Multiplayer

[GInjiTheFox]

What if they added some sort of multiplayer feature where you had both players controlling the dupes or each player controlling half I don’t know if this is a good idea but I think it could be fun 

[Glassyfo]

2 hours ago, GInjiTheFox said:

What if they added some sort of multiplayer feature where you had both players controlling the dupes or each player controlling half I don’t know if this is a good idea but I think it could be fun 

They should finish the normal game first before they put any thought into multi.

[Neotuck]

I don't see multiplayer working well for this game, best to keep it single player

[lilibat]

No thank you.

[gbudiman]

How about no?

I, and many other veteran players who have been playing since 2017, would prefer Klei to polish and finish the single-player experience rather than branching into the unknown territory.

[Cypher-7]

So me and a friend have played before where we both start on the same seed chosen at random, then we take the first set of dupes. After that you have to play on max speed with no pauses, you have to take 1 dupe every 3 cycles until one of you dies. Not really multiplayer but it’s fun.

[Yunru]

So now they're spilling over from the suggestion forum?

Eurgh.

Go read the suggestion forum. Literally every iteration of "It should have multiplayer" has been done there.

[SharraShimada]

Multiplayer: No, will not happen. Its not a MP concept at all. 

[Gurgel]

11 hours ago, GInjiTheFox said:

What if they added some sort of multiplayer feature where you had both players controlling the dupes or each player controlling half I don’t know if this is a good idea but I think it could be fun 

With the current prio system (which may be the best possible one, not very good as it is), I would expect a totally ridiculous catastrophe unless you separate the dupes.

I don't think we will see this though. Far too much effort to implement. Unless they did this secretly already, I would expect > 2 years to make that work well.

[ToiDiaeRaRIsuOy]

I would like very limited multiplayer connecitivity, but only things like "send rocket to a friend's colony with resources". So things that don't require things happening live on both computers.

[Neotuck]

5 minutes ago, ToiDiaeRaRIsuOy said:

I would like very limited multiplayer connecitivity, but only things like "send rocket to a friend's colony with resources". So things that don't require things happening live on both computers.

What you suggest might be the only way multiplayer can happen, have each colony separate but with open trade with other players and a chat system

But I have played games like that before and eventually chat gets filled with new players begging veterans for resources because they are too lazy to learn how to build a self substantiating colony on their own 

Even if we add a PvP option to send rockets to colonies to "raid" for supplies that will encourage more frustration as new players will get harassed by experienced players to the point of rage quit

Don't forget Klei is developing this game to make money and any multiplayer aspect will discourage players from buying the game.  Some might enjoy it but not enough to grantee a profit

[ToiDiaeRaRIsuOy]

1 hour ago, Neotuck said:

Don't forget Klei is developing this game to make money and any multiplayer aspect will discourage players from buying the game.  Some might enjoy it but not enough to grantee a profit

Although I firmly believe this isn't a game for multiplayer at all, I don't agree with the statement in a general sense. I don't think mutiplayer is none-profitable or discouraging. And neither does Klei, as clearly shown how they turned Don't Starve into Don't Starve Together.

Again, I don't see anything beneficial regarding full fletched multiplayer for ONI, some very light multiplayer elements in the line of what I proposed above at best and even then it's probably not worth to implement, but if the game mechanics are more build around multiplayer, a game can be perfectly that.

[Craigjw]

It really bugs me in multiplayer games when new players or experienced players starting a new character, when they ask or beg for resources/equipment.  Experienced players asking for resources/equipment is much more irritating than new players though.  My normal reaction is to tell them where they can go, using some expletives of course.

Although, saying this, if someone is friendly, competent and doesn't ask for anything,  I will usually ask them if they would like some resources/equipment that may help them to some small degree.

[Neotuck]

10 minutes ago, ToiDiaeRaRIsuOy said:

I don't think mutiplayer is none-profitable or discouraging. And neither does Klei, as clearly shown how they turned Don't Starve into Don't Starve Together.

You clearly misinterpreted what I said, I didn't say ALL multiplayer games is non-profit, only this type.

Don't Starve is a completely different type of game where it works

[ToiDiaeRaRIsuOy]

1 hour ago, Neotuck said:

You clearly misinterpreted what I said, I didn't say ALL multiplayer games is non-profit, only this type.

Don't Starve is a completely different type of game where it works

I didn't. I did made it clear I took it into a general sense and that I agree this game does not have good multiplier potential, simply because it is that specifically designed around the singleplayer, one player manipulating a simulation.

[GemeinerJack]

Okay, since it is getting popular right know: Rimworld got a coop Multiplayer mod where i think up to 8 guys control one base. I played it a bit with my sister and like one of the first things she wanted to do was taking some pawns and move away for a second colony and it basically became the "Phi mod" which allows trading between colonies.

I think, the same would happen in any attempt of multiplayer in ONI

one way i think multiplayer can work in ONI is something like the succesion style game of the great (at least in my opinion) Boatmurdered (even somebody without any dwarf fortress knowledge could get a lot of laughs out of the logs, i guess). To translate the rules more to an ONI style: Someone starts the game, plays the first x cycles, and regardles what happens, he saves and sends the savefile to the next overseer without any information what he did. The next one plays the same amount of cycles, saves and sends the savefile to the next one and so on.

If we could some guys which would write a nice log of what they did in the forums, maybe we could create some epic storys of Stinky, Bubbles and co, which runs from one apocalypse to the next one. Dupes die, dirt or algea runs out before a water based food or oxygen system was implented, maybe someone opened up an geyser and did not manage to seal it in insulated tiles, It could be nice and i think it would work better then a "real" coop experience.

Edit: And we wouldn't need any changes from the Devs for that, just some guys who want to do.

[Heinermann]

So for the people who are saying "no", and that it would discourage people from playing, etc and not adding anything to the discussion: How about you just don't play multiplayer mode?

Quote

But I have played games like that before and eventually chat gets filled with new players begging veterans for resources because they are too lazy to learn how to build a self substantiating colony on their own 

It seems people have a different idea of what their version of multiplayer might look like. I see a friends-only type of deal and never thought there would be any "begging" involved from random people you aren't friends with.

 

Will the devs add multiplayer? Probably not. Can someone hack their own multiplayer into the game? Definitely. Will it be fun? Nobody knows, everyone here just has their own opinion. Depends how it's accomplished and how much interactivity there is.

Under the current model, synchronous gameplay is infeasible if you want two people to be controlling the same game, which leaves the more easily attainable trading-with-friends, or "base visiting" styles of play. I can see something as complex as having visiting duplicants (that only interact with beds/washrooms/doors/etc set to "Visitor" and recreational structures) land or teleport to your rock for a short amount of time. Use your imagination.

EDIT: By complex I mean attainable by us, the community without direct developer intervention.

[cpy]

Here we go again!

Don't starve begged for multiplayer, this begs for scratching my head wondering why those people think MP would even be viable here?

No no no no! No MP!

[ToiDiaeRaRIsuOy]

3 hours ago, Heinermann said:

Will the devs add multiplayer? Probably not. Can someone hack their own multiplayer into the game? Definitely. Will it be fun? Nobody knows, everyone here just has their own opinion. Depends how it's accomplished and how much interactivity there is.

I certainly would not say definitely. It took modders 8 years after the release of Skyrim to implement multiplayer functionality.

For the record, for the people who want multiplayer, I have nothing against it. But honestly, there's little added value for this game to have multiplayer. So you can have friends send a rocket to visit your asteroid, which would result in duplicants having some sort of sleep over. The other player will not see that, only you. Tell me, what is the value of that contrary to having an AI coded that makes random visits to your asteroid and has dupes completely outside of your control having a sleep over? Knowing that it was your friend doing it, might be fun for the first few times, but it will get old really quick and really fast to the point nobody will bother with it.

