Bring back Avatar Conquest for multiplayer

[atheniandp]

This is a no brainer. Avatar Conquest in Shogun II had all the benefits of regular multiplayer, plus the Avatar system itself. That means custom, persistent generals with their own special perks, and persistent veteran units.

It kept multiplayer interesting. I believe there's more people playing Shogun II multiplayer than Rome II's multiplayer precisely for this reason.

[myself]

there's more people playing Shogun II multiplayer than Rome II's multiplayer

I know that it has very little to do with the point you were trying to make, but I genuinely wonder how you can say that. As far as I know, you can only compare figures for the whole games, not their singleplayer/mutliplayer components. I'd be interested to know if there is an easy way to compare both multiplayer figures. So, to sum it up, if you can tell me how you compared that, I'd be really interested.

(The only way that I know of to do that is through achievements but it is really not accurate and just gives proportion, and therefore makes it hard to compare the actual number of people actually playing the multiplayer at any given time.)

[atheniandp]

I know that it has very little to do with the point you were trying to make, but I genuinely wonder how you can say that. As far as I know, you can only compare figures for the whole games, not their singleplayer/mutliplayer components. I'd be interested to know if there is an easy way to compare both multiplayer figures. So, to sum it up, if you can tell me how you compared that, I'd be really interested.

(The only way that I know of to do that is through achievements but it is really not accurate and just gives proportion, and therefore makes it hard to compare the actual number of people actually playing the multiplayer at any given time.)

Through experience. Log into Rome II's multiplayer, and then log into Shogun II's multiplayer. You immediately get a sense that there's a lot more people playing Shogun II. Far more active games. Aside from the classic multiplayer system (where you have multiple games hosted at any given time) you also have people playing match-made Avatar battles in Shogun II. There is simply more there.

Whereas Rome II only has around 4-7 active joinable games at any given time.

[myself]

Through experience. Log into Rome II's multiplayer, and then log into Shogun II's multiplayer. You immediately get a sense that there's a lot more people playing Shogun II. Far more active games. Aside from the classic multiplayer system (where you have multiple games hosted at any given time) you also have people playing match-made Avatar battles in Shogun II. There is simply more there.

Whereas Rome II only has around 4-7 active joinable games at any given time.

Thanks for the answer. That's a surprising result. I just wanted to see it for myself and launched both games to see the numbers of battles going on and I found out that 7 were available for Shogun 2 and 8 for Rome 2. Now, that's just a random check and shouldn't be considered significant or representative, but still, considering that Shogun 2 is actually older than Rome 2, one would expect to see significantly fewer players in Shogun 2, which is not the case at all.
I wanted to go one step further and also checked Napoleon and Empire's numbers. And the results were surprising: 8 battles for Empire as well. The game is on a par with Rome II and Shogun 2! But the most spectacular result was for Napoleon: 21 battles were taking place at the same time. That's amazing! Now I don't now if those results are consistently of this order, but if they are, bring back Napoleon's multiplayer back if you ask me

[atheniandp]

Thanks for the answer. That's a surprising result. I just wanted to see it for myself and launched both games to see the numbers of battles going on and I found out that 7 were available for Shogun 2 and 8 for Rome 2. Now, that's just a random check and shouldn't be considered significant or representative, but still, considering that Shogun 2 is actually older than Rome 2, one would expect to see significantly fewer players in Shogun 2, which is not the case at all.
I wanted to go one step further and also checked Napoleon and Empire's numbers. And the results were surprising: 8 battles for Empire as well. The game is on a par with Rome II and Shogun 2! But the most spectacular result was for Napoleon: 21 battles were taking place at the same time. That's amazing! Now I don't now if those results are consistently of this order, but if they are, bring back Napoleon's multiplayer back if you ask me

There's some truth to that. Napoleon also had campaign drop-in battles (like Shogun II) which are absent in Rome II.

Anyway I can assure you as someone whose played a lot of multiplayer over the years that Shogun II will have the longest and most active lifespan of the series. That's because it has all that Napoleon, Empire, and Rome II have AND more.

There's absolutely no reason to argue against Avatar Conquest from a consumer's perspective, unless you want CA to save money and effort.

[Prof]

I really liked the Avatar conquest mode.

In fact, I never played the "standard" MP in Shogun 2.

I loved having my own faction, with my own General and his elite troops, each wearing custom colours and being leveled individually.
I grew really attached to some of the units and I never really cared much for the Multiplayer in Rome 2.

Also I really liked to see the custom Generals on the battle maps...well...whenever they were actually shown. After the launch, you always got some generic standard general model in the battle, which they fixed in a patch and later broke again in another patch.

I only played 3 MP battles and an entire MP campaign.

[Fanest]

No never again we discusses this 1000 times already, avatar system is bad it encourages ppl to cheat its unfair to beginners etc. etc. use alot has been said on this matter already

[atheniandp]

No never again we discusses this 1000 times already, avatar system is bad it encourages ppl to cheat its unfair to beginners etc. etc. use alot has been said on this matter already

No never again post without actually knowing what you're talking about. If you didn't like Avatar Conquest for whatever reason, you were never forced to play it! Shogun II had the regular multiplayer custom battle list. That means Shogun II had the same multiplayer as Rome II and more.

Also I really liked to see the custom Generals on the battle maps...well...whenever they were actually shown. After the launch, you always got some generic standard general model in the battle, which they fixed in a patch and later broke again in another patch.

What do you mean by this? I don't remember because I was a latecomer.

[Fanest]

How does it encourage cheating? And if they also put a simple matchmaking mechanic into the game, it would also not be unfair to beginners.

Ofc it encorages ppl to cheat, u can upgrade and unlock units/retainers this way, u get big advantages from it and thats the main reason why some ppl cheated imo

Machmaking never worked properly and prb never will. First matchmaking is looking for ppl in your region and then for ppl with equivalent skill level. Depending at what hour u were online and other factors u could get many top ladder players while being noob.

No never again post without actually knowing what you're talking about. If you didn't like Avatar Conquest for whatever reason, you were never forced to play it! Shogun II had the regular multiplayer custom battle list. That means Shogun II had the same multiplayer as Rome II and more.
What do you mean by this? I don't remember because I was a latecomer.

1. You were forced to play it there was no other option at the beginning, classic mode was added much much later - when FOTS came i think. Seems u really lack knowledge of this since by that time avatar system was full of cheaters and ppl who invested alot of time in it and just destroyed u with their veteran armies - no skill required

2. If u want to have competitive MP it must be fair for everyone - noobs and veterans alike, that means no unit upgrades based on XP, no locked units, no general skill trees etc.

3. Without competitive and fair system any MP is just pointless




Also similar thread u can merge it i really donno why we have to discuss this again

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...pect-of-Attila

and another one

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...le-multiplayer




this post pretty much summs it up for me:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...1#post14161574

This is pretty much spot on. Anyone who would support avatar campaign as the primary ladder mode is simply not interested in competitive MP. Avatar campaign was cute and fun, but has no place in competitive RTS ladders where the point is that the more skilled player can outplay his opponent, not the player with the most time played can steam roll everyone else. Take a look at ANY successful MP RTS title and tell me if they had any of this niche leveling structure. I can tell you right now the answer is no, because its unbalanced like crazy.

That said i don't dislike the CONCEPT of avatar campaign, but in its current form circa Shogun 2 it would be a mistake to bring it back as the MAIN form of multiplayer ladder. That is if they want MP ladder to be competitive. If they don't care then it might pop up again, who knows.

With all that said be careful what you wish for...

[Prof]

Ofc it encorages ppl to cheat, u can upgrade and unlock units/retainers this way, u get big advantages from it and thats the main reason why some ppl cheated imo

Machmaking never worked properly and prb never will. First matchmaking is looking for ppl in your region and then for ppl with equivalent skill level. Depending at what hour u were online and other factors u could get many top ladder players while being noob.

This is what the game mode was all about...developing your army and your general. It just needed proper matchmaking.
It was basically a roleplaying game mode. People like it in the campaign, and I loved it in MP.
Leveling the units is not cheating...that's like saying that people who level up their characters in any MMORPG are cheating.
The only thing missing was proper matchmaking.

1. You were forced to play it there was no other option at the beginning, classic mode was added much much later - when FOTS came i think. Seems u really lack knowledge of this since by that time avatar system was full of cheaters and ppl who invested alot of time in it and just destroyed u with their veteran armies - no skill required

2. If u want to have competitive MP it must be fair for everyone - noobs and veterans alike, that means no unit upgrades based on XP, no locked units, no general skill trees etc.

3. Without competitive and fair system any MP is just pointless

1. You were never forced to play it. I played Shogun 2 since it was released and classic mode was in it from the beginning.
Here is a topic from the first week after release that explains where to find the option. http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...1-vs-1-without

2. That is what classic mode is for.

3. -> Nr. 2

What do you mean by this? I don't remember because I was a latecomer.

In the release version, you could customize your Avatar, but he would just show up as some generic general in the battle. They fixed this rather quickly, but broke it again at some later point. I guess, they must have fixed it in a later patch again.

I'm not sure about this, since I stopped playing about half a year after the game was released and picked it back up when FotS was released.

[Fanest]

This is what the game mode was all about...developing your army and your general. It just needed proper matchmaking.
It was basically a roleplaying game mode. People like it in the campaign, and I loved it in MP.
Leveling the units is not cheating...that's like saying that people who level up their characters in any MMORPG are cheating.
The only thing missing was proper matchmaking.

I didnt mean leveling i meant real cheating - i donno how but many ppl cheated - by unlocking all retainers/units, veteran units replenishment and much more. Once i faced dude who had bow monks shooting across 1/2 of the map.

Roleplaying and leveling-up has no place in competitive MP, its just not fair. In my opinion skill and knowledge of certain factions advantages should be the only factors effecting MP in TW games.

1. You were never forced to play it. I played Shogun 2 since it was released and classic mode was in it from the beginning.
Here is a topic from the first week after release that explains where to find the option. http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...1-vs-1-without

2. That is what classic mode is for.

3. -> Nr. 2

read that topic on u will see that it was practically broken, and tbh i didnt even find it until much later and i played hundreds of battles

any sort of avatar system where u lvl up cant be used for main ladder and there shouldn't even be a ladder for it since it wouldn't tell anything meaningful - alright mybe it would tell who grinded the most/who got the most XP

[Prof]

How does it encourage cheating? And if they also put a simple matchmaking mechanic into the game, it would also not be unfair to beginners.

[Destin Faroda]

From the point of a modder, avatar conquest is absolutely horrible and a waste of resources better spent elsewhere:
- it is not fully moddable (you can fix the unit stats, but you can't add new units)
- it limits your choice of units
- the arcadish cheat buffs/skills are horrible
- matchmaking is unfair for new players
- I don't need pretty colours and if I did, I could mod them into the game via uniforms_to_faction_colours

We're far better off with the custom battle mode:
- it can be fully modded (new units to fill bland rosters, removal of unhistorical/undesirable units)
- everyone has to use the same budget
- you can choose a map
- you can play without arcadish cheat buffs and abilities

[JackDionne]

It's no secret that I am a huge proponent of the Avatar Conquest.
I don't think we will ever see it in another TW title.

Arena is another question I don't think it will fly, most people are like me I want to control my entire army. When I lose it will be because I lost the game not my teammates.


The painting in my signature block is from a screen shot I took in an Avatar battle and my nephew painted it for me.

[Prof]

So hiding something in plain sight forces people to use something different?

Does Rome 2 force me to start a new campaign everytime, I start the game, just because the "continue campaign" button is not in the same menu as the rest?

[Sebidee]

I never liked avatar conquest. They only good part was the customizable general.

[atheniandp]

I never liked avatar conquest. They only good part was the customizable general.

Why did you not like Avatar Conquest?


I'm afraid its posts like these that contributed to the lack of Avatar Conquest in Rome II. CA must have seen the lack of appreciation for their reinvention of Total War multiplayer and simply given up. Along with it died any chance Total War could ever become a serious MMORTS. It even had its own "Shamefur Dispray" meme going around for quite a bit. For a while it could have had a shot at eventually competing with games like Starcraft.

Even Total War: Arena won't be the same, because players won't command entire armies anymore, only 3 units.

[Sebidee]

Why did you not like Avatar Conquest?


I'm afraid its posts like these that contributed to the lack of Avatar Conquest in Rome II. CA must have seen the lack of appreciation for their reinvention of Total War multiplayer and simply given up. Along with it died any chance Total War could ever become a serious MMORTS. It even had its own "Shamefur Dispray" meme going around for quite a bit. For a while it could have had a shot at eventually competing with games like Starcraft.

Even Total War: Arena won't be the same, because players won't command entire armies anymore, only 3 units.

I didn't like it because it limited you to bad units and forced you to play battles with inferior forces against players with better units. It was unfair and not what you would want from multiplayer where everyone should be equal. I didn't like how I had to fight a dozen battles to get the unit I wanted and I thought it all a bit unnecessary.

I only fought the classic battles and I think a lot of people did the same. Another system like that in Attila wouldn't excite me at all because I would never use it. Whenever a new DLC comes out people complain about CA wasting time and resources and I think that's exactly what Avatar would be, a waste. Let them improve multiplayer balance, and co-op campaigns. That would be fine.

[Prof]

I didn't like it because it limited you to bad units and forced you to play battles with inferior forces against players with better units. It was unfair and not what you would want from multiplayer where everyone should be equal. I didn't like how I had to fight a dozen battles to get the unit I wanted and I thought it all a bit unnecessary.

I only fought the classic battles and I think a lot of people did the same. Another system like that in Attila wouldn't excite me at all because I would never use it. Whenever a new DLC comes out people complain about CA wasting time and resources and I think that's exactly what Avatar would be, a waste. Let them improve multiplayer balance, and co-op campaigns. That would be fine.

What you describe is nothing more than the lack of a matchmaking system, which they could easily add in a future release that includes an Avatar mode.

People who didn't like it could always just play classic battles...so why are people trying to keep it out of TW games?

[Sebidee]

What you describe is nothing more than the lack of a matchmaking system, which they could easily add in a future release that includes an Avatar mode.

People who didn't like it could always just play classic battles...so why are people trying to keep it out of TW games?

I'm not saying keep it out, I'm saying I'm not interested in it - I was asked why and said why.

I was giving my opinion on the feature and saying its inclusion wouldn't win any points for me. People are allowed to say that man, this entire forum is build on people raging about game features, I'm not allowed to point out a flawed feature of a Total War game when I see one? Double standards.