Kenshi 2 - Should It Have Multiplayer?

EDIT: When I say Multi-player I am not referring to making it some garbage MMO. I mean Co-op with like 2-4 buddies. I didn't realize that so many people think multi-player means love service open MMO because to me it never has. Multiplayer is multiple players. Coop and MMO are types of multiplayer...
Hello Lads. After my last video discussing the [Redacted] feature, a bit of a debate on whether multiplayer should be in Kenshi 2 started. So, lets talk about it.
#Kenshi #Kenshi2 #gametheory

[@badguyx4745]

To be able to play kenshi 2 with my brother exploring the world would be a amazing.

[@spas8543]

make it 2-4 player co-op and give the host the ability to speed up time and pause the game, that would be perfect.

[@1Darkmanfin]

I don't perceive any issue with time skipping or pausing in the game. From my experience as an avid EU4 and Paradox game player, this practice is considered normal in handling time. The host can manage the pace of time, facilitating faster progression if desired. While anyone can pause the game, the host retains the authority to resume the time flow.

[@xaleypoo4779]

It doesn't _need_ multiplayer, but it would be awesome if it had multiplayer.

[@Speedstar115]

I see a lot of people in the comments jaded by recent multiplayer trends and disappointing lack of creativity with multiplayer in recent areas. However to those saying “with the pause mechanics” and other arguments Like that being a limiting factor. They would not be because you’d be playing with a friend who you’d be talking to and agreeing on to pause the game. Don’t think of this as a mmo or live service game. Think of it more as playing kenshi with your brother or your friends watching but now they just get to be a companion part of the story. Not some competitive PvP garbage.

[@HeroInHisHead]

You think it's bad here. You should see the comments on Reddit about this video. If the YT comments are a 60-40 split. Then Reddit is basically 95-5 in favor of letting me know I'm a tool for even talking about it lol.

[@parrotw3367]

@@HeroInHisHead I thought you were exaggerating lmao. The vehement dislike towards multiplayer is staggering to me. Maybe some people have a hugely different concept of what 'multiplayer' means? The only valid take I've seen for not adding multiplayer is the workload it would introduce for the developers. Other than that, I can't see why you'd be against it - obviously it would be an 'optional' thing.

[@arcadius2569]

Yeah it used to be that everything had multiplayer or co-op tacked on just because and we don't complain about that. In fact it created some of the best experiences, with couch co-op and online but low-player shooters. People are very jaded about it. I'm surprised the convo is so negative.

[@dukeofdarknessreborn]

Great video! I am an advocate of adding multiplayer functions to as many games as possible. I don't understand the people who are constantly angry about it, saying not all games are made for multiplayer. If the multiplayer function is done right, it doesn't change anything for you if you decide to play solo, therefore not harming your solo experience by any means. That being said, Kenshi 2 is rather trickier with multiplayer implementation, but it's not at all impossible, as games with similar mechanics do have multiplayer. But in the case of Kenshi I understand that it definitely cannot be some MMO style game, rather a co-op experience with very tight collaboration of a handful of players. The easiest way to solve the "time manipulation problem" would be to give a host of the game absolute control over it. So the players would have to ask host to pause/unpause the game, or alternatively use some kind of a "voting system". When it comes to the squad system and characters. I think the best option would be to have only one shared faction, because having more splitting in the game would ultimately result in more harm than good. And the question "What would happen with character X when player X is offline" could be solved with a unit transfer system. When one player goes off, he could transfer each character or squad to specific other player(s) or have the game do it for him automatically. The best would be to have this transfering available all the time, so players could give control over characters to others like in a strategy game. Last but not least, when it comes to the multiplayer game and it's save file, a dedicated server could be an option. I know it all comes down to the host of the game having absolute control over everything in the game, but I find it as the simplest option which doesn't damage the core mechanics of the game (which is probably the biggest concern of all those who are against multiplayer in Kenshi 2). Anyways, if you read this all the way here, thank you and have a nice day! Regardless of if you agree or disagree.

[@alissiarosadelaguatl6140]

They hate it because they're thinking of live service; they're younger people who don't remember when games had actual multi-player and not live service shit

[@mehemynxm6974]

Multiplayer could be an awesome, and hilarious mode to play with friends. But the amount of man hours multiplayer requires, is just far too much, for a team of Kenshi's & focus. With the speed up settings, you could handle it similar to stellaris, where the host has control, and other players can request the host to speed up or pause.

