Multiplayer

[BreadMan]

I've actually had a thought about this before, I think a server with a limit of people on the same planet that are all can be against each other or friends  and attack each other, trade and all the other stuff you do with npc colonies. When you are offline then your pawns walk around but have no needs and defend as npc's if attacked. I don't think a public server would work well for this because people would not reliably be online etc but with friends in a private server would be really fun. These are just my thoughts though

[kubolek01]

Hmmm nice idea to make either shared or separate spawns, but one one map. Speed would be controlled by host then.
I'd challenge my friend, who will win in 5v3 food only start PvP

[Limdood]

Time controls are FAR too important of an aspect to this game to ditch.  Player control is FAR too important an aspect of this game to ditch.

That being said, EVERY suggestion for multiplayer in this thread has basically been a variation on removing ONE of those aspects.

Either its "play on the same map" and suddenly players can't control time anymore because you'd either be pausing someone else's game or the time elapsed wouldn't sync up.

Or its "play your own game, and the computer defends your base for you when you're offline" - and suddenly you have dozens of people who can't play the game because they weren't online when something happened, or their base was destroyed by 1 pawn with a sniper.

This is no different than a game like skyrim or morrowind or sim city, where allowing a player to STOP THE GAME and plan is VITAL to the game working properly.  If you put multiple players into the game, they all can't control time.  If they all can't control time, the game doesn't work.

[kubolek01]

Time controls are FAR too important of an aspect to this game to ditch.  Player control is FAR too important an aspect of this game to ditch.

That being said, EVERY suggestion for multiplayer in this thread has basically been a variation on removing ONE of those aspects.

Either its "play on the same map" and suddenly players can't control time anymore because you'd either be pausing someone else's game or the time elapsed wouldn't sync up.

Or its "play your own game, and the computer defends your base for you when you're offline" - and suddenly you have dozens of people who can't play the game because they weren't online when something happened, or their base was destroyed by 1 pawn with a sniper.

This is no different than a game like skyrim or morrowind or sim city, where allowing a player to STOP THE GAME and plan is VITAL to the game working properly.  If you put multiple players into the game, they all can't control time.  If they all can't control time, the game doesn't work.

I mentioned that host would control it. Playing with known people would solve it easily independent of who hosts.

[Limdood]

I mentioned that host would control it. Playing with known people would solve it easily independent of who hosts.

That would imply that every moment where the host hits pause to position his pawns, force order some doctoring, or gets a raid, the game would pause for his buddy who's just sitting waiting for his crops to grow.

Likewise, if the host is playing on 3x speed to power through the nighttime, his buddy whose hunter just got attacked by a panther is out of luck...

each player needs control of their own time controls or Rimworld doesn't work.

[lord-xanthor]

I know adding multiplayer to this game would help sales a lot. I know this because I have not bought the game after viewing it because of this. Single player might be fine for many, but with a family of 4 and the only ability to buy this game on Steam or Humble Bundle for steam at $30 a shot, would mean $120 for the family, who already seen the videos as well but don't even want to touch the game unless all can interact. If this was a game that I could buy from GOG where all 4 can use this, then spending $30 one time wouldn't be an issue. But at $120, there definitely needs to be an ability for multiplayer interaction.

[Gohihioh]

I don't think that game needs multiplayer. It would be cool if it had but this game can be completely perfect without it.

[kubolek01]

Maybe... simple Versus mode on x1 speed, custom settings etc... (CS, but with whole team control..)

[CannibarRechter]

>  If this was a game that I could buy from GOG where all 4 can use this, then spending $30 one time wouldn't be an issue. But at $120, there definitely needs to be an ability for multiplayer interaction.

This is sales / costing issue, and not a game design issue. If Tynan cared about it, he could penstroke it by saying that the license is good for the family or something. I really don't understand your comment though. If it's a single player game, why are we talking about the family synchronizing its gameplay to one game, when they could all be playing different games?

[lord-xanthor]

I noticed a retrieval screen for downloading this game in standalone form (non steam) Am I to understand lets say, I buy this on humble bundle I can use the link they sent me here to get a standalone version? Or do I need to buy it here? If I can get it from humblebundle and get the stand alone version here I won't bother waiting for a multi user version.

[Calahan]

I noticed a retrieval screen for downloading this game in standalone form (non steam) Am I to understand lets say, I buy this on humble bundle I can use the link they sent me here to get a standalone version? Or do I need to buy it here? If I can get it from humblebundle and get the stand alone version here I won't bother waiting for a multi user version.

There are only two places you can legitimately purchase RimWorld from right now. Directly from Ludeon Studios, or from Steam. If you buy it directly from Ludeon Studios then you get access to the DRM-free version (I guess this is what you are referring to by standalone version) as well as the option to register your game on Steam for free. If you buy it from Steam then you only get the Steam version and no access to the DRM-free version.

I would be very surprised if RimWorld becomes available via Humblebundle anytime soon, if ever. And if so it will likely only be some years after final release (and as I said, if ever). So if you are waiting to purchase this game on the basis of waiting for it to appear on Humblebundle you will have at least a very long wait (as in a few years I'd say), if not an indefinite one.

AFAIK anywhere else selling or offering RimWolrd right now is not doing so with the permission of Tynan Sylvester / Ludeon Studios.

[Yoshida Keiji]

OKAY... took me three days to read 18 pages and three years of a same thread, it's hard to imagine how things were in the past alphas when I just started from A16 and try to relate how things were before.

After all that was written and with A17 out, to me the only way that Multiplayer would work without disrupting other single player games is if "World Incidents" would trigger for "Online" players that can stick to the computer and not to AFK for a time lapse of at least one hour.

Example: Event: Attack a Pirate outpost. Three players can co-op in a time window of 10 minutes or the event disappears. Those who accept will receive a temporary map where they can coordinate the offense and after the outpost is destroyed, they can loot like normal and after the 24 hours countdown expires, there's a bonus reward.

All other opinions about leaving your colony to AI while offline is ridiculous to me. Because if I were around while you sleep, by the time you come back, you will have nothing left. I don't know how people can rely their entire efforts in a game to an AI.

And I definitely don't want anybody else on my map, because if the others suck, then my game must suck too? No way.

[kubolek01]

OKAY... took me three days to read 18 pages and three years of a same thread, it's hard to imagine how things were in the past alphas when I just started from A16 and try to relate how things were before.

After all that was written and with A17 out, to me the only way that Multiplayer would work without disrupting other single player games is if "World Incidents" would trigger for "Online" players that can stick to the computer and not to AFK for a time lapse of at least one hour.

Example: Event: Attack a Pirate outpost. Three players can co-op in a time window of 10 minutes or the event disappears. Those who accept will receive a temporary map where they can coordinate the offense and after the outpost is destroyed, they can loot like normal and after the 24 hours countdown expires, there's a bonus reward.

All other opinions about leaving your colony to AI while offline is ridiculous to me. Because if I were around while you sleep, by the time you come back, you will have nothing left. I don't know how people can rely their entire efforts in a game to an AI.

And I definitely don't want anybody else on my map, because if the others suck, then my game must suck too? No way.

Good ideas, then AI sucks so not even make it F2P like (any grind or pay base builder name here). Being B2P

[Dok13]

Я очень сильно хочу сыграть в эту замечательную игру с другом. Хотелось бы видеть мультиплеер! Будит мультиплеер хотя бы через пол года или год??? Мультиплеер можно сделать как в разных играх, то есть одиночная и мультиплеер, чтобы некто не кому не мешал.Пожалуйста подумайте над мультиплеером или кооперативной игрой)))
 

[Yoshida Keiji]

Я очень сильно хочу сыграть в эту замечательную игру с другом. Хотелось бы видеть мультиплеер! Будит мультиплеер хотя бы через пол года или год??? Мультиплеер можно сделать как в разных играх, то есть одиночная и мультиплеер, чтобы некто не кому не мешал.Пожалуйста подумайте над мультиплеером или кооперативной игрой)))

Translated with Google Translate:

I really want to play this wonderful game with a friend. I would like to see multiplayer! Budit multiplayer at least half a year or a year ?? Multiplayer can be done both in different games, that is, single and multiplayer, so that someone does not interfere with anyone. Please think over the multiplayer or cooperative game)))