Multi-player and How?

Everything Hinterland that doesn't fit elsewhere
Greentongue
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 8:32 pm

Multi-player and How?

Postby Greentongue » Sun Aug 17, 2008 3:04 pm

In today's Internet connected world, a multi-player feature is expected.

My question is the form it will take.

Will it follow the RTS model and each player will have a village in competition?

How about my preference, the RPG model, up to 4 players with each controlling a single villager.

:confused:
=

tyjenks
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 5:24 pm
Location: Birmingham, AL
Contact:

Postby tyjenks » Sun Aug 17, 2008 7:02 pm

"Greentongue" wrote:In today's Internet connected world, a multi-player feature is expected.


I think MP has become too much of an expectation and has led to an excuse for weak A.I. programming. I would prefer the focus remain on single player, if that is their intent, for the initial release, but with multiplayer in mind for the future.

Villages competing over the same landscape for the same resources and trading or doing battle would be a load of fun, though.
Last edited by tyjenks on Mon Aug 18, 2008 2:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

Rambutaan
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 1:56 am

Postby Rambutaan » Tue Aug 19, 2008 12:16 am

Or you could take the approach that the Left 4 Dead developers did and give an opportunity for griefers to play as the monsters roaming the hinterland ;) . That could be fun too.

fleshtonegolem
Posts: 89
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 6:07 pm

Postby fleshtonegolem » Thu Sep 04, 2008 11:53 pm

"Greentongue" wrote:Will it follow the RTS model and each player will have a village in competition?

How about my preference, the RPG model, up to 4 players with each controlling a single villager.
=



I like the idea of having a village with multiple player characters, but then who gets to build the city?


One person would act as a DM and places the buildings, and throw in random encounters in the drag and drop fashion of Never Winter Nights. :)

Oh that would be awesome!


The only way I can see getting around infighting when dealing with city development would be a "god/dm" player hosting the game.

That would make for some really fun sessions.

Sleet
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 3:43 am

Postby Sleet » Fri Sep 05, 2008 12:23 am

With tyjenks on this one. I hope TM will focus on the single player game - making it extreme.
Work on possible multi-player in future add-ons etc.

angelisis
Posts: 1019
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: WORLD OF WARCRAFT

Postby angelisis » Fri Sep 05, 2008 1:54 am

i agree with sleet get the one player game going first and take the multiplayer option on later in an add on if so desired. I am so hanging for a great single player game

King Faticus
Posts: 4230
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 1:20 am

Postby King Faticus » Fri Sep 05, 2008 2:07 am

I agree with both the above comments

First make Single player rock.. then consider multiplayer :D

Danimusrex1
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2008 1:46 am
Location: philly

Postby Danimusrex1 » Fri Sep 05, 2008 4:22 am

i agree. concentrate on a solid game. i feel like alot of times people sacrafice what could have been an incredible single player experience because it wont translate into multi. games werent meant to always be played with other people, im looking forward to a unique single player without the pressure of 'how will this strat work online?' just only playing to play. for fun.

Greentongue
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 8:32 pm

Postby Greentongue » Fri Sep 05, 2008 6:02 pm

The issue is often that Multi-Player was not initially considered and then "added" on as an afterthought.
That was before.
I believe these days Multi-Player is built in from the original design. That doesn't always mean that it is completed, just that the "hooks" are there.
=

Oblyvious
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2008 3:45 am
Location: Rorschach, Switzerland

Postby Oblyvious » Fri Sep 05, 2008 11:09 pm

Multi-player will be included in HINTERLANDS 2. Hinterlands is going to be a great game. Once they proved that they can make a great game expect Hinterlands 2 to be some more creative thinking with multi-player being one of the main focuses along with graphics and other interesting/compelling ideas, perhaps space anyone?

As far as I am concerned, TM should concentrate on just single player for this game, mixing the RTS and the RPG aspects well since it has not really been done before. How many times has there been a game that was released that had many new and amazing ideas to it, only to fail miserably because they were concentrating on both multi and single player versions. Both versions stunk because the developers did not have a clear path on what their game wanted to be. That is what would happen to Hinterlands if they added a multi-player side to the game. Lucky for us, TM knows this and is working out the kinks on a much simpler base before taking us to the cables of our router.

The problem with having a "God" or DM in mutli-player would mean that the group would have to know each other before hand for everyone to have a good time. Each player prefers doing different aspects of the single player. For me the most logical would to have 2-4 people trying to build their village, fighting over resources. Trying to think of a fun multi-player format is quite difficult, when you are trying to please many different personalities. You are either going to please the RTS or the RPG players. Perhaps a DOTA style multi-player would work, where you control one person from the village, the hero, and if he does not get enough resources, your village slaves (workers) start loosing points and eventually parish. Once all of your villagers are six feet under, the game would end and you join your fellow citizens.

This is one of those games where multi-player is difficult to make due to all of the interesting aspects of the game. We will have to wait and see what happens in Hinterland 2. Until then, lets just enjoy Hinterlands shall we?

Sleet
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 3:43 am

Postby Sleet » Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:47 pm

NOTE: the game is called HINTERLAND

Not Hinterlands

I was guilty of this as well when I first came to the forum.. :o
Welcome by the way.
:)

fleshtonegolem
Posts: 89
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 6:07 pm

Postby fleshtonegolem » Sun Sep 07, 2008 8:34 pm

I certainly don't anticipate that Hinterland will have multiplayer in 1.0, but 2.0 would be a fantastic addition.

I would like more of a call to multiplayer to be focused servers setup for smal group.

The DM would be running the server. You can always take turns being the DM, but that way as DM you could custom create a map for your players to play on. That would be very neat to me.

The issue of placing buildings I thought would be a DM thing to keep infighting from happening in the party, but I guess you could buy land and develope your own settlement.

I think cooperative play would be more fun that against each other. The map should be what you want to conquer not your fellow payer.

Of course you coud have both styles of play.

Yonder
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2008 11:23 pm

Postby Yonder » Sun Sep 07, 2008 8:52 pm

I don't understand why you think Hinterland multiplayer would need a DM. In single player the scenario will be set up randomly by the computer with no DM guidance, why can't this same thing work in multiplayer?

fleshtonegolem
Posts: 89
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 6:07 pm

Postby fleshtonegolem » Mon Sep 08, 2008 12:20 am

in a multiplayer game who would decide where to put the buildings?

Unless you had two different villages then I guess you wouldn't need to worry about that, but if you are both playing from the same village, how would you determine who gets to place buildings and decide on the growth of the city?

I'd find it hard to make a cooperative game with two different villages.

THat would more than like evolve into two parties warring for the same loot and xp of the creatures in the map.

A random map for two or more players would be fun from the same village, but how the city grows would be hard to make it fair for everyone.

That's where the DM comes in.

If you know a better way to keep 3 people from bickering over what building to make next and wear to put it I'd love to know the solution.

The DM would also serve to make the game more dynamic and interesting.

Being that if you felt the players are having to easy a time you can drop in some creatures to make their lives a bit more difficult. It opens up the possibility of a computer aided roleplaying experience.

Random maps are not with a few creatures sprinkled around an loot to find isn't roleplaying to me. It's just a hack and slash diablo clone if you aren't creating a certain level of interaction with yourself and the environment that isn't predetermined.

A single player game there isn't an option to make it "more RPG" because it's mostly random generation with predetermined outcomes of the random elements that are placed into the map.

To many games call themselves rpg's just because you "level up" most MMORPGS are not remotely rpg's. They are hack and slash strategy games.

This is of course coming from someone with a pen and paper RPG gaming upbringing.

The ability for the environment to react to you in a profound and un-predictable way would require a DM. It would make it much more interesting.

If you've played multiplayer Never Winter Nights with a DM you know where I'm coming from.

It's such a better experience than a solo game.

Yonder
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2008 11:23 pm

Postby Yonder » Mon Sep 08, 2008 1:18 am

It seems like you are treating these hypothetical players as children. If two players are running the same village cooperatively, or are running two allied villages, they need to communicate and coordinate with one another what they are doing, and what they each need, just like in any other game. If they can't accomplish that, then they either need to practice a bit more, or go over to competitive playing, or play single player.

If two people are responsible for a village then I don't think the solution to a possible argument between those two people is "haha, you're not in charge of it anymore, now this third, unrelated person will be laying out the village that you need to defend. P.S. he will be the one attacking it too."

fleshtonegolem
Posts: 89
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 6:07 pm

Postby fleshtonegolem » Mon Sep 08, 2008 5:05 am

There are many reasons besides just wanting to have the GM layout the buildings.

Being able to build a dynamic story around the players actions is more reason than anything. I've always thought the idea of a [en and paper rpg a couple of friends could play on laptops together would be awesome. Leave all the record keeping and random number generation (dice rolling) to a computer.

Speeding up game play and making it more fun.

I've played loads of game in pen and paper and online where players bicker about where to go next or who gets what loot.

For certain things it's great.

I do agree with the idea that if a player can't play nice they should play by themselves though. ;)
Last edited by fleshtonegolem on Mon Sep 08, 2008 5:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

Mellotron
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 12:56 am

Postby Mellotron » Fri Sep 12, 2008 1:12 am

I'd rather have a deeper single-player experience rather than a tacked-on multi-player experience, it'd make the game better overall in my opinion.

pipilongbeard
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 4:57 pm

Postby pipilongbeard » Fri Sep 19, 2008 5:13 pm

Hi,
Having two villages working together in CO-OP or against each other to reach a goal along with having AI villages to compete against would be cool. But I think that if this is meant as a single player game first, then let the devs concentrate on that and then bring in a MP game element via a patch later on.
I would rather have a solid single player experience and a solid MP experience than 2 crappy ones.
Pip.

sapien82
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 12:02 pm

Postby sapien82 » Mon Sep 22, 2008 8:38 am

a multiplayer would be good , instead of having each persons own village and compete for the resources to build your city , it think multiplayer would be cool if you were each a heroes in the town/ village and you had to compete with other heroes to win the hearts and minds of the villagers , and then you decide how the town grows.

for instance you as a hero can go on quests alone or with other party members , or take a few villagers (who can be killed more easily than you) and go and bring back resources or loot , or kill giant monsters which are plaguing your village doing this , by earning respect and bringing back loot , the villagers see this and decide who is the best hero , who then takes charge of the village until someone else beats the other hero by bringing more loot or killing an even scarier monster.

with the buildings , instead of the hero deciding in multiplayer , the villagers tell the hero what they really need in order to be more economic an the players can then vote on what specific building they are after.

Zetal
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:47 am

Postby Zetal » Sat Jan 17, 2009 8:22 pm

"sapien82" wrote:a multiplayer would be good , instead of having each persons own village and compete for the resources to build your city , it think multiplayer would be cool if you were each a heroes in the town/ village and you had to compete with other heroes to win the hearts and minds of the villagers , and then you decide how the town grows.

for instance you as a hero can go on quests alone or with other party members , or take a few villagers (who can be killed more easily than you) and go and bring back resources or loot , or kill giant monsters which are plaguing your village doing this , by earning respect and bringing back loot , the villagers see this and decide who is the best hero , who then takes charge of the village until someone else beats the other hero by bringing more loot or killing an even scarier monster.

with the buildings , instead of the hero deciding in multiplayer , the villagers tell the hero what they really need in order to be more economic an the players can then vote on what specific building they are after.


Too different, in my opinion...
I think the best, most likely, and simplest form of multiplayer would be a doubly large map area, with two opposing villages attempting to claim the territories before the other, and eventually either having a civil ending, with trade ensuing and a peaceful existence or war, and one kingdom taking over the other.
Just me.


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest