Multiplayer Thread - Competitive and/or Co-Op.

[Suhiira]

What is your definition of deathmatch suhiir?

"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."

Pretty much anything where the object is not to merely defeat an opponent but "make them suffer".
That sort of thing is exactly why I don't play most PvP games.
You spend days, weeks, questing and grinding to get some decent gear and then out of the blue you get stun locked and/or attacked by 3-5 people that take everything you've worked so hard for then tap dance on your corpse calling you a "F*ing Noob" .... oh yeah, great fun.

But, they say, you can run around in a pack just like us as do the same thing!
Well ... I don't WANT to be you.

 

[Poet_and_Gentleman.598]

what the hell? That's not even close to the definition of deathmatch.

 

[Sardukhar]

Yeaaah..that's...really not. Deathmatch is fast and furious, kill or be killed arena-style combat. You kill, yo die, you rez. Pretty much nothing at all like you described, Suhiir.

There is no gear to be lost, there is no permanything - it's PvP basic.

What you describe sounds like the BITTER RENDERINGS OF A CAREBEAR.
PERISH AT MY CONTERMPT. CONTEP. CONTEMPT. Fuck. Anyway, you know what I mean. I don't think anyone wants that for Cyberpunk 2077 MP, the whole noob-in-your-face shite.

I'm not sure why you'd ever -want- to spend days or weeks grinding for anything, anyway. Screw the MMO model, it's designed as filler-content. Not to mention, I don't know any MMOs that actually take your stuff away.

More's the pity - it might actually force the designers to rethink how they reward players. Grinding is the suck.

As for it being fun - hell yeah! I suck at PvP as my beloved guildies will happily tell you and that makes it all the more fun when i survive or even win!

What Poet and I are talking about is MP PvP where players can do in-game what they can in real-life, and trying to make that fun. A simple fix for people who don't enjoy trying to out-think other people in PvP or whatever is a noPvP flag on you or your server. Solved and people like Poet and I can spend our time sneaking into each other's homes and putting dead parts on the other guy's pillow like some kind of deranged magpies. Heh heh heh. Dibs on @wisdom000 head!

 

[Suhiira]

I'll admit I have a bad attitude toward PvP (and not just because I can't hit a target pixel in 1/10th of a second).
OK, I don't know (or frankly want to know) what a Deathmatch is, my apologies.
While my views may (and probably are) out-of-date with "modern" PvP they reflect my past experiences with it in various early MMOs, all bad, and not just because the early PvP mechanics had a "few" bugs that needed to be ironed out (don't recall which MMO it was at the moment but yes one of the early ones allowed the victor to loot the corpse to their undies, this was later changed to allow them to loot only one item ... per kill ... this of course led to corpse camping).
With very few exceptions the people that I've dealt with are most vocal, and thrilled with PvP are what I refer to as "High School Bully" types. I hated them in my teens and care even less for them now having dealt with FAR to many "adults" of that type during my time wearing a badge. They're whole purpose in playing a game seems to be figuring out how to stroke their own egos by belittling others.

And no, I'm not going to change my set-in-stone mind.

CAREBEAR AND PROUD OF IT

 

[vtmb]

I'll admit I have a bad attitude toward PvP (and not just because I can't hit a target pixel in 1/10th of a second).
OK, I don't know (or frankly want to know) what a Deathmatch is, my apologies.
While my views may (and probably are) out-of-date with "modern" PvP they reflect my past experiences with it in various early MMOs, all bad, and not just because the early PvP mechanics had a "few" bugs that needed to be ironed out (don't recall which MMO it was at the moment but yes one of the early ones allowed the victor to loot the corpse to their undies, this was later changed to allow them to loot only one item ... per kill ... this of course led to corpse camping).
With very few exceptions the people that I've dealt with are most vocal, and thrilled with PvP are what I refer to as "High School Bully" types. I hated them in my teens and care even less for them now having dealt with FAR to "adults" of that type during my time wearing a badge. They're whole purpose in playing a game seems to be figuring out how to stroke their own egos by belittling others.

And no, I'm not going to change my set-in-stone mind.

