Multiplayer or bust

[Punisher_1]

So I probably triggered a bunch of people already.

I dropped my $50 on this after watching a you tube video because being someone that was an original tester from WoWs I have seen a lot of "stuff" over the years. I'm not going to compare the two games because they are obviously different.

- But if you allow both of these game to shag and they popped out a baby, it would be pretty awesome - 

Playing the game for a short bit of time and completing only 5 of the campaigns was not exactly exciting. Sure it's neat to build your own ship in a restricted sort of way to fight AI but I'm not aiming the guns or playing against thinking people. Just beating up Bots.....and that's cool for a bit but then it's just not that fun. I'd rather work as a group or fight against other players with a design of my own choosing to see who is the better ship builder and tactician. 

By not adding multiplayer you are seriously limiting your player base. Those more mature players looking for a global conflict game pitted against other groups in a deep design based game might be more appealing than a few armchair admirals slapping down some dumb Bots. I'm thinking you could actually pull players from WoWs if you built the game in this manner. ( Because let's face it WoWs is not ever going to allow creativity in ship modifications and is deeply arcade-ish at best) Sure it will be more work but yet also make considerably more money via a larger player base. 

Here is what I suggest you add:

- Multiplayer skirmish mode based on a ship point value and objectives for single and group players that want a quick battle. 

- A single player Piracy mode where yes, you guessed it, solo players can jump in under contract and tangle with the big boys in support or against AI.

- Allow a multiplayer mode and single player mode where the player can work towards goals but only applies to one side of the game or the other. For example an introduction that allows new players to teeth on the game and allows them to make a choice taking starting assets down that path but not after that point.   

- Multiplayer world domination mode (persistent game). Where clans can represent a Privateer based naval force that comprises of various nations ship designs. ( like your campaign mode) These clans fight over trade routes and Nation based contracts to engage in various types of fleet warfare and objectives. Basically you have a letter of marque allowing for open combat against hostiles and other factions in game. Clans obtain trade routes for and contract for profit also opening up further nation based technology to upgrade ships. 

*Utilize national ship designs? Because people from around the world want to represent their own nation or have choices. 

* Why a global campaign? Because people want to kick each others asses and will throw money at you to do so, so instead of making 500k on this game idea why not be able to make tens of millions?

Minor stuff: 

- Improve ship skins to look more realistic - I like the clean look but it's nothing special. 

- Add color schemes and or patterns 

- Allow ship capture and loot options. By capturing and not killing ships if the option presents itself.

- Introduce crew skills and counts to add realism 

- Add surrender or with draw from battle options

- Extend ship design to 1945

 In closing I hope you consider this. If I was wealthy I would be calling your office to invest in this game. eh, ya never know i could win the lottery in that case I will give you all a call.

In any case I wish you success. 

 

Edited November 15, 2019 by Punisher_1

[Cairo1]

I Frankly Disagree wholeheartedly about a multiplayer focus. While it could be fun to cooperate, or compete with a single friend I would rather see development time spent on improving the designer, and to see a greater level of depth given to the campaign.

further more I would rather see a reduction in technology, no radar, or ships like Yamato, rather 1880-1920 then 1910-1945. the post WWI era of aviation and the carrier while interesting detract from the purity of naval combat and theory that dominated Jutland, Tsushima, and Santiago bay. We should see central battery ironclads or barbette ironclads to the super dreadnought, not carriers, and anti-air cruisers.

While I agree something akin to Naval action with what will be developed from this game could be most enjoyable, I think many of us who are participating here on the fourms and giving our feed back are people with sincere intrest in Naval History, and an apreciation for this epoch in combat, not the casual gamers who grind for rare premiums, or hop into matches for some relaxation.

[Fleet_Of_Oceans]

3 hours ago, Punisher_1 said:

So I probably triggered a bunch of people already.

I dropped my $50 on this after watching a you tube video because being someone that was an original tester from WoWs I have seen a lot of "stuff" over the years. I'm not going to compare the two games because they are obviously different.

