View Full Version : Creative Assembly Launcher Poll Results
Hi all,
These results were sent to me by Wikiman. This is from the first few days of the launcher polls. http://www.imghosting.us/images/1481poll_results_8-05-07.jpg
Alexander the Pretty Good
05-08-2007, 07:35
Some of the results were comforting, some scary.
If CA followed policy based on the plurality for each question, I would be scared.
Man there are just som many tantelising morsells to be teased out of this. The bottom line is I think it confirms alot of what people have been saying.
MP just doesnt have the numbers
Few people are thinking of MP with these titiles
Mods are poorly recieved by the community (a tragedy....god save me from the great unwashed)
the Hardcore STW MTW vets are numerically insignificant
CA is pretty much responding to where the numbers are with a) its development of the game and b) its xpack
thats just a quick read - but Im sure this will give new life to those old tired arguments
"bring out yer dead"
threads that is
I'm kind of surpised by the 33% wanting naval battles intead of improving the campaign and land battles.
I think the question that was missing from the poll was:
Would you like to be able to play the campaign game against other players?
As a result the MP results are a little bit scewed. I actually answered 'Not Interested' purely becuase I interpreted the question as related to the current MP battles option. What is quite clear is that a lot of people, myself included, have played MP battles once or twice but just not been interested in them beyond the novelty value.
More interesting is that 65% of players would like to at least try a Hotseat multiplayer campaign (I assumed that Hotseat could not be related to the battle game alone). Given the general bias against Hotseat games that would suggest that percentage interested in playing a multi-player campaign by other means would be much higher.
Personally, I woud be interested in the split between those wanting PBEM and those wanting an On-line Real Time campaign game.
Oh, and in case no one at CA's end has noticed, you can answer each question as many times as you want ~;)
MP just doesnt have the numbers
the Hardcore STW MTW vets are numerically insignificant
I heartily agree with your first statement. MP'ers are loud but far between.
The second statement is obviously a mistake. over 50% have played STW - that is insignificant? 70% have played MTW (probably including the 50% that played STW). How do you figure that to be insignificant??!?
This speaks of a very large loyal fanbase, that (like me) have bought every item on offer. Well I didn't buy Alexander, but that's the exception.
FactionHeir
05-08-2007, 12:52
Oh, and in case no one at CA's end has noticed, you can answer each question as many times as you want ~;)
That's one of those times when you really wonder whether or not it would be nice to have a bot tdo that :laugh4:
Btw, I note the absence of an "I never played MP" option in the "Do you play multiplayer" question.
Also agree with the notion that there should be a question regarding "Would you like multiplayer campaigns where you can fight against your human opponent"
Hotseat is nice and all, but not fun if you gotta autoresolve. I don't see why LAN campaigns shouldn't be possible if Hotseat is.
Also, I'm surprised at the number of people voting that CA did best on M2TW so far. I wouldn't have expected that :lipsrsealed2:
Something else there should have been an answer for: The question "In the next total war game I would like CA to improve"
Where is the option "Not rush the game out of the door and minimize bugs!"? :p
From the looks of the question set up, CA is considering whether its profitable to release single small campaigns and the direction of their next (or next next) TW title.
The second statement is obviously a mistake. over 50% have played STW - that is insignificant? 70% have played MTW (probably including the 50% that played STW). How do you figure that to be insignificant??!?
I think he was referring to the poll which asked which game was your favorite. Only 6.7% said STW and only 11.5% said MTW. Given that over 50% played STW and over 70% played MTW, that's a major statement. There are many people who repeatedly state that STW or MTW were the best versions of the TW games, yet the poll clearly shows that most people who played STW and MTW do not consider them to be the best games in the series.
I think he was referring to the poll which asked which game was your favorite. Only 6.7% said STW and only 11.5% said MTW. Given that over 50% played STW and over 70% played MTW, that's a major statement. There are many people who repeatedly state that STW or MTW were the best versions of the TW games, yet the poll clearly shows that most people who played STW and MTW do not consider them to be the best games in the series.
This is a bit misleading, though actually quite understandable based on the poll results. Namely most of the people (over 90%) were interested in the campaign an in this regard both RTW and MTW2 is a clear improvement over STW or MTW (at least most poeple would consider 3D campaig maps, agents, diplomacy, ect a clear improvement). Of course this tells nothing about the quality of the tactical battles, in fact had it been a question I am sure votes would have been more evenly dispersed.
The results though makes me wonder about two questions:
1, The clear novelty of TW series are the tactical battles (there are many empire building games with better diplomacy, more depth, etc). Yet, most people are interested in the campaign. Why?
2, People almost constantly complain about the weakness of the tactical AI. Many people would regard it as the weakest part of the TW series at the moment. Most people voted to spend more time playing the battles than the campaign map. Yet more than half of the voters voted to improve the campaign, and a only a small minority interested in MP where arguably you can find the very best opponents and can have a lot more challanging battles than you can ever have against the AI. Why is that that people spend their time playing SP battles, constantly complain about the AI, and yet not interested in MP? :inquisitive:
Hi Caliban,
Thank you very much posting. Could you please repost that image using another service ? Bandwidth exceeded for that one.
Many thanks in advance.
..and Thank you all at CA for a great game !
crpcarrot
05-08-2007, 15:01
I think he was referring to the poll which asked which game was your favorite. Only 6.7% said STW and only 11.5% said MTW. Given that over 50% played STW and over 70% played MTW, that's a major statement. There are many people who repeatedly state that STW or MTW were the best versions of the TW games, yet the poll clearly shows that most people who played STW and MTW do not consider them to be the best games in the series.
if this same question was asked b4 M2TW i think you would have seen how many TW fans were really upset. I thnk CA have done really well with M2TW the battles really are interesting and the seiges are great. but before M2TW and atch i would have answered that same question MTW. during RTW CA lost me as a cutomer i never bought any of the expansions and wasnt even going to buy M2 but did sine i got it really cheap. and i'm glad to see that CA has turned things around.
I voted M2 as my fav game
The results though makes me wonder about two questions:
1, The clear novelty of TW series are the tactical battles (there are many empire building games with better diplomacy, more depth, etc). Yet, most people are interested in the campaign. Why?
2, People almost constantly complain about the weakness of the tactical AI. Many people would regard it as the weakest part of the TW series at the moment. Most people voted to spend more time playing the battles than the campaign map. Yet more than half of the voters voted to improve the campaign, and a only a small minority interested in MP where arguably you can find the very best opponents and can have a lot more challanging battles than you can ever have against the AI. Why is that that people spend their time playing SP battles, constantly complain about the AI, and yet not interested in MP? :inquisitive:
I can only speak for myself, but I find MP battles meaningless. I am a lot more interested in battles when I have trained the armies myself, when the general is someone that I value, and where the battle results have implications beyond winning or losing. In MP, there's only winning or losing. In SP, Pyhrric victories can occur and you can also have defeats that you are proud of. I would be playing MP constantly if it was possible in the campaign, but it simply holds no interest for me when it's restricted to single battles.
frogbeastegg
05-08-2007, 15:39
Why is that that people spend their time playing SP battles, constantly complain about the AI, and yet not interested in MP? :inquisitive:
Because we want to play SP ~:)
I've tried MP. While it may have upped the challenge level (debatable; it depends heavily on the others in the game) it severely cut back the convenience. Waiting around in the lobby is not my idea of fun; I'd rather be playing the game. I also want to play when I want, for as long as I want. When other people enter the equation this becomes harder, as you need to wait for enough people to fill a game and dropping out midway isn't polite.
I'm not so keen on the people aspect of it either. If you get the wrong people in the game then it's no fun at all. RTW’s cav horde spammers, 1337 speakers, obnoxious people, those who take it all too seriously and forget it is meant to be fun ... Gah! For every nice person I met there were more I was not so fond of.
Individual battles don't truly interest me. I like my campaigns. That's the ultimate reason why I don't play MP. Would I play a MP campaign if there was one? No, never. I don't want the hassle of trying to find decent people to play with. Again, I want to play when I like for as long as I like, not just when all the others can. I want to play in my preferred style; I like steady, slow games, not rush and crush conquest fests. I want to be able to dump the campaign if and when it becomes boring for me, not to feel obliged to play to the bitter end for the sake of others. Having someone rushing would make the game less enjoyable for me, just as my slower style of play would make it dull for others who don't share my preference.
There are things which can be done in SP which would be tedious in MP. Conquering the entire world map, for example. All fine and good for the player who is winning and able to pull that off, but what about the others?
I'll take better AI over better MP any day. SP will always be my priority and preference.
That's not to say I don't care about MP at all. I'd like to see the battle side of it working to a high standard. I used to play VI and the earlier versions of RTW with a nice group of people; if M2TW was good enough they might come back and [FF]frogbeastegg would join them for the occasional game.
EDIT: Forgot to say that SP can throw up loads of varied battle scenarios. In MP you don't have battered armies, or badly outnumbered ones, or ones filled with low quality units because your faction is bankrupt and can't raise a new army filled with better units, or ones led by a mad general, or ...
Doug-Thompson
05-08-2007, 15:52
Hi all,
These results were sent to me by Wikiman. This is from the first few days of the launcher polls. http://www.imagehosting.com/out.php/i586870_pollresults80507.jpg
Hmm. All I can see is "imagehosting.com: Bandwidth limit exceeded."
The clear novelty of TW series are the tactical battles (there are many empire building games with better diplomacy, more depth, etc). Yet, most people are interested in the campaign. Why?
Interesting question - I agree with Tincow and frogbeastegg, the answer is that the campaign gives meaning to the battles. What I really enjoy are the amazing battles, which as you say are the novelty and comparative advantage of TW over other titles. But I only can be motivated to play the battles if they are part of an over-arcing campaign, where they matter.
Forget about MP for a moment, as there is the social side and other sides to that, but think about the SP historical battles. They generally provide a better challenge than SP campaign battles and can be more realistic, but still they hold zero interest to me. They just seem a little pointless. Most hardcore wargames also seem rather like this - offering standalone battles or at best linked scenarios. The beauty of TW is embedding the awesome battles within an open campaign, with a real economic and strategic layer as well as increasing diplomatic and role-playing features.
I good analogy might be with a TV series, whether people like standalone stories (one per episode) or a long over-arching plot that spans the entire series. I find the 45 minute standalone format can often be rather limiting and lead to something rather trite, whereas my imagination can be caught by the 5 year story arc of Bablyon 5 or Lost's planned 6 year story arc that really lets you get caught up with the story and plot.
I never liked to play MP. Single-player campaign is the best.
Like Tincow said, we use generals that means something to us, armies we have trained and fought with thus creating a bond.
In MP there is none of that.
HoreTore
05-08-2007, 17:46
Oh, and in case no one at CA's end has noticed, you can answer each question as many times as you want ~;)
Are you completely sure they don't screen the answers through an IP-check?
1, The clear novelty of TW series are the tactical battles (there are many empire building games with better diplomacy, more depth, etc). Yet, most people are interested in the campaign. Why?
Not true. The great thing about TW, is that it COMBINES the two. You can have better empire builders, and you can have better battle games(a lot of them for the musket age). But you won't find a game combining the two in a better way. So, we want both, not just one of them!
FactionHeir
05-08-2007, 17:52
Doing it via IP isn't gonna help. They ought to do it via CDkey
Vlad Tzepes
05-08-2007, 17:55
Hmm. All I can see is "imagehosting.com: Bandwidth limit exceeded."
Me too. Am I missing something?:inquisitive:
HoreTore
05-08-2007, 18:11
Doing it via IP isn't gonna help. They ought to do it via CDkey
Imagine what would happen if that leaked.
I asked Wikiman to add multiplayer campaign option to "What feature do you want most of all.." :)
I think the question that was missing from the poll was:
Would you like to be able to play the campaign game against other players?
As a result the MP results are a little bit scewed. I actually answered 'Not Interested' purely becuase I interpreted the question as related to the current MP battles option. What is quite clear is that a lot of people, myself included, have played MP battles once or twice but just not been interested in them beyond the novelty value.
More interesting is that 65% of players would like to at least try a Hotseat multiplayer campaign (I assumed that Hotseat could not be related to the battle game alone). Given the general bias against Hotseat games that would suggest that percentage interested in playing a multi-player campaign by other means would be much higher.
Personally, I woud be interested in the split between those wanting PBEM and those wanting an On-line Real Time campaign game.
I think he was referring to the poll which asked which game was your favorite. Only 6.7% said STW and only 11.5% said MTW. Given that over 50% played STW and over 70% played MTW, that's a major statement. There are many people who repeatedly state that STW or MTW were the best versions of the TW games, yet the poll clearly shows that most people who played STW and MTW do not consider them to be the best games in the series.
Yes thankyou TinCow, I shouldve elaborated - but you nailed it
RTW a whopping 90% of respondants and 77%'s favourite was M2 or RTW
and almost 70% believe the titles are getting better - to me this is all the confirmation CA need to keep doing what they are doing and not to listen to the vocal detractors - I include myself amongst them :shame:
There was an impression amongst the 'grognards' (is that what they are called? - vets cant be used it encompasses 4 generations now) that RTW was the worst, but the numbers tell a different story.
I agree Econ that polls aint polls and often how you ask a question can be as important - and the multiple voting etc - but I think the numbers look like a reasonable sample of the TW buying public
and I agree with the others that the reason people are hooked on campaign yet the battles is because a battle only becomes significant in the context of the bigger picture - as there is nothing like this on MP anymore - even in the form of a ladder competition - then the battles on MP have no significance
looking at that further - the "have you ever played online" question didnt have a null or no option - 50% had played 'Once' - this says to me they came they saw - it was ordinary/ it was gamespy - they left :oops:
maybe it was lag or poor interface or the only context being bragging rights with a bunch of people you dont know... meh .. says to me their first M2TW online experience was so horrible they ran screaming. Then most said they just werent interested... but does this go back to the lack of context or setting for the battles in MP.
As an amusing aside we had 5% pacificts playing a Total War game - I find this warmongering trend amongst pacificts very concerning - and I hold TW and CA responsible for converting these nice fluffy pink pacificts into a wild bezerker blood thirsty mob :furious3: !!!:laugh4:
Im going to go out on a limb here and say I think the numbers for online campaign will be almost identical to those for hotseat - some hardcore TW lovers want it more than sex (which they probably havent had in a very long time :laugh4: ) and the rest of the masses are like - meh! I know this is upsetting as I am one the aforementioned..but again when it comes to a commercial product we are all slaves to the will of the great unwashed!! :whip: :laugh4:
Naval battles - played it in Imperial Glory - naval battles are a game in themselves - tacked on to this or any other game they will be lame - sorry - let it go - and push for someone to make a Master and Commander game - or go back to pirates - HAR!!!:no:
40-50% had never played a mod, with EB out and others MTW XL I could go on - sorry that means 40% of TW consumers are lamers and its surprising they even know how to turn their computer on to play M2TW. :yes: :beam:
Interesting there was a spread on the total war fantasy - but a clear majority saying yes which I think goes someway to the disappearance of much of the need for historical content and accuracy in the games - and it may diminish still further - which would be a pity - but can be modded back in, which is encouraging.
