Multiplayer

Started by Zknar, September 25, 2013, 02:37:29 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Galileus

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.

Azzarrel

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.

Galileus

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.

Azzarrel

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 ^^

Galileus

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 ;)

Merry76

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.

Merry76

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?

Galileus

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.

Semmy

#68
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.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Edmund Burke

Galileus

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!?

Semmy

#70
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.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Edmund Burke

Azzarrel

#71
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.

Galileus

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.

Workload

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.

CodyRex123

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
Dragons!