Archive: 31 posts

---

Does anyone think that rescricting a certain amount of players to a level would be a great idea? Give me your ideas and feedback.

2010-07-09 22:40:00 Author: Barnsy_AKA_ash Posts: 293

---

Of course it will and you are not first suggestion it. Inclusion of minimal player limit too

2010-07-09 22:47:00 Author: Shadowriver Posts: 3991

---

Yeah, I'd like this. So you can make it so there's only one allowed, or conversely, so you need 2+ to play.

2010-07-11 02:12:00 Author: alexbull_uk Posts: 1287

---

Yeah that's a great idea, no longer do we have to leave messages saying 'ONE PLAYER ONLY!' But what I would really want is the ability to control vibrations.

2010-07-11 08:30:00 Author: CYBERSNAKE Posts: 280

---

Not really a good idea at all if you ask me. Group of 4 friends:Oh hey i heard there's that awesome new level built by (insert famous creator's name here) let's check it out! *Only 1 player can play this level* :/ Sounds good in the view of the creator, but suuucks in the vew of the playre m8...specially if its someone who's constantly with 4 people. I say the "(x) players only" text is good enough, they know it may not work 100% if not with the amount of players described, and they don't have to disband to play the level.

2010-07-11 08:39:00 Author: Silverleon Posts: 6707

---

Not really a good idea at all if you ask me. Group of 4 friends:Oh hey i heard there's that awesome new level built by (insert famous creator's name here) let's check it out! *Only 1 player can play this level* :/ Sounds good in the view of the creator, but suuucks in the vew of the playre m8...specially if its someone who's constantly with 4 people. I say the "(x) players only" text is good enough, they know it may not work 100% if not with the amount of players described, and they don't have to disband to play the level. Ahh yes but I have way we could fix that problem. Instead we have a Player Close Gate at the start which can be set to a certain amount of players. You can still go into the level with 4 but only 1 player can play. The host could either pick the person or himself to play. He has complete control as the person is the host. Then the other 3 players spawn at the end.

2010-07-11 13:53:00 Author: Barnsy_AKA_ash Posts: 293

---

Ahh yes but I have way we could fix that problem. Instead we have a Player Close Gate at the start which can be set to a certain amount of players. You can still go into the level with 4 but only 1 player can play. The host could either pick the person or himself to play. He has complete control as the person is the host. Then the other 3 players spawn at the end. And also maybe a rotor, like when one dies, another user gets a go...

2010-07-11 13:58:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105

---

Not really a good idea at all if you ask me. Group of 4 friends:Oh hey i heard there's that awesome new level built by (insert famous creator's name here) let's check it out! *Only 1 player can play this level* :/ Sounds good in the view of the creator, but suuucks in the vew of the playre m8...specially if its someone who's constantly with 4 people. I say the "(x) players only" text is good enough, they know it may not work 100% if not with the amount of players described, and they don't have to disband to play the level. With 2+ players: Without the feature, they would enter the level, realise they cannot play it and leave (Possibly with a thumbs down). With the feature, they wouldn't be allowed to enter or rate. Much better.

2010-07-11 14:00:00 Author: Jedi_1993 Posts: 1518

---

Not really a good idea at all if you ask me. Group of 4 friends:Oh hey i heard there's that awesome new level built by (insert famous creator's name here) let's check it out! *Only 1 player can play this level* :/ Sounds good in the view of the creator, but suuucks in the vew of the playre m8...specially if its someone who's constantly with 4 people. I say the "(x) players only" text is good enough, they know it may not work 100% if not with the amount of players described, and they don't have to disband to play the level. I think you right lot of assumed to be 1 player only levels are fully playable for 4 players. But player minimum is different story, since if you make level for 2 players your level is automatically unplayable with just 1.

2010-07-11 14:06:00 Author: Shadowriver Posts: 3991

---

Yeah. I think that if we had an amount of player setting on levels, then there would be no more freezing, bugs and people just being completely annoying. I think that you should also be able to rate your level on what you think of it beforehand as a lot of noobs rate good levels 2 or 3 stars and the pieces of trash ones 5! Have youn played super_fan's School Levels lately? They are mostly 5 stars and the quality and detail sucks. Hopefully there will be a republishing limit too, instead of people cheating the system.

2010-07-11 14:07:00 Author: Barnsy_AKA_ash Posts: 293

---

I'd like to see a max and min value on number of players who can play the level. The decision should be in the hands of the creator. If they know that certain things may break under multiplayer and they don't want people to come across that then that seems fair enough. Similarly you don't want a multiplayer only level with single players entering it it. I also think this is another issue that is going to be compounded in LBP2 with the more varied nature of levels that we will see. Sure people can place text in the description, but many people are too lazy to read it and this can lead to disappointment. Note how the common practice for 2p levels (since jackofcourse's industrial assistance) is to put them behind a key level. We wouldn't need that any more. Note that it is possible to accurately detect the number of players in the level in LBP2, so at least it will be possible for the creator to know how many players are playing, which is a step in the right direction.

2010-07-11 14:48:00 Author: rtm223 Posts: 6497

---

This will also prevent people from "breaking" levels due to the fact that they are playing a 1 person level with multiple people.

2010-07-11 15:11:00 Author: Marauder47 Posts: 26

---

Yeah. That would stop all the noobs saying, "This level sucks" because it happened to break.

2010-07-11 15:13:00 Author: Barnsy_AKA_ash Posts: 293

---

If they don't add they ability to do this, you could always do what jack does in his 2p levels and build and obstacle that requires two people or more to pass right when you spawn. Or since now you tell how many people are in a level now just wall off the rest of the way and say "you need blah blah amount of people to play this level". Ez Pz solution =D

2010-07-11 15:56:00 Author: SupaSack34 Posts: 180

---

I want this, as my time machine levels in LBP1 break as the time machine doesn't seem to 'take off' with multiple people inside, and if only 1 gets in it'll go without them and they can potentially break the level by re-activate the earlier checkpoint. Hopefully I'll be able to fix that problem in LBP2 (mainly as I'm planning to make the time machine a 'hub' level where they can choose what level to go to) but still, I'd like this idea.

2010-07-11 16:05:00 Author: Matimoo Posts: 1027

---

Any way to have a certain amount of players in a level (Chosen by the creator) is grand. For example, I built a Line Rider esc. level by myself, and it worked perfectly. I was about to publish it, but I wanted to test my brother, who is younger than me, to see if any random noob could break something. When we both got in it, it failed the first jump and plummeted to the ground. Then I realized that any more than one player would break it, where I then tried to fix it and eventually gave up... So yeah it would be pretty awsome!

2010-07-11 18:57:00 Author: Daldrez Posts: 63

---

Player min would be good but one player only isnt. A lot of people put 1 player only in their description, even though its perfectly fine with multiple people. Imagine if all these players had a 1 player only lock. The only levels that really needed 1 player only were stuff where you control something like Donkey shows gundam levels. EDIT-This is from a player standpoint though. As a creator i love not to have to worry about multiple players breking things single players cant.

2010-07-11 19:51:00 Author: Jrange378 Posts: 573

---

Imagine if all these players had a 1 player only lock. I am imagining it. Seems fine to me Seriously though, I'm not seeing it as an issue. People will be able to put 1p locks on their levels if they want, using logic. If a minimum players setting is added, I see no reason why not to add a maximum players setting.

2010-07-11 20:01:00 Author: rtm223 Posts: 6497

---

Yeah. That would stop all the noobs saying, "This level sucks" because it happened to break. But instead you get "This level sucks, I can't play with my friends". Lol, but this is a great idea, but we should easily be able to stop people playing if you can accurately detect how many people are playing (Giant dissolve material wall that dissolves at the right amount of players), lets hope rtm was telling the truth...

2010-07-11 20:18:00 Author: Doopz Posts: 5592

---

Not really a good idea at all if you ask me. Group of 4 friends:Oh hey i heard there's that awesome new level built by (insert famous creator's name here) let's check it out! *Only 1 player can play this level* :/ Sounds good in the view of the creator, but suuucks in the vew of the playre m8...specially if its someone who's constantly with 4 people. I say the "(x) players only" text is good enough, they know it may not work 100% if not with the amount of players described, and they don't have to disband to play the level. It would encourage creators to try and make their levels multiplayer friendly though so then they can confidently put them as 1-4 players.

2010-07-11 20:22:00 Author: Asbestos101 Posts: 1114

---

I have to maximum limit, until creators use it actually it because level is unplayable on more then one. Keep in mind that LBP is very social game and need of kick out friends or make them watch only you playing just to play awesome level is not very good social experience. But in other hand people won't play 1 player only levels since they want to play it with friends, creators will rethink is there a point of limiting twice too bad that we don't have statistical data on LBP1 Maybe better idea would be hide levels that are not fit to the limit to number of players in pod, so no random bad experiences

2010-07-11 20:29:00 Author: Shadowriver Posts: 3991

---

But instead you get "This level sucks, I can't play with my friends". My point exactly. It would encourage creators to try and make their levels multiplayer friendly though so then they can confidently put them as 1-4 players. Then what would be the point of this player limiting thing then? I mean seriously, how many of you go through levels alone most of the time? I'm quite sure everyone in here who's on my friends list is 80% of the time with someone, now what if you only saw good levels with "1p only" limitations? Even if the level was possible with 2 players you still would have to fropp off others and whatnot... Besides, i'm quite sure that breaking the level isn't one of the top reasons noobs rate levels bad.

2010-07-12 11:51:00 Author: Silverleon Posts: 6707

---

I mean seriously, how many of you go through levels alone most of the time? Me. I far prefer playing through levels on my own and I'll often set my auto reject when playing levels or ignore join requests when I'm playing. It's very rare that I actually want to play levels with anyone else. Asbestos's point doesn't undermine the concept either. The fact that there would be a mild push against it from players would encourage creators not to use it unless it was needed (reducing the impact on those players who prefer to play multiplayer), but it would still be a facility there for them to use, if they wanted to. The fact that many players generally don't want this would limit it to being used only when the creator really wants to add the limit. And to answer the question that keeps on coming up: "what if I saw levels that were 1p only, while in a group?". Well, I know it's a difficult problem to solve, but lucky for you, I've put all of my mental effort into coming up with a solution and I might just have something that works: Come back later on your own The alternative, which will be possible in LBP2, for levels that genuinely are 1 player only, or 2 players max, is for the creator to implement one of the following: Block off the level once you are in it, if there are too many players Trap players over the required limit in DCSs so they can't play and essentially enforce a spectator mode for them Is that the preferable scenario to simply preventing groups from entering the level? Personally, I don't think it is.

2010-07-12 12:37:00 Author: rtm223 Posts: 6497

---

100% agree with Rtm here. I too play on my own pretty much 100% of the time. There's a lot of stuff in this thread about it wouldn't be fair on the players and sometimes creators put '1p only' on their levels when it's easily playable with more... So what? It's the creators prerogative. They're the ones that have put in the effort to create the level, choosing how many people can play it at once is no different to choosing how difficult it will be. Some people like it hard, some people like it easy. You can never please everyone. The creator must go with what they want to do. This is exactly the same with the amount of player that are allowed in the level. Some people like to play in groups, some like to play alone. You can never please everyone. The creator must go with what they want to do. Putting more power in the hands of the creator can never be considered a bad thing as far as I am concerned.

2010-07-12 13:11:00 Author: jackofcourse Posts: 1494

---

I think this would be a good idea, i would like to have a profile option though that only shows levels that will alow you to play them, so if ur with a friend u dont have to search through 1 player only levels.

2010-07-12 17:20:00 Author: Photon Man54 Posts: 47

---

To be honest you can state in the level description how many players you want, and maybe put an AND gate at the start of the level if you want more than one player. It's not a bad idea, but not a priority in my eyes. http://i.neoseeker.com/mgv/272671-Blackfalcon/671/5/animal0064hb2_display.gif

2010-07-12 18:39:00 Author: Blackfalcon Posts: 409

---

good idea ! like it would show beside the name of the lvl for example : Jump Challenge * * * * * 1 Player hearts plays creator it would be nice !

2010-07-12 22:12:00 Author: SackBoy98 Posts: 588

---

To be honest you can state in the level description how many players you want, and maybe put an AND gate at the start of the level if you want more than one player. It's not a bad idea, but not a priority in my eyes. http://i.neoseeker.com/mgv/272671-Blackfalcon/671/5/animal0064hb2_display.gif thats all fine and dandy for multiplayer levels, but let me tell you from experience, putting 1 PLAYER ONLY!! in your description is about as effective as spitting into the wind.

2010-07-12 23:19:00 Author: Deftmute Posts: 730

---

I have to be honest that usually I play levels that say 1P only with 4P even my own. I usually take the breaking risk. Also a good tip is too put all sensor switches to require all. It helps if your level will have more than 1P

2010-07-13 01:03:00 Author: Barnsy_AKA_ash Posts: 293

---

Me. I far prefer playing through levels on my own and I'll often set my auto reject when playing levels or ignore join requests when I'm playing. It's very rare that I actually want to play levels with anyone else. Asbestos's point doesn't undermine the concept either. The fact that there would be a mild push against it from players would encourage creators not to use it unless it was needed (reducing the impact on those players who prefer to play multiplayer), but it would still be a facility there for them to use, if they wanted to. The fact that many players generally don't want this would limit it to being used only when the creator really wants to add the limit. And to answer the question that keeps on coming up: "what if I saw levels that were 1p only, while in a group?". Well, I know it's a difficult problem to solve, but lucky for you, I've put all of my mental effort into coming up with a solution and I might just have something that works: Come back later on your own The alternative, which will be possible in LBP2, for levels that genuinely are 1 player only, or 2 players max, is for the creator to implement one of the following: Block off the level once you are in it, if there are too many players Trap players over the required limit in DCSs so they can't play and essentially enforce a spectator mode for them Is that the preferable scenario to simply preventing groups from entering the level? Personally, I don't think it is. I agree that this feature should be included, but I think I know another solution. -There could be a checkpoint (Or switch) that made it so another player spawned each time one died (As another user said earlier) -If you entered a level with more than 1 player that was "1 Player Only" and they had this checkpoint, one player would randomly be chosen to spawn, and it would go from there with the nonactive players watching.

2010-07-13 02:40:00 Author: Daldrez Posts: 63

---

-If you entered a level with more than 1 player that was "1 Player Only" and they had this checkpoint, one player would randomly be chosen to spawn, and it would go from there with the nonactive players watching. LBP1 contains ordered list of players and in this order host always is on top, why not host decide who play or not inf first place?

2010-07-13 03:02:00 Author: Shadowriver Posts: 3991

Posts: 1077139    Threads: 69970    Members: 9661    Archive-Date: 2019-01-19

Aus dem Archiv wurden alle persönlichen Daten wie Name, Anschrift, Email etc. - aber auch sämtliche Inhalte wie z.B. persönliche Nachrichten - entfernt.
Die Nutzung dieser Webseite erfolgt ohne Speicherung personenbezogener Daten. Es werden keinerlei Cookies, Logs, 3rd-Party-Plugins etc. verwendet.