PDA

View Full Version : How can they improve multiplayer for rise of the tomb raider.



sarsdisease
2nd Jan 2015, 00:40
First I want to say, please don't post if you don't care about multiplayer. There are plenty of people who still play tomb raiders multiplayer. I play it daily and never have trouble finding matches.

If you do care about multiplayer please post away.

Spawns- In team deathmatch they need to have random spawns. It is way to easy for good players to spawn trap the enamy team. If they keep dedicated spawns they need to make it so the team that is getting spawn trapped has the option to flip spawns. After the match begins , they need to make spawns crandom like free for all.

Granade launcher- They need to get rid of it and make it do you throw the granade. So easy to switch weapons and just shoot a granade without aiming it.

Mines- get rid of them, exempt for c4 because you need to detonate it. I play only free for all and when I spawn in I drop a mine, and the next person that spawns there is dead if there not using fleet foot.

Traps, keep them but I would like to see different types. Maybe one that comes down from the ceiling.

I think hit detection is solid when there's no lag, and I feel most the weapons are balanced.

Free for all-Keep executioner in free for all but make it 10 kills, 5 kills is way to easy. Raise the kill limit to 20 or 25. 15 kills doesn't give people time to come back. I have 3 minute free for all because the kill limit is only 15 kills.

Power weopons- there fine and balanced.

Thats it for now, if you have anything else to add please do so. And please only post if you play or played multiplayer and enjoyed it. I don't want this to turn into a war on if it should have multiplayer or not.

If you disagree with me please list why so I can see it from your point of view.

Sorry for mistakes, typing from phone.

Rai
2nd Jan 2015, 02:27
I'm gonna ignore the bit where you said 'please don't post if you don't care about multiplayer' :p. You see, I don't care about multiplayer as it is now. That's important. You are asking how CD/SE can improve MP, right? How better than to find a way to interest those peeps, like me, who aren't interested? For me, TR and MP do not mix. Certainly not combat, kill anything that moves or capture the flag type modes. That's not Tomb Raider to me.

I appreciate that Multiplayer is about having fun with or against groups of other fans. I'm very much into solo play, as I feel Lara is best on her own. The only way to make MP even remotely appealing to someone who isn't into MP in general is to make it feel Tomb Raider (IE: different to what is normal for MP). IE: races to the tomb/artefact. Solving puzzles together, tomb time trials...I dunno, how about Team 1 Vs Team 2 and the first to trap the supernatural being (or something), wins. I know what's going to be said, there's the LC games for that. Well, why can't TR also have MP modes that are actually tomb raiding centric? IF CD/SE really do think MP in TR is here to stay, they need to make it match the game it's a part of. IMO. I may actually be persuaded then. They could also have the more traditional shooty modes too if they want. Just count me out of those :p.

sarsdisease
2nd Jan 2015, 03:07
I get what your saying. I just didn't want this to turn into a thread where everyone says tomb raider don't need multiplayer. It's here for all mp discussions weather it's co-op or whatever.

sarsdisease
2nd Jan 2015, 03:16
I will say if they don't have some type of multiplayer like they do now, I will not buy the game. But I'm def down for co-op aND other stuff. I know people say the multiplayer failed but I would have to disagree. A lot of people still play it

Blacktron
2nd Jan 2015, 14:14
First of all I think it could be improved by getting rid of all the bugs, glitches and instances were I'm looking at a black screen for 15 minutes before the next match is loaded. In other words, make sure that the multiplayer is technically sound in every way possible.

Removing the choice between casual and ranked means that the community is no longer split in two.

Make sure there's a larger amount of maps available at launch (I mean, I have never played on more than 4!!) and don't make us pay for additional maps, you greedy Ebenezers! Also because that too splits the community into smaller chunks.

Honestly, I don't agree with your comments about mines and grenade launchers, sarsdisease: I think those are all well balanced because when the enemy is using them a lot you've got survival skills to counter them.

And if all of that doesn't work out you can always try to do something totaly different like a class based multiplayer or a asymmetrical multiplayer of shooters vs. melee attackers. Primal Carnage was one of the latter and that's the multiplayer that I had the most fun with ever.

sarsdisease
2nd Jan 2015, 15:00
First of all I think it could be improved by getting rid of all the bugs, glitches and instances were I'm looking at a black screen for 15 minutes before the next match is loaded. In other words, make sure that the multiplayer is technically sound in every way possible.

Removing the choice between casual and ranked means that the community is no longer split in two.

Make sure there's a larger amount of maps available at launch (I mean, I have never played on more than 4!!) and don't make us pay for additional maps, you greedy Ebenezers! Also because that too splits the community into smaller chunks.

Honestly, I don't agree with your comments about mines and grenade launchers, sarsdisease: I think those are all well balanced because when the enemy is using them a lot you've got survival skills to counter them.

And if all of that doesn't work out you can always try to do something totaly different like a class based multiplayer or a asymmetrical multiplayer of shooters vs. melee attackers. Primal Carnage was one of the latter and that's the multiplayer that I had the most fun with ever.

Your def right about connection issues. I hate getting booTed from lobby every 3rd game. I get what you say about the granade launcher and mines. In team death matcH they probably are balanced. Have you played free for all. They are not balanced. Every time I spawn I drop a mine right where I am. When someone spawns in there they will die if they don't have fleet foot. Fleet foot isn't unlocked till like lvl 30 something. People don't even run around with there primary weapon sometimes. It's so easy to pull out you granade launcher and shoot and takes no skill. Yes you can avoid both of those things by dodging or a perk but that shouldn't be needed. I'm garenteed at least 1 kill a match by a mine if I don't die at all. If they do keep the granade launcher in they need to make it so you can't refill the ammo and get 1 granade per life. Then you have to choose when to use it. I think the game released with 6 maps and I agree that is to little.

Good suggestions though.

sarsdisease
2nd Jan 2015, 15:02
I am perfectly fine if they leave mines and granade launchers in the game, but they need to be balanced.

I don't think anyone played ranked any more, so they def shouldn't have ranked and casual lobbies. Just make everything ranked.

Blacktron
2nd Jan 2015, 15:14
Six maps? Oh yeah right, some were for free for all only, that was also stupid cause I didn't like that mode...

The no friendly fire system I think should also be expanded to grenade launchers and other explosives.

sarsdisease
2nd Jan 2015, 15:21
Lol I forgot about the only free for all maps, that was stupid. I don't play TDM cause I refuse to spawn trap people.

It's definently a good MP for there first attemp. They just need to polish and balance some stuff.

dark7angel
2nd Jan 2015, 18:49
Like I mentioned some time ago, the thing I want the most out of MP is the possibility to play offline with split-screen.

As for modes, I like Rai's ideas of making the MP unique and different from what everyone else does. Making it more Tomb Raider-y.

WinterSoldierLTE
2nd Jan 2015, 22:21
I'll agree with the "Make it unique to TR" comments. When I checked it out it didn't seem any different than any other MP game out there. But, if that means no more "Lara Croft &..." games, then keep it the same.

AlexWeiss
2nd Jan 2015, 23:17
I think the best way they could improve it is stop trying to make it a competitor with Uncharted's mulitplayer (which is god awful unless you're a level 75). I also have to go with the option to solve puzzles with online friends, that would be really fun, as well as perhaps giving us the ability to make our own maps.

I don't want to rule out the combat multiplayer completely, though, it was indeed fun, it just wasn't enough to entertain me for too long. Maybe it was the lack of new maps and game modes, making the only DLC for the game be strictly multiplayer maps that I had no interest in buying, that was incredibly irritating. I felt like the levels should be more elaborate (obviously the puzzles would have to be, and I hope I have as much fun on those puzzles as I did in Portal co-op), with new, more intricate trap systems, that maybe you could set yourself by collecting salvage, but don't make them in the same place all the time so the other team can memorize where they are and avoid them, put them in new places.

Something I really enjoyed were the environmental traps in certain maps, like the one where you put up the metal pole and lightning would strike someone near it, that was really fun, I'd like to see more of those. To expand upon killing methods, I'd like to see more ways that I can attack others with, maybe dropping from hidden areas above or stealth kills.

A MAJOR THING WOULD HAVE TO BE FIXING THE RIDICULOUS ANIMATIONS AND CAMERA ANGLES THAT MADE PLAYING FEEL EXTREMELY AWKWARD. I can't tell you how many times I was annoyed by the overly wide FOV just to see the character run like they have a stick up their ass.

I'm sure I'll think of something else later, but those were the first things I could think of, I haven't played the multiplayer since I'd say about February for a few hours, and before that it was the Spring of 2013.

Metalrocks
3rd Jan 2015, 01:07
worst MP i have ever played. glitches, lagging and poor level design.
if they want to improve it then certainly what was stated before; make it TR related. coop would be more suitable then just normal death matches which are done much better in other games. rather solve puzzles together and fight off a hand full of enemies sounds more entertaining.

sarsdisease
3rd Jan 2015, 03:21
I agree with stealth kills from above. And maybe pulling people off ledges. I think more traps like the sand storm you can cause. More envionmental traps. I look at it dlc wise as they gave you a complete game. People always complain about single player dlc, but when it's not given to them they complain. A company is gonna recieve hate if they release single player dlc, or if they dont. I agree they need a co-op mode for people who want it. I think a co-op mode where you need to work together to figure out puzzles would be great, but once you solve it once are you gonna keep doing it over and over.

No matter how we look at it, the multiplayer is getting people a lot of value out of this game.

sarsdisease
3rd Jan 2015, 03:24
worst MP i have ever played. glitches, lagging and poor level design.
if they want to improve it then certainly what was stated before; make it TR related. coop would be more suitable then just normal death matches which are done much better in other games. rather solve puzzles together and fight off a hand full of enemies sounds more entertaining.

The worst mp you ever played is harsh. The worst multiplayers don't last this long.

Metalrocks
3rd Jan 2015, 04:55
The worst mp you ever played is harsh. The worst multiplayers don't last this long.

to me it is the worst MP I have ever played.
playing MP games like BF3, titanfall, team fortress 2 (yeah they are all FPS games), TR is bad. i had more fun with AC, ME3 and max payne 3. even when it didnt appeal to me much but it was still fun.

sarsdisease
3rd Jan 2015, 05:53
to me it is the worst MP I have ever played.
playing MP games like BF3, titanfall, team fortress 2 (yeah they are all FPS games), TR is bad. i had more fun with AC, ME3 and max payne 3. even when it didnt appeal to me much but it was still fun.

To each his own I didnt think BF3 multiplayer was good at all. Def wouldn't call it the worst. Just was boring to me. I also like 3rd person shooters better, but comparing a tps to a fps is like apples and oranges. They play totaly different.

Metalrocks
3rd Jan 2015, 08:15
To each his own I didnt think BF3 multiplayer was good at all. Def wouldn't call it the worst. Just was boring to me. I also like 3rd person shooters better, but comparing a tps to a fps is like apples and oranges. They play totaly different.

dont see a major difference besides from the perspective. but yeah, everyone has their preferences.

AdobeArtist
3rd Jan 2015, 17:18
By getting rid of it.

sarsdisease
3rd Jan 2015, 19:18
By getting rid of it.

Why get rid of it. Cause a lot of people enjoy it, but you didnt.

a_big_house
3rd Jan 2015, 19:32
Why get rid of it.

It uses funds that could go towards single player (or a co-op campaign). Takes up disc space (which to be fair since both consoles use Blu-ray now and PC has infinite space, sorta, that doesn't really matter much).

I'm mostly not bothered whether or not Rise has MP now, it might interest me, but I doubt it :)

sarsdisease
3rd Jan 2015, 19:59
It uses funds that could go towards single player (or a co-op campaign). Takes up disc space (which to be fair since both consoles use Blu-ray now and PC has infinite space, sorta, that doesn't really matter much).

I'm mostly not bothered whether or not Rise has MP now, it might interest me, but I doubt it :)

You act like they won't give you a complete game if they add multiplayer. Was the last tomb raider not a complete game even though they had nultiplayer.

sarsdisease
3rd Jan 2015, 20:20
It uses funds that could go towards single player (or a co-op campaign). Takes up disc space (which to be fair since both consoles use Blu-ray now and PC has infinite space, sorta, that doesn't really matter much).

I'm mostly not bothered whether or not Rise has MP now, it might interest me, but I doubt it :)

You act like they won't give you a complete game if they add multiplayer. Was the last tomb raider not a complete game even though they had multiplayer.

sarsdisease
3rd Jan 2015, 20:20
Sorry for double post

a_big_house
3rd Jan 2015, 21:02
You act like they won't give you a complete game if they add multiplayer. Was the last tomb raider not a complete game even though they had nultiplayer.

