| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Would you prefer paying a monthly fee or setting up your own server? |
| Pay a monthly fee for a Megaserver |
|
5% |
[ 1 ] |
| Individuals/Groups set up their own servers |
|
94% |
[ 18 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 19 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Smuook
Joined: 13 Jan 2004
Posts: 112
Location: Florida
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2004 5:54 pm Post subject: Multiplayer servers |
 |
|
Questions I have about multiplayer the feature... By the way, this is probably the most appealing feature of this game to me. To be able to battle other players in other parts of the world on different platforms... very cool 
How will the servers be setup? I haven't seen to much published about this yet. In my experience there are different ways that online gaming has approached this.
Games like Planetside use Superservers where they charge you a monthly fee to play on high capacity servers. The basically set up a mini-world where hundreds of players compete online all at the same time and battle for continents. Some people were turned off by the monthly fee though.
Other games like Tribes use let individuals/groups set up individual servers. They upload the server files and the players have the client files and the base game. Groups can rent/own a particular server and allow anywhere from usually 12 to 64 players on a server... limited by bandwidth and cost.
Either way, someone has to maintain the upkeep and cost of the server. The way I look at it it's either pay me now or pay me later. If the game takes off (which I hope it does), Sonalysts won't be able to maintain the cost of multiplayer servers with game sales alone (at least on any large scale).
My recommendation would be to let individuals set up their own servers. Sonalysts could run a few servers to have some base servers... but the real enthusiats could set up their own missions, mods, etc... and run things to their liking. Judging by the people on this board and the interest in the game already... I think this would work well. This would allow for modding and continued modding and development of the game.
This way also you could go to servers in your region where the lag is the lowest.
Just an idea... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
timmyg00
Joined: 11 Jan 2001
Posts: 1003
Location: The People's Republic of Massachusetts, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2004 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This sim, like 688(I), Fleet Command, and Sub Command before it, does not have a dedicated-server architecture. You meet other players in the forums, chat servers, or online sim leagues, set up a session, and one of the players acts as a host.
TG |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Smuook
Joined: 13 Jan 2004
Posts: 112
Location: Florida
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2004 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think it would be a stretch to do it that way. You will have a lot more going on in DW than SC... one platform may have several players on it alone. The playing maps will have to be larger and more complex to accommodate the P-3 also.
Tribes tried to do that when it first came out it got abandoned because the bandwidth was too high. They went to dedicated servers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ramius
Joined: 31 May 2001
Posts: 4092
Location: England
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2004 10:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've got to admit, i cant wait to see what DW will be like for bandwidth and lag issues (hopefully none  )
Ramius |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nattydread
Joined: 09 Jan 2004
Posts: 667
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2004 11:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have no problem paying for quality play. I think some are reluctant to accept the unavoidable future of multiplayer gaming and thats paying for it.
It provides easy, cenral location to meet other players and the convience of going from meeting to playing in a simple intergrated step.
Not to mentions, I assume a subscription provieds the option for a persistent world, where we can have our vessels roaming 24 hrs a day. Now diesel subs really have to worry, people begin to get comfortable and drop their defenses, they get lazy.
Anyway, in my mind, paying isnt bad, though I'd have to see some pretty good reasons for it to cost more than $7-10 a month. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
timmyg00
Joined: 11 Jan 2001
Posts: 1003
Location: The People's Republic of Massachusetts, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Smuook wrote: | | You will have a lot more going on in DW than SC... one platform may have several players on it alone. |
Sonalysts has already indicated that they will have an enhanced network engine to take such matters into account. In any case, we'll just have to wait for the multiplayer preview to see how it goes 
| Smuook wrote: | | The playing maps will have to be larger and more complex to accommodate the P-3 also. |
Wow, the maps are already nearly 600nm square... how much bigger do they need to be? :hmm:
TG |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pigfish
Joined: 11 May 2003
Posts: 2044
Location: Alberta, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| timmyg00 wrote: | | Wow, the maps are already nearly 600nm square... how much bigger do they need to be? :hmm: TG |
More then big enough, even for 20 day missions IMHO. Cept for that AI wandering annoyance. 
So, ummm, how much better/easier is it for us in mission editor to make our own maps? Any improvments you could answer?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
timmyg00
Joined: 11 Jan 2001
Posts: 1003
Location: The People's Republic of Massachusetts, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pigfish wrote: | | So, ummm, how much better/easier is it for us in mission editor to make our own maps? Any improvments you could answer? |
Allow myself to quote... myself
| Quote: | The powerful Mission Editor we have come to know from Sub Command has even more features in Dangerous Waters. Most notable are the Wind and Water regions, which increase the level of realism by allowing the mission creator to insert water currents and winds in their scenarios. Other new features include:
-Complete campaign functionality is included as a selection on the Editor's menu bar; no more editing your “editor.ini” file!
-The Goal Doctrine language, also formerly only available if you modified your “editor.ini” file, is now a standard feature in Dangerous Waters. This Goal Doctrine enables goals to be dependent on the resolution of other goals, the detection of platforms, creation of dynamic elements, etc. When a goal/trigger is completed, it can create a dynamic group of objects (which may include other goals) or it may run a Script to invoke a sequence of actions or commands that can act on any object currently in the mission (Example: to damage a platform).
-Scripting – This object is a series/sequence of events which will happen as designated by the mission designer. A script can be called by multiple goals (triggers) as the “post action” for those triggers. An example of a script would be “Change ROE” or “Alter Alliance” which are all feasible in the Scripting language (which looks very similar to the Goal Doctrine language).
-Standalone aircraft can be added to scenarios without having to attach them to an airport. |
So i'd say it's better just from the standpoint of having new features that add flexibility and functionality to the mission creation process.
TG |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Smuook
Joined: 13 Jan 2004
Posts: 112
Location: Florida
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| timmyg00 wrote: | | Smuook wrote: | | You will have a lot more going on in DW than SC... one platform may have several players on it alone. |
Sonalysts has already indicated that they will have an enhanced network engine to take such matters into account. In any case, we'll just have to wait for the multiplayer preview to see how it goes
| Smuook wrote: | | The playing maps will have to be larger and more complex to accommodate the P-3 also. |
Wow, the maps are already nearly 600nm square... how much bigger do they need to be? :hmm:
TG |
It all depends on how realistic they wish too make these scenarios. Operationally, the P-3 is limited to where it can fly from... and it's even more limited in where it can load ordnance.
SubCommand has a mission called Gibraltar Showdown. This is actually a very real world area where P-3's operate. A normal mission would fly from Sigonella, Sicily which is about 900 miles or so east. The current SubCommand map for that mission doesn't cover half that distance. A P-3 can also operate from Rota, Spain... but that's an EP-3 base and they typically won't operate from there unless they have extended operations in that area.
It all depends on the assumptions the game designers make... how realistic will the airbases be? Will the planes even be taking off or will they just start in mid air? How realistic will the terrain be? Flying over the current splotches of green and brown that SubCommand currently uses won't make the aviators too happy. For the subbies this doesn't matter but for someone who is trying to enjoy the flight part of the sim, it does. There's a whole new side of this game that will come to light which SubCommand did not need to address. Comparing SubCommand to Dangerous Waters only applies to the subs.
All these things are unknown right now... to me at least. But real world P-3 missions are routinely 3 or 4 hours of transit (800+ nm), maybe 4 hours of onstation time, then 3 or 4 hours back. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
timmyg00
Joined: 11 Jan 2001
Posts: 1003
Location: The People's Republic of Massachusetts, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Smuook wrote: | It all depends on how realistic they wish too make these scenarios. Operationally, the P-3 is limited to where it can fly from... and it's even more limited in where it can load ordnance.
SubCommand has a mission called Gibraltar Showdown. This is actually a very real world area where P-3's operate. A normal mission would fly from Sigonella, Sicily which is about 900 miles or so east. The current SubCommand map for that mission doesn't cover half that distance. A P-3 can also operate from Rota, Spain... but that's an EP-3 base and they typically won't operate from there unless they have extended operations in that area.
It all depends on the assumptions the game designers make... how realistic will the airbases be? Will the planes even be taking off or will they just start in mid air? How realistic will the terrain be? Flying over the current splotches of green and brown that SubCommand currently uses won't make the aviators too happy. For the subbies this doesn't matter but for someone who is trying to enjoy the flight part of the sim, it does. There's a whole new side of this game that will come to light which SubCommand did not need to address. Comparing SubCommand to Dangerous Waters only applies to the subs.
All these things are unknown right now... to me at least. But real world P-3 missions are routinely 3 or 4 hours of transit (800+ nm), maybe 4 hours of onstation time, then 3 or 4 hours back. |
I understand your concerns, and I share them, as I am a stickler for realism myself, having served in the real thing.
I think it would be more accurate to say that the realism level of the gameplay will not only depend on the sim itself, but how realistic the people who design the missions - custom and canned - decide to make their scenarios. On the one hand, we must understand the compromises that the developers have to make on what features to include in the sim for any number of reasons (and only the developers can make that clear to us, and have tried on many occasions); on the other hand, once we have the product, it's up to the community and players to make of it what they will. This involves research and hard work on the part of the mission designer to make the scenarios as realistic as possible within the framework they've been given.
As far as simulating transit times, on-station times, and the like, you've got to understand that there are only a few really really hardcore types that will actually be willing to sit thru a mission that goes beyond 3 or 4 hours at one sitting, and most of those are solo players. Solo players have the luxury of pausing to go to the bathroom, getting a drink, or even saving the game to pick up later where they left off when real life comes a-callin' in the middle of that 12-hour P-3 patrol. Multiplayers, on the other hand, have to carefully coordinate with each other and be willing to dedicate at least two hours to playing a match with others, and that doesn't even count match setup time in chat and the post-match debrief that many players perform.
I'm not making excuses for anyone here... I like my sim AND my missions to be as realistic as possible within limits of the creators' abilities. There are a lot of factors to consider in any case.
TG
oh and one more thing... | Smuook wrote: | | Comparing SubCommand to Dangerous Waters only applies to the subs. |
That was you making the comparison  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Smuook
Joined: 13 Jan 2004
Posts: 112
Location: Florida
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 12, 2004 11:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fair enough. 
If there is transit time, hopefully they will have the "time warp" function like SC to speed things up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nattydread
Joined: 09 Jan 2004
Posts: 667
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 12, 2004 11:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think that with our slow transit speeds as subs and large areas to roam, that its imperative that we have a persistent world  \ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pigfish
Joined: 11 May 2003
Posts: 2044
Location: Alberta, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 13, 2004 12:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hey Timmy. What I meant is how much easier is it to make maps, not missions, or goals.
I mean to put in place names/colors etc. I notice that DW will have state lines. How much more?
Will it still be such a hassle for us to name geographical features, undersea or on land? 
Hope this makes sense. 
Keep up the good work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
