Multiplayer For Epic Battle Fantasy Series

[<™[-=> Cookiez <=-]™>]

If the game is Overwhelmingly Positive, why not try making a multiplayer version of it? Like the old Runescape.

[Dutczar]

How the ♥♥♥♥ would that even work?

[<™[-=> Cookiez <=-]™>]

Like the old Runescape?

[Dutczar]

Yeah, I never played that so I just looked up some videos, but that has a more active combat system and EBF has kind of been established to be a turn-based RPG. Also, it's been confirmed turn-based RPG PvP sucks, even if you add in a timer that limits how long you can pick your options. Then there's the fact that picking effective weapons would be a chore, so everyone would just go non-elemental, which probably would indeed be the meta since it provides no weaknesses, then the game is also reliant on buffs, which you could always just dispel and just...no, I just don't see it. Also more budget on servers, probably would be a pain to program since all of Matt's games are made with being played on websites for free in mind, even if multiplier was Steam-exclusive it'd still mean the game must be programmed in flash or unity to be put on a website, and while I don't know a lot about programming, making multiplier work with those might suck.

Also, why in every single-player game I ever play there is that guy that asks for multiplier? Just go play a multi-plier game that actually has been designed around that, Fire Emblem got real-time multiplier that works just like PvE and it ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ sucks, it only works there when a player's team is controlled by an AI. Same would probably happen to EBF.

[<™[-=> Cookiez <=-]™>]

Originally posted by Dutczar:

Yeah, I never played that so I just looked up some videos, but that has a more active combat system and EBF has kind of been established to be a turn-based RPG. Also, it's been confirmed turn-based RPG PvP sucks, even if you add in a timer that limits how long you can pick your options. Then there's the fact that picking effective weapons would be a chore, so everyone would just go non-elemental, which probably would indeed be the meta since it provides no weaknesses, then the game is also reliant on buffs, which you could always just dispel and just...no, I just don't see it. Also more budget on servers, probably would be a pain to program since all of Matt's games are made with being played on websites for free in mind, even if multiplier was Steam-exclusive it'd still mean the game must be programmed in flash or unity to be put on a website, and while I don't know a lot about programming, making multiplier work with those might suck.

Also, why in every single-player game I ever play there is that guy that asks for multiplier? Just go play a multi-plier game that actually has been designed around that, Fire Emblem got real-time multiplier that works just like PvE and it ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ sucks, it only works there when a player's team is controlled by an AI. Same would probably happen to EBF.

Why do you assume it's PvP? Think co-op.

[Dutczar]

No, still can't see it. I mean, there's no point in doing it if everyone controls different characters since a single player already does, changing nothing except making it worse since you actually have to talk.
If you mean everyone controls their own sets of teams, well that just effectively just lets you move twice, and it won't really do much else than that since every player will be able to use the exact same equipment and skills. Even if they don't, it still doesn't introduce anything new, really, except making it so you can ♥♥♥♥ up someone by playing with them.

[<™[-=> Cookiez <=-]™>]

Odd, I can see it. It's really easy to do from my perspective.

[CherryKakyoin]

It's pretty hard to turn a game like this into a multiplayer thing, it would just not work due to the formulas used in the late game i mean, around level 40 you'll be hitting huge numbers whereas your hp stays relatively low compared to the damage output, plus the insane amount of buffs per battle and then debuffing, would be a mess, this game is meant to be a single player experience, and it's a pretty good one

[<™[-=> Cookiez <=-]™>]

Originally posted by CherryKakyoin:

It's pretty hard to turn a game like this into a multiplayer thing, it would just not work due to the formulas used in the late game i mean, around level 40 you'll be hitting huge numbers whereas your hp stays relatively low compared to the damage output, plus the insane amount of buffs per battle and then debuffing, would be a mess, this game is meant to be a single player experience, and it's a pretty good one

If you say so, but you are just limiting yourself.

[CherryKakyoin]

No, it's not "Limiting" it's the truth, this game will never be a multiplayer game, of course, matt could make one that's fully focused on the multiplayer aspect (a spin-off maybe) but this game EBF4 would not be a good idea.

First of all, PvP means constant balance and updates, he would have to triple check everything everytime, just to make sure there's no heavy unbalance on certain set ups.

Second, too reliant of buffs, it already takes like 6 turns to get fully buffed, and we all know how annoying is when all of them are dispeled, without buffs you take huge damage while dealing mediocre amounts, and with certain set-ups a character without buffs can be instantly killed (Yeah, i'm talking about the glass-cannon natalie)

Third, how the turns work, the turns are individual per character and they act as soon as you deliver some command, there's no speed stat, so, whoever gets the first turn would most likely win with some glass cannon set up, even if they added an Active gauge (like final fantasy did) it would still be a mess, as said before, due to the lack of actual priority.

[<™[-=> Cookiez <=-]™>]

Originally posted by CherryKakyoin:

No, it's not "Limiting" it's the truth, this game will never be a multiplayer game, of course, matt could make one that's fully focused on the multiplayer aspect (a spin-off maybe) but this game EBF4 would not be a good idea.

First of all, PvP means constant balance and updates, he would have to triple check everything everytime, just to make sure there's no heavy unbalance on certain set ups.

Second, too reliant of buffs, it already takes like 6 turns to get fully buffed, and we all know how annoying is when all of them are dispeled, without buffs you take huge damage while dealing mediocre amounts, and with certain set-ups a character without buffs can be instantly killed (Yeah, i'm talking about the glass-cannon natalie)

Third, how the turns work, the turns are individual per character and they act as soon as you deliver some command, there's no speed stat, so, whoever gets the first turn would most likely win with some glass cannon set up, even if they added an Active gauge (like final fantasy did) it would still be a mess, as said before, due to the lack of actual priority.

You keep limiting yourself with PvP.

Remember, this game is a RPG.

By default, it's PvE.

Think co-op.

[CherryKakyoin]

Coop would still be awkard due to the beforementioned reasons, 6 characters in a single screen, plus the game (mostly battle mountain) is meant to have strategic fights, with coop you're pretty much killing what's intended to do, making everything easier, even if they added more stats to bosses at coop, it would still be a lot easier and therefore, taking the actual fun from the fights

[CherryKakyoin]

Additionally, PvP is the first thing that comes in mind when thinking about multiplayer, after all, games with pvp are the ones that live the most

[<™[-=> Cookiez <=-]™>]

Originally posted by CherryKakyoin:

Coop would still be awkard due to the beforementioned reasons, 6 characters in a single screen, plus the game (mostly battle mountain) is meant to have strategic fights, with coop you're pretty much killing what's intended to do, making everything easier, even if they added more stats to bosses at coop, it would still be a lot easier and therefore, taking the actual fun from the fights

You make a lot of strange assumptions, "there must be 6 characters", "it is PvP".

You can always limit it to 4 players.

Be smart about this.

If all you see are imaginary walls, you will never get the multiplayer version.

So self-limiting.

[CherryKakyoin]

You don't give me real arguments to why and how it can work, you only have the ideas but don't tell us how it could be implemented, anyway there would only be 3 players on screen, while having a backup, and the backup rarely has any stats to work with.

even if you say "But what if you can pick 1 character per person and then joining to a party" it wouldn't work out, it's just not possible, you're just dreaming about something that cannot be done

[<™[-=> Cookiez <=-]™>]

Originally posted by CherryKakyoin:

You don't give me real arguments to why and how it can work, you only have the ideas but don't tell us how it could be implemented, anyway there would only be 3 players on screen, while having a backup, and the backup rarely has any stats to work with.

even if you say "But what if you can pick 1 character per person and then joining to a party" it wouldn't work out, it's just not possible, you're just dreaming about something that cannot be done

Why not?

Have you played World of Warcraft?