Acivision replies about leaked patch

[favedave]

I emailed Activision when I couldn't build Sipahi after patching. Here is their reply:

"Response (Mark Yao) - 11/06/2002 08:45 AM
Hello,

Thank you for contacting customer support about Medieval Total War. The patch that was released was a leaked beta version and has not yet been fully tested so bugs of this nature exists throughout the game. Uninstall the game, delete the game folder then reinstall the game."


But according to people on this board - I'm not supposed to build Sipahi till the late period!

EDIT: It's now been cleared up that this is not a bug. It's a newly implemented feature of the game: units will only be available in a certain time period of the game: early, high, late.

The problem is that the period of the units is not documented anywhere in the manual, the readme file, or even the official strategy guide.

But, you can go to
http://www.totalwarassembly.com/index.cfm

and there are charts telling you what period a unit is.

Activision has handled this patch release like the Democrats handled the last election - they didn't communicate clearly! But that's okay, we love them anyway.

[This message has been edited by favedave (edited 11-07-2002).]

[Heinrich VI]

hmm maybe a dev could tell us more. what is REALLY fixed and what NOT.

flood control? im far from being a spammer!

[GilJaysmith]

IMPORTANT!

This is not a bug, this is a feature which was broken in the original game. Some troop types are now restricted to certain eras.

Activision customer support is unintentionally misleading you by telling you that installing the leaked patch may lead to "bugs of this nature". This is NOT a bug.

favedave, can you do me a favour and edit your message to make it clear to any casual browser that this is the case...

Gil ~ CA

[Byte]

Cant u guys sticky this? Its the 10th times someone mentions he cant build a Late/High era unit from the start.

[Terrax]

I've been away a few days, and I'm super confused. I seems like somebopdy was nosing aound the net and rooted up this mysterious patch. No mention on Activisions site the official site. Is this the official patch? If not, where did it gome from? CA wasn't aware of the release until they read it here, now I see a thread that mentions a wrong and a right patch. What in the Hell is going on?

It has been amusing. I knew we would bitch about the patch after we got it. We're an ungrateful, honorless lot of beetches.

[This message has been edited by Terrax (edited 11-06-2002).]

[Captain Fishpants]

I'd just like to re-inforce what Gil has said. This feature is *not* a bug.

The (patched) game should restrict certain units according to time period. For example, you *should not* be able to build Gothic Knights until late in the game. The time periods for units start (by a cunning co-incidence) in 1087, 1205 and 1321 - the start dates for the campaigns.

Not every unit is restricted in this way, but the intention was to create a proper historical flow to the game. It also gives more meaning to the relative strengths of factions in the game: the Byzantines, for example, don't have many late (and relatively strong) units, while the Turks get stronger in the High and Late periods as their units get "turned on".

MikeB ~ CA

[Dionysus9]

Intentional Leak of Beta Patch to Placate Restless Peasants Charging for Patch? (you decide)

Just as the gate was 85% damaged, out comes a “patch” to placate us. Meanwhile, the gate is being rebuilt and we are left with a patch Activision now claims is not the official release.

I can not imagine this is coincidence or some unintentional leak. It seems, in fact, to be a well calculated move on Activision’s part, to wit:

1) v.1.1 seems to have entirely placated the Single Player’s and the vast majority of their concerns;
2) It has stirred up enough changes in Multiplayer to keep us busy beta testing their patch for them;
3) Activision can (and is) claiming that any complaints about v1.1 (whether founded or not [see above]) are due to it’s unofficial beta nature.

So, Activision has found a way to placate a large portion of players, dupe another large portion into beta testing the patch for them, and all the while they are able to disclaim all responsibility for any new bugs or unfixed old bugs. This is pure genius on their part.

Pray tell, how did FilePlanet end up with an “unofficial” patch published by Activision? I don’t think FilePlanet is in the business of skulking around the web to look for unofficial beta patches to surreptitiously release.

In any case, this is a bizarre situation (and quite fruitful for Activision, I might add– without them having to take any responsibility for new problems). Interesting indeed.



------------------
Bacchus
----
In the end times, there shall be rumors of a patch-- but none shall come. And there shall be a great wailing and gnashing of teeth across the lands. And the frustrated masses shall search high and low for the patch. And still no patch shall come. And the poor suckers will start eating their children out of frustrated desperation. And yet-- no patch shall come. And then, finally, some small glimmer of hope shall appear. And a "patch" shall be released. But, alas, all shall be as before the patch. Thus, look not for a patch in those last days-- for it is a trick of the Dark Ones. Verily, I say unto you-- the end of days shall be dark and horrible.
--Oracle of Dionysus, Ch.3, vs. 23-28.

[solypsist]

I like the way you think, Dion, yes. Whether this is the case or not, it's a brilliant display of analytical thought, and there probably is some kernel of truth (at the very least) in your post.

[Duke of Cornwall]

You're a cynic Dion... but a well reasoned one http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

[PanthaPower]

Another advantage for Activision is that spreading this patch is not costing them any bandwith at all! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

[Magraev]

Obsess much Dionysos ?

Like in much conspiracy-theory you make some sense, but I still don't believe that Activision is so sneaky. After all they could have made us help them for free just by asking.

[Prodigal]

Ok so it's a Beta patch. Question is when's the final Q.A'd patch gonna be out?

[GilJaysmith]

Sorry to disappoint you with the facts, but:

GameSpy needs to test each game for Arcade and toolkit compatibility, so Activision has been sending GameSpy a copy of each patch build.

My assumption (which may be wrong) is that someone at GameSpy concluded that the final version they got for testing was also for release.

So they put it up on FilePlanet for download - because they own FilePlanet. They took it down the moment Activision contacted them and explained that it wasn't the release version.

Activision customer support, meanwhile, has to follow certain guidelines. If a patch comes out which hasn't been officially released, it has to be treated as beta, leaked, or unofficial - take your pick. The customer support guys have thus been following the script, which I guess tells them to disregard the specifics of a bug and tell you that installing beta patches is an unsupported activity. Which seems fair enough to me.

[Einar Matveinen]

Who has leaked the patch???. I think it's the best nootice for the total war community. We've purchased a game with dozens of bugs. Activision says the patch is beta, but i think MTW was beta at its release date. The patch is something neccesary for the people who purchased the game. My congratulations to the people who has leaked the patch.

[Einar Matveinen]

Quote My assumption (which may be wrong) is that someone at GameSpy concluded that the final version they got for testing was also for release.[/QUOTE]

If this has happened, what will be the difference between this "beta" patch and the "official" patch???. Will be both the same????. I think this situation is absurd. Gil, are you working now on the patch?. If not, can we assume that this patch is the final release of the patch??

[HopAlongBunny]

I think Dion got it right.

Unofficial, therefore "don't blame us!"
Will generate piles of feedback which can be used to tweak "official" patch...sometime in the future.

As long as it doesn't create more problems than it solves, not so bad I guess

[Einar Matveinen]

Quote As long as it doesn't create more problems than it solves, not so bad I guess[/QUOTE]

Yes, yes, i like this "unofficial" patch too, it has resolved many bugs (we can see now the GloryGoal points we have and many more)...

[vexatious]

Gil-

In an earlier post you (I think it was you) stated that the "official patch" would not contain any differences in code. Is this still the case? If not, can we expect better MP stability with the official release?

[Orda Khan]

........And the MTW problems go on

.........Orda

------------------
" Send us your ambassadors and thus we shall judge whether you wish to be at peace with us or at war..if you make war on us the Everlasting God, who makes easy what was difficult and makes near what was far, knows that we know what our power is."

[GilJaysmith]

Quote Originally posted by vexatious:
Gil-

In an earlier post you (I think it was you) stated that the "official patch" would not contain any differences in code. Is this still the case? If not, can we expect better MP stability with the official release?[/QUOTE]


To repeat: the official patch is this exact patch only with the word "official" metaphorically stamped across its forehead.

I amn't working on the patch now, and there will be no further improvements to MP stability, or anything else, in the official release. My hope was that I'd fixed the major bugs in the foyer and general network protocols and that everyone would thus get a more stable experience. If that isn't the case at the moment, it won't improve when the patch is officially released.

Gil ~ CA

[Dionysus9]

As always, thanks for your explanations Gil. It's so very strange to me that they have only one person working on MP issues...

but I guess MP is considered a very small aspect of the game by the developer and publisher, and so it is given a lower budget.

Well thanks for your efforts, Gil.

[tootee]

Beta patch.. so what?! I like the patch. I like the cleaner gamelist. I like the inbattle "Y" key. I like the any faction games. Leaked patch? Hurray! Its like a sneak preview of LOTR2 http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif Can't wait for the official! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

Just starting to play SP, and beta patch solves some major bugs, like problem with savegames? cool and thanks.. remember.. you've got my money.

------------------
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!'
------------------

[GilJaysmith]

Quote Originally posted by Dionysus9:
but I guess MP is considered a very small aspect of the game by the developer and publisher, and so it is given a lower budget.
[/QUOTE]

Ah, but I'm very expensive ;-)

I would say that MP probably got less than 10% of the project's man-hours, but then that's because a lot of it was inherited from Shogun, where for all I know it may have received more. For the patch, it definitely got more than 10%, and it was about the only thing I worked on.

(In case anyone's puzzled, I'm referring to 10% because that's what's generally used as the percentage of buyers who are interested in MP.)

Gil ~ CA

[tootee]

10%? That many?

[Dionysus9]

Quote Originally posted by tootee:
10%? That many?[/QUOTE]

10% that few?

Am I really in such a minority? If so I'd better just stop my bitching and complaining because only 1 in 10 even care. This is hard for me to believe because I am so addicted to multiplayer, and in fact in any game I always gravitate toward the multiplayer aspect.

How can 90% of people be satisfied with the AI in this game? It just blows me away. Human opponents are sooo much more challenging.

Anyway, overall, Gil, if you really were the only guy working on MP then I am seriously impressed with the results. One man can not code and beta test such a complex interface--and yet, at least to some extent, you have. Bravo.

[Sir Frog d'Ancre]

Hi guys,

Just to say thx to Gil & CA.
After my complains, i got a patch which seems (after first 3 hours use)to have reached the same playability of good old Shogun MP.
That is a succes for me, thx again.

Sir Frog of Ancre

------------------

http://www.lunchbox.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/images/albert.gif

[Soapyfrog]

Dionysus, I think many people (myself included) buy the game for the Strategic/Tactical combination rather than pure tactical.

Becuase of the way the Strategic game works, the AI can give you some nasty setbacks, both on and off the battlefield.

Although I would obviously have preferred a multiplayer strat game with tactical battles, I am stuck largely playing singleplayer if I want to enjoy the strategic part of the game.

Multiplayer tactical battles are quite meaningless without the larger strategic context... this is a problem that crops up with many tactical board games, the issue that you do not need to worry about force conservation for the post-battle. Many tactical board games use victory conditions to simulate the bigger picture within which the battle occurs, but as it stands with MTW there is no such thing, and any level of caution or sonservation is unwarranted.

[Dionysus9]

Quote Originally posted by Magraev:
Obsess much Dionysos ?

Like in much conspiracy-theory you make some sense, but I still don't believe that Activision is so sneaky. After all they could have made us help them for free just by asking.[/QUOTE]

Yes I am utterly obsessed with the Total War series. It is an addiction for me.

First, this is not a conspiracy theory-- I'm talking about business practices which aren't illegal. True, they may be sneaky, but a "conspiracy" involves illegal conduct.

Second, they could have asked us to help but they would lose massive face if Activision came out publicly and said: "We need some help beta testing this patch, could the players please, please, help?" That would not be good for business.

In any case, it was a hypothesis that seems sound enough. The proof is in the pudding-- if the patch is complete, why, then, was it not officially released immediately?

If the patch needs more work, will we see a v1.1.1? nope. Will we see a v.1.2 anytime soon? nope. So this is the official patch, just not an official release? What sense does that make?

Edit: It makes perfect sense if you accept my hypothesis. It makes some sense if you accept Gil's. Does anyone have any other ideas?



[This message has been edited by Dionysus9 (edited 11-07-2002).]

[Kraellin]

in actual fact, the number of multiplayer players compared to single player players is MUCH less than 10%. in fact, it's under 1%. and no, i'm not just talking about the number of players that are playing in the foyer at one time. i'm talking about the total number of registered multiplayer players.

given that currently we see maybe 70 folks playing at any given moment in the foyer, and multiplaying that by say 10, or even 20, as the total number of registered players, and then taking that percentage of the total game sales, which is WELL over 100,000, you can easily see that the multi guys make up no better than 1% of the total sales.

sorry guys, but that's the case. and if i've erred in this, i'll almost guarantee that i've erred conservativly in favor of the multiplayer side.

so, if this were a democracy, there wouldnt even BE a multiplayer game. thank whomever at CA for including it :)

K.


------------------
http://home.domaindlx.com/takiyama/kraellin/icons-1.gif

[Dionysus9]

http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

[TomThumbKOP]

I think that's a well thought out analysis Kraellin. I don't play online a lot but when I do I always see some of the same names. This leads me to believe that the MP community is rather small all be it very vocal. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
"Well, once again my friend, we find that science is a two-headed beast. One head is nice, it gives us aspirin and other modern conveniences. . . but the other head of science is bad! Oh beware the other head of science, Arthur, it bites!"" - The Tick

[MagyarKhans Cham]

although MP may be small in size, its about 30% or more when it comes to advertising for the game.

"Massive multiplayer battles against your friends" and so on...

and how many online gamers didnt the game scared itself?

