It was probably asked, but I was wondering if we could have either of two options
1) Campaign against a human opponent. Obviously this would probably be a friend as the campaign mechanics only support the german side. However, each could have their own campaign and the other could be "the spoiler". I can see people dropping out of this when losing though. That brings option 2
2) Campaign battle against any opponent that wishest to be the defender. It would be a "drop-in" battle where you have no idea who will be the general facing you until it starts. Perhaps you could put a recommended level of difficulty so newbies wouldn't join a battle against a Field Marshall and vice-versa
I think it would make this a lot more riviting. Especially if the ranking system ever gets into place (hint, hint)
multiplayer campaign?
Moderators: Slitherine Core, Panzer Corps Moderators, Panzer Corps Design
-
El_Condoro
- Panzer Corps Moderator
- Posts: 2119
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 9:32 am
It has been asked for before but the progress to date would require a dev's response.
As an aside, I liked the way it was done in Napoleon, Total War: a player would start a campaign and could, for a single battle or an on-going basis, open it up to challengers - like your option b. When a challenger entered, the battle was played out. Now, that is a RT game, so the problem of the opponent slowing things up in PzC PBEM++ would be a real threat, or worse, not continuing the game at all. An approach to these problems would need to be included - perhaps the campaigner could simply take over the game at any point?
As an aside, I liked the way it was done in Napoleon, Total War: a player would start a campaign and could, for a single battle or an on-going basis, open it up to challengers - like your option b. When a challenger entered, the battle was played out. Now, that is a RT game, so the problem of the opponent slowing things up in PzC PBEM++ would be a real threat, or worse, not continuing the game at all. An approach to these problems would need to be included - perhaps the campaigner could simply take over the game at any point?
Or if an opponent doesn't respond a turn, or surrenders, the AI takes over at the campaign difficulty level the campaigner chose to warn what level he was playing at?
The second option was inspired by the TW series, but I can tell you that is fraught with children. Additionally, the game gives no context to the drop in player.
I played a scenario against units and a situation I wasn't familar with, but plucked on, starting beating him and the guy whined I needed to let him win. He had lost the last three times one this battle and then said his mother was dying of cancer and I was a douche.
Since I don't truck with whining, I finished him off.
The point being, MP should not be something the winner should feel bad about. Well, unless they cheat.
That is my point of the drop in and the level of experience the campaigner says they are at. Those abusing it will be quickly found out by a rating system.
The second option was inspired by the TW series, but I can tell you that is fraught with children. Additionally, the game gives no context to the drop in player.
I played a scenario against units and a situation I wasn't familar with, but plucked on, starting beating him and the guy whined I needed to let him win. He had lost the last three times one this battle and then said his mother was dying of cancer and I was a douche.
Since I don't truck with whining, I finished him off.
The point being, MP should not be something the winner should feel bad about. Well, unless they cheat.
That is my point of the drop in and the level of experience the campaigner says they are at. Those abusing it will be quickly found out by a rating system.
-
El_Condoro
- Panzer Corps Moderator
- Posts: 2119
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 9:32 am
The lesson being: when needing a confidence boost, do not open yourself up to a world where there is a strong likelihood you'll be beaten!Mercutio wrote:He had lost the last three times one this battle and then said his mother was dying of cancer and I was a douche.
Yes, it should always be buyer beware and, once started, committed to for better or worse (a bit like marriage!)Now, the ladder idea is a can of worms that is yet to be opened...
I agree with you. I am 45 and have been married 26 years (so much for it wouldn't last... well, unless she tires of me yet!)El_Condoro wrote:The lesson being: when needing a confidence boost, do not open yourself up to a world where there is a strong likelihood you'll be beaten!Mercutio wrote:He had lost the last three times one this battle and then said his mother was dying of cancer and I was a douche.
Now, the ladder idea is a can of worms that is yet to be opened...
That is why I suggested the idea of the level of competency. Call it a ladder, call it a rank, call it whatever. If you know what you are getting into, no whining allowed!
Are you a Field Marshall, or a Corporal? The MP will tell you, if it is done right.
As soon as the game and the online servers support multiplayer campaigns, I'm ready to start designing them. 
As you said, the primary reason to quit prematurely is that you are losing, and in a campaign, the winning side can easily snowball their win into even easier wins as the campaign continues. But there are many ways to prevent problem, not just with arbitrary rank penalties for 'dropping', but giving the losing side some advantages in the next scenario of the campaign.
For example:
Winning a scenario in multiplayer campaign rewards more score than losing. Winning a scenario in a multiplayer campaign rewards less prestige than losing. The more you win, the less resources you have and the more your opponent will receive, enabling them to turn the tide and start winning. Think of this as the 'loser' falling back on well stocked supply dumps while the 'winner' is stretching their supply lines further and further with their advance.
That, in turn, will increase their score, but shift the balance of power in terms of units and prestige in favor of you now. And back and forth it goes until at the end of the campaign, the player with the highest score wins.
Should create some interesting situations. Some people might go all out and try to win as much as they can as fast as they can, and then delay their opponent's inevitable come back just enough to maintain their score at a higher point at the end of the campaign. Someone else might deliberately lose the first few scenarios, lulling their opponent into a false sense of victory, all the while carefully preserving their forces and prestige, and then suddenly choosing a scenario to go 'all in', possibly breaking their opponent badly enough to turn the tide for multiple scenarios afterwards. Sand bagging, as it were.
And then there's my favorite kind of multiplayer, co-op.
As you said, the primary reason to quit prematurely is that you are losing, and in a campaign, the winning side can easily snowball their win into even easier wins as the campaign continues. But there are many ways to prevent problem, not just with arbitrary rank penalties for 'dropping', but giving the losing side some advantages in the next scenario of the campaign.
For example:
Winning a scenario in multiplayer campaign rewards more score than losing. Winning a scenario in a multiplayer campaign rewards less prestige than losing. The more you win, the less resources you have and the more your opponent will receive, enabling them to turn the tide and start winning. Think of this as the 'loser' falling back on well stocked supply dumps while the 'winner' is stretching their supply lines further and further with their advance.
That, in turn, will increase their score, but shift the balance of power in terms of units and prestige in favor of you now. And back and forth it goes until at the end of the campaign, the player with the highest score wins.
Should create some interesting situations. Some people might go all out and try to win as much as they can as fast as they can, and then delay their opponent's inevitable come back just enough to maintain their score at a higher point at the end of the campaign. Someone else might deliberately lose the first few scenarios, lulling their opponent into a false sense of victory, all the while carefully preserving their forces and prestige, and then suddenly choosing a scenario to go 'all in', possibly breaking their opponent badly enough to turn the tide for multiple scenarios afterwards. Sand bagging, as it were.
And then there's my favorite kind of multiplayer, co-op.
I wish I had your job. I have been accused of designing for my software company. Well, actually we drag each other into itKerensky wrote:As soon as the game and the online servers support multiplayer campaigns, I'm ready to start designing them.
As you said, the primary reason to quit prematurely is that you are losing, and in a campaign, the winning side can easily snowball their win into even easier wins as the campaign continues. But there are many ways to prevent problem, not just with arbitrary rank penalties for 'dropping', but giving the losing side some advantages in the next scenario of the campaign.
For example:
Winning a scenario in multiplayer campaign rewards more score than losing. Winning a scenario in a multiplayer campaign rewards less prestige than losing. The more you win, the less resources you have and the more your opponent will receive, enabling them to turn the tide and start winning. Think of this as the 'loser' falling back on well stocked supply dumps while the 'winner' is stretching their supply lines further and further with their advance.
That, in turn, will increase their score, but shift the balance of power in terms of units and prestige in favor of you now. And back and forth it goes until at the end of the campaign, the player with the highest score wins.
Should create some interesting situations. Some people might go all out and try to win as much as they can as fast as they can, and then delay their opponent's inevitable come back just enough to maintain their score at a higher point at the end of the campaign. Someone else might deliberately lose the first few scenarios, lulling their opponent into a false sense of victory, all the while carefully preserving their forces and prestige, and then suddenly choosing a scenario to go 'all in', possibly breaking their opponent badly enough to turn the tide for multiple scenarios afterwards. Sand bagging, as it were.
And then there's my favorite kind of multiplayer, co-op.
I can see a campaign ladder (which keeps you from quitting in a tournament)
Again, you can penalize those that quit a game before the finish
Then you can categorize a victory by who they beat.
It can be done. I am not saying it is easy, but amazing is about doing what isn't easy.
Now, if you are playing a buddy, I can see the loser fall back being a problem. That is what a good designer is for though. I have faith you guys can work that balance and that is the lesser of what I am discussing in MP campaign.
Your campaign is everything. Your opponent is rated by how well they do in that battle. If it is a drop-in, I cannot think of a better incentive for the opponent to kick your ... rear.
They have no reason to protect "core" units, just kill you.
sounds fair to me and a solid base for rating players.
Your campaign is everything. Your opponent is rated by how well they do in that battle. If it is a drop-in, I cannot think of a better incentive for the opponent to kick your ... rear.
They have no reason to protect "core" units, just kill you.
sounds fair to me and a solid base for rating players.
Co-op was also my favorite way to play MP in RTS games like Company of Heroes. Teamwork makes it a fun way to play. I could see a co-op mode over a MP campaign, though, due to the problems Kerensky stated above. I think it would also be easier to design a nice large map with two players against the AI: maybe starting from two opposite sides of the map and meeting in the center where there is a large, well defended urban city (like possibly Stalingrad).Kerensky wrote:And then there's my favorite kind of multiplayer, co-op.
Panzer Corps Beta Tester
-
El_Condoro
- Panzer Corps Moderator
- Posts: 2119
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 9:32 am
PG2 has had 4-player (2v2) or 3-player (2v1) games for 10 years - something like that should be possible for PzC, too. It's a great way to get to know guys and learn how to communicate so that strategy and tactics are co-ordinated. The best teams do this well. The way it's normally set up in PG2 is Player 1 v 3; Player 2 v 4. With a PzC east-west map orientation that might be 1 in the NW, 2 in NE, 3 in SW, 4 in SE. It can work but how the replays work needs to be sorted out so each player gets to see the replay of their opponent. Great fun, though.
Do any Slitherine games have support for more than two players?
A quick look at some of their other games, this doesn't seem to be the case. This, most likely, be a significant issue, server side support.
Might be something to look at when hot seat (local multiplayer) gets some more attention though.
Personally, the idea of passing a turn based game between four, or even more, people seems pretty daunting. That many players works great for RTS, but TBS? I dunno.
A quick look at some of their other games, this doesn't seem to be the case. This, most likely, be a significant issue, server side support.
Might be something to look at when hot seat (local multiplayer) gets some more attention though.
Personally, the idea of passing a turn based game between four, or even more, people seems pretty daunting. That many players works great for RTS, but TBS? I dunno.
-
El_Condoro
- Panzer Corps Moderator
- Posts: 2119
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 9:32 am
It can be if the players have reasons for delays - you effectively quadruple the chances of delays. However, in the 4-player games I am involved with (it's the only form of PG2 I still play) a turn can be played every day if the time zones 'align' and the players are able. It's slower and perhaps not for everyone but it is fun.Kerensky wrote:Personally, the idea of passing a turn based game between four, or even more, people seems pretty daunting. That many players works great for RTS, but TBS? I dunno.