Grunker's Divinity: Original Sin Co-op Mechanics Discussion Thread

[RK47]

phan-bois.

 

[Grunker]

even when he's wrong he'll never admit it...

Yeah, go trawl through the Pillars of Eternity thread to see a ton of direct contradictions to this. I often flat-out state when I am wrong. CK used to joke about that very fact. It's just another strawman to add to the pile.

You have no argument here, what you say boils down to "I don't like co-op so you shouldn't either." Not one single sentence you've made in this thread has been dedicated to discussing the specific issues we're talking about, they're all more or less variations of "lol co-op sucks".

You want to prove me wrong, go to the post directly under this one where I quote Arkeus, argue against it with actual arguments, and we'll take it from there.

what's the state of the co-op dialogue in the release version?

It's p. much what I said in the 5-point post. You have two kinds of dialogue: one where the other party just stands around doing nothing, trying to follow another player's actions in a log, and one where you have to be very close to each other to both participate.

So basically:

I) Single dialogue

II) Dual dialogue

The way it works now, both types are plagued by some pretty damned simple problems.

My point is that this defect wouldn't actually be a problem if both players could go around doing interesting shit without having to worry about missing dual dialogue when one of them accidentally triggers one.

Darth Roxor: on the above note, I see nothing in your post that isn't a reiteration of "just ignore the problem." In essence, I've answered your points countless times in this thread. Your answer is becoming a steady article in this thread: "well dude just choose between following in the heels of your co-op partner doing nothing, or miss content don't see the problem lalala".

Also, you can see dual dialogue coming from miles away. All it takes is call up the local chat and say 'regroup' so the other dude can tp in and participate.

If this were true - if you really believed this - why the fuck are you against a pyramid prompt? What in the world would a prompt do that could harm anything here? If it really is like you say?

in co-op one player has to choose between being bored or miss on stuff

It's not like I've not reiterated this point ad nauseaum. At this point it's more about poking the bear than an actual discussion. Excidium straight out refuses the simple gesture of quoting the parts of the clear-cut 5-point post I've made that he disagrees with. Instead he insists on going in circles.

which could be presented in a less spergy way, but Grunkers gonna Grunk I suppose

I don't know when it was that good old shouting matches became huge faux pas here, but I don't think I've done anything all that 'sperging here except arguing my points with the fervor that the Codex exists for. When did using the word "fuck" a lot become identical to hiver's spit-spewing aggression?

If Metro or Excidium were actually interested in arguing said points, then they would state counterpoints to the issues I've identified. Not that I'm whining that they are poking the bear, it's a time-honored Codex tradition. But there's nothing 'sperging about either party here.

 

[Grunker]

Basically, the "there are no problems"-people have yet to reply to this:

a°) First, he wants a clear ability to see what your partner says even when you are pulled in the dialog- sometimes you are pulled in the dialog but you can only see what your partner says as 'floating text over the head', and then you have to answer a question you didn't hear.

b°)he wants the ability of the other player to go "Hey, there is a choice here, come here". And, guess what? *this is what the teleporter pyramids are about*. If there was a prompt whenever there is a co-op dialog, and you could throw down your teleporter pyramid to get to your co-op partner and enter the dialog, it wouldn't be "more game-y", it would be the equivalent of what we already have (magic pockets and teleporter pyramids) but actually used in a way that makes playing with your friend playing with your friend.

Even though it has been stated again and again since page 1.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

I don't know when it was that good old shouting matches became huge faux pas here, but I don't think I've done anything all that 'sperging here except arguing my points with the fervor that the Codex exists for. When did using the word "fuck" a lot become identical to hiver's spit-spewing aggression?

Nah, I was referring to making bullet points and such. You had a simple point that was misunderstood at first, then as the thread went on you made it sound more and more complex than it really was which only aggravated the situation. (explaining the issue in detail won't convince someone who doesn't see it as an issue to begin with)

 

[Grunker]

Nah, I was referring to making bullet points and such. You had a simple point that was misunderstood at first, then as the thread went on you made it sound more and more complex than it really was which only aggravated the situation.

You're correct of course, but the alternative would have been stating the same point unaltered again and again until someone replied to it. Anyway, fuck that, I think I misunderstood you.

 

[Darth Roxor]

I see nothing in your post that isn't a reiteration of "just ignore the problem."

I could say "just ignore the problem" if I considered all this a problem to begin with, which I don't.

why the fuck are you against a pyramid prompt?

Who says I am? It would be the same as typing 'come plz' in the chat.

Basically, the "there are no problems"-people have yet to reply to this:

ok then

a°) First, he wants a clear ability to see what your partner says even when you are pulled in the dialog- sometimes you are pulled in the dialog but you can only see what your partner says as 'floating text over the head', and then you have to answer a question you didn't hear.

This is annoying, yes, but so far it happened to me only twice during those "quiz" dialogues, like talking with the ghost about his philosophy of death. Annoying to be sure, but it's more of a bug than anything else. IIRC all other conversations where I'd get suddenly pulled into an argument showed the problem at hand when scrolling up the dialogue interface.

b°)he wants the ability of the other player to go "Hey, there is a choice here, come here".

Enter -> "come plz" -> enter. Such ability. Wow. Much complex.

 

[Grunker]

Who says I am? It would be the same as typing 'come plz' in the chat.

You are arguing against the case I am making. I am making the case for a pyramid prompt. You have no issues with a pyramid prompt. <----- This doesn't make sense.

 

[Metro]

I'm pretty sure Larian had much higher intentions for co-op than to please some AAA-infected retards.
Co-op was one of the bigger selling points during kickstarter and they made some fuss about how it's not your normal tacked-on multiplayer mode.

You guys are just proving my point. Exactly, it was a selling point. Something to rope in people they wouldn't otherwise rope in with the tagline 'turn-based crpg.' Bitches, I took on the Mulmaster Beholder Corps alone when Grunker was in diapers. Man up.

 

[Gord]

You guys are just proving my point. Exactly, it was a selling point. Something to rope in people they wouldn't otherwise rope in with the tagline 'turn-based crpg.' Bitches, I took on the Mulmaster Beholder Corps alone when Grunker was in diapers. Man up.

The question is why was it a selling point?
You seem to imply it was because they thought that a multiplayer option will draw in people that would never touch a TB-RPG, but have great fun in the multiplayer options e.g. in Mass Effect.
However I think that their intention was to provide a classical rpg that offered a unique way of playing it co-op with some friend (and only one at a time, at that, no mmo component there). The focus is different, as is the kind of game it is marketed as.

 

[Grunker]

I took on the Mulmaster Beholder Corps alone

I wasn't a huge nerd who played MTG.

 

[Crooked Bee]

I've actually found co-op to be pretty fun already.

The solution we've found, is for one of us to just summarize stuff for the co-op partner. It adds engagement (tm), and there's quite a few lulz to be had this way, too.

(Disclaimer to avoid derail: not saying this solves the issue(s) you had with the co-op. )

I'm also waiting for the 4 player co-op mod - I know it's there already, but I'm gonna wait until it's maybe fully supported and the game's fully patched. I expect barrels of fun to be had.

 

[Metro]

Magic has to be played with other people thus they witness your nerdosity. I can play Curse of the Azure Bonds isolated and alone -- the way crpgs should be played.

 

[Grunker]

I've actually found co-op to be pretty fun already.

The solution we've found, is for one of us to just summarize stuff for the co-op partner. It adds engagement (tm), and there's quite a few lulz to be had this way, too.

(Disclaimer to avoid derail: not saying this solves the issue(s) you had with the co-op. )

I'm also waiting for the 4 player co-op mod - I know it's there already, but I'm gonna wait until it's maybe fully supported and the game's fully patched. I expect barrels of fun to be had.

oh i agree, the co-op is immensely fun

But it could be more fun with easy fixes!

 

[RK47]

Magic has to be played with other people thus they witness your nerdosity. I can play Curse of the Azure Bonds isolated and alone -- the way crpgs should be played.

I felt this topic has gone the way of 'individual preference' and not really about objective criticisms of the much hyped 'co-op' system. Extroverts gonna extrovert.
You can argue about 'gameplay experience' being enhanced with back and forth rapport all you want, but that's purely 'outside the game' factor at play.
Even terrible shooters felt fun when you play it in co-op with a naked woman holding your joystick, but when I look at DOS being played in co-op it turned into something it's not meant to be.
You can argue all the design decisions, chats UI, pre-release hype, but the execution is lacking. It's not entirely bad, but parts of it just cannot be ignored.

The Good - Multitasking is possible now in city
I can see the appeal of assigning your partner a task in the town 'Go steal all the painting while I go craft some weapons and mix some potion.' This part of the co-op experience flows well - because it's in real time. You get more things done, in shorter time even - but only when it's 'real time co-op'

The Bad - Take YOUR turns, follow MY instructions
But the whole 'co-op' thing went out of the window when combat begins and both players have conflicting ideas on how to resolve a conflict.
What's worse, the party ceased to function as a unit - instead we have the Air Mage being told where to go, what to do in his turn. One side just gotta relent and just...do what the other guy wants him to do. There's just no flexibility, you have your pool of AP. You spend it right or the party just dies. Do you know why WoW Raid fails? Do you want to do WoW raid in real time? This is it. That's the whole argument against co-op: combat.

Worse - you cannot even tell him to move to a specific spot. Combat takes longer, and plans need to be formulated with two voices arguing back and forth instead of just you, the mastermind and the executioner of moves.

A lot of people like this '2-player engagement' in DOS co-op 'RK, think of the fun times AOE stun occur and it's lulzy getting caught in the radius of explosion from your partner lah'
The first time, OK, twice...thrice...- I simply don't see the charm in struggling to give precise instructions and debating plans when the 'co-op' part is making it difficult.
I feel the system simply doesn't reward co-op in combat.

If people are not willing to see this issue, then so be it. I can't convince you any other way.

 

[Raghar]

So when I'd sum it up as coop needs real time mode, does it feel right?

 

[Metro]

Even terrible shooters felt fun when you play it in co-op with a naked woman holding your joystick

This is the appeal of every coop game in a nutshell. It's never the game mechanics and always the simple reality of social interaction.

 

[RK47]

So when I'd sum it up as coop needs real time mode, does it feel right?

I know they can't possibly do that, hence I stopped short of providing that solution.

 

[Grunker]

Even terrible shooters felt fun when you play it in co-op with a naked woman holding your joystick

This is the appeal of every coop game in a nutshell. It's never the game mechanics and always the simple reality of social interaction.

"dirty co-op gamers and their social interaction" *scowl*

Bitch, did it ever occur to you that a set of good mechanics can support certain kinds social interaction? That are fun? The way Bohnanza's mechanics support a specific kind of trading, for example, leading to much hilarity among friends? Or are you so deprived of such that you cannot fathom how doing shit with others might be engaging?

I don't know why you are so fucking butthurt about people enjoying co-op games.

This thread is for a discussion about specific problems with the co-op. If you want to make a thread about how all co-op games suck, do that. Posting that stuff here reminds me of the drive-by posters who come by the WL2/PoE threads to complain that turn-based/RTwP is shit in general and that people should only be allowed to play games the way they do.

(inb4 RTwP/turn-based is shit in general etc)

 

[Darth Roxor]

So when I'd sum it up as coop needs real time mode, does it feel right?

No.

Just have a partner who's used to tacticool coop and it flows organically.

 

[Perkel]

Ok i see why people have problem with co-op in main thread.

Fucking humans ? How do they work ?
And people expect co-op to reward you beside playing with other human being.

 

[Jestai]

What Larian should have done and should still do:

1a/ Mandatory minimum to implement ASAP: Hovering text that hovers more than 1 sec. Answers by the other player logged too. The possibility to toggle-in/out the logging of random chatter.

1b/ An opt-in/op-out option to integrate the actual dialog when you're standing next to your pal. Sure, you can press L, click on dialog and read from the journal. It's doable, but it's contrived, it's annoying and it's less enjoyable to read from the journal than from the conversation screen (for reasons like "you can still see the gameworld, see who you're talking too, it feels like an actual conversation is going on" etc which are maybe stupid but indeed true).
Even though the difference isn't huge, clicking somewhere (or toggling-in an option) to integrate any dialog is better than opening the journal (which is supposed to exist for LOGGING shit, not READING REAL TIME, right?). For me, that's the end of the debate. One way is objectively better than the other. It's what should have been done then and it's what should be done now. Morons saying "but you can open the log and it's the same, don't be a crybaby" miss the point entirely. Maybe hardcore guys here don't care and open their journal every time shit is going on (probably all the while smiling like stupid tools because they feel so edgy), but it annoys me, it annoys the guy I play with and i'm sure it annoys thousands of players. It's a no brainer, really.
You can tweak it even further: an option so every player has to press continue before the conversation goes on for the full LARPers, a possibility to give control of the conversation to the other player at any chosen time, etc.

