Multiplayer stuff (DMul)

Lesser known clone projects or isolated news items about rare or unusual clones.
Forum rules
Please read the Forum rules and policies before posting.
Post Reply
User avatar
Wismerhill
Apprentice
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 5:51 pm
Location: Paris 11e, France.

Multiplayer stuff (DMul)

Post by Wismerhill »

Hi,
I'm thinking about the way a multiplayer DM could work and I could use a hand.

I think there's two main way to do it: each player controls its own party, comprised of 1 to 4 characters. To cope with the space problem (narrow corridors, movement and stuff), parties are allowed to share the same position. It's not very realistic but it's should be fun. Players can then more or less cooperate freely. When two parties share the same spot, damages are evenly distributed.

The second way is that each player controls one character only and, to enter the game, must join an existing party (or create a new one if he wants to be alone). In this party, only the player controling the leader is allowed to move the party. The other players in this party can still do all the other actions : cast a spell, pick an item, throw an item, etc. When a player wants to switch his character's position, a confirmation message is sent to the player whose character must switch too, he must then agree or cancel the action. The lead character is designated by all the players in the party with a quick vote system. That is a very collaborative play. At any time, a player can decide to leave the party and be on his own (in its own party). He can later join another party.

What do you think ?
Tom Hatfield
Ee Master
Posts: 688
Joined: Mon May 07, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: Indiana, USA
Contact:

Post by Tom Hatfield »

I think each player controlling only one character is the best approach because it promotes cooperation, even if it doesn't enforce it, and DM is all about party cohesion (unless you play solo, of course, in which case it's about eating all the food you want and hording all the equipment).

Forcing players to join an existing party is a very bad idea, in my opinion, because very few people would appreciate being arbitrarily assigned to a group of total strangers. The whole party concept sort of breaks down in multiplayer DM, though I think there should at least be "fellowships" or such. That way members of the same fellowship can discern each other's status (health, mana, location) at a glance. This type of data sharing is absolutely crucial in a cooperative game. I can't afford to type "hp50 mp20 pos 12,20,9" in the heat of battle, especially since it's likely to change as soon as I hit the enter key.

As for leaders, scrap it. The only reason you even had a leader in DM is because only one person could pick up/interact with an item at once, and even then it only mattered for the sake of raising ninja skills. In a game where each player controls his own character, the leader hand is entirely superfluous. I also hate the idea of being forced to go wherever my "leader" goes. What if he jumps down a pit after failing to acknowledge the fact that I have two hit points left? Definitely provide a "follow" option, but don't make it mandatory.

Speaking of equipment hording, that's something you'd have to avoid. In DM, there's only one vorpal sword. What happens if someone takes it and never logs on again? No more vorpal sword. You'll probably want items to respawn, and this means you basically can't have an economy — but that's okay because DM never had that anyway. And besides, with a limited inventory, nobody really wants to horde items. You can afford to spawn them like crazy, provided your server can handle the expanding database. You could also dictate that a character cannot carry more than two of any type of weapon (one for each hand, it's fair), and spawn no more than two for each character in teh game. Lots of little ways to make your game work.
User avatar
Wismerhill
Apprentice
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 5:51 pm
Location: Paris 11e, France.

Post by Wismerhill »

Tom Hatfield wrote:I think each player controlling only one character is the best approach because it promotes cooperation, even if it doesn't enforce it, and DM is all about party cohesion (unless you play solo, of course, in which case it's about eating all the food you want and hording all the equipment).
That is also my feeling about that. But there were also people who thought DM is about controling a party and balancing each character's weaknesses.
Tom Hatfield wrote:Forcing players to join an existing party is a very bad idea, in my opinion, because very few people would appreciate being arbitrarily assigned to a group of total strangers.
It wouldn't be arbitrarily. It's just a way to join friends. And you could be alone too. The party concept is were we should investigate I think. The single player party concept must be tweaked to better works in multiplayer games.
Tom Hatfield wrote:The whole party concept sort of breaks down in multiplayer DM, though I think there should at least be "fellowships" or such. That way members of the same fellowship can discern each other's status (health, mana, location) at a glance. This type of data sharing is absolutely crucial in a cooperative game. I can't afford to type "hp50 mp20 pos 12,20,9" in the heat of battle, especially since it's likely to change as soon as I hit the enter key.
All right, we're going somewhere. Let's just say that your fellowship thing is just the multiplayer party concept. Hence, you see your fellows' stats just the way you see your characters' stats in the classic DM. You could even see their character sheets if allowed by the player. Also, you can go wherever you want, being in the same party meaning only that you see the other heroes' portraits, characteristics and stuff.
Tom Hatfield wrote:As for leaders, scrap it. The only reason you even had a leader in DM is because only one person could pick up/interact with an item at once, and even then it only mattered for the sake of raising ninja skills. In a game where each player controls his own character, the leader hand is entirely superfluous. I also hate the idea of being forced to go wherever my "leader" goes. What if he jumps down a pit after failing to acknowledge the fact that I have two hit points left? Definitely provide a "follow" option, but don't make it mandatory.
Fully agreed on that one. It was becoming very awkward to have a party with one leader but four interacting players.
Tom Hatfield wrote:Speaking of equipment hording, that's something you'd have to avoid. In DM, there's only one vorpal sword. What happens if someone takes it and never logs on again? No more vorpal sword. You'll probably want items to respawn, and this means you basically can't have an economy — but that's okay because DM never had that anyway. And besides, with a limited inventory, nobody really wants to horde items. You can afford to spawn them like crazy, provided your server can handle the expanding database. You could also dictate that a character cannot carry more than two of any type of weapon (one for each hand, it's fair), and spawn no more than two for each character in teh game. Lots of little ways to make your game work.
Yeah, that is not easy stuff to cope with. Another option is to say that when you log to the server, you have to chose a dungeon, gather some fellows and enter the dungeon, where you and you're fellows would be the only players. The dungeon is then created only for the occasion, like StarCraft. When you leave, the dungeon is over.

Many thanks for your valuable input. I am at a time in my coding where I must make game design choices before going further.

Is there anybody else with some thinking about that ?
Wismerhill.
User avatar
beowuuf
Archmastiff
Posts: 20687
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2000 2:00 pm
Location: Basingstoke, UK

Post by beowuuf »

For the dungeon, you coukld have it that when you leave you drop all your possessions, like you have died - your fellows can pick up your items incase it is just you crashing for when you return, and also valuable objects would not be lost/stolen. It would also allow a powerful charatcer not to be able to waltz into a small balanced dugneon with all their weaponery and bombs.

I would still suggest seperate parties so you can explore a dungeon singly. If you would allow seperate parties to co-exist on the same square, you could add a 'follow' command or soemthing which would tie everyone's movements together (either to a nominated person, or simple any movement is echoed to every character).
Tom Hatfield
Ee Master
Posts: 688
Joined: Mon May 07, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: Indiana, USA
Contact:

Post by Tom Hatfield »

Instanced dungeon . . . of course. I don't know why that didn't occur to me. Lots of online games are starting to use this concept, with generally positive results. So, are you thinking max four characters per dungeon, then?
User avatar
Wismerhill
Apprentice
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 5:51 pm
Location: Paris 11e, France.

Post by Wismerhill »

Tom Hatfield wrote:Instanced dungeon . . . of course. I don't know why that didn't occur to me. Lots of online games are starting to use this concept, with generally positive results.
Yes, I think it's the way to go. I'll try that, stay tuned.
Tom Hatfield wrote: So, are you thinking max four characters per dungeon, then?
Like StarCraft, the dungeons should be designed with that factor in mind.
Wismerhill.
Post Reply