THIS GAME IS NOT GOING TO HAVE MULTIPLAYER CAMPAIGN CAPABILITY??? ...m

[Generalisimo]

why the developers promise that STW:MI will have multiplayer campaign capability, and finallye they removed it.
This game is not going to have it either???
why????
it is soooooo imposible to make it work just over a LAN????
it is all i am asking, just over a LAN, not over the INTERNET!!!!
maybe in future implementations you can make it work over the internet, but for now just over a LAN.
Even in Age of Empires (I, II) you can save your multiplayer battler over a LAN and play it or finish it another thay (i don't know over the internet,i just play it over a LAN).
So why is sooo imposible what i am asking???
MAKE AT LEAST A MULTIPLAYER CAMPAIGN JUST FOR A LAN!!! PLEASE!!!

[evilc]

not a programmer r u?

[Generalisimo]

yes i am a programmer,why?

if you can make the multiplayer battles work, i don't think is imposible to get the multiplayer campaign work, it is just a Turn Based Strategy there, there is almost no real time (just the moving of the armies is the only thing that you show), so it is not soooo dificult.

[Erado San]

If you're a programmer you'd better think twice before you claim something is difficult or not. How often have you started something that looked pretty straightforward at the beginning, which then blew up in your face when you net the real intricacies? If you don't know what I'm talking about, you haven't done much programming.

But in your thread in GD I have explained the reasons that in my view explain perfectly well why a campaign, both for LAN and Online, is simply no go.

[theforce]

Well multi campain didn't seem very nice to me anayway. A campain lasts a long time and you would have to be online for days to complete it.
For muti new interesting mods can do the trick.

------------------
Don't use only honour, use theforce, too.
http://lod.nipogames.com/default.html

[Vanya]

The difficulty lies not in the simplicity of the coding but in the difficulty of promoting a good experience void of the temporal delays that would utterly kill the experience.

So, Mr. 'I can build a LAN MP campaign game': how would you account for people in different time zones playing? What about a campaign with 100 people? It would royally blow chunks if 98 folks had to wait why 2 fought out their battle. Magy and others have jerry-rigged a user campaign of sorts... and it took 3 months to complete 6 turns. But, can you realisitically expect the CA version to do any better? No! The mere scheduling conflicts kill it. And this is something that will always lie beyond the scope of what the software can handle.

And don't expect your fellow campaigners in Shanghai to be up an playing LIVE with you while you sit in your igloo in Manitoba... Just ain't gonna happen...

These SAME issues exist in a LAN environment, albeit less magnified due to physical proximity and partner acquaintance...



[This message has been edited by Vanya (edited 02-05-2002).]

[Generalisimo]

Vanya: that is why i am talking about a MP LAN CAMPAIGN, not a MP ONLINE CAMPAIGN.

Erado San: i will make it simplier for you,... "first think, then talk..." if you can't make it, don't talk about it, and dont make promises that you will make it for the game. First try to do that, if you realize that you could not do it, just discard it, but if you go to the media and talk about the multiplayer capability of the game, and the you realize that you could not do it....mmmm.... i think that it a lack of profesionalism....
it is just my opinion.

[Erado San]

That is right and that is why this time they make it known in an early stage that there will be no campaign.

I'm kinda surprised that this discussion starts now while it was already made clear in PCZONE UK's January article.

[Generalisimo]

well, i said that it is bad point that they don't include the MP CAMPAIGN, nothing more... if they don't want to include it, well it is their decision.
I think that the game, with MULTIPLAYER CAMPAIGN, will have a greater audience, and an incredible addictive rating.
An remember that, now, multiplayers games are becoming more and more important....
It is a "must" that for having a MP CAMPAIGN option, the SP CAMPAIGN option must be excellent, if not it is a waste of time to make a MP option.
i am saying this because with the "base" of STW, STW:MI, and now MTW you can make the best MULTIPLAYER GAME in years; because you have the best SP CAMPAIGN GAME i have ever played.

[evilc]

go mail the developers and find out why its so hard.

[MagyarKhans Cham]

to add some oil in here i would say


think in solutions and not in problems

[BSM_Skkzarg]

Indeed Kahn,

To be blunt, the game market has migrated (due to the online gaming explosion) heavily to MP ability. In fact, alot of games now are Multiplayer ONLY, or built around MP with the SP nothing but a second thought! Think UO, Everquest, Tribes2, WW2Online, etc.

95% of the games in your local software store are MP capable - it is the rare one that is not. Why? Because multiplayer is one of the MAJOR facets of gaming today. Yet, as we saw with Quake and Half-life, continual rote "contests" lose their appeal. Even today's FPS's try to bring more to the table. Games like Spec ops and Delta Force:LW among many others add more and more "BIG PICTURE" control. In games like the Mechwarrior franchise, the "BIG PICTURE" spawned MechCommander 1&2, both of which showed that the market for overaching views is there. Thus, the Campaign Online module for M:TW should have been made a critical aspect, as even market demographics show that it would have been a major draw to consumers.

As for Shogun:TW and WE/MI having sold X amount of units and only Y amount of ppl playing online - first the original games are almost niche products, as they are limited in scope (historically) and are also very culturally focused. The thing that got S:TW and its expansions the sales was not a single point, like graphics or gameplay or history - but a combination. And the fact that the Campaign game was continually referenced - was also a selling point. Out of all those copies sold, how many people bought the game - found out it did NOT have an online campaign - and said "Why do I need to go online then?"?!?!? No one knows.

The bean counters screwed the pooch on this one. They missed what the games are about - and that is providing the richest, most in-depth game possible to the consumer. That is what sells the product. S:TW was a leap forward - WE/MI were tiny steps. M:TW looks to be a decent step, but its not going to get the jumpt that S:TW did - it doesn't bring anything new to the table. Westwood learned the hard way - cloning your own success with a small move forward isn't enough to climb onto or stay on top of the heap. You have to innovate - and M:TW is bigger and badder I am sure - but it is not going to startle the gaming world - because it offers nothing new.

I love the TW series, and will purchase M:TW regardless, but a company out there somewhere is going to innovate and offer us something new - and when they do, I only hope that the rest of the game is equal to the TW series.

Qapla!

------------------
BSM_Skkzarg
"ARG when I'm Happy, ARG when I'm Sad, ARG when I'm good or bad. ARG!"
"ARG to port! ARG to starboard! Arg from stem to stern! ARG!"

[Nelson]

As Erado San has said, the commitment of resources required to implement the MPC is all out of proportion to the number of players who would use it. It still stinks that CA said an MPC would happen because people were indeed misled despite what IMO was a good faith effort by CA to do it.

So now I'm thinking about the subject of MP gaming in general. When MP can be easily (relatively) included in a game it often will be because the press a publisher gets will be better than if they leave it out. Why? Not because the publisher expects many thousands of online players. It's because most game mag reviewers (and many of their readers) like to play online and downgrade the game’s rating if MP isn’t there. But when a company could be making new games to earn still more money it doesn't make sense to squander lots of manhours on a tiny handful of players. Knowing this, folks here will STILL advocate having CA spend more time on connectivity issues EVEN TO THE DETRIMENT of other areas of the game. I hear you and appreciate everyone’s right to petition for the features they want. Nevertheless it makes poor business sense to do that.

Why is this so I wonder. It goes beyond the MP campaign. It’s the nature of the online experience. I believe that even under ideal conditions most buyers won't play online ever because they aren’t interested in competition or new challenges. Others try the water a few times but have a lousy experience and never come back. After all, conditions are far from ideal, aren't they? Lag, server hassles, cheating, and of course the ever present opportunity to deal with a$$holes. Aficionados of online play accept these drawbacks as a fact of life and are willing to work around them by various means. A large number of other players don't. They don't think it's worth it. We know that one solution is to join a group of players they can trust, right? Play with people you know. Join a clan. Give me a break! Let's really be honest here. The online world needs to grow up. Anyone who has witnessed the totally sophomoric, over the top pissing contests over "honor" here in the dojo must reflect on how this looks to a visitor. How many mature adults (not old folks, mature! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif Most gamers are over 18) want to join something called a “clan” comprised of people with funny samurai names prattling on about rankings, nubies and bad support? OK already, it's all in good fun you say. I know it is. Nevertheless, the prospect of forming such associations sounds ridiculous to many guys with a less then very intense interest in computer games. I don’t mean to break any body’s balls here or be insulting but facts are facts. This kind of behavior marginalizes the online segment of our hobby. We in the dojo are a fringe group not the mainstream. And clan members who play several hours a week (or day!) are the radical fringe for sure.

Ultimately, say what you will, online play is about competition. Being good, or the best, or at least fighting more a challenging opponent. Defeating someone. Yeah, I know that having fun is actually number one but MP fun is fundamentally different from fun in solo play. As Gore Vidal said, “It is not enough that I succeed, others must fail”. I don't think most buyers give a damn about competing with anyone else. Nor do they seek a greater challenge than the AI offers. They don't expect to practice in order to play the “real” game. They just want to play what's in the box. The single player campaign IS THE GAME. It’s NOT a primer for online play. Be assured that CA will not forget this.

In conclusion, although we're all having fun in our respective manners, online players talk the talk and clog the forums while solo players walk the walk and quietly pay for our hobby. Anything that weakens the solo experience in the interest of online play weakens the game (and hence sales). So I join Erado San in encouraging CA to abandon the MPC altogether if they haven’t already. It’s a dog that won’t hunt.

[Kraellin]

there is one way that it would hunt. no tactical battles. just strat moves and building, either turn based or real time. all battles auto-resolved. and that's about the only way it would hunt.

K.


------------------
The only absolute is that there are no absolutes.

[evilc]

if anyone really wants a campaign online, just do one in the way the clans campaign was arranged, but i doubt many people could manage that, i couldn't.

[Generalisimo]

i totally agree with BSM_Skkzarg.
Personally i disagree with you, Nelson.
I know that MP Camapign brings a lot of new problems to the game, but if you think a bit, they are easily solve (by this i am saying that the solution is simple, but making the solution takes time, we all know that...).
Because of the problem of MP ONLINE CAMPAIGN, i am proposing MP LAN CAMPAIGN first, and then if anything goes well, you can make the "big jump" to he MP ONLINE CAMPAIGN.
I know, and i think all of you will agree with me, that including a MP Campaign (LAN or ONLINE of both) will increase the sells.

[BSM_Skkzarg]

Generalisimo, technically speaking, making a LAN capable strat campaign and making an internet capable strat campaign are the same. *This of course bars the protocol distinction if your lan uses IPX/SPX.*
The mechanics itself are exactly the same - all the same data has to pass regardless of the network being a LAN or WAN connection. Including one and not adding the other is silly, as its wasting an obvious outlet at truly minimal expense.

Nelson - you seem to be reiterating a point that I call into question. You say "Why should CA cater to the 1% of ppl who want a campaign?" My response - who knows its 1% of the consumers? Can you guarantee that the ppl that bought S:TW and did not get online with it did so for reasons other than its lack of an online campaign? S:TW was supposed to include the online strat side - then it was to be in the patch. Then it was going to be on WE/MI. After that - it was going to be in M:TW, and now we are told it will not be there at all. How many ppl bought the game thinking the SOMG (Strategic Online Multiplayer Game) was going to be there, found out it wasn't, and decided not to go online with it due to that omission? Can you state with certainty that group is smaller than the 1% you continually reference?? I think not...
As for that 1% - its a very limited number for a very simple reason - EAPlay! That is one reason why Activision is going with gamespy - to increase the appeal and attract a wider draw of players. We will see if they are successful. This issue is yet another reason to include direct TCP/IP connections, as that leads to MUCH more widespread MP gaming in general. (Think quake or halflife would have been so large if players had been on heat.net or mplayer.com only? NOPE - Not on your life. In fact - those games still in demand and are played due to their ability to do LAN and Direct IP connections. Something Activision should consider perhaps...)

Regarding the 1% logic your stating, if that is all that play online, then BOY, for the M:TW game business sense dictates that there should NOT be ANY multiplayer at ALL! And how much time do you think the multiplayer aspect takes up? How many man-hours? If its more than 1% of the entire budget - then CA/Activision are losing money including it. You think that is the case??? Nope - sorry - your 1% arguement doesn't hold water in this case. MP is too big - its not the holy grail, but its the coaster the holy grail sits on at the moment, and thus cannot be ignored. The fact is, in this case - the tactical MP game is already pre-built - as it will come nearly directly from S:TW with the engine update. The strat game would innovate - and innovation is what made S:TW great - and it will be sorely lacking in M:TW regarding multiplayer.

As I said earlier - game makers need to pay attention to history. Westwood hit it big with the original C&C which was a LEAP ahead of the then current games. Then Red Alert came out, and you had another healthy move forward. Then Tiberium Sun (C&C2) appeared - and it didnt offer anything new - and the sales showed it. Red Alert 2 arrived - and POOF!, another hefty jump forward - and alot heavier sales than expected. Sales follow the games that push the envelope. Dark Reign and Total Annihilation both pushed it a bit, but not enough, and today they are rarely mentioned among most RTS players. (For the record, I still play TA as I feel its still one of the best.) If you want to hit the top of the heap, you have to offer something that no one else does at the time. That - in the case of MTW, is the online campaign. M:TW will sell decently, but it will not have the wide market suprise success that S:TW enjoyed, unless it really has alot more than what they are showing us now.

Qapla!

------------------
BSM_Skkzarg
"ARG when I'm Happy, ARG when I'm Sad, ARG when I'm good or bad. ARG!"
"ARG to port! ARG to starboard! Arg from stem to stern! ARG!"

[TosaInu]

Konnichiwa,

Could it be that online play is only 1% because it doesn't work that well?

How many did give up because of the autorout bug (the Benny Hill code)?

How many did give up because you can only play matches? And not, for example, cooperative campaigns.

How many did give up because of crashes?

How many did give up because they were accused of cheating? To think the Benny Hill code was made to prevent cheating!

How many words aren't said, how many flamewars haven't been waged because of the RedZone?

Isn't the online community a mess due to the split personalities, rotten ladder and people that love to destroy groups of players that played games together?

The first time I played RTCW online I experimented with a flamethrower and toasted 2 teammates: I was kicked from the server immediately.

If only 1% of 100,000 customers play online, shouldn't it be worth to consider why?

------------------
Ja mata
Toda MizuTosaInu
Daimyo Takiyama Shi

http://www.takiyama.cjb.net

[Generalisimo]

BSM_Skkzarg: i totally agree with you again. But there are some aspects that appear in the INTERNET and not on a LAN.
First CHEATING, if i play with my brother in a LAN and he is cheating, i go with him give him a good kick in the a$$ and then we continue playing without cheating. This is imposible over the internet.
Other thing is the continuation of the game, if you are playing a campaign, for example with 1 guy of Haiti (for saying something) and he made a bad move, so he loose 2 provinces. He has only now a tiny army with 2 provinces, he will come back to play? mmmm.... i doubt it.... he knows he will loose, so probably he will start another MP campaign with someone else, and he will leave you, so you could never finish the campaign.
This would never happen in a LAN, if you go with friends to play (or with brothers in my case), you know you ARE going to finish the game, no matter what happens.
Other point, is the Comunication, The Internet is famous for going "OUT OF SYNCH", so if you didn't save your game, you loose all the progress, and you have to come back again where you started. In a LAN unless there is a "power off" this will never happen. There are some other comunication issues, regarding protocols, and security reasons, but we will leave them out of the discusion, so the common people doesn't get bored.
So these are some reason why i suggest that first the devs make a MP LAN Campaign, and when everything works great (we know they are capable of doing it, if not, look at these game, is REALLY great), make the BIGGEST jump and make MP ONLINE Campaign with only some tunning of the LAN Campaign.
It is just my recommendation.

And as you said, the devs, have promised a lot of times the MP CAMPAIGN, and they always have postponed it, so i think they should reconsider this....

[Generalisimo]

and like some people have said, I for example bought STW: MI just for the multiplayer campaign, and when i installed it, i started to play, and then i realized that it was not there. I was soooooooo angry that i want to throw the CD through the window!!!

[Papewaio]

Quote Originally posted by Kraellin:
there is one way that it would hunt. no tactical battles. just strat moves and building, either turn based or real time. all battles auto-resolved. and that's about the only way it would hunt.

K.
[/QUOTE]

I'd play that. A quick way of doing the strategy segment against a human would be fun.

Next thing would be to be able to manually enter the results of the battle rather then autoresolve (ie import the logbrowser files from an online MP battle into the online MP strategy and whack you could play a bastardised version of an online full MP campaign).

I think we should stop thinking in 'it can't be done'.

But WHY it should be done.
And HOW it can be done.

------------------
Victory First, Battle Last

[Magyar Khan]

Therefor i would say

if u arent going to give mpC than at least provide the community with options to make and or enhance their own versions. like being able to add broken units to a game etcetara

[Generalisimo]

good point Khan, i think the devs should give something to the community...
i hope they hears us!!!
just a question... does the devs come here?

[Sir Kuma of The Org]

Yes, some of them even post here once in a while.

------------------
Yes the camel sprites do look good, hope they sound good also...