Printable View
Yes you do, but im pointing out that i've tested the system extensively for my mdo, i had no idea that shields were being added negatively to defense in melee until the thread about it here at .org.Quote:
If you develop a combat system you have to check that combat system in play, not in a spreadsheet or on a piece of paper.
Oh, and i have experience with programming in both VB, C++, Pascal and other languages. I know how easy it is to make bugs and miss them.
I'm not claiming that all you have to do is fire up a custom battle to spot the shield bug. I've run countless tests myself under the assumption that the shield would work.
My point is, that when you're the programmer of the battle mechanics you should realise that something is wrong (pre 1.1) and then you should run tests or look at your code to determine what the problem is. CA's plan was to make spearmen resist a cavalry charge. When tested in custom battle one immediatly realises that this is not the case. Determining the reason for it is the next step and I agree that it can turn out quite difficult. But if it's your own code, your project you should've a pretty good idea about it.
No offense intended when I said you're not a programmer. I meant you're not part of the developing team and you've no insight into the code.
No i don't, but i do understand how the engine works, or mostly, given how mcuh i've modded RTW/M2TW. So i was also testing under the assumption that things were worknig correctly. I just thought units had not been balanced well at all and tried to increase spearmen unit mass, not until later when i found out about the shield bug did the actual cause of the imbalance become clear.
I know I havent been as heavily involved as most of the contributers to the thread, although I would like to add my 5c if I may.
I agreeQuote:
Originally Posted by ElmarkOFear
I dont entirely agree with this... If I am playing against someone I want to play against them not some exploit of game inbalance. In any game its not fun losing because of some exploit, if I get out played by someone, thats fun, and cheers to them, but if they win because they chose a certain uber unit, which they know cant be countered by regular armies - thats boring - it means the outcome of the game was decided before the battle had been entered - wheres the surprise in that - surprise you lose - you lost before the game had begun - so I wasted all that time waiting for a game - I mean you want to at least have a reasonable chance to win.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElmarkOFear
I agree that playing unusual armies can be fun, but I dont want them to be the norm, or they should at least be a challenge to try and win with. I want to play tactical battles and have my opponent out manouver me - thats exciting IMO
I dont really understand why there is division, I agree the only way is forward with the new engine, and try and mold it using the experience from great mods like Samurai Wars to improve the new engine and make the battles as challenging and balanced as we can. I dont really see going back to old engines as a viable or popular option as far as growing the MP community is concerned. But I do see the potential of offering players and alternative to the vanilla units - an alternative of balance units that removes unit exploits from the equation and means the outcome of the battle is going to be dictated more by the players actions and manouvering of his army. Surely this is something we all want??Quote:
Originally Posted by ElmarkOFear
The new engine is here... why not make the best of it
and maybe we can show the new MPers how good this game CAN be :yes:
I'd like to point out that whilst my theory may or may not be correct in terms of what goes on in the engine, the end effect of however the engine handles things is exactly the same as what using the method i described would cause.Quote:
How do you know what he says is right about all these reflected charge bonuses. You're going to put unsubstantiated stuff in a FAQ?
That the important piece here, anyone reading and using that theory can use it to predict what will happen in a given situation with confidence it will be as close as any theory will get to reality.
That said I want to add to what I've already said, an altered version is below with the changes highlighted:
I've got some other stuiff about other things i'd like to write up at a future date, but for now i'll leave it at that re-written version.Quote:
Originally Posted by me
Regarding Elmark's post:
I think you need to understand a bit better what he's suggesting.
What he's suggesting REQUIRES that their are no exploits or uber units. What he wants to see however is that any army that includes more than 1 type of unit in significant quantities should have an equal chance of winning, (in the hands of equally skilled players), as any other army, even if the enemy army consists of a mix of a bit of everything, (the archetypal balanced army), and that not every faction should have access to all unit types either.
I agree with that view point 100%, I would find it extremely boring to play a game where i could predict the exact composition o the enemy army to within a few units. If the armies are relatively similar I could likewise probably predict the probable tactics, counter tactics, and deployment layouts of the enemy army. When armies that are widely different are possible competitively without reducing your chances of success then it's highly likely that armies and tactics will vary so widely that you'll literally have to make things up as you go along because you will have no clue of what army your opponent has, what he's brought to the battle and what tactics he may attempts. The kind of challenges that come from having to think on your feet like that and the occasional moments of hilarity are what makes games fun. it's not fun to lose to exploits and massed uber units. But i honestly find cookie cutter armies and tactics even worse, simply because regardless of the frustration and anger, it's sometimes quite fun to fight these battles as you try to attempt the impossible. Cookie cutter armies and tactics though just require you to repeat a set of pre-rehearsed moves with a pre-prepared army over and over again until one of you makes too many mistakes and one wins.
Army composition should not determine if you win or lose if it can be avoided, but neither should cookie cutter armies determine exactly what kind of tactics are used in every battle.
Ok Carl. Thanks for the clarifications, and thanks for the testing you do. You might consider testing on LAN or online so that you have complete control over the units. That's how CBR and I got the archer vs shield results for different orientations of the target unit for the old engine that I recently posted in the archer thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl
You don't get cookie cutter armies when the gameplay is balanced. You get diversity because every unit is worth what it costs, and therefore every army type has a good chance of winning. And, because of rock, paper, scissiors gameplay, you can't stick with a single army type indefinitly because you opponent with take the counterarmy which will put you at a significant disadvantage. Even a blanced army will have counter armies. Balance combinded with RPS equals diversity in multiplayer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl
If you want to see non-diversified armies, got online with mtw 1 and see the army type being picked in 10k games. There are only two army types being used either the cav/sword army or the cav/(pumped ranged/melee) combo unit army. That's what imbalance does to multiplayer. Introducing many unit types and lots of factions doesn't prevent this from happening as can be seen in MTW/VI. There are over 100 units types in MTW/VI, and yet the usable units are no more than the 14 of original STW all of which were cost effective.
The imbalance in MTW/VI has also lead to stagnant tactics. We certainly don't see stagnant tactics in Samurai Wars. There are many possible tactics in SW, and they can be used in innumerable combinations. No two battles are alike.
Introducing more randomness just so any army type has a chance of winning is not how you make the gameplay better. It's a crutch that allows the playbalance to be worse. The tax on more than 4 or 5 of a unit type is also a similar crutch. I certainly wish I could get rid of that confounded tax in MTW/VI because then we could use more diverse armies in Samurai Wars. The tax didn't exist in original STW, and players took all kinds of interesting army types, and they were all choosing from the same limited unit set. Limited unit types and same unit set are not what makes cookie cutter armies. Imbalance makes cookie cutter armies.
