Only 5% have created an MP challenge?

[Redpossum]

So, the Tourney is over. I asked my usual skirmish partner if he wanted to play something. I set up a match as far back as I could find anything; Egyptians vs Assyrians circa 600 BC. We're just getting started, but it looks like fun so far.

But what did I mean by the title of this thread? When I returned to Steam, I found a had a new Cheevo called 'Challenger - created a multiplayer challenge. 4.9% of players have this achievement'.

And I was surprised that the number was so low, especially given that the PBEM system is such a gem, and so incredibly easy to use. It really is about as hard as falling off a log.

Why on earth do you think this number is so very low?

[Rosedelio]

One thing to note is that the achievement percent is based on the total number of people on Steam who own the game. So, some people who played and didn't like the game/ never tried it are included. The multiplayer achievements for Medieval are a little higher, likely because the people who didn't like the original didn't get Medieval.

Even accounting for that though, there's still a high percentage of people who've played quite a bit of single player, but never tried multiplayer. Part of it might be a fear of losing or of general online social interaction. Another is the time commitment. Multiplayer games can last weeks while a battle against the AI takes an about an hour.

[Redpossum]

The game does have a ferociously steep learning curve; there's no denying that. The dedication to realism makes it a hellaciously complex system.

But I do enjoy MP very much. I still lose most of the time, but the occasional wins are all the sweeter for it.

[pipfromslitherine]

The vast majority of people never play MP. When making Dune 2000 and Emperor, we spent a LOT of time on MP, but with the absolute knowledge that only about 10-20% of players would even enter the MP lobby. It's the way of things!

Cheers

Pip

[nyczar]

Wow, its because of multi player that I have played this game for 4 years now. If not for that, I would have stopped in my usual 6-8 weeks.

[sIg3b]

Those who DO play MP tend to be very dedicated to win. By and large, winning an MP game is more difficult than playing against the AI on Governor, which is reasonably difficult already.
You can expect most of the people you meet in MP and tournaments to be among the best 5% FoG2 players, so the steam statistics make sense.

[w_michael]

I've had a MP challenge going with friends since the game was released. When one game finishes a new challenge is issued. I occasionally play against strangers.

[loki100]

One thing to note is that the achievement percent is based on the total number of people on Steam who own the game. So, some people who played and didn't like the game/ never tried it are included. The multiplayer achievements for Medieval are a little higher, likely because the people who didn't like the original didn't get Medieval.

Even accounting for that though, there's still a high percentage of people who've played quite a bit of single player, but never tried multiplayer. Part of it might be a fear of losing or of general online social interaction. Another is the time commitment. Multiplayer games can last weeks while a battle against the AI takes an about an hour.

also bear in mind that not everyone has the game set up on Steam, I do MP, with a regular opponent and neither of us have either FOG game on Steam. So it is a bit misleading as there is going to be a % who do some MP but are not picked up on the Steam achievement?

admittedly in both games 90+% of my games are SP, so I'm an occasional MP player

[GiveWarAchance]

I only tried MP briefly. Single player is so much better.

A consistent problem with MP is nobody plays an honest game. They always need the strongest factions and then rush to the best terrain and camp there like hills behind a river. So I am left with a choice: try to fight the strongest faction fortified on the best terrain and lose, or wait out the turns and get a boring draw. Losers can cheese the game to get cheap wins and draws, but this is not gaming. It is boring and frustrating not fun like games ought to be. So I quit MP after a bunch of players repeated this scam on me.

[Ray552]

I only tried MP briefly. Single player is so much better.

A consistent problem with MP is nobody plays an honest game. They always need the strongest factions and then rush to the best terrain and camp there like hills behind a river. So I am left with a choice: try to fight the strongest faction fortified on the best terrain and lose, or wait out the turns and get a boring draw. Losers can cheese the game to get cheap wins and draws, but this is not gaming. It is boring and frustrating not fun like games ought to be. So I quit MP after a bunch of players repeated this scam on me.

I agree with you that there are players like this, but one way to minimize that kind of BS is to only accept (and post) mirror matches, whether they are historical battles or player-generated battles.

Hopefully the games you played weren't mirror matches, but I find that having to play both sides on the same map reduces, but not completely eliminates, shenanigans.

When I first started playing, I got suckered into a few non-mirror matches where the person who posted the game gave themselves the stronger army on their ideal terrain, and I got an army completely unsuited for that map - think along the lines of Parthians on a steppe map against Ligurian medium foot

It sounds like you were picking games up in the lobby - consider posting mirror matches yourself, and maybe you'll have a better experience?

[GiveWarAchance]

.

[markleslie]

ya I did some random matches in the lobby. It was so depressing and I haven't touched any MP since that.

I doubt I can cure your ills, however, I've posted a few MP games with armies that interest me, feel free to make use of any or all of them.
password: aspirin

[carpenkm]

A couple of thoughts.

I dont really know what Steam is so I expect i am one of the 95% on there, but I've played many MP games. I only started playing MP in lockdown and have never played multiplayer online before. It really is more challenging and you meet real people, many will chat to you. the first season of the online league was one of my most enjoyable wargaming experiences for years!

MP games are fun and very challenging. If someone messes you around in a friendly match agree a draw and move on. Many players will give you a fair fight. I have to say mostly my games have been fair although there is always some manoeuvring to optimal terrain.

Join one of the tournaments. The TDC (next round in Jan) gives you 9 matches against equal opponents with a scoring system to encourage reasonably aggressive games. HOML is fun too as is the LOEG. If armies dont advance neither player scores very much. Look out for the player run tournaments too if you're keen and committed. Kronenblatt's many campaigns are truly excellent and add an extra dimension to the battles!

Take up markleslie's challenge - he's an all right player

[Rosedelio]

To add to the discussion about multiplayer tactics, there are going to be some matchups and terrain where one side can camp and there's nothing the other army can do about it. Generally though, not all positions are unassailable. The downside to camping is that you're ceding the initiative to the other player, who'll have time to flank or shoot the defenders. It takes some skill to know how to make an assault on a disadvantageous position, but it's a necessary one if you want to get better at the game. Honestly, the harder skill to learn is how to react to an aggressive player's movements.

+1 for markleslie's challenges - he's a decent, aggressive player.

[Karvon]

Taking a defensive position is a very historic and common strategy. You will never be challenged in this way playing the AI; it will always come out and fight eventually, regardless of match ups and terrain. Only playing another human opponent will you have the opportunity to face this situation. You will definitely run into this in MP tournament play, particularly higher up the ladder if the terrain and army match ups don't favor one side. Part of becoming a more successful, and well-rounded, player is learning how to deal with these.

[sIg3b]

I only tried MP briefly. Single player is so much better.

A consistent problem with MP is nobody plays an honest game. They always need the strongest factions and then rush to the best terrain and camp there like hills behind a river. So I am left with a choice: try to fight the strongest faction fortified on the best terrain and lose, or wait out the turns and get a boring draw. Losers can cheese the game to get cheap wins and draws, but this is not gaming. It is boring and frustrating not fun like games ought to be. So I quit MP after a bunch of players repeated this scam on me.

I think you can do two things to minimize that:

1. Take a good look at what is offered -caveat emptor!- and only join games that seem fair.

2. If your opponent is camping, go camping, too. Will result in a draw, but that´s historical. Standoffs happened.

Bear in mind that FoG2 is not fictional. It is an excellent compromise between historicity and gameplay. If a lame tactic was sometimes historically successful, you cannot completely eliminate it from the game without compromising the historicity too much.

[GiveWarAchance]

.

[GiveWarAchance]

.

[SnuggleBunnies]

So I play exclusively MP, over a hundred matches a year, and I have to say the *vast majority* of my experiences are positive - nice players, interesting matches. I also just find playing the AI to be boring, as there's no variety in its 'style', but that is of course purely a personal preference thing. I wouldn't let a few bad apples ruin the experience.

[sIg3b]

From watching documentaries and reading history books, I know it was very common for armies to camp out on their favorite terrain and not engage. Oddly it was when one army seemed to be moving away, then the other would fear missing out on a good battle so they come down off the high ground and fight the battle fairly. Sometimes one side had enough of an archer advantage to coax the opposing army off the hill with clouds of arrows. Another reason was supplies would run low and it sounds like the #1 reason for armies to stop the terrain camping and come out and fight a fair battle on sub-optimal ground. And many battles happened due to peer pressure like the army commander was pressured by royalty, his own elite troops (knights) or the citizens to go fight quickly to resolve a problem or get revenge on some army that was doing something dastardly like ravaging the land.

So I understand the temptation for humans to try to optimize their odds against losing. What is weird for me is in a game without risking one's life or empire, it should not be so serious and dull that people are mostly wanting to sit out a game and get a draw to avoid all risk.

Agreed. Though if they really want to roleplay a general who was more on the cowardly side of the spectrum, it´s at least not totally ahistorical.