Print

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

[Phazorx]

The completely unique marvel of Dwarf Fortress, while being completely singe-player oriented, in my mind has a lot of potential to grow into quite successful multiuser experience. I have done some reading on mupltiplayer subject within the forum (have not bothered with all topics but got the gist of general approach) and seen that he th idea is mentioned quite often, however not going as far as detailing possible design and/or implementation of it.

I'd like to propose something (mostly for Toady's eye actually) which might evolve into adding some MP capabilities to DF. Being software engineer, even though I am unaware of game internals, I can predict some design aspects and try to go from that, trying to produce something as low taxing on re-doing existing features and concepts as possible, while also reusing already programmed functionality. Also, separate project/goal mentioned bellow is mostly based on their design principles from programming side of things, rather than player experience.

Communication
   Basic start for any multiplayer venture is a necessity to communicate with other players. Even while being completely secluded in single player game, especially being it as complex and sophisticated as DF, it is often important to find information and answers to one's questions. The current way of doing so would be IRC. Personally I am grateful for the support I have been given by other players in overcoming challenges of the game, aside of that just being able to share your game experiences with others as well as seeing challenges of others is quite rewarding by itself. Integrating ability to chat with other player into a game is a first step on a road to full blown MMO solution. Different channels for local events, help and support, in- and out-of character chat and perhaps many other may come in handy... but just being a part of large and growing community is something very important on a social level.
From technology point of view – integrating IRC client and adding options for controlling it's functionality is a relatively minor challenge .I'm sure it is possible to find suitable library set for extending DF that way and getting rid of necessity for external client and constant switching between them. Being able to separate players by their races, geographical location or current actions is just as important as bringing them together, and that's where in-game IRC-like implementation has a real chance to shine in full glory. Running and administrating server side can completely offloaded on one of existing networks geared for similar projects or hosted as dedicated somewhere if there is a need for more control.

World sharing and Economics
   One of greatest and unique features that captivates many souls and increases replayability of the game is the persistent game world, which treats player as a part of game universe, and reacts to ones actions, while not being completely controlled by them as a whole. Such approach grants a base for support of more than one player's action to be accounted for, game world scale also play along with this idea, making it possible to have a huge realm with many player-developed settlements (past as well as present!). The currently approach used for internal fortress economic model can be extended for global as well, where the price of things is controlled by supply and demand aspects of open market. To make it more fluid and real life like, such factors as distance and accessibility, as well as safety, can be great factors in considering trading opportunities.
Going from how current trade works – seasonal and race based, it is possible to collect information about players actions and especially interaction with NPC caravans on per-season basis. At first, it will require players choosing same world as the starting point, which can be done by syncing worldgen parameters and random seed, not sure how exactly history is done, but I presume locations and events are data-wise separated from geographical information. Based on that – each following participating player – adds records to “history” part, thus claiming some location. After that seasonal updates in form of internal settlement history (same fashion as it is used for engravings?) can be thrown at server side. This obviously requires some server side counterpart, which at that stage should be data storage (some text based some database driven) and probably http-like interface. Economical data for trade interactions is to be collected on client side (since caravans are single player functionality and server is not aware of that) and then shared with server in form of type:amount:price:in/out. Data model for this is very simple and server interactivity, limited on per-caravan (per-season?) per player are rare occasions – hence makes very low demands on hardware part.
This not only allows to host multiple fortresses on same world map at same time, with players being aware of state of things external to their world, but also leads to calculated prices for sold and bought goods (as well as desired quantities of them) based on client sending request to server at point of caravan arriving and leaving just once per season (perhaps extendable to be per request if necessary for calculating settlement value?)
With that concept in mind:

• good value (started at fixed rates based at worldgen params) are controlled by players actions and supply/demand rules
• players can use their own timescales and are not limited in any way by other players actions
  world history on top of generated content predating first player also grows based on on player actions (and possibly visible via engravings?)
• few none-existing concepts can become powerful factors in appealing caravans (such as presence of roads and relative location) and therefor to be considered

Trading
   Since DF is at least to some degree an involves economical strategy gameplay elements it would be a good idea to introduce multiplayer item trading facility. By that I imply something similar to Auction in World of Worldcraft (e-bay for dwarfs). There a player can offer some goods to another player in exchange for some other goods. This can be done via following procedure:

• Offering player reserves some goods as “to be trade” and for duration of trade session can not use them. These goods are offered as an item with exchange rate to some other item/itemclass (sort of similar to how liaison trade planing works)
• Game client forms a request that is sent to server side auction database where it is kept for fixed real world time or until the deal comes through
• On a buyer side of things one can browse auction listing (search even better) and upon seeing promising offer one may agree on proceeding with a deal given that one has in possession requested items in desired quantity. It is possible that buyer might like the deal but not have enough of requested goods, and delay the response until one have (which also assumes that some other buyer might snatch the deal)
• At the end of each season offering player client performs a check on whether any of deals went through and if they did – a caravan arrives shortly after taking goods and going to potential buyer. In same fashion at the end of a season for buyer a caravan might come and take the goods from his side
• At following season for each player caravan from opposite side arrives.
• Force-major kind of events MIGHT and SHOULD happen resulting in a loss of either or both side goods (fate is determined by arriving side), some factor like having roads and countermeasures in form of military play in favor of preserving the goods.

There might be some fee (percentage of trade goods amount) and minimal trade volume required to start the process.
While this sounds as complex and multistage process not much work or data transmissions are actually happening, server side also just tracks state of trade deal with a flag, updates of which are quite rare. To facilitate both economical and trading aspect of multiuser solution I would suggest a webserver with some middleware interface based on PERL/PHP/Ruby/Python/etc. and a mysql/msql/postgres database. Client side would need to gain a communication layer in form of HTTP over TCP implementation and be able to send GET requests.

Combat
   On top of being dwarf life simulator with deep economical angle, the game also have military system and PvE combat. Easiest and IMHO fun extension to that would be cooperative-attack-something game. What I have in mind that for players who are seen as online and made their forces available for war-like events, these event should occasionally occur. Once in a blue moon a messenger comes with a black arrow in his back and dies after passing the message implying that the leader needs to get arm some folks and send them to help for some greater good (Good can be rare stolen artifact, kill an enemy leader, attack a caravan, deal with a siege or something of that nature). Essentially same kind of events that happen in game right now, but in reverse. Combine forces of few players are attacking something that is AI controlled and scale of action is proportional to amount. The battle can also last a while and it is possible to get more players involved if needed (i.e. reinforcements). Each player would control in same fashion as it is done within single player DF a squad or a few, the goal being to explore some area and clear hostiles, there collaboration and cooperation can be enforced via overwhelming amounts of adversaries.
From a technical standpoint, based on player confirming desire to participate in the event – all interested parties are connected to a multiuser environment of a shape of “broadcasting server”; There many ways how can one be implemented starting from abusing same IRC protocol as mentioned for chat – latency can hardly be an issue in indirect control/command driven environment. Game engine rendering will have to be turned into server responsive way (reacting to what comes from server side rather than to keystrokes), but again with a current state of things, where all actions are happening via commands and none via direct control, it is quite possible without major changes to the code.
Given that, it would be possible for some arbitrary number of players to participate in a single event. With some tricks it is also possibly to achieve resynchronization (depending on how game works no, which I have very little idea about) thus allowing for players to join as the game goes.

Money
   Concept of in-game currency in many MMO-games has similar issues as virtual funds in real life and hardly simplifies anything if not making them actually worse, while barter based commerce with real time calculated market value of goods would deter players from abusing the system and creating virtual stock market. Buy low/sell high concept simply does not work if no money is involved. Accumulating rare raw goods is, of course, still possible, but would not serve any purpose in reality.

Security
   I intentionally avoided subject of data security, validation, user identity and authentication related subject simple because I lack familiarity with how game works now, and out of that context threat prevention systems have very limited sense. But I'm sure it is possible to built relatively simple mechanisms to grant some level of sanity in client-server information exchange realm.


With all that being mentioned, I'm sure it is possible to greatly enhance and expand every single idea, but my goal was just to show how much (or little) needed to be done to achieve multiuser effect, without disturbing game much as it is now.

[Dakk]

We are all mostly aware of the possible massive multiplayer potential DF might have, and I think even Toady has considered some aspects. Its just the game is still in a very early phase of development, and most of us just don't want to think about it now because we don't want it to hinder the development of core features.

Its a very valid sugestion, but its one that will probably not be considered untill the game has reached v 1.0, since the very framework of the game isn't even 50% done yet, apart from the various others bloats and goals comming along with it. Disturbing the game now isn't the point, its that it'll probably disturb what the game is planned to become later, since the game isn't even in beta phase yet.

[Phazorx]

We are all mostly aware of the possible massive multiplayer potential DF might have, and I think even Toady has considered some aspects. Its just the game is still in a very early phase of development, and most of us just don't want to think about it now because we don't want it to hinder the development of core features.

Its a very valid sugestion, but its one that will probably not be considered untill the game has reached v 1.0, since the very framework of the game isn't even 50% done yet, apart from the various others bloats and goals comming along with it. Disturbing the game now isn't the point, its that it'll probably disturb what the game is planned to become later, since the game isn't even in beta phase yet.

That being said, what I was suggesting is not meant to interfere with development process aside of diverting some of Toady's efforts towards delegating R&D efforts and/or controlling course of action. Features I mentioned, aside of interface part have close to zero effect on rest of the game. At same point being aware/planing some MP features at early stages will be beneficial when it comes to point of developing them.

I'm also not asking anyone to jump the gun now and start doing something MMO related, this is merestart of constructive discussion on the subject. Constructive in a way completely different than "Hey Toady, will DF ever have MP and when?"

[Davion]

Unfortunately, there's your answer for multiplayer support and features.

Of course, he might change his mind at some point; but he's made it pretty clear in various interviews that he's not really interested in that aspect. I was also under the impression that trying to slap on multiplayer support for a game that wasn't initially meant for multiplayer was suicide, mainly because you have to go about programming the game a bit differently since packets are being sent and there's server/client communication and all kinds of nerdy netcode crap going on behind the scenes.

Considering multiplayer-centric games usually have a couple of programmers locked away in a cubicle trying to produce efficient netcode and multiplayer support I would assume Toady One would probably be limited in what he could do, or would have to redo the game from scratch considering the new variables, in which case it might not be the game he envisions because he might have to scale back some or cut some of his ideas because it might be too much for a multiplayer game to handle.

I dunno, I might be mistaken on all of that. I don't have much experience in programming. 

[Kilo24]

I, myself, have been curious if Toady will ever support multiplayer at least enough to make community worlds a bit easier.  Such as letting DF automatically grab files from a server to play a fortress or adventurer for a bit, then retire/abandon/save the game, return the files and let another player log in and have a go.  No simultaneous playing of the same world is going to suck a good bit of fun out of it (though it stops a load of developer agony), but it might be worth it later on when DF gets really deep.

I would imagine that it'd be possible to kludge together something similar without Toady's input, but also think that there might be a few simple things he could do to make it a lot easier.

But more on topic, Toady has repeatedly said that multiplayer is not a goal at this point and for a while.  I doubt that he'll ever do anything more than supporting community fortresses/worlds with it, if that.  There's just too much of a rewrite required of a lot of basic components.

[Phazorx]

Unfortunately, there's your answer for multiplayer support and features.

Of course, he might change his mind at some point; but he's made it pretty clear in various interviews that he's not really interested in that aspect. I was also under the impression that trying to slap on multiplayer support for a game that wasn't initially meant for multiplayer was suicide, mainly because you have to go about programming the game a bit differently since packets are being sent and there's server/client communication and all kinds of nerdy netcode crap going on behind the scenes.

client server communication layer is actually not a threat at all, it has been done many times and there are plenty of ready-to-use libraries (particularly these that are SDL friendly) that can be great help. Server side counterpart for a game like this is very trivial for gameplay (I seen simple broadcasting servers in wide variety of languages, starting from about 10 lines of PERL code I done myself) and only synchronization mechanism is something that can be more or less complex.
Main difference for MP games is in what information game client show to the player - it is based on what server relayed back as "visible", so it is action->server->screen rather than action->screen as it is done in SP. Most important task of separating "viewpoint display" and "control mechanism" is already done since the current DF gameplay enforces indirect control, where action of units are based on commands issued by player rather than direct reactions to keypresses and mouse movements.
Also worth mentioning that all this relates only to "Combat" idea, while rest of concepts i mentioned are even less demanding.

Considering multiplayer-centric games usually have a couple of programmers locked away in a cubicle trying to produce efficient netcode and multiplayer support I would assume Toady One would probably be limited in what he could do, or would have to redo the game from scratch considering the new variables, in which case it might not be the game he envisions because he might have to scale back some or cut some of his ideas because it might be too much for a multiplayer game to handle.

I dunno, I might be mistaken on all of that. I don't have much experience in programming. 

Not quite true, it really depends on nature of the game for starters, if considering combat part again: Conceptually, in 100% predetermined game (as in if you start from same data and have same input - you get to exactly same state after same amount of time) and in the gameplay as was described - there is no "server" essentially, all clients run parallel and broadcasting server only routes actions of all the players to everyone (at same time controlling sequencing). Different approach is need for finding available players and picking/generating battlezone but that has little to do with actual multiplayer experience and can be achieved by oher means starting from IRC based game lobby (simpliest case of that fo games converted from SP to MP goes back to Unreal Tournamnet for example).

Other MMO-esque ventures i mentioned aside of "communication" are not really "multiplayer" per say and based on same technologies as this forum run on for example, where one particular client talks to server side, ignoring all other clients doing same thing. Again I recommend using pre-existing solutions for client side expansion (like finding some HTTP over TCP and IRC opensource client libraries) and shifting all possible work to server side implementation which can be done totaly independent from single player DF development. t pretty much comes down to extending GUI to be aware of these things.

Obviously i cut corners and oversimplify proper solution, but it is no way near as scary as you might think...

[Grendus]

The integrated chat, while it would be tricky and hazardous (imagine the litigation nightmare if a pedophile met his/her victims through DF), isn't such a bad suggestion. DF has an IRC channel, of course, but it's not easy to find and requires a separate piece of software. Some form of in-game communication might be something to look into.

Multi-user worlds I disapprove of though. Probably as much as 75% of the player base plays worlds that are modified in some way from basic economic stone mods to immersion mods, and any form of central control over the games would either require standardizing everything about the game (making the code unmodable) or would require intensive checks to make sure that nobody in a particular world is cheating (which would require non-standard code, or else you'll see invasions of Uris McVagina wielding steel dick spears). Some of your suggestions about DF PvE challenges aren't bad, but they're more scripted than Toady wants the game to be, and would cause internal strife. "Well, we whipped the demon lord. DIBS ON THE ADMANTINESONG!" "No way man, my legendary speardwarf has higher dps than your crappy marksdwarves, I should get the artifact" "STFU! I have higher DKP!" "WTF is a DKP? It's MINE!!!"

More well thought out than most MMODF threads, but I have to say that a DF MMO will not happen for a long time, if ever. MMO's are time consuming, resource consuming, and require constant fixing. Couple that with the need for dev sponsored content since player mods can't be used in MMO worlds and you're massively expanding the work that needs to be done for very little reward.

[Vester]

Also consider the fact that DF is currently murder on the processor.

[Phazorx]

The integrated chat, while it would be tricky and hazardous (imagine the litigation nightmare if a pedophile met his/her victims through DF), isn't such a bad suggestion. DF has an IRC channel, of course, but it's not easy to find and requires a separate piece of software. Some form of in-game communication might be something to look into.

I have to presume you are jocking here, last tme i checked DF does not have any ESRB rating, so assuming it is  "T" is quite a strech... Also, neither game itself nor any media/technology can be considered as a substantial threat in a legal sense, otherwise sending an email with DF screenshot or a link to the b12 site along with some "how to make a nuke grenade out of peanut butter can" information can do just as much damage and would deem poor dorfs guilty of worldwide conspiracy and being the source of international terrorism.

Multi-user worlds I disapprove of though. Probably as much as 75% of the player base plays worlds that are modified in some way from basic economic stone mods to immersion mods, and any form of central control over the games would either require standardizing everything about the game (making the code unmodable) or would require intensive checks to make sure that nobody in a particular world is cheating (which would require non-standard code, or else you'll see invasions of Uris McVagina wielding steel dick spears). Some of your suggestions about DF PvE challenges aren't bad, but they're more scripted than Toady wants the game to be, and would cause internal strife. "Well, we whipped the demon lord. DIBS ON THE ADMANTINESONG!" "No way man, my legendary speardwarf has higher dps than your crappy marksdwarves, I should get the artifact" "STFU! I have higher DKP!" "WTF is a DKP? It's MINE!!!"

Well... on the first point - I don't think there is any need to limit MP world to just single SP map, nothing stops it from being based on a few stitched together only via economy/trade component completely different in many ways maps. also possibly started at different times. Having different races, items, geology, fauna - would not even hurt much PvE combat if some precautions are taken at world generation/customization stage, while nature of open-market concept is meant to be self regulating. It also matters very little on whether or not you play with or w/o tile sets or what is your screen resolution. I reckon that some of modded in functionality that drastically changes the game will have to stay off the MU part, but that i'd consider acceptable casualty in the light of possibility to greatly extend and tighten game community, yet at same time no one stops anyone from still playing same mods offline as it was done before. Things i suggest are meant as extension to functionality and are not replacing any existing one.

As far as claiming war prizes goes - that I have not touched at all, and you are going same route as many other MMOs went and failed. Perhaps there is no loot to be found after battle at all, and i can give you 10 perfectly good explanations why macedwarf will not carry back to his humble abode desecrated golden statue of goblin god and why some puny victory trophy in King's room as well as experience/wounds gained by dwarfs game-wise will be a far better reward than a bunch of gold bars (and if you feel different - just don't go to war when the messengers come?). It is also possible to consider a war party expenses as an investment into region safety and get rewards on safer caravans' passage and migrants travel.

More well thought out than most MMODF threads, but I have to say that a DF MMO will not happen for a long time, if ever. MMO's are time consuming, resource consuming, and require constant fixing. Couple that with the need for dev sponsored content since player mods can't be used in MMO worlds and you're massively expanding the work that needs to be done for very little reward.

I think you are making another, also very common, mistake here based on imagined need to bunch together all possibly related projects and their issues together alone with DF as it is now and throw it on poor Toady's plate. What is really required from Toady, granted there is support from the community, is to provide facilities to make these things possible within game code. It i not necessary for same person be responsible for all the angles, however some collaboration is obviously necessary. It would be nice if the venture all together would stay under same B12 umbrella but even that is not demanded. Maintenance and development of 3rd party software/tools required for powering and extending MU aspects can and should be taken by these who are willing and able to do so.
Think about 3d visualization tools or various mods available now... or even OpenGL renderer optimization, they are done by different people, who are more keen on doing these things since they have relevant background and desire to use it in benefit of the game. Based on what I heard from on DF talks - there is really no opposition to these things from core developer(s) as well as no involvement in it... based simply on lack of interest, which i totally understand.

Also consider the fact that DF is currently murder on the processor.

That is not really a factor here, requirements for DF chat will not go beyond DF + IRC client obviously and occasional checks/status updates when game is paused (caravans?) are really not stressing anything. Nothing what i mentioned so far will impose any additional requirements when compared to DF-SP experience.

[Grendus]

The integrated chat, while it would be tricky and hazardous (imagine the litigation nightmare if a pedophile met his/her victims through DF), isn't such a bad suggestion. DF has an IRC channel, of course, but it's not easy to find and requires a separate piece of software. Some form of in-game communication might be something to look into.

I have to presume you are jocking here, last tme i checked DF does not have any ESRB rating, so assuming it is  "T" is quite a strech... Also, neither game itself nor any media/technology can be considered as a substantial threat in a legal sense, otherwise sending an email with DF screenshot or a link to the b12 site along with some "how to make a nuke grenade out of peanut butter can" information can do just as much damage and would deem poor dorfs guilty of worldwide conspiracy and being the source of international terrorism.

Generally speaking, any game that allows in game communication between players in rated 'T', and with the level of violence in the game DF seems like a very solid 'T' rated game to me. How many 'E' rated games do you know where you can beat a family to death with their child's arm? The only think that keeps it from being 'M' is the lack of graphics.

As for my comment about litigation, I agree that that was the wrong word, however it still is a pain in the ass when a game is held liable for something like that. Parents are irrational and will take it out on Toady, contributing to both burnout and giving the game negative press. Corporations are occasionally sued for these things (such as the ever-present lawsuits over people who get addicted to MMO's), which even if they are dropped or the corporation won are still expensive. Toady lives on donations, he really can't afford a hefty legal battle.

Multi-user worlds I disapprove of though. Probably as much as 75% of the player base plays worlds that are modified in some way from basic economic stone mods to immersion mods, and any form of central control over the games would either require standardizing everything about the game (making the code unmodable) or would require intensive checks to make sure that nobody in a particular world is cheating (which would require non-standard code, or else you'll see invasions of Uris McVagina wielding steel dick spears). Some of your suggestions about DF PvE challenges aren't bad, but they're more scripted than Toady wants the game to be, and would cause internal strife. "Well, we whipped the demon lord. DIBS ON THE ADMANTINESONG!" "No way man, my legendary speardwarf has higher dps than your crappy marksdwarves, I should get the artifact" "STFU! I have higher DKP!" "WTF is a DKP? It's MINE!!!"

Well... on the first point - I don't think there is any need to limit MP world to just single SP map, nothing stops it from being based on a few stitched together only via economy/trade component completely different in many ways maps. also possibly started at different times. Having different races, items, geology, fauna - would not even hurt much PvE combat if some precautions are taken at world generation/customization stage, while nature of open-market concept is meant to be self regulating. It also matters very little on whether or not you play with or w/o tile sets or what is your screen resolution. I reckon that some of modded in functionality that drastically changes the game will have to stay off the MU part, but that i'd consider acceptable casualty in the light of possibility to greatly extend and tighten game community, yet at same time no one stops anyone from still playing same mods offline as it was done before. Things i suggest are meant as extension to functionality and are not replacing any existing one.

As far as claiming war prizes goes - that I have not touched at all, and you are going same route as many other MMOs went and failed. Perhaps there is no loot to be found after battle at all, and i can give you 10 perfectly good explanations why macedwarf will not carry back to his humble abode desecrated golden statue of goblin god and why some puny victory trophy in King's room as well as experience/wounds gained by dwarfs game-wise will be a far better reward than a bunch of gold bars (and if you feel different - just don't go to war when the messengers come?). It is also possible to consider a war party expenses as an investment into region safety and get rewards on safer caravans' passage and migrants travel.

As for your first comment, you're obviously not a modder. The game can't handle any object it doesn't have raws for, if I'm playing the dig deeper mod and try to trade a blackmetal chestplate to a player who is running vanilla, his version of DF won't know what to do as neither blackmetal nor chestplates are in the vanilla raws. It works the other way around as well, if I'm playing the dark dwarves mod, I don't have the raws for a puzzle box (dark dwarf children play with torture kits). Every player must be playing the same version of the game, otherwise any interaction beyond basic chatting will raise the likelyhood of bugs. The only way to ensure this is to use a Warden type program that checks every single entry in the raws to make sure they match the version used on the server.

As for your second assertion, what are you smoking? Why would a macedwarf care about hauling some golden statue of a goblin god back to his mountain? To melt it down and make a statue of his carp god, of course! That's the spoils of war, that's half the reason to go to war. And you mentioned artifacts yourself, players will want a civ's artifacts if they are given the option. Who wouldn't want a goblin kings jewel encrusted bed to keep their rare copper baron happy? Wealth is one of the most common reasons to go to war: wealth, revenge, and power; and of the three wealth lets you buy revenge and power.


Look, I recognize that a lot of players want an MMO DF, and I recognize that you're trying to work out a way to do this without causing problems for Toady or the community. While an in-game IRC chat might be a good idea (you misread me on that, I think it's something to consider), an MMO DF would be a ton of work and even if it was handled entirely by the players it would increase the work on Toady's plate if by nothing less than forcing him to try to make the game more easily multiplayer. I'm against this.

[Granite26]

ratings are still completely voluntary, aren't they?  I mean, the only reason to rate your game is so Walmart and Game Stop will sell it.

Who cares?

[Neonivek]

ratings are still completely voluntary, aren't they?  I mean, the only reason to rate your game is so Walmart and Game Stop will sell it.

Who cares?

Rating are for people too lazy to read a review.

Ratings are also for people too lazy to write a proper review.

[Starver]

I think the multiplayer system comes up against the barrier of the 'ticks' for each player going at different speeds.

Imagine two players meeting under adventure mode, as it currently works.  It would have to revamped so that there's a 'realtime' aspect, rather than wait for Player A's movement and Player B's movement (assuming the same amount of 'subticks' per movement, which is not guaranteed).

And under Fortress mode though nominally 'realtime', what happens when Player A advances upon Player-B's fortress and one or other player does a 'k'-examination of the scene?  Does the game pause for the other as well?  And even if there's no direct PvP interaction (which would involve anything, not restricted to hostile actions), the suggestion that one player's trading produces effects in another player's falls down if one player is

It would have to be a persistent world, as mentioned, and it would have to have a background time, and no longer would you have the same leisure to drill down menus of units, military hierarchies, stock lists, etc (never mind the processor timelag inherant to some stages) knowing that you're not being interupted by something[1], or Hoards Of The Things will have marched up to your walls while you were busy unforbidding certain types of dumped stones.


Sorry, need to rush off, so can't tidy this up to prevent repetition and avoid tl;dr syndrome.

[1] Actually, you do get interupted by some events, I find.  I can only imagine that they were initiated at the very tick one effectively paused the situation but needed a little more uninterupted time in their own process thread to work out what it was that occured.

[durt101]

Hahaha no.
That's all I have to say.

[Craftling]

And under Fortress mode though nominally 'realtime', what happens when Player A advances upon Player-B's fortress and one or other player does a 'k'-examination of the scene?  Does the game pause for the other as well?  And even if there's no direct PvP interaction (which would involve anything, not restricted to hostile actions), the suggestion that one player's trading produces effects in another player's falls down if one player is

Simple. Have no pause menus when another player is at your fortress. You can still access everything except nothing pauses.