MTW/VI Vs MTW2

[Stig]

You forget that this needs a far better computer and internet connection.

Someone from CA (not giving names) told me that you'll be fine if you have a 5mb internet connection and play at medium, everything under that and gone.


Or maybe just doesn't want to solve something is all people can do is complaining.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

You forget that this needs a far better computer and internet connection.

Like I keep saying in games where everyone has real good PCs and connections the game flies. A way of rating ones online performance once more would be nice. Whether the community does it themselves or CA does it. Ping just dont hack it anymore.

[Stig]

Aye, I think the lobby should be made bigger.
You should get buddy list.
You should be able to click player names to see their profile, in that you can see their settings, internet connection and computer specs, country they come from and some more.
You should be able to download things from ingame. Players can upload mappacks, mods (MP mods) and some more.
You can see more details from a game when clicking on it before joining

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

I'll buy the game when Creative Assembly restores the multiplayer game to its former quality which, as far as I can see, will be when hell freezes over. Certainly, M2TW is a lost cause at this point, but there are also serious doubts concerning the next game after the expansion.

There is no requirement that I own the game to make comments about it. I can read what people who do own it and what CA says just fine. Unfortunately, the design of the engine limits network performance. Why would I want to purchase something like that when I currently play a Total War multiplayer game that is less limited in its network performance, and has better playbalance, tactical depth and unit visibility?

The mouse over info I'm talking about is the numerical info on upgraded units in the army purchase screen. It was wrong in RTW, and what I've read in the SP forum suggests it's still wrong in M2TW.

On the battlefield, distinguishing 4 states of fatigue and morale is sufficient if those are the transition levels where combat performance changes.

I mean, I have to laugh at Puzz's post because, his post is right and makes sense while people here are always against him.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

while people here are always against him.

You mean certain people.

[Stig]

If you don't have something you're not allowed to critise.

His critisism is the same as me critisising the Peugeot 1007. Yes I've heard loads about it and that it is bad, but I can't voice my opinion untill I've driven it, can I?

[TosaInu]

His critisism is the same as me critisising the Peugeot 1007. Yes I've heard loads about it and that it is bad, but I can't voice my opinion untill I've driven it, can I?

This forum is not for the discussion of the Peugeot 1007, either the Front- or Backroom can be used for that.

[Stig]

Kom op Tosa, het was slechts een voorbeeld, dat weet jij best

[Nem]

If you don't have something you're not allowed to critise.

His critisism is the same as me critisising the Peugeot 1007. Yes I've heard loads about it and that it is bad, but I can't voice my opinion untill I've driven it, can I?

MizuYuuki has earned the right to criticise as he's one of the most respected Mutliplayer in the community. He explained why he thought the MP side of MTW2 was rubbish and wouldn't improve by using his knowledge of the games dynamics.......... maybe you can tell me why he's wrong?.

He doesnt need to own the game to know its limitations, just like I dont need to drive a Peugot 107 to know I'd hate it.

Judging by your statement you must have also played STW and VI in MP to allow you to be able to criticise Yuuki's opinion that their MP was better. What name did you play under as I don't remember an MP called Stig and I played 5 nights a week, and according to your profile you must have been 12yo when playing STW online............I'm impressed!.

Well if you see some men that are dirty, and you see little of them are left you mouse over them to see the stats you want to know about? It just gives you one parameter, either dirty or not.


And unless you're some very hardcore player, who doesn't play this game for fun, that's all you need

.


How can you write that and expect to be taken seriously.

I know what I'm talking about.

and for a professional noob like me that's enough.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

[Stig]

I never played STW, and I don't need to play it to know MTW2 is a proper game. I can't help the self-proclaimed veterans don't like it.


You'll find me as UgliStig in the lobby if you wanna know

[ArmaEtLorica_Mongoclint]

As Gawain didn't want it seems to have become a bash/support this or that. Although, I think some great suggestions have come out about things that were in VI and should be added to MTW II.

