Multiplayer Dungeon Master

[Wismerhill]

This subject has been partially discussed in other threads but not thoroughly, I hope to launch a creative endeavor about that point.

What you think would be a good Multiplayer Dungeon Master ? Is the DM gameplay even suitable ?

A multiplayer gameplay asks a lot of questions.

What does the player control ? A party, a character ? How to balance the difficulty if the levels are full of parties throwing fireballs ? Should it be limited to only a party, each character being controlled by a different player ? Maybe the outside world could be shared among players over the internet, but when you enter a dungeon, you should party with other players (max 4) that will be the only other players in this dungeon with you, until you break out of the dungeon.

Or each player could control a party, so multiple parties should share the same dungeon but the corridors of existing dungeons wouldn't be wide enough to accomodate more than one party. Also, it's common in DM to store items in a chest and to put it down in a corner to get it back later. What if another party finds it ? What could be the cooperative level ? At the party level, character level ?

I think that the whole point of a DM Online, is to allow more than one people to play DM together. If the gameplay slips toward a MMORPG style gameplay, it will no longer be DM. Maybe I'm wrong. The simplest idea I can think of is to have a group of players (2 to 4) controlling cooperatively the same party, playing in a classical DM game. Bear in mind that a lot of DM puzzles are based on the fact that you can't be at two places at the same time.

Any input appreciated.

[The Journeyman]

I'd like to break a lance for the one player one character idea, as i stated in the clones-thread (-->there).
I believe that the overall strength on the hero side would be too overwhelming, if every player would be to control a set of 4 characters.
With 4 players there already would be 16 heroes roaming the dungeon and then maybe opposing 1 mummy & 2 screamers. And even this situation would require giant rooms for all parties to be able to be in the hack 'n slash action, so all dm-multiplayer dungeons would have to be like that, whereas otherwise the already existing dungeons could be used without or almost without modifications.
Also, if there were massive monster amounts, to counter the hero army, it would be much likely, that a single party could get surrounded and trapped by the monsters a lot of times, dieing in no time...or ending up having repetetive dungeon layouts, that have rooms of 50 screamers/mummies or else in 'em, over and over

Don't know if you've heard of Bloodwych from back in the atari/amiga days. It's a DM-clone, that can be played by 2 players split screen, with each player controlling a party of 4. For me it was the real first deathmatch game and it draws a pretty good picture of the atmosphere of a DM-Multiplayer.
Two things, though:
-the dungeons were designed bigger, so it wouldnt be like in the line of a supermarket
-the viewing range was higher ( 1 square i think ), so it was easier to overlook bigger areas.

Master of Chaos, a freeware clone for the atari
(--->here) did the "one player one character" approach

[Tom Hatfield]

I've considered this extensively myself. The jury is still out, but I'd really like to develop such a game in the future.

[kentaro-k.21]

hi.

i've posted a test version of ObjDMv1.
http://dmweb.free.fr/Forum/read.php?f=8&i=308&t=308

and what's ObjDMv1? where it comes from?
ObjDMv1 is a my test implementation about online DM running on Windows.
i've just started ObjDMv1 on Jan 5, 2005. and i published it today.
this quick development comes, because i had brought much source code from my prioir online test code named DO2CMC/S.
DO2CMC/S is my test online code having DM2 look and feel.
i have already abandoned DO2CMC/S because of fastidious netcode design.
ObjDMv1's netcode should be very dirty and very vulnerable because i cannot create complete strong netcode.

ObjDMv1's purpose?
this test implementation just helps everyone to discuss about how online DM should be. probably no other meaning.

what's about ObjDMv1's future?
this is a TEST. and this will continue to improve/survive insofar everyone wants.

i'll import much features as you request in possible way.

thanks.

[kentaro-k.21]

my preferred style of Multiplayer Dungeon Master is DeathMatch playing found on major FPS games. i think the interaction with enemy (fighting to defeat enemy) may be most pressure part of Dungeon Master. i'll improve that test to orient this style.

about player skill level difference between novice and master, ... it depends on whether the Multiplay is for RPG or DeathMatch specific. for DeathMatch purpose, the skill levels should be equality.

next part, i talk about ObjDMv1's netcode. -----

it uses DirectPlay protocol in DirectX7 to establish client/server application. i selected client/server model, because in p2p model, synchronization between PC's are very difficult. in client/server model, it is easy because server can control all of required input/output.

ObjDMv1 shares same code to become client and server mode. it shares data structure as net data. and communication is just to synchronize the net data between client and server.

about data structure, using some part of dungeon.dat file format. it imports the structure of item databases and dungeon map as is. and viewport renderer paints the screen by fetching data from dungeon database/map. it is why synchronization of net data is required.

about communication data between client and server.
probably, clever men will notice, client sends only key input stroke to the server.
server will do a frame processing per 500ms ellipses.

there are 3 sub processes in a frame processing.

1. process key stroke from client.
if you queue any move/turn comamnd, server will test your input and decide whether you can move/turn or not. if there is no hurdle in your walk step, server will approve your move command.
in the future, internal pick up item command will be equiped. client sends server to request the item pick up. server decides whether it's request is valid or not.

2. send back modifications against dungeon database/map.
server sends difference between current frame and previous frame to update client side dungeon database/map.

3. post process
server will clear all of input data from client (key stroke input).

all communications between client and server are made via guaranteed messages. (DirectPlay may use discardable packet to communicate. but it means ObjDMv1 does not use discardable ones.)
it's characteristics are like TCP socket data stream, listed below:
o datagram must not be lost.
o datagram must be distributed in order.
o datagram contents must not be altered.

i know it is less efficiency to use guaranteed message for all datagrams. for now, i continue to use guaranteed message to make sure stable communication between client/server.

[The Journeyman]

Hey Kentaro!
Just would like to say that it's great you are heading towards multiplayer dungeon master with your programming skills.

On a side note: thanks for the graphic extraction tool for dm2 also

[Selie]

I don't understand any of the technobabble but I can tell you've worked something out that may help you create multiplayer Dungeon Master of a sort. Good work! I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with.

[Gambit37]

Wooha! Kentaro -- that's fantastic. I setup a server and two clients on my local machine to test it out, and it works perfectly. I can see each mummy in each client window and navigate around each one; that's a great start to a networked DM!

Once you see it in operation, it gives lots of food for thought.

I could see that it would be fun for one player to be the party and the other players be monsters. Obviously, for this to work you need to be evenly matched. Or all players could control parties and act cooperatively, but if they decide to attack each other that could be cool too.... lots to think about.

[PaulH]

This is just my kettle of fish. Roll on!

[kentaro-k.21]

thanks a lot of comments.

next update takes for long period to write codes for basic operations (door, pitfall, items, ...). plz don't hold your breath...

and i mainly costs my spare time to support RTC/DM2 modding fans who are trying to port DM2 to RTC because recently there are some discussion about DM2 porting issue and suggestions for RTC (to port DM2?).

[Wismerhill]

I'm also working on a DM Online, based on DMJava so it will be cross-platforms, that's why I asked for input about the gameplay as I don't want to start serious network coding without knowing what would be the most approved way accross the veteran DM players. The main point being, does the player control a whole party or just a character, that could be joining other characters to form a party ?

From this point, I can see some possibilities:

- the player controls a character and can join another player's character to form a party, but it is not mandatory. Parties/characters can share a map location as long as there is not more than 4 characters at all. When in the same party, the players can move the whole party but cannot control the other characters (weapon/spell). Also, a player cannot see the other characters' sheet but he can give an object from his own character. A console chat permits to talk to the other players from the party, for negociating objects found after killing a monster for example. A player can leave the party at any time. Also, the player can move his character inside the party.

- the player controls a character and can join another player's character to form a party but the characters are fully shared. This is a full cooperation and implies trust as a mean player could steal the other player's items and runs out.

- the player controls a character and that's all, there is no party anymore. What's the point in having a party when you are playing with other people ?

- the player controls a party, as in a regular DM game. It works if specific dungeons are created, with wide corridors and plenty of monsters.

To spice it up, some players could act as dungeon masters as in NWN/MUDs, making monsters speak, modifiying the dungeon on the fly, helping bleeding heroes, etc.

[Tom Hatfield]

I recommend a single character in network games. Actually, I was going to suggest up to four players in the game total, in any combination under each player's control, but this painfully limits the game's potential. A dungeon as huge as the one in DM could easily support eight people, and if you made bigger dungeons. . . well, you could support 16 or 32 without much difficulty.

There's also the notion that not everyone has to work together. Obviously you couldn't have eight people in a party, but that's not what I mean. What I mean is, some people could actually play on the monsters' side, sort of like Capture the Flag but in the context of DM. One team is trying to find the three Ra keys and assemble the Firestaff; the other team is trying to take the keys back and keep them from entering the Chamber of the Soulst---- oh, sorry. Been playing too much Realms of the Haunting.

Anyway, I consider party formation to be necessary but optional. Anyone remember Swords & Serpents for the NES? It was basically a one-player game, but another player could pick up the second gamepad and control two of the party members. Something like this is what I have in mind, if you choose to party up with another player. The party leader (designated as such) controls movement, and everyone else follows. However, I think the party should be broken if the leader does something foolish, like leaping into a pit. If other party members want to leap into the pit, they'll have to do so on their own.

Otherwise, you can have four people on the same tile without belonging to the same party. I'd call this "stacking." You could also change your position on the tile by dragging your character icon, provided nobody else is in that position. If you want to trade positions with someone else. . . well, that's complicated. You'd want some kind of non-intrusive notification that the other player wants to swap places with you.

I'll think about it some more.

[Wismerhill]

What if there's no more party, but you can simply click a button to say 'follow this character'. As soon as you move your character yourself, this follow mode goes off. The cool thing is that you could have a different orientation while following the leader, permitting to watch the party's back while moving like everyone else.

The problem that I see is how to manage the character's position inside the party. As you said, if you want to trade your position with someone else, things get complicated. Also, if your character is in the second front line, do you see the character in front of you ? I guess not, the player should have the regular central point of view.

People playing on the monsters' side is a good idea. But, what difference there is between a monster and a character ? None, really. It's just a matter of goals.

[Ameena]

Well, for starters, mobs never run out of mana (Dragons etc). And I suppose that if you were playing as a slow-moving mob, for example a Stone Giant, you'd move as though heavily encumbered (in the red or whatever). And would you have skills, or would they be limited by your species? If you were controlling a Thief, you wouldn't be able to hurt people, but you'd have a nice big inventory to shove all your stolen loot in .

[Wismerhill]

Yeah, this play the monsters thing opens up a whole new world of possibilities. But the hard thing is to achieve a good balance beetwen heroes and monsters, and among monsters too i.e. a thief without a warrior to protect him is in trouble. Monsters are heavily specialized, unlike heroes.

[Ameena]

Maybe the person playing the mobs could have a separate control panel or something, or a mini map showing the location of monsters on that level...then they could choose which one they want to play as and switch over to that one and attack the party or something. Hmm...all the ideas I'm having relating to monster-playing are similar/identical to that of playing Dungeon Keeper and using the Possession spell .
Or lots of people could play monsters, and all get together in a group to mash the players, or step on switches and stuff to unleash traps on them or something /shrug.

[linflas]

playing 'as' a monster shouldn't be really funny imho... so why not controlling several monsters or (better!) monsters generators ?
for example, in a huge dungeon with large corridors, several 4 characters party are starting from different points and fighting against one "master of the dungeon".
the master uses a warcraft like interface (woot!) with a complete view of the dungeon, he starts with a limited number of monsters (1 dragon, 8 demons, 50 screamers, 40 mummys, etc..) and distribute them into generators he can put in particuliar places..
during play, he can give orders to monsters, can activate several traps (shooters, pit openings, blue hazes...) , and can gain new monsters after a certain amount of time and then reactivate some of his generators or place monsters directly into the dungeon.
of course, killing monsters has not to be too difficult for other players or the game will be boring/slow.
these are just ideas, i don't know if it can be implemented/playable..

[Selie]

Doesn't that game already exist?

Like, Dungeon Keeper or something like that?

[Gambit37]

I neve rplayed it myself, but saw someone playing it many years ago, and yes you all seem to be discussing Dungeon Keeper. In my opinion that's too far away from what a multiplayer DM should be -- though still haven't worked out exactly what that is!

