Wasteland 3 - On Multiplayer

Silver

Spaceman
Staff Member
Joined
February 13, 2014
Messages
9,312
Location
New Zealand
The latest update for Wasteland 3 explains Multiplayer.

Hey Rangers,

Chris here. You might remember me from Wasteland 2, where I served as game director, and I am continuing that role on to Wasteland 3. As you may have picked up from our initial pitch, Wasteland 3 will have synchronous and asynchronous multiplayer. We've talked about this in the campaign and in interviews, but I'd like to go a little deeper here and lay out some of our high-level design.

We want Wasteland 3's multiplayer to be a natural extension of the single-player campaign. It will tell the same story and offer the same locations and missions. And as is our hallmark for inXile as a studio and Wasteland as a franchise, we want deep and meaningful reactivity throughout the experience. Multiplayer will add another aspect of reactivity based on the interaction between two players.

In Wasteland 3, you can start a multiplayer-specific campaign with a friend. The campaign will then be tied to both of you. Once started, you won't be able to "replace" your friend with another, but if either of you can't continue playing for any reason, it will be possible to "spin off" a single-player campaign from your multiplayer world state.

Both players run separate Ranger squads, sharing from the pool of available companion NPCs to build your teams. You can't both have the same companions, but you can move a companion from one squad to another. The two squads can travel together, but you can also split up and explore the world separately.


The ability to split up is a choice, and it has important consequences. In Wasteland 3, we will support asynchronous multiplayer. This means that if your friend goes offline, you'll still be able to continue playing, and the actions you take will be reflected in the world when your friend logs back in.

What will that mean in practice? Let's go over a scenario to illustrate.

For example: You made a deal with a criminal gang of smugglers, turning a blind eye and helping keep their trade routes clear from danger for a cut of their profits. In single-player, this would mean that you receive a payment from time to time at your Ranger Base for keeping the deal going. However, should you then choose to intercept the smugglers' courier and perform a little "civil forfeiture" for the good of the Rangers, some of the smugglers' operatives might show up at Ranger HQ's doorstep demanding an explanation.

In multiplayer, that same scenario would play out in a similar manner. However, because both you and your friend are playing independently, it would be possible for one player's party to make the deal with the smugglers, not tell the other player, and thus that player would receive compensation in return. Meanwhile, the second player might independently choose to attack the smugglers for the good of the people of Colorado, not knowing of the prior deal, and that would lead to a similar consequence where the smugglers end up at Ranger HQ asking hard questions.

How to resolve the situation, of course, would have its own reactivity and options open in solo play or multiplayer - you could stand by the decision and risk upsetting the smugglers, make reparations and risk making the Rangers look weak, choose to wipe out the smugglers at their base of operations, and so on.

You might notice we mentioned the Ranger Base a few times, and indeed, it will also be a core location in multiplayer, one that you and your friend will run together. Its resources and recruits are pooled together and available to both players. We plan to touch on the Ranger Base and how we're envisioning it more in future updates, so keep an eye out.

You might be thinking "this sounds fun, but how are they going to tell a coherent story this way, or stop my friend from completely ruining my game?!" While most of the game can be played either separately or together, during key narrative moments and missions, we'll require both players to be online together. This means that while you will be able to play most of the game together or separately, for those critical story moments, or when major story decisions need to be made, both players will need to be present. This'll happen infrequently, only at core moments in the game, and you'll be able to play many hours of main story and side missions before you need your buddy to progress. In single-player, you won't need a friend playing with you to experience those same moments, but of course, you will need to live with the decisions you make and their consequences.
More information.
 
Joined
Feb 13, 2014
Messages
9,312
Location
New Zealand
I have no issues with multiplayer done this way at all...and am a backer of Wasteland 3...and am not interested at all in the multiplayer. I will play the game as single player only. But I don't think this will ruin the game...just wanted to get that in before all the doom and gloomers who say this means Wasteland 3 is a MMO, or will be an awful game, because it dares to have a multiplayer component, etc. etc. :rolleyes:
 
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
2,244
Location
Pacific NorthWest, USA!
I'm thrilled that this game will have multi-player. The PC needs more couch co-op RPGs.
 
Fargo you old devil
 
Joined
Mar 9, 2015
Messages
2,714
I have no issues with multiplayer done this way at all…and am a backer of Wasteland 3…and am not interested at all in the multiplayer. I will play the game as single player only. But I don't think this will ruin the game…just wanted to get that in before all the doom and gloomers who say this means Wasteland 3 is a MMO, or will be an awful game, because it dares to have a multiplayer component, etc. etc. :rolleyes:

It might ruin the game if they run into problems that they cannot fix easily and spend months of dev time and money on that shit instead of making the overall game better.
 
