Print

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

[sobriquet]

Castration.  We need castration. 

[Greendogo]

I think the problem with sieges vs enemy constructions would be easily solved if you could control your troops as if they were regular dwarves too.  So you would be able to get to your opponent's land and start by building stairs over his walls and whatnot.  Anything not built by your dwarves would take extra long to take down, so your opponent's carefully constructed wall will at least serve the purpose of giving him time to prepare for your assault.

It would also be neat to have two people on one map (local map, not world map), and they start off in opposite corners.  You could reduce the complexity of the world space to remove hell and remove half or more of the Z-Levels.  Reduce the water and lava physics complexity.  Basically up the frame rate enough that you could have the simultaneous building of two forts on the same local map.  Orcs/Goblins vs Dwarves!  I think it sounds like a great RTS!

[tps12]

You could reduce the complexity of the world space

Not that it necessarily wouldn't make a great game, but this in itself is antithetical to Dwarf Fortress.

[Demicus]

I think the problem with sieges vs enemy constructions would be easily solved if you could control your troops as if they were regular dwarves too.  So you would be able to get to your opponent's land and start by building stairs over his walls and whatnot.  Anything not built by your dwarves would take extra long to take down, so your opponent's carefully constructed wall will at least serve the purpose of giving him time to prepare for your assault.

It would also be neat to have two people on one map (local map, not world map), and they start off in opposite corners.  You could reduce the complexity of the world space to remove hell and remove half or more of the Z-Levels.  Reduce the water and lava physics complexity.  Basically up the frame rate enough that you could have the simultaneous building of two forts on the same local map.  Orcs/Goblins vs Dwarves!  I think it sounds like a great RTS!

Still have issues with synchronization. Simultaneous play in Dwarf Fortress doesn't not work. What happens if your opponent pauses? What happens if you pause? Some people have commented on removing the pause ability, but that sounds like a nightmare honestly, as unless your fortress in lagging to low FPS, things can happen to quickly for a player to effectively respond. And you still would have synch issues. How do you handle latency? Take this scenario: Defending player (DP) has a long hallway the leads into the fortress that is protected by a Dwarven Atomsmasher(DAS). Atacking Player (AP) has a squad of axedwarves. AP sends the squad into the hall and DP designates the lever to trigger the DAS to be pulled. Before the lever is pulled, AP notices the obvious DAS and orders his squad to retreat. This is where the latency comes into play. AP had reacted fast enough to noticing the DAS that his squad cleared the hall before the DAS slammed down from his view. But in DP's game, the DAS smashed most, if not all of AP's squad. Then you have a discrepancy between the two instances, which is bad.When the instances re-sync, does AP's dwarves live, or die?

[norent]

Personally, I don't need sieges and PVP and all that. I'd just like the ability to get into a game with a friend and have both of us be in total control of the fortress. The game works exactly like it does now, except the game accepts input from two users instead of one. It wouldn't work that will with someone you don't know, but I could see it working out great with someone you do know.

This would probably be the change with the least work and would sure make teaching people how to play so much simpler.
Edit: Clarity

[Red Cossack]

If anyone has played AI wars, I like their model where its multiplayer, but you're always on the same side versus the AI. 

[timco35]

If anyone has played AI wars, I like their model where its multiplayer, but you're always on the same side versus the AI.

I was thinking along the same lines.  There would still be much that could be done together cooperatively with what's planned for the game.  And the timing is less an issue than most people think.  At game set up the rules could include options to choose either free pausing for both players, timed and limited pausing, or rough it out with no pausing.  The whole point of playing with someone would add to the fun even if it is indirectly.  Still, I agree that even this mode is quite a ways off. 

[Greep]

If it is going to have some form of multiplayer, whatever limited, it'd really have to be after diplomacy/army arc since that would lay the grounds for it.  So we're talking like a decade probably (If DF is still around by then).

Edit:  But I honestly can't see df designed for MP.  How would you siege a fort?  You'd just end up as lots and lots of caged dwarves.  Trade would consist almost entirely of artifacts, flux, and adamantine which would get silly fast. 

[Qinetix]

Ahh two fortress to peacefull prosper via trading , sieges , cooperating , competitioning , defending themselves from other sieges and seting free some unforseen fun

[Greep]

Personally I'm wondering how trade will work in single player when you have multiple forts.  I bet someone's going to make an entire fortress smoothed with adamantine just because they can.  Every defender in the military will have an artifact adamantine axe, thrown in with some silver hammer artifacts. a 10x10 room will have a value of over 10,000,000 from adamantine/diamond furnishings.