[@drewtrux77]

Co op is the key

[@xPetyr]

The main focus should (and is) single player. Once everything is working as intended i would like to see a co op option.

[@Haru-spicy]

multiplayer wouldn't be too hard i feel. the lack of time-skip mechanics can be overcome with increasing speed multipliers which already exists. Likewise similar to starting scenarios you could have settings where every player only gets one character, or they get multiple, or they get their own faction, etc. Saves could be stored locally on each computer and then loaded by whoever was hosting the game at that time, similar to Divinity Original Sin's system (possibly Baldur's Gate 3 as well but i don't know exactly how that game does it) There would definitely have to be points where players were un-attackable though, namely when in plastic surgery menus or recruitment windows.

[@Renderc4t]

Personally I don't think it needs multiplayer but I don't see why co-op wouldn't work in Kenshi. Time controls already work in Grand Strategy games. Worldstates are not an issue in small scale co-op, if your buddy sneaks off to kidnap Lord Pheonix that's just part of the co-op experience. Players would share the faction and could have the option to create player exclusive squads, still allowing you to transfer characters between players. Performance would be my concern, Kenshi already pauses to load when jumping between squads, bases and characters that somehow got stuck on terrain and left behind. Anytime any player does that it might need to pause for everyone, could get annoying fast.

[@HeroInHisHead]

I feel like there is a collective misunderstanding about what people mean when they say they want Multi-player. They aren't saying that want Kenshi to be an MMO. They mean they want co-op with multiple players.

[@isdochegal3576]

@@HeroInHisHead i thought that you had the same missunderstanding, while listening to your video. because most of the "contra-points" you made doesnt apply for regular coop.

[@HeroInHisHead]

@isdochegal3576 I disagree, they all absolutely apply. Time control - for both my explanation of how to handle it and how it might not work applies for co-op, My concerns with world states also exists with co-op, and my questions about world storage and hosting applies exclusively to coop and wouldn't make sense to even question fot an MMO unless idea was something like V Rising which I would have stated.

[@isdochegal3576]

@@HeroInHisHead then we have very different opinions. time controll does NOT apply (many games have done it before. so its NOT a problem. or at least shouldnt be). the worries with world states is also NOT a problem if you just controll the same faction. and, that world events happen is a KEY PART of the game, so a coop FEATURE, NOT a problem. also in coop you almost exclusively play with people you know and are talk with the person you are playing with. so your "gaming partner" will know very well what happens on the other side of the map. and world storage and hosting is not even worth talking about (in my opinion) because literally MILLIONS of other games have allready handled that part without any problems.

[@LowTGaming]

rimworld has a multiplayer mod and its chaotic however it works great when you have less than 5 people

[@DreapsterAtRoblox]

absolutely, Me and my friend wanted multiplayer kenshi forever

[@Oryxification]

What I'd like to see in Kenshi 2 is a job Shift schedule system where people work a shift and then do something else for leisure. Something that makes me forget they're just dolls I control, something that improves their stats.

[@jakeand9020]

Honestly multiplayer up to maybe 4 players would be pretty awesome. Separate or same faction with a consistent worldstate so players could affect the world together or separately. Definitely no interest in an "open" multiplayer nor would it be a deciding factor either way for me.

[@HeroInHisHead]

Open multi-player would be trash. I'm game for coop thought. But as I said in the video I'd be fine with or without it.

[@etherblackops382]

with the time speed and pause mechanics I hardly see multiplayer works honestly

[@Murrrrr333]

I mean, project zomboid did it, plus Kenshi 2 will most likely have some kind of vehicles like boats or even rideable animals, which will make moving around the map faster and easier, so there won't be a need to increase time speed for moving, and maybe have the ability to cut down and modify the crafting/research time🤷

[@fijiroll]

say you have zone A and zone B, player 1 is in zone A and pauses the game, while player 2 in zone B does not, zone A stays paused while the game keeps track of what the ai WOULD be doing if it were unpaused and as you unpause it catches up either rapidly or instantly, there are a few caveats like if you go into combat it should pause or slow down, or if player 2 pauses after player 1 does then zone B will catch up with zone A in the background then pause

[@parrotw3367]

like that other guy said, zomboid has the same kinda speed up mechanics - which are completely disabled in multiplayer, but the game still plays super well regardless. As long as there's a configurable option to speed up healing/crafting/farming etc, it could be totally feasible; that's if you forget the time and effort it would take the devs to implement it

[@neurotic3015]

@@Murrrrr333 It's also in Hearts of Iron 4- They're very different games but the way the speed up is implemented I think works, if you set it right, everybody in the lobby has to agree to slow or speed up the game or the lobby host chooses to speed or slow it down.

[@arcadius2569]

Perhaps instead of pause it goes into slowmo.

[@ryuuaeons315]

I mean it's just an "Optional Feature" but could be really good to have, so why not just have it? Players can still enjoy the game and choose whatever type of game mode suits them the most. If Multiplayer is done correctly, it could cater to more audience other than single player enjoyers, it opens up an opportunity that the game would be more recognized in the gaming media. Personally, It would be a good idea.

[@parrotw3367]

I think a lot of the people who aren't fans of the idea believe that allocating time to implementing multiplayer would be detrimental to the other features the devs intend to introduce. I personally believe multiplayer would be fucking amazing in this game and well worth whatever effort it takes

[@holeefuk6719]

If you want reference from games on the time control aspect I would suggest looking at how europa universalis does it for their multiplayer mode, it’s pretty well done and me and my friends have no issues with using it. Only thing that I will say is this doesn’t work well for like public lobbies

[@piggymadbr0]

okay I think the issue here is we don't want "multiplayer" but "Co-op" i want to play with someone not just be in the same world as someone else both playing Kenshi separately...... And for time control for Co-op the answer is pretty clear it will work fine. Really that's the answer works fine in Stellaris and Hoi 4. Most people wanted Co-op in Project Zomboid but we got multiplayer. After hundreds of hours solo in both Kenshi and PZ I can say clearly being able to jump into a world with one of my friends and explore and try and survive together in a Co-op manner is great. Now does that only apply to PZ or could that apply to Kenshi as well? For me the answer is clear... WE WANT CO-OP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@PwnyboyGolden]

Whoever is party leader has control of time speed and pause. All players in their “party” are subject to their control.

[@NestlaysChaulkolateChips]

I would love it so much. A co-op mode for friends would be amazing

[@piotrdabrowski8129]

It would be nice to create some kind arena land for PvP batles 1vs1 3vs3 etc. With one speed only ?!?!?

[@daha1214]

this and maybe little very hard scenarios which you can do toghether

[@j.w.-]

It would be fun, though but programming netcode and running servers is pain in the ass and the userbase is used to being solo players. Just from a design and management perspective its too costly

[@chstens]

They don't have to run anything, let people run their own servers. Netcode is a lot of work though, I'll give you that. Certainly less work in UE than torque or whatever engine they used for Kenshi 1, but still significant.

[@j.w.-]

@@chstens the OGRE engine, which Kenshi 1 was made in is fully capable of running multiplayer, since a bunch of MMO's are made in it but the problem is both the jankiness of the Kenshi code itself

[@chstens]

@@j.w.- Right, Ogre.

[@Bori_isuS.]

I think that there multiplayer should be only private and max 2-4 people. It fixes the problem with speed up time because I think it’s fine if 2-4 people will just agree when to speed up or not to . And with a world state, because you’re probably going to play together and stuff

[@parkranga]

if multiplayer were to exist in kenshi 2; i would like it to be non-intrusive and sort of like death strandings and NieR: Automata multiplayer systems because they're cool and make the world feel more lived in imo

[@kiwiwasoncehere3623]

For the party management, if it were single faction, I actually think the solutions are rather simple! If it's co-op(which is ALL the multiplayer Kenshi needs imo), it could take character management pretty directly from Wildermyth! They did it perfectly, and the base system is almost the exact same when it comes to multiple players managing a finite party of people

