[project1dev] Re: multiplayer
- From: Chris Riccobono <crysalim@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: project1dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 21:11:32 -0700
I was thinking about this a lot, because multiplayer is the best way
to increase replay value of a game, and the -only- way to keep people
playing it in the long run...
I don't think we should rule out multiplayer, but unfortunately mp
games need to be designed from the ground up with that in mind. You
can't do complex puzzles because of the problems you guys already
talked about, and you can't just make every dungeon simple because it
will ruin single player.
So what you guys agreed on, not making it part of the main game, would
work for now. But! We have to be careful not to design or code
ourselves into a corner with this, in case we get motivated enough to
really crank out mp later on. There are several options for this:
1) Coding in a prelim system for battles to be multiplayer, this would
cover the arena aspect Chris was talking about, which is honestly a
great idea - this is sort of like Pokemon, where you can build your
team just for battling others, which is a very fun metagame in itself
2) Going the Tales of Vespiria route, which is to have a second player
able to control a party member in combats (similar to the arena, only
co-op)
3) FF Crystal Chronicles route, which is basically the version where
two players can't leave the same screen, and have to cooperatively use
spells and solve simple puzzles
I also don't have to comment on how tough it is to test and balance a
multiplayer game. We can do this, but if you think it's going to take
X amount of resources, multiply that by about 20 and you have about
half as much effort as it is going to take.
So yeah, I don't want to be all "this is impossible", but we should
definitely revisit this idea later on.
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 11:28 AM, Kent Petersen <kentkmp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I think we are all agree. Although it would be cool multiplayer is not what
> this game is about. I look forward to our version of the golden saucer.
>
> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 10:39 AM, <figarus@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> I think the outcry of love for the goldensaucer-esque area of our game
>> means it will be a big part, I know I'm looking forward to it and think it
>> will be one of the things ppl will play and replay in our game
>>
>> Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Alan Wolfe
>> Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 10:36:35 -0700
>> To: <project1dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: [project1dev] Re: multiplayer
>> 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:
