Print

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

[Xeirxes]

I was thinking it'd be neat if eventually, players were able to set up worlds online. I'm not sure how the network layout would work, perhaps it would require a dedicated server, perhaps it wouldn't. The point would be that once a player chooses a location on the world, nobody else is allowed to use that location. They are able to play through/save in that location until their settlement is lost one way or another. At this point, any player may reclaim the settlement, but it would also be open for adventurers.

The reason I feel that this would be a worthwhile addition is that it would be exciting to explore a brand new fortress that you hadn't designed at all. It would bring a little bit more depth to the adventurer mode, and possibly the reclaim mode (if, in the future, "fog of war" was turned on in reclaim mode).

[Chthon]

I've been thinking of something we can do already on these lines.  Have a world save forum, where we can trade a world we are done with such that someone else can move in and continue themselves in that world.

What would also be interesting is having abandoned fortresses slowly fall into disrepair, having cave-ins and such as local denizens slowly wear the place down and there are no dwarves to keep things going.  This way if years later someone comes along and tries to reclaim a really old fort, he may find a room here, or a few items there, but for the most part it'd be him starting over.

[Gaulgath]

I can only imagine how complicated this could be, 'specially with a game like Dwarf Fortress.  Anything is possible, however...

[Xeirxes]

I suppose the world forum would be a good way of doing it. Perhaps we could make it so that when a person downloads it, the world is "unavailable" so that there doesn't end up being branched out worlds. But either way, I think that the possibility of exploring someone else's creation and building my own part onto it would be really, really fun.

[Fieari]

This would make DF the worlds second MSOG, after Spore.  It would be pretty cool.

[Erasmus Darwin]

What I would love to see would be cooperative multiplayer.  Since players mainly just designate things rather than directly controlling dwarves, I think it would work pretty well.  The issues that would need to be resolved:
- Networking code
- Allowing the game to run while players are in menus (which would be a nice single-player feature too -- time passes slow enough without everything being autopaused because I want to specify some more mining operations)
- Handling conflicts relating to non-pausing and networks, such as rocks being claimed for something else while a player's trying to select the material for building a workshop or a player selecting a rock that (due to network latency) was already selected by someone else
- Some sort of messaging scheme (though people could always just fall back on IRC or Teamspeak)

I wouldn't say implementing multiplayer coop would be trivial, but it does seem that DF's design makes it easier.

[Gaulgath]

Of course, you could be co-oping with a total jerk who permafloods your fort.   :p

[Erasmus Darwin]

quote:Originally posted by Gaulgath:
<STRONG>Of course, you could be co-oping with a total jerk who permafloods your fort.    :p</STRONG>

Yeah, that would be an issue.  I suppose you could use a combination of setting a password for the server and using the honor system.  It's not perfect, but I still think it would be fun.

[Xeirxes]

eh, I dunno, co-op multiplayer seems a bit overkill; maybe it'd be better to have armies multiplayer, so that you and another player could co-operatively attack other players or something, but having two people trying to build a single fort? It'd kind of be like, who's running this joint?

Besides that, I suspect that later code will enhance the player's ability to macromanage things, so that as the game progresses, they may eventually be able to order certain ore to be dug or something. In this case I see no real purpose for having two players co-operate on one fort. However, having another player's army attack your fort, and beating their army, would be EXTREMELY fun. I could see a lot of potential for diplomatic maneuvers in this game as well.

[JT]

Heh.  I'm so used to seeing "micromanage" that when I saw "macromanage" I had to do a triple take.

I was thinking about making a CGI program that'd allow people to register with a free login and password and then upload worlds to the site.  Anyone with a login could then mark a world as "claimed" and would then download that world.  They would play a fortress until everyone dies or they abandon, or could play an adventurer until the adventurer dies or retires.  Once they've finished, they re-upload the world and the world stops being "claimed", so someone else can claim it.

Aside from enforcing a "one-claim-per-login" system to prevent people from hoarding worlds, it'd still need a major honour system, which is why it's not totally feasible given the tribulations of people on the blagoweb.

[edit]Actually, giving this some thought, perhaps one could just impose a 14-day maximum on any claim.  If they fail to upload a finished version of the world within that time, they lose the claim and someone can download the original version of the claim.

There's still the matter of verifying that the uploaded claim contains a valid fortress, however.

[ March 25, 2007: Message edited by: JT ]

[axus]

You can try one of the "bloodline" games if you want to explore other people's forts:
http://dwarf.lendemaindeveille.com/index.php/Bloodline_Games

I'd like multiplayer also, but I don't think Toady could hack it in a reasonable amount of time.  Changing to a client/server setup would be good for the game long term, because people could run the client on slower computers and connect to fast servers.  After we get a lot of cool stuff in the todo list, it would be nice to get  

[flap]

Interesting Ideas...

Indeed I feel that a server for that would be usefull.

However, with the idea of "Claimed" world, I am affraid that they might simply get lost : I clain one. Forget to play during a bit of time, and simply forget that I have it.

A,d yes indeed, that's what is already on the wiki (but not bloodline specific yet)

[JT]

quote:Originally posted by flap:
<STRONG>However, with the idea of "Claimed" world, I am affraid that they might simply get lost : I clain one. Forget to play during a bit of time, and simply forget that I have it.</STRONG>

@flap: As I wrote, they'd lose the claim status and the original version would be marked as downloadable from the website again if they didn't upload the claim within fourteen days.

It only deletes the old claim once the completed claim is re-uploaded and verified to be valid (however that validation could take place... so far, I have no idea, which is why this idea isn't feasible yet).

@axus: Bloodline games aren't quite the same, at least in the sense that they're collaborative forts which you play for only a short period.  In the Eternal World sense, the forts all rise and fall within the claim period, so that when you get the claim, you get a world with no in-progress fortresses; you can start a new fortress from scratch or decide to go adventuring, and at the end of the claim period, you abandon the fortress or retire your adventurer and upload the new world.

[flap]

quote:Originally posted by JT:
<STRONG>

so far, I have no idea, which is why this idea isn't feasible yet.
</STRONG>

Nothing really. Just someone to set a nicely organised and straightforward site. That would probably require a little bit of .php knowledge, and depending on it is executed from 1 day to a few weeks of work...

Aaah ! Time ! One of the main ressource in the world...

[schnobs]

quote:Originally posted by JT:
<STRONG>
It only deletes the old claim once the completed claim is re-uploaded and verified to be valid (however that validation could take place... so far, I have no idea</STRONG>

Simple. The server does keep backups; the validation is, in effect, done by the player who comes next to the world. If he finds something horribly amiss, he reports this. The current version will then be discarded and the backup made available.

This alone should go a long way; it's no absolute protection, of course, but might well suffice. One can still devise more sophisticated schemes if they turn out to be necessary.