To MP or not to MP

Users who are viewing this thread

Handel

Regular
The previous thread on this subject was locked for reasons beyond the MP topic. So I should like to proceed the disccussion and let's hope this time no one will mention the "forbidden" words :wink:



No way can this be Co-Op, what looking at the map together, oh what fun getting from A to B....

And for warring sides, it wont work because it'll be Real Time Chess waiting for the right moment to strike, my guess is that they will either look for each other to fight (Arena Battle Anyone?) to waiting for them to fight a company of CPU soldiers before joining in (Arena Battle with Gank).

I dont think this game can be MP at all, only thing it can provide is DM, Team DM, maybe also racing for the horses, CTF, Assault and Defense (but wont prolly work anyway since it wont be implemented I heard).

EDIT: Also consider how one would do the resting part, as when one rest he will need to wait for the other player to rest or to waste the time required (usually long) to counter the other players rest, of course the obvious solution is to disable it prolly but still be bad as the player's units needs to rest as well.

Now this is a quote from the previous thread. I am trying to be as polite as possible, but iit is amazing how some people post just for the sake of posting without even knowing what they are talking about. Obviously M&B is not a action game and obvioulsy the action MP options are not quite suitable for it. And obviously some people don't even know what cooperative mode is.

So - even the first Baldur's Gate, which has great SP and which was bought because of the SP, offered and great cooperative MP too. You can finish the whole game playing together with your friends without even going in SP mode. Not to mention the later similar games...
Everyone who is curious how it was made can browse the official bioware forums or the tremendous number of dedicated fan sites and clans seats.
 
/o\ oh dear...

Theres a thread in the "suggestions" section mate, before the pack of mongs descend.

You see, they have some kind of divine right to smack you down, because they never make mistakes.

Still think shutting that thread was absolute madness, but then I think the absolute pedant who decided that they needed to tell tales (as it were :grin: ) on you really needs to look at where his life is, you know, assess whether if he's that kind of person, if the Internet's REALLY for him?

Hmmm? Feel free to PM me, you know who you are. I don't post on here because I have an outlet, but feel free if you think I could do with a new place to talk...
 
Argel said:
/o\ oh dear...



You see, they have some kind of divine right to smack you down, because they never make mistakes.

I do make mistakes. And I do admit them. If you searched the forum before talking about my mistakes, you should find 2 serious mistakes which I made and which I admited when the others pointed them to me.
 
Argel said:
Still think shutting that thread was absolute madness
The thread was closed because of Piracy not because of MP discussion (rules set by Pavlov and remains to be interpreted by us during his absence), I for one have been reading the thread with a keen interest and I probably will keep on doing it
 
Handel:

It was me, who you accused in your previous thread of supporting the crime, which the forum rules forbid me to name explicitly. (And that's how all that thread locking mess started).

I'm curious how you managed to derive that from my post.
The thread got locked before i had a chance to respond.
Most probably you had a bad day, and your logical reasoning stats had been affected by some negative modifiers, but..

Anyway, I did not like it :evil:
 
Heh... You wrote about the "spoiled brats" getting from mom money to buy the games. Actually I don't see any other legal way for the kids to get a game and don't see why this will make the kid a "spoiled brat"
 
The Pope said:
Co-op wouldn't work because of the requirement for time compression.

Why this? If it is only us (me and my friends) we will be together and we will wait together to ambush the "lucky" guys. If we are one band against another human band, there simply will be no time compression and no pause. As in almost every other MP game where the game speed is permanent. The speed on the overall map will be faster (but no so faster as Speedy Gonzales).

There could be even be 2 different games in coop mode. One could be as in Baldur's Gate - the single human band will play the SP game, and the heroes will be humans. And the other coop mode could be something simplified (for example as it is the game now) - vaegirs vs swadians vs outcasts.
 
A LAN co-op should be possible, but since Armagan hasn't included it it seems to be a bit harder than we go about believing. I will let him decide, though it would be great to have two real heroes (though that would be a serious unbalance).
 
Perhaps there could be some sort of balance like in Diablo, where the more people on the server the harder the game gets. Just have enemy parties spawn with more troops to balance it out. So say for every extra person the parties get 50% larger (not cumulative).
 
Agreed all, I would like for mp is the ability to have two small armies go against each other, with 2 or more human players joining either sides. So just a small battle, not the entire game.
 
MP is an interesting idea, however I can't really figure out how it'd work. Each player having the ability to lead their own army etc? Or being in one.

What I'd definately would wanna see is MP for arena fights and such. That would be a great start to begin with. Could decide who fights who, how many fights, free for all, anything. The more flexible, the better :grin:.
 
Handel, do you have any idea of how much work it takes to add MP to a game?
Have you ever learned coding in languages like Python or C?
And have you ever been involved in game development?

If not, then how do you know it is "relatively easy" to do? It is certainly not "relatively easy." Very hard and tedious is more like it. And as a coder involved in gaming code i have some authority in the matter.

And you would have armagan making MP for the game when the core game isn't even completed? If he did not design the code architecture with allowance for MP, he probably would have to tear the game down and rebuild it from scratch just to include MP, and that alone would add a couple of years into the development of the game. I'd rather they finished this first then consider MP for the sequel.

And keep in mind that its being developed by two people, not 20. Even if the development is fairly consistent, its gonna take a pretty long time to finish the core game and polish it enough for the final release.
 
Handel said:
Of course the developpers of Fallout will say this. The rights for Wasteland still belong to EA and no one can will admit it was ripped off.
As for the Oblivion - as I said "with add-ons". And the first Arena (the Oblivion prequesl) didn't have nothing in common with M&B. Except the presence of swords and bows.

The original arena was planned as a gladiatorial style game. The premise was that you led your party around various cities fighting arena battles for fame and fortune. Not too far away from leading an army around duffing up bandits for their loot now is it?

Handel said:
As for the lack of MP not ruining the game - yes, for the gamers which don't care for the MP it is true. But for sales - and this means for developpers and distributors - yes, it does ruins the game. At least 50% (probably more) from the gamers will not buy a game if it doesn't offer good MP.

Simply not true. The biggest selling PC games of the past few years had no multiplayer component whatsoever. The Sims? GTA Vice City?

Handel said:
And saying "For a start, the only real multiplayer possibility at present is arena type battles, which would quickly become boring" means you don't really care for the MP. As it is the game offers great possibility for cooperative MP mode. Practicaly without any changes. Not to mention leading parties from both warring sides, pirates etc.

I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth. I would quite happily play M&B multiplayer. However, at the moment co-operative play would be ridiculous. The AI is far too poor to present a challenge to most players alone, let alone a group of humans. This is my reasoning about multiplayer needing PvsP. Should the AI reach the point where it can actually challenge a player, then it might be possible. Until then playing the game co-operatively would pretty much reduce it to a glorified chatroom.
 
Archonsod, the first Arena was nothing other then just a RPG with huge number of towns and even more huge number of random generated (again) huge dungeons. You are thinking about some other game.
 
Making a multiplayer game isn't just about strapping network support on a single game, it's much much more.
It's not that i wouldn't like seeying such a cool game in multiplayer, but i'm being realistic here, if you ever would like to see a decent multiplayer version it will come instead of a good single player game, and there's a lot more work to be done on the single player side. (i wouldn't mind paying for every whole version of this game :grin:)
For me an openended game that also features action combat is a raw gold mine :smile:

Also it was amusing for me to see the comments about multiplayer and sales, people don't understand a multiplayer rpg in the standards of year 2005 has to be written specifically for it from scratch - the dev doesn't suddently change his design documents and add in multiplayer to increase sales - tbh a dev doesn't suddently change them period.

But i'll be realistic here, people without programming background will keep posting unpractical suggestions because they've only seen final products, we can't expect it to be otherwise, so i'm sticking to a new theme.

May your dreams always be that happy
 
Handel said:
The previous thread on this subject was locked for reasons beyond the MP topic. So I should like to proceed the disccussion and let's hope this time no one will mention the "forbidden" words :wink:

Now this is a quote from the previous thread. I am trying to be as polite as possible, but iit is amazing how some people post just for the sake of posting without even knowing what they are talking about. Obviously M&B is not a action game and obvioulsy the action MP options are not quite suitable for it. And obviously some people don't even know what cooperative mode is.

So - even the first Baldur's Gate, which has great SP and which was bought because of the SP, offered and great cooperative MP too. You can finish the whole game playing together with your friends without even going in SP mode. Not to mention the later similar games...
Everyone who is curious how it was made can browse the official bioware forums or the tremendous number of dedicated fan sites and clans seats.

Handel,

You make it sound so easy and righteous about MP needs to be implemented in M&B. And yet you claim to be the good guy after trying to be an evangelion about MP in M&B? Right....

I'm giving you facts that it wouldnt work yet you think it would. Not only that Arma even says that he would love to do it but he is up to a stage where he will need to re-engineer (I think) the engine to suit MP, something I dont think he wants to do.

There is a lot of things this game can and cant do, and this is not Bioware so comparing BG to M&B is like comparing Restricted Area to Diablo 2.

Nevertheless the reason why I "bought" the game was because I enjoyed the fighting, the RPG elements, and the cool bit a chance to MOD it (hopefully with the tools coming out means easier to MOD and make more things that I want to personally implement).

I aint sure if you think that every game requires it, as simply put Archonsod has suggested games that are successful WITHOUT MP, its to do with features, replayability and enjoyment. But you seem to think that MP is the most crucial thing in games, so as Archonsod says about the game for CO-OP I agree, it wouldnt work.
 
Hmm... Mount and Blade MP could work like this:

6 Modes:

Deathmatch (Everyman for Himself)
Team Deathmatch
Duel (1 vs 1)
Attack and Defend (Alternates)
Storm (Narrow Battle)
Race (Horse Race)


Each mode would be rather simple, consisting of 2-3 rounds.

Deathmatch:

3 rounds of killing. Maximum of 30 players allowed in a deathmatch. No teams.

Team Deathmatch:

2 rounds of killing. Maximum of 60 players allowed in a team deathmatch.


Duel:


3 rounds. Maximum 16 people, tournament style.

Attack and Defend:

2 rounds. Maximum 60 people. Alternates the teams between attacking and defending a castle or tower.


Storm:


3 Rounds. A very narrow and long map, such as a river battlefield, a valley, or a dungeon. One team must reach the end, the other is defending the end.

Race:

32 Rounds maximum. Max of 16 people, tournement races.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Could attract a large crowd... Maybe M&B 2? But not now.

-Dvd
 
Back
Top Bottom