Please fix the "Mulitplayer" Problems

[Taki]

So today i testes with another German Player the Multiplayer Mode. We wanted to find out if 1.08 is practicable and working.

As you see there is almost nobody out there playing CMSF in multiplayer nor in a League like in CMBO or CMBB Times. Reason why is:

1. It is almost unplayable, dissconnects Huge amount of Traffic Load, lags.

2. There is no Point System like in CMx1. It was great. Every Unit had its values depending on how much there where out there at the Time of Date and their Tactical Value. CMSF has nothing like that. You just can choose a TOE and the Computer does the Rest. It isnt balanced and always the Same

So BFC, when do we get a working Multiplayer with Pointsystem? CMx1 was so Fun over the Years because of this Feature. On the Hull of the Game it writes: Multiplayer but CMSF in its current state istnt playable and not even close to Fun.

[Runyan99]

Last I heard, WEGO PBEM had some real problems under 1.07. What about 1.08?

[Taki]

TCp/IP is broken. Dunno about PBEM

[redbear]

I was playing 1.07 on PBEM without any problems now i move to 1.08 to see.

But the problem to TCP/IP is laggy comm to much data coming and going I have no tested it in 1.08 but i think is the same as 1.07. The data CMSF drive is alot.

[Taki]

Anyone knows if they are working on any of the Points i stated above? Like bringing that Great Pointsystem for Unit back?

[gibsonm]

Taki,

Do a search.

You will find a gazillion posts about this and in almost every one there will be a comment from Steve saying “No, it isn’t coming back” or words to that effect.

[Taki]

And the Reason why is?

Do we even get no Point System or any "working System" back in WW2 CMx2 Game? If not the MP stays absolutly BS.

[Huntarr]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Rune is correct. There are totally different concepts going on within the game as a whole. In the CMx1 sense there are no "points". You also don't purchase individual units like CMx1 either. There is also no CMx1 system of Rarity at work as well. The implication here is that these things are still going on, just not the way you guys are thinking of them. In other words, things are done "under the hood".

The budget for purchasing units is based on the QB settings, but you don't get to see that. CM also has a sense of the value of units, but as formations and not as individal units. This is a more "fuzzy" concept and therefore not the strict math system used in CMx1 (which, as we know, some people had heart attacks over from screaming at us that a this or that tank should be 2.4566 points lower than some other tank:). Again, this is under the hood. As for Rarity, it is again a fuzzy concept that enters into the equations under the hood.

What the new CMx2 system does is make the system a lot less number crunchy and instead a lot more about a realistic, balanced force for yourself as well as the other side.

Steve

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=001534

Hope that helps Taki, sorry.

[Taki]

Post tells that there is a SUPER NEW Unit selection under the Hood. Its fuzzy and its so much better then the old one. So much for the Propaganda.

As it is right now it needs "fixing" if i understate that word.

Okay CMSF dont have that much units like the CMx1 series but it isnt somewhere near "balance".

Example: I play QB Random Map with "equal" Forces. I get forces with 14 M1 Abrahams + 2 Bradlyes + 2 Recon Jeeps fighting on an almost plain open Map against 14 Enemy BMP and some Ground Forces with nothing more then some old RPG-7.

So that is what you call "fuzzy" new tremendous under the Hood Balancing System? You cant be serious. Ever thought about why there isnt anyone playing CMSF in Multiplayer Mode? Just think about it.

[gibsonm]

Originally posted by Taki:

And the Reason why is?

Do we even get no Point System or any "working System" back in WW2 CMx2 Game? If not the MP stays absolutly BS.

Well if you bother to do the search you’ll find out. Its not my job to look this stuff up for you.

[gibsonm]

Originally posted by Taki:

Post tells that there is a SUPER NEW Unit selection under the Hood. Its fuzzy and its so much better then the old one. So much for the Propaganda.

As it is right now it needs "fixing" if i understate that word.

Okay CMSF dont have that much units like the CMx1 series but it isnt somewhere near "balance".

Example: I play QB Random Map with "equal" Forces. I get forces with 14 M1 Abrahams + 2 Bradlyes + 2 Recon Jeeps fighting on an almost plain open Map against 14 Enemy BMP and some Ground Forces with nothing more then some old RPG-7.

So that is what you call "fuzzy" new tremendous under the Hood Balancing System? You cant be serious. Ever thought about why there isnt anyone playing CMSF in Multiplayer Mode? Just think about it.

Well depending on the BMP’s (you don’t mention the model) you have at least AT-3 or AT-5 so you have FAR more than just “nothing more then some old RPG-7“

[Taki]

But it still is far away from being balanced.

[gibsonm]

Perhaps, but you statement suggested that you weren’t even aware of what weapons you had at your disposal.

Also for what its worth:

1. The nickname for an M1 is the “Abrams” not “Abrahams”

2. Its “Bradley” (after Omar Bradley) not “Bradlye”.

3. The US hasn’t fielded “jeeps” for quite a long time

[Battlefront.com]

Keep in mind that Quick Battles has absolutely nothing to do with Multiplayer at all. The two are completely independent of each other.

We are definitely making major changes to the QB system for the first WW2 game. However, I think some people forget that CMx1's system didn't ensure balance between two forces. If I picked a platoon of King Tigers, and you got a bunch of armored infantry... if the map was muddy and forested I'd probably find it unbalanced in your favor. If the map was open fields and dry terrain then I'm sure you'd find it to be very difficult to win. Especially if you were on the attack.

My point here is to keep things in perspective. QBs have never, and will never, guarantee a balanced game. The system that will replace the current QB system won't either.

Steve

[Meach]

Care to elaborate on the new system?

[z1812]

Hi All,

I would be curious to know what is being considered in order to fix multi-player tcp problems.

Regards John

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Keep in mind that Quick Battles has absolutely nothing to do with Multiplayer at all. The two are completely independent of each other.

We are definitely making major changes to the QB system for the first WW2 game. However, I think some people forget that CMx1's system didn't ensure balance between two forces. If I picked a platoon of King Tigers, and you got a bunch of armored infantry... if the map was muddy and forested I'd probably find it unbalanced in your favor. If the map was open fields and dry terrain then I'm sure you'd find it to be very difficult to win. Especially if you were on the attack.

Yeah. Difference is that with the CMx1 system the player would have no one to blame but himself in the example above, assuming the player knew there was a chance of getting terrain or weather not suitable to armor.

[Exel]

PBEM works mostly fine in 1.08. I've played several successful games without running into any major game-killing issues.

There are bugs though. I don't know how they relate to multiplayer or pbem specifically, but there are some. For instance pause commands are often ignored by units, which cause major tactical blunders at times. Other commands, including waypoints, are also randomly ignored, but less often. In one game my dismounting troops lost all their Javelins and AT4s at the start of the next turn.

TacAI causes some headaches in pbem games too. Missile units are reluctant to fire on their own, so Bradleys will engage Abrams with 25mm cannons only, for instance.

Overall pbem games are playable, and enjoyable too. But there still are issues that need to be sorted out.

[Aacooper]

Remember during the development when Steve wasn't sure PBEM would make it? I'm sure glad it did!

[Battlefront.com]

Meach,

Care to elaborate on the new system?

Not yet Currently it is a list of goals and the specifics haven't been completely hammered out, though the framework hass been.

z1812,

I would be curious to know what is being considered in order to fix multi-player tcp problems.

We are addressing issues as we can narrow them down. Version 1.08 should fix some lag issues people were having on larger scenarios, for example. Currently we think we've identified a setup problem with a specific scenario, so we're trying to determine what is different about that one compared to others.

Vanir Ausf B,

Yeah. Difference is that with the CMx1 system the player would have no one to blame but himself in the example above, assuming the player knew there was a chance of getting terrain or weather not suitable to armor.

Agreed that there was more control over things in CMx1, but I think you underestimate the reasons why an imbalance could come about. Still, your point is well understood and that is one of the things that the improved QB system should address head on. But it's still separate from multi-player

Exel,

There are bugs though. I don't know how they relate to multiplayer or pbem specifically, but there are some. For instance pause commands are often ignored by units, which cause major tactical blunders at times. Other commands, including waypoints, are also randomly ignored, but less often. In one game my dismounting troops lost all their Javelins and AT4s at the start of the next turn.

Hard to tell if these are single player or PBEM specific. I could have sworn that we fied a bug in the last build or two that related to dismounting troops losing things they had Acquired.

TacAI causes some headaches in pbem games too. Missile units are reluctant to fire on their own, so Bradleys will engage Abrams with 25mm cannons only, for instance.

The TacAI will be work in progress until we stop working However, sometimes these "headaches" are not the TacAI's fault. Bradleys, for example, can not fire their TOWs on the move so it is quite possible that they are using their cannons instead, which can be fired on the move. That's something that people have missed before so that's why I mention it.

Aacooper,

Remember during the development when Steve wasn't sure PBEM would make it? I'm sure glad it did!

heh... I don't think anybody that was around here at the time could ever forget that Holy crap was that a tempast in the teapot!

Steve

[ April 08, 2008, 09:52 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[gibsonm]

“Spelling Nazi” suggests “Tempest“?

[Battlefront.com]

Dang'd spell checker :mad:

Steve

[yapma]

Gibson:

Take a chill pill with respect to correcting people posting in a non-native language. Also, if you think search works great on forum postings, you are mistaken.

[gibsonm]

Funny, I thought Steve was an “English” speaker (at least US English).

And searching here has been fine for the last nine years whenever I’ve tried. The other option is to just ignore the post.

[Exel]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

[QB]

Exel,

Hard to tell if these are single player or PBEM specific. I could have sworn that we fied a bug in the last build or two that related to dismounting troops losing things they had Acquired.

If it helps, the troops in question were all engineers. Haven't had the same problem with other infantry types in 1.07 or 1.08.

The TacAI will be work in progress until we stop working

I know, and I respect that knowing that the TacAI will eventually get better and better. But what issues remain are always that much more apparent in WeGo games since you can't intervene with the orders mid-turn, so I naturally hope that those issues get fixed fast.

I am aware of Bradley's not being able to fire on the move, but even when stationary in perfect firing positions I have immense trouble getting the Bradleys to use their TOWs without manual target commands.