Right now, the limitation is set to minimum 4 players.
So we must give a lot of efforts to create “solo” games as we have to use tricks to make it possible.
There are a lot of advantages to let us have 1 player limitation :
Creating “solo” games would be very easier to make
A large amount of players love solo games
From that point above : Crayta would even more open to a larger community of creators and players.
I know U2G love multiplayer games and so on but the fact is that some people just wanna play solo games and some creators wanna create story based solo games.
If you wanna grow your community and growth as UGC, you should to allow 1 player limitation games.
Having to make the solo content for multiple players on same server greatly restricts what you can do with the game, because you now have to optimise for all players. For example, instead of having one player fight 100 enemies at a time, you now have restrict it to 25 each.
Multiplayer doesn’t necessarily mean “all players in the same instance”. With global counters we can make game mechanics where a player alone in his own instance can affect all other instances of the game. So, setting maximum players to 1 doesn’t necessarily mean absence of multiplayer.
Would love the ability to make solo games! Common point against is that they don’t lead to community building, but I think they actually can, just in different ways. Handcrafted games that are experienced in different ways and then talked about, also result in people getting together to share strategies, thoughts, feelings.
I think solo games also gives new developers a simpler entry point. You don’t have to think about players joining / leaving and what the implications are. Being able to start with single player is a great learning path.
Can agree with opinions above. Solo games can handle social mechanics as well, if needed. But the main thing is that SP opens a big window for games of different genres and styles. It also doesn’t strictly means each session has to work on a seperate server instance, maybe you could run multiple worlds on the same instance to save resources?
Besides “1P limitation” there are another scenarios which are not covered by simply reducing the minimum player limit. Since it is possible to teleport players to other worlds, the following statements arise:
Worlds are dynamic.
Worlds can divide players into different objectives groups.
Worlds can differ in their global purpose even such as style of gameplay.
Meaning that different worlds require their own rules and therefore their own players limitations.
Let’s imagine an abstract game that could benefit from acquiring this feature: core world of “some game” fits up to 20 players allowing them to play in their own temp and the second world purpose is to separate 1-3 players into another space allowing them to experience limited-player challenge, maybe a solo dungeon in an rpg game while the main game loop requires more players to play.
While this feature will allow creators not only to build just single-players games, but also design more flexible player distribution structures.
The way I see this implemented is something that could be called “Private Worlds”. The player restriction can either be initialized with the “world:Lock” which prevents current world from joining new players until “world:Unlock” is called. Also a direct limit of N players can be set in the corresponding editor property for each existing world.