How popular do you think EU4 Multiplayer is?

[Johan]

That's my suspicion too. Johan's third post in this thread, post #10, states that he thinks the number of people who play SP offline is less than a fraction of a %, something like 0.x%.

I'd be surpried if Steam can tell him how many games I've started because Steam is set to be offline on my computer except when I want to upgrade a game. While I now have unlimited online time for my ISP, that's a new situation. Until the end of last year, I only got 50 hours a month for my fee. Any more would be charged to my credit card. My habits haven't changed.

I think he's twigged that he has statistics proving that the number of MPs far exceed the number of Ironman players which isn't going to surprise anybody. Or he's realised that he's inadvertantly let slip that Steam can track our play habits while we're offline.

Ironman has nothing to do with it... only about 20% play with it...

Of course there are several ways to see that the amount of people playing offline (Sold copies vs people playing vs people patching etc).

 

[Johan]

Well...

I effectively only play MP, but I still start the game about 5 times between sessions to check things, and about 2-3 times per session for rehosts (hopefully less with the new 1.5). So I don't know which number Johan means to show, but my personal would be about 5:3 SP:MP.

Users playing MP in a day vs Users just playing SP.

 

[kebzero]

I'd say 50/50, if only because that's close to my own numbers. I know my numbers for finishing a game is exactly 50/50, with one game of SP and MP each reaching 1821. Most other attempts were basically "broken" by Paradox' rapid patching policy combined with the insane length of a full game. On a tangent, I still hope to finish a CK2 game sometime, but it's even worse than EU4, esp. as I'm prone to pause to hunt the 'perfect genes' for hours on end.

The actual numbers likely depend on the number of players that have at least one proper EU gaming buddy. I recall the glorious days of 5-player EU2, but alas most of my old friends grew up and away from gaming. Only two of us left - but at least we're still obsessed. I'm currently waiting for him to wake up so we can get a new EU4 MP game going.

One thing about MP is that I'd likely never play with random strangers - I need to trust that the other party would respect my favored "house rules" (i.e. little to no human-human infighting, spheres of conquest for each human player, etc.). For that reason, I question the number of started MP games lasting for more than a few hours, compared to SP games. Joining a random MP game is fairly easy - finding one you'd be willing to stick around in, long-term? That's likely much harder.

 

[delpiero1234]

I used to play singleplayer (over 1000 hours) but since patch 1.5. I don't play EU IV anymore.

 

[milkan]

Only SP on my part. Thought about trying MP once or twice but never actually found time for it.

 

[Taciturn Scot]

Well, whatever the result of this thread, it's not really going to make any real difference to me. While I play SP offline exclusively, you guys will still need to develop a good AI opponent for your game because almost every MP game will have many countries managed by the AI.

I confess that I will be surprised if the majority of players really are MP because of the nature of the game. it would take so long to finish a game for starters. But, TBH, it's going to happen one day that the number of MP strategy gamers outnumbers the SPs.

 

[Friedericus Rex]

Mostly SP for me. I do play MP now and again, but only with friends, the monarch points system makes competitive play a no-go for me. If you have sucky monarchs for the first hundred years you're screwed, no matter how good your monarchs will be for the next 300 years.

 

[LeKaiser]

Probably about 25% of my games are multiplayer.

 

[Peachrocks]

I think a more telling statistic would be how many of those games actually go past 1500 or even reach 1821.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

I'm a 100% SP person in almost all cases... I'm simply too slow to play and enjoy multiplayer in any game.

I read a study about one or two years ago that more than 90% of people who play games that has both single and multi player as an option play single player. That was the average in total across all genres. I bet that the grand strategy genre has even less MP players. How true it is today I don't know, but I don't think the numbers are that different.

I'm not diminishing the importance of MP, I can certainly see it's appeal. My main problem are that MP usually tend to devolve into min/max tactics and trying to abuse the system as best as you can, that is just not my style, that and I suck on snap decisions... at least any good ones.

I will just have to wait for advanced AI to show up...

 

[Azraeil]

yes Will be an interesting post later this afternoon.

I hate to come across as adversarial, but wouldn't a simple poll have sufficed? I mean I was honestly surprised upon seeing the topic that the OP was indeed a dev and it came across, and I can only speak for myself, as a little condescending and perhaps a little unprofessional. Of course how would any of us know what the statistics are like beyond our anecdotal sample size? Do we get a prize for guessing correctly? Personally, I often find if you are trying to prove a point in the face of ignorance, its best to quickly and concisely present the facts.

I mostly play SP. Have played multiplayer with friends. Ratio is >95:1.

I'm not diminishing the importance of MP, I can certainly see it's appeal. My main problem are that MP usually tend to devolve into min/max tactics and trying to abuse the system as best as you can, that is just not my style, that and I suck on snap decisions... at least any good ones.

MP is not a prerequisite for minmax. But yes, the AI is far less brutal towards passive playstyles.

 

[ZZMitch]

I usually only play single player. I actually tried multiplayer for the first time yesterday but I kept getting disconnected with some sort of weird out of sync error. No one else in the group had this issue except for me. Anyone know why this is/what I can do about it?

 

[Lakedaimon]

I mostly play SP, I think about 95% of my time spent is on SP games. I very much enjoy MP games with friends though, there's just less choice of nations to play because playing a small nation in a hard position can mean a quick game end and that's pretty shitty for the others you are playing with.

 

[Yar987]

I mostly play SP, something like 99% of the time. I like being able to play at my own pace, and not at specific times for specific durations.

 

[Sairoh]

I personally don't see the appeal of MP since it takes far too long to wrap up a game. Reminds me of the old days with civilization where it would take 1-2 full days just to finish a single game.

100% SP here, I can play for a couple of hours then get back with my life

 

[Zubo1000]

Personally i have played about 50:50 MP:SP time wise. However since i can control the speed in SP i have covered much more ingame time in SP. I have only ever played one ironman game for a long period.

The MP games i have played were all private however with 2-4 friends. We have never finished a single one, always became boring before the end either because we were cooperating and stomping everything or because of stalemates between mega-coalitions.

My guess is that only 25% of players ONLY play SP, while 10% ONLY play MP and the vast majority does both.

 

[Emperor1907]

%80 of the time ironman SP, but when it comes to MP it gives x10 more fun, but hard to find decent players to play...

 

[TheArchduke]

Playing about 50% of my EUIV time as MP, SP ironman is training for MP.

 

[durvas]

I haven't done any MP. I love a lot of Paradox games, but the time commitment required for a MP game makes it seem like multi-week raiding like back in WoW.

 

[nathelbiya]

100% Ironman SP so far here. Would try MP if I had friends playing EU IV, but even then it would probably be a rare occurence.