Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

How to improve multiplayer

crazychameleoncrazychameleon Senior MemberGreat BritainPosts: 467Registered Users
edited April 2015 in Multiplayer
A tiny minority of people actually play multiplayer despite the large amojnts of people who watch it on youtube etc and enjoy doing so, but why don't they play multiplayer? I, myself, do play multiplayer and many people I know are getting bored of Attila multiplayer too, but how is this situation to be improved and how can CA make people look back to the multiplayer of Attila as fondly as they do to Shogun 2, Rome 1 (despite urban cohorts) and other older games. Some people I know want things to be more casual with different battle modes like Free For All, but what do you think?
I love the smell of Greek fire in the morning...
Post edited by crazychameleon on

Comments

  • Ironside12Ironside12 Senior Member Posts: 6,127Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    I think some inventive and cool modes could be awesome to be honest, just give us a breath of fresh air to it. Attila's MP is pretty basic due to lack of variety, like we had in Rome II. Shogun II cured this by having the Avatar system, Attila's is probably the worst MP for replayability. New modes would definitely be a bonus!
    Sjiriki wrote: »
    Balancing is a far more intricate thing than looking at who wins a 1v1 fight.

    My Build:
    CPU- i7-4790k Devils Canyon @4.6Ghz
    Cooler: Corsair H110i GT
    RAM: 16GB Corsair Vengeance Pro
    PSU- Corsair 1200i 1200W
    GPU-R9 290X Sapphire Tri-X
    Boot Drive: Intel 530 series 240GB SSD
    Game Drive: Intel 730 series 480GB SSD
    Storage Drive: WD Black 2TB HDD
  • ColeusColeus Senior Member Western Roman EmpirePosts: 666Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    A tiny minority of people actually play multiplayer despite the large amojnts of people who watch it on youtube etc and enjoy doing so, but why don't they play multiplayer? I, myself, do play multiplayer and many people I know are getting bored of Attila multiplayer too, but how is this situation to be improved and how can CA make people look back to the multiplayer of Attila as fondly as they do to Shogun 2, Rome 1 (despite urban cohorts) and other older games. Some people I know want things to be more casual with different battle modes like Free For All, but what do you think?

    The problem I have in MP is that people just opt for the best units and exploit the game engine mechanics to win at all costs, with no regards to balanced gameplay. It's utterly demoralising to be facing off against an army of Uar Warriors or an endless thin line of unbreakable pikes when you've went to the trouble of picking a balanced force. Remember ETW when people just recruited tonnes of light infantry with 125 range? What a borefest that was, having your neatly bound line infantry sniped off by Long Riflemen.

    So to fix MP they need to balance the units in terms of capability and cost - the bulk of the MP armies should be low to mid tier units with one or two high end units thrown in to make a difference at crucial parts of the battle. I've been fortunate in that I've found a couple of guys who are able and willing to engage in reasonable balanced gameplay, but I won't be returning to the MP fold proper unless the Tagmata-beats-all philosophy and unit balancing system is radically changed.
    "Dear God, forgive us."

    Grizzled TW veteran.
  • SebideeSebidee Senior Member Posts: 3,801Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    I don't play multiplayer because some of the things people do on it drive me nuts! It might sound nerdy but when I play battles in total war I try to do them realistically for fun. In multiplayer people do crazy stuff like having pikemen in a single long line, or spamming certain units or whatever.
  • bol14bol14 Senior Member USAPosts: 825Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    I'm not really sure what multiplayer you guys are playing but I very rarely run into these people. I'm not saying they don't exist but it's not as rampant as you might think. Ibe put about 150 hours into attila with a majority of that being on mp and I have really only encountered such things a handful of times. I always host games and I've found that most people will listen to and follow the rules even if they disagree with them. I really think you guys should give it another shot. While I agree that atilla mp could be improved immensely I still find it an absolute blast to try and match wits with other players. Then again maybe I've just gotten lucky with not having to deal with too many people who exploit the engine.
  • ZerglesZergles Member Posts: 3,011Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    What I'd like to see is this...

    Quick Battle has all game modes included, and it lets you know in army select so that you can prepare of course.
    Give the captain of a hosted game the ability to ban units, or cap them.
    Some form of punishment for leaving games (low priority in QB would be nice.)

    And that's it. I think QB will always have tons of cheesy/******* players but whatever. Make them play an ambush battle every s often. See how far their entire army of pikemen gets them then. But that is what QB should try to do, make everything random and throw you for a loop every so often. I guarantee that if you took any of the guys who have been playing in the spammy-cheesy way and make them do anything other than the current "land battle on open plains 90% of the time", they would soon stop favoring their current playstyle.

    So in hosted games, giving hosts more control will curb some of the complaints there. And in Quick Battles, true randomization would cut down on some things as well. In my opinion at least.


    Also as an afterthought, to make things more entertaining, let there be scenario type battles. Like the historical battles, but in multiplayer and create a few more of them. Historically accurate or not. I.e, give each player a predetermined army and setup. Maybe even let another player choose armies, terrain, or game mode for the two people who are about to battle.
  • SnapperaSnappera Senior Member Posts: 1,207Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    Sebidee wrote: »
    I don't play multiplayer because some of the things people do on it drive me nuts! It might sound nerdy but when I play battles in total war I try to do them realistically for fun. In multiplayer people do crazy stuff like having pikemen in a single long line, or spamming certain units or whatever.

    I only do MP with friends and we always have the same ground rules. No spaghetti lines, no single unit type spam.

    From this perspective, multiplayer in Attila is really fun! But I'd NEVER play with randomers.

    Multiplayer versus campaigns with friends is the best though :) Nothing better than backstabbing a buddy.
    New Culture Pack - Total War Forums

    Eternal Virginity: -2 provincial growth rate
    DLC Rage: 2x discontent from taxes
    PC Master Race Prices: -10% unit recruitment cost
    Inaccurate Historical Knowledge: Can recruit units from nearby factions
    Older Demographic: +25% Research Rate
  • Pine89Pine89 Senior Member Posts: 580Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    how to improve it? more features and more attention to balance would help a lot :)
  • BelialxvBelialxv Senior Member SteppesPosts: 1,627Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    Increase the variety of viable builds by a better balancing of the game.

    Bigger maps

    FFA
    ajz9uoslnqoi.jpg


    HUITZILOPOCHTLI

    god of war

    LIZARDMEN #makelustriagreatagain
    Clan Moulder #masterclan
  • PykeandDykePykeandDyke Member Posts: 56Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    Coleus wrote: »
    The problem I have in MP is that people just opt for the best units and exploit the game engine mechanics to win at all costs, with no regards to balanced gameplay. It's utterly demoralising to be facing off against an army of Uar Warriors or an endless thin line of unbreakable pikes when you've went to the trouble of picking a balanced force. Remember ETW when people just recruited tonnes of light infantry with 125 range? What a borefest that was, having your neatly bound line infantry sniped off by Long Riflemen.

    So to fix MP they need to balance the units in terms of capability and cost - the bulk of the MP armies should be low to mid tier units with one or two high end units thrown in to make a difference at crucial parts of the battle. I've been fortunate in that I've found a couple of guys who are able and willing to engage in reasonable balanced gameplay, but I won't be returning to the MP fold proper unless the Tagmata-beats-all philosophy and unit balancing system is radically changed.

    I have to ask what you consider to be spam? Max 6 is the expected norm. I see 6 hearth guard, 6 horselords, 2 axe warriors, and a viking captain. Do you consider that spam, or are you talking about something else?

    Thin pike lines? Really? Those are easily broken by infantry. I see so many people complain about 2 rank deep pikes, when decently armoured infantry destroy them with 5-10 losses.

    People pick the best units because it allows them to win. That's why most players play a game, to win. If you brought an army of all **** units of course you'll lose, it's how the game is.
    TW player since April 2003. Clanless for 12 years,(Finally joined Sith) I have an avid interest in history. STEAM: |Sith|P|Pyke & D y ke (Stupid name censoring)
  • PykeandDykePykeandDyke Member Posts: 56Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    I find MP dull because it's only a rushers game. No skirmishing armies, and cavalry is annoyingly always the deciding factor. Nice to see you CC I am a Prospect if you remember me?
    TW player since April 2003. Clanless for 12 years,(Finally joined Sith) I have an avid interest in history. STEAM: |Sith|P|Pyke & D y ke (Stupid name censoring)
  • |Sith|DesertFox|Sith|DesertFox Senior Member Posts: 458Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    I find MP dull because it's only a rushers game. No skirmishing armies, and cavalry is annoyingly always the deciding factor. Nice to see you CC I am a Prospect if you remember me?

    True that. :)
    "Who I am is not important, my message is." ~ Darth Reven
    MY YOUTUBE CHANNEL!!!! https://www.youtube.com/user/teubel98/feed
  • obelixthegreatobelixthegreat Senior Member Posts: 228Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    Ironside12 wrote: »
    I think some inventive and cool modes could be awesome to be honest, just give us a breath of fresh air to it. Attila's MP is pretty basic due to lack of variety, like we had in Rome II. Shogun II cured this by having the Avatar system, Attila's is probably the worst MP for replayability. New modes would definitely be a bonus!
    Try out Tuskmod...there is even a flash tournament this weekend. There is a thread.
  • DiplomattDiplomatt Senior Member Preston, UKPosts: 1,136Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    I seriously don't get all the spaghetti line *****ing. First of all it rarely makes a massive difference in the grand scheme of the battle, no one wins just because of thin lines. Second, it's not like armies are the actual historical size with thousands of men so it makes sense that units would be thinner as they wouldn't want to get flanked. Some people complain that units in thin formations take less missile damage but that makes absolute sense, you spread out more, you don't get hit as much.

    You can either argue that its not historical and the counter argument would be that lots of things aren't historical just deal with it or that you simply don't like playing against them and in that case you just have to improve as a player.
    [WOLF]Diplomatt

    Moderator of www.reddit.com/r/totalwar
  • ColeusColeus Senior Member Western Roman EmpirePosts: 666Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    I have to ask what you consider to be spam? Max 6 is the expected norm. I see 6 hearth guard, 6 horselords, 2 axe warriors, and a viking captain. Do you consider that spam, or are you talking about something else?

    Thin pike lines? Really? Those are easily broken by infantry. I see so many people complain about 2 rank deep pikes, when decently armoured infantry destroy them with 5-10 losses.

    People pick the best units because it allows them to win. That's why most players play a game, to win. If you brought an army of all **** units of course you'll lose, it's how the game is.

    I'm talking about in R2 when people picked nothing but Praetorian Guards; in Empire when they just recruited light infantry with 125 range; in Attila, it's thin lines of pikes and super elite cavalry. Your proposed army composition would be more than acceptable to me, but sadly not everyone goes with balanced armies.

    Edit: I realise I sound a bit whiny, apologies for that. I just yearn for decent balanced gameplay instead of who can exploit the mechanics and recruit the most elite units instead.
    "Dear God, forgive us."

    Grizzled TW veteran.
  • |Sith|DesertFox|Sith|DesertFox Senior Member Posts: 458Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    Coleus wrote: »
    I'm talking about in R2 when people picked nothing but Praetorian Guards; in Empire when they just recruited light infantry with 125 range; in Attila, it's thin lines of pikes and super elite cavalry. Your proposed army composition would be more than acceptable to me, but sadly not everyone goes with balanced armies.

    Edit: I realise I sound a bit whiny, apologies for that. I just yearn for decent balanced gameplay instead of who can exploit the mechanics and recruit the most elite units instead.

    Pretorian guard spam was easily handled in Rome 2. A good parthian or Boii build ate that alive.

    Yeah, I face pike boxes a lot, but I have the satisfaction of destroying them, then the A-hole leaves and gets a draw, WTF.

    Thin lines of pikes are easy to counter, any decently armoured inf unit destroys thin pikes from the front :)
    "Who I am is not important, my message is." ~ Darth Reven
    MY YOUTUBE CHANNEL!!!! https://www.youtube.com/user/teubel98/feed
  • antiques roadshowantiques roadshow Senior Member Posts: 247Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    One idea is you could make maps random. you would have to bring a balanced army for a random map.
  • Voyager IVoyager I Senior Member Posts: 122Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    Pikes aren't really a problem in when most of them are trash units that will die head-on to mediocre infantry, and the two-ranks pike line is a necessary screen for your main line in a game where cav can just run at sword infantry and kill them. Two Ranks of Germanic Pikes certainly doesn't present much of an obstacle to anything that isn't a charging horse.
Sign In or Register to comment.