Would you be interested in purchasing an expansion which added multiplayer?

[Wingflier]

As I said in my initial review, I believe that Starward Rogue, being the amazing game that it is, simply begs to be played with friends in a co-op capacity. However, adding cooperative multiplayer is time-consuming, and may require extra resources for the developer to complete.

Keep in mind that this poll is really just an acid test, created more to satisfy my curiosity more than anything else, and does not necessarily represent the views of Arcen Games.

If this poll breaks any forum rules or is somehow inappropriate, please remove it immediately.

The poll is anonymous. Thank you for your participation.

[Pepisolo]

I've said it in the past, but for a company that are so pro-multiplayer, the lack of multiplayer in Starward Rogue seems like a bit of a wasted opportunity. Full online multiplayer for SR would've been a huge asset. Of course, it was just nowhere near possible for financial reasons, mostly due to the whole Stars Beyond Reach thing, the lack of time, the bad launch etc. Since the sales of SR have continued to be pretty terrible -- on a related note, it's on sale now, 11% off btw for anyone interested -- then an online multiplayer is still pretty much not at all feasible. Some kind of local co-op.....yeah, that's more realistic, although I think it would have to be included as part of the base game during a new DLC launch. I would not support having multiplayer mode exclusive to the DLC content.

[Cinth]

I'm not going to go out find the posts where Chris says this but the short version of it it this.

Local co-op is a possible thing and it wouldn't be tied to any paid content at all. 


Meaning it goes in the base game free and clear to everyone who owns the game.

[Misery]

Yeah, I think if multiplayer came, it wouldn't be in the expansion.

I don't think this expansion is going to be filled with big "technical" sorts of things of that nature to begin with.  This is mostly about new gameplay content and such and is mostly being made by us, the Freaking Volunteers, which I think we can all agree is the official team name.   As explained in various other places, Chris and Keith have other priorities at the moment afterall. 

But also it just seems like multiplayer, if it was added for local co-op, would just make more sense as an "everybody gets it" sort of thing.  So yeah, I wouldn't really support it as an expansion-only thing either.

[Wingflier]

I would assume the theoretical expansion would have more than just multiplayer, but that would be the main feature of it.

By the way, when people keep throwing around the phrase, "Local Co-op", do they mean Local Area Network, where each person gets their own computer sort of thing, or do they mean 4 people packed around a monitor like sardines, each with a different set of keyboard and mouse and a lot of bumping elbows co-op?

[Cinth]

Basically something like this would go in along side an expansion but wouldn't be part of it.  It would be in the freebie part of everyone's 2.0.  Again, repeating what's been said by Chris.

As far as what style, I'm assuming local co-op is 1 pc based.  The game supports controller play so it shouldn't be a stretch to imaging 2 controllers or a combination of controls to work.

[Mánagarmr]

Local co-op could probably work, but I have trouble seeing how "over-the-internet" multiplayer would work. Syncing that many shots in time ... I just don't see it happening, but I'm no network programmer.

[keith.lamothe]

Network multiplayer would involve rewriting most of the game (if included in the original spec, it would have taken at least an extra 3 months to get not-awful). Even with that, I doubt it would feel satisfactory, unless Chris has a solution way better than our previous models for keeping the different computers within shouting distance of each other on what's actually happening in-game.

[Pepisolo]

Network multiplayer would involve rewriting most of the game (if included in the original spec, it would have taken at least an extra 3 months to get not-awful). Even with that, I doubt it would feel satisfactory, unless Chris has a solution way better than our previous models for keeping the different computers within shouting distance of each other on what's actually happening in-game.

Interesting, I had wondered just how feasible a multiplayer implementation for SR would've been, if there was more time and budget etc. I thought you guys would've been able to create something solid, but that's based off of me thinking "well, AVWW1 and 2 are kind of shmups and they have multiplayer so SR should be good too" which seems like it's a teensy bit off the mark.

[Mánagarmr]

Yeah, I have real trouble seeing how that would work from a technical standpoint. Perhaps if you left bullet movement up to each client and only sync the actual spawning of shots, but even that...Not to mention all the nasty desync errors you might get if a player gets hit on one client but not another because of different positions at different ... no The nightmares.

[Pumpkin]

The question was "would you be interested". While feasibility is a limit in the factual world, we can dream of anything.

I answered "no" because... I've got no friends.

More seriously: what would be multiplayer for? PvP or PvE? Both? Maybe I would be interested in PvE and coop gameplay if the gameplay supports it, like having powerup and specializations  working in synergy, like "I tank you kill" or "Take the big ones, I take the swarms", or more strange mechanisms, like elemental damage, something like AIW's hull types and bonuses.

However I would never bother buying a PvP game. Even less with an online scoring, matchup or ladder.

[keith.lamothe]

"well, AVWW1 and 2 are kind of shmups and they have multiplayer so SR should be good too"

The MP in the Valley games added months to the overall development time, was intensely painful to get working, and never really was all that satisfactory in feel

[Draco18s]

I think the only way for coop to work would be for each client to treat itself as the authority on whether or not it gets hit and whether or not its own shots hit.  The other player simply receiving updates on their partner's location.  The "host" would be responsible for tracking enemy HP, though a client is perfectly within its rights to destroy an enemy it perceives as destroyed and not spawning additional shots.  There will be some slight desynch between the two clients as to which shots actually exist, but if each client assumes that it always sees the shots that are capable of hurting its player, then it's fine: the shots it can't see don't count and it doesn't matter if Player A sees Player B take a hit: sure that destroys the shot on Player A's side, but Player B's client says, "Everything's fine! I still have 12 hp!" and A's client is like "oh, ok."

It would be highly vulnerable to cheating, but this isn't a game that really requires strong anti-cheat security.  Might be some possible exploit nonsense with being able to manipulate deadzones (B's client dodges a shot that A's saw as colliding, creating a safe opening) but it'll be super tricky to actually utilize that much.

Anyway, it'd be equivalent to solving the latency issue by covering your eyes and pretending its not there.  Which, ordinarily would be a massive problem.  But if the only thing that the host cares about is the damage reporting, it might work.

[Pumpkin]

I think the only way for coop to work would be for each client to treat itself as the authority on whether or not it gets hit and whether or not its own shots hit.  The other player simply receiving updates on their partner's location.  The "host" would be responsible for tracking enemy HP, though a client is perfectly within its rights to destroy an enemy it perceives as destroyed and not spawning additional shots.  There will be some slight desynch between the two clients as to which shots actually exist, but if each client assumes that it always sees the shots that are capable of hurting its player, then it's fine: the shots it can't see don't count and it doesn't matter if Player A sees Player B take a hit: sure that destroys the shot on Player A's side, but Player B's client says, "Everything's fine! I still have 12 hp!" and A's client is like "oh, ok."

It would be highly vulnerable to cheating, but this isn't a game that really requires strong anti-cheat security.  Might be some possible exploit nonsense with being able to manipulate deadzones (B's client dodges a shot that A's saw as colliding, creating a safe opening) but it'll be super tricky to actually utilize that much.

Anyway, it'd be equivalent to solving the latency issue by covering your eyes and pretending its not there.  Which, ordinarily would be a massive problem.  But if the only thing that the host cares about is the damage reporting, it might work.

I remember understanding a game does that while another one doesn't. I think it's Terraria that does and Risk of Rain that doesn't. The first is smoothly playable, even with 10-seconds desync, because one can deal with its "'own" monsters, using weapons' bump-back for keeping monsters at bay (and everything explode when it resync ; even damages on bosses are updated this way). The second isn't playable with even 1-second latency because the player is unable to hurt, bump back and kill monsters that still can hurt him.

So yeah, for coop, trust the non-host clients and allow players to deal with their "own" enemies and shots. That's the good way. And cheat is (mostly) irrelevant in a coop game.

[Mánagarmr]

That said Terraria is infuriating with high ping as monsters will warp around a lot.