Jump to content


Photo

Multiplayer Ideas


  • Please log in to reply
96 replies to this topic

#1 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,203 posts

Posted 19 November 2002 - 01:44 AM

Intro:

Ok me and Stewart have had a big thread talking about multiplayer before where he wanted a way for it to make sense. There are probably many good ideas in that thread (Ideas For Multiplayer) but this has a major twist that makes it better than my explaination in the previous thread. This happened while PeterDragon, Warlord and ME were brainstorming on the net one night.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I.

First off as stated many times before, only the Geoscope rules change between Single and Multiplayer modes. Also Single player mode and Multiplayer mode should happen at diffrent points in the Timeline. The combined game could go under the title of X-Com: Xenocide. Each mode could have a diffrent subtitle to it. Sort of like the 3 diffrent worlds of Doom.

Ok now this project's main goal has always been to create an remake that stays true to the feel of the original game. Since the original game was single player then single player mode should almost be exactly like playing the original just with better graphics. The name I like for single player mode is. X-Com: Xenocide - Unknown Menace. That name describes X-Com 1 better than the original title I think. Love it!!! And yes the name still up for grabs. :P posting my ideas here. :)

Now for multiplayer mode I recomend the name X-Com: Xenocide - Fight For Freedom. Hey I like they way it sounds and haven't heard a better name yet so no reason to change my vote. As before the title is still up for grabs. Hey, Stewy I like your Hallowed Grounds idea too but I don't see how it fits in maybe ya care to explain somewhere. Ok now before anyone says anything Fight For Freedom makes sense with the system I am about to suggest.

Multiplayer:

Now the Multiplayer game takes place during a time after first contact. The aliens have just taken control of every country in the world (alternate story possible in single player mode). However, the aliens weren't able to take over the X-Com bases because the soldiers are good fighters. X-Com itself falls into a state of anarchy and splits up into many diffrent minicoms. The old leaders of countries are replaced by puppet leaders. However, the aliens choose not to change the government structure of each country since they already provide a good means of controlling it's citizens. Even though the minicoms aren't working together anymore because of diffrences each still fights the aliens. In the game as mentioned before all countries start out under alien control. One of the goals of a minicom is to regain control of countries. You are able to attack cities under alien control to fight alien loyal police forces or stop a mega corporation from producing something that the aliens need and other things. Since minicoms might have political diffrences it is possible for one minicom to fight another. People can also play as team mates in a way described in the previous thread about multiplayer (Ideas for multiplayer). Fun part for me will be playing in co-op battlescape against the aliens.

As mentioned before in many other posts the speed of the time is not changeable in multiplayer mode. The time controls should just disapear from the geoscope interface while in multiplayer mode. maybe they can be replaced by some multiplayer specific buttons. In multiplayer mode there will be a bunch of ufos flying by all over. This makes up for the lack of time controls. There won't be a penalty for not shooting down ufo's that fly over a country. Players will be able to choose what crash sites they want to go to. Rookies can go to small ones and the elite to very large ones. Getting points to regain a country can be done in several ways. NPC Diplomats is one way. Going on missions against the puppet government and winning is another way.

In multiplayer mode the geoscope is running in real time all the time. There are no pauses when working on your base or looking at the ufopedia. shouldn't be too much of a problem because you will have team mates. ufopedia and the base can open in seperate windows on the geoscope screen. Also multiplayer mode won't notify you when there is a new ufo spotted. A warning sound can be played whenever there is a terror zone near by. and alien bases just show up on the geoscope, it is up to the player to notice. When a player's sky ranger lands at a crash site a new thread is launched and the screen changes. Player can switch screens back and forth from geoscope to battlescape. In most cases once the battlescape is playing the player will probably forget about the geoscope (Can have an alarm bell to signal ya turn too). battlescape is turn based and basically same as in x-com or ufo2000. You can totally focus in on the battlescape and let the geoscope keep running if your team has enough members.

there was much more discussed on the irc.. :P but it is hard to summarize this stuff good so ask questions or make comments and one of us that were there can reply.on further details..
Posted Image

#2 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,203 posts

Posted 19 November 2002 - 01:47 AM

Ok btw.. above are 2 types of games our remake can support there can be other games with a diffrent sub title each.. DN just told me a good idea :) In most cases it is just a change in the geoscope rules.
Posted Image

#3 Double Negative

Double Negative

    Captain

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 111 posts

Posted 19 November 2002 - 01:50 AM

Ok, here's my idea:

What if you were able to play as the group that preceeded XCOM? Maybe back in the 70's/80's, the aliens started sending scouts, and the government set up a group to take care of the problem. The Earthlings would have low-tech weapons and the aliens would be mostly scouts/scientists/engineers to begin with. As Earth started fighting back, the aliens would send weapons with the scouts.

