Multi multi player news?

[dkchapuis]

What’s the latest on multi multi player development?

 

(yes I did a forum search. I didn’t show me any recent results )

[A Canadian Cat]

What do you mean? Are you referring to new game features for muli player? Or are you talking about third party sites where you can find playing partners?

[dkchapuis]

I’m talking about multi player for more than 1 v 1.   Like 2v2 or 3v3. I think BFC called it multi multi player or co play. 

[A Canadian Cat]

Ahh. There is no game features currently to support that. None are announced.

Some people have done it by hand. I have participated in several battles like that.

You have to manually save turns and share those saves between co players.

That is the current state of co play.

[purpheart23]

29 minutes ago, dkchapuis said:

I’m talking about multi player for more than 1 v 1.   Like 2v2 or 3v3. I think BFC called it multi multi player or co play. 

I've been "grinding" this axe since about 2007. No plans according to Steve for any form of official co play in the cm 2 engine. Kinda aggravating since it was a feature during pre sale and actually made it into the officially released CMSF 1 manual. Hopefully in CM3

Edited March 27, 2022 by purpheart23

[dkchapuis]

23 minutes ago, purpheart23 said:

I've been "grinding" this axe since about 2007. No plans according to Steve for any form of official co play in the cm 2 engine. Kinda aggravating since it was a feature during pre sale and actually made it into the officially released CMSF 1 manual. Hopefully in CM3

I definitely remember it was talked about from BFC in 2007. 
 

im too am disappointed it hasn’t showed up yet. 

[Erwin]

Am unclear how that would work compared to the current method of passing the file from one player to another in PBEM.  The big problem is if one player drops out due to RL issues (very common), the whole system gets "problematic".  Yes, one can designate reserves.  But, I tried to do this in CM1 days and have played "mulriplayer" in a couple of CM2 efforts.  But, in every case, people drop out and one ends of with 1 vs 1 games.  It makes games that are already very lengthy (months) in H2H even longer and more frustrating.

Or are you talking about multiplayer in RT?

 

 

[Glubokii Boy]

2 hours ago, Erwin said:

Or are you talking about multiplayer in RT?

I think that multi player RT would be very cool. One problem with this though would be...information sharing !

It would be very difficult to get the 'in-game' information sharing (visable units, contact incons etc) to work together with players voice-com information sharing.

 

 

[Redwolf]

3 hours ago, IanL said:

Ahh. There is no game features currently to support that. None are announced.

Well, TacOps4 has it. But it is not on sale right now, so you are technically correct.

[Erwin]

10 minutes ago, Glubokii Boy said:

I think that multi player RT would be very cool. One problem with this though would be...information sharing !

It would be very difficult to get the 'in-game' information sharing (visable units, contact incons etc) to work together with players voice-com information sharing.

 

 

In that case I seriously doubt that multiplayer is workable except for the most ardent/devoted and disciplined players.  My experience is that it plays so slowly it's hard to enjoy... and then people drop out...

[A Canadian Cat]

30 minutes ago, Redwolf said:

Well, TacOps4 has it. But it is not on sale right now, so you are technically correct.

I meant combat mission games.

[Pelican Pal]

I ran a multiplayer game via stream a few months ago. I acted as umpire and would drop players into/out of my stream based on who was currently "seeing" the action. After everyone ran through their personal turns I dropped everyone who had C2 into a channel together for ~30s. It worked fairly well except that it took quite a lot of time to get through each turn since 4 players (coy commander, 3x platoon commanders) had to each play a turn. I think you could complete a company scale fight in 3-4 hours.

What was most interesting was seeing players react to far more limited info than what CM usually offers. An enemy attack cut off a platoon from the C2 network and all that the other 3 players could see was black smoke from burning wrecks and explosions covering the area. The assumption was that the platoon had been wiped out and the other players reacted by pulling back and setting up a secondary defensive line. However in actuality the platoon had beaten off the initial attack and needed support. And in normal single-player they would have gotten that support ASAP but in this umpired game it took maybe ~5 minutes for the other players to work out what was happening.

 

[dkchapuis]

5 hours ago, Erwin said:

Am unclear how that would work compared to the current method of passing the file from one player to another in PBEM.  The big problem is if one player drops out due to RL issues (very common), the whole system gets "problematic".  Yes, one can designate reserves.  But, I tried to do this in CM1 days and have played "mulriplayer" in a couple of CM2 efforts.  But, in every case, people drop out and one ends of with 1 vs 1 games.  It makes games that are already very lengthy (months) in H2H even longer and more frustrating.

Or are you talking about multiplayer in RT?

 

 

Plenty of games have multi multiplayer right now in RT. For wego, the game could run on a server and generate a file for each player and each player submits orders. The concept of doing it isn’t an issue. 
 

Also “Players dropping” isn’t a good reason not to do do this. 

[Glubokii Boy]

1 hour ago, dkchapuis said:

Also “Players dropping” isn’t a good reason not to do do this. 

I'm afraid it might be...

Considdering BFCs limited developing resources any new feature added would need to be desired and used by 'many'...

Like Erwin mentioned....PBEM co-op games run the risk of becoming to slow to be able to maintain the intrest of the 'many'.

It's an intresting idea but i belive it will be difficult to implement it in such a way to make it sufficeiently popular.

 

 

 

[Artkin]

I think it would be very popular paired with a simple server browser. One found in any game,  like gmod, css, arma 2, aoe 2, etc.

[dkchapuis]

25 minutes ago, Glubokii Boy said:

I'm afraid it might be...

Considdering BFCs limited developing resources any new feature added would need to be desired and used by 'many'...

Like Erwin mentioned....PBEM co-op games run the risk of becoming to slow to be able to maintain the intrest of the 'many'.

It's an intresting idea but i belive it will be difficult to implement it in such a way to make it sufficeiently popular.

 

 

 

Comparing PBEM games forced into multi multi players where multiple players have to handle a single file and you aren’t seeing just your troops, vs  a proper implementation where everyone does theirs at the same time is a horrible example. 
 

I play multiple PBF (play by forum) games with groups of 5 to 10 that take years to complete, and RARELY do we have problems with players dropping. 
 

Sorry, it’s not a valid excuse. 

[Erwin]

11 minutes ago, dkchapuis said:

I play multiple PBF (play by forum) games with groups of 5 to 10 that take years to complete

That's great that you have found such a dedicated and reliable group.  It's not the norm however.  

[Artkin]

14 hours ago, dkchapuis said:

Comparing PBEM games forced into multi multi players where multiple players have to handle a single file and you aren’t seeing just your troops, vs  a proper implementation where everyone does theirs at the same time is a horrible example. 
 

I play multiple PBF (play by forum) games with groups of 5 to 10 that take years to complete, and RARELY do we have problems with players dropping. 
 

Sorry, it’s not a valid excuse. 

Yo where can I sign up?? I run similar events 

[The Steppenwulf]

Please lobby for Player vs Player campaigns. This would still be a significant step forward which would vastly enhance the CM experience. It would also be a lot easier and more realistic for BF to implement in CM2 (in the next engine upgrade ) than multiplayer. 

[womble]

2 hours ago, The Steppenwulf said:

Please lobby for Player vs Player campaigns. This would still be a significant step forward which would vastly enhance the CM experience. It would also be a lot easier and more realistic for BF to implement in CM2 (in the next engine upgrade ) than multiplayer. 

You realise that a PvP campaign would have to be specifically written for PvP use? And would be even harder to "balance" than either a PvP scenario or a PvAI campaign?

Playing something like Courage and Fortitude against a competent human would just mean you'd automatically lose if you take the side that the player gets given when against the AI. And if you tried to play a campaign that's balanced for PvP play, you'd either get a cakewalk or your caboose handed to you, depending purely on which side you chose in the setup turn. The end result of this certainty would just mean an unbridgeable divide between PvP and single player campaigns, meaning that there would be fewer campaigns that everyone can play.

[Artkin]

On 3/28/2022 at 3:41 PM, womble said:

You realise that a PvP campaign would have to be specifically written for PvP use? And would be even harder to "balance" than either a PvP scenario or a PvAI campaign?

Playing something like Courage and Fortitude against a competent human would just mean you'd automatically lose if you take the side that the player gets given when against the AI. And if you tried to play a campaign that's balanced for PvP play, you'd either get a cakewalk or your caboose handed to you, depending purely on which side you chose in the setup turn. The end result of this certainty would just mean an unbridgeable divide between PvP and single player campaigns, meaning that there would be fewer campaigns that everyone can play.

The point isnt balance. The point is innovation. 

[Codreanu]

On 3/28/2022 at 12:41 PM, womble said:

You realise that a PvP campaign would have to be specifically written for PvP use? And would be even harder to "balance" than either a PvP scenario or a PvAI campaign?

Playing something like Courage and Fortitude against a competent human would just mean you'd automatically lose if you take the side that the player gets given when against the AI. And if you tried to play a campaign that's balanced for PvP play, you'd either get a cakewalk or your caboose handed to you, depending purely on which side you chose in the setup turn. The end result of this certainty would just mean an unbridgeable divide between PvP and single player campaigns, meaning that there would be fewer campaigns that everyone can play.

Balance should be left entirely up to the participants IMHO, if two people want to tweak a campaign to make it more balanced that's their choice, same if they want to keep it default and take their chances. Now giving people more tools and making it more user friendly for people to tweak campaigns and scenarios is something I'd fully support. More power to the players.

[The Steppenwulf]

On 3/28/2022 at 8:41 PM, womble said:

You realise that a PvP campaign would have to be specifically written for PvP use? And would be even harder to "balance" than either a PvP scenario or a PvAI campaign?

Playing something like Courage and Fortitude against a competent human would just mean you'd automatically lose if you take the side that the player gets given when against the AI. And if you tried to play a campaign that's balanced for PvP play, you'd either get a cakewalk or your caboose handed to you, depending purely on which side you chose in the setup turn. The end result of this certainty would just mean an unbridgeable divide between PvP and single player campaigns, meaning that there would be fewer campaigns that everyone can play.

I think it's fair deduction that campaign designers will develop campaigns tuned for PvP play. In fact most community players I know do not play many AI scenarios they only play H2H, so they probably aren't getting anything out of AI campaigns either. Implement this feature and H2H campaigns would fast become the dominant design, just as H2H scenario design already is now.

Asserting that they would be "hard to balance" is just that, an assertion and should not preclude the option even if it were true.

Edited March 30, 2022 by The Steppenwulf