Larian Studios Forums Divinity - Original Sin Divinity - Original Sin - General [Multiplayer] Character save files

Hello,

I am writting due to the lack of implementing character files and character selection options when joining a hosted session.

I realize that this causes numerous problems like quest synchronization etc. but it has been around for decades now. Quest synchronization, if too lazy to actually make sepperate quest books or to just split side quests, could be forced by host.

It would be prudent to regard this issue as many players know this feature to be a standard. Many players will play parts of this game alone and occasionally join up with friends, but the lack of character files and character synchronization when joining a session will cause multiple problems and is not practical - at least from a player's perspective. Having played a character for some hours and than not being able to keep playing that same character with all his equipment is not very rewarding, to say the least.

Are there plans on changing this aspect post-release?

regards,

Chris

It's not Diablo, Torchlight or Borderlands. Multiplayer there is supposed to be played on session with same person from start to finish, not switching partners left and right.

I do not see this argument as valid.

The reasons are:
- the feature is not and will never be exclusive to action rpgs (e.g. Neverwinter Nights etc.). It is a standard and can be found in games dating back over 15 years!
- companies developing pen and paper RPGs (e.g. D&D by WOTC or Pathfinder by Paizo) realized that not everyone has a gaming group and a common problem is finding time to play due to growing responsibilities. They started pushing for "orginized play" and introduced venture captains in many many big cities in the US and accross europe hosting sessions on a regular basis. Guess what? You are encouraged to bring your own character! After all it is about role playing your character. Following this thought it would not be a success if they had forced people to make new characters (or use pre-created ones that have undergone change without the player having played them) every time they joined a session. I also realize that it is far easier to carry a piece of paper from one place to another - but this will bring us back to point 1
- in this regard it is not practial to force one way of playing the game. Computers offer the possibility to play solo unlike any other medium! Why would you disregard such a potential by limiting character portation?

regards,

Chris

Hey Chris I'm not very multiplayer savvy but I don't know of any games similar to D:OS with the style of multiplayer you describe, though that's not to say it couldn't be done. However that's also because D:OS is quite unique. Was it possible to do what you describe in the main campaign of Neverwinter Nights? (I don't know I've never played it).

The main reason I see it being problematic in this game is that D:OS is designed around the evolving story of two protagonists, whose dialogue choices and actions affect their relationship (through mechanics such as affection and affinity) and the plot itself. Creating separate character files would require these mechanics to work differently, if that is even possible, and as I understand it would require the redesign of much of the game. The story is supposed to be about the journey of these two characters as they grow together over time and so the game requires their permanent presence. I suppose you could allow the addition of separate characters merely as party members (not protagonists) though I'm not sure this would be as rewarding as playing the main heroes and would also require the entire game to be re-balanced (in terms of character system and encounter design) to accommodate this possibility.

In other words the game is not designed to be played the way you suggest. It might be possible to include this option, yet it would probably be a prohibitive amount of work, not to mention adverse to the game's central concept.

Yes, it was possible to play the main campaing of NWN with a friend or 6 friends (max 16).

I do not share your opinion. The main mechanics would not be affected in any way! That's why I suggested a "host-forced" progression of the quest book - which is already the way the game works.

As an electrical engineer I am capable of coding and I know its not that hard to implement. But of course it does take time and therefore costs money. However I am not sure if the engine can handle it, but I would be very surprised if stats and equipment (basic values) could not be overwritten when joining. If it is anything like NWN the stat-values will be compared when you hit a trigger-point. I do not see any problem with overwriting those values. Remember, story progression is still forced by host (no changing values), as it is already and any situation arising should compare values at that trigger-0point. So you would not break any game mechanics!

I knew NWN was a multiplayer game, I meant more... for example, could you join a group 1 hour into the game with a level 16 character from a previous game? This is the sort of thing you are suggesting would be possible?

I'm generally wary of claims that something is easy to code in a video game. Seemingly simple things can actually be very complicated according to various dev posts I've read. I am out of my depth when talking about programming and you would obviously be in a better position than I to assess your suggestion, though please forgive me if I would want to hear Larian's view on how much work this might take, and how much it would affect the game. Please I mean no offence, but to be honest I doubt that you would be in a position to know unless you had experience working with their game. Perhaps you could mod this in yourself if it is not that hard?

It could be that I just don't understand what you are proposing as I have no programming expertise. Though I can at least discuss this with you and give the thread some visibility for you in the hopes Larian notices

Take this hypothetical example of what I think you are suggesting:

Two players start a game. Player 1 (Roderick) is the host and player 2 is playing Scarlett. They progress to a certain point, setting relationship values and plot flags. Player two then leaves the game and never returns. Player 1 progresses the story with both characters. Then, a third player joins the host, replacing Scarlett with a high level character from the end of his own game he'd been playing.

I do not see how this can work with existing relationship values and plot flags, or be balanced for combat. If all values from the host's game were forced... oh I see what you mean (I think). I still don't see how the game could be balanced for this, but if people want to play that way... Well, assuming Larian concurs that what you propose is easy enough to implement, you may be able to convince them to do it.

I maintain that the game is not designed to accommodate what you suggest, and that it is adverse to the central concept of the game and the way it is intended to be played, though I have no objections to people playing it that way if they choose. Personally I would never do so as I wouldn't be aware of previous dialogue choices or game & story content. I feel like it would greatly dilute the experience, though that is just me.

I think it would be prudent to hear from Larian for the definitive word on how practical the suggestion really is.

Yes! Thank you! I did not consider level cap and balance issues which would arise without it. That would force a level cap close to the hosts. Its true, the level cap does make it harder. But it still could be limited to host+- 1 Level. I do not think that that would create a big balance issue and it would still allow you to play seperately and then join up again. Maybe though this is too specific and I seem to be the only one asking for this feature.

I still do not see any problem considering values. All those values can be rewritten when joining. Yes it would mean that your character is altered to fit to the current story - forced by host again. But that really is no big thing in my opinion.

As far as I can remember in NWN you were able to set level caps by number or by saying "level of host". You were also able to only enter the creation menu and to create all kinds of characters - I mean it was a portation of D&D 3.0! And it even featured a Dungeon Master Multiplayer! You had a DM managing the monsters etc. while other players joined the server. You were able to pause the game as DM and create traps and what not. In that regard it was far more sophisticated than D:OS is. But again ... money.

Don't worry, I did not take any offence, why would I? You are right, my experience with coding c and c++ is limited to microcontrollers. I have not written complex software such as games. A short answer from Larian would be nice, but I do not think they have time right now. But I appreciate your interest, thank you! I bet if we keep digging we will come accross more problems that kept larian from implementation.

I don't think it's a technical issue, but a design decision. Of course Larian is fully capable of implementing such features. But the real question is- do they want to do it? Won't it ruin some part of the gaming experience? I know, you want this feature. But there would be many other things to consider IMO.

To set it up like NWN would take a large redesign. Being able to take your character from game to game, have it all balance correctly etc. I'd say we each buy 3 versions each and ask for in in D:OS 2, because I'm near certain this one won't be coming. I'm pretty grateful with what we do have and for many that is all that was needed, in my case it was all that was needed. I play the character in one world from start to finish, was never planning on bumping them around in different games or mods.

What you are ignoring is that the 2 characters in this world are static story components.

They are not "generic" characters that are interchangeable like in NWN. BOTH characters exist in the game all the time. The second character doesn't only appear when a second human joins. The host controls both until a friend joins. You can't just wipe the hosts character to overwrite it with a random character of different class/inventory/personality. What happens to the character the host has been playing when this new person joins? They just lose them forever? If they come back when the friend leaves, what about all the plot choices the friend made? Have they permanently changed the host's version of those characters?

The mechanics of this game are completely different than NWN or any table top campaign designed around unknown generic characters. You cannot simply swap characters in and out as you say.

This is an important point. I cannot see a way around this.

How can this be explained the simplest way?

The host of the game owns the save and the characters.

You can look at it as a single player game, but anyone else can join in at any time and take control of one of the 2 main characters and also add a companion if they choose.

When done, the host still owns everything, all the progress etc.

This works great if you plan to play with the same person from beginning to end. This is all you need.

This doesn't work, if you wanted to take your character from Host to Host and just kick in to wherever they are at and play/level from there and then hop onto another Host. This just isn't setup like that. This is setup for tight friends playing together in most cases.

Yes, it is a design choice. However describing the current design and saying it "would not work" is plain silly. Technically it is being done in many games. Since I got to play around with the editor yesterday and create my first level: it uses trigger points, like I suspected. So events are scripted, as usual. This makes it much more easier to split savefiles into game status and character status. I think they were just short on programmers/money.(Just like the levels were only designed to be viewed from one angle. That saves a lot of time when creating maps.)




Well, I don't see any problem. You do realize that we are merely talking about values/strings. Saving them into seperate files and transfering them to host/peer is no problem on today's computers.
You would not overwrite the file storing the characters created by the host. When a player leaves you could just have the engine reload the old character. Players joining would upload their character (again, its just a few kb, not even noticable with current loading times) to host in a temp directory and it will be deleted as soon as the player leaves.

Sorry, but technically it is really not that big of a deal, if they had implemented it from the beginning. Now they are storing character and level status in one file. No problem seperating them, but it would also need a menu for creation and a menu for selection when joining. Like I said, level cap is easy to implement, just have a checkbox say "same level+-1 as host", "any". Let the players decide!

To the point:

But I see this design choice as flawed. The fact that you are forced to play what a host created does not say Role Playing in any way. At least that is not the way the genre is defined. It is defined by players creating their own characters and then playing them.
It comes down to this:
- either you are forced to keep sending savefiles (like we are currently doing it) over, so the other person can play while the other one is working, so nobody loses their progress (provided you both started the campaing together)
- you are forced to play whatever a host created - countering the part of role playing, as you are forced to play what you have not created
- starting a new campaign/mod with lvl 1 with another person so you can play what you would like to play. Putting giant rocks in the way of cooperative gameplay. Again: cooperative should not mean "you MUST ALWAYS play with the same person", it should mean "you can always play with another person".

Regards,

Chris