Printable View
Turbo,
Yes, I think you are quite right. My assumption is we shall just have to pay for this to be fixed (hopefully) in the expansion, maybe in 2007, if history shows any trends :(
I must apologize to you personally, Turbo. I remember some heated debates in which I took CA's side in the past against you. It seems my defense was ill-advised, as doing the right thing is definitely not on the CA/Activision/Sega agenda, with regard to proper support. You were right, I was wrong.
Just to make this absolutely clear to me, tell me; they banned you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turbo
I hate to tell you but in business terms I'm almost sure that means CA actually has more resources. Both in resources and manpower. There programmers/ graphic designers and other categories have downtime wich means pay for no work. With multiple projects this reduces downtime for a group. This makes an employee have a bigger bang for the buck.
As far as being delayed. If they released an exp pack in June the gamers would be paying 30-40bucks for it. If it was released in December they could sell the expansion pack for 30-40 bucks. So doing the math the sooner they sell an exp pack, the sooner they can go onto another project and make more money. The difference in time is the means of the quality of the expansion pack, the more enjoyable the more they secure there future projects.
As far as the bug, be tactful and respectful in the e-mails. As dirty mail will just get deleted but an e-mail that states the problem and your disgust is more likely to be more appealing. Also do'nt request a patch or a response on thier plans from the bug.
The most tactical way I see to do this is spam them in a nice way. First start a thread on the siege bug petition.
Now tell everyone to title thier e-mails
RTW A.I. siege lifting bug
In the text write something like this but tell them to contain the exact words you widh the text to contain
The A.I.'s abilties are greatly reduced since the 1.2 patch and GREATLY reduces the challeng of gameplay
Short simple but gets to the point without implying any demands
What this also does is it does not flood them with various e-mails. Now more than likely all e-mails will get filtered due to the title..... but hopefully counted and will be much easier for them to handle.
Also request that noone sends more than 1 e-mail because they may also record adresses from, do not be a spamming idiot and just send them 1 e-mail as to be as respectable about this as possible.
Qvintvs,
No they did not ban me, they simply said that if I didn't like the way they ran things, I should post on other boards. Since they edited nearly all of the content from my post, it was impossible for anyone reading the edited version to even know what it was about.
@ Oaty:
I have been more respectful of the company, than they have been to me, by far. A simple question of a flawed product and what they intend to do about it deserves the courtesy of a MEANINGFUL response. If nothing can be done because Activision has the football, then just say so!
I know CA staff read the posts here. So, I must reach the conclusion that they tacitly approve of the silent treatment the customers are receiving in response to legitimate queries about what the company intends to do about this most serious of all discovered bugs in their product.
This makes no sense. SEGA has stated more than once that they purchased CA in order to move into PC gaming. I believe that to be true since SEGA has no need to buy a company that is making its first console game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turbo
The question of who are now the "core-customers" is a separate issue. In that regard, I've seen no evidence from the comments made by CA employees that the players who played STW and MTW continue to be the "core-customers". CA employees pay lip-service to that idea, but despite the (often abusive) denials, it looks as if RTW (and possibly the next TW game) is targeted toward the much more numerous RTS crowd.
SpencerH,
You don't think that consoles is the new direction for CA? Sega buys CA and boom, a console game is already in the works. Spartan Total War.
Regardless, the point I am trying to make is that the current core users are no longer strategic to CA. Whether they are focusing more on RTS or consoles is a moot point.
No problem Old Celt. I wish you had been right about CA supporting this product. I certainly have no satisfaction about right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Celt
The console has to have been "in the works" for years. It may have been a consideration in SEGA's decision but I believe them when they say they bought CA for the PC market.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turbo
That may be true, and time will tell. I'm hopefully optimistic that SEGA will allow CA the time and resources to actually finish the expansion prior to its release (unlike RTW itself). SEGA may also allow a 3rd patch. If they read whats happening at these sites they may demand one! That may be unlikely, but possible if one considers that SEGA may wish to end the "bad publicity" we generate over the unfinished nature of RTW.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turbo
I will only wait so long for Sega/CA to give the courtesy of a reply on the save game/reload bug. If they will not address the issue in a civil way, then I will write some e-mails describing the problem in detail, and how to reproduce it to some contacts I have at "a major pc gaming media outlet". Then, Sega/CA can have the inestimable pleasure of dealing with the attendant loss of credibility and future sales for their product.
