Should KB have multiplayer?

[Daystar]

Perhaps there would be a thing where it is largely turn based in sections if that make sense...imagine if both players start from oposite corners/sides of the map, then have to go through check points and are on a clock. When they get through their "turn" ends and they have to wait for the other player to get through. The faster they do this the more time they can spend ?playing Solitare?designing a custom hero?exploring the map in ghost form? etc.

[Imperial Dane]

Just a thought, but how large is this world anyways ? I mean i can imagine that being a problem as well and not just dealing with combat and turns.
If this world is huge, then players won't exactly meet each other very often will they ? I mean this would be a bit like making oblivion multiplayer..

[phoenixreborn]

Just for the record, someone claimed it was a made up rumour:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...ht=multiplayer

Evgeny post about mp in the second expansion in this thread.

[Imperial Dane]

I don't recall someone saying it was a made up rumour, and what i did was that i said it possibly was one. But nice link, looks like they've already got a bunch of stuff planned, talk about thinking ahead

[WannaLearnEnglish]

Multiplayer?

Hey, the answer is sooo simple...

A duel-style single-battle mode is a MUST.

Maybe not with "duel heros", but with some preparatory mini-maps, single Castle per player, 10.000gp in Chests, some amount of Runes. Just to get some basic upgrade and hire the army someone prefers. Like the first Railag campaign in HoMMV.

A full-fledged multiplayer? I do not see how it is possible with this game. To make a multiplayer one has to change some fundamentals in the game. That would be a DIFFERENT game.

[BurningCold]

I for one did not vote on the subject, for it can go either way.

From an RPG stand-point, no this game can't have multiplayer. RPG's are meant to build your character in a world that reacts to you and your decisions. It is about the story, not the battle, and MP is all about confronting the other player in a battle unless you think along the standards of a co-op mode, then there are possibilities.

From a pure game-based point, this game does have quite a few possibilities for MP. You could take the the idea given where two players go at it normally, travelling across the map and exploring in real-time with an end goal to capture the enemy castle. Or you could take the also very good idea where the game starts with both players in their own area with a time limit to gather and acquire resources/armies in preparation for a large duel between the players once the time is expired.

That is, at least, the way I see things. So again, I won't vote because it could easily be just a manner of choice. Will it be a great game without MP? probably. Will it be a great game with MP? probably. Either way this has a lot of potential and I hope the developers make the best of it no matter which way they choose to go.

[nj2tx]

I think its a great idea to have multiplayer. What i would really like to see is a skirmish mode

[aldrich_gnat]

I voted no.. But it's not a definite no.. If gameplay without multiplayer will improve dramastically then I would prefer it not to have multiplayer.

Since this game was made with focus to one player mode, I suppose its strong points favor single player moreso than multi player.

kick ass single player > forced multiplayer

If gameplay won't be improved on the otherhand, making a multiplayer option might be better then.

Haven't tried the game yet though...Release date is too long!!!!!!!!!!

I pray this game rocks..Since the first Kings Bounty is kind of decent for its time.. Would not want this game to go to the path of HOMM.. HOMM 1+2+3 rocks.. 4+5 not so...

[Zamolxis]

I agree with aldrich_gnat.

Sorry if I upset any MP addicts, but I voted "no" because I don't want to have the devs being pushed by the gamers to try to fetch some MP i/o focusing their efforts into developing a flawless SP.

Look what happened with H5 because of the pressures from both Ubi & the fans which raised the expectations to levels Nival just couldn't handle. From what looked like an amazing project on the paper, only 1/3rd of its potential made it to the game as it should have been. Another 1/3rd let's say made it but badly implemented (it was there, but either buggy, either working less good than in previous titles), and the rest not implemented at all.

They wanted to deliver everything possible in the first release w/o putting things in perspective. H3 raised the potential of working alignments to almost 10, but Ubival tried to put as many "cool" creatures as possible in their 6 initial alignments, that there wasn't room left for more than 1-2 others afterwards. They wanted to have SP, MP, map editor etc, as soon as possible, and ended up with a buggy SP, an unplayable MP and maybe one of the least user friendly map editors I have ever seen.

No, I want 1C to focus all their efforts into finding the last bug, adjusting what can still be adjusted to have things balanced, even correct all that needs to be corrected in their spelling. And if the release will be a real pleasure to play, not the headache H5 was, then I'm gonna start waiting for them to develop MP, map editor, work on a new alignment for the expansion etc.

[Urgos]

I would really like the option of testing my hero and his host vs other players. It does not have to be like heroesMM in that the players quest on the same map, and build armies. If only they made another "tournament" type system where you can just fight your army against another player i would be happy. They could base the fights on player level, you get in a queue determined by your lvl and fight players of the same level or near. Really enjoyed the demo, considereing the release.