Multiplayer update - May 25-2005

[picotrain]

I was wondering what elements of the single player game will or will not be present in your efforts to add multiplayer support?

[honvedseg]

I'm just wondering how the project is coming along, since there have been no new posts in a month, at least ones open to the general public.

[IainMcNeil]

Multiplayer will be head to head, over a series of battle. The main difference in Multiplayer to Single player is that you wont be able to play a campaign. It just doesnt make sense with the format of the game. Instead of building your army up over time, you'll be given points to spend on recruiting the troops & experience points to allocate. It's a little different to anything that's out there right now, so its hard to explain until you see it & as we're still working on it, we're not 100% sure how the detail will work ourselves yet

[adherbal]

the Total War MP community has been asking for more interesting MP options for long, but CA never listened (and stuck to single battles, with terrible unit balance in RTW). If LA MP allows you to play some sort of mini-campaign (like you say, a series of battles), that could attract a lot of them.

[IainMcNeil]

I may have given the wrong impression, the battles are just like rounds in a boxing match. You can play multiple battles in a match on different maps of the same ones. Batttles last 5-10 mins each, so are over quickly and you can play 3, 5, 7 battles in a match & the winner is the one who gets the most victories. You decide how many games will be in a match. There is no campaign going on underneath as Legion Arena is not a campaign game in the way that our other games are - instead you're playing through a story like an RPG in one player.

[anguille]

Your MP concept sounds great...in most games you cannot choose what type of units will be in your army...
This is heading in the right direction

[sum1won]

Hey! I more or less suggested something similar!

Thats the first time I have seen anybody use anything like one of my ideas for a game. I mean, I sent a suggestion to one developer- to his "suggestions" email address, no less, and he was pretty put out...

I think I will have to get LA now...

[adherbal]

I may have given the wrong impression, the battles are just like rounds in a boxing match. You can play multiple battles in a match on different maps of the same ones. Batttles last 5-10 mins each, so are over quickly and you can play 3, 5, 7 battles in a match & the winner is the one who gets the most victories. You decide how many games will be in a match. There is no campaign going on underneath as Legion Arena is not a campaign game in the way that our other games are - instead you're playing through a story like an RPG in one player.

I didn't mean an RTW or Spartan style campaign(map), just a link between the series of battles. For example the winner gets extra money in the next battle, a fixed value or based on how well he performed in previous battle. Or he can keep (some of) his veteran units. The battles could be linked in a CTF style system:
-the first battle is fought on "neutral ground".
-if player A wins he fights the next battle on player B's "territory"
-if player A wins again next battle is fought on B's "homebase" - perhaps giving B a special elite unit without extra cost, a bit like the capital guard's in Spartan.
-if player A loses any of the 2 previous battles, he's pushed back and B now fights in A's "territory". if B wins that battle they next fight in A's homebase.
-tis keeps going until one player beats his opponent in his "homebase", he then wins the game.

there's no campaignmap or so involved, just a simulated struggle between both players till one finally conqueres the other's "home".

Anyway, just an idea

[IainMcNeil]

It would be possible to add this but I think it would unbalance it. If you are a slightly better player & win the first battle it would give you an advantage in the 2nd. The effect would snowball. I think it would be too slilted as well to have to allocate upgrades between each battle in multiplayer. Lets keep it fast paced and fun.

[ravinhood]

I agree with Iain here, seems people always want some kind of advantage for winning a battle, hell, you just won the battle if anything the loser should get an advantage imho. But, at any rate competition shouldn't be about programmed advantages they should be based on skill all other things being about equal.

My suggestion would be loser gets next choice of map, that's advantage enough and could make what might be runaway series of battle turn into more equal and close win/lose situations.