RCT Discussion / Multiplayer projects - where next?

So I've been thinking of ways we can improve NE's multiplayer projects.. We've got a super talented community here and I think we can better harness OpenRCT2's multiplayer mode to make more exciting parks. There are loads of servers where you can go and build anything - I'd like it if we tried to be more focused.

 

I think the main thing that puts me off building in the servers is that they are messy and poorly planned - I'm not gonna want to spend hours creating a beautiful building or ride when the overall picture sucks. It's not down to any members specific work either, it's just a total lack of planning or direction. So let's try and do better!

 

 

Here is what I propose and what I'd like to hear your thoughts on:

 

Firstly, I think it'll be important to have the parks regularly rotate - somewhere between periods of 1 and 3 weeks. I would suggest having 4-8 parks in the rotation. (Is it feasible to run the server like this?)

 

Secondly, and most importantly, I think we should have 1 member "Lead" each park. A bit like the way H2H parks tend to work. This could entail:

 

Pre-planning the park before it goes live on the server

Choosing or creating the bench. Mapping out elevation, rivers, paths, areas (to whatever extent the leader chooses).

 

Clearly outlining the concept

Realism? - if so define it. Think about who runs it, where it's located, what budget the park has. Maybe it's Disney, maybe it's family run. Semi Realism? Maybe it's something like Isole Calabria or Dreamport where the focus is on immersive theming and atmosphere rather than telling the story of a parks history. Maybe it's full blown fantasy - in which case, what's the narrative? Describe the world you're wanting to build. Once your park is live create a thread where you outline all these things.

 

Being somewhat available whilst the park is live

In order to lead the park and give it direction it's probably a good idea to have a few evenings free over the fortnight (?) the park is on the server.

 

Delegating jobs

This totally depends on how specific the leader wants to go.. You might choose to leave it quite open once the concept is outline. Or you might place signs across the map saying "river rapids here", "restaurant here" etc. Maybe you put a specific list of jobs in the project's thread.

 

Executive decision what stays and goes

Pretty self explanatory - but I think it's important if you want a cohesive looking multiplayer park whilst having it open to many contributors. There will always be things built that ignore the concept or mess up the composition. Perhaps before outright deleting things that aren't working offer feedback and suggest improvements.

 

Responsibility over finishing it (offline?)

You're the leader so unfortunately you have to do the boring stuff to wrap it up! Naming things, filling in blank spots etc

 

 

 

I think what could be a great thing about this is that whilst some leaders may have a way more specific plan, others may choose to keep it as a more open and loose project.

 

I guess the main things to discuss are if you like this idea and how it could be administered. How are park leaders decided? Maybe members make 'proposals' outlining their idea and the mods choose and schedule the projects?

 

Interested to hear your thoughts :^)

Sounds good!

This seems to become a problem over time with a lot of large scale multiplayer servers.

I think everything you've identified is good to consider, especially a leader role and executive power with the responsibility of finishing the park.

Good post, alex! Definitely a good idea!

I agree with everything here! We can't guarantee this will 100% work, but I'm sure that it'll be much better than what we have now.

I too think this is a great idea and relatively necessary. All points outlined seem pretty straightforward and I don't have much to add.

I agree perhaps individuals could come forward with proposed plans and ideas to get the next multiplayer park going. Perhaps even old parks people have that they wouldn't want to finish on their own could be done or old NE group parks?

One problem we've noticed with the multiplayer parks thus far is that people most enjoy starting their own area from scratch. This has been very evident in the first and NCSO MP parks, and one could probably notice pretty easily.

We just need a commitment from the community that people will want to participate if they can't plan their own area or build their own coaster and rides. If we can get that, much of the issues we've had (mostly with the realistic park) would be eliminated.

I also think for concepts such as a specific type of realistic park or a fantasy park based in a certain subject that builder do some research into such topics. We had a lot of problems in the realistic park with people not exactly understanding what the park was supposed to be and how exactly something like that should be put together. Much of it was my own fault in not planning it very well, but I still think many members just started plopping stuff down without considering the park as a whole.

Anyways, I'm glad we have some interest in the meta of MP RCT. There is a lot of potential with it and I think we could build some great parks if we all worked together.

I haven't been able to join a multiplayer park yet, but in the near future I'd like to rumble in the rct bronx. To add a thought to Alex's points, perhaps varying the sizes of the different projects could be wise, perhaps having small parks or design projects. I think it may be motivating to the community to see more projects coming to completion on the multiplayer server, so having smaller mixed with larger projects would accomplish this.

I probably wont be able to participate for a while, although I do think it would be a good idea.

 

btw @bsg, you look very patriotic in red!

@G Force - Good points. I actually don't think we should pander to people wanting to immediately create their own layout and area (in isolation to whatever else is happening on the map) just to ensure participation - Firstly they can do that on any other server. Secondly it's what usually causes people to loose interest because of how inconsistent the map looks. Also, by having a regular rotation of parks we should have a good spread of people 'leading' parks, or at least having a major creative role.

 

@posix - haha maybe. Only if there is a regular rotation with other parks though.

 

@bsg - I totally agree and if this idea were to take shape I'd love to see small scale parks/projects in the 'rotation' amongst full-size parks. Even unfinished parks like Steve suggested.

 

Admins: Do you think a system like this would be feasible to implement?

 

The way I would potentially see it working is this:

week 1 - begin a week long call out for park proposals from members (these submissions could be public or private)

week 2 - admin team pick 5-10 park proposals that sound solid and offer enough variety.

week 3 - announcement of the upcoming multiplayer projects & "leaders" and the timetable of when they will go live.

I always enjoyes building with fisch more when he told me what to do. Back this plan.

Can we still do the thing where we build over an old LL classic? Or maybe i should try in small scale first as proof of concept...

5-10 parks sounds like way too many. 3 could be perfect and I like the idea of them rotating every week.

I definitely like the idea of having all the members come up with concepts and submitting them for consideration.

Rotating parks is a good counter-measure for the short attention span people have, and something we have tried a little around March and April. However it also reinforces the short attention span and people refraining from contributing because they know something else that may suit their tastes better is coming up. There should be a limit to how many parks are being rotated and I'd say that limit is two. Maybe three for as long as the realism park G Force hates is unfinished.

 

I'm also all for the bottom-up approach. The reason for having neglected the multiple server a little at times, including postponing putting up a new map, is time constraints. Maybe more of a priority issue, because we have time for NE. There already is this topic for sharing multiplayer ideas. To anyone with a good multiplayer idea, I suggest posting it there first (we can make it an official sticky topic) to see if it gains any support. If it does, supply the bench and the outline, and if we see it as a suitable NE Group Park we can put it up with you being the leader.