Printable View
I just bought the game this past weekend and was surprised to see so little activity/posting on the org.
I was aware the reception was lukewarm at best from many org members due to them breaking with historical based game play, but there is almost zero activity here on this game.
So far I have enjoyed it, much more so than R2TW or Attila. Anyone else going to give it a shot?
The orgs kinda light on people who browse the new TW titles. I myself am down in the Arena almost 90% of the time I'm on here.
I have played Warhammer and I do really enjoy it. I wish there was an army painter/customizer like the shogun mp avatar campaign map. I think this game also could have been a fantastic re-release of that mp style.
I love playing as the Empire with VC a super close second. (I really think they just need a little more cav or flying or something to really cover that bit of ground due to no ranged.)
That makes sense Veho. Thanks for the reply. After I complete my Empire campaign I was deciding between the VC or Chaos, and your comment was the tiebreaker to try the VC.
That is because the latest TW titles have stunk and CA is alienating their fan base. If they put out a good TW titles, you will see me on it like stink on crap.
This probably won't come as a surprise to you, not everyone agrees with you, and while your statement is written as if it was a fact, it is of course just your opinion.
Additionally, there's no correlation with the quality of CA games and how dead the org is, the org has been dead for years, whereas the main TW forum and TWCenter march along as busy as ever. You'll need to look for other causes on that score.
The Org always appealed to a different type of fan. TW Center attracts a lot of modern gamers and casual gamers, while the Org was always home to more mature TW gamers. I think the type of gamer the Org attracts is not reacting to the new TW titles the way they used to with the old.
The situation isn't much better in twcenter. Warhammer fandom is more in Warhammer than anywhere else.
The factors you mention probably pay a more important role in new releases like Rome II and Attila.
Warhammer is too casual for even twcenter.
Could be, my take is the basic game concept CA has been pedaling for 15 years is a bit played out. Anyone and everyone who ever had any interest in it has seen it and played it, over and over again. Fifteen years is a long life for making the same game repeatedly and getting people to buy it, so I'd say kudos to CA for such a long run (the only corollary I have any experience with is Combat Mission by Battlefront, they've been making the same game over pretty much the same timeframe and their hardcore fans keep buying it).
Hard for me not to assume branching out to Warhammer and making other genre games than historical TW are a reflection of CA acknowledging they better find either some new life in the same game concept or find entirely new things to make.
I disagree with you. They really changed their concept and started going REALLY casual. Rome did it a bit. Empire a bit more. Both of those also expanded the depth in many other areas though. Shogun II started the downward slide toward arcadism. It is that trend that is killing TW. I am not buying the new TW games. I would buy the sh*t out of one that was a return to their roots (I still play the old ones all the time), and I am not alone. There is a huge market for serious strategy games, but they are ignoring it.Quote:
Originally Posted by easytarget
I would say the fall off of MP support has much to do with the decline here. Yes, the Org was more about hard-core players rather than casual console cross-overs, but folks came here to get a game with other players. Now they go to Steam....:shrug:
Core game mechanic is the same. You're just making the typical TW fan "I've been playing them since Shogun released" argument about dumbing down for casuals we've all heard a thousand times. Me, I'll apply occam's razor and look for the simpler more obvious explanation, they've been doing the shame shit for 15 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
And I find the suggestion laughable there is or ever has been a huge market for "serious strategy games".
But you are wrong there easytarget in so many ways that I would think it would not need explanation. Apparently it does.Quote:
Originally Posted by easytarget
Let me start by saying that just because an argument has been made many times does not mean that argument is invalid. In fact, many of the best arguments in the world have been made millions of times by millions of people.
Second, how can you say that Total War is not shifting its focus from trying to be as realistic, serious of a simulation as possible to being more of a casual game?
The faction bonus, the character bonuses, the RPG element, the new fantasy setting, etc, etc, etc. At their core, current TW games barely resemble older TW games, and that is not a good thing.
And don't get me wrong, it is not that I do not like change. RTW was a massive improvement over previous titles (despite dumbing a few elements down); I said that then and I say that now.
Medieval II saw some improvements over RTW, so it was a tiny step forward.
Along comes Empire and it is a total disaster. My beefs with that game was that it was not complete, was bugged as hell, moved toward the DLC trap, and really suffered from being not modder friendly. I hated the game at the time. After literally years of being patched though, I consider the game it is in its current state to be a massive advancement. It still got us into the slippery slope of DLC, it was still not that modder friendly, and it still was dumbed down in a few areas, but for the most part it added depth and made the simulation more realistic and put more control into the hands of the players.
Then came Napoleon and laid the blueprint for the doom of CA games. They really messed up and hurt their reputation with Empire, but it turned out a solid game in the end. Napoleon on the other hand really made a push toward the casual crowd that the series has never recovered from. They added the stupid RPG stuff, the special abilities, took away control from the player, etc, etc.
Shogun II was more of the same. It took the casual push of Napoleon even farther and majorly dumbed down game mechanics to take an incredible amount of control out of the player's hands.
RTW II was the same type of half-baked release disaster as Empire, but instead of turn out to be a good game in the end like Empire did, it turned out to be more of a progression into the world of casual gaming garbage.
Don't get me started on the complete joke that is Total War Hammer, or Hammered Total War, or whatever the heck they are calling it.
The truth is that there is a big audience for realistic war simulations. The success of the Total War franchise is proof of that. Is it as big as the market for Pokemon Go or Angry Birds? No, but it is loyal and there is very little competition. Total War can own the market and be a huge success if they stick true to their real fanbase. Casual games don't want a casual game that is mixed with strategy, because it is not casual enough. Serious gamers don't want a strategy game that is mixed with casual gaming bull because it is too casual. CA is shooting itself in the foot with what it is doing, and the state of these forums is proof of that. I don't buy modern TW. I could see what RTWII was turning out to be just by the trailers. If CA was to put out a realistic true-to-their-roots strategy game with all the added depth that modern technology would make possible, me and so many like me would come flocking back to throw our money at them.
Unfortunately I think that they will not learn their lesson till they go out of business. They think that we serious gamers are a demographic that is dying off. They forget that most of us got interested in this stuff when we were kids, and there are always new kids getting interested in it. They can grow their fanbase only by playing to it, not shunning it.
In some ways yes, in others no. Graphics made a big improvement with the new game engine, but game-play sucked (IMHO) because there was no corresponding increase in the quality of the AI which had great difficulty with the new 3-D map, and was too predictable with its' battlefield tactics.Quote:
RTW was a massive improvement over previous titles
And this is where CA really blew it, IMHO. I can remember my experiences with NeverWinterNights. Bioware actually sponsored/encouraged contests for original mods based on their game, many of which were as good or better than the original. It's all those dozens and dozens of NWN mods that I still have that keep me playing the game several times per year.Quote:
...and really suffered from being not modder friendly
Baldurs Gate is a similar story. The G3 Forum is still a viable and active community today because of all the extensive mods that continue to be done years after the original release.
It'd be interesting to see how much of the traffic here at the .org is in the modding forums:shrug:
Vuk,
You wrote a wall of text I certainly won't bother reading, suffice it to say you might want to wrap your brain around the concept of what an opinion is vs a fact, you have the two badly confused.
P.S. Feel free to write as many walls of text in the future as you like, got you on ignore now.
lol, I think someone certainly doesn't understand the concepts of friendly discussion and opinion. :P
I agree with you completely. For the most part RTW didn't take any steps backward, but many steps forward. That said however, I agree that some basic changes to the core AI should have been done then, at that vital stage before the engine got more and more complex, and changing it became harder and harder. Their AI does the exact same, stupid, unrealistic and confusing garbage in their new games that they have done since the beginning. They never took the time to go back and rework the basics, and it gets more impractical to do so with each release. That was definitely a missed opportunity in every game.Quote:
Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai
I also agree about the modding. I don't think I have actually played any TW game more than 2-300 hours, yet I have clocked thousands of hours on some of them because of the time I have been testing the mods I have worked on. When I have played them, it was usually one of my mods or one of someone else's. Mount and Blade is one of the only franchises out there that still gets how important modding support is. Most games I currently play are older games because of all the mods. I'd love to have new ones to play, but the industry ignores gamers like me. M&B Bannerlord will be on my Steam account the minute it is released, because they still give a darn. I really cannot think of any other modern games coming out that I am excited for.
Oh yea, Bethesda still has lots of modding support too...I forgot them. I don't particularly care for most of their games, but I still end up buying them for the mods. :P
Total Warhammer is the best TW title in my opinion. The game is polished, runs well, looks great, add significantly strategy to battles and have very few bugs. That being said, it has some serious problems that keep it from being a great game, but it is still a very good one.
As easytarget mentioned though, other genres have improved by leaps and bounds though and that is dealing damage to the TW player base. You can only do the hammer and anvil in TW so many times against an incompetent AI before you get bored and want to play a multiplayer game that has some semblance of balance, which TW has never offered.
But this forum is dead because Rome 2 killed it. It was and is a terrible game.
Agreed about Rome 2. They really dropped the ball on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by fallen851
An indicator for how broad the serious gamer base is can be found in the stats page on steam achievements (for Rome 2 in particular); in particular the part that deals with number of campaigns completed; and the number of campaigns completed on the hardest difficulty settings. To cut to the chase, the stats are not encouraging. Most Rome 2 owners have not completed a single campaign (note, that, in Rome 2, you can get the achievement by completing just the short campaign requirements). The number of people who have completed a legendary campaign is less than 1% (I believe, it was significantly less than 1% but have not checked that page in more than a year).
Also, there used to be a stat for the number of people who complete more than 100 turns (or something like it). The stat for this was less than 50% when I last looked.
I must admit that I never played Rome 2, but I have heard mainly negative things about it, but what you have said there I never expected to hear, especially how few people had completed 100 turns.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slaists
Those stats are on par with stats for other TW games (and probably other games too). Hard-core players are a minority among the horde of regular "buyers". Majority just buy a game, give it a spin for a few days and move on to the next thing. That is the explanation why the games are designed to have an engaging "opening" and then, boring mid and late-game. Most of the developer time is spent on those starting turns that majority of buyers will see.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frazzle-G
Actually, I found the current achievement page. I was overly optimistic in my recollection:
http://steamcommunity.com/stats/214950/achievements
70% of the buyers have completed 1 h of gameplay (implying 30% did not)
20 campaign turns have been completed by about 50% of the game owners (implying 50% did not get that far)
100 campaign turns have been completed only by 36% of the game owners...
Winning a military campaign (any difficulty), seems to be the most popular approach (to winning), is stated to have been achieved by around 11% of the game owners.
Completed a campaign on Hard Difficulty - 4.2%.
Completed a campaign on Very Hard Difficulty - 2.2%.
Completed a campaign on Legendary Difficulty - 1.1%.
P.S. I purposely picked a TW game that has been out for a while, so has both, the initial crowd and late-buyers accounted for.
A bit unfair, as in that sense any 3D tactical simulator is the same game over and over.Quote:
Originally Posted by easytarget
I've only ever played the original (WW2) trio, but by all accounts their rebooted engine has plenty to recommend it. Fans keep buying because these are niche products anyway, as with most military tactical/strategic sims. That shouldn't be surprising. Battlefront, Shrapnel Games, HPS Sim, and Matrix Games/Slitherine (though they're the most mainstream) all do this, along with a few small super-obscure developers.
Certainly, assuming their current engine keeps steady this thing -
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
could be the only playable product today for post-Cold War European battle.
I knew that many people would buy it just for a spin, but that many! Honestly I'm both surprised and almost a little disappointed. I have never disagreed with CAs dlc policy for tww but this makes me even sympathetic to their cause, it seems that they really have to work super hard just to get people to play the game, let alone buy it.
It's rather the other way around: to optimize efforts, CA just needs to focus their attention on the starting 100 turns (for each faction) or even less because the majority of buyers won't bother playing farther anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frazzle-G
Not sure how that changes my point, both series have been making basically the same game over about the same period. As for their rebooted engine, meh, I own and play all of them, it's ok. There's free demos of all of them, so not like you can't see for yourselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
What is well and truly amusing though about Battlefront is their game forum (to return back to the topic of the thread), it suffers from one of the worst cases of Stockholm syndrome I've ever witnessed, it is really and truly a sight to behold. To use the term fanboi to describe their customer base doesn't come close to doing justice to the incest at work between developer and consumer there. I'd take the dead of this place over that any-day.
Certainly the point doesn't hold for market saturation in the latter case, is what I said. Unless you're making some deeper argument regarding design and aesthetic?Quote:
Not sure how that changes my point, both series have been making basically the same game over about the same period.
Hi I've been playing Total war since 2002, I've won a little more than a dozen campaigns in that time. I'm talking all TW games published (minus Napoleon, Fall of the Samurai, and Warhammer). It's such a slog I rarely bother to finish. Doesn't mean I don't enjoy it, it's just that even 100 turns is a lot once you get going.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frazzle-G
Yes, but you probably have way more than 100 turns logged with each of the games. That stat (of 100 turns) is across all factions (for the respective game). Also, nowadays (with the lastest titles), it is much easier to get a campaign completed achievement since also minor victories count.Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
And you'd be quite wrong. I can get bored after as little as 50 turns.
Yeah this is kind of weird. I was excited about the game because total war and whee and I have literally no clue about warhammer in general but I don't mind fantasy type games. The funny thing is... Warhammer TW sucks as a TW game but it's beautiful because fantasy lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crandar
Nah, there's no hidden meaning here, I'm really just saying both companies have made a living off of making the same game for 15 years. I guess I should be congratulating them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Probably true enough, but I would guess their marketing gurus have statistics at the ready to show who is likely to buy their games. I'm not sure though, that you can draw the conclusion that interest in this forum has suffered as a result of CA's marketing strategy.:shrug:Quote:
Casual games don't want a casual game that is mixed with strategy, because it is not casual enough. Serious gamers don't want a strategy game that is mixed with casual gaming bull because it is too casual. CA is shooting itself in the foot with what it is doing, and the state of these forums is proof of that
I still contend that weak multi-player support, and downgrading the ability to mod their games in a significant way in favor of DLC lies at the root. Back in the day of S1/M1, there was a huge following at the .org of folks that craved the challenges of multi-player. Playing other humans is always more challenging/fun than playing vs the AI. Spending hours and hours slogging through a campaign wasn't necessary...you fought a single battle, whether 1vs1, 2vs2, etc., and you moved on to another battle.
Through my own personal experiences, and what I've seen from other game developers, being able to significantly modify a game keeps interest fresh, and modders happy. Some of my favorite NWN games were done by modders (some of which were extensive 4 or 5 part series). Bioware actually encouraged modding by hosting competitions:idea2: The venerable Baldurs Gate still has a significant following (as evidenced by the activity at the G3 Forum) more than 15 years after its' initial release because of the extensive mods and character development.
Just my 2cents....
I must disagree. There has never been a huge MP following for any Total War game. Never. I've been here since the first acorn fell, and this story of a Golden Age of Total War multiplayer nirvana is a myth. There were a couple of dozen (at best) very vocal MP players on this site who generated enough smoke to simulate a mighty conflagration from what amounted to a little campfire.Quote:
Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai
Perhaps MP was more popular relatively speaking in at some point in the past, but it was a sideshow, and a wee tiny one at that.
Quote:
There has never been a huge MP following for any Total War game. Never.
Perhaps...perhaps not. The numbers tell a different story.Quote:
There were a couple of dozen (at best) very vocal MP players on this site who generated enough smoke to simulate a mighty conflagration from what amounted to a little campfire.
STW/MTW MP together here at the .org combined for more threads (2,008) and posts (34,870) than all the rest of the TW MP games combined (1,725 threads---28,855 posts). Rome2 and Attila, while granting that they don't have the benefit of time to add to their numbers, have a paltry 13 MP threads, and 262 MP posts.
So in roughly a 4-5 year period, STW/MTW generated more forum MP traffic than all other TW titles did in a 12 year period starting with R1's release in 2004.
A couple of dozen very vocal MP players indeed!~:eek:
Posts in the Modding sub-forums tell a similar story. STW/MTW has 3,628 threads and 48,938 posts; R2/M2 has 8,306 threads and 67,249 posts; every other title combined has 262 threads and 1,335 posts.
Whether you wish to call MP a "wee tiny" contributor or not, the fact remains that the number of folks here posting about their MP experiences has fallen steadily since the STW/MTW era, and is almost now non-existent. The same trend exists in the modding forums, where the fall-off in the number of posts is even more severe.Quote:
Perhaps MP was more popular relatively speaking in at some point in the past, but it was a sideshow, and a wee tiny one at that.
Both trends, while certainly not the only reasons, have contributed to the decline in the number of active members.
Fair enough. I still don't believe that the numbers represent "a huge following" in any meaningful sense, though. Regardless of how much posting went on, only a small percentage of purchasers bothered with MP. Certainly the activity then was greater than our traffic now. This is an Org problem, of course, not a CA/Total War issue. When Rome arrived, so did TWC where the game was received with far greater interest than here at the Org. This was the beginning of the Org's decline, IMO. Prior to TWC, the Org was it for no holds bared game critique/discussion. It was the publishers site or us, pretty much.Quote:
Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai
BTW, your response represents something that for sure was huge around here, and that is class. It represents exactly the sort of thing that put us on the map and kept us viable for so long.
A very valid point. I am not contending that MP and modding are the only reasons for the .org's decline. It may indeed be the rise of TWC, or it may be as easytarget has suggested that the TW series has run it's course, or both, and players have moved on to other games:shrug:Quote:
When Rome arrived, so did TWC where the game was received with far greater interest than here at the Org. This was the beginning of the Org's decline, IMO.
Could it be that new players mostly go to .com, steam forums and reddit nowadays? Looking at the sales figures, total war series is far from dying. Warhammer has broken sales record for the franchise?Quote:
Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai
Could be:shrug: If that's the case, then it's the fault of The ORG for not doing something to attract those players to come here. I would certainly not point fingers at anyone, as I realize that ORG staffers have real lives to deal with, and hosting a MP server takes lots of time and probably cash along with it...:creep:
As companies have got wise to the internet and online communities there has been a trend away from large fan-sites to boards administered by the company itself.
Take a Look at the Paradox Interactive boards for an example.
A big draw for the Org in the early years was that the Devs posted here, now they basically don't.
We're just obsolete, is all.
I might as well say it here… I'll try to be brief...
To me, it looks like its primarily the Org-administration self who has - unintentionally, yet decisively - made this site obsolete and severely crippled. This more significantly and more persistently then anything else that comes to mind in regards to all this. It is things like the administration losing focus and not standing firm on what the site is actually about and was originally about, and what it should be about. It is how the core-values and fundamental priorities have been changed, screwed up and skewed to a fault. Its how these newer priorities were formed, the supposed grounds for it, the reasons for it - and the often strange and backwards logic behind it. Its the too many bad choices made, the too many poor practices used, the too many stupid doctrines and policies stubbornly enforced, the too many bad actions and destructive changes allowed. Its the continuous presence of wishful thinking and screwed up ideas and notions – being left unchecked and unquestioned. Or what happened if scrutiny and healthy perspectives was even attempted, and how it was then ignored and overruled by the administration (unless it was favourable) – this time and time again. Ever playing the trusty "admin-wins" card, as soon as their arguments ran out or was clearly lacking, or simply fell apart. And all of this, for far too long (several years), and with far to too little reversal, if any at all. That's my take...
Yes, it is possible that I could be wrong or even unfair on some note or detail in all this, but I doubt it. Its also possible I forgot to mention some vital part. Regardless, I can totally imagine that this post will not sit well with site-management, that is, assuming they actually bother to ever read it, but I doubt that too. They have showed little or no interest and desire to actually listen to me or others like me, on all this, if they had, they would have done so long time ago… They have not (with little exception)… Anyhow, I expect that the local “party-faithfuls” will try their best to scramble and screw up the overall message here or the general idea of this post. Hating it for all the wrong reasons… Utterly squandering the intended point of it all. This I don’t doubt, or at least I would not be surprised.
All the same, how exactly is this site to ever somehow improve if we can’t even begin openly
recognize, examine and discuss the problem? Or what is causing it? It isn’t RTW2 (or some
other sorry game), you can all be sure about that.
- A
Axalon, you sound like a player on sports team saying that his managers and coaches aren't doing what it takes to win while at the same time failing to note a single specific complaint or solution. We need ideas. Believe me when I say that the staff has exhaustively flogged this horse to death and beyond.
Referring to Backroom antics, or something else? I would venture a guess that a large portion of the daily Org traffic is there:shrug:Quote:
Its how these newer priorities were formed, the supposed grounds for it, the reasons for it - and the often strange and backwards logic behind it. Its the too many bad choices made, the too many poor practices used, the too many stupid doctrines and policies stubbornly enforced, the too many bad actions and destructive changes allowed.
Alright, lets use the sports-analogy then… (Sorry for being lengthy, its a lot of details... )Quote:
Originally Posted by Nelson
True, I don’t think that management is doing what it takes to ”win”. Or even that it is (currently) willing too. Or have a clue about what it takes to “win”, or even how it is done. The most obvious signs that suggest this are the way how management just carries on as if it was raining, focusing on seemingly unimportant things, and insisting upon the same old, and failed game-plan, that we already know won’t work, and that will just damage the team/(site) even more. This for several consecutive years now… In fact, management offers us little or no alternative, support, facilities and dedicated areas for us to build and work on. Nah, all that goes (yet again) for the latest game only. Management cant afford us that, “too big index, totally can’t have that. That is way more important then provide grounds and reasons for people to come and visit this place” or to support the people that already do - something along those lines. Its utterly screwed up… And I already pointed that out several years ago, multiple times, to little effect…
I also think that management persists in thinking in terms of “Org-community” as one supposed homogenous “team”/group - its not. Or even views the TW-community as a homogenous group of people - its not. These notions are just inadequate, obsolete and lazy oversimplifications that we could do without. As it is, both are highly heterogeneous, and get increasingly so, for each and every new game-release and year. The very idea of a TW-community might have functioned - well enough - back in 2000-2005, but it does not in 2016. Same thing applies to the “Org-community”…
There are so many and different TW-games these days that they no longer can seriously serve as a common enough ground to build a sense of actual community around, its merely a poor and lazy catch-phrase to cover it all. That role has been effectively transferred to each individual game or activity (of choice). The games are different, and so are the people that play them. Some folks prefer TW-X while others are totally into TW-Y yet both are dubbed TW-games. Management has completely failed to consider, let alone act on this. And TW-X will always serve as a much stronger force of generating a sense community because it provides much more common ground between its players then the umbrella-concept of TW ever will.
The reality here is that we have micro-communities, clustered around a single game or activity (of choice) - and that we will continue get more and more of these, as more games are released. Its also possible that individual might select to be active in more then one micro-community at a time, but we can not, and should not force it. Regardless, management has failed to grasp any of this, and as result done nothing as to adjust this site to this reality. And I can guarantee that recognizing and adapting fully to the concept of micro-communities will somehow be required element in order to secure that “win” for this place. Most visitors come here for the games, specific games and/or activities. If this place can not attractively enough cater too and offer sexy enough stomping grounds for that, it will lose that visitor. ...As is exactly what has happened here. Over, and over, and over again… For years, this has been allowed to go on… Anyhow, enough of sports-mode…
I do believe that you believe so… All the same, had that actually been true and you really had exhaustively worked each serious/viable idea and angle - we would not be here in the first place. We are here because staff/administration have NOT exhausted every possibility and idea, but persisted in using the same old losing formula and game-plan for several years. I am sorry to say it, but there it is…Quote:
Originally Posted by Nelson
Add to that, staff have had stubborn and stupid old practice of primarily relying on internal staff discussion for various important stuff in general for the site - hidden away - from the site-members which it typically concerns and who will be clearly and directly influenced by the results and actions of those closed discussions. It’s a bad habit and it has probably been allowed to happen far more then is good for this site. I am NOT saying that no attempts for public discussions and consultations has been attempted, but I am saying that it is clear that they have not be done to a sufficient degree, or honestly enough, or often enough, or given the the weight neccesary, as to achieve better results for this site in general. Its simple really… If you lack, ideas or perspectives you go external (to the members) and hear them out. Some damn ideas are sure to turn up. Some ideas are better then no ideas. The only problem here is that staff did not like the ideas that did came up, and so management ignored them (like the site index and so on)… And here we are…
- A
Something else… Like…Quote:
Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai
In reality we have 2 out of 7 sections on the index that between themselves somehow deals in some 10-11 TW-games (and some of that TW-marketing-ploy-stuff too. Hi Arena!), and 1 section that deals in hosted major mods/alterations, for ALL TW-games, and 1 section that deals in ALL abandoned previously hosted mods, this for ALL TW-games. At the same time, we have three full sections dedicated for stuff that is not TW-related, to deal with god knows what. 3 full sections on the index… All TW-games got 2… All TW-Mods/alterations this including all the abandoned ones, got 2… ALL side-stuff, off-topic, community-blabla, all non-TW things get 3! That is the reality here...
I have zero problems with all that off-topic, non-TW, community-stuff as such - we can totally keep that around (for all those who wants that). What I do have problems with, is how all that is being elevated to the supposed primary focus, purpose and attraction of this site. This while TW in general, and it the individual TW-games in particular, are being clearly demoted to a near side-show status. It is utterly screwed up, especially for a site that is supposed to be dealing in TW-games, and who built its name and brand by dealing in TW-games - not the latest TW-game, not some off-topic fleeting blabla. It WAS a fan-site for TW-enthusiasts in general and its micro-communities around each game in particular. That is what this place used to be about. That is what this site should still be about, and this site should provide the infrastructure and areas for it. Yet it don’t. As it used to do, in the past, on the index, and beyond. Screw that there are more TW-games released now, its no real excuse. The size of the index should not get to dictate who is to feel welcome here, or be an excuse as to dismantle the rational and natural coverage of TW-games - as has been essentially the case. Or dictate what we all are supposed to be interested in - let us decide that for ourselves. Let us tailor the index how we like and see fit, individually, do not try to force us to use it in your certain preferred damned way...
I was rather thinking about such stuff... And other things...
- A
Quote:
I also think that management persists in thinking in terms of “Org-community” as one supposed homogenous “team”/group - its not. Or even views the TW-community as a homogenous group of people - its not.
This. Got me to thinking that back in the "day", there were only two games for folks to discuss/play/rant about/mod etc. With each release of a game, more players split off into their favorites. Many newcomers have never even played the original STW/MTW but with the newer updates from Steam etc., that could change if promoted. I don't care for 19th century warfare (except for the ACW), and so I never bothered to purchase ETW/NTW. I'm sure this liking/disliking a particular era of warfare is true for a number, if not most, of the players who visit here.Quote:
As it is, both are highly heterogeneous, and get increasingly so, for each and every new game-release and year. The very idea of a TW-community might have functioned - well enough - back in 2000-2005, but it does not in 2016. Same thing applies to the “Org-community”
Quote:
The reality here is that we have micro-communities, clustered around a single game or activity (of choice) - and that we will continue get more and more of these, as more games are released.
Over the last 6-8 months I've been watching the ebb and flow of active members and the number of new members joining. We seem to have around 2-4 new members join each week (someone with a better handle on this number can correct me if I'm wrong). Where are they? Do they just post a few times, and disappear? I can remember a time when a new member stuck around (primarily in the RTW Forum) to contribute campaign AAR's, additions to the Guides, or some other consistent posting subject.Quote:
And I can guarantee that recognizing and adapting fully to the concept of micro-communities will somehow be required element in order to secure that “win” for this place. Most visitors come here for the games, specific games and/or activities. If this place can not attractively enough cater too and offer sexy enough stomping grounds for that, it will lose that visitor.
Amen.:2thumbsup:Quote:
What I do have problems with, is how all that is being elevated to the supposed primary focus, purpose and attraction of this site. This while TW in general, and it the individual TW-games in particular, are being clearly demoted to a near side-show status. It is utterly screwed up, especially for a site that is supposed to be dealing in TW-games, and who built its name and brand by dealing in TW-games - not the latest TW-game, not some off-topic fleeting blabla. It WAS a fan-site for TW-enthusiasts in general and its micro-communities around each game in particular. That is what this place used to be about. That is what this site should still be about, and this site should provide the infrastructure and areas for it. Yet it don’t. As it used to do, in the past, on the index, and beyond.
I'm new, I joined around July last year and have participated in most if not all threads concerning to warhammer, I even started my own thread which was a rather comprehensive strategy guide.
Bit of cross-promotion, but it would be useful to drop in some ideas here - https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...-Org-Promotion
In short, TWC and the official fora has taken most of the traffic, because they appeal to the casual gamers as outlined. The Org has been more for the veteran TW players, but even during RTW and M2TW days, the place was very very active. The difference started with ETW, which was panned by players and it recovered slightly with Shogun 2 TW (a lot of old players returned) but then it went downhill again with player disappointment over R2TW. (I liked R2TW...)
Perhaps bringing back older players and attracting the new ones will help revive this place. :yes:
For me lack of activity here is mainly that Warhammer & Attilla setting/periods don't do anything for me.
.org kinda died back in Rome1 time period, most of the modding activity happened over at twcenter & has remained there.
I never joined there but I certainly lurk.
I think a lot of new players don't know of the .org & stick to official .com.
I also disagree that Rome2 was really that bad.
Launched state yes but patched it mostly works pretty well.
Fundamentally they have a comprehensive list of factions with good unit rosters well modelled & a bunch of functional fixes to issues from the 3D map.
Org during the Rome 1 period was very very active, I joined during that time and this place was overflowing. Threads and posts every other refresh click. M2TW as well, going strong. :yes:
It was active but the rise of twcenter started in that period, its when the .org started to decline.
There was a large enough, relevant and growing following of MP during the STW/MTW era which was effectively killed off with RTW(1) and later game design.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nelson
As for modding, it was neutered by the CA themselves, not any fan forums. Not this forum. I remember .org hosting mods and assigning the modding project leaders as forum moderators for their own forums - not sure what more it could have done? Then I remember restrictions appearing during the "steam era" (don't know when, I was long past bored by then).
This forum in particular simply stagnated and went into decline under the previous administration - that's not the current administration's fault and there's actually nothing much they can do except keep the doors open/lights on in the forum they inherited.
We can dwell on past mistakes forever - the main one being that the forum used to be run by the staff, for the staff and that moderating and micromanaging every part of forum life was more important than just hanging out and having fun. Several years ago there were more than 5 moderators on the backroom and talking about and managing the backroom and various characters within it was "running the forum" in itself.
The .org went in the wrong direction when it focused on this, on "senior members" on "awards" on offtopic sections and the "gameroom" and forgot about it's origins and why it came into being. This was because, like me, most of the old staff and most importantly the administration were bored of or disliked TW games beyond STW/MTW. There was none of the enthusiasm of exuberance of TWC. TWC rose out of this as others have pointed out. But unfortunately there was no will at all to just retire and hand over to the next generation.
In later years, no amount of promotion, "content creation" or other remedial efforts would ever reverse this.
I told .org staff many years ago that the forum was all about the members + TW, not the "forum" (software) or about "managing people". But even back then most were resigned to the fact that this site would die and the TWC would grow. At the time, the only way they could see forward was to implement more forum bells whistles and toys and focus on offtopic and "mafia" games and perhaps consider diversification away from TW.
That's the past - there's no one left to blame for this and it's also so far in the past that it's both stupid and pointless to apportion blame anyway.
Someone mentioned longevity of other old games. It's true that many old games got continued support and lived on in some way or other. Some became free, source was released, etc. When it comes to STW/MTW, the CA would not even release patches to get the games to run on new OS with newer hardware. The STW and MTW forums lost most of it's players from 2004 onward due to people not actually being able to play the games anymore. But now of course you can buy the patch for the game you've already paid for on steam... it only took just over a decade. STW/MTW were precisely the kind of timeless games which could have lived on because they were in every way "cult" games with this kind of, sometimes fanatical, following.
But ultimately a site based on TW has to follow the whims of the CA. In my opinion the games became mediocre at best. If the games had maintained the class of STW/MTW with the enhancements of the later games, there would be enough traffic for 3 forums. This is simply because there would be different demographics playing the games - i.e. older players like myself would still be around. I never "signed up" for fancy graphics and arcade style gameplay. The "RPS" battle system and risk style map was what drew myself and many others to the game.
I take it you are an old member under a pseudonym, ghost, hence why you mentioned so many points.
One thing I tend to disagree about - this place can still become a rather active corner of the internet, it doesn't just have to go with the flow. It can generate much more traffic than it currently does. All it needs is some ideas and effort and application.
If you haven't, check this thread - and suggest ideas.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...romotion/page4
To be honest in some ways the lack of activity makes it easier to keep tabs on some topics. I'm getting a bit older and maybe more of the game discussion time is now used up on watching Youtube or via Steam etc.
In the remaining slice of time the .org has certainly lost share to TWC and the .com. For one I'm enjoying Warhammer, just like Attila and Rome 2.
OA
I came back after many years to see if there is a TW game finaly worth it (since RTW imho...) and all I got is depressed.
There seem to be two subjects being talked about here:
a) Warhammer. I do not mind the game being non factual and phantasy based. In fact I hated all those silly units TW released when it should be creating accurate games. A phantasy world allows for such experimentation. However, from what I hear none of the issues with previous games (boring gameplay, bad diplomacy etc) have been fixed.
b) As for the forum. 2 things. First, we are the obsolete mid 30's - mid 40's who stil use forums etc. We ll be getting less and less numerous. The old folks who still use internet forums and IRC and remember their model dialling and such. Second, someone goes to a gaming forum and will stay maybe for a couple of months and move on once they stop playing that game. What kept the .org going were the non-gaming sessions (general discussions, politics etc). Some decisions there were, lets say unfortunate (to put it very mildly) led to on occasions to either a mass exodus for members or key members leaving. That sped things up...
...now I ll just go and wait for a decent TW game for a few more years.
Actually, the gameplay, especially campaign-wise is the most simplified one. Simply nobody minds, because many new fans don't compare them to previous games and their historical counterparts had very low expectations, simply wanting a fun, casual game to spend their free-time enjoyably.
I suspect that we're all going to wait for quite lots of years.