Petition to add coop and multiplayer for survivor mode

[JackFridy]

Playing the long dark is a really fun game by yourself, but imagine how much more you could do with two or four people.

[straffin]

"The Long Dark was always intended as a single player experience, multiplayer doesn't quite fit with the type of game we are trying to build. Unfortunately at this time we don't have plans to add a multiplayer or co-op mode to the game."
(from https://hinterlandgames.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360041921812-Does-The-Long-Dark-Have-Coop-). 

I vastly prefer the current play-style to any multi-player game. There's lots of great multiplayer games out there, but precious few great single-player games. Once multi-player is added to a game, experiences designed for multi-player get added that those of us without other game-playing friends can't experience. Sorry, but I hope they stick to their plans and leave The Long Dark as one of the best single player experiences out there. 

[Stinky socks]

I kind of agree. The balance of power will greatly tilt towards the player when he has help. The whole wildlife and survival terrifying factor will suddenly become powerless and the long dark will become child's play.

[Sherlock Holmes 18]

I just brought it up the other day, and most long dark players don't want that. At least not yet. 

Maybe in a few years the hinterland will think about it. Who knows? 

[Sir Loin1557]

So 3 people could hunt and one could tend to a fire all day, no thanks. Devs said no multiplayer and I agree, game would get way too easy

[odizzido]

Coop is always fun. I have never seen a game be worse in coop as long as it's actually functional, even when it's implemented like garbage. Nice thing is is that anyone who doesn't want it doesn't have to use it. Only question is would it be worth the dev time?

Either way though it won't happen, so this conversation is pointless.

[ManicManiac]

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, few of them seem to 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.

 

[The Ravages of Time]

Here is a response to a question on the subject by Raph (originally posted in one of the Milton Mailbox dispatches):

“For a co-op game to be good, the cooperation needs to be built in to the core gameplay experience from Day 1. It's not something that can be added after the fact, and if it is, I suspect the cooperation will be relatively meaningless. So, a co-op experience of The Long Dark would have to be a completely new game.”

Edited February 23, 2021 by The Ravages of Time

[starlin]

On 2/23/2021 at 11:11 AM, odizzido said:

 I have never seen a game be worse in coop as long as it's actually functional, even when it's implemented like garbage.

 

How long is that list though?    I've spent a bit of time in number of coop survival games, and they tend all suffer from a hand full of fundamental problems that seemingly fail BECAUSE of multiplayer, but more less exists because "its expected".  Crafting and Resource generation tends to be the top offenders, as most eventually allow for industrialization of supplies and materials.

 

Long dark is actually kind of black sheep in that they put a much greater emphasis on scavenging, which is inherently unsustainable, as a way to create long term scarcity.  Most other games go the opposite direction of conventional crafting tech trees, which power creeps uncontrollably at scale.  Base building, which is also popular in a lot of these games, makes that problem worse.  The Forrest has a similar game play structure as TLD, but has base building as an option.  What I've typically found when talking to folks about MP there, is a tendency to clear cut all wood in like a 10 minute radius to build sizable forts.  No matter what the players start out planning, base building eventually steals the focus. 

This segues directly in the second problem....  with the ability to terraform the wilderness, the the game ultimately shifts away from survival, and morphs into a more Minecraftian rhythm.  IE: "Survival"  just gets converted into a means of collecting construction materiel. 

 

Now even when we drop construction and agriculture (because I have zero doubt someone would find a way to make a bear farm if you can move or build any kind of physical obstacle), and focus on completely on TLD's existing mechanics, we have 3 huge problems up front. 

1. AI being able to handle 2 targets.  I'm not talking about switching targets; which is how most games try to deal with this.  But actual cognizance of multiple threats, and juggling multiple criteria and behaviors to properly respond to a rapidly evolving situation.  Wolves would have to straight up gain pack hunting behaviors, squad tactics, and divide/conquer strategies to even remotely compete with just 2 players who use kiting techniques.  To understand this better, you can look at the 2 Left4Dead games and the profiles of the special infected.  In L4D1, each was designed to punish players who got separated.  But in response, players started turtling as a way to control a space.  The Tank being a distinct exception, which also disables spawning other enemies to not overwhelm the players.  In L4D2, in order to address turtling being a default strategy, they added the Spitter and Charger as a way to force players to spread out during a fight.  This forced players to balance proximity and spacing to make sure they can cover each other, but also not get cornered as a group.  Along with the melee weapons, L4D2's game play is a lot more dynamic, and forces a lot more decision making and awareness on the player's part in order to not put yourself or the team into too much risk. 

 

2. Time Passing/Skipping is no longer an option.   TLD has this as a very central mechanic to well over half of the activities in the game, as Time is a RESOURCE.  Imagine having to spend 5 minutes stuck in a "chopping wood" progress bar, in order to the keep the game's clock running at the correct speed for the other players. Fatigue also becomes a huge mess, because you need a LOT of sleep to recover it.  This also impacts how treacherous Day/Night cycles can be; as you have to assume at least one player is always up and about doing something. 

 

3. Weight/Benefit ratios have to be completely rethought across the board.  Because tools retain their same functionality, regardless of whose carrying it, they become less then half as costly to lug around all the time.  Resource burn rate also scales in a way that splitting the load the between 2 people gets 3 or 4 times the efficiency compared to s single person with the same amount of items.  And outside of interloper, I don't think the calorie and water consumption can tax 2 people greater then what their parallel productivity can yield.

 

And thats not even considering how to handle someone dying.  Add/Drop coop unto itself means any player can always just find a way to respawn, and work their way back to their group.  Designating all the players at the start trades off that one problem for several others with- what to do when any individual of the group is not online?  Are their needs put in stasis?  If they burn calories, how fast do they burn it?  How long can the game run before they die of needs?  How can this be cheesed, and ends up becoming a meta?

 

 

Even when using this game's mechanics as a base, a coop mode would require every single rule and mechanic be reviewed from the ground up to handle the vastly different type of dynamic 2 players create.   The single player experience in TLD is NOT that robust to begin with.  Very small things have, and continue to be design disrupting in a lot of unexpected ways.  And while I think its possible to get it working reasonably well...... we're talking about reexamining every aspect of the game; that its better off to make a sequel designed from the ground up, to better handle just how much different the players operate when in tandem. 

Edited February 26, 2021 by starlin