I am not making an MMORPG, But…

Okay, first things first.

Species Alpha 0.4.1 comes out in a week, on Sunday 15th July.

Check the still-ongoing development thread for info on what it contains: over here I’m just going to say “gene splicing and head animation” and leave it at that.

Now on with the show…

I was originally going to keep this planned feature a secret, since I’ve never done anything like it before, but Skylimit preempted me in the comments by simultaniously coming up with a fairly similar idea. I would call that memetic convergent evolution if I was trying to be thematically pretentious, but since I’m still trying to maintain the illusion that I don’t think I’m smarter than everybody else I won’t.

Anyway, the feature is, quite simply, Online Multiplayer.

Now before I go any further, I want to draw everyone’s attention to a particular archetype/stereotype. On many games programming forums, there will be a few new threads with a title like “help me make my game”, or “my game idea” or something equally vague. They will often be the first post by this particular user, (and in many cases the last) and will consist of something like this:

“i have a game idea for a great game I want to make its an MMORPG and wil make lots of mony but I don’t know how to program what do i do plz help”*

And it is always, always, an MMO. I don’t know why, and I’m not even going to try to guess.

I mention this archetype so that I can say: this is not me. I know my limitations, and a genuine MMO is fairly well beyond them. What I’m suggesting for Species is not so much a way to play the game with other people as a way to expand the creatures world by connecting one border of your map to theirs and allowing creatures to wander fom yours to theirs, thus ‘combining’ your CPU power.

It’s at this point that I get excited, because this grid of connected worlds utterly demolishes the biggest restriction we have on the game: performance. Suddenly, the world of Species can be as close to infinite as makes no difference. We go from petrie dish to planet in one hit! And with some sort of multiplayer map view, you could see how the descendants of creatures from your world are doing other worlds, and in the overworld in general.

My plan is to connect the borders directly: essentially making it so that, to the creatures, there are no borders at all. There won’t be any ‘migration’ routine or any decision on the creatures part to go to the next world over: they’ll just cross the edge in the course of their usual wandering and appear in your neighbours world. I like this idea because it means you’re not just connecting standalone worlds and allowing them to pass creatures to each other: you’re actually expanding a single, gigantic world.

And then my excitement starts to die down as I consider the problems this poses.

On the immediate, border-to-border scale we’ve got time accelleration. Imagine a world running at 10x connected to a world running at 1x. Things turn into an episode of Dr Who at the border.

This problem isn’t too bad, though, compared to others. What about players connecting and disconnecting? This is the equivilent of huge chunks of terrain, and all the creatures and vegetation in them, appearing and disappearing with no warning.

So far we’ve come up with four solutions, none of them ideal:

Static. This mode ensures the player can keep their world and their position in the overworld, no matter what.
– – When a player disconnects their world ‘freezes’: creatures can no longer pass into, out of, or through their world.
– – The advantage is that the overworld as a whole remains static across multiple sessions: perfect for small, organised simulations, where you can turn all machines in the network on at the same time.
– – The disadvantage, obviously, is that entire chunks of the map can vanish and become impassable if someone shuts the game off.

Dynamic Player. This mode sacrifices player persistance to enable a large, semi-static overworld.
– – When a player disconnects, another player on the network (someone at the ‘edge’ of the overworld) or an incoming player automatically loads and begins simulating their world.
– – The advantage here is that a large, disorganised network can still run a relatively controlled and scientific simulation.
– – The disadvantage is that you as the player won’t be able to call any particular world or species your own.

Dynamic Overworld. This mode keeps player persistance and prevents impassable grid squares by turning the overworld into a constantly-shifting and changing environment.
– – When a player disconnects, someone else on the network (probably a neighbour) has their entire map picked up and moved into the vacant spot. (this may initiate a cascading shuffle, since someone else may now have to occupy their spot)
– – The advantage is obvious: the player gets to keep their map across multiple sessions and also connect to a large, disorganised network.
– – The disadvantage is the effects mobile terrain. A particularly lucky map could move halfway across the overworld, seeding it’s creatures into other maps the whole way.