The bottom line is: they sold something that was broken to their customers. The right thing to do is to fix any serious or critical bugs immediately, and at no cost to customers, just as Ford will fix my vehicle for free if it is shown to have a manufacturer's defect. It would be unreasonable to demand a fix for every imperfection observed in the game. It is however, perfectly reasonable to expect prompt support for serious and/or critical bugs which have been proven to exist.
Actually I was thinking on the same lines. I am going to be sending emails to Computer Gaming World and the other magazine in the hopes that I can raise the lack of support with them. I'll post the editor email addresses for other fed up users.Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Celt
What I don't like is general trend in gaming industry about patching policy.
Way too many publishers don't care.
And why would they, if just small % of people read forums.
If there was something like "bug police" colum in some computer magazine, where biggest offenders would be listed, I guess that policy would be changed in some time.
EDIT:
Wishful thinking...
Please do! I will be more than happy to send gaming magazines spa - I mean, long winded - I mean, informative messages about apathetic developers.
Here's to the memory of Looking Glass Studios!
Actually they are a big and rich company - they are now Sega.Quote:
Originally Posted by HeresiarchQin
I've run into this kind of situation before, with another game. Basically, it became a big game of "pass the buck". No one wanted to take responsibility for things. I ended up doing a lot of patching on the game myself.
The reality of the current situation is likely that CA won't do another patch unless they are funded, and Activision isn't going to fund another patch, especially since they've effectively lost CA. Sad for the end customers, but, then, very few companies actually care about us to begin with.
Bh
I'll probably get flamed for this, but British companies do have some odd ways of doing business.Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Celt
I recently went to the website of a British coy to buy a product, only to find a message which explained that everyone had gone on holiday for a couple of weeks and I would have to return later. This is not the first time this has happened to me with a Brit coy.
I find it pretty incredible that *everyone* at a company would have to go on holiday at the same time. A small owner-operated business, sure, but not a company with a number of employees. Sheesh, the least they could do was leave someone behind to keep processing orders while the rest were away!
There are also a lot of Brit companies that won't do business with you if you live overseas. I guess they're worried about making more money than they can handle or something.
Old Celt,
I was wondering what awful thing you said in the .com post that got you chastised and your entire post edited out.
I don't know where the post is, but apparently the SEGA rep said that patching RTW is CA's decision. The problem for CA must be whether or not to take the time out of the schedule to do another patch. CA has always followed a strategy of one major patch per release, and they try to catch all the major bugs in that one patch. However, RTW was released with a huge number of problems, and that overwhelmed the v1.2 patch effort so that some things were not caught such as the loadgame/siege problem which I suspect is just the tip of an iceberg of a problem with savegames.
CA is well aware of the loadgame/siege problem, but I've seen them follow a policy of no comment on outstanding bugs for four years. CA uses the core customer base to help identify bugs, but they don't answer to that base or even have a dialog with it. This is why you are allowed to report a bug at .com, but not allowed to ask if it will be fixed. If CA admits it's not going to be fixed or it has to wait for the add-on to be addressed, that's bad for marketing. Practically all the responses to criticism I see made by CA are damage control to minimize any negative impact on sales.
I can tell you that the Total War customer base that has been around here for four years is decimated. Good graphics has replaced good gameplay as the main selling point which makes gameplay less important in the scheme of things. All the people who I regularly played Total War with online for years have left for other games.
Yep Yuuki, pretty much sums up my experience since STW too! :|
Although I would say that both earlier games had the advantage of being smaller and less advanced projects. The bigger and bolder the project, the more likely the occurrence and prevalence of big bad bugs.
I had hoped that with the increasingly bolder projects, CA would lay aside their standard and rather mean 1-2 patch policy per release and adopt a patching policy more befitting the current project's needs. It seems that while the games are evolving at a staggering pace and with an increasing complexity, the level of customer support remains rooted in the past.
Sooner or later even CA will realise that there has to be careful balance maintained between both to be able to sustain a company with a satisfied customer base. Like Yuuki, I know many players of the older Total War titles that haven't yet purchased Rome or have become so disenchanted with the level of customer support for Rome, that the purchase of future TW titles will depend more heavily on the company intentions for post-release support rather than the titles themselves.
British companies are funny things. I wrote this about British service a couple of years ago.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/birmingham/stud...06/phono.shtml
Having found this Forum and the other at .COM over 2 years ago, it is clear from observation that the CA guys use the .COM forum as a passive information gathering device.
Any bug comment is a "no win" situation for them.
It is either going to happen or not and that has everything to do with the financial situation and not what the "hard core" board members want.
Well it is expected that companies need and want to make money. But unless you plan only for short term gain, you must build both quality products AND a reputation for good service. That's the reason Sears has done so well with Craftsman tools: they are top quality AND they are guaranteed for life. I personally witnessed an 84 year old man return a Craftsman socket that had split AFTER 62 YEARS OF SERVICE!! Sears didn't make any money on that exchange, but they built their reputation and word got around that they were steadfast behind their products. The result? Much more business because of dependability.
This GOTY business and such will be nothing more than "a flash in the pan" if word gets round that CA won't support their product and fix their obvious screwups. Yeah, it will cost them money, but that's what happens when you make mistakes and go to production that way. The fact is CA now has Sega and all their millions behind them, so there is no longer any excuse to cry poor as a reason to not hot patch the save game problem. Other, lesser companies correctly support their products, CA can do the same.
I think in some regards, the critical acclaim RTW has received from the usual media sources for game reviews is a pyrrhic victory. I would be surprised if any money in profit has actually been made for RTW when you consider how hideously over budget it must have been, given it was over 18 months late to production. Sega just needs to understand that they wouldn't be "throwing good money after bad" to finance an immediate effort to patch the game NOW, and thereby get back in the good graces of hard core players, and repair the damage to CA's reputation in the process.
In the “Loadgame-AI bug” thread at the .com, a CA staff member (TorquemadaUK) just commented on this issue. Surprisingly, CA does not even consider it a bug:
“Given that the player has no clue whether the AI plans to assault or starve out the settlement, what this is really saying is some seiges are lifted and some are not. Hence there is not a bug that causes all seiges to be lifted when a savegame is loaded. Sometimes the AI decides it's armies are needed elsewhere and it lifts a seige; sometimes it doesn't, and the seige is maintained - loaded savegame or just new turn.
Of course, as stated, it is perfectly legitimate to disagree with some of the AI decision-making, but that is an entirely separate discussion.”
:dizzy2:
It was nice of TorquemadaUK to respond, but it is obvious that CA still doesn't get it...they do not even understand the bug. ~:eek:
Open mouth... insert foot... ;)
this is the entire response:
For each faction, the AI generally makes an assessment each turn of the best use for all the forces it has available (whether a save game has been loaded or not). If it has armies engaged in a seige and it decides that those armies can be better used elsewhere, it will indeed lift the seige and move those armies to where it judges they are more needed. The player will often not be able to see why the seige has been lifted, as the fog of war will prevent the player from seeing the threat that the AI is responding to (unless the player themselves is that threat). This lifting of seiges happens within continuous play as well as after loading a savegame, and the AI also does maintain some seiges after loading a savegame. Now, it is perfectly reasonable to complain that the AI chooses to lift seiges too often, but this is not a savegame bug. In addition, it would not necessarily make the AI perform better to increase its tendancy to maintain armies in seiges they have initiated... it might well end up responding to threats less effectively overall. This is something that can be debated.
The fact that this is not the bug that it has been portrayed as is illustrated by the original post that began this whole thread. It says:
"At the end of any turn where you did a reload the AI factions will immediately lift any siege, *except* those sieges where the AI planned to starve out the settlement."
Given that the player has no clue whether the AI plans to assault or starve out the settlement, what this is really saying is some seiges are lifted and some are not. Hence there is not a bug that causes all seiges to be lifted when a savegame is loaded. Sometimes the AI decides it's armies are needed elsewhere and it lifts a seige; sometimes it doesn't, and the seige is maintained - loaded savegame or just new turn.
Of course, as stated, it is perfectly legitimate to disagree with some of the AI decision-making, but that is an entirely separate discussion.
I hope this helps... !
This was my response:
Wow!8o
a CA staff finally replied!! it seems they did lots of testing with it and arrived at that conclusion, gave my input earlier in the thread..and so i have a question to ask: How does the AI determine the next best alternative?? for e.g in my case and in most i believe, a carthage army sieging messana on scily with rest of scily conquered, no roman armies on fleets or land nearby, built rams to assault, then upon saving and reloading, lifted a siege and idled around the island without doing anything. You call this "next best alternative"??
how? i am very curious, and this is juz one of the many examples...perhaps insufficient playtesting in lieu of this bug was made...
p.s. next best alternative is my terminology for "AI generally makes an assessment each turn of the best use for all the forces it has available (whether a save game has been loaded or not). If it has armies engaged in a seige and it decides that those armies can be better used elsewhere, it will indeed lift the seige and move those armies to where it judges they are more needed"
yes in 3 words ;)
i think that some british gaming companies have the most innovative ideas and really do attempt to give gamers realism; take Sports Interactive, who made the Championship Manager series, who did in fact hire the fans that beta tested for them as games testers, and have an extensive repetoire of scouts who gather all information about foreign football leagues.
it is somewhat inevitable that, much like a new band with a small following, once a good thing gets bigger, it is never quite the same again. although i only joined the TW series at Rome: Total War, i share the annoyance of bugs going unfixed.
Thanks for posting the CA response.
This is illustrative of the smokescreen behavior CA will use to respond to legitimate issues. And also the little arrogant insult: "Since the player has NO clue..." (emphasis mine). Well, duh, if we lift the FOW and can clearly see what the threats are, I think we have quite the clue. How many cases have there been where people have demonstrated the bug by saving a game, playing out a few more turns to watch the AI finish the siege, then reloading that save and watching the AI break it off at end of turn immediately thereafter? The CA staff does us no favors in assuming we have the mental power of a load of rutabagas! It really galls me that CA will make use of the thousands of hours of free beta testing they get on their finished product, then insult the people who provide data on the flaws!
The devil is in the details. Yeah, no doubt the AI assesses threats each turn, and in some cases, legitimately needs to lift the siege for its own good. But loading a save somehow overrides the planned actions the AI had in the previous game session. It's pretty obvious that when the AI builds 5 rams in a siege on wooden walls, it plans to assault the next turn. To have it fail to do that ONLY when the game is loaded from a save is proof of the bug when you consider the example test I cited above. Whether the actual bug is caused by poor assessment, or by a total reset of variables is a problem for CA to figure out, but the presence of broken code is a given.
The key to defining inappropriate activity as a bug is that it has no basis in logic (true in this case), is repeatable for all users with the version in question (true in this case), and that it definitively effects the performance in a negative way (true again).
CA's response to the load/save bug is an attempt to sweep it under the table. It is evident that they have no intention of doing any further patches.
Wait for their Official RTW Expansion...
RTB - Rome Total Bug ~:joker: ~:joker: ~:joker:
unsolved ones I mean ~:)
well, torquemadaUK's latest "response" is the last straw for me. unless ignorant and inconsiderate fools like that are fired immediately, i have no intention whatsoever of paying for the expansion, even if this bug is fixed. who knows what new bugs will pop up, and what guarantee is there that those will ever be fixed? it seems pretty obvious by now that they won't. sites like gamecopyworld exist because there is a demand for them. that demand exists because people don't want to pay money for an unsupported, non-refundable yet defective product. i could easily have downloaded RTW, but i didn't. i wanted to support what i initially thought was something that deserved it. well, now i've learned from my mistake. CA can no longer be trusted. screw them.
Hi guys,
This is my first post here at this forum. I am an old member at the 'official' .com and know some of the members here (some with different handles i can recognise as well).
So hello to tai4ji2x, Puzz3D, Red Harvest, Aphex (Old Celt?) and the rest.
I actually just came here to check the reaction of the rest of the community on the recent post by TorqUK on the .com forum. I have already posted in the relevent thread and tried to politely engage the said CA rep to test this bug. However, it is rather disappointing that after all this time, when CA decided to post, they posted such rubbish. It was better they didn't post at all.
Anyhow, it does indicate that there won't be a hotfix for this bug coming out soon, otherwise such a naive post by CA staff wouldn't have been made.
Whats more amazing is that some people would continue to argue in favour of this bug not existing without testing it first. DimeBagHo has done a good job in the Loadgame Ai Bug thread, and tries to convince the nay-sayers to test before saying the 'bug isnt there or they haven't noticed it', but people do not wish to consider what some players are going through (not being able to play or enjoy the game because they can't have marathon sessions).
Just wanted to get this off my chest i suppose. One has to be more diplomatic on the .com forums. Can't tell the morons that they are morons there.
Anyway, good day to all.