View Full Version : News on the patch.
Shogun on the .ORG mentioned that some news on the patch will be released this week or next. While it is good to hear what progress is being made, this allows means that the patch isn't going to be finished anytime soon. I will not be surprised if this patch isn't released until 2007 but this is my personal opinion.
The big question in my mind is why the unpacker has not been released.. This does not require any QA and could be released now. At the very least this would be a nice gesture to the community and to those of us that have owned this game for over a month in its currently buggy state.
IRONxMortlock
11-29-2006, 23:22
Shogun on the .ORG mentioned that some news on the patch will be released this week or next. While it is good to hear what progress is being made, this allows means that the patch isn't going to be finished anytime soon.
Why do you think that? Wouldn't that mean it will be released in a week or two?
EDIT - Oops, sorry re-read your message. NEWS of the patch will come out in a week or two.
Doug-Thompson
11-29-2006, 23:23
If the game is so buggy, are we sure all the bugs have been found so they can be corrected?
Barry Fitzgerald
11-29-2006, 23:30
More to the point expect 3 or 4 patches to get it up where it should be. I would expect the ist patch soon ish..then a delay with a much more intensive patch..then a couple of minor ones..
If the game is so buggy, are we sure all the bugs have been found so they can be corrected?
The game isn't so buggy, in fact, the game has no bugs. The patch is taking a long time so that people get impatient and irratated.
Seriously, CA apparently only wants to do one patch. There are a ton of documented bugs such as broken animations, uber peasants, a cavalry charge problem (acknowledged by CA), siege problems, and so on and so on. This is going to take some time to correct.
Doug-Thompson
11-29-2006, 23:37
The game isn't so buggy, in fact, the game has no bugs.
and
... There are a ton of documented bugs such as broken animations, uber peasants, a cavalry charge problem (acknowledged by CA), siege problems, and so on and so on.
Clarification, please?
and
Clarification, please?
I believe he was being sarcastic and was making fun of the people who think CA is only holding the patch to irritate the community.
I think his first statement was intended as heavy sarcasm while the second displayed his real opinion. At least, it looked that way to me.
Doug-Thompson
11-29-2006, 23:45
Ok.
shifty157
11-29-2006, 23:51
A day 0 patch that was released on day 0 would have been nice.
With any luck this news will come sooner rather than later.
Well... I suppose 'releaseday patch' is a rather broad term in regards to time.
Personally I would prefer weekly patches that cleaned up a little bit here and there until the game was as good as it could get (that doesn't mean perfect, just at good as possible), over a single massive patch to fix everything including the stuff fixes caused.
I mean, aren't we the best QA anyway? Aren't we the best to determine if a bug (that isn't a CTD) is playkilling?
History has shown that patches, unless absolutely critical (like the 30 or so player limit to RTW MP), will take a long time, and still include rather substantial problems (56-year bug?).
The big question in my mind is why the unpacker has not been released.. This does not require any QA and could be released now. At the very least this would be a nice gesture to the community and to those of us that have owned this game for over a month in its currently buggy state.
Because it requires the code that is in the first patch.
In other words even if they released the unpacker, it would be worthless since it wouldn't work until CA release the patch.
Hrmmm... So I'm somewhat perplexed at this point. Been doing some searching and reading from other forum members and a few other sites, and it may turn out after all that your 95% chance may not have been even close to 95% in actuality. I'd *really* like CA to verify this, but it appears that other characters in proximity to your assassin and target can affect the outcome, such as spys/etc, and it won't show up as a factor in your displayed probability. So your 95% chance may have really been a 5% chance. :oops:
I would'nt hold my breath, people. I'd say it will take a while for the first patch to arrive. Hopefully I'm proved wrong.
:)
Quickening
11-30-2006, 04:39
I mean, aren't we the best QA anyway?
I personally don't think so. If CA listened to a lot of complaints on this forum, the game would be worse off for it.
I personally don't think so. If CA listened to a lot of complaints on this forum, the game would be worse off for it.
I most respectfully, completely disagree.
There's a difference between bugs and feature requests/balance issues, if I make attempt to paraphrase at how I read the intent of your statement.
Bugs are for the most part black and white, but there is some grey. To pick on Mr. Doug Thompson, I noticed in another thread he stated that he believes that by and large quite a few of the bugs reported so far are not bugs. My apologies Doug if I misquoted you here, no disrespect or malice intended. I must respectfully disagree with that also, by and large most of the bugs I have seen reported are what I firmly believe to be bugs. Some have been matters of taste yes, but many are bugs. By and large, the QA process should have detected quite a few of the bugs that have made their way into our beloved initial release. I still firmly believe that the QA folks probably DID find a lot of these, and upper management knowingly released the game in the condition it's in. Whichever it is, in general the most obvious ones tend to pop up quickly on release, and some of the harder to find bugs tend to crop up shortly thereafter.
Quickening, if I may take your meaning, I believe that your comments are directed towards the 2nd category, feature requests/balance issues. So far for M2TW, I'm half agreeing and disagreeing with you as a matter of my personal taste. I've seen some suggestions that I think are great, like the inquisitors being overpowered, assassins being underpowered, charges being bugged, etc. Others I think are horrid, such as the suggestion that micromanaging charges is a good thing, if that is indeed CA's intent to make it as such.
Also please consider that there is some gray and uncertainty. Take the inquisitors for example, I listed that as a feature/balance issue, but is it really? Perhaps they really are intended to be as powerful as they are, and people (for the most part as I've seen, me included) don't like it and want it neutered. Perhaps it really *is* broken, and due to bad code they're far more powerful than they should be. Which is it? Bug or feature?
Cheers!:balloon2:
Quickening
11-30-2006, 05:29
I agree with everything you said. I just think that CA are in the best position to judge what should be changed and what should not.
I also read Doug Thompson's post and I happened to agree with it especially since after constant playing I have seen nothing of these "bugs" that some call "game breaking". There have been times when things have seemed strange at first but after some trial and error I have discovered that it was not a fault with the game but with they way I was using the unit in question. Don't get me wrong, I know there are bugs there, but I also think a lot of complaints should be taken with a pinch of salt.
I know it might seem arrogant to believe that just because I have not experienced the issues in question, I would presume that they don't exist. But by the same token it may also be arrogance to assume that when having a problem it is a fault of the game and not of what you are doing yourself.
But maybe there is no point in debate. Im someone who will never use mods precisely because they are essentially "homemade". And while Im sure there are some amazing mods out there, Im just not willing to use anything unless it comes from official sources. And I think it maybe this same mindset that makes me hope that CA will do what they feel is right with this patch and not be presurised into making changes that they had not intended.
What I was getting at in the post you quoted was that some people seem to be mistaking personal preference as bugs. To take your Inquisitor example, I don't believe that to be a bug. I believe it was intended and this is a good example of my own personal experience going against what some people claim. I have had no trouble with them. They may be a hassle once they are hunting you but the key is surely to stop that happening in the first place. I have successfully done this in every game. If it were a bug I think that I would have felt it's effects by now. Especially since I never play on anything less than VH/VH.
I just don't want lots of people complaining about something that not everyone is having trouble with, forcing CA to change it. Because it isn't necessary. There are things which are obviously bugs and to me, the distinction is clear. If CA decide that Inquisitors are indeed too powerful and change them then it's all good to me. The same applies to all other balancing issues.
Real bugs such as cavalry getting stuck on hills is something I of course agree needs to be addressed.
Anyway sorry if the above post seems incoherent. It's 0426 here :smash: The damn game has succeeded in keeping me up to stupid hours in the morning again :laugh4:
Did you notice the bug fixer thingy we had here for RTW and BI?
Had nothing to do with gameplay (other than the obvious). It was simply fixing a lot of small bugs, typos, mistakes, glitches, counterproductive traits (a lot of bugged up traits)... ect ect.
Gameplay issues are less easy to get a clear bearing on. But troops with disjointed arms or carrying torches in daylight, well that is pretty clear.
Did you notice the bug fixer thingy we had here for RTW and BI?
Had nothing to do with gameplay (other than the obvious). It was simply fixing a lot of small bugs, typos, mistakes, glitches, counterproductive traits (a lot of bugged up traits)... ect ect.
Gameplay issues are less easy to get a clear bearing on. But troops with disjointed arms or carrying torches in daylight, well that is pretty clear.
Indeed I did, player1 is a god amongst men. I've exhorted CA in a number of my other posts to please for crying out loud USE the content and knowledge that went into community efforts like bugfixer for M2TW. There's no shame in doing so, if anything I'd think it'd be outstanding that CA would be willing to publicly acknowledge such an effort and work WITH us as the community to help make their product better. Arrogant "it doesn't exist!" or "we refuse to acknowledge organized customer movements or complaints!" type attitudes from software publishers don't exactly endear them to me, not that I'm exactly accusing CA of doing so.
screwtype
11-30-2006, 06:06
They can take as long as they like on the patch, but I personally won't even consider buying the game until (a) the patch is out, and (b) it's been tested and confirmed by the community that the major bugs have been fixed and no new ones introduced.
AussieGiant
11-30-2006, 06:32
In the end guy's, what we really need is a CA dude or dudett available to ask all these questions.
Sooo many of the issues (not defining them as bugs or balancing deliberately) can only be correctly addressed in conjunction with CA's involvement and input.
I'm totally sure their QA department is aware of most of the issues, plus a good proportion of new ones are added due to our gaming feedback.
In the end it is a cyclical process and things will have to be left out and therefore included in the next cycle in order to meet deadlines. When this is the situation then we are all ok...when it isn't then that is where we have problems.
The RTW load/save ai bug is an example of this cycle deteriorating...to the point where it was quite ugly. In the end I never read who was responsible for this very ugly situation. Was it the publisher simply not wanting to invest resources in resolving it? Or was it the developer not wanting to do the same thing? Only those closer to the whole situation will know.
One thing that is clear, is ,TW has a very vocal and passionate following and the only way to service that group and the users as a whole is to impliment an ongoing patching/balancing program.
I think due to the complexity of the game this is the best solution as a whole. It is simply too detailed to do otherwise. We have seen the results of trying to fob off sections of the community with; "its's not a bug but a feature" type responses.
In my opinion, with a game like this, and the current level of community involvement, 3, 4 or 5 patches by CA depending on how good their initial code is, would be more than enough to keep the community and the fanbase happy. As long of course as they keep producing a new game every 3 years or so :laugh4:
More importantly they must communicate this to the community or they simply run the risk of antagonising large sections of us the due to lack of information being distributed.
Better yet if they actually published a patching/balancing schedule (and stayed true to it) then you have not only won the community over as a whole but don't have to spend further resources communicating it.
Could you image a schedule being published.
Patch/balancing catchment cycles:
Nov-Dec 06: Release Early Jan 07
Jan-April 07: Release Early May 07
etc etc. up to 3 4 or 5 cycles. Now of course this might just some crazy idea, but after a certain period of time I beleive CA could even communicate a reduction or stop to patching. Most groups know if all issues are addressed and everyone would be far happier about an open and frank series of Public Address on the various sites. Given the modding community, then smaller issues could deal with even the most hard core fanatics.
You could call this idea a merging of my formal education in PR and Marketing with my actual career in technology. I don't see any major flaws. And it would certainly be something new for CA and Sega.
Fisherking
11-30-2006, 07:40
They can take as long as they like on the patch, but I personally won't even consider buying the game until (a) the patch is out, and (b) it's been tested and confirmed by the community that the major bugs have been fixed and no new ones introduced.
I have seen some games where this was the best plan. But this one is not like that at all.
Some of us may think that it needs some things need changed, but I have encountered very few actual "bugs". I am not saying that it is perfect and I would love to see some changes but as far as game releases go I would say it pretty problem free.
But they need to put something out soon...the unpacker...so we can mod this thing.
Having been a beta tester and forum correspondent i have to agree...
Listening to the community at large would ruin the game.
When I was doing Star Wars Galaxies there was always public outcry for the dev team to listen to the forums about what they should do. For a long time the dev team refused to listen, and in that frame I would have agreed. They should have listened to us. However, after they totally screwed up the game mechanics they started listening to the community. The resulting chaos is a game that contains Star Wars name and places, but plays like a very, very bad version of World of Warcraft.
What the dev team did wrong is they strayed from the orginal plan to make SWG take place in a time period beginning between Empire and Jedi. We learned from the mistakes in SWG taht the community all ave different ideas and thoughts of how the game should play, but the reason the people went out and bought the game was because of what Star Wars is. Had they stuck tot heir guns people would have left. Had they done everything we asked, people would have left. Had they done nothing, people would have left.
The truth is, some of you played Shogun and liked it. Then you played MTW and didn't like the changes. Then you played RTW and didn't like the chagnes. Now you've tried M2TW and guess what? You still don't like the changes. Some of you just started playing with RTW. Others have played many other RTS games, and this is your first veture into the Total War series. You've played it and decided if you like it or not.
If the dev team used all the forums on the Total War site to determine what to change/fix or patch they would constantly be changing, fixing, and patching because some people are just never satisfied. No, they need to stick with their idea of what the game should be and allow the modding community to do what they wish for the style they like. This is the ultimate plan, anyway. In fact, I think more gaming companies should take the lead on that and do the same thing. Create the game you want and leave it moddable. Some will play your vanilla and love it for generations. Others won't and will seek other mods or create their own. In this way, no one feles like they got cheated out of their $50.
When you are the leader you never let the grunts tell you which direction to go. How could a general who let such a thing happen ever maintain positive control? No, you lead and others who are like minded follow. Those who aren't get off the band wagon. If I suggested every weaponsmith Idea I got from the community and Thunderheart and the dev team went to work on everything I requested nothing would have ever gotten done because not everyone agreed what needed to happen. It is the same for any game anywhere. We all have different ideas we think are great.
that's probably not a well put together thought, but it's after 1am and i'm tired...
Lord Condormanius
11-30-2006, 08:13
I have to admit, I did see some random daylight torches.
Furious Mental
11-30-2006, 08:49
I agree that the devs should definitely ignore all of you. But they should definitely listen to everyone I say.:yes:
I mostly agree with mor dan, and I think the examples of Inquisitors and Assassins perfectly illustrate the problems inherent in taking your developmental lead from gaming geeks who live on the internet.
I don't think either assassins or inquisitors are in any way broken, I think they are exactly how they are meant to be and work in an effective and (more importantly) balanced fashion. With a bit of forethought, I have dodged most of the Inquisitors in my games, and when I have been caught out by them it's just another factor to deal with. Issues of historical accuracy aside, just because they burnt my favourite general doesn't mean the game is broken.
As for assassins, I think they are perfect. Really hard to train up, but if you get the guilds going and concentrate on assassination and subterfuge over blunt warfare, then you can easily have four or five maxed out assassins running about the map (I have on vh with Milan). If it was easy to off opposing generals and characters the game would become farcical.
Even given that both these parts of the game are (imho) balanced, there is still a huge outcry in places like this for them to be recognised as a bug/flaw and for them to be changed in a patch. It's an easy cop out to say the game is broken just because there's an aspect of it that is difficult to deal with or not exactly the way you want it. After all, this is still just the vanilla setting, and I'm sure people can tweak the balance of the game how they want when they get modding.
Sir SillyDuck
11-30-2006, 10:33
Everything you say you mean? w/e..
I played them all, all the TW releases, from the moment they came out, except BI. I liked them all, for what they were worth, and I liked the improvements some mods did for RTW. MTW2 is pretty, PRETTY good. I just wish there was an UH (ultra-hard) setting for the battles.. Or a setting in which the AI comes to battle with advanced troops, earlier in the game. If u dont *&^% up, you can win most if not all battles with a few less units than the AI.. I like the AI in MTW2, except for that it is a bit inactive at times (patch please), but I do miss the setting in which you could make it really really hard on yourself as u could in RTW. RTW I liked the least of all TW games, but the VH setting meant a proper disadvantage in the battles. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying anybody should like this, but the difficulty setting is changable, so..
AussieGiant
11-30-2006, 10:42
I think many of the issue are easily resolved and hopefully so, by being correctly distinguished by the CA Q&A team.
You both (cambrax and mor dan) point to examples that are in fact balancing issues not bugs.
I'm totally sure that CA is able to determine what is a balancing issue or a bug based on feedback because they do know how it is designed to work.
Either way, I don't expect CA to do everything the community asks for.
What I do expect CA to do is sift through all the feedback, determine what is a bug and what is a balancing issue, and with their own understanding, find a solution to bugs that they ID using our feedback and re-balance those issues that were not designed to be so extreme or the way things are occuring in the game.
For example. Inquisitors. I believe they in fact may be balanced, because if you keep your standing above 8 at all times, you seem to be able to avoid them.
CA will know this because they understand HOW they want it implemented. Maybe they lower the standing to avoid serious levels of inquisitor burning becuase they have determined it is in fact too extreme and beyond what they wanted because it was not meant to be so harsh...
we will never know...but I expect CA to be able to easily work that out themselves and make the adjustments if necessary.
played the game for many hours and the only real problem for me is the AI on tactical battles ... a game fail when you realize tht you are playng alone against a stupid computer ... MTW2 is so near to be a perfect game that is a shame to see 500 knights massacred by 2 units of militia crossbow ( if the game isnt patched i will halve the amount of arrows/darts when possible )
but lets help CA with some heavy scripts :
IF you have 1 unit of archers and the opponent 12 THEN attack !!
IF you your units are standing for more than 5 minutes THEN move your a...
IF you are getting to the ram and the door is already open THEN leave it and enter the door !!
IF you sustain more casualties by arrows than your opponent THEN retreat or attack !!
and build more ladders !!!
Wow, you people just keep on bending backwards for CA that has consistently kept on NOT improving the games they make.
Good for you, I guess. There's a saying in my country; if one is given with a spoon, can't demand with a scoop.
Barry Fitzgerald
11-30-2006, 12:28
Hmm maybe a tad harsh there!
I think maybe some are just pretty happy, and some fussy.
i personally say that because i LOVE the game , i just dont understand how after all the playtesting and months of production they havent saw that enormous AI faults ...thats all
Wow, you people just keep on bending backwards for CA that has consistently kept on NOT improving the games they make.
If you are talking about patches - as we are - then you are quite wrong.
The patched MTW/VI was significantly improved over MTW 1.0 and RTW 1.5/1.6 is significantly improved over RTW 1.0 (if you doubt me, ask the EB or RTR teams why they are porting to 1.5 from 1.2).
I've never read anyone arguing otherwise or wanting to play with a v1.0 TW game rather than the final patched version.
Barry Fitzgerald
11-30-2006, 12:47
Well I agree with frantz and econ.
I am fussy myself...but I dont think that is a bad thing really. I don't expect miracles either. Maybe well all got to expect too much...
It has to be said (and with respect to CA), clearly they are not a charity but a commercial games developer. The days of Paul woakes, and Geoff Crammond are likely over. This is a serious business, with much larger outlays for companies, pretty obvious that this time of year was the target for sales..(nothing wrong there)..
Point being deadline hits...product must be out. I am sure they knew about the numerous issues....
Is this acceptable? Well it isnt ideal is it...from a end user point of view.
If M2TW is any indication of how you run a "serious business", I expect CA bankrupt soon enough.
Daveybaby
11-30-2006, 12:50
i personally say that because i LOVE the game , i just dont understand how after all the playtesting and months of production they havent saw that enormous AI faults ...thats all
Become a software developer on a massively complex project with unmissable deadlines looming and financial constraints on how many people you can employ and how much time you can spend testing and you will begin to understand.
If M2TW is any indication of how you run a "serious business", I expect CA bankrupt soon enough.
Must... not... feed... troll... must... resist... urge... to... ridicule...
d1ng0d0g
11-30-2006, 13:01
Well I do hope a patch appears soon, but I'm still entertained quite a bit by this game. The bugs that some people mention are actually features. Some of the features may indeed need balancing, but that's something that could be (and should be) done by volunteer modders. True bugs should be fixed.
Personally I love games that can be modified a lot and those are the games I spend money on. Infinite replayabillity, or at least, a lot more value for your buck then most non-moddable games.
I would really love to see a game producer create only an engine and provide all the tools to create a game and put that on sale. This would maybe require a really large legal team, putting to trial any who try to make a profit of your engine.
Then as a demonstration make and sell a game using that engine.
This would really improve the world of gaming a lot and keep a lot of people from screaming.
"If you don't like it, change it."
And then you could.
Dingo
As the thread shows, fanboyism is the biggest crutch of the series. People see what they want to believe is there.
when you have a Ferrari is hard to accept a bruise on the cockpit .... over my polo i dont notice them !!
With mtw2 we have a Ferrari for sure ....
its also true that peoples complain over many irrilevant things BUT if something critical have to be addressed is not shame to point at it , after all is us that spend the money .
Bob the Insane
11-30-2006, 14:11
I have to admitt to understanding both camps here...
I understand that software development is a long and complex process that involves as many comprimises as it does cool new features...
But it does not take much playing (particularly on the battlefield) to see the enemy do something odd...
I too feel that the game was as finished as possible for the release date and it is gratifying to see them putting so much effort into the first patch. The first note we saw on the Total War forums mentioned that they we pretty much done with the patch and it was going to QA, well maybe QA is doing it's thing now without the pressure of a release date (i.e. finding issues and sending it back to the devs). Personally I remain optimistic and I look forward to this first patch.
What Shogun posted is not what I'd call news. Wikiman already said there would be further news in 2 weeks approximately 2 weeks ago! All Shogun has done is repeated that statement and the sycophantic fanboys go delerious for a few days giving CA some more time. If I was being cynical I'd say it was simply a stalling tactic, and it's worked. They now have till next week to come up with something, whatever that may be. As I count it that means the proposed release day patch, a promise that suckered me into purchasing the game, has now become at best a 4 week patch, possibly longer, since in true CA form nothing concrete has been stated. In fact, it's entirely possible that the patch won't even be out next week... most likely it'll just be more "news"...
I've played the game only 4 days before the niggles bothered me enough to shelve the game. The passive AI, the inability of the some units to actually inflict damage on cavalry, the buggy siege AI, the massive lag during certain sieges, the pathfinding frustrations, etc, etc.
Jambo is true , there are bugs but come on there are 1000 other fantastic things that make you play and play again .... yours is a point of view a bit too negative and not objective , sad to say that ... shelve the game ? come on ...
i just dont understand how after all the playtesting and months of production they havent saw that enormous AI faults ...thats all
That's because the AI faults was created right before the game went gold.
They tried to make the AI more aggressive on the battlefield but discovered after the game went gold that the AI was now instead extremely passive and once the game has gone gold you can't touch it unless with a patch.
If you played the pre-beta demo unscripted you can see that there is no trace of a passive AI and that the AI uses it's troops like a pro.
Good use of flanking, no suicidal generals, finding weak spots in your line etc.
I myself got beaten countless times by the AI in the pre-beta demo, it was that good.
Now CA has already fixed that huge AI bug and Palamedes thought they would release that patch on day 1 but I can guess that SEGA wanted CA to make a large patch instead that will fix any other bug that will be reported.
And hopefully that patch is soon finished.
After all Wikiman did not say that we would have it in two weeks.
He just said that would have it if testing went smoothly which if the patch is indeed delayed then it didn't go smoothly.
Barry Fitzgerald
11-30-2006, 15:04
I have to agree with TB666...that is my experience also. The demo was much more in yer face attacking, and using it would seem anyhow some reasoning and strategy.
Currently in the retail game it is IMO very passive and a bit feeble being honest. Every trick I try just seems to work most of the time. Flanking cavalry attacks dont get countered..or even a response until you have engaged a unit.
I have even moved whole armies right up next to an enemy..and they just stand there...nothing...this happens too often, though not all the time. People complained rome was buggy when it was out..meet the new champ!
It does spoil the game a fair bit...you cannot say what we are playing now, is really what it should be. I am not at the point where I am shelving the game, but on the other hand ist impressions count...and I am not blown away as I was with the other total war games..(and they had their faults)
So we shall see what the real game is when the patch/patches are out..until then we are really paying playtesters for an almost beta game in some respects.
thank you TB666 , now i feel better :)
nameless
11-30-2006, 15:07
Currently in the retail game it is IMO very passive and a bit feeble being honest. Every trick I try just seems to work most of the time. Flanking cavalry attacks dont get countered..or even a response until you have engaged a unit.
I have even moved whole armies right up next to an enemy..and they just stand there...nothing...this happens too often, though not all the time. People complained rome was buggy when it was out..meet the new champ!
It does spoil the game a fair bit...you cannot say what we are playing now, is really what it should be. I am not at the point where I am shelving the game, but on the other hand ist impressions count...and I am not blown away as I was with the other total war games..(and they had their faults)
So we shall see what the real game is when the patch/patches are out..until then we are really paying playtesters for an almost beta game in some respects.
The AI actually counters what you do, at least from what I have seen.
Missile troops go off first to lure you in. However, if you send out a unit to lure them in they take the bait and charge in en masse.
Interestingly enough they kept a few troops in the back. When I tried to get my knights and swordsmen to flank they actually deployed and charged these troops to hold them off. They eventually failed but the fact is that the AI attempted to counter my moves.
In siege battles, I usually spread out my troops to spread out the AI's own troops but eventually the AI will realize which is the most dangerous and will redeploy their troops to stop it.
no nameless ... the AI 90% of time will shoot is arrows even with 1 unit of peasants while you have 10 genoese crossbowmen units ... when he have finished his arrows ( and his army is at 30% streght ) MAYBE he will charge you .... that have no excuses ...is just plain stupid
Barry Fitzgerald
11-30-2006, 15:20
Maybe I am having a freaky campaign or something..but to my eyes the AI is deeply flawed. This isnt something I expected, I was looking for real improvements over RTW..but so far on medium rome was the better game flaws and all (patched up)..true the AI did dumb things...some suicide generals..and sometimes seigers would stay there and take fire when they failed to get in...
but...least it tried..and sometimes I got thrashed to bits, it did respond to arrow fire mostly..not sit there, and it did counter attack too...and it pulled some nice moves. I am not suggesting it was great..but what we have in this MTW2, at present is pretty weedy.
