Jump to content

ehm.. oni multiplayer


Recommended Posts

Hello,

I was thinking what if we can have a 2 player coop oni. Imagine there are blue dupes and red dupes, and they listen to commands only from the player that gives them commands, ofc there need to be balancing methods with food and concurrency issues but I don't think oni could be that hard to have multiplayer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I'd love to see the option for it. 
"Oxygen not included, friends included"

I don't think there's any problem giving games more features.  Even though I love oni as a single player game, it'd be nice to interact with a friend.
I'd probably be able to get more people to play the game that way.
There would just need to be little catches for things.  If a friend disconnects, the dupes they controlled need to be controllable, if they reconnect, you need to be able to reassign them (or automatic reassignment) to your friend.
you'd need to have building restrictions, toggleable, maybe two friends could start on different planetoids.

Imagine how fun it would be to set up little secret radbolt traps or other things to prevent your friend from stealing materials from your planetoid.
I doubt it'd be perfect, but it sure would be fun.

I don't really understand why people are against it.  If you don't like multiplayer, just.. you know.. don't play multiplayer?
I think there was a mod for multiplayer, but I haven't looked into it.

I feel like it wouldn't even be that complex, all you'd need is a separate task list assigned to the other player, and certain dupes would select tasks from one or the other.  
The most troubling thing would probably be lag on the partner's end.  You'd probably have to play LAN for it to be seamless, as well, there's the whole issue of game speed / pausing.  You could just leave that open, so both players can change the speed / pause freely, or lock it to the host.
Or maybe do a pause request where both players need to press space within a given time, and then a request to unpause in the same way.

I don't know, I just wish I could introduce more people into oni, but some people just absolutely don't care for single player games.
Hm, the client would have to render using information from the host I think, I can't imagine navigation / pathfinding syncing up too well otherwise.


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consider the amount of time and energy they're pouring into Spaced Out. It's ambitious, complex to technically implement, nuanced in how to create game balance. I would not want that time and energy to be diverted to implementing a multiplayer option for a game that is clearly designed to be a single-player experience. It would be better for them to build an entirely new project from scratch that has multiplayer intent from the start, but I doubt they'd even do that because that doesn't seem to cater to their strengths as a game design studio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, SharraShimada said:

I reply with the same answer as always, when someone comes up with multiplayer again and again and again.

I can understand. Because I just answered one in base game forum and then this came up in space out forum.

10 minutes ago, Astrologic said:

The most troubling thing would probably be lag on the partner's end.  You'd probably have to play LAN for it to be seamless, as well, there's the whole issue of game speed / pausing.  You could just leave that open, so both players can change the speed / pause freely, or lock it to the host.
Or maybe do a pause request where both players need to press space within a given time, and then a request to unpause in the same way.

If we just forget about the performance issue in late games now, just focus about the "pause" thing. That's a big question when multiplayer. When we play (or just me) pause the game so often to think about what to do or how to build. That becomes even larger problem when you have other players connected.

Some examples about "together" games for reference.

1. DST has no "pause" in official build and some talent modders have implemented it but still issues there. Host player can always pause and guest players need to poll or something to pause the game.

2. ONI Together experiment by @degr

Maybe some day someone would find a good balance there. But I guess it is not the time yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as I agree, they did release "don't starve together", and it was a great success.
There were people who thought it was a bad idea, or it'd be too time consuming just the same, but it turned out fantastic.
I do believe they need to focus their efforts on the DLC.  Lots of bugs still, missing features, etc.
However, when that's all said and done, if they offered multiplayer even as another paid DLC, I for one would jump on that without a moment of hesitation.

8 minutes ago, DolphinWing said:

I can understand. Because I just answered one in base game forum and then this came up in space out forum.

If we just forget about the performance issue in late games now, just focus about the "pause" thing. That's a big question when multiplayer. When we play (or just me) pause the game so often to think about what to do or how to build. That becomes even larger problem when you have other players connected.

Some examples about "together" games for reference.

1. DST has no "pause" in official build and some talent modders have implemented it but still issues there. Host player can always pause and guest players need to poll or something to pause the game.

2. ONI Together experiment by @degr

Maybe some day someone would find a good balance there. But I guess it is not the time yet.

