Page 1 of 2 12 Last

Thread: Multiplayer is a JOKE

Multiplayer is a JOKE

  1. #1

    Multiplayer is a JOKE

    Wtf Is Up With Mp????

  2. #2
    Originally Posted by BigNellieStyle
    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

  3. #3
    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.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    9
    Originally Posted by BigNellieStyle
    Wtf Is Up With Mp????
    WTF are you specifically talking about?

  5. #5
    Heh, why am I perversely happy that this game seems to be pants every way people turn?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 1998
    Location
    Blackfriars
    Posts
    3,885
    Originally Posted by BigNellieStyle
    Wtf Is Up With Mp????
    That is as much use as a chocolate teapot in the sahara desert trying to make a cuppa :P

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    161
    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

  8. #8

    False-Advertising??

    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.



    Originally Posted by Sotos
    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

  9. #9
    Originally Posted by BigNellieStyle
    Wtf Is Up With Mp????
    I give up, WTF is wrong with MP???

  10. #10
    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).
    Nice mods by Berdan at TAFN!

    {Not much Skirmishers action, all need to get full game for now, also need to re-beta test all our mods,will take 1-2 weeks of restructuring our team with getting the game & making sure everything works!}

    Join the Skirmishers at Berdan's Skirmishers
    It's a great team. Also the only active mod team for Imperial Glory!

    Join my Imperial Glory Fansite here:
    Jeffdan9's Imperial Glory Fansite

  11. #11
    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.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 1998
    Location
    Blackfriars
    Posts
    3,885
    Originally Posted by Paolai
    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.

  13. #13
    sad news

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

    Thx in advance

  14. #14
    paol. dude, this is Daman, aka shocka from Silent Assassins, wuts up, this the same dude from the wolves?

  15. #15
    Originally Posted by jaycw2309
    Internal lobby is not going to be implemented.
    Which seems to suggest that your indirectly saying that the other 2 will, interesting

  16. #16
    Hi Daman,

    yes its me

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 1998
    Location
    Blackfriars
    Posts
    3,885
    Originally Posted by Stereophobia
    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

  18. #18
    so at least morale is?

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 1998
    Location
    Blackfriars
    Posts
    3,885
    Originally Posted by Paolai
    so at least morale is?
    argh hehe

  20. #20
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    12
    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

  21. #21
    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..

  22. #22
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    12
    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

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 1998
    Location
    Blackfriars
    Posts
    3,885
    Originally Posted by Rowlf TM
    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..

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 1998
    Location
    Blackfriars
    Posts
    3,885
    Originally Posted by Rowlf TM
    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?

  25. #25
    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.

Page 1 of 2 12 Last