HOI3 made for multiplayer

[Richardson]

Just admit it, singleplayer cant provide not even near the experience a good multiplayer game can.

To a hardcore player, that might be so. On the other hand, players like me, who are still figuring out the game on SP, a solely MP focused game would be horrible. I have time to play maybe an hour a day, few days a week inconsistently. How do you organize a MP session to suit that?

 

[unmerged(49695)]

if u dont have the time, its not my fault.

Also, hold on your horses! games on the fly? yes it should be allowed in case a player drops, so he can comeback to the game without rehosting. Now starting a game and get players joinning randomly on the fly, that doesnt work very all at all for game balance.

Give more control to the host, get a new lobby working with far more options, like a buddies tab, a better chat system etc.

Above all, improve the netcode, improve the investment in creating gameplay balance, and fixing exploits, so we dont need an extense 100rules list to prevent cheating.

The spartan team for example, shows us how they can take advantage fully of the game mechanics, not because they cheat, they just do what the game allows them to do, and therefor shows u how much work it needs to be balanced.

 

[unmerged(56137)]

To a hardcore player, that might be so. On the other hand, players like me, who are still figuring out the game on SP, a solely MP focused game would be horrible. I have time to play maybe an hour a day, few days a week inconsistently. How do you organize a MP session to suit that?

There are the short scenarios that need only 1-4 people to play in MP and can be rather fun for the timescale. Also like you and many others like you mentioned already you all share the problem of having an erratic timetable but because the MP community is so small (due to already mentioned restrictions) its simply unlikely that you'll find people with the same timetable to try a longterm game, though its not impossible. Its possible to join up with an active game and either play a minor or coop with someone, specially if you're able to see which buddies are online and what games they're in, but right now that simply is unsupported.

Again though, a solely based MP is not what we want, I think we can all agree the SP experience is valuable too. However it should not be the only focus for hoi3. I too enjoyed the SP campaigns I played up to a point, you can only beat the AI so much before it becomes boring and that is a constant in all games. Some people have a greater tolerance for AI behavior or mod the game to be more challenging in SP and pdox certainly did some great effort to extend replayability but the root problem remains. I mean how are you going to enjoy hoi2 in short term 30/60-minute episodes when you no longer enjoy fighting the AI to begin with ?

Now starting a game and get players joinning randomly on the fly, that doesnt work very all at all for game balance.

If the host has more control he would be able to regulate it rather than letting noobs join and wreak havoc then leave. But right now beyond controlling the speed of time the host has little power.

 

[unmerged(71032)]

Ok, to put it simple - HoI series is too complicated to be good multiplayer game.

It got many elements that simply don't work well in multiplayer enviroment. I must say I was always impressed how hardcore people that attempted to play HoI/HoI2 were.

You know, Paradox made some of their games more multiplayer friendly. EU:Rome is as multiplayer friendly as it gets, with its simplified structure, couple of factions staying in relative balance and fast pace allowing game to end in reasonable time. Personally, I think it's great MP game, probably the best suited for it from all Paradox titles (maybe except from Diplomacy ).

But I certainly don't want it from HoI series. I was super-geeky detailed WWII, with all the historical details in the backgound - and without any concessions made for multiplayer comfort and balance.

 

[unmerged(56137)]

Ok, to put it simple - HoI series is too complicated to be good multiplayer game.

That is just plain wrong imo, its the complication & great level of detail that makes the multiplayer experience even so much better, letting players decide where to take their nation and how to handle the events that unfold adds great detail to the game. Not to mention having intelligence behind the movement of troops and such adds greatly to how realisticly games turn out rather than devolving into a world conquest of epic proportions. At one point I remember an italy player actually backing down from invading albania due to fear of allied intervention, or a japaneese DoW on SU in 38 rather than backing down, you simply don't get that with the AI, or if you do the game is wrecked. If it did not have great multiplayer potential people wouldn't be tolerating the painful process of getting a game going if the end result wasn't a great experience.

 

[unmerged(12303)]

Ok, to put it simple - HoI series is too complicated to be good multiplayer game.
.

Its an excellent MP game for those that have the patience. The crashing, lack of balance and buggy vnet code are the turn offs. If it was just simpler to have a stable game with the host in control of who joins when and what happens to a country if a player drops that would be a huge boost.

 

[unmerged(71032)]

Uh, huh.

No guys, I stick to my comment.

Good MP game can't really be all that long running as HoI1/HoI2. What's more, some of the elements of the game inevitably suffer because of limited ability to pause and have to be supported by tons of house rules just to make game acceptable for everyone.

Basically, check the suggestion lists on this forum. Additional supply dumps and more developed logistics. More detailed naval warfare. More techs. More resources. More detail in diplomacy. More, more, more... And all those extras are actually going against the ability to keep gameplay smooth, which is pretty critical in multiplayer (unless, like Fiendix summarized, "you have the patience").

To make it clear - I'm sure that fans of the game will always find a way to have fun from playing it in MP. For that matter, I fully support suggestions to improve MP code and such. But arguments I see on this thread that making game better for MP (like, with balanced sides for example?) would in turn bring more people to the game are basically false. As long as we want to see HoI series as detailed and based close to historical, it will be a bit too detailed to make it good MP material.

 

[unmerged(49695)]

Uh, huh.

No guys, I stick to my comment.

Good MP game can't really be all that long running as HoI1/HoI2. What's more, some of the elements of the game inevitably suffer because of limited ability to pause and have to be supported by tons of house rules just to make game acceptable for everyone.

Basically, check the suggestion lists on this forum. Additional supply dumps and more developed logistics. More detailed naval warfare. More techs. More resources. More detail in diplomacy. More, more, more... And all those extras are actually going against the ability to keep gameplay smooth, which is pretty critical in multiplayer (unless, like Fiendix summarized, "you have the patience").

To make it clear - I'm sure that fans of the game will always find a way to have fun from playing it in MP. For that matter, I fully support suggestions to improve MP code and such. But arguments I see on this thread that making game better for MP (like, with balanced sides for example?) would in turn bring more people to the game are basically false. As long as we want to see HoI series as detailed and based close to historical, it will be a bit too detailed to make it good MP material.

thats plain wrong. U probably play the game at extremly high speed or something, because i have plenty of time to do everything on very slow, and if i happen to not have, i just pause. It's not only fit for mp, if u are of those kind of guys who want to click in and go pew pew and leave everything automatised...

 

[unmerged(71032)]

thats plain wrong. U probably play the game at extremly high speed or something, because i have plenty of time to do everything on very slow, and if i happen to not have, i just pause. It's not only fit for mp, if u are of those kind of guys who want to click in and go pew pew and leave everything automatised...

Yes, I'm this kind of guy. You got me there pal.

Ok, I rest my case.

 

[unmerged(12303)]

Good MP game can't really be all that long running as HoI1/HoI2.

thats simply not true. There are many games that take ages to finish - not to mention PBEM ones - and in my book they are "good". I guess its just what you want 30 mins of intense fun then Starcraft or WOW is your field of MP games not MP strategy games.

What's more, some of the elements of the game inevitably suffer because of limited ability to pause and have to be supported by tons of house rules just to make game acceptable for everyone.

thats really a balance issue which can be sorted by mods and tweaks - just paradox needs to give us the tools for this.

Basically, check the suggestion lists on this forum. Additional supply dumps and more developed logistics. More detailed naval warfare. More techs. More resources. More detail in diplomacy. More, more, more... And all those extras are actually going against the ability to keep gameplay smooth, which is pretty critical in multiplayer (unless, like Fiendix summarized, "you have the patience").

There are many "smooth" mp games that transfer a lot of data around and dont crash - as frankly thats the MAIN gripe with MP. Its a hell of a lot better but still bugs that were reported in HOI2 v 1.00 are still around to make us CTD - thats where we need patience - not in the pauseing part, speed of the game or even the balance.

 

[unmerged(71032)]

thats simply not true. There are many games that take ages to finish - not to mention PBEM ones - and in my book they are "good". I guess its just what you want 30 mins of intense fun then Starcraft or WOW is your field of MP games not MP strategy games.

And here we go with another idotic assumption. Yes, I pew-pew, I want WoW. I'm really dissapointed with you Fiendix. Do you want to talk serious, or should I just switch to trolling mode myself as well?

PBEM are different pair of shoes because of exact name of them - thanks to turn base and e-mail communication, you have enough time for carefully prepared moves - and thanks to that, you can play even for months.

Paradox games are completely different pair of shoes. Suggested "playing on very slow" is basically leading to different pace of gameplay for some players (those with global empires to manage) and different for others (those with compact country with clear goals). Additionally, MP games are based on principle of balance, which can't really be the case with any game of WWII claiming to be historical. On the top of that, features that make single player game fantastic can vary from annoyance to plain critical issue in MP.

But that's not the most important. I simply contest the idea that making game focused on MP will rise number of players. On the contrary, to make it popular MP game, it would have to be simplified to the oblivion, thus annoing people like hell (see EU:Rome case).

You can't cather to everyone. Or rather, you could - but then HoI would indeed have to be turn based and have PBEM MP mode.

thats really a balance issue which can be sorted by mods and tweaks - just paradox needs to give us the tools for this.

Fully agree, same with dealing with bugs and lags.

As for balancing, I really, really would love to see scenarios/campaigns that are designed with MP in mind only - just like multiple mods do. Present solution, with all scenarios and campaigns expected to be used in both SP and MP is simply not that great.

I also wonder if certain countries can be played by multiple players at the same time (This option is not in game yet, right? Been a while since I tried MP). Since some of the fronts control might be delegated to AI, it would make sense to relegate them to other players in MP, thus allowing "cooperative mode". Think one player controlling fleet, other army and such (or one Pacific, other Altlantic). But I guess that was suggested earlier already.

 

[unmerged(56137)]

Good MP game can't really be all that long running as HoI1/HoI2. What's more, some of the elements of the game inevitably suffer because of limited ability to pause and have to be supported by tons of house rules just to make game acceptable for everyone.

It really is dependant on what group you play with, the game I was talking about had no rules whatsoever (with the exception of no exploits) and we all had a blast, its one of my favourite games of all time infact. Thats not to say that rules are bad, I've enjoyed many games with strict rules, though I do prefer the more open enviroments. With that same group we're currently playing an abyss game and its even much more fun when players start roleplaying their nations politics as well, rather than the preselected ww2 setting. But if you don't like a specific group there are always others out there, and with a greater MP audience you would get a more varied experience. As for pausing I don't understand why thats the main concern of SP fans. Pausing is usually allowed in many games, or at least most groups I've played with. Since everybody like you will have the same issues, people will usually understand when you need to pause. I'm sure we're all sensible enough to use pausing only when neccessary, like huge battles or techteam changes and other situations. You don't need to pause for every single thing and you'll find that you'll have plenty of time to do everything.

Basically, check the suggestion lists on this forum. Additional supply dumps and more developed logistics. More detailed naval warfare. More techs. More resources. More detail in diplomacy. More, more, more... And all those extras are actually going against the ability to keep gameplay smooth, which is pretty critical in multiplayer

Infact many of the suggestions made by MP are usually beneficial to SP gameplay as well, I mean detailed naval warfare, extra techs and other things have also been requests of SP players as well. Granted MP & SP needs will never be a perfect match but there is alot of room for mutual improvement. The problem is the implementation of SP-oriented features does not seem to be subjected to much MP testing or how such features could be improved further in MP, its simply provided as is. The intelligence system for example could be a great tool in MP but its simply too broken even in SP to be of much use beyond exploiting the AI's dumbness.

But arguments I see on this thread that making game better for MP (like, with balanced sides for example?) would in turn bring more people to the game are basically false

The arguments were greater MP accessability would bring a greater MP crowd, mostly converts from the SP crowd or those that are usually bored and eventually drift away, rather than actually brand new players. That arguement is valid since the MP is simply too troublesome for many to bother with it like many people here have already said.

But that's not the most important. I simply contest the idea that making game focused on MP will rise number of players. On the contrary, to make it popular MP game, it would have to be simplified to the oblivion, thus annoing people like hell (see EU:Rome case).

Actually thats part of the problem, since many games that offer great MP are usually far too simple hoi2 has great potential for people that want complex prolonged MP games rather than quick deathmatches.

p.s: coop is also allowed in MP atm

 

[unmerged(12303)]

And here we go with another idotic assumption. Yes, I pew-pew, I want WoW. I'm really dissapointed with you Fiendix. Do you want to talk serious, or should I just switch to trolling mode myself as well?

Sry it wasnt meant at you (maybe I should have used the "one" word) just a general view of mine. Just "typical" RTS are not strategy games in my book. As I just cant think of any short running strategy games that dont take less that at a min of 2-3 hrs (ofc hoi 36 scen is much more huge no doubt about it).

PBEM are different pair of shoes because of exact name of them - thanks to turn base and e-mail communication, you have enough time for carefully prepared moves - and thanks to that, you can play even for months.

Paradox games are completely different pair of shoes. Suggested "playing on very slow" is basically leading to different pace of gameplay for some players (those with global empires to manage) and different for others (those with compact country with clear goals). Additionally, MP games are based on principle of balance, which can't really be the case with any game of WWII claiming to be historical. On the top of that, features that make single player game fantastic can vary from annoyance to plain critical issue in MP.

Most of my hoi mp games do last for months, plus most of the gamers we play manage at below normal most of the time untill general war breaks out. Then we move at slow and its fine - lots of things going on so its not a pain unless one is the impatient type. Obv you cant be on pause to rename units as that would be unfair to other players but still a lot of the players even manage that. I guess its a matter of experience in the game.

But that's not the most important. I simply contest the idea that making game focused on MP will rise number of players. On the contrary, to make it popular MP game, it would have to be simplified to the oblivion, thus annoing people like hell (see EU:Rome case).

You can't cather to everyone. Or rather, you could - but then HoI would indeed have to be turn based and have PBEM MP mode.

Oh I agree to the fact you cant please all - but really most of the things that MP players complain is the CTDs which really are fixable. The vnet code made in what EUI era really doesnt help here. So its not a unreasonable thing to ask for. Furthermore as I said in my post I agree that hoi should be MP based as the group is smaller - but the game would definately benefit from MP balance as then one would have a bigger challange in SP.

As for balancing, I really, really would love to see scenarios/campaigns that are designed with MP in mind only - just like multiple mods do. Present solution, with all scenarios and campaigns expected to be used in both SP and MP is simply not that great.

Oh nobody really in MP plays the small scenarios. Firstly they are hugely unbalanced and most prefer to use the full extent of the games possibilities.

I also wonder if certain countries can be played by multiple players at the same time (This option is not in game yet, right? Been a while since I tried MP). Since some of the fronts control might be delegated to AI, it would make sense to relegate them to other players in MP, thus allowing "cooperative mode". Think one player controlling fleet, other army and such (or one Pacific, other Altlantic). But I guess that was suggested earlier already.

HOI2 has coop mode - but again it causes crashes . Thus not a lot of help.

 

[Crilloan]

From a MP perspective, better netcode.

I have played mostly sp and enjoyed the rp aspect of it, but when you have found a decent group of nice and friendly fellows to play with on a regular basis the results are that sp looses most of its lure. It just cant compete, Unfortunately.

Unfortunately, since its very time consuming and takes effort and planning to get it to work. I speculate that most casual players will probably never play it in mp.

But I think that if the developer works with more mp functionality from the beginning it will lead to improvement in the single player experience as well.
Its not all about improving the abysmal net code but over all stability and smoothness.

As have been discussed in other threads, good subroutines that can be used by the player for taking care of secondary or tertiary fronts.

A large part of the potential buyers for HOI3 might never enjoy this game in its full glory with like-minded individuals over the net, but making it less of a hassle than it is now and the fraction who do so might increase.

/C

 

[unmerged(115587)]

HOI have alot to get from resent versions of CIV, Sid Meier realy made a great job to make the game more RTS-like but still keep the complexity of the game.

But, even with the little HOI experience I have, I realy understand the needs for house rules in MP games. Kaos can be nice, but in large MP games there's always a good chance that one or the other side will get crippeld early and have a serius amount of boring game hours ahead. So there's no need to fiddle around with the MP gameplay to much beacuse Paradox can't possibly make it as flexible as *insert MP party name here* house roules can be.

Basicly what's needed from Paradox is to make the netcode much more stable(!!!), and maybe a CIV lobby like environment for some faster MP optimized senarios to random play against people online.

A dedicated server would be good and also that games that are rolling can be joined (i.e. not to restart the damn game/hosting everytime someone drops.)

 

[unmerged(64529)]

if u dont have the time, its not my fault.

The thing you don't realize, is that's about 90% of us.

 

[unmerged(49695)]

which would be 20% or lower after bigger mp exposure to attract more people

 

[LeeDub]

I have read through this thread and I do not understand what the conflict is about. Some people want to see better MP - mostly netcode fixes. Well, I think everyone agrees and purely SP gamers don't mind. So... It's a no-brainer.

Now, some are MP supremacists who argue that MP is much more fun than SP. Well, that is their opinion, as valid as any. But it doesn't really prove anything, and certainly not that multiplayer should be made at the cost of singleplayer.

So how about Paradox improving BOTH SP (quite a few things, but mostly AI ) AND MP (netcode plus some MP-specific mechanics that are disabled otherwise)? Surely it would attract more people to the game itself and then encourage a greater percentage of them to try playing multi? More customers and a larger MP community, everyone wins. (Well, it DOES cost more and takes longer to make but Paradox should strive to make still better games after all...)

 

[Von Paulous]

I see no comment.... pity....

I see no comment on beeing able to preprogram AI actions and inactions.

A replay if you like that should be loadable in SP and MP games.

Forcing the computer to take the well planned actions you adviced it to take will present you a VERY CHALLENGING single player game.

More importanly if that replay is loadable in MP games it could act as each human player personal assistant.

This would make the assemply of multiplayer teams far more easier.

It would also make the speed of the multiplayer game run faster.(Perhaps on very fast untill wartime!). The players will simply pause the game to take the non programmable random actions they think apropriate.

More importanly the AI code may be limited to optimal usage of any forces.
For example Logistical strikes always before enganging ground units, Air supiriority over areas you intent to bomb, stop bombing dug in enemies.

These are simple tricks that the current AI fails to perform.

That kind of decent AI would make single player games more than challenging.

I really doubt there is any use of single player HoI 2.The computer has no chance to face a well studied player.

Also the these replays could be loadable on the forum so other players may study them/post comments.

Perhaps exchanging peace time deployment replays before actual play would tell the enganging teams in advance if these opponents are worth their time.

It would also allow players to see weather their enemies have cheated on some point by editing or by doing something against the rules agreed upon.

And the magic of all that is that this feature is simple to implement.

I fail to see why this feature is absent from HoI 2.

I bet and hope that HoI 3 would be more complicated and detailed than HoI 2.

It is rather hard for 6 players in multiplayer to take care all the details the way they like and having the game run at a decent speed.

In HoI 3 I bet that that kind of micromanagment would be impossible.

An executable replay in MP would make that kind of detailed plans possible.

Are there any single player freaks out there that HATE the idea of being able to face their own masterplans as adversaries?

HoI 3 would be crippled without that feature in my humble opinion.

 

[ozidnz]

+1
Edit:I've posted it for Lee Dub's comment(same time posting)