Feedback Request: Multiplayer

[Tomislav Uzelac]

Hi all,

here's a quick update. We've been busy recently and are about to start testing an updated version of UoC (see attached pic below), sometime next week. What we'll be doing after that: improving multiplayer by adding something like a propper lobby where you'll be able to post games invitations, look for open games, who's online etc. We'll try to post as much of that design as it comes along, and hopefully get some good back and forth with the comments.

undo.jpg

We also want to make more MP-friendly scenarios and it would help if we coould get feedback from members here. There are hundreds of games on the server, so obviously people are playing but there aren't too many AARs for MP We can pull the games to get some stats etc. but nothing beats a player's considered opinion. Please give us a hand and expand on one or more of the following:

• do you feel it's better to play MP, or symmetric SP (two games)?
• is the current "2nd Kharkov" MP scenario usable? Is the prestige margin set correctly?
• which SP scenarios are good to play in MP?
• would you like to see more MP scenarios (e.g. "Winter Tempest")?
• do you feel we should work on a "handicap" to enable players of different skill to play?
• what additional options should there be in MP game setup (weather, prestige, etc)...

If you play MP, please consider sparing a moment to give us a hand with this. Basically we're focusing on MP now, so what goes in is what everyone will have to live with for some time. Once we move on to the expansion, it will be all about the new scenarios.

Thanks,

Tomislav

[memorex80]

- do you feel it's better to play MP, or symmetric SP (two games)?
Single player maps I played in multi are boring when you are on the defensive side (Baku and another small one)

- is the current "2nd Kharkov" MP scenario usable? Is the prestige margin set correctly?
Definitively too short. In fact the first two turns determines who will win.

- which SP scenarios are good to play in MP?
not played enough to find one

- would you like to see more MP scenarios (e.g. "Winter Tempest")?
Yes, it should be great

- do you feel we should work on a "handicap" to enable players of different skill to play?
Don't know

- what additional options should there be in MP game setup (weather, prestige, etc)...
prestige make map less predictible for sure.

What i would like to see is definitively wide map with a lot of units. several battle zones in a same map.
I wanna be in a position of winning after turn 3 and be the loser after turn 7.
For your information, I have not played kouibychev in multiplayer session, maybe this map could be great to play.

[Tomislav Uzelac]

- is the current "2nd Kharkov" MP scenario usable? Is the prestige margin set correctly?
Definitively too short. In fact the first two turns determines who will win.

What i would like to see is definitively wide map with a lot of units. several battle zones in a same map.
I wanna be in a position of winning after turn 3 and be the loser after turn 7.

The Kharkov comment is a new one for me. I'm interested to get more perspective from other players on this one.

I think I know what you're looking for in a scenario otherwise. It's broadly in line with what I have in mind for "Winter Tempest", as it should cover not just the actual operation, but rather the broader situation at that time including "Little Saturn" etc.

[Danielefc]

Sadly I have not played much MP. But I do have two comments to your questions:

what additional options should there be in MP game setup (weather, prestige, etc)...

---Yes a weather option would be nice. In a perfect world some sort of system that keeps it random - but also keeps it from screwing just one of the players completely . Or just an option to turn it of (pure snow/pure dry).

---Being able to set prestige for each side would also be kind of cool - lets the players mess around abit and/or set a handicap if one of them is less experienced.


Just to get abit ahead of time: Once the new SP scenarios/expansion gets going it would be cool if the player had more re-inforcement options without dammaging his performance (prestige). Its fun to add specialist steps/call in units but it also almost feels like cheating most times. Would be cool with more units/specialist steps for the players to deploy.

[Tomislav Uzelac]

set prestige for each side would also be kind of cool - lets the players mess around abit and/or set a handicap

Yes this looks like a straightforward way to implement the handicap. Something like a slider which you can set to anything from +500 axis to +500 soviet.

Would be cool with more units/specialist steps for the players to deploy.

We probably won't be able to make changes to campaign (for technical reasons, let's say) this time, so the basic idea of prestige will stay.

However, we can change how we structure the scenarios. For example, the player could get a bigger part of his forces in the force pool (so, for free) to deploy at the start of turn. Depending on the scenario this could be maybe 10-15% of the entire force, along with most specialists.

[davouthojo]

I've only played 3 games of multiplayer, only 2 of those to completion.

The killer with the current setup was the need to remember the game code a few days later, after the email had been deleted....I expect you will come up with a multiplayer lobby like Panzer Corps or FOG.

I am nervous about multiplayer UoC, because it has a sudden death aspect. Make one small mistake in your deployment, and when you next open the game up you are toast. Very nerve-wracking! I am not sure I want to torture myself like this.