1c/ DOS avoids this issue sometimes by having 2 NPCs saying basically the same thing whenever possible, mostly when you meet people out of town. It's a good idea, however, it doesn't make sense in every context and it's not used most of the time. Also, it can't work when there's a decision involved. When it's only one NPC, one guys does the talking while the other turns over every carpet in sight, because it's only not boring thing to do.

2/ Sometimes, you're minding your own business not far from your friend when, suddenly, a dialog starts. It's happening again: your bro is babbling about some shit that's going on in his life and, once again, you don't what the fuck it's about. Sometimes he talks about his feelings, sometimes he wants your opinion on whether we should kill Boris or Robert, whoever the fuck they are, sometimes he asks for your answer to a riddle (without telling you the actual riddle of course). Can you give some context, motherfucker? I don't think you can access the journal while in dialog to circumvent this issue (it would still suck).
What about adding a "What are you talking about?" option making your friend give you a recap of the situation, and then you can chose what to say. What a brilliant idea! Those who follow every dialog together won't chose this option, those who don't will. And it's a p&pish approach, which is what Larian seems to want to emulate. Everyone wins for a modest workload (a quick 5 lines recap of most situations leading to a coop interaction).

3/ About the main point of this topic, the "I want to see the coop interactions but I don't want to sit by idly". People saying it's pointless and it's biowarian c&c don't get it again: it's an important feature of the game. Whether they enjoy it or not shouldn't prevent people to argue on how to implement it the best way possible.
Right now, what I feel is missing the most is indeed to call for your pal before making a decision. A simple "Let's me ask my friend for his take on the matter" instead of giving your opinion straight away would be great. Your friend get the call, he can then chose to come to you or mind his own business. If he comes, you give him the aforementioned quick recap and only then it's time for the coop dialog. If he doesn't care, you can chose by yourself and no coop dialog happens. A solution for every type of playstyle!


What's frustrating is that these things seem easy to implement and would give the roleplaying coop experience a real improvement.

 

[Perkel]

I want to play co-op but i don't want to talk to my co-op partner.
I want to play co-op but i don't want my partner to actualy do stuff.


Can't you just for example ask co op friend what he is doing ? Or his talk with some npc ? That is the point of coop.

 

[Grunker]

I want to play co-op but i don't want to talk to my co-op partner.
I want to play co-op but i don't want my partner to actualy do stuff.

"youa re dumb" - Volourn 2002

 

[Jestai]

I want to play coop and I want to be able to see what's going on the easiest way possible.
I want to play coop, but sometimes I can't use voice chat or simply don't want to recap everything I read while the game could do it more accurately for me. My input adds 0 value. You can talk about the solution, but simply being the parrot of NPCs isn't my cup of tea. Is it yours?
I want to play coop, and I actually want my friend and me to have the possibility to make decisions together while still having some liberty.

If you have any experience of gaming coop, you know that you need to make the interactions as intuitive and easy as possible if you want them to work. That's a fact. People playing game are impatient, lazy, want to do what they want and don't want to delay their monster hunting because their friend is sorting his inventory or talking to a fish vendor. I, and others, were just trying to find ways to make the questing part easier.

I think the goal of Larian was a hard one: story and decisions aren't easy to implement in a multiplayer cPRG. Personally, I'm happy to understand broadly what's going on while focusing on a more evident multiplayer content: killing shit. It's too much of a burden to solve quest together. If I want to get deeper into the story, I'll play the game solo. It doesn't prevent me to see the limitations of the system as it is and to think that I could enjoy a lot more the multiplayer roleplaying part if it were implemented correctly. As of now, if you want to solve the quests "coop style", you either have to stick together non stop and have 50% of the party being a pure spectator most of the time or sharing the quests and missing out on content (decisions/multiplayer interactions/understanding of the world/whatever). My point is a better implantation would make these two ways meet halfway. At the moment, the temptation to "1 spam" every dialog to get to the usual multiplayer content (combat) is strong if your party's goal is simply to "play together".

My propositions wouldn't remove anything and offer more possibilities. What's not to like..? Really, tell me: how the fixes I proposed would render the experience less enjoyable?

 

[Xi]

I think this is about as good as it gets for coop. I don't think any other game has done it better. It's not perfect, don't get me wrong.

Also, I'm getting this shut on a console to ropen in a nerd gamer chick and some day play with my son.

I said it......