Right now there is a lot of discussion for how Co-op will work. With the developers wanting to do a system were 2 people will control with equal authority 1 faction.
Personally I’m not a fan of this setup. If you had one group of settlers to start with and I had a group to start with, I think that would be more fun. Watching trade between our two cites would be amazing in real time. Having my teem specialize in economics while yours specialized in an army would be equally cool.
Thats not to say I’m completely opposed to having control over each others towns. In fact I think I may have come up with a very good alternative.
Build in an option slider and slide it to…
0-If we want to be separate completely exempt for optional trade or gifts of money.
1-If we are aloud to control each others units (also 0).
2-if we want to be able to create more of each others units and to utilize each others buildings (also 0&1).
3-if we want total control, shared bank and building rights (also 0&1&2).
Think of it almost like a treaty system. If it was possible it might be cool to let players update this on the fly in game. I give you a certain level of control over my stuff and you give me a certain level of control over yours. and if your playing with someone who is a noob they could give you total control over them and you only give them level 1 that way you can show them how to play without any risk to your own.
So what do you guys think?
3 Likes
that’s not rly a slider u just want to be able to restrict player access and if im right in assumption having each one of those being a on/off options would be fine.if u act as the host for the game u get main control over the town an only share what u let them control.
1 Like
I really like that idea but what about for the showing of the controlled npc’s, why not use a color system to show whose they originally were?
2 Likes
Heck ya i would love team colors.
And I don’t see why it couldn’t be a slider it seems that it would work if it was. seeing as its organized from low to high?
1 Like
I think that it would be vary good to have co op and multyplayer e.x id be able to connect with only one player and and in the local a and at his house it locks on him/her and servers to get multiplying city’s,towns and villages and they can trade and name their city’s and fight over resources and to claim more land .
1 Like
I would also like to be separate from my friend’s town.
Not saying like alone, I would like if we each started with our own group of settlers and managed our own cities on the same map. Something like lan-run games. This way, we could choose to partner up, build near each other, or go completely seperate ways. This makes for much more fun and a plethora of scenarios, such as trading and going to war with one another.
3 Likes
Posted this on the Kickstarter and another thread but I’m quite happy with the idea so I’ll share it here as well (just to help people see it):
Basically units and resource drops could be flagged with an Owner(player) or as shared. You could move units to another player or make them shared at will if you wished. An owned unit would follow your orders first and foremost and could be set to then go help an ally with thier buildings. An owned resource drop would only allow for units of the owner to pull from them but you could tell some of your units to move the resources to one of your allies drop points for trading. This would allow for any of the major play styles we’ve heard of and even some of the minor ones to be played. Want completely separate cities? Make all units and resource drops owned and default them to such. Want separate units but one city? Make resources shared but not units. Want the one city ‘pure’ game? Make everything shared. And anything in between.
2 Likes
So I was promoting some footmen when I realized what happens when I get tons of these guys and I can play with friends will the battles be as amazing as I want them to be… so just Imagine this: your men steadily preparing a shield wall while dozens of goblins charge through some kind of dark forest then to the left your friends army riding some war-mammoths over a huge hill ready for battle… wouldn’t that be awesome? so I know that stonehearth’s focus is on city building not destroying but I cant but help think of all the things that could happen in multiplayer or future updates for single player so I have made a small list of my ideas that would make stonehearth just that much cooler, welp here you go 
-War mammoths so in the kickstarter picture it showed a huge mammoth in a stable and Team-R has hinted on mammoths so, would they be used to take goods from place to place or for battle? (also in this video Desktop Tuesday, Roads \u0026 Alpha 7 Update! by the storage and farming tools also shows a little sheep inside of a green box does that mean herding? also it shows a shepherds crook in the crafting tab )
I know this is a really small list but I will add more, welp time to go play some more stonehearth 
This is a pretty cool concept.
About factions/guilds, I could imagine that in game there would be several guilds created by Team Radiant, each with their own specific benefits, unique lore/background. Joining them could unlock special units, unique items enhancing the rpg feeling.
I don’t know how important this would be for our own small armies, but it would definately make a difference when in multiplayer, say three players attack together. Each three player with one unit of 20 soldiers, and one unit would be archers, belonging to a Robin Hood style faction, the other knights on horses clad in mail and the third the mages hurling fireballs.
2 Likes
I am really curious how radiant will implement the combat strats and stuff. They will work on this after the mining is pretty much done.
But oh man, can’t wait to have my sizable army fight a big threat of goblins and ors or something. And the mammoths like mumakills from lotr?
For guilds it would be really cool if these big guilds known though out the world want to make an esteblisment in your city and have nice bonuses. Templars? maybe after you meet some requirments for them to want to join your city or something woud be good i think.
3 Likes
Oh heck yeah I didnt even think about that type of playstyle I think I would definitely be the robin hood guys 
theres already several “factions” planned for you to play as, this includes dwarfs, and various groups of humans. for example.
I for one am very supportive of a more military/factions based SH. If all goes planned, most of my cities will be heavily guarded fortresses that lay waste to all surrounding regions.
Gee, I sure hope Steve never notices what my profile card photo is. It’s been the same for a while now.
1 Like
What if there were different multiplayer game modes? such as one of them being a co-op where you build a town with the other player and you share everything or a multiplayer mode in which you start out in different areas build up your town and eventually find each other and decide if you want to team up or wage war?
I think Your idea is pretty similar to mine. I’ve had an idea to make 2 setlers and make a class. I gonna do that with more organized way:
1. A new class that’s gonna do all politics and gonna ad new options for player.
2. New bar for new options that gonna control everything.
3. The system of that it’s gonna be simple:
a) options like allince (helping each other, having almost full control for units and if u want shareing people or build space) of course there is gonna be option that gonna help organize everything, to nog give total control to your fren)
b) tradeing supplies (if you want to help your fren go on but if you don’t want to just no, also more options to make trades automatic and regular, and what you want to trade and what don’t)
c) WAR (you’re people are not allowed to trade or share space with you’re opponets at least youe want to atack him, troops gonna automaticly atack other troops within range of coure you’re not allowed to do anything with other’s person kingdom)
The atacks aren’t gonna be possible if both players aren’t in game. To accept the “three mods” both players must accept. But if there is 4 player in each “team” not every one must be online. But that’s a lot of people for this game.
Maybe my explenation is not that clear and simple but you all know what’s happening right ?
And in my opinion co-op shoud be in game from the beginning my fren and I are waiting for co-op to arrive. And also co-op in this kind of game equals money, very big money.
Who else think that’s good idea, what can make it better and who want’s a co-op with 2-4 people ???