PDA

View Full Version : FEED BACK WANTED...Multiplayer.



KG_Norad
15 Oct 03, 11:53
More Thoughts on multi player game play…

While my first multi player game did not come off due to technical issues I am still trying to find out if this feature works. While ATF is a more cerebral game than just about any RTS I have seen, that does not mean it isn't fun, or that it has to take endless hours to set up and play.

I am not sure if the game currently supports this right now, but one feature that I would consider essential would be a set up phase for troop placement that you could save and take your time with.

Ideally you could hook up with a player, decide on sides, then take your time plotting the "perfect" setup. Once you are both done you choose the time to meet, and off you go right into the game. You would be done in an hour or two at the most. With all the time people spend online playing team Shooter games and Role Playing games like Ultima I can not believe that people would not play ATF online if it was easy to setup and played smoothly.

Scenarios of course could vary between monsters to small engagements with a small number of units where contact with the enemy is imminent.

The other idea I would like some opinions about is a pbem option much like Tacops or Combat Mission. Would anyone play pbem if it was an option? Or would you find a we-go type of format boring for this particular game. Finally if a game like AATF (Air Assault Task Force) shipped with all three options: Single Player, Multi player RTS, and PBEM we-go option, which do you think you would play the most and why?

I would play all three, I would play the RTS online when I could find the time, and when I had less time I would play the pbem option!

I appreciate your feedback!
Thanks,
Michael

John Osborne
15 Oct 03, 12:26
Hi NORAD,

As for me I would do all three. :D I would do the single-player first to get a better feel on how the game works then do PBEM against another player to see if I can master the game, then finial do multiplayer against a player using real time.

Red 6

KG_Norad
18 Oct 03, 12:13
Anyone else have any thoughts?:nuts:

WMurray
08 Jun 04, 19:05
The other idea I would like some opinions about is a pbem option much like Tacops or Combat Mission. Would anyone play pbem if it was an option? Or would you find a we-go type of format boring for this particular game. Finally if a game like AATF (Air Assault Task Force) shipped with all three options: Single Player, Multi player RTS, and PBEM we-go option, which do you think you would play the most and why?

I would play all three, I would play the RTS online when I could find the time, and when I had less time I would play the pbem option!

Absolutely, I would love a PBEM option for ATF or AATF. The real-time option is just not practical for playing with friends. I have one friend in England (8 hour time lag) and one in Colorado (2 hour time lag) I'd like to play and I know they'd never do it unless it was PBEM. In fact the reason I am playing CMAK with them now is because ATF does not have PBEM. OK, well they'd never understand ATF, either...

Yes, please, all 3. PBEM for casual play. Real-time for tournaments and so I can see different sides by walking from one terminal to another in a LAN setting. And single-player of course, for learning and the usual fun.

Regards,
Bill

P.S. I don't think PBEM would be boring if the move length could be variable-length to speed up the slow parts, perhaps with an escape trigger for critical events, as I believe kbluck first suggested.