Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: MP in RTW; a few questions

  1. #1
    PapaSmurf Senior Member Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Alps Mountain
    Posts
    1,655

    Default



    I have not heard much about the MP aspect of the game so far, beside the usual rumours on MP campaign being there or not (answer is; it's not).

    Without a MP campaign, I'll hope that the battle will be interesting, realistic and balanced, but that's not different from SP wishes.

    There are some points which are MP specific that I'd like to get feedback on;

    1/ different statistics and cost for MP and SP. Today MP cost is somehow related to initial purchase cost in SP, and that gets us into all kind of distortion in MP.
    2 examples; a feudal knight in MP is a good choice because of good stats and low cost, but not such a great one in SP because of maintenance cost and building requirement. End result, I see some feudal knights in Late game... Why not, but that's odd, and it's only because the initial purchase cost in SP is attractive. 2nd example; Alan mercenary cav. Probably a very balanced unit in SP because it is rare to get one as a mercenary. Not so in MP; and then again SP initial cost makes it very attractive.
    If balance is designed for SP mainly, taking into account different factors, like maintenance cost, building requirement, province requirement, etc, please remember that MP knows only one factor, and that's initial purchase cost. Therefore, I'd like the initial purchase cost of units in MP to be a specific data, and hopefully, CA will tweak it to balance the game.

    2/ to help mods and modded maps being played, I'd make it possible to play with the host maps and stats. With notice to players of course... To get everyone to download maps and mods is a pain, let's the host do it...

    3/ make the battle set up a little bit more intuitive. The map selection when hosting is rather difficult, the 3d view is not really helping. A 2d view from top would be better. Also the choice in deployment zone is not intuitive. Many players got no idea where they are going to be on the battlefield related to each other, and relative to the map before they actually get to the map.
    A more intuitive system than the color shield one would be helpfull.
    And finally, display the stat of the unit modified by upgrade; that will be very helpfull, much more than the text in the tooltip.

    Thanks for your attention,

    Louis,
    [FF] Louis St Simurgh / The Simurgh



  2. #2
    Clan Takiyama Senior Member CBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    4,408

    Default

    Well I do hope we get some response from the developers but so far we havent seen much..

    Some points:

    Some unitcosts have been increased because of abilities in SP that doesnt exist in MP anyway. One example: Druzhina Cavalry cost 50% more because they can always dismount in SP battles.

    But most costs are related directly to the stats so its at least not a big problem. But it still would be nice if we can have seperate costs for MP so changes can be done that doesnt effect the SP campaign.

    An important factor in SP is the upkeep cost and that actually gives a very different picture for some units. Several of the missile units have low upkeep and therefore cheap but in MP we only have the (expensive) purchase cost for such units.

    The formula (just using the stats) that CA uses for calculating unitcosts (think its more or less the same for STW and MTW) might work fine for SP but not for MP. The expensive units simply cost too much. CA did some changes to it in 1.1 to lower the big difference but its still not good enough. And it shows something is fundamentally wrong with the formula.

    The current cost formula of 1.2^(attack + defense + 1/3 morale + 1/4 charge etc) needs to be changed IMO. In the Community Mod I made a simply change to 1.11^(factors etc) And that meant I could remove the fudge CA introduced in 1.1 and it overall gave costs that was much better suited for MP.

    I do wish that a player can download a map from the host. Maps are not that big files (up to 70-80 KB max) so its not that big a problem. Mods are of course a bit different as a mod can be anything from a few txt files changing stats to a total conversion with new graphics.

    Deployment zones should really be one big zone for each side. We already see that on castle maps as the attackers has one mutual zone to deploy in.

    It would be more intuitive for new players (how many newbies have not messed up in a 4v4 being front left? ) and it would give more options for players, hiding units for ambushes is one good example. It would give defenders the advantage if all are able to deploy in a camperspot (if that spot is in the zone) but that is really a question of good map design then.


    CBR

  3. #3

    Default

    My biggest concern so far with RTW multiplay is that Rome looks to play like Viking Invasion in multiplayer.

    Medieval excels because it has so much variety. Rome doesn't appear to be that way. I imagine it's going to play like VI in multiplayer, which I find boring personally.

    To be fair, if this is the case, it's likely going to be due to the era (Medieval covers a period of rapid military advances, giving us all sorts of variety and styles), but charging pikemen at each other doesn't sound particularly fun.

    I'll have to wait to try the game before I make any final judgements of course, but I've read up quite a bit on RTW lately and I can't help but shake the feeling like it'll play like a prettier version of VI.

    I bet single player will be a huge leap forward in Rome though, which I'm looking forward to. But I may just play Rome offline and hope there is still an active community for multiplayer MTW.

  4. #4
    Clan Takiyama Senior Member CBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    4,408

    Default

    Yes there is risk that gameplay will be a bit boring like Viking era but I would say that VI was also a very limited expansion. Not many units to pick from and not much work on balancing it.

    If javelin armed skirmishers, as well as slingers/archers, have proper costs and effectiveness in battles we should still have an interesting missile/skirmish phase.

    We should also have several javelin armed cavalry units in RTW.

    I think my favorite would still be the medieval battles but RTW can be made interesting and fun to play. Afterall one should remember that MTW MP has been dumbed down to swords and cav because of bad costs and upgrades so that game didnt even exploit the full potiential of what it could be.


    CBR

  5. #5
    Member Member CrackedAxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    203

    Default

    I mentioned this in another thread, but I read somewhere that RTW MP games can have more than 2 teams. Does anybody know if this is true? Am I being slightly dim or gullible?

    If it does, will this be a good thing?

  6. #6
    Wait, what? Member Aelwyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    837

    Default

    yeah i read that too, up to 4 teams. could be interesting, but it also could get a bit crazy, as it would essentially be like a free for all. some people always enjoyed those, but i never did. but it could serve its purpose in a set up multiplayer campaign as well i'm sure.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO