Share this project

Done

Share this project

Done
A sandbox strategy game with town building, crafting, and epic battles!
22,844 backers pledged $751,920 to help bring this project to life.

Co-op Multiplayer Major Stretch Goal Reached, More Live Streams, and a Virtual Pizza Party!

Posted by Radiant Entertainment (Creator)
1 like

Hi guys. With 8 days left, we are entering the home stretch of our Kickstarter. Over the past two weeks we've heard a ton of feedback about the game and gotten to know a lot of you a little better. All of this is great fuel for us as we hunker down for the long push to get the beta out by the end of the year.

Without further ado, here's what's going on in the world of Stonehearth.

$400k Co-op Multiplayer Stretch Goal Reached!

Just one day after achieving the $380,000 stretch goal for seasons, we've reached perhaps our most anticipated goal, cooperative play! You and your friends will be able to play together in the same game and cooperatively manage your shared city. We'll have more information about how co-op play works exactly as we get closer to beta.

Live Stream, This Thursday, 2:00 PM Pacific (GMT -7)

Tom will be doing another modelling live stream on Thursday at 2:00 PM Pacific time, 7 hours behind GMT. Tentatively he will be modelling the dragon whelp pet, but if there's something else you're dying to see go ahead and post a comment with your idea.

You can watch the stream at http://twitch.tv/radiantentertainment. The stream will be archived at that same url if you can't tune in live.

Virtual Pizza Party! Tuesday May 28th, 2:00 PM Pacific!

To cap off the Kickstarter, we'll be doing a virtual pizza party where we answer your questions at 2:00 next Tuesday! Basically we're going to order some pizzas, stream it, and do a Q & A from the stream chat. We encourage you to order your own pizza and we'll make it a distributed virtual pizza party.

Like our other streams you can tune in at http://twitch.tv/radiantentertainment.

That's it for now. Here's to a strong final week of Kickstarting!

Comments

Only backers can post comments. Log In
    1. Brian on

      Just a random sampling of user comments about Co-Op from a Steam Post I had before Radiant had made many statements about it - mostly just to show user opinions and ideas:

      http://steamcommunity.com/workshop/filedetails/discussion/142375476/810925579920674730/…

    2. Millgid on

      Can't wait to see what the party will be like. Hope I can stay a bit longer this time :) Sure by the time RTV come on-line tomorrow evening (10pm for me in Glasgow) that the pledged amount will be well above $600,000. YAY! Pizza's All round ;)

    3. Brian on

      @Loki: Agreed, hopefully Radiant will have more information on this for us soon

    4. Missing avatar

      LokisPlayground on

      Although I just pledged, I have been watching this kickstarter for the duration. I have to put my thought in here as I would like to see the ability to build 2(or more depending on engine abilities) separate towns within a region for co-op with options to run a shared town. I do not want to sound unappreciative as I have back this project already, but this is what I had expected when I saw multiplayer!

    5. Missing avatar

      Benjamin Pantilat on

      @Stoakley yes it does, you get one beta copy then at release it turns into two release copies.

    6. Stoakley Lloyd on

      Question does the $30 level include the two downloads from the $25 level?

    7. Missing avatar

      Benjamin Pantilat on

      YAY Pizza party on my birthday!

    8. Missing avatar

      Jonathan Newman on

      I wouldn't be opposed to the game having options for how coop is managed, like "Share Resources", "Share Town", etc. so that more of us can enjoy our preferred style of coop experience.

      This discussion reminds me way back when I used to play the original Starcraft with friends more often. Most of the time for Coop we played separate bases, resources, and units. But on occasion it was fun to try a game sharing control of these things. It was nice to have options to break up the coop gameplay style once in awhile.

    9. Missing avatar

      Adam on

      @Brian: Agreed. Continued comments in other thread.

    10. Brian on

      @Adam: My major concern is that Stonehearth "co-op" will devolve into more of a "debate until the other players give into one idea" since all players are sharing the same resources and units. To me Co-op is team multiplayer as represented in Civilization or Age of Empires, where it can be mutually beneficial to comingle your buildings and units, and exchange resources or specialize in certain fields.

    11. Missing avatar

      Adam on

      @Brian: When you talk about independent cities and independent players that is not really coop. I would like to argue that coop by its very definition means "cooperation" or "cooperative". I want a game where my friend and I have to decide what is the best option for our city, not play our own cities and trade. Coop games are few and far between nowadays because of this mentality. Having multiple players does not mean a game is coop. Having to share, now that is what makes a game coop. The reason they named it Coop and talked about sharing everything is because that is true coop. A game that a guy could play with his wife, his son, his friend. They could watch, or actively be part of the process. Now that is a awesome idea.

    12. Brian on

      @Brad: Exactly - that's why I'm hoping they don't drop the ball at co-op and end up relegating the game to "one of the best single player games" when it could be "one of the best single player and co-op games".

    13. Brad Evans on

      @Brian: Glad to see my train of thought isn't so overwhelming it's been lost on people! I'm just so passionate about what this game could become. :)

    14. Brian on

      @Brad: I concur with basically everything in your post.

    15. Brad Evans on

      Following on from what I said earlier I will clarify exactly how I imagined the game to be (anyone who agreed please say so in a comment so Radiant know what we have in mind). I imagined a scenario where co-op would be two people starting out in a fresh new work with nothing but a few measly workers. Gradually each player would be building up there towns and each player would most probably invest the majority of their time into 'researching' (I use that term vaguely) unique areas of development. That said at no point are they restricted and if they wanted the could do exactly the same thing. I then imagine as their own village grows and expands there will be demand for resources or new and different areas of 'research'. At this point players can go out into the world and interact with the standard computer controlled factions (which could potentially be enabled and disable to alter difficulty) to arrange to trade resources. The area that each computer controlled faction has specialized in could be represented by the race (e.g bunnies are great farmers whilst goblins are great arms traders) or could even be randomized, where said randomization actually alters that particular factions actions in game (e.g armed goblins would be far more aggressive). In order to establish these friendships each faction could ask you to complete a variety of favors or tasks for them in order to show your trustworthiness, primarily aggressive factions like the goblins would be much harder to appease but offer better items for trade. At the same time, failure to me trade quotas could result in falling outs and make any future attempts for trade more difficult. Then, players have the opportunity to trade with one another. This action would bypass all the tedious running around trying to impress people, different offers could be made and sent to the other player in an attempt to form trade links without putting in as much effort(imaging rome total war diplomacy where one player makes an offer and the recipient can change the offer in an attempt to haggle, this can then go back and forward until an agreement is made). Then this brings a whole new exciting mechanic to light. Do you trade with your co-op partner because you need food and they focused on farming when it means you having to trade them some of your weaponry? Its an interesting concept that in an attempt to feed your people you hand your enemy the swords which will strike them down. You might end up deciding that the computer controlled goblins are more trustworthy than your own friend and go to the effort of forming a tentative alliance. It may take longer but perhaps they would be less likely to attack you. Imagine this on a server where up to ten of your friends can all join in, then if the computer controlled AI is disabled you have to choose who you trust and form alliances. THIS sort of co-op would also GREATLY appeal to the PvP fans (but again, this could be something disabled on an in-game menu).

      All this stuff is GREAT and has so much room for expansion and development. The great thing is, it would be optional to all players. You could participate in all these ongoing communications or just decide to make your own way to the top. If none of that interests you, who's to stop you all from just trying to build the best looking castle ever and compete against your friends.

      You push the idea that this game is like lego, where you are the creator and make your own stories. Please let us make our own stories.

      SUPPORT ME.

    16. Brian on

      I would up my pledge to get "true" co-op (independent cities and units for each player).

    17. Vincent Oostelbos on

      Oh, and I do think there's a difference between having two separate cities in a single world at the same time, even if basically independent and not interacting much other than sending some resources back and forth through trading, and having a similar interaction by an interaction between the worlds. The difference is in the feel of it, the ability to look at the other city being built in real time, the feeling of being part of a larger world, the notion of competition (who gets their massive castle built first?), etc. And then, of course, there would be trading, defending each other from monster attacks, ...

    18. Vincent Oostelbos on

      @Anna, a shared city with gifting resources and settlers is basically like having two cities with a very tight alliance between them -- either player could take their settlers and resources and move over to another part of the map to build up there.

      As I said before, "co-op multiplayer" always did sound more like a shared city style game to me, even though having considered it further, I too now would consider separate cities to be preferable. Of course, both options would be superior yet. And then another option for PvP... ah, that would be the best. I understand those are different and perhaps more tricky concepts to implement, and they might therefore not be high priority for the developers, but I would be interested in hearing whether or not such additional multiplayer concepts are in line with what the developers have in mind for the game, eventually.

    19. Christian Johnson on

      Ya definitely there is a need for players to build there own citys in the same match while also having the ability to make one big supper city if need be. This could be done by not only gifting a team mate with money, goods and people but also by using an option slider that alows you to choose how much control of your your stuff they are have. No control->some control-> equal control.

    20. Brian on

      @Radiant: I know you are obviously busy in this final week, but I would ask you to look at all other co-op sandbox and economic/town management games; nearly all of them have players indepent of one another where they can act in concert (Age of Empires, Civilization, Master of Orion, Sword of the Stars, etc ad infinitum).

      The advantage of sticking with the independent city model is that players can make one "city" if they choose to simply by building next to or intermingling their buildings, whereas if you stick with a one city two player model the same cannot be said.

      If at all possible, I would suggest polling your pledgers about this rather important matter, as it may also affect the number of copies they want to buy.

    21. Anna on

      Personally, I liked the shared co-op of anno, largely because I enjoyed the city building/population aspect of it while the bf enjoyed managing resources, so we'd work it out just fine. Having settlers belong to one or another of the coop players would solve the queue/priority issues mentioned below, and a simple gifting/owner change option can let us divvy up the settlers how and when we need between us.

      I do agree that it would be nice to have an option for separate towns still. That way we could potentially create 'specialized' towns, where one player may supply mercenaries, the other focuses on crops, another focuses on artisans and crafters, and ongoing trade between the three (Alliances or Guilds in the future, anyone? :D) could create some very interesting playstyles.

    22. Missing avatar

      Ramcat on

      @Maxime
      I would say that persistant worlds is far beyond the scope of co-op. I don't think that was the designers intent when they envisioned co-op.

    23. Missing avatar

      Maxime Couillard on

      the way I was seeing multiplayer co-op is a big sand box where each player start his city and you can trade with your friends and help them defend against the boss. The game would be host on a client server like in minecraft and you can log in and log out whenever you want. The cities just don't grow when your're offline and you can visit your friend's cities even if he is offline. The cities would suffer no attack if the owner is offline and for each player online, the numbers of enemies can grow to force people tu cooparate.

    24. Derpy Starhead on

      My vote is for each player building their own city.

      I think if multiple players are working on the same city, who controls/does what would become an issue.

    25. Matthew Aiello on

      the problem with 1 city for 2 people is in if or if not you share workers and such, as it can cause issues with what gets done first. if you say want one person to build a wall and another to build a farm, if you share workers then the higher priority one always gets done first. Which means what's the point in having two people there in the first place? Now if each person gets their own set of workers that their commands go to, then it would be less of a problem, as each task would commence regardless of the other.

      To be honest when I first saw co-op my first thought was two separate yet collaborative cities, able to share resources and assist each other when enemies attack.

      Also, if you solve how the co-op will work by giving each player workers they control or what not, then people will go off and do their own thing, but would be punished for it by the system. Two people on one map shouldn't mean restraining them both to one city in my opinion, but what I say is only my opinion and should be taken as such.

    26. Dallon Feldner on

      A good co-op game is all about communication. My favorite games of multiplayer Minecraft are the ones where my friends and I huddle in a shack, pooling our resources and collaborating on objectives.

      That said, it might be nice if each player had their own workers rather than their own city. You should be able to give your workers to the other player if they need more manpower for a project, and maybe they'll automatically help out the other player if there's nothing better to do, but they follow your orders above anything else and the other player can't give them commands directly.

    27. Missing avatar

      BlueAVS on

      While I would enjoy the cooperative citybuilding, I would love 'singeplayer co-op'. I would not even care if me and my friends never interacted with eachother (not saying the we would not!), just to know that you could make an alliance with a friend, and then sneak attack one of your other friends cities would be amazing.

      To live in a big and breathing world together with your friends, and with your own cities, would just be amazing.

    28. Andrew on

      I think this co-op option of sharing a city would be a fun way to play with my kids. When we play Minecraft together we usually split up the different tasks and build stuff together. I see this as being similar (I hope). Anyway, just my 2 units of local currency.

    29. Missing avatar

      TyreeC on

      Honestly I don't see sharing workers in a single city being much fun. With no direct control over your citizens you can't be sure that the things you are planning will get done in a reasonable time frame if you co-op partner(s) are issuing higher priority tasks. Nor do I think it is interesting to be limited to a single aspect of the game in order to try and not overlap tasks.

      I would expect that if the co-op is implemented this way I would more likely use the PvP mode as in that case I would be playing the entire game rather than something less.

      Anyway, the game is still looking and sounding awesome and I can't wait to get my hands on the beta, roll on December :)

    30. Missing avatar

      Victor Otávio Alves Silva on

      There is no way to have both ways? Shared city and separate Cities being chosen in the start of the game, as a option...?

    31. Steve Adamo on

      please take my comments with a grain of salt, as i am primarily of the single player variety... having said that, when i imagine playing -with- someone in SH, to be honest, it just always seems as though we would be working collaboratively... i completely understand that folks have different playstyles, but (and this is a big but) this all really boils down to how units are managed between two players...
      IF it is implemented in such a way as to prevent stepping on each other's toes, enabling one player to work on -this- portion of the city, while the other player attends to -that- portion, i dont see how that is too terribly different than saying you are each running a seperate "city"...
      you each manage units, build structures, etc.
      now, if the intent is to have a PvP element, then obviously having entirely distinct and separate cities would be necessary...

    32. Adam Spruijt on

      I'm definitely with Brad on this, shared city isn't very attractive, though for some I can see that it might be. Anno 2070 has this option and my wife and I thought it was gonna be awesome, but once we started playing it quickly became frustrating, awkward and generally unsatisfying (it's very hard to have a sense of ownership in this scenario, and very easy to have play styles end up at odds.) We needed up finding that playing separate cities that were friendly to each other was WAY more fun, and we have never looked back. I won't pull my pledge either way, but to be honest I will be disappointed if "separate city co-op" isn't put in.

    33. Radiant Entertainment Creator on

      Just a little more clarity on co-op multiplayer: our initial vision for this feature was that you and your friends would cooperate together to build one city. Maybe you work on the buildings while she focuses on farming, or together you furnish and decorate the watchtower you just built.

      That said, we're keeping an open mind and want to hear more ideas from you. A lot of you have said that you would like to play in the same world, but build your own cities. The tricky part there is that unless there's significant interaction between your cities, there isn't really any point to you being in the *same* game.

      Someone floated the idea that you could send trade caravans between the cities, or loan your friend some workers. But we could implement that feature without co-op multiplayer, with you and your friend playing in separate games and communicating through an IM-like system.

      But like I said, we're keeping an open mind, so please keep telling us what you want to see from this feature.

    34. Vincent Oostelbos on

      @Brian: Oh yeah. There is that.

    35. Brian on

      @Vincent: Excerpt from the update we are commenting on, which has been the only real official statement about Co-op:

      "$400k Co-op Multiplayer Stretch Goal Reached!

      Just one day after achieving the $380,000 stretch goal for seasons, we've reached perhaps our most anticipated goal, cooperative play!

      >>>>>You and your friends will be able to play together in the same game and cooperatively manage your shared city.<<<<<

      We'll have more information about how co-op play works exactly as we get closer to beta."

      If anyone has a link to any other statement on co-op from radiant, please let me know! :)

    36. Vincent Oostelbos on

      I was actually questioning myself after I had written that. However, has the statement from Radiant on co-op so far been clear about it either way?

    37. Brian on

      From what I've seen, shared city/faction was not brought up as an alternative, it has so far been the only official statement from Radiant on co-op so far. Hopefully they will respond to community concern on this issue soon.

    38. Vincent Oostelbos on

      Also now that we have real-time multiplayer, I'm still hoping for word on a chance for that to be PvP as well.

    39. Vincent Oostelbos on

      @Brad
      I don't think Daniel, though he seemed to have misunderstood you, was attacking you for having an opinion.
      Aside from that, although I had quietly assumed the co-op meant sharing a city/faction, I don't really see why that would be the case, now that I reconsider -- as others have said, two cities/factions seems a more obvious/typical type of co-op. The shared city/faction was just brought up as an alternative that might also make it in. That said, I'm not entirely sure either, so clarification would indeed be nice, although to me, it wouldn't be enough to make me drop my pledge (but that's up to each individual to decide, of course).

    40. Brad Evans on

      @Daniel
      Like I said. I am backing the game primarily for it's co-op component and if that particular would not be enjoyable for me then I see no point in getting the game. I am allowed my own opinion on the matter and as such am simply asking whether there will be a co-op mode with each player running their own city. I think the concept for the game is great and I think they guys working on the game are great. I have followed development since day one. As such I obviously want to give these guys some money to fund there game but I'm afraid in the real world if that game has little to no appeal then regardless of how nice the developers are and how much work they put in I see no point in me handing over my hard earned cash. They will make it how they want to at the end of the day and me saying that their choices may not reflect what I was hoping for is just opinion.

    41. Missing avatar

      Daniel Leizerman on

      @brad
      I think i remember them saying that the pvp and co-op was opt in.

    42. Brad Evans on

      Really? Shared city? I honestly hate the idea of that. It might appeal to some people but I generally prefer being in complete control of my own stuff. The people I play with will likely want something different out of their city than I so sharing a city could result in MANY disagreements. I really was looking forward to this project and I backed it pre 100k as I KNEW it would include co-op. This isn't a threat cause I know you guys will make the game regardless but can you clarify more details on co-op in the next few days? I don't mind having the shared mode but I was to run my own city and if that isn't possible with friends then I want to decide whether I will drop out as a backer. Cheers..

    43. TenaciousTom on

      @cpt, exactly. Having both options would be amazing and would allow for something that can't be found in many other games. It would cater to the co-op gameplay style of a much wider base as well. I am truly excited about this game and I know it won't disappoint, other than it not being installed on my computer right now with me playing it...

    44. Lirinya on

      Congratulations on the goal~
      Unfortunately I can't join your pizza party as I shall be sleeping, however I'll be sure to have one prior to the party in your honour.

      My partner, friends and I are very exited following the progress and are eagerly awaiting the beta!

    45. Zeind_Keng on

      Finally it'pledged 400K ;A; I Can play my friend

    46. Brian on

      RTS games with highly strategic micro (a la starcraft) can benefit from two players, one faction; but just as you say, I always preferred separate bases.

      However, as Radiant has said they don't intend for Stonehearth to be micro oriented, I see little point in a two players, once city game design.

      In a perfect world, Radiant would have the time and resources to implement both modes; but if they polled the pledge base for "which version of co-op do you want" I'd wager my pledge that two players, two cities would handily win.

    47. Missing avatar

      cpt_freakout on

      @Thomas I think it would be amazing to have both options. Not one over the other, but both. For the one-city case for example, if I'm great at building infrastructure but not so much at military tactics, I could just negotiate with my friend the terms of dividing tasks. Part of the fun would be to disagree on things, or if we both are useless when it comes to certain things then it could mean lots of fun trying to learn and cope together. I think it would be a very interesting gameplay option! The two-city co-op is pretty much self-explaining and standard, which is cool, so I would assume that's what they meant by co-op in the first place. But now that the possibility is there, I think it would be absolutely great to have both kinds of multiplayer. :)

    48. Missing avatar

      Kyle Gregory on

      I personally think that the PVP city raids and the co op could go very well together.

    49. TenaciousTom on

      @Brian, totally agree with you. While having co-management of the same city might be an interesting gameplay option, I truly hope the main style of co-op in Stonehearth is similar to that of Starcraft, Civ V, etc., as you mention.

    50. Brian on

      Since everyone else is talking about Co-op: If I play Civ V with a friend, we both have our own civilization, cities, and units; if I play Starcraft 2 with a friend, we both have our own faction, buildings, and units; etcetera ad infinitum.

      Co-Op is not, by common gaming conventions, two players controlling the same civilization/faction/units; have there been games like that? Yes, but they are not what most players think of when they envision Cooperative Play.

      Civ V workers may be the best analog for Stonehearth Villagers here; if I so choose, I can send a villagers into friendly territory to help in upgrading tiles, but he remains in my control; alternatively, I have the option of hugging him to my ally, and he cones under their control.

      I sincerely hope that the fine team at Radiant understands why this is a major point in the game; having two completely separate cities that can work together mutually is quite different from having one city with two Gamer Overlords managing it - that is essentially a single player game with an extra person to micro units with (which, as Radiant has stated, there really isn't any micro in Stonehearth).