- But if you allow both of these game to shag and they popped out a baby, it would be pretty awesome - 

Playing the game for a short bit of time and completing only 5 of the campaigns was not exactly exciting. Sure it's neat to build your own ship in a restricted sort of way to fight AI but I'm not aiming the guns or playing against thinking people. Just beating up Bots.....and that's cool for a bit but then it's just not that fun. I'd rather work as a group or fight against other players with a design of my own choosing to see who is the better ship builder and tactician. 

By not adding multiplayer you are seriously limiting your player base. Those more mature players looking for a global conflict game pitted against other groups in a deep design based game might be more appealing than a few armchair admirals slapping down some dumb Bots. I'm thinking you could actually pull players from WoWs if you built the game in this manner. ( Because let's face it WoWs is not ever going to allow creativity in ship modifications and is deeply arcade-ish at best) Sure it will be more work but yet also make considerably more money via a larger player base. 

Here is what I suggest you add:

- Multiplayer skirmish mode based on a ship point value and objectives for single and group players that want a quick battle. 

- A single player Piracy mode where yes, you guessed it, solo players can jump in under contract and tangle with the big boys in support or against AI.

- Allow a multiplayer mode and single player mode where the player can work towards goals but only applies to one side of the game or the other. For example an introduction that allows new players to teeth on the game and allows them to make a choice taking starting assets down that path but not after that point.   

- Multiplayer world domination mode (persistent game). Where clans can represent a Privateer based naval force that comprises of various nations ship designs. ( like your campaign mode) These clans fight over trade routes and Nation based contracts to engage in various types of fleet warfare and objectives. Basically you have a letter of marque allowing for open combat against hostiles and other factions in game. Clans obtain trade routes for and contract for profit also opening up further nation based technology to upgrade ships. 

*Utilize national ship designs? Because people from around the world want to represent their own nation or have choices. 

* Why a global campaign? Because people want to kick each others asses and will throw money at you to do so, so instead of making 500k on this game idea why not be able to make tens of millions?

Minor stuff: 

- Improve ship skins to look more realistic - I like the clean look but it's nothing special. 

- Add color schemes and or patterns 

- Allow ship capture and loot options. By capturing and not killing ships if the option presents itself.

- Introduce crew skills and counts to add realism 

- Add surrender or with draw from battle options

- Extend ship design to 1945

 In closing I hope you consider this. If I was wealthy I would be calling your office to invest in this game. eh, ya never know i could win the lottery in that case I will give you all a call.

In any case I wish you success. 

 

Unfortunately you have missed one of the key points of this game and what it is trying to achieve. This is not an arcade like experience, nor will it be turned into one games like that already exist. This game is designed to cater to a niche market and is deliberately designed to fit that niche. If and when multiplayer comes it will probably be in the following manners: 1 as and when (probably after full release) the single player experience (campaign included) is polished and in a state where the majority of the player base is satisfied. Then the dev's have said they might look into a custom battle generator for multiplayer battles, where each player can design multiple ships class with a certain budget and tech allowance and then fight against another players fleet. 2 If and when that mode can be gotten to work properly and with approval from the majority of players, then and only then will the dev's consider beginning work on a multiplayer version of the grand 1890-1930 campaign. 
In regards to your request for an extension to 1945. This games timeframe ending around 1930 is a deliberate choice as its around that time that aircraft became capaable of inflicting meaningful damage on ships and as this games focus is on gun based naval war AKA the big gun battleship it was a deliberate choice on the Dev's part.

You also speak of a global campaign with clans, well the games main bread and butter is going to be a campaign stretching from 1890-1930. Clans will not be apart of it, as that diminishes from the historical aspect of the game. You will play as one of the major naval powers extant at the beginning of the game and will guide the fleet of that power right through the games end. While on this topic 'national ship designs' will be non-existant in this game simply due to its nature. For example if i'm leading Spain I might save up funds and construct the first dreadnought before Britan can which is Alt history. This first dreadnought might also be to a completely different design, than that of the early dreadnoughts of our timeline. 

This is the games core and its strength, the devs know the market their appealing to and aren't really in it for the money. So multiplayer will come (most likely) in the forms i've suggested or not at all. 
 

[Diabolic_Wave]

Personally, I pick bust. I think you're overestimating the capabilities of the current dev team. PVE is one thing, but PVP tends to lead to scary weird metas, I think.

 

As for your other points, mostly fine. Honestly there are no quantum leaps until 1945, so you probably wouldn't get any particularly more interesting things. Capturing might be a little interesting, too.

[Bry7x7x7]

Ehhhh... Nothing is wrong here with what you've suggested per say, but I really think the game should focus on a single player experience. I can really appericate that we have WoWs as the arcadey multiplayer game and UA:D as the more grounded single player campaign focused game as separate ententes.

[HusariuS]

Nah, this game should focus on single player campaing, and if there will be some sort of multiplayer, it should be based on the games like Total War Shogun 2 where you can play co-op campaign or Head-to-Head campaign, with possibility to make a small skirmish battle between 2-4 players.

It is easier to create and manage this type of "multiplayer game" than to realize your idea, which is too complicated.

[Cptbarney]

Yeah no, id rather not have another trashy multiplayer game where you must grind x amount of time of y amount of reward withing z amount of time.

I'm getting bored of these types of games atm and its nice to have something different for a change.

Eitherway with 3 devs multiplayer will not be a thing untill very far down the road or never since the amount of coding that is required just to set it up nevermind to keep it running.

I get what you mean, but i think we should you know actually get the game working first, we don't have the campaign up yet.

If they are going to do multiplayer it will probs be more likely to be something similar to HOI4 if anything.

[khang36]

4 hours ago, Cairo1 said:

I Frankly Disagree wholeheartedly about a multiplayer focus. While it could be fun to cooperate, or compete with a single friend I would rather see development time spent on improving the designer, and to see a greater level of depth given to the campaign.

further more I would rather see a reduction in technology, no radar, or ships like Yamato, rather 1880-1920 then 1910-1945. the post WWI era of aviation and the carrier while interesting detract from the purity of naval combat and theory that dominated Jutland, Tsushima, and Santiago bay. We should see central battery ironclads or barbette ironclads to the super dreadnought, not carriers, and anti-air cruisers.

While I agree something akin to Naval action with what will be developed from this game could be most enjoyable, I think many of us who are participating here on the fourms and giving our feed back are people with sincere intrest in Naval History, and an apreciation for this epoch in combat, not the casual gamers who grind for rare premiums, or hop into matches for some relaxation.

Based on the what bit of the campain i have been able to play before they patched it out it is pretty much 1880 to 1945 

[Tousansons]

You are either pretty rude or delusional for the most part of your "brilliant ideas".

The only salvageable part lies in your "minor stuffs". I like the ideas of adding colour schemes. The rest as already been suggested (or is being worked on) in the dedicated topics.

I rate it low effort/10

[FinnishJager]

More hot takes... Hard pass on a multiplayer focus and some of these other suggestions.

Reading the published information on website would be a good place to start. This game is not gonna be World of Warships or WarThunder, or Naval Action in Armored Ships.

https://www.dreadnoughts.ultimateadmiral.com/

 

 

[Skeksis]

Dev's have already commented that some form of multiplayer maybe considered at a later date (most likely as a result of some funding success).

But i actually think that Dev's are enjoying reading this post…... with a large amount of vodka. 🤣

Edited November 15, 2019 by Skeksis

[HusariuS]

2 hours ago, Skeksis said:

Dev's have already commented that some form of multiplayer maybe considered at a later date (most likely as a result of some funding success).

But i actually think that Dev's are enjoying reading this post…... with a large amount of vodka. 🤣

And sausage 😂

[Latur Husky]

I agree that the game needs multiplayer and has awesome potential for it, but game should be balanced for Campaign and if some techs are overpowered in campaign they should have exactly same statistics in multiplayer. War was brutal and nowhere near balanced.... 

[Mooncatt]

I personally think PVP would ruin this game. Its not what the game is about, co-op would be fine imo. Thank your lucky stars your even able to play, my game has screwed up totally with some weird bug that prevents me from entering a battle atm, peed off big time. 

[Hjalfnar_Feuerwolf]

No interest in PVP whatsoever. This is going to be something of a  Rule the Waves and Total War combination, so yeah, MP would be cool at some point, but should be nowhere near the focus. Just look up how many people play titles like Total War or the Paradox games and how many of them play the MP. I think the quota is somewhere around 0.5 to 1%. Hard pass for me, and I have actually played Total War and Paradox stuff in MPs. No matter what you do, you need a shitton of rules and people still try to exploit, so I'd rather play my own historical accurate campaign against the typical, capable AI of this dev studio instead of having to put up with the BS of troublesome MP cheesers.

Edited November 16, 2019 by Hjalfnar_Feuerwolf

[Rick W]

It appears someone has COMPLETELY missed the focus of this project.... And since he opened the door, that comes from someone who was probably alpha and beta testing software before the original poster was born. At least he wished us success... and I'm sure we will have it. Without Mass Multiplayer, but perhaps with a limited Player v Player for those who enjoy it.

[Mindfield]

I hope they keep focus on the single player mode.

 

There are already 2,5 games in it:

1. Tactical Battles

2. Strategy Game

Here they can put a lot of efford in it.

2,5 Ship Designer

Maybe unfair to call it 0,5 game, since there are many things involved to make this whole thing working.

 

In the end, the strategy game decides if it will be a great game or not.

Scenarios and battle generator (if it will be put in) will last only so long.

 

But give it a purpose and win a war is what I want to see.

 

Some may remember Falcon 4.0.

Why does it still exist today?

Because of the campaign engine, which ruined Microprose making it, but it is what sets it apart form even the most modern Flight-Sims.

 

Adding multiplayer to UA:D takes away ressources and is not what I imagine of that game.

 

[chunk0351]

While I'd agree with the multiplayer option, I'd also seriously disagree with an MMO option or the world domination aspect of your MMO.  

I'd like to see about 3, or more in a finished  product, of my friends and me going at it.  I like the Point Value idea, however I'd like this for a limited  number of players for no reward other than to look at how my ships did.  Hell I'd like to see me and a group of friends mix it up on a global scale, but without rewards.  

I would think that a Piracy or Multiplayer mode with possible rewards could lead to players logging on to lose or win games to get what they want.  They may lose to help you or win for rewards.  Again to me getting rewards may lead to people winning/losing to get their friends rewards.

I would also like to company to add a World Domination and National Ship Designs in the future, possibly the far far future, and I think that this would play well into your multiplayer idea.  Again this is with a limited number of players in a consistent world;  something that is done for no rewards amongst friends; ie clan battles etc.

In short, I like the multiplayer option but without rewards, played among friends who just want to see how bad they can screw with each other. 

I see no problem with rewarding players in a closed game with agreed upon rules but expecting your rules to abide by UA:D may fall short.  I'm not saying that you or your friends may do this but I don't say this about me and my friends.  

[Punisher_1]

For all those triggered people, wow you are overly sensitive.

I never said you had to play the multiplayer game? I said this:  By not adding multiplayer you are seriously limiting your player base.

Adding, guys, not limiting to multiplayer only. This means if you want to play a single player game it's still there for you to enjoy. FFS

Instead of actually reading the post I get a dozen negative responses from Anime avatar nerds. Just playing the tutorial missions was boring. I play a round or two and then go play something else. In other games, I might play for 3 or hours. So for me, a guy that likes this sort of game and knows more than the average person about the IRL shit there is no excitement in just trying to outsmart the AI with a limited ship tool set.

Like I said, the difference of selling 500k worth of copies or selling millions, residual income, expansions, high replay ability.   

[Ishtar]

7 hours ago, Punisher_1 said:

For all those triggered people, wow you are overly sensitive.

I never said you had to play the multiplayer game? I said this:  By not adding multiplayer you are seriously limiting your player base.

Adding, guys, not limiting to multiplayer only. This means if you want to play a single player game it's still there for you to enjoy. FFS

Instead of actually reading the post I get a dozen negative responses from Anime avatar nerds. Just playing the tutorial missions was boring. I play a round or two and then go play something else. In other games, I might play for 3 or hours. So for me, a guy that likes this sort of game and knows more than the average person about the IRL shit there is no excitement in just trying to outsmart the AI with a limited ship tool set.

Like I said, the difference of selling 500k worth of copies or selling millions, residual income, expansions, high replay ability.   

You fundamentally misunderstand the motivation, core design, and intended playerbase of this game. You're judging it from an alpha state without the main selling feature, the campaign, and calling it lame. It's basically as if someone played WoWS and stopped at tier 2 because there were no battleships.

[HusariuS]

7 hours ago, Punisher_1 said:

For all those triggered people, wow you are overly sensitive.

I never said you had to play the multiplayer game? I said this:  By not adding multiplayer you are seriously limiting your player base.

Adding, guys, not limiting to multiplayer only. This means if you want to play a single player game it's still there for you to enjoy. FFS

Instead of actually reading the post I get a dozen negative responses from Anime avatar nerds. Just playing the tutorial missions was boring. I play a round or two and then go play something else. In other games, I might play for 3 or hours. So for me, a guy that likes this sort of game and knows more than the average person about the IRL shit there is no excitement in just trying to outsmart the AI with a limited ship tool set.

Like I said, the difference of selling 500k worth of copies or selling millions, residual income, expansions, high replay ability.   

Don't play academy missions, and wait for campaign then.

Or wait at least year when devs will (maybe)  have some time to develop a multiplayer that YOU are so much waiting for

Edited November 21, 2019 by HusariuS

[LeBoiteux]

GL forums quite focused on MMO Naval Action for a long time.

It might partly explain why there are quite a few Multiplayer fans around asking for Multip. in any GL game 🙂

[RAMJB]

After the game as designed and intended is on full release status and after some time to fix the inevitable problems of a release, I wouldn't have any problem with a MP gamemode. Just not MMO. Just matching with a friend in a battle each one with an equal ammount of funds, let both design their respective fleets and then have a battle. One on one.

I have very fond memories of playing Fighting Steel in MP games (damn...been almost 20 years since that :S). Ditto with Storm Eagle Studios' "jutland". No reason why something like that couldn't happen with this game too.

But first get it done as it was intended to be. 

[FinnishJager]

11 hours ago, Punisher_1 said:

Instead of actually reading the post I get a dozen negative responses from Anime avatar nerds.  

EXCUSE ME, this is Doug Dimmadome owner of the Dimmsdale Dimmadome, doing a Doug Dimmadab!

[Tousansons]

13 hours ago, Punisher_1 said:

For all those triggered people, wow you are overly sensitive.

I never said you had to play the multiplayer game? I said this:  By not adding multiplayer you are seriously limiting your player base.

Adding, guys, not limiting to multiplayer only. This means if you want to play a single player game it's still there for you to enjoy. FFS

Instead of actually reading the post I get a dozen negative responses from Anime avatar nerds. Just playing the tutorial missions was boring. I play a round or two and then go play something else. In other games, I might play for 3 or hours. So for me, a guy that likes this sort of game and knows more than the average person about the IRL shit there is no excitement in just trying to outsmart the AI with a limited ship tool set.

Like I said, the difference of selling 500k worth of copies or selling millions, residual income, expansions, high replay ability.   

You can't run a multiplayer game like the one you described with a small development team. You can't develop it in a reasonable timeframe, you can't run it, you can't pay for it's servers. It's impossible. Pulling awesome sales numbers like a random Epic store salesman will not give you any more credibility.

I'd also argue about the "fun" of said multiplayer. Actually the game is just putting your battle line on course, refreshing smoke screens when needed and sometime turn to avoid some probable torpedoes. Finaly wait for your big guns to sink the enemy while in maximum game speed. How do you plan to balance the "bigger is always better" of these years? What about players who want to play in a certain time period in your "persistent multiplayer environment?" without splitting the playerbase? What about technologies between players? What about the obligatory balance issues when something is so strong everyone starts to use it and it ruins the fun? How do you plan to make a convoy defence fun for the poor sod with 10 slow ass transports and five destroyers against a cruiser division?

Your topic title is a troll. You are not here to discuss anything, just to throw your "brilliant ideas" at the face of the few idiots (like myself) willing to read them and hoping for some recognition don't act all surprised now. Get on with it.