¿Multiplayer Patch?

[Xias]

[Forgive me if this discussion has already been brought up.]

Not saying in the inital launch of the game, but a patch in which we "X-Com" /Xenonaut fanatics can challenge each other or work cooperatively would be a great achievement for the genre.

The way i see it theres two ways to do it. One would be where 2 + players would work together to fight off the alien hordes invading the planet. Allowing the players to either share a drop team or use separate teams & bases to protect the world.

Or...

In which each "corperation" or entity would choose a starting location and compete for a nations support. For example. Lets say player A has his base setup in europe and player B has his base setup in southern africa and a crash site is created be either or in northern/central africa.

The two players can both send a recovery team. On the actual battle map the players would both be competing against each other to recover the alien artifacts. Which would add the dimension of PvP should players choose to take it to that level. If player A needs the alien artifacts to continue funding his/her base and there projects, then that player may see it fit to fire upon the opposing force. Also I seen in various videos that you must hold an alien craft for 5 turns to complete the mission. This could also transition into this style of gameplay.

Another aspect of this form of gameplay i thought of was invading another players base. Lets say a player took too many casualties in a previous mission and has maybe a small squad thats mission capable. Raiding another players HQ while they dust off there heli to a crash site for equipment or artifacts would be another way of earning money.

Obviously the hardest thing to overcome would be how would you do multiple battles at once and how would the global clock transfer over into the ground combat. I've been trying to think of different ways to balance the game and actually make this idea plausible. What i do know is that the players allowed per "arena" could not surpass 4 for if you were to keep the mechanics of the game the same, it would create too much wait time during and in between missions.

But I have thought of the time speed pertaining to the global clock, and each player could queue there desired speeds for the world to speed up for example if 3/4 players click x2 speed and one player click x3 then the speed would go x2 and so on.

Its just an idea, working out the mechanics would in my opinion be the hardest thing to figure out but it is a feature that i would love to see created for this genre. I would defiantely dedicate countless hours if i could sit there and compete or even play on the same planet as another character. I would go as far as investing/donating a couple thousand to see this feature actually take place....what's everyone elses thoughts on the subject?

[Gorlom]

I dont think multiplayer games could work if you intend to include the geoscape gameplay from the single player game. You would have to make preset scenarios and such things. In the end multiplayer would probably best be played on a simgle mission/game baseis rather then where previous missions impact current and comming missions (such as techtrees and leveled up or lost soldiers)

As far as I know Chris has no intention on makeing any multiplayer mode for release or after. And I dont think it is really possible to mod since you would have to connect to others somehow (and that just isn't in the code right now). Possibly if you email a save back and forth. (I haven't really gotten a hang on how the multiplayer versions of UFO:EU works since I havent played them but atleast one of them works through email right?)

Edited February 11, 2012 by Gorlom

[Xias]

Well i believe that if you were to simplify some of the mechanics of the game multiplayer would be feasible. All you would have to do is make the global view turn/day based and have different events spawn across the world. Instead of engaging ufo's you would be more of an Alien Q.R.F. (Quick Reaction Force) reactiing to Alien landings and abductions.

The players would choose where they want to send there team according to what form of attack, some would stay there more days then other for example. You could even make each turn half a day or even break them into quarters.

I guess the best reference would be is civilation meets X-com. Civilation as in a player would do what ever movements or management he could do in that turn. Having the engagements be like randomly generated maps how they are now just loaded to multiple players.

Players would complete there mission, some quicker than others allowing the other players to manage there team during this. But i suppose a turn limit while on mission would be required just so players wouldn't take a lot of turns on any given mission.

Like i said i think it would be possible if the game was made a little more streamline. I would take the loss of controlling the clock if it meant i could play with other players.

[Xias]

Possibly if you email a save back and forth. (I haven't really gotten a hang on how the multiplayer versions of UFO:EU works since I havent played them but atleast one of them works through email right?)

Also i think having the host of the game be the one that saves the game data and distributes it when the game is reloaded would be the most effective way.

[Gauddlike]

That doesn't sound like a multiplayer version of this game, it sounds like a whole different game.

[PEJOCAAL]

It would be nice to have a LOCAL MULTIPLAYER OPTION, but just a battleground quick battle, like UFO AI does, wich no requires substancial changes. Could be a extra small work once finalized the main game.

It would be EXTRAFUN with a little effort, just replacing the AI for HUMAN PLAYER, and some other adds.

I am not a programer, I would like not to be so wrong

Edited February 13, 2012 by PEJOCAAL

[Gauddlike]

By local multiplayer I am assuming you mean a hot seat type mode where two people share a computer.

That is not a great feature for me, I would never use it.

Might as well just build them a base and give them some ground troops to play in a normal game.

I would like to see a multiplayer version of this type of game but I just don't see how it would work in the current format.

That is just my opinion though, I don't much like the 'quick battle' type games, I prefer co-op campaigns.

Any addition of a multiplayer element would be quite a lot of work if that code is not already present.

There are certain games I have heard of that have had multiplayer modes modded in but I believe that was only because work was started by the developers but never became an active feature.

These are my ideas of how multiplayer could work in a Xenonauts style game.

Synchronised geoscape views with time control by consent of all players.

Each player has their own starting base which is custom built to a set value.

All cash is pooled and shared between players, large expenditure should probably have to be agreed by the other player(s).

Research is individual as it depends on items recovered by each player.

Items researched and constructed can be transferred to other players bases to allow them a quick way to catch up on some things.

Ground battles are where it falls down a bit.

Either all players would have to send troops or they would have to take control of some of the troops already involved.

That breaks the immersion for me as other people would not have the same attachment to your soldiers that you have.

If not everyone was involved they would have to sit and watch someone else play a mission (dull) or stare at a paused screen until the ground battle was done.

The alternative is to have a time limit on each turn planning phase so that the geoscape could at least continue to operate in real time for other players.

[Gorlom]

I think including geoscape into a multiplayer version would be a mistake. There might be ways to keep the baseview and research tree. but the tracking and shooting down ufos aspect needs to be reformatted into scripted events where all players are included.

You just cant have situations where one/some player(s) goes into a ground mission and others doesnt. It's not a multiplayer game then, it's just 2 single player games connected by a chat.

[PEJOCAAL]

By local multiplayer I am assuming you mean a hot seat type mode where two people share a computer.

That is not a great feature for me, I would never use it.

That is not a great feature for you, does not mean that for others not

that you never would use it, does not mean that others not

[Xias]

Ground battles are where it falls down a bit.

Either all players would have to send troops or they would have to take control of some of the troops already involved.

That breaks the immersion for me as other people would not have the same attachment to your soldiers that you have.

If not everyone was involved they would have to sit and watch someone else play a mission (dull) or stare at a paused screen until the ground battle was done.

The alternative is to have a time limit on each turn planning phase so that the geoscape could at least continue to operate in real time for other players.

In my opinion ground battle could work. For example lets say there was 4 players playing spread through out the world. Like Russia , South Africa, North America and Australia. If a UFO was shot down only the players who's crew could reach the crash site would be invited to send a team to recover it. Those who are not involved in the battle would just have to play at normal speed.

Now this i could see getting annoying, but if you limited the amount of turns that took place on the battlefield before aliens "fled the scene" or you captured or failed the mission. It wouldn't be perfect but i think it could be done.

[Gorlom]

What's the goal of haveing Xenonauts in multiplayer?

Is it the geoscape, the baseview/research/mangeing or the ground battles you want to share with other people?

All of them or can you exclude one or 2?

Do you want to pvp, compete or cooperate?

Have you looked into the muliplayer mods of old X-com? (I haven't but I know there are some)

Do you plan to only play it with people you already know or are you hopeing to find people to play with through the game interface? (personally I think the last one will be impossible)

I think everyone in this thread should probably answer those questions first so that we know the basic point of view of everyone else. Right now it just seems everyone is trying to paint a picture ontop of another picture leaveing part of the old picture intact letting shine through but you can't make out either of them. To continue the analogy All the paintings have the title "multiplayer" but some are portraits and some are impressionism and some are abstract. It doesn't feel like everyone is discussing the same thing.

[Gauddlike]

That is not a great feature for you, does not mean that for others not

that you never would use it, does not mean that others not

That was the reason I said FOR ME it was not a great feature.

I never claimed to be saying it would not be a good feature for anyone else.

I was demonstrating my opinion, not trying to suggest that you, or anyone else, shared it.

You added your own opinion and I added mine, that is how forums tend to work.

If that is not how you like a discussion to go you should probably make your own thread and put the word private in the title.

Back on topic now...

Gorlom I think if you want to make the game truly multi player friendly it needs to have all of the elements from the single player game.

Without the geoscape it isn't the same game, take out the research or manufacturing and it isn't the same.

It would be A multiplayer game, it just wouldn't be this game in multiplayer if that makes sense?

Of course it would be possible to have a multi player experience based on the game with any or all of the features missing.

It just wouldn't be as good FROM MY OWN PERSONAL VIEW WITH NO PRESSURE PUT ON ANYONE ELSE TO CONFORM TO, OR AGREE WITH SAID OPINION.

[Gorlom]

Gauddlike the problem is that if you don't forcfully include both players in the ground battles they are going to become unsynched and essentially play the solo game connected to each other via a chat. That won't be multiplayer either.

I can think of very few games where multiplayer and single player are the same game. It's baisicly quake III and brink.. and those are designed as multiplayer games primarily. Ok Civilization too I guess but ... darn that one really stomps my argument.

Still most games has to sacrifice/adapt some aspect of the game to traverse between multiplayer and single player. Especially one as complex as Xenonauts that has 2-3 games baked into one (depending on if you consider baseview and geoscape to belong to the same game aspect or not)

[Xias]

Imo you wouldn't have to desync players in the transition from geoscape to battlemap.

You could have all players sync by time...

A global clock that continues to run even if you are in battle, geoscape or construction mode.

So, while a player is playing there mission; time is still realistic ticks by even though its a turn based game.

How ever long it takes you to complete the mission is how long you're on the battlefield and how much time has progressed on the global clock/geoscape clock. I would suggest that the global clock go slightly faster then the regular speed on Xenonauts geoscape view, but not as fast as the x2 speed. About 40 to 45 seconds for every minute.

Making geoscapes like "micro servers/lobbies" so that the geoscape planet view is the server governed by that global clock. So that instances of alien invasions would continue throughout the progression of time even if on a battlemap. Having the players "orgination" join this world/server and placing there base onto the geoscape. If a player leaves the geoscape then his/her base disappears.

It would just have to be programmed so it takes the accumilative lvl of each players tech tree and it generates the according type of aliens, so you could base that on the highest players tech tree or a medium of all the players.

I think it could be done and believe it would be fun.

[Gorlom]

Imo you wouldn't have to desync players in the transition from geoscape to battlemap.

You could have all players sync by time...

A global clock that continues to run even if you are in battle, geoscape or construction mode.

So, while a player is playing there mission; time is still realistic ticks by even though its a turn based game.

How ever long it takes you to complete the mission is how long you're on the battlefield and how much time has progressed on the global clock/geoscape clock. I would suggest that the global clock go slightly faster then the regular speed on Xenonauts geoscape view, but not as fast as the x2 speed. About 40 to 45 seconds for every minute.

If you are responding to me I will have to elaborate what I meant by unsynched. I didnt mean that time would progress in different speeds I meant that the players would play ground missions in tandem rather then simultaniously/together. If they alternate like that they are effectivly not going to be playing together or interacting, and then what's the point of calling it multiplayer?