XCOM: Xenocide - Origins
Posted Image

#4 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,203 posts

Posted 19 November 2002 - 02:39 AM

Ok I'm posting this one for Micah

X-Com: Xenocide - Us or Them

This is the multiplayer mode where both x-com and aliens are playable. The storyline and concepts for this mode will be developed later.

BTW, Fight For Freedom will be human side playable only.
Posted Image

#5 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,203 posts

Posted 19 November 2002 - 02:44 AM

Ok stewart :) I know ya got lots of ideas any suggestions for what the

X-Com: Xenocide - Apocryphal

and

X-Com: Xenocide - Hallowed Grounds

modes should be like?
Posted Image

#6 Guest_stewart_*

Guest_stewart_*
  • Guests

Posted 19 November 2002 - 01:05 PM

Ok stewart :) I know ya got lots of ideas  any suggestions for what the

X-Com: Xenocide - Apocryphal

and

X-Com: Xenocide - Hallowed Grounds

modes should be like?

My suggestions were:

X-Com: Apocrypha

and

X-Com: Xenocide - On Hallowed Ground ( see I can think up cheesy ones too!)

What do you mean by modes?

#7 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,203 posts

Posted 19 November 2002 - 01:16 PM

Well the idea is to drop the sub title bit and offer diffrent modes to play the game it. A mode really is a change in geoscope rules. The idea descibed at the begining of the thread is one way we can do multiplayer and that will be a mode with a bunch of rules of what you can and can't do and how things should be.
Posted Image

#8 Seelie

Seelie

    Sergeant

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 35 posts

Posted 19 November 2002 - 03:16 PM

That's a pretty cool idea actually. It will dramatically increase the replay value of a game that already has incredible replay value.

#9 red knight

red knight

    Xenocide Project Leader

  • Xenocide Inactive
  • 3,310 posts

Posted 19 November 2002 - 04:44 PM

All the modules idea is good, i suggest to start with the easiest one in the pool, so we can concentrate to resolve the really hard stuff first... Then the rest is just add game logic, but we should stay tuned too to do not make design desitions that can hamper the extension later...

Greetings
Red Knight
Sourceforge Nick: flois - Federico Andres Lois
Visit my blog at: flois.blogspot.com

Posted Image

Pookie cover me, I am going in.

#10 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,203 posts

Posted 19 November 2002 - 04:52 PM

I know you want to just work on the one player mode at the start. :) That's cool. The two modes I'm most interested in working on are the one player one and the one multiplayer mode I mentioned. I can't wait to play on the net. I think if we design this right then the other modes can be made just by modifing another mode. As for playable and AI control objects in the battle scape they should be a global object called a MOB for Moveable OBject (how muds do it). I usually like to get carried away with the OOP and do a bunch of inherietence like a class species and from that you build a class dwarf and so forth. Even though that is nicer looking code wise having a general MOB object is superior where the species thing is just one of the characterics. But yes we should start the thing off general.. BTW I have an idea. how about adding these two namespace

Xenocide::Startup::
Xenocide::Versus::

The Startup namespace will let things be selected by the user who starts the game. The Versus namespace will be a striped down geoscope really just for two players to do what UFO2000 currently does.
Posted Image

#11 red knight

red knight

    Xenocide Project Leader

  • Xenocide Inactive
  • 3,310 posts

Posted 19 November 2002 - 05:17 PM

I know you want to just work on the one player mode at the start.  :) That's cool.

Yes (you got me :) ), because it is the easiest one and will give us better insight of the thing we are doing... another plus is it will not take too much time to finish and play eventually :) And single player are by far easier to debug (remember the core should be pretty stable if you want to make modules out of it)... Just a thought, maybe we should start a poll and every one should give its point of view... Technically the best is start from something that you can finish in short time, and then extend from what you have understand; than start something pretty big in which nobody has enought knowledge (as far as i know)... Another plus is you dont have to do gameplay design (is already there :) ) so we can start right now... meanwhile we can keep planning and designing gameplay for the other modules....

Just my grain of salt (or pepper maybe :P )

Greetings
Red Knight
Sourceforge Nick: flois - Federico Andres Lois
Visit my blog at: flois.blogspot.com

Posted Image

Pookie cover me, I am going in.

#12 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,203 posts

Posted 19 November 2002 - 05:26 PM

I think we can do both and I will focus my attention on single player mode too. I think it is all how you design the thing. Multiplayer on the geoscope really is more input coming in. The battlescape the game just switches between players between turns.. I think I can work on both parts at the same time when we do start coding. But yeah :) you should focus your energy on the single player part and not worry at all about the multiplayer part if that is where your heart is. Only thing I might ask for is if you can make the geoscope interface so that you can hide or replace the time control buttons. BTW we really been working out this multiplayer stuff on the irc. we brain storm ideas and it has been the best place Ideas seem to come from ATM. Ask PEter and War Lord :) .. I might get the chance soon to learn your geoscope stuff.. I have been busy here in the forums and on the irc but I think some good things have come from it
Posted Image

#13 War_Lord

War_Lord

    Captain

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 113 posts

Posted 19 November 2002 - 06:28 PM

I'm completely and entirely behind RedKnight (100% of the way) about starting with the simple core of the game (in other words, the single player) and making it as good and as stable as it can be. This is going to be the core of everything we do with this project and it's not going to change for any multiplayer game or external modules we may want to add. For this reason, it not only deserves the most attention put towards it, but it must also logically be designed before desiging anything that's going to "add on" to it. Building add-ons or modules for something that doesn't exist yet is like trying to buy your new-born baby the suit it's going to be wearing in his coffin when he dies 80 years later - in other words, it's almost insane to try to build off of something that doesn't even exist yet. RedKnight hit the nail on the head when he said we need to keep future ideas in mind when we are programming this core part of the program, and we will. This makes fleshing out multiplayer and other module ideas very important even at this stage because they are things we'd like to plan for to save us from getting into more trouble later, but although now may be the time to talk about them and think about them, I don't believe it is time to start implementing them.

Building a computer game is like building lots of other things in life, we have to start with the basic core of it and work our way slowly out from there with a relatively clear pictures of where we'd like to end up.

That's my two cents, take it or leave it.

#14 hippyjon

hippyjon

    Sound Department

  • Xenocide Inactive
  • 191 posts

Posted 19 November 2002 - 10:45 PM

OK, Ive had an idea on the multiplayer front. (pls exscuse the spelling, me dyslexic)

I think you should have some kind of skirmish mode, to go along side the continuos cooporative mode that youve been talking about here.
What im thinking is ditch the geoscape and just have two players fighting it out on a level, either co-operative (2 human Vs AI alien), or verses. in verses one player could take the aliens and one X-com or both could be alein or both human (I know that wouldnt make sense in terms of the plot but why not?).

First players would decide on the number of erm Credits alowed to make there squads.

Different aliens or weapons would cost more or less depending. There would be different classes (ranks, whatever) of X-com soldiers with preset stats, (scout, sharp-shooter, ect).

The aliens should be grouped so that they would be balanced fairly. players would first pick your group of aliens then pick there squad members out of the 3-5 alien types available.

let see what else...

Maybe there should be an uper limet to the to the number of certain weapons/alien types to keep things balaced. Fighting a whole squad of oversived flying brains wouldnt be much fun.

Thats all i can think of right now. Let me know what you all think.
...or something

#15 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,203 posts

Posted 19 November 2002 - 11:55 PM

Don't worry about your spelling :) I have bad spelling and there is nothing wrong with me except for maybe a little brain damage ;) First off, The geoscope won't get scratched, it is already being worked on. The main goal of the project is to make a remake true to the feel of the original. what you are talking about sounds like UFO2000. Next, I already suggested a vs. mode and the co-op mode we can do too. those two modes will be good when it comes time to test the battlescape. I think the geoscope is getting worked on first before we can provide hooks to the battlescape. We want to be able to equip soldiers via the geoscope which will be able to be done in the versus or co-op thing too but without hte geoscope.. That vs. and co-op modes probably will apear when the geoscope is able to equip soldiers and we can make vs. mode by using the smae code use in the geoscope to do that.
Posted Image

#16 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,203 posts

Posted 20 November 2002 - 12:12 AM

I'm completely and entirely behind RedKnight (100% of the way) about starting with the simple core of the game (in other words, the single player) and making it as good and as stable as it can be.  This is going to be the core of everything we do with this project and it's not going to change for any multiplayer game or external modules we may want to add.  For this reason, it not only deserves the most attention put towards it, but it must also logically be designed before desiging anything that's going to "add on" to it.   Building add-ons or modules for something that doesn't exist yet is like trying to buy your new-born baby the suit it's going to be wearing in his coffin when he dies 80 years later - in other words, it's almost insane to try to build off of something that doesn't even exist yet.  RedKnight hit the nail on the head when he said we need to keep future ideas in mind when we are programming this core part of the program, and we will.  This makes fleshing out multiplayer and other module ideas very important even at this stage because they are things we'd like to plan for to save us from getting into more trouble later, but although now may be the time to talk about them and think about them, I don't believe it is time to start implementing them.

Building a computer game is like building lots of other things in life, we have to start with the basic core of it and work our way slowly out from there with a relatively clear pictures of where we'd like to end up.

That's my two cents, take it or leave it.

Well talked to you a bit on irc about this. I suggest that you and Red Knight mainly worry about the implementing the single player mode the way you planned to. I think there some of us who are more interested in playing multiplayer. I think my original method of implementing the battlescape takes nothing away from how you would implement it single player wise. Also the improvements I plan to do on the geoscope will help both single and multiplayer mode. If we go this way we still can have a finished product and polish the single player game while a version of the multiplayer is being developed too. BTW when I will work on the battlescape here for multiplayer it will also help the battlescape of the single player. Who knows maybe the single and multiplayer modes can be finished at the same time and the battlescape in the multiplayer actually works so it isn't annoying like waiting on UFO2000 is. Anyway much of the battlescape code will be reusable if we decide to implement a more complex engine for the battlescape. When the single player game is polished we can then turn our attention at alternative battlescape algorithms. I still think I can get a battlescape to work using my original concepts and then adjusting them to testing. But eventually either your complex method or the other complex method I posted can replace the battlescape for multiplayer.. In single player we still should try client/server because the geoscope code will stay the same in both cases we will just let the geoscope be initialized with diffrent rules.. The geoscope rules for multiplayer might get finished first because the geoscope in multiplayer is less complex I think
Posted Image

#17 5parrowhawk

5parrowhawk

    Captain

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 122 posts

Posted 21 November 2002 - 09:35 PM

How to solve the multiplayer geoscape vs. battlescape problem. (My view.)

- The battlescape will NOT run simultaneously with the geoscape. Scaling TB vs. RT will be difficult at best. The geoscape view can still be accessed during a battle, but time will not pass. It doesn't make sense to have a squad-level skirmish take 2 days.
Alternatively we could step time forward 5 minutes for every turn taken on the battlescape, or implement a timer system so the battlescape CAN run concurrently (i.e. each player gets 5 minutes per turn, must use all 5 minutes, and the geoscape progresses at near-real-time speed, something like Battle Isle: Andosia War).
- When a player's transport arrives at a battle site, he will be given the choice to 'Begin Mission' or 'Standby'. In standby mode, the transport will loiter near the battle site in full stealth mode to await the arrival of reinforcements.
- If the battle site is due to expire, all players with transports on standby will be informed that "Sir, the alien activity patterns appear to be changing. They may be preparing to dust off. Should we attack now?"
- At any time a player with a standby transport may choose to begin the battle. All other players will go into observer mode and may observe the battle.
- When in observer mode, a player with a transport on standby may choose to join the battle.
- Remember the "paratrooper" option I mentioned some time back? Where you could paradrop your troops in rather than landing in the Skyranger? Well, here's where it comes in. If there's a suitable landing site for the transport, the joining player will have the choice of conducting a paradrop or landing normally. Otherwise he will be forced to paradrop his troops in. In the latter case he may choose any terrain sector to deploy his troops; all troops will start his first turn with half TUs (this represents the effort of landing, removing the parachute harness etc.). Flying Suits and Hovertanks will start the first turn with full TUs, but will appear on the highest altitude level (i.e. exposed to enemy fire!).
- If a player joins on the first turn of the battle, or if he opts to paradrop, he will begin his turn before the next alien turn. Otherwise, he will begin his turn after the other human players have all had 1 turn.

e.g. 2 players are already fighting. It's Player 2's turn. Player 3 chooses to land his transport. Now the game will finish Player 2's turn, go to the alien turn, then Player 1, then Player 2 again, and THEN Player 3's transport will land. This is to give the other players a chance to get out of the way of the incoming transport :D

Any non-HWPs, or lightly armoured units (e.g. Reaper), beneath the Skyranger's gear or ramp will be flattened. If they're a heavily armoured HWP (disc, Sectopod, tank) under the gear, the Skyranger itself will be displaced by 1 or 2 squares to avoid landing on them. If the unit is a heavily armoured HWP under the RAMP, the ramp will deploy in a horizontal position and the HWP will be immobilized (it can still shoot though). Get lucky, and you might find yourself with an easy capture of a disc...

#18 PeterDragon

PeterDragon

    Captain

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 168 posts

Posted 22 November 2002 - 12:49 AM

Ok, what happens where there are 50 people playing the same game?
You should read my new book: Trails In The Sand

ALL over exagerations are wrong

If I am Online

#19 5parrowhawk

5parrowhawk

    Captain

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 122 posts

Posted 22 November 2002 - 07:34 AM

More importantly, do we WANT 50 people playing the same game? I've been hearing about this idea for ages and I seriously doubt it'll work. X-Com does not, IMO, translate well to massive multiplayer mode, if for no other reason than that there aren't enough jobs to go around. 50 people running 50 different bases gets ridiculous very fast.

I feel we should go with a limit of about 16 players and 4 separate "divisions" of X-Com. That's the absolute hard limit. The game wouldn't work otherwise IMO.

#20 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,203 posts

Posted 22 November 2002 - 02:49 PM

50 players is not a massive multiplayer game :)... But if we make this game a certain way doing multiplayer and single player at the same time is easy. single player can also be implemented as multiplayer with one person logged in. the rest is just some rules things as to stop the geoscope or let it go during battlescape play.. we also have discussed the problem with the battlescape and time and have come up with a solution
Posted Image

#21 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,203 posts

Posted 04 February 2003 - 02:26 PM

testing.

[edit] wow think I may have found a bug in the board :) time to mail stewy.
Posted Image

#22 Fatal_Error

Fatal_Error

    Captain

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 307 posts

Posted 04 February 2003 - 02:30 PM

testing what? multiplayer forum? :D
*ok ok i just couldnt resist*
THE BEST SIG EVER!!!

#23 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,203 posts

Posted 04 February 2003 - 02:33 PM

nah this is kinda weird :) I found some sorta bug

I originally moved this message from the wishlist two weeks ago or so but I was learning how to admin so I moved it with a link. Anyway someone posted a thread with the same name in the wishlist forum and this post disapeared from the list in this forum while still being here if you followed that link.
Posted Image

#24 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,203 posts

Posted 04 February 2003 - 02:34 PM

anyway when I posted testing. it reappeared in the thread list
Posted Image

#25 LordT

LordT

    Captain

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 715 posts

Posted 04 February 2003 - 02:47 PM

and the other one went bye-bye?
Take your time and submit a name to the Names Database.

Resistance is futile! (if < 1 ohm)

#26 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,203 posts

Posted 04 February 2003 - 03:03 PM

Yup I deleted it because this one I felt was more important and the strange problem I don't know how to fix. It is hard to unlink a message in this software for some reason.
Posted Image

#27 LordT

LordT

    Captain

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 715 posts

Posted 04 February 2003 - 03:05 PM

unlink?
if i got this straight: how about just edit the message and remove the link?
else: enlighten me
Take your time and submit a name to the Names Database.

Resistance is futile! (if < 1 ohm)

#28 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,203 posts

Posted 04 February 2003 - 03:06 PM

Originally Posted By Gangsta (another forum)

uh :) I'm one of the programmers. Anyway I know alot of us programmers are more interested or at least were in a multiplayer game vs the single player one. From what I remeber Me, Stewy, Peter and Warlord all want the multiplayer over the single one. Though Warlord agrees with RK that the single player version should be done first. To me, writing a single player game is no easier than writing a multiplayer game. Fact, you can write any single player game as a type of multiplayer game where just one player is logged in if you keep things in mind. Writing a game to be multiplayer from the start makes it easier to implement it as single player vs. writing a game single player at the start and then trying to make it multiplayer. Good example of this is Doom which I remeber more for the single player mode. Anyway, I'm willing to focus most of my attention twards the single player aspect of the game. But, I don't want to implement anything that will make implementing multiplayer harder later on and I want to implement single player in such a way that adding multiplayer is easy. It's not hard writing a single player game using a multiplayer base. Anyway maybe we should continue this discussion in the proper thread in the general design forum. If you want to reply smile.gif just cut and paste this message there.
Posted Image

#29 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,203 posts

Posted 04 February 2003 - 03:08 PM

Originally Posted By Stewart

The three major goals most of us had in mind even before this project came together were:
1) Multiplayer option
2) 1st person battlescape option
3) Little tidbitty ideas.

Pragmatically, I think it might have even been me who suggested V1 be nearly a clone of the original. Let's get a stable core going. To my knowledge, item (2) is going in V1? But lets proceed with Multiplayer in mind so we don't dig holes for ourselves.

Proceeding each way produces the following results:

1) No multiplayer, no attention to supporting it in the future.
Benefit: V1 produced in shortest time.
Detriment: Multiplayer version produced in longest time.

2) No multiplayer, attention paid to supporting it in the future.
Benefit: Multiplayer version produced sooner than above.
Detriment: V1 produced later than above.

3) With Multiplayer.
Benefit: Multiplay version produced in shortest time.
Detriment: V1 produced in longest time.

Bare in mind for projects like this the currency with which the contributers are paid are the experience and results they hope to gain. For some multiplayer is that currency, and if we choose a path that will produce it in a percieved too long a period then they might just say fvck it I'm out of here.

--------------------
Signature History:
1. 14 soldiers, in t-shirts, is all you need.
2. STOP F***ING PANICING!
3. I once gave my soldiers two pistols, like in a John Woo movie, but it just wasn't the same.
4. Once, I put my starting base in Hawaii. Sure it was great drinking Tom Collins', on the beach, and checking out polynesian chicks, but after a few months our funding ran out, and afterwards, that alien-occupation thing was a real drag.
5. Press "Enter" to exit.
6. If I give a man a fish then, for a day, I feed him, if I teach him to fish, then for the rest of his life, I have a drinkin' buddy.
Posted Image

#30 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,203 posts

Posted 04 February 2003 - 03:23 PM

About the multiplayer I think the time is the big issue here. If we are estimating the release of V1.0 to be 2 years from now and RK Suggest that multiplayer be added in V1.2 that is way too long IMO. considering V1.1 could take 1 to 2 years and V1.2 could too. I'm a network programmer and am used to programming multiuser multithreaded things and don't think writing a multiuser system is that hard to do. I'm one of the people who is more interested in the multiplayer game and am not willing to wait 4 to 6 years for it to be added. I am however willing to work mostly on the single player aspect of the game making sure it gets released first. But I don't think we should code the engine so that there have to be major changes before we can add the multiplayer game. The game can be designed with multiplayer and mind and have about the same release date 2 years from now I think. I don't think writing a multiplayer engine is any harder than writing a single player one. Nobody has explained to me why it would be yet anyway.
Posted Image

#31 LordT

LordT

    Captain

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 715 posts

Posted 04 February 2003 - 03:34 PM

No one's arguing with you on that point you know? :P
Take your time and submit a name to the Names Database.

Resistance is futile! (if < 1 ohm)

#32 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,203 posts

Posted 04 February 2003 - 03:40 PM

yeah they are :) been discussion on the GUI about just worrying about the 1 player aspect of it instead of how it would be in multiplayer.
Posted Image

#33 LordT

LordT

    Captain

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 715 posts

Posted 04 February 2003 - 03:43 PM

then they're ignorant. multiplayer is what i'm looking for in a good game, though x-com is a GREAT single-player!
Think of it as multiplayer.... :wub:
Take your time and submit a name to the Names Database.

Resistance is futile! (if < 1 ohm)

#34 red knight

red knight

    Xenocide Project Leader

  • Xenocide Inactive
  • 3,310 posts

Posted 04 February 2003 - 05:01 PM

The game can be designed with multiplayer and mind and have about the same release date 2 years from now I think.

I should be designed with multiplayer in mind, but that doesnt mean that the main focus should be on multiplayer. In fact given that i estimate that an initial release should be near 2 years to complete. It isnt the same for subsequent release, because most of the codebase will be there, right now we are doing it from scratch...

I don't think writing a multiplayer engine is any harder than writing a single player one.  Nobody has explained to me why it would be yet anyway.

Ok... i have some articles that can give you a hint of the difficulty of programming multiplayer games. Before we even discuss the likelyhood of the multiplayer mode in the early versions, read this... I have done it already and thats is why im against its early implementation, we are not game developers ourselves (some like me, wanna be, others dont care) but the point is that we dont have the domain experience, so lets hear what the pros have to say and then decide on our own judgement. I have to add that most of this articles had been first published in the Proceedings of the GDC, the most renowned conference of game developers.

The Internet Sucks: Or, What I Learned Coding X-Wing vs. TIE Fighter
http://www.gamasutra...lincroft_01.htm

Game Developers Conference 2001: 1500 Archers on a 28.8: Network Programming in Age of Empires and Beyond
http://www.gamasutra.../terrano_01.htm

Fast Code, Game Programming, and Other Thoughts from 20 (Minus 2) Years in the Trenches
http://www.gamasutra.../abrash_pfv.htm

Half-Life and Team Fortress Networking: Closing the Loop on Scalable Network Gaming Backend Services
http://www.gamasutra.../bernier_01.htm

Designing Fast-Action Games For The Internet
http://www.gamasutra...70905/ng_01.htm

Using Groupings for Networked Gaming
http://www.gamasutra.../aronson_01.htm

How to Hurt the Hackers: The Scoop on Internet Cheating and How You Can Combat It
http://www.gamasutra...ritchard_01.htm

Greetings
Red Knight
Sourceforge Nick: flois - Federico Andres Lois
Visit my blog at: flois.blogspot.com

Posted Image

Pookie cover me, I am going in.

#35 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,203 posts

Posted 04 February 2003 - 05:15 PM

well before I read all the articles :) I see some are realtime game.. mainly the geoscope is realtime in our remake.. So automatically we won't have alot of those problems.
Posted Image

#36 red knight

red knight

    Xenocide Project Leader

  • Xenocide Inactive
  • 3,310 posts

Posted 04 February 2003 - 05:39 PM

well before I read all the articles :) I see some are realtime game.. mainly the geoscope is realtime in our remake.. So automatically we won't have alot of those problems.

You are mixing realtime with turn based gameplay.... all events come in realtime... the same for the geoscape synchronization... But the main idea was to show all of you what it takes to make a Internet Game, let alone the Game part of it ( i can add a lot of those articles if you want to read ) . In fact one of those (the 3rd one) its not about multiplayer at all. I can assure you that we wont have latency problems (or i HOPE we wont) but there are a lot of other things that are already worrying me... and one of those is that most of us (and i include myself, even though i have a slight idea) dont know what it takes to create a game... Even a simple one (for today standards) like XCOM1... IMHO If you start adding complications just from the start before we have a stable codebase, then we are doomed. Just take a look at most Open Source Games, they all lack that thing that makes them look Professional, i dont want Xenocide to be one of those. That doesnt mean that we shouldnt bother to think that multiplayer, is a final goal.

Greetings
Red Knight
Sourceforge Nick: flois - Federico Andres Lois
Visit my blog at: flois.blogspot.com

Posted Image

Pookie cover me, I am going in.

#37 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,203 posts

Posted 04 February 2003 - 05:52 PM

Well I posted a therad about server layout in the programmers forum.. :) Heck I post I'l link the pic here.

Posted Image

I was trying to get a technical discussion going on the various layers of the server and the way that they communicate to each other. With the above model multiplayer is very easy to implement and hey I do know something about programming servers. The above layout you have a communication thread running that sends things to the client. There things like access and so forth handled by the server and with that kind of design it is easy to do both a one player and multiplayer game. I was hoping to get a response on what might have to be changed or how things should look to me handling more than one user on a server is a piece of cake.
Posted Image

#38 Fatal_Error

Fatal_Error

    Captain

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 307 posts

Posted 05 February 2003 - 06:26 AM

my post about gui where not anti multiplayer but simply to keep the gui simple (i think by now u have long forgotten that aspect of a good gui by suggesting enormous amounts of pop-up windows which are really annoying imo) thus adding a lil extra side of the game to concider while playing in multiplayer mode (meaning u dont see everything all the time ....remember you are the CEO of x-com not god ...well at least not that much god that u should see everything at all times)...and yet another blah blah post ...ok ill shut up now to recieve some bashing. :D
THE BEST SIG EVER!!!

#39 Fatal_Error

Fatal_Error

    Captain

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 307 posts

Posted 05 February 2003 - 06:32 AM

im a bit slow so i have 1 question fo gangsta and whoever thought about the MP part of the game: how do plan keeping tactical missions turn based and geoscape moving in realtime? if ur gonna change tactical to RTS or something similar then how do u plan on keeping track of about 4 missions at the same time?

just outta curiosity :D
THE BEST SIG EVER!!!

#40 Maverick

Maverick

    Creative Text Department

  • Xenocide Programming Department
  • 619 posts

Posted 05 February 2003 - 09:57 AM

From what I understand the ORIGINAL x-com did it by having two separate systems: Geoscape and Battlescape. Geoscape would open Battlescape when a mission started and pretty much go on pause to await the outcome of the mission. The mission would run (time would pass if i recall correctly, during the mission; albeit very slowly) and after completion the geoscape clock would catch up to the battlescape clock and start running again. Since they are two separate systems the clock functions could run differently.

#41 Guest_stewart_*

Guest_stewart_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 February 2003 - 12:16 PM

"Multiplayer" can be implemented in many different ways. Just one example that would be the easiest fit would be:
* The computer plays one entire side (say aliens)
* The game behaves like a single player game. Skyrangers are sent. Once one enters a mission, soldiers are doled out. The mission completes. Anouther skyranger arrives at a anouther mission. Soldiers are doled out. Even if your soldier died in the first mission, you get a soldier in the second. On other days you might get the soldier someone else had a few days ago.

This degree of multiplayerness, I think we could implement easily with the least amount of trouble.

Other kinds of "multiplayer" will require more effort but all are doable.

#42 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,203 posts

Posted 05 February 2003 - 01:57 PM

my post about gui where not anti multiplayer but simply to keep the gui simple (i think by now u have long forgotten that aspect of a good gui by suggesting enormous amounts of pop-up windows which are really annoying imo) thus adding a lil extra side of the game to concider while playing in multiplayer mode (meaning u dont see everything all the time ....remember you are the CEO of x-com not god ...well at least not that much god that u should see everything at all times)...and yet another blah blah post ...ok ill shut up now to recieve some bashing. :D

Enormous amounts of windows only happens when *you* the user does that. Window Managers have already proven themselves to work on the Desktop. Now me on my desktop only have an avg of 3 windows open at any time. Although when I do get busy work wise I might have 4 more windows iconified into the iconbox. As for Multiplayer you want to have windows because you got to keep a constant eye on the geoscape. Like I suggested before that by default (setting?) you can have windows open up by default in fullscreen mode in one player mode. Remeber you don't get the game paused ever in multiplayer mode. Anyway :) if you don't want 4 damn windows open up in multiplayer mode on the geoscape then close em before opening another *G*
Posted Image

#43 Fatal_Error

Fatal_Error

    Captain

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 307 posts

Posted 05 February 2003 - 02:01 PM

why the h.ell shud time stop when u enter base view in single player game???
THE BEST SIG EVER!!!

#44 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,203 posts

Posted 05 February 2003 - 02:03 PM

im a bit slow so i have 1 question fo gangsta and whoever thought about the MP part of the game: how do plan keeping tactical missions turn based and geoscape moving in realtime? if ur gonna change tactical to RTS or something similar then how do u plan on keeping track of about 4 missions at the same time?

just outta curiosity :D

well the battlescape opens up in the client along with a screen changing widget that will also appear on the geoscope. Basically, you will have several teams in the multiplayer mode and others can still do other things and enter other battles while you are in the battlescape. heck if you want you can even be in more than one battle at a time and switch between the screens. In multiplayer there won't be any time controls. more ufos come out in a shorter amount of time.. :) and I believe all that is posted at the beginning of the thread too.. Why not go to message 1. There was another thread about a diffrent multiplayer system that is currently in the wishlist forum.. There was also another way to implement multiplayer by warlord which might be better than how I want to do.. can't tell without a bit of testing. :)
Posted Image

#45 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,203 posts

Posted 05 February 2003 - 02:04 PM

why the h.ell shud time stop when u enter base view in single player game???

cause it does in X-Com 1 :) otherwise you really do want a window in single player mode
Posted Image

#46 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,203 posts

Posted 05 February 2003 - 02:04 PM

time also stops whenever a ufo is spotteded, alien invade your base and you look in the ufopedia in x-com 1
Posted Image

#47 Fatal_Error

Fatal_Error

    Captain

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 307 posts

Posted 05 February 2003 - 02:21 PM

time also stops whenever a ufo is spotteded, alien invade your base and you look in the ufopedia in x-com 1

that is a totally different thing and i think that time should only stop when youre really not playing like when ur browsing the ufopedia or using the options/system menu. otherwise it should keep running though once again these are just my lil thought so ....blah blah *dont u think i talk too much?*
THE BEST SIG EVER!!!

#48 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,203 posts

Posted 05 February 2003 - 02:51 PM

if you think time should not stop then a base window is better than a fullscreen base mode as far as user interfaces go in single player mode. BTW, so far you're the only one who suggested time does not stop in single player mode. So far, everyone has assumed single player mode will be exactly like X-Com 1.
Posted Image

#49 Roofies

Roofies

    Squaddie

  • Forum Members
  • PipPip
  • 2 posts

Posted 07 February 2003 - 10:55 AM

several of things lost in my mind for your new UFO
:alienoooh: what about napalm bombing crash sites? :D :uzzi: only the first player at the place can do it
:aliencool: what about human fractions against the aliens? it could be story for 2players humans vs 1 (or 2) computer players at aliens side
:alienmad: what about Diablo/Diablo2 lvl up/promotion system? you can choose at "start" of soldier in what is he good - but you have limited "points"/"percent" (10% = 1 point)|then if lvl up - you can upgrade skills/move/etc.
:alientalk: what about "civilian mobilization"? - you have several secret agents in towns/or something - they're mobilized in time of alien attack/base raid/ufo crash......... more people to kill them! :hate:
:alienlol: what about on alien fractions (1st can be good in psi - but weak.etc.)? they will fight against each other for earth assault contract in last phase - like ROBO RUMBLE

:uzzi: :hate: :link: :ph34r: what about fighting with each other of X-COM
organisations..........?

PS. the Xcomclone is not working on my comp :( what should I do to get it good? I've got Athlon 900/good soundcard/voodoo 3 3000 pci/everything properly installed (hmmm..... there was only 1 zip without any readme......) but in
engine report.txt
i get following:
"-- Log Begin

State info: XComInit::Couldn't find needed OpenGL Extension (GL_ARB_multitexture)
State info: XComInit::Couldn't find needed OpenGL Extension (GL_NV_vertex_program)
State info: XComInit::Couldn't find needed OpenGL Extension (GL_NV_register_combiners)
State info: XComInit::Couldn't find needed OpenGL Extension (GL_EXT_secondary_color)
Error found: XComInit::Couldn't find needed OpenGL Extensions, aborting loading."
help...... don't write on my @ 'cause it's temporary unaviable- write to me on this forum (private messages) if someone know about the problem - knows what is "cure"....

#50 gangsta

gangsta

    Colonel

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,203 posts

Posted 07 February 2003 - 01:31 PM

Voodoo cards are not supported because they don't support some of the OpenGL things we use.
Posted Image