MMOTW: An Idea for a MP campaign....

[hellenes]

First of all I want to say that Im not happy to play Cassandra's role, saying "I told ya" about the fact that a challenging "PO" (Programmed Opponent of marketing purposes christened "AI") is impossible with such free style game as TW with so many possibilities and variables. Now a "stack after stack" chore can be done on the campaign map level but it gets tiring and boring....
Ive got the idea from an MMO game called Lineage2 where the alliances and clans hold castles in the game world:

A Gigantic map...that has every little castle, dutchy, county that existed in Medieval times. 100 factions (Knights of Honor has as much) so any player will have the choice to choose any faction he likes.
A living world that is in REAL time and runs 24/7.

Whenever a player starts he makes an account and chooses a faction.
Now he can pick up an army from the available pool depending on the buildings his faction has at that time. Hes allocated with set amount of cash to start. After that he has many options: Either manage his castle/province or engage in diplomacy with the neighbours or or even start a war by attacking a nearby settlement or army.

Any action he is doing is represented as his character as a general and his army as his tool of destruction. His army grows or dwindles depending on his actions.
Now the most important factor (IMO) is what happens when the player is absent? Well his army simply loggs off the game! And his castle is manned by the "PO" garrison of a decent amount of archers/crossbows and militia OR if his faction has more than one players (mostly the popular factions like Byzantium or England) that player is notified to fight to defend the castle. The diplomacy in the case of multiple players that picked up the same faction is treated on a presence/rank level meaning that any negotiations will be engaged with the highest ranking player (meaning clan/faction leader and lower) present at that time OR on a pre set basis or "guidelines" that are given by the absent leader.

All players will be free enough to go wherever they want in real time on a scaled movement rate however with the appropriate consequences like a war declaration or annoyance...
There will be rebel armies in a quide abudant numbers with plenty of little catsles and provinces to expand to...
The characters themselves would aqcuire parameters same as the SP game based on the player's actions with the death of the character the player would either get the heir of that character (so he must make sure that his character gets married) or if there is no heir the player gets to fight a mini civil war and pickes the side, and if that side wins he gets a new character spwaning from the ranks....

Also the world that surrounds the player can be set in the battle engine of the TW games WITHOUT any boundaries and if the sizes of armies are too big for the server to cope with it, the strategic layer can be used in real time as |I said before.
On the unit sizes the player can pick up ANY size he wants the cost of the units will be based on per soldier capita....So if 100 spearmen cost 100 florins to buy and 50 florins to upkeep, 200 spearmen will cost 200 florins to buy and 100 florins to upkeep.
Speaking of which the castle that the player is allocated with generates a fixed amount of money that pays the upkeep cost of anything that the player has in his army.
If the castle of the player is lost his army turns into "bandits" and he will not pay any upkeep for them until he recovers his castle or takes the castle from another player. In the case that the player belongs to a bigger faction he can become a general in the service of the monarch but his army will have to be paid from the crown's coffins but will have the option to recruit soldiers from the crown's castles/cities at his expense (the player generates wealth through looting enemie territories/castles or from booty from the battles and has his personal money).

The crown itslef is an entity thats allocated to the faction/clan leader it recieves a "crown tax" from the other clan members engages in state level diplomacy and generally operates the "big picture" of the clan/faction.
Naval battles will be made controllable and the troops that are present on board will participate in any engagement. No agents will be present in the game since the diplomacy would be dealt through a chat and any other character would be simply part of an agreement (marriage would be agreed through a chat no need for a princess character)...

If at any later point a new player joins the game he will be allocated soldiers/castle etc scalable to the point that the game is at that time so there are no phaenomena like a newbe with peasants against a veteran with gothic troops.
Armour upgrades and soldiers will be tradable, like the player can "upgrade" his byzantine infantry to varangians by "disbanding" the infantry in the castle and having the worth of that unit back (again based on per soldier capita) and by purchasing a unit of varangians the same size (or bigger with extra cost) as the byzantine infantry by paying any difference...

Events will take place in the game at a chronological time through "upgrades" that the developers will release (like chronicles in La2) like the high era upgrade after a year or the mongol invasion patch....
Speaking of UNPLAYABLE factions the mongols or the astecs will be mainly the PvE element that will require HUGE alliances to be forged to deal with them.
The Pope will be a GM character in the game regulating the catholic factions and launching crusades. The orthodox factions will have the patriarch of costantinople as the spiritual leader and most importantly will play major role in the reunification of churchers attempts that will be voted by orthodox players (players that control orthodox factions).
The crusades will be deal in the sense of raids with huge alliances forged to march to the holy land...

