Multiplayer:

- What i'm thinking for a vs is 2 separate dungeons(or more for 3+ players) you competition can be survival(endless waves), perhaps a score with a set time.

- Different starting locations, all on 1 massive map vs mode, pvp enabled.

- Co-op, either as a group, each with own character or team(maybe 2 characters each). Depends how big the maps can get, limits being set for the game.

- It would be interesting to randomly encounter another team while going through the floor, some sort of always online pvp enabled mode. Killing the other team and destroying crystal could give 1/2 their resources and a random item from their team.



I think just keeping it simple and fun is best. (1) vs mode should just be a separate map's and survival style. (2) Co-op is a bit tricky, I think it would require a different type of mode/mechanics to the game. I can't see myself playing with random people who are horribly at decisions, bad support in combat, randomly open doors..... just terrible at decisions! lol.



Co-op Mode: Perhaps each 1 character, different roles (Heavy/tank, Damage, Repair). Dust would need to be individual, food, even industry i think. Lol, I dunno.

If the game was more 3D like Warcraft-3 or Starcraft-2 you could do a lot more with it, but as its 2D and characters just move into a room and auto do their thing it really limits things; Like co-op lane survival, vs lane survival (waves get harder each round, and you buy items for the character you picked with gold rewarded).

Can't say I enjoy the vision of co-op in this game. I guess I've seen to many trolls in my life (cave, snow, metropolis - all kinds you can imagine) to be optimistic. Although if one shall find 3 friends reliable enough, I guess it could change into "Borderlands in Dungeons". Can't say much, since we still don't know much about skills and specializations. Cause as for know I suppose this type of gameplay would be quite boring, esp. for those in care of weaker characters (ranged).





The PvP option is quite good. Obviously it would need a change in game objectives. Not an exit - thats something that everyone can use. Also it would pose a problem how to handle the crystal phase. My idea? A race towards lifeboat, shuttle, safehouse of sorts, core AI that controls this place - something that is most precious for survivors and something that can't be shared between two groups. This time the mission would be about connecting this "EndPlace" to your crystal, instead of towing it along. Same here like above - can't say much more; we're still mostly unaware about the story "layer" of this game and what kind of "EndPlace" would suit the single player story the best. Since those guys supposedly never left Auriga, I guess the "control room" thingy sounds better.

Oh, of course there is one, but huge, weakness - it would be really painful to rework the randomization engine so that it'd create a dungeon equally balanced for both parties.





Finally, love the idea of changing the multiplayer into a "Dungeons (of the Endless) Keeper". There are two ways I see: dungeon building or monster master.

First option would assume that there are randomly generated dungeons that everybody could "accessorize", i.e. pinpoint the locations of monster spawns, goodies, merchants et cetera. Everyone entering multiplayer 'll be given a choice, whether he want to be "a constructor" or "tester" / "beater". The "constructor" would be given randomly generated dungeon and a pool of points to dispose ("x value" option); or, even better, obliged to balance the design, with every trap giving minus points, every boost giving plus points, all with objective to stay on level ("zero value" option). Such designed levels would be uploaded on server for "testers" to... well, test them. If somebody fails, points go for the designer. If one shall beat them - points for him. Consequently, there 'll be two leaderboards, one for each role.

This solution is - I suppose - easier to prepare, but less fun, since it minimize the interactions between players; frankly, changing the multi into as much as interactive challenge mode.

So, there is a second option. This would require revising the rules of game. Instead of being a real time, it should change into quasi turn-based. Each turn would be spent for building / upgrades / heals by the attacker, "the Vaulter", and for setting the defences by the "Monster Master". So, the part of Vaulter is pretty much obvious, nothin much to add, aye? In the meantime the "Master" would spend his turn on a) upgrading his hordes: HP, damage, composition (question is, what would be his resource? maybe make some new one, something like "Rage Points", slowly rising with each monster slew and with bonuses for each module destroyed / hero killed), b) setting the spawn points (out of somehow generated pool, perhaps accordingly to the size of the dungeon / percentage of rooms discovered) and finally c) choosing the location of the "welcoming party" out of the all accessible doors (so, if the "Vaulter" has access to three new rooms, the "Master" chooses one of them to place his trap for this round). When both parties shall end their job, turn ends and game shifts for the real time phase, when the Vaulter...well, do the same as in single player. Open one of those doors and deals with whats behind them.

Thus, the role of "Monster Master" is a mix of tactics - by steering the waves of monsters - and gambling. The biggest challenge would be balancing the pace of the game, so the Vaulter wouldn't have to wait endlessly during the Masters' preparations; and the Master wouldn't get bored as a passive observer during the real time phase. Still, in my humble opinion, this game mode provides most fun, most interesting interactions and solutions unique across all genre. Although it would be hell to programme......

Multiplayer suggestion #1



1 on 1 co-op:

Game plays as normal. One player plays as survivors. Second Player as a response team to the Prison ship crashing. Think the Aliens trilogy marines, coming in all confident and ready to save the day. The Response team is a team of 4. Permadeath is Permadeath, and there is no way for the Response team to hire on new heroes



Their skills/passive abilities add to the total offensive capabilities of the survivors. Cheaper prices for turrets, maybe unique blueprints which only they can build.



Monster waves increase so the response team needs to spread its numbers effectively to meet the main players' defensive needs.



The Response Team Can't/won't:

work modules

open doors

carry crystals (?)



The Response team heroes have psyche's radically different than the survivors'. The faster the party can get out of a dungeon (the less doors opened and time spent exploring), the more skills/bonuses the Response Team gets. Their goal is to extract as quickly as possible. They aren't concerned about discovering the ruins' secrets. The goal for them is to get out as fast as possible.



I think this'd make a good co-op mode with competitive angle--the survivors are trying to reap the resources of exploring the rooms so they can move on to the next area with a strong foundation. The Response team is all about spearheading its way out of the dungeon. Failure to appease the Response Team could lead to:

Response team members sabotaging the survivors (new skills passive/active that shut down production at modules, redirects dust, etc.)



Response team members "baiting" mobs (luring monsters to specific rooms, maybe with a "module" that costs food instead of industry)



Response team members "inciting" negative qualities of survivor characters (playing psychoses of the survivor heroes against one another: the conflict between prisoners, guards, etc.)



The Survivors', can defend and respond to the Response team by:

Pulling power to areas the Response team are defending at vital moments



Mutually Instigated (maybe) Hero v. Hero fights. If the Survivors win, they assert dominance and can negate some of the response teams' negative factors. Losing hero doesn't die, but loses a level. If the Response team wins, the survivors are cowed.





Mulitplayer suggestion #2



1 on 1 Co-op:



Game plays as normal. One player plays as survivors. Second player plays as Natives. I can't think of a movie/pop culture reference to compare these to. But unlike the Response Team, the Natives don't come armed to the teeth, or even with big numbers. Natives are a team of 2. Permadeath is Permadeath, but they can "hire" natives they encounter in the dungeons the same as the survivors



The Natives skills/passive abilities are about resource control. They use module slots and secondary modules (turrets, defense, etc.) the same way the survivors do, but use food to build



Natives modules modify the way mobs respond in the dungeon:

Native Modules are "nests/cages/pens" that produce food=to the amount of creatures killed in that room the turn prior.



The secondary nodes (where turrets go) produce "pheremones" or "favored foods" so that certain creatures are lured to that area first.



The secondary nodes can also produce weaker versions of the mob monsters to defend that particular room.



Natives are helping because they can piggyback off the survivors to farm. They have radically different psyches than the survivors. They don't really care if the survivors make it out--they are using the survivors' struggles as a way to claim territory/farm food. They are more interested in staying on a certain level long enough to gather food for themselves. The Natives psychoses are positively/negatively effected based on the amount of food that carries from one level to the next, and they gain their abilities dependent upon the food they have access to.



Natives won't:

open doors

carry crystals

work industry or science modules



Negative relations with the Natives can lead to:

Natives gaining skills (passive/active) that allow them to instigate mobs (faster moves/harder attacks).



Natives "Taxing" food production (automatically taking food from survivors' bank when they work a module?)



Natives "modules" become hostile to the survivors.



The Survivors can defend against the Natives' negativity by:



Appeasing with offers of food



A hero versus hero fight see Response team rules.



Appealing to individual Natives' psyches (empathy, etc.)



Like the Response team faction, the Natives would create a tension between the two players that requires active and alert decision making. There is also a chance for conflict between the two players if they don't get along with their resource production. They also significantly change up the tactics of gameplay.



3 player games can have Response Teams and Natives at the same time.



Successfully playing a multiplayer game all the way through with a faction should reward the players'in single player as well. Access to faction specific modules or characters for all players involved



Things to consider:



4, 5, and 6 player games?



"bandit" response team and "rescue" response team as two separate "factions" (different psychoses/rationale?)



Synergy between multiplayer factions (would the response teams be more patient if the natives were around, if they could use science to study the natives? And how do the natives respond to being studied?)



Scaling difficult to match the number of additional heroes on the board? (I really like the idea of having more than just the 4 survivors in multiplayer. It allows for a huge hike-up in difficulty/waves. Then factoring in environmental concerns (a fire in one room, a toxic event in another, etc.) and the need to spread all these characters thin over the whole dungeon--it requires intense teamwork and strategizing. And by making the "survivor" character the main decision maker, it requires the players to negotiate and trust each other enough to listen to one another's strategies.)



Sorry for the lengthy post--I get ideas in my head and I'm compelled to explain them.

My initial thought is simply co-op in which each player starts with a hero or two. One person gets guards, the other gets prisoners. Resources are limited and must be divided. Game play can be designed such that prisoner's dilemma type scenarios of sharing vs. hording arise.



For example, shared production could maximize total production for both players while hording production could significantly increase the chances of finding items for the player that makes that choice.





@fepriest I really like the response team idea. However, I'd prefer to see it as them working down from the top to try to meet in the middle. obviously, in this mode, the largest and most difficulat floors would be in the middle rather than the top. The response team does not have a crystal but instead a limited number of flares to work with in the entire game. The exact number would be a balancing issue. They would be unable to build powered defenses and would breach doors rather than powering them. Breaching doors would spawn monster waves. The response team would have significant firepower but would need to strategically deploy flares and mines as they work their way through a floor.



That's about all I've got. I'm hesitant to go into much more detail than my basic concepts because I'm not exactly a game designer. The details would be a matter of play testing, I think.

Anosognos wrote:


@fepriest I really like the response team idea. However, I'd prefer to see it as them working down from the top to try to meet in the middle. obviously, in this mode, the largest and most difficulat floors would be in the middle rather than the top. The response team does not have a crystal but instead a limited number of flares to work with in the entire game. The exact number would be a balancing issue. They would be unable to build powered defenses and would breach doors rather than powering them. Breaching doors would spawn monster waves. The response team would have significant firepower but would need to strategically deploy flares and mines as they work their way through a floor.

ooOOOOOOooooo. I like the idea of them working down to the party, too. I'm not sure how that'd work as far as balance--it would shorten the time of the game since both players would be chipping through the layers from either end--but then it minimizes the interaction of the two players until the very end of the game.

Maybe it could be something where players rotate control of rooms for example, player 1 can build in room 1, then another room opens up and player 2 can build in there, then player 3 in room 3 and 4 in room 4. Then player 1 would get building rights in room 5 and so on. And the total amount of resources gained could get even divided among the players and each player has their own resource pool. And if a player is boosting production on a module then only that player could receive the extra resources.



Or an alternate game mode thats almost like a super dungeon where each player starts with a decent amount of resources and all modules are already built. there is no construction and the goal is just to see how deep the group can get. or maybe they can build defenses but no modules. then all they have to do is decide which rooms to power.



The only possible problem I could foresee is the group deciding which rooms to power.



and I think that opening doors, powering rooms, building things, etc could be like put to a vote and as long as there is a majority vote said action gets completed.



It would also be kinda cool if instead of just 4 character slots there was like a sub-character type thing where in multiplayer you can recruit an ally that travels with your character and gives your character some kind of boost whether it be stat boosts or they also attack creatures.





And for pvp I think it would be cool if a player's/team's exit was where the opposing player's/team's crystal was

fepriest wrote:
ooOOOOOOooooo. I like the idea of them working down to the party, too. I'm not sure how that'd work as far as balance--it would shorten the time of the game since both players would be chipping through the layers from either end--but then it minimizes the interaction of the two players until the very end of the game.

I think the time issue could be easily be mitigated with sliders for number of levels and level size. Come to think of it, I think this should be a basic setting for the game, similar to galaxy settings in 4X games.



Player interaction could be fostered through some additional mechanic. The response team could send their (finite) resources down shafts to give the crash victims a large resource or tech boost. Likewise, the crash victims could spend dust to activate consoles and send the response team intel on enemies, giving them stat buffs.



I'm not saying this is how it should be implemented. I'm just spit-balling. There are probably any number of ways it could be done.

there can be some bug dividing wall that seperates the players, giving them time to prepare, and then after a timer ends the walls could come down and the players fight.

I've been playing the heck out of DotE for the last few days just to brainstorm great concepts for multiplayer... Here is my idea:

Up to four player Co-op, with each player controlling a single hero, each sharing resources (except for food), that way they need to cooperate and determine what defenses to place. The difficulty could also be ramped up a whole lot more based on how many players are actually playing, that way you won't become overpowered with leveling (since you'd only have to level one character). Naturally, say you have two players, they will both start with one hero, but have the option to recruit one more if they find one. as for three player, I think each person will just have to stick with one hero, and whoever finds the fourth hero can recruit them if they wish (so two people will have one, and the person who wants to can have two). So basically, the big part of it would be: the more players, the higher the difficulty level. Each sharing dust and industry, but not sharing food. And if the player's character(s) gets killed, then they have to wait until another player recruits another hero, so they would recieve the newly recruited (and most likely HIGHLY underleveled) hero. It would also be cool if the more players = the bigger the dungeons. Of course, an endless dungeon mode would be pretty awesome too for multiplayer, with the difficulty ramping up the more doors your party opens. This was just my big awesome Co-op idea for the game, and I certainly hope it can help inspire a great Co-op mode!



I am glad to put in my two cents and I cannot wait to see this masterpiece of a game go through development!

I'm also really sorry for the long post, it's just the up-and-coming game developer inside me coming out xD

I can't see competitive being remotely conductive to what the game is about. Co-Op seems to be the way to go in my mind. Simply just running as the game does now, except that you have someone else driving stuff next to you.

You can't control a character that another player is controlling etc.



The doors to trolling are opened, but it's generally something easily avoided after the first. Person X trolls, don't party with Person X again, simple. Party with your friends or risk the PUGs.



I figure it'd be a 2 player co-op only, as 4 players may very well end in too many "waiting around doing nothing" sessions.

Although a variant of that could be that in the lobby the host gets to choose the starting players, and you have a character for each player (with the initial difficulty scaling to suit the number), then if someone dies they just have to sit and wait and hope that the rest of the team survive to find another party member. In the mean time they could still be useful for advice, map checking or even just planting modules.



And there's always options for non-active players to be able to do unique multiplayer things, like "scan" a dark room and see if there are any monsters currently in it etc.



Loads to do cooperatively, but competitive just doesn't seem to fit the theme of the game in my eyes. The idea is about people struggling to survive and escape against the monsters and working together against all odds, not fighting it out amongst themselves and giving an early dinner to the monsters.