More randomness takes away from tactical play because you can't make intelligent tactical decisions if you can't use reliable judgement. Mostly what you're doing in highly random games is moving things around and seeing what happens. A good strategic battle plan properly executed can be defeated by randomness. The old engine has randomness, but it's not so large as to ruin good battle plans. In the new engine, CA has allowed too much randomness, and I'm not the only one that has made that observation.
Elmark used that overpowered pumped hangunner in MTW a lot. It got to the point where I didn't want to play him anymore because he was exploiting the hell out of that. He didn't like that fact that the handgunners were weakened when players moved from 15k to 10k florins in MTW/VI. Those units may also have been removed from high era. I don't remember. I knew all along that Elmark despised Samurai Wars gameplay despite the fake compliments about it, and I never believed for a moment that he'd play it desipte his statement that he would try it.
Second patch for MTW 2 is not out yet so we all should relax a bit. Perfect or not perfect. Barett decide and he sold his TW cd's (m8 hope to see you back one day - if community will surive till then) and made his decision. He is not depressing others with any kind of posts like we are doing atm. We won't change anything with this discussion - ''what should have been done/what was promised/what you prefer/what I prefer/etc''. Sometimes it is hard not to say anything around here, still I'm convinced that more words won't change things. Time would be better spent when testing different army setups and florin levels. :book:
agreed aonar.Quote:
Time would be better spent when testing different army setups and florin levels.
not to mention, the community hasn't even begun looking into early era written off apparently because cavs dominate, a slew of cool light infantry units are left unexplored. late era has been written off because of musketry, before it was really even looked at, and we've little or no idea what some of the late era infantry can do.
i would like to see the samurai war's crowd play m2, and see if they can make a gamestat that will resemble the work that has been done for the vi mods. despite the good mod in sam wars, there is not going to be a draw of fresh blood, because the mod is on the old engine. it's been played to death. anyhoo...
Late era is the only cool era imo. Gunpowder, good cav and pikemen. Add the florin limit of 5k to that and you'll won't see overpowered units.
I see Puzz is still irate about losing to me and that all-missile army so often. Handgunners: Have to blame it on something now don't we? :laugh4:
The arrogance of having to blame one's losses on an opponent using a "supposed" exploit. Poor choice of words by an apparently large ego. An "exploit" is using a game mechanic which gives you an unfair advantage over an opponent (such as the red zone, the swipe, etc). It isn't from choosing a particular unit and using it as it was originally intended. Others figured out a way to beat it consistently. Ask some of the old community's veteran players from RTK, Master, Wolf or Fearful Ways.
It is a real pity to see someone who worked so hard to be accepted in the old community, disgrace himself on a continual basis, by making such childish comments about those who disagree (and previously stated thus), with his philosophy on what makes for good gameplay.
Some seem never able to let go of the past. This is why they appear as agitated old veterans and why a lot of the new players do not listen to what they have to post. The hidden agenda, is now not to promote the old game engine, but instead to try to ruin the fun of the new. At least that is how it appears to most and why the majority of MP players do not frequent this forum. The MP community will find another home eventually, because its obviously not here in this "Anti-M2TW" environment.
PS: My comments on the Samurai Wars mod were not "fake." I both complimented it "AND" criticized it as not to "MY" taste. "Despise"? Please. There are very few things in life I despise. The game is not to MY taste, as stated several times previously. Your emotions and bias are apparently reading more into my statements than is there. Once again, it shows a very childish attitude by someone who used to have my respect, but who now only deserves my pity.
If the veterans of STW/MTW1 are smart, they will continue to try to persuade the new players that some of the features of the old engine would add to the fun of the new engine as well. Instead, a certain few, would rather berate anybody that actually has fun with the new game, by continually stating how inferior the new engine is. When they run up against someone who doesn't support their idea of what good gameplay is, they try to discredit them saying they are biased, they don't know what they are talking about, and begin to act like someone's out to get them.
Sorry, but "getting" someone takes too much time and effort. I would rather just speak the truth, no matter how much it hurts.
What exactly do you mean by stagnant tactics? Would you care to clarify for someone who sees nothing stagnant in the tactics used in VI.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
Now when we are talking VI are we talking about the regular game eras or the viking era? The viking era was fairly close to the feel of STW. About the only problem was the strength of the Mounted Sgt. cav unit, but it could be dealt with if one planned ahead.
I have to aggree, that an army in MTW Vi should consists of some standard units. But there are only few unit type (e.g. peasants), that are unusable.cav is often prefered because there is often more movement required as in rtw/mtw and cav is fast. Swords/cav are not uber units. If you are sure, that you will only play defense you SHOULD take anti cav units to make your life easier.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
Last friday night, we had again our MTW VI battle night. more then 30 were online. This are a many for mtw vi atm. I saw many different armies. Okay, we tested also for our next tournament. But there are no uber units or big balance problems. Anti cav is a bit too expensive. That is all. And that is also a question of taste.
EDIT: Or try the viking era. There are many useful spear units too!
Viking era is the best of the eras in MTW/VI. The only unit which might be overpowered is the mounted sgt. cav unit and it is easily handled if you prepare for it. The cav/sword armies you see are due to a very bad patch decision, which made spears almost useless to have around. For equal or lesser cost, sword units accomplish the same thing.
The original, vanilla MTW1, was the best. You saw every army type out there, with a large mix of units. The only units which cost too much given their effectiveness were the knight units and pavise crossbowmen. Unfortunately, rather than just reduce the knight unit costs, CA also made changes to weaken spears. Both of these, ruined a nicely balanced game and you began to see the beginning of the mostly-cav armies taking over and continuing on through M2TW.
Hmm, somebody's getting paranoid...
I will too. The new game engine is inferior to the old one.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElmarkOFear
I'm thinking about the tactics that evolve in an unbalanced environment such as the cav/sword armies or the pumped combo/ranged unit armies. They are stagnant compared to what evolves in a balanced environment where a greater variety of units and armies can be utilized. Of course, the team play adds a strategic element, and that's still present in an unbalanced environment. However if you have allies who do not buy cost effective armies, it lowers the team's chance of winning. In a balanced game, you don't have that problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by AggonyDuck
:smg: :painting: :hmg:
:wizard: where do you get those icons?:charge: :hmg:
If you go into advanced, then click on more under the icons, then look at the top, theirs a littile scroll list. Gives acess to a whole load of extra ones.
THAT is your opinion. Wrong as it may be. But you are entitled to your mistakes. While everyone else moves on, you can continue to fester in your misery and your past errors in judgement. You keep stating you were on almost every beta test team from STW through RTW. If this is the case, then you must also accept some blame for the state of those games. You cannot pass it all off onto CA. It was your failure as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
I was on one of those beta test teams and chose not to participate after seeing exactly who was running the show. Kocmoc, Magyarkhan and a couple of other good players, who actually knew what made for good gameplay, quit or were run off once they realized where the patch was heading.
