Multiplayer

[Segrog]

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.

[Toggle]

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.

[pigman999999999]

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

[Sworded5]

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

[Toggle]

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

[Wulfik]

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 !

[Drago]

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

[Anduin1357]

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.

[Triblade]

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! 

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. 

[Anduin1357]

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.

[Triblade]

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 

[Anduin1357]

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 

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.

[Triblade]

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'. 

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.

[Toggle]

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

[Anduin1357]

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.