I read on these forums a few years back the developers said live pvp isn’t something they could do with this game. Had something to do with the coding and game design. Galaxy of hero’s was never meant to have live pvp when the game was first created.
Yet, strangely enough, plenty of other similar games have found ways to do live pvp. I think it comes down to that EA just does this game on the cheap and has no real interest in making a virtual slot machine into a real game.
Do you truly believe it's a costs issue?
It's certainly not an unsolvable technical issue as live pvp is implemented in countless mobile games. So yeah, I have to go with cost.
Seeying as there are quite a few comments that don't want live PvP, maybe the devs also don't see it as a improvement for the game. Obviously live PvP has it's downsides and isn't objectively more enjoyable.
I'm on opposed to live PvP on principle, but there are so many pitfalls that could ruin it that i personally don't even want it.
Are any of them games built on the same engine? Honest question. Ive played a couple of games on the same engine but none had live pvp.
I am unfamiliar with games running the same engine. Regardless, writing netcode for a turn based game is not an insurmountable issue. I mean you could even be lazy and restrict the mode to wifi only if you are overly worried about sync issues.
I read on these forums a few years back the developers said live pvp isn’t something they could do with this game. Had something to do with the coding and game design. Galaxy of hero’s was never meant to have live pvp when the game was first created.
Yet, strangely enough, plenty of other similar games have found ways to do live pvp. I think it comes down to that EA just does this game on the cheap and has no real interest in making a virtual slot machine into a real game.
Do you truly believe it's a costs issue?
It's certainly not an unsolvable technical issue as live pvp is implemented in countless mobile games. So yeah, I have to go with cost.
Seeying as there are quite a few comments that don't want live PvP, maybe the devs also don't see it as a improvement for the game. Obviously live PvP has it's downsides and isn't objectively more enjoyable.
I'm on opposed to live PvP on principle, but there are so many pitfalls that could ruin it that i personally don't even want it.
I'm sure the small sample size of 6 people on the forums who don't like live pvp has swayed the developers more than all the money that live pvp games like Counter-Strike, Call of Duty, Fortnite, League of Legends, pick an MMO, etc have made over the years. No. Sorry. It's a simple cost issue. It's the same reason this game still has almost nothing to do other than hit sim and join buttons after 3 years in existence. EA sees this as a vehicle to make major money with almost no work.
I read on these forums a few years back the developers said live pvp isn’t something they could do with this game. Had something to do with the coding and game design. Galaxy of hero’s was never meant to have live pvp when the game was first created.
Yet, strangely enough, plenty of other similar games have found ways to do live pvp. I think it comes down to that EA just does this game on the cheap and has no real interest in making a virtual slot machine into a real game.
Do you truly believe it's a costs issue?
It's certainly not an unsolvable technical issue as live pvp is implemented in countless mobile games. So yeah, I have to go with cost.
Seeying as there are quite a few comments that don't want live PvP, maybe the devs also don't see it as a improvement for the game. Obviously live PvP has it's downsides and isn't objectively more enjoyable.
I'm on opposed to live PvP on principle, but there are so many pitfalls that could ruin it that i personally don't even want it.
I'm sure the small sample size of 6 people on the forums who don't like live pvp has swayed the developers more than all the money that live pvp games like Counter-Strike, Call of Duty, Fortnite, League of Legends, pick an MMO, etc have made over the years. No. Sorry. It's a simple cost issue. It's the same reason this game still has almost nothing to do other than hit sim and join buttons after 3 years in existence. EA sees this as a vehicle to make major money with almost no work.
I'm glad you're convinced, but you lost me when you mentioned CS and CoD. Those aren't similar games at all.
For arguments sake lets pretent they implement a live PvP game mode, what do you think would happen? This game requires minimal skill as far as battling goes, so PvP will basically be who has the best team wins. Balance issues up the wazoo. It's certainly not a guaranteed money maker, depending on how it's implemented it might even be the end of the game.
Obviously the devs aren't swayed by 6 comments 3 years after the game's initial release, i was using those comments as an example that live PvP isn't necessarily an improvement for the game. Those guys don't thinks so, so maybe the devs dont either.
I find that a more likely explanation than EA not wanting to make more money by investing a little. Maybe they don't think it's worth the risk since players seem to enjoy the current format without live PvP just fine.
no it's a time issue, you need time to think before you act and with the revan-traya metas you might actually need to auto the last 1-2 mins to finish in time - due to high survivability. Point is that there is little time to act even 10 seconds per person would only give you 3 moves per minute and 3 moves to the other guy that means 15 per 15 minutes. Unless you want half an hour battles, it simply would be boring as hell. And then you would just setup a zaris tank teams and don't move during your turn = insta draw
Replies
Seeying as there are quite a few comments that don't want live PvP, maybe the devs also don't see it as a improvement for the game. Obviously live PvP has it's downsides and isn't objectively more enjoyable.
I'm on opposed to live PvP on principle, but there are so many pitfalls that could ruin it that i personally don't even want it.
I am unfamiliar with games running the same engine. Regardless, writing netcode for a turn based game is not an insurmountable issue. I mean you could even be lazy and restrict the mode to wifi only if you are overly worried about sync issues.
I'm sure the small sample size of 6 people on the forums who don't like live pvp has swayed the developers more than all the money that live pvp games like Counter-Strike, Call of Duty, Fortnite, League of Legends, pick an MMO, etc have made over the years. No. Sorry. It's a simple cost issue. It's the same reason this game still has almost nothing to do other than hit sim and join buttons after 3 years in existence. EA sees this as a vehicle to make major money with almost no work.
I'm glad you're convinced, but you lost me when you mentioned CS and CoD. Those aren't similar games at all.
For arguments sake lets pretent they implement a live PvP game mode, what do you think would happen? This game requires minimal skill as far as battling goes, so PvP will basically be who has the best team wins. Balance issues up the wazoo. It's certainly not a guaranteed money maker, depending on how it's implemented it might even be the end of the game.
Obviously the devs aren't swayed by 6 comments 3 years after the game's initial release, i was using those comments as an example that live PvP isn't necessarily an improvement for the game. Those guys don't thinks so, so maybe the devs dont either.
I find that a more likely explanation than EA not wanting to make more money by investing a little. Maybe they don't think it's worth the risk since players seem to enjoy the current format without live PvP just fine.
Good thought. I’m not super into it, however, I would love to see it here.