Well, I always thought that if such thing as "bug police" column exstsited in gaming magazines that overall post-patch support for games would rise, since forums read just core fans, and magazines many more.
Printable View
Well, I always thought that if such thing as "bug police" column exstsited in gaming magazines that overall post-patch support for games would rise, since forums read just core fans, and magazines many more.
This is that forum for MTW and should be for RTWQuote:
sort of bug/patch watching website or forum for games.
mfberg
Well, usually all fan forums are that.Quote:
Originally Posted by mfberg
the problem is that only core audience visits the forums, so bugs don't affect sales much.
Until such things get in paper (magazines), there is no hope for improving of bad patch policy trend.
The strange thing about that is why do the mods at .com and the CA employees (here and there) care about the complaints?Quote:
Originally Posted by player1
A simple repeatable test using RTW v1.2 that demonstrates the loadgame/siege issue:
Julii imperial campaign, M/M difficulty, FOW false:
Start, 270 BC. Position the map so that you can see both Syracuse and Athens. Hit end turn.
Turn 1, 270 BC. Scipii sieges Syracuse which can hold 7 turns. Hit end turn.
Turn 2, 270 BC. Decline the trade offer from Gaul. Syracuse can hold for 6 turns. Hit end turn.
Turn 3, 269 BC. Accept the marriage offer. Syracuse can hold for 5 turns. Hit end turn.
Turn 4, 269 BC. Syracuse can hold for 7 turns. (Perhaps an unsuccessful assault was made and the siege has been reinstated.) Macedonia sieges Athens which can hold for 6 turns. Save the game. Hit end turn.
Turn 5, 268 BC. Syracuse can hold for 6 turns. Athens can hold for 5 turns. Hit end turn.
Turn 6, 268 BC. Syracuse can hold for 5 turns. Athens falls to Macedonia. Exit the game.
Load the savegame made on turn 4. It doesn't matter if you restart RTW or not because the result is the same in each case. Hit end turn.
Turn 5, 268 BC. Scipii lifts the siege on Syracuse and moves away. Macedonia lifts the siege on Athens and moves away. Hit end turn.
Turn 6, 268 BC. Scipii sieges Syracuse which can hold for 7 turns. Macedonia sieges Athens which can hold for 6 turns.
End of test.
Conclusion:
Clearly, loading the game caused both sieges to be lifted because neither siege was lifted when play was not interrupted by the save/load cycle. The expansion by Scipii and Macedonian is set back by the lifting of these sieges. I repeated this test several times with the same result each time. It's apparent that the AI forgot it was sieging after the reload, reformulated it's siege strategy on the first turn (turn 5) and reinstated the sieges on the second turn (turn 6). The course of the campaign is altered by saving and loading because Macdonia should already be in possession of Athens on turn 5, and Scipii should be further along in it's conquest of Syracuse.
I would classify this as an oversight that information the AI needs to continue from where it left off when the savegame was made is not in the savegame file. If this was intentionally coded like this by CA as their denial that it's a bug implies, then RTW is not a serious strategy game.
Good research Puzz3D, ~D
Test results recently posted on the dot com are indicative of the AI forgetting what it was doing when the game reloads; not only with sieges, but also with regard to troop movements. This also makes the inference that AI expansion strategy is rebooted to square one as well. The easily reproducible (though tedious) test of starting a new game and saving and reloading after each turn will show that NO provinces change hands with the AI after 20 turns of play. Why? Because the save game file must not be including the data for the AI to assess when play is resumed.
The tests posted, unless they can be challenged, clearly indicate a much farther reaching problem than just siege behavior. That might be why CA has not responded with anything other than denial. Perhaps they wish to see how much of this we can figure out before they make any admissions about what they will fix.
Regardless of whether or not we free beta testers (I mean players who paid for the product) can expose the entire iceberg, it has been conclusively proven there is a substantial bug with AI behavior when the game is reloaded from a save. Now, CA can continue to deny it, but the proof is out there for everyone to see. Hopefully, CA will stop sticking its collective heads in the sand and start a constructive dialog with the RTW community to work toward resolving the problems. If CA won't be coaxed to do this in a cordial way, then maybe SEGA can be persuaded to take some ownership and force CA to do the right thing.
We need a patch!
Well I think it's important to post whatever evidence we can accumulate on this issue, and I think it will eventually be brought to the attention of the dev who programmed this part of the game, and he'll realize that some info which the AI needs in order to properly continue the game is missing in the savegame file. As I said before, the public posts that CA makes are more like damage control than anything else, and that has to be considered when reading those posts. Of course, it's a little scary that info is missing from the savegame in the first place.
One of the big problems at .com is that no matter how good a thread is it eventually falls off the forum at page 20. CA may not get around to looking at outstanding issues in RTW for quite some time depending on how hard pressed they are in getting the next project finished.
ROFL!Quote:
Originally Posted by Browning
Well gentlemen the thread over at the COM is AGAIN gaining momentum rapidly.
It is certainly worth keeping up with it over there as more information regarding gain protectorates and this bug seem to be linked as well.
Also rcp1 found the following sentence in the readme file of the last patch:
"All future disaster events and historical events were being erased when a save game was loaded up. This is now fixed".
His comments:
"It is possible and entirely likely that this issue is closely related to the disaster issue. Disasters were simply the tip of a very large iceberg.
I'd be willing to put good money on it."
---------------------------
It really does feel like a cracking episode of Bold and the Beautiful or maybe even EastEnders now.
I remember reading that the Bug was present in 1.1 but not that pronounced. Can anybody confirm this (and hopefully invalidate the statement)? I do not have the space to have to RTW installations on my comp.
Browning, luckily, for you at least, my computer came crashing down recently, forcing me to wipe everything and start fresh(who would thing that I would combine 'luckily' and any mention of reinstalling windows). So I had a 1.0 installation of RTW and tested the bug on 1.0 and 1.1 results follow:
Setup and rules: Imperial Campaign, No Advice, M/M, Manage All, M/M, Brutii, on start all cities to low tax rate, fog of war false, no accepting marriage, City of Phraaspa test subject
1.0 tests-
Start1-Senate Mission-Take Appollonia, 10 turn limit, 1 minor exotic unit reward.
Start1+1-Parthian Army(Arsaces leader, 5 ? units+bodygaurd) approach Phraaspa(3 turns hold, 3 unknown units, no walls). Save game Testing(1Phraaspa).