I see people trying to come up with a solution to mesh ground battle's flow with the flow of geoscape. The problem I see is that people are no longer playing together when that is an issue... In addition to that the ground missions become time attack modes. You benefit more the faster you finish a ground mission, partly removeing the Turn Based aspect of the game (not just by timeing your turn but timeing your entire ground battle and the ammount of turns you take).

IMO that means it's not the same game anymore. That's one of the sacrifices I was talking about in my earlier post which you seem happy to make but would completly ruin the multiplayer aspect for me.

[Chris]

I'm not sure actually making Xenonauts multiplayer in combat terms would be as difficult as I once thought. I doubt we'd have very advanced matchmaking - it might have to be properly old-school play by email style multiplayer, but it's possible that we might be able to add multiplayer ground combat missions where one side controls the aliens.

And if that's possible, it might be possible to set up a multiplayer campaign where one player has the full game but every time you launch a battle it is against your human opponent. It would take a long time to do, unless we can work out some kind of LAN / direct IP connection method of doing it, but it could be quite fun possibly.

It's a random idea. It's something I'd think about adding to the upper end of the Kickstarter funding thermometer perhaps

[Gauddlike]

I see people trying to come up with a solution to mesh ground battle's flow with the flow of geoscape. The problem I see is that people are no longer playing together when that is an issue... In addition to that the ground missions become time attack modes. You benefit more the faster you finish a ground mission, partly removeing the Turn Based aspect of the game (not just by timeing your turn but timeing your entire ground battle and the ammount of turns you take).

IMO that means it's not the same game anymore. That's one of the sacrifices I was talking about in my earlier post which you seem happy to make but would completly ruin the multiplayer aspect for me.

That is basically the same point I made in my first post.

The whole co-op idea falls down when it comes to the ground combat.

It either becomes two people playing the same game at the same (just not together) or you are forced to give over control of your own troops to someone else, and that other person is forced to play your squad not their own.

If you remove the other player from the geoscape they will have to hang around waiting to play with nothing to do in the mean time.

That would be better than nothing of course but the other player(s) would need to have a book with them for the long gaps.

Easier to make a skirmish mode with co-op or PvP modes, just not as satisfying to play for me.

PvP campaign play is actually easier to manage then co-op I would think in this game.

Give one player the normal interface and the other a similar one (fleet instead of bases) and you are on the way.

The alien player (TAP) gets to do some basic research into how to retro fit their craft, and the ability to do bigger craft over time.

They also plan what is going to go into their next attack wave and when it will launch (dependant on how many ships they have managed to fit for atmosphere).

Choosing between lots of smaller craft or using the manufacturing resources for fewer, but bigger, craft according to their refit priorities.

They could also set areas and priorities for missions, or specific missions if they have plenty of time and feel like it.

Building bases when researched could give a constant morale drain to the area they are placed in, as well as radar detection of Xenonauts interceptors.

For example:

Wave One - TAP spends their time converting 6 scouts, 5 fighters, and a corvette and decides to focus on reputation sapping attacks over Russia, with formations and missions set automatically by the computer.

They lose a lot of ships.

Wave Two - TAP decides to convert 1 terror ship, 10 fighters, and 6 more scouts.

They set 2 fighters to escort the terror ship and send it after Moscow to continue the pressure on Russia.

The other 8 fighters are dropped into Russian airspace with orders to hunt down interceptors.

The scouts are spread out with orders to locate the Xenonauts base which TAP suspects is in Poland (from the rapid response and direction of intercepts in wave one).

They get lucky and find the base.

Wave Three - TAP now has to decide if they convert lots of small ships to continue trying to take Russia away from the Xenonauts or dedicate resources to converting a ship big enough to assault the base.

That might leave a longer gap between wave two and three and could also mean less ships in the wave.

That could give the Xenonauts player time to finish research and build new weapons, that could prove to be risky.

The ground combat is simpler as well because although TAP has not set up their squad individually at least they aren't taking over the much loved squad of another player.

TAP research progress could also allow them to deploy higher rank crews or stronger alien species on ships for example.

Mission objectives like salvaging some parts from the exterior of the ship or locating an external power source (killing civilians or Xenonauts crew should probably be secondary at best) should stop TAP turning turtle every mission and just having a repetitive siege.

I think that would make for an interesting take on the multiplayer.

[ploertendoder]

Multiplayer by e-mail would be a bit cumbersome. Perhaps the game could facilitate per-turn multiplayer by uploading the save-game to a server and notifying the opponent. This would require an in-game login system or perhaps a link to steamworks.

[Gorlom]

That is basically the same point I made in my first post.

The whole co-op idea falls down when it comes to the ground combat.

It either becomes two people playing the same game at the same (just not together) or you are forced to give over control of your own troops to someone else, and that other person is forced to play your squad not their own.

If you remove the other player from the geoscape they will have to hang around waiting to play with nothing to do in the mean time.

That would be better than nothing of course but the other player(s) would need to have a book with them for the long gaps.

Easier to make a skirmish mode with co-op or PvP modes, just not as satisfying to play for me.

I disagree that the co-op falls on the ground missions. It falls on keeping the geoscape as is. If you adapt it a bit or "remove" the player controlled aspect of sending out crafts and waiting for them to catch up to UFOs it would work alot better imo. (By that I mean that UFOs are no longer randomly generated but generated on a timer and youdont have to chase them down because (however you want to solve it) both players get into the same or their own minigame of Aircraft vs UFO automaticly)

OR change it so that you can't crash any UFO's. The geoscape becomes a mini arcade of who can shoot down the most UFOs and you wait for Terror missions (and alien bases) to go into ground battles and both players are automaticly included with their teams without even haveing to fly out a chinook. ( You will have to balance how frequently trror missions come for multiplayer specifically)

Change research to feel a bit more turnbased (to lessen the impact of optimally assigning scientists to the right project and make it easier to balance for multiplayer) possibly based on how many Alien ships have been shot down by both players or something. Have the player assign scientists in blocks of 5 or 10 to projects.

PS. Guaddlike: I'm not following your train of thought as to why a player would have to take over another players soldiers... is it that you can't imagine an adaptation that makes both players arrive with their own squads or is it that you wouldnt like that adaptation? DS.

EDIT: PPS. Guaddlike in a 1 vs 1 situation giveing the Aliens the whole world while the Xenonauts are confined to their base (as you will be in the start) will be very exploitable if you as an alien discover a xenonaut base in poland you just abandon Russia and go for north central and south america (or maybe australia). Giveing the xenonauts more bases probably wouldn't be a great way to balance it either. It does have potential for a 1 vs 2 or 1 vs 3 though.

But I think there would need some sort of motivation to confront Xenonauts for the alien player. Right now as I understand it the computer gets points for not confronting in singleplayer mode but the random generation of UFOs cause confrontation anyway. (Problem is right now im too lazy to think of any motivation mechanic DS.

Edited February 15, 2012 by Gorlom

[Gauddlike]

If you read the post you keep referring back to you will see that the idea that I said falls down is one I call "my idea"

These are my ideas of how multiplayer could work in a Xenonauts style game.

There you go, made it easier for you.

I never claimed the whole concept of co-op play was flawed, I have said that my own co-op suggestion was flawed.

As for the other post about the PvP mode it was hardly a finalised suggestion, more of a vague outline of something that may work.

Yes the alien player could choose to ignore the Xenonauts player completely in the scenario I gave, there are more than likely other ideas for how the alien player is rewarded for the waves that makes that less than desirable.

Probably by tying alien progression in to it.

The fights would also have to be less one sided than in single player or be very demoralising for the alien player.

[Xias]

Instead of having it Human player vs Alien player why not just have it where PvPvE (Player vs Player Vs Alien) Where the players are competing for the prize or atleast make that a game mode. Instead of a capture the hill it would be secure the crash site.

Just limit the technology players can have or have them choose the highest tech tree before starting they enter there loadout and the match begins.

[Gorlom]

If you read the post you keep referring back to you will see that the idea that I said falls down is one I call "my idea"

There you go, made it easier for you.

I never claimed the whole concept of co-op play was flawed, I have said that my own co-op suggestion was flawed.

As for the other post about the PvP mode it was hardly a finalised suggestion, more of a vague outline of something that may work.

Yes the alien player could choose to ignore the Xenonauts player completely in the scenario I gave, there are more than likely other ideas for how the alien player is rewarded for the waves that makes that less than desirable.

Probably by tying alien progression in to it.

The fights would also have to be less one sided than in single player or be very demoralising for the alien player.

I'm aware that it is your ideas and personal opinion. I'm discussing this from the same point of view, sharing my ideas. I didnt think I was attacking you or your ideas but if you feel that I was I will apologise. I guess I have to change my way of phraseing my suggestions (reading back they look.. off.) BTW was that in response to the PS or the part before the PS?

I'm not sure I got a full grasp of everything you want with the multiplayer mode. You don't seem to be answering the first PS part. It would be easier to discuss some parts if you would elaborate on things I don't understand instead of going defensive... But I guess I'm to blame and should change my tone for that.

Your ideas of multiplayer is to keep as much of the original singleplayer game in the multiplayer right?

1. Is the chinook's travel time a large part of that? Do you need to be able to skip Ground battles you dont want to do?

2. Is forceing players to play the ground battles together a bad idea?

3. I can't imagine meshing the geoscape with ground battles would be a good idea. But what do you think of of trying to make the geoscape seem more turnbased like? Without acctually makeing it turnbased i mean. more in the lines of makeing UFOs appearing more predetermined and/or makeing events in the geoscape affect research/manufactoring/transfering between bases times (I'm assuming this isnt very attractive idea to you but I thought I should ask )

4. Would limiting the number of soldiers / aliens to a lower number then available in the single player (to cause faster turns) be completly unthinkable or something thats worth considering for balanceing the game? (if it has more then 2 players).

PS. Hmm about motevating the alien player to attack or operate around the xenonaut. How about makeing it so that nations where UFOs go unchallanged outside of the Xenonauts radar range INCREASE funding instead of decreaseing it? Kind of like they are showing their desperation and hopeing that increased funding will make the Xenonaut organisation builda base in their region and protect them DS.

[irongamer]

I've always wanted a co-op Xcom/JA/Silent Storm style strategy game. The Aliens vs. Humans really doesn't hold any interest for me... but co-op. There would be a number of items that would need adjustment but I'd love to see it done. I don't expect Xenonauts to have it. Most likely the game would have to be a funky hybrid turn-based style. Don't have the time to research or submit my own ideas on it at this point. It is just something I would love to see made one day.

[Gorlom]

Well if Chris makes a Alien VS Human version available it's much more likely to be able to modd in Player plus/vs Player VS computer. At least the basic code for multiplayer is in the game then.

[Gauddlike]

Starting with as much of the single player game intact in multiplayer always feels like the best way to do it.

If you then have to remove/rework things that you can't get to work then so be it.

It beats starting with a bare bones mode and trying to add things in anyway.

That was why I was putting forward suggestions for how the different aspects of the game could work in multiplayer.

I ran out of ideas when it came to tying ground missions in and still leaving all players with the choice of taking part.

Maybe it would just be best to have an option for other players to send a dropship to join a ground mission a player has troops at.

If they choose to join in they can send a ship and the mission doesn't start until it arrives, if not they can carry on playing on the geoscape in real time.

The squad numbers could be limited so that your entire team could not go over the squad limit of 16, it would be up to each player to decide which members of his squad were left out of the fight.

The other idea would be for each player to assign some of his troops to each dropship and to control only those troops in ground combat.

The reason I said something about being forced to share squad members was referring back to an earlier post about a different method of taking part in ground combat, one I am not as keen on.

I think I originally mentioned it as a way for all players to take part in the battle by sharing control of whichever squad happened to have arrived there.

I then realised how much I would hate having to give over control of my own favourite troops to someone who may get them killed.