Print

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

[Deathworks]

Hi!

I am not sure whether something like this already exists; the wiki definitely does not mention any kind of project like that, so I assume it has not been done before.

Reading the recent suggestions about multiplayer games, I came up with the following idea for multiplayer inheritance games:

In the beginning, there is a single world, maybe with a single abandoned fortress. This world is uploaded, for instance to the DFFD.

People can freely download that world and play in it.
Once they have finished playing a fortress or one (or more if they died quickly) adventurers, they should upload their save to the DFFD, giving it some ID. They also call out to the original uploader so that they may remove the old world from the server.

You may wonder about the ID thingie, considering that I advocate the deletion of the old world.

The reasoning is as follows:

There is no limitation on how many people may download and play any given world at a given point. And each of their saves would be a proper continuation of the storyline, albeit in a different direction. So, the world could, if people did indeed play it paralelly branch out into different directions.

Deleting the old world from the server is meant to put some limitation on the branching - while it does not prevent people who have already downloaded the old version from creating a new branch by uploading their save (on the contrary, they should be encouraged to fully develop their play and then create the new branch), it prevents newcomers to branch off of the early version, thus encouraging inheriting more saves.

This deletion of parent worlds should always occur, even in later generations. Thus, each branch should have only one actively downloadable member (as no save should have its parent available for download paralelly).

Of course, with the IDs, it should be important that there is a way to show decendancy (like having IDs accumulate); this would help people identify brother scenarios and decide whether they are interested (for instance, there might be a branch with an adventurer who killed just about any named critter she could find - some might like that branch, others would loathe it).

I post it in the general discussion because it is not a feature suggestion for Toady, but rather a suggestion how we could play the game as it is right now.

What do people think about this approach?

Deathworks

[Deon]

Maybe it's fun for you, but for me it looks like a chaos =).
I'd stick to the community fortresses - they are more fun and cool to play/read.

What I especially don't like in your suggestion - is that there'll be no possibility to distinguish interesting and absolutely scrappy worlds. For example, 1 of those 1000+ saves will have cool dungeons/historical figures and other 999+ will have nothing. And how do you expect me to find that one pearl in the garbage pile?
If there were strict rules and an estimation system, then it would make a sense. Then we'll need referees to judge the final result of each step.

Other than that, I don't see a reason why is your suggestion different from other tons of possibilities in DF. If you can explain/expand your idea, it could make me/others more interested in it (as long as in participating in it).

[ March 05, 2008: Message edited by: Deon ]

[Deon]

I mean this:
Even if 1(!) world is played with just 2 people for each "branch", then there'll be 1024(!!!) saves after just 10 steps (2^10).

And imagine a lot of worlds (I think everyone will try to post their own cool world) with a lot of players. Looks like m^n, something like 100^5 = 10000000000 saves (I assume that every world is played with 5 players max here).
Are you sure you'll be able just to scroll between their names? ( I don't speak about downloading and playing them )

The other side of this situation that we don't really have THAT much players and playing time, but a lot of unfinished worlds with unexpected result (it will be hard to find the one even between that 100+ saves).
Tell me than, why is it better than an organised, themed thread on forum with a lot of sharing/information/feedback possibilities? What could be better that a forum thread to post progress of the game along with discussion? Only a specialized forum with some features for this situation/or split threads for progress/discussion =).

I hope you can offer something to break my logics, because I don't think you posted your offer without thinking about it, thus you have in your head something I don't get still. I'd like to see your motivation.

[Deathworks]

Hi!

Well, I don't really expect 1000+ world on that one (more likely to have 10 or so in existance paralelly.

Anyhow, my first suggestion was relatively roughly-hewn, I guess.

You are right, of course, that there should be information given about what has been added to the world (like mentioning that you killed all named monsters, or maybe mentioning that yet another hero got slain by the minotaur leatherpants in the cave of gloom) as well as some basic information about the branch it belongs to (like keeping track of the number of abandoned fortresses and maybe the most famous/important adventurers).

If the DFFD was used, for instance, when you upload, you can add quite a lot of textual information to the file which will be shown to anyone seriously considering the download. This way, they could at least see what you have been doing to the world and decide whether it is interesting or not.

As for getting outside opinions, on the one hand, there would be advertising on the forums. If you uploaded a save, you would tell people so in a thread here. In that same thread, people could comment as to what they found interesting about your activities, and they may also warn about missing or incorrect information with the uploader.

That thread would also be a chance to talk about the ongoing developments in your fortress or the changing fortunes of your adventurer, thus advertising the save you will eventually upload - if you build an interesting fortress telling people about it while you are constructing it, people may look forward to when you abandon it so they can explore it.

The advantage of the system would be the free paralellism: You do not need to wait for your turn, players who are late with their uploads do not hinder the flow of the game as everyone can play at their own pace. If some RL issues unexpectedly keep you busy for a few days, no problem. No one is pressuring you to meet a deadline. On the other hand, you can try to follow around in the footsteps of other player's heros or try to uncover all the secret treasures and rooms they never told the public about in their fortress.

I know it is still sketchy, but it is just a first idea and if there is interest in it, I am sure it can develop into a usable concept.

Deathworks

[Deathworks]

Hi!

About the exponential branches, as you pointed out, we do not have that much playing time that we would see 1024 saves after 10 generations.

There is no requirement that branches need to be the same length. One branch may find no one to continue them (except maybe its original "creator"), while another may develop into two sibling branches which are quite popular but which really do not branch out in any depth (there may be occasional siblings, but usually only one of them is continued).

Therefore, I do not see that explosion you are afraid of.

And, in order to consider it one game, of course, it should start with a single world, but I think I did mention that.

Deathworks

[Deon]

So, actually, this is like a community fortress, but a community mod without timing rules? It's fun, and I think the players will make a lot of their own rules as they usually like to do.
Well, then it's just a matter of what? True. Someone should start it, and if you mentioned it by yourself, maybe it is you?
You can start a thread about the best world to start with (I think like 128*128 or like this) and when the one will be elected, post the first save.

Good luck! If you succeed with it, I may join too, because I like epic stories =).

[Aerys]

This sounds like a very interesting idea to me, and I'd definitely be interested in participating.

[Magnnus]

Id love to have a more interesting setting for my adventurer to explore, and I this this would be the perfect candidate.

[Sykirobme]

I think the old wiki hosted some bloodline games that turned out like this, though not so many branches developed in any of them.

[Asehujiko]

Deleting the original is going to cause alot of misery when bugs turn up and not add anything to the game.

Besides, why do you think that playable year 1-1050 are on the dev list? Because we all like being forced to start at the end, right?

[Deathworks]

Hi!

Well, I suggested the deletion of the original save in order to encourage using later games so that things add up. The idea behind the inheritance is that people are interested in a world full of diverse fortresses and legend entries of different adventurers.

But the danger of a generation becoming a dead-end is kind of real (although I think this would be more concerning quests in adventure mode as I don't see how you can mess up a save for future fortress mode usage).

I have started playing a fortress on a 129x129 world in order to create a starting situation for an inheritance game, but I am a very slow player, and I will be at my brother's place for the next few days, meaning I won't be able to play the game. So, unless my fortress gets overrun by a kobold siege this evening, it will probably several days before I can upload something usable.

In the meantime, I have thought a bit more about the method of running such a sharing system:

For the ID, having the base start with a name (like the world name) and then have each generation add a single digit (starting at 0 going up to z if necessary). So, X0 would be the first released heir of 'X' and X1 would be the second heir of 'X'. X10 would then be the first released heir of 'X1' while X00 would be the first released heir of 'X0', and so on and so on.

Besides the ID, I think it would be best if people at the very least gave a summary of their activity:
No. of fortress mode reactivations
No. of new fortresses created
No. of adventurers played to death
No. of adventurers retired

This way, people can see whether it is likely (although not guaranteed), that they will find hireable former adventurers or how much an increase in fortresses has been there.

Giving also the total of all activity summaries thus far may further help advertise a branch.

Well, these are the things my mind came up with.

Personally, I think reactivating adventurers of others players should probably be avoided. There is always the probability that the original player had a very clear vision, let's say of a brutish villain plundering and destroying human, elven and dwarvish villages until he retired. Imagine how that player might react if he found out that someone reactivated his character and used him to create world peace with flowers and cuddly bunnies everywhere and elves and humans and dwarves living in peace and happiness.

Just another thought that came up. Please consider all this a suggestion, and if people are inspired or are interested in implementing things like this or differently, please do not feel intimidated by my babbling.

Deathworks