Multiplayer is dead

[EstrelaGaliza]

I've been playing this game last month, and as time pass, I felt how number of players was decreasing. Nowadays is impossible to find a ''Quick Battle'' (I've been trying last week at differents times of the day, if I get 2 matches for each 6 hours waiting, Im lucky).

Even multiplayer hosted battles are very very hard to find, and most of them are from afk players of super-noobs (I respect them, but its not funny to humiliate an opponent who does not understand the dynamics of the game and, believing that this is a campaign and he plays against the AI, spawns catapults and spam of archers at a corner of the map).

The point is (although I love the battles in this game) that CA has released an overpriced game too expensive for the content it offers. It explains why the game has died before Blood DLC released.

Sorry about my english, is not my first language.

[Berserk Belta]

Yeah, I think most of us are pretty single player orientated, so a smaller game like this must really suffer.

Seems like a shame, b3cause some of the maps in this are huge, detailed and relatively well pathed... I expect they are incredible for PvP.

[EstrelaGaliza]

Originally posted by Uhtred son of Uhtred:

Seems like a shame, b3cause some of the maps in this are huge, detailed and relatively well pathed... I expect they are incredible for PvP.

Everything related to land battles is awesome. I would probably pay 20-25 euros only for the battles, but I wouldn't pay even 5 for campaign. Again I respect those people who gladly pays only for campaign, but is understandable that a poor campaign such this keep most players away because, as you said, they are mostly singleplayed oriented.

[mercurydawn]

I'm a offline single player. TW is more single player, not multiplayer, but given this is a smaller title without historical battles, and how uninviting the multiplayer options look, I get why it looks like it is dying.

I gotta be honest, I'm never exactly thrilled with most TW battle maps. It's largely flat and featureless save maybe a few trees. I'm from a place that has lots of creeks, ravines, hills that are almost cliffs, forests thicker than amazonian jungles, and being ex infantry, my instinct is to flee into the wood line and exploit every bit of cover and concealment possible, giving me maximum advantage. Field battles on generic maps always feels.... bad, especially when I am on the defensive on a map as flat as Kansas and just outside of the boundaries is a damn hill that fits my specifications exactly. Just feels like too many past CA programmers grew up in the flattest, most featureless places in the world.

If I thought they put even a quarter of the thought and attention into these battle maps as they do the city maps, I would be excited to play (and likely have my butt repeatedly handed to me). Just.... this isn't a ToB issue alone for me. It is all TW games. Yeah, I can imagine many arguments for flat and featureless is better for fair gameplay and ease of pumping out more maps but..... give me a welsh mountain creekbed covered in foliage to fight in, or severely broken terrain, or anything.... other than cruelly unimaginative flatness. Again, not a ToB complaint, is a general TW complaint, I do love many of the city maps, best ever made for the series. I just don't like the fact I have way more awesome battle terrain a 5 minute walk away where a mountain stream is than I can find on any of the games.

[Moose_knuckle]

Ive never bothered with multiplayer Total war and dont think I ever will.

[TVMAN]

Even the larger titles have almost no multiplayer presence. Fact is most people stick to single player or co-op campaigns.

[Fast Johnny]

NTW, Empire and to a great extent Shogun II had a pretty healthy and long lived MP battle community. I think that you guys are correct in saying that many of the more recent TW games, especially this one, appeals to the single player experience. I also think that this and many of the more recent games are well suited to MP CoOp and MP Head to Head. So yeah, you don't see a lot of MP battles in the lobby.

And absolutely yes about the complexity and size of the battle maps in this game compared to the lack luster maps of TW Warhammer. I really wish Warhammer I and II gave us enough room to manuever and had at least half of the battle map size that this does.

[EstrelaGaliza]

Originally posted by Moose_knuckle:

Ive never bothered with multiplayer Total war and dont think I ever will.

If you never tried multiplayer you probably should do it. I think is almost impossible lo learn battle dinamics playing against ai. Of corse I use to enjoy TW campaigns (mostly at other titles) and sometimes I play defensive against ai and just enjoy watching beautiful battle graphics (at this title are awesome with reduced distance between soldiers).

Both are fun. The difference is that when you have played a lot of campaigns across TW titles you will sometimes get bored, but any new opponent at multiplayers means a new challenge.
Personally I think there is nothing more incentive and stimulating than playing agaisnt another human.

And not counting dlc's (which represent a new payment) and mods (which don't depend on CA)
Multiplayer is the only thing that can keep game's community alive (I not only talking about TW) over the years.

[Mile pro Libertate]

Shogun 2 did multiplayer the best imo, because it had avatar mode, and campaign drop-in battles.

[StrangeAK47]

Originally posted by Mile pro Libertate:

Shogun 2 did multiplayer the best imo, because it had avatar mode, and campaign drop-in battles.

+1