Multiplayer

[xABSOLUTIONx]

not a problem, just add variation

[WizzyThaMan]

Not a good way to add variation in my opinion.

@Killrob, then I probably dont understand well how this imbalance occurs? I though, if the limitations for the scenario in multiplayer is given at a time when everyone is loaded, thus not seeing earlier what it is, its balanced in my opinion. I think we should work with dedicated servers for this maybe, since it is really easy to just sit their with a friend, find out an harder engine to make and how to perfectly do it and then make an online game and the host gives in these limitations, which his friend knows exactly how to build within 2 minutes. Making him always win and gain rank in the highscore chart.

This is another problem that occurs, so what I suggest is just a dedicated server where people can play on which generates limitations tested by us. So for an I6 with HP between 100 and 400, mileage between 50K and 70K RPM limit between 6500 and 7500 etc. etc.

This way you always create random matches. Players join, when all joined and loaded, count down from 5 to 0 then limitations are given to the players and they can start all at the same time with the same limits of the scenario.

To fix the dedication problem, you can release a serverpack which is installable and runs seperately from the game (kind of like Minecraft does). This way players can still host their own games that show up in the list of multiplayer games?

Sorry if the explanation is not understandable, tried my best. If anything is unclear, ask and i'll try to clarify.

[Killrob]

This is another problem that occurs, so what I suggest is just a dedicated server where people can play on which generates limitations tested by us. So for an I6 with HP between 100 and 400, mileage between 50K and 70K RPM limit between 6500 and 7500 etc. etc.

This is pretty much how it is working already. No need for "manually tested" things and a huge look-up table if we get the values to scale properly anyway.


The rest of what you were writing I don't really understand because I don't see what you're trying to achieve with it, what problem do you want to solve that hasn't been solved already or doesn't exist in the first place?

[WizzyThaMan]

The host having some sort of advantage, right? I didn't see a problem at first too, but something sounded right abou everyones previous comments so I tried to understand this.

[Der Bayer]

The winning chances are balanced because everything is random and no one knows anything before the other players. The current imbalance lies in the stat values and weights itself. For that, Robert already invented a dampening system, which tries to not make one stat the major one which gives you points.

Currently (if the stat threshold generation is based on some of my ideas), the tresholds are generated randomly between upper and lower borders. These borders are varying according to manufacture year and sometimes related to the generated power value. The correlation to the power value makes that you can finish all of the scenarios (at least we have not encountered a scenario yet, which has been impossible). Some scenarios are harder than others though, so the task for the beta testers is to find which combinations of stats and stat thresholds are too hard or too easy to pass. In that way, the upper and lower borders for the different stats can be tweaked and the difficulty spread can be reduced.

When the difficulty is balanced, still the possible solutions should be balanced a bit, so that there is not only one good solution to the scenario. Linear gameplay becomes boring very fast. This is where the mentioned dampening idea comes into place: If the generated stat value is very near to the lower border, you can possibly make lots of points with that stat (lots of room for improvement). Thus, the weight of the stat has to be quite low to make it less overpowered.

edit: damn, writing took too long

[WizzyThaMan]

Thank you for clarifying, Martin. I have no direct answer, I will have to think about this, but the dampening sounds like a good (temporary?) solution.

[JussiE]

Somekind of a voting system between the players before the time starts to run could be interesting. maybe hard to implementate though.

The scenario could be the average of the votes.

[RAHayesJ]

What would be neat is maybe set "priority" objectives. Goals are set for what's important for the challenge, any restrictions, and then the proper range/limits are set by the system automatically. That way what's important or what should be a goal can be set without having a preset "win-all."