Would a MP campaign...

[hellenes]

Ive been playing MP for couple of months now and 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 devs to the idea of creation of an MP campaign remains IMHO prisoner of the sterilised encounters...

PS: With the statement of the devs that they target the "Broader" consumer group i have to say that the MAJORITY of RTS players want in MP to have the ability to BUILD their civilisations and if CA wants a part of the pie that Blizzard and others share the current form of MP wont appeal to these part of gamers IMHO.

hellenes

[Shahed]

I have mentioned this again and again that the MP game must be the same as SP. it's the only way to ensure that the devs limit their effort while reaping rewards. I think the ideal is to make ONE game and NOT TWO. Ideally the MP game is identical to SP, therefore you can't have 6 units Crusader Knights unless you really got lucky, and/or got your zeal up to 200% ?. Some argue that it won;t be fun to play. I strongly disagree, and just wish that CA can pull this off in the 10 or so months left to them to finish RTW.

[Shahed]

Quote[/b] (hellenes @ Oct. 28 2003,00:15)]The "mirror" like laboratory flat battles with ideal "non benefiting/giving advantage" sterile enviroments made the all thing pointless in a way.

Very well said.

This is exactly the main 'why' I don't play MTW MP anymore.

[tootee]

i belong to the camp who dislike building. i like to jump into battle asap instead of spending time building structures and such. its a different type of gaming fun but one that doesnt quite appeal to me in multiplayer mode as of now.

and i dont think it will balance the current MP games, because they are not even the same game in the first place. probably you will end up with a mad rush to produce cheap urban militia, spearman and feudal knights quickly, and rush at each other.. just my guess

[Shahed]

I forgot to mention: they should do Mp campaign and Mp battle, separate options. SO all three parties can get some cake (CA, MP camp gamers, Mp battle gamers).

[Brutal DLX]

Yes, the matches are indeed a bit artificial, but mainly because people host only those kinds of maps. It takes a little effort, starting at oneself to change this.
Along with that you also have to change your style of play accordingly.
It's absolutely not acceptable for people camping on defense on hilly mountainous maps, which is the main reason nobody hosts them. Perhaps the defs should get less florins to spend until the learning process sets in.

Also MP campaigns would require the same kind of patience and learning, as I can absolutely imagine cheap rushing becoming popular very quickly.

[dessa14]

when i first got MTW i was hoping for the MP CAMP but i was soreley dissapointed so i looked for a way to make it in the .exe file again the encryption stopped me all they need to do for a MP CAMP to be made is release the source code and a patch to unencrypt the exe or script.
thanks dessa

[hellenes]

Quote[/b] (tootee @ Oct. 28 2003,03:14)]probably you will end up with a mad rush to produce cheap urban militia, spearman and feudal knights quickly, and rush at each other.. just my guess

However if you face in hilly land some highland clansmen with huscarles backing them up? Some avars? Steppe H.Cav.?
And the alliances? Its NOT a click fiesta RTS game with fixed allies there is diplomacy and that will determine many things...Of course the Almohads will have an advantage in early BUT if aragon and spain for example ally and with some help from their and other crusades they will drive the moors out of iberia...Of course any outcome will depend vastly on generals talent and even if the almos
get pushed out they will be in the safety of their desert with units that will counter the crusaders...Of course there are many other examples that prove that much many factors will play part and will prevent players from rushing into a fixed pattern...

[Orda Khan]

Quote[/b] (Sinan @ Oct. 28 2003,02:53)]

Quote[/b] (hellenes @ Oct. 28 2003,00:15)]The "mirror" like laboratory flat battles with ideal "non benefiting/giving advantage" sterile enviroments made the all thing pointless in a way.

Very well said.

This is exactly the main 'why' I don't play MTW MP anymore.

I'll Mirror that...and the other point about Elite units. Is this the game that we want on MP? A few units pumped to the max on a pool table?
Not me, I've said many times that I'd rather lose interesting battles than win boring ones

But....

Don't forget the Custom Battle option, is this not the same or similar to the current MP option?
I would however, love to see MP campaigns..I think Clan campaigns ( for those in Clans ) could be very, very interesting

.......Orda

[Dionysus9]

I like all sorts of battles-- low florins, high florins, flat maps, rolling hills, big hills, fast battles, slow ones, 1v1's, 4v4's, you name it.

I just want to fight other humans. I don't really care about the scenery. If you want to defend a big hill, go for it. If you want to attack uphill, fine with me. You want a flat game? cool.

But what I DONT WANT is to be some administrative bean-counter. I cannot STAND resource collection games like AOE & Warcraft. I can barely stomach the "buildings" in TW. I don't want to be an administrator or a county planner-- I want to lead troops into battle and command them in tactical situations.

Leave the bean counting to the bean counters.

So, yes, I would like a MP Campaign but there are all sorts of problems that must be overcome (see www.totalwar.com RTW Multiplayer forum discussions, etc).

Everyone is entitled to be picky, but I'm not picky in terms of battlefield options at all.

[hellenes]

Quote[/b] (Dionysus9 @ Oct. 30 2003,22:50)]I like all sorts of battles-- low florins, high florins, flat maps, rolling hills, big hills, fast battles, slow ones, 1v1's, 4v4's, you name it.

I just want to fight other humans. I don't really care about the scenery. If you want to defend a big hill, go for it. If you want to attack uphill, fine with me. You want a flat game? cool.

But what I DONT WANT is to be some administrative bean-counter. I cannot STAND resource collection games like AOE & Warcraft. I can barely stomach the "buildings" in TW. I don't want to be an administrator or a county planner-- I want to lead troops into battle and command them in tactical situations.

Leave the bean counting to the bean counters.

So, yes, I would like a MP Campaign but there are all sorts of problems that must be overcome (see www.totalwar.com RTW Multiplayer forum discussions, etc).

Everyone is entitled to be picky, but I'm not picky in terms of battlefield options at all.

Yes BUT dont you want your battles have a purpose? I mean cmon who wouldnt enjoy diplomacy? The ONLY game with diplomacy online I completely understand your concernes BUT a MP camp would provide you too the battles you want someone could just participate as a general and leave the country managment to the king/sultan/emperor Particularly dosens of ronin generals could be available for any country leader to choose if he cant fight all his battles and the generals could get stars depending on their performanceHigh rankning human generals could be very valuable and in great demand This would give some very challenging battles ie: heavily armoured crusaders fighting in the desert or germans invading swiss switzerland (facing SAP uphill) etc etc...
And as i said before if CA wants the part of the market that Blizzard,Ensemble,Sierra and others share they should make a MP campaign IMHO...

Hellenes

[Lord Rom]

As far as the "bean counting" goes I agree that some of the admin is tedious, but I do enjoy some of the aspects of city building. It can be fun to have some of the best aspects of city building simplified in a war game. The battles do mean more when something is on the line(your carefully constructed city or his full of plunder). I also find the multiplayer aspect strange and cold due to that very fact. And I almost never attack at even odds, you lose too many troops that way. I could definitly see a clan multiplayer(with individual members each controlling a province or two) getting some real excitement going.

[Dionysus9]

Hellenes,

Yes I agree, I proposed a very similar method over at the .com...it pretty well got shot down:

http://pub133.ezboard.com/fshogun....9.topic

[Kraxis]

I can imagine how diplomacy would span days of negotiations.
Since RTW is going to include giving away cities, then it might be a choice...

[MizuKokami]

if i were to guess, i would think that the majority of total war buyers would switch from sp to mp if there was an online multi campaign. i feel this way because i personally think that the only reason why sp players aren't playing online, is because they prefer the campaign mode, over the battle mode. not that they dislike battles...heaven and hell forbid. surely they love battles as much as the most fanatical of us mp players do.

[tootee]

.. then again, the campaign mode and the battle mode are entirely different type of game.. so sure, definitely more will switch to MP if there is a MP campaign.. but it may not mean anything for the other group.

i assume if one is into the battle mode, he will be more interested in improving his skill in that mode, at least for me, i can't wait to jump into the next battle to try out new tactics or improve on the previous one.

whereas those interested in campaign mode may likely opt for a quick resolve, cos their main focus is to build and expand the empire.

[Nigel]

Well, I certainly would love to see a MP campaign.

I can see how you dislike sterile battles where the odds aer precisely evened out. However I think this is more the fault of the community than the game. Hills, bridges and castles are all there and you CAN allocate different Florin amounts to attacker and defender.

When I host, I usually choose a hilly map and give the attacker more Florins. I may not always get the balance right, but hey, that´s live. I hold it with Orda : I'd rather loose an intersting battle than win a boring one". I am still new in the game but the ones I hosted did not seem boring or sterile to me. Setting a time limit for the attacker also helps a lot.

But I do understand what you mean. There is nothing more tedious than a paviase shoot out or two armies sitting on two hills waiting for the other one to make a mistake. But it's in our own hands to change that.

Apart from all this talk (* exhausted after long speech *) I would love a MP campaign. Diplomacy and all that. If someone wants to organize one, I'm in.