Single Player or Multi Player?

Post by **George Geczy** » Jun 15 2002

Supreme Ruler 2010 will support both Single Player and Multi-Player (lan or internet) play.

Which one are you most interested in? Do you think you'll mostly play one, or the other?

-- George.

<Lead Programmer, BattleGoat Studios>

tkobo · Post by **tkobo** » Jun 15 2002

I will probably play single player the most.
But multi-player lan will be a close second.

I dont really have any interest in playing multi over the net however.

Ashbery76 · Post by **Ashbery76** » Jun 15 2002

Well i prefer single play but i'll play the odd multi game.

Empier4552 · Post by **Empier4552** » Jun 15 2002

Can we really even consider answering this question right now? All we've seen is screenshots, and lots of writing. We've had no actual game play single or multi. We don't know what lag would be like, how the multi system would work. If it was turn based or real time, how much replayability the single had etc etc etc.

I'd say ask this question once a public beta or preview demo goes out.

tkobo · Post by **tkobo** » Jun 15 2002

"Can we really even consider answering this question right now?"

I dont think theres any problem answering this question.
I know why I like single player games.
I know why I like lan games.
I know why I dont like internet games.

I know I like to play games with people I know.
i know that a big part of the fun of a lan game is the physical presence of the other players.I can toss cheesy puffs,pop corn etc at them P.We can all contribute to the food pile with lots of great stuff to eat.
We can talk about other things during the game without having to worry about bothering the other players because the game itself is only part of the reason we are hanging out together that day.
We can all take a break and resume when we all want to.

Without knowing a single thing about the game itself I know that certain things effect an online game.

I know I dont like to play games with strangers.
I know that no matter how much I may think I know an online person,that I really dont.
I dont really know if that person is going to cheat.
I dont really know if that person is going to let others play for him.
I dont really know if that person will start to behave like a jerk because something in his personal life has upset him at this moment in time.
I dont really know if that person will bother to finish the game if things start to look bad for him (winning/losing wise).

These things I know where any game I like enough to play is considered.The game itself doesnt change any of this.
The only thing the game itself effects,is wether or not I will play it at all.

arrghh -the there,their,they're mob got me- but i escaped and fixed it.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: tkobo on 2002-06-15 18:28 ]</font>

Post by **George Geczy** » Jun 15 2002

While it's true that it is hard to ask "how do you want to play this game" without even a beta to try, it is interesting for us to hear about what sort of game play people would be interested in.

Internet play will actually be one of the more difficult aspects, since as pointed out above there are a lot of issues that can make an internet game less fun.

But I was also interested in hearing whether people have a strong preference to play one way or the other (single or multi player). For instance, I myself have played the Command&Conquer RTS games only in lan multiplay, never really having been interested in the single player missions or the internet matchmaking.

-- George.

Mojo · Post by **Mojo** » Jun 17 2002

SP all the way!

Empier4552 · Post by **Empier4552** » Jun 18 2002

On 2002-06-15 14:08, tkobo wrote:
"Can we really even consider answering this question right now?"

I dont think theres any problem answering this question.
I know why I like single player games.
I know why I like lan games.
I know why I dont like internet games.

I know I like to play games with people I know.
i know that a big part of the fun of a lan game is the physical presence of the other players.I can toss cheesy puffs,pop corn etc at them P.We can all contribute to the food pile with lots of great stuff to eat.
We can talk about other things during the game without having to worry about bothering the other players because the game itself is only part of the reason we are hanging out together that day.
We can all take a break and resume when we all want to.

Without knowing a single thing about the game itself I know that certain things effect an online game.

I know I dont like to play games with strangers.
I know that no matter how much I may think I know an online person,that I really dont.
I dont really know if that person is going to cheat.
I dont really know if that person is going to let others play for him.
I dont really know if that person will start to behave like a jerk because something in his personal life has upset him at this moment in time.
I dont really know if that person will bother to finish the game if things start to look bad for him (winning/losing wise).

These things I know where any game I like enough to play is considered.The game itself doesnt change any of this.
The only thing the game itself effects,is wether or not I will play it at all.

arrghh -the there,their,they're mob got me- but i escaped and fixed it.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: tkobo on 2002-06-15 18:28 ]</font>

Not all people however are exactly like this. Some have different approaches. They might like multi in one game and hate it in another. They may hate a single player part of a game because of crappy AI but like the rest- and thus love the multi because they love the game and can play against intelligent opponents etc.

Post by **George Geczy** » Jul 01 2002

On the topic of Multiplayer, we have another question that comes up: Should we support HotSeat?

We had two non-connected Multiplayer modes originally planned for: Play-by-Email, and HotSeat. PBEM has fallen to the cutting room floor, the technical and gameplay issues were not worth what is deemed to be the limited interest in this method of play.
Hotseat multiplayer is on the endangered list - it also raises technical issues, but those could be overcome if there was enough interest in having it around.

So, what do you think - HotSeat Multiplayer option or not?

-- George.

<Lead Programmer, BattleGoat Studios>

tkobo · Post by **tkobo** » Jul 01 2002

I vote for it to be dropped.

Use the time for other more wanted features.

3iff · Post by **3iff** » Jul 02 2002

I would play Single Player. Almost no desire (or opportunity) to play MP.

Hotseat might be a nice option but if, as you say, it causes design problems, it would probably be sensible to drop this feature.

One consideration of this would be how long would a turn take? If just a few minutes then a true hotseat game might be feasible. If a turn might take 10 minutes or more then it would make a hotseat game unplayable...

Unless there is a massive outcry for hotseat, drop the idea and spend the time and effort elsewhere.

Just my opinion.

Reddemon · Post by **Reddemon** » Jul 02 2002

IMHO I want single play. I always had problems playing multi player on the net. for one there was too much cheating going on two the dial up mode that was used was just too choppy but now that have changed with highspeed net access. three you can never get a game finished with the same pple you started it with in the first place fourth nothing is more challenging to me then a super smart AI that would give me my money worth like a good chess game.

GeorgeKAtkins · Post by **GeorgeKAtkins** » Jul 02 2002

I would play single-player the most.

Hotseat is ok by me, but my take is that most people will not care. I would probably not take advantage of multi-player Internet-based gaming. However, if it is a marketing "plus" go ahead!

BTW: I used to play the original TRS-80 game and we did it PBM. That is, reports were printed and mailed out to players who sent in their orders.

It is difficult to know if a true PBEM implementation would work (whatever that would look like). Certainly, players would figure out something and run it off of one of the PBEM gaming sites.

I could see a PBEM scenario something like this:
a. A GM creates a game and players.
b. A file is created and e-mailed to other players who must also have the game software.
c. They load the file to see the game and their chosen player.
d. They set orders and send the orders file back to the GM who imports them into the game.
e. etc.
Well, it's a thought. Otherwise, it will probably all be done on paper, the way I did it decades ago.

George

harley9699 · Post by **harley9699** » Jul 04 2002

<-----Single player.
1) Still have dial-up connection.
2) Don't even think I'd play MP if I had DSL.

Juergen · Post by **Juergen** » Jul 06 2002

Well I would really like to see multiplayer (preferably LAN).I know that I will probably spend more time in SP but that is because I cant afford to much Internet (and I also dont like playing against strangers too much) and dont have that much time for LAN partys.But I am certain that this game will fulfill its real potential when played against an human opponent because no matter how advanced the AI will be it can never match a capable human.In a game with so many options and possibilities only a human can be a worthy opponent,no AI(at least not available in PC games) can handle that.
And besides mulitplayer options are simply a must for todays strategy games.The missing MP was the most important reason why fans were dissapointed with CIV3.Please dont do this!
As to hotseat:
If it really causes to many design problems and/or takes time that would be badly needed
elsewhere then I say leave it.Perhaps you can patch it back later if it is so much desired.