How many games have you played on TW MP?

**UglyElmo2** · 09-07-2010, 20:42

10,000+ is kind of low for a cutoff point I would say aye Magy? :)

**Gregoshi** · 09-07-2010, 23:04

The low end could have had another category or two as well - "under 100", "100-500" and "501-999" or something like that. I think I'd be in the Under 100 club...or maybe just eeeking into the "100-500" range. My guys get too winded from routing off the field, so I couldn't play too often. Fat samuai are like that.

**Kocmoc** · 09-08-2010, 08:43

i had 20k in STW and over 30k in MI, with MTW it should be at least 40k. Those times there was logfiles, so you could easy say, how many battles you fought.

Koc

**Togakure** · 09-08-2010, 09:07

That's simply incredible. If STW was released in 2000, and MI server went down in 2004, let's say four full years as a generous estimate. 365 x 4 is 1460 days. That means you played an average of over 34 games a day, everyday, for four years, to play around 50,000 games total. I started playing MI a lot in Sept 2003 and never saw you, so that means you played those 50K games in even less time. Truly amazing.

I figure I played maybe an average of 5 games a day, four days a week, for about a year in MI. So say 20 games a week average for a year--just over a thousand games or so in MI. I can't really remember how often I played VI. I started after VI came out and played until maybe six months after RTW was released. Maybe about the same number as MI.

**Magyar Khan** · 09-08-2010, 09:53

I guess i had about 20k. Im sure i didnt have as much as koc..... And when u play thousands of games u dont wanna look at eyestraining backgroundmovie when hosting....

**Kocmoc** · 09-08-2010, 12:12

Originally Posted by Togakure

That's simply incredible. If STW was released in 2000, and MI server went down in 2004, let's say four full years as a generous estimate. 365 x 4 is 1460 days. That means you played an average of over 34 games a day, everyday, for four years, to play around 50,000 games total. I started playing MI a lot in Sept 2003 and never saw you, so that means you played those 50K games in even less time. Truly amazing.

I figure I played maybe an average of 5 games a day, four days a week, for about a year in MI. So say 20 games a week average for a year--just over a thousand games or so in MI. I can't really remember how often I played VI. I started after VI came out and played until maybe six months after RTW was released. Maybe about the same number as MI.

I had a break at that time and played 7/24, at those times 1v1 was a lot more played than today, the game was very quick and if you played properly, you had surely 5-6 games a hour.
Mag and me also played tons of 2v2, many times we had a high pace in those games.

In MI i had a break of about 6 months, i played NWN at that time. Anyway, its just a guess based on my logfiles i saw in the folder.

Koc

edit: i remember goals, like more than 30 names in top 100, and i brought many names in top20 in less than a day, by playing 80-100 games.
Problem was the early european times, when only 5-7 people was online. You had to play same people over and over again.

Hard to say, since many years are gone, i remember "thejudge" a player who was using a frontal Monk-gun army all the time, it took me less than 5 mins to win the game. It was always totomi and i bet the quickest battles was 2 mins. I also remember Lordted with his 1k games, thats was also an amazing way to get many games in a short time.

Hard battles was only vs camper or real good player, than a game took longer. You cant compare that with today.
You played only MI or also STW? If you never played STW, go and try it, the speed in STW was a lot higher than in MI.

**Togakure** · 09-08-2010, 13:23

Originally Posted by Kocmoc

... You played only MI or also STW? If you never played STW, go and try it, the speed in STW was a lot higher than in MI.

I played original STW a lot SP, but never MP. By the time I got involved with MP, it was late in the MI days. Games did tend to drag because of the power of muskets--in 3v3 in particular, because there was no open flank and everyone just lined up across the map to shoot first. We played mostly 3v3 because 4v4 lagged badly, and 2v2 didn't satisfy most players, who wanted bigger battles. Personally, I preferred 2v2 to shorten the ranged war and put more emphasis on momentum and flanking.

**Kocmoc** · 09-08-2010, 13:36

Well, the speed you can see in SP as well, set a game up and watch how quick units move.

The problem in MI was the new designed maps, which kinda made almost everyone playing on this flat green map without a single tree.
This was of course in favor of missles, still, you had to use melee, else you was toast. With melee the game become pace.

Back to topic. If i just compare the amount of time spent today for a single game, with TW years ago, it is a real problem.
Of course this shooting battles can be funny, but this takes all in all too long.

Today you need a lot more time to get some games, reaching a high amount of played games is a lot harder and needs a lot more time.
Take me as example, im rusty and old, i hate those endless shooting wars, where a single hill or some good woods decide already the whole game.
I play Otto for now, getting some quick games. This makes fun and deliver some train. To let your units step-dance on many points is more than boring.

Koc