I have won 150 battles and lost 5. I never had that total domination in rome ever. In fact the 5 I did lose were mostly down to the enemy having vastly superior units compared to my weedy ones, and a combination of being outnumbered also..even then they walked away with most of their army destroyed..and a slim victory.
AI is dumb dumb dumb..not helped by the campaign problems also...
It can be fixed for sure...let us hope...but it aint good at present...least not in the game I am playing
nameless
11-30-2006, 15:21
no nameless ... the AI 90% of time will shoot is arrows even with 1 unit of peasants while you have 10 genoese crossbowmen units ... when he have finished his arrows ( and his army is at 30% streght ) MAYBE he will charge you .... that have no excuses ...is just plain stupid
Read my post bud.
This is off from what I have experienced so far.
I also stated that if you lure the AI, they will come.
I was running more experiments and decided to play cat and mouse and the AI immediately took the bait and charged en masse with the missile troops in the back firing.
You can "activate" the AI sure enough but that's usually only with melee troops.
Ranged units generally don't snap the AI out of it's passive mode.
Oh how I miss the pre-beta AI.
I miss how it attacked your line and at the same time sent 2-3 units on the flanks to go behind your lines and attack your ranged units.
It was a beautiful manouver by the AI :2thumbsup:
Jambo is true , there are bugs but come on there are 1000 other fantastic things that make you play and play again .... yours is a point of view a bit too negative and not objective , sad to say that ... shelve the game ? come on ...
1000...
Negative. Objective. I feel I'm being very objective. I'm not saying I hate the game or CA, or that it's terrible. What I am saying is that in its current form I finding it hard to immerse myself in the experience. Everytime I play out a tactical battle I feel I'm exploiting the system. Play with archers and the passive AI won't attack, play a siege defence and the AI falls short in so many ways it's an automatic victory. Sure, the odd battle works really well and the thrill returns, but this isn't me being negative, it's me being realistic. It's just not enjoyable. I play games to be mentally and dexterously challenged and if it doesn't do this, then I play another.
chunkynut
11-30-2006, 16:15
Thinking about how MTW and RTW were patched I think we can expect nothing for a couple of months and then a big patch ... which will also ship with an expansion pack :wink:
I think the games great and for passive AI problems ... attack if you really find it a problem. I find it's about 50/50 if the AI will be passive or not - in situations where I feel they should be, and I've seen intelligent AI e.g. on bridge crossing was firing into the defending AI and they did nothing for a while as I was moving my troops across and having taken casualties (and started outnumbered) retreated from the field.
I'd rather have a [i]more[i/] aggressive AI but not so much so that we get the suicidal generals or cavalry miles ahead of the main body of the army so you can just pick them off.
What Shogun posted is not what I'd call news. Wikiman already said there would be further news in 2 weeks approximately 2 weeks ago! All Shogun has done is repeated that statement and the sycophantic fanboys go delerious for a few days giving CA some more time. If I was being cynical I'd say it was simply a stalling tactic, and it's worked. They now have till next week to come up with something, whatever that may be. As I count it that means the proposed release day patch, a promise that suckered me into purchasing the game, has now become at best a 4 week patch, possibly longer, since in true CA form nothing concrete has been stated. In fact, it's entirely possible that the patch won't even be out next week... most likely it'll just be more "news"...
I've played the game only 4 days before the niggles bothered me enough to shelve the game. The passive AI, the inability of the some units to actually inflict damage on cavalry, the buggy siege AI, the massive lag during certain sieges, the pathfinding frustrations, etc, etc.
Well said Jambo! My thought exactly.
When I read that CA was only going to give "news" of the patch shortly, I could only sigh with disappointment. This tells me that the patch is not going to be available anytime soon. After all, why release news if the patch is just around the corner? I doubt CA will even give a specific release date in this 'news'. I suspect this patch won't be released until Jan 2007.
Now, you can argue that this delay is great. They will fix more bugs. Thats one way of looking at it. My thinking is however that this game was not adequately tested, is riddled with bugs, and it is sitting on my shelf. The lag on the sieges is so bad that I have to autoresolve these or reboot the PC and my system is state of the art SLI. Its sad to say but I can't play this game without getting frustrated by the bugs.
Freedom Onanist
11-30-2006, 16:51
Weird really, I think I am playing the same game as some of you, yet I am still enjoying it.
There are a few things that are niggly, the AI passivity, the micro-mangement of agents (something which has always been in the TW series from the start), the way assassins and merchants take sooooo long to become useful and able to take on the opposition (again all that micro-management). The un-intuitive way your agents and generals have to be actively searched for. How often have been so deeply into the game and click on a city to find 5-6 generals? Some of the units seem a bit iffy on their stats (billmen anyone?).
But none of these things are game stoppers to. They are all down to my personal preferences and idionsyncracies. All these things have bugged me from the start with the series. Well, all save the AI passivity. I am confident CA will rectify this. I think it is the result of over conservative setting after the play testing, maybe they felt that unlike the (few) players who come to these forums (who all seem to be VH/VH:yes: ) the run of the mill player out there would be too challenged by an overly agressive AI.
The fact remains, that I have had hours of fun already and by the sounds of it it should be getting better - all for £25, not bad IMHO.
I take it you've never experienced the show-stopping lag sometimes encountered during siege defences? Well, if you have it's a gamebreaker as you have to quit the battle. Having said all that, I do enjoy it when it works - it just falls short too often at the moment to keep me interested. I'm sure the patch will do wonders when it arrives, but what worries me is that M2TW is the only game I've ever shelved within 4 days of purchase. My other recent purchases, BF2142 and Civ IV, were far more playable and challenging straight out the box.
Agent micromanagement is a cumbersome chore, but like you say it's no gamebreaker and I can live with that. It's funny, I also remember occasions of clicking on cities and thinking, man, where did all those generals come from...!!
redriver
11-30-2006, 17:03
People complained rome was buggy when it was out..meet the new champ!
I don't have the game myself but I know somebody who got a brand new high end system with best pretty much everythin' and a fata$$ LCD sceen ontop just for this game. after playin' it for less than a week he just shelved it and downloaded Chivalry to play RTW until the patch comes out.
the guy was like really hyped 'bout the game and now he tells me it's only good for eye candy and even then RTW still looks better now that he can run it on max settings too lol
Quickening
11-30-2006, 17:06
I don't have the game myself but I know somebody who got a brand new high end system with best pretty much everythin' and a fata$$ LCD sceen ontop just for this game. after playin' it for less than a week he just shelved it and downloaded Chivalry to play RTW until the patch comes out.
the guy was like really hyped 'bout the game and now he tells me it's only good for eye candy and even then RTW still looks better now that he can run it on max settings too lol
I bought a new PC specially for this game as well and Im happy. And your friend is clearly mad if he really thinks that Rome looks better. :inquisitive:
I take it you've never experienced the show-stopping lag sometimes encountered during siege defences?
Upgrade your hardware or disable high quality textures and Shader 2, this is not a bug, it's you insufficient hardware and the fact that you chose your settings too high.:juggle2:
Since I got a new graphicscard, I had no unplayable lag on high settings...:2thumbsup:
And no, I would not call the game a beta, I think it's awesome, but that does not prevent me from expecting a patch for the passive AI bug and some other minor bugs.:yes:
Quickening
11-30-2006, 17:08
Upgrade your hardware or disable high quality textures and Shader 2, this is not a bug, it's you insufficient hardware and the fact that you chose your settings too high.:juggle2:
Are you sure about this? Is there not a bug that is caused when the AI tries to shove all his men into a siege tower or something?
Also, what is this whole Shader 1 and 2 business about? What is the difference?
Become a software developer on a massively complex project with unmissable deadlines looming and financial constraints on how many people you can employ and how much time you can spend testing and you will begin to understand.
DaveyBaby, Sorry fella, but that irritated me. We, the consumer, shouldn't/don't need to understand! We want a product that works! Or at least by now have some kind of 1st patch that is starting to address problems raised to keep the interest going.
If I buy a car that gets delivered without a steering wheel and tyres I'm gonna be a bit miffed and I aint gonna become a mechanic to understand why!
It's a business I agree, however they have sold a product with problems! (and no offence to CA, quite a few!) And who decides the release date? Isn't it them and SEGA?
redriver
11-30-2006, 17:16
I bought a new PC specially for this game as well and Im happy. And your friend is clearly mad if he really thinks that Rome looks better. :inquisitive:
dude. I only played the unofficial demos(no official one yet?) on a high end system with best video card and all settings cranked up to max and I still like RTW graphics better overall. call me mad but that makes at least 2 of us lol
Upgrade your hardware or disable high quality textures and Shader 2, this is not a bug, it's you insufficient hardware and the fact that you chose your settings too high.:juggle2:
Since I got a new graphicscard, I had no unplayable lag on high settings...:2thumbsup:
And no, I would not call the game a beta, I think it's awesome, but that does not prevent me from expecting a patch for the passive AI bug and some other minor bugs.:yes:
lol, upgrade a E6600 Core Duo, X1950XTX, 2 gig RAM setup? :laugh4:
As others more enlightened have since posted, it's an issue with the AI and siege equipment. I can't be bothered explaining it yet again, but suffice to say when it occurs it reduces my fps from 50 to less than 1.
Freedom Onanist
11-30-2006, 17:27
DaveyBaby, Sorry fella, but that irritated me. We, the consumer, shouldn't/don't need to understand! We want a product that works! Or at least by now have some kind of 1st patch that is starting to address problems raised to keep the interest going.
If I buy a car that gets delivered without a steering wheel and tyres I'm gonna be a bit miffed and I aint gonna become a mechanic to understand why!
It's a business I agree, however they have sold a product with problems! (and no offence to CA, quite a few!) And who decides the release date? Isn't it them and SEGA?
Well, in your estimation it is flawed and presumably unplayable. To many others this isn't the case. CA would be liable if they had released the game you are talking about, but many people don't recognise as such. Certainly, my CA "car" has got a steering wheel and tyres. It mightn't be as responsive as I hoped in some situations, but CA are releasing the suspension and low profiles to "pimp my MTW2".
Yes the AI can be improved and CA have stated that they are working on just that. But, the AI, as it is, doesn't make the game useless, many people are enjoying themselves - maybe they don't know any better eh?.
As has been said, CA are working on a patch. If the patch is late, so be it. The complaining usually starts with "this game has been rushed to the shelves....", so i don't think you can have it both ways and complain if they are taking their time this time round.
Doug-Thompson
11-30-2006, 17:33
You know, enough really is enough.
I fired up my computer this morning, came to the forum, and found four patch/general bug threads on the first page. The games been out a couple of weeks.
All right. A bunch of folks not happy. You haven't been happy for weeks. The number of threads where people think their individual unhappiness deserves a thread of its own is a clear sign of that.
We all get the message. However, we got the message a long, long time ago.
If you must remind everybody at least once a day of how unhappy you still are, would you all please find one thread — one that has been created already, giving plenty to choose from — and stick to it. There'd be no danger of it sinking to the bottom. There's obviously enough misery to keep it afloat.
It's gotten to the point that you have to choose up sides between being a fanboy or perpetually p*ssed off.
Quickening
11-30-2006, 17:38
Yes the AI can be improved and CA have stated that they are working on just that. But, the AI, as it is, doesn't make the game useless, many people are enjoying themselves - maybe they don't know any better eh?.
:laugh4:
Freedom Onanist
11-30-2006, 17:41
You know, enough really is enough.
I fired up my computer this morning, came to the forum, and found four patch/general bug threads on the first page. The games been out a couple of weeks.
All right. A bunch of folks not happy. You haven't been happy for weeks. The number of threads where people think their individual unhappiness deserves a thread of its own is a clear sign of that.
We all get the message. However, we got the message a long, long time ago.
If you must remind everybody at least once a day of how unhappy you still are, would you all please find one thread — one that has been created already, giving plenty to choose from — and stick to it. There'd be no danger of it sinking to the bottom. There's obviously enough misery to keep it afloat.
It's gotten to the point that you have to choose up sides between being a fanboy or perpetually p*ssed off.
Great idea:2thumbsup:
Orda Khan
11-30-2006, 17:55
I've never read anyone arguing otherwise or wanting to play with a v1.0 TW game rather than the final patched version.
Well I am one and I think Louis would agree also.....MTW v1.0
Gameplay was far superior, the final patch helped in some ways but it did absolutely nothing to reinstate the valuable role of spears. The final v2.01 patch may have solved the cav swipe bug (which never really troubled me) but it totally screwed MP and reduced it to boringly low levels of cav/sword, cav/sword, cav/swo zzzzzzZZZZzzzzz.
That's because the AI faults was created right before the game went gold.
They tried to make the AI more aggressive on the battlefield but discovered after the game went gold that the AI was now instead extremely passive and once the game has gone gold you can't touch it unless with a patch.
If you played the pre-beta demo unscripted you can see that there is no trace of a passive AI and that the AI uses it's troops like a pro.
Good use of flanking, no suicidal generals, finding weak spots in your line etc.
I myself got beaten countless times by the AI in the pre-beta demo, it was that good.
Which is why so many have posted their dissatisfaction....much like you did only a few posts later......
Oh how I miss the pre-beta AI.
I miss how it attacked your line and at the same time sent 2-3 units on the flanks to go behind your lines and attack your ranged units.
It was a beautiful manouver by the AI
And considering the STW AI did this six years ago, who would not be frustrated with the game in its current state?
Jambo is true , there are bugs but come on there are 1000 other fantastic things that make you play and play again .... yours is a point of view a bit too negative and not objective , sad to say that ... shelve the game ? come on ...
1000? OK name them.
A strategy game is supposed to be challenging and M2TW is not, so what 'other' things are supposed to keep anyone playing again and again? Jambo is not the kind of person to make a statement like that without good reason.
Personally, I think CA have realised they have a hell of a lot to sort out and are beginning to wish they had never been so confident as to suggest the patch would not be long because they were aware of the passive AI and had it solved already. If it surfaces this side of Christmas I will be very surprised.
And no, I would not call the game a beta, I think it's awesome, but that does not prevent me from expecting a patch for the passive AI bug and some other minor bugs.
Contradictory. How can the game be awesome if the AI has a MAJOR bug? It has to be called a Beta when it was released in this state and the problem was KNOWN.
AI is dumb dumb dumb..not helped by the campaign problems also...
It can be fixed for sure...let us hope...but it aint good at present...least not in the game I am playing
There are some who will not agree with you and I can not understand why they feel the need to be so positive.
We, the consumer, shouldn't/don't need to understand! We want a product that works! Or at least by now have some kind of 1st patch that is starting to address problems raised to keep the interest going.
If I buy a car that gets delivered without a steering wheel and tyres I'm gonna be a bit miffed and I aint gonna become a mechanic to understand why!
It's a business I agree, however they have sold a product with problems! (and no offence to CA, quite a few!) And who decides the release date? Isn't it them and SEGA?
Precisely. And if that statement is expanded, six years down the line one would expect them to learn by previous mistakes
It mightn't be as responsive as I hoped in some situations, but CA are releasing the suspension and low profiles to "pimp my MTW2".
Oh really? So how often would you buy a car from that dealer before asking why you can't have one that does not require after sales work?
Yes the AI can be improved and CA have stated that they are working on just that. But, the AI, as it is, doesn't make the game useless, many people are enjoying themselves - maybe they don't know any better eh?.
Well maybe they don't, I guess ignorance is bliss.
As has been said, CA are working on a patch. If the patch is late, so be it. The complaining usually starts with "this game has been rushed to the shelves....", so i don't think you can have it both ways and complain if they are taking their time this time round.
Is this the first TW game you have purchased? I have to ask because it certainly seems like. The game IS rushed out and this is not the first.The patches take AGES. Would it not be a good idea to at least provide a small patch to improve the passive AI? Considering the blog and how brilliant the AI is supposed to be? I seem to recall that on VH it would be a challenge for TW vets? LOL
.........Orda
Proletariat
11-30-2006, 17:56
If you must remind everybody at least once a day of how unhappy you still are, would you all please find one thread — one that has been created already, giving plenty to choose from — and stick to it. There'd be no danger of it sinking to the bottom. There's obviously enough misery to keep it afloat.
QFT
This problem is making this forum unwieldy and unapproachable. I was checking in very frequently before, but now it's become too annoying to try and search down the actually useful threads like the General's Traits, Guild Info, and Merchant income.
This issue with all the purposeful, research threads being lost in a sea of rants/raves is the reason why I'm for a dedicated research forum for MTW2, but I believe that is still being decided by the appropriate staff members whether it's justified or not.
Daveybaby
11-30-2006, 18:19
DaveyBaby, Sorry fella, but that irritated me. We, the consumer, shouldn't/don't need to understand! We want a product that works!
Shrug. Not saying you have to understand, but i was responding to somebody who said they couldnt understand how the game got shipped with bugs. The reason is, basically: in software, bugs happen. The more complex the software, the more likely it is to happen. Thats how.
We'd all rather the game had been bug free, but if you can name one complex strategy game that was released in that state in the last 10 years, i'd be interested to hear it. Even bog-standard RTS-by-numbers games get patched several times after release, and most of those *still* dont do anything more complex than the command & conquer did 15 years ago.
Or at least by now have some kind of 1st patch that is starting to address problems raised to keep the interest going.
In case you havent been paying attention, there IS a patch, its in the publishers QA cycle, which means stuff like checking it doesnt format your hard drive when you install it (cos i'm sure everybody would just LOVE that) across umpteen different versions of windows and hardware, and adding the copy protection so that the all the leet crackers have something to keep them busy for another 15 minutes. This stuff takes time - about... oooooh... 2 weeks or so on average.
I think it would be nice if CA kept us a bit better informed as to whats going on, but to be honest i cant blame them for keeping their heads down until they know for definite when its going to be released, cos god forbid they give a date and then have it slip - i can just imagine the tantrums.
If I buy a car that gets delivered without a steering wheel and tyres I'm gonna be a bit miffed and I aint gonna become a mechanic to understand why!
This isnt a car. You may as well make comparisons with buying a cake for all the relevance that has. Nor, for that matter, is it a shoot em up or beat em up with the exact same gameplay as last time bolted onto a swishy new graphics engine for the next generation of consoles. Crank that handle.
It's a business I agree, however they have sold a product with problems! (and no offence to CA, quite a few!) And who decides the release date? Isn't it them and SEGA?
Unfortunately, business reality sets the release date. Christmas season has a say. So do finances, profits and the march of technology. There is a window of opportunity where your product is viable, a fixed target that has to be met.
There are a lucky few (valve, sid meier) who have sufficient funds that they can dictate their own timescales, but everyone else is all too aware that it doesnt take much to sink a software house. And its usually the ones who are doing something different that are the first to go.
You can say "i shouldnt have to care" all you like. In a perfect world you would be right.
Darkmoor_Dragon
11-30-2006, 18:30
That's because the AI faults was created right before the game went gold.
They tried to make the AI more aggressive on the battlefield but discovered after the game went gold that the AI was now instead extremely passive and once the game has gone gold you can't touch it unless with a patch.
If you played the pre-beta demo unscripted you can see that there is no trace of a passive AI and that the AI uses it's troops like a pro.
Good use of flanking, no suicidal generals, finding weak spots in your line etc.
I myself got beaten countless times by the AI in the pre-beta demo, it was that good.
Now CA has already fixed that huge AI bug and Palamedes thought they would release that patch on day 1 but I can guess that SEGA wanted CA to make a large patch instead that will fix any other bug that will be reported.
And hopefully that patch is soon finished.
After all Wikiman did not say that we would have it in two weeks.
He just said that would have it if testing went smoothly which if the patch is indeed delayed then it didn't go smoothly.
Ttbeofk the demo was scripted - there were practically no AI actions in it at all.
Upgrade your hardware or disable high quality textures and Shader 2, this is not a bug, it's you insufficient hardware and the fact that you chose your settings too high.:juggle2:
Since I got a new graphicscard, I had no unplayable lag on high settings...:2thumbsup:
And no, I would not call the game a beta, I think it's awesome, but that does not prevent me from expecting a patch for the passive AI bug and some other minor bugs.:yes:
Tell me why people need to upgrade their hardware when the recommended PC specifications posted by CA for this game are easily met by just about all systems? Turning down the setting does absolutely nothing.
I have a state of the art rig with SLI. This is a bug or some incompatibility with some higher end systems. My system can handle every other game whether it is Doom, Far Cry, or FEAR with the settings cranked all the way up.
Darkmoor_Dragon
11-30-2006, 18:55
There is no denying there is a great game buried in MTW2 but its partially hidden behind some fairly serious balance issues and a mediocre to awful AI on the tactical battle maps and on the campaign.
There is an excuse with software that if you ship it broken you can always patch it later. The legitimacy vanishes when that starts to become be the deliberate action, rather than the unfortunate circumstance.
CA should be experienced enough to know that friggin' with the code, especially the AI which has ALWAYS been their Achilles heel, is quite literally suicidal and whoever made that decision bears the ultimate responsibility for the subsequent disenfranchisement of a substantial proportion of their fan base.
CA promised (again) that THIS time it would be different, we would be awed by the AI on both battle and campaign modes - but yet again it isn't and we certianly are not.
As one reviewer succinctly put it -
" Yet, while Creative Assembly has addressed some issues, others continue to plague them. Worse, these problems have existed throughout the series and considering this is the fourth game in the franchise and the second with this engine, patience has worn thin to say the least".
I've got plenty enough experience with designing, playing, testing and writing about games to say that I'm aware of the vast majority of "issues" surrounding a game development, testing and release - but come on folks, as much as we LOVE CA for making the series, as much as we LOVE the potential, as much as we LOVE the improvements... what gives with them (CA) messing with the code and releasing it (essentially) untested when they KNOW that AI will ultimately make or break the game for a massive (and it is massive) number of buyers?
I mean, batter your head against a brick wall or what? :wall:
CA, get a grip: your (SP) game is utterly reliant on the capability of the AI, it makes or breaks the entire (sp) game.
And I'm thinking of those members of CA i've spoken to in person and/or interviewed for magazines and I'm thinking "Which one of you was the total Numpti-foo" who made that brilliant decision?
(And I wonder if anybody {still} in the press will ever have the balls to ask them to their face?)
Darkmoor_Dragon
11-30-2006, 19:01
Turning down the setting does absolutely nothing.
Indeed... but making unit sizes smaller will do.
It ignores everything else other than unit size it appears to me.
There is no denying there is a great game buried in MTW2 but its partially hidden behind some fairly serious balance issues and a mediocre to awful AI on the tactical battle maps and on the campaign.
There is an excuse with software that if you ship it broken you can always patch it later. The legitimacy vanishes when that starts to become be the deliberate action, rather than the unfortunate circumstance.
CA should be experienced enough to know that friggin' with the code, especially the AI which has ALWAYS been their Achilles heel, is quite literally suicidal and whoever made that decision bears the ultimate responsibility for the subsequent disenfranchisement of a substantial proportion of their fan base.
CA promised (again) that THIS time it would be different, we would be awed by the AI on both battle and campaign modes - but yet again it isn't and we certianly are not.
As one reviewer succinctly put it -
I've got plenty enough experience with designing, playing, testing and writing about games to say that I'm aware of the vast majority of "issues" surrounding a game development, testing and release - but come on folks, as much as we LOVE CA for making the series, as much as we LOVE the potential, as much as we LOVE the improvements... what gives with them (CA) messing with the code and releasing it (essentially) untested when they KNOW that AI will ultimately make or break the game for a massive (and it is massive) number of buyers?
I mean, batter your head against a brick wall or what? :wall:
CA, get a grip: your (SP) game is utterly reliant on the capability of the AI, it makes or breaks the entire (sp) game.
And I'm thinking of those members of CA i've spoken to in person and/or interviewed for magazines and I'm thinking "Which one of you was the total Numpti-foo" who made that brilliant decision?
(And I wonder if anybody {still} in the press will ever have the balls to ask them to their face?)
Yup, excellent post. There's too many that accept mediocrity. Maybe it's because the community has a lot of TW freshmen experiencing a TW game's style of play for the first time? I do remember how enchanted I was when I first played Shogun TW. On the other hand maybe for some it's just blind fanboyism?
There is a lot to admire with the TW games - they are bold and ambitious and deserve the accolades they've received, but like DD has just posted, the features and graphics aren't really worth much without clever supporting AI to use them. Instead, they really should be playing second fiddle to the AI and that's not really been the case.
I haven't not played M2TW because I'm trying to make a statement to CA or you guys. Rather it's that I'm not satisfied or enjoying the level of competition I'm being challenged with. If it was a MP only game much like BF2142, they at least have the advantage of the AI being done for them. That is not the case with the meat of TW games.
Doug-Thompson
11-30-2006, 19:30
There's too many that accept mediocrity. Maybe it's because the community has a lot of TW freshmen experiencing a TW game's style of play for the first time? I do remember how enchanted I was when I first played Shogun TW. On the other hand maybe for some it's just blind fanboyism?
So if we don't agree, we're lumps, newbies or fanboys?
i don't think that there needs to be a separate research forum. i think the Mod forums should be where things like that go, because to mod you have to research the abilities and functions of the game. after you discover as much as you can you start tinkering. so i think all research threads involving how the money works, how battles play out for strategic definition of the AI, and all of that should go in there. if you just NEED to have another forum, that should be the main tab it is under.
as for all the complaints about bugs and such, i am again reminded of my experiences with SWG. when the game came out people complained about the strength of the AT-AT that the Empire faction could buy, and that the straight up fighting between rebels and storm troopers with the AT-AT support were heavily tilted in the favor of the Empire. they saw it as a bug and complained loudly for balance. in the end, an AT-AT wasn't worth anything more than taking a screenie for role playing purposes. they did very little damage, actually hurt you if you grouped with one because they averaged out your combat level if you were higher ranked than they were, and were easily destroyed by anyone with commando skills.
what the people who chose to be rebels were REALLY complaining over was that they were feeling the pressures of oppression. the Empire was stronger and they didn't like that they couldn't just line up 20 on 20 and win. a lot of the bickering i see over what is a bug/isn't a bug may or may not be. i don't know. i'm not a programmer. i just play the game. but isn't "strategy" all about discovery? if X doesn't work, then try Y? yeah, peasants shouldn't be taking out other more elite units so easily. however, in many of the sims i am reading over, you're throwing them in one on one, and straight up. no flanking. no tricks or skills. however, these ar ethe things that are going to have the most effect, aren't they?
consider this. if you take army A against Army B and sim the battle, what do the stats look like? do they look anything remotely like what your own stats would if you fought the battle yourself? my casulaty rates are always higher on one side, the other, or both. the game sims the two armies and finds the quickest way to rout the other army, not decimate it (which would be a nice option). just clashing front to front while on defense of their home i would expect a peasant army to fight better than their stats might suggest. and let's face it... better weapons and armour doesn't mean more heart, more drive, or more skill. obviously the game isn't programmed with such emotions, but it isn't really that hard to imagine for me based on real life circumstances. history is littered with battles where one side should be crushed, but they either created a phyrric victory for the opponent, or actually defeated them. it wasn't supposed to happen, but it did.
and i do agree the AI is too passive under fire. no one is going to stand there and take a shower of arrows until they stop coming. i keep waiting for a front line charge and it never comes. unless you make a tactical mistake (such as putting your general out front for spearman to find, or turning your backs to the enemy) they just won't charge. what that tells me is taht i need to fight every battle as though i am the assaulter and not the defender. if they attacked me and want to let the time run out, fine. if this doesn't stimulate me enough, i either need to stop playing and do something else, or change the way i play so as to challenge myself.
the original idea behind SWG was "player driven content". there were some dungeons, small quests, and POIs, but ultimately you found a group of people to run with and you made your own adventures. the fact people got bored with it shows me the pitiful state of imagination in our country. the Total War series has moved beyond a simple engine created to entertain you. it has become a highly moddable game that you can play vanilla or create your own fantasy world.
in short, it's shallow enough for a newbie to pick it and play immediately, yet moddable to be deep enough that even the hardened veteran can set things in a way that challenges them. maybe the game is too easy for you right now. how many games of this nature are ever greatness BEFORE the first patch? name me a game like this was NEVER patched at all. you knew it would need patching. you bought it anyway. don't complain because Devs just maybe wanted to hold things back a little so that people would play the game THEY CREATED for a few weeks before releasing the tools necessary to go back and change everything. when you think about it, it could actually be taken as a slap in the face to the R&D. you're only interested in the engine, not the body that came with it. their work is inferior to your own, because you can't wait for someone to "make it better" than the 2 years of developement and programming they put into it. a little patience shouldn't be too much to ask.
and when you can make a game that can be modded over and over again, or played just in it's original form, and still enjoyed by millions and millions of people... i'd say you've pretty much created a masterpiece.
Good work, CA. I, along with many of the veterans of this board, appreciate the game you have brought us and look forward to the possibilities it will unlock for future projects. I'm still waiting for a really good American Civil War game (hint, hint).
UglyandHasty
11-30-2006, 19:39
Its all déja-vu
Lets dig out some old RTW and MTW thread...
mor dan, you should give a look to Take Command the 2nd Manassas
My, my.
So if we don't agree, we're lumps, newbies or fanboys.
Pity us, oh master, and tell us what great game there is that we could be playing instead of wasting time with this leper. Bring sight to the blind, we beg you.
((sprays Doug with fanboy repellent))
just kidding. There is no need for this type of personalization. Jambo is speaking in generalities not towards you.
Doug-Thompson
11-30-2006, 20:00
((sprays Doug with fanboy repellent))
just kidding. There is no need for this type of personalization. Jambo is speaking in generalities not towards you.
Uh-uh. No more free shots. No more comments about "accepting mediocrity" and "spraying fanboy repellant" then saying "Just kidding" without a challenge.
Ttbeofk the demo was scripted - there were practically no AI actions in it at all.
However if you removed the script there was plenty.
Pre-beta demo unscripted= AI is good, better then in RTW 1.5 and more like what they promised
Gold demo unscripted= the same thing we see in M2TW now.
There's too many that accept mediocrity. Maybe it's because the community has a lot of TW freshmen experiencing a TW game's style of play for the first time? I do remember how enchanted I was when I first played Shogun TW. On the other hand maybe for some it's just blind fanboyism?
No, the TotalWar games all have the same basic system which they build upon. I like that system and thus I like the game, if you think the system is mediocre, then don't play it. To find out, you could play Shogun again and see whether you're still enchanted. I once did that before RTW was out and quickly returned to MTW. Why? Because I like progress and improvement, Medieval 2 shows progress and improvement for me while keeping the good basis of the TotalWar series. Bugs and problems are in almost every modern game, I only start to throw the game away if they really make it almost unplayable.
I'd say people who expect everything to be perfect and exactly like they dreamt of it have lost their connection to the real world.
Uh-uh. No more free shots. No more comments about "accepting mediocrity" and "spraying fanboy repellant" then say "Just kidding" without a challenge.
Easy mate, just trying to inject some humor. I didn't intend to offend you and since I did, I apologize.
Doug-Thompson
11-30-2006, 20:16
Thanks for the apology.
I make generalizations too. My generalization is that anybody who plays a game this complex and deep for a leisure time activity is not dumb and deserves a certain level of respect.
In that spirit, I'll edit my post to Jambo and tone it down a bit.
Barry Fitzgerald
11-30-2006, 21:39
I feel myself that I take every TW game I have played on it's own merits...and try not to get into a versus debate. Course it happens we compare them.
I had areas that didnt please/impress in STW/MTW/RTW....in many ways they share similar points..but they all play differently..and have their own pros and cons. The important part is that the experience was enjoyable..and it was fun.
I think MTW worked...and it was bolstered with a fine expansion pack VI....that really helped breath new life into the game. In 2004 warts and all RTW worked for me...at that time. I also like the unit diversity...playing barbarians was very different to romans, phalanx units..etc etc.
That appealed to me. Who didn't have fun blasting those elephants through a huge AI army of cohorts...flying everywhere! It did entertain...albeit in a flawed way...as did MTW
In some ways BI for RTW wasnt in the same league at VI..but it was still decent enough, and it offered a different way of playing compared to the original RTW. I won't comment on Alexander..didnt appeal to me..and looked a little rushed.
I liked the campaign map on MTW, and the battles of RTW. For MTW2 I am enjoying the campaign map much more this time around....less so battles at present..though this may change.
I wonder how long we have all spent playing these TW games..and maybe we have reached the point where we do need amazing new thrills to really get worked up again? Maybe we have TW 'ed ourselves to death and it just isnt so mind blowingly good anymore?
Are we just changing the piano player..who plays the same or similar song...? Or is it like having chinese every night of the week for a year......love it but you are going to lose some interest after a while?
Orda Khan
11-30-2006, 22:29
Doug, I don't think Jambo directed any comment at you. And I am certain that he has tried to enjoy the game; he is not the constant Mr Negative either. I share his thoughts and I have to add that the SP campaign of any of the titles has been marred by the AI. This is the reason why 99% of my TW play has been MP and the reason is simple. For tactical challenge.
Each and every TW has had a poor tactical AI (if I talk AI it usually means tactical due to my lack of in depth knowledge of SP campaign) but I would argue that the STW AI provided the best challenge of them all.
As an example, I have not played any TW game for ages, close to a year. I tried M2TW in a custom battle, I was forgetting commands and all sorts yet I destroyed the enemy and lost only 37 men. Don't get me wrong, SP campaign battles were always too easy to win but CA promised so much with M2TW and even when the blog revealed how they screwed things up with the AI, it also stated that the mistake was known and had been rectified and a patch was promised. Now I don't give a damn that it did not appear with release and I don't really give a damn now, because I don't have the game. But I see the AI as the crucial part of SP and I echo Darkmoor_Dragon, because this is not the first let down. In essence you could argue that Palamedes came here and told us we were buying a game that had just been messed up but of course he also mentioned that patch. The taunt about how the AI on VH would be a real challenge to a TW vet, that was a bit like a dangling carrot.
As long as the AI stands there clueless as it is reduced by arrow fire to levels where victory is impossible, I won't buy it, or at least I will stick to MP.
I think Jambo was referring to the individuals who have constantly posted glowing reports about M2TW, even before it was released. I find this annoying but unfortunately negative posts have to be thoughtfully written. Woe betide us if we dare talk badly of CA or hint at 'fanboyism'. To be honest I am p1$$ed off just like you but for completely different reasons.
I don't mind odd bugs, they seem to be the norm with most PC games (I wouldn't know, I only play TW games) but without an AI there is no game. And what p1$$es me off is that CA tell us the AI is screwed and we see countless "this game is awesome" posts.
I can only conclude they are using auto resolve.
However, Knowing Jambo and also knowing his approach to the game, if he says the game is seriously in need of a patch I would tend to worry for SP.
On the other hand I could buy the game, install the all factions mod and have some fun as the Mongols, there won't be much to stop my horse archers
..........Orda
SigniferOne
11-30-2006, 22:37
MTW v1.0 Gameplay was far superior
I strongly believe this is rose-tinted hindsight more than anything else. People are now trying to say RTW was better than M2TW, can you believe that? I mean it's sheer nonsense, but those rose-tinted glasses are magical in what they can do to a person's memory.
Well I am one and I think Louis would agree also.....Problem is, you and him are the only two who have ever bought MTW1. THe rest of the world really couldn't care less about the game. I got into the franchise with MTW:VI, after an expansion and after all of the improvements, and I still found it kinda alright, nothing earthshatteringly crazy amazing. I agree that MTW2 was rushed, but it is still the best one of the series, by far. You may still prefer MTW1, but if CA followed its original path up to now, you'd still be the only one playing it.
Orda Khan
11-30-2006, 22:40
I wonder how long we have all spent playing these TW games..and maybe we have reached the point where we do need amazing new thrills to really get worked up again? Maybe we have TW 'ed ourselves to death and it just isnt so mind blowingly good anymore?
Are we just changing the piano player..who plays the same or similar song...? Or is it like having chinese every night of the week for a year......love it but you are going to lose some interest after a while?
Yes I have been thinking exactly that since RTW. I have also been through the
"Why don't you just quit and get a life?" syndrome.
This was going to be my last effort anyway, only 'Mongols Total War' could stir my interest further. Certainly any Napoleonic, American Civil War or similar theme would bore the pants off me
.........Orda
Orda Khan
11-30-2006, 22:44
I strongly believe this is rose-tinted hindsight more than anything else. People are now trying to say RTW was better than M2TW, can you believe that? I mean it's sheer nonsense, but those rose-tinted glasses are magical in what they can do to a person's memory.
Problem is, you and him are the only two who have ever bought MTW1. THe rest of the world really couldn't care less about the game. I got into the franchise with MTW:VI, after an expansion and after all of the improvements, and I still found it kinda alright, nothing earthshatteringly crazy amazing. I agree that MTW2 was rushed, but it is still the best one of the series, by far. You may still prefer MTW1, but if CA followed its original path up to now, you'd still be the only one playing it.
What on earth are you talking about? :inquisitive:
Anyway, rose tinted .......no and go sit in a dark room if you think only two people bought original MTW
.......Orda
Doug-Thompson
11-30-2006, 22:54
Thanks for your thoughtful post, Orda.
If I recall the blogs and the what's been said on this thread and in your post correctly:
The AI was better in the Beta version and then was messed up by a last-minute change attempt. CA promised to fix this mistake in a opening-day patch. The patch is a no-show. Now we have an admitedly bugged battle AI and no patch.
The patch would be released by now except that so many other bugs were found in what should have been a finished product, it's delaying the release of this crucial fix.
Doug, I don't think Jambo directed any comment at you. And I am certain that he has tried to enjoy the game; he is not the constant Mr Negative either. I share his thoughts and I have to add that the SP campaign of any of the titles has been marred by the AI. This is the reason why 99% of my TW play has been MP and the reason is simple. For tactical challenge.
I respect that. Certainly, I've lost few battles, have never lost by very much and won one that I definitely should have lost. However, the reason we are in this fix — please correct me if I'm wrong — is because CA attempted an 11th-hour fix after receiving input from players and slipped up.
They should issue a patch. It should include the information necessary to mod the game. However, I think round after round of criticism for an offence they've already admitted to in writing is a little much.
[Edited P.S.: I also believe that the vast majority of other "bugs" reported are attempts to put personal preferences in the patch rather than fix real problems. Allow me to cite an example that I cited myself: I declared a Jihad. It succeeded in a couple of turns, walking through the gates left open by a spy and then taking the city with few loses. I get a message telling me the Jihad's over but with no real victory. I reported this as a bug. After sleeping on it, though, I have to ask -- why should I get the experience points and piety from a Jihad that was no sweat. This might be a bug, or it might be an anti-BS Jihad measure.]
As long as the AI stands there clueless as it is reduced by arrow fire to levels where victory is impossible, I won't buy it, or at least I will stick to MP.
I think Jambo was referring to the individuals who have constantly posted glowing reports about M2TW, even before it was released.
If you vouche for Jambo, that's good enough for me, Orda.
I find this annoying but unfortunately negative posts have to be thoughtfully written.
I haven't found that to be true, unfortuantely.
Woe betide us if we dare talk badly of CA or hint at 'fanboyism'.
Or anybody who gives CA a break.
I don't mind odd bugs, they seem to be the norm with most PC games (I wouldn't know, I only play TW games) but without an AI there is no game. (Emphasis added, and I agree.) And what p1$$es me off is that CA tell us the AI is screwed and we see countless "this game is awesome" posts.
I can only conclude they are using auto resolve.
Fair enough.
However, Knowing Jambo and also knowing his approach to the game, if he says the game is seriously in need of a patch I would tend to worry for SP.
On the other hand I could buy the game, install the all factions mod and have some fun as the Mongols, there won't be much to stop my horse archers
:2thumbsup: There you go. Nothing like cutting a swathe to cheer a guy up.
QFT
This problem is making this forum unwieldy and unapproachable. I was checking in very frequently before, but now it's become too annoying to try and search down the actually useful threads like the General's Traits, Guild Info, and Merchant income.
This issue with all the purposeful, research threads being lost in a sea of rants/raves is the reason why I'm for a dedicated research forum for MTW2, but I believe that is still being decided by the appropriate staff members whether it's justified or not.
Yes, sing it prole. Completely agree, a dedicated research forum would be wonderful. The good useful threads, general traits, merchant income, charges, Army wide formation techniques are all lost on page 3-5 or further god forbid. The forum is completely filled daily with rants, and there will be two or three more threads started by someone else ranting about the exact same thing. I believe there was even a thread ranting about there being a bug with auto manage. It would be wonderful to have a nice place devoted to understanding the basic rules the game is run on.
Darkmoor_Dragon
11-30-2006, 23:14
And what p1$$es me off is that CA tell us the AI is screwed and we see countless "this game is awesome" posts.
Well, indeed and let me tell you that THAT is a major hurdle and problem.
Think of all the plaudits and praise heaped upon MTW2 by player and reviewer alike and then consider that we, essentially, KNOW that they all played a game in which the AI was generally acting like a snail in mid-winter.
How then do we, putting ourselves in CA's shoes, regard the future when the "awesome" AI comes in to play
"Good God Sir! We'll frighten all the gamers away!"
"It will be too hard!"
"Dumb the AI down!"
:oops:
Wow, you people just keep on bending backwards for CA that has consistently kept on NOT improving the games they make.
Good for you, I guess. There's a saying in my country; if one is given with a spoon, can't demand with a scoop.
To say CA hasn't improved the game from the original Shogun is patently absurd.
To say CA hasn't improved the game from the original Shogun is patently absurd.
But, to say that the battle AI has never been as good as the one in Shogun would not be an overstatement. But then again, there were so few units that it was probably reasonably easy to program.
Personnally, I would say that MTW VI with Medmod 4.0 loaded was probably the best Total War game there ever was. And MTW2 isn't close, yet.
Ok, my last post seemed to offend a few people and that wasn't the intention, so I apologise. My original sentence before I edited had read:
"There's too many that accept mediocrity [in the Western World]" then just before I submitted I thought I'd generalised too much so deleted the last part. In essence this didn't help. :oops:
Anyway, I guess the message I was trying to convey was that in the computer gaming world people are becoming more accepting of unfinished or deadline-driven semi-polished work. And what's worrying is it's us, the consumer, that's paying the price. Now, some may well say M2TW is a finished product and in a sense they could be right - after all it works. It loads, and at least on my machine, doesn't CTD. Great. But is that now the standard by which we judge products in the modern age? Is that the stall we're setting out? Have we come to accept as customers that this is now the norm? It would seem so from some of the posts here and at .com. People get slated if they compare other lines of work against the gaming industry, as if it's become such commonplace nowadays that it's now readily acknowledged and accepted that buggy software is ok to release. Even worse, it's expected. I admit I may be shallow here in expecting more, but we shouldn't forget that in terms of TW this is now the 4th title, and the second from this game engine.
My fanboysim comment was related to Shogun's post of at .com. In it he simply stated there would be update on the "news" regarding the patch at the end of this week or beginning of the next, something we were told 2 weeks before. I don't personally blame him for informing us, it's never been a personal crusade (pardon the pun) against the CA team and it's better to have communication than none at all. And for that matter I read it and thought fine, no comment. BUT... What followed was a tirade of "wehays, yehars and excellents" lol. It made me laugh. In effect, we'd been told nothing new and yet there was an instant appeasement amongst the masses. If only it was as easy to do the same in my line of work. :whip:
So, bringing his back on topic and back to M2TW, I've played the game for a whopping 4 days in total. Not much I admit, but in that time I've experienced all of the following:
1. Passive AI.
2. Defunct siege AI when attacking. I've had at least 5 battles where I've had to let the timer run out as the AI armies inanely stumble around my castle or remain stationary outside.
3. Massive performance slowdowns during sieges (fps from 50 to less than 1) where the only solution is to abandon the battle.
4. Two-handed weapon infantry having no affect on cavalry.
If one person can note these in 4 days, what surely could a QA team do?
I'm not going to mention in the list above inquisitors, buggy cavalry charge, merchant income resetting upon reload, poorly defended AI settlements, and no AI invasion of the Americas, because all of theses are things I CAN live with. I don't really have high expectations, but I do expect a challenge and an ability to do the basics when it comes to AI. At the moment each time I enter a battle, particularly a siege defence, it feels like I'm exploiting the strange AI idiosyncracies. Maybe people haven't noticed the siege bugs because they're playing on M/M or easy and are always doing the attacking - who knows?? In fact, the AI's actually alright on defence. I play VH/VH so I regularly get the AI siege assaulting me.
I really would be interested to know how you deal with items 1-4 above?
Regards
Actually Shogun is referring the patch as an update.
So he is saying that this week or the next there will be news about the patch, not news about the update about the patch.
Heh, yeah I know, I said "In it he simply stated there would be update on the "news" regarding the patch...."
Barry Fitzgerald
12-01-2006, 02:19
Trouble is I am fast losing interest! Hate to say it but I sit here now thinking...shall I bother to play MTW2? I did the same last night..and came away a bit colder still.....
Pretty worrying for a TW fan...I mean I played them all to death...but now I feel as if CA have left it too long to at least tackle some of the major issues...
Sure they will get it sorted no doubt..but by the time they do....let's just say rightly or wrongly ist impressions do kinda last. Maybe that isnt fair...
I never thought I would lose interest in a TW game so fast....I want to say it is the best thing ever...and it rocks...but I just can't. When your fans start losing interest...then there is def a problem.
But, to say that the battle AI has never been as good as the one in Shogun would not be an overstatement.
Nice strawman, but I didn't claim that, while I was responding to someone who did make a certain claim.
Barny Bangs
12-01-2006, 14:19
Can't quite understand the fuss. THe patch will come when it will come. C'mon guys it's the gaming industry, just call TF2 or DN:Forever into mind.
I encountered some of the "faulty" aspects of the game, the passive AI in face of a larger army only three times. I have huge fun playing M2TW and for the last weeks invested every waking hour in building my empire.
Sure, a patch would be nice and it will come sooner or later. At the moment when encountering a buggy issue, I just include it into my gaming experience:
Passive AI? Ah, it's that damn newbie general, paralyzed to death by the sight of my mighty army.
Defunct AI in sieges? Only encountered it once, enemy units strolling aimlessly through Paris and thought: "Ha, they should have brought a map getting lost in the city. And their guys sitting out of the gate are just cowards thinking: 'The others will do the fighting, let us chill here and enjoy the view'"
Campaign AI not accepting ceasefires though on the brink of extinction? Those arrogant bastards don't deserve my pity, let's crush them.
I am a fan of TW since the first day of Shogun and there surely has been a fair amount of dissapointment regarding after-release-support, but hey, imho it's still one of the best games out there, one of the three games I would take to a deserted island ("what do you mean we have no electricity?!?").
Barny Bangs, if the burning desire to play does overcome the frustrations I know lie ahead then that is indeed one of the better ways (if not the only way) of dealing with the problems! :2thumbsup:
R'as al Ghul
12-01-2006, 14:45
1. Passive AI.
2. Defunct siege AI when attacking. I've had at least 5 battles where I've had to let the timer run out as the AI armies inanely stumble around my castle or remain stationary outside.
3. Massive performance slowdowns during sieges (fps from 50 to less than 1) where the only solution is to abandon the battle.
4. Two-handed weapon infantry having no affect on cavalry.
I really would be interested to know how you deal with items 1-4 above?
Regards
1. The (Battle-) AI has been passive on several occasions but not too often to be annoying. I usually engage it with missiles first and it reacts with missiles. I sometimes have to initiate the battle with arrows when being the defender.
2. The AI so far has done reasonably well in sieges. I've seen the AI sally with Cav to destroy Art, retreat out of range when I sally. What it does wrong is that it often aborts all siege gear when one breach is made in the wall. I've not seen the stumbling around and the waiting outside.
3. I've had that since I recently developed gun powder units. Every siege with gunpowder units is a lagfest. I was able to improve it by turning down AA to *2 from *4. But still, it's not good. The cutscenes when a wall is crumbling almost kill the battles for me but not always. Don't know what the problem is.
4. No experience.
What I find most annoying is that I don't understand the battles. I'm playing on very hard and even with vice-infested inferior generals I always win. My Italian Spear militia wins melees against everything. The only battles I loose are when I take 4 mercenary units against a full stack. I'm still waiting for the announced uber-AI that is supposed to give us trouble on VH. Since CA has admitted that that build hasn't made it into the gold version I'll wait. But in the meantime I've a hard time to figure out what's going on the field.
If you have time please check out this thread: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=73675
R'as
Re Berengario I
12-01-2006, 15:03
The most annoying bugs to me are actually 2:
1) Passive AI: play Byzs with a lot of horse archers and you win on vh without even a melee fight on most battles. This a game breaking bug as with the right units you can win without efforts.
2) AI unability to make naval invasions: some island regions are never threatened by the AI. Once you have control of England you can just keep small garrisons there to prevent rebellions and use your forces on the continent as no danes or russians will ever sail to your lands. And rebels will just stay stationary waiting for you to have the time to slaughter them.
Plus this can be exploited in infinite ways to prevent other factions to reach victory conditions. Just place some ships on the landbridges around Constantinople and no crusade will ever reach Jerusalem. This also is a game-breaking bug as it negates the competition.
So I'm sorry but while knowing Xmas is near and the game was rushed, I'm now in the condition to have a new game in my hands without the will to complete it because at every battle or at every move on the strat map I'm thinking "Am I exploiting the bugs too much?", spoiling any fun out my gaming experience.
Doug-Thompson
12-01-2006, 17:17
@ Jambo
I overreacted. Your post was actually well thought out compared to the whining that had me so frustrated. Even the complaints that were legitimate were repeated over and over and over again. I should have taken it all out on you.
Anyway, I guess the message I was trying to convey was that in the computer gaming world people are becoming more accepting of unfinished or deadline-driven semi-polished work. And what's worrying is it's us, the consumer, that's paying the price.
This has been a major gripe of mine for years, but I think the situation's getting better instead of worse.
One reason console games all but drove PC games from the market was simple reliability. The big reason was price, but a contributing factor was that you could put a PlayStation game into any PlayStation on your continent. It would play. PC game? Maybe, maybe not. It could depend on your video drivers or your sound card. Compatability problems abounded. It was clear to anybody who could read that PC game companies had developed a clear attitude of "let customers find the compatability problems." Worse, that turned into "let the customers finish the game." The problem of releasing half-baked games grew to be an industry standard. I think my favorite review of all time was for "Destroyer Command," a PC companion to "Silent Hunter II". I was very, very interested in that 2002 game. Then I read this at GameSpot:
Sometimes software is released in such a wretched state that the developers may as well just come to your house and kick your dog for $40. This is the case with Destroyer Command, a painful instance of just how shameless and insulting a computer game company can be with its customers.
You get the picture. The review went on quite the rant about the prevalence of this practice.
To keep the market share they have left, computer game developers have had to release more finished games. Now the fact you can patch these games is a selling point.
Here's my main point: You're going to shelve this game until they fix the problems. If you're quite sure all the problems have been found and clearly identified, fine. Or if you think "Fool me once, shame on you. If you fool me twice, shame on you," that's understandable.
However, the changes of RTW were sprung on us. The gaming press was wowed but the fan base revolted. Forget blogs and other bones SEGA might throw us. The fact is that the biggest complaints about RTW's tactical battles were unit speeds and kill rates. Those have clearly been addressed. Players on this forum have said the AI was improved in the Beta version too, and then spoilt by a last-minute change to address issues raised by players.
Going from getting no attention at all before RTW popped out of the cake and yelled "Surprize" to going to too much attention, to the point you're changing programming when you really shouldn't, is a trend I'd like to at least not discourage.
It is logically inconsistent to complain about games that are not finished, then refuse to participate in the finishing process. Nobody's demanding that you participate. You may believe that you've been suckered enough and that CA can't or won't fix long-standing issues. Fine. My attitude is that I have nothing to lose. Fine. Everybody has their opinion. I just don't like being called a settler for mediocrity when I'm actively — even if forlornly — trying to get something fixed.
Heck, the decision to go back to Medieval: Total War was a clear scurry to try and mollify the core.
Finally, I must say that many of the complaints listed (not yours) are simply not bugs. Since I can't raise this claim any more without giving specifics, I'll use the example of billmen.
The idea that every unit has a counter and that every unit is a stand-alone counter to something else has become dogma. The willingness to come up with good mixed-unit combos has died. Billmen are an example of this. Some knight unit charged a unit of billmen, the billmen died and shouts of bug began.
I read about this on the forum. Sure enough, it proved out. I put a unit of Irish Kern skirmishers in front of the billman, and drew the billmen out in a two-rank line. The knights charged, meleed with the skirmishers, got charged by the billmen, got mauled and left the large majority of their companions dead on the field before running away. I was satisfied with this result, which I believed to be acceptably historically accruate.
CA on the patch and the charges: http://totalwarcommunity.blogspot.com/
There was a rather long period where the PC game industry came accross as either a bunch of idiot savants that were good "code monkeys" but had no real clue how the market actually worked or were driven by merciless budget crunchers that didnt give a hot damn about the consumer.
I agree with Mr. Thompson, above, that this trend has been changing lately. I'm sure there's bugs in this game, heck, has to be a bug if there's code. Some of what is being talked up as bugs might well be design decisions that got made out of necessity that folk will just have to get used to. Every new game has an adjustment period where players have to square away preconcepts with the new reality.
The bugs most folk have been yelling about, I've not noticed. That might well be because I just dont look close enough though. There's a few design elements that I'd rather were done differently, such as unit speed (I prefer it a bit slower, for example) but that's just personal taste and I'm pretty dang sure that before too long, someone's gonna have a mod out that has everything just right :)
What got me in the mood to say nice things about this game here now was something I noticed while playing last night.
I have a fair decent system and have all the video options up to highest. Game runs fine, even in large battles with huge units. That's not what got me in a good mood regarding the 'bugs' issue tho.
What did it was when I had all my units committed to the fight and some horse units running about and nothing "selected" so no green blobs. I had the camera scrolled out about mid way and...I swear, for a minute, it was like I was watching a movie. The graphics were just that sweet that all the little guys running around looked like real people.
What's got me a little bit sad atm is that this might be about as far as this TW format can go without real big changes. I mean, how many more ways can this be done and be worth doing? Once its all working and polished and pretty, (it cant get a hella lot more pretty than it is already), it'll just be a change of unit cards and unit names and scenery with a different historical "back story" but just more same o' same o'.
Anyhoo, sorta back on topic...yeah, I'm sure there's bugs but none seem to have bit me yet, at least not that I've noticed. I'm glad there's folk out there that are good at finding those sort of things too.
There's a whole lot that's been redone and reworked and rethought in this new game, finishing moves, mix and match body parts, refigured physics, etc etc that will take some time to get all right and proper. I'm glad I get a chance to play it in the meantime though, because I'm having hella fun with it, just as it is.
Barry Fitzgerald
12-01-2006, 17:57
I cannot agree with Doug....
It simply is not acceptable in my books to release a game or any other software that is riddled with issues, and not finished properly. A distinction needs to be made here...I don't expect perfection..bugs and balance issues are expected to a point..
But be seeing an AI army spend most of the time sitting and waiting to be attacked..or coming under heavy arrow/arty fire, and doing nothing...isnt my idea of a challenge.
You mention billmen...but I have tried every strategy possible to get them to be effective v cavalry..and they are not. Billmen carry a bill which is a spear combined with an axe about 7 yo 8 feet long..with a hook on it..it was a major part of the english army, and it was effective against infantry and cavalry. In the game it isnt...meet the cav...watch your billmen die. It is a problem. It needs fixing.
There are plenty of bugs..and plenty of balance issues..and to deny this is to fly in the face of what is reality.
Put simply the game is spoilt..and pretty much unplayable to me in its present form. Sure you double click on the icon and it loads..it looks cool when the men fight..but that is it. Campaign AI is half asleep and feeble, so is battle AI...unit hang back problems..timer problems..
Need I carry on..the entire page would fill if I listed every issue. And most of them are bugs...not gameplay choices. And those that are deliberate designed by the program writers..show little playtesting and balance.
I am not here to rubbish MTW2..but it has to be said..as bugged as RTW was..as many complaints of too fast...not good enough AI..it played in its ist release..a lot better than this!
I still have no had a single AI siege on the battle map against me...armies retreat most of the time, those that attack run off shortly afterwards...is this TW heaven? Not for me it isnt...
Doug-Thompson
12-01-2006, 18:20
It's just my opinion, but it's rooted in the history of Swiss halberdiers, Barry. I admit to not being nearly as familiar as I should be with English Billmen in history, but the Swiss had a weapon at least as good as the English polearm, and were veteran fighters. The Swiss went to the pike -- although never totally abandoning the halberd, which became a support weapon -- because of the high casualites they were suffering, particularly whenever they left the mountains.
Also, the passive AI bug is exactly the one slipped in at the last minute in a misfired attempt to address playtester issues and is expected to be slipped out. Finally, as the target of two Crusades, I wish the campaign AI was drowsy.
Barry Fitzgerald
12-01-2006, 18:34
Well being honest I take no pleasure from not being happy....not at all.
It is as if we are playing different games...I am concerned by this....even playing at different levels..different factions...historic battles..custom battles...I am just not getting good AI...
Sometimes I don't seem to be getting any!
As for the billmen v pikemen area...it is true that the english didnt follow what the rest of europe was doing in this respect...I would say that it doesnt indicate that pikemen are not better...but that the bill suited english training and tactics more than the other weapons..if it isnt broke..don't fix it would be my thinking.
As for the exact reason for the AI passive bug..I wouldnt know if that is true...it may well be. With a game like this it does need extensive playtesting (which we are all now doing!! lol)...
I can only imagine that CA got a bit behind their schedule..and there was not adequate time to do heavy playtesting...which is odd considering the project was probably started before RTW was released...
gladiator777
12-01-2006, 18:35
the game is very good with some glaring flaws, sometimes the battles are tremendous, sometimes they suck, the campaign ai is a huge improvement, having an alliance for 50+ turns and you border them is quite an achievement over rtw, the campaign ai is obviously better, but when the update comes out soon and the patch is here, it will always be a great game.
Holy warzone batman. This thread is in desperate need of some ~:grouphug: :hippie: :flowers: :knuddel: :shakehands: ~:cheers:
My perception on a few of the issues raised here. I will prefix this by stating that in no way do I intend to insult or disrespect anyone, nor do I intend to insinuate anything about anyone, OR personally attack anyone, if somehow I do I sincerely apologize in advance. There are a couple of points I agree and disagree with, and I will be dealing with them instead of specific folks and their posts. Attack the issue, not the person.
First, the issue regarding the game being incomplete at launch. I still firmly believe this. A couple more weeks in the oven and it probably would have been much, much better. As someone pointed out, this is simply the way the gaming industry is going, driven by deadlines and "shareholder value" minded management, this is becoming the norm. The fact that sometimes people say "that's just the way it works, suck it up" or something to that effect is another big problem that's evident with the consumer base as well. Folks, don't lower your expectations. We're paying for a product and we expect results. Someone mentioned bugs ship with games, this is completely true, this has always been a common industry standard, the problem is that it's becoming more acceptable to ship with serious bugs. That and releasing what many simply perceive as an incomplete game. Someone related this to a car. Would you go and buy a car expecting it to be completed afterward? "Yeah the back seats and radio come later!" What about food? You go to a restaurant and order a $200 steak dinner. "You only get the salad and bread tonight. Gotta come back in a week for the steak!" I expect a product that's complete with rich features (as touted by the publisher prior to release), and free of major/minor bugs. Some trivial ones are to be expected, but not the scope of what I've been seeing. Yes, there are many of us who understand quite well the software development process and it's nuances. No, that doesn't mean we're going to accept what some of us believe are incomplete games without a fight.
Second, the issue of bugs themselves. Several people have mentioned that they feel some bug reports are not really bugs, but matters of taste. This I completely agree with, but not at the scope that has been implied. Most all of what I read that have been reported as bugs, are simply bugs. Few have been matters of taste, and there are some which we just don't know if it's a bug or if it's intended to function that way. I have two examples, one is the beloved inquisitors. We simply cannot know if this is a bug or not, because we do not have access to the game code, and CA hasn't said anything afaik. They could be intended to be that powerful, if that's the case then yes it's a matter of taste. However, it could also be bad code making them much more powerful than intended, in that case it's a bug. We just can't know as we're not the developers. Enough people have complained, so whichever, it warrants CA's attention, and since it could be a bug, it should be left as one. Second, someone else mentioned hillmen, and the two-hander bug. This really is a bug, which I've verified a few times. Two-hander weapons will NOT attack cavalry. They'll receive a charge and yes slaughter quite a bit of the cav charging, BUT if you watch after the charge, none of the two-hander infantry will attack. This is clearly a bug. Now that we have sapi to keep track of the list, I think he's been doing a great job of compiling it. Again I completely agree that some stated issues are matter of taste, but again there are some that we just don't know, and it should be left as such so CA can attend to it and if needed, fix it.
Third, about the reporting and discussion of bugs and matters of taste. It's understandable that some are getting tired of hearing about it, in some ways so am I. Several folks mentioned this as "giving CA a break". With all due respect, I will do so, and I will absolutely not do so. I'll address the positive aspects of the game last, to end on a good note, but in terms of stopping discussion or input on bugs or feature requests, etc, I will absolutely not do so. Bug discussion does a number of this; first it helps clarify the problem or perceived problem, and more often than naught there have been new discoveries that help clarify the situation long after it's initial discovery and confirmation. More information is a good thing. Second, we must keep the focus on these. This by far is the most important. I'm sure those of you out there who are involved with or deal with project management will support the fact that if problems are left to lie, or are "swept under the table" so to speak, or focus is lost, invariably they will not get fixed as people move on to other things. Now, I've seen a number of references to "whining" in general about bugs, and yes I'll agree there have been a few instances where people just whine in general about something and don't contribute in a constructive manner to the overall discussion. However, there are are large number of active threads and posts dedicated to discussing bug mechanics, where talented folks are trying to understand as much about the issue as possible, so that we as a group can communicate these to CA in a polite and effective manner. The "whining" in general I definitely agree and would like to see it stop. Constructive bug and feature discussion, never. This must go on.
Fourth, about the patch. It's been a bit long in coming, yet I do have high hopes for it. The main thing I wanted to address here is communication from CA. Shogun recently posted a bit on the blog about the patch, and about the charging mechanics. Without commenting on those, that post I felt was actually pretty good. It was one of the first *real* bits of solid info we got from CA on a topic that's been widely discussed, to me this confirms that they're listening. I'd like to see much more like this, *real* posts with *real, solid* pieces of information. Not "the patching is coming shortly", but "the patch is coming next Tuesday." Being noncommittal and vague is not too endearing to me, and to quite a few others as evidenced by the tone and content of posts in this thread. We want solid, tangible results and information, not empty statements just to make it look like a publisher is actively paying attention. "Yep we know about bugs, stay tuned for a patch!" is something that I throw in that category, there's nothing tangible to be said. If they'd like to demonstrate real concern and attention to the matter, acknowledge a few big bugs publicly. Tell us what you're doing with or about them in a few words. And last of all, give us some FIRM dates on patches and make good on them.
Lastly, about the game itself. This, like almost everything else I've said, is simply my perception and beliefs. I think M2 is good fun, and I've never said otherwise. For me though, it's got a number of game breaking bugs and "missing features" or "balance issues", to the point where I shelved my campaign until the first patch. Right now I'm only playing custom non-siege battles and multiplayer. Am I disappointed? Yeah. Do I still think the game is good fun? Absolutely. It's possible to be positive and simultaneously critical about the game in a polite manner. From what I've seen, for the most part others in the forum who are critical of the game are so in a polite and constructive manner, with the few to-be-expected exceptions.. Regarding fanboyism and rabid pessimism, I've seen a fair number of what I regard as both in this forum, I don't think we'll ever be rid of those types. My response to each would be, this game is not perfect and has some real problems, dismissing those are immature and counter-productive to the fanboys, and to the eternal pessimists, don't be jerks when you post about the game and at least substantiate your beliefs. It's perfectly valid to love or hate this game, as long as you can substantiate and support your opinions, and not dismiss the views of others. Regarding the subject of "giving CA a break", meh... I've already stated numerous times I like the game. BUT I am not going to relent on the issues of bugs and feature requests, again the focus must be kept on these.
