So, I went into the Steam forum of this game and was baffled at the amount of people who want multiplayer somehow implemented in this game. I think this game works really well alone and would like to know if multiplayer is on the bottom of your to-do list. This thread is also a reminder to Tynan that there are people who will gladly support this game even if there isn't any multiplayer option and I kinda would like if it would stay that way if only until the very end of the game's developing cycle.
Quote from: Amnekian on March 24, 2014, 06:42:21 PM
So, I went into the Steam forum of this game and was baffled at the amount of people who want multiplayer somehow implemented in this game. I think this game works really well alone and would like to know if multiplayer is on the bottom of your to-do list. This thread is also a reminder to Tynan that there are people who will gladly support this game even if there isn't any multiplayer option and I kinda would like if it would stay that way if only until the very end of the game's developing cycle.
Gotta admit, I agree. Though clever engagement between two colonies would be good, IE trading and/or raiding in matches set up. But two people working in the same area doesnt seem like it would work to me.
Multiplayer would just end up being "who can collect all the resources and gather the strongest pawn army first...so I kinda have to agree, unless it was done in a way that avoided that scenario
Yeah, I don't think there's room on the internet for a Rimworld DOTA
It'll be on the long term to do list. Probably won't see it til some time after the game is out of Alpha. I support the notion of a multiplayer element though. It probably won't be what you'd expect.
I think it all depends on implementation. If they can implement an interesting way to do multiplayer (ie. cooperative based but with possible conflict) it could be worth it, however, I HEAVILY agree that multiplayer should be almost lowest on the feature list. I'd MUCH rather see more features, better characters with personalities, more items, and more things to build then multiplayer.
If it happens it will happen a long time from now.
As far as i know from Tynan its not even near the top or the middle of the list.
You all seem to think multiplayer has to happen in a very specific way. Has anyone seen the map "The Walls" on Minecraft?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkbC5kaFzUY
Basically, it's 4 divided sections of map all with the same amount of resources in each section. You all spend a certain amount of time building your base or collecting stuff before battle. Essentially you could do the same thing in this game, divide the world into 4 sections and black out the other 3 sections from each person's view so they can only see their own area. Once it is time, you delete the immovable walls and people can battle it out that way.
Or maybe, you play multiplayer where each player controls one colonist, while spare colonists are automated at the default priority work levels. And once there is enough colonists (say there are 3 players and 6 colonists) then everyone gets an extra colonist to control. Would make for an interesting game.
Another method, is raiders have a strong base in a large map, a very high base, and you have a 4 player colony on one end of the map and a very highly defended and skilled raider base on the other end that will send raiders at all 4 main colonies periodically. Each player starts with 3 colonists around a landing site which contains a small 1x1 sized building which is their color, and they must defend this building against raiders while trying to kill the raider's 2x2 sized building with 10 times the hit points and is damage resistant to fire. There is a 3rd method for multiplayer.
A fourth method of multiplayer is again, The Walls type of game play only instead of walls, 4 sections of the map are colored differently and each player (assuming 4 players) can only build, mine, and haul in those areas and are considered hostile if a colonist leaves the territory. That colonist will be arrestable and kill-able by others if he doesn't go back to his own territory. Now you can trade with each other using special trade buildings placed against each line and the center, and basically do whatever. You'd work as 4 separate colonies for survival. You'd even be able to help each other by rescuing another colonies downed colonists so long as that colony sets you to ally or temporary peace/cease fire time. There are many things you can do with this mode that I am talking about.
Anyhow, there are 4 methods of multiplayer right here, and I can probably think of more. I do want multiplayer in this game. I hate games that are solo only because then I never get to enjoy them with my friends.
Remember how much fun Stronghold multiplayer was?
No? That may be because it played like ASS. It is what happens if you take an enjoyable single player game (I thought Stronghold to be rather enjoyable... at least the first two iterations) and slap on multiplayer onto it.
The base building genre somehow doesnt translate well to multiplayer, imo. Co-Op would probably work, but that would just make the game a bit easier (because you can help eachother out) and add fun things like lag and waiting until your co-op player companion unpauses the game. Did I say fun? My bad, that are absolute awful things ::)
Multiplayer, if it ever happens, will be co-op, not competitive. A competitive model wouldn't really make sense; the whole game would have to be redesigned to make it even close to balanced.
Fully with you here. Never in my substantial amount of hours playing have I ever thought 'multiplayer would be so awesome here!'- it really just has no place in rimworld.
Quote from: Tynan on March 25, 2014, 11:51:51 AM
Multiplayer, if it ever happens, will be co-op, not competitive.
Sounds good enough to me. :3 I only do co-op the few times I get into multiplayer anyway. x3
Quote from: Amnekian on March 24, 2014, 06:42:21 PM
So, I went into the Steam forum of this game and was baffled at the amount of people who want multiplayer somehow implemented in this game. I think this game works really well alone and would like to know if multiplayer is on the bottom of your to-do list. This thread is also a reminder to Tynan that there are people who will gladly support this game even if there isn't any multiplayer option and I kinda would like if it would stay that way if only until the very end of the game's developing cycle.
I agree! Not a big fan of playing with people I would most likely punch in the face in RL. In fact I avoid multi-player games because of the idiots who inhabit the in game chat channels, server browsers, and games like COD. Let the 13 year old's have at it with guns I want play by myself in bliss.
@moon 1 up for u on that
Quote from: Tynan on March 25, 2014, 11:51:51 AM
Multiplayer, if it ever happens, will be co-op, not competitive. A competitive model wouldn't really make sense; the whole game would have to be redesigned to make it even close to balanced.
Yea, competitive might not work as well with this game and would not work towards the overall goal of the game. But then, it does add challenge. I don't think it would be that hard to balance really.
Like I mentioned in my earlier post, if everyone has colored bits of land so that they can only build, and perform jobs in that territory, then they can all be playing together even if in separate bits of the map. Add to this you can create a trade station to trade with your buddies around the map, so one person might trade metal to another for silver and such.
Trade station functionality;
Trading would be done in a style where player 1 will send player 2 a trade request, saying he'll trade 150 metal for 200 silver. Player 2 will get this trade request by going to his coms and clicking accept, alter or deny, if alter, he can change it a little and send back. Player 1 will then have the same 3 options.
You don't just have to lock your trade to one player too, you could open up a public trade and offer 150 metal to anyone who will be willing to give you 200 silver. A public trade won't be alterable by anyone, everyone can still deny individually, if all players deny, the trade is removed from the market so-to-speak.
As for the edges of each person's territory? Well, if a colonist crosses that threshold while the player who's territory he just entered is not set to ally, then that colonist becomes a target for any defenses on that player's side and that player can arrest or shoot him too. It will also send a map message to the player like a raider notification. What this will let you do? Well you can try to steal some of his food, metal, whatever is laying around. Or maybe you can go over there to kill an animal and haul it back to your territory, if you live long enough. Colonies stealing from each other and waging war is part of surviving. Just because you crashed into a moon or planet doesn't mean that other colonies that also live there will automatically be friendly and co-operative with you. Raiders for example, are their own colony, they are just called raiders because they are raiding you but if you had been born into their colony, you'd think different.
The game has already some aspects of PVP in it, it's just that it is AI controlled. Now put a player behind the wheel and you'll have more interesting things happen, especially since AI is predictable. I can easily defeat raiders once I get to day 50 or so, just automating base defenses because AI is predictable but if an enemy was player controlled, just think of the possibilities. More elaborate base designs, more elaborate strategies, etc. Obviously a player won't wage war without consequences. Waging war means he could lose his colonists in multiple ways, and he leaves his base vulnerable and unattended to so he is no longer growing food or anything, or cooking at least. Stuff like that. If he fails this attack, he may not have much to go back to, and could be very vulnerable to a counter attack.
One other option for competition is having random events challenge whoever can get a specified resource quickly enough or perhaps the first one to build a ship and leave the planet wins, stuff like that.
I prefer co-op as well, and would likely rarely play against someone I knew would attack me constantly but it is something I'd like to see, as it would make the game more interesting and a richer experience as you'll have real human interaction to deal with in your survival as well, not just a story teller AI deciding to drop an automated drone horde of enemies on you once in a while, but you'll be able to determine your survival based on how well you can maintain your friendships with other human player colonies. Diplomacy is one thing you need to survive after all. :P
Sure, you may intend the game to be survival and friendly and all, but you can only do so much with AI. The only way to make it more difficult is allowing players to take control and battle. I suppose though that you still won't do any competitive game play though if you do multiplayer. I just wanted to be thorough with my ideas and make sure that everyone had the chance to think on these possibilities.
Though multiplayed does sound good, I don't even dare to imagine the downsides and complications.
2 bases on a map, with or without territorial restrictions, 2 maps and the possibility of raiding the other, 1 base shared controll, tempting, there are quite a few options, each with a s**t ton of downsides.
But yes, I too agree, multiplayer should be the very last thing to have.
I'm still waiting for the anti-radiation implement (a building, or how about underground?! How does radiation go through a mountain to screw with your electronics?), + there's little to no use of the doctor class/artist, I didn't find any use for medicine, shells and uranium as of yet (or maybe I just missed it), + the character traits have no impact on the sims...
Yes, a more complex single player game will suffice, multiplayer can wait...forever if that's the case. :)