[TomThumbKOP]

I would expect it to have a disproportionate ad budget. The idea is to increase the market share. To do this you want to entice new MP players because less of the market is tapped. Note this makes it glaringly more obvious and appears even more stupid when there is a problem with the MP. People say "Why did you hype it so much then not develop it". I submit that this happens due to Activision not CA. There is always a struggle between engineering and marketing:
ENG: Here is the product and this is what it does.
MKT: We think this feature will get the most sales.
ENG: We put the least amount of effort into that feature. It isn't as good as it could be.
MKT: Would it be a lie to advertise the feature?
ENG: Well... no.
MKT: Good, this is now the best widget product in the world.
ENG: But its not the best. Its good but not the best.
MKT: Whose to quibble over best or not. You said we had the feature we say its the best.

I'm not saying this conversation ever happened, but I've seen similar scenarios often enough to know it is possible.

[hrvojej]

Also, people who play SP have in general less incentive to come to the forums, especially if they don't have any problems or they don't know that those can be solved this way, since it's a personal experience in the first place, and there's no need to find new enemies/allies/etc. Therefore, forums are not the actual representation of the customer community.
Some people play games for a challenge, while others play them for relaxation/fun/etc. Fun does not necessarily mean being the best out there and doesn't necessarily involve comptetitveness, plus a lot of people cannot dedicate enough time to games fro the ai to become a pushover for them in the first place.
What I personally like about the SP, is that we all have a common enemy, the blasted computer ai, while MP boils down to competitiveness. When I play a game, I want to get away from the competitive situations that happen in my real life, and not seek out even more of those.

[TomThumbKOP]

Well said. I never thought about it but I agree. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
"Well, once again my friend, we find that science is a two-headed beast. One head is nice, it gives us aspirin and other modern conveniences. . . but the other head of science is bad! Oh beware the other head of science, Arthur, it bites!"" - The Tick

[Hakonarson]

Originally posted by Dionysus9:
Quote Second, they could have asked us to help but they would lose massive face if Activision came out publicly and said: "We need some help beta testing this patch, could the players please, please, help?" That would not be good for business.
[/QUOTE]

Plenty of other games have patches tested by players - why would AV "lose face"?



[This message has been edited by Hakonarson (edited 11-07-2002).]

[BlackWatch McKenna]

All I am saying is that we are super lucky to have Devs posting on our forum!

[Dionysus9]

Well, Hak, if there are a lot of other games that use players to beta-test patches I am unaware of them (probably because I have been addicted to MP total war for a couple of years-- to the exclusion of all other games). Activision is reluctant to release patches compared to other companies (e.g. Blizzard), even when the players scream and cry for a patch. I believe (imo) this is a matter of saving face-- i.e. Activision doesn't want to admit the game could benefit from a patch. Multiple patches suggest (to some "backwards" publishers) an inferior product.

But, in any case, answer me this:

If Activision didn't stand to lose face by asking us to beta test for them, why didnt they ask us to do it? Edit: What other possible detriment could Activision suffer if they were to release the beta to us for testing? I cant think of any.

This community is full of people who are dedicated to the total war series and who would love the chance to test out a patch before it becomes official. We can run the patch through a variety of machines and operating systems, and really give it a good once/twice over. My guesses as to Activisions reasoning in not asking us to beta-test (aside from the "face" issue) are as follows:

A) they cant be bothered to beta test in the first place;
B) they don't think we will make objectively reasonable comments;
C) they don't want us to get riled up about improvements they do not intend to make;
D) or they don't care what our opinions are anyway;

What is your theory of the leaked patch, Hak? Do you buy Gil's theory? Do you have a thoery of your own? You obviously don't buy my thoery...

It just seems like a very strange situation to have the "official" patch "unofficially released", with all documentation and licensing in place, and yet absolutely no customer support behind it.

If I complain that this patch crashed my computer they will say -- Sorry, it was unofficial. If I copy parts of the patch and distribute it as a stand-alone game, I get sued for violating the license. Seems to me like they have the best of all possible worlds without having to take any responsibility for quality or customer support. To me that is a typical tactic for large companies--software oriented or otherwise.

Saving "face" is only part of the benefit they get from this "leaked quasi-official patch." Edit: Although I suppose it is somewhat embarrasing to have a "leak" in the first place.

[This message has been edited by Dionysus9 (edited 11-07-2002).]

[TomThumbKOP]

While I can agree with you that the end result is advantageous for AV, I don't think it was intentional. I can think of a huge reason not to use the random gaming community to beta test. There would be no test controls. When a player found a bug, they could ask him/her what their system configuration was and they would hope that the answer was accurate. If the answer was actually accurate, how would they re-create the system (this is the key in my experience to tracking down a bug). The bug must be reproducible to be fixable. To reproduce the problem, they would need to recreate someone elses system in every detail. This isn't feasible outside a controlled test environment imho.

------------------
"Well, once again my friend, we find that science is a two-headed beast. One head is nice, it gives us aspirin and other modern conveniences. . . but the other head of science is bad! Oh beware the other head of science, Arthur, it bites!"" - The Tick

[Dionysus9]

Quote Originally posted by hrvojej:
. . .When I play a game, I want to get away from the competitive situations that happen in my real life, and not seek out even more of those. . .[/QUOTE]

HR, I understand your point, and I agree the level of competition is potentially much higher in MP than SP. But so is the level of fun and relaxation. Not everyone online is a cutthroat, in fact the recent influx of new MP'ers has brought the level of competition below that of SP (imho).

The concept of a "Game" necissarily involves some competition. Obviously when you are playing SP you are competing against the AI. Your "fun & relaxation" is a result of this competition, and so we are essentially enjoying the same thing (albeit in differing amounts).

I'm not after competition so much as I am looking for a challenge. I do not find the AI particularly challenging in balanced tactical situations. Humans provide more challenge in balanced tactical situations, and it is very strange to my mind that the average player wouldn't gravitate to the biggest/best challenge.

I suppose there are a ton of people who play on easy, with all the cheat codes. I don't think their interest in any game lasts very long because there is a distinct lack of challenge. Human opponents have kept me interested and challenged for months on end. I'd encourage everyone to get online and try out some MP fun.

[Turbo]

Quote Originally posted by GilJaysmith:
Sorry to disappoint you with the facts, but:

GameSpy needs to test each game for Arcade and toolkit compatibility, so Activision has been sending GameSpy a copy of each patch build.

My assumption (which may be wrong) is that someone at GameSpy concluded that the final version they got for testing was also for release.

So they put it up on FilePlanet for download - because they own FilePlanet. They took it down the moment Activision contacted them and explained that it wasn't the release version.

Activision customer support, meanwhile, has to follow certain guidelines. If a patch comes out which hasn't been officially released, it has to be treated as beta, leaked, or unofficial - take your pick. The customer support guys have thus been following the script, which I guess tells them to disregard the specifics of a bug and tell you that installing beta patches is an unsupported activity. Which seems fair enough to me.

[/QUOTE]

Why hasn't Activision posted or even mentioned anything about a patch on their website if this is a genuine patch?

Dionysis9,

You're very devoted to your point of view. One (of the many I won't go into) reasons I eschew MP is that there is no tomorrow. Win or lose, there is no consequence, other than perhaps to one's ego. If I desire competition, I can play with my friends, face to face.

While the AI cannot perform at a human level, it does enough to make the game fun and make for often surprising circumstances.

For example, as the Egyptians I was defending a province in Russia (of all places) with an army I'd just bribed. Some Steppe Cav, 2 spears and a bunch of Horse Archers. I was attacked simultaneously by Novgorod and the French. The French had some crusader knights and both sides outnumbered me significantly.

Fortunately, there was a bridge. It was a terrific fight. My spears fought long and hard, being attacked by one and sometimes both sides (who were allied). Eventually, they began to shake and I brought up the second (and much smaller, only 42 men) spear unit. Then my general on his Steppe pony.

Just as my last spears routed, as my general's unit was down to half strength, the Novs routed. A moment later, the French followed. Both of their armies were so chewed up I could follow them and chase them from the field.

These sorts of unexpected results, the imbalanced victories and defeats aren't in MP. And, even if they were, without the greater context of managing and preserving one's empire, they wouldn't matter.

No, M:TW will not let me completely relive history. Whatever success or failure I experience would not accurately reflect reality, were I able to be there in the flesh, but, to whatever extent, it IS a facsimile and to that extent, immensely satifying.

Add to that putting the Pope to the flames, starting your own revolutions, all the other aspects of the game ...

As you find my position hard to understand, I find the idea of playing M:TW only to experience a small (and to my mind, the lessor) part of the game beyond my ken. I can't imagine wanting to do that, anymore than I'd want to cut off one of my limbs to see what that was like, even if it meant I got to use it to beat a competitor over the head with it.


Vaya con gusto,
V'ger gone

[This message has been edited by V'ger (edited 11-07-2002).]

[Richard the Slayer]

Quote Originally posted by Dionysus9:
HR, I understand your point, and I agree the level of competition is potentially much higher in MP than SP. But so is the level of fun and relaxation. Not everyone online is a cutthroat, in fact the recent influx of new MP'ers has brought the level of competition below that of SP (imho).

The concept of a "Game" necissarily involves some competition. Obviously when you are playing SP you are competing against the AI. Your "fun & relaxation" is a result of this competition, and so we are essentially enjoying the same thing (albeit in differing amounts).

I'm not after competition so much as I am looking for a challenge. I do not find the AI particularly challenging in balanced tactical situations. Humans provide more challenge in balanced tactical situations, and it is very strange to my mind that the average player wouldn't gravitate to the biggest/best challenge.

I suppose there are a ton of people who play on easy, with all the cheat codes. I don't think their interest in any game lasts very long because there is a distinct lack of challenge. Human opponents have kept me interested and challenged for months on end. I'd encourage everyone to get online and try out some MP fun.

[/QUOTE]

If hes looking for a challenge he should play checkers not MTW.

[Ticondarova]

Quote Originally posted by GilJaysmith:


(In case anyone's puzzled, I'm referring to 10% because that's what's generally used as the percentage of buyers who are interested in MP.)

Gil ~ CA[/QUOTE]

Really?, i think that is a very poor estimate despite what market research is done, I do love Sp games - CIV3, RPG but I get bored very quikly when the AI is way too dumb to compete, also I dont know anybody ( and I know hundreds who are active LAN'ers) who would not prefer to play there fav game MP with a friend ,even Ice Wind Dale 2 is better MP than SP, also consider the MP community in games like HalfLife CS? CS has the MOST of any MP community, I know people that their main game for YEARS has been CS, I have played from beta 7 to CS 1.5(current) and I can always go back to it because of its good MP gameplay - Hence 10% is not an accurate estimate of ppl who like to play MP compared to SP !!!!!

[Richard the Slayer]

Quote Originally posted by V'ger:
Dionysis9,

You're very devoted to your point of view. One (of the many I won't go into) reasons I eschew MP is that there is no tomorrow. Win or lose, there is no consequence, other than perhaps to one's ego. If I desire competition, I can play with my friends, face to face.

While the AI cannot perform at a human level, it does enough to make the game fun and make for often surprising circumstances.

For example, as the Egyptians I was defending a province in Russia (of all places) with an army I'd just bribed. Some Steppe Cav, 2 spears and a bunch of Horse Archers. I was attacked simultaneously by Novgorod and the French. The French had some crusader knights and both sides outnumbered me significantly.

Fortunately, there was a bridge. It was a terrific fight. My spears fought long and hard, being attacked by one and sometimes both sides (who were allied). Eventually, they began to shake and I brought up the second (and much smaller, only 42 men) spear unit. Then my general on his Steppe pony.

Just as my last spears routed, as my general's unit was down to half strength, the Novs routed. A moment later, the French followed. Both of their armies were so chewed up I could follow them and chase them from the field.

These sorts of unexpected results, the imbalanced victories and defeats aren't in MP. And, even if they were, without the greater context of managing and preserving one's empire, they wouldn't matter.

No, M:TW will not let me completely relive history. Whatever success or failure I experience would not accurately reflect reality, were I able to be there in the flesh, but, to whatever extent, it IS a facsimile and to that extent, immensely satifying.

Add to that putting the Pope to the flames, starting your own revolutions, all the other aspects of the game ...

As you find my position hard to understand, I find the idea of playing M:TW only to experience a small (and to my mind, the lessor) part of the game beyond my ken. I can't imagine wanting to do that, anymore than I'd want to cut off one of my limbs to see what that was like, even if it meant I got to use it to beat a competitor over the head with it.


Vaya con gusto,
V'ger gone

[This message has been edited by V'ger (edited 11-07-2002).][/QUOTE]

I really dont unserstand why its so complicated. Human players are smarter than the AI, end of discussion. The only point of playing SP is because of the campaign map, otherwise MP destroys SP. I think the reason so few people play MP is because most people send their 40 bucks, play it for 2 months then take it off their hardrive. The hardcore gamers who are borderline on obsessive and possibily insanity (myself included) play MP. Like those, MTW is a life and death struggle, not just a game. Sometimes I leave the house and go to the grocery store dressed in a full suite of armor.

[Richard the Slayer]

Quote Originally posted by Ticondarova:
Really?, i think that is a very poor estimate despite what market research is done, I do love Sp games - CIV3, RPG but I get bored very quikly when the AI is way too dumb to compete, also I dont know anybody ( and I know hundreds who are active LAN'ers) who would not prefer to play there fav game MP with a friend ,even Ice Wind Dale 2 is better MP than SP, also consider the MP community in games like HalfLife CS? CS has the MOST of any MP community, I know people that their main game for YEARS has been CS, I have played from beta 7 to CS 1.5(current) and I can always go back to it because of its good MP gameplay - Hence 10% is not an accurate estimate of ppl who like to play MP compared to SP !!!!!

[/QUOTE]

Your very wrong my friend. The other posts were accuarate in saying its less than 1%. In fact I would be SHOCKED to find out that MP players account for 1% of the owners of MTW. Its probably closer to .005% - think abotu it, the reason so many people here post on these forums is because they like to communicate with people online, which in turn there little wonder why so many posters are also MP players, they like communicating with people they dont know online. If you mean to tell me that 70 people playing MTW online account for 10% of sales, I would like to believe CA and Activison would have gone out of buisiness a long time ago.

[Richard the Slayer]

Quote Originally posted by Richard the Slayer:
If hes looking for a challenge he should play checkers not MTW.[/QUOTE]

I goofed on this post. I meant to say if hes not looking for a challenge he should play checkers not MTW. As you can see leaving out the word "not" changes the whole meaning of the statement. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

[LordKhaine]

MP accounts for very little %wise, most people who buy games wont go online to play it or talk about it.

Personally I usually much prefer multiplayer in games... but the tactical side to mtw is what I love. I just dislike fighting with troops I didnt train up myself. When/if MP works with the campaign system, I will fall over myself to play it online. Until then, im happy with the AI.

[Forward Observer]

Quote Originally posted by Richard the Slayer:
I goofed on this post. I meant to say if hes not looking for a challenge he should play checkers not MTW. As you can see leaving out the word "not" changes the whole meaning of the statement. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif[/QUOTE]

Actually I thought that you hadn't goofed. Checkers is a simple game to learn, but very difficult to truly master.

I grew up around checker players. My dad was a barber, and he ran what one would call today an "old timey barber shop".

My old man loved to play checkers, so he had 2 or 3 tables set up with tournament quality boards and checkers.

Several State, tri-state, and regional champions were regulars at my dad's shop and there were always 1 or 2 heated games going on, most any time of the day.

I got interested enough to go to the library to get a few books on checkers, and was amazed to see almost many books on the subject as there were on chess. Through a bit of study and memorization of opening moves, I could hold my own occasionally with some of the champs, but generally I got beat.

I eventually quit playing and pretty much forgot anything I learned. Besides at the time I had other interests being a teenager bursting with testosterone.

My point here and possibly yours too, is that many games have a depth of play that is never discovered, and therefore written off by many as not challenging.

Anyhow, here is a nice short article on checkers from the Smithsonian magazine:
http://www.smithsonianmag.si.edu/smithsonian/issues99/aug99/checkers.html

Cheers



------------------
Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl.

[Dionysus9]

Quote Originally posted by V'ger:
[B]Dionysis9,

You're very devoted to your point of view. One (of the many I won't go into) reasons I eschew MP is that there is no tomorrow. Win or lose, there is no consequence, other than perhaps to one's ego. If I desire competition, I can play with my friends, face to face.

While the AI cannot perform at a human level, it does enough to make the game fun and make for often surprising circumstances.

B][/QUOTE]

Hmmm... First let me say I agree the AI puts up a good fight, and if you give it some advantages it puts up a darn great fight. SP is fun for awhile, I like it, but its not the reason I bought MTW and its not the reason I am addicted to MTW.

Second, I think I understand what you mean by "One [of the many] . . . reasons I eschew MP is that there is no tomorrow. Win or lose, there is no consequence, other than perhaps to one's ego." I think I disagree. You are saying that the MP battles occur in isolation and there are no consequences to losing beyond the fact that you lost. Three responses:
1) We have been begging for MP campaign for a looong time. We've been assured it will never come. This sucks.
2) I think there are lots of consequences beyond ego. I learn from my mistakes. I improve my critical thinking, mulittasking, and creativity by playing human opponents.
3) At the risk of over-analysis--even SP has no "real" consequences beyond losing. You either win the campaign or lose it. It just takes longer. There are more decisions to be made in SP than in MP, but each decision is of less importance. MP decisions are each critical in and of themselves. I don't really see the distinction you are trying to draw between "consequences" in MP and SP--to me the consequences of bad decisions are the same-- you lose.

Third, I dont understand what you mean by" If I desire competition, I can play with my friends, face to face." That is, essentially, what I am doing when I play MP. I would love to play face to face with miniatures, but the complexity of tabletop wargames makes them too time consuming for me. I have a career to deal with, a wife, and children on the way--I dont have time to pour over rulebooks and roll dice all day. So, the closest "face to face" wargaming competition I can realisticaly have with friends is on MTW multiplayer.

Anyway, this is a great discussion and I hope to improve the % of MP players to 2%!

Please get online and check it out. The bugs are all liveable. The experience is unparalleled.

Bacchus

[MagyarKhans Cham]

good post Bachus

[Hakonarson]

Quote Originally posted by Dionysus9:
What is your theory of the leaked patch, Hak? Do you buy Gil's theory? Do you have a thoery of your own? You obviously don't buy my thoery...
[/QUOTE]

I don't have a theory - I'm too busy playing MTW, CMBB, DBAOL and Sim theme park to have time to build straw arguments about what soemone I don't know may or may not be thinking about something I know next to nothing about!! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

[Brown Wolf]

Well now we know that the patch was not supposed to come out. But when will the offical be out? I heard it was supposed to be announced this morning (or was it yesterday?) but I have heard nothing.




------------------
"No Comment"

[Magraev]

Comment about SP/MP:
I only play SP. I have no problem with MP, actually it can be fun, but I find SP much more relaxing. My main objective in most games is to win as elegantly as possible. I've played the TW series since it came out and I've never completed a campaign above normal difficulty. This is just how I have fun and that's all that matters.

Comment about conspiracy:
I belive Gil'd "theory" (actually I prefer to call it factual information). It would probably be totally impossible to sort the user-feedback if they let all users beta-test (massive moans and groans - what's relevant and what's not?).

[hrvojej]

Quote Originally posted by Richard the Slayer:
I goofed on this post. I meant to say if hes not looking for a challenge he should play checkers not MTW. As you can see leaving out the word "not" changes the whole meaning of the statement. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif[/QUOTE]

The same way that I can tell you to go play Chessmaster 9000, and tell me that the AI is always bad. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
As I stated numerous times, there is really no point in trying to persuade a person what should be fun and what shouldn't. Some people like rollercoasters, some people just get sick on them. Likewise, I am not saying that MP is not fun, I am just saying *I* don't see it as being fun for me. Furthermore, I am not saying that anybody or everybody should feel the same way as I do, not at all, but I do admit that I just don't respond overly well when people are trying to do the reverse, and tend not to have a high opinion about those attempts either.
I like spending my time off in a relaxing atmosphere, again with something that I consider relaxing, and challenging as well for that matter. I don't see MP as challenge, but merely as a competition, and I don't like the feeling that I have to prove anything to anybody. Well, at least I cannot relax while I am feeling it. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif Would I feel the satisfaction of accomplishing something by beating people in MP? Maybe. But this is not what I want to do with my free time.
I do, however, like talking with people about how to beat the "system", or the AI. The difference between anarchism and stormtrooperism is substanital in this case. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

[GilJaysmith]

Couple of comments:

We've got the exact number of people who've logged into GameSpy through MTW, or rather we've got the ability to determine it, and the last figure I heard was 5,000 about three weeks ago. On that basis it's certainly not 10% but it's not as low as 1%.

Counter-Strike has no single-player option, so using it as an example of MP market share is a bit risky. Compare CS players to Half-Life owners and 10% seems more plausible.

Gil ~ CA

[andrewt]

Multiplayer is around 10% for games like medieval. Giving Everquest and Counterstrike as rebuttals isn't valit since these games are multiplayer only.

Even games like Diablo2, Starcraft and Warcraft3 only have less than 10% sales for multiplayer. More than 90% only play single player, except in South Korea.

[Lord Romulous]

Quote Originally posted by GilJaysmith:
Couple of comments:

We've got the exact number of people who've logged into GameSpy through MTW, or rather we've got the ability to determine it, and the last figure I heard was xxxxx about three weeks ago. On that basis it's certainly not 10% but it's not as low as 1%.

Gil ~ CA[/QUOTE]

gil....u might want to keep some things to yourself man http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

By this little bit of information is not hard to make a guesstimate of how many sales mtw has made. arnt you supposed to keep that sort of info under wraps ?

thanks for all the support u have and hopefuly will continue to give us gamers.



[This message has been edited by Lord Romulous (edited 11-08-2002).]

[Ticondarova]

While U can point to figures that show relative % on whois online with Gamespy and sales made, a valid comparison. My point was on the focus that good strong MP component has on a game. CS doesnt have a SP desigend into th MOD, (even though condition Zero is being developed)it is THE most played online game, nothing comes close, u cant despute that - MUDS may come close?, also that MP keeps a game going far longer than good SP, which is important dont get me wrong, I can think of many games that are poor becasue of a lack of thought in SP. I think of it like this... if only 1% play your game only line then in 1 year u will have 1 % playing it... CAn u play SP over and over and over? (MTW is good, I do like it but my point is on the POWER of MP). Other games bear this point out, think for yourself... So if u make a excellant SP game MTW is that but expect it to in the works later? dont think so..., CS, Everquest, Diablo 2, whatever, may have less 'calculated sales for MP' but they are still played a lot longer for that MP thrill...
THATS my point.

Take Total Annihilation - old as the hills and yet there is still an active MP community

[barocca]

In my opinion using the server as an accurate representation of how many people play MP is not accurate.

I am part of an IT community here,
there are perhaps 150 of us who met throguh TAFE or Univeristy, we play games at LAN Fests on a more or less regular basis, someone, somewhere is holding a LAN fest every other weekend all year long.
(my ICQ contact list is SIX screens deep)

At these fests will be from 10 to 50 people, sometimes we hire a hall, most times we simply camp out in the backyard in a forest of pup tents and setup our LANS under the house.
What you may need to know about where i live is the whole town is on a flood plain, almost every house is on stilts, almost every house has a full concrete slab underneath, many are walled in to some extent.

At these fests we play a huge variety of games, of that 150 odd people half own Shogun Total war, a slightly smaller group also own Warlords, and a dozen or so own Medieval.
Of all the people that own a Total War Game TWO are registered to play online.
Only TWO.
The rest play muliplayer, and some of them are damn good at it, but they only play using a local copy of fakeserver or at LAN's.

How many of you know people who own a copy but never explore Multiplayer?
Every person I know with a copy plays MP, but only 2 out of 80 odd are registered online,
for the most part the others do not like the aggressive nature of the online MP community.

I myself play Starcraft, Unreal Tournament, Battlegrounds, Civ, Hexen, Quake, Warcraft and several more Multiplayer,
but NEVER online.
TotalWar is the ONLY game i play online.

So (IMHO) using the server stats to guage an accurate representation of those who use the Multiplayer aspect is fraught with danger.

[Dionysus9]

Quote Originally posted by Lord Romulous:
gil....u might want to keep some things to yourself man http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

By this little bit of information is not hard to make a guesstimate of how many sales mtw has made. arnt you supposed to keep that sort of info under wraps ?

thanks for all the support u have and hopefuly will continue to give us gamers.

[This message has been edited by Lord Romulous (edited 11-08-2002).][/QUOTE]


I dont think he gave away all that much. 1-10% is quite a range....

[sbreden]

I would wager that the people who enjoy the sp over mp would be more apt to enjoy rpgs more. SP MTW has a similar flavor. Any thoughts?

I am drawn to the SP for the sense of development and progress in my forces. The vices and virtues bring this to a new level. I really have a great time deploying that elite force that has taken me hours to create. For this reason, I agree that it is this sense of "consequence" and therefore the epic movie-like drama that can result when playing SP that make it addictive. You know that "once more into the breech!" type feeling, that's where this game really excels.

[This message has been edited by sbreden (edited 11-08-2002).]

[ToranagaSama]

Quote Originally posted by sbreden:
I would wager that the people who enjoy the sp over mp would be more apt to enjoy rpgs more. SP MTW has a similar flavor. Any thoughts?

I am drawn to the SP for the sense of development and progress in my forces. The vices and virtues bring this to a new level. I really have a great time deploying that elite force that has taken me hours to create. For this reason, I agree that it is this sense of "consequence" and therefore the epic movie-like drama that can result when playing SP that make it addictive. You know that "once more into the breech!" type feeling, that's where this game really excels.

[This message has been edited by sbreden (edited 11-08-2002).][/QUOTE]

Personally, RPG have NO appeal to me. Chris Taylor, my personal game g_d, creater of Total Annihilation, mistakenly put his considerable talents to a RPG called Dungeon Siege.....Yukkkk....almost bought it just because he had done it, and it has beautiful graphics and an (allegedly) absolutely incredible Engine, but......I just hate all that Fantasy Magic stuff. Guess, I'm just too rooted in reality.

Agree, with you very much about "Sense" that you get from the game. Shogun truly made me feel like a Damiyo, a Great Lord out on the frontier claiming and defending my own.

Its great to have a FULL stack, armoured, balanced army, hit the battlefield and have the Japanese music kick in with all the drums and stuff. You can just feel yourself at the head of a great army, your army, ALL totally loyal to you. Marching to to ascert your dominance.....
hahahahaha....ok..ok..back to reality.

This, this, can't think of what to call it, along with the genre shift of Strategy w. Real Time battles, and the Battle Engine itself, are Creative Assembly's great achievements. Thanks! for Shogun: Total War.

Though, for me, Medieval just doesn't cut it the same. Guess, I'm just not the medieval type; or maybe its that they left out stuff that creates (oh, that's what I was trying to say above) ATMOSPHERE!! MTW just doesn't measure up to STW in the Atmospher department, even with the much improved maps! Like I said, maybe I'm just NOT the medieval type.

If it weren't for all the Strat Map improvements and other improvements to Total War itself, I go back to playing STW.

I truly hope, the SERIOUSLY plan on importing the improvements over to STW. That'd be great for Christmas, then in a couple of months they can do an Add-On for MTW.

That should give em enough resources to build some new engines ANDDDDDDD finally give us Campaign Multiplay. I tell ya right now, if they come out with new Engines and no C-MP----->I won't buy it!!!

Yada yada yada

[sbreden]

I have to agree with you on the point of atmosphere, Toranaga. I am still playing stw as well (mainly because my girlfriend has my old pIII and that's one of the few games I can run while at her place) and I still really enjoy it. Some updated release of STW would be sweet. I'm not exactly sure what MTW could do to capture the same feeling that STW gives you though. The whole subject deals with many intangibles. Any thoughts out there?

[ToranagaSama]

Just want to agree, with the comments that you can't trust the figures from Online server.

I mean are you counting the folks who actually "play" a game? Or, folks that pop into the Lobby? Just because you popped into the Lobby doesn't mean you played a game. Also, just because you played a few games doesn't mean your a MP player.

What should really be counted are the number players that are true "Repeat" players. I'd say, play at least once a week. Now, what percentage is that?

It all boils down to the fact that, CA's current MP "company" strategy isn't "entirely successful". Resources should not be wasted further (other than totally correcting the present server problems) on "Tactical" Multiplay (Something called "Good Will"). I believe I've previously posted my diatribe on this. It's NOT what the community wants.

We want Campaign Multiplay. We want to set up our OWN servers. We want greatly improved "Strategy AI". We want "full" EU/Civ type Strategy elements (take the genre to a new level)

CA's original intentions and efforts to provide a Campaign Multiplay environment should NEVER have been abandoned. They should have continued to commit people and resources. Having had them work on it all this time, maybe, just maybe, we'd have it by now.

HINT: So GilJaySmith (and others??) are finished with Tactical Multiplay?? GOOD!

Give him a couple more people, and lets get moving on building some "tools" for TW3: Campaign Multiplay.

Need to put some one, pronto, on the AI now as well.

Target Release Date: Between Christimas 2003 and Late Summer (usual release date) 2004.

In the meantime, it'd be "relatively" simple to update STW and do an Add-On for MTW to keep the cash flow going and the players occupied.

We've paid our money, stayed loyal, in spite of the C-MP renege and, don't mean to be insulting, "bugged" Tactical MP (or whatever the heck is the problem).

I think CA owes us one.

Oh, and this time, don't forget the Throne Room, don't forget the Cut Scenes, and don't forget the real live Human Expert Advisor to provide all the History stuff!!! Educate and Entertain should be a CA credo!! I loved that stuff in STW.

Oh, and ahhhh...go ahead charge another $10 or $15 dollars by all means!! Crap, if the kiddies can pay a $100 bucks for a pair of sneakers then....

Awwww...wtf!

Sometimes is just awful to love a game.

[Dionysus9]

Quote Originally posted by ToranagaSama:
. . .If it weren't for all the Strat Map improvements and other improvements to Total War itself, I go back to playing STW.

I truly hope, the SERIOUSLY plan on importing the improvements over to STW. That'd be great for Christmas, then in a couple of months they can do an Add-On for MTW.

That should give em enough resources to build some new engines ANDDDDDDD finally give us Campaign Multiplay. I tell ya right now, if they come out with new Engines and no C-MP----->I won't buy it!!!

Yada yada yada

[/QUOTE]


Im with you man, we need to get some Nodachi in Sicily! I also agree that the improvements in game interface make it hard to "go back" to STW. If those improvements were imported to STW and STW was enhanced a bit (better strat map, SP stuff, etc.) I would pay another $40 for a STW expansion. Crazy of me, but I would.

I'm not too interested in the next TW offering .... but I'm not going to say I wouldnt buy it. I'm just too addicted to this game to think rationally about it.

[ToranagaSama]

Quote Originally posted by Magraev:
My main objective in most games is to win as elegantly as possible. [/QUOTE]

Elegantly....good word!!

I'm having the darndest time trying to complete a MTW campaign. I keep going back and trying new stuff and methods.

Its like I'm in search of the "perfect" game or something. Sooo much I haven't tried yet. Haven't yet played a Muslim faction.

[sbreden]

Quote Originally posted by ToranagaSama:
Just want to agree, with the comments that you can't trust the figures from Online server.

I mean are you counting the folks who actually "play" a game? Or, folks that pop into the Lobby? Just because you popped into the Lobby doesn't mean you played a game. Also, just because you played a few games doesn't mean your a MP player.

What should really be counted are the number players that are true "Repeat" players. I'd say, play at least once a week. Now, what percentage is that?

It all boils down to the fact that, CA's current MP "company" strategy isn't "entirely successful". Resources should not be wasted further (other than totally correcting the present server problems) on "Tactical" Multiplay (Something called "Good Will"). I believe I've previously posted my diatribe on this. It's NOT what the community wants.

We want Campaign Multiplay. We want to set up our OWN servers. We want greatly improved "Strategy AI". We want "full" EU/Civ type Strategy elements (take the genre to a new level)

CA's original intentions and efforts to provide a Campaign Multiplay environment should NEVER have been abandoned. They should have continued to commit people and resources. Having had them work on it all this time, maybe, just maybe, we'd have it by now.

HINT: So GilJaySmith (and others??) are finished with Tactical Multiplay?? GOOD!

Give him a couple more people, and lets get moving on building some "tools" for TW3: Campaign Multiplay.

Need to put some one, pronto, on the AI now as well.

Target Release Date: Between Christimas 2003 and Late Summer (usual release date) 2004.

In the meantime, it'd be "relatively" simple to update STW and do an Add-On for MTW to keep the cash flow going and the players occupied.

We've paid our money, stayed loyal, in spite of the C-MP renege and, don't mean to be insulting, "bugged" Tactical MP (or whatever the heck is the problem).

I think CA owes us one.

Oh, and this time, don't forget the Throne Room, don't forget the Cut Scenes, and don't forget the real live Human Expert Advisor to provide all the History stuff!!! Educate and Entertain should be a CA credo!! I loved that stuff in STW.

Oh, and ahhhh...go ahead charge another $10 or $15 dollars by all means!! Crap, if the kiddies can pay a $100 bucks for a pair of sneakers then....

Awwww...wtf!

Sometimes is just awful to love a game.[/QUOTE]

ABSOLUTELY!!! has anyone played the multiplayer Civ offering and how can it be done for TW? This would break this game wide open.

[ToranagaSama]

Quote Originally posted by Ticondarova:
While U can point to figures that show relative % on whois online with Gamespy and sales made, a valid comparison. My point was on the focus that good strong MP component has on a game. CS doesnt have a SP desigend into th MOD, (even though condition Zero is being developed)it is THE most played online game, nothing comes close, u cant despute that - MUDS may come close?, also that MP keeps a game going far longer than good SP, which is important dont get me wrong, I can think of many games that are poor becasue of a lack of thought in SP. I think of it like this... if only 1% play your game only line then in 1 year u will have 1 % playing it... CAn u play SP over and over and over? (MTW is good, I do like it but my point is on the POWER of MP). Other games bear this point out, think for yourself... So if u make a excellant SP game MTW is that but expect it to in the works later? dont think so..., CS, Everquest, Diablo 2, whatever, may have less 'calculated sales for MP' but they are still played a lot longer for that MP thrill...
THATS my point.

Take Total Annihilation - old as the hills and yet there is still an active MP community[/QUOTE]

Playing longer isn't the point!! Making money is? That 1% still playing, anybody making any money off them?

CAn u play SP over and over and over?

Short answer? YES!

[GilJaysmith]

Quote Originally posted by ToranagaSama:
Playing longer isn't the point!! Making money is? That 1% still playing, anybody making any money off them?

CAn u play SP over and over and over?

Short answer? YES!

[/QUOTE]


The point is, how many *extra* people will play the game if it has an extra feature which costs money. An expensive feature which draws in a few hundred people won't get added. A cheap feature which draws in millions is an obvious win. Figuring out where a feature lies on that scale is tricky, particularly since no-one ever admits that the view opposite to their own might be correct ;-)

[ToranagaSama]

Quote Originally posted by barocca:
...for the most part the others do not like the aggressive nature of the online MP community.
[/QUOTE]

Totally agree!

As exhibited by all that "clan" warfare stuff that made in onto this forum.

Dionysus, do you think the attitude you've exhibited in this thread is "inviting"???

Quite the contrary!

I mean who started it in this thread and who ALWAYS starts the My "preferred" Gameplay Type is better than Yours stuff?

Wasn't a SPer, that's for sure.

[Puzz3D]

ToranagaSama,

Don't include me in your "we". I want a better MTW tactical game. The MP battles are awesome when they are properly balanced, and they are incredibly frustrating to me when they are not balanced because I know how good the gameplay can be from my experiences with WE/MI v1.03.

[LHeggland]

The thing that kills MP for me is all the time spent waiting between games/Crashes/Lost Connections. This has been my experience with most MP games I have played online. The only one that could hold my attention online was Mech Commander league play. On the other hand the SP campain in MTW is first rate.

[Dionysus9]

Quote Originally posted by ToranagaSama:
. . .

Dionysus, do you think the attitude you've exhibited in this thread is "inviting"???

Quite the contrary!

I mean who started it in this thread and who ALWAYS starts the My "preferred" Gameplay Type is better than Yours stuff?

Wasn't a SPer, that's for sure.

[/QUOTE]

Lol, I think my attitude has been inviting. Certainly not uninviting. The only thing I said which might suggest otherwise is that it amazes me 90% of players are satisfied with only SP and its less than adaptive/creative AI. That is true-- I am amazed.

Everything else I have stated is either conjecture or opinion. I don't believe I have been hostile to SP players in this thread. I am a bit abrasive, but that is just my personality.

So it seems you do not like me because of my personality and opinions (and/or how I express both). Well, thats fine-- that is your personality and opinion. I have no problem with that.

I hope I have not freightned you away from my favorite aspect of MTW. I am probably one of the most abrasive players on MP that isn't just being obnoxious, so please don't judge the rest of our fine MP crew based on my personality or opinions.

Edit: I'm not saying "Im better than you." I'm not saying "my game play style is better than yours." I'm saying "I love MP and I am suprised more people dont."



I would be honored to do battle against such a fine general as yourself, and I hope you will accept my invitation to join us in MP.

Bacchus

(is that even the tiniest bit more inviting?)
Edit: probably not

[This message has been edited by Dionysus9 (edited 11-08-2002).]

[This message has been edited by Dionysus9 (edited 11-08-2002).]

[hrvojej]

Well, Dionysus, I must say that I disagree that your style isn't sufficiently inviting. Even though I have never played MP in any game, I must say that I am slightly interested in giving it a try with MTW. What a blasphemous thought, I know.... http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/redface.gif http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
But, since there is a lot of discussion about percentages going in this thread, I will dare to ask a provocative question, and see whether I get a response:
What would be the chance of me randomly selecting an opponent in MP, and fighting a battle against somebody such as yourself or Puzz, as opposed to me running into somebody who just enjoys "raping" (what an expression... http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/rolleyes.gif ) the newbies?

[Dionysus9]

Lol. You assume I dont enjoy raping newbs....

Well, you are right, I dont, I really do prefer a challenge and the best way to ensure future challenges is to increase the level of play overall, so I help new players as much as I can.

I agree my tone was not the most inviting, as I am somewhat frustrated over the level of multiplayer support we have not recieved. That frustration is directed at the parties who have retained my $40, and not at anyone else (esp. not potential Multiplayers!).

Anyway, your question-- I guess you are asking-- what is the chance I will find an experienced player willing to help me. Chances are pretty good if you ask around in the lobby. I'm always taking people under my wing if they ask.

If you just join a 1v1 without asking, you can get a mixed bag. You might get someone that is even greener than yourself and you might whallop them. You might get someone who doesn't know you are a little new and they might whallop you and be a jerk about it.

Edit: If you join a 3v3 or 4v4 and dont mention you are a newbie, some people may rag on you for not pulling your weight in the battle. I see this now and then and its unfortunate. I can normally tell the difference between an inexperienced commander and one who is just too lazy to help his allies.

I would suggest asking around in the multiplayer lobby. Just say you are new to MP and you'd like some pointers. Most people will be willing to help (especially samurai from Shogun). Another thing to be aware of--there are french, spanish, italian, and many german speaking players online. Sometimes they try speaking in English and come off as being offensive without meaning to. You gotta cut those guys some slack.

The best advise I can give you re: playing MP is-- Help your allies and communicate with them! I can not stress this enough. If you are playing a 4v4 against 4 guys who work together, and your team doesnt, you are going to get crushed. They will gang up on one of you and then its 4v3. They gang up on another and then its 4v2. You have to help your allies and cover their flanks in MP.

Anyway, I hope to see you online. I'd like to help anyone who is interesting in playing MP.

Bacchus

[This message has been edited by Dionysus9 (edited 11-08-2002).]

[MagyarKhans Cham]

Lheggland, ur right