Orbiter Online - Milestone 0 Goals Thread

[Face]

The Time Bubble idea is interesting, but it then also raises the question of what happens when the server side time catches up to the various "bubbles"? Say for instance... there was an expedition to the Moon, and the ships have returned, and docked at ISS, in its own bubble. Say... 2 minutes before the master server catches up with the bubble time, I'm approaching a docking port that is occupied by a ship in the bubble. What would happen when the times sync up then? Unless the server starts to send warnings explaining that ships will start appearing, I'd be under the impression that the docking port is empty, until the ship appears that is.

The idea here is to record vessel positions. "History trails", so to say...

You would see the "ghost" of the vessel occupying the dock. Of course interaction with such ghosts is limited.

The time-bubble approach comes with a whole different problem regarding economics: what would you do with the diverging economic stats on syncing bubbles?
My favorite example:

• 2009, earth is out of "metal"-ore to build ships.
• 2009, both A and B start mission to mine ore.
• A flies to moon, mines ore, flies back to earth and delivers ore in 2010.
• B flies to mars, mines ore, flies back to earth and delivers ore in 2011.
• Both A and B use time-acceleration, so they are within different bubbles. It happens so, that B is actually faster in realtime than A.
• Since B is faster, he can't know about A's change in the simulated past about the economics (earth is not in need of ore anymore, prices are down again, etc), instead he still decides based on the earth demand and price, but in the simulated future of A.

As long as both are in separate bubbles, it is ok, but what if A now decides to meet with B in simulated 2010 in order to - let's say - laugh at his lousy decision to travel to mars instead of moon? As soon as A's bubble catches up, there is a conflict in economics state. This conflict can be solved by agreement, but what would you do to e.g. B's money and manifest score? Give back the mined ore and substract credits? Keep credits and manifest?

I see the time-bubble approach as viable solution if it only comes to flying around, but it is a whole different beast content-wise.

regards,
Face

BTW: Nice write-up Kaito!

 

[Urwumpe]

I think time acceleration is more bad in a MMORPG than good.

What about giving the player more activities inside the spacecraft (by a common spacecraft framework) and allow more flight planning and automatisation, or cooperative multiplayer?

 

[Brycesv1]

Right. Now, how would you gain EXP?
I'll think about this some more, maybe add another long post with the idea of Ships, Company Types, how you would gain tech, etc

well everything you do in space is an experiance so you should get a tiny amount over time just for existing. other achievments such as getting from the ground to a stable orbit, exiting a SOI, entering another SOI, achieving a new stable orbit, landing. could all give extra EXP. this way for every journy there are multiple way of getting bonuses and would also encourage doing things like slingshots and actualy planning your reentry (a failure, bad, good, perfect base landing gives giffering amounts of exp). maybe also gain a bonus for having optimal fuel when you land (as close to your max landing weight as possible). more bonuses for a deadstick landing over a powered landing and so on and so forth

 

[4throck]

I think time acceleration is more bad in a MMORPG than good.

What about giving the player more activities inside the spacecraft (by a common spacecraft framework) and allow more flight planning and automatisation, or cooperative multiplayer?

This is a good idea, automating a flight might be very interesting for those more into simulation than gaming .

You could "program" your spacecraft in advance to enter Mars orbit and setup a communication window with Earth (or wherever your mission control is located) to receive some telemetry and perhaps a picture or two. Then the simulation would run on the server and you could check your progress online or by email. When you had the time you could "enter" your ship and perform the actual landing in Orbiter. If not the ship would remain idly on the desired orbit.

This is a little different from the more gaming oriented ideas on this thread, but much more interesting for those who are into simulation / challenges. Nevertheless it would provide the same interaction possibilities (mission controler, pilot, rocket builder ) and a more friendly time schedule regarding real life.
I don't know about others, but I can manage to come to the forum for a few minutes a time at work and run Orbiter at home 2 or 3 times a week. From my point of view any advancement into Orbiter's "gameplay" should take those limitations into account.

