Far-future suggestion: Multiplayer and Adventure mode?

[Ludov]

Just a random musing, but with a "worldgen" tool in the work for Alpha 6(or at least, what sounds like it) I couldn't help but musing about the potential not only for multiplayer(with players having their own respective colonies on a multiplayer worldserver) but also for another stapple of Dwarf Fortress(as the game which inspired a lot of these colony games): Adventure mode.

Basically we already know that, right now, there is a greater world out there in a fashion. And the game also already is starting to feature some very nice detailed control of one's colonists.
So I was wondering if, a bit like Dwarf Fortress, something akin to adventure mode where we play a lone wanderer or small party of "adventurers" might not be interesting in the future. Where you could basically move from one region to another on the world-map(even if requiring either loading screen or a sort of Zelda-like screen transition) visiting the various villages to trade/do services for them while fending off the wild life or brigangs.
Maybe even explore lost civilizations' ruins filled with mechanoids, mutants or the like for those rare highly advanced forgotten gear or loot to sell back to civilization when you visit it.

Plus, if multiplayer is ever a thing, it could make for a very nice dichotomy if "colony" players and "adventure" players could play on a same world server. With the colonies set on building their own town/villages and/or getting off the planet, possibly even starting to build their own gear if that is ever implemented. While "adventuerers" would roam the world, go from one colony to another either to harass or aid them with their services(while the colonies could offer their own services in return by building the likes of tavern/inns that could be used by adventurer players and other wanderers) or trade/barter for food/ressources at colonies' bartering stations and/or bazaar.

And who knows, if adventurers could recruit others(NPCs such as either other wanderers or even some of the colony players' own disgruntled colonists) maybe the option for them could open up to abandon their wanderings and setup their own permanent colony.

[MoneyFish]

I was thinking of posting this exact thing!
I'd love to be able to take my group of survivors on a journey across the continent, and finally be able to see these bandit camps and pirate coves we are always fighting

[Xerberus86]

i don't think adventure mode will be implemented, the worldgenerator is just that....it generates a world-layout, when you select a spot THEN it generates the area. also in DF there is civilization, history and event generation which is generating the living gameworld, this would take some serious time to program and i doubt will be taken. after all, DF is already in active programming for over 12 years.

[MoneyFish]

All respect to DF, but it's development is a mess.
Adventure mode could be implemented in Rimworld down the line. I see no reason why Tynan wouldn't want to implement it.
It would require generation of history and civilization but that's very doable. At the very least it would be nice to be able to reclaim a previously lost colony. Simulate a few years' wear and tear and you're set.

[StorymasterQ]

I agree that RimWorld could do what DF does with the world and history generation. I also agree that it would take 10+ years.

I'd wait. Wouldn't you?

[Coenmcj]

I agree that RimWorld could do what DF does with the world and history generation. I also agree that it would take 10+ years.

I'd wait. Wouldn't you?

I'd Probably wait, although considering that DF is still running ASCII gameart (Atleast last time I checked) And rimworld is significantly more advanced in that department, possibly longer than that.

[Tynan]

Well, I have the advantage of better tech fundamentals than Toady. I think he writes in C++; C# is measurably more productive per developer hour. So that helps.

Also, I'm not working alone any more. So that helps too.

I think Ludeon could catch up, for sure. Though that's kind of a false comparison to make; certainly we take inspiration from DF (a lot of it), but I also have some ideas on ways to take the game that are totally different from where DF has gone.

But just to the OP's ideas: These are incredible and exciting ideas. They're also massively ambitious! So, maybe in a sequel or two, if such products are ever developed. But you are right, it could be amazing if it could be pulled off.

[MoneyFish]

Can't wait to see where Rimworld will be in a year or 2! I wouldn't mind paying an extra $5-10 for an optional adventure mode expansion pack down the line. But by all means take your time! and as for multiplayer, I for one have 2 or 3 friends who would pounce on this game the moment it becomes possible And imagine all that YouTube exposure!

[Merry76]

Well, one of the preliminary games was kind of an adventure game (zombie apocalypse survive thing). However, I do think that Rimworld as it develops right now is a way better direction.

I never understood the fascination of DF Adventure mode. Sure you can explore a whole world, but its a VERY bland and uninteresting world at that. There are several rogue likes that do a way better job than DF Adventure mode does, thats for sure. Toady would better focus his energy on making the game actually fun to play (this includes more accessible, btw).

[Xerberus86]

Well, one of the preliminary games was kind of an adventure game (zombie apocalypse survive thing). However, I do think that Rimworld as it develops right now is a way better direction.

I never understood the fascination of DF Adventure mode. Sure you can explore a whole world, but its a VERY bland and uninteresting world at that. There are several rogue likes that do a way better job than DF Adventure mode does, thats for sure. Toady would better focus his energy on making the game actually fun to play (this includes more accessible, btw).

adventure mode in DF has quests, wandering monsters, civilizations at war with each other and army movements (since Df2014) and you can explore the rich world with its history, unique figures and slay some dragons and red towns of bandits.

still the main gamemode of dwarf fortress is fortress mode and i have to say that if you get used to the keyboard controls then they have their advantage over mouse-centric controls like in rimworld. i find controlling, overviewing and in general executing things i want in dwarf fortress far easier than in rimworld or similiar games. sure the menu in rimworld looks more appealing with its big icons and mousecontrol (which you partially have in DF too, with mods enhanced even) and being able almost to play with one hand only (the one on the mouse) is interesting for the patient once.

sadly i am not really that patient and if i want to mine an area in rimworld for example, then i have to move my mouse to the bottom left corner, click on architect, click on orders and then click on the mining icon (or press "m"). in DF i press d-d and then i can either designate the are with the arrow keys or with mousequery i can just paint the are.

best example is equipping gear to someone, in rimworld you have to find your colonist, click on him and then search manually for the gear you want him to equip. i can't say if having the weapon in a huge stockpile or anywhere on the ground on the map is better / worse than the other. in DF i can create squads and put those dwarves i want for military duty in those squads, assign the squad as a whole (or individually) uniforms and they will automatically go and pick up their designated weapons. if they weapon is broken, they automatically pick up a new one. if i want to change the iron shortsword of dwarf x to an steel shortsword then i either let him pick it up after time automatically (they acknowledge better quality) or i go into the squad menu, select him and tell him to pick up shortswords made out of steel.

dwarf fortress without graphics pack looks hard to get into, with graphics pack it looks decent depending on your preference and the games you're used to. the hardest thing to learn in dwarf fortress are the controls which are so vastly different compared to todays games and the menue has no shiny big icons, but if you get past all that then the game has a plethora of menues and overviews which deliver you the information you want. rimworld, prison architect, gnomoria, towns, clockwork empires, etc. ... all look more prettier but honestly their controls in terms of how fast you can accomplish what you want (when you know how to do it) and the menues which deliver you the information you seek are vastly inferior to dwarf fortress.

just because something looks better doesn't mean that it actually does its job better .

now most, or rather all of these games are still in alpha / beta / early access and this isn't a critique but merely a counter statement that i personally (subjective opinion) don't think that the controls in dwarf fortress are bad.

but i have to admit, for someone who opens up the game for the first time they will be able to do more in those games than in dwarf fortress, but if you invest 1-2 hours to get into the game and get to know the interface and controls then you will recognize the difference between easy to access and easy to control.

[Clayton]

Ewwww, multiplayer.

[HatesYourFace]

Ewwww, multiplayer.

Ewwww, a non-constructive post. Lol.

[Merry76]

just because something looks better doesn't mean that it actually does its job better .

Yes, it kinda does. When it is a game, looking appealing is part of its job. But you might notice I wrote "accessible" not "better to play once you learned it properly". Something which I probably will never do with DF. The main reason isnt that I am unable to learn to play it (I consider myself to be of a bit above average intelligence - which should suffice for a menial task like learning a game), its just that DF has such an elitist approach with its "either you learn how to play it, or to the casual games with you" and is happy with it. Indeed, it wallows in this. If you look at the tasks you have to do to set up an army (there is a chart somewhere) - the game doesnt try to be accessible or fun to play. It tries to be as detailed and pseudo-realistic as it can be. Which isnt fun to me (and several others) at all. It would probably feel like work to play it. Hell, my actual work is probably more fun than playing DF.

The best part of good game design is always to question if anything you add adds to the fun of the player. Not if it would make something more detailed, realistic or pleases you. Because if it isnt fun, why add it? Games are meant to be fun - its their sole purpose.

Cue the different kinds of fabric in different kinds of quality in DF. Adds anything? No it doesnt. Afterall what is the difference between a cotton sock and a wool sock? It just clutters your interface even more than it already is, and maybe some dwarf will react allergic to the wrong kind of fabric and slaughter your tailor. In my opinion (and anybody is welcome to disagree) DF went off the deep end with this. It needs less of things to be more fun, not more of them.

To elaborate my point: Imagine Tynan would add 3 different kinds of gun for each basic one we currently have, with only minimal differences (like .38 pistols, 9mm Beretta and 10 mm Fallout Gun - all 7 damage, but differ 1 range and 0.1 sec firing time - not very significant). And then adds ammuniton, which differs from gun to gun. Would it now be more fun to play Rimworld? Certainly not. But it would be closer to DF, but in a very un-fun way.

[HatesYourFace]

just because something looks better doesn't mean that it actually does its job better .

Yes, it kinda does. When it is a game, looking appealing is part of its job. But you might notice I wrote "accessible" not "better to play once you learned it properly". Something which I probably will never do with DF. The main reason isnt that I am unable to learn to play it (I consider myself to be of a bit above average intelligence - which should suffice for a menial task like learning a game), its just that DF has such an elitist approach with its "either you learn how to play it, or to the casual games with you" and is happy with it. Indeed, it wallows in this. If you look at the tasks you have to do to set up an army (there is a chart somewhere) - the game doesnt try to be accessible or fun to play. It tries to be as detailed and pseudo-realistic as it can be. Which isnt fun to me (and several others) at all. It would probably feel like work to play it. Hell, my actual work is probably more fun than playing DF.

The best part of good game design is always to question if anything you add adds to the fun of the player. Not if it would make something more detailed, realistic or pleases you. Because if it isnt fun, why add it? Games are meant to be fun - its their sole purpose.

Cue the different kinds of fabric in different kinds of quality in DF. Adds anything? No it doesnt. Afterall what is the difference between a cotton sock and a wool sock? It just clutters your interface even more than it already is, and maybe some dwarf will react allergic to the wrong kind of fabric and slaughter your tailor. In my opinion (and anybody is welcome to disagree) DF went off the deep end with this. It needs less of things to be more fun, not more of them.

To elaborate my point: Imagine Tynan would add 3 different kinds of gun for each basic one we currently have, with only minimal differences (like .38 pistols, 9mm Beretta and 10 mm Fallout Gun - all 7 damage, but differ 1 range and 0.1 sec firing time - not very significant). And then adds ammuniton, which differs from gun to gun. Would it now be more fun to play Rimworld? Certainly not. But it would be closer to DF, but in a very un-fun way.

This guy. This guy understands the difference between fun simulation and simulation for the sake of simulation. (Which isn't fun once the novelty wears off.) You win 2 internets sir.

[Xerberus86]

Yes, it kinda does. When it is a game, looking appealing is part of its job. But you might notice I wrote "accessible" not "better to play once you learned it properly". Something which I probably will never do with DF. The main reason isnt that I am unable to learn to play it (I consider myself to be of a bit above average intelligence - which should suffice for a menial task like learning a game), its just that DF has such an elitist approach with its "either you learn how to play it, or to the casual games with you" and is happy with it. Indeed, it wallows in this. If you look at the tasks you have to do to set up an army (there is a chart somewhere) - the game doesnt try to be accessible or fun to play. It tries to be as detailed and pseudo-realistic as it can be. Which isnt fun to me (and several others) at all. It would probably feel like work to play it. Hell, my actual work is probably more fun than playing DF.

The best part of good game design is always to question if anything you add adds to the fun of the player. Not if it would make something more detailed, realistic or pleases you. Because if it isnt fun, why add it? Games are meant to be fun - its their sole purpose.

Cue the different kinds of fabric in different kinds of quality in DF. Adds anything? No it doesnt. Afterall what is the difference between a cotton sock and a wool sock? It just clutters your interface even more than it already is, and maybe some dwarf will react allergic to the wrong kind of fabric and slaughter your tailor. In my opinion (and anybody is welcome to disagree) DF went off the deep end with this. It needs less of things to be more fun, not more of them.

To elaborate my point: Imagine Tynan would add 3 different kinds of gun for each basic one we currently have, with only minimal differences (like .38 pistols, 9mm Beretta and 10 mm Fallout Gun - all 7 damage, but differ 1 range and 0.1 sec firing time - not very significant). And then adds ammuniton, which differs from gun to gun. Would it now be more fun to play Rimworld? Certainly not. But it would be closer to DF, but in a very un-fun way.

oh boy, this is gonna be a fun one! fyi, i was only speaking about the interface or rather how long you take to execute common tasks in many DF inspired games like rimworld, gnomoria, spacebase df-9 and others. i was explicitly comparing and making an example with rimworld which i think knows with itself that it needs some UI improvements. the edb interface mod makes some great additions like adding colonist icons with color-coded hp bars at the top or allowing you to click on a tree and then click on the appearing "cut wood" icon instead of having to click through 2-3 menues in order to do such meneal task. but here we talk about game design, well now comes my opinion.

first and foremost, i respect and partially understand your opinion and my following sentences aren't meant to persuade you or to criticize your thinking (1. you have the right to think what you want and 2. i honestly don't give a sh*t).

i learned the basics of dwarf fortress or rather how to play it correctly within two hours, i used the df wiki page of course. some games require a manual / wiki to learn which is nowadays almost a crime to require from the player. i remember the time where i bought boxed copies of games and while it was installing the game, which sometimes did take quite long depending on the size, i was reading the manual and learning how to play it (if you play board games or card games then you have to learn the rules too, nothing different here).

game appeal: now that games should look "appealing" should be a given, nobody wants to look at something for god knows how long and get eye-cancer, BUT what is "appealing" and what not is highly subjective and strongly depends on your expectations. does dwarf fortress look appealing? for me it does, i don't play with ascii-graphics although i have played some ascii-roguelikes (caves of quud and catacylsm come to mind) and some actually are nicely colored roguelikes. you might say that dwarf fortress looks ugly but some call of duty casual-player might the same about rimworld because it has no crisis3 graphics, again this stuff is highly subjective and everybody has to decide for their own which looks good. now nobody is saying that rimworld doesn't look better than dwarf fortress, but that doesn't mean that i find dwarf fortress not appealing with its graphics. i specifically mean with some graphic packs it looks quite nice, while in the vanilla DF you play with ascii-graphics and dwarves are nothing more than some differently colored smileys, i personally like the spacefox graphic set which makes the dwarves look like this:


<-- now this are some nice pixel arts and the graphic set also adjusts the colors and changes other graphics, if you wanna see the graphic pack in action you can watch das24680 latest DF lets play.

accessibility:
now of course playing dwarf fortress is harder and less accessible without learning / reading something before & during the game, rimworld on the other hand most things are quite simple to understand. but that "quite simple to understand" comes from the current lack of content and the way you have access to almost every building / buildable thing right from the start, now of course there some things you can research but i personally (!!!) can't play vanilla rimworld anymore after trying the tech tree minami mod. vanilly rimworld is a "decent" game where you can set yourselef some goals and play pretty much a top-down minecraft version of building a colony with some raiders coming along the way.  now to not get offtopic, if you try the TTM mod then you will see that rimworld gets harder and also LESS ACCESSIBLE! i that the current vanilla rimworld lacks a true sense of progression (and content in terms of items & units) is for another topic and which are both topics for late developement cycles, so no critique here.

high detail / realism for realisms sake:

now this topic is also HIGHLY subjective and granted that the outer edges of those tendencies are both bad, having some good middleground is needed or rather expected. there is no real difference between a "wool sock" and a "cotton sock" in DF regarding its quality or usefulness. the difference here is about how you get it, for wool you have to breed / pasture animals which you are able to get wool off, cotton can be planted. for once it is a gameplay choice if you want to breed / pasture or farm for cloth, another thing is that different dwarves have different preferences and likes / dislikes (dwarves have emotions, dreams, traits, skills, wishes and dislikes). but again, if you bring it down to the usefulness of the item then both are equally good items for putting something on the dwarves feed .

... BUT the thing is, where is the difference between a muffalo and a deer? oh boy, i hope this doesn't sting so bad ))). a deer and a muffalo in rimworld are essentially the same animals which only difference is that they look differently and that they are in different biomes, but i don't see you complain about this fact kiddo :3. the answer is "flavor", why do we have popular mods that add weapons, hats, jackets, more carpets or more furniture? why do we have blue, green and red carpet? the answer is "FLAVOR"! if i wanna get wool from animals because i want to have a big pasture in dwarf fortress or i might go cotton because i don't wanna bother looking after my animals. both things are viable game decisions which doesn't differentiate the produced items in terms of usefulness but it gives me more diversity in terms of its production and more flavor to the game.

why do we have tribal people, pirates and raiders in rimworld? all are just some pawns with weapons.....FLAVOR! you won't say that victoria 2 and europa universalis are the same game and one is useless just because the play in different time periods, both games for example are really inaccessible compared to so many other things but their historical accuracy and their realism is what makes some people play them. they aren't not a graphical crisis 3 powerhouse / jaw-dropping experience in terms of visuals but they offer gameplay options, variety and realism / authenticity for players that are looking for that.


you say if tynan would add more guns with slight differences and would implement ammo then it would be less fun? yes and no! if he would add "ammo" as a genreric resource for weapons to use then it COULD be fun because it is another resource you have to manage and it would add another challenge to the game. if he would add different kinds of ammo for EVERY weapon there is in rimworld then it would add a huge amount of realism but would destroy the gameplay because you would have a huge clutter of ammo stockpiles and you would have to mix & match weapons for your colonists depending on which ammo you have on stock, not much fun.


but to come back to DF vs rimworld, both games are hugely different, before i bought rimworld over a week ago i played dwarf fortess for a couple of weeks pretty much 24/7 and both games have their own flair. both games have their strengths and weaknesses. i love firefly (both move and series, series is better ) and i love that ty took some inspiration from this show which you can feel in the game.

NOW we look at your military example, handling the military in dwarf fortress is hands down one (if not THE) hardest thing to do if you don't know how it works and didn't have wrapped your heads around. it was the hardest thing to understand but once you understand it you learn to appreciate the system to at least a certain degree. the military system in dwarf fortress and the way your form and manage your soldiers is a bit overly complex, there is no doubt about it, but in rimworld for example we have NO SYSTEM to manage your soldiers, no system to manage their gear. i say it again, i took around two hours to learn dwarf fortress and i could spend more than two hours searching for that one freaking sniper rifle in rimworld because there is no freaking way i can find it or tell my high shooting skill colonist to pick it up. in dwarf fortress i form squads (assign member to a group) and then i assign these guys uniforms (equipment presets) which they will try to equip and if something is broken / gone then they will re-equip it. in rimworld i almost want to instantly reload (which i mostly do) after a huge firefight and many of my guys are either dead or wounded BECAUSE it is a HUGE pain to find those weapons again and to equip all your guys with it, pulling out my teeth would be more pleasant tbh. now both games need some work and both games are still in alpha, but you can't heavily criticize a game just because you couldn't wrap your head around it as it seems for me.

like i said, you criticize wool socks and cotton socks but having muffalo and deers as walking meat-portions with no real usefulness to the game other than having something move around is the same thing. it is all flavor and is there to fill up the gameworld.

i will most certainly miss something and / or have something spelled wrong, i am quite tired and had a tad too much alcohol, so i hope nothing came over as aggressive (as it wasn't meant in any way). but i hope that you start to understand that i like dwarf fortress because of its details, not because it is overly complex and i feel elitair, just because it is a game like rimworld or prison architect in a fantasy setting which has a huge amount of detail, complexity and variety. i love rimworld because of its setting, moddability and the tactical combat, i think both games profit from each other more than being rivals so no reasons to bash one another.