MP stats discussion.

[MagyarKhans Cham]

SOme posts from teh old forum....

CAV RUSH, HORSES OVERPOWERED
http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum7/HTML/003468.html

GAZOZ ABOUT SUPPORT
http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum7/HTML/003516.html

LEAKED PATCH http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum7/HTML/003458.html

OFFICIAL PATCH
http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum7/HTML/003514.html

BUGGED GLORIOUS ACHIEVMENTS
http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum7/HTML/003512.html

RTK PAUL on PATCH BALANCING
http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum4/HTML/000684.html

JROCKS OPINION
http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum7/HTML/003178.html

PATCH SUPPORTED BY BETATESTERS?
http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum7/HTML/003470.html

and there is more....

I noticed many things are still broken, the betapatch is official now, the moneycollecting party assumes that they are ready and can move on to their next project. they stated many times that their resources are low, their time short and SP rules the waves.

The multiplayers are fragmented in voice and power. its time to make a fist, is it?

[barocca]

thanks for the links Magyar,
i am sure those threads will be imported here as time permits, in the meantime those are very handy,



====
i checked .com before i went online,
the patch was not there then,
it is now - i am downloading it now and will run a bit/bit compare.

I had hoped the delay in release was due to the aggressive testing Magyar and others put the "beta" version through, Highlighting a few unexpected bugs, and thought the developers may be "tweaking" the patch.

It may be that Magyar is correct, and we have indeed been issued with a buggy patch.
I will post in about an hour when the download finishes.

====edit====
XX why do you say the beta is now the official version? XX
============

[barocca]

Magyar is 100% correct,
the code for the new patch is identical,

the only difference between the "beta" and "release" versions are the loc files

here is a link to the updated loc files
http://www.totalwar.org//Downloads/MTW/patches/Loc.zip

later today i will replace the 3dDownloads patch with the "release" patch

now we all need to keep a cool head,
detail precisely all the bugs in this patch,
clearly.

and begin the campaign for another patch

[JRock]

Honestly man, I've given up on this game, multiplayer-wise.

Yeah mp got the raw end of the patch for sure. Figures. =\

All good - there will be better games to come; hopefully ones more thoroughly tested before release and incorporating more options for the players. Hopefully one of them is the next Total War game from CA.

[Nobunaga0611]

I really think we should make this work. I agree with people who say its early and we need to get used to the patch before criticizing it.

Well....I'm used to it, and I don't like it.

Is it the stats that should be changed?? Can we change the spheres of influence ourselves, like Kocmoc said?

If we're gonna change the stats, I say we get started. I'll help if possible.

[barocca]

Play balance we can organise ourselves,
with a group of players testing and tweaking stats,

but there are definately bugs in the game.

Report Bugs you find Here.
http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin....;t=2025

Before you post a bug report
Make Sure you have Read This
http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin....;t=2024

[Kocmoc]

i want to note again, that things linke the hillbonusses are too lowe, and this we cant change.

the flags and the colours are still not the best, by some colours its very hard to select ur own units...we cant this change.

some of the bonusses needs to fix, we cant do it nether...


just few ideas


koc

[MagyarKhans Cham]

flags we can change ourselves, even u can koc. so your favorite armies have a nice colour. but i agree some colours are really confusing. but battles at that tiome were confusing, maybe they wanted to simulate that.

[Orda Khan]

I haven't bothered with MTW it's too bug ridden

.......Orda

[MagyarKhans Cham]

well it has the potential in becoming very good ofcourse. sadly we must pull hard once again. seems that besides paying 49 euros u have work hard to get what u want.

[Alrowan]

most of the MP problems come from gamespy, find an alternate server, then tell CA, and then watch MP pick up and not crash

[Kocmoc]

it would be nice if u could constructiv note what u want to change...wich unit... and so on.

plz feel free to go into detail


thx

ur juniorkoc

[FasT]

I just hope everybody will give u there full support

Anything i can do just ask.......I have a lan line and 2 copies of game.So i can do any test u may need...

1#Archers need more power in arrows..or reduce armour...
2#Cav Archers same as above..........

[barocca]

Guys, i am unsure if archers need more power,
it seems to me they do just fine as support troops,

in STW+WE/MI some people relied on muskets to win them the battle, and that got boring real quick.

During this period in history archery became largely irrelevant to medieval warfare, except for a FEW exceptional battles, (agincourt and the like).
Unless an army did something stupid archery was a nuisance, not a battle winner.

I would like to see a few more infantry types that excel at anti-cav, but not so hot vs infantry.
We already have a couple of all rounders. If we weaken cavalry too much then we risk making almost anything an all rounder.

[barocca]

Having only 3 choices means you can only get a null vote from me,

my thoughts are we need more time to evaluate,

the choices above don't give such an option.

[MagyarKhans Cham]

is it me or are the polls buggy, with every poll it says i have already voted, actually i can remember i voted once... is it just me?

[CBR]

Think archers and longbowmen should go down in price, same with horse archers. Arbalesters should perhaps only be a Late unit. Then all 3 eras will have their own missile units as crossbows are rarely used.

But cant see why archers should have increased power..yes give them more arrows, that will not hurt balance. But in general missileunits should not be able to stop a rush. Cavalry is great for flanking an enemy infantry rush as they now are better.

Other changes:

Make lancers a bit more expensive. They have 2 more in armor and defense iirc compared to chiv knights but only cost 150 more. Either reduce the defense down to the level of chiv knight or make them more expensive.

Halbardiers should be cheaper and have 2 more in morale. They are an important unit now with the better cavalry but have serious problems as they rout too easy and expensive to increase valour.

CBR

[Erado San]

Magy, if you look at the votes before you vote yourself you cast a Null vote. It says on the button. Would be unfair in a way if you could, wouldn't it?

Just changing the prices around is not going to be enough. We have seen that before.

Personally, I think the balance as it stands makes for serious battles between serious players. I agree that archers might be enhanced a bit. You have to be careful there. It's not easy to make them stronger without making them too strong.

For the rest, I would like the fatigue effect lowered just a bit for infantry, or upped a bit for cavalry. Also something that you have to be careful with, I know. Or otherwise Cavalry needs to be toned down a little to reduce the effect of the Cav rush.

For the rest, players should just select better armies than you see online. The game is not that bad, but some of the online players are awful.

[Kocmoc]

u cant change the masses
they always went for a easy win, just a few will take less strong armys/units.....

it would be great if we had just players wich use balanced armys, but if we had we wouldnt need a patch
coz we could play (in MP) with the old and all guys would use "bad" units too...

this wont work for the masses...so we need a system wich works, coz u havnt an other choice.
the question is, We want historical correct game? or
we want a longlive challanging system? or
(this would be the best) a historical and longlive system...

imo its better to be not that historical correct and go for a challanging longlive system, (btw the crossbows couldnt fire 100 meters)...(and peasants couldnt win vs knights)

so its seems better to me, if we go and make it more balance and the rush less effectiv and the missles a bit stronger.

yes, we need to be carful ...the missles shouldnt be too strong...

1 pont where i agree with puzz (i beölieve) is a +2 moral to all units, the routs are sometimes awesome.

the moralsuppert is absolut to high, the influence circles are too big.

the hillbonus are too low

fatique, hmmm its a hard thing...i tent to say a bit, just a bit slower...

just a few points, i want to hear the opinion of guys like, spoon, frog, lunch, paolo, rath, amp, doc, jemasze, gazoz, rages, shades, kenchis...all the vets who know the game....i realy need some input other opinions....

thx for all upcoming posts...

koc

[kyodai-britishbeef]

imo the multi player balance is fine and was fine before the patch.The m.p will not be to every ones liking after 100 patches so where does it end ? people will always find a way to make the game easy for a win I.E monkrushing, the all spears and guns concept. so what should we do? keep patching until the game meets a certain selection of "elite" or "respected" players criteria ? no just leave it alone it cannot be done to all peoples wants and whims. I paid my money the same as the "elite" or "respected"players yet these people bang on about what they want. why cant u just play the game as it is and live with it and learn to love it , and stop crying I WANT A PATCH. I understand that there are ISSUES that need solving in a patch but not the essence of the gameplay .

[MagyarKhans Cham]

well seems someone else have to discover teh unbalances online.

btw fast i didnt vote here cuz i wasnt allowed, i pressed the view results button to early.

[MizuKokami]

i want to see a few changes as well, but not in the general stats of units, as much as potential penalties for missuse of troops. ie... spear units work best in ranks of four...or is it 3...which ever. i've seen people stretch them out so that they are a long line in ranks of 2, so that they can cover their range units with as few units as possible. imo, this would be constituted as a "missuse". not only should the spear unit not get it's rank bonus, but it should lose it's bonus against cav, and suffer massive penalties against wedge formation, as it would be much easier to break the ranks of units that have little behind them. i realize that in war, sometimes you do unorthodox things and take risks, as in useing your men in a way that they shouldn't be used. but that's what it should be, a "risk". that's a valid strategy, but dangerous for the potential destruction of the units.

[Nobunaga0611]

Quote[/b] (MizuKokami @ Nov. 11 2002,01:01)]i've seen people stretch them out so that they are a long line in ranks of 2, so that they can cover their range units with as few units as possible. imo, this would be constituted as a "missuse". not only should the spear unit not get it's rank bonus, but it should lose it's bonus against cav, and suffer massive penalties against wedge formation, as it would be much easier to break the ranks of units that have little behind them.

Ha, tell that to amp, or even Honestus This type of strategy is a liability for people who don't know how to use it right. However, when its used right, it takes some doing to get rid of imo. I know its a liability for some, because it doesn't work for me

[Inferno]

I voted for "I don't care."

I think it would be slightly more realistic if we did get some modifications, like normal spearmen not being cav killers and archers being a bit more accurate, but these are not essential to the game.

If this poll had asked whether we need more server stability however...:D

[+DOC+]

Ok, i voted as i don't care, simply because you didn't give an option for a "wait till we try the patch for a few weeks". Anyway here are a few of my opinions:

1. Hill bonuses.
Difficult one this one. Basically, according to Puzz, hill bonuses are there although they aren't as pronounced as in STW. IF you restore hill bonuses to STW levels then all that happens is everyone plays the flat maps only, anyone that picks a hilly map and defends is viewed as dishonourable.
Leave them as they are and people will freely use all the maps and defending up a hill is viewed as more acceptable.
There are still hill bonuses, one can shoot further from the top of a hill and there is a slight advantage to the troops attacking from with the height advantage ....+2 morale?
So, taking all these into account, i'd leave this as it is.

2. General +2 morale.
Yup, absolutely, i've been hoping for this to be added from the very beginning. Otherwise it becomes a necessity to play high florin games. AT the moment chain routing can be a problem and battles can become a bit of a "who can cause the first unit to rout wins" affair.
Only prblem with this could be if this were translated into SP meaning that the AI's high morale troops like knights may never flee. Enemy Kings, heirs and top generals will therefore always fight ot the death.... not a desirable outcome. We want to encourage the AI to look after is Kings, heirs and top generals.

3. Morale penalties.
Linked to 2 above, maybe the morale penalties are too pronounced or indeed their area of affect to large? Not sure on this though as i didn't program the game and don't delve into the game mechanics as much as many do here.
On this note i think some here have studied the game's mechanics to such an extent that they know exactly how to beat someone by manipulating these morale penalties. The average gamer won't understand these and therefore will always succumb to the pros using these tactics.
Nothing wrong with this, but it'll probably explain why you find it very hard to ever lose.

Play with people you know and like (and trust) and you'll enjoy most experiences, as long as you don't drop. Unfortunately, there will always be rushers and poor gamesmanship, plus with >100 units there will probably always be some imbalance.

Regards

[+DOC+]

One very vital addition would be to make the SP and MP stats set separate so as one could play and mod the SP to hearts content while the MP stats remained constant. THis would save the constant problem of restarting MTW and restoring the original stats every time many want to play online.

It would also enable the stats sets to be different so as to appease both SP and MP players. MP and SP stats should be different as in MP the units aren't governed by the same restraints of the tech tree.

[JRock]

Quote[/b] (Alrowan @ Nov. 10 2002,00:45)]most of the MP problems come from gamespy, find an alternate server, then tell CA, and then watch MP pick up and not crash

See you just don't get it - the whole idea of a centralized server is the problem.

Using Gamespy's browser is understandable, but using a centralized server for multiplayer just ensures that whenever that server is down or broken, everyone is screwed.

Leaving us without the option to directly connect to a person's game via IP address is the first hint that MTW multiplayer is a joke.

We have to suffer with their decision to use Gamespy as a centralized game server because that's how they want to run CD Key verification. Key verification is something that, if you look around at other games, can be easily done in less-restrictive manners.

It's simply just poor design from the beginning and another clear example of their narrow-minded approach to the game: Instead of looking around at how other REAL games handle multiplayer, or (god-forbid) asking the fanbase/customers how they would prefer multiplayer connectivity be handled, they just decided amongst themselves and left us no other options.

[GilJaysmith]

Next time, JRock, you can design it. And you can look at our mistakes and not repeat them, and that will be great. And we can look at all the mistakes you make for the first time, and we can sneer at them, and ridicule you for them, and assert that you're stupid and your game is a joke and you don't care about the community.

We don't ever plan to repeat mistakes. That doesn't mean we don't repeat them, but we try not to. That's the best anyone can ever promise.

I can only assume that you've never been constrained in your job by "the art of the possible", by deadlines, by the actions of third parties, by the inertia of existing structures and systems, by the dynamics of a large team working in several locations on a complex creative task, by the upheaval of people leaving and new people joining, and so forth. In short, you must have always worked in dream jobs.

This is the only reason I can imagine for how you simply refuse to believe that there could be any explanation for anything you don't like about Medieval, other that we did it deliberately to spite you because we're cynical and criminally incompetent.

And for making that assumption, thanks. There's nothing we like better than recovering from working our asses off for over a year on a game only to hear that we're stupid and arrogant. Do you ever wonder why I'm about the only person from CA who's still listening to what this forum has to say?

Grrrrrrrrr

Gil not CA
personal statement

[Inferno]

Gil,

What JRock said is clearly wrong, and I understand this. I too am a poor, underpaid programmer who has to constantly battle with changing release dates, marketing requirements and members of the team coming and going all the time. I know it's a pain in the ass when some decision that was made years ago limits what you can do today. I appreciate that it sucks when it is a third party's fault that you cannot do what you want (the File System Object bug MS introduced in NT4 SP6 is my personal bugbear.)

However, what I will say is this: I don't think the multiplayer code was tested heavily enough, either pre or post patch. There are still problems there that took the community less than 10 minutes to discover. Bugs that were reported as fixed are not (player states not being updated after a game, for example...if anything this is now worse). New bugs have been introduced (a player dropping in deployment now means the game cannot start, for instance.)

Now, I know bugs like these can very easily get into the source code. BUT THAT CODE SHOULD NOT GET OUT OF QA These bugs are fundamental, and even the most casual of testing should have picked up some of these issues.

I worked in QA for about 18 months before moving into programming, so I can see the situation from both points of view. And as someone who has done both, I know that if the code is released buggy, it is QA's fault (unless the processes in your company are very different to mine&#33

This is going to sound presumptuous and arrogant, but what the hell If you would like me to write a detailed, in depth test plan for the multiplayer side of MTW, I would be happy to do so. You can get me on soxsexsax@ukonline.co.uk

MTW is probably the finest SP strategy game I have played. If the MP was brought up to scratch, The Settlers position at #1 on my greatest games list would be in danger.

Warm regards,

Inferno

[GilJaysmith]

We ran our internal postmortem on MTW last Thursday and Friday, and as I say, we're planning on not repeating the mistakes we made; this was one way of finding out what they were, and monitoring forum feedback is another. We're still discussing things and will be for quite some time (it was a fairly solid two days, which is why I was a bit quiet) but it's immediately pretty clear to us that we made a mistake in not having some kind of public beta test - for the MP game if nothing else.

It's probably fair to say that MP didn't get all the testing it needed (although it did get a lot of testing). Again, a mistake, and one which I hope we don't repeat.

Blaming QA for releasing buggy code is easy to do but it isn't the whole story; QA doesn't always have the ultimate say on go-nogo, although perhaps it should have.

I'm now off the Medieval project, by the way, and although I'll continue to read the forums, I myself won't be working on any new code.

Gil ~ CA