Multiplayer Thread - Competitive and/or Co-Op.

[Suhiira]

I have no issues with OPTIONAL multi-player.
I DO NOT want to have to put up with 13-year-old (mentally at least) people doing everything possible to disrupt my solo (i.e. single-player) play.
If they have some sort of optional multi-player for PvP that's fine, I'll ignore it, those that enjoy such things can do as they like.

While it would be possible to make a fully multi-player RPG; the only way to do so would be to instance nearly everything.
Because the games (i.e. NPC) reactions to one players actions can't cut off another player from even accessing whatever mission caused those reactions or taking a different path and causing a different reaction.
And if everyone has their own instance, what's the point of multi-player?

 

[kanonite]

I have no issues with OPTIONAL multi-player.
I DO NOT want to have to put up with 13-year-old (mentally at least) people doing everything possible to disrupt my solo (i.e. single-player) play.
If they have some sort of optional multi-player for PvP that's fine, I'll ignore it, those that enjoy such things can do as they like.

Im completely agreeing with you on that one.

 

[vtmb]

While it would be possible to make a fully multi-player RPG; the only way to do so would be to instance nearly everything.
Because the games (i.e. NPC) reactions to one players actions can't cut off another player from even accessing whatever mission caused those reactions or taking a different path and causing a different reaction.
And if everyone has their own instance, what's the point of multi-player?

Because of more and more online games (f2p's and whatnot) coming up with single player narratives, integrating multiplayer system into single player campaigns turns out to be a cool addition pushing to the rise of Themepark 2.0 games (mmos and open multiplayers) as a recent and interesting trend. It's kind of an exception from what history teaches about games with single player campaign and a multiplayer feature which suck since devs either work on great single or great multiplayer games.
Last i heard there are only 2 T2.0 games, one of them is supposed to be star citizen
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/...s-On-Multiplayer-Single-Player-And-Instancing

Don't know about C77, but one can speculate it's something ultimately adding to both single and multi with single being layer to more stuff

 

[Suhiira]

I skimmed the Star Citizen thing.
Given that you can't blow up planets and the interaction with NPC's consists primarily of buying/selling cargos and ship upgrades what they suggested should work just fine.

Let me try to better illustrate what I was talking about.

Example Mission:
Corp Exec Richard Head hires a player #1 to deliver a package (yeah, the classic FedEx quest).
Some possible results:
1) Player #1 delivers the package
1a) Player #2 hired by Dick to recover the package and frame player #1 for stealing it - Player #2 does so.
1b) Player #2 hired by Dick to recover the package and frame player #1 for stealing it - Player #2 fails to do so.
2) Player #1 keeps the package - Dick hires Player #2 to track down Player #1, recover the package, and punish Player #1.
2a) Player #2 recovers the package and breaks Player #1 kneecaps.
2aa ) Player #1 takes his/her beating and let's Player #1 slide.
2ab ) Player #1 decides to get even with Player #1.
3) Player #1 fails to deliver package - Dick contacts player #1 via phone, yells at him/her, then tells them to get off their butt and make the delivery.
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.

Most MMOs ignore the fact that 20 people may be doing the same mission at the same time - thus your character has no real effect on the world around you.
They'd have to create an instance for you to play the delivery in.
Then there is the possibility of a new mission being generated, or not, depending on your actions.

This is a can of worms no sane Dev would even want to look at much less open.

 

[kyberpunkki]

Co-op multiplayer?
Why not!?
And why not adding a special touch for possibility of betrayal! *Stabby stab* *evillaugh*

Erm... ahem... I mean, in the book there was "Senaky & Deceptive" personal trait, wasn't there?
In game terms this means that the player, who's character has deceptive trait, might betray his/her accompanists... right?

 

[vtmb]

I skimmed the Star Citizen thing.
Given that you can't blow up planets and the interaction with NPC's consists primarily of buying/selling cargos and ship upgrades what they suggested should work just fine.

Let me try to better illustrate what I was talking about.

Example Mission:
Corp Exec Richard Head hires a player #1 to deliver a package (yeah, the classic FedEx quest).
Some possible results:
1) Player #1 delivers the package
1a) Player #2 hired by Dick to recover the package and frame player #1 for stealing it - Player #2 does so.
1b) Player #2 hired by Dick to recover the package and frame player #1 for stealing it - Player #2 fails to do so.
2) Player #1 keeps the package - Dick hires Player #2 to track down Player #1, recover the package, and punish Player #1.
2a) Player #2 recovers the package and breaks Player #1 kneecaps.
2aa ) Player #1 takes his/her beating and let's Player #1 slide.
2ab ) Player #1 decides to get even with Player #1.
3) Player #1 fails to deliver package - Dick contacts player #1 via phone, yells at him/her, then tells them to get off their butt and make the delivery.
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.

Most MMOs ignore the fact that 20 people may be doing the same mission at the same time - thus your character has no real effect on the world around you.
They'd have to create an instance for you to play the delivery in.
Then there is the possibility of a new mission being generated, or not, depending on your actions.

This is a can of worms no sane Dev would even want to look at much less open.

Most mmorpg's are themeparks setting players on the most linear content along with high time travels so that you don't really need C&C trees, much less the multi solution stuff from deus ex where you got option a and b and you might come up with c and d in terms of narrative, approach, paths etc that might happen in your open ended game...
When i'm talking about intergrating multiplayer system in single player stuff i mean giving a fit to multiplayer modes with single player serving as a layer much like souls games did, 'cause it's meant for rpg games. You may have some player triggered events in your sandbox game at the same time but they can only be harmless to other's experience in a way someone's material causality doesn't affect others formal one.


The SC link was more an example of T2.0 than a direct suggestion to the game, still interaction with npc might be more than that (i heard about pirate stuff but i didn't really care that time).

 

[wisdom000]

I really dug the way GTA V handled multiplayer, not sure if that would work with Cyberpunk, it it's a fairly fun way to do things...

Shame the game broke my PS3, would love to still be running down the streets with my man Blank...

 

[kyberpunkki]

I really dug the way GTA V handled multiplayer, not sure if that would work with Cyberpunk, it it's a fairly fun way to do things...

Shame the game broke my PS3, would love to still be running down the streets with my man Blank...

Oh yeah... true about that!
Then again... I haven't played GTA V for long time...

 

[braindancer12]

I really dug the way GTA V handled multiplayer, not sure if that would work with Cyberpunk, it it's a fairly fun way to do things...

Shame the game broke my PS3, would love to still be running down the streets with my man Blank...

yes but without the server problems...

 

[wisdom000]

yes but without the server problems...

Or the cheaters, or assholes with tanks just running around willy nilly.... or Rockstar style "utterly ignore the problem but take away the fun shit so we have a chance at selling our fake money for real money" bullshit....

 

[RabidSmurf]

I don't see why people are so against even the idea of a co-op option or line on cyberpunk. If the game is a turn-based startegy game then yes, co-op is bad. If its a fps then it is almost required to be co-op. real-time startegy then co-op is again somewhat iffy to pull off.
When i learned 2077 was being developed i was like *gasp!* a real cyberpunk mmorpg!! As it would be possible to solo but grouping is where the real gear is for the "big jobs".
But i also do see the need to make it a in-depth single player experience. However it seems a shame not to share the experience with others other than bragging how awesome yer guy looks and how much synthetic hides you've sent to traumateam.

I'm honestly torn between sp and the prospect of sharing my intergrated brain dances with others.


However i would go all out any way it goes.

 

[wisdom000]

Like I said, even with all the bullshit, RDR and GTAV sold me on multiplayer in an open world... it can be done well.

Saints row 2 and 3 co-op was done really well too

What I don't want to see is the game turn into nothing but pvp death matches, with bullshit special maps and nno chance to just hang out together in Night city and surroundings and chance to show off your character gear and vehicles...

 

[Val3ri]

For some weird reason, I remembered Resident Evil Outbreak's coop structure. Might be nice as an extra challenge.

 

[Suhiira]

What I don't want to see is the game turn into nothing but pvp death matches, with bullshit special maps and nno chance to just hang out together in Night city and surroundings and chance to show off your character gear and vehicles...

I'll second this.

If this is all any added multi-player feature was going to be I'd ask ... Why bother?
Devote the time and effort to making the RPG better.
If, on the other hand it's cooperative missions and such then sure, go for it.
I however do not want to see it become some sort of MMO where every juvenile acting so-an-so in the world can play in MY game and attempt to ruin it for their own twisted amusement.

 

[wisdom000]

I however do not want to see it become some sort of MMO where every juvenile acting so-an-so in the world can play in MY game and attempt to ruin it for their own twisted amusement.

Agreed...

 

[kyberpunkki]

If this is all any added multi-player feature was going to be I'd ask ... Why bother?
Devote the time and effort to making the RPG better.
If, on the other hand it's cooperative missions and such then sure, go for it.
I however do not want to see it become some sort of MMO where every juvenile acting so-an-so in the world can play in MY game and attempt to ruin it for their own twisted amusement.

In short, don't make it MMO...

 

[Val3ri]

I however do not want to see it become some sort of MMO where every juvenile acting so-an-so in the world can play in MY game and attempt to ruin it for their own twisted amusement.

As an MMO it would be great if playing with all of you guys/girls. Because u do understand what Cyberpunk really is.

But playing it with a bunch of kiddos who don't care about that, and who want to show how theirs' stupidity is beyond belief in every single thing they write or do...

I prefer to actually enjoy a Cyberpunk videogame (and with a nice Multiplayer option, in which I can choose with whom I wanna play).

MMOs much later, please, so that it wont ruin it.

 

[braindancer12]

Agreed...

Agreed

 

[Maelcom404]

As an MMO it would be great if playing with all of you guys/girls. Because u do understand what Cyberpunk really is.

But playing it with a bunch of kiddos who don't care about that, and who want to show how theirs' stupidity is beyond belief in every single thing they write or do...

I prefer to actually enjoy a Cyberpunk videogame (and with a nice Multiplayer option, in which I can choose with whom I wanna play).

MMOs much later, please, so that it wont ruin it.

It depend on how CDPR's gonna make the game "balanced", if you're a good player and a smart one, you'll end up winning no matter what.
I often play fighting games, mostly the latest Mortal Kombat, online there's two "main" characters: Scorpion & Smoke, every kiddies take them, and play them THE SAME!!!! : teleport > spaming special, teleport, etc... or just doing the same combo, over and over like if they were some fraking machine (sometimes i've more fun playing against the IA than against them), but once you played a few times, and learned how to trick those noobs, you'll be almost undefeatable against those kind of people, why?
Because they don't think at all!
There's nothing easier than pulling the same combo over and over, hopping that you opponent is dumb enought to be tricked everytime, sure some of them are pretty nervous (or have a better web-connection than your) and beats you because they act fater than you.
But overall, those kind of guys aren't that much a threat, they'll jump on what they think is a "unbeatable badass guy / class" and spam the hell out of it, still they don't know how to properly block, react, anticipate, etc... and that's on this you have to "push", be unpredictable, use your powerfull weapon at the right time, in fact: try to outsmart them, it's not that difficult.

My point is that if Cyberpunk 2K77 is balanced enought, and has enought "on-line" possibility (creating a crew, pulling contracts over people's head so a solo can wipe them out, etc....), sure those kiddies will be boring, but once you'll "outsmart" them, you'll be able to make their lives a living hell. CDPR just needs to be sure that the game is well balanced that anybody can counter anyone, and nothing is broken.

On an another side, those kinds of jackass, are totaly "cyberpunk" in the spirit, if the on-line is a giant Night City filled with players... well, night city HAS to be chaotic & messy, everyone will try to kill you, just like the old 2020's days, it would adds to the crazyness, having a bunch of campers, sneaking in a dark alley, waiting for a player to come by and kill him, to steal his equipement (anyway, if it's true to CP2020, you'll lose your stuff every now & then), it could works for me thought.

 

[soldiergeralt]

why bother with the whole coop thing, game design, story, programming, etc all have to be reconstructed, when it adds about as much as opening chat in the background?

so much effort/time/money for so little gain.