Potential for Multiplayer?

[Trashbag]

Now I'm pretty sure it wouldn't even be on the table for this game, since you'd need to have dedicated servers and honestly the frame rate already seems pretty unstable.

But if this game succeeds well enough, and if a potential "HOLE 2" was on the distant horizon...

This game would go so hard if you were dropped into a zone with 2 to 3 other people.

No objective, no explicit incentive to fight eachother outside of taking whatever loot they've collected. You could work together or kill eachother on sight. There would be so much potential for emergent gameplay. You could even add masks for the player to unlock as a lategame incentive. And maybe proximity voice chat that you can use to talk it out with other players - but the enemies on the map can hear you too...

[Ravenr_]

currently, the game is supposed to be an offline recreation of the extraction shooter experience, so adding multiplayer is probably not a priority, though I really like the art, graphics, maps and general feel of the game so seeing large expansions like that would be welcome imo.

[fentanil0]

coop could be amazing 😩

[Yukareimu_]

Indeed will be amazing if its same style on another game, deathmatch will be a interesting experience.

But for this game i think im more looking forward to more content, it will be an amazing offline experience if not already. Adding multiplayer kinda ruins it since it's a rather special place for me as a not so stressful fps

[Lucius Caesar]

Originally posted by Trashbag:

Now I'm pretty sure it wouldn't even be on the table for this game, since you'd need to have dedicated servers and honestly the frame rate already seems pretty unstable.

But if this game succeeds well enough, and if a potential "HOLE 2" was on the distant horizon...

This game would go so hard if you were dropped into a zone with 2 to 3 other people.

No objective, no explicit incentive to fight eachother outside of taking whatever loot they've collected. You could work together or kill eachother on sight. There would be so much potential for emergent gameplay. You could even add masks for the player to unlock as a lategame incentive. And maybe proximity voice chat that you can use to talk it out with other players - but the enemies on the map can hear you too...

you have pretty much just described every extraction shooter out there, so if you haven't already, you should play some of them. Escape from Tarkov, Delta Force Operations, Arena Breakout Infinite, Outlawed. Any of them should suffice, depending on how immersive or arcadey you want it.

The appeal of this game is particularly as a single player extraction shooter so adding multiplayer feels a bit pointless, but I mean... it could be fun.

[Trashbag]

Originally posted by Lucius Caesar:

Originally posted by Trashbag:

Now I'm pretty sure it wouldn't even be on the table for this game, since you'd need to have dedicated servers and honestly the frame rate already seems pretty unstable.

But if this game succeeds well enough, and if a potential "HOLE 2" was on the distant horizon...

This game would go so hard if you were dropped into a zone with 2 to 3 other people.

No objective, no explicit incentive to fight eachother outside of taking whatever loot they've collected. You could work together or kill eachother on sight. There would be so much potential for emergent gameplay. You could even add masks for the player to unlock as a lategame incentive. And maybe proximity voice chat that you can use to talk it out with other players - but the enemies on the map can hear you too...

you have pretty much just described every extraction shooter out there, so if you haven't already, you should play some of them. Escape from Tarkov, Delta Force Operations, Arena Breakout Infinite, Outlawed. Any of them should suffice, depending on how immersive or arcadey you want it.

The appeal of this game is particularly as a single player extraction shooter so adding multiplayer feels a bit pointless, but I mean... it could be fun.

Well yeah, that's part of why I mentioned a "HOLE sequel." I wouldn't really want to replace what's already here.

Also, when it comes to extraction shooters, a lot of them revolve around PvP - even if they have PvE elements. You could choose not to shoot the other guy, but it's often incentivized to do so.

I think HOLE would be a rare breed of extraction shooter that leans more towards co-op. With smaller arenas, shorter play sessions, less to lose and more to gain from working together, I think there's potential for HOLE's gameplay to still have a distinct flavor even in the multiplayer scope of extraction shooters.

[Lucius Caesar]

Originally posted by Trashbag:

Originally posted by Lucius Caesar:

you have pretty much just described every extraction shooter out there, so if you haven't already, you should play some of them. Escape from Tarkov, Delta Force Operations, Arena Breakout Infinite, Outlawed. Any of them should suffice, depending on how immersive or arcadey you want it.

The appeal of this game is particularly as a single player extraction shooter so adding multiplayer feels a bit pointless, but I mean... it could be fun.

Well yeah, that's part of why I mentioned a "HOLE sequel." I wouldn't really want to replace what's already here.

Also, when it comes to extraction shooters, a lot of them revolve around PvP - even if they have PvE elements. You could choose not to shoot the other guy, but it's often incentivized to do so.

I think HOLE would be a rare breed of extraction shooter that leans more towards co-op. With smaller arenas, shorter play sessions, less to lose and more to gain from working together, I think there's potential for HOLE's gameplay to still have a distinct flavor even in the multiplayer scope of extraction shooters.

what do you think would make it any less PvP focused? I imagine everyone would just shoot the other guys on sight like any other extraction shooter. With the smaller maps it would be much more difficult to straight up avoid or hide from other players.

[Trashbag]

Originally posted by Lucius Caesar:

Originally posted by Trashbag:

Well yeah, that's part of why I mentioned a "HOLE sequel." I wouldn't really want to replace what's already here.

Also, when it comes to extraction shooters, a lot of them revolve around PvP - even if they have PvE elements. You could choose not to shoot the other guy, but it's often incentivized to do so.

I think HOLE would be a rare breed of extraction shooter that leans more towards co-op. With smaller arenas, shorter play sessions, less to lose and more to gain from working together, I think there's potential for HOLE's gameplay to still have a distinct flavor even in the multiplayer scope of extraction shooters.

what do you think would make it any less PvP focused? I imagine everyone would just shoot the other guys on sight like any other extraction shooter. With the smaller maps it would be much more difficult to straight up avoid or hide from other players.

The simple fact of stakes. It's admittedly only a theory, but I've always been fascinated by how games handle player psychology.

Thinking of titles like Hunt: Showdown, you stand to lose a lot on death, and there is one central major goal that only one person can win. You can take a pyrrhic victory and accomplish smaller goals if you aren't the one winner, but the game is centered around competing over scarce resources, so it's inherently competitive.

By contrast, HOLE's resources are effectively infinite in a match. You *could* compete over fridges and boxes, but all you have to really do is wait for another to show up. Enemoes are currency, and the longer you can survive, the more currency you can gain. So it behooves the player to work with other players in a map, last much longer than one player would, and collect a larger payout from Mask Bosses.

One *could* screw over their team at the last minute, but with 3 or 4 players in a level wgo are willing to cooperate, you're more likely screwing yourself more than anyone else. And you could also just...queue again after extracting and collect more the next round, since matches are pretty short.

[Lucius Caesar]

That's an interesting outlook. I wonder if it could encourage the opposite too though. If I have nothing to lose, then I don't fear the other players, so maybe I'm more likely to hunt them down, make sure they're all dead so I can have an intense firefight, and the level to myself. If I die? No loss, I can try again. It would definitely need some way to communicate I guess. Proximity chat to ask if they are friendly or not, that sort of thing.

[Trashbag]

Originally posted by Lucius Caesar:

That's an interesting outlook. I wonder if it could encourage the opposite too though. If I have nothing to lose, then I don't fear the other players, so maybe I'm more likely to hunt them down, make sure they're all dead so I can have an intense firefight, and the level to myself. If I die? No loss, I can try again. It would definitely need some way to communicate I guess. Proximity chat to ask if they are friendly or not, that sort of thing.

Well it's all the player's perception. Deep Rock Galactic could theoretically be played as a PvP game - friendly fire is enabled, and I believe 100% damage on Hazard 5.

Most games will offer a solo mode, and it would make sense to still have that option in a theoretical "HOLE 2."

If we really wanted to reinforce cooperative mentality, we could also show player cooperation in all the trailer footage.

The one thing that I think could possibly still chafe would be the idea of players spawning in different sections of the level. It adds a sense of alienation that spawning in together wouldn't. But I'd be curious to see how the former plays out...

[DamnChill]

This is the most civil discussion I have ever seen in a steam discussion. How beautiful. I agree with the sentiment, but I think the scope of Co-op would be more than the dev can handle at the moment, which is fine. I am just happy with an extraction shooter where I don't lose everything all the time.

Co-op would be super cool though, I'd buy it for all my friends immediately haha

[Jimmis Atha]

we need co-op!

[Trashbag]

Originally posted by DamnChill:

This is the most civil discussion I have ever seen in a steam discussion. How beautiful. I agree with the sentiment, but I think the scope of Co-op would be more than the dev can handle at the moment, which is fine. I am just happy with an extraction shooter where I don't lose everything all the time.

Co-op would be super cool though, I'd buy it for all my friends immediately haha

Yeah that was my thought, too. That's why I pitched it as a "Hole 2," if anything. Something we could possibly see in the distant future. For now, though, it'll just be fun to speculate. :)

[Snapper]

The game is so short as it is, and tbh I think the charm is that you are a one man army. You get insanely strong later in the game. Playing it coop would be wayyyy too easy. Its already too easy as it is

[Trashbag]

Originally posted by Snapper:

The game is so short as it is, and tbh I think the charm is that you are a one man army. You get insanely strong later in the game. Playing it coop would be wayyyy too easy. Its already too easy as it is

Yeah, if it did run that route, they'd probably have to ramp up the challenge. Maybe introduce some beefier special enemies...

I always enjoy the more supernatural elements to games, so more anomalies would be welcome to see in a hypothetical distant-future sequel. Probably my one and only concern would be trying to strike that distinct thematic balance the game has between grounded semi-realistic im-sim combat and bizarre supernatural horror-lite, but I guess they could stand to jump the shark a little more in a follow-up game...