Multiplayer 1st impressions, and suggested improvements



  • Just got the game this evening, and I’m very impressed with the game-play; however I immediately was disappointed with multiplayer.

    I understand Torn Banner to be a small, independent company; so I of course can understand the current state of the multiplayer implementation. I just want to make sure they have an idea of what someone like myself would like to see on the horizon.

    In my opinion, competitive multiplayer centric games are best facilitated by implementations similar to that of Starcraft 2, DoTA 2, HoN, Bloodline Champions, or LoL. That is, a multiplayer with dedicated lobbies, ladders, match making, elo systems, chat rooms, clan systems, etc.

    I’m sure many of these things have been suggested before, but I would just like to reiterate for emphases. ;)



  • You named a bunch of strategy games and tried to apply the same rules to what is essentially an FPS.

    Competitive FPS like Counter-Strike have always used the same dedicated server method Chivalry uses; and those that gave up dedicated servers were severely criticized for doing so.



  • I don’t disagree that any latency sensitive competitive game should have dedicated servers. P2P implementations simply will not suffice.

    What I’m suggesting however, is more community/competition support from the multiplayer implementation; specifically in the form of an elo ranking/matchmaking system, and “out of match” lobbies/chat rooms.

    Also I think its worth mentioning that Valve is, in their latest iteration of Counter-Strike, taking the multiplayer in a similar… more structured direction. They’ve introduced elo ranking/matchmaking, and a queue system that matches players of similar skill and places them in a dedicated server to play a full-length, uninterrupted, competitive match.

    Heres a blog detailing the system: http://blog.counter-strike.net/index.php/2012/10/5256/



  • Did you purchase the wrong game by any chance?



  • the reason that wouldn’t work is that you’ve got a game your comparing it to (counterstrike: Global Offensive) that only requires 5 people on each team. Where this game takes at least 8 people on each team to really make any sense. Queue-ing people at a very high rank would take ages, as there are only so many high ranking players in any game. This game still has a somewhat small community, it’s hasn’t sold millions of copies yet.



  • my short wishlist

    Things to do

    1. Observer Mode option in Team selection window
    2. Observer Camera when you die and switch on mouse to other people view
    3. Name and possibly stat (hp stamina score) of people you are tracking with camera
    4. Nameplate over character showing his Faction, Name and tag
    5. a better way to play with friends… at this moment teamplay with friends is almost impossible due to the fact that you cant see any name or banner on friendly and enemy.
    6. Customization skin/tabard (u can place a tabard banner choiche near the class selection, but we need too a friendly/enemy icon to use custom tabard/banner )
    7. least but not last… a Workshop on steam, we need CRPG like mod :)



  • @Kmat:

    5. a better way to play with friends… at this moment teamplay with friends is almost impossible due to the fact that you cant see any name or banner on friendly and enemy.

    Hope they willdo something about that soon. Is so frustating as the game is now. Your friends is on your team :) But you cant really play with them as it is now :x



  • A way to recognize friends in-game is being tested internally I believe.



  • @JohnCover:

    Just got the game this evening, and I’m very impressed with the game-play; however I immediately was disappointed with multiplayer.

    I understand Torn Banner to be a small, independent company; so I of course can understand the current state of the multiplayer implementation. I just want to make sure they have an idea of what someone like myself would like to see on the horizon.

    In my opinion, competitive multiplayer centric games are best facilitated by implementations similar to that of Starcraft 2, DoTA 2, HoN, Bloodline Champions, or LoL. That is, a multiplayer with dedicated lobbies, ladders, match making, elo systems, chat rooms, clan systems, etc.

    I’m sure many of these things have been suggested before, but I would just like to reiterate for emphases. ;)

    This is the kind of suggestion that would come from a younger generation of PC gamers. Are you like 19 years old?

    You obviously haven’t been playing PC games for a while.



  • @gregomyeggo:

    the reason that wouldn’t work is that you’ve got a game your comparing it to (counterstrike: Global Offensive) that only requires 5 people on each team. Where this game takes at least 8 people on each team to really make any sense. Queue-ing people at a very high rank would take ages, as there are only so many high ranking players in any game. This game still has a somewhat small community, it’s hasn’t sold millions of copies yet.

    You make a good point Gregomyeggo; low population and large game types are not at all conducive to such a structured multiplayer implementation.

    Steps can be taken to address low population, an example of which I would like to reference comes from the game SMITE, by Hi-Rez Studios:
    They have a low population, being a new game in “closed” beta, so they’re faced with the same issue of “taking ages” to find people at very high ranks. Their solution was rather creative and, I think, effective.

    What they do is siphon the ranked (AKA competitive) queue, by only allowing players to Queue for a game once every hour; the result is less games, but a huge queuepool (much like a queuepool you would have with a large population) and more accurate matches can be made; despite inferior populations.

    The issue you brought up of larger gametypes, that is games with 16+ people, is still an issue. It is my opinion that larger scale team games, though very fun, are much more difficult to facilitate structured, competitive gameplay within. My opinion is largely influenced from current successful titles with a presents in eSports, if they are team games… they’re typically smaller teams around 5 players.

    @poop:

    This is the kind of suggestion that would come from a younger generation of PC gamers. Are you like 19 years old?

    You obviously haven’t been playing PC games for a while.

    I’m 24 years old, though I do not claim to be the most experienced PC gamer in the world, I have spent many years playing them.

    My suggestions are new in some ways… but very old, and established in others. Many competitive gamers in the past have used systems like ELO ranks/seeding, chat rooms, and tournaments in order to enhance the competition. The key difference is in order to do so they have had to go through 3rd parties (websites, clans wars, IRCs, tournament sponsors, etc) because supporting implementations were not made available within the game’s multiplayer.

    The additional effort required, and large-scale inefficiency of this “3rd party process”, is what I believe keeps truly competitive gameplay a fringe activity for the dedicated minority. I think many modern game designers have taken note of this, as reflected in the multiplayer implementations of the many modern games I’ve mentioned in this discussion; so I still suggest Torn Banner consider the prospect.



  • Ok there are a few issue I have with this thread and the way you “view” Chivalry and Torn Banner.

    First you are comparing it some of the most popular and most played games online. Games produced by massive company’s with huge financial backing.

    Lets pick three from your list DOTA 2, Starcraft 2 and League of legends,

    DOTA 2 is developed by Valve, who have been developing games for 15+ years. They own Steam the biggest online digital distribution client in the world. They are extremely wealthy. So much so they self publish games and can put off making games like Half-Life 3 just for the hell of it. And with all there resources even they are struggling to implement matchmaking and ELO into they latest version of counter-strike.

    Starcraft 2 The sequel to Starcraft, which sold 11 million copies, was universally praised as one of the best and most impotent games ever for raising the bar in RTS. Starcraft 2 sold 1 million copies in its first day, 3 million in the first month. According to Wikipedia as of December 2010, the game has sold nearly 4.5 million units. It also happens to be developed by Activision Blizzard the second largest gaming company in the world. Nintendo is first by the way.

    League of Legends Developed by Riot Games. Riot Games majority stake holder is Tencent Holdings. Tencent Holdings is the third largest Internet company in the world behind Google and Amazon.

    League of Legends is BIG.

    I’ll quote a article EuroGamer wrote recently about about how big LoL is.

    It’s bigger than World of Warcraft’s peak 12 million monthly users. League of Legends has 35 million active monthly users.

    It’s bigger than Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3’s peak 3.3 million daily players. League of Legends has 12 million daily active players

    t’s bigger than the entire top 100 games on Steam which, on 10th May, attracted 650,000 concurrent users. League of Legends, on a typical day in July, had 3 million concurrent players.

    It’s bigger than Halo, which soaked up 2 billion hours of play-time since 2004. League of Legends racks up 1 billion hours a month.

    It’s bigger than Psy, the Korean pop star whose Gangnam style video has 1.4 million Facebook Likes. League of Legends has 4.1 million.

    It is - as developer Riot deduced from hours played a month - “the most played video game in the world”.

    I am sure Torn Banner would love to have the time, money and resources to implemented features which are common place in games like these. But it is utterly unrealistic and preposterous to expect them from a small independent company like Torn Banner. If torn Banner had started this project and aimed to make games to compete with the likes of LOL. They would have failed.

    This is Torn Banners first commercial game which they funded with the help of gamers via Kickstarter. To compare it to the largest financially backed and most played games to have ever been made is ridiculous.



  • @Po1ymorph:

    Ok there are a few issue I have with this thread and the way you “view” Chivalry and Torn Banner.

    First you are comparing it some of the most popular and most played games online. Games produced by massive company’s with huge financial backing.

    Lets pick three from your list DOTA 2, Starcraft 2 and League of legends,

    DOTA 2 is developed by Valve, who have been developing games for 15+ years. They own Steam the biggest online digital distribution client in the world. They are extremely wealthy. So much so they self publish games and can put off making games like Half-Life 3 just for the hell of it. And with all there resources even they are struggling to implement matchmaking and ELO into they latest version of counter-strike.

    Starcraft 2 The sequel to Starcraft, which sold 11 million copies, was universally praised as one of the best and most impotent games ever for raising the bar in RTS. Starcraft 2 sold 1 million copies in its first day, 3 million in the first month. According to Wikipedia as of December 2010, the game has sold nearly 4.5 million units. It also happens to be developed by Activision Blizzard the second largest gaming company in the world. Nintendo is first by the way.

    League of Legends Developed by Riot Games. Riot Games majority stake holder is Tencent Holdings. Tencent Holdings is the third largest Internet company in the world behind Google and Amazon.

    League of Legends is BIG.

    I’ll quote a article EuroGamer wrote recently about about how big LoL is.

    It’s bigger than World of Warcraft’s peak 12 million monthly users. League of Legends has 35 million active monthly users.

    It’s bigger than Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3’s peak 3.3 million daily players. League of Legends has 12 million daily active players

    t’s bigger than the entire top 100 games on Steam which, on 10th May, attracted 650,000 concurrent users. League of Legends, on a typical day in July, had 3 million concurrent players.

    It’s bigger than Halo, which soaked up 2 billion hours of play-time since 2004. League of Legends racks up 1 billion hours a month.

    It’s bigger than Psy, the Korean pop star whose Gangnam style video has 1.4 million Facebook Likes. League of Legends has 4.1 million.

    It is - as developer Riot deduced from hours played a month - “the most played video game in the world”.

    I am sure Torn Banner would love to have the time, money and resources to implemented features which are common place in games like these. But it is utterly unrealistic and preposterous to expect them from a small independent company like Torn Banner. If torn Banner had started this project and aimed to make games to compete with the likes of LOL. They would have failed.

    This is Torn Banners first commercial game which they funded with the help of gamers via Kickstarter. To compare it to the largest financially backed and most played games to have ever been made is ridiculous.

    I just don’t understand how OP doesn’t understand the difference and must be explained like this in an essay when he’s 24.



  • To be fair, Riot started out as a very small company. Actually, it’s only because they set out to make their game casual-friendly that they became so successful.



  • @Po1ymorph:

    Ok there are a few issue I have with this thread and the way you “view” Chivalry and Torn Banner.
    ….

    You make some good points about the size and means of the developers in some of my examples. I do agree with you in some respects; as I mentioned in my original post, I can understand their position as a small, independent company.

    But lets not overlook smaller companies who have managed to have similar multiplayer implementations in their beta versions:
    Bloodline Champions, by Stunlock Studios
    Simte, by Hi-Rez Studios

    @SlyGoat:

    To be fair, Riot started out as a very small company. Actually, it’s only because they set out to make their game casual-friendly that they became so successful.

    This is actually a topic I’ve discussed quite a bit with some of my friends studying game development; and I think its a good example.

    Lets not confuse requisite with consequence. LoL didn’t become popular, and subsequently implement their highly structured multiplayer; it was there in beta and in my opinion played a key role in cultivating their success. What their structured multiplayer did was make it possible for the average gamer to jump right into a gametype (moba/dota) that in the past was a “fringe activity reserved for the dedicated minority”. In other words, it made it more “casual-friendly”. :)

    A good comparison is HoN and LoL; they were both in open beta at the same time. The key difference: LoL featured a more structured multiplayer, with elo backed matchmaking and queue systems; whereas HoN stuck with the more familiar DoTA create/join lobby system.

    As I’m sure you know, LoL pulled ahead of HoN pretty quick…. actually prompting HoN to later implement an entirely new multiplayer system that featured ELO matchmaking and queue systems.



  • HoN was also not F2P and adopted most of DotA’s unintuitive game mechanics which intimidate new players.

    LoL’s success at first honestly surprised me, because early on the skins were quite expensive and very low quality compared to later on in the game’s life. The original skins were almost all just simple recolors, which allowed them to easily pump out a lot of them. I suspect they made most of their early profits off of the “Paying for power in a non-offensive manner to the average gamer” system of selling characters and selling IP point boosts to acquire runes faster, as well as the collector’s edition and bundle. I’m very glad Dota2 is avoiding this route, but I suppose they can afford to with Valve’s much more sound financial backing. Even HoN eventually made all of its characters free after their relatively unsuccessful attempt at copying LoL’s model.

    Let’s not forget - the PVP.Net client was extremely laggy, buggy and crashy in the early days of LoL, and it didn’t have many competitive features - it took them a long time to even implement draft mode, and almost a year for ranked games to be a reality. It’s not like it was released in the state it’s currently in.

    And finally, on top of all that - let’s not pretend Riot was just a small startup of a bunch of early 20 somethings making their first game. Zileas, one of their key players right from the start, already had a long history working for Blizzard; and their CEO had a lot of capital to invest in the project to pay professionals - can’t recall the backgrounds of most of the rest of their staff besides Pendragon and Guinsoo though (and later on they hired a lot from within the community, which was cool).

    In contrast, I don’t believe anyone at TBS has experience in the industry outside of mod work, and they’ve already stated NOBODY in their staff was getting paid during development, outside of pooling together some emergency cash for those who were low on funds and literally needed loans just to pay for food. Obviously comparing TBS to Riot isn’t justified - but it’s not even justified to compare them to a studio as small as Stunlock, because TBS does not have a publisher while Stunlock has Funcom who - while they may not have the best reputation - have the means to at least pay the developers enough for food and rent :)