Good policy decision, or a bit cynical?

[Wellington]

A quick whinge

I (along with many others - past, present and future) am currently struggling with amending Script parameters (Early.txt/High.txt/Late.txt) for a special purpose mod.

Now then. If we have problems in some areas of MTW (DirectX/surface errors, file I/O errors and the like) then we get lovely error messages in Error.txt - which, of course, can then be forwarded to CA in order to assist them in fixing the bug. Wonderful

Then again, if we amend the Scripts and do something wrong then what error message do we get? Absolutely sweet FA, zilch, nothing

However, can anyone really imagine that CA's testers/QA people laboured under the same constraints when they were writing these Scripts? If they had, I would suggest MTW would still be in QA today

So what does this mean? Can we reasonably conclude -

a) There IS/ARE extensive validation routines within MTW pertaining to Script parameters; as we can all see when an incorrect Script does'nt show up in the campaign game menu.
b) CA MUST have originally issued error messages, however limited, when MTW was being developed, in association with these validation routines in order to assist their own staff's testing/QA (otherwise - what's the point of validation if you don't tell the tester what's gone wrong?)
c) The same error message routines for Script validation MUST have been either disabled or removed before they shipped the final MTW product to their customers (ie: us&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif


This leads me to surmise 2 things -

a) If we (the customer's) find faults in CA's product that is in a area that we can't modify, that may go wrong depending on customers Graphics cards/hardware, and is in a crucial area of CA's product, then CA want to know about it - and consequently they provide sufficient error messages (in error.txt) in order to help US assist THEM with THEIR problem.
b) If we (the customer's) have problems modding an area in CA's product that CA knows CAN'T go wrong (obviously not as all 3 original Scripts work&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif - then CA not only don't want to know about it, BUT will remove any error messages that may have assisted US in OUR modding endeavours.

Does anyone see a paradox here?


Ok, maybe CA produce excellent Games - but I'm certainly not impressed with some of their more cynical 'policy decisions' http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

Fair comment? Does this suck or not? Any opinions, any offers, er ...

... CA?

[Lord Gnome]

I share your frustation but I'm not sure how reasonable it is to conclude CA are a particularly cynical company. We just don't know, maybe there really never were error messages for loading scripts. Whilst certain errors in a startpos file simply cause it not to be recognised by the game I'm pretty sure other errors do 'slip through' and let you see and select the campaign file in MTW and only crash when you try and actually start a new game with it (units that can't belong to their starting region's owner's culture do this I think.).

I agree we need to know exactly what these 'rules' are though.

Best would be if a kindly soul from CA would drop by and clarify things. A nice complete list of all the rules on formatting, valid parameters and those niggly little cross-checks in the data (like culture of units vs region owners) would do nicely.

I find although it appears pretty straightforward to get stuff working in startpos (and there's plenty of user campaigns etc) I seem to have about 1 in 5 of my own creations just fail to show up in the selection screen. Annoying when you make a lot of what you think are straight forward changes and then it just fails.

Also useful would be a proper debugging mode in the game, where you can play 'hands-off' or switch sides, or at least view what's going on everywhere in full detail. As it is trying to test user made campaigns is an uncertain science. (I won't hold my breath for this though.)

btw- is there any useful info on startpos files (other than those already linked in the editing guide) buried in the forum anywhere? I haven't been around here too long and when I use the search I just get links to green-'no longer on the server' pages.

[Lord Krazy]

First of all I'd like to point out that Welly never
said that CA were a cynical company.

He only put forth the suggestion
that they may have some cynical
ploicy.This can only be answered by CA
and they won't, most likly. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

If they did not have this sort of protection
then smart ass modders like you and I http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
would have released a quite good
and playable Roman mod for example.
I commited myself to a roman mod for this game
while I was still playin the demo.
I made the first roman test unit when
I was playing the demo.Little did I know
at that stage that rome was already on the cards.

So the six months I'v spent with you and others
working out that it's a pain in the hole,
was the thing that stoped us developing
this game to our tastes in a manner one could
call "realistic".
Enough time for them to figure
what is popular and which direction to take next.

I think it's more a case of them having a
pecking order for their coustomer base

Multiplayers ( the people who keep on the net)VIP

SinglePlayers ( Larger market but less promotion)

Modders ( nice to have for free testing,brainstorming,
concept and designe but not of any real value
to them)

So you can be sure this will continue.
This is not cynical it's business.

LK http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Wellington]

I agree 100% LK,

Thank's for clarifying my initial post - I certainly did'nt say CA are a cynical company (and don't think so). I appreciate many of the comments made by CA staff in this and other forums, but it has'nt gone unnoticed that their post's to some threads tend to be a little 'selective'. Obviously so. The CA guys who post on these forums don't make policy - they merely abide by it

Also, spot on your pointing out, LK, that we modders, whilst contributing more than our fair whack of bug-solving/determination, would appear to be on the bottom rung of CA's 'Jacobs Ladder'.

(BTW: don't feel too peeved by the immense work you, LBA and others have put into the New Units and the Roman stuff. Whilst it may be a pisser in light of TW3 it certainly has'nt gone unnoticed or unappreciated from the members of this group - and thank's for all your efforts in this respect)


LG - I know what your saying and you may be right in some regard. However, 3points -

1) I can't possibly believe that CA's QA people could write one-thousand odd lines of Script files without having some form of 'validation feedback' in the form of messages in order to correct error's. They would be screaming blue murder

2) Amending Scripts for a couple of simple changes is generally not too painful. However, try asking individuals who have made multiple changes to such Scripts if the success rate for every change was 80% (4 out of 5) ... er... I think NOT

3) Giskard wrote a reasonable guide. A little bit outdated in view of what 'we' know since he compiled it but it's still fine as a guide to explaining the Script keywords/parameters. Find it here - http://www.totalwar.org/Downloa...._V1.zip (http://www.totalwar.org/Downloads/faqs/mtw/Giskard_mtw-camp-tutorial_V1.zip)

[Lord Gnome]

Wellington, I'll agree it seems incredible that they had no validation feedback, maybe they've got their own scenario editor they just won't release (for good buisness reasons maybe?) but more likely your explanation.
Are you saying 80% is a high success rate? If so I have been lucky but that 20% still annoys me a lot
And thanks for the pointer to Giskard's guide. I had figured a lot of that stuff from here and looking at the files but it's handy to have confirmation of the rules you think you know. Do you have any insights on what some of the more evasive rules are? (namely the ones that cause my scipts not to work http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

okay, good points, you weren't saying CA are a cynical company (any more than any other buisness) just observing what they pick and choose to give us. And it says something that they give us the txt files to play with in the first place (even if without documentation or error messages).
But does this 'selective' answering of theirs mean we won't get any hard and fast answers on what isn't known about validating the scripts?

perhaps some guru modder (*cough* LK or Wellington) would like to write an up to date 'Startpos files in MTW, how, what, where, why and "lots more"' type post http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif?

[Lord Krazy]

Quote[/b] ]But does this 'selective' answering of theirs mean we won't get any hard and fast answers on what isn't known about validating the scripts?

In a nut shell yes it means you won't http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif


Quote[/b] ]perhaps some guru modder (*cough* LK or Wellington) would like to write an up to date 'Startpos files in MTW, how, what, where, why and "lots more"' type post http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif?


Cough knows more than me ask him http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

No but seriously it's been so long scince
I looked at giskards guide
I had not realised it stoped doing it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

Without validation codes the only scientific way to
change this file is to load it after every change.
I'll have a look at the guide again and see what
it covers and if I can add anything.
But writing guides is not my speciality.

LK http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

[PanthaPower]

Ah, the lack of error messages... Drives me nuts sometimes... Together with Whitey I'm building a LOTR campaign from scratch and you don't want to know how many hours of testing and changing we already put into it. Wellington is right, at first it seems that it is pretty straightforward to edit the startpos files. But when you start some serious modding, you'll get into trouble. That's also the reason why we haven't seen a complete new playable campaign map yet.

Anyway, yes I also think CA removed the error logging part on purpose to make it very hard for modders to create a complete new game.

[Wellington]

C'mon CA,

Any reply in defence/respect of yourselves/your opinions/Company policy ... er ... CA Staff?

I thought you CA guys always perused threads and postings in order to ascertain opinions, or give advice.

Hhhmmm ... nothing so far ... then again I did'nt really expect a response from CA's staff They are obviously handcuffed in terms of what they can say and what they MUST NOT SAY

Ok. Just serves to prove the point of this thread.

[Lord Gnome]

looks like you guys are right, silence from CA speaks volumes...

[GilJaysmith]

All the startpos files were written by programmers or the designer-programmer, who were able to test them in-game in the debug mode and could see exactly what had gone wrong at any time. Since everyone was short on time, debugging routines for third parties never actually got written, because as far as internal development was concerned, they were never needed.

So: "out of time to add helpful debug info for modders", yes. "Cynical", no.

I'm not wholly impressed by the way that this thread so swiftly deteriorated into CA-abuse. But thanks for demonstrating how cynical you all are.

As for assuming that "silence speaks volumes": you, sir, are a cad. It might instead be that no-one here is reading the Mods forum. Apparently it's just as well I felt nostalgic this lunchtime.

Grrrrrr.

[Wellington]

Quote[/b] (GilJaysmith @ Jan. 15 2003,08:07)]All the startpos files were written by programmers or the designer-programmer, who were able to test them in-game in the debug mode and could see exactly what had gone wrong at any time. Since everyone was short on time, debugging routines for third parties never actually got written, because as far as internal development was concerned, they were never needed.

So: "out of time to add helpful debug info for modders", yes. "Cynical", no.

I'm not wholly impressed by the way that this thread so swiftly deteriorated into CA-abuse. But thanks for demonstrating how cynical you all are.

As for assuming that "silence speaks volumes": you, sir, are a cad. It might instead be that no-one here is reading the Mods forum. Apparently it's just as well I felt nostalgic this lunchtime.

Grrrrrr.
Gil,

Ok, if the startpos files were tested via an MTW 'debug' mode that explains it and answers my question. Thanks for that. Can we use this 'debug' mode in our versions of MTW, or was it removed before shipping?

As for "CA-abuse"? I certainly don't consider anything I've written in this thread to be "CA-abuse", but offer my apologies if you've read anything that leads you to that conclusion. I'm also reluctant to receive "abuse". However, I'm also capable of differentiating between abuse and criticism.

As for the comment "silence speaks volumes". You've previously said in other threads that either yourself or other CA staff read almost every thread in this Mod's forum There must have been at least a dozen threads in this forum pertaining to, for example, changing faction colours but I've yet to see any post by CA in such threads. Even a "Sorry but it can't be done" response would be nice. Therefore, does silence speak volumes? Of course it does.

Finally, if you really feel that perusing the threads in this forum is merely 'nostalgia', then who's the real cynic?

[PanthaPower]

Quote[/b] (GilJaysmith @ Jan. 15 2003,14:07)]All the startpos files were written by programmers or the designer-programmer, who were able to test them in-game in the debug mode and could see exactly what had gone wrong at any time. Since everyone was short on time, debugging routines for third parties never actually got written, because as far as internal development was concerned, they were never needed.

So: "out of time to add helpful debug info for modders", yes. "Cynical", no.

I'm not wholly impressed by the way that this thread so swiftly deteriorated into CA-abuse. But thanks for demonstrating how cynical you all are.

As for assuming that "silence speaks volumes": you, sir, are a cad. It might instead be that no-one here is reading the Mods forum. Apparently it's just as well I felt nostalgic this lunchtime.

Grrrrrr.
Thanks for clearing this one up Gil. I always appreciate your feedback.
Probably the reason why modders might think the debug info was kept out of the game is that the posibilities of modding the game are sky high but the reason why modding is difficult is because there is no debug. It frustrates a lot of people so I hope you can understand peoples frustrations. I also spend countless nights trying to figure out what I've did wrong so that my LOTR campaign map is not working.

Anyway, hope you don't take it too personally. If my response offended you somehow, I apologize. Hope to read lots of your posts here at the Dungeon.

[Lord Gnome]

Gil, if you would take a moment to listen to a cad, (a cad wallowing in the nostalgia of the mod forum even...)
[as an aside it's hard to see why you would insinuate I am dishonourable, ho-hum.]

Thanks for the info regarding how the scripts were done, thus ends some speculation on our parts.

Now it seems to me that everyone who has posted in this thread has gone out of their way to say CA were not a "bad" company, just that their (your) hands are tied re: what info you can give us on modding. Is that abusing CA? I do not think it was abuse, and do not believe it was intended as such. I certainly did not intend to offend you (or anyone at CA) and if my line "silence speaks volumes" did so then I apologise, it was meant as an observation, not an insult. For the record I have a lot of respect for games developers who actually turn out great games, there's a lot of crap released and the two TW titles stand head and shoulders above 99% of the usual flotsam you see in the high street. So, thanks for a great game. And as I said before, I think we all appreciate having the txt files to work with in the first place.

Perhaps our comments do seem a trifle cynical. Well... kind of. Maybe we are completely wrong though, maybe there are no restrictions on what info you can give us. Maybe modders aren't last in the pecking order of customers. On the other hand perhaps it is just good buisness to keep certain things under your hat, if we got all the info we wanted we might possibly be releasing free expansion sets after all. (I'm not saying they'd be as slick as a CA produced expansion but still.) Of course, I'm sure there are a host of other reasons why we might not get all the information we want but as we don't know why we haven't been given it we speculate... and as CA are not only in the buisness of making great games but also in the buisness of turning a profit it seems not unreasonable to assume there are certain limits on what info CA as a company will give us. If this is incorrect then I would be delighted to be proved wrong

Assuming the debug mode isn't present in the release version of MTW (am I just being cynical? why not leave it in? maybe it's in and we just haven't asked nicely enough? god, if it's in and you tell us how to activate it I'll sing your praises from the rooftops and defend CA to the death ), is there any chance we might get some inside info on the rules for validating startpos files? I understand you might not personally have this info but there must be someone at CA who does. Any scraps we could be spared would be most gratefully recieved I'm sure.

btw - I can't help but notice that the mod forum can only possibly be nostalgic to someone who regards MTW as being the past, strange as for the rest of us MTW is most certainly in the present http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif sigh, I guess my dreams of a 1.2 patch to fix the GA mode and random ctd's really are just fantasy.

respectfully,
Lord Bounder
(who if pushed would have to insist that he IS a man of honour, I believe pistols at dawn are customary in this situation http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif, I live about 30 mins from Littlehampton if you want to give it a shot.)

[+DOC+]

i must admit, the fact the GAs remain unfixed with no suggestion of being fixed with a patch is really hard to take as that was the sole way i played MTW.

Pure conquest gets a little tedious.

[GilJaysmith]

Quote[/b] (Wellington @ Jan. 15 2003,14:08)]
The "debug mode" is a matter of building the debug config of the code in DevStudio. Aside from having much more useful debugging facilities, this runs at a noticeable fraction of full speed, so no-one ships it as the final release.

It was the case that we read pretty much every thread when I made the original comment, but I'm afraid it isn't the case anymore. I stopped checking the forums on a regular, looking-for-stuff-to-answer basis last week, and was only here because I wanted to track down some MP-wishlist posts which I remembered from last year. The reason many modding questions didn't get answered is that the people who knew the answers didn't read the forums.

Goodbye again.

[barocca]

I have uploaded a little program that will help to find and hopefully solve some modders problems (a little), but is definately not a debug program,

============
READ ME FILE
============
this is a handy little utility for watching a process load and the calls to files it makes,

it is old and a little unstable,
your safest bet is to close all other windows apps, load this program and tell it to start logging (events) then load the program you want to see "load",
once you have reached the point where you feel the "error" you are trying to track has passed then alt tab out,
turn logging off (events) and save the output (file),
do not scan through the output while this program is still active,
it may lock up and you may lose all the wonderful info you have just gathered.
the output files can be read in wordpad.

FOR EXAMPLE, the prince portraits in medieval,
==============================================
get to a point in medieval where you have a couple of princes running around,
alt tab out, load this program, start logging, alt tab back into medieval and look at a prince,
then alt tab out, stop logging and save the output,

when you scan through the output file in wordpad you will notice that when you "selected" your prince the game does not even look for the prince portraits, it immediately selects a portrait from the generals folder,
this indicates a hard code error that we cannot workaround.

================================================
All credits go to mark russinovich and bryce cogswell, who let their domain name expire and i have no clue where to find them now...
Barocca

============

FileMon.zip
http://www.totalwar.org/Downloads/Mtw_Uploads/MTWupload/

Giljay, maybe they were being a little cynical, but these are the guys who spend hours trying to make a little something extra for medieval for the enjoyment of all, only to have the whole shebang CTD without so much as a "by your leave" - frustration is a natural consequence.

When we see an error message (failed to load hard sprites for example) we at least have half a clue what we have forgotten or not quite got correct yet, but to be dumped to desktop without a warning has had me screaming and cursing at the monitor on more than one occaision.

So they come here and let off a little steam, and we feed them tranquilisers (coffee/chocolate/ice cream etc.) and platitudes till they clam down,
and then they go right back to trying to find their error...
((it is my opinion we have saved the lives of more than a few innocent PC Monitors this way))
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

cheers B.

[Wellington]

Definition -

Cynic: "A person who knows the price of everything - but the value of nothing"

(Ambrose Bierce - 1892 reproduced in "The Devils Dictionary" - published by Penguin Classics)

100+ years ago ... how apt he was