Obviously this has been suggested before but...

[OblongNoodle]

I wanted to get the devs most recent thoughts for the benefit of everyone.

[PALU]

Multiplayer would completely wreck the game due to all the sacrifices of single player functionality that would have to be done on the altar of multi player.
If you want a multi player shooter that sort of looks like UrW, go ahead and make one, but don't destroy UrW in the process.

Turn based works poorly with multi player, although it can work for strategic level PBEMs (e.g. Dominions, but there the battles have been sacrificed on the multi player altar, so you're suffering from stupid battle decisions and overall lousy battle control).

[koteko]

I doubt the game itself could be adapted to multiplayer, even if there was a will to do it. And there is not: it's not in the development list.

It would be cool if someone made a "similar" multiplayer game though. I used to enjoy MUDs (eg, multiplayer text-based games) and there was one in particular with survival elements (with many mechanics to extract resources from the world to be later used for crafting, light fires etc). It was pretty cool

[PALU]

Yes, parallel, largely unsynchronized play could be implemented in something that takes inspiration from UrW, but it would have to make it very clear when things are synchronized, when they are not, and which "weird" effects are to be expected and has to be accepted as a result of being between synchronization points. There'd inevitably be a bunch of griefers who'd want to prey on others, preferably weaker and unsuspecting, as well as duelists (who'd actually take a risk of being hit back by people who play according to the same rules), and that's an area where lack of synchronization (or, conversely, demand for synchronization) will hit particularly hard.