Long live pessimism!
CBR
Printable View
Long live pessimism!
CBR
I know Adherbal...I know :wall:
The me the most sobering thing that has come out recently is an article in the official site in which one guy has a link to a review in which one of the CA guy's admits that the Total Realism Mod had impressed people inside CA but due to time constraints it was not possible for them to do this themselves.
Their strategy right now is clearly as follows:
"Produce a game that is aimed at a broad spectrum of players, make it moddable enough for the hardcore guys from the Shogun and MTW era to tailor it to what they need."
And there you have it...they get the maximum sales they need to continue staying in business while me...and fair few others have to wait for the modding community to do the rest.
I have never used a modd before in my life!!! And now it looks like I will have to. As far as I'm concerned that is just unacceptable! It is perfectly possible to to cater for the broader spectrum inside the current parameters they have used for sometime.
The use of the "Arcade" option which has been around for bloody ages and the "Slide Bar" speed control would allow them to make the game "real", and allow the broad spectrum players to do their thing (arcade) and keep the speed relative AND real while allowing the boring bits to be fast forwarded (sliding speed rule or 2x or 4x speed settings).
IT REALLY IS DISAPPOINTING that they can't do this!!
So fine...I've lost it!!!!! Finally!!
:wall:
yeah, it's hard to understand why CA doesn't just include realism options. Just like flight and race simulators do. How hard can it be? One could argue they would have to do twice as much unit balancing, but do the people wh prefer fast paced hollywood action even care about balance? judging from RTW gameplay, and combat engine flaws that still haven't been fixed I would say not.
exactly Adherbal.
But...I'm sure some bright spark in CA canned that idea for a few good reasons.
BUT, as you mentioned, the Broad spectrum players (I love the title I have given them) would not know or even care about balancing or strange movement issues.
Therefore you balanace the game based on realism and then modify the Arcade version with moral changes and speed increases. It is not as if there would be no complaints but surely it is a less dysfunctional idea than warping things as the "Baseline" version.
I've calmed down now...thanks for listening:2thumbsup:
No it won't be their demise because there are plenty of players who find RTW/BI gameplay acceptable. What's unfortunate is the decision to appeal to the lowest common denominator (broad spectrum) because, once you do that, the gameplay will never approach its full potential. The more astute player is marginalized with the term "hardcore", but what he's advocating would benefit all players. We can see that some features of the original battle engine have now been discarded, and the tactical AI isn't playing as well either. I don't see how that benefits the average player.Quote:
Originally Posted by AussieGiant
I think balancing is a separate issue, and since the game is so complex now it's not longer feasible for CA to balanced it to a high degree. This is the downside to including lots of units and factions.Quote:
Originally Posted by AussieGiant
LongJohn was very clear back in MTW days about why there aren't more gameplay options in multiplayer. He said it would confuse new players, and give veteran players an unfair advantage over them. The problem I have with the "let the modders make the game into what they want" idea is that modders cannot really overcome AI deficienies or missing features in the engine. No mod can bring RTW battlefield gameplay up to the level of MTW/VI because the RTW battle engine is missing important features, and the AI is not moddable either.
Perhaps because no one agrees about what is balanced? There have been many discussions on MP balance in the past, and different players often disagreed about what would be desirable. So if CA spends a lot of time balancing it, many people will still disagree, making it rather questionable why CA should bother in the first place. The way they do it now the hardcore community can decide for itself what it wants. Lazy? Perhaps, but part of the community is going to dislike the balance no matter what CA does.Quote:
Originally Posted by [cF]Adherbal
Don't get me wrong; I actually agree with your points, but it will take more than just adding a realism-swith to please the serious gamers on this board.
I dont agree with that. People will always complain that knights are too strong - or too weak, or something like that. But if the overall game involves the same degree of tactical gameplay from MTW, I'm sure we will all be very pleased.
Well, I don't share your optimism. I expect that in such a situation, people would just complain that CA did not improve the gameplay over M:TW when its errors where known. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by '[cF
The tactical gameplay of MTW was powerful cavalry and swords, very few units were actually worth buying in MP and a long but nearly pointless missile phase. I would certainly hope something has been improved.
CBR
And that was after 3 post-release balancing adjustments, MTW v1.1, VI v2.00 and VI v2.01. The multiplayer community asked for improved ranged units, and after the v1.1 patch they asked for better spears. The main disagreement was about morale level, and we had asked for multiple settings on morale and fatigue rate which we didn't get.Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
That's right. Blame the players for CA's failure to balance the game. If CA can't or doesn't want to balance the game properly, then they should provide multiple settings on morale, fatigue and ammo, although deficiencies in the new battle engine and excessive gamespeed make it moot for multiplayer if they aren't addressed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
Puzz,
I only say it will be their demise, because I really believe that if the "Baseline" realism is warped too far as "the standard", then down the line it will come back to bite them.
Either because they lose CA staff who do not know the history and context of "how" they go to this point, and the fact that if they move too far away from their core building blocks it is a sure fire way to end a good thing.
I could be wrong in my beliefs and that is perfectly possible. But my experience indicates this to be an accurate concept.
To me balancing is slightly separate to the game speed and realitve movement rates.
Unless I talk about balancing specifically then I am normally just talking about our two pet problems of the relative speeds of units and game speed overall.
Indeed LongJohn with some tit bits of importance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Longjohn4
Should we be worried LongJohn? Or is this a bit of storm in a tea cup at this stage?
What did the battlefield for Agincourt look like ?
What type of features did it have on it ?
Could you place stakes in the ground?
Is there any mud ofn the battlefield ?
Depends on their decision. If they wanna reach honestly "all type of players" as they ment before several times then they must do this. Why do they stretch this matter so long? They just say that "we'll put an option". and the issue has been solved last and forever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
Hi,
I was also in Leipzig and played the demo. The graphics is very pretty, but the 2 demo battles doesn't let enough space for extensive testing. The computer attacked fast. I couldn't buy the units, that I want to. It felt like Rome. That was really disappointing. There was less informations. All that Sega always presents is the pretty graphics. But where are the news about other things like size and number of maps. Or is 4vs4 possible? Where are the bars on the unit cards that shows the exhaustion? I couldn't see them in Leipzig. Rome was a new game. But MTW II is a sequel. Why do they go backward? I expected at least the features we already have had. Other companies has shown the multiplayer part of their games. Why it was not possible with mtw. I am very pessimistic for the multiplayer part. But the Games Convention in Leipzig couldn't inform of the open questions and I feel, that Sega doesn't want to inform us about all features.
Sorry CA. But what do you expect? Celebrations because of you changed the nearly perfect tactical part totally. The members of our clan have played MTW 1 since 3 or 4 years. We expected only that you improve the graphics and the anti cav units. Or a ranking system for the multiplayer would be nice. Some other modi like capture the flag or king of the hill...
Best Regards
Di3Hard
I think I saw a video where they said that you could do that.Quote:
Originally Posted by |Heerbann|_Di3Hard
Was never suppose to be in so if you thought that it would be in then that person lied to you(And no, CA never said it).Quote:
Originally Posted by |Heerbann|_Di3Hard
Quote:
Originally Posted by |Heerbann|_Di3Hard
That sounds good. :) Hopefully it will be playable without lags. When I think about Rome. Only with small units (they called them normal unit size lol) it was possible to play 2vs2 ;) That was horrible.Quote:
Originally Posted by TB666
Quote:
Originally Posted by |Heerbann|_Di3Hard
Rome is not MTW. I accept that. But MTW II is the sequel of MTW 1. They should integrate the same features at least as we have had already in MTW 1. If they don't do is they disappoint all old players. And It cannot be difficult to show these bars. I don't call them liars, but I miss facts and informations about the tactical combat. I don't need informations about the flowers on the battle field or which pants the knights wear.Quote:
Originally Posted by TB666
But flowers are very pretty :flowers:
Edit: And found the video where they talked about mp and the sega/ca guy said that you could play up to 8 people.
No, M2:TW is the sequel of R:TW, just like M:TW was the "sequel" of S:TW.Quote:
But MTW II is the sequel of MTW 1.
We can't understand clearly what do they expect indeed. Their comments based upon "reach all type of players" since RTW days but actually they've been reached with STW and MTW to "all types of players" but upon different and unique philosophy of strategy. They offered a different stage of strategy gaming and we and most of strategy players have been accepted their attractive invitaton gladly.Quote:
Originally Posted by |Heerbann|_Di3Hard
In reality i do not prone to pessimism about newcomer series of TW but simply i'm just a bit curios about them. Still, they are able to satisfy to fans and new players if they simply create two different game style for all kind of TW players.
I do not demand that CA obediently listen our wishes and do what we desire. This would be a silly expectation. I'll just wait the demo for my further comments. Until the release of demo i'll stop my pessimistic :sweatdrop: messages and take a new breath.
I've been thinking. Isn't a turn based campaign rather "hardcore" in the first place? how many "12y old kids" actualy enjoy playing that? Why make the campaign gameplay so deep with lots of strategic options, but let the battles - the main selling point - be a silly rushfest full of flaws, imbalances and involving few strategy at all?
The description I read mentioned exceptional terrain textures, very realistic shrubs, trees and even flowers. There was even a bit of rain which was acceptable but nothing special, though the sky is supposedly very realistic. The archers' stakes were impassable to cav but infantry was unimpeded. Among the features of the battlefield was a ploughed area but there appeared to be no hill. Whether there was actually a gradient remains to be seen (I consider RTW maps to be quite deceiving in this area). The map editor, if it is still a feature, should solve any issue regarding accurate details to enable some form of historical battle creation.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadesWolf
Longjohn4 has covered the issues regarding unit strengths, which has always been the case with historical battles in TW, namely the upgrades. Should anyone really be surprised at unit abilities when they are pumped with upgrades? Remember the Jaffa battle with MTW and how easy it was against incredible odds?
I am more concerned with how upgraded the PC will have to be to run the game, especially if trying to host a 4v4 on MP. Another thing is how stable a server will be provided? The answers to these questions are not available
......Orda
But MTW 2 is the second version of MTW 1 and not a sequel of Rome. The demo in Leipzig told me that are right, but the naming is illogical imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke John
considering the change of concept & target market between STW/MTW and RTW(/MTW2) it probably shouldn't even get the "total war" label anymore. Just like CA's "Spartan" is part of a new "total warrior" series. They should've called RTW "Arcade War" or something, would've been much more clear. You can't make a game that is supposingly a sequel - thus staying faithfull to the original gameplay - but completly change the gameplay and not expect your original fanbase to be disappointed.
M2:TW is build on the "philosophy" of R:TW. The only connection it has with M:TW is that it covers about the same era. Edit: see Adherbal.
What is so deep about the campaign? Practically all features can be either automated or ignored. Especially since defeating the tactical AI is so easy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adherbal
If they continue the RTW tradition in MTW 2 then i cannot see any connection between MTW 1 and MTW 2 besides age similarity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke John
True... Every single clicker can challenge with his rival factions without any diplomatic maneuvers, sabotage or assasinations. Why is that so coz i've seen it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke John
One of my friend has been made a full stack heavy chariot army of Britons in RTW and he won numberless battles with this Panzer Division like horde. He didn't care politics, developing his cities and such as this things.
Example two: another new player TW series dude of me was playing with Seleucids. He had a strong Catapract army. No peltast, no archers just a few Phalanx... Despite of this strange mixture band he was able to win battles. While he was playing so silly the game he had approx 50.000 denarii per turn! He was ignoring campaign messages, he had no diplomat, he didn't care city management. As a result simply he was a awesome :laugh4:
Just make a full stack latest model army and march upon your enemy. If you can do that why should you tire yourself with diplomats or assasins?
So, Whats the point? Point is there was no border between good player or bad player in RTW style battle mechanics.
What was the big deal then? If we can win battles any tactical sense or unit calculations why should i focus on my economy, diplomacy or espionage matters?
As you said truly in your message i ignore them and march forward. :juggle2:
the problem is that MTW2 will certainly get +90% scores in all PC magazine reviews. Those reviewers are either biased or they are so "noobish" and astonished by the graphics that they dont realise that there is no need for tactics and strategy - something I would expect from a "real time strategy" game, especially one that claims to have "epic battles". Thus the game becomes another big commercial succes, thus there is no reason why CA should consider changing it's current course.
Indeed. Here in Germany we have the same problem. These magazines don't have the knowlegde and/or time to test the tactical mode right. In my opinion, they should ask the mtw 1 veterans. We have the knowlegde to form an opinion. But somebody who everyday test the next "command and conquer" clone, cannot see the differents between mtw 1, rome and mtw 2.Quote:
Originally Posted by [cF]Adherbal
Sad but true :shame: Why do they change the course while they are making tons of money upon the game?Quote:
Originally Posted by [cF]Adherbal
No noobs play RTW but TW fans still play MTW. This is a big and meaningful difference.
IIRC, you have to work quite hard to get access to Cataphracts in the Seleucid campaign. By the time you get them, you probably can outtech the enemy. But the Romans will have probably had the Marian reforms too, so it may not be so easy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Legioner
We did a Seleucid PBM on VH/M and it struck me as one of the more interesting campaigns in the vanilla game. You face a number of adversaries from the start, have a large territory that is hard to manage and rather primitve troops that can gradually be up-teched to the best roster in the game:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=60359
Playing it my impression was, yes, cataphracts are strong. But I was also struck by the power of elite archers/slingers. Often times, I just mowed down the Romans. Realism mods like RTR and EB fix this easily. I've yet to try Seleucia in them though - it just looks too vast.
Not sure I am getting this - are you saying they have not done that? Have you seen the video of the knights all dropping dead when they hit the pikes? I fear they may have improved the anti-cav too much, but again this issue is eminently moddable.Quote:
Originally Posted by |Heerbann|_Di3Hard