No multiplayer in Firaxis XCOM

[Alucardex]

I gotta go against the majority here, I think some kinda of MP or CO-OP would be hella fun.

Firstly I'd like to say that after these latest details emerged that the game will be only 20hrs of gameplay, not only would it be quite possible to get thru a full game with mp in a couple weekends, it might be nice to have to keep that interest up as I'll have finished the game a dozen times by this Christmas.

Also, if they can pull off something like civ has which is simultaneous turns, if it's co-op 1 person controls 2 units each. This could actually speed up combat making the tactical portion even faster, of course there would be that initial learning curve where you have to communicate "you light him up with the tracers, I'll kill him with my sniper"

Also, the majority of us that played the original are now 30+ years old, I myself have 3 kids and can't wait to get my 8yo in on the action. Might have to turn off the gore

And lastly, I have a feeling that those of you the don't want mp prolly never played any of the freeware that's out there already mentioned in this thread, it's awesome to go up against a human controlling the aliens - you'll just have to trust me

The question is: Is it really worth all the work?
And I think it's simply not worth it. As a dlc maybe, but including it a launch when we can't even be sure if this game sell well it would be asinine to waste time on a multiplayer mode noone will be playing.

[tazong]

The question is: Is it really worth all the work?
.

The obvious answer to this is yes lol but not talking so much about multiplayer or even co - op - the part i really hope they add is so you have the abilty to play your freind online - one as xcom - one as the aliens - no matter how much work they put in - the can never be any multiplayer better than that and the replay value of the game goes through the roof with this added - why beat the one player mode when its 100% more satasfiying to beat your mate.
When you think about it - most of it is there to do this - yes some balance issues but certainly nothing major to overcome

[NickL2005]

The obvious answer to this is yes lol but not talking so much about multiplayer or even co - op - the part i really hope they add is so you have the abilty to play your freind online - one as xcom - one as the aliens - no matter how much work they put in - the can never be any multiplayer better than that and the replay value of the game goes through the roof with this added - why beat the one player mode when its 100% more satasfiying to beat your mate.
When you think about it - most of it is there to do this - yes some balance issues but certainly nothing major to overcome

They would just need to balance it by a squad unit point cap. Something along the lines of 500 unit points for each player. for example, Lets say a sectoid is 50 unit points and a berzerker is 80 unit points. Then on the other hand... Soldier 50 unit points, then u can add different armor to the troops... for example jet park an additional 25 points....etc etc.

[Hortey]

The obvious answer to this is yes lol but not talking so much about multiplayer or even co - op - the part i really hope they add is so you have the abilty to play your freind online - one as xcom - one as the aliens - no matter how much work they put in - the can never be any multiplayer better than that and the replay value of the game goes through the roof with this added - why beat the one player mode when its 100% more satasfiying to beat your mate.
When you think about it - most of it is there to do this - yes some balance issues but certainly nothing major to overcome

But looking at the scope of the game and the sheer logistics of it all, there is no way for this to play out without the makers of the game changing the game in a VERY heavy handed way. Shortening the span of the game, having to "balance" everything, sweeping changes to every system in the game, or more likely ... completely take out the side of the game where you go back to base or at the very least, simplify it so it's something you do "between games". Kind of like how the new ghost recon lets you hit the firing range, grab gear once leveled up, buy attachments and outfit your weapons between games but you only get 60 seconds.

The question is, are you willing to let the game get irreversibly changed away from what Xcom is at it's core to play against your friend?

[coyote_blue]

Here's the thing. Whenever multiplayer happens, it becomes the focus. Assassin's Creed Revelations was a single player game that should never have existed. They created it to generate new MP.

Please enjoy whatever multiplayer you like. I enjoy it rarely. But I believe that designing and balancing for SP takes a different set of skills than doing so for MP. Developers start with the best of intentions, but once multiplayer starts happening, it keeps happening until SP is dead or weakened.

Please just let me have this. Thanks.

[2sly4u]

I know my alone in my thinking, but i still think the best way to do multi-player pvp would be to have my squad vs your squad in the virtual tactical combat (1v1v1 would be even better). i just don't think keeping the gameplay aspects are feasible without some inherent advantage or disadvantage to someone. For instance if i'm the aliens early can i attack where u don't have coverage? If i can doesn't it become a hide & seek game early on ( by hide & seek i mean i would rather attack where there is no xcom if i'm trying to win). If my tech is better than yours what am i gonna research? If my ufo gets shot down should i stay in the downed craft until you get there? why would i come out if i know your objective is to get in? They(firaxis) would have to make a whole other game for the aliens strategy. I say keep the aliens out of pvp altogether, if u have it at all. Co-op is a different animal,u could keep it basically the same. Just m.h.o. -

[Battlemage]

Not every game needs multiplayer. UFO / XCOM is a sterling example of a great game that did not need multiplayer. XCOM: Enemy Unknown will be no different. I am tired of this belief that every AAA game that comes out MUST have multiplayer is some shape or form.