[@isdochegal3576]

i dont care about multiplayer servers or something like that. but it OBVOUSLY should have a coop-mode for 2 (or even up to 4) players. game is perfect for that. about 30% of the, allready established, player base want it. it would push the game BIG TIME because a lot of streamers would hop on it (and no, more public attension DOESNT mean that the needs of casuals have to be fullfilled and the game will suffer under that. that is COMPLETELY optional for the developer. so there would be nobody to blame but the greed of them). wich would mean the company has more money to further invest into the game and make it better. and THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT is that there is NO (not a single) deficit for the solo players. so what is the audacity of players to push against it when it would have no draw back for them, at all (maybe a bit longer development time but thats really about it. plus, a lot more people would by it in early access and that bonus money could actually make it shorter than without MP) its not like kenshi ever was about perfectly balancing everything. so just design it for solo play and slap multiplayer/coop over it. who cares if it is easier if you play with multiple people, that way? edit: speed up is no problem either. many games with a speed up option have multiplayer. let the host decide if time is speed up or not (example CK3)! or let window pop up where everbody has to click "yes" for the speed up to happen ( just like every game with a "skip night through sleeping" mechanic does it). its not like people play coop with random strangers. it will mostly be friends, who probably even talk via discord or something. so no problem at all. same goes for the pause option. just let the host controll it. the MP doesnt have to be perfect or the main focus. just HAVE IT for people who like it honestly, most of the contra points in the video are only relevent for public servers. almost none of them are relevent for coop. "could they play solo or does the host have the server saves?" is not even a question. of cause the host just has the server + saves. like in, literally, millions of other games and it never was a problem. you want to keep playing solo, in that partcular game state? fine, ask the host for the seed (like you can in valheim e.g.) and play solo. but if you want to play solo all the time, just make a solo run from the start!

[@arcadius2569]

This is not something I even considered, and I love co-op games. The more the merrier absolutely, but they'd have to be pretty creative about how they do it. What I would love is literally splitscreen tacked onto everything like the old days, people on a couch can agree when they want to pause and stuff so it mattered less. Maybe some interesting multiplayer mechanics, online base raids and stuff, but in terms of online long-term co-op they'd have to take a lot into consideration.

[@MrQuitarias]

Yes, but only if it doesn't compromise the design. Also it's probably fairly low on the priority list. I would enjoy walking the sands with my friends having their own peeps and squads. But the original is a very solitary game and I'm OK with the sequel being single player as well.

[@minstrel7210]

I'd prefer they have a polished singleplayer experience before even thinking about a multiplayer one. That's a lot of extra development and system strain that would have to get sorted. If they were to do it, I'd prefer it be a feature that was only added after everything else was fully updated and done.

[@kazumablackwing4270]

Something akin to Valheim, PZ, or Conan style multiplayer could be neat, where it's either locally hosted or a persistent world on a server. The RP potential would be unparalleled.. especially for something like faction warfare with players aligning with one of the major or minor factions. The big problem I see is whether or not the game would be able to handle multiple people's factions existing in the same world, doing things and running around.

[@Belgar]

I don’t think the game is structured in a way that supports multiplayer. The time speed and pause feature alone proves this. Of course they could maybe disable these features when you’re playing online, but I just don’t see it… That said, it would be awesome to be able to play with friends and I wouldn’t mind turning these features off while doing it. Edit: Maybe the game being made in unreal, some modder familiar with the engine will eventually find a solution, but I don’t see it as a “official” feature.

[@kruziikal]

nobody wants mmo bs. this topic is like coop like splitscreen or join my game up to so many people type of deal. make it so u can't go too far from the host and leave the pause and speed up alone. nobody has any issues with the game pausing or speeding up. a simple "ima pause rq sorry bro" or u good with speeding up? and the other guy can pause anytime. like stellaris does.

[@butteater8748]

I think most games should at the least include a co op mode. Imagine if you could play kenshi with a friend. Idk how it would work but it would be pretty cool if they could find a way to make kenshi 2 have at the very last 2 player co op. I know not everything needs multplayer but id still argue that most games that exist in general would be fun to play through with a friend. Imagine bioshock with co op. Or skyrim with co op that works good. Or fallout. Or dishonored. Or deus ex. Or fuckin name it and it would probably be pretty fun co op

[@benk_22]

Kenshi Online would be a separate game with a whole New focus and gameplay, IT WONT BE SQUAD MANAGEMENT/ RTS, in my vision it would be much more near the RPG with npcs and quests and a main server without the time mechanic... being much more near rust or wow, or a strange mix of both, a valheim with the option of raiding the clan next door. The cities and waystations being faction owned, that way you aly either with shek or Holy nation ( u got the point) and as long you are not online, there will be some of your faction buddies figthing your wars ( if no one is online, the ai defends). That way we can choose our figth and experience the kenshi world ( imagine alying with cat lon or bugmestar...). Above all it would be a MMO with 100-500 players therefore the world CAN BE AND SHOULD BE LARGE, só you can roam with just one squad, your own battle division of that faction, training each one of them, if they die, they die ggs i guess...

[@daha1214]

I think the multiplayer should be little scenarios ore like dungeons, which you can do with friends where everbody bring a few member and memberinas from there maingame. Ore you have little pvp arenas

[@sethwinters3556]

I think if it's done like bg3 where the game doesn't really change much if you play alone or not. It could be beyond amazing. But my thought is how long would that take to implement? Is that going to be a major roadblock and extend development time? Because I'd be fine if they put that off until the game is released so I can just play kenshi 2 😂

[@sloppiipapi5648]

No reason to not have multiplayer. It brings me people to your game, It doesn't affect the people that got no friends. All you gotta do is change the speed up and pause system a lil but plenty of games function just fine with both players having time control as long as the players communicate between eachother.

[@PwnyboyGolden]

You should be able to play together on one save but not combining players progress and effort in two separate playthroughs. I.e two separate characters or settlement playthroughs should not be able to join together to make one save file.

[@Astares9]

could use co-op but not what the term multiplayer encompasses today

[@HollowBagel]

It would definitely be appreciated by many, but I don't care about multiplayer. I think it would take too long, and take too many resources that could be put towards other aspects of development.

[@Avrelianvs]

Of course it should! What kind of question is that?

[@t.k.8815]

Ojalá agreguen el online pero privado como el Midgar, para jugar con amigos de forma independiente y que cada uno pueda hacer su historia.

[@magoochito]

I'd love to play co-op with my buddy

[@TauromOG]

if kenshi or kenshi 2 had multiplayer, I think it would play somewhat similar as to Project Zomboid (in my opinion).

[@Mitsurugi2424]

Too many people here are expecting this small indie studio to pull a Bethesda and try to make their game a service. I really think that if they added multiplayer, it would withe be coop, or personal servers like Minecraft or Zomboid. While I agree Kenshi 2 would suck if it were trying to be an mmo or game as a service, you can't convince me the game wouldn't be better with coop or a multiplayer server setup like Minecraft. It would make this game exponentially better to be able to embrace the suck with a handful of friends.

[@DannyCapM8]

Does it need Multiplayer? No Would it have a place in Kenshi 2? Perhaps; it opens up a lot of new ways to play, and possibly open Kenshi to new players who seem intimidated by Kenshi, would probably feel more up to playing with a buddy or two to make the learning curve a lot less frightening. Not to mention how much more the stories that would be told with the homies around. Do I want multiplayer? Yes

[@siknklyde6419]

Co-op would be fire. Fuck all the fedora wearing CBT enjoyers with no friends who just want the rest of us to never have that experience. Kenshi with co-op would just be amazing.

[@jancerny3657]

I am for multiplayer...but question now is, is it finantialy feaseable? With added multiplayer lot more echanics will need to be implace. Mechanics like: player to player base conquest, player to player trading, time manegement...advanced options like if sneaking should be possible around characters of other player, or if theft should be allowed, or if assassination should be allowed on them (we know how assassination is broken in Kenshi). Personally I would love to be able to invite few friends to my playtrough (both coop where we would share single faction, or "do what ever you want" where each player will have faction of its own) Paradox stile. I think Paradox strategy games are closest to Kenshy time management (of course system can't be copied one to one) Edit: you mentioned entering United Cities and finding them destroyed...you did sound it like a bad thin. Though more worldstates will have to be programed into the game, so mybe the Rebel Farmers will rebuild...then this Farmes can be destroyed again....then somebody else pick up those cities. Not to mention player should be able to pick conquered city as his own, I would love to have Heft as my own capital city :D

[@DevvuInTheDetails]

Yes, let's open pandora's box. That's *exactly* what Kenshi 2 needs is for the devs to play multiplayer exploit whack-a-mole eating all the development time.

[@touchmeimfluffy4055]

I don't want multiplayer, I want co-op.

[@2BsWraith]

Kenshi with multiplayer would be cool having rival, allied factions that function on a higher level than any other enemy. However i do personally believe that multiplayer would ruin the vibes of the game.

[@nikro6357]

What if we had a pvp mode. Build 2 factions at war and raid each other

[@rendered2241]

Stellaris has time control for the host, however every player is capable of pausing it.

[@OscarTheStrategist]

We will all be skeletons by the time Kenshi 2 comes.

[@kolmo3182]

Isn't it already like multiplayer with how bad some NPCs treat you

[@ノムラシロウ]

個人的にはKenshiは一人でじっくりやりたいゲーム(*'▽')

[@henrychoo3879]

A p2p multiplayer sounds good. Or community made dedicated servers are great as well.

[@Orphilite]

something like project zomboid co-op or you can pvp. that would be nice

[@kruziikal]

ok multiplayer yes but not mmo bs. like a coop join our game type of deal thats it. the speed up time and pause is ez. just look at strategy games like stellaris just leave it alone when one person pauses it pauses for all or of u speed up u speed up nobody has issues with this lmao

[@magtegi2]

I don’t care about some giant massively multiplayer experience. I’d only be fine with it if I could just play with one ☝️ friend de we can both experience the world together

[@joeclooney1997]

Co op would be nice, multiplayer pvp isn't something they should waste time on tho

[@Punkfreind]

Kenshi 2 + coop = FUNN²

[@serkg4672]

It would be like WoW if they implement that. Could be fun, but I still prefer single player.

[@HeroInHisHead]

I'm referring to 2-4 person co-op not making Kenshi and MMO. That would be awful.

[@Mr.coldie37]

Tbh It should have Co-op

[@cossackfalco]

Doesnt have to, but then again modders will probably make one,

[@Adamthegeek70]

I would like to play this game with my wife. so yes please. small local lan or direct connection.

[@youhavetoguessit]

No. Not everything needs multiplayer. This isn't some live service garbage... This is Kenshi.

[@azikhan1707]

Yeah, but if they put it in the right way, you can play solo mode in a multiplayer mode that would be fun. Like you can invite friends up to like 5 or 10, but that's about it. No live service. Just chilling out with your friends in the desert. That would be a good multiplayer kenshi

[@azikhan1707]

I'll be fine if it doesn't have multiplayer. But a multiplayer mode might be fun.

[@xaleypoo4779]

There _is_ a difference between live service and multiplayer, my guy.

[@azikhan1707]

@@xaleypoo4779 No live service, but some good old multiplayer might be fun. Could do some good RP ass wall

[@steel3z3u59]

Yep look at Fallout 76!

[@cqr4399]

We need multiplayer

[@piotrdabrowski8129]

Or PvP base attak and defence :) ;p

[@spatrk6634]

no. it should not have multiplayer. it would be entirely different game.

[@coachspinpill3837]

No. But if it did, people should be limited to 1 char.

[@irpwellyn]

How does Project Zomboid do it?

[@kruziikal]

NOBODY wants mmo multiplayer anytime someone says multiplayer we mean coop like stellaris or sum not online??? like ew

[@1KeyJee]

I don’t want multiplayer in Kenshi, it’s perfect as is

[@Mitsurugi2424]

Good thing we are talking about Kenshi 2

[@Chewie260]

Not everything needs to be multiplayer, multiplayer creates balance requirements that suck the fun out of singleplayer games. Imagine a well balanced kenshi, where you cant power grind strength, sneak or thievery. Where you could only play at 1x speed. Thank you i will pass. Even in co-op only it all stands. Cuz co-op just means you would not be doing pvp, you could still compete with each other economically, then that one guy who always asked the teacher about previous days homework would whinge at you that you and the dev that its cheating cuz you did the basic research and are useing power leveling strats, after which they would get patched out. NOT EVERY GAME NEEDS MULTIPLAYER.

[@Chewie260]

Another pefect example of co-op ruining fun, rimworld, i co-op'ed with a friend. Mod lets you do that. Lasted about 2 hours, after which he got bored and started setting things on fire cuz it would be "lmao so funny epic troll". I dont even blame him, cuz it was god awful boring to begin with, cuz with 2 people there was never micro skill issues and if anything it was annoying not being able to just do things your way.

[@hade3224]

100% should. I hate all of the loners with no friends gatekeeping it. Atleast COOP to play on the same world with a friend would be nice.

[@Murrrrr333]

I absolutely agree, but it should release as an update after the full release so it won't slow down development, like how Project zomboid did it

[@timrim9405]

In reality most of the time It's the opposite with this gatekeeping. The difference is that silent majority becoming less silent this days and many people perceive this as gatekeeping. coop/PVP maniacs often can make life of average gamers and devs miserable because they are often enthusiastic people from strong social groups, who want games to focus on multi leaving solo play to be ignored or to be afterthought even if it's important for majority of people (more silent but big majority). In reality even people with a lot of friends play solo most of the time especially in games like this! And we are not talking about small feature, it would be insanely hard to do this properly in game like Kenshi and it would create additional performance issues. This would slow down development so hard it's ridiculous and people know this (so it's not some weird gatekeeping - in reality slowing down everything just because some smaller but more organized crowd want multi as soon as possible would be real harsh gatekeeping). In my opinion it would make sense to do this only after release and I would love to see completely separate game mode that is not lazy crap - solid thing that works like V Rising but it would require huge amount of changes (they would have to change balance, probably slash recruitment limits per player and give some better incentives for coop/PVP). At the end devs decide what to do, and they can even slow down development just because they feel passionate about some features etc.

[@sr_cln]

it should have a voice acting instead

[@DaroGonzalez]

No, next question

[@jakesmith3920]

Why should they waste time and resources making it multiplayer

[@twitch6755]

I think co-op rather than multiplayer, if yo uget what im sayn. dont want some fuckn level 100 loser coming up and beatn the shit out of me.

[@HeroInHisHead]

When I say Multi-player I am not referring to making it some garbage MMO. I mean Co-op with like 2-4 buddies. I didn't realize that so many people think multi-player means love service open MMO because to me it never has. Multiplayer is multiple players. Coop and MMO are types of multiplayer.. That's why i brought up the point about where saves would be stored.

[@twitch6755]

@@HeroInHisHead I'm still coming over there regardless.

[@HeroInHisHead]

@@twitch6755 fair enough. I'd prolly power level and beat my friends into the ground in coop kenshi to tbh lol

[@craffordjf]

NOooooo!

[@WalterCatman]

Project zomboid

[@tobycat5799]

Multiplayer.. on paper. Could be beautiful, people trading, could be mercenaries. In real life.. kenshi is a hell hole of getting your ass whooped.. having a max level squad roaming around crushing noobs would suck hard.

[@HeroInHisHead]

I think you're confusing making Kenshi an MMO and having Co-Op with your friends. I am firmly against making it an MMO. I'm talking about isolated games with like 2 - 3 people.

[@tobycat5799]

@@HeroInHisHead yeah.. I think I played too much rust.. envisioning zergs on servers. But.. local server would barely be used.. Unless you both used the same team. And could just play the same save file

[@HeroInHisHead]

@tobycat5799 yeah I think the general idea that the portion of the Community that wants Multi-player is that it would basically be like be like RTS games where it's not like big open servers, but rather that ability for a couple of buddies to host up and enjoy the same world together. Not a bunch of people, but rather 2 - 4 people with their own factions, own squads, all roaming independently in the same world and they can act on their own or together, but it's their choice. Basically just Kenshi but with a couple of other player run groups.

[@jakubchrzanowski9560]

i think kenshi 2 should be single but kenshi 3 cant be designed as first and second option because it would start to be boring so kenshi 3 should be multiplayer

[@Murrrrr333]

In 3040 maybe

[@jakesmith3920]

No.

[@brandonmunsen6035]

It wont. Old discussion

[@Murrrrr333]

😿

[@daha1214]

maybe little scenarios which are very hard ore pvp arenas would be cool and easy to do

[@CornPop309]

Answer NO

[@zoltan5960]

Nooooo for god sake no, i just want single player experience