Multiplayer issues

[Loinnreach]

I only have few questions which I have gathered while browsing around.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=59590
http://p223.ezboard.com/fshoguntotal...icID=912.topic

To CA:

If you answer on all of them only with 'yes' or 'no', this would be very helpful.

Will you do something about:

1. improvments regarding sync, lag and connection in both lobby and in
battle.Cant imagine why we can have timeout hosting games in the lobby,

2. more friendier chat features in the lobby then in RTW/BI. I mean.. chatting
on Internet has never been easier and feature-rich these days,

*A more intimate MP chat lobby - Similar to STW and MTW. Being a separate interface from the normal Gamespy-type lobby. Include features such as private, password-able chat rooms, a permanent ban and ignore feature which is tied to the player-in-question's CD-Key so he cannot avoid it by just changing his username.*


3. better chat-room design.. customisable even better.. font, font size, color,
etc,

4. clan database. For ladder or for general record. Auto prefix/subfix to player
name the clan pre/subfix. Should be linked to individual player database,

*A detailed logfile feature - One similar to that found in the MTW game. A definite must for the MP community. It allows you to learn from others you play against by showing you what units/upgrades have the most success. It also allows, for anyone interested in hosting an MP campaign. to use the results of a battle in updating their campaign info.*


5. selectable game speed (available),

6. de-correlate morale upgrade with experience/valor/honor upgrade. Make it
a separate upgrade with separate cost.

7. selectable game speed (available),

9. host can disable certain factions, certain units, certain upgrades. This
should be save-able, E.g. ban all unit of class-type artillery,

*More host options for setting up MP games - To allow a host to set up exact amounts of currency for the games, set up which factions to allow, set up which weapons may be used or not used.*


9. to be able to give away control of units to other team mates,

10.when joining a game, missing resources will automatically be sent to you
from the hoster,

11.Avatars and clan tags
Both in the lobby and in game banners and chat labels. It's nice to be
more than just a "name".

12.Save and restart games
Dropped games should be auto-saved. In comp, you shouldn't be able to
blame the network,

13.dropping shouldn't even occur. Neither lag, even at 8 players,

14.allow for user-created scenarios to be played in MP,

15.Create specific maps, with specific names to represent the different
provinces in the game - Set up the way STW maps were set up. There
were 60 maps with specific names. This allowed for easy discussion of
tactics and also allowed for an MP campaign game to be hosted in a
turnbased manner,

16.Provide a robust SDK so players can easily make mods and maps for the
game - This will allow for mods to be made in a timely manner. Otherwise it
would take too long to make a mod, other players would have moved on to
a new game by the time it was released. Maps are another item which add
some variety to the game which keeps things interesting for the MP
community.

*Once again I'm asking you (CA) if you can at least answer with only 'yes' or
'no' if there is no other option to reveal anything else.

I will here add as well add one idea which was mentioned by Kocmoc:

Own CA-server with some good implanted gamesystems like:

I thought about a selfworking rebalancing system, everyone speak about balance and such, but u will never see a good balance with lie k100 units. Thatswhy my idea,
we need a comp-system with a fest-amount of cash, after that the mostused untis gets every 100 used units 1 cashamount higher, the units who are not used gets 1 cashamount cheaper. With time the units who are more used gets step by stem more expensiv and the other cheaper… if u think about this u will notice, that the system will rebalance itself.

u could even implant a killratiosystem for missles, lets say u want that a unit can be maximal kill 200 enemy units….now the devs never can outplay this game, so the system itself makes missles stronger or less stronger the same way the “cashs-unit-system” works.

Anyway there are much more ways to rebalance the game by itself, if u use an own server.

Luck…since version one, the luck did increased more and more. We face today a game where, some battles are so random that u sometimes cant know, if u win that or not.
We made many playtests, and sometimes the outcomes was so different that it spoiled the whole idea of this game. I wont go too much into detail, but when u have the same situation and ur win/loss ration is 50/50 than there is something wrong.

p.s. Can mods pin this topic? I see here around only SP issues and it
would be fair if at least one MP topic would be present here. Thank you.

[sapi]

It's good to see that you are intrested in how the multiplayer game turns out, but have one thing to say.

The totalwar series is a singleplayer series of games, and working on the campaign and the ai and everything to do with it should be ca's priority. Mulitplayer really isnt' that important to me, and i'm sure to a lot of the org members. So the campaign game should definitely get priority...

Just my 2c

[Mithrandir]

It's good to see that you are intrested in how the multiplayer game turns out, but have one thing to say.

The totalwar series is a singleplayer series of games, and working on the campaign and the ai and everything to do with it should be ca's priority. Mulitplayer really isnt' that important to me, and i'm sure to a lot of the org members. So the campaign game should definitely get priority...

Just my 2c

I only played MTW online, so that doesn't go for me.

[ajaxfetish]

Yes, I also have only played single-player, so of course that's what I care most about, but I understand there is a strong multiplayer total war community and they deserve attention as well. Hopefully the game will be everything we all hope for (as if that's even possible, but at least hopefully it will be great!).

Ajax

[x-dANGEr]

I only played R: TW online (At least, for the first 1.5 years).. So yes, I do care hugely about MP, as it's always where I head at start..

[sapi]

It's good to see that you are intrested in how the multiplayer game turns out, but have one thing to say.

The totalwar series is a singleplayer series of games, and working on the campaign and the ai and everything to do with it should be ca's priority. Mulitplayer really isnt' that important to me, and i'm sure to a lot of the org members. So the campaign game should definitely get priority...

Just my 2c

I only played MTW online, so that doesn't go for me.

Of course, if the singleplayer game is perfect, than the multiplayer battles will be likewise...

[TosaInu]

Of course, if the singleplayer game is perfect, than the multiplayer battles will be likewise...

That's not necessarily true sapi.

-There are some SP only and MP only bits.

-Unitstats working in SP dont have to work well in MP, because a 10% base imbalance in SP may not be noticed, in MP it will. Not because MP players play the battles better (though playing MP helped me improve), but because those games are focussed on battles only and allow magnification of imbalances: no upkeep costs like in SP, 'no' techtree, no brake on upgrades.

-A noticed 10% imbalance in stats can be used in favour of the SP'er, the AI is not going to complain. But in MP there's always a human that will feel cheated.

[Orda Khan]

Tosa hit the nail squarely on the head!!
No matter how improved the AI could/will be, the things that the SP human will get away with simply will not happen in MP.

The upgrade system definitely adds to the SP experience but it has been a pain in MP.....that is as far as I am concerned. This aspect became very evident in MTW and also to some degree in STW/MI. To get around this problem, people start setting rules and from that point the whole experience begins to deteriorate.
I would love to see seperate stats and ZERO upgrades for MP and save all the past 'cheap, inferior unit pumped to Uber class thanks to equally cheap upgrades' scenarios.
With a given unit cost and a determined over all army cost, the player would have to make interesting choices. Such as....

Buy a smaller army of higher cost units and rely on discipline and management.

Buy a large army of lesser units, hoping that manoeuvre, avoiding direct confrontation and relying on numbers will bring victory.

Buy a balanced army containing a proportionate mix of both unit classes. The hard core of disciplined troops provide the shock element while the lower classes do what they do best.

Unit match ups become more important and the tactical skill used by the player is the most important factor. Add some of the great suggestions made by Lionnreach and the MP experience would be a huge improvement

........Orda

[L'Impresario]

If upgrades are dropped, that would be an extremely positive (IMO) development, but also one that could have serious repercussions.
Although it would be easier to agree on a certain florin level from a technical/statistical point of view, a large portion of MPers has the tendency to prefer games based on elite units and relatively high morale levels.

Another thing ,that would become even more important by the no upgrades approach, is ofcourse unit balance. Naturally, it would be easier for the developers to reach a better level of balance, but any mistake could result in more units getting banned from games, as the stat range will be logically smaller in a valour/honour/experience 0 game.

Furthermore, I tend to believe that many people like this RPGish element that upgrades give to the game, but I shall leave the explanation of such weird attitudes to v4 psychologists:P

[econ21]

Orda - I'd like to see zero upgrades in the SP game too. I don't think they are that historical and tend to favour the player rather than the AI.

[TosaInu]

Regarding upgrades: it should be possible for the host to dis/allow and limit them.

Instead of hardcoding these things like battlefieldupgrades, valour upgrades, weapon/armor upgrades, base morale levels, routing thresholds, fatigue, stamina recovery, flanking bonusses and what not, there should be a config file that's CRC'ed at appropriate times. Players can then mod this to suit their games: whether it's for a SP campaign, a SP custom battle, 2 totally unexperienced players making their first steps online, 2 ultra hardcore vets duking it out together, a MP tourney or just any game.

[Loinnreach]

For the start I will be pleased when CA representative will answer on those 16 questions ('yes' or 'no' are good enough). Then we will have few basics to continue.

[Orda Khan]

Orda - I'd like to see zero upgrades in the SP game too. I don't think they are that historical and tend to favour the player rather than the AI.

I'm all for that as well. To some extent I can appreciate upgrades in some sense but these 'upgrades' tended to be a nation thing as opposed to something that can be achieved via better buildings. Two examples would probably be the Longbow and bodkin headed arrows. There are others such as the Composite bow, Swiss armoured pikes but they are all unique to factions and I like you would rather see them portrayed this way rather than a build your own program.

If upgrades are dropped, that would be an extremely positive (IMO) development, but also one that could have serious repercussions.
Although it would be easier to agree on a certain florin level from a technical/statistical point of view, a large portion of MPers has the tendency to prefer games based on elite units and relatively high morale levels.

Another thing ,that would become even more important by the no upgrades approach, is ofcourse unit balance. Naturally, it would be easier for the developers to reach a better level of balance, but any mistake could result in more units getting banned from games, as the stat range will be logically smaller in a valour/honour/experience 0 game.

Furthermore, I tend to believe that many people like this RPGish element that upgrades give to the game, but I shall leave the explanation of such weird attitudes to v4 psychologists:P

The florin level will of course determine the army. I know what you are saying and the people who prefer elite unit battles could simply host higher florin games.
The stat range would be smaller, yes. Do you think the units at zero were more a problem? Or, like I do, that the upgrade steps seriously unbalance things. At zero level some lesser units will be looking for the redzone as the game starts but surely low morale units existed, which makes things even more interesting by having to 'understand' your armies. No more point, click and sit back to watch the action.
That last part is true, many players have commented how they prefer 'gamey'

......Orda

[sapi]

I'm not nickpicking, i'm clarifying imo

That's not necessarily true sapi.

-There are some SP only and MP only bits.

Really? What's a multiplayer only bit? (that's not sarcasm; that's a serious question, as i don't play much multiplayer (in total war games, that is, you shouls see me in fps' )

-Unitstats working in SP dont have to work well in MP, because a 10% base imbalance in SP may not be noticed, in MP it will. Not because MP players play the battles better (though playing MP helped me improve), but because those games are focussed on battles only and allow magnification of imbalances: no upkeep costs like in SP, 'no' techtree, no brake on upgrades.

Yes, i agree with that, but i was suggesting that the sp would be perfectly balenced (extremely unlikely with the nitpicking players around the world)

-A noticed 10% imbalance in stats can be used in favour of the SP'er, the AI is not going to complain. But in MP there's always a human that will feel cheated.

I feel cheated if it works to the ai's advantage

I'm all for that as well. To some extent I can appreciate upgrades in some sense but these 'upgrades' tended to be a nation thing as opposed to something that can be achieved via better buildings. Two examples would probably be the Longbow and bodkin headed arrows. There are others such as the Composite bow, Swiss armoured pikes but they are all unique to factions and I like you would rather see them portrayed this way rather than a build your own program.

I agree - upgrades should be completely unrelated to battles (for getting them). I'd love to see technologies having a real impact in battles - i remember aoe2, where if you reasearched flaming arrows, you saw flaming arrows. Stuff like that'd be nice (but ovbiously restricted to singleplayer, unless each player in a mp game could choose 1 upgrade or something.

[Loinnreach]

There could be more then 16 basic issues, but if CA answer on those 16 it is more then enough to know what we can expect for the 'future' of MP in TW series.

There were many things going when STW (Shogun Total War) was relased and multiplayer was important as singleplayer.

Thought there is common opinion by majority of MP supporters, that RTW/BI has not fullfiled all their expectations and that is why there is interest to know what multiplayer options MTW 2 will have.

It is true that TW SP has 98% of the buyers and those 2% are MP ones, but this 2% would only like to know if at least 75% mentioned issues will be addressed or not, so they will be aware what to expect at all.

So far SP in TW series has never disapointed, but MP has. (for example RTW/BI) I see so many SP posts and all the things what people would like to have. If only 15% of all those whishes which are mentioned for SP, would be included (for MP support of course) in MP, then it would be great.

[Orda Khan]

Really? What's a multiplayer only bit?

Well there is no tech tree, no upkeep and your army costs the same as everyone elses.
Stats wise a good example would be the Militia Sergeant of MTW, a lesser unit which cost, IIRC, 175 florins. This unit could be upgraded to v4 quite easily and cheaply whereby they could hack their way through just about anything. Likewise, Pavise Arbalests could also be cheaply upgraded to the point where they would stand up to a frontal charge by cav

......Orda

[Just A Girl]

It's good to see that you are intrested in how the multiplayer game turns out, but have one thing to say.

The totalwar series is a singleplayer series of games, and working on the campaign and the ai and everything to do with it should be ca's priority. Mulitplayer really isnt' that important to me, and i'm sure to a lot of the org members. So the campaign game should definitely get priority...

Just my 2c

The Total wart games Come in to their own When you play MP.

MP is So much better than SP its almost strange to see some 1 talk about SP being the bigest part of the game.

With the poor AI, MP is mostdefinatly the most playable/fun/exiting part of the TW games,

Compared to MP, SP is way to easy.
Mp owns SP with a vengance.

[TosaInu]

I'm not nickpicking, i'm clarifying imo
Really? What's a multiplayer only bit?

Human vs human. That's obvious and a basic difference. Interaction, chat, is one thing.

Yes, i agree with that, but i was suggesting that the sp would be perfectly balenced (extremely unlikely with the nitpicking players around the world)

The original STW seemed very balanced to me when I played SP. Slowly I found out, while playing MP, that it wasn't. Thus, SP'ers may experience balance, while it's only 90% or so. That 10% imbalance will be exploited in MP and make many sad faces.

I feel cheated if it works to the ai's advantage

That's very possible. Others will feel cheated when it works to the AI's disadvantage. But it's still one human vs pc, in MP it's human vs human. When one human wins, another human (normally) loses. An 'unfair' defeat is not going to make the loser happy.

[Wishazu]

I think upgrades should be limited in SP to whenever there is a far reaching technological advancement i.e Gunpowder or perhaps the discovery of a way to make Steel etc. stronger. You could instead have different Weapon catagories for different troops etc. and your men can upgrade when they defeat an army with better equipment(looting the dead) By the end of the Second Punic war most of Hannibals hardcore veteran troops were equipped with Roman weapons and armour

[Orda Khan]

I think upgrades should be limited in SP to whenever there is a far reaching technological advancement i.e Gunpowder or perhaps the discovery of a way to make Steel etc. stronger. You could instead have different Weapon catagories for different troops etc. and your men can upgrade when they defeat an army with better equipment(looting the dead) By the end of the Second Punic war most of Hannibals hardcore veteran troops were equipped with Roman weapons and armour

A good point, a fair reward for defeating a better army

.......Orda

[sapi]

I think upgrades should be limited in SP to whenever there is a far reaching technological advancement i.e Gunpowder or perhaps the discovery of a way to make Steel etc. stronger. You could instead have different Weapon catagories for different troops etc. and your men can upgrade when they defeat an army with better equipment(looting the dead) By the end of the Second Punic war most of Hannibals hardcore veteran troops were equipped with Roman weapons and armour

I agree completely, this would actually make defeating a better army worthwhile...

[z2ei]

The Total wart games Come in to their own When you play MP.

MP is So much better than SP its almost strange to see some 1 talk about SP being the bigest part of the game.

With the poor AI, MP is mostdefinatly the most playable/fun/exiting part of the TW games,

Compared to MP, SP is way to easy.
Mp owns SP with a vengance.

I have to disagree. To me, MP is the least exciting part.

The fun (for me) in a TW game is being able to build an empire, no matter what's lined up against me. MP doesn't cut it for me, because it's just the battle mode. That, and you don't have to deal with the little annoyances from MP, like people spamming one type of unit, or quitting mid-game, or whatever.

Besides, Rome's AI isn't -that- bad. It isn't a genius, but neither was Medieval's.

[Loinnreach]

I would appriciate if people would avoid such comments as z2ei has posted here.

STW was the start of the TW series and IMPORTANT part of it was multiplayer of the game. Only becaus of all enthusiasts from back then dedicated to TW series, a forum like .ORG is exist, otherwise only .COM would probably be on the horizonts.

I would appriciate once more if I would not see here any propaganda. Check SP threads. How many of them? How many pages of SP 'wishes'?

MP only has one post here. Once more I would appriciate if such 'spam' is avoided here.

Thank you.

[Trajanus]

Multiplayer Issue:

• I would like to see a choice in map size on offer: If its a big 4v4 battle then a biger map is needed, but for 1v1 you don't want the game to go on for hours while you march towards your opponent and then after 2 hours of watching your men march actually fight the battle.
  
  Give us map size options to make it bigger or smaller based on the number of people participating in the battle.
  
  
• Based on problems with RTW and hosting due to firewalls and personal LANs they should offer us the chance to set people at participation levels. This could also be VERY useful for tournament use.
  
  Set a participation level for Judge/Host. They get no money or a little and are allied to everyone. Therefore they can move around the map if needed to watch things occur without fear of getting attacked and wont get involved by mistake etc.

[spmetla]

Guys, let's not have a MP vs SP debate in here. Both halves of the game need work and both are important and just because YOU might not play one half of the game does not mean it should be ignored.

[Loinnreach]

Guys, let's not have a MP vs SP debate in here. Both halves of the game need work and both are important and just because YOU might not play one half of the game does not mean it should be ignored.

Agreed. This post is not MP vs SP debate, but only focused on MP features. There are now more then 4 pages of posts dedicated to SP features and I assume that there is as well a place for 1 post regarding MP issues.

[Orda Khan]

A workable lobby is an absolute must. RTW MP lobby was never very good, 3 seperate lobbies...Friendly, Chat, Comp....What was the point? I would like to see a lobby resembling the old STW lobby and Chat Room format.
Some input from CA staff would be very welcome

......Orda

[spmetla]

And of course I still hope for a mulitplayer campaign mode. At least for LAN so I can play against my friends.

[Puzz3D]

STW has the fewest unit types, least upgrade options (only honor upgrades) and only one set of units from which all players choose their army, and yet it gives the most complex multiplayer gameplay of all the Total War games. Unless CA moves away from the thinking that more unit types and more factions in and of themselves make the multiplayer game better, I don't see the multiplayer game improving in terms of battlefield gameplay.

[buujin]

Im not sure if "complex" is the word u are looking for there Yuuki.

MTW/VI runs off a very similar engine to STW but has many more features and things which variate the combat and effect the base stats such as spear ranks , armour peircing weapons, and shield bonuses.

I dare to imply that rather, in its simplicity you find STW to be the most tactical and most enjoyable of all the Total War games...

but for complexity in gameplay I think that title must go to its successor...

Imo both MTW and STW had far better gameplay than rome and if CA they bring back the older more solid combat mechanics in MTW2 will be very very happy man.