Multiplayer Thread - Competitive and/or Co-Op.

[Sardukhar]

Video games are at the base for kids. We adults (and I use this term very lightly) are (or at least should be) visitors at best. Even if some of us are fairly frequent visitors.

Why? According to whom? This may seem off-topic, but I feel it does get at the heart of a disagreement about MP, here. Adults expect and typically receive adult behaviour - children, childish behaviour. Is this why so much PvP and PvP-oriented activity is so often childish and focussed on disrespect? Of course, you know what I mean - teabagging, ownd U nub, etc.

I think you make an excellent point about different games attracting different PvP interests - what kind of PvP would CP2077 hope for? Counterstrike and/or GTA or Hearts of Iron/ ArmA?

It is far more pathetic to see "grown ups" complain about kids being kids and even comparing them to sociopaths then the other way around.

I think this borders on the remarkable feat of condescension to both adults and children, as it supposes that adults complaining about negative childish behaviour is somehow not a good idea at the same time it suggests that kids being kids means a disrespectful, League of Legends-style multiplayer environment. After all, grown-ups hardly complain about childish behaviour when the kids are laughing and joking and no one is being insulted or put down...

But let's say we don't want kids , what do we do? . Make it hard. Like ArmA. Make it appealing to the cerebral player
which would mean amongst other things a dynamic economy.

Well, for one, I enjoy children. IN SO MANY WAYS. Errrr. CREEPY. Anyway, I have kids, three of them, for a reason. I like children. Theya re amusing, interesting, irreverent and fascinating. When you say, "we don't want kids", you seem to suggest that kids means arsehole attitudes in PvP? Halo-style? Who would want that, really?

A dynamic economy would be a lot of fun in MP, but I expect very hard to balance. Vis: GTA 5.

 

[Harthwain]

@ suhiir

I have no specific answer to this. It's more about what we're aiming at.

If you don't like PvP just play on a no-PvP server. Everyone happy, problem solved.Easy peasy,

Yes, but you have missed a point I made on making people disable features they're supposed to enojoy. L4D had an excellent way for implementing cooperation and PvP combined. It was the game where both teams were amazed the entire match, regardless of who has won, because it was so exciting in the process. That's the effect I'd like to see. EVE was also sensibly introducing players into the world made entirely of players. Even DS2 added a feature that lessened the dread of PvP in form of a separate covenant focused solely on protecting those who don't wish to be involved in PvP, and offered a way to shut down the area from multiplayer as the latest resort (with all consequence, like not being able to call for aid). If your idea for making PvP fun is to just disable the PvP, then why bother making it in the first place?

And even if the kids become problematic... what of it? Honestly, let them be. Video games are at the base for kids. We adults (and I use this term very lightly) are (or at least should be) visitors at best. Even if some of us are fairly frequent visitors. It is far more pathetic to see "grown ups" complain about kids being kids and even comparing them to sociopaths then the other way around.

I find the statement that adults "should be visitors at best" foolish. Why should they? Video games are for everyone who is willing to pay and play them, and that means not just kids. In fact more and more people enter the adulthood with each passing year. Thinking that games are for kids has no basis in reality. Same can be said about movies or comics.

People do complain about certain sets of behaviors for a reason, because it's often that they're involved in them. Ignoring the issue ain't solving it. I don't care if player X uses some swear word as a comma, but I see no reason to listen to him (and will most likely ignore him) and I'd like to see him removed from my playing area if he's insulting other players (no matter if it's his team or ours who's being insulted), because he's on the losing team. I don't care if he's an adult or a kid in terms of age. His mentality matters, it determines how grown up he is and I want to play with people on the level. I don't care if it's 16-years old boy and 29-years old woman. I am going to team up with them gladly, as long as they share my views on the matter, or share my goal. I am not playing to see the kind of people who fill games with toxicity, griefing and all this foolishness I don't need. Games are about having fun. And that means everyone involved.

As for comparing kids to sociopaths (I find it fitting, by the way) - we are talking about the video game, where you can kill people and the idea of a PvP that'd allow players to kill one another. While killings do happen in real life, do they happen as casually as they do in video games? No. That's the point I was making. That's why killing somebody - mainly the player character - should be more serious of a choice, also because allowing people to do so without consequences for breaking some sort of rules can be detrimental to the whole experience for those who happen to be killed. Or - if that isn't the case [to create rules] - then make it clear in the rules that the only rule out there is no rules. EVE did this, and managed to not turn into "kill on sight", like DayZ. Sure, killing on sight can add to the atmosphere where everyone is on his own, but it prevents cooperation once everyone defaults to "kill or be killed" mentality. By the way EVE has the elements you like, but at the same time isn't strictly about PvP. Cooperation and PvP don't have to be exclusive.

I took a look at DayZ forums and people do seem to realize that they need means to differentiate between bandits and non-bandits. It's kind of interesting to watch how they try to develop some sort of rules. With so many people backstabbing or outright going in for a kill spontaneous interaction is hampered (although some sort of survival-by-yourself rules do emerged, there is that). I suspect that in CP77 society didn't crumble into dust as much as in a world of zombie apocalypse. In truth, even there people do have means to group together, strength and survival in numbers. That's why I think that some means and reasons are needed, because it won't work out on its own. DayZ seems to be a proof of this. In PnP (and all paper RPGs) it's mostly about cooperation between players, so I would expect more co-op rather than PvP emerging from multiplayer features. Or something more akin to EVE.

If you want to answer with "disable multiplayer" then go to the start of this post. In fact, I could answer with: why not just disable PvP?

The point of PvP is killing or stealing from other people. Economic and strategic incentives force others to cooperate,

I am going to elaborate on this point a bit. Joker said: "See, their morals, their "code"... it's a bad joke, dropped at the first sign of trouble. They're only as good as the world allows them to be. I'll show you - when the chips are down, these, ah, "civilized people"? They'll eat each other." Now, why people kill each other? Why they drop their morals, their "code"? The answer is in this poll. Most people (at least of those who did vote) don't kill for the sake of killing. They do so in order to survive in a world where people kill each other on sight. They do so, because they have been forced to it. If your idea of interacting with players is boiling down to killing and stealing then it's really poor PvP. Conflicts between players should be deeper than that. Let's say there is a farmer who knows how to grow food and you need food on regular basis. Even a bandit could see a value in someone like this, so people would fight each other over the "valuable guy" (and prospect of obtaining a stable food supply), rather than killing one another "just because". Give higher reason for killing and it'll be much more approachable. Especially if all parties are consciously involved in combat.

But let's say we don't want kids , what do we do? . Make it hard. Like ArmA. Make it appealing to the cerebral player which would mean amongst other things a dynamic economy.

That's one way to do things, I agree. On the other hand... there is DayZ.

 

[Suhiira]

I happen to like Hearts of Iron, tho at the moment my BIG game is War in the Pacific: Admirals Edition.

While I don't have any rug-rats of my own I did spend close to 5 years driving a school bus so one would assume I can at least deal with them fairly well.
And as a point of interest it was the early teens (13-16) that usually were the biggest problem to deal with. My opinion is that it comes from their desire to be independent and no clue about the responsibilities that go with independence. Of course not a few adults have that same problem, just look at the prison population in the US.

 

[Poet_and_Gentleman.598]

Why? According to whom?

I'm rather old fashioned in this regard.I think games are a nice past-time but they don't really contribute to success in adult endaevors. It's escapism and too much of it is simply bad.

To be good at games, you need a lot of free time and fine motor skills are perishable to booth. I wouldn't imagine myself playing like I did in high school. College and entering the workforce pretty much cut gaming short.

Revisiting Counter-strike or Ghost Recon would be like going to an 18 + bar. It was fun in high school, but I would feel out of place today. I would also most likely get owned in Ghost Recon or CS.

I simply think it's better for the kids to enjoy themselves and the adults to move on with their lives. Maybe I will change my mind when I hit retirement, but until then...

It is true that the gaming average age is now 30 but that includes the casual market as well and I think kids would account for more hours spent gaming overall, esp. in triple A competitive games.

Make no mistake, as you can tell, I do greatly enjoy games the same way I enjoy Heinlein's junevile novels or Harry Potter, . A guilty pleasure if you wish.

This may seem off-topic, but I feel it does get at the heart of a disagreement about MP, here. Adults expect and typically receive adult behaviour - children, childish behaviour. Is this why so much PvP and PvP-oriented activity is so often childish and focussed on disrespect? Of course, you know what I mean - teabagging, ownd U nub, etc.
I think you make an excellent point about different games attracting different PvP interests - what kind of PvP would CP2077 hope for? Counterstrike and/or GTA or Hearts of Iron/ ArmA?

I do hope that it attracts more of the HoI/ArmA crowd. Because it would mean CP2077 would veer toward deep and complex gameplay.

It's a good question as to why mainstream FPS tolerate troll behaviour. I never really thought about that and I'm not entirely sure why is that. It's a bit like asking
Why do skyrim have a whole bunch of sexual mods? Some of whom are truly bizarre? It's truly unique to the skyrim modding community.

I would say the main criteria is learning curve and marketing. Perhaps it is the pace of the game.

In HoI,an MP game takes at the bare minimum 3-4 hours+ if you play the secondary countries (e.g. Argentina versus brazil versus Chile).
The tension of the game builds over time and unravel very quickly in the last hour or so. Some player might barely play beyond building their armies and get beaten very quickly as they enter the fray. The learning curve is also very steep.

Come to think of it, the only place where I constantly encountered trolls was Counter-strike 1.6 albeit it's been a a while so my memory might be fuzzy. I didn't play Halo or Leagues of Legends so I'm not sure if it got worse or better.

For example:
Starcraft games usually ended in "gg everyone" even if one player got completely destroyed.

I think this borders on the remarkable feat of condescension to both adults and children, as it supposes that adults complaining about negative childish behaviour is somehow not a good idea at the same time it suggests that kids being kids means a disrespectful, League of Legends-style multiplayer environment. After all, grown-ups hardly complain about childish behaviour when the kids are laughing and joking and no one is being insulted or put down...

Condescending or not, there's truly no roundabout way to go about it.

It's not like our own childhood was devoid of mischief. It's much better they be stuck in front of a screen then --- Oh I don't know ---, throwing plywood planks into fresh cement or making graffitis (which have very real costs involved).

And yes, I do believe that unless someone lived a truly sheltered existence, kids (well, I say kids but teens, really) are going to get in trouble nonetheless.Honestly now, who didn't??

Let's say you get ganked in in Everquest. What's the worse that can happen?You die, and that was about it. You also learn not to click on the Player Killer scroll which would mark you as a PvP player or play on PvP servers.

 

[Poet_and_Gentleman.598]

I am not playing to see the kind of people who fill games with toxicity, griefing and all this foolishness I don't need. Games are about having fun. And that means everyone involved.

I agree in general. I wouldn't mind a GM to prevent harrassment of other players but there needs to be a distinction between cleverness and meanness.

Someone following an individual player and verbally harrassing them (I think even while "roleplaying") is not OK.

Someone train mobbing someone else is clever.

Someone killing people at random is also OK IF they can get away with it. I do agree there should be processes to make it hard to kill, BUT they should be part of the game world.More power to them if they can make it profitable and make a clean break for it.

As for comparing kids to sociopaths (I find it fitting, by the way) - we are talking about the video game, where you can kill people and the idea of a PvP that'd allow players to kill one another. While killings do happen in real life, do they happen as casually as they do in video games? No. That's the point I was making. That's why killing somebody - mainly the player character - should be more serious of a choice, also because allowing people to do so without consequences for breaking some sort of rules can be detrimental to the whole experience for those who happen to be killed. Or - if that isn't the case [to create rules] - then make it clear in the rules that the only rule out there is no rules. EVE did this, and managed to not turn into "kill on sight", like DayZ. Sure, killing on sight can add to the atmosphere where everyone is on his own, but it prevents cooperation once everyone defaults to "kill or be killed" mentality. By the way EVE has the elements you like, but at the same time isn't strictly about PvP. Cooperation and PvP don't have to be exclusive.

I haven't played EVE because of the time investment required but I am impressed with the concept. I hope that CDPR takes example on it for multiplayer esp. when it comes to the dynamic economy.

And that's the key to cooperation: a dynamic economy. Clans and alliances as well.

PS: Huh? Where di your post go? It was a great post.

 

[Harthwain]

I haven't played EVE because of the time investment required but I am impressed with the concept. I hope that CDPR takes example on it for multiplayer esp. when it comes to the dynamic economy.

And that's the key to cooperation: a dynamic economy. Clans and alliances as well.

PS: Huh? Where di your post go? It was a great post.

I don't think that EVE requires a lot of time investment. It's rather about how much you're willing to pay for a few hours of playing per day - as you have to work, etc. - until you have enough income to sustain your subscription with in-game money only. I would play EVE if I didn't realize that there is a lot of new games to see and subscribing EVE somewhat forces player to spend time "effectively", on playing EVE and not the other games. If I get bored with all titles and see nothing new and exciting to emerge then I'll probably go to play EVE for longer.

I think key in cooperation lies within combining various factors...:

- There should be safe zones for starters for everybody to gain some playtime under their belts (you're less inclined to kill everybody on sight when you have a lot to lose).
- Police force should be enough of a threat to make murders serious risk and not penalize those who are clever enough to get away with it.
- There should be big rewards for cooperation (let's say, obtaining an object of value that first needs to be recovered via teamwork) and no rewards for plain player killing (unless we talk about some sort of bounties, but that's a whole another story).

...and so on. It's up to a debate.

 

[Suhiira]

LOTS to respond to here !

Yes, but you have missed a point I made on making people disable features they're supposed to enjoy.
...
If your idea for making PvP fun is to just disable the PvP, then why bother making it in the first place?

For my part it's not "make PvP fun by disabling it" it's "make the game as a whole fun by disabling PvP".
I have had a few PvP experiences I truly enjoyed, and for every one of these ten I hated. NOT because I lost, but because of the behavior of the opposition.
I have zero issues with consensual PvP, as long as there's also a feature to "ignore" the annoying people that harass you for not wanting to PvP with them. If there's no "ignore" feature (and I think all MP games have one these days) then I'll opt for no PvP just to not have to deal with those types, because I'm here to have fun myself NOT to be fun for you.
And that's the part far to many PvPers seem to ignore, their only concern is themselves, and that's defined as "selfish" or in extreme cases "sociopathic". Neither of which is considered acceptable social behavior.

Sure, killing on sight can add to the atmosphere where everyone is on his own, but it prevents cooperation once everyone defaults to "kill or be killed" mentality.
...
I suspect that in CP77 society didn't crumble into dust as much as in a world of zombie apocalypse. In truth, even there people do have means to group together, strength and survival in numbers. That's why I think that some means and reasons are needed, because it won't work out on its own. DayZ seems to be a proof of this. In PnP (and all paper RPGs) it's mostly about cooperation between players, so I would expect more co-op rather than PvP emerging from multiplayer features.
...
The answer is in this poll. Most people (at least of those who did vote) don't kill for the sake of killing. They do so in order to survive in a world where people kill each other on sight. They do so, because they have been forced to it. If your idea of interacting with players is boiling down to killing and stealing then it's really poor PvP.

Thank you for saying what I've tried to so poorly.

 

[Suhiira]

To be good at games, you need a lot of free time and fine motor skills are perishable to booth.
...
I simply think it's better for the kids to enjoy themselves and the adults to move on with their lives. Maybe I will change my mind when I hit retirement, but until then...
...
It's not like our own childhood was devoid of mischief. It's much better they be stuck in front of a screen then --- Oh I don't know ---, throwing plywood planks into fresh cement or making graffitis (which have very real costs involved).
...
Let's say you get ganked in in Everquest. What's the worse that can happen?You die, and that was about it. You also learn not to click on the Player Killer scroll which would mark you as a PvP player or play on PvP servers.

So once you reach a certain age you should quit playing games because your motor skills have deteriorated, even tho being retired I have the time, and I happen to enjoy games?

There are "real costs" to anti-social behavior in MP games, they're just not measured in monetary terms.

No, actually dieing in EQ (at least original EQ) you lost something VERY precious ... time.

Someone train mobbing someone else is clever.

Funny how most MMOs define this as exploitation.

 

[Suhiira]

- There should be safe zones for starters for everybody to gain some playtime under their belts...
- Police force should be enough of a threat to make murders serious risk...
- There should be big rewards for cooperation (let's say, obtaining an object of value that first needs to be recovered via teamwork) and no rewards for plain player killing...

Yeah, I've heard all sorts of excuses for a lv 80 (50, 20, whatever) wandering thru a noob area slaughtering everyone in sight, who of course has zero chance to retaliate or kill them. This is a prime example for griefing behavior there is NO acceptable reason for it.

Personally I favor bounties, BIG bounties. That way those that enjoy PvP have an incentive to track down the griefers, and the griefers get exactly what they always claim they want ... a challenge. Because of course they never concentrate on slaughtering the helpless ... naw ... never happens.

Agreed on point #3.

 

[Sardukhar]

So much to read, busy day already, lots of great stuff here. Must catch up later.

 

[twinspectre]

i hope CDPROJECT will not include the multiplayer

this game need to be played only Single Player.

SinglePlayer FTW

 

[Nars]

Don't really know how recent that is, but today tweet about new career opportunities appeared.

Among them:

• Senior Network Programmer
• Network Architect

So it's happening.

 

[Žymantūnas]

I hope they will can borrow little bit from divinity: original sin, choosable dialogue whether agree with your pal or not.

 

[Suhiira]

Don't really know how recent that is, but today tweet about new career opportunities appeared.

Among them:

Senior Network Programmer
Network Architect

So it's happening.

Good catch Nars.
it certainly indicates they're probably actively exploring/pursuing multiplayer options/features for CP2077 because no point hiring someone for Witcher this late in the game.

Too bad all my background is on mainframes I'd love to try for a job there.

 

[riddeck]

Cyberpunk 2077 Multiplayer

Ever since I saw the trailer for Cyberpunk 2077 I completely rejoiced because I spent many of hours playing the table top game with many of friends back in the 90's. The very essence of the game is what made me like that Matrix so much and I am probably not the only one.

I got to thinking after reading the forum that Cyberpunk is not going to be an MMO? How can you turn an RPG that involved playing with other people into a single player game?

After reading more I learned that Cyberpunk was going to have different game elements added, ok that could mean that multiplayer aspect will be added but I fear that this will end up being a single player campaign that will have an end.

I don't envision the world of Cyberpunk having an ending, I see a world that continues to grow and expand.

Maybe I am passing to much judgement with so little information out there.

I still have hope to play along side many of my friends again inside the world of Cyberpunk, only time will tell.

 

[RioDragon]

There's actually a thread about multiplayer already, as it's been said (I believe by CD Projeckt themselves) that they are looking into multiplayer components for Cyberpunk 2077, the thread is here:

http://forums.cdprojektred.com/threads/26987-Multiplayer-Thread-Competitive-and-or-Co-Op

As for CP2077 as an MMO... I've never really liked MMOs, and I've played and beta tested quite a few of them (WoW, Guild Wars, Knight Online, Shin Megami Tensei Online and Elder Scrolls Online included). When I hear MMO, I instantly think WoW-clone, and I don't like WoW or its gameplay style or its quest structure. The ideal MMO to me would be a completely empty world to explore with maybe some wildlife where everything else is provided and driven by the players and everyone is roleplaying their characters, crafting their own items, building their own vehicles, running their own guilds, political motivations, and overall just treating the game like a pen-and-paper Role-playing game rather than running around level grinding, killing 50 of X to get Y. Let's just face it, though, in an MMO, that's an unrealistic expectation, and the closest it's ever gotten from what I've heard was Early Ultima Online or EVE Online.

I'd much rather have Co-op or a setup like Neverwinter Nights 1 and 2's multiplayer where you can make your own adventures and play those or the main game or other adventures you can download with just a group of friends online, which I feel is much closer to a pen-and-paper approach than an MMO anyways.

 

[riddeck]

I am all for Co op play but the element of player vs player is always a nice element to.

The only thing that ever came close to what Cyberpunk was to me was the Matrix Online.

I still believe a story driven mmo can be accomplished, maybe in a persistent universe of some kind.

I played Ultima Online for 10 years, I started playing it when it first came out. I honestly don't know why I stay as long as I did because it was ruined when they divided the facets.

I guess I always pictured Cyberpunk as an MMO because it was always played with multiple people, we use to have 10 or more people role playing every weekend, those kind of memories I want to enjoy inside a world with living people, not an AI npc.

 

[Calistarius]

I personally am totally a singleplayer type of player. I do play pen and paper rpg's, so in that sence I do play various such games with friends. But in either pc or consoles I have always been a solo kind of a gamer.

If anything, I can find having to deal with other players in a game to be higly annoying (be they strangers or my actual friends). I probably spent more then half of my time in mmo's playing solo over the years.

 

[dragonbird]

There's actually a thread about multiplayer already, as it's been said (I believe by CD Projeckt themselves) that they are looking into multiplayer components for Cyberpunk 2077, the thread is here:

http://forums.cdprojektred.com/threads/26987-Multiplayer-Thread-Competitive-and-or-Co-Op

Threads merged, and thank you

And yes, as pointed out - Multiplayer is in, but not MMO.

 

[Maelcom404]

Can anyone really be mad for someone asking for multiplayer? The game is an adaption of a multiplayer game... Just sayin.

I would love 4 man co-op, especially if it is set outside the main storyline but is intertwined.

Agree, on another note, I'd love to have the game modded to grant some kind of an "Altis Life"'s look a like (a mod for Arma 3), where the whole game really get close to what Cyberpunk 2020 is, a giant multiplayer map where everyone roleplay their character ending most of the time in totaly crazy stuff, well something really "involving" the player, pushing them to really "role play", that's something which lacks in modern game.
I currently roleplay a bum on DayZ and it's hella fun, sometimes I play guitar on the mic, asking for food when I randomly found people lol.

Having a good SP is nice, but being able to extend it to roleplay with other people online would be in-line with the pnp, and grant a lot of fun.
(Also, no one force you to play the multiplayer if you don't want to), either you never play Cyberpunk 2020 or had just played crappy multiplayer game in your life, but it would be a total waste to don't have a decent multiplayer on CP77, mostly if role are there, there is everything to push people to roleplay, and if they don't roleplay? who care? that's fun too, if the mecanics are pushed far enought, there are so much way to "fill the blank".

Multiplayer =/= Arcade mode.
No need for ultra advanced and complex game mode to make it deep, just let people using their imagination and creativity, now you'd have a game free of all "restriction", isn't it what Cyberpunk is about?.

If there is a MP, we'd better try to think about how to make it cool more than shitting on it and calling it "C.O.D"