To all those criticizing the game's current lack of singleplayer:

[Arnyx]

I think it's important to realize that this is a project with a 2-man development team, in early access, with a system that would be difficult to make an AI work with. It is also important to note that AI is on the development roadmap.

Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.

[-RAISTLIN-]

People who only play SP rts games v AI are rubbish at rts.

[Electric Jevv]

I used to play a lot StarCraft and I train a lot my build guide with dumpiest AI so at the game i just think how to manage army not what and were to build.

[TokyoDan]

Originally posted by -RAISTLIN-:

People who only play SP rts games v AI are rubbish at rts.

Who cares?

[Chozen]

Fun fact, its not Early Access. No excuse for full launch with missing features

[Eliphaser]

Originally posted by -RAISTLIN-:

People who only play SP rts games v AI are rubbish at rts.

that's a pretty stupid take
most RTS games have the flaw of being build order + action/reflex games, like starcraft, which I generally compare more to cookie clicker than to truely a strategy game

and a lot of people don't really want to have to deal with sweaty people just minmaxing their playstyle to curbstomp everyone rather than just goofing around and having fun like you can against an AI, which is perfectly understandable and doesn't mean they suck

[SpicyCrab]

This game is so good. it has plenty of people playing. Just play it now or wait for single player. That's the whole story lol. While you're whining I am playing with my buds and having a great time with the best RTS since Starcraft 1.

[A-Pex]

Originally posted by -RAISTLIN-:

People who only play SP rts games v AI are rubbish at rts.

The thing is there is two different ways of playing a MP strategy game. One is full on competetive, with stress and the urge to win, and then there is the typical MP with friends, chillin and buildin until the war starts. Many, as myself, search for the second matter. During times of SC2, with a bit of luck you could even find randos, who were more than pleased to not go all in, but start building up and fighting it out insted of rushing in and going full micro mode, which is a very disgusting way of playing. It's a game which is supposed to be fun and not another workload and stress. Playin against cheating AI with friends is also fun. Havin a monster of an AI that throws wave after wave at you, while you try holding and keeping up was the best strategy moments in my life. Thus I distanced myself from many RTS titels or at least from the MP. A game should be fun, not work.

[-RAISTLIN-]

Originally posted by Eliphaser:

Originally posted by -RAISTLIN-:

People who only play SP rts games v AI are rubbish at rts.

that's a pretty stupid take
most RTS games have the flaw of being build order + action/reflex games, like starcraft, which I generally compare more to cookie clicker than to truely a strategy game

and a lot of people don't really want to have to deal with sweaty people just minmaxing their playstyle to curbstomp everyone rather than just goofing around and having fun like you can against an AI, which is perfectly understandable and doesn't mean they suck

If all a player does is play against a predictable ai which doesn’t react properly to a player’s decisions then that player isn’t engaging the S in rts. There are some awesome exceptions like the engineered starcraft or dota2 ais, (or go and texas holdem in tbs) but sadly we dont get those in retail products.

Gamers can play however they like but the people sooking here vastly underestimate the difficulties developing even a poor ai in a title like this one and overestimate their commitment to real tactical or strategic gameplay coz all they do is dumb ai.

Competent ai remains the holy grail in gaming and it’s no surprise an innovative indi title like this one finds it outside scope. Disappointing for some perhaps but it’s the practical reality.

[420Blazeit]

Originally posted by -RAISTLIN-:

Originally posted by Eliphaser:

that's a pretty stupid take
most RTS games have the flaw of being build order + action/reflex games, like starcraft, which I generally compare more to cookie clicker than to truely a strategy game

and a lot of people don't really want to have to deal with sweaty people just minmaxing their playstyle to curbstomp everyone rather than just goofing around and having fun like you can against an AI, which is perfectly understandable and doesn't mean they suck

If all a player does is play against a predictable ai which doesn’t react properly to a player’s decisions then that player isn’t engaging the S in rts. There are some awesome exceptions like the engineered starcraft or dota2 ais, (or go and texas holdem in tbs) but sadly we dont get those in retail products.

Gamers can play however they like but the people sooking here vastly underestimate the difficulties developing even a poor ai in a title like this one and overestimate their commitment to real tactical or strategic gameplay coz all they do is dumb ai.

Competent ai remains the holy grail in gaming and it’s no surprise an innovative indi title like this one finds it outside scope. Disappointing for some perhaps but it’s the practical reality.

This is a strawman arguement lmfao

So what happens when the game dies and there is no-one left to play with? You do realize that most people who play rts are going for campaign or ai right?

Why do people still play the old command and conquer games eventhough the mp is dead?

We arnt all sweats, believe it or not, a lot of people - no - majority of people play games to chill and forget about the real world. Why should companies cater to people like you who belong in the small minority who think like you?

This is the same arguement activision tried to use to push a mp only game only to find out that it was statically proven that most of their players went to campaign...

[gelo]

Originally posted by -RAISTLIN-:

People who only play SP rts games v AI are rubbish at rts.

Some people play them just for fun

[Imphenzia]

Originally posted by Johannes:

From what I've seen it looks like a good game but for me personally multiplayer only games is risky purchase because I'll be paying hoping for a stable playerbase for now and in the future but I've been looking at steamcharts and its only around 200 people playing.

Singleplayer ensures me that if the multiplayer mode is gone, then I can still play the game by myself.

Edit: I can't really review the game as I have not played it but it does look really good and they seem to have done a good job but I think people are worried that the multiplayer would die alongside with future updates of single player and that people would feel like their money went down the drain because there would be no one to play with in the future.

Just to share some light on the matchmaking part. The benefit of it being a 1v1 game at the moment is that there only needs to be *one* more player in the player queue at any given time to match up. Also, Line War has world-wide (and not regional) matchmaking because the command system and pace of the game do not inflict any issues if someone in NZ plays against someone in Europe (we've had good confirmations on this).

A game is most often active at launch and then fades a bit over time. According to Steam Charts now, 10 days after launch, we have about 50-180 concurrent players through the 24h cycle. We monitor the matchmaking for the past 3 days the average queue wait time is < 45 seconds, many match-ups in < 15 seconds, and 3% of match-making attempts time out after 5 minutes (many of these are likely players at the high/low end of the skill tree where there is naturally a bit more difficult to find opponents, we are considering how we can improve this).

Also worth knowing is that with the concurrency of 50-180 players, since the launch 10 days ago, 25000 matches have already been played, and if you can get a friend interested, the "Challenge" feature will allow you to play any time. There are also people in the Discord where we meet up to play, but I understand that many players would not be interested in that.

Finally, IF matchmaking becomes an issue, we will prioritize adding forms of Single Player content such as challenge scenarios where players can create their own challenges or play ones that we developers or the community creates. I imagine that would be, for example, preset scenarios where an enemy has pre-created commands and you get a time frame to attack and eliminate the opponent, and scoring is based on the performance, just as a small example.

[-RAISTLIN-]

Originally posted by 420Blazeit:

This is a strawman arguement lmfao

Hahahahaha. Try-hard intellectuals are so funny. At no time have i attempted to present or represent someone’s else’s argument. Only provided my own opinion. therefore no strawman’s have been erected, peasant. Go back to school.

So what happens when the game dies and there is no-one left to play with? You do realize that most people who play rts are going for campaign or ai right?

Completely irrelevant to what i said. Work on your reading comprehension while you’re googling what a ‘strawman argument’ is.

This is the same arguement activision tried to use to push a mp only game only to find out that it was statically proven that most of their players went to campaign...

Would LOVE you to provide a quote from activision stating that players who only play strategy games vs AI are ♥♥♥♥ at strategy games lol.

Kids today! 😂

[-RAISTLIN-]

Originally posted by Terrible:

Originally posted by -RAISTLIN-:

People who only play SP rts games v AI are rubbish at rts.

Some people play them just for fun

If people don’t find strategy fun then why are they playing rts titles?

[Cryptic]

it doesnt matter how large the team is. goals are goals. lack of functionality is lack of funtionality. at least they're adding it at some point

[Sibowski]

Originally posted by Imphenzia:

Originally posted by Johannes:

From what I've seen it looks like a good game but for me personally multiplayer only games is risky purchase because I'll be paying hoping for a stable playerbase for now and in the future but I've been looking at steamcharts and its only around 200 people playing.

Singleplayer ensures me that if the multiplayer mode is gone, then I can still play the game by myself.

Edit: I can't really review the game as I have not played it but it does look really good and they seem to have done a good job but I think people are worried that the multiplayer would die alongside with future updates of single player and that people would feel like their money went down the drain because there would be no one to play with in the future.

Just to share some light on the matchmaking part. The benefit of it being a 1v1 game at the moment is that there only needs to be *one* more player in the player queue at any given time to match up. Also, Line War has world-wide (and not regional) matchmaking because the command system and pace of the game do not inflict any issues if someone in NZ plays against someone in Europe (we've had good confirmations on this).

A game is most often active at launch and then fades a bit over time. According to Steam Charts now, 10 days after launch, we have about 50-180 concurrent players through the 24h cycle. We monitor the matchmaking for the past 3 days the average queue wait time is < 45 seconds, many match-ups in < 15 seconds, and 3% of match-making attempts time out after 5 minutes (many of these are likely players at the high/low end of the skill tree where there is naturally a bit more difficult to find opponents, we are considering how we can improve this).

Also worth knowing is that with the concurrency of 50-180 players, since the launch 10 days ago, 25000 matches have already been played, and if you can get a friend interested, the "Challenge" feature will allow you to play any time. There are also people in the Discord where we meet up to play, but I understand that many players would not be interested in that.

Finally, IF matchmaking becomes an issue, we will prioritize adding forms of Single Player content such as challenge scenarios where players can create their own challenges or play ones that we developers or the community creates. I imagine that would be, for example, preset scenarios where an enemy has pre-created commands and you get a time frame to attack and eliminate the opponent, and scoring is based on the performance, just as a small example.

Global matchmaking should be Pointed out at the Store page