Printable View
While I'm not happy about the building gimmick, as long as the bonuses are small and the maps have them spread out so both sides can benefit, it might not be too bad. I wonder how many players will sacrifice army cohesion for these buildings, a good tactician could exploit this to his/her benefit if he/she can eliminate the opponent piecemeal due to an over emphasis on capturing map points.
The more I read the less inclined I feel about buying/playing TotalWar: Shogun 2 (what a title) :thumbsdown:
Common sense at least dictates more and custom maps. So, buildings can have all the power ups possible, but when a map doesn't have any building, all is ok for the players who don't like it.
One thing works for player A and B, something else for player C and D.
If it comes to playing a game like this, I seek the illusion of realism. While I enjoyed the games, especially the big team games, and am aware of some nifty manoeuvrings to obtain key positions and am aware of key positions already being important, something was missing a bit. Real battles could stretch out over many miles with both sides trying to capture/safeguard some important terrain/road/bridge. This could be one step into the direction to get battles like that. A game like that may also require much more than four players on a team and way bigger maps to run smoothly. I'm not a fan of WoW like games, but a TW version where I'm commanding a whole unit in a huge army is something else. To get that to work well is quite a challenge.
Dont get too down guys there are alot of good changes in the game but we need to voice our opinions on this and not sit idly by while it ruins the game. the only problem i see is these buildings being on all maps with no other choice thats enough to ruin the entire release for 50% of the community. i encourage all players to post in http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=407933 which is where the most heated discussion about the buildings is taking place just read the thread and post your true feelings on whats being discussed id like to hear all sides but i just cannot see these buildings working. Even if the buildings are on 50% of the maps usually we get a crap selection of mp maps with each release and thats 50% of the maps already removed from the game that half the community wont want to touch at all its looking like a train wreck waiting to happen.
I'm afraid that this game might be turn into some little kiddie PG version of Age of Empires or something. Then again, I doubt 10 year old kids can grasp the aspect of playing MP. Meh.
Dont kid yourself some of the best players to play totalwar were in their youth when they were at their peak.
I use to be a beast on VI and RTW and I was 12-13 at the time, I believe I even have a win or two over some Grey Wolves from late 2005, now I think I'm worse off then I was back then and I'm 18 going on 19:laugh:.
wow anti ..... seems our presents did make others happy....
You beat me 3 times Magy, but play me a 4th time and you may be in for a nasty surprise. :book::balloon2:
Shogun MP explained a little better. Still not totally on board with all this but I am officially now taking a 'Wait and see' stance on this whole thing. God I want to have a quality MP experience in a Total War game again.
http://www.pcgamer.com/2010/12/10/sh...-to-total-war/
Oh, this could be real good. Let's hope all the details big and small come together to make the MP experience as earth-shattering as the original one was to gaming itself. :2thumbsup:
It dident appeal to alot of people in Shogun Mongol invasion expansion, we said prior to release their game modes would suck and not even new players touched them when it was released. I just mean the building part tho with the prior king of the hill mode im actually looking forward to the other parts, experienced units will just be like elite guard in ntw and that will be ok im sure. Only problem i see with elite units is in a melee game if a units too powerful over a normal unit even if it costs alot more then you can easily create a breach in a battle line just by matching that unit up against the weakest unit in the battle line.Quote:
Originally Posted by AggonyDuck
im here with ducky..... some aspects are good.... but some arent and history has proven that to us...... but again its all about merchandising propoganda..... what selss in teh magazines.... imagine ur 16 years old...... sick of games like wow, never experienced stw1 as he is too young...... he may experience king of teh hill as a very nice concept..... for a few days/2weeks..... total wars real strength is in its gameplay, epic battles 1vs 1 towards 4 vs 4 and for me online campaigning..... clans vs clans would be nice
If they design things in such a way that the "gimmicky' options can be included or not included at the game host's discretion, then it's pretty much win/win. Those who like the new features can use them; those who don't can exclude them. The actual ratio of games that use/don't use said features would suggest how popular certain "gimmicks' were in the long run--useful to the game makers if they capture that information for future design "intelligence." This is also not so hard to do, if they build hidden server feedback mechanisms into the game hosting process, that track how often certain features are used, etc.. Do I think they do this or consider it? No, but they could.
While I'm skeptical about the "gimics", I'm going to take a wait-and-see attitude. Just because King of the Hill failed nine years ago in MI, doesn't mean it is a failed concept today. It seems like CA is putting a lot more effort into MP this time around, so maybe they will find the right way to tweak it so it works.
My thoughts on each new aspect of MP:
1v1 2v2 3v3 and 4v4 leagues - excellent idea, most players just wanted a ladder this is much better with relegation and promotion.
Clan Meta Campaign - Details are sketchy at the moment but so far sounds good and should satisfy powermonger clan leaders with their ability to command their clan in the meta game :)
Bonus Buildings - The less said about these the better, The single mistake of the announced features imo.
Coop Play Campaign - Nice to give the singleplayer guys a taste of multiplayer (sort of) a nice feature im sure many will have fun with.
No improvement on MP campaign - Its already solid 1v1 but would have been nice to see an improvement in the mp campaigns in shogun2 3 players and upward.
Unit sharing: Details are sketchy it seems that in coop you can share units with an ally so 2 players are commanding the 1 army, 1 preview also states this as a multiplayer feature but maybe they just got their wires crossed, confirmed for coop not sure if its in mp.
Experienced units - why not! would function i guess like guard units in NTW, only fear i have is how much better they are than normal foot units and how much they will cost but CA balanced well the dlc units with cost and availablity/numbers.
Retainers: Bonuses i could do without in game somewhat like the buildings but not half as bad. acceptable but not preferable.
Custom Armour etc: if it floats your boat.
Custom Banners: nice!
Lack of foyer? unconfirmed Terrible decision by CA if its not in which means they ignored what the community asks for the last 3 years since they removed it. CA need to make a statement if this is in or not and soon.
Map selection: Surely must be better than NTW are we to believe that all campaign maps are available as mp battles now since the clan meta takes place on the japan map?
No map editor: Another release passes with no user made maps a huge loss since mtw1 and one that badly needs reinstated.
Bug Fixes: No mention so far.
Control imporovements: No mention so far.
Sad to say Swoosh but, I dont think CA will tell us if there is a chat foyer at all. We will just have to wait and see.
The inclusion of a foyer, or a lack of one, is a deal breaker for me. I will still end up buying the game but just for the SP because from what I have read, the changes to SP [ aside from 'quad damage buildings :-) ] actually seem really cool.
That said, I really, really, hope that this whole debacle turns out, because I really want to play and actually enjoy MP Total War. SHogun was great for MP and Med 1 was really good too.
excuse me? Did you just call Age of Empires a kids game? That was my favorite game besides MTW to play back in the day! :(Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiKingWarmanCake88
I would hardly call it a kids game. ANyone who played Age of Empires 2 online knows how complicated it was, with getting the build order right and correct unit composition, just like Starcraft (1 and 2) and the intense macro and micro managing of individual units. Hardly a kid's game :P
and regarding the chat foyer, I asked a GameSpot UK admin about this when he recently wrote a hand-on piece about Shogun 2 and this was his response
It could be that the MP demo that all these companies saw did not include a chat but the way I see it, its 50/50.Quote:
We saw a few aspects of the set-up for MP matches, but I don't have any references to seeing an actual lobby in my notes, alas.
Hopefully CA follow the lesson Blizzard have learnt. Players want a lobby.Quote:
Originally Posted by AggonyKing
I know we all love the chat lobby, but I really think it wont be included. Overall it has its upsides. Steam is an iffy for some and for others not. As long as you make the right friends, it can make for a clear good game. I admit I miss the lobby but its not the end or even close.
easy to say reborn but i can tell you the community isent a 1/10th in ntw of what it was in games with a lobby. Ive played over 400 hours ntw now and know about 30 people... whats all that about in shogun and mtw1 id know about 300 and know them well. And still the only people ive really spoken with in that 30 are the aggony guys and as anyone that knows me will tell you im not shy and ill start a convo with anyone.
well, apart that "chat-lobby" there are surely many ways to get in touch with other people.
On the other hand, it shouldnt be our job to organize that.
Still, lobby or chat isnt the main issue!
If this game becomes more people, really many, than the chat/lobby wont be useable anyway.
It might work with 100-300 people, but more no chat/lobby can manage. In most games with a chatsystem, there are many ways to customize it,
in WC3 there were many smaller rooms, there wasnt a big lobby.
But again, i worry a lot more about the unmentioned gamedetails which really are important.
Who care about a lobby, if the game is crap? Exactly, noone!
In the first place, apart all the nice pics and movies, what about the battles, some details?!?
I dont know, if CA simply lack communication skills or just have nothing new/different to come up with.
Fact is, we get nothing important, its like all the other years, same as always. Which tell me one thing:
the game wont be much different than the last 10 years.
CA is in a dilemma, they need to come up with something new, but the system/game itself hasnt much more room.
What they could change?
The basics of the game are at its end. We surely can be a bit angry about the lack of information, but on the other hand, do you really expected CA involving some of out points/input?
Some things never change, and that there will be a massive focus on the Mplayer part sounds maybe nice in the first moment, but after all, this game simply lack any potential of becoming
a huge online game with many thousands player.
Its so simple, everyone with some brain can understand it.
The battles have to be complex, if you make it easy, it wont work.
But to get more player, you have to make it easier.
If you make it easier, it wont work....
and so on...
No way out.
We said it so many times: Keep it simple.
But the only way, to bring new things into the game, is to make it more complex and the same time, less balanced.
Matchmaking system works in many other games, it cant work in TW, simply as there are too many options to play the game.
Weather, unitsize, cash, maps, eras.... also keep in mind all those selfmade rules, with max kind of units, no art ....
Hell, no way this can ever work.
To get somewhere at all, there has to be one way to play the game.
Weather shouldnt have any effect, one amount of cash, and so on...
Ensure, that the units are balanced, so we dont have to make own rules.
To get people use the matchmaker, you just have to stick a ladder on it. So only about the matchmaker you can get a rating game.
Thats simple, that will work.
Get the basics done.
Again, actual i miss the information about how those basics will be working. This tells me, that these important things are not important for CA at all.
Koc
As usual, I can't disagree with your points kocmoc.
It is really what they want vs what we want. Which ultimately comes down to a difference in numbers of players.
Difference being, that is what they try to aim for, while in our case, it will be a result coming from the things we want.
Maybe a short post, but it seems around here, we're all are agreeing with each other in broad terms. And there is not much left to say, as there is too few information. And it is not like they'll will listen anyways. ;)
After all these years and something simple as running and hard rubber banded units has been over looked and not really improved at all... yet not many seemed to be bothered with it when those are core things in the game starting from ground up when you're making a game. Controls and how units respond and move on the battlefield and balance are Key for getting solid gameplay before moving onto the campaign and mp layout at least I would think anyway.
They have "big" plans yet may over look again something that needed attention since day one in STW days.
I have grown tired of it... when you combine that with steam drops and load of immature kids you can only take so much. It's a shame because TW is good, but it could be great. :)
You can't just add stuff without ironing out the faults in the other things with the game first and expect your game to sell more copies and keep a bigger crowd which is what they are expecting to happen.
Well for me the leagues and other clan meta are interesting, the buildings are a disaster waiting tho happen tho its so obvious any player worth their salt knows buildings will suck ca dont they worry about people sitting in deploy zones talk about wired to the moon... This is why their mp team should have opened discussions with the community but zippo not a word from them, who are they noone knows... . But aside from these buildings (urg cant even stand to mention them anymore) im positive about the changes listed even if they did ignore everything the community asked for. I just hope they also plan on giving a solid game too with many maps or all their efforts on the leagues and meta games are worthless.
I still don't understand where they got the idea that camping was such a big issue that they had to take a "drastic" measure :/ who did they poll for this?
One word TWC there all raving about camping over there :D way to go to make much ado about nothing and send ca off on the wrong track. Some of the guys posting this crap have said in other threads theyre thinking to try mp for the first time in shogun 2 weeeeeeee
*facepalm* suddenly it all makes sense :(
I now eagerly wait to deliver some MP justice on all those whiners :knight:
I been thinking about the buildings and I can honestly say the idea is not a bad idea as long as the bonuses do not completely overpower the terrain bonus and are simple. For example, small boost to an archer unit so that you can out range the camping player, forcing him/her to move.
I can live with simple bonuses like that, but I would love to see a cooldown between bonuses, a limit on uses, and a "can only use on one unit" rule just like with the inspire and rally bonus that NTW gen units have.
As long as the bonus does not completely destroy the terrain advantage, but evens it out juuuuuuust a little. I am worried that all this time CA has said "negate terrain advantage" though :/
Trust me king bonus to archer range is a nightmare, you will have players kiting their opponents over the map. what about maps with low hills or balanced terrain then you stick increased archer range in. Total disaster. On the bright side thats just a bonus someone mentioned dont htink ca would be so crazy to put it in game.
The point is they serve no purpose, ca want them in so players move out of deploy zones! Players always move out of deploy zones unless theyre totally new in which case they wont even know what a bonus building is.
Typical movement in a 3v3 chosen at random from my replay list https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6-FW-GGZd0 no need for these silly buildings.