Ludeon Forums

The game will have a multiplayer?

No, no it won't.

Not initially atleast.

Quote from: The Ataraxist on September 25, 2013, 03:13:07 PM
Not initially atleast.

Indeed, but multiplayer would be odd on this type of game.

Would it? It seems like how it would be done in Tropico 5, with several cities in a small area.

Quote from: ZebioLizard2 on September 25, 2013, 03:42:00 PM
Would it? It seems like how it would be done in Tropico 5, with several cities in a small area.

Huh, I change my opinion, I think multiplayer could in fact work if it used that sort of thing and a bigger map.

It's an interesting idea, but at least six months away. Probably never, but as I say, still an interesting idea. It is technically possible.

Quote from: Tynan on September 25, 2013, 04:51:32 PM
It's an interesting idea, but at least six months away. Probably never, but as I say, still an interesting idea. It is technically possible.

Multiplayer confirmed! ;)

Right, that's all we can ask for.

Although technically everything is possible, the game mechanics will not be complicated?

What if I've seen i is interesting is certain social characteristics. For example, in Godus, followers (equivalent to the colonists in Rimworld) have Godus players names. A settler yours would flee, to leave dle planet or whatever and end up in another player's game would be interesting, or such other colonies to establish trade with other players of being offline.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea. Would it just be like the ship split in two and now you have two groups of settlers that don't know where each other are? There's going to be an end game before multiplayer (most likely), so this might add an interesting dynamic. It creates so many possibilities, though, that it might be better suited for a sequel.

Quote from: Jakadasnake on September 25, 2013, 05:23:55 PM
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea. Would it just be like the ship split in two and now you have two groups of settlers that don't know where each other are? There's going to be an end game before multiplayer (most likely), so this might add an interesting dynamic. It creates so many possibilities, though, that it might be better suited for a sequel.

Alpha Centauri as an example, both a political & Ideological split, as well as ship fragmenting could all be reasons. Even if everyones together, not everyone is going to agree on whose leading for various reasons.

I suddenly have this strange urge to watch Lost...

If I did multiplayer I think it would be in a co-op context.

Making the game into a competitive RTS would really break a lot of the core concepts driving the design. Namely: it's not about winning, it's about the story.

A competitive context would break because the game isn't close to being balanced (what with all the random events and degenerate strategies). In this context competition becomes meaningless.

If we had several players working together, however (say, on the same colony, or in allied colonies close together), they could experience the AI Storyteller's stories together, maybe help each other in times of need, stuff like that. And we wouldn't have to balance the game for PvP.

Quote from: Tynan on September 25, 2013, 05:58:00 PM
If I did multiplayer I think it would be in a co-op context.

Making the game into a competitive RTS would really break a lot of the core concepts driving the design. Namely: it's not about winning, it's about the story.

A competitive context would break because the game isn't close to being balanced (what with all the random events and degenerate strategies). In this context competition becomes meaningless.

If we had several players working together, however (say, on the same colony, or in allied colonies close together), they could experience the AI Storyteller's stories together, maybe help each other in times of need, stuff like that. And we wouldn't have to balance the game for PvP.

That makes sense. I didn't expect it would feature a directly competitive element. I suppose I just imagined it would be more akin to having the two players on their own just like in a single player game, but with the knowledge of the others' existence. Might offer incentive to try and explore towards another person or force a more nomadic play style between the two until they are able to meet up and join forces. If the two develop independently one might pull ahead and try to stage a rescue of the other team.
Working adjacently certainly would offer its fair share of interesting dynamics as well. But yeah, I couldn't really see this being a PvP experience.

I suppose there's no real need to even set a goal on it. After all, we don't do that in SP either. Just put several groups in the map and let them do as they please. If they're friends on Ventrilo they'll probably cooperate. Or maybe not.

Not that multiplayer is planned or anything.

I was thinking about an asymmetrical multiplayer mode where one player is controlling colonists, and the other one would control events and raiders like a game master, but as I was typing it started to be less and less good an idea.  :-[

Quote from: Tynan on September 25, 2013, 06:12:32 PM
I suppose there's no real need to even set a goal on it. After all, we don't do that in SP either. Just put several groups in the map and let them do as they please. If they're friends on Ventrilo they'll probably cooperate. Or maybe not.

Not that multiplayer is planned or anything.

Yea, just thinking hypothetically at the minute, the map would have to e rather big if it took a good while to meet up with other players, how big if a map can the engine handle?

Currently it's 200x200 (40000 squares). I've tested 250x250 (~60000 squares) and it's okay. Beyond that some performance issues start to become really problematic.

I assume the scale is roughly a square = a meter, but it's really not a good idea to start comparing in-game and real life scales, as a colonist in RimWorld has to spend most of his day to travel 200m  ::)

Quote from: Hypolite on September 25, 2013, 06:26:47 PM
I assume the scale is roughly a square = a meter, but it's really not a good idea to start comparing in-game and real life scales, as a colonist in RimWorld has to spend most of his day to travel 200m  ::)

In fairness, it's more the time that is weird than the distances.

I imagined a square to be something like 120cm. But it's obviously variable and not exactly "realistic".

Quote from: Tynan on September 25, 2013, 06:12:32 PM
I suppose there's no real need to even set a goal on it. After all, we don't do that in SP either. Just put several groups in the map and let them do as they please. If they're friends on Ventrilo they'll probably cooperate. Or maybe not.

Not that multiplayer is planned or anything.

That's awesome. Not that multiplayer is planned, but yeah. More freedom = more awesome.

Quote from: Tynan on September 25, 2013, 06:27:46 PM

Quote from: Hypolite on September 25, 2013, 06:26:47 PM
I assume the scale is roughly a square = a meter, but it's really not a good idea to start comparing in-game and real life scales, as a colonist in RimWorld has to spend most of his day to travel 200m  ::)

In fairness, it's more the time that is weird than the distances.

I imagined a square to be something like 120cm. But it's obviously variable and not exactly "realistic".

Damn, that's still pretty huge.

Quote from: Tynan on September 25, 2013, 06:27:46 PMIn fairness, it's more the time that is weird than the distances.

That's what I meant, the different scales (time, distance) are not weird in themselves, but comparing both is unadvisable.

Multiplayer?Would be good idea ACCORDING to this TYPE of game.(PA, cant have MP because it doesnt fit the game well), but MP would ruin the game. Most companies put effort on MP rather than SP. So, no. Lets wait for the game to be fully released..

Quote from: thekillergreece on September 26, 2013, 12:32:12 AMMost companies put effort on MP rather than SP. So, no. Lets wait for the game to be fully released..

The idea behind those companies is supposedly that they'd gather more crowd with MP than SP.
The real problem starts when they stop caring about the SP (which most of the time ends up sucking hard), and divert their resources to MP (which might not be so good either).
That's probably different in the indie world, though

In any case, the way I see it: make a good SP *or* MP first, iron-it out, THEN you can think about expanding.

Quote from: Tynan on September 25, 2013, 05:58:00 PM
If I did multiplayer I think it would be in a co-op context.

Making the game into a competitive RTS would really break a lot of the core concepts driving the design. Namely: it's not about winning, it's about the story.

A competitive context would break because the game isn't close to being balanced (what with all the random events and degenerate strategies). In this context competition becomes meaningless.

If we had several players working together, however (say, on the same colony, or in allied colonies close together), they could experience the AI Storyteller's stories together, maybe help each other in times of need, stuff like that. And we wouldn't have to balance the game for PvP.

Put me in the list that would love to see MP. Especially a Co-op kind.
I wouldn't care to see pvp or anything like that but not against it. I love co-op stuff who doesn't like playing with a friend or 2 :P
Also I don't think adding co-op would take out from the SP since it would still play pretty close to playing SP.

Like Jakadasnake said
"I suppose I just imagined it would be more akin to having the two players on their own just like in a single player game, but with the knowledge of the others' existence. Might offer incentive to try and explore towards another person or force a more nomadic play style between the two until they are able to meet up and join forces. If the two develop independently one might pull ahead and try to stage a rescue of the other team.
Working adjacently certainly would offer its fair share of interesting dynamics as well"  Would be really cool to see.

If you ask me MP adds a lot more life and longevity to a game. Example I love Prison Architect but only played 10-15ish hours while my coop games I play for ages. That said PA isn't a game where MP or even co-op would work well. One reason I backed (bought on Ludeon site) was my love for PA... That and it sounds awesome!!
I wouldn't mind seeing MP show up after release or even a paid DLC for 5-10 bucks. It could even go up on Steam Early Access so you could still bring in money if you wanted to add MP before release.
BUT! I'm not the game Dev. Its all up to you. I just wanted to voice that I would absolutely love to see MP/CO-OP.

The ideal way, in my mind, to do co-op would be letting each player control one of the 3-5 survivors in the same colony. That way you
* Have to work together
* Have your own needs and desires
* Can die

I think co-op multiplayer could be interesting.

I like the idea that each player takes control of a small group of survivors just like in single-player. We all crashland on the same map.

What happens after that is entirely up to the players.

We could all just go about our business like in single-player and build our own little outposts.

We could raid each other for resources, slaves / prisoners etc.

We could abandon our little colony and go join a more successful one.

We could all band together to co-operate and make a mega colony.

But the choice of what we do is entirely up to the players in the game, none of it is set out by the game itself.

In the hypothetical multi-player, something like that is what I would like to see.

Co-op would be awesome!

As people have said, this doesn't strike me as a multiplayer game, at least one that would work without changing the game quite significantly.

Also, have you ever considered map 'cells'? I.e. you step over one side and another cell loads. It would be one way of expanding the map drastically while saving on CPU. The loads are ugly, but it is a cheap way of making a large map.

Quote from: Ontogenesis on October 08, 2013, 01:22:59 PM
Also, have you ever considered map 'cells'? I.e. you step over one side and another cell loads. It would be one way of expanding the map drastically while saving on CPU. The loads are ugly, but it is a cheap way of making a large map.

Besides not having much to do with multiplayer, it's being discussed :P
http://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=147.0

Quote from: Tynan on September 25, 2013, 05:58:00 PM
If I did multiplayer I think it would be in a co-op context.

Making the game into a competitive RTS would really break a lot of the core concepts driving the design. Namely: it's not about winning, it's about the story.

A competitive context would break because the game isn't close to being balanced (what with all the random events and degenerate strategies). In this context competition becomes meaningless.

If we had several players working together, however (say, on the same colony, or in allied colonies close together), they could experience the AI Storyteller's stories together, maybe help each other in times of need, stuff like that. And we wouldn't have to balance the game for PvP.

Perfect, if you ever add Multiplayer please please please do it this way :)

How about a squad system?

Each individual on the multiplayer is given the initial, three I believe, starting survivors and create separate mini-camps. There's no competitive edge, only the competition to get certain forage-able items before the other with restricted areas for building so trolling or just a clash of ideas doesn't occur. Then they can see each others stories develop as well as their own with a text chat to discuss the matters of each others characters aswell as initiating trade. Co-op does sound a lot better.

Have there been any building games that have had multiplayer in the past? I'm trying to figure out how multiplayer RimWorld would be a fun, interactive experience that has players playing with each other rather than beside each other. This isn't Minecraft where building stuff is time consuming and having multiple people helps.

I'm just pushing forward an idea for if it does go through. Personally I highly doubt it because servers are expensive for a single coder, even at his level of skill it doesn't even come into it, it's just pricey.

As for your idea of a building multiplayer, I agree it would be the most fun to have building as a group of people next to each other, but it's unmanageable. There'd be no system to keep trolls out who just want to build around everybody's compound to trap them in, or people who's designs just collide. There's no way for the game to recognize those two types of player.

I know that I, personally, wouldn't play this game co-op if it follows the form of each person is in charge of a landed colonist.  It just wouldn't interest me.  I would much rather that each player get their own colonists and work on their own bases, or work together on a large base, being able to trade resources and work together.  Honestly my wish would be that each person landed on a different part of the map, and the biggest interactions is trading and perhaps sending colonists to each other, maybe being able to hop on to your friend's map during raids to help with defenses.

I have an idea for the multiplayer (don't know if there will be multiplayer, but I want to share this idea)

First of all the maps should be bigger, because I can imagine that bases can be pretty big in the later stages of the game.
You can have this game in which 2 players (or more if you are able to make that happen) build bases near each other, and they are not able to interact with the characters of the other player. What you can do is trade with each other. You are able to have a shared energy system and the random events are stronger and more things happen during the random event.

I don't know whether you ever played Borderlands, but the enemies get stronger the more players are in the game. So if you have 4 players the enemies will be stronger, tougher and harder to kill than in a 2 players game. This would be awesome if this would be a feature in the multiplayer as well!

Thanks for reading and I hope this was usefull in some way

I really like the idea of a co-op multiplayer. I think having sections of the map / building on the same map, with each player controlling their own group of colonists would be best. It should probably be hosted by one of the players, and likely not more than a few players at a time. I think most of the interaction would come from trading, helping in defense of eachother, and maybe even building a joint complex, with different players taking on different jobs.

I'm perfectly fine with this being a way-out-there goal for past official release, but I would also like to point out that it is mostly just adding the connectivity, developing multiplayer wouldn't detract from single player too much, as you're essentially still playing the same game, with all the same features.

I would love to see Co-Op Multiplayer implemented.
Now i realize this is a maybe and even if it was going to be added it would be at least half a year away but i wouldn't mind the waiting, it would be worth it.

(
Adding more teams that work together and each is controlled by a player.
Adding a variable maybe for each built object with the team that built it so that one person couldn't just sell all your items.
Maybe add an option on the stockpile to Share resources with the other team or not
).

That and the Uncertainty Veil (Fog of War) idea to make the map appear far larger than it actually is. Those ideas could work well together.

Personally though, I would recommend modability first to truly allow your awesome community make content without Tynan spending tireless hours making it.

EDIT:
PS: Sorry for bumping the thread, I did not mean to do that. I just wanted to put my thoughts and ideas somewhere.

I am posting on behalf of 3 people, including myself.
My friends and I are very excited about the game and have been trying to brainstorm ideas, and multi-player seems to be the most brought up in our little circle. We have discussed the idea of team survival / co-op a little bit. Mostly we talk about what kind of defenses we would set up as a group, and what would be the best way to survive, but we have a couple ideas.

Since we have seen that there is already a team system in-game, you could add a team for each player, but have them all friendly towards each other. Also, colonies should not have difficulty trading with each other as you could use the comms station, and the trade system that is already in place to request a trade with another player.

(if multiplayer is/was an option) It could be nice to have 2 seperate colonies on the same "game" obviously on different rim worlds. Which could tie in with the use for vehicles to expand and explore. For example if Rimworld A has better fertility and Rimworld B has better Power potential, the two colonise could meet and negotiate trades/pacts/alliances etc.

Quote from: Tynan on September 25, 2013, 05:58:00 PM
If I did multiplayer I think it would be in a co-op context.

Making the game into a competitive RTS would really break a lot of the core concepts driving the design. Namely: it's not about winning, it's about the story.

A competitive context would break because the game isn't close to being balanced (what with all the random events and degenerate strategies). In this context competition becomes meaningless.

If we had several players working together, however (say, on the same colony, or in allied colonies close together), they could experience the AI Storyteller's stories together, maybe help each other in times of need, stuff like that. And we wouldn't have to balance the game for PvP.

Maybe a multiplayer mode where 1 player is the survivors and the other player is the storyteller? The storyteller would have to collect points to be able to do certain things and doing some would give points. E.g. Sending the survivors a merchant would give the storyteller 500 points. Sending a raiding party would cost 100 points per raider.

I think that could make for some interesting gameplay, obviously having cooldowns on stuff so that the storyteller can't spam merchants and such and possibly have a requirement for certain things to be sent, like amount of time has passed or player has X amount of survivors, ect.

I envision multi-player in RimWorld sort of like this.

This is a very light form of multi-player I guess. I would prefer a way of just having contact with other colonies. Rather than being able to see everything others are doing, or having them mess with my world. Read on if you are interested in this vision.

Through the Back Door:
Running multi-player on RimWorld right now could be done with very little extra work. There is no need to get a live feed from other colonies or even play on the same map. Players will start out in a lobby of any size, the game then registers all the "contact details" for each player. (Their IP and ports and all that) The players then get access to building a Com Station for each of the other players. To establish contact. Also players can make a new building, a launchpad, to send off (limited) equipment and/or colonists. As far as game mechanics goes, the sending off of items would be relatively light, kind of like selling items in trade. And receiving the items/colonists will be exactly like trading and random events already present.

The AI Story Telling:
The AI could be modified to simple see how many people were in the lobby and adjust accordingly. Or a special AI could be created for this very "game mode".
In this system there could even be the option of Factions or Roles and Allegiances, where raiders fleeing from 1 camp, might seek another "neutral" camp for healing. This could add a whole array of new "random events" for the AI story teller(s)

On the Screen:
Very little will have to change on the screen, there might be little tweaks to the trade window for when you are trading with other players. But for the most part the game will look and feel exactly the same.

Example:
The player(s) start a new game in a lobby.
The game starts.
Random events happen as they normally do.
Camp A and B construct a Com Station and establishes contact with each other.
Camp B does not have enough metal to finish defenses against raiders.
Camp B has a colonist go to the Com Station to file a request.
Camp A receives a new AI story event saying a metal shipment needs to be sent out.
Camp A constructs a launch pad while Camp B builds a beacon.
Camp A then sends off metals. Which create an AI story event at Camp B's beacon.
Camp B survives the raiders and decides to send a Pistol as a thank you to Camp A.
Camp A gets a nice AI Story Telling event that they helped a colony and receive a pistol.


This game is a massive inspiration to me and it might just become -the- game I have always wanted to create myself. So I felt urgently compelled to share my thoughts, and probably more in the future.

hi my name is Drago

ive been gaming all my life and will still do so untill my graveand in to the next wrold i feal that they should implement multiplayer a co-op or a ffa would be nice like dungeon siege where u can work as a team or destroy the opposing team i truly belave that if multiplayer is added to this game it would be on a hole new level if the developer does not add multiplayer i truly beleave he would be shooting him self in the foot

Moved topic towards suggestions since it seems more in place there

Quote from: Drago on November 05, 2013, 01:05:58 PM
hi my name is Drago

ive been gaming all my life and will still do so untill my graveand in to the next wrold i feal that they should implement multiplayer a co-op or a ffa would be nice like dungeon siege where u can work as a team or destroy the opposing team i truly belave that if multiplayer is added to this game it would be on a hole new level if the developer does not add multiplayer i truly beleave he would be shooting him self in the foot

Dude... No, Just... No. You do not tell people to shoot themselves in their anything.

( It's just like one of those plain evil comments. Example "If you don't make this, you deserve to get cancer" )

I want multiplayer to be implemented some day, You can even see my own post somewhere here, But it still is entirely up to the developer at the moment.

I've had a good look over the game myself with a friend. I agree that this could be a great game for multi player if it was implemented right. It could offer a rare option in flexible competitive/cooperative.

People can choose how to play as it goes on. Perhaps starting two different colonies, and still working together to survive. perhaps they might place them selves against one another after building up well enough. Or they might work together in one stronger colony. It depends on their choices and how they want to play the game, and they could easily enough do all of this from one or two game modes, couldn't they?

The main point for many people i talk to is multiplayer. Without it, they don't see a reason not to go play something else with someone and have more fun than a (even quite amazing) SP game.

Quote from: Darkfire9825 on November 07, 2013, 05:22:27 PM
The main point for many people i talk to is multiplayer. Without it, they don't see a reason not to go play something else with someone and have more fun than a (even quite amazing) SP game.

And the FPSs crowd won't play RTSs. That's not a reason to add FPS elements to RTSs - unless that was the design, you'll end up with a mess that won't convince either of audiences.
I'm not against multiplayer per-se, but I do think it's way, way, waaaaaay to early to even mention it as of now. Let's get a good SP game going, then - that game will be even better in multi.

Quote from: Darkfire9825 on November 07, 2013, 05:22:27 PM
The main point for many people i talk to is multiplayer. Without it, they don't see a reason not to go play something else with someone and have more fun than a (even quite amazing) SP game.

I'm not saying myself that the single player isn't important. I'm just saying that It has great potential for multiplayer when they get more of the content added and the AI that directs events would still work great for single and multi player. They won't loose much story creation or reduce the quality of the game if they do it properly.

On the other hand, some of the best stories involve multiple people. Granted, coding the AI to work with more than one person is probably time consuming, but in my opinion it would be well worth the effort later on in development.

Quote from: Galileus on November 07, 2013, 05:40:20 PM
And the FPSs crowd won't play RTSs. That's not a reason to add FPS elements to RTSs - unless that was the design, you'll end up with a mess that won't convince either of audiences.
I'm not against multiplayer per-se, but I do think it's way, way, waaaaaay to early to even mention it as of now. Let's get a good SP game going, then - that game will be even better in multi.

1: Quite the opposite in many cases. For instance, I am a die-hard FPS gamer, but I also love playing RTS games. Most FPS games don't have much in the way of strategy, its mostly just run here, shoot that, kill that guy over there, etc. I really enjoy FPS, but the RTS genre is a lot more challenging.

2: I agree, this game is a full RTS, and should not be mixed with some FPS features, as it could be slightly confusing.

3: To make this game co-op compatible, all Ty would have to do would be to allow 2 or more people to be on the same map, which should be fairly easy to do, and it should not conflict much with further game development. If it were to be a pvp/competitive game, that would break too much and require re-balancing many of the current features. If Ty decided to add a co-op mode, and not a competitive mode, the game would be better from the addition.

Me and my friends go MAD for CO-OP. We buy lots of those games and I could talk some of my friends into buying this game even though they don't play much simulation gaming. "JUST" because its "CO-OP".

(EDIT1) The game would make total sense if there were more escape pods and the map was bigger. Reference for CO-OP being a good idea was taken from the documentary "Happy". A documentary about what makes people happy.

(SPOILER ALERT)



(its not always extra money)

Howdy.
I already posted my idea an another theard, but i got redirected to this theard by a monderator.
My imagination of a multiplayer is a quite bigger world  with 4-6 spawnpoints for you and your friends or AI. You can play co-op or fight for the predominance of the map.
I would also like to have an option to raid other colonies (-> to play the raiders). I would suggest to make an triggerable option on game start if you want to be able to invade other worlds and to be invaded or not. If you decide this option to be active all AI-raids will be weaker, but you may be raided by other players after surviving 50 days.
To raid another colony you have to build serveral new devices. First you will need a scanner, that scans each day once and lists up to 10 random worlds + population.
To bring your man to another world you have to build kinda cannon, that shoots your man in their escape-pods right through the galaxy to the selected world. These things should be very expensive and are just able to shoot one soldier for one raid. Your man may also take some damage during the flight.
You also have to shoot some metal with you to be able to build another cannon in the raided world to get back.
As soon as your first raider left your game is paused and you can't be invaded anymore. You now join the game of the other guy, who is unable to pause or leave (-> surrender) now, but got a warning 24 hours before you arrive to have time prepare. While raiding your man may leave the combat-mode, but are unable to do anything if you didn't order it. Beside that the attacker can just build the cannon and a hauling-area (to loot the enemys base). The raid ends if there is no man able to fight anymore on one of the sides.
To stop people from just reloading after a lost player-raid i would suggest to delete all save game of this colony or making them single player.

I also suggest some more combat-options to support this game mode like:
- a AA-gun which has a minimal chance (~2% per gun) to kill or injure (~10%) one of the dropping enemies.
- a weaker turret, that does not explode when its HP are critical.
- some sort of a tank (driving turret manned by a colonist)(can also assist the raiders)
- fog of war/invisible mines/ invisible insides of rooms
- walls without wire inside (no dmg over time, not igniteable)
- morale for raiders
- MG-empacements manned by colonists

Quote from: Azzarrel on November 20, 2013, 05:00:06 PMI also suggest some more combat-options to support this game mode like:
- a AA-gun which has a minimal chance (~2% per gun) to kill or injure (~10%) one of the dropping enemies.
- a weaker turret, that does not explode when its HP are critical.
- some sort of a tank (driving turret manned by a colonist)(can also assist the raiders)
- fog of war/invisible mines/ invisible insides of rooms
- walls without wire inside (no dmg over time, not igniteable)
- morale for raiders
- MG-empacements manned by colonists

1/7. AA gun was not actually proposed before as far as I know. Everything else was ;)

One BIG problem with multiplayer is the time-control aspect.  Right now, the game is not really an RTS.  You can pause, think for a second, and fiddle with your colonists and then let them carry out their actions.  In multiplayer, pausing would have to be disabled and even sped-up-time would be hard to balance with more players.  During combat, the game would be true RTS and a whole UI geared towards that kind of play would need to be designed. 

Quote from: nomadseifer on November 20, 2013, 05:49:58 PM
One BIG problem with multiplayer is the time-control aspect.  Right now, the game is not really an RTS.  You can pause, think for a second, and fiddle with your colonists and then let them carry out their actions.  In multiplayer, pausing would have to be disabled and even sped-up-time would be hard to balance with more players.  During combat, the game would be true RTS and a whole UI geared towards that kind of play would need to be designed.

This is a great point, too. I think I should just mention that while there is no multiplayer, most players would say - "whatever, we can deal with it! Bring us multiplayer!". You bring it and suddenly most players are saying: "What a crappy multiplayer! Why did you include it at all!?". Just to give a perspective on amount of work it takes to bring that feature up - you really need to polish it ;)

Of course people try to get multiplayer into this game too. No surprises.

Ignoring the fact that multiplayer isnt beneficial to this kind of genre at all. Remember the newest sim city? That multiplayer sucked balls, and it didnt even "share the same map" only the region, and it even borked that one up, despite having only transactions going on between cities and using dedicated servers. AND having a truck load of programmers. Rimworld has Tynan. And no ressources to set up a server for any kind of serious multiplayer. And good luck coordinating a co-op game that lasts maybe 20 hours....

Think for a minute guys. Do you really want to share your awesome survival stories (where you where able to rescue the colony just with a blaster and 2 halfdead colonists) with your friends, or do you want to sit there and watch as they bork them up by not doing what you would have done?

Quote from: Merry76 on November 20, 2013, 07:16:45 PMIgnoring the fact that multiplayer isnt beneficial to this kind of genre at all.

Yeah, let's not ignore that fact. Every time there's a "RimWorld should totally have multiplayer!" I slink in under the five hundred "yeah! Multiplayer rules!" replies and ask what would make it fun. I think the best I've gotten is a "it's just neat to build on the same map as my friend", but usually people ignore the question and continue with their "me too!"ing.

Quote from: Galileus on November 20, 2013, 05:31:38 PM

Quote from: Azzarrel on November 20, 2013, 05:00:06 PMI also suggest some more combat-options to support this game mode like:
- a AA-gun which has a minimal chance (~2% per gun) to kill or injure (~10%) one of the dropping enemies.
- a weaker turret, that does not explode when its HP are critical.
- some sort of a tank (driving turret manned by a colonist)(can also assist the raiders)
- fog of war/invisible mines/ invisible insides of rooms
- walls without wire inside (no dmg over time, not igniteable)
- morale for raiders
- MG-empacements manned by colonists

1/7. AA gun was not actually proposed before as far as I know. Everything else was ;)

are you just talking about the features i suggested or about the whole raider-concept ?


@Merry: There is a multiplayer-part in games like "The Settlers 2"  (lasting about 20-60 hours each game), which was published in 1996, there has always been a multiplayer in Civilization - at least since part 3 -(up to 100 hours of gaming), which were coordinable.

Many big RTS games work with peer-to-peer. The servers just redirect to clients to each other and overwatch the game for hack-prevention/match results, but they don't have to do the main part of the work.

Look at Minecraft, which neither had a great budget nor great graphiks and now over 5 mio player share their "survival-stories" with their friends on their own servers.
Look at DayZ which was a fun-mod by an ARMA-developer and launched ARMA II on top of the steam top sellers.

I dont want the singleplayer to be destoryed, but I think there is no argument against a multiplayer-part in that game.
If its shitty - fine, you said it - anyway you are still able to play the singleplayer, but don't just say you don't want this game to differ from these big publishers do, because they wasted another top-title again by trying something new.

probably a multiplayer is not typical for this genre, as well as RimWorld is not the same old story again.
If you want something that is typical for its genre I would advice you to play one of these thousands of CoDs out there or one of their clones.

Civilization is a turn-based game that translates naturally into multiplayer.
Settlers is more RTS based with much less management involved in actual building and translates way better into multiplayer.
Minecraft, DayZ and CoD (!?!?) are so irrelevant in this discussion, that I can't even imagine why they were brought up.

QuoteI dont want the singleplayer to be destoryed, but I think there is no argument against a multiplayer-part in that game.

Well, the argument was brought up in last few posts. It doesn't translate well into multiplayer and unless you can address that - it is a problem.

QuoteIf its shitty - fine, you said it - anyway you are still able to play the singleplayer

This ALSO was addressed in few last posts, namely by me. It doesn't work like that, if there is a crappy element to the game, people will notice it and score it accordingly. Look at the story behind Saints Row 4 - the game ended up as a big mess with dozens of completely useless features, and were it not for great writing and good gameplay - the game would sink on this problems. And it's not like it simply went over all that problems. A lot of reviewers noticed them and in some cases it lowered game's rating a lot.

I'm not against multiplayer per se, but I'm very much against duck-tape implemented multiplayer. No, it's not ok to duck tape multiplayer to a game that doesn't really need it (as it won't be it's huge selling point). When we're talking about all these twin-sticks shooters or cop buddies medieval things - sure, even a duckttaped multiplayer is better than none, because if the game doesn't have one it's simply a catastrophe - the gameplay simply synergises toward it. But this is simply not the case - gameplay in RimWorld will only saturate multiplayer problems, not negate them. You either address all the problems with multiplayer and work to resolve them or you simply drop the idea for now. Saying that a strap-on multiplayer is a good idea is simply wrong.

Quote from: Galileus on November 21, 2013, 09:04:09 AM
Civilization is a turn-based game that translates naturally into multiplayer.
Settlers is more RTS based with much less management involved in actual building and translates way better into multiplayer.
Minecraft, DayZ and CoD (!?!?) are so irrelevant in this discussion, that I can't even imagine why they were brought up.

I think Settlers2 is a game with much features which are (at least partly) siumlar to Rim World, at least far more than every other game.

Especually Minecraft and DayZ are games with great survival-stories like Rimworld could tell, which began both as a no-named project by a small team of developer without any budget.

CoD is such a main steam shit I hate and the main reason for me to try something new, that is not typical to any genre.

Quote

QuoteI dont want the singleplayer to be destoryed, but I think there is no argument against a multiplayer-part in that game.

Well, the argument was brought up in last few posts. It doesn't translate well into multiplayer and unless you can address that - it is a problem.

QuoteIf its shitty - fine, you said it - anyway you are still able to play the singleplayer

This ALSO was addressed in few last posts, namely by me. It doesn't work like that, if there is a crappy element to the game, people will notice it and score it accordingly. Look at the story behind Saints Row 4 - the game ended up as a big mess with dozens of completely useless features, and were it not for great writing and good gameplay - the game would sink on this problems. And it's not like it simply went over all that problems. A lot of reviewers noticed them and in some cases it lowered game's rating a lot.

Thats just partly true. Games will be flamed by their players for every unimportant little mistake and they will also find a way to complain about RimWorld, be it with multiplayer or without.
anyway look at Skyrim, it has tons of bugs freezing and crashing the game and dlcs bugging as hell, but it is still hyped for its legendary story.
Containers like Cars/Tents weren't able to hold loot for several weeks in DayZ and that really pissed me on - and everyone else i guess - , but did it stop anybody from hyping it - nope!
This game is still in developement, so its possible to try out new things and see how the playerbase reacts to them.
There are dozens of playable betas or indie-games starting with alphas out there, not to earn bad reputation for the bugs, but to fix weak spots players were complaining about to give them the best possible finished game. P

Quote
I'm not against multiplayer per se, but I'm very much against duck-tape implemented multiplayer. No, it's not ok to duck tape multiplayer to a game that doesn't really need it (as it won't be it's huge selling point). When we're talking about all these twin-sticks shooters or cop buddies medieval things - sure, even a duckttaped multiplayer is better than none, because if the game doesn't have one it's simply a catastrophe - the gameplay simply synergises toward it. But this is simply not the case - gameplay in RimWorld will only saturate multiplayer problems, not negate them. You either address all the problems with multiplayer and work to resolve them or you simply drop the idea for now. Saying that a strap-on multiplayer is a good idea is simply wrong.

I would really like to see multiplayer in this game, if possible right now. But as I'm waiting for over a year for the DayZ standalone I'll also wait for the multiplayer to come. Good things may need time, and probably there is a possibility of implementing a good multiplayer in a later developement-state, but people won't stop talking about it, so lets rather have a discussion about multiplayer here than just fighting about it's necessary.

Budget, no-named studios and all - irrelevant. Comparing DayZ or Minecraft with Rimworld is all fine, but the main point here is - does these games synergize with multiplayer? DayZ and Minecraft do naturally, RimWorld does not. You can get all kinds of survival stories in Resident Evil or Dead Space, but these games don't synergize well with multiplayer. And attempts to do that anyway only made it painfully obvious, and hurt both franchises badly.

Also... Skyrim... don't mention this bug-fest of mediocrity. It's a "baby's first open-worlder" game. Sure, if you haven't seen better examples, you'll be charmed by exploration and vastness of the world, as well as immersion (if you can get past it's low points). But story? I never heard anyone praise Skyrim for it's story, really ;) Aaaand... if you like Skyrim, you may not to want to discuss it with me. I'm one of these guys who considered converting into a new religion, just so they can praise to some god or another to smite these guys. World levelling with player in an open-world RPG, who ever came up with that awful idea?

But, more to the point - if a game synergizes well with multiplayer, it may be a good bet to try it out early indeed. I don't think it is the case with RimWorld. There are some really interesting concepts you can get in here - but some of them would require a complete core redesign, and others still would need to be really well tuned to address all the problems RimWorld runs into with multi. I feel it's not a good bet to add such a weight early on, as it would be sure to hurt the single player elements of the game is all.

Its a far way even to consider the implementation of a multiplayer, but as I already mentioned people will not stop asking for it just because of that.
I think its more usefull to discuss about the features a multiplayer should have rather to tell every new user making his way in this thread, that multiplayer would not be a good idea at this stage. There will be thousands of these guys - as I was one too^^- i think.

Well, you are right about Skyrim, that was a bad expression of mine. I like it, even if I like all these pretty mods rather than the main game. I mean, getting asked by some stupid guard if I think that he might be the dragonborn after shounting a dragon dead right in front of his eyes at the end of the main quest is not a really exciting sign of an ongoing story ^^

I'm going to get a bit off topic here, so anyone not interested skip the next two paragraph :P

<offtopic>

The whole idea of "The Chosen One" put me off Skyrim right away. Not as much because of the idea itself, but because of this idiotic world scaling. Fighting a dragon in vanilla Skyrim was never exciting. It was never really challenging either. And difficulty levels did not help - they were simply flat buffs to enemy health and nerfs to yours. In the end when I was asked to deal with a dragon, only thing I could think of was "Why do they ask me for that? A mudcrap could kill a dragon. Ah, probably mudcrap would ask to be paid in return!". So there.

Then again, modded Skyrim! Boy, oh boy. My Skyrim weighted almost 100Gb after all the modding I did with it, it looked beautiful, was challenging, not world-levelled and so on. With ENB configured to my taste, too. My avatars would start their journey so weak, they could maybe fight a common cold or hunger on the same footing. And yes, they had to. First few days was gaining money to be able to get a room by doing some chores, get some food supplies, craft some adventuring stuff like tents... And then get some poisons for killing stuff while being still able to run away if things turn south. Poisons would work over time for a long time, health potions were simply allowing for the neutral health regen that vanilla Skyrim has during a fight and needed about 5 minutes of real time to refill you completely. Absolutely no way to heal yourself during a fight. Then some cautious exploration to find out how far can I get before things get to tough for me to handle. And nights! Ink-black, and if your torch runs out you can hear all these dangers lurking about and maybe see a pair of glowing eyes. Archery, working on much longer distances and taking much more skill. And yet for good tow dozen hours into the game my strategy against dragons was "run the hell away". When I was good enough to take one of them head-on (or rather running around and trying to make it harder for him to hit me), fight took almost a full hour of real time, enough in-game to went from morning to evening - and at that point I was seriously scared I'll be caught by nightfall, and it was terrifying idea, there was no chance I could fight a dragon during the night. When I slayed the beast? Something to remember, darn, and worth every second of nerve-wrecking fight. And there was much more - colossal weapons and crafting variety, economics system and cut-throat merchants, companions that actually help instead of fireballing you to death and more, and more. And in the end I threw Skyrim away with disgust anyway, after 100th cave that looked oh-so-worthy of exploring just to find 100th daedric sword; 100th villager in 100th village that had absolutely nothing to say; and 100th side quest in which I killed something because it was bad and threatening and was done with it.

</offtopic>

QuoteIts a far way even to consider the implementation of a multiplayer, but as I already mentioned people will not stop asking for it just because of that.
I think its more usefull to discuss about the features a multiplayer should have rather to tell every new user making his way in this thread, that multiplayer would not be a good idea at this stage. There will be thousands of these guys - as I was one too^^- i think.

Well, there is a good part to it - if these new bloods understand why having multiplayer at this stage is not so great idea, they can then rely it to other newbloods ;) And discussing multiplayer ideas is all great - but I would much rather see it in it's own right and in it's own topic, otherwise it'll get buried away in here anyway. And I really think it's good to keep your community informed what are the option before you - if we're all on the same page, we can much easier sort some thing out ourselves. Tynan already stated multiplayer is a possibility much later down the road - now it's something community has to consider and abide by. And if you just let these newbloods come with the same great idea yet again and again, Tynan will be forced to address the same topic again and again eventually. You can't blame them - this is what newbloods do. But if we - as a community - have discussed this topic before and came to an agreement over it, it's our job to let newcomer in on it. Rely the knowledge, if you will.

By no means am I suggesting that my view here is the community consensus in any way - I don't think one has formed as of yet. I don't watch this one specific threat very closely. Still, I believe my reasoning is sound, it's definitely in line with Tynans plans as we know them - so why not put it out on the table and let it sink in? If community is able to educate itself by means of discussion, a lot more stuff that comes Tynan's way is then well polished and though-out.

But then again, this is my personal take on it, and you don't need to agree with it ;)

Quote from: Azzarrel on November 21, 2013, 11:13:27 AM
Well, you are right about Skyrim, that was a bad expression of mine. I like it, even if I like all these pretty mods rather than the main game. I mean, getting asked by some stupid guard if I think that he might be the dragonborn after shounting a dragon dead right in front of his eyes at the end of the main quest is not a really exciting sign of an ongoing story ^^

Try having a guard reprimand you for using shouts in whiterun after you used the shout to kill the vampire that was decimating the townsfolk... That didnt make a lot of sense when it happened to me...

Anyway, back to Rimworld, another angle:
Rimworld is a plan your stuff right, react to story teller events and wait for your tiny doods to solve whatever you told them and succeed or die in various Fun ways.
What would co-op multiplayer accomplish? You would only plan half the stuff, react to half the events and watch your tiny doods solving or failing whatever commands where issued. Thats the best case scenario. In the worst case scenario, you would actually give more commands because you had to undo all the stuff the other guy did and you would not find attractive. So, more watching tiny doods vs. action. Way to make it less of a game and more of an (expensive) screensaver.

What would connected-colony multiplayer accomplish? You would play like in (true) singleplayer, but trade stuff (in an economy where everyone needs the same things (read: in a not functioning one)). Its like playing on a slightly friendlier storyteller. We already got that - with less effort on Tynan.

What would PvP multiplayer accomplish? You would play singleplayer, until some very smart raiders came to your map and torched all your stuff with incendiary launchers, or you would do the same to another player. There wouldnt be much to plunder, because there isnt much to take anyway. Loosing player quits, game ends. Your loot would be pointless now.

Now, how was multiplayer a good idea in Rimworld? You make the game either more boring, less difficult or let it end in a rush.
The way I see it, neither is really helping the game.

Quote from: Galileus on November 21, 2013, 11:51:28 AM
Then again, modded Skyrim! Boy, oh boy. My Skyrim weighted almost 100Gb after all the modding I did with it, it looked beautiful, was challenging, not world-levelled and so on.

I'd be interested in these mods. Is there a compilation, or did you handpick all of them?

Handpicked ;) Mix 'n match, some little things did myself (poisons and potions, prices of gemstones, some general balancing, that kind of things), some mods joining then to make it all work together. That's probably the worst part of it - I spend much more time making up the collection (you need to go through a LOT of skimpy clothing and bouncy boobs mods to find all the good stuff ^^') and then fixing it to work, than playing it. Vanilla's problems started to sip through way too fast. But I guess that's only logical - if the basic game is not all that good, there is only so much you can do with mods.

And as for topic at hand - I must say I completely agree with your view of the situation. I try to keep open mind about it - multiplayer in RimWorld? Well, you want it, it's your call, but not that I see any point in that. Like, any at all. Not at that stage of the game certainly. I simply don't see anything to synergize well in there, and that's really bothering me. I would guess most people cry out for multi because "multi is always cool!" without realising how much problems it could have.

Quote from: Galileus on November 21, 2013, 11:51:28 AM
By no means am I suggesting that my view here is the community consensus in any way - I don't think one has formed as of yet. I don't watch this one specific threat very closely.

For somebody not watching this topic closely you do post a lot in this topic.
The fact that every 2.6 posts in the last few pages is yours makes it a lie d-; evilgrin

And about coming to a consensus.
No matter what arguments anybody brings it is kinda pointless. You cant get to it without knowing the feature of the game.
And tbh there isnt alot set in stone.
roofing will chance (not important for mp)
cooking will happen (not important for mp)
And i could go on about what is set in stone for the future.
But i dont think tynan even knows himself. Without knowing how or where the finished product is going its no use debating about anything. And relaying the knowledge to newcomers is no use really.
For every 10 new forum users you get atleast 11 new opinions.

Personnaly i think that discussing something that is by tynans accord not planned, and wont be planned for the next 3 years pointless.

It doesnt take away the fact that i would love a cooperative game. How i dont really care. Untill the game is finished and i know what will happen with the core mechanics and new futures i dont even wanne think about it d-;

Till than for all those that want multiplayer i would say succession game time
It is as close to mp as you will get for a while.

Quote from: Semmy on November 21, 2013, 12:48:04 PMBut i dont think tynan even knows himself. Without knowing how or where the finished product is going its no use debating about anything.

That's it, folks. Turn off the lights, forums dead, no posting from now on.

No, seriously... WHAT!? WHAT!?

Quote from: Galileus on November 21, 2013, 01:17:24 PM

Quote from: Semmy on November 21, 2013, 12:48:04 PMBut i dont think tynan even knows himself. Without knowing how or where the finished product is going its no use debating about anything.

That's it, folks. Turn off the lights, forums dead, no posting from now on.

No, seriously... WHAT!? WHAT!?

I'm just referring to the multiplayer.
I think i miswrote part of it d-; my apologies galileus. I know tynan takes alot of information out of alot of topics for future reference and to see what people would like so he can make a good balanced game. (As i am talking about it i wonder how far he is with the audio system and cooking system)
But any other option is almost more likely to happen.
Well except i hope maybe zombies (-;


^{Pffft needed about half a dozen of edits for this post to make sense for myself. Stupid bloody iphone. i want my s4 back.}

oh yea I also know many of the mods you were talking about Galileus, but in the end i was defeated by countless bugs, ctds and freezes rather than the tough new dragons :P

ah well, this isn't Skyrim here, lets answer to the quote here

Quote from: Merry76 on November 21, 2013, 12:05:36 PM



Anyway, back to Rimworld, another angle:
Rimworld is a plan your stuff right, react to story teller events and wait for your tiny doods to solve whatever you told them and succeed or die in various Fun ways.
What would co-op multiplayer accomplish? You would only plan half the stuff, react to half the events and watch your tiny doods solving or failing whatever commands where issued. Thats the best case scenario. In the worst case scenario, you would actually give more commands because you had to undo all the stuff the other guy did and you would not find attractive. So, more watching tiny doods vs. action. Way to make it less of a game and more of an (expensive) screensaver.

What would connected-colony multiplayer accomplish? You would play like in (true) singleplayer, but trade stuff (in an economy where everyone needs the same things (read: in a not functioning one)). Its like playing on a slightly friendlier storyteller. We already got that - with less effort on Tynan.

What would PvP multiplayer accomplish? You would play singleplayer, until some very smart raiders came to your map and torched all your stuff with incendiary launchers, or you would do the same to another player. There wouldnt be much to plunder, because there isnt much to take anyway. Loosing player quits, game ends. Your loot would be pointless now.

Now, how was multiplayer a good idea in Rimworld? You make the game either more boring, less difficult or let it end in a rush.
The way I see it, neither is really helping the game.

The main difference in co-op to a easier/harder difficulty is that you have to work togehter. You and your buddy have watch each other not to do stupid things, you have to manage a bigger colony and you have not to interfere him, as well as he has not to interfere you. Managing a single colony(or two differnt on the same map) with more than one player is much more challanging than any dificulty-level.

The game will end in a rush, hm ? How do your games end right now. After a few days of basics my colonists neither die on starvation nor shoot themselfes while a mental break, if there wouldn't be these damn raiders igniting things by throwing stupid molotovs, killing my people and injuring my important oafs, or the only one with a doctoring skill. The difference between a player-raid and an AI-raid is that most players may not act that stupid to let about 20 of their man die with 2 blasting charges.
Same argument as above. Multiplayer may not change the game, but it makes the game in a way challanging AI simply is not able to.

@Semmy: I think its better to let everybody discuss in this topic than havin million of topics refering to multiplayer. Just close all other topics and redirect them here and finally Ty might open this and read through this topic if he thinks his game is ready for it.
But, if I may repeat my self: As long as there are new player - well even if not i guess - people won't stop talking about features they are interestet in. All you can do is to bundle the discussion in a single thread.

Miswrote! That some light words, you dropped my jaw to the ground :P But yeah, I think we agree, just in different kind of way ;) That's why I personally think it's important to have some kind of consensus in community as of what is and is not likely to happen - and I double your opinion (very well grounded one, if you ask me) that discussing how multiplayer could work is pointless due to what we know already. Well, no discussion is truly pointless - but the problem is, the less something is likely to happen, the more though-out and well planned your approach needs to be, to be of any value. And this is very unlikely to happen with topic like multiplayer, where most ideas don't go further than the name of the topic.

Just try to keep it on topic of the post I always see it go off to nowhere.
I agree till SP is more finished don't think MP will be soon but it is possible.

Quote from: Tynan on September 25, 2013, 06:12:32 PM
I suppose there's no real need to even set a goal on it. After all, we don't do that in SP either. Just put several groups in the map and let them do as they please. If they're friends on Ventrilo they'll probably cooperate. Or maybe not.

Not that multiplayer is planned or anything.

Screw vent, lets have a ingame chat, :D
Hahaha

Multiplayer: Multiple players join a game, without the knowledge of one another. They play as normal until they encounter one another; early game, they may kill each other over vital resources (geysers, soil, defensable positions, maybe even metal deposits depending on desperation.) Late game, they may trade with one another, or assist each other in defense/construction. Or they may still kill each other over somewhat-less-vital resources.

Solution to time control with multiple players (a HUGE problem!), encoded save system, mods detection, multiplayer mods implementation, in-game chat system, bigger maps, net-code, multiplayer balancing, cheat protection (especially with how easy it is now), multi implementation to every module yet to come...

So yeah, just wanted to point out it's a tad bit more complicated than "just put two players on one map" ;) If multiplayer was a throw-away feature, Tynan would make one already. Unfortunately, it's nowhere near that.

How difficult would it be to do this:

You're low on resources but have a bunch of people. Your friend has an established base. He can sort of check a box that allows you to invade his world with your people and you can seize some of his resources if you can get to his stockpile. No necessary additions to the game world, just your people are transplanted into his map like raiders and you get to control them, he plays his game as normal.

Your friend wouldn't be forced to let you into his world, and it doesn't have to be as simple as assaulting his base. It could potentially be open enough to develop its own story, similar to the natural idea the game is based on.

I can imagine two friends playing the game simultaneously with the invasion option allowed, and one grows more powerful and ends up establishing a sort of "tribute" where his friend has to allow him to take resources every week in game. To prevent exploiting the system (I don't need resources, here, take them!) if your resources are seized, you lose happiness, and your people are less likely to fear you if you have apparent fear of someone else.

Granted, I have minimal programming knowledge, but it doesn't seem that any additional, complex features need to be added into the game. Just transferring character profiles and equipment, and resource transferal (which I imagine could work very similar to the way it's done with trade ships).

kdfsjljklgjfg... paheithska.... lasdhe9thdszalkfa... aewftigh28035)#%7*... 05ruqa0ewfrjasirdyqw;;=asf;l32'...

(no, seriously, what's wrong with your nickname!? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62UzLgdb1GQ))

But now, seriously (even if I abuse that word in this post) this idea is so good I lack words to describe it. A invasion system. OF COURSE! If off-map mission get implemented, this is a gold mine, right there. No more problems with speed and such (because storytellers need to calculate colonists power anyway), a nice "frell you" to AI min-maxers, wonderful online mode (with both positive and negative missions possibilities). Dark Souls system in a nutshell - how to do a multiplayer without doing a multiplayer. And, ironically enough (if indeed so... I hate irony! so hard to tell...), working even more to strengths of the game than Dark Souls itself!

kdfsjljklgjfg, I juts said to some guy/gal that I love him/her, but if he/she turns out not to be a redhead cutie of female species, I do love you. If you're a redhead cutie of a female species, that is.

And now, to abuse some words even more, in all it's simplicity this idea seriously turned my approach to multilayer 180 degree. Darn, scrap it! It turned it 540 degrees. It's insane how much possibilities a different approach can get you.

Co-Op is awesome, Ty, If you are going to make a game like this one, PLEASE have Co-op, i dont care for pvp, but if there is i want it by choice of options

Quote from: CodyRex123 on January 26, 2014, 06:55:48 PM
Co-Op is awesome, Ty, If you are going to make a game like this one, PLEASE have Co-op, i dont care for pvp, but if there is i want it by choice of options

That provided an amazing idea. What if there's a multiplayer option where you open a world with friends, and each person just controls one character? Then it provides very much the idea that you're just a bunch of people trying to survive, coming together to build this colony. Either additional colonists are all completely autonomous (one player elected overseer to hand out orders) or it runs persistently, and a character sleeps when his user is offline, and a new player joining the game is represented by a wanderer.

The latter gives a grand thought: What would happen if a RimWorld colony had 50 colonists, all run by 50 players? All doing their work to keep the colony alive, and fend off raiders?

It may be WAAAAAY down the line that this is even considered, but it doesn't hurt to dream.

Quote from: kdfsjljklgjfg on January 26, 2014, 07:54:51 PM

Quote from: CodyRex123 on January 26, 2014, 06:55:48 PM
Co-Op is awesome, Ty, If you are going to make a game like this one, PLEASE have Co-op, i dont care for pvp, but if there is i want it by choice of options

That provided an amazing idea. What if there's a multiplayer option where you open a world with friends, and each person just controls one character? Then it provides very much the idea that you're just a bunch of people trying to survive, coming together to build this colony. Either additional colonists are all completely autonomous (one player elected overseer to hand out orders) or it runs persistently, and a character sleeps when his user is offline, and a new player joining the game is represented by a wanderer.

The latter gives a grand thought: What would happen if a RimWorld colony had 50 colonists, all run by 50 players? All doing their work to keep the colony alive, and fend off raiders?

It may be WAAAAAY down the line that this is even considered, but it doesn't hurt to dream.

You just GOT the Greatest idea ever, Now If theres any type of mutiplayer incuded, make it like this!

WAIT! Wouldn't it be like Minecraft with physics then?

I dont think so, and minecraft gots physics

No it doesn't.. You can have floating blocks...

By the way, this is what it would be like if multi-player was really designed like that.

Here is a few examples:
Rust(You fight other people, zombies, and try to make a living by hunting, harvesting, and crafting)
7 Days to Die-Same thing as rust except for the multi-player.
And a few others that I don't remember.

Have you forgot about sand and gravel Or even lava and water, just saying, And i think just 3 people per player, or each player as a colonist/wonderer whos looking for a place to stay, if they find a base they like they will stay, or else they will leave, thing is, there needs to be some ai travelers so if a base dont grow it can grow like that, but it depends on who captures them is who its loyal to, Ahh. Perfect mutiplayer, But think about the speed. each gets to vote on the speed, and a ingame chat systeme to, And There you go, A okish working Mutiplayer or just muti colonys on one map

Co-op would be AWESOME!
PVP would change everything (like Tynan said, story!, not winning)
With the story events it would never be a fair 1v1

In my opinion 2 players in one colony would be better but every player has his own style how to build the colony, they could "block" each other.
The colonists limit should be for everyone himself like 6,7,8, whatever for each player or one of them would "steal" all the colonists they can get. (Or like Monopoly one house after another; one player after another :p)

But on the other Hand:
Two Colonys doesn't sound so awesome in my ears.
What if raider coming? Which one are they going to attack? If you, will the other player even care? If the other player, if you want to send him help, it may be a long way, will you be there soon enogh? Will you meet Raiders on your way? They wont simply ignore you.. But they can't simply attack you because there target was the other player. Well they can, but where is the team then? It would be more of attacking the raiders to prevent them to attack the other player. So you dont Need any turrets anymore because YOU are going to attack the raiders, not them you! I think it would't be Rimworld anymore..
Thats why I think two in one would be better and easier to establish, but the players really need to cooperate A LOT!

Have you forgotten something, no one said it has to be a team, and the person who gets the message raiders have landed and are gonna raid your colony is kinda enof to know if they want help they gotta ask it

My post was nothing but my opinion :-)

And in my opinion co-op should support the highest possible amount of teamplay.

And the highest possible amount of teamplay is when cooperative playing is neccesary for both to survive. :-)

Quote from: CodyRex123 on January 27, 2014, 10:07:03 AM
Have you forgotten something, no one said it has to be a team, and the person who gets the message raiders have landed and are gonna raid your colony is kinda enof to know if they want help they gotta ask it

Yo, you got to change the attitude in the way you post. You called me hopeless in another thread when you only said 2 sentences for me interpret and tweak. Either you be sarcastic/funny/weird or be a nice friend to everyone else. Because your the only person that is butting heads with other people aggressively. In addition, this is an opinion thread, there is no specific set of rules, because this is a suggestion thread about multi-player. SO, calm your aggressive behavior against others.  8) 8)

I... really like the idea of crash landing new another set of three survivors who also crash landed (don't know where they are in relation to us, but we eventually meet). Perhaps they are allies, willing to work together. Perhaps they prefer a live and let live relationship, but secretly we're competing to get the same resources. Perhaps it's a new source of raids... You never know until you meet them.

I like the idea of multiplayer. I prefer if it's not bound to a specific type, like it has to be co-op, or it has to be versus... Let the players choose. You never know, maybe that bitter rival who you're always competing with, will come to your aid last minute when you need it most because pirates have incapacitated most of your base and are about to overrun you... That's a story I can imagine cropping up in rimworld, and one I'd love to narrate after the fact here on the forums.

If there was multi-player, then there should be a fog of war, but it was removed unfortunately in the previous versions.

Maybe a multiplayer like in new SimCity game?

Quote from: Jaszczur on August 27, 2014, 03:05:13 AM
Maybe a multiplayer like in new SimCity game?

That turned out to be such a good game, right?

No it didnt. And it had more programmers to code it. And it needs servers to be playable.

It could be amazing to be able to scroll to the edge of your landing map and be able to take a raiding party to the adjacent zone, doing this could be a good way to setup a local-ish multiplayer (a dedicated server for a group of people). I have at least 7 people that i'd like to be able to trade with and i think it could be amazing...

would love this game with a coop ^^

hmmm...

I think the best way to implement multiplayer in Rimworld is to have multiple players control only specific colonists.

So say you and your friends' colonists landed on the planet (maybe you would land in opposite corners in multiplayer?), and you decided not to be helping each other. You all start your colonies, building into mountains or out in the open or whatever.
Then the first pirate raid comes along, and the seperate colonies have to decide whether they would help each other, or allow each other to be annihalated by the raiders...
Then there is a crop blight! will the colonies help each other by sharing food, or watch each other starve to death?

and so on!
I think multiplayer would be a pretty cool addition, but I can think of a bunch of other additions that really need to be there first.

I think start out with the basics, a mini form of Co-Op where you and lets say 1-3 Friends can form a map and play in sections where the creator saves the game when everyone wants to leave.

Obviously we'd need a bigger map Radius of what we can play under, or even Sectors we can travel through? Whilst I find this game awesome and I like the aspect of survival and rebuilding what was lost (I've been watching abit of The 100). My friend won't play it because its Singleplayer but he likes the look of the game.

I guess you could add it as with what MineCraft did, the beginning is ultra buggy but of course playable and over time it fixes up and becomes a beast.

I look forward to a Co-Op game mode though. :)

Soooo... All of you play one colony in a matter of a few hours? How would you play a colony in multiplayer for more then one computer session? I for one play a colony over the course of a few days, 2-4 hours a day. How would you manage that with co-op on the same map?  Also the time controls would be out the window, which I use quite frequently.

I do like the idea of co-op but not on the same map. My suggestion for co-op would be to use the world. Have a server for each world, you join a server(world) pick a spot like you do now and play like you do in single player. The co-op would come in when you start trading and if it's implemented, receiving or giving help to other players who are also online.
This would allow you to use time controls, have your own story, play when you want, and have co-op. Worlds could last for a long time this way. You could have each world with say 20 players that trade and help each other. When your colony dies or you leave the world your forced to go to another spot in the world. Limit the amount of colonies to the number of players allowed on server so there isn't a bunch of abandoned colonies sitting vacant. Erase colonies that have been unused for a certain time. So more people can join the world. 

EDIT. While helping other players with raids and what not, time controls would go out the window so it would be RTS but the only speed available would be the normal speed. Once the raid is over and your colonists go back to the colony your speed controls are back and you continue on.

Maybe other players could pay for your help also?

Oh another idea, instead of only being able to help with raids other players could hire some of your colonists for a fee to do some work for them. Say they need help building things quick but all their colonists are occupied, they send out a request to the world to hire a builder for a "in game month" for say 1000 silver. They control said colonist till the month is over then the colonist returns home. They would have to feed and have a place for them to sleep while there. Now they wouldn't be able to "capture" or "arrest" them to avoid greifing.

Or if all their colonists are sick/injured and they need doctors asap they could hire them. 



Any other way is game breaking IMO. Completely changes the game.

Anyone heard of Hearts of Iron? That has multiplier and it can take months to complete a full game. It also has time compression. It simply runs at the slowest time chosen by all the players.

I would love some sort of PvP to this. The combat mechanics are too fun to waste on predictable and simplistic AI. What's the point of having awesome and dynamic combat mechanics when taking on AI normally boils down to forming a gun line and HOLD! Most raids use tatics more at home at a 19th century battlefield then a futuristic one.

Well guys, if we really want multiplayer, just keep up the spamming, because as quoted on Rimworld Kickstarter:
"Will there be multiplayer?"

"It's possible; and if the community asks for it consistently I'll gladly put it in. But it's not immediately on the to-do list and it would be a significant amount of effort to do. For the near future, I want to work a lot more on fleshing out the library of events and the AI Storytellers."

For me:
My idea of Co-op is simply, each person controls his own group.

Only viable option is multiple persons who control SAME colony.
One of players hosts map, others join and assist main player in controlling colony.

Assisting players can join and leave game at any time without any effects, including sessions loaded from age old save.
When player leave - snapshot of game state is saved, this allow that player to host save or play it alone at any time.

Everything else just cannot be implemented properly in current setting or provide zero benefits and obviously not fun to play.

Colony share co-op can be implemented as mod, everything required for this is network thread and simple protocol to exchange data from server to clients.

Quote from: RawCode on November 09, 2014, 09:42:26 AM
Only viable option is multiple persons who control SAME colony.
One of players hosts map, others join and assist main player in controlling colony.

Everything else just cannot be implemented properly in current setting or provide zero benefits and obviously not fun to play.

woah.. i'm not sure if i'm reading a single person's "opinion" or totally absolute "facts"

it makes me feel like computer codes are written in stone or something.. lol.  ;D

I had asked multiple times how time controls will work in MP.

I will ask again, how "pause" will be handled in MP especially in case of PvP combat?

One question is:
  Will singleplayer be one hosted multiplayer-server that a client joins,
  or will it be a separate game (game mode) all-together?

Quote from: Tynan on September 25, 2013, 05:58:00 PM
If I did multiplayer I think it would be in a co-op context.

Making the game into a competitive RTS would really break a lot of the core concepts driving the design. Namely: it's not about winning, it's about the story.

A competitive context would break because the game isn't close to being balanced (what with all the random events and degenerate strategies). In this context competition becomes meaningless.

If we had several players working together, however (say, on the same colony, or in allied colonies close together), they could experience the AI Storyteller's stories together, maybe help each other in times of need, stuff like that. And we wouldn't have to balance the game for PvP.

This would be great.

Quote from: RawCode on November 09, 2014, 07:45:08 PM
I had asked multiple times how time controls will work in MP.

I will ask again, how "pause" will be handled in MP especially in case of PvP combat?

Already answered

Quote from: Mikhail Reign on November 02, 2014, 01:00:43 PM
Anyone heard of Hearts of Iron? That has multiplier and it can take months to complete a full game. It also has time compression. It simply runs at the slowest time chosen by all the players.

Or another example. DEFCON

Quoteobviously not fun to play

at pause speed constantly...

I took in account that "answer" initially and it is not answer at all.

Quote from: RawCode on November 09, 2014, 07:45:08 PM
I had asked multiple times how time controls will work in MP.

I will ask again, how "pause" will be handled in MP especially in case of PvP combat?

some people have suggested "hearts of iron" and "defcon" type of multiplayer time controls. and it seems to be a time-tested system that a lot of people tend to enjoy.

"pause" isn't exactly multiplayer friendly (even in co-op mode) since people playing with you don't really want to get frozen in place just because one of you guys needs to afk. so i think that games like defcon and HoI don't have pause controls, simply coz most people can adapt without it.

besides, rimworld has colonist AIs. i believe that if you set it up correctly, your colony can survive in auto-pilot mode for a few minutes while you go afk.

-----

lots of successful RTS games don't even have time controls, like starcraft, warcraft, etc..
so most people can adopt to real-time battles in rimworld, even without a pause button.

but as some people have suggested. (and i agree with them) HoI and Defcon type of multiplayer controls would be totally awesome in rimworld multiplayer.

-------------------------------

edit :

also, unlike gnomoria and df. rimworld battle system seems to closely resemble RTS type of combat system. so a lot of RTS tropes can be applied to rimworld.

looking at the posts on this thread, some people wants co-op, some people wants pvp.

if you played multiplayer in some RTS game. co-op and pvp are completely viable at the same time. why does some of you guys seem to be forcing tynan to choose just one?

devs change their minds all of the time. (don't starve multiplayer ftw!)

Quote from: Galileus on November 21, 2013, 09:04:09 AM
I'm not against multiplayer per se, but I'm very much against duck-tape implemented multiplayer. No, it's not ok to duck tape multiplayer to a game that doesn't really need it (as it won't be it's huge selling point). You either address all the problems with multiplayer and work to resolve them or you simply drop the idea for now. Saying that a strap-on multiplayer is a good idea is simply wrong.

Golden Eye for the N64 had it's multiplayer thrown in last minute. It changed the industry. RIMworld being an indie game has the chance to be a good game rather than a safe game. Not taking risks anymore is why modern games are really bad. This behavior should NOT be encouraged!

Tynan himself has probably made the best argument for multiplayer so far. His idea for it sounds great!

You guys have some really silly fears going on here. After reading this thread fully, here's my solutions and sugestions.

Jerk players:
All this talk of the other players trolling and stealing your stuff, attacking you. The solution is way too obvious. v

Servers:
Don't use them. Just enable local playe. Sorted. This also means the players will KNOW who they are playing with. So they have nothing to fear from jerk players, unless their friends are jerks. There has been way too many assumptions that this'd be online with random players. But expecting yo to shill out on servers is not realistic at all yet.

Speed:
Issue would be solved the same way all RTSs do it. You pick one speed at the start of the game together and stick to it. I wasn't the only one that grew up with Warcraft 3 was I? Pausing is a LUXURY!

Dwarf Fortress:
Back in the old days when I played it, it had two game modes (probably still does). One where you control a group, and one where you are an individual. I'd like to see RIMworld do a similar thing for multiplayer, and I have seen both asked for a lot. One similar to Tynan's original idea, and then one where you are a single colonist working together with others in one base to survive, with a bit of a Minecraft feel to it.

Maps:
Now this is why the single player needs a few more updates before multiplayer is put in I think. There is now a world map system in place with other towns marked on it. I hope that moving from place to place becomes a feature in SP, and would then seamlessly become a big part of multiplayer. No need for giant maps, you'd just switch maps, as has been suggested a couple times. Locations would have more varied resources making moving a bit more useful (I notice this already happening, awesome work Tynan!), and trading between towns rather than only ships would help too. With this, players could do their own thing in their own areas, treating each other as smarter AI towns. Perhaps conducting raids on them. Or they could travel down to their place and move in with them. I think this is the best way to let the player choose if they want to do it co-op or not, or how close they are willing to get with the other players. This freedom is essential.
It'd be great to see team raids against the main bases of pirate groups using this feature! I expect it'd take several players to take down such a place.

Damnit, talking about this so much has really made me want it right now! But I know it's still so very far away...

Quote from: RawCode on November 09, 2014, 11:49:13 PM

Quoteobviously not fun to play

at pause speed constantly...

I took in account that "answer" initially and it is not answer at all.

It would only be paused if both people select pause. Otherwise if runs at normal speed. If both players pick x3, it runs at x3. If one picks x3 and the other x1 if runs at x1. Seems a pretty simple solution.

Alright, so here's what I agree with and think should happen.  I agree that multiplayer shouldn't be high on the to-do list however, I disagree that it should not be implemented.

• The speed issue:  As people have said it should be on the lowest value selected.  If all players select 3x, it goes to 3x.  If one player selects 2x and another selects 1x, it goes to 1x.  However, if one player selects pause and another selects 1x, it should go to 1x.


• The map:  Someone above said something about "jumping" locations.  You can 'migrate' say from one tile on the world to another.  This however would leave your buildings behind for someone else to find or for you to return to.  When in multiplayer I think that all players should start somewhere and they can each jump to different tiles and in some cases meet at the same tile where they will share the map and live peacefully or go to a state of war.  The point is to have freedom and not be restricted.


• Co-Op or PVP?  In my opinion you should be free to choose.  You should not be restricted.  If someone wants to attack that is their choice, you however can then retreat out of that tile or retaliate.  Now what if I want to be peaceful and the other person does not?  Two solutions in my mind right now.  A) you suck it up or B) perhaps there is a tile you can select as your "home base".  This home base will give you the freedom to decide who is granted entry.


• What about hosting the servers?  I think it should be similar to Minecraft where an individual person has a choice to host for his or her friends.  It also opens the possibility of public servers where again those individual people interested host those servers.

This is all just my personal opinion from what others have said on what I agree and think would be a good idea.  If you don't agree I would like to know why so I can understand your point of view and maybe tweak my own a bit.

Hi

I realy like to have multiplayer as my friends and me like to play in coop mode together.

We played many hours OpenTTD in one company. I like that sort of gameplay a lot as you are not forced to keep attantion to everything and every player can do the stuff he likes.

+1 for Multiplayer from me

T

Another MP idea, let me know what you think...

Each RL player controls/is responsible for one colonist. Together you must build your colony, manage your own needs and those of the other players/colonists.

This scenario gives it a more Terraria/Minecraft type of feel, where you only control yourself, instead of managing several AIs.

Eah.

I struggle to think how it would multiplayer would even work in Rimworld. There are so many potential problems that the whole concept faces.

The best idea I can put forward for it would be a sort of pseudo-MMO style affair. Everyone is on the same world, but with different colonies. You can interact with the colonies of other players in much the same way you do already. Pausing and speed controls should probably be given to whoever "owns" the tile, though determining who that actually is after a successful raid (or similar possession-swapping event) could get a bit clunky.
Not sure how interaction with an offline player's colony would work, though. All of the potential solutions for that problem seem like they're equally bad ideas.

Of course, a major prerequisite for this idea would be the ability to move the game to different world tiles.

in Multiplayer players can just replace the factions in world, but first must be system of plunder other colony.

Yeah, I think it would be cool if multiplayer was just SP, but you might eventually meet up. Although, in order to do this you'd have to add either travelling through the world map or they would have to be in the same small area, able to see each-other at any time ( Sort of degrading on the 'You have to find each-other before you can help each-other' thing).

Quote from: Arche on December 17, 2014, 07:30:18 PM
Alright, so here's what I agree with and think should happen.  I agree that multiplayer shouldn't be high on the to-do list however, I disagree that it should not be implemented.

   
• The speed issue:  As people have said it should be on the lowest value selected.  If all players select 3x, it goes to 3x.  If one player selects 2x and another selects 1x, it goes to 1x.  However, if one player selects pause and another selects 1x, it should go to 1x.
• The map:  Someone above said something about "jumping" locations.  You can 'migrate' say from one tile on the world to another.  This however would leave your buildings behind for someone else to find or for you to return to.  When in multiplayer I think that all players should start somewhere and they can each jump to different tiles and in some cases meet at the same tile where they will share the map and live peacefully or go to a state of war.  The point is to have freedom and not be restricted.
• Co-Op or PVP?  In my opinion you should be free to choose.  You should not be restricted.  If someone wants to attack that is their choice, you however can then retreat out of that tile or retaliate.  Now what if I want to be peaceful and the other person does not?  Two solutions in my mind right now.  A) you suck it up or B) perhaps there is a tile you can select as your "home base".  This home base will give you the freedom to decide who is granted entry.
• What about hosting the servers?  I think it should be similar to Minecraft where an individual person has a choice to host for his or her friends.  It also opens the possibility of public servers where again those individual people interested host those servers.

This is all just my personal opinion from what others have said on what I agree and think would be a good idea.  If you don't agree I would like to know why so I can understand your point of view and maybe tweak my own a bit.

Firstly...........There should NOT be any speed buttons, everything is all real-time.
You can move to anywhere you like but what you owned is what you owned and if you can't hold it, ie. have anyone in that base live on in that base, your base basically can be claimed if all turrets and other defenses are removed.
Anyone can come and go on any tile, If the enemy wants to raid you, so be it, you "suck it up" and defend yourself, simple, straight and true.
Server hosting, I have proposed in a delicated thread in the Rimworld suggestions forum where the game is run off P2P and direct connections. Go there and read...
Thank you.

I am not saying any duct-tape multiplayer, THIS GAME DOES NOT END DEVELOPMENT TODAY.
SERVERS Everyone stores the servers equally and can access all servers equally in the P2P networking, You share the server data around and play from there. This game needs no money to MP about, trust me, zip any save game/map/mod and you will find that it takes NOTHING to share it around. P2Ping at 2.3 Mbps is a breeze to those of you who can call yourselves gamers.
Jerk Players? People who raid all over? You are not alone, if they raided a lot of players, trust me, everyone would be out hunting for them specifically. Hate someone? Attack him. Can't win? Too bad, underdog.

  First off I would LOVE to see a multilayer CO-OP! Talking to a few friends and they like the idea of CO-OP as well.

  [This is all my Opinion]

I would say a MMO style where each person has there own map on a larger world would not work at all. With time controls some people will plan faster than others and now their sector is ahead of the curve giving them an unfair advantage. The only thing you could ever really do would be trade between each other so other than that it would be useless. . .  I also feel that adding a MMO element will destroy or taint the great story.

I base my idea off a multiplayer that revolves around playing with friends and people you know, not some random person you met on steam 3 seconds ago that you want to troll. If I wanted to play with randoms I would pick a different style game.

Me and my friends play DOD: Venice and Civ5 for HOURS! With the way MP works in those games we get 20+ hour games going and its still fun! I'm sure we could achieve the same experience here!

My Idea

  Hosting: Pier to Pier

• One person would host a game of up to say 4 people. Think DOD: Venice, Civilization, etc. . . There would be no massive web server you need to connect to in order to play. You are all in a lobby doing character things and working WITH the host pick a spot on the world you can all agree on.
  I'm not sure how large the maps can go reliably but maybe be able to choose one large enough to discourage early game meeting if selected. Then you could have a start proximity option like, close, med, far.
  Rejoining an existing MP game should require the same number of people that where originally used to start the game unless someone abandoned their colony. They don't necessarily have to be the same people but as long as one person has the base save and is hosting.

  Time Controls: Slowest selected

• Keep the current time controls but since everyone is on the same map their time will have to be tied together.
  The time should be tied to the slowest option selected, that would be the safest thing to do and makes the most sense, to me at least. Rarely do I speed up a game when I'm making a calculated decision.
  You have an icon or even just a name of the (up to) 4 players on the map, under their names you show the the speed they have selected so everyone can get on the same page easily.
  Pause can either be treated as the slowest option, or everyone will need to have it selected for it to take effect. Either way I think it would work fine, I could argue both sides for a long time.
  I do not think running the game at a slower locked nonadjustable speed would be a very viable solution and the game would then take forever to do anything and people would get bored waiting.
  Sure there will be times when you are done with your stuff and waiting on your friend, If you find it that unenjoyable maybe stick to single player?

  Colony Building: Separate (option to merge?)

• When you each land in your pods you are separate colony's with different assets until you select otherwise.
  Not everyone will want to share their resources so having the default as separate colony's would be the safest bet. Now adding an option to combine colony's would be great, but it would be a permanent deal. Now you can share resources, beds, devices, etc.
  Your colonists would still be separate and whoever recruits a person gets to control them.
  Maybe add the ability to transfer control of a colonist, but never should two people be allowed to control the same one.

  PVP

• None! I know some people would love to have it and will say let me do what i want! But remember, this is a sci fi colony sim not an RTS, once you dive into the pvp realm you start dealing with the constant whining of people saying this that or the other thing is too OP and needs to be nerfed. The story starts to get washed away because all you can think of is how your going to get a leg up on the other guy. I don't think it would be a good idea and drag the game style down. . .
  

Like I said, I would absolutely love to see a co-op style play added to the game. I think it would enhance the experience if done right, and I'm sure the community would help point it in a good direction!

*leaving a signal beacon for future*

Nothing to say, you all already said what i thught.

++1

My wife and I would love to get some multiplayer in this game.  It could be as simple as we each get some colonists on the same map and build together.  Need to be able to make stockpiles shared or private.  Probably a couple other things, can't think of them right now.

Quote from: Tynan on September 25, 2013, 05:58:00 PM
If I did multiplayer I think it would be in a co-op context.
[...]
If we had several players working together, however (say, on the same colony, or in allied colonies close together), they could experience the AI Storyteller's stories together

I think that RimWorld would be a greater game if people could experience these stories together as they happened, rather than needing to tell others about it afterwards. Something as "simple" as all players controlling the game as-is would be perfect -- no additional colonies, factions, or anything. I really, really hope this can happen at some point in the future. It's the difference between trying to tell someone how cool the original Portal storyline and gameplay is, and playing through Portal 2 with them. It's the difference between showing someone some screenshots of the home you built in Minecraft while trying to explain Creepers, and building a walled town together with your friends. It's how games as a medium are fundamentally different from books, music, and movies -- games can provide shared experiences.

Quote from: Galileus on November 21, 2013, 11:51:28 AM

QuoteIts a far way even to consider the implementation of a multiplayer, but as I already mentioned people will not stop asking for it just because of that.
I think its more usefull to discuss about the features a multiplayer should have rather to tell every new user making his way in this thread, that multiplayer would not be a good idea at this stage. There will be thousands of these guys - as I was one too^^- i think.

Well, there is a good part to it - if these new bloods understand why having multiplayer at this stage is not so great idea, they can then rely it to other newbloods ;) And discussing multiplayer ideas is all great - but I would much rather see it in it's own right and in it's own topic, otherwise it'll get buried away in here anyway. And I really think it's good to keep your community informed what are the option before you - if we're all on the same page, we can much easier sort some thing out ourselves. Tynan already stated multiplayer is a possibility much later down the road - now it's something community has to consider and abide by. And if you just let these newbloods come with the same great idea yet again and again, Tynan will be forced to address the same topic again and again eventually. You can't blame them - this is what newbloods do. But if we - as a community - have discussed this topic before and came to an agreement over it, it's our job to let newcomer in on it. Rely the knowledge, if you will.

By no means am I suggesting that my view here is the community consensus in any way - I don't think one has formed as of yet. I don't watch this one specific thread very closely. Still, I believe my reasoning is sound, it's definitely in line with Tynans plans as we know them - so why not put it out on the table and let it sink in? If community is able to educate itself by means of discussion, a lot more stuff that comes Tynan's way is then well polished and though-out.

But then again, this is my personal take on it, and you don't need to agree with it ;)

If we don't keep asking for it and bumping up this thread, then how will Tynan know how much we want it?  ;D
I'd agree that the game probably has a ways to go still before adding multiplayer is worth the time and effort (which, ignorantly/naively I am assuming to be quite substantial). As for the potential features of multiplayer:

What is the point of adding multiplayer? RimWorld, being a top-down RTS control-style game would not exceptionally benefit from multiplayer due to any kind of altered challenge state (think of the difference between Portal and Portal 2 and how having two players made possible some puzzles that were literally impossible without two players).
Other top-down RTS control-style games (Age of Empires, StarCraft, Total Annihilation, etc.) have multiplayer and a focus on competitive and team-co-op play. However, many of those games have a focus on combat and relatively short games/matches (30-90 minutes) in which competition makes some sense, including the game's notional story context. RimWorld would not exceptionally benefit from competitive play because the core of the game is taking a few [un?]lucky survivors and either creating a thriving colony or escaping back into star travel. This backdrop involves the pawns needing to cooperate to succeed and it makes the most sense if multiple players also had to cooperate to succeed.

So if multiplayer RimWorld would at its best be cooperative, then what does that cooperation look like? There is one overriding decision that must be made and can't really go both ways without making two different kinds of multiplayer: Are players on the same game sector map (the one with trees and animals, not the planet one), or not?

... ... ...
More to come later; it's 1am here.

Like fallout and skyrim, a strong solo experience just fits the style better.

Sometimes single player is enough. Id rather see other things worked on as multiplayer would be a big project as it is.

Quote from: Elixiar on April 17, 2015, 04:16:51 AM
Like fallout and skyrim, a strong solo experience just fits the style better.

Sometimes single player is enough. Id rather see other things worked on as multiplayer would be a big project as it is.

I agree that it should not be the immediate focus, but it definitely should be on the list. 

Quote from: eberkain on April 17, 2015, 07:36:10 AM

Quote from: Elixiar on April 17, 2015, 04:16:51 AM
Like fallout and skyrim, a strong solo experience just fits the style better.

Sometimes single player is enough. Id rather see other things worked on as multiplayer would be a big project as it is.

I agree that it should not be the immediate focus, but it definitely should be on the list.

Yeah, I don't think anyone is arguing yet that multiplayer should come now, or next, or soon. I'm tentatively hoping maybe in 2016.

I am strongly arguing though that cooperative multiplayer is a very important feature to have eventually. Single player RimWorld is fun now, is getting better, and can easily be a good single player game. Adding cooperative multiplayer is something that can, after that point, make it a *great* game if executed/added well.

Quote from: LCCX on April 17, 2015, 01:23:13 AM
So if multiplayer RimWorld would at its best be cooperative, then what does that cooperation look like? There is one overriding decision that must be made and can't really go both ways without making two different kinds of multiplayer: Are players on the same game sector map (the one with trees and animals, not the planet one), or not?

What, at most, could players do without playing synchronously on the same map?

• Players could see the planet sector information of each other's colonies.
• Players could see each other's colonies' resources/wealth or a subset thereof (e.g. trade beacon contents).
• Players could see each other's colony maps at any point in time (e.g. delayed, once-a-day snapshot).
• Players could see a colony map in real time.
• Players could trade or share resources (possibly including pawns).
• Players could control or influence the storyteller.

However, to these points I would ask:

• What value is there in simply seeing other players' colonies in-game instead of on Twitch.TV or screenshots on Imgur?
• How does enabling player resource sharing or trading improve the balance or experience of RimWorld, and how is it different from using the development tools to create and destroy a few stacks of stuff? What would it add to the game beyond "I'll give my little brother some extra meals because he need them"? Would random strangers trade with each other instead of the current trading system, or only at more favorable exchange rates?
• Which players would be permitted to control or influence the storyteller, and how would this option improve the game rather than just boiling down to either "I'll keep the mechanoids away from my little brother" or "grief artillery brigade! LOL!"?
• Does the date or age of players' colonies matter (e.g. get limited/restricted) when interacting?

I don't think that any of this improves the balance of RimWorld. I think that permitting player trade could decrease balance. I don't think that this would significantly improve the experience of RimWorld. There is just not much here to share in and the interactions fall between "minimal" and "irrelevant".



I think cooperative multiplayer RimWorld *must* have players on the same game sector map for it to be worthwhile. In addition to the previous list, on the same map:

• Players will see everything in real time.
• Players could control orders, bills, etc. for all pawns, or only "theirs".
• Players could force-control (i.e. set immediate preference, draft) all pawns, or only "theirs".
• Players could send pawns to "visit" each other if they were separately controlled.

Literally playing together permits interaction which Twitch.TV and screenshots do not. Playing on the same map at the same time removes mismatched colony progress issues. Seeing everything in real time means any influence on the Storyteller can be seen immediately -- it is more than negligibly interactive -- and because you've joined a game together you likely know the other player(s) personally and so griefing should not be a problem. Together, these add up to a shared experience, which is one of the strengths of games as a cultural/artistic medium.

Playing on the same map leads to a binary choice of either all players can control the whole colony, or not and somehow separate ownership is established. I'd prefer simply permitting full control of everything because I feel that has the least effect on game balance (all you do is add to the total "player attention" resource, which almost doesn't matter since we can pause the game without restriction). I do realize there is some value in "ownership" and competition, so perhaps segregated control (multiple factions/colonies for multiple players) could come after the initial multiplayer pass.

I'd love to see it in a competitive kind of context, for instance create an online play map, and you and your friends can build their colonies, you can decide to be friendly or not to anyone, I dont think killing other players colonist would be okay, but maybe steal resources, damage equipment and maybe capture a colonist, other option would be full cooperative and a dragon's dogma like system in which you can send reinforcement to a friend's settlement to help in battle and construction and you can give some item as payment afterwards.

There are plenty of MMO's, multiplayer RTSs, multiplayer this, multiplayer that.  Frankly and personally, I hate multiplayer.  Multiplayer to me is "get off the computer and go outside."

I like games like RimWorld, Skyrim, Fallout, Ultima, etc for it's strong single-player mechanics which (a) don't translate to multi-anything, (b) when attempts are made to make such games multiplayer they end up with watered down mechanics or (b) the game is just boring and repetitive (WoW is so bloody boring).

If multiplayer functionality does come to RimWorld, I'll just end up blocking it in my firewall or not using it at all like GTA V.

I play computer games to escape people, why would I want a bunch of people around?

When it concern multiplayer 'competitive' game the big problem is PvP and balancing.
Either you resort to matchmaking algorithm to keep player balanced, or the game's mechanism make it hard to get a definite or game-breaking advantage over others fast.
But in result you can end up with fake difficulty or grinding over a logarithm curve, which are frustrating and (to me) just bad game design.

So I really don't want Rimworld even try 'competitive' MP. The game was never meant as a military RTS.

As for Rimworld "coop", even if it's tempting I don't see it working great either, you'll have to change the pace entirely to get rid of timewarp or make players' problem the very same by having the two control the same colony.
But even then, Rimworld isn't a grand RTS game where real-time management can improve significantly tactic, it's a management game where one try a way of doing things and plans ahead.

Imagine two players with different ideas on how to solve the problem or build the base...

Chances are that, if playing a cooperative match, players will try to cooperate. Most likely they will be friends playing over skype or TS. What and how to do stuff is part of the fun.

Competitive is tricky, but there's very little except people's own prejudice to say against coop gaming. I'm yet to see any game that wasn't improved by having coop or that it lost anything from having it.
--

Comparing skyrim and fallout's solid, plot-heavy, scripted single player experiences to rimworld is not a good comparative.

Quote from: 1000101 on April 18, 2015, 03:37:12 PM
There are plenty of MMO's, multiplayer RTSs, multiplayer this, multiplayer that.  Frankly and personally, I hate multiplayer.  Multiplayer to me is "get off the computer and go outside."

I like games like Rim World, Skyrim, Fallout, Ultima, etc for it's strong single-player mechanics which (a) don't translate to multi-anything, (b) when attempts are made to make such games multiplayer they end up with watered down mechanics or (b) the game is just boring and repetitive (WoW is so bloody boring).

If multiplayer functionality does come to Rim World, I'll just end up blocking it in my firewall or not using it at all like GTA V.

I play computer games to escape people, why would I want a bunch of people around?

Then multiplayer functionality in Rim World would not be for you, but for other people's benefit. For those of us whose friends and family do not live in the same state, "get off the computer and go outside" is not an option.

Since you would have to purposefully join a multiplayer game, you would not even have to "block" it.

I used to play computer games "to escape people" when I was moving a lot as a kid, because that time sucked. Now I play them to stay connected with people I care about.

Skyrim, Fallout, and Ultima had specific stories to tell about one specific hero. This makes them more like interactive books/novels and I agree the narrative, untouched/unchanged would have suffered in a multiplayer context. That said, Ultima Online is multiplayer Ultima and there is good reason that it is still a living, profitable community 17 years later. The mechanics translated wonderfully and players could cooperate to create their own narratives around the story of the world and its special hero. The experience though *does* rely/hinge/depend on the people you are playing with. It's the difference between reading A Game of Thrones and playing a pen and pencil fantasy RPG with a few friends and a talented GM/DM/storyteller. Neither is fundamentally better; they are different products for different market segments which different people can enjoy for different reasons.

Rim World does not have a strong, specific, single-character storyline for you to experience. It is fundamentally about the cooperation of a few [initially desperate] survivors of a starship catastrophe. This, to me, makes it a prime candidate for a great, small-group cooperative multiplayer experience.

Quote from: Kegereneku on April 18, 2015, 04:02:06 PM
When it concern multiplayer 'competitive' game the big problem is PvP and balancing.
Either you resort to matchmaking algorithm to keep player balanced, or the game's mechanism make it hard to get a definite or game-breaking advantage over others fast.
But in result you can end up with fake difficulty or grinding over a logarithm curve, which are frustrating and (to me) just bad game design.

So I really don't want Rimworld even try 'competitive' MP. The game was never meant as a military RTS.

I agree. I just don't see competitive multiplayer working for RimWorld.

Quote from: Kegereneku on April 18, 2015, 04:02:06 PM
As for Rimworld "coop", even if it's tempting I don't see it working great either, you'll have to change the pace entirely to get rid of timewarp or make players' problem the very same by having the two control the same colony.
But even then, Rimworld isn't a grand RTS game where real-time management can improve significantly tactic, it's a management game where one try a way of doing things and plans ahead.

Imagine two players with different ideas on how to solve the problem or build the base...

That is no different from any other team/cooperative endeavour. If the two players disagree on how to do something, then they have to ... cooperate. Imagine LeBron James obstinately trying to play basketball with a golf driver, or a pair of house builders who disagree about the direction a roof is supposed to slope, or when someone in WoW doesn't agree with a raid plan ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hooKVstzbz0 ).

You'll just have to tell Sally that murdering all the muffalo has to wait until *after* you have a butchering table.

The most simplified way I can tell how Rimworld I THINK should be implemented and the why it should, Is a co-op colony/ Group of Colonies on the same map, or on a world you can send visitors to and trade with. I feel this is the Best and most likely the only way it will be implemented.

As stupid as it sounds, their could be servers that have a world on them, and everyone playing on that server would have a colony. when you get attacked, It could be like a clash of clans thing where you get resources  and trophies(could be something else for Rimworld) and their base would just heal up.

even in a co-op game. i will make a pact with the other player to try our best to kill each other's colonist.

like force targeting the ground and applying all of the sweet degenerate strategies we can muster.

we will do it for the lulz and great justice. so say we all.

I would like to point out a thread I made specifically on discussing the innings on multiplayer (https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=9051.msg89559#msg89559) as a mod or vanilla feature. Would anyone care to take a look?

I'd have to agree with Tynan and say it would be more practical as "Ally" cities working together and dealing with the story teller and enemies rather than balancing out a PvP scenario.

Quote from: Anduin1357 on April 20, 2015, 09:20:52 PM
I would like to point out a thread I made specifically on discussing the innings on multiplayer (https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=9051.msg89559#msg89559) as a mod or vanilla feature. Would anyone care to take a look?

Yes, I would. Thanks for the link.  :)

When I think of multiplayer in rimworld, I think of the same map but different people could "capture" different tiles on the map expanding your colony to where you could have multiple colonies.

Probably would get very difficult to manage your colonies but a fun idea.

You could then send groups of people to raid other towns or make truces with them, etc.

How many players can you fit in a 400 x 400 cell map?

i think it woulld be awsome to have muiltipalyer to the game you can add that sens that a player could be there to help you out if you need it or he could kill you and claim all the land or would be great for friends to work together to survive trade who know maybe even make it possiable that you can attack the raiders base with your allies on the global map  or have local trade with the ai around your base

I think that a Multiplayer for RimWorld would be geat. But also I know that it would take a lot of work to be achieved in order to make the game enjoyable.
- Trade system (Wich includes transition of the resources at free will)
- Defensive and Agressive operations system
- Chat System
- Stats System
- Stability System
- Save System? (do you want to play the same game for a long time? I think you do)
- Lan or Internet based?
- What happends if you crash/power failure/accidental quit? System
- A lot of questions that need solutions. That is how great games are made. Bethesta Game Director said.
And then I think it is way more important for the game to develop the SP thing, there are a ton of things that need to be added into the game before even thinking of Multiplayer. My personal oppinion.

at the cost of sounding like a broken record player :

the influence range system of black & white just seems perfect for rimworld multiplayer.

influence range : is basically a "zone" that starts from a player's crash site, which slowly grows/shrinks in size based on their colony's wealth and population.

players can only build/deconstruct/claim structures that are within their influence range. (hence preventing griefing strategies)

the exception to this is when 2 or more influence range overlaps with one another. players can then "grief" and pull-off degenerate strategies, but only within the areas where their influence range overlaps.

-------------

it's a bit hard to explain and visualize unless and until you've played black & white games.

the concept of influence range itself is good. sadly the other gameplay mechanics of black & white makes it a bit ridiculous. (typical molyneux-move of overreaching)

Quote from: keylocke on June 27, 2015, 09:58:01 PM
at the cost of sounding like a broken record player :

the influence range system of black & white just seems perfect for rimworld multiplayer.

influence range : is basically a "zone" that starts from a player's crash site, which slowly grows/shrinks in size based on their colony's wealth and population.

players can only build/deconstruct/claim structures that are within their influence range. (hence preventing griefing strategies)

the exception to this is when 2 or more influence range overlaps with one another. players can then "grief" and pull-off degenerate strategies, but only within the areas where their influence range overlaps.

-------------

it's a bit hard to explain and visualize unless and until you've played black & white games.

the concept of influence range itself is good. sadly the other gameplay mechanics of black & white makes it a bit ridiculous. (typical molyneux-move of overreaching)

I would love to see a multiplayer, where you can share supplies and you get a slightly bigger map you build with your friend (which i can only imagine is what it would be limited to) Have to bases he/she controls one and you control the other, separate people separate bases.

Co-Op would be awesome no doubt....2 colonies in one map working together

I hope this get implemented would make the game even more amazing then it already is

if rimworld multiplayer is only for co-op games, i'll probably look for another player who'd agree with us "force-attacking" each other. just for the heck of it.

why should multiplayer just be limited to co-op? i think there should also be options for pvp.  :P

I think the easiest way to implement multiplayer would be to allow players to select an option to allow for human raiders, and allow people the gameplay mode where they just raid colonies. Essentially you would select "Raid Mode" or whatever, and then the server would look to match you up with a player who has selected that they want to receive human-controlled raiders, and then give the human raider a set amount of points based off the colony's wealth/defenses and gameplay mode to distribute into forming an attacking force, and then just drop down the attacking force into the other players base with the understanding that after a certain amount of your raiders have been lost you lose control of your raiders and they will automatically flee.

No matter how good the AI gets, its always going to be exploitable, having smart, human-controlled raiders would make defense a lot more challenging and interesting, and would also feel much more rewarding if your traps work on a human.

I think the only possible route of multiplayer would be simcity style, so you'd land on the same planet which you would make multiplayer, you could send supplies "Offers" to their colony, which they answer and accept or deny all the resources. It would take the resources you've offered and give them back when they deny, and they'd have to reply within a certain amount of time or it would cancel to prevent just sending all your stuff to them to keep it there as storage. Even this has a flaw, explaining the time difference, although you could just ignore the time. And time, playing at different amounts, is the big problem for being on the same map. I don't want to have no access to a pause button and be stuck on the lowest speed.

Id like a mulitplayer with two people. U pick a map size at the start like normal. The game then halves it between the two players. So say ur friends not on and you want to play, you get half the map to use, that way you cant grief his stuff in single player, but can still play that map. And you can build stuff on both sides, just you cant use that stuff in singleplayer. And the time controls could be the same as EU4. Where one player clicks it, and it changes for thirty seconds, before the other players aloud to change it back. This lets both players mess with the time speed, but they can also not keep it that way if the other person dosent want it. They could also be different factions, and useing the same system as other factions to interact. They can just message each ither, but in the comms they can exhange goods, which will have to be in trade beacons, like traders, and will drop down to the other guy. They could also manually change thier relashionship. So they could switch to being hostile if they want, then duke it out for fun. And raids from the A.I will be double strentgh, and will split themselves between the two colonies. If thr players want to build one colony together, they can disable the map splitting And could designate thier building together, meaning the maps off limits in singleplayer, and that pawns can use all bedrooms, and items, and productions, not just those in thier area.

I have other ideas, but this is the gist of it

My version would be this: There could be about 10 people playing and they each choose a square to land. You don't know where other people are going to land, so people can land in the same square. You can choose to fight or help other colonies. You can visit them, gift them, trade with them, raid them and siege them. Pretty much anything that npcs do to your colony. The goal isn't to kill the other people, the goal is to survive, just like in single player. If your colony dies it's game over.

Yeah... See the problem is that's just an idea for the gameplay. That's the extremely easy part, as everyone's thought up idea's for the gameplay. The problem is implementing it, such as the timespeed. I don't want to fight another person with colonists in slow mode, this isn't that type of game. Rimworld let's you take your time.

i think that would be cool like a little note or mail on the side of your screen a new conly has risen and thir name is _________and it could be a server type sysetm and tarde and vist

Quote from: Tynan on September 25, 2013, 04:51:32 PM
It's an interesting idea, but at least six months away. Probably never, but as I say, still an interesting idea. It is technically possible.

Could sell it as a DLC when you get it on steam >:D

DLC wouldn't be online playing. That would 1. Start a friggin riot and 2. Be silly with rimworlds price.

Yea make a multiplayer like AoE 2 had. More than one player chose same color, you played for same nation.
Stuff like pause, speed +/- should be same as Supreme Commander had, you could increase/decrease speed as much as needed, everyone was affected and you could pause the game as well, so where is the problem ?

Can you imagine how f*c*ing epic MP would be in this game? When you could cooperate with your friend/s to build epic colony, one would take care of defense, healing, cleaning and the other one will take care of resources and you could build together, plan and stuff. That is beyond A-W-E-S-O-M-E !

i think that you can chose if you want to be friends and have maybe 4 players max on the same map and also a good idea would be that you can attack other places on the map in single or multiplayer or even the raiders base the ai and you can get resources for doing so

Quote from: Drago on August 03, 2015, 09:36:12 AM
i think that you can chose if you want to be friends and have maybe 4 players max on the same map and also a good idea would be that you can attack other places on the map in single or multiplayer or even the raiders base the ai and you can get resources for doing so

Or maybe just make it such that you share the over world, raid and expand all over it.
Nobody likes cramping 2 or more players in any available map sizes. Just. No.

I posted the same in a multiplayer-mod thread. Because I think this is a more suitable place to put it, I just cross-post. Sorry for that in advance  :-*

Anyway, on topic again,

Multiplayer can be done. Factorio is an indie game (great one at that) that has successfully implemented MP. Although they are still working on it, they made blog posts about the process. One thing why I've spent a lot of time in Factorio is the multiplayer component. When i'm on Skype with friend(s) the chances are >90% that i'm going MP.

See a few here:
http://www.factorio.com/blog/post/fff-55
http://www.factorio.com/blog/post/fff-76

As you can read there, that system could very well work with Rimworld!  ;D

As my friend loves these types of games (dwarven fortress etc) we would live to play together in it.
I would implement it like Age of Empires. Co-op within the same team, with a color highlight (just an idea) around the character one of the players has selected. That character is then locked to the player controlling him, until the char is de-selected.

Two colonies within the same 250x250 map could work as well, but I like co-op in the same team.  ::)

Quote from: Triblade on September 03, 2015, 04:26:42 AM
As my friend loves these types of games (dwarven fortress etc) we would live to play together in it.
I would implement it like Age of Empires. Co-op within the same team, with a color highlight (just an idea) around the character one of the players has selected. That character is then locked to the player controlling him, until the char is de-selected.

Two colonies within the same 250x250 map could work as well, but I like co-op in the same team.  ::)

Sharing control of a base is one of the multiplayer concepts just like how having 2 separate, but allied bases still works.
Planetary Annihilation shows this well with "share armies" mode.
I don't think character locks are possible but ok.

Why stop at 250 x 250? Go bigger perhaps in map area or map chunks.
Let us use the overmap purposefully for once.

I read somewhere in here (forum) that Tynan purposely didn't make them larger because it would slow the game too much. But maybe that's a long time ago?

Anyway, indeed, the share armies mode is the thing I think. Character locks are just a handy tool to prevent certain characters to run back and forward because two players are clicking them to the other side of the map  ;)

I still hope for MP someday!! But let's finish the game first  :P

Quote from: Triblade on September 03, 2015, 09:04:35 AM
I read somewhere in here (forum) that Tynan purposely didn't make them larger because it would slow the game too much. But maybe that's a long time ago?

Anyway, indeed, the share armies mode is the thing I think. Character locks are just a handy tool to prevent certain characters to run back and forward because two players are clicking them to the other side of the map  ;)

I still hope for MP someday!! But let's finish the game first  :P

I'll hazard to say that multiplayer is starting to be more important to the game than feature finishing it.

The reason why the maps are not that large is due to the stupid "render the whole map at once" shit. It's not that optimised to scale well in map area. Special effects for every tile and every weather effect etc. when it's not visible to the player is honestly dumb.

I would rather get polygons and 3D with sane render distance than infinite, 2d render distance.

Tynan would really be better off doing 3D and multiplayer.

I really don't know about the ins and outs of 2d/3d programming, but as far as I can see how deep this game is I guess he is knowledgeable enough to optimize it as he find it 'fun'.  8)

3D... I don't know. In my experience, everything that had gone 3D from 2D was less fun or less good looking.

But I guess Tynan is a tad more concerned about making it feature complete instead of currently optimizing it at the moment. Which is fine IMO because he can't do two things at the same time on his own. It will come I think  :)

That said, multiplayer is not per sé needed for a good game (looks at Fallout, Dragon Age and other good RPG's) but it does create a much longer lifespan for the game.

Also, textures, art, the looks is a big part of Rimworld. 3d wouldn't look that nice.

Quote from: Z0MBIE2 on September 03, 2015, 10:04:53 AM
Also, textures, art, the looks is a big part of Rimworld. 3d wouldn't look that nice.

There are performance benefits to using 3d over 2d, some of which are that polygons are more easily processed by GPUs today and that draw calls for 2D is expensive.

If multiplayer were implemented in a single world and everyone worked in the same way with the same methods to reach the same goals things would get rather messy and a pvp situation would be very hard to avoid.

Eg; Farmers harvesting and stealing crops and storing them in personal stockpiles, compact iron being finite, animals being finite ('ish) and friendly fire from laps in ai actions...

Quote from: TMAN80SS on September 03, 2015, 10:57:34 AM
If multiplayer were implemented in a single world and everyone worked in the same way with the same methods to reach the same goals things would get rather messy and a pvp situation would be very hard to avoid.

Eg; Farmers harvesting and stealing crops and storing them in personal stockpiles, compact iron being finite, animals being finite ('ish) and friendly fire from laps in ai actions...

Sounds like you have only one character?

I discussed co-op in one team, so nothing like there would be PVP or FF possible anyway.  ;)

Even if there would be separate teams, just don't be able to harvest from crop's you didn't grow, increase drops, increase respawn rates etc.  :P

More so talking about having 5 people each running around doing their own thing and having veritable amounts of chaos. But i guess just simple forbid zoning would handle all of that posh.  :D

Why not just give all of them different teams and all their separate colony attributes (basically no shared colony control) for a start?

Finite metal can be solved by either going 3D or to other areas in the overworld. Trading can also help.

"Even if there would be separate teams, just don't be able to harvest from crop's you didn't grow"

You can harvest from crops you didn't grow... As part of PVP.

"...increase drops..."

I think that there are far too many drops from the AI raiders as it stands, admit it, you're selling their weapons, clothing, organs, flesh...

"...animals being finite ('ish)"

Just add migration from other areas etc... Make use of the overworld.

"...friendly fire from lapses in ai actions(...)"

With as big a deal as without multiplayer to begin with.
Besides, there is no distinction between shooting your friend and shooting a raider.

"More so talking about having 5 people each running around doing their own thing and having veritable amounts of chaos."
That's kinda what always happens in shared control multiplayer.
else
That's the point of multiplayer. (if "people" refers to the controlling players.)

Heyho, (ex ante: excuse my English-skills, its not my mother tongue.)

Suggestion: why not skip the problems with 2 or more colonies on one area and went a step down so there would be no "game-mechanic" problems.

Nice would already be the possibility to trade with and/or raid human driven villages on the same planet. So, most of the time, the players can develop independent of each other (also time independent to minimize the need of synchronization).

From time to time they can send trade parties to the neighbor and exchange goods. Maybe later in progress could a freight-ship be built to speed the exchange up.

What do you think? :-)

I like the idea that you could do a loose sort of multiplayer (sim city style) with each colony being in a common world. You can trade with other colonies, send them raiding parties, or just give give up a colonist to give to them. The raiding party wouldn't be directly controlled by the player however. They would show up as a normal raid that is rated in difficulty according to normal raiding mechanics. The difference is that one of the raiders in the group is actually a colonist from the other colony. If the raiding party is successful in capturing someone, that capture is returned to the colony as a prisoner. If the colonist dies then he is dead. If he is injured, then he returns with his injuries. The raid would show up when the receiving colony logs on. The message would be you are being attacked by player colony x.

Of course this would only be if you choose to be in a multiplayer server that obviously wouldn't be able to be hosted by the developer because reasons.

One idea I had for multiplayer is instead of playing in the same area/map, each player can play their own maps in the same world, much like how there are other factions and pirates around the world. You can trade with other players through the existing trade system, and you can send your colonists to other player's bases, either to visit, assist, or attack, just that you wont have direct control over them as they will be transferred to the other players map. Not to mention the data transfer rate between a server and each client would be minuscule, as the only things that would really be transferred would be trade data, colonist data, messages, etc, no realtime map data would need to be exchanged

Quote from: skellitor301 on March 16, 2016, 04:25:27 PM
One idea I had for multiplayer is instead of playing in the same area/map, each player can play their own maps in the same world, much like how there are other factions and pirates around the world. You can trade with other players through the existing trade system, and you can send your colonists to other player's bases, either to visit, assist, or attack, just that you wont have direct control over them as they will be transferred to the other players map. Not to mention the data transfer rate between a server and each client would be minuscule, as the only things that would really be transferred would be trade data, colonist data, messages, etc, no realtime map data would need to be exchanged

And here's the forum necromancer, reviving a dead thread. I've thought about the trading part of what you said before, not sending colonists tho. But they'd exist in different years and time periods, and for them to trade resources would have to put up a menu freezing both games until one cancels or both accept, but would also require inputting both users of the communicators social skill for prices if automatic.

Quote from: skellitor301 on March 16, 2016, 04:25:27 PM
One idea I had for multiplayer is instead of playing in the same area/map, each player can play their own maps in the same world, much like how there are other factions and pirates around the world. You can trade with other players through the existing trade system, and you can send your colonists to other player's bases, either to visit, assist, or attack, just that you wont have direct control over them as they will be transferred to the other players map. Not to mention the data transfer rate between a server and each client would be minuscule, as the only things that would really be transferred would be trade data, colonist data, messages, etc, no realtime map data would need to be exchanged

Might as well exchange realtime state-change data and allow players to control their colonists otherwise,  the crappy raider AI might as well kill them.

Well, one easy way to understand it is think of clash of clans. I personally dont play it but I have friends who do, and you can send support to friends through that.

And yes, I know the thread is old, but it's better than making another thread about the same thing

I don't think anyone wants to risk colonists being lost due to crappy AI management. Loading maps and interactive data doesn't take up too much bandwidth anyways.

hm.... after u build your ship u can explore other planets and on other planets is another player strandet and build his base, u can attack/visit him sounds nice hehe..

I envision multiplayer in Rimworld like SS13 (Space Station 13, on Byond).

Every player would play a colonist and would need to work together to accomplish things. The specifics are a bit murky, but it would suit the game I think.

The difference is, in SS13 the map (eg. the space station itself) is already given and the players fill different pre-determined roles and jobs on the station. I guess Rimworld's colonists could develop a social structure and appoint a leader to issue tasks, much like the Captain and department heads in SS13, but it would more open-ended.

SS13 is also round-based, and while rounds can last up to several hours on certain servers and rulesets, Rimworld's gameplay is practically infinite, so people disconnecting and maybe returning need to be handled somehow. SS13 explains away people disconnecting and reconnecting with in-game lore: SSD as in Space Sleep Disorder which is a side-effect of spending a long time off planet, and basically means anyone at any point could randomly fall into a very deep coma-like sleep for any amount of time and also randomly awaken. This could work in Rimworld, or maybe the disconnecting colonists could be taken over by the AI until the player returns. Maybe.

Well, there are obviously many kinks to work out, and multiplayer is really far off anyway, but this could be an idea.

Guys, I'm new to this replying thing so please don't judge me if I do things differently. But I've loved this game for a while :). Ever since alpha 2, I've loathed it. Waiting for it to come out on steam. And here I am, in the ludeon community.

But anyways, would it be really hard to implement multiplayer? I mean, I guess with the time control buttons it would cause problems. Providing a "non-shitty" MP aspect would be difficult. Not just that, but keeping a well known balance between MP and SP. If MP doesn't work, why make it...

But let's say we were to have a story teller vs. Colonist mode. I feel like that would be a marvelous idea. It would fit in with Tynan's "story telling" requirements and with some cool downs for certain costs and such. You would be able to cast story events that could lead to the colonist's down fall or for the good. I could see it being an excellent idea.

Cost points: Raids, (there's even a point system if you look into development mode expressing how hard they could be) Eclipse, Solar Flares (Not so much points), Sieges, Manhunter packs, Toxic Fallouts

Gives: Colonists joining colony, Cargo Pods that are useful, Psychic Soothe,

And then you'd have some that would be kind of like a mixture of both. Like the "thrumbo" event, what would that be in?

Besides, we can already technically become a story teller if you count development mode! So why not putting a simple little game with your friends where it would be easy.


Once again, intrigued about this topic. It's an amazing idea, and I can't wait to see if Tynan gives any thought to it.

But multiple cells, as the man in one of the previous pages said, is not a bad idea either. Like multiple areas where colonists would be settling. Adding rogue like options or not? (Ya know, pvp.)

That's cool. If you have any opinion, please share so I can know things. Once again, I am not the best at rimworld. I just love the feeling of telling my family stories about the game. xD

Welcome to Rimworld!
Kudos on the story teller vs. colonist mode.

"I mean, I guess with the time control buttons it would cause problems."

We probably don't need time control then.

But the purpose of this game is the fact that it's a game with which the pause button is the most reliable feature. It allows you to relocate strategies and it allows you to take a break if things get too hectic! If you couldn't pause it, then what is the use of fast forwarding as well? With that being said, it would change from a colony story sim to being an RTS?

But what if u use a system like europia unerversailis (probably spelling that wrong) what happend is it pause the game, and for 30 seconds it will stay like that and no other player can press play. After that it lets anyone modify the time speed back. This would work really well in a multiplayer rimworld, and its not like theres gonna be huge servers. Itll most likely be 2-3 people playing together, probably in the same room, so not many people are gonna need to worry bout trolls

GOD NO PLEASE...


Multiplayer is a TREMENDOUS developmental time sink for developers. It retards all other feature development. Please Tynan never make Rimworld Multiplayer, keep adding cool content that makes the game interesting. There are thousands of great multiplayer games, Rimworld distinguishes itself from the market in having gameplay centered around spontaneous events, great strategic combat and base building and procedural storytelling. We don't need one more multiplayer game. I would rather more rimworld.

mAKE IT A MMMO!

The first player manages the colony. Each next player gets to play a single pawn. Players 2nd, 3rd and 4th control a colonist each. 5th player plays a mufallo. And so on.

As a consequence, there's no "mad animal" event anymore. It happens naturally. Griefers are a part of the game, you see.

Players playing predator animals compete for best prey, and try not to bite more than they can chew. Watch out for tortoise infections!

Players controlling herbivores play a PAC-MAN/survival game hybrid. Try to eat as many plants as you can! Devilstrand counts triple. Avoid bears! Run away from colonists! Bonus points for causing colonist friendly fire.

Whenever there's an escape pod, that's a new player. Naturally, he gets access to global chat.

When there's a raid, players from the raider faction compete for best colonist loot.

The largest number of new players connect when manhunters come.  You must have a working microphone to be admitted.

Quote from: Rafe009 on May 07, 2016, 01:53:18 AM
Multiplayer is a TREMENDOUS developmental time sink for developers.

All we need is Tynan outsourcing multiplayer to the modding community to work on because everyone knows how much players of all walks would benefit from a multi-player experience.

Quote from: b0rsuk on May 07, 2016, 05:28:17 AM
MAKE IT A MMO!

Desyncs are a huge problem for deterministic games. If things become server based, we need a server build and require players to have lots of bandwidth.
Having 10s or 100s of players in one map would be a huge bandwidth and cpu time sink.

MMO would require more depth to Rimworld than current versions. It's not worth making an MMO out of Rimworld to compete against WoW. Keep it to standard, Rimworld games.

Quote from: DaGirrafeMan on May 07, 2016, 12:47:21 AM
But the purpose of this game is the fact that it's a game with which the pause button is the most reliable feature.

Wait what?
Rimworld in multiplayer, especially when it is competitive or is dependent on taking people by surprise, cannot allow players to pause the game so that they can observe every detail and spoil the game for their opponent.
With co-op games you may have multiple players managing the same colony, allowing more actions to be taken than with one player. What wrong would it be to give players ample reason to have a few friends help out or risk being overwhelmed with tasks?

Quote from: Tynan on September 25, 2013, 06:12:32 PM
I suppose there's no real need to even set a goal on it. After all, we don't do that in SP either. Just put several groups in the map and let them do as they please. If they're friends on Ventrilo they'll probably cooperate. Or maybe not.

Not that multiplayer is planned or anything.

What I think would be relatively easy to implement would be some kind of trading mechanic - basically, while each colony runs on its own on different computers, players can trade, the way you can with trade ships, just that instead of automatically balancing the items against silver, both players would have to agree to the trade.

Quote from: Tynan on September 25, 2013, 06:12:32 PM
I suppose there's no real need to even set a goal on it. After all, we don't do that in SP either. Just put several groups in the map and let them do as they please. If they're friends on Ventrilo they'll probably cooperate. Or maybe not.

Not that multiplayer is planned or anything.

Agreed with Tynan except it's Discord now. :D

Quote from: blub01 on May 09, 2016, 08:18:11 AM
What I think would be relatively easy to implement would be some kind of trading mechanic - basically, while each colony runs on its own on different computers, players can trade, the way you can with trade ships, just that instead of automatically balancing the items against silver, both players would have to agree to the trade.

Then you need to balance the frequency of how many of such trades can happen because there isn't a thing like on-demand trading.

Quote from: Anduin1357 on May 09, 2016, 08:26:23 AM

Quote from: Tynan on September 25, 2013, 06:12:32 PM
I suppose there's no real need to even set a goal on it. After all, we don't do that in SP either. Just put several groups in the map and let them do as they please. If they're friends on Ventrilo they'll probably cooperate. Or maybe not.

Not that multiplayer is planned or anything.

Agreed with Tynan except it's Discord now. :D

Quote from: blub01 on May 09, 2016, 08:18:11 AM
What I think would be relatively easy to implement would be some kind of trading mechanic - basically, while each colony runs on its own on different computers, players can trade, the way you can with trade ships, just that instead of automatically balancing the items against silver, both players would have to agree to the trade.

Then you need to balance the frequency of how many of such trades can happen because there isn't a thing like on-demand trading.

well, you obviously can't get anything the person you're trading with doesn't have, I figured this should be limited in the amount of players that can trade with each other, and ideally they should be at around the same progression level. so you can help your friend out if they need it, but you can't boost them from just having landed into the endgame (which you would need a lot of kind of rare neurotrainers for, anyway). a possible option (maybe you could even make this toggleable) is to infer a cost to it - basically, you have to make a kind of shuttle/drop pod hybrid for every so many resources traded.

Ok so I'm not sure if anyone mentioned this or not probably have but just to put my mind at ease I'm going to post this. So I was talking with my husband on how my mom and I played Animal Crossing together on our DS's and how I could connect to her world and visit and harvest fruits, and veggies that I didn't have in my world and take them back with me and having foreign items would sell more on the market to passing merchants. I think that this would be a cool concept, and have a LAN connection so people with or without internet can still interact with eachother. Lets say my husband is being attacked by aliens, he can send a request and I can send a limit of 3 colonists to aid in defending. This would open up a new level of hard mode on aliens and open another can of worms of monsters and possibilities. There would be pros and cons to this LAN connection, example: I visit his colony and one of his colonists has the flu or a contagious virus one of my colonists can catch it and bring it back to my colony after I return from my visit. Or even raiding another players colony?! Then selling them to slavers lol. Also maybe have a system like the Coms Console to send players mail.... you know you want to send a raging manhunting Thrumbo to your ally just for giggles. But first one must research a teleporter on BOTH accounts or ALL accounts wishing to have a LAN connection , and having the risk of alien invasion increase when using these teleporters since you open a wormhole in space in witch to travel through  ;D eh?! sounds cool right? Maybe? No? Idk I'm just all over the place with this I would be extremely excited if this was available. So many things to do if you added this. But it wouldn't be a global connection it would have to be local just like how we play AoW (Age of Wonders Shadow magic) we play in the same room on a lan line that my husband creates and we can have 8 people connected its pretty cool ... sadly no one plays AoW :'( :'( :'( but any who you get the concept of what I'm saying this would be fantastic to have and make a game that is already fun even more funner :).

all nice ideas, but I think anything that complicated will go far down the development pipeline. if you want to see multiplayer in the game, make it simple to implement.

The simplest multiplayer between 3+ players:

-Friend 1 hosts a server. This is as vanilla as the game can possibly be. Makes a world, chooses a spot, loads up everything to the colonists crash landing, and plays the game like you normally do.

-Friend 2 joins the server. Picks his colonists like normal and chooses an area to drop down on that is not the same area as Friend 1. He starts another Colony, and Friend 1 gets a notification of another Faction on the planet. With a Comms console each, they can start sending supplies, prisoners, animals, etc to each other. Maybe they could send AI traders with exchange rates/items and a muffalo for hauling (little more complex than desired, but a fun idea).

-Friend 3 joins the server. Picks his colonists like normal and chooses an area to drop down on that is not the same area as Friend 1 or Friend 2. He starts another Colony, and Friend 1 and 2 get notifications of another Faction on the planet. On the opposite spectrum, they send raiding parties at Friend 1 that are AI controlled and given one of three potential raid types with equivalent resource costs (Assaults/Sieges/Sappers).

-Friend 1 requests aid from Friend 2 to send over colonists to help defend/work at the Colony. Either AI controlled or temporarily controlled by the receiving player until time expires or the threat is gone, like NPC faction allies.

Careful what you send when aiding/raiding though; if they die they do not return to the Colony. This makes sending colonists a bit more of a high-risk high-reward than just always sending out help/raids.
The AI controlled benefit is primarily being able to send it out at any time, and arrive a day or two in-game for the recipient. That way players don't need to be 100% in sync for multiplayer to work, and it could be more like sending out a mission than personally doing the job.
If a friend goes offline, their Colony is treated as Offline and is not interact-able purely for simplicity's sake. A friend whose Colony is destroyed or has not played for a long time is treated as "Lost Contact".
Faction-based coop is infinitely easier than same-screen Co-op, and has most of the same benefits. The only real downside is that it's a little distant to call it real "co-op", but it's the simplest possible implementation I think.

Also, note that this is literally just barebones multiplayer. There's no point in talking about balance or anything unless it were implemented for competitive use.

Quote from: Jin Hai on May 15, 2016, 03:35:19 PM
The simplest multiplayer between 3+ players:

-Friend 1 hosts a server. This is as vanilla as the game can possibly be. Makes a world, chooses a spot, loads up everything to the colonists crash landing, and plays the game like you normally do.

-Friend 2 joins the server. Picks his colonists like normal and chooses an area to drop down on that is not the same area as Friend 1. He starts another Colony, and Friend 1 gets a notification of another Faction on the planet. With a Comms console each, they can start sending supplies, prisoners, animals, etc to each other. Maybe they could send AI traders with exchange rates/items and a muffalo for hauling (little more complex than desired, but a fun idea).

-Friend 3 joins the server. Picks his colonists like normal and chooses an area to drop down on that is not the same area as Friend 1 or Friend 2. He starts another Colony, and Friend 1 and 2 get notifications of another Faction on the planet. On the opposite spectrum, they send raiding parties at Friend 1 that are AI controlled and given one of three potential raid types with equivalent resource costs (Assaults/Sieges/Sappers).

-Friend 1 requests aid from Friend 2 to send over colonists to help defend/work at the Colony. Either AI controlled or temporarily controlled by the receiving player until time expires or the threat is gone, like NPC faction allies.

Careful what you send when aiding/raiding though; if they die they do not return to the Colony. This makes sending colonists a bit more of a high-risk high-reward than just always sending out help/raids.
The AI controlled benefit is primarily being able to send it out at any time, and arrive a day or two in-game for the recipient. That way players don't need to be 100% in sync for multiplayer to work, and it could be more like sending out a mission than personally doing the job.
If a friend goes offline, their Colony is treated as Offline and is not interact-able purely for simplicity's sake. A friend whose Colony is destroyed or has not played for a long time is treated as "Lost Contact".
Faction-based coop is infinitely easier than same-screen Co-op, and has most of the same benefits. The only real downside is that it's a little distant to call it real "co-op", but it's the simplest possible implementation I think.

Also, note that this is literally just barebones multiplayer. There's no point in talking about balance or anything unless it were implemented for competitive use.

as a minor addition I would suggest being able to see what is going on in another player's colony, and possibly calculating the overall resource output of a colony when a colonist goes offline, and using that to predict the state of the colony when they come back (or simply only allow palying when all players are present). also, what do you mean with raids?

Quote from: blub01 on May 16, 2016, 05:32:42 AM

Quote from: Jin Hai on May 15, 2016, 03:35:19 PM
The simplest multiplayer between 3+ players:

-Friend 1 hosts a server. This is as vanilla as the game can possibly be. Makes a world, chooses a spot, loads up everything to the colonists crash landing, and plays the game like you normally do.

-Friend 2 joins the server. Picks his colonists like normal and chooses an area to drop down on that is not the same area as Friend 1. He starts another Colony, and Friend 1 gets a notification of another Faction on the planet. With a Comms console each, they can start sending supplies, prisoners, animals, etc to each other. Maybe they could send AI traders with exchange rates/items and a muffalo for hauling (little more complex than desired, but a fun idea).

-Friend 3 joins the server. Picks his colonists like normal and chooses an area to drop down on that is not the same area as Friend 1 or Friend 2. He starts another Colony, and Friend 1 and 2 get notifications of another Faction on the planet. On the opposite spectrum, they send raiding parties at Friend 1 that are AI controlled and given one of three potential raid types with equivalent resource costs (Assaults/Sieges/Sappers).

-Friend 1 requests aid from Friend 2 to send over colonists to help defend/work at the Colony. Either AI controlled or temporarily controlled by the receiving player until time expires or the threat is gone, like NPC faction allies.

Careful what you send when aiding/raiding though; if they die they do not return to the Colony. This makes sending colonists a bit more of a high-risk high-reward than just always sending out help/raids.
The AI controlled benefit is primarily being able to send it out at any time, and arrive a day or two in-game for the recipient. That way players don't need to be 100% in sync for multiplayer to work, and it could be more like sending out a mission than personally doing the job.
If a friend goes offline, their Colony is treated as Offline and is not interact-able purely for simplicity's sake. A friend whose Colony is destroyed or has not played for a long time is treated as "Lost Contact".
Faction-based coop is infinitely easier than same-screen Co-op, and has most of the same benefits. The only real downside is that it's a little distant to call it real "co-op", but it's the simplest possible implementation I think.

Also, note that this is literally just barebones multiplayer. There's no point in talking about balance or anything unless it were implemented for competitive use.

as a minor addition I would suggest being able to see what is going on in another player's colony, and possibly calculating the overall resource output of a colony when a colonist goes offline, and using that to predict the state of the colony when they come back (or simply only allow palying when all players are present). also, what do you mean with raids?

Have a research for "Scout drone" so its not an instant given to see what other colonists are doing, and make them destructable so you will risk losing those resources used to build it.

Quote from: blub01 on May 16, 2016, 05:32:42 AM
as a minor addition I would suggest being able to see what is going on in another player's colony, and possibly calculating the overall resource output of a colony when a colonist goes offline, and using that to predict the state of the colony when they come back (or simply only allow palying when all players are present). also, what do you mean with raids?

Raids as in they send their own colonists to harass and reap player Colonies for weapons, items, anything of relatively high value that could be set by the raiding player. Clearly you'd need a pretty high population to do it frequently/effectively, but considering other Factions do it all the time this seems like it would kind of be a necessity for multiplayer. Clearly would be very hard to do effectively, but not impossible.

Also, in regards to the resource output thing, I sort of understood it as "when the player goes offline, his base is effectively paused where it was". Unrealistic, but as simple as it could be.

Quote from: Jin Hai on May 16, 2016, 01:41:19 PMUnrealistic, but as simple as it could be.

I think that list of not realistic things in Rimworld is pretty long.  ;)


Not that Rimworld is one of games where realism is top priority.  8)

Since when did any game made realism a priority anyway? =.=
I don't like handing any kind of control off to an AI because the AI is not me and I am not the AI.


I'd sooner handle the raiding party than stay at the colony to manage who knows what is more important than ensuring the lives of my colonists on an away mission.

Quote from: Anduin1357 on May 16, 2016, 02:22:41 PM
Since when did any game made realism a priority anyway? =.=

Operation Flashpoint, Red Orchestra(To certain degree, it is not simulation after all).

Just because making things real for some games will kill fun does not mean it will for others.

Quote from: Anduin1357 on May 07, 2016, 07:00:40 AM

Quote from: b0rsuk on May 07, 2016, 05:28:17 AM
MAKE IT A MMO!

Desyncs are a huge problem for deterministic games. If things become server based, we need a server build and require players to have lots of bandwidth.
Having 10s or 100s of players in one map would be a huge bandwidth and cpu time sink.

My post was a satire.

*Checks date of OP*


(http://rennlist.com/forums/attachments/993-turbo-forum/751015d1375990020-dealer-sold-me-salvaged-turbo-no-disclosure-die.jpg)

Quote from: Tynan on September 25, 2013, 06:12:32 PM
Not that multiplayer is planned or anything.

Multiplayer was confirmed though guys  ;D

Bad troll!  :P  Multiplayer was confirmed as not being added.  Which is why this is a suggestion and not a general discussion.

Quote from: Xealyth on May 19, 2016, 11:01:08 AM
The way I see, the co-op aspect of Anno 1404, where two people can control one "civ" would probably work best in Rimworld. In fact, it's almost a perfect iteration for this game. No reason why it shouldn't/wouldn't work.

yes, but considering that tynan doesn't even plan multiplayer right now, our suggestions have to be as simple as possible if we want them to have a chance of being implemented at all.

They don't necessarily have to be simple - they just have to fit with what RimWorld is.  There is a dedicated stickied thread for the 'simple' suggestions, though, and it's called Cheapest suggestions (because, from a dev's perspective, they're easy to implement).

Quote from: Xealyth on May 21, 2016, 11:05:46 AM
"Not that multiplayer is planned or anything."
I still don't think the idea is completely scrapped or out of the question. If multiplayer (co-op, whatever the online mode would be called) were to be ever added, I wouldn't expect it for a long long time. This I understand... there are more important things to focus on for this game. Just food for thought if anything.

The thing is, multiplayer would require a system tied into a lot of the currently existing things. So it probably would become harder to add it the farther in we go.

I know I'm beating a dead horse here but...

We could have multiplayer like Civ 5!  ;D

That would be fun, with chat and maybe using commas console to trade?

I can just imagine the chat
"mmmmmmm, we are enjoying your dead colonist SOOoooo much over here"

But Tynan isn't even considering it at the moment I'm pretty sure right now, as it's in Alpha and that would be a major update that would take over everything else he would be doing.

Quote from: Xealyth on May 28, 2016, 03:06:52 AM

Quote from: Z0MBIE2 on May 27, 2016, 10:56:20 PM
But Tynan isn't even considering it at the moment I'm pretty sure right now, as it's in Alpha and that would be a major update that would take over everything else he would be doing.

Exactly... my point still stands.

Your point was he should factor that in for adding it?

My point was it's unlikely he will ever add it, at least before the game's out of alpha and "finished".

Welcome for my self, i'd say. Name's Sandy.

Lets speak about multiplayer now, after the steam realease. Why after it? Because the probably huge money bonus that Tyn got; I've seen some others game amassing 300.000 U$ in a month, on that early access stage. Idk if it is going to help or to even let you to recruit someone to help all the work... But let's start the discussion.

First Stage: Multiplayer from scratch.
  - We need to put a chronically devolution order for Tyn when making a multiplayer patch, which will consist about the start of the game until the escape planet. Where we'll be obviously speak about the new features on the Alpha14.
- Connection: Peer to Peer. For just a simplistic sake. Why the hell would a Dev start a multiplayer by a massive server? Upkeeps, programming time, all care. Even when we speak about balancing.
- Game mode: CO-OP. When we would start a new multiplayer game, we need to start from the simplistic. CO-OP would stop any "balancing problems"!
- Time Methods: Globally, PAUSE, 1X, 2X. With my pc I can handle the major map size without any lags at the 2X. And the time should be the lowest you choice. Pause would exist, like at Total War. Everyone's like to get a pause, however it rarely its used! We could mirror its coop campaign, making the season ceases when a player leaves (it's just 2 coop) or we could go to 4 players or even 8! Just let the colony frozen when players leave. There is no why to dislike about that, in fact that others game have the same method.
- Story Tellers: A small upgrade on them, allowing that same types of events happens on both colony's. (solar flare, volcanic winter).
- Type of game: "Everyone in yours house": This game is about creating a colony and managing it. No why to leave this!
- Victory Conditions: We would put a "Neutral map" where every player would get a 50x50 area to build. It will be a normal map, of course! All the map would be avaible to mine, hunt, however just could be build on that 50x50 area. Them, would add a "Ship Building Area" where everyone could donate parts and resources to build the ship! Everyone needs to escape, and players should work together to do that.
  * OBS ON THAT ONE: Later by, could add raids to that "Ship Building Area" where all players should work together to stop them. A central 100x100 should be cleared, and build on defenses to hold it. Resources to that area would be just carried by alpacas, mufalos, elephants, etc; where it would take 2~3 days to arrive, while the Pawns just 1 day, and instantly ~ 4 hours if using a rider animal *
- Players Help: Caravans system already exist. Players would send caravans for their Friends with items and prices for that ones. They could die in process, so a strong caravans would be better. Just animals could carry good amounts of items!
- Caravan (Player Driven): Wastes 4 Hours of preparation + 2H X Distance {Cell} , and player would choice the staying caravan time, to the maximum of three days. Obs: They won't consume other players food by any block methods, and other players couldn't buy prepared meals. (Or the player could put a meal with the price of 99999999 coins, lol).
  - Raids: The player could send assistance, like the IA allied tribes, a mechanic already existent on the game, however by a player assistance.
  - Start Method: Server would choice it.
  - Mod: A good use. Tyn, if you reads that some by, remember that I love you, and with steam workshop, there will be a lot of modders. (Explaining mods: modders would develop yours own ways to work that at start, letting Tyn wastes his times on other things.
  - Sync Problems at " Neutral Zone" : Prob won't exist at all? It a strategy game , where the commands should be addressed before the matters really much.
  - Players Assingments: Their relations would be the SAME To all IA Tribes. If someone Jerks, it would be prob your players, or you is just one of the crazy guys that play Total War Coop Campaing with strangers. Sort of expect I think.
- Massive thread? Yeah it is. I'm working to convince that MP would be used.
- Player Joining: they would join when they really wants. Why would you care about that at all? If you are already playing with Friend1 for an hour and a Wild Friend2 appear, would you start a new game? If not, they join on that on-going world.
- Multiplayer Saves: Host and non-hosts should save all the worlds and colony's! And them when they are rejoining, they would choice and download the colony of choice, and play it like a "single player" sending out just the necessary. When it's going to close, the "save button" would download all colony's again. That would let players hacks, but you going to play with friends, right? ( If this pin got confused as fu** , English isn't my "mother thong", I'm a Brazilian, and I could write all this again on Portuguese for someone translate )
- Add me on steam: Sandyyy
If I takes to much to reply here, prob I'll be by there.


I think it's all. If I missed something, just say, and I'll Annalise it for all.
Really Tyn, thanks for that game, I'm following you from Alpha1. Until alpha 5 I didn't get that this game was going to be freaking good!

best mod ever!

Multiplayer is a feature that definatly needs to be inside rimworld. Either it is direct or indirect multiplayer at the current state of the game i think changing the game to an rts would make this game epic. But i understand the game is not initialy meant to be played this way. Actually at the moment i think that i great way to integrate multiplayer would be for the multiplayer to act as events. example:

A generated world map would be shared between multiple users where the players select a tile and playes in this tile it is only 1 player per tile like it is currently working at this moment you generate the map you select your tile to build your base.

We could interact with the tiles of the map. Lets say i want to send troops to attack another player i would send colonists on his tile, the player recieving the attack would recieve this attack as a raid event. The player attacking does not control the colonists he has sent, they act as normal ai raiders.

An other example would be exchanging ressources you would make on offer to a tile and it would work as merchants through the comm station.

The idea is we can interact indirectly with other colonies on a shared map which would just trigger events affecting both users

Their could even be some upgrades and be able to build other colonies as factions on other tiles which could share ressources colonists etc

Since the game was not created  to interact as an rts and it would have to be rebalanced this way of interacting with other players would not affect much the game. It will interfere with the storytellers.But it would be a great addition to the game. it would work a little bit like the web based rts games you dont manage you players you send troops they loot etc.

Just pitching in my $0.02 that I don't think multiplayer is worth the time it would take to implement.

Indeed, implementing is a question of making a game next to the already existing game.

There's the argument that the game is already "out of alpha". I have no idea why people say that, since it's still A14.

Multiplayer games would usually require some kind of lag compensation.

Then there's the lan coop possibility. I have often wondered "why don't they make games with multiple screens, keyboards and mice?" Lag-free coop instantly! Computers generally benefit from having a low ping when playing. The pawns (colonists, raiders, animals, etc...) would succumb to lag, flying all over the screen. Since the game is so slow to move pawns around, it would be possible to compensate for lag somewhat. I recall from playing online in terraria and minecraft that lag simply ruins the game using the meagre internet connection that I have here. So... even if the game would benefit from coop, the game would require a very specific multiplayer server code to make dedicated and thus somewhat lag free game experiences. When you throw in multiplayer, a lot of weird heavy duty questions arise. Things like "who is going to have the save files". "Who is going to decide over which character". In MMO's this is usually solved by giving one character per player, one save file per world. If the world or server is central to a certain region, it will attract people from that region and thus reduce lag.

I remember wanting to make a Dwarf Fortress multiplayer where the players would control parallel forts, in conflict with each other. It is a strange idea but it's not strange to have it.

I just discover the game and coop multiplayer may broke the gameplay.
But i have a suggestion :
Why dont make like simcity a server where lots of players can land and try to survive with interaction like visiting, trading, and take a lost spot if all colonist die ?

That's kind of already happening with a recent mod. This mod is called "Phi," and it allows you to trade with colonists and even give away colonists in a SimCity-like experience. Proves that Tynan isn't the only expert with coding from this humble community. You need to try it out!  ;D

hmm.. this "phi" sounds interesting. does the modder plan to add further functionalities?

Quote from: Galileus on December 28, 2013, 09:21:54 PM
Solution to time control with multiple players (a HUGE problem!), encoded save system, mods detection, multiplayer mods implementation, in-game chat system, bigger maps, net-code, multiplayer balancing, cheat protection (especially with how easy it is now), multi implementation to every module yet to come...

So yeah, just wanted to point out it's a tad bit more complicated than "just put two players on one map" ;) If multiplayer was a throw-away feature, Tynan would make one already. Unfortunately, it's nowhere near that.

Anti cheat system is for the server. The server will develop this.

Some ideas about multiplayer and co-op in RimWorld:
1) [MP/CO-OP] What if make 1 world (planet), but players are playing in different colonies and they can trade/support/help/attack each other? Like a server hosting world/planet and players are just controlling they're own colony.
2) [CO-OP] Some players just controlling the same colony, like if you have some friends who help you control the colony (example: you're fighting with mechanoids and your friend at the same time is making a new room in a cave-home). It is useful to distribute tasks.

Tell me if these ideas are good. And tell me about some mistakes in these thoughts.

P.S. Sorry for bad English.

This is probably better suited for the 'Suggestions' forum, and I don't even know that MP is on the roadmap for Rimworld at all, but I would be very much in support of your first idea.

The second I could see being a little more problematic, you'd need to perhaps split 'ownership' of the population with each player's population prioritising first their own player's priorities and plans before assisting the other players.

Quote from: Naithin on November 29, 2016, 06:55:05 PM
This is probably better suited for the 'Suggestions' forum, and I don't even know that MP is on the roadmap for Rimworld at all, but I would be very much in support of your first idea.

Many singleplayer games can be better with multiplayer/co-op support ;)

Quote from: Naithin on November 29, 2016, 06:55:05 PM
The second I could see being a little more problematic, you'd need to perhaps split 'ownership' of the population with each player's population prioritising first their own player's priorities and plans before assisting the other players.

Imagine that you play in something with friend at your home. But you only have 1 keyboard and mouse, so you can't do two or more things at the same time. So I think that it better for co-op to have different colonies for players like in MP or to control the same colony. So when you're fighting with some enemies and having troubles, your friend can help like if he was on your computer, but connected with LAN/Internet. But population separating is also a good idea.

I think that the best idea is still having a sort of arena match with several players interchanged on offense and defence. each players teams would be made up of colonists and resources from their single player games, that have dev mode disabled. and team balancing could be done using the point values of items like prepare carefully does. the teams would alternate with offense and defence of a certain location. the centre of the map would be blacked out for a certain amount of time, like 10 mins. in this time both teams can prepare their defence and offense. the defending teams could either be defending an item, location or individual, and both teams have all the rimworld options at their disposal, except the time options.

I don't see how having small server over steam or at least lan capacity in the game would be hugely difficult or time consuming, and since the devs are talking about how they are about to complete a huge feature add to the game I'm sure they would have a great deal of spare time afterwards in order to do fixs and small additions and this would be a small but fun and important addition to make.

I think that multiplayer would be a cool addition to the game, being able to build colonies with your friends or make separate colonies and decide if you want to be allies or work against eachother. There would have to be a friends system though or work from steam friends as it wouldn't be cool if you played with a random and he would just grief your base, but I think a buddy system could get rid of that.

I don't get this fuzz about multiplayer.
This pattern is just disturbing. Nearly everytime a solid SP Game comes out there is a crowd shouting "why not multiplayer it's so cool".
Ugh.
I understand that you want to share your experiences with friends. But I don't think Rimworld needs that. Well I may just bought it two weeks ago, so I didn't see the progress from the previous alphas. But I do not think it's clever for Tynan to put his effort there.
The game may be stable and running, but it's not where it's aimed to be, hence the Alpha status. MP would be something that could be included via DLC for those who want that.
I just don't see the sense here. I enjoy this game solo like many others do. And we have the opportunity here and via youtube or who knows where else to share our stories.

If you had read the previous posts you would notice that multiplayer would get created after the game is finished, and imo multiplayer would be nice in RimWorld, true that not every game fits a multiplayer but I think that it would be a cool addition to this one, anyway if it the multiplayer gets created I don't see anyone forcing you to play it, people that want to stick to sp can stick to sp and players that want the mp experience can go for mp.

I have read the previous posts ;)
I was just stating my point. I understand yours completely, I just do not share it. That's why I said it could be sort of a DLC thingy. Or, like in other games, via update and a button ingame. I don't mind the MP part if it gets implemented. I just don't see the need for it that's all.
Maybe I would even try it out if it were there. Just wanted to state there's no point -at the moment- in forcing effort into this ;)
Didn't want to be offensive, sorry if I did word it so.
(Not native speaker, so words sometimes sound better in my head than written ^^)

Don't worry not a native speaker my self, my message might have sounded a bit aggressive too and on the point that the game should get finished first before they start working on multiplayer is completely right since it started as a SP game it should have the SP polished before it gets to the MP.

Having different colonies managed by different players on the same map would be absolutely awesome!!!!

Moderator's edit (Calahan) - I have merged your new thread with the long existing one. We do not need another thread about multiplayer. Please use the search function next time to check if a suggestion/topic exists before creating a new thread. Thank you.

Damn! I got an idea (not sure if it's already been said tho. I ain't reading 16 pages worth of comments). This will probably never happen but it's nice being able to say my ideas.

So, my idea is that a server would have a rimworld just like the vanilla game. Once you join a server, you get to choose a hex where you'll set up base and a faction.

The server should have restrictions or pick the faction for the player based on the number of players that already joined a certain faction. Tribal should be optional since it comes with disadvantages.The Faction leader will be chosesn by the server depending on who in a particular faction is the wealthiest.

Once you choose your hex, you get your standard character creation thing with 3 characters (depends on the server most likely). Everything else is pretty much vanilla.

Still, it would be pretty different especially during raids since you're up against an actual human.

Whenever you are offline , an AI will defend your base in an event of a raid. Speaking of raids, there should be limitations on who can raid who. It would be really unfair if someone with a 10-man army all with charged rifles and power armor raided someone who's on his first rimworld year. The restrictions will be based on wealth so the wealthy can only attack the wealthy and the underdogs can only attack the underdogs.

Quote from: Iqew on March 21, 2017, 07:49:57 AM
Damn! I got an idea (not sure if it's already been said tho. I ain't reading 16 pages worth of comments). This will probably never happen but it's nice being able to say my ideas.

So, my idea is that a server would have a rimworld just like the vanilla game. Once you join a server, you get to choose a hex where you'll set up base and a faction.
Tynan said himself earlier that if multiplayer was added, it would be co-op, not pvp.
The server should have restrictions or pick the faction for the player based on the number of players that already joined a certain faction. Tribal should be optional since it comes with disadvantages.The Faction leader will be chosesn by the server depending on who in a particular faction is the wealthiest.

Once you choose your hex, you get your standard character creation thing with 3 characters (depends on the server most likely). Everything else is pretty much vanilla.

Still, it would be pretty different especially during raids since you're up against an actual human.

Whenever you are offline , an AI will defend your base in an event of a raid. Speaking of raids, there should be limitations on who can raid who. It would be really unfair if someone with a 10-man army all with charged rifles and power armor raided someone who's on his first rimworld year. The restrictions will be based on wealth so the wealthy can only attack the wealthy and the underdogs can only attack the underdogs.

I like the idea of multiplayer specially if there is pvp :)
plunder all your legendary wooden chairs...

I think that coordinated random events should be the same for all players.
but...
What happens if a player leaves the game? IA takes your control? definitely say goodbye to your chairs.

Unlike most ... I prefer PVE. A perfect cooperative. The world can only be active if one of the players is active. Each player has different characters but if one is not active you will have all of them.
This would attract the attention of more buyers in steam.

I'm sorry for my English -google translator.

Quote from: Iqew on March 21, 2017, 07:49:57 AM
Damn! I got an idea (not sure if it's already been said tho. I ain't reading 16 pages worth of comments). This will probably never happen but it's nice being able to say my ideas.

So, my idea is that a server would have a rimworld just like the vanilla game. Once you join a server, you get to choose a hex where you'll set up base and a faction.

The server should have restrictions or pick the faction for the player based on the number of players that already joined a certain faction. Tribal should be optional since it comes with disadvantages.The Faction leader will be chosesn by the server depending on who in a particular faction is the wealthiest.

Once you choose your hex, you get your standard character creation thing with 3 characters (depends on the server most likely). Everything else is pretty much vanilla.

Still, it would be pretty different especially during raids since you're up against an actual human.

Whenever you are offline , an AI will defend your base in an event of a raid. Speaking of raids, there should be limitations on who can raid who. It would be really unfair if someone with a 10-man army all with charged rifles and power armor raided someone who's on his first rimworld year. The restrictions will be based on wealth so the wealthy can only attack the wealthy and the underdogs can only attack the underdogs.

Dude if you want your suggestions taken seriously you should take the time and effort to see if someone has already posted something similar it's not hard to read 16 pages  ¯\_ಠ_ಠ_/¯

Quote from: Neotic on May 04, 2017, 04:02:03 PM

Quote from: Iqew on March 21, 2017, 07:49:57 AM
Damn! I got an idea (not sure if it's already been said tho. I ain't reading 16 pages worth of comments). This will probably never happen but it's nice being able to say my ideas.

So, my idea is that a server would have a rimworld just like the vanilla game. Once you join a server, you get to choose a hex where you'll set up base and a faction.

The server should have restrictions or pick the faction for the player based on the number of players that already joined a certain faction. Tribal should be optional since it comes with disadvantages.The Faction leader will be chosesn by the server depending on who in a particular faction is the wealthiest.

Once you choose your hex, you get your standard character creation thing with 3 characters (depends on the server most likely). Everything else is pretty much vanilla.

Still, it would be pretty different especially during raids since you're up against an actual human.

Whenever you are offline , an AI will defend your base in an event of a raid. Speaking of raids, there should be limitations on who can raid who. It would be really unfair if someone with a 10-man army all with charged rifles and power armor raided someone who's on his first rimworld year. The restrictions will be based on wealth so the wealthy can only attack the wealthy and the underdogs can only attack the underdogs.

Dude if you want your suggestions taken seriously you should take the time and effort to see if someone has already posted something similar it's not hard to read 16 pages  ¯\_ಠ_ಠ_/¯

It's 200+ posts. *Facepalm*

Everyone's all going for low hanging fruit and skimping on even explaining what matters to devs the most, technical discussion.


Which is why the layman is never gonna convince the devs with layman ideas.

I do not understand why co-op should not be a thing. The most simple and efficient way to implement it would be to let one player become the host and the other player join or leave any time he wants, so that the host and the guest(s) can control the colonists of the same colony. This way the hosts save files do not get disrupted and he can play on his own when the guests left.This would make the game so much more popular that I seriously do not understand why nobody wants to implement it.

Because programming it is a HUGE and DIFFICULT investment of time and effort for a game thats not finished yet.  Ask again when its no longer an Alpha, there was a link to Tynan commenting on the issue. 

I know that RimWorld is developing all the time, and I want to express a a thought I have had.

MULTIPLAYER- This would be a new world attracting a lot of new people into the game. This would work by everyone entering a loading screen whether it may be local or hosted of up to 6 at most. Everything would be in real time, but people will be spreaded out over the world. You would win by entering space leaving the rim world or by eliminating all other tribes. Time to research and travel through caravans would be increased by 4-6x depending on host to make the game move faster. What ludeon could do to make money would be to add scenarios personalized to the user. What I mean by this is adding rig explorer maybe pirates and the lost tribe. Pirates would be able to move quicker in the world and start with more members, but they can only win by eliminating all tribes making this a interesting view on multiplayer.

Tell me if you want more details on certain aspects or if you love the idea. Maybe in the future they could add this even to mobile devices?? Who knows...

@ EthanSpurlin - ^^ Your idea (multiplayer) has been suggested to death already, although you at least get credit for outlining how it might work rather than just saying "Add multiplayer!!!" like some people do. Anyway, I have merged your new thread with the long standing existing one suggesting multiplayer, as we do not need any more new suggestion threads for this.

Also, can you please use the search function in future to check if a suggestion has already been made before creating a new thread for it, as per the forum rules. Especially for something that is very likely to have been suggested already (since the chance of you being the first person to suggest MP for RimWorld was zero). Plus, can you please try to have a thread title that is related to / is a summary of your idea, as "Future game idea" offers nothing in that regard. Finally, please don't use all capitals for thread titles. Thank you.


Edit - I've moved two recent posts from the "Frequent Suggestions Topic" thread to here as well.

What I think about this: if players play on one map, you should divide the map into time zones, where time during the day may be different, but at the end of the day one player waits for the completion of day from another player.

In order to enter the territory of another player, you will have to synchronize your time with him as before the intervention, and during. This is awkward, but, in my opinion, not so serious fee for multiplayer.

There's no multiplayer in the game as of yet.

But, maybe someday Tynan (or some dedicated modder with haxor C# skillz) might make multiplayer an option.

What formats would be best for multiplayer?

Would you prefer the players land in the same area, or in different areas?
Same faction, different faction?
Build the same base, using each other's resources, or keeping it separate and competing for resources?
PvP?
Different storytellers?

I've actually had a thought about this before, I think a server with a limit of people on the same planet that are all can be against each other or friends  and attack each other, trade and all the other stuff you do with npc colonies. When you are offline then your pawns walk around but have no needs and defend as npc's if attacked. I don't think a public server would work well for this because people would not reliably be online etc but with friends in a private server would be really fun. These are just my thoughts though

Hmmm nice idea to make either shared or separate spawns, but one one map. Speed would be controlled by host then.
I'd challenge my friend, who will win in 5v3 food only start PvP ;)

Time controls are FAR too important of an aspect to this game to ditch.  Player control is FAR too important an aspect of this game to ditch.

That being said, EVERY suggestion for multiplayer in this thread has basically been a variation on removing ONE of those aspects.

Either its "play on the same map" and suddenly players can't control time anymore because you'd either be pausing someone else's game or the time elapsed wouldn't sync up.

Or its "play your own game, and the computer defends your base for you when you're offline" - and suddenly you have dozens of people who can't play the game because they weren't online when something happened, or their base was destroyed by 1 pawn with a sniper.

This is no different than a game like skyrim or morrowind or sim city, where allowing a player to STOP THE GAME and plan is VITAL to the game working properly.  If you put multiple players into the game, they all can't control time.  If they all can't control time, the game doesn't work.

Quote from: Limdood on October 05, 2017, 09:16:24 AM
Time controls are FAR too important of an aspect to this game to ditch.  Player control is FAR too important an aspect of this game to ditch.

That being said, EVERY suggestion for multiplayer in this thread has basically been a variation on removing ONE of those aspects.

Either its "play on the same map" and suddenly players can't control time anymore because you'd either be pausing someone else's game or the time elapsed wouldn't sync up.

Or its "play your own game, and the computer defends your base for you when you're offline" - and suddenly you have dozens of people who can't play the game because they weren't online when something happened, or their base was destroyed by 1 pawn with a sniper.

This is no different than a game like skyrim or morrowind or sim city, where allowing a player to STOP THE GAME and plan is VITAL to the game working properly.  If you put multiple players into the game, they all can't control time.  If they all can't control time, the game doesn't work.

I mentioned that host would control it. Playing with known people would solve it easily independent of who hosts.

Quote from: kubolek01 on October 05, 2017, 01:26:29 PM
I mentioned that host would control it. Playing with known people would solve it easily independent of who hosts.

That would imply that every moment where the host hits pause to position his pawns, force order some doctoring, or gets a raid, the game would pause for his buddy who's just sitting waiting for his crops to grow.

Likewise, if the host is playing on 3x speed to power through the nighttime, his buddy whose hunter just got attacked by a panther is out of luck...

each player needs control of their own time controls or Rimworld doesn't work.

I know adding multiplayer to this game would help sales a lot. I know this because I have not bought the game after viewing it because of this. Single player might be fine for many, but with a family of 4 and the only ability to buy this game on Steam or Humble Bundle for steam at $30 a shot, would mean $120 for the family, who already seen the videos as well but don't even want to touch the game unless all can interact. If this was a game that I could buy from GOG where all 4 can use this, then spending $30 one time wouldn't be an issue. But at $120, there definitely needs to be an ability for multiplayer interaction.

I don't think that game needs multiplayer. It would be cool if it had but this game can be completely perfect without it.

Maybe... simple Versus mode on x1 speed, custom settings etc... (CS, but with whole team control..) :)

>  If this was a game that I could buy from GOG where all 4 can use this, then spending $30 one time wouldn't be an issue. But at $120, there definitely needs to be an ability for multiplayer interaction.

This is sales / costing issue, and not a game design issue. If Tynan cared about it, he could penstroke it by saying that the license is good for the family or something. I really don't understand your comment though. If it's a single player game, why are we talking about the family synchronizing its gameplay to one game, when they could all be playing different games?

I noticed a retrieval screen for downloading this game in standalone form (non steam) Am I to understand lets say, I buy this on humble bundle I can use the link they sent me here to get a standalone version? Or do I need to buy it here? If I can get it from humblebundle and get the stand alone version here I won't bother waiting for a multi user version.

Quote from: lord-xanthor on October 09, 2017, 04:24:15 PM
I noticed a retrieval screen for downloading this game in standalone form (non steam) Am I to understand lets say, I buy this on humble bundle I can use the link they sent me here to get a standalone version? Or do I need to buy it here? If I can get it from humblebundle and get the stand alone version here I won't bother waiting for a multi user version.

There are only two places you can legitimately purchase RimWorld from right now. Directly from Ludeon Studios, or from Steam. If you buy it directly from Ludeon Studios then you get access to the DRM-free version (I guess this is what you are referring to by standalone version) as well as the option to register your game on Steam for free. If you buy it from Steam then you only get the Steam version and no access to the DRM-free version.

I would be very surprised if RimWorld becomes available via Humblebundle anytime soon, if ever. And if so it will likely only be some years after final release (and as I said, if ever). So if you are waiting to purchase this game on the basis of waiting for it to appear on Humblebundle you will have at least a very long wait (as in a few years I'd say), if not an indefinite one.

AFAIK anywhere else selling or offering RimWolrd right now is not doing so with the permission of Tynan Sylvester / Ludeon Studios.

OKAY... took me three days to read 18 pages and three years of a same thread, it's hard to imagine how things were in the past alphas when I just started from A16 and try to relate how things were before.

After all that was written and with A17 out, to me the only way that Multiplayer would work without disrupting other single player games is if "World Incidents" would trigger for "Online" players that can stick to the computer and not to AFK for a time lapse of at least one hour.

Example: Event: Attack a Pirate outpost. Three players can co-op in a time window of 10 minutes or the event disappears. Those who accept will receive a temporary map where they can coordinate the offense and after the outpost is destroyed, they can loot like normal and after the 24 hours countdown expires, there's a bonus reward.

All other opinions about leaving your colony to AI while offline is ridiculous to me. Because if I were around while you sleep, by the time you come back, you will have nothing left. I don't know how people can rely their entire efforts in a game to an AI.

And I definitely don't want anybody else on my map, because if the others suck, then my game must suck too? No way.

Quote from: Yoshida Keiji on October 09, 2017, 09:40:23 PM
OKAY... took me three days to read 18 pages and three years of a same thread, it's hard to imagine how things were in the past alphas when I just started from A16 and try to relate how things were before.

After all that was written and with A17 out, to me the only way that Multiplayer would work without disrupting other single player games is if "World Incidents" would trigger for "Online" players that can stick to the computer and not to AFK for a time lapse of at least one hour.

Example: Event: Attack a Pirate outpost. Three players can co-op in a time window of 10 minutes or the event disappears. Those who accept will receive a temporary map where they can coordinate the offense and after the outpost is destroyed, they can loot like normal and after the 24 hours countdown expires, there's a bonus reward.

All other opinions about leaving your colony to AI while offline is ridiculous to me. Because if I were around while you sleep, by the time you come back, you will have nothing left. I don't know how people can rely their entire efforts in a game to an AI.

And I definitely don't want anybody else on my map, because if the others suck, then my game must suck too? No way.

Good ideas, then AI sucks so not even make it F2P like (any grind or pay base builder name here). Being B2P ;)

Я очень сильно хочу сыграть в эту замечательную игру с другом. Хотелось бы видеть мультиплеер! Будит мультиплеер хотя бы через пол года или год??? Мультиплеер можно сделать как в разных играх, то есть одиночная и мультиплеер, чтобы некто не кому не мешал.Пожалуйста подумайте над мультиплеером или кооперативной игрой)))
 

Quote from: Dok13 on October 28, 2017, 08:56:26 PM
Я очень сильно хочу сыграть в эту замечательную игру с другом. Хотелось бы видеть мультиплеер! Будит мультиплеер хотя бы через пол года или год??? Мультиплеер можно сделать как в разных играх, то есть одиночная и мультиплеер, чтобы некто не кому не мешал.Пожалуйста подумайте над мультиплеером или кооперативной игрой)))

Translated with Google Translate:

QuoteI really want to play this wonderful game with a friend. I would like to see multiplayer! Budit multiplayer at least half a year or a year ?? Multiplayer can be done both in different games, that is, single and multiplayer, so that someone does not interfere with anyone. Please think over the multiplayer or cooperative game)))

This is my only dream about a game.

Play the rimworld with your friends <3 raid them, trade with them and other stuff. Even dreaming about it is awesome.

Me and a friend of mine have been enjoying Rimworld. But the one the we still want is a coop mode, maybe it can be set up with simple peer-to-peer servers. For the rest it might be fun to have 2 game modes. 1 where each player has their own colony and one mode where the players all share 1 colony.

This was just an idea I had, would be fun to see it in the game.

If the multiplayer would be added,you could play as prisoners then!  8)
that would be so amazing tho.

Would be great to interact with others or even a friend or two to work with.
Maybe one day :)

 Well, since we're still adding to this, the best way to add it would probably be similar to something like Shadow of War, Dragon's Dogma, and/or Heat Signature.

Basically, there's a colony another player made that shows up somewhere. It's controlled by them, it's just got the name of the faction and settlement. Maybe a couple select pawns in their gear, and bases if Tynan's feeling crazy. It'd be pretty neat to see someone complaining about pirates and I see a familiar face in the screenshot.

Maybe to ensure that your base isn't completely destroyed every time you leave, your town could not be interacted with at all when you're gone. Trading or attacks could happen only when you were online.

For a way to make multiplayer (co-op only for now) work, see Prison Architect's latest YT vid as of now, and/or DL latest beta of the game.

I tried it, so far works, quite fun, some bugs but it's still in dev, thus on beta branch.

I would love to see a multiplayer in this game, recently i found this mod:

https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=47445.0

Something like this but added like a feature of the base game could be just PERFECT and its not a difficult thing =)

Quote from: Steel Balls on March 27, 2019, 05:41:30 AM
I would love to see a multiplayer in this game, recently i found this mod:

https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=47445.0

Something like this but added like a feature of the base game could be just PERFECT and its not a difficult thing =)

I second this motion.

Now that Steam Remote Play is out, will there be ways to use that platform to play Rimworld?

Still dont understand why the devs dont add the multiplayer, they made a GREAT work with this game, and add multiplayer can make it be PERFECT, sriusly there are actually at the multiplayer's mod discord 3000 people, we are not 5 or 20 people, no, we are more than 3000.

People would love see it ingame, add it as a dlc optional, add it in the way u want, but do it please!!

 ::) ::) ::) ::)

Quote from: Steel Balls on January 26, 2020, 06:31:03 AM
Still dont understand why the devs dont add the multiplayer, they made a GREAT work with this game, and add multiplayer can make it be PERFECT, sriusly there are actually at the multiplayer's mod discord 3000 people, we are not 5 or 20 people, no, we are more than 3000.

People would love see it ingame, add it as a dlc optional, add it in the way u want, but do it please!!

Just give up... TEN years, mate. Tyn prefers DLCs that destroy the game experience.