Print

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

[Nighthawk]

Why are people still making topics about this?

Sure, it'd be neat to have multiplayer in Dwarf Fortress. It'd be also neat if magical space unicorns floated down to earth and cured all diseases.

It'd be twice the fun if you could KILL magical space unicorns in Dwarf Fortress....

I think the best way to set up multiplayer would be to have one fortress overseer who commands all the other players online, and they carry out separate jobs. It may be kind of boring if you're a miner, but hey, I heard pickaxes are pretty deadly if you want to try combat for a change.

[slothen]

Why are people still making topics about this?

Sure, it'd be neat to have multiplayer in Dwarf Fortress. It'd be also neat if magical space unicorns floated down to earth and cured all diseases.

pretty much this exactly.

[AngleWyrm]

DF is a single. player. game.
If you need to be in a social situation in order to play, then load up xfire and/or VOIP, and chat to your heart's content.

[TigerPlushie]

Hmh... Actually, I don't have trouble seeing it happen. IF done in a easily implementable way.

Hot-seat is clearly out of the way and even real-time gaming on two fortresses is a definite no. The processor power and amount of data that are necessary to transmit would be way too much.

What I DO see is an asynchronous social linking system. Or to put it into less pretentiously intelligent words: People play their own fortresses but can interact with each other in some fashion. Like, you got a friend who plays DF too, link your game up with his and interact with him indirectly. Here are a few possibilities:

Caravans - Select a few goods, either for open trade or with demans for specific other goods, built a wagon, assign trader dwarves and send the caravan away. The other player will soon receive the caravan and may trade with.

Passive sieges - Assign military dwarves to a task force, select the player and send them away to wreak havoc on him. If they've arrived it's already too late for him to disconnect the game!

Support - Got a siege coming in? Ask a player to send reinforcements.

Things like that. The only real problem I see is DFs moddability. Any given mod that'd differ the player's client from another client would completely screw up the game.


Naturally, DF DOES have more pressing issues now :V

[Demicus]

Hmh... Actually, I don't have trouble seeing it happen. IF done in a easily implementable way.

Hot-seat is clearly out of the way and even real-time gaming on two fortresses is a definite no. The processor power and amount of data that are necessary to transmit would be way too much.

What I DO see is an asynchronous social linking system. Or to put it into less pretentiously intelligent words: People play their own fortresses but can interact with each other in some fashion. Like, you got a friend who plays DF too, link your game up with his and interact with him indirectly. Here are a few possibilities:

Caravans - Select a few goods, either for open trade or with demans for specific other goods, built a wagon, assign trader dwarves and send the caravan away. The other player will soon receive the caravan and may trade with.

Passive sieges - Assign military dwarves to a task force, select the player and send them away to wreak havoc on him. If they've arrived it's already too late for him to disconnect the game!

Support - Got a siege coming in? Ask a player to send reinforcements.

Things like that. The only real problem I see is DFs moddability. Any given mod that'd differ the player's client from another client would completely screw up the game.


Naturally, DF DOES have more pressing issues now :V

^^ This
Pretty much the only feasible way to do multiplayer in Dwarf Fortress, though as stated there are MANY more pressing issues and the stuff to pull this off isn't even in game yet so...yeah.
On a side note, problems with mod incompatibility could be solved by having a couple generic default materials hardcoded in the game. If you send a bunch of swordsdwarfs carrying *mithril swords*, but the guy you are sieging doesn't have mithril, then they arrive holding *metal swords*.

[Sandrew]

Hmh... Actually, I don't have trouble seeing it happen. IF done in a easily implementable way.

Hot-seat is clearly out of the way and even real-time gaming on two fortresses is a definite no. The processor power and amount of data that are necessary to transmit would be way too much.

What I DO see is an asynchronous social linking system. Or to put it into less pretentiously intelligent words: People play their own fortresses but can interact with each other in some fashion. Like, you got a friend who plays DF too, link your game up with his and interact with him indirectly. Here are a few possibilities:

Caravans - Select a few goods, either for open trade or with demans for specific other goods, built a wagon, assign trader dwarves and send the caravan away. The other player will soon receive the caravan and may trade with.

Passive sieges - Assign military dwarves to a task force, select the player and send them away to wreak havoc on him. If they've arrived it's already too late for him to disconnect the game!

Support - Got a siege coming in? Ask a player to send reinforcements.

Things like that. The only real problem I see is DFs moddability. Any given mod that'd differ the player's client from another client would completely screw up the game.


Naturally, DF DOES have more pressing issues now :V

But how do you synchronize fortress years. I mean, it is all fine and dandy sending out a caravan from Fort X in the early spring of 254, but having said convoy arriving at Fort Y in the late autumn of 251 might sort of kill the continuity as both fortresses would be required to be built in the same world.

[tps12]

Is it me or would playing a fortress type mode with other people sound so fun , Each player would need to fill a role and do tasks like normal dwarfs, Host would control a dwarf and other fortress things like a leader, Players 2 could be a miner so on .

Sucks for the poor schmuck whose job is to churn out a neverending stream of stone mugs.

[Nighthawk]

Is it me or would playing a fortress type mode with other people sound so fun , Each player would need to fill a role and do tasks like normal dwarfs, Host would control a dwarf and other fortress things like a leader, Players 2 could be a miner so on .

Sucks for the poor schmuck whose job is to churn out a neverending stream of stone mugs.

I feel even more sorry for the miner whose job was to dig to Hell....

[ZachUSAman]

I would personally like it where you could at least trade with others and perhaps siege others as well.

[Tuxman]

How about a multiplayer variant that doesn't involve fortress building. Perhaps like the testing arena. Each player has the ability to spawn stuff in, and watch their stuff fight each other.

This could work with a dual-interface, and nothing more. Two people interfacing with the item testing arena. They could spawn in people and such to fight each other.

After that, changing the arena to be in a suitable layout for multiplayer would be a snap. Add limits to what each person can spawn and where they can spawn it, then watch them make small wars.

[Javarock]

How about a multiplayer variant that doesn't involve fortress building. Perhaps like the testing arena. Each player has the ability to spawn stuff in, and watch their stuff fight each other.

This could work with a dual-interface, and nothing more. Two people interfacing with the item testing arena. They could spawn in people and such to fight each other.

After that, changing the arena to be in a suitable layout for multiplayer would be a snap. Add limits to what each person can spawn and where they can spawn it, then watch them make small wars.

You would have to limit the abilty to make Adimiat (spelling?)
Or perhaps when your unit get another unit you get money, And can buy Armor and stat points in adition to weapons with it...

[DS]

But what if one person were to pause? fortress mode would not work in realtime, maybe turnbased with action and pauses.

Actually, this could be solved by removing pausing altogether (thus making all menus real-time, like the (S)quad menu is now). Additionally, if playing a game on a private server, you could have some arrangement for pausing or saving a game when both players agree to it.

[katana]

There could be problems with the combat, the AI is stupid.

How will your 50 axe lords beat a lava sea or a walled in fort?

Either a lot of AI would be needed, or you'd have to control a bit in sieges.

That, or you never siege because a single wall keeps everything out.

[NSQuote]

I could see online multiplayer working for Adventure mode, with mmorpg style servers and everyone taking control of one dwarf/human/elf. If it gets a large enough fanbase I could see it as a nice draw for a game.

However, I don't see fortress mode working for multiplayer. Unless it was one person per fort, but even then it'd be almsot impossible to "win": two drawbridges makes an effective stalemate.

[Demicus]

Hmh... Actually, I don't have trouble seeing it happen. IF done in a easily implementable way.

Hot-seat is clearly out of the way and even real-time gaming on two fortresses is a definite no. The processor power and amount of data that are necessary to transmit would be way too much.

What I DO see is an asynchronous social linking system. Or to put it into less pretentiously intelligent words: People play their own fortresses but can interact with each other in some fashion. Like, you got a friend who plays DF too, link your game up with his and interact with him indirectly. Here are a few possibilities:

Caravans - Select a few goods, either for open trade or with demans for specific other goods, built a wagon, assign trader dwarves and send the caravan away. The other player will soon receive the caravan and may trade with.

Passive sieges - Assign military dwarves to a task force, select the player and send them away to wreak havoc on him. If they've arrived it's already too late for him to disconnect the game!

Support - Got a siege coming in? Ask a player to send reinforcements.

Things like that. The only real problem I see is DFs moddability. Any given mod that'd differ the player's client from another client would completely screw up the game.


Naturally, DF DOES have more pressing issues now :V

But how do you synchronize fortress years. I mean, it is all fine and dandy sending out a caravan from Fort X in the early spring of 254, but having said convoy arriving at Fort Y in the late autumn of 251 might sort of kill the continuity as both fortresses would be required to be built in the same world.

True. Though the way to solve that is to have the forts be on separate worlds and have some kind of gate/portal/negative space wedgie to travel between the worlds.

There could be problems with the combat, the AI is stupid.

How will your 50 axe lords beat a lava sea or a walled in fort?

Either a lot of AI would be needed, or you'd have to control a bit in sieges.

That, or you never siege because a single wall keeps everything out.

Siege AI would need work, and maybe better siege mechanics, like a siege tower or digging. And if we have full vehicles, then there would be potential of a massive iron monstrosity that your dwarves could ride in till it could path no more, or something like that. For internal drowning/lava/weapon/etc traps, well that would be a bit more complex in figuring out how to defeat for the AI. Also, ideally, not all multiplayer interactions would be siege. There could also be trade, which would provide some incentive to allowing players to be able to interact, especially in up coming versions, where resources will be more scarce. Could also have a setting when you dispatch your army if you decide to siege. Bloodbath rush, or 'starve' them out. First option does like a goblin siege. Second option, the dwarves sit on the edge of the map unless something gets too close or a caravan or migrants arrive. If resources are more scarce, then trade becomes more important. Sure, most likely a dwarven fortress will be entirely self sufficent food wise, but other resources, such as those needed to fullfill mandates, complete artifacts, and several other things that if ignored could hasten the infamous tantrum spiral. Heck, could even have it to where as long as another player's army is sieging the fortress, all dwarves get an unhappy thought, to discourage turtling against players.

Edit: Had forgotten to respond to some of the posts here.