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
A developer of this app has marked a post as the answer to the topic above.
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
2 
Report this post
Would you ever consider it if there is a demand? The fact you didn't confirm it is basically the only reason I didn't pledge when you were crowdfunding.
Because the game isn't designed for co-op, and it would take a LOT of significant re-design to make Co-Op happen.
I wouldn't suggest its ever as easy as flicking a light switch or the developer likely would have done it already. But for me and apparently others being able to share an experience with friends is a huge selling point.
Steams remote play allows developers to dodge some of the netcode hassle if the game wasn't built with that in mind as a last resort, and a co-op lite experience where a secondary player has an influence, but doesn't have the same degree of control as the main player could be an option.
It is more than just the issue of being able to play together(netcode etc.), but actual game mechanics and balance would need a rework as well. It would end up a completely different game.
If it simply means that someone gets "control" of one or more of your monsters in battle(so it is still a 3vs3), that would not really be very "coop-like" gameplay. "So my job is to choose an attack each round, and that is it? - Yeah! Isnt that exciting!".
Well to be honest part of the co-op experience is the decisions you make collectively outside of the game. So it wouldn't necessarily be just choosing attacks, but having an influence as to what familiar they were playing as, and what strategy you are co-ordinating. They'd play a supporting role. The important thing is sharing that experience in some way instead of the game just having these two modes; a plain versus which some people aren't really a fan of, and playing the main game in a completely solitary fashion.
Co-op lite could also mean designing a new supporting mechanic which none of us are aware of, something that doesn't currently exist but allows the second player to complement the games current mechanics in a way that's currently unforseen, but doesn't require the entire game being reworked from the ground up which obviously, is too much to ask for or expect. Its not my place to dictate what that mechanic should be, but its more about taking the opportunity to say "hey, maybe that's something worth brainstorming because it would allow people to engage with the games content together."
Alternatively in the same way you have PvP, you could let two players have battles against an AI for unique rewards in a side mode that intersects with the solo experience. In other words, you still play the main game alone, but occasionally you could cross over and participate in a side experience that could offer unique incentives for completion in your solo instance, a new mode designed around two players combining their teams for the occasional larger scale battle. That wouldn't require the games current structure to be completely reformed, the co-op could exist on the side of the solo game that we already have with a few tied progress elements.
There's a number of ways you could approach this without expecting something totally unrealistic.
Damn literally the main reason I downloaded this was I thought it was CO-OP
I can't see how Coop would fit in this game... What? You would have 6 monsters fighting 3, or 12 monsters fighting 6? Or each player would have only 3 monsters and together they would fight 6v6 against keepers? Or each player would control a single monsters? I don't see this working.
The other player controlled the first monster slot and I control second/third monster slot. The first play gets to run around so he gets one less monster :)
For Monster Sanctuary it just works "ok". It was definitely a fun way to experience the game. Especially since the other player might decide to use monsters you think are bad etc...
Main issue with Monster Sanctuary is turns are shared and you have to decided which monster attacks first. This means a lot more communication is necessary. I still find it more fun to play it this way than solo.
Turn based games that work best is when each character has their separate turn. Pretty much any tactical RPG can be played just like Divinity if they have separate turns! Just thought I would post since there is a big lack of coop turn based RPGs and this has been my solution.
No it isn't as good a full coop in RPGs but it is a nice alternative.