Multiplayer oxygen not included

[metallichydra]

55 minutes ago, Nightinggale said:

For a trading idea to work, you would need to make maps without say oil biomes and then you instead get plenty of water, which you then trade with somebody who has plenty of oil, but very little water.

how would you launch a rocket with cargo modules into space, when you have no oil?

[Nightinggale]

2 hours ago, metallichydra said:

how would you launch a rocket with cargo modules into space, when you have no oil?

I'm not defending a flawed concept

[Tytan]

8 hours ago, Nightinggale said:

But is it really multiplayer if people aren't on the same map?

Besides the trading idea is flawed. The core concept of trading is that one person has a lot of A, but no B. Another person is missing A, but can produce a lot of B and then they exchange goods to make both have enough of both A and B. All players will have the same stuff and missing the same stuff. For a trading idea to work, you would need to make maps without say oil biomes and then you instead get plenty of water, which you then trade with somebody who has plenty of oil, but very little water. I don't like that concept because it forces you to trade or you are screwed. Also I don't consider that to be "playing together".

yes, I agree, you would not be playing together, but that's what the game proproe

the game from the beginning you are not playing, you just command the dupes, how many hours you simply left the front of the pc and left the dupes performing the tasks you programmed?
so technically you're not playing

and this concept does not apply well to multiplayer, at least not the way the game is now, it would have to be reworked and modified, and I'm sorry to all those who want a multiplayer, but I love this oni way, because I I can not do this any more at any game, give orders and expect them to do "AOE-style strategy games," and without that essence, it's no longer the same game
and so for my part, at least, the only thing that could be created for interaction would be this, an exchange of resources, or for example sending dupes to take vacations in another colony, could have a system of creating docks for little guests, but that the interaction was minimal "enjoy and use that transport rocket"

and then I enter the other point, if they want a multiplayer, multiplayer, I think the game's layout would change, and because of that it would be necessary to reformulate the game, not saying that it would not, but for me it would not be the same thing, even more that at the moment does not have big challenges in the game that is not to survive, there are no monsters, no dungeons, no other maps, but could be a multiplayer where each one controls a dupe or something "but then technically you would not be the god of the parade, you would be the dupe, which would be an interesting change of perspective" each gives orders of construction but everyone can build, each player has a color in the order of construction to identify it, and if they create monsters and parallel maps, who knows the planets where we could go and get the resources personally, aggressive monsters and parallel maps where there would be challenges and puzzles, like entering a cave

but can you see how long it took for few people to be? you can not accelerate the game ashuahsuhu

10 hours ago, bleeter6 said:

That would require someone to want to give away the finite object, which is what I'm questioning.

on this, imagine as follows, the whole map I create "talking about myself" I never get a gold geyser, but you may have picked it up, and with that you're going to get a lot more gold than I, because I'd have to mine, refine, and even in as many quantities as you do, and let's say you play much more than I do, and you're already wiping out all your copper, but as you've done a lot of space travel I've tons and tons of ice, and I do not have so much ice like that.

these types of features are finite, but the resources you take in space are cumulative, because you do not choose which ones you get, and there you will accumulate, and in the other problem we have rng of the map that can make me have or not geysers

[camelot]

16 hours ago, Nightinggale said:

But is it really multiplayer if people aren't on the same map?

Besides the trading idea is flawed. The core concept of trading is that one person has a lot of A, but no B. Another person is missing A, but can produce a lot of B and then they exchange goods to make both have enough of both A and B. All players will have the same stuff and missing the same stuff. For a trading idea to work, you would need to make maps without say oil biomes and then you instead get plenty of water, which you then trade with somebody who has plenty of oil, but very little water. I don't like that concept because it forces you to trade or you are screwed. Also I don't consider that to be "playing together".

Yes, it's multiplayer, to some extend. Technically, they are in the same universe, right?

Trading stuffs is thoroughly tested in games and it's easily to adjust too. In ONI case, simply divide resources into 2 types: mandatory and non mandatory. You have enough mandatory resources to live on your own (water, algae, dirt...) but not as abundance as in single player world. For non mandatory resources, you have a lot of some and very little or very hard to access of some. The 3 new biomes will add even more variety into this trading system. Basically, the concept is you need to trade in order to move forward fast or easier to access non mandatory resources, never saw any game that "forces you to trade or you are screwed" actually

[cpy]

Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Everything already has been said!

[BaloneyOs]

Sounds like a nice concept for modders but I really hope Klei themselves don't end up wasting resources on any multiplayer ONI ideas.