PDA

View Full Version : Multiplayer is a JOKE



BigNellieStyle
20th May 2005, 23:04
Wtf Is Up With Mp????

Stereophobia
20th May 2005, 23:17
Wtf Is Up With Mp????
If you state a better case than "WTF" people may be able to help you, as it stands youve made nothing but a pointles comment. But if you do have somthing constructive to say, please do

Gelatinous Cube
20th May 2005, 23:17
I'm rather annoyed with all these threads about Multiplayer. Honestly, this is a strategy game--it's appeal is the single-player campaign. I think you'd be happier with a game like Warcraft 3, or Diablo II.

rastak
20th May 2005, 23:18
Wtf Is Up With Mp????

WTF are you specifically talking about?

saddletank
21st May 2005, 00:09
Heh, why am I perversely happy that this game seems to be pants every way people turn?

jaywalker2309
21st May 2005, 10:53
Wtf Is Up With Mp????

That is as much use as a chocolate teapot in the sahara desert trying to make a cuppa :P

Sotos
21st May 2005, 12:51
There is nothing wrong with the Multiplayer
But yes if you care so much about Multiplayer you probably bought the wrong game


IG is a strong Single player game
The Multiplayer part is seconded to give it more time value

Hannibal-Sun
22nd May 2005, 15:38
Are you kidding?

If it's any strategy game, it's got to have MP.

I'm on at MP at this very second and no one else is there.

Anyone who cares to begin MP - join...I have a game up called First Game.

It's a 1 v 1.

Come.

Otherwise, this nonsense about this being a single-player focused game may be half-correct because the MP has not been spoken about much and by it not having a lobby, shows that someone did not look at how to make this a long-term game.

After the campaigns are completed then what. Lacks a lot of longevity and therefore I am again saddened by high expectations in these 2000-ish games that look awesome but lack the human aspect.

These developer need to get paid I understand, but someone needs to lead the way to both money and playability amongst those of us that appreciate a good game of chess with humans rather they be on LAN or thousands of miles away - but not some AI BS.

Take care and fix this game please. This kind of nonsense will soon lead to lawsuits for freaking false advertising.




There is nothing wrong with the Multiplayer
But yes if you care so much about Multiplayer you probably bought the wrong game


IG is a strong Single player game
The Multiplayer part is seconded to give it more time value

CrossWire
22nd May 2005, 16:03
Wtf Is Up With Mp????

I give up, WTF is wrong with MP???

jeffdan9
22nd May 2005, 16:35
Yeah, nothing in my mind is wrong with Multiplayer, just it probably was a bit too basic. Just more teams in the battles, probably a campeign multiplayer, and ingame lobby would help. We'll see with the patch(I was disappointed with R:TW with only 1 real patch, so I hope they'll listen to us in the things that are not that good, but this game is very good as is).

Paolai
23rd May 2005, 13:15
Would be not so hard to give to IG multiplayer longevity and deep.

1st Morale
2nd an internal lobby
3rd Replay or logs (the most important thing for tournements and ladders.

jaywalker2309
23rd May 2005, 13:24
Would be not so hard to give to IG multiplayer longevity and deep.

1st Morale
2nd an internal lobby
3rd Replay or logs (the most important thing for tournements and ladders.

Internal lobby is not going to be implemented.

Paolai
23rd May 2005, 13:29
sad news :(

Anyway, do you know somethings also about the other 2 points (that are more importants imho)?

Thx in advance

BigNellieStyle
23rd May 2005, 23:29
paol. dude, this is Daman, aka shocka from Silent Assassins, wuts up, this the same dude from the wolves?

Stereophobia
24th May 2005, 00:52
Internal lobby is not going to be implemented.
Which seems to suggest that your indirectly saying that the other 2 will, interesting

Paolai
24th May 2005, 07:25
Hi Daman,

yes its me :)

jaywalker2309
24th May 2005, 08:45
Which seems to suggest that your indirectly saying that the other 2 will, interesting

Hehe wow you have to be careful how you say things :)

I was only saying this bout the lobby as i know for a fact that it wont change, the others are unknown, altho i would think the replays etc may not be possible

Paolai
24th May 2005, 09:02
so at least morale is? :D

jaywalker2309
24th May 2005, 09:02
so at least morale is? :D

argh :) hehe

Rowlf TM
24th May 2005, 19:03
its wierd that you cant have your own army in 1v1 and 2v2, plus you cant tell who has each unit, and i found half way through my team mate would start using the unit i was about to use. maybe a player flag on the units at the start would help. or make sharing an option, not a necessity

Kokopelli
24th May 2005, 19:19
So basically, the focus of this game is on the SP aspect opposed to the MP aspect? Granted I tend to play SP more than MP (save for Guild Wars,) but I enjoy a nice battle with actual tactics and not build-a-bunch-of-b.s.-to-rush-the-other-guy routine. So this is kind of disappointing to hear.. :(

Rowlf TM
24th May 2005, 19:43
its utterly stupid that you cant have your own army in 1v2 and 2v2, plus you cant tell who has each unit, and i found half way through my team mate would start using the unit i was about to use. maybe a player flag on the units at the start would help. or make sharing an option, not a necessity.

Also my team 'mate' took all the artillery, most of the cav, didnt reply to me in the chat, and when i moved only one of the artillery units to my side of the field, he moved it back.

ridiculous

jaywalker2309
24th May 2005, 23:46
its utterly stupid that you cant have your own army in 1v2 and 2v2, plus you cant tell who has each unit, and i found half way through my team mate would start using the unit i was about to use. maybe a player flag on the units at the start would help. or make sharing an option, not a necessity.

Also my team 'mate' took all the artillery, most of the cav, didnt reply to me in the chat, and when i moved only one of the artillery units to my side of the field, he moved it back.

ridiculous

So you got your MP working then :)

I agree with you i am not too keen on this unit share mechanic..

jaywalker2309
24th May 2005, 23:47
its wierd that you cant have your own army in 1v1 and 2v2, plus you cant tell who has each unit, and i found half way through my team mate would start using the unit i was about to use. maybe a player flag on the units at the start would help. or make sharing an option, not a necessity

Erm, in 1v1 you have an army each.. or did you mean 2v1?

cliffski
25th May 2005, 10:21
I played a LAN game yesterday and it was superb. great fun, very tactical, very atmospheric. Granted more units would be good, allsorts could improve the game, but I have already got my moneysworth.

Rowlf TM
25th May 2005, 17:02
no mate, didnt get the multiplayer 'working'. all I can do is join by ip, nothing else. cannot host either at all.

imported_mike_g
25th May 2005, 17:34
Would be not so hard to give to IG multiplayer longevity and deep.

1st Morale
2nd an internal lobby
3rd Replay or logs (the most important thing for tournements and ladders.


Morale IS implemented. Now, you can definitely argue as to whether it needs improvement, but it is a function in the game. I personally have it in three ways:
campaign - if the AI is seriously overmatched, they will flee.
tactical - Cavalry charges have been turned aside or even forced to flee by determined infantry squares, without even engaging in melee.
I had an infantry charge (my own unfortunately) fail when the lead unit, caught in a heavy cross fire as it advanced, simply broke and ran for the rear. They were in the paniced state and could not be used until they rallied.

Now, once again, you can still make a valid argument that we might need to improve the function of morale, (and you are welcome to, and I will do everything I can to see that the devs hear your input) but it IS there.

[J.E.v.O]
25th May 2005, 17:55
I would really love to have a multiplayer campaign...that would be awesome!! Just do your stuff and click ready and if they all did you go to the next turn.... maybe it's not very fun to do it on-line with people you dont know but it would be cool to do it together with friends!!

Smithy021
25th May 2005, 20:42
a multiplayer campain would be the best that way 2 friends could get 2gether and some how save it and that way u dont have 2 play the whole dam thing out in one shot would be AWSOME also add Friendly fire for musketshots???? u can stack regiments behind one another and nothing happens xcept red and yellow colored guns which i have no clue what they mean as its not stated any were on the manul o yea here ther period.

Wellington_Stymiest
26th May 2005, 00:10
seriously the game rocks. I have been wanting a game like this for so long as I am very tired of constant RTS crap. The game is very strategic and tactical and allows for a lot of ingenuity on the battlefield. My last battle I played I was being attacked by a massive french army. I found a very large mountain and placed my artillery and some infantry at the top. I masked my cavalry and some more infantry behind the mountain and let the french charge at me. My artillery instantly bewgan slaughtering them asthe going was slow up the hill and my infantry volleys from my riflemen proved devastating. I trhen sent my cavalry and infantry to opposite flanks of the enemy and they were now in for it. They were recieving volleys on multiple fronts and their end was near. I used my cavalry to swarm their artillery in the rear then did a full out charge into the infantry and cav complete destruction as my army came in from every direction!!! Brilliant stuff!!!

Oh and anybody who says their isn't morale in this game is full of **** my infantry have retreated plenty before. Fact is boys in Napoleonic wars if your unit broke formation you were as good as dead so breaking apart really was not an option.

Paolai
26th May 2005, 07:19
Morale is NOT in the game. A unit fight till last man this means, at least for me, that the morale is not implemented in the game. A charge from the back is usless, this means at least for me that morale is not implemented. Probably you give to the morale a different meaning, would be appreciated if a mod or a dev will confirm that a morale SYSTEM is not implemented in the game, or there will be always people that still do not understand what is a morale SYSTEM.

Sotos
26th May 2005, 08:17
Morale is NOT in the game. A unit fight till last man this means, at least for me, that the morale is not implemented in the game. A charge from the back is usless, this means at least for me that morale is not implemented. Probably you give to the morale a different meaning, would be appreciated if a mod or a dev will confirm that a morale SYSTEM is not implemented in the game, or there will be always people that still do not understand what is a morale SYSTEM.

It does Exist but not in the same level as Rome TW
Morale in Rome TW is more Realistic of course but that does not mean that it does not exist in IG

When The AI is overmatch then it will call a Retreat (It will stop the battle and you will see the Score Board according the Casualties of the battle etc)
You can also call a retreat but u will have casualties or even lose your entire army according the Score Statistics of the battle

Paolai
26th May 2005, 08:26
sorry but imho call a retreat doesnt means that there is a morale system. The morale system imho means that every unit has a morale with a rout break point. If you attack from back you give a penalty to the enemy unit attacked. If you attack with 4 unit vs 1 give to the enemy unit another morale penaly and so on. This system is not implemented in IG. A strategy game without a morale system is more and arcade imho.

imported_mike_g
26th May 2005, 16:27
Morale is NOT in the game. A unit fight till last man this means, at least for me, that the morale is not implemented in the game. A charge from the back is usless, this means at least for me that morale is not implemented. Probably you give to the morale a different meaning, would be appreciated if a mod or a dev will confirm that a morale SYSTEM is not implemented in the game, or there will be always people that still do not understand what is a morale SYSTEM.

Once again, I personally have had infantry units panic and run. They will go into a panicked state where they are no longer selectable and run for the rear. They will rally eventually. I've had cavalry units run away from squares, out of user control. So morale IS in the game. That's not to say I'm claiming that we have done it perfectly of course and there's no room for improvement ever. :)

Wellington_Stymiest
28th May 2005, 01:19
Once again, I personally have had infantry units panic and run. They will go into a panicked state where they are no longer selectable and run for the rear. They will rally eventually. I've had cavalry units run away from squares, out of user control. So morale IS in the game. That's not to say I'm claiming that we have done it perfectly of course and there's no room for improvement ever. :)

Its Napoleonic Wars its mass confusion when u get into melee combat like I said retreating is prolly not an option

Gelatinous Cube
28th May 2005, 01:46
I really am tired of hearing about the "Lack of good multiplayer" or what have you. Really, not many people buy these games for the multiplayer. I certainly didn't see pictures of the campaign map and think "lolz! I need a clan!!!11!"

NaPoLeOn_FusilieR
28th May 2005, 10:23
WTF are you specifically talking about?

!!!!lmfao!!!

Sotos
28th May 2005, 11:36
Really, not many people buy these games for the multiplayer.

Exactly
I have bought Both IG and ROME TW for their campaigns and mostly the Single player and less about it's multiplayer

robin van eyk
28th May 2005, 13:56
no mate, didnt get the multiplayer 'working'. all I can do is join by ip, nothing else. cannot host either at all.

i have exactly the same problem !!! .

iff you were able to fix it please let me know !!

{Imperial_Legonaire}_Empi
29th May 2005, 11:57
Hi
I am one of the three emprors of the clan imperial legionaires! We saw your game and liked the look and reviews, also since we are a clan and there are many other clans out there who want a good multiplayer system. I now have imperial glory and am playing as Great Britain and got fairy far. The greatest threat to me now is Russia and Prussia's armies. But once i complete it and im sure im good enough at the game i will try the multiplayer out and play against many other player around the world, other fans of the game and my clan mates who also have got it. Thats what i would like to do, looking at it now there doesnt seem to be much of a chance of that happening. There are two networks, Local and Internet. This means in my head and thousands of others that when i click on internet i get a list of servers and a list of names of players in the lobby. But no, i get the same system almost a lan. We demand and request that the DEVs create a patch allowing multiplayer lobby games to be played. The layout is fine just the lack of the button saying, refresh list.

I read many reviews by the creaters etc..... all pointed out that i could play an games with people around teh globe. But how in Gods name am i supposed to get someones i.p when i dont know them and they live in somewhere like Itlay and im in Britain. All stratagy games need a good multiplayer system!!! Otherways they are played and then forotten...look at how long Medieval total war lasted, many completed the campains so moved ontot he internet. Thats where i met my clan.
Please considor creating a multiplayer engine.
Empire

Gelatinous Cube
29th May 2005, 14:29
MTW lasted so long because people made mods for the Single-Player Campaign, ala Napoleonic: Total War. Same thing for RTW. And, believe it or not, probably the same thing with IG.

Sorry to break it to you.