The Only Appeal Remaining to me Is Multiplayer

[zchmrkenhoff]

A Reflection Upon How to Bring Total War Effectively to Multiplayer
**Not a proposal for Rome II per se, but as a general reflection on Total War itself**
**Not in any way a proposal for single player to be neglected, altered, or changed**

TL;DR:

• I identify multiplayer to be superior to single player
• We observe that multiplayer cannot work well given the present state of Total War since each player would have to wait eons in order for it to be his turn again
• Therefore, the turn system must go if a full multiplayer campaign will function enjoyably
• Without a turn system, it effects that the game will be seamless, with battles being fought at the same time that the campaign map is being utilized
• We observe it to be near impossible for a person to fight battles of a Total War scale at the same exact time as managing settlements
• Therefore, factions must be comprised of a General who fights battles and manages the things military, and a Governor who manages settlements and the things economic

I shall begin by declaring myself to have a niche interest, for I cannot at all say the same of the rest of you, I mean that the only appeal you truly have left in a game is multiplayer. No matter how much time is invested into an AI, 'tis still an AI. I enjoy those multiplayer experiences where I know that I am competing with other human beings, capable of being moved by reasoning and emotion. When I conceive of devoting an eight hour period of time to playing a game like this against an AI, it is not something truly fulfilling, but it is something I've done countless times, and I'm now really just practicing things I've done before. Though with human players it is always a different experience, because you're actually doing something significant and which feels that way.

It is for this reason that I only really enjoy playing shooters nowadays, because I'm competing against other human beings. Although this genre [RTS / RTT] appeals to me, its use has been shriveling up, and wilting away without my having an ability to stop it. I believe that our technology is at the state where we can create seamless world instances that will actively have both a battle map as well as a campaign map and both of them can be accessed simultaneously.

If that is possible then I suggest the following: there would exist several servers for a parallel worlds of the game and they would be divided into specific teams or factions; those factions would be divided into one or more governors, and one or more generals, perhaps even a faction leader. This means that there would be 2+ people playing the Roman faction, 2+ playing Seleucids, etc. A general would be a person who exclusively devotes himself to fighting the faction's battles; the governor would manage all the settlements and do the micromanaging in general. If there was a faction leader, he would guide both of these things, have exclusive ability to oversee it all, be the only one capable of authorizing changes or new legislation, etc.

I have always felt it to be unreal from an immersion point of view that we have full control over the entirety of our faction. How can we reconcile the fact that generals refer to us as king when we are the very ones controlling the generals? What civilization or nation exists in which all the parts work seamlessly together and are fully controlled by an omnipotent God-like controller? Sometimes I want to merely manage an economy, and don't at all wish to deal with the things military; sometime I want to merely fight battles, and don't at all want to manage an economy. 'Tis a frustrating thing in these games to fully throw oneself at a large variety of tasks, which things require specialization and concentration if they are all to be done splendidly.

This idea will not be realized anytime soon, but when I accept that Honesty to myself which only the most true & faithful minds can enjoy, I understand that it is not at all a war against artificially "intelligent" factions which I want, but to realistically pit a empire comprised of me and fellow human beings against another similarly comprised. It would be due to our ability to do our respective tasks and really excel for the sake of our faction that we would win, and not because we're like those Starcraft players, who spend hours training their fingers to press buttons the fastest, because 'tis not quick-clicking or typing I have an interest in, but the struggles of nations.

Thus:

• Fully emphasized multiplayer campaign
• World exists in parallel across a numerous amount of servers like the Battlenet
• World is divided into factions
• Factions are teams comprised of 2+ people who function as either generals, governors, and/or one faction leader
  
• Battles happen concurrently with the campaign map, and there is no transition between the two
• Real time
• Ability for all to agree to pause for a few hours or so, and return back with everything exactly as it was

[Bellus88]

Your ideas are stinky, I can smell your poop from here in Canada. Wipe that Post up because it is very smelly.

A Persistent multiplayer campaign where each player controls one city or town would be the best, if someone leaves then a strong AI would replace them. There are probably over 100 Cities/Towns in the game, if someones town/city is conquered then they will have the option of getting 1 new Army to attempt to take it back and if most of that army is destroyed then they gotta rely on their allies to give them more units.

There would be many servers, dedicated servers.

[zchmrkenhoff]

Your ideas are stinky, I can smell your poop from here in Canada. Wipe that Post up because it is very smelly.

A Persistent multiplayer campaign where each player controls one city or town would be the best, if someone leaves then a strong AI would replace them. There are probably over 100 Cities/Towns in the game, if someones town/city is conquered then they will have the option of getting 1 new Army to attempt to take it back and if most of that army is destroyed then they gotta rely on their allies to give them more units.

There would be many servers, dedicated servers.

Why insult my ideas? I won't yours.

Your idea, however, presents complications that rely, I think, too much on the ability of players to cooperate and contribute their part. You would need a very wise & resourceful faction leader who can expect certain quotas for troops and things from each town, and it would be very difficult. While I would enjoy this, naturally, I once again think it places too much emphasis on teamwork.

[CTD_or_Bust]

Your ideas are stinky, I can smell your poop from here in Canada. Wipe that Post up because it is very smelly.

A Persistent multiplayer campaign where each player controls one city or town would be the best, if someone leaves then a strong AI would replace them. There are probably over 100 Cities/Towns in the game, if someones town/city is conquered then they will have the option of getting 1 new Army to attempt to take it back and if most of that army is destroyed then they gotta rely on their allies to give them more units.

There would be many servers, dedicated servers.

This post is exactly why it can be so meaningless to have these kinds of discussions. The OP had an idea and instead of building on it or altering it SLIGHTLY you completely disregarded it and suggested your own less thought out idea. Not only does your idea massively convolute multiplayer- it wouldn't even improve it. Hell, it'd be a totally new game for that matter. That's like me saying I don't like hydralisks so Blizzard should invent Dota 2.

@Zebra:

I enjoyed reading the OP and wouldn't say it should be moved or deleted. Multiplayer in TW games is kind of lulzy to me and even though I highly doubt zchmrkenhoffs idea will ever come to fruition, it's nice to dream once and a while. Let us dream

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

This post is exactly why it can be so meaningless to have these kinds of discussions. The OP had an idea and instead of building on it or altering it SLIGHTLY you completely disregarded it and suggested your own less thought out idea. Not only does your idea massively convolute multiplayer- it wouldn't even improve it. Hell, it'd be a totally new game for that matter. That's like me saying I don't like hydralisks so Blizzard should invent Dota 2.

@Zebra:

I enjoyed reading the OP and wouldn't say it should be moved or deleted. Multiplayer in TW games is kind of lulzy to me and even though I highly doubt zchmrkenhoffs idea will ever come to fruition, it's nice to dream once and a while. Let us dream

It's not really about whether I enjoyed it or not (I have no opinion, because I do not care, unless it impact Single Player in a negative way.)

It's about the fact that it has nothing to do with Rome 2, and Im still not really sure if it's even supposed to be a Total War game or not. I AM, however, certain it has nothing to do with Rome 2, as the OP has said that at least twice already.

Therefore, it should not be in the Rome 2 thread, no more than all those "What game is next?" threads.

[HappyGoodVibes]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I shall begin by declaring myself to have a niche interest, for I cannot at all say the same of the rest of you, I mean that the only appeal you truly have left in a game is multiplayer. No matter how much time is invested into an AI, 'tis still an AI. I enjoy those multiplayer experiences where I know that I am competing with other human beings, capable of being moved by reasoning and emotion. When I conceive of devoting an eight hour period of time to playing a game like this against an AI, it is not something truly fulfilling, but it is something I've done countless times, and I'm now really just practicing things I've done before. Though with human players it is always a different experience, because you're actually doing something significant and which feels that way.

It is for this reason that I only really enjoy playing shooters nowadays, because I'm competing against other human beings. Although this genre [RTS / RTT] appeals to me, its use has been shriveling up, and wilting away without my having an ability to stop it. I believe that our technology is at the state where we can create seamless world instances that will actively have both a battle map as well as a campaign map and both of them can be accessed simultaneously.

If that is possible then I suggest the following: there would exist several servers for a parallel worlds of the game and they would be divided into specific teams or factions; those factions would be divided into one or more governors, and one or more generals, perhaps even a faction leader. This means that there would be 2+ people playing the Roman faction, 2+ playing Seleucids, etc. A general would be a person who exclusively devotes himself to fighting the faction's battles; the governor would manage all the settlements and do the micromanaging in general. If there was a faction leader, he would guide both of these things, have exclusive ability to oversee it all, be the only one capable of authorizing changes or new legislation, etc.

I have always felt it to be unreal from an immersion point of view that we have full control over the entirety of our faction. How can we reconcile the fact that generals refer to us as king when we are the very ones controlling the generals? What civilization or nation exists in which all the parts work seamlessly together and are fully controlled by an omnipotent God-like controller? Sometimes I want to merely manage an economy, and don't at all wish to deal with the things military; sometime I want to merely fight battles, and don't at all want to manage an economy. 'Tis a frustrating thing in these games to fully throw oneself at a large variety of tasks, which things require specialization and concentration if they are all to be done splendidly.

This idea will not be realized anytime soon, but when I accept that Honesty to myself which only the most true & faithful minds can enjoy, I understand that it is not at all a war against artificially "intelligent" factions which I want, but to realistically pit a empire comprised of me and fellow human beings against another similarly comprised. It would be due to our ability to do our respective tasks and really excel for the sake of our faction that we would win, and not because we're like those Starcraft players, who spend hours training their fingers to press buttons the fastest, because 'tis not quick-clicking or typing I have an interest in, but the struggles of nations.

Thus:

• Fully emphasized multiplayer campaign
• World exists in parallel across a numerous amount of servers like the Battlenet
• World is divided into factions
• Factions are teams comprised of 2+ people who function as either generals, governors, and/or one faction leader
• Battles happen concurrently with the campaign map, and there is no transition between the two
• Real time
• Ability for all to agree to pause for a few hours or so, and return back with everything exactly as it was

Only through this can I, as a niche player, be ever satisfied. Why Total War, do you ask? Why this series instead of others which might better work towards this format? Because I like it and its format. I think that even a Total War / Mount & Blade / Civilization crossover would be the best game. Civilization is by far the best economically; M&B with Total War's style of commanding armies is the best combat; and Total War's world map and overall style is the most superior.

Despite this's impossibility, I must say it. Thank you.

I would like to see some radical changes to Total War too. Rome II will bring something new I hope, but there are a couple things that I think you mentioned that are pretty good. RTS and stratgey games do feel best naturally online and with other players, the AI just isn't good enough to ever behave like a player can. So multiplayer, I agree, is an important aspect. I for one would like to see higher player caps in multiplayer games so that I can play with more friends. I don't agree with some of your ideas, but I think you have done something very important:

You have pulled inspiration from other games in the strategy genera.

This is the most significant thing that Total War can do. There are so many great ideas out there that if they just looked at them and tried to fit them into the game, new life would be introduced into the series. Perhaps the solution is for a group of CA to work on an entirely new game, Total War can continue on as it has, but it might be time to introduce a new IP.

I also think this is an important aspect of what you said:

"I am competing with other human beings, capable of being moved by reasoning and emotion."

Emotions are half of warfare, and AI simply does not get angry when you slaughter their citizens or devastate their armies. AI does not feel fear when it is being beat on every front, it does not make any mistakes other than the mistakes that have been programmed into it. This is the reason diplomacy does not work, and has never worked in Total War. You can reason with a person in a game like RISK. If you take a bunch of territory, that should be reflected in the diplomatic negotiations. If you have sacked a capital city or defeated the greatest general, that should be reflected in negotiations. But the campaign map might as well not exist when you enter the diplomacy screen.

Another good point:

"I have always felt it to be unreal from an immersion point of view that we have full control over the entirety of our faction."

This is a wonderful observation. All nations fall because of the inability to organize their people. At the end of the day, war does not defeat the government, the people simply stop believing in it and it collapses on itself. If Total War wanted to take the next step, this issue must be addressed. People don't agree and governments are made of people. There are rival factions in every government, or rebels that oppose the single faction. Total War does have rebels, and it has had civil wars, but this needs to be expanded upon. The causes of rebels need to be more complex, and the government systems need to be more fleshed out, with leaders that can defect and generals who will side with one faction or the other. Political interaction overall needs to be fleshed out. AI can do this however, as I have seen it do so in games such as Crusader Kings II. We don't need multiple people. But perhaps we might be able to put in multiple people in a multiplayer game so that they control different areas, such as Caesar and Pompeii both having their own armies under one Roman government. It was possible in Crusader Kings II to have two dukes in one nation, both controlled by players. This could be quite a fun and interesting concept.

You have some very, very good ideas. I don't agree with all of them, but they are good nonetheless.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Your ideas are stinky, I can smell your poop from here in Canada. Wipe that Post up because it is very smelly.

A Persistent multiplayer campaign where each player controls one city or town would be the best, if someone leaves then a strong AI would replace them. There are probably over 100 Cities/Towns in the game, if someones town/city is conquered then they will have the option of getting 1 new Army to attempt to take it back and if most of that army is destroyed then they gotta rely on their allies to give them more units.

There would be many servers, dedicated servers.

im about to poop on you, bro.

[Sharpe]

I can't agree. Your taking Total War and making it a non-Total War game.

Too many games nowdays rely on their multiplayer aspects and have forgotten the pre-broadband charm that made old games like Fallout, Command and conquer, even Shogun and Medieval so iconic and loved. They had so much effort and originality put into their single player content that you could never even play multiplayer and still feel like you've had a rich experience.

I personally play the campaign far more than multiplayer in total war games. I like to sit down with a cup of tea or a beer if its the weekend and just play the game the way I want at a enjoyable pace. Its the culmination of the art, music, gameplay, history that makes it so engrossing and fun.

I do delve into multiplayer occasionally and unless the match has been organised on TWC I usually find people are hostile and quick to gloat while winning and rage while losing.

[HappyGoodVibes]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I can't agree. Your taking Total War and making it a non-Total War game.

Too many games nowdays rely on their multiplayer aspects and have forgotten the pre-broadband charm that made old games like Fallout, Command and conquer, even Shogun and Medieval so iconic and loved. They had so much effort and originality put into their single player content that you could never even play multiplayer and still feel like you've had a rich experience.

I personally play the campaign far more than multiplayer in total war games. I like to sit down with a cup of tea or a beer if its the weekend and just play the game the way I want at a enjoyable pace. Its the culmination of the art, music, gameplay, history that makes it so engrossing and fun.

I do delve into multiplayer occasionally and unless the match has been organised on TWC I usually find people are hostile and quick to gloat while winning and rage while losing.

I think that both your ideas are compatible though. The multiplayer battles are, frankly, not very interesting. Battles in general in Total War are mildly impressive, nothing to freak out about. The real meat of the game is the campaign, and that is what needs to be integrated into multiplayer more. We don't have to change the pace of the game or anything that is already interesting, e.g. art, history, etc...

I know from playing Warcraft 3 that some of the best strategy game experiences I have ever had have been online. A combination of the creative maps of people from the community combined with creative players themselves made that happen. Creativity is something that you can see in a "potted" environment, controlled by the AI, but it's difficult to do and the programmers have to make a conscious effort to put it in. Players live to make games interesting, if they only have the tools to do so.

Imagine a different definition of a multiplayer experience, a more open definition. Imagine sitting down and playing a game with a mate, drinking a cup of tea and talking over voice chat. The two of you occupying different seats in Roman government, working together to defeat your enemies in the senate and in foreign lands.

That is only one of the great things that can happen with Total War, if only the series opens itself up to the possibility of change.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

TL;DR

On a more serious note, multiplayer should be a secondary feature in a total war game. Most players are arrogant, childish or use lame tactics such as immediately sniping your general with artillery when the match starts. Total War was not made for real time, it would be impossible to change that without ruining the whole game. Furthermore, multiplayer campaigns are dumb if you have to constantly play in order not to lose everything you worked so hard to conquer to a person with too much time on his/her hands.

In short, I really hope CA focuses more on the grand campaign instead of making silly multiplayer campaigns like in Shogun 2. It was ruined because players with the infamous Hattori DLC were so overpowered it was incredible.

Multiplayer also goes to point out the aspects of Total War that need to be improved. Sniping the general was not possible, so why didn't CA make it not possible? Cannons need to be reworked in this case.

Little features like that could be improved if only you think about the human element:

"Well what if some bloke just aims for my general, the way the targeting system works for these cannons would let him do that, you know."

CA response:

"Haha! Wait, you think our AI could reason that out? You're serious?? HAHAHAHAH"


And I would like to point out that multiplayer campaigns work best with friends, so that you can agree to stop playing at a certain point.

[Augustus Scipius]

TL;DR

On a more serious note, multiplayer should be a secondary feature in a total war game. Most players are arrogant, childish or use lame tactics such as immediately sniping your general with artillery when the match starts. Total War was not made for real time, it would be impossible to change that without ruining the whole game. Furthermore, multiplayer campaigns are dumb if you have to constantly play in order not to lose everything you worked so hard to conquer to a person with too much time on his/her hands.

In short, I really hope CA focuses more on the grand campaign instead of making silly multiplayer campaigns like in Shogun 2. It was ruined because players with the infamous Hattori DLC were so overpowered it was incredible.

[windsupernova]

I would conform with non crappy maps and a non broken ladder system.

Oh and a much better matchmaking and better chat interface.

[Slaists]

For me, the really exciting appeal of this game is the Multi-Player Campaign. A straight multi-player battle simply lacks context for me. A campaign against a human opponent is a whole different matter.

However, dislike one particular aspect of the multiplayer-campaign as implemented in S2 and NTW: the fact that you're stuck with a single opponent for the length of the campaign. So, coordinating suitable play times is really a challenge. It would be nice to have the following MPC options:

1. Allow the host an option to give a player's faction over to a strong AI [for example, if a player has left for good, but the host still wants to continue]
2. Allow the host an option to invite other (than the original) players into an existing campaign [some faction stats summary screen would be nice to let people know what they're getting into]
3. Allow the host an option to switch factions in an existing game [i.e., invite a new player to play the faction of your previous opponent and then switch the faction for yourself (to make it harder, for example); or switch factions for both, etc.]
4. Allow an option for the players to invite/join drop-in campaigns.

Having all four of the above implemented would be very nice...

[alQamar]

Some of the things you are talking about are already here. The open ladder leads to unfair gameplay, like it is since Napleon where people quit rated battles just not loosing their earned silly stars!

Regular use of exploits and cheating have been confirmed and prooven by some clan members.

CA's forums policy forbids to post the reality because of rule "no name no blame". Ok for protecting people, however just a few reported exploits have been fixed in Shogun 2.

Can you imagine to choose dozends of retainers and choose an army from about 300 units in Rome 2 in 60 seconds? Me neither! The timer in Matchmade battles is contraproductive, the players tier assembly aswell. Especially for noobs and casual players.

Misuse of the f.. 60 sec battle timer is just small thing how to misuse the new system. People are not fair acting when they smell the perfume of a personal advantage over others, especially not when they can show off their virtual ego in open ladders.

Unfortunately the real multiplayer community seems not to hang around on TWC or totalwar.com. There are thousands of people world-wide, scattered in their own clan forums, still working with embassys like it started with Rome 1.

My dear fellows, i cannot agree to all statements of the OP and the reasons have been stated already.

However i really really wish that we can finally stop talking pro / con and try to concentrate on easy solutions to make multiplayer playable again - for everyone, not only clans and insiders that knows how to use all units and retainers properly and have the time and skill to have saved built-to-kill armies. Let's do not forget about casual players or people that would like try out new armies every battle.

Please read the totalwarpetition and if you agree to some or all of the statements join and help to spread it. also we need help in managing and native speakers that helps to review postings.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=568076

Rome 1 had the most brilliant multiplayer, Shogun 2 had the best new developments in that section. we need to combine the best of the past and the current.

otherwise we would get caught to play endless single player campaigns or multiplayer campaigns, that are challenging and fun but nothing compared quick and brilliant multiplayer battles or even international tourneys.

imho would like see Rome 2 as a Total War game with fair multiplayer battles and a decent community not as a "Total Campaign" game and neither as a Total Ego game, where just 1v1 are played (also because hosting matchmade for bigger than 2v2 is still horrible) and only victory at any costs count.

Sometimes i got a feeling people forgot how great a 4v4 or 8 player free for all battle was in the past time Rome 1 or Medieval - THAT WAS TOTAL WAR

http://steamcommunity.com/groups/Totalwarpetition

[lazerBAR]

Sorry to tell you but Total War games are supposed to be singleplayer oriented. Its about going through history and battling countless enemies to take over the known world, about changing history "what if" sorta scenarios. Im not saying they should just not focus on Multiplayer but I prefer to have fun and just Have my set amount of cash for my army and being able to choose whatever unit I can you from the faction I choose, with friends or random opponents.

[XxAndrewxX2525]

Sorry to tell you but Total War games are supposed to be singleplayer oriented. Its about going through history and battling countless enemies to take over the known world, about changing history "what if" sorta scenarios. Im not saying they should just not focus on Multiplayer but I prefer to have fun and just Have my set amount of cash for my army and being able to choose whatever unit I can you from the faction I choose, with friends or random opponents.

Rome 2 is mostly single-player oriented, and always will be. People here are arguing that CA needs to reinforce the multiplayer side of things. What are you arguing?

[zchmrkenhoff]

I should note that I'm not suggesting this for Rome II, but that this should be an entirely separate multiplayer-oriented game specifically designed with multiplayer excellence being the bar to aim for.

[atheniandp]

Sorry to tell you but Total War games are supposed to be singleplayer oriented. Its about going through history and battling countless enemies to take over the known world, about changing history "what if" sorta scenarios. Im not saying they should just not focus on Multiplayer but I prefer to have fun and just Have my set amount of cash for my army and being able to choose whatever unit I can you from the faction I choose, with friends or random opponents.

This is a fundamental flaw of the series. Total War does not have to mean total conquest or total expansion.

The problem with a game built with a multiplayer focus is that multiplayer requires exactly that: an online community. While that exists for the first few years of release, it becomes increasingly difficult to find someone to play with.

That's why I advocate in favour of a real time campaign. It makes it plausible to have equal proportions of single player and multiplayer campaigns, without really emphasizing one over the other.

[Irishman]

I really don't want to see multiplayer become too much of a focus of the game. The beautiful part of Total War is the engrossing single player. Adding multiplayer usually ruins immersion and feel of the game for me.

I would be fine if CA didn't even have multiplayer campaigns at all.

[Tritus]

It's truly shocking to see people requesting a change from turn based to real time. Do they really think that CA
will even consider completely rebuilding the entire campaign?

[krisslanza]

It's truly shocking to see people requesting a change from turn based to real time. Do they really think that CA
will even consider completely rebuilding the entire campaign?

Frankly, to me, it's no different then people demanding historical realism and turning Total War from a game to a simulation. Just as large a genre shift sometimes.

[HappyGoodVibes]

I really don't want to see multiplayer become too much of a focus of the game. The beautiful part of Total War is the engrossing single player. Adding multiplayer usually ruins immersion and feel of the game for me.

I would be fine if CA didn't even have multiplayer campaigns at all.

Multiplayer is just one aspect of the game that is lagging. The single player is by no means perfect and should be improved. As it is, multiplayer campaigns are terrible and you can't actually play one without getting a corrupt file which forces you to restart an entirely new campaign.

It's truly shocking to see people requesting a change from turn based to real time. Do they really think that CA
will even consider completely rebuilding the entire campaign?

Obviously not for Rome II, but real time is certainly something to consider. Armies maneuver in real time, they don't just march five hundred miles and then stop for half a year. The turn-based campaign map prevents proper army maneuvers. I don't exactly know how you could work it in, but there are merits along with the drawbacks to making the game real time.

So, basically, what you're saying is, you'd like to play Total War, so long as literally every single aspect of the gameplay is changed into something you like better?

Well, then, point noted.

Good to see such an intelligent and well-thought out comment on the forums! I believe this deserves one Hurrah from the community!