Multiplayer or bust

[Punisher_1]

9 hours ago, Tousansons said:

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.

Ya, not with that attitude. 

You seem like a triggered mental midget that has completely ignored PC gaming trends over the last decade. One of these "everyone needs a trophy" types ranting about how the game is going to work. Yet totally bashing the idea. Laughably IRL no one cries about "game balance" maybe you should read up on the the Battle of Midway and see how a vastly out numbered and out skilled and dated Naval force turned the tide of the war with superior tactics. 

Simply it was an idea to add to the game for people that want to be competitive and work with others in a massive persistent game. I came here in a positive manner to drop an idea that could grow the game exponentially and appeal to more than a niche player base and was met with nothing but triggered toxic filthy trolls. 

I said positive things about the game and even said i'd invest in it if I had the funds, heck I dropped the $50 just to try it out but I see the community or at least a few of them are toxic and this game will never be anything more than a AI bash fest and that's not appealing to me at all. But I guess it appeals to the few that get a dopamine rush by defeating inferior AI and the like thinking they accomplished something awesome. 

Meh, no for me. 

[Cptbarney]

Well considering this game is in alpha 2, i don't know why you expected people who expect a singleplayer game to just accept your ideas of multiplayer. Don't get me wrong the ideas sound interesting but your inability to understand the basic fact that this will most likely be a singleplayer game forever doesn't surprise me the least. Also being a closed beta tester for world of warships means nothing since i've seen supertesters and peeps with your forum title being utter trash at the game.

Im not looking forward multiplayer in this game atm, because i basically want a RTW's with HOI and TW features in the campaign as do a lot of people on this forum. And well insulting peeps isn't going to generate any sympathy for your cause. Like i said the ideas sound cool, but being an arse about it won't help in the slightest.

With a game like this multiplayer would be impossible to balance or you would have to dumb the game down so much to cater to potatoes that it no longer resembles what it once was. If the devs want multiplayer thats fine, but add it when the actual game itself i fleshed out and polished properly before moving onto such a monumental task.

I mean since WOWS's balance is god awful (thanks to cv's) and the events mostly time-gated trash that while you 'hAvE a cHOicE' still provide no new perma content and offer asinine rewards for such monumental effort, with a playerbase known to fail at the most basic of tactics and controls in said game.

Oh well, try again next year i suppose.

[Muttdog1945]

On 11/15/2019 at 7:07 AM, Bry7x7x7 said:

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.

I agree with this but having the option for a coop/ 2 player campaign would be interesting, similar to how Total War Shogun 2 Fall of the Samurai did their 2 player campaigns. Or allow both players to fight on the same team and manage different squadrons.

[Tousansons]

15 hours ago, Punisher_1 said:

You seem like a triggered mental midget that has completely ignored PC gaming trends over the last decade. One of these "everyone needs a trophy" types ranting about how the game is going to work. Yet totally bashing the idea. Laughably IRL no one cries about "game balance" maybe you should read up on the the Battle of Midway and see how a vastly out numbered and out skilled and dated Naval force turned the tide of the war with superior tactics. 

There is so much wrong things in this:

First: Modern gaming IS following the trend of "everyone needs a trophy". Todays multiplayer games are the epithome of daily rewards without efforts and the "everyone's welcome" motto. I know how it works and this is one of the first reason I'm reluctant when someone wants multiplayer in a solo game who was first sold as a solo game. Thanks for pointing this out but my opinion will not change about it.

Second: Your perception of Midway is a bit old fashioned. The US navy wasn't outdated and arguably outskilled. Like some writer in an interesting book about the subject said "The US wanted the win more than Japan did" (Shattered Sword, it's pretty good) It is an accepted knowledge that Japan went into battle with low intel, incomplete air groups and overly complex battle plan (Overconfidence and rigid commanders mind, too). Against a US navy with better intel, heavily fortifed islands and daring commanders. There was strokes of luck on both sides and in the end the US won by a pretty large margin. This wasn't a miracle in my opinion.

It is also probable that Japan was already starting to show some cracks, with or without a defeat at Midway. Its industry and manpower couldn't replace the losses in time. Taking the island of Midway was a strategic mistake because there was no way of supporting it against the near Hawaï. And of course the US industry was well on it's way to severly ramp up its production in quantity and quality.

Third: I don't understand what you are refering to with game balance. In a competitive multiplayer environnement, balance IS important. Otherwise there is nothing competitive about it. On the other hand, solo game doesn't need the same balance. They need to be fun and challenging to play against an AI or a puzzle/situation. This point you are right, for now the naval academy of UA:D lacks challenge and some of them are redundant. But I insist, there is a better way of making it than dreaming the perfect persistent multiplayer game as an alternative. I don't know how you want to realisticly make the two components coexist in this game, with the already mentioned small development team.

Once again: Your topic title is a troll bait, change it if you can. Your way of saying things isn't better because despite your claims it wasn't at all positive (Like the "multiplayer or bust" or "AI stompers attitude" "Triggered".. These sort of things). Perhaps I misunderstood your point in the first place, but the more you encroach yourself in it, the more I'm pretty sure I was right to lash at your ideas in the first place. If you spent 50 brouzoufs on a niche game and expected these niche gamers to listen to your modern view of persistent multiplayer gaming experience(tm), you are delusional and clearly approaching these gamers with an awful choice of words.

If you have another personal attack to throw please do so in private. There is no need to further pollute your topic with them if some people still wants to discuss the way you see how UA:D should be developped.

[Diabolic_Wave]

1 hour ago, Tousansons said:

If you have another personal attack to throw please do so in private. There is no need to further pollute your topic with them if some people still wants to discuss the way you see how UA:D should be developped.

Agreed. It's probably best to just ignore this person entirely from here on in as well, I think. I know it's slightly supercilious, but if his arguments are all going to culminate in 'oh no, this person likes a thing/thinks a thing I don't like or disagrees with me, better be rude'.

I reiterate that I think that most of his points were fine, but going from decent to mediocre ideas put forwards slightly too forcefully to 'insults insults insults' doesn't endear me to this thread at all.

[HusariuS]

18 hours ago, Punisher_1 said:

Ya, not with that attitude. 

You seem like a triggered mental midget that has completely ignored PC gaming trends over the last decade.

1. Your text looks like you are much more triggered than any of us, and none that answered to your “idea” was triggered by that, everyone just pointed out to you why this is stupid idea in the CURRENT state of the game with current devs team, and what must to be done and when, to accomplish a task like adding a multiplayer to this game.

2. Don't you know that every “PC GAMING TRENDS” are created by new and unique games compared to the previous “PC GAMING TRENDS”?

3. There are many games that are ignoring current “PC GAMING TRENDS” like DCS World or Train Simulator, and why? Because there are people who like those type of games, those type of “trends”, and you just came with your brilliant idea to get 'Ultimate Admiral Dreadnought' into current “PC GAMING TRENDS” with hopes that every one will like your idea and three-man dev team will just say: “You know what, we are making World of Warships/War Thunder 2.0 now”.

None of us have problem with adding multiplayer to this game, there is lack of manpower in devs team and still they accomplished so much in this game that I'm personally impressed.

Edited November 22, 2019 by HusariuS

[fsp]

I have to agree about one thing: the AI is always, always, always inferior in these kind of games. I just experienced that again in RTW2 today. Fine game, but the AI needs clear superiority to compete.

UA:D needs multiplayer in the end. When I played Total War against the AI, I felt confident entering a battle even when outnumbered. When I started playing MP campaign against a friend, everything changed. Every battle was so much more exciting. Attacking a smaller neighbour would still work, but it could come at a terrible price, as my devious friend would play that AI's troops in the tactical battle and inflict hurt on me. 1v1 battles in the campaign with massive armies - it was brilliant, even if TW is far from brilliant.

No need to make it too complicated. Just allow a competitive campaign as in the latest TW games. Don't worry too much about balancing: allow for historical starts as in the base game (and let players work out the balancing), or allow for totally balanced (if unhistorical starts). Balancing will never be 100 percent fair. If players are ready to accept this, a ton of fun can be had nevertheless.

[Hjalfnar_Feuerwolf]

4 hours ago, fsp said:

I have to agree about one thing: the AI is always, always, always inferior in these kind of games. I just experienced that again in RTW2 today. Fine game, but the AI needs clear superiority to compete.

UA:D needs multiplayer in the end. When I played Total War against the AI, I felt confident entering a battle even when outnumbered. When I started playing MP campaign against a friend, everything changed. Every battle was so much more exciting. Attacking a smaller neighbour would still work, but it could come at a terrible price, as my devious friend would play that AI's troops in the tactical battle and inflict hurt on me. 1v1 battles in the campaign with massive armies - it was brilliant, even if TW is far from brilliant.

No need to make it too complicated. Just allow a competitive campaign as in the latest TW games. Don't worry too much about balancing: allow for historical starts as in the base game (and let players work out the balancing), or allow for totally balanced (if unhistorical starts). Balancing will never be 100 percent fair. If players are ready to accept this, a ton of fun can be had nevertheless.

He. You do know who is the lead dev of this team, right? The guy behind the DarthMods for Total War. Go and play Ultimate General: Civil War on a setting where the AI is equipped to the same standards as you are. I am from the TW crowd too and DAMN, that game gave me a run for my money.

Also, go check MP player numbers of Total War or the Paradox games. MP players are around 1% of the playerbase. Yes, they buy more of the DLCs and with a playerbase as massive as that of Total War, there is some serious money in there. But the CA dev teams for the various TW games are what, 200 people strong each? This is a 7 men team (last time I checked).

Funnily enough I was closed beta tester for a similar game, Battlefleet Gothic Armada 2. Yes, I know, Warhammer 40k space battles is not exactly the same, but the whole thing is similar with a "world" map to navigate your fleets on and real time tactical battles. The devs spent months to get MP battles halfway balanced and make the campaign coop. And for what? Nobody I know plays MP. A few people did, but the campaigns are great and almost nobody cares about multiplayer. I talked with one of the devs about it and he said it was a serious waste of time and money. Had they gone for optimizing the campaign instead of making it coop compatible, they would have been able to release 3 months earlier and the campaigns would have been even better. They more or less dropped MP 2 months after release and made a singleplayer DLC with another campaign that sold like crazy. So yeah. MP focus can actually ruin a grand scale strategy/tactics game because most of the players will never touch it, it's only worth it if your playerbase is huge. And despite UA:D most likely being the best and most accessable naval tactics game of the last 20 years, it will not sell in the millions at full price. So it is better to make a very good campaign instead of investing a shitton of money and time into something that an extremely small percentage of the playerbase will actually ever use.

Edited November 25, 2019 by Hjalfnar_Feuerwolf

[RAMJB]

19 minutes ago, Hjalfnar_Feuerwolf said:

He. You do know who is the lead dev of this team, right? The guy behind the DarthMods for Total War. 

You must be effin' kidding me. Is that true?.

DarthMods were the only thing that made TW games attractive to me. They were so, so, so, SO damned good in bringing at least a decent ammount of immersion to those games. I enjoyed RTW like nothing else just because that mod alone.

I had faith in this game, now I have a lot more

[RAMJB]

4 hours ago, fsp said:

No need to make it too complicated. Just allow a competitive campaign as in the latest TW games. Don't worry too much about balancing

No need to worry about balance AT ALL. If it's campaign MP what we're talking, whatever the nation you pick you know it's shortcomings and it's advantages compared with the nations other players choose. Your strategy, whom you ally with and whom you butt heads against, is up to you. And whatever you brought to battle you designed  yourself. If you fail, that's your fault ;). There's absolutely no balacing act needed there to make the game interesting (games like Europa Universalis have proven that).

If it's an scenario based MP then no worry about balance at all either. Just let both players decide how much funds they have, give both the same techs according to the year they choose the scenario to be in, and let them design their own fleets. Equal funds, same techs, win or lose will be on you, your ability to make good designs, and your commanding skill in battle. That's all the balance you need.

Edited November 25, 2019 by RAMJB

[TAKTCOM]

3 hours ago, Hjalfnar_Feuerwolf said:

Also, go check MP player numbers of Total War or the Paradox games. MP players are around 1% of the playerbase... 

...Funnily enough I was closed beta tester for a similar game, Battlefleet Gothic Armada 2...The devs spent months to get MP battles halfway balanced and make the campaign coop. And for what? Nobody I know plays MP. A few people did, but the campaigns are great and almost nobody cares about multiplayer. 

As a person who has played thousands of hours on TV and hundreds of hours in Armada, I clearly see that the popularity of the multiplayer is completely inadequate for the resources spent on it. No one needs multiplayer if the main game mode is sandbox. But no, someone must shoot himself in the foot, time after time.

3 hours ago, Hjalfnar_Feuerwolf said:

I talked with one of the devs ...

Did he say anything about the further development of the series? I am impressed with their ability to merge all their successes into the toilet.

 

Edited November 25, 2019 by TAKTCOM
*

[DarkTerren]

2 hours ago, RAMJB said:

You must be effin' kidding me. Is that true?.

DarthMods were the only thing that made TW games attractive to me. They were so, so, so, SO damned good in bringing at least a decent ammount of immersion to those games. I enjoyed RTW like nothing else just because that mod alone.

I had faith in this game, now I have a lot more

Nick is darth himself

[rapa pott]

Game-Labs advertise this game with Campaign/Academy. So pepople who bought UA:D want a good working single player game. Not all but i think the majority. In this case  multiplayer should has the lowest priority.  Besides when you play multiplayer and fight against the same tactic, build, etc over and over again because ist meta. You will realise its better to put resources in a good single player for wich this game has been advertised.

 

[Hethwill]

11 minutes ago, rapa pott said:

good working single player game

 most definitely where my hopes are.

[Cptbarney]

4 hours ago, TAKTCOM said:

As a person who has played thousands of hours on TV and hundreds of hours in Armada, I clearly see that the popularity of the multiplayer is completely inadequate for the resources spent on it. No one needs multiplayer if the main game mode is sandbox. But no, someone must shoot himself in the foot, time after time.

Did he say anything about the further development of the series? I am impressed with their ability to merge all their successes into the toilet.

 

While i don't mind multiplayer (most i would go for is 1v1's and campaign map with maybe 2v2 support) but frankly i did by this game for the singleplayer/design and also sandboxyness plus also being a 3d version of RTW's too. So obviously resources should be focused mainly if not entirely on just those things i mentioned plus other goodies.

Im sad they focused on multiplayer, even basic 2v2's would of been fine as far as i was concerned, multiplayer and grand strategy usually don't work well because of the huge balancing issues avalaible (unless you don't care or aware beforehand but still).

Ah well, miss nelson will soon be in my port lol.

[TAKTCOM]

1 hour ago, Cptbarney said:

While i don't mind multiplayer (most i would go for is 1v1's and campaign map with maybe 2v2 support) but frankly i did by this game for the singleplayer/design and also sandboxyness plus also being a 3d version of RTW's too. So obviously resources should be focused mainly if not entirely on just those things i mentioned plus other goodies...

Ah well, miss nelson will soon be in my port lol.

Yeah, I have the same opinion. But ... did quad towers will be in a new update?

[Cptbarney]

1 minute ago, TAKTCOM said:

Yeah, I have the same opinion. But ... did quad towers will be in a new update?

Hmm, im not sure i hope quad turrets will be in this week lol. Then i can build my pseudo richelieu/jean bart!

[Kasuga]

I prefer first a strong simulation and add a good scen editor + skirmish mode over rush multiplayer.

In the end if you have the 3 first things, lack of multiplayer is not a drama oposite is dont have a good game, simple another rushed pile of digital crap, i have in mind certain air combat wargame that die days after release because even with multiplayer in release it lacks the other 3 key features and in a month was abandoned by dev team in a horrible status and today, even for free i play it and a lot less buy it.

I want see, as now, more focus in GAME and less in multiplayer because you can have a great game without multiplayer but  not necesary a great game with multiplayer.

 

 

Edited November 25, 2019 by Kasuga

[Wowzery]

I really like WoWS (use the same name over there for that game).  However, this game is very different.  The game isn't really about the battles, but will be the campaign mode which appears to be more single player.  There might be a way to make it multi, but its not going to be sit down for twenty minutes type of match, but longer, and personally I speed up the matches.  You couldn't do that in a multiplayer mode.

[Kasuga]

Well, for me WoWS is more about duels and hand-eye coordination skills and not battles, UA:D is a true game about battles.

For multiplayer you can use real time with both players setting speed and tactical pause... or play using real time turns like in Combat Mission here you can play PBEM or hotseat.

Who knows but i am waiting scen editor and specially skirmish a lot more than multi or campaign.

[Pterry]

man, I just want more parts. Id rather have carriers raining bombs on me than multiplayer

[Kasuga]

Planes? in a ship? BURN THEM BEFORE LAY EGGS!!!! 💥

I prefer first game move backward and cover pre 1900 ships, apart add more models and even WWII models, here i want the WWII CA models and Yubari 💖

[Wowzery]

On 11/21/2019 at 10:46 PM, Punisher_1 said:

You seem like a triggered mental midget that has completely ignored PC gaming trends over the last decade. One of these "everyone needs a trophy" types ranting about how the game is going to work. Yet totally bashing the idea. Laughably IRL no one cries about "game balance" maybe you should read up on the the Battle of Midway and see how a vastly out numbered and out skilled and dated Naval force turned the tide of the war with superior tactics. 

I just have to say, yet you are kinda bashing the game because it doesn't conform to what you want (despite the main aspect of the game is missing).  As for game balance, you obviously haven't been to the WoWS forum.  Its a constant thing going on over there.

[TAKTCOM]

2 hours ago, Cptbarney said:

Hmm, im not sure i hope quad turrets will be in this week lol. Then i can build my pseudo richelieu/jean bart!

I bet that the patch will be released on the weekend.

11 minutes ago, Kasuga said:

...Yubari 💖

Stop breaking my heart! I almost forgot my disappointment about the impossibility of constructing the later japanese cruisers in the current game build 

[Fishyfish]

I fishing despise WoWS, and I haven't played it since beta. I'd be crushed and reviled if this game got a multiplayer that was anything even akin to the clusterfish that is WoWS. I could rant and rant and rantandrantandrant for hours about all my nitpick issues with that game ranging from its "fee to play" model to its painfully obvious Russian bias, as while I don't play anymore I do keep up somewhat with the news goings on about it. If simply because I need some YouTube on in the background while I paint 40k...

But look at me, I've gotten so off topic here, please ignore my irate noise. With that being said, I think we've given OP enough of a sound verbal thrashing.