Limited co-op multiplayer

[adeine]

Slightly different take on this, with interesting possibilities: What if instead of sinking resources into implementing anything remotely this complex, Egosoft just implemented an API to communicate with the game as it is running, able to inject commands? It'd kind of be like msci via command line.

This would allow intrepid modders to elegantly create, say, a mobile or browser based app or widget to control your empire while you're doing something else (with the game running in the background on your machine). Or what about importing external data into your game (internet/player community based stock market?). Or, be extra crazy and try and implement some sort of syncing/limited multiplayer as described in this thread on their own.

It could really take modding to the next level.

[Crimsonraziel]

This would allow intrepid modders to elegantly create, say, a mobile or browser based app or widget to control your empire while you're doing something else (with the game running in the background on your machine).

Yeah, sounds like this could be for X4 what interior walking was for X:R 1.0.

[adeine]

Yeah, sounds like this could be for X4 what interior walking was for X:R 1.0.

Care to elaborate the analogy? (genuinely curious)

[HeadClot]

I personally would like to see some form of limited cooperative Multiplayer.

Either in X4 or another X game.

[Tharrg]

I personally would not like to see some form of limited cooperative Multiplayer.

Neither in X4 nor another X game.

Although if someone found a clever way of modding it in, good luck to them.

[plynak]

No MP please. I really do not understand the need of some people to destroy SP games by adding a MP in any form. There are thousands of MP games, just chose one.

[RAVEN.myst]

There are thousands of MP games, just chose one.

Except that none of those thousands delivers the unique X-perience, or anything even remotely resembling it... I think it would be nice to have a limited co-op as some have suggested, in order to be able to share the enjoyment with a friend or loved one. Fly along on missions, or one player flying a freighter while the other provides fighter escort, or both players escorting an AI-controlled freighter, or the two players assuming control over different aspects of a capital ship; perhaps when the proverbial is hitting the ventilation appliance and a ship or station calls in for some decision, one of the players takes care of it while the other focuses on keeping them both alive - there is a lot of scope for enhancing the experience as opposed to changing or compromising it - making it even more precisely what it is, so to speak. No online servers would be required, as it would be handled as peer-to-peer or as one player acting as host/server. Such a type of co-op MP should then also come with built-in LAN support, as I suspect a significant portion (but by no means all!) of its use would be in a same-household context - this way, Internet lag would be eliminated when playing under the same roof.

However, I do agree wholeheartedly that trying to implement any sort of adversarial multiplayer would be a fool's errand and only lead to corrupting the X-perience (as well as necessitating major changes to the game's fundamental structure - no, thanks!)

[birdtable]

I think playing along with a "loved one" is fraught with danger ..
1. My loved one would be very negative to the idea of playing alongside.
2. If "loved one" so indulged, everything would be Hunkey Dorey until said "loved one" screwed up....
3. Who would bring the cake and coffee.

[Ketraar]

Except that none of those thousands delivers the unique X-perience, or anything even remotely resembling it...

Well did you consider that they dont deliver said experience, because you can only have it in a game that does NOT have MP?

People keep forgetting that many game design features cannot just be left as they are, in a universe where more than one player can mess with the universe. We get this power fantasy experience BECAUSE the game is designed around the (one) player. The minute you allow more than one you inevitably will need to cut and balance the player's ability to reign over the galaxy, resulting in probably one of those games that are out atm.

MFG

Ketraar

[RAVEN.myst]

I think playing along with a "loved one" is fraught with danger ..
1. My loved one would be very negative to the idea of playing alongside.
2. If "loved one" so indulged, everything would be Hunkey Dorey until said "loved one" screwed up....
3. Who would bring the cake and coffee.

LOL! Some fair points (though in my experience, expecting to be served the cake and coffee would certainly be far more hazardous to my health!), but on the other hand I know couples who play PC games (ie. your loved one's aversion is not universal, may not even be necessarily typical), but they mostly play games that they can play together, as most of their time is occupied with such trivial matters as w*rk, and looking after their children, and what-not. So cooperative PC gaming comprises a significant portion of their leisure time together. Now what happens when both parties enjoy a game such as any of the Xs? They can't play together, so their choices are either to play separate games, or to not play that game at all, despite their enjoyment of it - both alternatives are divisive, instead of unifying.

One of the abovementioned couples used to play Freelancer avidly and Emperor: Rise of the Middle Kingdom (if I'm remembering the title accurately - the first of Impressions Games' city-builders that could be multiplayed) - one a space-flight/combat/trade simulator, the other a management game. Guess what? The X games are a fusion of both genres! They would be a perfect fit for them, and I know that, upon demonstrating X2 and X3 and XR to them, they professed great admiration of all three - and yet they are denied this pleasure for the abovementioned reasons.

And drawing from my own personal cohabiting experiences: housemates and girlfriends of mine alike have been into gaming (birds of a feather, table together, eh?) Now, I've consistently been very good at any game that I've enjoyed (with a particular predilection for RTS titles), but it's meant that cohabitors have always been utterly unwilling to face off against me - but that's ok, especially nowadays, as I prefer to cooperate rather than to compete (I've long since "proved" whatever I may have thought I needed to, and aged out of that sort of "thinking") - but the choices of cooperatively playable games is restrictive (luckily, I also do enjoy the likes of Sacred 2, which can fill the niche.) I, too, played a lot of co-op Freelancer, but found it lacking in depth (there's only so many times you can fly a freighter with 3 players flying escort, running the longest possible trade route across the universe, before it starts getting stale) - not to mention that the game is now very dated (I'm personally not averse to retro gaming, but not everyone shares that mindset - besides, there does come a point when one wants something a *little* more current and sophisticated )

All that being said, yes, "playing along with a "loved one" is fraught with danger" - but isn't just about any shared experience? Or am I just being cynical...?

[birdtable]

Well put ... I do agree that a shared experience can be a very good thing in a tolerant relationship ...
My loved one has never stood at my shoulder massaging out the tension as I tackle that needed Taranis going "Coooo your good, wish I could help" ...
One virtual "Annoyisha" is enough but others as you so eloquently state would find it very enjoyable.
I do see the possible advantages in a combined team aboard a single ship and for that particular scenario I would vote yes.

[RAVEN.myst]

Except that none of those thousands delivers the unique X-perience, or anything even remotely resembling it...

Well did you consider that they dont deliver said experience, because you can only have it in a game that does NOT have MP?

People keep forgetting that many game design features cannot just be left as they are, in a universe where more than one player can mess with the universe. We get this power fantasy experience BECAUSE the game is designed around the (one) player. The minute you allow more than one you inevitably will need to cut and balance the player's ability to reign over the galaxy, resulting in probably one of those games that are out atm.

MFG

Ketraar

Not if the two (for example) players are participating as a single entity/faction - ie. they use the same funds, control the same assets in a shared fashion. I'm not advocating for separate houses, I am advocating for sharing the chores and the joys of the same household, so to speak. And yes, in the same house, people can step on each other's toes, but that's up to the players in the emergent dynamic to sort out.

Just to be clear - I am absolutely not in favour of players operating separate "accounts" so to speak - I'm talking about exclusively team-based play, and possibly with one player having primary control (a "team captain", if you will) and the other being allowed to act as auxiliary. So no, I completely disagree with the assessment that it needs to change the game in any profound way.

If you want a concrete, specific analogy of what I mean, try the shared-control multiplayer mode (I forget what it's actually called) in the original StarCraft - it was a team mode where multiple players controlled THE SAME "PLAYER ENTITY". This meant that players could (and, in fact, needed to) specialise - typically one would run the economy and production, while the others would control different portions of the army. This led to unparalleled levels of multitasking and coordination being made possible - so long as the team was well drilled in its roles and responsibilities. It took the game to a whole new level. And guess what? It in no way altered the mechanics or rules of the game! Not. One. Jot. The only difference was that you could now have 2 or 3 or (I think) 4 players' inputs control a single "faction", simultaneously. Basically, we're talking a "single player" with multiple heads and many hands.


EDIT: Corrected tag typo

[RAVEN.myst]

I do agree that a shared experience can be a very good thing in a tolerant relationship ...

Yes, crucial keywords (well, KEYword implies "crucial", yes? Redundant ol' me!) boldface-highlighted there...

My loved one has never stood at my shoulder massaging out the tension as I tackle that needed Taranis going "Coooo your good, wish I could help" ...

I'm still chuckling at the image....

One virtual "Annoyisha" is enough

Hehehehe - yes, back-seat driving is also a high-risk "occupation"... comes back to the matter of shared interests and the relationship being compatibly like-minded in this regard. (I think there's a growing trend in this direction - more and more, computer games are no longer solely the domain of the male half of the population, as the entertainment medium has matured into the mainstream.)

[birdtable]

I do agree .. so called passive entertainment is no longer as relevant in modern society ... actively shared experiences through entertainment is a growing phenomena ... Could not agree more regarding the future of home entertainment.

[Ketraar]

Not if the two (for example) players are participating as a single entity/faction - ie. they use the same funds, control the same assets in a shared fashion.

But how is that the same experience? Do both get to blow up stuff? Or is one just spectator? In any case non will be like the SP experience, either for both, or for one of them. For the spectator mode, you have other options, like steam's broadcast or streaming services. I dont see how you can have more than one player INTERACTING with the universe without having to account for it, thus balance it accordingly, which in turn WILL need to make some adjustments in how X games are played.

The Starcraft thing is called Archon Mode (I'm well aware of its existence), a similar mode exists in EU4, but in both the player does NOT impact the game, units do. Also the world is considerably smaller, one "level". Also units are finite and the amount of changes to the "world" are limited and predictable. Again I'm not saying its not possible to have MP, but you cant have both, the freedoms of current X games and the MP (in any form).

MFG

Ketraar

[birdtable]

Things (for want of a better description) could be done in parallel instead of sequentially .. for example one could take care of Trade Ships while the other could handle Station Trade .. There are many tasks that could be accomplished in co-op from a single base. I much prefer the sole player aspect and would hate multi player but I do see possibilities in Co-op.... and Ego games are far more than "blowing up stuff" ......

[Cycrow]

Slightly different take on this, with interesting possibilities: What if instead of sinking resources into implementing anything remotely this complex, Egosoft just implemented an API to communicate with the game as it is running, able to inject commands? It'd kind of be like msci via command line.

This would allow intrepid modders to elegantly create, say, a mobile or browser based app or widget to control your empire while you're doing something else (with the game running in the background on your machine). Or what about importing external data into your game (internet/player community based stock market?). Or, be extra crazy and try and implement some sort of syncing/limited multiplayer as described in this thread on their own.

It could really take modding to the next level.

most of those things you suggest could already be done in X3. There was infact a mod available that allowed you to control your empire remotely via a web browser.

Proper player on player combat was not really possible though.

[RainerPrem]

...

most of those things you suggest could already be done in X3. There was infact a mod available that allowed you to control your empire remotely via a web browser.

Proper player on player combat was not really possible though.

That would be nice addition: One player flies, and the other solely does the housekeeping, ordering replacement missiles and ships and have them delivered to Player One's fleet. They can switch roles form time to time.

cu
Rainer

[RAVEN.myst]

Not if the two (for example) players are participating as a single entity/faction - ie. they use the same funds, control the same assets in a shared fashion.

But how is that the same experience? Do both get to blow up stuff?

Yes, why not? They can both fly ships from the same player's fleet, or alternatively one could fly while the other mans a turret. Or, as previously indicated, one can blow stuff up and the other not, if such is the preference.

Or is one just spectator?

Of course not! Both interact, and each gets to choose how and to what extent.

I dont see how you can have more than one player INTERACTING with the universe without having to account for it, thus balance it accordingly, which in turn WILL need to make some adjustments in how X games are played.

Again, I will repeat my summary of the notion: essentially one player with two heads and four hands. I'm not saying it wouldn't be *at all* different - of course it would be, it would allow two people to enjoy the experience together. But they would do so while sharing the tasks of one controlling body, performing the same functions but in parallel. Think of it as two people collaborating on a culinary dish - they can be working at the same kitchen counter and toward the preparation of the same dish, but while one is dicing onions the other is basting the chicken, or whatever - but at the end of the day, they have spent time together and both have possibly enjoyed it more than they would have on their own (otherwise, why do it, right?) - and the end result is the same chicken and vegetable roast or whatever. They HAVE NOT cooked TWO DIFFERENT meals while competing for the kitchen resources.
Of course, were two control freaks to try to do this, that would most likely be a recipe (pardon the pun) for disaster, but the situation is unlikely to come up, as they're unlikely to conceive of cooking together in such a collaborative manner to even be possible.

The Starcraft thing is called Archon Mode (I'm well aware of its existence), a similar mode exists in EU4, but in both the player does NOT impact the game, units do.

I couldn't disagree more (but thanks for refreshing my memory about its name I had TONS of fun in that one with a couple of friends who understood the notion - well, once we all figured out how it was meant to be played!) - in StarCraft, the units are the player's assets, and the tools via which the player (the *directing intelligence* behind it all) impacts the game world - the units aren't self-willed entities causing change, it's the players that do so THROUGH their units; in the Xs, the player's assets are the tools (or "units") by which the player exercises his/her will on the virtual world, and this includes the personally flown ship. If you think that the "first-personiness" of personally flying a ship and shooting things accounts for "impacting the game world", then you and I have VERY different views of what it is to "affect the game world" - I, for instance, spend more and more time docked or floating while directing various ships and stations ("units") to do various things, be it expanding my industrial/commercial empire, or be it conducting a battle by commanding a fleet (and likely not firing a single shot myself to win that battle.) Flying a ship and personally shooting stuff or carting wares around is nothing more than a somewhat less abstracted way of "ordering a unit around". My most recent X3TC playthrough (sadly not doable in X3AP, due to game design elements) was actually a totally clean-handed approach - I did EVERYTHING through proxies except whatever I was forced to do personally by the plots - a classic "harmless" playthrough, I'm sure you're familiar with them. And yet the game universe was veritably transformed, never mind "impacted" or "affected"...

Also the world is considerably smaller, one "level". Also units are finite and the amount of changes to the "world" are limited and predictable.

Frankly, I don't see how that's in the least bit relevant. Scale is simply that: scale. It's quantitative, not qualitative.

Again I'm not saying its not possible to have MP, but you cant have both, the freedoms of current X games and the MP (in any form).

You *don't think* (opinion) that "you cant have both", but I *think* (also opinion) otherwise, so long as one doesn't think of the multiplayer in strictly traditional terms, but in terms of true collaborative play - one body, two heads, four hands, but ultimately two wills fused into one in pursuit of a shared set of goals (to put it in the simplest way I can think of, both work off the same property list and credit balance and even "player name".) The player in the Xs represents the head of an empire of a form of the player's choosing - 2P co-op as described would simply be two people heading that same empire, be they business partners or a royal couple or a figurehead puppet monarch with a svengali pulling the puppet strings - and that's scope for more personal role-play, something else that (in my mind, at least) the previous X games have excelled at providing a platform for - only difference is: it would allow the *inclusion* of another person. Any restriction on freedoms would not be derived from the game's structure or mechanics, but from the interpersonal dynamics of the participants, and that's not the developer's concern - if two people can't play nice together to make it work, then they simply shouldn't do it - but others can, so giving those the opportunity would certainly be nice.

I've thought of another, more descriptive way to term the concept: think not of it as any sort of multiplayer, but rather as "shared single-player".

Happy hunting!


EDIT:

Ego games are far more than "blowing up stuff"

I agree 200% (the extra 100% is on behalf of whoever were to accompany me on my Xploits, were it to be possible...)

[koyuka]

Online Job bulletin board anyone? Player poats job. Only available to players whos online profile shows they have a good relation with the race the player is aligned too. Plyers then would be required to fly to the system where the job is posted before accepting a mission. On acceptance the save game of the person who posted the job is loaded. If the contracted player completes whatever the mission is they get paid into their own account to spend in the mirror own games. Player feedback cab be given for reliability etc. Of course you might get the odd rogue who used the destroyer you lent them to attack your own stations. I think this would be quite fun!