 

[DarkWanderer]

What about giving the player more activities inside the spacecraft (by a common spacecraft framework) and allow more flight planning and automatisation, or cooperative multiplayer?

That's quite a good idea, solving the problem with logoff; to not lose your craft you must ensure you are docked at the station, in the stable orbit, or have your autopilot programmed well. Though this may raise performance problems, namely with too many "unpiloted" crafts.

well everything you do in space is an experiance so you should get a tiny amount over time just for existing. other achievments such as getting from the ground to a stable orbit, exiting a SOI, entering another SOI, achieving a new stable orbit, landing. could all give extra EXP. this way for every journy there are multiple way of getting bonuses and would also encourage doing things like slingshots and actualy planning your reentry (a failure, bad, good, perfect base landing gives giffering amounts of exp). maybe also gain a bonus for having optimal fuel when you land (as close to your max landing weight as possible). more bonuses for a deadstick landing over a powered landing and so on and so forth

Well, I don't think involving XP is a good idea at all; the simulation nature of Orbiter requires more real skills than abstract character numbers. I think, player advancement may be done fairly good just by acquiring certificates (rough example: "piloting passenger craft", "piloting >1000ton cargo craft", "orbital transfers"...) and crafts/items itself. So, an ace might do a task with a shuttle; a less good pilot would require a sci-fi craft for it.

Also, I'm not quite fond of the idea with time playing. And left out by BHawthorne, there is a third way to solve time issues, requiring, however, some tolerance - and namely it's FTL.

Real-time travel to Jupiter would take weeks even with futuristic designs like VASIMR. That's surely not a way for a game (which we actually try to transform Orbiter to), but making every ship able to "jump" back and forth is too radical decision. Creating gates between main points of interest (Jupiter, Saturn - many moons with resources, Asteroid belt, Mars colonies) would solve the problem of reachability, leaving players without need to go crazy trying to solve the non-continuity riddles. This would be a compromise between realism and playability.

And here's the question: how would community appreciate FTL travel via "fixed" orbital gates?

 

[BHawthorne]

I'm not adverse to the idea of FTL, or any alternatives to the time acceleration issue. Problem with FTL is that Oribter has a firm grounding in physics, while FTL curcumvents regular physics. I'd rather we find a simple and elegant solution within the framework of regular physics than FTL. I've also posed high-G spacecraft design as another alternative. The probelm comes into play that any constant G over 1.25G is going to have bad health effects on the people. Everything is a compromise though, it really depends on what compromise of reality we end up with in order to make things functional. FTL, High-G, time bubbles, auto-pilot, or whatever inbetween it doesn't matter to me as long as it's not confusing and people will use it. The key here is the willingness to find something that the concensus of users would find as the best compromise to the issue. There is no ideal answer here and that's part of the problem.

 

[Urwumpe]

That's quite a good idea, solving the problem with logoff; to not lose your craft you must ensure you are docked at the station, in the stable orbit, or have your autopilot programmed well. Though this may raise performance problems, namely with too many "unpiloted" crafts.

True, but maybe this could be prevented by limiting the "save points" to some special locations, like station keeping around a station.

Also, you could limit the number of crafts on a server, for example by encouraging more cooperative multiplayer and have multiple players work in shifts on the same craft or space station.

space station duties could actually be more interesting than interplanetary flight, if you for example move some kind of ATC duty into the concept. I have an operations concept for such stations prepared, which utilizes lining the spacecraft up in concentric circles around the station.

And here's the question: how would community appreciate FTL travel via "fixed" orbital gates?

I think this is a good way to ruin any originality in the concept. Any kind of FTL, gated or not, means long distance trips fall away and gate to gate travel will dominate. And long distance trips are easier calculated by patched conics, than orbital maneuvers for getting from one gate in EO to the other.

 

[Kaito]

As someone in the IRC said..no matter what we do, we cant make everyone happy. We just gotta make the most people happy.

About the time bubble content thing:
That is one reason I suggested the ability to "bookmark" your own time, so you have something to comeback to. If you want to jump to someone's time to laugh at them, then you coming into their time puts you as a "slave" to whatever their time holds. Here's an analogy:

Two houses on the same street. The Master Server would be the blueprint for the houses, making them identical, but since there are two separate families living there, they each make their own changes. You can choose to go to the other persons house, but you are only a guest there, and are subject to whatever they have done: paint color choice, placement of furniture, the channel on the Television. However, at any point, you can leave and come back to your "own" time without any consequences.

Does this make some more sense? And, today (6:30 AM here) i'll write up another post regarding how to gain Tech, Ships, Types of companies, how they could work, etc.

 

[BHawthorne]

Another reason why I have conceptual problems with FTL or gates is that it takes the diffuculty out of the simulation. You no longer have fuel constraints or time constraints to dictate actions. You can just instantly pop over to another planet without any planning or repercussions. Where is the simulation or challenge? Whatever the major concesus turns out to be should be whatever we do though.

 

[Face]

And here's the question: how would community appreciate FTL travel via "fixed" orbital gates?

You'll still have travel times up to one week. A simple earth-moon-earth trip is roughly one week with present tech, maybe 2 days with TTM24. Not sure how the average Orbiteer is thinking about this, but I think it is still too much time when you can do it in about an hour with time-acceleration.

Without time-acceleration, I'm sure I'd loose interest after the first technological cool-aid hype is over.

BHawthorne's idea with 10x basic acceleration and common drop-out to 1x - if any client is needing it - seems more plausible in this regards. While the acceleration is running, you can still browse market boards and communicate with others.. as soon as you approach your next mission-step (ejection, MCC, brake, landing, etc.) you pull the 1x ticket and the complete server is running on 1x.

Maybe this concept can be refined with a flight-plan thing. You'd have to plan your mission beforehand, fill out a flightplan that estimates your demand on 1x-time and the server and perhaps a controller/admin is granting you this 1x-time-budget. Maybe give fines if you need more time-budget.

regards,
Face

 

[4throck]

This continues to be an interesting and constructive discussion .

Just two thoughts:

Orbiter is a realistic simulator, so things like FTL, other solar systems, time travel, whatever, will not be well handled by it. Id doesn't matter how much time and work you put into it, it will never work 100%. It's just like 3D terrain, you can have it but it's not perfect. It is a simulator and not a game... an that's why the good gaming ideas like time acceleration don't seem to work ! Cooperative simulation will work.

An online extension to Orbiter is fundamental, but should IMHO start by implementing simple things and serve to iron out all of the concepts proposed here. Once something is actually available on-line we could see what kind of membership materializes, what time it takes to do things and what the future direction might be.

 

[Face]

About the time bubble content thing:
That is one reason I suggested the ability to "bookmark" your own time, so you have something to comeback to. If you want to jump to someone's time to laugh at them, then you coming into their time puts you as a "slave" to whatever their time holds.

This is a good idea. In addition to the state-merge I outlined before, we can say that the visited bubble's economics is favoured when it comes to collisions. If you are not happy with it, you can go back and follow your own timeline, where you are building your lone empire.

The "bookmark" was anyway part of my vision. Just as with a version control tool, you can create and follow as many timeline-"branches" as you like. Would be the first time-travel MMORPG, too .

With all those timelines, you'd have to encourage users to merge their bubbles together more often, though. Otherwise the whole purpose for being multiplayer would be defeated again.

regards,
Face

 

[DarkWanderer]

True, but maybe this could be prevented by limiting the "save points" to some special locations, like station keeping around a station.

Well, it's not always possible to have a station in reach; imagine mining or reconaissance mission requiring 2 or more days or just a realtime Earth-moon trip.

Also, you could limit the number of crafts on a server, for example by encouraging more cooperative multiplayer and have multiple players work in shifts on the same craft or space station.

That's a fair point and worth futher discussion.

