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 should matter

2»

Comments

  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 2,038
    Warlocke said:

    I have played TW multiplayer.
    I have never said it doesn’t matter or isn’t good.
    What did I say that was rude? Telling people that they have to admit to agreeing with your opinions is rude. You don’t see that?

    Well, with how you're trying to tell me that I can't actually speak facts, and that seems kinda rude.

    And that's what I'm doing, speaking the facts of the matter.


    Because I never said that everyone HAS to agree with me.

    I said that not giving the multiplayer a fair unbiased chance isn't ok, because that's basically implying that you just know you don't like it or that it's bad without every having tried it.

    Because if you go in and play CoD or something else, with your mind 150% made up that you won't like it, that's not giving the game a fair chance.

    And I don't care who you are, I won't stand for that sort of nonsense.


    And the way you say that you'll never play TW multiplayer makes me doubt a bit if you've actually played it or not.

    And I've ran into other people who have said very similar things to you. The "of course we've played TW MP!" type of thing. And several of them were, as the Among Us players say, pretty sus in how they treated the topic in general.


    I don't know what your experiences were like if you played or not,

    Maybe you won a couple of battles, or lost a couple, or had the misfortune of running into a spammer or cheeselord a few times in a row, I don't know.

    But I do think that if you or anyone else just lets a few bad experiences define their views on something like multiplayer, of any game, then I think that that's a crying shame.

    Because it's sort of like learning to ride a bike, or really learning to do anything for that matter.

    You shouldn't let a few mistakes or failures (yours or those of others) stop you from learning and being able to enjoy a part of a game in this case.


    And like I've said before, I don't expect everyone to who love the TW campaigns to suddenly give them up in favor of the TW multiplayer.

    I honestly just want people to give the multiplayer a properly fair chance, especially if it can be done with friends.


    I've found that I had a LOT more fun in just a couple of battles on Rome 2 with friends than I had had in years of owning the game. And I've owned it since day 1.


    And I just wish that some people wouldn't be so stubborn about this sort of thing, and just be willing to admit that playing against other players might actually be fun, at least if done with friends.

    I just think it's funny how worked up some people get about someone saying they should give the MP of a game a fair chance.
  • WarlockeWarlocke Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 3,722
    edited September 7
    Where did I say you couldn’t speak facts? Quote please.

    Because I never said that everyone HAS to agree with me.

    Yes, that’s exactly what you said. Right here:

    “you should admit that it'd be cool if CA did something like”

    And that wasn’t the first time. I don’t think you are tying to be rude, but it is rude to tell people to admit to something they have already said they don’t feel. You say lots of rude things, like “if you would only think for a moment,” implying that other people aren’t thinking.

    I’m not attempting to be mean to you. I’m just letting you know, because this is how it comes across.

    Also, insinuating the somebody else is lying is also incredibly rude. If you want to ever have pleasant, non-adversarial conversations with people, you should work on that.

    I just think it's funny how worked up some people get about someone saying they should give the MP of a game a fair chance.
    Your topics never fall apart because of their content. They do because of your behavior. Again, not trying to be personal, but I’m doing you the courtesy of letting you know.
    ò_ó
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 33,897
    @VikingHuscal1066

    OK, this is now unrelated to the topic, but would it hurt you to format your posts so they aren't so annoying to read? Like, don't make every single sentence its own paragraph and please edit replies together instead of double, triple or quadruple posting?
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 2,038
    Warlocke said:

    Well, I've had people try to obviously lie about these sorts of topics in the past, on the Steam forums for some TW games.

    So you WILL forgive me for not taking everyone at their word the first time, especially when they first state that they don't like multiplayer.


    But my real issue is that it seems like you, Commisar, and others are just disagreeing for the sake of disagreement.


    Because it seems both hilarious and ridiculous at the same time that someone who claims to be a fan of the TW games wouldn't like the idea of having some sort of system that lets you create your own units, in both single and multiplayer.

    I think that most people would jump at such a chance to have such a chance, let alone to have one in a TW game.

    It feels like you guys just don't want to admit that something someone else suggests or says might actually be fun or better than you first thought.


    Yeah, maybe it sucked if you played some TW MP against an exploiting cheeselord, but maybe it might actually be fun to just play a battle with friends you know won't do such ridiculous things.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 2,038
    edited September 8

    @VikingHuscal1066

    OK, this is now unrelated to the topic, but would it hurt you to format your posts so they aren't so annoying to read? Like, don't make every single sentence its own paragraph and please edit replies together instead of double, triple or quadruple posting?

    Well I'm sorry, I just have ADHD and some other stuff, and I've seen people who literally make comments that are just one giant paragraph with no breaks or anything in them, and those are really annoying to read.

    So understandably, I tend to like to break up my threads and comments into smaller parts, because I don't want other people to have to feel like they're reading a chapter of LotR every time I post a thread or comment.

    I just want to make it easier to read.

    And I feel like some times that parts of what people sometimes say is worth it's own comment, as again, just trying to say everything in a single comment seems a little tedious.
    Post edited by VikingHuscal1066 on
  • WarlockeWarlocke Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 3,722
    edited September 8
    See, this is exactly what I’m talking about:

    “So you WILL forgive me for not taking everyone at their word the first time”

    Asking for forgiveness is polite. Demanding forgiveness is rude.

    I’ve never said I didn’t want a unit customization feature. We aren’t disagreeing with you for the sake of disagreeing with you. Unfortunately, you don’t seem to be able to identify where, let alone why, we are disagreeing with you, so there really isn’t much of a point in talking about anything. I’m not going to respond here anymore. Please refrain from addressing me in the future.
    ò_ó
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 2,038
    Warlocke said:

    See, this is exactly what I’m talking about:

    “So you WILL forgive me for not taking everyone at their word the first time”

    Asking for forgiveness is polite. Demanding forgiveness is rude.

    I’ve never said I didn’t want a unit customization feature. We aren’t disagreeing with you for the sake of disagreeing with you. Unfortunately, you don’t seem to be able to identify where, let alone why, we are disagreeing with you, so there really isn’t much of a point in talking about anything. I’m not going to respond here anymore. Please refrain from addressing me in the future.

    No, I'm simply stating why I'm not going to just always believe everyone by their first words.

    And I've seen plenty of people disagree just for the sake of having an argument rather than a discussion dude.


    And I understand why you're disagreeing with me perfectly fine.

    It's all about your opinions.


    And again, I'm not saying that any of you HAVE to stop playing TW campaigns in favor of multiplayer, just that you SHOULD give the games a fair unbiased chance or give them another chance.

    Maybe, just maybe, you might actually come to appreciate what it has to offer and why it's always part of the TW games.


    It seems like you simply don't want to admit that someone else might just be correct about something you're not normally interested in and that there might be more to it than you think. That maybe the TW multiplayer, played with some friends, might just be fun.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,949
    No we aren't disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. Each time we have disagreed we have explained why in the thread.

    Telling us to go play something that hasn't changed since we last played it, doesn't help at all. They haven't changed the game in any way to fix the issues I have with multiplayer battles in TW. I have previously played with friends in the battles, we didn't find it much fun and quickly stopped. It holds no interest for us, playing it again will not change that. This isn't unbiased this is the state the multiplayer is in for us and we didn't go in to it expecting to not enjoy it, I don't go and choose to do things I dislike when I don't need to.

    Why?

    I would think that they could base the mechanic around different levels of troops and such rather than just having you just recruit units like you always do in every TW game.

    I just think that a game like Medieval 3 would need to spice it up in some way, that's all.


    And I think that they could make the creating of units based around the unit tiers and just what you sort of equipment you might want to give them.

    As I have said: it's not historical, it will be a nightmare to balance, it will make every faction feel the same and means a lot more time developing that mechanic and making sure it actually works (avoiding clipping issues or gaps on models for instance) that other elements wont get the attention it deserves. So yeah for what comes across as a gimmick, it doesn't attract me.

    The tiers are already in the games and do that. So it's no change.


    But I think that one thing they could do, that could tie into the whole creating units system could be with a major change to how technology works.


    Now, I'm not saying that all the tech trees should be completely overhauled or anything, but I do think that the technologies themselves, at least the military ones, could be somewhat streamlined and focused around different types of military advancements.

    They could make the military technologies more focused on different aspects of medieval warfare rather than just X technology gives Y bonus to Z units.

    They could have the advancement of certain types of weapons and armor that unlock more advanced options for what you could equip your units with.

    You could do things like focus your military technological advancements on crossbows, and unlock better types of crossbows and such more quickly.

    Then you could create units of professional and elite crossbowmen armed with more advanced and effective crossbows.

    Many of the advancements didn't work like that. Most armour wasn't held back due to the lack of drawing up the design but the lack of the industry. As the industrial method of building up larger and reliable plates they expanded to become full plate. This then lead to needing weapons to try and counter the increasing levels of armour. This also impacted the use of shields and the power of bows (both standard and cross). Then as the industrial level got more common people were able to become master craftsmen and improve elements, add artistic flairs and so on.

    This type of advancement fits the mid to late Renaissance and onwards. Medieval it is more improvements to existing elements and opening new options. So an unlock that gives % bonuses to existing units then a new building that allows a range of new units makes more sense.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 2,038
    edited September 8
    Commisar said:

    Of course, here comes the "These sandbox games must be 100% historically accurate!" nonsense. Like the TW games are 100% historically accurate in the first place.

    It's better to have a more interesting mechanic or system than to just stagnate and do the same stuff every time.


    But I've grown tired of this ridiculous back and forth with you guys.

    All you do is say the same things over and over again in an attempt to not admit that someone other than you might just be right about something.

    People and their opinions these days. But that's not really a topic for this thread, so I'll just stop there.


    Because the thing is Commisar, this is the internet, and I've had enough experience talking to people on it to know that you don't HAVE to say anything you don't WANT to say. There's no one there holding a gun to your head telling you what to type out.

    I've seen enough people lie about this or that topic enough to not just always take people on their first word, especially when it comes to topics like this, where there's often choice involved. Many people will often just fall back on trying to use their opinions as some sort of magical be all end all point.

    That's why I don't fully believe you or Warlocke when you've played the TW multiplayer, because if you haven't, and actually you admitted to that, that would put you in a bit of a bad light.

    And again, I've seen enough people try to use their opinions as magic shields from any and all sorts of facts or arguing points to not have to admit that anyone else might possibly be correct about something in a discussion or debate.


    But I think the funniest irony to all this is that if this debate was all reversed, with me or someone else saying that we think the TW campaigns are boring and suck, without ever having played any of them, you guys would totally tell us that we should give the campaigns a proper fair chance.

    I mean you wouldn't now, simply because I'm saying that, but if I hadn't and it was the start of the discussion, you guys totally would do that.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,949
    No where did I say they need to be 100% accurate. I pointed out that the suggestions aren't historical where you claimed and don't make sense for the game. We control more than just units and the techs for building chains and buffing previous units makes sense for both history and gameplay.

    Neither are more interesting mechanics to me. Stripping the game of content, the setting and balance doesn't come across as interesting.

    Yes we've noticed you dislike discussions where people don't praise your ideas.

    ...you mean like you're entire post history is? And how you counter other people is to apply opinions and ideas you dislike to others despite them not saying it?

    Why? Because we disagree with you that means we haven't played it? Because multiplayer TW is the most popular thing in the world and everyone who's tried it once has to keep playing it? If that was the case, you wouldn't need to post such a thread. So you know there is an issue in getting and keeping people playing the multiplayer.

    We haven't used our opinions to block any real points, you have. You have openly stated you don't care about facts and statistics, putting your opinion over evidence.

    Again, you have no evidence of this, again linking to my earlier point that you apply your own opinion to others. But I have experienced that said for TW games. We often get it with the range of different periods and regions covered by the game and peoples suggestions for possible games. One of the common replies I use is it's not for everyone and TW has a good range of other titles that might be their cup of tea. I enjoy ToB but I do fully understand why people might not be interested in it. I do share the elements of the game I enjoy from it and why I enjoy the time frame (even pointing out the flaws in Empire).
  • WarlockeWarlocke Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 3,722
    I said I wasn’t going to post anymore but for some reason I’m still being brought up and accused of lying, so here:



    Now leave me out of it.
    ò_ó
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 2,038
    Warlocke said:

    I said I wasn’t going to post anymore but for some reason I’m still being brought up and accused of lying, so here:

    Now leave me out of it.

    I never said you were outright lying Warlocke, I said that this being the internet, that one can't be too careful with what everyone says and that people don't HAVE to post stuff they don't want to, which includes lying about stuff.

    And I doubt that most of those were earned while playing with friends dude.

    I'm just saying, playing with friends and such can feel a lot different than just playing with a bunch of randos.

    Not to mention that there's a bunch of user made maps on Shogun 2, which could really spice up that game's multiplayer.

    Because let's be honest, one of Shogun 2's multiplayer's biggest faults was the terrible map design.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 2,038
    Commisar said:

    I have no issue with people disagreeing with me. I take issue with people trying to avoid admitting that someone else might have a point and making a big deal out of nothing.

    Because that's what this is. You guys acting like what I'm suggesting or asking you to do is so much worse than it really is.

    You guys act like I'm asking you to pull your own teeth out or something.

    It's freaking multiplayer of a game series you guys claim to like.

    It honestly seems like you guys just don't want to admit that maybe, just maybe, I, someone who's not you, might just be right about how TW MP with some friends could be fun.

    I just think that it's funny how you say I'm trying to force my opinion on you guys, but you're the one trying so freaking hard to avoid ever acknowledging some of the points I've made. Like how playing with friends can be a vastly different experience than playing with a bunch of random people.

    Now I can't say that every TW MP is super well balanced, but I can say that if you or anyone actually tried to play a few battles with a couple of friends, you might actually have some fun.

    Heck, I had more fun with a few friends using a mod I made for Rome 2 than I had had in years of owning the game. That's how big of an effect a few friends can have on some TW MP.


    This is the mod we had fun with.
    https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2168038091
  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USARegistered Users, Moderators, Knights Posts: 22,312
    Another thread successfully hijacked by the OP.
    Closed.
    "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/Mark Twain
    “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”–George Santayana, The Life of Reason, 1905.

This discussion has been closed.