Stalingrad played well as multiplayer, with potential to win on both sides.

I found I was playing differently in multiplayer - instead of puzzling out the thrust/combos that get you a BV, attrition played a bigger role - try to eliminate the powerful enemy units just to get a win before the last turn.

[chrono280]

I've played a number of MP games. I think I've done every Campaign game on at least one side and several games of the MP Kharkov map.

I agree Stalingrad is actually probably the best map for MP. There are a number of interesting choices and one wrong move or bad click doesn't end the game. Both sides get reinforcements and placement is important. If you're looking to make more MP (symmetric) maps I would model them after that. If you can give both sides the ability to buy using prestige that adds to re playability. I'm definitely in favor of more symmetric MP maps even if you have to err on the a-historical side of things only because not all of the campaign maps are as interesting. It was stated earlier that some campaign maps are boring for the defenders, I agree, although they can be interesting if you play something like Maikop and try to win by X turn.

Apart from giving both sides more prestige to play with in symmetric scenarios, is there any chance of having something more like the Digital Army Generator games seen in Field of Glory Digital? They add a lot of replay value. They let you:
-Build an army based on point-buying (you could use Prestige and just have some kind of Turn 0 where neither player can move yet or see the other side)
-Generic open maps that are randomly selected
-Maybe also allow the selection/purchase of Theatre assets as well.
(this is all probably too much to ask!)

is the current "2nd Kharkov" MP scenario usable? Is the prestige margin set correctly?

I feel it is balanced OK, however I do agree I've had the game decided rather quickly once or twice. The Axis may have a slight advantage.

which SP scenarios are good to play in MP?

Stalingrad, Astrakahn, Case Blue (less so), Little Saturn (also less so)

would you like to see more MP scenarios (e.g. "Winter Tempest")?

Sure!

do you feel we should work on a "handicap" to enable players of different skill to play?

Yes, teaching this can be rough, even if you let the other player play as the 1st player on an Easy scenario. Also, will it be possible with the new Lobby system to chose your side, rather than just have the game-maker be the first player.

what additional options should there be in MP game setup (weather, prestige, etc)...

Yes on weather, I talked about other stuff above.

[Tomislav Uzelac]

[...]is there any chance of having something more like the Digital Army Generator games seen in Field of Glory Digital? They add a lot of replay value. They let you:
-Build an army based on point-buying (you could use Prestige and just have some kind of Turn 0 where neither player can move yet or see the other side)
-Generic open maps that are randomly selected
-Maybe also allow the selection/purchase of Theatre assets as well.
(this is all probably too much to ask!)

This is not so hard to do, it's just that I need to see if this is the direction we should take. I'm uneasy about ahistorical scenarios.

[Tomislav Uzelac]

I am nervous about multiplayer UoC, because it has a sudden death aspect. Make one small mistake in your deployment, and when you next open the game up you are toast. Very nerve-wracking! I am not sure I want to torture myself like this.

I think this is also why "Stalingrad" is good for MP. The size of the scenario, and the number of units involved mean that small mistakes will not ruin everything for you - your opponent might administer some punishment, but no sudden death.

I found I was playing differently in multiplayer - instead of puzzling out the thrust/combos that get you a BV, attrition played a bigger role - try to eliminate the powerful enemy units just to get a win before the last turn.

This is very well put... playing an open scenario against a human opponent should be much less puzzle like. Going for BVs against the AI will help sharpen your skills though, which should be good for MP.

[chrono280]

[...]is there any chance of having something more like the Digital Army Generator games seen in Field of Glory Digital? They add a lot of replay value. They let you:
-Build an army based on point-buying (you could use Prestige and just have some kind of Turn 0 where neither player can move yet or see the other side)
-Generic open maps that are randomly selected
-Maybe also allow the selection/purchase of Theatre assets as well.
(this is all probably too much to ask!)

This is not so hard to do, it's just that I need to see if this is the direction we should take. I'm uneasy about ahistorical scenarios.

Sure it's understandable to be uneasy about making ahistorical scenarios. One of the things I like about Field of Glory for scratching my Ancients/Medieval itch is that they have some amazingly detailed historical scenarios (some player made) in addition to their Digital Army Generator games which are more about building a custom army and dealing with randomly selected terrain in addition to your opponent's custom army. This of course can potentially lead to situations where you have Egyptians fighting War of the Roses era knights (if you are not careful with your match settings) but does lead to some fun what-if battles. At the same time I get the need to keep things historical, that's much of the fun of the Stalingrad scenario on MP.

Maybe have your stock historical scenarios (which can be done SP or MP as it is now) and then have a feature that allows for a more symmetric experience? I'm not sure what the rest of the community wants.