Gamespeed + Leaver Discussion [Current problems in KaM]

[Bence791]

@Bence791
So you think that your opinion should count more because you played the game earlier?
I say our opinion counts more because we play more games (which is easy, because you said yourself that you rarely find any more game). So who decided now?

And again, don't classify groups. It's just not the case that the teamspeak guys are the good ones and the "randoms" (wtf is a random?) are the flaming, insulting boons. I won't take blame for the cunts out there, stop directing me with that. Also, you can't imagine how often we "randoms" are insulted by ts players being campers or noobs or have no idea about that game. So this conflict is really two-headed with idiots on both sides. (I don't mean you personally because I don't think I have played with you)

You can still play x1. With all those x1 partners out there. It's really not my fault if you don't find a partner out of 30 possible x1 players. But don't aks for deletion of our match settings so that we are forced into your games. Up to now I didn't hear a convincing justification why you x1 players should have the right to judge about x3 game speed. Neither of you plays this speed, so just let it be. x3 is not your game! I'm under the impression that you are actually aware of that but can't arrange with the fact, that the facebook group has as much influence as the teamspeak group. So you feel betrayed because you think that it was you who made this remake so good. But that's not the case. Your game is x1. We don't want to abolish x1. We just enjoy faster games more.

Indeed I tried to understand your point and watched some shoutcasts. I see that your aim of the game is to play a perfect match with perfect organization in your town so you have the highest amount of soldiers. It's really impressive how far you've pushed this already. I understand that this suits perfectly to x1. So I think x1 should be kept for you.

On the other hand, your games are very focussed on soldiers and winning. At pt end everybody immediately pulls out as much troops as he can and starts focussing entirely on fighting. Again, that's your game. But not ours. We play the game much more for fun and enjoying KaM building. Imho it's not the aim of the game to have the maximum amount of troops at pt end. Original KaM was much about a good economy and the beauty of building a self sustaining city. Our multiplayer games preserve that feeling. So leave that to us.

There is another thing: judging from the shoutcasts we see that a match with you will be pretty boring. You're just way better than most of us. So I ask myself: why do you even want to play with us? We're little more than cannon fodder for you. Do you enjoy to destroy someone who focusses on building rather than fighting?

I didn't mean I'm so good I can tell what skills which person has. I never considered myself a good player, even despite I've been around for over a year. About "TS players vs randoms" insulting matches, there are only a very very very little amount of cases when we started it. For me to start insulting and/or kicking someone, there has to be at least something like "f*** yourself" or similar. And most of the cases I just say "okay then, go find a lobby for yourself" and I kick him. I'd like to play with you, simply because I love Knights and Merchants from the very beginning, and as I wrote some pages before, there isn't always a choice to play with TS people only. Sometimes I just go a troll game, or go a real one in which I try to overwhelm all 4 enemies myself. To practice, and in hope of you learning something from me. You know, you can learn from the better (don't take it like "Bence thinks he is better, such an egoist"). Watching replays is always a good source of getting forward with city building and/or fighting. And no, it was Lewin and Krom who made the Remake so good actually, we just gave feedback and tested this and that for them, since they don't have enough time for it. Of course the balance changes were proposed and discussed mostly by us, but that's because we play more than them.

Original KaM was much about a good economy and the beauty of building a self sustaining city.

I exactly know what the original KaM was about. I have played it for years, already when I was at the age of 5 (10 years ago). But you know, most of the new players don't know what KaM is fun because of. They just play ridiculous speeds, and are like "oh yeah I just won, I'm a pro! I can even handle fast speed, those noobs out there playing x1 are so shit". I have come across quite some cases when I joined a lobby (Cursed Ravine or maybe Center Castle? too bad noone plays the really good maps... :/) and asked for x1,5 speed (knowing there is no hope to play x1 with randoms) and some guys told me I'm a noob, because "I can't handle x2 and faster speeds". Seriously? It makes me laugh when they say that and don't have any soldiers in peacetime. Yes, for all of us, the Remake is about getting a well (enough)-working city and rushing for military. If you looked at those replays, you could see us building huge cities. We DO love that part of the game, for what reason would we be playing x1 then? I must agree with TDL, in order to really enjoy building you can't just play so fast.

Oh, and let me write about the camper-noob stuff. I NEVER argued about someone being a camper. Well, tbh, except for one game. It was on Cursed Ravine, and the game took nearly 3 hours (with x2 speed as I remember, so it was actually 1,5 , but still...). See it in this topic: viewtopic.php?f=25&t=1671&hilit=Campy+Game. That was the only instance when I called my opponents campers and noobs. If you have a bit of time, take a look at the replay. Not because of us, but because of the fact why we considered those guys in the top left corner campers. Tho could you please tell us who was that "TS player" who insulted anyone for no reason? It is kind of unfamiliar to me that something like this happens.

And please, register here

@Pawel: LOL

P.S.: Random = a player that is playing the Remake (appearing for the game once, then it is likely you won't see him again any more), we don't know, and most of the time without good skills. Some of them just start insulting without a serious reason. Recently we have discovered some of the skilled ones. Sorry for calling every casual player a random, but that's the "common" word for them around here.

[Krom]

We play the game much more for fun and enjoying KaM building.

If you enjoy it so much, why speed it up so much that you almost skip it?

C'mon, we all know building at x1 for the first 20min is boring when you are not a veteran player. you have to micromanage a lot and balance on the edge of stone/wood depletion.

In general agree with Guests arguments btw. Veterans should not separate the world into fellow veterans and all-the-rest randoms and then convict randoms of all the sins.

[Ben]

So maybe instead of having a peacetime and gametime speed changers, we can have have an option to increase gamespeed for the first 15 minutes? (e.g., 2x speed for 15 minutes)

[thunder]

On the other hand, your games are very focussed on soldiers and winning. At pt end everybody immediately pulls out as much troops as he can and starts focussing entirely on fighting. Again, that's your game. But not ours. We play the game much more for fun and enjoying KaM building. Imho it's not the aim of the game to have the maximum amount of troops at pt end. Original KaM was much about a good economy and the beauty of building a self sustaining city. Our multiplayer games preserve that feeling. So leav...




Dear guest!
Its absolutly true. Thats a category also when the unknown players have only vineyerds... i call this group also trolls...
why? Because if im playing with this kind of multiplayers then im always crying why didn t i start to play with AI....
all maps has a winning optiont most of the time destroyed your enemies main buildings...And i know only one where you can win only farms and vineyards...
For me this mentality also trolling.
And why is the pt only 60minß?there are many reason. Maybe on this way you can compare the Remake releases, with longer pt possible to overspam the maps with units...
This pt thing just because sometimes it is a question also:)

[pawel95]

So maybe instead of having a peacetime and gametime speed changers, we can have have an option to increase gamespeed for the first 15 minutes? (e.g., 2x speed for 15 minutes)

Agree and I don´t think that the first 20 min are boring. Even with x1 speed you have too look at your ecnomy after, i would say 6 tile of stone because you have to try that your forester will be delivered with recources WHILE the school is in progress, for example and in most games the first min aren´t the most fantastic one, thats for sure, but thats why you have to watch your city careful from the 1st building...

Veterans should not separate the world into fellow veterans and all-the-rest randoms and then convict randoms of all the sins.

I don´t think many of us doing that. Sure we try to play with our guys BUT only because we have some bad expirences with leaving,insulting because of gamespeed etc Thats a "Reason => Effect" thing that works also in the other way "Reason <= Effect"

[WhiteWolf]

I think it would scare away a lot of 'casual/random players' if you trade the speed slider for a 20 min. start up bonus speed..

[WollongongWolf]

We play the game much more for fun and enjoying KaM building. Imho it's not the aim of the game to have the maximum amount of troops at pt end. Original KaM was much about a good economy and the beauty of building a self sustaining city. Our multiplayer games preserve that feeling. So leave that to us.

I don't really get this, if I wanna just build a beatiful multi-layered city, i just go singleplayer. I mean, what's difference? (ok in single player you can go 10x! (and whenever you want to speed up or slow down) and multiplayer only 3x (and no adjusting the speed during the game) That someone in the fog of war is also building a city (and still may attack you while you don't want it?). That the AI sucks at fighting is what makes me like the multiplayer: the fighting. A school also in single player requires 6 wood/5 stone, no difference .
I surely wanna try a game with 120pt (on a map that allows it, not same rocks or so ), to get some huge village going on and also some big battles, but playing high speed would only cause first of all smaller villages because of the worse management, and second in very laggy play (consider this: playing x2 after pt, everyone already with big city's and then 1000 troops or more appear), trust me the game is not fun getting that waiting for.... message every 10 seconds and taking 5 tries each time selecting something.

I don't think anybody here wants to keep someone from playing singleplayer (I believe even some would like it to use you then for bug testing which appeared with balancing out the multiplayer games or so ), and IF YOU PICK THE RIGHT MAP (seriously, don't come to me saying omg I played alcatraz and I could barely build), you can build flourishing towns. Multiplayer is meant for battle and having the biggest army at the end of pt, not for beatiful city's.

(And no, nobody forces you to send out an archer to attract all enemy troops or the troops one by one in singleplayer, if you wanna have a fun battle just go frontal attack, much fun =D)

[WhiteWolf]

Well, worse management is lack of skill and saying that multiplayer is just for big armies and such is just an opinion..

[WollongongWolf]

Well, worse management is lack of skill and saying that multiplayer is just for big armies and such is just an opinion..

I meant combat, not big armies, (the biggest army doesn't have to be big, if you got 5 militia's and the other has none, you still have the biggest army). And once I played some FwF, having no clue what to do, so I just build inside my base and had no clue what happened outside. Well that's the view of "I wanna build a nice city" I'm getting now, and I don't see how singleplayer is coming short on that (except that their might be some more simple building and somewhen just destroy maps (like across the desert SP)

[WhiteWolf]

True therefor i added the 'and such' but doesn't matter i get your point.. Building a nice city can be part of the game as well just as the combat experience is.

The main problem in this topic is the behavior of other players online.. not necessarily the game speed. However i think it is a good idea to reduce the option to 1.0 - 1.5 - 2.0 speeds (maybe another idea is to do speeds 1.0 1.5 and 2.0 for peacetime only and for after peacetime 1.0 1.25 and 1.5 ?).

btw @wolo since the AI isn't finished yet it isn't fun to play an multiplayer map against AI.

[dicsoupcan]

True therefor i added the 'and such' but doesn't matter i get your point.. Building a nice city can be part of the game as well just as the combat experience is.

The main problem in this topic is the behavior of other players online.. not necessarily the game speed. However i think it is a good idea to reduce the option to 1.0 - 1.5 - 2.0 speeds (maybe another idea is to do speeds 1.0 1.5 and 2.0 for peacetime only and for after peacetime 1.0 1.25 and 1.5 ?).

btw @wolo since the AI isn't finished yet it isn't fun to play an multiplayer map against AI.

thank you whitewolf for this nice summarization, i love this post and agree on this.

[Shadaoe]

@Shadaoe
Well, it has also been the case that in the original TSK+TPR there has been no peace time. So do you think that should be dismissed, too?
The problem that I see is that you're trying to force your opinions onto other people.

No I don't think peacetime should be dismissed (in the current situation), it was implemented because humans are stupid and usually just want to win with a one militia rush when there is no peacetime.
I'm trying to force my opinion onto other people ? No, I'm giving my opinion (look you're doing the same ...), that's the very principle of a debate, if you disagree with that statement then I don't have anything else to tell you, that'd mean you don't know what a debate is.
I was just saying that the multiplayer always was *1 speed and that we are forced to play higher speed because there are to few *1 lobbies. So yes, I said I don't want to play higher speed but I'm sometime forced to, and you answer by saying I'm forcing my opinion into others. Maybe you should think about reading my posts before answering, or possibly you don't understand english very well in which case I forgive you.
Here is the post you answered to, then tell me where I forced you to play another speed ?

Sorry if I sound offensive, but since time immemorial, the KaM multiplayer was limited to *1 speed, so now if we LIKE playing with *1 speed and think that managing such a complex game at higher speed is not really great, we should adapt to others and give up what always was KaM multiplayer ?
No.

Read before answering. Important point. If you understood what I meant, you'd see that I don't force you to play *1, I'm saying I'm forced to play higher speeds sometimes. I'd like higher speeds to be removed but that's only my wish, I can live with higer speeds if it doesn't force us to always play faster than *1.

I dislike that strongly. Let them choose their game speed and their peace time (and their map). You can still play your own games. Look at the poll, 1/4 of all players like x1, there are enough partners to play with. Don't force your game speed onto us. The 'historic' thing is really pointless, see game speed, see marketplace, see maps, see scripts etc.

You totally misunderstood what I meant, I'm not saying "it's historic so it's better", again please read my post.
The poll is a poll, not really showing that what yoy say is true, not really showing that what I say is true.
You'll also note that I like dynamic scripts, and I can assure you that's not incompatible with disliking higher speeds.

[Nissarin]

I actually had a draft named "Let's slow down" but I guess it's not necessary anymore Anyway I only looked briefly over the topic (I guess I should visit the forums more often) so I might repeat a few things..

There is at least one good reason to keep 2+, we have (subjectively) a lot of new players which were previously scared off by typical game length, so the ability to play "fast" keeps them interested in the game, which is IMHO important for game with small player base like KaM. On the other hand, if they keep playing like that they won't ever improve. Today, for the first time since release, I played at 1x, there is such a huge difference (even compared to 1.5x), there is just no way for someone who is new to the game to really learn game mechanics. The other day I played a game (at 2.5x actually) and after we started one of the players asked the map name, this really shows the players' attitude nowadays. I don't necessary think there are more leavers than before, it's just that most players just don't care.

All in all, it's not easy decision to make, you're risking "fragmentation" of player base if you decide to keep it and losing some players if you remove it.

So, how about not removing 2+ completely from the game, but rather make it map dependant - keep it on smaller, "easy" maps (and perhaps "special" maps designed to be played at 3x), and limit on bigger and more complex (small number of raw resources, etc.) ? You can always use "excuse" that bigger maps require more CPU power and as such playing at 2+ is meaningless.

@Lewin
I suppose the server could log every started game, it's definitely much easier to collect stats like that.

[The Dark Lord]

There is at least one good reason to keep 2+, we have (subjectively) a lot of new players which were previously scared off by typical game length, so the ability to play "fast" keeps them interested in the game, which is IMHO important for game with small player base like KaM.

That's not a good reason at all if you ask me - changing key features to attract more players? Blasphemy. That's like removing all apple from an apple pie so people who don't like apple will also eat it. I rather have 100 players who are dedicated to the 'old ways of KaM' than 1000 players who play at 3x speed and don't know what they're doing at all. And with that I'm not referring to skill; those 100 players are not necessarily skilled because they would play lower speeds. Of course we all want to make KaM bigger... but we must think twice about the 'how'.

[T*AnTi-V!RuZz]

There is at least one good reason to keep 2+, we have (subjectively) a lot of new players which were previously scared off by typical game length, so the ability to play "fast" keeps them interested in the game, which is IMHO important for game with small player base like KaM.

That's not a good reason at all if you ask me - changing key features to attract more players? Blasphemy. That's like removing all apple from an apple pie so people who don't like apple will also eat it. I rather have 100 players who are dedicated to the 'old ways of KaM' than 1000 players who play at 3x speed and don't know what they're doing at all. And with that I'm not referring to skill; those 100 players are not necessarily skilled because they would play lower speeds. Of course we all want to make KaM bigger... but we must think twice about the 'how'.

I have to agree with Nissarin on this one. I think that's a very good reason.

"I rather have 100 players who are dedicated to the 'old ways of KaM' than 1000 players who play at x3 speed..."
Of course you do. But what you'd rather have is irrelevant to developers. If I develop a game, I'd want 1000 players, not just 100 because die-hard fans don't want to include options that are OPTIONAL and provide me with 900 more players. Don't get me wrong, I certainly see your point, but it's not really relevant. Making games is all about attracting players and wanting a big player base. I fully understand why Krom and Lewin included the options. From a developers point of view it's one of the best decisions they ever made.

Not that I like the different game speeds, but it does make the game more popular.