Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

Some multiplayer questions

traemyn

By traemyn
in Theatre of War

 Share

Recommended Posts

PseudoSimonds Senior Member

PseudoSimonds

Posted
Posted
Originally posted by Watson & Crick:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by PseudoSimonds:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Soddball:

How is it that not a single one of the recent registrees has even a basic grasp of spelling or grammar? Did they put something in the water?

wat teh hel r u takin abowt.? </font>
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Markus86 Senior Member

Markus86

Posted
Posted

Is it now possible to get some information about the changes, made in multiplayer?

The guys from 1C did on the russian forum too.

But the Babelfish translation is hard to understand.

This is what I could understand:

- 8 persons can take part in a game

- it is possible to form alliances or to play

alone; for example: 3 players "alliance 1" 2

players "alliance 2" and 3 players play for

themselves

It's hard to understand, maybe other members here can understand more of the translation.

The statement was made by Preston, seems to be a member of 1C.

Dezmatch in your understanding to kill each

other? As this is realized: 8 players are connected to

misii in the groups of 3 players "alliance 1" 2 players "alliance 2"

and 3 players play themselves for themselves, the task for misiyu of

taking zashchishchenyy bunker in the center of map, in which is

located the control panel by remote minefields. After the

seizure of bunker the destruction of other players of those not

locating in the alliance with that taken is produced. And this

is only sketch of the possibility of our dezmatcha. Moreover

everything of the fact that is written on the site given as the

reference to correct mul'tipleyer, it realizes also. Mission is

prepared with the aid of special trigerov. Accordingly the

variety of mul'tipleyera ogranichevayetsya only by the fantasy of

player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
traemyn Member

traemyn

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Originally posted by traemyn:

I am a huge multiplayer person and I have some high hopes for this game's MP even though I know I will enjoy the SP as well. MP is the future!

Multiplayer questions:

1. Will we be able to pick which units we fight with before the fight or are there only set- unit scenarios?

2. How will players find games? In-game browser or someother way?

3. Are you able to designate teams for multiplayer? ie 2 vs 2 or 3 vs 1?

3. Can you pick your 'side' regardless of your enemy's side? ie German vs German (yea I know it doesn't make sense but more freedom is better, almost always)

4. Are the end stats of the multiplayer games exported at all? If so, what will this include?

5. Have there been any serious 'shortcuts' or 'gameplay modifications' that have been changed in MP compared to SP?

6. Will MP be supported in patches as much as SP? (please please please) smile.gif

7. Will the 'pause' function exist in MP? If so, how will it work?

8. How many maps will there be for MP?

Thats all I can think of right now. Hope I can get some answers, thanks!

So the game went GOLD (russian version). Shouldn't my questions be relatively easy to answer by now?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Patrocles Senior Member

Patrocles

Posted
Posted
Originally posted by RCMP:

Well it certainly would be nice to have a Coop option........

Especially for larger scenarios and the real time aspect of things. Speeds up games significantly.

good idea! I would like to see this implemented, too.

I recall playing a lot of AOK games with Coop and with two players playing one civ. That was a blast and really helped with controlling the game units for this RTS game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
WooTzu Junior Member

WooTzu

Posted
Posted
Originally posted by Sammy_Davis_Jnr:

Dear oh dear

A game that has limited multiplayer options has limited game life. This game has some excellent features but not focusing on an expanded playability for multiplayer is a huge flaw. With games such as Faces of war to compete with on the multiplayer WW2 arena and so many people playing on the net why would you limit MP to 4 people and no co-op, next you will tell me we can only play the Yanks.

Lets face it Single player games are great but nothing compares against testing your skills against other people and it usually more fun and challenging.

Please some-one tell me this is a cruel joke because the more i hear about this game the more dissappointing im becoming. :(

This game must and will feature extensive multiplayer support!

Why?

Because TOW is the first RTS that Battlefront developed to my knowledge and RTS's of the 21st century require multiplayer support.

Yes TOW is still a wargame at heart, it's the most realistic and best looking battlefield simulator on the planet. But its seems that TOW is being played as an RTS and not a turn-based game. (see this thread for proof - note that the skilled player rarely paused the game at all, except to marvel at the graphics or to move to another point on the map where his reinforcements have arrived)

From my RTS experience, I will typically play single player for about 1-8 weeks, depending on the learning curve of the game and how long it takes me to find the weaknesses of the AI.

Singleplayer reusability doesn't have much to do with the number of campaigns if the AI is very bad, but if the AI is still better than me after I have beaten all of the campaigns on medium AI difficulty level, I'll likely jack the AI to max and take another stab at all of the campaigns as long as the AI doesn't cheat. Some RTS games will let their AI see through the fog of war even though you can't, hard to believe but it's true. It makes the game really boring, you might rush into the enemys flank with some tanks only to find 3 AT guns pointing right at you.

My goal of single player isn't to beat the AI, and it's not to beat the game. Instead it's to become the most skilled player that I can become as fast as possible. I want to defeat my opponent using real-world military strategies & tactics, instead of fake tricks that will only be usuable against one opponent, such as exploiting their specific weakness that I have learned from playing against them so many times. This makes my experience from the game applicable to other games and also to just about anything else in life, in theory at least.

So what happens after about 2 months? Why can't I play single player for more than 2 months? I'm always on the hunt for more challenges, since I know my oppenents weakensses and strengths (the AI) I will exploit them every opportunity I get. Usually the AI doesn't learn my weaknesses and strengths, so the games are mostly one-sided and I lose interest in a game that isn't challenging.

Online multiplay is the only answer! You will take your inflated ego that you have from slaughtering the AI everytime, and put it up against veteran online players. Next you'll wallow in self pity as all of your AI exploits don't work and the games that you play tend to make you look like an idiot.

Plus, I am willing to make a bet that real-world military strategies & tactics are more usable in multiplayer games vs. a real person than an AI opponent, in general. I can not make this claim against a game that I haven't played like TOW, but from my experience with RTS games, this usually is the truth.

But you have come too far to give up after getting slaughtered in your multiplayer adventure. Online players are even so kind to help you justify your experience, they call you a newbie, and that you have no skill.

The stage is set, so you work hard to become better than everybody else. You have a ranking system that tells you how good you are doing compared to everybody else, and you will do everything in your power to become number one.

It's one of the most exciting features of multiplayer, the strive for excellence.

From my experience (sorry, but I don't have any survey results to get an accurate sample of video game players, please reply if you do!). Turn-based games (civilization and other wargames) have very limited multiplayer use and the games last more than 3 hours, so you have to work on arranging games, etc. It just doesn't work. Singleplayer is the only way to go for very long games.

For RTS, Sports, and FPS games, multiplayer is the way to go. Singleplayer use is limited by the amount of challenges that you can give the player. And games are just like movies, it takes hours and sometime days of time to design and shoot a short 5 second video clip for the viewer. Your time is better spent on implementing a multiplayer feature that way players can challenge each other.

Multiplayer is the direction that all games are taking and it's also the direction that TOW needs to and will take.

If multiplayer isn't working at release (I don't count TCP/IP as multiplayer), then it must be ready by the time the first person no longer finds the game challenging anymore. If it's not ready by then, you will lose that customer forever or at least until they find out you have implemented multiplayer functionality.

But by then it might be too late. TOW is a new game genre. Die hard RTS fans that love realistic war simulations will fall in love with TOW. If Battlefront doesn't implement multiplayer, then what's to stop another game from copying TOW and implementing multiplayer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...