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?
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.
Both; but if I had a choice Both Campaign first then multiplayer added later. Please also add universal option to Iphone version.
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
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.
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.
11 votes for multiplayer vs 20 for campain. when will the voting end rasterman? cant wait to play that game in a epic campain
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.
I think this is really good observation. Rasterman, obviously, I have no clue as to your current sales figures; however, I have to imagine that as a solo developer, your focus must be on driving sales to the masses. For that to happen, the game has to be more accessible to a broader population. That's yet another reason to tackle the campaign mode first. I'm available for further discussion via PM, if desired. --DotComCTO
A multiplayer collaborative game would be nice. Most multiplayer today are only meant for a brief pleasure and nothing really carries a progression point like how most console carry them!
Subtract one from the multiplayer votes and add one to the campaign votes for me please. After reading the comments I'm convinced that a campaign first would be the way to go.
In general, I want a campaign mode; especially since there are so many online games that don't support 3g cellular network play. I have zero interest in "wi-fi only" global online play. I'm speaking to you, Activision and especially Gameloft. However, that is my general consensus. There has never been an amazing, full-featured, blow your mind online game that supports 3g cellular network play and actually works well. Eliminate tried, but, in terms of 3g, failed miserably. Archtype comes the closest, but even Archtype is not what I would consider "full-featured." Specifically speaking, I have no interest in an RTS, regardless of what it has to offer. Options be damned, I hate that genre. Seriously, I fricken hate it.
I've always been more of a fan of campaigns. Multiplayer would be sweet, but I believe a nice long campaign is more enjoyable. Maybe episodic content?
Omg why would people not want multiplayer for lasw?! The game is waaaay too easy and playing online would definitely fix that as the AI sucks and all you do is build air then it's game over
if thats so, rasterman has another investigation to do in the game. i didnt play the game yet. i dont wanna spend money on it, if it doesnt have a campain
Yeah I haven't played it much because I owned the computer on the hardest setting in my second game. No challenge whatsoever. Pretty disappointed actually
