Messages

If you want to have everything butchered immediately, then suspend the cooking and brewing bills.

If you want multiple jobs completed by one crafter/cook/etc., then you can tell them to make 5x of each or to keep producing until you have like 10x of each in storage. Yes, they'll make all of one before making any of the other, but you do get both.

Still, some way of prioritizing bills between tables would be nice.

I would like to point out a thread I made specifically on discussing the innings on multiplayer as a mod or vanilla feature. Would anyone care to take a look?

Yes, I would. Thanks for the link. 

I think this would be a great idea. I'd be content with "Warden"-assigned pawns friendly-chatting with any visitors (as opposed to passers-by) and getting a chance to recruit them then and there (with modifiers for social skill, beauty, and perhaps colony wealth per colonist).

I'm not exactly sure how this would work, but I'd really like pawns to be "smarter" about efficiently completing as much planned work as possible. Having them cross the map to harvest 3-4 plants and then returning to eat a meal without even bringing the just-harvested materials back with them is just so sad. Maybe when manual priorities are set then distance-to-job could take precedence over the default activity ordering?

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.

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.

[17 years later]

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.

[without]

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.

[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.

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, 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? 
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.

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.

How are events currently generated by the AI?

I was thinking about the new amature astronomy joy activity and about how research eventually runs out of topics. What if there were a new structure we could research and then build late-game which, if currently operated by a colonist, would warn of an incoming raid and delay it by 1/2 hour per level of research of the surveillance operator. That would provide an end-game research-skill activity and a non-shooty improved defence for hopefully not much work, depending on how the storytellers currently work. If the code isn't set up in such a way that this is easy, then there are surely more pressing issues.