Whew, there went my lunch break.
OK, GROUP HUG EVERYONE!!! ~:grouphug: ~:grouphug: ~:grouphug: ~:grouphug: ~:grouphug: ~:grouphug: ~:grouphug: ~:grouphug: ~:grouphug: ~:grouphug: ~:grouphug: ~:grouphug: ~:grouphug: ~:grouphug: ~:grouphug: ~:grouphug: ~:grouphug:
Some of what appears to be contention or baseline disagreement might be in what different folk thing of when thinking "bug".
There was once a game that I waited for with great anticipation. That was Ubisoft's (iirc) production of Pool of Radience 2.
I had loved playing the old SSI version of PoR and really looked forward to the new version.
That game shipped with what I think of when I think "bug". If you tried to uninstall the game, it wiped your hard drive. That pissed me off, alot.
When considering bugs in this current game, I haven't run into anything yet that I would consider a bug or simply haven't recognized them when I did come across them. The passive AI? Hell, in nearly every battle I've fought, I have to scramble to get the first shot off. I aint saying it aint there, only if it is, I haven't noticed it. Cav charge? explained to my satisfaction, and when I go by what they explained, it seems to work as advertised. Billmen? dont know, aint tried them, aint needed them.
Why am I bothering to even post in this thread? Donno, bored I guess. I'm pretty sure I'm not spamming for post count, at least.
Seriously though, I am glad there's folk out there that know a bug when they see it and are willing to take the time and effort to report them to the rest of us and to keep the developers feet to the fire in demanding quality. I'll gain by your efforts, and in the meantime, like I said above, I'm having a hella good time playing it as is.
Doug-Thompson
12-01-2006, 19:02
Is there a thread on billmen in particular? Now I'm curious about whether the depth of formation is a problem. I had no problem with billmen in two ranks, but have only tested them in custom and in conjuction with skirmishers.
I'm also curious about whether billmen should be left on open formation. What little I know about the actual, physical use of a polearm is that room was needed. Spears and pikes were better in close formation.
Kansas Bear
12-01-2006, 19:20
Isn't the BIG question....
Didn't CA use beta-testers/game-testers on M2TW?
How is it these "testers" missed generals aging 1 yr/turn while the game progresses at 2 yrs/turn(not really a BIG deal) or the uber-peasants(which IMO would have shown itself eventually) or the front line only charges bug or the myriad of other bugs that currently exist!
@ Doug-Thompson
Billmen have absolutely no problems while charging; they kill perfectly. It is only when they attempt to melee with cavalry that they do not attack. They literally stand right around the cavalry units, sometimes blocking, very rarely hitting once or twice, before getting massacred.
See https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=72875
Doug-Thompson
12-01-2006, 19:52
@ Doug-Thompson
Billmen have absolutely no problems while charging; they kill perfectly. It is only when they attempt to melee with cavalry that they do not attack. They literally stand right around the cavalry units, sometimes blocking, very rarely hitting once or twice, before getting massacred.
See https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=72875
Thanks. After reading the complaints on the linked thread, that may explain a lot.
Obviously, I got the results I did because the billmen were effective in charge and the battle didn't last very long. Meanwhile, the Irish Kerns kept fighting and some kept throwing javelins -- masking the ineffective melee of the billmen.
At least that's the only way I can think of where all this would be logically compatable.
I'm still curious to know if closed or open formation makes a difference.
Regarding generalisations, I guess both sides are guilty to some extent. Many will label any non-positive thread as a post created by a "whiney cry baby" and not only is that infuriatingly condescending, it's also counter-productive. Essentially, we the customers are turning on we the customers! Granted, there are the threads which usually start with something along the lines of: "ZOMG - tHE GAme's A^&^%, CA you Suxxors" and yes, this does no favours to anyone and should be dismissed quickly. But likewise, the same goes the other way where some are falsely labelled as fanboys for simply enjoying their product...
Whacker summed up the rest very eloquently, so I've not much more to add.
Doug-Thompson
12-01-2006, 20:46
@ Barry Fitzgerald
I've been shown the error of my ways on the billman problem. Open formation, clicking attack again, trying to withdraw and charge again. Nothing gets these guys to fight after the first charge.
Obviously, the billmen I used the first time appeared to work because the battle didn't last long after the first charge.
Regarding beta testing, I know Firaxis had many prominent community members on their testing team for Civ IV. True fans who clearly provided useful and excellent feedback. Civ IV is so solid.
In terms of an fps, BF2142 used an open beta to test for bugs, exploits and gameplay. Not all were obviously found by final release, but the game was released in a fairly enjoyable state nonetheless.
I've been on beta teams for CA patches since the days of Shogun, but this isn't something they appear to endorse anymore, sadly. Maybe one day, CA will release the source code (as Firaxis did by releasing the SDK for Civ IV) and the community will help drive the process along for them. This has worked so well for Civ IV that a guy called Blake even had his improved AI incorporated into an official patch!
How is it these "testers" missed generals aging 1 yr/turn while the game progresses at 2 yrs/turn(not really a BIG deal)
Erm, that isn't a bug, its how they intended it to be.
Re Berengario I
12-02-2006, 00:29
I think the main debate here is between three different positions, all of them completey agreeable but still different:
1) The game has a wonderful look (true), it's fun anyway for me, I can play it for some hours and have fun even if the battles are so easy to win.
2) There are some bugs but the potential in the game is incredible (true) so just be patient and we'll have a great game in our hands.
3) Damn, I would have liked to struggle in this battle to win not just looking at some stupid horsemen in heavy armor to be decimated by my peasant archers without even raise a lance. It's no fun! Look the crusade won't pass if I place a ship there on the landbridge and the AI won't ever use ships to land in the Holy Land... how can I use a legitimate strategical naval blockade without exploiting it? It's no fun again! Esc-esc-altF4-play something else or watch tv.
I myself usually switches from the 3 above different moods depending of what I would like to play in that moment. Right now I'm experimenting some modifications on the campaign to keep my interest alive because I think and hope the patches will give us a really great game as the potential is enormous.
Still next time I will wait some months before to buy a new game, maybe I could have some bargain discount plus a decent playable game through patches. Lesson learnt.
Barry Fitzgerald
12-02-2006, 00:56
I agree it is a fab looking game...no complaints in that dept..
It has the potential to be mind blowingly good...
But! How much longer do we have to wait until we can play the "real" game! lol
http://totalwarcommunity.blogspot.com/
According to that the patch is going to be out within days.
Is there a thread on billmen in particular? Now I'm curious about whether the depth of formation is a problem. I had no problem with billmen in two ranks, but have only tested them in custom and in conjuction with skirmishers.
I'm also curious about whether billmen should be left on open formation. What little I know about the actual, physical use of a polearm is that room was needed. Spears and pikes were better in close formation.
As counter intuitive as it sounds. Through all the messing with the billmen and 2hd axemen I've done. It's best to have the thinnest survivable line posbbile, round 3-3 1/2 ranks deep. Since they only cause casualties to cavalry on the charge you want to maximize the amount of axes/billhhooks their going to hit. This has a very bad result though, pointed out in many threads on fighting cavalry. The thinner your line the higher the casualty rate is for the reciever of the charge. Lower then 4 ranks you risk causing complete decimation of that unit when they recieve a well formed charge.
Basicly the best answer is to keep billmen/2hd axemen as far away from cavalry as possible. Send in peasants to finish up those knights in the center of town before the Varangian Guard.
IMO I'm mostly in agreeance with you though Doug in your previous post, obviously except for the billmen comment. There may be alot of so called bugs but I've yet to see very many. In my campaigns I am continually sieged and attacked. I've only once seen the AI pull back from a seige without attacking first.
It is sad how alot of games for pc have been handed out so half baked though. But this certainly isnt one of them. Honestly if you want to see a buggy but "solid" game go play Oblivion. Great game, great reviews, major bugs and CTD's.
I'd be floored and greatly happy if CA finally did what civ4 did and release the source code. Would definately make the game one of the greats.
screwtype
12-02-2006, 08:37
I'm mostly in agreeance with you
No, you're mostly in agreement with him...
No, you're mostly in agreement with him...
It's late and the Nyquil has kicked in. Nope, definately agreeance is correct here.:idea2:
AussieGiant
12-02-2006, 09:26
After all this in-depth posting, reading the "two stooge brothers" here have a little one-two with each other just made me cry while laughing.
Good work Screwtype and Bigtex! :beam:
gladiator777
12-05-2006, 05:47
thanks for your timely updates lusted, I can't wait to see what it will be like when the patch is out, and its almost time, due to this site and others that give great feedback to CA.
Good critique of bugs is one thing, ridiculous nonsensical bashing is worthless, and I can't wait for the latter to stop, although I don't know if anything would please that crowd. People who can't see an immediate difference in diplomacy, ai, etc, while yes it does have some severe problems, but only needs some minor tweaks, and is already far superior to other tw games, well, those people should be at least somewhat optimistic. Seems like a lot of complaints come from people who want stuff on a silver platter. Patience is a great virtue, and waiting a month for a patch that should fix most issues should not be turned into a great hardship that is impossible to accept.
Patience is a great virtue, and waiting a month for a patch that should fix most issues should not be turned into a great hardship that is impossible to accept.
Well spoken, it shouldn't be a great hardship because I expect my games to be bug-free for the most part on launch.
In some ways I am really jealous of the folks who can just brush aside or ignore the bugs and "matters of balance or taste" and enjoy the game, I really am, there are some that I can and others that just send my blood pressure through the roof whenever I experience them. I guess it's just the simple fact that individual mileage may vary.
Quickening
12-05-2006, 06:20
Well spoken, it shouldn't be a great hardship because I expect my games to be bug-free for the most part on launch.
In some ways I am really jealous of the folks who can just brush aside or ignore the bugs and "matters of balance or taste" and enjoy the game, I really am, there are some that I can and others that just send my blood pressure through the roof whenever I experience them. I guess it's just the simple fact that individual mileage may vary.
Im the same although a few days ago I was very happy with the game. Im in two minds about this.
One part of me knows that whatever else, it is a great game and it wil only get better when the issues are fixed so no problem.
But then the other part of me is a little annoyed that it was released with some of the major bugs it was. I mean, the passive AI and siege bugs aren't exactly subtle.
AussieGiant
12-05-2006, 06:25
I must admit my enforced absence away from home due to work has made the whole thing easier to bare.
If I was home, I would certainly be concentrating on tweaking my new Dell XPS 700 while patiently waiting for the patch as apposed to playing the game.
Midnight
12-05-2006, 09:16
Meh, I've put my Byz game on hold now until the patch - I really want to use Varangian Guard against the Mongols, but right now they'll do next to nothing because of the 2h weapon bug.
gladiator777
12-07-2006, 02:30
Well spoken, it shouldn't be a great hardship because I expect my games to be bug-free for the most part on launch.
In some ways I am really jealous of the folks who can just brush aside or ignore the bugs and "matters of balance or taste" and enjoy the game, I really am, there are some that I can and others that just send my blood pressure through the roof whenever I experience them. I guess it's just the simple fact that individual mileage may vary.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I wish it was bug free also, I love the game, it is going to be phenomenal, I would recommend it to anyone. I would just say that it does have 2 or 3 major bugs that might really piss you off, so if you think they will, then hold off until the patch is out, then you can enjoy it for all its worth.
I played it a lot when it came out, I am not playing quite as much though just because taking cities is entirely to easy, and the siege bug is ridiculous when the enemy attacks sometimes. The only time I got furious at the game is when I lost a whole stack that was being sieged. I brought up reinforcements to angers, attacked the enemy force, underestimated their units, got my A%$ kicked, then had my besieged force retreat when my reinforcements were slaughtered. They left in perfect order, did not lose a single soldier, should have lived to fight another day, but I lost the whole stack for no reason, and the enemy force still doesn't take the city? That made no sense, in other tw games they just retreat back to the city and they are fine. Oh well, another bug that needs to be fixed. Once the patch is out I will probably be playing it way too much again, but thats the great part about this kind of entertainment, it is mind blowingly amazing, at least it is somewhat historical, and historical mods can also be made by the brilliant modders.
I am just tired of the whining about the game. So what, it has some bad bugs, its not a product that is productive, it is a product that we play when we don't have to fulfill any responsibilities, its simply just great entertainment. Its not something that we need at all, its just a game.
CA will release the patch soon, most will be happy, and not hear this constant bashing which does not do any good. Getting irritated about bugs is normal, complaining about them is fine, but at least we have a game that is good and will be great that we can talk about and develop into something that is the best in its series.
Maybe we should put this thread on hold for a while, until some further news on the patch develops?
We've given the issue a good go around. And I don't want to wake up and find another pro and anti-"whining" thread has exploded in my face.
:closed:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.