I think this is a good way to ruin any originality in the concept. Any kind of FTL, gated or not, means long distance trips fall away and gate to gate travel will dominate. And long distance trips are easier calculated by patched conics, than orbital maneuvers for getting from one gate in EO to the other.

What is "long distance"? Io-Callisto trip is quite a flight in real time "Real" long distance trips require time you won't have. Just calculate the time needed to travel from Earth to Jupiter even with constant 3G acceleration. And, moreover, think - what will be left of present Orbiter, if every craft could sustain 3G for several days?

space station duties could actually be more interesting than interplanetary flight, if you for example move some kind of ATC duty into the concept. I have an operations concept for such stations prepared, which utilizes lining the spacecraft up in concentric circles around the station.

Well, let's see if the need in STC arises first.

---------- Post added at 16:18 ---------- Previous post was at 16:07 ----------

This is a good idea. In addition to the state-merge I outlined before, we can say that the visited bubble's economics is favoured when it comes to collisions. If you are not happy with it, you can go back and follow your own timeline, where you are building your lone empire.

Well, why using a central server at all then? Why not just give an own server with a "lone empire" to every team/VSA who wants it?

Hawthorne's idea with 10x basic acceleration and common drop-out to 1x - if any client is needing it - seems more plausible in this regards. While the acceleration is running, you can still browse market boards and communicate with others.. as soon as you approach your next mission-step (ejection, MCC, brake, landing, etc.) you pull the 1x ticket and the complete server is running on 1x.

Still no solution for the Earth-Jupiter travel problem. And your 30 minute reentry will force other 100 people senselessly hang in space on their routes.

Where is the simulation or challenge?

Whatever else, except very rare and very long trips. Ascent. Reentry. Optimal ISS - Gate 1 trajectory. Station assembly. Whatever we make a challenge.

You'll still have travel times up to one week. A simple earth-moon-earth trip is roughly one week with present tech, maybe 2 days with TTM24. Not sure how the average Orbiteer is thinking about this, but I think it is still too much time when you can do it in about an hour with time-acceleration.

Unless you allow time accel up to 10000x - the same applies to other planets. How this would be handled?


Maybe, just leave out the idea of "massive" multiplayer and stick to small 2-8 player sessions then?

 

[Face]

Well, why using a central server at all then? Why not just give an own server with a "lone empire" to every team/VSA who wants it?

Maybe, just leave out the idea of "massive" multiplayer and stick to small 2-8 player sessions then?

Of course it could be seen as multiple servers doing the individual "lone empires". But the solution with one MMORPG server is providing dynamical "lone empires", i.e. users can always choose to hop to another bubble, play around there, getting bored, hop to the next, and so on.

With multiple servers they would have to log-off on one and log-on on another. The single server concept provides common ground were it makes sense like user-management, inter-user-communication, maybe even a nice map of all timelines, possibility of "ghost" trails, possibility of fast-forward merges, etc. With multiple servers it would be hard to do so.

regards,
Face

EDIT:
In the light of BHawthorne's idea of democratically made decisions... what about a poll on the time-acceleration subject to really see how important time-acceleration is for the average Orbiteer?

 

[BHawthorne]

The reason why I prefer the idea of one server over many is that the goal of multi-player design is to interact with others and maintain a persistant environment that is directly effected by everyone involved. If everyone remained in thier own little micro-universes, it defeats the most basic purpose of multi-player, which is interacting with others. Multiple servers segragate people instead of enabling them to interact with everyone on a common ground. There aren't enough people that would use this to make multiple servers a good idea. A single server could easily accomodate all Orbiter online players at any given moment with a 64 player login cap.

 

[DarkWanderer]

In the light of BHawthorne's idea of democratically made decisions... what about a poll on the time-acceleration subject to really see how important time-acceleration is for the average Orbiteer?

Unfortunately, I can't create one. I've PMed the contents.

---------- Post added at 17:26 ---------- Previous post was at 17:18 ----------

If everyone remained in thier own little micro-universes, it defeats the most basic purpose of multi-player, which is interacting with others.

Maybe I just miss the point... Where would be the interaction in Face's scheme? Every player would detach to his own universe everytime he heads to Moon and back.
And if a player is able to do a flight to Pluto and back, then sync back to "main server time" and get the money for his flight - isn't it effectively a warp drive?

UPDATE: Face posted the poll, everyone interested - please express your opinion.

 

[Face]

Unfortunately, I can't create one. I've PMed the contents.

Thanks, I've put it up.

Maybe I just miss the point... Where would be the interaction in Face's scheme? Every player would detach to his own universe everytime he heads to Moon and back.
And if a player is able to do a flight to Pluto and back, then sync back to "main server time" and get the money for his flight - isn't it effectively a warp drive?

If someone is doing a change to the economics, they will be applied as good as possible to all timelines. I.e. if you detached and are heading for the moon and someone else is changing earth economics in your simulated past, it will still be forwarded to your simulation state as long as it is no "branch" in causality. Think 3-way-merge. The common ancestor of both situations is taken into account. E.g. earth "LOX" resource is not changing while you are heading to the moon, but another player is changing it in the simulated past in real-time, and this change can be easily applied to your timeline...

In addition, the "ghosts" appear in every timeline. For live-interaction, everyone would have to sync to a common bubble, though.

The back-in-time example you brought up is effectively time-travel into past. In this case, the system would not just accelerate your simulation to the sync-point, but time-skip you back to where you were on that point in time, with all economics set to this time, too. That's why Kaito wrote about bookmarks.

regards,
Face

 

[DarkWanderer]

The back-in-time example you brought up is effectively time-travel into past. In this case, the system would not just accelerate your simulation to the sync-point, but time-skip you back to where you were on that point in time, with all economics set to this time, too. That's why Kaito wrote about bookmarks.

So, if tomorrow I fly to asteroid belt, mine 5,000kg of uranium and then bring it back to Earth (e.g. it all took 2 yeras simtime) and sell, I'll have to wait till real November 2011 to buy something from another player, remaining in realtime?

 

[Face]

So, if tomorrow I fly to asteroid belt, mine 5,000kg of uranium and then bring it back to Earth and sell, I'll have to wait till real November 2011 to "merge" my new wealth with the common universe?

I don't see the need for a "common" universe. Your uranium trip is finished in Nov 2011. You can:
* tell your friends to sync up to your bubble in order to build a new huge station in earth with this uranium as power generator fuel, or
* bookmark your trip as "uranium route 1" and sync to someone else doing another approach in the route to see how it turns out, or
* jump back in time to try another trajectory to see if it works better
* tell others to follow your ghost to see your awesome planing skills
* jump back in time to the point where you entered a particular asteroid, and time-acc to a later point where someone else will arrive there to meet up with him and drink a virtual beer

With time-travel, there is no "real" November 2011. If you mean Nov. 2011 in real-life, then the answer is no.

regards,
Face

---------- Post added at 04:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:57 PM ----------

So, if tomorrow I fly to asteroid belt, mine 5,000kg of uranium and then bring it back to Earth (e.g. it all took 2 yeras simtime) and sell, I'll have to wait till real November 2011 to buy something from another player, remaining in realtime?

Ok, if you re-phrase it that way, the answer is: Yes. But why should someone remain in realtime all the time? He'd have to accelerate, too, in order to get some wealth...
After all, the wealth you generated with your flight took 2 sim-years to appear... why let it appear to a player in the sim-past?

 

[DarkWanderer]

OK, I see. However...
Scenario 2:
2 players hang in LEO with xx$ on account. Player 1 remains in realtime. Player 2 bookmarks his current state (including items and money!) and gives out all his money to player 1. Then "loads" his bookmark and syncs with player 1's bubble again. Player 1 has 2*xx$, Player 2 - xx$. Player 2 repeats until sun fades, getting infinite money for both. WHat's then?