Arcen Games

General Category => Stars Beyond Reach... This World Is Mine => : x4000 February 05, 2015, 01:13:45 PM

: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: x4000 February 05, 2015, 01:13:45 PM
Original: http://arcengames.com/no-multiplayer-for-stars-beyond-reach/

STARS-BEYOND-REACH-cropped

Some things that I've been thinking about regarding Stars Beyond Reach, adapted from an email I originally sent to Keith.

In my testing at the moment, despite all the early-alpha things that either Keith or I need to fix up before we bring in more players (ETA still hopefully the start of March), I'm finding that quite fun as it is. The turns are a lot more granular than I expected, which is going to be a big problem for multiplayer, though. That's really the biggest issue I've seen. But the early game is always that way even with Civ, and once diplomacy is integrated (we're working on that now), I think that will change a lot. That will take some substantial balance work, but it's all a numbers game at that point.

It's not remotely ready for other players yet, but it's come a long way since the last time I was testing seriously, and even since last night the fun factor jumped up a ton. It's quite a fun game, really, and I'm itching to play more of it. The diplomacy stuff, too -- that's not just throwing a certain segment of the playerbase a bone. It's actually something that I legitimately enjoy.

DiplomacyMocksm

One thing that is really telling, though, is that I'm not looking forward to playing multiplayer at all. It's really fun by myself, but I moderately dread playing with my dad or my wife. I feel that way with Civ as well, frankly, which is why we stopped playing those together. I'd wind up literally reading a book during a lot of turns while I was waiting for others to finish their turns. Something that had a huge "one more turn" grip on me in single player instead felt frustrating and slow in multiplayer. I remember when I was first learning how to drive stick shift on a car, and I kept stalling it out in traffic on the highway. I love stick shifts now, so that analogy only goes so far, but playing multiplayer Civ with people who play at a different speed than me is like being back out there trying to learn stick shift in a traffic jam. Urgh.

This game avoids the problem of too much going on with the units being moved around, which was one of the big problems with Civ. But this game has a whole new problem that is possibly worse: the SimCity style of "leave things still for a while in order to plan, then make a bunch of decisions, then speed through the next while." I wind up with a random turn taking me a long time, and then literally clicking through several more turns with a second or two pause on each one, max. It feels very SimCity-like, and that's how it should feel. It's extremely appropriate...

Except in multiplayer. I'm not sure what to do about that. :/

The recent-SimCity approach to multiplayer is pretty fun in a lot of respects, and could work. Neighboring cities and all that. This game could easily sustain having individual game worlds share resources or whatever but not share turn times (just like neighboring cities in SimCity don't share time flow -- it's 1910 in one and 2005 in another and paused in 2056 in another).

Screenshot_2015_02_05_13_02_57

But then we're back to that whole alone together idea. It could be fun, but it would definitely be strange. A lot of people would chafe at that, and likely call us out for "not having REAL multiplayer" despite "advertising" it. And actually having real multiplayer isn't a problem, per se -- we've been designing it with that in mind from the get-go. We could do Civ-style multiplayer without issue. Except that I don't think it would be fun.

I'm also not keen on the amount of time that's likely to suck Keith away from programming work on the main game while I'm piling up bugs and other code requests for him. That's going to create tension in the schedule and probably hurt the overall game quality. That's my biggest schedule concern.

It may be that multiplayer simply needs to be cut, and possibly released separately as an update or something. Kind of like what Don't Starve Together (which is incredibly fun) has done for Don't Starve. I don't know.

Or multiplayer may just be something that has to be tossed out for the foreseeable future, possibly forever. It' the only real rat-hole that has me concerned at the moment. This is a really fun game, but if people come to it in multiplayer I can't imagine them finding it nearly so much so. AI War is enhanced by having multiple players, as none of the others hold you back at all. It's sooo much fun in multiplayer. But the multiplayer experience here makes the game WORSE, not better, which I think is also true of Civ. It's kind of a "we know you want to play together, so here's the best we can do because the concept of this genre simply isn't built around that."

This is really frustrating for me, because it goes against my core beliefs about co-op.

fenyntreehomes

That said, I wear a lot of hats at Arcen, and it's my responsibility to think with all of them. So let's:

Business Owner Hat: "You mean there's one feature that might suck up tons of time and money, and possibly delay things? It also might give players frustration when they try to use that feature, rather than pleasure? That's an obvious thing to cut."

Project Manager Hat: "This needs to keep on schedule while keeping an eye toward quality. The biggest threat to quality is embarking on 'vision quest' features that simply are out of scope. Right now the only feature that fits that description is this one."

Sales Hat: "It's true that a lot of people like multiplayer in games, but based on data that we have on hand, not a lot of people actually use it in our games. And from what we can tell, in strategy games as a whole, based on data we have from other sources. There are certainly huge online communities around multiplayer in some strategy games, but even with them that's a fraction of the total sales for those games -- there's a huge majority of solo players in every case. The games with the largest online communities have even higher sales numbers of total units sold but who never go online. So this isn't something that is going to hamstring us sales-wise, even though it's likely to frustrate some customers. Seems like a safe thing to cut, particularly if a botched implementation of this could hurt public sentiment toward the game in general."

Game Designer Hat: "I really can't see any good way around this problem. Either I'm having to sacrifice things that make the solo experience very fun, or multiplayer is going to have a lot of frustrations in any situation where all the players don't play at approximately the same speed at all times. If all players make decisions at the same rate, and that's a very fast rate, then we have no problems here -- the actual game design will support that brilliantly. The sole problem here is the awful, awful waiting when someone takes time to look at data and mull, or talk to an alien for a bit to find out stuff or negotiate a deal or whatever. It's not fun being the one having to wait, and it's also not fun being the one who feels pressured into rushing because the other one is waiting."

burlsust-citadel

Programmer Hat: "There are actually some things that we're having to avoid doing in order to be multiplayer-safe. Some of those are optimizations that would actually speed up the late-game between-turns work IF there are AIs doing a lot of attacks out of your viewport but in explored area. In multiplayer we can't really shortcircuit that, but in purely-solo we could. There are also some visual things that we could also probably do slightly better without multiplayer, and a few other things as well."

Artist Hat: "Makes no difference to me."

Sound Designer Hat: "Me either."

Writer Hat: "Ditto here."

Support Hat: "For the most part, ditto here. Though people having constant problems with port forwarding and whatnot is something that is always nice to avoid, it's not exactly new territory."

Keith Pops By: "Multiplayer is always a rat hole ;)"

Back To Me: "This really, really stinks guys.  I just adore co-op, and at one point I was super looking forward to playing this with both my wife and dad.  But that's self-indulgent on my part, no longer super relevant, and in general gets in the way of the greater good of the game.  You know, that whole kill your darlings bit of advice.  It seems unfortunately clear that that's what we need to do here."

AcutianRoads

So... that's what we're going to do.  Frack it.

I'm unhappy about this decision that I've had to make, but at least you can see the rationale behind it above.  If the game does well and there is a solution that presents itself, then we might explore making that a post-release addition.  But I'm definitely not in a position to promise that, and this is a problem I've noodled on for various games for several years now, in various forms.  I have yet to find a solution, and I'm not aware of any other games that have solved it in a way that I find all that fun either.

But on a brighter note!  I'm having loads of fun with the game, and it's coming along really well.  I can't wait to start sharing more of it with you.

ThoraxianTunnelEntrances2
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: Mánagarmr February 05, 2015, 01:17:51 PM
An Arcen game without multiplayer? What is this? RAGNAROK!?


(Reasoning seems fair though)
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: x4000 February 05, 2015, 01:20:52 PM
An Arcen game without multiplayer? What is this?

Bionic Dues or The Last Federation, I guess. ;)
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: Mánagarmr February 05, 2015, 01:22:52 PM
An Arcen game without multiplayer? What is this?

Bionic Dues or The Last Federation, I guess. ;)
Welp. I guess I should just crawl back under my rock and start paying attention again :P
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: x4000 February 05, 2015, 01:24:56 PM
You don't have everything about our company memorized???  Banned for one week.  ;D

In all seriousness, thanks for your ongoing support though.
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: TheVampire100 February 05, 2015, 01:37:12 PM
Hm, I really have thought it would feature Multiplayer. Not that I'm sad about it, I prefer singleplayer over multiplayer (except in some cooperate games).
Cutting the multiplayer from a games means that the work on the singleplayer is better done. A lot of games lack the balance between multiplayer and singleplayer and often prefer multiplayer over singleplayer in hopes that it might sell better (you can read it everytime in the Steams forums: "Will this have multiplayer?").
Seeing this will Singleplayer experience only makes it an ideal game for sessins when you are alone and wait for friends (this is one of the games that you can play in some waiting time or while you do other stuff because of the turn based system).

I also see a lot of Flaws in Civ Multiplayer and that's the reason why I dropped playing Multiplayer. For one, it totally removes the part of "doing it while waiting for something or while doing something different". At the moment you play with other, these other people have exceptions to you. They wait until you play and you cannot let them wait to long or they might quit the game.
Another weakness is the bad designed diplomacy concept. For a game that focuses that much on diplomacy it does not even allow a combined victory of multiple players. You can trade with others, you can work out peace agreements and support them in war. But in the ned, only one player can win and they have to turn against you if they don't want to loose.
I think that kind of removes a big functionality of the diplomacy system. I would rather like it that my allies win with me instead of seeing me still as potential danger.
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: Mick February 05, 2015, 01:39:46 PM
From my point of view, saying "no multiplayer" on a game these days is worthy of being listed as a feature. As someone who primarily plays single player games, I get frustrated when flaws in strategy games are brushed aside with "well the real game is in multiplayer".

I've never seen a turn-based-strategy game work well multiplayer. I get bored waiting for my turns. If you are playing competitively, players who are behind don't have fun (fine for 30 minute board game, not so fine for a hours long game of Civilization..)
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: Draco18s February 05, 2015, 02:10:51 PM
From my point of view, saying "no multiplayer" on a game these days is worthy of being listed as a feature. As someone who primarily plays single player games, I get frustrated when flaws in strategy games are brushed aside with "well the real game is in multiplayer".

Or multiplayer alone, like Watch_Dogs.  That is: multiplayer happens when you least want it to and does its damndest to be an absolute arse in the process (for example: an exploit where you can attack someone else, then disconnect, and they get penalized for the lost connection at an order of magnitude larger than a single, legitimate, win).
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: steelwing February 05, 2015, 02:17:00 PM
Speaking for myself, I'm fine with no multiplayer.  Unlike Mick, I've seen two turn-based-strategy games that did multiplayer well:
* Age of Wonders:  Shadow Magic
* Stars!
Both are "older" games (AoW:SM was released in 2003, while Stars! came out in the mid '90s and was meant for Win3.x and Win9x).  Stars!, as far as I recall, could not do LAN-based multiplayer.  It was all "play-by-email".  AoW:SM could do LAN-based, but it was also email-capable.  If I was to recommend a multiplayer implementation for a highly complex TBS, email or other file transfer would be it.
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: ptarth February 05, 2015, 02:19:35 PM
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: x4000 February 05, 2015, 02:49:29 PM
The idea definitely was to be all co-op.  But for each player to have their own civ.

I... suppose that "we share a civ, and divvy up duties however we like" might be interesting.  But again it's one of those things where I think people would complain about it not being "true multiplayer," and really burn us on the initial release.  As a post-release feature, it might go over easier.  That's certainly the best idea I've heard for dealing with these challenges yet, anyway.
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: Captain Jack February 05, 2015, 02:59:33 PM
Hi Chris! Been an Arcen fan since Children of the Neinzul, but I lapsed until just last year. Have had a blast catching up.

It's a shame about multiplayer, but I agree that it's really a mess in 4X games because of variable play speeds. There is a solution of sorts, and it's especially good if you're interested in the social aspect of co-op: Hotseat gaming. Early experiences with HoMM2/3 are still some of my favorite multiplayer memories since I learned how to play just by watching everyone else, got help immediately just by pointing, and spent the turns until mine asking questions or socializing. And when need arose, heckling and chivvying the one who just wouldn't end their turn.

It's not a silver bullet, most of the reason online co-op is popular is that we can't meet up with our friends for a turn around the PC, or console for that matter. Still something worth considering, maybe.
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: Mánagarmr February 05, 2015, 03:03:58 PM
Speaking for myself, I'm fine with no multiplayer.  Unlike Mick, I've seen two turn-based-strategy games that did multiplayer well:
* Age of Wonders:  Shadow Magic
* Stars!
Both are "older" games (AoW:SM was released in 2003, while Stars! came out in the mid '90s and was meant for Win3.x and Win9x).  Stars!, as far as I recall, could not do LAN-based multiplayer.  It was all "play-by-email".  AoW:SM could do LAN-based, but it was also email-capable.  If I was to recommend a multiplayer implementation for a highly complex TBS, email or other file transfer would be it.
Age of Wonders 3 does it pretty well too. You should look that up.
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: Draco18s February 05, 2015, 03:10:03 PM
Age of Wonders 3 does it pretty well too. You should look that up.

Seeing as AoW3 came after AoW2:SM... I'm not surprised. :P
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: GarathJJ February 05, 2015, 03:12:16 PM
Chris,

You don't know me. I've signed up just so I can say this.

I'm one of the few. One of those who really do play co-op multiplayer strategy games. Civ, AI War, the few others in the genre. AI War is the best multiplayer co-op game I have ever played. Playing it that way has given me some of the most fun times I have ever had. I was looking forward to Stars Beyond Reach co-op multiplayer a *lot*, and I am deeply, deeply sad that it won't be there.

But the point of my message is not that I'm sad. It's that I believe you've made the right choice. I thank you deeply for setting out your reasoning in the way you have done, and I agree with it completely. If you can't make the multiplayer experience as fun as the single-player experience, if it would take significant additional effort to develop (and I'm a programmer myself. I *know* that it would), it should not be in the game. I and my friends will do what we've done with other games before - simply fire up a single-player game and a screenshare. My sadness that I won't get co-op multiplayer does not diminish the anticipation I have for this game.

Thankyou for having the dedication to making the best game you possibly can that you make the hard decision.

That is all.

JJ
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: x4000 February 05, 2015, 03:34:56 PM
Hi Chris! Been an Arcen fan since Children of the Neinzul, but I lapsed until just last year. Have had a blast catching up.

It's a shame about multiplayer, but I agree that it's really a mess in 4X games because of variable play speeds. There is a solution of sorts, and it's especially good if you're interested in the social aspect of co-op: Hotseat gaming. Early experiences with HoMM2/3 are still some of my favorite multiplayer memories since I learned how to play just by watching everyone else, got help immediately just by pointing, and spent the turns until mine asking questions or socializing. And when need arose, heckling and chivvying the one who just wouldn't end their turn.

It's not a silver bullet, most of the reason online co-op is popular is that we can't meet up with our friends for a turn around the PC, or console for that matter. Still something worth considering, maybe.

Welcome to the forums!  And thanks for the kind words, too. :)

Hotseat multiplayer is a really interesting idea, actually.  That sort of thing isn't really hard to do; though again we run into problems of people getting bored, etc.  And others not really feeling like it's true multiplayer and thus calling us liars if we say the game has multiplayer on the features list.  I think I prefer the idea of letting everybody just control the one faction all at once.  It's basically like hotseat except anyone can touch it at once.

One thing that I do think this game could be ripe for is succession games (http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php?topic=15174.0).  But that's not really something that needs code.  You can do that with any game, really.

Chris,

You don't know me. I've signed up just so I can say this.

I'm one of the few. One of those who really do play co-op multiplayer strategy games. Civ, AI War, the few others in the genre. AI War is the best multiplayer co-op game I have ever played. Playing it that way has given me some of the most fun times I have ever had. I was looking forward to Stars Beyond Reach co-op multiplayer a *lot*, and I am deeply, deeply sad that it won't be there.

But the point of my message is not that I'm sad. It's that I believe you've made the right choice. I thank you deeply for setting out your reasoning in the way you have done, and I agree with it completely. If you can't make the multiplayer experience as fun as the single-player experience, if it would take significant additional effort to develop (and I'm a programmer myself. I *know* that it would), it should not be in the game. I and my friends will do what we've done with other games before - simply fire up a single-player game and a screenshare. My sadness that I won't get co-op multiplayer does not diminish the anticipation I have for this game.

Thankyou for having the dedication to making the best game you possibly can that you make the hard decision.

That is all.

JJ

Thank you so much for signing up -- it's great to meet you!  I am also one of those who play co-op games, too -- I'm one of the few, too, that I now have to ignore.  It's actually a situation where normally I pretty much don't play any strategy games that I can't play some form of co-op in.  Less so now, but it was that way for a good decade and a half or so.  I want co-op in all games partly for very selfish reasons.

Very cool idea on the screenshare!  That's a pretty fascinating concept.  I'm surprised you can get acceptable framerates on any of the remote machines, though, with any game.

I remember in some of the older games -- Rise of Nations, maybe? -- if multiple players chose the same color, they'd share control of one faction.  Age of Empires II must have done that too, now that I think of it.  That was fun because it let me just absolutely rule the economy and push the limits of efficiency there.  And then I'd be routing troops to one of two front lines that my dad and uncle microed, respectively.

I don't know.  Something like that might be something we do in post-release if there's sufficient traction for the game.  Knock on wood, the traction seems likely at least.  If there's extra programming time at some point prior to release (ha.  ha ha ha. ha.) then maybe earlier, who knows.  Probably that is better spent on polish in the meantime, though.

Anyway, thank you very much for the kind words and the understanding.

Cheers!
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: NickAragua February 05, 2015, 05:24:50 PM
It's cool, I wasn't even aware that multiplayer would exist in this game. I applaud the practicality in the decision making process though.

I loved multiplayer coop in AI War, but it took my friend and I like four months (once a week for three or so hours) from start to "get stuck on second AI homeworld", and we've never tried it again due to the time consumption involved. Also, ditto on Heroes of Might and Magic. Played that hot seat way back in high school. The only thing I remember clearly is one of my friends standing over the current turn taker and saying "NOOMAAAD" in a deep, rumbling voice. Freaked the kid out so bad he almost fell out of his chair. Don't think we ever finished a game, but who cares, it was fun.
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: Zebeast46 February 05, 2015, 05:26:35 PM
I know this is a long shot, but after the game is released is their a possibility that you will add hotseat, just asking since I love to play with my brother and I think {not sure though} that hotseat will be easier to code in.  :D
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: Dominus Arbitrationis February 05, 2015, 06:47:08 PM
I know this is a long shot, but after the game is released is their a possibility that you will add hotseat, just asking since I love to play with my brother and I think {not sure though} that hotseat will be easier to code in.  :D

Based on what Chris said earlier, there does seem to be a possibility of that occurring, or some form of post-release multiplayer that is similar to that. Of course, I could be entirely wrong and it could be completely scrapped (I doubt it), or for sure planned (Also doubt it). Regardless, you can always play it like that locally. :)
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: x4000 February 05, 2015, 07:20:31 PM
Quite cool.  My wife was on board with the everyone-does-one-faction-and-controls-everthing-at-once thing, for her part.  Really doing that and doing hotseat aren't particularly difficult.  For hotseat it's the same as the simultaneous one, except that each player can only control things on specific turn numbers and is otherwise view-only.  So I guess that is some extra, but it's not horrendous.
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: Cyborg February 05, 2015, 07:56:45 PM
An Arcen game without multiplayer? What is this?

Bionic Dues or The Last Federation, I guess. ;)


It all makes sense. Although that part about your customers not using multiplayer for your games is most likely true except for ai war. I think a lot of people play multiplayer ai war. One other side effect of multiplayer is that some people do buy multiple copies for friends and are less likely to do so without it, but maybe not enough to have a big impact right now.


All in all, sounds good.
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: x4000 February 05, 2015, 08:16:39 PM
Oh yeah, I know that customers do use multiplayer -- it's somewhere between 10% to 30% of customers, though, from what data I can tell.  We don't have any direct tracking mechanisms, so this is somewhat inferred from our data and that of Starcraft and so on.  And I'm being overly optimistic with how many people are playing multiplayer in those cases -- I think.

I do hope to solve the issue at some point, but I guess there's a limit to what I can do all at once.  Trying to be too experimental in too many ways too fast led to a lot of problems with past projects, and layoffs in the case of TLF.
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: mrhanman February 05, 2015, 09:26:42 PM
Personally, I rarely play games with others.  When I do, it's never a strategy title, excepting AI Wars (and even that's very rare).

The alone together thing could be interesting, though.  Or maybe something like a trans-dimensional warp disturbance causing a building or event from another player's game falling into your world.

I appreciate the new screens, too.  They're lovely as ever!
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: Alex Heartnet February 05, 2015, 09:50:24 PM
In my testing at the moment, despite all the early-alpha things that either Keith or I need to fix up before we bring in more players (ETA still hopefully the start of March (http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,16891.0.html)), I'm finding that quite fun as it is. The turns are a lot more granular than I expected, which is going to be a big problem for multiplayer, though. That's really the biggest issue I've seen. But the early game is always that way even with Civ, and once diplomacy is integrated (we're working on that now), I think that will change a lot. That will take some substantial balance work, but it's all a numbers game at that point.


To avoid having to wait for others to take their turn, Sword of the Stars has an adjustable time limit for each turn.  Default is no time limit (naturally), but if you really wanted to you could set the time limit to 60 seconds per turn and play a complete speed chess version of the game  :P  (or be more reasonable with 3 minutes/turn but where's the fun in that)

This will no doubt lead to messy poorly planned cities  :P
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: Cinth February 05, 2015, 11:23:00 PM
I'm ok with no multiplayer.
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: Misery February 06, 2015, 02:15:56 AM
Hm, I may as well chime in also, for what little good it'll do.  On both multiplayer in this game, and just in a general sense.

One of the biggest things in there I agree with is:

Keith Pops By: "Multiplayer is always a rat hole ;)"

That's pretty much how I tend to think of multiplayer much of the time.  Which can be... frustrating.  I think my biggest problem with it as a whole is how STALE it can get.  I do fighting games as the genre I'm best at by far, moreso than the shmups.  And that genre NEEDS multiplayer to work; I've not found a single fighting game where the AI isnt dumber than a sack of hammers.  And I need a challenge to hold my interest.  Theoretically, this means multiplayer will give me what I want.  In practice though?  Nope.  Because it just gets so freaking stale, due to how the majority of players treat these games.  They gotta use the BEST combos and characters only.  Which, I point out, are determined by a pile of numbers, not by anything else.  And because of this, nearly all opponents arent really thinking for themselves;  they're just copying what the well-known ones do.  This is amazingly boring to deal with.  And with the fact that they're the "best" ways of doing it, you'd at least think it'd provide a challenge, yeah?  Nope.  Seen those tactics too much, my own screwball ways of playing, despite not being made of numbers, usually win out in the end.   But that sort of opponent will JUST KEEP COMING.  Over and over.  And over.  Each time, it gets easier to beat the character in question.  Yet there remains no deviation.... even against the same opponent again and again, they're so used to the tactic that they didn't even come up with that they dont seem to be able to do anything else.

And that carries on into every genre.  Doesnt matter which one, it's going to be there.  And generally, I get piles of insults thrown at me if I'm not doing things the "right" way, even if I'm winning.  Which just adds to it.

For co-op though, it's even more annoying.   If I dont play the RIGHT way, even if my way of doing things does the trick, nobody will want to team up with me.  That I dont like the "best" tactics and also that they often just dont work for me simply doesnt matter, I get shoved away anyway.  Games like the Monster Hunter series, I've seen this so often.... good luck getting a party going if you arent using exactly the super specific equipment to take down the specific monster you're up against. 

And with turn-based games, those tend to be the sort where the numbers really are very important, though in a GOOD one they'll be balanced out so that there's still a ton of viable ways of doing things.  Yet even so, there'll be that ONE way that everyone tends to do it, co-op or competitive, and if you dont do that, out you go!  After the proper set of insults is thrown at you as required by multiplayer protocol, of course.

And considering that forced multiplayer in games that do not absolutely NEED it tends to take away time/resources that would otherwise go into the basic design, well.... yeah.  You often end up with a good game that could have been a GREAT game.  With Stars here, I sure as heck wouldnt want to see that happen.


Also bad, at least for me, is.... well, this is turn-based.  Turn-based multiplayer is a big no-no for me.  It's possible that you may, perhaps, have noticed that I'm not exactly the most patient individual.  If it's not moving like a greased lightning bolt, I'm probably bored.  So having to freaking WAIT for my opponent/ally to VERY VERY SLOWLY take their turn so that things can continue is super frustrating.  Honestly, I just cant tolerate it.  I've tried it before, and just.... arrrrgh.  It causes me to play the multiplayer only a couple of times, and then never touch it again.  I dont understand at all how people can sit through a multiplayer game of Civ.  Or even worse, one of Paradox's grand strategy games.  And they do it with like, 8 players at once!  I just... I dont even.  Does not compute.  And you're right, the ratio of players that actually DO that is typically very low when considered against the overall community size... and the slowness probably ALSO pushes away even many players that normally like multiplayer games, which just shrinks it that much more.  And all of that then causing time and resource drain on the developers.... ugh.  Really, really dont like the design philosophies that cause the decision to include such a thing in a game that seriously doesnt need it.


So yeah, that's my own thoughts on that.  I can definitely agree with your decision to do this.  Yeah, it'll irritate some, but I think it'll be sooooooo much better off for it.  And an example that I wish devs of other 4X games could learn from.

Good job on the detailed explanation of all of that too, it's interesting to see that decision-making process from the developer's perspective.


....there, I'm done rambling now.  Probably.
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: Captain Jack February 06, 2015, 02:59:04 AM
Oh yeah, I know that customers do use multiplayer -- it's somewhere between 10% to 30% of customers, though, from what data I can tell.  We don't have any direct tracking mechanisms, so this is somewhat inferred from our data and that of Starcraft and so on.  And I'm being overly optimistic with how many people are playing multiplayer in those cases -- I think.

I do hope to solve the issue at some point, but I guess there's a limit to what I can do all at once.  Trying to be too experimental in too many ways too fast led to a lot of problems with past projects, and layoffs in the case of TLF.
Wow, I really have been out of touch, I remember problems after Children, but I'd had no idea that TLF caused problems. If it's any consolation, TLF is fantastic, and is just inches from being the Star Control follow up I've wanted since SC2. Really hoping to see more from you on that front... after SBR has its time in the sun. Speaking of, are you still looking for tech suggestions or ways to affect Ivoria's temperature? I noticed that no one mentioned a real world proposal to cool the planet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization).
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: x4000 February 06, 2015, 08:14:00 AM
There was a postmortem I wrote about TLF back last June, which included a lot of things from across other games between there, too: http://arcengames.com/followup-to-last-years-ai-war-postmortem-now-discussing-bionic-tlf-etc/

Basically it was getting to be super dark days, and then bam TLF was suddenly our hugest hit ever in terms of bulk and speed of sales, even though AI War has sold more over a 6x larger timespan.  But TLF is already 1/3 of the way caught up to AI War after just 1 year instead of 6, so it's doing OK. :)

Still, it was very dark right before that.

And yep, please do make suggestions in the cooling thread, and in the other tech suggestions thread!  I am not being super active in them, sorry about that, but I kind of come and go with unfortunately huge gaps because it requires a lot of mental energy on my part to process them.
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: Nodor February 06, 2015, 03:28:32 PM
Age of Wonders 3 and Civilization 5 & BE get a lot of play with my friends because of their co-op modes - despite those modes generally speaking being terrible and/or less stellar than the single player experience.

We've all logged more than 500 hours of AI War because of it's excellent co-op - I can't really bring myself to play it solo anymore.   

When I am buying games to play with friends or nieces and nephews, I am looking at the strategy category first and then at co-op.  It is not uncommon for me to purchase 5+ copies of a 4x game.

So while I agree that co-op does not sound like a good fit for this game, I strongly dispute that co-op does not drive sales.
 


: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: x4000 February 06, 2015, 03:33:02 PM
I definitely agree that co-op drives sales -- I worded it poorly.  Best as I can tell from data, a tiny minority of sales are driven by co-op.  Aka, sales that would not have happened had co-op been in there.  The rest happen either way.  The tiny portion is still thousands of sales, though.  And obviously, since I'm in the very group that it drives sales for (many were the years where I bought no strategy games I could not play co-op in), I'm a fan of having it in there for the minority who use it.

Hopefully something post-release if this hits if big.  Fingers crossed.  But as I noted, I can't promise anything just yet.
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: Endymion February 07, 2015, 03:31:02 AM
I enjoy playing Civ multiplayer with friends quite a bit but that's probably thanks to being able to spend most of the waiting time talking about stuff.

Hmm, if several players controlling 1 faction might work, how about controlling multiple factions the same way?
Regardless about waiting for other people, since it's co-op, stuff like showing what the person(s) you're waiting for are doing and maybe having some way to indicate what option you'd suggest doing might help a lot(I kind of do this through voice chat in Civ but it's a bit limiting).
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: Captain Jack February 07, 2015, 06:18:25 AM
There was a postmortem I wrote about TLF back last June, which included a lot of things from across other games between there, too: http://arcengames.com/followup-to-last-years-ai-war-postmortem-now-discussing-bionic-tlf-etc/

Basically it was getting to be super dark days, and then bam TLF was suddenly our hugest hit ever in terms of bulk and speed of sales, even though AI War has sold more over a 6x larger timespan.  But TLF is already 1/3 of the way caught up to AI War after just 1 year instead of 6, so it's doing OK. :)

Still, it was very dark right before that.

And yep, please do make suggestions in the cooling thread, and in the other tech suggestions thread!  I am not being super active in them, sorry about that, but I kind of come and go with unfortunately huge gaps because it requires a lot of mental energy on my part to process them.
That's quite the story. Sorry to hear you had trouble but it's good to hear you have a plan going forward. I've got a bit more research to do on the science stuff but I'll throw my collected thoughts up in a day or two.
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: eRe4s3r February 08, 2015, 09:13:50 AM
Mhhh.. I rather play a game designed for SP than for MP ;) Coop in a game that only attaches it on the back with mechanics that are boring is no win whatsoever. And since D:OS I learned my lesson and never Kickstart a game again that has COOP integrated further into gameplay and thus damaging the SP gameplay by design.

Imo the absolute top focus should be to make a SP game that is emergent, that has many things that can happen and shape gameplay and special systems that extend or even create new gameplay possibilities, or that abstract systems in the game to create a proper "end-game" or maybe even a game that has many emergent victory conditions that aren't always the same, but random to some extend. To create interesting story elements that emerge based on player decisions. etc....

My greatest worry for SBR:TWIM is that it has no end-game, and instead is just a "paint the area your color" 4x like CIV:BE (the worst CIV game imo)

The closer SBR:TWIM is to Alpha Centauri and the further away it is from CIV:BE the better. :)
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: Cyborg February 08, 2015, 01:23:08 PM
Beyond Earth has multiple victory conditions. I don't feel like it's a "painting" game. I enjoy it. One of the things about civilization is moving beyond the domination victory condition and trying for the others.
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: Tridus February 08, 2015, 06:34:26 PM
Not gonna lie - I'm disappointed in this news. I understand it, but that doesn't change much. I'm always on the lookout for games to play with my best friend, but this news means Endless Legend probably won't be dislodged for a while (that one replaced Beyond Earth, which just didn't seem to take as many risks to me as EL did).

On a more general note, I play lots of these kind of games coop, and I'm not really sure where so much negativity is coming from in this thread on it. Yes, you do wind up waiting around sometimes. I'm a parent, getting up during multiplayer is a thing. If the game lets my slower playing partner keep going while I have to get up, that's a *feature*. I've got no problem finding fun in it eve with the issues the genre has in MP. Early game is especially lame with all the "next turn because I have nothing to do" nonsense, which is why I'm not sure why more games didn't copy advanced start from Civ IV. That feature was awesome.

Anyway... I'd suggest you not muse too much on the forums about how it might come back later. If the game sells well as single player only, it's going to be pretty difficult to resist forum pressure from that SP only audience (some of which is vocally and militantly anti-multiplayer existing in their games) to add MP back instead of doing more SP only content, and nobody wants someone to buy thinking that MP was "promised" at a later date and then never delivered.
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: eRe4s3r February 08, 2015, 07:50:52 PM
Beyond Earth has multiple victory conditions. I don't feel like it's a "painting" game. I enjoy it. One of the things about civilization is moving beyond the domination victory condition and trying for the others.

Well while you merely have the option to paint the world your color, the AI is doing that as a reason of existence. Forcing you always down the same route. You will always need military superiority to survive the AI on higher levels, because it doesn't like your color once there is no canvas left to paint ;P

That said, I realize Alpha Centauri had the same problems. The AI literally colonizes everything if you let it. To me many 4X games never really got out of that hole, the "Van Gogh" hole, that is. ;) It's come to the point where I don't even look at 4x games anymore, unless the ideas contained within somehow counter the "Van Gogh" effect of gameplay.
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach
: Zebeast46 February 08, 2015, 09:39:07 PM
I found that Civ:BE had a better launch than civ 5, despite the new features in civ 5 like the hex grid and the city states it was buggy at launch with issues like the a.I refusing free stuff (this bug was shown in angry joe's review) and having fewer features than it's previous game (missing religion and decent social and technological victory conditions). Whereas Civ:BE was not buggy at launch and had a few things added to the game from civ 5 and nothing taken away. However, civ 5 with expansions is significantly better than civ beyond earth.
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: x4000 February 09, 2015, 09:10:20 AM
Hmm, if several players controlling 1 faction might work, how about controlling multiple factions the same way?

Could be interesting!  Though then the issues with the interface start creeping in, because if resources are not shared you have to switch huds for each empire, etc.

That's quite the story. Sorry to hear you had trouble but it's good to hear you have a plan going forward. I've got a bit more research to do on the science stuff but I'll throw my collected thoughts up in a day or two.

I appreciate it. :)

And since D:OS I learned my lesson and never Kickstart a game again that has COOP integrated further into gameplay and thus damaging the SP gameplay by design.

Sorry, don't recognize the acronym.  Which game is that?

Imo the absolute top focus should be to make a SP game that is emergent, that has many things that can happen and shape gameplay and special systems that extend or even create new gameplay possibilities, or that abstract systems in the game to create a proper "end-game" or maybe even a game that has many emergent victory conditions that aren't always the same, but random to some extend. To create interesting story elements that emerge based on player decisions. etc....

Yep, I'm very much in agreement in terms of what the primary focus of a game like this should be, regardless of how many players. :)

My greatest worry for SBR:TWIM is that it has no end-game, and instead is just a "paint the area your color" 4x like CIV:BE (the worst CIV game imo)

The closer SBR:TWIM is to Alpha Centauri and the further away it is from CIV:BE the better. :)

I haven't played Civ:BE, so I can't comment.  Honestly it didn't have much appeal.  I've played Civs 1, 4, and 5 extensively, though, and Alpha Centauri a fair bit.

I honestly don't think that you'll have that problem with SBR, heh.  The odds of you militarily conquering everyone are... extremely low.  As the endgame for SBR has been evolving, the interesting thing that has been so far emerging (it needs more testing, though, before I'm sure) is that there are basically "hybrid" victory conditions.  Basically where you're safe from Race A because you have them locked up in economic agreements.  You're safe from Race B because you subjugated them militarily but let them live.  You're safe from C, D, and E because they died from whatever causes (you and others, etc).  And so forth.

There are of course some endgame scenarios that are very singular, like blowing up the planet or escaping the planet, but the others are really coming to feel more mix-and-match at the moment.  There may be some problem with that that isn't yet evident, but it seems like it's a solid thing thus far.  You win not by becoming the world leader per se, but by creating semi-perfect safety from every other race.  Which doesn't just mean turtling like a boss, it doesn't work that way.  You'd still be at risk of all sorts of things then.

Anyway, military is definitely a part of this game, but it's maybe 10% of what is going on, whereas in the Civ games it seems like it is closer to 80%.  I have trouble comparing this to other games because I can't really think of any.

Not gonna lie - I'm disappointed in this news. I understand it, but that doesn't change much. I'm always on the lookout for games to play with my best friend, but this news means Endless Legend probably won't be dislodged for a while (that one replaced Beyond Earth, which just didn't seem to take as many risks to me as EL did).

Yep, sorry about that. :(

Anyway... I'd suggest you not muse too much on the forums about how it might come back later. If the game sells well as single player only, it's going to be pretty difficult to resist forum pressure from that SP only audience (some of which is vocally and militantly anti-multiplayer existing in their games) to add MP back instead of doing more SP only content, and nobody wants someone to buy thinking that MP was "promised" at a later date and then never delivered.

Yeah, you're right on not setting expectations wrongly.  We'll just see how things develop as time passes, I suppose.
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: eRe4s3r February 09, 2015, 09:32:14 AM
And since D:OS I learned my lesson and never Kickstart a game again that has COOP integrated further into gameplay and thus damaging the SP gameplay by design.

Sorry, don't recognize the acronym.  Which game is that?

Divinity: Original Sin ;) 2 player controlled/created characters and half-assed AI personality for them vs companions that were lovingly written. Never before in an RPG have I noticed such a distinct rift between 2 game elements. Imagine you play Mass Effect and you have a 2nd Commander Shephard with no personality whatsoever, and in Dialog you get to talk to yourself (both player controlled characters talk in dialog with dialog choices for BOTH (by default, there are also said mentioned AI personalities for them that basically have pre-selected answers in those COOP specific dialogs). A puppet that you control yourself, devoid of personality or emotional impact. The imo worst way to integrate coop into an RPG ;) Imo it squandered so much potential with that game...


I am really curious about SBR:TWIM though, when you say the game isn't designed around spamming cities/colonies (ie, painting the world/stars/islands your color) then that would be already many times better than any (strategic) 4x that came out recently.

Endless Legends tried to fix it, that I admit, but it also epicly failed to fix the other problem that inevitably crops up when you try to counter colony spam. It made everything a giant chore in end-game.... like most of these games, they have nice concepts early (exploration) and mid game (diplomacy/combat) but when you reach the turning point and you look at the world and it's half the enemy color and half yours with equal military.. well that isn't exactly motivating... just a giant mess to sludge through...
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: Mick February 09, 2015, 10:01:46 AM
when you reach the turning point and you look at the world and it's half the enemy color and half yours with equal military.. well that isn't exactly motivating... just a giant mess to sludge through...

Usually that's how I wish things would end up. In that particular game I've found that I've taken half the world and the AI has barely gotten started. I end up going conquest victory simply because it's more efficient at that point. If the other side was as big, the other victory paths would feel more appealing. When I do alternate victories, I feel like I'm wasting time because I'm just watching a countdown. "OK, I've worked out that I have to press END TURN 25 more times to win.. here we go.."
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: x4000 February 09, 2015, 01:37:18 PM
Divinity: Original Sin ;) 2 player controlled/created characters and half-assed AI personality for them vs companions that were lovingly written.

Oh, my.  That... does not sound like a good description, anyhow.  Thanks for the explanation of what it is.


I am really curious about SBR:TWIM though, when you say the game isn't designed around spamming cities/colonies (ie, painting the world/stars/islands your color) then that would be already many times better than any (strategic) 4x that came out recently.

Cheers, thanks.  I really need to get to the point of putting out some gameplay videos, and will by the end of the month for sure.  There are a lot of things here that make for quality over quantity being encouraged.

Endless Legends tried to fix it, that I admit, but it also epicly failed to fix the other problem that inevitably crops up when you try to counter colony spam. It made everything a giant chore in end-game.... like most of these games, they have nice concepts early (exploration) and mid game (diplomacy/combat) but when you reach the turning point and you look at the world and it's half the enemy color and half yours with equal military.. well that isn't exactly motivating... just a giant mess to sludge through...

Hmm.  Yeah, Keith got me to try that one out just to have another contemporary 4x to compare things to.  I can see why a lot of people love the game, but it didn't get much playtime from me.  I just... well, it felt like a lot of other 4x games to me.  Not derivative or anything, there just wasn't anything to hook me personally.  I'm an odd duck, and a picky guy, as one might presume. ;)
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: eRe4s3r February 10, 2015, 02:04:35 AM
when you reach the turning point and you look at the world and it's half the enemy color and half yours with equal military.. well that isn't exactly motivating... just a giant mess to sludge through...

Usually that's how I wish things would end up. In that particular game I've found that I've taken half the world and the AI has barely gotten started. I end up going conquest victory simply because it's more efficient at that point. If the other side was as big, the other victory paths would feel more appealing. When I do alternate victories, I feel like I'm wasting time because I'm just watching a countdown. "OK, I've worked out that I have to press END TURN 25 more times to win.. here we go.."

Yeah Endless Legends can play out very differently depending on what race the AI has. 5 out of 6 tries the AI will do absolutely STUPID things with city upgrades instead of expanding territory first. And then fail to defend capital properly... AI is always a big problem with 4X games, and I admit the situation I mentioned happened only once to me in Endless Legend. But tons of times in CIV5/CIV4 and especially in Alpha Centauri, where basically had a huge micromanagement war with probe teams and the planet buster on your hands in the end-game.

Either way, I don't mean to say MP is the anti-thesis of a good 4X.. far from it. I mean to say that so far all 4X games were kinda MEH because they had MP and thus cannibalized SP gameplay in order to accommodate "balanced" multiplayer VS gameplay or balanced COOP gameplay. Only way to really explain what I mean is FPS games, where the SP is often absolutely completely utterly different to the MP. Sometimes 2 entirely different games, even. And COOP again, a different game. For each specific gameplay made, specific maps adapted etc. For 4X games I literally never saw such an comparable attempt.

But all that said, to me the worst 4x ever made is still SOTS2.
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: Sounds February 10, 2015, 02:37:54 AM
No Multiplayer? Ah I'm having so many flashbacks to other developers pondering whether to include it. :)

One example; I recall many threads in Stardock's Galactic Civilisation II forums bemoaning the lack of multiplayer. The general response from the developers back then was that adding multiplayer didn't work as a fun game mechanic. As GalCiv II became more popular, and several expansion packs were added, the question was asked many times whether multiplayer should be added. The general response being no. However that's not say that the forums weren't filled with requests for it's inclusion, just that many posts came from a very vocal minority who didn't really represent the core base of players.

What I took from that is you either include it as part of the base release or not at all. The reasoning being that once your core player base is established and the game is released (without multiplayer) my observation is that entrenched thinking starts to set in. If at a later time multiplayer is included in the game, it is generally thought of in the context of "a single player experience game"; unless the multiplayer mechanics are stella and add real fun - otherwise it would rarely be played.

For me I love both types of play experiences. However it really depends on the game and how long I have to play. Multiplay for me is only fun when there's minimal downtime, so if a game has a mix of players some suffering analysis paralysis, etc. the game drags on to long.

AI War is awesome for both play types. The question is whether this would be the case for SBR. AI War being realtime and SBR being turn-based probably don't compare well, but my own gaming time suggests that TBS games are generally a single player experience for me - regardless of whether I could convince a few friends to spend 4hours+ playing multiplayer.


: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: x4000 February 10, 2015, 08:29:44 AM
AI in 4x games is definitely a contentious thing and something that's hard to get right.  In our case here, it's more a matter of making the AI part of the simulation, per se.  The AIs have their own buildings and to some extent their own rules, and some of them don't have to worry about X mechanic that you do, while others have Y new mechanic to worry about that you don't, etc. 

Generally the idea is designing the AI-side mechanics to be inherently AI-friendly, while at the same time as varied as possible so it isn't just a cheapened-down version of the player mechanics.  Instead it's a lot more interesting than if they played the same as you anyway.

@Sounds: Yeah, that all makes a lot of sense.  I know that Civ III did ad multiplayer in one of its later expansions, and I almost bought the game for that reason.  But then I had read some questionable reviews about that aspect, so I just waited and a year or few later Civ IV came out with that feature in from the start.

For me, if I was to include multiplayer as a post-release feature it would be partly for selfish reasons of wanting to play it. ;)  That way even if it didn't drive sales, it would let me play with my dad and my wife.  If I can't have some sort of experience where it is actually FUN to play with them, then I don't see adding multiplayer at all.  Because you're right, at that point the ship has sailed if it's just going to be added for the sake of being a tick-mark on the back of a box.  (I'm not a fan of those tick-marks in general, as you might imagine.)
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: Darloth February 10, 2015, 04:30:43 PM
While I completely understand the technical and business-case reasoning behind these decisions, I'm still a bit disappointed.  I was hoping for another more cooperatively slanted 4X game, especially one that was turn based precisely because of the timing issues inherent with real-time gaming.   

If you can add multiplayer, even as an add on later or restricted to single-empire coop, please do so.  If not, then that's fine and you've got good reasons for it at least.

Offtopic: eRe4s3r, I think your views on D:OS's coop implementation may just be a difference of tastes and opinion compared to mine, but I just wanted to say I actually really liked what they did.  The premise was you're roleplaying both characters, and they actually LET you roleplay both characters if you wanted to - you can have an arguing couple, or a meek follower who only has their own opinion in conversations without the other one, or all sorts.  The main issue is probably the bad initial implementation of the AI personality - if they had actually made some personalities, recorded different responses for every conversation in the game (ideally with some justification for those and not the really basic ones it originally shipped with) and then documented that, it would have been fine.  I was also disappointed with the initial pair of options, but they did add some later.   Plus... it's the only RPG that does support co-op multiplayer truly properly. Ever!

: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: eRe4s3r February 11, 2015, 11:04:34 AM
Offtopic: eRe4s3r, I think your views on D:OS's coop implementation may just be a difference of tastes and opinion compared to mine, but I just wanted to say I actually really liked what they did.  The premise was you're roleplaying both characters, and they actually LET you roleplay both characters if you wanted to - you can have an arguing couple, or a meek follower who only has their own opinion in conversations without the other one, or all sorts.  The main issue is probably the bad initial implementation of the AI personality - if they had actually made some personalities, recorded different responses for every conversation in the game (ideally with some justification for those and not the really basic ones it originally shipped with) and then documented that, it would have been fine.  I was also disappointed with the initial pair of options, but they did add some later.   Plus... it's the only RPG that does support co-op multiplayer truly properly. Ever!

Of course, everything is a matter of subjective perception after all and don't mistake my freeform rant on their implementation for SP as saying that COOP was badly implemented. NO, the contrary is the case, COOP was implemented very well. But at the cost of immersion and design (as well as writing and thematic mood setting) continuity in Single Player... Had I known they would be putting such barebones AI personalities in the game I would never have backed this game. I am not schizophrenic and thus can not roleplay 2 characters at the same time, and worse, having them TALK to each other.... If I wanted to talk with myself I would just do that. And believe me, that is a lot more fun than playing rock paper scissors against myself (I mean.. WHAT was the thought behind that to leave this actually in in SP?) ;p

To be honest, as absurd as that sounds, to me the best solution would have been a simple question at the start of the game "Do you want to control 1 or 2 main characters (Story will adapt to this choice)"

Instead we got preselected dialog choices aka "AI Personalities" and a checkbox that disables "Dual Dialogs"

That is like BG2 asking you in options whether you want play 50% or 100% of the games dialog. Absurd. Horrible design imo. Who puts in a checkbox in a game that disables game content that is integral part of the game.
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: Mick February 11, 2015, 11:24:26 AM
I thought being able to control both sides of the conversation was clever myself...
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: screamingpalm February 11, 2015, 12:48:27 PM
This is good news imho. Not that there won't be multiplayer, but rather that the game has focus and is evident that it wouldn't fit. Feels like too many games try to cater to too many styles these days. I mostly play singleplayer as I would tend to agree with Keith's assessment :D but also play multiplayer on occasion. AoW 3 I feel is actually much more fun as a multiplayer game- Civ and Endless Legend the opposite.
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: Teal_Blue February 11, 2015, 03:34:28 PM

I haven't played Civ:BE, so I can't comment.  Honestly it didn't have much appeal.  I've played Civs 1, 4, and 5 extensively, though, and Alpha Centauri a fair bit.

I honestly don't think that you'll have that problem with SBR, heh.  The odds of you militarily conquering everyone are... extremely low.  As the endgame for SBR has been evolving, the interesting thing that has been so far emerging (it needs more testing, though, before I'm sure) is that there are basically "hybrid" victory conditions.  Basically where you're safe from Race A because you have them locked up in economic agreements.  You're safe from Race B because you subjugated them militarily but let them live.  You're safe from C, D, and E because they died from whatever causes (you and others, etc).  And so forth.

There are of course some endgame scenarios that are very singular, like blowing up the planet or escaping the planet, but the others are really coming to feel more mix-and-match at the moment.  There may be some problem with that that isn't yet evident, but it seems like it's a solid thing thus far.  You win not by becoming the world leader per se, but by creating semi-perfect safety from every other race.  Which doesn't just mean turtling like a boss, it doesn't work that way.  You'd still be at risk of all sorts of things then.

Anyway, military is definitely a part of this game, but it's maybe 10% of what is going on, whereas in the Civ games it seems like it is closer to 80%.  I have trouble comparing this to other games because I can't really think of any.


Ireally like the sound of this, sounds like it will be  alot of fun. I mean up until now, all the games i know of have you commit to one type of strategy and that is taht. It will be interesting to play something where there are several ways to play, and win. 

Thanks forthe  info.
-T

: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: Zebreu February 16, 2015, 01:11:33 PM
I want to add my support for the "control-one-faction" multiplayer idea for an expansion.

I had a lot of fun with games that do that, especially Anno 2070, and it feels much more cooperative (with the on-the-fly division of tasks and communication required).
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: x4000 February 16, 2015, 01:14:50 PM
Ooh, I was all excited about Anno 2070... and then saw u-play.  Dangit!
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: topper February 16, 2015, 03:09:17 PM
I would be really happy with multiplayer that just lets all parties make changes and control the same faction simultaneously over the internet. This is how I prefer coop anyways since this way you are not indirectly competing for the same resources.

If this was added as post release content or an expansion that would be awesome!

A huge perk for this kind of multiplayer would be to have the other players cursor be shown on all players screens and actions described in some kind of history log/ticker.
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: x4000 February 16, 2015, 03:46:22 PM
It's pretty well definitely out of scope for an initial release if we're going to hit our target timeframe, but we'll see after that.
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: Misery February 16, 2015, 11:30:14 PM
Ooh, I was all excited about Anno 2070... and then saw u-play.  Dangit!

For what it's worth, that game turned out to be more than worth the mild annoyance of putting up with u-play.  Absolutely fantastic if you can put up with the learning curve .

And I say "mild annoyance" because I'm also used to tolerating Origin.  U-play is not Origin.  This is a point in it's favor, I'll just say it that way.  Uplay at least is capable of installing things in a SANE way.  I'm not even going to try to explain the things I've had to deal with for Origin.  It is made of sorrow and tragedy.   Uplay at least you only have to deal with for about 15 seconds when starting up the game; the whole mess can be disconnected after that, the game wont care.  It'll NOTICE, but it wont care.  Unless you're playing with someone, but Anno is mostly about it's superb singleplayer stuff.

Seriously though, that game is incredible.  It's one of those "cant recommend it enough" ones.  And considering how negative I typically am, that's very high praise coming from me.
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: eRe4s3r February 17, 2015, 05:29:19 AM
If you do get Anno 2070 + Addon, get the ARRC mod and Annocokie ;) And yeah, I don't care where it's on. But I have had a lot of bad experiences with uPlay and Steam and none with Origin so far.

And you should wait for the next steam sale, because Anno 2070+Addon is always a very good pack deal then.
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: ElOhTeeBee February 17, 2015, 10:40:04 AM
My one experience with Uplay was getting Assassin's Creed 3 free with a video card, and needing to download a crack for it because it refused to let me register it after installing.

Not touching anything Uplay-related again.
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: x4000 February 17, 2015, 11:23:01 AM
My wish would be to play with my wife on Anno, so multiplayer worries me there.  I will probably wait for a few years and I bet they remove the drm.  Or I hope they do.  I have no shortage of games to play, really, so I can afford to be patient. :)
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: Misery February 19, 2015, 04:16:00 AM
If you do get Anno 2070 + Addon, get the ARRC mod and Annocokie ;) And yeah, I don't care where it's on. But I have had a lot of bad experiences with uPlay and Steam and none with Origin so far.

And you should wait for the next steam sale, because Anno 2070+Addon is always a very good pack deal then.

.....it's possible to not have bad experiences with Origin?  What?

Okay, this is basically what happens when I try to ponder that concept:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZ7pUADoo58


Steam though is the main one I dont get; I've been using it pretty much since it's been there, have some damn silly number of games on it, and usually attach every non-Steam game to it for the sake of convenience.   Not once in all these years has it produced an issue, even considering my extreme impulse buying where I buy who knows what at least once a week or so.

Uplay is.... I'm not really sure, actually.  I stuck it on there, it did... something... and I've never dealt with it since.  My entire experience with it is the brief appearance of some sort of blue window for about 5 seconds before Anno loads.  That's really all I see of it.   I just ignore it beyond that point.

I wouldnt expect the requirement to be removed anytime soon.  If anything, Ubisoft itself is actually getting worse.  The next Anno game after 2070 was.... a craptastic dumbed-down freemium browser game.  Just... what.   It's not QUITE on the level of the atrocities that EA did to SimCity, but it's close.  I've just ignored them since.  If I know my big damn stupid corporate-idiot publishers, the Anno series may be outright dead after that, as the damn fools stand around staring into space, wondering what went wrong and why money did not violently burst out of their monitors the moment they published the game.  Just like how EA has been doing that a few times lately.  Ugh.
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: x4000 February 19, 2015, 08:32:03 AM
I wouldnt expect the requirement to be removed anytime soon.

I am patient.  What's a decade between friends? ;)
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: Misery February 19, 2015, 09:26:41 AM
"Patient"?  I know not the meaning of this mysterious word.  I've a hard time waiting 30 seconds for the microwave without throwing something at it. 

And I just realized how far this thread has gotten derailed.   The train didn't just fall off, it sorta pole-vaulted off.

: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: x4000 February 19, 2015, 09:28:19 AM
You know, pole vaulting is really hard.  I did track and field for a year in high school, and I never could get the hang of that.  I was much better suited to tennis and the mile run.

(How's that for furthering the derailment?) ;)
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: Cinth February 19, 2015, 05:00:07 PM
And I just realized how far this thread has gotten derailed.   The train didn't just fall off, it sorta pole-vaulted off.
[/quote
Thread derailment is a way of life around here. 

You know, pole vaulting is really hard.  I did track and field for a year in high school, and I never could get the hang of that.  I was much better suited to tennis and the mile run.

(How's that for furthering the derailment?) ;)
I played soccer my junior year.  We would scrimmage with the track team.  One of our forwards was a sprinter and somehow I ended up his running partner  ::).  Found out I could run a quarter in 56 seconds. 
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: Tridus February 19, 2015, 07:14:55 PM
If you do get Anno 2070 + Addon, get the ARRC mod and Annocokie ;) And yeah, I don't care where it's on. But I have had a lot of bad experiences with uPlay and Steam and none with Origin so far.

And you should wait for the next steam sale, because Anno 2070+Addon is always a very good pack deal then.

.....it's possible to not have bad experiences with Origin?  What?

Okay, this is basically what happens when I try to ponder that concept:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZ7pUADoo58

It is. I had to use it for Dragon Age: Inquisition. Game installed. Game ran. Origin didn't really bug me at all. It seems entirely unnecessary when I already have Steam, but it wasn't any particular burden.

Steam though is the main one I dont get; I've been using it pretty much since it's been there, have some damn silly number of games on it, and usually attach every non-Steam game to it for the sake of convenience.   Not once in all these years has it produced an issue, even considering my extreme impulse buying where I buy who knows what at least once a week or so.

Ditto. Steam offers a lot of value for game developers and even does some nice things for me. Of course, most of those nice things if "if I want to install a game, I know exactly where the installer is".

Uplay is.... I'm not really sure, actually.  I stuck it on there, it did... something... and I've never dealt with it since.  My entire experience with it is the brief appearance of some sort of blue window for about 5 seconds before Anno loads.  That's really all I see of it.   I just ignore it beyond that point.

I wouldnt expect the requirement to be removed anytime soon.  If anything, Ubisoft itself is actually getting worse.  The next Anno game after 2070 was.... a craptastic dumbed-down freemium browser game.  Just... what.   It's not QUITE on the level of the atrocities that EA did to SimCity, but it's close.  I've just ignored them since.  If I know my big damn stupid corporate-idiot publishers, the Anno series may be outright dead after that, as the damn fools stand around staring into space, wondering what went wrong and why money did not violently burst out of their monitors the moment they published the game.  Just like how EA has been doing that a few times lately.  Ugh.

uPlay actually bugged me more than Origin because it feels so much more heavy, but they also sell games that use it on Steam so it's less annoying in that sense. But starting Anno means running it in Steam, which then runs uPlay, which then runs the game... then you get uPlay achievements which let you buy thingies. It wasn't particularly problematic, but it was a minor nuisance in comparison to a game that just runs in Steam.

Then, of course, Blizzard has their own launcher for their games, and I remember a rumored long term plan was to get Activision games in there too (since the platform already exists). That one lets me play a game even if half the patch isn't downloaded yet, so that's kind of cool.
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: eRe4s3r February 19, 2015, 07:38:12 PM
If you do get Anno 2070 + Addon, get the ARRC mod and Annocokie ;) And yeah, I don't care where it's on. But I have had a lot of bad experiences with uPlay and Steam and none with Origin so far.

And you should wait for the next steam sale, because Anno 2070+Addon is always a very good pack deal then.

.....it's possible to not have bad experiences with Origin?  What?


Quite so ;) Bought game on GMG, key was invalid, asked Origin support, got new working key within 2 minutes. ;) That was super nice of them, actually. And I own a lot of games on Origin (Mass Effect, Battlefield's etc.) (of which I bought none directly on Origin, hah)

And uPlay? Let me put it this way. When I click on an desktop link to a game called Anno 2070 what do you think happens? That's right, nothing. The uPlay "launcher" opens, in the Anno 2070 tab, and then you have to click play there which gates you through their slow game auto updater. (And you better hope uPlay doesn't want to update... a nice 260mb download is always fun when you want to PLAY A GAME ;P)

If I had the option I would rid Anno 2070 of uPlay.. but sadly that doesn't work with Annocookie ;P And I'd rather have online features* (ie. offline features only unlocked when you are online)
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: Coppermantis February 19, 2015, 11:53:02 PM
...I like Origin. People hate it for its association with EA, but functionally it's really no different from Steam except for the community features that I really don't care about that much. It launches my games and does a good job of it, which is all I need it to do. And my experience with their customer service has always seen my problems resolved in a timely manner, so I'm not sure where the hate comes from.
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: Misery February 20, 2015, 04:58:17 AM
I dont like it because it's an explosion of glitches.  Heck, some options in the settings are literally ignored by the thing entirely (such as the one that saves installers seperately instead of deleting them).  And the format is annoying, and the "HOLY %*&# EA IS SO GREAT BUY MORE EA GAMES" is annoying, and the selection is absolutely godawful if you dont like FPS games.  I have like, 7 games on there, if that.  I have *completely* exhausted all conceivable purchases I could ever want to make on there.  Been through the entire list.  There's nothing else.  Those bits arent as bad as the glitches and technical problems it makes though.

Customer service I dont care about.  I usually dont deal with it in any of these.  Except in the aggravating, bugtastic case of Battle.Net, which I currently dislike way more than any of the others.  "Oh, sorry, we cant update this game because Flash.  What's that?  What specific Flash-related thing is causing the problem?  Sorry, we havent the foggiest clue. Here's some gibberish for you: #SG(#JG)SHHBVA"  Though I despised that service looooooong before now, it's just that it's managed to hit an even higher level of irritating than before.  If Blizzard's games werent of freakishly high quality and fun as they are, I'd never touch it.  Though I'm still constantly tempted to exorcise the blasted thing from the machine nevertheless.   A temptation I havent given into yet.  I'll have to deal with their customer service soon though one way or another, but I havent had the patience yet.
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: Captain Jack February 20, 2015, 06:38:51 AM
You know, pole vaulting is really hard.  I did track and field for a year in high school, and I never could get the hang of that.  I was much better suited to tennis and the mile run.

(How's that for furthering the derailment?) ;)
I'm a firm believer that a thread is only really begun after at least two threadjackings. (And if we're going to talk about digital distribution platforms, I'll just say that GOG is the absolute best)
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: Zebeast46 February 20, 2015, 08:14:50 AM
Origin is VERY annoying, half the time I cannot even run my free version of Battlefield 3 {Origin had a time where they gave away Battlefield 3 for free!!}.
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: x4000 February 20, 2015, 08:36:10 AM
You know, pole vaulting is really hard.  I did track and field for a year in high school, and I never could get the hang of that.  I was much better suited to tennis and the mile run.

(How's that for furthering the derailment?) ;)
I'm a firm believer that a thread is only really begun after at least two threadjackings. (And if we're going to talk about digital distribution platforms, I'll just say that GOG is the absolute best)

You know, I think that threadjacking might be a better term than derailment.  I don't know.  That way you can say someone is a "threadjacker," which sounds good.  What do you call a "derailer" other than "derailer?"  (Because that doesn't sound cool.)  Hmm.
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: Misery February 20, 2015, 09:15:51 AM
I'm a firm believer that a thread is only really begun after at least two threadjackings.

Certainly true with threads on this forum much of the time, at least  :P

I dont even know what's going on anymore.  The train is off in space now and has turned into a duck or something. 
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: x4000 February 20, 2015, 09:23:40 AM
The most insane thread I've ever seen is this one, I think: https://7daystodie.com/forums/showthread.php?9027-Developer-Diary

17,428 replies over the course of 10 months at this point.  On all manner of topics, often multiple conversations overlapping at once (as with this thread, just magnified a ton).

It's like for some reason an entire subforum has been condensed into one thread.
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: Captain Jack February 20, 2015, 01:10:07 PM
I'm a firm believer that a thread is only really begun after at least two threadjackings. (And if we're going to talk about digital distribution platforms, I'll just say that GOG is the absolute best)

You know, I think that threadjacking might be a better term than derailment.  I don't know.  That way you can say someone is a "threadjacker," which sounds good.  What do you call a "derailer" other than "derailer?"  (Because that doesn't sound cool.)  Hmm.
Yep to both. Language is fun!

The most insane thread I've ever seen is this one, I think: https://7daystodie.com/forums/showthread.php?9027-Developer-Diary

17,428 replies over the course of 10 months at this point.  On all manner of topics, often multiple conversations overlapping at once (as with this thread, just magnified a ton).

It's like for some reason an entire subforum has been condensed into one thread.
On the forum I run we have a general for every subforum, including the general subforum. This hasn't served to prevent threadjacking, but encourage a culture of it, which has led to everything from multi-thread single subject off-topic discussions, to boardwide holy flamewar, to creative writing. Can't say that we've ever had a thread moving that fast last as long, but we've got a bunch that are longer.
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: x4000 February 20, 2015, 01:20:22 PM
Wow, that's quite crazy indeed.  What forums do you manage?
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: Captain Jack February 20, 2015, 01:35:08 PM
Wow, that's quite crazy indeed.  What forums do you manage?
Just an old fanfiction forum. I sort of inherited it after a series of events that belong in a comedy sketch. It's way smaller than it was when I joined as a member, but most of the old guard is around. Great people.

Come to think it, I was introduced to AI War through a friend on the forum who was playing it. :D
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: x4000 February 20, 2015, 01:35:33 PM
Oh cool!  Very nice. :)
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: Captain Jack February 20, 2015, 01:59:34 PM
Oh cool!  Very nice. :)
Sort of conversation stopping though.

If we're going to be off-topic I might as well ask an Arcen related off-topic question: I had a feature suggestion for a future TLF expansion (Rogue planets!), is it better to suggest it on the TLF forum or to Mantis it?
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: x4000 February 20, 2015, 02:00:24 PM
Definitely mantis -- stuff gets remembered on there, whereas stuff in the forums is never seen again unless the thread stays active, heh.
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: Aeson February 20, 2015, 02:09:02 PM
I had a feature suggestion for a future TLF expansion (Rogue planets!), is it better to suggest it on the TLF forum or to Mantis it?
Definitely mantis -- stuff gets remembered on there, whereas stuff in the forums is never seen again unless the thread stays active, heh.
Of course, it also wouldn't hurt to do both. You might see more feedback on your idea from other players if you stick at least a note on the forum with a link to the Mantis and a short description or something like that.
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: x4000 February 20, 2015, 02:09:59 PM
Oh yes, absolutely -- the best discussions are had here.  Linking to said discussions from the mantis post is also fine.  And if interesting ideas come from the discussion, then adding those as comments on the mantis post also never goes wrong.
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: Captain Jack February 20, 2015, 02:22:34 PM
Got it, thanks.
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: x4000 February 20, 2015, 02:22:57 PM
Yep!
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: Aklyon February 20, 2015, 06:47:43 PM
The most insane thread I've ever seen is this one, I think: https://7daystodie.com/forums/showthread.php?9027-Developer-Diary

17,428 replies over the course of 10 months at this point.  On all manner of topics, often multiple conversations overlapping at once (as with this thread, just magnified a ton).

It's like for some reason an entire subforum has been condensed into one thread.
I'd say the most ridiculous thread I've seen would be this one (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=42204.0), which not only occasionally changes thread title entierly (and the OP with it, sometimes), but has accumulated twice as many posts over 6 years as any other thread in the entire forum at 155,954 posts, or 3124 pages at 50/page and an significantly higher amount I'm not going to check at the forum default. Its essentially a subforum of the general forum contained in a single thread.
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: x4000 February 20, 2015, 07:36:27 PM
I... don't even know what that thread is about on the first post.  Wow, that's quite a thread indeed, though.

They do like their mega-threads on that forum, though, that's for sure.  There's one for AI War that is presently 44 pages long: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=41107.0
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: Cinth February 20, 2015, 07:39:47 PM
And from what I've seen it look pretty darn huging epic.

Epic, no, Legendary!  Epics are written about the legendary and mythical. 

I... don't even know what that thread is about on the first post.  Wow, that's quite a thread indeed, though.

They do like their mega-threads on that forum, though, that's for sure.  There's one for AI War that is presently 44 pages long: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=41107.0

And reading just a bit further down, x4000 serving crow.   8)
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: x4000 February 20, 2015, 08:00:55 PM
Ah yeah, I completely forgot about that.  I should have been waaay more civil than I was, honestly.  I was still learning how to have a thicker skin.  I'm still learning.  I cringe a bit seeing how aggressive I came across there.
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: Aklyon February 20, 2015, 08:14:29 PM
I... don't even know what that thread is about on the first post.  Wow, that's quite a thread indeed, though.

They do like their mega-threads on that forum, though, that's for sure.  There's one for AI War that is presently 44 pages long: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=41107.0
The AI War thread (though its not special in this regard, most threads in Other Games can/will be necro'd out of nowhere if someone has a decent reason for it) gets brought back up occasionally, usually when someone just got it from a sale or something.

As for the happy thread, well, the pictures are related to the title and make as much sense as looking at any other post out of context from there. The thread sometimes gets derailed just by determing what the newest title even means :)
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: Cinth February 20, 2015, 08:19:32 PM
Such is life, I guess?  We live and learn as we go.  I did get a good chuckle from your post though. 
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: Captain Jack February 20, 2015, 09:04:18 PM
I... don't even know what that thread is about on the first post.  Wow, that's quite a thread indeed, though.

They do like their mega-threads on that forum, though, that's for sure.  There's one for AI War that is presently 44 pages long: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=41107.0
The short version: Anthropomorphized Japanese WWII battleships.

The long version is that it's  a Japanese browser game sponsored by Japan's conservative party to build interest in Japan's military history in the otaku subculture by trojaning it in the form of sexualized antopomorphic incarnations of WWII battleships. Somehow it's wildly popular.

The internet is weird.  :-[
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: Cinth February 20, 2015, 09:13:13 PM
The internet is Japanese are weird.  :-[

FTFY   ;D

: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: Captain Jack February 20, 2015, 09:18:24 PM
The internet is Japanese are weird.  :-[

FTFY   ;D
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/ca/dd/ff/caddff1c030727d1d01e9b0760cceb2c.jpg)
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: Cinth February 20, 2015, 09:20:37 PM
The internet is Japanese are weird.  :-[

FTFY   ;D
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/ca/dd/ff/caddff1c030727d1d01e9b0760cceb2c.jpg)
LOL  :D
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: x4000 February 20, 2015, 09:57:18 PM
Haha. :)
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: Misery February 20, 2015, 10:05:41 PM
I... don't even know what that thread is about on the first post.  Wow, that's quite a thread indeed, though.

They do like their mega-threads on that forum, though, that's for sure.  There's one for AI War that is presently 44 pages long: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=41107.0
The short version: Anthropomorphized Japanese WWII battleships.

The long version is that it's  a Japanese browser game sponsored by Japan's conservative party to build interest in Japan's military history in the otaku subculture by trojaning it in the form of sexualized antopomorphic incarnations of WWII battleships. Somehow it's wildly popular.

The internet is weird.  :-[

Ah, I recognize that.  It got made into an actual anime, too, which apparently only just started airing.

.....dont ask how or why I know this.  No answer will be forthcoming.
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: Aklyon February 20, 2015, 10:11:21 PM
I... don't even know what that thread is about on the first post.  Wow, that's quite a thread indeed, though.

They do like their mega-threads on that forum, though, that's for sure.  There's one for AI War that is presently 44 pages long: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=41107.0
The short version: Anthropomorphized Japanese WWII battleships.

The long version is that it's  a Japanese browser game sponsored by Japan's conservative party to build interest in Japan's military history in the otaku subculture by trojaning it in the form of sexualized antopomorphic incarnations of WWII battleships. Somehow it's wildly popular.

The internet is weird.  :-[
From that description it sounds like a more fanservicey, more historical but less AIs & possibly-aliens than Arpeggio of Blue Steel (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwENz04T7h4), which was pretty cool on netflix.

...Still weird, but japan is as good at interesting-weird as it is weird-weird, more or less. *shrug*
: Re: No Multiplayer For Stars Beyond Reach.
: Captain Jack February 20, 2015, 10:35:50 PM

Ah, I recognize that.  It got made into an actual anime, too, which apparently only just started airing.

.....dont ask how or why I know this.  No answer will be forthcoming.
I think you just outed yourself.

I... don't even know what that thread is about on the first post.  Wow, that's quite a thread indeed, though.

They do like their mega-threads on that forum, though, that's for sure.  There's one for AI War that is presently 44 pages long: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=41107.0
The short version: Anthropomorphized Japanese WWII battleships.

The long version is that it's  a Japanese browser game sponsored by Japan's conservative party to build interest in Japan's military history in the otaku subculture by trojaning it in the form of sexualized antopomorphic incarnations of WWII battleships. Somehow it's wildly popular.

The internet is weird.  :-[
From that description it sounds like a more fanservicey, more historical but less AIs & possibly-aliens than Arpeggio of Blue Steel (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwENz04T7h4), which was pretty cool on netflix.

...Still weird, but japan is as good at interesting-weird as it is weird-weird, more or less. *shrug*
That's accurate, enough that they did a crossover last year in the game. Kantai Collection comes is ever so slightly racist tho', while Arpeggio (in manga form) seemed like the author was nerding out over WW2 ships. (...And anime girls. Japan, after all.) Don't watch much anime, heard that one was pretty different.