Jump to content

Co-op (A topic to revisit)


Recommended Posts

The Spaced out DLC allows you to go to other planets in singleplayer and have multiple colonies. BUT this could be used to have co-op with players being on different planets. I was wondering if anyone has been thinking about the possibility and am willing to read any opinions on this topic. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see this being a multiplayer mod. But, you get the game speed is a factor problem, and who controls the dupes when they transfer, etc?

I like it - would be cool to get maybe 4 player maps, where you try to land one on the 5th roid or something like a capture the roid scenario or a conquest of some sort.

Now, if we look at co-op and the in game lore, it might mean trying to repair the disaster that initially sets you down in the starting planetoid to begin with. Perhaps with shared clouds saves, this might have been on the docket as both single and multiplayer scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Asynchronous coop should be fairly simple, and doable with a relatively rudimentary mod:

Launch rocket with target "the other player", rocket data is converted to a useful format and sent over the internet to them, then removed from your save as the rocket reaches some predefined point.
A similar thing could be done using something like the teleporters/warp pipes, too, though because of the async nature would liekly mean you send things in batches, ie. charge up X materials, maybe a dupe, then send it off.

That could be combined with some unique starting asteroids, such that each player has some resources the other player(s) does not have - nothing critical for survival, but perhaps things like gold amalgam, reed fiber, iron/coal, various critters, etc.
It would be less "playing together" and more "being able to trade", but should be very much doable.

As for synchronous coop? Haha nope, that would involve so many hacky things and bugs waiting to happen. Syncing maps between players live would be a networking nightmare, and would constantly desync, so the closest you could get is may something rocket module sized which dupes from different players could enter - perhaps some fancy "multi-dimensional" space station. Even so I would give it some arcane tech to magically heat/cool to some preset temperature, and be made or neutronium. That or perfectly insulated chambers for each player.

I don't feel like this kinda thing adds enough value that the devs should use time on it, being either too complex to be feasible or too simple to be worth it, but these are just my initial thoughts from a combined player and software engineering perspective. Maybe some modder might try their hand at an async version, though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Hodhandr said:

Launch rocket with target "the other player", rocket data is converted to a useful format and sent over the internet to them, then removed from your save as the rocket reaches some predefined point.

What if the other player is AFK? Will my dupe die?

What if my dupe is a troyan horse infected with severe diseases and will infect the other base?

What if my rocket is ticking bomb filled with nuclear waste just waiting for the victim to open it?

What if the internet hated somebody and DDOSed his game with spam of rockets?

What if people did the same by accident for somebody they like, some youtuber or sth?

What if my rocket blocked rocket pad for my friend's traffic and his rocket cannot land?

Can I refuse incomming rocket? If so, will it stay in my map forever?

What if one player used different mods?

I like the idea, it is much more realistic than "just smash MP into the game, IDC", but even with this oversimplfied solution there are many questions and corner cases that can make the ide dangerous. It is still easier to manage those cases in trade/rocket travel MP than in regular "just allow my friend to control half of the dupes", but even then - the MP seems not to be worth implementing. 

I love ONI for its Single Player experience, I see no need to destroy it with MP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/23/2021 at 4:58 AM, pether said:

I love ONI for its Single Player experience, I see no need to destroy it with MP

It's a No Dupe's Sky out there....

Personally, I could settle for a mini trading system via something like "shipping rockets" or a trading hub that could target some minor aspect like "you have wort seeds, I have nosh seeds" or such. Emphasizing "mini" on this, and that's as MP as I'd accept to on this.

Most of that is really solved by just going to different asteroids that it actually kind of precludes the need to trade, even. (Not the nosh seeds, if you don't have a rust biome with them, then all is boned.)

But shuffling even that much from what was born from a single player only design is asking for trouble, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a big fan of the multiplayer mode. I can understand players who merely enjoy the single-player mode, which is fine, but I can't understand why some of them are continually opposing the idea. 

Here is how this helps the game:

  1.  Provides players with more options to choose from. That means more players can play the game and communicate via the world. It also provides the KLEI with the possibility of reasonable cosmetic monetization (I'm not too fond of it, but they are already doing it for the Don't starve together).
  2.  For the long-term success of the game, we need constant additions of new players. One of the best ways to learn Oni would be via the community through the coop games. 

I think the game should be more accessible if we want to see more content in the future for ONI! Otherwise, it will eventually die. Hopefully, I would write about this in another post.

 

How we can have the multiplayer mode:

Let's assume there is a hostile alien race that has capture dupes. The alien race wouldn't attack any of our bases until a certain turn, according to game difficulty (100-500) or if we start attacking them first. 

Making defense systems protect our planetoids and attack systems on the rockets using rare material achieved from space exploration or refined material can be super fun. We need to accept refugee dupes from newly freed planetoids with any traits they have; that is another challenge.

 

The main challenge seems to be the time synching when there are more than two players in the same planetoid.

