Print

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

[Lifeinsteps]

-how unbelievably cool a two-person multiplayer fighting demo would be.

It would be so sick if Toady just made a multiplayer demo where you can control two fighters on a small arena. The timescale would be like the regular game, and the game would just request input from a player whenever it was time for one of the characters to make a move. That way if you knocked the other person over or whatever, the game would request possibly two attacks from you before they were asked whether they'd like to stand, or whatever.

Everyone always requests fortress mode multiplayer (which sounds like a total cluster-fuck to me) but I swear I cannot deny the beauty of just that two-person demo. I'd play that for ages.

Yeah, it's pretty much obviously never going to happen, but hnng GOD it would be so awesome.

Thoughts? I mean, does anybody else think that would be sweet, or what?

(Or perhaps you'd like to just get out your weekly round of 'LOOK HE ALREADY SAID BLAH BLAH BLAH STOP TALKING ABOUT IT.' In which case, you're welcome.)

[DrakeDragonbane]

Honestly I think that would be a terrific yet a tedious idea because you would have to controll two players but DF itself is tedious if you think about it. It has a STEEP learning curve but I think it is worth it and this idea would be worth it too. I would make it if I knew how to code and such but sadly I don't  .

[Lifeinsteps]

Honestly I think that would be a terrific yet a tedious idea because you would have to controll two players but DF itself is tedious if you think about it. It has a STEEP learning curve but I think it is worth it and this idea would be worth it too. I would make it if I knew how to code and such but sadly I don't  .

Yeah, you'd definitely have to have a friend willing to go the distance with you. I'd think a match could probably take 30 minutes to an hour.

It'd still be hella fun, though.

[DrakeDragonbane]

Yep, all in all it would be totally worth it and I just hope some sort of programmer reads this post and finds a way how to do it but that is highly unlikely but possible. So I'm going to keep on believing that somebody will make it :O

[Lifeinsteps]

Yep, all in all it would be totally worth it and I just hope some sort of programmer reads this post and finds a way how to do it but that is highly unlikely but possible. So I'm going to keep on believing that somebody will make it :O

I'm honestly not sure that a mod-maker could have access to the necessary resources in order to make it. It would more than likely have to be an official thing, unfortunately.

That's even more unfortunate because it means that it is very, VERY unlikely. I'll probably win the lottery before that happens.

[Putnam]

Yep, all in all it would be totally worth it and I just hope some sort of programmer reads this post and finds a way how to do it but that is highly unlikely but possible. So I'm going to keep on believing that somebody will make it :O

I'm honestly not sure that a mod-maker could have access to the necessary resources in order to make it. It would more than likely have to be an official thing, unfortunately.

That's even more unfortunate because it means that it is very, VERY unlikely. I'll probably win the lottery before that happens.

Well, next version you could probably do some weird DFTerm stuff combined with DFHack's adventurer bodyswap capabilities to simulate turn-based multiplayer...

[Crabs]

I have to agree. I always dreamed about wandering the wilderness with a

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

no-meatshield

friend. And: it is not impossible. I support the idea of making it like this, that you have to wait for your companion's input. I think battles and the inventory system are fully managable with this idea, only the movement might be a little difficult. Maybe the hosting player gets something like a "leader"-tag and when all other players set themselves to "follow" or add a "follower"-tag they would behave as computer controlled companions. This would make travelling easier- ahhh I have so many ideas... But as you and the others said: Unfortunately it is too unlikely to happen :c

[Lifeinsteps]

Maybe the hosting player gets something like a "leader"-tag and when all other players set themselves to "follow" or add a "follower"-tag they would behave as computer controlled companions.[/font]

That's an awesome idea!

I was just thinking a combat demo would be cool because the Adventurer mode would be way too hard to play for extended periods with someone else because of movement, but that would fix that issue by-and-large.

I'd still just like a two-person fighting demo though. It would be so awesome.

[Eric Blank]

I think Putnam's idea of using DFhack to force bodyswapping might work. Maybe it'd be possible to write a script that runs the bodyswap command on the non-leader player after each step the leader takes, or as the companion's turn would be coming up, then automatically swaps back to the lead adventurer after the companion makes his move/the leader's turn comes up.

This would be pretty damn fun, though. Even on the hotseat-swapping multiplayer servers that were available last year.

[TKGP]

You might want to look up Toribash. It's a physics-driven multiplayer fighting game where instead of just pressing different buttons to attack you actually control each of your joints individually. I hadn't really thought about it before but in some ways it's quite similar to the DF fighting model, where you can pretty much do whatever you want within the system.

[Loud Whispers]

I have to agree. I always dreamed about wandering the wilderness with a

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

no-meatshield

friend. And: it is not impossible. I support the idea of making it like this, that you have to wait for your companion's input. I think battles and the inventory system are fully managable with this idea, only the movement might be a little difficult. Maybe the hosting player gets something like a "leader"-tag and when all other players set themselves to "follow" or add a "follower"-tag they would behave as computer controlled companions. This would make travelling easier- ahhh I have so many ideas... But as you and the others said: Unfortunately it is too unlikely to happen :c

"ADVENTURER PARTIES AND ENTITY: As an adventurer with followers, you should can your own entity definition. If you have enough people, you might be able to delegate orders and control them more strategically. You should also be able to control each member in a party of adventurers you make yourself. You could lead one and the others follow (as it is currently) or control them all, particularly during tense situations where you don't want to count on the AI. Related to Core24, Core61, PowerGoal20 and PowerGoal135."

"Core35, DWARF RAIDS, (Future): If you send one of your patrols to attack a site, and it is small enough, you should be able to control the units individually, as in adventure mode. If your group is large, then you could either control one squad as a party, and have the others on AI, or you could let the whole thing run real-time as in dwarf mode. Requires Core27."

I'll just leave these here.

[Crabs]

"ADVENTURER PARTIES AND ENTITY: As an adventurer with followers, you should can your own entity definition. If you have enough people, you might be able to delegate orders and control them more strategically. You should also be able to control each member in a party of adventurers you make yourself. You could lead one and the others follow (as it is currently) or control them all, particularly during tense situations where you don't want to count on the AI. Related to Core24, Core61, PowerGoal20 and PowerGoal135."

"Core35, DWARF RAIDS, (Future): If you send one of your patrols to attack a site, and it is small enough, you should be able to control the units individually, as in adventure mode. If your group is large, then you could either control one squad as a party, and have the others on AI, or you could let the whole thing run real-time as in dwarf mode. Requires Core27."

I'll just leave these here.

Excuse me, I really have no idea how those quotes relate to my post. Explain to me please  [font]

[SuicideJunkie]

Seriously?

Every second sentence in there is talking about *controlling a party of units*, in combat even.

"ADVENTURER PARTIES AND ENTITY: As an adventurer with followers, you should can your own entity definition. If you have enough people, you might be able to delegate orders and control them more strategically. You should also be able to control each member in a party of adventurers you make yourself. You could lead one and the others follow (as it is currently) or control them all, particularly during tense situations where you don't want to count on the AI. Related to Core24, Core61, PowerGoal20 and PowerGoal135."

"Core35, DWARF RAIDS, (Future): If you send one of your patrols to attack a site, and it is small enough, you should be able to control the units individually, as in adventure mode. If your group is large, then you could either control one squad as a party, and have the others on AI, or you could let the whole thing run real-time as in dwarf mode. Requires Core27."

[Crabs]

Seriously?

Every second sentence in there is talking about *controlling a party of units*, in combat even.

I got that but the idea of the thread was that at least two people control characters in one game and not that one player controls many.

[Loud Whispers]

Seriously?

Every second sentence in there is talking about *controlling a party of units*, in combat even.

I got that but the idea of the thread was that at least two people control characters in one game and not that one player controls many.

It was addressing your post, you described everything in those arcs saying it was unlikely to happen. I was obliged.