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?

2

Comments

  • winsunshinewinsunshine Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 820
    edited May 2015
    Jute/Burgundian only realevant due to the stupid 6 cavs rules, With no rule, no one can top Alan/Vandal.

    If people like making custom rule that much, then just put la limit on two handed axes unit, and problem solved.
  • BelialxvBelialxv Senior Member SteppesRegistered Users Posts: 1,627
    edited May 2015
    The problem isnt that some faction are op. It's that the game is boring as hell. Few playstyle are viable.
    ajz9uoslnqoi.jpg


    HUITZILOPOCHTLI

    god of war

    LIZARDMEN #makelustriagreatagain
    Clan Moulder #masterclan
  • blademaster3090blademaster3090 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 402
    edited May 2015
    Belialxv wrote: »
    The problem isnt that some faction are op. It's that the game is boring as hell. Few playstyle are viable.

    Yes. The problem is every game results in cav-on-cav blobs with shock infantry support. You cannot pull cav out or they'll die, you cannot use shock cav because all it takes is diamond formation and they're dead, or even if they get the greatest charge in the world you cannot pull out or through or they will die. There's no point bringing anything other than 3 units:

    1. Cheap skirmishers
    2. High melee attack infantry
    3. Melee cavalry

    Now there are excellent players who can make it work with shock cav, with tanky infantry, with bow cav etc. etc. but that's not the average player. In Rome 2, the average player could do well with basically any combination against any other faction save for 3-Tylis, Boii and Rome.

    Speaking of OP factions:

    Rome 2 OP factions - Tylis, Boii, Rome (arguably) out of 30 something factions. ~10% factions were OP.

    Attila OP factions - Burgundians, Jutes, Alans (arguably) out of 15 odd factions, ~20% of factions are OP. You can see the problem, this along with the fact that Ostro, Visi, Franks can be clubbed together as one faction since their rosters are 90% the same (frankish failbann don't count, no one brings them) , and Danes and Geats can be clubbed together as one faction, ERE and WRE can be clubbed together as one faction, and you barely have any variety.

    For someone who cherished faction variety and the different strategies it entailed at least when playing for fun, this lack of variety sucks. I don't care if in Rome 2 tournaments it always boiled down to Boii vs Tylis, at least in regular online games I could pick weird builds and have fun while playing with them.
    Check out my youtube channel! Mainly Rome 2 Multiplayer tactics, tutorials and replays :)
    www.youtube.com/wolftotalwar
  • DiplomattDiplomatt Senior Member Preston, UKRegistered Users Posts: 1,136
    edited May 2015
    You said there's no point bringing anything apart from melee cav. No. Shock cav just as important.

    Sassanids and Huns perfectly viable.
    [WOLF]Diplomatt

    Moderator of www.reddit.com/r/totalwar
  • blademaster3090blademaster3090 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 402
    edited May 2015
    memccann wrote: »
    You said there's no point bringing anything apart from melee cav. No. Shock cav just as important.

    Sassanids and Huns perfectly viable.

    they're important in the same sense that anything on a horse is important in Attila. They have great impact damage, so do melee cavalry. They wreck melee cavalry on the charge if melee cav is not in wedge, but if they are in wedge/diamond, shock cavalry don't do anything.

    So lets see the uses of shock cavalry:

    1. Against infantry - Melee cavalry do a slightly worse job than them on the charge, but a MUCH better job once in the fight. Then there are the situations where the infantry is scattered over the place and thus, shock cav charge is nonexistent, in which case melee cavalry is a better choice. Overall, Melee Cavalry is a better choice.

    2. Against cavalry - Except for Nordic HL, any cavalry that is brought now has access to diamond/wedge. Shock cavalry, except for Royal Lancers maybe, do terribly against any wedged melee cavalry. Again, after the charge, shock cavalry do terribly while melee cavalry do much better. Overall, melee cavalry is a better choice.

    3. Against skirmishers - 90% of shock cav dont have shields, melee cav have shields so they can block missiles. Melee cavalry better.

    Now, you could argue that this was the same case in Rome 2, except its not, because of one crucial difference - pulling through and pulling out were much easier which meant you could easily get consecutive charges with shock cav, making them so much more important. That's the opposite with Attila.

    Also, Huns viable only due to melee inf spam. The viable Hun builds bring the cheapest shock cav. Sassanids are not viable, there's one final where the Sassanids won and that had vastly different rules from the usual IIRC. Compare that to the hundreds of times Jutes/Alans/ Vandals have been used.

