THIS GAME NEEDS MULTIPLAYER!

[iannendra]

No game until now have the ability to make an AI that perfectly replicates what a human player could do. That is why it is better to insert the game with a multiplayer feature.

If you see strategy games smilliar to this ones (Wargame: Red Dragon, Men Of War: Assault Squad 2, HOI4, etc) you will see that MAJORITY of players brought that game so that they could face other players and also it is one of the reason they decided to buy it. Only minority of those game's player plays singleplayer, majority ones always plays multiplayer because it's just more fun and more challanging and also more realistic.

If Triassic games decided to not includes multiplayer, I bet and 100% guaranteed the selling won't be very succesfull, but on the other hand if Triassic games decided to add multiplayer, I 100% bet and guaranteed the selling would be much much more succesfull.

[FrenchName]

Nah, it will do fine as single player. The Niche is still there although it will flatline soon enough. Don't worry about that. However-Cold Waters, and War On The Sea did fine. This will too. so will Taskforce Admiral. Tons of Multiplayer games out there now, lots of variety. Market saturated with it, pretty much standard gaming. It is inevitable when in a few years the singleplayer era will be gone forever, anyone can see it fading away now. But until then, let us have this.

[iannendra]

It still needs multiplayer. The game would still could be released with singleplayer only but at some point it needs multiplayer to makes it more fun and thus gain more profit for the developer.

[BobTank63]

Originally posted by iannendra:

It still needs multiplayer. The game would still could be released with singleplayer only but at some point it needs multiplayer to makes it more fun and thus gain more profit for the developer.

No it doesn't. Cold Waters had a great AI and that game was very successful. If the AI is equal in quality to that of Cold Waters then it will be a great game.that will be plenty of fun.

Plus I have not heard that people buy RTS games just for multiplayer. In fact, I have heard the opposite. I'm following another RTS called Regiments (think WG:EE but with good AI), and the dev of that game said that only 20-25% of RTS players actually play MP, which is why he's keeping his game SP only. Kinda doesn't seem worth it to put in a feature in a game which only a small minority of players play when you are a small studio.

Besides the devs said that MP may come later, so we may end up getting it in the end, which would be a good thing. It can be a good game without it though.

[iannendra]

It still needs multiplayer. Singleplayer still could be available but multiplayer is really good. Especially in current years of gaming, multiplayer is everything. So yeah multiplayer could also make more profit for the developers. So yeah multiplayer is needed to make the game more fun, more realistic, more challanging, and also more profitable for both the player and the developer.

After all if it still has singleplayer, what is your problem from Sea Power having multiplayer? You could still play singleplayer as much as you wanted.

[FrenchName]

We aren't saying there is a problem with Sea Power having a multiplayer option.
You are saying Sea Power will fail if it does not include a multiplayer option.
We believe that your statement isn't true, based off of the success of this game's single player predecessors like Atlantic Fleet, like Cold Waters, like War on the Sea and based off of those game's fan base. A fan base Sea Power is aimed at.

Multiplayer may work with this, but it could be risky.
(1)This game is all about Immersion, the AI is programmed to mimic the actual tactics and mindset of whatever nation your playing against, kind of like the wargaming software the military used to play around with for training purposes during the Cold War. It won't just be random and dull programming your fighting against. Triassic will put love into the AI. MP on the other hand in some cases is notorious for ruining immersion.

(2)MP does not allow for mod support, nor does it support the modding community. According to the Devs, the player's ability to mod aspects of Sea Power is also a big component of this game. The Mod community for Cold Waters is still incredibly strong, and people are starting to get into modding for War On The Sea.
when you open up the game files for players to fool around with, it is often times difficult to keep the multiplayer component of the game safe from player meddling.

(3) MP requires a large amount of consistent admin support from the developers-for years if MP does in fact take-(server upkeep, consistent updates, consistent additional, new content to be added) which may or may not be out of the scope and vision for Sea Power for new/small developer like Triassic.

We think Triassic has the right idea focusing on perfecting the singleplayer niche first. And we think people will love it, because after all, the majority of people who will buy this will be the people who played the single player predecessors of Sea Power, like Cold Waters.

[iannendra]

I never says Sea Power would fail if it doesn't have multiplayer option! I am saying it will be LESS succesfull if it doesn't have multiplayer option! The game also would be much much less fun and much much less challenging to play without multiplayer option.

So it's best to keep singleplayer available too with multiplayer as an option too. And MP could allow mod support, just make a server which require someone to have that kind of mod and everyone there could fight well.

For admin support, if multiplayer exists then the developer's income would be much more higher which would allow for admin support. And the thing is, admin support is not really needed in every single server since anti-cheat system exists. Big games did that, and admin would only be used to see complains or to ban someone from playing since that person is using cheat.

And no! Multiplayer doesn't require the game to have constant addition since mod exists and also it won't be boring to play different kinds of ships or vessel in a large map altogether. So constant addition to the game is not really needed for multiplayer when the game itself is already full of content.

Multiplayer would be fun while singleplayer would be boring since the AI and the bot behaves the same all the time. So multiplayer would be a very great and good and welcoming and also profitable addition to the Sea Power game.

[Cöunt Eastwood]

Originally posted by iannendra:

Multiplayer would be fun while singleplayer would be boring since the AI and the bot behaves the same all the time. So multiplayer would be a very great and good and welcoming and also profitable addition to the Sea Power game.

No, multiplayer would be less fun and more boring from all the ADHD idiots and script kiddies ruining the game for everyone.

[iannendra]

Originally posted by Yer Taffin' me:

Originally posted by iannendra:

Multiplayer would be fun while singleplayer would be boring since the AI and the bot behaves the same all the time. So multiplayer would be a very great and good and welcoming and also profitable addition to the Sea Power game.

No, multiplayer would be less fun and more boring from all the ADHD idiots and script kiddies ruining the game for everyone.

No! Multiplayer would be more fun and more challenging since AI cannot recreate what a player could do in-game. Sure there will be some bad player but majority of them would be good. After all this is a paid game not a free to play where noobs could buy it for free.

Singleplayer would still be available though if you want to, but multiplayer surely will boost the game profit, popularity, funnes, challenge, and interaction.

[BobTank63]

Originally posted by iannendra:

Originally posted by Yer Taffin' me:

No, multiplayer would be less fun and more boring from all the ADHD idiots and script kiddies ruining the game for everyone.

No! Multiplayer would be more fun and more challenging since AI cannot recreate what a player could do in-game. Sure there will be some bad player but majority of them would be good. After all this is a paid game not a free to play where noobs could buy it for free.

Singleplayer would still be available though if you want to, but multiplayer surely will boost the game profit, popularity, funnes, challenge, and interaction.

Multiplayer creates the need for balance, which means some of the ships, especially on the US side, will have to have their stats changed in order for there to be a level playing field.

This reduces the historical accuracy of the game, and most of the people buying this game prefer historical accuracy over multiplayer. Therefore, the game should not launch with a PVP mode. A CO-OP would be great, but a PVP mode would detract from the game experience.

The AI will be great and won't make the game boring. Cold Waters was a single-player game and the AI on that game never made the game more boring by being repetitive. Its use of real Soviet tactics made the game more immersive. A player who has no actual naval experience would have a hard time employing these tactics, so the AI wins in that regard.

And again, data shows only 20-25% of RTS players actually play multiplayer, so it isn't a worthy investment for a small studio like this.

[BobTank63]

Directly from the FAQ post:
Will multiplayer be available, either PvP or Co-Op?
Not initially with the release. But we want to add it with an update depending on how well Sea Power is received by the community and how much interest for multiplayer is there.

So any MP is on hold for now.

[Delta_Assault]

Cold Waters did just fine without multiplayer.

It doesn't need multiplayer.

[Famine]

Originally posted by Delta_Assault:

Cold Waters did just fine without multiplayer.

It doesn't need multiplayer.

Did it do "just fine"?

Cold Waters has a low content and a very limited scope to play in; & has around 200 players per day, with a 17.4 hour average play time. That doesn't sound "just fine" to me.

Generally people who advocate for multiplayer are looking at the game for the purpose of longevity and want something they can play year over year. Your not getting that with Cold Waters or War on Sea.

[BobTank63]

Originally posted by Famine:

Originally posted by Delta_Assault:

Cold Waters did just fine without multiplayer.

It doesn't need multiplayer.

Did it do "just fine"?

Cold Waters has a low content and a very limited scope to play in; & has around 200 players per day, with a 17.4 hour average play time. That doesn't sound "just fine" to me.

Generally people who advocate for multiplayer are looking at the game for the purpose of longevity and want something they can play year over year. Your not getting that with Cold Waters or War on Sea.

As a guy who still plays Cold Waters, I'd say there isn't a low content problem or limited scope. You have three campaigns set across two theaters and each one of them is infinitely replayable as the missions are randomly assigned and the encounters are unique every time, even on the single missions. Cold Waters was the first game I played on Steam and I come back to it year after year because every time you play its different. Plus there's the active mod community with the Epic Mod and Realistic mod which drastically expand the game.

The great thing about singleplayer games is that they never really die. Even if it has a low player count, people can still get the full experience because the game quality isn't affected by lack of players. On the other hand, when multiplayer games have low player counts, the game quality is drastically affected as you can barely play the game (see WG: EE, Heliborne, and Armored Warfare for examples).

Personally, I think the low player count and hours played is because this was kinda a niche game. I don't think I have met anyone else in person who would get a kick out of submarine simulators.

Anyway, Cold Waters development stopped because Killerfish got split, not because people weren't playing it. Since this game is Cold Waters but expanded to include surface and air combat and more theaters, I don't personally think it needs multiplayer to be good (a coop mode would be great though).

Also the other thing is that the introduction of PVP would create the need for balance. Since balance doesn't really exist IRL, balancing ships to make them equal takes away from the realism from the game. That's my personal concern.

War on the Sea is bad though, agree with you there. It really needs some AI improvements and the campaign scale needs to be adjusted for the rate of how fast players sink Japanese ships.

[Famine]

Originally posted by BobTank63:

Originally posted by Famine:

Did it do "just fine"?

Cold Waters has a low content and a very limited scope to play in; & has around 200 players per day, with a 17.4 hour average play time. That doesn't sound "just fine" to me.

Generally people who advocate for multiplayer are looking at the game for the purpose of longevity and want something they can play year over year. Your not getting that with Cold Waters or War on Sea.

As a guy who still plays Cold Waters, I'd say there isn't a low content problem or limited scope. You have three campaigns set across two theaters and each one of them is infinitely replayable as the missions are randomly assigned and the encounters are unique every time, even on the single missions. Cold Waters was the first game I played on Steam and I come back to it year after year because every time you play its different. Plus there's the active mod community with the Epic Mod and Realistic mod which drastically expand the game.

The great thing about singleplayer games is that they never really die. Even if it has a low player count, people can still get the full experience because the game quality isn't affected by lack of players. On the other hand, when multiplayer games have low player counts, the game quality is drastically affected as you can barely play the game (see WG: EE, Heliborne, and Armored Warfare for examples).

Personally, I think the low player count and hours played is because this was kinda a niche game. I don't think I have met anyone else in person who would get a kick out of submarine simulators.

Anyway, Cold Waters development stopped because Killerfish got split, not because people weren't playing it. Since this game is Cold Waters but expanded to include surface and air combat and more theaters, I don't personally think it needs multiplayer to be good (a coop mode would be great though).

Also the other thing is that the introduction of PVP would create the need for balance. Since balance doesn't really exist IRL, balancing ships to make them equal takes away from the realism from the game. That's my personal concern.

War on the Sea is bad though, agree with you there. It really needs some AI improvements and the campaign scale needs to be adjusted for the rate of how fast players sink Japanese ships.

It's great that your still enjoying it, that's obviously what matters the most. But the problems are clear with CW.

The campaigns you speak of are essentially a Atari level arcade, with literally zero meat or strategic significance. You move your submarine around on the strategic map until it hits something & that's as far as the selling point of the "campaign" goes. It doesn't have the depth of say Uboat or silent hunter series, and it surely is not close to dynamic campaigns you would find in Falcon 4 or DCS.

The game play itself is rinse and repeat, you select your distance to the engagement - implement a strategy that works over and over again and that's that. Everything including content like dropping a Navy SEAL team plays out the same way almost every time (and you don't even get to see the SEALs exit the sub, it's not even fully implemented content). That can be said for just about everything in the game.

Your right though, because of the niche you would find generally lower player counts in general - but to have such a dive after the first week in this genre is unsurprising. The average hours played reasonably reflects that. It's like the devs set the bar low whether due to fiscal reasons or whatever else, knowing there wasn't any game that fills the modern sub era; using it as a spring board for a game like War on Sea.


There doesn't have to be balance for multiplayer implementation. It could be created as a custom lobby rather then any match making. Falcon, DCS, ArmA all games that don't have any balance but implement the multiplayer component in a major way.

[BobTank63]

Originally posted by Famine:

Originally posted by BobTank63:

As a guy who still plays Cold Waters, I'd say there isn't a low content problem or limited scope. You have three campaigns set across two theaters and each one of them is infinitely replayable as the missions are randomly assigned and the encounters are unique every time, even on the single missions. Cold Waters was the first game I played on Steam and I come back to it year after year because every time you play its different. Plus there's the active mod community with the Epic Mod and Realistic mod which drastically expand the game.

The great thing about singleplayer games is that they never really die. Even if it has a low player count, people can still get the full experience because the game quality isn't affected by lack of players. On the other hand, when multiplayer games have low player counts, the game quality is drastically affected as you can barely play the game (see WG: EE, Heliborne, and Armored Warfare for examples).

Personally, I think the low player count and hours played is because this was kinda a niche game. I don't think I have met anyone else in person who would get a kick out of submarine simulators.

Anyway, Cold Waters development stopped because Killerfish got split, not because people weren't playing it. Since this game is Cold Waters but expanded to include surface and air combat and more theaters, I don't personally think it needs multiplayer to be good (a coop mode would be great though).

Also the other thing is that the introduction of PVP would create the need for balance. Since balance doesn't really exist IRL, balancing ships to make them equal takes away from the realism from the game. That's my personal concern.

War on the Sea is bad though, agree with you there. It really needs some AI improvements and the campaign scale needs to be adjusted for the rate of how fast players sink Japanese ships.

It's great that your still enjoying it, that's obviously what matters the most. But the problems are clear with CW.

The campaigns you speak of are essentially a Atari level arcade, with literally zero meat or strategic significance. You move your submarine around on the strategic map until it hits something & that's as far as the selling point of the "campaign" goes. It doesn't have the depth of say Uboat or silent hunter series, and it surely is not close to dynamic campaigns you would find in Falcon 4 or DCS.

The game play itself is rinse and repeat, you select your distance to the engagement - implement a strategy that works over and over again and that's that. Everything including content like dropping a Navy SEAL team plays out the same way almost every time (and you don't even get to see the SEALs exit the sub, it's not even fully implemented content). That can be said for just about everything in the game.

Your right though, because of the niche you would find generally lower player counts in general - but to have such a dive after the first week in this genre is unsurprising. The average hours played reasonably reflects that. It's like the devs set the bar low whether due to fiscal reasons or whatever else, knowing there wasn't any game that fills the modern sub era; using it as a spring board for a game like War on Sea.


There doesn't have to be balance for multiplayer implementation. It could be created as a custom lobby rather then any match making. Falcon, DCS, ArmA all games that don't have any balance but implement the multiplayer component in a major way.

You do bring up some good points; Cold Waters isn't a perfect game. I guess it comes down to personal preference.

I did some thinking and realized that they could probably pull off multiplayer w/o having to do any balancing by making a points system, kinda like Combat Mission's QB feature.

I personally hope they add a coop feature. It would be fun to play through scenarios with a friend.