Multiplayer Campaign WOOOOOOOOT!

[gyps]

Its a really good idea

It wobbles a bit in the exucution, but its nice to play some of the maps with the side attackind/defending that wouldn't normally be doing so

But it does alter the balance a bit as maps are made with one side of the other defending and are laid out with there weapons in mind.

but Campaign definately had a future and nice to see Yosh's post they're observering how it plays out in the community

 

[Ragnarök]

We had an open beta for it a long time ago. The feedback we got wasn't really that positive. So we shelved it while we worked on other things. Now that it has leaked, we are watching the community's reaction. And also looking at what it might need to finish, fix, or tweak for to be "officially" released. Frankly we always really liked it and thought it was an awesome and unique feature, but the beta group's reaction was "meh". So we are pretty excited that the public seems to like it.

I love the campaign mode! It really brought me back to the game, which I hadn

 

[Empty Box]

Have to say that it's awesome, now if the class slots weren't always full. Joined a server earlier today, had 5 spots left, so I should be able to play, right? Nope, both teams were "full".

Other than that, it adds a new element to the game. I wish there was a way you could attack a certain sector though more non linearly, if that makes sense. I've noticed a tendency to go back and forth on the same couple maps until one side finally breaks. Perhaps attacking a flank for 100 tickets?

 

[®omano]

I like the campaign lobby, but the lobby timeout does not work (because on ffa servers there are often people who never understand that you must ready up when activated, lobby timeout is a good alternative to start after a delay even with lobby and "everybody must ready up"). The gamestart delay without the lobby does not work too. no lobby = direct start when first player is ready (or I don't know how to make it work..).

Server is full everyday with campaign mode

 

[jergul]

An alternative to auto balancing could be to simply manipulate respawn times.

The more players one team has relative to the other, the longer respawn waits the first team has.

Good for 2 reasons:

1. The effective number of players alive at any given time is equalized.

2. Players will tend to want to join team with shortest respawn time.

Take an extreme: 1 team has 16 players, the other has 32. A disaster. But what if the 16 player team spawns every 30 seconds and the 32 player team spawns every minute?

What would the average number of alive players be? What team would you want to join?

 

[JosephBaier]

An alternative to auto balancing could be to simply manipulate respawn times.

The more players one team has relative to the other, the longer respawn waits the first team has.

Good for 2 reasons:

1. The effective number of players alive at any given time is equalized.

2. Players will tend to want to join team with shortest respawn time.

Take an extreme: 1 team has 16 players, the other has 32. A disaster. But what if the 16 player team spawns every 30 seconds and the 32 player team spawns every minute?

What would the average number of alive players be? What team would you want to join?

That's a good idea.
+1

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

I don't know, constantly balancing things all the time because one side starts to get the advantage sounds hokey.

Encourage players to join the side with less teammates, sure, always a good idea. Just don't allow them to join a team if they already outnumber the opposing side.

---------------------------

I still maintain its a minor issue and people want to make more of it than there is...

 

[jergul]

I don't know, constantly balancing things all the time because one side starts to get the advantage sounds hokey.

Encourage players to join the side with less teammates, sure, always a good idea. Just don't allow them to join a team if they already outnumber the opposing side.

---------------------------

I still maintain its a minor issue and people want to make more of it than there is...

I do not believe that is sufficient in itself, nor do I believe compelling players to chose one side or the other is a good principle.

I like a "free to chose, but there is a cost" approach better in principle, noting that the suggestion I gave addresses the fundamental inbalances created by unequal player counts, without compelling a player to chose a specific team.

But I see your point Moe. I just think differently.

 

[®omano]

With just the team balance option, with 2 players difference (but no team balance on death), I think it is OK without modification.. People joining server just can't join the team with the most players, and people in the team with most players are not swapped to the other team automaticly.

The addition of bots is an alternative too, OK bots are not real players but they can do the trick for a moment, and people joining can only join the side with bots (if team balance and low player difference is configured)

It is the same in TE mode, what if 3 or 4 people quit together ? the same, teams are not balanced. but people join servers... and will join the side with less people.

 

[The Beast (nl)]

[QUOTE=Ragnar

 

[>F|R< Sarcinelli]

An alternative to auto balancing could be to simply manipulate respawn times.

The more players one team has relative to the other, the longer respawn waits the first team has.

Good for 2 reasons:

1. The effective number of players alive at any given time is equalized.

2. Players will tend to want to join team with shortest respawn time.

Take an extreme: 1 team has 16 players, the other has 32. A disaster. But what if the 16 player team spawns every 30 seconds and the 32 player team spawns every minute?

What would the average number of alive players be? What team would you want to join?

Wow, that's an excellent idea!

 

[LugNut]

A very good idea indeed. I think the mode plays very well overall and simply needs some adjusting in ways such as this. I'm confident that even if only the community took it on, it could quickly evolve into a success.

I like a "free to chose, but there is a cost" approach better in principle

My way of thinking as well.

I'd like to see more options available for the command but with tradeoffs.

Choosing more reinforcements = less arty or vice versa.

While the winner chooses the next map and attack/defend, if the losing commander guesses the same map will be chosen, he's rewarded with more supplies/reinforcements.

Choices made this map affects choices available next map, that sort of thing.

I'd like to see more unpredictably, I'd like to see the steamrolling team enter a battle overconfident and find an enemy unexpectedly far better prepared and supplied for example.

 

[gyps]

yea the directions you could take this mode is great

I'm in favour of anything that makes the fights better changing the spawn time for balance was proposed in another thread on campaign or maybe earlier in this thread I said as much myself

Nice to think Yosh and the other devs are looking into what to do with this mode so the more ideas that are offered the more they have to think about

 

[NoxNoctum]

Have to say that it's awesome, now if the class slots weren't always full. Joined a server earlier today, had 5 spots left, so I should be able to play, right? Nope, both teams were "full".

Other than that, it adds a new element to the game. I wish there was a way you could attack a certain sector though more non linearly, if that makes sense. I've noticed a tendency to go back and forth on the same couple maps until one side finally breaks. Perhaps attacking a flank for 100 tickets?

I had a problem like this once, but when I selected a class through the squad screen rather than the class screen it let me in. Try that next time you have this problem.

 

[*®FK®*Feldjäger]

MP Campaign

MP Campaign

hello,
I'm sorry for the trouble, can you please help me?
how can I set my server to MP Campaign

sry for my google english

 

[JosephBaier]

[QUOTE=*

 

[>F|R< Sarcinelli]

[QUOTE=*

 

[The Beast (nl)]

Just ended a campaign. The teamwork was outstanding....

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

Yeah, for the most part the teamwork is much better in Campaign mode with a couple of exceptions.

Question, it seems that Combat Power has a larger than normal effect on reinforcements, or am I imagining that? Reinforcements seem to run out rapidly in Campaign mode.

Can someone explain more clearly the effect Combat Power has on a round if you have managed to figure it out?

 

[Holy.Death]

I had great experience with Multiplayer Campaign ealier today on Classic Mode. Maybe that's because I happened to enter the game with very communicative and nice people, but it's refreshing mode to play after ealier custom random games. I played for hours and only stopped because on Comissar's House I happened to kill too many friendlies with captured engineer's charges (and was bleeding out due to a friendly shoting me). It's good to see Germans forced to attack/defend on some maps too and Stalingrad feels much better when you are actually fighting for it. Keep it up.