MP stats discussion.

[Kocmoc]

i agree with some of ur points but i also disagree with some.... i try to explain.

john, u said that this game should be played at valour 0.
the blance at least was made for valour 0(thats how i udnerstood it)

but we can truely say, that the game is not playable with valour 0 units, well, with a few yes, but not many...jsut this pumped moralunits will stay a bit and fight.

i dont think that it is a good way to take the less problem...

We are in a little dilemma here, because we speake sometimes about the historical aspects and sometimes about the tactical aspects, what we do now?

if we go and have a look at the historical correct range of the crossbows and arbas u should reconcider the 100 and 120 meters for this units, and ofcourse historical spears wopuld beat cav and knight would beat spears ....so somehow many things seems wrong to me

what we gonna do now?

i personal think we are far away from a historical correct game, its nice to use some knights and see special units like the napthas, but at the end....what we realy want?

we want a challanging game, we want a loglivity of this game....we want fun for the next years again
if someone not agree with me at this point, he will leave soon anyway....

so yes, IMO the cav are not thats trong that they are a very big problem, but the moralsupport they bring are a bit hard sometimes and i can show u how easy u can spoil every online game by using this units in a "correct" way.

but ok, i think we could live with this

some months ago i mentioned already that we need to change the missles and the cavarcher for the tactical spects, noone did care and some who did it didnt understood it.

now more and more peoples start to speak the same word like me, not coz i told them or they listened, jsut coz they coem to the same conlusion like me.

and in a few weeks they will agree with some of my other points too

we need more than jsut some cav and some spears ...with wich we jsut rush...we need counter units wich have other counter units, like i mention in a upper post already, gallowglasses vs lancers....and lancers vs cmaa...this is the correct way

but we need some mroe improvements, missles have to be stronger, not too much and not jsut the cavarcher, we need some damage if u have an blanced army and a rusher comes to kick u. this means not losses like in MI where u lost maybe 70% in a fronal rush, but maybe 30% losses if he comes frontal. u can still win with 30% losses but this 30% losses gives the guy with the balanced army the money back for his missles and dont give him a too big diadvance for using a balanced army.

plz read my upper post i wrote already about the changes we could do...

the hillbonus are different from STW, i dont ahve the number but me feeling never left me
and i believe tosa did a test some time ago, or puzz (not sure)

in my custome test i could notice that the +2 moral boost already works pretty good (btw this points i spoke long time ago already and im happy now that some mizus agree with me at leat at this 1 point)

all what i try to say its a big difference to know the stats pretty good,and bring this knowledge on the battlefield.
now i started to work very hard with the stats and combinate my knowledge from the field with the knowledge of the numbers and i think we can make this game more challanginh without to destroy the "current historicla interpretation".

i try start at this point to say sorry for my sometimes a bit fast and harsh words, but its very annoying if i speak since months about the problems wich many guys now first realize. im not happy with this patch but i dont just say that im not happy, NO i go and try to chage it and make it better.

one disadvance i have too is my english, so sometimes i sound maybe handicaped or it seems im rude ot arrogant...this isnt not what iwant to be

plz longjonh; jil; puzz; kraell and all the other feel free to meet me online or to mail me. lets work together and let us create a patch in a shorter time to make the many unhappy online players happy.
i dont change it like i want, i go and speak with many players i create polls to see other opinion, to see what the majority wants and if all think the hillbonusses are fine, well ok sure let be like it is now, but i ask u..

Did u tested it?

sometimes i think some just go and try different units but dont test the mecanics and dont look at some of the points i mentined...but many start to speak about it as did they know it all, but if i see them playing or speaking about it i can easy say they didnt tested and they cant know it

thx for ur time again

ur juniorKoc

[longjohn2]

I rather expected people to start playing with 12-15k florins after the patch. Personally I like playing with tricky morale ( probably because that's the way I've got used to it during development ), but if some other people like it a bit more solid, that's fine by me. Now that the upgrades are better priced people can use the florin level to tune the morale to the way they like it.

Kocmoc: Are you saying that the hill bonueses are the same as before the patch ?. Possibly they aren't the same as STW, although I don't recall changing them. No-ones complained until now though.

I didn't change missile fire in the patch. Mainly because it seems to work fine for 90% of our customers ( the SP ones :-)) and partly because I wanted to see how introducing more cavalry to the gaem would affect the balance. I'm also not convinced its as broken as some of you clain. Possibly for those who have played hundreds of games, but I think that most players can pick some missile troops and have fun with them. Anyway I'll think about whether anything can/should be done for the future.

A quick note about missile ranges. The ranges in the game obviously don't represent the realstic maximum ranges for the weapons. Instead they represent a good compromise range at which it is worth the unit expending ammo in volley fire. Allowing longer ranges would also allow too much concentration of fire in one place, and lessen the big battle feel of the game.

Anyway for the moment you'll have to live with the game as it stands. However I do appreciate your feedback, even if I can't always change things the way you wish.

[Puzz3D]

Kocmoc,

What do you mean "now some mizu's agree with you"? When exactly did you ask for more morale? I asked for +2 morale on Sept 9th:

http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum14/HTML/000171.html

[Orda Khan]

Yuuki, The games I have joined have gone a number of ways.
Mostly the game starts and I wait for everyone to get to 100 someone sticks on 92 and it drops or freezes. Other times it works ok even a 4v4 before the patch that we both fought in.
Generally the whole experience is frustrating and time consuming. As I stated, when you read the spec required and the other aspects, theoretically, if your system matches or exceeds these requirements the game should run perfectly in both SP and MP, regardless of a patch.

Ok it doesn't or didn't, that's not the point. I just found Giljays reply to be a bit paranoic. As a representative of CA I don't think he should air personal views in such a way. He is after all representing CA and should be above all this as none of it is personal. There is a professional way of dealing with things. If I told a waiter there's a fly in my soup and he said tough, I'd complain to the management. Just as if I told a customer to fix it themselves, I'd expect to get some comeback.

My whole point was for him to lighten up. He's not the only guy who gets this crap, we all do

.........Orda

[MagyarKhans Cham]

Hmmm, good topic. I wonder how we let teh sp players out

---------------------------------------------------
Koc is convinced about teh hillbonusses, our Khan cant comment on that cuz he is like TheFool, and doesnt do unitstatterrain testing. Kocmoc is our most beloved clan researcher so i have no reason not to believe him.
Perhaps its just that teh hills in twm are lower on average than in stw.

----------------------------------------------------
horsearchers are too weak, nonsense it just takes much more skill now to beat someone with it, or a skilless enemy. Well i asked our clans Moving Art Director to make some movies of our khans latest horsearchers battles... played last 2 days. I warn people, it may look like ego-tripping here...

http://home.cable4u.nl/%7Epaszl-p2/horsearchers1.mrp
http://home.cable4u.nl/%7Epaszl-p2/horsearchers2.mrp

if u have seen them, read further...

well horsearchers are far too weak, but ofcourse more units are. i never saw a spanish horsejavelin thrower do any good but teh lancers make up for that.
an horsearcher is so easily shot up by arbas, it really gives my khan headaches. he thinks that for increased improving of the diversity of units on teh field, teh arbas should be strong but a bit shorter in range than archers. just enuf to give horsearcher time to retreat when shot at.
longbows must stay superior in range.

although i cant wait for the comments online that teh horsearchers are improved to please our Khan so perhaps we can shove The-slow-Fool forward for some "tomato-catching".

btw i still cant see how a shooting weapon which shoots straightforward outshoot almost all bows. gravity should play a role.

other cav could be more divers like in old stw. and there have to be a cav type that could match the spead of teh horsearchers. perhaps not available for all factions but alas.

so there have to be some testing done...

0 morale 2 up and see what it does (15000-20000 battles "feel" actually much, much better)

00 improvement of overall shooting, and perhaps more arrows. 28 is still terribly low.
perhaps lowering range of arba just below range of horsearchers and horsearchers just below normal archers and longbow range to be superior.

000 after this lets see what have to be improved next. little steps first. cavalry? ballistas?

I know our Khan prevails gameplay over historical battling (perhaps someone can start a poll about it). since the game online is dominated by people who just play games and are bored easily if things get repetetive.
The feel of gameplay ensures longelivity of teh game. Perhaps someone is interested in making historicall stats, feel free to do so. Most fansites are willingly to upload them for u.

Jemasze, ur right as -almost- ever but u people will allways misuse the tools given to them. but that doesnt mean we cant help them limiting their options and increasing our options to beat them by improving balancing.

Well Kocmoc is busy with testing how to increase fun in teh game. and volunteers are in line to help him. Your name is not on teh list yet Jemasze..... can he add u?

DISCLAIMER
This post is not intended to upper-ego our Khans skills or push Kocmoc on an higher cloud. Nor has it the intention to piss noobs of or take any fun from historical purists.

(still looking for my horse, perhaps TheFool framed it, godbamn u fool )

[MagyarKhans Cham]

ha puzz now i remember that post yes. ur surely fast.

[+DOC+]

Like LJ said, you really shouldn't be using Early period units against good High-Late units.

Arbs are High period and therefore are better than archers and horse archers. If you want to use horse archers effectively you really should be playing in the Early period. Plus you shouldn't be having a shoot out between horse archers and arbs.

What about horse crossbows, wouldn't they be better in the the other periods?

[JRock]

Quote[/b] (GilJaysmith @ Nov. 11 2002,07:26)]Next time, JRock, you can design it. And you can look at our mistakes and not repeat them, and that will be great. And we can look at all the mistakes you make for the first time, and we can sneer at them, and ridicule you for them, and assert that you're stupid and your game is a joke and you don't care about the community.

Nah, I would just design the game with player input from the beginning and offer more options for the player to choose from instead of forcing them to play the way I want to make the game.


Also, I never insulted you or your game, so pretend to be offended by someone else because I won't bear the blame for something I didn't do. I don't know how you managed to pull all that garbage out of what I posted. I have stated numerous times (but clearly not enough if you still can't comprehend such a simple and oft-stated point) that my biggest issue with MTW is the lack of options for the player to choose from - too many things are forced on the player. Options are not impossible things or things that require inordinant amounts of extra time to code. They're simple things that I've listed to many times in the past. I feel it's a waste of my time to list them all again for you to just ignore them and focus on the other, smaller issues I have with MTW like how multiplayer was done.

Options:

*25%, 50%, 75%, Full, Double Fatigue
*7 digit limit for florin count, not 6 digit limit.
*Ability to set "Unlimited Ammo" and "Free Camera" on/off from inside the multiplayer game creation screen instead of using the person's singleplayer settings back out at the game's main screen Options menu - settings which the player may well want to be different between sp and mp.
*More range of motion for the in-game camera.

And there are tons of other examples of options that have been listed in past threads. As you can see, they are not bigger, more complicated issues that would require more time or a less-archaic game engine to implement (like placeable spawn areas in the map editor, or selectable levels of graphic detail on the units).

Now I know it's easier for you to just put me down and claim I don't know the woes and agony of coding a game, but I'm sorry to say I do know a lot more about the game industry than you would hope. I've never had a problem with you, Gil, and I've defended CA in several threads where people wrongly attack or complain about you guys.

Let's face it though, the issue here is making a game that takes into the account the players who will be playing it and that they will be a very varied group of people with different preferences and styles of play. This is what creates the need for OPTIONS. Options are the easiest way to satisfy the largest number of people.

It's important to properly play-test a game before it's finished so player input can be useful and not an afterthought. It's a learning process and I guess now is the time you either learn that or refuse to. The choice is yours.

You say you've learned that lesson, and I am thankful for that. But don't hate me for being one of the vocal ones about it all.

[+DOC+]

Quote[/b] (JRock @ Nov. 12 2002,00:52)]

Quote[/b] (GilJaysmith @ Nov. 11 2002,07:26)]Next time, JRock, you can design it. And you can look at our mistakes and not repeat them, and that will be great. And we can look at all the mistakes you make for the first time, and we can sneer at them, and ridicule you for them, and assert that you're stupid and your game is a joke and you don't care about the community.

Nah, I would just design the game with player input from the beginning and offer more options for the player to choose from instead of forcing them to play the way I want to make the game.


Also, I never insulted you or your game, so pretend to be offended by someone else because I won't bear the blame for something I didn't do.

JRock, why don't you go away and learn some common courtesy and manners.

There are ways and methods of getting points and issues across and if done in a polite and informative manner the chances of getting listened to are far greater.

Your posts are simple mindless rants from a bitter fanatical gamer. I take no pleasure in reading your posts. I look forward to critically demeaning your supposed gaming masterpiece if you can even produce one?

[barocca]

Orda Khan

my apologies, i was not concise,
what i mean by system configuration is not the specs of your system, but the configuration of your devices.
It sounds like you have a glitch in there somewhere,

Have you installed the copy of directX from GAME CD#2?
That copy provides the most compatible drivers for sound and video,
The version available from microsoft on the web causes errors with both of my video cards (a GeForce and a RivaTNT)
(the web version may work fine on your system - on mine it does not)

I know only too well finding a glitch is a time consuming and frustrating practice.

Perhaps you have "supposedly" compatible devices sharing an IRQ, meaning if the IRQ is in use by one device the other must wait for the IRQ. Some devices are supposed to be quite happy sharing IRQ's, in my experience that is seldom the case.

Perhaps you have a driver file missing - Windows is renowned for doing this, go to
http://www.geocities.com/shade571/tech/Forgot.htm
this is for shogun and windows 98 - But the principle remains the same - check all files required DO exist as instructed there.

My PC is below the MP specs. Yet I have no trouble online.
(other than almost always ghosted when i return from battle)
One of my clanmates barely makes the SP specs - he also has no trouble online.
This leads me to think one of your devices is misbehaving.

====edit====
I forgot,
try following the advice here to improve performance
http://www.geocities.com/shade571/te...mance-main.htm

if you cannot turn off a device/loader etc.
look for instructions here
http://www.pacs-portal.co.uk/startup_content.htm

[Apeboy]

Quote[/b] ]Do you ever wonder why I'm about the only person from CA who's still listening to what this forum has to say?

Well now. Thats a bit of a insight in the "not so implied threat" department.

Aside from the flotsam of rants and raves and general junvenile posts do you think the well thought out, frustrated posts do not bear any weight?

It's easy to point to the more, how shall we say, tenacious posts to excuse members of CA not wanting to post but the fact of the matter is many of the posts of customers have been well reasoned and accurate as affirmed by your subsequent "post mortem" post.

Now that everybody has learned all these important lessons, what is to be done? Any roadmap discussed for M:TW? Will we be so fortunate as to recive antoher patch or the much rumored add-on? Will we continue to be frustrated with the problem of not being able to see one anothers game in MP after having played one or two rounds with the same person just minutes earlier? Will Italin infantry be a part of the revolts in Livonia and far off places as a rule? Or, will we be subjected to a infomation blackout until such things are negoiated? If in fact any negoiations are even taking place?

I'm glad that we are all a part of your learning process but in the long run we, the customers, paid the price of tuition. Literally. Glad to be of service. I don't blame you for being a bit "Grrrr" about he more ravenous posts but what about those that have been around and paid for your learning process? Is that much to ask for some answers, good or bad, about the product we all paid money for?

-Apeboy

[barocca]

Apeboy

One

Quote[/b] ]Will we continue to be frustrated with the problem of not being able to see one anothers game in MP after having played one or two rounds with the same person just minutes earlier?

I have noticed that if I log in through gamespy outside the game there are a number of "hosts" with very high ping's, through the external gamespy login i am unable to join these games.
These high ping games are NOT displayed by the In Game Foyer.

Two

Quote[/b] ]Will Itlain infantry be a part of the revolts in Livonia and far off places as a rule?

It seems, although unconfirmed, that,
with rebellions no longer able to access technologies above the controlling player,
the rebellion AI can now hire mercenary units - as can the human player.
Such was historically common.

Three

Quote[/b] ]Will we be so fortunate as to recive another patch or the much rumored add-on?

Good Question - Will we see another patch?

===edit====
(added rebellion above to clarify point)

[CBR]

As I see it by having 3 eras to play in we have 3 different games or at least 3 slightly different. New units/weapons means the balance/tactics change a bit. Dont like the idea that horse archers should have better range than arbs. They should be most powerful in early.

If anything make arbs a late unit. Then we have archers for early, crossbows for high and arbalesters for late.

No question that archer units in general should be a lot cheaper, both foot and horse archers. And that is both from a historical and game balance point of view

When a 60 man archer unit (both pure archer and semi h2h) cost more then a good h2h only unit they are not really worth buying. If Hobilars cost 150 or Saharan Cavalry 125 why should a horse archer cost 250 and even be worse at melee? That I think is a main reason for the problems. If cheaper you can buy them more upgrades or buy better h2h. Now its more a waste of money and an important slot.


There is also a huge difference in playing 1v1 compared to 3v3 or bigger. More room for maneuver in a 1v1 so horse archers are better there... plus a horse archer is not much good if you bring lots of foot that will be forced to fight. They are a special unit that requires special army tactics, mostly all cav armies.

CBR

[Arcsim]

What I don't understand is why all these stupid bugs are where they are. 80% of the MP bugs are in the LOBBY and not in the actual battle interface. This strikes me as extremely strange, because you would think that the lobby would be easier to fix than the actual game. It just seems that with the patch, sure some big bugs were fixed, but lots of little annoying ones were added. Just today, I was trying to play with some friends and half the time half the people could not even see the game when it was put up We only got all the people seeing it when the person that was on dialup hosted. Don't give me stuff about firewalls, we were playing it fine before the patch(Except that someone would always get recurring crashes when they tried to join a game, I'm glad that bug is fixed). I just don't understand how the lobby can possibly be as buggy as it is compared to the main game.

[YunDog]

MP players,
I understand and empathise with the frustration you feel. Not to harp on but I actually thought JRock had a valid point - why do we have to have a central server if they care so little about the MP side of the game as to make virtually no changes since the original STW - CD KEY Verification? No We already heard that MP is less than 10% of their sales so why give a damn about that 10% duping games - so you see the paradox here - on one hand we dont care enough to write new code - on the other we care so much that we have to get every cent out of every one of you - because this method certainly does not affect SP copying only MP people cant copy. The so called unimportant 10% or less. Why dont they give TCP/IP options and remote hosting. I am not surprised in the least that this 10% are extremely dark - they are the only ones with verified legitimate copies of the game and their voices are ignored.

Gil, please dont let all the whinning get you down - your voice and cander are greatly appreciated by all the TW community. As with most forums once the initial novelty of the game wheres off peoples attention turns to wanting more, better and their personal griping, but this is all human nature and I dont think it is an uncommon thing on game forums - if the game was perfect - there wouldnt be any posts cause everyone would be playing. Certainly it is never personally directed at you or your colleagues.

So why are people complaining so vehemently probably (my opinion) due to frustration - having the whole TW collection on my shelf I feel I can comment on my own frustration trying to get my friends to play it MP with me but problems mostly associated with online play and the lack of flexibility and options in MP generally cause people to switch off what I know is a fantastic game and am frustrated that I cant be playing it all the time with my buds. This combined with other games like CIV3, D2, NWN, having such huge support and such a multitude of patches, with huge community support for multiplayer.

In summary to anyone whos still reading the reason your MP market is only 10% is because your multiplay is unsupported and antiquated poo relative to other games. You guys got it so right with MTW that if you had just taken one more little step and really worked up the MP this game could have been a MP GIANT and then MP would have represented more like 60-70% of what would have been a much larger sales cheque.

And this is why we are frustrated because we are cursed with this vision of what could be. I walked away from multiplay after MITW and now rather than being angry I can be philisophical about it - to those of u venting - may I suggest a similar path - just walk away and consider MTW as a SP only game - and be happy again

[Kocmoc]

hi puzz,

the problem with this is, many of the old treads got closed, and how u see again this 1 got cutted or filled in another 1

this is the problem, we see many other treads wich arent closed ot filled in other, but someohow my treads are

the poll is lost anyway

so whats the problem with this and why this happend?

this was a constructive tread i tryed to clear things and hear opinions from other players and i had the feeling we had a nice discussion with different opinions.

so why the tread got filled in an other and now i cant decied wich post belongs to wich tread.

if this is the politic of the org to make it harder for me to find a way to increase the fun of the gameplay, or to make everything loks good, than im very dissapointed

again puzz, if u want ...ok, i dont care i, somehow many of my posts got closed.......btw, who do this?

ur juniorkoc

[GilJaysmith]

To those who suspect that I took some of the comments in this thread personally: well, I did, and that's why I signed my message "Gil not CA, personal opinion" - to distinguish those personal feelings from my professional feelings. I have both, and because the alternative would be going home and punching the dog (not that I have a dog, but it sounds like a handy thing to have) I sometimes vent right back at the people who have just vented at me, to make it clear that if you go too far I'm not going to sit still for it.

It's dangerous to look for wisdom from the mouth of a muppet, but it's quite true that anger leads to hate, and hate leads to suffering. I made that point to do with how you should talk to Activision customer support, and now I'm making it about us. We have no professional obligation to monitor the forums, but we do it because we think it's useful to know what people think. When what people *think* is being outweighed by what people *feel*, it gets difficult to listen.

Bluntly, a complaint, no matter how accurate, had better be expressed politely. You all have freedom of speech in what you say; I'm asking for restraint in how some of you say it. There are a lot of you posting on this forum, and unless there's some kind of tacit agreement about how you express opinions about us, we'll just break down under the pressure, as individuals, and leave. It isn't our paid job to listen to customer support, so if the noise or abuse level gets too high, the obvious way to shut it out is to stop listening for a while. I have no qualms about rating humanity (and sanity) above professionalism on those occasions.

If you think that your desires for the game are sufficiently at odds with ours that we'll never do what you'd prefer, then that still doesn't make you right, and endlessly reiterating what you believe and denigrating our choice not to do it is fruitless. We clearly think differently, and if we're wrong we'll learn our lesson. It's this endless reiteration which really gets to me; seeing the same people raise the same point as if they believe that there's a magic number of posts which will make us change our minds, when all it does is poison people's minds against us, as each reiteration gets more vitriolic, more personal, more abusive about CA's "inflexibility" and "refusal to listen to the fans" (i.e. a handful of people).

But you never know, perhaps I am taking it all too personally, in which case I'm sorry for being paranoid and overreacting and all that. Perhaps I should take a few months off ;-)

Gil not CA

[MagyarKhans Cham]

well before i am ordered to make a topic about it, GIl can we expect a patch, or will everything fixed in the add on?

[+DOC+]

Gil, you have my sympathies, i would hate to have something that i'd worked tirelessly on for years disparaged and demeaned by tactless, impolite spoilt bastards. You know who you are. I'll probably get flamed for being a fanboy or brown nosing but in writing this i've already taken that on board.

You see, like many others here, i've had my frustrations about MTW, about certain bugs and failings they may or may not have been avoided. The Glorious Achievements bug and the dropouts from the foyer being two such examples. But lets face it, MTW from a SP perspective and a little from a MP perspective was always playable and therefore doesn't deserve the slander and callous name calling that the developers and some patrons have suffered.

Take Civ3 as another game for example:

-MTW required 3 months and one patch to make the SP game into a masterpiece, Civ3 required 1 year and 4 patches.

-Civ3 didn't even ship with its promised MP, MTW did. A whole year later the Civ3 players finally got their MP game and like MTW is having its teething problems with stability, etc.

So where are we at now, 3 months after release of MTW? Well, we have an excellent SP game bar one or two bugs. Polite asking and prompt action has fianlly lead to me sending the devs a saved game of one of these bugs (Glorious Achievements one). That is what's called successful communication between fans and a developer, with the hopeful outcome of a fixed end product, all of which took a matter of a few days to achieve.

Now one point i agree could have been done better, a release of a public beta would have certainly helped with the MP stability side of things.... i never understand why more and more companies do not follow this procedure? Still, what's done is done and flaming them for it serves little purpose. It's also very easy to forget the major plus points that have been incorporated already into the MP game since the first patch:

-The ability to use the same faction online, only with different colours.

-The new foyer changes, albeit some are still requiring a little work.

-Increase in stability for some.

-Slightly better play balance, maybe more to follow.

Granted some more work is probably required and hopefully this will be suppoerted, however, we must remain polite and constructive if we're to get any of the support which we as customers rightfully deserve. Like Gil says, it is not part of his job description to come to our fora, so lets make it worth his while and encourage the excellent developer support we currently have here. I personally do not know of any other game that has the degree of developer participation at their fan's fora as this one does. So, to the mindless rabble out there, think before you post otherwise you may ruin it for all concerned, including yourself.

Lastly, Gil, try not to let the mindless and rude actions of some ruin it for the majority? What we need on this fora is an ignore feature for the likes of JRock et al.

Regards

[JRock]

Quote[/b] ]Bluntly, a complaint, no matter how accurate, had better be expressed politely.

I understand what you're saying Gil, and in a perfect world we'd all know how to phrase our complaints and recommendations in a way that couldn't possibly frustrate you. Alas, we can't read each others' minds nor can we know how others will interpret what we write. Many times people get things out of posts that were never in there to begin with. That's not the poster's fault, but the reader's.

And then you throw in the fact that we paid you ~$50USD for your product and it sort of balances out the "you must always be nice to us" argument. When people pay for something they sort of buy the right to complain however they wish (within reason).

I deal with all types of customers every day - in person no less - and you learn how to deal with unsatisfied customers because there will always be some, no matter how much you try to satisfy them. That doesn't mean you give up trying to satisfy all your customers because each customer is different. If you decide trying to satisfy them isn't worthwhile (because of one customer's negative reaction to even your best efforts) you end up with many more unsatisfied customers because some of them would have been satisfied by the very efforts that you no longer effect.

I think I'm being quite an understanding customer to realize that certain items I've brought up, for example placeable spawns, are not a realistic patch item. And really, aside from bug/crash fixes, I can't say I actually expected any additions to the game via the patch.

My main point has only been to comment on how proper play-testing and offering the players more options would help satisfy a greater number of customers. You've learned this lesson now I think, and I look forward to a Total War game that takes the lessons learned from MTW into account while it is being developed:

*Separate sp and mp unit stats - sp should be more reality-based, mp more focused on balance and what is fun. (This has the added effect of creating a larger multiplayer fanbase because a focus on balance and fun are what attract multiplayers versus the singleplayer fanbase with a focus on reality (and where AI having certain advantages is necessary to make up for their lack of a human brain).)
*Proper mp connectivity options (TCP/IP direct connect to a server)
*More options available to the game host during the create game phase (fatigue levels, ammo levels, camera freedom, etc)
*A true map creator program that allows placement of spawn areas, water features that can flow any direction, etc)
*More game options for players in multiplayer - king of the hill, improved siege battle options
*Ability to play faction vs faction (something patched in yay&#33


I think one thing that frustrated me the most about MTW multiplayer is that most if not all of the above-listed items are things many RTS games have featured for years now. To me MTW multiplayer was a big step backwards for multiplayer strategy games in general. I guess you guys just don't have much personal experience playing multiplayer computer games or else these issues would have been done right from the beginning even without the test player input that should have been there.

MTW is still an amazing singleplayer game. A Total War game with a more balanced focus on sp and mp would totally blow it away though - on the whole and on the store shelf.


Btw, I'm ignoring +Doc+'s posts because he's off in his own little world ranting about things that aren't even true. Anyway, I'm off to work.

[+DOC+]

Quote[/b] (JRock @ Nov. 12 2002,11:27)]Alas, we can't read each others' minds nor can we know how others will interpret what we write. Many times people get things out of posts that were never in there to begin with. That's not the poster's fault, but the reader's.

*Separate sp and mp unit stats - sp should be more reality-based, mp more focused on balance and what is fun. (This has the added effect of creating a larger multiplayer fanbase because a focus on balance and fun are what attract multiplayers versus the singleplayer fanbase with a focus on reality (and where AI having certain advantages is necessary to make up for their lack of a human brain).)

I guess you guys just don't have much personal experience playing multiplayer computer games or else these issues would have been done right from the beginning even without the test player input that should have been there.

MTW is still an amazing singleplayer game. A Total War game with a more balanced focus on sp and mp would totally blow it away though - on the whole and on the store shelf.

JRock,

1st paragrapgh.
I totally disagree, it's the responsibility of the writer to make sure what he has written is understood in the way it was intended. If it isn't then the writer has written it badly. FOr instance sarcasm has to be made clear becasue it's not always possible to interpret simply through writing alone. In my opinion, sarcasm is one form of homour that is clearly better avoiding on any forum for obvious reasons. The only other reasons for justifying misunderstanding is through language difficulties on behalf of the reader and writer.

2nd paragraph
Completely agree, two sets of stats is probably one of the most important additions.

3rd paragraph
An assumption made by you here on a person (developer) that you've never met or know nothing about. This is a confrontationary remark and could be interpreted as an insult.

4th paragraph
Agreed and about time you said something complimentary about a game you obviously enjoy and spend a lot of time particpating in its community.

[Kocmoc]

hey in this TRead is a tread wich i started, it was about the multiplayer aspects and what we should/could change....
i still dont understand why this tread got implent in this the other tread and now i just see posts about someone else but not about the topic i started


thx to the admins


good deciciions
go and close every contructive tread wich could solve some Mp plroblems...

ur juniorkoc

[TosaInu]

Quote[/b] (GilJaysmith @ Nov. 11 2002,10:55)]This reminds me: TosaInu (I think?) asked us to add some kind of option to allow the stats to be reloaded without having to restart the game. This is now in the patch: if you add -reload to the game command line, the unit and projectile stats will be reloaded each time you start or join an MP game, instead of just the once when you load MTW. So you should be able to play a game, muse over the results, edit the stats files, then play another game and pick up those changes instantly.

Gil ~ CA

Konnichiwa Giljaysmith sama,

Thank you very much, this is certainly going to help in tweaking the units.

Just my opinion: battles are great in SP (I'm actually losing a couple which I should win).

MP may need a custom stat.

It might actually reveil my incompetence, but it's certainly not easy to achieve a balance for MP games. It wasn't easy for the 10 or so units in STW, it certainly won't be for the 100 in MTW. Even if you achieve something, then there'll still be opinions that things are both too slow and too fast, too strong and too weak: personal taste.

I do know that you're professionals, that customers pay a 'whopping' $40,- for every copy and that it should be good. It's hardly realistic to expect to get a perfect stat for online battles. I know we need it and you want to give it.

The stats are very good for SP, and I dare even say pretty good for MP. Perhaps not perfect for MP in the long (short for some) run; thank you very much for adding the tools to customize it to our needs. I especially appreciate that CA was willing to expand this tool by adding 'hotswap'. I hope that it's possible to make this tool even more powerful.

The org hosts the original excel files made by CA to produce the stat texts. Would you please provide the 1.1 ones too?

[TosaInu]

Konnichiwa Kocmoc san,

You may have missed a few things.

Quote[/b] ]
Konnichiwa,

The forums were running on UBB 5.45a for two years.

The org staff has searched for a new version/entirly new forum application since early september 2002. The choice was Ikonboard 3.1.1 by Jarvis (one of the first choices).

It took a while to decide that this software was good, some reasons:

-MySQL database: everything is stored in one of the fastest databases around, is password protected and not stored in the root of the org server.
-Encrypted passwords.
-Sticky threads.
-Small in size.
-Free, UBB license is $199
-Great support, both from Jarvis and 'fan'sites.
-Customizable (the badgesystem isn't standard in Ikonboard).
-Different userlevels.
-Polls.
-Skins.
-Supports multiple language interfaces. I haven't found Spanish yet, I'm sorry.
-Extensive user control panel.
-Tools to help patrons keeping track of discussions.

A real problem for using a new board was that, the old UBB topics would be lost, combined with the user database.

Allow me to refresh some memories and explain to new members: the only reason that the totalwar.org forum has password protected accounts is that a minority of internet users (not necessarily a member) used the nick of a member to post bad messages. Allowing the public to re register established nicks was not desirable.

Yet another reason for choosing Ikonboard 3.1.1 was that there was a converter that allowed to import the UBB forum into this new board: topics would be saved and I wouldn't have to register 2400 (I prunned the old userdatabase, members with 0 posts were considered mis-registers) manually.

The import had some problems and the UBB forum was down for some 5 hours, while it could have been done within 30 minutes. The UBB is running for 2 years, and it's getting bugged.

This new forum could have been running modaynight, but there was a problem with the converter. It could import into a DBM database (stored in the root and not password protected) but it refused to import into MySQL. Importing UBB into DBM, backing-up that database and importing into MySQL like is supposed to work failed as well. That should work. The Ikonboard 'fan' support helped us out, but I live in The Netherlands and he in the USA. It was also a complex problem. The entire UBB board would be down for a long while (some 4 days). I posted an announcement that the conversion was at least 99% successfull (some UBB topics were technically corrupt), told that new topics/post couldn't and wouldn't be imported (it's an 'all' or nothing converter), that new posts could be manually copied and pasted when this new forum was running and that the old board could be used like usual until this one was ready.

It took 4 days: support had to made a customized import file, a new SQL table scheme and another small edit to allow me to import into MySQL.

I could have done a new import, there was a risk that it would fail (the UBB board is still wacky), some of the topics saved in the monday import were lost (UBB is wacky).

No posts from this discussions are deleted, not by me and I don't think the moderators have deleted any either.

The UBB forum is still open as read only, all topics and post are still there. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum4/HTML/000667.html

Enjoy the new forums.

There's another reason for missing threads than just moderator action. Could you please specify which topic you're referring to? 'All' topics started between last monday and friday are still here: http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/ubb/Ultimate.cgi. Please feel free to copy and paste contents. If you do not find the relevant topic, please tell me and I'll search the backups I have (back-ups in UBB are so big and take so much time to make -read +6 hours- that it is possible that topics are really lost).

[Kocmoc]

thx tosa,

i started a poll about if the players are happy with MP.

after this i asked them to psot theyr opinion and what should changed and how...
it was a realy nice discussion, no offence...no bitching...no attacks, just a constructiv tread.

this tread is now in this tread here.

its now impossible to decide wich post is from wich tread and the lsat post wasnt contructive and not in any way the direetion my tread was.

i understand that this forum is new i dont complain about it i just want that such important treads for us all not get deleted or moved.

thx for any help

koc

[JRock]

Quote[/b] (+DOC+ @ Nov. 12 2002,06:42)]

I'll respond this time to you DOC, since it addresses issues that affect us all.

Quote[/b] ]it's the responsibility of the writer to make sure what he has written is understood in the way it was intended.

No it isn't - that's a physical impossibility. The writer can only do his best to write clearly and to a point. After that it's up to the reader to be competent enough to understand what is being said and to read it properly.

To say otherwise is illogical.

Quote[/b] ]3rd paragraph
An assumption made by you here on a person (developer) that you've never met or know nothing about. This is a confrontationary remark and could be interpreted as an insult.

No more than what Gil said about me could be taken as the same. I am responding here, not initiating. Please take off your one-sided blinders here and consider who talked to whom in this manner first. I am only responding to Gil.
Also consider taking my post as a whole, rather than in pieces.

[TosaInu]

Konnichiwa Kocmoc san,

I didn't say you were complaining, I apologize if you felt that way.

I think that the moderator of this forum merged related discussions into one. That might be confusing on one hand, it also puts related posts together, making sure no relevant point is missed.

It's a pity that the poll is lost, but it might be an idea to discuss this topic first and then create a new poll?

You might add to that, that the poll feature wasn't fully understood by every member who should have voted in it and a re-poll is necessary anyway.

I'm not the moderator in this forum, but I acknowledge that this is a fairly important issue. I'll pin this topic, rename the title to something more inviting and ask Doc and JRock to discuss the details of their topic somewhere else.

Would 'MP STATS discussions' be a good topic title Kocmoc?

Thanks.

[Kocmoc]

ofcourse

[MagyarKhans Cham]

its a good platform to taste the overall feelings but its a bit hard to control all posts. All valid info will be collected by Kocmoc and i have no doubt that there will be eventually a forum to discuss every topic. Open to all.

[+DOC+]

Quote[/b] (JRock @ Nov. 12 2002,12:42)]No it isn't - that's a physical impossibility. The writer can only do his best to write clearly and to a point. After that it's up to the reader to be competent enough to understand what is being said and to read it properly.

...and if the writer writes clearly then any competent reader should understand his point exactly. From Gil's obvious literary competence, i'd assume he is a very able reader and so in this case i assume he read your first post as disparaging and tactless, much in the way i did.

Anyway enough on semantics, apologies to Koc and co for going off-topic.

Back to MP stats:

I think the best way for the immediate future would be to test extensively the effect of a generalised +2 morale, which seems to have been accepted by a few so far....

However, whether simply playing at higher florin levels will simply nullify this will also have to be determined.

I'd also suggest trying out the following modifications that i use in my projectiles.txt file. These will help out all missile troops a little except crossbows and arbalesters, which imho don't need any help.

Accuracy
Short bow 0.60 to 0.65
Longbow 0.60 to 0.65
Mounted bow 0.40 to 0.50
Javelin 0.15 to 0.20
Handgunner 0.05 to 0.08
Arquebusier 0.07 to 0.10
Grenade 0.03 to 0.05
Ballista 0.9 to 1.0

Lethality
Short now 0.63 to 0.75
Longbow 0.63 to 0.8
Mounted bow 0.63 to 0.75

These work very well in my SP and i think they'd make subtle but desirable changes for archers and mounted archers in MP.

What do you reckon...?