[MorsDux]

4 hours ago, ToiDiaeRaRIsuOy said:

I certainly would not say definitely. It took modders 8 years after the release of Skyrim to implement multiplayer functionality.

For the record, for the people who want multiplayer, I have nothing against it. But honestly, there's little added value for this game to have multiplayer. So you can have friends send a rocket to visit your asteroid, which would result in duplicants having some sort of sleep over. The other player will not see that, only you. Tell me, what is the value of that contrary to having an AI coded that makes random visits to your asteroid and has dupes completely outside of your control having a sleep over? Knowing that it was your friend doing it, might be fun for the first few times, but it will get old really quick and really fast to the point nobody will bother with it.

Seconding that.

I would enjoy some multiplayer features (even the mostly useless ones) but not as much as if the same dev time went into other areas of gameplay.

One has to admit to mp fans that its not stupid to want these features. Lets admit that. Then argue the comparative benefits. Almost anything the devs touch come out finer than mp features would (with extra bugs). And they also need to watch return on investment. The game is becoming ready to finish. If they dont plan on adding dlc there will not be a reason to overdevelop the game. Its already capable of having a player spend hundreds of hours which is top 1%. 

[Gurgel]

9 hours ago, cpy said:

Here we go again!

Don't starve begged for multiplayer, this begs for scratching my head wondering why those people think MP would even be viable here?

No no no no! No MP!

About my thoughts also. 

[Tytan]

the only way I think of a multiplayer is as follows

Each one has his own planet and we can send the rocket to the planet of a friend, so that when the dupe arrives for it, it will be controlled by the friend (and somehow you could see it as dupe actions) in the your friend's planet it could be loaded with resources to which it would separate, and so could send the rocket back (having clear a special dock for visitors) and so you could send resources to each other at the most I see this interaction, not to mention that this type of interaction would not affect your single map at all since you could play normally

In addition to having a very large price for this interaction, because you would have to have access to rockets to be able to have this "multiplayer"

"and so it might make sense in lore, you send a rocket and find other planets with (human) lives and they could be ancient gravitas guinea pigs"

[cpy]

That's just stupid and pointless. There is no reasonable game mechanics that would benefit MP.

Just do ghetto multiplayer go to your friends house and take turns playing it. There multiplayer!

[Tytan]

I already did it xD

10 minutes ago, cpy said:

 go to your friends house and take turns playing it. There multiplayer!

 

[Heinermann]

On 27/01/2019 at 11:40 PM, ToiDiaeRaRIsuOy said:

I certainly would not say definitely. It took modders 8 years after the release of Skyrim to implement multiplayer functionality.

Skyrim is not a 2-dimensional sandbox, and wouldn't work if that gameplay wasn't synchronized. It also depends what type of multiplayer or "multiplayer" you're going for.

 

1 hour ago, cpy said:

That's just stupid and pointless. There is no reasonable game mechanics that would benefit MP.

I'm sure people who are interested in some type of multiplayer respect your very insightful opinion of "that's stupid and pointless".

 

It would be cool to brainstorm some more alternative multiplayer ideas, don't take any of these at face value.

Maybe some kind of side-by-side model where there's a bottleneck (just to avoid cross-simulation bandwidth issues), and anything leaving your simulation grid enters your partner's simulation grid and vice versa. This way you can simulate playing together but still ignore the issue of needing to synchronize the full simulation. Though that may become too complicated when it comes to conveyors and pipes, however you could have some hardcoded inputs and outputs.

I think the swapping bases idea above is good and could probably be done pretty easily. Instead of manually sending your save files, program that ability into a mod (after X cycles, save the game, and rotate it with any number of players, load, repeat) so that it's a more seamless experience.

A Twitch integration (different type of multiplayer experience) could be interesting.