Jump to content

What style of Multiplayer do you want to see first


  

50 members have voted

  1. 1. Which would you prefer to see?

    • Small-scale (Co-op) multiplayer (eg. Diablo, Torchlight, Left4Dead)
    • Large-scale (Open) multiplayer (eg. Minecraft, Terraria, DayZ)


Recommended Posts

Online Multiplayer Styles

As far as I see it there are two possible paths that Klei could take with the online multiplayer in Don't Starve Together.

While not mutually exclusive (in fact there is a good bit of overlap between the two) they have fundamentally different design constraints and so I'm curious to see what the general feeling on the forums is, and what people would like to see first. That is not to say that we can't have both, but I'm curious what people would prefer to see first and foremost.

1. Small-scale (Co-op) Multiplayer

- A multiplayer game that generally has a single host, and only persists while everyone involved is connected to the server and playing together. While a dedicated server is possible, It's not required, and most of these games will be using peer-to-peer (or just a dedicated server executable running locally on the 'hosts' own computer)

- It is typically expected for players to be working together on the same team, but that doesn't mean PvP or switching sides is not possible.

- The gameplay is typically designed to have a specific progression, either through time, or story, or levels. Characters generally remain on equal footing, and level/progress together, meaning that the game can also scale its difficulty and advance through time without leaving anyone behind.

- Games like Diablo 2, Torchlight and Left4Dead are prime examples of this style.

- Given what Klei has shared so far, I think this is the approach they are aiming for. They've stated that for now they are designing it for 2-4 players, and the title 'Don't Starve Together' implies that it will be more focused on co-op.

2. Large-scale (Open) Multiplayer

- A multiplayer game that is generally hosted on a dedicated server and has a persistent world. It is designed to allow players to log on and off as they want, and can remain running indefinitely.

- While players can co-operate, they are also able to go off and do their own thing. If they don't want to, they never have to interact with another player, and typically the world is large enough or keeps generating dynamically to allow for that. If PVP is possible the game's mechanics are designed to make it fun and engaging.

- Players don't have to progress together and so the world doesn't typically progress through time or scale a global difficulty, since a new player could easily be left behind. Handling difficulty becomes much more complicated. Gating of content is one approach, where more 'progressed' characters have access to new areas (Starbound's sector system and planet difficulty rating is one approach to this).

- Games like Minecraft, Terraria and DayZ are typical examples of this (I'm not saying they can't be played locally and/or in co-op, but from a game design point I would say they were designed with the large, open-world mindset)

To be absolutely clear, these terms are by no means formally defined, and many multiplayer games will fall into both categories. I merely tried to list them to aid in the discussion.

Discussion

I feel that the Co-op approach is the most appropriate for Don't Starve. The progression of time is very important to how difficult the game becomes, and your death needs to have meaning and consequences.

I think the experience would be much more worthwhile if you get together with friends at a set time to start the game, and then play together. If a player dies without meat effigies or touchstones they would be gone from the game until either the other players have died (which would delete the world just like in singleplayer), or a player manages to accomplish a difficult ritual/task to revive them.

To have the game running like an open Minecraft server with people jumping in and out as they please, would require a considerable change in how time - and as a result - difficulty progresses in the game. From the number of wolf packs that spawn over time, to what season it is, with the current single-player mechanics you really can't jump into a don't starve game later as a new character; You would be at a massive disadvantage, and would simply be disconnected from the natural flow of the game.

However I do have to say that one benefit that the 'open' approach typically has is designing the game with dedicated hosting in mind, which is inherently far more reliable than peer-peer hosting. This is one part of the 'Open' mindset that I would like to see the game adopt. I think it should be possible to set up your own dedicated server, and then have individual co-op 'sessions' running on that server.

While this is also very much debatable, I feel like don't starve's combat was never designed with PVP in mind. it works great against AI characters, but I feel like it may be too slow lacking mechanics that would really make it compelling in multiplayer. I may be quite wrong here though.

This is not to say that a large-scale, open version of don't starve wouldn't be possible. It would probably be a ton of fun if done correctly, but it seems like it would change the game to be something very different than it is right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want servers. So my mates don't have to come to my house and bring their laptops to play multiplayer: cause persinally, that would SUCK!

 

I think you misunderstood my point. Servers can still be a part of the Co-op mindset. The games I listed as examples - Diablo, Torchlight and Left4Dead - are inherently online and not restricted to local multiplayer, so that was never in question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd aim for something like the first one (small-scale), or something like you spawn on different places and then can stumble across eachother in the world. I think both these ways could fit in Don't Starve.

 

PvP is something I don't think will fit at all. Maybe it would be cool, but I'd probably play Co-op more.

 

I do not like the second one as much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting this, I was just thinking that a poll was needed to help players and the devs find out how the community feels on this in particular (without having to scour dozens of threads).

I think it would be awesome to have both, and let players decide which style they want to play at the time they join... but if I had to choose one or the other to begin with, I agree with you @JohannesMP that Small-scale/Co-op seems to be best, and most aligned with the original game experience. Large-scale/Open does have its appeal, but it would be a massive undertaking to implement alpha by summer. Maybe that could be something Klei can consider later after the initial multiplayer launch is out of beta and functional, like a "Don't Starve Together V2".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe that could be something Klei can consider later after the initial multiplayer launch is out of beta and functional, like a "Don't Starve Together V2".

 

If Klei plays it smart and allows for dedicated servers as well as proper multiplayer mod support in their first multiplayer implementation, then I wouldn't be surprised if we see some mods that rebalance the game and make it more open and PVP-focused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Please be aware that the content of this thread may be outdated and no longer applicable.

×
  • Create New...