Multiplayer - how?

spatula · January 10, 2015, 04:03:38 PM

oh yeah, and i forgot to mention, the idea behind having multiple paths for victories would be for a ranking system.

the idea being you play games and get 1 point for building 5 solars, or a point for defeating a raid, 2 for a player-raid, etc... but the victories also give points and some might be faster, longer or more risky. And you're trying to get these points to advance your rank.

Advancing in rank would unlock more difficult worlds.

17shadow · January 10, 2015, 05:41:32 PM

I think the basic faction system already implented have an interesting features. It modifies the ai behavior in draft mode: colonies automatically attack enemy pawn. It could be refine in a way that colonist would automatically attack allies enemies also. Pvp wise, everyone would start neutral to everyone. As such, attacking the colonist of a neutral or allied player would require a manual order. With enough kill, it would make it automatic. gift to a player would have to be accepted in order for the relation bonus to take place. That would create a simple yet efficient mechanism of alliance and war. Also, seeing the inefficience of the combat ai compared to human player, i wouldnt allow for attack on another player base if he is not connected, pending certain suggestions on the way multiplayer could be implented.

Anduin1357 · January 11, 2015, 12:31:02 AM

Each planet is larger than you think, you are talking timescales of weeks, even months to win.
Is it possible to even lay claim to, colonise and effectively dominate when the AI would just keep trying to trash you for being the biggest dude out there?
As for end games, for whom are you ending it for if you fly off and you need to be able to contact a faction in order to light a beacon or destroy the planet.

17shadow, you're welcome to look at my multiplayer idea.

Johnny Masters · January 11, 2015, 01:34:31 AM

Ugh, i'd vote no for everything that is done out of player control (no AI taking control of things for me).

It's largely impractical and unrealistic conquering/dominating an entire world worth thousands of kms short of having thousands of colonists.

Coenmcj · January 11, 2015, 02:35:08 AM

Quote from: Geertje123 on January 09, 2015, 03:50:15 AM
Quote from: Anduin1357 on January 08, 2015, 11:51:35 PMThis game's intended audience is exactly opposite of the RPG genre. You might be hard pressed to find someone else who shares your particular interest and plays this game.

Is this because Tynan said so? Let me quote you here:

Quote from: Anduin1357 on January 05, 2015, 08:00:49 AM
We don't need Tynan to say what we can or cannot
Do.

He speaks controversially, yet says that we would be hard pressed to find someone else who shares the same interest. I feel a collective eye-rolling in progress.

Johnny Masters · January 11, 2015, 02:45:14 AM

Haha well it seems we're past that at least.

Now, if we could get some official response... A good one, not those hit&runs that tynan does every once in a while

Anduin1357 · January 11, 2015, 03:51:12 AM

Quote from: Johnny Masters on January 11, 2015, 01:34:31 AM
Ugh, i'd vote no for everything that is done out of player control (no AI taking control of things for me).

It's largely impractical and unrealistic conquering/dominating an entire world worth thousands of kms short of having thousands of colonists.

There is something called an alliance system if you feel squeamish about handling so many colonists with AI.
What can we do without AI? They do all the automatic job handling, targeting and shooting etc.
If you really hate the AI, try imagining the game without AI...

Johnny Masters · January 11, 2015, 04:02:36 AM

You misunderstand my post, i'm referring to decision making not automation of certain tasks. AI handling jobs based on what i set: ok. AI handling jobs based on whatever it sets: nah. AI self-feeding pawns: ok. AI deciding what to cook and when: nah.

AI deciding what to build, the layout of my base and everything that pawns do while i'm absent (in another map, as suggested): big nah nah

Anduin1357 · January 11, 2015, 04:20:51 AM

Johnny, if you are not happy about the AI going to generate a base for you, generate it yourself, I'm sue it's more fun that way and oh, If you want to micro jobs, be my guest.
AI can be improved, I did not say that it is perfect yet. It needs refining and it needs either the time or the effort of people who are willing to work on it.
You underestimate the power of the AI. It is only as smart as the people who made it out to be.

Johnny Masters · January 11, 2015, 04:56:42 AM

I don't dislike AI doing stuff because it could be incompetent (well, there's that too), i dislike because i don't want it to be playing the game for me. I'm afraid we're tackling slighty different things, because it feels like you think i'm criticizing something i may not actually be doing.

Just for clarity sake:
I dislike, for example, an instance where i might go to someone else's map and while i'm away, the AI takes control of my base and do stuff i don't want it to do (as per someone above suggested). Then, to add insult, i come back and a battle agaisnt a player was fought in my absence, with my pawns being handled by the AI. I don't want that.

Either way, i think direct and pervasive contact with our multiplayer opponentes/friends should be constant, like regular rts is done. But then, that's just my opinion.

Anduin1357 · January 11, 2015, 05:36:39 AM

Quote from: Johnny Masters on January 11, 2015, 04:56:42 AM
I don't dislike AI doing stuff because it could be incompetent (well, there's that too), i dislike because i don't want it to be playing the game for me. I'm afraid we're tackling slighty different things, because it feels like you think i'm criticizing something i may not actually be doing.

Just for clarity sake:
I dislike, for example, an instance where i might go to someone else's map and while i'm away, the AI takes control of my base and do stuff i don't want it to do (as per someone above suggested). Then, to add insult, i come back and a battle agaisnt a player was fought in my absence, with my pawns being handled by the AI. I don't want that.

Either way, i think direct and pervasive contact with our multiplayer opponentes/friends should be constant, like regular rts is done. But then, that's just my opinion.

Then it's only fair that I agree that the AI atm is nowhere near what we think is good enough to be entrusted with our bases in our absence. It is not playing the game for you, it is playing the game with you. It does things you define as within its bounds and notifies you should anything that may need your personal attention arise. It aids you, not replace you. That is the difference.

Johnny Masters · January 11, 2015, 07:17:38 AM

(all right, i'll abide into the conversation)

Hence why i said I abide and enjoy automatic work overseen by me, but not much more than that. It all depends on how much and how many things you're willing to give control to the AI and how much and how many things the game thrusts upon you that you might need an ever increasing aid from the AI.

Should the AI auto-aim & shoot for you should you be afk for 5 seconds in a fps game? My guess is no.

Should the AI control my base in RW in my absence? I dunno, it might, but that's not the question, it's just that i don't want it to reach this point. Not now at least, i might change my idea down the road.