Adorbs

Multiplayer: ROME 2

ROMANES EUNT DOMUSROMANES EUNT DOMUS Senior MemberPosts: 412Registered Users
edited May 2013 in Total War: ROME II
I am a huge fan of playing multiplayer. I just don't know what it is about me loving the multiplayer so much, but I treat Total war games like a big live game of chess which it essentially is, and the feeling I get from outsmarting my opponent and concocting a plan which ends up being a winner, gives me a big sense of accomplishment. Mopping up the leftovers of your opponents army while chanting: "I have existed from the morning of the world and I shall exist until the last star falls from the night. Although I have taken the form of Gaius Caligula, I am all men as I am no man and therefore I am a God. " Is how I get off...joke?

So as you can imagine, I am looking forward to the Multiplayer announcement, and I think they may have something magical up their sleeve. It's OK for you SP fans, you have loads of information, but, for me, who is a multiplayer fan...all I can do is imagine.

So please give me you opinions on what you would like to see in the multilayer. I would also like to hear if you play multiplayer as a preference.
Post edited by ROMANES EUNT DOMUS on
«1

Comments

  • Lucius VerusLucius Verus Senior Member Posts: 1,204Registered Users
    edited May 2013
    Bring back the Avatar conquest. But I wonder how CA will implement the avatar conquest if added. Because in S2 in only one culture. But in Rome 2 there will be more than one culture. So when we create our own avatar maybe we must select specific culture or one avatar for every cultures?. Can't wait to see it myself.
    Sometime you just need to relax

    My most wanted option in diplomacy "give region option" still hope it will finally make it in future patch.
  • LorenzohhLorenzohh Senior Member Posts: 675Registered Users
    edited May 2013
    I think an avatar system is good, as in creating your own general. But the unlocking of units or other stuff is very, very bad. Since it gives veteran players a huge edge over new ones.

    And I haven't even started on DLC units...
    Welcome to the internet. Where men are men, women are men and little girls are FBI agents.
  • ThomasRTMThomasRTM Member Posts: 46Registered Users
    edited May 2013
    I like to play both. I have to say that I learned may best tactics on the batlefield in the mulitiplayer part, AI wasn't that smart in all TW's.
  • moglornmoglorn Senior Member Posts: 187Registered Users
    edited May 2013
    Me and my friends look forward to the multiplayer campaign, hope the rumours are true that you play the campaign with 4 players.
  • Sima Zhong DaSima Zhong Da Senior Member Posts: 532Registered Users
    edited May 2013
    『Multiplayer campaign is practically confirmed for two player if you believe the steam page. That said, I think that the logical next step would be to take a Stronghold Kingdoms approach to online ranked battles, but who knows, the people at CA are very smart and they may have already planned an even better mode than what I can think of as the logical next step.』
    Modern war is conducted against an out-group by powerful people who have an exaggerated opinion of themselves and their degree of morality, are overconfident, often have an illusion of control, enjoy taking risks and are almost always male. - Robert Trivers, Deceit and Self-deception
  • ColourColour Member Posts: 73Registered Users
    edited May 2013
    The system of levelling up your troops gave many players an unfair advantage, in my opinion, and I hope that they would leave that out in favour of retainers and other effects. Fighting a team full of level 9 katana samurai, who seemed to beat level 8 katana cavalry in combat with ease, was disappointing. They seemed to have no weakness, whereas usually katana samurai would have lost by a large margin if katana cavalry fought them. If the levelling up system worked as in single player, or if it were not existent at all, then the multiplayer would be more balanced.

    The fact that higher level troops cost more did not balance out the fact that they were horribly overpowered.
  • belorebelore Member Posts: 81Registered Users
    edited May 2013
    and that they bring up a system who give importance and senses to clan. like the conquest of japan by league where clan can compete with other clan
    Youtubeur Fifa sur Playstation 4 et Multi-gaming ps4/pc: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0M...5GVj_zBdAedGFw
  • mrconnor177mrconnor177 Member Posts: 55Registered Users
    edited May 2013
    4 player co op would be amazing. and maybe try to make the multiplayer less server laggy
    sig1aa.png
  • JoCoolJoCool Senior Member Posts: 594Registered Users
    edited May 2013
    You mean 4 player FREE mpc. Where you can declare / befriend other players at will and have the usual faction's victory conditions.

