Would you be a more active player with a LIVE MP mode ?

[milazzoson]

Hotseat in FOG is wonderful I hope they never remove it. PBEM on pike and shot was unplayable for me as a hotseat option do to loading screens and replays because we were just staring at the screen lol it didn't last long. Although PBEM for battle academy 2 wasn't as bad because it only had a loading screen and not a replay so it was more like true hotseat.

[JC_von_Preussen]

Just connected this morning to watch the poll participation. Wow that's quite a lot of people here ! Thank you all for sharing your views.

Special thank you for the devs for their participation in the debate too !

[w_michael]

I think that you asked the wrong question if you are looking to encourage Live MP mode. I would never use it, so I would not be more active, but if having a Live MP mode would attract more (and presumably younger) player then I am all for it.

[JC_von_Preussen]

I think that you asked the wrong question if you are looking to encourage Live MP mode. I would never use it, so I would not be more active, but if having a Live MP mode would attract more (and presumably younger) player then I am all for it.

Although I would have agreed with you at first thought, I came to ask the question the way I did because I tried to adopt a more global perspective. I did not want to make a poll where only people in favour of LIVE MP would vote. What would the result mean ? For me ? For the people who agree ? For those who don't ? For the devs ?

I suppose my question here aims at reaching some kind of concencus. Nobody should try to impose his views on the game developments, and one shoudl respect the voice of the many people here who think LIVE MP comes second after more urgent stuffs. This is but another debate though. For the moment, only 1/3rd of the community (which is important already) thinks it would spend more time playing the game if there was an MP mode.

When I started the poll, I already thought there was reasons why there had been no LIVE MP in previous games (it had been very frustrating in P&S) : Devs have to focus on features that the majority asks. Developping LVE MP would be step in the unkown whatsmore...

[gbaby]

Shoot!! Please remove 1 for yes and add 1 to NO, using iPhone and wrong vote button selected and accepted as double press and proceeded on... Sorry, I hate messing this up with stupid finger pecking nonsense. I'm a definite NO.

I would rather have that dev time spent on new DLC's and improving campaign sandbox.

[grumblefish]

I personally wouldn't use it very much. The thing that would have the greatest effect on me is the systray app that tells you when a turn is ready. I don't like having to load up the game just to check if there's something waiting.

[hjc]

I don't like having to load up the game just to check if there's something waiting.

So, you don't get email notification?

[grumblefish]

I don't like having to load up the game just to check if there's something waiting.

So, you don't get email notification?

I don't. I actually consider that a blessing, because I'd hate to just get a constant stream of emails that I have to look for and then delete.

The systray app from the original FOG was a far better system.

[cyrano]

@Pip: Don't say such things if you don't mean them.

You know how much live MP would mean to me.

Not that this matters over-much in the grand scheme, but I'd have to buy at lease three more copies to make sure my full stable of live opponents is supplied.

[MaxDamage]

Live would take too much time at once imo. its just too much microcontrol for a live game.

Take your time and think: this approach is better suited for games with 25 units each one of whom needs to be super babysat. There is no way around it.

[lapdog666]

Live would take too much time at once imo. its just too much microcontrol for a live game.

Take your time and think: this approach is better suited for games with 25 units each one of whom needs to be super babysat. There is no way around it.

its saveable and 99.9% of the time players wont force you to think fast, they ll probably be thinking even when its your turn

[rbodleyscott]

Live would take too much time at once imo. its just too much microcontrol for a live game.

Take your time and think: this approach is better suited for games with 25 units each one of whom needs to be super babysat. There is no way around it.

its saveable and 99.9% of the time players wont force you to think fast, they ll probably be thinking even when its your turn

True, but unless you don't care what you opponent thinks of you, there will be psychological pressure to complete your move as quickly as possible. This might not be a bad thing for some people, but it will be for others.

[MaxDamage]

Live would take too much time at once imo. its just too much microcontrol for a live game.

Take your time and think: this approach is better suited for games with 25 units each one of whom needs to be super babysat. There is no way around it.

its saveable and 99.9% of the time players wont force you to think fast, they ll probably be thinking even when its your turn

been there done that. There s a wonderful fantasy strategy game called dominions. I dropped it because i couldnt handle live micro.

[cyrano]

Besides, if it doesn't work for your particular style of play, that's all well and good, but please know there are some quite eager to see this done. Which, I suppose, is the point of the poll...

[rbodleyscott]

Besides, if it doesn't work for your particular style of play, that's all well and good, but please know there are some quite eager to see this done. Which, I suppose, is the point of the poll...

I was not saying it shouldn't be implemented.

[Cablenexus]

I think the system is perfect to have as many people enjoy the game online since different timezone, time spend on the game etc ect
But there is room for improvement imho.

For example more ways to get notified when turn start, customizable, for example an app that do this for you (Is the Discord channel for this?), or even by a Steam notification should be nice.
Or in the Slitherine main menu before you start the game. Just something I like to see improved for the system in general in the future.

[eddieballgame]

Respectfully disagree on how long it would take to play a live game. I have played numerous "hotseat" games with FoG I & now FoG II. The turn limit, itself, makes the game fairly quick for a live session. If you don't have an hour or two to spare for this particular experience...that is a shame. It is certainly, a lot faster then a non-speed game of Chess or even Go.
Anyways, back to FoG II "live" I get the importance of PBEM, but this game attracts folks from many different backgrounds. The least, of which, include many "old tabletop wargamers". This, beautiful, game is a Godsend for those folks...true "hotseat" for this game is a huge, enjoyable addition.
Facing your opponent ( the enemy ) while watching his armies flee is a blast.

[cyrano]

@RBS: sorry my comment misfired. I was responding to a different post. Thanks very much for looking at this.

[Igorputski]

I could go for a tcp/Ip system of play myself. I miss the quick skirmishes and not having to wait for someone move a week later. I forget what I am doing by then. I know this system can be played back n forth but having to check email every 5 minutes or that notification ding instead of the game just going to my turn is rather tedious and causes loss of immersion.

[MikeC_81]

Kind of a wall of text incoming but here my thoughts on the issue.

First of all an introduction so you know my gaming background and where I am coming from. I am 36 year old who literally grew on computer strategy games. I play a lot of other genres too but I feel I am a strategy gamer at my core. I actually would never have bought FoG2 if it wasn't for the fact that I know several older gentlemen who used to play miniatures gaming systems (old Gamesworkshop systems, then DBA). I recently reconnected with them and one of them was in the FoG beta and since I don't get to go out and play miniature soldiers anymore, I jumped at the chance to play again.

My feelings towards this Live MP mode is that it is probably a waste of time. If the developer has unconstrained resources in time and manpower, then yes, there is no reason not to have that option. However, if such an MP option means that the developer is going to delay additional expansion/DLC content and or pricing it more (the consumer always ends up paying one way or another) then I wouldn't want to bother. Reasoning is as follows if viewed simply as a Quality of Life upgrade for the existing player base.

PBEM while clunky sometimes works just fine. It is also the superior format for a game like this which easily takes up to 10 minutes a turn to play once the first couple of turns pass which usually involves armies closing in on each other. It is the only feasible tournament MP method given the super niche category that historical war games exist in and opponents are drawn from a large number of time zones around the North America (maybe even the world). It is also the most convenient format to play since you never have to schedule in large blocks of time. It just takes too long to play a game of FoG2 for Live MP to be all that effective. There are a lot of units and the 24 turn limit timer gives a lot of time. Live DBA only has 12 units per side making games go fast, even then 3 round DBA tournaments were long affairs. Having completed 3 games so far and have 6 more on the go, I can say that a sit down game is going to take easily 90-120 minutes to play through starting from force selection to final turn.

Historical wargames are a also super niche market. Part of the reason why I stopped playing live with miniatures was because I couldn't be bothered driving hours on end to whatever war gaming convention was around. The Ontario DBA crew for the time I knew was active was maybe 15 people tops spread out over Southern Ontario. So really, when you are asking for Live MP, its likely you are really asking to play with a very small circle of people you already know in a more live setting. Live MP may offer some but certainly not all what an actual sit down session would give. If I had to block off a large part of a weekend day to play turn based strategy games with friends I knew, I would certainly just invite them over or ask to meet up at their place where we can relax and chat in person and maybe have a meal after. The social aspect is important if I am going to block off such a significant portion of time, and Live MP won't do it for me personally. Maybe it would for you. But if that does work for you, simply sitting down using PBEM and pairing it with a nice Skype session or Facetime would be pretty much the same thing no?


The other argument as stated by w_michaels is that Live MP might be a selling point to attract a younger crowd and maybe grow the game. Of that I am super skeptical and the way w_michaels put it in his post, he wasn't exactly sure that it would be a sure thing either. Turn based strategy games are already a niche genre within computer gaming. Not counting the recent explosion of card based strategy games in the PC scene in recent years with titles such as Hearthstone , Gwent, and the granddaddy of them all Magic the Gathering, there is little appetite for turn based online strategy. Historical Wargames are even more of a niche market. Even an exceedingly slick game that is a Game of the Year candidate like XCom 2 with its recently released expansion sees very little multiplayer action. Turn based Games that do get a respectable number of online players like Civilization already have a massive playerbase and even then, most of the action is with players who already know each other and play on private discord or teamspeak servers.

Strategy gamers, especially younger ones, have a ton of option these days. Many products are far slicker, have a higher tempo of play, with a lot more polish than FoG2 has to offer. There are a plethora of real time strategy games like Starcraft 2, Dawn of War 3 if they are looking for fast paced action. Starcraft 2 is still the gold standard for real time strategy. If they are looking for a Real Time Tactics game with a more dynamic experience that Live MP would bring vs a slower PBEM system they already have series dedicated to that with Total War. Rome 2 is aging but serviceable, Shogun 2 is still one of the best Real Time Tactics games out there, and their recent trip into the fantasy genre with Total War Warhammer is a very solid product. Card based strategy games are not wargames by any means but they scratch the same itch so to speak. By their nature they are fast paced with games lasting maybe 10 minutes and the strategy is very deep.

So if you are trying to grow the game, I am not certain that Live MP will be enough of a "feature" to entice them into the community since the game has to be very deep in terms of strategy options AND offer a large enough player pool to start a game at anytime for it to be a relevant option. Not saying that FoG2 isn't a deep strategy game, I haven't played enough to know, but it certainly doesn't have the deep player base. If I was going to spend time to grow the game, I would personally first ensure we have a more robust single player option, cater to those who enjoy history, and give them a good value buy. The single player options available now tick the checkboxes but are certainly not impressive by any means compared to other titles available to gamers out there at a similar price point. I mean the campaigns are pretty bare bones in terms of depth and presentation. Grow the player base and then make Live MP an consideration.