I'm not acting like anything actually, I'm simply giving you an answer. TR9 was a complete game, I've never said it wasn't. As I said, I'm not bothered whether or not they add MP in TR10 :)

sarsdisease
3rd Jan 2015, 21:19
I gotcha, trust me even though I don't care about single player, they shouldn't gimp the single player. The single player should be the best they can make it.
Im sure it will be great and I hope it is.

AlexWeiss
4th Jan 2015, 00:08
I think a co-op mode where you need to work together to figure out puzzles would be great, but once you solve it once are you gonna keep doing it over and over. .

Take Portal 2 for example, those were amazing puzzles with well designed maps that I always have trouble doing twice. There's also a lot of them, it's not just a few maps like TR has.

To all those saying get rid of it, you didn't read the first post. This is a thread about improving the multiplayer, not getting rid of it, not about wasting money, improving it. I didn't like the multiplayer all that much either, but if it exists in ROTTR, I hope the devs see this and say, "These are some good ideas," so that if they do decide to make it, it won't be trash.

sarsdisease
4th Jan 2015, 00:27
Take Portal 2 for example, those were amazing puzzles with well designed maps that I always have trouble doing twice. There's also a lot of them, it's not just a few maps like TR has.

To all those saying get rid of it, you didn't read the first post. This is a thread about improving the multiplayer, not getting rid of it, not about wasting money, improving it. I didn't like the multiplayer all that much either, but if it exists in ROTTR, I hope the devs see this and say, "These are some good ideas," so that if they do decide to make it, it won't be trash.
I think a co-op mode would be great. A lot of people have asked for it so the devs would be dumb not to include it.

Single player, co-op, and multiplayer should all be included.

Metalrocks
4th Jan 2015, 01:31
well, AA is right. not including it would be a huge improvement :D
ok, jokes aside, still think that not every game these days must have some sort of MP included. but if they do, then of course it should never effect the SP and has to be done right. and for in TR case, a coop would be suitable and this i might actually enjoy.

sarsdisease
4th Jan 2015, 03:02
well, AA is right. not including it would be a huge improvement :D
ok, jokes aside, still think that not every game these days must have some sort of MP included. but if they do, then of course it should never effect the SP and has to be done right. and for in TR case, a coop would be suitable and this i might actually enjoy.

I agree that all games dont need multiplayer, but they already added it, a lot of people enjoy it. I know it's not the most popular multiplayer but it's still very active. No point in going back now. If they polish it, it will be even more active.

Metalrocks
4th Jan 2015, 12:38
I agree that all games dont need multiplayer, but they already added it, a lot of people enjoy it. I know it's not the most popular multiplayer but it's still very active. No point in going back now. If they polish it, it will be even more active.

glad you agree. because these days so many people refuse to get a game if it has no MP what so ever in it.
but yes, i dont think that the MP will go away that quickly. if they do improve it or add different features in to it as mentioned here, then people who do enjoy it could have even more fun and/or add people who didnt bother and got turned off by it like me.

WinterSoldierLTE
4th Jan 2015, 14:18
I might be alright with the idea of a co-op campaign or two in the main game so long as there's local play, and not just online only. And if there is a co-op level here or there, I'd like to see it available as single playable as well.

AlexWeiss
4th Jan 2015, 19:51
single playable as well.

I'd like to see this as well.

In truth, I wouldn't care if they rid Rise of the Tomb Raider of multiplayer completely, it would probably be in their best interest, and it bothers me that there are so many devs that are like, "THIS GAME WILL BE SO MUCH FUN WITH MULTIPLAYER!" and especially in a game like TR, it just doesn't always work. Though, like MetalRocks said, if they choose to improve it then hopefully they do it properly so more will be interested.

Error96_
5th Jan 2015, 00:20
I have played the multiplayer quite a bit. It was quite good but weaker than the single player. If it comes back and I'm not for sure saying it should then there is lots that needs fixing.

The biggest problem is fixing the match up system. In every game the highest rank players switch the teams around so all the best players end up on the same team making it incredibly tough on new players and the only game with enough players is boring team deathmatch. The solution has to be to automatically assign teams and selecting the game mode randomly.

I struggled to find match ups for DLC maps so would like to see just ONE DLC pack with all the maps so the population isn't divided.

The lag issues need to be sorted as it often becomes unplayable because of lag

There should be something to block the trapping of spawn sites

Maybe have a new race mode (like the TRLR Von Croy race) or have a Tomb Raider vs Tomb guards mode

A split screen mode would be cool especially with a race mode as all my family play TR but we only have 1 console

Don't include any complex multiplayer trophies

sarsdisease
5th Jan 2015, 03:14
I have played the multiplayer quite a bit. It was quite good but weaker than the single player. If it comes back and I'm not for sure saying it should then there is lots that needs fixing.

The biggest problem is fixing the match up system. In every game the highest rank players switch the teams around so all the best players end up on the same team making it incredibly tough on new players and the only game with enough players is boring team deathmatch. The solution has to be to automatically assign teams and selecting the game mode randomly.

I struggled to find match ups for DLC maps so would like to see just ONE DLC pack with all the maps so the population isn't divided.

The lag issues need to be sorted as it often becomes unplayable because of lag

There should be something to block the trapping of spawn sites

Maybe have a new race mode (like the TRLR Von Croy race) or have a Tomb Raider vs Tomb guards mode

A split screen mode would be cool especially with a race mode as all my family play TR but we only have 1 console

Don't include any complex multiplayer trophies

I agree with most points. I think it would be dumb to not include it though. I still play it regularly. I don't play team death match cause I refuse to spawn trap. I play on ps4 so I don't have to deal with split player base, but that is a big no-no. I've never had lag that made the game unplayable so can't comment on that. I definently agree there should be no trophies for multiplayer, at least ones that stop you from getting the plat

sarsdisease
5th Jan 2015, 03:15
I'd like to see this as well.

In truth, I wouldn't care if they rid Rise of the Tomb Raider of multiplayer completely, it would probably be in their best interest, and it bothers me that there are so many devs that are like, "THIS GAME WILL BE SO MUCH FUN WITH MULTIPLAYER!" and especially in a game like TR, it just doesn't always work. Though, like MetalRocks said, if they choose to improve it then hopefully they do it properly so more will be interested.

I would have to say multiplayer did work in tomb raider. A lot of people still play it, and I'm sure a lot of them are expecting it to be in the next one.

Tecstar70
5th Jan 2015, 11:06
I enjoyed mulitplayer a lot and it didn't detract from the SP experience. My biggest gripe was that some of the maps were Free For All only so for me thsi woudl be the only improvement needed - don't limit game modes on maps.

Gitb97
5th Jan 2015, 18:45
Multiplayer NEEDS maps that are fun. I don't think TR needs it because it's a brilliant game without it and obviously more content can be put in thats awesome that isn't MP, however, if they do actually go ahead and do it now then they should definitely give us more FREE IN GAME maps - not spending like 75p (i think?) on a map...Also they need it to be more competitive and like, more Gears of War, Saints Row 2-4 with the option to have someone join in your game because they're my fave things about the games I just said, like SR2 used to be loooads of fun when someone would join my game and we'd just mess about, Gears Of War having it actually helped me pass a level I was really stuck on, (I was like 12 and a terrible coward T^T) so maybe that, because it'd be kinda cool to have like Lara 2.0 or something ingame with you exploring and such. That said I can imagine someone exploring a hub, while you try and proceed with the level and then it just going horribly wrong -_-...I suppose taking a risk is something they could try, so they could see how that goes.

sarsdisease
5th Jan 2015, 19:26
Multiplayer NEEDS maps that are fun. I don't think TR needs it because it's a brilliant game without it and obviously more content can be put in thats awesome that isn't MP, however, if they do actually go ahead and do it now then they should definitely give us more FREE IN GAME maps - not spending like 75p (i think?) on a map...Also they need it to be more competitive and like, more Gears of War, Saints Row 2-4 with the option to have someone join in your game because they're my fave things about the games I just said, like SR2 used to be loooads of fun when someone would join my game and we'd just mess about, Gears Of War having it actually helped me pass a level I was really stuck on, (I was like 12 and a terrible coward T^T) so maybe that, because it'd be kinda cool to have like Lara 2.0 or something ingame with you exploring and such. That said I can imagine someone exploring a hub, while you try and proceed with the level and then it just going horribly wrong -_-...I suppose taking a risk is something they could try, so they could see how that goes.

What's not fun about the maps?

Why you think they would give you more content if mp doesn't exist. I hope they would give you just as much content as the would if mp exist or if it doesnt. It seems like they did on tomb raider 2013.

a_big_house
5th Jan 2015, 21:50
Why you think they would give you more content if mp doesn't exist. I hope they would give you just as much content as the would if mp exist or if it doesnt. It seems like they did on tomb raider 2013.

Well the submarine base MP map for example; it's a place that exists in the game, but not accessible in the story. It's clearly visible from the beach, they (EM) could have instead created story DLC using the rest of the crew and visited the base (and other MP maps) :D

sarsdisease
6th Jan 2015, 00:29
Well the submarine base MP map for example; it's a place that exists in the game, but not accessible in the story. It's clearly visible from the beach, they (EM) could have instead created story DLC using the rest of the crew and visited the base (and other MP maps) :D

So they gave you a complete game that didnt need dlc. Your saying they could of added single player dlc instead of multiplayer, but what makes you think they would of added single player dlc if they didn't have multiplayer. I don't think the multiplayer stopped you from getting single player dlc.

a_big_house
6th Jan 2015, 12:14
So they gave you a complete game that didnt need dlc. Your saying they could of added single player dlc instead of multiplayer, but what makes you think they would of added single player dlc if they didn't have multiplayer. I don't think the multiplayer stopped you from getting single player dlc.

They usually do give us complete games that don't need DLC. But like the Mass Effect games, DLC just added to the story. But no, I don't think MP stopped us from getting SP DLC, but I do think that, had they decided not to do MP, then they would have likely made SP DLC. In simple words; MP was more important that SP DLC.

Tecstar70
6th Jan 2015, 16:10
They usually do give us complete games that don't need DLC. But like the Mass Effect games, DLC just added to the story. But no, I don't think MP stopped us from getting SP DLC, but I do think that, had they decided not to do MP, then they would have likely made SP DLC. In simple words; MP was more important that SP DLC.

As the SP and MP were developed separately do you not think that MP was NOT more important that SP DLC? I think I read somewhere that CD said that the story stood on its own and SP DLC would not fit within the story structure of the game.

"I don't think MP stopped us from getting SP DLC"
"had they decided not to do MP, then they would have likely made SP DLC"

Your statement kinda contradicts itself unless I am not understanding it correctly! :)

a_big_house
6th Jan 2015, 20:53
As the SP and MP were developed separately do you not think that MP was NOT more important that SP DLC? I think I read somewhere that CD said that the story stood on its own and SP DLC would not fit within the story structure of the game.

"I don't think MP stopped us from getting SP DLC"
"had they decided not to do MP, then they would have likely made SP DLC"

Your statement kinda contradicts itself unless I am not understanding it correctly! :)

Well, no to both parts. As you mentioned, CD said that the story stood on it's own, thus SP DLC wasn't really a factor in whatever decision making process they had, so even they were planning on doing the DLC it would have been less important than MP. And the key is in my wording, I'm not saying MP stopped SP DLC from happening (we already know that it didn't), but if MP wasn't an option for the game, they'd have likely gone for SP DLC.

Bit clearer now I hope?

Driber
6th Jan 2015, 21:20
It uses funds that could go towards single player (or a co-op campaign).

You don't know that.


Takes up disc space

Were the TR9 discs full? I haven't checked, but I'm betting no.


(which to be fair since both consoles use Blu-ray now and PC has infinite space, sorta, that doesn't really matter much).

Not really an important detail to the discussion, but your PC example has no more "infinite space" than a console does.


Well the submarine base MP map for example; it's a place that exists in the game, but not accessible in the story. It's clearly visible from the beach, they (EM) could have instead created story DLC using the rest of the crew and visited the base (and other MP maps) :D

If anyone would be releasing story DLC it would be CD, not EM.


They usually do give us complete games that don't need DLC. But like the Mass Effect games, DLC just added to the story. But no, I don't think MP stopped us from getting SP DLC, but I do think that, had they decided not to do MP, then they would have likely made SP DLC. In simple words; MP was more important that SP DLC.

As Tecstar mentioned, you're contradicting yourself there :scratch:


Well, no to both parts. As you mentioned, CD said that the story stood on it's own, thus SP DLC wasn't really a factor in whatever decision making process they had, so even they were planning on doing the DLC it would have been less important than MP. And the key is in my wording, I'm not saying MP stopped SP DLC from happening (we already know that it didn't), but if MP wasn't an option for the game, they'd have likely gone for SP DLC.

Bit clearer now I hope?

Uhm not really, I'm still hearing the same contradiction :/

If MP "wasn't an option" and then there would have been SP DLC, then the fact that there was MP did essentially held the making of SP DLC back, according to your logic...

a_big_house
6th Jan 2015, 21:51
You don't know that.
...
Were the TR9 discs full? I haven't checked, but I'm betting no.

'Could' was the key word and I never said they were full



If anyone would be releasing story DLC it would be CD, not EM.

True, but not the point I was making


As Tecstar mentioned, you're contradicting yourself there :scratch:
...
Uhm not really, I'm still hearing the same contradiction :/

If MP "wasn't an option" and then there would have been SP DLC, then the fact that there was MP did essentially held the making of SP DLC back, according to your logic...

No, there's no contradiction, I'm not saying there 'would have been SP DLC' I'm saying it is likely that it is what they would have done

Think of it like a T-junction; right is MP, left is SP DLC. With TR9 they had both options and even said they're rather go right (with the story being complete and all), I'm saying if there was no right option, then left would have been their only choice. (Ignoring other possible DLC/gametype choices, of course)

Gitb97
7th Jan 2015, 18:10
What's not fun about the maps?

Why you think they would give you more content if mp doesn't exist. I hope they would give you just as much content as the would if mp exist or if it doesnt. It seems like they did on tomb raider 2013.

Well, in my opinion the maps were teeny-tiny! I just found them blegh. Well, the ones that you didn't have to buy. I never bought a map, because I already paid £60 for the survival edition sooooo. I like my MP to keep me occupied. GTA V's Online mode reaaaally kept me into it, like, not just the open-world play with randomers thing, but also the competitive modes too. Tons of fun. But I don't wanna seem like one of those generic GTA lovers takes no hate over it types, because naturally I did get bored of it at some point and haven't played it in forever.

Driber
7th Jan 2015, 19:59
'Could' was the key word

Right, and you don't know if those funds could go towards SP. 'Could' is not the same as 'maybe' in this context. Maybe they could, maybe they could not; you don't know.


and I never said they were full

So what was the point? If MP takes space on the disc, but it doesn't stuff the disc, why is it relevant? What difference would it make if all the MP data take up, say, 500MB, and there are still gigabytes of space left on the disc for example?


True, but not the point I was making

Oh I know. I wasn't disagreeing with that particular point; just correcting a little 'error' :)


No, there's no contradiction, I'm not saying there 'would have been SP DLC' I'm saying it is likely that it is what they would have done

Think of it like a T-junction; right is MP, left is SP DLC. With TR9 they had both options and even said they're rather go right (with the story being complete and all), I'm saying if there was no right option, then left would have been their only choice. (Ignoring other possible DLC/gametype choices, of course)

I'm still not quite understand your logic, so let me ask you this - why do you think in terms of either-or in the first place?

What makes it impossible that CD did have both options during the development process? I.e. they were free to choose to create story DLC and MP mode, but they simply chose not to do story DLC because they wanted to deliver a finished product, as per the dev's own words.

sarsdisease
7th Jan 2015, 23:19
Well, in my opinion the maps were teeny-tiny! I just found them blegh. Well, the ones that you didn't have to buy. I never bought a map, because I already paid £60 for the survival edition sooooo. I like my MP to keep me occupied. GTA V's Online mode reaaaally kept me into it, like, not just the open-world play with randomers thing, but also the competitive modes too. Tons of fun. But I don't wanna seem like one of those generic GTA lovers takes no hate over it types, because naturally I did get bored of it at some point and haven't played it in forever.

To each his own of course. I do agree some of the maps could be bigger, and they did improve the maps in the dlc. I think the maps work for what this game was though. I also agree that there's plenty of things that they could improve in the next game. To me they released a solid fun multiplayer. I only ever play this and the last of us because those are by far the top 2 funnest multiplayers on the ps4 in my opinion. I just hope they take what they learned from this multiplayer, and nail it in rise of the tomb raider

Bridgetkfisher
8th Jan 2015, 04:06
by not having multiplayer, noone buys a TR game for multiplayer, they cant compete with COD like they tried to with TR2013 and that game failed because of it. So many resources were poured into the multiplayer that it left the main game feeling unfinished because they ran out of money to make the game look good. Most maps look colorless and blandless and they could even fix the camera in cut scenes or during the game to not shake all over the place. That was a shame, I hope they can afford to make the next TR better.

sarsdisease
8th Jan 2015, 05:09
by not having multiplayer, noone buys a TR game for multiplayer, they cant compete with COD like they tried to with TR2013 and that game failed because of it. So many resources were poured into the multiplayer that it left the main game feeling unfinished because they ran out of money to make the game look good. Most maps look colorless and blandless and they could even fix the camera in cut scenes or during the game to not shake all over the place. That was a shame, I hope they can afford to make the next TR better.

Correction, I bought tomb raider just for multiplayer. Still havn'T even started up the campain. They are not trying to compete with cod. Your the only person I ever heard that the they delivered an un finished game. The multiplayer for tomb raider is still populated and I play it everyday. Just cause you didn't like it, doesn't mean it shouldn't be in the game. You also didn't give a reason on how to improve it so why even post, if you have nothing positive to add

Metalrocks
8th Jan 2015, 07:46
Correction, I bought tomb raider just for multiplayer. Still havn'T even started up the campain. They are not trying to compete with cod. Your the only person I ever heard that the they delivered an un finished game. The multiplayer for tomb raider is still populated and I play it everyday. Just cause you didn't like it, doesn't mean it shouldn't be in the game. You also didn't give a reason on how to improve it so why even post, if you have nothing positive to add

so you are saying that if it woulndt be for the MP, you would have never bothered to get the game?
:lol: sorry to break it to you, but TR has always been about lara and her adventures (but i guess you knew that). the MP was just slapped on to most likely attract other crowds.
give the SP a try. the ratings you hear arent far off.

Tecstar70
8th Jan 2015, 10:44
To each his own of course. I do agree some of the maps could be bigger, and they did improve the maps in the dlc. I think the maps work for what this game was though. I also agree that there's plenty of things that they could improve in the next game. To me they released a solid fun multiplayer. I only ever play this and the last of us because those are by far the top 2 funnest multiplayers on the ps4 in my opinion. I just hope they take what they learned from this multiplayer, and nail it in rise of the tomb raider

I really enjoyed MP. I liked the drop-in quick play aspect to it. I don't have the time to devote to the big GTA V open world MP games. Its the same reason I like Titanfall. You can play a few games really quickly and enjoy them. Once I have completed the SP (again!) with TR: DE I will be hitting the MP again (hopefully some people will still be playing it!)




by not having multiplayer, noone buys a TR game for multiplayer, they cant compete with COD like they tried to with TR2013 and that game failed because of it. So many resources were poured into the multiplayer that it left the main game feeling unfinished because they ran out of money to make the game look good. Most maps look colorless and blandless and they could even fix the camera in cut scenes or during the game to not shake all over the place. That was a shame, I hope they can afford to make the next TR better.

Do you REALLY believe that they tried to compete with COD? You can't really be serious. That's nonsense.

Are you saying TR2013 failed? Nonsense again.

The SP and MP were developed INDEPENDENTLY. This has been well documented. How do you know they ran out of money? Again I think you are talking nonsense.

Be honest, do you just come here to troll?

Scion_Light
8th Jan 2015, 11:54
The match up system generating very uneven teams and people being able to put traps in the start areas were the worst things that would need to be rethought.

As a SP game TR(2013) was as good as pretty much any game out in recent years but the multiplayer was only so-so. They could shift the resources and finances from MP into SP or simply save the money from MP and then not sign an exclusivity deal next game.

sarsdisease
8th Jan 2015, 14:18
so you are saying that if it woulndt be for the MP, you would have never bothered to get the game?
:lol: sorry to break it to you, but TR has always been about lara and her adventures (but i guess you knew that). the MP was just slapped on to most likely attract other crowds.
give the SP a try. the ratings you hear arent far off.

Yup , and I don't plan on playing the single player in rise of the tomb raider. I did watch my wife play for a couple hours, and it looked good, but I don't care to play it. Any ways the point of this thread is to give them ideas on how to improve the multiplayer, if they are going to have it in the next game, we might as well try to make it the we can.

sarsdisease
8th Jan 2015, 14:19
I really enjoyed MP. I liked the drop-in quick play aspect to it. I don't have the time to devote to the big GTA V open world MP games. Its the same reason I like Titanfall. You can play a few games really quickly and enjoy them. Once I have completed the SP (again!) with TR: DE I will be hitting the MP again (hopefully some people will still be playing it!)





Do you REALLY believe that they tried to compete with COD? You can't really be serious. That's nonsense.

Are you saying TR2013 failed? Nonsense again.

The SP and MP were developed INDEPENDENTLY. This has been well documented. How do you know they ran out of money? Again I think you are talking nonsense.

Be honest, do you just come here to troll?

It is still active, I play it almost every day.

sarsdisease
8th Jan 2015, 14:21
The match up system generating very uneven teams and people being able to put traps in the start areas were the worst things that would need to be rethought.

As a SP game TR(2013) was as good as pretty much any game out in recent years but the multiplayer was only so-so. They could shift the resources and finances from MP into SP or simply save the money from MP and then not sign an exclusivity deal next game.

I can't talk about uneven teams cause I only play free for all. I hate spawn trapping, and that's all the team modes are. If it is broke they need to fix it. Good suggestion.

Metalrocks
8th Jan 2015, 15:38
Yup , and I don't plan on playing the single player in rise of the tomb raider. I did watch my wife play for a couple hours, and it looked good, but I don't care to play it. Any ways the point of this thread is to give them ideas on how to improve the multiplayer, if they are going to have it in the next game, we might as well try to make it the we can.

lol. your loss. wasted part of your money.

Tecstar70
13th Jan 2015, 11:06
I can't talk about uneven teams cause I only play free for all. I hate spawn trapping, and that's all the team modes are. If it is broke they need to fix it. Good suggestion.


In my experience, unless it has changed, most games didn't turn into spawn trapping. Any that did I ususally dropped out and found another game. Had great fun playing the team games.

wasabi_croft
19th Jan 2015, 15:18
First I want to say, please don't post if you don't care about multiplayer. .

People just don't listen :)

I still enjoy mulitplayer. It's a nice add-on to the game. It shortens the wait for the next Tomb Raider. If I ever will have chance to play it anyway :)

In terms of Improving:

Bigger Maps. 12 Players. Different Outfits. Shorten the Lobbytime. (If Players don't check the ready Box, you wait forever till the game starts. But most importantly get rid of some severe bugs. Getting bootet every 3rd time. Black screen. DNS Error seems to be a Sony Thing. But otherwise it is great Multiplayer-Game!

Blacktron
19th Jan 2015, 15:46
Concerning the: 'multiplayer takes money away from single player' argument: (apart from the fact that marketing campaigns, tv adds, giving Lara Croft models SAS training and the swimming pool outside the Crystal Dynamics studio has also cost a lot of money in the past, and no-one has ever complained about that) there is a way to let the single player campaign benefit from the multiplayer, by having those MP maps also appear in the single player as areas for bonus quests. Most of the maps from the TR MP would have been great as areas in the single player. There's not any puzzles in them but they would do well as the background for killing some enemies, collect 10 collectables or talk to some people.

Driber
19th Jan 2015, 16:29
Your the only person I ever heard that the they delivered an un finished game.

Maybe because you signed up only a few months ago. I myself heard the same thing many times here on the forums since March 2013.


You also didn't give a reason on how to improve it so why even post, if you have nothing positive to add

Perhaps people keep posting OT because the OP keep fuelling the OT flames ;)



so you are saying that if it woulndt be for the MP, you would have never bothered to get the game?
:lol: sorry to break it to you, but TR has always been about lara and her adventures (but i guess you knew that). the MP was just slapped on to most likely attract other crowds.
give the SP a try. the ratings you hear arent far off.


lol. your loss. wasted part of your money.

Wait, so you're saying that CD purposely included MP in TR9 to "attract other crowds", and then when being confronted by one of those "other crowd" people, you're telling him that it's "his loss" and that he "wasted his money" on the game?

Nice...


Concerning the: 'multiplayer takes money away from single player' argument: (apart from the fact that marketing campaigns, tv adds, giving Lara Croft models SAS training and the swimming pool outside the Crystal Dynamics studio has also cost a lot of money in the past, and no-one has ever complained about that) there is a way to let the single player campaign benefit from the multiplayer, by having those MP maps also appear in the single player as areas for bonus quests. Most of the maps from the TR MP would have been great as areas in the single player. There's not any puzzles in them but they would do well as the background for killing some enemies, collect 10 collectables or talk to some people.

And here's another argument in favor of MP:

Adding MP attracts more people to buy the game. More people buying the game means bigger profit. Bigger profit means bigger chance of a sequel, and possibly more money to spend on said sequel.

Or how about this one:

Adding multiplayer could possibly have been a factor in TR9 receiving such a high budget from SE in the first place. In other words - without MP, the SP campaign would have been weaker, so fans got a better game because of MP.

:whistle:

sarsdisease
19th Jan 2015, 20:40
lol. your loss. wasted part of your money.

I wouldn't say it's my loss, ive probably got more time played in the game then people who just bought it for SP

sarsdisease
19th Jan 2015, 20:41
I agree bigger maps, I'm fine with the 4v4 but I would take 6 v 6. The main thing they need to prevent in team based game modes is spawn trapping.

sarsdisease
19th Jan 2015, 20:49
Concerning the: 'multiplayer takes money away from single player' argument: (apart from the fact that marketing campaigns, tv adds, giving Lara Croft models SAS training and the swimming pool outside the Crystal Dynamics studio has also cost a lot of money in the past, and no-one has ever complained about that) there is a way to let the single player campaign benefit from the multiplayer, by having those MP maps also appear in the single player as areas for bonus quests. Most of the maps from the TR MP would have been great as areas in the single player. There's not any puzzles in them but they would do well as the background for killing some enemies, collect 10 collectables or talk to some people.

That's a great idea. I though most the multiplayer maps were in sp, I thought I saw some of the places when I was watching my wife play. I never played sp so I could be wrong.

Driber
19th Jan 2015, 22:43
sarsdisease, please use the multi quote feature to avoid double (or in this case, triple) posting.

http://forums.eu.square-enix.com/faq.php#faq_multiquote

Metalrocks
20th Jan 2015, 02:58
i said wasted "part" of his money.
and for a game were the SP is the main focus, it is a loss. just like when people get them self BF or any other MP focused game and just play it for the SP.

Tecstar70
20th Jan 2015, 12:27
Wait, so you're saying that CD purposely included MP in TR9 to "attract other crowds", and then when being confronted by one of those "other crowd" people, you're telling him that it's "his loss" and that he "wasted his money" on the game?

Nice...



And here's another argument in favor of MP:

Adding MP attracts more people to buy the game. More people buying the game means bigger profit. Bigger profit means bigger chance of a sequel, and possibly more money to spend on said sequel.

Or how about this one:

Adding multiplayer could possibly have been a factor in TR9 receiving such a high budget from SE in the first place. In other words - without MP, the SP campaign would have been weaker, so fans got a better game because of MP.

:whistle:

Totally agree!

Driber
20th Jan 2015, 14:25
i said wasted "part" of his money.

I know what you said. My comment stands.


and for a game were the SP is the main focus, it is a loss. just like when people get them self BF or any other MP focused game and just play it for the SP.

If someone purchases a product and gets enough enjoyment out of using said product that he feels it justifies the investment, I don't see how that could be a "loss" or "waste of money", no matter what some people determine to be the "main focus".

Metalrocks
21st Jan 2015, 05:05
I know what you said. My comment stands.


so does mine :)



If someone purchases a product and gets enough enjoyment out of using said product that he feels it justifies the investment, I don't see how that could be a "loss" or "waste of money", no matter what some people determine to be the "main focus".

if he has fun with it, thats all fine but should at least give the SP a try. to at least know who the characters are and get everything out of the money he has payed for the product. so yeah, i do see this as a waste and a loss.

Driber
21st Jan 2015, 11:28
so does mine :)

O........kay :scratch:


if he has fun with it, thats all fine but should at least give the SP a try.

I don't see why he, or anyone else for that matter, should. He's obviously not a fan, and that's okay, we don't all have to be fans of a game (series) in order to play (parts of it).


and get everything out of the money he has payed for the product.

Where's the rule that says everyone always should get everything out of their money? Did you platinum / 100% all of the games you've ever bought in your life? I'm willing to bet no.


so yeah, i do see this as a waste and a loss.

I'd argue that forcing yourself to play something that you're not interested in just for the sake of money is also a waste - a waste of time.

Metalrocks
21st Jan 2015, 15:19
just leaving the biggest part out of the game is a waste without giving it a try. its like buying a movie and then just watch the special features only.
i wasnt interested in the MP either but i gave it a try. didnt like it in the end due mentioned reasons some time ago. so i could say i wasted my time with it too.
do you think i enjoyed the campaigns of the COD titles i have played? not really, but i still played them. had at least some fun moments. cant say i wasted my time with them, since they arent long anyway. but i guess now you would say that these hours i have played the SP i could have invested in the MP. true but it was still part of the game.
i wasnt interested in the MP of AC as well, but i gave it a try. it was nice but it didnt hook me in.

and actually i do try to reach 100% of the games i buy. if i dont, then:
1. its just bad.
2. doesnt work properly.
3. is not grabbing me as i hope it would.

Driber
21st Jan 2015, 15:48
@Metal:


just leaving the biggest part out of the game is a waste without giving it a try.

Nope. Maybe for you personally it would be, but not for everyone else.


its like buying a movie and then just watch the special features only.

I could easily see how an aspiring cinematographer may purchase a DVD of a movie not to watch the movie itself, but only to see the special features, just to learn certain movie making techniques. So that wouldn't be a "loss" for that person, either.


i wasnt interested in the MP either but i gave it a try.

Good for you.


didnt like it in the end due mentioned reasons some time ago. so i could say i wasted my time with it too.

Why would I, if you personally enjoyed trying it?


do you think i enjoyed the campaigns of the COD titles i have played? not really, but i still played them.

Good for you.


had at least some fun moments.

Not everyone will share that sentiment.


cant say i wasted my time with them, since they arent long anyway.

No one is saying you did.


but i guess now you would say that these hours i have played the SP i could have invested in the MP.

No I wouldn't.


true but it was still part of the game.

Not true, so... irrelevant.


i wasnt interested in the MP of AC as well, but i gave it a try. it was nice but it didnt hook me in.

Good for you.


and actually i do try to reach 100% of the games i buy. if i dont, then:
1. its just bad.
2. doesnt work properly.
3. is not grabbing me as i hope it would.

Same argument that the OP stated for not playing the SP of TR9 :whistle:

Tecstar70
21st Jan 2015, 15:51
Metalrocks, it's still just your opinion and your opinion doesn't invalidate sarsdisease's enjoyment of the game. As far as HE is concerned it wasn't a waste and he is still enjoying the game. That you consider it a waste doesn't make it so.

Driber
21st Jan 2015, 15:54
^ This.

Metalrocks
22nd Jan 2015, 02:26
all i was trying to say is that he should give it a try. nothing more. i never said he cant enjoy the game at all without playing the SP.

sarsdisease
22nd Jan 2015, 13:08
all i was trying to say is that he should give it a try. nothing more. i never said he cant enjoy the game at all without playing the SP.


I get what you saying, but I don't enjoy shooter single players, if I play a single player game, it's gonna be ,fallout, dark souls or dragon age. My wife also games and she played the single player. I watched her for some of it and it seemed like a solid single player. I already know I would be bored playing it.

Metalrocks
22nd Jan 2015, 14:52
I get what you saying, but I don't enjoy shooter single players, if I play a single player game, it's gonna be ,fallout, dark souls or dragon age. My wife also games and she played the single player. I watched her for some of it and it seemed like a solid single player. I already know I would be bored playing it.

lol. ok.
so you enjoy MP shooters only. so like team fortress 2, titanfall, COD, etc. on what platform you play on again?

Driber
24th Jan 2015, 02:23
all i was trying to say is that he should give it a try. nothing more.

You did say more, though. What I objected to was you dictating that it is a loss and waste of money for him. Simply saying that he should give SP a try I think is fine, no problem there :)


i never said he cant enjoy the game at all without playing the SP.

Nor did anyone claim you said that.

Metalrocks
24th Jan 2015, 13:59
You did say more, though. What I objected to was you dictating that it is a loss and waste of money for him. Simply saying that he should give SP a try I think is fine, no problem there :)

that was just expressing my self what i think of it. still trying to be neutral about it without disrespecting his decision. the rest was just responding to you as to why i think he is wasting his money. not really talking directly to him. my implication to him was as stated above: giving it a try.

hope this makes sense what im trying to say.

dandins
24th Jan 2015, 15:09
The Multiplayer of TR2013 is definitly one of the best third person round based multiplayer I played for a long time and its still a lot of fun playing it. The mix between killing and using traps is great and there no doubt that this could be improved.

Last time I played it on PS4 and some obviously improvements could be:
- shorter loadingscreens
- the Team Deathmatch random player search should be more balanced (no party against random players - just senseless - mostly this is extremly imbalanced and newcomers dont really get motivated because they have no chance)
- newcomer friendly reward system

I wouldnt try a coop multiplayer like ACU - because experience showed the TR2013 MP motivates extremly long to play it while coops get boring soon. Deathmatches or Team Deathmatches are never the same and you never know what happens, thats just the reason why people love it.

A simple Multiplayer like TR2013 should do it for RotTR since the main focus lays on the single player. As developer I wouldnt try to change it just to convince all the haters - that wont happen. And TR2013 MP fans will expect something similiar.

Driber
24th Jan 2015, 17:32
that was just expressing my self what i think of it. still trying to be neutral about it without disrespecting his decision. the rest was just responding to you as to why i think he is wasting his money. not really talking directly to him. my implication to him was as stated above: giving it a try.

hope this makes sense what im trying to say.


Not really :p

I'm sure we all understood what you were trying to say, you just kept using poor wording (and again right now), so let's keep it at that and move on, lol.

sarsdisease
24th Jan 2015, 20:07
I agree, I just think they need to improve on some things, I expect the gameplay not to change but feel like some things could be tweaked and improved for the better. They definently need more stable servers

jojomax0707
4th Feb 2015, 18:55
I think the game-play of the MP is actually pretty good. Since I'm rather noobish at the whole multiplayer thing in general, I find it really challenging and I like that! I really like the variety of different methods (including the use of bombs) that you have to work with. I've tried being a sniper and I pretty much suck most of the time. The second wind is truly my savior, since it enables you to make a quick escape or a surprise attack when necessary (not to mention how you can catch up to others while chasing with a pick axe, LOL)...
I think they need to completely improve (more like completely overhaul) the TRM bugs and glitches. Not sure if it's the servers or what, but like 75% of the time it's downright ridiculous... Way too often am I yelling at the screen "THAT'S BULLS**T!!!" because my strikes/attacks don't register when it clearly should have counted as a kill, bombs don't shoot/don't drop and just leave you vulnerable to attack, controls getting wonky and lead to a stupid death (or 5, or 10...). At first I figured it was the WiFi I was using, but then I looked online and read some of the issues that others faced (plus, I drastically improved the WiFi and the issues still persisted).
Don't even get me started on the Lobby issues....

Aside from all that, I think it is an awesome idea for there to be multiplayer puzzle/tomb based challenges. There should be the deathmatch options for those who enjoy shooters, and the puzzle (more "Tomb Raider" like game-play) for those who don't.

Tihocan
4th Feb 2015, 22:17
I quite enjoyed the multiplayer, but it really was just "every-other-game's-mp" in Tomb Raider.

When it was announced for TR9, I was hoping for something innovative - like a real personal, visceral experience. Maybe something like a more extended MP mode in which you actually had to hunt and survive in a large environment. Stealth would be a major part, as run-and-gun would be likely death, but it seems MP doesn't do classic "stealth" very well.

TheArcaneHuntress
4th Feb 2015, 23:04
Mm I just want to put this out there; The thing that always ruins multiplayer games for me are usually the other players. Its the abuse of certain things that make me not want to play mp. For example camping spawn points, constantly jumping and ummmm well I just want to be on an equal playing field if it is peer vs peer. Other than that, I would really like an online co op experience. Maybe a four person team, I really loved that about mass effect. Also I would like the mp to be more integrated with the sp experience; I would really like it to add to it.