Multiplayer is the future

Consider this. The fact that the RTW online battle component is basically crap, really speaks to how far they are from developing the next step in TW multiplayer - online campaign games.

Here's a quote from a fellow gamer in my clan:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shoreforge

One of these days, publishers and developers will realize games are all about the mp no matter what.

Yes you want a solid kick a** sp experience, but unless you can crush your friends, the game isn't played after the shine wears off.

Longevity = more revenue through expansions and franchises = good MP

I still can't believe they haven't put in at least a 2-4 player online campaign...that can be saved.

If the game had that -- this game would be played forever.

---

I think he pretty much nailed it, and obviously I agree completely.

In the dev chats they keep saying that no one would play an online campaign game since the turns would take to long and all this other stuff. They are seriously underestimating the desire for players to endure some really minor gameplay issues in order to have a persistent battle online with their friends. To me that is Mt. Everest. That is where all these strategy games should be striving for.

Multiplayer is the future.

I had this great thought the other night ...

It would be awesome if while playing your single player campaign, whenever a conflict initiated battle mode, you had THREE options for resolving the battle.

1) fight battle
2) automatically resolve battle
3) fight battle online

This would adress the AI problems. And at least provide an interim step to an online campaign game.

And this is not a tech challenge. Option 3 would simply log you into GameSpy and host the appropriate battle. If one army attacked you then there would be a slot for 1 player. If multiple armies attacked you then you would have slots for additional players. Think of how cool that would be! I would love to join someone's campaign battle and give them a real fight!

You'd get veteran generals and noob generals. It would be cool. It would be challenging and it would really make you think before you send those 500 Romans against those 1100 Gauls :charge:

I'd invade Seleucid and get my firend who loves that faction to join my passworded battles so that he'd be my Seleucid tactical opponent. How cool would that be?

So, assuming that CA could have (read *should* have) delivered at least an RTW online component of equal value to MTW current (patched) online component ... don't you think they should have raised the bar a bit and therefore included something like I've just suggested?

My point: why develop ground breaking single player gameplay and yet in that very same game choose not to do anything ground breaking with the multiplayer, and in reality take several steps back?

And ... why no response from CA? They've received (and applauded) their deserved kudos for such a great single player game, yet nothing to say to their fans about why the mp is so broken or when they can expect to have it fixed.

Wow great idea! but it may be kind of annoying for some players if they click "play online" and no one is there to join their games. Sure - if it happened it would be sweeeet - and I'm sure that people online looking for games are going to do anything possible to play a game - even if they are a meagre army against a formidable force - they would most likely do the thing that a small force would do - even withdrawing off the battlefield with the majority of the troops and screen the enemy with some, thinking of the big picture they can't see (unless that feature was incorporated). The opponent online can have a brief overview of the big campaign map to get a feel of what kind of battle this is and then go into it. This idea obviously makes for some frusterations where the opponent could just do annoying things to piss you off with no semblance of a strategy - in which case you as the host have an option to "Boot player/Switch to AI Opponent".

:D

I also agree that without MP the game dies as soon as the peopel finish the MP or the game's features and graphics get outdated.

Why do you think Starcraft, Halflife and such games are so impressively STILL played these days? It's certainly not their graphics. It's their online ability to make great MP battles with nearly flawless gameplay balance. Without online battles FPS would never have been as abundant as they are today.

cool yes, but a pipe dream as of now.
Lets just get back the MP we had and fix the play issues

I was thinking some more about it and actually I've played a game that had this very feature - Close Combat!

At least I am sure the Close Combat V would allow you to play a campaign and host all your battles for an online player to chair as the AI. It was great. Solved the AI issues and made the game a challenge. There was a lobby on game spy were you'd go and you could be pretty sure to keep the smacktards away.

Anyway ... to put this into perspective, Close Combat V was released like 6 years ago. So this type of feature is nothing *new*.

Actually, time would not be a factor for RTW. The players would have plenty of time to make their moves while waiting to logon to the RTW lobby and then have even more time to make their next moves while they waited for a game to actually launch without dropping everyone. :) If we endure all of the time waiting to play just one fast MP game, then I can see a lot of these same people willing to wait around and play a long MP campaign game. hehe

ROTFL!

Nice Elmark!

v funny elmo, but once the reality of it sinks in it makes me sad :(

~:confused:

It's either laugh or cry . . . . I am going to hire a comedian to do my Eulogy: Then people will remember my funeral and cry, not from sadness, but from remembering the last laugh I gave them before I was laid to rest. ~:)

I am 42 years of age, been hit by a forklift, had a heart attack, been hit by 480 Volts of electricity and have lived to tell about it . . . I am sure my nine lives have been used up by now . . It's just a matter of time . .

****ELMO looks around, sees wife looking strangely at him, decides its a good night for a bout with insomnia!****


hehe wooohooo!

Be careful when you drink your coffee tomorrow.

Les Poisanus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by d6veteran

My point: why develop ground breaking single player gameplay and yet in that very same game choose not to do anything ground breaking with the multiplayer, and in reality take several steps back?

---

As soon as I play MP, and don't like it (high probability), I’ll consider this to become my sig!

ElmarkOFear-sama, you are just simply a must-have! I salute you! It will be a disgrace if we never get to play the Rome we want to have against each other just the way we would like to play it, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by d6veteran

Consider this. The fact that the RTW online battle component is basically crap, really speaks to how far they are from developing the next step in TW multiplayer - online campaign games.
...

In the dev chats they keep saying that no one would play an online campaign game since the turns would take to long and all this other stuff. They are seriously underestimating the desire for players to endure some really minor gameplay issues in order to have a persistent battle online with their friends.
...

It would be awesome if while playing your single player campaign, whenever a conflict initiated battle mode, you had THREE options for resolving the battle.

1) fight battle
2) automatically resolve battle
3) fight battle online
...

---

Some of you guys must have seen this before, but I am trying to develop an online campaign system... hard work though and real life keeps getting in the way.

See my sig for more info, inc. a demo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by d6veteran

Consider this. The fact that the RTW online battle component is basically crap, really speaks to how far they are from developing the next step in TW multiplayer - online campaign games.

Here's a quote from a fellow gamer in my clan:



I think he pretty much nailed it, and obviously I agree completely.

In the dev chats they keep saying that no one would play an online campaign game since the turns would take to long and all this other stuff. They are seriously underestimating the desire for players to endure some really minor gameplay issues in order to have a persistent battle online with their friends. To me that is Mt. Everest. That is where all these strategy games should be striving for.

Multiplayer is the future.

I had this great thought the other night ...

It would be awesome if while playing your single player campaign, whenever a conflict initiated battle mode, you had THREE options for resolving the battle.

1) fight battle
2) automatically resolve battle
3) fight battle online

This would adress the AI problems. And at least provide an interim step to an online campaign game.

And this is not a tech challenge. Option 3 would simply log you into GameSpy and host the appropriate battle. If one army attacked you then there would be a slot for 1 player. If multiple armies attacked you then you would have slots for additional players. Think of how cool that would be! I would love to join someone's campaign battle and give them a real fight!

You'd get veteran generals and noob generals. It would be cool. It would be challenging and it would really make you think before you send those 500 Romans against those 1100 Gauls :charge:

I'd invade Seleucid and get my firend who loves that faction to join my passworded battles so that he'd be my Seleucid tactical opponent. How cool would that be?

So, assuming that CA could have (read *should* have) delivered at least an RTW online component of equal value to MTW current (patched) online component ... don't you think they should have raised the bar a bit and therefore included something like I've just suggested?

My point: why develop ground breaking single player gameplay and yet in that very same game choose not to do anything ground breaking with the multiplayer, and in reality take several steps back?

And ... why no response from CA? They've received (and applauded) their deserved kudos for such a great single player game, yet nothing to say to their fans about why the mp is so broken or when they can expect to have it fixed.

---

The ONLY thing that i have to add is that the games with weak multiplayer loose money from PIRACY...Single player games cant fight it since the CD key is not worth anything if the MP is weak...If you can read russian and visit some ru tw sites you will see how much of the RTW has been downloaded via emule/bought illegal copies...In greece the piracy is being fought but its still a MAIJOR part of the PC games...The common thought of any south/eastern european gamer is:well what i want to play MP or SP? SP? then ill pay 5 euros for the illegal copy and play it...You just have to see what happened with Blizzards WarCraft III ANY internet Cafe in greece that has it has the 100% LEGAL copy NOT because they cant have the illegal BUT because they CANT provide Battlenet feature without the legal copy...And as long as the CA/Activision dont provide a MP campaign no matter how good/stable the current BIZZARE (yes it is because all that player want to build armies in mp) for the common RTS players MP gets they will see themselves behind Blizzard,EA etc(note The battle for Middle earth)...

PS An older post of mine at the .COM
the whole hosting-quitting-dropping etc etc is a NO for a MP campaign wich will have to be a single grand campaign going online with commanders and subcommanders taking their place if one drops-quits-disconnects also its a TURN BASED campaign so one leaving on the camp map wont cause many probs since the option of the replacements could be relieving...
Second the MP campaign isnt vital FOR the "staggering numbers" of the users online its inorther TO HAVE stagerring numbers....The present online part of the game looks bizzare and awkward to the other (note:majority) RTS ers the whole bre battle selection and lack of strategy (yes the TW series are TBS-Turn Based Strategy+RTT-Real Time Tactical games) with only the RTT part online has only a small potential to draw the other Strategy gamers off the resources gathering-click-fiestas RTSes....The low level of the Programmed Oponnent makes the boredom unbearable in the later stages of the game as the lack of the diplomacy (there is NO diplomacy with a PO)....
My feeling of the present MP is that the sterilised and artificial battles drew away all the feeling that i had from the first contact with the game in sp.
The "mirror" like laboratory flat battles with ideal "non benefiting/giving advantage" sterile enviroments made the all thing pointless in a way.
Although remarcable the exeptions of the above majority fought in hilly desert and other enviroments battles couldnt take away the tasteless feeling and smell of drugstore of the whole process.
However as it goes if you dont have smthing u are forced to live with what you have so the sterile enviroment keeps its existance and the community after the disdain of the CA to the idea of creation of an MP campaign remains IMHO prisoner of the sterilised encounters...

Read this:

http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20...rdell_01.shtml

(you'll need to register at GamaSutra, but this is free)

This is the postmortem for "The Political Machine", the most recent game from Stardock. Stardock has been cited on these boards as being very responsive to the customer, looking to the future, and so forth. However, this is what their President said about the multiplayer in that game:

"Multiplayer. The biggest regret I have, in hindsight, was the decision to have a multiplayer mode in The Political Machine. The game features a full-blown matchmaking service, in order to make it relatively easy to play multiplayer. I love playing games multiplayer, and I've played a lot of games online with people. That said, based on the sales statistics, and based on the server stats, less than 1% of players are playing the game multiplayer."

"As a gamer, I demand multiplayer in my games. It affects my purchasing decisions. But as a game developer, I recognize that people like me are an extreme minority. Outside of a handful of games, most games don't reach critical mass in online players to make a successful multiplayer community. We would have been much better off putting that time into enhancing the single player game."

Any opinions?

MP will only ever remain a small minority if devs dont give it any priority, and improve the situation.

in game where MP is given decent priority (not just some obscure game) like WC3 for example, here we see the vast numbers that play it online.

I think you will find that games that are popular, with well supported MP, see the MP side as a huge success, popular games where devs dont take much consideration to MP, the MP only remains mediocre.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GilJaysmith

Read this:

http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20...rdell_01.shtml

(you'll need to register at GamaSutra, but this is free)

This is the postmortem for "The Political Machine", the most recent game from Stardock. Stardock has been cited on these boards as being very responsive to the customer, looking to the future, and so forth. However, this is what their President said about the multiplayer in that game:

"Multiplayer. The biggest regret I have, in hindsight, was the decision to have a multiplayer mode in The Political Machine. The game features a full-blown matchmaking service, in order to make it relatively easy to play multiplayer. I love playing games multiplayer, and I've played a lot of games online with people. That said, based on the sales statistics, and based on the server stats, less than 1% of players are playing the game multiplayer."

"As a gamer, I demand multiplayer in my games. It affects my purchasing decisions. But as a game developer, I recognize that people like me are an extreme minority. Outside of a handful of games, most games don't reach critical mass in online players to make a successful multiplayer community. We would have been much better off putting that time into enhancing the single player game."

Any opinions?

---

Gil as i see the example of Blizzards HUGE succes in MP with WarCraft Starcraft series had NO impact at all on CA... :(
And as ive read in your previous posts on Piracy and nocd loaders you dont like piracy BUT if you want to fight piracy make MP!!!
And IMHO Blizzard didnt emphasize or improve MP to please the customers they did it because that would AND DID insure that all the customers were FORCED to buy a legitimate copy in orther to enjoy the game...
So if CA/Activision want to sell their game to the HUGE market that other companies enjoy just pay attention to opinions like:

I had my mouth SHUT after me trying to agitate RTW in a greek warcraft forum...
The reason?: "To Medieval eixe plaka se single player, alla ousiastika eixe aniparkto multiplayer giati ka8e "game" i8ele meres na teleiwsei, kai opws kai na to kanoume online fainetai i axia tou RTS. Kai to Rome apo oti fainetai de 8a exei kai polles diafores oson afora to gameplay apo to Medieval, opote.."

Translation: "The Medieval was fun in single player, but virtually had non existing multiplayer because each "game" needed days to be finished, and at all events the value of the RTS is shown online. And Rome as it seems wont have many differences as the gameplay is oncerned to Medieval, so..."
The link: www.warcraft.gr/forum.asp...1869.m1157

Hellenes

I like the game for the tactical battles, and I think MP Total War could be quite successful if the tactical battles were brought to their full potential. In the single player campaign, the idea is to enter into the strategically important battles with the better general or with more troops. In multiplayer, you can't get those advantages, so you have to win with superior tactics. I've played both SP and MP in each of the Total War games, and I can definitely say that the thrill of winning a great battle in MP far exceeds anything I ever encounted in SP. I'm not sure that CA needs a multiplayer campaign, but I think they should try to maintain and improve the tactical quality of the battles with each installment of the game. That aspect has declined badly in RTW.

Gil, I'm sure that you're aware that the opinion expressed in that post mortem is not a one size fits all for the video game industry. A badly implemented multiplayer or a multiplayer that largely does not suit the audience is most definitely going to reap that type of sour grapes in a post mortem. But it is simply not true that multiplayer is the minority "outside of a handful of game"! I find that comment absurd. I can't think of a single friend or co-worker who plays video games who is *not* interested in getting online and playing with others.

Online gaming is a booming industry. All you have to do is look at the subscription market to see examples of just how much player will dish out over the course of months and in some cases years, to play online. Nevermind the boom in 'gaming' broadband packages.

TW has focused on Single Player and honestly I cannot say how much more profit/sales would be obtained per additional development resources put into the multiplayer component. I think that would depend on what and how multiplayer features were implemented.

Multiplayer is the future of gaming -- I have no doubt when I make that statement. Multiplayer addresses the AI hurdle. Multiplayer recycles gameplay (I can speak of at least 5 friends I convinced to buy MTW just last year because I was still enjoying it online ... without an online component I would have been done with the game and never had the opportunity to recommend it so far down the road). Multiplayer allows people to connect and play games together throughout the world. Minority? Bah!

CA has some choices to make and I don't necessarily think it is obvious to make multiplayer the ugly step child of TW. The single player game speaks to the talent, care and innovation available from the development team and I personally think that if some of that talent was shared and supported in the multiplayer component you'd reap the benefits financially.

Everyone I know that plays TW would like some degree of a multiplayer experience grafted onto the single player experience. Everyone I know that has been waiting two years for RTW was shocked to some degree that there wasn't only more meat in the multiplayer but that it was such a beta experience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GilJaysmith

Read this:

"Multiplayer. The biggest regret I have, in hindsight, was the decision to have a multiplayer mode in The Political Machine. The game features a full-blown matchmaking service, in order to make it relatively easy to play multiplayer. I love playing games multiplayer, and I've played a lot of games online with people. That said, based on the sales statistics, and based on the server stats, less than 1% of players are playing the game multiplayer."



Any opinions?

---

What are your opinions on this point, Gil? All we can assume is that you agree with the above statements since that has consistently been CA's position and the point has been consistently raised again and again. I take this to be your position--please correct me if I'm wrong.

I have many. First of all, I'm tired of being told that my opinion doesn't really matter because I'm in the minority. Maybe that is an illogical emotional response, but its my knee-jerk response all the same. CA's position has been, and apparently still is -- MP is not worth developing or supporting. Sure, you'll take my $50, but thats where the relationship ends. Fine. We are used to it by now.

I'm so sick of this 1% argument I could scream. How bout someone come out with a game with NO single player mode? eh? Then we wouldn't have to hear this damn argument after every buggy release. The peace of not having to hear how much of a voiceless minority I am (or should be) would be worth paying any price for good MP support. Thats where the untapped market share is.

Secondly, if TW didn't have multiplayer--I'd be playing chess or poker and CA wouldn't have any bit of my $200 some-odd-dollars I've spent on TW in the last few years. And I'll bet that is the same response you'll get from several hundred other players--if not here, then certainly at the .net. CA knows this, which is why you give us what you consider the minimum necessary to keep us paying.

Third, defeatism is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and btw--I've never even heard of this game you are referring to, which suggests the MP side sucked or I would have heard about it. Maybe the SP was good, but I don't play SP games so I wouldn't know. MP spreads by word of mouth, if it sucks, it goes nowhere. Players who like MP experiences talk to eachother and share new "gems" of games and also share bad experiences with games. It doesn't take long for a good MP game to build up a following and a momentum. Also, you can't make UNO (the card game) have a good MP following--the underlying game has to be good. The MP implementation has to be focused. The company has to set a GOAL of having good MP.

Have you ever played a team sport where your morale was really low? "We're going to lose this game, we're going to lose...they're going to destroy us." Its a self-fulfilling prophecy--every time. If you think you will lose, you will. You have to believe that you can win before you have a chance to win.

In this case, CA wrote off MP before Shogun was ever released. Is it any surprise to anyone that MP is and always has been riddled with problems? If half the MP community that left when MTW came out was still around, we'd have 500 signatures on the petition. Those people were chased away by poor MP implementation and support a long time ago. If you want to go further back to the Shogun release and the MP problems that surrounded that-- we are talking about another 300 or so people who could still be part of this community if the initial Shogun release was not flawed in MP.

Look at games like WCIII, and Unreal Tournament-- are you telling me that MP is only 1% of their sales? NO WAY thats true! Those games are primarily MP games why? Because they FOCUS on MP, and guess what-- their MP sales increase. Is that so surprising?

Fourth, I'll tell you a way to guarantee that your MP sales never increase beyond 1%-- introduce an MP mode that is incomplete, poorly supported, and buggy. That way you can sell lots of copies to MP hopefuls and then when you tell then they are only 1% you will be correct, since the MP side of the game will never flourish. This is the strategy I think CA has employed-- rope-a-dope the MP fiends and then pocket their money and tell them they are a minority who has (or should have) no voice.

Fifth, TW SP is maxed out. You can't really do much more with the strategy map in my opinion-- the future is the battles, and MP ones at that. The AI is limited (look, Kasparov can still beat Big Blue). If I wanted to play strategy map, I'd play CIV III or something. TW is different because of the battles--why is CA de-emphasising that? To "fit in" with the other big titles? Wake up--you can't take their market share, you have to create your own niche.

Sixth, if MP is such a headache and such a drain on R&D, then why does CA include it? Even more frustrating-- why has CA been essentially complaining about MP players being less than 1% from day ONE when they could have gone forward with an SP only game? I think its because they know they HAVE to have MP to be competitive--see my 4th point.

Seventh, I'm tired of this same old discussion. If CA wants to take our money and give us a half-assed MP product-- fine. Just do it and stop rubbing it in--it really gets me mad when I'm told my $50 isn't as good as the next guy's because of the portion of the game that I play.

I guess what Gil is saying is that we are 1% of sales so they allocated 1% of development funds to us. Ok, that is a facially logical marketing decision. I think its self-defeatist, short sighted, and flawed in the long term--but its what we have, so enough said.

Or as Bomil would say-- enough words lost.

Well put Dionysus9!

I specifically want to comment on:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dionysus9

Fifth, TW SP is maxed out. You can't really do much more with the strategy map in my opinion-- the future is the battles, and MP ones at that. The AI is limited (look, Kasparov can still beat Big Blue). If I wanted to play strategy map, I'd play CIV III or something. TW is different because of the battles--why is CA de-emphasising that? To "fit in" with the other big titles? Wake up--you can't take their market share, you have to create your own niche.

---

The RTW single player game is great *despite* the enemy AI. Even the stellar reviews for RTW comment on this directly or indirectly. Further enhancing the AI through compensation (numbers and strength) is transparent.

There is a great opportunity to truly do something new in TWs market space and create gameplay that addresses the AI limitations.

Polishing the Multiplayer is a step, but a bigger step (and more rewarding for both sides) would be to start plugging the multiplayer into the strategy/single player experience.

I've mentioned before the idea of having an additional option when going into battle mode from the single player game: 'Fight Online'. This would host your current battle online for other players to join. Pathing and AI issues solved and for perhaps less R&D dollars that would yield something close to a human opponent. You make the single player game stronger, you make the multiplayer community larger and you surely break some ground and create a bigger niche.

[note: I make no claims to this idea if it is used]

Just consider the attributes of this gameplay:

The player would have the option to password the game so a specific friend could join to take control of the enemy. Or just anyone from the online community could join and you could get a tough general or a weak one -- part of the fog of war.

Battles with reinforcements would mean more seats for players to join. The coordination of reinforcements could be thrilling compared to what the AI does. Think of having a human controlling one of your allied reinforcements.

I think this would be stellar!

A similar thing was done with the Close Combat series and I played both with passworded games and open. I would never have to wait long for someone to join the open games. In the event you got a smacktard you would be able to boot them and rehost.

Something like this idea is what I expect CA to be working on. I expected this type of effort for RTW frankly.

d6,

the problem is they are still stuck in this 1% paradigm. Why would they ever expend effort to mesh the SP and MP sides when, at best, they would only be appealing to less than 1% of their customers? You see? Its self-defeatest in the extreme--but that is what we are up against. Every time we have a problem or suggestion the response is the same-- "sorry, MP accounts for less than 1% of sales"

you can come up with a thousands brilliant ideas, ideas that would launch TW into the thick of the MP gaming world--but until CA sees value in implementing those ideas we will not see anything become of them. The problem is not the lack of ideas, the problem is the anti-MP bias that is being slavishly clung to by most of the industry.

Take Gil's example-- the stardock president blames the failure on MP.

Someone stole your car and got your wife pregnant? Must have been MP. Those damn minorities sure are trouble. MP moved in next door? Doh! There goes the neighborhood. lol. Any evil, anywhere, must be caused by MP. You must admit it is a convenient scape-goat-- especially when all the other grizzled executives nod sagely in agreement.

This is an industry wide self-fulfilling paradigm that we cannot change. It appears to be shifting slowly, but until MP becomes the focus for the major distributors (activision/ea), we wont see any change.

I have hope that someone over at CA is not falling into this 1% myth.

I mean Activision distributes Call of Duty. There is a game that shows how brilliance can be infused into both the single player and multiplayer! CoD and the recent expansion made great strides in both single and multi player gameplay. That game is a success.

I'm trying to still have hope. The reality is ... if CA doesn't start shifting resources quickly into the multiplayer space then some other developer will. They'll take everything that CA learned from the single player over the years and then add on a robust multiplayer component that bridges to the single player component in some way.

I have no doubt that if CA doesn't do it someone else will.

I just did some research on that game "Political Maching". It's funny ... if CA, the makers of the TW legacy, are taking lessons from those guys ... well ... I don't know what to say! :D

Quote:

---

Someone stole your car and got your wife pregnant? Must have been MP. Those damn minorities sure are trouble. MP moved in next door? Doh! There goes the neighborhood. lol. Any evil, anywhere, must be caused by MP. You must admit it is a convenient scape-goat-- especially when all the other grizzled executives nod sagely in agreement.

---

Funny stuff by the way! Gave me a good chuckle at work.

I had thought that people here would have some grasp of reality; however, all I see are pipe dreams and piping dreamers...

d6veteran: I posted the link to the Stardock postmortem as something I read today which was interesting to me, not because it specifically informs CA's policy or because we take our lead from Stardock. So much for my referring to them on the basis that some people here have liked their games.

Dionysus9: I'm sorry, but your rant about "blame MP" is misguided at best. That quote was from the manager of that project, talking about where he saw resources expended in the project, and about what he would have done differently. To say that he's blaming MP because the game didn't do well is pretty daft, regardless of whether it got a cheap laugh from the crowd. He *knows* that only 1% of the purchasers of the game have tried playing MP. It *turns out* that investing so much time in MP was not profitable. He's not justifying a decision to not invest time in MP; he's regretting making the decision to have invested so much, given the number of people that it's benefited compared to the number of people who would have benefited from the time going somewhere else.

A couple other things:

Everyone keeps banging on about Blizzard as the paradigm for MP success. I think you need to consider that there are plenty, plenty more companies which have attempted to emulate Blizzard and failed. I would expect that CA has no interest in massively failing at MP, especially since we have our own stats about MP usage which suggest that 1% is a pretty good estimate of the size of the market. (We know exactly how many CD keys have been used to log into GameSpy for Medieval, for example. Doesn't tell us the size of the LAN market, but then nothing would.)

In short, everyone keeps saying that we would make a fortune if we "took MP seriously", and wailing that until we believe that there's more than 1% of you out there, we're waving goodbye to a fortune. But it isn't your money and your jobs on the line if you're wrong, is it? CA has made enough money to stay in business making predominantly-SP games. In fact, most games companies stay in business that way, with what you would call mediocre online support, or none at all. The number of *good* MP games is pretty minuscule. On the other hand, I could name you plenty of games which have delivered astoundingly good content, including a viable multiplayer component, which have achieved no great MP impact, and seen the developer go bankrupt regardless. (Who here played Startopia - multiplayer or otherwise? How many MP games of Emperor have I ever seen running? Majesty? Stronghold?)

Come on, be honest. Name all these successful multiplayer games. When you say that, what you mean is the Blizzard line, Counter-Strike, AoE, the Quakes and a few Quake-powered FPSs, UT, and some (nowhere near all) MMORPGs. That's about it.

In other words, FPSs and RTSs. Games you can pick up and play immediately. Genres which have been around for a decade.

Tell me why we should take any risks without a great deal of care and attention and investigation *and some numbers to back it up*.

Well to be honest I dont think MP campaign is worth it. Yes it would be nice to have but would it be worth the effort?

How many people play Civ online? Spartans made 1v1 campaign available IIRC but dont know how much that online option is used. Games like that are the ones we have to compare with for Total War.

What Im disappointed with is how the current MP part of Total War is kept down with bugs and missing features. It doesnt feel like its moving forward at all. Sure we got a few new features in and thats great but from a player point of view it seems like we lost a few features and got a few bugs for each feature added.


CBR

I used to play stronghold with the rest of my old clan .. oh the memories ;)

By the way, i can see your point Panda/Gil that 1% is probably a good estimate of the online contingent, probably less .. However, you guys that have made this game, obviouisly have a great standard of coding, because of this is it not your goal to produce an app that you are personally proud to be associated with? one that people say to you "great job, well done, best in the business"?

In other words does it not frustrate you that you are not given the resources to change this trend, is it not frustrating to see this oppurtunity go by without you being able to release the games full potential?

Do you work like a robot 9-5 like most of us, without persoanl satisfaction?

Do Developers not have pipe dreams too? ;)

EDIT: I dont think a MP campaign is worth it either, what is worth it is making it possible for us to have features that make it possible for us to make it! No offence but it is hard enough accepting some decision that have been made for 3d battles let alone a campaign too ;)

i.e. loading half beaten armies

Looking in from outside the MP community, I can see that a lot of the comments being made are simply reactions to a disappointment that the MP niche wasn't more the focus of development. This thread has been a bit surprising to follow --- I really hope that MP is not the future of gaming.

Why? Because I value innovation -- it's what brought me to Shogun -- and innovation simply does not succeed in multiplayer gaming. "Evolution not revolution" is the phrase you hear large MP/MMO design teams quoting over and over.

Consider Uru and A Tale In the Desert. One dead, one living, both very interesting concepts. ATITD is a fun game, but the degree to which ATITD has succeeded wouldn't float even a medium-sized development team, let alone marketing, testing, admin, etc etc.

There are now over 300 people on the list, as I said I speak for 300 plus people who play MP!
This game is full of bugs and lag which makes this game unplayable, if this is CA's way forward I wish them every success and bid farewell. I have better things in which to spend my time other than be accused of ranting by someone under CA's supervision which coincidently just happens to be the company that has taken my money for the last 5 years or so.

Do yourselves a favour CA, listen to what YOUR customers are asking for! that way you will have a much more profitable business, have you guys ever heard of the customer is always right? I rest my case!

Of course we do. That's why (sob story) it hurts so much when people who have no idea what we go through to produce a game that's pretty much a work of genius declare that we're mental incompetents, paperboys, monkey typists, and so forth. Developers are human too. Boo hoo, etc. It annoys anyone who can't do everything to their heart's content, if they can't also be realistic about things and say, "We've done something that no-one else has done, and we did it as best we could under the circumstances." There are things in Rome which no other game does. Bugs are fixable, but lack of genius isn't. You can't patch a game to make it a work of genius. Rome is, basically, a work of genius. That's why it's winning all these rapturous reviews - not because we've supplied concubines to the review editors or donated $1,000,000 to GameStar or whatever, but because those people, who've seen a lot of games, really rate Total War in general and this in particular.

That dichotomy - of feeling that they've done a good job under difficult circumstances, but also feeling sympathy with anyone who finds a bug in a game - is almost certainly why a lot of CA's programmers don't stop by these boards. It can be almost physically painful to read complete strangers insulting us individually or collectively because they happen to have found a bug (or a feature they don't like, or a historical inaccuracy, or whatever). Anyone whose advice is "get a tougher skin" should try investing two years of their life in a creative endeavour and then ask fifty complete strangers to tell them it's shit...

~:mecry: I can understand when some of the developers get a bit riled up when people come here saying RTW IS T3H SUXX0R!!!!!! but I just hope you don't think the actions of some are reflective of the thoughts of all the people on this board. If some one is happy with the game, they are hardly going to post a million threads saying "RTW rules!!!!" By nature it is those that are unhappy with the game that will post and complain, while those that are happy with it will be too busy playing ~;) The majority of the people on this board are very appreciative at the extraordinary effort you guys at CA have done to supply us with a game with will almost undoubtly take out strategy game of the year, and a defiate contender for game of the year. I am sure even those that complain are apprecieative of the effort gone ito it, its because they like it so much they want some issues they feel could be improved to do so. Now that is not to say that it is totally perfect, obviously there will be some small issues with bugs and something that does not seem right but that will always be the case with any major venture. Just out of curiosity, how is RTW selling for you guys? I am a member of several other sites (mostly FPS games) and there is a suprising amount of people there who have the game (and love it!). Unusual, as most of this crowd is like "OMG STAREGIE SUXXXXSSS!!111. If you want to read some good comments, I can give you the links ~;) I know you can't post figures, but just a worse than expected, better than expected or on target will do? And one more question I have being dying to ask someone from CA, now seems as good as time as ever, do you guys play some of the mods that are made?

Gil,

Piping dreamers? Come now, you have stooped to our level, at best--calling names like that. That's just offensive and it does nothing to advance the arguments on either side.

I don't want to start a flamewar here as it is unproductive, but I have to respond to your comments. Let me say I respect you more than anyone in the entire CA corporation because you have the cajones to come here and listen to us, talk with us, and from time to time to stand up to us--from what I understand on your own time off the clock which is quite commendable and I've always thought well of you for it. You are the only person at CA that I can count on to listen to me, and only because you personally want to hear--so I really do appreciate that and I appreciate your opinions to.

You hit a raw nerve with the 1% reference, and you are still poking at it. If there is one thing that makes me mad its this much-touted "less than 1%" justification for all the problems in MP. I've been around for long enough to have heard it every time we voice our valid concerns (e.g. with the release of MTW v1.0). In fact, maybe I should just stop complaining about it and accept that whenever CA rolls out the "less than 1%" remark they are really on the defensive for a change and maybe it means stuff will get fixed.

I spend good money on your games and my opinion should be worth as much as any other customer, no matter what "segment" I'm in. If you want to justify poor service to one segment or another, I'd prefer you keep it to yourself or tell us up-front what your position is (preferably before we spend our money).

With all due respect-- what is your personal opinion on this issue 1%? You've asked us what ours is, and we've answered. Now how about yours?

Do you come here just to jab us in the ribs by reminding us that not only CA but the industry at large considers us (and everything we value as MP afficianados) to be of less value than other paying customers? I think not, but with the piping dreamers reference it almost feels like it. This is a sensitive topic for me--the most sensitive topic related to the TW series of games, actually (for me at least).

Let me get to the point-- I knew you would neither embrace nor reject the 1% position based on the way you raised it-- pointing to another unrelated thread somewhere, by someone else, involving some other game. But you see, that position has been advanced time and time again by CA in response to our valid concerns over bugs. In your response (above), you talk out of both sides of your mouth--on one hand you say that it is not CA's position and then you immediately offer the much-touted statistical evidence which CA "has" that justifies that same position.

Which is it? What is your personal opinion? What is CA's official position?

Is it or is it not CA's position that less than 1% of TW sales are driven by MP players?

Are you here just to ask questions without offering your own opinion? Is this a crashcourse in the Socratic method? lol. I'm sorry I went for the cheap laughs-- you got me there. And frankly, I don't know squat about the stardock game or its executives, or the reasons why it failed. I don't know if the MP side of that game was great or not.

Yes, we have the luxury of dreaming about how great R:TW could be-- you have the unenviable task of trying to get us there. But when we are told (directly or indirectly) that our opinions as a community can essentially be ignored--that is going to make us defensive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SouthwaterPanda

Dionysus9: . . . .he's regretting making the decision to have invested so much, given the number of people that it's benefited compared to the number of people who would have benefited from the time going somewhere else.

A couple other things:

Everyone keeps banging on about Blizzard as the paradigm for MP success. I think you need to consider that there are plenty, plenty more companies which have attempted to emulate Blizzard and failed. I would expect that CA has no interest in massively failing at MP, especially since we have our own stats about MP usage which suggest that 1% is a pretty good estimate of the size of the market. (We know exactly how many CD keys have been used to log into GameSpy for Medieval, for example. Doesn't tell us the size of the LAN market, but then nothing would.)

In short, everyone keeps saying that we would make a fortune if we "took MP seriously", and wailing that until we believe that there's more than 1% of you out there, we're waving goodbye to a fortune. But it isn't your money and your jobs on the line if you're wrong, is it? CA has made enough money to stay in business making predominantly-SP games. In fact, most games companies stay in business that way, with what you would call mediocre online support, or none at all. The number of *good* MP games is pretty minuscule. On the other hand, I could name you plenty of games which have delivered astoundingly good content, including a viable multiplayer component, which have achieved no great MP impact, and seen the developer go bankrupt regardless. (Who here played Startopia - multiplayer or otherwise? How many MP games of Emperor have I ever seen running? Majesty? Stronghold?)

Come on, be honest. Name all these successful multiplayer games. When you say that, what you mean is the Blizzard line, Counter-Strike, AoE, the Quakes and a few Quake-powered FPSs, UT, and some (nowhere near all) MMORPGs. That's about it.

In other words, FPSs and RTSs. Games you can pick up and play immediately. Genres which have been around for a decade.

Tell me why we should take any risks without a great deal of care and attention and investigation *and some numbers to back it up*.

---

Actually thats all we ever asked for was some care, attention, and investigation (like beta testing). But I'm taking another semantic cheap shoap shot--so I won't go further down that road.

I suppose your "statistics" don't include the hundreds upon hundreds (if not thousands) of people who crashed to desktop when they first tried to logon to MP and either gave up or returned the game? I suppose your stats dont include people who couldn't get their CD Key to work? Or what about all the people that were alienated by the lack of MP support (and the plethora of bugs) in the STW and MTW releases-- good solid players who swore never to purchase another EA or CA game again. (Do you remember the massive server crashes and downtime of STW, and all the veterans who left over that? I do). And of course you admit they arent including the LAN players (who in many countries outnumber the online players).

But even so, lets take this 1% stat as the gospel truth--and also assume that no amount of MP support or development will ever increase that percentage to beyond 2%. Is that fair enough? is that too much of an assumption?

If that is true, then why would CA continue to offer an MP side? Just for that 1% bump in sales? Does that make sense? Maybe. If it does make fiscal sense to spend money on MP to gain a 1% bump in sales, then doesn't it also make sense to spend twice as much and hope to gain a 2% bump in sales?

But we never see the increased effort, and so you will never see the increase sales. And then you offer the same old stats to us as justification for not making the effort to begin with? I suggest that the fact that you STILL have 1% MP participation after all the bugs in every release of TW indicates you could have easily grown the MP portion to 2% or 3%.

So maybe you can help us understand why it makes sense for CA to half-ass MP in order to get a 1% increase in sales, while it does not make sense to double your effort to see double the increase in sales?

By the way--these games you suggest were great and that had great MP content that failed, I've not played any of them except Stronghold. I bought Stronghold at the same time I bought STW (I think I bought them both the same day) and I played it for 10 minutes and its sat in my computer desk for 3 years since then. I think I paid $39.95 for stronghold and $19.95 for STW.

Compared to TW, Stronghold is a pathetic excuse for a tactical game. I'm surprised you could even put it in the same class its so bad. I kid you not, I haven't put it into my computer since I bought it over 3 years ago. Really it was just Lemmings on crack with no tactical elements--just puzzle solving and fast clicking.

I've been playing nothing but TW and online poker since I purchased STW. In fact, I haven't purchased a single non-CA game since then. Now that is brand loyalty for you.

and what do we get in return? we get another buggy release and the hoary old justification (direct or indirect) that we are "less than 1%" so we might as well just accept what we are given and be happy about it.

You name plenty of successful MP games yourself--more than I can come up with--more than I knew existed. I just know the market for them exists because everyone I know prefers to play MP, and the vast majority of forum goers I bump into prefer MP. I had no idea there really was such a precedent out there for MP oriented profit. In any case, I think it is safe to say that from a player's perspective those games don't hold a CANDLE to Total War's potential.

"Tell me why we should take any risks without a great deal of care and attention and investigation *and some numbers to back it up*."

Because we are the players and we say so. That's about all we have that we can tell you. If you would share some of your figures or even your opinion maybe we would have something to work off--but you are asking us to persuade you without even knowing where you stand.

Take a look at your numbers from STW and MTW. I'll bet you see a pattern. Immediately after the initial release you see some really good MP numbers online (or trying to logon but getting crashed). Maybe even up to about 1.5% or 2%. Then after a few months the numbers dwindle back down to 1% (dissatisfaction). After the patch you get another small bump, and then dwindle again down to probably about .5% or .75% before the next release.

Here's another guess. Your online numbers went up a little bit after each major release, but not in between (expansions). No matter what happens, there is always a base of maybe .5% that is always around.

That .5% is us, your hardcore loyal MP players. The expansions dont effect MP play that much because they don't bring in any new players and by that time the folks who are fed-up have left and its just us hardcore folks left. Maybe a few come back to try the expansion, but not many.

My guess is that you lose about 1% of MP players PER full-release to frustration and alienation at the numerous MP bugs and poor support (EA was the worst! I still have nightmares about loggin on to the Shoggy server), and that those players never return. Look at the active registered members here at the .org compared to the inactive members. Lots of people have gone the way of the do-do over the years.

One thing is for sure--the unpolished, unfinished, buggy MP aspect of TW full releases drives people away. After the patch your numbers stabilize.

If your "care and attention and investigation and numbers" show that MP is a waste of time, then just cut it already. If not, then take the damn risk and see what happens. Rather than allocating 1% of your budget to MP, try allocating 3% and see what happens. It's not going to bankrupt CA but it will pay off, trust us. Thats all we can say. We are done here in the trenches every day. We see the MP afficianados leave in droves after ever full release. Its been like that after EVERY release for YEARS at a time-- and yet your numbers hover around 1%? Thats because you get new hard-core MP players who are willing to accept the bugs to play this wonderful game of TW--but you can never replace the paying customers that have given up, you can never replace the players who try MP but get errors and quit to play another game.

The vast marketing bonanza that is MP word of mouth has never been tapped into by the Total War series. MP word of mouth has worked AGAINST you. And it always will until you allocate more resources to fixing the problems BEFORE you go to press. No amount of thought and consideration is going to change that fundamental problem-- if you sell me a crappy tasting burger the first time I come to your restaurant, I wont come again. If your response to my complaint is that most of your customers buy your steaks and arent interested in your burgers, so you really don't mind that your burgers suck, then you can also expect I wont return to your establishment to buy a burger.

Then when your burger sales are flat you say, ahh well, nobody wants burgers?

This has got to be the circular logic of the century--can't you guys see that?

if you have any common sense you can tell if your gonna fail or do great with mp.

ever play civ online and spartan? i did and you can easly see why there aren't many playing it online... look at the graphics, lobby, and support for the games. now take a look at warcraft3.. hmm i wonder why that has so many players online.. zzz

i'd play a mp campaign. you don't need a full out campaign, just atleast 4 players max to start. they have the graphics and nice battles to keep me playing a campaign for yrs, just like i've been playing the battles online for 4yrs. like the others say.. reason why it's so small is not much has changed.

how many players online playing at once would be worth it to focus online.. thousands, 36,000+ like warcraft3, or 100,000? to be honest i think if rtw had stable mp campaign and a nice lobby with very few bugs we would reach 5,000+ maybe, that isn't enough? were up to 350 or more at times with how messy it is now, so i'm sure they could make it into the thousands.

it maybe a good thing others have failed to make a good mp campaign online. they can be the 1st to do it with the nice 3d battles. i mean you'll have the battles on top of mp campaign to play...

anyway that's my view on it ~:)

Also, I will echo your sentiments that RTW is genius. In fact the whole TW line is genius.

But in terms of MP it is a mad genius-- a half-realized genius. A genius without direction. What irks me is that every release of TW has been only half-realized in terms of MP.

SP is great and it is absolute genius, but I don't play SP. So I can applaud your achievements but the undeveloped potential is lying there under the surface and we can all see it, but CA can't. Its just very frustrating for people (i.e. losers like me) whose free time is devoted to TW MP. Outside of work, family, and friends, MP Totalwar is my life. There I said it, I'm a loser.

*cries in the corner with all the other losers*

talk about a thread bowing out, as it stands, RTW is a fine game, we arent saying its anything less, all we are asking is that MP takes more consideration than just 2 hours before the game is released (mind the sarcasm)

Even if CA invested 10-20% more of the time they spent on MP, in improving MP, i know that most of the issues would be solved, a tweak to the interface here, changing a value there, and then we would have something that at least many of us would be more than happy with.

PS. logfiles are essentual for tourneys, please include them in the next patch

Wish I could bring myself round to play SP, but playing a computers AI does nothing for me, I will take everyones word about SP being great and appologize for not looking at it! But I have never played a game that involves AI.

To the CA developers, I can sympathize with the agony (and fortunately not relate) of working so hard on something and then have strangers rant and bitch up a storm and call names. I have a lot of respect for you guys and am a hug fan of TW. I've come to your defense before on this board specifically when the "monkey" reference was thrown out.

I apologize for that kind of treatment. Sincerely it sucks.

The SP game was genius. No argument there!

The MP game that was released was worse than most betas I've played. That isn't an excuse for some of the harsh criticism you've had to weather on the 'fan' boards, but it does at least give an explanation for the tempers and rants.

Pipe dreaming? Come one now! The things that have been asked for and even the idea I proposed isn't even in the same ball park as the ideas that bore fruit in the RTW single player! Am I too believe that the great minds behind the single player would write off pretty straightfoward fixes and ideas for the multiplayer as pipe dreams?

Bah! :D

I talk till the sun goes down and it probably won't change what CA wants or doesn't want to do with the multiplayer. But why can't we at least have a position on it?

Why can't you take a break from lapping up all the kudos for the single player and tell us what the hell happened to the multiplayer on release? I mean jeez, whether it is 1% or 50%, you put multiplayer in the game, added it as a feature on the box and what? What happened to it? Seriously.

Dionysus made a very valid point. I can attest to the number of people who refused to play MTW multiplayer due to all the headaches of logging on through GameSpy. I would say 50% of the people that casually tried out the multiplayer didn't get past the CD key or GameSpy profile issues. And I am certain that estimate is a conservative one. I worked in usability studies at MS and 2 other software companies and the MTW/GameSpy ui was highly confusing and botched.

Multiplayer is the future. Go out and find some gamers and ask them what they really want. Unless I live in some sort of bubble, over half the people you talk to are going to want a robust multiplayer experience.

Calling it pipe dreaming is a cop out. You guys have delivered a pipe dream and I bet you're working on a nother one right now in skunk works.

So tell us, what happened to the multiplayer? If you trully only think 1% cares, then give us the truth. The worst that can happen is a percentage of that 1% stops buying your games. Big deal.

Only a couple of responses, as this discussion is essentially pointless while I'm not in charge of CA...

>>Compared to TW, Stronghold is a pathetic excuse for a tactical game. I'm surprised you could even put it in the same class its so bad. I kid you not, I haven't put it into my computer since I bought it over 3 years ago. Really it was just Lemmings on crack with no tactical elements--just puzzle solving and fast clicking.

But to me, that's all the Warcraft games are. I don't get traditional RTSs at all. The fact that millions of people want to play it online, beautifully polished and easy to play though it may be, is completely baffling to me. But Stronghold? Stronghold has castles. Lots of castles. I love castles. I don't care if it's a pathetic excuse for a tactical game; it's got castles.

>>Because we are the players and we say so. That's about all we have that we can tell you. If you would share some of your figures or even your opinion maybe we would have something to work off--but you are asking us to persuade you without even knowing where you stand.

That 1% thing is a number. Why would it be industry gospel that's constantly slapped in your faces if companies hadn't tried and died to prove otherwise?

My personal opinion? I get through almost as many opinions as this board does. I can see sense in much that people say. I personally would like to provide a fantastic MP component, but on the other hand it would be very tempting to just ditch it. The figures that come to mind concerning MP are that it gets somewhere between 5% and 10% of the programming effort, 1% of the customers, and 50% of the abuse.

But ultimately, I'm not in charge, so your not knowing what I think doesn't matter.

The figures that come to mind concerning MP are that it gets somewhere between 5% and 10% of the programming effort, 1% of the customers, and 50% of the abuse.

~:joker: ok i understand the abuse isn't nice but put a positive spin on it. We love the game so much that we can get over passionate

anyway as an alternative to the abuse ill give you the positives (plus im much better at flattery than criticism)

many many hours of enjoyable online play that would not have been possible without you
a great community and great friends i would never have made without you
a constantly improving single player game
constantly better and better graphics
more and more variety of units and factions
more unique tactical units
i have heard a few say the basic mp of rome is much better than mtw
an extremely quick patch
posting here and listening to our opinions

although there are things i would like improved thanks for what has been given

great points grizz :)

Gil,

lol, well thanks for your kind response-- I think you could have ripped me in a few places but chose not to. I was a bit harsh on Stronghold--if I hadn't bought STW the same day I probably would have played it quite a bit, and we wouldnt be having this conversation. Heh, at least your abuse ratio would only by 49% ;)

I agree about hte Warcraft series, which is why I am so passionate about TW. Nothing even comes close to the tactical genius that MTW:VI achieved--and it was disappointing for us to take several steps backwards in terms of army control (and thus tactical depth) in R:TW.

As for flawed industry paradigms, a course in business history would disabuse you of the notion that any paradigm is in place because it is correct. history is riddled with blue-chips that fell by the wayside (or had to radically adapt to survive) after a paradigm shifted from under them and left them in the dust. Everyone thinks its the gospel until the next sucessful business model comes along, then they drop it like a hot-potato. The paradigm is in place because it works, even if only marginally, and it is safe. Paradigms can be (and are) ignored by the bold, and as Virgil says--fortune favors the bold.

Actually your opinion is more important to me than most, as you have an ear to both our door and the door of the powers-that-be. but I appreciate and understand your masters will mark your words and pay them back to you threefold if you might say something that displeases them. I do not blame you for speaking within your bounds, and I think you've said enough--though if you are able to say more, please tell us what you, Gil, the person--not the employee--what you the person thinks.

I think we ultimately agree that the MP aspect of TW should either be given the attention it deserves or dropped completely. Personally it appears to me that this "half-way" approach is hurting the series and taking us nowhere.

I apologize for my emotion as this is an important topic to me. Multiplayer is the lifeblood of this game and the community. I've devoted the lions share of my freetime to it for the last 3 years, so it is a hard pill to swallow when someone tells me my $50 is not as important as the next guy's (let alone my opinion).

The only other issue that bothers me as much as this one is the fact that we never hear any "official" words of substance from CA. You'd think the head honcho would like to say a few words to us, once in a while. You throw us a bone now and then on your own time, but really, there should be someone official to say a few words in times of crisis or confusion. But perhaps a prophet such as myself can see that which cannot be seen, and read that which has not been written. . . .

In any case-- I think the solution is to make Total War: Multiplayer a standalone spinoff. You can feed us graphics updates when you release the SP front end expansions, and we'd be happy to finally have the support and attention that a full project gets. Maybe you could pitch that to the powers-that-be. I think we'd all pay another $50 or a highly moddable MP interface that was supported and covered several eras (Shogun, Medieval, Ancient, and throw in Civil War and you are set). Shoot--I think you'd have 3/4 of the wargamers and table-top games around the world returning their figurines and buying computers so they could play it. That would be a paradigm shift for their industry and possibly yours as well.

If you dont, someone will--it is just a matter of time now. You have showed the competition the way, if you don't stay the course and stake your territory--they will take it. I know this as surely as I know my own name-- I can feel it in my bones-- in my clicker-finger. Hundreds of us have been clammoring for it for years, and there are thousands more who do not speak up.

Since we are on a Socratic theme, let me ask you a few questions that reflect on my regard for single player games:

Would the game of chess still be played today if it was a single player game?

How many 100-year-old (or older) single player games can you name?

Who is your opponent in a single player game? Who is the winner? Who has bragging rights?

What is the maximum number of players in a single player game? multiplayer game?

How good can you get at a single player game? At what point does the challenge disappear? Same questions for multiplayer. . .

In a single player game, can you ever face an opponent who is smarter, more creative, or more ruthless than yourself? If so, wouldn't it be nice to buy him/her a beer after the game?

~:confused: ~:cheers:

I wish we could all sit down and run through some tactics on the Total War field over beers. conversations that have taken years would take only hours in person, with the game and units in front of us.

Ahh well, maybe they will make you president someday-- we will go to bat for you, thats for sure. You are the only one at CA who cares a tinkers cuss for us hardcore losers.

What is happening in Korea and Taiwan which has a billion dollar online games? They have busted the 1% cap for sure.

Maybe a different version of MP needs to be made... one unit, multiple spawns, powerups, forges you can capture for armour, sword of merlin ... make it an FPS with 60 sprites. Then have the guys running around a tactical map with 20*6 guys if possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Maybe a different version of MP needs to be made... one unit, multiple spawns, powerups, forges you can capture for armour, sword of merlin ... make it an FPS with 60 sprites. Then have the guys running around a tactical map with 20*6 guys if possible.

---

LOL! Oh that is funny to imagine.

Yes it is... I have never played MP however.

But I would call this version that I suggested TW-lite.

I second Bachus's post.

TW is the first online game that has me hooked.

30 years ago I began with little soldiers on a map, and spent days doing what MTW/STW does in 40 minutes, and with less arguments.

There are thousands, nay millions of us out there, and yes we want the arcade fun, and yes we want some measure of historical accuracy, and yes we want it to have complexity and character.

Rome is a good game, no question. But giving it a proper MP would make it a classic...

over to you guys at CA...

respectfully
Oswald

But to me, that's all the Warcraft games are. I don't get traditional RTSs at all. The fact that millions of people want to play it online, beautifully polished and easy to play though it may be, is completely baffling to me.

It may be that millions of players want to play it BECAUSE it is beautifully polished and easy to play, patched regularly as problems are found and an enjoyable experience all around. It's simple to get online, patching is done automatically when you log onto the server, and games are easy to host. Its the experience, the socialization, that most people enjoy in online games. If RTW had focused on these things then it too could be the next Warcraft.

The only things which have been holding the TW series back from becoming a big online community are the same things which have made it such a great SP experience: TW's sense of historical perspective and its attempt at historical accuracy. This is what the SP players are looking for and how CA marketed the series. To great success. However, this focus is very time-consuming (researching battles, faction units, their strengths, their uses, their looks, etc . . .) and takes away from time spent on other parts of the games (like MP). It is a case of self-fulfilling prophesy: If you say; "The market for MP is so small as to be a waste of resources." then you will devote more time to other things and the MP market WILL continue to be small and never increase to a level of importance where more resources could be allocated to it, which would contribute to a greater return on investment.

I realized, with the release of RTW, (and its sole focus on SP, along with the increasing complexity of the campaign features and the time-consuming jump to a 3-D engine), CA had reached critical mass and could not/would not devote much time to MP. If this is not obvious to everyone, after seeing the state of the MP lobby, the connection problems, and the lack of many much-loved features (which the MP community has relied on for years), then I feel for you. You will continue to be dissappointed if you rely solely on MP as the aspect of the TW series you enjoy. With this realization, and being one of the MP-only crowd I decided to discontinue playing TW MP.

I have moved on to other MP games, which offer things such as: Good connection stability, an MP lobby which has all the features needed to enhance socializing and community building, an easy to use MP interface for hosting, lots of information on game settings, lots of options to play the game the way you like, a good balance of units, and an automatic patching system (Ex: WarHammer 40K, which uses the Gamespy server and shows that most of the problems and lack of features can be attributed to RTW and not Gamespy.)

It is good to see CA participating in this discussion, though too late for me. I know where Panda got the "develop a thicker skin" statement, and I stand by it. I had to develop a very thick skin indeed at the .com since the moderators and administrators there are blamed for all the problems associated with TW games, as if we are actually employees of CA and not volunteers. In truth, we are as in the dark as anyone on what CA is up to. No information on MP or anything in the game was ever offered to us. We knew/know as much as the regular patrons and nothing more.

I admin'd at the .com, in the hope I could help the MP community grow, by gathering a list of MP issues and showing CA in a timely fashion, what the game needs to grow a large MP community. RTW showed me that my time was wasted, and I resigned from the .com.

I took this (and still do take it), as a "slap in the face" since I was asked to start up the MP sections at the .com, because CA was interested in gathering ideas and improving the MP side of the game. Now I feel responsible for misleading others into believing this was true. I apoligize for this.

God Bless you Elmarko old friend.
As Far as my -2 Centsare concerned Same Old Sh!t different Title. I'll buy it just so we can drop togeather, like old times.

Hi WarPriest! Long time old friend. Stop by the ugli.org site and say hello to the gang. :) We all are playing WarHammer 40K now. Obake has made an MP campaign, and we are all roleplaying. I, of course, am the orcs! :)

Speaking about Blizzard, I heard from a post by one of their employees on the official boards that only 5-10% (I forgot which) bought Diablo2 for battle.net. You can play it on a LAN but I doubt that the total multiplayer component is much larger than the 5-10% of battle.net. Note that this is already Diablo2, easily in the top 10, maybe even top 5, most successful multiplayer games in PC history. Other Blizzard games have around the same online penetration.

Besides, succesful multiplayer games are mostly of the same genre, clickfest. Warcraft3 is mostly an exercise in clicking speed. There's actually a program out there that measures clicks/time and the faster clicker wins a huge majority of the games. I already feel that RTW, in the tactical battles, is somewhat dumbed down compared to MTW. To be successful in MP, it has to dumbed down further, something which I don't like.

funny aint it, If RTW came along before MTW we would all be amazed by the control system. I mean MTW controll system definitly makes RTW look the older game, yet the graphics tells the real story...

ok my memory may be failing but STW and MI also had the same control system ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElmarkOFear

It is good to see CA participating in this discussion, though too late for me. I know where Panda got the "develop a thicker skin" statement, and I stand by it. I had to develop a very thick skin indeed at the .com since the moderators and administrators there are blamed for all the problems associated with TW games, as if we are actually employees of CA and not volunteers. In truth, we are as in the dark as anyone on what CA is up to. No information on MP or anything in the game was ever offered to us. We knew/know as much as the regular patrons and nothing more.

---

Just to say that I didn't know that, and wasn't consciously quoting you... I've heard it said now and then when people argue that developers should be able to take criticism.

I'm personally sorry to read your experiences, though.

I think one of the reasons most of the multiplayer community are upset is that shogun was actually a better mp experience than any of the CA games that followed it (and im just talking about the general foyer and other options even before you get into battle, layout etc). The minimum the community expected was to maintain that level quality in the mp experience, but to have features taken away seems baffling. My god even if you stuck in the old shogun or mtw foyer format back in it would be an IMPROVEMENT.

First time i logged into rome i was almost sick, fast moving video in the back ground where your trying to read text, half of what you type showing, no private message window, small text area, set denarii levels the list goes on and on. These features were in mtw and it was just surprising they werent in rome (the gem we all waited for). I personally have returned my copy of rometotalwar... a sad sad day, 4 years ive spent playing CA games online but they just get worse and worse with every release. No ones disputing its a good SP game (it is!) but to have a HOBBY of CA's totalwar games MP and to see them diminishing over time is a sad sad thing for us. How many players have left although loving the series due to these things hundreds? Jeez whole of rage clan left 10 players? 90% of fear clan 20 players? thats just two clans not to mention all the lone players who would have just left due to frustration.

I can understand its disheartening to read negative things in the forums about your game, but take a second and look at whos saying these things, most of us have over 1000 posts to our name in this forum alone! We all loved the series and had countless hours days months years playing your games online, but the fact remains that they have got worse over time, and i think that rome is the catalyst, its just a shadow of what it could have been with a LITTLE effort and i do mean a little, ie to leave the features already in, and add couple of nice features to the foyer sytem that was in place, just a few small things, dident need a whole makeover......

How can a player spend 2 years playing a game in that foyer? it would drive me nuts, its like having a great job in a flea infested office GAH!

Most of the people who have posted in ths topic have been here since the beginning and we have tried to keep the mp community going with our hands tied behind our backs, it gets harder and harder all the time with no support and eventually people just give up.

Ps: Im not having a stab at you giljay the number of posts beside your name shows the care and involvement you have in the community (the mod side if i am correct).

Nice post Elmo for what its worth I never blamed ya for anything m8 you had the same view as me on the game.

Its a shame they have made the game more like a standard RTS.

Swoosh is right they never managed to emulate Shogun online with the last 2 releases MTW was still good though and they didnt change the control system like they have now.Swoosh you forgot to mention the Euro clan members and the old Chain clan members who left also.

Im afraid to say Ive returned my copy of Rome to my local swap game shop yesterday and resigned up for Eve online a game that listens to its players.

I may return to Rome if they sort out the problems and thus ill pop in these forums and ill continue to play MTW every now and then, but after playing 60 or so games of Rome online I cant cope with that forum or the bugs and controls any more im bored.

Id like to thank all the poeple who know and put up with my occasional rants over the years must be nearly 5 by now for the many great times online.

MizuSp00n

Can't blame you for leaving m8! I'm sure a lot of us will miss you m8 ;) Swoosh is spot on! they have gone backwards in terms of control system and chat lobby, way too many bugs, but as gil pointed out in earlier threads, we are approx 1% of the total buyers of RTW so they will not suffer even if all of us took the game back. I will put my game aside and wait to see what they fix/change... If it's not enuff then I too will also wave goodbye, but in the mean time I will NOT be playing RTW SP or MP. COD, Warcraft 3, Dawn of war will be the challengers with dawn of war way ahead :)

Actually missing RTW is not all that bad with dawn of war around, highly recommended, I hope to see some of you guys there. Same name for me ;)

I'm glad I ran across this thread. Since becoming bored with CIV3, I've been convinced that purely MP games (without SP AI limitations) are the future of gaming. No AI can compete with the deviousness, inventiveness, and fun of playing against a human. I have no doubt that developing such games will be a risk, but a team that can design and code a game as complex as RTW could build an awesome game without AI.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpencerH

No AI can compete with the deviousness, inventiveness, and fun of playing against a human. I have no doubt that developing such games will be a risk, but a team that can design and code a game as complex as RTW could build an awesome game without AI.

---

I think that is the best summary of what we are all trying say! ~:cheers:

Warning: this post is made by a consumer and is purely a personal comment. The Author assumes no affiliation with any organization, clan, business or other entity, save for being a part of the general Multi-Player community at large. Comments may offend some CA representatives or their wannabees. Read on at your own risk.

I have been a customer from the first release of the series and I too was looking for a similar experience that the two prior versions had offered (Shogun and Medieval). Unfortunately, this did not happen with Rome much to my chagrin, in fact, for me, this was totally unexpected. I usually like to nurture the hope that there is something better to be sought or learned from a bad experience. I had heard various new elements that were to be included in MP, new campaigns and other things that gave me butterflies in my stomach in anticipation.

Rome had been touted as the next great game in the Total War series. Well maybe I misunderstood what that meant so I looked up the word series to be certain and sure enough, it was as I thought: (from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary) Series, noun: a succession of volumes or issues published with related subjects or authors, similar format and price.

Rome is not in the same format, but it is the same PRICE! So okay there are many issues that need to be resolved, we have presented them and are continuing to do so, in fact I think the petition is up to around 400 names now over at the NET. However…

To add insult to injury, it is apparent CA will do nothing to alter the present state of affairs. What’s more, it is overwhelmingly apparent that the CA employees posting here have no authority to do anything about this situation, by their own admission. So why waste time and effort talking to the wall. CA and their staff would do well to at least be honest with their customers. Yet they have proven they use tactics and methods meant to deceive and mislead customers and what borders on false advertising in order to get sales. Good show chaps.

I’ll waste no more time on CA or their employees until such time as they change their policy and views. Similar to what Bachus said earlier, I have spent approximately $850 in total on the Total War series, buying for myself, family and friends so we can all play together and enjoy the online experience. If they want my business and that of my family and friends, they will have to earn it. CA has seen the last cent from me and those I brought into the series. Although Rome will not be traded in or thrown away (I am a collector of games), I will unload it from my computers, pack it away and set in on the shelf with all the other games I do not play anymore.

Instead, I will continue to play other true MP games and enjoy a pleasant online experience with friends and family, no frustrations or anxiety, and be saddened by the ultimate demise and death or the Total War MP aspect of the game. SP is okay the first couple of times, afterwards it is repetitive and boring, no matter how good it looks.

I join the thousands now playing Warhammer 40k: Dawn of War and soon Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle Earth and World of Warcraft. These companies, Relic, Blizzard, THQ and EA are focused solely on the MP community, where I am and want to be.

Like a friend of mine likes to say all the time:

Enough words lost.

Cheers CA and good luck with all your SP endeavors.

SoSo

Very well said indeed SoSo ;) i'll drink to that m8 ~:cheers:

Wow! One of my old accounts is still here! Neat-o!

Thanks Zeus. BTW are you buying? ~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by soso

SP is okay the first couple of times, afterwards it is repetitive and boring, no matter how good it looks.

I join the thousands now playing Warhammer 40k: Dawn of War and soon Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle Earth and World of Warcraft. These companies, Relic, Blizzard, THQ and EA are focused solely on the MP community, where I am and want to be.

---

I agree! As good as the sp game is ... after a couple campaigns it does start getting repetitive and boring, and that is when I start playing the online portion exclusively.

As for going to DoW or BfME ... the problem for me is that those games involve resource collection and building units real time. They aren't the tactical battle simulators I am looking to play. So besides the TW series, what other games provide a tactical simulator style of play online?

The only game that even comes close to the TW series in tactical battles is the old out-dated Sid Meier's Gettysburg. It also had its limitations however. First: you could not purchase your armies, but only play historic or random battles online. Secondly: It was not a close combat type of game, since it was mostly cannons, guns and cavalry/with guns. Thirdly: The most you could play was a 2v2 without major lag.

The above game is what first attracted me to STW MP. It allowed you to purchase your army, it had close up combat, and you could play 4v4's without game-killing lag (Well for me as host that is).

There really are not any recent games similar to TW when it comes to realtime battles, which gave them a nice niche. However, with RTW they are closely approaching the mainstream and losing their uniqueness. It is the way of the business world in general and not of just CA/Activision.

GILJAY: Thank you for the comments. I do not have any bad feelings towards you guys. I think it is very nice for you to participate in these discussions and respect you very much for this. I am more angry at the major decision-makers who hide behind the actual hard-working CA employees (such as yourself, Ritchie and the programmers). They make business decisions without actually knowing and/or experiencing what made the initial games in the TW series so great. They are trained to measure progress, spending, and personnel issues, but have no real education in the customer relations side of the business. I know, since I have gathered quite a few degrees in my 42 years, and spent half my career as a mid-level manager and the other half as a skilled-trades person (Of which, I make considerably more money in the trades). I also know that you and the gang, would have wanted to make the game great for both the SP and the MP community, but had to give consideration to time, expense, and other matters, which these "business types" decided were to take priority.

It is a shame I live so far away from CA's offices, or I would drive by and take you guys out for a drink or two (on me.) You have given me 4 years of great entertainment and I have made many friends from playing your great games. If any of you ever decide to visit Kentucky for the Kentucky Derby, let me know, and I will put you up for the week. Might even fire up the still and show you what real Moonshine is like. :) My motto is: "If it has a label on it, it "ain't" worth drink'n!"

Ground Control 2 has no resource gathering and neither does Panzers, Panzers I particulary like, but only bother if you love WW" and Tanks.

Sp00n

Niether are like the Total War series but both are better than Rome online.

I think I've said this before regarding SP vs MP.

Some like play with themselves, and read magazines about it.

But others do the real thing. And once you have tasted it, you never want to go back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElmarkOFear

The only game that even comes close to the TW series in tactical battles is the old out-dated Sid Meier's Gettysburg. It also had its limitations however. First: you could not purchase your armies, but only play historic or random battles online. Secondly: It was not a close combat type of game, since it was mostly cannons, guns and cavalry/with guns. Thirdly: The most you could play was a 2v2 without major lag.

The above game is what first attracted me to STW MP. It allowed you to purchase your army, it had close up combat, and you could play 4v4's without game-killing lag (Well for me as host that is).

There really are not any recent games similar to TW when it comes to realtime battles, which gave them a nice niche. However, with RTW they are closely approaching the mainstream and losing their uniqueness. It is the way of the business world in general and not of just CA/Activision.

!"

---

Check out the Imperial Glory website Elmo my old friend at last another developer appears to have copied CA, will it be any good though remains to be seen.

Panda I may have moaned in these forums about Rome but its only because of the passion I feel for the game and ill also like Elmo thank you for over 4 years of great online fun, I loved your last 2 games and played them more than any other pc game ive ever bought, ive never understood why no developer has copied you guys.

You have put lots of effort into Rome, Sorry though I just hate the new control system in Rome the SP game rocks but as you and your team well know the MP sucks you wouldnt be getting any critisism if you made the MP half decent I doubt that more than 5 of you even tested it.
Rome is a great game but it is a step backwards in every aspect of the 3D battle mode apart from sieges and graphics. You mention Warcraft and how you cant understand why so many people play it and I agree but its way more polished than Rome MP.

If you go and look at the forums for Imperial Glory they are asking the future players about all aspects of the game including MP, I dont recall you guys asking many questions here during Rome development.

Once again thanks for Shogun and MTW but before seeing reviews on your next games online content I wont be buying it and many will just download cracked copies and not buy it at all.

Bear that thought in mind.


MizuSp00n

PS Most of the critism here is about online play as this is a community site, Rome isnt a good online game its ok, compared to your last 2 games its poor.

Imperial Glory has good graphics and dose remind you of totalwar in a way, but i like swordplay. to much gunplay can get boring for me.. i hope i'm wrong for i will try the demo when it comes out and give the game a chance.

warcraft3 is easy to understand why so many play it online. just play the game online for yourself and you can see. look at all the features and support for the game.. tons of it. i've only stopped playing it cause it's not my type of game. i like commanding armies of swordsmen, cavalry, spearmen, and archers. i'm not a fan of the teching up, building, and reasource gathering, i like that stuff for campaign and always hope for a mp one.

sp isn't something that a whole lot of people can play over and over again. i'm sure most people only play it once or twice and problay over a long period of time. the ai is to easy to walk over and it just isn't nearly as fun as playing against a human online. why is it so hard for some people to see that?

combine warcraft3 features, rtw graphics, mtw/stw controls/gameplay, a mp campaign like rtw's, and you have yourself a winner!!!!!!!! ~:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SouthwaterPanda

I had thought that people here would have some grasp of reality; however, all I see are pipe dreams and piping dreamers...

d6veteran: I posted the link to the Stardock postmortem as something I read today which was interesting to me, not because it specifically informs CA's policy or because we take our lead from Stardock. So much for my referring to them on the basis that some people here have liked their games.

Dionysus9: I'm sorry, but your rant about "blame MP" is misguided at best. That quote was from the manager of that project, talking about where he saw resources expended in the project, and about what he would have done differently. To say that he's blaming MP because the game didn't do well is pretty daft, regardless of whether it got a cheap laugh from the crowd. He *knows* that only 1% of the purchasers of the game have tried playing MP. It *turns out* that investing so much time in MP was not profitable. He's not justifying a decision to not invest time in MP; he's regretting making the decision to have invested so much, given the number of people that it's benefited compared to the number of people who would have benefited from the time going somewhere else.

A couple other things:

Everyone keeps banging on about Blizzard as the paradigm for MP success. I think you need to consider that there are plenty, plenty more companies which have attempted to emulate Blizzard and failed. I would expect that CA has no interest in massively failing at MP, especially since we have our own stats about MP usage which suggest that 1% is a pretty good estimate of the size of the market. (We know exactly how many CD keys have been used to log into GameSpy for Medieval, for example. Doesn't tell us the size of the LAN market, but then nothing would.)

In short, everyone keeps saying that we would make a fortune if we "took MP seriously", and wailing that until we believe that there's more than 1% of you out there, we're waving goodbye to a fortune. But it isn't your money and your jobs on the line if you're wrong, is it? CA has made enough money to stay in business making predominantly-SP games. In fact, most games companies stay in business that way, with what you would call mediocre online support, or none at all. The number of *good* MP games is pretty minuscule. On the other hand, I could name you plenty of games which have delivered astoundingly good content, including a viable multiplayer component, which have achieved no great MP impact, and seen the developer go bankrupt regardless. (Who here played Startopia - multiplayer or otherwise? How many MP games of Emperor have I ever seen running? Majesty? Stronghold?)

Come on, be honest. Name all these successful multiplayer games. When you say that, what you mean is the Blizzard line, Counter-Strike, AoE, the Quakes and a few Quake-powered FPSs, UT, and some (nowhere near all) MMORPGs. That's about it.

In other words, FPSs and RTSs. Games you can pick up and play immediately. Genres which have been around for a decade.

Tell me why we should take any risks without a great deal of care and attention and investigation *and some numbers to back it up*.

---

I completely understand the risk wich is involved...However as i said in my previous post there is a HUGE income slipping away because of the PIRACY aspect...Blizzard hasnt focused on MP for fun or to please their customers they did it to ensure that ANYONE that has Warcraft or starcraft has the 100% LEGAL copy...SP games have NO ways to defend against PIRACY ...
And as far as for the implementation the CA had expressed a RPG style WONDERFUL idea of a MMORPG campaignmap where players connect and interact in a persistant universe mod http://www.computerandvideogames.com/r/?page=http://www.computerandvideogames.com/previews/previews_story.php(que)id=99798
NO waiting for battles to be resolved clan wars REAL diplomacy...
The question really is: WHAT IS EASIER TO IMPLEMENT A CHALLENGING "AI" OR A MP CAMPAIGN?
The answer is up to you...

Hellenes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellenes

The question really is: WHAT IS EASIER TO IMPLEMENT A CHALLENGING "AI" OR A MP CAMPAIGN?

---

Getting them to ask that question in the first place is the challenge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by d6veteran

Getting them to ask that question in the first place is the challenge.

---

D6 my point really is that (and i think that youll agree) the current MP style with ONLY tactics and NO strategy with just scirmishes is pointless to the common RTSers who expect from A strategy game to invole strategy MP mainly...So for them RTW doesnt have a MP at all...

Hellenes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SouthwaterPanda

Of course we do. That's why (sob story) it hurts so much when people who have no idea what we go through to produce a game that's pretty much a work of genius declare that we're mental incompetents, paperboys, monkey typists, and so forth. Developers are human too. Boo hoo, etc. It annoys anyone who can't do everything to their heart's content, if they can't also be realistic about things and say, "We've done something that no-one else has done, and we did it as best we could under the circumstances." There are things in Rome which no other game does. Bugs are fixable, but lack of genius isn't. You can't patch a game to make it a work of genius. Rome is, basically, a work of genius. That's why it's winning all these rapturous reviews - not because we've supplied concubines to the review editors or donated $1,000,000 to GameStar or whatever, but because those people, who've seen a lot of games, really rate Total War in general and this in particular.

That dichotomy - of feeling that they've done a good job under difficult circumstances, but also feeling sympathy with anyone who finds a bug in a game - is almost certainly why a lot of CA's programmers don't stop by these boards. It can be almost physically painful to read complete strangers insulting us individually or collectively because they happen to have found a bug (or a feature they don't like, or a historical inaccuracy, or whatever). Anyone whose advice is "get a tougher skin" should try investing two years of their life in a creative endeavour and then ask fifty complete strangers to tell them it's shit...

---

Excuse the long post...


I'll be the first to admit I've bitched, winned and moaned about issues I've encountered with Rome. But when I stop and think about it, is a $50 game really worth getting all worked up over? Honestly could any of us produce something anything like it and FOR FREE? I suppose some may have a tighter budget than others.

In any case I guess what it comes down to is the fact that we were promised something, and built up our hopes in something truly revolutionary more so than the previous two of the series. There is a valid point made here that some things inherent to the STW & MTW are most definitely missing. Aside from the awesome graphics many of the features multiplayer is known for were either simply left out or do not function properly.

This fact is the cause for the entire debate here. I think just a little more care to MP, not a huge re-engineering, but maybe for example: Classic UI for those who preferred the old controls or maybe some advanced hosting options, but most importantly the things that were left with MTW need implemented otherwise most will not care for playing online nearly as much.

Is MP the future? Of course it is, whether CA is the strategy developer to do it or not. Humans are social beings. If you know anyone in who works in an environment with computers connected to the internet you know they are online playing Chess, Poker, Word puzzles, Tactics Arena (my favorite ~:) )and countless other games online against OTHER PEOPLE maybe half way across their country doing same type of desk job. Personally I find spending (wasting ~;) ) time alone with my computer very counter productive and a quite empty experience. After all who cares if I beat the computer?

Now Giljay seemed to sluff of MMORPGs in one of this posts, but hey these are big time money makers. What are the stats for EQ? Granted different type of game, but how about the Dark Age of Camelot? This attempted and was highly successful at realm vs realm and siege warfare with decent looking 3D characters for the time. There will be so many new examples coming just watch... I'm looking forward to see Battle for Middle Earth revolutionize RTS and I think it will.

To the Devs we (or I at least) apologize for any insults directed at your work, but please don't make excuses for not going or even attempting to look in new directions. I would much rather hear that CA just doesn't have the resources to make it happen rather than lame statistics that don't even include LAN. Personally I'd rather not have MP online as that may be too difficult to engineer at this time. However I can think of 5 friends and relatives who do not "game" that would not be interested in online campaign, but would buy the game if it featured LAN just so they could play against ME. How many others know people like this?

Basically there should be another patch fixing issues such as AI, UI, and missing features, and if that comes to be then my $50 will be well spent.

Sorry I hate making long posts because I think people skip them, but I figured now was the time speak up since I haven't much at the ORG.

Hi,

I suppose in defence of the TW online players, the one thing they should expect from subsequent titles is progress. I'm not talking about the provision of MP campaigns, etc, but rather that the improvements made in the patching/expansion process of previous titles should be carried over into the new title, that being RTW.

Now, from what I've seen and heard it would seem that to a certain extent many of the nuances and problems that existed in STW and MTW and were complained about mercilessly by the community and subsequently patched, seem to have arisen again in RTW. Problems with connectivity, lag, control interface, desynchronisation, lobby features and in-game menu options to name a few.

I think what Gil said is absolutely right, but with regards to MP, if you're going to implement and advertise MP capabilities for a game, especially one that has had relatively successful MP in predecessors, then you've got to be prepared to do it correctly and support it throughout. The only thing worse than not having any MP, is having a half-assed MP side with little subsequent support. This only leads to community resentment at being misled into spending their hard-earned money on failed promises.

Maybe CA should have simply bitten the bullet and axed RTW MP?

Myself, I'd be sorry to see MP in the TW series dropped. However, like many I find that MP in games other than FPS (e.g. Half-life) are always fraught with imbalances, cheats and bugs. Unfortunately, these ultimately lead to the game becoming unplayable; take Command and Conquer: Generals and worse still, Zero Hour, as fine examples. The reason STW worked was because it was really simple. It had a small selection of units, which every player could use, and therefore minimised any potential imbalances. With the arrival of MTW many new units and unique factions were added to the mix and this inevitably and invariably led to imbalances - many of which were never resolved despite the patching process (e.g. spears units). RTW will no doubt follow the same old route, only this time with better graphics.

The only way MP will really work outwith the FPS genre is with subscription and TotalSupport (consider Dark Age of Camelot as an example).

Regards

Jamie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jambo

Hi,

I suppose in defence of the TW online players, the one thing they should expect from subsequent titles is progress. I'm not talking about the provision of MP campaigns, etc, but rather that the improvements made in the patching/expansion process of previous titles should be carried over into the new title, that being RTW.

---

It doesn't seem you can expect it. It's a new game written from scratch, and CA has said that RTW is the game they always wanted to make. I don't know what that makes STW and MTW. Something they didn't want to make I guess. It appears to me that RTW multiplayer has been conceived primarily as an solo player game rather than a team game with support for an online clan community. Of course, this was not made clear by the marketing of the product and the blackout of info on what MP was going to be like, but there were signs that things had changed. For instance, movement speed is no longer rooted in realism. It has become an arbitrary variable. I remember longjohn refusing to increase the speed of cav in MTW by 20% because it would be unrealistic. What happened to concerns like that? I remember longjohn saying that the overhand hoplite spears were left out because of collision detect problems, and yet the game was released with all kinds of clipping problems. What happened? I've never seen a major release with clipping problems this bad. The frame rate isn't even close to MTW, and yet it was claimed that it would be just as good if not better. What's up with that? The only way you can get a lag free game in RTW MP is to play with armies that are smaller than were used in MTW MP, and yet there is an RTW info shortcut on my desktop which supposedly shows a "multiplayer" castle siege game with a massive sieging army. I didn't count them, but it looks like 10,000 men in the sieging army, and it says 8 player capability.

If you axe MP then what you are left with is SP with that flawed AI. The AI is going to make the same mistakes over and over unlike human players who learn from their mistakes with the exception of Elmo. Balance issues in MP could be addressed if CA took player feedback and made adjustments, but they don't do that consistently prefering to end of life each installment of the game. The SP strategic game has improved a lot, but the tactical battles are the reason for this game to exist. I'd hate to see the tactical battles deteriorate to the point where auto-resolving is the prefered way to play, but that's the path the series seems to be taking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

The SP strategic game has improved a lot, but the tactical battles are the reason for this game to exist. I'd hate to see the tactical battles deteriorate to the point where auto-resolving is the prefered way to play, but that's the path the series seems to be taking.

---

The SP strategic game is the REASON and the point of the battles to EXIST!!
The ONLY reason i was playing MTW online was the communication and the fun/challenge to play with other people rather than the AI...
How many people would play the current tactical MP if there was a MP campaign? What would be more fun to play a battle of empires a battle that EVERYTHING was on the stake? That would determine the fate of the world?
The whole "technical gameplay impracticability of a MP camp" that CA keeps posting as an argument cant stand because they have found a solution: http://www.computerandvideogames.com/r/?page=http://www.computerandvideogames.com/previews/previews_story.php(que)id=99798
But for some reason havent implemented it AGAINST their own interests because for the MAJORITY of RTSers TW series DONT have a MP AT ALL!!!
From a greek warcraft forum:
"To Medieval eixe plaka se single player, alla ousiastika eixe aniparkto multiplayer giati ka8e "game" i8ele meres na teleiwsei, kai opws kai na to kanoume online fainetai i axia tou RTS. Kai to Rome apo oti fainetai de 8a exei kai polles diafores oson afora to gameplay apo to Medieval, opote.."

Translation: "The Medieval was fun in single player, but virtually had non existing multiplayer because each "game" needed days to be finished, and at all events the value of the RTS is shown online. And Rome as it seems wont have many differences as the gameplay is oncerned to Medieval, so..."
The link: www.warcraft.gr/forum.asp...1869.m1157
IF CA WANTS MONEY MAKE A MP CAMPAIGN!!!

Hellenes

Without the tactical battles the Total War series wouldnt have offered much: STW and MTW strategy is advanced Risk and not much else.

I know I wouldnt be be playing much MP campaign as it would take ages to finish it and a majority of the battles would be pointless as one side has a big advantage.

Sure it would be fun to try once in a while but the campaign wouldnt be the thing that will get me online every day to play/chat for hours on the Total War server. For me its the battles that are interesting and thats what has kept me playing MTW for nearly 2 years.

I have tried enough Civ online to notice the problems of online games like that and we cant really compare with RTS games as they dont take that long to finish.

Warcraft3 has a lot of players and average game length is very short http://www.battle.net/war3/ladder/re...rts-solo.shtml Most of the MTW battles I have fought was about same length if not longer.

There are several types of online games with the most popular games being FPS. They dont have any strategy element but is focused primarily on combat and I see the Total War series to be of the same kind just with armies instead of controlling one soldier only in a FPS.

I have seen several newer RTS games that also dont have any base building but have units only to fight with so overall the Total War series is not alone. It might actually be the start of a growing trend where people want strategy but dont want the standard RTS game.

CBR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellenes

The ONLY reason i was playing MTW online was the communication and the fun/challenge to play with other people rather than the AI...

---

That's the reason I play online as well. If the tactical battles are properly implemented and the tactics deep enough, it's all the reason needed to play online for years.

If you axe MP then what you are left with is SP with that flawed AI. The AI is going to make the same mistakes over and over unlike human players who learn from their mistakes with the exception of Elmo.

I learned from my mistakes . . . . and then practiced until I could reproduce them over and over again to perfection! It's a talent really . . . ~:cheers:

What is surprising is that my clanmates are saying the balance is pretty good. e.g. not taking archers gets you slaughtered. The other mess is ridiculous and overshadows the good aspects (I almost said advances,but couldn't think of any).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sp00n

Rome is a great game but it is a step backwards in every aspect of the 3D battle mode apart from sieges and graphics. .

---

Do I need to say anymore.

Sp00n

No longer an owner of Rome Total War(sad but true).

You practiced Elmo and it made you better at getting your allies killed. ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

Without the tactical battles the Total War series wouldnt have offered much: STW and MTW strategy is advanced Risk and not much else.

I know I wouldnt be be playing much MP campaign as it would take ages to finish it and a majority of the battles would be pointless as one side has a big advantage.

Sure it would be fun to try once in a while but the campaign wouldnt be the thing that will get me online every day to play/chat for hours on the Total War server. For me its the battles that are interesting and thats what has kept me playing MTW for nearly 2 years.

I have tried enough Civ online to notice the problems of online games like that and we cant really compare with RTS games as they dont take that long to finish.

Warcraft3 has a lot of players and average game length is very short http://www.battle.net/war3/ladder/re...rts-solo.shtml Most of the MTW battles I have fought was about same length if not longer.

There are several types of online games with the most popular games being FPS. They dont have any strategy element but is focused primarily on combat and I see the Total War series to be of the same kind just with armies instead of controlling one soldier only in a FPS.

I have seen several newer RTS games that also dont have any base building but have units only to fight with so overall the Total War series is not alone. It might actually be the start of a growing trend where people want strategy but dont want the standard RTS game.

CBR

---

As i said the "argument" of taking ages to complete is nosense...Do the RPGs ever finish? NO! An RPG style campaign map where you connect and play WHENEVER you want...Also this would provide the battle-love players with TONS of challenge 1000 romans vs 5x2000 gallic armies of HUMAN players in the ALPS! Diplomacy politics STRATEGIC maneouvers!!!
No more complaints for stupid AI by the SPers and NO more sterilised flat non/benefiting encounters for the MPers...The split of the community would be healed...The battles pointless? An alliance of Carthagenieans+Greek cities+Macedon would make the Romans run for their money...As with the Gauls and Britons...Different maps climats, situations, you wouldnt be risking all you elite troops for ONE battle as you do in the current MP because you will NEED them in the future!!
And as i said before: for the common RTSers:
THERE IS NO MP IN TW AT ALL!!!

HEllenes

How can you compare it with RPG games? Its a completely different style of game. People can leave pretty much whenever they want, you cant do that for Total War style battle. The game you are talking about has nothing to do with how the campaign works for Total war.

And if battles are to be interesting they need to be balanced..what are you suggesting? That each player has an army and moves around the map and when they encounter other armies they have a battle? So campaign map and battle map movement has to be the same then.

Right now we actually have a MP where you can go online and join a battle to get quick action and after that leave the server again if you want.

I can do the same for most RTS games too: go online and play a quick battle that has some base building in it too and it will be decided pretty quick and a winner has been found. It has no effect other than perhaps some rank on a ladder as its not connected to a large campaign.

What you are suggesting is definitely not how most common RTS games are working so I dont see how many RTS gamers can consider Total War not to have MP at all, except for the lack of base building. You have any examples of games that are close to what you are talking about?


CBR

Sorry to barge in, but comparing an online RPG with a strategy game like RTW or any other RTS won't bear many fruitful results. In such rpgs the individual player controls a single/limited amount of character(s)that actually don't have any major impact on the game itself, with almost no exceptions.Now, I can't imagine how any player that controls an army in the hypothetical mp-campaign won't impact the big picture.That's why the constant attention and participation of one player isn't needed. Civilisation-style games on the other hand do require that certain qualities, and the lack thereof isn't the only reason for their limited appeal to the mp crowds.
Continuity isn't the fortè of other RTS games as well. I don't see the "meaning" behind a Warcraft 3 mp game, and in essence the TW series isn't offering anything less (or more) to that experience. Strategy is the only way to provide continuity in such games, and while the TW game engine can truly deliver a combination of startegy and tactics, trying to implement this would reduce certainly the sources and effort that is to be allocated to the game's selling point, the tactical battles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellenes

No more complaints for stupid AI by the SPers and NO more sterilised flat non/benefiting encounters for the MPers...The split of the community would be healed...

---

I can say that I have played many encounters that don't fit that description and I really can't comprehend why a battle has to create some kind of "repercussions" in a grand scale in order to be tagged as "useful" or whatever. The scope of tactics in the current game so far is impressive indeed and in a 4v4, the usage of tactics and maneuvres in battles between skilled clans can be mind-boggling and highly entertaining, without this being a battle for the destruction of Carthago (sorry for the 4v4 referance in a rtw lobby ~;) ).

Now for LAN games, that would be something else, but still...

edit: cbr can type pretty fast :dizzy2:

The CA itself had considered this RPG style TURN based campaign:
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/r/?page=http://www.computerandvideogames.com/previews/previews_story.php(que)id=99798

A persistant universe one with 1 turn one day for example in the middle there can be MANY battles as the new TW campaign movement is tottaly differnt than RISK one...

Hellenes

And to quote from that link:

Quote:

---

"There won't be a multiplayer campaign using the full single-player campaign game - the games would take so long it's just not practical. We're looking at the option of a massively multiplayer campaign with a simpler feature-set where players join a faction and play when they like. No promises yet..."

---

And I guess they scrapped it as it wasnt practical either.

If you want a game with any meaningful strategy/tactics you have to play with a few dedicated players as there is just no point in playing it if some players drop out. Armies will disappear or become controlled by the AI..how much fun is that?


CBR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

And to quote from that link:



And I guess they scrapped it as it wasnt practical either.

If you want a game with any meaningful strategy/tactics you have to play with a few dedicated players as there is just no point in playing it if some players drop out. Armies will disappear or become controlled by the AI..how much fun is that?


CBR

---

If ANYONE drops the solution is more simple than simple: Another one takes his place... clan wars passworded ability to control diplomats factions and MANY other things JUST like RPGS...The only RTS with diplomacy online!!! If you are the ONLY clan member online you just search for a high ranking (on the ladder ranks) general to fight your battles that you cant yourself...Treachery risks just like real life the whole 270 bc roman world ALIVE with living humans not jist a STUPID "AI"...

Hellenes