Multiplayer

[VasVadum 1]

This game has a red and a blue team. So, why the lack of multiplayer? I'm sure this'd make an entertaining game for anyone wanting to play against a friend. You can even add other color teams in if you wanted to, like green and purple, and just name them something else. Though the fact that it has 2 teams and no multiplayer is one downer for this game. I'd consider buying it now, but I would definitely buy it if it had multiplayer. even if Multiplayer came as download content sometime in the near future. I have a friend across the street I'd probably be playing against all the time if I could.

I only saw the trailers, I don't remember if it said multiplayer or not but I do know the steam page for it says it's single player only which, is what I have to go with.

[Scepticer 1]

It is not so easy as people might think to implement multiplayer in this game.

First off it is the technical aspect which the devs have pointed out. It is loads of work to convert the game from standalone to a client-server type of game.

Secondly there are a lot of gameplay questions. In its foundation this is a SLOW game strategy game with LONG sessions. How do you make that fun in multi-player? Not many people want to invest several hours playing against another human opponent with the risk of loosing. Not many have a best-best-friend who want to play with you that long. Not many want to play that long with random (often annoying) strangers. And I can't even imagine how this game could be a drop-in-drop-out game like many of the popular FPS's...

How do you balance this type of game? How do you avoid that one player get the upper hand and that the last 2-3 hours is just a long pain until it is over for the other player? How do you avoid the opposite, that tables can turn too quickly? Another issues is carrier vs. carrier battles. As they are today they are kind of pointless if they were between two players, it's just fire away and hope for the best.

I can go on and on about very difficult gameplay problems that has to be overcome to make this a multiplayer game. People seem so caught in the FPS aspect of this game that they tend to forget about the strategic.

I vote NO for the time being. I think the devs should concentrate on releasing bug fixes, minor tweaks and mod capability.

A multiplayer version should be an entirely new game. A sequel or expansion, something paid for is the only realistic option if it should be any good. I really hope this game is successful enough so that a sequel is possible.

Edited October 3, 2012 by Scepticer

[deanolium 1]

From the moddable scripts, it looks like multiplayer was considered, but only for single island actions. That is, for two modes: Deathmatch and Command Center take over. Presumably the second one has one team as the carrier, and one team as the island, with the command center as the objective for the carrier. That could work from a design pov without needing to massively redevelop the game; though it isn't as fun (to me at least) as a full multiplayer multiple island skirmish. Then again, such a mode would be difficult to set up outside of LANs since you would need the two people connected for several hours at a time, so wouldn't be feasible for the majority of players.

[parmenides 11]

dont need multiplayer at all

CC reminds me strongly at Benny Warfare in Arma2 which I play alone

and I would like to get this gameplay enhanced in CC.

Edited October 3, 2012 by Parmenides

[Thygrrr 1]

I think multiplayer is important. In particular, 1v1 multiplayer, 1v1v1v... FFA multiplayer, or coop multiplayer. Adding multiplayer will require extensive changes to the game code that will cause the whole thing to become much cleaner and stable if done carefully enough. However, it's also so much work (I'm afraid) that the chances of multiplayer actually making it into the game are slim, especially if Carrier Command: Gaea Mission doesn't get the love it deserves from the press.

@deanolium: I think the APA carrier could be rewired to work as a player carrier. Or the UEC carrier could be rewired so multiple clones of it exist in the game world. This is, however, the "so much work" part. :)

[Daeion 1]

I don't think this game has a big enough playerbase to warrant the implementation of multiplayer...

Anyways, even if it did have multiplayer, I wouldn't be playing that.

[oniellnz 0]

For me, multiplayer was one of the few things missing from the original. If it can be implemented, it would be great, but I do know it isn't very easy. Just look at B-17 II.

They tried to make it multiplayer and then gave up.

[Guest]

Playing this game in MP would be a great experience, left a vote as well :)

[Serpentras 10]

So Scepticer you dont know Arma and OPF? Do you? And you dont know games like civilization,Shogun 2, Heroes of Might and Magic, Since of a Solar Empire, ... should I go on? There are much more games out with much more consumable time to get the game over. I played with 3 friends Arma2 for 10h with no bio-break, sometimes and why? Because it is huge and complex. CCGM is not so huge and not so complex that make it easy peacy in my eyes when I compare it to your problems who you are see it. Those other games who I write, do that even bigger. Ive played Since of a Solare Empire with those friends for 48h and the game was not over jet. Shogun 2 with one friend over 50h in the same MP campaign. It is the same as you play it in the single player+you have a good mate or a very difficult enemy when you play against the human. And Shogun is round based strategy game with rts battles. When the other player cant fight he must watch and even when they must watch it for 1h and cant do anything else than turn the camera , people play it.

So don't think only because you are not such a player that there are no others out there in the world. And as you see most of the votes for now say the same. Ah and in Arma and OPF you can do nothing for hours because you waiting to strike in the right moment.

Edited October 3, 2012 by Serpentras