ITT: A perfect multiplayer(co-op) experience and how it would work.

#1xiTz_RyaNxPosted 1/4/2011 10:47:20 PM
This topic is to address the flood of multiplayer comments and topics that are also running about. I will discuss how a multiplayer/co-op experience could work for this game, and from all angles describe how it would function if included as well. If you want to skip to the point of this topic, feel free to scroll down to the section below the dotted line.

If you've played other RPG's or open world sandbox games, then you know what a basic co-op experience for Skyrim could play out to be. You and a buddy together in the same world, with access to all of the same areas, weapons, etc. Well, in order for it to work with Skyrim, a few key ideas have to be addressed.

*Random loot
*Active quests
*Your personal story progression
*Levels of characters and creatures in the world
*AI interaction

Here is how *I* think a coopertive session for Skyrim could, and all around would work.

*************************************************************************************************************************

You start the single player story on your own, you build your character, pick your major skills, etc. Once you've done that, you're set loose into the world of Skyrim and have access to quests, dungeons, and everything is basically at your mercy. Well, if you wanted to play coopertively with a friend, things would be a little different. Since you and everyone else playing Skyrim will have their own world for single player, if you were going to play co-op with someone, the world in which you and you friend would play in would be a brand new game. Your characters would stay their same levels, your weapons and loot would all transfer with you into the world, but it would be as if starting a brand new game. Similar to Borderlands, enemies would all be leveled based on your character, from the very start to finish. But say you have a level 1 character, and your friend that you're playing with is a level 10, now in Oblivion, enemies were very different in difficulty between those levels. Think about Gears of War 2's co-op for just a moment. Now if you haven't played it, here's a quick FYI. In Gears of War 2, you could play co-op with a friend, but both play different difficulty settings. One player could play on the hardest difficulty and enemies would do more damage to him, but say your playing with a new commer, they could play on an easier setting and not have such a hard time. This would work perfectly for a Skyrim co-op session. Now, since you'll be playing co-op in an entirely brand new world, every quest that you've done in your single player experience would be reset for this new world, and become available. That way, both characters have access to these quests and can now do them together. Now to avoid boosting your levels and just farming experience and such by doing multiple co-op sessions, if you've done a quest in co-op, then it will automatically follow over to your single player adventure once your begin that again. That just makes for a more balanced leveling experience through both multiplayer and single player. But you might ask, what if one character dies? Would you revert to last save? What if both characters die? What then? I say this, if a character dies in the co-op session, revival would be the simplest answer, it's simple and it works right? And if both characters die, I would just say that the autosave function enables itself during co-op sessions. It's that easy. Now, onto the quests. If you and your partner in co-op come along a quest, there could easily be an option for either A) you both take the quest together
B) neither of you take the quest, and it goes into your journal and you can activate it at any time





---
Gamertag: GotMyProSocksOn PSN: RyaN_Th3_L10N
Bad Company 2 > Black Ops > Reach
#2xiTz_RyaNx(Topic Creator)Posted 1/4/2011 10:47:41 PM
It's that simple, and that would be an easy system that works. Now, as for random loot, I would say it's all up for grabs. Who ever can get to the treasure chest faster and get their hands on the loot gets it, but to counter that, there could be a loot sharing option. You could both trade loot, gift loot, money, lockpicks, etc. Lets hope you aren't playing co-op with a selfish ass who bogarts all of the loot. Aside from that, AI would refer to your characters in a co-op session pluraly insted of singularly. Insted of a guard saying, "Stop that criminal scum," he could say "Stop those criminal scum." Easy and as simple as that. Besides those things, I'm not sure what else needs to be applied for a coopertive session to run smoothly. If I've left anything out, please fill it in, or simply list it and I'll address it.

---
Gamertag: GotMyProSocksOn PSN: RyaN_Th3_L10N
Bad Company 2 > Black Ops > Reach
#3xiTz_RyaNx(Topic Creator)Posted 1/4/2011 10:52:07 PM
Left one thing out, save function. If you were to play co=op with a buddy, you and that person could save together that game world. Only you and that specific friend could join together and play it again, and you would start any future co-op sessions with that certain friend from the same point you left it with all the quests and missions you had yet to access or complete.
---
Gamertag: GotMyProSocksOn PSN: RyaN_Th3_L10N
Bad Company 2 > Black Ops > Reach
#4xiTz_RyaNx(Topic Creator)Posted 1/5/2011 7:34:06 AM
bump
---
Gamertag: GotMyProSocksOn PSN: RyaN_Th3_L10N
Bad Company 2 > Black Ops > Reach
#5TJORLYPosted 1/5/2011 7:52:43 AM

Doesn't matter how perfect it is. It's still using some of the game's budget that should be spent on singleplayer.

#6aViolentFluidPosted 1/5/2011 8:34:39 AM
^THIS! No matter how "perfect" anyone's theory is for multiplayer, the best course of action would be to use all Bethesda's capital to improve the sigleplayer experience.

Multiplayer, regardless of how it's presented, will always fall down under this logic.
---
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."
Christopher Hitchens
#7AncientDozerPosted 1/5/2011 10:39:32 AM

TJORLY posted...

Doesn't matter how perfect it is. It's still using some of the game's budget that should be spent on singleplayer.



Says who? You? I didn't realize you worked for the company or understand its inner workings. You only say that out of fear and bias, which is understandable but unfair.


aViolentFluid posted...
^THIS! No matter how "perfect" anyone's theory is for multiplayer, the best course of action would be to use all Bethesda's capital to improve the sigleplayer experience.

Multiplayer, regardless of how it's presented, will always fall down under this logic.
---
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."
Christopher Hitchens


No matter how you look at it, it's still just speculation at best. Assumption. For all we know, they've reached a point they can't improve past. You don't know and since we're playing with "what ifs", why not put that forward. What if they actually have extra money to play with. Not saying they do or would, but we really don't know. We never know. They don't tell us. They only say how much they've spent and how much they've earned, not how the money was used or where the resources were allocated.

Which is why I hate this argument. It's pulled out of a collective arse and treated as infallible proof when no one has the least bit of evidence that the single player would suffer significantly in quality.

#8TJORLYPosted 1/5/2011 10:44:31 AM

AncientDozer posted...
For all we know, they've reached a point they can't improve past.

When that day happens, they can add multiplayer without a complaint from me. It'll never happen though. Nothing is perfect.

#9CenturionSpherePosted 1/5/2011 10:46:31 AM
You like to dance close to the fire dont you?
#10SandalFuryPosted 1/5/2011 12:40:52 PM
Difficulty differences based on level wouldn't work. In Oblivion, the enemies didn't just get tougher; the changed. Rats would become bears and necromancers became liches, they didn't just get extra HP.
---
"It's snowy cuz it's the mountains, which are always snowy unless volcano"