It's been awhile since I've written a dev journal and we've got some new faces around here, so I'll take the opportunity to introduce myself. I'm Cari Begle, and I'm Stardock's Senior Game Designer and the programming lead on Elemental. I've been working here at Stardock for 10 years.
Today I'm going to talk about Multiplayer. I'll start with a quick rundown of the features for the people who haven't tried the beta, and then get into some techie talk for those of you who like to peek under the hood.
Elemental is true client-server where we host the servers, rather than the host player's machine acting as the server (which is a modified version of peer to peer) or true peer to peer where all the clients are connected to each other. This means that shouldn't need to open ports, and if the host player drops, the server picks a new host and the game can continue.
There are two multiplayer modes: quick match and custom games. In quick matches, you choose either 1 v 1 or 1 v AI, pick your sovereign and faction, and you will be matched with another player on a randomly chosen map. In custom games, the host picks the world settings and how many players and then waits in a lobby for other players to join by clicking on the game entry in the available games list.
With 1.09, we're enabling multiplayer save games for custom and 1 v AI games. Only the host can save, and the game also auto saves periodically. The save games overwrite, so there is only ever one save per game, and if a host player quits or disconnects before the end of a game and the new host saves the game, the original host's save game is removed so that the new host is the only one with a save for that game. Save games are also automatically removed when the end game results are posted. Save games are saved to the cloud, so they can be loaded from any computer as long as you're logged in as the player who saved it.
In order to help you out at the beginning of a multiplayer game, you start with a spouse. Also, all the multiplayer maps have gold and fertile land placed around the starting locations of the players. If you let the game pick the map randomly, it will attempt to pick one that has enough starting location for all the players, but if you open up additional slots you may need to return to the world setup screen to pick a new map.
All battles are instant battles like in Civ5. We won't be enabling tactical battles in multiplayer until after they've been revamped.
To chat, hit the quote/single quote key. Currently, it only supports chat to all because I need a better dialog for it with tabs or something.
Multiplayer is interesting to code because you can't simply do something, you have to send a message and wait for the response so that all the clients stay in synch. This means that you can't code linearly, and you have to handle not receiving a response. It's much like programming a multi-threaded application, except slightly more complicated because you're sending and receiving data from other computers, not just other threads. It requires you to think a different way when writing your code, and unfortunately most schools don't really do a good job of teaching this, even the game development schools like Digipen and FullSail. At least the graduates from game dev schools generally have more practical programming experience than schools with a traditional computer science degrees.
Say you want to move a unit to a notable location. If you were only concerned with single player, you'd simply translate the coordinates of the right mouse click to world coordinates, set the destination so that the unit can calculate a path, and boom, it starts moving as soon as the path is calculated. In multiplayer, there are more concerns.
To start with, every object in the game that is not purely cosmetic has to have the same ID as the corresponding object on the server and other clients so that it can be identified. This allows us to send events which can originate either on a client or the server with the data needed to perform the desired action, and an identifier in the event to indicate what the action is. When the event is received by the server, it processes it and either marks the event as failed or succeeded and in most cases forwards it to the clients to be processed. In some cases, like when the player requests a new turn, we just want to notify the server and not forward the message to the other clients. Then when all the players have requested a new turn, the server sends out an event notifying the clients. When the server or clients receive an event, they use the data stored in the event to access the objects that sent the event and perform the action that was requested.
For example, if Unit A attacks Unit B, I create an Attack event and store Unit A's ID as the attacker and Unit B's ID as the defender. The event is converted to a block of bytes and sent out to the server. The server restores the event from the block of bytes and gets pointers to Unit A and Unit B. If unit B isn't already dead from a previous attack, the server performs the attack and stores the results in the event, which it forwards to the clients. The clients receive the event, get pointers to A and B, and process the battle results (brings up the results screen, levelupwnd, etc). Now, since turns are simultaneous, it's possible that Unit C may have also tried to attack Unit B but was a little slower and so its event arrives on the server second. If Unit B is already killed, the server simply marks the event as failed and forwards it on to the clients so that they can handle the failure. Otherwise, the event is processed normally.
Well, I've stayed up working on this journal later than I intended, so I'm going to call it a night.
Will custom sovereigns and custom factions be added into multiplayer at some point? The customization features are such an integral part of this game, it's really a shame if they were to be left out of multiplayer!
Oh almost forgot: On my system there is a strange problem where the unit walking animations seem to jerk and don't progress smoothly. It's very conspicuous and only happens in multiplayer.
With all due respect...a disgraceful multiplayer implementation or non-implementation. AOW & AOWSM has a great tb/mp "system". Stable to this day. Hell...Alpha Centauri/SMAC worked wonderfully. Hell...HMM3 worked. These are all "old" games. What am I missing? I am not a programmer so I don't know why...I am a purchaser/supporter of good products that work ( as advertised ). Oh well, my mistake for being "fooled".
That "Game mode" is called "Turn Based". You know, like a Turn Based Strategy game?
Simultaneous turn, in my opinion, are a poor attempt to reflect RTS mechanics. The fact that you could retreat your unit before the other person has the time to select it, rather defies the concept of turn based strategy games. I'm not too found of timers either. All those things are incorporated to avoid grief and such, again, a semi reflection of competitive play and random peer matchmaking. All things that don't necessarily jive well with turn-based strategy games.
Taking a more concrete example with Elemental, unless it's a tiny map, you won't want to play a game with a random stranger. No way of knowing, before hand, if that person is available for another session later, etc... (Unless you play 30 hours straight ) So if you are playing with someone you "know" I'd be very surprised that you would need to have in game timer mechanics to avoid people from stalling the game or taking too long. You'll know really quickly if the person's playstyle matches your own.
I'm curious how simultaneous turns will work once the game is playable 2 VS AI. If the AI gets to move at the same time as you, try to move your units faster than an AI
Although I understand the factor it can summon to think about, how long would it take for 16 players to do a 5 minute turn each... Well that's what TBS multiplayer IS. Have you ever played table top games like, Axis & Allies and Bells of War (WW2 Strategy)? A player turn can easily vary between 20 minutes to 40 minutes. And can even get worse with time. Crazy example, in Bells of War Russian & US player starts in something like 30 turns. Ok, it's modified depending on how quickly the german player takes Poland and the other countries, but it's can still mean that they couldn't play for maybe even the first game session.
In any case, I'm not against it being available. I just hope it would be an option rather than a hard coded factor.
Still don't understand. There ISN'T simultaneous turns for player in offline game for now. As far as I can see, it is "true" turn-based, when I move all my units, then computer do the same. NO computer movements during my turn.
Am I miss something? Maybe my Elemental actually totally different from other builds?
BTW, what sort of "simultaneous" turns we speak for now? I can imagine two of it: in first one you move your units, and your opponent do the same, and results calculated in realtime. It would be poor sort of RTS then. I don't like it.
And the second one is better: you plan your movement for all your units, but it gave no "actual" results on this turn. Then, when all players finished, server calculates all numbers and gives results to players. It is not very reaction-based then, not so fancy, but give you "true" simultaneous TB instead. And allows PBEM too.
The AI take all the computer's processing power, so it cannot accept your commands till the AI has made all its moves.
Carielf, what's the point (in terms of amount of gamestate information) at which you have to ditch something like a client-server model and implement a simultaneous simulations model?
I had no intention of "trolling," and am sorry if you saw it was an attack - I had no intention of attacking anyone, especially not personally, and I apologize if it came off this way. I was, however, very put off by the way that Nikitosina approached the comment by calling server-client "old," and asking him why they aren't doing it his way. If you are going to respond to a journal entry posted in that person's own free time, a certain amount of respect is due.
agreed but seems respect hath died here
1SuperG
You wrote:
"Also, I got locked up in my game where I couldn't end a turn at all. I could click on all sorts of things, but I could NOT progress the turn. 20 minutes later, I just quit. I don't know if somebody clicked "next turn" while somebody was moving or what, but it was pretty frustrating."
I actually had this happen to me and eventually I figured out what the problem was. I had a "scout" unit set to auto-explore but he quit exploring when he ran into an AI border and could no longer advance. I had to give him a move order before the game would let me continue. If you check the left side of the screen at your list of groups you will probably see one that still hasn't moved waiting for an order.
I don't even know HOW to use auto-scout, but maybe the guy I was playing with did. I'll check. Thanks!
I checked, and he DID have a scout on Auto-Explore. Hopefully this opens a path for investigation with Stardock!
Thanks!
TBS have been using sim turns for years now. It works well and is NOTHING like RTS titles. If you think they play the same or are the same, i would suggest you are not playing very many titles from both genres MP style.
how about this for the multiplayer:
The turns themselves are on timer (configurable)
but, there is no 'Pass' or 'End turn' button.
The time flows normally... you decide what to do with your time... move or wait and plan....
So if you want to sit and stockpile resources, just wait...
if you want to move, attack, conquer, cast magic, you have an allotment of time (yes, real time)...
That way, the server counts down, and then renews all resources at once...
That will have to change your approach (server will not be able to determine who attacked who first - and resolve that, the clients will do that - Peer to Peer, with server only marking who won [died] and who is still alive at that location [giving the new attacker quite a surprise]).
That opens a lot of new possiblities, such as sneaking on opponents (if you have an invisibility spell.... ), waiting for the last second of a turn in order to ambush a weakened opponent after a series of fights and more...
I find this idea very appealing and in the spirit of Elemental:War...
What do ya think?
I hope I am wrong but I don't believe at all that online or even LAN multiplayer in this game will work at all. It will be hard to keep players committed to a game like this when they start losing. TBS tend to last a long time and having the losing side waiting to make just a couple of moves while the winning side plays its long rich and satisfying turn just never works in my experience (I have played games like this for 30 years, starting with cardboard wargames).
The only way I have ever managed to get this kind of games going was PBEM (Play By E Mail). I have played huge maps of "Age of Wonders" and "Age of Woneders Shadow Magic" for months, one turn each day. A player plays his turn then sends it to the other player who sends it to the next...
The way we made it work was as follows:
I would usually make a map then start playing. After about a couple of weeks of rounds I start another game with the same people so that we have two going at the same time, then another couple of week and I start a third one. Three is the good number usually.
That way after about 2 months of playing certain players start realizing that they are weaker then the others, but keep playing all games for several reasons:
1 They have other two games going where they hope they will be able to win.
2 The game where they are starting to lose start to be boring for them, but since their empire is smal (they are losing) playing their turns is not that time consuming.
Before they realize that they are condened and I am also going to win the next game the first game is over and a fourth has started. I can tell out of personal experience and years of testing (!!!) that SUCH SYSTEM WORKS. On the other end if we were playing at the same time, the losing side would have to wait an hour for me to end my turn, when they just have a couple of units left. NOBODY WOULD EVER DO THAT! And it would be embarrassing to me to enjoy myself while my friends are clearly bored.
This is a very important piece of info for the developers, I should make a specific post out of this.
A number of TBS players play cooperatively with friends. When I play games like these, they can take weeks, even months. Nobody really cares when you are playing with people you actually know. Competitive is a different animal which is why I think the devs keep getting mixed signals.
Agree with Nesrie. I think there will be a lot of people satisfied by duplicating single player in multiplayer but with humans filling in for some of the AI. If this is not happening for technical reasons its a bit easier to swallow. If however it is purely a design decision to branch the development of the game into two completely different versions with different rules, tech trees, and maps, I think it's a mistake, or at least it's a mistake to not give players the option to choose which style of multiplayer they would rather play.
me and my friends just want a regual mutilplayer like single player exprince just like you get with civizliation you know you get random map and every thing on it include placement is random with defualt start up with just your guy just like you do in single player with all magic and so forth same.
is that going to be allowed ?
if not then my friends see no reason to buy game we usally play games like this soly on the mutilplayer exprince with single player abilty so we can compete or run our own kingdoms in same world its why we like civ 4 so much.
I like this idea.
It keeps every one engaged whilst providing a consistant pace.
nvm.
untimate elemental wrote:
"Thanks for the update.
I hope multiplayer won't suck up too much of your resources.
The main thrust of the game is single player and their are still bug fixes (out of memory crashes), ui improvements, ai improvements and balancing issues + magic system improvements + combat system improvements that need to be done. I hope those areas get the most focus going forward."
I wholeheartedly agree: And I hope frogboy reads this. I would especially like to see the tactical system fixed via some sort of:
Primary quick fix = each unit moves/attacks/fortify /casts/etc. based on its individual initiative relative to all other units in tactical screen. This replaces all of one side's units 'acting', then all the other side's units 'act.' The number of action points = number of 'moves/attacks/casts that unit may attempt. Initiative is how quickly the unit will decide, if enabled to act, and begin using that turns action points. Action points = how 'much' a unit can attempt. Initiative = the sequence in which it may begin 'moving/acting/casting/fortifying' relative to ALL other units on the battle screen
Then, perhaps, address fixing the tactical system completely:
1. bow attenuation = attack strength that decreases as range to target increases, each bow type has max range.
2. casting time as related to complexity of spell and Magic user's current level. The length of time to prepare casting spells may be shortened based upon how much the caster's current level exceeds the level of spell being cast. Example: Level 5 caster casts a level 2 spell much faster that casting a level 4 spell, etc.
basic commands: Move = unit attempts to move towards selected square. Attack = unit attempts to attack enemy unit. Fortify = unit attempts to fortify in current location (must currently have fortify skill from tech research). Cast = magic user attempts to begin casting selected spell (which, obviously, must already be known by the magic user).
New basic command: Follow and attack = melee unit attempts to close with the selected enemy unit and melee attack it.
conditional commands: are set of 'reacting' commands given to units that don't move/attack/fortify/cast. These commands may be attempted by the unit IF the enemy does certain things. Reaction commands may be given to appropriate units that are not given a basic command.
Melee charge unit moves towards and melee attacks first enemy that approaches within # squares.
Missle attack = archery unit launch arrow volley against first enemy unit that closes distance to set # of squares.
Missle counter volley = Archery unit fires back at enemy archers that fire on it. Decisions for player: do you want your archers to fire back at other archers? or save their arrows for a possible melee against themselves and/or nearby friendly melee units they are supporting?)
Skrimish away = unit will move away from approaching enemy so as to maintain a specifically chosen # of squares between it and 'approaching' enemy unit, and generally towards the 'friendly' side or nearest friendly unit. Unit always saves enough action points to melee the first enely that moves adjacant.
other comments: perhaps a particular units initiative might be 'increased' based upon physical nearness to senior commander in battle (SOV, heirs according to place in line of succession, tactical commander (new unit/skill not made yet, like administrator/farmer/miner). Also, this system would create a real use for 'rockslide spell, etc. This basic system would not need the develope to create 'facing' for units.
Run away, conceilment, etc would be great to add on, but only when facing for units is (hopefully) added.
Yes.
You can do a simultaneous simulation using client/server for the network code, because you're still exchanging data to make sure that you're staying in synch. Client-server just refers to how that information travels. Peer to peer or modified client-server where the host acts as the server (which is a form of peer to peer) just means that you don't have to have dedicated servers.
We would not have to change to peer to peer for automatic turns. The network model is independent of game mechanics. That being said, I don't think that this would be less annoying than having a turn timer that is started by the first human's turn.
ElanaAhova (and this also goes for everyone else too), please don't hijack people's threads. That goes for any of the developer's threads or other users. It's hard enough for us to sift though everything without having people reply to a thread and start talking about something completely different.
Can't agree with that. This is the most annoying system I've ever seen in my life. Not all turns need to be the same length, depending on what I'm doing. When I get one of my short turns (units are on the way to X, towns are already building, not a lot needs doing), I can effectively grief the other players by simply ending my turn instantly and block them from doing almost anything even if they happen to need one of their longer turns (setting up buildings, making units, combat, etc).
And if co-op play existed, it'd just force me to not end my turn at all until my teammates are ready for me to, because I don't want to stop them from doing stuff.
We've added in options to turn off the timer entirely and a slider to increase the turn time. They're currently only on the options screen under game options, but we'll probably be adding a multiplayer options screen to access off the world setup screen at some point.
We have been playing MULTI GAME several times by 4 or 5 ppl.1.09b is more better than 1.08b.
BTW, we may not often notice that a turn has already begun.We'd like to see message "Turn xxx start" in every turn.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
