A co-op mode?

[arkhometha]

I'd rather see Chris expand the possibilities for the game by developing the AI and modable backbone for the game. But of course ideally he would make it possible for modders to write their own multiplayer optimization and netcode to create a multiplayer mod, not sure how that would happen practically though... ^^

Seconded. I don't really care if there is going to be a multiplayer mode or not, but if there is, it should be something that's either done by modders or after the singleplayer is finished.

Basically this. I'd like to see it only after the single player experience is perfect if he ever puts it. I don't care about multiplayer.

[kerrigor21234]

Honestly it seems to be pretty hit or miss on whether or not multiplayer will ever happen.

Personally, I would be totally fine with LAN, as I can see me and some buddies pulling many all-nighters with Kenshi.

As to how it would work, I'm imagining something similar to Day Z in that players would be in a world, separate and independent from each other, although still able to kill each other or work together, depending what they want.

I'm no developer (not yet, Computer Science student), so I have no idea how hard it would be (I'm assuming astronomically). So for now, it's going on the back burner in my mind, although I'll remain ever hopeful.

[Necachi]

I agree with the adding of multiplayer. The game is already good but multiplayer wouldnt hurt its ratings.

[zibathy]

To some of you (not the OP), you would have to restructure basically all the code to make it online multiplayer. Get over it.

Chris has no intention of making it multiplayer at all. I really hate it when people say, "WELL IT'S GONNA SUCK IF IT NEVER GETS MULTIPLAYER!!" because nobody fucking cares. If you don't like it, go away. It literally makes no difference.

I would like co-op though, but I have no idea what kind of programming goes into co-op particularly. Since Chris is not making any multiplayer features, someone would have to make a mod like that. Which means the game would have to be complete. Which means we should restart this conversation 1 to 2 years from now. Maybe 3.

Also, if I hear someone say, "singleplayer junk/garbage" one more time I think I'm going to kill someone. Shut up. You do not program. You literally have no idea what you are even saying. If you don't like it as singleplayer, get out. Co-op can be your wet dream, but insulting the game for not being multiplayer makes you a complete ignorant jackass.

"Yeah, man, this chicken sure lays some great eggs for breakfast, but it's shit cause it can't lay uranium-235 lol." is literally what you sound like to me.

[Tolwrath]

Also, if I hear someone say, "singleplayer junk/garbage" one more time I think I'm going to kill someone. Shut up. You do not program. You literally have no idea what you are even saying. If you don't like it as singleplayer, get out. Co-op can be your wet dream, but insulting the game for not being multiplayer makes you a complete ignorant jackass.

The sort of thinking that a game has to have multiplayer to be good has always confused me greatly. In most cases, multiplayer ends up being a shallow, pointless, hollow, far inferior, shell of the single player game. To name a few prime examples, Dark Messiah of Might and Magic, Superman64, Far cry 3, Total War (campaigns), Mount&Blade (except for Captain co-op mode), Ratchet&Clank, (virtually any game on PS2, including Katamari).

And games that are designed to be multiplayer often end up seeming very lacking because they expect players to be eachother's entertainment. Borderlands in particular suffers from very bland reputation if you're not communicating with friends while playing it.

[toaster Assassin]

The problem that makes many multi-player games shallow or pointless is when the devs just tack on a deathmatch/arena instead of an actual co-op. Other examples can include single player elements missing in multi-player (Zombie cheat on Saints Row 3), bad port from console with console restrictions( Mercs 2: Ported over to PC, but still featuring a player tether over LAN.) and instability issues.

Lastly, another issue is games with multi-player that only allow the players to utilize on-line servers, instead of standalone servers. Basically, it shortens the re-play factor of the games.

Personally LAN/co-op gaming is enjoyable because it adds an interaction element between people. Sadly, you are correct and many devs do not take co-op seriously.



Side-note: Alright 1 posts!

[Clawdius Talonious]

Gratz on the 1k Toaster Assassin.

While I appreciate your zeal Ownpk611, Kelloth had previously engaged in thread necromancy to resurrect a years old thread, and while your digging into the backlog didn't go nearly as far I am still going to go ahead and lock this thread. There are other, newer threads discussing this, and it is a moot point because the game would have had to have been designed from the ground up with multiplayer in mind.

[KonskriptGaming]

kenshi is such an awesome game with the potential to be something absolutely amazing. i know its really early but far into the future. co-op with steam friends would be soooooo freaking coooool!

my squad are cool guys and they save my ass in battle but irl mates would be better

[Hellhound1]

No.

use the search button in future please

[Fig.Neutron]

Chris has already said that it will only be single player.

I think everyone likes having the multiplayer option. I think even just allowing another player to control the 1st player's squad mates or import a limited number of his own would be awesome... But I know it won't happen.

[hbrown]

kenshi is such an awesome game with the potential to be something absolutely amazing. i know its really early but far into the future. co-op with steam friends would be soooooo freaking coooool!

my squad are cool guys and they save my ass in battle but irl mates would be better

If there was a Multiplayer of any sort i would rather see it as the regular world as it is right now, but instead of add 1 player starting his char/group, making more than 1 player, not conecting them to the same group, but different ones, woul be then their choice ally or enemy.

[Fig.Neutron]

If there was a Multiplayer of any sort i would rather see it as the regular world as it is right now, but instead of add 1 player starting his char/group, making more than 1 player, not conecting them to the same group, but different ones, woul be then their choice ally or enemy.

That would be awesome. Who ever you play mp with would have a different faction all together, right? That would make the game fun. Then the other player could get attacked for helping you and you could choose whether to return the favor or not. Haha

[hbrown]

Yeah pretty much taht, i was not sure how to explain, would pretty much still be the singleplayer, but with a second party (or more) inserted xD.

[islesofurth]

If there was a Multiplayer of any sort i would rather see it as the regular world as it is right now, but instead of add 1 player starting his char/group, making more than 1 player, not conecting them to the same group, but different ones, woul be then their choice ally or enemy.

If it had multiplayer it would certainly function as you said (IMO), its just a matter of how many extra people can join a single game/server. It could become an MMO even.

[CrazyCon]

I don't know how serious the developer is about remaining strictly single player, but if he was at all open minded I think it'd be important to address how to make it work.

Obviously the speeding up of time function would be pressing, as well as game pausing. The pause function I think is easily remedied by simply making it so that if you were coop it would be like "Hey, wanna pause?" [Teammate] "Sure." Game paused. Like readying for a dungeon or something, everyone has to accept. With simple multiplayer, it would just be removed.

But speeding up time? In my opinion not having that would make the game much more tedious. It can take a while to build stuff or travel around and not being able to speed up time would be a hinderance. So simply removing that function would not be viable. With coop the same "Everyone okay with this?" sort of approach would work, but for multiplayer it's just not [easily] doable. I wouldn't want a workaround like making buildings faster to build or implementing fast travel either, because that would hurt other aspects of the game.

Cooperative play though. To me that sounds pretty possible, technically speaking. If the developer is okay with allowing it in the future, I think he should definitely do it. =D

Coop is just too amazing to turn down without the proper reasoning.

[hbrown]

For now i think we can say with 100% sure, no ultiplayer, doesn t bother me, game sounds great already, with multi will just improve, but if he would to be done only after this be done most likely, as by what i read around he would have to do from the ground.

[toaster Assassin]

Topic Co-op already stated elsewhere, topic merged.

-Toaster Assassin.

[islesofurth]

actually... come to think of it. Mount & blade was singleplayer game only at first and now it's super popular multiplayer game. About everyone I know has played the warband so what the hell! I'll buy kenshi anyways hoping it will one way have a multiplayer so I can roam in the deserts as mighty ronin with my friends

The multiplayer that warband & Fire n Sword offered was very limited to only the battles. So it gets boring and OLD very fast compared to other multiplayer games.
If it offered the ability to put two chracters into the same single player world (like minecraft does) then that would be awsome. Having a race with my Bro, see who can take control of the elves castle first in the Prophesy of Pendor mod. All at the same time being at war with each other

[hbrown]

I loved that mod, of all was the one i played the most.

But i don t think a Multiplayer like that wouldn t take the full potential of the game, placing squads and fighting each other, seems pretty much the normal tho squad based and more strategical (good tho not at its fullest, would always be a base tho lol), would have to be like Isles said.

f it offered the ability to put two chracters into the same single player world (like minecraft does) then that would be awsome.

He could find simple words for what i intended to say before .

[islesofurth]

personally i think if there is enough demand for multiplayer then chris will do it if there is the funds.