Multiplayer Thread - Competitive and/or Co-Op.

[Maelcom404]

Yup nothing wrong, but damages has to be balanced then.
In games like CoD, it can kills you if it hit you in the face... or the feet... or just hit your backpack.
Where is the challenge supposed to be?
I'm ok with the "you aim, you get me, nice shot!", but just shooting at random isn't really what I'd call "being skilled", it's indeed broken.
Now, if your sniper has more "time" to reload between each bullet and by so can't turn itself in a "killing machine", it's already more balanced, tho it was just as an example, I don't mind sniper or whatever.

 

[Poet_and_Gentleman.598]

Eh. This mechanic/dynamic is very weird. I don't play modern FPSes beyond ArmA though

I think the last MP FPS I played with any regularity was either counter-strike or Ghost Recon 1 or UT 2003.If your remember back then, you had to be pretty good to use it at close range.I think I've seen videos of top CS players doing it, but the very very vast majority of players didn't.

In real life some guns are just really OPed for some roles.There are rifles that could be used in a 'sniper' roles (at least as is understood in most games --- where firefight ranges is seldom beyond 100 meters, if that) that could double as an assault rifle.

It`s a better idea for this game to instead of trying to balance combat, to try to balance it with outward elements.

For example, the pistol is arguably underpowered. Instead of making the SMG (a gun of equal caliber) less powerful or accurate to balance it, it would be better to add things like being able to hide it. In MP, it could have a significant advantage.

Let's say that the average PC is indistinguishable from the crowd. Let`s say that the only way to find someone else is for them to sport some really fancy clothing, do something weird that only a player would do (or if you have fancy electronic warfare measures to find cyborgs). The pistol would then become a really really awesome tool. Akin to the spy's knife in team fortress.

I am comfortable with some things being virtually unstoppable (e.g. tanks) unless you have the correct equipment.

More cleverness, less pew-pew would be better. No such thing as balance in nature.

 

[Suhiira]

The thing is shooting type games tend to over stress individual accomplishment, games are intended to reward the individual player.
There may be a multi-player element to a game, but it's still designed primarily with the individual that bought it in mind.

Sniper weapons are an excellent example of this.
A real sniper is a highly skilled/trained individual that has the innate talent/skills to spend hours getting to and observing from a position waiting for the optimal target (a commander, communications man, or something similar) before they fire. In games players may spent a couple minutes getting into position and tend to shoot any and everyone in sight.
But of course players want sniper rifles modeled in games to be one-shot-one-kill weapons.

This sort of thing is one of the reasons I don't bother with FPS games (the other being my lack of reactions and ability to target the correct pixel).
As games I have zero issues with them. I however have MAJOR issues with those that think being skilled at a game has any significant bearing on real life combat skills.

 

[Poet_and_Gentleman.598]

I don't play CoD so I wouldn't know about modern FPS conventions but the old school FPSes were very much like badmington or soccer. You can play as an individual of course, but it is much much more fun and rewarding to play as roughly even-matched teams.

There are many things you can do as a team that you wouldn't nescessarily be able to as individual. Basic intel would be the most intuitive (Need backup at A! Go A! The terrorists are at A!).Spamming grenades would be a simple exercice in teamwork. Covering every angle for a defense is another one.
It depends on the FPS... but it is espescially true for say, FPSes like SWAT 4.

And then there are the FPSes like Team fortress. Pretty much self-explanatory, right?

I sure have never met one who literally thinks that FPS skills equals real life combat. I figure someone like this is very young,extremely naive or insane. So I'm not really sure why it keeps coming up every few thread about FPSes but I guess it is A GOOD TIME TO NOT DO THIS. Let us not go there. Again. There is nothing to be learned. Have a Pony!

 

[Alpha8Wolf]

Please include LAN in the game.

Though I prefer no multiplayer, I think this game is going to have one. And in my opinion want a mp that would suit the game. If it's 4 co-op I don't want it like borderlands or mass effect where a "party of heroes" go out to fight enemies. This isn't what the game is like. If there's going to be mp, then it should be a free experience. Like everybody can do his own thing and it's not limited to combat. Like multiple single-player game at once. Yeah, crazy, I know. But I'm talking about LAB mp so you'll be able to save the game and resume later with your friends.

But that's just my opinion, and I don't have much experience with multiplayer. But I trust the devs and I wish them luck

 

[Vincentdante]

Yes, all pen&papers are basically multiplayer games, but the multiplayer structure of a pen&paper is badly replicable in an RPG.
Because the elements of a pen&paper, which basically every RPG (CRPG and ARPG) have adopted are the tools which allow the player to play a role.
So, quest design, C&C system and dialogues tree.

But how a dev can put those elements in a videogame, without turning the game in an MMO?

Moving this conversation here before the mods get to us

Anyway in my opinion I don't think it needs to be that hard. Stick player 2 into the world, let him interact with the conversations like how Baldurs Gate did it or something and then gun him down when he makes an enemy of your allies. Let there be an option to block off the main campaign while your in multiplayer if you wanted to play that by yourself (which trust me I do).

 

[Sardukhar]

Moving this conversation here before the mods get to us

Anyway in my opinion I don't think it needs to be that hard. Stick player 2 into the world, let him interact with the conversations like how Baldurs Gate did it or something and then gun him down when he makes an enemy of your allies. Let there be an option to block off the main campaign while your in multiplayer if you wanted to play that by yourself (which trust me I do).

Damn it! You know how I love to works my immense...power! Also, I want to play with all of you in multiplayer. So hard. Error..so much!

 

[Vincentdante]

Damn it! You know how I love to works my immense...power! Also, I want to play with all of you in multiplayer. So hard. Error..so much!

Since multiplayer is confirmed anyway I expect organised forum sessions after release. izza:

 

[Suhiira]

Since multiplayer is confirmed anyway I expect organised forum sessions after release. izza:

Organization?
Sard?

 

[braindancer12]

Organization?
Sard?

a Poll?

 

[moonknightgog]

Moving this conversation here before the mods get to us

Anyway in my opinion I don't think it needs to be that hard. Stick player 2 into the world, let him interact with the conversations like how Baldurs Gate did it or something and then gun him down when he makes an enemy of your allies. Let there be an option to block off the main campaign while your in multiplayer if you wanted to play that by yourself (which trust me I do).

You know, I'm very conservative about RPG and its type of gameplay.
A "Player 2" can't interact in conversation if the dialogues tree is not designed with two protagonist in mind.
So...I really think that the Divinity Original Sin system is the kind of Co-Op which better fit an RPG.

Now I see the poll and...PvP? Co-Op a la Borderlands? MMO?
Isn't Cyberpunk 2077 supposed to be an RPG? Those kinds of multiplayer really don't fit a Role-Playing system at all.
It would be a different module..like 2 games in 1.

I'm really against a PvP or an MMO multiplayer style.

 

[Vincentdante]

You know, I'm very conservative about RPG and its type of gameplay.
A "Player 2" can't interact in conversation if the dialogues tree is not designed with two protagonist in mind.
So...I really think that the Divinity Original Sin system is the kind of Co-Op which better fit an RPG.

Now I see the poll and...PvP? Co-Op a la Borderlands? MMO?
Isn't Cyberpunk 2077 supposed to be an RPG? Those kinds of multiplayer really don't fit a Role-Playing system at all.
It would be a different module..like 2 games in 1.

I'm really against a PvP or an MMO multiplayer style.

The poll was Sards idea probably, or animals, either way it's safe to ignore it. I haven't played Divinty so I can't comment but I shall take your word that it works well. Regarding dialogue I wasn't talking about coop interactions but rather to just allow another player to interact with the NPC's as well individually and help out with some quests (like my Baldurs Gate example where another player could do the talking while you listen and nod your head at his high charisma). Of course it's fine if you disagree and I'm only speaking for myself here and I don't want to claim that I speak fact or for the majority.

My comment about gunning him down when he makes your friends want to kill you was only half serious. You also got to remember to sell his parts afterwards (that would be the lore friendly thing to do).

 

[Suhiira]

One nice thing Pillars of Eternity does sometimes is if a specific skill is relevant/useful in a conversation with an NPC and one of your party members has it and your main character doesn't they'll speak up.

A similar system could be used in multi-player.