    It is terrible when the loss of the home city to the enemy player leads to a premature ending of the campaign. Carthage was raided and plundered and finally burnt 3 times, Rome also got its share off during history.

    It would be so easy to get that option in to just have the usual victory conditions in, or a button that asks the victor whether you want to continue or not. You'll see awesome campaigns with Carthage being pushed out of North Africa into Alexandria to establish a new base there, or a Rome that is lost and pillaged but its Legions march into Italy from Gaul and Greece to reclaim what is theirs.
  • HawcamHawcam Member Posts: 78Registered Users
    edited May 2013
    A point about the veteran units in S2.
    I don't think, they made the game unfair. Because they got expensive so very fast. At a point 1 veteran unit did cost the price of 3 normal units. Although I had tons of veterans, I did not use them, because 3 normal units are still better than 1 veteran.

    To the rest.
    I hope so badly that there will be Avatar conquest. It was so fun designing your own banner and march into war with your very own units. Hopefully it will function as a culture defined general in the beginning and then you can conquer various regions with new unit types. And from what I've seen so far, there won't be that many overpowered units and if CA will add some freaking stong urban cohorts or spartan bodyguard, I think they will make them expensive as hell.
  • Sir TwiG of ShrubberySir TwiG of Shrubbery Senior Member Posts: 390Registered Users
    edited May 2013
    Colour wrote: »
    The system of levelling up your troops gave many players an unfair advantage, in my opinion, and I hope that they would leave that out in favour of retainers and other effects. Fighting a team full of level 9 katana samurai, who seemed to beat level 8 katana cavalry in combat with ease, was disappointing. They seemed to have no weakness, whereas usually katana samurai would have lost by a large margin if katana cavalry fought them. If the levelling up system worked as in single player, or if it were not existent at all, then the multiplayer would be more balanced.

    The fact that higher level troops cost more did not balance out the fact that they were horribly overpowered.
    Wen were katana samurai EVER tht powerful
    No offense but I don't think u have a proper understanding of the game if u think lvl 9 katana samurai are overpowered
    I've said it so many times higher level vets are sooo overrated lower level veterans and vanilla units are much more cost effective.

    I don't kno how u think a lvl8 Kat cav loses to a lvl 9 Kat Sam but u prbly upgraded ur troops incorrectly(why u wud have a lvl 8 Kat cav confuses me). Or the fight occurred in a wierd circumstance maybe u didn't get the charge off maybe the Kat cav unit was depleted maybe it was close to a matchlock there so many situations tht cud have occurred
    RTK | TwiG
  • oakoak Senior Member Posts: 269Registered Users
    edited May 2013
    You know how in avatar mode, user made clans control portions of the map and fight on the provinces to control it. I wish there was something like that in Rome II but instead of the clans, its the playable factions. And you choose which faction (of course you can only have its units) you want to join and fight to increase her territories.
  • ColourColour Member Posts: 73Registered Users
    edited May 2013
    Wen were katana samurai EVER tht powerful
    No offense but I don't think u have a proper understanding of the game if u think lvl 9 katana samurai are overpowered
    I've said it so many times higher level vets are sooo overrated lower level veterans and vanilla units are much more cost effective.

    I don't kno how u think a lvl8 Kat cav loses to a lvl 9 Kat Sam but u prbly upgraded ur troops incorrectly(why u wud have a lvl 8 Kat cav confuses me). Or the fight occurred in a wierd circumstance maybe u didn't get the charge off maybe the Kat cav unit was depleted maybe it was close to a matchlock there so many situations tht cud have occurred

    What- no you can't make that assumption. First of all, katana cavalry are good, yet they are not used often. They are effective at dealing with archers and swordsmen. I did not upgrade my troops incorrectly, I did as anyone else would and maxed out melee attack and defence, at the very minimum.

    Level 9 katana samurai have such high attack and defence, when upgraded correctly, that not many can match them easily. If I remember rightly you could end up with katana samurai which had 24 attack with the correct upgrades and retainers, however I have not played online for a long time for this reason. You can get two lots of katana samurai for the same price, however they are no match.

    The levelling system plain ruins the balance of the game, and the effect of levels on troops should be severely reduced for Rome 2 so that it does not ruin the game for newcomers, or those who do not play often enough to field an entire army of veterans.
  • TheVictornatorTheVictornator Senior Member Posts: 257Registered Users
    edited May 2013
    My two hopes for multiplayer in R2:
    1) Bring back avatar, but only with cosmetic upgrades, coz veteran units and unlocks were unfair.
    2) Bring back historical online battles, they were awesome in Rome 1!
    Go Rome!
    Go SAXONS!
    Go Takeda!
  • Sir TwiG of ShrubberySir TwiG of Shrubbery Senior Member Posts: 390Registered Users
    edited May 2013
    Colour wrote: »
    What- no you can't make that assumption. First of all, katana cavalry are good, yet they are not used often. They are effective at dealing with archers and swordsmen. I did not upgrade my troops incorrectly, I did as anyone else would and maxed out melee attack and defence, at the very minimum.

    Level 9 katana samurai have such high attack and defence, when upgraded correctly, that not many can match them easily. If I remember rightly you could end up with katana samurai which had 24 attack with the correct upgrades and retainers, however I have not played online for a long time for this reason. You can get two lots of katana samurai for the same price, however they are no match.
    F
    The levelling system plain ruins the balance of the game, and the effect of levels on troops should be severely reduced for Rome 2 so that it does not ruin the game for newcomers, or those who do not play often enough to field an entire army of veterans.
    I didn't say katana cav arnt good I said lvl 8 Kat cav isn't good there to expensive there better at lvl 6 or 4
    Katana samurai can only get to 23 attack which doesn't really matter becuz Kat cav can reach up to 30 and lvl 6 no dachis can hav 25 attack and cost 200 less then lvl Kat SAMs
    If u honestly believe they are op post it on the stw 2 forum
    RTK | TwiG
  • dark as silverdark as silver Senior Member Posts: 1,645Registered Users
    edited May 2013
    Colour wrote: »
    The levelling system plain ruins the balance of the game, and the effect of levels on troops should be severely reduced for Rome 2 so that it does not ruin the game for newcomers, or those who do not play often enough to field an entire army of veterans.

    Honestly I think you and twig are both correct, the leveling system means that veterans are far more cost efficient than unvetted unit however melee units for example are best at vet lvl 2 this is because they get both attack upgrades for 50 koku, any more attack upgrades cost 70 koku and 100 spent in upgrades that aren't as good. Likewise people don't want to upgrade bow and matchlocks beyond what you need for extra range(and possibly extra ammo).
    Ultimately its all personal preference but that is why Twig prefers low vet armies.

    Edit: oh also katana sams aren't OP, period. I don't know what happened with the katana cav but I'm willing to bet fatigue, morale or terrain intervened.
  • ColourColour Member Posts: 73Registered Users
    edited May 2013
    Honestly I think you and twig are both correct, the leveling system means that veterans are far more cost efficient than unvetted unit however melee units for example are best at vet lvl 2 this is because they get both attack upgrades for 50 koku, any more attack upgrades cost 70 koku and 100 spent in upgrades that aren't as good. Likewise people don't want to upgrade bow and matchlocks beyond what you need for extra range(and possibly extra ammo).
    Ultimately its all personal preference but that is why Twig prefers low vet armies.

    Edit: oh also katana sams aren't OP, period. I don't know what happened with the katana cav but I'm willing to bet fatigue, morale or terrain intervened.

    I don't believe katana samurai are OP, unless they have been upgraded to such a limit. I used to think they were not so good at level 9, until I saw it myself. I liked to keep around some level 8 katana cavalry because they usually demolish everything in their path, and are very good in melee. Charge some katana cavalry into some katana samurai, and the katana cavalry will win easily. However this completely changes when both units are levelled up, katana cavalry at level 8 or 9 cannot beat katana samurai at level 9 in one on one combat on flat ground. In multiplayer. However cost effective wise, I suppose you only need around level 6 katana samurai? To have the maximum melee attack possible, which is what matters. No Daichis cannot survive as well as katana samurai.

    In singleplayer the levelling system is very different, and doesn't seem to break the units as hard as multiplayer does. Perhaps Rome 2 should use this levelling system instead, if any at all. The upgrades in Shogun 2 were far too powerful.
  • dark as silverdark as silver Senior Member Posts: 1,645Registered Users
    edited May 2013
    Colour wrote: »
    In singleplayer the levelling system is very different, and doesn't seem to break the units as hard as multiplayer does. Perhaps Rome 2 should use this levelling system instead, if any at all. The upgrades in Shogun 2 were far too powerful.
    The first paragraph is just rambling and I don't have the time to decipher it so I'll explain the differences with SP levelling and MP levelling.
    In Sp when a unit levels up all their stats are increased ( morale only on odd levels and armour never though I think are the exceptions). Whereas in MP only the upgrades you want are increased in the name of customisation, to offset this apparent loss the upgrades are cheaper in comparison and have increase the selected stat by more.
    The problem occurs as not all stats are equal in S2 test have shown that 1 attack is about equal to 1.5 defences, so buy only taking the good upgrades players are able to create powerhouse units with better stats and lower costs than equivalently upgraded guys.
    The SP system is better balanced (except for the free upgrade bug) however it isn't used in MP because it doesn't give customisation and a sense of ownership for the unit. Because of this we're probably going to see a similar system in Rome if they continue with the avatar conquest system.
  • ThePrussianPrinceThePrussianPrince Senior Member Posts: 279Registered Users
    edited May 2013
    Colour wrote: »
    I don't believe katana samurai are OP, unless they have been upgraded to such a limit. I used to think they were not so good at level 9, until I saw it myself. I liked to keep around some level 8 katana cavalry because they usually demolish everything in their path, and are very good in melee. Charge some katana cavalry into some katana samurai, and the katana cavalry will win easily. However this completely changes when both units are levelled up, katana cavalry at level 8 or 9 cannot beat katana samurai at level 9 in one on one combat on flat ground. In multiplayer. However cost effective wise, I suppose you only need around level 6 katana samurai? To have the maximum melee attack possible, which is what matters. No Daichis cannot survive as well as katana samurai.

    In singleplayer the levelling system is very different, and doesn't seem to break the units as hard as multiplayer does. Perhaps Rome 2 should use this levelling system instead, if any at all. The upgrades in Shogun 2 were far too powerful.

    Hmm, let's see, level 9 katana samurai... Indeed very powerful in melee, however, they are very expensive. If they bring a core of that, they'll simply have too little of anything else (ranged units, cavalry). What you do in this scenario is you use matchlocks to destroy their high level units, and flanking. Yes, using level 9 units is going to work very well against low level players and mid level ones because they have no idea how to counter them. But, once you get to the higher tiers of MP, you will soon realize that level 9 units are not as good as they seemed to be before. Someone like Majutsu or Killerfisch would be able to take down such a core without a problem.

    In fact, I would go as far as saying that level 9 katana samurai are more of a surprise build, and not a standard composition. Why? Because such a build is easier to use, but has glaring weaknesses and can be efficiently dealt with with more, but less expensive melee units if you engage properly. As previously mentioned, this most of the time involves flanking, rear charges with cavalry, and matchlocks firing. I would even call such a build ineffective at the high level of play, and risky.

    This is only an example, but as you can see, while some of the units are way too powerful at the lower levels of the game, they may be of much less use further on.
  • LanceClanLanceClan Senior Member Posts: 138Registered Users
    edited May 2013
    In pretty much every Total War game I've played online balancing upgrades seems more beneficial and cost effective than bringing a core of super upgraded units. Or of bringing a bunch of upgraded units.

    Edit:
    9 level katana sam in S2 would seem akin to bringing a bunch of super upgraded Urban Cohorts in RTW. You may surprise your opponent or be able to rush them and win through simple strength of your urbs, but for a good opponent they'll have greater mobility and unit diversity that the'll just pick you apart. In RTW for instance that'd mean skirmishing you while they shoot your urbs up until they can simply surround and charge you from all angles, resulting in a heroic victory.
  • ColourColour Member Posts: 73Registered Users
    edited May 2013
    Look. Think about it this way. Katana cavalry are effective verses katana samurai, right? Then why does level 9 katana cavalry, lose against katana samurai of the same level?

    I understand how the levelling systems work. You don't have to explain that to me at all.

    I never said they had only level 9 katana samurai, I never said it was a build, it was just one of the glaring problems I saw with the levelling system. There is of course bow warrior monks, a leadership general, and naginatas (which are useless since the katana samurai do perfectly fine handling cavalry on their own). You can say "use this strategy" or "do this" but when their units are just plain better by such a huge margin, no form of strategy will be effective verses even the weakest players with that army composition. If they were ashigaru, perhaps you could break them, but samurai of such a level will not break.

    I don't understand then need for the kind of levelling system that allows normal units to become so powerful, that it breaks the balance of the game. Especially when to get to that kind of level, you need to put in hours of gameplay attempting to get clan tokens so that you can unlock the level 3 and level 4 melee attack bonuses for your veteran troops.
  • Sir TwiG of ShrubberySir TwiG of Shrubbery Senior Member Posts: 390Registered Users
    edited May 2013
    Colour wrote: »
    Look. Think about it this way. Katana cavalry are effective verses katana samurai, right? Then why does level 9 katana cavalry, lose against katana samurai of the same level?

    I understand how the levelling systems work. You don't have to explain that to me at all.

    I never said they had only level 9 katana samurai, I never said it was a build, it was just one of the glaring problems I saw with the levelling system. There is of course bow warrior monks, a leadership general, and naginatas (which are useless since the katana samurai do perfectly fine handling cavalry on their own). You can say "use this strategy" or "do this" but when their units are just plain better by such a huge margin, no form of strategy will be effective verses even the weakest players with that army composition. If they were ashigaru, perhaps you could break them, but samurai of such a level will not break.

    I don't understand then need for the kind of levelling system that allows normal units to become so powerful, that it breaks the balance of the game. Especially when to get to that kind of level, you need to put in hours of gameplay attempting to get clan tokens so that you can unlock the level 3 and level 4 melee attack bonuses for your veteran troops.
    Plzz show me the replay where a lvl 9 Kat sam beat a lvl 9 Kat cav
    Idk wat problems u have with bow monks, naginatas, and leadership gens but the fact u have a problem with them shows ur lack of knowledge of the units

    And like I've said before u don't need the clan skill upgrades for attack lvl 2 units do jus fine
    Frankly the imbalances u speak of dont exist leveling up units makes them moar useful at wat they already do they don't turn units into invincible op units like u say
    RTK | TwiG
  • ColourColour Member Posts: 73Registered Users
    edited May 2013
    Plzz show me the replay where a lvl 9 Kat sam beat a lvl 9 Kat cav
    Idk wat problems u have with bow monks, naginatas, and leadership gens but the fact u have a problem with them shows ur lack of knowledge of the units

    And like I've said before u don't need the clan skill upgrades for attack lvl 2 units do jus fine
    Frankly the imbalances u speak of dont exist leveling up units makes them moar useful at wat they already do they don't turn units into invincible op units like u say

    The replay is probably broken due to the updates that have happened on Shogun 2, and I would have to wade through a ton of them to find it even if it were not broken. However I am sure someone can tell you from their own experiences that level 9 katana samurai can beat level 8 or 9 katana cavalry. I could also ask you the same question: Show me where level 9 katana samurai lost verses a level 9 katana cavalry.

    I never said I had a problem with those units, or a leadership general. I mention that they were elements to consider. You can't just say "counter with this" or "do this" because there's more to it than just the level 9 katana samurai. And even then, as I said, they are not the only problem.

    I do however have a problem with bow warrior monks. That is because they were incredibly effective verses my general units at times, before Shogun 2, if I remember rightly, I believe arrows were not so much of a threat to generals. Bow warrior arrows seem especially effective verses a general's unit, and focused fire from two squads of these can quickly take down even a heavily armoured general.

    It is of my opinion that veteran units should not play such an important factor in the multiplayer game. However in Shogun 2, veteran units are very important, and a player who doesn't use veteran units at all will find it difficult to win games verses those who do have veteran units. This should not be the case, for reasons many people have stated before not only in this thread, but on the Shogun 2 forums before now.

    I find the part where you are continuously stating that I lack knowledge of the game, and telling me things I already know about it, a little insulting. I would appreciate it if you stop that. I would also appreciate it if you use at least simple grammar when you make forum posts.
  • grifforgriffor Senior Member Posts: 341Registered Users
    edited May 2013
    Colour wrote: »
    Look. Think about it this way. Katana cavalry are effective verses katana samurai, right? Then why does level 9 katana cavalry, lose against katana samurai of the same level?

    I understand how the levelling systems work. You don't have to explain that to me at all.

    I never said they had only level 9 katana samurai, I never said it was a build, it was just one of the glaring problems I saw with the levelling system. There is of course bow warrior monks, a leadership general, and naginatas (which are useless since the katana samurai do perfectly fine handling cavalry on their own). You can say "use this strategy" or "do this" but when their units are just plain better by such a huge margin, no form of strategy will be effective verses even the weakest players with that army composition. If they were ashigaru, perhaps you could break them, but samurai of such a level will not break.

    I don't understand then need for the kind of levelling system that allows normal units to become so powerful, that it breaks the balance of the game. Especially when to get to that kind of level, you need to put in hours of gameplay attempting to get clan tokens so that you can unlock the level 3 and level 4 melee attack bonuses for your veteran troops.

    i have a few lvl 9 kat sams true they are amazing and can beat any other infantry unit in 1v1 combat however they cost a arm and a leg to bring matchlocks will tear them apart they require u to bring sprs to defend them from cav so they arnt wasted needlessly, the lvling system works just fine lvl 2 no-dachi's are probably the most effective unit for the cost, followed by lvl 6 monks, and im sure someone will say something i have forgotten. spend some time learning the units you will bring practice with friends, i agree with twig show us this replay i find it hard to believe that you lvled a kat cav correctly and lost to a kat sam sense you said it was lvl 8 which makes no sense at all to begin with.
    Colour wrote: »
    The replay is probably broken due to the updates that have happened on Shogun 2, and I would have to wade through a ton of them to find it even if it were not broken. However I am sure someone can tell you from their own experiences that level 9 katana samurai can beat level 8 or 9 katana cavalry. I could also ask you the same question: Show me where level 9 katana samurai lost verses a level 9 katana cavalry.

    I never said I had a problem with those units, or a leadership general. I mention that they were elements to consider. You can't just say "counter with this" or "do this" because there's more to it than just the level 9 katana samurai. And even then, as I said, they are not the only problem.

    I do however have a problem with bow warrior monks. That is because they were incredibly effective verses my general units at times, before Shogun 2, if I remember rightly, I believe arrows were not so much of a threat to generals. Bow warrior arrows seem especially effective verses a general's unit, and focused fire from two squads of these can quickly take down even a heavily armoured general.

    It is of my opinion that veteran units should not play such an important factor in the multiplayer game. However in Shogun 2, veteran units are very important, and a player who doesn't use veteran units at all will find it difficult to win games verses those who do have veteran units. This should not be the case, for reasons many people have stated before not only in this thread, but on the Shogun 2 forums before now.

    I find the part where you are continuously stating that I lack knowledge of the game, and telling me things I already know about it, a little insulting. I would appreciate it if you stop that. I would also appreciate it if you use at least simple grammar when you make forum posts.

    instead of asking twig to fix his grammer, why don't u work on learning what is current in multiplayer cause it sure isnt bow monk gen sniping
  • ColourColour Member Posts: 73Registered Users
    edited May 2013
    griffor wrote: »
    i have a few lvl 9 kat sams true they are amazing and can beat any other infantry unit in 1v1 combat however they cost a arm and a leg to bring matchlocks will tear them apart they require u to bring sprs to defend them from cav so they arnt wasted needlessly, the lvling system works just fine lvl 2 no-dachi's are probably the most effective unit for the cost, followed by lvl 6 monks, and im sure someone will say something i have forgotten. spend some time learning the units you will bring practice with friends, i agree with twig show us this replay i find it hard to believe that you lvled a kat cav correctly and lost to a kat sam sense you said it was lvl 8 which makes no sense at all to begin with.

    I do not believe you will need to bring spears to defend verses cavalry when you have high level katana samurai, and in my experience gunpowder really went downhill when they nerfed the reload speed and introduced a friendly fire morale effect. Matchlocks are no match for katana samurai unless they are within a fortress (which then you just, sit outside and kill them all with bow warrior monks). Katana cavalry is the most cost effective cavalry in defeating katana samurai, I believe, and I also believe that it fails to defeat them at higher levels. I understand that katana cavalry was, and might still be, very rare online.

    I am not sure what the current strategies for Shogun 2 are, but if it has changed to bringing primarily level 2 no-dachi units then I believe I have been away for too long. I remember level 5 and level 9 loan sword spams, long lines of gunpowder spam, lines of spearmen in loose formation with gunners behind them, with archers behind them, cavalry only spam centred around bow cavalry, level 9 katana sam/bow warrior armies, and perhaps a few more I am forgetting.

    I have already mentioned, the replay is old and I believe updates would have broken the replay. I levelled the katana cavalry correctly. I had one squad that was level 9 and one that was level 8. Both of them failed to defeat a squad of level 9 katana samurai each.
    griffor wrote: »
    instead of asking twig to fix his grammer, why don't u work on learning what is current in multiplayer cause it sure isnt bow monk gen sniping

    That... what- I kindly asked for better grammar. It would make him a better person.

    I stopped playing Shogun 2 online after I felt it became a mess. Before the Otomo clan pack was released for sure. I never wanted to go back because of this issue. Unless they nerfed bow monks, I would be suprised if bow monk general sniping has somehow disappeared. I just hope that this changes with Rome 2, and that there will not be all of the balance issues we encountered on release, and the balance issues I would have thought are still present in Shogun 2.
  • damadman228damadman228 Senior Member Posts: 2,437Registered Users
    edited May 2013
    How does someone who hasn't even played in months and who doesn't seem to ever have been very good at it expect to convince the active S2 community of an unproven claim like that? All of us have seen enough proof of you being completely wrong on everything you said in this thread. I for my part hope that CA stop paying too much attention to whiners like you who blame every single one of their mistakes on some supposedly op units without going through the necessary steps to ensure their judgment is at least marginally accurate. Your complacency can't be allowed to screw over everybody else's experience with the game.
    This might be helpful for those still playing S2 MP:
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=444087

    Also check out this awesome channel:
    https://www.youtube.com/user/milkandcookiesTW
  • Sir TwiG of ShrubberySir TwiG of Shrubbery Senior Member Posts: 390Registered Users
    edited May 2013
    Colour I don't understand how using proper grammar will make me a better person....
    I've already explained lvl 2 units r the way to go
    U keep complaining about different units first u complain Kat SAMs are op then u complain bow monks are to powerful
    And then u say tht matchlocks stand no chance to Kat SAMs

    Based on these comments IMO you lack knowledge of the current game
    There is nothing wrong I'm sure u wud b better informed if u played moar but stop complaining about imbalances tht don't exist
    RTK | TwiG
  • LanceClanLanceClan Senior Member Posts: 138Registered Users
    edited May 2013
    Depends what you mean by 'better' person. The use of better grammar would send Twig up the World Grammar Rankings, but in seeking to improve his grammar he would be forced to neglect other areas of his life. For instance, he would have less time to practice his skills in digging, or in swordsmanship, or in the use of spreadsheets.

    Twig may end up improving his position on the World Better Person Rankings through improved grammar, but if he is not careful his decline in other skills might mean he actually falls further down the rankings.

    One must be mindful of these things before embarking on the learning of a new skill.
  • Sima Zhong DaSima Zhong Da Senior Member Posts: 532Registered Users
    edited May 2013
    『Ok.

    As you can see from the replay, Katana Samurai is easily beaten by Katana Cavalry. This is a very easily reproducible result that I can make happen for both sides given all things equal. Granted, it could be different in Avatar, but more likely that not the results will be the same.

    Of course, I do enjoy the arrogance from the self-proclaimed "competitive" players in this thread. I very rarely need to go dig up proof that there is something wrong with people who feel entitled to lord over other players on the basis that they play better, or have played longer. They provide it voluntarily on a daily basis. Even worse is the notion that their opinions far more valid than others and based on the virtue of their playtime, not their points.

    EDIT: If you are wondering why there is an exceedingly large concentration of high and mighty people today, you might want to look into this thread where basically the same group of people are arguing that they should have a large say in how multiplayer works because they play "better" and more "competitive" than other people.

    Would you want multiplayer to be decided by these kind of people? I personally wouldn't. I find it laughable to dismiss reasonable arguments, and it wouldn't matter it it came from the high or median end of the spectrum. "Stronger-than-thou" arguments however, are, and should be considered invalid immediately.
    Modern war is conducted against an out-group by powerful people who have an exaggerated opinion of themselves and their degree of morality, are overconfident, often have an illusion of control, enjoy taking risks and are almost always male. - Robert Trivers, Deceit and Self-deception
  • LanceClanLanceClan Senior Member Posts: 138Registered Users
    edited May 2013
    I dunno, if I were a tennis player I'd probably put more worth on the opinion of Federer or Nadal than I would that of a random down the local club.

    But then they're not self proclaimed competitive players but are backed up by tournament success.
«1
Sign In or Register to comment.