Multiplayer - how?

[Anduin1357]

I was responding to Syvera.
You theoretically would be able to host whatever would suit you.
eg, same setup in same map with procedural, both you and your friend become allies for the purposes of co-op.

Win.
Nothing about it was strictly PvP.

[bullwinkle]

I'm not at all interested in fighting other players, but I'd love to see a CO-OP setup. Simply having two colonies in close proximity to facilitate trade/migration, perhaps allowing one colony to respond to threats to it's neighbor, etc.

Even trading colonists. Ie. Player a has 4 doctors. Player b has 0 but has 3 lvl 15 shooters. They trade and it helps both colonies.

Not sure why EVERY game just HAS to have PVP. to me adding PVP to this game just makes it like clash of clans. Co-op would be useful but PVP is just not fun in my mind.
This game isn't starcraft.

[Anduin1357]

Guys, read: It is not PvP that matters, it is the possibility of having PvP.
Edit: For example, the option to raid some one elses' colony is always open for consideration. The ability to play things tactically with different weapons and a more fleshed out resourcing system than compared to CoCs.
The leveling system of colonist skillsets alone shows the stark difference between the two games.
The theme is survival and adventure/drama here while for clash of clans... I never played it so someone fill me in.
This game is no Starcraft either, unless you are a sad person who throws colonists to a zerg bloodbath, (Like those tribals.) your guys are indisposable to you and sending them to battle requires some thought. You also dont get colonists from thin air either. Colony personnel trades... that's sick!
Maybe a colonist borrowing system is more appropriate.
You can just as easily send reinforcements by moving to the edge of the map and going to the adjcent square until you get to your allys' colony.
Heck, moving back and forth too troublesome for you? Build an outpost (can be colony, whatever.) And even station yourself in your allys' map tile if needed.
No hassle.
Please be reminded that this multiplayer idea does not infringe on modding as provisions can be made to store mods in appdata and load from there.
This is also a pure multiplayer functionality idea where the goal is to provide a multiplayer interaction only, no frills involved.
The maximum player count is limited only by technical capability and can be as large or as small as possible provided it is supported by the game.
If you think that you dont like PvP, tell Tynan that, this idea does not control PvP.
This can, in fact, be a mod instead. It only needs to manage saves, sync instances and setup P2P network. It's that simple, optimisations aside. We would need dlls and a good compressing software though.

[Utherix]

I think multiplayer may be good as an expansion pack of sorts. I think the first released version of the game should focus on singleplayer.

[Klitri]

Just because you don't like PVP or that PVP is like starcraft doesn't mean it shouldn't be added. It can still be a part of the game. I'm sure if we could cooperate and fight, we'd usually cooperate until something happens that makes the other person stop the alliance. It'd only expand the story this game offers.

[Sir Wagglepuss III]

Tbh, the largest scale map you can get is capable of sustaining about 4 pretty standard size colonies with up to 10-12 colonists.

Trying to make a big, open, interlaced system where everybody's colonies interact with each other from their own map to the next may be a bit much to start off with (But hey, something I'd like to see in the long term regardless).

I'd much prefer to see multiplayer start small, and have people survive together on the same map - Possibly tweaking resource costs etc depending on how many players are on a given map (But that's all balance talk, which'll come after the mechanics are set up).

EG, each player starts with their base 3 colonists/starting resources and hops to it. Do they co-operate or shoot eachother in the face? Up to them. But they've gotta deal with everything that happens on the map too.

TL;DR: Start small, then think about scaling up.

[arodian]

Simple co-op would go a long way with multiplayer. One or more friends could manage a single colony. Shouldn't take much work to implement either.

[Kelian]

We need the supreme leader almighty Tynan's two cents. I think a co-operative would be fun, with a diplomacy system for the other factions in the game. You could of course turn on each other and fight competitively, but starting neutral to each other would provide a ton of variety.

[Malcom347]

I think Co-oP would be fun, but I don't know which would be the ideal way.

You could have multiple people on the same server in the same word, but not in the same area. With Comm consoles you could arrange trades between colonies, schedule a raid or simply visit.

Trading is simple, you add items to your trade list and decide the value you want to charge for it. Calling other settlements and selecting trade brings up their list of goods like a regular trade merchant.

Scheduling Raids/Visits is the more difficult part. If I wanted to raid another player they would need to be on, or have 'battle stations' set. Even then, the AI is wonderful and competitive but its not perfect. I'd want to defend my own settlement. Perhaps this could be a server Variable. Id add in some zone designations for 'no visitors' to keep them out of area's they shouldn't be, like equipment lockers. It'd be a cool way to steal from your neighbors and use the 'arrest' function nicely, Which also allows you to sell the person back to their original colony as payment for their crime.

For Co-oP you could either both schedule raids on an AI settlement, ranging from wooden huts for tribes to fortresses of steel or stone, complete with mortars and turrets. However, I think that managing the same colony, or multiple colonies in the same area will play well. I find myself running out of steel and silver on the map rather quickly and have to resort to salvaging everything from drop-pods, slag and attacks. Trying to have three or even two separate settlements on a map seems currently unreasonable. Power is the main concern. With 8 or so people each it could take a fair bit of power, and solar generators take a decent amount of room. You could instead fully control one colonist, like dictating priorities, and build the colony together but I think that defeats the purpose of the game a little. I vote Same Word, Separate Maps.

[Anduin1357]

@Malcom374 for now though, Player on Player is incidentally the most feature complete solution than AI interactions.
If modders ever realised that even if RimWorld would to die, it's source code is free of use to those who purchased the game...
We practically can take the development into our own hands should we see fit.
I think that my idea is quite comprehensive and we have different game handling modes that handle issues on synchronization,  offline attack allowance (asynchronous only), overworld map vs cell map.
Because why not?

[Oxidus]

I would imagine being it like Age of Empires 3.Or Stronghole 2 by map.

[Oxidus]

And Tynan alone,Said that having PVP is senseless.He is imagining CO OP,so players would be like 2-4,and they would help each other out so they would make their own ''story''.

[ZestyLemons]

And Tynan alone,Said that having PVP is senseless.He is imagining CO OP,so players would be like 2-4,and they would help each other out so they would make their own ''story''.

Co-op and PvP are basically the same thing in RimWorld though. It's up to the players to work together or fight/steal/claw their way to 'victory' over enemy colonists. It'd be pretty cool to fight over resources that drop from the sky.

[Anduin1357]

I would imagine being it like Age of Empires 3.Or Stronghole 2 by map.

What cell map actually means in-game is the tiles on the map of the colony.I call it cells because when you look at information on a character and check the guy's speed,
it's measured in c/s or cells per second. cells would be a measure of distance no different than what we would think is a tile in game.tl;dr1 cell = 1 tileTherefore, cells is just the in-game name for tiles.
Sorry that it was so confusing.
btw, it is not a continuous map so it will not generate more map, just another map generated from one world tile away in the overworld in which your colonists are transported to the other tile on the side they are entering from in possibly preset locations originally meant for AI travellers.


PvP is not senseless. Look, if you have 2 colonies vying for survival, would there be mutual co-operation?


As long as PvP is left as an option for players to choose, As it would realistically make sense to have, there would be an even broader story to tell.
I imagine that Tynan thinks that having an overworld game is yet nigh impossible and he does not want to try.
From his viewpoint, having a war between 2 groups of colonists is pointless since they need each other to survive the raids etc. I agree.
But in an overworld situation, there can be colonies that are 20, even 30 years of age with many dozens of colonists who can pick up a gun and fight for their sovereign rights,


It's all up to the individual's point of view. If he won't allow PvP, someone will. There is a want for a multiplayer overworld, this is it.
Devs do not decide the game when they allow modders access to so much source material, the modders mould the game into what they think is a better game.
When the dev quits on you, (not saying Tynan will or will not) it's the community that keeps it up and running,
It's not exactly up to him (eventually) but it'll sure help if he would listen to this since this adds way more value to the game than what he probably is thinking.


(Any kind of online hosting server would eat bandwidth and probably crash the server/incur large costs for bandwidth alone.)
(centralised server would lag games that could otherwise have run smoothly on each other's machine due to location)
(mods would be less supported in a centralised server)
(Direct hosting would require a lot of IP manipulation and technical issues)
(There would be no convenient way to find hosts/games)
(Matchmaking server + Direct hosting still incurs some costs)
(More bugs with server/ hosting/ joining game)


(less with direct save loading and on the run saving.)
(Bandwidth cost is spread all on end-users, consider it a minor donation considering the small save sizes and loads of static objects that need not update)
(At no cost incurrence to Dev except dev time which is well spent on a good feature)
(Why play on one area when you can spread to other places and do combat? Replayability +++)
(Why the need to survive against the raiders when you can team up and nip the bud of the problem?)
(Eliminates a lot of 'dumb' raiders and makes base defense way harder)


(Encounter a dude who turtled into a mountain? Make a base into the mountain and dig to his colony and kill em all.)
(Definition of survival in rimworld improved.)
Sorry about the wall of text, I was frustrated about the community's... absolute faith and loyalty to Tynan.


There needs to be a radical new way of playing this game and here is a branch to a brighter future for RimWorld.
Don't just slam it and throw it away just because founder and creator of game disapproves of one of it's draw factors,
freedom to do absolutely anything stupid or otherwise.
Because YOLO.


Don't lock this thread just yet, mods. This is how games grow.

[Anduin1357]

Tbh, the largest scale map you can get is capable of sustaining about 4 pretty standard size colonies with up to 10-12 colonists.Trying to make a big, open, interlaced system where everybody's colonies interact with each other from their own map to the next may be a bit much to start off with (But hey, something I'd like to see in the long term regardless).I'd much prefer to see multiplayer start small, and have people survive together on the same map - Possibly tweaking resource costs etc depending on how many players are on a given map (But that's all balance talk, which'll come after the mechanics are set up).EG, each player starts with their base 3 colonists/starting resources and hops to it. Do they co-operate or shoot each other in the face? Up to them. But they've gotta deal with everything that happens on the map too.TL;DR: Start small, then think about scaling up.

That is what procedural map gens are for.
But hey, I hope Tynan can answer if a map can be generated without the overworld or the overworld being mapped by the maps.
a map generated without the overworld would need some way to save the overworld that is no longer a square or solid shape...

Just because you don't like PVP or that PVP is like starcraft doesn't mean it shouldn't be added. It can still be a part of the game. I'm sure if we could cooperate and fight, we'd usually cooperate until something happens that makes the other person stop the alliance. It'd only expand the story this game offers.

My thoughts exactly!
Guys, this is a unique game, stop making comparisons to RTS games, they are fundamentally different.

You could have multiple people on the same server in the same word, but not in the same area. With Comm consoles you could arrange trades between colonies, schedule a raid or simply visit.

Why not live interact with each other? It would be more fair if you raided them and know that charging into a defense structure is bad and avoiding that.
You, after all, is a player. And players get involved. If you know something about sieging, those without the ability to hunt and have no hydroponics will just surrender and let you take whatever you want or kill them. They only have solar panels? target them and starve them of hydroponics.
Mining into a mountain would no longer serve much defense when the enemy starts digging through rock just to get through to you.
A structure on the ground would be vulnerable to RPGs and grenades as well as mortar.
The enemy built his base into a mountain very shallowly? Just mortar through his thin constructed roofs and give them a shock.
_{(Warning, if I ever get to host a game like this, I will include ED-Shields and just spam a couple of fortress shields )}