hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them

View Poll Results: Which game mode should be developed first?

Voters
7. You may not vote on this poll
  • Multiplayer Fleet Fights

    5 71.43%
  • Singleplayer Survival

    2 28.57%
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Mutliplayer/Singleplayer Poll

  1. #1

    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    2006
    Posts
    4,815

    Mutliplayer/Singleplayer Poll

    I will soon be approaching a branch in this project, where I can run down two separate development paths. One path would be focusing on single player first, the other would focus on multiplayer first.

    For information:-
    I have always envisaged 3 modes for this game

    1 – Solo survival – A single player mode whereby your challenge is to survive for as long as possible by exploring, fighting and salvaging from wrecks (both those you find and those you create). It would lean heavily on the consumable/fuel system and would involve a complex crew/resource/repair management system, in-game ship modification and NPC opposition. Depending on what funding I can scrape together/ any writer I can find to work for free, it would also incorporate a story and the ability to recruit NPC allies.

    2 – Skirmish – A multiplayer mode allowing fleet fights with a various set of tactical objectives (anything from 'kill everything that moves' to complex invasions of a solar system). It would (obviously) require a multiplayer server and splitting the game into client/server components. The crew/resource/repair management system would be much more simplified and less restrictive and the opposition would be other players. A mission editor would also be on the cards.

    3- Competitive survival – A multiplayer mode whereby your challenge is to survive for as long as possible in an environment similar to (1), but in competition/cooperation with other players. This could be on private servers or on a more public, persistent environment.

    (3) By its nature will always be the last thing I develop. It requires technologies developed for (1) and (2) to be fully realised before I can even start working on it and the scale of the work involved is significant (it could take 6 months to a year for me to set it up solo if I opt for a persistent setting – the underlying networking technology I'm using does support this but it’s a lot of work even for an experienced developer)

    The Options
    Single Player First
    I develop 1 first. This involves setting up a complex crew/repair/resource management system, an AI system and a zone control system that allows me to create an explorable environment. This phase of development would finish up with me allocating funds to recruit a story designer/writer to flesh out the environment and provide some more interesting AI interaction than "pewpewpew" (I can't write dialog for shit)

    Multiplayer First
    I develop 2 first. I disable many of the resource limitations and produce a less complex crew management system, while at the same time adding a networking layer to the game and parcelling off a lot of the game logic into an authoritative server. Game additions will focus on producing an enjoyable fleet-fight environment. This phase of development will end with the creation of a mission editor system, ideally with an easy way to distribute missions and associate the creators name with them.

    So, dems ya options. I estimate a week or so before I need to start on branch-specific development work, so that’s how long the poll will run for.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    3,842
    As a non-developer I would find this a hard call to make. As a big fan of consumer agency I'd vote 2 for the editor. But there are too many variables with limited info here to make a propper analysis. (f.e. How much funds to allocate. How much time do you estimate for each component of one game mode.) What kind of crowd you think values a certain mode. How do you keep them interrested. Or do you plan on not releasing untill its all done?

  3. #3

    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    2006
    Posts
    4,815
    Quote Originally Posted by Torashuu View Post
    As a non-developer I would find this a hard call to make. As a big fan of consumer agency I'd vote 2 for the editor. But there are too many variables with limited info here to make a propper analysis. (f.e. How much funds to allocate. How much time do you estimate for each component of one game mode.) What kind of crowd you think values a certain mode. How do you keep them interrested. Or do you plan on not releasing untill its all done?

    I intend to use an alpha-funding monetisation system, which works well with both an open-ended single player game or a user-configurable multiplayer game (both are valid paths for the constant updates that drive alpha-funding). This will not be starting until a rough version of 1 or 2 is finished and the artwork has been updated to something non terrible. There needs to be an actual game there, for that to start. FHC is getting to dick around with the phase of development that normally happens in private (where devs try to hide it because it looks like arse)

    The nature of alpha-funding means that estimates are problematic. One of the primary selling points of allowing users to 'buy in' at an early point is giving them a chance to modify development paths. As you can see from recent posts here, though I do have a vision of how the game will function I am very open to feedback and modification of that vision when someone comes up with a good idea (case in point - the games shield system).

    I have absolutely no intention of announcing a release date. The game is done when its done. I may hit a point where other games would be considered 'done', but then just carry on adding to the game for the hell of it.

    All I can promise is
    1- If even a single person contributes money, then I won't stop working on it until its done. I have a well-paying day job so I will never be halted by a lack of funding. Alpha funding just results in better quality stuff that I am bad at (art, story, sound etc).
    2- Anyone who tries to pressure me to release the game before it's done will be told to piss off.
    3- I will be up-front about this when(if) I seek funding.

    People will be interested, or they wont. Ultimately I am developing a game that I like. If you think you might like it as well, then jump on board and enjoy the ride. If you think you have something to contribute, then all the better.
    Last edited by Nicholai Pestot; July 31 2013 at 10:48:34 PM.

  4. #4
    dpidcoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 29, 2011
    Location
    San diego
    Posts
    4,908
    I'd go with singleplayer first. The reason being that multiplayer games get most of their re-playability from other players playing. It's too easy to release a great concept that's missing some polish, get reviewed by a youtube celebrity and end up with a massive influx of players, then have them burn out after a week because the game was badly implemented. Since the content depends on other players playing, if you don't retain a critical mass, you enter a death spiral and the servers will be empty pretty fast. (see stellar impact for example of this happening)

    So basically use singleplayer as a practice platform to build some name recognition and give you a chance to respond to a wide base of feedback, then work on a polished multiplayer.
    i heard you're ideas and their definately good

  5. #5
    Synapse's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    3,111
    I don't really play single player games. Nothing a dev develops can be as complex as what other humans facing me will add to the mix.

    Multiplayer is a huge complexity multiplier that adds challenge without needing to add as much code.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    2006
    Posts
    4,815
    Good arguments all round. Plenty to think about.


    Looks like I'm applying the multiplayer sooner rather than later. This is going to take a while* so I expect things to be a bit slow around here for a while.

    I'm going to try to get the artwork updated alongside the multiplayer revision, so it shouldn't look quite so much like arse next time.




    *estimate at least a month

  7. #7
    Super Moderator Global Moderator QuackBot's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 7, 2012
    Posts
    21,074
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholai Pestot View Post


    I intend to use an alpha-funding monetisation system, which works well with both an open-ended single player game or a user-configurable multiplayer game (both are valid paths for the constant updates that drive alpha-funding). This will not be starting until a rough version of 1 or 2 is finished and the artwork has been updated to something non terrible. There needs to be an actual game there, for that to start. FHC is getting to dick around with the phase of development that normally happens in private (where devs try to hide it because it looks like arse)

    The nature of alpha-funding means that estimates are problematic. One of the primary selling points of allowing users to 'buy in' at an early point is giving them a chance to modify development paths. As you can see from recent posts here, though I do have a vision of how the game will function I am very open to feedback and modification of that vision when someone comes up with a good idea (case in point - the games shield system).

    I have absolutely no intention of announcing a release date. The game is done when its done. I may hit a point where other games would be considered 'done', but then just carry on adding to the game for the hell of it.

    All I can promise is
    1- If even a single person contributes money, then I won't stop working on it until its done. I have a well-paying day job so I will never be halted by a lack of funding. Alpha funding just results in better quality stuff that I am bad at (art, story, sound etc).
    2- Anyone who tries to pressure me to release the game before it's done will be told to piss off.
    3- I will be up-front about this when(if) I seek funding.

    People will be interested, or they wont. Ultimately I am developing a game that I like. If you think you might like it as well, then jump on board and enjoy the ride. If you think you have something to contribute, then all the better.
    Or well something.

  8. #8
    Leviathan's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    958
    multiplayer so everyone can be gay in space together.

  9. #9
    Super Moderator Global Moderator QuackBot's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 7, 2012
    Posts
    21,074
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholai Pestot View Post


    I intend to use an alpha-funding monetisation system, which works well with both an open-ended single player game or a user-configurable multiplayer game (both are valid paths for the constant updates that drive alpha-funding). This will not be starting until a rough version of 1 or 2 is finished and the artwork has been updated to something non terrible. There needs to be an actual game there, for that to start. FHC is getting to dick around with the phase of development that normally happens in private (where devs try to hide it because it looks like arse)

    The nature of alpha-funding means that estimates are problematic. One of the primary selling points of allowing users to 'buy in' at an early point is giving them a chance to modify development paths. As you can see from recent posts here, though I do have a vision of how the game will function I am very open to feedback and modification of that vision when someone comes up with a good idea (case in point - the games shield system).

    I have absolutely no intention of announcing a release date. The game is done when its done. I may hit a point where other games would be considered 'done', but then just carry on adding to the game for the hell of it.

    All I can promise is
    1- If even a single person contributes money, then I won't stop working on it until its done. I have a well-paying day job so I will never be halted by a lack of funding. Alpha funding just results in better quality stuff that I am bad at (art, story, sound etc).
    2- Anyone who tries to pressure me to release the game before it's done will be told to piss off.
    3- I will be up-front about this when(if) I seek funding.

    People will be interested, or they wont. Ultimately I am developing a game that I like. If you think you might like it as well, then jump on board and enjoy the ride. If you think you have something to contribute, then all the better.
    Not the system.

  10. #10
    fuck entrox Donor Jason Marshall's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Location
    Civilization
    Posts
    7,942
    I had an idea.


    Escort missions.

    "Sometimes someone just needs to be the OP" -Tellenta Philosopher of our People.

  11. #11
    Synapse's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    3,111
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Marshall View Post
    I had an idea.


    Escort missions.
    Better be escorting other players because nothing is more annoying than escoting or being escorted by NPCs.

  12. #12
    Super Moderator Global Moderator QuackBot's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 7, 2012
    Posts
    21,074
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholai Pestot View Post
    Good arguments all round. Plenty to think about.


    Looks like I'm applying the multiplayer sooner rather than later. This is going to take a while* so I expect things to be a bit slow around here for a while.

    I'm going to try to get the artwork updated alongside the multiplayer revision, so it shouldn't look quite so much like arse next time.




    *estimate at least a month
    Way too much at this.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •