TW5 SP vs MP

[Yun Dog]

This is based on a precedence set over at Stardock the developers of the Galactic Civs 2 game posted a lengthy argument for why they would never be including an MP component with Galactic Civs 2. The primary reason they gave was that to devote resources and time to MP would diminish the resources available for the SP game and they believed the numbers who would actually play MP didnt warrent any investment in it in its own right, and the community agreed this should not be at the cost of the SP game.

http://forums.galciv2.com/?forumid=162&aid=98074

So as a bit of a hypothical
Given the problems which some people believe the MP game has. I think its reasonable to assume that the piggybacking of MP onto Total war games does have an impact on the SP game and visa vie. Were CA to say for the next title they were considering dropping MP completely to concentrate on improving the SP game, and to enable them to commit more resources to the SPTW game.


How would you feel?

edit - your right thx for that - damn cant seem to change to poll title - ce la vie

[Sheogorath]

1 Shogun
2 Medieval
3 Rome
4 Medieval 2

The next one is Total War FIVE people.

In regards to the actual topic at hand...

I personally never got into multiplayer. People are dicks most of the time and, for me at least, I either end up facing some over-blown idiot who spends all his time working out exploits or some total n00b who I spend most of the game explaining the concept of moving ones units to.
*shrug*
Current TW multiplayer is fine by me. A multiplayer campaign is fine as well, I suppose, even though it'd take forever. If it doesnt take away from the development of the ACTUAL game, its fine with me.

[Shieldmaiden]

I voted b) though I've only tried MP a few times and not even enjoyed it particularly.

I believe CA should include MP - if feasible - the thrill of fighting other live people is the 1 thing you can't program into SP.

[Lorenzo_H]

Both. Single player should have preference though.

[Daaraa]

I voted A.

MP could be fun but as others have said, MP usually leads to extreme gameplay types.

The ones who exploit and go all nutso.

And the ones who don't have half a clue why their Light Cavalry got eaten alive by Armoured Sergeants even though they charged them head on. (I actually had one person accuse me of cheating when this happened. This was one of the last times I tried MP)

[Louis VI the Fat]

I am for improving SP and if that means dropping MP so be it. :yes:

99% of my time playing games is SP. For all my favourite games, there is a loud, vocal minority demanding better MP. This minority dominates the devoted fan-sites of most games, which can create the false impression that most fans want better MP first and foremost. But I think that in reality, outside of the hardcore fanbase, most gamers spend the overwhelming amount of their playing time playing SP.

[atheotes]

I am for improving SP and if that means dropping MP so be it.[/I]

MP is good only if you know the people you play with...

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

I am for improving SP and if that means dropping MP so be it. :yes:

99% of my time playing games is SP. For all my favourite games, there is a loud, vocal minority demanding better MP. This minority dominates the devoted fan-sites of most games, which can create the false impression that most fans want better MP first and foremost. But I think that in reality, outside of the hardcore fanbase, most gamers spend the overwhelming amount of their playing time playing SP.


But what about games like BF2/2142, where The Most Fun IS on MP. No fun playing AI when you can fight Good Humans.

Same for Total War. Everyone make Excuses like:

No Time (Family,Bad Sickness,etc....)
N00bs,pee pee heads,etc....
only good for people you know....


etc....

but that's untrue.

playing MP is not a everyday job. Just look at some people on this fourm, I only see them playing MP once a week for 2 hours or so.

Number 2, Yes, there are arrogant disrespectfull new players and even arrogant older players, (but if you can't handle them, how can some of you people handle each other in the BackRoom?:no: ) You can just ignore them!


Number3, you DON'T need to have a friend to play a MP game! I play BF2 with No Friends, and it's just as fun. Total War is just as fun with playing with a friend then without it.


That why I hate these type of threads,when 99.9 percent of totalwar .org poplutation is SP orianted, it's hard to get you point across when you a MP player like myself.


IMO, MP is the ONLY Way to show you true skill. Fighting against the AI takes no skill, Fighting against a MP player does.:2thumbsup:

[Yun Dog]

Some good replys there people

Im hoping to gets some good numbers by posting this in the EH so keep the votes coming

remember theres no such thing as a wrong opinion

[Chaos Cornelius lucius]

I agree with Warman,
I played MTW for about 2 yrs on SP and I considered myself quite a good player on it. I tried MP and discovered how wrong I was:oops: . Fight against an AI enough times and you can predict what it will do fairly accurately. Fighting against other people is the main thing that has kept me playing the total war series. I enjoy playing the campaigns a lot, but the battles pale against a good online game.
True you do get disrespectful and arrogant players in the games and lobby, but quite honestly you get them everywhere. The internet just gives them an anonymous soupbox to shout from.

Personally if the next TW game had no MP aspect I would not buy it.

[King Kurt]

The strength of the whole TW series has been the combination of the strategic campaign and tactical battles. The campaign is the province of SP play, but the tactical battles must benefit from input from the MP scene. I don'y play MP - barely have time to do SP - but both parts of the equation is important. I get the feeling that the quality of the campaign game has been second best in the rush for good looking graphics - but that is not down to MP I think. I don't think that excluding MP would necessary address that.

[Noir]

Voted for MP needs improvement.

I joined the online game very late after many years of SP only play. While the SP in fine and nice, there is no comparison to MP games (particularly team games) IMO. However the MP game is very sensitive to design and engine workings - it needs to be balanced all around to bring the best of the game out. Basically the design and the engine have to provide: absence of exploits, immediate and proper unit response to command, proper unit visibility in large scale.

For example 200+ units spices up SP, however MP suffers - the range of the engine doesn't seem able to justify the existance of so many units in only 4 roles (cavalry/melee/spears/shooters). For another example different size units make balancing the game harder for the developer. Command response and unit visibility are prime for MP play while a first person perspective, advanced animations and questionable long distance sprites are MP killers. SP players aren't really bothered by all of that - most seem to play the game for roleplaying - historical daydream anyway (which is good) and not as a tactical exercise/competition.

The MP game is now as unpopular as ever it seems - especially proportionally to the fanbase's numbers. However, IMO its a catch 22 type of thing: MP was neglected for quite some time and so the regulars that are absolutely necessary to give rise to an online community (can't play MP coming from SP without someone showing you how to - the first 20-30 battles are just an introduction - one gets usually slaughtered repeatedly - perhaps after 100/200 battles one knows enough in order not to "beat himself"), are mostly gone.

I play something around 3 to 5 hours MP every week: all i can say is that in such a time i get vastly superior great battles in quantity and quality -by playing SP i would proportionally need more than 2 weeks of full-time play to get the same number of challenging (non chore) battles and they would still be less satisfying, challenging and fun than those that MP provides.

Separating the two parts of the game and have a team dedicated to MP matters only might help. TW set a standard with the depth of the tactical battles that is currently wasted IMO. Its a crying shame.

Many Thanks

Noir

[R'as al Ghul]

Here's another vote for "Improve MP".
Also, I second everything that Noir has said.
Actually the two of us played together in a 2v2 game on MTW/VI (+ Samurai Warlords) yesterday and had great fun. The battle lasted about 40 mins and was very difficult. The strength of the players was so balanced that both teams had to work really hard to get an advantage. Until 5 mins before the battle ended it was uncertain which team would get the upper hand.

I also came rather late to Multiplayer and I can only recommend it to everybody who's enjoying the battles.
Tactically it takes you to a completely different playing level, even in 1v1 but where the game really shines is in 3v3 or 4v4 on VI's huge maps.

I agree that the game works both ways, SP and MP. SP-only people will probably think that MP is irrelevant and vice versa.
I've been an SP player myself until I logged onto STW one night. I was warmly welcomed and quickly assimilated into a very nice group (~:wave: ShinGaijin). MTW was the exact opposite, a huge lobby with about 80-100 people at that time and a lot of swearing and spamming in the lobby. You could hardly chat using the public chat. But when you're new, that's all you have. I was a bit reluctant to "PM" other players and I didn't know how to in the beginning. I then hosted a game by myself with a title like "Kick the noob" or sth and did some 1v1 games that way. Needless to say I got my derriére kicked. But I've learned some important things that way. When I finally joined Team games I noticed they are a totally different thing again with all the positioning, double attacking and the chaos of 128 units on the field. But after playing several battles, you begin to understand what's going on and you begin to be defeated by your opponent instead of by yourself. Which is an important step to eventually winning a game.
And when you finally win, it's so much more gratifying than beating a stupid AI.

BTW, MTW-VI as well as STW can both still be played online.
Come and join us.

R'as

[danfda]

The primary reason I voted for "SP at the expense of MP" is because I generally autoresolve my battles. Most of you will immediately disregard me now that I've said that, but I play the TW series for the strategic angle much more than the tactical. I'm not saying MP is bad, or useless, or unnecessary, or a distraction, but since I don't play SP battles, I certainly don't play the MP variety. I'm a bad enough general as it is. And since I don't play MP, I want a vastly improved SP mode; this is an opinion poll, after all. :)

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Here's another vote for "Improve MP".
Also, I second everything that Noir has said.
Actually the two of us played together in a 2v2 game on MTW/VI (+ Samurai Warlords) yesterday and had great fun. The battle lasted about 40 mins and was very difficult. The strength of the players was so balanced that both teams had to work really hard to get an advantage. Until 5 mins before the battle ended it was uncertain which team would get the upper hand.

I also came rather late to Multiplayer and I can only recommend it to everybody who's enjoying the battles.
Tactically it takes you to a completely different playing level, even in 1v1 but where the game really shines is in 3v3 or 4v4 on VI's huge maps.

I agree that the game works both ways, SP and MP. SP-only people will probably think that MP is irrelevant and vice versa.
I've been an SP player myself until I logged onto STW one night. I was warmly welcomed and quickly assimilated into a very nice group (~:wave: ShinGaijin). MTW was the exact opposite, a huge lobby with about 80-100 people at that time and a lot of swearing and spamming in the lobby. You could hardly chat using the public chat. But when you're new, that's all you have. I was a bit reluctant to "PM" other players and I didn't know how to in the beginning. I then hosted a game by myself with a title like "Kick the noob" or sth and did some 1v1 games that way. Needless to say I got my derriére kicked. But I've learned some important things that way. When I finally joined Team games I noticed they are a totally different thing again with all the positioning, double attacking and the chaos of 128 units on the field. But after playing several battles, you begin to understand what's going on and you begin to be defeated by your opponent instead of by yourself. Which is an important step to eventually winning a game.
And when you finally win, it's so much more gratifying than beating a stupid AI.

BTW, MTW-VI as well as STW can both still be played online.
Come and join us.

R'as


second that.

Like on Samurai Walords Beta 8, I also argeed. I played TosaInu yesterday in 2 1v1's, and we had to fight very well to get the upper hand,and you won't actually know who might win untill you see the units routing.

Yea, when I frist came to the VI foyer in 2004 (unpatched server), I was greeted also by a (small 30 man group,15 at that time I remember), and you know,it was nice. I came to the 2.01 patch that July, and I barley got done looking at the player list and seeing all these clans like Aggony or 7Bear, then I saw some flame wars going on,etc...

no matter what MP game you play, you will always see idoits.LIke Chaos saids.I play BF2 when I quit TW for awhile (to regain new tatcis and a good break), and I seen alot of idoits there, but I also seen more good people, who actually listen, (only because you have 20-30000 people on BF2, compare to Total War).

[Weebeast]

I've played MP it was fun as much as playing campaign with AI. Well, they're like bacon and eggs. I like them both as they both taste good but they taste different. They both are good source of protein and fat, just different amount present in them.

Total War has always been "that TBS game that has real-time battle." MP campaign was once a dream of mine. Then I realized I won't be able to enjoy it anyway due to obvious reasons. I prefer to keep MP feat but SP comes first. Cheers

edit- Then again it depends on what kinda SP improvement we're talking about here that warrants MP removal lol. AI won't be "smart" and you can only tweak it so much. They're like calculators, always give same results all the time. They're predictable and that makes them seem stupid. There's work around and one of them is just get over it that thing. Another one is just stop playing to win. That attitude works for me. I'm still playing MTWvi and currently have Fall of Rome 3.1. I'm still having fun. RTW covers an interesting part a small piece of history and it was nice to see a new engine and graphic but then meh I wasn't looking forward to MTW2.

[Martok]

I voted that MP is nice but that the singleplayer game needs improvement. And to be honest, I would've voted for multiplayer to be eliminated entirely, except that I realize that's not really an option. While I myself have little use for it, there's probably still enough players who want MP to warrant keeping it, despite MP'ers being a relatively small fraction of the total fanbase.

I would *love* it if MP were expanded to finally include campaigns, but I know that realistically it's probably never going to happen. Given that, I think CA should do everything they can to improve the singleplayer portion. As King Kurt said, the main strength of the TW series has been the combination of both the strategic campaign and tactical battles. So I'm all for the singleplayer aspects of the game being the best they can possibly be. :yes: