Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
You can complete the game solo or with less than 4 as some have, but it will be extremely difficult during alarm periods.
2. No.
3. Pretty much the entire game.
Thank you, for the most part this was exactly the information i needed.
although your answers to my third question seem to be contradictory.
Chibbity, do you just mean that it will be harder than normal?
A very few extremely dedicated people who exploited the game have beaten the current rundown solo.
For your average players, three would be the bare minimum, and you'll prolly end up wishing you had four.
I can't stress enough that the game is designed around a full team and playing with any less will make it seriously harder and significantly less fun to play. You can and will find packs of 3 to 4 enemies who need to be killed stealthily at the same time, you simply won't have the man power to do that. Nor will you have the firepower to stand and fight them. I started out playing this with 2, and we barely managed the first level which is a glorified tutorial. Then we got a 3rd and made a bit of progress but it was a struggle, and now that we have four; we don't even play unless everyone is on. We all play co-op games together regularly and shooters as well, we're not gods gift to gaming but we're a lot better than most.
Let's just say: more teammates = easier.
This is a VERY bad idea. I'm all for the game being hardcore. However games like this pretty much require a team of like minded people on voice chat to be successful. You cant always expect a group of friends to be able to field 4 players once or more a week. The game MUST have some form of player scaling if its going to be even remotely successful upon leaving Early Access.
That said, however. It SHOULD be harder for a team less than 4 to complete. Just not proportionally harder. For example if we are going to balance solely on starting supplies and quantity of supplies found in the level, the amount of supplies should be higher in a 3 player game vs a 4 player game, but not enough to fully make up the difference in difficulty by losing that 4th player.
Here's an example table, lower % means proportionally more difficulty. Its twice as hard to succeed at 50% as it is at 100%. Remember that getting getting twice as good at a game requires significantly more than twice the time investment.
4 players = 100% | Compensated difficulty 100%
3 players = 75% | Compensated difficulty 85%
2 players = 50% | Compensated difficulty 65%
1 player = 25% | Compensated difficulty 45%
Who came up with this arbitrary "necessity" of player scaling?
People are already playing it with less than 4 people and are completing it and having fun with it. It's already successful, especially considering who little marketing it's had, how niche the game's concept is, and the fact it doesn't currently have matchmaking.
The devs want a game balanced around a team of 4 people, and that's fine.
EDIT: I don't/won't play multiplayer, so no need to worry about it hurting anyone. ;)
Good news!
When you make your own game, you can put scaling into it.
This game in particular is focused on being an experience for a full team.