Re: MP Losing Appeal
i played stw and mtw1, i couldnt care less what you guys like or dislike, its your money and you have the right to have an opinion...if you liked rome and now this, thats fine. hope you continue to enjoy it
but all i know is in mtw1 a line was a line, you couldnt just run through it willy nilly, thus it has an arcade type feel i cant seem to force myself to enjoy...maybe i just need to get over myself
And when the brazen cry of achilles
Was heard among the trojans, all their hearts
Were troubled, and the full-maned horses whirled
The chariots backward, knowing griefs at hand...
Re: MP Losing Appeal
In MTW VI are much more multiplayer details, that are all lost in rtw and mtw2. It is now more a hack and slay than a tactical game. A new players haven't never seen in rtw or mtw2 the lost gameplay details. And someone, that only says, "what nice beautiful colors and nice blurry graphics". That one isn't interested in tw series. The soul of MTW was the tactical depth and that is now lost. And products without an own character will disappear from the market.
Re: MP Losing Appeal
Die Hard.. Listen to Monarch. Mmm.. And I guess you should play someone good at the game as it is nowadays.. (Try Barrett, I'm sure you will have fun..)
"Cry, the beloved country, for the unborn child that is the inheritor of our fear. Let him not love the earth too deeply. Let him not laugh too gladly when the water runs through his fingers, nor stand too silent when the setting sun makes red the veld with fire. Let him not be moved when the birds of his land are singing, nor give too much of his heart to a mountain or a valley. For fear will rob him of all if he gives too much."
Cry, the Beloved Country by Alan Paton.
Re: MP Losing Appeal
That's impossible. The M2TW battle engine is missing important features that were in the old battle engine. You also have the problem in the new engine that the combat cycle is different for different types of units which makes balancing the units extremely complicated.Originally Posted by Cerxes
_________Designed to match Original STW gameplay.
Beta 8 + Beta 8.1 patch + New Maps + Sound add-on + Castles 2
Re: MP Losing Appeal
What missing features? You mean that the engine has changed algorithm from a non-transitivity rock, paper and scissors game, to a transitivity game? Thank God for that! A game that is based on principles that even children at the schoolyard can manage, sooner or later have to move forward because of the simple reason that we have a need for challenges, or we will get bored rather quickly. /C.
How To: Multiplayer with Hamachi
M$ gives you Windows, *nix gives you the whole house... OpenSolaris & FreeBSD
Re: MP Losing Appeal
a cav force rolling off a frontage of needle sharp pikes is not balanced or realistic.
or running through stacked units of infantry unscathed and coming out the rear is not realistic either.
im not talking about balancing im talking realism. performance of units in the game are not only contrary to unit descriptions in mtw/vi, rome, and barbarian invasion but they are even contradictory to the unit descriptions in the game itself.
Re: MP Losing Appeal
- missing exhaustions bars
- F1 key unit values (att, def, value, MORALE! (where is it?)) on one page
- good maps with interesting deploy zones. (Not only all in a row)
- balance
- free selection for maps: desert, arid, temperature or green and the seasons, winter, spring, summer and autumn.
- the attacker could select clear, rainy, stormy, fine and so on weather.
- good sprites. I can regonize far away units or at least I can say thats inf or cav.
- Performance: You can play 4vs4 on big maps
- wedge formation for every unit
- better minimap, the new one is confusing
- I can regonize the generals unit in MTW VI. (A bigger banner)
- no need to determine a difficult level. That is strange in mtw2
- GUnner cannot shoot if it rains.
- Skirmish mounted archers are more difficult to use. They cannot shoot and move.
- every player can use every faction. There is no restriction, that only one team can use one faction.
- you team must be attack and one must be defense. No discussion is possible.
- the fatigue is more intensive.
- no one second "all soldiers dead" charges.
- no elephants
- pav shoot out is more interesting
- att/wef/valor upgrades are important in MTW VI They are a tactical component. In mtw2 they play no role.
- I don't know many new features, that could be a reason for playing mtw2
I am afraid I forgot alot.
Last edited by |Heerbann|_Di3Hard; 02-11-2007 at 19:48.
Re: MP Losing Appeal
Die Hard.. Read your post. Don't you find something wrong in it?
(Calling these:
"feutures")- missing exhaustions bars
- F1 key unit values (att, def, value, MORALE! (where is it?)) on one page
- good maps with interesting deploy zones. (Not only all in a row)
- balance
etc..
"Cry, the beloved country, for the unborn child that is the inheritor of our fear. Let him not love the earth too deeply. Let him not laugh too gladly when the water runs through his fingers, nor stand too silent when the setting sun makes red the veld with fire. Let him not be moved when the birds of his land are singing, nor give too much of his heart to a mountain or a valley. For fear will rob him of all if he gives too much."
