http://www.petitiononline.com/2908jt01/petition.html
thats a link for the multiplayer campaign pleas sign it and
spread the word!!!
i would love if someone could start a thread on this!!
write back just to let me know im being heard!!
Printable View
http://www.petitiononline.com/2908jt01/petition.html
thats a link for the multiplayer campaign pleas sign it and
spread the word!!!
i would love if someone could start a thread on this!!
write back just to let me know im being heard!!
They won't do it. It's too close to the date it comes out.
they could always send it out in the form of a patch
So there is no multiplayer mode in MTW2?
EDIT - Hey, I can use the edit button now! Thanks guys!
1) There will be multiplayer battles (as there have been for every single TW game to date), he's talking about a multiplayer campaign.
2) This petition is far far too late. The game is done, designed, probably in QA as we speak. Patches are typically there to correct something that was implemented incorrectly - not add completely new features. They couldn't even give us campaign battle replays in a patch - they certainly couldn't do it for a multiplayer campaign.
3) I wonder if you 'petitioners' for a mulitplayer campaign have actually really thought about how it would work? 'Cos TW campaigns can last quite a long time, even taking a single turn for a single player can go upwards of an hour when his empire gets large. So, given that players aren't going to be online playing for several weeks continuously you're going to have to compromise on something. If you want to keep the camp map and not too bothered about the battles then we have a pretty servicable RTW multiplayer campaign mod already. If you want to keep the battles and are prepared to accept a more stylised campaign map then the Lordz are testing an online multiplayer campaign run through a website.
Thats pretty much right I think. If you want a multiplayer campaign on the Next TW game, (The one after M2TW because you are far too late for M2TW) Then you have to think up a system you can suggest for CA. Probably only something like everyone takes there turn at the same time and when all click 'End Turn' the game moves on but there is a time limit for the turn to be taken and if you are not ready within the time it just moves on. Then there are things like AI, would that be involved? Would battlefield battles be allowed, is that decided before the campaign starts? Battles can take a long time, especially sieges. Should I wait 40 minutes while another players beats the AI?Quote:
3) I wonder if you 'petitioners' for a mulitplayer campaign have actually really thought about how it would work? 'Cos TW campaigns can last quite a long time, even taking a single turn for a single player can go upwards of an hour when his empire gets large. So, given that players aren't going to be online playing for several weeks continuously you're going to have to compromise on something. If you want to keep the camp map and not too bothered about the battles then we have a pretty servicable RTW multiplayer campaign mod already. If you want to keep the battles and are prepared to accept a more stylised campaign map then the Lordz are testing an online multiplayer campaign run through a website.
I think we will eventually see great online Campaigns but these questions have to be answered and dealt with. CA can't afford to waste time on a Bad online campaign. It would have to be good and many would have to play and enjoy it.
A MP campaign is impossible with the current engine, someone from CA told that once. I believe it was BOFH or Pras
Anyway it's impossible anyway:
21 players
everyone takes atleast 10 minutes to make his turn, maybe even 15.
At average everyone attacks once in his turn. Each battle takes 30 minutes atleast.
Sometimes you have to wait for other to go to toilet and such, maybe eat dinner. Let's say that's a total of 2 hours.
Add everything together
Battles = 30 x 21 = 630
Turns = 21 x 10 = 210
Waiting, etc = 120 = 120
that's 960 minutes, which is equal to 16 hours.
And that's turn 1.
So you sleep 8 hours, play 16 hours and have no life.
I think any mp would have to be restricted as to how many human players can play maybe no more than 4-6. For obvious reasons really.
I have always wondered why some people persistently lobby for the MP campaign, when it is blatently obvious to the majority of players that it simply won't work. Even with 2 players it would be a drag. You'd have to sit there for possibly an hour waiting for your opponent to make their moves and fight all of their battles, for me even that is to long to sit around doing nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stig
Whew! I'm quite looking forward to MTW2 and this really had me worried.:cheerleader:Quote:
Originally Posted by Epistolary Richard
As for campaign MP, I agree with some of the other folks here; it would simply be impractical and I am unconcerned that it has not been included.
P.S.: Just noticed this emoticon in the list. ~:yin-yang: It should be renamed to :culture_penalty: ~:)
well they could atleast do one with LAN anyone hear of how long the HEROS IV everything is? LAN would stop me from complaining cause i want to beat my friend (turky) as the scots and beat him battle after battle... and spread the wonders of scotland right up to jerusalam rubbin it in his face the whole way heh heh heh. and whats wrong with the patch idea? they send out whole map editors in a patch sometimes... but idk if a good LAN mod came out id stop complaining heh
Having a campaign MP would be a stupid idea..
I don't want to spend a whole week, mabye 8-10 days only doing mabye 2-4 normal games on MP and a (1) MP Campaign. I don't got the time,nethier will I waste it.
well this campaign would be for people who want it if you dont want it then dont complain DONT PLAY IT im not saying make it the only choice im saying MAKE IT A CHOICE!!!
Hey, I never said I was whining. I am Just Speaking the Facts.No Need to go wacky..
Which is why it wont happen, most people dont want it and therefore it would be a waste of CAs time and money.Quote:
Originally Posted by just4apetition
A MP campaign isnt workable in the current engine because TW takes so long to play. Try playing the multiplayer in Advance Wars on the GBA then you'll know the frustration of waiting 5 mins on someone else finishing their turn while you sit there bored. Turns in TW take a lot longer than in AW so the sheer boredom would be hell!
Theres only 2 ways i can think of to work it; reduce the number of provinces right down so the whole map only has 20 or so provinces thus reducing the amount of things the player has to take care of, or shove everything on automanage and just leave the player in charge of where to move armies.
Ive got a third idea too, but its for a mod im designing. I wont go into it until ive got M2 and can see if its possible or not (heavy chance it isnt). If it does work it will change the way TW plays completely
There are plenty of people that want a multplayer campaign showed by the link. so idk what your talking about... And for who says you need 21 players? you could still have AI controling all of them. and just cause you can only beat a comp doesnt mean people will get the same satisfaction...
m8, it never going to happen.. First Off, it would take to long. Second, I don't want all of my "normal" MP players to be flocking to Campgain, no offense.
I don't want to spend 1-2 weeks doing 1 games, mabye with a expection of a few MP games here and there.. Well in my opinion,it won't work, and it never will, and if you want some fun besides playing a boring AI, you don't need a camgpain. come online, and play some Humans in 1v1,2v2,3v3 and 4v4 games like we all been doing. but that is my thoughts.
Come on, be open Minded. If the best game designers, programmers and gamers sat in a meeting room with a copy of RTW, a blackboard, some chalk and a few computers, They could probably come up with a decent Multiplayer Campaign. The Thing everyone must remember is, the TW campaigns are built for 1 player and AI. To make a multiplayer campaign, they would have to change some aspects of the campaign and the game. For example, An obvious one would be no battles on battlemap. - If you really love the Battles, you would have to work out a different system of battle initiation than the TW one.Quote:
m8, it never going to happen.. First Off, it would take to long. Second, I don't want all of my "normal" MP players to be flocking to Campgain, no offense.
I don't want to spend 1-2 weeks doing 1 games, mabye with a expection of a few MP games here and there.. Well in my opinion,it won't work, and it never will, and if you want some fun besides playing a boring AI, you don't need a camgpain. come online, and play some Humans in 1v1,2v2,3v3 and 4v4 games like we all been doing. but that is my thoughts.
If you really want a multiplayer campaign, then I suggest you get a group of people and work out how it would work. Answer the questions which must be answered.
If you think a multiplayer campaign of RTW would be a big seller, then become a game developer and make one. In my opinion, a good multiplayer campaign is not a simple Add-on, but a Completely new game. I think we will one day see a very good multiplayer campaign like the TW campaigns but never see one exactly the same as a TW campaign.
m8, think. would you like to sit there, for 1 or 2 weeks,mabye more or less, (if you playing ao lder person with a job/family,for example) would it be fun? IMO it won't, but in yours, it would.
Fun Yes, one reson why I play MP,for fun. Another is for Skill. How Much Skill does it take to do a MP campgian? not alot. Someone who plays the Battles Bad, but does Campgians good, will have the advantage. TW MP is about testing your skill in battles, not campgian. it may be fun,yes, but skill wise,doubtfull.
The game is already being finalized. It's way too close to the final release date. It's not going to happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by just4apetition
Additionally, I don't get what all the fuss is about when it comes to a multiplayer campaign feature. It would just be way too complicated to design in the first place and then you probably aren't going to find enough people commited enough to play a multiplayer campaign.
you could, 300-500 people onlnie for MT2W, Depending
but m8, no offense, but no one to my knowledge wants to sit here for days/weeks doing ONE (1) camapgian and that's it. mabye you do,in your opnion, but I don't.
well it would be a nice feature with friends with nothing better to do it doesnt need 21 players just like 5 at max
Well even still. you and your friends could do some Normal MP games m8. Don't know what is wrong with them anyhow....
Okay, I'm going to add my two cents here:Quote:
Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
There's nothing at all wrong with multiplayer battles per se. It's just that for many of us who play singleplayer, we prefer their be some sort of context behind battles. The respect of one's peers (and bragging rights, can't forget that!) simply isn't enough for a lot of us. We need our battles to *mean* something.
When I play historical battles, I'm trying to recreate the victories of some of the world's most famous commanders. When I fight a battle in MTW's campaign, I know that it's in some way important--possibly even crucial--to the success/survival of my faction. There, the battles matter.
The very few times I fought battles online, I just didn't feel the same sense tension and urgency. I didn't sweat with nervousness as to whether I would win or not, because what was I fighting for? I won't say that multiplayer battles aren't somewhat fun, but they don't hold me in thrall the way the singleplayer campaign does.
Even Still, it be to hard to do. Sure, you got over 1600 signing, but howmany are from the same people or people who don't care,but sign it anyhow?Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
Ok, take off 400 people due to those 2 resons, got 1200 then, for example, so ok.
Battles mean something online. You don't need to "defend" a town on a MP Camapgian to make it worth something.
I like to play serveal games a day, not wasting my time doing 1 campaign a month. Why?
When I play MP games, I meet people from Around the World. I care about how good they are, BATTLE-wise. Online, No One Cares about how good you are on SP. We want to see your MP Skills. Battles mean something. It shows, who is the best online. Playing a Campgian doesn't show anything m8. you still going to fight games anyhow. That's my thoughts.
~:rolleyes:
Let's not turn this into a "MP is better than SP" thread... my finger get's twitchy.
Better enough to lock this thread then, hate to say it Mith, but I think it will be turning into one the way it looks :-(
Woah there. If anyone believes I was saying or implying that SP is better than MP, then I apologize--that was definitely *not* the point I was trying to convey. :oops:
I'm not bashing the folks who play battles online; I can easily see the appeal, even if it doesn't actually appeal to me personally. I was just trying to explain why many of us that like mostly (or only) singleplayer have that preference, that's all. Of course, I should also have added the disclaimer that I'm really only speaking for myself, and that I'm only guessing that others here share my views. ~;) There are undoubtedly other reasons why people don't play TW battles online, but I shan't get into them here.
All that said, I do understand why CA hasn't given us multiplayer campaigns. Doing so would require investing a considerable amount of resources....into a feature that might not get used by enough players to justify having included it in the first place. I still wish for a multiplayer campaign, but I unfortunately realize it may never be a reality. :shrug:
I am all for a TW multiplayer campaign and I even think it is plausable. Star Trek- Birth of the Federation was a turn based strategy game with real time battles and had a campaign multiplayer feature that was great. It was very much like MTW, but in space. In some ways turns "could" take even longer considering that there were hundreds of star systems and each contained 1-5 planets (provinces). Multiplayer campaigns actualy went very quick.
Something like this, people need to decide on a time limit for turns in advance. A good MP function would be setting a turn time limit and when the time expires the turn is over, like it or not. Of course "battle time" would not be included in "turn time" and it would be a good idea to have a battle timer. If your not fighting a battle, you have more time each turn. If a persons faction is fighting an AI faction, a good idea would be a function allowing the person whos faction is NOT involved in the battle to control the battle for the enemy in place of the AI.
A streamlined managment system would help. Being able to prioritize building projects etc for each province. The "auto-manage" function as it is doesn't really give you enough control. An "empire wide" construction cue would work well- just open the settlements list in the faction section, and use the drop down menus next to each settlement on the list to cue the building or unit you want produced. I also find movement of family members and stacks on the campaign map to be tedious and time consuming. Sure its easy to just click the unit and then click the destination but the unit will not intentionaly avoid large enemy forces nore avoid walking through territories where you don't have permission to move troops.
The campaign can be streamlined enough to make a multiplayer campaign really workable.
sry for the long post, I just think multiplayer TW would be awesome.
even with all you said Gott,not bad, but it will Still Take To long. I'm just saying I'm not up for it becauses,the TW communtiy on MP is small enough already,and it base on how good you are when you play games online,not how your manage your towns.
A camel thread is far more appropriateQuote:
Originally Posted by Mithrandir
Quote:
Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
It still would be cool to play the campaign with friends though. If RTW had a multiplayer campaign function I know 4 people IRL who would be really into playing. Father, brother, and two friends. MP gaming amongst family and rl friends makes for some excellent dinner table and water cooler conversation and competition.
If CIV4 can be played Multiplayer, then so can M2TW in the campaign map. :2thumbsup:
(Didn't read them all) The only way it cound work in a turn based system is to autocalc the battles and that would take the main feature away from the game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maestro
Because Civ4 is a different sytle of game m8.. No Actual Battles like MTW2 has or any other TW games in it..
Not sure, how this can be done... I realize, the campaign level could be made multi-player (aka Civ IV, where human players can join into a game and take over a faction controlled by AI; once the human player leaves, AI takes over again); but how about the real time battles? We could have a situation where players have to wait and wait for other players to resolve their battles...
That would take to much Time Slaists. It is just better off having the MP that we have now IMO..
Let's agree to just post constructive ideas on how this could work.
For any MP games to work, there needs to be some sort of agreement among the players - a set of rules to which everyone agrees. Such as time limit for turns, for example. Considering the limitations of the AI in terms of diplomacy and overall strategy, I would love to test my skills against humans, who can think creatively and surprise me in many ways. I understand that such a campaign will take much longer than a single player campaign, but I am willing to limit myself to say 5 turns per night, or even week, if that means having a campaign with/against real people. Then the game will really be about outsmarting your enemies, while now it is to a large extent about exploiting the AI's weaknesses. If I find a few like-minded individuals over the internet, and we agree to play only a few turns per night, and to a certain amount of time per turn, then what is the problem, even if our MP campagn drags on for a year? As long as we enjoy it, I do not see a problem.
This thread should be about how we can make it work, not about trying to convince everyone that it CANNOT work.
The solution is for players whos factions are NOT engaged in a battle to have the option of playing as the enemy faction in battles against players whos factions ARE in a battle. In other words, if all the factions are AI except Germany and Carthage which are played by human players than when Carthage gets in a battle with Egypt (or any other faction) the player playing Germany gets to play as Egypt but only during the battle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slaists
You could work a multiplayer campaign by getting all players to play the same nation.
Every player takes the place of a high ranking noble within the chosen nation, one is chosen as 'King'. All players get 1 starting provence and any remaining are controled by the AI. The players compete against one another to become the next King (this is judged on wealth of lands, influence, size of military, happyness of people and technology). The Nobles can use a number of things to cut the Kings reign short, Assasination, Inquisitions, Civil War etc.
The King chooses the direction of the nation (where/when to attack, where armies are needed most for defence etc.) and can give orders to the Nobles. The Nobles can choose not to follow an order but this counts as treason and starts a Civil War. During a Civil War all Nobles choose sides and fight for the control of the country, the Civil War ends when one side has lost all its lands.
The King also controls Alliances and most other diplomatic treaties (Map Information, Millitary Access, Trade etc.) The only politics the Nobles get involved in is scheming amongst themselves to further their own position.
During war the control of conquered lands goes to the Noble/King/Faction that sent the largest force to the battle (thus increasing that players influence, wealth etc).
If a Noble (or the King) looses all of his lands, that player is out of the game.
The rest of the game is pretty much played out in the normal Total War way.
This could reduce the waiting time during battles because the idea is for all the players to attack the same place at the same time ~) The only waits would come during defence and during Civil War.
Dont think ive explained this too well, i'll make some edits later.
The game has been realese. The problem is the mind who have concept TOTAL WAR . They didn't do it for the campaign on line. To let every human to make his own strategic opption. IT is sad but it is true. I have spent 4 years and hope to see that CA will repair their mistake, but they didn't .
The will and want to continue with this engine , with no on line campaign.
This is my ideas for on line campaign: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=72532
Is only matter of efforts and for admins to realise we can do it and can runnit under the guindence of on large Forum or Site for ON line Campaigns.
With every campaign startes , there can start another one and so on.
Good luck to all