The roots of this idea are from another topic, but I’d like so see what people think of this kind of
multiplayer interaction WITHIN the single-player campaign.
The inspiration for this idea comes from the game Demon’s Souls, where a certain boss in your single player story is replaced by another player. This adds a greater level of challenge, a very memorable encounter, and a feeling of satisfaction in overcoming the fight that you would not expect.
- BATTLES
The purpose of this kind of multiplayer interaction is supposed to be relatively invisible, therefore no ‘modes/menus/lobbies’ etc. So imagine playing your campaign and reaching a major battle scenario. Pre-battle the armies march into their formation lines, and this would be a couple of minutes long to disguise loading and polling of any other players also about to begin the battle in THEIR campaigns.
Flags/Heraldry might be raised in the distance to represent other players additons to the battlefield, and a
players would be the option to fight after, say, 2 mins of no new players also reaching their battles. Simple ‘Hold’ or ‘To Victory’ commands to your squire would indicate players wanting to begin the battle or wait for more players.
So, paramount to the experience, no immersion breaking elements that are usually associated with ideas of multiplayer.
Optimally, players are seeded throughout the battlefield in various units, and spread out. Concentrations of non-AI behaviour are not what is desired. Players would excapsulate the stories of various heroes and champions. People who create an impact on a battle, but can’t turn it single-handedly, as let’s be honest, the AI opponents will not be push-overs either. So having, say 4 players on each side of a battle of thousands will add spice to the conflict, but not overpower it, especially if you meet your ‘opposite number’ on your attack or defence avenue.
As the experience is paramount, there would be no chat for spamming or anything, but a limited range of gestures like salutes or taunts would consitute communication. Thus, no strategising with even your own side (unless it’s basic, such as sending a runner to the right flank force with an Advance! order).
Thus the purpose is to share a battlefield and to try and tip the scales in the favour of your army against
thinking opponent heroes, with other champions and heroes fighting and pushing other parts of the battlefield.
Death in any campaign likely means a re-do. I doubt KC-D has immersion breaking respawns. Potentially falling in battle to another player (who would also be risking a lot seeking you out in combat) would be treated the same as dying to an NPC. So in effect, you’d want to have as much impact on the battle as possible, and only risk your life for the victory/defeat conditions of the battle. Anyone alive on the victorious side would naturally break off back into their own campaign stories at the conclusion of the battle.
KC-D could implement multiplayer elements in-campaign that are not seen in any other game. This could be something unique and special.
- RESPONSIVE/SITUATIONAL MULTIPLAYER
So this is a little bit more of a stretch. But there are certain scenarios where a very immersive multiplayer
experience would be possible.
Say a player (choosing to play with online enabled) decides to slaughter a village in their own campaign
Player(s) (also choosing to play with online enabled) in surrounding villages in their own campaigns might
have a peasant boy run up to them with “An attack on Milford! I beg you, help us!”.
Now a knight in those times is a representative of their lord and able to dispense justice, so accepting the boy’s request a player could ride to the town Milford under slaughter and run off, or fight/duel another
player. Thus perhaps VERY significant criminal actions might be punished by another online player. Again, no immersion breaking communication forms other than gestures or the formularised speech.
Obviously the biggest issue that impacts immersion is that only the property and people in Milford are harmed in the criminal’s instance of the town. But personally, I thing the discrepancy of another player’s Milford in flames as you slay a rogue knight/bandit, and then later riding into your own unscathed Milford a few days later is worth the opportunity to dispense justice on law breakers.
So specific opportunities to cross into another players campaign to interact with them would, in my opinion add a huge amount of interest.
- EVENT MULTIPLAYER
3a. Crafting Fair, Music, Archery, Duels, Joust, Melee.
Other opportunities to ‘share’ an experience with other players could range from smithing/crafting contests at a fair for a prize, music competitions, and of course certain formalised combat at fairs or tourney. It’s been mentioned of course that during a civil war, combat events may not be held. Well, I think that is true to a degree. The main character in his capacity as (eg.) Sir Markus Zantosa of Lord Bratovich could not sully his honour in participating in anything but a proper tournament; Markus as just another black knight disguising his heraldry would be fine. Obviously this would mean that the rewards are nothing significant to his station, but can still enjoy combat against other ‘black knights’.
A win-win scenario: player vs player tourney duels and jousts, with no duplicate titles, and no prizes of magnitudes that could skew the difficulty of the campaign.
3b. Hunts, Raids, Raid-Defence
While a Fair/Tourney are great, other more expansive events would also be interesting and enjoyable. A grand hunt to see who can bring down the largest buck for the the Lord’s feast. Or a prize hunt to slay a man-killing bear or large wolf.
Raids. When war is a central part of the campaign, joining a raiding party might be possible from one of the command posts. You enter a shared instance of an area of country side where the enemy has a camp or supply convoy. Players on either side might constitute up to 10% or such of the combatants, and therefore might have a more significant impact on the skirmish. Anyone who survives, in victory or fleeing with loot, could reap a reward. Likewise the destroyed camp/convoy ruin could be duplicated into the campaigns of those that survive. (Camps and convoys are obiviously better to use than towns or locations that would have a storyline impact. Temporary constructions (ie. “instant” targets) in relatively empty locations are also better so that a player can go on many raids if they choose).
Naturally, those who die would have to load their last save, or however the game handles death.
- HOLY WALL OF TEXT BATMAN!
TL;DR
Players choosing to play in an online mode that allows for sharing certain battles, competitions, and certain events such as crime/justice etc, WITHOUT IMPACTING THE CAMPAIGN STORYLINE. Strictly limited communication appropriate to setting, such as gestures and formalised speech options (thus no spamming or immersion breaking modern language).
Death in RPGs is usually followed by a Load, thus multiplayer doesn’t have to leave a permanent impact on the campaign of a player that dies (since after a load it never happened), but victors get rewarded.
KC-D could implement multiplayer elements in-campaign that are not seen in any other game. This could be something truely unique and special.
