It’s really cute how you all worry about me but really i would prefer to just talk about the game design for now because if it is impossible to design a cata multiplayer game then the question of whether to fork or rewrite does not even matter.
but fyi, no, i have no experience with the cata engine. if you really are strongly convinced that my idea is flawless then feel free to start rewriting while i wait for criticism and look at the existing code and if no problems with my idea and big problems with the code turn up i’ll join you.
Its not impossible. You’d probably need to change up the gameplay loop significantly to deal with the power creep if any sort of conflict is desired between players, but its not an insurmountable goal. I’m not sure it’d feel like Cata anymore, but it’d be a similar vein of apocalypse rogue-like. Your attitude really isn’t helping though. You’ll probably get a better response if you do some digging in the code base, and come forward with either a solid plan on the programming and design side, or even better, a prototype (Even if its like, limited to two people and wigs out from time to time, it’d be a massive step in the right direction). If you had that, I’m sure some programmers, maybe even some of the current dev team, might be willing to lend a hand.
As it stands, you just seem like someone who thinks 50% of the implementation of something is the idea. You keep talking about how you want people to disprove the idea, and avoiding questions about its implementation or saying it doesn’t matter.
I understand why my brilliant idea overexcites you and you immediately want to get your hands dirty and implement it but i urge you to take one step at a time.
First we need to figure out if we can even imagine to have fun gameplay in a cata-like multiplayer game.
Without an idea, there is nothing to put into a prototype, so read through this post above
Once we did that, we can discuss the technical issues in a separate thread in The Lab.
Without an idea, there is nothing to put into a prototype, so wait for the tech thread or create one yourself.
Spoiler: For prototyping I would suggest to modify game code so that NPCs, who already behave like really dickish online players, take a random amount of time to make a move, and that “realtime turn progression” also happens when you open a menu.
For this i am already looking through the code, but discussion of implementation details do not make sense yet, neither does doing actual coding.
You’re acting weird btw.
You know all the non-programmers who might want to contribute now have to read through your technical off-topic comments, right? That’s kinda mean to waste their time like that.
[quote=“User, post:43, topic:8620”]I understand why my brilliant idea overexcites you and you immediately want to get your hands dirty and implement it but i urge you to take one step at a time.
First we need to figure out if we can even imagine to have fun gameplay in a cata-like multiplayer game.
Without an idea, there is nothing to put into a prototype.[/quote]
I agree. But when you bring up a fix, or adjustment to make something work in multiplayer, we must both consider “Would this resolve the problem and permit the game to be fun” But we must also consider “Is this feasible to implement”. That goes double if you want to try and adjust the existing Cata codebase to work for multiplayer, instead of making something from scratch. But you keep focusing on how to solve things like timely gameplay interaction. That’s neat, but its also meaningless to try and figure out until you solve “How do we deal with map-sync and intersecting reality bubbles”. The best gameplay idea’s mean nothing if we can’t actually get two players to exist on one map together, on separate clients running on separate machines.
If you want to do things right, and take it a step at a time, you need to start there. Once you’ve established what can be, and cannot be achieved at that technical level, then you can ask how to make the gameplay more streamlined for multiplayer. Your NPC prototype idea would be as simple as adding a potential chance for an NPC to decide to just not make a move towards whatever he’s pathing towards each turn. if(math.rand){don’t move} else{whatever moves them now}. But it doesn’t prototype the technical issues of syncing player movements, which is the real issue. Its more of a mockup of an end result as opposed to a prototype of a solution.
And this isn’t off-topic technical speech. If the point of this thread is HOW to implement multiplayer, not some random chatting about how the gameplay might look, then technical talk is going to happen, because multiplayer is a huge technical undertaking, and the biggest roadblocks in are technical issues.
the point of this thread is NOT how to implement it, unless the OP comes in and tells me off. sorry you wasted your time, i suggest next time you read previous posts before making one yourself.
no idea what makes you think the programming stuff should be solved first. the programming stuff takes way longer and only programmers can work on it. are you trolling?
anyway, when we have a relevant thread copypaste your post or ask a mod to move it.
Everyone who sees this thread for the first time, read this and maybe the posts before that.
The posts afterwards that are just off-topic techno-mumbo-jumbo unrelated to the question of how to make multiplayer fun.
[quote=“User, post:45, topic:8620”]the point of this thread is NOT how to implement it, unless the OP comes in and tells me off. sorry you wasted your time, i suggest next time you read previous posts before making one yourself.
no idea what makes you think the programming stuff should be solved first. the programming stuff takes way longer and only programmers can work on it. are you trolling?
anyway, when we have a relevant thread copypaste your post or ask a mod to move it.[/quote]
I’m not trolling. And your entirely right, the programming content is long, tedious, and only programmers can do it. Which is why if idea’s that are completely impractical to program keep being proposed, programmers are never going to latch onto the thing and want to work on it. Because they don’t want to spend dozens if not hundreds of hours trying to code something that’s fundamentally flawed. Cata already somewhat faces this issue now, with things like the proposed inventory overhaul I’ve seen, or futher Z-Level progress. Its a huge undertaking and a lot of work, and most people just don’t want to do it, or give up half way through. And the only thing worse than a feature that’s not been started is a feature that’s half implemented and undocumented.
If the thread is going to unilaterally focus on ideas as opposed to implementation, that’s fine then. I’d love to go over some idea’s to deal with the loot and new player power issues that’d arise from a server that isn’t purely cooperative, lets adventure together style play. But then its just going to stay idea’s, and never be implemented if no consideration is ever given to whether it can actually be made to happen. And your attitude isn’t going to help much either. Telling people to read posts they’ve already read, ignoring the points they are making, telling people who know how to code that a code heavy problem shouldn’t have the coding considered, and then accusing those people of trolling? Not very friendly.
Ultimately a multiplayer cata project isn’t going to go anywhere until some people address the very real technical issues that would underpin any such effort. Its as simple as that. Until then its just wishful thinking, what-ifs and so forth.
I threw a few ides around on how it may be done etc but at the end of the day I have zero idea how top programme so I am not realy the one to listen to lol.
But I shall be following all posts with exitment thats for sure
