How the devs could improve the multiplayer scene for Rebellion

One of the biggest problems with Sins is the lack of players online. For something which sold hundreds of thousands of copies (over 500,000 by Fall 2008) and which won IGN's "Best PC Game of the Year", there's something seriously wrong if one can usually only find 20-50 people online, even during the peak hours in the evening. I can think of a few contributing factors to this:

There've been numerous serious bugs and compatibility issues, especially in the past, from what I've heard. For instance: the Mesh error is very common for newbies just starting to attempt to play online, which is relatively easy to fix if you know what you're doing, but can prevent newbies from ever being able to play online in the first place - this may well have prevented thousands of prospective players from checking out the multiplayer scene. Another serious bug is minidumps, which were apparently extremely common in the past while playing a game, but still appear frequently enough to be very discouraging. Also, quite a few players may have been interested in multiplayer and clicked the big "Multiplayer" button on the main menu, only to find that it leads nowhere unless you already know what you're doing and have a LAN game set up. I think the labeling of the "Multiplayer" button was a serious design flaw. The learning curve for multiplayer is also a huge problem: the game may seem deceptively simple at first (complicated but not overwhelming) when in reality there are hundreds of things to learn to become a good player, none of which are covered in the horrible tutorials. Odds are, someone coming online for the first time will be completely annihilated by the regulars in at least the first 30 or so games they play, before they learn the initial ropes. For many newbies, this may be discouraging enough for them to simply quit competitive ICO permanently and go back to killing AIs in single-player or comp stomps. This is a self-perpetuating system: low player counts populated mostly by experts makes it extremely difficult for a newbie to willfully trudge through the 50+ hours necessary of playtime (while being killed) to become halfway decent. There are too many experts and not enough noobs or semi-skilled players online for genuine newbies to have fun playing the game against other humans... which results in low player counts because 95% of the newbies aren't going to stay.

If most of the above issues aren't fixed in Rebellion, I fear we'll be seeing very low player counts there as well, once it's released. Some of the errors are likely much more complicated to fix (minidumps), but the ridiculously common Mesh error at least should have been extremely simple for the developers to fix.

I hope that Ironclad fixes the bugs and then makes getting onto multiplayer in the first place much easier. For instance, perhaps occasionally have pop-ups on the main menu saying something like "Player X is looking for players for a 2v2 game online! Join now?" Or something like that. Attracting newbies to at least experiment with multiplayer, hopefully against other not-so-skilled players, would be one of the greatest ways to improve the multiplayer scene for Sins, in my opinion. One idea is to allow newbies to have handicaps, like 2x income or something like that, to be decided by the game host - advantages like the harder AIs have. This would give even the better players on ICO a challenge against newbies (depending on the advantages), and both players would have a chance of winning. Still, hopefully Rebellion will do well enough for enough newbies to come online so they can play each other, instead of being annihilated by the experts and then discouraged from ever logging on again.

Just a few thoughts I hope the devs will seriously consider. A healthy, active multiplayer community is one of the greatest keys to a game's success, I think.

35,316 views 28 replies
Reply #2 Top

If those are implemented, maybe I will consider going online at some point...

Reply #3 Top

Quoting JA_394, reply 2
If those are implemented, maybe I will consider going online at some point...

For people who know how to use the forum and to find information (like you and me), there remain only two real barriers to entry into multiplayer: the minidumps (which don't happen all that often, although they're very annoying) and the learning curve, which is the biggest problem.

I hope Ironclad comes up with much better tutorials for Rebellion - lacking that, it would still be a great improvement if they could at least direct interested players to the forum or to a detailed manual of some sort. The problem is that newer players often have no idea at all where to start if they want to get better (or if they want to fix serious problems they have with the game, like the Mesh issue). There's nothing to study, unless they find a good multiplayer strategy guide. I'm working on one at the moment, but I don't think there are any others out there; the ones you can find scattered around the internet are often grossly insufficient and aimed completely at single-player.

This ultimately comes down to the newbies' lack of information, and their (often) inability to know how to find more information, about either technical problems or game strategy.

Reply #4 Top

I don't play multiplayer games much and when I do,  they  tend to be ones I can drop in and out of quickly. I have played sins a few times online and liked it despite not doing so well in the matches.

 I think in any game there is a learning curve but in sins especially, the learning curve plus the game time can be discouraging. If it takes 30 mins just to get going and you get crushed at the end, it is not very encouraging to keep trying. This is especially true if you're not enthusiastic about multiplayer to begin with. Knowing what you did wrong during that 30 minutes isn't always easy to determine. Spending another 30 minute game (or several) to figure it out involves more time then some people are willing to spend. While playing the game with people over AI is a lot of fun regardless of what happens, we all want to win at some point.

Reply #5 Top

Quoting SteelFin, reply 4
I have played sins a few times online and liked it despite not doing so well in the matches.

If Ironclad can craft Rebellion to specifically achieve this outcome for newer players, that would be excellent, but unfortunately, I'm not sure how much they care. I was thinking one option would be to somehow reward players (especially newer players) for accomplishing something when playing online: eg. "do at least 15,000 hull damage" "give 20,000 credits to allies" "start bombing an enemy planet less than 10 minutes into the game" "destroy a human-controlled enemy capital ship". Achievements, basically, except that they're only for multiplayer - this sort of slight ego boost would be nice given that the newer players will also probably not do so well overall. Another problem that if multiplayer-only achievements are used, some players would see them as useless (which, realistically, they are)... maybe in exchange for achievements one could acquire a few flavor-text ranks like "Recruit" "Lieutenant" "Regular" or something of the sort, kind of like how some forums give special titles for achieving certain post counts. Unfortunately, I fear something like this is pie in the sky - but it would definitely help encourage Sins multiplayer.

Quoting SteelFin, reply 4
I think in any game there is a learning curve but in sins especially, the learning curve plus the game time can be discouraging. If it takes 30 mins just to get going and you get crushed at the end, it is not very encouraging to keep trying. This is especially true if you're not enthusiastic about multiplayer to begin with.

Agreed completely. The win-centric nature of Sins and other multiplayer strategy games in general is a barrier to gathering new online players, especially in very small (mostly expert) online communities like this one. Online losses for newbies should ideally be balanced by something else positive to mitigate the depressing feeling that some would feel.

Reply #6 Top

    True that==They should make a special game for newbies where they could all be playing against players of the same caliber....no admittance to anyone with a karma of +60.

Reply #7 Top

Quoting P4QmA1, reply 6
  True that==They should make a special game for newbies where they could all be playing against players of the same caliber....no admittance to anyone with a karma of +60.

Karma is a bad indicator of skill.

Games played is a bad indicator of skill. 

Better stats might help or a ladder system. Though the ladder system would be a far better indicator and would facilitate better online activity IMO.

 

 

Reply #8 Top

Karma is indicator of forum skills.  Ladder's nice.  Solar System conquest would also be cool.  Just gotta make a map that shows the 3 empires, buffer zone of conflict, then work out matches whose results actually change the map.  That's a bit along the lines of what I expected from the description on the box.  Starclad could set the worlds open for battle and if enough are won by an Empire in those conflict zones, then battles could be set further into an Empire.  It would require a lot of administration and time, players to fill empire rosters evenly, but think of the fun when after a year of seeing the conflict escalate toward some end goals.  This game is crap for storyline development and immersion on StarClad's side. 

MechWarrior 4 NBT league was a planetary league that used the battletech universe map as it battleground -was damn fun, competitive, generated tons of planet after battle stories based on the matches, and kept interest in the game very high.

"As of June 15th, 2005, NBT has retired the NBT-Mercs league and started up the newNBT-HCleague, using the HC 1.x expansionas its basis. Please feel free to check out our website and join one of the many units active within the league. We thank all those that participated within NBT-Mercs over the course of the past 2 years. Around 12,000 battles were fought, with over 70 different units participating over the course of the league. NBT-Mercs has proven to be a rousing success, and we look forward to continuing the NBT tradition in the years to come."

League Ran from 2002 to 2005 with Clan Ice Hellion holding Terra, the longtime objective of the Clans.  Every group had some goals set by the admins and things played out well.

 

Reply #9 Top

Quoting Wrath89, reply 3
For people who know how to use the forum and to find information (like you and me), there remain only two real barriers to entry into multiplayer: the minidumps (which don't happen all that often, although they're very annoying) and the learning curve, which is the biggest problem.
There is a third one - time. When I want to play SC2, I know I have to dedicate ~25 minutes (up to 40-50 max) and I can arrange so that I am not bothered during that time. When I want to play Soase online, I not only have to expect to spend some time in the lobby but also have to expect the game to last for 60 minutes or 90 minutes, or even more. That's not the amount of time I can afford to stay cut off from the world.

As for the Sins multiplayer, I believe that definitely the main killers of the online players counter are the minidumps, desyncs and lags that were so prevalent for a very long time. I hate it when I play a lagger or get disced (very rarely) from a 15 minute game of Starcraft 2. I would be definitely infuriated if it turned out that I wasted one and a half hours of my free time and got dumped. 

If there is anything I would suggest to Ironclad/Stardock in terms of resurrecting the Soase multiplayer base, it would definitely be: make an adequately long beta with an adequate number of players. Have a big enough group of people play a big enough number of games to determine if the game is stable enough to be played online. 

Reply #10 Top

       I think some of you are missing a major point the difference between a single player or multiplayer. A single player I believe plays Sins almost as an RPG and multiplayer plays to win, so I don't think it's a hurdle to get to multiplayer it's just that they are two different types of Sins players.

Reply #11 Top

At least with the games that I've been seeing recently, it seems that they rarely take more than an hour, and it isn't even uncommon for a player or two to throw in the towel at 20-30 minutes with the rest of their team following suit. It can actually sometimes be annoyingly short for a player who thinks they're playing a good competitive game with their opponent(s). If one of the better players on one team minidumps or accidentally DCs or something that can end the game quickly as well.

Still, it's of course possible for a game to last for a very long time, which obviously creates problems when players have real-life responsibilities as well.

Quoting N3rull, reply 9
I would be definitely infuriated if it turned out that I wasted one and a half hours of my free time and got dumped.

That just happened to me yesterday :(

Reply #12 Top

Look, I'll tell you the reason I don't play online: Sins is very technical. I've been playing for years against the AI and while I do have strategies and such, I often quit the strategy to try something. I'll stop and look around at the scenery and try some strange tactics just to see what happens. I also start games and quit them midgame if I think I made a mistake.

If I were going to get into multiplayer, I'd have to commit to strategies, follow through whole games (which are often broken up into multiple sessions with me), gun for speed, and approach with a very serious attitude. While I will one day play some multiplayer (beta seems a good opportunity to go for it), I doubt I'll ever be fully into it.

I like to think about the numbers involved and why 1 ship wins against another during the game. Multiplayer requires simplifying/memorizing these things to be efficient and win. It's why you'll often see me on the forums talking about the theory of the game. If Sins were simpler, less technical (and besides the fact that it wouldnt be as interesting to me), I think there would be alot less of this feeling that, in order to play multiplayer, you have to 'sober up' and get real serious about the game. Also, there would be more players of that mindset and it would further open the game up.

I'm not trying to say multiplayer is horrible or anything. I just see a few rationales from the multiplayer crowd (along with the ever-persistent nudging), and figured an opinion from a long time non-multiplayer might be warranted here.

Reply #13 Top

Regarding "whole games broken into multiple sessions", it's important to note that online multiplayer PvP games only take 1-2 hours to play and normally don't last much longer than 1.5 hours.

Amazing?  How?  Almost all of the games are Locked Team games and the players on the losing team quit once the outcome is clear, sparing the winning team the boring motions of having to mop up.  (It's proper online PvP etiquette.)  Also, when you play an even team game (3v3, 4v4, 5v5, etc.) you personally are not responsible for killing all of the other players as you would be in a single player FFA where you have 9 opponents.  You really only have to take down one player because you have teammates to handle the others.

If you're a cerebral guy and if you have a good understanding of the game, you might enjoy online multiplayer PvP.  So give it a try, you might like it more than playing against AI opponents that are retarded and incapable of strategic or tactical thought.  Human PvP team games also add new layers of team-based strategic elements.

Reply #14 Top

I think its best i clarify something very important: SOESE is the best played over lan or wlan with neighbors and close friends because its easier to understand everyones location and gaming time and its possible to resume multiplayer games once you save them.

 

Second: The game time is determined by the number of people who play because its possible to enjoy a 2v2 game on the bigger medium maps like tempest with a more comfortable time to finish the game. The bigger maps are fun and all but you see its insanely difficult to gather up 8-10 sins player in 1 lobby at a specific time.

I remain a lan player for now and don't play against the ai unless im realy bored. Got work to do and a ton of other games i play against my cousin here like street fighter 4 , gears3 etc. 

Ico just needs some kind of community thing and a tournament website with all replays available and an ability to actually spectate games that works as advertised. 

Reply #15 Top

ICO 5v5 games don't often take more than an hour or so to be decided, at least in my experience. Saving/resuming is never a problem - after all, people expect games to take a moderate amount of time.

(The real problem there is minidumps and disconnects...)

Quoting RiddleKing, reply 14
The bigger maps are fun and all but you see its insanely difficult to gather up 8-10 sins player in 1 lobby at a specific time.

I take it you haven't been on ICO recently. :D

Reply #16 Top

ICO has been dead for me for a while but i also respect ico players.  I remember the days i was camping with my hosted games waiting for players to join because i couldn't find any other game. Longest camping trip on the internet thats for sure. That did it for me. 

Now i play wlan games vs friends.. neighbors etc.

Doesn't hurt to say im not an ICO player because i consider my skills at this game rock N roll. You see --> lan=private ico.

 

The closet thing to ico for me is replays. Thats why I'm fighting for that Cloud server for replays.  

For instance someone on the otherside of the planet could play a game vs a friend and there replay is automatically uploaded to a server (website) making it available for everyone to download. Ofcourse you are given the choice to allow such uploading to take place.

The ability to go download peoples replays without having to ask them is what i want. It could become a depository for new players to see how ico/lan players play.

I have used replays up to now to improve my game considerably to the point i think the Ai is a no go. Replays help me assimilate so much more knowledge compared to reading on forums.

 

Reply #17 Top

Come onto ICO again. There are tons of newbies and tons of games going up every few minutes.

If you think you're a decent player, come online and test it out for real against other players who play competitively.

Reply #18 Top

give a training seminary to people who want to play multiplayer with lessons on courtesy, etiquette and how not to completely ruin the game to newbies until there are only a fewer than a hundred who play online.  put in a campaign and let people go though the campaign in co-op mode.  At least then there would be a storyline that could be built on in an entertaining way.

Reply #19 Top

Quoting Wrath89, reply 17
Come onto ICO again. There are tons of newbies and tons of games going up every few minutes.

Will do... it is now 09h00 Sunday morning in my country ( Europe )... usually, there is only me... but today, there is 37 people... 37 is not a lot yet but it is a huge improvement from null...

Pretty sure that the recent cheap release of Trinity on Steam is responsible... maybe time for Stardock for negociate the future release of Rebellion on Steam... will greatly improve the multiplayer side...

Reply #20 Top

Quoting SemazRalan, reply 18
Put in a campaign and let people go though the campaign in co-op mode.  At least then there would be a storyline that could be built on in an entertaining way.

A co-op multiplayer campaign would be a cool feature. A good way to both improve the multiplayer scene and give players a chance to finally play a campaign (which has been requested by so many people) simultaneously.

 

Reply #21 Top

I think they really need to deal with the presence of smurfs (i.e. experts posing as newbies). I think this can be really damaging to the learning experience of new players. Tying player names to their Stardock account or just not allowing multiple player names would really help. Might get a byproduct of people not acting like complete morons at the same time since they can't just change their name.

Reply #22 Top

Quoting carnun, reply 21
I think they really need to deal with the presence of smurfs (i.e. experts posing as newbies). I think this can be really damaging to the learning experience of new players. Tying player names to their Stardock account or just not allowing multiple player names would really help. Might get a byproduct of people not acting like complete morons at the same time since they can't just change their name.

The devs have stated that there is going to be some sort of solution to this in Rebellion, thankfully.

Reply #23 Top

I know how the devs can improve multiplayer....

Get rid of it all together.

Reply #24 Top

Quoting Polistes, reply 23
I know how the devs can improve multiplayer....

Get rid of it all together.

8C 8C 8C

But...but...but if they did that, it would remove any chance you'd ever have of being able to play in a real game with opponents that aren't retarded and incapable of strategic and tactical thought.  Just because a comp stomper is a girly-man today doesn't mean he won't sprout chest hairs and pectoral muscles tomorrow.

Reply #25 Top

Complete redesign of the UI, bloody aweful.