Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[DuckBoy2]

Hmm, just read Mac OS X 10.7 has a multi user remote desktop feature, but it doesn't sound like it shares screens, only lets multiple people use the computer at the same time, still, doing the screen grab for another person's stuff might be easy and be a painless non portable way to implement #2

Apparently Windows XP had an Up to 3 user remote desktop back in 2005-2006, but they disabled it. 

Oh Google, you know everything. 

[KaelGotDwarves]

Those are well thought out ideas - but heck even if we start small... I would jump for joy if we can manage more than one cursor in DFterm2.

[Nil Eyeglazed]

I don't understand why method 1 would be significantly preferable to just passing around a world and making sequential fortresses for the benefit of future adventurers.  It would be a lot of work, just to keep your adventurer in year 1075 instead of year 2000.

[Starver]

I don't understand why method 1 would be significantly preferable to just passing around a world and making sequential fortresses for the benefit of future adventurers.  It would be a lot of work, just to keep your adventurer in year 1075 instead of year 2000.

Simultaneous cooperation or competition, according to taste.

In the former case, one player can be saying to themselves "I know if this fortress fails, it won't be for the lack of booze and food!" while another is confident about his defensive architecture, and yet another is doing their best to get those in the military into shape for when that architecture needs breaching for the resource gathering that another player is desperate to start upon, but is holding back and odd-jobbing until such time as it's safe to do so...

In the latter: "I can make my dwarf more self-sufficient than yours" "Oh yeah, even if I drain the water away from your well?" "Ph34r m`/ M46M4!!111!!!111oneoneone"  Or perhaps something less clichéd, BYGTI.

[Ter13]

I don't understand why method 1 would be significantly preferable to just passing around a world and making sequential fortresses for the benefit of future adventurers.  It would be a lot of work, just to keep your adventurer in year 1075 instead of year 2000.

World pass-arounds don't seem to stay relevant long enough to actually make an interesting world. They go for one or two forts, then sort of peter out.

[Scoops Novel]

Damn it i hate logout timers. Please add an autosave feature to these forums. In essence, though I'm not going to pretend to know the coding necessary, and probably monumental at that, would it be possible to run two servers, one in dwarf fortress mode, (though the key problem here is the possibility of having no pause if you wished to implement it. On the one hand, you could let other people take control of your fortress while you're offline. On the other, you're letting people take control of your fortress while you're offline. You might be able to set up particular rules for that player, but to be honest this sounds very difficult to implement in real time, though perhaps with the use of macros or limited pause which only affects those in a certain radius of effect it could be overcome.), and another in adventurer mode starting sometime after and set in a previous era of the dwarf fortress server, in which the events of that server happen alongside the adventurers actions?

This is thought in a sandbox, not necessarily everyone plays but they're people you don't know scenario, and with the actions in adventure mode spiraling off into their own timeline. However, every now and then the world is updated with fortresses from the dwarf fortress server that either embark on uninhabited sites or reclaim old ones.

Ideally, and most batshit crazy of them all, fortresses which are currently active in the adventurer server could be interacted with in adventurer time on the adventurer server by their former owner and/or people who that player allows to on.

Most likely this is an idea for another era, but i'm posting it on the offchance it might actually happen.
In summary, and TL;DR: More interaction between adventurer and dwarf fortress modes in multiplayer, would, though being insanely hard to implement as said in the second to last paragraph, and probably for the whole post, be an extremely attractive prospect.

[billybobfred]

In the ten months of necrobump you just did there, Method 2 was actually implemented.

[Putnam]

That was around before this topic, I'm pretty sure.

[Scoops Novel]

Well, i thought i might as well. Don't really see any negative effects of raising a still relevant topic. Putnam i take it you're referring to Carnes multiplayer?

[Dude_Jebawe]

Methods 2 and 3 sound awesome for community forts.

[Felix False]

I like method two, but instead of sharing the dorfs, would it be possible to split the dorfs down the middle so that one play controls half and the other players controls the other half? Since both players only have access to half the dorfs they normally would, it would require a great deal more cooperation on their part in order to work together and build the fort.

Or maybe they could split the embark site in half and build two forts side by side. That way there exists potential for some mutual antagonistic behavior.

[Tibbz2]

Method 2 is the one i've always though of being the best