[Ameena]

I've got and played both DK and DK2...they're good games, but looking at the ideas here, I see the problem with the DM thing being that you play the part of the invading heroes in that game - in DK, you are the evil keeper, building your underground dungeon to invade the human realm (ie the surface) and trying to massacre every hero who tries to stop you. I supopse multiplayer DM could be done like this, but for the person playing the dungeon-keeper-thingy it would basically be a completely different game - presumably for the heroes it would seem pretty much the same, apart from the fact that you'd know you were up against another person rather than an AI.
I don't really like playing against other people, though - I prefer co-operative play. Perhaps DM maps could be designed for different numbers of players (up to a maximum of four?), ie puzzles wihich may need two people (playing one character each) to step on two pads at the same time in different parts of the dungeon in order to open a door or make a key appear or whatever. Or an uber evil scary death mob (like a Black Knight with about 2k hitpoints) who hsa to be lured into some sort of trap by one person while another pulls the switch which traps him in there/drops him down the pit or whatever.
I think this multiple-players-solve-puzzles thing is pretty much what's in "The Legend of Zelda - Four Swords" on the GameBoy Advance, but I've not hda a chance to play it because no-one I know has either a GBA or that game .

[Tom Hatfield]

The monsters thing was just an idea. I was actually thinking of monsters in terms of "evil players," nothing like Dungeon Keeper. Go for co-op first, and then decide if competitive mode might enhance the game. Whether or not you'd even want PvP in MP DM is questionable at best, especially if you have pickup games online. If it's LAN-only between friends/co-workers, then I guess it doesn't matter. I agree: I play games for co-op, not competition. There just aren't enough good co-op games for the PC.

If you want some ideas regarding co-op puzzle solving, you might take a look at Project Eden. Good luck finding a copy, but if you do, it could provide some useful insights. The game was designed with one player in mind, but up to four players can control each of the characters. (Four characters? Like DM?...) I see multiplayer DM being something like, "Let's split up so we can find the keys faster," and then, "Purple worms are chewing my face!!! Heeellpp!!!!" and everyone runs back to the rendesvous. I'm sure you could make more interesting puzzles that keep players in closer proxomity without making it too redundant/repetitive/boring/whathaveyou.

[Selie]

The problem with Four Swords (and I use "problem" loosely here, since it works just fine with the way the game's supposed to feel) is that it's necessary to cooperate in order to advance in the game, but it's just as easy to compete and/or hurt the other characters. I don't think that that would work in DM. You'd have to either be completely cooperative or completely competitive. I would vastly prefer a cooperative game. I think it suits the feel of DM better. And I'm biased. I'm a really bad player and I hate having to compete with people because it's just no fun - unless it's Mario Kart on the SNES, I can't win.

I like what you suggest in your second paragraph, Tom.

[Tom Hatfield]

LOL! I'm the same way. When it comes to UT2004, I'll smoke everybody on the continent. . . but if it's a strategy game --- which, in a cruel twist of irony, I like even more --- you don't even have to try. This is why it bothers me tremendously that all these new games --- Half-life 2, Far Cry, Doom 3 --- don't have any co-op. We need another Halo. Besides Halo 2, I mean.

What part did you like, exactly? Maybe we should discuss it further. If we field the ideas now, someone will pick them up and implement them. It might even be me.

[Wismerhill]

I am definitely supporting the co-op path. I think dungeons should be made to work with a given number of players, say dungeon X works with 4 to 6 players. Each player would control a character and could team up with the other characters, but could also leave when he wants to explore another part of the dungeon. Games could be indexed on a server, like Yahoo games. You would arrive, see the game tables waiting for players, join one and when the table is full, launch the game.

[Komakino]

I think it would be fun for each person to control 1 member of the party. The party would function much like a team in a standard MMORPG therefore the team would need to stick together in order to defeat monsters and solve puzzles, however each member has freedom to roam. Monsters abilities could be scaled to the number in the dungeon, just like Diablo 2 and would thus keep the players together in order to beat the mobs up. Puzzles would need rejigging to take account of the fact the players are not forced to stand on 1 square eg some puzzle may require two or more pads to pressed at the same time.

An editor would be nice and allow people to make dungeons, mobs, items etc. This sounds somewhat like a first person neverwinter nights.

[ParuNexus]

so what take Phantasy Star Online and rebuild for DM instead? there are some good elements of PSO that i do ifnd might be helpful. but yes doors, keys etc would need to be reworked alot. having an online\MP DM game isn't as fun if your forced to walk with all the other places and basically what you do is fight. besides of course deciding who "picks up the items". but if there is free movement each person has only one character.

hmm yes PSO example would work great, each acount has whatever limit of characters i go to the "Dungeon door" type place move aorund or whatever chatting with people max of 4 people join a group to "enter the dungeon" . everyone has free movement and thusly we all got hand to click on stuff or whatever. For places that do lock area's off, have in place the sorta boss teleport system that PSO use's or the "stand on all 4 platforms to open door. namely the level 4 mummy.

Each level can be unlocked by going down and saving so each person different access to the dungeon. or perhaps replace the different stages PSO has with with differen DM maps once a standard is made.
but that would make tihng way complex. Like say the First stage Is hte classic DM, the 2nd is skull keep, then the 3rd to unlock is Chaos Strikes back.(IMHO dm2 was ALOT easier the CSB and tihnk a leap from DM to DM2 is better then CSB). but these are all fantasy idea's. lets not forgot once upon a time someone was working on a MMORPG for DM. sorta died off, don't even remember much about it. but again going back to being online playing and beating with less then the max. thats the underlying part, at what point do you go from playing with others to doing it solo? But i think i'm done with this already long message for now, just sometihng to toss out.

[PadTheMad]

The PSO mechanics would work well in DM multiplayer if it was to be played as a co-op, namely the 4 players, 1 switch. It could be used to guard treasure or unlock a hoard of dragons!!! (Do dragons come in hoards lol?)

I fell there are, however, a few major downfalls with a few of the ideas here.

1. The age old question of how are the champions / other players going to be represented in the game on the other players' screens? And if they are shown as champions, how will all the different weapons and armour going to be shown?

2. Level design can essentially make or break a game. Dungeon Master's design is one we all know and love but it is designed for one player and one player only. If multiplayer DM was to be made, then some killer levels would have to be made or it would itself be killed.

3. I really am disliking this MMORPG thing. As I mentoned about the levels, the dungeon in DM is only designed for a maximum of 4 champions. Having more than 4 would, for me, destroy the DM experience as it would start feeling overcrowded. A better option would be to have a town or villiage as a central meeting hub then lots of dungeons around for up to 4 characters. These dungeons needn't be dungeons at all - forests, caves or even haunted villiages! This would make DM feel more like an adventure rather than a one-off quest - perfect for online gaming and frolics!

I have been planning, for a while now, a Dungeon Master themed mod for the UT2k4 engine which would be played co-op as well (still only 4 players, mind you). Got a story and some initial ideas, it's just getting round to implementing it! Mind you, Source engine looks promising as well...

Remember folks, all these ideas are great and I'm not trying to steer anyone clear of the prospect of a multiplayer DM, quite the opposite in fact - it'd be great! It would just be a shame to see a great concept go to waste.

[Wismerhill]

3. I really am disliking this MMORPG thing. As I mentoned about the levels, the dungeon in DM is only designed for a maximum of 4 champions. Having more than 4 would, for me, destroy the DM experience as it would start feeling overcrowded. A better option would be to have a town or villiage as a central meeting hub then lots of dungeons around for up to 4 characters. These dungeons needn't be dungeons at all - forests, caves or even haunted villiages! This would make DM feel more like an adventure rather than a one-off quest - perfect for online gaming and frolics!

World of Warcraft has something like that, it's called an "Instance Dungeon", it means that when a party enters this kind of dungeon, a new dungeon instance is created for this party and no other player can come in.

[Ameena]

One of the EQ expansions has that too...you get a group together (of three to six people) and go to an NPC at one of five camps (located at different locations on the planet). You then sak them for an adventure and recieve (and it was patched the other day that now you can choose rather then be given at random) one of four tasks - to collect X number of drops (20-30), kil X number of mobs (50-60), rescue an NPC from the back fo the dungeon, or assassinate a named mob at the back of the dungeon.
Anyway...the dungeon is created when you accept the adventure I think, and you are told to go to whatever dungeon entrance it is (each camp had between one and three dungeon entrances). If another group is told to go to the same entrance they'll still zone into their own adventure and you into yours. It's cool 'cause it means there's no camp stealing or KSing or anything (not that there is much of that nowadays that I can see).
Wow, look, I said pretty much what Wismer said, only in about ten times the length .
Oh, and speaking of length...my story is now 29 pages...it was 24 when I started adding to it this morning. And yes, they're still on Level Three. In the first trial.

[beowuuf]

Just to go OT - 33 pages and they have only just killed the second screamer : ) I shall post soonish