts of money. Oh, and Call of Duty, that's popular, too!

... Just let me try and think and remember how many of them there were... Oh, right, they all went out of business, because they couldn't compete by just copying someone much larger and better-funded than they were!

Meanwhile, this tiny little obscure company sure seems to have gained YOUR attention, at least, if you're capable of recognizing it enough to sign up and make such a comment.

Maybe it's because, I don't know, in spite of being a small company, they created something that WASN'T just jumping on a bandwagon because all the "popular" kids were doing so?

Maybe it's because a small, indie developer can thrive if it tries to actually innovate, instead of doing what everyone else is doing, and working with a niche market, improving its formula "in obscurity", until it can attract a greater and greater audience to itself?

.... naaaaaaaaahhhhh

[Leng_20]

As my FAQ clearly explains, time and resources are the issue, not gameplay behaviour.

Well dude here's the reality of the situation - either you guys make a multiplayer version of X that operates like Minecraft's setup, or you continue to scrape by in the minor leagues on the income from a very small niche market. If you thrive in obscurity, then so be it.

or maybe you can go play other mainstream games with your precious multiplayer feature and leave singleplayer games alone? because you re getting ridiculous right know trying to prove your useless point.
Not all games company want to go the EA/activision way, deal with it.

[Raider480]

As my FAQ clearly explains, time and resources are the issue, not gameplay behaviour.

Well dude here's the reality of the situation - either you guys make a multiplayer version of X that operates like Minecraft's setup, or you continue to scrape by in the minor leagues on the income from a very small niche market. If you thrive in obscurity, then so be it.

other mainstream games with [...] multiplayer feature [...] Not all games company want to go the EA/activision way

Yes please, qft.

[lildragon]

I think the problem is that on the internet people can't just accept other people's views. I don't think anyone realisticaly wants any X game to become an MMO, infact anyone who does want to is quite frankly mad because it would destroy the look and feel of an X universe.

However apart from the above comments, I think a local Multiplayer could add to the game for some people. There are MANY MANY games that have the option of Multiplayer that %80 of players don't even use and even though it doesn't really add that much revenue to the developer they give the player a choice.

Personally I don't mind if there is a LAN multiplayer option, it could make things interesting but I don't think multiplayer will ever be a large part of any X game. It is egosoft's choice and whatever choice they make I will go with it because I trust them to continue this epic series of games!!

Also to reinforce the above point, I play borderlands 2 but never play multiplayer, I play single player. I play AI War which has multiplayer but up until yesterday I've always played singleplayer. There are LOTS of games that have a Multiplayer option that is never used. I think this arguement stems because people say "It would be nice to at least have the option" and the die hard x fans say "No it would ruin it" well to the die hard fans, you don't need to use it. To those many people on this thread who keeps going on and on about MMO's (whether its will or won't) just be quiet because the X series is NEVER going to be an mmo, it's not the x style

[Madgamer13]

As my FAQ clearly explains, time and resources are the issue, not gameplay behaviour.

Well dude here's the reality of the situation - either you guys make a multiplayer version of X that operates like Minecraft's setup, or you continue to scrape by in the minor leagues on the income from a very small niche market. If you thrive in obscurity, then so be it.

I don't want Minecraft in space, I want X:Rebirth. I also want to experience it alone, as I have in X3.

I do like your ultimatum though, I also really like how you have only described Egosoft's potential finances in one of the scenarios. So, if Egosoft were to give me the power to invade your game with my carrier group and blow up all your stations to hell, would Egosoft be in a better or worse financial position?

[RichardDaborn]

As i said earlier, the Borderlands model is the best one I feel. (Or something like it.)

Its the only game I've ever played where the single solo play is as nice as the multiplayer. Its not a huge MMO of thousands like Star Trek Online, Borderlands just has a select few teammates to tag along with.

A drop in/ drop out system, or limited to flagged friends only. Limited to 4, players max. Host, +3. Nice intimate group.

I think if any multiplayer were to be introduced into the game it should be limited to a handful only.

[Hardscript]

Thank you for answering my original question CBJ.

[cherbert1701]

What annoys me is all the hard core Egosoft fans who hang out on these forums arrogantly think they are in the majority.

I think you will find that the actual playerbase of the X-Series is far greater than your small collective voice.

I don't post much around here and I have been lurking here on and off for years. I'm sure the same goes for many more players of the X-Series and I bet some don't even come here at all.

For the record I would love Multiplayer.

So please, have some respect and don't make assumptions and speak for other peoples desires or opinions.

I think when Egosoft are ready multilayer will be inevitable. Especially if this game migrates to the next-gen consoles, PS4 and Xbox One.

[Shootist]

What annoys me is all the hard core Egosoft fans who hang out on these forums arrogantly think they are in the majority.

The player base that spends its time in the forum has a majority voice with the developers.

Multiplayer is fine as long as it is in a game other than Rebirth.

Good day.

[Raider480]

Especially if this game migrates to the next-gen consoles, PS4 and Xbox One.

This has already been officially denied to happen. X:R is PC only.

[pigeonpigeon]

What annoys me is all the hard core Egosoft fans who hang out on these forums arrogantly think they are in the majority.

I think you will find that the actual playerbase of the X-Series is far greater than your small collective voice.

I don't post much around here and I have been lurking here on and off for years. I'm sure the same goes for many more players of the X-Series and I bet some don't even come here at all.

For the record I would love Multiplayer.

So please, have some respect and don't make assumptions and speak for other peoples desires or opinions.

It's certainly true that the people who post on a game's forums are just a small segment of the audience, and so polls and such should be taken with a grain of salt. That said, it's also usually the case that people who take the initiative to check out a game's forum or internet community tend to be more likely to partake in a game's multiplayer aspect. This has been shown over and over again, where companies have compared the results of polls to their own data, finding that polls exaggerate the number of people who actually use multiplayer features. In this case that might be mitigated by the fact that the X series is so staunchly single player, but I would nonetheless expect that the overall % of X players who'd like multiplayer is even lower than the poll results on this site.

The other thing is, it doesn't matter what you personally would like, or that someone has 2 friends who would love to play this game if only it had multiplayer. People keep bringing up these stories like it's relevant, and they're delusional. "I only have 5 friends, and 3 of them would play X:Rebirth if only it had multiplayer, therefore it must be popular!" If you don't see what's wrong with that statement, then I don't have the time to explain it properly. Publishers and/or egosoft have done actual market research (they spent money on this!) to determine if it would be a worthwhile venture, and all that research lead them to the conclusion that: no, it would not be worthwhile at this time.

If, somewhere down down the line, Egosoft were able to obtain additional funding for multiplayer that they otherwise would not have gotten, then I will be all for it. But if it means they have to spend a year or two of development focusing primarily on multiplayer implementation instead of improving and adding new content, then I personally will have none of it!

I feel especially strongly about that now that the space sim genre seems to be going through a bit of a revival. Star Citizen and Elite: Dangerous may not be exactly what X is, but they'll scratch a lot of the same itches that the X games do (assuming they deliver even a fraction of what they promise), and they are both being designed with multiplayer in mind, from the outset. I prefer things that way.

[Quitschi]

I think a multiplayer mode for Rebirth would be great.

[Hardscript]

it's also usually the case that people who take the initiative to check out a game's forum or internet community tend to be more likely to partake in a game's multiplayer aspect.

I am sorry but that statement is completely false, its the is hardcore fans and serious players that take the initiative to visit the forums of a singleplayer game often.

The missing factor is people like my friends who wont touch a singleplayer game under any circumstances and have never and will never sign up to a forum.

Just think how many people only play mc often and only multiplayer that never go to the forums. Out of the 12.2 million mc copies sold only 2.3mil have signed up the forums. that is only 18%

[SuperG]

Well I avoid MMO
Do play CoD and BF.

But Mplay no need for.

Coop. No need for

Keep it singleplayer.

Because you can do both as many game do. A half baked SP and halve baked MP. While other focus on MPlay game.
And others on pure SP games.

Because both target audiences are very huge and there is overlap.

There are huge triple A single player games.

Epic UT registreerd massive offline use with bots. In those days.

So we got a sp game wich is good because SC and ED going that road with SP option.