View Full Version : No AI subs... Why not player subs?
Just curious why, if SH3 already had a dynamic campaign, AND multiplayer as an option, couldn't they graft the multiplayer into the dynamic campaign and make a DYNAMIC MULTIPLAYER CAMPAIGN?
Sure, there's a lot of particulars. But if they can't do AI subs, why not somehow figure a way people could do a dynamic campaign together?
(Plus it'd be even cooler with the player-run convoys and I-class IJN subs...)
Well anyway, it'd be cool.
I think the problem is time compression. How do you propose dealing with time compression in the multiplayer environment?
Seriously, I'll give a medal to anyone who manages to solve this question. Unfortunately I don't think any game developer has come up with an answer so far.
Keep it normal and allow the other players not involved in a combat to either be an observer, or fly or order around some kind of allied aircraft or somethin'.
Of course, opposing players could run the convoy AI too.
Something like that wouldn't be too bad.
I know it's pie in the sky for SH4, but SH4+ or SH5...
lol one person can use it at a time. I can imagin someones time compressed sub zooming by everyone else at mach 3 :D
Schatten
12-19-06, 06:59 PM
If you kept it at normal TC then you'd have to get pagers for everyone so they could run home from work every other Tuesday because someone spotted something. I don't think that would work.
The only way I can see an MP campaign working at all would be a coding nightmare. Play the game normally as you would in a regular campaign along with TC and all of that for each individual sub. Allow players to send radio reports back and forth (just to make it more interesting make them tap morse) whenever they want but only let people receive them when their relative time is the same as the radio message's send time. Then if 2 or more boats happen to arrive within a set range of one another kick it down to normal time so they can operate together. Or alternatively allow the first sub on the scene to control TC in the "bubble" until a minimum allowable range is reached then kick it back to normal time. That would be a royal pain in the posterior and I can think of several ways right off the bat to "break" it. But it's the only way I can think of to allow multiple subs to work together in an MP campaign environment.
The other way I could think to do MP would be to have more than one person on a single sub and then divide their duties like the regular AI officers you get. Weapons officer would handle that but not have access to the Radio, Nav would handle that but not have access to torpedos, etc. The Captain would have repeaters for everything but if a station is manned then the officer in charge of that station has to do all of the control inputs, and the Captain would have the TC key. The one station I'd let anyone man would be the guns, because guns are just fun. ;)
Unfortunately I don't see any real way to do an MP campaign that wouldn't be more complex to code than the benefit you'd get from it. At least not realtime, if there were a program that would collect and report data from multiple log files in realtime to make it "seem" like everyone's out there in the Pacific together then that would be cool, but you probably would never be able to run into a buddy's boat and run alongside flashing signal lamps at one another.
In flight sims you can do coop campaigns because the time frame is usually all in the matter of a day at most, with subs you're talking months for a long mission.
Tronics
12-20-06, 02:08 AM
Reverse the NWN2 time coding.
In Never Winter Nights and NeverWinter Nights 2 players can pause the game in MP, when you do this time stops. There used to be a spell in the first NWN for sorcerers called Timestop, but the sorcerer who casted it was immune from the pausing effect and could move around and interact with things.
Solution to TC in SH3 and SHIV. Put all player subs in a 'party' if you will and make TC effect everyone at the same time.
However all this processing would possibly kill whoever was the server.
players would need to be able to spawn in a certain area and have a limited number of teleports, that would be the only way.
Dont get me wrong SH3 is superb and im sure I will love SH4 too, But its a shame the DEvs seem to be either incapable or unwilling to spend time on coding an AI submarine, (come on guys - its not like its never been done before)
Its very strange not having any other submarines in a subsim, no matter how may ships and planes there are, It still makes me feel 'alone'
Safe-Keeper
12-20-06, 09:21 AM
I think the problem is time compression. How do you propose dealing with time compression in the multiplayer environment?Very easily. The lowest requested time compression rate goes. Like in DefCon and just about every other MP game with Time Compression.
Player 1: Sets time compression to x1024.
Player 2: Sets time compression to x512.
Player 3: Sets time compression to x1024.
Actual Time Compression: x512.
Simple as that.
Sailor Steve
12-20-06, 11:16 AM
So, since players will find more and more action, most of the time the TC will be set to 1, meaning everyone will be playing in real time and missing possible action because they have to go to work.
Safe-Keeper
12-20-06, 01:08 PM
Sounds fun to me.
The fact of the matter is, most subs were so far apart in their patrol zones, simultaneous combat would NOT matter. If you're separated by hundreds of miles at 1024, it's only the result of the combat that would matter. A convoy involved in combat in a different region could still even be plotted, results of the sub attack are tabulated afterwards.
If you wanna' get in on the fun, you'd have to be close enough to another sub to make a difference. Otherwise there isn't even really a reason to knock you out of 1024. Think about it...
PS and there is that group of players who WOULDN'T MIND playing the entire pacific war at 1-1.
I think they're nutz, but I think there's only like 8 of 'em.
Really though, you could set multiplayer so you could LOG IN to check and see if you've encountered anything on the hosts computer! Or like you said, have the master server email you when you encounter something...
1-1 would certainly be the simplist coding answer. Or even like 1-16 giving a VERY limited "bubble" to guys in combat.
Schatten
12-21-06, 06:28 PM
Simultaneous combat could matter if you were looking at one of your WWII books, saw that the Yamato would be at point X on such and such a day and time, crept out there and then while waiting for him to show up hear in realtime over your voice program from one of your buddies that he sank it two hours ago, 200 miles further down the line, because he did some TC that you didn't. Or even worse watching your fish about ready to impact on it and watching it slowly fade away because someone else found it somewhere completely differently due to TC. If you're not going to have the subs actually operate together without any sort of TC management code in place then you may as well play single player campaigns and post to a forum or what have you as a MP "workaround" like I believe the WaW does, or how the old B-17II groups did it.
As for playing the Pacific at 1:1 TC in MP so the game can never be shut down or saved, then the people that can pull that off are either: 1) the living definition of "idle rich" 2) Living in their parent's basements and should be getting out sometime before '43 to get a damn job or 3) probably going to get fired from their job if they go running out of a management meeting screaming "But I have to intercept the Akagi! My Computer pinged me!"...in which case you should seek serious professional help, immediately if not sooner. And better start looking for a new job to boot. :-?
Careful, you might offend people around here that would be willing to do that.
Really, that would be a job for a dedicated server. Lots of guys do that.
Even if it's running 1-16, I think that's doable. Something to think about or experiment with anyway.
Schatten
12-21-06, 10:54 PM
Don't mean to offend anyone, and I think playing a single player patrol at 1x is pretty admirable if you have the time for it. But MP at 1x would mean the entire war would have to run in realtime since there wouldn't be any saves and if you found people to do that, well...the point stands. Plus imagine if the host's computer shut off during a storm or something, I can see the headlines now.
A MP campaign isn't really doable at 1x I don't think for technological, real life, and sanity standpoints.
play n 1x all the way? well it will take you half a day just to get out of port :dead:
I think something more reasonable like 1-16 or even 1-32 would make more sense for an online campaign. That would at least minimize concerns of boats working the same patrol area simultaneously. Regardless, any option would require some kind of email and AFK support for the server. I think that would be the starting point.
With 1-32 at least in a day you could run an entire patrol.
It would definitely be a different kind of game.
I've thought a lot about this, it's a thing that I like to dream about from time to time. If the time compression problem could be somehow solved, then a dynamic campaign run on a dedicated server to which thousands of players could connect, would be something absolutely marvellous. Since in war there were not thousands os subs operational at the same time, there could be multiple instances. JUst think about it..,players could send radio messages between them...there would have to be an HQ....me got to go...sorry. I am at work
johan_d
01-11-07, 05:06 PM
Simple.. range!
Let the server keep track of the campaign, ship sunk, ship position. etc..
Every player can use TC, when in radius of another player it goes to real time, for those only, so wolfpack possible.
Every game day at 00:00 the TC drops to 0 untill everybody reaches it, and off we go again.
Still...things would be pretty tricky. It would maybe sometimes be frustrating to have your TC dropped to 1 in the worst possible moment. In EVE online, things are simple. Spacecrafts can simply warp and cover huge distances. But subs don't warp...they struggle to keep maybe 16 knots for several hours, with the cost of huge amounts of diesel being consumed. Anyway, I am pretty sure that a compromise could be found. The server would also have to be a very powerful one. The kills, the medals, the AI ships, everything, there is vast amount of information, the convoys, the planes.
iambecomelife
01-11-07, 09:10 PM
players would need to be able to spawn in a certain area and have a limited number of teleports, that would be the only way.
Dont get me wrong SH3 is superb and im sure I will love SH4 too, But its a shame the DEvs seem to be either incapable or unwilling to spend time on coding an AI submarine, (come on guys - its not like its never been done before)
Its very strange not having any other submarines in a subsim, no matter how may ships and planes there are, It still makes me feel 'alone'
Amen. I am not impressed to find out that the premier submarine simulator will once again omit AI submarines. I don't even care if they don't have waypoints and are simply spawned in response to a contact report - why not just put them in? It concerns me that "Aces of the Deep" incorporated AI subs fairly well with early 1990's computer technology, and today in 2007 it's supposedly too complicated for our modern processors and hard drives to handle. :roll: I am definitely buying this game when it comes out but IMO it had better blow me away, in other areas, if this basic feature is not going to be included...
:shifty: i am pretty confident that it won't blow you away. I respect the wonderful men at Ubi who lost their nights working in SH3, but this does not mean that I haven't thrown some things in their faces. I have a good friend who was part of the SH3 team, and I allways found it hilarious the way in which he tried to give me explanations to the lot of things unfinished in the game. Anyway, the point is that you should lower your expectations a bit. SH3 was like a wonderful stock car...which also missed a lot. It was like a Ferari with cheap tires.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.