First, then isn't to begin a debate on whether there SHOULD or SHOULD NOT be multiplayer, so please don't derail into that. This is a discussion about my question, not about your preference on the existence of the root of my question. :)
On-topic.
On the Kickstarter page, when asked about multiplayer in the FAQ, Tynan says, "It's possible; and if the community asks for it consistently I'll gladly put it in."
Now, my question - for Tynan and forum members' opinions:
How would this work or how would you like to see this work?
In my opinion, a fun way to implement multiplayer might be setting it up as a world is more of a server, where multiple colonies from multiple players can exist in real time on the same world while allowing them to interact to varying degrees, perhaps based on distance & tech levels.
That's a fairly passive Dark Souls kind of "oh hey look, a guy..." multiplayer. Don't see how it could work. It'd just be SimCity. You would happen to interact with each other by way of being in proximity and that's.... about it, really...
[Copypasta from myself]
I have an idea,
If Tynan won't do it, somewhere down the road, a modder will do it.
Trust me ;)
Peer2Peer connection, Everyone P2P the overworld, if you have to load someone elses save, P2P will get it for you.
There would be 3 modes, co-oop, Async PvP&E and Live PvP&E
Async is where if you are not online, AI will do it for you and live write your save to other ppls' comps with priority to you in case you are off-line and Live is where you and the enemy *HAS* to be online, direct packet w/ proxy and if you combat log, it goes ASync for you.
If you log within 3 secs(normal reaction time) of a guy attacking you, his raid will be called off.
Updates are spread as reads to a file and not complete rewrites of the save.
??? Profit (lots of players can attack/defend one spot)
This game has the advantage that this is the save that is updating, not the actual game, all are rendered off the save, run on the save and depends on the proliferation of saves.
Saves are pretty cheap to spread bandwidth wise, just add .zip or .rar support for Async and profit.
A 2 year game can be compressed from 200 mb+ to just 4.05 mb
The same save can be RARed down to 557 kb.
Madness, I say.
(Who knows what space savings could 7z do...)
It goes like this
Async mode: save.rwm ---> .7z (best) ---> P2P ---> Decompress if called (less than 1s each) | Otherwise just spread compressed file.
Live mode: Async until attack/defend then save.zip --> savelive.rwm ---> write to file what changed in game per second ---> raid/defense over ---> savelive.rwm becomes save.rwm ---> compress and spread.
All participants of raid/defense store each others' saves live.
add event to statistics X raided Y, X/Y won.
Edit: .7zs would be passworded by a public key that changes every day generated by random.org*bit-64 unix time number of GMT to prevent editing. The public key would be stored for a duration of 2 years as a .zip/.7z with CRC checksum.
I don't think storing ~~720 different codes would be an issue.
Probably the easiest way to implement it would be something like this:
PvP:
1) Game speed is played as the slowest selected speed for a player (if all players are on max speed then the games plays at max speed, if one player is at normal speed and the rest are at max speed then the game plays at normal speed).
2) Game speed is automatically reduced to lowest speed when combat occurs.
3) Most events are individual for colonies (e.g. raids target only one player, but an event like the AI ship would obviously affect everyone).
RimWorld is set from an RTS perspective, so stuff like latency isn't a super huge factor. I think the above 3 rules would mostly sort out MP rules -- how players handle raids/attacks/etc on each other is pretty much up to them. I think you'd need to add some sort of 'transfer ownership' or 'trade' Order to trade stuff though.
- Ok
- Ok
- Raids target the closest hostile player.
Rimworld was never meant to be an RTS, an RTS means churning out units(Rimworld does not)
The only thing remotely RTS about Rimworld is the drafting feature.
I'd rather make it have the overworld
The overworld is governed by saves.
saves can be of any game time.
unless there is a player and it is live mode, there would be only normal and max
max being defined as the fastest speed the network can handle the updating.
Async would sync only if both players are online and if one or both is not, it goes simulated AI.
Trade stuff would work just like normal trading atm except that the trade will not finalise without both parties agreeing.
And then there's the auto-trade...
I think ZestyLemon is just stating the obvious for his PvP list.
Most events does affect everyone.
In live mode, the player can very well send resources and make a base at his enemy for as long as he logs in to it every day (so as to prevent live mode locking of someone's save cuz they cant play without the other guy being live.) without which, all his colonists goes home and the place is open to attack...
Quote from: Anduin1357 on January 04, 2015, 02:25:34 AM
Trade stuff would work just like normal trading atm except that the trade will not finalise without both parties agreeing.
And then there's the auto-trade...
Nah, what's the fun in a colony-to-colony trade if you can't suddenly go guns blazing on the person you're trading with and steal all their stuff?
I'm totally aware that RimWorld is a story game, not a competitive game. I said it fits as an RTS because it's an overhead perspective, it's real-time, and you can control units strategically (in gunfights). It's more of a basebuilder/story game than an RTS, but an RTS nonetheless.
You would be able to trade with the other colony, yes but the player will NEVER invite a squad into their base for trade just for them 2 get screwed. It is NOT an RTS.
RimWorld's about drama and story. Having actual colonists walk up and trade is a lot more interactive and flexible story-wise than a trade interface where you can't do anything but play by the rules.
Nobody said they shouldn't walk up to you and trade. The problem there is that they can't guarantee their own safety in the midst of your huge base. Who would walk up to your front door that is the ultimate killzone just to trade? No one!
So unless there is mechanism for barter and the such, I don't see where this is going.
When generating a world, the game should check with the Ludeon server. If anyone else has a colony on that world, they should be added as an AI controlled faction that I can interact with in the same way as other factions (which I hope will continue to grow).
There are any number of ways that it could work; some more complicated than others, and some easier but potentially less stable. It would be nice to be able to make use of an entire generated world in a single multilayer campaign, where 2 or more players could team up together or fight eachother for control of the continent. For something like that, though, you would likely need a proper server setup to handle all that data, and I mean per world, not for all of them.
Now for something as simple as multiple players on a single map, that would be far easier, but that would probably be too cramped unless the multiplayer map was about 24x the normal map size, which may or may not get excessively laggy on a non-god machine.
I do like the Peer2Peer idea, i'd say that has decent potential if done right.
Something tells me Tynan has already formulated some ideas on how to implement multiplayer, considering he essentially said he'd put it in if the community asked for it. I would be curious to know his take on it, but whether or not anything will be revealed is up to him.
Quote from: ZestyLemons on January 04, 2015, 07:02:28 AM
RimWorld's about drama and story. Having actual colonists walk up and trade is a lot more interactive and flexible story-wise than a trade interface where you can't do anything but play by the rules.
I hope this aspect becomes a thing in the game anyway just because I would like to trade with caravans from the other colonies and see space-borne traders land with some sort of dropship to make trades instead of sucking up designated items into the aether and dropping a pile of silver in from orbit. They're not military ships sending relief supplies to a stricken FOB.
The traders beamed em up and dropped em down. ;D
Continental warfare *could* be set up with P2P but there would be a heck a lot of constant world generating that having *more* players (Like 5000++?) running bit-64 with at least 8 GB ram to handle multiple (3-4) instances and multiple screens if live.
Maybe a way to limit the maximum number of battles you can directly control so that the comp don't spam instance ram crash you ie. typical RW save + decompress w/ mods can get to 1 GB ram usage and having to sustain 5+ instances from an enemy co-ordinated blitz might overwhelm your system...
For every ASync instance, a ghost RimWorld would record the battle without loading the graphics to save on ram n stuff and then dump it when battle is over to save or every 5 mins. I would seriously suggest like 4 teams, 3 teams or 2 teams only... Unless far in the future, rigs DO get better.
Then again, the required apm for 5 instances on 5 screens would be insane...
The save structure might look like this:
AppData\LocalLow\Ludeon Studios\RimWorld\*[Gamename]*\MPSaves\Saves\*.rwm
AppData\LocalLow\Ludeon Studios\RimWorld\*[Gamename]*\MPSaves\P2PSaves.7z
AppData\LocalLow\Ludeon Studios\RimWorld\*[Gamename]*\Worlds\*.rww
All of the generated map in saves, archived in .7z as one file
The entire world would consist of generated saves mapped to every tile.
If you could fight over every bit of the map, You might be looking at 400 x 300 = 120 000 unique saves at max, 150 x 112 = 16800 unique saves at min.
Does not take into account that stock prevents ice sheet and ocean biome.
Maybe it could run this procedurally, that way, the save is generated only if a player builds on one of the map tiles. Saves cpu power and bandwidth for saturation but increases load time. I haven't tried creating 16800 saves and then compressing them though... might eat an entire GB or so when compressed. Would eat a TB uncompressed. :P
(Then again, who would explore the entire world with his/her big ol' army of colonists?)
Hmm... Where there is P2P, there is incentive to be mega node and get in-game bonus or smth...
Where there is multiplayer, there is always a chance of meatballs.
post-final preview: I just realised I have created THE concept of an MMO Simulation/Management/Strategy Game derived from a game never meant to go this far. X.X
I'm not at all interested in fighting other players, but I'd love to see a CO-OP setup. Simply having two colonies in close proximity to facilitate trade/migration, perhaps allowing one colony to respond to threats to it's neighbor, etc.
I was responding to Syvera.
You theoretically would be able to host whatever would suit you.
eg, same setup in same map with procedural, both you and your friend become allies for the purposes of co-op.
???
Win.
Nothing about it was strictly PvP.
Quote from: Runtheball on January 04, 2015, 10:30:56 AM
I'm not at all interested in fighting other players, but I'd love to see a CO-OP setup. Simply having two colonies in close proximity to facilitate trade/migration, perhaps allowing one colony to respond to threats to it's neighbor, etc.
Even trading colonists. Ie. Player a has 4 doctors. Player b has 0 but has 3 lvl 15 shooters. They trade and it helps both colonies.
Not sure why EVERY game just HAS to have PVP. to me adding PVP to this game just makes it like clash of clans. Co-op would be useful but PVP is just not fun in my mind.
This game isn't starcraft.
Guys, read: It is not PvP that matters, it is the possibility of having PvP.
Edit: For example, the option to raid some one elses' colony is always open for consideration. The ability to play things tactically with different weapons and a more fleshed out resourcing system than compared to CoCs.
The leveling system of colonist skillsets alone shows the stark difference between the two games.
The theme is survival and adventure/drama here while for clash of clans... I never played it so someone fill me in.
This game is no Starcraft either, unless you are a sad person who throws colonists to a zerg bloodbath, (Like those tribals.) your guys are indisposable to you and sending them to battle requires some thought. You also dont get colonists from thin air either. Colony personnel trades... that's sick!
Maybe a colonist borrowing system is more appropriate.
You can just as easily send reinforcements by moving to the edge of the map and going to the adjcent square until you get to your allys' colony.
Heck, moving back and forth too troublesome for you? Build an outpost (can be colony, whatever.) And even station yourself in your allys' map tile if needed.
No hassle.
Please be reminded that this multiplayer idea does not infringe on modding as provisions can be made to store mods in appdata and load from there.
This is also a pure multiplayer functionality idea where the goal is to provide a multiplayer interaction only, no frills involved.
The maximum player count is limited only by technical capability and can be as large or as small as possible provided it is supported by the game.
If you think that you dont like PvP, tell Tynan that, this idea does not control PvP.
This can, in fact, be a mod instead. It only needs to manage saves, sync instances and setup P2P network. It's that simple, optimisations aside. We would need dlls and a good compressing software though.
I think multiplayer may be good as an expansion pack of sorts. I think the first released version of the game should focus on singleplayer.
Just because you don't like PVP or that PVP is like starcraft doesn't mean it shouldn't be added. It can still be a part of the game. I'm sure if we could cooperate and fight, we'd usually cooperate until something happens that makes the other person stop the alliance. It'd only expand the story this game offers.
Tbh, the largest scale map you can get is capable of sustaining about 4 pretty standard size colonies with up to 10-12 colonists.
Trying to make a big, open, interlaced system where everybody's colonies interact with each other from their own map to the next may be a bit much to start off with (But hey, something I'd like to see in the long term regardless).
I'd much prefer to see multiplayer start small, and have people survive together on the same map - Possibly tweaking resource costs etc depending on how many players are on a given map (But that's all balance talk, which'll come after the mechanics are set up).
EG, each player starts with their base 3 colonists/starting resources and hops to it. Do they co-operate or shoot eachother in the face? Up to them. But they've gotta deal with everything that happens on the map too.
TL;DR: Start small, then think about scaling up.
Simple co-op would go a long way with multiplayer. One or more friends could manage a single colony. Shouldn't take much work to implement either.
We need the supreme leader almighty Tynan's two cents. I think a co-operative would be fun, with a diplomacy system for the other factions in the game. You could of course turn on each other and fight competitively, but starting neutral to each other would provide a ton of variety.
I think Co-oP would be fun, but I don't know which would be the ideal way.
You could have multiple people on the same server in the same word, but not in the same area. With Comm consoles you could arrange trades between colonies, schedule a raid or simply visit.
Trading is simple, you add items to your trade list and decide the value you want to charge for it. Calling other settlements and selecting trade brings up their list of goods like a regular trade merchant.
Scheduling Raids/Visits is the more difficult part. If I wanted to raid another player they would need to be on, or have 'battle stations' set. Even then, the AI is wonderful and competitive but its not perfect. I'd want to defend my own settlement. Perhaps this could be a server Variable. Id add in some zone designations for 'no visitors' to keep them out of area's they shouldn't be, like equipment lockers. It'd be a cool way to steal from your neighbors and use the 'arrest' function nicely, Which also allows you to sell the person back to their original colony as payment for their crime.
For Co-oP you could either both schedule raids on an AI settlement, ranging from wooden huts for tribes to fortresses of steel or stone, complete with mortars and turrets. However, I think that managing the same colony, or multiple colonies in the same area will play well. I find myself running out of steel and silver on the map rather quickly and have to resort to salvaging everything from drop-pods, slag and attacks. Trying to have three or even two separate settlements on a map seems currently unreasonable. Power is the main concern. With 8 or so people each it could take a fair bit of power, and solar generators take a decent amount of room. You could instead fully control one colonist, like dictating priorities, and build the colony together but I think that defeats the purpose of the game a little. I vote Same Word, Separate Maps.
@Malcom374 for now though, Player on Player is incidentally the most feature complete solution than AI interactions.
If modders ever realised that even if RimWorld would to die, it's source code is free of use to those who purchased the game...
We practically can take the development into our own hands should we see fit.
I think that my idea is quite comprehensive and we have different game handling modes that handle issues on synchronization, offline attack allowance (asynchronous only), overworld map vs cell map.
Because why not?
I would imagine being it like Age of Empires 3.Or Stronghole 2 by map.
And Tynan alone,Said that having PVP is senseless.He is imagining CO OP,so players would be like 2-4,and they would help each other out so they would make their own ''story''.
Quote from: Oxidus on January 05, 2015, 03:43:54 AM
And Tynan alone,Said that having PVP is senseless.He is imagining CO OP,so players would be like 2-4,and they would help each other out so they would make their own ''story''.
Co-op and PvP are basically the same thing in RimWorld though. It's up to the players to work together or fight/steal/claw their way to 'victory' over enemy colonists. It'd be pretty cool to fight over resources that drop from the sky.
Quote from: Oxidus on January 05, 2015, 03:41:07 AMI would imagine being it like Age of Empires 3.Or Stronghole 2 by map.
What cell map actually means in-game is the tiles on the map of the colony.I call it cells because when you look at information on a character and check the guy's speed,
it's measured in c/s or cells per second. cells would be a measure of distance no different than what we would think is a tile in game.tl;dr1 cell = 1 tileTherefore, cells is just the in-game name for tiles.Sorry that it was so confusing.
btw, it is not a continuous map so it will not generate more map, just another map generated from one world tile away in the overworld in which your colonists are transported to the other tile on the side they are entering from in possibly preset locations originally meant for AI travellers.
PvP is not senseless. Look, if you have 2 colonies vying for survival, would there be mutual co-operation?
As long as PvP is left as an option for players to choose, As it would realistically make sense to have, there would be an even broader story to tell.
I imagine that Tynan thinks that having an overworld game is yet nigh impossible and he does not want to try.
From his viewpoint, having a war between 2 groups of colonists is pointless since they need each other to survive the raids etc. I agree.
But in an overworld situation, there can be colonies that are 20, even 30 years of age with many dozens of colonists who can pick up a gun and fight for their sovereign rights,
It's all up to the individual's point of view. If he won't allow PvP, someone will. There is a want for a multiplayer overworld, this is it.
Devs do not decide the game when they allow modders access to so much source material, the modders mould the game into what they think is a better game.
When the dev quits on you, (not saying Tynan will or will not) it's the community that keeps it up and running,
It's not exactly up to him (eventually) but it'll sure help if he would listen to this since this adds way more value to the game than what he probably is thinking.
(Any kind of online hosting server would eat bandwidth and probably crash the server/incur large costs for bandwidth alone.)
(centralised server would lag games that could otherwise have run smoothly on each other's machine due to location)
(mods would be less supported in a centralised server)
(Direct hosting would require a lot of IP manipulation and technical issues)
(There would be no convenient way to find hosts/games)
(Matchmaking server + Direct hosting still incurs some costs)
(More bugs with server/ hosting/ joining game)
(less with direct save loading and on the run saving.)
(Bandwidth cost is spread all on end-users, consider it a minor donation considering the small save sizes and loads of static objects that need not update)
(At no cost incurrence to Dev except dev time which is well spent on a good feature)
(Why play on one area when you can spread to other places and do combat? Replayability +++)
(Why the need to survive against the raiders when you can team up and nip the bud of the problem?)
(Eliminates a lot of 'dumb' raiders and makes base defense way harder)
(Encounter a dude who turtled into a mountain? Make a base into the mountain and dig to his colony and kill em all.)
(Definition of survival in rimworld improved.)
Sorry about the wall of text, I was frustrated about the community's... absolute faith and loyalty to Tynan.
There needs to be a radical new way of playing this game and here is a branch to a brighter future for RimWorld.
Don't just slam it and throw it away just because founder and creator of game disapproves of one of it's draw factors,
freedom to do absolutely anything stupid or otherwise.
Because YOLO.
Don't lock this thread just yet, mods. This is how games grow.
Quote from: Sir Wagglepuss III on January 04, 2015, 11:36:29 PMTbh, the largest scale map you can get is capable of sustaining about 4 pretty standard size colonies with up to 10-12 colonists.Trying to make a big, open, interlaced system where everybody's colonies interact with each other from their own map to the next may be a bit much to start off with (But hey, something I'd like to see in the long term regardless).I'd much prefer to see multiplayer start small, and have people survive together on the same map - Possibly tweaking resource costs etc depending on how many players are on a given map (But that's all balance talk, which'll come after the mechanics are set up).EG, each player starts with their base 3 colonists/starting resources and hops to it. Do they co-operate or shoot each other in the face? Up to them. But they've gotta deal with everything that happens on the map too.TL;DR: Start small, then think about scaling up.
That is what procedural map gens are for.
But hey, I hope Tynan can answer if a map can be generated without the overworld or the overworld being mapped by the maps.
a map generated without the overworld would need some way to save the overworld that is no longer a square or solid shape...
Quote from: Klitri on January 04, 2015, 09:38:47 PM
Just because you don't like PVP or that PVP is like starcraft doesn't mean it shouldn't be added. It can still be a part of the game. I'm sure if we could cooperate and fight, we'd usually cooperate until something happens that makes the other person stop the alliance. It'd only expand the story this game offers.
My thoughts exactly! ;D
Guys, this is a unique game, stop making comparisons to RTS games, they are fundamentally different.
Quote from: Malcom347 on January 05, 2015, 12:54:07 AM
You could have multiple people on the same server in the same word, but not in the same area. With Comm consoles you could arrange trades between colonies, schedule a raid or simply visit.
Why not live interact with each other? It would be more fair if you raided them and know that charging into a defense structure is bad and avoiding that.
You, after all, is a player. And players get involved. If you know something about sieging, those without the ability to hunt and have no hydroponics will just surrender and let you take whatever you want or kill them. They only have solar panels? target them and starve them of hydroponics.
Mining into a mountain would no longer serve much defense when the enemy starts digging through rock just to get through to you.
A structure on the ground would be vulnerable to RPGs and grenades as well as mortar.
The enemy built his base into a mountain very shallowly? Just mortar through his thin constructed roofs and give them a shock.
(Warning, if I ever get to host a game like this, I will include ED-Shields and just spam a couple of fortress shields >:D)
Quote from: ZestyLemons on January 05, 2015, 04:07:07 AM
Quote from: Oxidus on January 05, 2015, 03:43:54 AM
And Tynan alone,Said that having PVP is senseless.He is imagining CO OP,so players would be like 2-4,and they would help each other out so they would make their own ''story''.
Co-op and PvP are basically the same thing in RimWorld though. It's up to the players to work together or fight/steal/claw their way to 'victory' over enemy colonists. It'd be pretty cool to fight over resources that drop from the sky.
No,actually PvP means Player vs.Player and Tynan doesnt like idea of Player fighting each other he finds it senseless.If it was Co-oP and PvE it could be possible.
Quote from: Oxidus on January 05, 2015, 05:01:58 AM
Quote from: ZestyLemons on January 05, 2015, 04:07:07 AM
Quote from: Oxidus on January 05, 2015, 03:43:54 AM
And Tynan alone,Said that having PVP is senseless.He is imagining CO OP,so players would be like 2-4,and they would help each other out so they would make their own ''story''.
Co-op and PvP are basically the same thing in RimWorld though. It's up to the players to work together or fight/steal/claw their way to 'victory' over enemy colonists. It'd be pretty cool to fight over resources that drop from the sky.
No,actually PvP means Player vs.Player and Tynan doesnt like idea of Player fighting each other he finds it senseless.If it was Co-oP and PvE it could be possible.
Firstly, I apologize for the quote spam (idk how to remove the quote with it being complex and such)
Secondly, IT'S HIS OPINION, we don't need to agree with him at all times.
Thirdly, Tynan never stated how large the interstellar ships can be, the ship that spawned Rimworld could have been a 80 meter corvette housing more than 3 ppl obviously.
This ship for all we know could have been in evacuation mode and it may as well have housed thousands of millions of spacers and only now do spacers drop pod to the ground in their stasis pods in the emergency and populate the planet in the multiplayer (mod)
We can play this however we want in whatever form we want and with whatever terms and specifications we want.
Quote
A partial source release is included with the game in the Source folder.
Here you'll find a few of the source files for the base game for your reference.
You can also decompile the whole game using a .NET decompiler like dotPeek or ILSpy.
Some basic legal clarification:
-You're welcome to make whatever mod you like and distribute it as broadly as possible. <---
-You may only distribute RimWorld mods non-commercially (for free).
-You may accept donations, but only if all your mods are free for everyone.
Cheers
Ty
- Readme_Modmaking.txt
Let us hold him to it if it should go that far.
note: to any mod maker who reads this, you might notice Tynan allows for disassembly of his game so long as it's only for a mod.
Take this opportunity and learn about the game's secrets and inner workings!
Quote from: Anduin1357 on January 05, 2015, 05:30:08 AM
note: to any mod maker who reads this, you might notice Tynan allows for disassembly of his game so long as it's only for a mod.
Take this opportunity and learn about the game's secrets and inner workings!
From someone who is known for saying things like "
that'd be easy to implement", adding netcode would be a
massive job, even if you were adding only co-op LAN style connections (i.e. no central servers).
Being honest, I'm not sure what real payoff adding MP would give: although everyone loves their minecraft / Terraria servers, the entire focus of Rimworld is a timed experience (generally, 3 years). Too long to play in a day, too short to have as permanent servers.
Added to that is the mechanics - you'd have to have separate colonists / player if playing on the same map (rather than just world map), but what happens if a player wants to grief another? How would you handle build orders? e.g. you want to build a wall at point X; player two wants to build a farm - what happens when colonists try to 'over-lap'? What priority is given to zones and ownership? (and what's to stop someone laying out a 100x100 dumping zone on your base to prevent you using the real estate?). How would you prioritize resources? e.g. player 1 picks up an item; player 2 wants it - how do you set ownership?
Also, pvp would be entirely not-fun; without the dumb AI, bases are impossible to defend, and mortars would just be a griefing war.
That's just 5mins of thinking about it.
Quote from: Anduin1357 on January 05, 2015, 04:26:49 AM
Quote from: Oxidus on January 05, 2015, 03:41:07 AMI would imagine being it like Age of Empires 3.Or Stronghole 2 by map.
What cell map actually means in-game is the tiles on the map of the colony.I call it cells because when you look at information on a character and check the guy's speed,
it's measured in c/s or cells per second. cells would be a measure of distance no different than what we would think is a tile in game.tl;dr1 cell = 1 tileTherefore, cells is just the in-game name for tiles.
Sorry that it was so confusing.
btw, it is not a continuous map so it will not generate more map, just another map generated from one world tile away in the overworld in which your colonists are transported to the other tile on the side they are entering from in possibly preset locations originally meant for AI travellers.
PvP is not senseless. Look, if you have 2 colonies vying for survival, would there be mutual co-operation?
As long as PvP is left as an option for players to choose, As it would realistically make sense to have, there would be an even broader story to tell.
I imagine that Tynan thinks that having an overworld game is yet nigh impossible and he does not want to try.
From his viewpoint, having a war between 2 groups of colonists is pointless since they need each other to survive the raids etc. I agree.
But in an overworld situation, there can be colonies that are 20, even 30 years of age with many dozens of colonists who can pick up a gun and fight for their sovereign rights,
It's all up to the individual's point of view. If he won't allow PvP, someone will. There is a want for a multiplayer overworld, this is it.
Devs do not decide the game when they allow modders access to so much source material, the modders mould the game into what they think is a better game.
When the dev quits on you, (not saying Tynan will or will not) it's the community that keeps it up and running,
It's not exactly up to him (eventually) but it'll sure help if he would listen to this since this adds way more value to the game than what he probably is thinking.
(Any kind of online hosting server would eat bandwidth and probably crash the server/incur large costs for bandwidth alone.)
(centralised server would lag games that could otherwise have run smoothly on each other's machine due to location)
(mods would be less supported in a centralised server)
(Direct hosting would require a lot of IP manipulation and technical issues)
(There would be no convenient way to find hosts/games)
(Matchmaking server + Direct hosting still incurs some costs)
(More bugs with server/ hosting/ joining game)
(less with direct save loading and on the run saving.)
(Bandwidth cost is spread all on end-users, consider it a minor donation considering the small save sizes and loads of static objects that need not update)
(At no cost incurrence to Dev except dev time which is well spent on a good feature)
(Why play on one area when you can spread to other places and do combat? Replayability +++)
(Why the need to survive against the raiders when you can team up and nip the bud of the problem?)
(Eliminates a lot of 'dumb' raiders and makes base defense way harder)
(Encounter a dude who turtled into a mountain? Make a base into the mountain and dig to his colony and kill em all.)
(Definition of survival in rimworld improved.)
Sorry about the wall of text, I was frustrated about the community's... absolute faith and loyalty to Tynan.
There needs to be a radical new way of playing this game and here is a branch to a brighter future for RimWorld.
Don't just slam it and throw it away just because founder and creator of game disapproves of one of it's draw factors,
freedom to do absolutely anything stupid or otherwise.
Because YOLO.
Don't lock this thread just yet, mods. This is how games grow.
Tynan said IF (So it means there wont be no multiplayer at all) multiplayer will come out it wont be PVP,only Two colonies helping each other out to make their own story.So PVP is written off.
Quote from: Oxidus on January 05, 2015, 07:36:00 AM
Tynan said IF (So it means there wont be no multiplayer at all) multiplayer will come out it wont be PVP,only Two colonies helping each other out to make their own story.So PVP is written off.
::) Why do you even bother to reply in this thread when all you do is quote a wall of text and end off with a one liner which just ignored all my recent posts.
We don't need Tynan to say what we can or cannot
Do.
Quote from: Anduin1357 on January 05, 2015, 08:00:49 AMWe don't need Tynan to say what we can or cannot
Do.
I don't entirely agree with this statement. You can do whatever you want. You can make a mod out of this after all, but it's his game, and he has the final decision over it. ;)
Quote from: Anduin1357 on January 05, 2015, 08:00:49 AM
Quote from: Oxidus on January 05, 2015, 07:36:00 AM
Tynan said IF (So it means there wont be no multiplayer at all) multiplayer will come out it wont be PVP,only Two colonies helping each other out to make their own story.So PVP is written off.
::) Why do you even bother to reply in this thread when all you do is quote a wall of text and end off with a one liner which just ignored all my recent posts.
We don't need Tynan to say what we can or cannot
Do.
I agree with guy who commented before me,and do you wanna pay for a server?Do you?You need to do as Tynan says its his game or you need him to get allowed.Thats why i stopped reading everything after you noticed PVP.It doesnt make sense to read it.Since IF (Maybe multiplayer never gets released) multiplayer gets released it wont be PVP only Co-Op with PVE.
Quote from: Anduin1357 on January 05, 2015, 08:00:49 AM
Quote from: Oxidus on January 05, 2015, 07:36:00 AM
Tynan said IF (So it means there wont be no multiplayer at all) multiplayer will come out it wont be PVP,only Two colonies helping each other out to make their own story.So PVP is written off.
::) Why do you even bother to reply in this thread when all you do is quote a wall of text and end off with a one liner which just ignored all my recent posts.
We don't need Tynan to say what we can or cannot
Do.
And i didnt meant to argue with you,me alone wanted PVP to be and come out but...Its senseless just like Tynan says.
How exactly is the concept of Player Vs. Player in potential multiplayer campaigns senseless? Considering the games theme, it honestly makes perfect sense, depending on how its implemented.
Irregardless; I believe if multiplayer is implemented, and PvP is not, someone out there will figure out a way to mod it to be optional. We've got some smart cookies in the modding community. :X
XY players same colony would be great. Id like to see 2 ( or more ) players one base just like AoE 2 had when you chose same color.
Would be nice to manage base together because its pretty much boring alone, even tho game is fun but doing the same thing all over again ... that is insanity.
Speeding up would be like in other games Stronghold, Supreme Commander etc. Everybody can speed up/slow down.
If Tynan implents dying ingame then players would start in basic Sky Blue colour and to make them uniforms colour it by team colour,that would be cool :D
It could be a giant risk like game. Capture the hole world with your team
Quote from: Oxidus on January 05, 2015, 10:46:48 AM
Quote from: Anduin1357 on January 05, 2015, 08:00:49 AM
Quote from: Oxidus on January 05, 2015, 07:36:00 AM
Tynan said IF (So it means there wont be no multiplayer at all) multiplayer will come out it wont be PVP,only Two colonies helping each other out to make their own story.So PVP is written off.
::) Why do you even bother to reply in this thread when all you do is quote a wall of text and end off with a one liner which just ignored all my recent posts.
We don't need Tynan to say what we can or cannot
Do.
I agree with guy who commented before me,and do you wanna pay for a server?Do you?You need to do as Tynan says its his game or you need him to get allowed.Thats why i stopped reading everything after you noticed PVP.It doesnt make sense to read it.Since IF (Maybe multiplayer never gets released) multiplayer gets released it wont be PVP only Co-Op with PVE.
Quote from: Geertje123 on January 05, 2015, 09:49:47 AM
Quote from: Anduin1357 on January 05, 2015, 08:00:49 AMWe don't need Tynan to say what we can or cannot
Do.
I don't entirely agree with this statement. You can do whatever you want. You can make a mod out of this after all, but it's his game, and he has the final decision over it. ;)
All I can say is
QuoteA partial source release is included with the game in the Source folder.
Here you'll find a few of the source files for the base game for your reference.
You can also decompile the whole game using a .NET decompiler like dotPeek or ILSpy.
Some basic legal clarification:
-You're welcome to make whatever mod you like and distribute it as broadly as possible. <---
-You may only distribute RimWorld mods non-commercially (for free).
-You may accept donations, but only if all your mods are free for everyone.
Cheers
Ty
- Readme_Modmaking.txt
People are too stupid to read.
Come on now, let's not start with the huge fonts.
You said that you don't need Tynan to say what we can and cannot do, but you keep referencing the things that Tynan explicitly says that we can do. Hear what you're saying, mon. You're just saying that you don't need Tynan to say what we cannot do.
It's still his game, though. If someday he changes his stance and explicitly says that he doesn't want his game to be made into PvP, will you back down?
Not very interested about multiplayer game, but if...
I would like to see huge map where few players simultaniously drop in (from same broken ship) with 1-3 (according choice when creating a game) characters each. After that, it would be up to them what to do: start a war, build huge colonny or build separate colonies.
- Resources like energy generators, workbench's, storage/dumping piles and fields would have option to share it with another player. If generator produce excess power it would be routed to another if there is power line (if several players then output is shared between them). Both colonies would collect from shared field to nearest shared or own pile according priority (favoring owned when same priority). Hungry person would go nearest place to snack.
- You could steal from another player, but that would be considered as stealing. Player could answer by changing hostility level when provoked, not otherwise unless agreeed otherwise when game is created. Friendly (characters help each other like own colony members by taking them medical beds and healing), neutral, hostile (they consider eachother with enemies and start fighting, turrets fire them etc).
- Difficulty level would be higher as there more players, still diffrent levels.
Quote from: StorymasterQ on January 05, 2015, 08:57:04 PM
Come on now, let's not start with the huge fonts.
You said that you don't need Tynan to say what we can and cannot do, but you keep referencing the things that Tynan explicitly says that we can do. Hear what you're saying, mon. You're just saying that you don't need Tynan to say what we cannot do.
It's still his game, though. If someday he changes his stance and explicitly says that he doesn't want his game to be made into PvP, will you back down?
No, but he will not endorse it.
Quote from: Syvera on January 05, 2015, 11:05:57 AM
How exactly is the concept of Player Vs. Player in potential multiplayer campaigns senseless? Considering the games theme, it honestly makes perfect sense, depending on how its implemented.
Irregardless; I believe if multiplayer is implemented, and PvP is not, someone out there will figure out a way to mod it to be optional. We've got some smart cookies in the modding community. :X
I dont think that modders any MODDERS (People who make MODS) can make in Multiplayer game PVP.We only can talk with Tynan about that.And im not saying our Modders are lame (Because i joined just to thank them before for cool mods ;D) but i dont think its modders job to do that.
I am sure these may be trying for the Player Vs Player and soon will come up with it.
Quote from: Cat123 on January 05, 2015, 06:57:20 AM
Quote from: Anduin1357 on January 05, 2015, 05:30:08 AM
note: to any mod maker who reads this, you might notice Tynan allows for disassembly of his game so long as it's only for a mod.
Take this opportunity and learn about the game's secrets and inner workings!
From someone who is known for saying things like "that'd be easy to implement", adding netcode would be a massive job, even if you were adding only co-op LAN style connections (i.e. no central servers).
Being honest, I'm not sure what real payoff adding MP would give: although everyone loves their minecraft / Terraria servers, the entire focus of Rimworld is a timed experience (generally, 3 years). Too long to play in a day, too short to have as permanent servers.
Added to that is the mechanics - you'd have to have separate colonists / player if playing on the same map (rather than just world map), but what happens if a player wants to grief another? How would you handle build orders? e.g. you want to build a wall at point X; player two wants to build a farm - what happens when colonists try to 'over-lap'? What priority is given to zones and ownership? (and what's to stop someone laying out a 100x100 dumping zone on your base to prevent you using the real estate?). How would you prioritize resources? e.g. player 1 picks up an item; player 2 wants it - how do you set ownership?
Also, pvp would be entirely not-fun; without the dumb AI, bases are impossible to defend, and mortars would just be a griefing war.
That's just 5mins of thinking about it.
I have abandoned this thread in favor of making a more civil thread.
Here are my last 2 cents responding.
Adding netcode may be a massive job but P2P has been widely implemented for launcher update uses etc...
And netcode is hardest to optimise because of latency problems yes but this is inherent of all multiplayer ventures.
My idea is relatively easy since 1. you have a direct internet cross-download and upload
2. Anyone can play for as long as they like, since this game is Async when you are offline.
Your assets remain in the game when you are offline. They can be attacked if in Async mode but defending AI tend to be quite good at their job. This can be improved on by mods.
3. The priority goes like this, Owner, (usually the first guy to spawn in there.) Conqueror, (guy who killed more than 75% of all player structures & pawns) Allies of the Owner/Conqueror, Explorer, (First foreign player to find this area.) and then the visitors who pass by and they are not the first. If a player griefs you, your order can cancel the other player's order if you take precedence in aforementioned list.
4. Instead of a Colony (Colony), it will be Colony ([Username]). Having more than 1 of such listing is possible. The Colony prefix would be renamable for the dev, mod, owner and first explorer(for ruins) whoever takes precedence except dev and mod for admin purposes eg. offensive name. This would allow names like "City of the Ancients (Anduin1357)".
As for resource fighting, the colonists will trigger a yellow exception letter notification stating that colonist x and colonist y wants z resource. If they decide to fight over it, so be it. :) The colonist(s) will stand opposite each other (arguing) over the resource for a set time and then the item would be auto-forbidden until the players resolve it.
Note that if the colonists are hostile, they will automatically start a shootout for the resource.
Same for build orders. If said players are hostile, overlaps are forbidden as if you were trying to build an object into a wall.
Same with allies. If you want to overlap, ask the affected player first.
(Sorry I did not reply sooner, if only you added a new post would yours be noticed faster.)
Quote from: Oxidus on January 05, 2015, 12:32:04 PM
If Tynan implents dyeing ingame then players would start in basic Sky Blue colour and to make them uniforms colour it by team colour,that would be cool :D
Quote from: murhe on January 05, 2015, 09:05:28 PM
Not very interested about multiplayer game, but if...
I would like to see huge map where few players simultaniously drop in (from same broken ship) with 1-3 (according choice when creating a game) characters each. After that, it would be up to them what to do: start a war, build huge colonny or build separate colonies.
- Resources like energy generators, workbench's, storage/dumping piles and fields would have option to share it with another player. If generator produce excess power it would be routed to another if there is power line (if several players then output is shared between them). Both colonies would collect from shared field to nearest shared or own pile according priority (favoring owned when same priority). Hungry person would go nearest place to snack.
- You could steal from another player, but that would be considered as stealing. Player could answer by changing hostility level when provoked, not otherwise unless agreeed otherwise when game is created. Friendly (characters help each other like own colony members by taking them medical beds and healing), neutral, hostile (they consider eachother with enemies and start fighting, turrets fire them etc).
- Difficulty level would be higher as there more players, still diffrent levels.
Besides more fancy multiplayer implementations or a more regular stronghold-like PvP match, your idea is similar to what i've been thinking about.
Except that I've been thinking of each player is only one character. There would be fog-of-war so you don't know what others are doing and the rest is pretty much what you described, with some sort of interpersonal diplomacy system. So you could the build public stuff, storage, buildings and lockers or private ones. If you build a private door then only you can have the key, unless someone decides to bring it down while you are away.
You could play with friends, where cooperation and communication is granted, but it would shine with random people who you have no idea how they will behave. Either way, cooperating or not, you have your classical challenges of raiders and blights, eclipses and cold winter.
It's possible to even have some sort of semi-permanent hub-like server with a more permanent colony. Original players would drop (or we can even forget the crash, make it a simple frontier colony) and new players are roamers that seek refuge there. It gets to be a little roleplayish in nature, but you still get to do the same stuff you do in a normal game. Dying means just picking another fresh pawn.
The great about the system is creating tension by having every pawn (player) fight for its own survival, unlike we do in a single player, where we have our favorites and tend to prioritize them, like deciding who gets to stay on the frontline or hunt siegers.
Nobody wants an RPG-like singleplaying multiplayer.
The premise of the game is group survival, nobody walks alone.
Who is this nobody? I'd like to meet him for i too would like a rpg-like singleplaying multiplayer, he doesn't need to walk alone anymore :)
Quote from: Johnny Masters on January 08, 2015, 09:06:16 PM
Who is this nobody? I'd like to meet him for i too would like a rpg-like singleplaying multiplayer, he doesn't need to walk alone anymore :)
You are kidding, right? This game's intended audience is exactly opposite of the RPG genre. You might be hard pressed to find someone else who shares your particular interest and plays this game.
Quote from: Anduin1357 on January 08, 2015, 11:51:35 PMThis game's intended audience is exactly opposite of the RPG genre. You might be hard pressed to find someone else who shares your particular interest and plays this game.
Is this because Tynan said so? Let me quote you here:
Quote from: Anduin1357 on January 05, 2015, 08:00:49 AMWe don't need Tynan to say what we can or cannot
Do.
::)
Quote from: Geertje123 on January 09, 2015, 03:50:15 AM
Quote from: Anduin1357 on January 08, 2015, 11:51:35 PMThis game's intended audience is exactly opposite of the RPG genre. You might be hard pressed to find someone else who shares your particular interest and plays this game.
Is this because Tynan said so? Let me quote you here:
Quote from: Anduin1357 on January 05, 2015, 08:00:49 AMWe don't need Tynan to say what we can or cannot
Do.
::)
This is not what Tynan said, this is what this game can be categorised as. I am not saying that it is impossible for it to be so BUT, I said that "You might be hard pressed to find someone else who shares your particular interest and plays this game." I did not contradict myself on this point.
This game can be categorized as a singleplayer, yet here we are, discussing multiplayer.
It's not uncommon for RTS games to feature rpg-like situations, missions & or entire systems. There were plenty of mods and maps in games like Starcraft and Age of Empires where you control a single person, so it's not such a far-fetched mention as you might think. Sure, they were mostly mods or custom stuff, but the base game supported such thing, which is what i'm advocating.
Quote from: Johnny Masters on January 09, 2015, 01:34:46 PM
This game can be categorized as a singleplayer, yet here we are, discussing multiplayer.
It's not uncommon for RTS games to feature rpg-like situations, missions & or entire systems. There were plenty of mods and maps in games like Starcraft and Age of Empires where you control a single person, so it's not such a far-fetched mention as you might think. Sure, they were mostly mods or custom stuff, but the base game supported such thing, which is what i'm advocating.
I'm not saying that it is not possible but multiplayer wise, it requires a large number of players and a very bad sync rate depending on locations. When it comes to singleplayer, it is possible but there is a lot of content to make, a load of things to balance. Depending on how your RPG-like story pans out, colony generation is still in the works.
This is a largely content based mod that would need updates to no end, it could be akin to a mmorpg or a small rpg in multiplayer and a very hard singleplayer.
You would need cooperation in multiplayer to get anywhere.
Griefing would be a huge issue since you would be sent back in a new spawn even in PvP.
I do not have experience playing any of these singleplayer RPG-in-an-RTS but the big question is, how far would you go to complete a perpetually incomplete-able mod or how far would you say that it is complete?
No no, it is far far simpler than how you think it would work.
Remember, you're the one who said it would be rpg, I never thought of it as rpg, although i welcome the idea.
In it's simpler forms, it's just a regular game, regular biomes, regular events, buildings and enemies. The only difference is that each pawn is a player. Player population isn't such an issue nowaday with games spanning up to 64 players, albeit 12 is a good number.
You could further its complexity, by adding things like fog-of-war and diplomacy systems. Further along would be colony generation and autonomous AI...
A different road would be indeed an rpg-like approach, with custom-dependent content. But, similar as other rts, they would work with in a rather limited timespan and map. You join, play the map's challenged (a dungeon? who knows) and finish the game in a couple of hours. But that's it, a different road.
Here's what I'd like for multiplayer:
Each server is a planet and can have "X" number of players.
Each played lands on a square on the planet and has their own map.
Each planet is like a "round" and there's a winner to the match, but players can come and go within the limits.
Everyone builds colonies on their own map, but you can send groups to other tiles on away missions.
Trading, raiding, scavenging, etc.
Maybe you just want to scout the next adjacent tile for loose metal- you can send off with a % chance to win/lose/die on auto, or go manual, create a stockpile while there and be able to haul back your whole stockpile in a caravan.
But while you're on your away mission, your base continues and could be attacked and you have limited building options (beds, walls, doors, solars, security and stockpiles).
You could go to a friend's colony and have a trading party build a small outpost, help hauling and mining and such.
Or troll a local by building walls on their entrance until they come out and attack you and you flee home.
You would be able to group chat only in the comms console and local chat on each map, but maybe limit max of 4 players on any given map together. And maybe less tiles overall, so you might only be able to land in tundra on some planets due to crowding.
Then the next level would be claiming new tiles to expand bases... one could theoretically claim all tiles on the planet map and build a planet-wide city, dominating that server, winning the game by covering the planet. But you'd only be able to build on your original map- you could maybe generate a stock outpost on each claimed tile which could support security posts that you could "station" a couple colonists, and maybe even just reduce empty tiles to % based resource generators.. but make it about having control over portions of the map in a "round" while building your colony. You can team up with other players and form an allegiance after meeting certain conditions and take on other colonies, or attempt to join with them.
For the encounters themselves, I think if combat is initiated, it should be almost turn based in the sense that you have "15 seconds to issue orders" and then have to watch it play out for 30 seconds before all parties get another 15 seconds to issue commands.
I'd love to see a kind of civilization-esque set of end games, but with rankings based on points... kind of like you have to either:
a) Light a beacon to send in the mothership and claim the planet (100 pts)
b) expand your colony by claiming 75% of the tiles on the map (90 pts)
c) create an alliance that has 75% of the tiles on the map for shared victory (80pts)
d) create a new ship and blast off to another planet (50pts)
e) destroy the planet by creating a mega-drill to the core (60 pts)
With each victory "alerting" other players at a certain stage. Like, "oh shit, that dude in the corner is going to blow up the planet! We have to get him!"
So it's like, you log on and pick a server. You skip the new game lobby and dive onto an existing planet.
3 players are building... 1 has about 30% of the map claimed. Looks like a lot of abandoned sites- this game has been running for 3 hours. You drop in near another player.
Establishing a simple base, you send a small away part over to the nearby player on a trade mission. In local chat you discover the bigger player has been terrorizing new players to gain resources. You forge an alliance, which requires all kinds of things to complete, but return to your base to beef defenses. Sure enough the big player comes with a raid of 10 men and starts building mortars at the edge of the map. Once they start firing it will go turn based. You radio your ally on the comms and send a cry for help. They send an armed part of 4 men. You battle it out. Victory, but at a cost. The bigger player radios you on the comms and lets you know he'll be back soon. But you'll be ready. And Stomp, your level 20 researcher is working on that mothership beacon...
I think that would be fun!
oh yeah, and i forgot to mention, the idea behind having multiple paths for victories would be for a ranking system.
the idea being you play games and get 1 point for building 5 solars, or a point for defeating a raid, 2 for a player-raid, etc... but the victories also give points and some might be faster, longer or more risky. And you're trying to get these points to advance your rank.
Advancing in rank would unlock more difficult worlds.
I think the basic faction system already implented have an interesting features. It modifies the ai behavior in draft mode: colonies automatically attack enemy pawn. It could be refine in a way that colonist would automatically attack allies enemies also. Pvp wise, everyone would start neutral to everyone. As such, attacking the colonist of a neutral or allied player would require a manual order. With enough kill, it would make it automatic. gift to a player would have to be accepted in order for the relation bonus to take place. That would create a simple yet efficient mechanism of alliance and war. Also, seeing the inefficience of the combat ai compared to human player, i wouldnt allow for attack on another player base if he is not connected, pending certain suggestions on the way multiplayer could be implented.
- Each planet is larger than you think, you are talking timescales of weeks, even months to win.
- Is it possible to even lay claim to, colonise and effectively dominate when the AI would just keep trying to trash you for being the biggest dude out there?
- As for end games, for whom are you ending it for if you fly off and you need to be able to contact a faction in order to light a beacon or destroy the planet.
17shadow, you're welcome to look at my multiplayer idea.
Ugh, i'd vote no for everything that is done out of player control (no AI taking control of things for me).
It's largely impractical and unrealistic conquering/dominating an entire world worth thousands of kms short of having thousands of colonists.
Quote from: Geertje123 on January 09, 2015, 03:50:15 AM
Quote from: Anduin1357 on January 08, 2015, 11:51:35 PMThis game's intended audience is exactly opposite of the RPG genre. You might be hard pressed to find someone else who shares your particular interest and plays this game.
Is this because Tynan said so? Let me quote you here:
Quote from: Anduin1357 on January 05, 2015, 08:00:49 AMWe don't need Tynan to say what we can or cannot
Do.
::)
He speaks controversially, yet says that
we would be hard pressed to find someone else who shares the same interest. I feel a collective eye-rolling in progress. ::)
Haha well it seems we're past that at least.
Now, if we could get some official response... A good one, not those hit&runs that tynan does every once in a while
Quote from: Johnny Masters on January 11, 2015, 01:34:31 AM
Ugh, i'd vote no for everything that is done out of player control (no AI taking control of things for me).
It's largely impractical and unrealistic conquering/dominating an entire world worth thousands of kms short of having thousands of colonists.
There is something called an alliance system if you feel squeamish about handling so many colonists with AI.
What can we do without AI? They do all the automatic job handling, targeting and shooting etc.
If you really hate the AI, try imagining the game without AI...
You misunderstand my post, i'm referring to decision making not automation of certain tasks. AI handling jobs based on what i set: ok. AI handling jobs based on whatever it sets: nah. AI self-feeding pawns: ok. AI deciding what to cook and when: nah.
AI deciding what to build, the layout of my base and everything that pawns do while i'm absent (in another map, as suggested): big nah nah
Johnny, if you are not happy about the AI going to generate a base for you, generate it yourself, I'm sue it's more fun that way and oh, If you want to micro jobs, be my guest.
AI can be improved, I did not say that it is perfect yet. It needs refining and it needs either the time or the effort of people who are willing to work on it.
You underestimate the power of the AI. It is only as smart as the people who made it out to be.
I don't dislike AI doing stuff because it could be incompetent (well, there's that too), i dislike because i don't want it to be playing the game for me. I'm afraid we're tackling slighty different things, because it feels like you think i'm criticizing something i may not actually be doing.
Just for clarity sake:
I dislike, for example, an instance where i might go to someone else's map and while i'm away, the AI takes control of my base and do stuff i don't want it to do (as per someone above suggested). Then, to add insult, i come back and a battle agaisnt a player was fought in my absence, with my pawns being handled by the AI. I don't want that.
Either way, i think direct and pervasive contact with our multiplayer opponentes/friends should be constant, like regular rts is done. But then, that's just my opinion.
Quote from: Johnny Masters on January 11, 2015, 04:56:42 AM
I don't dislike AI doing stuff because it could be incompetent (well, there's that too), i dislike because i don't want it to be playing the game for me. I'm afraid we're tackling slighty different things, because it feels like you think i'm criticizing something i may not actually be doing.
Just for clarity sake:
I dislike, for example, an instance where i might go to someone else's map and while i'm away, the AI takes control of my base and do stuff i don't want it to do (as per someone above suggested). Then, to add insult, i come back and a battle agaisnt a player was fought in my absence, with my pawns being handled by the AI. I don't want that.
Either way, i think direct and pervasive contact with our multiplayer opponentes/friends should be constant, like regular rts is done. But then, that's just my opinion.
Then it's only fair that I agree that the AI atm is nowhere near what we think is good enough to be entrusted with our bases in our absence. It is not playing the game for you, it is playing the game with you. It does things you define as within its bounds and notifies you should anything that may need your personal attention arise. It aids you, not replace you. That is the difference.
(all right, i'll abide into the conversation)
Hence why i said I abide and enjoy automatic work overseen by me, but not much more than that. It all depends on how much and how many things you're willing to give control to the AI and how much and how many things the game thrusts upon you that you might need an ever increasing aid from the AI.
Should the AI auto-aim & shoot for you should you be afk for 5 seconds in a fps game? My guess is no.
Should the AI control my base in RW in my absence? I dunno, it might, but that's not the question, it's just that i don't want it to reach this point. Not now at least, i might change my idea down the road.