RE: Multiplayer???

RE: Multiplayer??? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Armored Brigade

Message

Sorrow_Knight -> RE: Multiplayer??? (11/13/2018 6:03:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Veitikka Now here it is again. I don't play PBEM games, so lack of the feature doesn't bother me. If you desperately want PBEM then perhaps this is not the game for you, but there's a pile of other features that we've been honing over the years. I still can’t realize why everybody are getting hung up with PBEM, while original question was about any kind of MP? Why PBEM why not old good real-time MP? And the second thing- you continue forcing idea of “small team with no budget, that was developing the game for 14 years”... now there is a small problem with that idea- your game will stop being free in two days and will be published by “big wargame publisher” (actually I find out Armored Brigade only after Slitherin/Matrix Games announced it) and you should realize that anything you will say on the forum will have reaction among community, and that reaction may affect sales of your game. Armored Brigade is not free any more and words like “you don’t like it- don’t play it” by developer sounds not good.

zoikkis -> RE: Multiplayer??? (11/13/2018 8:16:10 AM)
+1 for concentrating on a best possible single player experience and respect for the dev creating a game of their dreams and not necessarily trying to please the big masses in every turn. If the game sells well enough I'm sure a lot of additional features will be added in time. Being also a game dev I know how stressful the time just before the release can be and especially when you have a small team where each member having a lot of responsibilities, so don't get surprised if not all the answers from the devs are always coated with sugar. I think the important thing here is that the devs are very actively answering questions in this forum, something that is not true for many bigger companies.

nikolas93TS -> RE: Multiplayer??? (11/13/2018 10:01:45 AM)
"Small team with no budget, that was developing the game for 14 years" is a very important bit, because over the years we have built a genuinely strong and transparent bond with our community, and most of the features were implemented based on suggestions and feedback of the latter. Yes, our game is going to have a price now, and we expect stricter critics, but there is difference between constructive critics and self-entitled players (not necessary on this thread) that believe the developers owes them something and that they are important in themselves just because they are potential buyers. This drive towards selfishness is why in some games you see extremely toxic communities. If you don't like the game, it is fine. We are not forcing anybody to buy. No hard feelings. We explained the technical and business reasons for not releasing multiplayer at the moment. Letting your opinion be known is the only way to affect anything, and we appreciate and encourage that. But we equally expect some respect in turn.

Hexagon -> RE: Multiplayer??? (11/13/2018 10:59:22 AM)
I understand that when resources are finite you need priorize and even when no multiplayer reduce the range of potential buyers is not less true that a solid game is more important and over a cheap multiplayer is better wait and implement a one well done. For example, see the disaster around "check your six" they release game with NO SKIRMISH MODE!!! release a fast one months ago and nothing more done... but as bonus the core game is not very well done. I prefer a strong core well done and working fine with room to be improved and wait to have a well done multiplayer than have a half cooked core + half cooked multi... better focus in close what made the game a game. But is not less true that a multiplayer made player base expands.

Oldguard1970 -> RE: Multiplayer??? (11/13/2018 6:42:54 PM)
I am eager to buy. I have been watching this game in the [coming soon] category for a long time, and it seems fascinating. I recognize how tempting it must have been simply to declare the game to be "good enough" and launch it before its time. My thanks for trying hard to get it right. Oh Boy!

Veitikka -> RE: Multiplayer??? (11/13/2018 8:24:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Oldguard1970 I recognize how tempting it must have been simply to declare the game to be "good enough" and launch it before its time. My thanks for trying hard to get it right. This is a very good point. The longer we keep adding features and improvements before the first release the longer it will take before players can try the game.

CapnDarwin -> RE: Multiplayer??? (11/13/2018 8:56:27 PM)
As a developer, the game is never finished, never perfect, and never doing all the cool things you want it to do. At some point, when it is working, when your top features are in place, you just need to turn it loose. If not, it will never see the light of day. All of this becomes exponentially a bigger black hole when you are a small and/or free time developer. Let's play the game, enjoy it, and offer constructive feedback and allow the developers a chance to rest a bit before they jump in with what's next. Just my 2 cents.

Searry -> RE: Multiplayer??? (11/13/2018 9:29:01 PM)
Well it's really sad there's no multiplayer. Knowing Matrix pricing I'll probably skip for now and wait for a sale or a coupon, AI only games don't keep me interested that long.

RFalvo69 -> RE: Multiplayer??? (11/13/2018 11:51:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Veitikka Why C:MANO or Graviteam Tactics don't have multiplayer? Is it because the developers are incompetent or nasty? This is, at the very least, an interesting answer to the question: Why Harpoon has multiplayer? Because the developers are proficient or good-hearted? I.e. what I believe it is a fair question. Which, in turn makes of "Why AB hasn't multiplayer"? another fair question. A question whose answer should lie within the AB's history and milieu; and not shifted towards other games and their histories, and milieus. Why Armored Brigade hasn't MP?

Veitikka -> RE: Multiplayer??? (11/14/2018 12:00:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RFalvo69 Why Harpoon has multiplayer? Because the developers are proficient or good-hearted? How many people play Harpoon multiplayer?

btd64 -> RE: Multiplayer??? (11/14/2018 12:15:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Veitikka quote: ORIGINAL: RFalvo69 Why Harpoon has multiplayer? Because the developers are proficient or good-hearted? How many people play Harpoon multiplayer? Harpoon has multiplayer?!?....GP

Rosseau -> RE: Multiplayer??? (11/14/2018 12:57:19 AM)
Harpoon caused me to nearly go blind [;)] Ah, my 10-year 50% off coupon just came in tonight, and just in time to use it on Thursday!

RFalvo69 -> RE: Multiplayer??? (11/14/2018 6:17:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Veitikka quote: ORIGINAL: RFalvo69 Why Harpoon has multiplayer? Because the developers are proficient or good-hearted? How many people play Harpoon multiplayer? There is at least a Youtube channel chock full of MP videos (with commentary) which shows people from all over the World challenge each other. It was very active when Ian McNeil said that Harpoon was one of Matrix's best sellers Now the game under the spotlight is Command, and Harpoon has been relegated in the "has been" area of these forums. But when it was a thing people played MP with vast breadth and passion.

RFalvo69 -> RE: Multiplayer??? (11/14/2018 6:25:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: btd64 quote: ORIGINAL: Veitikka quote: ORIGINAL: RFalvo69 Why Harpoon has multiplayer? Because the developers are proficient or good-hearted? How many people play Harpoon multiplayer? Harpoon has multiplayer?!?....GP Yes. It was introduced in the "Advanced Naval Warfare" edition of the game: http://www.matrixgames.com/products/323/details/Harpoon.3.-.Advanced.Naval.Warfare ...Most importantly Harpoon 3 Advanced Naval Warfare now has true multiplayer capability for up to six players!

Hexagon -> RE: Multiplayer??? (11/14/2018 9:13:08 AM)
Well, a 6 player mutiplayer in wargames is like a pink unicorn [&o] Are games with multiplayer only, are games with only solo play and are more between both extremes. For AB i think multiplayer is going to be related in how well sells it, how well goes fixing-improving-DLCing, how well works in turn system and in how hard is integrate Slitherine PBEM system in turn based mode.

Soviet_Union -> RE: Multiplayer??? (11/15/2018 1:32:33 AM)
If you add multiplayer this pretty much becomes a better successor to wargame red dragon. I bet you would get massive new customer base.

bssybeep -> RE: Multiplayer??? (11/15/2018 5:21:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Veitikka Why C:MANO or Graviteam Tactics don't have multiplayer? Is it because the developers are incompetent or nasty? It can be hard to explain to someone who's not a software developer why I haven't used my time to make an application that communicates in real-time over the Web with other client systems. It's as simple as clicking a checkbox to enable the feature, right? Not quite like that, especially if the piece of software hasn't been built with multiplayer in mind since the start. I've been coding this game alone for 14 years without getting any money for it, and so far there's been enough tasks even without the multiplayer aspect. Great that you are focused on the AI and single-player. There are plenty of multiplayer games on the market already, but not enough single-player games with good AI.

76mm -> RE: Multiplayer??? (11/15/2018 12:03:28 PM)
Not many real time hard core wargames at all are there? There is CM, which has multiplayer. And then there is Command Ops, which also has multiplayer AFAIK. And IIRC HistWar, the Napoleonic wargame, was also real time and had multiplayer, although it an unholy mess. Frankly while I usually play against the AI and understand your reasons for not implementing multiplayer, I don't understand your rather hostile response to the topic.

Redmarkus5 -> RE: Multiplayer??? (11/15/2018 1:19:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Veitikka No plans for it. I always complain when a game comes out with a bad AI and a focus on MP. I've been waiting for this game for a long time just because it addresses the single player market. I hope you will continue to develop the AI and leave MP alone. There are a ton of MP titles out there for anyone who prefers human opponents. My personal gripe with MP is that human players fight the same battles over and over again until they become complete experts on every aspect of each scenario. This is about as unrealistic as it gets and I find that an AI can often deliver a more convincing experience the first time I fight a new engagement.

Veitikka -> RE: Multiplayer??? (11/15/2018 1:21:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 76mm Frankly while I usually play against the AI and understand your reasons for not implementing multiplayer, I don't understand your rather hostile response to the topic. The topic is brought up again and again in several places. People are puzzled why a modern game doesn't have something as "basic" as multiplayer. I'm just telling my honest view this time.

76mm -> RE: Multiplayer??? (11/15/2018 1:36:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Veitikka People are puzzled why a modern game doesn't have something as "basic" as multiplayer. I'm just telling my honest view this time. I fully understand your decision but would try to keep a more neutral, factual tone in your responses. Just a suggestion... Personally I'm not very interested in this era but this games looks interesting, so I might buy it once I've read more about it.

zakblood -> RE: Multiplayer??? (11/15/2018 1:40:50 PM)
asking the same question over and over again is called badgering quote: repeatedly and annoyingly ask (someone) to do something. "journalists badgered him about the deals" synonyms: pester, harass, bother, plague, torment, hound, nag, chivvy, harry, keep on at, go on at, harp on at, keep after, importune, annoy, trouble; it's quite simple, if you wish to have a good to great single player game in the modern age, buy it, if you wish to play with your friends, buy games with it in, if you like both, then but both types of games, it's quite simple and i like the approach the developer has taken, then again i love single player games [&o][&o][&o]

exsonic01 -> RE: Multiplayer??? (11/15/2018 3:43:31 PM)
quote: Of course I would like multiplayer too, but given the current game condition I think adding multiplayer is something better suited for a hypothetical Armored Brigade 2, which would likely involve structural changes to the core engine and framework. That would also solve the issue of the client base, assuming single-player game proves itself on market. It is a fact that the silent majority of players in this particular gaming niche are still single-player only (as much as 90% of the game time), and the number of players we are likely to get with multiplayer simply isn't there to support it yet. That is likely why you have even big titles as C:MANO and Graviteam Tactics being single player. I like this answer. I really wish MP, but as a person who do programming (not in gaming, but in engineering field) as a part of career, I totally understand the dev's point of view. As far as I know, this game has been coded and maintained by very small group of people, like 3~4 people, and the studio still lack of man power and time and financial support. This game's source code is purely for single play, and it is absolutely not an easy and simple task to overhaul the entire code structure for multiplay. So, I really wish the financial success of this game. And I wish you guys develop a new AB2 with better condition and better support, and add multiplay support. And who knows? Maybe some big studio (no EA plz) buy the studio with good price, and you guys develop server-based MP under very good environment. I think MP for this game have a good potential to bring more sales. Also, apart from sales, MP will give additional opportunity for players to enjoy this product in very different way. As a close combat & combat mission player, I prefer to game against human player than AI, because human players bring more genuine and creative tactics to get me down. It is challenging to fight against human player, but that challenge is the important thing. Unless this game use machine learning technique to enhance AI, which I think not a feasible option, AI has its clear limitation in gameplay. When people get used to fight against AI, they will looking for human opponent. This is why so many people wants MP, and more and more people will ask as this game further spread out. I have no experience in coding for games, but I heard that PBEM is not that tough option to install in strategy games, when compared to server-based MP. So, maybe in the future, if you guys have some enough support and manpower, then how about positively consider PBEM feature? I know Matrix/Slitherine games have their own PBEM++ server, maybe you can use that too. That is what Flashpoint Campaign franchise did. Also, I mentioned in beta forum, but if you guys open any social funding account like Patreon for further development including MP, I'm very willing to support.

exsonic01 -> RE: Multiplayer??? (11/15/2018 4:01:41 PM)
Considering the fact that even operational games like Gary Grigsby's War in the East also offer PBEM, I think MP in wargaming market is spreading out, and people will looking for MP option more. To my best knowledge, I never heard of operational games with multiplay before. So, I think the example (Gary Grigsby's War in the East PBEM) might telling us that many wargame developers these days now positively consider MP more than before. Though number of people who enjoy MP might not that much, the important factor for MP (including PBEM) is that human opponent can offer much tougher and more difficult challenge to players, when compared to AI (unless this game makes tough AI using machine learning). That challenge is the key of why MP including PBEM would offer more interesting experiences for players then just AI. Think of it as an additional option to offer more challenging yet fun experience to players.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.125