Worlds

[Andyroo]

So, been reading more and more into AVWW (was looking forwards to it as a TD, even if this sounds even better). I was reading up on how you would only ever have to make one world, and this sounds great. However - I was also reading up on how multiplayer is a not-commited-to likelyhood, and I wonder how these two factors would work together, should coop happen.

Part of coop is that the progress stops being "mine" and starts being "ours - the few times I was able to slowly drag friends into AI War (they lacked the patience to figure it out properly), I started new games for each instance. That way we both are "up to speed" with whats going on on the campaign. I would not want to play AVWW this way, with a different world/game for every single person I play with. But likewise I can see it being a little confusing to be dragged into different peoples worlds all the time, not knowing the situation or the history of whats going on.

Minecraft is the obvious thing to come to mind here, nowadays my internet social lot all play on the same server just as we would SP.

Would that be a possibility here? I am unsure of the alternatives, but I can see it ending up as a lot of work coordinating between people with such persitent worlds.

[x4000]

Assuming we get multiplayer working -- which seems likely at this point -- then the idea, in those circumstances, is that world = server.  So you'd set up a server for you and your friends, and whoever wanted to would run it.  Then anyone who wanted to connect could do so, with or without other players, and you play while you're there and then exit.  The server itself persists beyond any of the players, and unlike AI War there's no reason to hotsync, etc.  It's basically exactly like Minecraft, or any FPS game for that matter.

The worlds generated by a multiplayer server would be entirely compatible with single player and vice-versa.  So you could play solo if you want without the server, then turn on the server for some co-op.  Though, you can also play via the server for solo if you want, it doesn't limit the players to 2+ for that (though why you'd want to if you never have more than one person would be a question -- but I digress).

The servers should ideally be able to handle 16 players, but that remains to be seen.  Certainly at least 8, but possibly more than 16.  It might depend on your network connection where the server is hosted as to how many you can really support, actually.

If you play multiplayer with a lot of different people who don't want anything to do with one another, you will indeed need to have multiple worlds.  If you have a group of friends where there's only ever 16ish of you online at one time, and someone doesn't mind using their bandwidth to have the server going all the time, then you could all just share one server and that's that; no need to ever have more than that one world for any of you.

All of that is speculative -- but those are the goals, and they should be reasonable based on our technical design for this and our past experience with AI War, etc.

[Echo35]

Assuming we get multiplayer working -- which seems likely at this point -- then the idea, in those circumstances, is that world = server.

A server? In an Arcen game? LIES.

[x4000]

Not hosted by us, understand -- you host your own.

[Echo35]

Not hosted by us, understand -- you host your own.

Oh I know. I'm just saying, something manageable and not peer based like AI War and Tidalis

[x4000]

Well, it's a really different model from the other games -- I think most every RTS is peer based.  But yeah, that wouldn't fit at all here.

[Zhaine]

Coooool. If (big if) this really takes off there's the potential here for some of the most unique, cool and interesting persistent world gaming available.

I don't want to say MMO cos I don't think that's got the right connotations, but something in that space. . . Like what some MMOs have aimed for in terms of a changing, living world but few (EVE) have got close to. Or halfway between minecraft and traditional MMOs (now I've said it 3 times!) but with more adventure and exploration. Or something!

I'm dreaming, I know this isn't what you're aiming for, but it's cool to dream!

Anyways, I was just going to humbly suggest that, if multiplayer does go ahead that you don't hardcode in some player limit that can't be changed without massive pain, in case things do take this direction.

(disclaimer: I'm no programmer so I have no idea on the technical realities of my ramblings)

[x4000]

Yep, no plans for a hardcover player limit. The situation on LANs ought to be such that really tons of players are supported no matter what is going on with bandwidth limits for individual servers on the Internet.

[Morslok]

The situation on LANs ought to be such that really tons of players are supported no matter what is going on with bandwidth limits for individual servers on the Internet.

That sounds like a challenge to someone to have 100 or so of their closest friends LAN it up and get a screen of everyone in the same town.

The worlds generated by a multiplayer server would be entirely compatible with single player and vice-versa.  So you could play solo if you want without the server, then turn on the server for some co-op.  Though, you can also play via the server for solo if you want, it doesn't limit the players to 2+ for that (though why you'd want to if you never have more than one person would be a question -- but I digress).

Based on your statement that you would only ever want/need one world, where would our level progression stand in this multi-world server system? If I get to level X on single player, will I be able to carry that to a server? Or will I be back to level 1 in that world? If I go back to level one, isn't that a disincentive to play multiplayer at all (or at least to play in anything other than your own server)?

[Echo35]

You could always pull a Monster Hunter and Phantasy Star style and make your character persistent and transferable between online and offline worlds.

[x4000]

The situation on LANs ought to be such that really tons of players are supported no matter what is going on with bandwidth limits for individual servers on the Internet.

That sounds like a challenge to someone to have 100 or so of their closest friends LAN it up and get a screen of everyone in the same town.

Heh, that would certainly be quite interesting.

The worlds generated by a multiplayer server would be entirely compatible with single player and vice-versa.  So you could play solo if you want without the server, then turn on the server for some co-op.  Though, you can also play via the server for solo if you want, it doesn't limit the players to 2+ for that (though why you'd want to if you never have more than one person would be a question -- but I digress).

Based on your statement that you would only ever want/need one world, where would our level progression stand in this multi-world server system? If I get to level X on single player, will I be able to carry that to a server? Or will I be back to level 1 in that world? If I go back to level one, isn't that a disincentive to play multiplayer at all (or at least to play in anything other than your own server)?

"You" don't have anything outside of the specific server/world in question.  The world itself would have a level progress (which we call player level, but it's actually global for the world).  "You" also don't have any permanent characters, even within a given world, because one character dies and then you take over the next, etc.  So there's really nothing to be carried between worlds, or between multiplayer and single player, because everything is so tied into the world itself that it just doesn't make sense out of context.

Honestly I don't think that going back to level 1 is going to bother folks that much.  It's the loss of all the history of what you did, and the ways you shaped the world, that will be the bother.  That said, if you had to have a solo world and a world you play on with friends, I don't think that would be a tragedy by any stretch.  Each world would be different and would contain a unique and interesting history per that world.  If your friends have been playing multiplayer without you and got the player level there up to 20, and you join, then you're at level 20 with all the rest of them.  No need to play catch-up (except on equipment, to some extent).

[x4000]

You could always pull a Monster Hunter and Phantasy Star style and make your character persistent and transferable between online and offline worlds.

Your character will be perma-dead within a few hours of normal gameplay most of the time!  Sometimes less!

[Morslok]

"You" don't have anything outside of the specific server/world in question.  The world itself would have a level progress (which we call player level, but it's actually global for the world).  "You" also don't have any permanent characters, even within a given world, because one character dies and then you take over the next, etc.  So there's really nothing to be carried between worlds, or between multiplayer and single player, because everything is so tied into the world itself that it just doesn't make sense out of context.

Honestly I don't think that going back to level 1 is going to bother folks that much.  It's the loss of all the history of what you did, and the ways you shaped the world, that will be the bother.  That said, if you had to have a solo world and a world you play on with friends, I don't think that would be a tragedy by any stretch.  Each world would be different and would contain a unique and interesting history per that world.  If your friends have been playing multiplayer without you and got the player level there up to 20, and you join, then you're at level 20 with all the rest of them.  No need to play catch-up (except on equipment, to some extent).

Ooooooohhh. That makes so much sense, and I never would have thought of it. I'm glad you're making this game and not me.

I'm very excited about this game, have been since the initial press release. I will buy it as soon as you'll let me, and I hope you make a ton of money off it and turn it into "the only game you will ever need" (along with AI War).

[x4000]

Thanks!

[BobTheJanitor]

Honestly I don't think that going back to level 1 is going to bother folks that much.  It's the loss of all the history of what you did, and the ways you shaped the world, that will be the bother.  That said, if you had to have a solo world and a world you play on with friends, I don't think that would be a tragedy by any stretch.  Each world would be different and would contain a unique and interesting history per that world.  If your friends have been playing multiplayer without you and got the player level there up to 20, and you join, then you're at level 20 with all the rest of them.  No need to play catch-up (except on equipment, to some extent).

I understood the concept of the world leveling instead of you leveling, at least at an intellectual level. But then something like this just sort of slaps me upside the head with it and how much it changes the traditional mold. I look forward to being continually amazed by this game.