Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[scrdest]

The day players can meet would be amazing, I have no idea how it could happen though.

Hey, that would be an idea. Instead of making them actual player players, borrow other player's current positions to drop some static NPCs.

[Grendus]

You could have it act like Dungeon Crawl:Stone Soup where it's more of an IRC channel than multiplayer. Let players look in on other players games when they connect to the server, in game chat and questions, etc.

[LordSlowpoke]

multiplayer combat in cataclysm would be fucking amazing though.

you know what i have in mind? if respawn was somehow available, you'd have a core of experienced players (as in skill levels) and a bunch of essentially suicide bombers who learn a bunch of driving from the veterans, take their super-reinforced rocket shopping carts (essentially a big fucking brick of reinforcement with a bit of fuel and a strong engine) and fire themselves at the enemy stronghold in order to cause a breach which the veterans fill with bulletspam or just dump ooze in or something

if you don't find rocket shopping cart kamikazes awesome then get out of my face

[forsaken1111]

Imagine multiplayer cooperation, building an outpost against the apocalypse with roaming hordes beating at the gates.

[WhitiusOpus]

Kinda impossible though. Since, y'know, roguelike...

The developers would have to completely change game mechanics to allow it to be IRL time, or else multiplayer wouldn't work.

[Mephansteras]

Imagine multiplayer cooperation, building an outpost against the apocalypse with roaming hordes beating at the gates.

That's the part I'd find awesome. Although, yeah, how that could mechanically work within the game (being a turn based RL) is a bit tricky. That sort of thing normally needs to be a core part of the game from the get-go to really work.

[forsaken1111]

Oh I'm aware of the challenges involved. I still think a game like that would be amazing.

[The13thRonin]

Not everything is improved by being multiplayer.

[RedKing]

I would even argue MOST things aren't improved by multiplayer.

[The13thRonin]

I would even argue MOST things aren't improved by multiplayer.

+1.

[Il Palazzo]

With the notable exception of sex.

[The13thRonin]

With the notable exception of sex.

I feel that co-op is much better than 32 person multiplayer.

Less chance of viruses.

[Mr. Strange]

With the notable exception of sex.

I feel that co-op is much better than 32 person multiplayer.

Less chance of viruses.

You just need to keep your virus protection up to date, then you're good to go.

[Cheedows]

Co-op still need multiplayer doesn't it? I don't get why everyone thinks I'm hinting towards a DayZ thing, what I had in mind was just some fun co-op times with my friends.

[Rabid_Cog]

Leaving aside the wisdom (or lack thereof) of 32-player multiplayer sex, I think multiplayer Cata is possible, even if it won't be pretty. The key would be order-queuing and safe mode. As long as safe mode is on for you, you can queue up commands, which are carried out as all players give their commands. The game basically goes at the speed of the slowest player. If you are out of safe mode, you can only queue up 1 command at a time. Seeing another player or perhaps just being attacked/closed on by another player obviously drops you out of safemode..

2 problems with this. Sleeping and reading, or any other time-consuming activity that requires very little interaction on the part of the player. I can't see any good way around that. All I can think of is that you simply man up and deal with it. Consider it the end of your turn when you go to sleep and wait for the other players to get on with it. Go make coffee.

Obviously this would not work for anything above 4 players, or it would become completely unplayable.