Ludeon Forums

Ludeon Forums

  • March 30, 2020, 07:20:20 PM
  • Welcome, Guest
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 19

Author Topic: Multiplayer  (Read 73397 times)

TvoEx

  • Muffalo
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • Indie Buttscratcher
    • View Profile
Re: Multiplayer
« Reply #45 on: November 06, 2013, 03:56:17 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.
Logged

Timeheart

  • Muffalo
  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • Refugee
    • View Profile
Re: Multiplayer
« Reply #46 on: November 07, 2013, 02:58:52 PM »

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?
Logged

Darkfire9825

  • Muffalo
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • Refugee
    • View Profile
Re: Multiplayer
« Reply #47 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.
Logged

Galileus

  • Guest
Re: Multiplayer
« Reply #48 on: November 07, 2013, 05:40:20 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.
Logged

Timeheart

  • Muffalo
  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • Refugee
    • View Profile
Re: Multiplayer
« Reply #49 on: November 07, 2013, 11:37:50 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.
Logged

Darkfire9825

  • Muffalo
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • Refugee
    • View Profile
Re: Multiplayer
« Reply #50 on: November 08, 2013, 01:54:11 AM »

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.
Logged

dogboy357

  • Muffalo
  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • "Nope" -Engineer
    • View Profile
Re: Multiplayer
« Reply #51 on: November 08, 2013, 01:50:22 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.
Logged

magicmagikamagi

  • Muffalo
  • *
  • Posts: 1
  • Refugee
    • View Profile
Re: Multiplayer
« Reply #52 on: November 09, 2013, 06:38:34 PM »

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)
« Last Edit: November 09, 2013, 06:48:05 PM by magicmagikamagi »
Logged

Azzarrel

  • Drifter
  • **
  • Posts: 95
  • Refugee
    • View Profile
Re: Multiplayer
« Reply #53 on: November 20, 2013, 05:00:06 PM »

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



Logged

Galileus

  • Guest
Re: Multiplayer
« Reply #54 on: November 20, 2013, 05:31:38 PM »

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

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

nomadseifer

  • Drifter
  • **
  • Posts: 86
  • Moko Choko
    • View Profile
Re: Multiplayer
« Reply #55 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. 
Logged
Love of an Idea is love of god - FLLW

Galileus

  • Guest
Re: Multiplayer
« Reply #56 on: November 20, 2013, 06:10:22 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 ;)
Logged

Merry76

  • Drifter
  • **
  • Posts: 66
  • Refugee
    • View Profile
Re: Multiplayer
« Reply #57 on: November 20, 2013, 07:16:45 PM »

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?

Logged

GC13

  • Colonist
  • ***
  • Posts: 157
  • Spacer
    • View Profile
    • My YouTube channel
Re: Multiplayer
« Reply #58 on: November 20, 2013, 07:26:37 PM »

Ignoring 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.
Logged

Azzarrel

  • Drifter
  • **
  • Posts: 95
  • Refugee
    • View Profile
Re: Multiplayer
« Reply #59 on: November 21, 2013, 08:46:31 AM »

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

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.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 19