Org Mobile Site
Thread: New patch announcement at .com
Apparently, the target date is mid-January. It also sounds like they are basically getting one run at a patch from the powers that be, so they are taking a long time to make sure they cover as much as possible.
http://p223.ezboard.com/fshoguntotal...ID=16901.topic
- dcd111
http://p223.ezboard.com/fshoguntotal...ID=16901.topic
- dcd111
I foresee... a... lot... of... grumbling...
and hardly surprising....
One run at a patch????!!!!! If this is true, what further evidence do we need to prove their contempt for their customers?
........Orda
One run at a patch????!!!!! If this is true, what further evidence do we need to prove their contempt for their customers?
........Orda
I'm looking forward to mid-January! I've been pleased with the way CA has handled its patches in the past, so I expect to be pleased with the upcoming patch. All of the grumbling is, I guess, inevitable, but overall I think CA does a good job.
Originally Posted by Kraxis:
I foresee... a... lot... of... grumbling...
Indeed, moderators at .com are going to be very busy...I foresee... a... lot... of... grumbling...
Personally I'm a little disappointed too,but I guess it's better this way.
Heh, I wont be surprised if it gets delayed though :(
Ive always supported CA, by buying not complaing etc but this is just to much, release a patch now dammit and the stuff you havent been able to cover get them on a second patch. If the game was so buggy in the first place why did they release it bah.
More releases means more manhours to get the compilation, and multiple QA testings. Let them have their times. I mean u really expect CA to work over the holidays???
In the meantime, it gives us more time to exploit the bugs in Single Player... :P
Enslave the City Again!! Again!!! Again!!!!
In the meantime, it gives us more time to exploit the bugs in Single Player... :P
Enslave the City Again!! Again!!! Again!!!!
From the post I don't think they will stop patching right here. I believe they are still willing to give 1.3 if there are still issues/complaints after 1.2. Hopefully most issues are covered already. 
I consider this some good news and some bad...nothing surprising though. I'm glad to see them taking their time to get as much as they can patched. However, there is so much that needs to be patched that I fear it will be well nigh impossible to get it right in a single pass. I suspected they would only get one shot though...that is becoming more common in the industry.
I'm glad they made a statement on it!
Since the patch is delayed a bit I think I will make a new thread to compile a list of units that have errant or suspect stats.
I suspect that some major AI improvements will end up waiting for the traditional CA expansion pack.
I'm glad they made a statement on it!
Since the patch is delayed a bit I think I will make a new thread to compile a list of units that have errant or suspect stats.
I suspect that some major AI improvements will end up waiting for the traditional CA expansion pack.
Im preety sure 5 months of building up a patch means alot of man hours already?
While I would have liked to have gotten the patch before Christmas, I am appreciative that we have been finally given a tentative date. For myself I am much happier.
" Bear in mind, however, that it will need to go through QA. This is an exhaustive process and why we only get the one chance to get it right."
I don't think this means there will be only one patch... I think it means that once they release the patch, there won't be coming back, and they don't want to forget some minor things in the release because of the rush - so, while there might bye a '1.3' someday, there won't be a '1.2.1' patch...(or so I hope...)
" battle map AI, campaign AI, UI issues, balancing, multiplayer, and general bugs."
Nice. I wonder if there will be something interesting for modders... Forget the balancing, give us TOOLS to balance the game instead :)
I don't think this means there will be only one patch... I think it means that once they release the patch, there won't be coming back, and they don't want to forget some minor things in the release because of the rush - so, while there might bye a '1.3' someday, there won't be a '1.2.1' patch...(or so I hope...)
" battle map AI, campaign AI, UI issues, balancing, multiplayer, and general bugs."
Nice. I wonder if there will be something interesting for modders... Forget the balancing, give us TOOLS to balance the game instead :)
Originally Posted by Basileus:
Im preety sure 5 months of building up a patch means alot of man hours already?
How many finger does your hand hold? I can't get the number to be 5 months even if I count both september and december in.Im preety sure 5 months of building up a patch means alot of man hours already?
Originally Posted by Kraxis:
How many finger does your hand hold? I can't get the number to be 5 months even if I count both september and december in.
Mid January ?How many finger does your hand hold? I can't get the number to be 5 months even if I count both september and december in.
At long last, thats one friggin long time to wait for a patch, CA should screw activision and seek a better publisher that allows them to make patches decently (heck even EA is better than Activision in customer support)....
I'd rather wait and get a nice meaty patch that includes bug fixes that don't break anything else and well thought out and tested improvements to the AI... so I'm glad they are taking their time.
Originally Posted by eadingas:
" Bear in mind, however, that it will need to go through QA. This is an exhaustive process and why we only get the one chance to get it right."
I don't think this means there will be only one patch... I think it means that once they release the patch, there won't be coming back, and they don't want to forget some minor things in the release because of the rush - so, while there might bye a '1.3' someday, there won't be a '1.2.1' patch...(or so I hope...)
You may be right, perhaps I was being too cynical in my interpretation of what he said. Nonetheless, I'm sure when he says the QA process is "exhaustive", that means "expensive" to the accountants, so the powers that be probably won't be too happy about having to do it more than once. If this patch creates new bugs, I would hope they'd at least fix those, but I doubt we'll see any more real improvements to gameplay after this patch is released. Meaning that they might as well take as long as they need to get as many improvements in there as they can." Bear in mind, however, that it will need to go through QA. This is an exhaustive process and why we only get the one chance to get it right."
I don't think this means there will be only one patch... I think it means that once they release the patch, there won't be coming back, and they don't want to forget some minor things in the release because of the rush - so, while there might bye a '1.3' someday, there won't be a '1.2.1' patch...(or so I hope...)
- dcd111
Originally Posted by Stuie:
I'd rather wait and get a nice meaty patch that includes bug fixes that don't break anything else and well thought out and tested improvements to the AI... so I'm glad they are taking their time.
DO NOT expect changes in the AI. It is highly unlikely they'll make many changes there. 5 months is not that long in software development for a small team. Changing the AI in any substantive way is a BIG task.I'd rather wait and get a nice meaty patch that includes bug fixes that don't break anything else and well thought out and tested improvements to the AI... so I'm glad they are taking their time.
I'm a software developer and a manager of software development.. I know of which I speak.
p.s. I don't work for CA.. business software (high performance engines for business analysis).
Originally Posted by TheDuck:
DO NOT expect changes in the AI. It is highly unlikely they'll make many changes there. 5 months is not that long in software development for a small team. Changing the AI in any substantive way is a BIG task.
I'm a software developer and a manager of software development.. I know of which I speak.
They have specifically mentioned that they have worked on both battlefield AI and campaign map AI in just about every announcement they've made on the upcoming patch, though. They'd really be provoking a backlash if, in the end, the AI improvements in the patch are not substantive. If they haven't been able to make substantive improvements, I'd think they'd avoid mentioning it at all. I guess all we can do now is continue to speculate until mid-January.DO NOT expect changes in the AI. It is highly unlikely they'll make many changes there. 5 months is not that long in software development for a small team. Changing the AI in any substantive way is a BIG task.
I'm a software developer and a manager of software development.. I know of which I speak.
- dcd111
I...AM...DISAPPOINTED
although patch ETA is a good news, the fact that the game was released with major bugs and the fact that it will take so long for the fix is a very bad news.
i am pissed. why? because i bought a whole new computer back in august to play this game on release in september. i bought a state of the art machine at premium price to satisfy the game spec requirement. if i knew that this game would be so buggy and it would take nearly 5 months for them to fix it, i would have waited to buy a new computer. that way i could have perhaps save some money or buy a better machine with the same amount of money i've spent for my current machine.
i've had it with this series. this is the last of the TW series i would buy. it's too damn bad because i had always liked TW games. i have all of them. but over the years i only see further neglect than improvements.
i know that my 50 dollars is just a drop in the bucket for CA, they don't care. so now i won't either.
although patch ETA is a good news, the fact that the game was released with major bugs and the fact that it will take so long for the fix is a very bad news.
i am pissed. why? because i bought a whole new computer back in august to play this game on release in september. i bought a state of the art machine at premium price to satisfy the game spec requirement. if i knew that this game would be so buggy and it would take nearly 5 months for them to fix it, i would have waited to buy a new computer. that way i could have perhaps save some money or buy a better machine with the same amount of money i've spent for my current machine.
i've had it with this series. this is the last of the TW series i would buy. it's too damn bad because i had always liked TW games. i have all of them. but over the years i only see further neglect than improvements.
i know that my 50 dollars is just a drop in the bucket for CA, they don't care. so now i won't either.
And what exactly this patch will do to the replay value??
Will it still be a land grab festival or maybe they will give us some new game mode? What about winning conditions based on economic achievements? Diplomatic superiority? And what about different starting times?
Do we have to wait for the expansion to actually get more replay value?
Will it still be a land grab festival or maybe they will give us some new game mode? What about winning conditions based on economic achievements? Diplomatic superiority? And what about different starting times?
Do we have to wait for the expansion to actually get more replay value?
I say CA shpuld take as much time as they need. If it took till February it wouldnt bother me at all. Like the post said, they get only ONE chance, so no need to rush it.
For people wondering whom the 'powers that be' are, that would be Activision. I have some experience with Activision, with SFC 3. This seems to be their Standard Operating Procedure. If CA does decide to make a second patch, Activision wont QA it. CA will be forced to release it as a BETA patch, and without QA it will almost definately have bugs in it. So, again, DONT RUSH the patch CA, PLEASE!
Dont get bent out of shape at CA, its not their QA department, its Activision's. This is exactly what they did to Taldren and SFC3. You would think Activision beancounters would be a lil more loose, considering the massive sales compared to SFC3, but they arent. Dont expect them to. They would rather see CA burn in flames than spend the extra coin to do more patches.
For people wondering whom the 'powers that be' are, that would be Activision. I have some experience with Activision, with SFC 3. This seems to be their Standard Operating Procedure. If CA does decide to make a second patch, Activision wont QA it. CA will be forced to release it as a BETA patch, and without QA it will almost definately have bugs in it. So, again, DONT RUSH the patch CA, PLEASE!
Dont get bent out of shape at CA, its not their QA department, its Activision's. This is exactly what they did to Taldren and SFC3. You would think Activision beancounters would be a lil more loose, considering the massive sales compared to SFC3, but they arent. Dont expect them to. They would rather see CA burn in flames than spend the extra coin to do more patches.
Originally Posted by dcd111:
They have specifically mentioned that they have worked on both battlefield AI and campaign map AI in just about every announcement they've made on the upcoming patch, though. They'd really be provoking a backlash if, in the end, the AI improvements in the patch are not substantive. If they haven't been able to make substantive improvements, I'd think they'd avoid mentioning it at all. I guess all we can do now is continue to speculate until mid-January.
- dcd111
I agree. With previous TW games I don't ever recall CA promising that AI improvements would be one of the main issues addressed in an upcoming patch. The fact that this has been reiterated on more than once occasion lends credence to the notion that they have put substantial time and resources into it.They have specifically mentioned that they have worked on both battlefield AI and campaign map AI in just about every announcement they've made on the upcoming patch, though. They'd really be provoking a backlash if, in the end, the AI improvements in the patch are not substantive. If they haven't been able to make substantive improvements, I'd think they'd avoid mentioning it at all. I guess all we can do now is continue to speculate until mid-January.
- dcd111
But all bets are off until the patch is released.
However, the language of Shogun's post at the Com makes me somewhat nervous...
Originally Posted by :
Up till now we have been reluctant to issue a date for the patch as we have not wanted to give misleading information. We now feel confident enough to state that the patch will be out no later than the middle of January. Bear in mind, however, that it will need to go through QA. This is an exhaustive process and why we only get the one chance to get it right. Please be patient: we have been working very hard to make this patch as good as it can be and I know it will be worth the wait.
The statement in bold leaves me to believe that unless the upcoming patch creates any serious bugs or issues we won't get another patch until the release of the expansion pack which will most likely include some fixes and tweaks to the original. It looks like Activision keeps its developers on a short leash when it comes to support. This is rather frustrating as RTW is such a large and complex game. Stuff is bound to slip through the cracks in the next patch. Way to go suits, have you learned nothing from companies that bend over backward to support the community?Up till now we have been reluctant to issue a date for the patch as we have not wanted to give misleading information. We now feel confident enough to state that the patch will be out no later than the middle of January. Bear in mind, however, that it will need to go through QA. This is an exhaustive process and why we only get the one chance to get it right. Please be patient: we have been working very hard to make this patch as good as it can be and I know it will be worth the wait.
Originally Posted by bhutavarna:
i am pissed. why? because i bought a whole new computer back in august to play this game on release in september. i bought a state of the art machine at premium price to satisfy the game spec requirement.
Dang... you bought an entire new PC, just so you could play this game? Don't you think that's a little obsessive? I mean, it's one thing to drop fifty dollars for a new computer game; it's another to spend hundreds of dollars just so you can own a computer that will run it. That doesn't seem worth it, unless the new computer is offering you significant other benefits.i am pissed. why? because i bought a whole new computer back in august to play this game on release in september. i bought a state of the art machine at premium price to satisfy the game spec requirement.
I really liked MTW, and after seeing screenshots and videos of RTW, I was looking forward to it quite a bit. However, I still don't own it; I've made up my mind not to buy it until at least the following two conditions are met:
1. The patch is released.
2. I have significant reason to buy a new PC; my current Athlon 1.4 GHz PC will run the demo, but it's pretty choppy, and I will NOT buy a new PC just for a game.
I may soon have reason to upgrade my PC, as I would benefit significantly from being able to run Microsoft Visual Studio.NET at home (at a nice fast pace). Nevertheless, it will be months, at least, before I take a crack at RTW, and by then the patch will be out.
I strongly recommend patience, people. I see no reason why people should be disappointed just because CA is releasing only one patch. You've already had one minor patch (the multiplayer one), and there's still the expansion pack to look forward to, possibly with a patch after that.
Spino's reading is exactly my take on it. CA is saying, this one is it, don't expect more. Wasn't the "king always dies at 56 bug" the only reason we got the final VI patch?
Kommodus, stating that we should be thankful to wait for an expansion pack or its patch to fix current fundamental problems is tantamount to saying, "cough up another $40 to $50 and see it if we fix it (or break something again.)" I don't think CA is saying this, but anyone who does should be subject to some sort of barbaric torture--like listening to a loop of "The day is oooooouuuuuuurrrrrrrssss!" 24/7 until the final expansion pack patch is issued.
Kommodus, stating that we should be thankful to wait for an expansion pack or its patch to fix current fundamental problems is tantamount to saying, "cough up another $40 to $50 and see it if we fix it (or break something again.)" I don't think CA is saying this, but anyone who does should be subject to some sort of barbaric torture--like listening to a loop of "The day is oooooouuuuuuurrrrrrrssss!" 24/7 until the final expansion pack patch is issued.
Originally Posted by Kommodus:
Dang... you bought an entire new PC, just so you could play this game? Don't you think that's a little obsessive? I mean, it's one thing to drop fifty dollars for a new computer game; it's another to spend hundreds of dollars just so you can own a computer that will run it. That doesn't seem worth it, unless the new computer is offering you significant other benefits.
Hell, if it wasnt for games, wed still have PCI graphix cards. Gaming drives the computer industry forward. Without gaming only the largest companies would buy a PC above P3 800Mhz, which runs the internet about as fast as it goes. Dang... you bought an entire new PC, just so you could play this game? Don't you think that's a little obsessive? I mean, it's one thing to drop fifty dollars for a new computer game; it's another to spend hundreds of dollars just so you can own a computer that will run it. That doesn't seem worth it, unless the new computer is offering you significant other benefits.
I dont see it as obsessive at all. While he bought it to play RTW nicely, hius new sytem will run his old games much better also, with things like AA and AF enabled.
Originally Posted by :
I may soon have reason to upgrade my PC, as I would benefit significantly from being able to run Microsoft Visual Studio.NET at home (at a nice fast pace). Nevertheless, it will be months, at least, before I take a crack at RTW, and by then the patch will be out..
.NET may profit from a faster proc, but im supposing your gonna get a new GFX card also. Why?I may soon have reason to upgrade my PC, as I would benefit significantly from being able to run Microsoft Visual Studio.NET at home (at a nice fast pace). Nevertheless, it will be months, at least, before I take a crack at RTW, and by then the patch will be out..
Originally Posted by :
I strongly recommend patience, people. I see no reason why people should be disappointed just because CA is releasing only one patch. You've already had one minor patch (the multiplayer one), and there's still the expansion pack to look forward to, possibly with a patch after that..
Well, you dont have the game. You know nought of the bugs of which he speaks. I agree with the patience part, but the attitude?I strongly recommend patience, people. I see no reason why people should be disappointed just because CA is releasing only one patch. You've already had one minor patch (the multiplayer one), and there's still the expansion pack to look forward to, possibly with a patch after that..
Pfffffffftttt.
RE-EDITED, instead of posting another off-topic post:
Red, I meant above 800mhz for internet servers not for the pitiful cubicle bound masses. They dont even need 800mhz, ISA based 400mhz clients would do them just fine LOL.
Originally Posted by ghostcamel:
Without gaming only the largest companies would buy a PC above P3 800Mhz.
Agree about gaming driving the industry, but large companies wouldn't buy high end machines in any quantity. Larger corporations are the most likely to buy absolute crap desktops with Intel integrated chipsets. I've seen enough to be thoroughly unimpressed by corporate IT purchases. It would be more correct to say that only a few high end corporate users would have high end PC's, but the rest of the corporate beast (except the priviliged few at these same companies who spec their own machines) would be using the lowest common denominator. Dell is supplying most of the corporate desktops afterall.Without gaming only the largest companies would buy a PC above P3 800Mhz.
Originally Posted by :
Originally Posted by Kommodus
Dang... you bought an entire new PC, just so you could play this game? Don't you think that's a little obsessive? I mean, it's one thing to drop fifty dollars for a new computer game; it's another to spend hundreds of dollars just so you can own a computer that will run it. That doesn't seem worth it, unless the new computer is offering you significant other benefits.
Many people did this very thing for Doom 3. Had the chipmakers/graphics card companies loving life. I know several people who had waited to upgrade until it came out.Originally Posted by Kommodus
Dang... you bought an entire new PC, just so you could play this game? Don't you think that's a little obsessive? I mean, it's one thing to drop fifty dollars for a new computer game; it's another to spend hundreds of dollars just so you can own a computer that will run it. That doesn't seem worth it, unless the new computer is offering you significant other benefits.
I don't think it's that unreasonable to expect some changes in the AI. Some of the bugs seem really easy to fix. Of course, I don't expect the AI suddenly get ten times smarter and become a real challenge on the campaign map and on battlemap, but I'd be very disappointed if they didn't address some of the most glaring and obvious bugs in the AI behaviour (we all know what I'm talking about :)
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO