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

MP battles in SP campaign.

QuintoMaximoQuintoMaximo Junior MemberPosts: 26Registered Users
I was reading a thread about a guy who wasn’t enjoying single player campaign since he started to play QB. Multiplayer campaigns required you to have a friend that likes total war and also that has time to play with you from time to time and sometimes that can be a pain. But what if we get an option like it was in Napoleon total war??

I remember that in Napoleon tw you could tick a box and thus allowing people to play as the AI in a campaign battle. Sometimes you can lose more that you expected or even lose an important battle, but that would give a challenge to people that are asking for it. In the case you just want to play against the AI, just untick the box and that’s it.

Comments

  • 39821739175248623982173917524862 Posts: 667Registered Users
    Yes, this would be a good feature. I remember S2 having it, I believe it was called the drop in battle. This would cut the requirement of having a 2nd player available to play with you at all times, at the expense of not having a player control a faction in the campaign.
    I'd really like to see a return of this, but I think it would only be available if both parties are not using mods. I think this is why CA has not implemented this. Would be cool to have campaign battles on the GCCM maps with another player.
  • Godefroy_de_BouillonGodefroy_de_Bouillon Posts: 1,718Registered Users
    there are h2h campaigns which are pretty good.
  • QuintoMaximoQuintoMaximo Junior Member Posts: 26Registered Users

    there are h2h campaigns which are pretty good.

    Is not the same,for the h2h campaigns you need a friend that has time to play and you can only play whenever he can play or sometimes you don’t have time to play while he can.

    You get the freedom of playing whenever you can/want and also the good thing of playing against a human player and in your campaign. Making that battle meaningful in a broader sense than just playing quick battle. That’s what I think
  • QuintoMaximoQuintoMaximo Junior Member Posts: 26Registered Users

    there are h2h campaigns which are pretty good.

    Is not the same,for the h2h campaigns you need a friend that has time to play and you can only play whenever he can play or sometimes you don’t have time to play while he can.

    You get the freedom of playing whenever you can/want and also the good thing of playing against a human player and in your campaign. Making that battle meaningful in a broader sense than just playing quick battle. That’s what I think
    For example, I started a campaign with another player, but he doesn’t esnt to play anymore so that campaign... is lost and I can’t force anyone to play and if I didn’t want to continue that campaign it would be the same, I wouldn’t want anyone saying that I need to play to continue the campaign.

  • HoneyBunHoneyBun Senior Member Posts: 4,289Registered Users
    It's a nice theory.

    CA removed it because the reality was awful.

    I did it once. The opponent army never moved.

    They are making an FPS. Who knew a company could have a mid-life crisis ...

  • QuintoMaximoQuintoMaximo Junior Member Posts: 26Registered Users
    HoneyBun said:

    It's a nice theory.

    CA removed it because the reality was awful.

    I did it once. The opponent army never moved.

    Could be awful at that time, nothing that cannot be fixed. And if you just did it once how do you know that it wasn’t just a troll or someone that didn’t really know how to play. You can find that kind of people in normal multiplayer and that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t work
  • HoneyBunHoneyBun Senior Member Posts: 4,289Registered Users

    HoneyBun said:

    It's a nice theory.

    CA removed it because the reality was awful.

    I did it once. The opponent army never moved.

    Could be awful at that time, nothing that cannot be fixed. And if you just did it once how do you know that it wasn’t just a troll or someone that didn’t really know how to play. You can find that kind of people in normal multiplayer and that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t work
    But I'm afraid it does.

    There's no way that normal SP players will tolerate some random MP trolling potentially ruining a 40-60 hour campaign by suiciding an army in a key fight.

    And it's not just trolls. It's trolls + dodgy internet connections + players from different countries + drunks + grannies who don't know what the button they pressed does

    The SP community, much to my disappointment, won't accept RND in Skaven misfires - there's no way we would accept 10 to 15% of battles being ruined because of an MP element.

    They are making an FPS. Who knew a company could have a mid-life crisis ...

  • QuintoMaximoQuintoMaximo Junior Member Posts: 26Registered Users
    You can always choose not to let that fight to multiplayer, there will be people who would like to take the risk and other people who wouldn’t.
  • GettoGeckoGettoGecko Posts: 712Registered Users
    I assume CA had enough metrics on how much it was used to make the decission to drop a feature thats already in the engine. Its not that they would have a lot of work to maintain it but if something is not even looked at by most players than there is no reason to keep it.
    Look at how few players play multiplayer at all, than this low number is already split into those who only play campaign, those who play mainly battles and very few who play both equally.
    How much people would try and enjoy this feature? Playing with a minor garrison against a full force wouldn't be much fun so eighter nobody would jump in or if you get a random battle there is no reason to fight so going afk to grant the victory faster makes sense. Than there is the other part, how many battles which would be equal for the campaign player and the battle player will the campaign player offer to jump in, most people wouldn't do it because we are all humans.
  • QuintoMaximoQuintoMaximo Junior Member Posts: 26Registered Users

    I assume CA had enough metrics on how much it was used to make the decission to drop a feature thats already in the engine. Its not that they would have a lot of work to maintain it but if something is not even looked at by most players than there is no reason to keep it.
    Look at how few players play multiplayer at all, than this low number is already split into those who only play campaign, those who play mainly battles and very few who play both equally.
    How much people would try and enjoy this feature? Playing with a minor garrison against a full force wouldn't be much fun so eighter nobody would jump in or if you get a random battle there is no reason to fight so going afk to grant the victory faster makes sense. Than there is the other part, how many battles which would be equal for the campaign player and the battle player will the campaign player offer to jump in, most people wouldn't do it because we are all humans.

    While I agree with most of you have written, I would just jump into a unfair fight to do as much damage as I can to the player so that player will get some problems during his campaign. Thats what I would do, but I do understand than some people would just go afk or troll.

    Besides, the percentage of people who has played more than 10 battles in multiplayer is like 10% of the total number of players (or that’s what I read somewhere on the internet). If that is true, they actual people who plays multiplayer regularly is even lower than that. So why would they maintain those huge servers for a feature that not many people plays???? I don’t think that what I’m asking for is that hard to implement or to maintain but I can be wrong of course.
  • GettoGeckoGettoGecko Posts: 712Registered Users
    Only CA knows the numbers but game 2 has the 10 multiplayer battle achievement with 14% global which you also get form just playing coop campaigns. Game 1 has an achievement for playing a multiplayer campaign with 22,8%, so you can argue that there is already a massive drop from people who tried mutliplayer campaign to those who play long enough to reach 10 battles. If I remember correctly the said during game 1 that less than 5% tried quick battles but as far as I read it here in the forum the multiplayer battle community got larger or is at least better organised than in game 2.
  • GwydionGwydion Senior Member Posts: 2,145Registered Users
    WarMaster Gorehowl.... my steam id... always down to play warhammer
    PLEASE CA!!! Chaos Warriors need a faction that is not horde only by the time the trilogy is finished! We beg of you!

    Just Realized this topic has been viewed more, the topic of " Limiting Race Expansion/ Colonization Expansion" alone than more than half of the stickied things at the top of the forum... I hope you are too CA and I mean that in a positive way from a huge fan!

    Please improve sieges! Add racial flavor and ACTUALLY make them "deeper rather than wide" copy and paste with different art needs to go!
  • dodge33cymrudodge33cymru Posts: 1,685Registered Users
    Ha, I just put this suggestion in another thread and thought I was being super original...

    If it was already in Napoleon then I'd be well up for that. I usually only have time for a battle or two per session so I'd be well up for being an 'opponent'.
Sign In or Register to comment.