I didn't know about that experiment.  I think the issue is that the person running the experiment seems to have allowed any number of strangers to join.  What I thought about when I considered "oni together" was two friends playing together, not a hosted world waiting for randoms.

I think it would be really cool to be able to trade resources using the current tech under rocketry.  Two planets controlled by different people, one lacks food?  "Okay, I'll trade you 30,000kcal for all the water you can spare"
eventually you could visit each other using rocket platforms (if allowed?)
attack critters becomes attack enemy dupes?  Who says it has to be co-op?
Deconstruct enemy buildings, slaughter enemy dupes.
I just think limiting what you can do in a game because you're not sure if you'll enjoy it is silly.
There are people who'll enjoy it.
Plus, if there were combating dupes, you could have radbolt pistols, and that'd be awesome.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't starve works well in multiplayer cause it's survival; not base builder. ONI is not really a survival focused game; it's a base builder. You also have your character and stuff; which does not exist in ONI. Sim games are not that good multiplayer experiences. ONI would not really benefit much from multiplayer.

How it would happen I think would be like minecraft; there is one server running the simulation and multiple controllers hooking up in. Again; i don't think it would be any entertaining. A lot of fun of oni happens when you pause the game.

Resource sharing is kinda; bleh. The game is being constructed at certain resources being gated behind certain things. Having access to them kinda makes a lot of stuff useless in the early game; basically removes early game if you can be bottlefed refined metals and plastic. If resource sharing is not in the early game; then you really don't need to share resources. Much less hassle to make them yourself.

Antagonistic would be better; but i don't like combat in my simulator games that much personally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, I think multiplayer can be implemented easily. This is 2021, the world of pretty good internet options.

 

The host runs the sim. The game is literally unchanged from what we have now. The players can all issue orders, and the dupes will carry out orders without caring about who issued the orders. The non-host players just send requests to the host as to what is in the view window of the game, and the non-host players just render the game.

 

It would enrich the game a lot as ideas would mix in multiplayer game servers as people see each other's designs and can interact with them. Being able to work together on a base also seems like fun, especially as dupe count grows to be able to support more than a single project at a time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I can think of is:

"Can we pause?"

"No, can we go at max speed I gotta fill in this rocket so I can send some supply to my colony"

"Who used up all the steel I have just made? I needed it for my project!"

"Who sent Meep on Oozila? I was gonna send it to Timberila... its urgent I need a mechatronics engineer there asap"

"Who printed so many flatulent dupes??"

I am sure it could work between coordinated players who know each other and are on call, anything else would most likely end in chaos. The coordination can probably be done right now with shared screen or streaming and only 1 person pressing the keys while the colony is being managed by many people.

I don't think I would personally ever play ONI multiplayer, but if Klei comes up with something along those lines, I will be happy that those who want to do so have the option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why I thought maybe having each player start off on a different planetoid, and having their own dupes / printing pod would be the most practical way to implement this.  Resource sharing wouldn't happen until rockets, unless there's a duplicator, even then, you could probably do some kind of restricted access.
Maybe disallow incoming rockets, or "cargo only rockets" - disallowing dupes from exiting their rocket if landed on a planetoid with a printing pod belonging to the other player.
You could then even do a fog of war thing, where your planet is not visible to your friend.
As for the pausing thing, you'd probably be better off having only the speed toggle available, so the closest thing you could have to a paused game would be the slowest setting.  Maybe the game speed would be decided by the average of both user's settings.
One player chooses the slowest speed, the other player chooses the next higher speed - then it'd favor the host.
Otherwise, if one player chooses the slowest, and the other chooses the fastest, it'd settle on the 2nd speed setting.
That way, if both players want a slower game, they'll get it, if both want the fastest game, they'll get it, anything else will be a compromise.
If the client is being a troll constantly toggling different speeds, the host can just select the 2nd fastest speed, and that'd be the speed of the game.
I think that's perfectly acceptable. 

I really don't think it'd be a "who sent meep to fartland?" and more of a "Why did you send meep to fartland?" - cause I think any more than 2 players might be a bit chaotic.  Maybe 3 at max, but even then, it'd be THEIR meep, and not your meep, unless you've given them access to your rocket's navigation... chair thingy.

Pausing is convenient, but not necessary.  It does increase the difficulty, but that's contrasted by the fact that there are two minds working at survival (or whatever objectives)
pausing is nice, but honestly, if I only had the option to run the game at "normal" speed, I'd be able to do everything just the same, but with massive amounts of time to spare, cause "normal" speed is basically slow motion imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, lee1026 said:

Honestly, I think multiplayer can be implemented easily. This is 2021, the world of pretty good internet options.

Nope. For a good working mulitplayer game, nearly all the base code has to be rewritten. You cant just plug some code on top and expect it to work just fine. Thats, why all of the "multiplayer addition mods" out there for games that do not have multiplayer, wont work at all or have bugs over bugs over bugs over bugs... In the end its just frustrating to play such games, and not fun at all.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2612332708

Here, catch this. This is as far as ONI multiplayer can go. Anything that would allow for shared control of a base would end up being a disaster (confrimed by experiments already done on this forum) and Klei is doing right thing not even thinking about it. ONI is a singleplayer game and if you spent 10 minutes about thinking of all the things that could go wrong during multiplayer game you wouldn't try to force it into this game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does every game need to have some tacked on multiplayer mode? It's so stupid. Most of them are half-baked and take away lots of development time for little to no benefit. There are plenty of MP games. Stop polluting SP games with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Steve8 said:

Why does every game need to have some tacked on multiplayer mode? It's so stupid. Most of them are half-baked and take away lots of development time for little to no benefit. There are plenty of MP games. Stop polluting SP games with it.

People who have friends want to share the experience with them.
Imagine for a second your best buddy (pretend you have friends) invites you over to watch him play video games.  You gonna do it? >.>
No.  Who the heck wants to sit there and watch someone play?  Right now, that's the only way you can share the experience of ONI with others, have them watch you play.  That, or you buy the game for them and hope they don't play for 13 minutes then never touch the game again.

However, if there were a multiplayer mode, I could introduce my friends to the game by inviting them to play, not inviting them to watch.
I'd then have a shared fun experience.
Saying there's "little to no benefit" is ridiculous.  Multiplayer (if done right) can be the best thing for a game.
Take "don't starve", I played "don't starve together" first, and that's because a friend invited me to play with him.  If it weren't for that, I'd have not known about Klei, and I'd have never started to play ONI.  Yes, because of multiplayer in "don't starve together" I was introduced to ONI.
I'm probably not the only one who started playing because of that.
It's true that it would take developers time to plan and implement it, and they are still developing other areas of the game.
Once everything slows down and patches stop for a while, I hope they at least consider a multiplayer DLC for this game.

 

 

3 hours ago, SharraShimada said:

Nope. For a good working mulitplayer game, nearly all the base code has to be rewritten. You cant just plug some code on top and expect it to work just fine. Thats, why all of the "multiplayer addition mods" out there for games that do not have multiplayer, wont work at all or have bugs over bugs over bugs over bugs... In the end its just frustrating to play such games, and not fun at all.

 


Implementing it for a game like this wouldn't be as difficult as believed.  You issue commands that the dupes carry out, all you need to do is have a second source for commands, and maybe put those commands in their own task list accessed by a different pool of dupes.  The hardest challenge would be getting the graphics to synchronize.
Of course, a little foreshadowing helps with development, and since I haven't looked at ONI's source code, I can't say whether or not any "wiggle room" has been made for possible multiplayer innovations.  It's not impossible though.

Either way, I don't think anyone would rage quit ONI at the idea of them releasing a multiplayer option.  If you don't like it, don't use it.
Keep in mind, I'm not trying to force the developers to do anything, I'm just voicing my opinion that I believe it'd be fun, and probably a good idea in the long-term.
I know some experiments with multiplayer oni were done, but let's be real, that wasn't a fully developed or realistic multiplayer scenario.
That was multiple random people in a chaotic setting trying to make a mark.
Get two friends together to make decisions in real time separate from one another, and I'm sure things would go much better.

"I'll handle the research and plumbing, you handle the food and ranching, and we'll take it from there".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even though I am not personally interested in multiplayer ONI, I gave this some thought and found a way I could see this work I think.

