Re: Multiplayer Fridays
 

The main issue I see right now is we've been getting a steady stream of "there's an update coming in a few weeks" with no indication of what will be in it, or what "in a few weeks" means. We are now approaching "a few months" since the last update which, even being generous, is starting to wear pretty thin (and that's a lot coming from me).

Honestly, I don't _want_ to see a marketing push until that update happens. The game is still a buggy mess and it was a mistake putting it out in the condition it was in at launch. The reason it didn't catch on wasn't because Ogre is a bad game, it fell flat because what people were being asked to pay $25 for honestly wasn't worth $25. People new to Ogre had no issues giving it a hard pass because the value wasn't there based on the myriad of lackluster reviews because the core of the game needed a LOT of work (and still needs a lot more).

I want to see more beta testing, and a solid product for the 2nd pass at trying to push the game.

Re: Multiplayer Fridays
 

In particular, there seems to be a broad class of bugs in the multiplayer version around keeping track of game state. State synchronizing problems can be extremely tricky to fix after the code is written. They often require major surgery on a code base.

I'm not envious of Auroch's effort to fix those problems.

Re: Multiplayer Fridays
 

Too tell the truth, when you look at a game like Steel Division Normandy 44 which is a very complicated RTS that can be played on-line real time and 10 vs 10 without a hitch, it makes you wonder about the skill level of the coders that did the online component of this comparatively simple game.

Re: Multiplayer Fridays
 

Based on your comments and those after I would have to agree. I've not experienced the issues to that extent, perhaps because I haven't played it of late (time and honey do lists wait for no gamer).

Re: Multiplayer Fridays
 

I haven't been logging into the game when I'm not there to babysit, such as when I'm at work . . . but is it stable enough to handle being left in a search for a player for nine hours? Are people willing to start a game, knowing they won't see the opponent's set-up for twelve hours or so?

If we're willing to tolerate it, maybe just leave the game up all the time and start games that way. When I get home I can start it up and see if I have an opponent in the morning.

Then we can use this thread to check if we're having "who's turn is it?" bugs.

Re: Multiplayer Fridays
 

I usually do it in one-hour or so attempts - maybe a half-dozen during the work day. (The lap top travels with me.) No luck with that approach. I'm not sure if it is a matter of stability or of no opponents - no way to tell.

I am, but I can't speak for others. I'm OK with a turn or two a day, with the two-day timeout. (I'd prefer a four-day timeout.)

Re: Multiplayer Fridays
 

I would be, too. Make it more of a PBEM experience. The only issue I have with that is there's a very high risk of the game falling on its face playing that way.

Re: Multiplayer Fridays
 

Then I'm going to start leaving the game up and searching. We'll see if I get any takers.

This might be a good test. If two of us report on here we've had the game searching at the same time and there's no game, time for a bug report.

Re: Multiplayer Fridays
 

I'll do the same. I usually start ~ 10 am US EST, stop at 4 pm.

Re: Multiplayer Fridays
 

And I've found an opponent: mdmike67