Kraxis,Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
He is referring to the petition thread, that one was closed by killemall54 with one of his typical off the wall statements.
Printable View
Kraxis,Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
He is referring to the petition thread, that one was closed by killemall54 with one of his typical off the wall statements.
I've been following this topic for a while, and i have to say, that comment is rather correct, as well as funny.Quote:
Killmall54 is an Activision stock holder and is very aggressive about protecting his financial interest. He isn't getting my dollars for the add-on an neither is CA.
Ha! Guess who closed a patch 1.3 petition at the dotcom. The plot thickens like grease....
Ah... Well given I have some insight into the workings of the mod-squad I can tell you that whenever a situation like this arises, and it has too many times before, there is a 'close-on-sight' rule. The same was done when TWC and CA didn't get along. This is obviously another such situation. Killem is not referring to the partition as such as been made before, but to the thread in general. I can only say, just keep clear of any patch threads for a while. Be they benign or hostile they will not survive.
It is a case of the surgeon removing the bad parts but has to remove some of the good too until the wound can heal, so as not to risk new infections. Hope you get the analogy.
In other words the mods are running a dictatorship. Anything that is said that is against the great and almighty Activision and CA is automatically removed, and the person/people who said it are put up to the wall and shot. Or, they just get banned....
Yes, well censorship is not the answer to this problem. CA needs to step up and do the right thing by admitting the 2 patch policy is nonsense and committing to properly support the product. They don't have to like it, but if they want to survive in the consumer world, they have to DO it.
yesQuote:
Originally Posted by Old Celt
This is starting to sound like CA is Saddam Hussein, on the outside, they make everything look good by marching through the main street with all their rockets and tanks and a general show of strength (releasing RTW, the ultimate in eye candy) but behind the silk curtains, the civilians are suffering (the suppressed inhabitants of the dotcom). It's up to us to be America and liberate the poor people of the dotcom!!! Or, we could just let the evil EA empire be America, and go in and conquer CA.
I'm crazy, aren't i?
Yes it is a dictatorship... on a private forum you have absolutely zero rights, that is something people forget often enough. The org is a dictatorship as well. Break the rules and you are out, there is no discussion on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeus Caesar
When people begin to attack one another there is little room to maneuver, and if the mods at the com had to argue with each and every little prick that came by it would be a 200 hour a week job. Trust me!
The experience with the TWC case made a deep impact. Several people came back in new guises and made the same ramblings again and again. Not fair arguments or even lowvoiced complaints, but all out attacks that drew in more people. And that is where the trouble really lies. A lot of people get caught up in a maeltrom and join it after a while, you can even see it here. When that happens the whole structure falls apart and there is no other way to stop than to simply ban any subject that might cause such behaviour. That is why politics, religion and sex is closed areas as the forum simply exploded in what can be termed wars and it was soemthing that spilled over into all the other subforums.
There is a major influx of people over there all the time, that makes it a very fragile forum. If those new people gets confronted with aggressive and downright bad behaviour towards the devs and other patrons how do you think they will behave?
The fact of the land is that the com is the forum most people join first, then they become tired of all the newbies or the bad behaviour of the rest and either join here or TWC. The org itself suffered similar problems for a while and instituded the graded system where you started out in the Entrance Hall, you just can't do that with the com since the whole place is an entrance hall.
The baseline is that the com needs a much more strict moderator corps. Simple as that.
I find it funny that people here complain that the people at the com simply behave very badly, and at the same time complain at the moderators for acting against that. You can't have it both ways.
I just checked RTW v1.1, and it has the siege/savegame bug. There is no question about it. Thrace sieges Byzantium (large rebel town) on about the 3rd turn in a Julii campaign. It can hold out for 5 turns. If I don't save, the siege continues after I hit end turn. If I save and reload that save, the AI calls off the siege when I hit end turn, and the Tracian army moves to the west and stops in the middle of nowhere. When I hit end turn again the Thracian army comes back and sieges Byzantium again. I tried this twice, and both time the AI broke the siege on a reload. So, this bug has been there from the initial release of RTW.
Hmm... Does explain why we have been so 'good' compared to the AI, even in 1.1.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
I just don't get why some people claim they don't face the same strength of the Romans and the Egyptians.
What "2 patches"? I find it hard to count something that merely fixes a gamespy bug and changes the strength of elephants (which could be done by any modder) a "patch". Basically, RTW got 1 real patch. And that seems to have introduced new bugs into the equation. At least if we got 2 real patches, there would be a chance the game would be in a playable state. As it is, this save/reload makes it pointless to play a game unless you've got 4+ hours to devote to the task.Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Celt
Bh
This hasn't happened to you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
I remember in 1.1 the Julii would conquer Gaul, Carthage would get crushed, and Egypt would dominate the southeast. The rest would meander a bit but now I don't even see this. Carthage still gets stomped, but after the AI has taken up most of the rebel settlements, there's little conquering at all.
Since the siege/load bug was happening with 1.1, the 'broken orders' theory posted (I think in this thread on page 2) seems more plausable.
(Just checked, it was Jambo's post on page 2)
Not from the initial release. I never installed 1.1 and actually had seiges playing vanilla. I've had zero with 1.2 (playing with the same 1 or two turns at a time style).Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
I did a fair amount of testing of AI expansion (I typically play as SPQR and watch AI factions duke it out for 40 years). I can definitely say that in 1.2 there is a LOT LESS AI expansion than in 1.1.
In 1.1, some AI factions (Egypt,Pontus, Thrace, Britannia) expanded after 20 or 30 years, until rebellions in distant provinces got them bogged down.
In 1.2, I don't see the same changes. It takes FOREVER for any faction to conquer anything other than rebel cities.
The only way I got the AI factions to expand at all in 1.2 is by eliminating all walls from the game. Then sieges became only 1 turn affairs, and provinces finally changed hands.
No doubt about it in my mind: the AI is horrible at finishing/winning sieges. And that is one reason it is weak.
Well, given I play mostly very long streaks I don't suffer much compared to others. So I wouldn't see the same problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Proletariat
But my post was a question as to why it happened that people got the feeling that the AI was worse at expanding in 1.2 compared to 1.1 when it actually behaves in the same broken manner.
Now we should perhaps go back and check if 1.0 gives the same save/load results. Afterwards we will know where the problem came in for certain.
Kraxis, I think this is a possible explanation but I'm not able to test it where I am right now. I do agree about it being curious that these complaints weren't around during the 1.1 days.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jambo
Yes, I think I mentioned before that I was afraid because we didn't know how big the bug was and how much else was lost, such as building orders and such. It could explain why the AI tends to have low tech units as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Proletariat
It's worth bearing in mind that since 1.2 the AI produces far more agents than it did in 1.1. This includes diplomats. The more diplomats, the greater the amount of ceasefires and global peace. One can certainly see the increased amount of diplomatic actions since the patch. I constantly see factions making peace with the senate on one turn only for war to be automatically declared agains on the next turn. Rinse repeat, rinse repeat.
One thing to note is offerings of ceasefires from factions that have lost territory to the human player are often accompanied with "if you give back such and such regions that you stole...."
Now, we as human players, know these offers are ridiculous. After all, they're the troubled faction and they should be offering me something for peace, not the other way around. However, in AI to AI ceasefire negotiations, it's conceivable that these types of offerings, no matter how ridiculous, might get accepted.
This would mean that all the expansion and territory gained would simply be given up and returned to the losing faction. This hasn't been tested, but it's certainly a possibility.
EDIT: to test one could make diplomats more difficult to produce, thereby lessening their presence on the campaign map. Increase price, increase number of turns to build or move them back in the tech tree...
You know... I have actually noticed that too. Especially between the Brutii and the Greeks. Friends... not friends... friends... not friends... At some point they declared themselves allies over and over every turn. Apparently one of them could keep it within even the same turn.
I personally would like to make some comments on this entire episode.
1. The closing of the petition thread is not some unilateral action by Kill. It was in response against possible rabble rousing from a certain direction. This was in conjunction with the recent happenings in the .com forums.
Kill being a shareholder of Activision has absolutely NO relation with his moderating decisions.
2. Be aware that MikeB may not be at any liberty of speaking his mind or the current ongoings within CA. I do not have any inside information but I would guess that CA is investigating the issue and possibly in communication with Activision over it, along with the problems that arose with the 1.2 patch. Hence at the moment, MikeB was skirting the issue until he has concrete information and the green light to say anything.
3. Now I know this is a major bug, probably on the scale of the pri/sec bug. Can anyone confirm that it happened BEFORE 1.2? ie not something 1.2 introduced? I have seen some comments to the effect of saying yes, but nothing concrete.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@Kraxis
Thanks for your explanation on the .com forums.
1. Please don't bring this up again. Not only is it off-topic, it's completely uninteresting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeda Toshiie
2. Likewise, we've been through this before. If what you "guess" is true then it would have been better for MikeB to refrain from posting in the first place. People take comments made by members of CA very seriously. Goes without saying really.
3. Puzz3d has alread confirmed this is the case above somewhere in this thread and in the one at .com.
Actually, recent posts by Killmall54 confirm that his actions are motivated by his financial interest in Activision.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeda Toshiie
Read my previous post. It is 100% certain that it is there in v1.1, and it is 100% certain that I directly informed Creative Assembly's beta test team coordinator about the siege/savegame problem two weeks ago. So, how is it that MikeB doesn't know anything about it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeda Toshiie
Doc,
Remember also that the probability of a besieged AI army sallying was increased in v1.2. I definitely see this happening because I can see the scorched earth where the battle occured.
Sorry if I'm clueless here, but don't you get the scorched earth/devastation thingy from having a hostile army on your territory even if there's no battle?Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeda Toshiie
what killemall54 chooses to do on the .com forums is of course his perogative. but let us be honest about what his personal and financial interests are, given that he has made them public on numerous occasions. he himself does not have to come out and admit "i'm doing this because i have a stake in CA/Activision's company image", but publicly denying the same would be disingenous at best. the same goes for colleagues of his. i believe most of us do NOT claim that being a stockholder in those companies makes him a "bad" person. just don't go deluding yourselves or outright lying about whether or not his investments have any bearing on his actions.
Surely this is nothing more than the behavior of a braggart - those with pretty minor financial interests tend to gob off in public.
Sorry completely OT.
Well the siege-bug thread has been opened again.
No. The scortched earth effect occurs if a battle has taken place and lasts for a few turns. The other way you can tell a battle has taken place is that the army stacks get smaller.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Peru
As far as .com, I think that's a liberal forum for a company site. I think this is because CA depends upon the player community to find a lot of the bugs in the game. So, they have to ride a line between leaving a critical thread open and closing it. The AI siege bug thread was stickied for a while. I notice it's not now, and the next step will probably be to close it. I'm not surprised to see the v1.3 patch petition thread closed because Creative Assembly doesn't want to make a v1.3, and it's not going to look good to have a petition with hundreds if not thousands of signatures on the official site for something that isn't going to happen unlike the v1.2 petition which had a PR value because CA was going to produce a v1.2 patch anyway.
actually, i think paul is right. if i leave an army at the same spot in a mountain pass in enemy territory for more than one turn, the ground will start to go black. no battle needed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
As far as I can tell, it doesnt have to be enemy either. Just placing an army onto land that isnt yours or your allies will start the process. Maybe its a 1.2 thing.
Well it appears that there might be something in the works.
It might not be a real patch but more of a small fix. But I think this is positive. Keep hoping.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tenfolds Tammy at the .com