Do you want Multiplayer? Poll

[fsp]

12 hours ago, Mooncatt said:

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

What if we don't like WoWs combat and are hoping for something a lot better here and don't want MMO gaming and just want to play 1v1 against a friend. Where do we go then?

[Sea Fox]

This game is already multiplayer.......right??

[Hethwill]

5 hours ago, Sea Fox said:

This game is already multiplayer.......right??

Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts isn't multiplayer, as far as i could experience. 

[brucesim2003]

On 1/15/2020 at 6:43 PM, RAMJB said:

...the nature of modern multiplayer "playerbases" having the collective IQ of a brain-damaged lemming when suffering from severe withdrawal effects

Stop picking on the brain-damaged lemmings. It's not nice.

[A.W.]

You can easily argue many sides of what is a deceivingly easy question.

Personally I would like:- 1) A functional game with features as they are, stable and as bug free as reasonably possible.

                                           2) A future game add on that would allow two humans to fight single games with their designs, maybe with prearranged point counts OR randomly chosen point distribution (for the truly sporting and adventurous)

                                            3) Another future add on that introduces fully Multiplayer Campaigns.

 

Release the game in “chunks” that won’t entirely drive the developers mad, and allow the consumer the option of playing the game in their preferred mode and also (hopefully) keeping the costs down.

[Cabusha]

This strikes me as a fairly small dev team with limited resources.  I expect multiplayer would probably take away too much from the core focus. 

For instance, I backed Battletech, but the kickstarter eventually pushed all the way to multiplayer support.   For a game running on Unity, this pulled valuable dev time away from the polish work that game still desperately needs, just for a fairly limited PvP.  And once the multiplayer was out, it didn't really evolve into something special.  The meta builds were quickly learned, and it just devolved into stun-locking firestarter spam, which pretty much killed it.

So no, I don't want to see multiplayer, especially not at launch.  If it's polished, then perhaps add that a year down the road with an expansion or FreeLC update.

[CynicalKiwi]

I'd love old school LAN style multiplayer so I can beat the bejesus out of my wife, kids and friends boats

[Wowzery]

While I understand the desire to design a ship and have it face off against another person's designed ship I feel it would take away from what will be the core of this game.  This game is really a single player, you might be able to implement a multiplayer game later on after things have been more fully developed.  Let's have the devs focus on the game first.

I've played many MMOS which would have been better as a single player game but for some reason people think a MMO is somehow better.  Let me be brutally honest, its not.

[fsp]

I agree when it comes to the design process. MMOs are often poorly designed and dumbed down to appeal to the broadest possible player base.

However, there is no such danger in designing a game with single player in mind and then allowing two friends to face off in battles or a PvP campaign (again, repeating myself here, but think Total War MP here).

[ThomasDocMiller]

i hope that the will be a PVP game mode at least 1vs1 (maybe 2vs2 )

the host decide: starting year, maximum money, max. number of ship class ( max. 2 Battleships...)

then you have 5 minutes to design the ships... then the game begin

[bshaftoe]

I have voted for yes in both cases, campaign and scenarios. I understand (and agree with!) the reasoning behind saying no the campaign, and is that people will complain about the balance and try to push for balance between countries. So I would only have MP in the campaign if historical realism (or plausibility) was the top priority.

In terms of the campaign, if there are only resources to make either historical campaigns or other things right, I would prioritize historical campaigns. That being said, if there are resources for a little bit more, I would simply make the campaign scenarios easy to mod, or even release any tool or guide on how to customize campaigns: that way, if someone wants to create balanced campaigns, they can do so.

Anyway, I don't know if it will be technologically easy to make a multiplayer campaign with tactical battles: what happens in a 4 players campaign when 2 have a battle and spend 8 hours in a battle, for example? The only way it can works is a turn based campaign, or limiting the MP to two players.

[Steeltrap]

[Let me be clear: this is NOT a shot at the poll creator]

The first thing I would like is to change the forum poll engine so it FORCES the inclusion of a "neutral" (the forum could have a default neutral, often 'undecided' or 'don't know') as a valid response for ANY question in ANY poll. The only way to avoid it is a question recognised by the system as a clear question of FACT, most commonly questions about past behaviour/experience.

"Did you", "Have you" and others could be a yes/no. "Would you" requires a neutral.

It might also give suggested additions to the basic "neutral" so you can end up with "neutral" + "addition". You could write your own addition, too.

An addition on the stock suggested list, for example, might be "require more info". If you select it in a forum where the default neutral is 'Undecided', you get "Undecided; require more info".

If that's too much, how about an alert:

"Your question DOES NOT give a NEUTRAL option. Continue anyway?"

Would do forums around the world a considerable service if poll wizards were to include rules that at least help people toward some basic good polling practices.

I've explained why in other threads, so won't bore everyone again (at least not this way, lol).

Yeah, I know, I'm dreaming.

🙃 😎

Edited March 6, 2020 by Steeltrap

[ETF]

Lets face it the AI in any wargame is no human or even close. COOP or MP would certainly be a big add. If you want SP great play and win and quit whenever you want but nice to have a friend you can play with for a relaxing hour or so. Nice to get some social time in at the same time

[matrin]

I think multiplayer battles would be a great addition, but I think that it should be a really low priority in terms of balancing. Balance for the single player and just let people fight their friends or something casually in multiplayer, balance be damned. Pacific Storm Allies had basically no balance for its multiplayer, but I loved fighting my buddies and there really is no other modern games that scratch that itch. I say let multiplayer be real sandboxy and let players define their own rules and limitations on a case by case basis.

[Zak MacKay]

While I would like more features I don't think MP should be a priority. I have a feeling only a small portion of the player base would actually use MP. I would prefer more mechanics in other areas then MP.

Being able to pick the enemy and a good AI should be good enough to challenge your friends. Or community sharing features

[ETF]

I have been wargaming for 35 years never seen an AI be any real challenge in any game......this is assuming it doesn't cheat. Human players ADD so much depth to a game. JUTLAND was an amazing product with Human players. Jutland with ALL the ships on the board with human COOP commands now there is a wargame.  The AI couldn't come close when it commanded ships. I'm sure MP isn't going to make it in......maybe in the next iterations of warmness. Fingers crossed. 

Edited March 9, 2020 by ETF

[lordcmdr]

5 minutes ago, ETF said:

I have been wargaming for 35 years never seen an AI be any real challenge in any game......this is assuming it doesn't cheat. Human players ADD so much depth to a game. JUTLAND was an amazing product with Human players. Jutland with ALL the ships on the board with human COOP commands now there is a wargame.  The AI couldn't come close when it commanded ships. I'm sure MP isn't going to make it maybe in the next round of generations of wargmaes. Fingers crossed. 

Agreed. I have a small group of friends that also enjoy this type of game and it would be fun to play controlled battles with our own ship designs.

[slayer6]

Personally?  I think no campaign is needed, just add more ship superstructures and hulls, and build the game as a giant sandbox.

In other words, just enhance what we already have.

Edited March 14, 2020 by slayer6

[Wowzery]

On 3/9/2020 at 12:34 PM, ETF said:

I have been wargaming for 35 years never seen an AI be any real challenge in any game......this is assuming it doesn't cheat. Human players ADD so much depth to a game. JUTLAND was an amazing product with Human players. Jutland with ALL the ships on the board with human COOP commands now there is a wargame.  The AI couldn't come close when it commanded ships. I'm sure MP isn't going to make it in......maybe in the next iterations of warmness. Fingers crossed. 

If you've truly been gaming for 35 years, then you know not all human players add much to depth.  Especially when the gaming community become toxic, it can cripple a game.

Just because its multi-player doesn't make it good, that's the real problem I see.  We think that somehow its better.  As I said in an earlier post, I've played some MMO which would have been much better had they designed it as a single player game.

[fsp]

I disagree. Playing an AI has never been as thrilling as playing a human being for me. The problem with humans is rage quits, insults, immature behaviour etc., nobody needs that.

But this is more of a strategy game/simulation, where you are more likely to find mature opponents to play with. So this could be good.

[Steveh11]

I don't want multiplayer added - it will only distract from the SP game, and I no longer play MP after too many negative experiences with it.

 

Steve.