Online Petition of Patch Buglist [Archive]

RtkBedivere

02-24-2007, 15:56

I know it might be early. People will say im jumping the gun but CA needs to stop ignoring us. And this is one way to do it.

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/M2TWpatch1.2

I took the liberty of making a petition for the online community of M2 so that we can potentially make a point to CA saying "here we are we are the multiplayer community, stop ignoring us"

The goal is 300 signatures which is a pretty high number but i think if i advertise enough we can reach it. I know lots of people are annoyed with the patch list as it seems to avoid MP quite a bit. So lets stick it to the man. Or CA whatever comes first .

Also make sure that if you sign you dont post a comment. I would like it if people could but i have to approve comments and i cant find the option anywhere. It appears i can modify comments in so if you have one just pm me your name and the comment you wish to add and i can put it in.

If it eventually gets enough signatures i might even feature it so that the site will send it directly to CA.

Thanks alot,
Sox
p.s. just in case you missed it

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/M2TWpatch1.2

Monarch

02-24-2007, 16:06

I realise that you guys want to maintain good relations with CA, but the community would very much appreciate pinning this thread..

RtkBedivere

02-24-2007, 16:32

also comments are now postable.

I'm not sure why it wouldn't work before.

Any input is welcome there should be an option to sign against the pettion. Though im not sure where it is. Site said there should be one. All feedback is welcome.

Thanks again,
Sox

ELITEofBLIZZARD

02-24-2007, 16:45

Well Bedivere... do you remember the RTW Patch Petition? Think Kyo or Kanuni made it... we had a damn big list and it helped nothing...I dont want to demoralize you but well... I really want to believe the CA guys can change... but... it doesnt work :(

CeltiberoMordred

02-24-2007, 17:06

Blizzard talks about this one: http://p223.ezboard.com/fshoguntotalwarfrm11.showMessage?topicID=387.topic

It was signed by 508 members in 2004.

Lavos

02-24-2007, 17:12

Blizzard, couple of months ago, released a patch for Starcraft.

Carl

02-24-2007, 17:36

Blizzard and Relic are much better at supporting thier games than most though...

R'as al Ghul

02-24-2007, 17:47

Just in case you don't remember CA's position on petitions:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=65338
There was a lot of bad blood in this thread (a lot of which has been edited out), here are the main points:

However there is no need for a petition, in fact you should all be aware of our opinion on these by now. Online petitions have to be disregarded as a measure of opinion as they are completely open to abuse there is no email authentication so any one make multiple signatures. So for example some one could start a petition saying that we should completely scrap the strategy map form our games. Then set up a PC to auto generate signatures and a few days later you a have petition with 1000's of signatures.

Totalwar.ORG members are not autogenerated signatures. We have well established and long tried security measures, the Entrance Hall system and all, to make sure that it remains a place where honourable people with legitimate intentions of discussing the TotalWar games and other things in a civil and friendly atmosphere assemble. There have been very few and marginal instances of crossing the line, all of which being taken care of properly and promptly.

Added to that, quite a large majority of the signers of this petition at this board have been well known and respected members of the community for a long time. They should never be suspected of identity abuse.

I kindly and most respectfully protest such implications as a devoted ORGAH.

Year / Join Date of Member
2000 1
2001 4
2002 7
2003 14
2004 19
2005 20
2006 13

There are 78 signed members on this thread, anyone who signed the thread but since has been permanently banned is not included. Two of these have only posted once on the Org to sign this thread. The other 76 have posted an average of 1589 posts each, for a total of 120,777 posts.

edited by request of the poster

RtkBedivere

02-24-2007, 18:49

hell id write a letter if i thought that would work. It wouldn't. Even thought ca says they disregard them then can disregard them. But im going to go through the steps that i personally can to put the word out. If they disregard o well at least i tried. Thats what matters to me and i think thats what matters to the people who signed.

:help:

If anyone has some other ideas then sure im up for them. Hey lets just form a picket line out side CA headquarters :)

Also the difference with this petition to ones that have been seen before is that each signature allows for personal input and lets people explain. If people want to send me personal comments about what they specificlly wish to be stated in petition i can update it with specific concerns from the community on points of the game we would like to be fixed.

Thanks alot. I will probably form that list and update the petition at that point in a couple of days.

Sox

Lavos

02-24-2007, 18:55

I suggest waiting at least couple of weeks, before starting any petitions. How do you think it looks to ca when we start complaining about patch before its out? Also well be able to complain about things like pikes beating everything for 120 florins, or something similar. ;)

Lusted

02-24-2007, 19:39

I hate to say this, but that is an incredibly poorly worded petition.

1. They have not copletely ignored the mp community, there are several multiplayer bugs on the list, and several single palyer bugs being fixed that will affect multiplayer. So stating they have compeltely ignored the multiplayer community will not help your cause.

2. It's short. There is no how you would like to see things changed, or what you would like to see in the patch. Just a petition that can be summed up as "Boo CA suck!". I bet that really wants to make them listen.

3. As outlined above, CA have a set attitude towards petitions.

So frankly the petition is pointless. It appears to serve no purpose apart form to whine. If your gonig to make a criticism/whine, amke it constructive, or add in some positives. No one, and i mean no one, likes being whinged at.

Puzz3D

02-24-2007, 21:31

CA have a set attitude towards petitions.
Their current attitude is a result of the RTW petition which was a constructively worded petition signed by 508 registered org members. Lots of players worked on verifying that the issues presented in that petition were legitimate issues. CA shut the door on petitions after that.

RtkBedivere

02-24-2007, 21:32

Thanks alot. I will probably form that list and update the petition at that point in a couple of days.

Sox

Noted. This was the shorthand start of the petition. I will update it in a couple days when i have sometime. I'm getting on a plane tomorrow to head home for spring break so i just have to get collected first.

Any help is welcome btw :2thumbsup:

Monarch

02-24-2007, 21:48

I hate to say this, but that is an incredibly poorly worded petition.

1. They have not copletely ignored the mp community,.

lmao

Titan of Gaul

02-24-2007, 22:41

I'm not one to nag, but even trying to do a 2 vs 2 with 3 others in my clan the lag was unbearable, we all attacked, and no one pressed another button for ten minutes, as its impossible to control your units.

Really I know bugs are understandable, but if CA expect people to play online, sort out the lag, they can defend it, but I would like to see 6 of them even try a 3 vs 3.

Monarch

02-24-2007, 22:59

Actually mate, the lag is bad but not as bad as what you've just described. You must have been playing with someone with an extremely slow internet/pc.

Titan of Gaul

02-24-2007, 23:01

Oops, I forgot to say, good connection, but lives in Austrailia. We have no trouble doing large 3 vs 3 games on Rome, even when some people have not so good computers, Rome had issues, but nothing as bad as this.

Denali

02-24-2007, 23:45

Lusted you have some good points but tell me.... what would you do? Havent we tried everything allready to get CA's attention? Haven't we tried to help as much as we could with bug-lists, tons of ideas how to improve mp.

I have written several emails to CA, no bashing but constructive critism. It didn't help. But hey, ive seen smaller mp communites than the tw mp community and no1 was ignored over years.

If CA would really care about the mp part (which is the future and keeps a game alive) they would have started to work togheter with the community a long time ago. And workign togheter doesnt mean to fix 5 mp bugs togheter with 500 sp bugs, it means to react on suggestions and at least say: "here we are, you arent completely forgotten".

Lusted

02-24-2007, 23:55

Lusted you have some good points but tell me.... what would you do?

Well im going to be chatting to Palamedes about further balancing changes once patch 1.2 is released, and so try and get multiplayer improved that way. But im very lucky in regards to my contacts with the devs, i do try and read the mp forum lots because it generally has the best idea about how units should be balanced.

Havent we tried everything allready to get CA's attention? Haven't we tried to help as much as we could with bug-lists, tons of ideas how to improve mp.

Yes you have, but this petition is not going to help. At least word it properly. Something like this:

Dear The Creative Assembly,

We the undersigned members of the TW multipalyer community would like you to focus more on improving the multiplayer side of your games as we feel you have been neglecting it.

We are very happy you are fixing several mp bugs in 1.2, and several big sp bugs that really affect unit balance, but we would like to see more work done to fix bug, balancing issues and lobby issues that affect the mp side of the game.

These threads below detail some of these things(should then be links to various threads in these forums).

If these issues get fixed, M2:TW mp could become a popular part of the games and help prolonge the lifespan of the game.

Thank you for taking the time to read this petition.

So you mix compliments in with your criticisms(makes people more likely to read it), point out positives for them(people play the game for longer, might encourage more people to buy it), and its worded politely.

Monarch

02-25-2007, 00:18

If you look, Lusted, many people are actually very formal and constructive in the comments, theres your suggestions. CA just need to take the time to scan through the comments.

Anyway, my vision for cav is they should have the same charge as now. IMO its an interesting gameplay strategy that you have to take measures to stop someone successfully charging your inf (and there are successful measures that can be taken).

The problem comes, however, after the charge. I don't know about medieval history but gameplay wise it'd be cool if when pinned infantry easily beat mounted. So cav become purely chargers/flankers than charges/flankers/melee gods.

Furthermore, theres an issue that even when infantry sometimes can kill cav when pinned (yet not easily...especially spearmen which should, gameplay wise, make cav drop like flies) that you can simply click your cav behind the enemy inf and they'll run right through owning the inf that you may have thought was beating the mounted gods. I don't remember this working in RTW, I think in Rome when you tried that the cav got owned, I'm not sure why...realistically that wouldnt happen but its a good gameplay mechanic.

Fixing the shield bug will make inf better on cav when pinned but if the "plough of death" is not removed, then it won't mean squat because the spearmen won't have a chance to even get off two stabs at the cav.

I know you probably have 1000 suggestions from people to pass on, but if you could bring up these points it would be greatly appreciated.

Lusted

02-25-2007, 00:20

Fixing the shield bug will make inf better on cav when pinned but if the "plough of death" is not removed, then it won't mean squat because the spearmen won't have a chance to even get off two stabs at the cav.

Ah but the shield bug being fixed will also make inf better at facing the charge, as the shield bug even counts agianst infantry when they are charged. Even with the rather crude shield bug workaround used in mods infantry and much more able to receive a charge.

And cav charges are going to be weaker in 1.2.

I don't remember this working in RTW, I think in Rome when you tried that the cav got owned, I'm not sure why...realistically that would happen but its a good gameplay mechanic.

I think it was in RTW as well, i am not sure.

RtkBedivere

02-25-2007, 01:05

Pull through didn't work great in RTW but it worked in BI. Someone somewhere said shield bug got fixed thats a good start.

Lusted you said earlier its not going to help so why do it. Well i did cause i am tired of sitting around and saying hey maybe the patch will fix it. It won't so i am doing something. It might not work but at least i am giving it a shot.

I arent engrish major but i do plan on making a more formal response and in it will be included the main issues for MP game play maybe even alternate suggestions as to how to get them fixed. But i just don't have the time to do that now because i want to make sure i get it done well.

The last thing i want is for this to turn into a fight. I appreciate everyones opinions. Lets discuss the issue and find a solution. If this doesn't work then we will have to try something else. I LOVE TOTAL WAR. I don't want to give it up but i also don't want to spend my free time bashing the AI across the map when i could be having fun playing a strategic battle online with my friends.

And lusted if you want to help me write the response you can contact me via pm on these forums or on

MSN:Virus_Blacksox@yahoo.com
AIM:Sox987
Xfire:Blacksox

that goes for anyone btw

Thanks again,
Sox

Stig

02-25-2007, 01:21

tibilicus

02-25-2007, 02:24

pinned as requested.

And keeep it calm pelase stig ~:)

Cheetah

02-25-2007, 11:36

Gentlemen, the patch is not even out. We do not know what kind of fixes it has. It is way too early for any kind of petition.

Please be patient.

Stig

02-25-2007, 11:55

And keeep it calm pelase stig ~:)
I am calm ... and right .... and so is Cheetah

sapi

02-25-2007, 12:32

stig didn't say it particularly well but he had a point - it only makes sense to focus on the far more numerous sp players :yes:

Titan of Gaul

02-25-2007, 12:44

Look at it this way, how many people still play the rome campiagn, very few, hundreds still play online. That shows what keeps a game going.

Monarch

02-25-2007, 13:09

stig didn't say it particularly well but he had a point - it only makes sense to focus on the far more numerous sp players :yes:

lol, I also play Titan Quest whose online community is way smaller than tw, their equivelent of .org sometimes only has like 3 people logged in. And yet for the xpansion Iron Lore are focusing on improving multiplayer.

Have you ever thought WHY nobody plays multiplayer? I mean sure you'll just say no campaign, but the fact is even then nobody hops on for a game once or twice a week, they actually avoid it and refuse to play it. Despite there being no campaign this doesn't mean people can't play both. But because of waiting five hours for gs for work, because of the exploit fest, because of imba such as cav...nobody wants to have a casual game every so often.

The future of gaming is online. Hell even consoles have woken up to that.

Puzz3D

02-25-2007, 13:59

Oh do stop whining, it's not like you're paying to make the game, CA is, be glad they add at least some sort of MP. Only 1 in 10000 persons buy this game for MP only, why would you focus at that.
I agree that this game should not be purchased for multiplayer. Anyone who buys this game for multiplayer had better set their standards low.

Lusted

02-25-2007, 14:20

Look at it this way, how many people still play the rome campiagn, very few, hundreds still play online. That shows what keeps a game going.

Many thousands still play the RTW campaign actually.

Caesar Vastator

02-25-2007, 15:01

Many thousands still play the RTW campaign actually.
The vanilla campaign (from what i know) is played by very few people (like new person that have bought Rome recently). Many thousands still play Rome campaign, but modded (not vanilla). The multyplayer, though vanilla, its played by a lot of people (sometimes more than medieval2) from what i can see. THis because MP Rome 1.5 its a lot better than Med2 1.1

Titan of Gaul

02-25-2007, 15:39

Fair point, I didn't think of mods, they do deserve credit, but CA need to worry about their game, the vast number of mods, as well as being brilliant, show the demand for more, not that this is a bad thing, yet the vanilla mp still gets played, despite the mods. I am not out to slate the CA or m2, only that the lag caused makes playing games very hard and not enjoyable. Personnally I prefer Rome anyway, but the point me and others are trying to get accross is the lag. Inbalances are unfortunate, but they do not stop the game being played.

Orda Khan

02-25-2007, 17:06

There are many thousands who still play vanilla campaigns, have no intention of using a mod, who probably have no idea that modded games exist even. There are thousands of TW fans that never visit this site or .Com for that matter and who probably have never installed a patch.
Consider the number of TW games purchased and then take a look at the size of the MP community, throughout the series. The community we did have was lost thanks to RTW and it has not been rescued by M2TW, but how many people are we talking about? A couple of hundred? The last petition was signed by quite a few who were not 'active' and that one contained only a few hundred names. The MP community had different opinions on the game anyway, so CA would have a pretty difficult time satisfying everyone.
My advice is play the game and have fun win or lose. If you want balance, fairness, no exploits and an equal chance, take up chess

......Orda

Monarch

02-25-2007, 18:04

the community we did have was lost thanks to RTW and it has not been rescued by M2TW,

Umm, when was the last time you looked into the current community? Theres a tourney running atm that has 36 dedicated clans signed up. Even some of them are clans even your greatness may consider worthy. Older clans such as Elite Force, RTK, Aggony and Kenchi battle with old Rome clans and even new ones that sprung up with the birth of m2.

Theres a community out there and sure its not as big as Warcraft 3 of Company of Heroes, but its dedicated to wanting to play tw. Its the game not the community where theres a problem (well, for the most part..)

Titan of Gaul

02-25-2007, 18:09

Well said Monarch, I am in one of those clans, and being in such a good community really enhances the enjoyment I get out of this game. We are not saying that we are more than the sp community, only that we are here, and we feel if CA are going to make a game that features mp, then do it well like they did with Rome.

guyfawkes5

02-25-2007, 19:28

Sock it to 'em Monarch! ;)

In these sort of conversations I usually draw the correct conclusion by getting Stig's pro-CA blather and Elmo's anti-CA propaganda and finding the middle ground between them. It amuses me no end that two such opinions can co-exist in the same forum; according to Stiggles the MP community should all chip in and 'make the game themselves' while CA rivals the Pope in infallablity, while Elmo maintains CA is headed up by the Emperor from Star Wars, who never passes up an opportunity to show the two fingers to the older fans of TW. I know this isn't really helping, I just find the two contrasting extremes of opinion in the mulitplayer community funny (certainly my two examples aren't the only ones, I just mentioned them because I hoped they wouldn't mind as they are such easy going fellows). :)

My own personal opinion would fall mostly with Lusted; that as long as you talk the language of business and are somewhat civil towards CA, they are always open to change as long as they see the venture as profitable (a lot of people forget that CA is still a business at the end of the day). Perhaps it is the dwindling size of the multiplayer community that persuades them that development isn't worthwhile, although you might be better asking Lusted or Pala on that one seeing as they're obviously better qualified. :)

Titan of Gaul

02-25-2007, 19:32

guyfawkes5

02-25-2007, 19:41

We are by no means having a go at them for the fun of it, we apprieciate that it isn't easy, but only ask that they sort out the game so it is at least playable to an extent where it isnt a struggle, and where units react WHEN u tell them NOT five minutes later. I would really like to see 6 CA employes attempt a 3 vs 3 on 10k, and see if they think the lag is acceptable.
I'm not sure if that was intended as a response to me or not; I simply pointed out the two extremes of opinion present in these forums and then outlined my own views, that CA are still out to make profit at the end of the day and while a community's support, while always appreciated, will always come second place to the almighty dollar. I certainly never implied that you guys are having a go at CA for 'laughs'.

Although I believe lag is something they are sorting out (or at the very least attempting to) in the upcoming patch, so why not just wait until after you've actually seen the patch to complain?

Titan of Gaul

02-25-2007, 19:45

I agree with you, it isn't my petition, but I agree entirely with what the people who wrote it are saying. But simply looking at the fix list, there is fairly little to do with mp, which I think is far worse than sp, which I think is enjoyable, without to many bugs.

guyfawkes5

02-25-2007, 19:52

I believe it is because CA divides its resources proportionately to market needs. Since CA believes the multiplayer community is a minority consumer of their game when compared to the customers who play mostly or only singleplayer campaign, they will obviously put more effort into improving the singleplayer rather than the multiplayer portion of their product. Again the laws of business and money-making come in here.

Fenix7

02-25-2007, 20:28

History repeating itself? :book:

Lusted

02-25-2007, 22:18

My own personal opinion would fall mostly with Lusted; that as long as you talk the language of business and are somewhat civil towards CA, they are always open to change as long as they see the venture as profitable (a lot of people forget that CA is still a business at the end of the day).

That is the point i am trying to get across. If you are not civil they wont lsiten to you. If you dont point out how helping the mp community will help them they wont listen. If you word things well, if your polite, if you mix in praise amongst your criticisms, and point how it might help make them money, they mgiht listen to you.

Stig

02-25-2007, 23:07

Next to to what Lusted just said, you also have to keep this in minds:
CA knows how to sell a game. They've made models. They know they make (example) $1,000,000 when they make a SP game, and they know they keep the fans. They know they will only make $250,000 if they make it for MP only (BF2 for example). If they make the game bug-free and they sell les then they thought they will lose much money. If they spend less on making it bug-free they release a game with some bugs, but they atleast know if they have the money to fix it. CA knows this, they keep it in mind. Fans don't, they want the game they like, and CA can't please anyone, some fans just don't see it, and want everything that way, since they spend $50.- on the game. Well imo you can call those persons whiners, as they're whining, but they don't see it.

BTW Guy:
I'm not Pro-CA, I'm as anti-CA as Elmo is, I'm just anti-anti-anti-whining kids. And if I have to choose between whining kids and CA, my choice will be CA.

guyfawkes5

02-25-2007, 23:19

If they make the game bug-free and they sell les then they thought they will lose much money. If they spend less on making it bug-free they release a game with some bugs, but they atleast know if they have the money to fix it.
Alright Stiggles, you lost me there...

BTW Guy:
I'm not Pro-CA, I'm as anti-CA as Elmo is, I'm just anti-anti-anti-whining kids. And if I have to choose between whining kids and CA, my choice will be CA.
That argument you had with Toxic says otherwise... plus the many others you had with non 'whiny kid' opposition. :2thumbsup:

Stig

02-25-2007, 23:26

Alright Stiggles, you lost me there...
I'll repeat it:
CA makes a game.
They don't know how much money they will make.
They can spend (say) $200,000 on making it completely bug-free.
However they don't know if they make enough to still make profit.
So they don't spend the $200,000.
Instead they release the game with some bugs left (as it's not only impossible to get all the bugs out, they also don't know if they get it back).
Then they see they made enough profit so they can easely get the bugs out.
And they do.

BTW Toxic was whining, he ain't a kid tho

guyfawkes5

02-25-2007, 23:34

And the point I make is that $200,000 is nowhere near the amount of money CA would spend making the game free of all bugs (obviously they would be forgiven for leaving in the very minor ones) is the money the staff's wages. It's not like they would have to buy anything new to fix the bugs, just pay the guys they have already to focus specifically on 'perfecting' the game. In fact, the bulk of the money they would lose is in the lost sales from the delay of the games release, and I would say that is the reason CA is reluctant to invest heavily in testing and bug-fixing pre-release.

I wouldn't want to estimate how much money CA would spend on ridding the game of all its major bugs as I simply would have no clue as to where to start; nowhere near as high as $200,000 though.

guyfawkes5

02-25-2007, 23:42

Damn my lack of an edit feature...

BTW Toxic was whining, he ain't a kid tho
Actually to my mind you defended yourself pretty pathetically in that thread; but maybe I should call Toxic in here, as he's a member here too...

Stig

02-25-2007, 23:45

As said 200,000 was an example.
Next to that I now know how CA beta-testing and bug solving works (since I had contact with a Beta-tester pre-release ... further info on that is classified ~D). And it's not as easy as you think. CA doesn't stick much time in beta-testing, all has to be done in a very strict schedule, as the game was ready too late. CA doesn't like releasing the game too late. So it would be spending alot on quicker testing or releasing late ... you can argue with that but it's a fact

guyfawkes5

02-26-2007, 00:02

Stiggles, I was just making the point that the money CA would be losing through longer testing would be in the thousands and not the hundreds of thousands you were implying, and it's not that much to such a large company in the wider picture.

And I find it hilarious how you come around and eventually retort with what I have been saying all along; that the reason CA didn't test for bugs more is because they didn't want to delay it's release (rather than the money spent on bug-finding not being 'worth it'). Nice one Stigglet, your debating skills come through again. :2thumbsup:

Orda Khan

02-26-2007, 00:07

Umm, when was the last time you looked into the current community? Theres a tourney running atm that has 36 dedicated clans signed up. Even some of them are clans ]even your greatness may consider worthy.
Really monarch, when will you grow up? You have this idea I think I am above the MP community and you add sarcasm to every reply, it's amusing really. I was merely pointing out that the MP community is even smaller now than it was in STW at its height. So small that even with non active players signing a petition, there were still only a few hundred names. Having followed various discussions back then, even those who signed could not agree on loads of things. So who do CA listen to? Would you invest manhours in a project to please a couple of hundred people for ... maybe two years, when your customer base is a million or so? I'm sure there are thousands who are blissfully unaware of the 'push through' bug.
Or like Aonar said ...

History repeating itself?

Its the game not the community where theres a problem (well, for the most part..)
Well there you go again, I guess you just can't help yourself, heh. Sure, I agree with you. That has always been the case and I don't see anything changing fast

........Orda

Stig

02-26-2007, 00:32

Stiggles, I was just making the point that the money CA would be losing through longer testing would be in the thousands and not the hundreds of thousands you were implying, and it's not that much to such a large company in the wider picture.
It was an example, I don't know the figures, if that's the only argument you have against me it's you who's lacking debating skills ~D , besides if you want to attack me do it somewhere else, this isn't the place, end

that the reason CA didn't test for bugs more is because they didn't want to delay it's release
I've been saying that all along, I thought you read my discussion with Toxic, ah well, guess you're still the same

End discussion with Guy.

Hosakawa Tito

02-26-2007, 00:46

guyfawkes5

02-26-2007, 01:00

Since when is disagreeing with someone 'attacking' them?

I've been saying that all along,
No not really Stig, you originally said CA don't fix bugs because they want to spend as little money as possible in case they don't make enough profit on the release of their game and thus it's like hedging their bets. Here's what you said:

They can spend (say) $200,000 on making it completely bug-free.
However they don't know if they make enough to still make profit.
So they don't spend the $200,000.

if that's the only argument you have against me it's you who's lacking debating skills
Well you converted to my other argument, as pointed out above.

I thought you read my discussion with Toxic, ah well, guess you're still the same
I don't fully recall what you said since it was so long ago, although if it was as pathetic as your argument here I think that's a good thing.

End discussion with Guy.
Oh alright, but only because you say so. ;)

There will be no "sock it to anyone" here. Differences of opinion are to be expected and respected. There appears to be a perception by some that some of the older MP players are condescending toward the newer. That is not the case, they are not claiming to be better, however they have more experience in dealing with these MP issues. I suggest trying to find common ground rather than a divisive one.
My apologies, although it was meant as more of a cheer of the current MP community rather than a derision of said poster's opinions (and also I did find the 'common ground' in that argument). :)

Papewaio

02-26-2007, 01:39

Petitions (which are generally ignored) have to be:
Polite
Focused
Witty
Factual
Repeatable Examples if possible.

Based on this thread :dizzy2:, I get flashbacks to Shogun and "The enemy general runs like a whipped dog." :whip: :eeeek:

At least hippies :hippie: would state:

"What do we want" ... insert appropriate slogan :weirdthread:
"When do we want"... insert pseudo-realistic time. :coffeenews:

If you can't convince each other in a mature manner what is the hope of convincing CA? Unless you are all SEGA shareholders that is...

Puzz3D

02-26-2007, 05:38

If you can't convince each other in a mature manner what is the hope of convincing CA?
There is no hope of convincing CA to put more resources into the multiplayer. Gil Jaysmith said 15% of the resources went into RTW multiplayer, and that was more than it warranted. MTW/VI v2.01 still has network code problems. After the MTW v1.1 patch, VI v2.0 and VI v2.01 patch, it's still not right. RTW still has problems, and that's after RTW v1.1, v1.2, v1.3 and v1.5 patches.

Titan of Gaul

02-26-2007, 08:53

Looking at the Rome petition, many of the highlighted problems I never knew of, as I started playing at 1.5, so they clearly did something about it, Rome has very few issues now I feel.

Denali

02-26-2007, 09:12

There is no other game like total war. There are other strategy games like the Age of Empires Series, Age of Mythology, Warcraf, Company of Heroes, Commander and Conquer and tons of other great games.

But there is no other game where you play epic battles with houndreds of units in the same way you do in the tw serie.....

I hope CA will exploit its full potitential one day with some kind of "Total War Online" game.... But its really hard to stay keep faith, I love the tw series, i really love them but i understand pll like barrett who quit.

Stig

02-26-2007, 10:14

You said it Denali, CA is on its own, they have no opponents, they don't have to make a good MP, this is the only game you can buy to fight epic battles like these. It's either this or nothing, and since fans are still going for this CA doesn't have to change it's "tactics".

Paolai

02-26-2007, 11:37

fact is that they are loosing tons of potential customers. Warcraft had many customers, WOW a lot more, and it is only MP. CA has difficulties to understand that the future for games is only MP and not SP.

sapi

02-26-2007, 11:43

I'd have to disagree there.

Warcraft and WoW (the latter especially) have completely different target audiences to TW and so your logic does not apply.

WC3 mp = DotA these days anyway :(

Orda Khan

02-26-2007, 12:07

Denali has raised a very good point. TW real time battles are matched by nobody else. TW is the only PC game I have ever played, for that precise reason. The idea of a group of players getting together and fighting a huge battle is the most appealing aspect of the game (IMO)
M2TW added stunning graphics, the game should be phenomenal but there are too many issues that prevent that in MP.
The eye candy is great but there is a trade off. Only the very best machines will allow a 4v4 (which is what I consider to be large, epic battles) Even in SP you need to edit options in order to allow unlimited troops (and no SP battle comes close to a 4v4). The server seems unstable and there are annoying bugs. All this means those who love large, epic battles are being short changed and get progressively more frustrated. As frustrated as I am about the deterioration of MP, I am resigned to the fact that CA will decide their course of action and nobody else. Even Beta testing is carried out with strict guidelines, there is no 'free reign' approach. If the majority of fixes help to improve the SP campaign, CA have done their job. If some of those fixes help out in MP, well that's good too as far as they are concerned. To balance this game totally is nigh on impossible and since a minute fraction of the playerbase are the only people who will notice such changes (no offense to SP, where battles are rarely equal anyway) it seems like a lot of effort. I really don't see a petition changing things (much as I'd like it to).
As Hosakawa Tito said, this is nothing to do with delusions of grandeur, it is an opinion based on experience with the TW series and CA. MP has always been the poor relation and will continue to be as long as the MP community remains such a tiny percentage. It's a Catch 22, it's frustrating, it's downright annoying.
The MP community has the ability to mod the game and improve it, this was done in STW/MI v103 mod. Sadly completed shortly before MTW, the mod was a vast improvement over v1.02. Very few installed it.
The community mod for MTW/VI v2.01 provided really good gameplay and was a breath of fresh air after the cav/sword armies of VI. The unit variation in both size and cost added another dimension to options. Very few installed it.
Samurai Wars mod for VI brought an element of the Shogun era to VI, a lot of work went into balancing and the battles were great. Very few installed it.
A mod could be the answer for M2TW but how many would install it? We have to look at ourselves as well

.........Orda

Paolai

02-26-2007, 12:08

I am not saying that they are similar, I am saying that Blizzard relaized 2 years ago that the furture is ONLY MP, and they made a game onlyt for MP and they sold tons of copies. If CA still think to make games just for SP, they are loosing a lot of money, future is ONLY MP.

And btw, the great part of TW vets are playing (played) WOW.

Orda Khan

02-26-2007, 12:12

the great part of TW vets are playing (played) WOW.
True. Sadly, they chose to play another game yet very few of them would install a modded TW game.
I've never understood why

.......Orda

Stig

02-26-2007, 12:25

Look at this, how many mods were made for MP reasons? Samurai Wars for MTW and NTW2 for RTW, nothing more then that. If this game really should have more and better MP don't you think there will be more mods then? All mods focus at SP as well, ofcourse you can play them online, but it ain't tested and awfully buggy.
As Orda said yes there were some mods (like some I named) but almost no-one installed them. How many people do you think bought MTW2 and RTW (the most recent games? 500,000? A million (combined), well I think that's almost realistic. How many people are registered on .com? 36710. And how many here? 18757. And on TWC? 24,050. Let's stay optimistic and say we don't have double accounts. That means we have 79517 TW players on forums. Let's be even more optimistic and say that all of them bought RTW or MTW2 (or both). That means, when being optimistic, that 10% of the players registered at the forums.
However this is not true. There are loads that have registered on every site. Or on just 2. Take that off and with luck we have 30,000 different TW players, of which maybe 50% bought RTW or MTW2, with luck. That's 15,000 players.
Say that we have 750,000 players in total (that's easy when doing maths). That means 2% registered at the forums. But then look at the amount of posts. From those 15000 players maybe only 10% have a postcount to call them active (more then 50). That's 0,2% of the players. How many of them do you think have downloaded mods, let's say all, as some without some posts have mods, and some with posts have no mods (me for example). How many people do you think play MP, regularly? 5% max, I think. That's only 5% from 15000 that's 750. Add that 10% (people on forums that download mods, as you need to be on a forum to play a MP mod imo, you need to arrange battles) that's 75. That's 75 people who actually give about MP.

Lusted

02-26-2007, 12:36

If CA still think to make games just for SP, they are loosing a lot of money, future is ONLY MP.

That is just not true. I know countless people who don't play WoW or other mmorpgs, becuase they take up too much time. I would hate for the TW series to go mp only, i play it for the sp game, and im sure a hell of a lot of other people do as well. If they switch to mp only, they would lose a lot of customers.

sapi

02-26-2007, 12:38

That is just not true. I know countless people who don't play WoW or other mmorpgs, becuase they take up too much time. I would hate for the TW series to go mp only, i play it for the sp game, and im sure a hell of a lot of other people do as well. If they switch to mp only, they would lose a lot of customers.
:yes:

I was going to say something similar, but i don't want to get drawn in and lusted has said it perfectly anyway :laugh4:

Stig

02-26-2007, 12:39

How many people do you see in the lobby, max? 150, never seen more.
That means my 750 is about true. From the 750,000 buyers, only 750 play MP regularly, do you really it's a good idea to go MP only?

Puzz3D

02-26-2007, 12:53

Looking at the Rome petition, many of the highlighted problems I never knew of, as I started playing at 1.5, so they clearly did something about it, Rome has very few issues now I feel.
Yes, but now they don't accept petitions anymore. So the most effective way of dealing with CA can now no longer be used. The most effective thing you can do now is complain in the forums.

Orda Khan

02-26-2007, 13:00

Please don't think I'm nit picking, Stig but all the mods I mentioned were developed for MP (SP campaign was possible with STW/MI v103 and SamWars was a MP specific offshoot of Barocca's Samurai mod for VI). They went through vigourous online testing and were easy to use (even using a statswapper in STW)
There are reasons why mods are not popular and peronalities is one, Player 'X' won't use the mod because Player 'Y' made it, fear that it will totally screw up your install, apathy.
Mods are an option and more of an option than expecting CA to fix MP to our specifications IMO. Unfortunately mods can do little to help server issues

........Orda

Paolai

02-26-2007, 13:06

You miss my point, I am just saying that all the game producers are pointing their programs on MP (less CA :inquisitive: ). Look at the console for example. The console world was since last 2 years ONLY sp, and now they are all focusing on the MP part. Look at Halo for exaple or the new Gears of War (just 2 names)
I know there are people that doesnt like the MP, but the new generation of players (the great part) look only at the MP, and thats why X360 and Blizzard are selling so much their products.

CA is loosing a lot of money and thats for sure, I wonder when they will relaize it.

Lusted

02-26-2007, 13:10

You miss my point, I am just saying that all the game producers are pointing their programs on MP (less CA ).

No, all game producers are mixing MP and SP in their games(like CA), only a few have gome for MP only.

The console world was since last 2 years ONLY sp, and now they are all focusing on the MP part. Look at Halo for exaple or the new Gears of War (just 2 names)

Yes, both SP and MP games. I know people who play both games and dnot' touch the mp side.

CA is loosing a lot of money and thats for sure, I wonder when they will relaize it.

Not at the moment, at the moment their raking it in.

sapi

02-26-2007, 13:11

Mate, you're missing our point.

Some types of games do well in mp and always will (fps games for example)

Some games will always be sp at heart, but still get some mp following (eg rts games). For those it doesn't make sense to develop for mp players (tw is one of these)

Paolai

02-26-2007, 13:16

You need 10 hours about to end Gear of Wars SP. Do you really think that it is a SP game? Have you ever played it?
No it is a MP game with a little part of SP. Like TW is a SP game with a little part of MP.

Do you really think that Halo was played by more SP players than MP players? No, you are wrong, and thats why they sold about 30 times the copies CA has never sold for all their games.

All the games can be addressed with a good MP, all kind of games. CA atm is far to have a decent MP, and thats why their are loosing money.

Lusted

02-26-2007, 13:21

You need 10 hours about to end Gear of Wars SP. Do you really think that it is a SP game? Have you ever played it?

Yeah, i found it fun. Most of the fps i play i only play sp, apart from Halo pc.

Do you really think that Halo was played by more SP players than MP players? No, you are wrong, and thats why they sold about 30 times the copies CA has never sold for all their games.

And it was also the best fps for the xbox and so was pretty much guaranteed to sell well.

They key part you are forgetting is that a big part of TW is the campaign game. You can't play that mp, nor would i ever like it to be mp, i'd just get annoyed at other players.

Paolai

02-26-2007, 13:30

We are not talking about what you prefer or what I prefer. SOmeone wrote that CA is making a lot of money with their TW SP, and I am JUST saying instead that they are loosing a lot of money cause they are not supporting the MP part, that is the future for the new players generation. Also the console producers relaized that the MP part is the one where the new players look, and thats why they make their games focused on the MP part. A 10 hours game cannot be considered a SP focus one.

Titan of Gaul

02-26-2007, 13:50

Someone look at XFires list of game hours played. Top two are WoW and Battlefield (2 and 2142). Now what do they have in common, something about them that makes them the most popular mp games......

Stig

02-26-2007, 14:06

Yes, but they can't be compared to TW.
TW can be compared to Civ or something. Now you can play Civ online, but is it made for that, well no. TWs main feature is the campaign combined with battles. As it is now it's not possible to make a MP campaign which will be the exact same as the SP game (takes too much time), so now they are offering us Custom battles in MP. There's little more then that that CA can give us ... simply because it's near to impossible.

@Titan of Gaul, BF2 and WoW are played more often according to Xfire, because:
a. They sell better
b. TW isn't a game you need Xfire for, while loads of people who have BF2 and WoW have Xfire.*

*What I mean is this. When I play SP only, why do I need Xfire. MSN is the most used messenger, why use Xfire?

Paolai

02-26-2007, 15:10

Who is comparing the games? I just tell you that all the other games have a better SUPPORT than the one CA is giving to the MP (not that hard ok...) cause ALL the game producers (less CA) have already relaized that the MP is the future. And for that CA is loosing money cause CA is loosing potential players. Blizzard is an exapmple, X360 is an example, and both are making much more money than CA, and it is a fact.

Stig

02-26-2007, 15:13

You say MP is the future. So you say TW should be like WoW and BF2, but it can't be, it doesn't have to be. Everyone (except maybe 250 MP-only players) buys this game for it's SP game. Not for MP. MP is an extra, as with Civ, as with AoE, as with many others.

Paolai

02-26-2007, 15:38

You say MP is the future
Not only me.

So you say TW should be like WoW and BF2
No, I just said that the game actually have a great success are games with a good MP support. I never mentioned BF2 FYI, the other example I did was Gear of Wars, WOW and HALO...2 of them are console games.

MP is an extra

Actually is not, atm SP is an extra, like for exaple Gear of Wars. Gear of Wars has an SP for about 10 hours. Have you heard Halo2? It will be the same also for it.

Carl

02-26-2007, 15:59

@Lusted & Stig: You might want to read this (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=78261) thread, particularly after Econ21 joins in. The majority of MP people seem to be the old STW vets who agree with Puzz3D and the like with regards the thread I just linked to. Their basic view is that all they are interested in is the battles, the STW campaign to them was just a means to an end to get to battle and many consider the current fancy campaign overburdened with fancy management features that they find boring. They ONLY play the game for the battles, and it's their opinion that that is what the game should focus on and that most of the fancy campaign features added in would be better of being dropped as they aren't needed for effective battles, they just need a recruitment system and a way to move around the map and take provinces with their armies. Even if it stays, they mostly aren't interested in an online campaign, all they really care about is balanced online battles at the end of the day. They'd like a simplified campaign, but they'll settle for good online battles, and are annoyed that CA simply doesn't care about this as good balanced battles (online or offline), where the entire point of the TW series in the beginning, (in their opinion).

I don't actually agree with all off that, but thats the best summary i can make of whats in that thread. It's also clear from reading the arguments between Econ 21 and others that most of the old vets do actually care about others opinions and the feeling with most of them, (not you Orda, and not some others either, but certainly some of them), that they think only their opinions matters and is the only one that is right is more down to frustration on their part, and a lack of understanding of their position on the part of us newer players, rather then them actually dismissing our opinions as it sometimes feels like.

However, I hope that clarifies the vets position on things for everyone. I highly advise you read the thread even after my summary though, make your own opinions.

Stig

02-26-2007, 16:06

There are no such things as vets, only people who think they're better then others.

Actually is not, atm SP is an extra, like for exaple Gear of Wars. Gear of Wars has an SP for about 10 hours. Have you heard Halo2? It will be the same also for it.
I was talking about TW. In every TW game MP has been an extra, and it will always stay like this, as people will buy the game anyway

Paolai

02-26-2007, 16:16

I was talking about TW. In every TW game MP has been an extra, and it will always stay like this, as people will buy the game anyway

and again, that's why I am saying that they are loosing money cause they are loosing the new generation of players. Microsoft and Blizzard already understood that 2 years ago.

Stig

02-26-2007, 16:31

CA isn't losing money, I believe that they made more in the first months of MTW2 then in the first months of RTW. And don't even compare it to STW or MTW

Paolai

02-26-2007, 17:04

are you saying that CA sold more than Blizzard? Plz do not assume that, you are wrong.

Stig

02-26-2007, 17:08

You do not need to sell more then Blizzard to make profit

Monarch

02-26-2007, 17:09

Its interesting, Lusted/Stig etc, you all seem to think mp cannot be made to a good standard as well as an sp campaign? The steps are quite plain, atm I don't think any CA staffers play other online strategy games, because if they did then god knows why they didn't implement alot of the ideas of say Company of Heroes.

Relic Games also made dawn of war, this used gamespy for mp, however they have now moved onto their own game servers.

Blizzard, also don't use gamespy. Two of the best strategy developers of all time (company of heroes + starcraft) use their own game servers. Meaning less lag n con problems.

Feature/lobby wise CoH has a ranked automatch ladder, friends lists, ability to see if a friend is in a game, stats tracking, ability to see who the players and their factions that are in the game from the lobby (I mean ffs in med2 you can't even see what era the game is from the lobby). Now lets look at games not so comparable to m2...but still mp games, counterstrike, most popular fps of all time...has VoIP in game support.

Hell I'm sure even gamespy can provide the features even if they'll screw up connections again, the features would go along way towards making us not notice them as much.

Truth is for some reason yall have it in your heads "mp or sp" with some now pretty basic features (I mean any self respecting game developer has a friends list now in mp) and getting rid of gs mp can be so much better.

(Also a public beta, like coh did, would be awesome. Other than releasing the real game and have us basically beta test it for you.)

Puzz3D

02-26-2007, 17:26

Lusted

02-26-2007, 17:26

Its interesting, Lusted/Stig etc, you all seem to think mp cannot be made to a good standard as well as an sp campaign?

No, i just do not think an mp campaign would really work with the TW series. I dfidn't say anything about not being able to make mp good quality.

Stig

02-26-2007, 17:48

he recent figures posted for M2TW online participation are lower than they were for original STW online participation, but apparently M2TW has sold many more copies.
You said it, TW isn't made for MP, most people want the SP campaign, that's what TW is about

@Monarch you can't compare CoH and TW. In CoH you have only the custom battles from TW, not the campaign ... besides it's a different game

And again, CA doesn't need to change it's game. They now get 9/10 in reviews, why change, almost no game gets higher then that ... and the games that do are not for the TW audience (Zelda or so)

Yun Dog

02-26-2007, 18:01

I only compare Total War to itself, and the SP campaign can be as elaborate as they want to make it. What I don't understand why CA has allowed the multiplayer to degrade so much especially after the huge amount of help to make it better they got from the multiplayer community and the community based beta teams over the years. MP should be more important today than it was 7 years ago when STW was released, but CA's actions indicate the opposite. The recent figures posted for M2TW online participation are lower than they were for original STW online participation, but apparently M2TW has sold many more copies. At its peak, the Clan Wars Competition had 26 clans participating in a 4v4 tournament, but that was under the old battle engine. It could be that most of the multiplayer vets who got burned by RTW didn't buy M2TW. CA has demonstrated a inability to understand what makes a good multiplayer game, and network coding has never been a strong point with them either.

As Puzz says.. we had our own server in STW, with ladders and control over identities etc, run by EA. Even then it had sync problems which the net code still carries. So I think I can say we understand what your saying about how much better the game could be... we know.. we experienced it... we agree whole heartedly

for whatever reason MP was not just ignored (if it had been left as was it wouldve been an improvement on what we have) but it was DOWNGRADED :thumbsdown: , it was made worse... why dunno.. money... care factor... loss of expertise... community a drop in the ocean. I agree this is contrary to how the industry evoloved as a whole... we all understand this, why we cried bitter tears.. but my tears are long dry, Ive given up bashing my head against a wall dreaming of 'how good MP TW could be" BUT IF..... IF ONLY.....

because you may think the bricks are starting to cave slightly but you are deluded because it is your head thats caving in, the wall hasnt moved. :wall:

no one wanted MPTW to deteriorate but for whatever reason... it did and that is the fact... maybe next TW CA will change philosophy but it would not be because of any sales figures (because they confirm they are making the right decisions) .... but due to some strategic manouver

groundhog day

:thumbsdown:

Paolai

02-26-2007, 18:06

I think you dont wanna listen Stig :)

BFME2 for example has a SP campaign but has also an automatic ladder, and an automatic CW ladder for clans. They using game spy, but they have multy rooms, tracing friends, and many other nice features for MP players.

WAIT! I am not saying BFME2 and TW are similar games, I am just saying that BFME2 has a better support, as many other games have.

You do not need to sell more than Blizzard to make profit

ask to Blizzard that...they seem not agredd with you, and with all the respect I can have for you, I beleive Blizzard know how to make profits more than you.

caravel

02-26-2007, 18:12

Ahh this brings back memories. It's a p******n though, so it will either be ignored, or the mouthpiece of CA will arrive to tell you they're ignoring it. Sad really. :shame:

Stig

02-26-2007, 18:19

ask to Blizzard that...they seem not agredd with you, and with all the respect I can have for you, I beleive Blizzard know how to make profits more than you.
What does Blizzard have to do with CA? If CA needs to sell 4 games to make profit and they do sell 4 games they make money, even tho they sold less then Blizzard did.

Titan of Gaul

02-26-2007, 18:26

The point is, complex, very demanding games like ones mentioned, have far more people playing, a more demanding engine to run, yet no lag. Try and tell me that is a coincedence.

Paolai

02-26-2007, 18:46

What does Blizzard have to do with CA?

Absolutely nothing, and at least on this we are agreed :o)

Lavos

02-26-2007, 22:46

The problem that ca looks at sp only for bug reports, is that often they are completely the opposite what mp community is reporting.
When mtw2 first came, out on one of my countries game forums, a lot of people complained that cavalry is bugged. They complained that they can't even beat militia spearmen with their knights. It took me couple of long detailed posts (including some replays), to teach them how they have to use cavalry to be effective, most of them apparently, didn't even know that you have to double-click on a unit for cavalry to charge. I imagine that the same happened here and at .com. CA looked a little at some forums and even if they saw couple of mp people complain on overpowered cav, they determined that majority must be correct and decided that cav charge is bugged and must be fixed.
And that's why even tho we complain on muskets and pikes there is no fix for that. Its apparent campaign players don't complain on anything but the thing that makes THEM lose against ai. If ai beat their billmen with all cavalry they will complain, if they manage to beat ai with all pike army then everything is all right.

Lusted

02-26-2007, 22:57

The problem that ca looks at sp only for bug reports, is that often they are completely the opposite what mp community is reporting.

Wrong. CA read the bug lists at all the major fan forums to get bug reports.

For unit balancing, well at least this is what i think based on my chats with Palamedes, they have based it on what mp is like, and the convos i've had with him have been about genuine imbalances.

Oh,and cav was too difficult to charge properly in 1.0, in 1.2 with reduced charge power and shield bug fix spears v cav will be nicely balanced i hope.

And don't think CA haven't thought about muskets and pikes.

Carl

02-26-2007, 23:42

And don't think CA haven't thought about muskets and pikes.

Could you elaborate on what they had to say about them, or are you tounge tied?

I never belived they ignored MP, however the fact that muskets outrange all other missiles, have better killing power per shot and better accurracy than any other missile unit at range makes all other missile units usless againmst them and makes it a very bad idea to not attack the enemy immidietlly, which effectivlly removes one entire aspect (missile fire), from the subsequent game. I can see no way such a unit could ever be balanced and I can't see CA saying anything to change my mind any time soon.

However, if you have it and can tell us i'd love to hear their justification.

p.s. well done on 1000 posts.

Lavos

02-27-2007, 00:53

Wrong. CA read the bug lists at all the major fan forums to get bug reports.

For unit balancing, well at least this is what i think based on my chats with Palamedes, they have based it on what mp is like, and the convos i've had with him have been about genuine imbalances.

Oh,and cav was too difficult to charge properly in 1.0, in 1.2 with reduced charge power and shield bug fix spears v cav will be nicely balanced i hope.

And don't think CA haven't thought about muskets and pikes.

I guess I expressed myself wrongly there, but you could read the rest of my post too see that. I never thought they dont look at our bug reports, problem is they do near nothing with it. They only fix what sp players are complaining about. You can see that clearly from first patch. Cav charge was supposed to difficult for sp players to perform, they fix that. I never herd anyone from mp complain about it, from start we said that charge and cav is too powerfull, we were compleatly ignored. Now that sp players have finaly realised that foot do nothing agains horses, it will be fixed.

Lusted

02-27-2007, 01:07

Now that sp players have finaly realised that foot do nothing agains horses, it will be fixed.

No now the cause of the main inbalance - the shield bug - has been identified its bieng fixed.

Could you elaborate on what they had to say about them, or are you tounge tied?

We've chatted about the effectiveness of muskets/pikes, and things to do with them.

Lavos

02-27-2007, 01:22

No now the cause of the main inbalance - the shield bug - has been identified its bieng fixed.

Do you realy think that they couldn't figure themself what was wrong with cavalry? :inquisitive:
Next, try explaining why the rest of our bug repors arent fixed.

Lusted

02-27-2007, 01:39

Do you realy think that they couldn't figure themself what was wrong with cavalry?

Yeah they didn't know what exaclty was wrong til the community figured out exactly what was going on with shields.

Next, try explaining why the rest of our bug repors arent fixed.

Hmm, lets see. Only a few devs working on the patch, hundreds of bugs to fix.

Lavos

02-27-2007, 02:05

Few devs working on a patch? I myself could decrease archers and spears cost, erased muskets from late era, decrease mounted xbows stats, give weak factions couple of mercanary units, decreased number of horse units per faction in early-high, increased cost of pike units, all that in one day.
Would it be enough? Units rallying too fast, 3v3 lag, click behind bug, and cav charge I could not fix, but I don't think it would take more time to fix than whole list under graphics in fixlist.

Stig

02-27-2007, 10:09

Few devs working on a patch?
Aye they already started with the expansion. And the name of the new TW-game is already know (if they decide to go on with it).

sapi

02-27-2007, 11:02

Guys, could we please keep this on topic.

This is not a thread to discuss the merits of mp over sp or even to flame CA, but rather a way for the mp community to get a voice.

And tbh, you haven't gone about it in a way that i'd take notice of if I was in CA's position.

Have a think about what you are trying to achieve and the message that you're trying to get across, and have a think before you let this discussion get any murkier.

:bow:

Orda Khan

02-27-2007, 12:19

It's frustration, Sapi. Threads like this will always contain some murkiness, but at least the criticism is fair and not simply CA bashing to let off steam. Bug fixes contain a huge amount for SP to iron out irritating campaign stuff, yet fixes that affect MP (namely unit balancing, faction balancing, etc) are largely ignored.

Speaking for myself, I dabble with SP and have completed a campaign with each game in the series. I often wonder what would keep somebody playing campaign after campaign (with vanilla, I CAN see some merit in mods) when, quite frankly, it is so easy. As an example I fought a battle last night and lost a total of 24 men with my army of 600 against 1100 Danish. Those figures are totally unrealistic and with battles being that easy it would be kind of hard not to win. I am by no means an uber SP'er either and I always face armies that have more upgrades because I rely on taking regions to upgrade my armies more than building my own. Basically, I am a SP noob.

Compare this with MP where everyone creates an army with the same cash and the battle contains team work and tactics. Only in MP do we get to see 'huge epic battles' because you will never see a 4v4 equivalent in SP. So, the first step to improve the MP situation should be a reliable server. If the lobby is improved to include some 'new' features (like the ones we had in STW) that would be nice too. The lobby has become a horrible place and I refuse to accept that its design was seen as an improvement.
Top of my list would be the server since unit/faction balance and bug free gameplay is not going to make the server reliable

.......Orda

Lusted

02-27-2007, 13:09

Few devs working on a patch?

Yeah like Stig says most are working on the expansion.

I myself could decrease archers and spears cost

I'd wait to see how spears perform in 1.2 before doing anytihng like that.

erased muskets from late era

Erm, why would CA remove a unit from the game?

decrease mounted xbows stats, give weak factions couple of mercanary units, decreased number of horse units per faction in early-high, increased cost of pike units, all that in one day.

That i can mostly agree with, apart from removing any units. I just can't see CA doing that.

Would it be enough? Units rallying too fast, 3v3 lag, click behind bug, and cav charge I could not fix, but I don't think it would take more time to fix than whole list under graphics in fixlist.

Obviously you do not know much about game programming. I can tell you that those 3 bugs you did list, would take lnoger to fix than all the graphical bugs in the fix list. And thats ignoring the fact that different people work on graphical fixes and programming fixes.

Lavos

02-27-2007, 17:12

Erm, why would CA remove a unit from the game?
That i can mostly agree with, apart from removing any units. I just can't see CA doing that.
Obviously you do not know much about game programming. I can tell you that those 3 bugs you did list, would take lnoger to fix than all the graphical bugs in the fix list. And thats ignoring the fact that different people work on graphical fixes and programming fixes.

Do you guys even know how units are determined for mp? In descr_unit.txt, for era changes you have this:
; era 0, Optional List of factions that use this in multiplayer era 0 (early)
; era 1, Optional List of factions that use this in multiplayer era 1 (high)
; era 2, Optional List of factions that use this in multiplayer era 2 (late)
This work only for mp and custom battles, it does not effect nothing in campaign, at least they could ballance things here a bit for mp. It is easy to add mercenary units to each faction where it would be needed and its easy to remove units from factions that don't need them, it effects only this three mp eras. For instance to remove muskets from late you remove line era 2 from here;
ownership spain, portugal, milan, venice
era 2 spain, portugal, milan, venice
Ownership line is used for sp to determine wich faction have units (and for 'all era'), so that one must stay the same, rest can be changed and it does have no side effect on campaign players.

And I don't know why you take all my statements wrong. I said that one people can make those changes for mp to be more enyojable, did I doubt that there is little people working on it?

Monarch

02-27-2007, 17:23

@Monarch you can't compare CoH and TW. In CoH you have only the custom battles from TW, not the campaign ... besides it's a different game

I was comparing the online lobbies and their features, not the games themselves. Relic Online is awesome, Gamespy Beta 0.1 sucks ass. So ye, even thought its an insult to RO, I believe I can compare them, thank you very much.

Puzz3D

02-27-2007, 17:27

Yeah they didn't know what exaclty was wrong til the community figured out exactly what was going on with shields.
This is a problem. CA misses serious bugs probably because they don't spend enough time debugging. Debugging is part of program development, and it shouldn't be shortchanged. Imagine Palamedes trying to balance the battlefield gameplay in the last weeks before release with the shield bug present. It must have been a nightmare.

I take the silence concerning the click behind to mean they have no intention of addressing it. The click behind is only an MP issue because the AI doesn't do it, and SP issues do seem to get more consideration than MP issues. If click behind is more effective than clicking on a target unit, it's a major issue for MP gameplay because the player no longer has to target individual units. At least when LongJohn was around he gave MP some consideration and he fixed the click behind in MTW after players proved to him that it was a problem. He also removed the battlefield upgrades in MP because he agreed that they were an SP feature and detrimental to MP gameplay.

Hmm, lets see. Only a few devs working on the patch, hundreds of bugs to fix.
This is the same as it was in RTW v1.2 beta. Hundreds of bugs to be identified and fixed to the extent that playbalance issues couldn't be addressed which was a big disappointment to the team because they had volunteered for that purpose. It was an outstanding group of players. I was on four CA beta teams, and that one was the best ever assembled. In the end, the RTW v1.2 beta missed a very serious bug in the battle mechanincs of the phalanx. It's pretty hard to figure out that cav charge isn't being reversed when it was supposed to be. Part of debugging is making sure all the math calculations are correct, and this clearly wasn't done in RTW. The shield problem in M2TW is an indication that it's still not being done.

I saw there was a generic problem with cav beating phalanx in RTW v1.1, and I made a replay during the v1.2 beta that I gave to CA that showed cataphracts beating silver shield pikemen frontally. Their response was to increase the cost of the cataphract when what I wanted was for them in check the programming code because it was a generic problem. Much later a player went to considerable effort to demonstrate the problem more clearly, and Intrepid Sidekick took the trouble to have the program code checked for the upcoming v1.3 patch and they saw the cause of problem and fixed it. Cav charge wasn't being reversed the way it should have been. A simple sign reversal just like the shield bug which would have been caught with a standard debugging technique. The v1.3 patch came out almost a year after RTW had been released which was long after many MTW/VI clans had given up on RTW multiplayer.

Whacker

02-27-2007, 17:36

Yun Dog

02-27-2007, 18:08

Wow this is one... interesting thread. :grin:

So I have a number of thoughts here, in no particular order.

- I'm all for petitions, but they need to be "balanced" and obtain a certain critical mass. A vocal few can ruin it for the many. Also, CA needs to listen to these. Mouz's post outlines my view very succintly, ignoring these and the excuses given were complete BS, that was piss poor PR. Proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling doesn't hurt either. :yes:

- MP is not more important than SP, and vica versa. That said, I think that as of late a number of MP gripes lead to changes in the game mechanics in M2TW that are a definite turn for the worse. The cav nerfing is one of my major complaints, as are the new wall/tower mechanics. It's no secret I'm heavily biased towards SP, BUT I do recognize that there's an active MP community that also has opinions. Balancing should definitely be addressed, but this game should NOT be hijacked for the sake of MP. Also folks, keep in mind that some MP-centric "balancing" could greatly screw up SP, which I do seem to recall reading that the majority of folks play in the TW series. Please keep that in mind.

- The MP vs SP being the future of gaming is a really dumb argument. There's prime examples of both, i.e. WoW and Oblivion. Arguing this is going to get folks nowhere fast. Both are viable, period, and pulling random figures out of thin air or quoting some lame article written by an intern at IGN (remember you can't spell Ignorant without IGN!) isn't going to make the case either. Time for some ~:cheers: folks.

:bow:

But this is just the problem

A). MP needs to be made autonomous from SP - so that the unit stats can be tweaked nerfed balanced without having any effect on the SP game

surely this is fundamental and has been discussed at length by Elmo et al in other threads

B). Mods - mods need to be able to be more user friendly - that is to say the game needs to accomodate mods both SP and MP so they sit semi autonomous to the game and are easily swapped in and out of. As Oda has said the community has not taken up mods in a big way for MP - why and how can we change this and get control over the MP game.
For me a mod needs a few things
1. it needs to be easy to install
2. it needs to sit on the game engine without affecting the vanilla game (there nothing worse than installing a mod and not finding anyone in your timezone playing it) you need to be able to switch between the vanilla game and the mod easily
3. visibility - the mod needs to be pushed down the communitys throat hard and everyone needs to get behind it... everyone.. so it can diffuse into the wider non forum mod aware community... this is tough cause as weve seen in this thread there is rarely agreement about what does and doesnot need changing or balancing (no wonder CA wont go near it with a barge pole - 50% of MP is going to be peeved with changes and will be vocal about it.

C) as Orda said the LAG/server issue are critical or else its all acedemic, dump GS and take charge of your own game CA - ownership will be a good thing should the MP community grow - its only going to grow if people can get online and experience the massive battles because as well know - one good one of those - and your hooked

[edit] Imo they really would prefer if MP was a problem they didnt have to deal with, convice them to semi-detach it from the SP game and hand it over to the MP community - so they have more control over it - so people can host their own servers, so the units can be balanced, it can only be a vast improvement

hellenes

02-27-2007, 18:20

Oh do stop whining, it's not like you're paying to make the game, CA is, be glad they add atleast some sort of MP. Only 1 in 10000 persons buy this game for MP only, why would you focus at that.

Next to that things as petitions never work, CA hates them, and I have to agree, it's their game, not the game of 10 fans who sign the petition.

How bout all the nice people that downloaded the game from the warez network? Do you know why there was nothing to make them buy the game? Maybe because the original CDKEY isnt worth the ink that its printed in....?
And about that bolded part: WE DO PAY FOR THEIR GAMES...Where do you think theyve got the money to make M2TW? Maybe from RTW/M1TW/STW sales?
And last in order to play MP games one needs an original copy I cant say same about SP...

Lusted

02-27-2007, 18:40

Do you guys even know how units are determined for mp?

Yes surprisingly given the fact i've modded the game. However you are still missing the point i was making: why would CA remove units from mp? Why?

And I don't know why you take all my statements wrong. I said that one people can make those changes for mp to be more enyojable, did I doubt that there is little people working on it?

Yes 1 person can make those changes, the question is whether CA want to, and for most the answer seems to be no. I mean why would CA remove a unit they've worked on from mp(would also affect those who play single player custom battles as well and use eras.)

For me a mod needs a few things
1. it needs to be easy to install
2. it needs to sit on the game engine without affecting the vanilla game (there nothing worse than installing a mod and not finding anyone in your timezone playing it) you need to be able to switch between the vanilla game and the mod easily

Those are both possible in M2TW. I at least have made my LTC mod as easily as possible to install(just point it to your M2TW directory and click install). And with the mod switch you can have multiple mods install, you just need to sue the correct desktop shortcut for each mod, and you can use the M2TW shortuct to play normal M2Tw.

Lavos

02-27-2007, 18:48

But this is just the problem

A). MP needs to be made autonomous from SP - so that the unit stats can be tweaked nerfed balanced without having any effect on the SP game

surely this is fundamental and has been discussed at length by Elmo et al in other threads

Yes, just separated descr_unit.txt for mp and sp would be huge step forward.
I don't think mods are answer for mp. Not enough players, not easy to install, hard to convice players to even try them, language problems, mods just don't work for mp. It has to be official patch from ca for our problems. But for one point, ca made very good decision, that you need to start mods with --io.file_first, this way you can have installed mods, but when you want to play mp, you just start original exe.

Lusted

02-27-2007, 18:50

But for one point, ca made very good decision, that you need to start mods with --io.file_first, this way you can have installed mods, but when you want to play mp, you just start original exe.

You don't even need that, if a mod uses the mod switch, and has its own desktop shortcut, you don't need the --io.file_first line.

Lusted

02-27-2007, 18:55

This is a problem. CA misses serious bugs probably because they don't spend enough time debugging. Debugging is part of program development, and it shouldn't be shortchanged. Imagine Palamedes trying to balance the battlefield gameplay in the last weeks before release with the shield bug present. It must have been a nightmare.

*cough* rushed release by SEGA *cough*

And yes it does sound like it was a nightmare for Pala to balance.

This is the same as it was in RTW v1.2 beta. Hundreds of bugs to be identified and fixed to the extent that playbalance issues couldn't be addressed which was a big disappointment to the team because they had volunteered for that purpose. It was an outstanding group of players.

Ideally what i would like to see would be a mix of modders/multiplayer vets on beta testing teams for aptches/expansions/future TW games and they then help CA with the balancing whilst CA focus on the bugs. So the multiplayer guys come up with balance issues, ideas of what needs to be changed, the modders on the team implement them, the beta team tests them and ifthey work CA includes them.

Of course the chances of this happening are slim to none, but i view the fact that CA devs are chatting to modders about balance issues(and i read as many topics in the mp forums here at .org as i can as msot fo the balance issues are discussed here) as a positive step in the right direction.

Lavos

02-27-2007, 18:58

Yes surprisingly given the fact i've modded the game. However you are still missing the point i was making: why would CA remove units from mp? Why?

Yes 1 person can make those changes, the question is whether CA want to, and for most the answer seems to be no. I mean why would CA remove a unit they've worked on from mp(would also affect those who play single player custom battles as well and use eras.)

Those are both possible in M2TW. I at least have made my LTC mod as easily as possible to install(just point it to your M2TW directory and click install). And with the mod switch you can have multiple mods install, you just need to sue the correct desktop shortcut for each mod, and you can use the M2TW shortuct to play normal M2Tw.

Why remove units? Becouse they are inbalanced, they are too strong, they ruin mp experience, becouse its easyer to remove them than give them to all factions (that involves new graphics). And not only did I say that some needs to be removed I also said, some units can be ADDED, mercenary units (and faction specific 'all era' units) don't need any new graphics to work in mp, they can be added to every faction that needs them. Let's say I think hungary is underpowered becouse they don't have any light cav in high. You just add this line to albanian cav;
era 1 hungary

This involves very little work, and this alone would be enough to make them more playable.

Whacker

02-27-2007, 19:02

A). MP needs to be made autonomous from SP - so that the unit stats can be tweaked nerfed balanced without having any effect on the SP game

surely this is fundamental and has been discussed at length by Elmo et al in other threads

Preaching to the choir brother. I'm fully in agreement, hell I think I tossed that into one of the older features thread

B). Mods

I don't want to derail this thread... But I'll just say that I think when it comes to modding, M2TW is a prime example of how NOT to make a "moddable" game. Compared to other (what I'll call) industry standards in modding and current games that are available, M2TW is like a Yugo. Trying to mod this game is like trying to put together a flimsy balsa wood model with railroad spikes and a ballpeen. If you'd like to discuss that please feel free to PM me and I'd be glad to talk about it.

LAG/server issue are critical

That's just a given. High lag/poor coding makes any game unplayable.

semi-detach it from the SP game and hand it over to the MP community

Honestly not a bad idea, but I can promise you it'll never happen. /shrug

:bow:

Lusted

02-27-2007, 19:02

Why remove units? Becouse they are inbalanced, they are too strong, they ruin mp experience, becouse its easyer to remove them than give them to all factions (that involves new graphics).

Or why not try and BALANCE the units? Just a thought.

I do agree on making more mercs available for factions, i did it in my LTC mod and will likely expand it in the next version.

I don't want to derail this thread... But I'll just say that I think when it comes to modding, M2TW is a prime example of how NOT to make a "moddable" game. Compared to other (what I'll call) industry standards in modding and current games that are available, M2TW is like a Yugo. Trying to mod this game is like trying to put together a flimsy balsa wood model with railroad spikes and a ballpeen. If you'd like to discuss that please feel free to PM me and I'd be glad to talk about it.

And i'd disagree with you. All you need is notepad, a basic understanding of batch files and command lines and your set.

Stig

02-27-2007, 19:08

And i'd disagree with you. All you need is notepad, a basic understanding of batch files and command lines and your set.
That's what he meant ... even I could mod RTW, but this MTW2 is really too difficult

Lusted

02-27-2007, 19:10

That's what he meant ... even I could mod RTW, but this MTW2 is really too difficult

So it might be a bit more difficult to set up, but the fundamental modding aspect isn't any more different. Alpaca has even rpovided a basic thing tos et up the mdo switch for you.

Stig

02-27-2007, 19:12

erhh yes, for me it is

anyway back on-topic

Lavos

02-27-2007, 19:46

Or why not try and BALANCE the units? Just a thought.

I do agree on making more mercs available for factions, i did it in my LTC mod and will likely expand it in the next version.

As far as I understand they dont want to ballance the units becouse it may effect sp players, the thing I proposed is way to ballance mp even in the case they don't want to change any single stat. Off course stats ballancing is better way to do it, and hope they do that, but so far that was not the case.

And i'd disagree with you. All you need is notepad, a basic understanding of batch files and command lines and your set.

You're right modding is easy. Heres one with pope that gets all mercenarys (including rocketman elephants) in early-high and do not effect sp. Done in 15mins, I hope ca get the hint ;)

Just unpack all in mtw2 main dir and run lavmod.bat
http://media10.filewind.com/g.php?filepath=6203

Lusted

02-27-2007, 19:52

As far as I understand they dont want to ballance the units becouse it may effect sp players,

And you are wrong. They want to balance things for mp, as it will also mean balanced units in sp.

Lavos

02-27-2007, 20:04

Why do you always quote only a part of my post? :inquisitive:

Off course stats ballancing is better way to do it, and hope they do that, but so far that was not the case. Read againt text in bold...

guyfawkes5

02-27-2007, 20:15

Because you agreed with him in the second part:

You're right...

Ser Clegane

02-27-2007, 20:23

How bout all the nice people that downloaded the game from the warez network? Do you know why there was nothing to make them buy the game? Maybe because the original CDKEY isnt worth the ink that its printed in....?
And about that bolded part: WE DO PAY FOR THEIR GAMES...Where do you think theyve got the money to make M2TW? Maybe from RTW/M1TW/STW sales?
And last in order to play MP games one needs an original copy I cant say same about SP..

:no:

If you don't think a game is worth it's money don't buy it for that money and leave it at that - simple as that (either don't buy it at all, or wait until the price dropped to an "acceptable" level).
Not considering it to be worth the price is no excuse for illegally downloading it.

Lavos

02-27-2007, 21:18

Whacker

02-27-2007, 23:07

things

A small point I just wanted to throw in here, please note that I am in no way condoning any illegal activity. It's often hard to gauge whether or not a game is worth your money unless you actually go buy it, and if you do then you're screwed and can't return it due to open box policies. I'd like to go on record stating that the demo for M2TW was utterly miserable, it hardly gave me any feel for what most of the game was like, it also totally lacked the campaign map. Multiplayer only demos that seem to be popular lately are also lame, and I often suspect software publishers who do this just use it to do additional "beta testing", esp. when released before the official game is out. :whip:

Stig

02-27-2007, 23:21

Yun Dog

02-27-2007, 23:31

Go to nforce forums and look at what pirates are talking about mtw, they know that its buggy, they consider mp not to be big part of the game, there is no mp campaign, so they come to conclusion that its not worth buying this game. They still want to play campaign a little, so they download it. Yes its very weak excuse for pirating it, but exactly that happen. To battle this, one way is constant game improvement throu patches. Patches tend to take some time to crack, and some decide that its woth buying game for that kind of support. One advice would also be to make shure that only original game supports mods, since those are big factor for tw games. Other one is strong mp part. There is no way around cd keys for pirates. If game has strong mp then they are highly encouraged to buy the game to be able to play online. And you must also know that pirates all have strong net connections to download games, so each one of them is potential mp player.

Lavos,
generally speaking fan forums (official or unofficial) are extrememly unconfortable having discussion of such things, because they in no way want to be seen to be either associated with, or to be encouraging discussion on such things. We all understand and know of piracy and why it exists, although for my part anyone who is at all a fan of a certain game, should buy those games and support those companys so they can and will continue to make the types of game that persons enjoys. Really there is no excuse, sorry I dont accept the support the game better to reduce piracy argument at all (Particularly when this is the third such game - your going to know if you like total war games - if not - you can get MTW for almost nothing). That said it also would appear to me to be very minimally at best on topic. So I would let it go. Before what has been an interesting discussion gets closed.

Papewaio

02-27-2007, 23:49

So a short dream MP would be:

MP only version of TW that allows the community to:
Host your own server(s).
That can do auto-stat swaps as players connect and/or per battle basis.
Add maps.

=][=

A much larger dream:
Now an MP campaign could work if you Keep it Simple.

My suggestion would be to keep the map like a board game in simplicity (like Shogun the board game aka Samurai Sword). If the battle results can be linked in some manner... even if just the winner takes the province and the Coin value of the armies that survive is used (but the actual army list content is liquid)... each battle would be based on the Coin vs Coin value in each province, but the players can choose for each new battle their armies.

Now you can do this if the battles can be set so that the Coin values are based on what is in the provinces. At the simplest it would be a manual import, the only requirement being that the MP server allows forces to have different Coin values.

=][=

Not so simple:
The next level up would be automatic import from the campaign Map. The campaign Map would only have to be very basic. You could use a chess board for starters... it would be rather cool actually to play a campaign based on a chess board and giving each of the pieces a set army list but I digress.

=][=

Anyhow there are a few ways that campaign maps could be used in MP:

a) Set players who play MP more like a PBEM. Regular games that take weeks if not months to complete a campaign.
b) Strategic and Tactical command. A person controls a faction on the main map. She gets to select an army to control of their faction in the battle phase Anyone else in their clan can control any of their armies battling in the battle phase. Another version is that strategic command goes to the person who has the leader, the leader dies and the strategic command goes to the next leaders player... could make it much more important to take out the leader. Either version would take awhile to play.
c) Almost the same as above. Strategic command of the Map is given to the AI. Players are the generals, they don't get to choose where they fight. You get placed in a faction and remain in it for the duration of the campaign. If not enough players are present for battles, AI takes over. Host preferences could be such that a player who has commanded an army list before will stay with that if possible, or the best performing general gets assigned to the largest/smallest army in the next fight, or again based on performance they get assigned based on how well they used infantry/cav/archers etc.
This one could be such that battles are fixed length. Every hour another round starts, the campaign is played continously until finished. Players come and go as the generals. Imagine a STW like campaign being played out over a weekend, while one for RTW taking a month.

Yun Dog

02-28-2007, 00:08

Stig

02-28-2007, 00:14

His wife, for example ... or have you picked up something else by now?

Papewaio

02-28-2007, 00:54

No, Wasabi still has full thumbprint authourity over me.

Whacker

02-28-2007, 04:43

Buying games is not like buying bread. You don't go to the shop every week and buy one. If you want to buy a game you play the demo, read multiple reviews, etc etc. And if you still like it you buy it. A game costs €50,- , even €70,- for an Xbox 360 game, you don't just buy a game, you look carefully, it's like buying a new photocamera, a new TV, etc etc. You want something good, something you like, not just anything.

Meh, to some people it is. Two things I'll offer.

1. I'm doing exactly what I said I shouldn't do earlier in this thread (pulling statements/figures out of my tookiss), but I don't have anything to back this up with... but I recall reading that market studies show that the majority gamer demographic is age 21-30 males. Further, most purchases are impulse buys, not preplanned purchases as suggested. That's why you get all the flashy box art with bombs guns explosions ACTION well-endowed characters, etc... to catch people's eyes. I really wish I could provide something to back this up. That said, I am in the same boat as I imagine you are, in that I do not generally impulse buy. I research stuff out the wazoo, talk to friends who've got the game already or are thinking about it, read forums, check screenshots, etc. However...

2. No amount of screenshots, video, reading, etc can give one the actual feel of the game, in my opinion. Nothing short of a "fully featured demo" as I'll call them. A really good game demo needs to include at least a representative chunk of both the SP and MP components as needed to ensure the prospective buyer gets a good picture of what the ultimate product is like. Unfortunately, as I've stated I think the M2TW demo didn't remotely achieve this goal, the actual game felt incredibly different than the demo, as the demo didn't include half of the game's real functionality. Battlestations Midway was another incredibly lame MP-only demo. The C&C3 demo is actually pretty good so far. Given how big demos are these days (the C&C3 one is 1.2 gig) I don't see how hard it can be for the game studios to put some honest effort into putting together an honest to god full demo. It's due to these reasons that my real viewpoint is... well I can't actually say in these forums what I really think. I'll just say that I'm a firm believer in "try before you buy", buy being the key word.

Last thing I'll offer is my opinion on demo timeliness. Some publishers like to throw out demos as soon as they possibly can, and throw that lame "does not represent final product" disclaimer on it as a get out of jail free method. Without getting into the "marktet drives all" discussion, suffice to say that I think publishers should be reasonable and release demos when it makes sense and when they can actually represent their product realistically. Again in my view the M2TW demo does not meet those requirements. I'm guessing the C&C3 one probably does.

Just some food for thought. Have a good evening all. :bow:

|Heerbann|_Di3Hard

02-28-2007, 14:57

Meh, to some people it is. Two things I'll offer.

1. I'm doing exactly what I said I shouldn't do earlier in this thread (pulling statements/figures out of my tookiss), but I don't have anything to back this up with... but I recall reading that market studies show that the majority gamer demographic is age 21-30 males. Further, most purchases are impulse buys, not preplanned purchases as suggested. That's why you get all the flashy box art with bombs guns explosions ACTION well-endowed characters, etc... to catch people's eyes. I really wish I could provide something to back this up. That said, I am in the same boat as I imagine you are, in that I do not generally impulse buy. I research stuff out the wazoo, talk to friends who've got the game already or are thinking about it, read forums, check screenshots, etc. However...

2. No amount of screenshots, video, reading, etc can give one the actual feel of the game, in my opinion. Nothing short of a "fully featured demo" as I'll call them. A really good game demo needs to include at least a representative chunk of both the SP and MP components as needed to ensure the prospective buyer gets a good picture of what the ultimate product is like. Unfortunately, as I've stated I think the M2TW demo didn't remotely achieve this goal, the actual game felt incredibly different than the demo, as the demo didn't include half of the game's real functionality. Battlestations Midway was another incredibly lame MP-only demo. The C&C3 demo is actually pretty good so far. Given how big demos are these days (the C&C3 one is 1.2 gig) I don't see how hard it can be for the game studios to put some honest effort into putting together an honest to god full demo. It's due to these reasons that my real viewpoint is... well I can't actually say in these forums what I really think. I'll just say that I'm a firm believer in "try before you buy", buy being the key word.

Last thing I'll offer is my opinion on demo timeliness. Some publishers like to throw out demos as soon as they possibly can, and throw that lame "does not represent final product" disclaimer on it as a get out of jail free method. Without getting into the "marktet drives all" discussion, suffice to say that I think publishers should be reasonable and release demos when it makes sense and when they can actually represent their product realistically. Again in my view the M2TW demo does not meet those requirements. I'm guessing the C&C3 one probably does.

Just some food for thought. Have a good evening all. :bow:

Yes indeed the demo was really poor. At first the demo was only for a few people. And then the demo itself was without AI and no multiplayer. It was not possible to try out 3vs3 or 4vs4. The demo should me warned, but i bought the game to sell it later. :wall: :wall: :wall: Other companies bring out 2 or 3 demos, multiplayer and singleplayer, open beta tests and they speak to their community. Very important.

R'as al Ghul

03-01-2007, 14:12

[..] and they speak to their community. Very important.

:stunned: You mean like....a dialogue? :fainting:

Puzz3D

03-01-2007, 15:21

:stunned: You mean like....a dialogue?
We had a dialogue until CA told us the game wasn't for hardcore players. That basically shut the door.
Total War is now being made for the more casual gamer who is more tolerant of faults in the game.

R'as al Ghul

03-01-2007, 15:51

We had a dialogue until CA told us the game wasn't for hardcore players. That basically shut the door.
Total War is now being made for the more casual gamer who is more tolerant of faults in the game.

Yes, I know. (I guess my irony wasn't obvious enough?)
When I started posting here, you could often see the devs online and even participating in threads. I don't know when they stated that "the game isn't for hardcore players" but since Rome or after MTW/VI 2.01 I've rarely seen them participating.
Occasionally, guys like Jerome drop by and even contribute to solving a problem but that's more the exception than the rule. BTW, Jerome who doesn't even work on M2, had the decency to acknowledge the shield bug. No word from the real devs. I don't need to be pointed to recent posts or statements like "CA reads all the forums". It's just not enough. And others seem to feel the same or else why would they constantly point out other games with more developer involvement? The way they (The Shogun) reacted to the MTW Gold petition is very telling how they think about their fans/ customers and it has offended more people than myself. (a pity that Papewaio's acid comments have been edited)

In my opinion, M2 still has great potential and it would be a pity to waste all the time and manpower already put into it to only get a mediocre game when it could be excellent.

R'as

Puzz3D

03-01-2007, 19:42

I don't know when they stated that "the game isn't for hardcore players" but since Rome or after MTW/VI 2.01 I've rarely seen them participating.
It was said just before the release of RTW v1.2 patch which was Feb 2005. There is also this statement which was made back in Aug 2006 to player 753 after he played the M2TW demo which I quoted in an org post (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=68380&page=2):

Posted at the Total War Forums by the player who played the M2TW demo.

Originally Posted by 753
"The Demo Battles were very very easy to win and i have to say the combat is pretty fast , even infantry combat.....

....Mark Sutherns , Marketing Manager from Creative Assembly said for him personally Total Realism is very impressive but impossible to do it by themselves because its pointed to hardcore players and CA wants to reach all types of players but it's are great work that you did and he hopes that the fans of Medieval 2 will do something for this game as well."

econ21

03-04-2007, 23:56

Puzz3D, what a disingenuous use of that CA quote. It says they want to reach out to all types of players. Yet, you use it to take another swipe at them.

That quote was by CA justifying why they had not made Rome Total Realism. It does not mean that they don't want to appeal to the historical hardcore as well, but rather that they can't focus exclusively on them. They are too few. And anyway, there are limits to how much historical realism people want. It always amuses me in RTR vs EB flamewars, how many RTR supporters loathe EBs use of original languages for unit names. Clearly, there are limits to how much total realism we should have. (And rightly so, I for one welcome the absence of blunt trauma and hours of force marching while playing RTR and EB.)

The big positive about RTW, and what made it superior to the earlier TW games for me, is that it made RTR, EB and other great mods possible.

Further, RTR is made for the "hardcore" in terms of historical realism, whereas on this forum, I think people mean "hardcore" as in veteran MPers. I doubt the two are the same.

IIRC, Palamedes's blogs had explicit references about M2TW being designed in part to cater to the multiplayer and hardcore players.

I suspect CA got stung by the criticism of the "hardcore" of RTW, but with the development of M2TW, they are making more of an attempt to reach out to them.

Puzz3D

03-05-2007, 00:16

Puzz3D, what a disingenuous use of that CA quote. It says they want to reach out to all types of players. Yet, you use it to take another swipe at them.
That quote backs up what was said in private 6 months earlier. They wouldn't fix the mouseover info because it would only be of interest to hardcore players. If they were sincerely trying to appeal to hardcore players, they would have fixed the mouseover info becuase the casual players don't care about that. How would it hurt the casual players to fix the mouse over info? How would it hurt the casual players to have playbalance or a battle engine as good as it once was? The mouseover info would be trivial to fix compared to improving playbalance or the battle engine. The term "reach out to all types of players" means features important only to hardcore players can be left out, and that's what has happened. RTW and EB mods can't change the battle engine. I didn't use RTW as the basis of Samurai Wars because I wouldn't be able to get as good quality in the battlefield gameplay.

Stig

03-05-2007, 09:00

Puzz3D

03-05-2007, 14:09

Puzz, think like this:
-You have a pretty well running game company
-You released 2 games which recieved a small fanbase
-You want to make money
-What do you do:
A. Make another game for that small fanbase
B. Make a game for the "new" gamers. The gamers who prefer graphics over gameplay

A. will make sure you make $500,000 profit, B. will make sure you make $5,000,000 profit.
That's fine. I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is the claim that the game is being made to appeal to both of those fanbases when I can see that features that appealed to the small fanbase are no longer present. A few crumbs of improvement for the small fanbase are made between the last game and the latest game, and then it's claimed that the game is being changed to appeal to the small fanbase. People in the small fanbase then buy the game without realizing things are still missing and they are disappointed and their time and money wasted.

Stig

03-05-2007, 14:41

Aye absolutely true, problem is that the small fanbase (Vets like you, Elmo and others) all have different opinions. Yes there are similiar things you want, but some are different as well. CA then contacts some of those oldtimers, but then you can't please anyone, always some will be left out. And if you contact the oldtimers who were already somewhat pleased with the game they won't want very drastic changes as you (for example) want.

All in all this is a very arcady like game. Sometimes I like that (realistic battles (Waterloo took 2 days or what?) are a bit too much), sometimes I don't like it (routing within 2 seconds). I can live with it, RTW was, my first TW game, I'm used to it. I can't voice an opinion about MTW and STW. On some points they might be better, on some points they might be worse.
I've seen the MTW MP lobby tho, and I would like that "back". Looks far better (and not the looks, but the options)

Whacker

03-05-2007, 15:30

Puzz, think like this:
-You have a pretty well running game company
-You released 2 games which recieved a small fanbase
-You want to make money
-What do you do:
A. Make another game for that small fanbase
B. Make a game for the "new" gamers. The gamers who prefer graphics over gameplay

A. will make sure you make $500,000 profit, B. will make sure you make $5,000,000 profit.

See I think CA can have it's cake and eat it too, check out my two huge posts in the "MP losing appeal" thread for my reasoning. In short I firmly believe that CA can keep expanding their customer base AND make cranky old farts like us happy... it's just going to take some real work and some good decisions on CA's part. I'm not optimistic but I am ever hopeful.

Puzz3D

03-05-2007, 17:08

See I think CA can have it's cake and eat it too, check out my two huge posts in the "MP losing appeal" thread for my reasoning. In short I firmly believe that CA can keep expanding their customer base AND make cranky old farts like us happy... it's just going to take some real work and some good decisions on CA's part. I'm not optimistic but I am ever hopeful.
M2TW has supposedly already achieved this union. Nobody in the original MP community posted that they wanted a more "arcade" game. The original battle engine was a unique and elegant creation. There is solid math and physics behind that engine. The good gameplay wasn't an accident. If they adapt a standard battle engine to Total War, that will make the gameplay like other games. However, if they are going to go further down the arcade path, they might as well move to one of those existing standards.