Deviant Login Shop
 Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour
×

More from deviantART



Details

Submitted on
November 15, 2012
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
186
Favourites
0
Comments
11
×
Here's my idea for a Fallout multiplayer system:

think that it should have a maximum of 4 players, and would work like this:

No player can just enter/exit the game and let the other player continue playing.  The game you start with a specific other person can only be continued with them.  This way, it ensures player experience/level balance, sort of like D&D.  All player characters should get mutual experience for kills, albeit slightly lower depending on the damage you personally dealt to the enemy.  

I fully endorse this style as it would make the game excellent for guys who like to play co-op games with their girlfriends or a group of their friends(ahem, me).  This also allows some characters to not be combat oriented and have their pals defend them in a gunfight, while that person serves as the tradesman and negotiator when dealing with NPCs.  This style of playing allows Fallout to retain its traditional system of quests and combat, and encourages teamwork.  However, if the players decide they want to split up for some time and operate solo in the game world, this would be allowed as well.  

The teamwork element would also add a variety of perks to the game for when the player characters are within a certain radius of each other (IE damage bonuses, merchant discounts, accuracy bonuses, and so on)

These perks can be selected from a list when total player level sum reaches certain points depending on how many people are participating in the playthrough.

For this to work properly however, VATS would have to be removed from the game and there would not be any game pause when speaking to other characters or bringing up your pip boy.

I understand that it would be difficult for certain audiences to be able to coordinate "play times", but I think that this is the best way to do a Fallout MMO while still retaining it's core elements.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconviviax:
Viviax Featured By Owner Nov 17, 2012  Professional Traditional Artist
Also a coop multiplayer might cut down the ammount of choices they have in the game.
Borderlands 1, no choices. Anywere.
And the whole point of rpgs like fallout is true choice in quests. Lots and lots of true choice.
Reply
:icondastig177:
daStig177 Featured By Owner Nov 18, 2012  Student General Artist
I see what you are saying, but the group of players could split up and attack different questlines if they wish. Also, I think speech could work in an interesting manner. For instance, you could have your negotiator talk to them, or maybe you could do a group speech system in which each player is able to suggest ideas. I get that that would be near inpossible for the second option, but it would mean each player could have a different objective/goal in each quest depending on their skills.

Needless to say, there would need to be 4 times as many quests
Reply
:iconviviax:
Viviax Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2012  Professional Traditional Artist
The quests would have to be seperate for each person, or it'd mess things up when they left.
It would be good if it worked.
Maybe it could be like dark souls, were other players can drop into other peoples games.
Without the mauling by enemy players part.
Your girlfriend could do the talking, and you do the fighting.

Maybe a stand alone multiplayer would work.
Like they did with Bioshock 2. That is a single player focused game with a online multiplayer.

Make a seperate story from the same world, like there's a territory for grabs, and they all want it. And have a battlefield 3 style set up. That has 3 or more groups in fights, I think.
Like enclave, BoS, NCR and new vegas in the same match.
With perks and killstreaks unique to each faction.
Put all the factions in who can fight, and have a basic set up of perks, armour and weapon upgrades.
The perks could be a ai soldier, airstrike, right up to summoning a vertibird.
The enclave could have a tame deathclaw perk, lol. :D
Would'nt have to be overcomplex. Just a straightforward multiplayer, with the basics.
Deathmatch, team deathmatch, capture the flag, etc.
You can't go wrong with the basic modes.
When you get stupid and unplayable, like with Fear 3s ridicuous modes that make no sense and are no fun, then you've gone too far.
Reply
:icondastig177:
daStig177 Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2012  Student General Artist
I can see that too, but what I had in mind was for a group of close friends getting on at the same time with the balancing factor of not being able to play in that playthrough without all players present. Of course, this would probably work better with just two or three people, but I could see 4.

I like your idea as well, that could be interesting.
Reply
:iconviviax:
Viviax Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012  Professional Traditional Artist
I know a game that did that. On PS2. Champions of Norrath and the sequal, Champions, Return To Arms.
You can start games with a up to 4 characters, and you played online or in the same room. And the game was only for those characters. If you did it solo, the others were unmoving. Though you could take the characters made there out and import them to another game.
That game series was quite advanced, had some good ideas.
That would be a good idea. :)
Reply
:icondastig177:
daStig177 Featured By Owner Nov 21, 2012  Student General Artist
indeed.
Reply
:iconviviax:
Viviax Featured By Owner Nov 17, 2012  Professional Traditional Artist
Interesting.

Fallout multiplayer does'nt appeal me at all. The last thing I want in my fallout game is other people. I don't like multiplayer that much anyway. Too many jerks, cheaters, lag controllers and morons.
But using the DDO thing, were you can only do groups with people of a level near you would rule out some bad things.

The co op multiplayer thing, only seen that in a single player type game in borderlands 1. And it works, but it's laggy and crash happy. Because it does'nt use dedicated servers, just the hosts game and internet connection.
If they could make it dedicated servers, it'd be best.

They could also implement the quest sharing of Dungeons and Dragons Online. If someone does'nt have the quest you can share it with them.

The danger with putting co op multiplayer on, is it might inspire some morons at bethesda to make some quests etc teamwork mandetory.
And no one wants that, ever!
And even worse, teamwork trophies, hell no!

Maybe it would be better to make it a stand alone multiplayer. With things from the game, but not part of the single player.

The best way might be to make a fallout MMORG. In the rigid DDO way in parts. Like level determined grouping, etc. But with fallouts freedom to travel round the world.
Reply
:icondastig177:
daStig177 Featured By Owner Nov 18, 2012  Student General Artist
Well, it wouldn't be required, but the main reason that I came up with this is because my girlfriend and I like to game together and she isn't that great at combat, so Borderlands is out of the question for now. This system would mean that she could do the talking and I could defend her when she gets attacked.

Y'know, a nice bonding experience.
Reply
:iconviviax:
Viviax Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2012  Professional Traditional Artist
Right. Maybe they could make it 2 player, like older games on PS2 are.
Were you put 2 or more players on one game. In the same room or via internet.
Reply
:icondastig177:
daStig177 Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2012  Student General Artist
right on
Reply
Add a Comment: