Would You Pay for MultiPlayer?

[resonantblue]

I find it incredulous people are complaining about things like cav charges being overpowered when the "perfect charge" telegraphs itself 10 years before it actually hits - which makes it easily managed. And I also happen to dislike the fact that MTW/VI MP had cookie-cutter armies. MTW2 vastly improves on this by making a large variety of builds feasible with distinct elements to each.

The best generals could adapt. Hannibal is one of the best examples of this. His army was constantly changing and he was good at determining how to utilize the strength and weakness of the soldiers he had available.

MTW/VI games against top caliber players often came down to spreadsheets, mth and the random number generator behind the scenes. Good players rarely let themselves get flanked and often had the exact same builds which resulted in one army engage a clone of itself, down to the last unit. The winner was determined by the flip of a coin (teammates aside). I remember many battles being determined by where in my infantry line I placed my one V3 CMAA. Left side? Right side? Center?... combined with where the first cavalry scrum took place. Wow! That required a lot of tactical thinking... except not.

MTW2 MP is much harder than MTW/VI. It's way more dynamic and to be good, it requires that you adapt quickly, on the fly. This is what made Starcraft so popular. You couldn't watch 10 replays and figure out the game. New strategies were constantly evolving, even years after the game came out.

That's a good thing as far as I'm concerned. So sorry if you can't hack it.

[Darkarbiter]

I find it incredulous people are complaining about things like cav charges being overpowered when the "perfect charge" telegraphs itself 10 years before it actually hits - which makes it easily managed. And I also happen to dislike the fact that MTW/VI MP had cookie-cutter armies. MTW2 vastly improves on this by making a large variety of builds feasible with distinct elements to each.

The best generals could adapt. Hannibal is one of the best examples of this. His army was constantly changing and he was good at determining how to utilize the strength and weakness of the soldiers he had available.

MTW/VI games against top caliber players often came down to spreadsheets, mth and the random number generator behind the scenes. Good players rarely let themselves get flanked and often had the exact same builds which resulted in one army engage a clone of itself, down to the last unit. The winner was determined by the flip of a coin (teammates aside). I remember many battles being determined by where in my infantry line I placed my one V3 CMAA. Left side? Right side? Center?... combined with where the first cavalry scrum took place. Wow! That required a lot of tactical thinking... except not.

MTW2 MP is much harder than MTW/VI. It's way more dynamic and to be good, it requires that you adapt quickly, on the fly. This is what made Starcraft so popular. You couldn't watch 10 replays and figure out the game. New strategies were constantly evolving, even years after the game came out.

That's a good thing as far as I'm concerned. So sorry if you can't hack it.

Now I think thats a bit of an overstatement. M2TW isnt exactly that dynamic... yet

[Jinnigan]

Now I think thats a bit of an overstatement. M2TW isnt exactly that dynamic... yet

Only because everyone constantly plays "Grassy Plains," though. Of course there's only going to be one good strategy if you only use one map.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Any Map is Fair m8..I fought Good Castle game from clans like SA and Hunters, Good Forest games from clans like Hell, and good Hilly games from clans like The brotherhood and VKC, and I hate how people say Hills and castles and forests are for new players, and are boring. No they are not,my god. you need to use good tatics, and it will become good,rather or not if you win or not..

[Monarch]

Any Map is Fair m8..I fought Good Castle game from clans like SA and Hunters, Good Forest games from clans like Hell, and good Hilly games from clans like The brotherhood and VKC, and I hate how people say Hills and castles and forests are for new players, and are boring. No they are not,my god. you need to use good tatics, and it will become good,rather or not if you win or not..

That was Jinn's point...

[ElmarkOFear]

The same happened in STW and also MTW. Whenever you get an influx of new players, they do not see beyond what they perceive as "fair".

In STW, everyone complained that it was a big disadvantage for the attacker. Fearful Ways was the first clan to actively prove this incorrect by ALWAYS playing as the attacker. Then it was said that it was a big disadvantage to have to attack big hilly maps. Fearful Ways then began attacking on the biggest, hilliest maps out there. Once it was proven that good players could find a way to win on any map, everyone began playing all the different maps. Though tournaments have historically used the flatest most featureless maps for their battles.

In MTW, this discussion was had in the forums by new players, but the already established clans were playing all the maps as attackers and winning, so the complaints stopped very quickly.

RTW: I don't think the maps were hilly enough to garner any complaints, but I wouldn't know since I sold my game back the first week.

M2TW: The reason I mentioned way back to STW/MTW was to show the best way to get players to play all the maps: Begin playing them yourself and encourage all of your teammates/clan members to do so as well. Play only one map until you become expert at it. Then show others the map doesn't really make much difference if good teamwork is used. The only time it comes into play is if you have players of equal skill, but this is more rare than you think or some would admit! hehe

Unfortunately, with my old PCs I can no longer host 3v3 or 4v4 games without major lag. Even 2v2 give me problems most times. So it is up to those of you who have good connections and good PCs to host different maps and to play with different settings.

As for cav being overpowered: Some ARE for their given cost. Some very cheap unarmored light cav units have the charge killing power of heavily armored, much more expensive, knight units, even though the unarmored cav have much lower charge values. Being able to avoid such charges when they are telegraphed is not really the point. The point is more; cheap unarmored cav being as effective as the more expensive Knight units. THIS is what is unbalancing the game, more than the more heavy epensive cav units. Unarmored cav should not kill on contact as many men as the heavily armored knight cav. It is the unarmored, cheap cav units which are overpowered.

[Darkarbiter]

The same happened in STW and also MTW. Whenever you get an influx of new players, they do not see beyond what they perceive as "fair".

In STW, everyone complained that it was a big disadvantage for the attacker. Fearful Ways was the first clan to actively prove this incorrect by ALWAYS playing as the attacker. Then it was said that it was a big disadvantage to have to attack big hilly maps. Fearful Ways then began attacking on the biggest, hilliest maps out there. Once it was proven that good players could find a way to win on any map, everyone began playing all the different maps. Though tournaments have historically used the flatest most featureless maps for their battles.

In MTW, this discussion was had in the forums by new players, but the already established clans were playing all the maps as attackers and winning, so the complaints stopped very quickly.

RTW: I don't think the maps were hilly enough to garner any complaints, but I wouldn't know since I sold my game back the first week.

M2TW: The reason I mentioned way back to STW/MTW was to show the best way to get players to play all the maps: Begin playing them yourself and encourage all of your teammates/clan members to do so as well. Play only one map until you become expert at it. Then show others the map doesn't really make much difference if good teamwork is used. The only time it comes into play is if you have players of equal skill, but this is more rare than you think or some would admit! hehe

Unfortunately, with my old PCs I can no longer host 3v3 or 4v4 games without major lag. Even 2v2 give me problems most times. So it is up to those of you who have good connections and good PCs to host different maps and to play with different settings.

As for cav being overpowered: Some ARE for their given cost. Some very cheap unarmored light cav units have the charge killing power of heavily armored, much more expensive, knight units, even though the unarmored cav have much lower charge values. Being able to avoid such charges when they are telegraphed is not really the point. The point is more; cheap unarmored cav being as effective as the more expensive Knight units. THIS is what is unbalancing the game, more than the more heavy epensive cav units. Unarmored cav should not kill on contact as many men as the heavily armored knight cav. It is the unarmored, cheap cav units which are overpowered.

Ouch you missed out on all the good mods!
Interesting story though. Thats what good clans are about! Havent seen anything as chivalric in my days of RTW MP (although i only play RTR and NTW2 and for the most part no one cares about the map)