PLEASE make this game online

[Uni]

I dont think we see any kind of multiplayer and most multiplayer solutions would require huge amount of resources and/or changes in the game.

It would be interesting to fight party vs. party battles against other people in some kind of arena mode that happens outside of the main game(permanent slow mode or something like that because pausing doesnt really work in multiplayer).

Even that is very unlikely as obsidian will propably prioritize making the main game better and they for sure have a lot of things to still improve on that. Most players would also choose better single player over having a multiplayer option.

But oh damn id like to try aforementioned style pvp, there is just so many variables and the battles would be hectic and interesting. Id even watch that as a sport, i really think ie style combat has interesting pvp potential.

[XPerNX]

Well if what you guys are saying is correct, you could never hope for sword coast legends, to become a good singleplayer game, since they are doing both. The best you can hope for is a mediocre product. I still hope, that both games will be great at both. Whether or not sword coast legends could become the game Im hoping for, also depends a lot on the ruleset for me, so far I have found the POE ruleset very interesting.

[macadam]

Just so! I bought Pillars right after the first review hit. No regrets since it's almost as if they've read my mind making that game. I won't do so in regards to SCL (misspelled the name), especially if co-op is made their selling point.

 

No interest in MP whatsoever. I really appreciate their missing out on sales for focusing on SP.

[Fardragon]

Quite right, I have no expectation that Sword Coast Legends will be a decent single player game.

[Kogorn733]

 

Please devs, make this game online, and give me and my friends the neverwinter we have been missing for years back

 

BLASPHEMY!!!!     

[Nobear]

I dont think we see any kind of multiplayer and most multiplayer solutions would require huge amount of resources and/or changes in the game.

 

It would be interesting to fight party vs. party battles against other people in some kind of arena mode that happens outside of the main game(permanent slow mode or something like that because pausing doesnt really work in multiplayer).

 

Even that is very unlikely as obsidian will propably prioritize making the main game better and they for sure have a lot of things to still improve on that. Most players would also choose better single player over having a multiplayer option.

 

But oh damn id like to try aforementioned style pvp, there is just so many variables and the battles would be hectic and interesting. Id even watch that as a sport, i really think ie style combat has interesting pvp potential.

 

This has crossed my mind, but I decided it probably ought to be nothing more than an amusing thought. Without major rebalancing, I think it would turn out to be "He who gets off the first CC wins... unless countered by the appropriate defensive spell in anticipation." I mean, it would create some funny situations no doubt. It's one of those things that would probably be fun to mess around with for a few minutes, so if we lived in a universe where something like that could be created with zero additional time and resources, yeah it'd be kind of a hoot.

 

In our universe, single-player for PoE all the way.

[Crucis]

Single Player games and Multiplayer games are completely different things. You can't design a game that does both well at the same time, design decisions made to support multiplayer will hurt single player, and visa versa.

 

NWN is the perfect example. No one ever called NWN "the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate" because the single player gameplay is vastly inferior. That is at least partially down to decisions made to support multiplayer, from the lack of a party, to the structure of the OC, to the paired down graphics.

 

Do we need a new Build-Your-Own-Online-RPG Toolkit to replace NWN? Sure we do, but PoE aint it.

 

We just seem to disagree. I also think NWN was a better single player game than baldurs. I dont see why POE wouldnt be the next toolkit

 

 

 

 

 

Good lord, not a chance in hell.  When I first saw NWN all those years ago, I swore to never buy it, because its graphics looked ugly and I didn't want a D&D game that didn't support a large party of 6.  And quite frankly, I had no interest in 3D.  I love the 2D isometric PoV and have no interest in playing a D&D game like it was a first person shooter.  None whatsoever.

[Luckmann]

Well if what you guys are saying is correct, you could never hope for sword coast legends, to become a good singleplayer game, since they are doing both. [...]

 

Yeah, I don't think anyone is really expecting Sword Coast Leg-Ends to become a good singleplayer roleplaying game. So there's that.

 

 

 

[...] I also think NWN wa a better singleplayer game than baldurs. [...]

Well now we know that you're just trolling. No thinking person would be able to say that with a straight face.

Edited July 2, 2015 by Luckmann

[Messier-31]

This behaviour must not continue. Feel the burning stare of my hamster and change your ways.

[Uni]

This has crossed my mind, but I decided it probably ought to be nothing more than an amusing thought. Without major rebalancing, I think it would turn out to be "He who gets off the first CC wins... unless countered by the appropriate defensive spell in anticipation." I mean, it would create some funny situations no doubt. It's one of those things that would probably be fun to mess around with for a few minutes, so if we lived in a universe where something like that could be created with zero additional time and resources, yeah it'd be kind of a hoot.

 

 

Aoe CC against clumped up party could end things very fast but its pretty obvious so people would spread their parties more. I could still see per day casters being too good as they can just unload all of their high level spells.

 

This kind of mode would require serious multitasking even if it was slower than the current slow mode and would propably be "more fun to watch than actually play" for me, kind of like how i sometimes find watching starcraft 2 interesting but playing it is to too stressful.

 

I guess what intrigues me is the potential of very varied metagame as classes are so different and you can choose to mix them as you like, which would mean a huge mount of different strategies. There are so many spells and different items to choose from.

 

 

6v6 team matches with every player controlling just their player character would be glorious, way less stressful and they wouldnt require slowing down. Being in voice communication with your team and battling against another party sounds incredibly fun. Id also love to watch shoutcasted competitive 6v6 party vs. party action, assuming the metagame wouldnt become completely degenerate causing every match to be similar(6x druid on both teams or smt.)

Edited July 2, 2015 by Uni

[XPerNX]

 

Single Player games and Multiplayer games are completely different things. You can't design a game that does both well at the same time, design decisions made to support multiplayer will hurt single player, and visa versa.

 

NWN is the perfect example. No one ever called NWN "the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate" because the single player gameplay is vastly inferior. That is at least partially down to decisions made to support multiplayer, from the lack of a party, to the structure of the OC, to the paired down graphics.

 

Do we need a new Build-Your-Own-Online-RPG Toolkit to replace NWN? Sure we do, but PoE aint it.

 

We just seem to disagree. I also think NWN was a better single player game than baldurs. I dont see why POE wouldnt be the next toolkit

 

 

 

 

 

Good lord, not a chance in hell.  When I first saw NWN all those years ago, I swore to never buy it, because its graphics looked ugly and I didn't want a D&D game that didn't support a large party of 6.  And quite frankly, I had no interest in 3D.  I love the 2D isometric PoV and have no interest in playing a D&D game like it was a first person shooter.  None whatsoever.

 

 

In multiplayer the party size was not an issue, and in singleplayer it did not bother me to have only a single henchman. Saying nwn was like a first person shooter, tells me yeah, you skipped playing it, thats ok if the iso graphics are that important to you, but comparing 2nd edition d&d rules, to a shooter, because your party is smaller... huh?

 

 

 

I dont think we see any kind of multiplayer and most multiplayer solutions would require huge amount of resources and/or changes in the game.

 

It would be interesting to fight party vs. party battles against other people in some kind of arena mode that happens outside of the main game(permanent slow mode or something like that because pausing doesnt really work in multiplayer).

 

Even that is very unlikely as obsidian will propably prioritize making the main game better and they for sure have a lot of things to still improve on that. Most players would also choose better single player over having a multiplayer option.

 

But oh damn id like to try aforementioned style pvp, there is just so many variables and the battles would be hectic and interesting. Id even watch that as a sport, i really think ie style combat has interesting pvp potential.

 

This has crossed my mind, but I decided it probably ought to be nothing more than an amusing thought. Without major rebalancing, I think it would turn out to be "He who gets off the first CC wins... unless countered by the appropriate defensive spell in anticipation." I mean, it would create some funny situations no doubt. It's one of those things that would probably be fun to mess around with for a few minutes, so if we lived in a universe where something like that could be created with zero additional time and resources, yeah it'd be kind of a hoot.

 

In our universe, single-player for PoE all the way.

 

 

No idea how it would work as a pvp game, that never interrested me much, but I seem to remember in nwn people found the games weaknesses, since you could do so many builds it was very hard to balance to not get cheesy ones. But again the balancing was done, on local servers, by whoever created the server. So you could make very rule restricted pvp servers, or ance that just used the standard single player settings. 

