Could MP ever Peak again?

**KrooK** · 01-21-2009, 22:35

Thx for serious reply Swooshy. But I must disagree with you into 1 thing.
If you want to play good now, you need even more "micro skills" than earlier.
Especially into cav - with full respect for good times (most of people here know that I liked
light cav and its dance into mtw 1) - now you have to be better with cav. You don't dance- its bloody fight. If you lost control for 5 sec - you are dead - no time to correct mistake. You have to repeat charges and repeat it well.

**peacemaker** · 01-26-2009, 08:02

i think that with empire, any m2tw/rtw mp will pretty much die down. But there's hope, hopefully. ETW multiplayer seems to be looking up, with multiplayer campaigns and the like.

**Puzz3D** · 01-27-2009, 06:17

The original STW (The one in the red box not the Warlords Edition) had the best mp of any Total War game to date. Last man standing never got boring (mp participation rose continuously during the year that original STW was in use) because the tactical gameplay had great depth and variety, and the units were so well balanced that you didn't need unit limiting rules, although, you had to be an expert to handle the warrior monk rush because that unit was out of balance by 10%. The units have to be balanced to 10% or better for the tactical gameplay to achieve its potential because multiplayers can take advantage of imbalances that small.

It's a fact that mp participation dropped to 30% of what it had been under STW with the release of the Warlords Edition (STW/MI). The reason was poor playbance notwithstanding the introduction of new unit types and different game modes. The battle engine's designer, Longjohn, didn't balance this version which is why it had poor playbalance. He returned for MTW which is why the playbalance in that game improved, and this revived the mp community. However, by this time he was not balancing the units to better than 25% which he had decided was good enough. Eventually the players uncovered the imbalances and the community declined, although, it took quite a while to discover the exploits because there were such a large number of unit types and differing factions in the game. Longjohn left sometime during the development of RTW, and we all know the consequences of that not only to the playbalance but also to the battle engine itself.

With Empire CA is no longer designing a rock, paper, scissors battle engine. It seems to me that this should be easier to balance since it's a shooting game. However, I no longer see much interest on the part of CA to fine tune their games for improved playbalance. They are content to pitch their game to players who aren't interested in playbalance. These players may actually want imbalances that they can exploit to exist. Of course, it's self defeating because eventually lots of players learn the exploits and then the tactical gameplay converges to a limited scope rather than diverging to the rich tactical gameplay that could be contained in a well designed battle engine. And, that's the rub because it's easier for CA to design a poor engine with poor playbalance than a good engine with good playbalance. There is no incentive for CA to do the later if players are content with the former.

I don't want to spend my time learning exploits, and from what I can see there are a lot of highly skilled players who feel the same way because they no longer play total war mp.

**Mars** · 08-25-2010, 14:26

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

The original STW (The one in the red box not the Warlords Edition) had the best mp of any Total War game to date. Last man standing never got boring (mp participation rose continuously during the year that original STW was in use) because the tactical gameplay had great depth and variety, and the units were so well balanced that you didn't need unit limiting rules, although, you had to be an expert to handle the warrior monk rush because that unit was out of balance by 10%. The units have to be balanced to 10% or better for the tactical gameplay to achieve its potential because multiplayers can take advantage of imbalances that small.

It's a fact that mp participation dropped to 30% of what it had been under STW with the release of the Warlords Edition (STW/MI). The reason was poor playbance notwithstanding the introduction of new unit types and different game modes. The battle engine's designer, Longjohn, didn't balance this version which is why it had poor playbalance. He returned for MTW which is why the playbalance in that game improved, and this revived the mp community. However, by this time he was not balancing the units to better than 25% which he had decided was good enough. Eventually the players uncovered the imbalances and the community declined, although, it took quite a while to discover the exploits because there were such a large number of unit types and differing factions in the game. Longjohn left sometime during the development of RTW, and we all know the consequences of that not only to the playbalance but also to the battle engine itself.

With Empire CA is no longer designing a rock, paper, scissors battle engine. It seems to me that this should be easier to balance since it's a shooting game. However, I no longer see much interest on the part of CA to fine tune their games for improved playbalance. They are content to pitch their game to players who aren't interested in playbalance. These players may actually want imbalances that they can exploit to exist. Of course, it's self defeating because eventually lots of players learn the exploits and then the tactical gameplay converges to a limited scope rather than diverging to the rich tactical gameplay that could be contained in a well designed battle engine. And, that's the rub because it's easier for CA to design a poor engine with poor playbalance than a good engine with good playbalance. There is no incentive for CA to do the later if players are content with the former.

I don't want to spend my time learning exploits, and from what I can see there are a lot of highly skilled players who feel the same way because they no longer play total war mp.

Amen.

Im quite happy i was hardcore active at those times, it was without a doubt the best onlineexperience i ever made in a online Game. Alone the personalities was more than perfect, some called it honor and indeed, it was a honor to play with many great persons at those times. It was the start of a new age, internet was new, i myself played in the early days on a 56k modem... which worked quite nice, if u had a cable host.

Anyway, maybe some of you old boys read this hear, shogun was a perfect game and still is today. I really think on all the fun i had with you all....lemme press a tear out :D

Koc

**AggonyDuck** · 01-27-2009, 21:31

Originally Posted by KrooK

Thx for serious reply Swooshy. But I must disagree with you into 1 thing.
If you want to play good now, you need even more "micro skills" than earlier.
Especially into cav - with full respect for good times (most of people here know that I liked
light cav and its dance into mtw 1) - now you have to be better with cav. You don't dance- its bloody fight. If you lost control for 5 sec - you are dead - no time to correct mistake. You have to repeat charges and repeat it well.

The problem with the micro skills necessary, is that it really sucks some of the fun from the game. The earlier versions were all about unit match ups, how to gain an advantage in the battle by delaying battle elsewhere while focusing on another area, but MTW2, especially the cavalry seems more about how you use your unit than what unit you use. A great heavy cav unit not micromanaged properly can very well end up being a waste of cav, even against inferior units.

**LittleGrizzly** · 01-28-2009, 00:14

When people like swoosh and puzz3D say that multiplayer is fixed (or just somewhere near shogun levels) i will be back in a flash, even mtw and vi with thier little bit of imbalance were great fun... but rome... the battles are just not fun, i didn't even really enjoy single player battles that much and thats where balance is far less important...

Get a fairly balanced mp and im sure lots of vets would come back until then the newer players who can live with the inbalance can keep it running...

**KrooK** · 01-28-2009, 13:07

Or maybe learn how to play into new conditions :)

**ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88** · 01-28-2009, 17:58

Originally Posted by KrooK

Or maybe learn how to play into new conditions :)

Argeed Krook

. Sure, I'll take a good VI battle or even a good STW battle anyday over RTW or M2TW, but does that mean I am going to stop playing them because one unit might not have 5% of this, or might move 1.2 spaces a different way? Hell No, I think people are to concern of the very small details in the game.

My final eight cents

**AggonyDuck** · 01-31-2009, 01:05

Originally Posted by KrooK

Or maybe learn how to play into new conditions :)

I did, enjoyed it for a while, but in the end it wasn't as fulfilling as the older versions were. I'd say that is the thing with many of us grognards. It's not that we didn't/couldn't learn to play in the new conditions, but the fact that the new conditions weren't as enjoyable as the old ones. It's a huge fallacy to assume that losing makes a game unenjoyable, when in fact it is the gameplay itself that contributes to unenjoyable battles.