Petition List

[Sp00n]

I support this, the game is shockingly bad online.

MizuSp00n

[Sid_Quibley]

I support some but not all items on the list(I dont want mtw with the rome engine)

I fully support the communities effort to get major flaws fixed.

[Kansuke]

Howl,,

I Wolf_Kansuke, support the petition.

[FearZeus]

Thanks everyone,

I would just like to post the list again as a reminder and would also like to point out that this list does acknowledge there has been 1 patch to sort out a few bugs. If CA could kindly let us know exactly what has been fixed that would be great, thx.


Although there are a TON of things that need fixing, we should concentrate on asking for fixes on the following:
#1 Stuff we can't mod
#2 Critical game destroying bugs (control)
#3 Critical community destroying stuff (no logs/replays/no 4v4s)
#4 Stuff that isn't just a preference

I don't think it is productive to send them a list of 50 things that need fixing because we KNOW they won't fix 50 things. Now, you might say "if we ask for 50 maybe they will give us 25 and if we ask for 25 they would only give us 10", but I don't think that logic holds.

I think they will give us what they will give us, and so we better damn well ask for the critical stuff and not whine too much about the things we can fix ourselves.

Sooooo.... with that in mind here is my prioritized list (again):


Critical (things we cant live without):
1. Syncronicity -- Ensure game state is not diverging during the game [FIXED?]
2. Crash to Desktop when logging on (still happening, gamespy lobby problem) [FIXED?]
3. Replays-- ensure they are syncronized with game (currently they are NOT--we can't run tourneys without replays), and that they display all the unit information (type, fatigue, etc.)
4. Logfiles-- where are they? Do they show what units were taken? We need these for tourneys
5. 3v3 only? We need 4v4's for our tournaments and clan competitions.
6. Unit/Army control is flawed--No way to move army and retain facing (in MTW this was alt-left click), no way to have groups within groups (as in MTW). Formation/orientation is destroyed when dragging a line of units: Say you have AAAABBBB units in a group. When you set them like this AABBBBAA and draw a line the result is AAAABBBB again. Units turn back to their original state and your setting/formation is ignored.
7. Grouped units often refuse to take orders (most commonly the run order). Some report un-grouped units are responding to orders directed at a group.

8. When in testudo, if a single unit walks into the formation, you lose control of that unit of the legionaries in testudo formation for the rest of the game.

9. Either explain or fix “Not compatible” errors” failure to connect to host” errors

Important–(things that make the game highly frustrating)

1. allow Withdrawal/Rout in MP ("W"ithdraw doesn't work in MP!)
2. game info available from lobby
3. allow faction to be selected by more than one player
4. proprietary player names (so some jerk can’t steal your name and ruin your reputation) [linked to CD Key like MTW]).
5. allow “quick chat” (t/y) like in MTW, chat should not fade/scroll so quickly
6. Fatigue bars on units/exhausted units should not be able to run (but they can)
7. allow for custom denari amounts
8. #ignore/#ban commands for gamespy lobby
fade-out names for “in game” players in gamespy lobby
9. allow selection of faction color
10. show who is deployed and who isn’t deployed on the battle map.
11. Bring back F1 to view unit stats and players/factions/teams list (and grey out names of dropped/routed players like in MTW)
12. Unit tax for more than 4 units of same type
13. We need 2 keys to toggle run– if you have a group in which half the units are already running, pressing “R” makes them walk. So “R” becomes useless in groups where some units are walking and others are running. We need a “Run” button and a “Walk” button please.14. Trying to order an engaged non-cav unit to fall back should result in a major morale penalty when they turn their backs. This doesn’t seem to be occuring.
15. Map editor/historical battle editor

Preferred– (these are things that would enhance the quality of play for us)
1.Remove “zoom to death of general” during MP games (very distracting)
2.Once routed, “restricted camera” mode should not apply to you. Please fix.
3. Look into reports of server lag.
4. Look into reports of host-drop crashing all players computers.
5. Look into reports of flawed pathfinding
6. Brighter highlighting for selected units (some say it is difficult to tell selected units from non-selected units)

Would be nice– (add this if you have time)
1. Being able to use general’s rally ability without having to select his unit.

We will mod ourselves:
1. Kill rate/game speed
2. Balance (cav/elephant) [more testing needed]
3. also some people have asked for a shell-to-desktop function (alt-tab or windows key).

And another issue to please our Spanish friends: several Spanish players have taken exception to the characterization of hte hispanic faction as "Spanish" and they are requesting a change to "celtiberian" or "iberian" or "hispania"--

CeliberoLion says:
"I prefer first they fixed Mp gameplay issues before this, but don´t see any problem to include the nomenclature error in the list, in the end if you want.

Imagine they name Frenchs to the Gauls, Italian to the Roman, British to Britons, Moroccan to Numidian, Persian to Parths...

Its a serious historical error. Spain dont exist until 1300 AD.
Celtiberian is the most correct, but its a Clan name, i understand they dont want to give preference, but is preferable Iberian or hispanic than spanish."


Thats a start at least.

[UglyandHasty]

i also support the petition

[theKyl]

Me too

[PaolinoPaperino]

Add me as well.

[Nittaku]

Hi all,i agree petition and hope all bug go fixed !!!!!!!!!!!!

good luck!!!!!

[MK_MadMick]

I support this petition.
This game could be the best of all time so give it what it needs please.

[7Bear7Scar]

I support the petition to CA for enhancing the MP experience of Rome Total War.
I ask this petition is accepted in the spirit it is being compiled; both the MP community and CA want RTW to be the best it can possibly be, and we can all work together to make it so (but you have to do the coding parts )

7Bear7Scar
Consul of www.totalwars.net
Emissary to Clan 7Bear7

[Kanamori]

I support this and I hope CA makes an effort to fix them. I don't want an rome version of MTW, it just doesn't make sense to remove the good aspects of games. They can be reworked or new ones added. Get creative; make new things rather than taking them away.

[AggonyDuck]

I, AggonyDuck, support this petition.

[spacecadet]

I agree of course! Fix it online before it's really too late and Totalwar multi dies.

[baz]

Zeus, you stealing my thunder here m8 ;)

I would suggest letting bachus write up a draft letter, i am sure he would be the best person for the job. Also although it is evident that we will have support you need a finalised letter before you start collecting signatures.

I dont want to sound negative zeus but we need to work together and try to get this right, as Panda said then it will have the best chance of having an effect.

Bachus would you kindly write a nice letter including the above list??

Are there any points that people would like to see removed? D6 what is it you dont agree with?

Baz

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I support this petition.

[FearZeus]

Baz,

It's all taking shape and progressing niclely m8, we are doing everything in the correct order the list is constantly being worked on and this is for peoples nam,es who are in support, I suggest we all make our commnet on what we should take off the list or be put on it, at this post ...

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...t=37249&page=3

Or we could open up a new thread for oppen discussions on what should or should not be included. They should keep them constructice though and not just put things like eg: 78) well I don't like flaming arrows they cause lagg etc

Thx for your reply baz, I trust we will get your full support ;)

As for your suggestion on making up the letter with OUR list on, I think Bacchus is perfect for the job as he has this experience, have you spoke to him about this though? I read a thread somewhere that he said he was willing but I would still like to ask him formaly.

Rest assured, before this goes off to CA it will be done properly and as requested and will will work with them on this hand in hand, I agree with southwaterpanda 100%

[Lechev]

I LechevalierSG hereby put my name on the list.

[baz]

bachus if you got MSN please add me: garrybibson@hotmail.com

[d6veteran]

List too long and full of personal preferences. You need to play the game for a while longer before adding a lot of that stuff.

Example: I DO NOT WANT A UNIT TAX on more than 4 units. My clan would not support a tax that would penalize historical armies. I've got 20 slots and I am going to be penalized for taking more than 4 Hastati??? More than 4 Hoplites???? MORE THAN 4 BARBARIAN PEASANTS or SWORDSMAN???

BAD IDEA imo.

We need a concise list people. Focus on bugs and control issues that we all agree upon, and give the rest of the game some legs before asking for the remaining tweaks.

[Dionysus9]

Howdy guys, Bachus here--

I humbly accept your requests to draft this formal petition to CA. I think it is a tad bit early to collect signatures since we don't have a final product to sign-- but this outpouring of support shows me that my efforts in drafting the petition will be supported by the community at large--and it spurs me on to action.

Prom, thanks for the input on priorities--I will consider it closely.

For those of you who dont know (and I'm not trying to brag), I am an attorney in real life so I have some experience in writing what we call "demand letters" that ask for action to be taken to resolve problems.

Zeus, it is very important that we don't go off "half-cocked" so before we formalize the petition and submit the final draft for final signatures, I think we should have a solid plan--which is something we are missing so far (my proposed plan is below).I recognize your passion for the game, but I think so far you have moved a little too fast. Lets slow it down just a tad bit and make it clear this is a community wide effort--make sure the final petition is polished, and then and only then, send it to CA.

Also, Elmo (Elmarko) has some connections at the .com since he used to admin there--and we should be able to get someting directly to the .com "Shogun"--which is where I suggest we send our petition once we are done. We might also send it to Activision and to CA. I can find business addresses for CA's president and Activisions president and we can even send it to them too! But it has to be 100% polished before we do, so here is my plan:

PLAN FOR SUBMITTING PETITION TO CA/ACTIVISION:

1) By Tomorrow Oct. 8th I will have a full formal draft of the petition, and I will post it in a new thread entitled "Formal Petition to Developers of RTW from the Community".

2) at the same time we send out a squad of volunteers (lead by Zeus) to go around to all the clansites and tell them about the petition and ask them to sign it.

3) It will be open for signature for 5 days

4) If there are people who "signed" this current thread who forget to sign the final formal petition, we will also add their names to the final formal petition since they all know this is not the complete draft and by signing this they are consenting to adding their names to the final draft.

5) Then we will submit the final formal petition to:

A) The "Shogun" at the .com
B) CA customer support, via email
C) Activision customer support, via email
D) The president of CA, via regular mail
E) The president of Activision, via regular mail

I will even throw in a bonus-- in the regular mail petitions I will send this on my firm letterhead so it WILL get opened and it WILL get read by the presidents of both companies! I can not represent the "community" as an attorney, but the letterhead will get their attention.

So-- to all of you who have concerns about moving too quickly (or moving too slowly) let me assure you that by the end of next week we will have a well drafted, polished, formal petition signed by the community at large sent directly to the presidents of both companies on attorney letterhead!

Thanks for all your support in this, and thanks to Zeus for spurring us all to action.

[Dionysus9]

Oh yeah, baz, I dont have MSN and I dont use any form of instant messaging.

Everyone is welcome to contact me via email at : thegod_ofwine@yahoo.com

[CelticFalcon]

Thank you bachus.....I mean the Thomas Jefferson of the TW community

-CF

[CrazyHorse]

I support this petition

[d6veteran]

D6 what is it you dont agree with?

Critical (things we cant live without):
5. 3v3 only? We need 4v4's for our tournaments and clan competitions.
>>> This is critical? Have you thought about lag?

Important–(things that make the game highly frustrating)

1. allow Withdrawal/Rout in MP ("W"ithdraw doesn't work in MP!)
>> Now this is critical.

9. allow selection of faction color
>> This is important? First of all the colors are integrated into the models as far as I can tell. Secondly, I like being able to identify a faction by the color right off the bat. Helps a great deal if you don't play with banners on. This is a mod issue. Because if you want to be able to select multiple factions then you're going to most likely have to use the banner colors to differentiate between players controlling the same faction, and I am assuming the banners will be the easiest model to change.

12. Unit tax for more than 4 units of same type
>> Totally disagree and my clan would be dissapointed if this were the case.

13. We need 2 keys to toggle run– if you have a group in which half the units are already running, pressing “R” makes them walk. So “R” becomes useless in groups where some units are walking and others are running. We need a “Run” button and a “Walk” button please.
>> Isn't there a shortcut? I'm trying to think of why this hasn't been an issue. Namely an important issue.

Preferred– (these are things that would enhance the quality of play for us)
1.Remove “zoom to death of general” during MP games (very distracting)
>> Or toggle ... I like this feature. It's fun.

Would be nice– (add this if you have time)
1. Being able to use general’s rally ability without having to select his unit.
>> Totally disagree. The increased importance of the general was one of the improvements in RTW. I would be very dissapointed if this was dropped.


All and all I think the list identifies the important bugs, but the list also assumes everyone wants an MTW clone. This is not the case. This game takes place in a different era and while the multiplayer is a step backwards in many areas, there are some improvements which this list attempts to strike down.

Additionally, this list leaves out some features that are standard for online strategy gaming and some that were included in MTW that worked.

Like:

1) being able to assign different sums of money to teams (no way to give a handicap to newer players, or just for the challenge).
2) being able to upgrade multiple units at a time (the lack of this feature really slows down game set up).

You want to fight lag?

3) Option to toggle off fire arrows and/or siege equipment.


I think a formal petition (for lack of a better word) needs to be agreed upon. And the lowest common denominator submitted.

[Dionysus9]

D6,

Thanks for helping out-- we need more discussion like this from folks.

It is difficult to get 200 people to agree to the same thing, even if you have years of face-to-face conferences. At some point we will all have to agree on something that is "close enough" to what we want. I'm doing my best to sort through and compile all the issues and so of course they are sometimes being filtered through my eyes. Rational discussion with clear points, like you are bringing to the table, is critical to keep a broad consensus. So thanks!

I can see your point on the unit tax, and I think it is something that can be done by "4 max" rules anyway-- so if it will keep your clan from signing the petition I will remove it. (what is your clan?) Also, Yuuki has said he thinks it is unnecessary given the good RPS system. If we can't come to a consensus on this then it should be dropped (but why not allow a toggle 2,3,4,5,6,7 max?? well, I guess because that would take time away from dealing with more important issues).

I like your points re: toggle's instead of removing issues. But adding a toggle is a big change to the code (I think) and I think it is less likely they will toggle something for us than just nix it.

On banners, are you suggesting we "toggle banners on/off"? Or just leave this as it is? Also, do you disagree with allowing multiple factions?

I don't understand your point re: running--the problem is if some units are running in the group and others are walking, you can't make them all run or all walk with one key. Hitting the R key just reverses who was walking before. This is not a critical problem, but it can be annoying.

re: general rally ability, I agree the gen should be important, but everytime you click on the general shortcut it zooms to him--so there is no easy way to rally without changing your view of the battle which doesn't make much sense. Again this is a rather minor issue given the other big issues we face, so I will consider dropping it.

Good points I will keep them in mind for the final draft.

[Dionysus9]

D6,

Thanks for helping out-- we need more discussion like this from folks.

It is difficult to get 200 people to agree to the same thing, even if you have years of face-to-face conferences. At some point we will all have to agree on something that is "close enough" to what we want. I'm doing my best to sort through and compile all the issues and so of course they are sometimes being filtered through my eyes. Rational discussion with clear points, like you are bringing to the table, is critical to keep a broad consensus. So thanks!

I can see your point on the unit tax, and I think it is something that can be done by "4 max" rules anyway-- so if it will keep your clan from signing the petition I will remove it. (what is your clan?) Also, Yuuki has said he thinks it is unnecessary given the good RPS system. If we can't come to a consensus on this then it should be dropped (but why not allow a toggle 2,3,4,5,6,7 max?? well, I guess because that would take time away from dealing with more important issues).

I like your points re: toggle's instead of removing issues. But adding a toggle is a big change to the code (I think) and I think it is less likely they will toggle something for us than just nix it.

On banners, are you suggesting we "toggle banners on/off"? Or just leave this as it is? Also, do you disagree with allowing multiple factions?

I don't understand your point re: running--the problem is if some units are running in the group and others are walking, you can't make them all run or all walk with one key. Hitting the R key just reverses who was walking before. This is not a critical problem, but it can be annoying.

re: general rally ability, I agree the gen should be important, but everytime you click on the general shortcut it zooms to him--so there is no easy way to rally without changing your view of the battle which doesn't make much sense. Again this is a rather minor issue given the other big issues we face, so I will consider dropping it.

Good points I will keep them in mind for the final draft.

[Dionysus9]

D6,

Thanks for helping out-- we need more discussion like this from folks.

It is difficult to get 200 people to agree to the same thing, even if you have years of face-to-face conferences. At some point we will all have to agree on something that is "close enough" to what we want. I'm doing my best to sort through and compile all the issues and so of course they are sometimes being filtered through my eyes. Rational discussion with clear points, like you are bringing to the table, is critical to keep a broad consensus. So thanks!

I can see your point on the unit tax, and I think it is something that can be done by "4 max" rules anyway-- so if it will keep your clan from signing the petition I will remove it. (what is your clan?) Also, Yuuki has said he thinks it is unnecessary given the good RPS system. If we can't come to a consensus on this then it should be dropped (but why not allow a toggle 2,3,4,5,6,7 max?? well, I guess because that would take time away from dealing with more important issues).

I like your points re: toggle's instead of removing issues. But adding a toggle is a big change to the code (I think) and I think it is less likely they will toggle something for us than just nix it.

On banners, are you suggesting we "toggle banners on/off"? Or just leave this as it is? Also, do you disagree with allowing multiple factions?

I don't understand your point re: running--the problem is if some units are running in the group and others are walking, you can't make them all run or all walk with one key. Hitting the R key just reverses who was walking before. This is not a critical problem, but it can be annoying.

re: general rally ability, I agree the gen should be important, but everytime you click on the general shortcut it zooms to him--so there is no easy way to rally without changing your view of the battle which doesn't make much sense. Again this is a rather minor issue given the other big issues we face, so I will consider dropping it.

Good points I will keep them in mind for the final draft.

[FearZeus]

Thx for your support bacchus, I knew you of all people would never let the total war community down ;)

Now guys can I go to bed i'm fecking knackered

hehe, no seriously thanks to all who believed in me, kyolic, grizzly, scar and prometheus of which I would never of getting the message across... And thanx to everyone who signed the list and had to put up with our rants eheheh ;)

[Paul Morris]

I support the petition also. Multiplayer is a big disappointment. I'd like to think it can be improved enough with patches but i have my doubts.

[Tera]

There is one thing we all agree on: Multiplayer needs several fixes and additions. It's not satisfactory as it is. It's useless to fight among ourselves on what to fix and what not: especially on rather trivial/merely annoying tidbits - or else the developers will just divide and rule. And I don't blame them when all they see are a handful of multiplayer monkeys fighting on a piece of bread. Bachus often mentions a prioritised list of multiplayer wishes --this should be done.

However, this petition is flawed in certain aspects. The list was posted middle-way in the thread and the discussion is rapidly degenerating. Let's first agree that multiplayer needs attention, needs a complete, extensive patch. This is the whole purpose of the petition. CA are saying that "multiplayer is good as it is". Let's first show them it's not...

Then we can move on to a complete, prioritised list ...and hopefully can start a discussion with CA on what is fix-able and what is not. For example -realistically - the general will still have the special ability to rally. The community is divided on the issue and personally I don't see a reason why those who didn't play STW/MTW before would want it changed. For God's sake, the struggle here is not between those who played STW/MTW and those who didn't. It's not the hardcore vs noobs. The struggle is between those who want change and will fight for it, and those who want to resist change or are indifferent to it: either because they never saw Total War MP as it was before (ie. new players) or because they are of the "will you stop ranting" stock, who accept RTW as a totally new game and are willing to start anew. I'm sure many new players would fully appreciate most of our concerns about MP. The new players never saw a 4v4, never had withdraw or rout: its our responsibility to share our concerns with them. We would undoubtedly gain many new powerful allies, because we would pull the marketing target group of CA onto our side.

Some issues will never be solved. The old multiplayer community enjoyed the old features while the newer community is enjoying the new ones. The old timers are just fond of the traditional way-of-things and want to resist change or evolution. Here are two: the run ('r') toggle and the rally special ability. CA will never change anything if an issue/s is only affecting the smaller hardcore, old multiplayer community, while the newer players are fully enjoying themselves. And you and I can't blame them for that. CA will only fix issues which the large majority of the whole community would benefit from.. That's why we need to identify the issues which should be given priority and are agreed upon by everyone. There are several: I don't think anyone would object having better logfiles, the F1 unit screen info, the option to choose the same faction twice or more in the same game or a map editor! And we're NOT speaking of tidbits in unit balance yet -- and there will be probably many! We need to work on these issues, and make sure we get the support of everyone.

Other issues are all about flexibility. For example, let's take 4v4:

PROS: 4v4s were huge fun, it was very exciting with eight armies clashing against each other.

CONS: 4v4s in RTW would lag too much. Moreover, most competitions used 3v3 anyway, where's the problem? In addition, now we have 20units/army so - ha! - you still got your 10,000 troops!

Solution? Give us a 4v4 option. Those who don't want to play 4v4 won't be coerced to play it, wouldn't they? However, give the possibility for everyone to play 4v4! If it lags, we can always restrict the number of units/player...say having sixteen units per player rather than twenty - while still having eight brains in one huge game.

Another take...the unit tax (5th+ unit of the same type costs more) was removed in RTW. The unit tax was introduced in MTW merely as a 'medicine' against mediocre unit balance. There were several overpowering units that needed to be controlled somehow and getting five, six or more of a single unit-type would prove to be extremely expensive, thus the unit tax was very good to avoid seeing 10 byzantine infantry or 10 lancers. However, removing the unit tax makes sense in a nearly-perfect balanced environment since there should be no truly overpowering units. However is RTW perfectly balanced? Having no unit tax will mean that we will be forced to create an official patch/unofficial mod balanced environment. Nothing against that, but it's reality. Through the unit tax, we could somehow get away with byzantine infantry or lancers, since their numbers were controlled at normal money levels. Obviously, there is another upside of having no unit tax: finally we can have excellent tactical battles like a player taking all-cav while another taking all-infantry - and so on - without any money restrictions.

...

On again..off again...I hope we get something out of this.

I fully support the purpose of the petition.