Ah here we go again. 

Larger maps (and better) is kinda needed for campaign battles too. A lot of the current ones feels way too small. And I've seen that requests other places

I can agree that WH3 multiplayer is important.... but multiplayer campaign. 

I personally have 0 interest in MP skirmish, but having your own (self-made) RoR and LL/LH imo doesn't make sense. and detracts from what MP Skirmish/battles (usually) tries.

It makes it very hard for your opponent to know what units and abilities you field, with current you can see that it's Skarbrand or Karl Franz with xx units and you know what they do (if you play a bit), but with self-made you'd need to manually check every battle. 

And what would the self-making entail? As of now I think all LL, LH and RoR have unique model vs the generic variants (a bit unsure of RoR). And making a unique model for each self-made would be impossible. 

Or meant in the form of "Daniel" putting different parts on the LL? You'd meet the earlier problem/annoyance of what you're playing against. 

Or meant as giving the LL/LHs a small MP-skill tree/choice? and for Ror? giving them the same, some skill choice? 

The people who love to say "haha the 4 people who like multiplayer" don't know what they're talking about. CA have a gold mine with mutliplayer, they just need to improve it. 

I'd love to see Avatar Conquest to come back. It was such a popular game mode that you can still find games for it today. It makes perfect sense for a WH game too, considering how much GW wanted you to make your own armies and leaders. An army painter similar to Dawn of War would be amazing too. 

Multiplayer campaigns in WH3 are the perfect template for all TW games moving forward. The fact that Pharaoh doesn't have up to 8 players and (the bare minimum) simultaneous turns is very disappointing. These have been requested for decades from TW games, and other turned based RTS games like Civilisation have had this for sometime. 

Try this.

VikingHuscal1066#5774 wrote:

This is something that I've been thinking about a lot lately, that also kinda bothers me a lot.

And I'm sorry if the OP are altogether pretty long, but this is a topic that's quite important to me, and there's a fair bit that needs to be said. So please bear with me with reading it all.

While I feel like the TW MP Battles are incredibly underrated part of the TW games as a whole, but I feel annoyed at the fact that CA has added a few things to Warhammer 3 that almost, almost takes its MP battles to true greatness, only to stop short, which in some ways, almost feels worse to me than doing nothing with it at all. 

Because I do think that because Wh3 has so many options to play around with, it truly has the potential to almost be in a league of its own when it comes to the TW MP.

And before anyone tries to snarkily say anything, I am NOT wanting CA to overhaul the TW games to being nothing but multiplayer focused or anything some will be all too quick to assume and try to say. I simply want CA to the MP battles the attention they deserve, as they've given so damn much to the TW campaigns over the years, and yet they give barely anything to one of the potentially greatest things about their TW games.

Now, before I go any further, I need to say something which will most likely ruffle some people's feathers, but I feel like it really needs to be said. 

And this is partly to reassure the mods and partly for anyone else.

I am NOT being "confrontational" or otherwise trying to start a fight, I am however telling people what they need to hear, not what they want to hear, as well as trying to be somewhat motivational in the process.

But what I need to say is that all of you who want to try to look down on Wh3's and or TW MP as a whole should actually just give it a fair chance again without whining like it's some impossible task when you all know it's not. Yes, there are some things in life that you should avoid, such as doing drugs, but this isn't one of them.

And don't believe the lie that you have to only like campaigns or MP battles, because you actually can like both and there won't be a problem.

But the point is that y'all need to be willing to just give the MP battles, Wh3's in this case, a truly fair chance. 

Come on guys! Just be willing to give a part of a game so many of you here claim to like a fair chance, even with just a few friends, and be willing to allow yourself to have fun with it. Because if you go into them with your mind already made up and such, you'll be holding yourselves back from possibly enjoying a great aspect of the game.

And seriously guys, keep trying and don't give up because you lose a battle or two, for you'll never truly get any better at the game if you don't keep trying. 

Yeah, I'm no Hannibal or Alexander when it comes to pure tactical genius, but I am far better at MP battles than I would've been had I just given up after losing a few battles.

But that's enough of that for now. I'm going to get into two sections, which are Smaller and Larger things they can do to improve WH3's MP Battles. But I'll just get into them.

Smaller Sized Things

Honestly, I think there's quite a number of small things CA could do to improve not just Wh3's MP battles, but for the TW games as a whole, but I'll just focus on Wh3's in this thread.

But I think that one small but very impactful thing that CA could do is to keep expanding what they've done with things in the Custom/MP battles in WH3 so far, that is with the items and such that lords and heroes. I just think that that sort of thing would really make picking lords and heroes matter more and feel more meaningful.

Maybe they could make it to where there are all 4 item slots from the campaigns for each lord and hero, with LLs and LHs getting whatever items they're supposed to have. And maybe CA could also make the LLs and LHs' items feel a fair bit more powerful, while the generic lords and heroes get a wider variety of items to choose from, which could also be divided by rarity, which could also effect the added cost of the character.

But I think expanding the items and all that could really help give a nice level of customization

But aside from expanding the items and such for the characters, CA could also improve Wh3's MP battles by doing things like what they've done in Pharaoh Dynasties, with larger battle maps and all, which could really help allow for players to actually use more tactics than just being forced to strictly always face the enemies head on due to the relatively small maps.

There's other fairly small things, such as CA maybe slightly reworking sieges and their maps to maybe have a higher but fixed number of resources and all, with maybe better tower placement and such things, but I won't go on about all of them too much longer.

Larger Things

Honestly, I think that one of the larger things CA could possibly do to improve Wh3's is to actually make a decently large DLC that's in large part focused on the MP battles.

I think that what such a DLC could do is to offer a option to create our own LL, up to 2 LHs, and maybe up to 6 RoR units, both for campaign and MP battles.

Though I will say that it should probably come with like 10 to 12 "save slots" or sorts for making your custom characters and units. I say that because trying to make an unlimited amount of slots for such things could possibly cause problems for things, like save slot overlap or some things like that.

But I just think it'd really help Wh3's MP battles a lot if there was some actual incentives to play it, and making your own custom lords, heroes, and RoR units would actually be a pretty darn good way in which to do just that.

And I know this might annoy some people, but I think that to get people to actually play Wh3's MP battles would be to give a few rewards in the form of a few items for each race that are each granted for playing 5 or 10 MP battles with certain races, as the ideas would be for the LLs and LHs you could possibly make and put into the campaigns.

And seriously guys, don't try to act like or say that that would be the same as hiding 90% of the customization options behind the MP battles, because that'd be a outright lie and you guys all know it.

At most, it'd be like 5 items or maybe item slots or something like that for playing a few MP battles to unlock some stuff for a particular race. And  you wouldn't be having to play as the HE to unlock things for the BM or Cathay.

But the bottom line is, that the TW MP Battles as a whole are so underrated and even somewhat neglected and it shouldn't be that way, but Wh3's is almost, almost near being at a level where it could be very good at least, but I've said, it feels like CA doesn't cross the finish line with it.

Again, just give the Wh3's MP battles a chance guys. You might actually have fun in the process.

I will say again what I said in the exact same thread you posted some months ago. 

I have 0 interest in playing MP games. My freetime is limited, so when I play video games I do that as a relaxed "me time" after a hard day at work where it's just me chilling. 

Thats why I exclusively play SP games. Even games like Eldar Scrolls Online I exclusively played alone without interacting with other players. When I want to interact with others I'm going oustide to meet my friends or family. I won't do that in a video game, never did and never will. So don't tell me that I should try it and that I will enjoy it, I know I won't since I dislike the entire concept of MP in video games. For me TW is all about the Campaign map, the battles are a nice extra. 0 interest in random custom battles against random people on the internet. 

That being said, I'm happy for everyone who enjoys MP, but OP has to understand that many players simply don't like MP because well.... they don't enjoy it. 

​

Sandboxhead#8494 wrote:

Try this.

VikingHuscal1066#5774 wrote:

This is something that I've been thinking about a lot lately, that also kinda bothers me a lot.

And I'm sorry if the OP are altogether pretty long, but this is a topic that's quite important to me, and there's a fair bit that needs to be said. So please bear with me with reading it all.

While I feel like the TW MP Battles are incredibly underrated part of the TW games as a whole, but I feel annoyed at the fact that CA has added a few things to Warhammer 3 that almost, almost takes its MP battles to true greatness, only to stop short, which in some ways, almost feels worse to me than doing nothing with it at all. 

Because I do think that because Wh3 has so many options to play around with, it truly has the potential to almost be in a league of its own when it comes to the TW MP.

And before anyone tries to snarkily say anything, I am NOT wanting CA to overhaul the TW games to being nothing but multiplayer focused or anything some will be all too quick to assume and try to say. I simply want CA to the MP battles the attention they deserve, as they've given so damn much to the TW campaigns over the years, and yet they give barely anything to one of the potentially greatest things about their TW games.

Now, before I go any further, I need to say something which will most likely ruffle some people's feathers, but I feel like it really needs to be said. 

And this is partly to reassure the mods and partly for anyone else.

I am NOT being "confrontational" or otherwise trying to start a fight, I am however telling people what they need to hear, not what they want to hear, as well as trying to be somewhat motivational in the process.

But what I need to say is that all of you who want to try to look down on Wh3's and or TW MP as a whole should actually just give it a fair chance again without whining like it's some impossible task when you all know it's not. Yes, there are some things in life that you should avoid, such as doing drugs, but this isn't one of them.

And don't believe the lie that you have to only like campaigns or MP battles, because you actually can like both and there won't be a problem.

But the point is that y'all need to be willing to just give the MP battles, Wh3's in this case, a truly fair chance. 

Come on guys! Just be willing to give a part of a game so many of you here claim to like a fair chance, even with just a few friends, and be willing to allow yourself to have fun with it. Because if you go into them with your mind already made up and such, you'll be holding yourselves back from possibly enjoying a great aspect of the game.

And seriously guys, keep trying and don't give up because you lose a battle or two, for you'll never truly get any better at the game if you don't keep trying. 

Yeah, I'm no Hannibal or Alexander when it comes to pure tactical genius, but I am far better at MP battles than I would've been had I just given up after losing a few battles.

But that's enough of that for now. I'm going to get into two sections, which are Smaller and Larger things they can do to improve WH3's MP Battles. But I'll just get into them.

Smaller Sized Things

Honestly, I think there's quite a number of small things CA could do to improve not just Wh3's MP battles, but for the TW games as a whole, but I'll just focus on Wh3's in this thread.

But I think that one small but very impactful thing that CA could do is to keep expanding what they've done with things in the Custom/MP battles in WH3 so far, that is with the items and such that lords and heroes. I just think that that sort of thing would really make picking lords and heroes matter more and feel more meaningful.

Maybe they could make it to where there are all 4 item slots from the campaigns for each lord and hero, with LLs and LHs getting whatever items they're supposed to have. And maybe CA could also make the LLs and LHs' items feel a fair bit more powerful, while the generic lords and heroes get a wider variety of items to choose from, which could also be divided by rarity, which could also effect the added cost of the character.

But I think expanding the items and all that could really help give a nice level of customization

But aside from expanding the items and such for the characters, CA could also improve Wh3's MP battles by doing things like what they've done in Pharaoh Dynasties, with larger battle maps and all, which could really help allow for players to actually use more tactics than just being forced to strictly always face the enemies head on due to the relatively small maps.

There's other fairly small things, such as CA maybe slightly reworking sieges and their maps to maybe have a higher but fixed number of resources and all, with maybe better tower placement and such things, but I won't go on about all of them too much longer.

Larger Things

Honestly, I think that one of the larger things CA could possibly do to improve Wh3's is to actually make a decently large DLC that's in large part focused on the MP battles.

I think that what such a DLC could do is to offer a option to create our own LL, up to 2 LHs, and maybe up to 6 RoR units, both for campaign and MP battles.

Though I will say that it should probably come with like 10 to 12 "save slots" or sorts for making your custom characters and units. I say that because trying to make an unlimited amount of slots for such things could possibly cause problems for things, like save slot overlap or some things like that.

But I just think it'd really help Wh3's MP battles a lot if there was some actual incentives to play it, and making your own custom lords, heroes, and RoR units would actually be a pretty darn good way in which to do just that.

And I know this might annoy some people, but I think that to get people to actually play Wh3's MP battles would be to give a few rewards in the form of a few items for each race that are each granted for playing 5 or 10 MP battles with certain races, as the ideas would be for the LLs and LHs you could possibly make and put into the campaigns.

And seriously guys, don't try to act like or say that that would be the same as hiding 90% of the customization options behind the MP battles, because that'd be a outright lie and you guys all know it.

At most, it'd be like 5 items or maybe item slots or something like that for playing a few MP battles to unlock some stuff for a particular race. And  you wouldn't be having to play as the HE to unlock things for the BM or Cathay.

But the bottom line is, that the TW MP Battles as a whole are so underrated and even somewhat neglected and it shouldn't be that way, but Wh3's is almost, almost near being at a level where it could be very good at least, but I've said, it feels like CA doesn't cross the finish line with it.

Again, just give the Wh3's MP battles a chance guys. You might actually have fun in the process.

Appreciate the edit! OP was unnecessarily long.

​

Passthechips#4366 wrote:

​

Captain_Rex#1635 wrote:
That being said, I'm happy for everyone who enjoys MP, but OP has to understand that many players simply don't like MP because well.... they don't enjoy it. 

There is something to be said that CA doesn’t really set up MP to succeed. I imagine there are a lot of players that would be interested in playing MP, but they don’t want to do deal with a lack of a lot of common QOL and achievement/leaderboard features found in most other games. Not to mention the lack of dedicated servers. 

It’s crazy how much CA has squandered the potential of a series based on a TT wargame. The MP scene if properly supported could have been sizable.

​​

Sandboxhead#8494 wrote:
Try this.

Thank you for your service, it’s hard to pick out a point in all of OP’s chaff text.

If I would be in charge I would build MP matches similar to how CoD or other MP Shooters workworks. You select your Main Lord or Legendary Lord and level him up while playing random MP matches. You get skill points, items etc. just like in Campaign. But right now winning or losng a battle has no concsequences. Its just random battles with pre build Lords, no progression, nothing. 

​

Captain_Rex#1635 wrote:

Ah here we go again. 

If you're not going to discuss anything with the topic, then just leave Rex.

And people like you have the nerve to imply I'm the one trying to start a fight.

​

Captain_Rex#1635 wrote:
If I would be in charge I would build MP matches similar to how CoD or other MP Shooters workworks. You select your Main Lord or Legendary Lord and level him up while playing random MP matches. You get skill points, items etc. just like in Campaign. But right now winning or losng a battle has no concsequences. It’s just random battles with pre build Lords, no progression, nothing. 

Instead of leveling up/getting items that would affect balance I would just add additional customization features. Winning as a certain race would unlock points for that race which you can use to unlock custom faction colors, more ornate unit banners, and maybe even some custom models/assets for units/LLs.

​

cloudy_skies#6339 wrote:

Larger maps (and better) is kinda needed for campaign battles too. A lot of the current ones feels way too small. And I've seen that requests other places

I can agree that WH3 multiplayer is important.... but multiplayer campaign. 

I personally have 0 interest in MP skirmish, but having your own (self-made) RoR and LL/LH imo doesn't make sense. and detracts from what MP Skirmish/battles (usually) tries.

It makes it very hard for your opponent to know what units and abilities you field, with current you can see that it's Skarbrand or Karl Franz with xx units and you know what they do (if you play a bit), but with self-made you'd need to manually check every battle. 

And what would the self-making entail? As of now I think all LL, LH and RoR have unique model vs the generic variants (a bit unsure of RoR). And making a unique model for each self-made would be impossible. 

Or meant in the form of "Daniel" putting different parts on the LL? You'd meet the earlier problem/annoyance of what you're playing against. 

Or meant as giving the LL/LHs a small MP-skill tree/choice? and for Ror? giving them the same, some skill choice? 

I can understand that you might not be interested in what may on the surface seem to be all that interesting in comparison with all the bells and whistles the campaigns have, but surface level looks can be deceiving.

You see, the MP skirmish battles may seem so simple and not flashy, but that's where their beauty comes out, in their simplicity.

There's just such a simple beauty to picking an army and playing against another player. It's just you, your arm, and the tactics you choose to use.

I won't bore you with a dozen stories of fun TW MP battles I've played in the past, but I will say, with absolute certainty, that no battles in the campaigns will EVER truly compare with even a good 1v1 battle against a decent human opponent. And that's because it does challenge you to think outside the box.

And I don't think you can actually see the other player's units and such in Wh3's Custom and MP battles, or at least not last time I checked.

And I would think that, in my experience, the creation of custom could probably have a number of things to it, like choosing the class/unit type, basic weapon load out, and such things, with options to make some things that may or may not already be in the game, like being able to make a Savage Orc Warboss LL or Boss LH for the Greenskins. 

I think that you could probably have some options for just what sort of skill trees the custom LLs and LHs could have for the campaign and all, though I would say the custom RoR would probably just be like creating an elite unit rather than having a major progression to them.

Maybe they could give the custom LLs and LHs some simple progression in the MP battles, but I would think it might just be a overall better idea to just have them be simply LLs and LHs you could choose from, and reset and start all over again however players may want.

my question to the OP, how do you decide what’s bold and what’s not?

​

Jarms48#7854 wrote:

The people who love to say "haha the 4 people who like multiplayer" don't know what they're talking about. CA have a gold mine with mutliplayer, they just need to improve it. 

I'd love to see Avatar Conquest to come back. It was such a popular game mode that you can still find games for it today. It makes perfect sense for a WH game too, considering how much GW wanted you to make your own armies and leaders. An army painter similar to Dawn of War would be amazing too. 

Multiplayer campaigns in WH3 are the perfect template for all TW games moving forward. The fact that Pharaoh doesn't have up to 8 players and (the bare minimum) simultaneous turns is very disappointing. These have been requested for decades from TW games, and other turned based RTS games like Civilisation have had this for sometime. 

Thank you! That's exactly what I'm talking about!

CA has such a gold mine they could be using but they just not making the best use of it they can.

Because I think that if CA put even just 5% or 10% at most of all the work they've put into the TW campaigns into the MP battles of those games, they'd certainly be in the big leagues with the likes of Starcraft 2 and the newer AoE games.

And it may be bold of me to say this, but I'm sure that the the TW games could outright surpass those games in terms of popularity even things like tournament level play and such.

And it would all come from the simple beauty of the TW battle formula, rather than a bunch of gimmicks and so on.

And I do agree, the introduction of things like an army painter and at least custom LLs and LHs would do a great deal to probably help out Wh3's MP battles a lot too.

​

VikingHuscal1066#5774 wrote:

​

Captain_Rex#1635 wrote:

Ah here we go again. 

If you're not going to discuss anything with the topic, then just leave Rex.

And people like you have the nerve to imply I'm the one trying to start a fight.

I mean you are the one trying to tell people what bthey should do. And you are implying that those who don't play MP just don't do it because they never had the balls to play a MP match and are to affraid. That was at least your main agenda in the last thread you made on that matter. 

​

Theo91#7431 wrote:

my question to the OP, how do you decide what’s bold and what’s not?

In what circumstances or context exactly?

Are you talking about tactics in a battle or me trying to motivate people to not only give the MP battles more a chance, but to stick with them even if they lose a few battles?

I just ask that because they are different since they entirely the same exact things, that's all.

​

Sandboxhead#8494 wrote:

Well, it's not always easy to be super concise as I may want to, as it is a rather large topic and it can be very hard to cover it all with as few words as possible.

And I do feel like I needed to say that part about getting people to give the MP battles a real fair chance and all, because I have sadly run into people who end up saying "I just don't wanna!" over and over again when you ask them why they have never given the TW MP battles a real chance.

I mean, I can sympathize with people not wanting to deal with spammers or being somewhat intimidated when trying the MP battles for the first times, but like I brought out in the OP, none of them will ever known if they might actually enjoy them if they don't ever give them a chance, nor will they ever get any better if they just give up after one or two losses.

It's like learning how to ride a bike.

Sure, you're bound to fall a few times, but you'll never learn how to fully ride a bike if you just give up after one or two falls.

​

Captain_Rex#1635 wrote:

My freetime is limited, so when I play video games I do that as a relaxed "me time" after a hard day at work where it's just me chilling. 

Well Rex, you kind of undermine your entire position with this one little statement.

For  you see, trying to claim that the TW MP battles are all super time consuming and all is just plain false, and you know it. And I can say that because I have quite extensive experience with TW MP to know that some times, battles can be pretty short or pretty long, depending on battle type and such factors.

And you say your free time is limited and all, but then you try to deliberately leave out that fighting a single battle, SP or MP, isn't anywhere near as long as an average campaign session one might go through in a day. So that doesn't really make for the best argument point, as you just end up contradicting your own arguments.

I'm far more open to trying to different tactics and strategies because I played a lot of MP battles, where I tried many different things many different times against different people.

​

RuOne#4844 wrote:

​Appreciate the edit! OP was unnecessarily long.

No, I just know and accept that being very concise is a lot easier said than done, especially if it's a fairly large topic you may feel very strongly about.

Just try to remember that the next time you may want to post a thread of your own.

And believe me, that is the more concise version of the OP, for had I not held back, the OP could've been like 10k words.

​

Passthechips#4366 wrote:

​There is something to be said that CA doesn’t really set up MP to succeed. I imagine there are a lot of players that would be interested in playing MP, but they don’t want to do deal with a lack of a lot of common QOL and achievement/leaderboard features found in most other games. Not to mention the lack of dedicated servers. 

It’s crazy how much CA has squandered the potential of a series based on a TT wargame. The MP scene if properly supported could have been sizable.

​​

Thank you for your service, it’s hard to pick out a point in all of OP’s chaff text.

Hey now! No need to insult the OP, which is the more concise version by the way. Because being concise is harder than you think.

But you're right, it is sad that CA hasn't done more with the MP battles, as they could've easily shot past the likes of Starcraft 2 and the newer AoE games and such, as the TW MP battles would pretty much just be purely about the tactics players use instead of all the base building.

And there's nothing wrong with base builder games, but the TW MP battles' simplicity would just offer something a bit more when you stop and think about it.