One solution can be that all the players in the same planetoid should be online simultaneously. Each planetoid has a different time (time relativity). If anyone pauses on that planetoid, the game on that planetoid will pause for everyone, and the game continues on other planetoids. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, JRup said:

a trading hub that could target some minor aspect like "you have wort seeds, I have nosh seeds" or such.

So I'll start an iceball world, dig out a few wart seeds, put them on the trade hub.. then start another world, like terra, go onto the trade hub, "buy" my wart seeds from the other world...

The only way player trading makes sense in ONI is if you have a server that manages all the world's resources.  Otherwise, its no different than popping into sandbox or debug and spawning what you want.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, KittenIsAGeek said:

The only way player trading makes sense in ONI is if you have a server that manages all the world's resources.

Correct.

How would it be done then? Minecraft/factorio style: one server - one world, for example? (Both games have SP & MP modes so that's kind of an approach) I guess that's the multiplayer many are chasing... Big no from me, game is already heavy on the pc with just me playing; Just imagine a large map factorio style and all the temperature calculations that will happen - lol.

Or perhaps just build something like a trading hub that logs into a server and lists stuff to get from different players.

Those are two I've just scooped and tossed onto the wall. I can just imagine performance and security impacts from both...

1 hour ago, evilcat19xx said:

[multiplayer] Provides players with more options to choose from. That means more players can play the game and communicate via the world. It also provides the KLEI with the possibility of reasonable cosmetic monetization (I'm not too fond of it, but they are already doing it for the Don't starve together).

monetization
No, just no. That's a bad word. (Doesn't worry me in ONI, though: people hardly even use dupes' hats.) [Liberate Westwood!]

 

1 hour ago, evilcat19xx said:

For the long-term success of the game, we need constant additions of new players. One of the best ways to learn Oni would be via the community through the coop games. 

Build it and they will come, it's already built though. We have the forums (klei's, reddit's, steam's), the wiki and even YT vids. Although I welcome different ways to learn the game, I do have my misgivings about MP being the one of the best ways. I also have a budding suspicion that the target player demographic is somewhat distinct for ONI and being able to bang one's head against a build for hours non-stop is also a requirement to play :lol:.

2 hours ago, evilcat19xx said:

I think the game should be more accessible if we want to see more content in the future for ONI! Otherwise, it will eventually die.

The DLC isn't even completed, don't kill the game off so soon! :shock:

Good games never die. Their player base ages like fine wine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JRup said:

No, just no. That's a bad word. (Doesn't worry me in ONI, though: people hardly even use dupes' hats.) [Liberate Westwood!]

I don't like it either, but Klei already doing it for their other games. They could monetize the rocket's design, Star Citizen did it, and they don't even have a game:wilson_evil:.

3 hours ago, JRup said:

I do have my misgivings about MP being the one of the best ways.

I agree, but I guess it would bring more casual players here.

3 hours ago, JRup said:

I also have a budding suspicion that the target player demographic is somewhat distinct for ONI and being able to bang one's head against a build for hours non-stop is also a requirement to play :lol:.

That is true as well. Minecraft has been a hit for many years. One of the reasons is that it can be fun for both casual players and more hardcore players. You can build a small dirt house or make a huge Redstone calculator. 
But Oni mostly attracts a specific group of people, as you even can see in Oni developer's posts that they are trying to attract more casual players with the new DLC.

3 hours ago, JRup said:

Good games never die. Their player base ages like fine wine.


Look at the Don't Starve. I think they stopped updating the game (and it has a huge fan base), but they are still updating the Don't Starve Together.
If they don't see enough players and a constant earning, they will stop updating the game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, evilcat19xx said:

bring more casual players

With the added minor risk of cooking, drowning or suffocating unsuspecting dupes. :twisted:

5 minutes ago, evilcat19xx said:

Look at the Don't Starve. I think they stopped updating the game (and it has a huge fan base),

Replay value is what oftentimes drives this kind of accomplishment.

5 minutes ago, evilcat19xx said:

they are still updating the Don't Starve Together.

It consists in additional content that mostly expands what DS is. People are voting with their monies here. But it can't be denied that it's riding on the success of DS.

7 minutes ago, evilcat19xx said:

If they don't see enough players and a constant earning, they will stop updating the game. 

There is a thread on this forum that is already over 30 pages after just a couple of days on account of the fact that Klei now has new "boring accountants" at the financial helm (and hopefully just that). It does take a while to read it all and I can only agree with the "time will tell" stance.

Where this ties in is that it would make me a little sad to think that it actually takes "constant earning" to drive the development cycle. This is because what is implied with said choice of words is a need to open the floodgates of "monetization" .

Or to better describe it according to my point of view:

  • Good: Updates and expansions (woefully called DLC in this era) → I'll pay for expansions if it's good content.
  • Not good: Cosmetic and otherwise useless monetized additions to the game that might even break it → Dev time is better spent elsewhere, IMO. I won't give you a penny for this even if you're Tom Nook.

Hopefully, what we have now won't follow in the steps of some yearly cloned football games because that will be boring, putting it mildly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, evilcat19xx said:

If they don't see enough players and a constant earning, they will stop updating the game.

