Finally Multiplayer Gets A Lead Role

[vartan]

Well the creative director's decision has been to keep the same lay out every year, so not only after all these years dose it look the same with better graphics it has the same much needed features/improvements. Would be nice to see something alittle creative done with it for once after all this time. :)

^_^ I hear ya brother. They really need to AMP it up a bit!!!

[Togakure]

*groan* [/facepalm] Ugh ... are you spawn of Gregoshi by chance?

[Swoosh So]

Right now i think theres nowhere better for CA to go for MP feedback (at least not what ive seen) they must get tired of wading through the stuff at the .com, wildlife on the battle map that attack peoples armies anyone? Dident think so..

[Magyar Khan]

i could ask warmann to make a thread where we collect the most silly threds in other forums.... lol wildlife if wildlife would be near human when their are thousands of them....

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

*groan* [/facepalm] Ugh ... are you spawn of Gregoshi by chance?

Perhaps he is!

i could ask warmann to make a thread where we collect the most silly threds in other forums.... lol wildlife if wildlife would be near human when their are thousands of them....

Will take me awhile if I did that Magyar!

[AMP]

The gamers at .com are to worried about so called realistic AI and realistic graphics which will never happen with this tech right now maybe in the far future it will be. And also them wanting more and more and more units on the field at once for a realistic amount to be displayed on the field.

When it comes to MP they haven't got a clue and most aren't interested cause they are SP gamers, so going their with MP is just a waste of time. Wildlife attacking units? King of the Hill battle mode? No Thanks...

I'd would prefer them to work on gameplay and balance... things like getting rid of the rubberband once and for all and also getting rid of units doing their own thing like trying to turn and flank a unit instead of attacking head on therefor the whole attack gets messed up. Also making sure the right unit number between cav and inf is balanced good. Things like that would be high on my list cause you know I'm a MP gamer mostly. :)

You can only do so much with an AI in TW... why do you think you have drop in battles?

[vartan]

*groan* [/facepalm] Ugh ... are you spawn of Gregoshi by chance?

No comment other than Greg and I are unrelated whatsoever. We don't even know each other, no joke.

The gamers at .com are to worried about so called realistic AI and realistic graphics which will never happen with this tech right now maybe in the far future it will be. And also them wanting more and more and more units on the field at once for a realistic amount to be displayed on the field.

For example, I'm currently thinking of one battle in which one side had 20,000 troops, the other about 60,000. I really don't want my computer to explode trying to render 80,000 sprites, let alone models, on the screen. I'd rather it did 8,000, or maybe 16,000 (so either 10 percent or 20 percent of the actual amount), for performance purposes.

Things like that would be high on my list cause you know I'm a MP gamer mostly. :)

Precisely what I'm looking for as well. I'll have MP and a cup of coffee over SP any day.

[Swoosh So]

Amp you should explain what you mean by rubber band, CA maybe dunno what it means.

[AMP]

I think CA knows what rubber band on units means... I mean it is their game and it has been an issue ever since STW days. I can understand having units for a game like this because it only make sense, but I think everyone would like that rubber band to loosen up abit.

A unit shouldn't have to walk around buildings because the gap isn't big enough... that unit should be able to break up some and move through the buildings with no problem. Another example would be a unit losing it's charge or changing targets all cause a few soldiers from a unit touched an enemy unit... that unit should continue to it's target or destination unless a much higher % of it has made contact with an enemy unit. I've also seen units get bugged and stuck around buildings...

I think I heard in one of the 1st vedios of STW2 they talked about getting rid of 1on1s that go on when units fight... soldiers within a unit fight 1on1s only. I really hope so cause it's sad to see like 6 soldiers in a unit looking up at 1 guy on a horse while he melees someone on foot. If a soldier is out numbered and flanked or surrounded he should be stabbed,sliced, and speared in all those directions. I don't mind seeing sometimes some 1on1s, but not every single soldier I look at... it gets confusing as to why a unit won or loss when you're playing zoomed out like most do in mulitplayer. :)

[Tempiic]

I dunno.

Seeing is believing I guess.

I just hope they'll focus more on army balance rather than mp campaigning. And lots of nice maps.... and a lobby. Depends a bit how they define mp.

[vartan]

I dunno.

Seeing is believing I guess.

I just hope they'll focus more on army balance rather than mp campaigning. And lots of nice maps.... and a lobby. Depends a bit how they define mp.

MP campaigns should simply be an online implementation of the otherwise ubiquitous concept that is the campaign. The MP department really shouldn't spend more than 5 or 10 percent of its workload on that aspect. It should be a one-time development, integrating the campaign into the MP section of the game. Otherwise, their main concern, regardless of anything else, would be mp gameplay (needless to say this refers to battle gameplay).

[Tempiic]

Of course vartan. But who tells me our definitions are the same as CA's?

[vartan]

Of course vartan. But who tells me our definitions are the same as CA's?

It's what I'd do if I were director. Let's see how the CA project director for the game matches up.