Do you want Multiplayer? Poll

[Mr. Vadam loke]

I'm not trying to tell Devs what to do with this poll, but rather i want to see what the community thinks.

What do you think about adding Multiplayer? For me personally, i would like multiplayer to be implemented because the option to play against someone else on the same terms is just too great compared to AI, especially with game like this, where you can apply your own naval doctrine and design your own ships.

[Teckelmaster]

Balancing multpilayer games and balancing singleplayer games is - from my point if view - not compatible. I prefer it to be primarily - if not at all - to be sp

and i hate competition and social pressure, both of which, especially in pvp games, are far too wide spread fir my taste.

Edited January 12, 2020 by Teckelmaster

[arkhangelsk]

I object. The game was designed as a single player game and at this point trying to cram in a multiplayer mode will be more harmful than good. Multiplayer might be a target for UA:D 2.

[RAMJB]

Not the first time this subject has been brought up. My position hasn't changed (nor is likely going to).

Campaign should be a SP experience and be left alone at that. People read "Multiplayer" on a game description and their first reaction is "Balans". The day MP campaign in a game like this is a thing, the day we'll have the forums full of people whining about how their small nation of choice can't fight in equal terms with the Royal Navy player and that "balans" demands him having the same chances to "win" as he does. 

bollocks to that.

That alone means a huge red flag to me. The whole lot of other reasons (complexity, development time needed for the netcode and the MP indispensable anticheating measures, minmaxing, etc) just underscore that red flag.


Now, a custom gamemode where you can fight against an human opponent, after deciding year, initial funds, and top tonnage to then design your warship lineup and then give it a go?. Maybe in the far future, when EVERYTHING ELSE in the game is sorted out, why not. But only then, and only in that particular shape.

Anything else is a huge NO in capital letters from me. Both at this stage, and any other stage of development down the line, sequels included.

Edited January 12, 2020 by RAMJB

[puxflacet]

someone says multiplayer and people automatically think World of Warships...

calm down folks...I can't even imagine multiplayer campaing to be possible...BUT I see no problem with custom battles being multiplayer. No need to dive down into balancing crap discussions. Or rather can't. This game focuses on realism, therefore things will have to work the same way with  AI just as with a player opponent. (I see only issue in handling of time compression). 

Edited April 6, 2020 by puxflacet

[RAMJB]

1 hour ago, puxflacet said:

someone says multiplayer and people automatically think World of Warships...

I actually was thinking Europa Universalis. Where believe it or not I've had cases of players having MASSIVE temper tantrums about the fact that other players were more powerful than his nation, and correspondly (and realistically) were pretty much dictating what he could, or could not, do: like going to war with minors they had declared under their immediate sphere of influence under the threat of being DoWd in response. Dude ignored the warnings, got the promised response, got accordingly crushed in the subsequent war:

And you should've seen the chatbox (And what went on in the forum thread where we were doing the MP game's AAR) about how unfair the game was, how much of a band of bullies we the rest of players were, and how stupid the game was for allowing things like that. 

In a multiplayer grand strategy game by Paradox. No less. 


You would think that someone playing a game like that would think that was a given. Well, trust me: NOPE. And I'd rather sit on a spike bed than having that kind of crap going all around this forums too. 

Edited January 12, 2020 by RAMJB

[TotalRampage]

I don't think anyone here who wants a multiplayer is looking for a competitive environment. I also understand the devs not wanting to include something that they are not 100% on board with but at the same time multiplayer adds a lot of replay ability to the game. I think it would be extremely fun to play this game with my friends in a scenario of versus each other lets say as the British and the Germans but also maybe because these campaigns would be long we could have a little back stabbing of allies if we tried doing a "cooperative campaign".

Another cool feature would be if they are afraid of pacing maybe allowing people to control part of your fleet in a coop campaign or even allowing people to play as the same country. Multiplayer has a lot of different avenues the devs could explore and not including it very well may have people bore of the game quickly. I love the game but I don't ever do more than a few games a day because there really isn't a lot to do "early access I know" but imagine you play all the factions over and some campaigns gets a little boring because a lot of times you know what the AI will do in most instances a player adds some unpredictability to the game as well as the opportunity for me to convince my friends to play with or against me by purchasing the game. 

Complaining about balance in a campaign based on some country's not being up to par should not affect the game if they want an equal footing they could play a custom battle with a money limit. Honestly no ones really asking for a huge multiplayer experience of multiple people most of the people that want multiplayer would probably be happy with just 2 player coop. Anything more like an EU4 or HOI 4 size is not realistic in this game category. 

[fsp]

Screw balance (*).

Don't even think about aiming for "competitive" MP (and I am sure the devs are far from it).

Just give us the opportunity to fight against other humans, friends mostly.

Think Total War. 

 

*I have always said, in historical games, if you play with nations of different historical capabilities, give them different objectives:

Germany v UK?
UK: Blockade Germany
Germany: Break the blockade

Italy v Austria-Hungary:
Italy: Keep AH in the Adria
AH: Sink more ships than you lose

etc.

 

 

 

[akd]

Yup, multiplayer would be cool if the objective was not symmetrical competition.  Perhaps ability for humans to jump in on AI side in campaign battles?

Edited January 13, 2020 by akd

[Ignominius]

It appears I am in the minority on this, but I think multiplayer would be the best environment to really test your designs and see if they are up to scruff, since at least currently the AI is no match for the player in terms of ship design or in tactics. At some point my fear would be that the replay-ability of the single player campaign or custom battles would lose its luster due to the fact that it felt like you could do nothing but win against an AI opponent.

[NoZaku]

My take is that if we do get multiplayer in this game, it won't be for at least a year or two. The basis of the game is the singleplayer scenarios, campaign, and to a lesser extent the custom battles, and none of these are close to feature complete at this time (though the progress so far is impressive, to say the least).

 

Once the basic game functions and balance are ironed out, then yes, I'd love to see a multiplayer feature of some sort, especially for the campaign gameplay.

[fsp]

Honest question - is it this hard, to just program MP into a game if you DO NOT really care about balancing? Just the net code, allowing

a) a human player to take over for the AI in custom battles.

additionally 

b) the possibility to play the campaign with two human players exactly like in later TW games

To a layman like me, it seems this would not take up a lot of ressources.

However, looking at games that have been developed in the past years, this seems to be much more of an issue than I am thinking...

Can someone shed some light onto this?

 

EDIT: I usually would be patient enough to wait for MP and CVs for UA:D 2. If you could be sure there is going to be one. 

With games such as this however you can never be sure that there will a second one, so I am hoping for MP and CVs to be included in this first (?) one. My perception is also that CVs are A LOT harder to include than say MP.

Edited January 14, 2020 by fsp

[Mr. Vadam loke]

I think the only valid reason for not implementing Multiplayer, as it was said, is development effort / resources that could be put into something else. If MP was implemented, obviously no one would be forced to play it. But it can be argued that adding full Multiplayer, Custom Battles+Campaign, will mean that this game will target bigger audience - more people buying the game, meaning that Game Labs will have more resources to invest into this game, possibly putting the development forward, rather than if MP wasn't implemented all.

Now balance isn't much of an issue, people still play paradox games like Hoi4, EU4, CK2 and so on... even tho you start as much weaker nation. Not because of balance, but because it targets certain themes like ww2. Now i have no idea if Modding will be ever added in any form in this game, but if yes, absolute balance can be achieved.

[Cptbarney]

The only thing i would allow is 1v1's or maybe co-op, 2v2's might be stretching it. But otherwise no, multiplayer games favour one person having fun over the others expense. Which isn't really ideal especially in a singleplayer game like this.

Frankly gamelabs should focus only on singleplayer and if it is really needed/requested upon a 4-6 player co-op sort of thing. You wouldn't even need to balance it as well to heavily or at all (just warn users before they do a naughty obviously).

[WelshZeCorgi]

I like the thought that you could face real players, I just think it wouldn't really work for this kind of game with such a small development team. 

[RAMJB]

...and I just think that whatever people say, you open this to multiplayer, the cries and whines and moans and complains from the "balans" crowd would utterly ruin it.

[z4ys]

multiplayer campaign = no

But an option to do custombattles  a la...

There are certain decks (like in a card game) for xy tech funds and xy ship building funds. So everyone can tinker around and create his personal deck of tech and ships in the limits of that deck tier.

Then for multiplayer you pick a deck tier. Decks of same tier can battle each other. (ofc those deck tiers are set by game labs)

Thats actual the same as the current custom battles  just vs human. without the need for the opponent to wait till everyone has build his lineup. Time compression and pause is ofc not possible.

Edited January 14, 2020 by z4ys

[liaxelot]

my opinion is NON multiplayer

i don t want another Wow, i want a realist game

so multiplayer like loki rune of naval action, in your campain a player replace the ai in tactic battle, but no multiplayer in campain mode,  perhaps mulitiplayer for mission or quick battle why not 

but finally if they is  multiplayer campagne in the game please don t forget the solo campain 

i talk about naval action ! what a shame this game as no  solo mode ! yes the bot  and AI is less powerfull than human   but no insult no cheat (nearly) no injustice 10 guy with 1rank on new player whis his 7rank ! ai is honnest ….. and  the most important    don t need a  good connection to play !

 

Edited January 14, 2020 by liaxelot

[fsp]

Resources aside - why are some people so against MP campaign?

It has really added so much to Total War campaigns for me.

The campaign AI can never compete with a human. The tactical AI can never compete. Playing against a human opponent who takes over the AI in battles has proven so much more exciting.

I oppose 2v2, 4v4 etc. games, because this will lead to some of the WOWS crowd coming here and hoping for a similar game.

Everything that is 1v1 is fine though.

 

[RAMJB]

7 hours ago, fsp said:

Resources aside - why are some people so against MP campaign?

In my particular case because I've not seen a single game that was mainly designed and centered as a SP experience deliver any kind of MP one that would justify the resources invested in delivering it.

Meanwhile I've seen a lot of online controversy, drama, whining, flamefests, toxic communities, and rants caused by a MP mode shoehorned into games where SP were supposed to be their main mode, which would've been easily avoided by the game just not bothering with a multiplayer mode it didn't need in the first place.

I won't even mention what I think about what truly goes into really MP games - because this is not one and whatever I think about those has absolutely nothing to do with a game like this which is foremost, a single player game. But it isn't a positive opinion, as you might guess.

There are far more reasons than that - the nature of modern multiplayer "playerbases" having the collective IQ of a brain-damaged lemming when suffering from severe withdrawal effects, and it's correspondent demonstration in the forums of the multiplayer games they partake on, not being the smallest one either.

I used to think very differently 15 years ago but things have changed a lot in the meantime, and I've seen enough to know Multiplayer means trouble in too many levels for a game intended, from the very beginning of it's development, to be mainly and primordially a singleplayer experience, for said game to even bother with it.

even then I'm not against 1v1 modes based around custom battles where both players are given the same resources. After the whole rest of the game is completed first and all the significant bits of it properly represented. Including air power (which is something I honestly think can't reasonably be done unless is in a very similar fashion to what RTW did, meaning, a sequel).

Edited January 15, 2020 by RAMJB

[Mr. Vadam loke]

12 hours ago, RAMJB said:

In my particular case because I've not seen a single game that was mainly designed and centered as a SP experience deliver any kind of MP one that would justify the resources invested in delivering it.

Meanwhile I've seen a lot of online controversy, drama, whining, flamefests, toxic communities, and rants caused by a MP mode shoehorned into games where SP were supposed to be their main mode, which would've been easily avoided by the game just not bothering with a multiplayer mode it didn't need in the first place.

I won't even mention what I think about what truly goes into really MP games - because this is not one and whatever I think about those has absolutely nothing to do with a game like this which is foremost, a single player game. But it isn't a positive opinion, as you might guess.

There are far more reasons than that - the nature of modern multiplayer "playerbases" having the collective IQ of a brain-damaged lemming when suffering from severe withdrawal effects, and it's correspondent demonstration in the forums of the multiplayer games they partake on, not being the smallest one either.

I used to think very differently 15 years ago but things have changed a lot in the meantime, and I've seen enough to know Multiplayer means trouble in too many levels for a game intended, from the very beginning of it's development, to be mainly and primordially a singleplayer experience, for said game to even bother with it.

even then I'm not against 1v1 modes based around custom battles where both players are given the same resources. After the whole rest of the game is completed first and all the significant bits of it properly represented. Including air power (which is something I honestly think can't reasonably be done unless is in a very similar fashion to what RTW did, meaning, a sequel).

Well, this game is not really a pure single player game. All of its main features are multiplayer compatible - Design, Deep Battle System and playing modes (Campaign, Custom Battles). Unlike story based games based on character development... Even better, i don't know any game that has WW2 Naval based Campaign Multiplayer with such features. This game has the potential to be unique in the regard of Campaign Multiplayer.

Are you trying to claim that Multiplayer based communities are of low intelligence compared to singleplayer ones? If anything, low skill - bad play is more evident in Multiplayer communities, because it's harder, you are playing against real intelligence compared to some AI. Only those who understand the game best survive and win. Unless the game is literally based on anything else except intelligence.

Now why are Multiplayer communities usually more toxic than singleplayer ones? A lot of time or effort is invested and you can still be outplayed by someone. It can be frustrating sometimes, everyone accepts it differently. But it's still played because it is more challenging, thrilling unlike against AI which either cheats its way to victory or is absolutely braindead at times. And if the AI is ever possibly on some acceptable entertaining level especially in game like this where important strategic and tactical decisions have to be made.  At that point Multiplayer would require less effort to implement to achieve the same or better quality.

And there is no need to play with toxic people, just play with people you trust are not jerks and are challenging to play against. AI cannot compare to that.

 

[FFire31]

Adding Custom MP battles would not be such a charge while increasing the potential customers pool

having more players give more ressources to keep developing great games. That requires market analysis with data we don't have.

[admin]

Campaign, crew, officers are currently higher priority.  Multiplayer is on the wishlist.
Many players want campaign finished and once its delivered some of them will change the votes to yes to multiplayer. Then we can reopen this discussion.

[Mooncatt]

I voted no for all. if you want multiplayer naval combat go and play WoWs. co-op would be good though

[Mr. Vadam loke]

1 hour ago, Mooncatt said:

I voted no for all. if you want multiplayer naval combat go and play WoWs. co-op would be good though

You missed the point completely. Try again with common sense this time.