PvP or Multiplayer Would be Cool!

[Grizzy]

Multiplayer would be amazing though many disapprove
The Arena can serve as an area to battle other players with brackets in levels and there should be teams such as 1v1 2v2 3v3 4v4 5v5 10v10! You could win other players Septims by staking gold in ranked matches.

There should be Dungeons where you and your friends can raid for Loot.

[Spiney]

No, multiplayer is not a TES thing. However you incorporate it, it's a major immersion breaker. And I don't play a TES game for fantasy multi-player. Something like WoW is for that.

[Vinja]

how would it break immersion if it was an option totally seperate from the single player game? im not to big on the multiplayer in ES either but i do think a pso esque dungeon crawl mode would be fun

[Spiney]

how would it break immersion if it was an option totally seperate from the single player game? im not to big on the multiplayer in ES either but i do think a pso esque dungeon crawl mode would be fun

Well if you want to transfer from single player to multi-player, there's those "match-making" menus to navigate, giving you senseless things like ping time and all that. Stuff I don't want to read when I'm meant to be immersed in a Fantasy world.

[Vinja]

oh yeah no, if there was mp i would assume theyd do it completely seperate in the main menu "continue, new game, load game, multiplayer, download content" that standard list, when you select mutliplayer you do create a completely new character or have the option of importing the aesthetics of one of your own so you dont have to redo the face / body morphs. and i dont see many people playing the multiplayer for roleplaying so i dotn think the server lists would be that big of a deal

i would enjoy a dungeon crawl mode with 2-4 friends, even though im pretty sure they have already said there is no mp whatsoever

[JJSmart]

I think physics would be a big deal in multiplayer.
If the engines are in sync (so that everything moves and falls in the same place, at the same speed, etc...) it'd take a massive amount of data transfer.
If they're not in sync, then you'd get some odd results, like your friends picking up objects (or throwing them out) where you don't see them, etc...

[Vinja]

JJ that is very true, but i think alot of that can be alleviated by prioritizing different items, like say noone has to be in sync for when the chain on the wall moves, or the cloth doors leading into another room in the dungeon. but tangible things like weapons, gold and traps, pretty much anything that hurts you or you can pick up would be in sync.

i know a few games do that already and maybe something like that would help? granted this is all moot as its not coming but still its a fun discussion i think

[Korutsuru]

i want multiplayer but only cooperative mode

[Fist]

This would be horrible. There are many fantasy rpgs that are multiplayer you can play. TES series is not one of them.

[Vendetta]

NO NO NO NOOOOOOO DO NOT WANT NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO EVERYONE WHO CONSIDERS THE IDEA SHALL BE TORTURED BY DEDRA FOR AN ETERNITY

I think ive made my point. goodbye

[Korutsuru]

This would be horrible. There are many fantasy rpgs that are multiplayer you can play. TES series is not one of them.

i would hate it if it change the way you can play elder scrolls, for example if skyrim would be a MMO (masive multiplayer online) that would be horrible, but if there is a coop option, then it don't botter me, in fact it would be great, i want share the elder scrolls experience with a friend.

at the end, an extra option don't hurt anyone.

[Incarnal]

I really couldn't want PvP or Multiplayer any less for TESV.

[Dean]

Bethesda make outstanding single-player games, why is it not possible that they could totally change online play for people? and you know...make it appeal to those who where previously against the concept. In all honesty I love the idea of dungeon crawling with people, it would not only be a laugh, but you could discuss lore and crap if you wanted to. I'm not talking about having worlds for 100's of people, just as many as you choose to be in your party. That way you can avoid the idiots with there ridiculous internet language and have all the immersion there. I guess I'm thinking more on the lines of online co-op.

Just because you find it terrible now, doesn't mean it will always be like that. The beauty of progression you see.

[JockoBeans]

NINE NINE NINE NINE NINE!!!!!!!!!!

NO MULTIPLAYER. Period.

By the way, we shall see just how well Bethesda will deal with (cooperative) multiplayer in Brink.

[Fist]

I'm fine with Bethesda doing multiplayer in a fantasy game and I agree it would be awesome to fight goblins with a friend.

But not with Elder Scrolls.

[PinballWizard]

Oh god please no. One of the reasons I shy away from multiplayer-RPGs is that noone plays them right anymore. You know that if you had p2p, there would be those idiots with full daedric armor and 60000 coins from duping items, or obnoxiously high skills and whatnot that would just cream you. That's why I like that in ES games I can put on my leather armor, turn the difficulty down a bit (hey, leather armor looks nice but couldn't protect you from a bee-sting), leave my nicely decorated house, and go adventuring even if I'm level 56. I like that there's no repercussions for wearing level 1 armor at the end of the game. If I go into P2P, I'd be creamed and most likely called a noob by some 12 year old that got the game for his birthday from his parents (ugh...) - Well, don't use it you might say. Yeah, but the thing is that if Bethesda spends all this extra time / effort on multiplayer, what's going to happen to single player? It's going to be dumbed down and won't be nearly as epic. I think Bethesda is pretty loyal to its fans, which is pretty uncommon in gaming I'd say (just look at things like activision or ubisoft; but there are some like say, Square Enix). I think they know that ES fans want content, not fluff. Epicness and beauty in its craft, not extra features and appealing to other audiences. Which they should and I respect them for. Elder scrolls won't be seeing multiplayer anytime soon IMO.

[T PoPTartZz T]

I'm fine with Bethesda doing multiplayer in a fantasy game and I agree it would be awesome to fight goblins with a friend.

But not with Elder Scrolls.

This. Very much this. I'm confident that Beth could make an MMO that we all
would enjoy. Just not with TES. There's too much Lore to incorporate other
people into the game without losing the immersion.

An excerpt from a local Nord's journal:
"Third Morndas of First Seed, 4E 200
I ventured out of the house again today, against my better judgement. After
all, the last time I did, I was turned into a toad. And then a chicken. I know
that Sheogorath (curse his name!) has the right to let someone else take his
place, but by Ysmir's beard! There's 50 of them living in this village alone! I
can't even make it out of the gate without being bombarded by spells that turn
my clothing to leeches or make me see everything in plaid! I'd say I was going
crazy, but I'm the only sane one left!

The only sane one left. The only sane one left. The only sane one left. The on-"

[The Tourist]

VS? No. Co-op? Everything's better with co-cop (except horror/survival games. And JRPG's. And... ).

Oblivion's plot/story was so irrelevent that co-op would've really added longevity and purpose. As an additional function in Skyrim, it would be great - because it would be fun, with obvious potentiality. But the focus has been about single-player, and as there are more than enough MP titles around, I won't lose sleep over Bethesda not including it in TES5.

[Vendetta]

If they add multiplayer, there goes my roleplay expirance right out the window!

It would be a bit nice if it was something COMPLETELY seperate, but please, NO MULTIPLAYER THAT GES WITH STORYLINE!!!! Its been tried in MMORPG, and ALL of them failed to have a very deep storyline. Runescape is pretty good at it, but it takes countless hours of grinding. There must be a balance between grinding and quests! (Just realized im drifting away into another subject)

anyway, no, unless it has nothing to do with lore.

[RedDeadFred]

NINE NINE NINE NINE NINE!!!!!!!!!!

NO MULTIPLAYER. Period.

By the way, we shall see just how well Bethesda will deal with (cooperative) multiplayer in Brink.

Bathesda isn't actually making Brink. They are just producing it or something like that.
Splash Damage is making Brink.

OT: If they can add multiplayer without the singleplayer suffering than I'm all for it.

[Master Z]

No. Just no. Maybe if it were only in some arena pvp matches, but other than that, no. It wouldn't be the elder scrolls anymore.

[Spiney]

I think physics would be a big deal in multiplayer.
If the engines are in sync (so that everything moves and falls in the same place, at the same speed, etc...) it'd take a massive amount of data transfer.
If they're not in sync, then you'd get some odd results, like your friends picking up objects (or throwing them out) where you don't see them, etc...

Bleh, physics wouldn't be an issue. Take Reach for example, great Havok based physics engine, no lag in good connections.

Basically, when an object isn't being used in any physics engine, it's put in a 'slumber mode', where it is not calculated. You may see it a few times in Oblivion, when someone puts some objects on a table in the CS, but forgets to Havok simulate them. Then when you approach them in game, and interact with one of them, all of the rise up a bit (due to the old Havok engines massive normal detection gap), for they weren't being calculated until an object in close proximity was needed to be simulated.

This is done in multi-player games too. And is one of the best ways to save CPU usage and reduce data transfer amount.

Though, other things like AI would be an issue. Anyone would know that having a poor connection when playing horde style games is impossible. And in Oblivion, the engine wasn't cut out for high numbers. Instead of dumbing down AI in large numbers, it simply cuts off the excess, leaving them standing there in stupor. Something like that would have to be overhauled for dungeon crawling.

But as it seems, it is confirmed that there is no multi-player anyway.

[River]

I really don't care if we have multi-player or not. But there is no reason anyone should have a problem if its included. Nearly all multi-players are completely separate from the main games, often using different avatars etc. So it shouldn't have any effect on anyone's role-playing. This idea that by creating a multi-player platform they would dedicate time to it at the expense of single player is just ridiculous! Its been in more than one thread and doesn't make any sense. Lets face it Bethesda haven't actually raced Skyrim out! If they are planning multi-player they will have factored it in to there timings for the game design, so they would meet there release date. I don't think their over there now going "Every things going really well with Skyrim I just feel like we're forgetting something.......Oh dang we forgot the multi-player we were going to make! Oh well you guys stop working on the main game and get onto multi-player!"
Also to say Multi-player just not a TES thing, nor were dragons and originally full 3d graphics. Things/times do change if they include it play it or don't no one is going to force anything on you. You may even try it and like it! Or we may all try it and hate it and it never appear again, either way it won't change the main game.

[Symphonic]

The problem with multiplayer in a game like Elder Scrolls is that the balance required to make a multiplayer match interesting and fair would completely destroy the "epicness" of the game. In games where you gradually get absurdly powerful and get super-strong attacks, a multiplayer PvP mode would basically be a fantasy-themed Unreal Tournament Instagib match. Whoever unleashes their ultimate Dragon Shout first wins.

Co-op would be fine, but I would really just prefer they focus on the single player. I don't particularly have anything against a multiplayer, but what I resent is the effort it would take, which would have to be taken away from the single player effort. It does take away from the experience because Bethesda only has a certain number of devs. Would you rather have all of them working together to create what might be the greatest game ever? Or do you want 1/5 of them to break off to design a half-hearted multiplayer just because it "might be neat".

Just leave it for the modders, in my opinion.

[River]

The point I was trying to make is I don't think its a case of the main game suffering because developers have worked on both. Bethesda have set the release date as 11.11.11 but they could of set it earlier or later. If the the multi-player element is going to take 1/5 of the development team 9 months to complete Bethesda will have allowed for this in the plans and added 9 months onto the time scale. It won't be a case of taking people off the main game and letting it suffer.