Multiplayer planned?

[Wratisak]

Is there a planned multiplayer mode like skirmish etc? There is a decent Total War: Arena community dying to see something similar to play (including me).

[StrategosGames]

Hello, no there is no multiplayer planned. I do enjoy multiplayer total war and field of glory etc...but it's a very small percentage of those playerbases that regularly play multiplayer (perhaps 5% of them), and implementing it would likely double the complexity and dev time for the code. Maybe one day in the far future I could consider it, or maybe for a sequel, but for now the focus is on simulating large battles against the AI. We would likely add a dedicated campaign (ie a separate 2d/grid based strategic map layer) before multiplayer anyway.

As there is no MP, the intelligence of the AI is a huge focus of the development.

[StrategosGames]

As an update, we do plan on doing a campaign that strings related battles together (e.g. an Alexander campaign with a series of battles across the various theatres he fought in tied together with casualty carry over etc...).

[StrategosGames]

Originally posted by chubbyninja89 (TNB):

Originally posted by StrategosGames:

Hello, no there is no multiplayer planned. I do enjoy multiplayer total war and field of glory etc...but it's a very small percentage of those playerbases that regularly play multiplayer (perhaps 5% of them), and implementing it would likely double the complexity and dev time for the code. Maybe one day in the far future I could consider it, or maybe for a sequel, but for now the focus is on simulating large battles against the AI. We would likely add a dedicated campaign (ie a separate 2d/grid based strategic map layer) before multiplayer anyway.

As there is no MP, the intelligence of the AI is a huge focus of the development.

...

I'm sympathetic to this, and maybe multiplayer will come in the far future or a sequel, but for now the focus is on single player and the AI (I think you will be very pleased with the intelligence of the AI). There are some aspects to developing for multiplayer and singleplayer at the same time that unbalance the singleplayer experience, and, in general, multiplayer roughly doubles the time and complexity to make the code. It would be easier, and likely draw many more extra players compared to multiplayer, to add a full blown turn based strategic layer to the game.

5% may be an underestimate for multiplayer potential, but if you look briefly at some of the achievement stats from related games it can give you an idea of the multiplayer popularity Strategos might have. If you look at total war rome remastered, 2.3% of players have won a multiplayer battle, and in shogun 2, although 26.6% of players played their first multiplayer battle, only 12.3% of players have played 10 multiplayer battles of any type (and shogun 2 had a big multiplayer focus). In Rome 2 it's only 10.2% that have played at least 10 multiplayer battles, and 4.2% that have played at least 50. For warhammer 1, about 6% of players have played 25 multiplayer battles, and for warhammer 2 about 17% of players have won 10 multiplayer battles. In field of glory 2 about 21% of players have won or lost a single multiplayer battle, but as seen above those numbers tend to tank after a few battles (but data not available for fog2 beyond first battle), and for field of glory 2 medieval those numbers are 4.8/5.3% of players that have ever won/lost even a single multiplayer battle.

These numbers may also overestimate the number of multiplayer players, as multiplayer players are all online by definition when getting multiplayer achievements, but many singleplayer players may not be. It's also probably only a fraction of multiplayer players who are multiplayer only players, and for whom the existence of multiplayer is a sine qua non for being interested in the game.

And, keep in mind that for total war stats at least, these numbers are for a major franchise from a AAA studio with a huge existing playerbase to draw on for multiplayer. It's unlikely that as a first entry we would have enough multiplayer specific players to populate the servers.

Strategos in particular has aspects of RNG, wild charges/pursuits, un-commandable states, etc...that add a lot to the single player simulation, but would likely not appeal to most multiplayer players.

I love multiplayer strategy/tactics games as much as anyone, and was sad the day Total War: Arena died, but nonetheless the numbers aren't quite there for it to make financial sense for this title. It is perhaps worth mentioning at this point that Strategos is mostly a 1 man project (me, and I have a game AI, not networking, background) with some contracted art work, although that will expand a little bit.

thank you for your engagement.

[PatRat]

People preferring single player to multi player is not a new phenomenon.

Back in the 70s, I remember reading an article in Strategy and Tactics magazine about a survey they conducted regarding how people played their games.

Even then, the vast of majority of games were played by one person. The article speculated that one of the reasons for this phenomenon, was that no opponent was available. The internet age of course changed that. But the article also listed other possible reasons, among them was that players just preferred playing against themselves rather than competing against a live opponent.

Despite the internet providing ready access to opponents, it seems that the vast majority of gamers who play these types of games, still prefer to play single player.

I myself prefer single player, mainly because I play these types of games for their historical content and to relax. I've competed against people in real life for decades, so I play games to relax rather than compete. I'm guessing that I'm not alone.

[justAnotherBrickInTheWall]

Originally posted by StrategosGames:

Hello, no there is no multiplayer planned. I do enjoy multiplayer total war and field of glory etc...but it's a very small percentage of those playerbases that regularly play multiplayer (perhaps 5% of them), and implementing it would likely double the complexity and dev time for the code. Maybe one day in the far future I could consider it, or maybe for a sequel, but for now the focus is on simulating large battles against the AI. We would likely add a dedicated campaign (ie a separate 2d/grid based strategic map layer) before multiplayer anyway.

As there is no MP, the intelligence of the AI is a huge focus of the development.

Thank you for the focus on single player.

Make a solid competent single player game which will be played by the majority of players and which does not need to be balanced but can be a challenging system representing the real world of unfair battles.

[justAnotherBrickInTheWall]

Originally posted by PatRat:

People preferring single player to multi player is not a new phenomenon.

Back in the 70s, I remember reading an article in Strategy and Tactics magazine about a survey they conducted regarding how people played their games.

Even then, the vast of majority of games were played by one person. The article speculated that one of the reasons for this phenomenon, was that no opponent was available. The internet age of course changed that. But the article also listed other possible reasons, among them was that players just preferred playing against themselves rather than competing against a live opponent.

Despite the internet providing ready access to opponents, it seems that the vast majority of gamers who play these types of games, still prefer to play single player.

I myself prefer single player, mainly because I play these types of games for their historical content and to relax. I've competed against people in real life for decades, so I play games to relax rather than compete. I'm guessing that I'm not alone.

Fully agree with you, and you are in the majority according to public data.

I've played multiplayer as well, mainly in FPS. I prefer single player for all other games.

Here are some more recent actual online articles showing SP preferred over MP.

https://www.allaboutgames.net/general/online-gaming-solo-player-vs-multiplayer-popularity/

March 11, 2022
In fact, the majority of people surveyed prefer solo gameplay (67%), compared to 23% who prefer multiplayer games. This is because many people like to tackle various challenges themselves without relying on others to help them. They may like the sense of achievement and accomplishment that comes with playing single player variations of video games. However, although single player and multiplayer are two differing styles of play, they both have their distinct advantages and disadvantages.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1276132/single-player-vs-multiplayer-video-gaming-preference-usa/
Oct 2021

The chart shows 59% prefer single player.
" An October 2021 survey of gaming audiences in the United States found that the majority of gamers preferred to play single player games where the only opponent was the game or the computer. A further 19 percent of respondents stated that online with friends was their main way to play games, which is further underlined by the popularity of multiplayer genres such as battle royale or first person shooters."

https://www.cbr.com/prefer-single-player-games/
Jan 16, 2021

"While both single-player and multiplayer games are great and allow people to escape from the monotony of everyday life, a recent study reveals that most gamers prefer single-player experiences."

https://www.kitguru.net/gaming/mustafa-mahmoud/single-player-games-are-more-popular-than-multiplayer-reports-sony/
Dec 1, 2020

"As reported by Vice, Sony’s “own data showed that people were spending more time playing single player games” debunking the idea that single player games are dead and will eventually be replaced by live-service titles."


https://www.vice.com/en/article/5dp34k/internal-sony-docs-explain-how-activities-became-a-cornerstone-for-ps5

Nov 30, 2020
"In the next slide, however, Sony explained that, in reality, its internal tracking data shows that "single player is thriving," and PlayStation users are regularly spending more time playing offline than online."


https://rectifygaming.com/single-player-vs-multiplayer-why-single-player-is-superior/

Oct 11, 2016
"Election season has arrived in the United States, and with it the overwhelming darkness at the prospect of choosing between the lesser of two evils. That’s why at Rectify Gaming, we’re proud to take people’s minds off the horrors of the coming November and cover the far superior world of video games. Like politics, gaming is largely split into two camps – the multiplayers and the single players. And while no one loses when choosing between the two, one is undoubtedly better than the other. Of the two, single player games have far more to offer players than their multiplayer counterparts. From the storylines, to how available they are to gamers, to how they are played, right down to the nuts and bolts of the games, single player games are the original and current king of the video game world."

[PatRat]

Very interesting. Thanks for the more recent data. I've seen the same discussion in several other game forums. And the Devs there also mentioned that their data said that only a very small percentage of people ever even start a MP game, even fewer ever finish one. Which agrees with what the dev here has stated.

The main reason I mentioned the study from the 70s, was to illustrate that despite advances in technology, most people's preference for SP remains the same.

Human nature just doesn't change I guess.

[justAnotherBrickInTheWall]

Originally posted by PatRat:

Very interesting. Thanks for the more recent data. I've seen the same discussion in several other game forums. And the Devs there also mentioned that their data said that only a very small percentage of people ever even start a MP game, even fewer ever finish one. Which agrees with what the dev here has stated.

The main reason I mentioned the study from the 70s, was to illustrate that despite advances in technology, most people's preference for SP remains the same.

Human nature just doesn't change I guess.

Spot on, human nature stays the same.

I started with my 1st AH wargame of Anzio back in the early 70s. Then the path from board game to Apple PC to IBM PC and now on Steam for a long time.

IMO, I see no reason to respond to chubbyNIja89 at all as the poster personifies the very worst of the MP world, and shows why people prefer the SP world much more. A quick review of just the Steam boards is enough to inform a person of the number of MP games ruined by such toxic players. This poster responds with personal attacks and innuendo without any basis in fact for the sole reason you shake their world because you dare disagree with them.

Anyway .....

Here's to looking forward to a fantastic SP experience in Strategos. This game looks amazing and, based on what is being shown already, I'm sure the AI will be top notch and extremely challenging. It will most likely have me "crying uncle" quite a lot!

[PatRat]

Your history sounds like mine. 1st game i played was my cousins Avalon Hill Blitzkrieg in 69. The next year I bought their Luftwaffe game. Later I bought Anzio too.

I didn't start PC gaming till 2001. In 2004 I started playing MP games like WW2 ONLINE, and later Star Wars Battlefront. Joined Steam around 2006.

I don't have anything against MP. If the dev thought enough people would play it, I'm sure he would include it in this game. But as he said, the numbers don't support investing that much work at this point in time. Development of games is a business after all.

[StrategosGames]

Sorry everyone else in this thread, I should have long since banned chubbyninja. He is banned now.

[StrategosGames]

NOTE: I also deleted most of his posts, for people coming to this later and confused by the discontinuity.

[PatRat]

I've deleted my posts that were in response to him. So that should help with the discontinuity.

[Krude]

I'll give you all a heads up, don't delete stuff. Other devs have learnt that lesson, it makes you look bad.

Whether he was right or wrong, just leave it at that and ban him + lock the thread so no more replies.

He's made posts elsewhere talking about this (reddit etc) and that's how I find this, I'll be real, your actions only fuel the fire. Always deescalate openly.

I must say I do agree that the game is more enticing if it had multiplayer. I'll absolutely throw some money this games way if the game ever does get mp. good luck.

[StrategosGames]

Originally posted by Krude:

I'll give you all a heads up, don't delete stuff. Other devs have learnt that lesson, it makes you look bad.

Whether he was right or wrong, just leave it at that and ban him + lock the thread so no more replies.

He's made posts elsewhere talking about this (reddit etc) and that's how I find this, I'll be real, your actions only fuel the fire. Always deescalate openly.

I must say I do agree that the game is more enticing if it had multiplayer. I'll absolutely throw some money this games way if the game ever does get mp. good luck.

the problem was not that he asked for multiplayer. I responded to that request politely and at length. The issue was, when politely told no, that he went on multiple essay length rants full of insults for everyone else in the thread, and simply would not take no for an answer regardless of how many times he was told no. The fact that he's going on weird rants elsewhere shows how justified his ban was.

If you or anyone else absolutely must know what nonsense he was posting, go ahead and read it:
https://imgur.com/a/1gXthKr

You can see that he was completely derailing what was an otherwise important thread discussing multiplayer.

[SamHill]

I reckon if you concentrate on immersive single player battles, and campaigns as strings of battles as you have mentioned, you will have a solid core. UGCW was wildly popular with no multiplayer, and every game I've seen that tries to add a Total War style campaign to historical warfare ends up with half baked tactical battles.