These are the few of the ideas I have. I just hope that the developers from the CA and most importantly SEGA read this and consider it.
Thank you for your time.

[Maizel]

It's a nice idea, Though it sounds too much like a MMOG.

I rather have CA make a multiplayer campaign as it is now, possibly with different sized areas. Like England with about 16 regions 3 factions (Irish, Scotland, England)

Or the entire western Europe, for more players with more provinces etc.

[hellenes]

It's a nice idea, Though it sounds too much like a MMOG.

I rather have CA make a multiplayer campaign as it is now, possibly with different sized areas. Like England with about 16 regions 3 factions (Irish, Scotland, England)

Or the entire western Europe, for more players with more provinces etc.

But sadly the CA wont make an entire game just for the few people that would like it and maybe just for the LAN players....
Turn based campaign is impossible due to the battles being fought manually....
Plus with the MMO idea there is a motive for SEGA in the finansial sense....because MMO games are the only that resist piracy (and dont tell me about private servers, the lag is so bad its ridiculus)....

[Quillan]

They ran a PBEM game in RTW that would probably work in Medieval 2. It was called "The Will of the Senate". Basically, applied to M2TW, one player would take the role of the King/Emperor, while the other players formed the Council of Nobles. The King role would rotate every so often (was 5 or 10 years in the RTW game, IIRC). The others would take on the roles of the generals, with the remainder having voices in the Council but not being able to control troops until new generals came into existence. The Council would give suggestions to the King on what to do, the King would handle movement in the campaign map, and when a battle came up that involved a general, the game would be saved, emailed to the player running that general, who would fight the battle and email it back to the King.

[econ21]

They ran a PBEM game in RTW that would probably work in Medieval 2.

Yep, we are chewing over the possibilities here:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...ewpost&t=71900

[hellenes]

They ran a PBEM game in RTW that would probably work in Medieval 2. It was called "The Will of the Senate". Basically, applied to M2TW, one player would take the role of the King/Emperor, while the other players formed the Council of Nobles. The King role would rotate every so often (was 5 or 10 years in the RTW game, IIRC). The others would take on the roles of the generals, with the remainder having voices in the Council but not being able to control troops until new generals came into existence. The Council would give suggestions to the King on what to do, the King would handle movement in the campaign map, and when a battle came up that involved a general, the game would be saved, emailed to the player running that general, who would fight the battle and email it back to the King.

Still I believe that an MMO game would attract more people and has a finansial sense in the development side...And my main goal with this idea is to minish the Player vs the PO battles...

PS Cmon Developers say something Iknow you read this boards...

[Whacker]

Still I believe that an MMO game would attract more people and has a finansial sense in the development side...And my main goal with this idea is to minish the Player vs the PO battles...

PS Cmon Developers say something Iknow you read this boards...

Uhmmmm... No.

While the idea is indeed interesting, there are a fair number of us who absolutely loathe MMOs and any game that requires a subscription to play, or requires one to be online to play. I fall firmly into this camp, I have never played an MMO nor will I, even the free ones. If I am going to buy a game, then great, charge me a good deal of money up front, but do NOT double dip and expect me to continue paying out the wazoo!

That being said, if this were a *free* feature that were optional to the game, then I'd be all for it!

Cheers!

[hellenes]

Uhmmmm... No.

While the idea is indeed interesting, there are a fair number of us who absolutely loathe MMOs and any game that requires a subscription to play, or requires one to be online to play. I fall firmly into this camp, I have never played an MMO nor will I, even the free ones. If I am going to buy a game, then great, charge me a good deal of money up front, but do NOT double dip and expect me to continue paying out the wazoo!

That being said, if this were a *free* feature that were optional to the game, then I'd be all for it!

Cheers!

Well as I said in my original post (you didnt notice it obviously) the game could be made on the strategic map level so there wont be such a huge load on the server running it people will just be represented as charachters on the campaignmap and all will run in real time...
This way there wont be a cost to maintain the server thus the game will be like Guild Wars which is a free MMO (kinda you buy just the game)...

[Whacker]

Well as I said in my original post (you didnt notice it obviously) the game could be made on the strategic map level so there wont be such a huge load on the server running it people will just be represented as charachters on the campaignmap and all will run in real time...
This way there wont be a cost to maintain the server thus the game will be like Guild Wars which is a free MMO (kinda you buy just the game)...

