ROME II - Official Multiplayer discussion.

[The Glorious Moldovan]

If they make the AI better then screw the Multiplayer!

[super_newbie_pro]

I would like to be able to go to the Friend's home with my computer and play multiplayer's campaign with an direct RJ45 connexion without the internet box, two or Three Roman players me, and my friends (if they want to be romans too ^^) and to be able to play without internet necessity (very important when you dont live in a big city and when your connexion come from the age of Cro-Magnon with very low speed !! And to be able to save the game after a night with bier and pizzas, to be able to come back the next week and continue the campaign... To be able to allied with them, and, if we have a little problem of diplomacy, to have the possibility to break alliance, attack friends, one or two insults, and a new alliance AHAH... If we play romans, maybe a system where we play roman families ?

[Fatal Imprudence]

I hope they don't get sidetracked and solely focuses on Rome. It'd be nice to have variety of factions with their own unique traits (specialised agents, units, etc.)

I can't say much for the multiplayer, but leaderboards and a clan map would not be a good addition to the game. It pretty much alienated the competetive tournaments for many clans as they focused on getting the highest score and often achieving it through cheating. I'm not very supportive of an avatar system, unless all units/retainers/traits are unlocked from the beginning. I still prefer classic mode, but that's a personal preference, not to mention there could be both avatar and classic mode.

[helmersen]

I would like to be able to go to the Friend's home with my computer and play multiplayer's campaign with an direct RJ45 connexion without the internet box, two or Three Roman players me, and my friends (if they want to be romans too ^^) and to be able to play without internet necessity (very important when you dont live in a big city and when your connexion come from the age of Cro-Magnon with very low speed !! And to be able to save the game after a night with bier and pizzas, to be able to come back the next week and continue the campaign... To be able to allied with them, and, if we have a little problem of diplomacy, to have the possibility to break alliance, attack friends, one or two insults, and a new alliance AHAH... If we play romans, maybe a system where we play roman families ?

Exactly!

[Dumanthis]

Hotseat campaign with many players back with the ability to play it with 2 pcs and enable the playing of battles player vs player DDD

[G-Spike]

If they make the AI better then screw the Multiplayer!

No matter how good you make the ai it can never be as good as the human mind.

[BuzTeRz]

I hope they will bring a 2 and up to 4 player campaign! <3 that would be awesome! <3

[Slimshady1398]

YES! The ability to play Rome with a friend playing as Greece, just imagine....

[helmersen]

I hope they will bring a 2 and up to 4 player campaign! <3 that would be awesome! <3

In hotseat for Kingdoms, you could play with as many people as you wanted to.

[Funktasticmo]

long as they make campaign mp im happy

[super_newbie_pro]

I am very curious to see what could be this game in multiplayers if we apply the real time system... When you fight in 3D, possibility to say yes or no to AI for the management of your country and others army time you fight an 3D battle. And an other idea ; the campaign is only online, permanently, and where people could join when they want, choose factions free, and leave when they want IA replace them. If one player want join the game, if there is 30 country and 30 players, server say "full" impossibility to join. If there is free slot (country with no player) the gamer see on a map the country free, numbers of army, situation etc... and if he want join, sélect on the map the free country he wants play and select join the game. But i think that with this system, with max 30 players pear server game, real time is very necessary...

[Diglytron]

I wish they make a Cooperative online campaign. Over lan or over network. I think this is one of the features the community begs the most for. And it is possible look at civ 4 ,5 those games had really great online games witch sometimes take more as 1000 hours.

[Metallistic]

Make it like the original Rome MP: no game-breaking bugs, no stats, no "leveling" if it provides actual battle advantages, no BS units from DLCs, no unnecessary crap that won't even work properly. Focus on multiplayer campaign, focus on balance and just keep it simple. Don't ruin the MP like you did in Shogun. There is a reason why Rome:TW MP is still alive and active - learn from that. Shogun MP sucked rotten ass. Don't do the same mistakes with Rome II.

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

Main thing I would like to remind CA if is to this time make the "Barbarian" factions viable options in a multiplayer battle this time, not just the Britons and Scythia as last time. Especially the Iberians and the Gauls were horribly crappy last time. Particularly give them some good cavalry as they historically had so they will not be rape stomped by skirmish armies.

Secondly, balance the archers better this time, ancient bows were not crossbows, don't make them rape armored warriors again.

[Sandraker]

Make it like the original Rome MP: no game-breaking bugs, no stats, no "leveling" if it provides actual battle advantages, no BS units from DLCs, no unnecessary crap that won't even work properly. Focus on multiplayer campaign, focus on balance and just keep it simple. Don't ruin the MP like you did in Shogun. There is a reason why Rome:TW MP is still alive and active - learn from that. Shogun MP sucked rotten ass. Don't do the same mistakes with Rome II.

This.

[Rorarii]

I would like to see multiplayer where each player is an important character in the game. only problem is each MP game would require ;

6+ players as senators for Rome
6+ players as senators for Carthage ???? (if in game?)
1 player per kingship for Greek city states
1 player per clan leader for tribal societies

in other words, a sh!t load .. too many I suspect.

As most previous TW MP games haven't been hsitorically accurate, i'll probably stick to single play.

R

[JankoMega]

I just know that CA will do the job greatly, as always.
The only thing I'm thinking about is a Multiplayer feature that will somehow transform a Singleplayer experience into the Multiplayer one. That might sound kinda odd, but what I mean is to actually have a huge campaign map where certain players control regions/factions and attack each other at the same time and do the same thing that you do in Singleplayer(Diplomacy, Economy systems etc.)...Similar to Shogun 2's Multiplayer campaign, but only with having a same Singleplayer map in Multiplayer's gameplay.
Basically said, having everything the same in MP from SP gameplay...This would let you make up the Diplomacy system with other players online; For example, if the player controls and plays as a Greek faction and wants to unite with Macedon, he can simply send the Diplomats as you do in Singleplayer and offer the player, that plays with Macedon, the term of alliance; Or declare a war against you and similar.
Anything else, I can just sense it, will be done perfectly, as Creative Assembly always has done.
Cheers.

[JackDionne]

STICKY FOR AVATAR CAMPAIGN PLEASE

[Salvator]

The thing I want most for Rome 2 is realism.
Don't get me wrong Shogun 2 with it's rock, paper, scissor gameplay is awesome but in Rome 2 it's not going to work because in Rome 2 the unit variety is too big to build the gameplay on that.
Instead focus your gameplay on specifical unit usage. I. e. Roman Legionnaires should be used in tight formation because Roman Legionnaires are probably going to die if they are out of formation and fighting one on one against a gallic light infantry unit. So the counter to Legionnaires is getting them out of formation. Or hammering them so they are in a too tight "formation".
That should apply to every unit.

Spears for example should be superior in chokepoints and swords in man to man combat.
You should reintroduce backstabbing animations by the way.

Furthermore I'd like to have different arrow types for archers.
Basically arrow types which are good against cavalry or armor and so on that you could choose pre-battle.

Apart from that the most needed feature is an unit editor.
Then you could create your soldiers to your liking. Unlocking different shields or armor for units would increase the possibilities even more. The possibilities are endless.

Rome 2 will have lots of DLCs. It will be the most complete and undone game at the same time as for my feeling. I am not against DLCs but the only thing I wish is that it won't be pay to win, as it happened with the Ikko-Ikki DLC for Shogun 2.

Shogun 2 is, though all this bugs and balance issues, a huge step into having a great and LONG multiplayer experience. You really have to expand on it.
For instance you should show the player what the opponents favors a lot more detailed than in Shogun 2. I. e. showing tracks what units he uses most and if he flanks often and so on.
That forces players to constantly change their tactics which leads to a more varied multiplayer experience unlike Shogun 2 where every army was once based on Loanswords which differences were only in missile and cavalry support.

The special abilities are a great addition. You should expand on them as well.
Perhaps an ability to taunt legionnaires causing them to break their formation.
Or sword infantry equipped with spikey things to throw it in front of cavalry.
Much room for more abilities left.

And the most important point is having a Beta. It's absolutely necessary to get rid of balancing issues.
This game will be huge and with it the potential flaws grow exponentionally

[Antissa]

Because multiplayer campaigns with actual competent opposition is a lot more fun? :s

It's not exactly fun when you're playing against hackers though. The priority should be the single player experience.