No desire for couch co-op?

[blg9758]

It seems like a no-brainer but I have no idea what it would take to implement, but man I feel it would send this game off the charts. Best vampire survivors since vampire survivors, I say.

[Tyyne]

Insane amount of balancing would be required so in that way, it would indeed be off the charts.

[S'bass thulu]

Yeah... I wouldn't have interest in co-op for this'n. It's waaaaay more complex than VS as it is.

Maybe a kind of time trial round later on where each player share a screen and whoever removes more horde in the time limit wins?

Why not just set up two or however many laptops next to each other and rock out with a friend-zo in person?

[Tyyne]

Originally posted by S'bass thulu:

Yeah... I wouldn't have interest in co-op for this'n. It's waaaaay more complex than VS as it is.

If I remember correctly, the "coop" in VS is just slapping two guys in the same map and... that's it. There's literally no synergy, no coop elements or anything. It's literally just two people playing the game solo at the same time.

[S'bass thulu]

Exactly. Pretty tedious in VS to me. I want depth for a feature. The only thing I could think of is we load in whatever gear/rog we want... pick a level and just kill stuff in a time limit. Dash levels... everything... with option to add in corruption and such... or scaling corruption like some of my favorite challenges.

But that can already be done setting up two laptops together... and/or if it's long distance we can brag about it both with the gaming records, seeds, leaderboards.

OP... not knocking you. Just trying to understand the rational or help you do your thing as is.

[blg9758]

Honestly I'm getting a bit further on now and I could see how it would change the whole dynamic. I had a super stack of XP bonus and I spent more time in the soul card screen than finishing the board lol. It doesn't really seem all that possible without making it seem the exact same as VS. two super OP players would probably put survival upwards of 3 hours lmao

[S'bass thulu]

Originally posted by blg9758:

two super OP players would probably put survival upwards of 3 hours lmao

Don't you threaten me with a good time. ;)

[Rideps]

It's honestly a marvel that VS managed to include coop so late in developement, it takes a lot of performance for something that can already get overly intensive.

It's really better to be on a roadmap early in development to actually be functional.

[PlexusDuMenton]

I'm not sure couch-coop would really work (and worth the amount of work require to add it into the game).

Game was never designed for coop in the game-design, like, how is corruption supposed to work ? should it take the average of the two player corruption ? add it together ? take the highest.
A player that would run for a High-corruption build would make the build of the other player miserable.

Similarly for Exp-gain, making the level-up happen at different time could be frustrating for players, so the best experience would be the have it at the same time, what about the shop-keeper that definitely need different level-up timing ?

And I'm not talking about the game code that is also no designed the have multiple player (just for enemies), but that not a really blocking points, just a huge mountain of work.

[S'bass thulu]

Agreed. Not the right concept for R:G

[Orgrider]

I remember a couple years ago, during one of the optimization overhauls, when Plexus explained all of the processes associated with projectiles. That, because every projectile actually exists, there was only so much consolidation of processes possible.
LagRogue was born of this. You would have to double the restrictions of LagRogue to have a stable co-op experience. That doesn't sound particularly fun. Nor does the alternative: spending 3 times as long picking cards, while my fans spin up to 6-10,000 rpm (and then shatter?).

If I want co-op roguelite, I'll head over to Bounty of One or Extremely Powerful Capybaras.