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

New player's thought on multiplayer - tournaments, quick battles, nervous breakdowns.

h455566hhh455566hh Posts: 38Registered Users
I've playing a lot of TWWH 2 multiplayer recently, some of you probably played with me in tournaments or on ladder, and after acquiring some experience of how the game's multiplayer works I decided to express my thought about it. Because it's a very fun and underappreciated part of any total war game. Multiplayer definitely deserves love and attention from the community and developers. It's a rough gem, as they say.

The main problem with TWWH multiplayer is how unforgiving and intense it is, you'd think that a game orientated at slow, thoughtful, turn based single player would translated this style of game play to online as well. But nothing like it. Online battles last on average 3 to 5 minutes and they are fast, up close and vicious. Like two weasels on cocaine having a knife fight in a can of Pringles. Atrocious and exhilarating at the same time.

Online battles work like that because of two reasons, in my opinion. First - the only way to win is to destroy the opponent's army, second - you can have no reinforcements so all errors you make cannot be fixed. Thankfully TWWH online is fairly populated and building armies doesn't take much time so the down time between matches is very short. But, how can the battles themselves remain fast and become more forgiving at the same time?

Frist, change the main game play mode from a sort of 1v1 "death match" that we have been playing since Total War 1 to "domination" type mode. Maps would be separated in several zones, lets say five, each of equal width and the length of the entire map. Like a field in american handegg football. Both players start in the middle zone and fight to push the enemy army to the next zone behind the opponent. Until the fight takes place in the last zone on the opposite edge of the map, by taking control of each zone a player would get a point. The winner is decided by the number of points accumulated. The zone is considered under one player's dominance if he has the majority of his army in it, while the other player's army has been pushed to the next zone.

Essentially the current play style of battles stays the same, but the now there is more to do rather than just kill the enemy. You can still flank and experiment with different army builds, but with "domination" mode I suggest the battlefield starts to play a role in the game. Because right now maps are either really good aesthetics or a hindrance to 1v1 games. Depending on how the map was designed. Be damned the large-forest-in-the-middle maps.

Second, introduce reinforcements to allow more room for error. Lets say every x amount of time each player gets some points he can use to summon reinforcements on the field. Similarly how it's done in single player when reinforcing armies arrive from the edge of of the map. But in multiplayer new units should spawn closer to the main fighting, and probably have some invulnerability period so the enemy can't camp them attack right as they spawn. This way each player has new units available on the field and can use them to tip the battle in his favor.

One of the most enraging and easy ways to loose online is to either bring the wrong army and let your opponent have all the counters while you have none, or loose some units to friendly fire. Which in TWWH is very common and can cost you a game if you'r not careful. I've seen many times when a dragon's breath killed more of friendly units than enemy's. It's really painful to kill your 1300 gold Sword Masters of Hoeth with your 2400 gold Star Dragon. And have no way help yourself other than not do it in the next match.

With reinforcements the battles should become much more forgiving and "fluid", because you can change your army on the fly and not be limited by your initial set up that you brought. Or at least have some ways to change it. Having fixed and limited army set up is not bad in and of itself, but the way it is right now means that every mistake is very costly one.

My topic turned out to be pretty long for most posts on this forum so before going forward with my ideas, I'd like to read your thoughts on what I already wrote.

Comments

  • GerryGamer7GerryGamer7 Munich, Bavaria | GermanyPosts: 388Registered Users
    h455566hh said:

    The main problem with TWWH multiplayer is how unforgiving and intense it is, you'd think that a game orientated at slow, thoughtful, turn based single player would translated this style of game play to online as well. But nothing like it. Online battles last on average 3 to 5 minutes and they are fast, up close and vicious. Like two weasels on cocaine having a knife fight in a can of Pringles. Atrocious and exhilarating at the same time.

    For that chapter you deserve sth, a golden globe or at least a free DLC! B) :) :D

    Haha, best laugh of the day. And my opinion, too. Two weasels on cocaine having a fight. Priceless. I am still trying to figure out whether the main reason i lose so many qbs is that my dexterity in clicking fast is limited. I believe it is. That is a shame for a strategy game.

    Many good ideas here, but my impression here after a while is that nobody cares. Alt-f4 is not fixed. Chat is terrible. Battle speed is hilariously fast. No modes other than: destroy opponent as fast as you can. Ladder works strange, winning brought me a loss of points, i am not the only one. Army composition decides whether you win or not if players are on a similiar level. No re-inforcements allowed. Have i forgotten sth? Probably.

    And the problem is that you dont know why this is so. how many games were sold? 500K? And 21.000 players have played MP. Half of them more than a few games. That is THE example of a vicious circle IMHO. MP mode did not get the attention it deserves and because of that it is constantly losing noobs that have to play like me their first matches against Top 100 players. Really, it is sad.

    Hope to c u soon and if you are new to MP, why are you so good? :D

    MAKE RECORDS MODE THE DEFAULT MODE FOR RANKED GAMES. Period.
    No matter how negative i may sound, i love three kingdoms.
  • Alexander_scAlexander_sc Posts: 18Registered Users
    Hello.

    I saw last day on Youtube the CA tournament. 4 players deathmatch. Thats a change. I never played MP on a Total War but I played other games.

    The Game is done, new content will arrives, but the SP is done. I now CA is working in a new game but now It is turn that they improve MP. In a couple of days I will start MP for first time since I Play Total War games and I now I will have no chance against most players, so a system that match you vs players with similar rank would be great for both players, having a easy improvement and not having the feeling you are getting Smash always.

    Agree with a dommination Mode. Would be funny.

    About the reinforcement...dont now. Maybe that you could decide to leave one or two units in reserve and make them enter on the Battlefield nearby your troops.

    Army painter. Yes and no. Dont think it is urgent. But It is an option.


  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Posts: 4,423Registered Users
    Cool ideas.

    I agree more people would play multiplayer if you could have a default slower mode. The pace kept me from playing for a long time.
  • AWizard_LizardAWizard_Lizard Posts: 897Registered Users
    Cool ideas overall kudos to op, his ideas could keep the game fresh for a long time if anything else. As for the pace, I dont know @h455566hh if you played WH1 but if you didnt I envy you;)
  • No_StringsNo_Strings Posts: 8Registered Users
    Yeah, I've always wished MP would be more about using better tactics and strategy than your opponent. There's a small element of that right now, but mainly the winner seems to be the person with the best micro or actions per minute.
  • JoukeSeinstraJoukeSeinstra Posts: 275Registered Users

    Yeah, I've always wished MP would be more about using better tactics and strategy than your opponent. There's a small element of that right now, but mainly the winner seems to be the person with the best micro or actions per minute.

    Micro is useless without understanding unit performance. It's like saying the car with the most horsepower wins.
  • No_StringsNo_Strings Posts: 8Registered Users
    edited February 2018

    Yeah, I've always wished MP would be more about using better tactics and strategy than your opponent. There's a small element of that right now, but mainly the winner seems to be the person with the best micro or actions per minute.

    Micro is useless without understanding unit performance. It's like saying the car with the most horsepower wins.
    For sure. I guess I was assuming both players have an understanding of unit performance. But yes, that would be the most important factor.

    Given that both players have that understanding though, the deciding factor in a battle is almost always micro and actions per minute rather than strategy and tactics. Slower paced games will usually place the emphasis on the latter while faster paced games tend to place the emphasis on the former.
  • kikrakenkikraken Posts: 39Registered Users
    Fix what we already have and make it as good as possible, and then worry about implementing new game modes or reinforcements etc...

    Yeah, I've always wished MP would be more about using better tactics and strategy than your opponent. There's a small element of that right now, but mainly the winner seems to be the person with the best micro or actions per minute.

    Micro is useless without understanding unit performance. It's like saying the car with the most horsepower wins.
    For sure. I guess I was assuming both players have an understanding of unit performance. But yes, that would be the most important factor.

    Given that both players have that understanding though, the deciding factor in a battle is almost always micro and actions per minute rather than strategy and tactics. Slower paced games will usually place the emphasis on the latter while faster paced games tend to place the emphasis on the former.
    Strategy and tactics is the most important factor. Only after having that first part right for both sides is when micro becomes more important. Anyway, if that is an issue for you there are certain army compositions which require much less micromanagement than others.

    Also in quick match there is sometimes so much lag that both teams have as many time as they want to micromanage everything and leave no space for surprises.

  • Magyar KhanMagyar Khan Senior Member Posts: 548Registered Users
    kikraken said:

    Fix what we already have and make it as good as possible, and then worry about implementing new game modes or reinforcements etc...

    This is the thing guyz and dollz.... if CA doesnt fix the bad things in mp ladder/ chatgui and pickingsystem than we keep dragging the mess from shogun2 towards the next game version....

    FIRST FIX WHATS WRONG
    Although you, my enemy, move fast, my Mongol arrow will get you at last!
  • h455566hhh455566hh Posts: 38Registered Users
    Magyar Khan, my idea was that fixing what's already in the game is pointless. No matter how good it gets regarding the bugs you still will have a boring game. So how about a "paradigm shift"?
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Posts: 3,697Registered Users
    h455566hh said:

    Magyar Khan, my idea was that fixing what's already in the game is pointless. No matter how good it gets regarding the bugs you still will have a boring game. So how about a "paradigm shift"?

    I'd say the current battles are somewhat true to the table-top format. I don't think this game would benefit from becoming more like other RTS games with reinforcements and stuff.

    I do think the game would benefit from some kind of objective though as right now there's not really an incentive to fight in an unfavorable position.

    I had one of these the other night. Top50 opponent camped his high ground with an army very much counter-picking my faction. I set up in the low ground bad side of the map, but in the forest. I felt nowhere I wanted to charge uphill into his constructs and bowshapti, and he felt nowhere he wanted to charge me into the forest. I offered to fast forward but he dropped instead. That's not what it's supposed to be like... partly the map is at fault though, only balanced maps should be in the MP cycle.
  • GerryGamer7GerryGamer7 Munich, Bavaria | GermanyPosts: 388Registered Users
    edited February 2018

    h455566hh said:


    I had one of these the other night. Top50 opponent camped his high ground with an army very much counter-picking my faction. I set up in the low ground bad side of the map, but in the forest. I felt nowhere I wanted to charge uphill into his constructs and bowshapti, and he felt nowhere he wanted to charge me into the forest. I offered to fast forward but he dropped instead. That's not what it's supposed to be like... partly the map is at fault though, only balanced maps should be in the MP cycle.

    you can fast forward? as the "host"? that leads to 2 questions. btw that was a good idea i would accept it immediately. you can fast forward, as host, rightly understood? but that is BS also, because i lost a couple of close matches, because the game was in slow motion. i suspect now the opponent to slo mo the whole thing, cannot remember the gamers, so cannot check replays. that would suck big time. so i am not sure whether i understand: who can slow mo or forward the game, both or only the "host"? thx

    MAKE RECORDS MODE THE DEFAULT MODE FOR RANKED GAMES. Period.
    No matter how negative i may sound, i love three kingdoms.
  • h455566hhh455566hh Posts: 38Registered Users
    "I had one of these the other night. Top50 opponent camped his high ground with an army very much counter-picking my faction. I set up in the low ground bad side of the map, but in the forest. I felt nowhere I wanted to charge uphill into his constructs and bowshapti, and he felt nowhere he wanted to charge me into the forest. I offered to fast forward but he dropped instead. That's not what it's supposed to be like... partly the map is at fault though, only balanced maps should be in the MP cycle."

    These are the problems that made me write my OP...Is this a tradition on this forum? Not read the topic you post in.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Posts: 3,697Registered Users
    I read it and disagreed, but I think an objective that doesn't involve reinforcements would be a good thing. If nothing else, as a tiebreaker when someone is draw kiting.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Posts: 4,423Registered Users

    I read it and disagreed, but I think an objective that doesn't involve reinforcements would be a good thing. If nothing else, as a tiebreaker when someone is draw kiting.

    Exactly. Tie breaker if time runs out being control of the map center immediately would give structure to the engagements, but wouldn't limit most games which will be over far before then.
  • NivlacACENivlacACE Posts: 49Registered Users
    I feel like thee capture points suggested would not rly fit the game. Battles don't rly end with one army being pushed back, but meeting somewhere and fighting until one is dead or routs. I think having capture points like in Shogun 2 would be a good fit. Where you have three small capture points in the middle of the map, and each one gives a buff (speed, Melee and ranged buffs). You can still camp, but the trade-off is your opponent gets buffs to their army. The capture points also slow down games as people usually have small fights around the capture points before the main one.

  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Posts: 7,729Registered Users
    no capture points plz, they would not work at all and promote boring play.
  • RiggsenRiggsen Member Posts: 2,598Registered Users
    edited February 2018
    I'm in favour of capture points. They're not as boring as draws, and not as frustrating as draws when you should have won.
    "CA WHY U NU UNPOOP GAME" (Dank TW meme of 2011)
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Posts: 4,423Registered Users

    no capture points plz, they would not work at all and promote boring play.

    The minimalist center capture point that only has an impact after minute twenty could only help the game. It takes away none of your options for twenty minutes of battle and then creates a clear tie breaker mechanic for a battle that has gone over time.
  • JoukeSeinstraJoukeSeinstra Posts: 275Registered Users
    Shogun 2 had capture points, I can't remember anyone having love for them. Unless the MP community changed? It will change the meta naturally.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Posts: 4,423Registered Users

    Shogun 2 had capture points, I can't remember anyone having love for them. Unless the MP community changed? It will change the meta naturally.

    What I'm suggesting is far more minimalist than what shogun two had.

    People are assuming it will drastically change the game but really haven't described a scenario where it would. When you think about it you realize battles will be very similar to what we have now, except battles that go unusually long won't end up in draws.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file