This is the M2TW MP forum. If this engine is inferior (TO YOU), then take your bias, disrespectful attitude, and disdain of anything CA and participate in the MTW1 or mod forum, where discussions of mods and that game engine can be found. The M2TW forum is for discussions which hopefully will encourage CA to make changes to the "CURRENT" M2TW community. You continue to do a disservice to the current M2TW community by side-tracking any and all discussions with your obvious rantings against the new engine. All this without having purchased the M2TW game, and thus, with little knowledge of its inner workings and how it plays out in online battles. All you have is OLD knowledge of the RTW engine, which has changed. Anything you have to say is second-hand knowledge or from reading other people's comments. Your OBVIOUS bias against CA, the new engine, and ANYONE who actually enjoys the new game, reduce anything you have to say less than useless.
However, I also know, your ego will not allow you to leave the new community to work out its own way of improving the current game. I will be there to insure it doesn't go unnoticed by the other patrons participating here, when you begin disrupting threads with your nonsense.
If you want to continue to embarrass yourself publicly, feel free.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElmarkOFear
How is Puzz becoming disrespectfull in his comments Elmark? He is just post His opinion, If YOU don't like it, along with anyone else, don't post here. (Why you think I don't like to post on these threads?)
I would and do not approve of People ranting about a game they may not have out right played, but when many comrades,clan mates and friends of that person, Puzz in this case, who actually played the game online, and could refer the information to him, he can also make a opinon on it also (even if he did play RTW/MTW2 online,which I don't not know)
How does Puzz have a ego? Last time I checked, he doesn't. Many Old Players already moved on, and already are just posting Their Opinoins here at .org ElmarkOfFear..
I do not sit here and study the the actual sollider arm movements and all this graphic gameplay stuff, as I do not go into complex things in the communtiy, But What I do Know, and Will Say, No Matter if you El or your supporters will say, MTW2 Is Better then RTW, but STW/MTW are still better then RTW and MTW
Put your Ego in check El and admit that.I had fun on RTW also, I admit that, but I WILL admit RTW is and willl not be the best game in the TW series for MP gameplay, as I and anyone else, incluing You El, will admit that.
How Can CA Make changes ElMark, if Puzz3d and others can't post their thoughts here?
Why Should he post this stuff in the MTW 1 Fourm? It is About MTW2 Elmark, it is just Stupid to make a MTW2 topic in MTW1 fourm, you know that Mate :inquisitive: .
Yes, he may have got his Information from Second Hand Reading ElmarkofFear,But You Yourself even said that STW/MTW is much better then RTW and MTW2. Don't Try to Argue with that ego of yours otherwise,But it's the Truth.
I may and have not have been here for no 6 or 7 years. I only been here since March 2004, when VI was wrapping it up, but still, I can tell the Best Gameplay, and it sure in the Hell isn't RTW or MTW2.Because I played every TW game here on MP on many onccsions (expect for STW/MI,which I will do soon) and I can tell you what is Inferior and what isn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
Ye but who would care?
:beam:
Kyolic: :beam:
Warman: I never said the old engine was inferior to the new one. :laugh4:
What I said was Puzz can have his opinion. Wrong as it may be.
Big difference. The new engine is not inferior to the old. It is just different. The whole mechanics behind it are different. This engine has the same problems that MTW/VI had (has). They are equal in this respect. To say one is inferior to the other is just a subjective opinion, of which I do not agree.
The disrespect, you mentioned has been continual, throughout this and past discussions of M2TW MP. If you cannot see that, I cannot help you there.
As stated earlier, as long as the discussions are based on M2TW and how to improve it, instead of a continual bashing of the new engine and those who enjoy playing it, I will enjoy the discussions. Otherwise, I will point out when someone steps out of line. This is the M2TW forum, not the Samurai Wars mod forum, nor the MTW1 forum.
Please continue on with the discussion at hand. It is very entertaining.
Kyolic: That goes for everyone including you to,how funny :beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by ElmarkOFear
ElmarkofFear:
No Matter if we "Help Improve" the MTW2 MP foyer or do "Bashing" that Puzz3d are doing, CA will not fix it. You and everyone here realizes that.
To Me, It is not Bashing when you pointing out the ploblems between the games, and what is better Elmark.
MTW/VI is not equal to MTW2. MTW2 doesn't have good games that the engine can provide. MTW/VI may not be the best ehtier, but still, the Engine on MTW/VI if fast pacing, balanced, and makes you think more, then compare to RTW/MTW2.
That's my 8 cents here. You can like it, or you can dislike it.
If what you say is true, then why you bother to repeatedly point a game's faults out if there is no possible solution? Sounds like whining/bashing to me...Quote:
Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
It is bashing however, when you point out the problems between the games continously without any forseeable solution (as you said above) and sometimes even exaggerating problems to suit your own viewpoint.Quote:
Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
Sigh...Quote:
Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
And also I would like to add that if M2TW can't provide enjoyment to you, why do you bother posting in a forum dedicated to it's improvement and discussion?Quote:
Originally Posted by ElmarkOFear
The bottom line to this whole argument is that there is a big difference between contructive and destructive opinions. People post here to try and improve their lot with the multiplayer experience of M2TW, and I feel it's a tad counter-productive for others to continually dismiss and undermine their efforts because of cynicism and resentment towards CA and/or the newer members of the multiplayer community. Obviously everyone is free to express their own opinions here, but perhaps continuous repetition of your negative opinions about the very game the surrounding forum is based on is carrying the 'freedom of speech' argument a bit too far, huh?
Puzz does one and one thing only, In every theread here he opens discusion about a thing that was in old engine that was better than its now. Its compleatly off topic, and that discusion always goes in the way that people start arguing with him and most of the productive discusions goes to hell.
Tip of the iceberg of inferiority are two observations made by Carl on the effectiveness of archers in the M2TW engine. First: arrows have the same chance of hitting a moving target as they have of hitting that target when it's stationary. Second: the shape of the archer formation does not affect the effectiveness of a volley.
You see it's not just different. It's inferior.
I'm not responsible for the inferior state of the new engine. What a stupid thing for anyone to suggest. Creative Assembly gave the RTW v1.2 beta team 1 day to test the final build. That's not enough time to test the game as any imbecile would realize. Besides that, Creative Assembly told the beta team not to make any playbalance suggestions. They even refused to fix the incorrect stat display on upgraded units saying that it would only be of interest to hardcore players. From reading the thread in the Citadel about armor upgrades, the stat display in M2TW is also incorrect which doesn't surprise me.
If so, what do you plan to do about it Puzz?Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
Those imbeciles should not accept to become beta testers on the first hand may be. :beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
the reason why infantry take losses when running is that they are not in position with a shield to deflect projectiles. horse archers are about as hard to hit in shooting circle as they were in rome i think. if im right i think units took more losses when moving in rome and bi as well.
the only units who did not suffer were phalanx units which supposedly there spears would deflect some of the arrows.
i think the biggest factor right now is that you are managing 20 units instead of 16 as in mtw/vi. so you dont exercise as much control. i think after a few patches the game will be better overall though.
of course i have always taken all the total war games in stride and i enjoyed playing rome in mp but i played for fun and not competition. regardless of which engine is better mtw/vi right now will have a little more time left because of the valor 1 interest but i think it be dead before long so we should all except that and move forward.
however most of the community is still in rome total war because of their disappointment in the mtw2 performance and server problems and the low turnout in ronin players. there are simply a lot of people who dont like no art or ele games out there. especially for this game when you have access to all that weaponry.
when i played rome i always had only one rule and that was no onagers because i thought onagers ruined the game for everyone. elephants werent so bad because they were so easy to rout. usually a skilled player would keep them in reserve until an opportunity arose to send them in.
in this game i would be satisfied to rule out catapults and trebuchets. in reality these stone throwers were very rarely used on the battlefield and since rome they are just too overpowered for what they are. but i would welcome any other artillery since gunpowder weapons power is historically very devestating. but this is concerning the playing community as a whole and not referring to tournament related or clan related playing.
With due respect to Yuuki, I agree here with Elmo wholeheartedly.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElmarkOFear
Frustration is one thing, lets say we understand it; having an opinion is an other thing, fine with me; but stating the same things time and time again in every single thread is just counter-productive. (and irritating for many of us)
Nothing I can do. CA closed the door on suggestions from players like me using the excuse that the game was not intended for hardcore players.Quote:
Originally Posted by guyfawkes5
If the current model were to account for target motion, that would take more calculations which would adversely impact framerate. I'm sure CA is aware of the ways they cut corners in the new battle engine. However, they don't want the customer to know.
Of greater import is the OP's observation. If the participation at peak time is 50 to 75 people, that's terrible for a game that's purported to be the state of the art in strategic/tactical gaming. The original Total War game had better online participation than that. I was keeping track of online participation during the 2000 - 2001 period. I saw the tremendous drop in online participation when the MI add-on for STW was released. The engine was essentially the same, and the network code of STW/MI worked better than the network code of STW. The only thing that had deteriorated was the playbalance. Within 3 months, participation dropped to 30% of what it had been before the MI add-on was released. Some players went back to STW. I went into the STW/MI v1.02 beta team because I thought working with CA would result in a better game. However, that's not what happened. The playbalance of STW/MI v1.02 remained inferior to the original STW, and online participation only recovered to about 45% of what it had been in STW.
Some people may think that playbalance doesn't matter, and one gameplay is as good as another. However, my observation is that playbalance has a big effect on how many people play the game. In the case of M2TW, current lag seems to be an issue. I just talked to MizuTears yesterday. He bought the game recently but found the lag in online play to be too severe, and he won't play it online again. He has a new computer, so it's not a question of his system not meeting system requirements. Although, he does have an Athlon cpu, but i don't know which one. He wasn't aware when he bought the game that Athlon cpu is not supported for multiplayer, but we don't know if that causes lag.
Maybe we can put together a fund to get Puzz M2TW. In all seriousness, Puzz has done a lot of work on previous TW games. However it's time to update that signature and add a new Mod for M2TW. Put your knowledge to work and make a decent game better. If your not going to buy the game, or work on a mod, it's time to go back to the MTW1 forum. I cannot stand to hear another rendition of how STW/MI or MTW/VI .... was better or worse. Thats not only directed at Puzz, but anyone. Go read the archives if you want more of that, believe me it's full of it.
FearofCromwell
Puzz3D - The point I am making is that if there is no viable solution available for the faults you repeatedly point out, then why do you bother to express your negative opinion on them time and time again? I certainly can appreciate what you're saying and I do think you have a deep knowledge of the Total War game engine (to a degree), but I just feel the way you keep pointing to the past and disregarding the future is detrimental to the forum and multiplayer community as a whole.
I feel this is a very sad situation, especially given that you have proved your resourcefulness and talent by creating a thoroughly solid mod for STW, but yet will not contribute any of your experience or knowledge to the current multiplayer experience and the current community as a whole due to your bitterness (this is the feeling I'm getting from you, feel free to correct me as to why you won't help us move foward if you feel otherwise).
Yes, time and time again the very same comments. As I said it is just counter-productive and irritating. That is all. Nothing personal.Quote:
Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
So what? What do you gain by stating the obvious time and time again? Nothing. It does not lead us anywhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
Admit what? Elmo never claimed that RTW is better than MTW or STW. Actually if you have not noticed Elmo left the community during thwe times of RTW exactly beacuse he was fed up with the poor gameplay of RTW.Quote:
Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
Also could you please notice that no one ever debated that STW/MI was the best game of the TW series. I think that all of the vets who ever played STW will agree on that. This includes Yuuki, Elmo, myself etc. That is not the question.
The question is whether it is a good idea to repeat the same thing (the same obvious statement) time and time again. My answer is clear and simple: no. This what Elmo pointed out.
Please understand that this is a new game, a new engine. Either you can live with it or not. If not, it is fine with me just do not post it in every single thread because it wont help anyone and wont improve anything. That is all.
Why do you think that posting in every single thread that "the new engine is inferior to the old" could help CA? Why do you think that posting in every single thread that "STW was the best" is a help to CA? How do you want to help CA without playing the game? How do you want to help CA without making specific suggestions based on your experience with the current engine?Quote:
Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
Wake up mate, it is a game. Some people like it some people dont. There is no "TRUTH". Actually, as I said we all agree that STW was the best. So what? We (me and Elmo and some other vets who involved with the new community) dont want to repeat this statement till the end of time.Quote:
Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
I have to respectfully disagree. First I've never said that formation width has no effect, nor have I meant to imply that. Also, given the similarities in formation width between archers and other units in the game I can see no way in which it actually matters as their are few situations in which it would come up in.Quote:
You see it's not just different. It's inferior.
Likewise the situation with it tracking men makes perfect sense. This isn't STW/M1TW where (as I hear it), Cav moved at exactly the same speed as infantry basic and where only faster because they tiered out more slowly. The difference between the fastest and slowest unit plus the really high pace of RTW mean that you could never balance missile units without it. If you set it up so the miss rate against running infantry was low enough that it was balanced. Cav and especially really fast mounted units would have been traveling so fast they would have suffered almost no hits from each volley, whilst phalanx's and non-running units would be moving so slowly they'd take an unusually high number of hits. You can't balance that in the engine because a slow unit already takes more volleys than a fast one and if you try to do it via shield/Armour it buggers up the melee defense. So they solved it by taking the effects of movement on accuracy out.
