How Bethesda could implement 2 Player Coop

[Kirikoza]

I just wanted to create this thread to toss around ideas on how Bethesda COULD implement 2 player co-op into some of their open world sandbox games. I really wanted a functioning Fallout 4 COOP mod to show up but it looks like that won't be happening due to the technical limitations of it. I noticed a lot of people arguing about how it could be implemented, if it even should be. This is my idea:

 

First of all, it should be voluntary of course. It should be like Minecraft where one person hosts and the other people can only play when the host is online. I feel like that would be MUCH easier to maintain than to deal with dedicated servers. Of course a dedicated server would be much cooler but it's way too hard to maintain and seems really unnecessary. And of course the other person is able to DC whenever they want without interrupting the host's gaming.

 

Now for the major things that people are afraid of:

Story and conversation: Fallout can be heavily dialogue based and it's unrealistic to think Bethesda should change the dialogue lines to include both players, that'd be insanely time consuming and Bethesda already doesn't put enough time into polishing and bug checking, last thing we need is them having to polish this system. What they should do instead is continue to make it based around the host player. The host does all the talking and conversations. When you enter conversation the camera switches between the people talking when they're talking, right? Well if the second player is nearby there should be an option called "listen in" or something like that, where they see the same thing the host sees in conversation, all the people talking and the line picking options where the host decides the next line said. This way the host and the other player can discuss the correct option, but of course the host should make the decision. Charisma  challenges should be based on the host entirely as well. Keep in mind, watching the conversation should be a toggle thing. If the second player would rather explore elsewhere than they should be able to.

 

Companions and PVP: two player coop, no companions. The second player is essentially your companion, so you can't have Piper while your friend is playing with you. There are no special companion perks when you have a second player because it's already a perk to have a well equipped and competent player rather than a really crappy AI. PVP between players will also be an optional and consensual thing, akin to how it was done in Borderlands and it wouldn't completely kill the other player, but the losing player would have to heal themselves' back up while the winner gets their health reset  to the way their health was before the 1v1 (that way you can't just do 1v1s to boost the other person's health and the loser does face a consequence)

 

Items: Items and shopping should be the same for either character. When one player picks up an item it should still be there on  the other player's screen. If there's a roll of duct tape in the corner and the host picks it up, it should still be on the other player's screen. This way there will be plenty of items for both players so Bethesda doesn't have to worry about increasing the amount of items. This will be different with pick up items and props though. Props like chairs and stuff like that will be the same for both screens, that way if one player hits the chair it moves for the other player. That's different from items though, so if one player moves or picks up an item it doesn't move for the other player. This should go for power suits and weapons as well. When one player is in the powersuit, the other player should be able to see it. But once that player gets out it should disappear for the other. It's gonna look janky and unimmersive but this seems like the best option. Players can't share items so there will never be an overabundance so that difficulty will remain the same. They have different items even if they're at the same workshop or crate. Shops will be the same. If one player buys a weapon from a dealer then that weapon should still be available to the other player.

 

Game difficulty: With two players the game difficulty most certainly needs to be increased to compensate. I would say add twice the enemies and double their health. Bosses get health doubled (but of course there won't be two of the same boss that would be stupid) and there will be twice the amount of super mutants or ogres than before with double the health. If a player DCs while the host is in a gunfight, drop the difficulty so less enemies spawn and newly spawned enemies have less health so as soon as the host clears out the enemies that spawned in while it was still a two player game, it'll be as if it were a single player game the entire time. Bethesda has a bad habit of giving us low framerates when a lot of enemies are on screen though, so a solution to that would be to make the corpses of bodies killed by one player invisible to the other. It'll be last hit based by the way. If one player did 99 damage to an enemy and the other player got the last hit then tough luck! Kill got stolen. That's why you don't play with asshole friends am i right? This way there doesn't get to be an overabundance of items and the game doesn't have to render so many bodies. This would be different for bosses, however, where both the players would still see the boss's corpse and can loot from it. Of course for Bethesda to be able to handle this some compromises need to be made. Maybe less render distance in two player mode and lowered quality. You'll get the best looking and best performing game on solo play but sacrifices must be made in coop. Tough luck kiddo!

 

Finally, the workshop: If Bethesda continues to keep the workshop function introduced in Fallout for and the one in Skyrim, there needs to be a coop plan for it. I think it makes a lot more sense to keep in the workshop function if they do include a coop function. What's the point in building a bad ass settlement or lake house if you can't show it off? I would in Fallout, both players should be able to make a settlement. They both get to build in the same settlement and everything, they can delete each other's items and everything. It should be just like Minecraft in that sense. They should have separate workshops though since they can't share items. If one player has 84 concrete the other player has to get their own concrete. If the second player delete's the host's items (or vice versa) items go back to the original builder, not the person who destroyed it. For a new Elder Scrolls game if they keep the same house building system like they did in Skyrim, I think both players get their own house and can't change the other's. Homes in the Elder Scrolls games should be entirely personal and unaffected by another player.

 

 

And that's my idea for how Bethesda should implement coop! I know it's much easier said than done but I just wanted to give my perspective as a gamer and NOT a game designer. If there's something I didn't touch on or if you have a better idea or just want to comment on my idea please do so! I want this to be a discussion after all. Also no arguing or insulting. If you have a better idea that someone else in this thread or than me please share it respectfully, I don't want this to be an argument, just a friendly discussion between gamers.

[themctipers]

do coop like saint row

 

story/conversation: when both players are in a mission and are in the same general area and one reaches an NPC that leads to a cutscene/dialog, both players get that cutscene and it talks to the player they're talking to

screen 1: 

npc talks to player 1

screen 2:

npc talks to player 2

 

both have same dialog and stuff. 

make something like interacting with all NPCs that don't matter to the quest/story voluntary and on their side only.

 

I think items and ammo should be shared

[WereCat]

Look at how Divinity Original Sin handled it, that said, the combat is turn based so in Bethesda games it would have to be done differently.

[You_are_a_cunt]

Am I the only one that wants Bethesda to stick to single player? ESO is a mess and I wouldn't want to see another wasted development cycle on an MMO/co-op game instead of focusing on TES VI and FO5 (and beyond).

Unless they pull a Borderlands-style co-op implementation, it'd go pretty bad pretty fast

[PatrickK]

1 hour ago, revsilverspine said:

Am I the only one that wants Bethesda to stick to single player? ESO is a mess and I wouldn't want to see another wasted development cycle on an MMO/co-op game instead of focusing on TES VI and FO5 (and beyond).

Unless they pull a Borderlands-style co-op implementation, it'd go pretty bad pretty fast

Agreed. I don't mind the singleplayers either. Borderlands Co-op would be great, but still idk. Games like fallout and TES are way more RPG based with lore etc. Some things are best enjoyed alone

[You_are_a_cunt]

2 minutes ago, PatrickK said:

Agreed. I don't mind the singleplayers either. Borderlands Co-op would be great, but still idk. Games like fallout and TES are way more RPG based with lore etc. Some things are best enjoyed alone

a co-op fallout game would basically be something like Borderlands meets Rust. MMO fallout is basically Rust with advanced tech.

TES is all about telling a story, a fixed (ish) point in time. ESO could have been a nice idea, had it presented a war between the factions, but a war that ended with one of the factions winning, deciding the course of TES VI or a future TES game.

[PatrickK]

6 minutes ago, revsilverspine said:

a co-op fallout game would basically be something like Borderlands meets Rust. MMO fallout is basically Rust with advanced tech.

TES is all about telling a story, a fixed (ish) point in time. ESO could have been a nice idea, had it presented a war between the factions, but a war that ended with one of the factions winning, deciding the course of TES VI or a future TES game.

ESO is actually pretty good if you ask me though, it's not made by bethesda either. But it's one of the best and most populair MMO's atm. And yea i guess some sort of?.. I'd rather have them keep fallout Singleplayer 

[You_are_a_cunt]

15 minutes ago, PatrickK said:

ESO is actually pretty good if you ask me though, it's not made by bethesda either. But it's one of the best and most populair MMO's atm. And yea i guess some sort of?.. I'd rather have them keep fallout Singleplayer 

Played ESO on and off since the beta. was actually hyped for it, but it turned out to be something I couldn't get into on a regular basis.

[PatrickK]

17 minutes ago, revsilverspine said:

Played ESO on and off since the beta. was actually hyped for it, but it turned out to be something I couldn't get into on a regular basis.

didn't it suck at the start and became better once the big tamriel update came? (i have only played it for a few hours)

[You_are_a_cunt]

Just now, PatrickK said:

didn't it suck at the start and became better once the big tamriel update came? (i have only played it for a few hours)

It got somewhat better, but it's still not where it could have been