Pls pls pls, make a co-op mode!


Recommended Posts

Its a common mistake I honestly didn't notice the common suggestion thread the first time I came onto the forum...it took me a few days before I realized it wasn't suggestions on how to post things (not sure why I thought thats what it was) but instead its a list of things that have been suggested a million times already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most people refuse or forget to look for things, such as if an idea like theirs has been brought up. I being one of them. But regardless ill give my 2 cents. I believe some form of being able to play with yoru friends is one thing this game needs, and none of that crap of challengeing your friend to survive longer or do better etc.

Also none of this that some of you think this is a survival game where your suppose to be alone. But many people do not see or refuse to admit that this is one of those games that is hugely interseting and everyone is talking about it and ends up going to where the player has done everything, or near everything, to be done on the game to were the game no longer is interseting and Soon near none play it.

Edited by Grim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

hurm, instead of co-op, how's about versus?

first to not die wins!

that said, I understand reading elsewhere that this game isn't set up to accomodate ANY form of multiplayer at all, and would require significant tinkering with the code to allow such a thing as this to be implemented.

Still, the game's young; could be any number of directions this can all go yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously though, part of the community seems to be overly sensitive that a game 'feature' that they may NOT even prefer to use, may affect them?

If multiplayer gets popular enough to be put in, then it would, regardless of how survivalists feel about it.

Also the devs never shown actual hate towards multiplayer, they just seem to see it more of a annoyance than something they do not want.

- - - Updated - - -

When minecraft came out as a single player game in the betas, did their community go bonkers against having players play with each other?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I dislike multiplayer, but would not mind if it was put in. What I would mind is if the multiplayer takes a lot of time and thus results in less content in the game. So maybe a multiplayer once the beta is over, that way there is little to complain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I dislike multiplayer, but would not mind if it was put in. What I would mind is if the multiplayer takes a lot of time and thus results in less content in the game. So maybe a multiplayer once the beta is over, that way there is little to complain.

Well that's the thing, when it comes to suggestion and ideas, people almost always jump to conclusion and expect multiplayer to be released and compares it with the 'current state' of the game.

And I really doubt multiplayer would require a compete rewrite of their game library.

It would require some innovation really, you could make a dimensional multiplayer in form of 'gates' from your world to theirs, or maybe a way to 'trade' with other players, seeing how you could potentially 'not' get a biome in your world.

It can be interesting actually to see a player only getting 30% of the game's content and requires them to be online and having friends to share 70% of the rest of the content, or unlock the 70% in other means.

Where 30% is the completed 'base' game, and 70% is the extra goodies that's hidden away to be unlocked.

Some japanese games are like this, with online exclusive unlocks.

Edited by dra6o0n
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also multiplayer doesn't always means it's co-operative...

There could potentially be PVPs and 'respawns' in form of Survival wars or something...

Players could ally with one another in a instance and could potentially betray each other too...

But then again, the Wilsons and Wolfgangs won't ever ally with Wendys and Willows... Why the heck would you want your trees to be burnt to a crisp at night and why would you want ghosts to hang around you and hurt you at night?

Willows would be the griefer, Wendys would be the sad loner because no one trusts them to stay around at night.

It plays well in a ecosystem state...

Willows have a hard time finding food usually when things starts to burn down. So in the end they'll more likely have to steal it off of other players.

Wendys are normal players, with the night time visitor creeping out survivalists most of the time, because they take damage if they touch them, and at night where lighted areas are limited, they don't want ghosts pushing them into the darkness.

Wilsons are the generic normal players, as all he does is grow a beard.

Wolfgangs would be the commonly wanted character in online PVP or PVE because of double health and hunger gauge.

But here's the thing, how does combat work with players because PVP seems inevitable...

Maybe knockback is needed and stuns are needed more.

Like throwing a rock at someone to stop them from hitting you with a spear, because two players rushing each other with a spear brings a unusual result.

Edited by dra6o0n
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that's the thing, when it comes to suggestion and ideas, people almost always jump to conclusion and expect multiplayer to be released and compares it with the 'current state' of the game.

And I really doubt multiplayer would require a compete rewrite of their game library.

It would require some innovation really, you could make a dimensional multiplayer in form of 'gates' from your world to theirs, or maybe a way to 'trade' with other players, seeing how you could potentially 'not' get a biome in your world.

It can be interesting actually to see a player only getting 30% of the game's content and requires them to be online and having friends to share 70% of the rest of the content, or unlock the 70% in other means.

Where 30% is the completed 'base' game, and 70% is the extra goodies that's hidden away to be unlocked.

Some japanese games are like this, with online exclusive unlocks.

Sadly now I dissagree completely. By having content that needs to be unlocked trough multiplayer you are punishing those who prefer singleplayer. The main focus of the game has always been singleplayer and multiplayer could be a fun addition, but it should not be the core of the game and thus not more than an addition. I would prefer multiplayer to be a fun diversion, not to take over the experience and content present.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly now I dissagree completely. By having content that needs to be unlocked trough multiplayer you are punishing those who prefer singleplayer. The main focus of the game has always been singleplayer and multiplayer could be a fun addition, but it should not be the core of the game and thus not more than an addition. I would prefer multiplayer to be a fun diversion, not to take over the experience and content present.

Actually that's more in line with the usual unlocks. In most games it seems easier to get materials and stuff, it's not exclusive to online, but it's far easier online because of trading.

Also it's more like the reversed.

70% game content and 30% game secrets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unlocking content is fine and interesting, but make it so that it can be gotten online and offline. That way everybody can experience the content in his or hey own way, without being forced to do otherwise. Though it is still all complete speculation at this point, the game is still in early beta and far from content complete and thus the question on if there will be multiplayer at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share