Multiplayer...

[Thorqemada]

I would never have backed the game for the Multiplayer Experience - it was the Merc Experience that made me back it.
I do not have the slightest interest in Multiplayer in this game - if any i would play the campaign co op (which is kind of possible if you do it very old style manual hot seat mode).
I will probably buy DLCs or Expansions that ad to the Campaign and Merc Experience as long i do not have to play Clan - i wont buy any kind of stuff that is Clan sided or past Civil War.

 

[Mojo Amok]

And now some grim numbers.

Looking at steam data: 6,023 players logged into BATTLETECH today. Now if I compare that to some Steam multiplayer achievements such has "Good Start" which only requires that you win one Multiplayer match; only 2.5% of steam players have that achievement. Which means only around 150 of the players online today have tried multiplayer long enough to win one time.

Worse, "Rookie" which is the achievement of merely playing 5 multiplayer matches, has been unlocked by only 0.6%. Or 36 of the people who were online today. So once someone wins, they are done with multiplayer. Some apparently give up entirely before trying 5 times.

Those are actually not that far off of the XCOM achievement numbers on Multiplayer either.

Enemy Unknown:
Meet New People. Then Kill Them. Win a multiplayer match: 8.1%

XCOM 2
The Most Dangerous Game. Win a multiplayer match: 1.9%
​

It was always going to be an uphill battle for a turn-based tactical RNG-driven game to achieve a big multiplayer community. Especially as a competent player who wants to play a more maneuver oriented cat and mouse match can really prolong the match time beyond what the average player was expecting (and that's not to say that there's anything wrong with wanting to play in a manner that protracts things, but it takes longer in a turn-based format).

Come to think of it, most games have dead Multiplayer communities.

There's some that are wildly successful, but it seems most games I really like have a "Multiplayer is Dead" thread on their forums before long. I thought Battlefleet Gothic: Armada had a fantastic platform for PVP with 10+ minute matches, a limited tactical slowdown, and credible AI to help you manage your escort ships...and even that died pretty quickly (despite being pretty hot for a quick minute).

 

[Zakhodit]

And that's pretty much my reason not to try multiplayer. I would like to win on occasion. I am not good enough to win against that experience and not interested in losing often enough to become good enough, so...

Is it not in our best interest to help you improve? What pleasure is there in beating a new player?

I'm in the middle of the Valhalla Tournament set up by @Prussian Havoc. One of the players in the tournament had very little Multiplayer experience. I invited him to join me on steam and we played several rounds where I was doing my best to improve his game play. Even though, had he won, he would likely face me in the tournament. His opponent for that match is also on my steam friends list. I told him what I was doing and he was glad for it. We aren't hungry trolls who thirst for the blood of fresh noobs. We are looking to build this community so that each multiplayer match is enjoyable.

None of us started at top tier play. If it wasn't for @Vorkaal I wouldn't know my ass from my tea kettle in multiplayer.

Also of note is that I've never met anyone mentioned above in real life. They aren't in my circle of friends. Well, they are now but they didn't start that way. If you join us on the Discord you'll find everyone in there is just like me. More than willing to play and help you get better.

 

[Wolfpack75]

Personally, I have not and will not do PvP unless it's for something. Meaning, more than just a one off random match. If it was MP in a larger context, I'd be in. Do it like Multiplayer Battletech 3025 did and have MP games in the context of the 4th Succession War, fighting for planetary control, or give it some kind of purpose and goal. As it is now, it's like just tossing a random mapboard on the ground and having a completely purposeless battle between two people. No backstory, no goals, just a nameless fight on a nameless map, with zero repercussions. Tournaments don't interest me either. I'm in it for the story and the narrative which is the part I always loved most about Battletech. I can't get that from random matches, I can from my ongoing singleplayer campaigns.

I would love for everyone to get everything they wanted from this game, but it's not going to happen, so I personally would prefer that unless they're going to go fully in and make MP a full experience with some goal and purpose, ignore it and fix the issues with SP, add in more mechs and vehicles, more diversity and story.

 

[Zakhodit]

Personally, I have not and will not do PvP unless it's for something. Meaning, more than just a one off random match. If it was MP in a larger context, I'd be in. Do it like Multiplayer Battletech 3025 did and have MP games in the context of the 4th Succession War, fighting for planetary control, or give it some kind of purpose and goal..

And this is a fantastic idea. It would be amazing if it was set up in such a way.

But it will not happen. Again, I'm not in here to appeal to HBS to change anything. They've gone cooperate, their presence in the forums is all but gone, and frankly I don't think they care to fix multiplayer.

My goal here is small. If I can add a dozen or so more people to our multiplayer community then my small one man soap box campaign will be a success. For those only interested in playing with themselves, I've never been one to interrupt.

 

[Rifter]

Yeah i tried one match, once, took me over 15 min of waiting to find a damn lobby that wasnt locked. Played one guy with a cheese lance. and never looked back.

I knew once i stared modding multiplayer would be out anyways because the game files need to match so i tried it first.

Multiplayer in this game is nothing more than a bullet point ticked off on a list.

Which is ok the single player is great.

 

[Mojo Amok]

But it will not happen. Again, I'm not in here to appeal to HBS to change anything. They've gone cooperate, their presence in the forums is all but gone, and frankly I don't think they care to fix multiplayer.

Off topic, but there's no reason to suspect that HBS won't come back to the forums with more communications just because of the acquisition. A lot of the Paradox studio forums have a good bit of interactions and the Dev Diary posts give some pretty extensive lowdown when something is in the pipeline. Overall, Paradox developer communications are crunchy and get into the nitty-gritty of game mechanics.

What that means for multiplayer is anyone's guess, but they'll probably be posting again before long.

 

[Revan Katarn]

There is a minority of players who, as some have stated on this thread, avoid the multiplayer solely on the basis of the kinds of players associated with online gaming. This view toward the common online player is not unfounded. The vast majority of online games are packed with these players and regardless of their age, act like spoiled children.

The strong multiplayer community we have is NOT made of PVP trolls, cheaters, griefers or other distainful types commonly found attached to an Xbox. The core of us have been playing Battletech in some form for over 20 years. Sometimes 30 or 40 years. We aren't there to destroy relationships with our fellow players.

I second most of this. I bought the game for the single player campaign, but decided to try the multiplayer. I have played only 6 or 7 games, I'm in the Valhalla tournament that Prussian Havoc (thank you good sir) organised, and in only one occasion I didn't enjoy the MP game (it was with a random player). At the beginning I wasn't interested in MP due to bad experiences with other games, but what I found is mostly the opposite. With people willing to give you some advice during or after the game. So for the people willing to give a try on BT MP, I encourage to contact other gamers through discord, or through PM here, you can find a lot of friendly, helpful and enthusiastic people

 

[Zakhodit]

Yeah i tried one match, once, took me over 15 min of waiting to find a damn lobby that wasnt locked. Played one guy with a cheese lance. and never looked back.

This is the kind of experience we are trying to improve. It is the exact experience I had until I found people to play with via these forums and then the discord channel. If you randomly stumble in, it will be painful.

@Rifter I know that you are unlikely to try again but for those who haven't tried it yet, again come to the discord. https://discord.gg/k4rgbsq Talk to us. A game that is set by too people is infinitely more enjoyable than a random crap shoot. If you don't want to do discord, hit me up on steam. My ID there is Zakhodit as well. If you don't have steam, send me a message on this forum. If you want to try it out I would be happy to help.

IF you just want a few quick achievements, I'll help with that too.

 

[FLOYD_CZ]

multiplayer is a weak game article

 

[HonorKnight]

There's a simple band-aid fix for the lack of interest: Implement ELO rating (like how chess players are ranked) with a leaderboard. Just like that you've got something to fight for, something to win or lose (and a way for casual players to spot hardcore opponents and avoid them). As algorithms go, this one is stupid-simple and it baffles me that they didn't do this immediately when they decided to back off of a more involved tournament structure.

Obviously they need to fix their server connection process too (seriously, there's no way to reconnect an active game after a disconnect?) I'm sure way more people have tried to play multiplayer, but gave up before ever earning the achievement for winning a match after the third game ended with a comstar disconnect message, and the tenth person connected and immediately disconnected from their lobby, etc.

 

[Zakhodit]

Off topic, but there's no reason to suspect that HBS won't come back to the forums with more communications just because of the acquisition.

They've been absent long before the acquisition. Look at the forum pages. You can see where an HBS dev as posted on a topic. How many pages back until you find one? It used to be that you couldn't find a page of topics where they hadn't posted three, four or five times. Once these forums moved to the PDX site it dropped of dramatically.

The most likely HBS post now will be a stickyed and locked post about every 6 weeks.

 

[Zakhodit]

There's a simple band-aid fix for the lack of interest: Implement ELO rating (like how chess players are ranked) with a leaderboard. Just like that you've got something to fight for, something to win or lose (and a way for casual players to spot hardcore opponents and avoid them). As algorithms go, this one is stupid-simple and it baffles me that they didn't do this immediately when they decided to back off of a more involved tournament structure.

I would love an ELO rating. But adding one fixes nothing. The players who avoid multiplayer are not motivated by a rating system. The players like you and I would love this feature, but we are already playing multiplayer. It improves our experience but it doesn't open the door for more people to play. If anything it would discourage new players for the very reason they shy away from multiplayer in the first place. The common culture of online multiplayer is one where the best players shun or mock new players.

Again, I would love to have an ELO rating, but I have to disagree that it will prompt interest in the game mode.

 

[Rifter]

This is the kind of experience we are trying to improve. It is the exact experience I had until I found people to play with via these forums and then the discord channel. If you randomly stumble in, it will be painful.

@Rifter I know that you are unlikely to try again but for those who haven't tried it yet, again come to the discord. https://discord.gg/k4rgbsq Talk to us. A game that is set by too people is infinitely more enjoyable than a random crap shoot. If you don't want to do discord, hit me up on steam. My ID there is Zakhodit as well. If you don't have steam, send me a message on this forum. If you want to try it out I would be happy to help.

IF you just want a few quick achievements, I'll help with that too.

If they add official mod support i will for sure try again. But what im not doing is uninstalling all the mods to go back to stock to play MP, then reinstalling them after to play single player, and doing that every time i play a MP game. Thats why i tried before getting into modding, i was originally going to wait at least until first DLC/expansion to mod to see what the devs did themselves first, but then after that multiplayer experience i realized killing time in MP waiting for that DLC was not an option.

 

[Mojo Amok]

They've been absent long before the acquisition. Look at the forum pages. You can see where an HBS dev as posted on a topic. How many pages back until you find one? It used to be that you couldn't find a page of topics where they hadn't posted three, four or five times. Once these forums moved to the PDX site it dropped of dramatically.

I know that, but it was a sensitive and hectic time with a release and then the sale of the company. My point is that we shouldn't expect the acquisition to preclude communication.

The most likely HBS post now will be a stickyed and locked post about every 6 weeks.

This is what I'm talking about - Paradox doesn't do that. There might be some odd forum rules around, but there's typically quite a bit of disclosure from the developers about projects. Check out the Imperator: Rome board as an example. Or the Dev Diaries on Waking the Tiger for HOI 4 as another. Maybe not as personal as the old forums with its small community, but if you want disclosure on mechanics and features from the developers themselves without going through a heavy marketing filter, there's no reason for pessimism based on the publishers.

 

[Dreepa]

Multiplayer is always a rather small portion of the player base for any strategy game.

However, there are 2 things to keep in mind:

A) Often times multiplayer is being used throughout the development to test and evaluate design, strategies and game-play way before the AI is ready. Often times the experience gained through in-development multiplayer is what feeds into the design of the AI. Of course this does not mean that everyone is doing it like that. If MP would be super expensive to even get going at the low level (e.g. total re-write of codebase) this strategy is not pursued, obviously.

B) For a game to stay relevant over a longer course of time, multi-player _can_ be driver. It is not certain that it will be, but MP is certainly one way of keeping a game active. That being said, BT is far from the ease-of-use and instant matchmaking (and session times for one particular match) that would appeal to a wider audience. Data indicates that the majority of people would play MP in a game if it is easily accessible ("Play now" button, kind of) and if matches do not take more than half an hour (the perfect time frame for a quick session next to busy family / job / private life).

(Credentials: I worked on several PC strategy games with multiplayer as well as on several free2play games, including browser based)

 

[Zakhodit]

I know that, but it was a sensitive and hectic time with a release and then the sale of the company. My point is that we shouldn't expect the acquisition to preclude communication.



This is what I'm talking about - Paradox doesn't do that. There might be some odd forum rules around, but there's typically quite a bit of disclosure from the developers about projects. Check out the Imperator: Rome board as an example. Or the Dev Diaries on Waking the Tiger for HOI 4 as another. Maybe not as personal as the old forums with its small community, but if you want disclosure on mechanics and features from the developers themselves without going through a heavy marketing filter, there's no reason for pessimism based on the publishers.

This isn’t pessimism based off the publishers. I’m stating facts easily verified by looking at the last 6 weeks of forum posts.

We got a “way ahead” post and a “we sold our company” update.

Those two points of information are not the conversations (multiple) that used to be had regularly on the forums.

I’d love to be proven wrong but, I doubt I will be. HBS devs, for whatever reason, do not post on the forums even a fraction of what they used too. Nor is there any reason to believe they will increase activity now.

Agnostic of who the publisher is or how great/terrible they are, the Indy feel of HBS is gone.

 

[Raistrev]

Another here who bought for the single player campaign.

The multiplayer is a bonus for me. However I only use it play against my buddies. Past multiplayer games have shown too much Toxicity from most of the MP communities for me to play against random people.

A suggested improvement to the whole "too few people playing" would be to have a Que type system. While still allowing for creating your own duels with friends.
(example here)

You pick your lance of mechs, pilots, and stock and/or customized mechs (latter automatically selected if you are using customized mechs). Then select the Que button. You are then Matched automatically with another who has the same settings selected.

That would I think help a bit with the no one joining a game in MP that people are talking about, or no games being present to join.

 

[Rudyman]

Multiplayer to me as an old school player of Battletech, was not appealing after all the clan type customization appeared in the game. Although some existed in the older versions, the concept was we had lost the technical ability to seriously redesign mechs to carry 8 medium lasers in the 1 large laser slot.
Put people up in stock mechs vs each other, and my interest may return. If it is designing the most out of spec, most damage in one shot mech contest, I am not interested.
MWO lost me when it became about mech design over player ability.
So I am happy to play single player and not have to deal with the non-conforming designs.

 

[Prussian Havoc]

...A suggested improvement to the whole "too few people playing" would be to have a Que type system. While still allowing for creating your own duels with friends.
(example here)

You pick your lance of mechs, pilots, and stock and/or customized mechs (latter automatically selected if you are using customized mechs). Then select the Que button. You are then Matched automatically with another who has the same settings selected...

Maybe @Zakhodit or @Packrat can back me up in this but wasn't there a "grayed out" and non-functional "Quick Play" button on the Backer Beta Multiplayer UI?