I'm tired of being alone.

[StillNomad]

11 hours ago, UpUpAway95 said:

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.

---

 

8 hours ago, Schrodingers Box said:

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.  

...

 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. 

(this response is to those in the MP camp)
Any argument made by those who prefer TLD to be left as it is (based on their own personal preferences, mine included which is to enjoy time away from 'life' in a fantastic isolated environment) can be perfectly told to not play co-op / MP modes of the game. There are plenty of other games which offer SP / MP modes where I've personally never tried MP at all and yet those two worlds (SP/MP) can co-exist. Similarly, people needing in-game company to play can also look at other games that offer excellent MP/Co-op components.

The fact that Hinterland has limited resources to make a co-op / MP happen (plus the technical challenges of current game mechanics, which when attempting to change would only end up complicating things) makes me not want them to spend time on it. I'd rather they spend their limited time/resources on E4/E5, more maps, improving the environment, more challenges a-la Darkwalker, (even paid DLCs) etc than a component of the game that is 180 degrees apart from what their idea is. Not to mention how the post-covid normal has impacted how we work which limits productivity to a certain degree. 

My thoughts are summed up quite well by the quotes above. 

Edited February 4, 2021 by StillNomad
made things clearer ;)

[Pyroxene]

On 2/3/2021 at 12:13 PM, AdamvR said:

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.

Have you played the Game Boy Advance game "Ratatouille"? Well, there's a mini-game there about cooking. Now maybe they could make mini-games for all of these time-skipping sessions. The sleep mini-game could be a dream about a lush garden, or sometimes nightmares.

[Sherlock Holmes 18]

Sonunda başka birinin istediği de bu. 

Why don't they make the NPCs in the story survive? 

Edited February 4, 2021 by Sherlock Holmes 18

[Stinky socks]

Because it would turn GTA-ish very quick.

[Pyroxene]

3 minutes ago, Sherlock Holmes 18 said:

Sonunda başka birinin istediği de bu. 

Why don't they make the NPCs in the story survive? 

Maybe because the Devs think that it's too much to do. If they want to make the NPCs in story mode playable, they would have to code a lot. If there would be 1st-player monologue, then that would have to be recorded as well.

[Sherlock Holmes 18]

Let them add one for now when they finish the story.  Örneğin, Jeremiah.

[AdamvR]

12 hours ago, Pyroxene said:

Have you played the Game Boy Advance game "Ratatouille"? Well, there's a mini-game there about cooking. Now maybe they could make mini-games for all of these time-skipping sessions. The sleep mini-game could be a dream about a lush garden, or sometimes nightmares.

Thanks @Pyroxene! This is kind of the direction where I intended to turn the discussion towards...

After giving it some thought myself [I would recommend others as well to do the same before/instead of reacting too quickly] I think I identified a couple of constraints, within which a multiplayer version could actually work* (see note below). I'm listing these as thought-starters or framework for others, rather than ultimate solutions.

Disclosure: In my mind, this is a completely PvE game, as I never play PvP, cannot think with that hat on. Those who do, are welcome to weigh in...

Time: 
Multiplayer games in general usually have a problem pausing the server (as far as I understand), thus the simulation should rather need to run in a constant pace. Time skipping is not entirely unheard of though (i.e., if both (all) players decide to go to sleep, it can happen, but otherwise not really). I believe, time skipping would need to be replaced with some other mechanics for most of the activities that use it now. Likely, a day would be shorter IRL, something one can likely adjust when setting up the game (probably in the range that it currently takes IRL combining the active/skipped times) for a simple sake of argument we could take 24 mins for 24 hours.

Resource Management: 
A key concept of the game that every decision has a cost, and that is what you are weighing constantly. The primary ones with time-skip activities are stamina/calories and risk/danger (to be ambushed by wildlife or weather). I believe these should strictly be maintained in one form or another

Examples:

- wood-cutting, harvesting; these activities should take some, but less time - so you do not have to wait for minutes IRL, only a couple seconds. To keep it balanced, they would likely cost the same (or more) fatigue/calories - thus the amount of breakdown you can do in one day would still be limited to the ~same amount. Less time spent on them however, may reduce the danger component, which could be compensated by such breakdown causing noise, which attracts hostile wildlife similarly to smell, maybe even encouraging them to speed towards you... (and could also repel deer/rabbits - probably even extending the time they need to respawn)
- cooking: would probably be managed similarly as now: you spend real time setting it up, then can go away and do something else until it cooks, and need to come back before it burns. no time skipping here
- reading, mending, simpler crafting (the ones without workbench/forge): these should take some time, IRL, but probably less than now (while costing the same/more in fatigue and calories). Probably not black out the world, but blur it (similarly to the current time skipping), so you can to some extent see ("from your eye's corner") what is happening around, or keep an eye on your fishing line. You can always break these activities with partial advance kept. (maybe with some penalty for not letting them finish in one go)
- fishing: could require more interaction/be a minigame (to be more exciting to spend the time with); or you could do certain activities in parallel (such as read, mend - see above) - risking that you miss on the moment to catch. Another alternative could be to add more hooks on a line, and leave it in for the night (similarly to snare mechanic) which gives you a "random" number of fish the next day.
- rest/recovering fatigue. This is the trickiest probably, and I would likely not completely eliminate the need for actually spending time on it (i.e. please do not add magic potions). I'M not sure I have the best solution here, so curious of others' thoughts. As an example, I'd likely manage it in a combination of two activities: for those situations, when you want to get some extra fatigue back during the day we could perhaps add "power naps", that only take a few seconds, but blacks you out, and while giving you some fatigue back, no additional healing (so you do not rely on them solely). In addition, we may want to keep having to sleep that takes time, on which you will need to coordinate with your buddy, as time only gets sped up, if both (all) of you do that at the same time. (there are such examples in other games). This could be rewarded by additional condition regeneration.
- permadeath: I would keep it. If your buddy dies, you are left alone in that world. full stop. maybe with some possibility to administer the adrenaline shot on each other, when they are in very bad condition/have a couple seconds after they pass out. (maybe do a form of CPR which has a chance to succeed, strongly dependent on fatigue level - which you do lose extremely fast while performing it.)
for thought starters...

Please, share what you think/how you'd do them in your ideal multiplayer TLD.

*for concerns about effort & resources: these are of course absolutely valid. (and yes, I also prefer the current Hinterland team focuses on adding to the current game - although, I'm not sure if you noticed: the game keeps getting bigger and we only had payed for it once - years ago. Perhaps Raph&co also needs to pay rent and such...?). But, there are examples when it could be solved (i.e. Don't Starve had to be completely rewritten from scratch to allow multiplayer, with some concepts addressed entirely differently. Don't Starve Together became and remained a standalone game, yet, some could argue it has even outgrown the original and many ideas from it made back to the single player version). If there is a viable (and exciting) concept about a multiplayer game that takes place in the TLD universe - kickstarter could easily be used to both test the idea for whether there are enough people who would want that happen - and come up with the funds to help make it happen... So, I do not at all see it to be impossible, from this perspective.

Edited February 5, 2021 by AdamvR

[Pyroxene]

5 hours ago, AdamvR said:

Thanks @Pyroxene! This is kind of the direction where I intended to turn the discussion towards...

After giving it some thought myself [I would recommend others as well to do the same before/instead of reacting too quickly] I think I identified a couple of constraints, within which a multiplayer version could actually work* (see note below). I'm listing these as thought-starters or framework for others, rather than ultimate solutions.

Disclosure: In my mind, this is a completely PvE game, as I never play PvP, cannot think with that hat on. Those who do, are welcome to weigh in...

Time: 
Multiplayer games in general usually have a problem pausing the server (as far as I understand), thus the simulation should rather need to run in a constant pace. Time skipping is not entirely unheard of though (i.e., if both (all) players decide to go to sleep, it can happen, but otherwise not really). I believe, time skipping would need to be replaced with some other mechanics for most of the activities that use it now. Likely, a day would be shorter IRL, something one can likely adjust when setting up the game (probably in the range that it currently takes IRL combining the active/skipped times) for a simple sake of argument we could take 24 mins for 24 hours.

Resource Management: 
A key concept of the game that every decision has a cost, and that is what you are weighing constantly. The primary ones with time-skip activities are stamina/calories and risk/danger (to be ambushed by wildlife or weather). I believe these should strictly be maintained in one form or another

Examples:

- wood-cutting, harvesting; these activities should take some, but less time - so you do not have to wait for minutes IRL, only a couple seconds. To keep it balanced, they would likely cost the same (or more) fatigue/calories - thus the amount of breakdown you can do in one day would still be limited to the ~same amount. Less time spent on them however, may reduce the danger component, which could be compensated by such breakdown causing noise, which attracts hostile wildlife similarly to smell, maybe even encouraging them to speed towards you... (and could also repel deer/rabbits - probably even extending the time they need to respawn)
- cooking: would probably be managed similarly as now: you spend real time setting it up, then can go away and do something else until it cooks, and need to come back before it burns. no time skipping here
- reading, mending, simpler crafting (the ones without workbench/forge): these should take some time, IRL, but probably less than now (while costing the same/more in fatigue and calories). Probably not black out the world, but blur it (similarly to the current time skipping), so you can to some extent see ("from your eye's corner") what is happening around, or keep an eye on your fishing line. You can always break these activities with partial advance kept. (maybe with some penalty for not letting them finish in one go)
- fishing: could require more interaction/be a minigame (to be more exciting to spend the time with); or you could do certain activities in parallel (such as read, mend - see above) - risking that you miss on the moment to catch. Another alternative could be to add more hooks on a line, and leave it in for the night (similarly to snare mechanic) which gives you a "random" number of fish the next day.
- rest/recovering fatigue. This is the trickiest probably, and I would likely not completely eliminate the need for actually spending time on it (i.e. please do not add magic potions). I'M not sure I have the best solution here, so curious of others' thoughts. As an example, I'd likely manage it in a combination of two activities: for those situations, when you want to get some extra fatigue back during the day we could perhaps add "power naps", that only take a few seconds, but blacks you out, and while giving you some fatigue back, no additional healing (so you do not rely on them solely). In addition, we may want to keep having to sleep that takes time, on which you will need to coordinate with your buddy, as time only gets sped up, if both (all) of you do that at the same time. (there are such examples in other games). This could be rewarded by additional condition regeneration.
- permadeath: I would keep it. If your buddy dies, you are left alone in that world. full stop. maybe with some possibility to administer the adrenaline shot on each other, when they are in very bad condition/have a couple seconds after they pass out. (maybe do a form of CPR which has a chance to succeed, strongly dependent on fatigue level - which you do lose extremely fast while performing it.)
for thought starters...

Please, share what you think/how you'd do them in your ideal multiplayer TLD.

*for concerns about effort & resources: these are of course absolutely valid. (and yes, I also prefer the current Hinterland team focuses on adding to the current game - although, I'm not sure if you noticed: the game keeps getting bigger and we only had payed for it once - years ago. Perhaps Raph&co also needs to pay rent and such...?). But, there are examples when it could be solved (i.e. Don't Starve had to be completely rewritten from scratch to allow multiplayer, with some concepts addressed entirely differently. Don't Starve Together became and remained a standalone game, yet, some could argue it has even outgrown the original and many ideas from it made back to the single player version). If there is a viable (and exciting) concept about a multiplayer game that takes place in the TLD universe - kickstarter could easily be used to both test the idea for whether there are enough people who would want that happen - and come up with the funds to help make it happen... So, I do not at all see it to be impossible, from this perspective.

Yes. Due to the work that is needed, this might need to be released as a spin-off multiplayer TLD2 - with mini games for fishing, workbench/forge crafting, rest/recovering fatigue/sleep and possibly wood cutting.

Edited February 5, 2021 by Pyroxene

[Schrodingers Box]

Absolutely not a single one of those suggestions should be (nor will they be) implemented.  and for very good reason. 
  this is not WOW.  and clearly these game developers have the professional foresight on how not to destroy the game. 
  “Power Naps”. “no time allotments or compressions for harvesting”.  puh-leeeeeze. 

Edited February 5, 2021 by Schrodingers Box

[AdamvR]

1 minute ago, Schrodingers Box said:

Absolutely not a single one of those suggestions should be (nor will they be) implemented.  and for very good reason. 
  this is not WOW. 

You may have misread or missed to read what I wrote.
I believe the single player game should be left as is, nowhere have i written that the current game should be changed.
This was a thought starter how a standalone, but multiplayer game could actually work in the same TLD universe for those who want to share the experience with their friends.

 

[Schrodingers Box]

Won’t happen. game developers are way too good on this game to waste time like that. 
 this is a business. They are going to focus resources on the foundational platform- As well they should. 

Edited February 5, 2021 by Schrodingers Box

[AdamvR]

3 minutes ago, Schrodingers Box said:

Won’t happen. game developers are way too good on this game to waste time like that. 
 this is a business. They are going to focus resources on the foundational platform- As well they should. 

you may really need to read that last paragraph...

[Schrodingers Box]

I did. It only supports what I am saying. 
   No one would play a game with any of those suggestions anyway but the point is - it’s not going to happen with Hinterland. 
 I wouldn’t waste my time on anymore multiplayer TLD ideas. 

[AdamvR]

5 minutes ago, Schrodingers Box said:

 I wouldn’t waste my time on anymore multiplayer TLD ideas. 

Don't. Please, don't.

 

On 2/2/2021 at 7:56 PM, Admin said:

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.

 

 

[Bearded_Dude]

What troubles me about the developers response is that in the end it should be about two things; giving the people what they want and being profitable/charitable. You make a new experience that makes teamwork and survival the focus, instant hit. I’d hate to be stagnant in my thinking as a game developer. How can I push the boundries, deliver what the customers want, and be true to our selves? Coop can fit all those things. I fully understand the undertaking of adding it to the current game would be overwhelming but a completely new game in cooperating the great things you’ve done, while pushing the boundries of what is possible coop wise would be a fantastic endeavor. The possibilities would be endless. 

[Bearded_Dude]

By the way, those of you that think two player survival would be easy or ruin the isolation have never had to survive anywhere with another human being. It brings challenges that you can’t even contemplate unless you’ve done it. It is a completely different experience. Also, if the option was still present to go it alone why the big deal about having coop anyway? You want to lonewolf it go for it. I’m just open to new experiences and feel the developers should be also. 

[Stinky socks]

2 minutes ago, Bearded_Dude said:

survive anywhere with another human being. It brings challenges that you can’t even contemplate unless you’ve done it.

You mean like sharing the last pretzel?

[mayimbe]

que pesadez tanto coop ya hay mil juegos de ese estilo, the long dark lo que implementa es la soledad de un personaje en un mundo post apocaliptico es decir tu y lo que la madre la naturaleza te envie, no me gustan los cooperativos nada. solo es mi opinion pero es que en si el tema cansa.

[Sherlock Holmes 18]

Oh, in the end, a few people are looking for solutions, just like me. 

 

[EjectedCasings]

Figured i'd throw my hat into the ring, even though it's pretty much beating a dead horse at this point. 

The Long Dark is a solo survival experience. Period. That's one of the major points of the game. I hate to sound callous, but there are plenty of multiplayer alternatives, like the Forest. I know it's not the same thing, but it's the closest that you are going to get at this point. 

Apart from that, there are the technical limitations, which make this pretty much impossible without changing nearly every core mechanic. At that point it's probably better to simply release a new game, lest you risk evangelist alienation, and it seems that the majority of players (who are active on the forums at least) have significant playtime in the game. Hinterland is doing something right that appeals to all these players. Changing core mechanics would almost certainly drive off lots of these players from the game.

The methods suggested by the OP for getting around the limitations of time dialation are things that I don't would work well. Time dialation is a core mechanic of the game, and, as mentioned above, changing it in any way would at the very least change the way the game is played, and at the worst, drive off droves of players who like what is currently being offered to them. As @ManicManiacsaid:

On 2/3/2021 at 12:58 PM, ManicManiac said:

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

That's one of the reasons I hate games that have mechanics that require vast sums of time to pass before unlocking x thing (looking at you mobile games). If I can't play for 8 hours because there is something that needs to be researched or made is a great way to turn me off of your game. (It's also a "great" way for devs to sneak in MTX's with time skips etc). There are exceptions to this of course, especially if it's more player involved, but in general it's a mechanic i'm staunchly opposed to.

TL;DR: No.

[Stinky socks]

This is why I like coastal highway and pleasant valley. I look at the horizon or out the porch in the cabin on a hill and see all those edible NPCs!

Not the same as human NPCs, but close enough!

[theisaactrain]

Split screen multiplayer..?

 

Thought on that?

[Stinky socks]

45 minutes ago, theisaactrain said:

Split screen multiplayer..?

 

Thought on that?

Who gets to be the bear?😁

[Sherlock Holmes 18]

45 minutes ago, Stinky socks said:

Ayı kim olacak? 😁

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Very good, but even if it's not online, NPCs should come, like in the story. 

[Stinky socks]

The NPCs would probably end up with very limited interactivity if they were implemented due to the nature of the game. Either that, or they would hunt you and yell out random curse words..

It is very hard to make them enjoyable in this type of game without any plot, as you have in wintermute. They would probably end up being very generic, wandering about aimlessly and you would end up hating they are there. Hunt them like wolves maybe?

I think adding NPCs to the game is like opening a stale can of worms. @Sherlock Holmes 18, this last part may not make sense when translated to your native tongue😊