Could we win XP in multiplayer matches?

[Eriksharp]

Well,

[Nathaniel Chapman]

You control a character in the host's game, and that XP/progress is saved with the host's. So you do gain XP, but you don't take it back into your local game.

 

If you continue to play with the host, however, you will always have your progress/loot/etc.

[Labadal]

You control a character in the host's game, and that XP/progress is saved with the host's. So you do gain XP, but you don't take it back into your local game.

 

If you continue to play with the host, however, you will always have your progress/loot/etc.

 

This response should be a sticky so we never need to see this question again.

[lionheart1118]

so i have heard that items and xp are saved only to the host for the online. is this true? am i alone in thinking that this is the worst design choice they could have gone with? there is no incentive to play with friends at that point they might as well made it single player only. why is it a company cant make a good dungeon crawling loot whoring rpg anymore? last good one was champions of norrath, sacred 2 was decent but i dont care for its skill system. if im wrong please tell me cause right now i cant possibly see how anyone in their right mind could think this was a good/better idea. for now im going to be canceling my pre order to many things comming next month for me to waste money on a game that COULD have been great but because of bad design choice turned out pointless and boring.

 

 

signed,

dissapointed fan

[lionheart1118]

oooooooook soooooo someone actually did think that was a GOOD idea? wow...... welp see ya guys heres to hoping someone else can make the game this niche group of gamers is looking for.

 

also i work in retail ill be sure to let ppl know about how the game was designed thanks for letting me know.

Edited May 26, 2011 by lionheart1118

[C2B]

Yes, there is reason to play co-op and to play with friends. It just A: Isn't focused on online-play like other hack n slashes are. B: It works for what the MP tries to achieve. That is buddy co-op.

 

This game is really not for playing with strangers though.

Edited May 26, 2011 by C2B

[Oner]

Look, you play the game, with someone, anyone. Since this is a co-op game, instead of a quake style start-new-match thing, you will presumably want to continue the game where you left off last night. Presumably with the same people (ie, your friends). So, it doesn't matter who has the save.

 

I mean, hell, Alien Swarm doesn't even have a proper save system (or loot for that matter) and no one cared.

 

BTW, how exactly is the game boring or pointless?

[lionheart1118]

not only that but i have the problem of i was planning on playing with different groups of friends online. now its just like meh whatever, i mean even a mess of a game like the newest dnd game on the 360 arcade did the mp right design wise. guess ima be waiting for d3 still siiiigh.

[Oblarg]

not only that but i have the problem of i was planning on playing with different groups of friends online. now its just like meh whatever, i mean even a mess of a game like the newest dnd game on the 360 arcade did the mp right design wise. guess ima be waiting for d3 still siiiigh.

 

You realize a diablo-style multiplayer framework simply doesn't work for a mainly story-driven game, right? It sort of breaks any sense of immersion or balance to have a level 30 friend bring his character into the early stages of your game.

[mkreku]

not only that but i have the problem of i was planning on playing with different groups of friends online. now its just like meh whatever, i mean even a mess of a game like the newest dnd game on the 360 arcade did the mp right design wise. guess ima be waiting for d3 still siiiigh.

 

You realize a diablo-style multiplayer framework simply doesn't work for a mainly story-driven game, right? It sort of breaks any sense of immersion or balance to have a level 30 friend bring his character into the early stages of your game.

I've never understood this argument. Maybe someone wants to break the balance early in his game. So what? Maybe some people like power-levelling their tiny friends. So what?

 

Is it really worth breaking a system to try to stop people from playing the game the way they want? I just don't get it.

[C2B]

not only that but i have the problem of i was planning on playing with different groups of friends online. now its just like meh whatever, i mean even a mess of a game like the newest dnd game on the 360 arcade did the mp right design wise. guess ima be waiting for d3 still siiiigh.

 

You realize a diablo-style multiplayer framework simply doesn't work for a mainly story-driven game, right? It sort of breaks any sense of immersion or balance to have a level 30 friend bring his character into the early stages of your game.

I've never understood this argument. Maybe someone wants to break the balance early in his game. So what? Maybe some people like power-levelling their tiny friends. So what?

 

Is it really worth breaking a system to try to stop people from playing the game the way they want? I just don't get it.

 

Because both are design choices and maybe they are both just as valid. Regarding DSIII it was clearly not designed to integrate Diablo-Style Multiplayer. So yeah, I think it would have suffered from it.

 

Edit: Its still a little sad and in my opinion could have been handled/designed better.

Edited May 26, 2011 by C2B

[Labadal]

It could have been handled better but it's not even close to a deal breaker for me. (I'm not responding to you C2B, because we seem to have mostly the same opinions about this game.)

[Alpha]

You control a character in the host's game, and that XP/progress is saved with the host's. So you do gain XP, but you don't take it back into your local game.

 

If you continue to play with the host, however, you will always have your progress/loot/etc.

 

This response should be a sticky so we never need to see this question again.

i agree.

[Drebbin]

You control a character in the host's game, and that XP/progress is saved with the host's. So you do gain XP, but you don't take it back into your local game.

 

If you continue to play with the host, however, you will always have your progress/loot/etc.

 

Firstly thanks for taking the time out to respond. It

[C2B]

Very good post

 

Apart from that though its designed with very different goals in mind from the typical diablo dungeon crawler experience. Multiplayer only seems to cater to buddy co-op with friends. Theres also no PVP anyway.

 

Also as far as I understand you can still do the skill allocation yourself when you enter someone elses game and since there are predefined charachters its still pretty much your "own" charachter. Apart from loot though which is really a shame.

[Tigranes]

This decision seems to push you to play through the game with the same people all the time if you want that co-op experience. So If I start a game with a friend as the host and he has to stop playing at any given point, I have to stop playing also!! Then wait for him to continue the game before I can continue to progress my online character. Unless I continue with another created character on my own or start up another multiplayer character (from scratch) with someone else online.

 

Not necessarily - if you play on without your friend, then he/she comes back, they will be able to 'jump back' into their character, which will be auto-levelled to match your character. They just need to take a couple of minutes to distribute their newly gained points. While this means they miss out on a part of the game, that would have happened anyway in any system - it just means you don't have to waste time helping them level up and they doesn't have to give up playing with you because you're too far ahead.

[Drebbin]

Thanks C2B,

Taking a step back, I suppose I

[Labadal]

While I personally have no big problem with the way multiplayer works, I can't help but feel like this will hurt sales in some way. I know a lot of people on other forums that were anticipating DS3 are no longer interested in the game. I can understand them to be honest. I myself never play with strangers, a.k.a. a quick game in co-op games, but I know this is not the case for most people. Most people just like to jump in and play.

[Drebbin]

@Tigranes

I can see what you are saying and it is a solution

[rafoca]

You control a character in the host's game, and that XP/progress is saved with the host's. So you do gain XP, but you don't take it back into your local game.

 

If you continue to play with the host, however, you will always have your progress/loot/etc.

 

Firstly thanks for taking the time out to respond. It

[lionheart1118]

yea after learning about this design choices they went with this game im now looking at lotr war in the north as well. got more checking on that to do to make sure they didnt do something funky with that as well. but seeing how they did champions i have a good feeling bout it.

[Tigranes]

If you have a tight knit group of friends who are committed to playing through the game together, then DS3's system is perfectly fine - in fact in that case the only real difference is that you can't then go out and farm mobs with your own character, MMO-style. DS3's system only becomes problematic when, say, you're just a guy who wants to jump into random games and play with random people and in doing so, level up his own character - the system really disadvantages players who want to (a) play with anyone anywhere, and also (b) progress their own character. If you're playing with your friends there's really no issue.

 

By the way, I find a bit odd you guys are talking about LOTR War of the North - at a brief glance I couldn't find concrete info about how their 'online co-op' works, but usually don't games of that kind, including previous LOTR ARPG titles, work pretty much like DS3, as opposed to Diablo 2? You know, pick mutually exclusive characters (in this case, only 3), then go on a romp in the single player campaign together, where progress is locally saved.

[lasthearth]

This decision seems to push you to play through the game with the same people all the time if you want that co-op experience. So If I start a game with a friend as the host and he has to stop playing at any given point, I have to stop playing also!! Then wait for him to continue the game before I can continue to progress my online character. Unless I continue with another created character on my own or start up another multiplayer character (from scratch) with someone else online.

 

Not necessarily - if you play on without your friend, then he/she comes back, they will be able to 'jump back' into their character, which will be auto-levelled to match your character. They just need to take a couple of minutes to distribute their newly gained points. While this means they miss out on a part of the game, that would have happened anyway in any system - it just means you don't have to waste time helping them level up and they doesn't have to give up playing with you because you're too far ahead.

 

But you can't play on if he's the host and all the progress is saved on his console.

 

I can have a group of 4 dedicated players, and the host either loses interest in the game or maybe or HD crashes, or his internet is out.

 

Now none of us can continue the game.

 

This is seriously retarded, and the sad thing is they could have gotten around this problem if they just gave it a little more effort. But it seems Obsidian is more about stubbornly making their game rather than a game for players to enjoy.

 

This game has gone from day one purchase to maybe I'll pick up from the bargain bin, which I have no doubt it will end up in fairly quickly.

Edited May 28, 2011 by lasthearth

[Flouride]

But you can't play on if he's the host and all the progress is saved on his console.

 

I can have a group of 4 dedicated players, and the host either loses interest in the game or maybe or HD crashes, or his internet is out.

 

Now none of us can continue the game.

 

This is seriously retarded, and the sad thing is they could have gotten around this problem if they just gave it a little more effort. But it seems Obsidian is more about stubbornly making their game rather than a game for players to enjoy.

 

This game has gone from day one purchase to maybe I'll pick up from the bargain bin, which I have no doubt it will end up in fairly quickly.

 

How often does your friends lose HDs, also easily avoided by doing back-up save (on PC atleast) in case you are really that worried... Do they live in a rural area where Internet is down all the time? The game can be finished in 15 to 25 hours according to reviews, doesn't take a huge commitment if you ask me. Unless you play with some really casual players. But then again why would you choose someone like that as the host if you know how the multiplayer works.

 

Maybe Nathan or someone could tell if it's possible for the host to send the save file to someone else in case the host decides to quit playing.

[Tigranes]

I agree that it would be much better if the saves were made on every character, allowing any of them to then play host and continue that game, possibly on their own or with other people. We will see if it is the size of the saves that make this problematic, since I'm not sure what other reason there could be.

 

That said, again, I think it's the height of exaggeration to say it's a gamebreaker for anyone.