View Full Version : Creative Assembly Multiplayer Changes/fixes
MULTIPLAYER CHANGES
Here are some of my ideas for a 2nd patch, add-on or next total war.
A. Multiplayer interface
1. Have two rooms 1 for chat and another that shows games. The chat room should have two columns, 1 for friends and clan members 2nd for others.
2. Need sub-rooms for tournaments and such. Also need a room for replays where players can veiw a replay of a battle.
A player puts up a replay for all to see and those that don't have it, it transfers to them. It then shows up on the screen and
everyone has pencil they can use to show tatics. Host has control of it being able to fast forward, slow and pause etc..
3. Change color and use up the whole screen.
4. Allow players to see who is in a game before joining it.
5. Be able to view the currant stats of a game.
6. Be able to join a game and observe
7. Games won't move on the gamelist.
B. Hosting&Created Games
1. Allow the creation of 12player battles, free for alls, and any sort of teams 1v2v2, 2v2v2, 3v3v3 etc...
When having more then 2 teams per battle all players are considered attackers with a time limit.You could encourage players
to attack one another by adding points on the map to capture. These points give florins, allowing you to by reinfocements during the game.
2. Players are allowed to buy reinfocements. Host can set limit on how many or have this option turned off.
3. Allow allies to see what each other is picking, share florins, and share faction units.
4. Allow host to set a timer for picking units and deploying during battle.
5. Players can start picking units as soon as they join a game.
6. Players can customize there own color.
C. Battles
1. Take off option to target allies when battling, makes it easier to target enemy units battling allied units.
When a player attacks an ally he becomes enemy to just that player not all allies.
2. You can replace a unit with a reinforcement without having to wait for the unit to leave the battlefield.
Once the unit is replaced you lose control of that unit.
3. Dragging lines with units should be fixed, they turn sideways when moving just a short distance.
STW and we/mi didn't have this problem.
4. Units should get into formation faster. When a unit has stopped, I will see sometimes a few men from the unit just walking to get in formation.
When units are grouped they will march fast to stay in formation and fatigue fast. We need a marching speed option for these things.
5. Make it easier controling units and making formations in trees. Need an option to take away trees by pressing a key.
It's still a pain dragging lines in trees and being able to see in them. Units in trees should give you a small view
by having the trees fade out around them.
6. Allow units to stay mixed on one another or slow down the movement time when they get mixed.
7. Allow allies to share control of units and take control over dropped allied units.
8. Before the host quits a game it gives warning all players will drop or allow another player take control of game.
9. Players can change game speed. Host can accept or decline a request made by a player for a speed change.
10. The green/red bar that shows kill/losses, now shows it in numbers.
11. At the end of a game players get a scored base on kill/ratio and generals taken/killed. When game is over everyone gets ranked for 1st to last.
example: player name/kills /losses /generals kill or captured/ men deployed/honor score
12. Can right click on a unit during game or picking units to veiw its stats.
13. You can compare match ups between units during battles. Be able to click on one of your units and hold mouse over enemy unit showing chance to win.
14. The ability to send signals to allies on the map or radar to help with tatics.
D. Units
1. Spears would be better at a unit size of 80. Peasants should be the only 100 unit size unit.
2. Change the cost of units so that they are all useful in multiplayer games.
3. Units should fatigue slower and regain faster when standing.
4. Fix gaps between units when dragging lines, sometimes have to drag line twice before units are close.
5. Units don't keep there formation when dragging a new line. I get messy formations and have to sometimes set each units formation.
STW and we,mi didn't have this problem.
6. Need a force march/attack option for units, so they don't stop. Units that touch routing units or a few enemy troops start to attack them.
Need a key that forces a unit to stay with it's order.
7. Need an attack area option for units. Allow a unit to attack all units in a small givin area. Atleast allow this option for the smaller
unit size and expensive units.
8. Missile units have an ammo bar, have an option to show the rounds left in numbers.
E. Artillery
1. The ability to attack ground with artillery. This is would be useful for timing the bounces into units just right.
2. Artillery crew can take control of an unoccupied cannon if crew was killed. Can take ammo from artillery that has me destroyed if the same.
Can train artillery crew to use all seige weapons you have, in case crew from one gets killed.
3. You can veiw the range of an artillery by pressing a key. It then shows the distance it can fire in all directions, by a colored circle.
F. Wish list
1. Allow the Campaign to be played by seasons and play like Lord of the Realms. What i mean by playing like Lord of the Realms is armies move the same
same way in LOTR and take over provinces/structers the same way.
2. A multiplayer campaign
3. Provide own servers
4. Focus another Total War all on multi no single player
5. Allow some battles to be played non-stop. A game can be played untill your time limit is up or army routed.
Once a player has been routed another player can join the game. Have it set by rounds and at end of each round it shows who is winning.
Once all rounds are up say like 10 it gives final stats of all players that played and then starts all over again.
Well thats about it,anyways I hope you enjoyed reading my ideas. I look forward to questions and comments you may have.
Your online buddy, AMP
Quote
Focus another Total War all on multi no single player
[/QUOTE]
And sell how many copies? A few thousand?
I doubt they would sell that few. I buy games for multiplayer only and i rarely play the single player. I've played games years online wihout even touching the sp much. If they focused on one completely for multi i'm sure it would be great.I have no idea why you said a few thousand?
Maybe because both STW and MTW has been successes comercially, but how many people do we see online? 3000? Add on top of that another 4-5000 people who have considered the game a waste/gone back to SP/another reason...
Indeed a big success in that department. I doubt even double of that would cover the cost of the game.
------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
Have you ever played on battle.net? It's a free service so it bogs down and lags a lot. Less than 1 out of every ten buyers play multiplayer (with the exception of South Korea) online.
Multiplayer only games generally will not be successful unless they have an Everquest model (monthly payments).
Great list - I think the wish list title should move to the top - they are great ideas but given the variation we seen beteen the total war titles so far . ie. none - I dont think theres much chance of changes on that scale being made then next total war will just be different units and a slightly varies SP campaign if the past translates to the future. I also agree with the respondants that there would be little chance of all multi game - maybe if they made all your recommeded changes it would get the audience but not as it stands now.. I would like to add to your list
1) improved AI
2) LAN supports AI/human multiplay
good ideas
maybe you should make a game to compete with this one
Id buy it http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
Most gamers want solo play and CA wants to sell hundreds of thousands not tens of thousands (maybe). Go MP only and I think 9 out of 10 TW fans will say FUGEDABOUDIT.
I believe MP is an extra tossed in with the game. It adds to sales somewhat and reviewers expect to see it so CA included it. If you play online exclusively and are having such a grand time then you may have become myopic about the bigger picture wherein the vast majority of buyers never enter your world. MP doesn't have enough appeal to make sense on it's own. I know you disagree with me on this point and of course I have no hard statistics to offer but I suspect that CA knows that relatively few buyers care much about MP. Still, I would not suggest that the next game be SP only even though it would sell far better than MP only. You see MP as the whole enchilada all by itself and that's understandable. That's how you play. We all get to ask for what we want. But answer me this. What other MP only game has sold hundreds of thousands? Or millions? Computer Gaming World said in an article not too long ago that the most popular MP game is Half Life and its' progeny. They estimated that there could be as many as 10,000 people who play HL online. Now, bear in mind that the original HL has sold over a MILLION not to mention the add ons. Ergo less than 1% are online. That's where I'm coming from. Ask Valve if they want to go MP only.
Anyway, I'd be happy to endorse all of your well-crafted ideas concerning MP EXCEPT for "no SP". That one kicks over way too many rice bowls, one of them being mine. In conclusion AMP, I'll concede that an MP only Total War could be a great game for some. But never a big commercial hit. SP pays the bills.
Thanks YunDog and Nelson i see your point.
I guess I have played to much of multiplayer to say "focus a total war on multi no sp". SP just hasn't kept me playing a game very long, only multiplayer. It's just a dream/wish of mine to see a game like this with great multi support, that's all.
I really would like to see a total war campaign play like "Lords of the Realm". I also would like to see a multiplayer campaign. Those two are my favorite, but they are just my wishes. I only put this list up togather your opions on them and hopefully some will be added in the near future.
GilJaysmith
10-29-2002, 16:55
Just so you know: I personally would love to implement a lot of the features on AMPage's list. Many of them make good sense and would clearly make the game a deluxe experience.
But it's true what's been said, that multiplayer is considered at most 10% of a game's market... and most of that list is multiplayer-specific.
Still, very good list.
Jemasze Toda
10-29-2002, 17:29
Hi guys
From my point of view it is hard to understand that most people actually prefer the singleplayer-option to multiplayer.
Of course i am well aware that the vast amount of sales of this wonderful game are due to the singleplayer-campaigners but its still hard to understand for me....hehe
Maybe one ( out of many ) important reason for that preference is that we all love to think of ourself as great generals and superb leaders of men but that claim ( or dream) is of course MUCH harder to maintain if you have to fight against other real opponents with similar dreams and fantasies all the time...LOL
A CPU you can after a short while beat with ease or at least nobody else can view your little personal desasters against foolish CPU if you are NOT able to beat it.
In MP you face many poor "generals" but at the same time a whole bunch of cracks will continuosly try to chop off your swollen head, incredible swollen by all the dreams about allmightiness and power. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
As i see it, its a pity that only a few agree upon the simple fact, that ONLY in MP the true brilliance of the Totalwar series shows itself. Even if we have no MP-campaign so far, the tactical battles are in a way a kind of online-chess.
If you love a real challenge there is NO WAY avoiding the Multiplayer experience!
Come online and see it for yourself!
Deep, deeper, Totalwar....
...IF we get the patch ( Damn! I named it) and the extremely necessary fixes for the server-issue and the game-balances ( cavalry, speers, unit-prices, unit-sizes etc.)
Last but not least i must agree with Gil:
I would love to see some or most of AMP's visions realized in the actual MP-game!!
Don't stop dreaming!
yours Jemasze
( as usual a bit provocative...hehe)
Kraellin
10-29-2002, 20:27
a great list, amp.
and regarding the 'tree' items, has anyone noticed that your units are not always 'concealed' when in trees now?
i'm also going to dredge up one of my old ideas for multi and add it in here. the game currently allows for 8 players with 16 units each. that's 128 units total in the game, possible. why not allow for options that allow 128 players to play in one game, each having 1 unit? and of course then you get all the options in between; 64 players with 2 units each, 32 with 4, 16 with 8 and so on, as long as the max number of units isnt exceeded.
to me, one of the most difficult aspects of this game is keeping track of, and clicking for 16 units. if these were real people, that wouldnt be necessary. a 1v1 game might then be, 1 team of 64 people versus another team of 64, where each person is controlling just one unit. deployment zones are easy, since it's just a 1v1. clans suddenly become VERY important, as you'd want experienced players playing on your team. ranks in clans would be important. you could actually have one overall general on the field and several sub-commanders, like say for infantry, arty, cav, and so forth, each commanding several other players. the loss of one or two players getting dropped from a game is minimal.
now, realistically, it's tough to get 64 clan members all online at the same time, but not that difficult to get, say, 8 at a time all online. no way to currently get 8 playing a game all on the same team. it also gets tough to sync up players the more you have in the same game, but i know servers that are doing it with 1500 at a time, so it's not impossible.
and, adding the idea of FFA's into this, imagine a multi game of 128 players playing in one game as an FFA, or even 64 or 32 or 16. fun stuff. now add in the 'king of the hill' style of play we saw in we/mi. other game styles would be interesting as well; a capture the flag, where the flag holder becomes the 'defender' and gets points for holding the flag, might be interesting.
lots of possibilties.
K.
------------------
http://home.domaindlx.com/takiyama/kraellin/icons-1.gif
AMP I hope you didn't get me wrong before, your list is good. Better MP is a better game, and it is easier to implement than big changes to SP, I think.
Krae...
128 players with one unit... hahahaha http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
That would be great fun.
In those battles knights and other heavy cavalry would actually be useful as you could keep the attention on them all the time.
------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
vexatious
10-29-2002, 21:48
Gil-
Pls don't take this the wrong way but I think that a better multiplayer experience would attract more multi-players. Online gaming is getting bigger and bigger...
All i can say on this matter is I WISH http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
Thats a good and well thought out post AMP..
Some nice fresh idea's...
Only time will tell i guess
GilJaysmith
10-29-2002, 22:56
Quote Originally posted by vexatious:
Gil-
Pls don't take this the wrong way but I think that a better multiplayer experience would attract more multi-players. Online gaming is getting bigger and bigger...[/QUOTE]
I don't disagree with that statement... I'm just noting the marketing wisdom which drives the production of most PC games, including, currently, ours.
Of course, if you were willing to pay a subscription to play a game online, or even a subscription to get the game developed in the first place, that would be a different matter :)
Kraellin
10-30-2002, 01:01
careful there, gil,
i know folks, including myself, who WOULD pay a subscription to play. and as for paying to develop, that's a piece of cake, particularly with a proven track record. folks like microsoft have put out large sums of money to back game projects. games like asheron's call have a large following. it's easy to find over 5000 players online at ANY given time of day or night. that means that there's prolly 5 or 10 times that actually keep up a subscription. at 25,000 subscribers times $10 a month, yer talking $250,000 a month gross income...not too shabby.
WWII Online is also another successful pay to play. they also had backing from someone, though i'm not sure who. very fun game. both are massive multiplayer worlds and both handle large numbers of players on a single server playing in the same game.
it also wouldnt surprise me a bit to find some money floating around amongst the patrons here at the .org, or at least ties to money. and if you guys ever wish to go public as a company, i'd buy shares :) but of course, i'd want creative rights :)
K.
------------------
http://home.domaindlx.com/takiyama/kraellin/icons-1.gif
GilJaysmith
10-30-2002, 01:26
Quote Originally posted by Kraellin:
and as for paying to develop, that's a piece of cake, particularly with a proven track record. folks like microsoft have put out large sums of money to back game projects.
[/QUOTE]
That's how most publishers work; they pay up-front for the game to be developed, usually in stages with agreed milestones, and then don't pay royalties until they've covered the advance. (Most games don't make enough royalties to cover the advance, but that's fine, the publisher's cut is plenty big enough to cover the difference and make a profit, and the developers are tactfully reminded to have a bigger hit next time.)
I was thinking more of you as individuals paying our development costs up front. Guaranteed sales mean no money wasted on marketing, amongst other things. Some bands (with a cult following but no major label) raise funds for their albums the same way. On the other hand, recording an album is comparatively low-cost when measured against the $1m or more which a triple-A game usually eats through. And there's the danger that you might want a say in how the game worked. It can be difficult enough having two designers; fifty thousand would be untenable.
Quote
games like asheron's call have a large following. it's easy to find over 5000 players online at ANY given time of day or night. that means that there's prolly 5 or 10 times that actually keep up a subscription. at 25,000 subscribers times $10 a month, yer talking $250,000 a month gross income...not too shabby.
[/QUOTE]
MMORPGs are a bit of a special case as they establish a community with persistent property, characters, and rights - all things worth paying money for. Without those you might as well be on IRC, and no-one's ever been caught paying for that. Subscription services for non-communal games have been less successful; take the reviews of Madden 2003, which dissed the suggested $5 subscription for the online league. This suggests that 'network play' does not of itself justify extra payment in most people's minds.
Read Jessica's Biting The Hand columns at happypuppy.com for lots, lots more detail about MMORPGs...
Quote
it also wouldnt surprise me a bit to find some money floating around amongst the patrons here at the .org, or at least ties to money. and if you guys ever wish to go public as a company, i'd buy shares http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif but of course, i'd want creative rights http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
[/QUOTE]
Which, actually, is why CA isn't a public company. There'd be all sorts of hassle to do with not annoying the shareholders - and who ends up owning the IP?
I can't be bothered to start a new thread just to mention this, so: I'm on holiday till next Monday, so that's why I'm being quiet until then. Enjoy, all.
Some good points by all, but I would like to add my opinion of MMORPGs, having played Ultima Online for a while and having a friend who plays it.
These games are EVIL!
I watch this game suck this guys life away - now he has a life only in the UO world, he has a property, he has master craftsmen characters and they have shops and make money - but in essence once yourve built your character up the whole thing becomes a glorified chat channel -
unfortunately his online life seems to have an inverse relationship with his real life - his real life he has no career and no house and few friends left
dont forget hes paying for this honor - so lets do the numbers - he got UO when I bought D2
cost of playing D2 on/off for 2 years = 100A$
cost of playing UO (must play regularly or online world deteriorates) = 24 x 40A$/month + 50 = 1010A$+ (stop salivating Gil)
so Q1: is any game worth over a thousand dollars
Q2: is UO 10x better than every other game - which it aggresively stops you from playing because your paying so you may as well be playing - ie. you will not play other games once you have this one (game companies take note).
my final point is D2 will only ever be 100$
my friend has not paid his final account so the bill is still rising and while his real life sinks deeper - like some new age junkie he scrapes around to find the money to maintain his UO account.
THESE GAMES ARE EVIL and if they are the future of online multiplay then this is one guy that will be playing SP from then on.
I would like the games that are playing or full to be ghosted on the server listing, so I know which games I can join. Very confusing the way it is now.
I've changed the subject haven' I....darn. Pay for multiplay gaming BAH to that...least I can beat the computer http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
------------------
Don't be in a rush to die!!
Nice list Amp. Indeed a dream list for most MP gamers.
------------------
tootee the goldfish,
headmaster of Shogun-Academy (http://shogun-academy.tripod.com)
loyal roach of Clan S.G. (http://thesilvergazwa.tripod.com)
'Pa Si Buay Chao! Si Liao Ka Song!'
------------------
Ok, here goes the old ranter......
Why on Earth do you need to say "Make a better multi game by ditching the SP!"? Why on Earth? Is there a pleasure to be gained out of depriving others of what they like, otherwise what you get is just not worth it? I just don't get this attitude, in all honesty, I don't. What's so difficult about saying "Improve the MP, I don't care what you do to the SP."? Does the attitude "Live and let live" make you weak in your own eyes?
What have people that play SP ever done to you? They've never beaten you in a game, they pay for their games the same amount of money that you do, they spent an equal amount of time playing the game, and have the same amount of fun playing it their way as you do playing it your way. What's so wrong about everything listed that some people constantly have to give away this hostile attitude, let alone the fact that they do it on public boards devoted to general discussion about the game?
I wish that somebody would explain to me just this one simple point: if we have a game that has equally great SP and MP modes, would that make it less valuable in the eyes of this kind of MP-ers?
I have a whole other rant about why people play the different modes in the first place, but if I could get these points answered, it would be entirely redundant anyway.
[This message has been edited by hrvojej (edited 10-31-2002).]
falaffel
10-31-2002, 15:26
GilRay,
Lets say that we'd start a petition and name gathering for those in this forum that are willing to pay a 5$ fee a month and lets say further that we gather 1000 people that are willing to pay this fee. What would that get us ? Would it be realistically to have a 2 month patch cycle for you with new features ( for both multi and single ) ? Is there are real possibility of this happening ( whether we should checkout the interests in the forums for this ).
>And there's the danger that you might want >a say in how the game worked. It can be >difficult enough having two designers; >fifty thousand would be untenable.
As far as I understand your doing this already. Haven't you guys been looking at the community in the beginning of a development cycle before deciding which features are requested, what changes are needed and so on ? Perhaps this might mean that you would have to listen to us a little bit more but I don't think it will be open season on the developers just because you paid the subscription. Usually the tone in these forums are quite civil.
Further more you could continue on developing for the next release even with these patches to the paying subscribers. We'd get these features before and when enough things were added you could do a "general" release to the stores. The subscribers would be happy because they had the game far ahead and you'd be happy because revenues would be higher along with a steady revenue stream during development that didn't come from the publisher.
Give us the goehead and lets start looking into this.
/ Falaffel
[This message has been edited by falaffel (edited 10-31-2002).]
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.