Less focus on AI, more focus on multiplayer...PLEASE!!!!!!!!

That is true, but there is a reason why its happening.

Since beta started there haven't been many obvious changes. We have seen the addition of the single laser tower, a few balance changes, and tracking (although it doesn't work it the latest patch).

A lot of people are wondering when we will see some changes/additions to planet based combat. Uber have occasionally replied with something along the lines of "We know and we are working on it" or "trust us", but we still don't know what anything about any new units. Every patch another group of people get frustrated with the lack content and give up playing or make a frustrated post on the forum.

Saying that there post is unhelpful and unconstructive is fine. But saying that there's no reason to wonder what Uber have been doing is wrong.

Nice speech tullius, you sound like a lobbyist

It's beta and the game costs $60 and you are comparing it too f2p moba games and an established franchise... hilarious.

500,000 (or even 300,000) players online simultaneously is not at all realistic, so please don't use that as a yardstick.

If PA sells a million copies then that would count as a massive success, and if we say that the average player would play for an hour a day then you'd have 40k online at any one time. Tbh this is probably a big overestimation in itself, if PA can get a thousand players online at a time then the community will feel very active. FAF peaks at about 700 and there's never any problem getting a game or finding people to chat with.

I wouldn't say useless. It is definitely not a correct perception.

I would say first off that this is beta and all the multiplayer options just aren't going to be here till release.

That being said, this game is less playable as multi than it is single.

Sadly, this is usually because of balance or broken features. A nuke landing on a perfectly functional and ammo'd antinuke is such a situation that kills "competitive play". The thing they can do to make the most out of multiplayer, isn't anything more than they have been doing, fixing function of gameplay features, and adjusting balance, possibly even adding new units and a better ui, possibly even consolidating assets and optimizing so more people can play fluidly.

People playing during beta do not need to play daily, weekly or monthly in order to continue being a fan and supporter of the game. If there are a few thousand people less playing PA right now as opposed to at the start of beta, who's to say they won't return at release? I think this whole thread is an exercise in over-reaction. The only point in the OP I agree with it that I'd like to see PA become an Esport and I believe it certainly has that potential.

Do you have a way to substantiate your claims?

I dunno maybe you're right, PA is a big game, but I'd still like to see the figures before believing it.

ok, while I'm one to have PvP precede PvAI, I find those words badly chosen, as they are offensive. Sorian's break into the professional world is a hero's tale, and I for one would like for such job openings to continue to exist or I might end up with a pile of useless diplomas.

It was a paraphrased post by Knight from a recent thread. I'll find it soon

That was for some other gas powered games game.

Totally agreed about Sorians break.

It seems as though all that are replying here are discrediting simple math. More players by over a hundred thousand played the beta of games stated by op. Also competitive games have diminished from alpha to beta.

I agree this should be a wake up call.

Maybe he is wrong and ai focus has nothing to do with it. Simultaneously there should be consideration on how to bring a lot more players to this game.

Finally I also agree there should be more focus on the competitive aspect of this good game.

I say good cuz I think op highly over rates game.

Ps

He/she is right this will fall into niche crowd without pvp competition

They did hire more pvp people. The guy they hired to do game balancing, who made a post pre-beta asking the community about rough balance issues, is working on pvp, because the only competitive lackluster in this game is due to game mechanics and balance.

It isn't anything more. If this game had double the units with more diverse roles, and all of them were considered viable to win in some fights and lose in others depending on your enemy's choice of composition, and everything functioned as intended, so game outcomes were based entirely on strategy, and not on anti-nuke malfunctions and factories getting stuck midqueue and unable to build anymore... Then this game currently would have it's place as one of the most attractive game to the competitive rts community and everyone would play it in beta as such.

As is, bugs decide games more than player's interaction with one another. Best thing for competitive love is to fix it to where the game bugs seldom to never decide an outcome of a game. Next best thing is to add a wider array of diverse units so which ones the player chooses to build decides victory or defeat for enemy confrontations. Then, the last thing the game needs for better multiplayer is just ranking, laddering, game types, game rules, galactic war type multigame, but THAT is the last thing and in and of itself means nothing to a game with game deciding bugs and 4 kinds of units you could choose to build.

As far as that goes, we are in beta and all these things are work in progress. At this stage sure bugs influence game, but its still fun to play with the mass armies of the few units you do build, and it's still fun to play against other players or AI. Both have bugs, players might end up with bugs and ragequit because the game short-handed them, and the AI currently cannot build naval except for the commander himself building ocean mexes nor does he attempt to attack orbital units even though they build orbital now. Both are still work in progress.

Have you played the ai? Its better than some human players and its not done yet lol.

If this game was pvp only, i never would have backed it. Sure i play pvp but sometimes id rather play with many others against ai.

I am not sure I agree with what you say about bugs. The player who is better wins the majority of time. If the players are roughly even skill, its whoever adapts and uses the new broken/OP units.

Isn't it just the case that AI can be updated in an iterative fashion, and so one guy pumping out updates is more notable than 20 people slowly making separate components feature complete before implementation? Although I can see why it might make more sense to put those in sooner (e.g. new units) so that the AI can be tweaked for the new features.

@OP
errr... no.

Good AI needs to be there. Many people (myself included) bought this game mostly for single-player experience. Don't ignore needs of everyone else just because of your own.
Besides - I'm sure they constantly work on multiplayer functionalities as well. AI programmers are separate from people working on multiplayer functionalities.

Please do not stop working on the A.I.. its quite important to me and im sure many others.

It's already been pointed out, but rarely is it a choice of one vs. the other. Most software development is developed on parallel tracks. One person focused on AI development has very little to do with others who are working on engine features, new UI, enabling more gameplay modes, etc.

And honestly, a robust AI is one of the best ways for us to automate testing to work on MP quality. It's not always easy to pull 5 people together who are working to do a playtest. A robust AI makes iterating on new features much easier because you know they'll actually test and utilize the same systems a player would.

At the end of the day, if you want good MP, from a development perspective, you want a really good AI. There are probably outliers, but in general, a good AI is incredibly useful on a lot of fronts.

IMO a powerful AI will attract players to the game.

Not everyone plays competitive multiplayer when they first start. Most people's first few games when they install is against AI.

Do you want a crappy AI that they start playing and then immediately win because the AI's smacking it's head against the rock only for the player to go "This is boring" and never play again?

Or do you want the players to come up against an awesome AI, spend an hour or two playing, and then go "That was awesome I want more"?

There are also tons of people who play coop vs. AI. I love those '3 players vs 6 AI' matches. Although with Sorian's AI that will more likely be a '3 players vs 3 AI'

I'm going to concur with Garat, it would actually be much harder for a specialist in AI to drop his current trade and start helping Steve art guy draw stuff. Its not that easy at all.

The AI has recently turned a new leaf in destructive abilities which is completely nice for testing a unit in a none competitive setting. The AI had a lot of minor bugs holding it back but now it has overcome, and it craves player destruction!

Let's say the recent outcry of the forum goers asking for the AI to be toned downable must be downriight awesome for sorian.


On a side note
I wish these forums didn't have constant bickering on stuff not being feature complete or something isn't getting working on because no one is mentioning it.

If your concerned with game direction... Just search the live streams and FAQs and all the buried little secrets to know that they are getting worked on and its iterative. Have some patience.

To play PVP, you need players to join a game that is already created to their liking. But from what I have seen there are games that are not full, and no one joins them, instead, each player creates a new game of the same type. As it is shown here http://puu.sh/5hbjs/ad4f75fe0b.png . on the end no one is playing PVP.