Virtual Overworld: This mode treats the overworld not as a 2d grid of terrain, but as a web of connected nodes.
– – When a player disconnects, rather than their neighbours being physically shuffled about, only the links are re-arranged, with the nodes being pulled into position by a web-physics simulation similar to what the Mod Manager has.
– – The advantage’s are similar to the Dynamic Overworld option, with the overworld being less mobile: rather than shuffling world bits about, the borders will just grab onto each other and tie the web tighter together. And when they re-connect, they can return to the same spot and connect to the same neighbours.
– – The disadvantage is that it can’t be represented as a ‘planet’ of contiguous terrain anymore. If you’re having trouble visualising what I mean: which square is connected to the north-east corner of square 8 in the far-right diagram above?) As a result, rather than zooming out to some sort of impressive satellite view showing mountains and forests and rivers, we’d need to display the web of connected nodes.

The other problem is that some of this conflicts with other idea’s we’d had. We had considered building the AI facility/science lab that will serve as the player avatar into the crater walls. This neatly solves the problem of the buildings and nursary taking up space and getting in the road of the wild creatures, means I don’t have to implement per-creature collision for them which is a performance bonus, and it looks cool. Unfortionately, if the overworld is meant to be contiguous, the crater has to go (at least in multiplayer), which means we’re back to the original, relatively boring idea of dumping the science base in the middle of the map.

Actually, even if it’s not contiguous, we’ll still need to ‘connect’ the map to it’s neighbours somehow so that there’s at least an explanation for where the disappearing creatures at the border are going. I’m pretty sure the blind legless slugblobs aren’t quite capable of scaling the crater walls.

I’m actually in need some suggestions here: this is all very much long term stuff (we haven’t even worked out the design style for the science base yet: all I’ve got in my notes is “somewhere between jurassic park, NASA, and a volkswagon-factory”), but it’s presenting some interesting design challenges. How do we reconcile the need for an open overworld with the need for overworld stability? Where do we put the AI complex and nursary? How many roads can a man walk down?

Any ideas?

*footnote: In the interests of keeping this post constructive and not just laughing hysterically at the n00bs: if the archetype above sounds like you (minus the lack of grammar), here’s a few suggestions:

a) Start small. You’ll learn a lot faster making a 2D game or a mod for another game, and you’ll screw up your large project less in the long run because you’ll make all the beginner mistakes in the small project, rather than in the large.

b) What programs you should be using depends on how keen you are and how much prior experience you have. If you’ve never programmed before in your life, try making a simple Pong clone in Macromedia Flash or Game Maker, or better yet in Visual Studio’s Windows Forms Designer (that will also introduce you to Visual Studio, which will help later). You can do it in an afternoon (there’s loads of online tutorials around), and it will at least give you a very basic idea of what is involved. If that goes well, grab a copy of Vistual Studio and decide what programming language you want to learn. I like C#, but really, the similarities are more important than the differences. If you can program in one language, you can learn to program in most of them.

c) If you’re already a programmer, or you’ve done (b) and decided this programming stuff doesn’t seem too hard, you’ve got a few options: use/mod an existing game engine (if you’re making an FPS, you might as well start with the Crysis world editor or the Unreal Engine), download a genre-independant game engine (I’ve heard good things about Unity), or download a framework like XNA or even just native DirectX and build your own engine. Which way you go depends on how keen you are: if you want complete freedom and are willing to pay for it with increased time and effort, go straight for XNA or DirectX. If you’re happy to be somewhat restricted, but get your game out months in advance, go for a pre-existing engine.

d) Don’t try to make games on your own for the money. The AAA industry is already doing that, and they’ve got rediculous budgets to throw at it, so competing with them is useless: if you want a part of that action you’ll have to go sell your soul to join them. And if you want to make loads of money from the indie crowd, ala Minecraft, you're not going to get away with pandering to what you think they want, because they want originality (which is a nice way of saying they don't have the slightest clue what they want until they see it. Seriously, imagine pitching the Minecraft concept to anyone prior to the game being made). If you're going to sell to the indie crowd, then you need to be making games because you want to make games, not for any other reason.

“We will of course be laughing hysterically at the n00bs anyway in an attempt to crush their naive enthusiasm under wave upon wave of sadistic cynicism.”

, , , , , , , , , ,

  1. #1 by Alex on July 10, 2012 - 7:12 pm

    holy crap Qu. Online multiplayer could make Species incredible

  2. #2 by Adam Benton on July 10, 2012 - 8:09 pm

    Given that various parts of the world do become isolated with others I don’t have a real problem with chunks of terrain becoming inaccessible and disappearing. Indeed, with a changing fertility map I would expect certain crossings to become impassible naturally. As such I don’t think the main drawback to the static thing is actually a real problem.

    What might be a bigger concern is reconciling the time gap. If I go offline for 8 hours of sleep my simulation would still have to run at 10x for 48 minutes to catch up with the rest of it. I know you mentioned by disabling the visuals you could get it to run quicker but even then can that make up for the gap?

  3. #3 by Skylimit on July 11, 2012 - 2:36 am


    First of all, sorry for revealing your long term plan, if it was meant to be kept a secret.
    I must say, I am very exited about the thought of having infinite maps, that will open up for so much more possibilities, and very complex ecosystems may arise.
    It is absolutely the way to go. I’m also pretty sure you don’t have any competition in that area, today. So you’re doing something unique here.

    About the three Overworld models :

    We don’t know at this time what the profile will be of the players. How many will there be, will they be online often, etc …
    And that is not entirely irrelevant in order to choose the best model. My best guess is that many worlds will be turned on, and then go offline for longer periods.
    Hence, what I described in previous posts, a temporary lease of a tile, would tackle this. So when you come back, you come back to the same spot.

    Question remains, what to do with the offline spot in the mean time.

    I think the virtual overworld you describe is an elegant way to keep as many tiles as possible connected, without giving a way the territory permanently.
    It does bypass the need to queue the creatures that cross offline worlds as well (what I saw as a big problem, which don’t exist here)

    The visualisation can still be planetary, if you grey out the offline world, and optionally you could draw the connections
    But personally I don’t think the virtual overworld model is incompatible to planetary view

    About performance :

    The reason to expand the world to infinite is because you want to take advantage of the combined processor power.
    So the last thing you want to do, is create performance bottlenecks while doing so.

    So here I am not sure about borderless worlds, where creatures can migrate freely.
    While this would be the closest you can get to the real thing, this most likely will present some problems.

    First of all : suppose all machines of all users run at the same speed, same worldsize, same bandwidth
    Can we technically accomplish that for instance all those computers run at 10x speed, or Ultra speed, and successfully exchange all the creatures (and plants) to 8 other users simultanuously?
    This could be quite a challenge. Would be great if it could though, there I agree.

    But, along with this.
    If the users cannot negotiate the speed at which creatures are exchanged, you have also different issues.

    First of all, different worldsizes. How will that be solved?
    In practice, also different speeds at which the simulation runs
    Different preferences as well : for instance, if you want to evolve blank creatures, you may put the simulation offline, till you have something that is capable of competing
    Maybe it would be better to keep those users with different preferences on board, by allowing them to set the “driprate”
    In negotiation with other users, the lowest rate wins (and is then valid for both, for this border)

    One way or another, you will have to overcome the obstacle that not all creature can freely pass the borders.
    Which does not mean that it wouldn’t be nice if they actually could.

    About me :

    Hopefully the comments I make are not discouraging. I realize that some ideas are long term, or even near to impossible for one developer.
    But everything is meant to be constructive, and there is also nothing wrong with a long term view, as I read you have been working on this for a very long time, and technology keeps evolving, so near to impossible never really is impossible over time ;o)

  4. #4 by ququasar on July 11, 2012 - 7:45 am

    Well my thought was always that the game would be a bit ‘wild’ outside your nursary: you’d never have complete control or ownership over every species in your map. This extends well with the borderless concept, and actually introduces some interesting challenges:

    Let’s suppose, for example, that you introduce your world to the multiplayer too early. Your creatures have little chance to survive, and the incoming hoards are outcompeteing them relentlessly. To me, this isn’t a problem to be fixed: it’s an opportunity to introduce gameplay and challenge. You can kill or sterilise the other creatures, retrieve your own creatures and return them to the nursary, sample your own creatures DNA before they are driven extinct and resurrect them later, gene-splice them with the introduced species to save at least some of their traits, maybe even fence off part of your map as a wildlife preserve… there’s loads of ways for the player to try to deal with this situation without just closing off their borders.

    Ummm… I just realised that any discussion of borders could be read as a political analogy by those so-inclined. It’s not: my mind is working in terms of cane-toads and feral rabbits, rather than in terms of people. Also I do not support forcably gene-splicing people with other people (at least, not until we’ve perfected the science on the rabbitoads).

  5. #5 by Swufty on July 11, 2012 - 9:27 am

    I have a relatively interesting idea. Given that this is a pretty advanced research base, what if it was hovering over the land? That way, the crater can be removed without the base being dropped in the middle of the map. It would allow creatures to move without being interrupted, but still look pretty cool.

  6. #6 by Fun Games on January 6, 2013 - 6:18 pm

    Hello Dear, are you actually visiting this web site on a regular
    basis, if so after that you will absolutely take pleasant know-how.

  7. #7 by skidgames.com on July 30, 2013 - 4:51 pm

    Great blog, exactly what the gaming world wants, keep up the good work!

  8. #8 by Wolf Tribius on September 2, 2018 - 2:35 am

    I’m not a programmer so I have no clue to what is possible and what not so please laugh at me c:

    So first the time problem you mentioned, since the online play would already be pretty different would it not be possible to remove the time feature from just the online play? that way the worlds would always run on the same speed.

    Second, the problem of world size (important for the idea): Again since the online version of the game would be slightly different would it not be possible to have an edited world gen? What I’m saying is a world locked in size or fixed sizes such as 1,2 and 4. This would allow the overworld to adapt the layout in a sort of grid of “1” sizes, new map “pieces” would always be as close to the centre as possible and if it’s done right no gaps would be formed in the process, just a not so straight overworld line at the edge.

    Now for my solution to the general gaps in the overworld problem. Let’s say I made a world with size 1, (in reference to the previous problem solution) but my pc would be able to handle a size 2. In such a scenario I would be able to run both my world and the world of a temporary (or permanent) “drop out” now if everyone would have half the size of a world that they could run this would allow for a big global net which catches said drop out worlds.

    -There will never be a gap in the overworld
    -The overworld would always keep running simultaneously

    -It may raise the minimum requirements of online play depending on the minimum world size
    -The “catch net” would be vulnerable to overload.

    That last con may sound a bit tough but assuming more than 50% of the people joining the overworld would be dedicated people I think the chance of an overload would be very slim.
    If it, however, does become a problem there would be potential fixes for it such as:
    -making the maps smaller enabling a player to catch 2 maps instead of 1 with the same CPU/GPU
    -punishing the deed of abandoning your world within a certain time limit unless a global agreement is made to abandon the overworld
    -making abandoned worlds, worlds in which it is near impossible to live in or a complete wasteland. lowering their CPU use

  9. #9 by Andree on June 20, 2020 - 5:00 am

    hi!,I like your writing very a lot! share we be in contact more approximately your post on AOL? I require an expert in this house to resolve my problem. May be that is you! Having a look ahead to look you. |

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: