[project1dev] Re: multiplayer
- From: Alan Wolfe <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: project1dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 10:36:35 -0700
neato... after i made this post yesterday, wurmz was talkign to me on aim
about it and thats what he came to the conclusion of too :P
seems like it makes most sense - it deffinately does from a tech POV (makes
me happy inside hehe)
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Matthew Morgan <MMorgan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I think we should stick with saucer only on this one.
>
>
>
> Do you mean the SNES Zelda? Coz that one’s the business.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* project1dev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> project1dev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *figarus@xxxxxxxxx
> *Sent:* Friday, May 08, 2009 10:23 AM
>
> *To:* project1dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [project1dev] Re: multiplayer
>
>
>
> I think if we make the action rpg zelda style game in the future that would
> work better multiplayer... I don't know of any ff style rpgs with the
> multiplayer that we are thinking - unfortunately, we can't have it all, as
> much as I'd love to. We will run into this occasionally and sacrifices have
> to be made... So the question is, I think kent is right, we either need to
> go balls to the wall multiplayer or just stick with the golden saucer
> multiplayer, cuz if we half ass it, it will be a waste of time/energy...
>
> I am just not sure. I love multiplayer and envision adventuring with a
> friend/friends and it being totally epic and fun but on the other hand, to
> really embrace multiplayer, single player will suffer and I really think the
> majority of people would play single player the majority of the time. Its
> hard enough to organize my homies to play left4dead on xbox for a couple
> hours, let alone the 40+ hours to go through an rpg.
>
> Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
> ------------------------------
>
> *From*: Matthew Morgan
> *Date*: Fri, 8 May 2009 10:09:50 -0700
> *To*: project1dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<project1dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> *Subject*: [project1dev] Re: multiplayer
>
> Perhaps this project should just be single player except for the saucer
> idea, and on the next one we can all be more multiplayer-minded?
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* project1dev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> project1dev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Kent Petersen
> *Sent:* Friday, May 08, 2009 10:05 AM
> *To:* project1dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [project1dev] Re: multiplayer
>
>
>
> Forcing players to split up is a good idea too. That way it's like 2
> separate single player levels. In single player the player could choose
> either path. It's a good way to avoid having to test things for both single
> and multiplayer because it would really only be 2 separate single player
> paths. There are numerous other ways to keep simple multi playered levels as
> well, such as a simple switch that requires a player to stand on. You could
> have a door with trapped enemies inside. One player stands on the switch to
> open the door where. The second player then battles hsi way into this room
> single handedly. If the battleing player becomes too wounded he can leave
> the battle room and swap places with the 1st player. So now you have one
> fresh player battling and the wounded player recovering on the switch. That
> type of scenario would be relativly simple to make and require 2 players.
>
> I guess there would be an increase in content. There probably wouldn't be
> double the content but there would definately be an increase. It would also
> get very difficult to manage once the levels became larger and more
> complicated.
>
> I think having full on multiplayer could create an amazing experience. I
> think it would take a lot of careful planning to truly make it shine. On
> that same thought, if multiplayer was half assed and not as polished as I
> imagine, the game would be terrible no matter how great all of the other
> aspects are. Especially since we would be designing the game from the ground
> up with that feature in mind. If we do decide to change our minds it would
> be difficult.
>
> What does everyone else think?
>
> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Alan Wolfe <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> #1 and #3 make sense (:
>
> For #2 would you want to build and script twice as much stuff... one for
> single player and one for multiplayer? And then you'd have to test both to
> make sure they work ok and that there wasn't a typo (like an extra 0 added
> onto how much rep you get for completing the multiplayer quest vs the
> single).
>
> Duplicated effort tends to have a lot of bugs in it because of human error
> (thats why people make functions instead of copy / pasting code).
>
> Seems like we'd introduce a lot of bugs and have to do double the work
> going that way, but it is a pretty good idea as a solution to the problem.
> Like for instance maybe we could only have 2 versions where it mattered. So
> for most of the game it's all the same stuff but in caves where there are
> puzzles etc they change whether you are single or multiplayer. I'd still be
> weary about the extra bugs it would for sure create.
>
> From a technical standpoint i really agree w/ you on the last point, i like
> the idea of limited / specialized multiplayer (:
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 8:40 AM, Kent Petersen <kentkmp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Oh, fun questions.
>
> 1a) I assumed people would get thrown into the fight together. Either
> person triggers a fight both players go in.
> 1b) If you wanted it to be a little more interesting you could have it
> where the players need the enage the enemies individually. After the player
> touches a monster there is a small delay before entering the battle to give
> the 2nd player a chance to get into the fight. The second player can choose
> to not fight at all or fight something different. Battles could play out in
> more of a real time. Potentially you could even have monster or players join
> the battle once it's going.
>
> 2) dungeon design wouldnt be too bad. I would say you would make 2 paths. 1
> for single player and one for multiplayer. You could have them have
> different items. The single player path could have things break once you
> pass making it a one person way. The multiplayer paths could have puzzles
> that require 2 ppl.
>
> 3a) I assumed that the players will just drag eachother. If one player
> enters a new room the second player will teleport there.
> 3b)You could also do it toe jam and earl style (original on the genesis)
> where the players are just allowed to seperate. This would go well with the
> combat idea.
>
> With all that said I feel it is unnessasry. Maybe a colliseum could be cool
> to battle your friends and to compare equipment. Maybe there could be an
> online FF7 Golden Saucer where everyone can meet gamble, show off gear,
> whatever.
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 8:18 AM, Alan Wolfe <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> ok so you guys are saying ""yeah multiplayer!!!" but lets talk details.
>
> So how would it work?
>
> lets ignore technical concerns and talk game design...
>
>
> #1) how would combat work... if you are walking around and your buddy is
> too, and he gets into a fight, do you automatically get tossed into that
> fight to? what happens?
>
> #2) if we allow multiplayer, we'd have to design all caves and dungeons to
> work with multiplayer. What i mean is we couldn't have any puzzles or
> things which were designed for single player. IE if you have something like
> you have to push a boulder from upstairs into a pit, it falls downstairs,
> you roll it onto the switch and you can get into another room, we can't do
> that cause in multiplayer, the 2nd player could just stand on the switch and
> let you through etc.
>
> #3) what happens when your buddy enters a different room while you are
> walking around in the 1st room or like exploring it... do you get teleported
> into the other room automatically?
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 7:38 AM, Matthew Morgan <MMorgan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> Yep yep. 6-3, trying to get it switched to 5:30-2:00=-D
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* project1dev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> project1dev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]*On Behalf Of *figarus@xxxxxxxxx
> *Sent:* Friday, May 08, 2009 7:37 AM
>
>
> *To:* project1dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [project1dev] Re: multiplayer
>
>
>
> What time do you get in, 6am?
>
> Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
> ------------------------------
>
> *From*: Matthew Morgan
> *Date*: Fri, 8 May 2009 07:36:24 -0700
> *To*: project1dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<project1dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> *Subject*: [project1dev] Re: multiplayer
>
> Yah, and I do work pretty early….
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* project1dev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> project1dev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]*On Behalf Of *figarus@xxxxxxxxx
> *Sent:* Friday, May 08, 2009 7:32 AM
> *To:* project1dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [project1dev] Re: multiplayer
>
>
>
> Lol...... He has a weird schedule like 10 - 7 or something
>
> Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
> ------------------------------
>
> *From*: Matthew Morgan
> *Date*: Fri, 8 May 2009 07:30:24 -0700
> *To*: project1dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<project1dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> *Subject*: [project1dev] Re: multiplayer
>
> Maybe if he’d get up and get to work like us!
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* project1dev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> project1dev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]*On Behalf Of *eric drewes
> *Sent:* Friday, May 08, 2009 7:27 AM
> *To:* project1dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [project1dev] Re: multiplayer
>
>
>
> yeah, we'll have to talk to alan about this stuff cuz it could almost be a
> game in and of itself
>
> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Matthew Morgan <MMorgan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> I like the gauntlet or Man vs Beast w/one weapon, adds a little flavor to
> it, maybe there could be different parts of the arena for different things,
> a gambling hall, a gladiator hall(full on battles), a bestiary (battling
> beasts w/one weapon), wrestling ring (diff weight classes) all with diff.
> challenges or things to do.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* project1dev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> project1dev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]*On Behalf Of *Chris Sherman
> *Sent:* Friday, May 08, 2009 7:23 AM
>
>
> *To:* project1dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [project1dev] Re: multiplayer
>
>
>
> I love the arena/tournament idea but I've never seen anybody really take it
> where I think it could go. For instance having a heavyweight and lightweight
> battle class would be cool, betting could be done in increments and instead
> of just getting your pool back plus house money you would get other players
> money. I also like the thought of having different challenges like a
> gauntlet or a man vs beasts where man is equipped with only one weapon and
> no armor... Feel free to expand on it if you wish :)
>
> Sent from my BlackBerry
> ------------------------------
>
> *From*: figarus@xxxxxxxxx
> *Date*: Fri, 8 May 2009 14:17:57 +0000
> *To*: <project1dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> *Subject*: [project1dev] Re: multiplayer
>
> quick things...