Cry, the Beloved Country by Alan Paton.
Re: MP Losing Appeal
Like fmaa or cmaa? Or sargents with v3 or v4? No thank you.att/wef/valor upgrades are important in MTW VI They are a tactical component. In mtw2 they play no role.
In generaly I dislike upgrades, but I would not mind two upgrade options. Morale and valour. Morale as stated would only rais morale of the unit and valour would raise morale and defending skill of the selected unit.No matter the upgread system, upgreaded units like pesants and other cheap units should not be able to win vs elite units.
''Constant training is the only Way to learn strategy.''
Re: MP Losing Appeal
I like that option, because there can be created very interesting armies.
But you cannot see the morale in mtw2. And in MTW V1 there was a nice overview with all important stats.
In MTW VI I have never seen peasants, that have beaten any elite unit. And these upgrades don't have the sense to make an uber peasant unit. It should only make different cmaa or knights. You have to analyze the enemy army or you are maybe suprised about the strength of some units.
Last edited by |Heerbann|_Di3Hard; 02-11-2007 at 23:01.
Re: MP Losing Appeal
@mad cat mech: I don´t talk about balancing either, I´m talking about realism as you are, and to achive that you have to develop the AI based on algorithms that are more transitive in its relationships between objects. This is without any doubts the future for advanced gameplaying.
@Di3Hard: When I asked - "What missing features?" - the intention was rhetorical. We are obviously talking about different issues here. The features you are mention in you post has nothing to do with the "features" I´m talking about. But I don´t understand your negative attitude against M2TW as a MP game. Obviously MTW + VI is enough for you since the game, according to what you says, is the peak of the TW-evolution. So stick with it and everything is fine then I suppose. /C.
Last edited by Cerxes; 02-12-2007 at 13:43. Reason: Grammar
M$ gives you Windows, *nix gives you the whole house... OpenSolaris & FreeBSD
Re: AW: MP Losing Appeal
Despite the fact newer players from RTW could at least give them a run for their money if not take them to the cleaners and back.
on what Game though Monarch? For Example. You May be Able to Beat Magyar Khan on RTW or BI or even MTW2, where he doesn't have much experience with the RTW engine could you do the same on STW or MTW/VI, where he has the most experience with that Engine?
Off Topic, but just needed to say that.
Re: AW: MP Losing Appeal
Was reffering to m2. And not the likes of magyarkhan, I was more just talking about the average player from the "good ol' days".
IMO, pav shoot outs are boring, if you just sit there shooting at each other. Because the two are so equal, you have two options, wait for ammo to run out and go and make yourself a cup of tea..which no offence seems to be the option your taking. Or actually play the skirmish and try and run down archers, the skirmish can be on of the most strategic points of the game, with feign attacks, diversional run downs, etc etc.more interesting pav shoot outs
If you can run down some enemy archers in a pav vs pav means you've taken out an important part of enemy army (getting pavs and not peasant xbows means enemy wants to win skirmish) and also means you can fire on their cav/inf and force them to attack, taking arrow fire on the way.
Last edited by Monarch; 02-12-2007 at 01:06.
Re: AW: MP Losing Appeal
Its getting to the point now where if this next patch doesnt solve any major issues im gone...
Theres lil enjoyment to be had with the current gameplay. I played 11 games today, 4 of which i wasnt playing a rusher... these were all clannies. I dnt want a rush on rush game, but u never get what u want.
The only things i have to look forward to are team games where skirmishing and manouvering are actually worth something...
Its depressing as i know if i hadnt met some of the great personalities there are in tw i would have left ages ago as really... it has alot less to offer than other "big titles"
Last edited by RTKBarrett; 02-12-2007 at 01:13.
All great things are simple, and many can be expressed in single words: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope - Sir Winston Churchill
Re: MP Losing Appeal
Ye, I'd agree that skirmish is one of few strategical points remaining, unless you count clicking charge with your cav
Baz, you may consider a min 4 archer rule. I guess ppl could still rush with four peasant arch, but still thats almost 1000 req they're wasting.
TBH baz I think I've found more enjoyment recently vs randomers, they actually tend to rush less.
Still, I was having one good game today vs rtk with some randomers, but then good ol' gs stepped in and decided to put an end to that particular game
I think merc's min 4/4/4 should somehow be enforced on everyone. Only problem is when I try to suggest it often people leave the game
Re: AW: MP Losing Appeal
I know m8, I was justu sing MagyarKhan as a example, as I had games with him on both VI and MTW2 (and lost all 3
Re: MP Losing Appeal
Was not refering to mtw or mtw2. Mnetioned in general.But you cannot see the morale in mtw2. And in MTW V1 there was a nice overview with all important stats.
Was not refering to mtw or mtw2 (despite upgreaded pesants are indeed strong in mtw2 :p) but only mentioned this becaus I would not like this to see after 2nd patch.In MTW VI I have never seen peasants, that have beaten any elite unit. And these upgrades don't have the sense to make an uber peasant unit. It should only make different cmaa or knights. You have to analyze the enemy army or you are maybe suprised about the strength of some units.
I've rememebred one more thing. Units gaining valour during match. This is something what should be romoved.
''Constant training is the only Way to learn strategy.''
Re: MP Losing Appeal
Just had some more games, same repetative builds of scottish and milanese rush *sigh*
Supreme commanders out end of the week... that could be the answer :-(
All great things are simple, and many can be expressed in single words: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope - Sir Winston Churchill
Re: MP Losing Appeal
Okay, sry for misunderstanding.
These killer peasants in mtw2 are really funny
Re: MP Losing Appeal
Buy it now!
Last edited by pevergreen; 02-12-2007 at 10:34.
Re: MP Losing Appeal
That is not the point. I am sure, Barrett is a very good player. But the CA marketing campaign and the game itself bear on occasional players. They are more interested in playing SP than MP. I think, that is the reason, why the Multiplayer mode is losing appeal.Die Hard.. Listen to Monarch. Mmm.. And I guess you should play someone good at the game as it is nowadays.. (Try Barrett, I'm sure you will have fun..
Re: MP Losing Appeal
we can always propose min "5" archers/xbows and max 7 cav: it reduces the ha swarms and makes rush a bit more difficult.
but it is since the beginning that a cav limit is a clear need given the buggy infantry behaviour, anyway putting a cav limit has been difficult. why?
Real issue with the above rules is that many are enjoing the rush gameplay... other are scared by rules as they make the game less erratic in its outcome...
other "top players" thought (or think with some "new builds") to have discovered the "perfect weapon", but after 1 month all the "slowest" players replicate winning tactics/armies and given "erratic" (buggy) gameplay win against "top players" (or anyway make the game boring with all cav/infantry rushes)
If rules will have no room we have to wait for the patch (and likely quit after being disillusioned?)
Re: MP Losing Appeal
missile units need more effect. that would put a stop to rush armies.
Re: MP Losing Appeal
You didn't like company of heroes, I doubt you'll think much of sc mate. Its just an RTS
If you're looking for a promising rts than imo World in Conflict looks better. http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/w...0in%20conflict not out for a while though.
Saying that, I'll still probably get supreme commander :P
Last edited by Monarch; 02-12-2007 at 15:31.
Re: MP Losing Appeal
KenchiNem
Re: MP Losing Appeal
Today i took titan quest out of its box for a long awaited session, silent denali joined me... we played for hours lol.
I loved it!! in co op it was so much fun :D and the expansion is out soon w00t lol
All great things are simple, and many can be expressed in single words: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope - Sir Winston Churchill
Re: MP Losing Appeal
1. Squeezed too tight combat penalty which causes individual men to fight at half strength in melee if they have less then 1 meter of space. (Apparently some attempt was made to impliment this through battle mechanics in M2TW which proves that it's important.)
2. Lower accuracy for indirect fire weapons based on depth of the formation and visual obstruction of the individual men. For example, deep formations of archers don't suffer any decrease in accuracy if placed on a downward slope of sufficient gradient that all the men in the formation have an unobstruced view of the target. For another example, the third rank of an archer formation has reduced accuracy when the unit is in close formation, but not when in loose formation. For another example, archers have lower accuracy when shooting over a friendly unit due to the more obstruced view of the target.
3. Range is adjusted for the height of the shooter, and based on experience, I would say accuracy as well.
4. Reduced accuracy for bow weapons in rain. The amount of reduction depending upon how hard it is raining.
5. Increased misfires for gunpowder weapons depending on how hard it is raining. The old engine had 25% misfires for light rain, 50% misfires for medium rain and 75% misfires for heavy rain.
6. Range calculated on an individual man basis.
7. Direct fire weapons (guns) don't shoot if the man's line of sight is obstructed by a man.
8. Fatigue causes longer reload time for some of the men in a unit so that they do not shoot on the next volley. As fatigue increases, the number of men affected increases.
9. Adverse weather causes increased fatigue rate for armored units, and this increases as armor increases.
10. Units respond immediately to movement orders.
11. Units with covered flanks do not suffer a morale penaly from enemy units which are in a flanking position (this may or may not be in the new engine).