 

 

 

Well if what you guys are saying is correct, you could never hope for sword coast legends, to become a good singleplayer game, since they are doing both. [...]

 

Yeah, I don't think anyone is really expecting Sword Coast Leg-Ends to become a good singleplayer roleplaying game. So there's that.

 

 

 

[...] I also think NWN wa a better singleplayer game than baldurs. [...]

Well now we know that you're just trolling. No thinking person would be able to say that with a straight face.

 

 

No thinking person would believe his taste in games, to be the only truth out there

 

This behaviour must not continue. Feel the burning stare of my hamster and change your ways.

 

Do not force me to bring out my turtle of persistance

Edited July 2, 2015 by XPerNX

[Crucis]

 

 

Single Player games and Multiplayer games are completely different things. You can't design a game that does both well at the same time, design decisions made to support multiplayer will hurt single player, and visa versa.

 

NWN is the perfect example. No one ever called NWN "the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate" because the single player gameplay is vastly inferior. That is at least partially down to decisions made to support multiplayer, from the lack of a party, to the structure of the OC, to the paired down graphics.

 

Do we need a new Build-Your-Own-Online-RPG Toolkit to replace NWN? Sure we do, but PoE aint it.

 

We just seem to disagree. I also think NWN was a better single player game than baldurs. I dont see why POE wouldnt be the next toolkit

 

 

 

 

 

Good lord, not a chance in hell.  When I first saw NWN all those years ago, I swore to never buy it, because its graphics looked ugly and I didn't want a D&D game that didn't support a large party of 6.  And quite frankly, I had no interest in 3D.  I love the 2D isometric PoV and have no interest in playing a D&D game like it was a first person shooter.  None whatsoever.

 

 

In multiplayer the party size was not an issue, and in singleplayer it did not bother me to have only a single henchman. Saying nwn was like a first person shooter, tells me yeah, you skipped playing it, thats ok if the iso graphics are that important to you, but comparing 2nd edition d&d rules, to a shooter, because your party is smaller... huh?

 

 

Party size matters hugely to me.  To me, D&D is about parties, not solo or duo "parties".  And yeah, I will compared a 3D, solo D&D game to a first person shooter and have no problem doing so.

[Horrorscope]

Waste of programming hours to implement something so frivolous. Beside Divinity: Original Sin (which was designed with MP in mind), when has multiplayer been interesting in an isometric CRPG?

 

I've played IE/NWN games in coop but instead of saying it was a wonderful experience, that is where the Pause Base System sucked, it was barely ok. It was tedious to auto-pause every say 6 seconds, both parties made their calls and then unpause, rinse-repeat forever seemingly, the UI was a battle. However PoEt has imo superior pause mechanics now vs IE/NWN that I could see playing it Coop in a TB manner with certain settings set. The scripting AI in IE/NWN imo wasn't good enough for realtime in coop either.

 

I'm not aware of another TB ISO CRPG other than D:OS, but I loved it and it was everything I expected (cleaned up the Coop storytelling mechanic) and is still better than PoEt's pseudo TB when using pause settings. Some complain "it's too slow", I say it is still a lot faster than table top and we love table, right? RIGHT?

 

I don't think it will be happening here, but I am so open for TB Coop games. Why? Because that is bringing tabletop to the PC, something you think would have been one of the first things done and one of the most common. Strange how it all went down imo.

[XPerNX]

 

 

 

Single Player games and Multiplayer games are completely different things. You can't design a game that does both well at the same time, design decisions made to support multiplayer will hurt single player, and visa versa.

 

NWN is the perfect example. No one ever called NWN "the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate" because the single player gameplay is vastly inferior. That is at least partially down to decisions made to support multiplayer, from the lack of a party, to the structure of the OC, to the paired down graphics.

 

Do we need a new Build-Your-Own-Online-RPG Toolkit to replace NWN? Sure we do, but PoE aint it.

 

We just seem to disagree. I also think NWN was a better single player game than baldurs. I dont see why POE wouldnt be the next toolkit

 

 

 

 

 

Good lord, not a chance in hell.  When I first saw NWN all those years ago, I swore to never buy it, because its graphics looked ugly and I didn't want a D&D game that didn't support a large party of 6.  And quite frankly, I had no interest in 3D.  I love the 2D isometric PoV and have no interest in playing a D&D game like it was a first person shooter.  None whatsoever.

 

 

In multiplayer the party size was not an issue, and in singleplayer it did not bother me to have only a single henchman. Saying nwn was like a first person shooter, tells me yeah, you skipped playing it, thats ok if the iso graphics are that important to you, but comparing 2nd edition d&d rules, to a shooter, because your party is smaller... huh?

 

 

Party size matters hugely to me.  To me, D&D is about parties, not solo or duo "parties".  And yeah, I will compared a 3D, solo D&D game to a first person shooter and have no problem doing so.

 

 

Well NWN was not a 3D solo D&D game, it was a, be as many as you like in the party, mainly played top down, D&D online game. Far superior to Baldurs that died after a few play throughs

 

 

Waste of programming hours to implement something so frivolous. Beside Divinity: Original Sin (which was designed with MP in mind), when has multiplayer been interesting in an isometric CRPG?

 

I've played IE/NWN games in coop but instead of saying it was a wonderful experience, that is where the Pause Base System sucked, it was barely ok. It was tedious to auto-pause every say 6 seconds, both parties made their calls and then unpause, rinse-repeat forever seemingly, the UI was a battle. However PoEt has imo superior pause mechanics now vs IE/NWN that I could see playing it Coop in a TB manner with certain settings set. The scripting AI in IE/NWN imo wasn't good enough for realtime in coop either.

 

I'm not aware of another TB ISO CRPG other than D:OS, but I loved it and it was everything I expected (cleaned up the Coop storytelling mechanic) and is still better than PoEt's pseudo TB when using pause settings. Some complain "it's too slow", I say it is still a lot faster than table top and we love table, right? RIGHT?

 

I don't think it will be happening here, but I am so open for TB Coop games. Why? Because that is bringing tabletop to the PC, something you think would have been one of the first things done and one of the most common. Strange how it all went down imo.

 

 

I never used to play neverwinter in multiplayer using the pause button, as well as most servers had removed the timestop spell. It worked pefectly in real time, but took practice. The thing is on most persistant nwn servers, you had no hirelings or henchmen at all, you had a human party, and controlling just one char, works fine in real time. 

[TMZuk]

NWNs OC was poor beyond description. A terrible disappointment after BG and BG2. Easily the worst game Bioware has ever produced. What made NWN great was it's toolset and the DM client.

 

A lot of the people screaming NO, seems to suffer from the misunderstanding that this was in any way an ordinary MMO. It wasn't. It was hundreds of tiny homemader servers, with room for between 20 and 80 players. Each with their own distinct flavour and style. From serious RP servers, where constant roleplaying was demanded and ruining other peoples experience resulted in immidiate bans, to free for all action servers where raiding and levelling were the only goals.

 

Servers like Forgotten Realms: Cormyr, Ravenloft: Prisoners of the Mist and Forgotten Realms: The Silver Marshes has spoiled me for quality roleplay. To have something like that made possible again would awesome.

 

But, if it comes with the price of a poor SP experience, then don't go there.

Edited July 4, 2015 by TMZuk

[Osvir]

Maybe not Pillars of Eternity, but Pillars of Eternity 2 with Multiplayer* would be awesome! I'd love to play with tons of people here, or with some of my mates It's a perfect type of game brand/IP for it too, with tons of RP options for it. MP didn't ruin any of the IE games, it made them better and more user accessible (i.e. more customers and more copies sold).

*

- Massive Multiplayer Online (MMO) = 100'000+ Players.

- Multiplayer (MP) = 1-6 Players. 

 

See the difference ffs. Bringing in MMO's into this discussion is ignorant and nonchalant. Or troll. It doesn't have a place in here.

Edited July 4, 2015 by Osvir

[Fardragon]

You do realise it was the OP who brought up MMOs, as a Strawman?

 

I don't really see what the appeal of PoE is with respect to a multiplayer game, anyway. It's world is generic and it's ruleset is a bit of a mess. About the only thing it has going for it is some good writing, and good writing is pretty irrelevant to a multiplayer game.

 

I dunno, maybe the OP just goes round every game forum asking for it to be converted into a NWN clone. Dragon Age forum: "This game should be converted into a multiplayer toolkit"; Witcher forum  "This game would make a great multiplayer  toolkit"; Call of Duty forum: "This game would make a great fantasy RPG tookit"; Chess forum:  "This game should be converted into a multiplayer RPG toolkit".

Edited July 4, 2015 by Fardragon

[wanderon]

How about letting the devs focus on making the very best single player CRPG the world has ever seen and not diluting the SP experience by wasting time and resources on adding a multiplayer option. Every dime spent on MP is a dime taken away from the SP side - this is a title with limited funding to begin with let the developers follow their vision of an awesome single player game and get your MP kicks someplace else.

[Osvir]

Yay- and Nay-Sayers both use MMO's in these discussions. Look at both the Pro- and Anti- comments Fardragon.

It has been in all these discussions over the years. Someone says "Co-Op!" and an Anti sayer brings up "MMO's suck!" as a strawman (although I agree mostly, there's some exceptions imo, early FFXI and EVE). Or someone talks about Multiplayer, and a Pro sayer brings up "YES! MMO FTW!" or whatever.

[Fardragon]

Yay- and Nay-Sayers both use MMO's in these discussions. Look at both the Pro- and Anti- comments Fardragon.

 

It has been in all these discussions over the years. Someone says "Co-Op!" and an Anti sayer brings up "MMO's suck!" as a strawman (although I agree mostly, there's some exceptions imo, early FFXI and EVE). Or someone talks about Multiplayer, and a Pro sayer brings up "YES! MMO FTW!" or whatever.

How about YOU read the comments?!

 

NO ONE has said anything about MMOs sucking, because everyone, apart from you and the OP apparently, realise they are completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Edited July 4, 2015 by Fardragon

[Osvir]

Sorry if you felt upset, I am recollecting all of these discussions, this isn't the first

Edited July 4, 2015 by Osvir

[Fardragon]

Sorry if you felt upset, I am recollecting all of these discussions, this isn't the first

I know it isn't. But why did you choose to respond to a dead argument from an old thread here, if not to use it as a strawman?

 

We had actually reached a fairly broad consensus here.

 

1. Yes, a replacement for NWN is desirable.

 

2. It isn't feasible to convert existing PoE into a replacement for NWN, but you might do something in the same setting with similar rules.

 

3. It might be feasible to add a basic Baldur's Gate style multiplayer, but there is disagreement if that is an effective way to allocate resources.

Edited July 4, 2015 by Fardragon

[Osvir]

Honestly, I noticed some comments referencing to MMO's in here, shook my head and reacted/posted.

Not for us to say how Obsidian should allocate their resources at this point, although, I guess that's up for opinion. Part 1 & Part 2 Expansions being the exceptions, which is something they should definetly spend resources on

MP is a question whether it'd be a worthwhile investment. Obsidian could probably make MP real "easy" (considering their experience in the industry), but they'd have to risk spending a lot, and getting little in return. In best case scenario they'd go plus with such a feature. I think "Yes", but probably for a Pillars of Eternity 2 product, unless Pillars of Eternity has a stable enough foundation to allow for Multiplayer code (if they can implement it into Pillars of Eternity easier than re-writing code from scratch for a new product, the former might be more cost-effective).

"NOW WITH MULTIPLAYER!" update would probably hit some news sites too, and potentially attract more multiplayer oriented players.

[Elerond]

I would say that if Obsidian don't get somewhere additional 50 million dollars to make such feature I would hope that they don't even try in first place and focus to make excellent single player content, because I don't think that there are any reason to make such feature if you don't have resources to make it actually good and comprehensive. 

[Osvir]

Multiplayer games pop up everywhere nowadays, and lots of them since the dawn of gaming. ARK, The Forest, Moonrise, Torchlight, Castle Crashers, Baldur's Gate, Infinity Engine Games, Project Zomboid? Just to name a few. Did it cost these studios 50 million dollars each to make Multiplayer, really? Genuine curiosity with a hint of sarcasm.

Edited July 4, 2015 by Osvir