At this juncture i think I'll give a fill explanation on how I believe the current engine handles arrows, an maybe I'll go into animations and their effect on combat tomorrow or the day after. I'll at this point thank Puzz for explaining how the old engine did it as that gave me a lot of insights into how the current engine does things.
Hope that helps someone, and gives Econ something to drop in the FAQ again.Quote:
First, the bit before the arrow is fired.
This is pretty simple. The engine first picks a target man in the target unit for the arrow that is about to be fired. It probably picks a man at random with a random number generator. It then figures out exactly what angle it will have to fire the arrow at, (including getting over any intervening obstacles), to get a direct hit. At this point another random number generation takes place. If the figure generated is equal or greater than a fixed value then the arrow fires at that angle. If it's less than the fixed value then a small fraction of a degree is added or subtracted from the angle generated a moment ago. The amounted added or subtracted will be proportional to the amount less than the fixed number the random number is. Weather it addition or subtraction is probably decided by some arbitrary method (probably a 50/50 split).
At this point the arrow is ALMOST ready for firing. One last thing remains to be done. The Engine will now calculate exactly where the arrow will land comparative to the aim point, (the target mans current position), If their has been no angle added/subtracted then it will be directly on top of the guy. Otherwise it will be some meters in front or behind, (in theory). This distance is recorded and appended to the info the engine stores on the arrow whilst it is in flight. The arrow is then fired.
What happens in flight:
This is even simpler. Once fired it follows a ballistic trajectory that in theory, (if the target does not move), will be identical to that computed when computing where the arrow will land in relation to the target. In reality most targets are moving and thus the arrow will determine exactly how far and in what direction the target has moved and adjust the angle of decent of the arrow, (making it steeper or shallower as required), so as to make the distance it lands in front of/beyond the target the same as was calculated when the arrow was fired. It should be noted that it does take account of intervening obstacles, but whilst able to make the angle of decent shallower, it appears to be unable to make the arrow actually go back upwards and miss any obstacles that appear. It can I believe make the arrow travel exactly level though if that is necessary to make it hit.
You cannot normally see the arrows change direction as the check I mentioned is done very often, it's probably part of the hit detection check and making things look realistic plus known projectile velocities make me believe this check has to be carried out at least 300 times every second, 500 is a more sensible number as it allows for higher velocities in future.
Talking of hit detection. Even if the arrow lands in front or beyond the target man, it may well still pass through or hit another man en-rout to this point. If so hit detection kicks in and it counts as a hit against the man it's just hit regardless.
It is also worth noting at this point that the impact angle of the arrow is very important, if the impact angle is very shallow then it will hit with it's full attack, but as the angle gets more and more vertical the hitting power drops off, meaning each hit does less damage, I'm not yet sure what determines this, but it clearly effects muskets/crossbows more than arrows.
Remember however that as always this is just a theory based on observational evidence and what is known for a fact.
All I know is I enjoy playing MTW2. And to me thats all that counts. The biggest problems are with connections. Maybe someone with some skill and knowledge of modding should make private patches like the lords do with NTW. Ther main point is that it seems to me that MTW2 has the potential to be a fantastic game. Certainly more potential than my beloved VI. Ill stick with it and hope that more people will try to help fix instead of just complain about its faults. I wonder if I should even install RTW if so many are playing it. Ive got all three versions but I hated it so when it came out.
1. Posting your own Opinions is not irritiang. Yuuki is posting his thoughts, which he been posting the same. Ok, mabye it is making you and others irrate, but if you don' like it, don't keep responding to it mate.easy as that,nQuote:
Originally Posted by Cheetah
othing personal.
2. Did I ever say Elmark said RTW was better? Please Re-read my thread. Several Times Elmark Pointed out MTW2 MP was better then RTW, but worser then MTW1. Please read carefully next time. I also know he left, along with many other vets in the communtiy. I know a nice bit TW History, so I don't need to be told about it mate.
STW/MI was refered to being one of the best, Not the actual best.That was my mistake eariler.
I don't need to been told mate to understand it is a new system. Posting it in each thread won't help, but making a Bug list won't help, since CA closed it doors to the MP communtiy, rather you understand that or not mate.
3. m8, Please Notice that I HAVE played MTW2 for 1 1/2-2 months straight, before I got fed up with the gameplay (and some arrogant clans and players on it). How do I want to help?
The truth of the matter is, I can't, you Can't mate, none of us can. Get over it already. Having a MP player,Jason, working for CA does not matter. Oh Sure, may help a bit, But has the new Engine changed to the point of me and others actually having full fun? Some Yes, Others like myself, No. Need to understand CA wants to work on TW as a SP Game, not a MP game, no matter what you and everyone does.
Don't Tell Me to Wake up mate and tell me it is a game, I am not that stupid.. I think some vetreans in this community, mabye yourself, Need to Wake up and realize TW isn't going to be the same like it was 5-7 years Ago. You guys need to ethier Get Used to the New Engine, or Go back to the Old Engine, or Just Leave the Communtiy all Together. Because CA will not fix the Mutiplayer ploblems in this communtiy, rather you guys can step up and admit that.
Oh the irony... didn't you originally step in to defend Puzz3D constantly deriding M2TW?Quote:
Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
:clown:
Quote:
Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
Quote:
Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
Erm, CA read all the bug lists at the TW fansites, i even pass the TWC buglist straight ot the CA Oz devs. They are also using the bug list at .com to help prioritize what they fix as that bug list has the bugs rated by how serious they are.Quote:
Posting it in each thread won't help, but making a Bug list won't help, since CA closed it doors to the MP communtiy, rather you understand that or not mate.
And seriously repeating that the new engine sucks over and over again ain't going to help anyone. Why not make some suggestions, why not be optimitic, because if you stop suggesting changes and just berate CA all the time, im not surprised CA might not listen to the mp community. They're humans, they don't like having their work derided with no positives.
The bug list is all they need.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusted
I made suggestions for 5 years, and was on 4 of their beta teams. I've made all my suggestions already.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusted
Then post some positives, but if you post that the battle engine is better, I'm going to point out where it isn't better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusted
I just had a clanmate get burned by CA. He has a good computer a little more than 1 year old. He bought M2TW, and the lag in multiplayer is so severe that he can't play it.
I have a new idea for a game. TW.org Forums: Total War! :surrender:
So... where to begin. This is gonna be a long post.
I'll start off with all of the.. interpersonal stuff going on. :grin: I think what we have is a number of folks with good intents but really stubborn mindsets. It can be hard to realize where someone else is coming from. Repeating a message over and over can get annoying, but you have to respect someone who sticks to their guns even in the face of lots of adversity. See I can see where Puzz is coming from, I have friends just like him (at least in my view) who are really smart guys with really stubborn views and opinions, and may not exactly be Mr. Suave when it comes to relaying them to others. For the record I do agree in some shape or form with most of what Puzz says. Really in my view neither side of this argument is right, the new M2TW engine isn't the most miserable ever, but it's certainly not the best. Constructive criticism is the only way that CA is ever going to get the message that many of us would like them to get. On the other hand people also need to be prepared to be summarily ignored, compared to other games and publishers that I've played and interacted with, CA definitely ranks pretty low on my "community involvement" measuring stick. I understand that some individuals are lucky and have personal relationships with the CA folks, but that does NOT help the rest of us in the community. At the end of the day it boils down to can you listen to the next guy give his opinions which you may think are awful, and be able to have a constructive dialogue and still end up respectfully disagreeing in the end? Think that's more than enough on that. ~:cheers:
Now, if we're giving opinions on how to make this game better, then here it goes, been waiting to say this for a long time. (Before you start on this remember that I actually do like M2TW so far, even though I shelved the game a month ago. The reason for that is that the bugs and balance issues were starting to ruin it for me, and since I want to enjoy this game i decided to put it up until the next patch is out, which I understand 1.2 will fix most of what I've been complaining about.)
The root of most of the problems in my view is modding. In terms of the current gaming industry stances and implementations of "moddability", M2TW is just about rock bottom. It's utterly friggin' miserable. Where to start? Let's talk about the use of industry standard formats. Just about the only thing that CA has used that fall into that category are flat text files and the DDS image format. Instead of using some fruity .cas file format that for RTW the community had to come up with it's own tool, or in M2TW where they finally GAVE us one, why not use a friggin' standard format like MD3 or MD4? Don't tell me those won't cut the mustard, it's a standardized well known and documented model that works any way you want it to, you just have to code for it, hell most of the code is already written for you, you just have to Google for it. The actual game file archives? What the hell?? They have to give us some lame unpacker tool just so we can get at the contents, with the lame excuse about using some kind of "special compression format"??? I don't buy it. There are a number of free and/or cheap licensable formats like 7-zip which are easily implemented and can offer better compression rates than even RAR, ACE, ZIP, you name it. Game map formats? What's wrong with BSP? $20 says it can do everything that CA wants to be done, AND it's another open format and there are open source/free tools that CA can simply grab, modify a bit, and redistribute as needed. They've already got a mapper built into the game you say? I'll get to that presently. Second to last, the lack of what we can actually change in terms of game mechanics. CA has coded so much of the game logic into the executable and there's no way we can ever hope to change it, like crusade cooldown, unit movement rates (which I agree with Puzz, MTW was light years better), general/character spawn rates, combat mechanics, etc... I've seen CA's excuse for not telling us anything, about "protecting their intellectual property". My response to that is "total bullshit." Sorry, that's what patents are for. Keeping the knowledge about these mechanics from the community does nothing to help CA's case. People would argue that it's not important to know, well if you are a casual gamer sure. The rest of us want to take the time and effort to understand exactly how this game ticks, exactly what the math this that goes into determining how many kills I get, etc. This is the level of fine tune control and knowledge that we seek so we can leverage that in the game. This is exceedingly important to MP's. Not important? Tell that to the "you run faster with the knife!" CS players, the TW series has it's same kind of fans. Hell I even cooked up a homemade app that did nothing but helped me plan out my Morrowind and Oblivion characters to the last skill level and stat bonus! Last and certainly not least is the complete and total lack of any kind of official support for the modding community. Again sorry, the craptastic little unpacker and the .cas exporter do not cut the mustard. Half-incorrect extremely poorly documented docudemon files? Nope, try again. Look at what ID Software, Valve, EA (for B1942), Unreal, Bethesda etc etc etc have all done. They have offically supported and staffed portals, fully documented APIs, tutorials, and..... SDK's!!! This game is not one of the most moddable ever, it's one of the least, and the lack of official support is infuriating. Point and case, look at the number of good modders that we've had who've drifted away, like DukeJohn. Even the Lordz post on the TW blog I thought was rather tongue in cheek, most of the time you see people fawning and cooing over the games, kissing the marketing folks rears who "invited" them to post. I didn't see any of that in the Lordz guy's post, in fact as I read it there was an underlying "give me a break" tone to his article. That said, the community in general does an admiral job trying to make up for this, but the end result is oftentimes far short of what's actually needed. Our .org modding wiki is a start, but it's woefully inadequate, hell half of what people want to know (like hardcoded values) nobody's been able to figure out yet. Sound like a problem? :furious3:
Now, after I've just got done ripping through CA, what suggestions can we propose to make the game better? To be sure, I'm no insider, I don't "know" how CA actually put this game together or anything about the engine itself that you guys don't, and I'm by no stretch and game coding expert... But, I have done dev. work myself and have several friends in the gaming industry who work as coders, project writers, and mappers, so I do have some clues and am not just pulling this out of my rear. So don't forget, some of this is just guesswork, but I think it's well founded. First, Puzz has called the current TW engine "degraded". While that's not exactly the term I would use, I think from what I've seen CA is running out of steam and into some brick walls with it. Cut to the chase? It might be worth CA's while to abandon their old warhorse and look at licensing something else, like ID's D3/Q4 engine, or the Source engine, or even Unreal. Ideally they should have the current engine well documented (right? right??) and have an understanding of the game mechanics at least as they envison them. So you take that logic, and you grab your (I'll use ID) Q4 engine, and write yourself a client executable gamex86.dll, then throw all your art and goodies on top of that... These engines are modern and extensible enough that you can do pretty much anything you want, and they're already extremely dang fast. If not the ID engine then Source, it doesn't matter, whatever works and is cost effective. Now what does this get you? This gets you a platform that you can work easily with AND your fans can too. Open formats for archives, image, model, and map formats? Check. SDK? Check. Source code so people can muck with the game as they see fit? Check. Built-in optimized net-code that's been worked on since 95? Check. Modern DX9/DX10 graphics support for all the eyecandy and goodies? Check. Documented API for ease of development which can then be put onto a site available to modders and fans? Check. The list goes on.
Don't get me wrong, it's just an idea, and noone would know better than CA if something like this is viable or not. The bottom line is that this game's moddability is miserable, period, and in today's environment modding is a must for game longevity and having a broad fan base. Notepad and editing a few parameters doesn't cut the mustard.
The very last thing I wanted to touch on is the reason for this forum, MP. It's become painfully clear to me over the years I've been here and reading that SP and MP player's wishes are most of the time at odds, Cav being a perfect example. The logical conclusion that I draw and see in other games is to separate the two entities and treat each one separately. Look at games like Quake 4, Heroes of Might and Magic 5, STALKER, etc... It's well known that the games handle differently in MP from SP, have their own separate configurations and settings, etc. So it's not a far stretch for it to happen here. IMO this combined with my above suggestions is the best of both worlds, it allows for much better and balanced MP gameplay without hosing up the single player campaign for the rest of us (who want our cav nice and powerful :grin: ). It's a win win for everyone, SPers, MPers, and most important of all CA whom we all desperately want to listen to us and keeping making good games.
So this may have been harsh at times, but it's a tough love. :grin: I really do hope CA gets the message(s) from the community and works with us more, there's a lot of challenges and room for improvement but it's not insurmountable.
Have a good evening everyone.
:bow:
PS:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Because I almost bought M2TW based on Palamedes' blogs (tactical extravaganza etc.) and the praise that people here were heaping on the game after Gold Day. If I had purchased this game, I would have been severely disappointed and wasted time and $50. This just happened to a clanmate of mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by guyfawkes5
The last few statements are just proof that a few certain individuals will never allow any discussions to occur on M2TW without disruption. A personal vendetta against CA and lack of maturity on their part, will not allow their ego's to let any discussion happen on improving the M2TW engine. These guys have given up. I was able to overcome that, by leaving RTW and playing other games. I came into M2TW, with a different perspective and knowing I wasn't going to get another MTW1. A suggestion from a friend (T1) convinced me to try M2TW and I found I could still enjoy playing the game. I know it just grates on a few people that someone would have the audacity to say they enjoy something other than the original engine, but that is the way it is. Until they grow up, they will continue to disrupt any and all discussions.
You can't change an arrogant mindset. I changed mine and found I can have fun with the new engine.
The funniest part is these people are trying to convince everyone they are doing it for the good of the community, by warning everyone not to buy what they perceive as a bad game. The majority of people thinking of purchasing M2TW have never heard of the .org community so a warning does no good. Those who are already members here, know exactly what type of game they are getting with M2TW. A few individuals are actually INSULTING every member of the .org (instead of helping), by making statements which insinuate, if it wasn't for their constant warnings, some .org member might make a bad purchase decision.
Everyone has seen the discussions here and at other venues, and I know for one, you all are smart enough to figure out if you want to purchase the game or not. I am not going to insult your intelligence, like a few individuals, by constantly telling you whether a game is good or bad and then calling you an "Imbecile" if you enjoy the other game. Everyone likes different aspects of a game and it is up to them to decide. Not some egotistical loudmouth, with a personal grudge against CA.
simply put is that there are probably 100x more people who buy the game for single player than they do multiplayer. so that should give you some perspective as to who CA will need to cater to.
but on the other hand after the fixes i think we will have a game par none to the past total war games. and hopefully it will be along for a few years so it can be patched more and maybe more than just one or two expansion packs added to it. if this is done you may see a stable mp base.
halo is ancient as computer games goes but at any one time youll find about 2000 players on it. thats because its a good reliable smooth running game. total war 2 should be able to come to some kind of perfection given time.
but really the mp community as a whole are into first person shooters,command and conquer clones, and role playing games like warcraft.purely tactical battlefield games are not the thing for mainstream gamers who dont have the tactical know how to own in mp. so if you are playing total war mp games and win at all you probably show more aptitude than someone who plays the other types of games.so pat yourself on the back.
i revisited the rome lobby recently and found the server was worse connection wise than in mtw2 lobby. furthermore the chat monitor was disabled. never a good thing for the general publics participation.the crowd was down too. so i guess the total war community as a whole is definetly making the move to mtw2.
You think so? They left the butt-spike problem in the battle engine and the civil war bug in the strategic engine in the final version RTW v1.5. They then released the Alexander expansion, and didn't bother fixing those two problems. Those two problems were introduced by patches. I think the butt-spike problem showed up in v1.3, and the civil war problem in v1.5. In fact, the v1.2, v1.3 and v1.5 all introduced new bugs.Quote:
Originally Posted by mad cat mech
:clown: .
:clown:
lol
Where is Mizu Sp00n btw? He used to play with me. :)
Ahahhahhahahha!Quote:
The root of most of the problems in my view is modding. In terms of the current gaming industry stances and implementations of "moddability", M2TW is just about rock bottom.
Whilst M2Tw might not be the best in terms of modding, it certainly isn't rock bottom. I know of several games that are completely unmoddable with no official support of modding at all, not even the support CA are providing. It may not be greast, but it's not the worse.
This is what MP needs? Nothing changes, the same bitter, old rivalries, the same little digs being posted hoping to gain brownie points. Many times in this thread alone, people have suggested moving on, might I suggest that some of the posters here do the same? How about you guys let old disputes die? How about some of you forget 'what you were told' about others and start thinking for yourselves eh?
.......Orda
I support Orda Khan and Elmo's words.
- STW engineQuote:
The last few statements are just proof that a few certain individuals will never allow any discussions to occur on M2TW without disruption. A personal vendetta against CA and lack of maturity on their part, will not allow their ego's to let any discussion happen on improving the M2TW engine. These guys have given up. I was able to overcome that, by leaving RTW and playing other games. I came into M2TW, with a different perspective and knowing I wasn't going to get another MTW1. A suggestion from a friend (T1) convinced me to try M2TW and I found I could still enjoy playing the game. I know it just grates on a few people that someone would have the audacity to say they enjoy something other than the original engine, but that is the way it is. Until they grow up, they will continue to disrupt any and all discussions.
- MTW engine
- RTW engine
- MTW 2 engine
Each engine is different. Thought there is very few people who were able to get best out of it in each of them. One of top 10 STW players once mentioned that with a new serie there are new game engine regulations and of course you have to begin from the start. This is one of the main issues which scare people not to get involved in the new serie. Another thing what made TW series special from multiplayer aspect were people who played it. One of the reasons why MTW/VI revival is so successful.
RTW was not made for my taste - feelt too much arcade; yet this is my opinion and I don't have any need to post this each time when I make a post here or persuading anyone why I didn't like RTW. With the 1.5 patch and good rule set with proper denari level matches offered very balanced and good matches. Napoleonic mod for RTW was simply great despite the engine was not STW or MTW one.
As I've stated previously MTW 2 is not perfect game atm becaus of bug issues. It's game engine is promising thought. Why? Becaus manouvering your army doesn't feel arcade for me. Yet again this is my opinion and I don't want to force it to anyone. However in future I would not like to see any more theoretical comments about TW engines and which is better. What I would like to see are comments on how to improve gameplay - different denari levels, other ideas, anything like this.
As an owner of MTW 2 I don't want to read about issues which has nothing to do with MTW 2. I don't remember I've ever seen anyone browsing around existing STW and MTW forums on this site where he would be constantly claiming (read: posting) how RTW or MTW 2 engine are better then existing STW or MTW one. I don't mind if someone states that he still prefers MTW engine..but from where comes the need to mention this in almost every post?
If I'm nost mistaken this supposed to be MTW 2 forums and I doubt that people who actually purchased MTW 2 and are playing it (or waiting for 2nd patch) are not interested to read theoretical comments which TW engine is superior.
p.s. Lusted thank you for your efforts and your contribution to MTW 2. Your work is noticed.
My posts aren't for them. I'm in the group who didn't buy the game. I'm going to post why I didn't buy it, and respond to every post claiming something is improved when it's not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aonar
OT: but what is the civil war bug in RTW?
not really a bug just an inconvenience
I wholeheartedly agree that M2TW isn't the worst in that regard, but it still really really stinks. I didn't put this in my huge post earlier but I strongly suspect that it's because CA is on the fence so to speak. They tout moddability as a selling point of the game, but they don't put as big of an emphasis on it as I'd expect to see given other's publisher's marketing practices. In terms of the actual game yes we can change many aspects of it, but it's a real kludge with no real support or direction of any kind, the proverbial "square peg in a round hole". Given what we have to work with, I believe that CA doesn't mean for us to ever have the level of control or ability to work with the game as this "industry standard" bar that I'm holding it up to, again based on their repeated statements about "protecting intellectual property." I also suspect that this might have something to do with cheating protection in terms of multiplayer, if people have access to the client code they can often see ways of exploiting the smallest things. In short this is CA "having their cake and eating it"... CA needs to choose if they're going to fully support game modding and really commit and give us a REAL implementation, or decide that they don't want that to be a part of the game and lock it down nice and tight, this halfarsed middle-of-the-road stuff right now just doesn't cut the mustard. I hope this makes sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusted
I still firmly believe that by (potentially) abandoning an aging game engine, switching to a client/server game executable model, distributing the clientside sources, an SDK, providing official support and documentation for it, and fully separating the MP and SP aspects of the game, they can address the majority of the issues that players seem to have such as MPer's desire for better game flexibility, balance, and lag/netcode issues. Again this is just some educated guesswork and a suggestion, it might be a great idea it might not, switching engines takes time and money and if not well managed it could quickly fall to pieces. Then again part of running a successful business is knowing when to take calculated risks and cut your losses when there's better options available and your customers are chomping at the bit for some changes. MPer's complaints about it being tacked on or an afterthought seem to be somewhat justified, but again I don't think it has to be that way. I see a lot of potential for CA in terms of expanding their customer base and appeasing current/former fans by going down a route like this.
My previous post was a lot of pent up frustration at CA and even some at the gaming community, a little tongue-in-cheek, and honestly all well intended. I hope everyone else reading it found it as such.
:bow:
Interesting thread, I have followed this thread for some time, only now have I decided to post my humble contribution.
:thumbsup:
It occurs to me that in this case, the whole issue is simply a matter of opinion, though Puzz3D does state some undeniable flaws in the Rome engine. The point I do disagree with though is that the new engine is simply inferior and case closed. That is simply a matter of opinion. I can only comment on RTW, MTW and STW, and in the cases of those, I have always found that battle AI has been far worse in RTW, and that it is quite bugged. Most of the battlefield glitches in RTW that really took the polish off the game, were pathfinding and clipping faults. It is simply no where near as solid as in STW and MTW, but I believe this is down to 2D sprites, which are much more manageable than 3D ones. Settlements on the battle map in STW/MTW were also much more simplistic so any pathfinding errors would not have been exposed. In terms of it's advantages I see it as a step forward towards achieving a much better physics model. 2D sprites with all of their limitations have had their day.
The permeable (if that's the right word?) formations in RTW/M2TW are simply better, more realistic and add a new dimension to the solid block units in STW/MTW battles. With this model the effects of cavalry charges can be realised - though they need to be delicately balanced and adjusted to deal the right kind of damage in the right circumstances. The new engine has potential in many areas, and simply scrapping it off and going back to the old one is not progressive. Again though, a system is much more complex.
I seriously doubt that CA will produce a game that will suit the historical wargamer, the MP player, the casual SP player, the RTS gamer and the old STW/MTW vets all in one. That game is never going to happen. The problem is that whatever changes are implimented, someone will love it, and someone else will hate it. The answer to this is for CA to produce an easily moddable vanilla game with extremely open single and multiplayer capability, and for modders to create a more historically accurate game for the SP history/realism buffs and another for the MP community or multiples/combinations of these. For the MP community Half-Life had it's counterstrike, TW also needs it's counterstrike. In order for this to happen support for modding needs to be more than just a casual afterthought. This is where CA are really not up to speed IMHO. If they can drastically improve modding support in the next games, I can see a lot more mods becoming available, specifically those taliored towards MP players.
This thread would do better to continue in a constructive manner. I have tremendous respect for Puzz3D and his deep knowledge of the TW series, but I really think he's wasting his time here, going over the same details again and again as to how the older game was so much better than the new. I really do believe that to be a futile pursuit, and it will not win any of the people in this thread over to the old games. It's kind of like me telling my neighbour that his new car is very inferior to the old model they made a few years back. It's not useful, doesn't help him, the car company are not going to go back to producing the old model again, they're not going to make the new model similar to the old one. So really I'd be wasting my time, and probably annoying my neighbour in the process.
:bow:
Suppose your neighbor hasn't purchased that car yet. Would you still withold the information? He's not going to get that information from the people selling him the car.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cambyses II
The subject of the thread is that MP is loosing appeal. Based on the figures posted, I made the observation that original STW had better MP participation since I used to keep track of it. Apparently there aren't many playing RTW, or BI, and I know there aren't many playing MTW. So where is everybody? M2TW supposedly sold better than STW which was just a niche game aimed at a small market.
No, I would make him aware of what I thought of it, even though it wasn't my business, after which if still goes ahead and buys it, then that's his problem really. If/when he returns to me and says: "hey this car is great, I don't have a problem with it, it works for me" etc. I won't persist in trying to persuade him that it's not ok, and that back in my day there was an earlier model which was better, as that would be fruitless. As I've said above Puzz3D, I respect your knowledge of the TW games and agree with many of the opinions you express, but in this case I feel that you're out on a limb, wasting a lot of time and effort trying to preach to people that in all likelihood probably won't listen to you anyway, as they have their own opinions and takes on this, which they will stick to just as firmly as you are sticking to yours. This whole thread feels like two opposing religions trying to convince each other as to which is the true faith.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
:wall:
:scastle: