CA please read MP solution

[rios]

Unfortunately, the option in MTW of chosing the same faction more than once has been lost. This means you need a minimum of 8 factions that are very well balanced relative to each other.

There will be several european factions that are similar to each other, and allowing limited repetitive representations of these factions in a MP game might be easier solution to pursue than a general balance between all avaliable factions.

You can play an inferior faction and do well if the skill differential over your opponent compensates for the inherent deficiency of the faction. It's the same for maps where the defender has a height advantage. In high level competitive play, you see flat maps being used because the skill differential of the players is not great. Likewise, you need very wel balanced factions for competitive play.

Map conditions is an entirely different concept. My opinions here are strictly limited to the more usual european flat terrains. Players don't always think alike. While most probably are confined to the 'traditional' styles of playing, some are better suited to 'unorthodox' arrangement and maneuvers. Any unique quality of a faction can have very diverse impacts in different hands, and to categorize them as deficiencies or compensations would be unfair for some.

For years we worked with Creative Assembly to improve balance in MP. However, Rome was a parting of the ways. Droves of top players stopped playing Total War multiplayer because the quality of the gameplay dropped below a tolerable level. I didn't quit right away. I spent months on the RTW v1.2 beta team as did about a dozen other top MTW players. It became clear during that time that Creative Assembly was less interested in playbalance than they had been in the past. They started using the label "hardcore" as a reason for not implimenting playbalance suggestions. It's only since then that I decided to pursue a mod solution for MP. I use the MTW/VI engine because it is the better engine, and it isn't possible to bring the RTW/BI engine up to it's level. You can't do it with a mod, and I don't envision CA doing it with M2TW. I don't advocate modding RTW/BI or M2TW for MP. I consider it a waste of time.

Rome's control is dull, or handicaped if you like, but that's not the main reason for players' departures. Many of us thought it was unfair to eliminate the advantages we've accumulated from refining works done on our controls through the STW -> VI period. There was room to tame the RTW system, just that we weren't willing enough.
I'm not a modders, unwilling to play scenarios unsupported by publishers, I went experiencing other games like many of my friends. 2 years gone by, and you know what, we didn't find a better game. SImply put, Totalwar serie are the only games gave us the adrenaline rush we had so longed for. So we're willing to relearn the controls and play medieval2 MP, hopefully you and your friends are willing to join us, yuuki.

[L'Impresario]

I'm not a modders, unwilling to play scenarios unsupported by publishers, I went experiencing other games like many of my friends.

IMO this one was of the problems mods faced extensively over the years. Quite a few people think that the developers (publishers wouldn't have a clue heh) know better how to finetune their game and the "official" version is how the game is meant to be played. Well, in a perfect world with no deadlines and full of people willing to invest some real effort and time into the stats, then that 'd be probably true;)

[][GERUDO][Mojoman]

RTW mp is a joke if you play without any rules and high dinarii, which means you can only use certain factions if you want to win...

with TWPL rules and low money, each faction can be powerful in its own way.....

[hoetje]

I never played mp in rtw,maybe I'll try it out in m2tw but that would be only versus my friend.Don't really like the mp of the total war games.Campaign game has so more depth.At least,that's what I think,don't shoot me for saying that ^^

[rios]

IMO this one was of the problems mods faced extensively over the years. Quite a few people think that the developers (publishers wouldn't have a clue heh) know better how to finetune their game and the "official" version is how the game is meant to be played. Well, in a perfect world with no deadlines and full of people willing to invest some real effort and time into the stats, then that 'd be probably true;)

Certain aspects such as attribute balances between the units can shift via modding, but the basic physics can only be altered by developers.
We all know developers have their limits, but how much more efforts and responsibilities can modders bring in comparison? These numerical changes can significently shift the balances and often destroying them.
In my opinion, mods generally take away some options to creat a confined and sometimes redesigned balance. To refabricate such balance in modding is also more difficult since it not only take lot of math, the fact game mechanism isn't fully manipulatable further limits the number of partial solutions modders could achieve.

RTW mp is a joke if you play without any rules and high dinarii, which means you can only use certain factions if you want to win...
with TWPL rules and low money, each faction can be powerful in its own way.....

Cash level is a build-in way to alter balance. However, it does its job from a top level - factions, therefore usually not flexible enough to deal with the more fundemental matchups between units.