12. Could define subgroups.
13. Independent control of hold formation and hold position.
14. Any army formation is maintained while moving the whole army with a single click without the need to group the whole army.
15. A one second combat cycle for all units combined with 60 man unit size and low chance to kill which reduces the statistical uncertainty of the combat results to a level that allows application of tactical moves with a reasonable chance of success.
There are some additional features that I'll add as I think of them.
You're talking about the new battle engine. The old battle engine wasn't geared toward children at the schoolyard, but the new engine is. The reason the effect of fatigue and various combat bonuses have been reduced is to make it easier to play for less experienced players.
_________Designed to match Original STW gameplay.
Beta 8 + Beta 8.1 patch + New Maps + Sound add-on + Castles 2
Re: MP Losing Appeal
But then Puzz3D, I really don´t understand when you says that balancing the units is extremely complicated with the new engine while you proclaim that the new engine is lesser advanced than the MTW engine... /C.
M$ gives you Windows, *nix gives you the whole house... OpenSolaris & FreeBSD
Re: MP Losing Appeal
Because the new engine is missing quite a few things that were in the old engine and they seem to revolve around the combat model for the individual men. Yes they added some new parameters in the new engine such as stamina and lethality and they added shoot while moving, but do these offset what was removed? I don't think so. In the old engine they did distance and line of sight calculations for every single man on the battlefield, and the game ran with faster frames per second on slower computers. Fatigue was also tracked for individual men then averaged over the unit, and I don't know if that's still being done either. I suspect that a lot of cpu power is being consumed by the animations since the move to the 3D men, and that came partially from simplifying other things in the combat model and partially by increasing the cpu requirement. It seems to me that the AI for the individual men is also simplified in the new engine because the men don't know how to properly gang up on a man when they have him outnumbered or how to pursue routers effectively, and they did both of these things better in the old engine.
The new engine is much more advanced in the animation of the men, and these animations now affect the combat results. It would be great if the 3D animations in the new engine modeled combat as well as the more purely statistical model in the old engine, but it appears to me the 3D has a long way to go before it achieves that. It is logical that a heavy weapon would be more cumbersome and couldn't be swung as fast as a lighter weapon, but you don't see lightly armed men making evasive moves when a heavy weapon is swung at them, so the model is incomplete and can't actually model what would happen in such a situation. Also, there is no modeling of different parts of the body being struck or perhaps a shield being destroyed so that a man has to continue on in melee without a shield. You never see a spear or lance get broken, etc. It did defy belief in RTW when a man would be running forward with a pike point against his chest, and he would just keep running forward like that. I don't know if this happens in M2TW. The analytical statistical model is actually superior in modeling combat at this point in the development of the game, and realistically I don't see how a 3D model could cover everything it has to in a game that's trying to field many thousands of men on the battlefield without driving the system requirements off the chart.
The combat cycle is simpler in the old engine, and therefore it's easier to balance the units. There do seem to be more situational combat factors modeled in the old engine which should give it more tactical depth. That tactical depth doesn't become apparent unless the units are well balanced. We learned this the hard way doing the STW/MI v1.02 rebalance beta testing where we ended up with overpowered guns, and I saw it happen again in MTW/VI with the overpriced spears and weak shooters taking away from the possible tactics. Introducing a variable combat cycle to the old engine for different types of weapons or level or armor would make it harder to balance. I don't think it would benefit the tactical play because you can account for different weapon types to some extent in the numerical stats for the units (i.e. anti-cav bonus, armor piercing bonus, attack, defend, charge), and you would balance out the differences introduced by the variable combat cycle anyway in order to provide combat results that met the designed gameplay objective. The key concept is to have a design objective for the gameplay, and the key requirement is to have a battle engine that allows you to achieve that objective. Of course, you also need the time and resources to do it.
I'm sure Creative Assembly has good business reasons for doing what they are doing to the game system, but better simply means higher sales to a business mentality. It doesn't mean the gameplay is better. They have now succeeded in attracting players to the game who believe that unbalanced gameplay is good. Bravo!
Last edited by Puzz3D; 02-13-2007 at 04:27.
_________Designed to match Original STW gameplay.
Beta 8 + Beta 8.1 patch + New Maps + Sound add-on + Castles 2
Re: MP Losing Appeal
And Thus Explans it very well.
The system requirement statment at the end of 2nd paragraph I had to laugh at. Obliolusy, They (CA/Sega) Always just happen to use the "Thousands of men on the Battlefield!!!!!!!!" clique quite a bit eh? Add in the 3D models, and boom,Good Marketing right there. Out the window Great AI Play on SP, and Goodbye Wonderfull MP Experience (unless you can make the best out of it).
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks