Patch Update - patch is now with Activision for testing

**ranpiz** · 01-14-2005, 12:16

HOI2 had a significant balance patch out before i was even able to find the game here in the USA. when i win the nobel prize for gaming i'm going to visit them in stockholm.

**Basileus** · 01-14-2005, 13:50

thats good news, i just started playing again mostly total realism mod but im realy looking forward to this

**Kraxis** · 01-14-2005, 14:39

I'm surprised... Indeed I am, nobody has yet complained that The Shogun mentions

the end of January at very the latest

*gasp*

Anyway, this is good news. Now I only hope it will address my issues.

**sunsmountain** · 01-14-2005, 14:53

The same QA control that passed Rome Total War in the first place, the same QA that passed Vampire: Bloodlines, also riddled with bugs?

My trust in Activision QA control is at an all time low, and i think the division should be disbanded and that beta-testers should be allowed to do Quality Assurance, which is not as hard as QA wants you to believe.
QA people may or may not be gamers, and in any case only get 2 weeks time (which is a lot of pressure time to discover the bugs in. How many time did you need to notice all the bugs?).

Now CA has made it clear since day 1 that Rome:TW should be accessible and 'easy to play' for all gamers, not just MTW fans. QA people probably DO represent people who are not necessarily fan of the TW genre, and can give a good test bed to test the 'easy for all gamers to play' criterion.

However, they are not the people who should be removing the bugs for everybody, as this highly critical process can only be done by highly critical people who would love to spend 2 weeks of their time to find as many as they possibly can. Dedication cannot be underestimated.

Remember, these people cost 2 weeks of salary and resources as well. If they cannot deliver bug-free or near bug-free products, i do not see their useful contribution to the process.

What I feel is that CA & Activision have allowed the 'easy to play for all gamers' criterion to be more important than the 'bug-free' criterion. They are now, after 5-6 months addressing this second part and lets all hope its not too late.

As i think about it, even the 5-6 months may not be enough to spot all the bugs the game may have, but it is enough time for the programmers to make a good patch.

I particularly HOPE they have ENABLED the MAP editors, or we'll have to make one ourselves.
And that they spent their time on the AI, not the graphics engine.

**rebelscum** · 01-14-2005, 14:54

Still playing 1.1 with a few mods to relieve arrow lag. I just hope this is the patch to end all patches!

**Ar7** · 01-14-2005, 15:04

Well I was right about the patch release time when I said it will be out in the end of January

I just hope they fix the bugs that make the game unplayable and better the AI, as for everything else, I am setting my hopes at the EB mod

**Wrangel** · 01-14-2005, 19:08

Originally Posted by rebelscum

I just hope this is the patch to end all patches!

Hardly, and i don't know if a "final" patch is always a good thing. That doesn't give the oportunity for tweaks in the future. Because there will always be glitches to deal with. And there is always separate opinions about what units that are unhistorical etc. But this will hopefully make the game playable as it was meant to be. And hopefully a lot harder.

**Mikeus Caesar** · 01-14-2005, 19:28

When CA says they're going to test it, they are just going to stamp a seal of approval on it and forget it for two weeks.

**Spino** · 01-14-2005, 20:27

Originally Posted by Mikeus Caesar

When CA says they're going to test it, they are just going to stamp a seal of approval on it and forget it for two weeks.

I think you're being unfair to CA. I am fairly certain that CA has already subjected their patch candidate to in-house testing prior to submitting it to Activision for further testing and their official stamp of approval.

Originally Posted by sunsmountain

The same QA control that passed Rome Total War in the first place, the same QA that passed Vampire: Bloodlines, also riddled with bugs?

My trust in Activision QA control is at an all time low, and i think the division should be disbanded and that beta-testers should be allowed to do Quality Assurance, which is not as hard as QA wants you to believe.
QA people may or may not be gamers, and in any case only get 2 weeks time (which is a lot of pressure time to discover the bugs in. How many time did you need to notice all the bugs?).

Don't blame Activision's QA department for decisions that are made by Marketing and the higher ups. I'm sure QA spotted many of the bugs and imbalances we've experienced but the time needed to fix them and retest a new release candidate would have exceeded their target date for release.

Now CA has made it clear since day 1 that Rome:TW should be accessible and 'easy to play' for all gamers, not just MTW fans. QA people probably DO represent people who are not necessarily fan of the TW genre, and can give a good test bed to test the 'easy for all gamers to play' criterion.

However, they are not the people who should be removing the bugs for everybody, as this highly critical process can only be done by highly critical people who would love to spend 2 weeks of their time to find as many as they possibly can. Dedication cannot be underestimated.

Remember, these people cost 2 weeks of salary and resources as well. If they cannot deliver bug-free or near bug-free products, i do not see their useful contribution to the process.

What I feel is that CA & Activision have allowed the 'easy to play for all gamers' criterion to be more important than the 'bug-free' criterion. They are now, after 5-6 months addressing this second part and lets all hope its not too late.

As i think about it, even the 5-6 months may not be enough to spot all the bugs the game may have, but it is enough time for the programmers to make a good patch.

I particularly HOPE they have ENABLED the MAP editors, or we'll have to make one ourselves.

You may be right but in defense of Activision (ye gods, did I really write that?) RTW was supposed to be released early 2004 but it was deemed too user unfriendly by Activision. So Activison gave CA roughly six more months to make RTW more intuitive to the average gamer and incorporate a more comprehensive tutorial system. Given the plethora of bugs (no show stoppers though), balance issues and disabled features it is clear RTW wasn't ready to be shipped in early 2004 regardless of whether it was user unfriendly or not! I can only imagine how many problems RTW would have had if CA didn't work on it for another six months!

If I am right then Activision had every right to demand that CA make RTW acceptable for release in mid-September. After all, the bulk of those six months were supposed to be devoted entirely to minor polishing and making RTW more user friendly! In light of the bad AI and other problems it is clear RTW needed alot more than minor polishing. However I do not know why Activison couldn't have waited a few more months and released it in time for X-Mas. Perhaps they didn't want to compete for shelf space?

And that they spent their time on the AI, not the graphics engine.

Hear hear! This is my single greatest concern for the upcoming patch. Fixes and tweaks be damned, a decent and/or sensible AI opponent is the key to this game's longevity!