Why all the focus on multiplayer. What about single players?

[jpinard]

Multiplayer players may be the loudest, but I'd garner single players are the most numerous. If this is the way things are going I'm regretting my purchase as I was looking forward to an amazing single player campaign.

[Tuna]

Singleplayer was stated to be the next update, similarly the developers just updated the trello page and if you look "Storyline campaign" (which certainly screams singleplayer) is the last pre-EA release item on the list. Similarly there is an AI improvement item now in the trello that is partially completed (marked as 1/3 done).

I assume that more information will be revealed in the next devlog, one typically happens a few day before an update drops so within a few weeks.

[BHunterSEAL]

I bought this game for conquest mode. It sounds like it collapsed under the weight of its own ambition. I'm pretty disappointed with the "downgrade" to a story-based campaign.

Games with the level of tactical-scale detail and complexity of Nebulous rarely--if ever--get expansive, operational-wargame or 4x type dynamic campaigns. It's just too much for one product, given all of the interplay between strategic and tactical elements. Instead, things are a lot more focused:

- Close Combat (other than 2) - some operational depth, but events are largely scripted / units are essentially just movable, decline-only force pools. units are essentially just moving force pools. A solid strategic layer for the tactical core of the game.

- (Jane's) Fleet Command - Campaigns were linear, but dynamic. Enemy forces were both partially-randomized (in how / where / when they're encountered in missions) and positioning / alert state is reactive to player performance in prior missions. Player resources are limited and carry over through the campaign. A campaign is more like an operation, maybe 4-8 hours of play.

- Wargame RD. Before anyone says it: no, not the same depth of sim, but a huge amount of breadth with solid detail usually missing from RTS games. Before RD there was Eugen's first attempt at a sstrategic layer in ALB, which was a lot of fun but didn't get a lot of development focus, so there was enough broken that the larger campaigns were nearly unplayable. In SD2 / Warno, this concept is now Army General, which adds significant strategic complexity but limited linkage with the tactical game. Red Dragon's campaign mode was the 'best form' of the concept: relatively contained strategic maps, elements of randomization / player decision-making, the ability to build custom battlegroups through amalgamation of sub-units, and--most importantly--good linkage with the tactical maps. Forces enter only from the lanes they can actually access at the strategic level; ground taken or lost carries over across battles on the same map. Veterancy is based on the combat experience of Individual squads / vehicles, so formations that fight well and limit losses will get stronger over time, while decimated units are saddled with inexperienced replacements.

These are all great approaches to making singleplayer (or potentially multiplayer) battles actually mean something. I'm saying this because I want Nebulous to succeed commercially and, simply put, 'skirmish only with a scripted campaign' isn't going to make that happen. There are counterexamples--Homeworld, Dawn of War pre-DC, Company of Heroes 1/2 are good ones--but those campaigns literally set the bar for cinematic quality at the Hollywood level.

[Tuna]

I've actually mentioned WARNOs mode before, its interesting you list it here because I consider it bluntly a failure as far as tactical map modes go. Especially for single player considerations. Even on the highest difficulty it turns into just, "win more", you steamroll the AI and its not even a contest. You can take the most awful match ups of M48s versus T-80s and win with minimal losses. Theres no tactical consideration beyond fatigue It requires PvP to begin even having replay value. Its a lot like conquest shaped up to be where winning one battle pretty much sets the entire game.

I dont know how expansive the campaign would be. There exists the crew veteran system for conquest that can be recycled, as could be the intel system, and I'd hope both get used. But cant say for sure. We'll have to see what they have in mind after carriers but its good to think about.

[BHunterSEAL]

WARNO AG is better than SD2 but still leaves much to be desired--tactical AI is certainly high on the list. It suffers from over-ambition. Kinda my point--if you're going to focus 80%+ of dev time on tactical gameplay, shoot lower for the campaign layer.

i thought Red Dragon was brilliant in that respect, for all the reasons above. Not a complex operational simulation by any stretch, but enjoyable, replayable, and mod-able. Complemented and tied-into the tactical gameplay really, really well.

Red Dragon AI wasn't much better but the campaigns were super asymmetric in many cases. 341 hours on record, <5 multiplayer matches. Would boot up 2KW or Narodnaya every time a mod came out.

[NvMe 令]

Was reading the reviews saying how disappointed they are about SP content and thought maybe things have changed, but taking a look around seems like they are correct. This game would be incredible with heavy SP support.

[Jon Asterion]

I am sure the devs are aware of the fact that SP would cater to a lot of people's desires and looking at the quality of the systems they put in place right now, I'd be hopeful that they will deliver something great.

Personally, I enjoy the MP part quite a bit. The community is super nice, it's not so competitive that you can't be fine with losing some.

If you are strictly a non-MP person, it's certainly better to wait.

[BHunterSEAL]

Wait? Haha. I always buy promising games in EA, to support the devs. Nebulous is a game I played enough to know I was super-pumped for Conquest... and after a long wait during development, that core feature poofed. Never seen anything like it from a game that actually has a full release. (Which Nebulous certainly will given where it is in its development today).

[IMMELMANN]

Amped for single player Campeign. If there a map / galaxy hopefully modders and make a conquest idea. Lots to wait for.
Keep up the good work my dudes!

[Unionize Your Workplace]

Single player is not canceled. Conquest, was a multiplayer mode, that is being reworked. The dev. decided to place conquest development on hold and cancel the current version, because it wasn't fun. It was eve online, not nebulous. Please stop spreading miss information.

[Sandbag (Cam)]

Originally posted by desrtfox071:

It isn't just "catering to people's desires". The game was literally sold with SP mode being as prominent as MP.

Seems the dev has forgotten this.

So yeah, all those 100k+ players not engaged in the game - most are waiting for SP and will likely be disappointed unless Hooded Horse and the dev pull some kind of miracle.

Here's to hoping.

This.

There's plenty of "AckChyUaLLy it's NOT caNCellEd" dev apologists here. Call it what you like, it was substantively cancelled.

It's not "misinformation" (ridiculous).

The dev was alluding to conquest mode as THE defining experience of Nebulous for a long time. "Late last week, I made the difficult decision to put conquest development on hold for the foreseeable future." That's pretty fuggin clear to me. And it was pretty fuggin clear to the paying customers that expected it who got shafted.

We're left with an increasingly stale skirmish mode with silly balance issues, tired arena maps, and a player base that routinely stacks absurd meta gaming cheese fleets against new players in crushing stomps. And there's no reason not to because there's no consequences for victory or defeat. It's "bring maximum firepower or get kicked from lobby" with no little consideration for team/fleet roles, leaving a spreadsheet of unused weapon systems and modules. It's meaningless arena play.

But "muh carrier update." We'll see. Watch how much more ridiculous it gets.

[Duke of Stars]

Originally posted by Sandbag (Cam):

Originally posted by desrtfox071:

It isn't just "catering to people's desires". The game was literally sold with SP mode being as prominent as MP.

Seems the dev has forgotten this.

So yeah, all those 100k+ players not engaged in the game - most are waiting for SP and will likely be disappointed unless Hooded Horse and the dev pull some kind of miracle.

Here's to hoping.

This.

There's plenty of "AckChyUaLLy it's NOT caNCellEd" dev apologists here. Call it what you like, it was substantively cancelled.

It's not "misinformation" (ridiculous).

The dev was alluding to conquest mode as THE defining experience of Nebulous for a long time. "Late last week, I made the difficult decision to put conquest development on hold for the foreseeable future." That's pretty fuggin clear to me. And it was pretty fuggin clear to the paying customers that expected it who got shafted.

We're left with an increasingly stale skirmish mode with silly balance issues, tired arena maps, and a player base that routinely stacks absurd meta gaming cheese fleets against new players in crushing stomps. And there's no reason not to because there's no consequences for victory or defeat. It's "bring maximum firepower or get kicked from lobby" with no little consideration for team/fleet roles, leaving a spreadsheet of unused weapon systems and modules. It's meaningless arena play.

But "muh carrier update." We'll see. Watch how much more ridiculous it gets.

You quote the dev log, yet conveniently skip the part where the dev explicitly states that they will rework the game mode and begin working on it after carriers comes out. When they say “conquest” is cancelled, they mean the old conquest mode, not conquest as a concept. And no, I am not just assuming this, the dev has stated it themself many times.

[Duke of Stars]

Originally posted by desrtfox071:

Originally posted by Duke of Stars:

You quote the dev log, yet conveniently skip the part where the dev explicitly states that they will rework the game mode and begin working on it after carriers comes out. When they say “conquest” is cancelled, they mean the old conquest mode, not conquest as a concept. And no, I am not just assuming this, the dev has stated it themself many times.

Except this is duplicitous.

The only single player mode that was being actively worked on for this game, which was conquest (yes it was both multiplayer and single player - you can see this clearly from comments by Hooded Horse) has been cancelled.

Thus single player has been cancelled.

Now, the dev claims that a replacement will be made. OK. Let's see what that becomes.

The fact that the dev claims they will, in the future, work on a replacement for the cancelled single player mode doesn't un-cancel the single player mode. It was, in fact, cancelled.

Also, the dev and publisher have conflicted on "when" such a single player mode would be worked on. Hooded horse (the publisher) claimed in multiple places that Eridanus was actively working on a replacement single player mode while simultaneously, Mazer claimed that no such thing was being worked on, instead carriers was being worked on.

Bad look. Big problems. No one seems to know what is actually being built, nor what was sold.

Those people complaining that single player was cancelled are correct until such time that a new single player mode is detailed. Even then, it will likely be the case that any single player mode will be substantially "thinner" that what conquest was advertised as.

It all seems to make sense to me, so I don’t know what you are talking about. The dev team is planning and theorising the new game mode, but active development will begin sometime soon after carriers comes out I imagine. You also keep doomposting about the likelihood of singleplayer content actually being made, which doesn’t make sense because the dev team and the publisher have made it extremely clear that they still value the singleplayer aspect of the game, they are just working on carriers for now. On top of that, I would argue that carriers is actually part of the development of the singleplayer game mode, as has every previous “multiplayer” update, since all the features and content will be a part of the singleplayer game mode once it comes out.

[Czar]

I'd buy this in a heart beat if it featured a dynamic campaign on single player with all kinds of management outside battles. Everything in this ticks almost every box for simulation enthusiasts but it is hurt by MP only.

i don't have time to practice to be on par with try hards to make actual worthwhile battles. MP only games suffers from this by quite a margin.

[skaarf]

I was thinking about buying this but as a mostly campaign player, think I will pass for now after reading the thread. thanks.

[Duke of Stars]

Originally posted by skaarf:

I was thinking about buying this but as a mostly campaign player, think I will pass for now after reading the thread. thanks.

If you don’t want to get it right now no worries, but don’t forget to come back in a few months when the single player is released!