I somewhat agree with you but that comparsion is just so dumb it's not even worth commenting.
It's two totally different games.
Paradox next title should be proper multiplayer.
- Thread starter raw
- 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.
I somewhat agree with you but that comparsion is just so dumb it's not even worth commenting.
It's two totally different games.
I still think Paradox's multiplayer can be improved a lot, but I didnt like the comparisons with games that dont have very much in common.
If you can make it so it has drop-in-drop-out multiplayer without having to rehost the game that would be AMAZING.
I Think very possible as it hasn't had an Expansion in awhile.
Yeah, we were quite spoiled for a while with an expansion every December!
EU4....Oh my....
And you're randomly matched up with another player on your server, placed on a random map. The CK2 equivalent would be giving you a completely random playable character with, say, 3 other people also getting random characters. I don't think anyone would really play CK2 MP like that.
In order to play a more organized game on Battle.net 2.0, you have to go into the custom browser list. The CK2 equivalent would be letting you pick one of the 8 most popular starting characters, and if you wanted someone else, well you'd be shit out of luck.
If it's a general multiplayer code improvement to Clauswitz (as opposed to a new engine, which EU4 or some other mystery project™ might be), then odds are it'd find it's way to a CK2 expansion. Much like multi core support found it's way to Vicky. Depends on the timelines involved as well, though.But not for a Ck2 expansion?
Duplicate accounts are against the rules!!!! BANZHAMMER HIM!
EDIT: On topic, I would really appreciate it if you came up with a better matchmaking solution and patched it into the game. Or just optimized the way multiplayer worked. Right now, me and my friends can't seem to be able to get more than 3 players without annoyingly constant de-syncs.
Warcraft 3 had a great online system before blizzard was even powerful enough to run such big games. /join Clan (insert clan name here), /join (insert lobby here), Custom games, Tournaments all before it was rich and large... pdox can pull off the same tale worlds almost has it. why cant pdox pull it off? I even use Warcraft 3 to lobby some matches its fairly easy /j clan PI and theres a whole clan that sets up pdox games of all types and plays them actively every day. (bnet isnt even paided by its own self... Sponsers like A&T&T always keep it alive. blizzard co founder picked wc3 as its main peak point to massive online fame.
A way bnet(1.0) would work if it were in CKII is Host,Start/end/leave button, pick date/close,open slots/options/and max of 12 players, Friends list, Clan's list. Thats exactly everything Bnet 1.0 did and its still a fairly large community with over 4-5 games (wc3, sc1,diablos), Over 400,000 players total online, 100,000 warcraft 3, Custom games, Clans, Lobbies. i like wc3 its the best game i played many custom maps such as Azeroth wars, Game of thrones, World war 2, DoTA,Warband (based from yours truly M&B).
Love the thoughts of what pdox will do with mutliplayer, I just dont hope for a mmo or a card game.
Cheers for pdox for hinting something we do not have a clue of cept Eu4.
Last edited:
My problem with multiplayer is the way most other people play.
I like to play character-driven games like Crusader Kings in a roleplaying fashion: I wouldn't like to play against/with players who use any exploit in order to achieve their own goals. As for grand strategy games, generally, I like to play them historically: I wouldn't enjoy playing with guys who only aim at world conquests, or just painting the map blue.
I like to play character-driven games like Crusader Kings in a roleplaying fashion: I wouldn't like to play against/with players who use any exploit in order to achieve their own goals. As for grand strategy games, generally, I like to play them historically: I wouldn't enjoy playing with guys who only aim at world conquests, or just painting the map blue.
There already is one although it's called Stronghold Kingdoms. It doesn't have dynasty management but town and castle building is much more focused than in CK2. You don't even have to give all your money if you don't want to since it's F2P.
MP works perfectly, playing regularly each day with another group of players. and we're having very few issues with MP.
MP works perfectly in this version, there's some stability issues with loading saves ect, but mostly the game is -extremely- stable once a game has begun.
i only wish they had drop in feature, cus we gotta rehost if someone (which happens rarely) oos or crash.
MP works perfectly in this version, there's some stability issues with loading saves ect, but mostly the game is -extremely- stable once a game has begun.
i only wish they had drop in feature, cus we gotta rehost if someone (which happens rarely) oos or crash.
This is a feature every mp game would love to have and everyone would've loved. but most games wont ever add one since there all lazy king's.
