• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

Is it just me or is there no actual game here?

Feb 3, 2014
4
1
15
31
#1
I get it's early access and beta, but one level with a CPU opponent that dies instantly, and a couple sandboxes with a couple easily defeated heroes...seems there should be more.

Even if the hero shrines occasionally summoned new heroes, at least it would be something.

Not that I don't think the core game itself seems awesome so far, there just seems to be little in the way of an actual game. Or am I missing something? I spent a bit on My Little Dungeon, then dug to the shrine, built a bridge to it...waited half an hour and nothing. Is something supposed to happen?
 
Nov 25, 2013
117
48
190
37
Germany
#2
I spent a bit on My Little Dungeon, then dug to the shrine, built a bridge to it...waited half an hour and nothing. Is something supposed to happen?
Hi,

welcome in the forum.
In the sandbox map you have to left-click one of the four separated tiles. The gold-tile gives you instantly full gold and the other three will spawn different enemies out of the shrine.
 
Mar 5, 2013
153
74
220
Brisbane, Australia
#3
The dev team are still focusing on adding and implementing core gameplay features. The elements you seem to be looking for (levels, opponents, storyline etc) will be added later on after the base elements are finished. If you're looking for more enemies to fight you can do as Noxlor pointed out and click on the gold tiles near your dungeon core on 'My Little Dungeon' which will spawn enemy creatures, beasts or empire units depending on which tile you click on.
 
Feb 3, 2014
4
1
15
31
#4
The dev team are still focusing on adding and implementing core gameplay features. The elements you seem to be looking for (levels, opponents, storyline etc) will be added later on after the base elements are finished.
Things to fight pretty much is the "core gameplay feature". Adding the main objective of the game at the end of the development cycle seems pretty silly...without it there isn't really a game.

Clicking the tiles works to spawn them. Is there any way to make them "attack" rather than just run around in circles?
 
Jan 3, 2013
3,241
739
495
31
#5
I get it's early access and beta, but one level with a CPU opponent that dies instantly, and a couple sandboxes with a couple easily defeated heroes...seems there should be more.

Even if the hero shrines occasionally summoned new heroes, at least it would be something.

Not that I don't think the core game itself seems awesome so far, there just seems to be little in the way of an actual game. Or am I missing something? I spent a bit on My Little Dungeon, then dug to the shrine, built a bridge to it...waited half an hour and nothing. Is something supposed to happen?
Currently there's nothing you can do in the game other than play it as a sandbox. There's no opponent AI, nor multiplayer so there's pretty much no challenge you would like to face and enjoy. The best you can do is wait for more updates, though do not expect any sort of challenge anytime soon, only some visual and content update like rooms, spells or other items like traps and doors.
 
Nov 25, 2013
117
48
190
37
Germany
#6
Currently there's nothing you can do in the game other than play it as a sandbox. There's no opponent AI, nor multiplayer so there's pretty much no challenge you would like to face and enjoy. The best you can do is wait for more updates, though do not expect any sort of challenge anytime soon, only some visual and content update like rooms, spells or other items like traps and doors.
But at one point he is right. At a certain state of development the devs should implement some sort of skirmish mode. It is very important to test the accuracy of the CPU AI. I mean not only how the AI is dealing during fight but also how the AI builds it's dungeon and reacts on its opponent.
The best way to test this behavior is by giving us (the community) the ability to play around with a CPU opponent in some type of skirmish mode.
 

Fireeye

Augre
Backer
Dec 30, 2012
1,155
687
515
Ze Germany
#7
But at one point he is right. At a certain state of development the devs should implement some sort of skirmish mode. It is very important to test the accuracy of the CPU AI. I mean not only how the AI is dealing during fight but also how the AI builds it's dungeon and reacts on its opponent.
The best way to test this behavior is by giving us (the community) the ability to play around with a CPU opponent in some type of skirmish mode.
I could imagine that the Devs will first focus on the multiplayer aspect, the reason simply being that developing a fully functional AI requires a lot of resources (read: time). Of course multiplayer will come with its own problems (i. e. connection issues), but at least it will give the players something to do rather than letting them wait for AI opponents to be finished.
 
Jan 3, 2013
3,241
739
495
31
#8
I could imagine that the Devs will first focus on the multiplayer aspect, the reason simply being that developing a fully functional AI requires a lot of resources (read: time). Of course multiplayer will come with its own problems (i. e. connection issues), but at least it will give the players something to do rather than letting them wait for AI opponents to be finished.
Actually focusing on multiplayer aspect will mean the single player aspect is set to even later date. To be honest, with the progress rate we currently have, it would make much sense to make AI than just throw an unstable multiplayer and hope people will play against each other on poorly balanced game.

Better keep adding content and prepare first draft AI that is capable of doing something, like building rooms, digging gold and placing traps and doors.
 

Mozared

Juggernaut
Founder
Feb 17, 2013
1,132
836
520
28
#9
Actually focusing on multiplayer aspect will mean the single player aspect is set to even later date. To be honest, with the progress rate we currently have, it would make much sense to make AI than just throw an unstable multiplayer and hope people will play against each other on poorly balanced game.

Better keep adding content and prepare first draft AI that is capable of doing something, like building rooms, digging gold and placing traps and doors.
I don't get this logic at all.

Assume this: creating a decent AI takes as much time as implementing multiplayer. Regardless of the decision made, the game won't be balanced until actual player versus player matches happen as that is where the balancing needs to happen.

Explain to me again in what way it is better to do an AI first. The only 'gain' would be if we pushed back multiplayer slightly for it just to create some base form of AI. But then we're talking a 2, at most 3 week gain of single-player capabilities with multiplayer being delayed by the same amount. Additionally, since balancing won't happen until multiplayer, you'll be playing a (severely) imbalanced game in singleplayer.

And that's not even mentioning the fact that the game can practically be released with only multiplayer and sandbox out. Sure, it's far from ideal, but past that point, everything is a win: the skirmish AI can be half-finished by release date and it still won't be as big an issue as if, come release date, we'd have a super-slick AI but Multiplayer were only half-finished.
 
Likes: Castigator
Feb 3, 2014
4
1
15
31
#10
And that's not even mentioning the fact that the game can practically be released with only multiplayer and sandbox out. Sure, it's far from ideal, but past that point, everything is a win: the skirmish AI can be half-finished by release date and it still won't be as big an issue as if, come release date, we'd have a super-slick AI but Multiplayer were only half-finished.
The audience for singleplayer games is just higher than the audience for multiplayer only games, especially indie games that don't already have a large base to pull from.

I know I'm personally not really interested in a PvP mode in the slightest.
 

Mozared

Juggernaut
Founder
Feb 17, 2013
1,132
836
520
28
#11
The audience for singleplayer games is just higher than the audience for multiplayer only games, especially indie games that don't already have a large base to pull from.
While finding exact numbers for this may be hard, I actually kind of doubt that? Besides, those that do play a game purely for the singleplayer would end up playing the campaign or sandbox modes, methinks. And since the former of those has been announced to only show up in release, there's no point for people interested solely in a rich singleplayer experience to jump into early access to begin with. Additionally, single-player skirmish has to be balanced off multiplayer initially anyway.

And to illustrate the point you quoted me on: my point was that even with a relatively bad AI it is easy for singleplayer to be fun. If all else fails, there'll be the map editor to jump to so people can create custom scenario's and campaigns. Multiplayer is binary: it's either there and working or not - if it is underdeveloped by the time of release it'll simply end up being a non-existant feature which will not amount to any fun whatsoever.

I'm all for content, but I just don't see any merit whatsoever in rushing to get skirmish up before multiplayer, especially not if it is so easy to flow from multiplayer development into adding a skirmish mode.
 
Likes: Jobs2k
Jan 3, 2013
3,241
739
495
31
#12
Mozared, multiplayer may look lke a better option, but there are many people here who desire to have fun on their own, including me. We either have no time no wish to play online on certainly unstable and not-well balanced yet game where much of features won't be working correctly or may possibly get broken in the middle of the game. Having an ability to play offline means we can have a more relaxed game, allowing us focus more on gameplay itself and not on competition, like on online game. Making even semi-decent AI will be enough to us, especially if map will contain even more AI players, it will give us more options and more goals to pursue than multiplayer.
 
Feb 3, 2014
4
1
15
31
#13
Mozared, multiplayer may look lke a better option, but there are many people here who desire to have fun on their own, including me. We either have no time no wish to play online on certainly unstable and not-well balanced yet game where much of features won't be working correctly or may possibly get broken in the middle of the game. Having an ability to play offline means we can have a more relaxed game, allowing us focus more on gameplay itself and not on competition, like on online game. Making even semi-decent AI will be enough to us, especially if map will contain even more AI players, it will give us more options and more goals to pursue than multiplayer.
It doesn't even need a terribly complex AI.

Make the hero shrine things occasionally spawn heroes that "attack move" towards your heart. Make their stats grow based on time, or spawn more based on time, etc.

Literally a couple hours work in Unity at most. At least it would give people something to do past the 5 minute tutorial.

(At least I assume they are using Unity based on the file structure)
 
Likes: Slichizard

Simburgur

Managing Director
Dev Team
Nov 10, 2011
2,864
1,979
705
26
Brighton, UK
www.twitter.com
#14
It doesn't even need a terribly complex AI.

Make the hero shrine things occasionally spawn heroes that "attack move" towards your heart. Make their stats grow based on time, or spawn more based on time, etc.

Literally a couple hours work in Unity at most. At least it would give people something to do past the 5 minute tutorial.

(At least I assume they are using Unity based on the file structure)
You are right that such a thing would be relatively easy to add on a single map (our internal editor actually already has all of these events), but the issue is that we then have to maintain this, and when we are constantly adding to our editor and map tools, maintaining a 'hacked in' feature such as this just becomes a drag on development. 'My Little Dungeon' was meant to fill this void (and it requires fixing all the time... :) ).

The harder part obviously comes with them actually building a dungeon - that's far more complicated.
 

Fireeye

Augre
Backer
Dec 30, 2012
1,155
687
515
Ze Germany
#15
Also, please keep in mind that the game effectively already has a barebones multiplayer (although you still need to switch to an older version to play). It would be kind of silly to bring the development of it to a grinding halt only to create a barebone AI.
 
Jan 3, 2013
3,241
739
495
31
#16
Also, please keep in mind that the game effectively already has a barebones multiplayer (although you still need to switch to an older version to play). It would be kind of silly to bring the development of it to a grinding halt only to create a barebone AI.
I'm sure it will take lots of time before multiplayer will become solid enough to be an option. Offering something to do while it's being developed would be fair alternative since so far there's really nothing to do in the game.
 

Jobs2k

Skarg
Backer
Dec 29, 2012
390
149
370
Stevenage, England
www.minecraftforum.net
#17
I'm confused as to why people feel that multiplayer will immediately be a "win only" situation.

The moment I knew there was multiplayer option I began checking to see if matches were available and made a thread asking if people were looking to play.
I did this purely to test the feature and the people I managed to start games with all seemed to be following the same idea.
We had some form of chat outside of the game itself (through Steam or VoIP) and were talking about what we were both experiencing. Faceknocker, Aenene and I were really interested in trying to locate anything that helped the Devs fix issues.

The Devs have got a team of alpha testers inside the 'inner-circle' but they also have a large group from here that want to help get that functionality ... functioning.
Just because other games (full release or close to it) are full of win orientated players it doesn't mean that is automatically the case with WFTO, especially at this early stage.

I do understand your theory that people would quite enjoy just sitting back for a few hours in a relaxing single player but it has already been stated, in this thread and others, that the campaign won't be available until after release. This leaves the single player aspect down to My Little Dungeon and some random maps, both of which would be greatly improved by the balancing and testing that would come from multiplayer.

I'm not a developer but the only logical progression I can see at this stage is to work on a functioning mulitplayer. The benefits that will come from it will far outweigh any negatives and the eventual AI will then be using a balanced tool-set. This will mean it should be far more entertaining for people wanting single player.
Doing it the other way round, in my mind, will likely lead to broken and unbalanced gameplay that is constantly in need of tweeking. Then, once all that is finished, multiplayer will reveal that things are still as broken and unbalanced, requiring further tweeking.
Why not get all of it tested under the most challenging situation (multiplayer), then just turn the controls over to a well developed AI?
 
Jan 3, 2013
3,241
739
495
31
#18
I'm confused as to why people feel that multiplayer will immediately be a "win only" situation.

The moment I knew there was multiplayer option I began checking to see if matches were available and made a thread asking if people were looking to play.
I did this purely to test the feature and the people I managed to start games with all seemed to be following the same idea.
We had some form of chat outside of the game itself (through Steam or VoIP) and were talking about what we were both experiencing. Faceknocker, Aenene and I were really interested in trying to locate anything that helped the Devs fix issues.

The Devs have got a team of alpha testers inside the 'inner-circle' but they also have a large group from here that want to help get that functionality ... functioning.
Just because other games (full release or close to it) are full of win orientated players it doesn't mean that is automatically the case with WFTO, especially at this early stage.

I do understand your theory that people would quite enjoy just sitting back for a few hours in a relaxing single player but it has already been stated, in this thread and others, that the campaign won't be available until after release. This leaves the single player aspect down to My Little Dungeon and some random maps, both of which would be greatly improved by the balancing and testing that would come from multiplayer.

I'm not a developer but the only logical progression I can see at this stage is to work on a functioning mulitplayer. The benefits that will come from it will far outweigh any negatives and the eventual AI will then be using a balanced tool-set. This will mean it should be far more entertaining for people wanting single player.
Doing it the other way round, in my mind, will likely lead to broken and unbalanced gameplay that is constantly in need of tweeking. Then, once all that is finished, multiplayer will reveal that things are still as broken and unbalanced, requiring further tweeking.
Why not get all of it tested under the most challenging situation (multiplayer), then just turn the controls over to a well developed AI?
So what about people who don't have time for multiplayer? It may look like multiplayer is best option for testing since more people will be involved but in truth, all sort of connection problems coupled with un-optimized network code and poor balance ( not to mention missing core game mechanics ) will make game simply unplayable. It will be the same MPD mode but with more players involved, where chances that someone gets bugged out will be very high. I'm very sure network code provided in previous build with multiplayer couldn't even handle more than 2 players, thus leaving people with 1v1 maps and honestly, many people here don't like 1v1 maps.

Nobody here asks for a full-fledged campaign with 10+ levels, cinematics and stuff, we only need few maps where we can do Something, not just sit and watch. Between developing multiplayer and AI at this state, with contents present in the game, it would be much wiser to give people few real maps for offline experience, because what we have now can barely be called a ''skirmish''/''mpd'' map, only a sandbox with no real goals.

To sum up - We need a playable map, while waiting for multiplayer.
 
Likes: Noxlor

Jobs2k

Skarg
Backer
Dec 29, 2012
390
149
370
Stevenage, England
www.minecraftforum.net
#19
Well there has been a post saying that there is another MP version due for release. It's quite possible that once that has gone out the Devs might work on some of the lower level/easier implemented ideas that have been put forward here to help out the people that want some SP challenge.

I think it must be a difficult thing to balance time between working on SP and MP content. Maybe the Devs are seeing both sides as valid and then focusing more on whatever area is best for the game at that particular moment? I guess only they really know and I hope there is something to keep us interested during some 'off-line hours' soon. I'm still thinking that MP is more important right now personally. Sorry. :(
 
Dec 14, 2013
93
15
140
57
Portland, Oregon
#20
The audience for singleplayer games is just higher than the audience for multiplayer only games, especially indie games that don't already have a large base to pull from.

I know I'm personally not really interested in a PvP mode in the slightest.
I am another person that has never played multiplayer in any of the games i play. With the combination of no content and the game crashing everytime i try to play what meager content that is there. I have taken the icon off the desktop to wait till 2015 "assuming by the speed of development" till there will be something there to enjoy myself on.
 
Top Bottom