-
Since apparently no one read this thread: http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum7/HTML/001776.html
I was wondering if it would be possible to change how spawning is handled, to help with multiplayer balance, especially considering balance and fairness in matches and tournaments.
The best way to handle spawning for multiplayer would be to divide the map into thirds - one third at each end for each team to spawn in and the center third as a "NoMansLand" area that cannot be spawned in to prevent rushing.
This eliminates the silly 2vs1 that occurs on each edge of a 4v4 battle because the spawns are poorly placed in this manner:
code:
111
2 1
222[/QUOTE]
This leaves each side with an imbalanced side right off the bat, plus it is silly that the spawns bump right up against the other team's spawns. The empty center space is actually shared by the center members of each team as their spawns bump up against each other, allowing rushing.
And aside from fixing those problems, it would also allow for teammates to better coordinate their armies together in battle, (and if we're playing Faction Wars it would make a lot more sense if everyone on our team is playing the same faction that we all start in the same area).
So in summary, if possible, change the way spawning is handled - perhaps have one spawn area for each team (instead of each player)that each cover one third of the map, and in which each player on that team can place their units.
Quote
TeamOneSpawn
NoMansLand
TeamTwoSpawn[/QUOTE]
This fixes the odd layout of spawns in an 8player game, the frustrating distancing between teammates preventing true working together, and prevents rushing.
Actually, I'm curious why spawning in multiplayer wasn't done this way from the beginning. Thanks.
[This message has been edited by JRock (edited 09-21-2002).]
-
Totally agree. Your solution sounds plausible...whatever...something definitely needs to be done.
-
personally i am quite comfortable with the current system,
If you are the front man for your team your job is to hold your ground,
111
2 1
-
So essentially you happen to like everything that's wrong with the current setup, LOL.
Here's more reasons why it would be better for it to change:
More variety. I dunno about you guys, but I'm tired of having the same old spawns. I'd rather have the freedom to set up anywhere within my team's third of the field.
Plus I can interact with my teammates better. If we play Faction Wars, we can split up and each focus on one aspect - one take cav units, another take missile units, another focus on spears/pikes, and the last focus on shock troops. If we're allowed to set up together, we can actually form a proper army instead of being spread all over the map like it is currently.
Also it removes the current issue on some maps where spawns are sliced off by map features such as cliffs and coastlines, and even forests.
And finally, if you think dividing the battlefield into thirds is too distant between the two armies, make it 2/5ths for each team and a 1/5th section of NoMansLand between them. Then if you want, you can set up right against the front of your spawn area and not be all that far from the enemy so you can still sort of rush if you want.
[This message has been edited by JRock (edited 09-21-2002).]
-
Gotta agree with Jrock here. The way we have it set up now is pretty annoying, I hate how in 2v2s its always set up like this
_12
12_
Why cant there be some two vs twos where we aren't staggered off to one side.
-
hi all,
i think i got to agree with Barocca here the present system allows for team choices from the start of the game....
if u are the 2 left side player's in a 4v4 u have to co-ordinate with the team as to what ur approach to the battle should be from the start .....
this could be anything from Attack, Hold Ground with support from rear left if u are def or one options that is often overlooked is WITHDRAW to a better def pos..
if u are attackin the same options are open to u as above but with attack being supported from rear left or hold grnd again or sometimes Withdraw and support an Attack in a better offensive area of the map.... the present option allows for these starting tactics.
with being allowed to setup anywhere in ur 1/3 of the field all def could setup on that nice hill and not move a muscle while the attackers could set up anywhere but would still have to attack that nice hill all u def are on..... http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
the present systems as said b4 forces desicons on both sudes from the start and makes for more dynamic games imo http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
anyway what do i know http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif hehe
-
The current systemis fine...it's been with us since the beginning. I think what bugs peole is that they don't know ahead of time where they'll be deployed. Well frankly that's not true, certain factions will always deploy to a specific zone...you just have to watch for the pattern.
Perhaps CA can post the exact deployment zones for each faction, and all the variables. The Org could make it a sticky post.
-
If you dont like the deployment zones of 4v4 battles then play 3v3. It is symmetric and it has a nice no-mans-lands between the two teams.
-
Quote Cheetah
If you dont like the deployment zones of 4v4 battles then play 3v3. It is symmetric and it has a nice no-mans-lands between the two teams. [/QUOTE]
AHAHAHAHA so we're just not supposed to play with 8 players, is that it? Great solution you have there. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/rolleyes.gif
Quote Originally posted by The Black Ship:
The current systemis fine...it's been with us since the beginning.
The bugs have been with us since the beginning too - does that then make them fine as well?
I think what bugs peole is that they don't know ahead of time where they'll be deployed.
No, not at all. What "bugs" us are all the things I mentioned in my first two posts in this thread.
Perhaps CA can post the exact deployment zones for each faction, and all the variables. The Org could make it a sticky post.
That's beside the entire point of this thread, and it's already been stated that the person on each team who choses the faction closest to the beginning of the list will deploy in the center of their team's side. We already know this.
[/QUOTE]
So let's try again:
*The current deployment zones are plagued with numerous problems:
*They prevent teammates from deploying together properly
*They are often cut-off or in the midst of a forest
*They are sited very poorly when playing 4v4.
*They prevent any variety in positional strategy and force us to play the same positions over and over.
*Dividing the field into areas where each team can deploy, instead of each specific person would be a much better and also more realistic solution. I'm surprised it wasn't done this way from the beginning.
-
I think CA already spoken about this topic. You aren't the first one to ask this, JRock. But they always said we won't change the deployment zones.
Personally I'm OK with the current system, you can predict who will be where before (deployment zones are assigned per faction) and the problem of the 4th player is actually a good thing for the bright player - if exploited in a good way. Fast attacks ...double attacks ...
Tera.
------------------
Clan Kenchikuka
evil is within us... http://www.totalwar.org/site/emomalta.gif
-
They've said they won't change it? That's odd. Why do they have a hard-on for such a crappy deployment method? Oh well. I guess those of us who dislike it can hope that it will be fixed in their next game or something. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif
It's probably just too much work for it to be implemented in the patch. Maybe in an add-on...
[This message has been edited by JRock (edited 09-21-2002).]
-
JRock your making the assumption that because YOU think its crap everyone else does...even when viewing your own thread which provides you evidence to the contrary. Opinions are like arseholes..everyones got one http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif Doesnt mean yours..or mine is right http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
Wraith
-
Your preferred method, while allowing an initial appeal would eventually become exactly what you don't wnt,
we would be playing the same format over and over - everybody lines up and marches together,
this woud become very boring in a short space of time.
As for different tactical options, your preferred method provides them how?
Every body fronts up in 2 long lines and charges...
You can deploy back in your zones, allowing you time to link up with an ally and coordinate,
A player taking only one type of unit had better have a damn good way of communicating with allies, and hope all their allies have the same system - or you are going to find your balls hanging in the breeze when your ally decides to send his spears after some choice cav target, and leave your missile and artillery unguarded.
I have been the "cut-off" player plenty of times, and it's actually my favourite position, I can hold my army together well enough to hold for an awful long time against 2 opponents, giving my allies plenty of time to go 3 on 2 and then come to my rescue.
Even against an army of nija - who was that masked man?
In real warfare you do not always have the luxury of lining up with your allies in a nice long line, which prevents flanking manouvers.
There are advantages to being in a forest, ask any player who has been surprised by hidden ashi charging from trees - it does an awful morale shock to the unit being charged, (I've seen h0 ashi break h2 NoDachi before contact)
A recent Warlords match,
123
4 5
678
5, 6, 7 and 8 were Defenders!
player 6 setup back and to the right of his deployment zone,
player 7 setup to the far left of his deployment zone, but had NO intention of staying there,
player 5 setup as far to the right and rear of his zone, player 8 setup as far forward and again to the right of his zone,
Leaving a very big gap between the two pairs of armies.
Player 5 took missile and a few light infantry,
player 8 took heavy infantry, and a few missiles and covered 5 withdrawal to a better defensive position,
player 7 took medium to heavy cavalry only and charged the exposed flanks of player 2 and 3 as they persued player 5,
player 6 (me) took light cavalry only (pumped up a bit) and screened player 7's heavy cav and chased routers from player 2 and 3,
players 1 and 4 were forced to play catchup,
and forced to deal with my light cav screen,
(CA's and Yari)
by the time they arrived 2 and 3 were eliminated, and players 5,6,7 and 8 had time to reorganise and rest while players 1 and 4 were getting tired trying to save 2 and 3.
Now that was exactly what you are talking about, tactical variety and options,
and it worked quite well on the current deployment system,
in fact it would NOT have worked on the system you recommend!
The current system works, knowing where you will set up every time will aid in choice of units,
fortunately that particular game one of the players Knew how the deployment worked, and that tactical plan was devised before we chose which units to take.
the current system is fine.
[This message has been edited by barocca (edited 09-21-2002).]
-
Shadewraith:
Sorry mate, I'm not going on my opinion alone - most players I've played multiplayer with tend to agree the deployment zones are arsed up.
It seems only the old timers around here are so set in their ways that they dislike any sort of change, regardless of whether or not it would be better for the playability of the multiplayer game, especially when considering the balance in deployment that should be achieved for tournaments and ladder matches.
I've listed the reasons why the current spawn points aren't very good, as well as offered a solution to the problem. Those who replied have mostly ignored the issues I brought up and instead just said that they like the current system instead of actually realizing all the inherent faults in it.
So be it. I'm just speaking for the rest of us who find it a silly way to force players into certain areas of the battlefield... especially considering there are indeed two distinct teams and that these teams' players should be able to set up together on their sides of the battlefield, instead of the current way forcing us to be in certain places, and on a lot of the maps, in the midst of a forest, or restricted into a tiny area because of a cliff or steep hill or river or lake, leaving us with barely enough room to even create a decent formation.
But let's ignore all this and just say we like how it is now. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/rolleyes.gif
[This message has been edited by JRock (edited 09-21-2002).]
-
I do hope you actually read my previous posting,
as for the old timers, we were here 2 years ago for the first release of Shogun, and will probably still be here 2 years from now when they release Total War 8 : The Invasion of Mars ...or something
I have addressed all your points in my previous post.
-
Uh you posted while I was writing my previous reply. And now I have finished the following reply to your post. FYI, I played Shogun too, just not online.
I am replying to you point by point, and removing only irrelevant war stories and other such things:
Quote Originally posted by barocca:
we would be playing the same format over and over
Not true - as of now we are forced into specific positions, thus we are indeed playing the same format over and over. In the solution I provided, we could at least setup wherever we wanted on our team's part of the field.
- everybody lines up and marches together, this woud become very boring in a short space of time.
Uhm that is what happens in the game curerntly anyway - that happens now and surely it would happen no matter what. That's what armies did so they don't get flanked while attacking - they line up and march abreast.
As for different tactical options, your preferred method provides them how?
As I just said above, by allowing the teammates to set up anywhere in their section of the map. This allows better tactical use of map features such as hills, valleys, lakes, rivers, etc, plus allows teammates to better interact before the actual games starts and people have to rush around as if we are all foolishly unprepared generals. Not to mention it solves current issues like having your spawn area cut off into a tiny area by map features like cliffs and lakes.
Every body fronts up in 2 long lines and charges...
Again, that is no different than it is now. Attackers attack in that manner and Defenders tend to counter with a line of battle as well - surely you know what Flanking is and therefore you know this is what occurs now and would occur no matter what, as that is how Medieval warfare was fought, my friend.
4v4 - You can deploy back in your zones, allowing you time to link up with an ally and coordinate,
No, that's almost never the case in 4v4, but it would be if we were able to more properly and realistically set up our forces in a team zone instead of separate, insulated faction zones.
A player taking only one type of unit had better have a damn good way of communicating with allies, and hope all their allies have the same system -
This is what clan mates are for. You learn to coordinate and work together as a team and it would be a fun and enjoyable break from the usual gameplay. I can tell you really aren't thinking through any of what you write - you're just being disagreeable because you're afraid of a change. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif
or you are going to find your balls hanging in the breeze when your ally decides to send his spears after some choice cav target, and leave your missile and artillery unguarded.
That's what would happen now if we tried to play that style of game, because of how the spawns are - we are forced to be in little separate areas of the field, instead of in a team spawn area, so as it stands now it is difficult, if not nigh on impossible to pull off the above style of play with the current spawn system.
In real warfare you do not always have the luxury of lining up with your allies in a nice long line, which prevents flanking manouvers.
In the majority of real warfare in that day-and-age, yes you did line up your army as a cohesive fighting force. The teams weren't made up of four separate people forced into separate spawn areas of the battlefield by imaginary forcefields and lines of stakes, let alone ones that squish you into a corner of the map when part of it is cut off by a map feature. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/rolleyes.gif
Look, the game has two teams - Attackers and Defenders, and it only makes sense that each team have its own spawn area ... not each player or faction, but each TEAM, just like in real warfare.
The current system works
I never said it was broken, only that it is not a proper battlefield setup.
the current system is fine.
In your tired opinion. Maybe if you keep saying it so much it will suddenly become so, even though I counter every attempt of yours to claim it's so. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/rolleyes.gif
[/QUOTE]
[This message has been edited by JRock (edited 09-21-2002).]
-
Quote Originally posted by JRock:
FYI, I played Shogun too, just not online.
[/QUOTE]SO WHAT? - irrelevent to the current discussion, the AI does not handle the situation the same way as Humans do,
NEITHER do LAN players, they simply do NOT have the exposure to different playing styles online players do! FACT!
Quote I am replying to you point by point, and removing only irrelevant war stories and other such things:[/QUOTE]which Illustrate a point YOU seem intent on ignoring.
we would be playing the same format over and over Quote Not true - as of now we are forced into specific positions, thus we are indeed playing the same format over and over.[/QUOTE]RUBBISH - Read the irrelevent war story!
- everybody lines up and marches together, this woud become very boring in a short space of time. Quote Uhm that is what happens in the game curerntly anyway - that happens now and surely it would happen no matter what. That's what armies did so they don't get flanked while attacking - they line up and march abreast.[/QUOTE]
This I see rarely, and only from players that are afraid to take risks,
AS FOR REAL LIFE - do some research Matey before you even begin to try and tell ME what happens on a battlefield in real LIFE!
As for different tactical options, your preferred method provides them how? Quote As I just said above, by allowing the teammates to set up anywhere in their section of the map. This allows better tactical use of map features such as hills, valleys, lakes, rivers, etc, plus allows teammates to better interact before the actual games starts and people have to rush around as if we are all foolishly unprepared generals. Not to mention it solves current issues like having your spawn area cut off into a tiny area by map features like cliffs and lakes.[/QUOTE]Now THIS is what happens in REAL LIFE on a battlefield, you are often forced to make the best of a VERY BAD situation.
Every body fronts up in 2 long lines and charges... Quote Again, that is no different than it is now. Attackers attack in that manner and Defenders tend to counter with a line of battle as well - surely you know what Flanking is and therefore you know this is what occurs now and would occur no matter what, as that is how Medieval warfare was fought, my friend.[/QUOTE]Do Some research on what actually happened in medieval battles, allies arriving late and out of position, armies trapped in terrible defensive positions, even armies facing entirely the WRONG way on the day of battle.
4v4 - You can deploy back in your zones, allowing you time to link up with an ally and coordinate, Quote No, that's almost never the case in 4v4, but it would be if we were able to more properly and realistically set up our forces in a team zone instead of separate, insulated faction zones.[/QUOTE]
Then YOU are playing with the wrong allies Matey, I never have any of the troubles you seem to be having.
A player taking only one type of unit had better have a damn good way of communicating with allies, and hope all their allies have the same system - Quote This is what clan mates are for. You learn to coordinate and work together as a team and it would be a fun and enjoyable break from the usual gameplay. I can tell you really aren't thinking through any of what you write - you're just being disagreeable because you're afraid of a change. [/QUOTE]
So I will only ever find you online when your clan is online?
Most of us don't play exclusively with clan mates, we do the best we can with the allies fate grants us, this is what happens in real life.
And don't even begin to insult me regarding being afraid of change, which forum do I Moderate? and what the hell do you think we do down there? try and keep everything the same??
or you are going to find your balls hanging in the breeze when your ally decides to send his spears after some choice cav target, and leave your missile and artillery unguarded. Quote That's what would happen now if we tried to play that style of game, because of how the spawns are - we are forced to be in little separate areas of the field, instead of in a team spawn area, so as it stands now it is difficult, if not nigh on impossible to pull off the above style of play with the current spawn system.[/QUOTE]again go read the irrelevent war story,
In real warfare you do not always have the luxury of lining up with your allies in a nice long line, which prevents flanking manouvers. Quote In the majority of real warfare in that day-and-age, yes you did line up your army as a cohesive fighting force. The teams weren't made up of four separate people forced into separate spawn areas of the battlefield by imaginary forcefields and lines of stakes, let alone ones that squish you into a corner of the map when part of it is cut off by a map feature.[/QUOTE]go do some more research, the problems you are talking about are exactly what DID happen, time and time again on medieval battlefields.
Quote Look, the game has two teams - Attackers and Defenders, and it only makes sense that each team have its own spawn area ... not each player or faction, but each TEAM, just like in real warfare.[/QUOTE]
again - research
The current system works Quote I never said it was broken, only that it is not a proper battlefield setup.[/QUOTE]
proper battlefield setup? - go do some research...
the current system is fine. Quote In your tired opinion. Maybe if you keep saying it so much it will suddenly become so, even though I counter every attempt of yours to claim it's s[/QUOTE]
Rebutted in Full.
[This message has been edited by barocca (edited 09-21-2002).]
-
http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/rolleyes.gif
I'm tempted to not even bother debating this with you anymore as you are very skilled at avoiding the blindingly apparent problems created by the current player spawns in multiplayer games, and instead are now focusing on semantics and hearsay.
You are arguing that the rare occurance of medieval battle (where allies arrive late or units aren't in useful positions) should be the norm of MTW battles. That's quite silly.
How can I argue with someone that demands illogical and abnormal things are appropriate and be maintained instead of fixing them?
You haven't rebutted any of my points though you claim to - you instead just talk about side issues and somehow consider that a response to my rebuttals. Perhaps clever, but certainly not going to win the debate since you avoid the facts I layed out earlier describing the faults of the current system and that each of them are fixed by creating team spawns instead of individual spawns.
[This message has been edited by JRock (edited 09-21-2002).]
-
jrock,
there's nothing wrong with your suggestions. i like them, but i also like the other way as well, and just to add to this mess, i have another way i'd like to see it done, so my point here is my old arguement for OPTIONS. offer a variety of possibilities.
my third option to this mess is bring EVERYONE in from the map edge. no deployment phase at all. you are an army. you are arriving on the field of battle. your mates are also arriving. one team arrives from one map edge and the other from the opposing map edge. simple enough to do.
and being that one team is designated as attacker and one as defender, you could also allow the defender to set up during deployment. after all, it's apparently his home turf and he's already there. then just let the attackers come in from the opposing map edge after deployment. this would simulate the somewhat chaotic state of an army arriving in another's land and having to set up and devise tactics on the fly.
there's prolly a ton of ways one could do all this. there's also a limited amount of time and resources to do any of it. it's the old 'if wishes were horses, beggars would ride'. but you already know all that.
nothing wrong with your ideas. i've always been a bit perplexed by that odd man forward thing myself. it was most likely done because of the smaller size of the shogun maps and it's just not been a high priority item to change things that already work. and i do believe it was tosa that suggested almost the same idea you're proposing now...the whole thirds thing.
maybe in the future we'll see maps that arent square but rather rectangular, where the horizontal is longer than the vertical and we can spread armies out more or something. or maybe even the other way around, just for variety's sake, so that each army of the 4v4 forms a column instead of a line. who knows, maybe we'll even have the cage of death matches where we all start in the middle and slug it out in a giant domed steel cage a' la mad max :)
the point here is that, in my two years on this forum, the hardest thing i've had to learn, is that wishes dont instantly materialize. trust me in that if you think your wish list is long, the dev's wish list is about 10 times longer. the second hardest thing to learn is that not everyone agrees with my ideas...how rude! lol.
about all you can do is state your case, discuss it a bit; maybe refine it a bit thru discussion and move on. the dev guys do read thru this mish-mash, god help them, and do see our ideas even if they havent got the time or inclination to respond to each post. prolly good that they dont or they'd never get any actual work done.
perhaps in the future we'll have a forum board that allows us to have sticky threads and enough space that we can have a forum that is devoted soley to a nice, large, unending wish list so that we dont just keep repeating ourselves, and somewhere the devs can go and look and sort thru all this stuff with a minimum of time and effort.
bottom line, nothing wrong with your ideas. they are good. thanks.
K.
------------------
http://home.domaindlx.com/takiyama/kraellin/icons-1.gif
-
Quote Originally posted by Kraellin:
jrock,
there's nothing wrong with your suggestions. i like them, but i also like the other way as well, and just to add to this mess, i have another way i'd like to see it done, so my point here is my old arguement for OPTIONS. offer a variety of possibilities.
I've felt since the game's release that CA was a little too light on OPTIONS.
my third option to this mess is bring EVERYONE in from the map edge. no deployment phase at all. you are an army. you are arriving on the field of battle. your mates are also arriving. one team arrives from one map edge and the other from the opposing map edge. simple enough to do.
and being that one team is designated as attacker and one as defender, you could also allow the defender to set up during deployment. after all, it's apparently his home turf and he's already there. then just let the attackers come in from the opposing map edge after deployment. this would simulate the somewhat chaotic state of an army arriving in another's land and having to set up and devise tactics on the fly.
I like that idea, and that too would help solve the issue, provided the defender's deployment phase was in a team spawn area, not individual spawns.
there's prolly a ton of ways one could do all this.
That's very true, and almost all of them are better than what CA did, which is why it's so confusing why they did it the way they did.
nothing wrong with your ideas. i've always been a bit perplexed by that odd man forward thing myself. it was most likely done because of the smaller size of the shogun maps and it's just not been a high priority item to change things that already work. and i do believe it was tosa that suggested almost the same idea you're proposing now...the whole thirds thing.
Yes, or even 2/5ths to each side so there's a smaller 1/5th NoMansLand in the center, so people don't complain they can't rush.
Even just an OPTION to have team spawns instead of individual spawns... make it a radiobutton choice in the Host's HostGame setup screen.
about all you can do is state your case, discuss it a bit; maybe refine it a bit thru discussion and move on.
That's what I've done, however I'm not about to let it get shouted down by people without a valid argument to oppose the idea. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
bottom line, nothing wrong with your ideas. they are good. thanks.
Thanks mate.
[/QUOTE]
[This message has been edited by JRock (edited 09-21-2002).]
-
Basically, there are arguments againt the current system, and arguments against the "new" system argued for by JRock.
When you take the advanatages and disadvantages into consideration of both ideas, I would say you get a draw (yes, this fence I'm sitting on is very comfy, thank you for asking.)
Consequently, changing the deployment to JRock's idea would make 50% of players happy but anny the 50% that like it the way it is (taking these figures from the number of people in this post who have supported/opposed the original suggestion.) And therefore, although there is nothing wrong with this idea, it is not worth the developer's time to implement.
IMHO :-)
------------------
It's getting warm in here...that must be one hell of an INFERNO!
-
I agree with Kraellin that the current deployment zones are the consequence of the small size of the original STW maps. CA considered changing it because we asked them to, but, in their estimate, the benefit didn't outweigh the work involved. The main problem I see with the up man is that the default orientation of the army is facing the center. This is because the rout point is to the side of the map. Too many newbies get caught by a massive flank attack if they keep the default orientation. It takes a lot of experience to play that up position well.
-
The best solution is just to put a toggle between traditional spawn system and a more logical spawn system in the expansion, for multiplayer games.
-
One thing I have learned in my life is that some people are never satisfied. No matter how good a product or service, they will find something to bitch about...no matter how irrelevant.
Some people need to get over themselves.
http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/rolleyes.gif
-
I am satisfied with MTW.
You're posting that in the wrong thread, buddy, because this is simply sharing ideas about how to improve the spawn points for multiplayer. It's clear that the way they are is a left over from Shogun that serves no real purpose in Medieval TOtal War. Apparently CA debated the issue of spawns amongst themselves and decided that in order to get the game finished on time there was no point in trying to change it at that time.
Thing is, there are better ways to implement the teams arriving on the battlefield, and I am offering one suggestion for improving that issue. Kraellin offered a couple more.
But apparently the sharing of ideas and debating with people who are voicing their concerns about the ideas means we're all just "not satisfied" or "complaining". http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/rolleyes.gif
But there is a spin to put on what you're saying, to make it apply to this thread - some people will argue against any changes for no valid reason at all. They're scared to change or improve.
Those people need to get over their fears.
Or I guess, yes, we're just never satisfied - what are we thinking - we should be satisfied with all the bugs and just accept the game the way it comes and never bother troubleshooting or tech supporting our issues. If it doesn't run, too bad for us. We should just consider ourselves out $40 USD. And we shouldn't offer ideas or advice for the upcoming patch, even though CA asks for input. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/rolleyes.gif
Really though, take your post to a thread with a more appropriate audience like one of the MANY MANY threads where people complain the singleplayer campaign is too easy or too hard or too many of this or too few of that.
That's an example of people who aren't satisfied. Learn the difference between "offering advice/ideas for improving the game" and "not being satisfied/complaining about silly things."
[This message has been edited by JRock (edited 09-21-2002).]
-
-
JRock...what's your on-line name, I'd love to have a go against you http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif If you fight as well as you disparage we have a new Magyar Khan in our midst! j/k(at least a little)
Enough joking though...your way is fine, so is Kraelin's, so is the current system...it's irrelevant to my enjoyment of the game. The only concern I have with an open deployment zone would be all the defenders clustering together, but if you say that won't happen then OK.
-
Quote Originally posted by JRock:
Here Jaguara, let me help you find some more appropriate threads for your comment:
http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum7/HTML/001915.html http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum7/HTML/001899.html http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum7/HTML/001924.html http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum7/HTML/001941.html http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum7/HTML/001920.html http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum7/HTML/001937.html http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum7/HTML/001922.html http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum7/HTML/001650.html http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum7/HTML/001906.html
And those are all just from the first page and just by reading the titles of the threads. You're really odd to post your comments in this thread when you have all those more appropriate targets right in front of your eyes, mate.
[This message has been edited by JRock (edited 09-21-2002).][/QUOTE]
Hey man,
I am not a mod in this forum...I currently only read a few threads in here now and then. It just so happens that I picked this one to read. But my comment is a general one, and may very well apply to those other threads too...nothing personal to you.
Jaguara
-
We could all use a chill pill. Simmer down now! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/tongue.gif
------------------
"Everything Shiro said sounds good to me."
-Solypsist
-
Quote Originally posted by The Black Ship:
The current systemis fine...it's been with us since the beginning. I think what bugs peole is that they don't know ahead of time where they'll be deployed. Well frankly that's not true, certain factions will always deploy to a specific zone...you just have to watch for the pattern.
Perhaps CA can post the exact deployment zones for each faction, and all the variables. The Org could make it a sticky post.[/QUOTE]
Both deployment zones and factions have their rank order. The faction with the highest rank gets the deployment zone with the highest rank, then the next faction, etc.
Zone rank order
[1]middle
[2]left
[3]right
[4]left front[/list]
Faction rank order
It is alphabetical, and it is the same as the order of the shields in the army section menu. Anyway, here it is http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
[1]Almohads
[2]Byzantines
[3]Danes
[4]Egypt
[5]England
[6]France
[7]HRE
[8]Italy
[9]Poland
[10]Russia
[11]Spain
[12]Turks[/list]
I hope I got it right http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