>
> I agree co-op would be fun but my only concern is, it will take away some
> resources that could be used in other places that may be better bang for the
> buck...
>
> Alan iis gathering ideas for making how multiplayer would potentially work
> so maybe he has yet another rabbit to pull out of his hat :)
>
> Re: arena...
>
> Definitely one of the things I am really into for this game is a battle
> arena wheer you can fight, or gamble on monsters fighting :) something to
> definitely thing about if anyone has any ideas
>
> Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
> ------------------------------
>
> *From*: Matthew Morgan
> *Date*: Fri, 8 May 2009 07:08:24 -0700
> *To*: project1dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<project1dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> *Subject*: [project1dev] Re: multiplayer
>
> I definitely think being able to hook up with your friends and playing
> would make the game way better… everythings better with buddies.
>
>
>
> How would it work though, you would just have your heros? Or would it be
> the guy who set it ups party and you can control one of his guys?
>
>
>
> I like the idea of arenas. Kind of like the Coliseum in FF3 or something
> where you could join in and battle people perhaps for unique-ish items or
> something. Just an idea…
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* project1dev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> project1dev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]*On Behalf Of *figarus@xxxxxxxxx
> *Sent:* Friday, May 08, 2009 6:59 AM
> *To:* project1dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [project1dev] Re: multiplayer
>
>
>
> Alan and I talked about maybe at least having an arena where you can fight
> other ppl... I defer to him when it comes to multiplayer cuz he knows how
> hard it will be and will be the one putting code in...
>
> Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
> ------------------------------
>
> *From*: "Chris Sherman"
> *Date*: Fri, 8 May 2009 13:53:44 +0000
> *To*: <project1dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> *Subject*: [project1dev] Re: multiplayer
>
> What if we did it small scale multiplayer like you could be on a server or
> virtual lan with buddies or a few random people and if you wanted to join
> their party you could but you wouldn't have to. Ie test drive unlimiteds
> approach to mmo
>
> Sent from my BlackBerry
> ------------------------------
>
> *From*: Matthew Morgan
> *Date*: Fri, 8 May 2009 06:49:38 -0700
> *To*: project1dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<project1dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> *Subject*: [project1dev] Re: multiplayer
>
> Multiplayer IS bonus. But it would maybe get difficult is other people had
> wanted to go different directions in dungeons/caves and what not, and some
> people like grinding and some people want to just get through it, so maybe
> MP wouldn’t be good in this case… I dunno.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* project1dev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> project1dev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]*On Behalf Of *Chris Sherman
> *Sent:* Friday, May 08, 2009 6:31 AM
> *To:* project1dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [project1dev] Re: multiplayer
>
>
>
> Multiplayer is awesome, TOTALY AWESOME!
>
> Sent from my BlackBerry
> ------------------------------
>
> *From*: figarus@xxxxxxxxx
> *Date*: Fri, 8 May 2009 13:17:27 +0000
> *To*: <project1dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> *Subject*: [project1dev] Re: multiplayer
>
> I guess the question is... Do you guys think ppl would be interested in
> playing multiplayer? FF6 had it but I never used it. I love co-op and
> playing w/ friends but I don't know if itd work with a story driven rpg...
>
> Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
> ------------------------------
>
> *From*: Matthew Morgan
> *Date*: Fri, 8 May 2009 06:11:53 -0700
> *To*: project1dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<project1dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> *Subject*: [project1dev] Re: multiplayer
>
> I think that would be perfect=-P
>
>
>
> Keeping them together like gauntlet lengends kinda but switch screens for
> battle…
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* project1dev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> project1dev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]*On Behalf Of *Alan Wolfe
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 07, 2009 8:05 PM
> *To:* project1dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [project1dev] multiplayer
>
>
>
> Hey so before we started makin this game, Eric was saying it would be
> really neat if we could support multiplayer.
>
> We've talked a little bit about it randomly (like the possibility of being
> able to play mini games against other people online or other stuff...) but
> it's been kind of hard figuring out how FULL ON multiplayer would work in
> our game. A big part of the hurdle for me has been figuring out how to do
> the combat in multiplayer (since it goes to a seperate screen... would the
> other player go into that screen too or...?)
>
> Anyhow, I personally can't figure out a good way but I wanted to open it up
> to everyone else before we said "bah forget it"
>
> Eric has had some ideas about this such as the players having to stay
> within a screen length of eachother, and when one person goes into combat
> they both go into combat and control their own characters.
>
> What do you guys think... can multiplayer work for a game like ours?
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> *******************************************************************************************************************************************************************
>
> This e-mail is the property of Oakley Inc. It is intended only for the
> person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that
> is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure.
> Distribution or copying of this e-mail, or the information contained herein,
> to anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
