Why HOI 4 Multiplayer Is Terrible

[4TonHammer]

It sucks. it sucks because people are garbage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQJ-4embGHk

[Wise Guy]

Just tried the MP, and what can I say, it's either Meta or GTFO.

[GoldenTalon]

Originally posted by Space Marine:

Just tried the MP, and what can I say, it's either Meta or GTFO.

Meta or GTFO???

[donalddawkins]

To be fair the mp is slowly getting worse and worse.

It’s gettinng to the stage where games are simply emptying out because the host and friends refuse to have anyone play a major who doesn’t know or the do the exact meta strategy done by every other veteran player.

Then everyone in the lobby begs for a Germany or a uk, and when some poor lad volunteers they get interrogated about the exact meta they have to employ, then they get booted or told not to play it and the waiting game continues again. There’s only so many experienced players on the game and eventually we’ll get to a stage where nooone newish knows how to play majors anymore as they’ve never been given a chance to play one in mp and all the experienced players are gone. It’ll also mean the meta will never change and no new strategies will occur and the game will stagnate.

I feel that mp in most lobby’s have just become people working off a script from 1936 to 1939, where your simply not allowed to deviate off the expected meta and the game becomes he same repetitive chore over and over with the same unit compositions, strategies and tactics employed( alamein heavy camping for the uk, naval bomber spam for Italy, not joining the war until fall of France, only Spanish volunteers, rush fighter 2s if your a commonwealth minor and then go tanksetc etc)

Hosts need to be more dynamic with their rules; if you have a newb Germany then change the rules to give the axis an edge e.g Spain’s allowed to join after the fall of France, or Sweden can be played by a player instead of that nation forever being banned. Equally, if you have a newb allied team instead of forcing veteran rules on them balance out the allies to allow the USA to go giant wakes early on and join the war straight away, or allow commonwealth troops in France etc etc.

Balance the rules to fit your lobbies skill set instead of doing a one size fits all policy, and then you’ll see games starting quicker and people hanging around longer after they supposedly lose; too many times have an experienced allies team quit by 1940 simply because their meta strategy has failed and as their one trick pony of aircraft spam and commonwealth armour has failed to got them into a stalemate so they give up, and too many times has a player Germany rage quit by 1941 as they’ve lost momentum against the soviets and so instead of adapting their meta they just gg out. It’s not very fair for everyone involved, as the allies don’t get to do their dday, or the soviets don’t get to do their war, or the poor USA player doesn’t get to do anything at all!

Less experienced player at least might try to make a come back, try something new or at least play until they die, instead of the current trend of immediately gging as soon as the game turns against you.

From my own experience, and from the fact that I’ve been in 5 different lobbies today and all have died because of the problems mentioned above.

[ChaosKhan]

Originally posted by 4TonHammer:

It sucks. it sucks because people are garbage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQJ-4embGHk

"Teach trashy gamer", he didn't play with him, but already thinks that he is trashy just because he didn't quite like his build order. Wow, good thing I don't play this game with randoms at all. Pretty sure it's cancerous as hell.

[FDX]

Originally posted by ChaosKhan:

Originally posted by 4TonHammer:

It sucks. it sucks because people are garbage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQJ-4embGHk

"Teach trashy gamer", he didn't play with him, but already thinks that he is trashy just because he didn't quite like his build order. Wow, good thing I don't play this game with randoms at all. Pretty sure it's cancerous as hell.

His build order was wrong. He had all the rights to tell him that.

[ChaosKhan]

Originally posted by FDX:

Originally posted by ChaosKhan:

"Teach trashy gamer", he didn't play with him, but already thinks that he is trashy just because he didn't quite like his build order. Wow, good thing I don't play this game with randoms at all. Pretty sure it's cancerous as hell.

His build order was wrong. He had all the rights to tell him that.

Yeah, and why exactly was it wrong? Go ahead and elaborate. I mean, everyone can claim something like the guy on discord. The guy who made the vid even asked, why it is wrong, and didn't get a normal reply.

That's the problem with randoms. Most are just unable to communicate like human beeing should. If you claim something, be ready to explain if asked, or don't even drop this in the first place. It's common sense.

[FDX]

You have to build civs until ~38 or you'll basically die. Mixing isn't good, almost ever.

[Wise Guy]

Pretty much what FDX said. I just started MP and learned of that quickly.

[ChaosKhan]

But mixing implies, that he also builds CFs. Why is it mandatory to only build those? Germany has close to no divisions at the start and has to build up a huge army. Therefore, stockpiling aircraft (mostly fighters), just to name an example, without impacting infantry equipment output, makes a lot of sense, for which you need military factories. Or do you want to tell me, that a major power has no need for aircraft, or even dockyards? The latter pays for itself only in the long run. Later, chances are, that you won't have the ressources to build up a fleet anyway so it does make sense to use the pre war years to do so.
I am pretty sure, that just 8 or so MFs at the beginning, can pay a huge devidend over time, instead of 5 lousy CFs, especially if built in early game.

[Gorgo Primus]

They're weren't the friendliest people in the world, but it was a massive game with tons of people that clearly had a lot of planning put into it (so that if one of the main powers in the game ♥♥♥♥♥♥ up it'd ruin it for some 20 odd people) and one of them was nice and offered to co-op teach you how to play a major for the game and then you quit right after... There were ♥♥♥♥♥ in there, but it isn't like they flamed you out and demanded you quit. The trigger for you quitting seemed to be someone showing you kindness and taking you up on your offer to swap countries to learn more.

This is more on you. If you want a game where nobody cares what you do or that takes 2 min to set up instead of 15, find a smaller game. If you want to stick it out and play in a massive game as a major, take the nice dude up on his offer to co-op Japan with you.

[GoldenTalon]

Originally posted by donalddawkins:

To be fair the mp is slowly getting worse and worse.

It’s gettinng to the stage where games are simply emptying out because the host and friends refuse to have anyone play a major who doesn’t know or the do the exact meta strategy done by every other veteran player.

Then everyone in the lobby begs for a Germany or a uk, and when some poor lad volunteers they get interrogated about the exact meta they have to employ, then they get booted or told not to play it and the waiting game continues again. There’s only so many experienced players on the game and eventually we’ll get to a stage where nooone newish knows how to play majors anymore as they’ve never been given a chance to play one in mp and all the experienced players are gone. It’ll also mean the meta will never change and no new strategies will occur and the game will stagnate.

I feel that mp in most lobby’s have just become people working off a script from 1936 to 1939, where your simply not allowed to deviate off the expected meta and the game becomes he same repetitive chore over and over with the same unit compositions, strategies and tactics employed( alamein heavy camping for the uk, naval bomber spam for Italy, not joining the war until fall of France, only Spanish volunteers, rush fighter 2s if your a commonwealth minor and then go tanksetc etc)

Hosts need to be more dynamic with their rules; if you have a newb Germany then change the rules to give the axis an edge e.g Spain’s allowed to join after the fall of France, or Sweden can be played by a player instead of that nation forever being banned. Equally, if you have a newb allied team instead of forcing veteran rules on them balance out the allies to allow the USA to go giant wakes early on and join the war straight away, or allow commonwealth troops in France etc etc.

Balance the rules to fit your lobbies skill set instead of doing a one size fits all policy, and then you’ll see games starting quicker and people hanging around longer after they supposedly lose; too many times have an experienced allies team quit by 1940 simply because their meta strategy has failed and as their one trick pony of aircraft spam and commonwealth armour has failed to got them into a stalemate so they give up, and too many times has a player Germany rage quit by 1941 as they’ve lost momentum against the soviets and so instead of adapting their meta they just gg out. It’s not very fair for everyone involved, as the allies don’t get to do their dday, or the soviets don’t get to do their war, or the poor USA player doesn’t get to do anything at all!

Less experienced player at least might try to make a come back, try something new or at least play until they die, instead of the current trend of immediately gging as soon as the game turns against you.

From my own experience, and from the fact that I’ve been in 5 different lobbies today and all have died because of the problems mentioned above.

The game was not well designed with MP in mind. Games like War in the West and Strategic Command WW2 have better MP because they were designed for it. With Paradox games, MP is an afterthought (and AI for SP apparently as well).

[lakeclouds]

Originally posted by donalddawkins:

To be fair the mp is slowly getting worse and worse.

It’s gettinng to the stage where games are simply emptying out because the host and friends refuse to have anyone play a major who doesn’t know or the do the exact meta strategy done by every other veteran player.

Then everyone in the lobby begs for a Germany or a uk, and when some poor lad volunteers they get interrogated about the exact meta they have to employ, then they get booted or told not to play it and the waiting game continues again. There’s only so many experienced players on the game and eventually we’ll get to a stage where nooone newish knows how to play majors anymore as they’ve never been given a chance to play one in mp and all the experienced players are gone. It’ll also mean the meta will never change and no new strategies will occur and the game will stagnate.

I feel that mp in most lobby’s have just become people working off a script from 1936 to 1939, where your simply not allowed to deviate off the expected meta and the game becomes he same repetitive chore over and over with the same unit compositions, strategies and tactics employed( alamein heavy camping for the uk, naval bomber spam for Italy, not joining the war until fall of France, only Spanish volunteers, rush fighter 2s if your a commonwealth minor and then go tanksetc etc)

Hosts need to be more dynamic with their rules; if you have a newb Germany then change the rules to give the axis an edge e.g Spain’s allowed to join after the fall of France, or Sweden can be played by a player instead of that nation forever being banned. Equally, if you have a newb allied team instead of forcing veteran rules on them balance out the allies to allow the USA to go giant wakes early on and join the war straight away, or allow commonwealth troops in France etc etc.

Balance the rules to fit your lobbies skill set instead of doing a one size fits all policy, and then you’ll see games starting quicker and people hanging around longer after they supposedly lose; too many times have an experienced allies team quit by 1940 simply because their meta strategy has failed and as their one trick pony of aircraft spam and commonwealth armour has failed to got them into a stalemate so they give up, and too many times has a player Germany rage quit by 1941 as they’ve lost momentum against the soviets and so instead of adapting their meta they just gg out. It’s not very fair for everyone involved, as the allies don’t get to do their dday, or the soviets don’t get to do their war, or the poor USA player doesn’t get to do anything at all!

Less experienced player at least might try to make a come back, try something new or at least play until they die, instead of the current trend of immediately gging as soon as the game turns against you.

From my own experience, and from the fact that I’ve been in 5 different lobbies today and all have died because of the problems mentioned above.

Sounds pretty awful.

[FDX]

Originally posted by ChaosKhan:

But mixing implies, that he also builds CFs. Why is it mandatory to only build those? Germany has close to no divisions at the start and has to build up a huge army. Therefore, stockpiling aircraft (mostly fighters), just to name an example, without impacting infantry equipment output, makes a lot of sense, for which you need military factories. Or do you want to tell me, that a major power has no need for aircraft, or even dockyards? The latter pays for itself only in the long run. Later, chances are, that you won't have the ressources to build up a fleet anyway so it does make sense to use the pre war years to do so.
I am pretty sure, that just 8 or so MFs at the beginning, can pay a huge devidend over time, instead of 5 lousy CFs, especially if built in early game.

Sure. I'll get you into a discord game with a couple of us, go ahead and try it.

[GoldenTalon]

MP was a distant second thought for this game. It shows in how poorly it works with the lack of track records for players and constant de-syncs.

[EM-10]

Originally posted by Latios:

Also, front-line civ factories are NOT in fact the only thing to do. Massing military factories if you're going to war early is a lot more helpful then a bunch of civ factories that can't pump out enough guns to push through your enemies. That and you just grab more civs from your enemies. Depends if your game is long or short term. Getting hit by the guy with short term conquest in mind while you go long doesn't end well for mr. civy...unless you're a major, in which case you can do what you will, as long as it's sensible.

Originally posted by ChaosKhan:

But mixing implies, that he also builds CFs. Why is it mandatory to only build those? Germany has close to no divisions at the start and has to build up a huge army. Therefore, stockpiling aircraft (mostly fighters), just to name an example, without impacting infantry equipment output, makes a lot of sense, for which you need military factories. Or do you want to tell me, that a major power has no need for aircraft, or even dockyards? The latter pays for itself only in the long run. Later, chances are, that you won't have the ressources to build up a fleet anyway so it does make sense to use the pre war years to do so.
I am pretty sure, that just 8 or so MFs at the beginning, can pay a huge devidend over time, instead of 5 lousy CFs, especially if built in early game.

Yeah, except "early war" doesn't happen in the kind of historical discord required lobbies that he was playing in.

...So...yeah...

The idea is to frontload civs until 1938 and then use all of the civs you built to then make mils, and by 39 when the war is supposed to begin in a historical lobby you'll have more than enough mils.

Originally posted by ChaosKhan:

Originally posted by 4TonHammer:

It sucks. it sucks because people are garbage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQJ-4embGHk

"Teach trashy gamer", he didn't play with him, but already thinks that he is trashy just because he didn't quite like his build order.

...The dude's SN was literally "Trashy Gamer"...Like...they weren't calling him trashy. His SN in HoI IV was "Trashy Gamer" they were telling him "Teach Trashy Gamer" i.e referring to him by his in-game name.

Lol...