HOI3 made for multiplayer

[unmerged(56137)]

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

I don't see how its simple at all, you can already do this in hoi2 by writing AI scripts yourself, though your suggestion would let the AI write its own script based on your actions. Sure it sounds simple enough on paper but the AI tends to react very badly when outside its pre-scripted enviroment. No 2 MP or SP games for that matter are alike so having the AI learn from a previous game might not work all that well, and you can never be sure if it learned all the lessons properly or even if it learned the right lessons. The problem with "decent AI" is that it is very very hard to program properly (specially on such a large scale game) and doesn't always work the way it was designed to, which is why I'm pretty worried about having the AI handle entire fronts, hopefully the AI will be much improved as reported.

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...)

I totally agree, Paradox released 2 expansions and between 3-6 patches for each expansion and vanilla, mostly directed towards singleplayer where as multiplayer bugs were usually fixed by proxy (minor SP problems that become huge MP issues). Any single one of those patches could've been dedicated to fixing the issues that have been haunting the MP since the beginning or perhaps attempting to actually improve alittle. A few patches dedicated to MP is reasonable enough imo, doesn't mean they have to throw the SP into the garbage like others suggested.

 

[Von Paulous]

At last a comment

You say it hard to implement.

For one thing I dont know anything about scriptiing.

All I know that a save/load replay was not available in strarcraft.

It became available with a patch.Isnt this simple enough?

Having replays of games available would be a wonderfull tool for new players to learn the game.

The only difference from actuall startcraft replay is.... that it would be interactive.

The replay allows you to take random non programmable actions freely(such as trade and espionage)

The replay gets out of action when the player makes an action that is contrarry to replays commands.

It may lag a bit.... but once out, the replay may not be set in action unless there is a rehost.

When you come to the point of saving the replay-runned-player-intervined game... you have the option of saving your new course of action as a new replay.

As far as I know the replay all the players commands saved in a loadable file and the program acts upon this commands.

 

[unmerged(56137)]

Yeah well this "loadable file" is what I imagine would be an AI script file, so the coders would have to engineer some sort of mechanism that would be able to decipher all the actions of the player from a replay into meaningful AI commands, organise those commands in the proper sequence and hope it all works out. There is quite alot of room for error, the deciphering mechanism might not be able to pick up all the player tactics, it might learn the wrong lessons, the AI might not react all that well to such tactics or because the script is created dynamically it could be bugged. If by some miracle it all works out, the resulting AI script would be static, meaning that the AI will be following a pre-programmed script that cannot react to a player who is trying different tactics or different buildups, resulting in an easily predictable AI as well (since its your own tactics). Not to mention that the recorded tactics would be against the dumb AI rather than a human so they may not work so well when the AI tries them against you.

I personally would like to see a form of "replay" at the end of any game, simply to watch how the entire game progressed and the interesting events that happened to change the course of the game, other games like Civilization do that as well. But I'm not entirely sure if its possible to create what you mentioned, I imagine it requires alot of work so I won't tell you its impossible but I think its quite unlikely to happen.

 

[aphrochine]

I would have to say that the pinnicle of gaming is the MP experience. While some places are full of 12 year kids laying down racials slurs and other vile non-sense, I have found the the Pdox community is not one of those places. So understand when I relish MP in gaming, I do not refer to xbox voice chat per say.

As a species we are social. Playing games by yourself is great, but only for a bit. At some point, the story must end and you must being playing the game. At some point, the novelty of a new game mechanic or a beauty of some new graphics fades. What you're left is a game that requires more an more imput and effort from the player in order to remain interesting. This is why we have so many games in our AARs where player set out on some kind of quest to play the game a certain way. The HOI2 community has been relegated into creating its own challenge. As well, the MOD community has helped alot. I dont know of anyone who still plays vanilla HOI2 seriously. The point being, its the player community that makes a game great, not really the game itself. MP helps develope that community and makes the game's experience far greater than it could be sitting solo in a dark room as you massacre the AI for the upteenth time.

HOI2 MP has a distinct flavor that I've never experienced in any other game. First, it's games take place over weeks & months. You ahve plenty of time between sessions to plot, negotiate with other players and plan your next moves. The races we play (races as in RTS races) have infinate amounts of lore to bring to the table since we have 1000 years of modern history to pull from. What truly makes the MP experience is the people you play with and how they influence the experience. I would trade 10 hours of SP player experience to be online when a buddy of yours cracks a priceless joke in the middle of the game.

If Pdox can take some pages out of the CIV playbook in terms of MP functionality; drop in games, password protection, stability and make the games mechanics a little less exploitable to avoid long rulesets, HOI3 would be poised to be one of the greatest MP strategy games ever. Imagine an HOI3 game where you didnt have to rehost if someone was late, or could make it through a 3-4 hour session with no reshosts.

Game sessions could make it longer in game time, which would make games turn around quicker....or sessions could be shortened. One of the biggest slowing factors is when everyone is at war and the management of nations like the US, Germany and the UK (nations with multiple fronts) can now delegate to the AI can mean the game could run a slightly higher speed setting.

The bottom line is, Pdox needs to take the MP community a little more seriously than the SP community. HOI2 has largely developed a SP player base because of deficiencies of their games, but just as Fiend says, there can be a HUGE boon the games popularity if they make concessions to MP...just like CIV did.


For all you people out there who dont have a group, let me toss a shameless plug here, head over a visit our site, we take all comers for MP games and encourage a decentralized community for HOI MP.

www.warplanorange.net/forum

 

[LeeDub]

The bottom line is, Pdox needs to take the MP community a little more seriously than the SP community. HOI2 has largely developed a SP player base because of deficiencies of their games, but just as Fiend says, there can be a HUGE boon the games popularity if they make concessions to MP...just like CIV did.

The bottom line is that Paradox needs to make money. How they do it, it is up to them. While games like WoW can be wildly popular while strictly multiplayer, a study is often cited that about 90% players prefer singleplayer, or don't even touch multi. Now, this data might be outdated by now and it's hard to track down to actually show anyone, so it's hardly a good argument.

So it boils down to the customer base. Every company must make it's games as accessible to the wider audience as possible. Paradox has chosen a niche market, and while the customer base is smaller, they benefit from no serious competition - they are the best in this biz.

So how can they pick up a casual gamer? A casual gamer should be allowed to sample the game in the time he has available. Multiplayer in Paradox games is a fairly time-consuming affair, isn't it? Furthermore, it helps to know the players beforehand, as you will be spending quite a lot of time with them. A casual player, as the name implies, probably won't invest as much interest in the game until it really sucks him in. And that's one of the roles of SP.

Therefore, neglecting singleplayer to create a better MP experience is (if my theory is correct ) counterproductive - while those that do buy the game will have a richer online experience, they may find the player base smaller, because fewer people decided to try multi because of... the poor SP experience.

This is pure speculation, of course, so feel free to correct me/disagree.

 

[unmerged(59184)]

my original post was meant to give more importance, and developing time to the single player component.

Funny then, that what you actually said was the exact opposite.

And you managed to antagonize a good portion of your readers as well (including me) meaning any good pr for going MP has a much smaller chance of reaching through. Good job

Thats because getting MP started and actually having a prolonged stable game is a nightmare...

That's your fantasy, and has no basis in reality. What Tracid stated was fact, and even the smoothest and friendliest MP UI and mechanics is *not* going to change that fact. HoI, unless its completely changed into a generic RTS type clickfest you can be done with in 30min / game, is never going to see an MP majority. Probably not even then.

 

[unmerged(49695)]

ohh that was a mistake, i sure meant to write multiplayer not singleplayer.

probably wrote single player thinking of my next sentence, my mistake.

 

[Von Paulous]

Totally predictable.... hell yes

An AI that faithfully obeys a human players instructions is 100% predictable.

Hell YES.

Thats the hole point.

The replay I am longing for would be a wonderfull tool to make you allies/enemies decent powers untill wartime.

The 3 years of peacetime there are no human players actions that might force the AI into responding.

Therefore I see no evil in the predictability of the hole thing.
The AI is incabable of responding to human actions.... but there are no human actions to respond to in the first place.

Once the war starts.... I see no way for a replay to work.The existing AI is in charge from that point on.

I am longing for a replay that would be a valuable tool during PEACETIME development.

It would be invaluble in Single player and Multiplayer games.

I have a strong enough germany that can face a 600IC strong soviet union.

I really want to face that SU in single player.... the only problem is that I cant.

That is because the AI never has a chance to IC whore to 600 IC in single player.

The fiendisly difficult part of inventing a code that acts upons saved commands......is the code of HoI 2 itself.

The existing program simply has to read the commands of the player and act upon them.

I know that this what strarcraft did.

 

[unmerged(56137)]

That's your fantasy, and has no basis in reality.

Really ? I just like making stuff up then ? With all the thousands of topics complaining about multiplayer bugs or inability to start a game a figment of my imagination and those that have posted here in favour of MP ? :wacko: Not to mention the years of MP gameplay I've had with different groups and the trouble I went through every time to play this game. It must have all been a bad dream I guess

What Tracid stated was fact, and even the smoothest and friendliest MP UI and mechanics is *not* going to change that fact. HoI, unless its completely changed into a generic RTS type clickfest you can be done with in 30min / game, is never going to see an MP majority. Probably not even then.

I'm sorry but that is an invalid arguement that SP fans keep making, those of us that prefer multiplayer DO NOT WANT a clickfest. It is the complexity of hoi2 that has drawn us to this game, wanting a more accessable, balanced & stable MP DOES NOT MEAN dumbing down the game. Long MP campaigns are usually resolved over months and becuase players can roleplay their part it is even a far greater experience. On the other hand playing the smaller scenarios can be alot of fun too and it usually happens when the regular session cannot be launched (due to missing players or other problems) or we just want to play a random hoi2 game. So its because this is a complex and relatively well detailed game that we like playing the MP. Because we want the MP to be better doesn't mean we're clickfest RTS zealots that want to turn hoi2 into starcraft. There are plenty of RTS games around if we wanted to satisfy the need for "clickfesting", but we're playing hoi2 because we all like the indepth strategy hoi2 offers despite its many problems. Thus our concerns cannot just be dismissed as simply fantasy because they do exist, even if you haven't come across them.

Do you mean to tell me that the multitide of crashes, the archaic lobby system & massive instability issues as well as several other balance issues that sometimes require great rulesets have no effect on discouraging players from MP ? If you read carefully you'll find that this is exactly the same arguement many SP players use to describe why they prefer SP over MP. Would it not be logical to then assume that a more robust & user-friendly lobby system, correcting all these issues, enhancing stability & balance will not create an even larger MP audience and reduce the amount of people that are turned off by the huge stockpile of problems ? Oh wait thats right, there are no problems as the game is just perfect :wacko: .

I am longing for a replay that would be a valuable tool during PEACETIME development.

Ah I misunderstood then, I thought you meant during wartime too which would be significantly more complex. FYI you can edit the AI's building priorities so that it actually constructs factories, arm/mech instead of tons of useless inf and other things as well as guide its research rather than let it aimlessly research stupid stuff. To do that you need to edit the save, go to the area of the nation you want to edit, usually starts with something like this

country = { 
    tag = SOV

You'll find all the variables that adjust how the AI works, they may seem to be confusing but with enough time you could probably understand a good portion of their functions. To adjust the AI's priorities on research find this line

technology = {

The priorities should be right under it, boosting one and reducing the other increases the likelyhood the AI will research it.

I believe adjusting construction should be under

 construction = {

Though you will need to adjust max_factor = 0.0000 to a higher number to direct a percentage of the IC towards the construction of the lines below, the IC construction is usually at the end.

It may not be exactly as you imagined but the adjusted AI can suit your preferance and may offer a more challenging experience. Obviously an easier way to adjust the AI's priorities would be welcome by either pdox or the community.

 

[unmerged(59184)]

I'm sorry but that is an invalid arguement that SP fans keep making, those of us that prefer multiplayer DO NOT WANT a clickfest.

Certainly not what I'm saying. Rather, the point was that only clickfest "strategy" games have a multiplayer majority, while slower, deeper ones never will. And yes, Starcraft is a clickfest game. Come to think of it, it's probably the sole MP majority RTS around, and that's mostly because it's so old SP players have forgotten about it, if they ever heard about it in the first place.

Long MP campaigns are usually resolved over months...

And there is one, though not the only, reason why MP will never be majority, as it means schedules and regular meetings, that everyone must attend or be left behind. This is not suitable or desired by many people.

Do you mean to tell me that the multitide of crashes, the archaic lobby system & massive instability issues as well as several other balance issues that sometimes require great rulesets have no effect on discouraging players from MP ?

No, rather that even a smooth MP system is nowhere enough to draw in a majority.

I'm sure nobody objects to assigning some resources to improving MP, but that was NOT what the OP stated, even if you try and cover for him throughout the thread.

And yes, you are making things up. Even if online play is often hugely more satisfying and have vibrant dedicated communities, offline play is still what the vast majority does. This goes not only for strategy games, but for simracing, flight sims, including combat flight sims, and most FPSs. Most players (in most games, paradox may be an exception, but probably isn't) will ony ever vist the website/forum to get a patch or troubleshoot a problem, much less go for MP.

Some games are online only, MMORPGs mainly, but also some FPSs are mostly online, with only training bots to use offline. They are the exception. Whenever a game has a rich singleplayer mode, that's what the majority does with it.

If I'm feeling energetic AND argumentative during the weekend I'll dig up some publisher/developer statements to back this up, but that's no promise to do so.

 

[aphrochine]

The bottom line is that Paradox needs to make money. How they do it, it is up to them. While games like WoW can be wildly popular while strictly multiplayer, a study is often cited that about 90% players prefer singleplayer, or don't even touch multi. Now, this data might be outdated by now and it's hard to track down to actually show anyone, so it's hardly a good argument.

So it boils down to the customer base. Every company must make it's games as accessible to the wider audience as possible. Paradox has chosen a niche market, and while the customer base is smaller, they benefit from no serious competition - they are the best in this biz.

So how can they pick up a casual gamer? A casual gamer should be allowed to sample the game in the time he has available. Multiplayer in Paradox games is a fairly time-consuming affair, isn't it? Furthermore, it helps to know the players beforehand, as you will be spending quite a lot of time with them. A casual player, as the name implies, probably won't invest as much interest in the game until it really sucks him in. And that's one of the roles of SP.

Therefore, neglecting singleplayer to create a better MP experience is (if my theory is correct ) counterproductive - while those that do buy the game will have a richer online experience, they may find the player base smaller, because fewer people decided to try multi because of... the poor SP experience.

This is pure speculation, of course, so feel free to correct me/disagree.

Well, first of all. You cannot compare MP HOI to WoW or any other MMO. The game isnt persitent, it's not shared with thousands of other players. Not to mention the endless differences between the subject matter and the types of gamers the two games attract. It's just not a valid comparison in any sense.

Second, no one ever said to neglect SP, and that's not what I'm sayin in the least. The notion of this thread, as I've read it, is that Pdox needs to put more effort into MP mechanics and functionality to make HOI3 more stable and less reliant on pages of house rules to have a reasonably effective MP experience free of technical BS and exploitation. Add in some great functionality peices stolen from other games and the HOI3 MP experience would a major attraction to all players because it would be easy to join and play in. As said before, it takes a very diehard player to commit to playing HOI MP in its current form.

There is nothing wrong with copying success. Pdox should also.

 

[unmerged(56137)]

This is not suitable or desired by many people.

True not everyone can devote the time & effort required, but again its not impossible. I used to play 2 campaigns a week and now I only do one, its not entirely that hard to keep a single campaign during the week. Surely creating a more user-friendly multiplayer won't forcefully pull people into MP, however the current multiplayer system acts as a repellant discouraging many people from participating, if between 10-50% of the gametime on average is usually wasted its not much of an incentive. A smoother more user-friendly MP will make it easier for people to try MP, additionally if some suggestions are added it could make it easier to get random games quickly. You'll find that a good portion of the MP players if not all are playing this game because its complex, not simple, and thats simply not available in many games. However the MP infrastructure does not lend itself to be easily used for quick games either, since they have to be organised on the forums. I could link you to many random games that are organised irregularly as time permits if you don't believe me.

And yes, you are making things up.

Well rather than basicly calling me a lair I'd appreciate if you'd point out what you have an issue with so that I can either back it up or correct it if I've made a mistake. I believe that would be a more constructive method of arguing rather than saying I make things up.

Whenever a game has a rich singleplayer mode, that's what the majority does with it.

You're absolutely correct, hoi2 focuses on a rich singleplayer mode while providing an MP as an added feature, as such the singleplayer audience far outweighs that of the multiplayer. If hoi2 was designed with more MP oriented approach in mind it is pretty logical to expect an increased attention from players towards MP. I don't know if you've played it but there is a game called freelancer, had a rather rich & memorable singleplayer too but where it truly excelled was MP as well as an active modding community. Ofcourse that game was of an entirely different nature & genre but the example stands that its possible to have both a good singleplayer & MP with sizable communities for both, people still play it today though it was released in 2003.

Most players (in most games, paradox may be an exception, but probably isn't) will ony ever vist the website/forum to get a patch or troubleshoot a problem, much less go for MP

Thats entirely true, the reason I came here was due to singleplayer. The game was sufficiently complex and I sought help online, sure enough I played the singleplayer & learned alot from the forums and I watched the multiplayer forum and read some of the posts & AARs. Because I became intrigued I decided to join and participated in several games with different groups and I've been playing MP ever since, and I'm not the only one to join MP that way and I'm sure its not the only way either.

I'm sure nobody objects to assigning some resources to improving MP, but that was NOT what the OP stated, even if you try and cover for him throughout the thread.

The OP may have mistated his original request to improve MP by suggesting too much of an emphasis on MP but he has corrected that statement several times before, my posting here wasn't to cover for him but to emphasize the real need for greater MP emphasis and detail some of the serious issues with MP some people aren't aware even exists due to their singleplayer-based experience.

The game isnt persitent

Actually it is somewhat persistent in the sense that full campaigns games take a long time to resolve in which the world is directly affected by our actions over the weeks. Which is entirely why MP is so much more fun with hoi2 than your average strategy game.

 

[LeeDub]

Well, first of all. You cannot compare MP HOI to WoW or any other MMO. The game isnt persitent, it's not shared with thousands of other players. Not to mention the endless differences between the subject matter and the types of gamers the two games attract. It's just not a valid comparison in any sense.

I was comparing the gameplay types (SP-centric Paradox games to MMO games) to point out that both can be successful. It's just that HoI is not built specifically for multiplayer and it's selling point is the singleplayer part. The multi is a welcome bonus, sure, but it isn't what sells these games.

I am not advocating developing any part of the game at the expense of any other. Since Paradox decided to include MP in their games, they should make it work as flawlessly as possible, as people who play it are also their customers.

We actually agree on the issue - HoI3 should have a much better online gameplay than previous titles - just as it should improve on, well, every other feature they can improve.

 

[P3D]

The problem with Multiplayer is that the game must be balanced to single-player. Enough constraints must be put on Germany that it would not be able to trigger bitter peace in 1938. Then do the same for UK so it won't be trivial to stop Germany on the Belgian border. Then make sure USSR won't a/ collapse b/ rebound with a revenge when AI Germany declares Barbarossa.

The solution would be a dedicated MP scenario (or even a mod), so SP balancing constraints would not have much effect. Mainly about IC and resources which must be balanced differently.
And as people only play two scenarios 99.5% the time (the one with the earliest starting date, and the 1938 for multiplayer) concentrate on those two for the first release. Most battle scenarios are a waste of hard disk space. A few additional scenarios might be released instead in following patches/expansion packs.

 

[zeekater]

Never played MP, how do games progress? At a certain speed agreed upon by all players? Can you pause the game (without pissing off your opponents)?

 

[unmerged(12303)]

they progress slow
yes at a speed that players agree to (usually below normal/normal prewar and slow during war), pauses should be used lightly.
Patience is the MP virtue.

 

[unmerged(49695)]

in very vast quantities might i add

 

[Von Paulous]

Noone has grapshed how attention to detail pays off.

Two things I would like to mention.

I dont know anything about scripting.... nor wish to learn.

However there is a huge difference on making a script and instructing the AI to act upon broad guidelines.... and having the AI do exactly what you do.

Supply consuption changes according to infrastracture of the provice.

So all the SU army should be stationed in Lenningrad during the long peacetime years.... and more importanly the infrastracture of Lennigrad should be improved to 100%.

All the Italian army should be moved to Genova during war with Ethiopia to acquire dig in bonus.They should stay there without moving until war starts.

All formations should have logistics wizards generals at peacetime.

There should be NO upgrade untill some months before the war to gain any double obstacle division upgrade bonus.

There should be NO supply production from ANY major power during peacetime.(Sole exeption Japan .... but even this from 1937 onwards)

These are some of the many tricks the SPARTAN team uses to gain every advatage possible.

Is it possible to write such a detailed script? I think not.

Even if is was possible a script is useless as an assistant.

A loadable file with the players actions and inactions can be used as a PLAYERS ASSISTANT in MP games.

This would greatly speed up the MP games and make them playable in much sorter/fewer session.

A player missing a session may send his file with his commands to his teams leader.

A replay that runs in parallel to human player is a wonderfull tool for the player.... for the modder... for the newbie that is not familiar with the series.

HoI 3 would be crippled game without it.I know HoI 2 is crippled because of the lack of it.

 

[unmerged(29126)]

A replay that runs in parallel to human player is a wonderfull tool for the player.... for the modder... for the newbie that is not familiar with the series.

It's pretty much useless though (a) as soon as war starts or if (b) things start going ahistorically.

There's not much of a point in executing a prerecorded game all the way up to 01.01.1939 if during MP the Czech A.I. (or human payer) refuses the annexation of the Sudetenland and WW2 commences ahead of schedule ...

 

[aphrochine]

I agree with P3D about the available campaigns. The '36 campaign just leaves to much room to develope and imprement wild strategies. This is usually a pitfall for newer players for MP, who do very crazy things...thinging this game is an RTS where building X of Y with a couple Z laying around can win games. This is also a major point of explicit build orders and to an a degree; exploitain by very seasoned veterans. 1938 seems to be the right year to start for MP. Some time for parties to organize their forces, customize their army with builds a little, direct their research and go into the war with the nation reflecting their intended strategies.

I would be in favor of Pdox laying out a specifically named MP campaign staring sometime in '38. Then focusing all of their MP playtesting and balancing effort into this one scenario.