[Puzz3D]

Certain aspects such as attribute balances between the units can shift via modding, but the basic physics can only be altered by developers.
We all know developers have their limits, but how much more efforts and responsibilities can modders bring in comparison?

They can bring more commitment to balancing than does Creative Assembly. I chose to build Samurai Wars around the MTW engine because it's better than the RTW engine, and it provides a modder with control over all the parameters necessary to balance the tactical battles except for fatigue rate.

These numerical changes can significently shift the balances and often destroying them. In my opinion, mods generally take away some options to creat a confined and sometimes redesigned balance. To refabricate such balance in modding is also more difficult since it not only take lot of math, the fact game mechanism isn't fully manipulatable further limits the number of partial solutions modders could achieve.

Samurai Wars didn't remove any gameplay options except upgrades which damage the playbalance. Also, we understand the math of the STW/MTW battle engine very well. Samurai Wars is based on the STW unit parameters as developed by LongJohn who designed the tactical engine. It's a refinement of the balance of the original STW stat with changes kept to a minimum. In that sense, it is an evolution of the balance of the original stat which is something that Creative Assembly has never succeeded in doing. Creative Assembly has oscillated around the playbalance solution in every game since original STW because they don't go though enough iterative balancing steps after doing the initial analytical calculations. They wouldn't even allow the STW/MI beta team to go through another iteration of the v1.02 rebalance stat to improve their game eventhough we were willing to do that for free. That's the kind of commitment to playbalance that Creative Assembly exhibits. You're not going to convince me that Creative Assembly is going to do a great job balancing M2TW with their attitude toward balancing.

[Puzz3D]

There will be several european factions that are similar to each other, and allowing limited repetitive representations of these factions in a MP game might be easier solution to pursue than a general balance between all avaliable factions.

LongJohn said that he considered 25% imbalance acceptable. Well I saw what good players could do with the warrior monks of STW, and they were only 15% out of balance. I don't think 25% imbalance is acceptable for competitive play. Possibly, several factions will be similar enough in M2TW that they will be automatically balanced, but that I think it's unlikely there will be 8 such factions.

Map conditions is an entirely different concept. My opinions here are strictly limited to the more usual european flat terrains. Players don't always think alike. While most probably are confined to the 'traditional' styles of playing, some are better suited to 'unorthodox' arrangement and maneuvers. Any unique quality of a faction can have very diverse impacts in different hands, and to categorize them as deficiencies or compensations would be unfair for some.

You're assuming that the factions are balanced, so that it's only a matter of learning how to use the faction properly. I'm talking about faction deficiencies that can only be compensated for by superior skill. RTW/BI has such deficiencies, and MTW/VI had them as well.

Rome's control is dull, or handicaped if you like, but that's not the main reason for players' departures. Many of us thought it was unfair to eliminate the advantages we've accumulated from refining works done on our controls through the STW -> VI period. There was room to tame the RTW system, just that we weren't willing enough.
I'm not a modders, unwilling to play scenarios unsupported by publishers, I went experiencing other games like many of my friends. 2 years gone by, and you know what, we didn't find a better game. SImply put, Totalwar serie are the only games gave us the adrenaline rush we had so longed for. So we're willing to relearn the controls and play medieval2 MP, hopefully you and your friends are willing to join us, yuuki.

It's not simply a matter of the controls. You have players stacking units to make super units and using them to smashing players who don't stack. You also have the problem of things happening too fast to allow controlling 20 units individually. I can play RTW/BI if I only use 3 or 4 groups. Why should I play that game when I can play a better game such as Samurai Wars?

I've had enough of my time wasted by RTW/BI. Creative Assembly set the standard for Total War multiplayer gameplay with their first game, and they haven't maintained it notwithstanding the marketing rhetoric which is constantly calling it "improved".

[rios]

[QUOTE=Puzz3D]LongJohn said that he considered 25% imbalance acceptable. Well I saw what good players could do with the warrior monks of STW, and they were only 15% out of balance. I don't think 25% imbalance is acceptable for competitive play. Possibly, several factions will be similar enough in M2TW that they will be automatically balanced, but that I think it's unlikely there will be 8 such factions.[QUOTE/]

Monks pwn cause they use Naginatas Seriously though, they were overpowered because they give moral penalty, and they have high starting moral which makes them more cost effective since you don't need H3 or H4 . Their combat stats weren't better than nodachi or naginata cavalry, and shooters eat them up.

You're assuming that the factions are balanced, so that it's only a matter of learning how to use the faction properly. I'm talking about faction deficiencies that can only be compensated for by superior skill. RTW/BI has such deficiencies, and MTW/VI had them as well.
It's not simply a matter of the controls. You have players stacking units to make super units and using them to smashing players who don't stack. You also have the problem of things happening too fast to allow controlling 20 units individually. I can play RTW/BI if I only use 3 or 4 groups. Why should I play that game when I can play a better game such as Samurai Wars?
I've had enough of my time wasted by RTW/BI. Creative Assembly set the standard for Total War multiplayer gameplay with their first game, and they haven't maintained it notwithstanding the marketing rhetoric which is constantly calling it "improved".

Ergonomics of the controls is part of the balancing process. Different styles call for different statistical balance between units, but at top level game mechanics determines which styles are suitable.
For example, RTW engine disallows free and redundant unit hotkeying or free cameral rotations with the mouse. These seemly little changes forced more actions per order, and slowed down the rate at which orders could be issued. Coupled with the faster run speeds and unchanged threshold distances made rome less forgiving when issuing orders, and dramatically altered effectiveness of some the playing styles. The new set of favorable styles then call for a different balance compared to STW and MTW.

They can bring more commitment to balancing than does Creative Assembly. I chose to build Samurai Wars around the MTW engine because it's better than the RTW engine, and it provides a modder with control over all the parameters necessary to balance the tactical battles except for fatigue rate.
Samurai Wars didn't remove any gameplay options except upgrades which damage the playbalance. Also, we understand the math of the STW/MTW battle engine very well. Samurai Wars is based on the STW unit parameters as developed by LongJohn who designed the tactical engine. It's a refinement of the balance of the original STW stat with changes kept to a minimum. In that sense, it is an evolution of the balance of the original stat which is something that Creative Assembly has never succeeded in doing. Creative Assembly has oscillated around the playbalance solution in every game since original STW because they don't go though enough iterative balancing steps after doing the initial analytical calculations. They wouldn't even allow the STW/MI beta team to go through another iteration of the v1.02 rebalance stat to improve their game eventhough we were willing to do that for free. That's the kind of commitment to playbalance that Creative Assembly exhibits. You're not going to convince me that Creative Assembly is going to do a great job balancing M2TW with their attitude toward balancing.

What about the choice between altering playstyles to suit the game mechanics or improving speed to make the accustomed playstyles more adaptable. In a STW, MTW modded game only the later option can be excercised since the suitable playstyles is already fixed from the long period of player evolution and the fact modded games offers little room to introduce new styles as the balancing is already done strictly for the sorted after sets. Not to mention, playing MTW, STW mods also means unable to take advantage of the new graphical engines. Don't you get bored repeating the same battle plan over and over while not much eye candy to look at?

[Nobunaga]

actually monks didn't give a moral penalty and they were more affective in 1.12
i.e. original STW

[rios]

actually monks didn't give a moral penalty and they were more affective in 1.12
i.e. original STW

they did give moral penalty in SP, I can't recall if same carried for MP, it's been a while. But if we ignore that issue, here's what I have.
monks at 5/2 4 charge while nodachi 5/-2 8 charge. if 4 charge = 1 combat then it's 8:5 ratio. monks cost 500 while nodachi cost 300, so without upgrades they are 24:25 nodachi. Almost equal cost-effectiveness.
However this didn't take into account of battlefield upgrades. Nodachi can get as much battlefield upgrades as monks, but their lower defense meant they would suffer more moral penalty from casaulty%. By rushing with monks and not giving time for the opponents to properly carry out their charges further allowed monks to sustain unit sizes, thus after battlefield upgrades they become more powerful than nodachi. This I believe is source of the "15% unbalanced".
In MI, monk cost were raised by 10%, making them 10% less cost effective. I don't know if 10% would of effectively conpensaded their after battle capabilities but the fact naginata cavarly with almost same combat stats, faster and only 450 in cost made monks obsolete anyway.