Multiplayer. My personal plea to wolfire.

[Korban3]

That's what these sort of threads usually boil down to:

Endo Coin.jpg (62.83 KiB) Viewed 6731 times

[Jacktheawesome]

Exactly, and we always say that Korban, but by god they never do stop there.

They will never listen.

[polyoptics]

Actually, I think that the decision to add multiplayer, or not, is entirely up to Wolfire. I agree that debating amongst ourselves on this topic is not a productive use of time.

IMO, this thread should be about the possibilities of multiplayer, what it could bring to the game and how it could be implemented, the combat system etc.

Arguing about if it should or should not be added, is as pointless as it is immature. You can continue along those lines if you wish, I have already admitted that I feel this is basically trolling.

We all understand your point of view, you would rather not have pvp, you want the game now.... Can we move on yet?

[underthedeep]

freshbite can you lock this yet?

[Endoperez]

freshbite can you lock this yet?

There's NO reason to lock this, at ALL.

If people are using a thread to discuss something, and that something isn't about pirating Overgrowth or something, locking it is rude and harmful.

Just because some people get bored of seeing the same stuff, doesn't mean people who aren't bored of it can't talk about that stuff.

Polyoptics, good luck with that, but I haven't seen very many other people posting in this thread about what multiplayer might or might not become. We might be getting new people in since the co-op was kind-of enabled last week, but you're more interested in PVP, right? Would you consider other people discussing the co-op multiplayer to be trolling too?

[Nekros22]

I eagerly await the single-player port of Overgrowth so I can build my own maps and create my own stories.

Lugaru was a great example of how a single-player game can still be multiplayer in a sense. Although it was difficult, a good number of players created their own maps and stories with the Lugaru software. They posted them up (most of them are still in the Lugaru board) and a few of them became pretty popular.

I am looking forward to the map and story creating elements of Overgrowth far more than I am looking forward to a multiplayer function.

[Jacktheawesome]

Actually, I think that the decision to add multiplayer, or not, is entirely up to Wolfire. I agree that debating amongst ourselves on this topic is not a productive use of time.

IMO, this thread should be about the possibilities of multiplayer, what it could bring to the game and how it could be implemented, the combat system etc.

Arguing about if it should or should not be added, is as pointless as it is immature. You can continue along those lines if you wish, I have already admitted that I feel this is basically trolling.

We all understand your point of view, you would rather not have pvp, you want the game now.... Can we move on yet?

In My Super Duper Humble Opinion, this thread should be about debating whether or not multiplayer should be in or not. You are the OP, however if the only person that mattered in a discussion was the OP and his ideas, the thread wouldn't go very far. The thread is carried by the participators, and in this case it seems to not be about whether or not PVP should be added, but whether or not it should be prioritized. As I have stated many times, I don't care if it is in or not. I really don't. I'm sure I would even play PVP a lot. But I don't want it to be a priority.
As I have also stated before, calling someone a troll for disagreeing with your opinion, nay, disagreeing with how you think this thread should work, is pointless and immature, IMSDHO.

If everyone in this thread but you is a troll, who is really the troll?

[polyoptics]

freshbite can you lock this yet?

There's NO reason to lock this, at ALL.

If people are using a thread to discuss something, and that something isn't about pirating Overgrowth or something, locking it is rude and harmful.

Just because some people get bored of seeing the same stuff, doesn't mean people who aren't bored of it can't talk about that stuff.

Polyoptics, good luck with that, but I haven't seen very many other people posting in this thread about what multiplayer might or might not become. We might be getting new people in since the co-op was kind-of enabled last week, but you're more interested in PVP, right? Would you consider other people discussing the co-op multiplayer to be trolling too?

Don't take my trolling comments the wrong way. We know the "multiplayer:YES or NO" debate is pointless, so lets avoid it, that's all.

There are some really good posts we've seen so far, and that's cool. You've had some interesting things to say as well, thanks for that. I hope you continue to post in this thread. I love to talk pvp specifically, but any multiplayer idea is a good one and can lead to more new ideas!

[polyoptics]

In My Super Duper Humble Opinion, this thread should be about debating whether or not multiplayer should be in or not.

I'm not sure what there is to gain through that debate. I know I can't be convinced that PvP _shoudn't_ be included. I am also pretty sure you can't be convinced that it _should_ be included. Personally I plan to save myself the trouble and not participate in that endless debate.

I would rather talk about whats interesting about multiplayer, and yes, it saddens me that you see that as an opportunity to derail and end the conversation. Call it what you will.

[polyoptics]

That's what these sort of threads usually boil down to:
[in worlfire we trust]

Yes absolutely "in worlfire we trust". So why try debate YES or NO. That's all i'm saying. Lets move past that, it's endless as we can see.


I wonder if how far the team will get with testing. Its super cool they talking about coop, I can't wait to see more of their work.

Some of the art videos show as arena, which really gets me excited about the possibility of some form of PvP. The style of combat in OG gives me a feeling arena combat would somehow resemble 'Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon'. Its been mentioned that the fights may be very fast, but I think that adds to the realism and adrenaline rush, where every move counts, which could make for some really intense duels.

I still feel small scale 1v1 - 3v3 suits OG best, but it would be interesting to see how crazy a larger scale battle would be, if its even possible.

Being able to play as different animal types with different abilities would add a lot to personal style and make character choice a part of the gameplay, which might be good. IT could also be a lot of work, but adding different playable characters is something that could be added in an expansion pack.

I dunno.... there are so many ways it could go!

[Korban3]

Well, there are already... (Let's see here: Turner, Civilian, Robbert, Rabbit Guard 3, Wolf, Naked Cat, Rabbot 2.0) 7 stock characters.
Then, there's my... (Ok: Fox, Raptor[Not Playable, but fightable], Civilian Otter[Failed to Work], Otter Guard [Also Failed to Work]) four custom characters. Although two didn't work in the end and one crashes OG when you try to play as him, they're still they're.
So there's a good number of characters we can already use. I also think that PvP or co-op should not be 5 Turner's running around punching each other. I'll reiterate that I'd like to see buddy characters that can be played as in co-op and are maybe available in PvP if it gets added.

[Jacktheawesome]

In My Super Duper Humble Opinion, this thread should be about debating whether or not multiplayer should be in or not.

I'm not sure what there is to gain through that debate. I know I can't be convinced that PvP _shoudn't_ be included. I am also pretty sure you can't be convinced that it _should_ be included. Personally I plan to save myself the trouble and not participate in that endless debate.

I would rather talk about whats interesting about multiplayer, and yes, it saddens me that you see that as an opportunity to derail and end the conversation. Call it what you will.

*facedesk*

I don't care if it's included or not. Do you read my posts before replying? By all means include it. This debate is only repetitious because you seem to fail to hear what I am saying: it's not about whether it's in or not, it's about whether or not it's a prioritization.


Anyways, about co-op.
I agree that small-scale fights would be much better suited to OG's style. Obvious lag issues stemming from tons of people on one map aside, If there were more than say four players on one map, the enemies would be overpowered instantly, unless they scaled the number of enemies to fit the number of players, which might require map redesigning, and etc. I would say three player co-op is a good number, but four player split screen is standard so I'll go with that.

[Endoperez]

I don't care if it's included or not. Do you read my posts before replying? By all means include it. This debate is only repetitious because you seem to fail to hear what I am saying: it's not about whether it's in or not, it's about whether or not it's a prioritization.

Yes, and the decision about prioritization is up to Wolfire. As he has agreed. So the only thing left to argue about prioritization is which way he'd prefer it to be. And that is where you won't get him to change his opinion, and he won't get you to change yours. I might be misinterpreting you too, but to me, it seems like you're the person keeping that particular argument alive.


Yeah, if 4-player co-op is playable at all, the AI positions and numbers need to be totally rethought.

However, isn't 4-player split-screen default only on the consoles? I don't think computer monitors are big enough for that, and I'm not sure if PC-to-TV is common enough for that to be feasible for more than a few people.

[Korban3]

That's why I stopped saying anything about multiplayer being included etc etc, especially since this thread started out as a request, then I said that it was planned but had a chance to be cut, then David started implementing it, like I said might happen. Although, to be honest, I didn't expect co-op this soon. So no, I won't say anything else about prioritization or inclusion of further multiplayer.
Splitscreen for 2 players seems max for a computer screen. I suppose if two computers play via a server, you could have two sets of split-screens and that would work for 4, but it brings up the point of number and positioning of enemies and level design. So yeah, three sounds like a good max to me since it won't tip the scales too much, although it's still a hefty bit, in the players' favour.

[SuXoR]

I think that co-op/multiplayer could be taken in a number of really cool directions besides just PvP too. Co-op is most obviously compatible with single player missions, but I think overgrowth's unique playstyle and grappling techniques can be used in a portal 2 type of co-op, where you NEED to work as a team to complete puzzles, defeat certain enemies, or climb particularly ridiculous monoliths.

The developers could make it so that you can grab onto the other player to help pull, push, or throw you to new areas you can't reach on your own. With all the cool ways to use the jump/climb system there are tons of ways that can be used to create puzzles that require teamwork.

Also, if they create special bosses that have a different combat/attack pattern than the typical models do right now, it might become necessary to have two people strike at once, or one person setting up traps while the other leads the boss, or having the boss only weak on his backside so one needs to try and defend vs the frontal attacks while the other goes around back to deal some damage, or other things along that line

Also there could be races or special challenges that you complete vs multiple opponents, where you try to get somewhere or something first, and along the way can engage your competitors in combat to try and slow them down