One of many annoying things about the industry these days.

[2sly4u]

Not every game needs multiplayer. UFO / XCOM is a sterling example of a great game that did not need multiplayer. .

i don't disagree. I was commenting to the thread for conversation sake. But i do think it would work for the following reasons:

1. the 15 to 30 minute match time would better fit into online community. Not a lot of gamers wanting to have marathon matches.
2.Could gives deeper connection with your soldiers to take them against friends
3.Could give players another reason to play other single player campaigns ( different researched weapons/perks)
4 kinda goes with the devs theme of actions figures ( i got my a.f 's and i'm coming over to your house to battle yours)
5. built -in balance ( "squad sight is unfair" response "shut up you could've got it. now eat plasma from deep!") SEE # 9
etc... i could go on but u get the picture. I don't think mp is necessary but like this i think it could be legendary! just joking but it kinda rolled off the tongue/keyboard.

[2sly4u]

Okay i'll list a couple more reasons.
6. make mp something you earn. completed normal ironman to unlock.
7. favorite soldiers could live and fight on forever after single player campaign long done.
8. first hand look at different strategies ( "hey, i would've never thought using 2 support guys could work that well")
9. Infinite trash talking possibilities. crucial for widespread multiplayer. ( u know that's true)
10. More map possibilities for DLC sp/mp. more money for firaxis, validation that these games can sell & more great games like this will come out in the future.

[Alucardex]

i don't disagree. I was commenting to the thread for conversation sake. But i do think it would work for the following reasons:

1. the 15 to 30 minute match time would better fit into online community. Not a lot of gamers wanting to have marathon matches.
2.Could gives deeper connection with your soldiers to take them against friends
3.Could give players another reason to play other single player campaigns ( different researched weapons/perks)
4 kinda goes with the devs theme of actions figures ( i got my a.f 's and i'm coming over to your house to battle yours)
5. built -in balance ( "squad sight is unfair" response "shut up you could've got it. now eat plasma from deep!") SEE # 9
etc... i could go on but u get the picture. I don't think mp is necessary but like this i think it could be legendary! just joking but it kinda rolled off the tongue/keyboard.

1.) Yes true, however with a turn based game I can see a lot of possibilities for grieving from loosing players that could potentially break the game. (hiding the last soldier by dashing all the time, always taking the maximum time for turn, etc.)

2.) I don't see how this will give you a deeper connection. I think the opposite might happen since death is no longer final in multiplayer matches.

3. and 5.) However this might create some unfair gameplay where one set of skill "counters" another so you basically have to build up multiple teams just to stay competitive. Balancing as a whole might end up a nightmare.
Just because both sides have the same tools does not make the game balanced.

6.) Unlockables are nice but unlocking the whole mode? That will scare off newer players leaving an even smaller mp-playerbase.

[Hortey]

An online game based entirely on strategy and skill will scare off 95% of the multiplayer community. Haven't you noticed a trend where every MP shooter plays the same way? With overbearing aim assists and easy ways to get kills against better players? The majority of gamers are not good at them, and losing to people just because they are better than you will not be fun for people who are not good at the game because they will always lose.

COOP is a different ballgame entirely though.

[iceycat25]

Wasn't chess the original turn based multiplayer strategy game? Isn't it still incredibly popular? :P

Seriously though, the idea that cerebral game players aren't interested in multiplayer is silly. The reason Halo kiddies dominate multiplayer is because FPS is mostly what's available for multiplayer. Checked you iphone lately? All strategy games with multiplayer on there look like cartoons. The reason hardcore strategy games don't have a giant multiplayer base is that there really isn't a pool of great hardcore strategy games WITH multiplayer!

Adding a co-op mode would change nothing of the game balancing and hrdly anything at all for code writing purposes.

[Howellren]

Does anyone remember that there actually was a multiplayer xcom title! I once had this game, http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-COM_(Email_games)

I think that a next generation xcom game could be made as a smartphone/tablet app. Think like words with friends, where people take their turn and then toss the game back over to the other player. If the new game is a big hit, I can see them making an app game.

Really, app games are the most popular way turn based multiplayer works nowadays. That, and RL board games.

[LeftyRighty]

...
All strategy games with multiplayer on there look like cartoons. The reason hardcore strategy games don't have a giant multiplayer base is that there really isn't a pool of great hardcore strategy games WITH multiplayer!

This piqued my curiosity... what does cartoony graphics have to do with hardcore strategy? ... visual realism is fairly irrelevant when it comes to the logic, planning and decisions that define strategic play. (and besides... no data, the devs are being stum, might as well take this discussion in a philosophical direction )

Adding a co-op mode would change nothing of the game balancing and hrdly anything at all for code writing purposes.

There is one general rule that I tend to work by; the second a user thinks it's "just" a "small" change that will require "little" work... you just asked for a complete rewrite of the entire solution from base principles... hopefully it's not the case here

[emikochan]

Sounds fun but not on release, it'd take a long time to make and balance a multiplayer mode.

[Thirdeyevision]

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls. I feel that gone, is the time when games were packed full of content and options. I want XCom: Enemy Unknown to come out sooner rather than later as much as the next gamer, but multiplayer would add so much to this game. I'm more than willing to wait for a later release date in order to have multiplayer. Of course I want Firaxis to spend time and be thorough when creating the campaign, but when I've beaten Single player one billion times or I just need a break, I'll want to go head to head with a buddy or two to see/show what i'm made of. Strategy games should be made with multiplayer in mind.
Let me be clear.....co-op would be fun, but I'm hoping more for a competitive game mode.

[2sly4u]

@ Alucardex thanks for your reply however i disagree with you on a few points.
1. considering the maps have limited sizes how much running could u do? also to this point i have found more people willing to admit defeat in order to get to the next match. Unless u are just playing with a a$$ i don't see that as a problem.
2. Deeper connection come from more interaction i would think. I mean what's more perma-death than game over. If I complete a sp game with soldier codename "cornbread" even though he survived he is essentially dead to me since i won't ever be using him again. Not to mention becoming more attached to soldiers u maybe didn't appreciate as much as u should've in sp because your style of combat was different.
3. Glad u brought this one up, there will be skills that counter other players skills. I just think there are several different ones and with that much variety it comes down to style of play. Multiple styles all built differently from the same starting point. For instance i brought up squad sight earlier. Say i'm playing u and u have a sniper with squad sight that u hold back and pick me apart. I get angry " i knew i should've use squad sight! So in my next match with someone else i use it and the new guy takes me out quick with a sniper that can take two shots per turn.WTF!!! That's why it would come down to styles and that why it would be fun to me. And if there happens to be one skill that is the end all be all to winning in mp then the community would figure it out, complain and then then devs add stuff through DLC. This is a successful formula
3. i just threw the unlockables in there for a select group "trophy hunters" surely not necessary but i wouldn't think it too much to ask for u to complete some level on ironman. Just so u couldn't keep saving "cornbread" every time you got him killed.

[Laager]

Can't have it all people. Hopefully, they managed to elegantly squeeze in MP and CO-OP without sacrificing SP. Let's be real here though... more time and more money for balancing and all that.

CO-OP seems much more feasible... and what I mean by that is that you share control of the same team. I'd be easier to do on the console versions.

[LeftyRighty]

yeah, but cooping splitting up a team of 4? ... and you have to move each trooper one at a time (can imagine the nightmare of overwatch against 2 moving troopers)... and the whole "one ability impacting the effectiveness of a team mates abilities" (ie tracer for the support/heavy) ... the whole setup is designed for one person in control, one step at a time.

Can't see that being split into two without being mostly pointless (two people pushing the buttons just to allow two people to play the same game) or being a huge design change

[tazong]

But looking at the scope of the game and the sheer logistics of it all, there is no way for this to play out without the makers of the game changing the game in a VERY heavy handed way. Shortening the span of the game, having to "balance" everything, sweeping changes to every system in the game, or more likely ... completely take out the side of the game where you go back to base or at the very least, simplify it so it's something you do "between games". Kind of like how the new ghost recon lets you hit the firing range, grab gear once leveled up, buy attachments and outfit your weapons between games but you only get 60 seconds.
The question is, are you willing to let the game get irreversibly changed away from what Xcom is at it's core to play against your friend?

What are you talking about - why do they have to change it in a very handed way - imagine the single player game ? - now instead of having a computer opponant - you have human opponant - the game plays very much like the single player game except now you have a player controlling the aliens.
the xcom player plays as per single player game making base - doing research etc etc etc while he does this the alien opponant(human player)has a set of resourses per month that he can use for terror attacks - inavasions etc etc etc - its not changing the game in a heavy handed way at all - thats redicouilous - as for combat - if you can do combat for xcom human player - you can do it for a alien human player - theres no dfifference as such in technical terms?

you have gone on a long rant about quote:

looking at the scope of the game and the sheer logistics of it all, there is no way for this to play out without the makers of the game changing the game in a VERY heavy handed way. Shortening the span of the game, having to "balance" everything, sweeping changes to every system in the game, or more likely ... completely take out the side of the game where you go back to base or at the very least, simplify it so it's something you do "between games". Kind of like how the new ghost recon lets you hit the firing range, grab gear once leveled up, buy attachments and outfit your weapons between games but you only get 60 seconds.

thats total rubbish and i have to say a complete lack of vision on your part? firstly the single player game is there finnished - thats what xcom is about so its not changing the single player game at all?

Adding a 2 player option actually expands the depth and scope of the game - like two players playing chess after a while a computer opponant will be come predicatable where as a human opponant will always prove to be unpredictable and very challenging.
You should be looking at the 2 player aspect as something that will expand the game and prolong the life of the game.

The question is, are you willing to let the game get irreversibly changed away from what Xcom is at it's core to play against your friend?

That question is plain silly and let me tell you why - xcom - laseraquad what ever you want to call it - started off life as a game called rebelstar raiders - which was primarly a single player game but had a option for 2 player combat for 2 freinds to play together one as the ally and one as the foe?
That my freind is what xcom is all about? - Thats where xcoms roots stems from - get yourself a emulator and try rebelstar raiders with a freind - the amstrad version is pretty tasty

[Thirdeyevision]

yeah, but cooping splitting up a team of 4? ... and you have to move each trooper one at a time (can imagine the nightmare of overwatch against 2 moving troopers)... and the whole "one ability impacting the effectiveness of a team mates abilities" (ie tracer for the support/heavy) ... the whole setup is designed for one person in control, one step at a time.

Can't see that being split into two without being mostly pointless (two people pushing the buttons just to allow two people to play the same game) or being a huge design change

Each player controls their own group/squad

[TheFinn]

What are you talking about - why do they have to change it in a very handed way - imagine the single player game ? - now instead of having a computer opponant - you have human opponant - the game plays very much like the single player game except now you have a player controlling the aliens.
the xcom player plays as per single player game making base - doing research etc etc etc while he does this the alien opponant(human player)has a set of resourses per month that he can use for terror attacks - inavasions etc etc etc - its not changing the game in a heavy handed way at all - thats redicouilous - as for combat - if you can do combat for xcom human player - you can do it for a alien human player - theres no dfifference as such in technical terms?

There are serious questions of achieving balance in a competitive game where the players have assymetrical abilities and victory conditions. In a single player game against an AI, that finely tuned balance isn't needed.

For instance - human technology is driven by capturing alien technology. This means the alien can bar certain tech trees by just not using the units/equipment that would allow for the research. As the game gets picked apart you can get a 'meta-game' system of strategy that overrides the heart of the game. IE If you NEVER use Z and deny the humans that research then the alien's X becomes "overpowered" because the humans can never get Y to respond. If the aliens realize you built your first base in North America then what if they only run missions throughout Europe and Asia? How do you limit the ability of the aliens to "rush/zerg"?

You also then need to consider how the 'resource collection' mechanisms interact. Successful alien missions reduce XCOM resources. Do successful XCOM missions affect alien resources? If one side gets the lead does it just become easier and easier for them or is there some sort of response mechanism to try and maintain the balance/fun?

These can ALL be dealt with, but what sort of mechanics do you need to introduce to avoid/restrict these issues? If XCOM can interact and affect those mechanics do you need 'counter-mechanics' to apply to XCOM to keep THEM from finding 'gamey' methods of advantage? Trying to do it without using mechanics that restrict freedom or have an arbitrary feel to them can be very difficult.

Even a co-op campaign (each player with a base, making Commander-level decisions) requires a rebalance from single player to account for changes. For example: research - can both players do it at the same time? How does that affect the game? If alien 'thresholds' are tied to research levels what happens when one player rushes deep and the other goes shallow and wide?

There are a LOT of issues and details that need to be balanced out in a multiplayer game that can be skimmed or skipped in a single player game.

I'd LOVE to see a MP campaign (co-op or Vs) but I don't want my single player game altered for it - simply because I know I'll play SP much more than MP and because there's a lack of really good SP strategy games.

To include multiplayer you really need to handle one of a few ways:

1. A- To keep it simple (and for budget reasons) you alter the single player experience so multiplayer is feasible using the same major mechanics.
2. B- You tack multiplayer on to the single player game which means either a clunky multiplayer or a limited multiplayer experience (like being able to do one-off tactical missions but not having any campaign play)
3. C- You build a solid single player game. You then use that as the basis of a solid multiplayer game. The MP game will play somewhat (perhaps significantly) differently from the single player game.

Option A would upset me.
Option B would be fine with me - but I probably wouldn't play it much. I'm sure it wouldn't satisfy a lot of those who want MP.
Option C would be great but C requires additional time and budget and will only happen in one of two ways
1 - it's done by a small dev who's making the game more as a labour of love than for profit
2 - it's done as an expansion or DLC to cover the additional costs (and yes, generate additional profits)

Even though I might almost never play it (and assuming the SP is good) I'd buy a competitive MP DLC/expansion in a heartbeat.

[tazong]

i will try to address this as best and as clear as i can?

I'd LOVE to see a MP campaign (co-op or Vs) but I don't want my single player game altered for it - simply because I know I'll play SP much more than MP and because there's a lack of really good SP strategy games

firstly you have the single player game - its already there its been made - no one can take that away from you its been done so please stop fretting about it - its not even a issue?

To keep it simple (and for budget reasons) you alter the single player experience so multiplayer is feasible using the same major mechanics

This new xcom has been in development for 4 years with a team of 60 folks - now this is a big budget title so budget is not even a issue here - it would be crazy knowing this that the development team did not explore every avenue to exploit the full potental of the game this would include some kind of co op or mutliplayer option.
now when i say multiplayer - i am not talking about 30 people controlling individual units - i am talking about a 2 player game which i think i have been very clear about?
2 player mode
one controls xcom - one controls the aliens
the victory conditions for xcom remain the same as the single player - you do the research - combat the threat etc etc
this basically means you change nothing for the xcom player?
victory conditions for the aliens would be simple - cause enough havoc amongst the funding nations so xcom lose support from 8 nations
just as xcom have resourses - the alien player has resourses for each month that he can spend on terror missions or ufo attacks etc etc
because the aliens are already hi tec theres no need for research - they just need to do damage and to demoralise the funding countrys.
like i have already said the combat to do for the alien player would not be that hard to implement beause the basic rules are already there - the only thing that makes a difference is how much resourses the alien player uses - he may use a lot on one mission to overpower - but may come short on other missions because he over stretched on other missions.
Thats down to the tactics of the alien player?
because the basic rules have already been set out(in single player for xcom side) it would be not that hard to set the balance or the resourses the alien player has to make a good balanced game.
xcom is basically a campaign game - all great campaign games are normally with 2 players involved.(or would be the icing on the cake)
to cut a long story short - it would really extend the shelf life of the game - maybe my thoughts are in the minorty i dont know bit on a wether its feasible to do - yes it is and i sont think it would be as hard to implement as some people think.
Anyhow i have had my say so i will shut up now.
:-)

[Thirdeyevision]

i will try to address this as best and as clear as i can?

I'd LOVE to see a MP campaign (co-op or Vs) but I don't want my single player game altered for it - simply because I know I'll play SP much more than MP and because there's a lack of really good SP strategy games

firstly you have the single player game - its already there its been made - no one can take that away from you its been done so please stop fretting about it - its not even a issue?

To keep it simple (and for budget reasons) you alter the single player experience so multiplayer is feasible using the same major mechanics

This new xcom has been in development for 4 years with a team of 60 folks - now this is a big budget title so budget is not even a issue here - it would be crazy knowing this that the development team did not explore every avenue to exploit the full potental of the game this would include some kind of co op or mutliplayer option.
now when i say multiplayer - i am not talking about 30 people controlling individual units - i am talking about a 2 player game which i think i have been very clear about?
2 player mode
one controls xcom - one controls the aliens
the victory conditions for xcom remain the same as the single player - you do the research - combat the threat etc etc
this basically means you change nothing for the xcom player?
victory conditions for the aliens would be simple - cause enough havoc amongst the funding nations so xcom lose support from 8 nations
just as xcom have resourses - the alien player has resourses for each month that he can spend on terror missions or ufo attacks etc etc
because the aliens are already hi tec theres no need for research - they just need to do damage and to demoralise the funding countrys.
like i have already said the combat to do for the alien player would not be that hard to implement beause the basic rules are already there - the only thing that makes a difference is how much resourses the alien player uses - he may use a lot on one mission to overpower - but may come short on other missions because he over stretched on other missions.
Thats down to the tactics of the alien player?
because the basic rules have already been set out(in single player for xcom side) it would be not that hard to set the balance or the resourses the alien player has to make a good balanced game.
xcom is basically a campaign game - all great campaign games are normally with 2 players involved.(or would be the icing on the cake)
to cut a long story short - it would really extend the shelf life of the game - maybe my thoughts are in the minorty i dont know bit on a wether its feasible to do - yes it is and i sont think it would be as hard to implement as some people think.
Anyhow i have had my say so i will shut up now.
:-)

When I think of multiplayer for this game, I don't think of constant/consistent drawn out battles involving a world map or similar gameplay to the single player experience. I think of one off battles on a select number of maps, involving a basic default load-out for each player. I personally am not even concerned whether or not I play as the aliens (wich WOULD require a lot more code and polish). I'm mostly hoping for human play.

[N0M4D]

I know I'm going to get flamed for this but I'm truly disappointed there isn't any multiplayer modes. Am I really the only one?

[Jeep-Eep]

Yes. You are the only one.

[Inkidu]

I'm going to go ahead and guess that you didn't search the first and second page of the forum? Because, really this is not a new topic, at all.

Also, you're never the only one, never. Doubly so for the internet.

[N0M4D]

Sigh......

[japester]

MOD NOTE: The previous four posts were merged from a duplicate thread, just in case they seem confusing.

[LeftyRighty]

oooo epic forum fail... ignore me... need coffee...

[Laager]

yeah, but cooping splitting up a team of 4? ... and you have to move each trooper one at a time (can imagine the nightmare of overwatch against 2 moving troopers)... and the whole "one ability impacting the effectiveness of a team mates abilities" (ie tracer for the support/heavy) ... the whole setup is designed for one person in control, one step at a time.

Can't see that being split into two without being mostly pointless (two people pushing the buttons just to allow two people to play the same game) or being a huge design change

CO-OP would be more like ... alternating turns. With players choosing which soldiers to control.
The discourse between the players can be really fun (or very frustrating).

As far as the strategic, well... you can have discussion over breakfast. You can have a second opinion.

I remember playing Final Fantasy VI with my brother for the Super Nintendo. He usually controlled Sabin and Celeste. Me, Edgar and Cyan. I have the fondest memories sharing the fight with another.

Multiplayer would be nice, but we all know that there's are too many resources spent there. Upkeep would be painful as well.

[iceycat25]

I know I'm going to get flamed for this but I'm truly disappointed there isn't any multiplayer modes. Am I really the only one?

No, you're not. I'm hoping for co-op campaign mode myself. It doesn't have to be two simultaneous base commanders like the post above said, in fact the way he described it would be unweildly. Just have the host control the campaign while units for tactical missions can be toggled for which player controls them in the tactical mission. I get to control 2 units, my buddy gets to control 2 units, tactical missions only, drop in and out functionality. If the other guy leaves I automatically resume unit control, if he joins mid mission I toggle a couple of units and let him play too. Pretty simple, no major overhauls required or rebalancing the entire game.

Also something like "VR training" missions where my human squad goes up against a buddy's human squad would be great. Deaths are only virtual and could earn poibts toward skills, hence the "training" as well as cash wagers or prizes for wargame outcomes. Play on a bunch of different kind of maps, just choose one from a list and go have wargames with your buddy human squad on human squad. Yet another multiplayer version that would not unbalance the game at all nor require any massive new research tech trees or other huge problems. It would work with everything already as is for how the game works.

[coyote_blue]

@ThirdEyeVision: your version (player-as-humans versus player-as-humans) isn't XCOM. It's Tactical Manshoot: Turn-Based. You can want it, but calling it XCOM would dilute the core experience.

@tazong: your version of reality doesn't take into account the absolute LOONNNNGGGG time the XCOM player can spend in Base Mode. The game is paused until he returns to Geoscape. Alien Geoscape Mode would require a new UI for that player. (I must also point out that this would ruin the game for me. The point of SP XCOM is that you never see things from the perspective of Bad Guy Headquarters. In MP, a player starts there.

Alien UI only has Mission Planning. No research for their side: sit and twiddle while the human player spends three days thinking. Do you put a time limit on the human player? Give the alien player more options?

A cheating player can start an MP match as the aliens, look at their entire roster of equipment, races, and abilities, and spoil every single surprise in SP immediately. He can go on these forums and troll SP threads on day one. Since one person could do it, a few people will.

In SP, aliens have infinite dudes - which also means that XCOM has more opportunities to capture alien tech. If aliens are manning missions using resource points, the humans could win by simply grinding down a weak alien player with normal tech. Do you change the MP human tech tree to reflect this?

@icey: some of your thoughts elsewhere on co-op are implementable, awesome, and truly have no impact on SP. My beef is not with you.

[Tim Saxon]

Adding multiplayer to a good game is like adding 3D to a good movie......it just ruins it and makes it less of the product it could be! Wish the multiplayer and 3D fad would run off the tracks and explode in a firey crash!

[Notorious_BLT]

Adding multiplayer to a good game is like adding 3D to a good movie......it just ruins it and makes it less of the product it could be! Wish the multiplayer and 3D fad would run off the tracks and explode in a firey crash!

While I'm not a fan of the current fad of adding 3D to movies, I disagree with you about multiplayer ruining good games. Off the top of my head; Warcraft 2 Bnet edition, Starcraft (both of them), Command and Conquer (all of them), Dawn of War (both), and Battle Zone (both) are all strategy games that benefited by having multiplayer. In no way was the experience of any of those games lessened by the inclusion or addition of multiplayer. You may say that if they hadn't added multiplayer that the single player campaigns would have had more missions or features etc. but to that I would ask how much extra play time does that offer? A few hours maybe, whereas multiplayer allows you to have a different experience every time you're matched with a new opponent providing a massive amount of replay.

Does the paragraph above have to do with XCOM? No, it was a rant on, what I believe to be, a ridiculous statement that multiplayer ruins good games.

In closing, use a smoke grenade ಠ_ಠ‎

[Thirdeyevision]

Adding multiplayer to a good game is like adding 3D to a good movie......it just ruins it and makes it less of the product it could be! Wish the multiplayer and 3D fad would run off the tracks and explode in a firey crash!

Agree about the 3D fad, but multiplayer is great when done right. Do you have friends to game with?

[Thirdeyevision]

[QUOTE=coyote_blue;1599028]@ThirdEyeVision: your version (player-as-humans versus player-as-humans) isn't XCOM. It's Tactical Manshoot: Turn-Based. You can want it, but calling it XCOM would dilute the core experience.

@coyote_blue.....Regardless of what you "call" it, doesn't negate the fact that it could be fun. Am I wrong?

I was also addressing the issue of spending way more time/resources to develop multiplayer with human controlled aliens.
Another thought: What do you think of the previously mentioned "man-shoot" with an AI controlled group of aliens that the humans were forced to deal with? This idea would add in another factor to the game mode (vying for alien tech/resources/capture/defeat, required to win the match). Two human "factions" if you will, fighting each other while AI controlled aliens muck things up in the process.

[TheFinn]

While I'm not a fan of the current fad of adding 3D to movies, I disagree with you about multiplayer ruining good games. Off the top of my head; Warcraft 2 Bnet edition, Starcraft (both of them), Command and Conquer (all of them), Dawn of War (both), and Battle Zone (both) are all strategy games that benefited by having multiplayer. In no way was the experience of any of those games lessened by the inclusion or addition of multiplayer. You may say that if they hadn't added multiplayer that the single player campaigns would have had more missions or features etc. but to that I would ask how much extra play time does that offer? A few hours maybe, whereas multiplayer allows you to have a different experience every time you're matched with a new opponent providing a massive amount of replay.

Does the paragraph above have to do with XCOM? No, it was a rant on, what I believe to be, a ridiculous statement that multiplayer ruins good games.

In closing, use a smoke grenade ಠ_ಠ‎

I don't think it's so much that multiplayer ruins games, it's just that the opportunity cost of it can by high if you're a single-player type (which, in a passionate point of view, means the game is 'ruined'.. lol).

I believe every one of those games you mention is real time so by their nature there is very little downtime for each side. In turn-based strategy games downtime is a VERY real concern. One single player game might have an average of 2 minute turns, another might average 10 minute turns due to it's complexity, but if the player finds that complexity fun, the game is a success. If that 10 minute turn is followed by 10 minutes of downtime (per additional player) that fun might get lost very quickly. So either the 10 minute game doesn't get made multiplayer, or it gets altered in a significant way to make MP more feasible - maybe simultaneous turns, maybe simplifications (the 'dumbing down' that players complain about) to bring the average turn down enough that the downtime isn't unbearable.

Some (and likely ALL) of those games you mentioned have gone through balance changes as players figure out what's OP or UP. Those changes need to be made to keep MP balanced. Those changes can affect single player. In the mass combat of an RTS those changes might not stand out but in a turn based game I think they'd be much more visible.
Let me try and put that another way. In a single player game you can give the AI a nudge by 'OP'ing' it's units a bit and no one talks about it being overpowered, just challenging/frightening (I'm talking about you, Chrysalid). Give a human being control of that creature and it might be game-breaking. If the balance change (nerf in this case) affects both SP and MP then single player becomes less challenging - worse. If the balance change affects ONLY multiplayer then the Devs need to be concerned that a seperate data/debug thread has been created (if it's strictly adjusting numbers this shouldn't be that big of a deal, if it's altering how powers work then it can become uglier).

And that's just trying to balance out competitive tactical battles - let alone maybe trying to develop a co-op or competitive campaign.

So, in general, I think a lot of 'single players' worry that the inclusion of multiplayer hurts the single player game whether through resource allocation, changes for MP feasibility, or rebalancing to suit MP. As tazmong said in reply to me earlier this concern doesn't apply to XCOM specifically because everything they've shown tells me I'm in for a great single player experience.

If I get that great SP experience and they've included some sort of multiplayer.. awesome!

If I get that great SP experience and they offer an MP expansion pack - I will buy it even though I might only do a couple tactical battles and never touch MP again. Or I'll start a MP campaign with someone and after a few months it'll fade out as real life interferes.

I love the idea of multiplayer, but only if the single player experience is left intact and healthy.

[Notorious_BLT]

I don't think it's so much that multiplayer ruins games, it's just that the opportunity cost of it can by high if you're a single-player type (which, in a passionate point of view, means the game is 'ruined'.. lol).

I believe every one of those games you mention is real time so by their nature there is very little downtime for each side. In turn-based strategy games downtime is a VERY real concern. One single player game might have an average of 2 minute turns, another might average 10 minute turns due to it's complexity, but if the player finds that complexity fun, the game is a success. If that 10 minute turn is followed by 10 minutes of downtime (per additional player) that fun might get lost very quickly. So either the 10 minute game doesn't get made multiplayer, or it gets altered in a significant way to make MP more feasible - maybe simultaneous turns, maybe simplifications (the 'dumbing down' that players complain about) to bring the average turn down enough that the downtime isn't unbearable.

Some (and likely ALL) of those games you mentioned have gone through balance changes as players figure out what's OP or UP. Those changes need to be made to keep MP balanced. Those changes can affect single player. In the mass combat of an RTS those changes might not stand out but in a turn based game I think they'd be much more visible.
Let me try and put that another way. In a single player game you can give the AI a nudge by 'OP'ing' it's units a bit and no one talks about it being overpowered, just challenging/frightening (I'm talking about you, Chrysalid). Give a human being control of that creature and it might be game-breaking. If the balance change (nerf in this case) affects both SP and MP then single player becomes less challenging - worse. If the balance change affects ONLY multiplayer then the Devs need to be concerned that a seperate data/debug thread has been created (if it's strictly adjusting numbers this shouldn't be that big of a deal, if it's altering how powers work then it can become uglier).

And that's just trying to balance out competitive tactical battles - let alone maybe trying to develop a co-op or competitive campaign.

So, in general, I think a lot of 'single players' worry that the inclusion of multiplayer hurts the single player game whether through resource allocation, changes for MP feasibility, or rebalancing to suit MP. As tazmong said in reply to me earlier this concern doesn't apply to XCOM specifically because everything they've shown tells me I'm in for a great single player experience.

If I get that great SP experience and they've included some sort of multiplayer.. awesome!

If I get that great SP experience and they offer an MP expansion pack - I will buy it even though I might only do a couple tactical battles and never touch MP again. Or I'll start a MP campaign with someone and after a few months it'll fade out as real life interferes.

I love the idea of multiplayer, but only if the single player experience is left intact and healthy.

I was giving a general response to a very general statement that multiplayer ruins games. Not turn based games, not RTS games, not FPS games, but games in general. I'm sorry but to make a statement that games, in general not XCOM specifically, are WORSE when they can be played with your friends and family just seems like a totally ridiculous thing to say.

The games I listed were just examples but here are a few more games that are multiplayer and also turn based; Sword of the Stars (1 and 2), Civ (a whole bunch of them), Alpha Centauri, and Panzer General.

Last thing here (work day ending and I wanna GTFO), my post was in response to ONLY that one reply about games being made worse by MP in general, it was not intended as a "XCOM SHOULD HAVE MULTIPLAYER OMG!" I understand both sides of the argument regarding MP in XCOM and I can say that I am positively and without a doubt on the fence about it. If we get it, YAY! If we don't, oh well, not much was lost IMO =/.

[Thirdeyevision]

In a lot of cases, adding multiplayer to a mostly SP game can extend the life of the game indefinitely. Take Clash of Heroes for XBLA (a turn based RPG puzzler) for example. I've played hours of SP in that game (once and a half through SP) but have spent AT LEAST 20x that amount of time in multiplayer/multiplayer co-op. Not trying to 'bash' anybodies opinions.....just putting it out there.