PDA

View Full Version : First Full Draft of Formal Petition (review and comment here)



Dionysus9
10-08-2004, 21:37
Alright, I've done my best to winnow the issues down to those critical issues we can all agree on. The letter is dradted on my letter head, which is why I personally introduce the Petition. Please read this through and comment--let me know if you disagree with anything or believe I've left out anything critical.

___________


COX & ASSOCIATES, LLC
Attorneys & Counselors at Law

[address omitted]


From The Desk Of
Sia Rezvani

[contact info omitted]

[name of president]
President of the Creative Assembly President of Activision
[address]

Re: Rome: Total War

Gentlemen:

Greetings. Please know I represent the Total War multi-player community–not as an attorney, but as a community representative of the many players of your ground-breaking series of “Total War” games. Today I present to you a Petition that has been submitted to and approved by a truly impressive number of concerned Total War players. I hope you will take the time out of your busy schedule to read and consider our concerns regarding the state of Rome: Total War’s multi-player interface.

If you do not have the time or inclination to consider this letter, I strongly urge you to forward it to the appropriate personnel so that our concerns might properly be addressed.

First, let me apologize for any alarm my letterhead may have caused you, as I am not making legal demands in this letter, and I am not acting as an attorney, but only wish to bring our concerns as a community of players to your attention. Our earnest hope is that our concerns will be addressed, and this format seems to be the most direct manner of bringing our concerns to you.

Second, I feel it is important to note this petition has its genesis in the deep passion the signatories feel for the Total War series and that our only goal is to help you improve the multi-player portion of this fascinating game you have created. I hope it is obvious we would not go to such lengths as a community if we did not feel a very strong fondness for the Total War series and an equally strong desire to see the series survive and flourish. The enclosed Petition represents our passion for, and dedication to, the success of the Total War series as a multi-player experience and we feel the following issues must be addressed or the muti-player end of Rome: Total War will suffer and decline. We truly hope you will receive this Petition in the spirit of progress and cooperation in which it is delivered . Therefore, without further ado, I present to you the:


Formal Petition of the Multi-Player Rome: Total War Community to the Creative Assembly

We, the undersigned, humbly request the Creative Assembly address the following issues related to multi-player Rome: Total War:

I. Critical Flaws (these flaws absolutely must be addressed:

Synchronicity – The initial release of R:TW was critically flawed in that the “game state” would “diverge” during multi-player battles. What this means is that the game being played on Computer A is different from the game being played on Computer B. The recent readme for the initial patch (v. 1.1) indicates “some” synchronicity problems have been resolved, and initial tests indicate the problem has been improved. However, since the patch does not purport to resolve all synchronicity problems we are making this request: please ensure that the game-state stays synchronized on all computers during a battle, and that if the game-state should happen to diverge for any reason, on any computer, the divergent player is immediately dropped from the game.

Lag–
There are a number of reasons for in-game lag, some of which have nothing to do with R:TW coding– but many players with high-end computers are reporting significant in-game lag. If all players’ computer’s in a battle significantly exceed the minimum requirements there should not be lag, but there is. This is a major problem that needs to be addressed as soon as possible, or many players will quit in frustration and new players who read the forums will not purchase the game.

Army Control – There are several issues with respect to moving and controlling the player’s army that should be addressed which are critical.

* The “Move and retain facing” command has been completely removed:
It goes without saying that a general must have a high degree of control over the movement of his army. Perhaps most importantly, the army must be able to stay in formation while on the move, and the army must be able to “wheel” to face the enemy. In Medieval: Total War the players’ control over their armies was very good, in that the players could “wheel” their army to face the enemy and then issue a movement order–and when the army arrived at the ordered destination it would still be facing the enemy. This was achieved by holding the ALT key and making a left click move order. This “move and retain facing” command was the primary method used by players to move their armies during battle. Unfortunately, this command has been completely omitted from Rome: Total War. In R:TW the “wheel” command is still present () and the move command is still present, but the two commands can no longer be used in conjunction with each other. In R:TW, as soon as an army has been ordered to “move” it forgets the direction it was facing before the move order. That was not a problem in M:TW:. Put simply, armies can no longer be moved cohesively when an enemy is nearby. This has seriously hampered our ability to control our armies and is considered a major problem by the majority of players.

* Army cohesion is non-existent when using roman-numeral “G”roups:
As you might imagine, a general may wish to organize his army into segments (for example, a right-flank cavalry group, a central infantry group, and a left-flank cavalry group). The grouping system in M:TW was excellent and allowed players to move their entire army in formation while also using these types of groups. Unfortunately, in R:TW, the grouping system has been radically altered. The critical problem appears to be a bug that treats each group as a distinct army–the result is that when a player attempts to move his entire army, and the army is in groups, the groups “forget” their relationship to one another (i.e. their formation as an army) and end up piling on top of each other after executing a move order. Each “group” is independently moving to the site of the move order and forgetting its place in the army–i.e. there is no army cohesion–all formation is lost and the groups attempt to stand on top of one another when they reach their destination. This essentially makes using groups a detriment to the player, since if the units are ungrouped they will remember their formation. This has also seriously hampered our ability to control our armies and is also considered a major problem by the majority of players.

* Grouped units often refuse to take orders (most commonly the run order):
This is a very annoying bug that requires the player “ungroup” the units, re-group them, and then re-issue the intended command. Again this discourages the use of groups (which are a critical army control tool). This bug must be fixed or players will have insufficient control over their armies. To make matters worse, the fact that there is only a run “toggle” and not a run-key and walk-key makes it difficult to give orders to grouped units, because if some of the units in the group are already running, hitting the “R”un key makes them walk, but makes the other (previously walking) units run!? We should be able to command the group to run as a group or walk as a group, which is currently impossible.

Testudo Formation bug--
When a unit is in “testudo” (turtle) formation, if it touches any other unit, you lose control of the unit in testudo formation for the rest of the game. This is a bug that basically makes testudo formation unusable.

II. Very Important Issues (these issues are very important for community growth)

Replay Synchronicity and Information--
The replay function is an invaluable tool for learning from one’s mistakes and also for training newer players, but it is a critical tool for community tournaments. The reason is because the rules of tournaments often disallow certain types of in-game behavior (such as remaining stationary at the top of a very large hill, or wedging one’s army in a corner [“camping”]). Also, occasionally a player will lose his connection near the conclusion of a tournament match and the tournament director may need to determine the result of the match by viewing the replay. In any case, it is critical for a thriving multi-player community to be able to view the replays of important matches. Currently the replay function is fatally flawed in that it displays a battle other than the battle that was actually fought. This makes the replay function useless. Also, the replay lacks any information regarding the types of units, the players controlling them, the fatigue level of the units, etc. So even if the synchronicity problem is fixed, the replays themselves will be virtually impossible to decipher because the unit information (the information a player obtains in battle by hovering his mouse over the unit) is missing. Neither of these issues were problems in M:TW.

Logfile Information--
Likewise, many tournaments have rules about which units may be fielded (or how many of a certain type may be fielded). The “logfile” is the tournament directors only way of determining whether the army selection rules have been followed, and is also commonly used to calculate a winner (by determining how many men each side fielded and lost). This information should be contained in the logfile of the battle. In M:TW the logfiles displayed detailed information about the units fielded by each player, the number of men in each unit at the conclusion of the battle, and the results of the battle. In R:TW this information is simple non-existent. The R:TW logfile does not have this critical information, and so it will be difficult or impossible to administer tournaments until the replays and logfiles are returned to M:TW standards. If a player alleges that his enemy has “cheated” in the tournament, the tourney director currently has no way of investigating or resolving the complaint.

“Proprietary” player names –
One of the greatest aspects of multi-player Total War is the reputation for honor and skill that players can develop with practice and by winning tournaments. Unfortunately in R:TW anyone can masquerade as a top player simply by stealing that player’s name. That was not possible in previous TW games, since player names were linked to CD keys. Currently anyone can log on and pretend to be the top tournament player, and in the process make all sorts of obscene and degenerative remarks, play poorly, and tarnish the real-player’s reputation. This makes it almost pointless to compete in tournaments or attempt to establish a reputation as a honorable and skilled player– since any little punk can ruin your reputation by masquerading under your name. The effect is to actually discourage the best players from seeking fame and glory in the community, which is detrimental to community growth (and sales).

Lack of Map Editor and Historical Battle Editor –
In previous TW games, many players created their own maps and historical battle for a number of different reasons, including tournaments, re-enactments, custom modifications, TW art, and simple variety of play. The ability to create these custom engagements was a touchstone of the “mod” community–and without the ability to customize maps and historical battles, that formerly sizeable portion of the multi-player community is likely to dwindle and decline. The ability to customize the R:TW experience would be a huge draw for potential new customers (players) who wish to have more control over their TW experience.

III. Important–(things that make the game highly frustrating)

Withdrawal/Rout function doesn’t work --
As in the game of chess, a defeated general often wishes to “resign” from the battle by conceding defeat. This saves everyone time, saves lives :), and saves the general’s dignity. This was always possible in previous TW games, but the function has been removed in R:TW. The result is that players who wish to “quit” a game quickly must simply “drop” from the game. When that occurs, the dropped players units remain on the battle field and must be “mopped up” by the remaining players–which can take quite a long time. Also, a general may wish to feign a retreat in order to draw the enemy in (such as at the battle of Cannae). Finally, a general may wish to withdraw tired or demoralized troops before they rout and effect army morale. Currently it is impossible to withdraw units from a multi-player battle, or even to order them to flee. This is a major inconvenience and seriously hampers gameplay. A related issue is that once a player has lost all of his units he should be able to view the battle from any angle–however, for some reason if the host has selected “restricted camera” even a fully-routed player may not view the battle properly; he is instead restricted to a small area of the map which is extremely frustrating given that the player no longer has any units to command and would like to watch the battle unfold. Please allow routed players to have an unrestricted view of the battle.

Game info is unavailable from the lobby –
It is impossible to tell whether a game you have joined is in “arcade” mode, or whether the host has chosen “heavy rain”– both options have a significant effect on the types of armies a player will choose for the battle, and not knowing what settings the host is using is a major disadvantage for all players who join the battle. Also, unlike in previous TW games, it is impossible to tell whether a person listed in the lobby player list is “in a game” (i.e. fighting on the battlemap) or whether he is in the lobby and able to chat. In previous TW games the players’ names would “grey out” when they went in a game so that their friends in the lobby would know they could not be reached by chat.

#Ignore and #Ban commands in Gamespy lobby are missing–
Unfortunately modern life involves dealing with some very rude and obscene people. The R:TW Gamespy lobby is no exception, and the streams of obscenities that some people spout are truly shocking and offensive. It is currently impossible to ignore those people and their degenerative remarks (while it was possible in previous TW games). It is also impossible to ban them from joining your games (once they join you can “kick” them, but they can just rejoin, ad infinitum, to be a pain). Please bring back these two important lobby functions.

In Game Chat is Cumbersome –
In order to chat within the game a player must now hit a minimum of three keys, first a key to open the chat interface, then a key to determine who the chat is addressed to, then a key to determine whether the message will be “pre-recorded” or “custom”, and then finally the actual message. In the heat of battle it is difficult enough to hit one key in order to chat, let alone three. The result is that players are no longer chatting in battles. We need some sort of “quick chat” function, as in MTW (“T” was chat to all, “Y” was chat to allies; it required hitting only one key). The chat interface is now so frustrating that it is not being used during the heat of battle, which is a shame as it was invaluable in previous releases.
In Game Army Information is Missing–
In prior releases, the F1 key would show an overview of the battle– the teams, their designation as attacker or defender, the players on each team, the factions selected by each player, and also a list of each unit in your army together with its unique unit statistics. For no explicable reason that invaluable information is no longer available to players within the game. It is now difficult to tell which side is attacker and defender and what factions/players are on each team. There is no reason why this information should not be available to the players. Also, during the deployment phase, it is impossible to tell who has deployed their army (and is waiting to begin) and who has walked away from their computer without deploying. This is extremely frustrating as it is impossible to tell who is holding up the completion of the deployment phase (in prior versions it was always possible to tell). Please bring back this in-game information. Also, many players report having difficulty in telling which unit icons are selected because the “highlighting” for a selected unit icon is only marginally brighter than a non-selected unit. Please increase the contrast between selected and unselected unit icons.

IV. Assorted Annoyances (these are things that would enhance the quality of play for us)

Fixed Denari Amounts--
In previous versions of TW, the host was able to customize the amount of money available to each player to be spent on units. In R:TW the host has a limited number of monetary selections (5k, 10k, 20k, etc. per team) and no way to allow one team to have more money than another (which is an invaluable handicapping tool). It is also impossible to standardize a florin amount, when (for example) five teams are playing, and a sixth player wants to join, or when players would like to take 5k each in a 3v3. Please allow us to customize the amount of denari per team.

Zoom to Death of General–
Many players are distracted by the repeated changes in battle view anytime someone’s general dies. A player may be in the midst of a complex group movement command when his view of the battle is suddenly altered and he is taken to a view showing an enemy general’s death. This is distracting and frustrating for many players, and we would prefer to be able to toggle this as an option.

Unable to Chat in Host Screen after Selecting Army--
For some reason it is impossible to chat with other players in the game after you have selected your army and hit the lower-right “ready” arrow. This is very frustrating in that you are unable to communicate with allies or players who are dawdling in army selection without becoming “unready” which indicates to other players that they have more time to select their army because you aren’t ready. This is very frustrating and results in extended delays, especially when newer players are involved.

No Shell-to-Desktop
It is no longer possible to use ALT-TAB to shell to the desktop while in the Gamespy lobby (it creates major problems). This is frustrating when you are waiting for a friend to show up in the lobby and you need to check an email or post in a forum.

“Spanish” Faction
Several Spanish players have taken exception to the characterization of the hispanic faction as "Spanish" and they are requesting a change to "Celtiberian" or "Iberian" or "Hispanic.” This is regarded as a major historical error in that “Spain” did not exist until 1300 AD.

One Faction Limit
For some reason, players are prohibited from taking more than one of the same faction per game. This means it is impossible to have Carthage vs. Carthage (civil war) or three Carthage armies against three Roman armies (for historical re-enactments of large battles). Please allow us the option of toggling this limit on and off.

Full Screen (no Mini-map) Option
Many players find the R:TW minimap to be of little or no use and instead find that it takes up valuable screen space. Please allow us to toggle the mini-map and other interface clutter on and off.

4v4s–
This is a major concern in the community, but we realize it is a command decision that has been made by the developers and that it may be related to the lag problems. At the very least, please allow those of us with high-end computers the OPTION of having 4v4 battles. With normal unit sizes and a good computer it should be possible. This feature was a mainstay of Total War for years. Instead we now have 3v3's with 20 units per player (120 units total) whereas before we had 4v4's with 16 units per player (128 units total). We don’t understand why this huge leap backwards has occurred. We would be happy to take only 10 units per person if we could have 5v5s– so please at least allow us the option of having 4v4's (even if we have to take less than 16 units to make it playable). The team cooperation and camaraderie that is built in a 4v4 is unparalleled and it is now gone completely.
Realistic Fatigue--
We recognize that some new players may not be interested in realism and may want a more “arcade” style game, and that is fine– but we should at least be able to toggle realistic fatigue on and off. What is the point of having a “historic battle” where fatigue is not an issue? Fatigue is the fourth dimension of battlefield tactics and it has been reduced in importance to the extent that it can now be ignored. Please allow us to restore fatigue to the importance it really has in war.

V. Requests for Information

Combat Equation–
In order to determine what tactics will be most effective, we must have some idea of how combat is being resolved. What is the effect of adding one unit of valor? What is the effect of having 22 defense as opposed to 20? We currently have no idea how the unit stats relate to one another and how combat is being resolved. Please provide us with some insight into how combat between two units is being resolved.

Location of Speed Attribute–
Many players are unhappy with the running speed of various units and would like to modify the unit statistics to their own liking– however we are presently unable to locate the speed statistic so as to modify it. Any light that could be shed on its location would be much appreciated.

Permanent Liaison–
We also request that the Creative Assembly appoint an employee to act as a liaison between your company and the multi-player community so that we can address these concerns in more detail and help to avoid similar debacles in the future. We are willing to contribute incredible quantities of man-hours to the beta-testing, focus grouping, and overall improvement of the Total War series and thus far that potential marketing boon has been ignored. We can be reached en mass at either www.totalwar.org or www.totalwars.net.

Thank you very much for taking the time to understand and address our concerns.

Signed,



. . . . .



We wish you the best of luck in expanding the playership of Rome: Total War and we would like to thank you for developing this truly incredible game. Thank you again for your time and consideration.


Best Regards,


Sia Rezvani, aka |Prophet|Bachus

cc: The Creative Assembly Customer Support, via email; Activision Customer Support, via email, “The Shogun” at www.totalwar.com, via email; by posting at www.totalwar.org, www.totalwars.net, and www.totalwar.com.

d6veteran
10-08-2004, 22:11
Impressive. Well written. Sign me up.

FearZeus
10-08-2004, 22:49
seems your interested now, what took you so long, welcome aboard ;) rofl

Bachuss well done mate and thx, we still need to chat though! *imortant issue*

CBR
10-08-2004, 22:54
No need to sign up yet as this is just a draft.

Map Editor and Historical Battle Editor has been promised so no need to include that.

And that important issue can wait a bit Zeus ~:)


CBR

FearZeus
10-08-2004, 23:05
just to clarify, everyone must still sign in the petition list, not here! Lets keep it organised folks ;)

Well CBR if bacchus don't get back to me it won't make that list! But it's an issue that needs discussing ;)

CBR
10-08-2004, 23:09
Well its not like bachus is in a hurry. We can spend a few days discussing and changing this draft and we can see how it looks after the weekend.


CBR

FearZeus
10-08-2004, 23:10
Add this to the list inm the critical bacchus

1. FAILED TO CONNECT.

d6veteran
10-09-2004, 00:17
seems your interested now, what took you so long, welcome aboard ;) rofl


My lengthy posts in the other threads wasn't for lack of interest! Zues, your enthusiasm is great but there isn't a rush. It's been 2 or 3 days if that.

It seems like this is a different ship sailing so welcome aboard yourself ;)


+++

I'm assuming that once this is draft is finalized that there will be a new sign up thread to make it legit?

Puzz3D
10-09-2004, 00:39
Very well done Bachus with the reasoning behind each point clearly stated.

Shahed
10-09-2004, 01:32
Good work indeed ! Please add my name to the list if it's not too late:

Shahed Osman Kazi aka Sinan

LittleGrizzly
10-09-2004, 02:06
Bachus congrats well written with each point explained

Dionysus9
10-09-2004, 02:16
First, there is no hurry. Its not like we are afraid they are going to fix these issues before we can issue the petition! heheh. . . we have time to tweak it.

It would be best to have a fresh Petition List thread after we have finalized this petition. In my mind this is just the first full draft, and a second draft would be adviseable. And then a final draft to be submitted and signed by all. I recognize that these are urgent issues and that they must be brought to the forefront as soon as possible-- but it does not good if we do not truly have a consensus. You cannot vote for a proposal before it has been made, just as you cannot sign a petition that has not been drafted yet. So, I think perhaps Zeus has charged a bit early. . .

*hovers mouse over Zeus's general*
*mouse indicates Impetuous Charge*

lol :) but seriously--Zeus, your passion for progress and the game itself are commendable and if we had more folks around here like you there is nothing we couldn't achieve. But if CA looks at this and sees it has been done backwards, it will not help us. So I think as frustratingly slow as it may seem, we must do it right.

d6 and Yuuki--Thank you for the "thumbs up" as to form and content. Having satisfied both d6 and yuuki at the same time makes me feel like I have succeeded in crafting a document that captures our community consensus.

Zeus, what do we know about the "failed to connect" error? Why is it occurring? Under what conditions? Do we know? I thought it was a firewall problem that was resolved when the true ports were discovered. It seems that it only happens to some people and not others (when a person with a firewall is hosting, nobody can join their game). Can someone shed some light on this error and help me determine whether it is a bug?

You've seen the style of how the Petition raises these types of issues, so maybe you could draft a proposed "Failed to Connect Error" description which I could cut and paste into the Petition.

Also, what about this "Incompatible" error--I ask the same questions. Is this occuring on pirated copies only? Only to certain people? etc.

