Criticisms of CA... again

[Oaty]

Unfortanately all the old posts from about July and on got deleted due to having a new board. But since I frequented these forums I noticed that a lot of the oddball features that people posted here were in the game. Do'nt know how many of them actually were already in progress and how many of them picked up the idea from this board but it sure seemed this board had a lot of input to the game.

Hey wait a minute maybe they stole all our ideas..... that sounds like war to me ........ TOTaL WAR

[Lord Ovaat]

I just posted in another thread--right before reading this one--that it is probably time we actually make a list and compared MTW and RTW gameplay, battle and campaign, item for item. While MP might have been a let-down, I think all would be happily surprised to see how many items of play were improved. And many of those, I'm sure, were in response to discussions in this and other forums. Yes, they do listen. I, for one, thank you guys, CF. This is your life's work. Just a game to us. OMG! Maybe that's worse? Maybe we are a little looney? We don't even get paid.

[SpencerH]

This is the first TW game that I bought on day 1, so this is my first experience with a non-patched TW and the hubbub associated with the inevitable glitches, tweaks, and errors found in first versions. For the most part, I've found the criticisms posted here to be very mildly worded compared to those aimed at civ2 and 3 (when those games were just out of the gate).

In my experience, I've found that well worded criticisms are more likely to grab developers attentions and sometimes they're fixed. Does that mean that the rabid rants are less valid? Not to me. Sometimes a spade needs to be called a spade. For example, when a highly anticipated game is shipped where the fighters dont intercept bombers and there are bugs that end PBEM games after months of play, what should we call it? Given that the game was beta tested by community members, I call it stupid and irresponsible. Sugar-coating the comments in order to hopefully 'catch the eye of the developers' and avoid being called a whiner by fanboys is crap.

The SP game is pretty good. I think there are facets that should be changed and others that must be changed (to satisfy me) but they are subjective choices and IMO there are no real 'game-ending' errors. The MP game was another 'kettle of fish' however. That CA acted quickly to fix the MP problems doesnt change the fact that the MP'ers had every reason to be pissed off and to vent their opinions on these threads. I havent found the folks at CA who post here to be 'shrinking violets' and I see no need to treat them as such. They seem to be quite capable of providing their own sarcastic comments and rebuttal to posts they take issue with. (What else would one expect?) Not that I expect them to, but if they run away because they read threads that they dont like, what does that say about their commitment to the community and to addressing problems with the game?

[Gregoshi]

...it sure seemed this board had a lot of input to the game.

I'll give you two examples.

1) Back in the MTW/VI days (so long ago ), there was a thread or two about features we'd like to see in the TW games. I know I and a few others mentioned having population figure into the game - you can't train troops if you've bled yourself dry. Well, I was very surprised and pleased to see population figure in the game, and in a few more ways that I had envisioned. Most excellent!

2) Another idea was for some kind of history or recount of the campaigns you play. They didn't impliment such a feature the way it was described back then (Alpha Centauri-like recap), but it is there in RTW and in a very creative and cool way - the family tree and the "famous battles" marks on the campaign map. Now who doesn't like looking at maps with crossed swords on them?

We've seen similar things in MTW and VI too. They do listen even if they don't always reply.

[SpencerH]

I'll give you two examples.

We've seen similar things in MTW and VI too. They do listen even if they don't always reply.

I've seen exactly the same thing with the CIV threads/creators.

[Servius]

Just to clarify a few things,

"Servius, the problem with less polite approach is that you won't provoke any CA response earlier. In fact you’re likely to provoke a non-response."

I agree, turning hostile is irrational because of the reason you mention. It still happens though, and reason in a way reinforces the move to hostility because before you get there you are often of the impression that the devs aren't listening anyway, so they aren't hearing your harsher tone either. At that point, subconsciously I guess, it's more of a venting experience for the poster, rather than an attempt to actually get something changed.

"Servius, You bought the game, not their lives. You have a right to the game, as played, and support from a (paid) customer support service to adress any issues you have with the game. Any responses by developers (ie: people who make games, not tech support / customer support people) is an extra service. I think we should be damn gratefull for every post those CA devs make on this forum. I know i am."

I agree completely. I never (at least never meant to) imply that the devs 'owed' me or anyone else more posting on here, and certainly not their lives. I guess my response here would be to say that a BIG part of why I'm such a fan of the TW series is a) the relatively easy moddability of many parts of the game, and b) my impressoin from STW and MTW that the devs were cool with our tinkering, happy to help, and happy that we enjoyed the game enough to put so much effort into it.

Most of my negativity has come from a relatively new perseption that the devs HAVEN'T been encouraging or helpful in our modding attempts. Maybe I haven't been reading the right threads, that's totally possible, but I've only read 2-3 dev posts so far on RTW, and one was the CA-started one about the MP patch and another was the post by Captain above.

Lastly, I understand patching isn't easy or quick. I agree there is a difference between things I think are bugs (problems with unit pathing around bridges and such) and balance or preference things (like unit speeds, etc.) and 'other' (like an in-game option to disable the timer, etc.). I'm not frustrated by a lack of patches. What I would like to see more of is more CA posting (and again, maybe I'm just reading the wrong threads, it's totally possible) but DEFINITELY I'd like the devs to make one post about the codes/files that points us to the variables that we can mod to affect certain things like individual unit speeds and such.

Providing such information would, in my opinion, save everyone a lot of frustration. We as players could mod to our heart's content things like unit speeds and such, bringing those parts of the game in line with our personal preferences, while the devs worked on patches for pathing bugs or adding in those neat options like disabling battle timers and such. I think it would also help to see a CA post, pretty close to the one Captain provided above, that elaborated on "So where we are at the moment is this: we're collating material for a patch and looking at the issues that need to be addressed." It'd be great to hear what those issues are that they're looking at. Cause like I said, I don't need a patch today, I'd just like some reassurance that the common issues posted on these boards are those CA is looking at too.

I fully believe CA is working on patches as fast as they can. I don't have a problem with that. An acknowledgement of player concerns about particular issues and a modding primer would be just wonderful.