Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Create maps
Place enemies and make them elite or not
Chose their equipment
Maybe the win requirements
This is kind of surprising actually. While modding is always the dream: I see the core of pit people is the online matches. I don't really see how it would manage to be reconciled without driving a wedge in the player base.
I love me some mods, but this is the kind of game where I'd probably rather see that additional development investment made in extra units and features instead of an API (as much as I love them). Part of me wants to chop my hands off for typing this, but I really think $5-$10 DLC packs that add more base units and equipment is the way to go with Pit People in the long run.
If you want a comprimise on 'modding': dial up the community development aspect of unit creation. While it isn't true modding, in a sense it is a community vetted processes where by people agree upon which 'mods' will be made standard. I feel like this works much more smoothly whenever a game is relying on both tight balance and matchmaking.
What would happen is that modded games would either be limited to local play or only function with other clients running matching content. You wouldn't get any of that in vanilla match making.
>Sorry, this got a little lenghty:
The only thing I'd say is that while in most cases that number is negligible; it really depends upon how compelling the mods availible are, and how stackable they are. With the top-level progression: I don't think a solution like Half-Life mods would work. Or if you look at something like Minecraft, several monsterous scenes emerged in order to cover the connectivity issue as a work around. Though neither of these rely on ranking boards or top-layer progression.
I'm a bit leery on dividing a player base in games like this. I remember Space Marine all too well, and they did it with DLC not mods. Half of the players bought the DLC, half didn't, and since the DLC segregated the match making: suddenly nobody could get a match with reasonable ping and the game was dead in the water despite being very good.
I don't see it going over that way with Pit People, but if someone makes a super-compelling "must have" mod, then you might wind up with a bigger wedge than you'd like. Since the pipe-dream of making a modding API is to eventually facilitate such compelling mods being made: it becomes a question of how vital a stable player base is with respect to the que, and how inventive you can get with integrating mod toggling into the core game if it is deemed vital. Though this is all setting up for a potential which might not even manifest (though you want it to).
Don't get me wrong; I'd love to tinker with unit and item archetypes, and would do so were there mod support. I'm just trying to throw down some food for thought in the Nay camp because I know theres going to be a lot more Yea.
I agree that if not for free DLC's with new units should be added. So far I've noticed it's not their tactic or interest to publish dlcs for their games except in a few rare cases, but who knows. Certainly there are MANY more unit ideas that would fit very well into the game and would add more variety. And I'm damn sure I would pay for that.
Revisiting the idea of the multiplayer pit and segregating players based on whether they have mods installed or not and allowing players to toggle if they'll be put into matches with modded players or not, I think a possible option would be to have multiple switches that allow matchmaking with players with certain types of mods. There could be an option to go into matches with players that only have cosmetic mods installed and another to allow matches with players that have mods that add new units. I realize that this would only create more divides between the player base and might be a terrible idea but I feel like it's something to consider.
When it comes to small DLC packs that add new units, equipment, and/or quests, I feel like this could be a great or terrible idea. If the DLC packs are going to be free, I suggest not making them DLC at all and just incorporating them into the content updates that are still being worked on after release, i.e. Update 7. The reason I feel this way is because, although the free DLC would provide the option to add new content, it would create a completely unnecessary divide in the player base. It would be better to include any and all new free content in-game updates or make the DLC not free. The problem with DLC that has to be purchased is that it kind of puts you into a corner and will make it so that you can't create free content updates anymore because the player base will think the DLC are just cash grabs because "Why not just include this content in the free updates." So, the paid DLC would be a great choice once you're done with the content updates. But, even then, you'd have to make sure that the DLC is well priced for the content they offer because, based on observation, players really hate DLC that are sold for normal prices but have a pathetic amount of content.
Lastly, if you were to stop the content updates and go for DLC, you should definitely open the game to modding once the content updates have stopped or after you're done with all the DLC because having mods get broken because of a game update or a new DLC is a real pain in the butt.