Unit Paths Comment... plus...

[MikeCK]

This is not a courier pathing thread, courier pathing is completely different from unit pathing...start your own danged thread and beat it to death there, and believe me, it's already been beaten to death and addressed, but obviously not enough. Excuse me, but I just relapsed into OFFTHREAD rage.

Sorry. Didn't mean to hijack it....just to bring it up In a related thread. It's being dealt with so that's good enough for me.

[Davinci]

I like this idea of being able to override the pathing when necessary. Throw in a penalty whereas regiments involved could not fire, and would be helpless while the intermingling took place.

However, and a big however, and don't think it's possible to turn off pathing for any duration or for individual units.

RebBugler – I Respectfully Disagree, see we still view some things differently, I can only look at this game as a million lines of code, and what is-coded can also be un-coded.

I don’t think that the problem is that it can’t be done, but the bigger problem would be how much trouble it would be for Norb too do!

You have to remember that the Take Command is also programmed to over-ride the AI routines\ code.

.................................................................................................

EDIT Post:

I will also add that I am one-hundred-percent-opposed to any changing of the AI coding that pertains to the units walking around each other.

I still think that the AI units stay too close to each other during battle.

I would like to see a little bit more spacing between them.

This is why I think that the right approach would be for the player to suspend the AI temporarily for said unit , instead of tampering with the current system.

davinci

[Beef Stu]

Davinci , Most if not all of the ppl posting on this topic are active MP's . just to give ya some perspective on our ideas.

[Davinci]

Davinci , Most if not all of the ppl posting on this topic are active MP's . just to give ya some perspective on our ideas.

Beef Stu – Understood, but my point of view is strictly related to the Open Play Game, as to say that, I have no idea how the Multi-Player AI acts, or behaves.

davinci

[NY Cavalry]

It might be advantageous for some of the developers to come and play a few MP games with the mp community. We had Red Bugler show up for a game last week it would be nice if more would come by. Pathing issues could be better examined in that facet of the game.

[norb]

I agree, we do not have mp properly supported on the team. Everyone is very busy and works hard, but that's an area where we do not actively participate enough. We have tried to recruit new testers with the hopes of attracting some focused on MP, but so far we have not had much luck. We do play ourselves, but it's just one of the many things we do so it's not enough.

We did put in a bunch of MP suggestions in the last patch, after a discussion with some of the active players. We are always open to more suggestions to make it better, but nothing beats them actually putting in the time to play once a week and see for themselves.

The goal of course being to have someone that understands our dev process that can view MP for us, though a devs eyes and see the holes. Then be able to write up a bug that we can understand and work on. We will keep looking, but it is always hard to recruit as our experience has given us certain criteria for good testing and not everyone is willing to do all we require.

[WriterJWA]

In my own opinion entirely ... I think the multiplayer potential of SOW has not been fully realized. Through Garnier's system, we routinely have a dozen or more players, each with their own division upwards of 4,000 men apiece. There's been battles that have represented 20-30k per side. Tumultuous fights, too!

:cheer:

But what I'm seeing is an mild atrophying of interest because of various technical hang-ups that prevent games from either starting in a timely fashion, or finishing at all. We routinely have crashes and issues in the staging room that prevent games from even starting. It took me six months there-about to get my own communication problems sorted out to even play, and Garnier was a big help there. However, the die-hards get by the best they can.

Though the players in Garnier's campaign system are not necessarily coders, you (practically) have a ready-made lab that can illuminate bugs and problems as they occur naturally in a common gaming environment. RebBugler stated earlier that during development, only a narrow handful of people tested MP ... as in 2 on average. Two people in Garnier's campaign is a piece of cake to set up (as long as someone can host) and run through. Fifteen people, however, is entirely another matter.

I love the game. I've been in it since TCBR. I would love to see the game get to the point where corps and army commanders can exist and multi-map campaigns can occur. I'd LOVE to fight with A.S. Johnston's army in Shiloh with a dozen or more players each taking a division against an Union MP team equally separated out amongst players. Same for Antietam and the Overland Campaign. Sounds pie-in-the-sky, right? I don't. I think once the game formula for success is cemented, it'll simply be a matter of time. That being said, I would be remiss in bringing up a problem (or two) and not offering my services to help in whatever capacity I can. So ... if I can assist in improving this game, please let me know!

[RebBugler]

Yikes, gonna get me in trouble. But, with your point, still probably doesn't matter. However, I would like to state for the record that we probably averaged 4 to 5 per MP test. Rarely 2, with as many as 8. If I said averaged 2, then I misstated.

[Little Powell]

But what I'm seeing is an mild atrophying of interest because of various technical hang-ups that prevent games from either starting in a timely fashion, or finishing at all. We routinely have crashes and issues in the staging room that prevent games from even starting.

It's unfortunate that nothing like that ever gets reported because I'm sure it could get fixed. I know you are reporting it now, but we need log files, detailed descriptions of what you were doing, etc. If it's not reported, it's not going to get fixed..

I'll try my best to make more MP games.. But in the past when I've tried to join in, it's always been too late and the games were coming to a close. But I'll do my best to make it at least once a week from now on.

[WriterJWA]

I'll put it out the community to push log files when a player crashes. Is there a specific file they should be looking for?