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

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...