★ TouchArcade needs your help. Click here to support us on Patreon.

Do You Want Multiplayer or Campaign? VOTE!

View Poll Results: Do you want multiplayer or campaign mode?
I want multiplayer! 59 47.97%
I want a campaign mode! 64 52.03%
Voters: 123. You may not vote on this poll
09-24-2010, 10:16 AM
#1
Joined: May 2010
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 306
Do You Want Multiplayer or Campaign? VOTE!

The most requested features I get on my RTS game is adding multiplayer and campaign mode, which do you want?

Some things to think about:
You won't always be able to use multiplayer (no net connection).
Campaigns are limited, people usually only play them once.

What are other pros/cons of each?

Developer of RTS Machines at War 3 for iOS, Android, Mac, Windows.
RTS Land Air Sea Warfare for iOS, Android, Mac, Windows.
09-24-2010, 10:35 AM
#2
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 575
make a long campain each level with different tactics to complete the mission. one with boats, one with bases, one with planes, one with a big force but with no base.

Multiplayer is good, but i 100% prefer a campain.
And like i said. I can make a complete storyline and mission overview for you in .txt file.
then you only need to copy and paste it into your game, so to say.
i even put in the ideas to make the level design.
if you want me to do that, just say the word. but i do need your word then, that you'l make the campain. i dont wanna do it for nothing

Maby that will help so you can work on both? Although i never play multiplayer unless its with friends. always campain.

pro's multiplayer:
depends how big it will be. option to play against friends with openfeint, or plus, gamecenter, crystal or whatever would be cool and a big option.

pro's campain:
well...thats why i buy and play those games. i dont care about skirmish or playing against the internet.
i love to follow the storyline, advance through the missions as they get harder and harder, its a real nice challenge. also, each mission usally brings more technology and stronger units so thats cool to!

con's multiplayer:
always pro's online(for me).
need wifi or maby 3g.

con's campain:
as you said, its usally only played once. but as in all games, i only play the campain once, and then leave the game.(unless i can fight with friends) only exeption for me is unreal tournament 2004 for pc.

Last edited by Borgqueenx; 09-24-2010 at 10:48 AM.

09-24-2010, 10:43 AM
#3
Joined: Feb 2009
Location: Washington
Posts: 819
Both; but if I had a choice Both Campaign first then multiplayer added later. Please also add universal option to Iphone version.
09-24-2010, 10:53 AM
#4
Joined: Sep 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 754
I agree, A campaign mode first then add multiplayer down the track sometime.

Sincerely,
Oliver Cooksey
09-24-2010, 12:28 PM
#5
Joined: Jul 2009
Location: California
Posts: 1,257
Send a message via AIM to Outkast1
As with the others, campaign first, multiplayer later.
09-24-2010, 01:17 PM
#6
Joined: Feb 2009
Location: Westchester County, NY
Posts: 471
Of the two, I think a campaign mode is the first thing to tackle. Here's my rationale:

1. A campaign introduces players to the game world, rules, units, etc.

2. To me, a well designed campaign lets players progress in their understanding of the game world by introducing missions of ever increasing challenge and difficulty.

3. Campaigns/missions have goals and objectives that give players a sense of accomplishment, and the motivation to play one more time.

No question that skirmish mode is great and important, too. But I think LASW needs that campaign mode to tie it all together.

Multiplayer is important, but you have to think of the medium you're working in. It's one thing to get extra players for bite-sized gaming, but I personally think LASW requires a greater commitment of time between 2 (or more) players.

There's my 2 cents!



--DotComCTO
09-24-2010, 01:50 PM
#7
Joined: May 2010
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by DotComCTO View Post
Multiplayer is important, but you have to think of the medium you're working in. It's one thing to get extra players for bite-sized gaming, but I personally think LASW requires a greater commitment of time between 2 (or more) players.
A very good point, with how long some games can take (hours) and it being a mobile device there are many things that will frustrate players: battery runs out, signal is lost, grow tired of playing long sessions a small device. If any one of these things happens to any one of the players the game experience is going to be ruined for both. Of course any of these issues are normal, but when you have a gaming sessions stretching hours they are more likely to occur. This is probably the biggest negative yet of multiplayer.

Developer of RTS Machines at War 3 for iOS, Android, Mac, Windows.
RTS Land Air Sea Warfare for iOS, Android, Mac, Windows.
09-25-2010, 05:16 AM
#8
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 238
Campaigns are appreciated by beginners, multiplayer by veterans. I'm involved with the Spring RTS engine, we regularly have newbies getting alienated by the lacking single-player options (most mods only offer multiplayer). When I saw a review of Kernel Panic it seemed the reviewer saw the multiplayer as a secondary feature (although it was the first and most used part of the game).

However be careful when deciding to add multiplayer. I'm not sure how much experience you have with that but netcode for RTSes is a tricky subject even when you have practically no latency, the issue is keeping the game states on the different devices identical. You'll likely want to transfer only the player's commands but the difficulty is that every aspect of the simulation must play out exactly the same on different systems, one random roll that gives a different result will desync the game state and cause trouble. With a fixed hardware platform you probably don't have to worry about rounding errors between different CPU brands but since LASW was designed for SP it might not be set up to be completely deterministic.

For your game, campaigns are better at attracting new players, multiplayer is better at building a community of veteran players.

Oh and when designing a campaign as a form of tutorial make sure it actually teaches RTS play, not just porc-and-crush. Many RTS campaigns make the mistake of telling you "crush these units whenever you feel ready" and while you can grow your forces as much as you want the enemy will not grow or even rebuild his army. That gives a skewed view of the way the game works, players don't learn to manage their resources or appreciate cheaper options, they'll usually tech to the biggest and baddest and crush everything with that. Put enough pressure on the player to make him really consider how he invests his resources and give him the thought processes RTSes involve. A particularly nasty campaign I remember in that respect was Perimeter, the AI was always set to active so it would expand and build up just as you do, if you do that too slowly you'll get overwhelmed.
09-25-2010, 07:49 AM
#9
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 575
11 votes for multiplayer vs 20 for campain.
when will the voting end rasterman?

cant wait to play that game in a epic campain
09-25-2010, 09:08 AM
#10
Joined: May 2010
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDR_11k View Post
Campaigns are appreciated by beginners, multiplayer by veterans. I'm involved with the Spring RTS engine, we regularly have newbies getting alienated by the lacking single-player options (most mods only offer multiplayer). When I saw a review of Kernel Panic it seemed the reviewer saw the multiplayer as a secondary feature (although it was the first and most used part of the game).

However be careful when deciding to add multiplayer. I'm not sure how much experience you have with that but netcode for RTSes is a tricky subject even when you have practically no latency, the issue is keeping the game states on the different devices identical. You'll likely want to transfer only the player's commands but the difficulty is that every aspect of the simulation must play out exactly the same on different systems, one random roll that gives a different result will desync the game state and cause trouble. With a fixed hardware platform you probably don't have to worry about rounding errors between different CPU brands but since LASW was designed for SP it might not be set up to be completely deterministic.

For your game, campaigns are better at attracting new players, multiplayer is better at building a community of veteran players.

Oh and when designing a campaign as a form of tutorial make sure it actually teaches RTS play, not just porc-and-crush. Many RTS campaigns make the mistake of telling you "crush these units whenever you feel ready" and while you can grow your forces as much as you want the enemy will not grow or even rebuild his army. That gives a skewed view of the way the game works, players don't learn to manage their resources or appreciate cheaper options, they'll usually tech to the biggest and baddest and crush everything with that. Put enough pressure on the player to make him really consider how he invests his resources and give him the thought processes RTSes involve. A particularly nasty campaign I remember in that respect was Perimeter, the AI was always set to active so it would expand and build up just as you do, if you do that too slowly you'll get overwhelmed.
Awesome Thanks so much for your advice. I have already done a network game for the PC and networked a commercial application, but I can imagine how much harder a RTS probably is. I can fully understand because of how much work LASW was compared to a 'normal' game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Borgqueenx View Post
11 votes for multiplayer vs 20 for campain.
when will the voting end rasterman? cant wait to play that game in a epic campain

Developer of RTS Machines at War 3 for iOS, Android, Mac, Windows.
RTS Land Air Sea Warfare for iOS, Android, Mac, Windows.