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

Multiplayer dead?

[-TWR-] TrollyBoli[-TWR-] TrollyBoli Junior MemberRegistered Users Posts: 12
edited May 2015 in Multiplayer
I noticed that there aren't a lot of people who are playing atilla?
What do you guys think and why?
Post edited by [-TWR-] TrollyBoli on
«13

Comments

  • bol14bol14 Senior Member USARegistered Users Posts: 825
    edited April 2015
    I noticed that there aren't a lot of people who are playing atilla?
    What do you guys think and why?

    I completely disagree! I play a lot of mp on Attila and have never had problems finding a game, even at odd hours. I usually host games and they fill up pretty quickly. I think the lobbies look dead because there really aren't a lot of people playing the game in general. Sales weren't great for the game but as the game goes on sale and more people buy it I'm sure mp will pick up more. Calling it dead is definitely over exaggerating but I wouldn't call you entirely wrong. It's just not as lively as it should be
  • zmey_gorinichzmey_gorinich Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 227
    edited April 2015
    I understand there are still more folks playing R2 than Attila.
  • SecuterSecuter Senior Member Denmark, Aarhus.Registered Users Posts: 2,333
    edited April 2015
    Imo, Shogun 2 had the best mp as of yet, especially when it came to keeping interest high.
  • Ironside12Ironside12 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 6,127
    edited April 2015
    Because barely anyone plays Attila in general, compared to Rome II, and then there's a lot of those people play Single Player, so online battles aren't as common as in Rome II, plus you know, it's kinda repetitive and boring..
    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
  • ewokzewokz Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 146
    edited April 2015
    Attila really needs to be balanced beter to create more interest in the MP scene. There's so little variation in builds and cavalries so strong it's quite boring.

    Not to mention the lack of variety in the factions, it's Germans, Sassanids, Huns and Romans and that's it. Two of those are competitive in MP. You have Celts but they're DLC and fairly ****** to boot. For Rome 2 we not only had a more interesting combat system but there were like 10+ unique factions to play as, and on top of that there was enough variation in the units themselves for completely unique builds to exist within a faction.

    On top of that they added DLC which added additional units and mini factions that while not truly unique often had a cool twist to them. Unlike Attila there was a strong backbone of factions that DLC merely added to, you need that to get peoples interest from the start.
  • saxon22saxon22 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 25
    edited April 2015
    ewokz wrote: »
    Attila really needs to be balanced beter to create more interest in the MP scene. There's so little variation in builds and cavalries so strong it's quite boring.

    Not to mention the lack of variety in the factions, it's Germans, Sassanids, Huns and Romans and that's it. Two of those are competitive in MP. You have Celts but they're DLC and fairly ****** to boot. For Rome 2 we not only had a more interesting combat system but there were like 10+ unique factions to play as, and on top of that there was enough variation in the units themselves for completely unique builds to exist within a faction.

    On top of that they added DLC which added additional units and mini factions that while not truly unique often had a cool twist to them. Unlike Attila there was a strong backbone of factions that DLC merely added to, you need that to get peoples interest from the start.

    Atilla is actually pretty balanced compared to most total wars, it's not perfect but unless you have rosters like in shogun that are basically the same it's hard to be perfectly balanced. Rome 2 was probably the worst balanced total war game that I've played, there's like 5 or 6 factions that are better in every way than all the others, variety is good but not when only a few of the factions are actually good compared to the rest.
  • Strategist6Strategist6 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 141
    edited April 2015
    saxon22 wrote: »
    Atilla is actually pretty balanced compared to most total wars, it's not perfect but unless you have rosters like in shogun that are basically the same it's hard to be perfectly balanced. Rome 2 was probably the worst balanced total war game that I've played, there's like 5 or 6 factions that are better in every way than all the others, variety is good but not when only a few of the factions are actually good compared to the rest.

    Sorry, but as a competitive player that frequently plays multiplayer, I can tell you that Attila has TERRIBLE balancing. I've recently been going back to Rome 2 and, even with the boring Celtic meta, it is still fairly balanced besides some tweaks it could use to cav, pikes, and nerfing precursor javs. There is still a ton of variety in Rome 2. Athens, Syracuse, Rome, Odrysians, Parthia, Lusitani, and Pontus are all powerful at the moment, despite the celtic meta. Now, if you are thinking of its progress over time, then maybe R2 was the "worst balanced" TW game, but for some reason I never really disliked the balance too much and even enjoyed the multiplayer from the beginning. But I did appreciate a lot of the balancing they did over time. From my competitive experience in Attila, it basically boils down to who has the better build (most of the time) and then you just smash your cav together with your infantry and have big blob fights on the flanks and wait to see who wins. There is micro before that point, which is important, but unless its a VERY even matchup, the battle is determined at that point. That is a key indicator that the balancing is way off. Rome 2 is much more tactical at the moment.
  • xjlxkingxjlxking Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 606
    edited April 2015
    As far as campaign goes in mp, this type of game win never have a lot. I've done it 3 times in the past 6 games. In Rome 2 as Sparta/Athens with a stranger (twice) and in this game ERE/WRE eith a stranger. Only once I completed it, the rest it was plagued with Dwayne and just not being able to log on the same time they were.

    As far as battles go, I did it when Rome 2 was just out. It was fun. But then players who prefer to win at all cost start to appear too much. Cheap tactics and trying to min max everytime. It's just not fun, it's like those players in COunterstrike hiding in corner waiting to shot you as are the one moving
    What we wish, we readily believe, and what we ourselves think, we imagine others think also
    Veni, Vidi, Vici
    Julius Caesar
  • crazychameleoncrazychameleon Senior Member Great BritainRegistered Users Posts: 467
    edited April 2015
    I used to play quite a lot of TW Attila multiplayer being a member of the sith clan and doing a tournament, but it's really repetitive and boring. At least with rome 2 post EE there was a huge variety of factions and units to choose from. Recently I've just been playing shogun 2 multiplayer, a bit of rome 2 and arena; they are a much needed and more fun refreshing change.
    Sorry, but as a competitive player that frequently plays multiplayer, I can tell you that Attila has TERRIBLE balancing. I've recently been going back to Rome 2 and, even with the boring Celtic meta, it is still fairly balanced besides some tweaks it could use to cav, pikes, and nerfing precursor javs. There is still a ton of variety in Rome 2. Athens, Syracuse, Rome, Odrysians, Parthia, Lusitani, and Pontus are all powerful at the moment, despite the celtic meta. Now, if you are thinking of its progress over time, then maybe R2 was the "worst balanced" TW game, but for some reason I never really disliked the balance too much and even enjoyed the multiplayer from the beginning. But I did appreciate a lot of the balancing they did over time. From my competitive experience in Attila, it basically boils down to who has the better build (most of the time) and then you just smash your cav together with your infantry and have big blob fights on the flanks and wait to see who wins. There is micro before that point, which is important, but unless its a VERY even matchup, the battle is determined at that point. That is a key indicator that the balancing is way off. Rome 2 is much more tactical at the moment.
    Did you just say...that Athens, odrysians and syracuse are all powerful?? They are great fun to play, but I wouldn't call them 'powerful'.
    I love the smell of Greek fire in the morning...
  • fdelvalfdelval Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 15
    edited April 2015
    I only buy TW games because of multiplayer, and I've bought them all. I don't have time for a full campaign and I play MP for fun just occasionally.

    Attila is far too fast paced for my taste. There is no way to hold a line for more than a minute... what kind of strategy can I implement?

    Balancing would my second issue.

    About faction rosters... I don't find them boring and repetitive, but again, didn't played a lot because I just can't enjoy it.
  • bol14bol14 Senior Member USARegistered Users Posts: 825
    edited April 2015
    fdelval wrote: »
    I only buy TW games because of multiplayer, and I've bought them all. I don't have time for a full campaign and I play MP for fun just occasionally.

    Attila is far too fast paced for my taste. There is no way to hold a line for more than a minute... what kind of strategy can I implement?

    Balancing would my second issue.

    About faction rosters... I don't find them boring and repetitive, but again, didn't played a lot because I just can't enjoy it.

    Hm not sure what version of Attila you're playing but the battles last as long if not longer than any other game in the series
  • winsunshinewinsunshine Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 820
    edited April 2015
    bol14 wrote: »
    Hm not sure what version of Attila you're playing but the battles last as long if not longer than any other game in the series

    Much shorter than Rome II EE.
  • |Sith|DesertFox|Sith|DesertFox Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 458
    edited April 2015
    bol14 wrote: »
    Hm not sure what version of Attila you're playing but the battles last as long if not longer than any other game in the series

    Nah, Medieval 2 was slower, so was Rome 2. Shogun 2 and R1 were faster.
    "Who I am is not important, my message is." ~ Darth Reven
    MY YOUTUBE CHANNEL!!!! https://www.youtube.com/user/teubel98/feed
  • fdelvalfdelval Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 15
    edited May 2015
    bol14 wrote: »
    Hm not sure what version of Attila you're playing but the battles last as long if not longer than any other game in the series

    please...
  • SedentaryNomadSedentaryNomad Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 12
    edited May 2015
    Yea as it stands more people play Rome 2 MP than Attila.

    Personally Rome 2 MP was far funner.
  • xjlxkingxjlxking Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 606
    edited May 2015
    Yea as it stands more people play Rome 2 MP than Attila.

    Personally Rome 2 MP was far funner.
    That's because armies are more diverse. All i see in Attila is cheap spamming and most factions are identical in that regard

    In Rome 2 (Haven't played that Mp in a while) i remember nice strategy that might have sucked because of balance but were fun to see

    I remember one guy for example could have made an army of straight up OP units because of the amount of money. Instead, he choose the actual Roman legion maniple system of 3 rows of the hastati, the principes, and the triarii and some javelins on rear against my semi copy of Alexanders army.

    This game I've seen people do a full square of catapults....
    What we wish, we readily believe, and what we ourselves think, we imagine others think also
    Veni, Vidi, Vici
    Julius Caesar
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 24,654
    edited May 2015
    Yea as it stands more people play Rome 2 MP than Attila.

    Personally Rome 2 MP was far funner.
    Boii/Tylis > Rest

    Yeah, fun.

  • Leroy_99Leroy_99 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 14
    edited May 2015
    Boii/Tylis > Rest

    Yeah, fun.

    So, you've never played a game of MP in your life? Good at least we know now.

    You're a total fool if you think that is true. Rome, Armenia, Parthia, Arverni, Iceni, Gatae, Lustani, Aravaci and Nervii can all beat Boii and Tylis. Its how you use your army.

    What's so fun about Attila Jutes and Burgundians beat everyone and are more OP than Tylis and Boii ever were. What do you have to say too that, eh?

    Then again I wouldn't expect someone who only plays SP to know that :D You go ahead thinking that your right, even if you are absolutely wrong. :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 24,654
    edited May 2015
    Leroy_99 wrote: »
    *snip*
    Hit a nerve, eh?

  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USARegistered Users, Moderators, Knights Posts: 19,709
    edited May 2015
    Let's take it easy on the personal comments, and stay on thread topic.
    "The two most common things in the universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity." - Harlan Ellison
    "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - Hubert H. Humphrey
    "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
  • Leroy_99Leroy_99 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 14
    edited May 2015
    Well if patch 3 fixes the Jutes and Burgundians MP will rise again. We had massive player counts the first few weeks, until the stupid lanogbard pack screwed it up.
  • Ironside12Ironside12 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 6,127
    edited May 2015
    Leroy_99 wrote: »
    Well if patch 3 fixes the Jutes and Burgundians MP will rise again. We had massive player counts the first few weeks, until the stupid lanogbard pack screwed it up.

    You think the DLC killed the player numbers?

    It was people getting bored of Attila after a time and playing other games. The Langobard DLC pack probably kept a few people around for a bit longer.
    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
  • Leroy_99Leroy_99 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 14
    edited May 2015
    Ironside12 wrote: »
    You think the DLC killed the player numbers?

    It was people getting bored of Attila after a time and playing other games. The Langobard DLC pack probably kept a few people around for a bit longer.

    I should have clarified I meant that the Burgundians from the Langobard pack had a hand in it.
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 24,654
    edited May 2015
    Ironside12 wrote: »
    You think the DLC killed the player numbers?

    It was people getting bored of Attila after a time and playing other games. The Langobard DLC pack probably kept a few people around for a bit longer.
    Okay, since people keep repeating this...

    The player numbers of TWA are actually quite within the expected numbers of most other TW titles. R2 was an is an outlier when it comes to popularity. TWA has about the same numbers as Empire, more than Napoleon and silghtly less than S2. That's from all the titles that were launched on Steam and according to Steam Charts.

    Perspective is important. Do not think forums are an accurate reflection of customer opinion.

  • Leroy_99Leroy_99 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 14
    edited May 2015
    Okay, since people keep repeating this...

    The player numbers of TWA are actually quite within the expected numbers of most other TW titles. R2 was an is an outlier when it comes to popularity. TWA has about the same numbers as Empire, more than Napoleon and silghtly less than S2. That's from all the titles that were launched on Steam and according to Steam Charts.

    Perspective is important. Do not think forums are an accurate reflection of customer opinion.

    Apparently you haven't looked on the steam charts lately and seen the sharp drop in Attila players back in March, and you didn't seem to see that more people play Rome 2 than Attila. Plus many people on the forum have perfectly valid concerns about why they think Rome 2 is better. Your opinion isn't the only opinion.

    Beside sthis thread is about the number of active MP players, which has dropped sharply since patch 2, thanks to CA breaking the Jutes and Burgundians, making them utterly OP. So, yes MP player counts are far less than release, and the competitive community has lost at least half its player since patch 2 broke those two factions.
  • xjlxkingxjlxking Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 606
    edited May 2015
    Rome 2 in general sold more, so hopefully it DOES have more numbers. Also, plenty of people just didn't play Rome 2 because it was broken, now it's fixed, and they are playing the product they paid for.

    Attila in general hasn't done well in sales. Even with CA trying to do gimmick sales, which by accounting standards (GAAP) is bad.
    Okay, since people keep repeating this...

    The player numbers of TWA are actually quite within the expected numbers of most other TW titles. R2 was an is an outlier when it comes to popularity. TWA has about the same numbers as Empire, more than Napoleon and silghtly less than S2. That's from all the titles that were launched on Steam and according to Steam Charts.

    Perspective is important. Do not think forums are an accurate reflection of customer opinion.

    FIRST OF ALL
    Don't compare the number of active players with games that were released over 5 years ago. The market is saturated with more players. That's like going to two different parks located in to different cities and comparing number of people on the basketball court.
    What we wish, we readily believe, and what we ourselves think, we imagine others think also
    Veni, Vidi, Vici
    Julius Caesar
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,104
    edited May 2015
    xjlxking wrote: »
    . Also, plenty of people just didn't play Rome 2 because it was broken, now it's fixed, and they are playing the product they paid for.

    I dont think so... its almost fixed but CA abandoned Rome 2.... look at Rome 2 forum...
  • obelixthegreatobelixthegreat Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 228
    edited May 2015
    Leroy_99 wrote: »
    Well if patch 3 fixes the Jutes and Burgundians MP will rise again. We had massive player counts the first few weeks, until the stupid lanogbard pack screwed it up.

    I honestly dont find burgundinas and Jutes to be that OP, they are strong factions, probably the strongest in Attila, but they are easier to beat than the Tyllis/Boii combo.
  • DiplomattDiplomatt Senior Member Preston, UKRegistered Users Posts: 1,136
    edited May 2015
    I honestly dont find burgundinas and Jutes to be that OP, they are strong factions, probably the strongest in Attila, but they are easier to beat than the Tyllis/Boii combo.

    So? Still op. Doesn't matter if they're not as op as a faction from a past game thats irrelevant. A bit op or really op its still op.
    [WOLF]Diplomatt

    Moderator of www.reddit.com/r/totalwar
  • obelixthegreatobelixthegreat Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 228
    edited May 2015
    memccann wrote: »
    So? Still op. Doesn't matter if they're not as op as a faction from a past game thats irrelevant. A bit op or really op its still op.

    If you would be following/reading the thread, you would know why i came up with Tyllis and Boii. There were cited.

    There will always be factions that are better/stonger than the others. That doesn´t necessarily make them OP. If Jutes and Burgundians are OP or just very strong would make for an interesting discussion.
    Why the distance of power between the strongest and the weakest factions beeing smaller rather than bigger is relevant, is something you´ll have to find out for yourself.
Sign In or Register to comment.