Minion Masters

Minion Masters

View Stats:
2vs2 planned?
I want to play with my friends 2vs2, 3vs3 and so on. Is that planned?
< >
Showing 1-14 of 14 comments
It's going to be a huge mess but it could be fun.
Dipshit Jan 10 @ 10:46am 
No. It's far too much work to figure out how to get it to function properly, much less balance. At best you can be hopeful for 2v1 in a coop of players vs op ai.
Memfisto Jan 10 @ 12:44pm 
[quote♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥144513128845101899]No. It's far too much work to figure out how to get it to function properly, much less balance. At best you can be hopeful for 2v1 in a coop of players vs op ai. [/quote]
I don't think there is that much to get it to function properly, but balancing would be a major issue.

I wish there is 2v2 in plan. I'd really like to play it. Even if the balancing stays the same as for 1v1 and gets to be completely broken in 2v2, we can have fun with friends.
Dipshit Jan 10 @ 4:48pm 
Originally posted by Memfisto:
I don't think there is that much to get it to function properly, but balancing would be a major issue.

I wish there is 2v2 in plan. I'd really like to play it. Even if the balancing stays the same as for 1v1 and gets to be completely broken in 2v2, we can have fun with friends.
All the pathing, AI, etc would need reworked from the ground up. Being fun is not enough of a reason to implement a feature.
[quote♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥144513152469474303]
Originally posted by Memfisto:
I don't think there is that much to get it to function properly, but balancing would be a major issue.

I wish there is 2v2 in plan. I'd really like to play it. Even if the balancing stays the same as for 1v1 and gets to be completely broken in 2v2, we can have fun with friends.
All the pathing, AI, etc would need reworked from the ground up. Being fun is not enough of a reason to implement a feature. [/quote]
Heeh, I agree with you on balance but I don't see why the AI would need any change at all. It's as if for each card played in 1v1, you summoned double the units.
Dipshit Jan 10 @ 7:16pm 
Originally posted by Euphytose:
Heeh, I agree with you on balance but I don't see why the AI would need any change at all. It's as if for each card played in 1v1, you summoned double the units.
Even the generic game state would need to be reworked. The game was build under the understanding that it would be 1v1.
Apart from the looks of the arena there's not much to change. Unity supports tons of players, you can easily reach 100 players and if the server handles it, it works great. There are much more action oriented Unity games that can support that. But it's a lot of work on the UI as well, so it's not something that can be done when the game is still being developed for 1v1.
3FFA Jan 10 @ 7:47pm 
To answer the original question...
No.

To answer Euphytose...
The game has performance complaints as it is. With an i3 6100, 16GB RAM, 850 Evo, and a GTX 950 I have around 30-40% of my CPU, GPU, and RAM used. And that's just having one browser window open with youtube on one monitor and the game itself on the other (both 1080p). The game's just on the main menu... not even in a game.
So yeah, there are bigger priorities than the millions of ideas for game modes that can be added. I'm sure many, many different game modes have been and will be suggested to the developers. That doesn't necessarily mean that it will ever make it into the game or even necessarily be considered. Maybe it will be put on the list of things they want to do but then eventually end up being put off for so long that it never gets done just due to the sheer number of things prioritized over it.
On the other hand, if the developers spent all their time figuring out what extra mode they wanted to add and integrating it with the current game then there would be NO ONE playing. As it is we have complaints of not enough players for the 1v1 mode. Imagine if we had ranked 2v2 too! It would be ridiculous.
And if they add 2v2 why not add Draft? Why not add Campaign? Why not add Co-Op? Why not AI Skirmish? And the list goes on..... Once you add one game mode you risk clearing the way for further game mode suggestions to be pushed harder. While the new game mode sounds nice in theory, it has to be implemented and introduced really well or else it can be a real negative when, in theory, it should've been a pure positive.
Last edited by 3FFA; Jan 10 @ 8:00pm
Dipshit Jan 10 @ 8:26pm 
All that said...it's also not as simple as just incrementing the player count. In order for them to rework the game to allow 2v2, it would probably take twice as long as it did to just get the game to function for 1v1. And that took a lot longer than a month.
Vileguy Jan 11 @ 12:12am 
If this were modeled after Castle Fight, which is a much slower game, more than 1v1 would make sense, but the map is very small and the games go very quickly. Most importantly, networking between 2 people is pretty simple, but as soon as you add more it gets a lot messier. I think it's outside of the scope of this game.
Originally posted by FFA:
To answer Euphytose...
The game has performance complaints as it is. With an i3 6100, 16GB RAM, 850 Evo, and a GTX 950 I have around 30-40% of my CPU, GPU, and RAM used. And that's just having one browser window open with youtube on one monitor and the game itself on the other (both 1080p). The game's just on the main menu... not even in a game.

You didn't specify the ghz on your CPU. Unity has very poor multithreading support. I'm fine with 3.7ghz and 8gb of RAM. I have a GTX 960 but this game, while looking very good, doesn't require a lot of GPU power. As for the RAM, if you're on Windows, which I suppose you are, roughly half your RAM is always going to be in use by Windows itself. Maybe not with 32gb.

Lock your game to 60 fps, or whatever refresh rate you have, and stop using Youtube player, which costs a lot of CPU cycles, with a game that puts 80% of its load on one core. Or disallow the use of the main core for your browser. I have fallen below 60 fps exactly two times, with graphics at the absolute maximum without v-sync. And it was due to what I call a GPU black hole, there was nothing that could have done this on the screen. It's just one thing that appears wrongly, or an effect that gets stuck in a loop, and it sucks all your framerate. I can maintain 60 fps even with a massive swarm and spells going off everywhere.

Edit: Important to note: I'm on Windows 7 and I turn off the desktop visual themes when I play because the game uses borderless. If you're on Windows 10, you can't, so that's already some GPU juice down the drain. Unity is either fullscreen, or borderless, that's one of the biggest flaws. And since borderless is more popular (sadly), that's what they chose. They could make two builds but that's a lot of work that's better put somewhere else.

Originally posted by Vileguy:
If this were modeled after Castle Fight, which is a much slower game, more than 1v1 would make sense, but the map is very small and the games go very quickly. Most importantly, networking between 2 people is pretty simple, but as soon as you add more it gets a lot messier. I think it's outside of the scope of this game.

As I said, Unity already has this support. I don't consider Unity a good engine but it has the advantage of working correctly (for the most part) easily. The devs didn't want to confirm that the game is peer to peer, for reasons I can understand, but it's safe to assume it is. As you said, 1v1 is easy for nearly all connections. With 2v2 that's 3 people to host, still very likely possible but less reliable, and more than this and it's better to switch to dedicated, at least for a game that relies on people's connections.

Not saying they should do it, but it's still possible. However I'd much rather have an unranked queue than anything else.
Last edited by Euphytose; Jan 11 @ 7:04am
Memfisto Jan 11 @ 7:16am 
[quote♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥144513152469474303]
Originally posted by Memfisto:
I don't think there is that much to get it to function properly, but balancing would be a major issue.

I wish there is 2v2 in plan. I'd really like to play it. Even if the balancing stays the same as for 1v1 and gets to be completely broken in 2v2, we can have fun with friends.
All the pathing, AI, etc would need reworked from the ground up. Being fun is not enough of a reason to implement a feature. [/quote]

I see where your concern lies, but I think I had something different in mind. It would be 2v2 but with a single hero, so many things would act as 1v1. The pathing doesn't have to change at all. It's all in the same algorithm, and it will work the same, even if you add more bridges. AI would also remain the same, both players would act as a single owner, so everything game related would stay as if it was 1v1. The only "problem" with this approach is how to agree whose hero to take, and what if you've built a deck for one hero and then you get your partner's. Then I guess there would either be premade 2v2s only (so you both agree which hero to enter the match with), or matchmaking would consider your choice of 2-3 heroes, and you have 10 seconds when the match is found to confirm which deck you want to use.

Originally posted by Euphytose:

I don't consider Unity a good engine but it has the advantage of working correctly (for the most part) easily.

How come you don't consider it a good engine?
Last edited by Memfisto; Jan 11 @ 7:20am
Originally posted by Memfisto:
Originally posted by Euphytose:
I don't consider Unity a good engine but it has the advantage of working correctly (for the most part) easily.

How come you don't consider it a good engine?

As I said above, it has terrible multithreading support. Multithreading has been around since 2005ish, in 2007 2008 it was used by a lot of games. In 2016 (let's be fair), it's not acceptable for an engine to lack proper multithreading when everybody has 4 cores. It also lacks the possibility of offering both fullscreen and borderless modes in one build (why?). These two reasons are enough for me. When I know a game is using Unity I'm very cautious and do a lot of research before I purchase it. In comparison, Unreal engine has everything you could ask for, and works flawlessly while offering excellent performances in all aspects.

But it's not the same price, so that's something to consider, and that I can understand.
Memfisto Jan 11 @ 8:12am 
Originally posted by Euphytose:
Originally posted by Memfisto:

How come you don't consider it a good engine?

As I said above, it has terrible multithreading support. Multithreading has been around since 2005ish, in 2007 2008 it was used by a lot of games. In 2016 (let's be fair), it's not acceptable for an engine to lack proper multithreading when everybody has 4 cores. It also lacks the possibility of offering both fullscreen and borderless modes in one build (why?). These two reasons are enough for me. When I know a game is using Unity I'm very cautious and do a lot of research before I purchase it. In comparison, Unreal engine has everything you could ask for, and works flawlessly while offering excellent performances in all aspects.

But it's not the same price, so that's something to consider, and that I can understand.

I think Unity 5 will/has solved some issues with that. Not really sure though, but I've seen that Unity is making big steps in introducing various things to be as close to powerful to UE as it can, so I'm glad to see that for the new games that might come.
< >
Showing 1-14 of 14 comments
Per page: 15 30 50

Date Posted: Jan 10 @ 9:30am
Posts: 14