Seeing a run on it that lasts less that a month because one player is just being a surrender slave, to me it just seems like it wouldn't really fit, especially as one of main runs. The HRE run, I would say I average about 7 months and 16 days (This is a really rough estimate). Runs like the HRE and Stamford Bridge should not have MP. I was more of using it as an example to show what is technically allowed by the rules. I didn't necessarily mean that every run should have a MP. When I used the example of the HRE speedrun. Let start by clarifying some things about my original post. Awesome to see some grand strategy speedrun love out there Either way I don’t think more than 2 player MP speedruns is viable, as the more players you add the closer the run is to becoming trivial. But a 2-player World Conquest speedrun actually sounds like a pretty damn fun idea - and it may actually appeal to some runners that never would have touched something like that otherwise. Imo surrender slaves is not that far from speedrunning Fortnite where all your buddies just suicide instantly. Like a world conquest or whatever long runs CK2 might have, where cooperation can be a key factor to actually make the run faster rather than one player just being a surrender slave.
Where I do see multiplayer runs potentially shine is longer completionist runs. I do see some value in multiplayer runs, but not necessarily in the way datrandompanda describes it I don’t think making an already short run even more trivial is the right way to go about MP speedruns. My opinion is that in no circumstances can singleplayer runs ever be displayed on the same leaderboards as multiplayer runs, so as datrandompanda says they would need to be separated.
#Crusader kings ii multiplayer mod#
I don’t run CK2 and I lack the skill and in-game time to consider doing so in the near future - I do however run and mod EU4 and I think whatever is decided here might set some sort of community precedence for games that are alike (CK2~EU4~HOI4), which is why I decided to join the debate. With all that being said, what are your opinions on this? You could have your friend that your speedrunning with be a vassal (which is actually fun to do outside of speedrunning), or you could have them play as somewhere else to do specific things. Also, it adds some different strategies to runs. I see this as a way to get multiple people into speedrunning CK2. Now that I have gone over that, I would like to say that I think that they should be allowed, but they should have their own tab. Just have England immediately surrender and you're run is complete. It's the same situation with Stamford Bridge runs. Meaning that that would cut off 3-4 months off the run.
If I had my friend playing Lombardy then he could just surrender right after I declare war on him. Most of that time is spent at war with Lombardy. To give an example, if I were to do an HRE run, that normally takes me about 7 and a half months. If multiplayer runs are eligible runs, this would make runs very, very easy. You can do Ironman Mode in multiplayer and also you can't use console in multiplayer anyways. So it's kind of like an Airbud, as I see it (For context, it doesn't say that it's not allowed, so it could be interpreted as being allowed). I looked into it, and the rules do not specifically say that you can't. He asked me if I knew whether or not speedruns could be done as multiplayer. I was playing CK2 with one of my friends the other day and we started talking about speedrunning.
0 kommentar(er)
