Multiplayer . pvp ?

[Cookie Dealer]

hi i want to but the game , and i want to ask the devs that will this game have multiplayer or PVP in future updates or not ?

[Pacer]

In the FAQ they state that it's outside the scope of their small team. So probably not.

[[D&C] NecroLust]

Lol this game would be so easy to PvP but whatever they lose out on hundreds and millions more because of it.

[Finnfinn]

Originally posted by D&C NecroLust:

Lol this game would be so easy to PvP but whatever they lose out on hundreds and millions more because of it.

You underestimate the complexity of netcode. Especially since the architecture of the software potentially makes it very difficult if you didn't account for it from the very start.

[Paradox101]

It's funny to see people's justification for not having a multiplayer, I'm not here to belittle their work, everything required time and money is a fact.
But if we take games from the early 2000s, many of them were "equivalent to indies" today with even smaller budgets and that many had a multiplayer there, yes rudimentary, but it had and worked for those who could play and had internet.
We are in 2022 people!! A lot has evolved, so I don't think there's an excuse for not having it. (Even if it was a Friend vs Friend multiplayer, without a server in between, why not!?)

If you still don't think so, I can give "N" examples of indie games that put some kind of online, even if later.

Anyway, it's not up to me to act as a judge, I'm going to buy the game anyway. Another multiplayer would undoubtedly be welcome.

[FishMilk]

Bro wtf u even talking about, even if games back then are similar to indie today they still had very large dev teams, and extensive budget.

please don't undermine the amount of work and continuous work required for an online multiplayer game.

But a multiplayer utilizing local play and steam's remote play, should be in their scope the way I see it.

Originally posted by King_of_Acre:

It's funny to see people's justification for not having a multiplayer, I'm not here to belittle their work, everything required time and money is a fact.
But if we take games from the early 2000s, many of them were "equivalent to indies" today with even smaller budgets and that many had a multiplayer there, yes rudimentary, but it had and worked for those who could play and had internet.
We are in 2022 people!! A lot has evolved, so I don't think there's an excuse for not having it. (Even if it was a Friend vs Friend multiplayer, without a server in between, why not!?)

If you still don't think so, I can give "N" examples of indie games that put some kind of online, even if later.

Anyway, it's not up to me to act as a judge, I'm going to buy the game anyway. Another multiplayer would undoubtedly be welcome.

[Feynt]

As a developer and game designer, and looking at the gameplay, I can definitively say that adding PvP would not be difficult. As long as the AI is deterministic (which it appears to be), you're basically just replacing the bot side with the same controls as the player side and communicating the troops you're dropping each wave to the opponent. I don't think it's a "done in a week" thing, but a couple of months at most isn't unrealistic, and possibly an over estimate.

[Shao]

I dont even see how PvP would be any fun, most Matches would be already over depending on what each Players brings into the match.

[Finnfinn]

Originally posted by Feynt:

As a developer and game designer, and looking at the gameplay, I can definitively say that adding PvP would not be difficult. As long as the AI is deterministic (which it appears to be), you're basically just replacing the bot side with the same controls as the player side and communicating the troops you're dropping each wave to the opponent. I don't think it's a "done in a week" thing, but a couple of months at most isn't unrealistic, and possibly an over estimate.

I dunno man. The in-combat behavior is probably deterministic, yes, but the movement and choice where to move and what path to take seems to at least be fuzzy behavior.
Moot point anyway, we don't know the internals (and probably won't) and while it's fun musing about it, depending on the structure and difficulty of replication, yes, you might look at a few months of development time that could be spent on something else.
Local MP would probably work though, I'll agree on that.

@King_Of_Acre: Peer-to-peer networking tends to be more difficult than having an independent authorative system in the long run.

[Admiral Kaede]

fighting bots isn't very fun there are other RTS games would have bought it as well had it had online but otherwise its a hard pass but its gonna be free on epic games soon ima put it in my library probably never touch it maybe once

[Firemud]

Is this game still no PVP? I will get this game if it does.

[Cookie Dealer]

nope , no pvp , but the single player campaign is good .

[profil84]

Originally posted by Paradox101:

It's funny to see people's justification for not having a multiplayer, I'm not here to belittle their work, everything required time and money is a fact.
But if we take games from the early 2000s, many of them were "equivalent to indies" today with even smaller budgets and that many had a multiplayer there, yes rudimentary, but it had and worked for those who could play and had internet.
We are in 2022 people!! A lot has evolved, so I don't think there's an excuse for not having it. (Even if it was a Friend vs Friend multiplayer, without a server in between, why not!?)

If you still don't think so, I can give "N" examples of indie games that put some kind of online, even if later.

Anyway, it's not up to me to act as a judge, I'm going to buy the game anyway. Another multiplayer would undoubtedly be welcome.

Multiplayer is unnecessary if you want to release a complete game and move on to next project.
Multiplayer are just suited for games you want to maintain for years milking players for recycled content.