The case for multiplayer

[Zhuangzi]

A lot of people wrote that they didn't want to see multiplayer in an an expansion of KB:TL. Having played this game solidly for about a month now, I am coming to the end of my ability to keep playing it. This is because I am soon to win on Impossible, and I've worked out all the AI's foibles. I'm not complaining about the AI - it will never be able to defeat a human anyway, who can learn from his or her mistakes.

What would make the game live again for me is limited multiplayer. I don't think multiplayer that included the strategic view would work for this game. However, I don't see why the battle mode couldn't be used as a multiplayer base. The actual battle mode in this game is SO good that it is crying out for multiplayer. Here is my idea of how it could work....

Say you could have a sort of shop screen before the battle where you did a couple of things. Of course you would buy units, based on however much money you allowed, and more importantly you would spend a predefined amount of runes and magic crystals on upgrades/spells. Just think of the possibilities if two human players could have 200,000 gold, 20 of each rune and 50 magic crystals to spend before duking it out. This would be totally transparent and fair, and would allow us to see which strategies work better than others. I reckon Orc Shamans would love some of their value against an opponent that didn't see attacking the totems as a no. 1 priority. :-P

Another option which I don't like as much would be to allow the player to import his character from a savegame, much as it works in Disciples 2. I see problems with this for multiplayer though, as it would depend on how thoroughly the player had scoured Endoria for crystals etc. I could be level 20 but have picked up pretty much everything in the gameworld, which would be an unfair advantage compared to the guy who had played normally.

Well, what do you think? Any chance that Katauri is actually working on an expansion, and one that will include multiplayer? Let it be known that I would prefer a new single player campaign before any thought of MP, however. :-)

[phoenixreborn]

Essentially what you want is the heroes v duel mode.

Ingame choices of artifacts and monster combinations limited by a set amount of money/power ratings and then you fight one battle with an opponent.

I think this would get boring pretty quickly.

[hacko]

The only thing this game is lacking is some multiplayer mode.

The same campaign gets old, the thing that made HOMM3 amazing was its multiplayer replayability. I hadn't enjoyed a game of the genre this much since homm3 (4 and 5 aren't the same) so PLEASE DO A PROPER MULTIPLAYER MODE!!!

[slamelov]

Multiplayer would rock in this game. Something like Age of Wonders, or better. Full cooperative multiplayer.

[wolfing]

count me as NOT wanting multiplayer. I'd much rather they released some sort of map/campaign/world generator, that would add replayability.
Multiplayer always adds a whole bag of hurt. Cries of 'this class is too powerful' or 'this spell needs to be changed!' or units, items, etc. The game is not balanced now because it doesn't need to (the computer units don't complain that you're too powerful), but with multiplayer the devs need to spend waaaay too much time trying to balance everything against everything ... an impossible task.

[Zhuangzi]

I actually agree with this, wolfing. After six weeks of play since the game was released worldwide, many players have discovered which units/strategies are better than others. This would be a problem for multiplayer, I know. The only thing is that in the example I gave each player would be able to pick his own units, so he wouldn't be disadvantaged compared to the other player.

I hear multiplayer WON'T be in the expansion anyway. I said I'd prefer a new single player campaign, and that's exactly what we're getting. :)

[Mystic Phoenix]

I don't understand the demands for multi player mode neither. Has anyone ever wanted a multi player mode for Monkey Island?

This game is designed for single player, there are enough multi player games out there. And this game can be played longer than most adventure games I know (and they don't have replay ability.).

So, I'd be happy when developers concentrate on new campaigns and gameplay ideas.

[wolfing]

I actually agree with this, wolfing. After six weeks of play since the game was released worldwide, many players have discovered which units/strategies are better than others. This would be a problem for multiplayer, I know. The only thing is that in the example I gave each player would be able to pick his own units, so he wouldn't be disadvantaged compared to the other player.

I hear multiplayer WON'T be in the expansion anyway. I said I'd prefer a new single player campaign, and that's exactly what we're getting. :)
I guess I'm coming from MMOs, where some I've enjoyed a lot got totally destroyed after they introduced multiplayer. Players started screaming 'This class killed my class and they were lower level!' or 'Stun is too powerful I stood there for 10 seconds dying!', etc. Games that were originally designed for player vs. environment now suddenly need a lot of fixes when player vs. player is added, and then they need to fix the fixes, and fix those too... a never ending spiral that takes a lot (most) of the developers time.

[Zhuangzi]

I think you've hit the nail on the head there, wolfing, and I think Katauri agree. Let's just be thankful that they are making an expansion with a new campaign. :)

[slamelov]

Why always people thinks in "competitive" multiplayer and not cooperative?.

[Zavia]

While i would not go into the merits of making a balanced game in the 1st place, multiplayer options arn't all that bad.

Lets assume we have a multiplayer option, one that is extensive.
It allows multiple players at any one time, lets assume with a 12 person cap. You can play 1v1, 2v2, 2v3, 4v4, 6v6, 4v4v4, 3v3v3v3, FFA and so on so forth.
Lets also assume, the host can define banned things, like banned abilities or creatures, besides the usual resource restriciton(max x gold, x runes, x level etc etc)
Furthermore, it allows mods (same versions only) where this community will be encouraged to make one that balances out as much as possible the diffrent abilities and units, in terms of cost and stats. This mod would be specific to the multiplayer option only. (in reality, probably multiple multiplayer mods will be the mainstream ones, each competing to be the "most balanced" and thus most used. and competition breeds quality no?)

If such multiplayer option surfaced, would it be more acceptable? Most games allow
most of the options listed, except the last which is not really common.
The 1st could use a lobby similar to warc3, with each person choosing their "team" number.
The 2nd, well a place to input a limit. Total war has it(in single player admittedly), and so does a host of other games.
Lastly, the MP mod part, the game would have to be able to read the mod file to see the changes listed and change the values ingame appropriately. Something I believe this community has been doing quite a bit.

In fact, we can go further, with a scenario editior and multiplayer going hand in hand as slamelov infer-ed. A scenario where you cooperatively finish a user created campaign. A competitive campaign where each battle out AI waves and outsurvives each other with a starting, limited amount of resource. International KB competitions!
Endless possibilities.

And btw, devs develop this game to:
Make money,
Make it entertaining.

Multiplayer can make it more entertaining making more people buy the game. Win-win.

[ywhtptgt]

I agree. A duel mode will be nice... along with a duel preset editor and/or a map editor. This game has a lot of potential that should not be wasted.