Joined
Oct 3, 2014
Messages
3,819
Or they could run into a problem with the single player that isnt easily fixed and spend months of dev time on that shit instead of the multiplayer.;)

Seriously though I'm not a big fan of multiplayer player in TB games ( is it still turn based?). I like playing turn based games solo they're slow, cerebral and relaxing. I like taking my time, plan out my attacks, etc. but in multiplayer such as DOS it's slows to a crawl, takes some of the planning away from me and ended up getting a bit boring.

I like the idea of this kind of co-op/MP and think it would be amazing in Action rpg's especially a game like skyrim.
 
Or they could run into a problem with the single player that isnt easily fixed and spend months of dev time on that shit instead of the multiplayer.;)

Seriously though I'm not a big fan of multiplayer player in TB games ( is it still turn based?). I like playing turn based games solo they're slow, cerebral and relaxing. I like taking my time, plan out my attacks, etc. but in multiplayer such as DOS it's slows to a crawl, takes some of the planning away from me and ended up getting a bit boring.

I like the idea of this kind of co-op/MP and think it would be amazing in Action rpg's especially a game like skyrim.
Yea that is also a problem because since they promised MP they will then need to spend additional time on MP and we all will get that game later or something else will be sacrificed to fit MP afterall (like some polish time that was planned at end of it all).
Anyways, MP is not a good news for a SP focused game.
 
Joined
Oct 3, 2014
Messages
3,819
Strange to watch a hyped game W2 and boycotting it then its sequel coming to fundraising and boycotting that as well, unless devs deliver a completely overhauled Combat-GUI.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2013
Messages
3,453
Grouping/degrouping is a good way to tackle that players do not play for the same reason/interest. It pulls down the bar for teamwork (which might require drilling in order to be effective) and let players focus on their interests.

Drox operative is a good example: players can follow their own path and when grouping is felt necessary, you set a point of rendez vous and the task is tackled together.

Grouping/degrouping is made on the core gameplay, there is no discontinuity. Players join/leave without disturbing the general flow.

WL3 looks different: they push the article for the story side. It might enrich it. How will it work for combat though? In the depicted case, if one player calls for help to solve the HQ battle, how will it work? Will the other player be given time to join the scene or what? How does a player join an ongoing "ugoigo" battle?

Group/degrouping does not flow.
 
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
6,265
Yea that is also a problem because since they promised MP they will then need to spend additional time on MP and we all will get that game later or something else will be sacrificed to fit MP afterall (like some polish time that was planned at end of it all).
Anyways, MP is not a good news for a SP focused game.

Today being International Skeptics Day, I'm not so sure. Presumably they are putting it in to increase sales (and enjoyment).

Or are they?
 
Joined
Mar 22, 2012
Messages
5,521
Location
Seattle
Seriously though I'm not a big fan of multiplayer player in TB games ( is it still turn based?). I like playing turn based games solo they're slow, cerebral and relaxing. I like taking my time, plan out my attacks, etc. but in multiplayer such as DOS it's slows to a crawl, takes some of the planning away from me and ended up getting a bit boring.

I like the idea of this kind of co-op/MP and think it would be amazing in Action rpg's especially a game like skyrim.

There are plenty of action RPGs with couch co-op over the years (mostly on consoles). The PC needs more couch co-op RPGs with dual controller support and definitely more of them that are turn-based. There are like, less than 5 couch co-op RPGs for PC out there and D:OS is really the only good turn-based one.

I have patience to play with another player if I enjoy their company so slowing down the game a bit more doesn't really matter much to me. D:OS in co-op for 140 hours was anything but boring for me. I still wanted more!
 
I don't want to be a Doomsayer (though honestly, that sounds cool), but judging by the state WL2 was released in, I don't have a ton of confidence they can pull this off.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,470
Location
USA
There are like, less than 5 couch co-op RPGs for PC out there and D:OS is really the only good turn-based one.
Which 5 games are these? Seriously, I'm a big fan of couch co-op - it's why I have a PS3, but I'd prefer to have more for PC.

If you're talking fully fledged RPGs, then I can only think of one right now: DS:O. Perhaps also Tales of Zestiria, which is co-op in battles only.

If you're widening your scope to include action RPGs, then at last count I own about 12, and have a list of at least 7 others that I don't own. Examples: Magicka series, Victor Vran, R.A.W., Dungeon Siege 3, several indie roguelikes...

(Hmmm, this deserves a thread of its own)
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,245
Location
New Zealand
Which 5 games are these? Seriously, I'm a big fan of couch co-op - it's why I have a PS3, but I'd prefer to have more for PC.

If you're talking fully fledged RPGs, then I can only think of one right now: DS:O. Perhaps also Tales of Zestiria, which is co-op in battles only.

If you're widening your scope to include action RPGs, then at last count I own about 12, and have a list of at least 7 others that I don't own. Examples: Magicka series, Victor Vran, R.A.W., Dungeon Siege 3, several indie roguelikes…

(Hmmm, this deserves a thread of its own)

5 was just a quick estimate. I remember looking through a long list of RPGs on Steam and only finding a few that had the single-screen "couch co-op" with dual controller support. D:OS is obviously the big one, and yes I have seen the others you listed and I was counting those. The only few that I've been interested in are R.A.W., Dungeon Siege 3 and maybe Victor Vran. Daggerdale has it as well but I've played that on console already (and think it's pretty fun, although that's another topic).

Really hoping that D:OS starts a new trend of co-op oriented "traditional" PC RPGs. Wasteland 3 having it is a great move. I also want to see more RPGs that are actually co-op in the sense that it's less like a simple multiplayer and more specifically built on co-op principles like D:OS (each player making choices in conversations, for example). I think that's a good look for future co-op RPGs.
 
There are plenty of action RPGs with couch co-op over the years (mostly on consoles). The PC needs more couch co-op RPGs with dual controller support and definitely more of them that are turn-based. There are like, less than 5 couch co-op RPGs for PC out there and D:OS is really the only good turn-based one.

I have patience to play with another player if I enjoy their company so slowing down the game a bit more doesn't really matter much to me. D:OS in co-op for 140 hours was anything but boring for me. I still wanted more!

I don't know of any that have the mechanics they are talking about in this game other than DOS. If you know of some let me know. Also no diablo clones, or games with diablo like combat.

A co-op skyrim where we are free to team up or go on our own, befriend different factions to work together or against each other would be pretty awesome.

Too many co-op games nowadays don't allow you to play the campaign in co-op or make it so 1 person controls the dialogue and what not. so it pretty much plays like a single player game out of combat.

I want co-op where the game can dynamically support both players equally allowing each to play the game how they want. This is a step in that direction.
 
I don't know of any that have the mechanics they are talking about in this game other than DOS. If you know of some let me know. Also no diablo clones, or games with diablo like combat.

A co-op skyrim where we are free to team up or go on our own, befriend different factions to work together or against each other would be pretty awesome.

Too many co-op games nowadays don't allow you to play the campaign in co-op or make it so 1 person controls the dialogue and what not. so it pretty much plays like a single player game out of combat.

I want co-op where the game can dynamically support both players equally allowing each to play the game how they want. This is a step in that direction.

I'll take this type of co-op, but I'm not really interested in a typical MMO style of co-op. I'd like co-op RPGs where the goal is to closely work together rather than each person going off on their own or working against each other.
 
I'll take this type of co-op, but I'm not really interested in a typical MMO style of co-op. I'd like co-op RPGs where the goal is to closely work together rather than each person going off on their own or working against each other.

Yeah 90% of the time so would I but options are never bad. Also be able to separate can be used while still working together. Such as one guy going in the front of a structure and the other going to the back for the element of surprise. There's endless options really.
 
Yeah 90% of the time so would I but options are never bad. Also be able to separate can be used while still working together. Such as one guy going in the front of a structure and the other going to the back for the element of surprise. There's endless options really.

That type of example you gave is fine. It's the "work against each other if you want" thing I'm not really into. D:OS 2 added some of that, which is fine as long as it doesn't take away from the main goal of working together to solve problems, etc. The causing mischief thing is more aimed at kids and I can understand that (it was always fun to grief your friends as a kid in games or do silly stuff like that). Nowadays I'd like to just team up in a co-op RPG and work together.
 
I don't want to be a Doomsayer (though honestly, that sounds cool), but judging by the state WL2 was released in, I don't have a ton of confidence they can pull this off.

What state was that ? I played it and beat it, WL2 was perfectly playable at launch day unlike Bethesda's garbage
 
Joined
Mar 9, 2015
Messages
2,714
What state was that ? I played it and beat it, WL2 was perfectly playable at launch day unlike Bethesda's garbage
I'm referring to the screwed up user interface and all the different, half-baked design choices, gimpy animations, camera issues, etc.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,470
Location
USA
Back
Top Bottom