Nainstalovat Steam
přihlásit se
|
jazyk
简体中文 (Zjednodušená čínština)
繁體中文 (Tradiční čínština)
日本語 (Japonština)
한국어 (Korejština)
ไทย (Thajština)
български (Bulharština)
Dansk (Dánština)
Deutsch (Němčina)
English (Angličtina)
Español-España (Evropská španělština)
Español-Latinoamérica (Latin. španělština)
Ελληνικά (Řečtina)
Français (Francouzština)
Italiano (Italština)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonéština)
Magyar (Maďarština)
Nederlands (Nizozemština)
Norsk (Norština)
Polski (Polština)
Português (Evropská portugalština)
Português-Brasil (Brazilská portugalština)
Română (Rumunština)
Русский (Ruština)
Suomi (Finština)
Svenska (Švédština)
Türkçe (Turečtina)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamština)
Українська (Ukrajinština)
Nahlásit problém s překladem
A turned-based mode might be suitable for adapting to something like play-by-email (PBEM), or some such other messaging protocol? As with other server-less net play strategies, one player would still need to act as a host arbiter. I used to enjoy playing PBEM mode with games such as Warlords and Stars! (And chess, of course.)
Not true, there are several good strategy games that are turn based and have online multiplayer. Civilization comes to mind. Also, there could be some time limit on each turn to stop the players from stalling (a setting left to the host as not everyone would want such limit or agree on the exact duration).
The only difficult part to solution is how to get the party to travel long distances outside of combat. I would recommend designating a party leader/follow command structure so one person just runs the party somewhere till combat starts.
It's actually not, you'd just have to come up with a couple of decision points:
1) if any player goes into a screen that pauses the game in single player, does it still pause the game for everyone in multiplayer?
2) what base speed do you want the game to try to hit?
3) are the players on the same map, but have their own set of dwarves that listen to their commands, or are they on different maps. And by "map" I mean very small area of the world, embark screen size. Because players could play on different embarks rather easily and have little to no direct effect on each other. It's only when you start putting 2+ players on the same embark site that it gets complicated.
4) how is loyalty handled between 2 different dwarven fortresses on the same embark site (does attacking the other dwarf site cause any loyalty concerns for yourself).
Now if your answer to #3 is that you don't actually have separate dwarves, and it's just multiple people giving the same inputs to one dwarven civilization then multiplayer becomes really simple as well, it's only when you get multiple dwarven fortresses that things actually become complicated.
MP Fortress is infeasible at best and impossible (processing power...) at worst.
No way, you have that BACKWARDS. It would be far easier to do a fortress multiplayer because the commands would just need to be sent from two or more clients with everybody viewing the simulation play out, as the Dwarves just do what they are told from orders being placed. Like the Rimworld multiplayer mod turned a single player game into a multiplayer game. Now adventure mode, I can't even imagine how that could be accomplished.