Needs serious multiplayer improvements

[NullProgrammer]

As much as I enjoy Multiwinia I was frusterated with some of the networking and server searching feature. While I do like the simplicity of the interface, (which im sure you were going after) you're robbing the user of necessary functionality. I'll summarize my ideas into bullet points for easy reading.

* Why can't I manually refresh? I noticed on my friends and my computer the auto refresh was slow, but the worst part was you couldn't manually refresh. What?????
* No passwording servers. I wanted to create a server only for my friend, why should he have to race others to get into my server first? I should be able to password it. Perhaps you could I may have just missed it, which leads me into my other point.
* The buttons for Multiwinia are slightly frustrating since if you hold down that button it proceeds to click its parents button in that same location causing you to move back in unwanted menus.
* No LAN servers? Wait, what? What the crap? The only explanation I have is that the LAN servers are implicitly shown, however that should NEVER be. You should have multiple sources for games which is standard in todays Server browser interface in pretty much any game. I was disapointed as me and a friend were going to try Multiwinia together, however there was no LAN feature. We were also going to play it at our monthly LAN party, of course now we are unable to since we can't host games that are dedicated to LAN.

I'm not sure why this kind of thing wasn't in the release but I sure hope it gets worked in. This kind of stuff is just what everyone has become USED to because it provides excellent functionality and benefits the user greatly. I'm surprised it's not there. I'd expect that from an EA game, not from Introversion. Theres more, and i'll post them now as I run into them.

[Shwart!!]

All good points, but have been previously mentioned, multiple times.
I'm too lazy to link to them, but most of the topics in this board mention one or more of your points.

Nonetheless, I do agree on most of them.

Also, LAN servers are not 'implicitly shown'- rather, they don't exist, and unless major changes are made, they cannot possibly ever exist.
Read some of the other threads, and I'm sure you'll see the relevant thread.

Shwart!!

[NullProgrammer]

* I found another issue. When the host leaves the game in a 1v1 it just says the connection was lost, theres no indication that I won or anything. It should tell the user who that they won.

* Don't show tutorial matches. I could see my friends tutorial match when his computer was hooked up to my network and he was playing it in the server browser. "lol what?"

* People that don't have their ports opened keep trying to host games, which result in frusteration because you can't determine which ones they are unless you try to join them. It would be nice if the master server atleast tried to ping them and make a connection using that port to determine if its even joinable.


Ok, I see the things you posted about however No LAN doesn't make sense to me at all... Gaming was founded on LAN parties and there are STILL large amounts of LAN communities. Plus it just seems absurd to have to go through a third source just to play a LAN game.

[RabidZombie]

When the host leave, neither of you won. Perhaps that's why it doesn't say who won.

[NullProgrammer]

I just found another HUGE issue, the entire network framework of Multiwinia is Server/Client and not Peer to Peer. So if the host leaves, everyone gets disconnected. If i'm right, which I kind of hope I'm not and this is just a bug, the entire framework of Multiwinia is wrong. You cannot have an RTS thats runs on the server/client. There is no RTS in existence which runs on server/client for that Exact reason.

When the host leave, neither of you won. Perhaps that's why it doesn't say who won.

Uh no, he left so I won. When you leave a game in an RTS, especially in a 1v1 you lose. It's called surrender. I can't even imagine what it would be like if in every RTS the other player leaves because hes losing so you don't win, even if your about to kill him.

[NullProgrammer]

Well, simply put, Multiwinia isn't your standard RTS and will never be. The games aren't logged for a ladder or something like that, so why even bother about something like this?

Jelco

Who cares if the games aren't logged? Besides pure enjoyment, what is the ultimate purpose of a game? To win. With the current system you defeat the very purpose of the game. Thats why you should bother about something like this. Perhaps you don't care about the ultimate victory but after spending 30 minutes in a game finaly about to beat an opponent well earned you know what? I may be crazy but after 30 minutes of non-stop battle I actually want to win.

Also the problem is caused by the very framework of Multiwinia. Since its a server/client system the game shuts down after the host leaves. I was just in a 4 player game and after about 15 minutes the host died. By that time I was well on my way to victory. However the host left so ALL 4 PLAYERS got kicked from the server since it was all dependent on him.\

I care about polished games, especially as a programmer myself. Thats why I bother. All these issues make me question the beta testers testing ability because they are so obvious.


* In a 2v2 or team mate game at the end of the game only one person wins, not an entire team. It kind of defeats the point. If its a teamwork effort shouldn't the team win and not just the top score person?

[NullProgrammer]

You don't have to tell me the pros and cons of peer to peer i'm very aware. However when writing a game there is no "Pros and Cons" of peer to peer. Theres, what you SHOULD use and what you SHOULDN'T use. A server/client model is not appropriate for an RTS. Period.

Also, there is a HUGE difference between "Losing connection to the server", and Winning the game. Think about it. Just because you THINK you won doesn't mean you did win. I fail to see how bad design is simply acceptable to you and you chose to defend it. I'm glad your not a game developer or designer.

[RabidZombie]

You made little sense then.

How is peer to peer networking more appropriate for RTSs? If Introversion were so wrong in choosing the Client/Server model, how come several of the "best" RTSes use Client Server set ups as well?

Also, you have as much to go on as the game does when deciding who won the game if the host leaves. Surely your more intelligent than a machine. Oh, on second thoughts, I don't think you are.

[NullProgrammer]

You made little sense then.

How is peer to peer networking more appropriate for RTSs? If Introversion were so wrong in choosing the Client/Server model, how come several of the "best" RTSes use Client Server set ups as well?

Also, you have as much to go on as the game does when deciding who won the game if the host leaves. Surely your more intelligent than a machine. Oh, on second thoughts, I don't think you are.

Please name any other RTS where if the host leaves the entire match dies. Which other RTS does that? List them here please. Theres another networking model where if the host leaves, the server "duties" are transfered to another client. At the LEAST this is how the Darwinia networking model should work. I can't even imagine how they decided that it would be acceptable for an entire match to go down if the host leaves.

Apperantly you've never played an RTS before because every single other RTS counts you leaving as a loss. Please try a few RTS's and you'll know what i'm talking about. I don't think you should be able to argue a point here without actually playing other games. The reason im arguing these points is because they have become standard in every single other RTS, so why are we going backwards in standards now?

[Shwart!!]

RA2.
Warcraft III, in most cases.
Starcraft.
C&C Generals.

Need I go on?

Also, a disconnect is not registered as a loss in RA2, Rise of Nations (last time I checked), or *shudder* C&C Generals.
EDIT: Forgot to mention WC3, Starcraft, and RoL. There are others, but I think my point is clear.
Plus, in most RTSs, whether it counts leaving as a loss or not is irrelevant, as it doesn't matter how the game parses it.

I would recommend that you, in turn, play literally every RTS before making generalizations. These points you raise are far from being 'standards', as you put it.
Then think about whether your generalizations actually mean anything.

Shwart!!

[Phelanpt]

NullProgrammer, a counter request. Could you please name RTSs made by a small team that did exactly what you're saying?
From my experience, that type of fail detection and recovery is not easy to do, and requires a lot of work and overhead on network protocols and programming.

Also, I can see problems with "player X left, player Y wins" in the case of network errors, especially network splits.

[Feud]

Warcraft III, in most cases.

That reminds me of something I read once, where the person jokingly said, "I have the best record on battle.net, 15 wins, 0 loses, and 197 disconnects!"

[ynbniar]

Well the host quitting isn't anything new and is one of the reasons (quite a big one) we have Dedcon.

[NullProgrammer]

RA2.
Warcraft III, in most cases.
Starcraft.
C&C Generals.

Incorrect, Warcraft 3 and Starcraft use peer to peer, or similar server/client systems where if the host leaves the game does NOT End. The hosting is either transfered to another client which now becomes the server, or it uses flawless peer to peer. I think you should relook at your list.

Also when a player leaves in starcraft or warcraft, it counts that player as being defeated and their units go neutral. If you had a match with 5 people, and everyone else leaves, you are the winner. However, if the host leaves the game does NOT end.

[Shwart!!]

RA2.
Warcraft III, in most cases.
Starcraft.
C&C Generals.

Incorrect, Warcraft 3 and Starcraft use peer to peer, or similar server/client systems where if the host leaves the game does NOT End. The hosting is either transfered to another client which now becomes the server, or it uses flawless peer to peer. I think you should relook at your list.

Also when a player leaves in starcraft or warcraft, it counts that player as being defeated and their units go neutral. If you had a match with 5 people, and everyone else leaves, you are the winner. However, if the host leaves the game does NOT end.

I have to object, as I play those two games quite often.
I put 'in most cases' in for a reason- once, and only once, WC3 managed to continue even though the host left.
Every other game I've participated in, where the host crashed or left, the game ended.
Thus, even though continuing may be the intent, in practice it tends to work poorly, if at all.
A record of one-in-seventy-four is hardly good enough to say it does continue-rather, it tries and fails.


Don't even start on 'that other half'.

Shwart!!