a MP era with units different than SP and with slow speed/kill rate and good balanc.
Printable View
a MP era with units different than SP and with slow speed/kill rate and good balanc.
Why would you want new units? the armies fielded by eac country will be accurately (or at least somewhat accurately) displayed in the SP game, and there wont be much choice left for new units. instead of knights, do you want "horseman-withlances-and-swords-wearing-heavy-armor"?
as for the rest, Kill rates and speed were reduced (by 25 to 40% according to a forumer who went to a preview event of M2TW) and i belive it will be pretty well balanced in the SP game, as no faction in the real world really crushed another. even RTW was not badly balanced... everything had a counter.
Did you ever play RTW MP? I ask this because of the last sentence of your reply. There have been balance issues for MP since STW but with RTW, MP was a jokeQuote:
Originally Posted by A. Smith
.....Orda
There will be multiple eras for MP which will help, and supposedly the speed/killrate has been reduced, although we don't know by how much. I think you'd need about a 30% reduction in running speeds (walking speed in RTW/BI is ok), and probably more than that in killrate. The combat resolution time should range between about 30 seconds for two fast killing units to about 180 seconds for two slow killing units. Average killrate units would be about halfway between that at about 105 seconds when matched. The idea is have enough time to control the units independently at the height of the battle if you are very good at managing them, allow for two weaker infantry units to beat a stronger unit by executing a hammer and anvil tactic with the two weaker units, allow for spreading out the army to set up angles of attack and also allow allied armies in team games a chance to carry out a large scale hammer and anvil strategy if they are not too far apart. You want to allow the possibility for the armies to be too far apart as you do also for individual units to be too far away to assist another unit. I call these dynamic balancing issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobunaga
Unfortunately, if the "squeezed too tight" combat penalty is not reinstated, MP is going to be adversely affected to a significant degree even if the speed/killrates are substantially improved.
am also concerned about unit and faction balance. And with more than 20 factions and hundreds of units I think balance is not possible due to time constraints.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
There will be multiple eras for MP which will help, and supposedly the speed/killrate has been reduced, although we don't know by how much. I think you'd need about a 30% reduction in running speeds (walking speed in RTW/BI is ok), and probably more than that in killrate. The combat resolution time should range between about 30 seconds for two fast killing units to about 180 seconds for two slow killing units. Average killrate units would be about halfway between that at about 105 seconds when matched. The idea is have enough time to control the units independently at the height of the battle if you are very good at managing them, allow for two weaker infantry units to beat a stronger unit by executing a hammer and anvil tactic with the two weaker units, allow for spreading out the army to set up angles of attack and also allow allied armies in team games a chance to carry out a large scale hammer and anvil strategy if they are not too far apart. You want to allow the possibility for the armies to be too far apart as you do also for individual units to be too far away to assist another unit. I call these dynamic balancing issues.
Unfortunately, if the "squeezed too tight" combat penalty is not reinstated, MP is going to be adversely affected to a significant degree even if the speed/killrates are substantially improved.
a MP era with its own (one to three max) factions and limited yet diverse units is much easier to balance and is not affected by SP issues.
Actually I want MP era with MP factions (one to three faction max). It is impossible to fully balance more than 20 factions containing hundreds of units without turning many units useless. Thus MP factions with limited but diverse units can provide a much better MP experience and will take less time to balance. And a MP era with MP factions can be made with no consideration to SP issues and SP balance.Quote:
Originally Posted by A. Smith
Why would you want new units? the armies fielded by eac country will be accurately (or at least somewhat accurately) displayed in the SP game, and there wont be much choice left for new units. instead of knights, do you want "horseman-withlances-and-swords-wearing-heavy-armor"?
I hate to go into the balance discussion about RTW MP a loads of times, but I tell you that each unit has got a counter. Simple.
You're right, but an MP era with a limited unit set and only 3 factions will never happen. We've been asking CA for this for 5 years, and instead we've gotten an ever increasing number of unit types and factions. It's completely out of control now, and has a momentum which keeps things moving in the direction of ever increasing numbers of units and factions. The best you'll be able to do with M2TW MP is to play with player imposed rules to eliminate unbalanced units and factions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobunaga
However, we have what you're asking for in Samurai Wars for MTW/VI v2.01. We have 14 units types from which all players choose their army, and this unit set is completely separate from the SP unit set. We balanced those 14 units in such a way that unit purchase rules are unnecessary, upgrades are unnecessary due to adequate morale and the standard money level used ensures that armies aren't composed of mostly elite units. Each basic component of the RPS has two unit types except for the highly defensive naginata unit, so it is possible to field armies strong in one particular component without incuring the cost penalty imposed on more than 4 of one type. In anycase, combined arms is necessary so armies composed of all one unit type wouldn't work well anyway. Color differentiation of armies is outstanding with the sashimo on each man's back, and the men are easily distinguished against the ground textures. Samurai Wars has attracted a small but skilled group of players, and it doesn't cost any money if you already own MTW/VI. We only play on Sundays now, but could expand that if interest increases. Development of this mod is ongoing, but the MP unit stats are probably final now or very close to final, and have been developed and MP tested over the last 2 years with the assistance of many top players from STW/MTW.
Having lot of different and unbalanced factions means there will be some with above average unit combinations, and majority of the MP population might choose to only play these elite factions. But as long as these factions are balanced compared to each other, games will be balanced as these are actually the better ones :laugh4:
The difference is, in a moded scenario, there's no other options besides playing the few "balanced" pre choosen elite factions. There were always people playing the seemly less effective factions and did well, important thing is leaving the room for players to excercise that option.
And one thing I've always hated about MP moding. You are spliting the community. It takes a sizable pool of MP players for the good ones to actually distinguish themselves and establish competition within the community. Why attempt to split the population to different mod pools before the game even release? What's the point of playing a war game where there's little or no competition?
Unfortunately, the option in MTW of chosing the same faction more than once has been lost. This means you need a minimum of 8 factions that are very well balanced relative to each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by rios
The factions in Samurai Wars are automatically balanced because they all contain the same unit set. If you want to play with a handicap, you can play with less money since attacker and defender money is set separately (another lost feature in the new "improved" game).Quote:
Originally Posted by rios
You can play an inferior faction and do well if the skill differential over your opponent compensates for the inherent deficiency of the faction. It's the same for maps where the defender has a height advantage. In high level competitive play, you see flat maps being used because the skill differential of the players is not great. Likewise, you need very wel balanced factions for competitive play.
For years we worked with Creative Assembly to improve balance in MP. However, Rome was a parting of the ways. Droves of top players stopped playing Total War multiplayer because the quality of the gameplay dropped below a tolerable level. I didn't quit right away. I spent months on the RTW v1.2 beta team as did about a dozen other top MTW players. It became clear during that time that Creative Assembly was less interested in playbalance than they had been in the past. They started using the label "hardcore" as a reason for not implimenting playbalance suggestions. It's only since then that I decided to pursue a mod solution for MP. I use the MTW/VI engine because it is the better engine, and it isn't possible to bring the RTW/BI engine up to it's level. You can't do it with a mod, and I don't envision CA doing it with M2TW. I don't advocate modding RTW/BI or M2TW for MP. I consider it a waste of time.Quote:
Originally Posted by rios
Samurai Wars doesn't cost you anything if you already own MTW/VI. Alternatively, you can purchase M2TW for $50 usd and spend time finding out that the gameplay is ultimatly unrewarding. I already went through that with RTW, and I don't want to go through it again.
There will be several european factions that are similar to each other, and allowing limited repetitive representations of these factions in a MP game might be easier solution to pursue than a general balance between all avaliable factions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
Map conditions is an entirely different concept. My opinions here are strictly limited to the more usual european flat terrains. Players don't always think alike. While most probably are confined to the 'traditional' styles of playing, some are better suited to 'unorthodox' arrangement and maneuvers. Any unique quality of a faction can have very diverse impacts in different hands, and to categorize them as deficiencies or compensations would be unfair for some.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
Rome's control is dull, or handicaped if you like, but that's not the main reason for players' departures. Many of us thought it was unfair to eliminate the advantages we've accumulated from refining works done on our controls through the STW -> VI period. There was room to tame the RTW system, just that we weren't willing enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
I'm not a modders, unwilling to play scenarios unsupported by publishers, I went experiencing other games like many of my friends. 2 years gone by, and you know what, we didn't find a better game. SImply put, Totalwar serie are the only games gave us the adrenaline rush we had so longed for. So we're willing to relearn the controls and play medieval2 MP, hopefully you and your friends are willing to join us, yuuki.
IMO this one was of the problems mods faced extensively over the years. Quite a few people think that the developers (publishers wouldn't have a clue heh) know better how to finetune their game and the "official" version is how the game is meant to be played. Well, in a perfect world with no deadlines and full of people willing to invest some real effort and time into the stats, then that 'd be probably true;)Quote:
I'm not a modders, unwilling to play scenarios unsupported by publishers, I went experiencing other games like many of my friends.
RTW mp is a joke if you play without any rules and high dinarii, which means you can only use certain factions if you want to win...
with TWPL rules and low money, each faction can be powerful in its own way.....
I never played mp in rtw,maybe I'll try it out in m2tw but that would be only versus my friend.Don't really like the mp of the total war games.Campaign game has so more depth.At least,that's what I think,don't shoot me for saying that ^^
Certain aspects such as attribute balances between the units can shift via modding, but the basic physics can only be altered by developers.Quote:
Originally Posted by L'Impresario
We all know developers have their limits, but how much more efforts and responsibilities can modders bring in comparison? These numerical changes can significently shift the balances and often destroying them.
In my opinion, mods generally take away some options to creat a confined and sometimes redesigned balance. To refabricate such balance in modding is also more difficult since it not only take lot of math, the fact game mechanism isn't fully manipulatable further limits the number of partial solutions modders could achieve.
Cash level is a build-in way to alter balance. However, it does its job from a top level - factions, therefore usually not flexible enough to deal with the more fundemental matchups between units.Quote:
Originally Posted by ][GERUDO][Mojoman
LongJohn said that he considered 25% imbalance acceptable. Well I saw what good players could do with the warrior monks of STW, and they were only 15% out of balance. I don't think 25% imbalance is acceptable for competitive play. Possibly, several factions will be similar enough in M2TW that they will be automatically balanced, but that I think it's unlikely there will be 8 such factions.Quote:
Originally Posted by rios
You're assuming that the factions are balanced, so that it's only a matter of learning how to use the faction properly. I'm talking about faction deficiencies that can only be compensated for by superior skill. RTW/BI has such deficiencies, and MTW/VI had them as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by rios
It's not simply a matter of the controls. You have players stacking units to make super units and using them to smashing players who don't stack. You also have the problem of things happening too fast to allow controlling 20 units individually. I can play RTW/BI if I only use 3 or 4 groups. Why should I play that game when I can play a better game such as Samurai Wars?Quote:
Originally Posted by rios
I've had enough of my time wasted by RTW/BI. Creative Assembly set the standard for Total War multiplayer gameplay with their first game, and they haven't maintained it notwithstanding the marketing rhetoric which is constantly calling it "improved".
They can bring more commitment to balancing than does Creative Assembly. I chose to build Samurai Wars around the MTW engine because it's better than the RTW engine, and it provides a modder with control over all the parameters necessary to balance the tactical battles except for fatigue rate.Quote:
Originally Posted by rios
Samurai Wars didn't remove any gameplay options except upgrades which damage the playbalance. Also, we understand the math of the STW/MTW battle engine very well. Samurai Wars is based on the STW unit parameters as developed by LongJohn who designed the tactical engine. It's a refinement of the balance of the original STW stat with changes kept to a minimum. In that sense, it is an evolution of the balance of the original stat which is something that Creative Assembly has never succeeded in doing. Creative Assembly has oscillated around the playbalance solution in every game since original STW because they don't go though enough iterative balancing steps after doing the initial analytical calculations. They wouldn't even allow the STW/MI beta team to go through another iteration of the v1.02 rebalance stat to improve their game eventhough we were willing to do that for free. That's the kind of commitment to playbalance that Creative Assembly exhibits. You're not going to convince me that Creative Assembly is going to do a great job balancing M2TW with their attitude toward balancing.Quote:
Originally Posted by rios
[QUOTE=Puzz3D]LongJohn said that he considered 25% imbalance acceptable. Well I saw what good players could do with the warrior monks of STW, and they were only 15% out of balance. I don't think 25% imbalance is acceptable for competitive play. Possibly, several factions will be similar enough in M2TW that they will be automatically balanced, but that I think it's unlikely there will be 8 such factions.[QUOTE/]
Monks pwn cause they use Naginatas :inquisitive: Seriously though, they were overpowered because they give moral penalty, and they have high starting moral which makes them more cost effective since you don't need H3 or H4 . Their combat stats weren't better than nodachi or naginata cavalry, and shooters eat them up.
Ergonomics of the controls is part of the balancing process. Different styles call for different statistical balance between units, but at top level game mechanics determines which styles are suitable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
For example, RTW engine disallows free and redundant unit hotkeying or free cameral rotations with the mouse. These seemly little changes forced more actions per order, and slowed down the rate at which orders could be issued. Coupled with the faster run speeds and unchanged threshold distances made rome less forgiving when issuing orders, and dramatically altered effectiveness of some the playing styles. The new set of favorable styles then call for a different balance compared to STW and MTW.
What about the choice between altering playstyles to suit the game mechanics or improving speed to make the accustomed playstyles more adaptable. In a STW, MTW modded game only the later option can be excercised since the suitable playstyles is already fixed from the long period of player evolution and the fact modded games offers little room to introduce new styles as the balancing is already done strictly for the sorted after sets. Not to mention, playing MTW, STW mods also means unable to take advantage of the new graphical engines. Don't you get bored repeating the same battle plan over and over while not much eye candy to look at?Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
actually monks didn't give a moral penalty and they were more affective in 1.12
i.e. original STW
they did give moral penalty in SP, I can't recall if same carried for MP, it's been a while. But if we ignore that issue, here's what I have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobunaga
monks at 5/2 4 charge while nodachi 5/-2 8 charge. if 4 charge = 1 combat then it's 8:5 ratio. monks cost 500 while nodachi cost 300, so without upgrades they are 24:25 nodachi. Almost equal cost-effectiveness.
However this didn't take into account of battlefield upgrades. Nodachi can get as much battlefield upgrades as monks, but their lower defense meant they would suffer more moral penalty from casaulty%. By rushing with monks and not giving time for the opponents to properly carry out their charges further allowed monks to sustain unit sizes, thus after battlefield upgrades they become more powerful than nodachi. This I believe is source of the "15% unbalanced".
In MI, monk cost were raised by 10%, making them 10% less cost effective. I don't know if 10% would of effectively conpensaded their after battle capabilities but the fact naginata cavarly with almost same combat stats, faster and only 450 in cost made monks obsolete anyway.