Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > King's Bounty > King's Bounty: Armored Princess

King's Bounty: Armored Princess Sequel to the critically acclaimed King’s Bounty: The Legend.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-21-2008, 11:23 PM
Zhuangzi's Avatar
Zhuangzi Zhuangzi is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 923
Default The case for multiplayer

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.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-22-2008, 05:08 PM
phoenixreborn phoenixreborn is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 185
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-02-2008, 05:48 PM
hacko hacko is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2
Default

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!!!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-03-2008, 02:00 PM
slamelov slamelov is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: La Coruña, Spain
Posts: 21
Default

Multiplayer would rock in this game. Something like Age of Wonders, or better. Full cooperative multiplayer.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-04-2008, 01:30 PM
wolfing wolfing is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 51
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-04-2008, 09:03 PM
Zhuangzi's Avatar
Zhuangzi Zhuangzi is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 923
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-05-2008, 04:53 PM
Mystic Phoenix's Avatar
Mystic Phoenix Mystic Phoenix is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 38
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-05-2008, 06:45 PM
wolfing wolfing is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 51
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhuangzi View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-05-2008, 09:20 PM
Zhuangzi's Avatar
Zhuangzi Zhuangzi is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 923
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-07-2008, 10:42 PM
slamelov slamelov is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: La Coruña, Spain
Posts: 21
Default

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


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.