Consider this to be "feedback asking for it." I think that multiplayer could be awesome if done right.
Request Multiplayer
- Thread starter Fallender
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
This is now like asking for a Battlefield or COD without a multiplayer. It just won't work and isn't needed.
Building it would take a huge amount of work from the small CO team, a large bucket of cash to get servers up and running and doesn't really add much to the overall experience.
I'm glad they didn't introduce it, while I'm sure it would be fun to see a neighbouring city grow, the novelty would wear off very quickly and the effort from the dev team would eventually go wasted as people would begin to stop using it.
Multiplayer is something you have to decide your going to do 100% or not at all, you can't go half in, otherwise it doesn't work.
Building it would take a huge amount of work from the small CO team, a large bucket of cash to get servers up and running and doesn't really add much to the overall experience.
I'm glad they didn't introduce it, while I'm sure it would be fun to see a neighbouring city grow, the novelty would wear off very quickly and the effort from the dev team would eventually go wasted as people would begin to stop using it.
Multiplayer is something you have to decide your going to do 100% or not at all, you can't go half in, otherwise it doesn't work.
.png){kind=avatar}
The devs have said that it is not impossible to implement a multiplayer, just that it is improbable. It does not fit into the bigger picture at the moment. And quite frankly, with the way multiplayer has been implemented on previous city builder titles in recent years, it's not wise for developers new to the city-building genre to just jump head-first into things.
I'll never understand why the need for multiplayer has become such a pressing issue since SC2013, when SC4 has existed without argument or debate for over 10 years. The time for the "want" for a multiplayer will become relevant after Cities: Skylines has matured enough to harbor it, and even then, some years down the road, it may just be brushed under the carpet due to a real lack of interest. For now, though, multiplayer is not a necessity, and more pressing issues need to be taken care of, like bug fixes and tunnels.
I'll never understand why the need for multiplayer has become such a pressing issue since SC2013, when SC4 has existed without argument or debate for over 10 years. The time for the "want" for a multiplayer will become relevant after Cities: Skylines has matured enough to harbor it, and even then, some years down the road, it may just be brushed under the carpet due to a real lack of interest. For now, though, multiplayer is not a necessity, and more pressing issues need to be taken care of, like bug fixes and tunnels.
Multiplayer? No.
I'm kept busy supervising and planning my city, I can't imagine trying to supervise what my 'friends' are up to also. I'd lose a 'friend' cause he'd keep messing with 'my' city!
If 'multiplayer' was added, I'd never use it.
I'm kept busy supervising and planning my city, I can't imagine trying to supervise what my 'friends' are up to also. I'd lose a 'friend' cause he'd keep messing with 'my' city!
If 'multiplayer' was added, I'd never use it.
That's not the point. It's just that the ratio between development effort (which is very high because ensuring server availibility and proper parallelized cities are very complex tasks) and the benefit you get as a player is extremely bad. I assume the SimCity (2013) developers spent at least ~30-40% of the allover effort into multiplayer issues and for most players it's just a nice-to-have feature which does not have that much impact on the user experience. There are a bunch of other features which can be realized for lower costs, but bringing much more benefit than multiplayer.
.png){kind=avatar}
CiM2 has a multiplayer, it did make sense in the game. I still never used it.
Now a Co-Op city is not exactly something that makes too much sense in a city builder, imo. So it would most likely not use it.
multiplayer in a city builder makes no sense to me at all. I mean what exactly do you do that is different from singleplayer besides seeimg somebody build a city off to the side that you cant do anything about
Basically this. Maybe it could happen for CSL2 when that happens in a few years but not before.
You saved yourself from hell it didn't work too well.
Another issue is that you need to work out a good mechanic using MP for it to make sense.
It's certainly not trivial or easy, but Unity makes it a lot easier. There are plenty of Unity games with multiplayer support like 7 Days To Die (which is actually still in alpha).
Nobody is saying it should be multiplayer only, nor that it should be at the expense of short-term stuff like stability, features like tunnels, fixing bugs, etc. Skylines is going to be the most popular city builder for years and years to come. I think it should be added at some point.
I disagree. Just because a game is likely to be popular for years to come, doesn't mean it requires multiplayer. You have to think how much time it will take and how much it will actually add to the over all experience. You also have to think about it in a business perspective.
The only time I can see them adding in multiplayer is when the game is losing it's popularity to bring in new life. However, they likely would be better off just making a Cities: Skylines 2 at that point.
It simply doesn't make sense to take time to develop something that only a niche of your player base is going to use. Especially something like multiplayer which is no simple task and takes a lot of time. We are talking about a really small team too.
I say leave it to the modding community to do.
I honestly don't think the game really needs multiplayer. I mean, it's a city-building; these games are like passionate nerdy (in a good way) hobbies that you like to do when you are in your personal space, because I sure as hell don't want people to see me concentrating deeply and constructing and deconstructing an entire city segment for 20 minutes straight to build just one intersection.
That being said, though: The game has 25 tiles. So if you can take out 5 useless tiles, you have 20 tiles. Or redo multiplayer maps maybe. How about a setting where you give one player the 10 tiles on the upper part of the map and 10 tiles of the lower part of the map. Of course, both need to have separate entry and exit points from the map, or else it would be unfair. But you can actually do some pretty neat things like that. For example, connect roads and railways to each other's part of the map to trade goods, attract tourists from the your friend's city, maybe even have an option where you can allow your services to reach your friend's city (e.g. fire trucks go into your friend's city if there is a fire in your friend's city within the fire station's radius). Or, if you really want to be at each other's neck and try to bring the other's city down, use Drain Pipes and Coal Power Plants next to each other's borders to pollute the other's city. To take things further, maybe your friend's city becomes frozen in time when he decides to call it quits for the day so that you can still keep on playing, and the same when you quit the game.
It has the potential to be a fun mode. But it entirely depends on how many people actually want it to be implemented versus how much work you'd have to put into developing such an addition to the game.
That being said, though: The game has 25 tiles. So if you can take out 5 useless tiles, you have 20 tiles. Or redo multiplayer maps maybe. How about a setting where you give one player the 10 tiles on the upper part of the map and 10 tiles of the lower part of the map. Of course, both need to have separate entry and exit points from the map, or else it would be unfair. But you can actually do some pretty neat things like that. For example, connect roads and railways to each other's part of the map to trade goods, attract tourists from the your friend's city, maybe even have an option where you can allow your services to reach your friend's city (e.g. fire trucks go into your friend's city if there is a fire in your friend's city within the fire station's radius). Or, if you really want to be at each other's neck and try to bring the other's city down, use Drain Pipes and Coal Power Plants next to each other's borders to pollute the other's city. To take things further, maybe your friend's city becomes frozen in time when he decides to call it quits for the day so that you can still keep on playing, and the same when you quit the game.
It has the potential to be a fun mode. But it entirely depends on how many people actually want it to be implemented versus how much work you'd have to put into developing such an addition to the game.