Post
by Gregorovitch » Thu, 17. Jun 21, 11:57
Although I'm not interested in MP personally I have in principle objection to it, I know a lot of folks really enjoy MP. However my concern is that any serious effort to do MP for X4 would turn out to be an expensive gimmick that nobody really plays very much. This is what I posted on the steam board about this couple of weeks back:
Originally posted by Star Trucker:
Originally posted by Gregorovitch:
That's a..um...pretty bold assertion. Care to elaborate on why you think this is so?
Uh, because it obviously is?
Space is huge and open. The sectors are unlimited. You have as much space as you need.
That's the equivalent of saying all you need is a blank canvass and you can paint a Picasso, easy. To make MP work you have to provide compelling MP game play that stands the test of time, there has to be reason, a motivation, for people to play beyond just "wanting to play a game with friends" of they'll just play something else that's more fun.
But having said that you've put forwards some suggestions, and I've got no in principle antipathy to MP for X4, so I'll just do a devil's advocate job on what you've suggested in the way of constructive criticism. Most of which boils down to "I like playing games with my friends" does not a successful MP game make and "making MP games is a lot more complicated than it seems".
Originally posted by Star Trucker:
If you're playing with your own little server with a few of your buddies then you all probably get along and divvie up sectors and help one another out when you need. Maybe you get a joint fleet to go smash some Xenon and then bring in a ton of resources so your friend that just started the game can have their own PHQ.
What you are describing here is what I call the "Factorio" model. It works so well in Factorio because
a) you are all working on building one and the same mega-base
b) there are innumerable individual fine-granularity tasks that naturally lend themselves to being shared out
c) there are almost unlimited alternative design solutions to be mulled over and debated between the players
d) when everyone feels like a break you can all jump into your tanks and go murder some biters
Of these the only one that applies to X4 really is the last one, you could join up all your fleets and go beat up some Xenon, and it would be fun for a bit, but you would also wipe out the Xenon quite easily because players are much stronger than factions, including the Xenon, and several players will be overpowering. Which would lead to the game economy more or less collapsing quite quickly (the game economy being largely dependant on ship replacements following Xenon etc attrition)
Originally posted by Star Trucker:
Every system is already setup to be conducive to interactions with another faction. The game at it's core is all about the AI factions doing their own thing. That's the secret sauce. Those systems translate to operating with another player just as easily. After all, the other player is just another faction like SCA or PAR or whatever.
That's actually a misconception. The factions in X4 are set up and carefully balanced to provide a relatively stable but subtly shifting backdrop to a 2-300 hour adventure for a single player faction that gradually grows in power to surpass them all over that sort of time frame. That means they do not behave in the manner you describe. Which means in turn that if more than one player faction was on the table the balance of the game would be destroyed and the simulation would collapse.
Originally posted by Star Trucker:
If you're playing on a big iron super server with 100 other people, then the game would offer a lot of room for conflict and trade. Being able to build close to a jumpgate would be worth a lot. Access to jumpgates could be controlled by a group of other players and effectively cut off to anyone but them and their allies. The best resource mining spots would become hot commodities and need heavy guarding to keep for your own side. It would add tons of layers to the game.
I would share @Geist's concerns on that one, specifically:
Originally posted by Geist:
And thats exactly what would kill the multiplayer game. You can not allow that to happen or a very small playerbase of early players with much free time will control everything. Thats what happens to all those "hardcore pvp" games out there. That have no forced limitations. They start strong and then slowly die until until a handfull of powerfull players remain.
If you come into the game 3 month after it released you can archive nothing anymore.
Because some players will control everything and destroy every player that starts to become a competitor. Thats what allways happens. There will allways be players that use their power to ruin the game for everyone else.
And if we take a look at HOW powerfull the player is allowed to become in this game, this would not take months to reach a point of no return it would only take days.
This sort of thing is notoriously difficult to pull off successfully, which is why the annals of MP games are littered with abject failures, mostly horrendously expensive failures, speaking of which........
Originally posted by Star Trucker:
The backend of it is also perfect, having a single server calculating all the AI stuff takes the load off ALL the clients. The game would run way better for everyone. The only thing your client needs to know is "Baldric (BLD-420) is at heading 124 going 230 km/s" and then no further updates are needed from the server until something happens and the Baldric changes course. Yeah, there's lots of objects around but really 90% of them are flying in a straight line. Network traffic shouldn't be that big of an issue - especially over your own home lan.
A backend is also a colossal investment with very high ongoing costs. It is a hugely risky investment that does, should it prove successful, reap very high rewards but if it doesn't it's a one way ticket to the bankruptcy courts.
How many servers do you need? Plump for too few and you are sunk without trace as the game will play like a dog if at all and your players will be gone overnight never to return. Plump for too many and you are sunk without trace under the weight of on-going costs that are unsupportable from the unexpectedly low player base.
In short this is a very high risk/high reward enterprise and to pull it off, or even contemplate it you need to....
a) be dead right that your MP game play proves sufficiently addictive and enjoyable
b) be dead right as to how many players will actually log in day one.
....or it's off to the bankruptcy courts for you. Good luck with that.
Oh, and you've also got to figure out how to pay for the servers long term. In practice that means either MTX or subs. And we all know how much the average X4 player LOVES the sound of MTX and subs don't we xD
I'd add to that my concerns regarding the other model discussed in this thread, namely an "arena battle mode". As I see it the danger with this is that there are other games that already do that better than X4 could realistically hope to do without substantial upgrading of the dog fighting model nd a significant server set up to support it. Elite Dangerous for example, hell, even Star Citizen. Seems a very expensive and high risk move to me.
Maybe something to look at long term but I would say that:
* building a core neutral engine
* significantly upgrading the UI
* significantly upgrading fleet management mechanics and behaviour
is far less risky and much more likely to propel the X series into breakthrough territory. X4 has done very well I am told. Estimates of sales suggest it heading for 1m sales. That's not quite breakthrough territory yet. Paradox got their big breakthrough with Crusader Kings 2 when they totally unexpectedly broke 2m sales with it. They did that by sticking to their guns and refining and improving the base game without compromise to the essential SP game play in any way. IMHO those three changes would give X the chance to doing the same. Once an X game get's to 2m sales and beyond, that is the time to look at MP options in my view.