Not every game should be or needs to be everything. Some are better off without multiplayer.

Originally posted by Strategic Sage:

Not every game should be or needs to be everything. Some are better off without multiplayer.

Right but this game was made for multiplayer 🔥🔥🔥

It explicitly was not.

so like two players vs the horde? I can just imagine the griefing, intentional or not.

Originally posted by red255:

so like two players vs the horde? I can just imagine the griefing, intentional or not.

Or Up to 4 players. Shared resources, shared upgrades, shared food and for sure more enemy's.

Originally posted by Strategic Sage:

It explicitly was not.

I meant that this kind of game should always have a multiplayer.

I doubt they could sync multiplayer and still have so many enemies on screen. But yes we need a sequel.

me and my friends also agree
, we have spent hours talking about how you could implement multiplayer idk about sharing resources However it would be cool if you could send your friends in game resources via the train. also they could have added battle blimps maybe? fits the steam punk world and you could maybe even try one where your friend controls the zombies and the other defends/ fights against them. and so much more.

There's always more you can add to any game. A good multiplayer game needs to be designed as such from the start though. It's not something you can just staple on at the end, and TAB functions just fine as a single-player game.

It's not as if there aren't eleventy bazillion other multiplayer games.

Nope. Not gonna work the way the game is.

The pause button. It's very important to the game. Otherwise this game would not have the appeal that it does. It nullifies the mechanically steep learning curve of playing an RTS. This game is extremely complicated for an RTS because it is also a city builder game. If you can't pause, you can't plan out your colony without getting mobbed by swarms. Lose the pause, the difficulty curve goes wild and the game becomes a hardcore RTS.

In multiplayer the pause button could mean tons of pauses that you are not in control of. The game is already long with just your own pauses, imagine 1-3 other idiots freely hitting pause.
So then what can you do? Make it so that pause sends a message to the others and until the other players agree you don't get a pause? Imagine needing that pause during a zombie swarm and having to wait for democracy to get you killed. So if those two options suck, what's the alternative?

What if we remove the pause button only in multiplayer. Now who knows what other problems will come from trying to add multiplayer to the game. But we can ignore that. Once you get this type of multiplayer, it will play like a hardcore RTS. So it's not like it will appeal to all that many people.

It is such a naively simplistic logic that fields the belief that if a game is fun for a single player that the exact same game would be more fun with more players. It genuinely does not work that way, even when developers try to give players what they ask for what results of the attempt is never that fun and the coop players just go back to roblox anyway.

Originally posted by RandomNoun:

It is such a naively simplistic logic that fields the belief that if a game is fun for a single player that the exact same game would be more fun with more players. It genuinely does not work that way, even when developers try to give players what they ask for what results of the attempt is never that fun and the coop players just go back to roblox anyway.

I offered my wish to the developers, not you. Nobody cares your toxic opinion.

You offered yourself up to a public forum is what you did, you shared your opinion here first, the fact that you don't like how other people respond to it isn't the same as the response being toxic. If you really think this game could work as a multiplayer game go make that game yourself, see if its really as easy as you think it is. Then you can come back and say for certain whether pointing out that you are naive to think so is true or not, until then, I'm not wrong.

Age of Darkness tried it, I would say its a poor experience, made worse by the technical networking issues they havent been able to fix. It has mixed reviews at the moment, I dont know if can be held up as an example of success at this concept of TAB but multiplayer. Do you really think TAB would fare any better?

There are already plenty of multiplayer games out there, if those games are as fun as you are saying this game has the potential to be then why are you here asking for this game concept to change? Shouldn't you be enjoying those games instead? What we see instead from the games as a service field of multiplayer/coop games is a brief explosion of hype and then a dead game a few months later, the player base is looking for something they can't find, but you really won't find what you are looking for here, so I mean it when I say you should just try to make the game you want for yourself, if it works out you might just succeed where everyone else has failed.