OpenXCom multiplayer

[76561198292631324]

Certainly a lot of you X-COM 1993 players and veterans have asked yourselves a question on how would it be if OpenXCom brought in a multiplayer feature? My first thought on that was it would certainly be amazing to the point of wiping out the necessity to even try out any further games of similar genre save for the reason other than curiosity, as long as we speak primarily of sheer gameplay experience. But actually, taking a look at how multiplayer often relates to single player campaign, I presently state that OpenXCom would be a bad on-line competetive product, unless under strict and particular presets regarding time distribution among players, available equipment and soldiers excellence, turns management and more. Otherwise speaking, the game would have to be particularly tuned or even partially re-invented for the sake of multiplayer. Do you agree with that or you consider typical OpenXCom skirmish mode as sufficient model for good over-the-internet match? If you think the game would be demanded to undergo changes to suit given purpose, what these would need to be?

[76561198292631324]

Maybe only direct beta testing could provide some answers to this question. But the case is: would you be interested in playing OpenXCom multiplayer, even if only one-on-one lan-connection matches were available directly the way skirmish mode works at the actual? Maybe some experience is to be taken from the XCOM 2012 release with the armies points values, which actually, I believe, was borrowed from Games Workshop tebletop battle figure resolutions.

But what is your intuition on that - would OpenXCom be a decent multiplayer ground or would it end up as a major disappointment, taking the technical side to be done correctly? Certainly turns would last long involving some ten to fourteen soldiers on each side.

[76561198292631324]

I was wondering whether a kickstarter initative could motivate the guys behind OpenXCom to introduce multiplayer function. The case is - are the fans to be satisfied with the final result? Is the game workable in discussed matter at all?

[76561198292631324]

While being a fan of classical Fallouts, as much as I dislike Fallout Tactics, there are certain things it possesses that are worth to take look into regarding technical implementations. Namely, there are three different modes the turns are resolved. First one is continous-turn-based mode, which is a real-time game, based on given time sequences equivalent to how much certain actions would absorb the unit in regular turn-based system. I would call it rather unhandy taking how the game was done, as well as it little benefits the OpenXCom. On the other hand, two other options are of our interest - these are "squad-turn-based" and "individual-turn-based". While what we get in the X-COM is typical squad-turn-based, I personally think individual-turn-based should work in multiplayer best. So how does it look like? Only one soldier is to be played during a turn. Now there is a choice to be made. Either each turn a soldier is selected from an entire squad with the soldier switch option, or the que follows pre-defined pattern set before the game begins. For sure free choice option is more comfortable, as well as demands less novelty to be introduced.

I believe each side would have to have exactly the same amount of units. This would allow to organize the game into "small turns" and "big turns". Small turns regard single character actions and activity swaps between players, while big turns would end once all the sides characters have been moved or skipped action. With the big turn being over, with the start of a new one, the action points should regenerate accordingly with the OpenXCom system.

In order to make it work, once a unit is played, it is marked as "used" and thus - without regard whether it has any action points left - is out of the selection in following small rounds until the end of the current big turn. Other way - swapping units at the beginning of the round would take a separate time-restricted phase, while the choice should be confirmed to allow the access to regular functions panel. Even though to make it simple I consider the second option unnecessary.

Since both the players have the same amount of units, the points measure could regard the employed power. Therefore special attention is to be put to properly value equipment and ranks.

[76561198292631324]

Originally posted by "wHAT":

Small turns regard single character actions and activity swaps between players, while big turns would end once all the sides characters have been moved or skipped action.

Which indicates that if a turn is ended without undertaking any endeavours with a given unit selected, the unit is counted as "used". Due to the lack of an option to avoid choosing any soldier, a player is forced to exploit one each turn, just like in a game of chess. Still though, if any appropriate number of action points is left, the exploited unit is considered on guard, accordingly with the system of X-COM.

I think the option regarding number of units obligatory for each player participating ought to be included in the hosting screen. It could be different than the maximum capacity of a carrier vehicle, if to employ carrier vehicles at all, even though they may be useful if blaster launchers are in play.

Maximum total number of equipment and excellence points worth value must also be settable.

