Multiplayer

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

Previous topic - Next topic

Kelian

Quote from: Tynan on September 25, 2013, 05:58:00 PM
If I did multiplayer I think it would be in a co-op context.

Making the game into a competitive RTS would really break a lot of the core concepts driving the design. Namely: it's not about winning, it's about the story.

A competitive context would break because the game isn't close to being balanced (what with all the random events and degenerate strategies). In this context competition becomes meaningless.

If we had several players working together, however (say, on the same colony, or in allied colonies close together), they could experience the AI Storyteller's stories together, maybe help each other in times of need, stuff like that. And we wouldn't have to balance the game for PvP.

This would be great.

Mikhail Reign

Quote from: RawCode on November 09, 2014, 07:45:08 PM
I had asked multiple times how time controls will work in MP.

I will ask again, how "pause" will be handled in MP especially in case of PvP combat?

Already answered

Quote from: Mikhail Reign on November 02, 2014, 01:00:43 PM
Anyone heard of Hearts of Iron? That has multiplier and it can take months to complete a full game. It also has time compression. It simply runs at the slowest time chosen by all the players.

Or another example. DEFCON

RawCode

Quoteobviously not fun to play
at pause speed constantly...

I took in account that "answer" initially and it is not answer at all.


keylocke

#108
Quote from: RawCode on November 09, 2014, 07:45:08 PM
I had asked multiple times how time controls will work in MP.

I will ask again, how "pause" will be handled in MP especially in case of PvP combat?

some people have suggested "hearts of iron" and "defcon" type of multiplayer time controls. and it seems to be a time-tested system that a lot of people tend to enjoy.

"pause" isn't exactly multiplayer friendly (even in co-op mode) since people playing with you don't really want to get frozen in place just because one of you guys needs to afk. so i think that games like defcon and HoI don't have pause controls, simply coz most people can adapt without it.

besides, rimworld has colonist AIs. i believe that if you set it up correctly, your colony can survive in auto-pilot mode for a few minutes while you go afk.

-----

lots of successful RTS games don't even have time controls, like starcraft, warcraft, etc..
so most people can adopt to real-time battles in rimworld, even without a pause button.

but as some people have suggested. (and i agree with them) HoI and Defcon type of multiplayer controls would be totally awesome in rimworld multiplayer.

-------------------------------

edit :

also, unlike gnomoria and df. rimworld battle system seems to closely resemble RTS type of combat system. so a lot of RTS tropes can be applied to rimworld.

looking at the posts on this thread, some people wants co-op, some people wants pvp.

if you played multiplayer in some RTS game. co-op and pvp are completely viable at the same time. why does some of you guys seem to be forcing tynan to choose just one?

devs change their minds all of the time. (don't starve multiplayer ftw!)


Minus

Quote from: Galileus on November 21, 2013, 09:04:09 AM
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). 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.
Golden Eye for the N64 had it's multiplayer thrown in last minute. It changed the industry. RIMworld being an indie game has the chance to be a good game rather than a safe game. Not taking risks anymore is why modern games are really bad. This behavior should NOT be encouraged!

Tynan himself has probably made the best argument for multiplayer so far. His idea for it sounds great!

You guys have some really silly fears going on here. After reading this thread fully, here's my solutions and sugestions.

Jerk players:
All this talk of the other players trolling and stealing your stuff, attacking you. The solution is way too obvious. v

Servers:
Don't use them. Just enable local playe. Sorted. This also means the players will KNOW who they are playing with. So they have nothing to fear from jerk players, unless their friends are jerks. There has been way too many assumptions that this'd be online with random players. But expecting yo to shill out on servers is not realistic at all yet.

Speed:
Issue would be solved the same way all RTSs do it. You pick one speed at the start of the game together and stick to it. I wasn't the only one that grew up with Warcraft 3 was I? Pausing is a LUXURY!

Dwarf Fortress:
Back in the old days when I played it, it had two game modes (probably still does). One where you control a group, and one where you are an individual. I'd like to see RIMworld do a similar thing for multiplayer, and I have seen both asked for a lot. One similar to Tynan's original idea, and then one where you are a single colonist working together with others in one base to survive, with a bit of a Minecraft feel to it.

Maps:
Now this is why the single player needs a few more updates before multiplayer is put in I think. There is now a world map system in place with other towns marked on it. I hope that moving from place to place becomes a feature in SP, and would then seamlessly become a big part of multiplayer. No need for giant maps, you'd just switch maps, as has been suggested a couple times. Locations would have more varied resources making moving a bit more useful (I notice this already happening, awesome work Tynan!), and trading between towns rather than only ships would help too. With this, players could do their own thing in their own areas, treating each other as smarter AI towns. Perhaps conducting raids on them. Or they could travel down to their place and move in with them. I think this is the best way to let the player choose if they want to do it co-op or not, or how close they are willing to get with the other players. This freedom is essential.
It'd be great to see team raids against the main bases of pirate groups using this feature! I expect it'd take several players to take down such a place.

Damnit, talking about this so much has really made me want it right now! But I know it's still so very far away...

Our cybernetic hearts mean we care more!
Mods: Extended Surgery and Bionics, Brain Surgery, Medical XP Balance

Mikhail Reign

Quote from: RawCode on November 09, 2014, 11:49:13 PM
Quoteobviously not fun to play
at pause speed constantly...

I took in account that "answer" initially and it is not answer at all.

It would only be paused if both people select pause. Otherwise if runs at normal speed. If both players pick x3, it runs at x3. If one picks x3 and the other x1 if runs at x1. Seems a pretty simple solution.

Arche

Alright, so here's what I agree with and think should happen.  I agree that multiplayer shouldn't be high on the to-do list however, I disagree that it should not be implemented.

  • The speed issue:  As people have said it should be on the lowest value selected.  If all players select 3x, it goes to 3x.  If one player selects 2x and another selects 1x, it goes to 1x.  However, if one player selects pause and another selects 1x, it should go to 1x.

  • The map:  Someone above said something about "jumping" locations.  You can 'migrate' say from one tile on the world to another.  This however would leave your buildings behind for someone else to find or for you to return to.  When in multiplayer I think that all players should start somewhere and they can each jump to different tiles and in some cases meet at the same tile where they will share the map and live peacefully or go to a state of war.  The point is to have freedom and not be restricted.

  • Co-Op or PVP?  In my opinion you should be free to choose.  You should not be restricted.  If someone wants to attack that is their choice, you however can then retreat out of that tile or retaliate.  Now what if I want to be peaceful and the other person does not?  Two solutions in my mind right now.  A) you suck it up or B) perhaps there is a tile you can select as your "home base".  This home base will give you the freedom to decide who is granted entry.

  • What about hosting the servers?  I think it should be similar to Minecraft where an individual person has a choice to host for his or her friends.  It also opens the possibility of public servers where again those individual people interested host those servers.
This is all just my personal opinion from what others have said on what I agree and think would be a good idea.  If you don't agree I would like to know why so I can understand your point of view and maybe tweak my own a bit.

toaran

Hi

I realy like to have multiplayer as my friends and me like to play in coop mode together.

We played many hours OpenTTD in one company. I like that sort of gameplay a lot as you are not forced to keep attantion to everything and every player can do the stuff he likes.

+1 for Multiplayer from me

T

Easton

Another MP idea, let me know what you think...

Each RL player controls/is responsible for one colonist. Together you must build your colony, manage your own needs and those of the other players/colonists.

This scenario gives it a more Terraria/Minecraft type of feel, where you only control yourself, instead of managing several AIs.

Professor Cupcake

Eah.

I struggle to think how it would multiplayer would even work in Rimworld. There are so many potential problems that the whole concept faces.

The best idea I can put forward for it would be a sort of pseudo-MMO style affair. Everyone is on the same world, but with different colonies. You can interact with the colonies of other players in much the same way you do already. Pausing and speed controls should probably be given to whoever "owns" the tile, though determining who that actually is after a successful raid (or similar possession-swapping event) could get a bit clunky.
Not sure how interaction with an offline player's colony would work, though. All of the potential solutions for that problem seem like they're equally bad ideas.

Of course, a major prerequisite for this idea would be the ability to move the game to different world tiles.

badek5

in Multiplayer players can just replace the factions in world, but first must be system of plunder other colony.

MyNameIsSpyder

Yeah, I think it would be cool if multiplayer was just SP, but you might eventually meet up. Although, in order to do this you'd have to add either travelling through the world map or they would have to be in the same small area, able to see each-other at any time ( Sort of degrading on the 'You have to find each-other before you can help each-other' thing).

Anduin1357

Quote from: Arche on December 17, 2014, 07:30:18 PM
Alright, so here's what I agree with and think should happen.  I agree that multiplayer shouldn't be high on the to-do list however, I disagree that it should not be implemented.

       
  • The speed issue:  As people have said it should be on the lowest value selected.  If all players select 3x, it goes to 3x.  If one player selects 2x and another selects 1x, it goes to 1x.  However, if one player selects pause and another selects 1x, it should go to 1x.
  • The map:  Someone above said something about "jumping" locations.  You can 'migrate' say from one tile on the world to another.  This however would leave your buildings behind for someone else to find or for you to return to.  When in multiplayer I think that all players should start somewhere and they can each jump to different tiles and in some cases meet at the same tile where they will share the map and live peacefully or go to a state of war.  The point is to have freedom and not be restricted.
  • Co-Op or PVP?  In my opinion you should be free to choose.  You should not be restricted.  If someone wants to attack that is their choice, you however can then retreat out of that tile or retaliate.  Now what if I want to be peaceful and the other person does not?  Two solutions in my mind right now.  A) you suck it up or B) perhaps there is a tile you can select as your "home base".  This home base will give you the freedom to decide who is granted entry.
  • What about hosting the servers?  I think it should be similar to Minecraft where an individual person has a choice to host for his or her friends.  It also opens the possibility of public servers where again those individual people interested host those servers.
This is all just my personal opinion from what others have said on what I agree and think would be a good idea.  If you don't agree I would like to know why so I can understand your point of view and maybe tweak my own a bit.
Firstly...........There should NOT be any speed buttons, everything is all real-time.
You can move to anywhere you like but what you owned is what you owned and if you can't hold it, ie. have anyone in that base live on in that base, your base basically can be claimed if all turrets and other defenses are removed.
Anyone can come and go on any tile, If the enemy wants to raid you, so be it, you "suck it up" and defend yourself, simple, straight and true.
Server hosting, I have proposed in a delicated thread in the Rimworld suggestions forum where the game is run off P2P and direct connections. Go there and read...
Thank you.

I am not saying any duct-tape multiplayer, THIS GAME DOES NOT END DEVELOPMENT TODAY.
SERVERS Everyone stores the servers equally and can access all servers equally in the P2P networking, You share the server data around and play from there. This game needs no money to MP about, trust me, zip any save game/map/mod and you will find that it takes NOTHING to share it around. P2Ping at 2.3 Mbps is a breeze to those of you who can call yourselves gamers.
Jerk Players? People who raid all over? You are not alone, if they raided a lot of players, trust me, everyone would be out hunting for them specifically. Hate someone? Attack him. Can't win? Too bad, underdog.


A_Deer

#118
  First off I would LOVE to see a multilayer CO-OP! Talking to a few friends and they like the idea of CO-OP as well.

  [This is all my Opinion]

I would say a MMO style where each person has there own map on a larger world would not work at all. With time controls some people will plan faster than others and now their sector is ahead of the curve giving them an unfair advantage. The only thing you could ever really do would be trade between each other so other than that it would be useless. . .  I also feel that adding a MMO element will destroy or taint the great story.

I base my idea off a multiplayer that revolves around playing with friends and people you know, not some random person you met on steam 3 seconds ago that you want to troll. If I wanted to play with randoms I would pick a different style game.

Me and my friends play DOD: Venice and Civ5 for HOURS! With the way MP works in those games we get 20+ hour games going and its still fun! I'm sure we could achieve the same experience here!

My Idea

  Hosting: Pier to Pier

  • One person would host a game of up to say 4 people. Think DOD: Venice, Civilization, etc. . . There would be no massive web server you need to connect to in order to play. You are all in a lobby doing character things and working WITH the host pick a spot on the world you can all agree on.
    I'm not sure how large the maps can go reliably but maybe be able to choose one large enough to discourage early game meeting if selected. Then you could have a start proximity option like, close, med, far.
    Rejoining an existing MP game should require the same number of people that where originally used to start the game unless someone abandoned their colony. They don't necessarily have to be the same people but as long as one person has the base save and is hosting.

  Time Controls: Slowest selected

  • Keep the current time controls but since everyone is on the same map their time will have to be tied together.
    The time should be tied to the slowest option selected, that would be the safest thing to do and makes the most sense, to me at least. Rarely do I speed up a game when I'm making a calculated decision.
    You have an icon or even just a name of the (up to) 4 players on the map, under their names you show the the speed they have selected so everyone can get on the same page easily.
    Pause can either be treated as the slowest option, or everyone will need to have it selected for it to take effect. Either way I think it would work fine, I could argue both sides for a long time.
    I do not think running the game at a slower locked nonadjustable speed would be a very viable solution and the game would then take forever to do anything and people would get bored waiting.
    Sure there will be times when you are done with your stuff and waiting on your friend, If you find it that unenjoyable maybe stick to single player?

  Colony Building: Separate (option to merge?)

  • When you each land in your pods you are separate colony's with different assets until you select otherwise.
    Not everyone will want to share their resources so having the default as separate colony's would be the safest bet. Now adding an option to combine colony's would be great, but it would be a permanent deal. Now you can share resources, beds, devices, etc.
    Your colonists would still be separate and whoever recruits a person gets to control them.
    Maybe add the ability to transfer control of a colonist, but never should two people be allowed to control the same one.

  PVP
  • None! I know some people would love to have it and will say let me do what i want! But remember, this is a sci fi colony sim not an RTS, once you dive into the pvp realm you start dealing with the constant whining of people saying this that or the other thing is too OP and needs to be nerfed. The story starts to get washed away because all you can think of is how your going to get a leg up on the other guy. I don't think it would be a good idea and drag the game style down. . .


Like I said, I would absolutely love to see a co-op style play added to the game. I think it would enhance the experience if done right, and I'm sure the community would help point it in a good direction!

Cryorus

*leaving a signal beacon for future*

Nothing to say, you all already said what i thught.

++1