Max players?

[[OT]Nekrage]

How many?

[YetiChow]

2 player co-op (I guess you could make it PvP if you keep shooting each other with AoE weapons, or blowing up red crates next to each other).

[Joys]

Really? Is 2 players the max right now?

[[OT]Nekrage]

Originally posted by Joys:

Really? Is 2 players the max right now?

Really depressing. I was hoping for like 8+ tbh.

[YetiChow]

Consider how much there is to do in 5089's world -- the more players there are, the harder it is to keep track of everything.

3079 has many features similar to 5089, and has multiplayer with more people. However, phr00t learned from that game that it's really really difficult to support lots of players in a game like this; and so 3089 (and 5089 as its successor) were designed for co-op since that still allows multiplayer but doesn't take so much time away from developing the rest of the game.

Of course, you can get as many friends playing on the same map as you like by taking turns; it's just limited to 2 of them at a time. You could do something like every time a player's robot dies they leave and let someone else join while their bot is "rebuilt". I can be fun playing "around" other players who are online when you're not there -- you never know what they've been up to while you were away...

[phr00t]

5089 was designed for 2-player co-op. I know this is limiting.. it was a tough choice to make. I learned when creating 3079, that taking on >2 player networking is resource intensive (as YetiChow describes). Not only is it hard to implement cleanly itself, but it has to be considered whenever new features are added. Having only 2 players that need synchronization makes it easier to keep it maintained & add new features that will still work in multiplayer games. I'm glad I am able to provide multiplayer gaming, even if it is only 2 player co-op.

[Joys]

I have to say it could still be optional. You could display a warning about the game being designed for 2 players only and have the player confirm wanting to risk it unbalanced and too resource intensive.

I'd be fine with that. I'd go into serious runs with a friend, or wacky runs with more friends. Having the option would be loveable and wouldn't force you into unwanted troubles.

Please consider giving this option in some way, even as an optional download or difficult file editing instructions. But please also let me know if you don't change your mind. I will respect it, and I won't be hopeful for something that won't happen.

[Artophwar]

I think 4 players would be ideal. Thats pretty common for co-op action rpgs. Borderlands, Diablo 3, ect.

If it could be added as an optional feature that has to be enabled or just with a warning it would be cool. Maybe a thing to add in a major patch. Some games do major patches that add many new features in 2.0 patches.

[YetiChow]

Originally posted by Joys:

I have to say it could still be optional. You could display a warning about the game being designed for 2 players only and have the player confirm wanting to risk it unbalanced and too resource intensive.

I'd be fine with that. I'd go into serious runs with a friend, or wacky runs with more friends. Having the option would be loveable and wouldn't force you into unwanted troubles.

Please consider giving this option in some way, even as an optional download or difficult file editing instructions. But please also let me know if you don't change your mind. I will respect it, and I won't be hopeful for something that won't happen.

It's not just a case of setting the number from 2 to whatever... the game would actually need to be coded with extra features to support groups of players. At the moment, the game works around the logic of "the host and the guest" when it comes to multiplayer interactions; adding more players would require a totally different way of designing multiplayer.

It's not impossible; but other compromises would need to have been made in order to fit more players in. Hopefully 6089 can be a more multi-player affair (certainly it's more probably if 5089 is popular enough to both guarantee a player base, and to pay for the extra development required for large-scale multiplayer); but with how 5089 is designed co-op is the best option in the current circumstances.

There's quite a lot you can do with just one extra player... I know that more would be merrier, but that doesn't mean we should ignore what's there already.

[NormireX]

Originally posted by YetiChow:

Originally posted by Joys:

I have to say it could still be optional. You could display a warning about the game being designed for 2 players only and have the player confirm wanting to risk it unbalanced and too resource intensive.

I'd be fine with that. I'd go into serious runs with a friend, or wacky runs with more friends. Having the option would be loveable and wouldn't force you into unwanted troubles.

Please consider giving this option in some way, even as an optional download or difficult file editing instructions. But please also let me know if you don't change your mind. I will respect it, and I won't be hopeful for something that won't happen.

It's not just a case of setting the number from 2 to whatever... the game would actually need to be coded with extra features to support groups of players. At the moment, the game works around the logic of "the host and the guest" when it comes to multiplayer interactions; adding more players would require a totally different way of designing multiplayer.

It's not impossible; but other compromises would need to have been made in order to fit more players in. Hopefully 6089 can be a more multi-player affair (certainly it's more probably if 5089 is popular enough to both guarantee a player base, and to pay for the extra development required for large-scale multiplayer); but with how 5089 is designed co-op is the best option in the current circumstances.

There's quite a lot you can do with just one extra player... I know that more would be merrier, but that doesn't mean we should ignore what's there already.

Eh....actually it could be as simple as setting the number to 2 or whatever number you want if the base code uses the player number as a variable. Take games like Borderlands, the difficulty and loot/xp is changed based on the amount of players. Other games do this as well.

With the above being said I can understand limiting multiplayer, but why 2? This is 2016 not 1995. Would have been nice if the bare minimum we got was 4 player co-op.

But yeah, I'm somewhat enjoying the game solo. Tough as heck though when trying to convert some area's and you get raped by a group of 5 bots only because the accuracy on all guns is total garbage. Would like to have seen an Accuracy Skill to put points into to try and balance things out better.

Also still no compare option when hovering over gear, this has been an issue since 3079. It's just really cumbersome to have to keep mousing back and forth looking over stats.

Sorry if I'm being harsh at all, just had higher expectations I guess.

[TheGZeus]

Originally posted by NBR NormireX:

Originally posted by YetiChow:

It's not just a case of setting the number from 2 to whatever... the game would actually need to be coded with extra features to support groups of players. At the moment, the game works around the logic of "the host and the guest" when it comes to multiplayer interactions; adding more players would require a totally different way of designing multiplayer.

It's not impossible; but other compromises would need to have been made in order to fit more players in. Hopefully 6089 can be a more multi-player affair (certainly it's more probably if 5089 is popular enough to both guarantee a player base, and to pay for the extra development required for large-scale multiplayer); but with how 5089 is designed co-op is the best option in the current circumstances.

There's quite a lot you can do with just one extra player... I know that more would be merrier, but that doesn't mean we should ignore what's there already.

Eh....actually it could be as simple as setting the number to 2 or whatever number you want if the base code uses the player number as a variable. Take games like Borderlands, the difficulty and loot/xp is changed based on the amount of players. Other games do this as well.

With the above being said I can understand limiting multiplayer, but why 2? This is 2016 not 1995. Would have been nice if the bare minimum we got was 4 player co-op.

But yeah, I'm somewhat enjoying the game solo. Tough as heck though when trying to convert some area's and you get raped by a group of 5 bots only because the accuracy on all guns is total garbage. Would like to have seen an Accuracy Skill to put points into to try and balance things out better.

Also still no compare option when hovering over gear, this has been an issue since 3079. It's just really cumbersome to have to keep mousing back and forth looking over stats.

Sorry if I'm being harsh at all, just had higher expectations I guess.

You really can't just change a number in the code and suddenly have more players.

Programming is significantly more complex than that.

This game was made by one person. Borderlands was made by a AAA studio with a huge budget. It also costs 5-10x as much (depending on the game and how much DLC you include).

Higher-level weapons have higher accuracy. You can grind up other stats and then get the parts for & build higher-level items.

[Artophwar]

Many more things have to happen on the networking side than just changing a single number for there to be more players.

You can also get better accuracy weapons, and phroot is looking into adding a compare option. He just didnt have time to get it in before the release.

[NormireX]

Originally posted by |CC| Artophwar:

Many more things have to happen on the networking side than just changing a single number for there to be more players.

You can also get better accuracy weapons, and phroot is looking into adding a compare option. He just didnt have time to get it in before the release.

Yeah, no kidding. Anyway, point is he has 2 player co-op, adding 2 more should not be that difficult, the difficulty, XP, loot should all scale automatically if Phroot has coded things in that way. Yes there is back-end coding that has to be done but a majority of it can be copied/pasted from the 2 player code, further adjustments and tweaks would need to be made of course, but it shouldn't be horribly difficult for a skilled programmer. Time consuming, yes, difficult, not if the foundation is already there, which it is. Maybe it's not Phroots inability, maybe it is the engine he is using that makes it more difficult perhaps, I don't know.

Technical details aside, I do hope Phroot might consider adding 2 more players for co-op to round it out to 4 total.

[YetiChow]

Originally posted by NBR NormireX:

Originally posted by |CC| Artophwar:

Many more things have to happen on the networking side than just changing a single number for there to be more players.

You can also get better accuracy weapons, and phroot is looking into adding a compare option. He just didnt have time to get it in before the release.

Yeah, no kidding. Anyway, point is he has 2 player co-op, adding 2 more should not be that difficult, the difficulty, XP, loot should all scale automatically if Phroot has coded things in that way. Yes there is back-end coding that has to be done but a majority of it can be copied/pasted from the 2 player code, further adjustments and tweaks would need to be made of course, but it shouldn't be horribly difficult for a skilled programmer. Time consuming, yes, difficult, not if the foundation is already there, which it is. Maybe it's not Phroots inability, maybe it is the engine he is using that makes it more difficult perhaps, I don't know.

Technical details aside, I do hope Phroot might consider adding 2 more players for co-op to round it out to 4 total.

As phr00t said himself: he would have loved to do it that way, but it wasn't practical. If it could have worked that way without compromising other parts of the game, then we'd have it already.

I mean, I'd bet money that phr00t would be just as excited as any of us to play in a med-large game of 5089 lol.

[phr00t]

the difficulty, XP, loot should all scale automatically

It does scale, but saying it does it "automatically" may lessen its complexity. It is important to get the balance right & scale at a rate that will keep things challenging, while never getting too easy or too hard.

adding 2 more should not be that difficult

Actually, the difficulty is going from 2 to anything more than 2. When you have two players, they only need to talk to each other. Once you get a third, you have to send something from player 1 to the server (player 2), and then retransmit it to player 3. You could also setup a system where player 1 sends to both player 2 & player 3... but as players grow, you'd probably want the server to handle retransmitting what is happening on individual players to all players. Keeping all this synchronized across all connected clients is intensive to maintain, especially when trying to add new features. 2 player co-op is just much easier to handle: 1 player does something? Send it to the other. Done.

Anyway, I understand the desire for more players... it just is a compromise I had to make for the sake of the rest of the game & I'm happy to have co-op in place as it is.

[Joys]

In most games it can be a simple variable change. Sometimes an interface change would be necessary, like how in World of Warcraft they could change the max to player groups but would need a different interface. Usually that is the case with player hosted servers.

I understand that this is not the case and therefore completely understand. It would be a real pain to rewrite the network code entirely.