Multiplayer...
- Thread starter Zakhodit
- 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.
- Status
Agree
How would a que system help with low player numbers? It would just make wait times insanely long. Also I've experienced VERY few toxic players and I only play against random people. This game is geared towards an older crowd and I've played against many people that are just plain pleasant.
If I reach the same realisation I will do just that. Hell I'll do it if I don't reach the same realisation. Let's say 2 weeks from today, yes?
Give them a break please, they've very likely spent the last month running through the code bug fixing in order to turn out the updates we've had. And there have been devs (as well as PDX personnel) posting in the bug reports forum - again indicating that this is where their time is being spent.
The same thoughts here. Looks like every single player feels compelled to write about his love for the single player and that this is the only way of thinking which is peculiar to the normal Homo sapiens.
We already realized that there is a significant number of players who do not need multiplayer. Thank you for your opinion. As the topic starter says, this is a topic about what the rest part of a community should do.
Multiplayer needs a lot of changes.
1. Leaver Penalty
2. Proper Matchmaking (Not leagues and stuff, just hit play and get a game)
3. Fix the damn connection issues
1. Leaver Penalty
2. Proper Matchmaking (Not leagues and stuff, just hit play and get a game)
3. Fix the damn connection issues
Personally I enjoy both sides of the game, although the PvP is the version I get a adrenaline hit from, especially if its a knock out match.
I agree that a proper match-making system would be great, and players leaving a match early getting a loss.
I'd actually like leagues with promotion/relegation. It's always more fun to play when something is at stake.
I agree that a proper match-making system would be great, and players leaving a match early getting a loss.
I'd actually like leagues with promotion/relegation. It's always more fun to play when something is at stake.
As the current way MP is set up, you have to sign up into a game that someone else has made or make one yourself and wait for someone to join. That setup from my experince takes longer for matches to happen. My suggestion would allow those same group of people and anyone else who happen to look and NOT see any games existing (as a few people have posted seeing) get into a Line or Que to be automatically paired up with others who have Que'd up. Every multiplayer game I have played with the latter as an option, the wait times for a game is significantly less than looking through a list or lobby of games to find one with the settings they want. (again this has been my experience over the past 26+ years of gaming, and your mileage may vary)
As for the Toxicity of players, again Mileage may vary. Short of playing with my friends, majority of random people I have played with tend to be rather Toxic. Some games have been better than others. I have not tried to play with the random people in MP in Battletech primarily because of past experience in other Lobby based MP games, and because I am one of those who frequently see the MP lobby empty of any games.
I think the lack of overall participation in MP for this game is based on a simple principle - familiarity.
Too many TT players are used to folks they have played with for many years or even decades at this point. They have extensive house rules to deal with loopholes, involved campaigns which cannot be replicated with this equipment and interpersonal relationships beyond the game that have become as or more important than the game.
Bluntly - they don't want a random opponent.
Too many TT players are used to folks they have played with for many years or even decades at this point. They have extensive house rules to deal with loopholes, involved campaigns which cannot be replicated with this equipment and interpersonal relationships beyond the game that have become as or more important than the game.
Bluntly - they don't want a random opponent.
That's fair, but what I'm saying is that this not a natural cause and effect angle from the acquisition. The part of your initial statement that I was really flagging was this:
They've gone cooperate, their presence in the forums is all but gone, and frankly I don't think they care to fix multiplayer.
I don't see "gone corporate" as being the causality of "presence on the forums all but gone." And maybe "don't care to fix multiplayer" is intended as a separate point, but with the string written the way it is, it could be read to imply causality on that as well.
I suspect that a good bit of the fall off was being behind the 8-ball on the release of the game, being massively understaffed for the task at hand and then sensitivities around the (at the time) potential acquisition.
Nevermind the whimsical fireside chats with backers which we can file under "gosh, it would be nice if..."; it goes way further than that: they didn't even have the horses to head over to Steam and perform the mission-critical task of addressing the pre-release toxic dung-storm about broken promises and other myriad complaints that were rampant (post-release, the Steam board became much more positive about the game, but it was a borderline smear-campaign for maybe two months or so). I would be hesitant to put a number on it, but having the game forums of the world's top vendor be a cesspool of negativity probably cost them in the tens of thousands of copies sold as potential customers strolled by and then dipped out. That they weren't able to try and change the tone there says a lot about how thin communications resources were spread.
Anyway, I see no reason to suspect that HBS will remain silent on these forums - certainly going by Paradox's other assorted studios (Triumph doesn't post much here, but they also have their own forum and post on Stem). Even HBS' Twitter feed is pretty sparse right now, but if the communication does stay like this, that would be on HBS rather than a byproduct of the deal.
That's true - we can never go home again and the tone of the communication won't be the same. But that was inevitable with a certain threshold of success and attention anyway. Even if they'd stayed independent and on the old forums, there was no way they'd be able to maintain the early development communication patterns and back and forth in a casual and conversational manner.
For me personally, and not having played TT, but pretty much all Mechwarrior (incl. Online) games, I was only ever interested in multiplayer in the long run.
This applies pretty much for every strategy / tactics game (notable exceptions: Jagged Alliance 2 and XCOM + Long War).
The biggest reason for this is that once you figure out the gameplay, the campaign of BATTLETECH is way, way too easy.
Replay value of singleplayer is very low for me for this reason, and I am not very interested in modding the game, if I have to play vanilla in multiplayer anyways.
I want competitive and nailbiting games between equal opponents, anything else is just literal tin can shooting, which just like in the real world is fun for many, but not for me.
This applies pretty much for every strategy / tactics game (notable exceptions: Jagged Alliance 2 and XCOM + Long War).
The biggest reason for this is that once you figure out the gameplay, the campaign of BATTLETECH is way, way too easy.
Replay value of singleplayer is very low for me for this reason, and I am not very interested in modding the game, if I have to play vanilla in multiplayer anyways.
I want competitive and nailbiting games between equal opponents, anything else is just literal tin can shooting, which just like in the real world is fun for many, but not for me.
It's weird cuz even at 3am I've seen lobbies. Not a lot at those hours but I've NEVER seen it empty and I play every night. If there aren't any empty lobbys I just make one and the longest I've waited was 15 mins for somebody to join. Not great but not 45 mins at times when I used to play mechwarrior online.
Like I said, different mileage. Have not experienced even a 5 minute wait in MWO, have always had fastish ques there the handful of times I have tried playing it. Not a big fan of the way MWO is set up honestly, but Can't get my MW2:Mercs to run stably on my PC so pop into MWO here and there to get my MW fix.
But personally 15 minutes to wait for someone to join a match is too long of a wait imo. Especially when it's 1 on 1.
All that said, I still just prefer to play with my buddies who all understand those times when I HAVE to go afk in middle of a match/game.
I still think Battletech needs a Que/matchmaking system to improve the Multiplayer. Not saying to get rid of the lobby but add an auto matchmaking.
I figure I should also put my 2 C-bills in.
I am not interested in a player-vs-player online experience with this game.
With that out of the way, I am very much interested in a cooperative online experience with this game. I can think of a number of ideas which could be entertaining to play through.
*Co-op merc units, allowing a max of two lances of mechs on the battlefield under player control (secret sauce: drop tonnage restrictions of dropship, campaign, maybe add in vehicles for player control)
*Co-op missions similar to GRAW (ghost recon advanced warfighter), but instead each player commands a certain amount of tonnage/c-bills. Need to complete grand/complex objectives where each choice has a consequence.
I had more, but these two seem to be the best ideas. Regardless, turn times will have to officially speed up for either idea, maybe going so far as to move multiple enemies of the same initiative at the same time (or ripple move one after another).
I am not interested in a player-vs-player online experience with this game.
With that out of the way, I am very much interested in a cooperative online experience with this game. I can think of a number of ideas which could be entertaining to play through.
*Co-op merc units, allowing a max of two lances of mechs on the battlefield under player control (secret sauce: drop tonnage restrictions of dropship, campaign, maybe add in vehicles for player control)
*Co-op missions similar to GRAW (ghost recon advanced warfighter), but instead each player commands a certain amount of tonnage/c-bills. Need to complete grand/complex objectives where each choice has a consequence.
I had more, but these two seem to be the best ideas. Regardless, turn times will have to officially speed up for either idea, maybe going so far as to move multiple enemies of the same initiative at the same time (or ripple move one after another).
I am very interested in a multiplayer mode. And I want a lot of improvements and added features for that.
But to be fair, the Devs have answered the question regarding multiplayer several times, VERY CLEARLY.
This game is single player focused, and they focused on the single game first, and decided that they have to wait with working on multiplayer until they can use resources on it to add quality stuff.
I may think its bad to not have a huge multiplayer section, where you have a char just like single player and there are stats, earnings, ratings, etc. I want all that.
But,
They have answered that the game is single player based and that's where their focus is.
Not many companies bother to tell the players that.
I don't like that they are not working on multiplayer right now, but I fully respect when they answer it.
I think more players needs to look at the info when they buy games
.
There are a bit to many negative feedbacks towards games when the issue is that the player had the wrong expectations.
But to be fair, the Devs have answered the question regarding multiplayer several times, VERY CLEARLY.
This game is single player focused, and they focused on the single game first, and decided that they have to wait with working on multiplayer until they can use resources on it to add quality stuff.
I may think its bad to not have a huge multiplayer section, where you have a char just like single player and there are stats, earnings, ratings, etc. I want all that.
But,
They have answered that the game is single player based and that's where their focus is.
Not many companies bother to tell the players that.
I don't like that they are not working on multiplayer right now, but I fully respect when they answer it.
I think more players needs to look at the info when they buy games
.There are a bit to many negative feedbacks towards games when the issue is that the player had the wrong expectations.
Have yet to try the MP part of the game, but I'm interested in it. Not looking forward to cheese lances, but I can bring my own cheesiness.
I disagree.
Let's return to HBS's view of BATTLETECH PvP Multiplayer, "The neutral planet of Solaris VII is home to the Inner Sphere’s most famous gladiatorial 'Mech combat arenas. Here players can challenge each other to casual PvP battles or enter our matchmaking system to be matched against an appropriately experienced opponent.
Each Great House maintains an embassy and a namesake arena on Solaris VII and each has very different gameplay features - from the Roman-inspired Steiner Coliseum to the frozen glaciers of Davion’s Boreal Reach (or one of Davion’s many other holographic environs).
Tournaments and Leagues will reward the victor with various prizes and Leaderboard fame."
PvP Multiplayer has been part and parcel of BATTLETECH ever since the Kickstarter. For some, like myself PvP Multiplayer was the reason I Kickstarted to as high a Support Tier as I did, and why I purchased as many BATTLETECH Accounts as I did for my family.
So, yes, PvP Multiplayer has ALWAYS been part and parcel of BATTLETECH.
Too many people think we can treat multi and single player differently, and this is a major error. You either have to have two games or you have to work on the issues considering both sides. You can balance PVP or PVE but not both under the same rule sets, gankfests of imbalance are always the results when you do.
Frankly, I would rather have only PVE or PVP than any awful kludge of both, that said, I feel that with stock mechs, the multiplayer in Battletech is playable and not a priority to me over more campaigns, events, expansive of the universe, etc.
Frankly, I would rather have only PVE or PVP than any awful kludge of both, that said, I feel that with stock mechs, the multiplayer in Battletech is playable and not a priority to me over more campaigns, events, expansive of the universe, etc.
That video is over a year old. You need to look at what the devs answers about Multiplayer at least during 2018. Plans change in development.
Please note that I want multiplay JUST like that video explains it. But the company has given clear info that multiplayer will not have much from launch and isnt their prime focus in the first updates. They dont say they never will do anything on multiplayer. They are just honest with what to expect.
Balancing pvp and Pve has been a huge problem in pretty much every MMO that offers both. Very few have managed to do it well. ESO did. Eve, which I consider to be one of the best ever MMO with Pvp, does pvp oustandingly well....but their PvE sucks.
Battletech could do both single and multiplayer very well. And I think you should not mix them. But Multiplayer, in my view, needs a char just like single player. But its not the same one. I want multiplay to be something you can develop your char, just like singleplayer, but with other features. I want ranks, stats on players, earnings, buying and selling stuff, pilot experience, player ratings, Solaris battles etc. But these are my wishes
- Status