    Yes, Sassanids have been buffed but to call them truly viable would need elephants and their skirmishers to be buffed first.
    Check out my youtube channel! Mainly Rome 2 Multiplayer tactics, tutorials and replays :)
    www.youtube.com/wolftotalwar
  • winsunshinewinsunshine Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 820
    edited May 2015
    they're important in the same sense that anything on a horse is important in Attila. They have great impact damage, so do melee cavalry. They wreck melee cavalry on the charge if melee cav is not in wedge, but if they are in wedge/diamond, shock cavalry don't do anything.

    So lets see the uses of shock cavalry:

    1. Against infantry - Melee cavalry do a slightly worse job than them on the charge, but a MUCH better job once in the fight. Then there are the situations where the infantry is scattered over the place and thus, shock cav charge is nonexistent, in which case melee cavalry is a better choice. Overall, Melee Cavalry is a better choice.

    2. Against cavalry - Except for Nordic HL, any cavalry that is brought now has access to diamond/wedge. Shock cavalry, except for Royal Lancers maybe, do terribly against any wedged melee cavalry. Again, after the charge, shock cavalry do terribly while melee cavalry do much better. Overall, melee cavalry is a better choice.

    3. Against skirmishers - 90% of shock cav dont have shields, melee cav have shields so they can block missiles. Melee cavalry better.

    Now, you could argue that this was the same case in Rome 2, except its not, because of one crucial difference - pulling through and pulling out were much easier which meant you could easily get consecutive charges with shock cav, making them so much more important. That's the opposite with Attila.

    Also, Huns viable only due to melee inf spam. The viable Hun builds bring the cheapest shock cav. Sassanids are not viable, there's one final where the Sassanids won and that had vastly different rules from the usual IIRC. Compare that to the hundreds of times Jutes/Alans/ Vandals have been used.

    Yes, Sassanids have been buffed but to call them truly viable would need elephants and their skirmishers to be buffed first.

    And also, Shock Cavs in Rome II have much better melee damage, plus bonus vs cavalry than Shock Cavs in Attila.

    The only useable shock cavs in Attila are those with elite lance and bonus vs cavalry, thus making them semi-spear cavs.

    But it is wrong to generalize all melee cavalries together. Half of melee cavalry rooster is still ****** though. Sword, mace, axe cavalry are totally garbage comparing to Spear cavalry. Sword, axe, and mace need a bonus vs infantry to make them stand out from the plague of spear cavalry.

    I also agree that Elephant and high tier Archer are a waste of money at the moment. I rather see the number of elephant in each unit get a increase than HP buff, that way they are still vulnerable to missile but do much better in killing infantry.
  • blademaster3090blademaster3090 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 402
    edited May 2015
    And also, Shock Cavs in Rome II have much better melee damage, plus bonus vs cavalry than Shock Cavs in Attila.

    The only useable shock cavs in Attila are those with elite lance and bonus vs cavalry, thus making them semi-spear cavs.

    But it is wrong to generalize all melee cavalries together. Half of melee cavalry rooster is still ****** though. Sword, mace, axe cavalry are totally garbage comparing to Spear cavalry. Sword, axe, and mace need a bonus vs infantry to make them stand out from the plague of spear cavalry.

    I also agree that Elephant and high tier Archer are a waste of money at the moment. I rather see the number of elephant in each unit get a increase than HP buff, that way they are still vulnerable to missile but do much better in killing infantry.

    you're right, anything other than spear cavalry are beyond useless, unless they are ridiculously tanky like the Royal Saiones. Ele buff will happen when they fix pull through. If pull through is like it was in Rome 2, then elephants can actually kill units well, and in Attila we don't need to be worried about chariots and their OPness XD
    Check out my youtube channel! Mainly Rome 2 Multiplayer tactics, tutorials and replays :)
    www.youtube.com/wolftotalwar
  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USARegistered Users, Moderators, Knights Posts: 19,814
    edited May 2015
    Several bickering posts removed. Keep the personal insults and remarks about other members to yourself.
    "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
  • Pine89Pine89 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 580
    edited May 2015
    faction similarity does it for me. germanics are so similar to eachother, which is to be expected, they're all from the same general area/culture group.

    now, CA has tried to give them some unique stuff but that's the real issue here, the vast majority of their unique units are terrible, and thus they rarely see any use, while the more cost effective generic/shared units are used most of the times.
    visigothic slingers, the elite visigothic jav cav, frank's failband and all their other 1 handed axes, the other pikes from the ostrogoths (don't know if tournaments still limit pikes to 4, but there's no reason to imo).

    for the romans it's the elite ballistarii, ravenna ballistarii, herculiani seniores, all the foederati units (javs, spearmen), to some degree the elite palatina too, so you end up taking shared units, blurring the difference between factions even more.

    for the nordics the only good unique unit are the huscarls, so you end up seeing the juti all the time while the danes and the geats sit unused.

    also, cav and 2 handed axes would not be so overused if skirmishers could actually kill stuff before everything is cleaned up and the battle is already over. the rate at which they kill even supposedly lightly armoured units is way too low. the bigger friendly hitboxes don't help either.
  • CagataiKhanCagataiKhan Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 808
    edited May 2015
    Pine89 wrote: »
    faction similarity does it for me. germanics are so similar to eachother, which is to be expected, they're all from the same general area/culture group.

    now, CA has tried to give them some unique stuff but that's the real issue here, the vast majority of their unique units are terrible, and thus they rarely see any use, while the more cost effective generic/shared units are used most of the times.
    visigothic slingers, the elite visigothic jav cav, frank's failband and all their other 1 handed axes, the other pikes from the ostrogoths (don't know if tournaments still limit pikes to 4, but there's no reason to imo).

    for the romans it's the elite ballistarii, ravenna ballistarii, herculiani seniores, all the foederati units (javs, spearmen), to some degree the elite palatina too, so you end up taking shared units, blurring the difference between factions even more.

    for the nordics the only good unique unit are the huscarls, so you end up seeing the juti all the time while the danes and the geats sit unused.

    also, cav and 2 handed axes would not be so overused if skirmishers could actually kill stuff before everything is cleaned up and the battle is already over. the rate at which they kill even supposedly lightly armoured units is way too low. the bigger friendly hitboxes don't help either.
    Missile units should inreased infantry kill rate. It is most imporatant .
  • DiplomattDiplomatt Senior Member Preston, UKRegistered Users Posts: 1,136
    edited May 2015
    The main reason people get bored isnt the balance arguments its just the lack of stuff to do. I like the game but there's nothing to do apart from tournaments. Quick battle is kinda boring and there's little point playing it for me anymore. If they put a little bit of work in instead of copying and pasting from Rome II putting in a couple of features that gave you a sense of progression and achievement then you would have a reason to play.

    Balance is ok. Not perfect not horendous. Even if it was perfect we wouldn't see loads and loads of active people. To get that we need an update with a shogun 2 type thing, that's the only way we'll get a substantial growth.
    [WOLF]Diplomatt

    Moderator of www.reddit.com/r/totalwar
  • DacderDacder Member Registered Users Posts: 85
    edited May 2015
    it's probly dying cuz the game is absolute garbage...
    "I am become death, destroyer of worlds."- J. Robert Oppenheimer, head of the Trinity project, upon viewing the first successful atomic bomb test.
  • AKKF32AKKF32 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 193
    edited May 2015
    Dacder wrote: »
    it's probly dying cuz the game is absolute garbage...
    agree, the game, the balance, the factions, diversity are all garbage in this game.
  • obelixthegreatobelixthegreat Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 228
    edited May 2015
    memccann wrote: »
    Balance is ok. Not perfect not horendous. Even if it was perfect we wouldn't see loads and loads of active people. To get that we need an update with a shogun 2 type thing, that's the only way we'll get a substantial growth.

    Balance between factions is okish, balance between units is atrocious allowing only one type of gameplay/tactic, even with the huns.
    Some features from shogun 2 would be nice, just not the ones favoring people with more time to play to have better units/gen.
  • DacderDacder Member Registered Users Posts: 85
    edited May 2015
    After playing a few games I think I've realized why this game is dying so early.

    1) It's garbage.
    2) It takes almost no skill.
    3) It requires virtually no tactical sense.
    4) It is basically "charge randomly into each other and the better units win"
    5) The only "good" players are the ones who abuse #4 the most.

    Good riddance to this trash. CA is never getting another cent out of me again.
    "I am become death, destroyer of worlds."- J. Robert Oppenheimer, head of the Trinity project, upon viewing the first successful atomic bomb test.
  • blademaster3090blademaster3090 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 402
    edited May 2015
    Dacder wrote: »
    After playing a few games I think I've realized why this game is dying so early.

    1) It's garbage.
    2) It takes almost no skill.
    3) It requires virtually no tactical sense.
    4) It is basically "charge randomly into each other and the better units win"
    5) The only "good" players are the ones who abuse #4 the most.

    Good riddance to this trash. CA is never getting another cent out of me again.

    based dacder givin' it to em again.

    in all seriousness, I think this game can do much better than Rome 2 multiplayer (which is still a LOT of fun for me at least) if they implemented even one of the things memccann says.

    Need more faction/unit diversity, need some features to add on like Avatar System/ Dojos...balance is **** but CA's not going to change that anytime soon, they're terrible when it comes to balancing anything, so at least let us get some variety.

    But all this is going to fall on deaf ears as the devs spread their legs and get ready to pump out the next hellish TW game, replete with horrible optimization, balance issues and bare-bones multiplayer.

    I exaggerate, but I really hoped for Attila to have a more fleshed out multiplayer that had more attention given to it than it has so far.
    Check out my youtube channel! Mainly Rome 2 Multiplayer tactics, tutorials and replays :)
    www.youtube.com/wolftotalwar
  • Strategist6Strategist6 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 141
    edited May 2015
    Memcann, multiplayer is not dying because of a lack of stuff to do. Its the same stuff to do as Rome 2. If I had to quantify it, I would say about 60% of the problem is game balance (mainly from unit to unit, although faction balance needs improvements as well), 30% is the lack of variety (which is partially intertwined with the balance since half the units are worthless) such as copied units, tactics, and maybe even the dumb icons instead of flags, and the rest is just due to lower game sales, people breaking up with the franchise, and a less interesting time period (for most people).

    I really have to agree with obelixthegreat's last post. Some Shogun features would be nice, but things like retainers, veterans, and unlocking units are dumb. A better ranking system with XP (even if its meaningless XP) might be ok. The problem is custom banners, generals, units, etc. cant really be done in any TW game unless its similar to Shogun.

    Perhaps a Feudal British Isles game where you play as Vassals rather than entire kingdoms could mimic Shogun 2. I could imagine it like Shogun 2 but with 4 cultures (English, Scottish, Irish, Norwegian) and 4 "shogunates". There would be wars between Vassals, but such wars would make the King upset, causing something like "Realm Divide" in Shogun 2. Then there could be total wars (no pun intended) between Kingdoms. I'm thinking of a mechanic like the Pope and Crusades in Medieval 2. This also makes me think of Crusader Kings 2. I think its more historically accurate too. If they really wanted to go to town with it, they could have a thorough political system to gain the King's favor and rise through the ranks to even take the crown for yourself, to then smash the other kingdoms. Essentially implementing the best things from Shogun 2, Medieval 2, and Crusader Kings 2 to make the ultimate Total War (+Politics) game ever.Actually, the more I think about it, the more it seems like that could be an amazing game, but I feel like I am getting a bit carried away here :)

    Right now, it seems like CA is wanting to separate Multiplayer and Singleplayer Total War games by making Arena and letting MP dwindle in priority on the standard titles.
  • jonasneejonasnee Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,737
    edited May 2015
    in rome 2 every factions felt different, in attila all factions are the same with the exception of maybe WRE and sassinids, the others are just the same, shock inf and cav.

    most factions in attila are as different as nervii and boii, sure they have some stuff different but playstyle doesn't truly change.

    i still wished i coud go back and play rome 2 pre EE (anyone by any chance have the gamefiles? maybe i should ask CA)
    put your actions where your mouth is.
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=TJpmII-kxuM
    Total war is best when it is kept simple and not overly complex
  • DiplomattDiplomatt Senior Member Preston, UKRegistered Users Posts: 1,136
    edited May 2015
    jonasnee wrote: »
    in rome 2 every factions felt different, in attila all factions are the same with the exception of maybe WRE and sassinids, the others are just the same, shock inf and cav.

    most factions in attila are as different as nervii and boii, sure they have some stuff different but playstyle doesn't truly change.

    i still wished i coud go back and play rome 2 pre EE (anyone by any chance have the gamefiles? maybe i should ask CA)

    Yeh pre EE was great. It was nowhere near perfect but overall patch 14 was some of the most fun I've had in total war.
    [WOLF]Diplomatt

    Moderator of www.reddit.com/r/totalwar
  • RTKMercuriusRTKMercurius Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 156
    edited May 2015
    Some hard capped hero-type units would be an easy way to add some variety. Just take some of the successful specialty units of the past and build them in. Hard cap them so they are CA-developer proofed and won't obliterate balance. Give people some variety to play with. I could imagine a zerker unit with scare, something reminiscent of S2 bow gen long ranged HA with ap, a head hurler for nostalgia, some naked screaming women (cause why not), etc.
  • Pine89Pine89 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 580
    edited May 2015
    CA isn't going to add mp features to this game, as few days ago they said that warhammer is going to have the same mp features as attila now, so there goes all the hope for an extensive mp, unless somehow they change their mind. as if puttin ffa or some key buildings in 5-6 mp maps was too much..

    anyway, an avatar system would still be possible in theory. when you pick your mp general you get to colour your banners, units and all that stuff (with or witout veterans and unlockable units, doesn't matter), plus since there's different (lol) factions in the game you have to choose a cultural group. each general gets to use units from one culture only. and then have some slots for different generals from different cultures, just like it was done when fots came out. in attila for example you could choose between a germanic, roman, nordic, celtic, nomad or sassanid unit pool. . or just stick with a general progression only, no cosmetics, with different trees and levels, then you pick vanilla factions like it is right now.
  • blademaster3090blademaster3090 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 402
    edited May 2015
    what i would give for gold-colored general's bodyguard units if you get like 10 wins in a row
    Check out my youtube channel! Mainly Rome 2 Multiplayer tactics, tutorials and replays :)
    www.youtube.com/wolftotalwar
  • TheokolesOfRomeTheokolesOfRome Senior Member The Highlands in me kilt.Registered Users Posts: 1,487
    edited May 2015
    Yes, multiplayer is dead for Attila. 3 months in is new record.

    I've been playing Shogun 2 and Rome 2 because I can get games anytime.

    It is a shame though, because with decent patches Attila could be good, but already CA are moving on because there's not enough players to justify making new content/ release new patches.

    Think about it, update for steam content but no new patch. Very telling.

    Disaster of a game despite its many qualities.
    My Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2dOyM7KAgEHv0M-hJZAdgQ?
    Watch if you like high quality, edited and cinematic videos with informed content.
    My Rig:
    i7 8700k @ 4ghz
    1 x Titan X Pascal
    32GB 3000Mhz Ram
    1TB SSD Drive
    34" Curved Monitor 3440x1440p
  • DiplomattDiplomatt Senior Member Preston, UKRegistered Users Posts: 1,136
    edited May 2015
    Total War multiplayer is one of the worst games to be interested in. We want to make multiplayer happen so bad but at the end of the day the devs don't care that much.

    There's nothing fun to do apart from tourney games and they will die out unless something changes. CA tease us with a little bit of bare bones multiplayer and we can dream of good multiplayer but it just hasn't happened.
    [WOLF]Diplomatt

    Moderator of www.reddit.com/r/totalwar
  • AKKF32AKKF32 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 193
    edited May 2015
    The game that will soon die completely in shame, not to be remembered by any, not even by its own devs....
  • TheokolesOfRomeTheokolesOfRome Senior Member The Highlands in me kilt.Registered Users Posts: 1,487
    edited May 2015
    memccann wrote: »
    Total War multiplayer is one of the worst games to be interested in. We want to make multiplayer happen so bad but at the end of the day the devs don't care that much.

    There's nothing fun to do apart from tourney games and they will die out unless something changes. CA tease us with a little bit of bare bones multiplayer and we can dream of good multiplayer but it just hasn't happened.

    Agree wholeheartedly.
    My Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2dOyM7KAgEHv0M-hJZAdgQ?
    Watch if you like high quality, edited and cinematic videos with informed content.
    My Rig:
    i7 8700k @ 4ghz
    1 x Titan X Pascal
    32GB 3000Mhz Ram
    1TB SSD Drive
    34" Curved Monitor 3440x1440p
  • CagataiKhanCagataiKhan Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 808
    edited May 2015
    Total War Attila isnt strategy game. It is just as a reflex game.
  • |Sith|DesertFox|Sith|DesertFox Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 458
    edited May 2015
    Agree wholeheartedly.

    I just started playing AOE: II and Verdun :D More satisfaction than TW MP has given me for a while, sadly. :(
    "Who I am is not important, my message is." ~ Darth Reven
    MY YOUTUBE CHANNEL!!!! https://www.youtube.com/user/teubel98/feed
  • DacderDacder Member Registered Users Posts: 85
    edited May 2015
    memccann wrote: »
    Total War multiplayer is one of the worst games to be interested in. We want to make multiplayer happen so bad but at the end of the day the devs don't care that much.

    There's nothing fun to do apart from tourney games and they will die out unless something changes. CA tease us with a little bit of bare bones multiplayer and we can dream of good multiplayer but it just hasn't happened.
    I mean, that's not 100% true. Shogun 2 and Rome 1 both still exist, and they're good MP games. But CA generally doesn't care at all, you're right.
    "I am become death, destroyer of worlds."- J. Robert Oppenheimer, head of the Trinity project, upon viewing the first successful atomic bomb test.
  • obelixthegreatobelixthegreat Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 228
    edited May 2015
    Call me an optimist or even naive, but is still think there is hope for Attila. There is another culture to be released (desert) and CA is stating that the game is far from over.
    And there are lots of people who want to play the game, but are bored with the actual stand of balance/meta.
    I didn´t give up hope yet.
Sign In or Register to comment.