You say that like it's a bad thing. 

But it's not, it just means the game actually gets completed unlike, say, Minecraft. 

As for your insinuation that lack of updates = death, well, I know Skyrim still sells well :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, JRup said:

With the added minor risk of cooking, drowning or suffocating unsuspecting dupes. :twisted:

Haha, all of the dupes are always suicidal!

 

10 hours ago, JRup said:

Replay value is what oftentimes drives this kind of accomplishment.

If the replay value were enough, we would have never seen any continuation for any video games.  

10 hours ago, JRup said:

It consists in additional content that mostly expands what DS is. People are voting with their monies here. But it can't be denied that it's riding on the success of DS.

True.

10 hours ago, JRup said:

Where this ties in is that it would make me a little sad to think that it actually takes "constant earning" to drive the development cycle. This is because what is implied with said choice of words is a need to open the floodgates of "monetization" .

I do not defend it, but unfortunately, most game developers expect (constant earning); otherwise, they would stop supporting the game.

10 hours ago, JRup said:
  • Good: Updates and expansions (woefully called DLC in this era) → I'll pay for expansions if it's good content.
  • Not good: Cosmetic and otherwise useless monetized additions to the game that might even break it → Dev time is better spent elsewhere, IMO. I won't give you a penny for this even if you're Tom Nook.

I agree. But if they are going to monetize the game (in an ideal world, they shouldn't), I only would play the game if it is cosmetic-only (and players should be able to get the items via the game with reasonable grind). 

10 hours ago, JRup said:

Hopefully, what we have now won't follow in the steps of some yearly cloned football games because that will be boring, putting it mildly.

We are in the same boat. I stopped playing so many game series because of that. Fifa (most EA games), Call of duty, Assassin creed (most Ubisoft games)... 

6 hours ago, Yunru said:

You say that like it's a bad thing. 

But it's not, it just means the game actually gets completed unlike, say, Minecraft. 

In my view, it is a bad thing. I do not want the Oni to gets completed. I want it to continue growing the same as Minecraft. I think the game has a huge potential and a great foundation to be much more. There is no game like Oni out there.

6 hours ago, Yunru said:

As for your insinuation that lack of updates = death, well, I know Skyrim still sells well :P

They stopped working on Skyrim 5  so they can work on Skyrim 6. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, evilcat19xx said:

They stopped working on Skyrim 5  so they can work on Skyrim 6. 

And? My point is it's still sees regular play and sells alike, even as we approach it's 10 year anniversary.

A game is not only good while in development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Yunru said:

And?

Skyrim 6 is like an update/upgrade for Skyrim 5. 


I am not an expert in Skyrim, but I am sure part of the charm is the different mods (unofficial updates) that come from the huge fan base. Btw, we also have the Skyrim online (multiplayer mode) that helps the Skyrim 5 to sell and vice versa.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a way to make multiplayer with Steam Cloud Saves.

you lock a save to X number of steam users on Cloud save.

you set a cycle number

You get to play for cycle number and then next player gets to play.

hey KLEI, is this something you could ask Gabe Newell? like this would revolutionise the way single player games are played.

Imagine if you set a game save file free, You make it and then set it to wander the Internet, to be completed by random weirdos.

 

ANYWAY, Multiplayer suggestions This image is for you.

ESP2r_bUUAAcgTs.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Multiplayer would be great...Building a 2d submarine together, including reactor & ( player ) meltdowns :eagerness:

If the big maps are back in some form or the other, then Klei could build a 2d chopper for dupe transports, fun, medic rescue or firefighting.

image.png.24688845200db1c935687740e9fc67de.png

Lets say the chopper is something like 9 tiles wide and 4 tiles high and also needs to be fuelled. That would be so cool !

Could also be combined with durability, so it also needs dupe repair by the "Mechanic Job/Profession" after long usage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 2tallyGr8 said:

I think that trading and the hot-seat (like what @Emeal proposed) types of multiplayer would work the best, with hot-seat working better. It is already (kind of) possible to do it, though, by emailing the save file around.

Please notice me Klei. uwu

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, 2tallyGr8 said:

I think that trading and the hot-seat (like what @Emeal proposed) types of multiplayer would work the best, with hot-seat working better. It is already (kind of) possible to do it, though, by emailing the save file around.

trading multiplayer could work, but it would be quickly twisted by mod and sandbox users. If you can make 10000t of thermium appear out of thin air you can sell it to others by the cost of water or pee or any other waste product just for lols. And I cannot imagine disabling mod support in the multiplayer... not when we must use Pliers and Deconstructable POI

to fix this, KLEI would need to hardcode price of each trading item (at best in a way impossible to mod), but having fixed price somehow destroys whole idea of trading game.

another way would be to allow trade only with few players you defined at the beginning of the game, not the whole community, but this on the other hand would be huge missed potential

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Please be aware that the content of this thread may be outdated and no longer applicable.

×
×
  • Create New...