|
The Napoleon style multiplayer was amazing and I wish they stuck with it. Speaking as a dweeb who only plays single player games, it was always refreshing and a nice break from the norm to encounter a human randomly playing as Russia or the what have you. Games where I can play through the plot but can still encounter players (Napoleon, the dark souls games, etc) always interest me and I wish the games industry would produce more of them.
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 11:45 |
|
|
Carnalfex posted:What would you like to see added or improved as far as multiplayer goes? Free for all, for starters. Army customization/painting (this may end up included) and some sort of progression like in Shogun 2 would be good too. Captain Beans posted:I can hop on Rome 2 and get a game going in like 5 minutes, so I feel like the community is still more than the top tier youtubers. Pick an army based on cost and have a battle is really been the core of TW multiplayer for every game with the exception of Shogun 2, which I actually disliked because you had to unlock units. Well that and Napoleon had the feature where automatch could drop you into someone's singleplayer game to control an AI army (this was cool but only worked with no mods). People will definitely disagree with me, but I thought the avatar system in Shogun 2 was good. YES it was flawed, but rather than completely dropping it I think they should have kept it in and kept fine tuning it. People typically didn't play classic battles. Why? Because they were doing avatar conquest. The poo poo was fun. FotS map conquest was fun. Just tweak the poo poo. It's just kinda lovely to read people say "Oh I don't care what they do with multiplayer. It doesn't affect me, I only play single player!" because that's such a bad way to view something. I'm not a game developer so I'm not gonna start trying to craft crazy, solve-all-problem ideas. But CA should really be trying to improve all aspects of the game to be as good as possible. A lot of people stop playing once multiplayer stops being fun. I hope CA gets some competition one of these days. They can just be kind of lazy because TW fans have literally nothing else to turn to. I think it'll really result in us getting some better quality games. Fresh Shesh Besh fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Apr 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
How would another developer even go about competing against CA without cloning Total War?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
I'm not a doctor I can't answer these questions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
Any dollar CA spends on multiplayer instead of single player is a wasted dollar from my perspective since I will never play multiplayer. I think it's lovely when people want CA to focus more on multiplayer instead of focusing on delivering a compelling single player game. So, there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
yeah, it's pretty selfish of us to try and shoehorn our interests and tastes into the game they're making specifically for you
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
Fresh Shesh Besh posted:Free for all, for starters. Army customization/painting (this may end up included) and some sort of progression like in Shogun 2 would be good too. i bought FOTS on the recent bundle sales with a few friends of mine. If i want to play with them i can only choose a total of six (6) basic units and one elite line infantry, everything else is completely locked. If i want to choose the entire roster i'll have to grind for hours in stupid multiplayer matches against pubbies with costumized units that can obliterate my infantry. I always hear goons talk about how good shogun 2's multiplayer is. The MP campaign is alright, it's as decent as Rome's or Attila's but with the old school mechanics of recruitment and garrisons (which have their pros and cons) but jesus christ this stupid MP avatar poo poo is what goons think is good?  Yeah let's port that poo poo over to warhammer. Want to play an MP battle as the Orks? Great, here's slugga boyz, everything else you have to grind against elited armies. GOTY
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
Vlex posted:How would another developer even go about competing against CA without cloning Total War? You could strip out the strategy layer and do something like Battle Brothers or Dark Omen / Shadow of the Horned Rat. What we love most about Total War are the battles and while the strategy layer is a core part of that experience it's not central. The King Arthur series played with it but honestly the strategy layer in that game was terrible and the RPG decisions it had were all RNG based. It also didn't have half the combat engine that Total War has.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
Mans posted:i bought FOTS on the recent bundle sales with a few friends of mine. You're right that singular mechanic that even people who really enjoyed Avatar Conquest agree was bad defines the entire system. Obv the only thing people mean when they say "MP like Avatar Conquest" is that you lock units away. That's literally the only thing. Also no rough system in the history of video games has been improved in a second iteration. Ridiculous to even suppose such a thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
Demiurge4 posted:You could strip out the strategy layer and do something like Battle Brothers or Dark Omen / Shadow of the Horned Rat. What we love most about Total War are the battles and while the strategy layer is a core part of that experience it's not central. Take out a core part that isn't central to the game. Got it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:You're right that singular mechanic that even people who really enjoyed Avatar Conquest agree was bad defines the entire system. Obv the only thing people mean when they say "MP like Avatar Conquest" is that you lock units away. That's literally the only thing. Painting your army is cool, i'll give you that. Let me paint my armies in MP and it's fine the way it is (that and 4 player MP campaign)
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
Vlex posted:Take out a core part that isn't central to the game. Got it. The question was how to compete with Total War without cloning it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
Mans posted:i bought FOTS on the recent bundle sales with a few friends of mine. that's only for the conquest map and you still have usual TW matchmaking with all the options available as a second option to tho???
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
Yeah, King Arthur was the only series that competed with Total War that I've seen. The first one was fun, but not amazingly so. Didn't play the second game as I've heard it is sort of rubbish. In terms of multiplayer it seems that CA is focusing on Total War: Arena, it remains to be seen if that means they will maintain multiplayer as it is in their future games or if bits of its design will leak into their future projects. As long as future main series games don't lock units behind grinding I'll be fine with whatever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
Mans posted:If you remove the locking units and allowing you to min max your units means you get what? Costumization of your general who is never seen in battle during a 3k man battle? Okay so keep painting, add free-for-all, and make players choose what spells and poo poo they want for their Lords so people can't just have literally everything in each battle. Bam, dynamic. Game is fun let's go home. I just want people to battle with man. Also, Total War: Arena seems cool but it's so different. I want it to do well, but I really hope they don't view it as a replacement for multiplayer in their other games. Then I'd be mad. EDIT: Also 3+ player campaign would be great and you just made my dick hard a little bit and I'm kinda mad it'll never be in. Fresh Shesh Besh fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Apr 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
Vlex posted:How would another developer even go about competing against CA without cloning Total War? There have been a few games that follow the basic formula, or at least parts of it. Praetorians, Imperial Glory, Hegemony, King Arthur, Mark of Chaos, some weird Chinese game that popped up on Steam a while back for £70 However, they've all lacked the scale of the Total War games, and coupled with other issues none of them matched up (well, I dunno about the Chinese game, but it seemed to be getting bad reviews, so I'll throw it in).Mans posted:Yeah let's port that poo poo over to warhammer. Want to play an MP battle as the Orks? Great, here's slugga boyz, everything else you have to grind against elited armies. GOTY Slugga Boyz are 40K  That said, would love to see some Sluggaz in Warhammer, if only to see Orcs finally get the shooting advantage  Chomp8645 posted:You're right that singular mechanic that even people who really enjoyed Avatar Conquest agree was bad defines the entire system. Obv the only thing people mean when they say "MP like Avatar Conquest" is that you lock units away. That's literally the only thing. Without unit unlocking there's no reason to have a progression system outside of cosmetic unlocks, and gently caress grinding for those. MadJackMcJack fucked around with this message at 00:36 on Apr 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
If orc projectile accuracy in TWWh is tabletop accurate you could switch Arrer Boy bows with Shootas and probably barely notice a difference 
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
Total War Arena is loving garbage
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
To be fair, Avatar Conquest without locked units and instead only having General unlocks would be way more compelling in Warhammer because Warhammer heroes are in an entirely different league than a normal Total War General.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
I would be 100% okay with having only/mostly cosmetic rewards for a hypothetical Total Warhammer Avatar Conquest maybe make it like Dawn of War 2's singleplayer where you can like, give your general a hammer that does AoE damage, or a suit of armor that gives you a small retinue/great guard instead of just having your commander go it alone. Or you can give him different mounts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
An avatar system that only affected your general would be pretty rad
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
I love pointless cosmetic options and wish every game had them. Personalizing a character and goin online is just fun, and a system like DOW2 where your guys look cooler as you level up would be nice in this game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
Buschmaki posted:I love pointless cosmetic options and wish every game had them. Personalizing a character and goin online is just fun, and a system like DOW2 where your guys look cooler as you level up would be nice in this game. I used to love this, before Parenthood. Now my XCOM 2 squad is largely stock because time getting the colors and costumes etc just right is time you aren't liberating earth! I've got to finish it before Warhammer comes out!
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
Buschmaki posted:I love pointless cosmetic options and wish every game had them. Personalizing a character and goin online is just fun, and a system like DOW2 where your guys look cooler as you level up would be nice in this game. Gotta get the best hat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:Gotta get the best hat. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6faqXut_oQk
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 09:26
|
|
|
Fresh Shesh Besh posted:Okay so keep painting, add free-for-all, and make players choose what spells and poo poo they want for their Lords so people can't just have literally everything in each battle. Bam, dynamic. Game is fun let's go home. agree with all this <3
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
I love the idea of a 3+ player multiplayer campaign, but I also realize that even 2 player Total War campaigns are slow as gently caress and it would only get worse with more players. It's something that I kinda want to see anyway, but I also recognize that every hour or dollar spent on getting 3+ player campaigns working is an hour/dollar spent not making the singleplayer better so I'm not exactly upset over the 2 player limit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
I think one of the major design challenges is minimizing the boredom of players who are not having their turn. Joining battles as the AI opposition kind of helps in head to head gameplay, but when you have more than two players you can't exactly do that (a bidding system to take control of opposing armies or a dice-roll are possible, but not ideal). You could force battles to always autoresolve, but I think that would be missing the point of playing a Total War game and would neuter several strategies based on players beating overwhelming odds. I mean, theoretically the game could just not care and the idle player can have a decent time just Skyping with his mates or reading a book or whatever, but I think CA would prefer to avoid being known as the company with the very boring multiplayer strategy game; and that's without considering technical challenges for making said multiplayer work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
Something that could be fun is that if you were playing the campaign on the same team, instead of playing the AI or whatever, the player whos battle it is could mark a couple of units for the other player to play as well. So like you build an army with a bunch of siege, you could pass your bro all the siege equipment and they could spend the battle trying to snipe units and suppress elites while you do all the field work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
Babe Magnet posted:Something that could be fun is that if you were playing the campaign on the same team, instead of playing the AI or whatever, the player whos battle it is could mark a couple of units for the other player to play as well. This has already been a feature of the coop campaign since at least Shogun 2
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
I already do that in coop campaigns
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
Sick, I don't play coop so I wouldn't know e: drat I'm just realizing I have a fuckload of time in shogun 2 multiplayer and almost none of it was coop lmao
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
Modern coop campaigns are all kinds of sweet because I can just micro cavalry all battle.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
Microing Donderbuss Cavalry is good fun
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
Yeah microing your bros Doomdivers is going to own all the bones 
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Yeah microing your bros Doomdivers is going to own all the bones So long as the main player can take control of all the Orcs, and give the goblins to the Co-Opper, then shout commands over skype in an orcy voice, all will be well with the world.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
Kaza42 posted:So long as the main player can take control of all the Orcs, and give the goblins to the Co-Opper, then shout commands over skype in an orcy voice, all will be well with the world. Like the co-op mode in Dawn if War 2, where the players could divide the squads among them to control before each battle, it would be awesome, like Total War Arena but good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
Co-op is going to be a blast once again but I really want to play either Greenskins of Vamps and it seems like both of those factions are going to be openly hostile to whatever my friend picks if corruption or whatever leaks out into adjacent turf. I know it makes sense to have one of us choose a town race and the other a hold race but beyond that I'm kinda sad Tomb Kings or Elves or Bretonnia won't be out at release. Chaos I'm saving for SP because I can see them being as overpowered as Rome. xthetenth posted:Modern coop campaigns are all kinds of sweet because I can just micro cavalry all battle.  )
Shumagorath fucked around with this message at 22:12 on Apr 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
Kaza42 posted:So long as the main player can take control of all the Orcs, and give the goblins to the Co-Opper, then shout commands over skype in an orcy voice, all will be well with the world. This, but a co-op  only game by itself. The orc player would have the Big WAAAGH! and the goblin player would have the Little WAAAGH!, where success would hinge upon using each other's strengths in concert. One might even say one player needs to be cunningly brutal and the other brutally cunning. Make sure there's more units of both types than either player is comfortable controlling to get that full horde experience. All of the voice menu options for the Orc player would be aggressive and pushy; all the Goblin ones would take forever to stutter out their messages, with "..., boss!" at the end of them. Trolls could hang out too, but neither player could control them direct, just kind of give them a general 'move here' option, which may or may not work. Of course, it wouldn't be propa greenskins if you didn't have animosity between the orcs and goblins to gently caress up your plans gloriously. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 11:45 |
|
|
Syrnn posted:This, but a co-op I am actually not a fan of (playing) greenskins generally, but i would force my friends at gunpoint playing a game like this with me. Add a "boss" position to constantly compete over so you have so backstabbing incencitive as well and it would be perfect clusterfuck.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 22:57
|
|
