I'm tired of being alone.

[Sherlock Holmes 18]

BirAhhhhhhhh.... I'm going crazy. Now the game always goes on doing the same thing. It's getting boring. There's no action. Same thing that's going on. 

I don't want to be alone in this game anymore. Add a co-op feature to this game now. 

Just because you're going to do this, I can forget about story mode and updates to survival mode. Just add that co-op mode. At least we'll sit down with a friend and have coffee. We'll be nicknamed. We go hunting, it all comes up with new things. Look how many in-game things came out of one thing. 

Just do it. 

Dear forum members, if you agree with me, please leave a comment. By the way, words can sometimes be a little distorted application error. 

With the warmest respect for everyone. 

[mayimbe]

no no no y no online no please

[odizzido]

I would like to have coop. I've never seen a game be worse when played coop. I doubt it will happen though.

[Schrodingers Box]

You can’t do coop because of the time lapse mechanics. 
   also the loneliness is exactly what makes this game so great. 

[Stinky socks]

It would be interesting to have Astrid and Will coop:) imagine hypothermia risk can be healed by sharing body heat. Or empty cabin for the night with king size bed during blizzard! But then we might need contraceptive crafting, or is all this Aurora activity caused humans to be sterile? Hmm...

[Sherlock Holmes 18]

It's not online. Two people playing the same game. Different or in the same place at the same time. 

[Admin]

Moving to Wish List sub-forum.

Just as a note while we encourage you to talk about your desire to see co-op added to the game and your ideas for how it would best work it is not something currently planned for The Long Dark.

The Long Dark was designed from the beginning to be a single-player experience and we don't have any plans to add multiplayer. It doesn't quite fit with type of experience we are trying to build and yes, the technical challenges of trying to add multiplayer to the existing game would be pretty significant.

However we do understand many people are interested in a multiplayer experience, and don't fault anyone for finding the idea compelling (it IS fun to imagine). We've seen quite a few requests for it, and it might be something we consider for a future game -- but not this one.

[ManicManiac]

  I'll echo what I've discussed before on this particular subject:

On 2/16/2020 at 10:03 AM, ManicManiac said:

The idea has certainly been proposed and discussed very often and in a variety of ways... however, almost none of them never really consider what I think is the main problem.

The mechanics of this game in particular make Coop/Multiplayer kind of a "no go."  Simply put... the thing that would be the biggest challenge is the fact that there are many mechanics (that help form the foundation of the game play) that utilize "time compression."  When you have situations that mess with "time" it becomes a problem with multiple players interacting in the same space.

For example... if you have two players and one is out chopping wood (that compresses 45 min - 1 hour of time) then the other player either has to also accelerate or they get "out of sync" so to speak.

If one is spending 5 hours fishing (that is normally compressed), what happens then?  Does the fishing then go in real time... does the other person suddenly "pause" while time speeds up?

In other words, because this game is incorporating mechanics that compress time (sleeping, "passing time"/"wait 'till ready", harvesting, fishing, breaking things down, using the forge, crafting, milling, and so on) then you can't really have two or more players interacting and still keep them synchronized in terms of the time of day... you'd have to force everything to happen in "normal game time" - which for some long tasks, I think, would really suck.

I hope my examples help to illustrate why I don't think coop/multiplayer would work in this game just from the standpoint of fundamental mechanics.

 

Edited February 2, 2021 by ManicManiac

[Sherlock Holmes 18]

It makes perfect sense, but I just wanted them to play the game by doing the same things all the time and add a co-op mode as a remedy. It could be something else. Maybe..... 

[Sherlock Holmes 18]

Bu söz manikmaniktir.

1 dakika önce Sherlock Holmes 18 şunları söyledi:

Çok mantıklı, ama ben sadece her zaman aynı oyun oynamalarını ve çare olarak bir kooperatif modu eklemelerini istedim. Başka bir şey olabilir. Olabilir ..... 

 

[Schrodingers Box]

Count me out of anything MMRPG related. Defeats the entire purpose of the whole game. The whole point of the game is you have to survive alone which is the toughest possible situation there is.  The fact you are complaining about having to survive alone is exactly the entire point. I am sure every sole survivor wishes they weren’t alone. 

Edited February 2, 2021 by Schrodingers Box

[UpUpAway95]

I'm sure I would never make use of a co-op mode.  As long as there is a viable option to play single-player and offline basically as it is now and they remain committed to finishing Wintermute, I'm happy.  If it makes them money without stretching their staff too thin, that's great.

[Stoutlander]

There were folks that wanted Fallout to be co-op and look how that turned out.

A big no thanks for TLD co-op. Now a NPC or two thrown in (survivor mode), that could be interesting...

Edited February 3, 2021 by Stoutlander

[Stinky socks]

After hearing all the suggestions, I am kinda leaning towards not having any co op or pets or whatever. It will make the lone survivor game so much different.

If I want to meet other players, i can get my fill from wintermute NPCs:)

[AdamvR]

As it has been pointed out countless times, due to the time-skipping being such a core element it is not possible to transform TLD into a multiplayer game.
To change the course and fate of such discussions, I'd like to propose to switch the question to make it more constructive:
(Even if I personally prefer its lonely, silent apocalypse character, I do also understand why many feel they would like to share the gorgeous world and gripping atmosphere of TLD with their friends).

What alternatives/changes would you suggest to the game mechanics that currently utilize time skipping. (whether or not such imaginative game would be called TLD is a completely different question). in other words, how would you be managing these, in a multiplayer version of TLD?
e.g.:
- sleep/regeneration
- cooking
- crafting
- harvesting (trees, animals, furniture)
- fishing
- etc.

Edited February 3, 2021 by AdamvR

[Sherlock Holmes 18]

Now the time passes even as you walk through the game. Well, then one can sleep and the other can walk outside any way he wants, hunt, maybe cut wood. Because every time you move, time goes by. The problem may be for the sleeper. Or they both sleep at the same time. 

 

Oh, I found it. One does a long-term job and the other exits the game. And he can wait for it to pass in real time. So

So someone can get out of the game while fishing and when they come back after waiting for it to go away in real time, the game can say on average how many fish you're fishing and leave it to the player how many of them to take or not. But if two players are fishing, they do it on game time. We can apply this idea to other examples. 

 

Besides, waiting in real life allows us to move a little without sitting at the computer or PlayStation all day. 

[AdamvR]

hm... I'm not fully sure if I understand what you are recommending:
The time-skip mechanism is added to the game as a core feature, because having to wait in real life until that snow melts and boils in a cup is not fun.
Given the previous discussions about a similar situation, when one was stuck in the mine waiting for the aurora with a cabin fever and could not skip time, has been very vehemently described as a not fun experience/unnecessary torture of the player. (if I recall correctly, you actually contacted support about it...)
Are you suggesting that the solution would be to force everyone to always wait in real time, when such things as fishing/cooking/sleeping etc. happen...?
or did I get something wrong...?

[UpUpAway95]

11 minutes ago, AdamvR said:

hm... I'm not fully sure if I understand what you are recommending:
The time-skip mechanism is added to the game as a core feature, because having to wait in real life until that snow melts and boils in a cup is not fun.
Given the previous discussions about a similar situation, when one was stuck in the mine waiting for the aurora with a cabin fever and could not skip time, has been very vehemently described as a not fun experience/unnecessary torture of the player. (if I recall correctly, you actually contacted support about it...)
Are you suggesting that the solution would be to force everyone to always wait in real time, when such things as fishing/cooking/sleeping etc. happen...?
or did I get something wrong...?

I think he's suggesting that players could start to fish and then quit out of the game and then come back in at the end of the duration to find out how many fish they caught.  I don't think it would work very well given that, while fishing for example, the hook could break, the weather could change and the player could start to freeze, the player could become thirsty or hungry.  What would happen if the player fails to long back into the game at the appropriate time... will the character's activity and associated condition (health, hunger, thirst) all magically stop when the time selected for fishing elapses?  Wouldn't that effectively put a failsafe on activities like cooking... selecting a timer just long enough to cook your steak and then exit the game for two IRL days and come back to a perfectly cooked piece of meat and a fire that is still burning?  How is the game going to tell when the player is leaving the game because they are doing IRL stuff and won't be back for a few days and the player leaving the game to allow just enough time for the time to do a task in the game to elapse?

[Sherlock Holmes 18]

Hmmm is a tough question, but I have a solution to that island. 

Before we leave the game, if a type appears during the period of time we cannot be in the game (without either player), we will stipulate a condition to the game. 

Mesela

If our cold drops below the limit we expect in the game, a notification will come to the player's phone, watch. If ne either player is still in the game, the game directs the player to a building or cave sheltered from the nearest wind. And if there is wood in the etrefta (ready) it will burn them to warm up and report all this to the main player moment by moment. 

One of the two players enters the game and can go to the next player and take him with him to save the situation. The other player still receives a permission notice to do so. If the player is still cold (in type) the game gives the second player partial permission and they can both go to a safe place. 

In the event that the fishing zone is broken, another fishing zone in the inventory is used, or if the player is called to the game if the player is not called to the game, the AI can do them under the conditions previously determined by the player and take them to a safe place. 

We can find solutions to these problems just because you want something else you think about/how this will happen. 

Take care of yourselves. 

[Schrodingers Box]

2 hours ago, Sherlock Holmes 18 said:

Hmmm is a tough question, but I have a solution to that island. 

Before we leave the game, if a type appears during the period of time we cannot be in the game (without either player), we will stipulate a condition to the game. 

Mesela

If our cold drops below the limit we expect in the game, a notification will come to the player's phone, watch. If ne either player is still in the game, the game directs the player to a building or cave sheltered from the nearest wind. And if there is wood in the etrefta (ready) it will burn them to warm up and report all this to the main player moment by moment. 

One of the two players enters the game and can go to the next player and take him with him to save the situation. The other player still receives a permission notice to do so. If the player is still cold (in type) the game gives the second player partial permission and they can both go to a safe place. 

In the event that the fishing zone is broken, another fishing zone in the inventory is used, or if the player is called to the game if the player is not called to the game, the AI can do them under the conditions previously determined by the player and take them to a safe place. 

We can find solutions to these problems just because you want something else you think about/how this will happen. 

Take care of yourselves. 

You ARE joking, right?

[Sherlock Holmes 18]

Why would I do it because of the translation that's a little out of sense, but it's more or less the same thing.

[ManicManiac]

4 hours ago, Sherlock Holmes 18 said:

Before we leave the game, if a type appears during the period of time we cannot be in the game (without either player)

I don't think that a game that would frequently dictate how long players wouldn't be permitted to play, would be "successful."

Edited February 3, 2021 by ManicManiac

[UpUpAway95]

5 hours ago, Sherlock Holmes 18 said:

Hmmm is a tough question, but I have a solution to that island. 

Before we leave the game, if a type appears during the period of time we cannot be in the game (without either player), we will stipulate a condition to the game. 

Mesela

If our cold drops below the limit we expect in the game, a notification will come to the player's phone, watch. If ne either player is still in the game, the game directs the player to a building or cave sheltered from the nearest wind. And if there is wood in the etrefta (ready) it will burn them to warm up and report all this to the main player moment by moment. 

One of the two players enters the game and can go to the next player and take him with him to save the situation. The other player still receives a permission notice to do so. If the player is still cold (in type) the game gives the second player partial permission and they can both go to a safe place. 

In the event that the fishing zone is broken, another fishing zone in the inventory is used, or if the player is called to the game if the player is not called to the game, the AI can do them under the conditions previously determined by the player and take them to a safe place. 

We can find solutions to these problems just because you want something else you think about/how this will happen. 

Take care of yourselves. 

I think it would be better if Hinterland left TLD as a single-player game because:

1) Not every player is willing to connect their gaming account directly to their cell phone account.  I would also hate to be interrupted during a business meeting by a person's phone alerting them that their TLD avatar's preset timer was running out or that the fishing line broke or that the weather changed and the avatar is now freezing.

2) A player should not be able to move another player who has effectively left the game.  If they could, this would open the game up to massive trolling... people moving other people around for giggles or to harass.  While you say permission is required, there is nothing stopping the "savior" player from moving the player being saved to an unsafe place instead of a safe one (after having received that permission). 

3) When you say that the "AI can do them" (that is, do tasks like taking the player to a safe place) while the player has effectively quit the game, the game is then essentially playing itself... with the AI using its knowledge about where predators are spawning and moving to not only determine which place is "safe" but also to decide which route is safe in order to transport the player's avatar to that place (keep in mind, there is no fast travel in TLD).  That sort of defeats the idea of the player playing at all.

Edited February 3, 2021 by UpUpAway95

[Sherlock Holmes 18]

You're right, but I'm more of an NPC to the game, so please help someone who wants this job. 

[Schrodingers Box]

those too weak to deal with isolation will not survive The Long Dark-  just like any sole survivor IRL experiences,  the mental game is the toughest part to manage. They miss human company and interaction and it weakens their morale.  that is why most people do not survive long term scenarios. They lack the mental toughness and resort to  “I am tired of being alone” “I am tired of being cold” “I am tired of not having pizza”...

 those  who survive say “what else can I do to improve my situation that will not require assistance?”  
 Sole survival is the most brutal scenario.  You don’t get what you want. You get what you create.  THAT is the essence of The Long Dark. 

Edited February 4, 2021 by Schrodingers Box