Multiplayer: the good, the bad and the realistic/unrealistic

[Koro]

 

So after spending several hundred hours in Ultimate General: Gettysburg multiplayer and meeting a bunch of people in the process, I'm here going to do 1 thread on multiplayer and my thoughts on it. No more and no less, I promise :). I'll discuss why I think it's a good idea, why it can be bad and already foreseeable problems that MP will have should ever come.

 

So the good part:

For me it was a lot of fun. Trying to out think and outsmart opponents on large battlefields were just an amazing experience and it was almost nearly as an amazing experience when you were outmaneuvered yourself and thinking, woah, that was cool. However good the AI is and can get, it will always be less capable of being innovate and thinking of tricks than a human player - especially a good one.

It's much more interesting knowing there is a human on the other side, controlling things and I liked to imagine myself in the shoes of a civil war general who might have gotten the same kind of absurd pleasure in outsmarting the opponent - don't tell me they weren't slightly insane in this regard. (see Lee's comments about Fredericksburg)

So.. besides the fun, it also generates a lot of "noise" - advertising value. On Youtube, players will post battles and talk over their matches as we saw in UGG which were interesting to watch. Much more so than watching anyone handle the AI were a player makes "real" mistakes and not just coding errors or the player does something exceptional. That was fun.

There were also the fights against Darth himself that youtubers did where they discussed the game and random stuff which were also interesting. I made 1 video with Darth myself that I got a lot of positive response on. These videos also generate "noise", much more than I'd expect a singleplayer video of a developer playing would make.

The bad:

So there are some obvious and some less obvious reasons that MP can be a bad idea for this game. The biggest "baddy" is the development time. From what little I've seen by participating in beta testing of MP in UGG, it takes a huge amount of development time. All kinds of crazy bugs happen that must be fixed to give players a good experience.

This also leads directly to the second baddy - the complaints when things don't work as "expected" or are "balanced". And what does balance even mean in MP? Since there are so many variables, especially in this new game, the notion of balance is almost thrown out the window from the start. I already see for me, massive skirmisher swarms being deployed by people who are good at micro, completely overwhelming their enemy and giving the opposing player no chance to respond due to being less fast on the micro - or simply because it's impossible to deal with that many units swarming you.

Then there's the fortifications which will probably bug out a lot and when a player exits a fortification, all kinds of exploits could be employed since the unit now becomes more vulnerable, leaving it to be shot to pieces.

There is also the general notion of attacking vs. defending side. Should the maps be "equal" in chance for both sides? Historically the defender was usually favored a lot.

Currently the historical battles are not balanced. Some are harder than others for both defending and attacking and also have wide disparity of numbers See Antietam - 35.000 CSA troops against some 70.000 Union. Imagine two players going at this battle. Is anyone going to be as numbnutted as McClellan here and not simply bleed the opposing force to death? I doubt even I could defend myself there.

So there'll be endless complaints about balance issues, about cavalry, artillery, etc. etc. and things I haven't even thought about yet. All things that will take up development time.

So the bad section got pretty long. That's how it is apparently from my perspective.

Next let's have a look at people's expectations:

The realistic

IF and it's a big IF, we ever see MP in this game, I think the most realistic kinds of battles we'll see, will be like the skirmishes that currently aren't developed much in the custom battles menu. A single phase session with limited forces. This is the easiest to set on the table as it's the most simple and avoids any kind of phaseshift, reinforcements coming in, battle messages etc. 

The hopeful 

Fullscale, historical battles, much like the historical battles unfold now. I don't care if they're balanced on forces even though people will complain about it.

The totally and completely unrealistic.

Mp campaign. Yes, this. Impossible to balance because the battles are not balanced, impossible to make sure a player doesn't get ground in to the dirt, and developed at immense resource expense for the enjoyment of very few people - who ever played a full Total war campaign f.x. in MP when the feature, heavily sought after by some, actually came to light? Very few and even fewer saw the completion of a campaign. There would be quitters as soon as the campaign started turning against them and the balance "whine" would be endless - take the bad above and multiply by 10 as the "bad" is enhanced due to accumulative effect as the campaign progresses.

So no, I see this as completely unrealistic and borderline wishful thinking - sorry :). 

All said here is on my own account, own thoughts and has no influence of any official Game-labs policy. Thanks for reading.

[Grognard_JC]

I agree we need MP. This has to be both coop and competitive and NOT JUST 1V1 !!!

I disagree about campaign. You are a pessimist, that's all . I've been playing almost continuously to NTW2 and NTW3 (napoleonic multiplayer 4v4 mods for Total War games, around 10 battles fought EVERY single evening) since 2006 with the same community of players, and although they are not very numerous, they do make a lot of noise. I have immense hopes about MP campaign. Ofc not every player will be interested in this, and there will be lot of noob quiters, yes. But once the community is forged, and that you know your opponents as friends on TS, you never dare quit a fight. What's more, I suppose campaign could be 2v2  or 3v3 with 1 player in each team assuming command on the campaign map. If one drops, someone else can take up the lead (see how paradox games have developped in teh right direction concering drops recently.)

(as a side note, why not create a MP Team Speak server one day ?)

In fact, the only very concern I can see, is the budget Darth and his team have. I suspect they still have a very small team, though extremely efficient, they certainly don't have the means (time and money) to develop such things as an MP campaign.

 

I keep believing though. 1) in MP Campaign, Lincoln' Mullet style could be fun. 2) True modding tools for the fans (Darth is one of the most famous modder of all times, and he failed releasing modding tools for UGG!!! How could this happen ?)

Keep the faith!

Edited December 1, 2016 by Grognard_JC

[Koro]

Hehe, I knew you'd be in this thread :). I consider myself more of a realist but it comes down to perspective I guess.

You can add a category called "very hopeful" where 2v2 and 3v3 is included in the already "hopeful" historical battles. That's as far as I'll stretch myself in terms of hoping

[Lincolns Mullet]

Nice breakdown Koro!  I've never been a big fan of MP strategy games but I get the interest.  There's a case to be made that the "vocal minority" can have a significant impact on game promotion and longevity.  But as Koro pointed out, I think with Game Labs still in its early years and an indie developer with limited resources, it's better to focus on what's going to make them the most money in the shortest amount of time.  When they hit it big and can afford to dedicate months of man hours solely on the MP aspect, balance, etc. then they will have some space to do so.  It's all about risk/reward and as they say, "You're only as good as your last game".

There's been a lot of prominent game developers who've gone under in the past 10 years that I can think of, two of whom I worked for.  Even the great Ensemble Studios is no longer.  It's a very risky industry to be in so I would never (nor shall you! lol) fault Nick for making a business decision to forgo multiplayer for the time being so he can focus on what the majority of potential buyers are looking for: campaign!  He already took a risk diving into a fairly niche gaming market with the American Civil War instead of trying to pander to the masses, but it's a niche that's been waiting for a game like this.

[aka Bear]

What I liked about MP CWG2 was the community of players, all having an interest in an horrendous part of our be-speckled past.  Vestiges of which, are still heard and felt to this very day.  Some more then others, but I reckon that holds true on pretty much any topic brought up for discussion.  What makes this "particular" niche game so different from others, such as the napoleonic wars WW1, WW2, is that it is uniquely and TOTALLY American, IMHO.  That there are STILL battlefields that haven't YET seen the "silver shovel", is as much a tribute to our history, and as much a topic for "buffs" as any particular General who's great greart grand son's fancy themselves in "reliving", if even for a brief time when immersed in a particular battle, and/or campaign.  For "these" players, MP would be fun for them, and me as well!...lol

A TS server would be nice, as it's more viable, then it was in '97 when CWG2 came out.  But chat worked fine then. And, beings an RTS game?  More of a necessity, I would think.

As like more endeavors then gaming;  Would ya get rich from making the game MP?  Prolly not, but you'd prolly make a decent wage from it.

[GS_Guderian]

Considering multiplayer experience from my own hosted tournaments for the game close-combat, I prefer a generally historic, but dynamic mp-campaign.

It could start with small tasks, as it is right now, allowing to rise in ranks. At the beginning there ain't much choice for commitement to battles. A certain rank could allow strategic decisions following the general task of Richmond/Washington.

The opposite player has a chance to hamper enemy career by denying him great victories with whatever 'garrison' units are on the board. (If they happen to meet there core units it's less bloody maybe.) Basically switching point of view from battle to battle.

If blue wins twice with his army, while forcing red core army to abort his actions in the first to tasks, he might get promoted, gaining more influence on strategic decisions. The rebel commander  instead stays subject to orders a little longer. 

That way it will still be possible to fight with what you buy and to live with consequences, but one side can't lose the  campaign easily in the first clicks of an strategic map.

 

 

 

[Grognard_JC]

In the late 90s I used to love the Close Combat 3 system of operation. 5 maps, your start at map 1 : one defender one attacker. The attacker must take all objectives on the map to proceed to the next map. Each round 15 minutes. You can refill or buy new units btw each round. Very simple, very deep, very interesting.

 

Too bad the CC series never made it to 2v2 or 3v3 multiplayer. This would be a great franchise by now. I can't understand how the devs never understood it.

Edited December 5, 2016 by Grognard_JC

[GS_Guderian]

The rather limiting campagin modus in CC4 /5 was the reason for me hosting a campaign with me designing each battle, depending on decisions by the different commanders.

[Lincolns Mullet]

Great series CC! Loved Bridge Too Far. Very cool campaign dynamics.

[Karri]

It would be nice to have a multiplayer set up so that you can play with your own army like in the campaign. All players start with basic number of money and recruits and can build their first corps. Then instead of playing scenarios and campaigns players just play random/custom battles against each other, and like in the campaign you gain resources based on performance(win, draw, lose). You can then use these to upgrade your units, get more corps and so forth. 

 

This would of course require some kind of dedicated server system from Game Labs, which might be a tad bit out of the league at the moment.

[GS_Guderian]

@ Karri 

If the campaign always let your corps troops meet each other, the weaker player would never grow an army. 

Therefore I suggested it adjusted, as to you only meet enemy players corps units, if both happen to be at the same site.

In all battles with  one corps unit from any side, the opponent player gets to play the garrison/stock troops.