No true Multiplayer

[Repkar]

Can only visit each other's worlds. Sad, wife and I were looking forward to this. F. Hope yall enjoy tho.

[wildbill]

Ya, I'm in the same boat. They do plan to improve the multiplayer while the game is in Early Access though:
https://blog.playstation.com/2024/11/14/towers-of-aghasba-early-access-launches-november-19-content-roadmap-detailed/

So according to the roadmap, improvements to that feature will occur in Q2 2025. Still, the game will probably remain Peer to Peer, but then that isn't a real issue with someone you are likely playing with in the same room. You are likely on similar schedules so have time to play together.

Even at launch, there is stuff you can do together. Would be interesting to know how much. Off hand, I'd guess about 50%.

The bigger issue for me and my wife is that the main thing she likes to do in games is kill stuff. That doesn't appear to be one of the main activities in this game

[IchigoMait]

Originally posted by wildbill:

Ya, I'm in the same boat. They do plan to improve the multiplayer while the game is in Early Access though:
https://blog.playstation.com/2024/11/14/towers-of-aghasba-early-access-launches-november-19-content-roadmap-detailed/

So according to the roadmap, improvements to that feature will occur in Q2 2025. Still, the game will probably remain Peer to Peer, but then that isn't a real issue with someone you are likely playing with in the same room. You are likely on similar schedules so have time to play together.

If you meant, that there are no dedicated servers with "peer to peer", not in terms of latency. Then ignore what I said below. (while you can have dedicated peer to peer servers, you just host the server yourself)

Steam networking can use peer to peer, that is if you enabled it to be with everyone in steam settings, at the bottom of "in game" settings in "steam settings".
Peer to peer is the superior connection route when it comes to the lowest delay, but yeah how well it performs depends how many other people are connected and who's hosting.
While server side connection is good for large amount of people, but at the cost of higher latency.

Never seen someone frown upon peer to peer lel. If you have latency issues it's because of not using peer to peer. Regardless where you live.
That's some weird take that peer to peer is only good when in the same household, in the same household the better thing is lan, over the same network, it's basically peer to peer, but even a shorter route, it doesn't use your public ip, but your modem/router ip only.
The longer the route the worse the latency, especially with servers, you have to wait for everyone's info getting to the server, and then wait for that to get back to everyone.
In my country peer to peer latency from one edge of the map to the other edge is around 10ms, it's basically irrelevant, and not using peer to peer only makes it worse, by around 4x to 10x.

[wildbill]

Originally posted by IchigoMait:

Originally posted by wildbill:

Ya, I'm in the same boat. They do plan to improve the multiplayer while the game is in Early Access though:
https://blog.playstation.com/2024/11/14/towers-of-aghasba-early-access-launches-november-19-content-roadmap-detailed/

So according to the roadmap, improvements to that feature will occur in Q2 2025. Still, the game will probably remain Peer to Peer, but then that isn't a real issue with someone you are likely playing with in the same room. You are likely on similar schedules so have time to play together.

If you meant, that there are no dedicated servers with "peer to peer", not in terms of latency. Then ignore what I said below. (while you can have dedicated peer to peer servers, you just host the server yourself)

Steam networking can use peer to peer, that is if you enabled it to be with everyone in steam settings, at the bottom of "in game" settings in "steam settings".
Peer to peer is the superior connection route when it comes to the lowest delay, but yeah how well it performs depends how many other people are connected and who's hosting.
While server side connection is good for large amount of people, but at the cost of higher latency.

Never seen someone frown upon peer to peer lel. If you have latency issues it's because of not using peer to peer. Regardless where you live.
That's some weird take that peer to peer is only good when in the same household, in the same household the better thing is lan, over the same network, it's basically peer to peer, but even a shorter route, it doesn't use your public ip, but your modem/router ip only.
The longer the route the worse the latency, especially with servers, you have to wait for everyone's info getting to the server, and then wait for that to get back to everyone.
In my country peer to peer latency from one edge of the map to the other edge is around 10ms, it's basically irrelevant, and not using peer to peer only makes it worse, by around 4x to 10x.

No, I think you read way to much into what I was saying about peer to peer. So essentially in this game you host the game and invite people to join. There are no dedicated servers, no server that runs 24/7. If you are not playing your game, it is not running. So no one can play on a map you are hosting unless you are also playing on it, that was my whole point.

Yes, a server can be either client/server architecture or peer to peer, but if you have no server at all, then you are pretty much constrained to a peer to peer architecture, and that is what this game has.

I'm not frowning on peer to peer for this game btw. I think it is the best choice for this game. But since it is peer to peer and also there are no dedicated servers, then there are certain things you need to expect from the game that would be different than from a game for instance like ARK, that uses client/server architecture and servers that run 24/7.

Personally, I prefer a game like this over ARK.

[IchigoMait]

Well hopefully it feels as fun as Grounded

[GrailQuest]

Thank god it's not "true multiplayer" then. Don't need randos coming to my world and screwing around.
Imagine if a bunch of griefers just went from world to world slaughtering all your animals to extinction and screwing up the ecosystem you are trying to rebuild.

[Mesket]

Originally posted by GrailQuest:

Thank god it's not "true multiplayer" then. Don't need randos coming to my world and screwing around.
Imagine if a bunch of griefers just went from world to world slaughtering all your animals to extinction and screwing up the ecosystem you are trying to rebuild.

You know you can have both. Like Ark on any other survival game out there. That argument is not valid.

[xitooner]

Originally posted by Mesket:

You know you can have both. Like Ark on any other survival game out there. That argument is not valid.

In the end, it boils down to Q2 2025 for more multiplayer improvements...and P2P in teh meanatime. At least until they have added their official means of player-requested feature feedback (soon I hope, they are working on something), so they can get a sense of what their playerbase wants most. With sufficient requests, they might consider moving stuff like this earlier.

[Nekochi]

I was hyped for this game since the beginning. Couldnt wait till the 19th comes but after i saw a video right now that the Multiplayer is inspired by "Animal Crossing New Horizons" where everyone got his own Island and the MP is only "visiting" each other, i will 100% pass till the MP Changes release.

[IchigoMait]

Originally posted by Kynatara:

I was hyped for this game since the beginning. Couldnt wait till the 19th comes but after i saw a video right now that the Multiplayer is inspired by "Animal Crossing New Horizons" where everyone got his own Island and the MP is only "visiting" each other, i will 100% pass till the MP Changes release.

How is that any different from Grounded. albeit grounded has a way to share local save file, though that can sometimes overwritten by some random players save file.

So more like Valheim or Conan Exiles.

1 player has to host the world, you all decide who will be the host.

Don't care about dedicated servers. even if you had peer to peer dedicated servers, someone would have to have a pc always on or a server like pc where they host the server constantly, but that kinda defeats the co-op aspect, and peeps just play whenever they have time alone.

So what we get at launch is okay.
Everyone has their own world they can progress, but when you get your friends together you play in one world, or help someone if they need help in their world, or perhaps some person doesn't bother with their world and only plays with their friends and not solo.

[Nekochi]

Originally posted by IchigoMait:

Originally posted by Kynatara:

I was hyped for this game since the beginning. Couldnt wait till the 19th comes but after i saw a video right now that the Multiplayer is inspired by "Animal Crossing New Horizons" where everyone got his own Island and the MP is only "visiting" each other, i will 100% pass till the MP Changes release.

How is that any different from Grounded. albeit grounded has a way to share local save file, though that can sometimes overwritten by some random players save file.

So more like Valheim or Conan Exiles.

1 player has to host the world, you all decide who will be the host.

Don't care about dedicated servers. even if you had peer to peer dedicated servers, someone would have to have a pc always on or a server like pc where they host the server constantly, but that kinda defeats the co-op aspect, and peeps just play whenever they have time alone.

So what we get at launch is okay.
Everyone has their own world they can progress, but when you get your friends together you play in one world, or help someone if they need help in their world, or perhaps some person doesn't bother with their world and only plays with their friends and not solo.

Grounded is fully different. Did you ever played it? In grounded you can do everything together and not just visit the other players island

[Tenoshii]

Originally posted by Repkar:

Hope yall enjoy tho.

Thanks, I 100% plan to. Little over 24 hours of waiting to go

[BbyGurl_6969 ♡]

Very dissapointing to hear, I only like to play these types of games with friends. Like.. not even co-op play?? Wow, I will also have to skip this until they release it with multiplayer then.

[Andy Nord]

Too bad.
Was going to play this game with my wife.
But we like to play together. Not just visit each others games.

Will check back later in 2025.

[wildbill]

Originally posted by BbyGurl_6969 ♡:

Very dissapointing to hear, I only like to play these types of games with friends. Like.. not even co-op play?? Wow, I will also have to skip this until they release it with multiplayer then.

It has coop similar to Nightingale where you need to do the tutorial at the start single player.

Then you can play with others, but quests are done only single player in your own game, not coop.

The difference with Nightingale is it let you use your friends map to do your quests, but for this game, you need to use your own map.

[panerdar]

I got a refund after they stated in Discord that you could not do any of the campaign multiplayer. Cuts out a lot of the game.