Neither of these errors has happened to me and they haven't really been addressed in detail by the community.

Lets see what other issues rear their ugly heads over the weekend and let everyone get in their 2 cents on this draft. If, come Monday, all indications are a "go" then we can add/change whatever we decide on, wrap this puppy up, and post fresh petition lists here--at the .org--and at the .net. And then we can send around volunteers to all the clan sites, posting the petition at their clansite and asking them to visit one of the three forums to sign the petition list.

Don't worry about "losing" signatories because we have to ask them to sign again. Most will understand exactly why we are asking them to re-sign, and even if they don't understand I'm sure we can hunt them down individually and explain it to them. More likely than not we will get far more signatories by taking our time--since the word will spread quickly once the final call for signatures goes out to the clans.

So, I would just ask for a little restraint in terms of pushing forward with what many of us see as a bit too much haste. Lets step back a bit, slow it down, get this Petition tightened up (you see already we are adding issues :))--and once we are all satsified with its content, and with the full support of everyone, then we will get new signatures.

Is that cool, Zeus? I mean, I don't want to step on your toes here because you are certainly the driving force behind this-- I just think we need to slow it down a tad.

*bows low*

alioven
10-09-2004, 03:03
When the list is agreeable, be sure "some" celtis will sign ;)

Btw, my opinnion (not that I consider bad the text) is that the attorney stuff should be kept out of it, as we are only an online community, and Bachus himself states in the text that it is not an legal document or something related to his job (except for his clear writing abilities).

Tera
10-09-2004, 03:16
Thank you very much Bachus, such format-type was just what we were missing. Excellent. The issues are explained in detail and the reasoning behind every one of them reflects very well our thoughts and concerns.

We really wish to collaborate with the developers who have given us such a great franchise, and this is the way to go. Thanks to everyone who has given momentum to this idea.

FearZeus
10-09-2004, 03:57
Bacchus I drive a civic type R, Ofcourse i like things done fast ;) 2 things m8

1) ofcourse I don't mind, carry on
2) The petition is just that, and without it we would not have known who was going to back us, so therefore we where never moving too quick! however had that draft already been finalized and sent then I too think that would have been premature.

I would also like to point out that while I may have been the driving force behind the this, I could not have done it without been continuously pushed by kyolic and wolfgrizzly (notice it was 2 wolves) who have been by my side all the way through this, not to mention scar (while full of flu) CBR, spoon, tera all played the part early in the game while most peeps where still thinking about it!

All in all I want no praise for what has unfolded, it's just my passion for the game, which btw is very sadly lacking compared to MTW/STW.

Thx everyone for your support, but the road is still long!

Gregoshi
10-09-2004, 04:17
Bachus - nicely done. :thumbsup: You all did a great job of getting to the key issues and organizing them.

Change for consideration: while I think the detail of each problem is appropriate for the CA/Activision programming and support staff, it may be too much information for the Presidents of CA and Activision - well, maybe not CA's president - since they might not be familiar with the TW games. The issues need to be listed and organized as they are, but perhaps a one or two sentence summary of the significance of the problem might do for the presidents. My wife is a (very good) middle manager and I've learned a lot about communications from her. One of those lessons is that the higher level managers don't need to know the detail - that is for others to deal with. What they do need to know is just enough detail to make a decision. Example: Logfile Information: logfiles, which were included in STW and MTW, are missing from RTW. These files are critical for running online tournaments. That is all you would have to say to the presidents.

Quibbles: "little punk" in the player name section seems out of place with the refined nature of the rest of the letter. Can we assume that the president of Activision knows what "M:TW" and "TW" stand for? Maybe spell them out the first time: "Medieval: Total War (M:TW)".

Again, excellent job folks in putting this whole effort together. ~:pat:

Colovion
10-09-2004, 04:25
I propose that if it is completed in time we should wait until the first patch is released before sending off the Petition. Granted, it will take longer because new grievances may have to be brought up and old ones deleted - but it would give CA the benefit of the doubt that they aren't ignoring us and will also give them a chance to do something which they know needs doing before we start bullying them into doing what they had planned to do all along.

Dionysus9
10-09-2004, 04:33
When the list is agreeable, be sure "some" celtis will sign ;)

Btw, my opinnion (not that I consider bad the text) is that the attorney stuff should be kept out of it, as we are only an online community, and Bachus himself states in the text that it is not an legal document or something related to his job (except for his clear writing abilities).

Well, I see your point and maybe we should remove the lawyer language and take it off the attorney letterhead-- but the idea was to send this as a letter, in the mail, directly to the presidents of both activision and CA. If it is handwritten on a napkin, their secretaries will just throw it out.

My experience with executives of large corporations is that they will not even look at anything unless it is on a letterhead. We have to have a "hook" to get them to read it-- in this case the hook is supposed to be "why in god's name is this attorney sending me a letter?" A secretary wont throw it out if it is on a letterhead from an attorney. I guarantee you the president will see it.

ALSO--at the .net Kalle had a good point--the complex chat feature is really more of a problem for the MP community than the testudo bug. What do you think of changing their priority on this list?

LittleGrizzly
10-09-2004, 04:53
good thinking greg

ive already gone round the majority of clan sites for the petition so i'd happily do it again once the petition is completed (i can't on non-ezboard non-english clans as registering an account is to difficult for me)

Quid
10-09-2004, 13:39
It seems a good enough petition and I agree with most if not all. I think what Greg said should also bear some weight as he is right in pointing out that there is too much 'drivel'. I think the points have to be brought across short and clear. So, perhaps a little refinement would do the trick (a more extensive and detailed supplement can be sent with it with the exact description of the problem/suggestion so that the developers can actually test and fix). Unfortunately, only few people take the time to REALLY read long letters or hand it down the line from the beginning on.

Otherwise, splendid and commendable work. Well done.

As for the time issue. I think there is plenty of time to send this letter. No haste is needed. It is paramount that we get this right the first time.

A fellow clan member has posted a link to this page in our forum, so we would all very much appreciate it if this discussion stays here henceforth as it is tiresome to have to check several different threads on the same thing.

Again, thank you very much for your work and time you all have put into this. I am sure that you can count on strong support of the community if it is done right. The door is open; we now have to go through it.

Quid (Head of the Legions, Clan {LORE})

UglyandHasty
10-09-2004, 14:00
great work again Bachus san !!

alioven
10-09-2004, 14:36
Aha, Bachus, if that is your objective, then I agree with you. However, Gregoshi points an interesting fact: letter wouldn't be the same for programmers and for presidents, so we could make a double version, with a easier one for presidents?

CBR
10-09-2004, 14:40
The list really should be MP specific although army controls are for SP too..


CBR

CBR
10-09-2004, 14:44
The way chat works in both lobby and in battle are big issues for me as they seriously degrade the experience. Some CA dev might not have considered it important as he is not the one who is going to use it the next 2 years but for us it is, and thats what this petition is about, telling them its not just a handful of old veterans that just want old STW/MTW back.


CBR

CBR
10-09-2004, 16:37
Just to add a few details..

Lack of Map Editor and Historical Battle Editor

JeromeGrasdyke stated 2 days ago that:


We will be releasing a battle editor (which also includes an integrated terrain editor) for generating stand-alone battles with a future patch, and also a rough modding guide which may be added to over time as people run into problems. Other tools, such as the sprite generator or some of the Excel spreadsheets, may be released after a while; again, no decision has yet been made on this.

Location of Speed Attribute

He also explained how speed is related to the animations itself.

It can be found here: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=37359


Sinner has experimented with it: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=37601


CBR

Puzz3D
10-09-2004, 16:57
Ok I see a problem in the section on fatigue. What is "realistic fatigue"? I think this is vague. The request is to increase fatigue, but I've been playing with a 20% slowdown on units movement and a reduction in fighting speed, and the fatigue seems fine when playing like that. I'm not able to go running around in battle and ignore fatigue. So, if you plan on using some mod to reduce the speed in online battles and CA increases the fatigue, you may end up with too much fatigue, and we all know how too much fatigue adversley affected MTW.

I know the request is for a switchable fatigue, but we've been asking for more than on/off settings on fatigue for 3 years, and it has never been implemented. The rebuttle they have used against more than two settings on features like ammo, morale and fatigue is that it will confuse players. So, the argument in that section on fatigue is probably too weak to effect any change.

Also, I've seen some people posting that exhasted units can still run. They have the full speed running animation, but if you look closely they are not moving ahead at full speed. So, I think it betrays a misunderstanding of the game to say fatigue is "not an issue" or "can be ignored".

In anycase, this is just a minor point, and I'm not suggesting the section be changed because I don't know what to change it to. However, the balance between fatigue, speed and ranged unit effectiveness strikes right at the heart of the gameplay.

Lechev
10-09-2004, 17:01
Very well written Bacchus!

CBR
10-09-2004, 17:01
Yes fatigue is still in the game and it cant be ignored. As it looks now we can finally march long distances without worrying too much and thats what a lot of us has asked for. IMO I dont see that as valid point in the list.


CBR

Skomatth
10-09-2004, 18:03
What about a sort of executive summary to clear up the problem Greg mentioned? (about President reading all the details).

Tomisama
10-09-2004, 18:07
You are "the greatest" Bach ~D
An “excellent” step in the right direction!

I would like to suggest three things.

1. That the letter head be changed to:

TOTAL WAR MULTIPLAYER’S ASSOCIATION, with “TM” traded mark identifier appropriately following TOTAL WAR.

(They might object to us asserting direct affiliation, and we can change that at their direction. But if they do not object, it is a most appropriate title.)

2. That we establish a mail box dedicated to direct communication between their liaison and the body of associated multiplayer’s. And that all Association/CA correspondence* would be public information, and posted on the major community forums at the earliest opportunity.

*This posting would exclude “real name” and email address requested below.

3. That anyone wishing to “officially” sign the “Petition”, send an email with their “real name” and “player name” to that mail box. This would provide a “private” mailing list of concerned players that could be presented with the “Petition” to CA.

Important Note:
Please understand that the TWMA is “not” intended to be an organization, only a medium to deliver “credible” signatures (verifiable by email to real people) with the above request.

Of course the mail box could be maintained for future use under the complete understanding that every request for signings is totally separate from any other request. And that the requested complied mail list will be discarded after the associated “Petition” has been sent to CA.

Whatdayasthink:shrug:

Edit:

Went ahead an set this up. If you don't need it, no problem ~:)

multiplayersassociation@hotmail.com

Sent you the password, if you did not get it, you know how to contact me.

P.S. A cover letter could be created for brief introduction, and the expanded technical information attached.

CelticFalcon
10-09-2004, 18:08
Add this to the list inm the critical bacchus

1. FAILED TO CONNECT.

Yes Bach, This is a very bad bug. I do not have a pirated copy. I have been talking with many many others about this and neither do they. Everyhost we 'try' to connect to says 'failed to connect to host'. Wish I knew why. Ive turned norton off,reinstalled game,turned off firewall. An still...nothing! Had the game for about 2 weeks now....havent played one single game:(

-CF(A1K)

alioven
10-10-2004, 04:20
Bachus, I've translated this preliminary version into spanish (3 hours of work including the posting, so you owe me fine wine now hehehe), and will publish it in the Celtiberos site, which is not only our clan site, but also a major site about TW for spanish-talking players. I'll also publish it in other spanish gaming forums, and call for spanish online players to sign it if they feel like it.

When the final version is done, they will be called for the real signing. I'll update the number of signatures we get from time to time. If any one wishes to look at it (o sea, si eres español, pásate), you can go to http://www.celtiberos.com

However, while translating it, I've found several things to comment:

When you talk about denari amount for games, you should add also a comment indicating that tournaments need flexible denari settings due to the needing of balanced and fixed quantities for all possible players.

I've not put the Shell to Desktop issue, as it is solvable by keeping another program window in backgroud and using alt-tab, as of version 1.1 of R:TW.

I've not put the "We need to know where to modify speed of units", as it is too vague. Currently there are mods that modify speeds, not like we would like, but they do. We need to explain better what we need, like skeleton speeds or whatever.

If you update the list, please notify me of it, so I can update my translation too. Thanks :)

Tals
10-10-2004, 09:47
Bug list needs to include that when you enter the gamespy lobby (from game) the UDP pings which are generated from all of the clients in the lobby will be detected as a flood attack by a number of routers. For me this actually causes the router to crash, others it may just be a nusiance as it will fill the log file and others may find it causes lag.

Log looks like
10/07/2004 19:32:28 **UDP Flood to Host** 83.129.233.145, 62306->> 81.178.255.223, 13139 (from ATM1 Inbound)
10/07/2004 19:32:28 **UDP Flood to Host** 66.81.163.69, 13139->> 81.178.255.223, 13139 (from ATM1 Inbound)
10/07/2004 19:32:28 **UDP Flood to Host** 80.199.134.167, 13139->> 81.178.255.223, 13139 (from ATM1 Inbound)
10/07/2004 19:32:27 **UDP Flood to Host** 68.52.83.139, 13139->> 81.178.255.223, 13139 (from ATM1 Inbound)
10/07/2004 19:32:27 **UDP Flood to Host** 81.82.21.71, 13139->> 81.178.255.223, 13139 (from ATM1 Inbound)
10/07/2004 19:32:27 **UDP Flood to Host** 84.133.17.229, 13139->> 81.178.255.223, 13139 (from ATM1 Inbound)
10/07/2004 19:32:27 **UDP Flood to Host** 217.82.31.10, 13139->> 81.178.255.223, 13139 (from ATM1 Inbound)
10/07/2004 19:32:27 **UDP Flood to Host** 172.180.102.169, 13139->> 81.178.255.223, 13139 (from ATM1 Inbound)
10/07/2004 19:32:27 **UDP Flood to Host** 217.119.8.111, 13139->> 81.178.255.223, 13139 (from ATM1 Inbound)
10/07/2004 19:32:27 **UDP Flood to Host** 81.157.183.184, 13139->> 81.178.255.223, 13139 (from ATM1 Inbound)

Thread on official forums
http://p223.ezboard.com/fshoguntotalwarfrm11.showMessage?topicID=323.topic

Warhammer had exactly the same issue, they solved it by stopping the pings occuring - even they weren't sure what the point of the ping was :)

Anyway big irritant for me (only solution for me is to turn my firewall off *gulps*) at least and others may not even be aware why they are dropping connection or experiencing issues in MP as a result.

Tals

baz
10-10-2004, 23:52
Looks good Bachus, well done.

I will read again and give some comments when i get a moment tomorrow :)

Duke John
10-11-2004, 07:36
Location of Speed Attribute
A CA developer said that movement of speed is build into the animations. There is no text file or variable that you can edit to alter the speed. Unless CA decides to redo all the animations there is very little chance that it gets adressed.

(Un)Selected uniticons
Edit: to the people who downloaded my fix, it's not working since another file is needed. To the rest: this is fixable but does require some effort.
One Faction Limit
See this thread for the reason. (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=37198)

Cheers,
Duke John

Sp00n
10-11-2004, 09:01
Hi Bachus,

Very nicely written, as others have said all the points are made, I personally think it should be sent before the next patch, at least then we have a chance that they may make some of the fixes if they listen to us which I doubt as they have rarely listened in the past but we can but try and the letter is a great effort.

MizuSp00n

shingenmitch2
10-11-2004, 22:06
Hi Bach,

Nice first draft.

Suggestion: I'd ditch the extended lawyer intro. It forces you to write 2-3 paragraphs that then explain it's not a legal piece (which is all to obvious from the beginning.) I think it comes off as a stunt and thus diminishes the solid content of the request.

My buddy worked at a game development company that made games such as Sanatarium. My understanding is that most often these developers are relatively small business with staffs in the low hundreds at most. I think that any full community petition will definitely make it across the top guy's desk regardless of intro.

I also second what other's have said about keeping detail to the minimum, and just cut to the chase about individual issues so that the CEO can get the gist and simply ask his designers,"Is it really as crucial as they say? can we do this? what will it take?" And of course, the designer/programmers answer will probably deterimine what we get.

tootee
10-11-2004, 22:26
Neat work Bachus. I won't re-post but I'm have some opinions in

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=602927#post602927

Basically its not mixing the petition for BUGs fix with others like feature changes, new features, i.e. feature in this case is not referring to features in STW or MTW, but version v1.1 of RTW. Any request to revert back to something like that of STW/MTW should be treated as feature changes or NEW features.

The aim of the petition should be clear.. and more effective if its focused. Something along the line of improving MP is too general. Fixing bugs imo is focused and although CA is obliged to do something about it.. a focus petition for it will probably speed them up, alert them to unaware bugs, etc.

One last opinion.. to many words :help: ~D

:bow:

Dionysus9
10-12-2004, 00:37
I need more info on this Failed to Connect issue-- I don't know the first thing about it. I see a lot of people complaining about it, but little or no information about what is actually happening and why it is a problem. At the very least can someone describe it?

I understand the ping issue and I'll add that in (if I don't forget).

Tootee, can you summarize your thoughts in the other post, please? I'm scattered all over the place as it is. Frankly, I'm convinced the army command issue is a bug-- it doesn't make any sense that groups would be SO unusable. Other than that, do you see anything that looks like a mere preference? if so, what?

Mitch, half the time I don't think the technicians understand the game. I think we need to explain it to them so they can see where we are coming from.

I'm going to ditch the attorney language and intro-- you guys are right, its over the top and its distracting. I like Tomi's idea of the MP Assoc., but some players might not have email addresses? Hmmm lets think about this, Tomi is offering a good way to "verify" signatures--but then again, anyone can open a dozen email addresses.

If Yuuki and CBR say fatigue is okay, then I'm not one to argue with them. We'll nix the fatigue issue.

Alio says shell to desktop is workable with a ghost program running in the background to jump to--so that should be removed too.

Alio-- I don't understand how you can mod speed but not really mod speed? Please explain to me what we need to do it properly and I'll include it in the next draft. I'm spread so thin I dont have time to go looking for the answer (though CBR seems to have found it?)

Gregoshi-- yeah you are right, and Tomi has the good solution-- a cover letter for the execs with bulleted summary points and an attached "detailed report" he can hand off to the techies.

CBR-- my attitude with the map/battle editors is like a landlord waiting for the rent. If the rent is late, the landlord will keep asking for it until it gets paid. Then again, every point that we put on the petition that they already have plans to deal with gives them the chance to say "well, we gave you X,Y,and Z, just like you requested," so I think--tactically speaking--it really IS better to leave those issues OUT of the petition. That way they cant say they did it to please us-- and if they don't do it, we can point to the post you refer to.

FAILED TO CONNECT ERROR?! Anyone have any explanation or details about this error?

Dionysus9
10-12-2004, 00:42
CBR raises the chat issue, which is most certainly NOT a bug. Tootee suggests we should not mix bugs with features-- but Chat is clearly a feature that has "gone wrong."

Does anyone have an idea of how to reconcile these two positions?

CBR
10-12-2004, 01:12
Well I have always preferred that we focus on the features that we like to add or change as they are the ones that need to be explained well and why we want to change/add them.

Most bugs are...well bugs and will be fixed most of not all of them(yeah I know Im dreaming..)


Just to mention the list:

-logfiles
-ignore/ban commands
-added info in replays on units
-private chat box for lobby
-have t and y do what it did in MTW and add say "v" for the advanced menu
-More detailed info on hosted games so a player knows what he joins
-Players in games are actually greyed out (I think its supposed to work so that might be a bug but better be sure)
-ping for games (or is there some technical reason for leaving it out?)
-Rout button so players can end a battle
-fixed denarii amounts. either give us more option or go back to stw/mtw.
-dont allow a player to overspend when buying army
-host cant chat while waiting
-one faction only limit (that might not be possible but is still a top priority and should be mentioned IMO)
-4v4
-“Proprietary” player names (might not be fixed but still damn important for online community)

None of these points are bugs (except for greyed out players perhaps)


CBR

Tera
10-12-2004, 02:37
The persistent reaction by CA about the myriads of missing/downgraded MP features compared to previous TW titles is that "the game is still perfectly enjoyable without them, you don't really need them". The new players to the franchise obviously don't know what's missing and what not because they never played previous TW titles online. Therefore most of them are rather indifferent to our petition list (just see their reactions at the .COM). Hence we must make it clear that the addition/tweaking of such features would enhance the MP experience for everyone. They won't listen to the rants of a handful of old players. Hopefully with massive input from the community (Hail the petition) some features which would be unquestionably good for everyone will be introduced like logfiles, more game details, improved replays and so on.

However, I do question if for example the faction limit in MP will be removed. New players or those just in for a quick game will appreciate having a "forced" diversity of factions in multiplayer games, instead of having the same few factions chosen by everyone while ditching completely the other factions, which in time would be inevitably deemed as "weaker". Let's face the truth: in MTW if you're in for a "serious game" you wouldn't want to take a "weaker" faction or weaker units. Everyone took the same army, with small differences (longbows, szekely mostly). Sometimes the Almohad were thrown in for the camels and faris. It wasn't too much exciting for the new player, who in a few weeks would adapt and take the same army as everyone else. However, the competitive/experienced/hardcore community would have suffered greatly without having the flexibility to choose any faction. So here we are facing reality: CA want to make this game as fun and accessible as possible for the new players, hence if the latter absolutely love the faction limit ...then it's gonna stay there. Although, IMHO, all the community would suffer from this limit in the long run -- but perhaps my humblest opinion isn't enough.

The petition has been posted on TWC and is currently a pinned topic in the RTW General Discussion Forum. Let's hope our cause gathers more support there then it gathered at the .COM. I'm positive that we're being listened to and a good number of our suggestions are being considered for 1.2.

Tals
10-12-2004, 06:39
FAILED TO CONNECT ERROR?! Anyone have any explanation or details about this error?

Are we sure that the ping issue and the failed to connect are not interrelated.

Are those who are having it on routers or single connection players. Not played a lot of MP games (because of the ping issue). However if the router gets swamped it can loose connection....just a thought

Tals

Sp00n
10-12-2004, 09:55
I agree with Tera on the fact that you should keep the faction selection as it is I like the fact that you have to have a different faction to your oponent even if Romans are all the same, hes right about amries being the sameon Mtw.

Shame no Maltese Warriors eh Tera :)

MizuSp00n

Tomisama
10-12-2004, 13:10
Can we please get a Sticky on this Thread and the Petition List, to keep them together?

Thanks :bow:

CBR
10-12-2004, 13:19
Done :computer:


CBR

Nigel
10-12-2004, 19:43
Great idea, Dionysus, and excellent discusion, guys.

I just want to add my opinion on the one faction limit.
I realize that it is attractive for providing variety in a quick and casual game but it becomes severely limiting if you want to organize online events, like tournaments, battle re-enactments or any kind of player made Multiplayer Campaign (like the one I hosted here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=31913) for MTW). Also, I have already seen faction oriented clans emerging and the one faction limit seems to be the death sentence to those kind of clans. So while the faction limit may be nice for those who "just want to play a quick game", it severely hampers the growth of a longer lasting online community.


I am aware of the technical issues Duke John has mentioned, but still think this issue is a high priority one, not just a minor annoyance, for the reasons mentioned above. We should at least try to get it and at the very least make CA aware of why this is so important.

tootee
10-12-2004, 21:57
Sorry should have realised the link is gonnabe messy. below is my post in the petition list before coming across this thread.


==========================================
I think this exercise is not effectively organised.

I agree with Bachus.

I will ONLY sign a petition for BUGs fix. Someone please point me in the right direction to one thank you. Until then there will be no signature from fish.

==========================================
Why not effectively organised?

You cannot mix a petition for bugs fix with feature changes or improvement, troop stat re-balancing. Its easy to gather unhappy players, but from past experience, its tough to get most to agree to preference related issues like controls, features, etc.

Although some features are really desirable to most of us *who are veterans of TW*, our background in this case really weaken our position because CA will take it as our reluctance for changes in something we are used to. I agree to it. The new control system, until fully examined, should not be damned so early, just because we are not getting our usual speed. I'm aware that people are already finding ways to do stuff with new way of control.

If you mix your petition issues, you will not get attention with CA, as 90% of TIME either both parties are arguing on preference stuff if they do attend to it. They are running a business, and TIME is money.

Our first priority for RTW now is to get rid of BUGs.

On feature changes, stat changes, etc, these exercises should come later.. if CA ever entertains them. That is their right. But removing the BUGs is our right as consumers who bought the game.

Also you cannot petition for feature changes when (1) the issues are not clearly stated, (2) each feature doesnt has the support of even more players than what you get now. Petitions for feature changes, if done, should be one petition for one change imo.

So my advise is that you guys make a list of really what are BUGs, and petition it. This will be the more efficient way to improving RTW MP.

tootee
10-12-2004, 22:30
Bachus these are what i feel about the list, for all's consideration.

==============
Synchronicity - BUG

Lag - BUG

Army Control (Move and retain facing) - this is a feature change request.. to revert back to somewhat like MTW/STW. It seems that the control can be achieved (i read from some post probably AMP knows?) but with different keystroke/control pattern. My reasoning that including these in the first petition will weaken or delay action because much time will be spent to convince CA that this change is good.. its not a bug but is good (in the view of the veterans). However personally i will give myself the same period of learning curve to 'discover' a good control mechanism for RTW like I did for STW and MTW. Another speculation of mine why CA had these changes is such all TW veterans are reduced to newbies for RTW.. we need to un-learn and re-learn (for the control that is).. all fair-and-square for everyone playing RTW starting from ground zero.. except that we have the tactical maturity from past experience.

Army Control (Army cohesion) - could be a BUG if what is described is not meant to be by design.

Army Control (Grouped units often refuse to take orders) - could be a BUG if what is described is not meant to be by design.

Testudo Formation - BUG

Very Important Issues - request for features addition / changes.

Withdrawal/Rout function doesn’t work - BUG if not meant to be, but I think its a feature omited by CA.

Game info is unavailable from the lobby - feature

#Ignore and #Ban commands in Gamespy lobby are missing - feature

In Game Chat is Cumbersome - feature

Fixed Denari Amounts - feature

Zoom to Death of General - feature

Unable to Chat in Host Screen after Selecting Army - most probably a BUG

No Shell-to-Desktop - feature?

“Spanish” Faction - not sure

One Faction Limit - feature

Full Screen (no Mini-map) Option - feature

4v4s – feature

Request for info - maybe this could be via other means or other petition?

=============
maybe the exercise can be splitted into 3, one petition for bugs that CA will have no excuse for non-action, one petition for critical feature changes/additions that have the endorsement of close to all?, and subsequent petitions (one for each feature request) for features or flexibility that have the endorsement of most.. for things like fixed denari (as there are both who are for and against it), one faction limit,etc.

i'm sure there are more bugs not mentioned.. will try filter from all the posts.

tootee
10-12-2004, 22:49
i think for the list of BUGs, we dont even need to petition.. surely CA is obliged to fix somethings that are broken?

So this petition can be for feature changes / addition that are CRITICAL, endorsed by almost all playing RTW MP (we got a figure how many are playing it now?.. probably getting the signature of 80% to 90% will convince CA). I think the wording for these as features and not bugs will make a big difference in the way CA deal with the MP community.

The adv i see doing it this way is we get the bugs fixed fast, and not get delayed by the 'negotiation' for critical feature improvement.. we all know how CA negotiates typically.. :duel:

1dread1lahll
10-13-2004, 01:55
Is this where I 'sign' the 'petition'? My main disappointment with the controls is the lack of groups within groups, or allowing a unit to be in multiple groups. And though ive found a some-what satisfactory method to move my army side ways, its not as nice as the simple alt-left click. I support the other stuff as well, and yes plz make the 'death of general' optional.

Dionysus9
10-13-2004, 03:16
lahll,

I purposefully removed that portion of our requests because it seemed like a clear "feature" to me-- that they had intentionally omitted the groups within groups. But I think we are asking for some features already, and so I will add that back in. Just for you :)

(not really, i liked them too)

Tootee,

I understand your desire to keep the list designated as all features, or all bugs, but realistically there are lots of problems--some more important than others. Some of the missing "features" (like army control) are more important than some of the bugs (like testudo bug). What we really want is to get the major problems fixed that we, as MP players, need to get fixed--regardless of whether they are "bugs" or "features." I think, for example, the army control issue (the purpose for which we used ALT-LEFT) was just not understood by the developers enough to be re-implemented. Thats not a bug, because its not in the code, but its a serious problem. So I think we have to include both bugs and features in the petition-- I respect your thoughts immensely, and I also want action from CA--so lets just ask for what we need :)

:bow:

maybe we will get it?

Tals
10-13-2004, 06:18
From my own perspective i'll only sign up for bug. Features I'm not concerned about - thats down to the devs to decide on, not us.

Tals

Tals
10-13-2004, 06:21
Can't seem to find an edit button :( I will add a rider to my previous comment. Sometimes the line between a feature and a bug can be vague. So it does depend tbh n the final list.

Tals

tootee
10-13-2004, 11:33
yes Bachus there are certainly critical issues but i anticipate that it will take sometime for CA to review the features requested, and to lump what is bugs with request for change will delay their action to resolve the bugs.

importance is relative.. and to align CA perspective on this may take time to convince them. also there maybe some players who do not agree to some of the points.

but bugs are bugs.. CA can't argue about it. they don't have to be petitioned to be resolved. make a list, throw at CA and they be damned if they dont act on it quickly.

so the effect is bugs get resolved quickly, while CA and the community is clear what are the critical features to modify/add and concentrate the discussion/negotiation on them, so that those players who arent too concern with the feature changes can play the MP game bug-free.

Krasturak
10-13-2004, 13:49
*opens coffin*

*creeps out of coffin*

Gah!

*reads Bachus letter*

Hmmm ... as usual, Krast agrees with Bachus.

Krast wonders ... maybe Bachus brain stuff same as Krast's?

Gah!

Krast will eat Bachus brain and become so much more clever!

Gah!

RTKLamorak
10-13-2004, 14:10
I think once again having the ability to have a unit in MORE than one group at a time should be put forward in the "grouping" section of your letter Bachus, aswell as the already mentioned inability of grouped units to follow orders correctly.

After using ctrl/shift groups soooooo much in stw/mtw/vi, i simply find army control in RTW too clumsy without it. I just cant understand the step back they took on this, it simply boggles my mind :O. Being able to group single units is a must to!!!

Again, i think it comes to to "ease of use" for new players, rather than compromising, or given different options. In the older games the groups werent obvious, but over time the groups that i used became natural and instinctive, and the control over my army reached a new level.

ALSO!!!! when you group in RTW units their position in the unit panel at the bottom moves to :(, which is just ridiculous because you just dont kno which unit is which, and it takes many seconds to figure out where the unit cards have been shuffled to, and it is NOT something that i should have to spend time doing, especially considered the speed of battles now. In all the past TW games, i choose the order of my units order in the unit panel by the position they would have on the battle map. So far left cav (after gen) was left flank, first two infantry units put into my army would be on the left e.t.c. This is something i see as very important for tactical play, quick response times, and generally to eas frustration levels.

Anyone else feel this needs to be addressed as a priority?

Dionysus9
10-13-2004, 17:14
OK Lam, I think thats a good point-- I'll add that in. Really, or main gripe is grouping and army control--so your points mesh well.

Krast! GAH! Are you back for RTW or just around to say "gah!"

Krasturak
10-13-2004, 21:43
Krast did try to come back for RTW but then the Evil Gateway of 'Failed to Connect' closed in front and Krast did not get in.

But maybe there is hope if Bachus can work his magic to make the 'Failed to Connect' go away.

baz
10-14-2004, 08:38
Bachus, I am in favour of having this split into a bugs section and a feature section as fish suggested.. with the bugs section we should state that these components are not working properly and must be fixed, no excuse .. with the features section we should be saying something along the lines of, this feature has been modified adversley compared to the corresponding feature in previous TW titles.

Just some definaitions to clarify the difference:
Bug - A component of the game that does not function as designed to do so.
Feature Change - A component that does function as designed, but the design is flawed.

Puzz3D
10-14-2004, 13:43
It's my understanding that Bachus is going to prioritize the list. I would put everything in one letter because there may only be one more patch. If that's so, waiting too long will miss a window of opportunity for the issues to be considered for that one patch.

FearZeus
10-14-2004, 15:07
If Bacchus has the time I would like the petition to have more urgency, I think it should be in the post already to be honest. Hope to catch them sooner rather than later as the benefits are obvious.

cromwell
10-14-2004, 15:15
I have a idea to through out to the community, maybe it's already been mentioned. Lets send this petition and listing of our gripes to not only CA, but all the magazines and "gamespots" of the net with a brief explanation. I mean they gave the game glowing reviews without testing any multiplayer action, from what I have seen. They pumped up the sales for CA/Activision for sure. A better Idea as I'm writing this, would be to construct up our own review comparing all the different versions of TW, perhaps a chart showing the progression of the TW series and then showing all thats missing from RTW. Of course STW would score the highest for it's lobby and private room systems.
We have seen magazines write about our mods, we should it least get some "PR" from some of these people. Believe me, a little press goes a long way in
motivating people.

Later
Cromwell

FearZeus
10-14-2004, 15:31
I couldn't agree more crom, and Baz from Kenchi clan has already mentioned this but up untill now nothing has been done! We need motivation. Could you maybe start a new thread seeing what peoples opinions are on this as I can clearly see this having huge benefits! actually the benefits from this will be far larger than the petition that we are ready to send to CA.

Dionysus9
10-15-2004, 01:10
I recognize and appreciate the need for haste now and I am polishing up the final draft, and splitting it into bugs and features lists as we speak. I will try to have it done sometime late tonight.

FearZeus
10-15-2004, 01:37
Thx bacchus,

Your work is very much appreciated ~;) fingers crossed, we will get some help from CA.