Start1+2.1-Parthian Army takes Phraaspa, qutii
Start1+2.2-relaod Parthian army bypasses Phraaspa.
Start2-Same as Start1.
Start2+1-Parthian Army(Arsaces leader, 5 ? units+bodygaurd) approach Phraaspa(3 turns hold, 3 unknown units, no walls).
Start2+2.1-Parthian army takes Phraaspa.
Start2+2.2-Did not save-false test.
Start3-Same as Start1 except reward=you will be greatly rewarded.
Start3+1-Marriage request, Parthian Army(Arsaces leader, 5 ? units+bodygaurd) approach Phraaspa(3 turns hold, 3 unknown units, no walls). Save game Testing(3Phraaspa).
Start3+2.1-Parthian Army takes Phraaspa, quit
Start3+2.2-reload Parthian army turns south
1.1 tests-
Start4-Same as Start1 except nothing
Start4+1-Parthian Army(Arsaces leader, 5 ? units+bodygaurd) approach Phraaspa(3 turns hold, 3 unknown units, no walls). Save game Test(4Phraaspa).
Start4+2.1-Parthian Army takes Phraaspa, quit
Start4+2.2-relaod Marriage Request, Army stops, Arcases disapperes.
Start5-Same as Start1 except reward=you will be greatly rewarded.
Start5+1-Parthian Army(Arsaces leader, 5 ? units+bodygaurd) approach Phraaspa(3 turns hold, 3 unknown units, no walls). Save game Test(5Phraaspa).
Start5+2.1-Parthian Army takes Phraaspa, quit
Start5+2.2-reload Parthian army stops in place.
I continued to see if Parthia would later take the city. At +5 turns Armenia took Phraaspa.
The bug has been around since 1.1 it seems, these tests are not complete enough to tell but I am unable to complete them, someone else could use this as a jumping off point. All turns and moves are documented in screenshots and I still have the save games.
Also I apologize for the spelling and grammer errors, this was quickly typed from notes in my own very strange form of shorthand, I will fix that later.
Another big problem is that so many games are bought because of multiplayer. They might not think singleplayer is important because it doesn't create as much sales. If you notice the first patch was a multiplayer hotfix. You'd think that since singleplayer has so many problems that that would be their first concern.
I bought the game for the SP.. I didn't know the multiplayer was a reason customers bought the game ~:confused: ~D
actually, online i had encountered numerous players that didn't even know a single-player campaign existed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Craterus
I posted in another thread to similar effect, but since Bat showed up in this particular thread I feel like I should reiterate that he is IMHO one of if not the best of the mods over there and I truly appreciate his dedication both to the TW games (by undertaking such a thankless mod task) and to fair, civilised, rational discussion. I have promised earlier (and I encourage all of you to do the same) never to cross post anything he says here on the .org to the .com, so that he can safely take off the mod hat and feel free to say what he thinks. He's treated me and many other unhappy customers with respect, and so the least we can do is give him the same courtesy. Kill54, OTOH, I will never forgive for calling me paranoid and delusional, so if I slip and make some comment about the modding in general, I don't mean to include Bat.
I feel like such a fool. Just realized I was confusing Bat with Wart. Still intend to honor my promise not to cross post, just because that's the right thing to do, but take back some (not all) of the kind words
Speaking as a .com mod, I have to say that Bat has done a fantastic job since the first day he began posting. It makes me feel great that he's getting the proper respect he deserves, considering the time and effort he puts into the .com site.
Speaking strictly as a member of the TW community, I would have to say that there are many, many times when frustration over bugs and game issues gets personal over there, and the colours of fact and opinion blur together, resulting in the very smog that bores into the foreheads of the more articulate patrons. On the matter of all of us being 'company men', well, that line of thinking doesn't hold water because on a forum where there are literally hundreds of repeat posts, outright garbage, and the occasional concerted effort to make the place look like a death camp, (IE: certain 'incursions' by groups from other forums), it's obvious to all concerned that some weeks we're going to look more like butchers than surgeons. Don't mistake our silence on some matters for mute acceptance of the party line. Do you think it's a coincidence that some threads, full to the brim with venom and inarticulate rubbish, get some 'official' (oh, how I'm growing to hate that word) attention when someone makes a good point? Most days I feel like an avalanche rescue worker, sticking a fibreglass pole into the white noise drifts in the hope of salvaging a good post or thread from asphyxiation. I know there are more 'refined' places to have more intricate conversations, but I also know that if every member of the .org that met some cool people at .com posted an asterisk on this thread, it would be 130 pages long, mates.
I'm just trying to hold the breach so that there's a chance that .com patrons can make the sort of friends that I have since I started skulking back in the Shogun days. Please don't paint me with a fascist brush. We all have our moments, but for pity's sake realize that the place just blew past 22,222 today as far as posters go. It isn't fair to compare a forum that's advertised in who knows how many countries to the private forums that the dedicated TW heads set up. It's the difference between a guy who has every Grateful Dead album ever released on their label, and the guy who has been obsessively looking for the gig that was taped by hand on Jerry's last birthday. ( I was there- does anyone have it? ~:cheers: )
I'm trying to be as honest and earnest as possible in this post.... I hope I've succeeded.
Enjoy Being.
EDIT: Don't cut that bastard Wart any slack. LMAO !!
Thanks to JimBob for verifying that the load/save bug has been around since 1.0. Unfortunately, CA has decided that this is a feature (yeah right).
Hang in there, brother!Quote:
Originally Posted by Aurelius
If I were to call MP the tip of the Total War iceberg I would be guilty of overstating my case. MP folks are vocal and, in forums at least, apparently numerous. But they represent a tiny fraction of Total War sales. Most buyers don't bother to go to forums and talk about games, prefering to spend that time actually playing them!Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Maxentius
Be warned that someone will come in here soon and dispute this but don't you believe 'em! :wink:
*
Glad to be of service. ~:grouphug:
Thanks, Nelson. I really mean that. I'm honestly not sure that the great patrons of the community that get so angry with us realize the impossible situation that we signed up for. At one point, every time I signed on to the .com there were over 400 people laying down posts.
I felt like there were only 40 of us, rapiers drawn, a la three musketeers...
All for one, and one for all against the tsunami.
And then some dude signs on, and in 72 hours is calling me a fascist. I ran my own board for a while, after the purge, so that we could all have 100% freedom, but I couldn't afford to maintain it. And in 8 months, I closed zero threads. Admonished, yeah, scolded, yeah, but pressed the admin buttons? Nope.
Friendship. It isn't just for breakfast anymore.
EDIT: Thanks for the asterisk, Wicked. I guess we'll see how many patrons read whole threads. Did anyone else make two or three good pals on the .com? Look at your address book, mates. Look at your address book. It isn't about selling shares. It's about sharing tales.
A lot of you guys are being far too harsh on the .com mods, they give up their own time to try and keep the place in some sort of order. It is not their fault there is a lot of moderating, there is a hell of a lot of crap posted there!
The problem is the maturity level seems to have dropped markedly since the influx of new patrons thanks to Rome. When there is a lower maturity level of course there is going to be more moderating, if it was less leniant new patrons would be less likely to join as it would be hell.
Aur - have to say I have made some good mates, enjoyed having a chat to SP, Stoney, Zelda, Massa and many others. Too bad chat was taken away, still talk to some of the guys. Also, it is always good to catch up with some of the patrons that don't post over at .com anymore -- got to thank Duck and for his pond.
So... post just an asterisk.
I'm serious. I'm not gonna rope in 6700 .com lemmings to back me up. I could, but I'm not gonna do that.
I think that the .com has been a lot more important to far more people than would first appear.
That's why we spend so much time... just trying. It has nothing to do with any nefarious plot. The very idea of one site against another is ridiculous, and I for one refuse to have anything to do with it.
...is not to load at all.
Wait, don't bash me yet, I am also your 1-hour-every-second-evening type of guy.
And I live in Germany, which means I pay like 4 times more for the electricity than it actually costs, thus I am unwilling to leave my comp permanently on.
A possible solution, which I have just read on the .com forum, would be to HIBERNATE your comp. Basically, it writes the complete memory state onto your harddisk and then turns off. Upon start, the memory will be loaded, and you find yourself in the middle of your R:TW campaign without loading the savegame, if everything works.
I suspect, one could then copy and rename the hiberfil.sys file (and most probably the swap file?) and use it as a kind of savegame substitute. This way you avoid beeing limited to playing only one campaign on your computer. On my computer, my son plays his also, thus a straightforward solution is not the one for me...
I will test it over weekend... perhaps someone of you can do it even earlier.
And how to do it, since computer after powering on, automaticly restores hyberanted state (and doens't restore it anymore until next hybernation).Quote:
Originally Posted by Browning
.
Anyway, is it possible to make a program that could make an image of all RTW data in RAM, which could be loaded later?
@Aure, forget it. There are many people out there who can neither be tolerant of the view points of others nor be able to see the other sides of the picture. .com moderators have always been viewed as facists since the Purge (or even before). Nothing can be said that will change the impression of others. .com are the official forums and certain standards have to be enforced. Some cannot accept this fact. It is a fact of life, else why is there never peace in this world?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aurelius
I know that I have not been around for long, since I only joined .com in January last year. I also know that there are those out there who have less than polite things to say about me. I dont care. Neither do I care about the thousands of posts that I have made in the MTW forum. Sometime from now when I finally disappear, all that wouldnt matter to me at all. I am not here to make a mark in the community. I just want to help others enjoy their games.
Fact: Activision is the publisher and hence the final authority in Support. Support at .com has always been provided on an ad hoc basis. It was never official. Just ask Erado.
Fact: Activision limited the number of patches for RTW (AND the expansion) to a single patch. VI 2.01 was a patch made on the free time of CA's developers. If you think CA didnt care about their games, would they have gotten out the patch on their own time (on top of their official work) to fix the cavalry and 56 years bugs?
In other words, if RTW is to ever have a 1.3 patch, the devs would have to work on their own time (on top of their work on the expansion).
Activision paid CA for the development. You paid Activision for the game.
I recall the big outcry on the state of multiplayer back when the game was just released. People complained about CA focusing on SP and neglecting multiplayer. Right now, everyone here is switching their tune and start bashing CA for focusing on the multiplayer and ignoring problems in SP?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From what I can see, after observing the threads on the loadgame bug, I am inclined to believe that the issue runs deeper than just the AI forgetting. Siege lifting may well be just a very obvious symptom of something else. It have something to do with the basic design of the game AI. If that is so, it may not be something so easily addressed by a patch or even an expansion. It is hard to say since we have no concrete idea regarding how the AI works. We can only wait and see.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Haters of .com forum staff can flame all you want. I dont care.
I generally start of slowly, so my first 20-30 turns fly by (just the way I play, I like to give the a.i a chance!). I notiec that generally I do the first 30 turns without reloading, as I do it in one sitting. The map changes shape a lot then. On reloading, the pace of change drops drastically, In my current Carthage campaign, Parthia has stagnated in an uber empire form after a massive 30 year rush at the start. It has not conquered anywhere near as much as it did, as my turns are longer and I cannot play for extended periods.
The Parthians and Egyptians started a war against each other, i watched it through spies etc for about 15 turns, and they werer really getting stuck in, with jerusalem exchanging hands often.
Now, after a reload, both just sit there even though they are still at war. the Parthians even broke of a siege when there was only 1 Egyptian unit in the city.
You don't need to convince me there's something odd in that, Given that Parthia had them on the ropes..
'Feature' my arse..
*
~:cool:
Excellent image there :) Or maybe like a farmer picking over the Midden to rescue a few blooms that appeared overnight, before today`s lorryload of manure gets dumped on top ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Aurelius
Keep the faith ~:)
@ Aur,
*
~:grouphug:
'Mumblings in the alleyways...wait. What...? Where'd he...? How did he find...?'
Don't worry how, just revel in the 'same teamness'. ~:cheers:
Nef
Herein lies the problem. You say that Creative Assembly does care, and indeed this is supported by the information in your first statement. However, your second statement admits that there is a problem. Creative Assembly does not, and they moreover insulted nearly the entire forum for saying that there is one. I'm sure you've heard the quote, probably even in this thread, where one of the Creative Assembly tells the forum something to the effect of "You just want to complain and will never be happy with the game. The bug you are complaining about now doesn't exist, and you have no clue how the game works."Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeda Toshiie
I personally feel quite responsible for this thread,
starting out as a mini-protest I expected to disappear into the nexus of the colosseum we have gone on to a seven-page political slandering of the authority of the the community and .com, as if they are immensely great forces. True, no-one really cares for .com anymore and .org has pretty much become the official site but is there any need for a great debate over the rights to TW?
