We need multiplayer (Full Version)

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



Message

marko.polo -> We need multiplayer (6/16/2019 5:58:43 PM)

The Armored brigade is a diamond thing: smart management of units, minimum of micromanagement, huge interesting maps.
The only game I know is where you can easily manage large formations.
But without multiplayer, all this has no value!
It's not interesting to play with a computer AI.

Make a multiplayer game played over the network!



exsonic01 -> RE: We need multiplayer (6/17/2019 3:33:10 AM)

+1

But as far as I know, MP is in dev's wish list but not that high priority. I think at least they could consider PBEM in the future, but I guess even PBEM will be further future.



Rosseau -> RE: We need multiplayer (6/17/2019 5:43:36 AM)

I think it's great to play against the AI, but obviously MP would be more intense. I'm sure they have a good guess how much MP would increase sales of the game versus the work involved. The devs are pretty bright!



varangy -> RE: We need multiplayer (6/17/2019 10:12:49 AM)

+1

And if you could make 10 vs 10 battles also please [;)]



nikolas93TS -> RE: We need multiplayer (6/17/2019 2:37:08 PM)

Yes, we have started considering MP for the future.

However, according to our preliminary estimate implementing MP would likely require around a year of work, at expense of any other improvement in game. Since AB had single-player architecture from Day 1, implementing MP will require involve structural changes to the core engine and framework.

There is also a issue of the client base. Statistics we were given show that the silent majority of players in this particular gaming niche are still single-player only (as much as 90% of the game time depending on title), 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 only.

So, the plan at the moment is to wait for the Steam release, see how wider audience will receive the game, improve the base game with some new features. Only then we can seriously start working on implementing MP.



marko.polo -> RE: We need multiplayer (6/17/2019 4:28:34 PM)

quote:

Only then we can seriously start working on implementing MP.


PBEM or real-time network game, or both - what does the code architecture say?



nikolas93TS -> RE: We need multiplayer (6/17/2019 4:45:09 PM)

I think real-time networking is more realistic for AB engine. PBEM would require introducing a whole new round mechanics similar if not identical to Combat Mission.



ETF -> RE: We need multiplayer (6/17/2019 6:27:03 PM)

WEGO or variable speed RT is the way to go. Lets face it the AI is "meh" in any wargame I have played since the mid 80's. Is it that much more difficult for it to be included from Day 1 in the engine? Seems like more and more wargames from Matrix turn their back on MP options. Not sure why. My goodness PBEM was around in the 80's can't be that hard......or then again?? :)



nikolas93TS -> RE: We need multiplayer (6/17/2019 6:45:32 PM)

Armored Brigade started a freeware hobby project more than a decade ago. We joined Matrix some 2-3 years ago, and while game was overhauled and improved, it still much rely on hundreds of thousands lines of original code.

To quote Ben Kuchera: "Making video games is hard. Making online multiplayer games is even harder. This is a fact of life that’s obvious to developers, but sadly is often lost on players and some members of the press.".

I don't know how many people realize how hard it is to integrate multiplayer, particularly so after you have based your whole architecture over the single-player mode. From the outside it seems magical: two or more players sharing a consistent experience across the network like they actually exist together in the same virtual world. But what is actually going on underneath is quite different from what you see on surface. However, those issues (latency, desynchronization, remote peer networking etc.) are solvable like any other obstacle with sufficient time on hand and possibly some more resources. I would stress, if you have time.



lancer -> RE: We need multiplayer (6/17/2019 9:55:01 PM)

Multiplayer is indeed a desirable goal but if you spent massive development resources on doing so for an estimated 10 % of the player base you may well end up with a dead game as the remaining 90 % will have moved on because there won't been any meaningful updates in the year that it took to implement MP, a feature that the majority likely aren't interested in.

If those same development resources were directed at enhancing the SP experience you'd probably have a better chance of having a sustainable future.




exsonic01 -> RE: We need multiplayer (6/18/2019 5:03:33 AM)

I agree. I'm pro-MP but this game would be much better with new new systems, apart from new units, factions and maps. Like EW, tree OOB, chemical and tac nuke, etc...



ETF -> RE: We need multiplayer (6/18/2019 4:36:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lancer

Multiplayer is indeed a desirable goal but if you spent massive development resources on doing so for an estimated 10 % of the player base you may well end up with a dead game as the remaining 90 % will have moved on because there won't been any meaningful updates in the year that it took to implement MP, a feature that the majority likely aren't interested in.

If those same development resources were directed at enhancing the SP experience you'd probably have a better chance of having a sustainable future.





All good points and it does seem to be more of a wish list item on a future engine. I wonder is PBEM also that hard to implement like RT etc....or is it still incredibly difficult to program (resources)? I understand the SP experience but really is the AI that challenging in any wargame??? Mind you if the AI cheats or has significant bonuses yes it can overwhelm experienced humans but that's not much fun is it :)

Love the program and looking forward to even more exciting DLC's and AB2 !!



MrCannonFodder -> RE: We need multiplayer (6/18/2019 8:36:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lancer

If those same development resources were directed at enhancing the SP experience you'd probably have a better chance of having a sustainable future.



quote:

ORIGINAL: exsonic01

I agree. In pro-MP but this would be much better with new new systems, apart from new units, factions and maps. Like EW, tree OOB, and etc...





duelok11 -> RE: We need multiplayer (6/20/2019 4:26:27 AM)

+1

This game has a huge potential in multiplayer



Rosseau -> RE: We need multiplayer (6/21/2019 2:08:42 AM)

Never mind. The forum should have a delete button when one wishes to take back his statements [;)]




FelixCulpa -> RE: We need multiplayer (7/13/2019 6:45:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ETF

WEGO or variable speed RT is the way to go. Lets face it the AI is "meh" in any wargame I have played since the mid 80's. Is it that much more difficult for it to be included from Day 1 in the engine? Seems like more and more wargames from Matrix turn their back on MP options. Not sure why. My goodness PBEM was around in the 80's can't be that hard......or then again?? :)


Totally agree with ETF re playing AI and requirement for a turn-based MP. Getting decent opponents in niche games like these is difficult enough for turn based games let alone "appointment" games like RTS. For instance, with Battlefront's Combat Mission - Normandy, Fortress Italy, etc I am playing against players from UK, Russia and Canada.

Sure, MP, is not going to match SP numbers but going "RTS only" is a sure way to reduce MP numbers further.



budd -> RE: We need multiplayer (7/13/2019 2:31:40 PM)

I agree, all the MP I play is turned based. RT based MP I wouldn't use. I'd vote for Combat Mission style turn based, of course CM has both TB and RT mp, best of both worlds. I only play the TB MP for CM games.I'd vote for a turn based MP with selectable time rounds of 1,2,3 minutes for each turn and replay. But if it was me I wouldn't make this at the expense of the SP content, agree with lancer on this.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.59375