What Multiplayer Means for Scenario Design

[Mgellis]

With multiplayer for Command now in beta, I suppose we have to start thinking about how that affects scenario design. I suspect most scenarios written for Command so far are actually ill-suited for multiplayer. The sides are probably not balanced and the scenarios themselves may simply be too long if multiplayer is limited to real time gaming.

Instead, I think we may see two types of scenarios develop from now on: scenarios written for computer play and scenarios written for multiplayer. Some will be written with both in mind, but I suspect the differences between computer play and multiplayer play will make it easier to write specialized scenarios designed for one or the other, but not both.

I think one area where multiplayer will shine is smaller, shorter scenarios where each player controls a relatively small number of assets. When setting up an opposing side's tactics with the mission editor, some things (like responding to the player deciding to try something different) can be difficult. When you have people controlling both sides, the depth of tactical variation (for good or ill) becomes much greater.

What are your thoughts on this?

[HalfLifeExpert]

I think it makes the most sense for some scenarios to be written specifically for Multi-player, and they may actually be easier to create in some respects.

If you have a scenario with only two sides against each other, and other sides involved would just be civilians/biologics, making it MP only would cut down a lot of the work that is required to create the AI behavior for the opposing side.

Certainly, MP focused scenarios will have to be shorter than what Command scenarios often are, due to the inherent limitations of player's IRL time limitations on play-time, even with Time Compression options being allowed.

One existing scenario that would probably fit well for MP would be North Pacific Shootout, with a nominal time limit of only 6 hours (though I sometimes wish it lasted longer when I play it).

I don't think there needs to necessarily be any major design changes to the scenario to account for human opponent, as things like Fog of War are handled well.

BUT, I do think one thing can be done to eliminate a built-in unofficial "cheat" that exists in Command:

With the "Browse Scenario Platforms" screen you can see whether the opposing side has lost all of a certain platform (i.e. if you sank all enemy subs), as any platforms destroyed in totality will simply disappear from the list.

To counter-act this, both in regular play and in Multiplayer, the scenario builder could simply choose a random location on the other side of the planet, and place 1x of each platform in the scenario for each side, perhaps with all sensors destroyed, so that the Scenario Platforms list doesn't ever empty, so as to not reveal to the opposing side whether certain ships/subs/aircraft/ground units have actually been eliminated or not.

A similar trick would be to always include 1x aircraft of each type in "maintenance" loadout at airbases, so that the aircraft type is always listed in that list even if all of what the OPFOR nominally has is shot down.


I also think it would be very valuable to pursue Cooperative scenarios as well, in addition to adversarial ones. Having scenarios where two players have to cooperate against the enemy by controlling two similar forces, or different aspects of one side (i.e. one controls air forces, one controls a naval task force) would allow for very interesting gameplay dynamics.

[Eboreg]

The vast majority of two-sided scenarios have an easy side and a hard side. While this is an interesting decision for single-player, it makes multiplayer considerably more frustrating. North Pacific Shootout, for example, has a massive range advantage for American air units and the air defenses on their ships are significantly harder to penetrate than the Soviet ships. I essentially had to cheese the AI as the Soviets by keeping the radars off on my Foxhounds until they were basically in knife-fighting range but I get the idea that won't work against a human player.

[HalfLifeExpert]

The vast majority of two-sided scenarios have an easy side and a hard side. While this is an interesting decision for single-player, it makes multiplayer considerably more frustrating. North Pacific Shootout, for example, has a massive range advantage for American air units and the air defenses on their ships are significantly harder to penetrate than the Soviet ships. I essentially had to cheese the AI as the Soviets by keeping the radars off on my Foxhounds until they were basically in knife-fighting range but I get the idea that won't work against a human player.

Slight tangent, but that hasn't exactly been my experience, Chiefly, I found the Foxhounds to be a serious threat to my Phoenix-armed Tomcats

[Kushan04]

There should be an update for North Pacific Shootout in the next release that makes it better compatible with MP. There's no changes to the forces, but the in game events will apply properly to both sides. I tried to have it done for this first release but debugging the Lua took a little longer than I planned for.

And while we're talking about it, my Tomcats almost always get ate up by the MiG-31s in that scenario. The Phoenix may have a very slight range advantage on paper, but the Phoenix accuracy vs fighters is terrible. I try to keep them out of trouble, along with the E-2s, until I detect the Tu-22s then launch them en masse to intercept.

I really dislike the concept of balance in scenarios, even in multiplayer. You give the forces that would be reasonable for the command level on both sides, and let things fall were they may. Scoring can be asymmetric, even in multiplayer.

I think they'll end up being tow general types of scenarios. The knife fight in a phone booth scenarios where the forces are roughly mirrored, like North Pacific Shootout, Duelists, and Tiger and the Dragon. The second type will probably be more open ended operational level scenarios, where both sides have a little more room to maneuver. Something that I think is being lost in the discussion is not all scenarios need to be 1v1. You can do scenarios with 2 allied players sides vs the AI, or even both players on the same side. A clever scenario designer can then force the players to coordinate their efforts. For example, a SCS scenario where one player controls USN units, and the other controls USAF and allied units.

I'm looking forward to trying a scenario like Pole Positions in MP. Where it has two playable sides but the objectives are completely asymmetric. It needs some tweaks, which I'm working on, before it'll really be able to shine.

[Eboreg]

Hmmm... I get the feeling the air-to-air missile rework might have changed the balance in North Pacific Shootout...

[HalfLifeExpert]

There should be an update for North Pacific Shootout in the next release that makes it better compatible with MP. There's no changes to the forces, but the in game events will apply properly to both sides. I tried to have it done for this first release but debugging the Lua took a little longer than I planned for.

And while we're talking about it, my Tomcats almost always get ate up by the MiG-31s in that scenario. The Phoenix may have a very slight range advantage on paper, but the Phoenix accuracy vs fighters is terrible. I try to keep them out of trouble, along with the E-2s, until I detect the Tu-22s then launch them en masse to intercept.

Yeah that's my general experience. I found that the limitations of the Phoenix makes the Tomcats pretty vulnerable to the Amos missiles wielded by the Foxhounds. The only tactic I've found to somewhat mitigate this is to use an EA-6B for A2A support to try and Jam the Foxhound's targeting radar. It helps, but it's not a guaranteed solution.

Maybe I need to play around with the post-firing doctrine of the Tomcats?

I'm looking forward to trying a scenario like Pole Positions in MP. Where it has two playable sides but the objectives are completely asymmetric. It needs some tweaks, which I'm working on, before it'll really be able to shine.

Pole Positions is good for that, but then again, it is a LONG scenario, which could be a hinder to MP viability.

Hmmm... I get the feeling the air-to-air missile rework might have changed the balance in North Pacific Shootout...

Very possibly. Perhaps default doctrine of the Foxhounds could use a tweak? It could be justified in the sense of relative inexperience of the Soviet pilots compared to USN pilots, perhaps.

[Kushan04]

I'm looking forward to trying a scenario like Pole Positions in MP. Where it has two playable sides but the objectives are completely asymmetric. It needs some tweaks, which I'm working on, before it'll really be able to shine.

Pole Positions is good for that, but then again, it is a LONG scenario, which could be a hinder to MP viability.

True, but you can play it over multiple sessions. MP scenarios make a save when the host leaves the match. It can be reloaded in future sessions. Manual saving should be coming in the future as well.

[HalfLifeExpert]

I'm looking forward to trying a scenario like Pole Positions in MP. Where it has two playable sides but the objectives are completely asymmetric. It needs some tweaks, which I'm working on, before it'll really be able to shine.

Pole Positions is good for that, but then again, it is a LONG scenario, which could be a hinder to MP viability.

True, but you can play it over multiple sessions. MP scenarios make a save when the host leaves the match. It can reloaded in future sessions. Manual saving should be coming in the future as well.

Ah, that's interesting. Didn't realize that.

[Correcaminos]

Hi everyone,

As someone who really enjoys getting his hands dirty designing scenarios, I have mixed feelings about how multiplayer is going to shape things.

When I build a mission, I love adding lots of scripted events to create atmosphere and tension: sudden GPS jamming, a random submarine contact popping up near your Task Force when least expected, and so on. For Co-op, this kind of design is fantastic. But for pure PvP, it feels like it just becomes a "here are your pieces, here are mine, let's fight" situation. For me, that strips away the narrative depth that makes the experience truly immersive.

To be fair, PvP is certainly great from a competitive standpoint because it tests the pure tactical skills of both commanders (who knows, maybe we'll even see tournaments down the road!). But purely from a designer's perspective, it feels a bit hollow. Building a straight PvP scenario would probably take me 80% less time—less research, less background reading, and fewer complex triggers to set up. Designers will definitely need a clear way to tag what kind of experience a scenario is built for.

There is also the huge issue of "tempo" in slower-paced scenarios. How do you handle PvP in ASW or submarine ops? If I'm creeping along at 5 knots in a Yasen trying to get into position, I need time compression, but if the opponent is actively micromanaging a fast air strike at 1:1 or 5:1, our time requirements completely clash. Are players going to be constantly asking each other in chat for permission to speed up time? Balancing that shared operational clock with slow-moving assets is going to be tricky.

On another note, has anything been mentioned regarding CPU performance in multiplayer? Heavy, event-rich scenarios already push the CPU pretty hard in single-player, so I'm curious to see how the engine handles real-time synchronization between clients without choking or lagging.

What are your thoughts? Do you think the community will mostly lean toward quick tactical skirmishes, or will Co-op catch on to keep these deep, complex scenarios alive?

[Kushan04]

Hi everyone,

As someone who really enjoys getting his hands dirty designing scenarios, I have mixed feelings about how multiplayer is going to shape things.

When I build a mission, I love adding lots of scripted events to create atmosphere and tension: sudden GPS jamming, a random submarine contact popping up near your Task Force when least expected, and so on. For Co-op, this kind of design is fantastic. But for pure PvP, it feels like it just becomes a "here are your pieces, here are mine, let's fight" situation. For me, that strips away the narrative depth that makes the experience truly immersive.

To be fair, PvP is certainly great from a competitive standpoint because it tests the pure tactical skills of both commanders (who knows, maybe we'll even see tournaments down the road!). But purely from a designer's perspective, it feels a bit hollow. Building a straight PvP scenario would probably take me 80% less time—less research, less background reading, and fewer complex triggers to set up. Designers will definitely need a clear way to tag what kind of experience a scenario is built for.

I'm the same way, all of my scenarios are designed to simulate a specific situation or answer a question.

It's not worth even trying to do anything beyond a rudimentary narrative if you intend for the scenario to be played head to head. There's too much room for the scenario to go off the plot quickly when you have two (supposedly) thinking humans playing. Broken Shield 300 tried this in a way years ago by letting both sides be playable in singe player, but playing as Syria was really just to show how impotent Syria defenses are/were. You had no meaningful decisions to make that would affect the outcome. Same for my Iran Strike or a Midnight Hammer scenario, there's no way you can realistically recreate the semi-surprise nature of the strike in MP. A player playing as Iran is going to know what's coming and take actions accordingly. The only way you could do it would be to take the BS300 route and severely limit what options the player has. You can semi-correct that with some Lua events before things kick off, but then the Iranian player has to sit around for a couple of in-game hours waiting for stuff to happen. Not really a good MP experience.

I don't plan to develop head to head scenarios strictly for MP, for the reasons you stated,. It takes all the fun out of making scenarios for me. Feels to much like dropping a bunch of units into the scenario and calling it done. That doesn't preclude having scripting to allow it to be played MP, if the scenario premise and AU allow, but I'm not going to set out to do so.

On another note, has anything been mentioned regarding CPU performance in multiplayer? Heavy, event-rich scenarios already push the CPU pretty hard in single-player, so I'm curious to see how the engine handles real-time synchronization between clients without choking or lagging.

What are your thoughts? Do you think the community will mostly lean toward quick tactical skirmishes, or will Co-op catch on to keep these deep, complex scenarios alive?

There isn't a hard cap on units in MP. Internally we've tested it with 1,000+ AU scenarios but it's recommended to limit the AU to a few hundred units. From the beta guide.

In an RTMP game the host must both run the simulation and update both players on the state of the simulation in real time. Due to the overhead involved in communicating this data over the internet, smaller and more focused scenarios are generally a better choice for RTMP. Consider limiting your RTMP games to scenarios with 300-400 total units or less (as shown in the Lobby scenario information.)

What are your thoughts? Do you think the community will mostly lean toward quick tactical skirmishes, or will Co-op catch on to keep these deep, complex scenarios alive?

I think it'll be quick skirmishes with the majority of players playing them as head to head. Co-op may be an option for a few, but I don't see it being widely used. Don't think most players are going to look at it that way.

Feel the need for a quick disclaimer, the following is my opinion and does not reflect the opinion of my employer...

That being said, I don't see MP being that big. I think the majority of players are going to continue to play CMO single player. Take your pick of reasons - MP AU limitations, time, scenario duration, arranging consistent sessions with another player, etc. We've seen it time and time again. Players want feature X, feature X gets released, and it doesn't get used by the majority of players or they continuously complain about the changes they wanted (see missile kinematics).

[HalfLifeExpert]

What are your thoughts? Do you think the community will mostly lean toward quick tactical skirmishes, or will Co-op catch on to keep these deep, complex scenarios alive?

I think it'll be quick skirmishes with the majority of players playing them as head to head. Co-op may be an option for a few, but I don't see it being widely used. Don't think most players are going to look at it that way.

Feel the need for a quick disclaimer, the following is my opinion and does not reflect the opinion of my employer...

That being said, I don't see MP being that big. I think the majority of players are going to continue to play CMO single player. Take your pick of reasons - MP AU limitations, time, scenario duration, arranging consistent sessions with another player, etc. We've seen it time and time again. Players want feature X, feature X gets released, and it doesn't get used by the majority of players or they continuously complain about the changes they wanted (see missile kinematics).

I'm inclined to agree. I do think it's a more valuable tool for the Professional Users, but I see the actual commercial player base for MP sessions being rather small.

I've long thought that the request/demand for multiplayer comes from a long trend i've seen over the last couple decades where some gamers "look down" on Single Player experiences as not providing the same level of challenge/skill as playing against other humans.

I've long rejected this on practical and experience grounds. Live play sessions with other humans are more of a time sink than SP experiences, and it ultimately makes your quality of experience dependent on the behavior of other people. No matter how well you build an MP experience, the fun dies pretty quickly if the other player(s) are either complete incompetents or total A-holes. For another game that I play, WARNO, the majority of the player base concentrates on the MP side of things, while I don't even touch it, staying with just single player, for those reasons.

As great as Command is, I don't feel it's strongly compatible with the multiplayer experience for the average wargamer player, while being a much better fit for the Professionals, the US Naval War College for example, who have more of a mandate/time/resources to organize proper multi-player sessions of something like Command.

[Mgellis]

I suspect the player base for Command MP will expand as more scenarios designed for it become available.

Challenge accepted.

Actually, I have a feeling MP will bring in a lot of new players who will start with multiplayer scenarios (because that is how they played other games) and then some will also start playing the computer-only scenarios.

I wonder what the experience has been with other games like Command that allow both types of gaming. That may give us a lot more information on how MP will develop with Command.

[HalfLifeExpert]

I suspect the player base for Command MP will expand as more scenarios designed for it become available.

Challenge accepted.

Actually, I have a feeling MP will bring in a lot of new players who will start with multiplayer scenarios (because that is how they played other games) and then some will also start playing the computer-only scenarios.

I wonder what the experience has been with other games like Command that allow both types of gaming. That may give us a lot more information on how MP will develop with Command.

Given what I said in my first comment on this thread, about how an MP-Only scenario would have far less work on programming AI behavior, I may take a stab at making some condensed MP-Only scenarios myself.