Duel / multiplayer / pvp PoE II: Deadfire

[eselle28]

Because thatvmoney could flesh out two whole companions or add a whole dungeon.

 

It also doesn't seem like a realistic budget for designing and testing both the arena and a matchmaking system for players.

[illathid]

 

Because thatvmoney could flesh out two whole companions or add a whole dungeon.

 

It also doesn't seem like a realistic budget for designing and testing both the arena and a matchmaking system for players.

 

 

Yeah, budgeting for MP requires you to get into the funny money range.

[Kinowek]

No. This isn't a multiplayer focused game, and Obsidian is not going to have the resources to spare trying to tack on multiplayer. Sorry.

[Nail]

I'm talking about expansion duel / arena mode, not the current budget - I would pay for it.

Since it should not intend story line - therefore has no influence on those, who are not intersted such experience.

I'd buy such expansion for myself.

It's not hard even for a single C# programmer to write such mod during one year to make it good. (avarage salary 70k USD per year)  

[Hertzila]

It's not hard even for a single C# programmer to write such mod during one year to make it good. (avarage salary 70k USD per year)  

 

[CITATION ******* REQUIRED]

 

Also, there is a fundamental difference between a mod doing it and the devs doing it. To put it bluntly, a mod can afford to be awful, simply not work and even afford to fry your computer, thanks to the simple fact that it's an unofficial mod. An official mode will rightly be complained about if it doesn't work 100% of the time and it will rightly be torn apart if there are any serious problems in it.

[Tigranes]

It's a huge amount of money, time, and work for something that isn't going to really be a big thing for a game like POE.

 

And no, everybody always thinks their favourite feature just takes one dude in a basement told "go make it, i'll pay you some cash", but that's not how it works - otherwise every game in the world could have full voice acting and multiplayer and modding toolsets and arena mode and new game+ and everything else you can think of. I mean, AAA games these days have like 300 people and 50+ million budgets, they can spare two people for multiplayer, right? 

 

I'm happy for someone who's worked at a dev studio to come tell me I'm wrong and it can be done on the cheap, but that's never happened. (No, "OK so POE has 5 million, one programmer costs 70k, and multiplayer ummm I guess takes 6 months right? Somebody made a mod for some other game for free" does not count as evidence or a proper estimate.)

Edited March 21, 2017 by Tigranes

[eselle28]

 

 

 

 

It also doesn't seem like a realistic budget for designing and testing both the arena and a matchmaking system for players.

 

 

Yeah, budgeting for MP requires you to get into the funny money range.

 

 

I won't even pretend to know the tech requirements and so on of multiplayer, but but it seems like the amount of money being quoted couldn't even pay for an adequate team. Obsidian doesn't do multiplayer, so they'd need to hire people with experience in that. A quarter of a million dollars sounds like a ton of money, but once you divide that by a reasonable salary, that translates into a handful of people. That doesn't sound sufficient for a major, complicated feature.

[Messier-31]

Voted NO, again.

 

 

Just think about - what will you do when there is nothing to achieve in the game you like, when you would like to spend more time, but you know every nook and cranny...

 

• play some other game(s)
• spend more quality time with friends and family
• play the game again anyway - trust me, mate - I think I know *everything* about Baldur's Gate series, and yet somehow I enjoy every single time I get back to it after a couple of years!

 

[Heijoushin]

I'm afraid I agree with all these other fine gentlemen: no multiplayer please.

 

Your main argument seems to be about replayability. I feel that with the high number of classes, multiple difficulty levels, and two expansions, Pillars already gives us great bang for our buck. Yes, eventually we'll get bored of it, but that's okay too. It's like a good meal: Eat until you feel sated, don't gorge yourself until you're sick of it.

 

I hate to be a cynic, but games that try to be fun forever (MMORPGs) are designed to get players hooked so that developers can suck money out of them for as long as possible.

 

While i think there would be some interest in co-op multi, i know for sure that i would find no one to play Pillars with me. And i'm not interested in playing with random guys on the net. Only good old friends in real life. They don't have time. Those who would be interested are away.

 

Totally this! When I was a kid, I had a cousin who would play some multiplayer games (including Icewind Dale) with me via LAN, and admittedly, that was a blast. But playing with randoms on the internet is a completely different experience. There's so much whining and toxicity. I don't want to inflict that on Deadfire.

[Nail]

 

Totally this! When I was a kid, I had a cousin who would play some multiplayer games (including Icewind Dale) with me via LAN, and admittedly, that was a blast. But playing with randoms on the internet is a completely different experience. There's so much whining and toxicity. I don't want to inflict that on Deadfire.

When there is an option to co-op you still can play with your friends, no need to play with randoms.

I'm just telling - nothing bad in co-op, it was in every D&D game cause of the legacy - playing table games with friends.

I guess most of us have already paid for Pillars II DLC, for a game that should come out in a year, so I see nothing wrong to make same thing for co-op / duel / arena Pillars II DLC.

If you don't want it - just don't buy it.

This simple poll shows that some of Pillars players care for such thing, but it's the minority.

[FlintlockJazz]

 

You can't just make an arena mode and set it off to the side. The minute there is one, people will start complaining that priests are OP and that barbarians don't stand a chance, and there will be calls for patches to address a problem that didn't exist or was fairly minor before the arena was introduced.

 

Developers already get plenty of flack for things like making a stronghold that's not fleshed out or interesting enough, and that didn't even come with the frustrations of competitive play. If people are actually losing battles because of class design, they'll want that to be fixed, and will have a right to. The problem with that is that it will inevitably intersect with the single player experience and result in mechanical changes for characters that will never step into the arena.

 

There are a ton of great multiplayer and PvP games out there. I enjoy some of them, but I find it refreshing to play a game that concentrates on the single player experience.

Right now PoE I has good ballance. Any character is able to complete it solo and that's a sign. MP / Duel ballance should not be significative for the storyline, it should be just for fun.

 

No, being able to complete it solo with a character does not mean they are balanced against each other.  One class could be able to completely obliterate another class one on one or people could find that a all-Cipher party kills everything etc.  The money is tight enough as it is, rather they spent it on making the game better than on this.

[Abel]

When there is an option to co-op you still can play with your friends, no need to play with randoms.

I'm just telling - nothing bad in co-op, it was in every D&D game cause of the legacy - playing table games with friends.

I guess most of us have already paid for Pillars II DLC, for a game that should come out in a year, so I see nothing wrong to make same thing for co-op / duel / arena Pillars II DLC.

If you don't want it - just don't buy it.

This simple poll shows that some of Pillars players care for such thing, but it's the minority.

 

Once again, stop with the fairy tale about multiplayer being possibly thrown in in Pillars or any RPG at the last moment. It has to be developped along the rest of the game. You can't have an optional expansion adding it. Multiplayer is in the game, or it is not. I can't even imagine the consequences on the core game of a multiplayer patch thrown in afterward that would patch the game files of an already extremely complex game with very complex code. Even without mentionning the absolute lack of features of such co-op multi or PVP in game, would this not introduce game breaking bugs? I seem to remember reading somewhere a while ago that in some cases, even the engine must be coded while taking multiplayer into consideration.

 

I'm not even sure that a patch installed afterward implementing no more than PVP in an arena would work smoothly (even without considering balance of pvp mechanics in the least). Probably some guys more knowledgeable about coding could discuss this better than me.

 

Anyway, i guess multi have to be one of the/the focus of a game since the start. Advocating for another game in Pillars's universe which would have this feature would make more sense in my opinion. Even though i would not be interested in it for the reasons i explained above.

[Sedrefilos]

I'd rather they make a spin-off to Pillars game based on multiplayer (co-op or competitive) than trying to squeeze it in the original game.

[Wormerine]

 

I would like it. If it's possible to make an arena mod: also fine.

 

Arena mod can't hurt anybody.

Moreover I would pay for it. 

 

All they have to do is character transition like in BG2 and some instance for 2+ players.

There could be no pause system - in this case intelligent AI scripts could be handy (like in DA:O)

 

 

Now here is the problem - why would you want to funds and manpower away from single player game to add a shallow multiplayer component? I really don't believe in tacked on modes - whenever it is throwout singleplayer campaign in multiplayer game, a broken net code mess added to singleplayer strategy (XCOM why why why), or just awkward "you can join your friend as coop partner in a single player designed game" thing. Now it wouldn't be bad if those things could just appear. Choice is always welcome, as long as I can't avoid it. But they take a lot of work and money. From what I understand writing a working mutiplayer component for a game takes a lot of time. And PoE engine has not been build for it.

 

As for me - I like my games specialized. Do one thing and do it well. PoE is single player party based RPG and it is good at that. Divinity is great coop RPG. Both games are designed to be what they are. PoE wouldn't be better if someone played it with me, and Divinity doesn't work for me singleplayer. 

[Varana]

PoE is real-time. Turn-based may have it a bit easier (but not "easy" in itself.)

You need networking code that connects players, make it secure, introduce a matchmaking server and maintain it, you need to relay information on actions and possibly "predict" actions and movement, synchronise all that stuff, make sure it always applies the same results at all times on several connected computers at once, doesn't lag even with wildly different hardware, and so on. And you need people who have experience doing that stuff.

You don't just tack that on cheaply in a patch.

If they had the resources, sure - but I really doubt they have.

Now, I really enjoyed using BG2 and IWD as a kind of interactive chat program with gameplay elements back in the day. But really, with "coop modes" like those in a modern game, you'll get slammed in the ground leaving a crater.

Edited March 21, 2017 by Varana

[JerekKruger]

I'd rather they make a spin-off to Pillars game based on multiplayer (co-op or competitive) than trying to squeeze it in the original game.

 

Pillars of Eternity: Tactics? I'd back that I think.

[Amentep]

No interest in the mode; if it was added I more than likely wouldn't use it.

[Wormerine]

All great singleplayer games share same destiny.

 

Just think about - what will you do when there is nothing to achieve in the game you like, when you would like to spend more time, but you know every nook and cranny...

At that stage game begin to be boring. Yes, if it was an interesting game - it will stay in your memory for a lifetime.

 

But such games can be compared to a good book, just with scripted interactions leading to certain conclusions.

Why not to make a book / game you can read / play again and again with the same zeal?

 

My thought one can be with an option to compete with somebody, to show your superiority, with competetive spirit.

This is more then just duels / MP - it's the end game content, which could be based on these features or something around that.

I'm talking about interaction / fun. 

Why not to make it like Card hunter for instance, but using Unity 5.0+ engine?

 

Right now, looking at PoE I - it's hard to do interesting video footage highlight, even reaching "The Ultimate", cause almost nobody cares.

For me it's top notch to compete with equal passionate player, but when it's not an option - it makes me sad.

 

No need to do MMO, just some kind of arena mode to prove your superiority, not only via forum threads.

Yes, all single player story driven games, like any other stories end. That is the nature of things. You can return to them (in case of games even have slightly different experience!), but when all is said and done, yeah games end.

 

I don't see how adding an arena would make anyone play PoE "again and again with the same zeal." Geez, I play Starcraft and Overwatch and I don't play those with the same zeal anymore. Things end, or get boring. The strength of PoE is writing, setting, stories. Those can't be generated. I don't believe adding multiplayer arena would expand life of the game. I doubt there would be enough people caring to show their "superiority" in a competitively unbalanced game to keep it going. 

[Nail]

I must admit, it's my unfulfilled dream: I've always wanted to compete party vs party or one on one in any AD&D game series.

It's something that was poorly, but implemented in Neverwinter Nights 2 Storm of Zehir, so I thought something like that would be fine with Pillars.

 

Offtop: fig.co update a bit more baker effort for the sea monsters!

Edited March 21, 2017 by Nail

[Abel]

I must admit, it's my unfulfilled dream: I've always wanted to compete party vs party or one on one in any AD&D game series.

It's something that was poorly, but implemented in Neverwinter Nights 2 Storm of Zehir, so I thought something like that would be fine with Pillars.

 

Offtop: fig.co update a bit more baker effort for the sea monsters!

 

Well, i guess no one here would throw you to the pit for having such unfulfilled dreams. It's only natural. I have some, too. It must be the same for many others. I know it can be frustrating. But while it's possible to argue about design decisions at the current development stage, it's way more difficult when it comes to hard coded features like multiplayer. I guess all we all say is that having it in Pillars 2 is pretty much impossible for various reasons.

 

But Inxile decided to introduce co-op multi in Wasteland 3 since the very start. You should advocate for multiplayer being introduced in a future, more combat-oriented, more budgeted Pillars game. Inxile showed it's always allowed to dream. You should just chose the right moment to fight for multi . I genuinely wish you good luck.

[Varana]

If you're comfortable with turn-based (which is way better suited to whole parties fighting against each other, anyway), Divinity:OS II might be worth a look. It has an arena mode with up to 4 characters per player.

[Nail]

If you're comfortable with turn-based (which is way better suited to whole parties fighting against each other, anyway), Divinity:OS II might be worth a look. It has an arena mode with up to 4 characters per player.

I'ts in my library since 15.09.16, I don't like it right now... 

[Varana]

Ah, didn't know that.

 

I backed it but haven't touched it, yet. I don't play any Early Access games.

[Nail]

Ah, didn't know that. :)I backed it but haven't touched it, yet. I don't play any Early Access games.

I've tried for several hours, but found it too raw to play.

[Nail]

 

I must admit, it's my unfulfilled dream: I've always wanted to compete party vs party or one on one in any AD&D game series.

It's something that was poorly, but implemented in Neverwinter Nights 2 Storm of Zehir, so I thought something like that would be fine with Pillars.

 

Offtop: fig.co update a bit more baker effort for the sea monsters!

 

Well, i guess no one here would throw you to the pit for having such unfulfilled dreams. It's only natural. I have some, too. It must be the same for many others. I know it can be frustrating. But while it's possible to argue about design decisions at the current development stage, it's way more difficult when it comes to hard coded features like multiplayer. I guess all we all say is that having it in Pillars 2 is pretty much impossible for various reasons.

 

But Inxile decided to introduce co-op multi in Wasteland 3 since the very start. You should advocate for multiplayer being introduced in a future, more combat-oriented, more budgeted Pillars game. Inxile showed it's always allowed to dream. You should just chose the right moment to fight for multi . I genuinely wish you good luck.

Wasteland 2 was ok, with several unpleasant bugs, still a nice game. But I've never played it after coming to LA. Weird - no willing to end the game. Wasteland 3 feels like Fallout: Tactics, and saying of which - MP experience was not interesting. Edited March 21, 2017 by Nail