Multiplayer Thread - Competitive and/or Co-Op.

[Atavax.79]

Easy answer ... $

Where do they save money? It costs more and takes way longer to try to balance for both pve and pvp. If they're separate they still can use the same art assets, and they would probably have to do less work on the engine if they keep them separate then if they had them in the same game. The only area where i see it saving them some money is marketing. Cheaper to market one game then two. But they would probably never be able to make either the singleplayer or the multiplayer as good when they're connected then they would if they were independent games. Other then with the rts genre, are there any games that have been able to deliver decent singleplayer and competitive multiplayer in the same game?

Why do you want them connected? to save yourself $20?

 

[chriswebb2020.736]

Or go whole hog and let folks create alternate characters that are used ONLY in "Edgerunners Inc.".
Essentially let people create the NPC they want to play in other peoples games.
Of course such NPCs ARE subject to permadeath since it's someone elses game they're playing in and they have no control over things like saves.

That works for me. I quite like that idea actually. As long as there is some sort of resource associated with said NPC creation to prevent vast armies of them being created.

Heck, how about hiring out said mercs to other players?

 

[satibel.853]

Not really.
A game engine for single-player has significant differences from one that would be required for multi-player.
Short of having a essentially two engines in the game, theoretically possible, at probably twice+ the cost and three times the development time, you can't do both well.

I didn't think of this, but in this case I would like to have my chars in both versions (at least cosmetic-wise).

 

[Sardukhar]

Okay, merging threads. Been a few days.

 

[Suhiira]

Where do they save money?

Not save, make.
Take a half decent PvE game tack a crappy PvP component to it and increase your profits by claiming the game is BOTH PvE and PvP.

 

[Suhiira]

That works for me. I quite like that idea actually. As long as there is some sort of resource associated with said NPC creation to prevent vast armies of them being created.

Heck, how about hiring out said mercs to other players?

Easily done, limit each game owner (they KNOW who you are, they have your games serial number after all) to "X" number of Mercs.
But why bother?
You have to actively play your Merc in someone elses game, sure you can two-box and such (let's assume they code the game so "bots" won't work in the first place). What's the point to creating 5,000 NPCs?

Hiring out as Mercs is the entire point.

 

[PROKNIFER69]

You have to actively play your Merc in someone elses game, sure you can two-box and such (let's assume they code the game so "bots" won't work in the first place). What's the point to creating 5,000 NPCs?

Hiring out as Mercs is the entire point.

I think paying another player who is a mercenary to help you out is a pretty damn cool idea. But they'd have to be payed on completion of a mission, you know, just in case you get a guy who is just standing there in one place throughout the whole mission.

 

[Sardukhar]

You know, we're going to have to start voting on our coolest ideas for The List we present to CDPR this summer.

And then have a much, MUCH larger list of also-rans.

There is some solid stuff in these threads.

 

[Atavax.79]

Not save, make.
Take a half decent PvE game tack a crappy PvP component to it and increase your profits by claiming the game is BOTH PvE and PvP.

i don't think there are many people that are going to buy a PvE game because there was some crappy PvP mode added to it. There is also the issues of morale, ethics, and image if you set out to make PvP with no intention of doing it justice. Does any developer enjoy making bad game? Telling people to make PvP for a game and telling them they aren't going to have the budget to make it good, is a severe hit to morale. There is the ethics of deceiving your customer base into thinking there is a solid PvP component. Then there is the inevitable hit to your company's image when people find out just how bad it is. The whole idea that you need to have both multiplayer and singleplayer in a game to sell big numbers is an old concept that i think most developers no longer believe in.

 

[Suhiira]

I think paying another player who is a mercenary to help you out is a pretty damn cool idea. But they'd have to be payed on completion of a mission, you know, just in case you get a guy who is just standing there in one place throughout the whole mission.

Good point.

 

[Suhiira]

i don't think there are many people that are going to buy a PvE game because there was some crappy PvP mode added to it.

Without any research whatsoever Diablo III comes to mind, I'm sure there are a number of others one could look up if one cared to.

Since when do publishers care about the reputation of the companies who's products they sell (again Electronic Arts comes to mind)?

 

[Poet_and_Gentleman.598]

That works for me. I quite like that idea actually. As long as there is some sort of resource associated with said NPC creation to prevent vast armies of them being created.

Heck, how about hiring out said mercs to other players?

Ideally, I'd like to be able to be able to mass a great army. It would allow for a peaceful playthrough even in Multiplayer.

Be that beefy dude with an IQ of 80 and augs like Popeye's biceps.

Or

be that bespectacled finance major with an army of drones at his command.

There should be an option to steal and break into other player's property.

Maybe not permadeath but permatheft would be nice.

Also the option to cut off other player's limbs and put them on display. Permatheft + body parts + landmines + booby traps + NPCs =

Recipes for epicness right there.

Easily done, limit each game owner (they KNOW who you are, they have your games serial number after all) to "X" number of Mercs.
But why bother?
You have to actively play your Merc in someone elses game, sure you can two-box and such (let's assume they code the game so "bots" won't work in the first place). What's the point to creating 5,000 NPCs?

Hiring out as Mercs is the entire point.

Strategy.

To play against a predetermined scenario is one thing. You eventually learn the ropes and find an optimal way to beat the scenario.

Against a human opponent, that's quite another, it is far more exciting because it is always changing.

 

[Sardukhar]

Ah, poet, if you're going to multi post like that, please use the edit function to add on to previous posts.

That applies to everyone else, too. These forums already have hundreds of pages of interesting ideas for new people to wade through - let's not make it worse.

Edit: like this.

And, yes, the excitement of fighting real peoples is the best reason for competitive MP. Filthy humans are unpredictable, or predictable but at least as good as you.

Sweeter for the difficulties, as it were. "Dulcius Ex Asperis."

 

[PROKNIFER69]

And, yes, the excitement of fighting real peoples is the best reason for competitive MP. Filthy humans are unpredictable, or predictable but at least as good as you.

Sweeter for the difficulties, as it were. "Dulcius Ex Asperis."

I pretty much jump into multi-player in nearly every game. It's the best way I learn, by looking at other people's tactics and learning how to crush them! It feels like there's more on the line when I go head to head against people I know nothing about, I get more excited when fighting against a real person, unless I'm in a really hype boss fight.

 

[MasticatorDeelux]

I'm still in favor of a MMO-like open world, open to exploitation from other players.

 

[Suhiira]

There should be an option to steal and break into other player's property.
Maybe not permadeath but permatheft would be nice.
Also the option to cut off other player's limbs and put them on display.

I think (well, HOPE) you're going to be sadly disappointed with CP2077 multi-player as it's not likely to be "Deathmatch".

 

[Poet_and_Gentleman.598]

yeah but suhiir I didn't mention Deathmatch, not even once.

 

[Suhiira]

yeah but suhiir I didn't mention Deathmatch, not even once.

A rose, even if not called a rose, is still a rose.

 

[Poet_and_Gentleman.598]

Indeed, my posts are like roses. Beautiful.

What is your definition of deathmatch suhiir?

 

[Sardukhar]

I dunno if breaking and entering would be Deathmatch. It sounds like a lot more fun, frankly.