I use the word artificially since if a monster holds X number of items and grants Y number of experience, it should not magically grant 4xX and 4xY in a 4 player co-op scenario (even if it gets stronger). This is not logical and is purely done to stimulate multiplayer.
Also, why one player skills should be able to buff another? In the real world battles from middle ages for example you could get protected by an ally in battle, but this is due to some interaction between the two of you at the expense of the ally - he is sacrificing time and his defense to save you.
The above 3 gameplay mechanics only make sense when multiplayer needs to be stimulated artificially. Logically it doesn’t make sense at all. If a person in the street is robbed by two guys he would not give them more stuff than if he is robbed by a single guy.
If one’s character is away from battle without fighting at all, why should he get the same experience as those fighting?
That is why I ask you, should co-op be artificially stimulated in D4?
Trying to make logical arguments (citing medieval war examples) of why things shouldn’t be a certain way in a game where mages can shoot arcane beams from their hands is an exercise in futility.
For a multiplayer game that can be played solo? Yes.
For a game designed for solo play but allows for teams? No.
There might be a disagreement on “should D4 be multiplayer first or solo first?”
It is a video game in a fantasy world. How a game plays doesn’t have to make sense. It just need to be fun.
But, as far as co-op bonuses, the increase of enemy power increase should be sufficient to “drop more loot”, etc.
I also think that you should gain EXP we as colleague kills an enemy only when you are near by. Separate floors? No. Opposite ends of Act 3 battle fields? No.
For me, it’s less about “logic” and more about anti-plvl. (GoE is sufficient).
Back to game design philosophy - I would like to see more synergy between builds. Eg WW barbs get a bonus from slowed-by-caltrop enemies.
Again, IMHO: there should by an artificial stimulation to play multiplayer. But, I don’t think it should be 10x solo play.
It’s not only that. If we don’t have scaling in multiplayer people will aim at DPS builds mainly since you’ll get more EXP that way (if it’s proportionally gained from damage done). The whole multiplayer experience will change.
That is why I am asking what you, as players, prefer.
Such thing will serve for even more multi vs solo disparity.
The way I see a possible aRPG design regarding multiplayer is this:
Co-op done as in D3, but with even more synergies between classes -> This would require a separate SSF mode for solo players
Co-op based on no artificial rules serving for competition between the players in the groups for whose doing most damage (aka receiving most EXP)
“Fake” multiplayer based on MMO-like open areas where the experience is only acquired by the one making the kill and the loot is received by the one picking it faster (survival aRPG for example)
Imho - your necro post is off topic from your original post. I feel it is off topic enough for me to suggest to you that it should be in its own post.
If you had some how explained how “possible aRPG game design” was related to “artificially stimulated co-op” it would have been ok to necro the thread.
I suggest you edit your necroong post and add a quick intro paragraph that does a recap of your original post and explain why you are necroing your thread.
As it stands now, the new post on a 7 mo old thread reads as “off topic” (imo)
2] Such that is not stimulated artificially:
2.1) Co-op based on no artificial rules serving for competition between the players in the groups for whose doing most damage (aka receiving most EXP)
2.2) “Fake” multiplayer based on MMO-like open areas where the experience is only acquired by the one making the kill and the loot is received by the one picking it faster (survival aRPG for example)
The point of the thread is we have a discussion which from the above should be the case for Diablo 4 and should we have different modes based on the different multiplayer rules for example.
And you answered your own question. Player retention statistics prove this to be the case. It’s why the chance of future offline or purely solo games from Blizzard is infinitesimal. It’s simple economics. More players play longer with more friends and sell more games. This is why there are so many get a friend to join promotions.
I think they should try all multiplayer options in D4 besides the usual that attracts most players. They can test different maps/zones/modes where different multiplayer rules are in place (just like the PvE/PvP separation) - zones with shared loot drops like in D2 or a world boss “disabling” the multiplayer bonuses or a cow level without shared XP, just to have something different in multiplayer than the usual gameplay scenario.
They should try everything anyone can think of in an attempt to attract even more players than previously used methods. Resting on your faded laurels is a poor business strategy. They should have a pretty good understanding of what doesn’t work by now.
