Multiplayer...

[Slayer_TNT]

Before anyone disagrees with me, let me make some acknowledgements and present some numbers.

First off, hats off to all of the guys (and gals?) in the Unofficial HBS Discord channel. They have made it a great place to find people to play multiplayer. The tournaments they organize and the community there is fantastic. If your first go around in multiplayer left a bad taste in your mouth, I encourage you to join us on the discord and give it a second try.
https://discord.gg/k4rgbsq

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.

The achievement "Eck's gonna give it two you" which is a viral achievement in which you must play Eck himself, or someone who has played Eck, or someone who has played someone who has played Eck has been unlocked by 1.1% of steam players. Or ~66 of the players who logged in today.

If you play one multiplayer match you are almost guaranteed to get "Eck's gonna give it to you." Hell, you don't even have to stick around for the whole match as you get the achievement the instant the game starts. You can just Esc out and achievement is earned.

Which brings us to the next issue. All of these numbers aside, the multiplayer experience is abysmal. Connecting to a match is never as easy as pressing the Join button. You may try three or four times before you restart your client in the hopes the Word of Blake is appeased and COMSTAR lets the connection through. Once in the match, Your opponent can just bail. Which doesn't count as a match for any achievements. I had a hard time even getting the "Lose Ten Matches" achievement because I had to have the match COMPLETE. COMSTAR or an impatient opponent canceled that show before I could lose with honor.

And this is heartbreaking to me. The longevity of BATTLETECH has always been a multiplayer experience. I've never known anyone who plays TT alone in their Mother's basement. Once the single player content has been played out, what are the other 5,700ish players who logged in today going to do?

They are going to play another game.

This community can keep the small fire of multiplayer alive but unless HBS improves multiplayer, it's going to go away. And HBS isn't going to do that. These tiny numbers are not going to convince HBS to put any time into improvements for multiplayer. Any promise of a Solaris VII experience is empty. Gone because less than HALF of ONE percent of players continue to play each other. I mean why bother to keep the servers up? The hassle they cause and the money spent on them isn't worth it from a business standpoint.

This game had potential. It could have revitalized the multiplayer experience of Battletech.

Now the best hope is that they add a direct client connection so that the few of us who enjoy playing online can continue to do so once they shut down the servers.

I played a ton of Multiplayer Mechwarrior and Mech Commander but, gotta be honest, not interested in multiplayer for this game. I don't play multiplayer XCOM either.

For me it really comes down to the time commitment. Playing multi-player is a commitment to your opponent to stick with the game to the end (assuming you're not a jerk). With Real-Time games the speed ensures that there is a fixed duration, and you have something to do the whole time. With a Turn Based game it's like chess, you spend a lot of time waiting for your opponent to move.

I know there are timers and such, but the reason I play a turned based strategy game, other than it being awesome, is that I can get up and walk away whenever I need to. Like when my wife needs me to do something or I have to help the kid with homework, or we have a Scout meeting, or whatever. I can save, get up , and leave for an indefinite period without inconveniencing anyone or losing anything. So yeah, not interested, but modders adding custom campaigns I'm all in for.

 

[RAPT0R]

I would love to try multi player.... However I bought 4 copies of this game for me and my sons so we could play together but despite over 70 attempts over a month to get a multi player game. Only 1 time did we even get into the match and it disconnected during the first round of play. I asked HBS, paradox and steam for help with Paradox and Steam saying ask HBS and HBS never responding...... I've known Jordan for years and always supported his work, but this time it really feels like they rushed it out the door half way done!

 

[Slayer_TNT]

Mitch talked about why they didn't have a mission builder during the development phase. The work hours required almost surpassed the work hours spent on just the single player alone. As much as a mission builder would desired, I think it likely they create more MP features before they create a Mission builder.

I and don't think it's likely they'll create more MP features.

The most likely additions will be single player focused. Some of those things will indirectly improve MP (More mechs, maps, weapons) and that will "count" toward developing both at the same time.

If they want longevity they will develop the mission builder. Look at Portal, or XCOM 2, or Skyrim. All of those games had insane longevity and ongoing sales because Modders can add new, and interesting content for them. MW 4 had an amazingly long run due to MekTek and their ability to continue producing content, game modes, and new systems. NBT did the same. A mission builder, even sold as DLC (Which I would pay for) would make this game live for a LONG LONG Time.

HBS would deliver the big campaigns and timeline advances (like the Clan Invasion) and let the modders fill int he gaps. There are so many examples of that strategy really working that I would encourage them to consider it now that the base game is out and did well.

 

[Zakhodit]

If they want longevity they will develop the mission builder. Look at Portal, or XCOM 2, or Skyrim. All of those games had insane longevity and ongoing sales because Modders can add new, and interesting content for them. MW 4 had an amazingly long run due to MekTek and their ability to continue producing content, game modes, and new systems. NBT did the same. A mission builder, even sold as DLC (Which I would pay for) would make this game live for a LONG LONG Time.

HBS would deliver the big campaigns and timeline advances (like the Clan Invasion) and let the modders fill int he gaps. There are so many examples of that strategy really working that I would encourage them to consider it now that the base game is out and did well.

Agreed. But you have to convince the devs. Devs who don’t even skim the forums anymore

@RAPT0R connecting can be a pain. The best advice I can give is start with a fresh client. If disconnects happen try swapping who hosts. I’ve managed to play fellows in Australia (I’m in California) so it’s possible. And comstar works better on some days than others

 

[President Jyrgunkarrd]

I feel your pain, Zakhodit.
Since 1998 I played BT competitively. We have never had not only the official competitive league, but even video game with ladder. Almost all multiplayer behavior was created by community themselves - leagues (ST, VL, MWA, NBT-HC, NBT-C), mods (HardCore for MW4), even games (MegaMek). Yes, this is a testament to a very strong community, but why does no one ever want to help us?
Campaign is really simple (i mean REALLY), I went through it like a hot knife through butter. It is somewhat enjoyable, but it does not give any challenge. Yes, it could be improved in the future and AI could be able to compete moderately. But that is it.
I put so much hope on BATTLETECH. Global map, capture of planets, units, role-playing - all this naive stuff. But competitive players received exactly what they always received. Multiplayer as inconvenient as possible, the connection is extremely unstable. Overcome!

Here is the thing:

Competitive multiplayer is completely incompatible with an enjoyable SP experience. You can have one or the other, not both.

The reason is that the instant you have successful, well implemented competitive multiplayer, all development resources & attention shift towards that market. And that market becomes [Mod edit: inappropriate metaphor], because suddenly it isn't a small group of friends arranging Discord matches - it's an entire subreddit of [Mod edit: snarky nicknames] who exclusively play the cheesiest possible builds because that's what you have to do to climb the ladder. Devs then have to tailor balance patches according to the way to MP meta is blowing, and these decisions spill over into the SP experience & mostly ruin it, and dev resources being sucked into the always transforming MP meta in a futile effort to try and address imbalanced builds are no longer available to create SP future content.


And don't even get me started on how the subreddit [Mod edit: snarky nicknames] population destroys any sense of friendly community surrounding a game. Anyone who played DotA in Warcraft III way back when knows exactly what I mean when I say the worst thing to happen to that experience was it becoming popular.


So, that's why I don't try to help build a MP community even for a game like BattleTech that I think does have real MP potential. It will wreck everything I love about it. I've lived through this happening before, and boy howdy did it ever suck.

 

[Morfanos]

Here is the thing:

Competitive multiplayer is completely incompatible with an enjoyable SP experience. You can have one or the other, not both.

The reason is that the instant you have successful, well implemented competitive multiplayer, all development resources & attention shift towards that market. And that market becomes [Mod edit ], because suddenly it isn't a small group of friends arranging Discord matches ...

As a former Starcraft player, I would like to disagree with that statement. Having a great multiplayer experience, and in the case of SC, with an eSport level of balance and competition, did not in any ways makes the single player less enjoyable by any mean. Starcraft is far from the only title I could lists here but it is the best one to take as an example.

I honestly cannot understand why so many people keep insisting that both types of game play cannot coexist.

 

[matemat]

I am sorry if I will be repeating something from earlier in this thread... I don't have the patience to read through the ten pages of posts

Why not make the multiplayer experience similar to the tabletop, where you have predefined scenarios with predefined lances? Like "here you have a few lights, now try and protect the train while being ambushed by the opponent" or "try to get this damaged mech to the other side of the map". I don't remember the specific set-ups, but it was more about playing with friends for fun and trying to do your best with what you had, than about trying to create the best possible lance with the given rules by abusing OP game mechanics etc.
The scenarios wouldn't need to be perfectly balanced, or some may even be purposedly imbalanced so that players with different skill levels can still play together.

It's basically the opposite of competitive multiplayer. I think it would be more fun, but there would have to be a ton of (probably hand-crafted) scenarios in order not to get boring... so modding anyone?

 

[Prussian Havoc]

I am sorry if I will be repeating something from earlier in this thread... I don't have the patience to read through the ten pages of posts

Why not make the multiplayer experience similar to the tabletop, where you have predefined scenarios with predefined lances? Like "here you have a few lights, now try and protect the train while being ambushed by the opponent" or "try to get this damaged mech to the other side of the map". I don't remember the specific set-ups, but it was more about playing with friends for fun and trying to do your best with what you had, than about trying to create the best possible lance with the given rules by abusing OP game mechanics etc.
The scenarios wouldn't need to be perfectly balanced, or some may even be purposedly imbalanced so that players with different skill levels can still play together.

It's basically the opposite of competitive multiplayer. I think it would be more fun, but there would have to be a ton of (probably hand-crafted) scenarios in order not to get boring... so modding anyone?

I like that idea. Then for Ranking and Ladders, even Leagues, it could come down to who has how many successes in how wide a swath of predefined Secnarios/Lances. It would in my opinion be a better measure of BATTLETECH Skill and Tactical Acuman, than simply who can win the most Deathmatches. I like it. : )

 

[Vanu Kaos]

When the different types of battles were cut before launch from the skirmish mode it really only left what we have now which is the deathmatch scenario. MP would have been much better served with several different types of battle to choose from than one which easily gets "meta'd". It was promised that these scenarios would be put back in post-launch and I firmly believe that would be a step towards breathing life into MP to allow people to choose from a variety of scenarios to play.

 

[Prussian Havoc]

When the different types of battles were cut before launch from the skirmish mode it really only left what we have now which is the deathmatch scenario. MP would have been much better served with several different types of battle to choose from than one which easily gets "meta'd". It was promised that these scenarios would be put back in post-launch and I firmly believe that would be a step towards breathing life into MP to allow people to choose from a variety of scenarios to play.

Unfortunately the Skirmish “Types of Missions” that HBS mentions in BATTLETECH KickStarter Update #47 are for the PvE Skirmish Mode alone.

PvP Multiplayer is not currently in-line for any additional Mission Types. Though HBS “does hope to explore different ways to bring Solaris VII to life.”

 

[Cato Zilks]

I see bashing in the tone all over on both sides of the MP/SP discussions, but not always _here_. [Mod edit] IMO, it is all shades of grey around the money and what to spend it on to add more BATTLETECH.

We have a (competitive) group of people who play strategy games, passionate about two different aspects of the same thing, that assume a limited amount of resources to get the things they want, so guess what? This MP/SP PvE/PvP snake-eating-it's-tail 'discussion' is as old as the MUDs us old guys played.

First off, why so salty?
Second, who said HBS/Paradox would only fund one side?
Third, chess and solitaire have both been around for centuries; the 'longevity' arguments are money-based, meaning they appear to provide more long-term income, or they are population based, but neither proves MP or SP 'live longer'.

IMO, TT is the seed for all of this and by it's nature is a beer and pretzels game, not a competitive PvP/eSports game.
The MP 'MechWarrior' type games brought a bunch of PvP to the franchise. Two very different types of MP gaming, from my PoV. The developers even stated that the level of Balance needed for those two types of games are quite different, as is the medium, and they seemed from my PoV to state their goal is for more of a beer and pretzels approach. So, finding a MP lobby/queuing/matching system that works at scale for _this_ game might not be so cut and dried. This is a game where you have to set aside a good bit of time per match, have patience for allowing the turns of others, and even some level of self restraint to not cheese rules at this time in order to have fun matches. Shades of grey.

[Mod Edit: Publicly commenting on and disregarding Moderation, again. This is against site rules. Also, again: please do not attempt to tell people how to engage on this community, AKA do not engage in self moderation of this community. If someone thinks something is afoul of the Rules of conduct, do not reply: Use report.]

As for #1, ummmm... who is so salty? The closest thing I have seen is people being like 'oh God, I hate MP culture, I don't want that."
#2, I mean, HBS did make this game based on a kickstarter campaign so I think assuming resources might be a bit limited is a good assumption. The Paradox acquisition may help in that regard, but they will be looking to capitalize on whatever they see most of the fans willing to pay for. Just based on the feedback in this forum (read: the vast amount of people who came out to say they are not interested in MP), I am willing to bet that they will push for SP addons. I am not saying this as a someone who wants SP exclusivity, I actually want MP to be a focus after they fix some core balance issues. I also has seemed that a lot of people in this thread that been hostile to MP because they don't like MP game culture. I get that the current discord group is not that, but that does not change the fear that if this game became primarily MP the culture would become more "toxic". Even chess matches can be fall prey to an excessively hostile environment, so I really don't think those fears are misplaced. It will be a challenge to make this a "beer & pretzels" MP experience because people care about their record. Coming back to the $$$, how much do we want to see the HBS team spend to make this kind of MP environment. What SP features would we be willing to pass on to make that happen? With so much of the playerbase here for SP, this has to be a real question for HBS/Paradox.
As for #3, yes both MP and SP games can last for centuries. MP folks keep pushing this MP is the only way for longevity line and agree that it is a weak argument.

 

[Morfanos]

Ok, so [Mod Edit: Self moderation, PDMA]

...

[Mod edit: While forum staff appreciate the vote of confidence, Publicly discussion or commenting about of Moderation is against PDX site rules, and should only be done in PM for precedent reasons amongst others]
@Havamal should be praised for his reaction time as he was able to keep the discussion on topic and civilized.

...
As for #1, ummmm... who is so salty? The closest thing I have seen is people being like 'oh God, I hate MP culture, I don't want that."
...

I would recommend you go back and read some of the "anti MP" posts that were written. My deleted post was in reaction to some of these. I will not repeat my initial mistake and reply to these but not everyone is simply saying "I hate the MP culture".

...
#2, I mean, HBS did make this game based on a kickstarter campaign so I think assuming resources might be a bit limited is a good assumption. The Paradox acquisition may help in that regard, but they will be looking to capitalize on whatever they see most of the fans willing to pay for. Just based on the feedback in this forum (read: the vast amount of people who came out to say they are not interested in MP), I am willing to bet that they will push for SP addons. I am not saying this as a someone who wants SP exclusivity, I actually want MP to be a focus after they fix some core balance issues. I also has seemed that a lot of people in this thread that been hostile to MP because they don't like MP game culture. I get that the current discord group is not that, but that does not change the fear that if this game became primarily MP the culture would become more "toxic". Even chess matches can be fall prey to an excessively hostile environment, so I really don't think those fears are misplaced. It will be a challenge to make this a "beer & pretzels" MP experience because people care about their record. Coming back to the $$$, how much do we want to see the HBS team spend to make this kind of MP environment. What SP features would we be willing to pass on to make that happen? With so much of the playerbase here for SP, this has to be a real question for HBS/Paradox.
...

Right now, both the SP and MP are missing features that were part of the initial kick starter campaign.

I have yet to see anyone on the MP side asking for more than anything that should have been included in the base game as stated in the kickstarter. We all understand the delay but at the same time, we simply want the experience we were told we would get. Something I'm sure both the SP and MP sides of this discussion would agree on.

...
As for #3, yes both MP and SP games can last for centuries. MP folks keep pushing this MP is the only way for longevity line and agree that it is a weak argument.

I agree with you. Games like the Civilization series are a great example for both MP and SP longevity. Both can coexist and help for the longevity of a game.

 

[Havamal]

Greetings Mechwarriors,

First: as Forum staff may have previously relayed to some on other occasions,

Even though forum staff appreciate a general vote of confidence which is potentially fine if totally vague and general, Public discussion or commenting about of Moderation is against PDX site rules, and should only be done in PM for precedent reasons amongst others including but not at all limited to the very high potential for such to be a tangent that leads to derailing OP discussion.


Rules of conduct: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?help/terms

Forum User agreement and Rules: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/forum-user-agreement-rules.544261/

Such is one of the few hard rules of the forum necessitating forum staff to respond. As such please avoid, and simply discuss topics without the meta tangent.


Second, this is indeed a moderated forum. As such Please do not attempt to self moderate other community members engagement of this community in any way. Please share personal perspectives and if you see something that could be afoul of the Rules of Conduct please do NOT reply to it, rather use the Report feature and allow Forum Staff to de-escalate it so that regular civil discussion can continue without derailment.


Thank you , and Carry on.

 

[Kanaric]

Game needs matchmaking and a ladder or record keeping of some kind. The kind of multiplayer this game has is like a 90s multiplayer and well behind.

The multiplayer in this game is kind of [Mod Edit: disrespectful]. I hope in a future release, probably a sequel at this point, they have a good modern multiplayer system.

there already is this really fantastic, engaging, fun and sociable MP Battletech game you can play on the tabletop.

lmao speaking of dead games. Also I don't want to replay against the same people over and over again, if I can even find people who play. I like online games for a reason, variety.

I am a regular at a couple of game stores and have been around in the gaming community in Las Vegas and Chicago, and I am a regular at tabletop cons. I have only seen this game played once and it was a demo around 2000, when I was in high school. Meanwhile I see Star Wars X-Wing, War Machine, Warhammer 40k, Sigmar, etc everywhere. So nobody tell me this is an active game. [Mod Edit: Disrespectful]

 

[Zakhodit]

This thread has gone way off what I intended.

I was hoping to find ways to have more people play the multiplayer, not have it turn into an argument over which is better.

If you Enjoy SP, and you never ever want to play MP. That's fine. I wasn't expecting this group to show up in this thread, but here we are.

If multiplayer is giving you issues and you want to try it, but haven't because of all the reasons we've posted so far, you are the target audience.

I was hoping to open the door to the MP community, in which we have a Discord server to talk on: https://discord.gg/k4rgbsq ; And was hoping to encourage more people to play.

That discord server is for more than just MP. There are channels to discuss strats on certain missions or builds for your Merc lance.

The bottom line is, this was never meant to be divisive. By doing so you are becoming the thing you hate. It doesn't matter if you love SP or MP, yelling at each other on a forum is not the experience we were looking for.

 

[MustrumRidcully0]

Battletech originally designed to two people fight against each other on table. How did it happen that it turned into a single player game? We waited twenty (thirty) years for THIS?
Well, just fix what is now and forget it.

Then, someone invented personal computers and we could finally play a variety of challenging and interesting games without other people! The Future is awesome. (Even without flying cars.)



I have no interest in multiplayer, but I would still hope that some development for it happens to make it enticing to those that are interested. The ability to create tournaments, leaderboards and a match-making system sound like sensible additions down the road.

It will be up to HBS to determine when and where to allocate the resources for it.

 

[Slayer_TNT]

Here is the thing:

Competitive multiplayer is completely incompatible with an enjoyable SP experience. You can have one or the other, not both.

The reason is that the instant you have successful, well implemented competitive multiplayer, all development resources & attention shift towards that market. And that market becomes [Mod edit: inappropriate metaphor], because suddenly it isn't a small group of friends arranging Discord matches - it's an entire subreddit of [Mod edit: snarky nicknames] who exclusively play the cheesiest possible builds because that's what you have to do to climb the ladder. Devs then have to tailor balance patches according to the way to MP meta is blowing, and these decisions spill over into the SP experience & mostly ruin it, and dev resources being sucked into the always transforming MP meta in a futile effort to try and address imbalanced builds are no longer available to create SP future content.


And don't even get me started on how the subreddit [Mod edit: snarky nicknames] population destroys any sense of friendly community surrounding a game. Anyone who played DotA in Warcraft III way back when knows exactly what I mean when I say the worst thing to happen to that experience was it becoming popular.


So, that's why I don't try to help build a MP community even for a game like BattleTech that I think does have real MP potential. It will wreck everything I love about it. I've lived through this happening before, and boy howdy did it ever suck.

I don't agree with your assertion. Games like Arma and Starcraft/Warcraft have legendary Multiplayer along with solid SP campaigns.

 

[MajorPrankster]

This thread has gone way off what I intended.

I was hoping to find ways to have more people play the multiplayer, not have it turn into an argument over which is better.

If you Enjoy SP, and you never ever want to play MP. That's fine. I wasn't expecting this group to show up in this thread, but here we are.

If multiplayer is giving you issues and you want to try it, but haven't because of all the reasons we've posted so far, you are the target audience.

I was hoping to open the door to the MP community, in which we have a Discord server to talk on: https://discord.gg/k4rgbsq ; And was hoping to encourage more people to play.

That discord server is for more than just MP. There are channels to discuss strats on certain missions or builds for your Merc lance.

The bottom line is, this was never meant to be divisive. By doing so you are becoming the thing you hate. It doesn't matter if you love SP or MP, yelling at each other on a forum is not the experience we were looking for.

I applaud and appreciate your efforts.
IME of too many years of gaming, the issue is 'forum PvP'.
Some poeple try to drown out any mention of any type of playstyle they do not like, including making whatever assertations they can to 'crush' the opposing viewpoint.
While occasionally amusing to watch, it gets old fast.

I have a high level of confidence that HBS will find improve all aspects of this platform.

Meawhile, gamers will continue to fight battles in thier minds on forums, because many of them simply cannot help themsleves.

I mean, as one poster so many years ago said of a small game change that made so many gamers meltdown, "I work for a global company and changing our healthcare plan drastically had less drama."

 

[UberMunchkin]

This thread has gone way off what I intended.

I was hoping to find ways to have more people play the multiplayer, not have it turn into an argument over which is better.

If you Enjoy SP, and you never ever want to play MP. That's fine. I wasn't expecting this group to show up in this thread, but here we are.

If multiplayer is giving you issues and you want to try it, but haven't because of all the reasons we've posted so far, you are the target audience.

I was hoping to open the door to the MP community, in which we have a Discord server to talk on: https://discord.gg/k4rgbsq ; And was hoping to encourage more people to play.

That discord server is for more than just MP. There are channels to discuss strats on certain missions or builds for your Merc lance.

The bottom line is, this was never meant to be divisive. By doing so you are becoming the thing you hate. It doesn't matter if you love SP or MP, yelling at each other on a forum is not the experience we were looking for.

I was trying, in my earlier post, to explore why there seems to be a lack of people in multiplayer and it turns out that the answer seems to be as simple as most people seem to be here for the SP Experience. It wasn't my intention to suggest that the multiplayer part is less valuable.

I really hope you manage to find a way to make multiplayer viable for this game, everyone should get to enjoy the Battletech they want to play.

 

[Jack Ryan]

Plenty of us like MP in this game, the presentation however for the launch of the game really leaves a lot to be desired. We will make due, and hope like hell Paradox sees fit to develop MP further. It's no longer HBS folks, just like people seem to think Bioware is still its own company... They're EA, and Andromeda taught us that quite brutally. I have high hopes that Paradox will succeed [Mod Edit: Hyperbole that will read to others as flamebait.]