Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TheCoolSideofthePIllow]

Not sure how the general fanbase here feels about multiplayer, but I personally think it would be a fun way to play DF.

What I imagine any multiplayer this game could have to be is very similar to Dungeon Keeper or Stronghold. In a sense, that is how the single player game plays out in Dwarf Mode already. Basically, you have two (or more) Fortress Designers (the players) and, using their minions (the dorfs) must build and sustain a fortress while trying to destroy the other player's.

DF could be different, of course. You could have a co-op type mode where two (or more) players work on a single fortress, however this could be strenuous on the dwarves (stretching their workload too thin to get anything done) without defining what player controls what portion of dwarves/resources on the map.

Personally, I think the head-to-head mode would be better (read: easier to implement) since you would merely need to divide who's dwarves are who's and the two (or more) players will have their dwarves fight over control of the resources on the map.

[612DwarfAvenue]

Yeah, this has been discussed many, many times, and there's really no good way to do it.

Footkerchief will be here shortly with several links to threads like this.

[slothen]

No.  Not because it wouldn't be fun, but because it would require a complete re-conceptualization of the game and interface, and would be a distraction from the core development goals.  It would also probably require a full engine re-write.

Also this thread has been made a million times, and its fantasyland.

[TheCoolSideofthePIllow]

No.  Not because it wouldn't be fun, but because it would require a complete re-conceptualization of the game and interface, and would be a distraction from the core development goals.  It would also probably require a full engine re-write.

Also this thread has been made a million times, and its fantasyland.

In no way what-so-ever would it require any tweaking at all, let alone a complete re-conceptualization of the interface (which, let's be honest, could use an overhaul anyway) since the game would essentially play the same. Core engine changes, however, may be necessary, but in all likelihood are not. Taking the stuff that's already there and simply sending that information across a network would be (relatively) minor, if Toady ever decided to add it (or release source code so others can add it themselves). About the only mechanic change needed would be the removal of pausing. Maybe even slow the game down so it's manageable without pausing.

I certainly would not expect such an addition soon; something like this would be a mere after-thought compared to everything already on the coming features list and what's already in the game.

[10ebbor10]

No.  Not because it wouldn't be fun, but because it would require a complete re-conceptualization of the game and interface, and would be a distraction from the core development goals.  It would also probably require a full engine re-write.

Also this thread has been made a million times, and its fantasyland.

In no way what-so-ever would it require any tweaking at all, let alone a complete re-conceptualization of the interface (which, let's be honest, could use an overhaul anyway) since the game would essentially play the same. Core engine changes, however, may be necessary, but in all likelihood are not. Taking the stuff that's already there and simply sending that information across a network would be (relatively) minor, if Toady ever decided to add it (or release source code so others can add it themselves). About the only mechanic change needed would be the removal of pausing. Maybe even slow the game down so it's manageable without pausing.

I certainly would not expect such an addition soon; something like this would be a mere after-thought compared to everything already on the coming features list and what's already in the game.

It would require an interface change, and an engine change and a gameplay change. The main problem is getting and keeping all the forts synched. ie, what happens if one player wants to pause the game. What if someone has a slow PC. Slowing the game down so that it is doable whitout pausing would be impossible. Since, as you might have noticed, the game autopauses( probably because the engine doesn't allow it otherwise) during designations.

Forget it, it's not going to happen how many times it's suggested.

[Chagen46]

This would be a cool idea for a DF-inspired roguelike, though.

[JanusTwoface]

Go read all of the previous thread on multiplayer:

Spoiler: Footkerchief collection of posts from *2010* (click to show/hide)

Multiplayer is one of the most popular suggestions of all time:

http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=72937.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=26680.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=3348.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=23329.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=4478.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=31711.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=2977.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=4742.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=42244.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=5181.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=44975.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=4697.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=6179.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=33017.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=25837.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=51329.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=23914.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=6257.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=26102.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=23574.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=4080.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=41136.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=41593.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=72836.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=64021.0

About half of those suggestions take an approach similar to yours, where each player controls a fortress in a more-or-less asynchronous world.

Tags: multiplayer multi multiple many player players metaworld upload transfer send

If you tried and the site's search didn't work (it's problematic at best), use Google:
Google Search

As a side note, you completely underestimate how much work it could take if you think it would barely "require any tweaking at all". Adding multiplayer to a game is non-trivial. Take a look at Orcs Must Die. They specifically choose not to make the game multiplayer early in the design process so that they could actually polish and test the game and still get it out in a year. Why would they do that if it doesn't require much effort?

[DwarfMeister]

No.  Not because it wouldn't be fun, but because it would require a complete re-conceptualization of the game and interface, and would be a distraction from the core development goals.  It would also probably require a full engine re-write.

Also this thread has been made a million times, and its fantasyland.

In no way what-so-ever would it require any tweaking at all, let alone a complete re-conceptualization of the interface (which, let's be honest, could use an overhaul anyway) since the game would essentially play the same. Core engine changes, however, may be necessary, but in all likelihood are not. Taking the stuff that's already there and simply sending that information across a network would be (relatively) minor, if Toady ever decided to add it (or release source code so others can add it themselves). About the only mechanic change needed would be the removal of pausing. Maybe even slow the game down so it's manageable without pausing.

I certainly would not expect such an addition soon; something like this would be a mere after-thought compared to everything already on the coming features list and what's already in the game.

It would require an interface change, and an engine change and a gameplay change. The main problem is getting and keeping all the forts synched. ie, what happens if one player wants to pause the game. What if someone has a slow PC. Slowing the game down so that it is doable whitout pausing would be impossible. Since, as you might have noticed, the game autopauses( probably because the engine doesn't allow it otherwise) during designations.

Forget it, it's not going to happen how many times it's suggested.

*cough* *cough* Server side connection!!! *cough*

And why the HELL would you pause a multiplayer game? It wouldn't make any sense. If your dwarves die, it's because YOU (their god) has forsaken them.

[Corai]

Noone ever said "Many forts."

Its map, with two forts. Two forts on a single embark, with enough space in between for players to build.


Unless I misread.

[Nerjin]

I personally find this as an interesting concept. I would think not being able to pause would be a bit of a boon in a competitive sense. As for the slow computer thing that's something all games deal with. I like the idea. Don't think it's going to get made. But if Toady did choose to do it for whatever reason he'd have to make it sort of like a blitz fortress or something. But that's just my thoughts.

[GreatWyrmGold]

No.  Not because it wouldn't be fun, but because it would require a complete re-conceptualization of the game and interface, and would be a distraction from the core development goals.  It would also probably require a full engine re-write.

Also this thread has been made a million times, and its fantasyland.

In no way what-so-ever would it require any tweaking at all, let alone a complete re-conceptualization of the interface (which, let's be honest, could use an overhaul anyway) since the game would essentially play the same. Core engine changes, however, may be necessary, but in all likelihood are not. Taking the stuff that's already there and simply sending that information across a network would be (relatively) minor, if Toady ever decided to add it (or release source code so others can add it themselves). About the only mechanic change needed would be the removal of pausing. Maybe even slow the game down so it's manageable without pausing.

I certainly would not expect such an addition soon; something like this would be a mere after-thought compared to everything already on the coming features list and what's already in the game.

It would require an interface change, and an engine change and a gameplay change. The main problem is getting and keeping all the forts synched. ie, what happens if one player wants to pause the game. What if someone has a slow PC. Slowing the game down so that it is doable whitout pausing would be impossible. Since, as you might have noticed, the game autopauses( probably because the engine doesn't allow it otherwise) during designations.

Forget it, it's not going to happen how many times it's suggested.

*cough* *cough* Server side connection!!! *cough*

And why the HELL would you pause a multiplayer game? It wouldn't make any sense. If your dwarves die, it's because YOU (their god) has forsaken them.

1. What do you mean, server side connection? DF has no ability to make network connections, period. That would be only one of many changes needed to allow multiplayer.
And why pause? Um...so you can build buildings, or dig, or gather plants, or make stuff, or designate nobles, or make a military, or do ANYTHING AT ALL...

Face it: If something this fundamentally major was left out at early stages, why would it be added right in the middle of development, when it would require re-tooling most everything? It's never happening; deal with it; join a succession fortress.

[DG]

Even if it'll never be done, and it's all been said before, it's sometimes diverting as a conceptual exercise.

I'd keep the ability to pause because it seems fundamental to the game, but I'd ration them. So let's say each player has a maximum of 5 pauses per in game month (random numbers chosen for example only, obviously it would need to be carefully balanced) and the pauses only last a set length of time before the game automatically restarts. Automatic restart and limited number should limit the most obvious way of being a prick to your fellow players. And I guess there would be nothing stopping you from doing the stuff you need to do when the game is paused by someone else. You'd need to untie all the building and designations from a paused game though, for it to be viable. That way you can horde your pausing for situations were you're attacked by rampaging monkeys or something.

Limited pauses would also introduce a different strategy to the multiplayer mode. I'm not sure if that would be good or bad, but it would definately be different.

An interesting thing to consider with two forts on the same map is how would the migrants be handled? The most obvious way is to divide them down the middle but it'd be more fun if they chose depending on who had the snazzier fortress. 

[GreatWyrmGold]

I guess it's an interesting mental...excersise? Game? Whatever it is, if it's not a suggestion, it should be moved.

Not sure about limiting pauses, but not sure how else it would be handled. The idea of not autopausing during designations and such would help, I guess.

[helmacon]

Heres an idea
The object testing arena
It would be constantly running and all players have full control.

Perhaps not exactly what your looking for but still some !FUN! DF stuff to do with your friends.

[Glyndŵr]

Perhaps Toady could give something like this a go when he has finished making the game as is planned. We'll all be flying around in hover cars and have long grey beards by then, but at least the next generation will enjoy it. At least then, after all these god forsaken bugs and wonderful features have been fixed and implemented, he may have the time to give something like multiplayer a good go. To be honest though, I would rather Toady concentrate on bug fixing from now on rather than an enormous development like multiplayer.