Massive Assault Official Forum
   
It is currently Thu Jul 02, 2020 3:22 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Number of players
PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2004 5:52 am 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2004 1:26 pm
Posts: 821
Karma: 0
I downloaded the demo the other day, and enjoyed getting utterly whooped by the AI on Hard in World War mode (and the replays made it look so easy).

Is two players the maximum, even in multiplayer? I have to say, top of my wish list would be more players, and the ability to have alliances between them.

Oh, and OT. In Back & Forth the Phantom forces invade the right coastline, then seems to stop using its troops there... I was waiting for it to sweep across the top of the map. Why does it do this?

BTW, are the replays of the AI, or the developers?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2004 9:55 am 
Offline
Sea Wolf

Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 8:50 am
Posts: 1443
Karma: 0
multiplayer is just 1v1, atm no-one can think of a workable way to have more people based on the current way of playing. I think the replays are AIs in the demo.

_________________
Have fun, that's an order! If you win even better!!
Clan War Site: http://www.massiveassault.com/clans/nwo/ClanWar/

Dragonshard Fan Site: http://www.rpgplanet.com/dragonshard/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Number of players
PostPosted: Mon Feb 23, 2004 3:35 am 
Offline
Developer

Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 338
Karma: 0

Location: Wargaming.net
Quitch wrote:

BTW, are the replays of the AI, or the developers?



"Anubis Conquest" is a replay of Victor (me) against the A.I.

All the other replays in the final version are between live people


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 24, 2004 5:03 pm 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2004 1:26 pm
Posts: 821
Karma: 0
Which ones the AI?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 24, 2004 5:05 pm 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 3:06 am
Posts: 1338
Karma: 1

Location: USA
Most likely the one that lost :D I know I wouldn't go around posting losses against the AI.... Besides, it would look bad for the head of the MA development to have lost against his own creation!

_________________
Founder of The New World Order, and moderator for the Andromeda Clan War.

NWO website:
http://www.freewebs.com/massiveassault-nwo/index.htm

Clan War website:
http://www.massiveassault.com/clans/nwo/ClanWar


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 24, 2004 5:06 pm 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2004 1:26 pm
Posts: 821
Karma: 0
Yeah, but I kinda want to know BEFORE the end... I'm sure I could guess, but it's interesting to know from the start :P


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 24, 2004 7:51 pm 
Offline
Levy

Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 1:38 pm
Posts: 2
Karma: 0
I would really like to see the ability to have more than one on one. After playing the demo i was hooked and couldnt wait to play a 2 vs AI or 3 person free for all. I was very disapointed when i found it was only a 1v1 multiplayer game. I am also disapointed in the lack of any lan play.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:04 pm 
Offline
Conscript

Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 4:50 pm
Posts: 15
Karma: 0

Location: Seattle
Yeah, I think a third set of skins, to signify something like a neutral enclave or something? I dunno, you can rationalize it however you choose. But make it so you can have three people.

In a TBA I have found that after you get mroe then three people is seems to take FOREVER for your next turn to come around...

_________________
<b>Maelstrom wrote:</b>
<i>I think elegant simplicity is what makes MA so incredible. </i>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 27, 2004 11:57 am 
Offline
Conscript

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 11:40 am
Posts: 7
Karma: 0

Location: US
I believe it would be very intersting as well to have more than a 1-on-1 game type.. i have more than 1 friend that does war games and it would be nice to be able to enjoy a game together..


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 27, 2004 4:28 pm 
Offline
Supreme Marshal
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2003 4:40 pm
Posts: 1980
Karma: 6

Location: Moscow, Russia
Kresh wrote:
I believe it would be very intersting as well to have more than a 1-on-1 game type.. i have more than 1 friend that does war games and it would be nice to be able to enjoy a game together..


You could organize Clan. It is allow you to fight together and help each other by advice.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 27, 2004 6:40 pm 
i dont get how more than 2 people wont work just let each person take their turn i dont see the difficulty. or is there something a lot more complex?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 28, 2004 3:04 am 
Offline
Tough Nut

Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 2:08 am
Posts: 49
Karma: 0
The only problem I could see is with assigning guerilla forces. It could be done with what I was calling a sympathy system. Basically every province would have a preference list indicating a "probable" and "possible" ally. If a province were invaded guerilla's would be controlled by its "probable" ally, unless it were invaded by the force listed as its probable ally, in which case it would side with the "possible" ally instead. This would of course be over-ridden by the secret ally declaration, if it were declared before it was invaded. It'd add a whole layer of depth to initial declaration, as you might want to declare allies that are unsympathetic to you, to avoid being forced to declare them after what could've been your guerillas were already used by some other side. coupled with each person being able to see the initial provinces declared (though not the forces inside) like someone else had suggested, I think it'd make the opening game far more interesting. I had played with a sympathy system not dissimilar to this in a home-brew risk-ish type game. It worked fairly well, but we didn't have any secret allies, and it was whole regions of the board that would join one side or the other, and it cluttered up the board horribly (though that last bit shouldn't pose a problem on a computer game).

Oh, on a totally unrelated note you'd also have to set the borders of the territories to do the little dotted thingie for disputed, but with multiple colors. Uhh I think this last bit makes sense only to me, but I'm too tired to fix it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 28, 2004 9:26 am 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 3:06 am
Posts: 1338
Karma: 1

Location: USA
The multiplayer problem was discussed here as well: http://massiveassault.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=253

Has anyone played a multiplayer game on a turn based game that you have to do the turns in order? Seems like you'd be waiting a very long time for each of your moves! Especially with people in different time zones online. Is it really worth it?

I would think that if they did come out with a multiplayer version you'd see people saying "ooooo, lookee!" and trying out a 4 player game. 4 months later, when they finally finished it, they'd never touch that option again :)

_________________
Founder of The New World Order, and moderator for the Andromeda Clan War.

NWO website:
http://www.freewebs.com/massiveassault-nwo/index.htm

Clan War website:
http://www.massiveassault.com/clans/nwo/ClanWar


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2004 6:53 am 
Offline
Sea Wolf

Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 8:50 am
Posts: 1443
Karma: 0
the only way to play a turn based game with lots of people is to play it simultaneously, but that wuld just be a mess in this game, what makes this game so good is the way you can think about your move. The only way a 3+ player game would work is if everyon can sit down for an entire game in 1 go. But with games wiht more than 2 ppl, if you get all the people before you starting on one of your borders, you'll be lucky to have many units left by the time it got to your turn.

_________________
Have fun, that's an order! If you win even better!!
Clan War Site: http://www.massiveassault.com/clans/nwo/ClanWar/

Dragonshard Fan Site: http://www.rpgplanet.com/dragonshard/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2004 7:24 am 
Offline
Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 2:13 pm
Posts: 77
Karma: 0

Location: Lake Worth, FL
If a third side is created, it could be called neoRussia.
Russia at one point thought it should rule the world. So put them in.

_________________
Strategos

Now harrasable via AIM and MSN messenger!

Fight until you die or drop,
A Force Like Ours is Hard to Stop!
Close your mind to stress and pain,
Fight till You're No Longer Sane!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 05, 2004 8:23 am 
Offline
P.L. Marshal
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 11:14 am
Posts: 1065
Karma: 0
Strategos wrote:
Russia at one point thought it should rule the world. .

total noncence and quite stupid one.this guy knows nothing about Russia and he ii even unable to see difference between USSR and Russia.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 05, 2004 9:45 am 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2004 1:26 pm
Posts: 821
Karma: 0
Read the topic "The enemy within" and it all makes sense :)

Hardly seems like a good argument to me, most countries have, at one time or another, attempted to form larger empires.

_________________
"Massive Assault is a game for those, who like to think. In this game random factor exists without doubt, but it doesn't play a decisive role." - Tiger


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 05, 2004 1:28 pm 
Offline
Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 2:13 pm
Posts: 77
Karma: 0

Location: Lake Worth, FL
So? What makes Mother Russia a bad third character. :roll:
Should we instead add a Neo-Germany or France? :evil:
We need more sides. :-?
Command and Conquer: Generals has a multiple sides ability, why shouldn't we. I think more people would buy it MA if it was added.

But Russia, being a world superpower, should continue in its path.
(Russia isn't as interested in world conquest anymore, but that may change someday.)
A Republic of China could be added. I don't think the U.S.A. should be added because I believe the F.N.U. represents the figure of the U.S.A.
:wink:

_________________
Strategos

Now harrasable via AIM and MSN messenger!

Fight until you die or drop,
A Force Like Ours is Hard to Stop!
Close your mind to stress and pain,
Fight till You're No Longer Sane!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 05, 2004 2:43 pm 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2004 1:26 pm
Posts: 821
Karma: 0
The USSR was a super power which after its decline became *struggles to remember* the CIS or some such. Russia is not a super power and never has been.

_________________
"Massive Assault is a game for those, who like to think. In this game random factor exists without doubt, but it doesn't play a decisive role." - Tiger


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 06, 2004 8:11 am 
Offline
Developer
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 290
Karma: 0

Location: Wargaming.net
Oh, really?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Karma functions powered by Karma MOD © 2007, 2009 m157y