Multiplayer

[harels84]

will the developers add like in bg1 and bg2 multiplayers add-on ?

ill hope they will make it in the next part of the white march ...

[PrimeJunta]

Extremely unlikely. Obsidian have stated on numerous occasions that they're not going to do multiplayer for Pillars.

 

They haven't said anything much at all about Pillars 2, but I would be somewhat surprised if they added it there.

[Zenbane]

Oh gawd, I'd hate to imagine how many features would go on blast if this game went multiplayer:

 

1) Hatchet Haters

 

2) Per rest / Per combat issues

 

3) Rest Spam

 

4) Food

 

5) NPC Gear

 

6) Rest bonuses

 

Come to think of it, everything related to resting would have to just go away, and this would need to be a turn-based game. Yikes!

[Fenixp]

Come to think of it, everything related to resting would have to just go away, and this would need to be a turn-based game. Yikes!

I don't think we're talking competitive here, but rather co-op - and while it would be nice to have, it's not really something I'd want Obsidian spending resources on. Infinity Engine games had perfectly functional multiplayer and all of those features were in.

 

Aside from hatchets, obviously. Hatchets would have to go. There's no way they'd work in co-op.

[why]

i would be against multiple players unless they promised nothing would change for the single game. i already saw a thread about builds and people complain about how this or that class not good enough. multiple player always seems to do things to single player game despite what people say.

[Zenbane]

 

Come to think of it, everything related to resting would have to just go away, and this would need to be a turn-based game. Yikes!

I don't think we're talking competitive here, but rather co-op - and while it would be nice to have, it's not really something I'd want Obsidian spending resources on. Infinity Engine games had perfectly functional multiplayer and all of those features were in.

 

Aside from hatchets, obviously. Hatchets would have to go. There's no way they'd work in co-op.

 

 

lol - aww, poor hatchets.

 

I agree that the outrageous requests (nerfs, etc) would be much less if this were co-op, but I've seen what happens even with PvE MMO's (LOTR online, Final Fantasy Online),  whooo even in co-op people get upset when the guy next to them has a better build.

[why]

People always say that they just want coop and that won't change anything, but then they still want changes. Maybe other people start playing and and then other people want changes, I don't know. people say that its easy to put in multiple player, but I don't see how. I want Pillars 2 to be the best single player game possible. I don't know what's wrong with hatchets.

[PrimeJunta]

I think an IE-style multiplayer would be doable without changing much about the single-player. The main change would be with the combat as pausing becomes problematic (if one pauses, everybody pauses). If they removed pausing altogether in multiplayer, it could work well enough, and since each player is only controlling one character, that wouldn't make it too hectic. One player would have to be the Watcher who does all the dialogs and cutscenes of course, the others would be "companions."

 

Whether it's worth it is another question. I wouldn't use it, I've only ever tried IE multiplayer out of curiosity.

[why]

I don't mind people who want co-op, PrimeJunta.  Nevertheless, I believe that it never, NEVER ends with them only wanting the basic game without any changes.  I don't think it would be as easy as you say, but the reason I fight against it is because that would only be the beginning.  After the co-op people got their way, the crowd would grow and they would want more.  People laugh at the idea of a slippery slope, but it is the single major axiom in our times that getting a small concession is the best way to get larger concessions in the future.  Already the class balancing is in an issue in a single player party based game in which a PC of any class is able to complete the game on normal settings.  Probably any class with a competent player and a party can win on even Path of the Damned.  If I weren't worried about the ramifications, I wouldn't bother responding to people who want multiplayer.  As it is, I just want to add my posts to the people who are against multiplayer because I've always seen it as detracting from the things I want to see most in my games.

[PrimeJunta]

@why That's pretty much why I'm not super-thrilled about adding co-op multiplayer to Pillars either, even in a limited "IE style."

[Fenixp]

You guys are acting as if adding multiplayer was an easy task all in itself without tweaking how the game works :-P Adding MP into a game which has no infrastructure to support it is crazy. I don't care about small tweaks people would want after the fact, I care about the insane amount of resources which would have to go into basic implementation of MP itself.

[haveahappy]

I would't mind multiplayer where one player hosts. That would be nice.

 

Same as how Icewind Dale MP worked (direct connection).

 

With that said, I wouldn't play it enough to be too concerned about it.

[PrimeJunta]

You guys are acting as if adding multiplayer was an easy task all in itself without tweaking how the game works :-P Adding MP into a game which has no infrastructure to support it is crazy. I don't care about small tweaks people would want after the fact, I care about the insane amount of resources which would have to go into basic implementation of MP itself.

True. That's why it's bleeping near impossible for Pillars 1.

 

They could do it for Pillars 2 if they put it in from the start.

 

I would still vote "nay" though, even if the resource cost was estimated to be relatively small, largely due to the risk of the slippery slope -- which is very real.

[gogocactus]

I would love multiplayer for Pillars 2,even if it were to take the exact same form of the single player campaign. The reason I would like it is because I sometimes play Baldur's Gate II with my girlfriend and we have a lot of fun just enjoying the story together.

 

That said, I hear people talk about a slippery slope of implementing reactionary balancing changes based on community feedback purely for the sake of the supplementary multiplayer campaign,which would result in a poorer singleplayer gameplay experience. Was that a problem in the IE games? Or is that just fear talking? Because to me, I like the way the IE games played both single and multiplayer.

 

I for myself would also not support multiplayer if it would reduce the quality of the singleplayer game. That said, I will leave it up to the developers' judgment to make those choices which would result in the best and most fun game possible and be content with their decision .

Edited December 13, 2015 by gogocactus

[majestic]

Was that a problem in the IE games?

 

No, it never was any issue at all, but it has been 17 years and expectations shifted. These days people whine about being able to sell equipment from NPCs they pick up because it gives a few hundred credits that you otherwise would not have. Back during the IE games some classes were more useless than rangers and paladins were at PoE's launch and everyone was more or less okay with it. *shrug*

[PrimeJunta]

That said, I hear people talk about a slippery slope of implementing reactionary balancing changes based on community feedback purely for the sake of the supplementary multiplayer campaign,which would result in a poorer singleplayer gameplay experience. Was that a problem in the IE games? Or is that just fear talking? Because to me, I like the way the IE games played both single and multiplayer.

 

No, it wasn't.

 

However, in 2000 the Internet was a very different place. Social media didn't exist. Steam didn't exist. Metacritic had just launched. Diablo 2 was just out, and battle.net was a few years old, and an island for a single publisher's RTS-ey games. In most places, the Internet was too laggy and slow for real-time multiplayer games, so when thinking "multiplayer" you would think "LAN party." There was Usenet and a bunch of smallish, disconnected BBS's. The main source of information on games was magazine articles and reviews, and these almost never followed up on things after launch. Community feedback was much more of a family affair than it is nowadays.

 

In other words, I think the risk of community pressure from the multiplayer contingent wreaking havoc on the single-player campaign really is much bigger today than it was back then.

[gogocactus]

Majestic, PrimeJunta,

 

Thanks a lot for your replies. Both of you make good points to not include multiplayer indiscriminately.

[TrueMenace]

My friend only plays co-op games, but I agree with my friend that every game in co-op is much more enjoyable than by yourself. Pillars of Eternity is not an exception here either. I would love to play with a friend in online co-op in Pillars 2 and make decisions together and fight together. 

[why]

To the point both of them make, the IE multiplayer would be widely derided today in a game advertised as supporting multiplayer.  It would deserve it.  It was fine for then, but the sophistication of multiple player games has changed considerably in a way that single player games has not.  Sure, the programs have become more advanced, but the basic elements are essentially the same.  Multiple Player games have become something more than a single player game with a tacked on ability to have more people playing.  Games simply should not be designed for multiplayer unless the developer has the commitment to make a fully functional multiple player product.  My problem with multiple player functionality is that I'll either use it extremely rarely or, more likely, never use the MP function for the game at all.  As much as I want everyone to have the game he or she wants, I'm here to promote the game I want, and I want every red cent to go to what Obsidian already does so well, namely a great single player experience.  If the cost were minimal, I wouldn't mind people getting an IE style MP function, but that level of design would give Obsidian a bad reputation and would only true MP fans angry.

[Zenbane]

PoE Multiplayer implemented as DOTA-style combat inside Strongholds. Tis the future... embrace it