To me, an acceptable gateway to multiplayer would be through the "temporal tear". The temporal tear would act as a bridge between two parallel universes each having their own "space-time continuum". Basically, each player would control their own version of the game and their own colony, they would control the flow of time independently from each other (time flows differently on each side of the tear, so one player could be paused and the other could be going at 3x speed. Colonies would therefore evolve at different pace, but why not? It is a temporal tear after all.

Now, the key for the interaction would be the tear itself. It would act as a bridge through which you could send supply via interplanetary launcher or even rockets. Anything that crosses the tear becomes subject to the local flow of time controlled by each player. So if you send your rocket at 3x speed but your friend has his parallel universe paused, the rocket will stop traveling when it reaches the other side.

There could be different starting options, for example, the tear needs to be opened by the players, or the tear is already opened, the tear could spawn closer to the starting asteroid to facilitate interaction between players or be far away as it is now, etc. There could even be some kind of "competitive" mode with victory conditions such as "first rocket launch" or "temporal tear race", the colony imperatives, and so on.

Could be interesting to see players starting on different types of asteroid and trading resources based on their available geysers/vents, resources they decided not to use in their colony, or maybe they accidently murdered all pacus in their universe so they could get some help reviving them through trade.

It's nowhere near a refined idea with all the details ironed out, but I think I could live with something like that and might even give it a try. For example, maybe it could be that each player is controlling everything within their respective universe, so you could technically send rockets and dupes to another player and they would become part of their colony (we do lose dupes going through the tear already!), or maybe the initial owner would stay in control but gain access to the other player's map and resources? Who knows.

I don't know if something like this could be doable on a technical level, where each player "hosts" their own game/colony/universe and the multiplayer is a sort of connection between the two games. Anyway, just throwing in some thoughts here, trying to contribute something constructive to the topic xD 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Steve8 said:

Why does every game need to have some tacked on multiplayer mode? It's so stupid.

Because people still like to play together and fantasise about the possibilites of their favorite SP games.

Rhetorical(!) counter-question: Why does every game need to have so many would-be elitist gatekeepers who think they have the supreme authority or knowledge when it comes to decisions like this?

MP, by the way, also includes ideas like a buildable tradeport where people still play alone on the map and trade with other players or a global market.
You could also coop with the teleporter building, which is already implemented. Observing the colony of others ingame should be possible too.
It does not have to be complicated at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Astrologic said:

Implementing it for a game like this wouldn't be as difficult as believed.

Throughout this thread, I think that more of what has been talked about that is "pro multiplayer" has been about conceptual implementation with some incorrect base assumptions about the ease of the technical/programmatic implementation.

I'll grant that I don't know anything about the actual ONI code, but I'd say it's a high probability that @SharraShimada is correct that implementing multiplayer would require an entire base code rewrite if you want it to run efficiently and effectively. Sure, they could probably 'tack on' code that would make it work, but that's a short-term solution that would cause more headaches in the long-run.

Consider the approach to Don't Starve/Don't Starve Together. Klei clearly doesn't conceive of DST as an expansion/DLC to Don't Starve - it's a completely different product. They have their own purchase pages on Steam and they both have independent sets of DLC. They both have their own discussion forums and bug reporting sections on this site rather than a large discussion about both.

Thinking about those games as separate is key for me. It means that if there's a bug in DST, the devs are working on a patch release that just exists for DST without pollenating the code in DS and vice versa. If DST were a component of the original DS, the "if you don't like it, just don't play it" mentality doesn't work because any patches/DLC code will likely affect my DS experience whether I play the multiplayer or not.

For ONI, we've already seen some of that bleed - ONI base game players now have a much different product now than pre-DLC even if they've never played the DLC. They've have had to deal with some of the bugs and issues as a result of the DLC once the codes were merged. If I wasn't participating in the DLC, i would find that frustrating; i wouldn't want my game to get bloated from things that I'm not interested in/going to be a part of.

Also, as a Klei programmer/coder/developer, at some point I would want to put ONI/SO to rest.

That's not to say that ONI Together doesn't have potential and maybe could be a future Klei project, but for me, if that were to be greenlit, I would want it to work the same way that DS does - as a completely separate product with a big "Stay Off My Lawn" sign and fence around the ONI base game/DLC.

 

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...