Why dont as many people play multiplayer?

[Khevenhuller]

Given the exploits, glitches and downright nonsenses I observed last night in my first MP game, I an not surprised people do not play MP that much. Things became apparent as i observed that game that do not become apparent in SP. I cannot say I am greatly surprised they exist, or that players take advantage of them. I am disappointed that MP offers no real solution to making this game more enjoyable or playable than SP, with the caveat that at least it becomes a more social experience.

K

 

[Mjarr]

(0. I don't own HoI4 which is the biggest issue here but let's go with other Paradox games.)
1. Conflicting schedules or random shit happens- takes in place. It's hardly different from playing tabletops at times.
2. Time investment vs how long it takes game to be declared over due the most trivial reasons is pretty skewed.
3. I do not think the games are suitable for playing as-is with randoms due need for houserules or lack of clarification what is considered x or y or z. (Then again that's what organised play is for.)
3.5. The phrase "competitive HoI4" or "competitive EU4" or "competive Victoria 2" sounds quite hilarious to my ears due next point.
4. Houserules vs free for all vs how to enforce houserules and where to draw the line -> rules lawyer jokes run amok and enforcing GM's will for whatever interpretation of the rule it may have been. Nothing against houserules or rulesets but in most cases KISS- principle is buried and forgotten.
5. I already play few games sort of "competitively" which is more than enough for me.

 

[Sir Garnet]

[/QUOTE]

You have already confused the Allies with German and Italy's actions. At this point, if PARA hits London before Warsaw falls, I won't be surprised.

Role playing an H.G. Wells timeline?

---

There are many things that don't work the same way they are said to work by the dev team. Some of the deviations are good, most not. Either way, playing with humans will discover a lot more of these issues. Some can be and are fixed by modders, in whole or in part.

e.g., I read and knew how convoys, convoy raiding, convoy escort, etc. worked, only it turns ouT l'm increasingly uncertain about how convoys, convoy raiding, convoy escort, and other naval operations work, only to find that they don't.

 

[Beethoven]

Given the exploits, glitches and downright nonsenses I observed last night in my first MP game, I an not surprised people do not play MP that much. Things became apparent as i observed that game that do not become apparent in SP. I cannot say I am greatly surprised they exist, or that players take advantage of them. I am disappointed that MP offers no real solution to making this game more enjoyable or playable than SP, with the caveat that at least it becomes a more social experience.

K

Yes, there are too many bugs still in the game. But many of the problems we had (e.g. naval mechanics/naval bombing and CAS) are partly because the mod we were playing with was mostly vanilla, because @outerlimits (the host) is reluctant to change the game too much from Vanilla. In other mods, more bugs have been fixed or at least papered over somewhat. Others are newer bugs that people are mostly not aware of, like the paradropping bug, which we should add rules for.

You also make your assessment having missed the best part of the game - which is not the game itself, but is the planning for the game and coordinating/strategizing about what different countries will do and how various plans will fit together. I'll invite you to the Allied discussion group so you can see some of that.

 

[Khevenhuller]

r.

You also make your assessment having missed the best part of the game - which is not the game itself, but is the planning for the game and coordinating/strategizing about what different countries will do and how various plans will fit together. I'll invite you to the Allied discussion group so you can see some of that.

Ah, that is something I have thought about too. As players we know that war is going to break out in 1939, we know roughly what it will look like, and players strategise and hone their builds accordingly. But that simply was not what leaders faced in the thirties. Nobody had any idea how things were going to turn out. Certainly Germany, Italy, Japan and the USSR were all looking to overturn the 'Old Order' as defended by Britain and France. The countries that most expected war in 1939 were, paradoxically, also Britain and France. If there was going to be a war, in 1939 they got the war they wanted: an isolated Germany that was clearly the aggressor and, very important for Britain, a unified Empire for war. If the crisis had persisted into 1940, the British would have had to dramatically scale back their re-armament as the economy was fracturing under the financial strain. The USSR was considered firmly in the Axis camp after the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and aid was sent to Finland. The planning around the Narvik operation in late 1939 was as much about opening up a supply route to the Finns. But, as players, we know that there will be a Barbarossa, we know the Finns will eventually side with the Germans. The ideological differences made such a clash inevitable, but tell that to Chamberlain and Daladier in September 1939.

So I cannot help thinking that, certainly with MP, a 1939 start is better as it offers a much greater degree of challenge to all players. You have to fight a war with what was built for you and cope with it. At least it stops too much seeing into the future and building towards those ends.

As for the bugs, well, certainly I was totally shocked by the inability to do effective blockades and sea control. Not only is that patently absurd, it also totally undermines a key allied advantage that they held throughout the war except in SE Asia. It just adds to the lunacy of not being able to interdict supplies. Logistics still seems totally bonkers. That 2 Panzer divisions could appear in West Africa, in the jungle, with the nearest supply port being in East Africa is just nuts. Having been on exercises twice in that part of the world you struggle to get a Landie through, never mind a lot of tanks.

I know that gamers do not like facts too much, they complicate things and makes it less of a game and more of a simulation. I know there is a lot to be said for issues like player agency, but this game is wholly inconsistent in and of itself, partially I think because PDX cannot really decide what they want it to be. It is replete with bad ideas, poor research and glitches that were pointed out way back when HOI1 first appeared. That we are still grappling with these things a decade later is somewhat concerning.

K

 

[Sir Garnet]

K, you might add that Italy in the 1930s did not want to upset the European order, just wanted the seat at the Allied table and some of the spoils it expected after being on the winning side in the Great War, but was rebuffed repeatedly. So Benito would have continued to focus on containing Germany had things gone differently with France and Britain, which would have been a pivotal departure from the historical timeline.

Fortunately a moot point as the early start is in 1936 is after Italy started going its own way.

The 1939 start last I tried it could be more developed for play, to fit the situation so players are set up ready to hit start prepared as the were or not at the time.

 

[Khevenhuller]

K, you might add that Italy in the 1930s did not want to upset the European order, just wanted the seat at the Allied table and some of the spoils it expected after being on the winning side in the Great War, but was rebuffed repeatedly. So Benito would have continued to focus on containing Germany had things gone differently with France and Britain, which would have been a pivotal departure from the historical timeline.

Fortunately a moot point as the early start is in 1936 is after Italy started going its own way.

The 1939 start last I tried it could be more developed for play, to fit the situation so players are set up ready to hit start prepared as the were or not at the time.

Indeed. It was not long since the Austrian Nazis had murdered Dolfuss in an attempted coup and Musso had sent divisions to the Brenner Pass. For Italy, it seems they never really decided if the Germans were part of the problem or part of the solution. I have Ciano's diaries on my shelves and they do make compelling reading.

K

 

[Ironwang]

Keondre, Des, and Cueg like to call people racial and homophobic slurs and invite other players to commit suicide.

I wouldn't recommend joining games with them unless you enjoy being harassed.

This is so true!
Des is a sweaty nerd who never never talks on mic because he sounds like a tween trap.
Cueg is a meme who only ever ruins games with cheesy strats that never works but blames other for his downfalls.
The worst of all is Keondre, he spends hours in a lobby insulting people, and going on schizophrenic rants to just surrender mid game ruining everyone's day.

 

[Jorlaan]

I have virtually no interest in multiplayer. I'd love to be able to have a group of friends that play, but they don't so single player it is. Random people just don't cut it for a game like this. I find it hard enough enjoying DotA these days I haven't played it for 3 months. I can only imagine the frustration of those kinds of people in a serious game. No thank you.

 

[Pyramid_Head]

1. Game speeds. Not everyone can sit on speed 1 or 2 for entire party. Especially with long periods of passiveness
2. House rules. Dozens of dozens of house rules. Sometimes reasonable, but sometimes it moves into really ridiculous direction with what to research, what templates to use, where to build factories etc. At some point you realize there's no space to maneuver for you left, and you are playing a scripted scenarios and it's only a matter of time until house rules will state where you should attack(some already do).
3. Min\Maxing. It was from MP that most min-maxing comes. 40-width armor, INF division uberspam. No matter what you will deal with it if you won't suffer from house rules stating what template you should use. I don't know which is worse, actually.

It hardly fits most players' definition of "fun". More like a chore.

 

[FOARP]

There's a conceit amongst game developers that their game, regardless of what game it is, MUST be an awesome MP game. For many of them this just isn't true and actually they may even have been better off just not having multi-player-functionality.

Take Far Cry 4, for example: brilliant, narrative-based single-player FPS. But within months of release the MP servers were just empty a lot of the time. The (overly-complex, in my view) MP game they must have spent ages implementing might as well have not existed. For anyone looking for an MP FPS there were already so many other options that were better for that purpose.

I get that there is a signalling value to having MP, and that some people just won't buy SP-only games even if they end up never playing MP on them, but sometimes you have to think that developers would be better off leaving it out anyway.

 

[Alex_brunius]

There's a conceit amongst game developers that their game, regardless of what game it is, MUST be an awesome MP game. For many of them this just isn't true and actually they may even have been better off just not having multi-player-functionality.

...

I get that there is a signalling value to having MP, and that some people just won't buy SP-only games even if they end up never playing MP on them, but sometimes you have to think that developers would be better off leaving it out anyway.

That's not the case by far with HoI though.

I've spent more time playing HoI in multiplayer then any other multiplayer game, and if it didn't have the option I would very likely have lost interest long ago and abandoned the game series. I also play Stellaris exclusively in multiplayer.


Given how buggy it often is and that MP is a feature included in the engine already, I don't think that making HoI multiplayer compatible cost the devs alot of effort ( although I might be wrong here ).

 

[Khevenhuller]

I found that, with MP, the bugs and exploits force ostensibly rational and sensible people to deploy in ways that are optimal according to the game's stupidities, and not how armies, navies and air forces were used in the war. This is not because they are bad people, it is just that the game is so broken in so many ways, if you try to deploy and behave as forces actually did this is sub-optimal and you will get badly punished for it. For a game that sells itself as historical, well researched and tries it's best to emulate the events of the late thirties to mid-forties it falls flat on its face.

I cannot play by my usual first objective which is: "can i do better than the original lot did during the war?" as I would be just as reasonable in asking if I could give birth just as well as my mother did. It is a nonsense question.

For the other half, who has a games design degree, and his ilk, this game is a good example of how bad programming, poor research and slipshod execution undermines a game that has so many good things in it, a terrifically loyal following and one that has some very intelligent and thoughtful people among them.

I was hoping that MP would solve my problem of poor AI in SP leading to lacklustre games. Instead it merely highlighted a whole different set of issues and problems that need fixing because in SP the AI does not exploit them. It is frustrating because, I am told, quite a few of these are simple fixes. If, as people say, there is only one person at PDX working on the AI for a game so complex as this then I think the best thing we can do is have a collection for a bucket of valium for them and a couple of weeks at a sanitorium. It must be a thankless task...

K

 

[seattle]

Last time we had a statistic from Paradox it was only 12% play MP, though I suspect that has likely increased since.

Add to that the fact that there are several issues that act against random pickup games. There are a number of exploits that are not yet fixed. There are a number of balance issues that are best addressed by house rules. It is a pretty long game to try to cram into a single session of even 5 hours. Most players are not comfortable with playing it at the speed required to do so without pauses. It also tends to fall apart when key countries quit for whatever reason. Such rushed games also rarely get much past 1942, early 43 at the latest.

For me there is only one practical solution to the above issues and that is to find a group who meet on a regular schedule. I think it is much less likely in such groups that you will face cheaters who abuse exploits. Such groups always have a set of house rules that they have tried in a number of games. some such groups don't even attempt to cram it all into a single session.

The hard part is finding the group that fits you and your schedule. This is not a game well suited to just going into the lobby and jumping into a game, in my opinion.

Why "only 12%"? For a game of this magnitude, requiring at least 8-10 hours per walkthrough, I wouldn't expect many people to play MP.
I might be too old school, but even a 15 minute battle in "World of Tanks" is often problematic for adults. Phone rings, door bell, the wife or the kids need something... hence I prefer those games 100% SP where I rule the clock and not vice versa.
I'd reckon that a multiple hour long session of HoI4 would need to have a high AFK tolerance from the players respectively frequent pause button tolerance.

 

[Sir Garnet]

With people routinely playing as COOP there is latitude for them to switch to another country as needed, usually with temporary intent, such as a player to conduct the Republican side of the civils war in Spain that might win it to the Allies.

 

[RELee]

It seems like such a small fraction of HOI4 owners actually play online, why is this?

The silly answer is that too many kids wind up on my lawn, and that pisses me off.

The honest answer is that the idea of playing a MP game with a game that doesn't actually have real game turn stop points just pisses me off.

I did play some multiplayer games back in the opening years of the new century, but with a turn-based game. Turns were turned in no sooner than once a day which gave me plenty of time to work my strategy and still fail in a royal and noble fashion.

So, no kiddos, this old fart ain't playing no MP games no time soon. (Triple negative for the win!)

 

[Khevenhuller]

The silly answer is that too many kids wind up on my lawn, and that pisses me off.

The honest answer is that the idea of playing a MP game with a game that doesn't actually have real game turn stop points just pisses me off.

I did play some multiplayer games back in the opening years of the new century, but with a turn-based game. Turns were turned in no sooner than once a day which gave me plenty of time to work my strategy and still fail in a royal and noble fashion.

So, no kiddos, this old fart ain't playing no MP games no time soon. (Triple negative for the win!)

Worried about kids on your lawn, self described 'old fart'.

At the beginning of which century did you play your MP again?

K

 

[FrancescoT]

At the beginning of which century did you play your MP again?

Epic game that one, turn based, a lot of minor participants and 2 major players, not sure about IRL names but they went by Darius3 and Alex_tG nicknames. The game finished at turn 323 when Alex_tG fatally disconnected.

 

[Aodhan_]

Why "only 12%"? For a game of this magnitude, requiring at least 8-10 hours per walkthrough, I wouldn't expect many people to play MP.
I might be too old school, but even a 15 minute battle in "World of Tanks" is often problematic for adults. Phone rings, door bell, the wife or the kids need something... hence I prefer those games 100% SP where I rule the clock and not vice versa.
I'd reckon that a multiple hour long session of HoI4 would need to have a high AFK tolerance from the players respectively frequent pause button tolerance.

Lol a player afk in World of Tanks is bad but it's worse when you get two or three of them afk which seemed to be common last time I played it. I don't play Hearts of Iron 4 multiplayer, but I suppose if you had to leave for a short time I suppose the game would be paused, that unfortunately isn't an option in WoT.

 

[RELee]

self described 'old fart'.

That's Elite Lawn Guardian to you, young man.