Poll

How's MP in version 0.927 or later?

I've Played Multiplayer In 0.927+ And There Are No Bugs That Aren't In Singleplayer
2 (6.3%)
I've Played Multiplayer In 0.927+ And There Are Only Minor Multiplayer-Only Bugs
1 (3.1%)
I've Played Multiplayer In 0.927+ and There Are Some Significant Multiplayer-Only Bugs But It's Playable
1 (3.1%)
I've Tried To Play Multiplayer In 0.927+ But It's Really Broken
0 (0%)
I've Not Played Multiplayer Since 0.927 Came Out
7 (21.9%)
I've Not Played Multiplayer At All
21 (65.6%)

Total Members Voted: 32

Author Topic: (Dev Really Wants Info) State Of Multiplayer for 1.0  (Read 11291 times)

Offline Wanderer

  • Master Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,579
  • If you're not drunk you're doing it wrong.
Re: (Dev Really Wants Info) State Of Multiplayer for 1.0
« Reply #60 on: April 18, 2012, 10:36:26 PM »
YIKES!

Seriously BAD juju in Overlord room with 2 people.  The game glitched up horribly between the thousand flames, an ice bat, and 2 players.  It kind of seemed to get stuck in a loop of some kind until one char died (me) and then Chomper was free to act, but we both were utterly hosed until then.

Scenario: I was in room and spawned overlord.  Waited for Chomper.  Nearby is a hard-wall we could jump into for defense.  We both went in there and suddenly we got caught in what appeared to be a jump-loop where we couldn't shoot, move, or break out of it.  Meanwhile, an ice bat sat on our heads and laid waste to us.
Sigh :)

Thanks for lettings us know.

Anything in the logs?
Nothing of particular note.  A ton of QueuedAbilityUse.Execute:rejected ProcessDeathInChunkConsequences are there, but from like 5-6 hours ago.  Some cranky firebats not knowing where they're supposed to be...

No, nothing from the fight that went haywire, nor any in unhandled.
... and then we'll have cake.

Offline Wanderer

  • Master Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,579
  • If you're not drunk you're doing it wrong.
Re: (Dev Really Wants Info) State Of Multiplayer for 1.0
« Reply #61 on: April 18, 2012, 10:37:43 PM »
I should mention, that when I went back in again afterwards, we didn't get the freeze-up / death-jump problem. However, icebats are utterly frickin' evil if they sit on your head.  It may have been a combination of the icebat + living flames causing us to move without moving in that loop, but I'm not sure why we couldn't shoot.
... and then we'll have cake.

Offline keith.lamothe

  • Arcen Games Staff
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,505
Re: (Dev Really Wants Info) State Of Multiplayer for 1.0
« Reply #62 on: April 18, 2012, 10:40:48 PM »
My guess is that the tons of flames caused a network bandwidth explosion.  But I can't be sure.
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games? Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline TechSY730

  • Core Member Mark V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,562
Re: (Dev Really Wants Info) State Of Multiplayer for 1.0
« Reply #63 on: April 18, 2012, 10:43:55 PM »
My guess is that the tons of flames caused a network bandwidth explosion.  But I can't be sure.

Burninating the glyph bearers! Burninating all the bandwidth!

Offline keith.lamothe

  • Arcen Games Staff
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,505
Re: (Dev Really Wants Info) State Of Multiplayer for 1.0
« Reply #64 on: April 18, 2012, 10:51:37 PM »
My guess is that the tons of flames caused a network bandwidth explosion.  But I can't be sure.

Burninating the glyph bearers! Burninating all the bandwidth!

Quote from: Localization File
<ln id="MicroBossEncountered">Warning! Microboss {0} is here!</ln>
<ln id="MiniBossEncountered">Warning! Miniboss {0} is here!</ln>
<ln id="VengefulGhostEncountered">Warning! Vengeful ghost {0} is here!</ln>
<ln id="LieutenantBossEncountered">Alert! Alert! Lieutenant {0} is here!</ln>
<ln id="OverlordBossEncountered">AAAAH! The evil overlord {0} is here!</ln>
<ln id="TrogdorEncountered">*beeeeeep* %&@&[email protected], It's *beeep* Trogdor!</ln>
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games? Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline Wanderer

  • Master Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,579
  • If you're not drunk you're doing it wrong.
Re: (Dev Really Wants Info) State Of Multiplayer for 1.0
« Reply #65 on: April 21, 2012, 05:08:11 PM »
There needs to be less of an impact in multiplayer when multiple people are playing.  Right now it's practically pointless to team up when everything just ends up at double strength.  Add to that things like Urban Crawlers are firing double (or triple) shots and the only thing that playing with others does is get you dead faster.

