Printable View
And it is posts like this that really irk me. Even if this were true (and calling it sabotage and blackmail is not accurate) if the campaign worked we should all be happy. Those of us dense enough to still have an interest in the game would benefit from a proper patch. The irritation should be with the developer, not the consumer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
i also think the amazon reviews i've read have been pretty fair. they've been specific and reasoned and well written. i didn't come across too many "rtw sucks!!!!!" people have been writing about their problems with the game and have been explaining reasonably well, why they were giving it a rating that they were. it just so happens that its an organized campaign of how a lot feel about the game, instead of a haphazard one of separate individuals but its not like they are slandering it or adding untruths in their reviews. so i think its been a perfectly valid strategy so far.
The 1.0 scores were pre-determined. The review itself was an afterthought. Hence, it is bogus and fraudulent. The intent and goal of the "campaign" was to lower the score all along (hence sabotage), with people at another forum saying we won't stop until the game is patched (hence blackmail).
If you don't want me to call it blackmail and sabotage then don't do it, simple as that. ( I know my vocabulary, if you don't, then use a dictionary).
Under the amazing scale of RTW as 1.0 star,
* = RTW
**= ???
***= ???
**** = ????
***** = ???
then it follows that there are 5-star games that are 5-times better than RTW. You would be hardpressed to find games that are 2 times better than it, much less 5-times.
Not counting the plethora errors and bugs with the VnV & TnT systems or the multitude of graphic files error let simply look at the following list (I forgot who drafted it) of well know issues shall we?? (Blackmail - hardly...)
A. BATTLEMAP
(1) Tactical AI:
· Suicidal generals: persistent reports of generals charging entire enemy armies without support.
· Tactical AI still fails to take adequate measures in avoiding missile fire.
· AI-controlled infantry sometimes maneuver like cavalry units when engaged; repeatedly charging/disengaging and running in circular paths through loose formations. If a feature, implemented poorly with units that have poor charge attributes.
· AI-controlled units guarding the town centre sometimes fail to turn and face approaching enemy units.
· AI siege attackers: AI-controlled reinforcements continue to pursue enemy units that have retreated behind city walls; AI siege armies do not always retreat after their siege equipment is lost.
· AI-controlled units sometimes remain idle while being issued repeated movement orders; "move" or "move out" orders can be heard in an almost continuous loop. Occurs most commonly with AI formations preparing to attack over bridges.
(2) Unit movement/path-finding:
· Generally poor unit navigation in cities and around bridges: individual soldiers often break formation and become lost in streets/alleyways; soldiers still run into the water and drown during bridge maneuvers; bugged path-finding around Egyptian arches.
· Scenery interaction: units often become stuck in narrow passages, between rocks/trees, in siege towers, and amongst massed formations; rare reports of soldiers walking through walls and closed gates; soldiers in siege towers and on ladders occasionally fall through solid wood.
· "Ford" river crossings are sometimes impassable.
(3) Unit functionality:
· Horse-archers: reports from some players that bow-armed cavalry fail to fire on the run when skirmish mode is engaged. Possibly related to bugged animation cycles; units go through the motions of firing arrows but arrows are not (or rarely) released. Cantabrian circle still functions fully. Javelin-armed cavalry are unaffected.
· Various problems associated with the use of multiple selected (ungrouped) units: aberrant maneuvers provoked on move command to several selected units; ignoring attack orders; incorrect processing of attack orders given to multiple unit selections comprising a mix of ammo-depleted and range-capable missile units (all engage in melee, despite the cursor highlight suggesting that ranged attack is available for some units).
· Various problems associated with the use of grouped units: unselected units comply with commands issued to other units in the same group; grouped cavalry does not run at the speed of the slowest unit, but at that of the quickest (eg. grouped cataphractoi and horse-archers will run at horse-archer speed).
· Phalanx mode: soldiers sometimes do not hold formation adequately in phalanx formation, when ordered to attack, soldiers shuffle around and break formation; phalanxes have trouble attacking uphill, even on gentle inclines.
· Canine unit (wardog/warhound) "formations" cannot be selected or attacked, even when their handlers are defeated or routed off the battlefield.
· Javelin infantry may become stuck and refuse further orders when ordered to launch missiles or change formation.
· Hiding in long grass is possible on snowy maps and in places where no long grass is visible.
· Bridge routs: occasional recurrences besides documented changes in v1.2.
· AI-controlled reinforcements are sometimes inappropriately flagged "not yet arrived on battlefield" and cannot be selected/attacked.
· Disappearing ladders: on rare occasions, siege ladders do not appear on the battle map if constructed in preparation for a siege assault.
· Fighting on city walls: soldiers deployed on walls sometimes shuffle around and fall to their death on pressing "start battle"; units deployed on walls "fight to the death" even if their adversary is on the ground below; units "fighting to the death" sometimes do not fight back when engaged in melee.
(4) Interface/graphics:
· Minimal UI: cut-scenes reset map and card visibility settings if they were originally toggled off; upper edge of screen blocked from cursor interaction when buttons are toggled off; message tiles often obscure the left-most unit card when toggling cards off and on with active messages; sluggish/unreliable response to time control hotkeys when MUI is active.
· Coastal tiles: frequent reports of large grey angular coastline tiles in the distance when fighting in coastal regions, relating to the presence of coastal structures such as ports/cities.
· Victory screen: rare reports of victory screen failing to appear after all enemy units are defeated/routed.
B. CAMPAIGN MAP
(1) Strategic AI:
· Unit construction: occasional reports of AI favoring mass construction of low quality troops early on in campaign games.
· Naval units: rare reports of the AI conducting single-turn blockades frequently and indiscriminately.
· AI incongruity on reload: reports that reloading a saved game "resets" AI priorities/flags provoking inconsistencies in diplomatic behavior and strategic planning. Refer to stickied thread on "Loadg ame issue".
(2) Diplomacy:
· Illogical AI behavior: requesting ceasefire with considerable concessions, only to attack next turn; refusing "unfair" diplomatic offers only to accept less advantageous agreements immediately afterwards.
· Labile diplomacy: occasional reports of AI factions frequently signing and breaking treaties.
· Protectorates: multiple problems related to protectorate system and status of ex-protectorates. Full assessment still pending. p223.ezboard.com/fshogunt...=1&stop=20
(3) Characters:
· Generals get checked twice for trait awards in manual battles.
· "Scarred" trait: over rapid trait progression with repeated battles (GeneralHPLostRatioinBattle works in one way for manual battles, and differently for autocalc; manual battles without engagement always trigger battle1/battle1r).
· Senate offices: ex-office trait is not registered following reappointment to a previously held office ((office)again triggers giving twice as needed).
· Coward trait: is not given if the general avoids combat in battle (GeneralFoughtinCombat always returns true, causing trigger battle4 to never go off; trigger needs revision as if it worked properly the coward trait could by gained simply if the enemy retreats).
· Rare reports of spies acquiring traits specific to generals.
· Isolated reports of family members who die in battle described to have "died peacefully" if they weren't generals during the final battle.
· Transferred retainers are sometimes not immediately deleted from the retinue of the donating character (corrected by closing and reopening the character description).
· Character portraits: continue to age after death; portrait images can sometimes be replaced by inappropriate/non-portrait pictures.
· Disappearing characters: issuing a move/attack command to selected units within a stack, then stopping them prior to reaching their intended destination (by pressing backspace) makes the general in the original stack disappear; losing the commanding general out of two (or more?) family members in a battle may lead to disappearance of the surviving character(s). In either situation the description for the disappeared character states "died peacefully".
(4) Economics:
· Paved roads sometimes do not provide the correct land trade bonuses.
· Colossus wonder does not provide the correct naval trade bonus that its description states
· Financial reports continue to calculate diplomatic tribute from ex-protectorates or when active protectorates are bankrupt and cannot provide the required diplomatic tribute (in either case no actual tribute is received for the turn).
(5) Land/naval warfare:
· Multiple-army sieges: only the attacking stack is represented in battlemap/autocalc during attacks on a settlement besieged by several stacks.
· Naval warfare: battle outcome summaries do not correctly register the number of ships sunk in a naval engagement.
· Elephants killed in battle by their riders are resurrected on returning to the campaign map.
· A distorted coast-line battle map is loaded when fighting on the road east of the port of Sidon (the depressed terrain one grid south of the small hill).
· Naval/land units sometimes become stuck at certain points in the map and cannot be selected (eg. fleets at the port of Corinth).
· Lost siege supplies: if an attempt is made to relieve a besieged AI army prior to its supply time limit, it is sometimes incorrectly flagged to be at the extent of its supply and will "fight to the death" as reinforcements in the subsequent battle. This also means that the siege succeeds automatically if the relieving army is defeated before the reinforcements arrive.
· Diplomats/spies/assassins are capable of blockading retreating armies.
· Gates of Syracuse: isolated reports of permanent damage refractory to repairs/upgrades if opened by a spy during a siege.
· If a rival faction enters a protectorate agreement under the player, any player-led sieges of that faction's settlements will be deactivated but the besieging armies will be unable to leave.
· Rare reports of entire stacks teleporting to distant parts of the map when disembarking from a fleet.
(6) Unit statistics/properties:
· Praetorian Cohorts are available prior to Marius reforms.
· Pharaoh's Guard flagged as carrying shields contrary to unit models.
· Egyptian Desert Axemen have high armour attributes contrary to unit models.
· Long-Shield Cavalry are not listed in the unit building files for Spain and Numidia.
· Seleucid Cataphract Elephants construction requirements should also include "resource elephants".
· Typing error in "descr_mercenaries.txt" variables for "unit merc horse archers" under "pool Armenia".
· Bedouin Archers flagged as carrying shields contrary to unit models.
· Illyrian Mercenaries have no bonus against chariots and elephants.
· Thracian Armoured General has the same statistics as the unarmoured form.
· Praetorian Cohorts are recruitable prior to Marius event.
· Thracian Phalanx Pikemen are no longer recruitable after a specific barracks level.
· Gallic Naked Fanatics can be recruited at a farming shrine.
· Silver Shield Legionaries can be trained prior to Marius event.
· Sarmatian Mercenaries do not suffer the "mount" penalty when facing elephants/camels.
· Rebel Archer Warbands have blue Chosen Swordsman as unit commander.
· Spain has blue generals.
· Royal Pikemen use spears (and should use spears) but their name indicates otherwise.
· Inconsistent mass values for certain units: Bastarnae Mercenaries, Bull Warriors, Silver Shield Legionaries and several other infantry units are assigned a mass value of "1" in contrast to comparable units (Bastarnae, Spartan warriors and various legionary units all have "1.3" in mass).
(7) Interface/graphics:
· Dysfunctional construction menu scroll-bar.
· Game transit: reloading screen disappears for a few seconds when loading/exiting a battle; when playing in 16-bit mode, campaign map occasionally resets colours incorrectly when returning from battlemap.
· Movement range highlights: some players report loss of the green terrain highlight indicators for unit movement after patching to 1.2.
· Snowy winter bug: some players report experiencing the snowy winter effect in all regions (including equatorial zones).
· Settlement details window: if the building/unit information screen (on the right side) is closed while the settlement details summary is open, the latter resets automatically to a "default" settlement.
That list is nary a justification for 1.0 star (it only illustrates the complexity of RTW). .Spartan, if you really are convinced that RTW is 1.0 star, then please, fill in the blanks:
* = RTW
** = ???
*** = ???
**** = ???
***** = ???
Keep in mind 1-star is 20%, 2-stars is 40%, 3-stars is 60%, 4-stars is 80%, and 5-stars is 100%, meaning the last is 5-times superior to the first.
(edit: about the paved roads. There seem to be a special limit to road bonuses. Look at my Guide+therother's comment and the Ludus Magna thread: Effects of Road).
* = RTW 1.0
*** = RTW 1.2
***** = Shogun/Medieval
********** = RTW if problems are properly fixed
Matters of legal obligation are irrelevant.
Matters of who is to blame are irrelevant.
Matters of whether or not its a good idea to publicly campaign for a patch/against CA are irrelevant.
The single relevant factor is that a large number of the people who might buy future product are not happy and likely to refrain from further purchases.
If CA/SEGA/Activision have any business sense they will take action ASAP to remedy this situation.
I know for sure companies that support their product 5 times better then CA.
Louis,
I do not believe it deserves one star. However to offset the skew created by less informed posters that rate something 5 stars mainly because it looks good and they themselves lack a technical insights into the game or just basic understanding of things work it is a reasonable course of action. The end result should be 2.5 - all things being equal.
-Spartan
I don't agree with your description, I don't think people intentionally wrote "bad" reviews, they just stated the fact that there is a loadgame bug that can severely handicap the AI (which is already not that flash). Arguably you are correct that they deliberately marked the game down lower than they normally would to "sabotage" Amazon's rating, but I think it's also true that the average rating for the game on Amazon is much too high.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
My own opinion is that people have a perfect right to express their views on sites like Amazon or to game mags or any other publication - and just because this is an organized campaign rather than a random occurrence does not make it less legitimate. Consumers have a right to organize.
On the other side of the coin though, I think it a bit unrealistic to expect CA to tolerate calls for such a campaign on its own website. But by banning discussion of the issue consumers are reminded that the com is, after all, not a truly independent site.
In a sense, the patch campaigners have had their victory at the com anyhow. The Shogun's own sticky on the issue effectively announces to every newcomer that there is some kind of issue with the game that hasn't been resolved which has left customers dissatisfied.
Valve, for one. So far they've released at least two dozen patches since HL2 release. Not game-stopping bugs, as I never had any noticable problems; just tweaking and working out any bugs the community brings up. Hell, today they released a patch that fixed ONE problem - in Counterstrike: Source sometimes people's names would come up as duplicates in the game list.... nothing important really - but it was fixed within 3 days of it being apparent it was there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
Activision is a dinosaur.
...and weren't they still releasing patches to HalfLife1 SIX YEARS after its release?!!?
Wow. Now that's what I call a patch policy!Quote:
Originally Posted by Colovion
Valve have obviously realized the benefits to be had from responding quickly to customer concerns. No crap about "it's got to be extensively tested by QA" - QA which turns out to be next to useless anyhow. Just patch it, put it out, and let the community find the next issue for you.
Yes, as you say, this is the right kind of policy for gaming in the 21st century. Most other companies - CA and Activision included - are still behaving as though the internet had never been invented.
Hey, please folks go read reviews for other products.
You'll find them interesting indeed.
I've seen high star reviews for products that were broken, but the after sales service was so good, the reviewer did not feel bad at all.
Just imagine if Microsoft only allowed one patch to Windows. I guess we'd all be giving XP 4 stars even while the hackers and viruses are burning through minor exploits? NO. Even though the program "deserves" more than One Star.
Besides, anyone who reads the reviews will be much better informed about the product now. That is completely fair. I am also willing to edit my review upward later on if I decide it was too harsh.
and by the way, who's to say my review is too low, or too high, etc.? It's my opinion...and everyone's entitled to one of those!
Ever heard the say the customer is always right? Well CA hasn't obviously...
I think the Amazon reviews reflect perfectly the state of the game, it was originally at 4.5 with lots of great reviews, it is now at 3.5 with mitigated reviews saying it could be a great game if they fixed it. And that reflects exactly how I feel about the game, when I started playing it I loved every bit of it but when I became more proficient in it I found the AI too flawed to take any enjoyment out of beating it, so I've now shelved the game until there is an XP fixing AI...
- Future customers are better off for those reviews as they can decide for themselves whether it's worth buying the game at this stage (unfortunately there wasn't such reviews when I bought it).
- Existing customers are better off as I believe CA is now well aware of the problems and would not release an XP that would not fix them
- CA is whinging at the moment but they will be better off in the long term when they realise QA is important, support is important and maintaining a recurrent client base is paramount to the long term future of a company.
CA has trouble just making the game so it doesn't CTD. Gameplay issues are lower on the scale of what's important. You're dealing with a company that doesn't see the loadgame issue as a problem. They actually believe that designing a strategy game in such a way that the AI needs two turns to re-establish it's strategy after loading a savegame is ok. They also think that the AI is good, so there isn't much chance of the add-on having a significantly better AI.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cendre
-
That essentially was my point. :yes:Quote:
Ever heard the say the customer is always right?
-
Well I am currently laying the foundation for an organized global boycott of the X-Pack. The main thread is at the TWC. If any poster here wants to become point of contact for .org regarding this effort please contact me. I am also working on a list of international media groups as well as game industry related companies. I will make a banner soon for people to put in their signatures with a link back to the very long bug/issues list.
-Spartan
Actually, I know a couple of casual gamers who certainly did notice the extreme scarring of Roman generals (which is the result of the combination of 3 bugs in vanilla 1.2 -- double traits for manual combat, double scarring chance for Romans and incorrect scarring trigger thresholds -- all now fixed by the community but not by CA).Quote:
Originally Posted by ElmarkOFear
They noticed despite not looking at the generals traits etc. in detail, because the game drew their attention to it by giving most of their generals scarring-related nicknames. Since this was clearly different to the 1.1 behaviour, it stood out a mile.
Of course, once they noticed, they paid more attention to the traits (and then also noticed that the combat traits were being accumulated much quicker than before). And were annoyed, because while many combat traits give bonuses (those from winning, at least -- and who gets any other sort after their first "try it out" campaign?), some of them have negative effects.
Luckily, I was able to provide the community patch for that problem (leaving only the "do I start a new campaign or keep these horribly scarred generals?" question).
Finding out about the load-game AI re-assessment wasn't much of a problem for them. One had already returned to MTW (NTW, actually) -- despite the, by comparison with RTW, terrible graphics. The other had decided TW games were just too boring before they even found out about the siege problem.
Actually, both tend to be 1-2 turns per session players, so both had been hit by the load-game re-assessment -- and once it was explained they said "yeah, I've seen that happen". But even without knowing the details of the issue, they had decided they'd had enough.
It isn't exactly fair that you ban discussion of that campaign yet you continue to refer to it in a dark light. There is another side to this story, one that can't get posted here because of the rulings of various moderators on the ORG.Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
You also neglect to mention that Creative Assembly can issue a developers patch anytime they want at their cost. Activision will only fund 2 patches.
To CA it is quite dark, so it is their right to do so. To them it is in fact people going out of their way to hurt the company. I don't know about you but that is pretty dark. Fair has nothing to do with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turbo
Just because Saddam has no way to speak about it, doesn't make it unfair of us to claim that he was a rather dictatorial leader right? Just putting a light on it.
It is all about how the action has an impact on you, and the impact is very different for you and CA.
You expect from them to do this for their own money, which would delay, or make more buggy expansion they are working on, while Activison would get all money from sold copies, not CA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turbo
Developer patches are very rare thing. Only big companies have maony and staff for them.
With the sales that CA have gotten of RTW they ARE a big developer now and should be patching the game. They have to fix these issues for the XP anyway so at some point they should release a patch. If they do it right they will sell way more XPs anyway so in reality they can count on future sales to fund this round of patches. If they continue along their current path and don't provide a patch well that will affect their future sales too, although not in a good way. It's up to them what they want their future to look like!
I agree, Satyr.
The bottom line of all this is that CA controls their own destiny. If they act to make happy customers, they will reap those rewards with the X pack. If they continue to stonewall, they will reap something different. Whether there is a "campaign" against them or not, is irrelevant. They have the means and the motive to make this go either way, and only CA has that power.
Having read this post a comment comes to mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
The first is regarding the good point by Red Harvest;
any action taken by a group of consumers to spread negative or lower values on review sites or magazines is perfectly legal and CA should realise that political lobbying is conducted this way daily in the halls of power throughout the world.
Going head to head with people on this topic is dangerous only because when you "ignore or deal badly with a vocal minority” then you are running the risk of paying a price. That is what defines consumer power. If any one is unsure then the Americans on this board can attest to the effectiveness of “lobby groups” on their political system as example "A" of this concept.
If CA wish to conduct themselves in the manner they choose through their representatives on the official message board then they better hope they don’t annoy a member of the public that is motivated and has plenty of cash or has connections.
For example I could be the Marketing Director of FIFA.
FIFA just signed a huge deal with Sony…who make play stations…which platform does Sega make the most running on?? Who owns CA now?
All of a sudden it becomes very relevant and what I have found is that you never know what is around the corner in big business. Now of course I am nothing of what I mentioned above, but my final point is…if anyone feels motivated enough to organise themselves to conduct a campaign like the one mentioned over the last month…then good luck to them.
And to be perfectly honest. If CA doesn`t like it then stiff shiet!! I hope they get nailed in the Xpack sales.
And something that is really bothering me is a major aspect of this "feature" and how it is initiated.
What seems to be missed by CA is, we are talking about SAVING and LOADING a file!!!
Now if saving and loading files was a "New" piece of functionality in applications then I might see their point.
Given Saving and Loading could easily be argued in a tribunal hearing as "Critical Application Functionality" in any piece of software made in the last 15 years, then the attitude is a little baffling.
Let me give you an example.
While saving or loading a word document, you lose all your spelling and grammar corrections from the last save.
Now while it is not a show stoppper, it is pretty god damn fundamental to the correct running of the application. You could just write the whole document out correctly the first time and then the problem doesn`t exist. However you are writing a thesis...then what do you do?? More importantly, saving and loading word documents has been a "Must Have" piece of funtionality since its creation. This is the same with any application that must provide continuity to be an affective program. Obivously games...AND especially strategy games fall within this category.
It is not a perfect analogy but it is pretty god damn good if I do say so myself. How CA can say that the Saving and Loading of a game should, or is designed to affect the application so drastically and so obviously is nearly indefensible!!!
It's totally indefensible. Someone severely screwed the pooch on this one, and they all know it. Since they've been discovered, there have been the tactics of obfuscation (it's not a bug, it's WAD) and silence in the hopes of waiting the storm out.Quote:
Originally Posted by AussieGiant
I think there has been a gross underestimation of the average intelligence of RTW fans. They are smarter than many, and will not accept Dog and Pony shows to answer questions, nor will they advance challenges without proof and verifiable test cases. The very presence of the Ludus Magna here is testament to that.
I say give every 1 the game for free it aint worth the money i had to pay for it,
So Every 1 els should get it for free,
Just so they can See what a load of junk it really is,
Doubt it would even break any copy right's either becous every 1 would probably just uninstall any way,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Celt
I think you are dead right Old Celt. In a certain way their own initial genius could very well bite them on the ass big time. They have clearly attracted a section of highly motivated, very well educated and connected individuals. Those individuals could represent 10s of thousands.
And I tell you one thing...disseminating information in this day and age is as easy as ever!! They seem to think the internet doesn`t exist or something.
Just think of the "Lurking" numbers on the 3 main boards combined...that is a lot of people just reading a watching.
I would like to point out that a number of those issues listed also cropped up in the previous Total War games (suicidal generals and pathfinding being two of them). Some were fixed then, some were not. Either way CA were incompetent enough to either fail yet again to fix them or let them slip anew into RTW. Shoddy. I shall not buy the expansion, though I may reinstall Shogun after uninstalling RTW.
@Aussie - that is why they have gone and banned anyone that shows any faltering in the "party line" at the .com. If you think otherwise just put: "-Spartan" in your signature on any post at the .com and see if you account still works a day later.
Sadly for them I was the wrong person to piss-off. Hell I wish for them to send me a threat as I will tell them what to do with it and publish it in this community as well as many others. I have money as well as business contacts and I never back down from anything.
-Spartan
@SpartanQuote:
Originally Posted by .Spartan
You are literally my example in point. I decided not to join the circus over at the .Com coming here was a no brainer in the end.
By banning can`t they see the damage they are doing. The whole thing has been handled badly and what they really need is a PR company to come in and repair the damage, put communications back on the agenda and get things sorted out before someone like yourself goes "nuclear" on their asses.
Having said that, there is nothing like learning from your mistakes. As you have mentioned you are connected, have money and are motivated. Us mature types are the ones they seem to think don`t exist.
Isn`t it just a laugh, just how geeky some of us turn out to be. Their own brilliance has attracted people they have simply no idea about.
Good luck and I hope you get some bang for your buck.
If the fact that you get pissed off by what a developer of CA says to you on a public forum affects your economical decisions, then you probably wouldn't be marketing director of anything very long.Quote:
For example I could be the Marketing Director of FIFA.
FIFA just signed a huge deal with Sony…who make play stations…which platform does Sega make the most running on?? Who owns CA now?
CA will probably not take any legal steps against anyone campagning against them, but it is only natural that they call them saboteurs and don't welcome them on their forum.
CA can do on their forum whatever they want, if you don't like it, don't go there.
It would be Activision's responsibility to finance another patch, but it is obvious that they won't do that. CA is bound by contracts that dictate where they have to put their resources. I assume they could make a developers' patch, but whether it's worth it is a difficult economical question nobody of us can answer.
Sega could finance a patch too, but it might be difficult to explain to their investors why they are paying for a product of a competitor.
Actually, the Ludus Magna has not reached a conclusion on how severe the problem actually is yet.Quote:
I think there has been a gross underestimation of the average intelligence of RTW fans. They are smarter than many, and will not accept Dog and Pony shows to answer questions, nor will they advance challenges without proof and verifiable test cases. The very presence of the Ludus Magna here is testament to that.
Quote:
I think there has been a gross underestimation of the average intelligence of RTW fans. They are smarter than many, and will not accept Dog and Pony shows to answer questions, nor will they advance challenges without proof and verifiable test cases. The very presence of the Ludus Magna here is testament to that.
"Actually, the Ludus Magna has not reached a conclusion on how severe the problem actually is yet." - A. Saturnus
Point taken, sir, but what I was alluding to was that no other site actually generates quantifiable results and offers real evidence the way the community members of this site do when the occasion calls for it.
My personal opinion is: If you play only 1 or 2 turns per session and save, the level of AI performance is comparable to playing chess against your toaster.
A.Saturnus,
You are absolutely correct. It seems clear the contractual obligations in place means there is no real direction for any of the groups to logically pursue. CA hands are tied for all intense and purposes and that is the end of the topic in all reality and was the case many moons ago. It is my hope that these contractual problems have been ironed out in the new agreement between CA and Sega with regards to the future.
Their handling of the situation is what I am specifically referring to.
------------------------------------------------------------------
"If the fact that you get pissed off by what a developer of CA says to you on a public forum affects your economical decisions, then you probably wouldn't be marketing director of anything very long.
CA will probably not take any legal steps against anyone campagning against them, but it is only natural that they call them saboteurs and don't welcome them on their forum.
CA can do on their forum whatever they want, if you don't like it, don't go there."
------------------------------------------------------------------
This comment seems to a be a bit out of kilter with the rest of your post.
I`m not "pissed off" as you describe. He (The CA rep) didn`t speak to me specifically as I am not a member of the forum over there. As for alluding to my future employment, then you are speaking of things beyond what you are aware of. Surely you can see that. For one you are assuming my example is the 100% the truth.
What is 100% true is the deal between Sony and FIFA and the relationship is now a signed deal.
Given how things change, I`m simply pointing out that deals and pressure can be exerted in a variety of ways in international business and what is totally beyond CA`s control is who ends up playing this game and who these people are in "Real" life. By conducting themselves the way they are then ignoring this possibility is at their own peril. This is sound advise and something I have experienced on more than one occasion.
Of course CA does not sponsor a Board for the sole purpose of hearing complaints. But if handled correctly it is an asset, not a excersice in banning and sensoring. Surely you can see the difference between the way yourself and other Mod here handle things and what is happening over there.
That is what is mind blowing to me A.Saturnus
I think what I wanted to say didn't come over very well. I didn't assume that you're pissed or that you're actually a marketing director. I wanted to say that whoever is marketing director of FIFA, whatever a dev says to him hardly will affect his managment decisions. The contract between FIFA and Sony is surely worth many many millions of dollars. Irritable marketing directors are expandable in the light of that.Quote:
I`m not "pissed off" as you describe. He (The CA rep) didn`t speak to me specifically as I am not a member of the forum over there. As for alluding to my future employment, then you are speaking of things beyond what you are aware of. Surely you can see that. For one you are assuming my example is the 100% the truth.
What is 100% true is the deal between Sony and FIFA and the relationship is now a signed deal.
Given how things change, I`m simply pointing out that deals and pressure can be exerted in a variety of ways in international business and what is totally beyond CA`s control is who ends up playing this game and who these people are in "Real" life. By conducting themselves the way they are then ignoring this possibility is at their own peril. This is sound advise and something I have experienced on more than one occasion.
To be honest, I don't follow very closely what happens on the Com. If they are really trying to quelsh complains, even those that are brought forward in a civil manner, then that is of course wrong.Quote:
Of course CA does not sponsor a Board for the sole purpose of hearing complaints. But if handled correctly it is an asset, not a excersice in banning and sensoring. Surely you can see the difference between the way yourself and other Mod here handle things and what is happening over there.
Ok no problem about the interpretation of what has been written between us.
I also assume the contract is worth a whole lot of cash. In my experience you never know if someone in a position like that may in fact be an avid gamer in their private life and think it is worth asking the question regarding patching or on going support to the Sony GM. That leads to a query to Sega and there you have a very strong link. That one conversation could do more than years of lobbying.
Then if I think of the aggressive marketing types, then it is entirely possible that some marketing director/maniac could make it a social topic at any or all board room meetings. You just never know A.Saturnus.
It is a chance...but certainly possible.
I think following the .COM board is probably bad for your health, so that is sound advise.
Have a good day.
Perhaps you should try reading that dictionary some time because your vocabulary doesn't match the definitions. Sabotage is not used as an implement of improving something...it is used to destroy or otherwise hamper an organization. It's specific root is the use of the worker's wooden shoe, "sabot," to destroy manufacturing equipment in the early industrial age.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
Blackmail also carries the connotation of extracting something undeserved from someone else with no benefit to the victim. A campaign to get a patch would hardly fit that criteria, since proper patching and support is of benefit to both parties. However, there is also the defined aspect of exposing some serious embarrassment or improper behaviour or criminal act of the victim--something unflattering that the victim wants to be kept secret. So you can take half credit and a very Pyrrhic victory since you and CA don't want CA's questionable support or the actual state of the game exposed to the general public.
Funny that you are trying to quantify the scale to suit your own needs. If you want to use a relative scale, then anything better than it would drop it from 5 star, making all the 5 star ratings bogus. As I said, I would have given it a 3, but I saw enouth BS 5 star ratings, that I added "weighting" to my score, much as many of the 5 stars seem to have done in the other direction. It is called "fighting fire with fire." There is nothing to prevent others from going in and putting in 5 star rankings... And many of the ratings on Amazon are 2 or 3 star, rather than 1. Your perspective is porked.
POWER TO THE CONSUMER!
I think too much is made of this loadgame bug, mainly because I consider the performance of the campaign AI to be approximately at the level of my toaster anyhow! :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Celt
But it would be at the level of a GOOD toaster, not just a basic bargain toaster!
the rebel AI is the bargain toaster - pops up at random all over the place
Kraxis,Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
That post is directed toward one of the moderators of .ORG, not the .COM, not CA. You are right about one thing, fair has nothing to do about it.
Old Celt,
I really like the analogy of the load game AI problem being equivalent to playing chess against the toaster. However, my toaster was not as amused and has demanded an apology. ~:cheers:
How is it sabotaging Amazon's rating by writing a negative review if you are an Amazon customer or registered there? If you are disatisfied with the product or customer service it is your right to go on there and write a negative review. Go in and post a 5 star rating there if you want, you won't see me whinning about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
The AI can only be as good as the people designing it. Regardless of how much the loadgame issue hobbles the AI, the fact that CA thinks this is proper game design boggles the mind. At $35 usd, the RTW add-on is the price of a good toaster, but one that's going to burn the toast anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Celt
Absolutely! I expect them to support their product and to support their customers. CA's problems with Activision are their problems. As the customer I am only interested in resolution not excuses.Quote:
Originally Posted by player1
Developer patches are not rare, they are actually quite common. Take for example Battlecrusier.
That is unfair...after all, burning the toast is a *feature* not a bug. It was decided the the toaster should periodically reset and reevaluate, starting on the "Incinerate" setting (or for the XPack on the new "Ash" setting.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
~D
I could be wrong but I seem to remember STW having a developers patch released ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Turbo
Anyone still here from that time to confirm or deny ?
Dictionary: Blackmail - "To coerce (into doing something) as by threats". The campaigners are trying to coerce CA into releasing a patch under threats of sabotaging the Amazon.com rating.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
Dictionary: Sabotage - "The deliberate obstruction of or damage to any cause, movement, activity, effort, etc." Campaigners unfairly damaged the Amazon.com rating which function as the will of the collective reviewers NOT the will of the few (who gave RTW unreasonably low ratings for the purpose of blackmail).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
It is not for anyone to attenuate other people's reviews. Here's why:Quote:
Originally Posted by .Spartan
- Point#1: Reviewer X1 gives RTW 5 stars. Reviewer X1 will review other games, cds, books or products accordingly to the same standard. Why?
Reviewer X1's impetus/intention is pure = fair assessment = rating system works.:thumbsup:- Point#2: Reviewer X2 gives RTW 4 stars. Reviewer X2 will review other games, cds, books or products accordingly to the same standard. Why?
Reviewer X2's impetus/intention is pure = fair assessment = rating system works.:thumbsup:- Point#3: Reviewer Y gives RTW 1 star. Reviewer Y will NOT review other games cds, books or products accordingly to the same standard. Why?
Reviewer Y's impetus/intention is impure = unfair assessment = rating system tampered.:thumbsdown:- Point#4: Reviewer Z gives RTW 2 stars. Reviewer Z's reasoning is to attenuate the impact of Reviewer X1's rating. Is Reviewer Z going to TRACK DOWN all the reviews of Reviewer X1 and attenuate all of them?? NO. NO. NO.
Result = rating system for RTW is tampered.
When you do a review, you DON'T do it to attenuate other people's review. You DON'T do it to sabotage the rating as well. You do a fair assessment for potential buyers.
If you FEEL that RTW is rightfully 3-star not 5-star, then give it a 3-star rating, but not 1-star. The same people who give RTW 5-stars have pure intentions, thus their review for OTHER games will be in-line their review for RTW.
Lastly, again, nobody can justify this amazing scale:
* = RTW
** = ???
*** = ???
**** = ???
***** = ???
The "campaigners'" explicit, unfair goals/motives is to give it a pre-determined, automatic, de facto 1-star rating. The review part was an afterthought.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turbo
This is simply incorrect.Quote:
The same people who give RTW 5-stars have pure intentions, thus their review for OTHER games will be in-line their review for RTW.
It is well known that many game companies will spike a review with 10/10s and 5/5s through their employees/fanboys to give a game an inflated and favourable review, whether or not the game actually deserves it.
Rarely, if ever, does a game deserve a 10/10 or 5-stars under any reviewing system.
So in this case the bias is to give the game high ratings which is NOT pure intentions, since it over-looks or hides problems with a game, thus deceiving the consumer into believing the game is a better product than it actually is.
Well said Quietus.
Well, I haven't seen anyone give deliberatbly good ratings to prima strategy guides.
Probably beacuse they do suck, even without need of campaign to "fix the scores".
There is nothing "unfair" about their motives. You might not like their tactics, but they have just as much right to put a 1 star score as you do to put up a 5. They are using the only tools CA has left them with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
Those reviews don't read at all like an "afterthought." You can try to slander them all you like, but their reviews are far more accurate than what I've seen of yours.
As for blackmail, my dictionaries say, "extortion by threats" rather than "coerce" Since there is no money going to the campaigners, extortion is out of the question. There is a clear implication of money, since the origin of the word is in "black rent." Ahh, I see how you are manipulating this now, you are using the verb definition, rather than the noun. You should work for CA...
And with sabotage, it is the same thing. Your skewed view doesn't match the connotation at all. This is an effort to actually improve the game, not damage it. That is clearly NOT SABOTAGE. You can call it that all you want, it won't make it so.
I was neutral to the campaign when I first saw it. But reading your bumbling defense and others like player1 have turned me strongly in the other direction.
I think the Org Community Game Ranking shows quite well Quietus' point. The poll is a good measure of "pure intentions" because no one is trying to influence Amazon.com sales through it. In that poll, ratings 1-4 seem to equate well with a 1 star rating on Amazon.com. Only about 16% of the responders rated RTW with a 1-4. Why doesn't there Org Community rankings have a higher percentage of patrons rating RTW with a 1-4 rating? Maybe because Quietus has a point about sabotage?
On another point: I don't think you can equate a patch for a game like Half Life with a patch for RTW. Your toaster could put out a patch for Half Life (relatively speaking of course ~:) ).
BTW, when people start suggesting that another look up a word in the dictionary:book:, that is a good sign the discussion has just about run its course.
Second verse, same as the first...
Interesting. It was for me just the opposite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
I was neutral until someone said it's OK giving 1star, even if he personaly thinks it's worth more, since it's only way to lower averge score.
I call that a campaign to deliberatly lower average score.
Starkhorn: There were, if I remember correctly: 3 patches:
1. For STW by the developers and tested by a group of players from the community.
2. For STW/MI aka. WE by the developers and also using a group of players from the community.
3. A 2nd unofficial patch for STW/MI aka. WE, made solely by a group of players to fix the remaining problem with musketeer units and a few other small issues.
Puzz3D, CBR, or TosaInu could answer this question in a more precise way since I was only involved in one of those patch groups while they were in all 3.
How exactly does that make it a "campaign"? In order for it to be a "campaign", then there has to be a concerted effort to get people to do it. I haven't seen any such effort. I've seen it suggested, and I'm sure some people have done it. But I'm also sure that others have gone and given it a 5/5. Are we calling that a "fanboy campaign"?
Bh
Well, I haven't see any fanboy campaign around. There are some good ratings, but they are dispersed over great lenght of time. So they are spontanius, not initiated from somewere.
On the other hand, bunch of 1-2star reviews, are all from April or later, highly concentrated (never seen so many new reviews in few weeks), and there are threads on several forums with links to amazon, and let's give them bad review comments.
Yes, it looks like campaign to me.
I haven't seen those posts, so couldn't comment. Are they posts to "let's go post low scores that we don't really agree with", or "since we have no other option open to us, let us at least warn others of what they may be purchasing"?
Bh
I can count on you to be counter to whatever position I take, player1. You always seem to be devil's advocate. And that is why I lost any interest in the unit stats threads.Quote:
Originally Posted by player1
I think only few posters said that they think RTW is more worth then they voted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhruic
But still, even "since we have no other option open to us, let us at least warn others of what they may be purchasing" is campaign. Why deny it. Without ideas on the forums, you won't be seeing buch of low star rating on the amazon.
You sound like it's personal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
It's not.
Red do you really think that it is fair for a reviewer to give a 1 to make the average more like what he/she wants it to be? That is effectively the same as giving people the chance of actually using several votes in election. If they want their vote to be representative they will only use the single vote they should, but if they want the result to reflect their opinion then they should use the several vote system. That way we could screw over the honest people and make cetain we would get anything but a representative election.
That is what is wrong with too low votes.
I don't know .Spartan yet, but he has given me the impression that he feels personally insulted (the comment about him wanting them to send a threat to him was an obvious statement to that) and is now out for blood. He is the only one to have been so strong about it directly, but I have gotten the feeling others are in the same state of mind right now.
I would never give RTW a 5 now, it is more like a 3.5 for me. It can be great fun to me at times, and I love to test out my recent changes to it. But at the same time I hate the flaws and feel that they are very much detracting from the experience. So if I were to give it stars at a site that had nothing but 5 star reviews should I then give it a 1 star? Or should I try to give it a 3 or 4 star?
The latter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhruic
Most people rate something early on when it is new. So waiting until after the final patch is a rather interesting approach. There is nothing to prevent others from rating it higher. The difference is mainly that people were reminded that they could send a clear message with their ratings and reviews (since the .com had been shut down to them.) And they did so.
Quietus: I have to say I agree with Red Harvest. Words like "sabotage" and "blackmail" taken within their context in this thread (and in more general usage) are strongly negative. The balanced and reasonable spin (or sugar-coating) you now put on them is disingenuous to say the least. I think it is just as bad to dismiss the many reviews as "afterthoughts" when many are clearly well thought out and intentioned.
People have a right to express their opinions. Amazon gives them that right. It also gives other customers the right to appraise those opinions. Mark them down if you don't like them and write a review of you own. Stop bashing your fellow members of this board.
Yet you look at the numbers who voted in Amazon it's hardly a 1 star whitewash. Some customers have obviously taken into account their disgust at the support of the product and rated it down. That is okay in my book. If Ford produce a car that is almost a classic but has a great number of obvious faults and does not intend to put them right, I would expect people to mark the car down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregoshi
Rome: Total War is in its final incarnation. What you buy at the shop is what you'll get. Yet there are three major issues with the game: the bizarre reload reassessment behaviour, the battle difficulty bug and the double combat traits bug. All of these are major issues and the last two are pretty noticeable. There are also numerous smaller issues with the game. Jerome Grasdkye admitted three of the smaller bugs on these very forums today. We can have some pointless debate over who carries the can for this very unfortunate state of affairs but that is the facts. Rome is a faulty product. It does not deserve 5 stars IMO. It deserves 3. Two marks are deducted for the errors and the lousy support. If we want to force software companies to support their product we can't just lie back and say it's okay to leave the game in this state! It was well be playable but it's not nearly as enjoyable as it should be.
I think it means that we've reached the end of the civil discussion when someone refers to a dictionary. I also note which member it was who first mentioned it. https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...8&postcount=83Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregoshi
What more can one say?
As for people who believe that the game deserves 3 but vote 1 to bring down the average, well I do not agree with them. But I understand their view. They are tactically voting for the reasons most state in their reviews. It is not as if they are deceiving anyone here. The majority tell people exactly why they have given the game a 1 star rating. Usually in a lot more detail than those who have given it 5.
Ah but if you take a single look at the Amazon reviews you will notice at least one case of a person reviewing twice, and even with the very same text. I chage you to take a look at it.
Of course if you are a member with two accounts that is possible, but that defeats the entire point of reviewing, but it makes for a great personal agenda don't you agree. If one person can impact the entire franchise then that person has gotten his will at the expense of other who might have liked it.
I might agree with that person, but that doesn't make it right. That is indeed a "lets hurt 'em".
I scarcely think you even know the root of this campaign. Have you read the original thread "Your Homework for Today"? It was already locked and deleted. However, the second thread pertaining to the campaign is not deleted as of yet. Look for the thread "Amazon down to 4 stars for Rome!". Another locked thread, "Post here if you're unhappy with CA support" show this. I also don't believe you go to other forums to know the extent of the campaign.Quote:
Originally Posted by Morat
Lastly: Ratings are derived from Reviews. Reviews aren't derived from Ratings. What the campaigners colluded to is to rate the game 1-star and then write the review (hence, afterthought). Do you see the difference?
Scroll up and read my last post up there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Morat
Yeah, a link to amazon.com is just awful sabotage.
And no, there was never a single sentence in the original post saying go post 1 star. I merely mentioned that you could go post a review.
Good, bad, or ugly. Up to you.
Also, I don't see anyone here saying that all the 5-star reviews are obviously trying to re-weight the average up. If you think the game is "objectively" worth 3 1/2 stars, then you should also have issue with those people...especially later reviews.
Finally, you are allowed to review a product based on customer service alone. It happens all the time.
I can't quote the thread that is deleted, but for purpose of clarification I can quote others.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarunTaiwan
4/06/05 on "Post here if you're unhappy with Ca support" thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarunTaiwan
Also go to the "Heart of the Matter...." thread. I went to Amazon.com site after seeing the "Your Homework For Today" thread and saw about 10 new reviews (all one-star; with the exception of one which I think is 2 or 3 stars).Quote:
Originally Posted by Pode
Kraxis,
I still only get 1 vote. It was after direct discussions with some putting up 5 stars that I had enough. 5 star at this point *while knowing the problems* is assinine at best, and certainly disingenuous. So I elected to send a message to counter what I consider fraudulent voting. The reviews I've read certainly aren't a 1 star white wash. (That double post might have been in error, I had that happen to me once on a hardware review--the review didn't appear for quite awhile so I thought it got lost in cyberspace, so I reposted it. Then both of them appeared next to one another in just a few seconds. Groan, thwarted by technology.)
Another issue is that most folks rate things within a few days of purchase if at all. So when it is all shiney and new, and the patches are still on the horizon, optimism tends to prevail (and that is good.) Now we are on the other side of that. I don't think many of us would rate it as highly now as we would have before. (Which is a real problem for me with 5 star reviews.) To me that is where the genius was in rating the game now. Incidentally, it would make just as much sense to do so with a game that greatly improved through patches after a shakey start.
I am amused by all of Quietus collusion, sabotage, and blackmail theories. As a side note, sabotage is usually in reference to an "inside job," again making it an incorrect usage. So using it for this is quite sensational and quite wrong.
Sabotage doesn't have to be an inside job. It doesn't matter who does damage a disgruntled employee, a rival, a spy, or a terrorist. It's still sabotage. It doesn't matter whether the thing damaged is inside or outside. Even Abstract concepts like ratings can have their meanings damaged. I read game reviews with a pound of salt. I discount extremely favorable reviews like 5's or 10's and extremely low reviews such as 1's. These reviews I see as very suspect, a personal agenda as some have said or a troll who thinks he's cool.
With this issue in particular, It doesn't matter how well written they are. Their intent is not primarily to review the game for customers, but as another venue to cry out to CA for a patch.
Perhaps you should say that it is your perception of their intent. As you weren't there when they wrote it, so you can't really say why "they" chose to do so.
Bh
While were on semantics, please correct me if I misread something somewhere. But blackmail and extortion only involve money? Anything of value can be threatened by hurting something else of value to the victim. It can be a promotion, "companionship", plane ticket out of the country, freeing of "wrongly imprisioned compatriots. In this case, the thing of value wanted is a patch for a video game. Threats can be like do this or I'll kill your family or blow up this shopping mall. In this case, it's lost sales.
good point.
Sorry, can't give you that one. Blackmail is basically saying "give me this, or I'll do this". There is no "or I'll do this" here, because people already are writing their reviews. Also, blackmail can only be done to someone. People arranging the so-called "campaign" here, or on other forums isn't doing it to CA. People would have to be emailing CA and saying "give us a patch or we'll go write bad reviews on Amazon". Which would be a ridiculous email to send.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Maxentius
Bh
I'm not focusing on this as much as other people. But every now and then I need to vent at the pointlessness of arguing on the internet
It's no skin off my nose either way. I haven't written a review on Amazon (or anywhere else), nor do I intend to. And while I personally find CA's (and Activision's) lack of support distasteful, I'll simply be "voting" with my wallet.
But I do find it annoying (and somewhat hypocritical) when people suggest that people shouldn't be writing the reviews if they feel it's warranted. Write your own if you want. But leave it to others to decide what review they wish to write, and what score they wish to give.
Bh
Yep, it's all ridiculous what's going on. I think the mod was right about this thread getting ridiculous. First the dictionary and now philosophy.
Gregoshi,
Unfortunately, your internet poll about RTW is not scientific and could not be used to compare to Amazon ratings to determine if the reviewers are "lying" or not. It's not a random sample and neither are the Amazon ratings.
Also, playing a flawed game is not the same as saying it deserves more stars. Again, if you bought a Jaguar and were not satisifed with the quality and service, would you say that the fact you still drive it to work means that "secretly" you are satisfied with the car?
I think you all need to let people's opinions stand and stop second guessing. Besides, the whole purpose of Amazon rating is to inform potential buyers. Are you actually saying that if you read the reviews that you wouldn't come out more informed? There are glowing reviews that explain the game, and poor reviews which explain some of the drawbacks..I guess we could retract all criticism - I mean, let's not be arbritrarily unfair to a company with an arbritrary 2 patch rule.
It isn't sabotage to give your opinion of a game, and to warn others off. Calling reviews or ratings sabotage or blackmail because you disagree with them is nonsense. It clearly implies a serious wrong is being committed. That's nonsense and that's why this debate is continuing.
Another reason for giving it the lowest possible ranking: prospective buyers would do better to wait for the XPack and the typical "bundle." Why buy an unfinished product twice? It makes no sense at this point. Buyers would be wiser to wait for a bundle (and a patch) at any rate. It is certainly a better use of their playing time.
And just a reminder of why we are all here discussing this in the first place: The problem is not with the customer, it is with the developer. The developer is the only one that can rectify the situation.