New Options for Multiplayer Game Host

[Shahed]

Greetings All http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

A host control on the factions and units available to the players in the MP game is indispensable. It would be a great addition to multiplayer. This feature would certainly earn CA accolades and praise, not only from the market (players) but also from the reviewers.

The MultiPlayer host has these options:

-Standard options, morale fatigue, etc.
-Maps
-Eras (if those are part of RTW)
-Season
-Money
-Time of day for starting the battle (initial reports mentioned that battles could run into the night)
-Factions Available
-Units Available
-Game Information Parchment/Screen

The following features would remain similar to MTW:

-Standard options, morale fatigue, etc.
-Maps
-Eras (if those are part of RTW)
-Season
-Money

We must remember that we are talking about a game that is being branded as having no contemporary. A game still in development.Therefore we must be visionary and imaginative in our approach.

These would be brilliant new features.

Time of day for starting the battle
The host now has the option for selecting the starting (and ending if so desired) time of the battle. Possible selections could be: dawn, morning, afternoon, dusk, night, twilight. Naturally this means that the scenery and all special lighting effects must be implemented into the game to accurately reflect the conditions of battle during these hours.

Factions Available
The host has a box on the hosting menu which displays click able shields of each faction. Clicking on a shield disables that faction for this game. Clicking on it again re-introduces that faction as an option for players in this game. Disabled factions are matked with a red x or whatever way best suited.

Units Available
There are many ways to implement this feature. I really have a clear picture. I'll try not to be too specific as the CA guys know how to implement features, and their experience is certainly greater than mine.

For example, on the hosting menu, the host double or right clicks on the faction shield and a mini selection screen pops up. In this mini screen the host can left click any units he/she wishes to disable for this faction. A red x (or whatever, fades out etc.) appears on the units that are unavailable to this game. Once that's done right click anywhere on the screen to remove the mini unit selection screen, or click little exit button on the mini unit selection screen.

Game Information Parchment/Screen
RTW should adopt a totally new approach to the multiplayer lobby. Not only is the lobby friendlier, but also it is much more interactive. It's more like the strategy map of the game where almost the entire screen is click able. When a player wants to join a game, he has to know what units, factions are available and he/she has to know all the game conditions summarized. The player then has all the information necessary to decide whether to join the game or not. Again there are multiple ways to display this information. The essence is that there needs to be a small info parchment, which activates when a player clicks a game name. Once activated this parchment lists the game conditions in a similar manner to the way the small info box lists game conditions in the MTW lobby. Alternatively, there is a dedicated box or space on the lobby screen which displays concisely all the information about the game.

It's understandable that these features require work. However these features are worth the effort as MP is an area where the total War series loses out to it's competition and needs to be improved.

Mike de Plater mentioned the following with reference to the graphics engine and on the ability of the team to meet the challenges of developing RTW. There is little doubt that these features can be implemented by the CA team. It will take some fine coding but this is certainly, not above the capacities of CA, the makers of the unique Total War Series.


Quote[/b] ]..we have an absolutely brilliant team working on Rome and they have achieved things we never even would have thought possible when we started working on the design...

-Creative Assembly's Creative Director Michael de Plater-

[RisingSun]

Those are all brilliant ideas, except for one or two.

1. The available units- This would totally make it in the hosts favor, as he would know what unis he s not good against, and would ru the other player's experience as well.

2. Playable factions- This would do the same as above, being thait wuld greatly tip the scales in the hosts favor if he culd disable someone from using a factin he/she is not good against, but to a lesser degree than #1.

Otherwise, briliant, motivated ideas, especially the time of day.

[Magyar Khan]

just expect less as hyped by teh developers and compagnions. hyping comes with teh software industry.

[Shahed]

Thanks for your comments. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

There are many players who devote the majority of their time in the Total War series to Multiplayer. An explanation of the reasons why these functions are necessary is in order, for those who do not play Multiplayer.

Among those players a significant party demand a game where units have reasonably equal strengths. Players also feel that there are some units in the present (before VI) Total War game, which make the game no fun for them. There is also an impression that there are some factions, which are no fun for them to play against, as these factions do not provide a fair chance of victory to all players in the game.

Some factions are perceived to be too difficult to beat in the hands of skilled "elite" players (see 7 page long thread in The Jousting Fields on Spain). Others say that some units are too overpowered in comparison with other units. The MTW Lancer and Byzantine Infantry had a reputation for being overpowered by some players. Other players think that artillery is dishonorable and unfair, as it allows you to get too much of an advantage over the enemy. Even if the enemy player if far less skilled than you are. The result is that a lot of games being hosted at the moment have standard rules of no artillery, no Spain, no Byzantine and/or a combination of other restrictions.

Will these features help satisfy this part of the MP market?

These features will, as these options allow more control of what type of game is being hosted.
The whole reason why these features are suggested is because the host does not want anyone to have an advantage, and wants to reserve the authority to select the type of game he wants.

That's not all; many games, which are nowhere as near, as advanced, as RTW should be, are already using this option. Online shooters for example have a range of options such as this, e.g. banning a certain type of weapon like the M60.

The host should always have more freedom to select the type of game to be set up. It makes little sense to have the same uniform games running throughout the lobby. Once a host can select units, factions etc, it adds a whole new meaning to the game. It is no longer necessary to request players not to use certain units for this game, as this game is intended for a different kind of game play.

If you look in the Jousting Fields you will notice that some of us enjoy recreating from history or from imagination, objective based games. In that scenario it is essential for the host to be able to influence as many options as possible in order to make it easier and quicker to set up an objective based game. Please refer to The Crusader Campaign thread, or the MTW Historical Re-Enactment thread in the Jousting Fields for details.

These features will give a necessary and desired freedom for the host and will satisfy the majority of devoted MPers. They will also promote RTW as having acquired for the Total War series, good functional and important features in terms of hosting privileges.

I think most of us are mature enough to see through the hype. We are familiar with marketing hype, not only from the software industry. We cannot deny however, that RTW is still in development and therefore we should put forward our ideas for implementation. We already have preliminary evidence from VI that improvements to MTW have been made, and a lot of our suggestions have been taken into account.

[Alrowan]

its a grand idea indeed... although i dare say it may be abused by some hosts

[Shahed]

These are exactly the features that were suggested in the MP Era thread.

The host may try to abuse this unit/faction feature, but in that case no one will join his games since, the information parchment will inform players of the restrictions on that game.

Personally I play under any conditions, but I prefer the objective based games. So I will be happy to use this for those games. I'm sure a lot of other players will use this for the No Spain type games/rules. It would satisfy the broadest range.

[RisingSun]

Maybe im just distrustful, but the point of my post was the people who would abuse it, would far outweigh the legitimate people. Its like saying, if you had a gun to a persons head, a person whom you hated with the most sincere, burning, undying hatred imaginable, and knowing that you could do it without any consequences whatsoever, and there was no religious belief which forbade it would you do it? most people would say yes. This is like eliminating a certain unit which you dont like, and this would divide the community into the legits, and the abusers, who eliminate every faction and unit they dont particularly like. considering the already low number of games, this would make it even harder to play a decent game.

[Kanuni]

I think these are good ideas and should be considered.
And about the possible abusement:
Well a decent player simply just won't join the game if he sees that the host's purpose is to create an advantage for himself. And a noob already has a disadvantage against a decent player because of being less familiar with the troop types and has less idea about choosing a good army.

[Shahed]

My personal opinion is, like I mentioned, much simpler to just leave it as it is. I will play whatever factions there are just like I do in MTW. When MTW first came out I had trouble with Spain and Byzantines. Not anymore, unless the opponent really knows how to exploit his strengths. So I am satisfied anyway. I'd appreciate this for objective based games.

This is primarily so that everyone is satisfied. There are a LOT of people would would use this feature as is evident from just a peek in Jousting Fields or play online and you will see plenty of games with faction and/or unit rules that have to be communicated. It would make everything much simpler if the host could handle it.

As I mentioned the info parchment would display all the details of the game, so must players would not join games which were obviously in favor of the host.

[Stormer]

Very good ideas sinan hope they listen too you maybe you should of put an online campagin idea across http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Shahed]

Thanks Storm. The online camp is already being debated, there is a little lull due to VI sortie, but will surely pick up again shortly. There is another thread on that in the Entrance Hall. Cheers http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[Sjakihata]

Hi,

I think it is a bunch of great ideas Sinan Nice one http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

One thing in parchment screen could be added, to let people easily see if any thing about: factions & units have been altered. It could be with a litle symbol if it appeared you knew that something about units & factions had been altered http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

But good ones, especially the time of the day thing http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Keep it up http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Bye.

[bosdur]

You might want to skip improvement on game parchment info, as ppl generally click-racing to join a game http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif.

[baz]

all very good ideas .. particulary like being able to limit factions available, this would allow games to be customised quickly and easily without taking too much control away from the original game .. i thing the GUI needs addressing also simply because at the moment ppl dont know whether to use gs arcade or get to the foyer through the game, this is also causing tech probs such as double names with numbers following them ..

[Skomatth]

Quote[/b] ]although i dare say it may be abused by some hosts
I don't think that would really be an issue. If you see someone abusing it, don't join the game. Just like I wouldn't join someone's game with large unit size

I sort of agree with you though, the banning should be limited to factions, so people know what they are getting into. You wouldnt want to choose a faction and then find all you can pick is archers.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

Time of the day; sure, if the game implement it.

Faction availability; not sure; will depend on faction balance in RTW. Personally in MTW, I like the challenge of Byz or Spain army, and I don't like to frustrate people / give them reason to argue.

Unit availability; as proposed no; would make it too complicated to read before entering the game. How ever, I would like a feature to prevent choosing a whole range of units, ie no unit from arty screen for example.

I also think the server room (well the place where you wait for people to join and choose faction / side) needs a lot of improvement;
- reminder of game condition from the name of the game to map name, season, conditions (arid /temp / desert / lush...).
- preview of the map (2D is good enough)
- maybe I am lazy, but faction position (with color selection) on the map preview would also helps... Getting tired of figuring who I am facing by remembering the color order... Told you I am lazy... I don't choose the same army if I start on top of a hill, in a wood, or in a plain... Or, hum, OK maybe I do
- some stats on players (depending on what is available...)

And when we are talking about improving MP, now, that I have seen the wonderfull VI prebattle screen with reinforcement selection, I want reinforcement in RTW MP too

Call me dumb, but yes, I am willing to take the risk of starting with 1K less on the field at the beginning to be able to
1/ bring a couple of fresh light cav or some HA in end game
2/ get rid of dumb archer/ pav arb whatever will be in RTW to bring some h2h units... Good coordination required.
3/ whatever else you have in mind...

IMO, would add some uncertainty and strategy to the game.

Louis,

[ErikJansen]

I just wanted to voice my support in favor of Sinan's suggestions and ideas. They address something we have been missing in our online battles for too long and it should really be added come RTW.

I can't understand why anyone could be sceptic to the suggestion of faction/unit restrictions imposed by the host, at least if you've been playing online for a couple of months. It would need that info parchment thing tho, so I don't run into another Mt.Everest in 30min trap.

Whats that? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

I foolishly just joined a game I knew would be cheesy, but I wanted a quick fix and the florin amount was about 20k a head. Not too bad. So when the game started I was presented with the following scenario. We had a hillytomountain map to climb, the 3 defenders were camping on each their mountaintop and the host had set a time limit of 30 minutes for us to pull them down... LOL http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

It ended with me conserving an Alan fast cav when our armies finally succumbed, running it around until the timelimit expired. Then I claimed a draw, much to the grand irritation of the defenders http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Anyhow, the point of this story is that with a combination of Sinan's and Louis' ideas (unit/faction restrictions, information parchments, map previews etc) situations like these won't come up and bother less tolerant players than myself http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif It would also make for a great pre-battle phase with planning and whatnot http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Regards,

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Also add;

Spectators; On /Off. (ppl can come and watch the game if allowed, assume that RTW can do it).

From a good idea in JF.

Louis,

[RisingSun]

Well, perhaps i have been a bit too conservative. I think it wuldbe best to allow faction/unit restrictions, but with limits. such as 3 units per faction (its been siad the unit variety will be smaller) and/or 1-2 factions (There will also be less). I think this would stop abuse whle still allowing freedom for the host.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Not to mention, hosting game at more than 4v4 (the sky the limit), and possibly then a more intuitive system for predployment (than shield and color).

Louis the Simurgh,

[Gregoshi]

How about playing pre-determined scenarios? Your forces would already selected with perhaps some flexibility in starting location. This would include any historical battles included in the game. Think of the Battle of Hastings with human allies instead of AI allies. This would require an in-game tool to create these scenarios.

This feature would be beneficial to those online fans who like to re-create historical battles/tactics. It would also be a potential starting point for a home grown multiplayer campaign. Just feed in the battle map and units involved on each side...

[TosaInu]

That would be nice Gregoshi. Allowing ADF/BDF files online, also opens possibilities for (homemade) MP campaigns.

[caesar]

If the programmers are looking, another reminder to add AI opponents in multiplay so I can ally with my mates against the computer over the LAN.
Else I wont buy the game. I've bought shog/med but still this feature eludes me.