I read your whole post, and respect your right to your opinion.

However, I absolutely, positively do NOT want to see the TW games go (degenerate?) the route of becoming an MMO, even a free one. The functionality you described would be interesting if it were an optional aspect of the game that one could participate in, but as are CORE component and the required method of gameplay? Absolutely not. The TW games, at least in my view, are strategy games that would most logically fit in the RTS category, which historically does not translate well into a persistant online world type game. Irregardless, I don't want to see it go this route. The next Baldur's Gate game is going to be an MMO, and it's also going to be the first game in the Baldur's Gate series that I will definitely not be purchasing/playing.

[econ21]

The next Baldur's Gate game is going to be an MMO, and it's also going to be the first game in the Baldur's Gate series that I will definitely not be purchasing/playing.

Off topic, but what?!? Do you have a link? I agree, it's an awful idea. Making Fallout 3 a 3-D Bethesda game has already got me worried, but a BG MMO is just going too far.

[cannon_fodder]

Those are some good ideas, however I don't see what they have to do with the TW series. You can be assured that the actual gameplay would end up being entirely different if it was made as an MMO. And I don't subscribe to the "let's make everything multiplayer" attitude. While some things that are impossible in an MP game are presently impossible in a SP game, the inverse is also true.

And creating good strategic and tactical AI opponents is not at all impossible. Making a very effective specialised AI has been done many times in the past. Of course they won't be capable of deception to the same extent as a human, but this isn't necessary for an enjoyable experience. And even then, deception and advanced intelligence for AIs are very possible.

[hellenes]

I read your whole post, and respect your right to your opinion.

However, I absolutely, positively do NOT want to see the TW games go (degenerate?) the route of becoming an MMO, even a free one. The functionality you described would be interesting if it were an optional aspect of the game that one could participate in, but as are CORE component and the required method of gameplay? Absolutely not. The TW games, at least in my view, are strategy games that would most logically fit in the RTS category, which historically does not translate well into a persistant online world type game. Irregardless, I don't want to see it go this route. The next Baldur's Gate game is going to be an MMO, and it's also going to be the first game in the Baldur's Gate series that I will definitely not be purchasing/playing.

TW games dont fit in "the RT"S"" category (and thank god for that):
NO mindless dumbed down basebuilding/resourcecollecting
NO locked camera just on top but an almost (or not?) FPS camera where you can watch the battle at ANY angle.
NO shortcut memorising fastclicking pathetic gameplay....
My idea IMO has 3 advantages:
1. ANTI PIRACY: I was in the sad position to witness the news that M2TW was uploaded as a torrent a WEEK before the official EU release (4th of November 2006)....Why did this happen? Well because SP games cannot resist piracy, the difference between the original game and the pirated copy is miniscule to none....So a user that downloaded the game illegally enjoys it as much as the legitimate user (as myself that got a Collector's edition for £45)....and that hurts.
And dont tell me about private servers if you played on one you will know that the lag is ridiculus and that the private servers literally make people go and play on the official.

2. MORE REVENEW: $13 a month...even if you got 100000 people (5% of RTW buyers) your making money or even if the game is set on the campaign map level then there is no heavy load on the server thus it can be like Guild Wars with no subscription fees. In any way people will be forced to buy the original game to enjoy it.

3. Multiplayer is the ultimate gaming experiense:
-Real diplomacy
-Real backstabbing
-HUGE challenge
-No need for a smart PO (for marketing reasons called "AI")
-Clan raids
-4v4 battles
...and the list goes on and on.....
As I see the SP games have plenty of disadvantages:

1. Huge costs coding a sufficiently challenging Programmed Oponnent and even then people figure out the rutines and keep smashing the PO....And as I said in my OP the chore of having to defeat stack after stack iof mindless morons just isnt fun.

2. As said before people enjoying the game for free because the original copy has no difference to the .ISO file downloaded for free as warez.

3. Not a disadvantage but may appear as: the internet is spreading, in Greece (my homeland) the fast ADSL internet users increased by 100% the recent years and keep growing...

4. And last Ive seen people that loathed MMO games playing them after trying them, people that NEVER touched a mouse or a keyboard before...And I doubt that there are many (or at all people) that did the same with a TW game...

[Whacker]

TW games dont fit in "the RT"S"" category (and thank god for that):
NO mindless dumbed down basebuilding/resourcecollecting
NO locked camera just on top but an almost (or not?) FPS camera where you can watch the battle at ANY angle.
NO shortcut memorising fastclicking pathetic gameplay....

Uhmm... A game doesn't have to be or play exactly like Warcraft 3 or C&C to be considered an RTS. Do some reading, you'll find that it universally falls into the strategy/RTS category. And for the record:

1. "Basebuilding/resourcecollecting" is far from mindless, as the experienced "traditional" RTS players will tell you. Good defenses and smart resource management are integral to being competitive, cpu or multiplayer. And for the record, what do you call the city management in the TW series? Or obtaining/spending the financial "resource?" No it's not the exact same as "collecting" it on a RTS map, but it's conceptually identical.

2. What was the last RTS you played? Almost every traditional RTS since 2000 has included variable cameras. And also for the record, the campaign map in the TW series is only zoomable.

3. You're dead wrong here. Both the campaign map and battle map in the TW series use shortcut commands, use of these by experienced players is far superior to clickclickclickclick.

My idea IMO has 3 advantages: 1. ANTI PIRACY:

While true, you're drastically overestimating the problem of piracy. Yes it's a problem, but it's not near as bad as you make it out to be, there've been a number of studies on this done by non-biased research firms. Secondly, pirates can't play multiplayer, period, which you seem to be harping on big time. I'm not going to respond to the rest of that bit.

2. MORE REVENEW:

Sorry to be rude here, but you fail miserably. ME (me including players in general) spending more of MY cash is NOT a positive aspect for the gamer. Unless you happen to enjoy simply giving your hard-earned money to people, that is.

3. Multiplayer is the ultimate gaming experiense:

That's your opinion. Not all of us prefer the multiplayer experience, and I'm going to ignore any unsupported *opinions* presented as fact as to why this is. In general, multiplayer is more popular than single player, hence games like the Battlefield series, etc. However witness games such as the Elder Scrolls series. Hugely popular but single player only.

As I see the SP games have plenty of disadvantages:

Opinion, but fair enough as you present it this way.

1. Huge costs coding a sufficiently challenging Programmed Oponnent and even then people figure out the rutines and keep smashing the PO....And as I said in my OP the chore of having to defeat stack after stack iof mindless morons just isnt fun.

The people who whine in general about the AI not being up to par after a number of patches are going to be sorely disappointed for years to come. The hardware and technology we have now are just not capable of giving the capable human mind a challenge. Note this is why the computer "cheats" on VH in RTW, including moral boosts and significant cash bonuses. AI is a developing area and will improve over time. Also it should be stated that there are many of us who are simply not "gods" at this game, and find the playability on normal difficulties to be fine. Sure the computer is going to make some stupid mistakes, but it's a programmed entity. See preceding bit of the paragraph.

2. As said before people enjoying the game for free because the original copy has no difference to the .ISO file downloaded for free as warez.

You're blowing this way out of proportion. See my text above.

3. Not a disadvantage but may appear as: the internet is spreading, in Greece (my homeland) the fast ADSL internet users increased by 100% the recent years and keep growing...

True but... So? How does this support your point? Multiplayer is fun, but like I said there are those of us who prefer a good single player experience.

4. And last Ive seen people that loathed MMO games playing them after trying them, people that NEVER touched a mouse or a keyboard before...And I doubt that there are many (or at all people) that did the same with a TW game...

Uhm.. I didn't see anything in here that makes sense that I can respond to, so.. OK.

[hellenes]

Uhmm... A game doesn't have to be or play exactly like Warcraft 3 or C&C to be considered an RTS. Do some reading, you'll find that it universally falls into the strategy/RTS category. And for the record:

1. "Basebuilding/resourcecollecting" is far from mindless, as the experienced "traditional" RTS players will tell you. Good defenses and smart resource management are integral to being competitive, cpu or multiplayer. And for the record, what do you call the city management in the TW series? Or obtaining/spending the financial "resource?" No it's not the exact same as "collecting" it on a RTS map, but it's conceptually identical.

When resource collecting and troop reqruiting is done at the same timescale as the battles the whole thing disendegrades into who is faster with the click and has better memorised the shortcuts and building orders (the order in which the buildings are built)....

2. What was the last RTS you played? Almost every traditional RTS since 2000 has included variable cameras. And also for the record, the campaign map in the TW series is only zoomable.

3. You're dead wrong here. Both the campaign map and battle map in the TW series use shortcut commands, use of these by experienced players is far superior to clickclickclickclick.

There are NO RTS games out (except TW) that you can see the sun and the sky....with an FPS camera and controls (WASD etc)...
Also at the campaignmap level there are no troops and the whole thing is turn based I was speaking mainly about the MP battles...
A pathetic example are the AoX series where flanking, morale, fatigue and all the realistic tactical parameters are absent, people have a name for that and thats : dumbed down.
The scale is pathetic at best (an "army" of 50 soldiers lol and before you say that TW has 20 units every man in the TW games has his attack, defence, morale, experience and fatigue calculated) and the whole green liquid hitpoints system is laughable at best....

While true, you're drastically overestimating the problem of piracy. Yes it's a problem, but it's not near as bad as you make it out to be, there've been a number of studies on this done by non-biased research firms. Secondly, pirates can't play multiplayer, period, which you seem to be harping on big time. I'm not going to respond to the rest of that bit.

Thats my whole point, you know what? Guess what version of World of Warcraft russian pirates are playing? The ORIGINAL.... Why is that happening? Do they have an original M2TW copy? I really doubt it...
The revenew of piracy resistant games proves my point....And last the actual problem with piracy isnt its existance in Eastern Europe/Asia its the piracy in rich countries that hurts the PC gaming industry...and if some games can make pirates buy them they are doing something right...

Sorry to be rude here, but you fail miserably. ME (me including players in general) spending more of MY cash is NOT a positive aspect for the gamer. Unless you happen to enjoy simply giving your hard-earned money to people, that is.

Sorry to be rude here too but you see youre not the one making the games and my point is mainly directed to the publishers that decide things (not the developers as its popularly believed)....
Im giving my hard earned money to hard working people for the goods that they worked hard to produce...and currently their hard work is not getting the deserved payment because its available for free...

That's your opinion. Not all of us prefer the multiplayer experience, and I'm going to ignore any unsupported *opinions* presented as fact as to why this is. In general, multiplayer is more popular than single player, hence games like the Battlefield series, etc. However witness games such as the Elder Scrolls series. Hugely popular but single player only.

Still why do you think Oblivion was made primarly with Xbox360 in mind? And the PC version got the shaft with bad optimisation? Isnt it because in rich countries its hard to impossible to find a modchip? Isnt it because the console market isnt that tech savy and wont risk to break a €400 machine by chipping it? Compare the Oblivion PC and Xbox360 sales and youll get the picture...
As for my "unsupported *opinions*" just survey these very forums and youll see:
-"Ive besieged them to the last city, offered them all their cities back plus 100000 cash and they still wont accept a ceasefire"
-"The "AI" stood there being shot to death and Ive won with 1:10 amount of troops ratio"
-"The Pope excommunicated me for defending my lands"
-"The "AI" doesnt man its cities and Im taking them easily"

Opinion, but fair enough as you present it this way.

Yours is opinion too if you didnt notice...

The people who whine in general about the AI not being up to par after a number of patches are going to be sorely disappointed for years to come. The hardware and technology we have now are just not capable of giving the capable human mind a challenge. Note this is why the computer "cheats" on VH in RTW, including moral boosts and significant cash bonuses. AI is a developing area and will improve over time. Also it should be stated that there are many of us who are simply not "gods" at this game, and find the playability on normal difficulties to be fine. Sure the computer is going to make some stupid mistakes, but it's a programmed entity. See preceding bit of the paragraph.

Youre simply proving my point...There NEVER will be a challenging PO...At least not in our lifetime...
I really wonder how on earth the interaction with a bunch of cables and plastic can be better than a clan siege or a counterraid to the Mongol Invasion with 8 players vs the mongol horde....
Why do you think WoW has dominated the gaming market? If it was single player (like oblivion or even Diablo) would it have got same amount AND casual people playing it? And I must stress out that I not very fond of RPG games due to the same boring elves/orks fantasy setup....

You're blowing this way out of proportion. See my text above.

Warcaft 3
WoW
Lineage 2
Guild Wars
Would SEGA find it bad if it got the money of people that otherwise would never bought the game?

True but... So? How does this support your point? Multiplayer is fun, but like I said there are those of us who prefer a good single player experience.

Before the release of M2TW a decent part of the community made its highest priority the quality of the PO in assessing the overall quality of the game...
If youre satisfied with the current level of the game and with the interaction with a machine that doesnt mean that all of us feel the same...

Uhm.. I didn't see anything in here that makes sense that I can respond to, so.. OK.

I wouldnt be surprised if you tried WoW you would like it and play it....thats the power of socialisation and human interaction and thats the main reason why its succesful....