Larian Studios Forums Divinity - Original Sin Divinity - Original Sin - General No Dedicated servers?

Drop in-Drop out multiplayer sounds great, but I think the game should at least allow dedicated server for PW or other things like that for steam copies at least. Dedicated servers was one of the things that multiplayer modding scene alive in NWN and NWN2.

I suppose if you keep a PC running the game 24/7 you've got just that. (Or am I completely wrong)

I understood DOS has a limit of 2 players? Or am I wrong here?

The game currently supports up to 4 actual players (or was it 6, or have they only been talking about upgrading it to 6?), but the campaign Larian made is only for 2 players.

I think they should have described it as co-op instead of multiplayer. Actually I think they did describe it as co-op but somewhere multi-player worked into the description.
-
Anyways dedicated servers make no sense (from my perspective). The intention is for 1 or 2 people to play the game - not for 2 people to randomly find themselves and play part of the game and 2 more people randomly find themselves and advance the story and so forth.

Exactly. Dedicated Servers are for competitive multiplayer, short matches of 10 minutes or so. This is effectively a single-player game of several hours. It doesn't really make sense for a dedicated server option, since you can save and pick it up next week.

Until people on the forum started talking about wanting competitive multiplayer, I don't remember multiplayer being mentioned anywhere. Co-op, yes, but not multiplayer. It wasn't part of the goals or the game during the KS, and there hasn't been any indication from the devs that it will be put in before or after release. They did say that the engine would let up to 6 people play together if you made a campaign or mod that allowed it, though.

You guys don't considered co-op as multiplayer? Because I've been playing coop only games for years, and they were always considered multiplayer games since you're playing with more than one persn. Hence the word "multi". I'm not really a fan of PVP games, and many coop games I played have dedicated server options (alien swarm, left for dead, nwn, etc. Most of these games were 1-6 players a server only).

Anyway, while dedicated servers may be a bit too much, I hope we will at least be able to see hosted games on a server list (Trine 2 does this, and that game has a maximum of 3 players a game). Just because the main game is considered a single player style game, doesn't mean the user created modules will be that well. I wouldn't mind role playing on a few small persistent worlds. Hey, 6 players is more than enough to something like that.

@ Bonerbill

But for what do you need dedicated server? In D:OS you can only play with friends so far (by invitation) and even if you will be able to play with strangers you could always turn the option on and off. Dead Island works great with just the public servers and steam integration. You can choose if you want to play online or offline and if you want to open your game for the public or if you only want to play with people from your friends list who you invite yourselft. If you choose to play online ind Dead Island you get propositions of people who are in the same area and also want to play in co-op (hop-on, hop-off). Perfect system imo without the need of dedicated servers.

Or did I get you wrong?

Some kind of in-game server list showing all hosted games is a minimum, no? With filters for game version, campaign/module (it's not going to be just the official campaign after all), difficulty, level range and current progress within the campaign. If Persistent Worlds arise then a server type setting would be nice as well for those who're looking for action/role-playing/mixes specifically.

But I don't really see PWs being made if it's only up to 6 players. Sure, if the limit was at least doubled or tripled then PWs and thus a real need for dedicated servers would likely appear.

And then a Game/Dungeon Master mode/client, heh.

No, it's not a minimum.

This game is not intended to be played with random strangers from the internet.

That is because it is a 40-hour or so game for the main quest alone. You aren't supposed to complete a campaign by jumping into random games which have varying levels of completion for various quests completed in various ways.

Isn't one of the reasons for the drop-in/drop-out feature the fact that the official campaign is that long? Jumping into other games with different completion levels is what will happen when you jump in and out of your friends' games.

A list of hosted games (with details mentioned in previous post) would just help you pick a session you would like to join out of all the public ones. I know I would want to browse through all publically available games when none of my friends are available.

Being able to browse would also let me see if there's someone else playing a user-made campaign that I have or would want to try. How else would one join a session with a custom campaign?

No, the long campaign is not the reason for drop-in, drop-out co-op. Sure, you COULD do drop-in, drop out with random people, but the one who joins will always be stuck with whatever the host's world looks like.

You're always joining the host's game, and using their progress and accomplishments on previous quests. Sure, the joiner can save their progress if they want to continue, but they can't join another game with the things they've done, it's all dependent on the host.

There's no way a simple server browser could show you the progress on all the possible quests the host has done.

It works the exact same as with a friend, doesn't it? Correct me if I'm wrong but the progress made during the session is saved for the host's world only, meaning that the joiners' progress in their own campaigns/worlds is the same.

So when joining a random public game you pretty much already know you most likely won't get to continue that campaign from the spot you will be leaving it at when the session you joined ends.

If you joined a session hosted by a friend you can obviously rely on the fact you and your friend can work out when you'll continue from the point you leave that session at.

For those moment where you or your friend isn't available but the other wants to play without advancing further into the game than the other he could look for games in the browser that deals with content that the two of you have already done.



Technically it could but it'd be a rather huge amount of traffic going through the browser. It'd be unnecessary for it to show quest completion at all, really. The hoster could simply write in a small description where the session begins and the game browser would only display latest completed quest in the larger questlines or something similar.


But really, we are going to need some kind of way to see what user-made module/campaign sessions are open to join.

They can each start their own games to play single player, or co-op with other people, and the host could just load a particular save when the two who started that game could continue.

If you join a game, any required mods that you do not have can be transferred to your computer. IIRC that will be automatic, though presumably there will be a conformation at least with larger mods.

The Host opens a game and invites you. You take control over one of his main characters, now you can fight and explore the world with him or without him.
After you stopped playing you can somehow get the savegame of the host. Since its your friend, you can just ask him per steam-chat or whatever what he is playing right now.

For what do you need dedicated servers? Larian expects that 90% will play it solo. Coop is just for friends family or whatever. The game needs strategy you need to discuss it with your coop-partner its no ARPG like Diablo where you cant do anything wrong its a cRPG where you have to bear consequences for what your partner did.

Actually, the person who joins the game can save, as well, but if they continue playing on their own, they would either have to re-do that progress if they joined the host's game again, or they could host the game and the former host could join their game. If both players kept playing from the previous joint play session, they would either have to pick one to go with, or revert to a previous save and both start again from their last co-op session.

I've not been through all the post but what I got from the drop-in/out coop is you are playing that game of you friend not taking a character over there to help. So even when you're not there the story can progress. Hoping that right, but I could have gotten it wrong.

That is correct; when you join a game you take over a character that the host would otherwise be controlling themselves.

I've heard it's going to be different though to what X-tasy saying about you needing to transfer save through to the other side, but instead you are going to have the option to just save right before leaving the party. I just wonder if I heard correct, or that was just hogwash.