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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[BHCWarman88]

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

so, Work 90% of your time on SP, and only 10% on MP?? I think BOTH, SP and MP, should get equal Priority. if you don't like MP, or if it not important to you, that alright. we all can say our Options, but MP should be worked on euqally with SP,if not More, because RTW's SP sucked, STW's and MTW's SP was cool. I fell in love with STW, but RTW SP sucked. BI's SP was kinda better..

[Puzz3D]

Work 90% of your time on SP, and only 10% on MP??

According to what GilJaysmith said, RTW got 15% of the work. That's enough if you have someone working on it that knows what they are doing. It's pretty strange that total war demos are not MP since they are only battles. MP shouldn't be something left to get working after the game is released as it was with RTW and MTW.

[Duke John]

but MP should be worked on euqally with SP,if not More, because RTW's SP sucked,

Well according to many MP was bad, so your reasoning is flawed as apparently the whole game is bad (as both SP and MP is bad). I'm gonna whine more time that MP could have been alot more fun with a mod, but such an insane idea is of course refused by the MP community. The MP community does need to get more united if it wants to get the fullest out of TW games. A bit of tweaking will always make it better so, the SP community knows that and is embracing the mods that patches alot of bugs. That the MP community does not do this is not the wisest thing to do in my opinion.

[Puzz3D]

The MP community does need to get more united if it wants to get the fullest out of TW games. A bit of tweaking will always make it better so, the SP community knows that and is embracing the mods that patches alot of bugs. That the MP community does not do this is not the wisest thing to do in my opinion.

Don't let CA off the hook, by saying it's up to the community to make the game play properly. Besides, you cannot get a concensus of opinion on which mod to use in MP, and some issues can't be fixed in a mod. The official release should play well enough that mods are unnecessary.