PDA

View Full Version : Activison guy in game forum



Sp00n
10-07-2004, 09:23
I asked ATV1-Leonaedes who is apparently a key member of Activions team involved with Rome today about some fo the above issues.

On not being able to move the Army properly he 3 times stated you could, I explained that you cant move in formation without taking out groups and also that you have to click and hope that they go in the direction you want( and they rarely do), he suggested we use the < > keys but this only seems to work when stationary to change unit facing and again they cant be grouped, basically its cack.

On 4v4s he made a charcastic comment asking if my pc could cope with 4v4 with 40000 warriors I explained that 3v3 was nearly unplayable most of the time and that to even get that working we would prefer 16 units max, just so 3v3s run, no comment from him on this.

I also mentioned the lack of money selection in mp games and how the set amounts made it impossible to play the same money levels that you can play at 1v1 or 2v2, his comment they are just set now its different.

Mentioned the pertition to him he knew about it but failed to comment.

Good luck asking him if you see him as I was getting abused by a Raven clan member just for asking these questions and told to stop moaning.

MizuSp00n

He was polite throughout this and im not blaming anyone for the problems and exclusions in Rome mp its just a damn shame its not up to the standard of the last 2 releases. :help:

shingenmitch2
10-07-2004, 15:17
Hi SpOOn,
Its cool that you got to discuss some of those issues. As one of the very first & best of the MP'ers they ought to take ur advice seriously. ~:cheers:

Those responses sound like they came from someone who has not spent the proper time playing MTW and comparing how that functioned to the changes in RTW. They seem like the comments of someone who has played only a limited amount. I really wish one of the Devs had joined a clan and played STW, MI, MTW fairly competitively. They would see the beauty of the MP game then. They would also understand our control issues and other "complaints" and be able to see them for the real issues that they are, not just whining. Heck, they might have been able to avoid problems to begin with then.

I can't remember who suggested it, but this kind of confirms that the dev guys are more like noobs to their own game.

FearZeus
10-07-2004, 15:34
I see my so called whining as a passion for the game, I know and what this game is capable of and I have been addicted to the total war series from the start, that's why I have issues with RTW, because in it's present state it's absolute pants!!!

This game without bugs gives me countless hours of fun and I feel a real sense of community spirit which you don't get with any other game...

I want never gets, but I think this is a need!

Sp00n
10-08-2004, 12:56
Unfortunately Shingen they rarely do listen to us, I have been playing Total War games since the Shogun demo, there are only a handful I guess of players from the early days who still remain (Magy, Amp, Kocmoc, Tosa, Paolai, Jun, Elmo some of the Elites and maybe a few more forgive me if ive forgotten anyone).

I recall Clan Takiyama did patch testing for MTW and some of what we relayed to Creative Asssembly was totally forgotten and the community was unhappy about the mess at the time.

How much community research they did when creating Rome? one of my Clan colleagues was recently saying that they had hardly done any and we are now seeing the results of that lack research in the online communitys thoughts of the state of the online game.

I also play massive online games in the past ive fought my way through the Rubi Kai world of Anarchy Online, piloted through Eve and currently I shoot and explode my way through Planetside all these games are of course subscription games, but because of this the developers have to listen to their gamers otherwise the game dies and they subsequently lose money it a shame that all games developers dont listen to thier players like the developers of these particular games do, they are constantly updated with fixes and improvements all we are asking for is a few changes that woulnt have been nessecary had they asked us in the first place about the good things and bad things about MTW and Shogun online games.

Sp00n

WarPriest
10-12-2004, 06:03
Amen.

d6veteran
10-12-2004, 07:29
Who's "we". I like having 20 units and I don't miss a 4v4 laggy game ~;)

I've been playing TW since Shogun and I've been playing video games since Pong. If CA listens to me and my gaming buddies they'll find that "we" are happy with the unit movement speeds and the added controls but are really anxious to have the long list of bugs fixed.

The community is an average. They get input and leverage that against other factors and develop.

Imagine yourself as a CA developer/designer going out to collect opinions about what should be in the game. Think about that.

Now tell me you have a clear picture of how to please everyone.

Lets focus on trying to make sure they are aware of all the bugs in the current design.

ElmarkOFear
10-12-2004, 07:29
WarPriest! How is your health pal? I haven't heard from you in over a year. :) Hope everything is well with you. Drop by the new ugli site at http://www.ugli.org and say hi. I will have Olds give you all the passwords so you can get really ugly again.

I am assuming you are the old STW WarPriest of old? If not, please ignore all my blather above. :charge:

Sp00n
10-12-2004, 09:11
D6Veteran laggy 4v4s?

Seems your connection is poop m8 if you played laggy 4v4s on MTW I played hundreds of them with no lag.

How would you explain the Clan Wars Competition that was a 4v4 competition? and ran for nearly 2 years I suggest you look at the CWC site.

You seem to know very little about the Totalwar online community but have a lot to say.
Can you honestly say hand on heart you are pleased with the speed of foot missiles? missiles that outrun heavy cav and kill cav archers in melee?

You havnt had an active part in this forum untill recently despite playing since Shoguns demo, did you play online prior to Rome? you are entitled to your views but the game online sucks eggs, I played 4 games last night and not even mentioning any in game bugs 3/4 were uncompleted due to out of sync problems of the oponents.

Rome is an appalling mess online thats my opinion and the opinion I would guess of most of the names in this thread and I dont ever recall meeting you on Totomi.
When MTW came out there was a huge influx of new players the ones that stayed spent lots of time improving the game and modding it and so on, the way Rome is online currently a lot will leave before its sorted out, its mainly the loyal online community who have a feeling of being let down, if CA sort a lot of it out then fairplay to them.If they dont id be surprised if it has the lasting appeal of the previous 2 games online.

Sp00n ~:confused:

My guess would be that you have something to do with CA or Activision as you are very touchy to any criticism about Rome and you appear to know nothing about online 4v4s which to me suggests you know little about the online aspect of prevoius Total War games(just to let you know Shogun ran 4v4s with no lag also), the fact remains CA have shocked a lot of the community by changing and leaving out basics of the totalwar games from Rome there woulnt be a petition with over 200 names if they hadnt would there? one which you have signed? Id retract your signature if I was you.

CBR
10-12-2004, 12:29
Well D6Veteran would hardly be connected to CA/Activision and make this post would he? https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=37247 ~;)

I know some people complained about 4v4 but AFAIK they were minority as 4v4 was very popular. Some settings for the gfx card could be the explanation as it did help some but nevermind that now.

Speed is a matter of opinion I guess. I dont like the current speed as its more a clickfest than tactics now. Some like it some hate it and I dont know what the majority thinks about it.

All I know is that we have seen several mods come out right after RTW got released that slowed it down..we didnt see any mods that made MTW quicker did we?


CBR

FearZeus
10-12-2004, 12:36
It just seems to me that a lot of people like to argue, It's obvious that the game speed is crap along with the way the game plays too, this is why I decline to get involved coz peeps tend to spout utter tripe!

Half the time I even wonder if they are even playing the same game, my guess would be that they have never played MTW never mind STW. Who got lag on 4v4? I never got lag on 4v4 unless some peep with bad graphics card settings or connection problems joined the game. RTW needs a lot more things fixing than just buggs for god sake! I'm not listening to any more shit from peeps telling me that this game is fine other than the bugs...

Sp00n
10-12-2004, 14:10
Im taking the michael CBR, he should work for them as he clearly knows little about online Total War prior to Rome.
Had CA done there own petition about Rome Online prior to release they would be pleasing a lot more people than currently D6, but they didnt.
Thats me putting myself in thier position. The list of games higher up in this thread and ill add Battlefield 1942 to that list as its non subscription all ask thier players the good things and bad things about online play, in short they listen, when I spoke with the Activision guy earlier this week his comments had the aspect if you dont like it tough we have changed it.
Someone made a very good comment in another thread here I was reading today, the online state of Rome will considerably affect future purchase of Total War games because if its this bad again everyone will just download cracked copys and play it SP which means bad sales for CA, they should take note of that remark.

Sp00n

Puzz3D
10-12-2004, 17:03
Sp00n,

It appears that the programmers who worked on MTW MP didn't work on RTW MP. That's why RTW MP is so different, and why all the stuff that we got them to incorporate into MTW MP isn't in RTW MP. That may also be the reason behind the fast speeds. As I recall, longjohn was dead set against making cav even 20% faster in MTW, and now it's 50% faster in RTW. All the speeds are over the top as CBR demonstrated by measurement. The game is now more a test of how well you use the interface and handle an overwhelming number of tasks rather than your ability to apply proper tactics. There are still tactics involved, but they degraded in the same way that putting extreme time pressure on someone in a chess game degrades the quality of tactical play in that game.

d6veteran
10-12-2004, 19:22
Whoaaa there sp00n! You are out of line!

You are making a lot of assumptions.

I never said MTW 4v4 was laggy. Read my posts more carefully Spoon ;)

I loved 4v4 MTW. I played the crap out of that game (and Shogun) and was online several nights a week. I didn't play in tournaments and was mostly playing on a passworded game with my clan and non clan friends. I've played a lot of the mods and have posted on the .com boards for a long time under a variety of usernames.

You need to realize that there are other people in the community who may not agree with everyone you say. I have every right to my opinion as you do.

We actually agree on a lot. I participated in the petition discussion and am passing the revised edition around my clan. We agree that the RTW MP game needs a lot of work. We agree that the RTW MP game is laggy at 3v3 and definitely at 4v4.

I don't agree that scaling back to MTWs 16 unit limit is what "we" want.

You jump on my case and make a lot of assumptions about me and frankly I consider your post flame to some extent. You make it sound as if I am not welcome here.

I may disagree with some of the status quo opinions on this forum, but you won't read posts from me where I tell other players they aren't entitled to their opinions nor that their opinions have no merit. Both of which you have done to me.

I apologize for challenging your own opinion and putting you on the defensive, but your reply was uncalled for Sp00n.

d6veteran
10-12-2004, 19:30
The game is now more a test of how well you use the interface and handle an overwhelming number of tasks rather than your ability to apply proper tactics.

Well you know we disagree on this one :)

All the guys I play with (about 12-16) are pretty fond of the unit speeds (some like me have issues with the killing speed being too quick). Not a single person in my group considers the unit movement speeds to be too fast to make the game "overwhelming".

When I first saw the animation speeds in the preview videos I was really afraid they would be too fast. I was even leary during my first hours playing ... but I got used them quickly and I really think they have improved the game.

d6veteran
10-12-2004, 19:45
It just seems to me that a lot of people like to argue, It's obvious that the game speed is crap along with the way the game plays too, this is why I decline to get involved coz peeps tend to spout utter tripe!

Half the time I even wonder if they are even playing the same game, my guess would be that they have never played MTW never mind STW. Who got lag on 4v4? I never got lag on 4v4 unless some peep with bad graphics card settings or connection problems joined the game. RTW needs a lot more things fixing than just buggs for god sake! I'm not listening to any more shit from peeps telling me that this game is fine other than the bugs...

Wow. I love how the assumption made by one poster gets the ball rolling.

Some of you guys think that just because someone disagrees with you that means they haven't played the game?

Think about that. It's absurd and arrogant!

I don't like to argue, but I also have an opinion. And when someone is telling CA that the community wants units set to 16 I am compelled to give my opinion that the community I play with doesn't feel the same way. Is that arguing or just voicing my opinion like everyone else around here?

I have made some posts that hold nothing back when expressing my dissapointment with the RTW multiplayer. I graded it a D- in my review on this very forum!

It's frustrating that some of you are so ready (eager?) to discredit and call me names just because I disagree with a handful of points.

This type of name calling and innuendo would be consider flame on some boards, including the one I moderate.

Nevermind the fact that you completely wrong about the whole 4v4 MTW lag rant! I NEVER SAID THAT.

FOR THE RECORD:
I have a P4 2.8, 1GB ram, 9800 pro, SATA HD. MTW runs like butter on my machine in most cases (4v4 games with lots of artillery do cause lag). RTW (please not that I am now talking about a different game) is laggy on my machine when I play online 3v3. My group has been able to minimize lag with small to medium unit sizes. But there is a memory leak and flaming missles and these we've noticed cause lag. So my originial point was in agreement with both Sp00n and the Activision guy he talked to. RTW 4v4 would most certainly be laggy.

Please read my post in the future before replying. And I would most certainly like the flame to stop. If can't control your temper then don't reply. If you don't want different opinions on this board then file a complaint with the moderator.

Sp00n
10-12-2004, 22:17
I get on the defensive very easily so take no notice I didnt say take it back to 16 units to Activision what I said to him was would it be possible to play 4v4s with only 16 units max, personally id rather have that than no 4v4s at all.

Apologies for offense if any caused you wont be seeing too much of me on Rome for a while as Ive re-registered Eve till they sort it out.

MizuSp00n

AMP
10-13-2004, 01:47
they should have kept the 4v4s and allowed up to 12 players max in one battle to stay and go abit ahead of most strategy games. just have it an OPTION for the host to set the unit limits. hell they could've made it 30max units per player all the way down to 1 instead of just having an option to increase unit sizes... i mean com'on.. just think alittle.. zzz

if they are mostly new devs.. well how hard is it to look at the other installments and see what's working and what's not? that's no reason for such changes. it took me a while to get use to the controls and fix the camera they way i like it best, so that part is fine. you still have units that don't listen to commands. that dance around/ not engage, units that just touch slighly enemy units and won't respond, have trouble getting units to run - can't do it as easy in mtw (wish you could toggle it to just one click on or off), cav having trouble catching up with foot units, no hold postion or maybe i can't see it?, can't turn off fire at will if you have missile units selected and one is out of ammo, played a sp battle where these cretain archers or w/e had some pretty damn long range and were quite deadly ( haven't played online much yet to messy right now), when target an enemy unit with a roman unit that throws spears they'll throw just one round then charge if you click on the enemy unit -should fire all rounds before charging - if you have fire at will off for melee footies that have ammo still you shouldn't need to hold alt to engage, and umm that's all i can think of right now. i do think the marching speed is fine.

on the good note.. now that i got my new pc.. a athlon64 fx53 2.4ghz, 20048 ram, ati rx800 xt ddr 256mb vedio card, and a nice 22' moniter. so the graphics look much better and my frame rate in 3v3 runs fine up to large unit sizes.. well i can scroll fine, but it's like the game is turning pages, but i can still scroll nice a smooth - it's weird.

- think it could be my moniters refresh rate or i guess that would effect fps as well?

KukriKhan
10-14-2004, 14:55
Sp00n wrote:
"...I also play massive online games in the past ive fought my way through the Rubi Kai world of Anarchy Online, piloted through Eve and currently I shoot and explode my way through Planetside all these games are of course subscription games, but because of this the developers have to listen to their gamers otherwise the game dies and they subsequently lose money it a shame that all games developers dont listen to thier players like the developers of these particular games do...."

I think (IMHO) that this is an aspect often overlooked here. I remember way back when the Mongol Invasion expansion pack was released, one of the dev's (GilJaySmith, I believe) asked us, hypothetically, what we would pay for a more enhanced subscription-based TW game. The response was dismal.

The financial risks involved may be too prohibitive. Hence we get a 'compromise' multiplayer experience.

FearZeus
10-14-2004, 15:25
Nice system amp ;) you have been busy eheh :))) With regards to the game m8 I don't think this game will ever be attractive to me now! Lets hope any future total war series will be back to it's best again. As for that 2 year wait for RTW i'm already contemplaiting another long wait for the next series....

I can't even start to explain how gutted and lost I am with RTW and can't even consider going back to MTW. Dawn of war is the best game I have played for a long time and although I had no interest at all in half life, I now find myself looking forward to it :)

d6veteran
10-14-2004, 18:24
[QUOTE=KukriKhanI remember way back when the Mongol Invasion expansion pack was released, one of the dev's (GilJaySmith, I believe) asked us, hypothetically, what we would pay for a more enhanced subscription-based TW game. The response was dismal.[/QUOTE]

That is surprising to me. I wasn't on this board back then ...

Here's were I fit into the less than 1% that CA talks about: I would shell out as much as $25 per month for some sort of online campaign system.

...


I just sat and thought about it some more and I can think of several implementations (some persistent and some not) and I can say with confidence that I would subscribe to that.

I find it interesting that the response was dismal.

KukriKhan
10-15-2004, 05:07
I'll look to see if we have that old thread in the archives. As I remember it, the 2 leading answers were (and I could be wrong, mind):

:paraphrasing:
1) I ain't paying nothing more! You already got my 40 bucks!
2) $5 per month

Hardly an encouragement to folks whose livlihoods depend on their ability to please the transient, fickle audience that gamers, in general, are.

What do folks pay nowadays, for fixable, popular, responsive, reliable games?

Sp00n
10-15-2004, 15:53
[b]I think (IMHO) that this is an aspect often overlooked here. I remember way back when the Mongol Invasion expansion pack was released, one of the dev's (GilJaySmith, I believe) asked us, hypothetically, what we would pay for a more enhanced subscription-based TW game. The response was dismal.

The financial risks involved may be too prohibitive. Hence we get a 'compromise' multiplayer experience.


Another way of looking at this though is that a lot of people bought Rome just for the online aspect and as time goes by online gaming is becoming more and more prominant and will eventually be more popular than single player.

I dont really agree with that statement Blizzard nearly always make there games for SP and MP Warhammer being a fine example and most of Blizzards games are non suscription and they mostly play even better online.

I for one wont buy another CA game untill I see the mulitplayer review.

In the long term when games become virtually online only focused CA will miss out.

Sp00n

Puzz3D
10-15-2004, 18:14
Well you know we disagree on this one :)

There is no way a person can coordinate things better given less time and more things to control. It can't be done. The only RTW MP games I had that came anywhere close to the unit coordination I can achieve in MTW were two historical battles that used huge units (which cut the figthing speed), 12 or13 units per side.

Lag is a factor because it reduces control, and the only non-laggy battle I've had is a 3v3 with normal size units, but I still saw lots of units standing around doing nothing. Just the same it's been shown conclusively that the units are running unrealistically fast. The game does have a scale factor to it, and the running speeds are violating that scale.

baz
10-16-2004, 10:22
To my knowledge i can only conclude that it is logical that a slower game speed would imply better army control, which in turn implys the ability to produce tactical methods that are more complex. I am sure this IS fact.

I can understand that there is another factor present here. In that the speed can not be too slow because the element of surprise is then taken away. However, at present it is my opinion that this freshold is well below the current speed experienced in R:TW. Surprise was possible in all previous versions of TW, even if STW was a little slow for my liking (extra lag factor mainly though), so why change a formula that was proven?

My answer is because the programmers simply do not have the multiplayer skill/experience of totalwar in general to realise this. D6 i respect your opinion, but i personally cannot see any logical reasoning for your argument here and that is why i feel it has taken the critisism that it has. This is a RTS game, and hence strategy should be paramount.

Perhaps it is not your opinion that strategy is as important in this game?