Multiplayer: How could 2 player co-op work?

[Mroz4k]

Ignorance really, really pisses me off.

People will claim it is difficult to figure out how to solve the time dilatation - there has been many people suggesting various ways to do that. So, it has been solved already.

Now, the "rely only on yourself argument" - I absolutely disagree that this HAS to be what the TLD is about. In fact, I think it would be much more immersive if there were times where you HAD to rely on someone else. Because that is how it is in real life - there are things you cant handle on your own. Besides, the NPCs in the game will eventually make this irrelevant - if I am correct, I believe that in Sandbox, you will need to rely on NPCs to teach you crafting methods same as in Story, considering that right now it is super easy to craft everything because you immediately have the know-how.

But I get that some people are just stubborn and want to play by their own - which I have no problem with. I personally would play both. Why can't we have both the multiplayer and singleplayer options? I see many posts that seem to claim multiplayer option for the game would kill it, and never say why, except for some vague bullshit like "it would kill the feel of the game" - while you can always just play single player.

Another thing people argument with is that nobody can be 100% satisfied when it comes to games - that is true - but you also have to realize that not everything that will get into the game is something YOU in particular wanted. Be considerate of others.

It may seem that I am the only one, pushing for Co-Op mode, but the fact that this suggestion keeps resurfacing twice a week at least shows that there is a sizeable community who would wish to play TLD with their friends.

11 hours ago, Hackfleisch said:

It's not obvious at all why a game based on isolation and lone survival should be better with multiplayer.

Regardless the "theme" of the game, it is obvious why a multi-player game is better than single-player. Statistics show that playing any game with others are generally much more enjoyable for everyone involved because there is another person to entertain you beside yourself there. And one person on their lonesome, isolated, is really not that different from two people. Maybe you are not truly alone then, but it still does not change the feeling of having merciless nature all around you.

I know this because I would play survival games long before the genre became popular.

[Hackfleisch]

I don't agree, I don't think multiplayer is more enjoyable. Maybe you think so, but you gotta learn that your opinion isn't fact, and I suspect by your posting style that's gonna be a hard pill to swallow.

IMO multiplayer wouldn't add anything to the game, sometimes it's hard enough to keep doing stuff by yourself. Now you can sit in the dark during a blizzard with another player! If you like playing with a friend, you can always invite a friend over to play with you. They would have to add or change some mechanics in order to make it not completely redundant. And even if that wouldn't cost an enormous amount of time, I'd rather they spend that time on something else.

[Doc Gonzo]

It looks more and more like the studio is thinking about this as a concept at least: 

This has led to some interesting debate/thoughts on the TLD sub on Reddit.  

[KinoUnko]

definitely potential, it's really a question of degree.

[JAFO]

On 10/27/2017 at 7:28 PM, Mroz4k said:

People will claim it is difficult to figure out how to solve the time dilatation - there has been many people suggesting various ways to do that. So, it has been solved already.

Not trying to detract from the discussion at all, but this is another example of your categorical style of statement running away with you..

"Suggesting" solutions is NOT the same thing as "it has been solved already". Nothing has been solved. We don't yet know if the suggestions will even work. There is a huge gulf between an idea and the successful implementation of that idea. A gulf that sometimes cannot be crossed. "It has been solved already" is a premature claim with no evidence to back it up.

[Doc Gonzo]

On 10/28/2017 at 5:56 AM, JAFO said:

Not trying to detract from the discussion at all, but this is another example of your categorical style of statement running away with you..

"Suggesting" solutions is NOT the same thing as "it has been solved already". Nothing has been solved. We don't yet know if the suggestions will even work. There is a huge gulf between an idea and the successful implementation of that idea. A gulf that sometimes cannot be crossed. "It has been solved already" is a premature claim with no evidence to back it up.

This.  No truer words have been spoken on the topic.  Despite claims to the contrary there remains an untold number of hurdles, or gulfs, in the implementation of any sort of multiplayer option for the TLD.  

[Mroz4k]

Completely irrelevant to what I stated. And even though my understanding of individual english words may not be perfect, it should be crystal clear what I claimed there. But I will dumb it down.

People say it is "difficult" to figure out how to solve the time issue in Co-op.
I claim that this argument is stupid because people suggested many ways how to "solve" this. This statement has nothing to do with what would work or would be realistic in terms of game code. It is clearly not impossible if people are suggesting ways to do it.

And last time I checked, solving does not equal implementing anyways.

Which method would work the best and which ones would actually be possible according to the game code structure is still a matter of discussion.

But to say "it is difficult to solve the time issue" as an argument why NOT to add Co-op is stupid because there are many ways it could potentially be done, and people are coming up with more and more. In fact, this is often the main topic of the whole discussion about Co-op - "How to do it".

Even if only a single way to do it existed, I would consider it "solved" - as it is a solution, that has simply not been implemented yet.

Despite having a vast experience with English, it is my third language, so if I don't use some words properly, sorry, but I am not so sorry.

On 10/30/2017 at 2:56 PM, Doc Gonzo said:

This.  No truer words have been spoken on the topic.  Despite claims to the contrary there remains an untold number of hurdles, or gulfs, in the implementation of any sort of multiplayer option for the TLD.  

Which means absolutely nothing. Of course, a way to implement it is not easy. Why do you think the Hinterland is looking into this option and is looking for people who have experience with co-op games instead of simply committing to this idea? Because if it turned out that adding Co-op would mean they would have to re-code half of the game, they could easily back out of that project as it would be too expensive.

This is obvious to every reasonably intelligent person.

But, this cannot be used as a reason to argue "against" the Co-op in the first place. Because implementation is a necessary process for every new game content out there.

[T.V]

I think that things like sleeping/harvesting/etc could be made as you said, by "Request" button. About cooking, hinterland said that they plan to make real-time cooking in future. I don't see co-op as a something that is going to happen, but IF, I'm gonna play.

[Hackfleisch]

Welp, I guess that's it then, we're just too stupid. I always considered myself a reasonable person but it turns out not preferring multiplayer in the most single player game ever means I'm stupid. Because, as we all should know, what's the apex of intellect and the crown achievement of human excellence? Multiplayer gaming, of course. The amount of intellect one can find in any random game of Call of Duty could solve the world's problems. So I apologise, to be honest I thought mroz4k was a bit of an arrogant petty screecher, but as sitcoms have taught me, arrogance equals intelligence. So I guess I must be wrong.

[Mroz4k]

18 minutes ago, Hackfleisch said:

Welp, I guess that's it then, we're just too stupid. I always considered myself a reasonable person but it turns out not preferring multiplayer in the most single player game ever means I'm stupid. Because, as we all should know, what's the apex of intellect and the crown achievement of human excellence? Multiplayer gaming, of course. The amount of intellect one can find in any random game of Call of Duty could solve the world's problems. So I apologise, to be honest I thought mroz4k was a bit of an arrogant petty screecher, but as sitcoms have taught me, arrogance equals intelligence. So I guess I must be wrong.

Being sarcastic and riddiculous is not going to help anything. And watch yourself closely with being disrespectful, not that I care but others do. Hiding insults behind sarcasm is also lame and immature.

If you are trying to limit the game to linear thinking such as statement "this game was created to be Single player and therefore it needs to be single player" - which is a dogma - then yes, your opinion is stupid. That doesnt mean you are stupid, though. Nobody is perfect, smart person can have dumb ideas and opinions and vice versa. Which is why it is good to generate many ideas, good and bad, because then others can be inspired by those ideas and create better ones. And so on, we progress.

The fact that Hinterland is considering Co-op shows they have creative spirit, and are trying to push limitations further. Same applies to their statements of mod support. They dont see TLD as single-player game only which is something so many people here argument with, but they are looking for ways to move this game forward and make it appealable to bigger audience.

And yes, if multiplayer can be played as single player, in that case it is better. Far better, actually. Because you can play by yourself, or share your experience with a friend.

This argument is stupid in itself, so this is my last entry on this subject. If you wish to continue on, fine, not going to participate anymore.

[nicko]

1 hour ago, Mroz4k said:

The fact that Hinterland is considering Co-op shows they have creative spirit,

When have they said this?

 

1 hour ago, Mroz4k said:

And yes, if multiplayer can be played as single player, in that case it is better.

what the? how?

[Mroz4k]

2 hours ago, nicko said:

When have they said this?

 

On 10/27/2017 at 7:36 PM, Doc Gonzo said:

It looks more and more like the studio is thinking about this as a concept at least: 

This has led to some interesting debate/thoughts on the TLD sub on Reddit.  

If you go on Raphs Twitter and go a bit back, you will see he is on a lookout for developers that have experience with Co-op games. Unless you think that Hinterland is trying to make a new game altogether, this implies that they are thinking of adding Co-op to TLD. Note that nothing is confirmed at all - they are considering this idea, as they should.

3 hours ago, nicko said:

what the? how?

For the millionth time... 

If multiplayer can be played as single player, it immidiatedly is better then the same exact game that is only single player. Because this multi player has all the benefits of a single player AND more.

To explain it on a simple example:
Lets assume you are hungry and decide to visit a fast food shop. They have fries for 1 dollar. So, you decide to buy those - but then you see they have a special offer on, where you can buy a combination of fries and a small coke, for 1 dollar as well. Which option will you logically take? Because for both options, you get to pay 1 dollar, but in one case, you only get fries (in example, this is single-player) but in the other, you get the same fries, and a coke with it as well (multi player).

Based on a rule of rational thinking, every reasonably thinking person would chose the option where they can get more for the same price. Its the same with multi player, which can be played as single player.

[Hackfleisch]

No it's more like if you got a meal and get a free dessert, and you can choose ice cream or broccoli. I don't care for broccoli, I'd rather add ice cream to my meal. I don't care for multiplayer, I'd rather they work on adding different things to the game.

[JAFO]

11 hours ago, Mroz4k said:

Based on a rule of rational thinking, every reasonably thinking person would chose the option where they can get more for the same price. Its the same with multi player, which can be played as single player.

Every multi-player capable game I have, I only play in single player mode anyway. It's not a factor I consider when purchasing.

[Mroz4k]

6 hours ago, JAFO said:

Every multi-player capable game I have, I only play in single player mode anyway. It's not a factor I consider when purchasing.

Just because you personally dont consider it, does not mean its not better. Perhaps it is not in your opinion, but for others, it is. Others would consider it - therefore, that game is better then if it was only a single player.

15 hours ago, Hackfleisch said:

No it's more like if you got a meal and get a free dessert, and you can choose ice cream or broccoli. I don't care for broccoli, I'd rather add ice cream to my meal. I don't care for multiplayer, I'd rather they work on adding different things to the game.

Naturally. I am sure a lot of people would wish they worked on different things beside the Multiplayer. Why do you think they are looking for devs that have experience with co-op games in the first place? Its not just the experience.

Like I said, I think there are ways to make multiplayer happen even if it is not at expense of the current game development. I am guessing they are looking to take on developers who have experience with co-op games and then discuss whether the multiplayer is possible, and if they come into agreement that it is, they might lauch another marketing campaign to increase their resources and employ bigger team to make sure that both the game content for the current game and the multiplayer can be developed at the same time. That would be my guess. I would guess that multiplayer would be some sort of an expansion, specifically for players who want it, and for people who want only single player, it would stay single player.

And your comparison makes zero sense except it tells us your opinion - you dont want to add multi player. Its not a choice between two things, its a choice between two same things, only one of them has something on top of it. Multi player > Single player, because Multi player = Single player + mode for more people.

Both of you can argument all you want, you cannot turn over the simple fact that as far as game content goes, multi player is more then single player, it is just the way it is. You might not like it, you might not want it, but you have to realize that there are tons of other people who do, and this game is not just about what you want, but about satisfying community, among other things. Adding multi player would satisfy a lot of people, and, if done correctly, not dissatisfy the rest, because nothing would change for them.

[Hackfleisch]

At this point I'm not sure if you're trolling or just really, really dense. I don't think I've ever encountered a person with more one-dimensional thought. If you're immune to logic and reason it's a dead horse. Besides, I thought you were done discussing the issue because in your world you're always right. A difference of opinion is one thing but you only coming in to tell people they're wrong when it's a matter of preference really kills any pleasant and rational discussion. I stated before, your opinion is not fact and certainly not superior, there are more perspectives than your own, people have different preferences, you don't have a monopoly on what is correct.

[JAFO]

36 minutes ago, Mroz4k said:

Just because you personally dont consider it, does not mean its not better. Perhaps it is not in your opinion, but for others, it is.

Which is precisely why I stated that this was my own personal view. I simply wanted to counter your assertion that:

18 hours ago, Mroz4k said:

every reasonably thinking person would chose the option where they can get more for the same price

because even one person of a differing viewpoint is enough to falsify your assertion. Unless you're going to argue that I'm not a "reasonably thinking person".

This is also behind why, in this thread and others, I've pointed out your tendency to make absolute, categorical statements. Because every time you do, it demonstrates a certain inflexibility in thinking.

[Mroz4k]

12 minutes ago, JAFO said:

because even one person of a differing viewpoint is enough to falsify your assertion. Unless you're going to argue that I'm not a "reasonably thinking person".

Oh, my bad. I see your point now. Also, I am sorry for wrong phrase - should be "rationally thinking person", not "reasonably" - though I guess both of those words are somewhat similar.

"Rational decision" - this is a term we often use in economy. Opposite to it is irrational decision.

Even if it was not your deciding factor, lets assume you were a new player, and had an option to buy two games:

The Long Dark OR The Long Dark expansion set with multi player option, for the same price.

Would you REALLY buy the TLD game wíth single player only if you could buy the one that has more content, even if you did not plan on using it, for the same price? 

I am not making a cathegorical statement, unless that cathegorical statement is true about all of humankind. GIven the option to get more for smaller or same price, people will always chose more. This is based on a utility theory, which is fundamental to most of economical sciences these days. People are by nature greedy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility

If your answer would be the simple Long Dark even though you could get more, then either you are an anomaly in our community and extremely modest, or you have an extreme aversion to multi player games that you would be disgusted by that option, or you are just lying to yourself of all the people. But yes, if we are looking at it this way, you would be irrationally thinking person. I dont mean it as disrespect, just using terminology.

It is a fact - people will chose more for the same price rather then less, AKA refer to my "fries" argument. 

[JAFO]

34 minutes ago, Mroz4k said:

I am not making a cathegorical statement, unless that cathegorical statement is true about all of humankind.

Yes, you are..  to use the re-worked version of your statement, "every rationally thinking person would chose".

"Every". Not much wriggle-room there. It is, by definition, a categorical statement.

You seem to think I have a problem with the term "reasonably" as opposed to "rationally". And you'd be wrong. I have a problem with the term "every".

 

34 minutes ago, Mroz4k said:

GIven the option to get more for smaller or same price, people will always chose more.

Again, this is simply untrue. I (and many other people) often purchase items at higher prices than I can very easily obtain, and/or in smaller quantities, simply because I strongly believe in supporting local businesses over big corporations whenever possible. Even if it costs me more, or I get less for the same money. There's a term in that second quote that makes it, once again, a categorical statement. Hint: it's the 3rd word from the end.

 

34 minutes ago, Mroz4k said:

If your answer would be the simple Long Dark even though you could get more, then either you are an anomaly in our community and extremely modest, or you have an extreme aversion to multi player games that you would be disgusted by that option, or you are just lying to yourself of all the people.

You missed a fourth possible option, which just happens to be the case for me. Which is that, due to my personal preferences, the fact that there's a "more" version of the game is simply irrelevant to my decision-making process. Which is to say, does the game interest me, or not? The question of supporting multiplayer is something that's irrelevant to me, because I have no intention of availing myself of that capability.

 

34 minutes ago, Mroz4k said:

I dont mean it as disrespect, just using terminology.

No offence taken. And as I've been trying to get through to you, the terminology we use is important.

[Hackfleisch]

If I could choose between TLD with multiplayer or TLD with 2 new playable maps I'd choose the maps. If they were completely done with the game and as a last thing they wanted to add multiplayer, I'd be fine with it. But at this point there's still enough potential to flesh out survival and story mode.

The only multiplayer aspect that could interest me is if there was like a town you could travel to in order to trade with other players (it would have to be a hard road to it otherwise it would be too easy to hop over to get some supplies), maybe you could take on challenges, but I'd really prefer to keep the maps, my game, personal.

[KinoUnko]

Please stop conflating Co-Op and Multiplayer. We're talking about possibility of Co-Op for TLD, not Multiplayer. Co-Op is a specific sub-type of Multiplayer that require very specific design choices that don't always work in broader Multiplayer context. 

On 11/1/2017 at 2:25 PM, Mroz4k said:

And last time I checked, solving does not equal implementing anyways.

The distinction between "Solution" and "Valid Solution" should be clear for anyone with even rudimentary capacity for reason and command of english. You seem to possess both, at least you claim to have "vast experience" with English. Surely you were not being sarcastic there. Yea, technically, any suggestion at all directed at a problem is A solution, but that definition is so broad and all inclusive it's meaningless. People mean "Valid Solution" when they say "Solution". A Valid Solution to a game design problem is a game play mechanic that has been implemented AND play tested AND balanced against other relevant elements of the game, and even then it may only be an imperfect solution. Only a total moron or a troll would take "Solution" to mean any and all suggestions regardless of relevance or validity. 

23 hours ago, Mroz4k said:

If multiplayer can be played as single player, it immidiatedly is better then the same exact game that is only single player. Because this multi player has all the benefits of a single player AND more.

This is so demonstrably false it's laughable. Single player games don't automatically become better by adding Multiplayer... game development history is full of examples of single player games with failed multiplayer add ons... Fable series, Neverwinter Nights, Baldur's Gate, just to name a few. Developers got wise and are ditching single player games in droves. If you want more evidence just look at Mass Effect Andromeda dropping single player support totally, and the shutdown of Viceral and their Single Player Star Wars game. If Hinterland was in it for the money and popularity contest, TLD should (by your logic) be another ARK or Rust or PUBG, just in a different environment. Take a quick look on Steam Charts. All the most popular games are Multiplayer, only. What rational developer would want to waste time and effort with Single player games? As for multiplayer fully playable as single player... try crafting high tier items in ARK by yourself, or acquire a Carrier or a Titan in EVE Online, solo. Or play only against AI in DoTA2. Have fun with that. Most Multiplayer games are specifically designed to NOT be playable as single player experiences.

23 hours ago, Mroz4k said:

To explain it on a simple example:
Lets assume you are hungry and decide to visit a fast food shop. They have fries for 1 dollar. So, you decide to buy those - but then you see they have a special offer on, where you can buy a combination of fries and a small coke, for 1 dollar as well. Which option will you logically take? Because for both options, you get to pay 1 dollar, but in one case, you only get fries (in example, this is single-player) but in the other, you get the same fries, and a coke with it as well (multi player).

You are on no grounds to call other peoples' arguments invalid or irrelevant if you are going to trot out JV Libertarian thought experiment about utility maximization that has absolutely nothing to do with the real world. It's about as relevant to multiplayer game play as Saturn is to your love life. By that logic we all should be playing WoW. Because for the price of TLD, we'd all have max level and epic mount in WoW, AND Multiplayer. That's like getting Fries, Coke, and a Baked Apple Pie all for one can of rusty dog food! What rational person would choose dog food?? What's next? Are you going to Atlas Shrugged thump everyone about the virtues of Battle Royale game play because players' self interest generates maximum quantities of fun for everyone? 

[Mroz4k]

Had a long wall of text coming but I erased it. Its probably for the best. I will keep it short. (P-edit: heh, turned out to be pretty long anyways, so adding a spoiler for those who dont want to read this riddiculous "argument")

Mr. JAFO, you of all people should be wiser then to cling onto specific words - but if it makes you happy, I will gladly admit that I believe there are exceptions to all the rules, as far as it comes to society. So yes, by saying "every" and "always", I may sound cathegorical, but I believe that smart people will understand that I mean "almost every" and "almost always" by that statement.

By that saing, my statement that "all rationally thinking people will choose more over less" is not cathegorical, or at least it applies trully to everyone, by my definition, of course. Because everyone who makes a different choice is considered irrationally thinking person. Again, no disrespect meant, simply a terminology.

Mr. Hacklfleish, your assumption that multi player TLD option means your game would no longer be private is completedly wrong. You clearly do not comprehend what "multi player" means. Multi player does not mean "MMO". MMO stands for massive multiplayer online" kind of game. Those games are not private, but shared. Multi player game can stay private - it is not played online. As example, I will use Warcraft 3 - where, once you start the game, you have an option to click single player, and multi player. This is what I meant all along. Since you are probably young and might not remember Warcraft 3, another example would be Minecraft - I am sure you are familiar with that game. It provides both options - to play as single player, and multi player, if you choose so. This is what I meant all along. By adding a multi player datadisc, you would still be able to play single player if you chose so. 

Another, different example that comes ot mind is Dont Starve together - it is multi player by default, but again, you can create your server offline, it still remains a private game, and you can play it as a single player.

So, now you should understand what i mean by "you can play multi player game as if it was single player" - it does not mean your items or anything would no longer be "private" - but if you wish to play the game with someone else, you would have that option.  Multi player in this way is better then single player, because it IS single player, but it has more to it.

Mr. Kino, by your definition of "valid solution", it needs to be implemented, tested and balanced, correct? Then I am afraid noone on forums is capable of creating "valid solution", because noone can implement, test and balance out their solution before it actually makes it into the game - so, as you can see, we can only discuss "solutions" - as in "potentional solutions" to problems here. That was the purpose of this thread before you two butchered it. That is the purpose of these forums. There is no point in discussing "valid solutions" because noone can actually suggest one. So, "solution" really means just "solution" and your argument is invalid.

20 hours ago, KinoUnko said:

This is so demonstrably false it's laughable.

By adding a number of names of games, you explained nothing. I already explained this a couple of times. You claim it to be false - I have used simple facts to prove it, but since that was not enough for people to get it, I used a very simple example about food that everyone can relate to.

If TLD has option between single player and multi player, it is ultimatedly better then TLD single player only. Even if the Multi player option was complete gobshite - even that gobshite might be enjoyable for some people. At least you can chose. Also, if TLD was multi player only, then TLD with the choice between SP and MP would be better then that. And, as long as you can play TLD Multi player on your own, the CURRENT TLD only for more people, it would also be better then single player because in single player only, you dont have the option to bring in more people. We are talking about the current TLD - if there were no changes to items, difficulty, or anything. Only simply it was playable by more people. 

Again, standing by fact that "more" is better then "less", if the options are literally same. Call it an experiment and mock it if you want, it is still a fact. This just shows your own intellect - I think most people are mature enough to admit that they would like more over less. Its a basic principle of consumerism.

Your "example" with WoW is riddiculous. You compare it to fries with coke and pie. If that comparison was correct, it would mean WoW is TLD single player with TLD multi player option and one more datadisc that adds some more content to the game. 

For those who dont know, WoW is MMO RPG that has nothing in common with TLD (maybe except the fact that both WoW and TLD are computer games). You have to pay for WoW monthly to be able to play. It is located in fantasy world with magic and monsters. It is an MMO which means you have to play it with other people around, whether you like it or not. Also, you cannot actually purchase a fully equiped character, unless you bought it from someone, as far as I know.

So, that comparison is riddiculous and incorrect in every way.

You see, Mr. Kino, only thing you are capable of is insulting me and calling my arguments illogical, and calling me egoist, just like Mr. Hackefleish. Thing is, out of all three of us, I am aware that I am massive egomaniac at times - but so are you two, if you looked in the mirrors. So at least I am not a hypocrite in this aspect. Rather then insulting you two personally, I am only calling your opinions ilogical, dumb or riddiculous, because you continue on to argument against simple facts, using your own personal opinions as facts instead. If you refuse to see the points I am making and are riddiculing me for it, how else am I to call your arguments?

As for you specifically, Mr. Kino, adding a bunch of names of games does not prove jack shit. You should try explaining your points instead, next time.
 

Now, to sum this up - we have completedly killed this thread in its track. I have been trying to get it back on track for some time, but since a couple of individuals, myself included, seem to be unable to move on from this stupid argument, here is what I propose:

If you wish to continue on this conversation with me, I am happy to do so via Private messages, But if you reply here, with more insults and walls that are not on this topic anymore, I will be reporting it, even if it means I am probably going to earn punishment for it as well. Despite I really, really did not want to be dragged into this anymore. At least I have balls to admit that I am very faulty, and cannot help myself but to argue the facts, and my stance on them.

This topic was created to generate ideas for Co-op, not arguing about whether Co-Op or multi player are worth it or should be added into the game. 

[Mroz4k]

Failed pretty hard with the spoiler, I had a very important message for everyone involved in the end, so here it is, re-quoted.

5 minutes ago, Mroz4k said:

Now, to sum this up - we have completedly killed this thread in its track. I have been trying to get it back on track for some time, but since a couple of individuals, myself included, seem to be unable to move on from this stupid argument, here is what I propose:

If you wish to continue on this conversation with me, I am happy to do so via Private messages, But if you reply here, with more insults and walls that are not on this topic anymore, I will be reporting it, even if it means I am probably going to earn punishment for it as well. Despite I really, really did not want to be dragged into this anymore. At least I have balls to admit that I am very faulty, and cannot help myself but to argue the facts, and my stance on them.

This topic was created to generate ideas for Co-op, not arguing about whether Co-Op or multi player are worth it or should be added into the game. 

 

 

[KinoUnko]

Here's something else for Co-Op... birch canoes. Perfect arctic cruise vessel made just for two. Provides a way to get to that island in Coastal Highway. Opportunity to add some small island region(s). Great Bear Archipelago. And/Or a grounded oil tanker, like the one from The Road, a much larger version of the whaling ship. A variation on the crashed plane theme.

[DogFoodEaterPs4]

Just remember folks. In co-op you don't have to outrun the bear. You just have to outrun your partner. So get that Stamina Badge!!!!