When and If Orbiter gets Multiplayer, What would you like to do or be able to do?

[fireballs619]

I want a dedicated thread for orbiter multiplayer so these don't keep popping up every two weeks.

 

[statickid]

i think there already is a dedicated thread :idk:

 

[Hielor]

I want a dedicated thread for orbiter multiplayer so these don't keep popping up every two weeks.

This kind of *is* a dedicated thread.

 

[StevoPistolero]

Why do you need time compression?

Option A: Server Warp
You just set up different servers and fly in real time. You fly around the moon, and when you get far away you leave the server. You "warp" between the void between the servers and end up at Earth.

Option B: Small World

You base the game around Jupiter. All the action takes place there in real time.

Option C: Scaled world

You make everything closer together.

 

[Face]

Why do you need time compression?

In my opinion time compression is essential for an Orbiter multiplayer system. The "solutions" you listed deal with those long interplanetary distances, but not with the problem of playability of real-time space-travel.

This is why:

1. Even LEO operations take a long time to fulfill in real-time if we talk about current (and near-future) technology. If we are not talking about these, we can fast forward to FTL just as well, where no time compression is needed. But this is not the point of Orbiter, if I'm not mistaken.
2. You could come up with a draft for using persistent worlds to cope with space missions lasting some weeks. E.g. start your shuttle, set trajectory for ISS rendevous, log off, go sleep/eat/school/whatever, log on, final rendevous with ISS. This sounds all nice and such, but you have to time your real-life with simulation in order to log on at important points in simulation-time. There are some hard-core fans here that might do that, but not too many to justify a dedicated system running in that work-mode. In addition, scheduling round-the-world multiplayer-meetings is hard enough for one event, think about scheduling a whole mission with commanders, pilots and mission specialists.
3. Time-compression in Orbiter is part of the usual "play-flow" of doing missions. I bet you are using it sometimes during ascent, too, if not restricted by the addon-vessel you're using. If only for 10x... Have you ever tried a real-time mission? Maybe only Redstones? There is really a different "feeling" to it, and - to be honest - a really boring feeling. And being boring is something a multiplayer system should avoid. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about.

So to conclude my opinion: if you do multiplayer, you better do it with time-compression in mind.

regards,
Face

 

[garyw]

Why do you need time compression?

Option A: Server Warp
You just set up different servers and fly in real time. You fly around the moon, and when you get far away you leave the server. You "warp" between the void between the servers and end up at Earth.

If you go for this approach you might as well have jump gates but then if you do that you've removed a key part of Orbiter - the physics. You might as well play multiplayer freelancer.

Option B: Small World

You base the game around Jupiter. All the action takes place there in real time.

Going from Europa to Io will still take hours.

Option C: Scaled world

You make everything closer together.

Which will change the orbits and have worlds in the wrong place because the orbits take less time. Even scaled down, Earth to Mars will take hours and hours.

 

[RisingFury]

What about a time compression system where all players have to agree on the minimum time compression?

Let's say that two players are currently coasting on their way to the Moon or some place, but the third is entering orbit. The other two request time warp of 1000x, but the third leaves it at 1x. The minimum time compression gets chosen by the server. Once the third player enters orbit, he will allow greater time compression.

At any moment can any player reduce the time compression, so that they don't overshoot the target.

 

[garyw]

Doesn't work if someone is doing something and wants to do it in real time. I like to do all my entries in real time which is easily an hour of no time compression. I am sure the others going to the moon and doing other things will get fed up with me!

 

[Pyromaniac605]

[Rant]
The purpouse of this thread was about what you would like to do or be able to do NOT to rant all day about why certain things won't work. So PLEASE get this thread back on track and talk about what you would like to be able to do!
[/Rant]

Darren

 

[Face]

What about a time compression system where all players have to agree on the minimum time compression?

Let's say that two players are currently coasting on their way to the Moon or some place, but the third is entering orbit. The other two request time warp of 1000x, but the third leaves it at 1x. The minimum time compression gets chosen by the server. Once the third player enters orbit, he will allow greater time compression.

At any moment can any player reduce the time compression, so that they don't overshoot the target.

This kind of "voting" system was one of the early proposals for OMP. I think they may work in small, dedicated groups, let's say up to 10 clients with around 5 vessels doing a fleet-trip.

But as soon as you think about MMO, say up to 500 concurrent clients online, this quickly falls apart due to the mechanisms mentioned by garyw. That's why the time-bubble concept is using seperated "rooms" where dedicated groups can be organized dynamically.

regards,
Face

---------- Post added at 13:48 ---------- Previous post was at 13:44 ----------

[Rant]
The purpouse of this thread was about what you would like to do or be able to do NOT to rant all day about why certain things won't work. So PLEASE get this thread back on track and talk about what you would like to be able to do!
[/Rant]

Darren

Well, if multiplayer is here, I'd like it to have time-compression, as opposed to other opinions. I clearly described why I think so and I don't think this is off-topic here.

 

[fireballs619]

[Rant]
The purpouse of this thread was about what you would like to do or be able to do NOT to rant all day about why certain things won't work. So PLEASE get this thread back on track and talk about what you would like to be able to do!
[/Rant]

Darren

I think this thread is still far within its boundries, as everyone is discussing multiplayer. There have been threads that are much more off-topic than this.

 

[RisingFury]

But as soon as you think about MMO, say up to 500 concurrent clients online, this quickly falls apart due to the mechanisms mentioned by garyw.

500 clients? You don't even have 100 people on #orbiter-forum at one time, even if you include all the people idling there. I think it's well within reason to set up a system that works for ~10 people at once. You could create an "Are you here?" function that would ask players to confirm their presence if no input keys have been pressed for a while. You could then boot them off the server of set their time compression request to max.

 

[Face]

500 clients? You don't even have 100 people on #orbiter-forum at one time, even if you include all the people idling there. I think it's well within reason to set up a system that works for ~10 people at once. You could create an "Are you here?" function that would ask players to confirm their presence if no input keys have been pressed for a while. You could then boot them off the server of set their time compression request to max.

I already said that I think it could work for about 10 clients, too. You just have to keep in mind that scalability is nothing you can add on later.

If you compare server systems, it would be better to compare a multiplayer server with irc.systemnet.info, not with one chat-room. What if 2 clients decide to leave the crowd and go to jupiter instead?

It is all about a common goal. If all clients of the server want to do the same, it will work with whatever time-sync method you come up, be it democratic voting, leadership or max/min metrics. But if they do not want to do the same, they have to log off and join another server. Why not keeping them in one infrastructure with one name, one vessel history and one communication system (chat with other clients)?

Anyway, if multiplayer is here, I'd like time-compression taken into account in such a way, that I can time-acc whenever I wish to. But of course this is because of my vision of a sandbox-type multiplayer, no campaign-type.

regards,
Face

 

[StevoPistolero]

How about a global 2x time compression at all times? That would still enable docking.

 

[Face]

How about a global 2x time compression at all times? That would still enable docking.

Do you play Orbiter at 2x time compression normally?

In contrast to the "small world" solution to globally fix the distance, this is globally fixing the time. It would still mess up the "play-flow" of most Orbiter users.

 

[StevoPistolero]

Oh dear, I wrote a post and it didn't go through. Hmm.

Solution: multiple people per ship. You give out xp for each task accomplished.

So someone says "I need someone to burn in 3 hours". They come in, execute the maneuver. They post "I need someone to get this thing into orbit in 2 weeks". The ship persists, unmanned, until that time.

Same could be done for space stations. There is a to-do list, and people log in and out accomplishing tasks. If coordination is called for, say, "I need 3 people on Tuesday to assemble the arriving component"

No one completes a mission alone in real time. Thus you could have many, many, many ships floating around, not all manned actively.

 

[Face]

Oh dear, I wrote a post and it didn't go through. Hmm.

Solution: multiple people per ship. You give out xp for each task accomplished.

So someone says "I need someone to burn in 3 hours". They come in, execute the maneuver. They post "I need someone to get this thing into orbit in 2 weeks". The ship persists, unmanned, until that time.

Same could be done for space stations. There is a to-do list, and people log in and out accomplishing tasks. If coordination is called for, say, "I need 3 people on Tuesday to assemble the arriving component"

No one completes a mission alone in real time. Thus you could have many, many, many ships floating around, not all manned actively.

So to summarize: you'd like to have a real-time, persistent multiplayer environment with some kind of black-board system.

It is an interesting concept, but I don't think that this will work out in general because:

1. What about access rights? Do you want everyone to get your ship and screw around with it?
2. What if you can't find someone to do the job while you're away? Scrap the mission and start over?
3. Who is in charge of setting up the mission? Everyone? Just the server owner?

That said, I can imagine such a system to work for VSA-style missions.

regards,
Face

 

[StevoPistolero]

P.S. I want guns. They could even be completely virtual, i.e. no collission or damage model required. Just a damage counter in an MFD, and a statistical probability of kill system. When someone has an intercept vector, your ship gets sent a warning, "you will be intercepted in 45 minutes". Someone see the message and would then log in and take control of the ship.

 

[garyw]

Which will absolutely kill any chance of doing a collaborative mission. I really, really don't want that in a multiplayer system.

 

[StevoPistolero]

You could always opt out of damage. Your ship would be invincible. And no one would attack you.