Multiplayer?

[VBAM Charlie (OP)]

Is it possible to run a multiplayer game with Aurora or is it strictly geared to allowing one person to manage multiple empires for those wonderfully epic solo campaigns?

[Erik L]

Multiplayer would need to be hotseat. Or emailed databases. Though remember that when you advance time, it advances for everyone.

[Brian Neumann]

The only other way that I can see doing a multiplayer game would be with everyone logged onto a host server, and only one person allowed to increment time.  I actually did something like this with starfire, but that was quite different as the time ticks were for a fixed period of time, a turn based approach.  I am not sure how this would work with aurora.

Brian

[SteveAlt]

Multiplayer would need to be hotseat. Or emailed databases. Though remember that when you advance time, it advances for everyone.

Hotseat would work well as you could handle events as they appeared. Emailing the Stevefire.mdb file is another option, although I would recommend compacting it before sending it. You would also have to agree between yourselves what events would require the database to go around everyone again.

Steve

[Haegan2005]

I have been thinking about multi for some time now. My son and I both ejoy hotseating for Civ 4 and Alpha Centauri. We will lose a whole day this way very easily . Ah well.  I was thinking that Aurora has much potential for multi player carnage. I really enjoy my colo games, but I also enjoy watching my son come up with his own unique approach to problems. In some cases the problem is his dad and his father's mobs of tanks and calvary. While he by no means wins all of the time... It is enough to kep me on my toes.
Basically, my question is thus. What would be needed to run Aurora as a true multiplayer game? And is it worth Steve doing it? I think that most of us play solo and the game does this very well. But multi brings forth its own issues with simultaneous movement, diplomacy sequencing, who gets what message and, I'm sure, lots more issues that I am too ignorant of in programming to identify.

[SteveAlt]

I have been thinking about multi for some time now. My son and I both ejoy hotseating for Civ 4 and Alpha Centauri. We will lose a whole day this way very easily . Ah well.  I was thinking that Aurora has much potential for multi player carnage. I really enjoy my colo games, but I also enjoy watching my son come up with his own unique approach to problems. In some cases the problem is his dad and his father's mobs of tanks and calvary. While he by no means wins all of the time... It is enough to kep me on my toes.
Basically, my question is thus. What would be needed to run Aurora as a true multiplayer game? And is it worth Steve doing it? I think that most of us play solo and the game does this very well. But multi brings forth its own issues with simultaneous movement, diplomacy sequencing, who gets what message and, I'm sure, lots more issues that I am too ignorant of in programming to identify.

If you hotseat Civ you should be able to do the same for Aurora. When you aren't in SM mode you can only view each race one at a time. If you want to keep your situation secret from an opponent, just close down windows and leave the main menu bar so he can change to a different race. One useful addition might be for me to add something so that when you are not in SM mode, you get a message to indicate that a different race has an event.

A multi-player game would be best with an SM though. He would advance time, get players to react to events and play the non-player races.

Steve

[JSilvanus]

Can the database be simultaneously opened by multiple races? I mean, can it be multipated with a cloud file sync prpgram e. g.  dropbox, so that we simply only need to coordinate when someone presses time forward, not take turns in opening the db?

[fflaguna]

The only other way that I can see doing a multiplayer game would be with everyone logged onto a host server, and only one person allowed to increment time.  I actually did something like this with starfire, but that was quite different as the time ticks were for a fixed period of time, a turn based approach.  I am not sure how this would work with aurora.

Brian

This works with Aurora, and I have done it with someone, using two separate clients accessing the *same* Stevefire.mdb simultaneously using two different player races. It worked acceptably, with one minor flaw that ONLY the person whose client clicks "advance time" has their sensor readings updated. That means each player needs to alternate clicking the "advance time" button and they will only get sensor updates when it's their turn to advance time.

This is due to the fact that sensor contacts are stored in the client's memory now, and NOT in the database. Other than this issue, we had multiplayer Aurora going and we were doing battle with our 10,000-ton destroyers built by each side in secret.

I won.

[fflaguna]

Can the database be simultaneously opened by multiple races? I mean, can it be multipated with a cloud file sync prpgram e. g.  dropbox, so that we simply only need to coordinate when someone presses time forward, not take turns in opening the db?

Yes, the database can be opened simultaneously AND MODIFIED SIMULTANEOUSLY with seemingly no issues by separate player races.

However, I don't think Dropbox's sync mechanism works in the way Aurora needs it to. I don't know how Dropbox syncs files in practice.

A problem you will run into is that the Aurora.exe makes ten zillion SEPARATE calls to the database every nanosecond, which means it takes foreeeevvvvvveeeerrr to load a screen. We're talking 5-10 minutes just to open the ship design screen for a player across the internet. Our solution was for me to run a local virtual machine on my computer, that the other person connected to and took control of through a VNC. That way the opponent's Aurora.exe is still running on my computer, and all the database calls are instantaneous. His client through the VNC connection was a bit sluggish, but now we're only talking 1-3 seconds to load the ship design screen now.

Anyway, that was my romp through multiplayer Aurora.

[Havear]

If Stevefire.mdb is in a shared folder, Dropbox stores a copy locally on both machines. Every time it is updated, the changes are uploaded to their servers and then downloaded to everyone that uses it (except of course the user that modified it). I was considering doing something like this with the Tymas guys, but I don't have Access installed and a multi-gibibyte database file would be unwieldy to say the least. That sensor thing could be a semi-major issue for this as well.

[jseah]

That would not be too bad if you play strictly Co-op.  You only need sensor checks for combat and Co-op means you can run in SM mode so you can tell each other about events in the event window. 
Call it "difficulties in coordinating task forces of different races".  =D

[sublight]

Good news, Mutliplayer in Aurora is possible and is_being/has_been done. Hot-seat is easiest, but at least three games (including one I'm currently in) are/were done across the internet.

You need at least three people: two or more players plus one designated SM to advance time and watch for events that might require either immediate action or an early interrupt. I'm currently acting as the SM in one game with three player factions. We're posting a rough account in a game log here. For our game each faction has it's own password to help prevent accidental peaking, and the database is distributed through a shared dropbox folder. With .zip compression the database is 5-8 mb. Uploading a new database copy is fast (less than a minute) but doesn't allow people to simultaneously play off the same database at the same time.

Using relatively long time increments (3-12 game months) twice weekly has allowed us to play through 23 game years and counting so far.

A Co-Op game would be easier to run since you wouldn't need a designated SM, and as mentioned by jseah would allow better timing control.

[Havear]

Here's something we're trying out right now in HazCom: I'm hosting a few VMs locally with Aurora being a shared folder. Each VM is in turn hosting a VNC connection with a unique password. Everyone connects and uses their own "client", and then when I have a consensus advance time on my own.

[Havear]

Well we finally got everything setup and started playing. Aurora does NOT like having multiple clients accessing the DB at once apparently, as we managed one turn, got tons of desyncs (specifically the date not updating even with refreshes until one of the players opened game info and reselecting), followed by the database corrupting itself (which actually happened as that player selected the game again in game info).

[Beersatron]

I imagine the database doesn't employ locks, so if Player1 was designing some component that relies on a number of related entries at the same time as Player2 then the @@identity could be getting messed up.