Why bother?

I realize it needs to be balanced so that 2 people doesn't make it directly twice as easy, but two people working together SHOULD make it easier, not harder.  Direct numbers adjustment and firepower patterns are not the best approach, I'm finding.

I actually want to AVOID duo/triple combinations because of the difficulty increase.  It's actually easier to solo with a non-upgraded then a 5/10 one in a duo on T5.

Short version: We need to find a different way to make multiplayer enjoyable than straight numbers/ROF/damage increases, the difficulty outweighs the benefits.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2012, 05:09:52 PM by Wanderer »
... and then we'll have cake.

Offline keith.lamothe

  • Arcen Games Staff
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,505
Re: (Dev Really Wants Info) State Of Multiplayer for 1.0
« Reply #66 on: April 21, 2012, 05:43:36 PM »
There's a rate of fire increase on multiple players?  I thought it was just monster health.
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games? Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline Wanderer

  • Master Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,579
  • If you're not drunk you're doing it wrong.
Re: (Dev Really Wants Info) State Of Multiplayer for 1.0
« Reply #67 on: April 21, 2012, 06:02:59 PM »
There's a rate of fire increase on multiple players?  I thought it was just monster health.

Well, the Urban Crawler we were fighting was was dropping 2x and 3x Flak-shots instead of the usual one.  I assumed it was across the board and that's how it was implemented for that one.

Even then, unless you're in lockstep simply being in the same surface chunk can get you outright killed, since health drops are still the same but it takes you twice as long to kill any one critter, or at best the same amount of time if you're both running maxxed out.

It's counter-intuitive, but you're actually SAFER solo.  You get more health, things die faster, and it's harder to end up 'blockaded' by something that has stupid health volumes because you can kill the little guys faster.

As an example, try taking 2/3 people against a landspeeder.  OW.
... and then we'll have cake.

Offline Oralordos

  • Sr. Member Mark III
  • ****
  • Posts: 434
  • Suffering from Chronic Backstabbing Disorder
Re: (Dev Really Wants Info) State Of Multiplayer for 1.0
« Reply #68 on: April 21, 2012, 06:08:51 PM »
As an example, try taking 2/3 people against a landspeeder.  OW.
Ugh I was just playing with Wanderer and we did that.
I defiantly agree here though. Sometime we should adjust all the numbers and such to make it so that playing with others is good, not something to be avoided.

Offline x4000

  • Chris Park, Arcen Games Founder and Lead Designer
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,500
Re: (Dev Really Wants Info) State Of Multiplayer for 1.0
« Reply #69 on: April 21, 2012, 06:41:45 PM »
No extra firepower from enemies are intended -- that's a bug.
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games?  Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline keith.lamothe

  • Arcen Games Staff
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,505
Re: (Dev Really Wants Info) State Of Multiplayer for 1.0
« Reply #70 on: April 21, 2012, 06:45:53 PM »
No extra firepower from enemies are intended -- that's a bug.
In one of the early (long-ditched) MP models enemies could fire one shot at each nearby player; is that still true in any way?
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games? Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline Wanderer

  • Master Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,579
  • If you're not drunk you're doing it wrong.
Re: (Dev Really Wants Info) State Of Multiplayer for 1.0
« Reply #71 on: April 21, 2012, 06:50:44 PM »
No extra firepower from enemies are intended -- that's a bug.
In one of the early (long-ditched) MP models enemies could fire one shot at each nearby player; is that still true in any way?

Not that I've seen.  I had simply assumed an RoF increase and the flak cannon was implemented in a way that was just more obvious about it, apologies for the assumption.  Changing my complaint... there's a bug with Urban Crawlers and I'd still like to toss around ideas on ways to keep multiplayer from being an "I win" button that doesn't make it directly disadvantageous to the players no matter what.
... and then we'll have cake.

Offline x4000

  • Chris Park, Arcen Games Founder and Lead Designer
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,500
Re: (Dev Really Wants Info) State Of Multiplayer for 1.0
« Reply #72 on: April 21, 2012, 07:06:56 PM »
I still don't agree that multiplayer should be easier, though -- I'm certainly open to the discussion, but I think that difficulty should remain constant regardless of number of players.  That's my core premise and is unlikely to change.  New Super Mario Bros Wii got actively harder with more players -- I didn't like that.  Most strategy games become a cakewalk if you have too many players on your side.  I don't like that.  However many players I have with me at the time, I should be able to get a consistent, clear difficulty level.  If I'm having to lower or raise difficulty because of playing with different numbers of players, something is very wrong.

And so that's where the current math is doing things right, I think.  Enemies almost all have piercing shots, did you notice?  So that means that one player can't block a shot to prevent another player from taking the damage.  You both have to dodge, but the enemies don't need twice as many shots to accomplish this.

Then you have your damage against the enemy: presuming that all player damage output is able to be normalized to an average (ignoring specific character build bonuses, is what I mean), that means that two players will kill enemies twice as fast.  Three players 3x as fast, etc.  If you increase enemy health the corresponding amount when there are multiple players right there in the vicinity, then the same amount of damage needs to be dealt to enemies as if each player was playing solo.  In other words, there's no disadvantage at all, numerically speaking, and it should balance out to be the same difficulty as solo rather than a lessened or increased difficulty -- which is my premise, recall.

On the other hand, there is one thing already that breaks down the difficulty for enemies in multiplayer: you DO get an advantage, and a big one, already.  Namely: enemies don't get extra shots.  So if you and your friends all stand at different firing angles from the enemy, the enemy can't fire at all of you at once.  Meaning all that piercing and such doesn't help the enemy at all.  If you and your friends stay really close together then it's the same as solo, but if you flank the enemy then you suddenly have this crazy advantage already.

Which would be the point of "calling a friend to help," as it were.  In short, bugs aside, I think it already does what you want better than it does what I want.  Players really can probably abuse the ability to flank the enemies in large numbers in particular, and that's more the problem I'm worried about rather than it being not any easier.  So I actually do agree with you that, long-term, there is probably a problem; I just think that it's the opposite of the problem you were thinking. :)
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games?  Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline keith.lamothe

  • Arcen Games Staff
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,505
Re: (Dev Really Wants Info) State Of Multiplayer for 1.0
« Reply #73 on: April 21, 2012, 07:15:12 PM »
Yea, bugs aside, the current model should make it easier in MP: it's easier if you're clever in how you use your numbers, and the more clever you are the more you can really take the AI for a ride (like splitting up the living fire in that overlord fight you just had).

On the other hand, if one guy dies and drops a vengeful ghost, it can quickly become a hilarious wipe ;)

And yea, if you just happen to both be in a chunk and one of you is all alone and runs into a landspeeder...
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games? Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline x4000

  • Chris Park, Arcen Games Founder and Lead Designer
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,500
Re: (Dev Really Wants Info) State Of Multiplayer for 1.0
« Reply #74 on: April 21, 2012, 09:52:49 PM »
Yeah, that is one potential problem with the current model: the risk of total party kills when one character dies.  I'm not sure that can be resolved without opening up too many exploits, though.

And I meant to say in my last post: I'm also quite open to the idea that there may be factors in multiplayer that I simply don't know about that are contributing to an "X factor" making it harder than it otherwise would be just based on the numbers.  We haven't had enough concerted multiplayer testing with large enough groups to say for sure on that, to be honest.  With AI War I was playing the multiplayer weekly, but most of my play here has been solo. 

In AI War multiplayer, for example, one trouble with multiplayer is that multiple brains are simply less coordinated than one brain.  They just don't agree on things as perfectly, and even though they have the ability to split their attention more it's still harder by virtue of just having to coordinate alone.  So in order to maintain a "constant" difficulty between solo and MP, we actually had to make MP a little easier.  That means that for hyper-organized players it's substantially easier in MP.  But those are the very rare exception rather than the rule, and I count myself and my play group in with the rule on that one.

There may also simply be a matter of perception here.  If players feel like "why even bother with MP if it has no advantage" thinking just in terms of raw numbers and not the new tactics that open up to them (seriously, healing touch is just ripe for all sorts of crazy stuff, in addition to the aforementioned flanking benefits), then perhaps we need to make at least a token benefit.  Instead of making the enemies 1x the number of players past one, make it 0.95x the number of players past one.  So one player is 1x strength in either scenario, but two players is 1.95x in the new model rather than 2x. 

I'm quite familiar that issues of perception can cloud issues of reality -- another thing we had to deal with in AI War, and just part of human brain heuristics rather than an individual logical failing or something.  I include myself in this as well, for the record.  So my point is, even if it is a matter of "just perception," that doesn't mean that it's not an issue.  How players feel about various parts of the game influences how they choose to enjoy or not enjoy them, and that can be immensely helpful or detracting depending on what the perception is.
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games?  Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!