Grassy flatland = lol
Printable View
Grassy flatland = lol
flatmap was the first drawback in TW. To even allow that such a map is played is more than stupid, never should happen!
Im sure, that almost 100% of all online games was fought on that flat, green map, without any single tree or anything else.
That time you had the "hidden" advantage for the defender, so you did end almost always with some bordercamping.....
Anyway, the defs who create the AI or test the battles simply dont focus on the overall battle.
They just watch certain things, like shooting, how looks the cavcharge, does units move correctly.
If the overall battle "looks okay", they are done.
You simply cant explain, why on earth we dont got colors to choose from, 3 times same nation and your doomed.
This just shows how they test, they never mixed their armies, they probably always go 3x 1v1 in their tests (if they even test 3v3...).
Its logical and clearly seen.
Same goes for those buildings or stones, hidden walls and so on... Its impossible to not notice, unless you dont care for it, since you are a terrible player and have no clue!
From a point of history, houses or little towns has huge effect, no doubt. But this is a game, we dont need realism in the first place, we need gameplay.
In NTW its pointless to attack a house, you send units and and than wait... What has that to do with tactic or playstyle? has it any effect, how you move your units?!? No.
This shows once again, how the Devs look at the game, if you have a very fare view on the battle it surely is a good idea. It creates a tactical momentum, but the way its done, is too simple and doom the tactical complexity of this game.
I could bring up many more examples...
One last note on it, People speak about to make that optional, so you can turn it on/off.
I personal wonder, how this should work with the stated goal of massiv multiplay?!?!?
This is getting complex again, endless of options you can turn on or off, endless of things....
I fear, that we getting a game, which isnt bad, but you hardly find many people who like the setups you like.
Which ends once again in no matchupgames and tons of different gamestyles... which isnt bad in the first place, but with not too many people it is.
Koc
Quote:
Originally Posted by AggonyReborn
And it's boring and offers no challenge. In another maps there are challenges because you actually have to learn how to maneuver.
Hello Kocmoc,
A guy by the name Rob made some tools for the original STW, including a mapflattener. That was on my request as I was making a lot of custom maps back then. That was done by loading a map into the demo editor. Making maps that had a totally different look and feel was difficult and time consuming, and so I wanted a blank sheet of paper so to speak. Since there were more people into making maps, that blank sheet was shared. It helped me to make more maps, maps with hills, trees and so on. As I also played some MP, I learned that different people look for different types of maps. Some people look for massive hills, other look for plains with little subtle advantages in the center to have highly tactical (the way they define that) games, others want some sort of fortification, a bridge, some want awesome scenary, others seek for some abstract stuff. To each his own. There were 100's of people playing all those different kinds of maps, I don't think we got a problem with it.
The grassy flatland map also had another advantage: it helpen people understand how units worked. I know that I played quite some skirmisch battles offline on a flatmap to learn about units. But I played any other map as well.
I agree about the same nations/colors: it's very confusing. But some people love it.
Options. Personally, I think it means that it attracts more people and keeps them playing it. More people playing it means more sold copies and a larger fanbase, which also means it's more likely that something like a better server will become available and simply keeps the series in business. People will be forced to agree about some options, or no one will play. But it's options they choose and not options forced upon them by the creators. Along the way they can tweak things for themselves to get even better gameplay. Better gameplay for them, not what others tell them to do. There will be several groups, when eaach group is as large as the original STW MP community, nothing blocks the way to have a healthy MP experience, with the added benefit of a much larger total community. The alternative is just one healthy MP experience the size of STW.
The stated goal of a massive multiplay, in the sense of 100's of gamers on one battlefield, is just a dream and miles away. I don't think it will ever get there. But the different leagues and settings, that we could have had since day one.
If you ask me about problems with MP, there are many, but a big one is the bad support to share options and tweaks. Even a simple thing like a new map requires a download from a fansite, a sometimes hours nightmare to get it installed into the right place and a reboot. The no options for MP has reached a new high level by only having 3 (?) maps in NTW and not allowing the inclusion of more.
There's manoeuvring in flatmaps too Warman.
Tosa,
I have no proof, but i tell you that in STW and also in MTW you just saw the flatmap all the time. Im sure here are some guys who will/can agree about this.
The idea behind a flat map is clear and logical. I dont mind the testing unit vs unit or testing something.
One thing for sure, once you give people a flat map its just a question of time, until almost every online game will be played on this map.
In my opinion, its a bad thing, simply as it cuts a lot of the gamemecanics and the gameplay off. But of course i see the "advance" of it.
About options. It doesnt matter, if some player like colors or not, it also doesnt matter, if we can turn many things on or off, as long the goal is: Many online player - many battles - using matchmaker.
Matchmaker is the only way to get the thousands of player into games, to make the matchmaker working, we need no options.
Maybe im not clear. I personal love tons of options, its nice. But it wont work with many player. It dont work right now and it wont work any better, if there are really many player.
Its logical. The game is complex, too complex to be a success in online multiplay.
The gameplay is fine as it is, but all those options .... thats too much.
In all my posts the last weeks, i almost never touched the "support" thing. :D
CA has almost no support and never had, i save my energy and dont enrage on this matter anymore.... pointless.
In the first place, we need a good working first version of STW2, if CA mess up nothing can help us.
If I read about this general thing and houses and also the idea of doing this, i start crying.
I repeat myself, this game is at its limit since some years, nothing left to improve. The battles are fine and all you really can do is, to improve the graphics.
Exactly this leads to this weird ideas of giving the general talents or let you using units just every few games.
This things will cause insane problems, how to balance something you can just use every (lets say) 4 games and give you an huge advance?!?!?
How new player will act, if they get rolled the first time, but a very good general?
Maybe the effect is very small, but its an unfair advance.
Alone the camerasetting in NTW is unfair, new player comes in and unless someone tells you about the camera, your doomed to play so close about the units, that you have no chance at all.
If you have no idea, that maps are bugged, units move weird ways and so on....
I believe in fairplay, skill is one thing, but what CA is creating right now is just complex and impossible to balance.
Balance and gameplay, its all about this. If we also have good server who dont disconnect us, than we almost have a good game.
Koc
New players get rolled as it is due to the high learning curve of the game. It might even be that the "unfairness" might spur players on to play more to achieve an even playing field. As to the camera setting, it is possible to be a very successful player without utilising it. I didn't start utilising the debugged camera until this summer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kocmoc
Hello Kocmoc,
That's for sure, the Flatmap was played a lot in all TW's I know. More than any other map I think. It indeed cuts a mechanic off as well as certain tactics. Heightbonusses won't work, try to hide some spare units in a forest, or cover vulnerable melee units from gunfire. But flatmaps are not without tactics.
I agree about a matchmaker being very nice and required even, by that we mean the chatlobby and hosting like we had in STW, don't we? I've been playing some other games and often missed a lobby, it makes live a lot easier.
Maybe, some people seem to dislike the ability to chose, for others'no options and limited possibilities to get their own stuff played online (be it maps or mods) is a reason to call it a day.
By support I meant the functionality of the software, more precisely autodownloading of required files, hotswapping, storage/management and CRC's. A community can do a lot of those other things. (given the game provides all required functionality, a lot of that was available since STW and it started to become available for MP, but after VI it took a dive again. So, the game can still be improved lots for MP).
Tbh I just hope we have some sort of Map creation tool, I really do miss the days of logging into the Org and getting the latest community created map pack and trying those maps out. NTW suffers from a shocking set of maps.
The flat maps in Shogun never bothered me tbh because they were at least creative and not just a green field like some of CA's efforts. Flat maps have always been the prefered 1v1 learning arena anyway. I think a lot of us old vets were spoilt as we learnt on Totomi which although slightly favouring the defender had a wealth of attacking possibilities, I hope it returns what a great map that was.
I don't recall many of the tournys being played on flat maps, cwc tends to swap things around mapwise.
:juggle2:
I didn't start using it until last week and I honestly notice no huge difference. Sure you can see higher and farther but regardless, you still got to react to enemy movements, ally movements, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by AggonyDuck
and going into the flat maps discussion, for me, they where the most challenging as you really had to dig deep into your bag of tricks. Its not easy to go up against a wall and break it. Other non flat maps have very obvious advantages that over time you learn how to counter. I will say however, the flat maps from shogun/mtw/vi should not be compared to these etw/ntw one. Etw/ntw to me that map is more easy and less challenging as the tactic is straight forward every time, whereas the ones from the previous total wars was harder to master.
What I liked about STW is how simple it was, yet could take a very long time before you developed the skills to be a real competitive player in the game. Same with my other top two favorite games Populous and World in Conflict, these were easy games to learn, but hard to really master and become a top dog, some could play them for a year and only just be an average player. STW though even well balanced and had good gameplay, still had tons of room to improve itself in many areas, but many core key things remain untouched to this day, and some of these things that could be improved on "need" to be improved, IMHO. I wish Populous series and World In Conflict kept going, but unfortunately they did not which is a real shame, so I'm left with TW and hoping they get it right, because I really want to return back to TW with STW2.
The camerafreedom gives a nice advantage over someone who doesn't use it, but it's not a game winner that's for sure. It should be the standard camera with a couple of fixes to it, but 10 years later it's not even in as an option, so most newbies will be at a slight disadvantage because most won't know to go looking for such a thing. I knew to go looking for it because I used it in STW and I hate playing without it, it's like they are trying to force to you look at the "pretty pretty" and not pay attention to the whole of things. I tried to look for such a thing in Populous which I played before STW was out, but sadly it wasn't possible with the game, which sucked because being able to zoom out more in that game would've made it so much more enjoyable to play. And with World in Conflict that game didn't have camerafreedom as an option, but you could add it in somewhat the same way you do with the TW camerafreedom. I had to bring it up on the forums in World in Conflict and get many people talking about it before it got added as an option, because only a small handful used it and no one really talked about it, some of the so called "pros" didn't know about it or use it. And when they did add it in as a option it was broken and didn't keep top scroll speed O.o..
The amount of people who never used camerafreedom in TW and WiC or don't care to use it is quite astonishing, but nevertheless should be the standard camera for strategy games if it fits with the game, I would think anyway. Will it be in STW2 atleast as an option? I doubt it cause kiddies these days don't mind the standard bumpy road driven camera and looking at the "pretty pretty".
Flatland maps are always good to have for playtesting and if you want a complete 100% fair match when you only have time for one game. To me I think it would be best to have two games played one game each as attacker and defender and winner could be decided by like best kill/loss worth or something, so playing on a map will hills and trees wouldn't matter. Most games I saw up in NTW were clannies playing on the flat map or newbies wanting to stat pad their stars playing on settings best for them and here is me with swoosh playing on a normal map and attacking. Am I an outdated dog or something for not being addicted to flatmaps or stat padding going for easy wins to boost my star count so I can feel special about myself for having lots of stars, but got them being cheap even though in the end they mean very little. That just reminds me of all the pub stars in WiC which would brag about their medals and stars, but if you played them in a clan match "if you could ever get them into a clan match" or even in a 1v1 normal mode, they'd get rolled. I guess their stars and medals can't save them when they are forced to play the game the way it was meant to be played. And I always got a chuckle out of playing someone who plays mostly flat maps in TW on a regular map with hills and trees and that player disregards the hills and woods having his units exposed or shooting at a hill wasting ammo. And after the match he'd ask for a rematch on a flat map claiming he's much better on them and claiming that anything else is "unfair".
Now TW battles have buildings on the maps which give a bonus and upgrades and such, so they can just say that TW is evolving and they want MP to be just as popular as SP? You can have a very popular MP without that stuff by just getting your basics right and near perfect ( of course not perfect cause we know that's impossible ). To this day some of your basic problems still go untouched and now they are throwing more on to balance out instead of trying to prefect what they already have. Clan ladders and match making are all well and good, but what about your basic problems in the gameplay which in the end makes the game replayable ( to me that would be 1# on my list ). Gameplay #1 balance of units, #2 how units move on the battlefield and interact when engaging and engaged with the enemy, #3 controls, camera, UI, maps, unit sizes, etc, and it helps to be able to what's going on in the battlefield without just looking at the banners.... this is the core you got to get right first and after that you branch yourself out to other options. Some options which we've been asking for many years ago and could use, we still haven't gotten yet, like a map editor along with the ability to download newly made maps from the host when you join a game.
The match making will only do so much because you can't have it without having a standard play and one of the biggest divides on that is "unit sizes" and I think always will be. Games like StarCraft, WarCraft, and DawnofWar which I played all have a standard so match making for them is no problem. You can't have your casual gamer who tends to like more bigger unit sizes and your more competitive gamer who likes the medium sized units both trying to play the same match making and if you separate the two than what's next? No one will use it much because the lack of a standard, you need something which everyone can play and agree on.
Another thing that has a big hiccup to a big MP is Steam. How many times have I d/c'ed because connection to Steam was lost, way to many. So what servers are we getting to make this work? I mean what are we gonna have hosting, it be random in the match making as to which player gets to be host and also needing Steam as a 3rd party which can d/c you in the middle of a match? I don't even know why you need Steam running while you're in game as to what role it plays during a match.
TW in the end I think will always be good, but could've been great. And is it greed or lack of imagination or really just lack of resources and money? Who knows the answer to that question...
I know there is, but there is a lack of creatively when it comes time to manoevure on the map.Quote:
There's manoeuvring in flatmaps too Warman.
but creativity on flatmaps is at its purest form... :)
But I want a good challenging game AMP, not the same dull maneuver tactics I see all the time on flatland games.
:pimp:
I know Warman we all want a good challenging game and that should come from who you play against where the map should just spice things up. If the map isn't flat, but is still somewhat fair and not over kill for the attacker to overcome all is good, but still if you're playing against someone who is about equal skill it's doubtful you'll win. This is why it's a good idea to have a system where you swap sides and allow victor to be the one with the best kill/loss worth or some hopefully near perfect score system. I really dislike unwinnable surprise matches that people setup when you try to join someones stat pad game. At least on a flatmap I know I can't get screwed over to bad, so it's always good to have them for many reasons. :)
Oh good point AMP, I think I would have a better game against you on flatland 1v1 then I would with a newbie on NTW (though I would still lose :laugh4:) , but It would get boring after awhile. However, doing a 1v1 on a (mostly) flatland map with small hills and/or forests would make it even more interesting.
Just my opinion I held the past 6 years 9 months, that's all. :pimp:.
hmm I could had swore we did a 1v1 on a relatively small hills and/or forest flatland map :PQuote:
Originally Posted by AntiKingWarmanCake88
Quote:
Originally Posted by AggonyKing
No, it was grassy flatlands and you overwhelm me. :laugh4:
you need to get out of your Castle 2_5_2 more :PQuote:
Originally Posted by AntiKingWarmanCake88
My bro got a new comp, so I think I will.:book:
Lets get to your points.Quote:
Originally Posted by AggonyDuck
1. Of course gets player rolled by the high learning curve, but to make it even worser and also tell that the player, you instantly create more problems than needed.
Like always, people tend to think that it isnt the skill who beats them, they think its the extra bonus.... so its logical, that this invention isnt in the favor of new player.
2. That "unfairness spur player... sorry, maybe there are a few who like it, but thats surely a minority. Till today i never found a huge amount of people who love to get beaten all the day...
3. camera settings. thats really funny, till summer :D its surely not that needed with ETW, simply as you never spread your army like you do with NTW.
In NTW it is a huge difference, if you have a heavy zoom-out. Again, it is about what is possible and what is known, it makes no difference, if you use it or not. Its just about, new player know it or not. In the end its unfair. You know it and can decide, if you use it or not. New player dont know it and cant decide, if useful or not...
I can agree with you on this fact for NTW, it wasnt the case with Shogun though mainly due to gun battles not lasting the entire fight and a much larger variety of strategys available to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiKingWarmanCake88
NTWs flat battles do my head in and at times can result in 20 minutes of just moving backwards and forwards to get the best shooting position, the shooting in Shogun was normally a feeling out period before melee clashes, unless you were facing Ampster then quite likely the shooting woulnt last long :P
Well unlike in stw/mtw, in etw/ntw you got like 16 units of pavises with instant anti-cav capabilities plus some cav.
So yes, flatland battles would end up very differently for both games.
When a (new) player likes playing on a flatmap, then that's his right. While a flatmap might not be the cup of tea of other players, it's better for us all when he stays around (more users). When he feels none of the available maps are good, he won't stick around and he won't help attract new players who might like non flat maps (too).Quote:
Originally Posted by Kocmoc
S2TW should include a flatmap as well as a mix of other maps (plains with a small hill, plains and some woods, big woods, monstrous hills with woods, maps with fortification). Not a few maps with compromises everywhere, but several sets of very different maps so there's something for every taste. Topped by a mapeditor.
In RTW there's a worldmap. From the little I toyed around there, it appears that this worldmap is used to render a battlemap in realtime [it's possible to manipulate this worldmap and then the battlemap turns out differently]. So, you have the whole map of Japan and 'throw a dart' at some location. Then the info from there is used to generate the battlemap. I thought it was a nice system, why isn't it available for MP too? Add a favouritelist so you can store your preferred battlecoordinates, and replay Totomi over and over again. In the mapeditor, there's also a random terraineditor. It's basic, but that way no-one will know what he's going to get, generals will be forced to read the terrain then and there and won't be able to get the upper hand because only one general knows about that seemingly flat terrain actually being a small hill. That favouritelist was available, just in some odd way. RTW had a mapeditor. When S2TW is going to get everything the old titles had, but in a MP friendly way, it's going to be nice mapwise.
well tosa that mapselector option is already listed at the wishlist and imo its so easy to make.... store coordinates and give it a name u want and make sure u can upload it...... and every map in sp is available in mp....
Yes Magyar, and it's been part of a title already, just not in a convenient way. I understand that seemingly simple features often generate more problems than expected. But it happens quite a lot that (great) possibilities are in the game and just don't take off because it's not fully implemented. Is it not there because the options/possibilities are not visible for the developers or is it disabled because it caused problems somewhere else? I think both are true. Some old games solve the latter problem by creating two separate executables, one for SP and one for MP. SP isn't held back by special MP requirements and the other way around.
I was just thinking about getting back into total war, and I saw this, very excited about it, especially the clan meta campaign (maybe we are not that far from having a massive multiplayer persistent map, with everybody having their army somewhere on it, to give really interesting battles.)
As for grassy flatland, in RTW everybody played with in 1.1/1.2 because it was the only map that was remotely playable (until people learned how to import every map from the SP), considering that the hills on every other map were generally steepest at the red line, and the melee bonus for being higher up was huge.
Anyways, maybe I need to start playing either STW or RTW with what little time I have these days (what do people play besides NTW, tried it out and hated it.)
(OOC:Magyar Khan, I tried to register on the new Wolves forums, but it won't send out the confirmation e-mail. Know how I can fix this?)
Headhurler
I noticed this trend on flatlands and usually whoever inflicted the first couple good volleys usually won the game before flanking was even in order. Even on different maps I noticed the time with shooting but they weren't as bad as on flatlands.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sp00n
what a liked abiout stw is that even if the enemy had only hth units and started to rush u with his nodachi monks spear army that the arrows of your bows could even do enough damage on teh monks and nodachi that u had a reasonable chance to beat the rush..... and this balance between (muskets and/vs bows) vs (hand to hand units) is fragile but needs to be very good to make the game great
mmm dont know for yet i took this option to keep the russian hacker advertising out....... when we get a more active forum i will make it more solid..... we have plans to reinstall our old forums....Quote:
Originally Posted by Headhurler
Sorry but I have to tell that I don't understand few issues mentioned into this discussion?
What is so great into multiplayer chat?
It's nothing special - its normal into multiplayer game. We have to tell somply - today multiplayer (both into Empire and Napoleon) is terrible. But CA can't claim that NORMAL multiplayer is great achievement.