Multiplayer: How could 2 player co-op work?

[DogFoodEaterPs4]

A friend and I have talked about this a little bit and I thought I would share some thoughts, perhaps and hopefully you can add to it.

The thought of playing TLD with a friend excites the imagination, but how can you work in a world of passing time, harvesting, cooking etc when time is warped? How do you and another player sync back up.

- Passing time / Sleeping requests. "Player one is requesting to sleep for 8 hours". Just this one little thing would take teamwork and strategy. If I am at 15% and need to put in 12 hours sleeping but my friend decided to stay in doors and make muffins all day and is not tired... we have a problem. A great fun problem.

- Harvesting Animals - One solution would be to take out the time warp and just dumb down the realism a bit. Harvesting an animal is real time but only about the time it takes to start a fire, or double that time, or triple... whatever. This could also apply to boiling water, fishing etc.

I'm sure that there are plenty more challenges that would face TLD becoming 2 player co-op. These things mentioned above are easy to talk about but I'm sure would be monumental to develop. But just imagine.

Good luck out there.

[Wade]

Hinterland could join you at the hip.  If you get annoyed with your friend for constantly complaining about "needing first aid soon", you can use your friend as a wolf decoy.  Surely the wolf will get full from eating your friend first right?

[DogFoodEaterPs4]

46 minutes ago, Wade said:

Hinterland could join you at the hip.  If you get annoyed with your friend for constantly complaining about "needing first aid soon", you can use your friend as a wolf decoy.  Surely the wolf will get full from eating your friend first right?

My friend and I often joke about those scenarios. One is the nester, cooking and crafting the other scavenging and being hunted. I'm getting chased by a bear *message pops up* player two is requesting to rest. 

[Wade]

Let me start by saying that I know some people hate the idea of multiplayer.  I am not trying to degrade your idea at all even though I personally think there are tons of other things I would love to see before Hinterland dives into that project.  That said, can you explain to me what the draw of multiplayer is in the games current form?  What is it about having your friend in game that would make it funner for you?  Are you competing for resources against one another, or are you trying to co-op somehow?  I guess I just don't understand the draw of having someone else in the game in its current form.

[Maquard]

I dislike the idea of Coop in TLD. 

The Point is you are in the hell of mother nature and... only the fittest will survive. 

Thats the nature of all life, and the romantic thinkibg to help out eatch other is only existing in our human thinking.

 

beside the other complex problems like time warp. 

[Mroz4k]

I dislike people that dislike the idea of co-op and only use the argument "you are supposed to be alone because that is what TLD is about" especially since we all well know that the story has NPCs, and sandbox will have NPCs eventually as well. Not to mention - if someone wants to play on their own, they can play on their own just fine. That does not mean that co-op should not be a thing.

Now, if you have a legitimate fact as to why Co-op should not be made then feel free to say so because opinion like that will add something of value to the discussion.

It is absolutely moronic to think that survival is a loner´s job - in fact, stories that number in thousands show how having a partner when tackling on a survival situation makes it infinitely easier. It is not romantic to think that helping each other out is only part of our modern, civilized way of looking at things - teamwork has been an intergral part of survival long before we humans developed into homo sapiens sapiens. Even our ape predecessors have been hunting and living together. That is what it means to be a "social animal", same as, for example, wolves.

The only actual fact I see why not to add Co-op into the TLD is because it would take ages to implement, and the other aspects of the game like Story mode or normal sandbox would have be stopped for that duration. It might actually be easier to code the entire game from scratch again because I believe the game was intended to be single-player and the code is likely working that way. So, I doubt it is realizable. But that is only my speculation - I would like to see eventually TLD co-op mode, even if it was a buyable DLC for the game. But I don't have my hopes high.

As for how to handle the situation with time advancement - there are certainly ways to solve this. This is very often discussed topic, OP, you should have looked around and instead of starting new topic on this idea, you should have continued one of the hundreds that already exist.

In my opinion, the easiest way to handle the time advancement is this.

Your way would likely not work very well, OP, because if the person had to wait for someone else to, let's say, spend minutes in front of the screen just processing animals, it would turn into an argument in between players fast. I don't think Hinterland want to add mechanics in that will ignite arguments. The safer solution would be to make most of those activities "unison" for both players.

[DogFoodEaterPs4]

4 minutes ago, Mroz4k said:

I dislike people that dislike the idea of co-op and only use the argument "you are supposed to be alone because that is what TLD is about" especially since we all well know that the story has NPCs, and sandbox will have NPCs eventually as well. Not to mention - if someone wants to play on their own, they can play on their own just fine. That does not mean that co-op should not be a thing.

Now, if you have a legitimate fact as to why Co-op should not be made then feel free to say so because opinion like that will add something of value to the discussion.

It is absolutely moronic to think that survival is a loner´s job - in fact, stories that number in thousands show how having a partner when tackling on a survival situation makes it infinitely easier. It is not romantic to think that helping each other out is only part of our modern, civilized way of looking at things - teamwork has been an intergral part of survival long before we humans developed into homo sapiens sapiens. Even our ape predecessors have been hunting and living together. That is what it means to be a "social animal", same as, for example, wolves.

The only actual fact I see why not to add Co-op into the TLD is because it would take ages to implement, and the other aspects of the game like Story mode or normal sandbox would have be stopped for that duration. It might actually be easier to code the entire game from scratch again because I believe the game was intended to be single-player and the code is likely working that way. So, I doubt it is realizable. But that is only my speculation - I would like to see eventually TLD co-op mode, even if it was a buyable DLC for the game. But I don't have my hopes high.

As for how to handle the situation with time advancement - there are certainly ways to solve this. This is very often discussed topic, OP, you should have looked around and instead of starting new topic on this idea, you should have continued one of the hundreds that already exist.

In my opinion, the easiest way to handle the time advancement is this.

Your way would likely not work very well, OP, because if the person had to wait for someone else to, let's say, spend minutes in front of the screen just processing animals, it would turn into an argument in between players fast. I don't think Hinterland want to add mechanics in that will ignite arguments. The safer solution would be to make most of those activities "unison" for both players.

You sound like you're having a bad day. If you want people to listen to you maybe tone down the condescending remarks. IMHO.

[Mroz4k]

Just now, DogFoodEaterPs4 said:

You sound like you're having a bad day. If you want people to listen to you maybe tone down the condescending remarks. IMHO.

I am not having a bad day, you should not assume things. Besides, how is that relevant to the topic?

If you have something to discuss on topic, I am happy to. If you are going to give me advice on behaviour, please leave them to yourself, or at the very least, use private messages to send them instead. I appreciate the thought but really, it is not necessary.

I understand the rules, and if this gets me into trouble, that is my fault. But honestly, it would show a thing is very wrong with these forums - that praising someone is more important than having a reasonable discussion.

So, anything to contribute that would be on topic?

I have no issue with OP. I have an issue with the opinion that this has to stay single player game because "the idea is to be the last human alive in the wast wilderness" when it was stated numerous times that the player will occasionally come across other survivors, in the form of NPCs. Meaning that argument is false. I dislike people for pushing through that argument as a fact when it was clearly disproven, but I have no issue with the people who do it, just a conflicting opinions. I thought I had a right to have my own opinion, same as them.

[DogFoodEaterPs4]

No worries, it was just a few comments that sounded like you were frustrated. i.e. "I dislike people that dislike the idea of co-op", "It is absolutely moronic to think that survival is a loner´s job", "you should have looked around and instead of starting new topic on this idea".

If you got in trouble for just saying those things I would stand with you to boycott the forum.

Anyways I hope you have a good day, and remember that this topic supports your wants. Why you are suggesting that I should of added onto another topic is confusing. I want co-op and getting a bit more attention is a good thing. I think the topic is off the rails now so I think this was probably useless.

[KinoUnko]

Keep the gloves on guys and gals. Wouldn't want this one to get locked like the previous thread.

[DogFoodEaterPs4]

3 minutes ago, KinoUnko said:

Keep the gloves on guys and gals. Wouldn't want this one to get locked like the previous thread.

Agreed! ONWARDS!

[Mroz4k]

I should learn to moderate my big bad mouth, that is true. Still, I despise having to pretend to be someone who I am not. I can appreciate people calling my opinion a pile of crap if they add a reasonable explanation behind it. I am a pretty stubborn person but I can admit when I am wrong. And even if I am not, as long as people use something reasonable for their argument, even if it is bad logic, it is infinitely more useful for conversation then arguments like "I like it" or illogical, even dogmatical arguments which were already disproven. Hence the typical argument "the game is meant to give the feeling of "I am alone" - when the NPCs alone disprove that.

One has to be careful around these forums in what they say - I formulated my sentence that it said something along the lines of " I don't mean anything personal by this, and you have right to have your own opinion, but this argument is the biggest pile of crap I have seen on this subject" and this particular quote got me temp banned for being disrespectful. Even though I actually harbour a lot of respect for the person who made that comment. And I stressed it out that I don't mean anything personal by this. 

Wish people distinguished more between "personal insults" and simply sharp tongue, and conflicting opinions. It is not even that fine of a line in between those two - you can usually tell pretty easily if the person is just butthurt, or if they simply are argumenting an opinion. Perhaps that was going too far back then, but I am sure verbal warning would have sufficed to solve the solution, perhaps even better then the temp ban did. I admit I still feel very salted, thinking about it.

All I said I meant in a good faith, so I apologize for my big mouth. Now, where were we on this topic?

 

[Mroz4k]

This here, is more-less where I stand:

On 8/26/2017 at 8:19 PM, Mroz4k said:

First aid, crafting, sleeping, repairs and difficult harvesting (carcasses, furniture) would need to be done "together", I imagine one player selects it, the other one comes to them and clicks on them as well. Time and calorie penalties would be halved, to emulate the fact that two hands are working on it, and it would be "less tiring" work in general.

 

On 8/26/2017 at 8:19 PM, Mroz4k said:

Harvesting plants, eating, sharpening, gun maintenance, drinking and looting/prying open things would simply be "instant" (no time advancing) with just the normal pause you have in your inventory, they would not advance the "world clock".

 

On 8/26/2017 at 8:19 PM, Mroz4k said:

I think that as soon as either of the survivors dies, the game would end as a "failure". 
Climbing would have to be done one-by-one.

 

As for "saves" - I thought about it, the one I said would not be very good system. The way saving would work is simply every 5 minutes, game would save all the progress. This, however, presents an issue with saving as right now, the saves are only done on transitions and transition saves would not be possible for two people, playing at the same time.

[KinoUnko]

Regarding NPCs in Sandbox, it all probability, NPCs will fall into one of two categories, Methuselah or Jeremiah/Grey Mother types. Jeremiah/GM type encounters could be extended, similar to story mode, or brief. You might run into another survivor who requests some resource from you, you have option to provide or deny the said resource, or kill (unlikely) the other person and take whatever they have. Once the encounter condition is fulfilled the NPC is despawned once player is out of range. In other words you either sit and listen to Methuselah run his jaw for hours on end without any concern for your well being, or you are saddled with the task of finding enough food and fuel to keep multiple people alive for varied periods of time. Neither type will be of any active help, their presence more likely exaggerates the feeling of being alone than mitigate it. Sure they might slip you a whetstone or piece of maple once in a while, but functionally that's no so different than beach combing. Beach combing would be more cost effective even.

2 player Co-Op mode is a viable all things considered, though it would only appeal to a very limited set of players. Random Co-Op play on the internet isn't a big thing for the simple fact that it's very hard to build trust and cooperation between strangers in a short period of time. Games that do leverage it (Left4Dead) rely on "Enemy of my enemy" mentality than communal cooperation mentality necessary for long term survival. Still it could offer some interesting MP possibilities, something like The Grey, or Whiteout challenge on steroids. Another scenario interesting to me is PvP without any adjustments to current solo game parameters, except all time advancement mechanisms removed, with overall game/real time ratio increased to compensate. Essentially the survivors from the crashed prison transport in Episode 1 set loose in the world. Games would likely be short and brutal, but still in a darker "spirit" of TLD. Though I doubt it's a direction Hinterland would consider.

[Riotintheair]

I think to really make multi-player coop to work it'd have to become more of a base building game (sort of like Life is Feudal from what I've seen of it).

In any case the time dilation when doing long actions (like cooking, cutting wood, sleeping, etc.) would need to be sorted out and that seems like it'd require a pretty important change to how the game functions as its core. I wouldn't really be opposed to multi-player for a game like TLD (and I think it could be really fun to explore this world with a friend), but I also don't think the platform as it currently is designed is well suited for a multi-player experience that would be fun to play and I think a lot of adjustments to the core mechanics would be needed to make it fun in multiplayer.

However this did spark a random idea for a competitive TLD party game - multiplayer where one person plays as a character and the others play as re-spawning wolves on the same map... that would be an awesome bit of fun I think. Not really TLD, but the idea of hunting with a pack of wolf-friends as we tried to corner and kill our human-friend sounds like a fun multiplayer party game (I can't really imagine it as a long term survival game the way TLD is, unless it turned into Wolf-Simulator and there were other wolf things you could do).

[DogFoodEaterPs4]

2 hours ago, Mroz4k said:

This here, is more-less where I stand:

As for "saves" - I thought about it, the one I said would not be very good system. The way saving would work is simply every 5 minutes, game would save all the progress. This, however, presents an issue with saving as right now, the saves are only done on transitions and transition saves would not be possible for two people, playing at the same time.

Love it!

[Mroz4k]

29 minutes ago, Riotintheair said:

I think to really make multi-player coop to work it'd have to become more of a base building game (sort of like Life is Feudal from what I've seen of it).

I see people constantly saying this and I really, really don't understand why. Why would it be necessary to butcher the game into a base-building simulator crap? Why does everyone think it is necessary for survival game to become unrealistic in order to be playable as multiplayer...

This is wrong, it would not have to change at all.

I think I know why - because people ONLY know this type of games as multiplayer. And hence everyone always immediately assumes this is how it needs to be in order for the game to be playable. This type of tunnel vision is wrong, and it hinders creative thinking. Just because there are tons of other, different survival multiplayer games that work in this way and are successful, it does not have to be this way. It is entirely possible to play a multiplayer game of TLD design - one that is more about survival and the bare necessities, rather than about building bases and going on raids and PvP.

TLD kind of game is entirely possible to be done in a multiplayer sense of a word. The closest game I can think of in this manner is the Don't Starve together. And that is not even close.

33 minutes ago, Riotintheair said:

However this did spark a random idea for a competitive TLD party game - multiplayer where one person plays as a character and the others play as re-spawning wolves on the same map...

This does sound like it would be a lot of fun, but I imagine it would have to be a different game altogether. Unless it was a different mode that comes under a normal Co-Op mode, that is. It would also be quite the undertaking to make this possible as a "more populated multiplayer.

Somehow this feels to me like PUBG zombie mod, in a sense. Not close enough but a somewhat similar idea. If we exclude the wolf mechanics, at least the time dilatation, in this case, would be solved - the player decides the time movement entirely, the wolves just happen to be paused every time the player does something that advances the time.

This honestly feels like it would be a good idea for potential mod, once the game receives mod support.

[Riotintheair]

I don't really like any base building games, so I can't really tell you why other people like them, but they do. I think the main reason people think this is the way to go has less to do with experience, but because a long term multiplayer game needs something that only can be accomplished through cooperation. TLD as it stands has nothing like this, being a single player game, and after a few days exploring together I'm not really sure the game has anything to offer as a multi-player experience beyond the joy of joint exploration which will wear thin after a while - especially as the pressure from a resource standpoint drives two players to separate and spread out their foot print (since they can't do anything cooperatively to boost resource availability and the resource pool in this game is broad rather than deep). Base building is a place where it inherently makes sense that a communal effort can accomplish something that a lone player would never be able to do, and overcomes the imperative to spread out that the game's shallow resource pool inspires. I don't really think the game as it is would make a very good multi-player experience for more than a tiny handful of people, you might be one of those people, but as much as I like the game and don't want it to become a base building endeavor I don't think how it is would be fun in multi-player for me beyond sharing some early exploration with a friend who I'll invariably murder as we fight for the bedroll over Scruffy's carcass.

[KinoUnko]

10 hours ago, Mroz4k said:

I see people constantly saying this and I really, really don't understand why. Why would it be necessary to butcher the game into a base-building simulator crap? Why does everyone think it is necessary for survival game to become unrealistic in order to be playable as multiplayer...

This is wrong, it would not have to change at all.

You can't seriously think that chopping tree limbs only for burning and harvesting deers only for meat, pants/shoes will keep multiple players entertained for any serious amount of time. An evening perhaps... but a week? a month?? What do you have in mind after every player has a bear skin coat and sleeping roll, deer skin pants and shoes, shaving sharp hatchets and knives? It doesn't take long for single player to get to that point, ~30 game days even on Interloper. It'll take less time for multiple players. Even if the game is rebalanced so it takes same or longer time... say 100 game days. Do you imagine players would be content to wait months in game for enough bears to spawn so everyone gets their own sleeping roll? What will the players do after that? Group rabbit snaring trips? Beach Combing party? Start a new game and do the same thing over again for 100 more game days?

For any real multiplayer beyond 2x Co-Op, crafting will have to be expanded and deepened quite a bit, and some form of base building will have to be incorporated, either in heavily modifying existing structures or building new ones from scratch. You've more or less poo pooed both. Another option is collective hunting, essentially "raids". You don't seem down with that either. What alternatives do you conceive?

[Wade]

5 hours ago, KinoUnko said:

You can't seriously think that chopping tree limbs only for burning and harvesting deers only for meat, pants/shoes will keep multiple players entertained for any serious amount of time.

I would have to agree with that statement.  As I asked about previously; what is the draw of multiplayer in the games current form?  Maybe I would understand better if someone who wants co-op could explain to me what they would be doing in game.  Are you competing with your friend for resources, or are you trying to co-op somehow?  I am not for or against co-op because as it was previously stated, it can also be played in single player mode.  I am simply trying to understand what about co-op mode excites people in the games current form.

[AlexandraRussia]

Hello, as for me Multiplayer is not needed, why ?, well, because because of this the game will lose its feature, it will be similar to other games, but I honestly do not want it.  I think that the game is special and without the multiplayer, it's better for more updates, and then the game will get even better.  Well, as for me.

[Mroz4k]

2 hours ago, AlexandraRussia said:

well, because because of this the game will lose its feature,

What feature?

2 hours ago, AlexandraRussia said:

t will be similar to other games, but I honestly do not want it.

That makes no sense. The game can stay in its current "theme" and be multiplayer as well, which means it will have nothing in common with the other survival games that are out there. I don't want to see bullshit like base building appear in the TLD either. Just because they would make multiplayer, it does not mean they would necessarily change the aim of the game.

This is fallacious reasoning. 

2 hours ago, AlexandraRussia said:

I think that the game is special and without the multiplayer, it's better for more updates, and then the game will get even better.

This can be said about every single suggestion. For example, if they stopped focusing on Story, it would improve sandbox drastically because they would only focus on Sandbox.

I see no actual reason not to add multiplayer on your part except that you don't want it personally. That is fine, it's your opinion.

10 hours ago, Wade said:

As I asked about previously; what is the draw of multiplayer in the games current form? 

So, basically, you are asking, "why is it fun to play with a friend" - it should be obvious to everyone who has ever played and enjoyed a game with their friend. By playing along with someone, most aspects of the game just become more enjoyable. 

I talked about this for a bit in this long post, but I simply pointed out the obvious stuff. That alone should be enough, though. Naturally, the only way to actually do it a multiplayer in TLD it would have to be Co-op, and I think dual Co-op at most.

16 hours ago, KinoUnko said:

-snip-

 

Umm, what? So lack of content is the reasoning why the base building would be necessary? What messed up logic is that?

By that logic alone, the base building should appear in single player as well, to add the player something to do in the end game, correct?

This is ridiculous - first of all, you assume that two people playing together would basically be playing two single-players, separately, with the exception of some mechanics. Like mindless drones, doing their tasks. That is dumb. In fact, with two people in here, even the most repetitive game mechanics would be bearable because you would have someone else to talk to, joke and mess around with. So, I don't think they would become repetitive, at least not that fast. You are completely missing the social aspect of the game - competing in hunting with your partner, messing around like hiding his/her storm lantern under the bed, that sort of thing.

Yes, TLD gets boring and repetitive. But if you can make every day different, this is not the case anymore. That is why you play with someone else. 

BESIDES

Why add base building when you could add more game content into the game that has nothing to do with such ridiculous mechanics? Better cooking, better FA system, new ways to collect fuel resources and giving them other functions, new plants and animals, new crafting recipes, trapping, homesteading, random encounter events, natural disasters, etc. 

There is a TON of possibilities for new content for TLD that would benefit both single player and multiplayer, and there is NO need to add the bullshit base building or other mechanics which would turn it into Rust kind of game instead. TLD can stay TLD, whether it would be Singleplayer or multiplayer.

The thing is, with mod support, there will be a ton of new content eventually - so, multi-player would make even more sense then.

[KinoUnko]

Given the current mechanics, 2 players can squeeze enough playing time to have comparable experience to the current single player with some rebalancing. And with some additions, 2 player Co-Op can be much more than single player. We agree on this. Technical and Logistic aspects would be challenging for sure, but not insurmountable, we can agree on that as well. But in order for Co-Op to have greater appeal, beyond the few that want it no matter what, it has to provide some experience that's beyond what can be had in single player. So we should really talk about specifics yea?

Quote

That is dumb. In fact, with two people in here, even the most repetitive game mechanics would be bearable because you would have someone else to talk to, joke and mess around with. So, I don't think they would become repetitive, at least not that fast. 

I'm referring to that entire paragraph. What you are saying is essentially is same as what everyone else has been saying: the game will get boring and repetitive because of the limited set of tasks available, because everything there is to do in the game are all doable, and designed to be done, by one person. But you think just because you can crack a joke with another person in VoIP or over your shoulder at a LAN party, or hide their lantern, that somehow chopping wood or harvesting meat for the hundredth time will be as fun as the first time, or fun enough to keep playing the game. I think most people would disagree, any game designer worth their paycheck would probably disagree. I think quite the opposite, if there was the need for irrelevant jokes and messing around outside of the Co-Op game experience, in other words do things that people would do whether they are playing the game or not, the game is not interesting enough to be worth playing.

Quote

Why add base building when you could add more game content into the game that has nothing to do with such ridiculous mechanics? Better cooking, better FA system, new ways to collect fuel resources and giving them other functions, new plants and animals, new crafting recipes, trapping, homesteading, random encounter events, natural disasters, etc. 

These are all great things, however, none of these provide experience that is unique to Co-Op. The point of Co-Op, is so players can have experiences not typically available in single player. Better cooking...such as what? Cooking together? In my experience that generally makes cooking take longer and more frustrating. More cooking methods such as steaming? sautee? deep fry? "FA system" What is this? Please tell me. "new ways to collect fuel and giving them other functions", such as what? Gasoline for... burning? making torches? stripping paint from abandoned cars that don't run? New tree limb to chop into logs... burn? Jenga? Build... no can't do that because that's base building BS. "New plants and animals" to collect and eat, and what else, straw raincoat? fur hats? thatch roofs... you are cool with those, so am I. High five. "new crafting" as in... new long johns? socks? cowboy hats? Furniture? IIRC you weren't keen on that. More shelt...no wait that's base building. "trapping"... rabbits, got that already; foxes, sure; bears? moose? "homesteading"? that sounds awful lot like base building mate. I'm pretty sure that's what people do when they homestead, build a base, and farm, raise livestock, raise children, you know... settle down, not wander around looking for cans of dog food or animal carcass. why are you suggesting this crazy base building stuff? "random encounter events" like wolves and bears when you come round a bend? NPCs? Natural disasters? like what? Earth Quakes? Forest Fires? Meteor Impact? Tsunami? More Flares? Destroy stuff that's already abandoned or destroyed?

Let me be facetious for a moment and suggest random encounter with a traveling Minister or Public Notary, allows players to marry in game. When married, the players will be forced to do everything together, chop wood, harvest meat, sewing socks, sleeping etc. No voting, whoever initiates the action will cause the other to perform the same action regardless of the other's location. All the time advancement mechanics to be in full effect. All consequences of the action appropriate to location applies. Then a traveling Attorney, when encountered, allows players to divorce. Perhaps this is the kind of Co-Op experience you envision?

On a serious note, Chessboard suggestion from the other crafting thread is quite a good idea, a Chess minigame in TLD Co-Op.

The point I'm trying to make is this... You keep saying Co-Op can be great, yet nothing you suggested so far provides experiences unique to Co-Op, and you take every opportunity putting down mechanics that have proven to provide popular multiplayer and Co-Op experience since... oh lemme see... at least Ultima Online, namely base building and raids. What do you suggest that would provide substantial, and fun, Co-Op experience, beyond chopping wood, harvesting and roasting meat, and making pants and shoes?

For 2x Co-Op, some additions to crafting would be nice... a larger snow shelter, enough for 2, using harvested logs in addition to twigs and cloth. and can be broken down for return on some resources. Another useful addition could be a primitive sled, holds up to 40 kilos of stuff, but only move able when both players are pulling/pushing. A way to move deer carcass to a safer location for harvesting.

Animal respawn frequency probably need to be increased a little bit. or the number of animals each spawn. Wolves and Bears population would stay the same.

Some sort of temporary low wall strugture made out of logs could be useful in Co-Op hunting, build a funnel, one player goad the deers toward the funnel while the other wait with bow and arrow or rifle at the ready. 

Why don't you bring some insights from Don't Starve Together and see what TLD Co-Op can learn from their design?

[Hackfleisch]

8 hours ago, Mroz4k said:

So, basically, you are asking, "why is it fun to play with a friend" - it should be obvious to everyone who has ever played and enjoyed a game with their friend. By playing along with someone, most aspects of the game just become more enjoyable. 

It's not obvious at all why a game based on isolation and lone survival should be better with multiplayer.  Multiplayer in The Long Dark just seems out of place. And I don't agree multiplayer makes games more fun by definition.

Also, off-topic, this forum has the most infuriating quoting on phones, and the worst part is once you botched a post it remembers it so you have to switch to a different device to even reply to a topic.

[private duksworth]

i agree that the long dark should be single player

the game entitles that you only have yourself to rely on and only you and you alone will survive. having a second player in the game will ruin this feeling on needing to relie on yourself and that every mistake you make may be your last. yes i am ok with the  idea of it i just think that having multiplayer might break this game and i don't want this to happen as this game is very dear to me. any way if it become multiplayer the devs will have to rework many activities like wood chopping and harvesting which could pose a lot of problems with glitches and bugs. i think its better to think not what if or it should but just accept what the long dark is now and the hard work that the devs have put in this great game and be thankful that this game has not turned into a complete and utter mess. 

thanks for reading my idea on multiplayer