Printable View
I hope "combat stats have been scaled down" means mathematically scaled not reduced by subtracting a constant. Scaling would reduce the attack - defense difference thus lowering the chance to kill in a combat cycle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Palamedes
In STW, the best inf unit (warrior monk with attack = 5) vs the worst inf unit (yari ashigaru with defend = -1) only gave a 5.7% chance to kill.
So let's see if I understand.
For a decent pace we need to use larger scale unit sizes? I share Louis' pessimism because of the obvious LLLLLAAAAGGGGGGGGG this is going to cause with all but the most Uber of machines. I think MP has had it
......Orda
That kind of lag may not affect you in MP as long as you have a fast enough machine that your mouse and map scrolling don't lag. The only thing that will lag are the units, so you actually get more time to issue commands.Quote:
Originally Posted by Orda Khan
Common Guys,
You should be able to see the relationship between unit size and game play, I have had this discussion with many of the best TW MP players over the years and all have agreed. If you still can't see it I suggest you test what I suggested in the previous post or wait till the game is released and/or feedback is posted. Ultimately proof is in the game and I am more than comfortable stating that M2TW will feel more like MTW in terms of combat speed than it does RTW.
All the things you mentioned in this post were done before unit size changes were made. This included slowing animation rates, modifying combat result probabilities, rescaling combat statistics and modifying combat mechanics. However these things will only ever get things halfway there. If you are concerned about lag the small unit size will still feel more like MTW but collisions will be more noticeable.
Again time will tell so for now let’s agree to disagree.
Lional (Cheetah),
Greetings mate it’s been way too long, hope all is well at RTK and give them all my best. Better yet I will be sure to drop by now that things have slowed at the studio.
Mate I think this thread is in desperate need of some RTK history and who else better than ones of its oldest, wisest and most decorated tournament players. By the way I think the RTK player ability statements may be directed my way so feel free to indicate if I know how to play and understand what is of value in MP. I will be heavily involved in the tournament scene when the game is released, but I am sure to get the hack/cheat/dev secret finger pointed my way if I do ok.
Mate who would have thought all those years ago one of us would have ended up in the studio working on the game we love.
Jason
Of course unit size influences the speed at which a melee is resolved, especially when the larger size is used for more ranks. However it is the way of being presented as if it is new or "back to M:TW" that bugs me:
Quote:
Let’s get into it, this is some of things that you will be happy to see in M2TW:
Units Size & Game Pace: In M2TW we have set 4 playable unit sizes so that all types of game speeds can be realized. On small you will have a unit size slightly bigger than RTW’s normal that will play very similar, fast and furious. On normal you will get a unit size similar to MTW’s normal, that plays fast but gives you a little more time to incorporate more tactics. On large and huge you will still get games with a nice pace but they will be a tactical extravaganza showcasing lots of death and destruction.
You could set unit size settings in S:TW, M:TW and R:TW. So this feature is nothing new, it has been present in all TW games, yet it is presented in my eyes as the saviour for people wishing a tactical extravaganza. If so, then why didn't it work for R:TW?Quote:
You should be able to see the relationship between unit size and game play [...] Ultimately proof is in the game and I am more than comfortable stating that M2TW will feel more like MTW in terms of combat speed than it does RTW.
I know it's silly, but still:
Imagine 3 types of milkshapes. When drinking it you could choose to use 1 or more straws depending on how quickly you want to drink it. Milkshape A and B was nice and thick, but milkshape C was thin and flavourless. Now a new milkshape D is introduced using C as a basis. "Oh noes! But C was horribly thin!" Not too worry, to fix that you can use 1 or more straws to drink. :inquisitive:
From what I can see most posters here agree that larger size setting would mean longer time before units rout. We just dont see it as something new as that has always been the case. And some of us doubt we will have any real choice in MP as we cant pick larger unit sizes because of lag.
In the blog you say: "On small you will have a unit size slightly bigger than RTW’s normal that will play very similar, fast and furious. On normal you will get a unit size similar to MTW’s normal, that plays fast but gives you a little more time to incorporate more tactics."
RTW normal had units of 60/40/27 men and that is similar to the 60/48/32 men in M2TW screenshots so I take that to be the normal setting, correct? That would produce armies of an average size of perhaps 850 men. 4v4 would be 6.5-7K men total. We cannot expect to play at twice that size, which would mean we are pretty much stuck at the normal setting as the max playable setting.
CBR
Just wanna say I have nothing vs RTK, every RTK I met and played vs was a more (most often) or less solid player and more importantly I dont think I ever met a rude or troublemaking RTK. And its great that you are in CA Palamedes and most news you bring sound very good to me (blobbing penalised and so on).
I stand firm on my view of most skilled RTKer in MTW though. RTK Paul singlehandedly took care of 3 FFers in the deciding game in our first cwc-encounter.
Next year Paul was gone and FF won the engagement vs RTK. Of course that didnt only have to do with Paul but he was a big boy on the battlefield. Would indeed be intresting to hear Lional talk about RTK achievements and see if his view on Paul differs from mine.
Also id like to know if some RTK or FFer still have the replays of the cwc battles between these clans. Id like very much to see them again.
Kalle
Hell froze over...
I agree with both CBR and Kalle :dizzy2:
Indeed, it's been known for a long time that size directly influence kill rate, do not worry, we see very well the relationship between those two factors. The key issue is then lag: it's very difficult to get more than 10 000 soldier on in RTW, and so far, I don't know what is the playable limit for MTW2.
Lag is the ceiling.
As far as RTK players go, do not worry, I made a comment to get a laugh from Lional, nothing else. I don't think he took it seriously, and I sure did not make it seriously...
If you ask me who was RTK best player in MTW, I might disagree with Kalle and point at Marco, but you were all nice people to play with or against. Including Lional!
Kalle, I don't have the replay from the MTW era, I lost them when I changed computers 2 years ago. I remember a very very long winter early game... Not sure I have played the others.
Louis,
Yes, obviously it takes longer to kill more men, we can all see that. The trouble is trying to run a battle at settings this high and with the addition of so many extra men, manoeuvrability becomes more restrictive as the map size is effectively reduced. It does not sound very good at all
.....Orda
Well so many things to comment on.
Let's start with the raging debate about unit size. I think that first, both side saying the same; second that there is some misunderstanding here.
First, both side agree that large unit size slows down the game and gives a more tactical play (just as a note: I disagree ~;) IMO a fast game can be just as tactical just you need different tactics ~D, comment closed), that is why FFs played rtw on large unit size, and that is why Pala said that large unit size gives a "tactical extravaganza".
Second, Pala's original wording (i.e. "tactical extravaganza") might have been a bit unfortunate, but I think his sentence was twisted around a bit. From the debate it seems as if it were an all or nothing decision and thus tactical game play would depend only on the unit size. Which is of course not true. MTW2 will be a more tactical game than rtw not because of large unit size (even though if I understand it correctly the default unit size will be larger) but because of all the changes Pala described in his blog: 6 max penatly, no more blob-bug, 1 max penalty for eles, cavs cannot be pulled out of the melee without punishment, etc. What Pala wanted to say (IMO ~:) ) with that "tactical extravaganza" is that if one wants an even more tactical game than you can always use larger unit size.
Last comment about unit size: IMHO what would really matter in MP is the default size, as most of the players will use it and all of tourneys will be on default size. Even in rtw where larger unit size made an improvement almost no one used it, either because of comformity reason or because of fear of lag. All in all what is important is to pick the default correctly. From Pala's comment it seems that we are back to MTW unit size, so I am not worried.
About the RTK player strength discussion ~D I really don't want to hijack this topic, so in a nutshell: I think we always had a good number of quality players. In the old RTK period (early MTW) definitely both Paul and Marco were amongst the very best without question. It was the greatest pleasure to fight on their side, in fact I joined RTK because Paul asked me ~;) In later periods (late MTW) again we had many good players, but if I really have to name soemone then it would be Palamedes and Kay (and not because Pala joined CA ~;) , he knows why). All in all, I played lots of friendly and lots of tourney games with Pala and he is extremely sharp and competitive player. Moreover he played rtw too on a competitive level, a thing that few of us can say. If there is anyone who knows about MP balance issues and possible exploits then Pala is one of these players. That is why I trust him and trust that the changes he initiated will improve game balance.
Of course I know that we have different tastes and different priorities, some wants to play this game (MP) for fun, wants prolonged battles on diverse terrain; others want glory and fight tourney games on even terrain, etc. So I assume that the changes might not make everyone happy but I am sure it will be a different, and better game than rtw. (By the way there is a game called Barbarian Invasion and surpise of surprises it is a better game than rtw, IMHO it is a fast paced but very tactical game. You guys should try it one day ~;) Which just shows that Ca was able to make improvements after rtw.)
About FF vs RTK. Well I remember all series. I did not play in the first but I have seen the replay. Gawain was sleeping behind the wheel in that game thus Paul indeed had to fight instead of two. ~D And yes, he was indeed a formidable opponent.
the second series: well I remeber some tricky choice of terrain by FF: a 10k, winter battle on a hilly, forested map ~:dizzy: whereas RTK as usual picked a flat temeprate battle. So IMO it was more about the cunning choice of scenario by FF than about the lack of Paul. (of course picking your terrain was part fo CWC at that time, so no problem with out-cunning RTK on this one ~;) ).
But I also remeber a third series, which we won ~D , moreover Pala was playing in that series. I dont remeber that FF team but IMO Tempiic and Luis were playing for sure.
Last but not least: I have all the replays. ~:)
Last, Pala, yes who would have thought ~:) but I am glad that you made it. Have fun mate, I am sure you will do your best.
:2thumbsup:Quote:
I agree with both CBR and Kalle
Yeah, I lost them too along with many other exciting battles, due to, I think some careless uninstall or reinstall of the game I made. :(Quote:
Kalle, I don't have the replay from the MTW era, I lost them when I changed computers 2 years ago. I remember a very very long winter early game... Not sure I have played the others.
What can I do to convince you to share them with me? :2thumbsup:Quote:
Last but not least: I have all the replays.
Kalle
The tactical battles can only be optimized for one unit size setting since movement speeds, firing rates, etc are not going to change with unit size. I assume "normal" size units the optimal setting since that's the default setting. Palmades' says the gameplay is going to be faster than MTW, but slower than RTW. The measurements on running speeds that CBR made indicate 20% slower than RTW/BI and 15% faster than MTW. That is in agreement with Palamedes statement that M2TW gameplay is closer to MTW than to RTW, but don't forget there are more units to control in M2TW than there were in MTW.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheetah
That's not the issue, and I wish people would stop using RTW as the benchmark. We are talking about having the multiplayer game approach the potential it exhibited in STW MP. M2TW could be better than RTW and still not attain the quality of gameplay that would bring back the large number of highly skilled players who used to play STW. I don't remember anyone saying that STW multiplayer was not fun. You could play it on flat terrain or hilly terrain. In team games, you could successfully assualt huge hills. Positional play was very important, and it didn't have to happen at fast and furious gamespeed. I wouldn't call STW slow. You could play 4 battles in 1 hour online.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheetah
I just don't get this idea that the reactive player should be penalized just because he's a reactive player. A delay in response to a movement order penalize reactive players. And, I don't want the AI changing my formation into some simplistic thing that robs me of being creative with my formations. Dragging the entire army out in one group is not the answer.
It remains to be seen if my clan will return to playing Total War online.
Well, I am comparing MTW2 to RTW because that was the last major release and people are worried that it might be a similar let down as RTW was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
As long as we dont have musketeers of similar strength to Shogun the game will never have the same potential. Like or dislike the guns but musketeers were the heart and soul of STW. One can refine the sword-spear-cavalry balance as long as he wants but without strong musketeers the game will never have the same potential.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
IMO one more reason to be optimistic about MTW2 as I hope that late era musketeers will be stronger than MTW arquebuseers.
Well it works as reputation: very difficult to build up but easy to lose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
In fact it is reputation.
We all agree that STW was fun. ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
Well, you can play BI or NTW2 on flat or hilly terrain, positional play is important in both yet almost no one playing BI and only a few playing NTW2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
Why is that? I dont know ... What are we arguing about? ~:dizzy:
Well, I bet when AMP rushed it was fast and furious. ~;p Gun duels of course were neither fast nor furious, but IMO the melee was, if one side had a slight advantage (and knew how to use it).Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
1v1s probably. I played mostly 4v4s and could get 4 or 5 games in 3 or 4 hours. IMO same as most of the TW MP times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
I dont really understand this part. How does being a reactive player connects to the previous issues?Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
I hope so as I enjoyed playing both with and against you, as well as playing with or against other Mizus. ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
Send me a PM with your e-mail addy. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalle
Medieval 2 looks and plays so much like the original, the battle maps are huge, the movement speeds between different unit types, and in general are to my satisfaction. The units are phatter than RTW which gives the impression of a decent sized unit even when numbers are small, so I won't be as compelled to use huge unit sizes just so that a unit becomes more noticeable. Gameplay feels so much like the original, but looks so much better. Familiarity with the new looks also helps with discerning between unit types at a distance, and after watching Kingdom of Heaven relying on banners seems so much more realistic.
There are still some RTW quirks that are present, command delay being the most obvious and annoying one for me. I guess I must be one of those re-active players. I'm also concerned how the skirmishing will be, but everything else seems to work so well that it feels like a completey different game to RTW. I look forward to playing some real battles in MP.
Playing the demo has given me such a positive feeling about Medieval 2 that I think all this new game will need is all the original Medieval MP clans/members to be present, and perhaps a custom battle map or 20.
Well you are comparing it to the worst game in the series. Better than the worst isn't saying much. CA set the standard of play with their first game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheetah
That is simply not true. You could remove guns from STW, and it would still have excellent gameplay. I'm not talking about that bastardization that was STW/MI v1.02. I'm talking about original STW. The guns were not powerful in original STW, and they didn't even shoot at all in the rain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheetah
Yes, and that's what CA has lost.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheetah
The game should have a standard of play which isn't just some people like this and some people like that. If M2TW is a tactical extravaganza, then it better allow the tactical execution of a strategic battle plan. When you start out playing, the battle plans and tactics will be simple, but if M2TW is as good as STW you will be able to progress to more complex strategic battle plans that require precise execution of tactics. The game mechanics have to allow those tactics to be executed. If the player can't execute them because he doesn't have sufficient control of his units, then the battles can't progress. This ability to progress to higher levels of play is what keeps people interested. That leads to the type of community where less experienced players learn from the more experienced players because the more experienced players stick around and keep playing. Eventually, the majority of the community is playing at a very high level of play, and the battles are of a very high quality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheetah
The gameplay was fast and furious, so why are you so gungho on the fact that M2TW is going to be faster and have more units to control as well. Speeding things up and increasing the number of things that have to be controlled decreases a player's control.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheetah
We're doing 20 minutes for 2v2 and 30 minutes for 3v3 in Samurai Wars. The pacing is great. MTW battles averaged longer than that because of the xbow shootouts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheetah
Because it reduces control. They speed up the game, give you more units to control and then put in a delay on top of that. There was nothing wrong with the temporal aspects of STW. These changes do not represent improvements.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheetah
We'll have to wait and see because my clan is not going to compromise their standards on what constitutes good and rewarding gameplay. Visualization of the units is also a factor. If you cannot clearly distinguish your men from the enemy and from the ground textures, all your going to get is a headache when playing for a long session. I certainly don't want to play a game if it gives me a headache. RTW gave me a headache when I played it online.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheetah
I hope MP is better this time around. MP on MTW, back in 2004, was excellent.Far Placed,Yes, but good. RTW, meh, fast like MTW, but no stragerty. hope MTW2 is better.
Told ya so Puzz ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Palamedes
Theres no explanation for taste.
I would rather play RTW than STW. Though I loved STW back in the day, a lot of that has to do with being back in the day though, innit.
Yes. Maybe the host will be able to finetune the gamespeed. I wonder if the host can vary the gamespeed setting in small steps either faster or slower around the default speed. If the desire to satisfy varying player tastes is legitimate, Creative Assembly should provide variable gamespeed, morale, fatigue rate and ammo settings, and those settings should be adjustable in small steps. The host should also be able to turn off fire projectiles and perhaps be able to eliminate units from the purchase roster.Quote:
Originally Posted by screwtype
This is omminous:
"Most of the issues with the Athlon XP processor were fixed for the release version of the game, the single player game works fine but there are a few residual issues with multiplayer and as such we can't officially support it." - Jason
It's certainly better than it not working at all with Athlon XP, but desync hell is not something I want to go through again.
I just thought of something...
Puzz you keep talking about the 20 vs 16 units, and how that is not a step forwards always.
I'm inclined to agree in regards to MP. It was hard enough to control 16 units in a tough battle in MTW and STW. 20 is certainly not better when it goes up in speed. And I must admit I have had my best battles in SP when I haven't had full armies (could also have been because of the lack of multiple army attacks on the player).
So, I thought, what about the host being able to set the number of units each player can get (could be great for 3v3 sieges since we can also set the moneylevels)? Or have a slider that applies to all players. 20 too much? Slide to 16. Too much still? Well then 13 might hit the spot.
A host selectable unit max would be nice, as would the ability to eliminate any units that were found to be unbalanced. Those things can also be done with rules which work ok for tournaments or groups of players willing to follow rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
I'm not against the move to 20 units. If the morale level is high enough in MP to allow the use of a tactical reserve, then you won't have to issue orders to all of your units at the same time which would make handling 20 units more managable. This morale level should be present in the experience = 0 units minimizing the need for upgrades thereby allowing you to play at the designed 10k per player which should mean better unit balance and a better functioning RPS system.
Modifying a unit via upgrades is fine, but I personally do not think a unit's characteristics should be alterable to the point where it leaves it's position within the RPS system. RTW improved things in this area by making the upgrade steps smaller in terms of combat improvement. Unfortunately in multiplayer, they still left morale tied to experience, and reinstated battlefield upgrades which LongJohn had removed in MTW. Palamedes is surely aware that multiplayer plays better without battlefield upgrades.
That stinks. Looks like I will not be bothering with MTW II. After hearing this my question is how is this an improvement over RTW? The MP lobby may have been awful in RTW but at least you could play it!Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
........Orda
I expect this will be fixed in a patch. CA definitely has the technical ability to fix it. In the meantime, Intel players will be having their multiplayer games ruined by Athlon XP players and vica versa. I can see it now:Quote:
Originally Posted by Orda Khan
Player X joins a game.
Host: "Do you have AthlonXP cpu?"
Player X: "Yes."
Host: Kick Player X
Host: Ban Player X
Eventually players will get things sorted after going through "Desync Hell".
Exactly what I wanted to hear, and this is NEW!!! Still, I won't buy it straight away.Quote:
Originally Posted by Palamedes
:laugh4: :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
MP blog was nice. Though, I don't see why alot of people are saying "I'll wait a few months" or "I wait and ask the Vets to see what they think'. You can rely on other ppl to tell you. they may like it, but you may hate it when you try it, it just better to try MP and seei f you acutally like it or not..
We two gals at Freedom Fighters were proponents of low money (8k) on RTW because instead of allowing people to fill up all the 20 slots with all uber units, 8k forces them to limit themselves to between 12-16 slots and allow them to make trade-offs between many cheap but unreliable units or few uber units. It also allows playing Large setting at 3x3 or 2x2 level (total men on the field limitation on performance).Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
Regretably the idea didn't catch on because players get used to the "normal" setting at 15k Dinars, which in our opinion way too high.
Dr. Crosby said: "They can build all the prisons they want, you don't have to go." They can make 20 slots, you don't need to always fill them.
Anniep
Because we got burned once, and don't want to get burned again. I am going to relay on people to tell me what the gamepay is like, but not the ones who are practically peeing their pants over the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
However the Althon XP issue kills M2TW for me regardless of the gameplay. Even people with Pentiums are going to be adversely affected because Athlon XP users are going to be online trying to play multiplayer with Pentium users. My clan will definitely not be returning to M2TW multiplayer unless this Athlon issue is fixed.
I hope they will put in a check and tag the player as "AthelonXP detected". That allows the AthelonXP people to play together :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
Oh BTW, am not discriminating against the AthlonXP: There are far more Intel Celeron with shared graphics out there too.
Anniep
Athlon XP users should be connected to a different MP lobby.Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyAnn