Allow for player-based quest progression - SEE DEV COMMENTS IN THREAD

24 Jan, '24
Senfdeckel Merged

The progress is serverwide for any milestone. That is not good for players who tend to play less then others and want their own progress.

100+

24 Jan, '24
Malzian Admin

"Add Player only Progess setting for servers (its serverwide currently)" (suggested by <Hidden> on 2024-01-24), including upvotes (1) and comments (0), was merged into this suggestion.

100+

24 Jan, '24
William Buttlicker

With the way it is set up currently, there is no incentive to play multiplayer. Oh, we beat this boss together. Too bad, only one person gets the loot. Oh, big spark on the tower? Nope, only one person.

100+

24 Jan, '24
James

This would be great. Especially if in the server settings you can toggle either server based progression or individual player based so groups of friends can play towards their own dynamic.

92

24 Jan, '24
Strykerius

I fully agree that this should be a function within the game. Taking the example of Valheim where boss completion is tied to having an item dropped from said boss or internal "server check box" that determines progression moving forward. Giving the ability to run a dedicated server, but tying progression to the world state that changes while you are offline because someone else can move forward, even unknowingly, can feel bad and overall not fun for groups.

74

24 Jan, '24
Nicole

It won't let me upvote this for some reason, but this is really important to those of us who want to play with friends but not be required to only play when they are on without someone missing out.

69

24 Jan, '24
Mark (Palad1n)

I agree, the multiplayer needs a lot of attention, especially with quest progression. If each player would have the ability to obtain the quest and complete it individually, move all these things away from "server progression" and move it to "personal progression", that would be a huge win for multiplayer.

If you want to place limits on how many fire altars can be placed, again, make it "per player" and NOT server wide. The reason for this, you have 1 or 2 group members that use up all the allotted fire altars, and no one else can place one. Again, I can't stress the importance that so many other multiplayer games similar to Enshrouded have done, which is to set progression "per player" and NOT server.

84

24 Jan, '24
nV Merged

Title really, i havnt even started playing the game and barely out the starting area and im already half found all survivors and placed my camp apparently..... why wasnt there a way to make only me have to progress through quests in multiplayer? I love the game but man i would love if multiplayer saw some more love before they released but its fine hoping for changes

24 Jan, '24
Nate

Currently there is an error preventing users from upvoting this suggestion (and other suggestions that have been merged together), there are a lot of users in the official discord requesting this feature as well as expressing their inability to upvote this suggestion.

9

24 Jan, '24
Damion Jay Allen

Wont let me upvote either. Multiplayer needs a lot of work. if you're going to have up to 16 players, you cannot have no individual progression or limit flame altars behind progression etc. The group I play with is competitive. We like to do things together but we also like to do our own thing.

9

24 Jan, '24
Valourant#0330

I was thinking the developers could introduce a story mode co-op that limits the co-op to 6 players max or something, so players are less likely to miss content. Then there could be a normal 16 player sandbox mode for people who don't care about missing quests. The developers could also set it up so there is the option to turn on player based quest progression or not.

My issue with repeatable quests is that it ruins game immersion. An example is a game like WOW, where you can go back to an area where orcs are still besieging a city when you already completed that quest and the war is over. This basically reinforces the fact that YOU'RE IN A GAME environment and the world is not permanently changed by your actions.

Quests that disappear imply the world evolves and changes with your actions. You expect repeatable quests in MMOs, which are multiplayer, coop is basically single player game with other friends, like if you played BG3 you can't repeat quests there either.

13

24 Jan, '24
SZ

It doesn't let me upvote but 100% this. Having the progression server based is keeping me from playing with a big group of friends. We just decided to be a small group because no way are we getting 12-14 people together and then get frustrated because we need to wait for everyone to be on at the same time in order to do the quests. Add clans/guilds/tribes to this aswell and people won't be restricted in any way and everyone can have fun together.

This is probably the only issue I have with this game atm besides minor QoL things.

6

25 Jan, '24
Rubmywrinklz

I cant upvote this, so please consider this comment my upvote.

8

25 Jan, '24
LightliSalted

I feel adding this may be difficult due to how the game currently is. EX: my friend ran off and killed the first boss and chopped the root before the rest of us could get there. now we are all stuck. The problem i see is there would need to be instanced based progression then, or at least a check in an AOE around where the boss should be thats tied to the current players quest progression (who walks into the zone) to spawn the boss or not. as for chopping the root, i feel if the root is already missing, then once the boss is completed, theres a check for the root status (chopped or not) and if it is cut already, then it auto progresses. This would solve the issue of "reapplying" the shroud for players that havent completed said zone yet. Yes it makes it a bit easier, but theres gotta be some give and take here

4

25 Jan, '24
Falk

The way the progression currently works makes a dedicated server a strange choice. Being able to play async is a large part of what makes online multiplayer games of this type fun, and I strongly feel this should be a priority.

13

25 Jan, '24
Thelenna

I can't upvote on this, but it is really important that each person is able to complete their quests as an individual not just a group.

5

25 Jan, '24
Calvin

Cant Upvote but +1

1

25 Jan, '24
Patrificius

+1 the game needs this

25 Jan, '24
Sean

This is an essential feature that i totally assumed would be in from day 1... we have so many people excited to play that now won't because of this shared progression crap. Gigabrain idea to only be able to play when 16 people are all able to at the exact same time & all have the same goal, this isn't guild raiding : /

9

25 Jan, '24
Statistikx

I agree. It sucks that I will now be playing on my own until this gets fixed. It should be an option to share progression in a party or clan.

4

25 Jan, '24
Kulrock

100% this... as it stands right now, it is totally ruining the entire co-op experience and some of my friends are now not getting the game due to this. I can't even comprehend at which point someone thought having a co-op game's progression server side would be a good idea!

I don't mean, maybe this could be server side and that can be player based.... no.. all of it needs to be player progression.

This shouldn't even be up for a discussion, it shouldn't have been in the games progression, period!
Make it player progression before your player base takes a massive dive and the game becomes another abandon ware.

14

25 Jan, '24
Default_Player

Agreed this is a major issue if you have friends with different time schedules.
Like @Nicole, I cannot upvote this but I really hope this gets "fixed".

25 Jan, '24
Roy Timmermans

Indeed, other players on server are messing up my progress. Also they just extinguish your flame and build their own.
They need to make a permission system for fire altars and your building plot.
I cannot place the blacksmith at my place as someone else on the server just summons it at his place.
There is no water on the map anywhere making it very unnatural.
No weather, rain, storm, wind whatsoever, feels very static.
Block animations are bad and often do not register your block while holding right mouse.

6

25 Jan, '24
XE

server based achievements,( ie certain world quest bosses) should not be allowed to respawn just because 1 or 2 people miss it. they need to either co-ordinate with the rest of the server or "miss out" or play solo or with better friends who is willing to wait for them.

its just a aspect of multiplayer that players themself need to settle instead of game catering to everyone. downvote if i could

5

25 Jan, '24
Kenneth Cauley

I just tried to upvote and it will not let me. it was at 50 I clicked it several times and it's still at 50. are they blocking votes? this sucks because I bought this game for me and my wife and she works odd hours and I convinced my friends to get the game as well please fix this!

25 Jan, '24
Hellsinger Merged

Hello we have noticed that if a player unlocks something or finishes a quest it unlocks everything even for the new ones arriving on the server would it not be better to put the quest system specific to the character and us to the server so as not to alter the gaming experience of other players
We also noticed that the flame binds the players between uh would it be to deactivate the flame limit per game and limit it to the players or give them the possibility of creating their own clan

4

25 Jan, '24
DarkLink

Did my very small first playthrough yesterday, game looks and feels amazing on my side, great job! Thank you!
Me and my friends only concern at the moment is the quest progression being tied to the server itself, which has been discussed already, and currently is holding ourselves from keep playing until it gets sorted out, we really hope that the devs look into this problem and solve it so we can all properly enjoy a shared world with individual progression systems.
Thank you!!

2

25 Jan, '24
RAMRODICUS

I literally refunded the game because of the shared progression. So sad, the game looked incredible otherwise.

6

25 Jan, '24
Xariann

I think loot should be personal but server wide progression is not something I am worried about, because that's how I play Valheim, I play with friends and we all contribute to the same base and we all progress through the same bosses.

Rather than changing the way the multiplayer works now, I actually suggest having an additional game mode.

So have a "multiplayer" mode with separate progression, and have a "co-op" mode which is as the game is now.

I was also of the impression that while there is no base cap in Valheim, once you kill a boss, the game advances for everyone on the server, in terms of what attacks your base if you have that option switched on. I might be wrong on this, but I think having a multiplayer AND a co-op mode would be the way to do it.

13

25 Jan, '24
Chris

This unfortunatly ruins the whole experience of the game. There is no reason to play multiplayer now because quests are all out of sync between the players and there is no way to further progress them.

All progression needs to be player specific or there is no reason to play multiplayer at all which in the end rules out the reason to play the game at all for many of us.

16

25 Jan, '24
David

This is actually put me on the fence to even buy this game. I prefer multiplayer over single player.
I already have server hosting with 4netplayers, and a number of other friends have the game. But not everyone is online at the same time so people that come on later say in an evening miss out on content.
So I wont run a server if when i come on ive lost out on doing quests and its already done for me. (not a fun co op experience).
And ive seen in the discord server people being toxic over the suggetion of this..

8

25 Jan, '24
Frem

This should be the top requested feature.
Right now multiplayer requires a lot of coordination if people have very different playtime. The game is good, I don't want to miss content because my friend has more playtime than me. Yes other players could wait and/or progess in their own game... but then it is them who could get frustated.
Most progress need to be per character.
Only tip I can give to player reading this comment and who have a dedicated server : if you reset it, monster, bosses and chest respawn so at least it allows players to catch up and/or explore without the world feeling that it has already been "trampled".

6

25 Jan, '24
Tesh

Loot needs to be player based as well. What's the point in 4 people helping kill a boss if only one person gets rewards. Literally discourages co-op

27

25 Jan, '24
Jens

I love the server progression - it creates a feeling of a living story that you can approach together with your friends, like Baldurs Gate 3. (And not the traditional approach, that you solve it, and 5 minutes, it's back again....)

8

25 Jan, '24
Bazim

Ye this is much needed. I am so sad that everything is server side and any player cannot experience the quest.

5

25 Jan, '24
DazzerDoom

Player based progression and the ability to carry on from where you left off is a must.
Also need to add a public test server to try out new patches before Keen break it even more.

2

25 Jan, '24
Carda

I understand it's early access and the game is how it is at the moment but a player progression instead of world progression on our server is for us essential. It's been the main topic in our group and we are all now thinking about going single player instead as we all have different timezones to play mostly.

4

25 Jan, '24
James

I'm not sure who thought it would be a good idea to have an open world survival game with server based progression. I understand there is no PVP, but the whole point of these games is to explore and progress at your own pace, when you have time to play. When I play in a group on other survival games, I can leave one night in a wood hut and come back to a metal fortress, but I'm at least able to pick up where I left off in terms of quests, gear progression, map exploration and so on.

Not to mention this decision basically nullifies the purpose of dedicated servers, to which you've got a direct partnership with.

This really needs to be changed ASAP or I feel like the entire multiplayer community will just leave for something else. Right now it's "Have other people help you get through your story campaign" not multiplayer.

5

25 Jan, '24
Eric Groves

If this game was co-op only and not on servers I would say this is ok, BUT this is for 16 players on a server?? What are they thinking? I unlock a quest and my other friends who login later don't get to do this? THIS IS A MAJOR GAME ISSUE THAT SHOULD BE FIXED ASAP!! Or is this supposed to be a 1-4 player co-op ?

10

25 Jan, '24
Meram

I'm wondering why we are paying for a dedicated server for my Co-Op crew now? Each player should get to reveal the map or explore or slay the bosses as they progress. Valheim allowed boss spawn mechanics, and the fog of war was per character as well as world resources per character for progression.

8

25 Jan, '24
Chris

Same goes for items/ loot/ storage chests/ building rights and all of that. Please, for the love of god, limit that to the players you allow it to, not just everybody. Or at least give us a toggle-option in the server-json for all of the above (including quests). There's absolutely no reason for me to keep up my dedicated server if it stays the way it is currently.

3

25 Jan, '24
Kyrin

Individual Progression should not only stop at quests but should also carry over into fire altars and loot drops too, not being able to get your own loot from a chest that doesn’t reset for hours or if you go offline or build your own house if there’s more than 2 people on the server is so frustrating and just sucks the enjoyment and sense of reward out of the game.

6

25 Jan, '24
Nightcrow

It is essential that all players in a boss fight or fight or shroud tentacle fight get loot and skill points. Loot from chests has to be instanced so everyone in group get it.

6

25 Jan, '24
Narph

Definitely needed!

2

25 Jan, '24
Peter

It seems like a bit of an oversight, but this is what EA is for. Let's see if they listen to the community and implement the changes. Same with the altars; implementing dedicated servers would help as well, and allowing individuals to set on mission progression could all be implemented to complement and not hinder Multiplayer and add an RNG loot with however many people are participating and applying damage.

4

25 Jan, '24
TehG00SE

I have a community of people that cant all play at the same times and like to do their own thing, and interact ...like a normal multiplayer server. This feels like a single player option with dedicated server hosting as a meme. Luckily we have our own hardware - feel bad for communities buying out servers to find this out late. - and to be clear this wouldnt matter for the average survival group - im speaking as a community owner that runs servers for multiple individuals and groups.

Dont get me wrong - game seems amazing - BUT without the ability to allow individuals and groups to progress at their own pace seperately - it has no place in the multiplayer enviroment imo.

12

25 Jan, '24
J.R.

My whole friend group (12ish folks) quit day one over this issue. Most refunded. I'm still playing a private game for now, but I doubt it'll hold my interest very long solo.

14

25 Jan, '24
Tay

This is such a critical flaw in the multiplayer experience. Players who have different schedules, time zones, etc cannot feasibly all be on at the same time for major server progression actions. We had friends of friends join and they’re out accomplishing things the rest of us aren’t ready for or waiting for someone else to get on before doing. Do you really think 16 people can all be on at the same time, working together, in constant communication? Sounds more like a corporate meeting, not a game

11

25 Jan, '24
SK

This is terrible and lazy design. I can’t fathom a single positive reason for why you’d want to implement complete game progression on the server vs for each individual player. Having other players complete quests that then become auto completed for anyone else who joins is absurd.

7

25 Jan, '24
phaze Admin

"progression of quests to the character and not to the game and clan system" (suggested by <Hidden> on 2024-01-25), including upvotes (1) and comments (0), was merged into this suggestion.

5

Allow for player-based quest progression - SEE DEV COMMENTS IN THREAD

Comments: 218