Multiplayer (NOT LAME I PROMISE!)

[Docterrok]

Yes, Yes, I understand that this may defeat the purpose of the game itself but here me out, by the way, I would like to say that i have no problem with singleplayer. In fact, I love it! so much so that I believe it shouldn't be altered, my idea is actually a separate play mode, I have made many concept drawings, ideas, and game play mechanics as a whole over the months (yes, MONTHS) all comments and suggestions are appreciated. Now, without further ado, I present my idea!

THE TWINS

Local co-op

a brother and a sister have crashed, together, the resources are more frequent to hold 2 people, I understand there is a limit on every resource, that should not change, they both have to work together and cool new mechanics could be added like kicking a wolf off your companion as they're getting mauled, making a carrying pole so that you can haul deer to new locations if you are both present, shared warmth (yes, hugging and stuff), giving medical items to each other, and a carrying system so that you can carry your companion if they are at the brink of consciousness, such as exhaustion or a twisted ankle. But wait! there more! negative aspects include friendly fire, more panic, and divided resources, but also getting more stuff done, assistance, and most importantly, another LIVE person! Now if one of them dies, its game over, simple as that, and saving works just the same, but you cannot play alone on the "Twins" game mode, as that would defeat the purpose. Tell me what you think! suggestions are always welcome!

[vancopower]

2 hours ago, Docterrok said:

Yes, Yes, I understand that this may defeat the purpose of the game itself but here me out, by the way, I would like to say that i have no problem with singleplayer. In fact, I love it! so much so that I believe it shouldn't be altered, my idea is actually a separate play mode, I have made many concept drawings, ideas, and game play mechanics as a whole over the months (yes, MONTHS) all comments and suggestions are appreciated. Now, without further ado, I present my idea!

THE TWINS

Local co-op

a brother and a sister have crashed, together, the resources are more frequent to hold 2 people, I understand there is a limit on every resource, that should not change, they both have to work together and cool new mechanics could be added like kicking a wolf off your companion as they're getting mauled, making a carrying pole so that you can haul deer to new locations if you are both present, shared warmth (yes, hugging and stuff), giving medical items to each other, and a carrying system so that you can carry your companion if they are at the brink of consciousness, such as exhaustion or a twisted ankle. But wait! there more! negative aspects include friendly fire, more panic, and divided resources, but also getting more stuff done, assistance, and most importantly, another LIVE person! Now if one of them dies, its game over, simple as that, and saving works just the same, but you cannot play alone on the "Twins" game mode, as that would defeat the purpose. Tell me what you think! suggestions are always welcome!

Co-op hmm. Tried coop minecraft once, with a friend. We played the whole day it was fun, but the next day we could not hang out so I called another friend and we started again. The next day same story. The next day the game crashed so many times we said just Screw it. However if you have a sibling and you are hanging out all the time I guess it is fine. 

[Wastelander]

Welcome to the forums @Docterrok!

Yeah, a Co-Op would be nice, and probably even feasible in the programming. However, as @vancopower said, the usual behaviour of Coop players renders this kind of moot. While I do agree that it would be cool, the current development resources are much better spent on roadmap items (the vast majority of which are awesome, the rest of it is cool!)

[EternityTide]

There have been many, many suggestions over the months since I have been on these forums, and I have to say, I cannot quite understand why it is that the people making the suggestion don't see the obvious problem with multiplayer - time.
The Long Dark uses a "speed up" mechanic that alters the characters time based on what they are doing - whilst walking around and searching cabinets, that is all done on real time, and while that WOULD be compatible with coop gameplay, there are a plethora of mechanics that are wholly incompatible with multiplayer, namely:

• Sleep
• Crafting
• Fishing
• Cooking

And of course you have the whole issue of "how does the computer cope when one player enters a building and one stays outside?" you would have to have two environments rendered and running on the machine, which would toast some people's rigs. Of course you could avoid this by building in a "You cannot exit this area without the other player" but that is jarringly, horribly immersion-breaking.
All in all, I'm afraid that puts the nail in the coffin for a TLD coop/multiplayer. The idea itself isn't bad, it's just that you can't convert a 1 bedroom bungalow into an apartment block - when the foundations are laid specifically for a singleplayer game, and an immersive one at that, they just won't support a multiplayer facility. 

[Docterrok]

I never thought about that, that is an excellent point.

[Mikeyd0577]

On 6/11/2016 at 11:50 AM, EternityTide said:

There have been many, many suggestions over the months since I have been on these forums, and I have to say, I cannot quite understand why it is that the people making the suggestion don't see the obvious problem with multiplayer - time.
The Long Dark uses a "speed up" mechanic that alters the characters time based on what they are doing - whilst walking around and searching cabinets, that is all done on real time, and while that WOULD be compatible with coop gameplay, there are a plethora of mechanics that are wholly incompatible with multiplayer, namely:

• Sleep
• Crafting
• Fishing
• Cooking

And of course you have the whole issue of "how does the computer cope when one player enters a building and one stays outside?" you would have to have two environments rendered and running on the machine, which would toast some people's rigs. Of course you could avoid this by building in a "You cannot exit this area without the other player" but that is jarringly, horribly immersion-breaking.
All in all, I'm afraid that puts the nail in the coffin for a TLD coop/multiplayer. The idea itself isn't bad, it's just that you can't convert a 1 bedroom bungalow into an apartment block - when the foundations are laid specifically for a singleplayer game, and an immersive one at that, they just won't support a multiplayer facility. 

Another game I play is The Forest.  In multiplayer you can sleep/pass time but it doesn't take effect until all players in the game have  chosen that option at the same time.

As for the other 3 main reasons; I have no answer to that yet.  

 

[EternityTide]

That's very immersion breaking. Half way through your game and "Mikeyd0577 has gone to sleep. They have requested that you also sleep in order to complete the action"

What if someone was  trying to get the "one starry night" achievement?

[Mikeyd0577]

On 6/21/2016 at 4:10 AM, EternityTide said:

That's very immersion breaking. Half way through your game and "Mikeyd0577 has gone to sleep. They have requested that you also sleep in order to complete the action"

What if someone was  trying to get the "one starry night" achievement?

If they don't choose to sleep/pass time then it doesn't take and no one sleeps.  I'm just pointing out one way that it "could" be done.

 

[Loppysaurusrex]

No, tremendous amount of work for the devs, addition of netcode blah blah, completely revamped systems for game balance.

Too much work, I think I speak for a lot of people when I say I want this to be an immersive single-player experience.

If this wouldn't sap precious time and effort away from the devs, then sure, but that's not how the real world works, so no, I don't think it's a good idea and I'm pretty sure Hinterland has no intention of adding any sort of multiplayer.

[Docterrok]

9 hours ago, Loppysaurusrex said:

No, tremendous amount of work for the devs, addition of netcode blah blah, completely revamped systems for game balance.

Too much work, I think I speak for a lot of people when I say I want this to be an immersive single-player experience.

If this wouldn't sap precious time and effort away from the devs, then sure, but that's not how the real world works, so no, I don't think it's a good idea and I'm pretty sure Hinterland has no intention of adding any sort of multiplayer.

I agree actually, thought it'd be a nice side game, you know?