Dev Opinions on Multiplayer?

[chillwolf]

I know its far off in the development cycle, and I'm not asking for it anytime soon, as I realize the singleplayer campaign is eating most of the dev time currently.

That being said, have the devs said anything about their intent for a multiplayer system? Co-op campaigns or PvP or something along those lines?

If this has been answered before, just let me know where please. 

[The Soldier]

From Steam, Darth said Multiplayer isn't really in the cards at all.

"Old friend, I have replied to you many times on several of your questions. I cannot understand why you repeat yourself so vocally lately. We currently focus on releasing this single player game and this is our priority. Sorry to disappoint you but we are frank."

 

[veji1]

isn't in the cards at all at the moment, ie players should expect a single player game brought to completion. What happens after that is open but the devs aren't stupid, they know a good multiplayer game would give this game a longer life expectancy. If they can do it, they will, but patience is key...

[Fred Sanford]

Maybe for the historical battles, but I don't see how the campaign engine would work in multi-player.

[Grognard_JC]

I had to show up and say someting here.

[chillwolf]

On ‎3‎/‎27‎/‎2017 at 10:37 PM, Fred Sanford said:

Maybe for the historical battles, but I don't see how the campaign engine would work in multi-player.

It would be a little funky, but it could be cool to have each corps commanded by a different player? Give the same progression tree and whatnot, but now you just command a corps, with a friend or two or three combining to create the full army.

Some battles that limit you to a single corps would be weird though, that is true.

[JEWMEN]

yes i would be intent of actually purchasing this game if it had mp

[XCLBR]

Sid meirers gettysburg is the model...forget the bugs it had,,,dynamic VPs ...dynamic oobs...dynamic reinforcements, times and oobs...and co-op, based on divisional command...that was 20 yrs ago...youd think that ugcw it could at least have multiplayer.

[Andre Bolkonsky]

 

According to statistics, around 5% of UG:G players ever booted up one game of multi-player, and less than 1% played it more than 4 or 5 times. Ever. 

The amount of programming time to add multi-player is equivalent to the time needed to lay the foundation for an entirely new game; for it to be well balanced and playable would  take a year of development time, give or take. Hard to justify that investment when data suggests 95% of players may never even use it. 

So, my question is do you think it is wiser to spend an extra year building that feature into this game. Or, take everything they've learned from this series and parlay that into a bigger, better game based on everything they've learned so far? 

95% of players vote the latter. I'm in the 5%, but I know when I'm outvoted. 

[XCLBR]

the multi UI was innept

[XCLBR]

very difficult to use

[XCLBR]

turned alot off

[The Soldier]

Nice excuse.  Not gonna change, not with such a small playerbase.

[XCLBR]

perhaps thats why the shift to SP?

 

[XCLBR]

im fighting for the games life...what are yoiu fighting for soldier?

[Andre Bolkonsky]

I can't speak for anyone but myself. Some games, like Company of Heroes, I only enjoy playing in a mulitplayer setting. Some like Civilization where I can play solo or with a friend if I want. And some, the great example is Sid Meier's 'Pirates' that I can boot up when I want, have huge replayability, and endure over time. 

But a lot of the comments on the forum that I read shows this game appeals to a certain kind of gamer. Who wants to boot up his historical reenactment at his leisure, pause it when they want, start and stop when they want. And that's where a single player game excels. 

Personally? I might boot up a game or two and let Koro destroy me in a mulitplayer match, but that's not why I love this game. I like the campaign, i like building my army over time, I like taking my time and reasoning it out. It's supposed to be fun, no? 

And I'm not sure anyone has to fight for this game's life. I think it stands on its own two legs and speaks for itself. I loved it from the moment I booted it up. 

[Wright29]

You're fighting for the 1%.... Why would the devs take the interest of that 1% more seriously than the 99%? Each person pays the same to play the game. 

[The Soldier]

18 minutes ago, XCLBR said:

im fighting for the games life...what are yoiu fighting for soldier?

I'm fighting for a game that functions first before adding more stuff that can break it more.  Like adding in MP.
Besides, so much for a healthy MP community when I can, "stop your charges. I will have pistol and sword-wielding ninja stalk the forest. I will have 2900-strong brigades armed with Fayettevilles. I can teleport my god damn brigades."  Stuff like that tends to get in the way of multiplayer, you know.

Edited April 1, 2017 by The Soldier

[A. P. Hill]

multi-player is over rated.

[Nox165]

Yeah not really a huge fan of mp in this type of game..... i mean how many people would actually play it for any extended period of time? I personally rather see more custom battles. IMO that is where the replay value can be added.