Polls and Multiplayer

[crazyguy]

As I see in the last polls that multiplayer is not very favoured I just wanted to ask what are your opinions why it is not much voted for it?

I think it could be because multiplayer people are not the target audience atm and so didn't bought it. Thats why they don't know about the polls and couldn't vote...

[cookie monster]

The guys were saying that to make a good multiplayer would take away programming effort from single player.

I don't think multiplayer would work, the game takes along time to play unless your Quickstarting on a preconfigured scenario.

Most real time multiplayer games constantly have people demanding more time compression.

To get two plus players together over a period of time to play a map probably wouldn't work.

It might be cool for families though, if you could control an empire each.

You would obviously need two monitors though.

Or the computers could be linked by IP address.

Some of my favourite multiplayer was on Command & Conquer with the computers linked by the link cable.

So I guess between family and close friends it's workable, but not with strangers.

[Data]

It was discussed before and indeed almost all of us decided we wanted many other things before this, or not have this at all.

[J HG T]

Multiplayer in complex 4X game? No thanks from me as well. Better do excellent SP cult-classic than split effort between SP and MP. Though, in MPs defence, Sins got MP quite right from what I've heard. Still, Haven't ever played strategy games online. I Rather enjoy them at my own pace, or as "coop" with my friends (As I've done with Dawn of War couple of times. Great fun).

[Bingeling]

Just say what others did...

Multiplayer i Distant Worlds? Are you nuts?

One could maybe imagine some cooperative mode, but it would be incredibly hard to do. DW is very much a game of 'take your time' and this is not suited for multiplayer.

I could possibly enjoy many different games that has some relation to Distant Worlds.
Ground combat tactical games.
Space combat tactical games.
Space ship simulators.
Multiplayer games (though I doubt that)

Games need to decide what they are, DW is a 4X, and should not try to be any of the above. Mutltiplayer is nowhere to be seen, space ship simulators are hardly present, space combat tactics can be somewhat touched on if you micro manage combat, and ground combat I am very happy is abstracted away to the extremely high level.

Games should be good at what they are, not try to be everything. And there are other games that are good multiplayer games (but where are the good, new, spaceship simulators? [&:]). DW is a good 4X, and should focus on becoming a better at what it does quite well.

[crazyguy]

But MOO 2 had great multiplayer and it was also 4x. Europa Universalis III, Supreme Ruler are also very complex realtime 4x strategy games with great multiplayer.

What I thought is that with an multiplayer function there will be more players playing this game. Also multiplayer normaly reduce piracy because every player needs an own key (for multiplayer).

That a lot of players HERE don't think a multiplayer option is important do not tell us what the people out there thinks...

And surely I agree that it is not the highest priority on the todo list.

[Bingeling]

MOO2 was turn based, right? That solves some pacing issues.

I have not touched EU3, maybe tried EU2 (not sure), but spent quite a time en EU. I have a hard time imagining good multiplayer there as well, so maybe my imagination is poor. But I seem to remember EU being a bit less crazy on the detail level.

I am not sure the multiplayer crowd is that likely to draw anyways, unless they got some weird tendency to buy anything with "multiplayer" on the (not existing) box.

[MartialDoctor]

I honestly don't know how you find the time for playing games like MOO2 or EU3 multiplayer.  You must have friends who always are free at the same time and for long periods of time.  I believe you're in the minority here.  Even if I had friends who played DW, there'd be no way I could find time to play it multiplayer with them.

As someone had mentioned before, Sins is a very good 4x game and has multiplayer.  It is well suited for it as the games don't last nearly as long.  I played that one for a while - worth a look now since a new expansion is coming out.

I'm with everyone else - no reason to add multiplayer to DW.

[Uncle_Joe]

Polls like this on an already existing SINGLE-PLAYER-ONLY forum almost always generate the same negative response...why? Because the people who WANT multi-player are no longer following the game (and therefore are not voting). This reminds me of the same type of polls that Stardock did to 'prove' that multi-player was not a priority amongst the players of GalCiv....well of COURSE NOT...anyone for whom multi-player was a priority is NOT on the forum of a game that doesn't have it. I mean its kind of like asking a group of vegetarians if it was important to them to add a hamburger to the menu of their favorite lunch spot.... :p

I personally no longer purchase/play 4x games that dont allow MP. When my friends and I 'get into' a game we like to talk about it and compare strategies etc. But it's always apples to oranges because you can never directly relate situations in single-player games. We don't even always play directly against each other in MP games...often we just play in our little corners fo the map, but we have a common reference point for comparison and discussion. And it's that discussion that keeps us interested and draws others in to try to the game.

[Igard]

I did the polls for the existing player base of the game.

If you only want to play a game because it provides a multiplayer mode, then DW is clearly not for you. If you're an existing player who would like to see multiplayer, then you have the chance to vote for it.

I disagree that multiplayer is doing badly in the polls. At this moment 21 out the 109 voters have chosen multiplayer as one of their 8 votes. That's not too bad really when you consider the importance and popularity of other options in the poll.

[J HG T]

Darn! Gonna need some popcorn. This issue is getting heated up.

I, personally, am fine with multiplayer in any game AS LONGS AS IT DOESN'T AFFECT SP. Won't be playing MP in DW if it is put in. Maybe as coop... maybe.

[ASHBERY76]

The upcoming Armada expansion was going to have factions,ect but he scrapped the idea to put in multiplayer instead.Adding MP would stop possible features being added in the next DW expansion.

MP is played by a small minority in 4X games so why should the majority who pay for the game miss out on features for 2% of the player base.

[Uncle_Joe]

MP is played by a small minority in 4X games so why should the majority who pay for the game miss out on features for 2% of the player base.

Honestly you could say that same thing about ANY feature in ANY game. Not everyone enjoys every feature or aspect of a game...that's a fact. So instead of feature 'x', they could add feature 'y'. MP is simply another of those trades-offs that some people will like and others wont.

The biggest driving factor is whether they think feature 'x' or 'y' will DRIVE SALES more than advertising MP capability. It doesnt matter if less than 3% of the people actually USE the capability, it's whether they feel they'll see return on the investment. If they do, look for MP in the future. On the other hand, if they feel like you do, then they'll invest the development time elsewhere.

[Igard]

I think multiplayer would be quite hard to implement properly though. Elliot would have to set some limitations on the game for it to work. Remove time options, add a pause time limit (45 seconds per 10 minutes), remove the game's pause when entering menus.

It would play totally differently. For example, how would you deal with an AI empire in a multiplayer game? If your pause options are limited, then you'd find the AI would have a huge advantage, it'd need to be nerfed. That means rebalancing everything for multiplayer.

A very simple multiplayer could be a solution with severe limitations. Limit the size of the galaxy, remove AI empires. Then you'd just have to create the new pause rules. Would that be acceptable though?

I'm kind of sleepy right now, so I've probably missed something fundamental, but it's alot of work to consider  and the question has to be asked, is it worth it?

[Hawawaa]

I wouldn't mind 2-4 player coop, you control the same empire, and or each have your own empire. I would also say keep it single player until you get to your last expansion too. Build a nice beefy single player game first... Thats my opinion.

[theonlystd]

ORIGINAL: Igard

I think multiplayer would be quite hard to implement properly though. Elliot would have to set some limitations on the game for it to work. Remove time options, add a pause time limit (45 seconds per 10 minutes), remove the game's pause when entering menus.

It would play totally differently. For example, how would you deal with an AI empire in a multiplayer game? If your pause options are limited, then you'd find the AI would have a huge advantage, it'd need to be nerfed. That means rebalancing everything for multiplayer.

A very simple multiplayer could be a solution with severe limitations. Limit the size of the galaxy, remove AI empires. Then you'd just have to create the new pause rules. Would that be acceptable though?

I'm kind of sleepy right now, so I've probably missed something fundamental, but it's alot of work to consider  and the question has to be asked, is it worth it?

Leave time options.. Let the host set that..

Add unlimited pauses.. That anyone can unpause the game after 20 seconds or so.. No reason for limits . If you find yourself playing with someone abusing pause to much just dont play them anymore.. Not an issue in Eu3 and such..

And really the AI can use any boost it can get so again thats not really an issue..


I really cant reccomend DW to any of my strategy playing friends just cause without Mp theres no point. Ai wont pose much trouble after a few games . Its impressive what the game does considerinng from what i understand the game is programmed by one guy or a small group of people? But the Ai cant keep up without a big boost and house rules.

[Bingeling]

Have you ever played a complex game where the AI can keep up without a big boost or house rules? After the you learn to play the thing, of course.

Chess doesn't count, it is just a simple state search solved years ago, and simple rules

I guess something disguised as strategy but which really is a contest in "how fast can you click?" can be easier to make an AI for, though. The AI is better at doing lots of things at once.

[EaglePryde]

ORIGINAL: Igard

I think multiplayer would be quite hard to implement properly though. Elliot would have to set some limitations on the game for it to work. Remove time options, add a pause time limit (45 seconds per 10 minutes), remove the game's pause when entering menus.

It would play totally differently. For example, how would you deal with an AI empire in a multiplayer game? If your pause options are limited, then you'd find the AI would have a huge advantage, it'd need to be nerfed. That means rebalancing everything for multiplayer.

A very simple multiplayer could be a solution with severe limitations. Limit the size of the galaxy, remove AI empires. Then you'd just have to create the new pause rules. Would that be acceptable though?

I'm kind of sleepy right now, so I've probably missed something fundamental, but it's alot of work to consider  and the question has to be asked, is it worth it?

Just my 2 cents. You wouldn't have to changeanything . Imho you could just put it in without change. I can play this game without the pause funtion and never used it in any other realtime game. There are other games out there that are similar to this one including the gigantic game scope.

Only thing you'll need is a save/load option for multiplayer games and the actuall netcode incl. that every player can choose his empire etc. prior to game start.

In addition for all those who don't like multiplayer can still play normal singleplayer.

Add it just like i said and it'll work out great. You can put it in as "optional" gamestyle where it's just additional players in one game without any rebalancing or stuff. As long the game doesn't pause in some menu it'll be just fine. Trust me on this.

[Igard]

I don't think it would be possible to play Distant Worlds without the pause button. The game's speed changes so much, one minute you're twiddling your fingers waiting for something to happen at 4x speed, the next you're under attack in 5 different systems and need to pause the game for a couple of minutes to divert your forces.

The only way around this would be to get rid of the AI empires from multiplayer and make it PvP.

It could work as long as the multiplayer people are happy playing without the AI empires, but some sort of time limitations would need to be put in place. Removing the pause from the menus would be a big step, but tactically being able to pause whenever you're in trouble would create a very broken up game experience, I think a time limit would need to be applied for the pause function.

If a battle is raging and my forces need bolstering, I always pause the game so that I can find reinforcements. This will get frustrating for the attacking player, so it should be limited.

Another option would be to remove the pause function altogether, which might also work.

For now anyway, the consensus is that Distant Worlds is a great single player experience, still with lots of room for improvement. I don't see much point dropping any new feature, no matter how small, to implement multiplayer. Especially since that multiplayer functionality might not work particularly well.

If multiplayer is to be done, it needs to be handled with respect and alot of care. That seems to be how Elliot does his work anyway, so I would just be patient and see how things pan out. [:)]

[EaglePryde]

I'd go with no pause function. Really it's not that much disturbing to have some downtime while you go through your stuff or manage fleets into position or chat with friends. Another idea for having a pause function would be to have a "pause vote" with either the host or the player who voted for a pause can disable it. It could be an option prior to hosting a game what kind of pause feature you want to have.

If i had the choice i wouldn't use the pause function honestly. Even accelerated time wouldn't be needed. It's just about playing with friends and the longer the game ist, the more you'd have to do anyway but playing with friends give you the option of additional allies who make it a tad easier without the ability to pause/accelerate.

Worst Idea imho would be to make it PvP. The game is great and it should stay that way even in MP. Teaming up against the AI is far more fun than playing against humans.

I'm not trying to rush anyone into doing MP but it would be a great start to have it.