Finally 80% believed CA were listening which if you bothered to read alot of the post over at the .com, you would feel was not the case, again a vocal minority.
disclaimer - not intending to hurt anyones feeling its all a bit tongue in cheek - please read it thus. :yes:
PutCashIn
05-09-2007, 04:16
6.3% CD Key issues, blame Windoze (I did, I feel better for it too).
PutCashIn
05-09-2007, 04:18
P.S. 41% would play Hotseat, thats the girl/friend component talking CA, ignore at your own peril.
P.S. 41% would play Hotseat, thats the girl/friend component talking CA, ignore at your own peril.
call
personally Im happy my wife has no interest in TW
I mean whats going to happen when you put one of her citys to the sword
tears and 'no sex for you' *in soup nazi voice
call
personally Im happy my wife has no interest in TW
I mean whats going to happen when you put one of her citys to the sword
tears and 'no sex for you' *in soup nazi voice
Right... but will you care??? I mean, come on... you just put one of her cities to the sword! Tears and sex be damned, you'll be walking on air for at least a week. :yes:
Look at the bright side:
Help your wife/girlfriend out of a sticky situation and you might get very lucky :yes:
The clarifications above made the insignificant STW-vets statement more understandable. I believe that STW was great compared to other games of that time, but it really doesn't stand up well to MTW2 or even RTW. No argument there.
Still many fans go way back, and their (our) loyalty is maintained only by keeping up the good work (talking to you CA!).
Divorce solves so many gaming problems, now I just need to do something about work.:juggle2:
Personally, I voted for Hotseat mode because my children and I like to play games together that way. Mostly CIV4 and Heroes of Might and Magic but something like MTW2 which we all play seperately anyway would be awesome.
One other thing to keep in mind is that the people who voted on this poll are those who had downloaded the leaked 1.2 patch and thus are much more likely to be STW-playing TW addicts than the general populace...
The 'unofficialness' of the patch the data was gathered from would also have decreased the number of MP players who answered...
One other thing to keep in mind is that the people who voted on this poll are those who had downloaded the leaked 1.2 patch and thus are much more likely to be STW-playing TW addicts than the general populace...
Only about 1000 of each set of poll responses are from the leaked 1.2.
-wikiman
1000?
That's far less than I expected, but I stand corrected :bow:
I guess in looking for a way to make sense of some of those results I got a [s]little bit[/b] confused :embarassed:
6k seems a bit few to be currently running the game, or at least that's what I thought; it'll be interesting to see if that number increases as magazines put the patch on their cover discs to help those who aren't on broadband....
crpcarrot
05-09-2007, 11:34
like i said earlier before you pass judgement about the vets maybe you should consider that some of us have changed out mind. if this question was asked before M2 before RTW1.2 how different would the polls be.
also the questions kept repeating . must have answered the same question 3 times just to see if i'll get one i didnt get before. it seemed to be skipping randomly. also consider there will be players still playing STQ,MTW & RTW who dont even have M2TW. none of them are included in this poll.
this poll is only a poll of M2TW player not the whole TW fanbase
also the questions kept repeating . must have answered the same question 3 times just to see if i'll get one i didnt get before.
I noticed that.
It seems to ask the same questions, sometimes immediately after you just Voted, and then throws in a random new one you have never seen before.
Also, even when it says its finished you can still carry on voting as it just seems to loop through a random selection of questions. Not sure if its actually logging these repeated votes, but if it is, then it must be screwing the stats.
I must have voted on some questions five or six times.
crpcarrot
05-09-2007, 12:00
looking at the fll list i voted on some multiple times and some i never even saw
6k seems a bit few to be currently running the game, or at least that's what I thought; it'll be interesting to see if that number increases as magazines put the patch on their cover discs to help those who aren't on broadband....
Keep in mind that not everyone who has the patch clicks on the polls. I personally have never done so.
pike master
05-09-2007, 14:02
so i take it that the poll will be updated later then after more download the patch.
i wonder what kind of fantasy total war CA has planned.8)
Doug-Thompson
05-09-2007, 14:09
I can see the numbers now. Thanks.
I updated to patch, both leaked, and offical, haven't done any poll?
Where is this poll?
fenir
Where is this poll?
Its an integral part of the new launcher.
wow that was quick response, hello Didz.
I was just talking to you in the other thread :P~
hmmm perhap i should have started the game before installing my mod back in?
Bugger.
fenir
Hi Fenir,
Yes I recognised the name....as for the poll I don't know if there is another means of accessing it which avoids the necessity to go through the launcher but thats where I found it.
Jokerkaaos
05-09-2007, 15:56
also the questions kept repeating . must have answered the same question 3 times just to see if i'll get one i didnt get before. it seemed to be skipping randomly.
Yes, I noticed this when I got the leaked patch. I voted on the same question multiple times to see if there were new ones, as they seemed to repeat randomly.
I also recall that several of the questions had NO answer that I found suitable. This is another way of using polls to get certain results. People will either skip the question or pick the one they think is closest to their true opinion.
Unless they do something a lot more scientific, I would caution CA against using these poll numbers to make any decisions at all (and I say that without even looking at the results).
Another factor is that a lot more people are interested in the campaign than the battles themselves. I found Rome's tactical battles to be too arcadey and unbalanced in favor of cavalry but the campaign map was better than MTW's. It wasn't that well fleshed out because it's the first game that used that style. MTW2's campaign map is a lot more fleshed out.
I echo what others have said. I like the combination of the campaign and battles but I can't be bothered doing battles that have no effect on the campaign game.
Keep in mind that not everyone who has the patch clicks on the polls. I personally have never done so.
Likewise. I'm actually very impatient when it comes to launching my game, so still use the shortcut to the exe to launch my mod, which of course disables the intro movies so I don't have to blast them with ESC all the time either. When I want to play, I want to play now, not after I sit through 3 minutes of promotional material. I honestly don't need that stuff to remind me who makes the cool game I'm playing. :2thumbsup:
[oR.osiris]
05-09-2007, 22:07
The people that are interested in multiplayer are likely the people that play multiplayer competitively in other games. My playing partner and I play a FPS game competitively and so for us it is only natural that we would want to play multiplayer. As much fun as campaign mode might be I play this game for the feeling of beating down other people, not some AI. It is frustrating to see the multiplayer aspect of the TW series be so completely neglected. Its funny that none of the polls had a question like "Do you think that Gamespy is the worst possibly company to subcontract multiplayer connectivity to?" because I'm sure the results would be 99.95% "yes". Gamespy has been horrid in every TW game as well as in other games and I don't know how companies can keep giving them their business.
People who didn't buy M2 don't get to vote in the pole. They certainly wouldn't vote that M2 was the best in the series because if they thought that they would have purchased it. I'm not suprised that M2 MP is only drawing 6.2% because of its current state. The lobby alone, just to mention one aspect of it, is a shadow of what it once was.
The objective of MP battles is to pit your skill against other humans individually or in team battles to see who is more skilled. That's what gives the battles meaning, but the game itself has to meet a high standard in terms of playbalance, stability and tactical depth for that objective to be achieved. At one time in the past, Total War achieved this standard. I agree that if the battle gameplay is mostly one of determining the best units then it isn't of much interest except as a novelty.
The objective of MP battles is to pit your skill against other humans individually or in team battles to see who is more skilled. That's what gives the battles meaning, but the game itself has to meet a high standard in terms of playbalance, stability and tactical depth for that objective to be achieved. At one time in the past, Total War achieved this standard. I agree that if the battle gameplay is mostly one of determining the best units then it isn't of much interest except as a novelty.
If both sides in MP agreed to use the very same order of battle, wouldn't the game be decided by skill? Or is it not possible for both sides to use the same faction?
If both sides in MP agreed to use the very same order of battle, wouldn't the game be decided by skill? Or is it not possible for both sides to use the same faction?
last time i checked both sides cant pick the same faction
this was fixed in MTWVI MP but then lost... dont know if it was in rome MP cause I walked at that point
basically MP has been downgraded to the status of a lame dog
other 'features' were nerfed also like AI opponents
pike master
05-10-2007, 06:50
same factions for both opponents would help considerably i think. it was a major plus in mtw/vi but rome would not allow it.
CeltiberoMordred
05-10-2007, 07:58
I didn't see any poll either in launcher. Is it only available for english version?
Does your m2tw shortcut point to medieval2.exe or launcher.exe?
']"Do you think that Gamespy is the worst possibly company to subcontract multiplayer connectivity to?" because I'm sure the results would be 99.95% "yes". Gamespy has been horrid in every TW game as well as in other games and I don't know how companies can keep giving them their business.
Absolutely, I avoid buying any multi-player game that uses Gamespy as a rip-off agent.
Which basically means most of my multi-player expereince is either via Blizzard or PBEM.
CeltiberoMordred
05-10-2007, 11:47
Does your m2tw shortcut point to medieval2.exe or launcher.exe?
The shortcut aim to medieval2.exe
There isn't any file named "launcher.exe" in my M2TW folder, nor in subfolders.
I've been using both leaked 1.2 and official 1.2 patch.
Running the game from the DVD doesn't show me anything special:
https://img218.imageshack.us/img218/5586/launcherkx7.jpg
There isn't any file named "launcher.exe" in my M2TW folder, nor in subfolders.
Are you sure that you've got the patch installed (this is probably a no-brainer, but check the options menu)?
Otherwise, it might be missing from non-english versions of the patch...
My virus scanner has a fit when it hits Gamespy. So it is off the computer now. So no MP for me. SadCat :no:
Kobal2fr
05-10-2007, 13:41
As much as I dislike having to admit it, Puzz3d (bitterly) makes a good point there.
Obviously, if the polling thingy requires people to 1) have bought M2TW and 2) have kept on playing it until patch 1.2 (meaning all the way through the whole period during which the game was... less than spectacular, shall we say), the results are bound to be skewed.
CeltiberoMordred
05-10-2007, 13:42
Are you sure that you've got the patch installed (this is probably a no-brainer, but check the options menu)?
Otherwise, it might be missing from non-english versions of the patch...
I'm pretty sure. I know every TW title, each folder structure and most of files since STW. I'm a modder and betatester of TW games, so yes, it's a bit no-brainer, but a question that should be answered. Yes. I'm using 1.2.
Never mind, we are used to miss features in non-english versions of TW games.
As much as I dislike having to admit it, Puzz3d (bitterly) makes a good point there.
Obviously, if the polling thingy requires people to 1) have bought M2TW and 2) have kept on playing it until patch 1.2 (meaning all the way through the whole period during which the game was... less than spectacular, shall we say), the results are bound to be skewed.
This is a good point, but keep in mind that people who haven't played M2TW 1.2 haven't seen the game at its peak (so far). It cuts both ways. For those STW/MTW fans who never even bought the game, how can they honestly say it isn't the best?
Kobal2fr
05-10-2007, 14:10
I think it's a pretty safe assumption to say that the people who stormed off at the mere sight of RTW (or, god forbid, MTW/VI) because it was NOT THE SAME GAME (insert lots of expletives, punctuation, spelling errors, the works ~:rolleyes: ) or MORE OF THE SAME (idem) are gone for good and probably won't come back, even for a Shogun remake (you know, because... it just wouldn't be the same. Or it would be just the same. You get the idea :laugh4: )
But the peeps who did like Rome, but disliked or quit playing M2TW for some reason (I myself have kept it on the shelf, waiting for the Antitrait bug to get fixed. I was counting on it by mid-2008, it's already done, right when my exams are almost over. I'm a happy French camper. /sidetrack), or those who just don't have a system good enough to run it properly etc won't influence the results, nor will they be able to express why they disliked it/what they felt was lacking, what would make them reconsider etc...
In short, it's a safe bet to say that whatever's in the game right now, the people who're still there after what, 6 months ? might just like them :)
But now I'll shut up, because the results Caliban posted suit me just fine.Yet trust on me to call it BLATANTLY UNFAIR if the MP numbers suddenly rise up when all *I* want are new campaigns, VnVs, agents, SP-friendly units etc :laugh4:
helmeteye
05-11-2007, 15:25
I heartily agree with your first statement. MP'ers are loud but far between.
The second statement is obviously a mistake. over 50% have played STW - that is insignificant? 70% have played MTW (probably including the 50% that played STW). How do you figure that to be insignificant??!?
This speaks of a very large loyal fanbase, that (like me) have bought every item on offer. Well I didn't buy Alexander, but that's the exception.
Yea me too. Alexander is the only one I haven't played. I'd love to find a mp campaign. I haven't really had to to see what the hotseat is all about so I haven't really messed with that at all, although, It does seem interesting.
helmeteye
05-11-2007, 15:52
By the way, I couldn't handle this game, I thought it sucked, until the official 1.2 came out.
As of now, I like campaign better because you can role play and battles and troops have a more emotional attachment:)
Whenever I get used to the campaign and can whip the AI, I generally start getting into the mp part. Right now, I have only been to the early stages of this m2. The only way I've been able to upgrade my cities is by capturing French cities that have been upgraded. I love the French, I can now use longbowmen thanks to them:)
pike master
05-11-2007, 18:59
not to stray off topic but what exactly is the proxy server tool for?
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
06-06-2007, 20:33
Hmm. All I can see is "imagehosting.com: Bandwidth limit exceeded."
MP results are scary.No Wonder no one cares about MP.:shame:
CMcMahon
06-06-2007, 20:38
I can't believe so many people like the launcher. That thing is totally pointless.
centurie
06-07-2007, 00:23
This is a bit misleading, though actually quite understandable based on the poll results. Namely most of the people (over 90%) were interested in the campaign an in this regard both RTW and MTW2 is a clear improvement over STW or MTW (at least most poeple would consider 3D campaig maps, agents, diplomacy, ect a clear improvement). Of course this tells nothing about the quality of the tactical battles, in fact had it been a question I am sure votes would have been more evenly dispersed.
The results though makes me wonder about two questions:
1, The clear novelty of TW series are the tactical battles (there are many empire building games with better diplomacy, more depth, etc). Yet, most people are interested in the campaign. Why?
2, People almost constantly complain about the weakness of the tactical AI. Many people would regard it as the weakest part of the TW series at the moment. Most people voted to spend more time playing the battles than the campaign map. Yet more than half of the voters voted to improve the campaign, and a only a small minority interested in MP where arguably you can find the very best opponents and can have a lot more challanging battles than you can ever have against the AI. Why is that that people spend their time playing SP battles, constantly complain about the AI, and yet not interested in MP? :inquisitive:
my first post but i thought this intresting to reply..........im one of the older gamers over 30, and like most of the people i know they just are not intrested in multiplayer gaming anymore, why ??.........online gaming has become a joke, kids and uneducated adults with bad attitudes and think cheating is the way to win have put off all but the most patient of gamers.............
imagin you set up a game now win or lose you just want a good game right ?? well if only that was so..........you are playing for say 30 minutes and start to win, what do they do ??leave the game.........or worse still they have found an exploit and have an army of zombies that won't die.
multiplayer is a joke for anyone over 25, its full of kids with bad attitudes, i prefer single player or over Lan with a buddy......one things for sure , i and the people i know never will play a multiplayer game again.
PutCashIn
06-07-2007, 05:11
Really, MP not the way to go?
Strange, I thought even consoles were connected these days....
...must be a generation thing.
pike master
06-07-2007, 07:51
the first launcher poll was preliminary. when will they come out with a finished one?
Really, MP not the way to go?
Strange, I thought even consoles were connected these days....
...must be a generation thing.
Nothing to do with age, even the griefing Centurie complains about cannot be entirely blamed just on 'spotty faced adolescents with more adrenaline that brains'. I've certainly met mature online gamers with bad attitudes and a lot of younger players who were very good. It has much more to do with the type of character the player is in real life, or the type of person he would like to be of course.
The fact is that any online MP game is going to attract people who in the real world you would prefer not to associate with. Like I said on the World of Warcraft forum, the mere fact that someone plays WoW does not make them a nice person. Every online MP game is going to attract its fair share of cheats, liars, theives, thugs and bullies and they all detract from the gameplay and do their best to ruin your enjoyment of it.
If your going to play MP games you have to learn to live with the other people who you meet on the way, as I said a 'fist in the face button' would be nice but not likely to happen. More to the point I think that in-game theft should be considered a criminal offence, particuarly in subscription based games and that game hosts should be legally obliged to prosecute.
However, the key issue is whether the game concept works as an on-line game and one of the real dangers I have seen over the last few years is the inappropriate use of the on-line real-time format for games that really needed to be turn-based to work. Most of those games like LOTR3 have flopped big time, but thats hardly a consolation when they had the potential to be brilliant and you paid good money for them.
I play online MP games when the format is appropraite for the type of game, e.g. WoW, Call of Duty 2, Guildwars, Settlers etc. I don't when the format doesn't work e.g. LOTR3, Europa Universalis and that weird French made Napoleonic game whose name I always forget.
BTW: Centurie being 30 does not make you a mature gamer, I think your actually about 5 years below the average age for a TW player and most WoW players are over 25.
Orda Khan
06-07-2007, 20:14
SP campaigns are really that good? When I read posts about a VH/VH campaign completed by turn 40 or whatever I fail to understand what is so appealing.
As for MP, and the droves who no longer play...speaks for itself
.....Orda
Doug-Thompson
06-07-2007, 20:33
Re: Online play.
I'm really getting tired of having online play options shoved down my throat whenever I get a new game or any piece of software. The automatic assumption that every computer (or console) is connected to the Internet at all times is driving me nuts.
It's not customers demanding this. It's companies who see this as a way to increase brand loyalty.
I can't recharge the battery in my wife's iPod mini, or whatever those little clip-ons are called, without dialing up the internet first, getting on iTunes, and hooking up. 99.9999 percent of the time, I then go off the Internet.
I play singleplayer. I was never on the Internet while playing a game, so I used to turn off my virus and spyware protection and such when I was playing. This greatly smoothes out performance. There was no risk because I'd turn the computer off after many happy hours of gameplay and the protection came on again with the reboot.
Now if I do that, I get an error message every 15 seconds that's something like this: "WARNING! You turned your virus (or spyware) protection off, you moron. If you don't turn it on again right now, your computer will die horribly of AIDS. What were you thinking? Can you think at all? Don't drool on the keyboard, either."
Every day, my PC becomes more and more like that little box in "1984" that you can't turn off without being sent to prison.
Orda Khan
06-08-2007, 01:50
But at the same time Doug, online is one of the option features, just like LAN and I like the products I buy to do what it says on the box.
There are only so many times to give the AI an utter spanking before things become tedious.
MP used to be so much more than 'just a win' as I've read here. There were map packs galore, genuine friends online and communicated tactical teamplay. Co-ordination with team mates and those special battles where you stared defeat in the eye only to turn the tide and snatch a victory made MP a sweet experience.
One memory of TW that I will remember when all others have faded was the time when myself and ShinGaijin made a final stand at Totomi. It was a 4v4 that was surely lost (I won't bore you with a detailed account of the battle)our other two allies had been routed after a vicious, bloody battle yet our tactics at the end snatched a victory from the jaws of certain defeat. I would wager my house that he still remembers that battle. Send him a PM and ask if he remembers a 4v4 on Totomi where he and Orda lived to tell the tale; I know I won't be homeless.
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad the SP game has improved for you guys but some of the posts I read in this thread show little compassion from SP'ers as to the plight of MP. The thing is that where your game has improved the MP standard has not even been maintained, it has deteriorated and that stinks whichever way you look at it
......Orda
Doug-Thompson
06-08-2007, 03:10
Orda;
I know you'll understand. My rant is against the constant, programmed, automated nagging to get online. It's not just a problem with TW. It's a problem with any game or whenever I try to get the best performance out of my computer. I am frustrated by warnings that I have no virus protection when I turned my protection off deliberately.
I know there are people who turn it off and then forget to turn it on again, but the nagging is insulting.
Once they get into the game, I wish any player of TW — MP or SP — all the best.
Doug, tell me about it my wifes sony mp3 player has to load special software to load songs (no longer drag) and has to plugged into a pc to charge the battery. The corporations are desparately trying to gain complete control over teh internets, then thay can intrevienously shove their product branding into our brains..coke is it... sorry that just slips out sometimes like a nervous twitch
Orda
I agree mate the game is worse off for the deliberate deterioration to MP - I dont think anyone would argue that it is not. The problem is this happened despite the communities vocal protestations... probably because (as has been discussed to death) the numbers were telling CA "dont listen to those whiners - everythings on track".
As for the fantastic community, tactics, epic battles, and friendships that evolved back in the STW days - Ive now accpted that this was a once off, and anomomoly. Perhaps because the game wasnt that widely known as a MP game, so alot of the 1337 111!!! crowd werent present and were playing D2 , and it was these guys like you and me who had discovered this game (I remember thinking pfft my wife bought this wargame - looks boring - Ill probably play it a couple of times to make her happy - yeh I think my wife regrets buying that game now). Then we discovered the many intricacies there were to the game, height, weather, facing, morale, fatigue - and how the game played true to the teachings of fuedal japanese warfare. We were all sitting playing on 56k modems and loving it!! Because the games were long wait and setup times - a code evolved between the regular players to minimise time wasting (playing against idiots) and to make every battle as enjoyable as possible. I think even if you deliberately tried to recreate this - you could not - it was just this happenstaces that occured - by chance.
Dude you say what about MP, I say worry about SP because from what Ive experienced - its not far behind. The SP game is in critical condition - all the strategy and epic battles and challenge of the old game is almost gone since the change of the map, and the dumbing of the battle AI. SP campaigns are no longer these epic long games that you look forward to playing the next turn, but have become tedious repeditive, predicable and transparently tiresome. I struggle to find the motivation to even finish a campaign, I used to love making it to the end of a STW campaign and the ending gave you satisfaction, and reward ( a great movie).
So in summary dude the reason I am concentrating on SP is because Im trying to save this game from becoming yet another play for the novelty of the graphics for a week and then put on the shelf (a mediocrety that STW used to do to other games) - the game as it stands has lost replayability and longevity - the units are cookie cutter, the games plays out identically, the world is made up of identical everything, theres no challenge, the AI behaves like its got one strategy - build army attack human ( the sort of repeditive piece meal attacks akin to AOE2).
So absolutley lets campaign to improve MP, but lets save the game first, because Im seriously thinking Im not buying another game of frustration like this one again, super powerup generals or not.
sorry to game fans (rant end)
edit: yes I know the graphics are incredible, and bring tears to my eyes they are so wonderful - unfortunately the immersion ends there (particularly when the enemy army stands under your towers and allows itself to be wiped out to a man)
I can't believe so many people like the launcher. That thing is totally pointless.
Its not that people like the launcher its that people who don't like it will not answer the questions so the question's answer is biased toward people who are interested in the survey and keep going.
Also, you should be able to play at least a simplified campaign mode against another. I understand that it would probably be dumbed down and even knowing that that is unwanted it would be understandable.
Lastly, hotseat mode is too difficult to implement so I haven't tried it yet. In the future it would be nice to maybe before starting a campaign to click on an option to play more than one faction and which factions to play. That way after each turn of lets say British, it would automatically go to the Turks for me to control both every other turn. Even better of an idea is that during a battle between the British and the Turks, both sides I currently control, whichever side your current turn is on you control or your have the choice to autoresolve.
As for the fantastic community, tactics, epic battles, and friendships that evolved back in the STW days - Ive now accpted that this was a once off, and anomomoly. Perhaps because the game wasnt that widely known as a MP game, so alot of the 1337 111!!! crowd werent present and were playing D2 , and it was these guys like you and me who had discovered this game (I remember thinking pfft my wife bought this wargame - looks boring - Ill probably play it a couple of times to make her happy - yeh I think my wife regrets buying that game now).
Yeah... I was one of those fish swimming with the D2 multi crowd at that point. Jesus, what a damn mess. Talk about the perfect example of everything we've been complaining about. Even the closed servers were having hack issues, and God forbid you would ever set foot into an open game. And then there's the whole separate issue where everything great in D2 single-player meant nothing in multi. Multi-player just became rushing characters to get the advancement quests, then standing in a room gaining experience while people who actually might not die did all the work of slaughtering cows/bosses/whatever high XP thing. So sad that all the greatness of that title vanished in multiplayer.
I think D2 likely more than anything is what's killed my multiplayer enthusiasm. Once you realize you've been addicted and it's just become clicking for gold, levels, and items, it kinda takes the joy out of it (if there ever really was any to begin with). Certainly the community there was one of the worst I've ever seen, and that even more than the degraded gameplay put me off. It's really amazing how much greed drove that game, and what a good item drop could do to people, esp if someone else picked it up. So yeah, it really wouldn't surprise me at all if every other multiplayer game out at the time benefited in community quality from D2 sucking up so many "bad" gamers.
At the least I can say D2 multi was so sour I've avoided WoW entirely, though almost all gamers I know have some part of their lives consumed by it. It's also the reason I shouted for joy when when they said Starcraft 2 will not be a departure from the original. If they had changed the idea much in online directions, I would likewise be avoiding that. Instead it's more akin to Blizzard returning to its roots than anything I've seen them do recently, and I think it will carry fan support as a result. Maybe Total War would benefit from a similar return to its roots, since it seems to be straying from the gameplay fundamentals that really drove the earlier titles (by most accounts I've heard from older players).
I must admit the one thing I miss more than anything about STW is the ability to pick up a unit counter and put it where I want it.
I know that might sound a bit lame but there was a positivity about that action that gave one a sense of satisfaction. It was a bit like moving a chess piece on the board or being Napoleon moving a corps on a campaign map. It had a sense of reality about it, and immediate positive feedback that that unit was now where it said it was.
The animated movement of units which came in with RTW, really didn't offer much in the way of benefits. There was an ability to have movement blocked by the position of another unit, but essentially that could have been achieved just as effectively and much more quickly by simply limiting the placement zone for a counter. More importantly it would have avoided all the delays whilst one was forced to watch spies, assassins, priest and princesses do their personal impressions from Monty Python's ministry of silly walks. Also it would have avoided the really irritating auto-rerouting bug that causes units to wander in circles when their paths are blocked by previously unseen obstacles. (Must add that to the pet peeves thread)
I've always felt that the switch to animated movement was ill conceived. STW had a much more classic and stylish feel to it which ought to have been retained even when the 'one province = one battlefield' concept was improved upon.
If CA had stuck with the concept of the campaign being plotted on a campaign planning table with counters rather than switched to an 'eye in the sky' world with oversized people wandering around it I think it would have been a much more satisfying game to play.
Talking of D2= my lasting memory of D2 is of my son and I hunting hackers. We had got fed up with being lured into the dungeon by griefers using invincibility cheats to steal our gold and equipment so we formed what we called the Guardian's Guild.
In effect, the guardian's were anti-hacker hackers, using the same mods and hacks as the griefers to get some pay-back in game. We would hang about in town using characters deliberately designed to look like 'noobs' and asking nooby questions until we attracted a griefer. Then we would allow ourselves to be conned into entering the dungeon on a promise of help with our quest. These guys would even give us money and equipment to lull us inot a false sense of security, knowing they would get it back when they ganked us.
It was usually easy to spot the hackers as their characters when viewed through the hack overlay usually had stat anomalies, like excessively high hit points. We would then wait for the griefer to spring his trap before pressing the 'switch-char' control key that used the same hacks they were using to morph our characters into invincible mode and laugh our heads off as the griefer struggled to work out why he wasn't killing us. Finally having confirmed that the target was a griefer we would access his character account, over the network, delete all his character equipment, erase all his gold, and change his character name to something like '<snip>' before returning to town and flaming him.
It was always funny to try and guess just how long it would take the guy to work out that his account had been hacked and that he now had a character with a really dumb name (you can't actually see your own character name in D2, so it sometimes took a while for a greifer to work out that everyone else was reading '<snip>' over his chars head). However, towards the end that was the only fun you could get out of D2, it was impossible to play as a serious game, simply because of the hacking that was allowed to take place. That was about the nearest I ever got to having a 'fist in the face' button on my PC.
EDIT: Language ~sapi
multiplayer is a joke for anyone over 25, its full of kids with bad attitudes, i prefer single player or over Lan with a buddy......one things for sure , i and the people i know never will play a multiplayer game again.
I only play multiplayer with a select number of trusted friends. This way, I know I will have a decent game. If I play Combat Mission I will often play with members of "Band of Brothers" website where you need to be sponsored to join. I have never had any major problems. (I did have an arguement with someone there about Macs v PCs... we settled it with a battle duel using the game and I won :jumping: )
Didz - ha ha ha thats a laugh man - kudos to you for getting even with those 'no-lifers'
Foz- I hear ya man talk about the deterioration of a game - it like any game you joined you could guarentee the bosses would all be gone and the rest of the acts left untouched, or some ubers would join your game and then go Ive got the relics and WP lets go do the bosses, and your like - no I wanna play through the act. And then there was the whole trading BS where dudes would try and trick you by switching items in the trading screen - check out the complaints on WoW - some things never change - its just D2 for 20 bucks a month
that was my wake up to online game communities - these are the computer gaming people of the world - god help us - theirs some tormented souls amongst that lot
Although it has worked to season me up to hold my own in the BF2 community - dont get too close or Ill tk you and them spam screens of abuse - see you have to become a monster - so the monster will not break you (U2)
Yeh I agree Didz the change of Map seriously hurt the game - even now Im still just discovering more of how - I guess RTW was a different game in some ways (and I wrote it off as worse - fairly quickly). But now seeing M2 vs MTW its all becoming painfully clear - there is no comparison to be made
edit: I had to add OMG item drops - the quick or the dead - then it was time for the begging to start "Foz give item" ke ke ke - ^^ - sorry couldnt resist rekindeling that little gem
Yeh I agree Didz the change of Map seriously hurt the game - even now Im still just discovering more of how - I guess RTW was a different game in some ways (and I wrote it off as worse - fairly quickly). But now seeing M2 vs MTW its all becoming painfully clear - there is no comparison to be made
I do like the way the RTW map allows you to position your army on map locations like, a river crossing, or in a wood, and know that this will have an influence on the battlefield terrain. That was a positive improvement over STW, although I was surprised to discover it got slightly nerfed for MTW2.
However, that same result could have been acheived without resorting to animated movement which just wastes time and causes the annoying auto-reroute problems.
I would have liked the benefits without the unecessary cost.
Orda Khan
06-08-2007, 10:38
Doug
I know what you are saying and I agree with you whole heartedly. It's such a shame we need anti virus programs and firewalls at all isn't it. I guess it's the <snip> world we live in and it's getting <snip> by the day.
Yunus,
You've highlighted the issues that drove me away from SP campaign. In each title I've retried but can't find that interest.
STW campaign had its failings but it certainly had atmosphere and that's never been recreated
......Orda
EDIT: Language ~sapi
Kobal2fr
06-08-2007, 10:56
@Doug : if it's Windows XP "Security Center" you're talking about, you can disable it's attention-whoring little popups. Of course, fishing for the right window and the right checkbox is loads of fun, but it can be done.
Not that hard, just start>accessories>system tools>security center.
Yeh I agree Didz the change of Map seriously hurt the game - even now Im still just discovering more of how - I guess RTW was a different game in some ways (and I wrote it off as worse - fairly quickly). But now seeing M2 vs MTW its all becoming painfully clear - there is no comparison to be made
I agree the change of map has some adverse effects, although for me it is for the degree of challenge rather than the feel of the game. Unlike Didz, I must prefer RTW/M2TW manevouring on the map to shifting counters a la STW/MTW. It just feels more immersive and like real military operations to me. The role of terrain is also intuitive and you don't have to draw on outside knowledge to know how the battlefield in Shinano or wherever will look. And man, did I hate STW bridge province bottlenecks. But this is largely a matter of taste and there's not much point debating it, as tastes differ.
However, I do agree it has hurt the game in that the strategic AI has still not fully adjusted. The Risk Style map in STW/MTW made the strategic game feel almost like chess - there were some really tough decisions to make and the AI was quite a threat (attack here, the AI will hit your weak point there etc). The big province blobs also made it easier for the AI to concentrate its forces.
The M2TW strategic AI has improved over RTW: it is capable of more surprising aggressive moves (esp. those naval invasions post 1.2); is capable of advancing in areas where you are weak and keeping out of reach where you are strong; and it also sometimes double-teams and allows stacks to be adjacent to provide mutual support. All of this means that the early game, say as England on the continent can feel rather like MTW/STW: you fear attacking in one direction because the AI may grab a territory at the far end of your lands. But despite all that, I am still finding the vast majority of fights tend to be ones where the odds are in my favour. So however good or bad the tactical AI, it does not really matter - the strategic level is not giving the AI a fair chance at battle.
I think this could be quite easily tweaked. Program the AI to only attack at 2:1 or better (not at 2:3 as happened to me the other day). And program it to keep out of reach of your armies if you are capable of attacking at 1:1 or better. Heroes of Might and Magic III had this kind of canny strategic AI and it could be quite challenging, if you add to it some generous AI resource cheats. It was quite hard to defeat the AI in detail and so it had a fair chance of bringing its greater economic power to bear. With this kind of tweaking, and perhaps some tweaking to strengthen AI garrisoning of border settlements, I think the negative aspects of moving from the Risk map would be largely alleivated.
@econ21
Well as I said the only negative aspect for me is the actual method of moving the counters. The orignal 'pick up' and drop system was far faster and more accurate and didn't come with the risk that the unit would do something stupid if its path became blocked.
I certainly agree with you that the map based strategy provides much more variety than the STW province=battlelfield approach. My only concern in that respect is that MTW2 seems be lacking the close relationship between map and battlefield terrain that existed in RTW. Hopefully, this is not the start of a trend towards universally abstract, or balanced battlefields but merely a consequence of lazy or poorly prioritised game design.
I agree with you about HOMM too, now that I think about it the AI on that game is far superior in handling risk assessment than MTW2. In fact its difficult work out the logic of some actions the AI takes in MTW2 many of which seem to have no strategic value or chance of success.
Lol, Didz. That was half the trouble. I think the government/police call it escalation - each side just upgrades its equipment and methods in order to marginalize what the other is doing, but in the process the situation only becomes worse. In the case of D2 it pretty much made it impossible to be anything except a hacker or anti-hacker successfully... and anti-hackers are really just hackers anyway, only more selective. Everyone that stopped being just a normal player was really part of the problem. Not that I blame you, I'm just saying that hacking to kill hackers just removes even more players from the normal population, making it even harder to play anything resembling a normal game. I ended up eventually just playing passworded games with my college roomies and friends as a result, and feel far better off for it.
I think this could be quite easily tweaked. Program the AI to only attack at 2:1 or better (not at 2:3 as happened to me the other day). And program it to keep out of reach of your armies if you are capable of attacking at 1:1 or better. Heroes of Might and Magic III had this kind of canny strategic AI and it could be quite challenging, if you add to it some generous AI resource cheats. It was quite hard to defeat the AI in detail and so it had a fair chance of bringing its greater economic power to bear. With this kind of tweaking, and perhaps some tweaking to strengthen AI garrisoning of border settlements, I think the negative aspects of moving from the Risk map would be largely alleivated.
Yeah, that's definitely stuff to look at. I'm sure it will be especially easy to get the AI to operate with better border garrisons, as I seem to recall there is actually a defensive posture that indicates it focuses on defending the border. Likely as simple as making a new decision with higher priority than the other ones, and having it trigger border defense (whatever the file calls it - defend_frontline I think) or else defend_deep (have to experiment) for any country it has a border with.
The sometimes poor attack decisions I believe are often motivated by the AI file's "raid" feature. Basically if it wants to hurt you and doesn't think it can win an outright war, it'll send some troops your way just to harass you. I'm not sure it works out as a very valid strategy though, and the AI might well be better off without it, or more ideally still adding those more-or-less wasted troops to its border garrisons instead. IIRC the AI's normal (non-raid) attack decisions are generally based on local strength ratios and/or faction border troop ratios, which means they already do account for a balance of forces check, which is why I speculate that the raids are likely the problem. When I get the chance I'll go into the file and try to dig up the various attack decisions and quote more concrete numbers and facts for the benefit of discussion.
Kraggenmor
06-08-2007, 19:58
Interesting results though, as it has been tangetially pointed out, the results are pretty dependant on whether or not you even received the question.
I intentionally sat for about five or ten minutes one day and received mostly the same 4 - 6 questions about "will you pay 10.00 for additional campaigns" "should we offer new features or fix existing ones" "did you play MTW" Did you play RTW" etc.
There are results in the poll for several questions I've never seen. "would you play a fantasy version of MTW"
"Middle Earth:Total War"
Yeah. I'm thinking I'd do that.
And I only saw the 'have you played a mod' question once.
Speaking of which, can we get an "I plan to" option or a "Do you plan to play a Mod in the future? Yes/No"
I plan to play Carl's mod and or LTC eventually.
Caliburn
06-10-2007, 01:49
The animated movement thing mentioned earlier is definitely something to work on. Even displayign whether or not the army you are moving to engage an enemy will have enough points to actually engage or just to sit next to it would be an improvement. Agents losing their volition to move forward when they're blocked by an army they've seen 2 times in the same place or while another agent displaces is also annoying when at best there are dozens of agents and units moving around anyway. It's just too much work. Not that Medieval 1 didn't get boring if you built huge amounts of priests to convert the rest of the world, but Agent Movement has been on the "issue" list since RTW came out.
I also like to talk about the "cavalry is strong but weak" -problem. I believe that most single player campaign players like to have a unit behave somewhat uniformly, ie when their cavalry charges it charges and does not stop to pick up daffodils, and when it actually charges it still cannot go through a granite wall. Not to mention cavalry charging cavalry, causing few losses. Of course this means that the player has to counter cavalry and it takes a lot longer (thus making it harder to charge infantry), but this in turn just makes it more profitable to just get more cavalry units to do the job.
I know this is not a complaint thread, but I believe that it is suitable for discussion about the subjects outside of the poll as well - after all, it is all for the development of the game experience. It's still a great game, otherwise I would've stopped playing it months ago and installed Civ IV, which I still haven't even tried because of the thrill the (somewhat strategically forced) aggression gives me.
Everyone that stopped being just a normal player was really part of the problem. Not that I blame you, I'm just saying that hacking to kill hackers just removes even more players from the normal population, making it even harder to play anything resembling a normal game.
True, but in the absence of the 'Fist in the face' button it was the only option that allowed for any marginal payback against the people who were ruining the game.
The same is equally true of games like World of Warcraft today, where cheats, hackers and thieves are doing their best to ruin the game for everyone else. The problem with WoW is that so far there is no counter strategy and so one merely has to live with the griefers and try to avoid becoming a victim.
What is sad about WoW is that Blizzard themselves seem unwilling to act against these people even when they have been clearly identified. For example: when my youngest sons account got stolen and trashed by a thief, I actually happened to be on-line and so was surprised to get a 'Friendly Log-on' report as I knew my son was at school. I instantly challenged the player and got an invalid response from them, and so logged an GM note straight away to report an ongoing account theft.
It took literally hours to get a response, by which time my sons account had been cleared and all his characters deleted. Not only that but when I demanded restitution of the lost elements and justice against the thief, Blizzard seemed completely unwilling to act at all. They filibustered for weeks, trying to claim that they had no means of tracing the person responsible, which is rubbish, as they have must have constant activity logging of all their servers if only to allow recovery in the event a a system failure and I was able to provide them with the exact date and time when the thief accessed my sons account. so they could tell exactly when the theft occurred and which account the stolen items had been transferred to.
They also refused to replace the stolen equipment claiming that they had no way of detecting what had been stolen, which is again lie as any log record prior to the event would have given them a full inventory of my sons account.
They actually suggested that my son beg, other friends and players on-line for money to replace his own kit. Which I considered to be an obscene suggestion given that not only did it encourage begging but actually spread the damage inflicted to other players. Why should other honest people be made to suffer because Blizzard allowed a thief access to their game.
The consequence of this in the end was that Blizzard lost about a dozen players. Because my son folded his guild and all the players quit and switched to playing Planetside. That does not seem to bother Blizzard at all, they still haven't prosecuted a single thief, nor do they have a restitution plan for people who fall victims to the incompetence of their own software.
pike master
06-10-2007, 23:07
any word on updated poll results?
Yeah that's not surprising really Didz. Even in D2 Blizzard showed a remarkable ability to just let things spiral out of control. It took huge amounts of pressure to get them to even do any banning of map-hack players, and that was even after they had been warning for months that you were going to get banned if you were using map hacks.
There's a possible roadblock to what you've suggested - prosecution of thieves in game worlds. The problem, as I recall, is that you don't actually own any of the things associated with playing the game - not your characters, items, none of it. Blizzard maintains ownership of the servers and all the information on them, you just pay to access all that stuff. So the trouble is that, under the law, the other person has not done anything wrong to you. Stealing from you would require ownership on your part first, which unfortunately is missing here. I know it doesn't make a shred of sense from a moral or real world perspective, but IIRC that's the legal sticking point.
However, the person may have violated any number of portions of the EULA by thieving from people. But, again we have problems. That means that the ball for legal action (and action of any sort) is squarely in Blizzard's court. So, legal action is never going to happen, because Blizzard doesn't really care to go to bat for its users who are being wronged since it gains little by doing so. Likewise, it probably doesn't want to pay for how many people it would really take to resolve all the matters like this that happen, so it simply fobs everyone off since it requires many less employees to send generic BS emails full of lies. Hopefully you get discouraged and stop asking them to help out, maybe you quit - either way Blizzard gets to stop being troubled by you, which is of course what the company wants. It wants you to shut up, pay, and never require any special attention at all so it can keep costs down. Similarly, I'm sure the Blizzard execs consider it an outrageous expense to pay people to go looking at server records to determine players who should be reprimanded. The end result is that nothing will ever be done, because it would require Blizzard to pay someone to do it, and to them that cost will never be worth it for only some good will and PR. Obviously at Blizzard everything revolves entirely around money, even more so than in many less-than-user-friendly companies, and as a result I fear that any future Blizzard products that remotely resemble D2 or Wow will almost certainly continue to be tainted by their absolutely abysmal administration policies.
I suppose some would argue that Blizzard has no obligation to do anything about this, and they would of course be right. However, I hold that it should do something about such situations, in order to promote good PR instead of the horror stories I have so often heard from ex-players. Not only are players much less likely to join if they know people that this kind of thing has happened to, but likewise current players are apt to quit when their accounts are wrecked and Blizzard does nothing. Frankly it seems like pretty simple math to me: many people that would quit over events like this could be saved if Blizzard fixed things, so it sure looks like it would easily be a worthwhile investment to pay techs to solve such problems in order to keep victimized players playing, and thus paying.
Guys, please feel free to continue that discussion in the Arena, but please also remember that being on-topic is somtimes a good idea ~;)
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.