安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
unlike other rouges, you aren't trappedin a room once you enter.
leaving two ppl to go in different direction, and while that maybe fine on two seperate screens, it would be hell on a shared splitscreen, and al,so you'd just be two solo ppl not coop-erating,. so kinda self-defeating purpose.
only difference is im not gonna insult you, i'll just point out why co-op ain't gonna fly
That's just one possible approach out of many. I don't understand why you'd write off co-op entirely just because one particular unusual take on it has issues. One common solution (Guacamelee, Shovel Knight, etc.) is to let any player trigger room transitions and warp the others so they all enter the new room together.
As I mentioned earlier, I'd personally lean towards "squires" with abilities focused on co-op, like the co-op class from Enter the Gungeon. The single heir would be the primary player and would drive any aspects that want to be the same for all players (like gold multipliers and full-screen visual effects).
Equipment/Weapon upgrades would be a shared progress, so both Player 1 and Player 2 would be equally strong.
Another way it could work would be that Player 1 goes to a portal/teleport and interacts with it and thereby chooses to "Summon Player 2" and then Player 2 decides which heir character to play with.
I think more than 2 players however could be messy and I think for more than 2 players playing together then it would be better to have a separate game mode that would be designed with that in mind. Like a Player vs Player mode I think would make more sense for more than 2 players, with game modes like Capture The Flag and Deathmatch. Or I guess a game mode with bosses that are designed to challenge more players at the same time could also work cooperatively and be a fun challenge to do together with friends.
You don't need to rebalance anything, although you could just simply add a separate option to double the number of enemies.. Coop is something casual players like to do. Us hardcore gamers who want toe full experience will do single player.
Let's say I have a friend over who may want to try this game. He is going to be really bad but wants to play it with me because it is funner to play together. He then falls in love with it and buys it himself. There lots of advantages to having a local coop function.
Whenever there's an update I check if they added co-op in the hopes of it happening.
I'd never ask for online co-op as I know it pretty much requires rewriting the whole thing, so it's nonsense...
...but even some asymmetric local co-op with limited mechanics would be fine and better than nothing, and would surely not require reworking the entire game, or even touch the UI depending on how it's done.
Honestly, there's no need for a co-op design (as they did in FMF), as just allowing someone to share the experience with you is enough for many.
The only downside I can think of a simplified co-op is that people will then demand a more complete co-op otherwise will say "it's not really co-op", and if you do it local only, people will demand it to be online because surely "it's just a boolean that you turn true to happen". But it's the same kind of people opposing co-op here, so whatever.
Clearly/hopefully noone is asking that the game becomes "primarily" a co-op game, but just to have it as an additional mode, surely less balanced and tweaked around is, as an OPTION for those who would like to experience it, so having that kind of co-op would surely no disrupt the "forever alone gang" anyhow.
Enter the gungeon relegates player 2 to exactly one class, the least interesting one with the fewest relevant abilities (you get stronger when player 1 dies).
One Step From Eden has you both sharing the same health pool and battle grid, and you can hit and kill each other.
CotND constrains both players to one screen, and of course you can blow each other up, block each other, and end up killing each other easily. With how high-tempo even some of the earlier levels can get it's a recipe for disaster
Heck, even Risk of Rain 2 ends up trapping players in a downward spiral as you fight over who gets the items and then someone dies and falls behind the power curve thus getting them killed even faster...
There's one core flaw with multiplayer in general, but particularly with roguelites; since the run only ends when everyone is dead, you're going to get long periods of time where player 1 is running around while player 2 is just sitting there. Even if there's a revive mechanic, it's still going to be annoying for the dead player (and even worse if there isn't).
I would rather dev time be put towards crafting the best singleplayer experience they can get. If they want to tack on a co-op mode at the end of development, I wont complain, but I guarantee you it won't be all it's chalked up to be.
Considering how roguelites resolve mainly around health economy, co-op often breaks the balance, making it either boring or harder/easier than it should.
But still, again, it's better than nothing. If one wants to play in co-op, the co-op experience can make the loss bearable.
There're games that allow one player to revive another by sharing half their current life, so health economy is preserved. I think it's a good general solution.
Depending on the game, it's also possible to have a shared health bar, even simpler solution, though it tends to be frustrating for the better player then!
Agreed, seems logical. As I said, I don't really bother a shoehorned half-baked co-op, I still believe it's better than no co-op, but I know not everyone agrees and apreciates that.