Has anyone been to totalwar.com recently

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sik1977

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.

---

Yes, I'm aware of that. But that in no way addresses the issue of patch responsibility.

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'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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bhruic

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.

---

Shogun made a number of statements, some clearer than others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bhruic

I'd still like to see a definitive quote.

---

So would I, personally, so I could show it to those who didn't see it firsthand.

-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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by starkhorn

This is awful, truly awful. I can't understand how they are claiming that this isn't a bug. Almost as bad as when MikeB tried to blame the problem on the RTR mod.

...

---

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.

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":

Quote:

---

the BUG is YOU not the GAME.

---

by one of the Admin at the .COM forum

1. ruins CA's customer service reputation.
2. 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*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jambo

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jambo

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*

---

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...

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captain Fishpants

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.

---

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old Celt

Well, gee! One of your CA staff tells us that "YOU are the Bug", in response to proof that there is a problem

---

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:

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?

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...

---

And this quote shows that there will be no patches for this issue in RTW.

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).

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.

---

Of course! I see it now. The loading from saved game is a feature. It's the normal game that's bugged.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old Celt

Here is Shogun's post giving the definitive answer that Captain Fishpants didn't have the authority to give:

[snip]

Gee, the volunteer mods have the authority to issue official policy statements now, and the devs do not! Interesting...

---

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".

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old Celt

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.

---

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.

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.