The players should have the possibility to build and save their squads beforehand, just to load and possibly modify them to fit the demands of particular match.

The following advanced settings - based on latest Nightly OpenXCom version for 16 August 2016 - would benefit the experience if to include them in the hosting screen as switchable:

UFO extender accuracy
Instant grenades
Explosion height
Pistol auto shot
Gun melee
Improved heavy laser
Improved ground tanks
Improved Hi-X damage
Psionic line of fire
Allow psi-capture
No psionics
TFDF damage model
*Opponent* weapon self-destruct
*Hide* panic messages for *opponent*
Alternate movement methods
Override line of fire
Enhanced soldier sprites

[76561198292631324]

Originally posted by "wHAT":

UFO extender accuracy
Instant grenades
Explosion height
Pistol auto shot
Gun melee
Improved heavy laser
Improved ground tanks
Improved Hi-X damage
Psionic line of fire
Allow psi-capture
No psionics
TFDF damage model
*Opponent* weapon self-destruct
*Hide* panic messages for *opponent*
Alternate movement methods
Override line of fire
Enhanced soldier sprites

Including these would complicate the execution of multiplayer, therefore I would say it could be fixed permanently like this:

UFO extender accuracy = yes
Instant grenades = no
Explosion height = 1
Pistol auto-shot = yes
Gun melee = yes
Improved heavy laser = yes
Improved ground tanks = no
Improved Hi-X damage = no
Psionic line of fire = yes
Allow psi-capture = yes
TFDF damage model = yes/no - which is more suitable?
*Opponent* weapon self-destruct = no [looting is fun]
*Hide* panic messages for *opponent* = yes
Alternate movement methods = yes, definitely
Override line of fire = yes
Enhanced soldier sprites = no

No psionics - okay, that one could be switchable
No blaster launcher - one to add as switchable as well

[76561198292631324]

Originally posted by "wHAT":

No psionics - okay, that one could be switchable
No blaster launcher - one to add as switchable as well

Third switchable option: Earth technology only.

[76561198292631324]

Originally posted by "wHAT":

Maximum total number of equipment and excellence points worth value must also be settable.

The amount of units to be included in play at each side depends entirely on the hosting settings and is obligatory, but with maximum equipment points-value limit, any outcome is accepted as long as it is beneath or equal to given threshold.

The question is whether tanks should be treated as units, equipment or both?

[76561198292631324]

Originally posted by "wHAT":

I believe each side would have to have exactly the same amount of units. This would allow to organize the game into "small turns" and "big turns". Small turns regard single character actions and activity swaps between players, while big turns would end once all the sides characters have been moved or skipped action. With the big turn being over, with the start of a new one, the action points should regenerate accordingly with the OpenXCom system.

During the course of match, the amount of units on each side will become odd. How the rounds will be resolved then? The side having more soldiers than the opponent will just take extra small turns until all the characters were used, so to be able to start another big turn.

[76561198292631324]

Taking that the amount of available unit "slots" for each side would always be equal, if tanks were counted cost-wise as an even number of units with some equipment points included, it is possible that players employing tanks would have less soldiers from the start.

[76561198292631324]

The so called "asynchronous play" could be utilized for the sake of OpenXCom multiplayer, which would allow to optimize the time spent upon the game without having to actually wait for the other player to make all his moves, awaiting for ones own turn. It has been introduced for example in Warhammer 40K Regicide by HammerFall studios.

[76561198292631324]

Originally posted by "wHAT":

The so called "asynchronous play" could be utilized for the sake of OpenXCom multiplayer, which would allow to optimize the time spent upon the game without having to actually wait for the other player to make all his moves, awaiting for ones own turn. It has been introduced for example in Warhammer 40K Regicide by HammerFall studios.

This way you could also have many games going on simultaneously, up to a certain rational limit.

[76561198292631324]

The asynchronous nature of the match could begin as soon as with establishing the game. Joining the play, with all the squad preparation, should also fall unto this method, as it could take some time in case lack of any fitting preset choices are available.

[76561198292631324]

Different multiplayer mission types would be nice.

[CocoMendos*]

wuuuut

[Docsprock]

Originally posted by sG | CocoMendes*:

wuuuut

Oh great, now you've broken his train of thought.