Pause -- essential for me, but does it work in co-op?

Engine, AI, scripting, that sort of thing.

Re: Pause -- essential for me, but does it work in co-op?

PostPosted by DWMagus » Wed Jul 24, 2013 2:21 pm

j624 wrote:I could very easily have missed something, or it could have changed since I read this, but I thought Lars said somewhere that a co-op game would have to start from scratch instead of continuing a single-player game. If that is the case, then I would imagine single player and co-op are completely separate, so while the player who is behind in your example would miss the story events in co-op, it wouldn't affect their single player game and they could see those events happen in their single player game.


I'm not actually referring to single player.

However you did bring up an interesting point. I've been using the corollary to Diablo probably too much. In Diablo, only player progress is saved. This means that if they start a game, the world is considered 'clean' and no quests have happened, despite where the player is in the story. That means that if they're on chapter 2, they could theoretically go back to chapter 1 and kill the boss of that chapter.

If in Frontiers, the gave progess is saved, so that if Player A creates the game and is on say, Quest 4, and then Player B joins him as a new player, he would be unable to do quests 1, 2, and 3. It also depends on whether completing those quests are a pre-requisite to even doing Quest 4. If that's the case, Player B may not be able to join Player A.

Man, thanks for pointing that out. I owe everyone an apology. Sorry guys. I knew I'd get in trouble if I assumed. :P
Early Spring - 1055: Well, I made it to Boatmurdered, and my initial impressions can be set forth in three words: What. The. F*ck.
User avatar
DWMagus
Explorer
 
Posts: 415
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 6:33 pm
Location: Denver, CO, United States

Re: Pause -- essential for me, but does it work in co-op?

PostPosted by Zolana » Wed Jul 24, 2013 2:23 pm

j624 wrote:
Zolana wrote:
j624 wrote:
I could very easily have missed something, or it could have changed since I read this, but I thought Lars said somewhere that a co-op game would have to start from scratch instead of continuing a single-player game. If that is the case, then I would imagine single player and co-op are completely separate, so while the player who is behind in your example would miss the story events in co-op, it wouldn't affect their single player game and they could see those events happen in their single player game.


But what would happen if you were playing with 2 friends on a co-op level, and then the next day only you and 1 other friend played. If the second friend re-joined at a later stage, they'd still be left behind right?


Yeah, I realized that halfway through my reply. It still wouldn't affect their single player game, right? It's not ideal, but at least their not completely missing story altogether (unless they only play co-op).


If the two worlds are separate (which if single player and co-op are kept as separate games is almost certainly the case), then it ought not to be an issue :)
-Zolana

Generic ramblings about life, the universe, and everything: http://awjc.wordpress.com

Feel free to add me on Steam, but PM me here so I know who is adding me :)!
Zolana
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 323
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 11:48 am
Location: Woking, United Kingdom

Re: Pause -- essential for me, but does it work in co-op?

PostPosted by gad » Wed Jul 24, 2013 2:50 pm

@DW,

Good point, the instance aspect of doing "individual" playing on a co-op server is pretty intense logically on the back end. It is difficult to determine what is the solution.

---

Other people have concerns with people being ridiculous and pausing for no reason. I like the point Marv brought up about resting through the night in minecraft. In co-op there could be a "leader" like the server host have supreme pausing power overall. Then you could have a "bed" or an "orb" everybody can activate for a pause to be initiated by a "non-leader." Then to be accepted by everyone else, including leader, to become in effect. It eliminates the ridiculous situation where a random person joining can negatively pause the game. While allowing a chosen coordinator to be the "leader" and have a mature/adult attitude towards pausing.

Then everybody can be on the same page quest-wise and chronologically through the game. Anyone (except leader) could quit/re-join at anytime but would gain no XP and have all the quests/etc. completed that was done by the party while they were away, but gaining no rewards/items from them. It makes sense, if you were in a real adventuring party and you left the party for whatever reason. You would come back with no progress relevant to that party and be on the at the same "quest" progress as them.

In addition I think that if a player, after a pause has been initiated, has an issue in life they need to attend. Like a roast in the oven, or some emergency they have to travel away from their machine. The ability to "boot" a player so the story can progress should be there. Only accessible by the "leader" of the server. That way the game doesn't halt because of unforeseen circumstances. I think simple is better and the more complicated you make the "fix" to this, some other bad scenario will generate from it.
Quod erat demonstrandum
User avatar
gad
Engineer
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:40 pm
Location: Asheville, NC

Re: Pause -- essential for me, but does it work in co-op?

PostPosted by Zolana » Wed Jul 24, 2013 3:02 pm

gad wrote:
Other people have concerns with people being ridiculous and pausing for no reason.



If pausing only applied to the player who paused it for themselves, this wouldn't be an issue (and would also allow everyone else to carry on while that player was AFK surely?
-Zolana

Generic ramblings about life, the universe, and everything: http://awjc.wordpress.com

Feel free to add me on Steam, but PM me here so I know who is adding me :)!
Zolana
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 323
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 11:48 am
Location: Woking, United Kingdom

Re: Pause -- essential for me, but does it work in co-op?

PostPosted by DWMagus » Wed Jul 24, 2013 3:21 pm

gad wrote:@DW,

Good point, the instance aspect of doing "individual" playing on a co-op server is pretty intense logically on the back end. It is difficult to determine what is the solution.


It's actually not too difficult. It really depends on the network architecture type. If the server 'trusts' the client (it does no action authentication when a client states it performs an action), then things can all be done client-side and the server acts only as a hub.

In MMOs, the server can't exactly trust the client since they need to prevent cheaters. The client basically says "I want to perform action A, can I?" and the server says "No", the action is discarded; if it says "Yes", then it replicates the action to all other clients within range that 'care' about the action.

If the server trusts the client, the client says "I'm performing action A" and the server just replicates it out. This is how people were able to hack Diablo 1. The server did no checking, so you had a bad client saying "I hit player X for damage Y while in town" and the server just replicated this across.

Since this isn't an MMO, nor is it competitive, the easiest solution is just to have the server replicate. This makes the back-end really light and easy to work with. But, if you make the world's persistence on the server, instead of the client, you should be able to utilize the same ideas; where the player's progress is independent of the game state. It means that it matters not who hosts the game, it allows characters to be both multiplayer and singleplayer, as well as opens up the potential to have a backend framework similar to battle.net (all of which tie in easily once you separate the player progress from the game state).

Then again, Diablo didn't have anything that was considered 'world changing' to the point where there were one-way doors in the game's progression.

I know this got a little bit technical, but my mind works in an interesting way.
Early Spring - 1055: Well, I made it to Boatmurdered, and my initial impressions can be set forth in three words: What. The. F*ck.
User avatar
DWMagus
Explorer
 
Posts: 415
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 6:33 pm
Location: Denver, CO, United States

Re: Pause -- essential for me, but does it work in co-op?

PostPosted by Railboy » Wed Jul 24, 2013 4:36 pm

In FRONTIERS a lot of the problems you're bringing up about syncing up events are solved by laziness on my part. Diablo and the like had to deal with the fact that the world was split up into a bunch of discrete chunks of gameplay - in FRONTIERS there is one level, the world, and all the players coexist within that world. So when you're in different regions it just means you're separated by more space, not that you're actually in a different gameplay / logic space.

I think there's also some conceptual confusion about the quests in FRONTIERS. I've never really talked about them before, so I'll try to give you an idea of what to expect.

In most games quests are highly modular, linear chunks of gameplay with a discrete beginning, middle and end. There are also very clear conditions for completing the quest. In FRONTIERS quests are more like a loose guide. A quest is accepted by an individual, not by a party. (There are no parties.) The goals can be viewed by anyone and many can be accomplished by anyone but the quest can only be completed by the individual that accepted it. And you will 'fail' quests as often as you complete them - sometimes the outcome of an earlier quest will make the current quest impossible to complete, for instance. But that doesn't mean the game is broken or that you can't succeed, it just means that you fail that goal and have to work around it. There's no gameplay penalty for failure because you don't get experience for completing quests. Experience comes mostly from exploring new areas on an individual basis.

So when I hear questions about players completing quests ahead of you, or catching up to the current quest, or different players being in 'different parts of the story' - things like that - my first thought is, we're talking about a different game. There isn't a 'story' that you're witnessing in a strict linear sequence - there are just 'things to do' that eventually add up to a story over time. And you can do them together, or not. It helps that there aren't a lot of rigidly scripted scenarios. I think I could count them on one hand.

(It's funny that it's so hard to describe this kind of gameplay because the closest analogue I can think of is real life! What could be simpler?)

As for the arbitrary limit of 4 players - 2 player co-op seemed like too few and 3 was a weird number. More than 4? That felt like something that could wait until I had 4 in the bag.
Language is to the mind more than light is to the eye.
User avatar
Railboy
Developer
Developer
 
Posts: 1845
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 10:46 pm
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: Pause -- essential for me, but does it work in co-op?

PostPosted by Zolana » Wed Jul 24, 2013 5:03 pm

Thanks for the clarification Lars, it certainly makes it much simpler :D!
-Zolana

Generic ramblings about life, the universe, and everything: http://awjc.wordpress.com

Feel free to add me on Steam, but PM me here so I know who is adding me :)!
Zolana
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 323
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 11:48 am
Location: Woking, United Kingdom

Re: Pause -- essential for me, but does it work in co-op?

PostPosted by j624 » Wed Jul 24, 2013 7:01 pm

DWMagus wrote: I know this got a little bit technical, but my mind works in an interesting way.


Well, I didn't follow any of what you said, but the name of the subforum is "Technical Stuff"
Hold on... I've got something around here... just give me a second...
j624
Apprentice
Apprentice
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 4:56 pm

Re: Pause -- essential for me, but does it work in co-op?

PostPosted by Bobomancer » Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:07 pm

Railboy wrote:The next-simplest option might be to modify DWMagus' suggestion and just make it really, really easy to drop out of the game temporarily - not actually disconnect, but merely cease to be present and have an influence in the game world. This wouldn't affect other characters.


Oh, I see somebody's never been the victim of a train-puller. :)

(This is a griefing tactic where you go out and get a bunch of mobs to chase you, then you run up to somebody you want to annoy and as the monsters are closing in, log out. World of Warcraft, for instance, has spent a lot of coding energy trying to stop this and it still happens.)

FWIW my co-op pause suggestion would be that if one player pauses, the game continues. But if all players pause at once, the clock stops. Maybe with a visual indicator that other players have paused.

As an alternative to that, one of the earlier editions of AD&D described a magic rope that you could climb up into a pocket dimension, then pull the rope up behind you. That always sounded like a fun thing to have.
User avatar
Bobomancer
Apprentice
Apprentice
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:31 pm

Re: Pause -- essential for me, but does it work in co-op?

PostPosted by Josiah » Thu Aug 01, 2013 6:15 pm

The way it works in Fable 2 and 3 co-op, is that when one player pauses the game, or opens a menu, the other player gets a faded screen. That signifies that the other player is currently busy. Honestly, I quite like that system.

Another route for mutli-player, rather than co-op, would be to allow players to go afk. During that time they literally freeze in time. This way they can't be attacked, etc. The other player can then continue to get resources, etc., when their friend is busy. That would probably be less frustrating.
User avatar
Josiah
Rock Namer
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 11:24 am
Location: Washington DC

Previous

Return to Technical Stuff

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest