Print

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

[MDFification]

If you do want to make it multiplayer, I suggest making players share a map (larger than current fortress maps) but have limited number of dwarves under their control. They can choose to collaborate to make a superfortress or make their own isolated hamlets and compete.

[omega_dwarf]

A larger map is more difficult to process, send over networks, etc. Maybe...how critical is the above-ground world to a minimalist DF? To increase performance, why not make everything underground - players starting on different z-levels with room to build - with tunnels and caverns stretching in from off-map?

[Bumber]

If you do want to make it multiplayer, I suggest making players share a map (larger than current fortress maps) but have limited number of dwarves under their control. They can choose to collaborate to make a superfortress or make their own isolated hamlets and compete.

Oh, and there's another reason why a DFHack version would be very difficult. You can't stop one player's dwarves from trying to take another player's jobs. (Maybe you could use burrows, but then there's territorial issues preventing offensive engineering and recovering items.)

[Snaake]

If you do want to make it multiplayer, I suggest making players share a map (larger than current fortress maps) but have limited number of dwarves under their control. They can choose to collaborate to make a superfortress or make their own isolated hamlets and compete.

Oh, and there's another reason why a DFHack version would be very difficult. You can't stop one player's dwarves from trying to take another player's jobs. (Maybe you could use burrows, but then there's territorial issues preventing offensive engineering and recovering items.)

However, if the engine made it possible to divvy up the dwarves between multiple players somehow, THAT could actually be a fairly interesting way to implement multiplayer while avoiding jobs stealing dwarves or dwarves stealing jobs -type conflicts. It could, and probably should, go further than just civilian vs. military; one way could be to allow players to select who is in charge of what "spheres": military, construction (buildings, mechanisms, possibly workshops), mining, manufacturing (setting work orders), with possible further splits into industries eg. farming, metalworks, etc. Each dwarf would belong to a certain pool - a social caste/guild, if you will. The pools themselves could be customisable down to profession level, at least (so e.g. the military could be allowed some civilian jobs in peacetime). Of course, some mechanic of transferring dwarves between pools, possibly requiring your dwarven manager to sign off on it, would probably also be a good idea, to account for changing priorities as the population size, fort maturity and other circumstances change. Also the same for changing who controls what. Players could requisition dwarves/items/buildings/more abstract things from others, probably best done as an informal chat. Now I'm reminded of Artemis Spaceship Bridge Simulator, a bit, although this would probably work just as good with text chat as in the same room.

I just thought of this, but this sort of "dwarven council" of each player managing one of the different spheres of dwarven life is the best idea for an actual working, cooperative, interesting DF-like (see "roguelike") Multiplayer game that I remember reading/hearing/thinking of. Any game devs out there, feel free to grab this for the next Gnomoria/Banished/whatever.

For DF itself, this would probably require a rewrite of a decent amount of the current DF UI code, and several medium-to-large portions and rewrites in the rest, too. Obviously some basics are already in, since military on duty with active orders don't "look at" civilian jobs and vice versa, but that would have to be expanded on *a lot*. For Toady, I'd much rather he just keeps doing what he's doing, which is doing what he wants to do, while of course interacting with the community.

[Urlance Woolsbane]

If you do want to make it multiplayer, I suggest making players share a map (larger than current fortress maps) but have limited number of dwarves under their control. They can choose to collaborate to make a superfortress or make their own isolated hamlets and compete.

Oh, and there's another reason why a DFHack version would be very difficult. You can't stop one player's dwarves from trying to take another player's jobs. (Maybe you could use burrows, but then there's territorial issues preventing offensive engineering and recovering items.)

How about this: Each client only recognizes the user's dwarves as citizens. Those belonging to other players would be listed on that instance as "visitor" or somesuch. When a player marks an area for use, the other players' clients make a note of that and manipulate the game's mechanics to prevent other players mucking things up. So that area would be automatically treated as the wrong sort for any designations and inaccessible for any buildings, for those players.

EDIT: And of course, items claimed by another player are temporarily forbidden.

[crazyabe]

P_T_W

[miauw62]

If you do want to make it multiplayer, I suggest making players share a map (larger than current fortress maps) but have limited number of dwarves under their control. They can choose to collaborate to make a superfortress or make their own isolated hamlets and compete.

Oh, and there's another reason why a DFHack version would be very difficult. You can't stop one player's dwarves from trying to take another player's jobs. (Maybe you could use burrows, but then there's territorial issues preventing offensive engineering and recovering items.)

How about this: Each client only recognizes the user's dwarves as citizens. Those belonging to other players would be listed on that instance as "visitor" or somesuch. When a player marks an area for use, the other players' clients make a note of that and manipulate the game's mechanics to prevent other players mucking things up. So that area would be automatically treated as the wrong sort for any designations and inaccessible for any buildings, for those players.

EDIT: And of course, items claimed by another player are temporarily forbidden.

That sounds *almost* doable, actually. How would combat be resolved, though?

[Sanctume]

For a multiplayer DF, it would be like a MOBA actually.
- procedurally generated world, with choice civ starts.
- one player, controls all this citizens, starting with 7.
- It will play more like RTS: build building -> produce stuff from a menu.
- You'll have standard resources: mining, logging, farming, and eventually tiered building materials: bars, blocks, etc.

- The catch is that the more details, the more info needs to be send to other players, the more laggy the game gets.
- So until the cpu / internet catches up to a reasonable speed of updated 2 to 8 players, the details in the current DF will have to be trimmed down for a mp-df.

- I can imagine say 2 players build fortress next to each other ~ a region apart.
- Player one makes shield and training spears and zerg rush Player 2 type of cheesy RTS tactics.
- Tower rush strats: build a wall, fortification, and sent peasants with crossbow and wood bolts. -- But then player 2 an just start building away from the enemy's building. 
- Enemy send 50 war dogs to harrass.

- But then after some surface warfare game, it can becomes blah.
- Player 2 decides to turtle and dig in with an invulnerable drawbridge raised up.
- At which point, Player 1 decides to dig into player 2 and and channels the nearby brook to flood it.

- I suppose, you can incorporate the gameplay of Dungeon Keeper style.
- One player builds, and other players try to send their squads to attack.
- Squad can be military, miners, mechanics, etc.
- It would be interesting to see dwarven engineering at work beyond weapon traps traps and cage traps.
- All kinds of minecart, water drowning chamber, magma weaponization, and maybe even megabeast usage for defense

- There are plenty of ideas that can come from playing or even just reading the many succession forts here.

TLDR: RTS style management, MOBA style warfare, with detail of Dungeon Keeper, lag-free for 2 to 8+ players.

[Urlance Woolsbane]

That sounds *almost* doable, actually. How would combat be resolved, though?

Do you mean preventing in-fighting? Either the other players' Dwarves are removed from the list of attackable creatures or, if that's not possible, any orders to kill them are instacancelled.

[Snaake]

Sanctume: you're assuming everyone, or at least most people, would primarily want to play PvP. I wouldn't.

Player versus Player requires Multiplayer, obviously, but the reverse is not true.

[omega_dwarf]

Agreed that co-op would be better for a multiplayer DF. It's far too easy for a player to just dig into an enemy fortress unannounced and unleash hell upon the dining hall. It would just drive people paranoid. Maybe if there were more underground hazards to digging (be they caverns, patches of random aquifers, or random cave-ins), so digging a tunnel wouldn't be so quick and easy, then it would be more exciting and worthwhile.

[miauw62]

Sanctume: doesn't really sound like DF anymore tbh.

That sounds *almost* doable, actually. How would combat be resolved, though?

Do you mean preventing in-fighting? Either the other players' Dwarves are removed from the list of attackable creatures or, if that's not possible, any orders to kill them are instacancelled.

It is doable if you have several discrete clients, each running their own copy of DF.
You would run into problems with random things like combat or wild animals. Implementing a server solves this, I guess. Each client would send world updates (tiles dug, dwarves moving, etc)  to the server, which just keeps track of everything, resolves conflicts, and controls things like water flow or combat.
This sounds to me like it would be ALMOST possible given the source code of DF as it stands now. It'd be buggy and laggy af though, apart from being a huge, huge hack (think wagons, but a thousand times worse).

[Urlance Woolsbane]

It is doable if you have several discrete clients, each running their own copy of DF.
You would run into problems with random things like combat or wild animals. Implementing a server solves this, I guess. Each client would send world updates (tiles dug, dwarves moving, etc)  to the server, which just keeps track of everything, resolves conflicts, and controls things like water flow or combat.

Yeah. Otherwise, the performance-discrepancies between computers would probably be unbearable.

This sounds to me like it would be ALMOST possible given the source code of DF as it stands now. It'd be buggy and laggy af though, apart from being a huge, huge hack (think wagons, but a thousand times worse).

It goes without saying that any mod that changes the core gameplay of DF is going to be jury-rigged within an inch of its life.

[origamiscienceguy]

My dream would be to have a multiplayer adventure mode. The main problem with this is the timing, but I think that it would be okay if all players just traveled on their own time unless two or more get two close together. Then, for those two people, it goes in alternating turns of attacks. It seems difficult to implement, but that is my dream anyways.

[Bumber]

My dream would be to have a multiplayer adventure mode. The main problem with this is the timing, but I think that it would be okay if all players just traveled on their own time unless two or more get two close together. Then, for those two people, it goes in alternating turns of attacks. It seems difficult to implement, but that is my dream anyways.

There was a DFHack thing where someone tried to enable multiplayer control of companions. Unfortunately, the AI kept taking back control and moving the character back towards the player, IIRC.