CAREBEAR AND PROUD OF IT

Deathmatch theory is the one for chess with guns. With lots of players so actually it's a bit casual compared to duel which is the in-depth mode.
One can draw all sort of parallels with weapons/pieces, dominants and weaknesses of said weapons, fighting for 1/3 of the map, controlling the map through pick ups, timing and the whole economy of it.
It's a mode which impact is still felt after decades, far richer than any other competitive mode because of its variety breeding strategies so I beg you to not mistake people playing for sport with actual assholes and please don't give credit to retarded philosophers of the internet or hipsters watching ErrantSignal all day everyday who never touch a book.
That said it's right to say making a deathmatch out of rpg-ish combat is pushing it because the rpg elements (stats, skills, progression or anything turning sticks into nukes in need to be balanced from something else like levels) are likely to screw with consistency and ruin the whole combat. EvE is one of the few things with rpg stuff that managed to get good pvp but it took years of balancing for nothing when games with much simpler design evolved far beyond that game. Eventually good "multiplayer rpg" was reached with games like dark souls and that's the best one can hope for (it's easy to assume devs are already done with core mechanics).

It's still a "more is more" design idea though, can't go beyond social gaming

 

[Suhiira]

I'll just stick to my turn based regular wargames and tactical games (XCom, Jagged Alliance).
FPS and RTS are just not something I generally "do" (with the exception of MechWarrior).

 

[vtmb]

That's missing a lot only to commit to boring boringness

 

[Poet_and_Gentleman.598]

What Poet and I are talking about is MP PvP where players can do in-game what they can in real-life, and trying to make that fun. A simple fix for people who don't enjoy trying to out-think other people in PvP or whatever is a noPvP flag on you or your server. Solved and people like Poet and I can spend our time sneaking into each other's homes and putting dead parts on the other guy's pillow like some kind of deranged magpies. Heh heh heh. Dibs on @wisdom000 head!

Yeah, you pretty much nailed it right there.

The ironic thing is the best "roleplaying" happens if there's a stake for everyone involved and so people keep to their role.

With ARMA-style mechanics, If you blend in with the crowd you would be able to ambush others with little reflexes.
With the crowds in game, if you can see a truly custom appearance In a sea of poverty, obviously you'll suspect a player, you might decide to approach him to see if he's your target. If you see a car that zips past traffic lights, then obviously that's a player.

So now that fancy aug is a true status symbol, because your corpse can be looted and you have the balls to proudly display it anyway. Likewise for a prime piece of prohibitively expensive real estate. If (hopefully) stats are hidden, then there's an added question:

How powerful exactly is the other player?

These are extremely simple mechanics but would add much to the game. It would become a game of positioning and smarts.

 

[Sardukhar]

I am quite enjoying Watch Dogs multiplayer. Nearly seamless integration with your existing world and some nice non-murder mechanics.

 

[Harthwain]

I share suhiir's approach on the subject.

I don't avoid PvP games completely, but I've found that multiplayer tends to bring the worst out of people. What's worse certain players can go to great lengths to do something gamey, only to get advantage over their opponent(s). This - in turn - breaks immersion and is not fun for me, because causes tendency for others to follow that path to remain "equal". I heard stories from "DayZ" and they burnt into my mind. I was thankful that STALKER was released without such multiplayer. NPC scavengers, bandits, etc. were enough for me. Without better equipped players hunting down those worse equipped or camping "good loot spot(s)".

I'd rather prefer cooperation over PvP and no PvP over bad one. I don't think that multiplayer would work out well in "Cyberpunk 2077" without strong reason for players not to kill each other "just because". Even if there would be something like C-SWAT (responding in case of PvP firefight within public space of the city) for dead player it would matter not and cause mostly frustration over being killed, because they couldn't avoid such "confrontation". You can explain this with cyberpsychosis and the like, but with permanent death and loss of all progress (unlike in "EVE: Online", where you can buy yourself a clone and insurance for ship) I am certain some people would troll the others "just because". I wouldn't mind the multiplayer aspect of the game if I could ignore it by setting myself to "no-PvP" status though.

Still, I find multiplayer-avenue a dead end. Everyone wants to follow the route of Blizzard and have a successful MMO of their own, but from what I've seen this brings an end to most such over-ambitious ventures. Take a look at what they did to "Elder Scrolls Online". "Skyrim" had great atmosphere, freedom and believable world (NPCs responding, better or worse, to character's actions) that was creating an illusion of being alive. It was another in a long series of Bethesda games, all done in similar way. I thought they should stick to singleplayer aspect of it (offering great single-player experience) and was saying that this is why their games are being so successful, although they are purely singleplayer-oriented. Instead they tried to go MMO. The results are for all to see.

They said there will be multiplayer aspects. I think it'll be something limited, like ability to contact between players in-game via low-level netrunning (e-mailing?), perhaps being able to see "people" in cyberspace the way you see other players moving in the world of "Dark Souls" or netrunners (real players) taking minor "commission jobs" from other players (like: "Do [whatever the netrunners do and could have market value]. You have [X] days and [Y] hours or someone else will take this job"). That kind of stuff. Something small, but enough to put "multiplayer features" on the back of the box and probably justify the existence of netrunner as a separate class who should be able to earn his living without moving out of his apartment.

That gave me something to think about... If each class can offer certain service (Solo: liquidate these guards, Fixer: buy ill-gotten goods or deliver not-so-legal stuff someplace, etc.) and game make this a sort of side-missions then it would achieve a number of functions: be of value for both sides (buyer of services and seller of services), be fun (you have "a job", of sorts) and be completely voluntarily process you could ignore should you decide so. This way players could cooperate and "interact" with the world of other players while remaining main characters of their own story.

 

[Suhiira]

That gave me something to think about... If each class can offer certain service (Solo: liquidate these guards, Fixer: buy ill-gotten goods or deliver not-so-legal stuff someplace, etc.) and game make this a sort of side-missions then it would achieve a number of functions: be of value for both sides (buyer of services and seller of services), be fun (you have "a job", of sorts) and be completely voluntarily process you could ignore should you decide so. This way players could cooperate and "interact" with the world of other players while remaining main characters of their own story.

Yeah, cooperative vs competitive multi-player ... what a novel concept !

 

[Harthwain]

I don't really see what you're adding to this discussion by being (supposedly) sarcastic(?) towards my idea of multi-player features while having nothing else to say, other than making a remark. It serves no purpose, unless the purpose is to point out that CDPR is aiming to create "a novel concept" for their "multiplayer features" they notified the press about?

Unless CDPR has really revolutionary concept I am aiming towards something that's simple to implement ("multiplayer features" suggests to me that they aren't making it big. Otherwise it's just "multiplayer" as a whole own "feature") and justifies the anouncement about using "multiplayer features".

At this point it ain't about re-designing a wheel. It's about creating a multi-player feature that won't end in a way that's destructive to other players. To that end cooperation is better than competition, because it's easier to make non-intrusive cooperative system than pvp-oriented system that isn't annoying or easily broken by players. In fact I shouldn't even call such system cooperative as it's "a job" for a single class on someone else's behalf for specific compensation. Both parties benefit from such exchange, but it fits into "side-quest" (like accomplishing task for NPCs) more than "cooperation" would, but when we're talking about multi-player some concepts and terms are easier to use than the others.

What's more important the multi-player elements shouldn't require continuity or you'd end up waiting for someone in order to be able to do something. It also shouldn't be long (longer than two hours maximum), because that might cause the drag or some players wouldn't be able to find that amount of time outside of weekends to be able to play some of these features. Non-multi-player-oriented games are like the forums: everyone is in the same place on their own time and doesn't disturb the flow by being sooner or later.

 

[Poet_and_Gentleman.598]

People want ruthlessness but want predictable ruthlessness.

Or cooperative ruthlessness.

Fail.

 

[Poet_and_Gentleman.598]

But I do agree with the general idea that there should be a way to segue into another player's game. You could have a phone book of sort, where you could select which players' game to segue into without knowing anything about them other then address and name.

It would be a great way to have an economy as well. As people gain in ranks, they could be given more important economic roles (for example a medtech could be a terrific plastic surgeon). Your labor thus would be dictated by the market and be dynamic. MMO economy without the MMO shaenigans.

You could have fake enter anywhere. For example, you wouldn't be able to enter all doors by default, instead you would enter into another player's apartment/office/ etc which would be furnished and customized by him.

 

[Suhiira]

I don't really see what you're adding to this discussion by being (supposedly) sarcastic(?) towards my idea of multi-player features while having nothing else to say, other than making a remark. It serves no purpose, unless the purpose is to point out that CDPR is aiming to create "a novel concept" for their "multiplayer features" they notified the press about?

Actually your ideas sound FAR better then most I've seen here.

 

[Harthwain]

Actually your ideas sound FAR better then most I've seen here.

Apologies. One can never tell.

But I do agree with the general idea that there should be a way to segue into another player's game. You could have a phone book of sort, where you could select which players' game to segue into without knowing anything about them other then address and name.

[...]

You could have fake enter anywhere. For example, you wouldn't be able to enter all doors by default, instead you would enter into another player's apartment/office/ etc which would be furnished and customized by him.

Well, I imagined something like this today: you're a solo and you've a job that'd be much easier with some netrunning experience. You can contract a professional netrunner who would do his work from his place while you would be on the ground. Netrunner could have access - perhaps granted by you? - to braindance tech, so he can be able to see what's your situation live while he deals with problems that are within the cyberspace.

Questions arise. One followed by another.

Should braindancing have "built-in" hardcore mode by default (so that death of one means death of the other and both would experience each other's "complications" when things go haywire)? I mean, what's better way to ensure that both of you would be working on success, instead of netrunner leaving solo to his death (as netrunner operates from the safety of his own apartment)? On the other hand, a bad netrunner could cost solo his life, so this is also a problem. I don't even mention people who would die on purpose just to grief somebody. Perhaps some level of clearance on the contract, tied to how costly this is (big money would require more "skilled" player character), making you decide if you want to pay smaller sum for bigger risk involved? And how would other classes co-operate, should we go with this scenario? The idea of instances is there, but then again, this is supposed to be an open world, with each player being a hero and friendly fire (or lack of it) would again cause problems.

EVE has specific approach to what players do to other players - one could call it mature, in a way - but then again I am not sure how this would impact the game and its reputation. It's done in a world of cyberpunk, so there is a possibility that they'll go with trust being scarce commodity and keeping an option to turn your back on your team. I guess that involvement in multi-player might be voluntary, but carrying its own risks and rewards (and being well done and fun to attract people), while still keeping a player character main hero of the world he's in. Some games, like EVE, ARMA or "Dark Souls 2" do make what one would call a weakness into their strong point. People there are told to "get over it" and take it as part of experience.

 

[Suhiira]

While it's impossible to eliminate all griefing options in any multi-player game (dirt-bags will ALWAYS find a way) one can at least limit the options with good implementation.

Perhaps a slight change in discussion topic, rather then "Do you want multi-player" concentrate on "How to implement multi-player", folk can bring up specific examples of the sort of things they've seen done in other games and we can discuss the best way to eliminate such things via game code, it has to be hard-wired into the game because trusting human nature is a sure fire way to get screwed.

 

[Harthwain]

Usually the best way to make people work together - instead of killing one another - is by making cooperation much more beneficial or even mandatory requirement for success (completing the objective) in order to minimize the amount of people who would screw the team (or just the other players) for the sake of screwing them. In "Left 4 Dead" each of two teams had to cooperate to beat the opposing team and in all my playtime there (and I had over 1000 hours, in "Left 4 Dead 2" alone) I never met anyone - be it drop-in player or known player - who was willing to grief on his own volition (to grief for the sake of it). I also heard female people there and team was always mature enough to treat team as team members, without making fuss over playing with women. Impressive.

In fact, when I think about it, all games with co-operative content had much more people willing to be on the positive side of it, rather than trying to go against the flow of the game. If you make death serious then people will also not risk their character stupidly too. Unless death can be too easy thing to happen to you as you wander the world and get killed "just because". Then some players would rather "play safe than sorry" option and either shut down multi-player option or treat all potential players as hostiles. While treachery might sound cool it's destructive and shouldn't be practiced to strangers. That's probably the reason why recruitment to a corporation in EVE is so rigoristic, to a point of paranoia.

 

[Suhiira]

While "more people willing to be on the positive side of it" is a great start it still leaves a game open to the 10%. And it doesn't take more then a handful to ruin things for the majority ... and they will, oh yes they will.

 

[Harthwain]

Well, the best fail-safe is shutting down multi-player completely on one's end. Other than that it's creating a situation where one player is given a task that gives him certain benefits (like money, to give example) while benefiting the other player. "HItman: Absolution" had an interesting feature where you could design "a contract", a mission with goals defined by another player. A challenge. In such model the worst that can happen is that nobody would be willing to fulfill such contract, so there is lack of negative value, at worst. At best both parties benefit from it. I can't see a fail-safe multi-player feature with players operating together in the same space though.