So please why? Now the multiplayer is the same old boring as it used to be all sides using only elites... and Sparta... just pick full stack of royal spartans and even if you try to loose, you will win. Seriously.
So please why? Now the multiplayer is the same old boring as it used to be all sides using only elites... and Sparta... just pick full stack of royal spartans and even if you try to loose, you will win. Seriously.
Pro: no longer i will face epic samurai armies with my ashigaru
Con: drop-in battles and competitive multiplayer is no longer there.
though Ironically the vanilla rome still has a much bigger multiplayer community than both shogun and rome put together.
explain that.
Yes I am. One less half-assed and unfinished feature is always a good thing.
Well I'm already bored to death with MP and doubt I will ever play it again, a far cry from the 3,000 + battles I played in Shogun 2. The thing that pissed me off the most is you had all these old players complaining about avatar mode even though there was still a classic mode in Shogun 2.
Rome 2 MP can die for all I care because it sucks.
Ofcourse the MP sucks , its been split off into a separate game. TOTAL WAR ARENA
http://www.totalwar.com/en_us/arena/
and that is why Total War: Rome II players get early beta access to Arena
http://asia.gamespot.com/news/total-war-rome-ii-players-get-early-beta-access-to-arena-6412782
EDIT: this also goes perfectly with the beta access, all of us got, for ROME 2![]()
Last edited by FinkPloyd; September 11, 2013 at 12:09 AM.
You mean the "you get a Gattling gun and I get peasant archers because you had the game a week before I had it" mode? Good riddance
LOL that reminds me more of EVE Online than avatar conquest.In avatar conquest , I found costs for experienced /superior units, balanced this out quite a bit, so after a few battles you could compete with players who had advanced more. Of course i never played avatar conquest with FOTS units, just sengoku ones.
You're acting like as if any smart competitive player ever used gatling guns anyway. Hardly ever saw anyone use Gatlings in matchmade. Besides, if you want to fight someone you know is your level, that's what battle list is for. If you want the barebones boring MP back, just use classic mode. It's not even hard to unlock new units, just win battles. If you lose, you learn. You get better.
"I wanna be warlord." - Ajax
You can't learn anything when playing greatly uneven odds. You get better when you win while having a fair chance of winning. This all new "if you play more you get super duper atom bomb throwing samurais" method is not fun. Players should win according to their skills, experience and tactics rather than sheer play time.
The Gattling gun example was based on a true story. My first Shugon 2 online match actually.
I used to play Wolfenstein Enemy Territory competitively a while back, I even got to represent my country in international tournaments a couple of times. When I started playing, the 14 years old me of 2003 got a** kicked by veteran RtCW players because they knew the game macanics far better than I did, had better game control, better team play, aim, tactics, timing etc, not because they had bigger magazines than I had, nor becuase they had +5% damage for every bullet hit.
By experience I mean learning dos and do no dos, learn how to flank with cavalry and not charge it into spear units is learning. You cannot learn Gatling gun. Learning from experience and get better by it is fair.
Having been playing the series since Shogun 1. I thought Avatar conquest mode was a great step forward. I understand it would have presented difficulties for Rome2 with the different cultures and such, but the Japanese setting has always rated pretty high on my likes list for the TW series. Everyone has about the same roster of units and that in itself is balanced.
I never got super uneven matches in Avatar conquest. Infact, the times that I was rank 3-5 and my opponent was rank 1, I found the investment in the general to be a steep hurdle to overcome. Especially if you were not combat oriented he was quite the load of dead weight. in a small match.
I miss the Avatar conquest.
I've been playing Avatar Conquest only for two weeks now at most. I've never encountered a disturbingly overpowered opponent even if he's 7-8 levels higher than me. Yes he has more units unlocked and has more veterans, but he cannot field them because of funds restriction(*). Also, a high level avatar costs more to field so a high level opponent will be outnumbered against you. So if you're constantly losing, it doesnt mean AC is unbalanced. It means you're not as good as you think you are. Watch the replays and learn what you're doing wrong.
(*)Matchmaker battles funds are decided by the lowest ranked participant.
I'm GREATLY saddened by the loss of avatar conquest. Sure, it could have been better balanced, but it was fun.
I miss Avatar Conquest as well, I was REALLY hoping it would return... but now we just have pointless little MP matches that don't offer anything. I don't see how "You get to build an army out of every unit in the faction." is anymore balanced then "You have to actually unlock them first and get paired up with people around your skill level, with roughly the same units." (in theory)
They can't even balance single player, how would they balance Avatar Conquest?
That's right, they can't. Maybe they could add it back in once single player elephants don't steamroll an entire army and 4 wardog units take down 4 heavy infantry units.
I'm glad they dropped it. I never played it in the first place. You're doing it wrong when you play TW for the multiplayer.
Right here, and it's by far one of the best decisions they've made. If they had even attempted to balance it, then sure, maybe I'd let it slide. However in the state it was it was the least balanced MP mechanic ever seen in a game.