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

Kudos

May 4, 2014
4
0
175
33
#1
Hi guys,

i've bought this game a few months ago simply because it is a succesor to the glorious DK. I wasn't expecting anything at that time and i played a sandbox game knowing it wouldn't work too well. Yesterday i installed the game again and i must admit, i really really like what i am seeing. It has the unique DK feeling to it without being just a copy.

My wishes for the future are a balanced competitive MP (1v1 2v2 3v3). I think the best way to make this game long-lasting is a good MP. A limited (but sufficient) amount of recources and space must force the player to tech in a certain way in order to overcome his counterpart. The creatures should imho have a rock,paper scissors way of their strength against another creature. The player should anticipate the tech of his counterpart in order to make decisions... just my 2 cents...

No matter which way you go, i love you simply for making this game and i can only imagine how much work this must be. Thank you for doing this

cheers

The rally spell should be modified, imho it should be possible to rally different creatures
 

Fireeye

Augre
WFTO Backer
Dec 30, 2012
1,155
689
510
Ze Germany
#2
To be honest, I don't think the game's direction should not be that of of a strongly competitive multiplayer. What made DK I/II very dear to many of the players back in the day was its simulation part - infighting between minions, room efficiency, etc.
I also dislike the idea of having a strong rock-paper-scissors system because, sternly, if I wanted that, I'd play bloody Starcraft/Command & Conquer/ one of the Age of Empires titles (with Age of Mythology getting a HD edition in the near future).
Of course multiplayer requires careful balance, but this should not entail reducing the game to a plain old RTS.
 
Likes: Peetfighter
May 4, 2014
4
0
175
33
#3
i love DK I and II and i play them still today but something i disliked the most about these games was the very weak MP. the setting of this game has imho a great foundation for an awesome MP and the devs shouldn't underestimate a ballanced MP for a long-lasting game and further DLC ...

rock paper scissor is maybe not quite what a iwanted to say. my fav RTS MP was for example company of heroes 1 (dunno if you have played it) its way of combining space and ressources made it the best MP imho. it wasn't plainly about ressources but rather momentum and area domination...
 
Nov 13, 2013
634
257
375
22
#4
Hi Entropy, welcome to the forums :)

The devs have said that they are working on giving the game a fun and balanced multiplayer(though not at the expense of the campaign :p), though they are unsure how many players in a game they will support. They are reasonably sure that they will have 2v2, but they don't know if it will be worth it to include 3v3 or above.

I'm going to agree with fireeye and say that I don't rock/paper/scissors system would work well, and anyway that is not the devs are going in any case. The devs seem to be creating creatures to fulfill certain roles in a balanced force, like being a strong support, being very tanky, having powerful nuking abilities, etc. Personally I like the way the devs are approaching creature role since it makes every creature feel like it has an important purpose beyond "kill this kind of unit" The only "hard-counter" I have seen is the hero (vampire)hunter who is very powerful when fighting undead units.

The game does in fact have a "grouping" system that allows you to assign certain creatures to their own rally flag and rally them separately from the rest of your creatures but it is disabled in the current build because the ui for it is not in yet :).

Hope this helps :)
 
Likes: Noontide

Fireeye

Augre
WFTO Backer
Dec 30, 2012
1,155
689
510
Ze Germany
#6
The competitive multiplayer has been discussed before and not everyone likes that idea for different reasons.
I don't think that people have that much of a problem with the MP being competetive (as in, testing one player's skill against that of the other) and more with the MP being competetive (as in, either following one of a very limited numbers of flavor of the month builds or instantly losing against whatever cheese the opponent may come up with).
 
Likes: Castigator
May 4, 2014
4
0
175
33
#7
The competitive multiplayer has been discussed before and not everyone likes that idea for different reasons.
well if they don't like the MP and they want to stick with the sandbox/simulation it's fine, but not including a competitive MP simply because some others don't like it is a weak argument, let the players decide...

if you look at other games then you will realise that a strong MP favors longivity of its community, combined with the special atmosphere of this game this may become big
 

Fireeye

Augre
WFTO Backer
Dec 30, 2012
1,155
689
510
Ze Germany
#8
well if they don't like the MP and they want to stick with the sandbox/simulation it's fine, but not including a competitive MP simply because some others don't like it is a weak argument, let the players decide...

if you look at other games then you will realise that a strong MP favors longivity of its community, combined with the special atmosphere of this game this may become big
One might still argue that "going big" is not necessarily a good thing. Skyrim has been bought by far more people than Morrowind, but also has been dumbed down to hilarious levels to accommodate said players that would otherwise be found in Cawadooty and similar titles.
 

Peetfighter

Augre
WFTO Founder
Jan 23, 2013
1,527
581
515
27
The Netherlands
www.youtube.com
#9
well if they don't like the MP and they want to stick with the sandbox/simulation it's fine, but not including a competitive MP simply because some others don't like it is a weak argument,
I said they have different reasons, there might be some better arguments in there too.
if you look at other games then you will realise that a strong MP favors longivity of its community, combined with the special atmosphere of this game this may become big
This is very true, but the number of people who only care about performance and winning will also increase, thus creating a community full of that kind of numbnuts.
 

Noontide

Designer / Community Manager
Brightrock Games
Dec 8, 2012
2,173
1,785
665
Brighton, UK
#10
Hi Entropy, welcome to the forums and thank you for your support! I'm glad to hear that you're enjoying our latest update, we've worked hard on it and are extremely proud of the result!

With regards to what you wish to see in the future, especially with multiplayer and balance, we are aiming to create a balanced and fun and challenging experience for Multiplayer games, this is something that we feel DMGs have really missed out on and something we definitely think we can bring to the table. We agree that having a strong multiplayer component helps to foster longevity in communities and in the game's lifespan something we're quite eager to ensure.

With all that said we do not aim for Multiplayer to be an hyper-competitive environment, we want to strike a good balance and focusing too heavily on creating a competitive environment in multiplayer may end up harming singleplayer, something we're not prepared to do. There are many here who love the singleplayer aspect and we want to keep that part of the game fun as well.

In terms of Balancing we are aiming to ensure that there are multiple strategies open to achieve your goal, it's quite right to say that all balance ultimately comes down to Rock-Paper-Scissors but we feel that with the added depth of RPG elements at a unit level helps to keep this more in flux and not simply come down to A beats B under all circumstances, though some units are extremely strong in certain circmunstances. I.E. The Succubus is a master at locking down and dealing heavy damage to units that are on their own.

The rally spell should be modified, imho it should be possible to rally different creatures
This is actually already in the game and if you load up the previous version on steam you can see it working. With Rally it is possible to assign units to groups, each of which has their own rally flag. We are currently reworking this system slightly and developing a UI that will allow more fluid assignment and control of unit groups.

Now for some of the other posts in here:

One might still argue that "going big" is not necessarily a good thing. Skyrim has been bought by far more people than Morrowind, but also has been dumbed down to hilarious levels to accommodate said players that would otherwise be found in Cawadooty and similar titles.
Personally not sure this applies here, everything we've done so far has primarily been to add depth to the DMG tropes :)

This is very true, but the number of people who only care about performance and winning will also increase, thus creating a community full of that kind of numbnuts.
Regardless of what kinds of people are attracting I know that this community will accept them with open arms, if we find that the tastes and needs of people differ then we can add more forums such as a competitive multiplayer discussion forum. But all that's considerations for the future, lets see where we go first.

Hope this addressed your concerns,

Lee
 

Mozared

Juggernaut
WFTO Founder
Feb 17, 2013
1,132
836
525
30
#11
In regards to the 'competitive hating', imagine this for a second: you can play WFTO's story in the campaign, do whatever you like in the Sandbox mode and goof around with your friends online. Now imagine that aside from this, you could also watch streams of pro players playing the very same game at a very high level and see what tactics and strategies they use and apply. How awesome is that?! Why would you not want this?

Is it because you can't handle losing ladder matches because you take 10 minutes to build a perfect looking dungeon and then get beaten by people actually trying to win, or is there actually something substantive involved? I don't want to offend people, but be honest to yourself, and then to us.
 
Likes: Castigator

Fireeye

Augre
WFTO Backer
Dec 30, 2012
1,155
689
510
Ze Germany
#12
In regards to the 'competitive hating', imagine this for a second: you can play WFTO's story in the campaign, do whatever you like in the Sandbox mode and goof around with your friends online. Now imagine that aside from this, you could also watch streams of pro players playing the very same game at a very high level and see what tactics and strategies they use and apply. How awesome is that?! Why would you not want this?

Is it because you can't handle losing ladder matches because you take 10 minutes to build a perfect looking dungeon and then get beaten by people actually trying to win, or is there actually something substantive involved? I don't want to offend people, but be honest to yourself, and then to us.
First off, I find it very nice of you to imply that those people who oppose the idea of a hardcore competitive mode simply are butthurt about losing multiplayer games. Ad hominem always is very useful to prove your point.

That being said, my problem with the entire "competetive" and "esports" thing is three-fold:
1). If MP becomes truly competitive, then the game is very likely to be streamlined into a pure RTS, because simulation elements (creatures infighting, chance-based elements, etc.) would simply annoy players whose literally only goal is to destroy the enemy dungeon core. It would be very unlikely that our esteemed devs would add basic gameplay features that would work in SP only and would have to be removed for MP, and the same holds true for mechanics that would be balanced for SP but could lead to imbalance in the MP.
2.) Competetive MPs, especially if they ascend to the title of "E-Sports" have the unnerving tendency of turning entire communities into cesspits full of arseholes. Playing a MOBA, for instance, many players will waste no time to inform you that they, and they alone, are the only thing keeping the team alive, and that all others arguably are lobotomites who should follow the direct orders of said players without backtalk. The problem being that all other players on the same team think the exactly same thing. Cue to incomprehensible screaming and tears on the forum.
3) Regarding the pro-players: Yes, I definitely will look forward to seeing players using one of five potential strategies that only change when the devs bring out a balance patch. Remind me, how long did that one SC II Intel World Championship Match took again? 45 mins when peopl expect at least two hours? As far as I recall, both opponents (Koreans, naturally) literally tried to cheese their way to victory, simply because they are "people actually trying to win". The same thing would happen to the players - you would stop giving a damn about the game itself so long as you win. If you win, the game's good. If you lose, the game's bad. And frankly, I'd be happy not to see the WftO community degenerate into such persons.
 

Nutter

Frost Weaver
WFTO Founder
Jan 19, 2013
2,453
1,094
610
30
Huddersfield, UK
nutter666.tumblr.com
#13
First off, I find it very nice of you to imply that those people who oppose the idea of a hardcore competitive mode simply are butthurt about losing multiplayer games. Ad hominem always is very useful to prove your point.

That being said, my problem with the entire "competetive" and "esports" thing is three-fold:
1). If MP becomes truly competitive, then the game is very likely to be streamlined into a pure RTS, because simulation elements (creatures infighting, chance-based elements, etc.) would simply annoy players whose literally only goal is to destroy the enemy dungeon core. It would be very unlikely that our esteemed devs would add basic gameplay features that would work in SP only and would have to be removed for MP, and the same holds true for mechanics that would be balanced for SP but could lead to imbalance in the MP.
2.) Competetive MPs, especially if they ascend to the title of "E-Sports" have the unnerving tendency of turning entire communities into cesspits full of arseholes. Playing a MOBA, for instance, many players will waste no time to inform you that they, and they alone, are the only thing keeping the team alive, and that all others arguably are lobotomites who should follow the direct orders of said players without backtalk. The problem being that all other players on the same team think the exactly same thing. Cue to incomprehensible screaming and tears on the forum.
3) Regarding the pro-players: Yes, I definitely will look forward to seeing players using one of five potential strategies that only change when the devs bring out a balance patch. Remind me, how long did that one SC II Intel World Championship Match took again? 45 mins when peopl expect at least two hours? As far as I recall, both opponents (Koreans, naturally) literally tried to cheese their way to victory, simply because they are "people actually trying to win". The same thing would happen to the players - you would stop giving a damn about the game itself so long as you win. If you win, the game's good. If you lose, the game's bad. And frankly, I'd be happy not to see the WftO community degenerate into such persons.
I think what Moz was getting at is, if you don't like Competitive MP, don't play it.. doesn't mean the option can't be there for people who do like. If you are going to play competitive MP then you have to realise that means people are playing to win.. not to make pretty dungeons.
 
Last edited:

Mozared

Juggernaut
WFTO Founder
Feb 17, 2013
1,132
836
525
30
#14
First off, I find it very nice of you to imply that those people who oppose the idea of a hardcore competitive mode simply are butthurt about losing multiplayer games. Ad hominem always is very useful to prove your point.
It's not an ad hominem, it's called genuine pondering. Having (still) not seen any good arguments against a competitive multiplayer element and keeping in mind that all the veterans of this genre hail from a time where everybody enjoyed taking hours to set up a perfect dungeon and playing around with the simulator aspect of the game, ask yourself which is more likely: that people complaining about competitive multiplayer need to do some soul-searching or that there are actually some worthwhile arguments in the position?

With regard to your arguments: all three of these are strawmen that miss the point, which is exactly what I'm trying to illustrate.

1). If MP becomes truly competitive, then the game is very likely to be streamlined into a pure RTS, because simulation elements
What on earth are you basing this on? I see no reason why a competitive multiplayer game cannot have simulation aspects. As long as they apply equally to both players, they'll be balanced for multiplayer as well as singleplayer.

2.) Competetive MPs, especially if they ascend to the title of "E-Sports" have the unnerving tendency of turning entire communities into cesspits full of arseholes. Playing a MOBA, for instance, many players will waste no time to inform you that they, and they alone, are the only thing keeping the team alive, and that all others arguably are lobotomites who should follow the direct orders of said players without backtalk. The problem being that all other players on the same team think the exactly same thing. Cue to incomprehensible screaming and tears on the forum.
Yes, and apparently people who play video games shoot up schools. Literally the only cases that would speak for this point are LoL and HoN, and I don't think that is much of a benchmark to judge every future game by. The StarCraft 2 community, for instance, was always pretty fine, or at least no worse than that of StarCraft 1 or even WarCraft 3. I think what you're worrying about is the fact that everything that becomes big attracts more participants who get more and more out of touch with the spirit of 'the thing' and end up 'dumbing down' the community. But this happens to literally everything, from Dungeons & Dragons to music genres to internet websites. Does that mean we should stop making any of those as good as we possibly can, just to ensure the audience always remains niche? The problem in this is with the people, not with the game.

3) Regarding the pro-players: Yes, I definitely will look forward to seeing players using one of five potential strategies that only change when the devs bring out a balance patch. Remind me, how long did that one SC II Intel World Championship Match took again? 45 mins when peopl expect at least two hours? As far as I recall, both opponents (Koreans, naturally) literally tried to cheese their way to victory, simply because they are "people actually trying to win". The same thing would happen to the players - you would stop giving a damn about the game itself so long as you win. If you win, the game's good. If you lose, the game's bad. And frankly, I'd be happy not to see the WftO community degenerate into such persons.
What exactly is your point here? That there is one game that has a boring pro scene (arguably, even - personally, I don't think you know what you're talking about - but that aside) and that thus the existence of a pro scene will lead any newly developed game instantly into stale gameplay?

I'll repeat two things I said earlier:
1) All these arguments depart from the point that the game should omit features because players can, forgive my language, cock them up.
2) Thus, all these arguments are straw men. I could discuss them endlessly, but neither of them are really arguments against having a certain feature in a game. Unless of course you want to uphold the point I just mentioned.

Really, it all boils down to what Nutter said in the end: if you don't like competitive multiplayer, then don't play it. If you don't want to use 'one of five potential strategies' (or are too blind to see that there are more), then play any of the other modes. Heck, I know that's what I'll be doing. Just... don't try and dictate a game based on your vaguely argumented stance of "if I cannot be competitive, no one can!", and then get offended if someone calls you out on it. I hate looking down on people and never like doing so, but until I see arguments against a certain feature that actually pertain to the development of the game instead of the ways 'in which the people around it may develop' I will question the motives and feelings of people clinging to that point of view. 99% of the time, silently, but sometimes vocally. If you consider this an insult, then so be it... I can't please everyone.
 
Last edited:

Peetfighter

Augre
WFTO Founder
Jan 23, 2013
1,527
581
515
27
The Netherlands
www.youtube.com
#15
if you don't like competitive multiplayer, then don't play it.
But what if Competitive Multiplayer is the only kind of multiplayer? If there is going to be Competitive Multiplayer, I think multiplayer should be split into Competitive and Casual at least. Hopefully that would please everyone who is concerned about this. (Also keeping in mind Noontides idea of a separate forum for competitors.)
 

Mozared

Juggernaut
WFTO Founder
Feb 17, 2013
1,132
836
525
30
#16
But what if Competitive Multiplayer is the only kind of multiplayer?
[Bane Voice]When it is done, when competitive multiplayer is the only kind of multiplayer... then you have my permission to whine[/Bane Voice]

In all seriousness, that would be a valid complaint if it were the case. But it isn't. I'm pretty sure that the game will have custom multiplayer matches first (so you can join your friends or create a game with a title indicating you want to play a specific style), and then possibly also matchmaking and a ladder. If this hasn't been confirmed, I'm confirming it now - if Simburgur disagrees I will go to his house and flip all of his tables.
 
Likes: Peetfighter

Nutter

Frost Weaver
WFTO Founder
Jan 19, 2013
2,453
1,094
610
30
Huddersfield, UK
nutter666.tumblr.com
#17
But what if Competitive Multiplayer is the only kind of multiplayer? If there is going to be Competitive Multiplayer, I think multiplayer should be split into Competitive and Casual at least. Hopefully that would please everyone who is concerned about this. (Also keeping in mind Noontides idea of a separate forum for competitors.)
And what would this "Casual Multiplayer" consist of? Unless it's a dungeon beauty contest or you're working together against a common enemy, then you're still competing at the end of the day so it's still competitive. I don't see how Casual will differ from competitive at the moment.
 

Peetfighter

Augre
WFTO Founder
Jan 23, 2013
1,527
581
515
27
The Netherlands
www.youtube.com
#18
And what would this "Casual Multiplayer" consist of? Unless it's a dungeon beauty contest or you're working together against a common enemy, then you're still competing at the end of the day so it's still competitive. I don't see how Casual will differ from competitive at the moment.
I don't think there will be much difference between Casual and Competitive. In fact, I took the idea from Counter Strike: Global Offensive since that is the only E-sports game I play and it doesn't differ much from each other there.
I don't care if there will be difference in gameplay or not, It's just for the sake of splitting the competitors from the new people/people who play for fun.
 

Mozared

Juggernaut
WFTO Founder
Feb 17, 2013
1,132
836
525
30
#19
I could actually argue that all that's needed is one ladder: if you lose a couple of placement matches you'd end up in the WFTO equivalent of StarCraft 2's Bronze League, where you can still goof around and do whatever you want without losing to the really good players. However, since I'm sure custom games are in as well, this is even a moot point.
 

Noontide

Designer / Community Manager
Brightrock Games
Dec 8, 2012
2,173
1,785
665
Brighton, UK
#20
Is it because you can't handle losing ladder matches because you take 10 minutes to build a perfect looking dungeon and then get beaten by people actually trying to win, or is there actually something substantive involved? I don't want to offend people, but be honest to yourself, and then to us.
First off, I find it very nice of you to imply that those people who oppose the idea of a hardcore competitive mode simply are butthurt about losing multiplayer games. Ad hominem always is very useful to prove your point.
I don't believe that Moz was trying to bring your character into question or insult you though I do agree that the above can be interpreted like that. Genuine pondering as you put it Moz would have avoided the specific usage of you, yourself or anything involving the person you are discussing with, thus Fireeye took it as an assault on his character.

Let's all try to stay on topic and not lose sight of the discussion. No need for finger pointing here. :p

1). If MP becomes truly competitive, then the game is very likely to be streamlined into a pure RTS, because simulation elements (creatures infighting, chance-based elements, etc.) would simply annoy players whose literally only goal is to destroy the enemy dungeon core. It would be very unlikely that our esteemed devs would add basic gameplay features that would work in SP only and would have to be removed for MP, and the same holds true for mechanics that would be balanced for SP but could lead to imbalance in the MP.
Agree with Moz on this one above. With what he said I'd also like to add you're correct that both of the things you used as examples are not part of the game, as both are felt to detract from the core game-play, and although one adds depth to simulation while the other adds an element of uncertainty these are things that were decided didn't fit into the game.

Now I personally would love to see some of these elements return, I think it would be nice to see "Enhanced Simulation" as a mutator for Multiplayer and perhaps even other modes which adds some more depth to the simulation aspect of the game. I think this is something that holds potential in the future for those people who love the simulation side of DMGs.

Finally, we'll be looking at having some differences in certain systems like the veins between Singleplayer and Multiplayer, I don't see why it would be unusual for other mechanics to have changes between modes either.

In regards to the other posts here. I think a combination of good matchmaking, places for people to discuss and arrange games and good lobby tools, allowing people to make custom games with specified goals and mutators will be key to ensuring a healthy community and Multiplayer environment going forwards.

and then possibly also matchmaking and a ladder. If this hasn't been confirmed, I'm confirming it now - if Simburgur disagrees I will go to his house and flip all of his tables.
Basically this ^^^ and not confirmed until it goes in and works but definitely desired. :p
 
Likes: Castigator
Top Bottom