My regrets for starting this conflagaration,
Aetius.
BTW, what and when on earth was this 'purge' of the .com?
I suspect that CA has already drawn up its development plans for the next year, and have fully allocated its resouces (people) to the various projects:
RTW Expansion
Spartan Total Warrior
Successor to RTW
It create patch 1.3 for RTW they would have to take people off these projects, which would delay their delivery; some of these existing projects deadlines may be set in stone. Also, they would not earn any tangible revenue from another patch, although they would get appreciation from many RTW players, which could have intangible benefits in the future (better sales of forthcoming products).
So, for a CA project manager, this could be a difficult decision to make.
Does not need to be like that.Quote:
It create patch 1.3 for RTW they would have to take people off these projects, which would delay their delivery; some of these existing projects deadlines may be set in stone. Also, they would not earn any tangible revenue from another patch, although they would get appreciation from many RTW players, which could have intangible benefits in the future (better sales of forthcoming products).
To create solid expansion, you need to take care of worst bugs from non-expanded game. If you do fix them for expansion, it would not be too much difficult to incoporate them in small hotfix for base game (although there is a small problem of maintaing two code bases in same time).
Calling modeators of an internet forums fascists is just... wrong. Fascism (sided by communism) is a single most evil creation of the human mind in its recorded history. Humans following these evil ideologies killed millions of other human beings without any justifiable reason and changed the history and the spirits of whole nations in a way that these nations will never be the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeda Toshiie
Whatever one does on an internet forum just cannot be compared to that. It is wrong even if the word "fascist" is used as a parabola because some words just must not be abused. In fact I consider using this word in such a stupid context an insult for all those who suffered because of and who fought against this evil.
This beeing said, I want to ask you, Meada, to think about the policies of the moderators on the .com forum. This is not a flame. And please don't tell me you don't care. You should care about the opinion people have about that forum because you give that forum a shape.
Such a forum must be moderated - there is no doubt of it. There are enough people in the world who behave like morons when anonymity protects them. Taking part in unmoderated forums is just a waste of time. But there is another opposite and it is also bad, and the .com is close to that opposite. There were important things said in some threads that disappeared. True, some of the posts in the mentioned threads were far from being mature, but a moderator has tools to remove/edit single posts rather than an entire thread. As it happened - the threads containing info on the flaws of the product were de-facto removed - and this creates a bad air. Combined with some posts by the developers, which even with a best of goodwill could be understood equivocally, this created a _very_ bad air.
Fact: there is a bug that needs fixing.Quote:
Fact: Activision limited the number of patches for RTW (AND the expansion) to a single patch. VI 2.01 was a patch made on the free time of CA's developers. If you think CA didnt care about their games, would they have gotten out the patch on their own time (on top of their official work) to fix the cavalry and 56 years bugs?
Fact: if I break something I usually repair it.Quote:
In other words, if RTW is to ever have a 1.3 patch, the devs would have to work on their own time (on top of their work on the expansion).
Yes I paid for a software product and I expect it to function. A software with a dysfunctional save-load feature is a dysfunctional software unless it is a demo.Quote:
Activision paid CA for the development. You paid Activision for the game.
Let me propose a revolutional solution: both SP and MP should work...!Quote:
I recall the big outcry on the state of multiplayer back when the game was just released. People complained about CA focusing on SP and neglecting multiplayer. Right now, everyone here is switching their tune and start bashing CA for focusing on the multiplayer and ignoring problems in SP?
You know, I hear this a lot. Well, actually, I hear 2 patches a lot. I hear lots of things about limits to patches a lot. But no one has ever presented any evidence to support their claims.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeda Toshiie
Have you a quote from Activision or CA backing up this "fact"? Have you seen the contract the two of them have?
Wait, where did they focus on multiplayer? Did they put out a new multiplayer patch that I'm not aware of? Seems like they've neglected both MP and SP. Not exactly praiseworthy behaviour.Quote:
I recall the big outcry on the state of multiplayer back when the game was just released. People complained about CA focusing on SP and neglecting multiplayer. Right now, everyone here is switching their tune and start bashing CA for focusing on the multiplayer and ignoring problems in SP?
Bh
Not true, how can it pretty much be the official site for TW? CA owns the .com fora, they are for the TW series, it is the one and only official forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aetius the Last Roman
As for the purge, it happened before I arrived - well over a year ago, don't know how long ago. This was when there were signatures and avatars and .com - they were removed after misuse and then there was a Stalinistic purge of the patrons. Many of the older forumites - Goats and Uglies either were banned or left.
Aetius - good on you mate, takes a man to admit regret.
For me, the only reason why I prefer these forums, is that ezBoards suck simple as that.
You can't subscribe on post and get just one single mail, you'll get dozen of them (one per every post). And subscription mail link leads you to first page of the, post, not the last.
No avatars, no signatures...
Nuff said...
P.S.
At least it's not as bad as RtW Heaven forums were you can't subscrite to threads at all.
I can tell you that I saw devs say straight-out that CA and Activision have a two-patch deal, with no ambiguity. Unfortunately, I don't know if any such dev statements still exist on the .com forums, since every topic that reaches the end of the twentieth page is deleted. Probably someone quoted one of the devs on this somewhere here or at TWC, if someone feels like searching.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhruic
-Simetrical
Are you sure about that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Simetrical
The only thing that I remember reading was in theshogun's pre-patch announcements.
Something about.."We may only get one run at a patch"...or words to that effect.
Hardly conclusive.
Now..if'n a certain aquatic marine life wearing officer were to post a definitive answer...well.
Perhaps the tone and flavor of alot of posts both here and at the .com would see some significant improvements.
No patch...no trolls. What's to whinge about for more than one post?
'member this?
~:grouphug:
rightieo.
If that's true, why was Maeda claiming that it was a "fact" they only got one patch? Last time I checked my math, 1 != 2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Simetrical
Bh
Well if 1.1 was a patch we are getting to stage 2.9 with the various mods, what we need is not imaginative patches but some real ones...Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhruic
Hellenes
CA has always followed a one patch policy: STW v1.12, MI v1.02, MTW v1.1, VI v2.01 and now RTW v1.2. There were two quick patches STW v1.01 and RTW v1.1 each aimed at fixing a multiplayer connection issue, but I don't count those as full blown patching efforts.
Agreed, Puzz. The reasoning is a litle flawed though...'It's what we ALWAYS do...' Sheesh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
However, the silence and lack of 'ownership' still irks me.
Sure, I'm not disputing the history. I'm just looking for a reason. Is it because that's what they're contracted for? Is it because they believe they can fix everything with one patch?Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
I guess I'm looking to see who my ire should be directed towards. If it's part of the contract with Activision, then that's who's to blame. If it's simply that CA believes they've fixed the bugs they need to fix, then it would be CA's fault. It's an important issue for the future, now that they are owned by Sega, because if it was Activision's fault, then we can reasonably hope that things will improve. But if it's CA's idea, then changing publishers isn't going to help.
Bh
Quote:
Originally Posted by Attalus
And there you have hit one one of my "hot buttons." Lack of ownership. I've seen that too often in engineering. Some groups, vendors, contractors seem to feel no obligation to answer questions, fix problems, or in any way help out after their "deliverable" has shipped and been signed off on. Whereas my approach has always been that I would do my best to provide assistance even if you call me 10 years after my work was completed (and yes, I've fielded calls ten years later.)
What we have with CA is a classic business study of how not to conduct business. Take a successful product line with a strong customer following. Release a new product with shoddy quality then refuse to address/recify the quality after customers complain. There are dozens of companies that followed this same pattern, adopted arrogance, then went under as their customer base fled. The once mighty Avalon Hill and SSI are prime examples.
Blaming Activision for the situation is ridicious. CA is the developer with the reputation on the line.
look at gamespy's mailbag section. Talks all about games being rushed out the door. They mention Activision and how they hurt developers with their bloated business model. They release too many crappy games and then use the revenue from one popular game to cover their losses. There was an example of Troika which designed Vampire the Masquerade game with the HL2 engine. They were given a set development time for the game, but it still had a lot of bugs. The games released had to be delayed until HL2 came out. They could've done extra work now that they had time, but there was no money from Activision for the patch. But they do say the blame is on both sides. Like developers often think too big and have way too big hopes for their game and that creates bugs. This might be the case with CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhruic
Just wanted to point out and clarify, that SEGA not only is the future publisher for CA, but has also acquired CA in the sense one company buys 50%+ shares in another company and takes over its management. Thus CA is now a subsidiary of SEGA. Activision was simply a publisher, and the right and duties of parties (Actvi. & CA) were contractual in nature.
And I do clearly remember reading Shogun's post on .com after he released the readme file before the release of the Patch 1.2, where he clearly said this would be the last patch. In fact lots of patrons questioned the 'last patch' policy at the time and showed concerns about an eventuality where the 'last patch' may introduce fresh problems specially due to the large number of changes and fixes in the patch. However, CA never responded to any of those concerns.
Hope it clears a few things.
Yes, I'm aware of that. But that in no way addresses the issue of patch responsibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by sik1977
I've seen plenty of "I remember", but no actual evidence. I mean, someone else's recollection of that statement was that he said something like it was "hopefully" the last patch, or something to that effect.Quote:
And I do clearly remember reading Shogun's post on .com after he released the readme file before the release of the Patch 1.2, where he clearly said this would be the last patch. In fact lots of patrons questioned the 'last patch' policy at the time and showed concerns about an eventuality where the 'last patch' may introduce fresh problems specially due to the large number of changes and fixes in the patch. However, CA never responded to any of those concerns.
I'd still like to see a definitive quote.
Bh
Well, didn't they said that there will be no patches for MTW:VI, but it did got patch later, after all.
Shogun made a number of statements, some clearer than others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhruic
So would I, personally, so I could show it to those who didn't see it firsthand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhruic
-Simetrical
If i had visited the forum and got to know about the "siege loadgame bug"; then i would never had broght R:TW .
i been given up after reading the answers from the CA guys, and, well yes, i lost hope of ever getting it fixed.
i will wait for HoMM5 ; the elderscoll 4: oblivion. and AOE 3.
i'm signing off... what a tragic end to my love for the game...
Actually, I didn't blame the RTR mod. A number of hasty individuals chose to read my words that way. The usual system of "ooh, look what I think he said..." then did the rest.Quote:
Originally Posted by starkhorn
What I did was offer an opinion that installing a mod meant that you should look to your own resources for help after installing it. No company can ever track the mods that are done to its games.
I also made clear the modders do a damn fine job in modding. And just in case anyone else chooses to snip out chunks of this and post it elsewhere let's make this really clear: THE MODDERS DO A GOOD JOB.
But hey - don't let that screw up a perfectly good urban legend of CA being heartless bastards. ~:)
You very clearly and succinctly stated "RTR introduced this bug". Twist all you want, that doesn't even come close to equaling "we don't support mods".
Bh
"I also made clear the modders do a damn fine job in modding. And just in case anyone else chooses to snip out chunks of this and post it elsewhere let's make this really clear: THE MODDERS DO A GOOD JOB.
But hey - don't let that screw up a perfectly good urban legend of CA being heartless bastards." - Captain Fishpants
Captain Fishpants: You still don't seem to get it do you? People are pleading for a definitive answer to what you intend to do about the save/load bug. Is that not clear enough for you? Other issues pale in significance. Are you going to support your work or not? If you and your cohorts choose to maintain a "silence is golden" policy on bugs, then reasonable people will have to think you intend to do nothing. I just want to get it straight from you.
This isn't about urban legends or taking things personally. This is about maturity, professionalism and business ethics. This is clearly a question of whether or not certain people have the moral fortitude to simply do what they know is right and damn the consequences. You have NO right to be unhappy that people have discovered and validated through testing, bugs which you surely knew were there!! So you don't lament you tried to pull a fast one, just that you got caught?
Hey Captain Fishpants,
For not commenting on the bug (which I think you edited out). Wouldn't it be easier to just say if there will be a patch 1.3 (yes or no)?
Also, the "comment":
by one of the Admin at the .COM forumQuote:
the BUG is YOU not the GAME.
- ruins CA's customer service reputation.
- insults the intelligence of just about any Total War player.
Anyone get the feeling that we're constantly going round in circles? For the sake of community peace and my sanity, I wish that Captain FP had posted something more worthwhile rather than simply fueling the many fires of frustration. *sigh*
True. A yes/no answer on the patch, or at least a acknowledgement or explanation of the loadgame "feature", would have been nice. All he managed to do in that post was apologize to the modders for any offence, state the obvious (install a mod at your own risk), and leave us wondering.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jambo
The silence has me thinking there is a corporate gag-order in effect on any new R:TW work (patches or expansion). :lipsrsealed2: This has the feel of being too deliberate. If they can't talk about any new R:TW work, can they at least verify that they can't say anything? Blink once for yes, twice for no. ~D
I guess he is not allowed to give an answer, simple as that.
While we postsers have no others to report to when making our own statements, every statement posted to someone from CA, is considered official, and thus some things just can't be answered, without permission.
Exempt if you want to lose job of course.
Jambo, I'm afraid that in the current febrile atmosphere anything I say will be taken out of context, reinterpreted and hurled back with some invective editorialising. I only have to look at the comments that came after my (I thought fair) correction of misinformation. That the misinterpretaion was immediately repeated only makes me realise that I was wasting the effort. So consider this a posting more in sorrow than anything else...Quote:
Originally Posted by Jambo
So it doesn't matter what I say, it'll be taken wrongly by some, IMO. It's certainly an odd situation for many, I'm sure, that people who supposedly like our products take such pleasure in picking fights. There are people who delight in thinking the worst and there doesn't seem to be any way of reaching them.
But I'll try one more time: CA doesn't have a policy of ignoring its customers. People do come and read threads, both here and at .com, even if they don't reply to them. Given the negative reaction that I've received here (again), I can see why they wouldn't.
There are developers who visit the .com forums daily. They do occasionally post too, although as has been made obvious with the comments about TorquemadaUK's words, anything will be seized on and cast in the worst possible light both there and elsewhere.
There is a policy at the .com forums to keep them orderly. Then again, we have published a game that carries T or 12+ certification and have a duty of care to make sure that the forums we pay for stay within those boundaries. And anyone who has been paying attention to UK libel law recently will also know that anonymous posting of defamatory material is no longer a protection: so perhaps by editing posts the moderators may be doing people a favour in the long run.
Finally - and some of you may choose not to believe this, if you wish - I'm not in a position to make any kind of official statement about patches or expansion packs until or unless they have been subject to a formal announcement. Long industry experience means that I'm not inclined to make informal comments on these matters either. This isn't 'fueling the fires of frustration', but *not* providing fuel for those fires. I really can't do anything else here given that there are people who, I believe, actively relish the chance to fan flames.
You know, in general, my inclination is to sympathize with you. As a developer myself, I've had plenty of negative attacks directed my way. Of course, I have the advantage of the fact that no one has paid me for my work - I've done it for free. That gives me a certain moral advantage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Fishpants
Unfortunately, CA is lacking that moral advantage. That makes it more difficult to empathize. The reality is, what both you and TorquemadaUK have said was at best badly worded. You may have meant something very different than what came across.
But what I consider to be very revealing is the fact that even in such a circumstance, you are still blaming everyone else. Instead of considering the fact that you stated something badly, apologizing, and clarifying what you meant, you've continued to maintain that it's our fault for not somehow divining what you really meant. It's the same attitude we're getting when dealing with this bug. It's not CA's fault, it's the end users fault, because we are dumb and just don't understand how anything works.
So yes, I agree that some people are never going to be satisfied with what you say. The old saying "you can't please everyone" is quite accurate. But it's also an issue of degrees. I think that the number of people becoming dissatisified with certain communications from CA employess is becoming significant.
I realize you're between the proverbial rock and hard place, because to admit that it's a bug would require you to then say whether you are going to patch it or not. And that's a no-win scenario for you. So I don't blame you for choosing to say nothing. But this trend of blaming the users isn't fair, or helping your PR any.
Bh
Captain Fishpants:
The SEGA representative over at .com said CA would be the source to speak with us. If you aren't the one to make "official" policy statements on patches or expansion, then kindly tell us who is?
It is sad to see that you take a simple request for customer service over legitimate issues as "hurling invective", and "fanning the flames" etc. As far as liking your product, I do like it. I wouldn't take the time to play it every day if I didn't. Your responses remind me of a U2 concert I went to long ago: the band played a couple obscure songs then dropped behind stage. They milked the audience for applause to get about 15 "encores" which really should have been the concert to begin with. That is arrogance. I was already in the parking lot by the time the crowd could coax them back to play something they wanted to hear.
You know, I think the only thing that really frustrates CA is that they can't silence every critic on this website like they can over at the .com. The implied legal action threat was a nice touch, too. That's bound to help the situation.
"There are developers who visit the .com forums daily. They do occasionally post too, although as has been made obvious with the comments about TorquemadaUK's words, anything will be seized on and cast in the worst possible light both there and elsewhere." - Captain Fishpants
Well, gee! One of your CA staff tells us that "YOU are the Bug", in response to proof that there is a problem, and you try to martyr yourself by saying "anything will be seized on and cast in the worst possible light both there and elsewhere." I'm sorry. Was there a better light that a major bug could be cast in? :dizzy2:
actually, just to clarify again, killemall54 is NOT a CA staff member, just an overly judgemental/condescending/arrogant forum administrator, lawyer, and a stockholder of Activision to boot. :puke:Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Celt
I guess that was 2 blinks (thanks pyj99):
http://p223.ezboard.com/fshoguntotal...ID=24377.topic
The company line: it's not a bug. So there will be no patch for it.
The developers' real opinions will be determined when the expansion is released. If this "feature" is still present, they truly don't consider it a bug. if it's gone, they felt it was unacceptable. We will see what we see.
posted by The Shogun:
Quote:
Hi Guys
I had had a long talk with the developers and what you are about to read is considered as our definitive view on the matter. Some of you are not going to be happy with it and some are. But we will close this thread off in the main R:TW board as I don't think we are going to achieve any more than we have already. Before some of you start accusing us of ripping you off and not caring about the community a lot of time has been spent here looking in to this matter and this is the conclusion we have arrived at. However, we will take all of your comments and feedback into consideration with regards to other games in the TW series and any expansions. All of your comments were read (as always). So...
There's been good sense - and some nonsense - posted here about a reload bug that is supposed to be a gamebreaker for RTW. Supposedly, as soon as a saved game is loaded *all* existing sieges are lifted by the AI, and this spoils the game for a particularly vocal sub-set of players. In a few cases (as a proportion of the whole number of games being played) all sieges will be lifted.
However, to describe this as a gamebreaker is a little unfair, and a misunderstanding of the game's AI. What's actually happening is more subtle than the doomsayers would have you believe. The AI does a regular reasssement about the best use for its forces. If one or more armies are engaged in a siege and it decides that there is a higher priority usage for them elsewhere it will lift the siege and use them somewhere else. The player might not understand why this is happening, but often the reasons for the AI acting this way may be covered by the fog of war - a Gallic siege might have to be lifted because the Gauls have suddenly come under attack by the Britons, for example, but the player can't 'see' this happening.
There are also another reasons to lift a siege. It simply doesn't have to be carried to a conclusion to be damaging. Trade is halted and the happiness of a beseiged settlement also suffers. Building and training in the settlement are halted. The province may be devastated by the army's presence. The enemy's attention is concentrated on the besieged settlement, and he/it may weaken a position elsewhere in a relief action.
All of this explains why the AI is quite prepared to lift sieges and move armies after a couple of turns spent on the task, even when a save game hasn't been loaded. It simply has better things to do with them after it has done one of its periodic reassessments of its position.
It so happens that when a saved game is loaded, the AI does a reassessment of its position, decides what is relevant, and then acts. This doesn't mean that the game is broken, merely that the AI is doing its job at that moment. And this is where the statistical bit comes in. Like many strategy games RTW has a probabalistic element to the outcome of events. There is a tendency for events in the game to unfold in the same way, given the same initial starting conditions, but there are no guarantees that this will happen. There will - over the hundreds of thousands of games that are played - be some occasions when the AI decides to lift its sieges. There will also be times when the AI does not consider that lifting a siege is acceptable. It's also worth pointing out that - because the game has now been played many, many, many times, that events such as the lifting of all sieges have now appeared at one extreme of the conceptual bell curve of probable outcomes. There are now so many games being played by so many players that this does happen, but statistically that's almost what you'd expect; that 'many' is a small proportion of the total number of games being played.
It's also a consequence of getting the AI to look after its interests during play. After all, many players review their overall position when reloading a game, send armies to new destinations, decide that a siege isn't worth pursuing, or simply reassign attack priorities in the light of their strategic reassessment. The decision was made that this was a reasonable and sensible thing for the AI to do as well: the loading of a game seemed like a good point to get the AI to sit back and go "hmmm... what's happening?... maybe those guys should be doing something more useful..."
Here is Shogun's post giving the definitive answer that Captain Fishpants didn't have the authority to give:
"Hi Guys
I had had a long talk with the developers and what you are about to read is considered as our definitive view on the matter. Some of you are not going to be happy with it and some are. But we will close this thread off in the main R:TW board as I don't think we are going to achieve any more than we have already. Before some of you start accusing us of ripping you off and not caring about the community a lot of time has been spent here looking in to this matter and this is the conclusion we have arrived at. However, we will take all of your comments and feedback into consideration with regards to other games in the TW series and any expansions. All of your comments were read (as always). So...
There's been good sense - and some nonsense - posted here about a reload bug that is supposed to be a gamebreaker for RTW. Supposedly, as soon as a saved game is loaded *all* existing sieges are lifted by the AI, and this spoils the game for a particularly vocal sub-set of players. In a few cases (as a proportion of the whole number of games being played) all sieges will be lifted.
However, to describe this as a gamebreaker is a little unfair, and a misunderstanding of the game's AI. What's actually happening is more subtle than the doomsayers would have you believe. The AI does a regular reasssement about the best use for its forces. If one or more armies are engaged in a siege and it decides that there is a higher priority usage for them elsewhere it will lift the siege and use them somewhere else. The player might not understand why this is happening, but often the reasons for the AI acting this way may be covered by the fog of war - a Gallic siege might have to be lifted because the Gauls have suddenly come under attack by the Britons, for example, but the player can't 'see' this happening.
There are also another reasons to lift a siege. It simply doesn't have to be carried to a conclusion to be damaging. Trade is halted and the happiness of a beseiged settlement also suffers. Building and training in the settlement are halted. The province may be devastated by the army's presence. The enemy's attention is concentrated on the besieged settlement, and he/it may weaken a position elsewhere in a relief action.
All of this explains why the AI is quite prepared to lift sieges and move armies after a couple of turns spent on the task, even when a save game hasn't been loaded. It simply has better things to do with them after it has done one of its periodic reassessments of its position.
It so happens that when a saved game is loaded, the AI does a reassessment of its position, decides what is relevant, and then acts. This doesn't mean that the game is broken, merely that the AI is doing its job at that moment. And this is where the statistical bit comes in. Like many strategy games RTW has a probabalistic element to the outcome of events. There is a tendency for events in the game to unfold in the same way, given the same initial starting conditions, but there are no guarantees that this will happen. There will - over the hundreds of thousands of games that are played - be some occasions when the AI decides to lift its sieges. There will also be times when the AI does not consider that lifting a siege is acceptable. It's also worth pointing out that - because the game has now been played many, many, many times, that events such as the lifting of all sieges have now appeared at one extreme of the conceptual bell curve of probable outcomes. There are now so many games being played by so many players that this does happen, but statistically that's almost what you'd expect; that 'many' is a small proportion of the total number of games being played.
It's also a consequence of getting the AI to look after its interests during play. After all, many players review their overall position when reloading a game, send armies to new destinations, decide that a siege isn't worth pursuing, or simply reassign attack priorities in the light of their strategic reassessment. The decision was made that this was a reasonable and sensible thing for the AI to do as well: the loading of a game seemed like a good point to get the AI to sit back and go "hmmm... what's happening?... maybe those guys should be doing something more useful..." - Shogun on Total War.com
Gee, the volunteer mods have the authority to issue official policy statements now, and the devs do not! Interesting...
Shogun's post is a pretty good piece of propaganda, if offered for that purpose. Never mind that players have lifted FOW to test what threats were there. Never mind that players have made saves and played through to see what would happen, then loaded from the save and the sieges would be lifted, and this can be reproduced 100% of the time. Especially never mind that if you save and load on every turn from start of game, the AI will NEVER capture any settlements. You see, all the info about this is edited, deleted, locked, or moved over at the .com so only the happy explanation given by Shogun appears up front. They know most people won't dig any further than that.
Here's my translation of Shogun's post:
1. There never was a bug, it is a feature (and a good one, too)
2. Your reproducible testing means nothing, you don't understand probability theory, see #1.
3. Those of you who have taken the time to test and publish your results are not worthy of CA respect. Plebs have no voice in the CA ivory tower. The decisions made by the campaign AI are far beyond ordinary mortal comprehension.
4. We intend to do nothing about the bug, err, uhm, "feature" (see #1) unless we feel like fixing, err, changing it for the expansion, or next installment of Total War.
5. Those of you with complaints are just a trivial minority. We know most people aren't as smart as you appear to be. Who really cares if so few people have recognized this bug, err, feature?
Yes, it all plays great in the censored world of .com. But here, we can refute the nonsense in Shogun's post, and have already done so. We are free to take this evidence to any media outlet we choose, and then CA may have to answer for this to people whose opinions they DO respect.
As far as I understand CA developers dodged the issue by saying that AI reasseses the situation after the load, and thus somtimes liftes the seiges.
But, since AI never does offensive action in turn after realod (including taking unwalled cities), that can only lead to reassessment algorithm that gets initiated after reload is buggy.
How elase to explain that AI factions will never (100%) expand if you only play 1 turn per session?
And this quote shows that there will be no patches for this issue in RTW.Quote:
However, we will take all of your comments and feedback into consideration with regards to other games in the TW series and any expansions. All of your comments were read (as always). So...
Pretty sad, since this stupid bug drasticly reduces preformance of AI for everyone who doesn't play the game for at least several hours (confirmed so many times).
Of course! I see it now. The loading from saved game is a feature. It's the normal game that's bugged.Quote:
It so happens that when a saved game is loaded, the AI does a reassessment of its position, decides what is relevant, and then acts.
I mean, if the AI decides to stop sieging when you load a game, it's because it did a reassessment that told it to move its troops elsewhere. But when you hit end turn, you obviously don't get that reassessment. That means the end turn button is bugged.
We should all demand that CA fix this glaring bug, and make the end turn button do a reassessment properly. I mean, that would fix the game, and make sure those nasty AI never did anything offensive.
It was supposed to be Rome: Total Boredom, wasn't it? :rolleyes:
Bh
The Shogun is a CA web marketing manager and administrator of the .COM forums, not a volunteer. Captain Fishpants (MikeB on the .COM forums) is a game designer. Neither is really in a position to be able to definitively speak for RTW's programmers off their own bat. Which is no doubt why The Shogun says that he had a, " long talk with the developers".Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Celt
As for the response itself, yes it's disappointing that they have chosen to restrict their answer to only part of the non-issue that members have been reporting, but not entirely unexpected. If they refuse to even see, much less test, the non-issue at its fullest extent, then there was never going to be much hope for a patch for this non-issue alone. Of course, there are plenty of other such non-issues with 1.2...
I expect they will quietly re-evaluate how the game recalculates AI priorities, resolving this non-issue for the XP. And that is as polite as I can express this, without seizing on CA's response, casting it in the worst possible light, and indulging in some invective editorialising, as is my wont as a paying customer of CA.
Well said Bhruic! ~:cheers:
I wonder if we could issue some sort of protest for whole disregard of the problem.
Like all unofficial forums chaning color to black for few days and adding problem in the news sectoion of their sites.
P.S.
Or it would be too risky (like CA staff not posting in such forums in the future)?
The evidence that DimeBagHo presented and you yourself Player 1 was absolutely staggering. What amazes me is that throughout all this, never once has CA ever provided any raw evidence to the contrary?! Their position is based solely on a theoretical premise of what the AI is supposed to do!
We've had no comment on why protectorates are always accepted on the first turn after loading a game?
We've had no comment on why no cities will change hands if the game is saved and and reloaded on each consecutive turn?
We've had no comment on why the AI expands at a perceived normal rate when no reloading is performed?
The evidence provided by the very simple steps that DimeBagHo and player1 took to prove otherwise has fallen on the deafest of ears! They have not answered any of the questions raised, rather they've simply reiterated what processes the AI goes through for making its decisions each turn, ones we're already very aware of. It simply does not add up.
Depends what you want. Yes, it would jeopardise the relationship with CA on these forums, but if you really feel they're making a big mistake in their handling of this problem (not 'feature' - this is a problem) then it's probably a good idea. Personally, I'm all in favour of some form of peaceful (ie categorically no flaming, spamming or other such idiocy) protest - just a simple thing like a temporary colour-change and a notice on the News page might be in order.
Only, of course, if the majority of the .org felt inclined to back such a measure.
Maybe some sort of poll is in order.
I'm for it, but only if both twcenter and org agree on it.
Bhruic, such a good post I'm going to honour it with a topic all of its own!
A poll isn't a bad idea at all.
Do the .org and TWC want to run with this?
Maybe so, but you are still bound by the rules of this forum and from what I've read in this thread today, those rules have been badly bruised if not out-and-out broken.Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Celt
And as for the official and unofficial comments made by CA patrons here and at .com being interpreted as "insulting our intelligence", just go back in these forums (and I'm sure others) months before RTW even came out to see who was insulting whose intelligence from that time period to the present. And today the CA patrons have been called liars and worse. Remember the saying: "when you point your finger at someone, three are pointing back at you."
Now to try to divert this to something more productive, there is an obvious disconnect between what players are seeing and what CA is. Do we know that we are comparing apples to apples? And I'm not refering to mods. Maybe CA is doing something different than the typical gamer that is causing them not to see the problem. Or maybe their work systems are not setup the same way our home systems are. Does the load/save happen at all difficulty levels? What about other game setting? Does it matter when you do the load game? By that I mean, loading from within a running campaign, exiting out to the main menu first, or completely exiting the game and restarting RTW. Are your saves made at the beginning of the turn or at the end of the turn (right before you click on "end turn")? Have you all compared system specs and configurations? Is there a common denominator there? I'm sure there are other variables to consider as well. Maybe by comparing notes you can pin-point the problem so that CA can reproduce the bug. It may also reveal a work around.
You can chose to sit around and whine for weeks on end or you can roll up your sleeves and try to nail down this bug.
[QUOTE=Captain Fishpants]...."But I'll try one more time: CA doesn't have a policy of ignoring its customers. People do come and read threads, both here and at .com, even if they don't reply to them. Given the negative reaction that I've received here (again), I can see why they wouldn't."
OMG. When RTW was first released, wasn't Captain Fishpants that sang the praises of the ORG and spoke of its importance in terms of the development of the series? Now he doesn't like the ORG because it gives him honest opinions that aren't heavily censored like the .COM?~:confused:
Users here aren't personally mad at Captain Fishpants, they are fed up with a game in dire need of a patch! Fix the game and the negative reaction will vanish.