I, for one would like to give props where they are due. We have all bashed CA (me included for that abomination that was RTW), but you know what, with the new patch, MTW II is a great game. As Gawain says, with all good comps, no lag issues. Gamespeed is good. You can win games by superior management of your troops on the field.

And frankly, although I never thought I'd say this, I think the MP is more fun than MTW VI. You can make good and unique armies out of almost every faction whereas, except for a creative and daring few in MTW, you were relegated to the same CMA/FMA/Chiv knights/Pavs. And I really don't miss the 10 minute pav war to start every game.

So I'm sorry MizuYuuki doesn't like the game and he has every right to his opinion (I quit RTW online fairly quickly), but I love it with the patch and my whole clan is coming back and enjoying it.

As for the original point of the thread, I agree with everything Gawain said about improving it with VI features he mentioned, but as for MTW II's biggest advantage, I think it is the ability to create competitive armies with so many different factions and different unit variety.

Mongo

[Fenix7]

Molded by time and shaped by experience, it's certainly no secret that in total war community there was a lot of varying ideas about what's what & who's who. In fact, to say that some tw members are opinionated would only be to state the obvious. Let's not forget that special interest groups and the old-boy network are just as much a part of this tradition as they are to politics. Amidst the workings of this wonderful tradition, woven firmly within its political fabric, there exists a particular mindset that not only impedes the learning process; it undermines MP community, at least what remained of the old and what we have in the new.

True Nem, yet Elmo also mentioned all there is needed to be mentioned and Koc on the other side. You either like MTW2 or you dislike it. Same goes for STW or MTW. For many best balanced serie of TW was VI and not STW. Different views and different opinions but arguing all the time and persuading new to TW series how great first series were (are) is wrong direction.

[Yun Dog]

MizuYuuki has earned the right to criticise as he's one of the most respected Mutliplayer in the community. He explained why he thought the MP side of MTW2 was rubbish and wouldn't improve by using his knowledge of the games dynamics.......... maybe you can tell me why he's wrong?.

He doesnt need to own the game to know its limitations, just like I dont need to drive a Peugot 107 to know I'd hate it.

Nem,
How would you feel about a whole heap of dudes that didnt like CA, didnt own any CA games, turned up and started trolling the forums slagging TW games at every opportunity.

It one rule for all

if you want to talk about M2TW MP in the M2TWMP forum you should at least own a copy of M2TW and have played or attempted to play a game MP

otherwise your just another troll

even if the things you say are correct

[Kalle]

I never played STW, and I don't need to play it to know MTW2 is a proper game. I can't help the self-proclaimed veterans don't like it.

It seems very strange to me that on one hand you say people that do not own or play MIITW do not have the right to speak against it while you preserve yourself the right to say that you dont need to have played any of the older titles to understand what this games potential is and how it is suppose to be and that any critiscism that is backed with how the old games worked is wrong.

I think maybe you need to have played some of the old games to be able to understand the critiscism that these "self-proclaimed vets" are making (as you prefer to call them, I wonder who you would call veterans of totalwar if not those who were around for so many years and started the clancommunity and competitions and so on).

How on earth do you otherways know what could have been done better with the new titles?? Of course if all you played was Rome and MIITW I can understand that you are amazed of the large armies on the field and morale aspects (such as they are) and so on. Well my guess is that you would be even more amazed if some of the points of the vets were implemented into the game.

Puzz was the leader of the betatest team for many of the games (correct me if im wrong Puzz), yet you do not think he has any clue of what he is talking about?? Kocmoc (mars) was one of the very best mp-players in mtw-vi yet you do not think he knows if the game gets worse or better??

Funniest thing of them all is the last post by Yun al-Din stating that even if the statements are correct they are only trolling. Comments like that makes you wanna cry or laugh, dunno which one to choose. But maybe comments like this is the confirmation of the games having been dumbed down :P

Tell you what though, I own all the new games unfortunatly, so I can confirm that development is nothing but backwards. (Kingdoms will be the first I do not buy, cause I wont get ripped off more money until they start to listen, you on the other want us to promote bad game making by enlarging the number of sold betaproducts, please explain how and why they ruined the game chatsystem for instance, it makes no sence what so ever!!!!). I tried them and it is totally obvious if you also played any of the older games that development is backwards not forwards, apart from you being able to see some blood and dirt on the soldiers of course.

Kalle

[Grey_Fox]

If Stig said that STW was complete and utter crap without playing it he would be shouted down for his noob opinion. Puzz calls MTW2 crap without having played it once and is going on hearsay and biased opinion is lauded as a 'hero' (wrong word I know but I'm tired and pressed for time) and his word taken as gospel. Anyone see any double standards here?

[Kalle]

Biased opinion? So you mean that we would not want MIITW to be a good game?? It is not like I, or most others posting here are working for some other computergame company trying to advocate some other competing gametitle.

It does however surprise me that some people here talks as if they were hired by a certain computergaming companies marketing division.

There are people who wants improvement and there are people who are happy as it is and cant stand that some see faults where they see none.

Kalle

As pointed out in my previous post, this is double standard;

It seems very strange to me that on one hand you say people that do not own or play MIITW do not have the right to speak against it while you preserve yourself the right to say that you dont need to have played any of the older titles to understand what this games potential is and how it is suppose to be and that any critiscism that is backed with how the old games worked is wrong.

[guyfawkes5]

Stigglet said:

I never played STW, and I don't need to play it to know MTW2 is a proper game.

However, Stigglet did not say:

...you dont need to have played any of the older titles to understand what this games potential is and how it is suppose to be...

Stigglet said that ownership of previous TW titles is not necessary to enjoy the game and gain fulfillment from it, but Kalle makes out Stigglet said that ownership of previous TW titles is not necessary of ascertaining the potential of the TW series as a whole.

A false representation of an opponent's argument due to the weakness of the stance you have taken up, thus a strawman argument.

---------------------------------------------
Stigglet said:

...someone who hasn't even got the game and still comments on it.

However, Stigglet did not say:

...that any critiscism that is backed with how the old games worked is wrong.

Stigglet said that constantly expressing a 'qualified' opinion of a game without ownership of the actual product in question is deeply flawed, but Kalle makes out Stigglet said that any criticism of M2TW referring back to older titles is flawed.

Again, a false representation of an opponent's argument due to the weakness of the stance you have taken up, thus a strawman argument.

[Stig]

I like this thread

[Puzz3D]

Puzz calls MTW2 crap without having played it once and is going on hearsay and biased opinion is lauded as a 'hero' (wrong word I know but I'm tired and pressed for time) and his word taken as gospel. Anyone see any double standards here?

I never said MTW2 was crap. I said the battle engine is inferior to the old battle engine. This has been demontrated by people who have run tests on M2TW, and posted the results. All I have to do is compare their results with the results I got testing STW, STW/MI, MTW, MTW/VI, RTW and RTW/BI over that last 6 years.

The network performance of M2TW is definitely inferior to MTW. It's not just a little bit inferior. It's dramatically inferior, and there is no reason for it to be like that. Jamie Furgeson says it's due to limitations in the engine.

M2TW shouldn't require a much more powerful cpu than MTW, but for some unexplained reason it does. All RTW and M2TW should have required is a better video card and perhaps more memory and a slightly faster cpu. The memory leak in RTW required that I double the memory in my machine, and that cost me $200. Certainly between RTW and M2TW the system requirements shouldn't have jumped up. My machine runs RTW fine, and yet I need a new machine to run M2TW. Something is wrong with the way this game is coded.

MTW didn't have good playbalance. Cav/sword armies dominated multiplayer, xbows and arbs took too long to use their ammo, archers were not effective enough and the fatigue rate was not optimized for large maps that last point being confirmed by LongJohn. You can't access the full potential that the battle system is capable of providing unless the system is well balanced. The 25% imbalance that LongJohn contended was pretty good actually falls short of what is required. In STW, the warrior monk was imbalanced by 10% to 15%, and it caused problems. Playbalance in the Samurai Wars mod for MTW/VI is better than 10%, and the result is that no army purchase rules are required. Even the tax on more than 4 of a single unit type isn't necessary. There are 3 RPS systems operating simultaneously with multiple unit types represented in the 6 unit categories. The gameplay is highly complex, and it's achieved with the anti-cav bonus of spears being the only intrinsic melee combat bonus.

Morale level should be adjusted so that attrition and maneuver are dynamically balanced in the gameplay. From my experience, there is a narrow range of value over which the system works properly. LongJohn agreed with us that the optimal morale level is probably different for team games as opposed to 1v1. This can be considered to be a second order effect, and it's the kind of refinement you would have expected to be addressed at this stage of 6 years into the development of the Total War series. Instead, the primary optimal value is still ellusive, and Creative Assembly still refuses to provide independent settings on this parameter and the fatigue rate parameter in fine enough gradation that the players can determine the optimal values empirically.

Units should respond quickly and precisely to commands. If they don't then the game is hampering the player especially if he is trying to react to a situation. If the player understands the situation and knows the tactic to be employed to counter the situation, the game shouldn't hinder him from executing the manuever. The new battle engine is inferior to the old engine in this regard since it introduced delay in the response to orders, degraded unit cohesion, increased difficulty controling units and increased micromanagement of the cav charge.

Introducing more randomization into the gameplay also reduces the apparent skill difference between players. Some uncertainly is good, and the original game using 60 man units and a 1 second combat cycle provided a sufficient level of uncertainty. The 60 man unit size was the magic number that Palamedes was refering to in his blog, but it has to be coupled with a combat cycle length and probablity to kill to be meaningful. Slowing down the combat cycle, reducing the number of men in a unit and giving men multiple hitpoints increases the uncertainly which makes the simulation less robust. If the RPS is also reduced, then the uncertainty is an even larger factor in determining the outcome of an encounter. To some extend this is offset by giving special abilities to units to counter specific units, but this increases micromanagement and is an artificial bonus. It's not needed if the RPS is kept strong enough and the combat system is balanced.

Creative Assembly justified the choices it made in the design of the new battle engine by saying it was broadening the appeal of the Total War game. They are going to continue broadening the appeal of Total War in the future right?

The old commuity was dedicated to maintaining the quality of the multiplayer game in terms of tactical depth and performance. This old community has been replaced by people who accept substantially inferior quality in both areas, and they are even will to pay more for it.

[Stig]

This old community has been replaced by people who accept substantially inferior quality in both areas, and they are even will to pay more for it.

You don't have the game anyway, why care?

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

You don't have the game anyway, why care?

"MizuYuuki has earned the right to criticise as he's one of the most respected Mutliplayer in the community. He explained why he thought the MP side of MTW2 was rubbish and wouldn't improve by using his knowledge of the games dynamics.......... maybe you can tell me why he's wrong?."

Now if you saw that part of Nem's Post. that would answer you question. HE doesn't need to play the game to know how it is. He been here a hell of alot longer then myself or you or some other MP players here for that matter, so of course he puts up a better argument then you Stig.




I can't stand to play nethier RTW or MTW2 anymore due to the poor gameplay, and Hell, I played both games and the lobby in MTW2 is just the same as RTW. Half the time no one is speaking or I usallay see a flame War going on. Don't see that when I used to play Samurai Warlords Every Sunday months ago.

[Stig]

*points at posts made by Foxy and Guido*


You know we are right, pity you don't want to admit it

[Puzz3D]

I don't like to see people disappointed with their purchase. My posts are intended for people who haven't purchased the game yet. I can understand that people who have purchased the game may want to justify their purchase, and not want to hear negative comments about it.

[Stig]

Well yeah, you don't want people to get disappointed, but not everyone thinks like you ... me for example, I like the game

[Grey_Fox]

I think Samurai Wars is rubbish and I am going to do the best to stop people from downloading it as it's a waste of time. Please ignore the fact that I've never played it and never even intend to play it as I am just so disillusioned with it's creator.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

People please. Didnt we have enough of this in the other thread? I want things here from VI that can easily be implemented into MTW2. Thats all I want. Certainly no one is more quailified than MizuYuuki . He was legend before I even got here. The Mizu clan has pretty much dissected STW and MTW/VI and put them back together. Put please gentlemen can we just have fixes here. This is sounding to much like congress. Can we please stay on topic. If you want to start a thread why MTW2 is inferior to whatever be my guest.

[TosaInu]

I want things here from VI that can easily be implemented into MTW2. Thats all I want.

Hello Gawain of Orkeny,

That's a bit of a catch with software.

What struck me in RTW was the limited set of maps (directly) available for MP, compared to VI. CA made a pretty nice system of real time battlemap generation out of the worldmap in SP. Of course, you could edit in the coordinates to make more MP maps, but it would be nice to have a display of the worldmap (or user made worldmaps) and select a location from that. Extend that with a favourite list and a xy box to type the coordinates and you have a solid and virtually unlimited source of maps to play on.

It seems the thing is already there, also for MP, just not the proper GUI.

I think it's important to have individual unitspeeds back, instead of just a few harder wired animationclasses. Another thing I like in VI is the individual def- and offensive anti cavalry bonusses.

[Chaos Cornelius lucius]

I would definitly agree with individual offensive and defensive anti cav bonuses. At the moment it seems almost impossible to kill heavy cav in any numbers with infantry.(at least to me anyway).
A unit that would carve its way through heavy cav something like chiv foot knights used to do in VI is needed IMO.

[Yun Dog]

I think Samurai Wars is rubbish and I am going to do the best to stop people from downloading it as it's a waste of time. Please ignore the fact that I've never played it and never even intend to play it as I am just so disillusioned with it's creator.

I agree Samurai Wars is terrible - I havent played it and dont even have MTW installed on my machine - but I heard from others that it was rubbish so I just thought I better post on here to save people from downloading it. Because this is where people would come to find out if they should, and if I point out enough of its flaws maybe magically it will improve (although I will not help to improve it because I dont have it).

We are not arguing if Puzz is correct in his criticisms of the game - we all understand what wrong with the game (Puzz has told us all 100x). But is Puzz pointing out the floors in the game going to improve the game? Is it adding to the discussion of M2TW - or just taking away. And he doesnt own the game = trolling
I hardly think large numbers of people considering buying M2TW (at this late stage) are going to be finding their way to this subforum and reading 100s of posts - seems to me more like 'told you so' shadenfraud
And while I am trying to maintain a respectful attitude toward Puzz3d (and respect his opinions and hope to oneday play against he and Koc again) - Kalle - you couldnt resist taking a cheap personal shot at me and the other M2TW players as being 'dumbed down' :p

your name is noted - for the first time - not for being a player but yet another troll. With nothing to add other than bashing M2TW and its PLAYERS
congratulations whoever you are

we all understand the flaws of the game - we dont need to hear them daily in every M2TW thread

I was trying to be polite about this but I must request action from the Mods - people who arnt playing M2TWMP (by their own admission) should have their posts deleted from this forum and be given the appropriate warnings

[Puzz3D]

My prior post has suggestions for improving the game:

1. Improve the network performance.
2. Reduce the cpu requirement.
3. Reduce imbalance to less than 15%.
4. Improve the RPS so that you don't need so many special bonues.
5. Optimize the morale level so that attrition and maneuver are dynamically balanced.
6. Optimize the fatigue rate to the map size.
7. Make the units more responsive and improve unit cohesion.
8. Reduce the uncertainty in the combat results.

and a few more:

9. Adjust the cost of the units so that each unit is worth what it costs.
10. Remove the battlefield upgrades from multiplayer.
11. Remove the multiple hitpoints from units.
12. Bring back the original ballistic model.
13. Lower the charge speed by the same ratio that running speeds were lowered relative to RTW.