Multiplayer is the future

**Dionysus9** · 10-13-2004, 04:52

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?

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.

**Papewaio** · 10-14-2004, 00:02

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.

**d6veteran** · 10-14-2004, 00:20

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.

**Papewaio** · 10-14-2004, 01:06

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

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

**Oswald** · 10-14-2004, 01:29

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

**ElmarkOFear** · 10-14-2004, 04:18

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.

**WarPriest** · 10-14-2004, 04:37

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.

**GilJaysmith** · 10-14-2004, 13:09

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.