RTW 1.3 Patch Petition

[Nerouin]

Check here:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/index...ntry1811990143

[The_Emperor]

I don't think it will happen.

An expansion is more likely. (there is no profit in patches)

[screwtype]

I wouldn't want another patch. It would be unlikely to address the major underlying problems, such as the AI and game balance, and all it would be likely to do is delay the expansion pack.

I think a better idea is just to present to CA the bugs and glitches that have been found since the release of 1.2 and ask for a fix to be included in the XP.

[Jambo]

Well, if the saved game bug is as bad as it could be, then Rome will be a distant memory long before any expansion comes out. We're early March now and it's an estimated 7+ months till the expansion. That's a long time to wait and another £30 of hard earned money....

[Mayfield The Conqueror]

You are going to have better luck having the community patch up the game between now and the expansion anyway. The discussions in the game mechanics forum have been *very* helpful to me at least and I am sure with some cooperation a small patch could be made up by the people who are modding the game.

[Red Harvest]

I see that the egotistical a$$wipe killemall54 had locked the thread over at .com pertaining to this. Another moderator had said to leave it open. But ole killemall54 needed to go on another power trip.

[BeeSting]

CA better get their act together since competition is brewing fast. They will no doubt copy the best elements of the game and make things better.

[Mikeus Caesar]

'Rome will be a distant memory long before any expansion comes out.'

Too true. It's alreadya bit of a memory for me....i remember when i got it, about three weeks after release, being ecstatic about it, and playing it like there was no tomorrow. Now i look back on it, and i wonder, why the hell did i spend so much time playing that thing? Oh well. If an expansion comes out and i still remember RTW, i'm definately getting it.

P.S sorry i couldn't use a proper quote, but for some reason the quote button is refusing to work!!

[BeeSting]

I see that the egotistical a$$wipe killemall54 had locked the thread over at .com pertaining to this. Another moderator had said to leave it open. But ole killemall54 needed to go on another power trip.

Yeah.... what is up with that guy? Someone needs to pull the sarrisa up his a$$.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

'Rome will be a distant memory long before any expansion comes out.'

Too true. It's alreadya bit of a memory for me....i remember when i got it, about three weeks after release, being ecstatic about it, and playing it like there was no tomorrow. Now i look back on it, and i wonder, why the hell did i spend so much time playing that thing? Oh well. If an expansion comes out and i still remember RTW, i'm definately getting it.

P.S sorry i couldn't use a proper quote, but for some reason the quote button is refusing to work!!

I play more Medieval than Rome now. If it wasn't for Medievals graphics being pathetic, and I didn't want the expansion, I would have sold, or at least "accidently misplaced" the Rome CD. I was really pumped up 'bout it as soon as I heard of the release, but now i wonder: why the heck did I just waste a month of my life?

[Colovion]

I'd rather have some feedback from CA than another patch.

I'd rather CA tell us the reasons why they've taken this amazing strategy game series and turned it into a Hollywood themepark.

I'd like to know if they plan to keep going down this path.

Then I'll know if it's worth sticking around.

[Spino]

A patch petition! You optimistic dreamers! Good luck... you'll need it!

Seriously now, we know that CA had a two patch deal with Activision and that they used up the first one as soon as RTW went gold so as to address the MP code which was absolutely terrible. Had the first patch contained much more in the way of fixes and tweaks for the SP game RTW might be in much better shape than it is right now. But since it didn't I can understand the desperation at work here.

I see that the egotistical a$$wipe killemall54 had locked the thread over at .com pertaining to this. Another moderator had said to leave it open. But ole killemall54 needed to go on another power trip.

Indeed. Is the Com a particularly nasty place to post nowadays or what? It's not a good sign when you have rabid moderators engaging in pissing contests with forum members!

I'd rather have some feedback from CA than another patch.

I'd rather CA tell us the reasons why they've taken this amazing strategy game series and turned it into a Hollywood themepark.

Come on Colovion, that's easy! Shogun sold over 750,000 units, Medieval sold over one million. Do the math. Anytime those kind of numbers are thrown around you can bet there are going to be some pretty high expectations for the next installment. When CA pitched the idea of RTW to Activision you can bet they took stock of its subject matter and the revolutionary new 3D engine and saw that it had the potential to easily surpass the one million mark. So Activision floated CA a ton of cash to make Rome and spent another ton of cash promoting it. Obviously Activision wanted to make damn sure they made a profit on their investment so its possible they either kept an active and intrusive eye on CA or gave them a damn good idea of what they could and could not do on a very general level.

I think it's safe to say there are CA employees who are just as unhappy with Rome's lowest common denominator approach as we are. The only thing I want to know is just how hard did CA bargain with Activision before inking the deal? Did they really leave room for themselves to maneuver or did they simply sign when they saw the numbers on the contract and believed they could make Rome without too much interference from Activision? Were many of the questionable design decisions that we despise actually the result of Activision's interference or was someone at CA interpreting the spirit of the contract to the best of their abilities?

The worst part of the deal has to be the one or two patch limit. One or two patches for such a huge and complicated game is simply outrageous!

[parrrrk]

I don't think 1.3 ever coming out.
They already announced XP and it will come out late this year, if the schedule goes right. The problem is the patch needs, if we assume it's ever happening, same crews who's wanted to develope XP. As you know, patches are not done within a couple of weeks, so it will take at least a month or two. I don't think CA ever risks that kind of delay of XP.

[AggonyKing]

i still haven't downloaded 1.2 yet people are talking about 1.3 already

[hrvojej]

Speaking of moderating, guess what happened to the petition...

[Kekvit Irae]

Patch or no, the game will always be, in my eyes, Heros of Might and Magic: Total War. Because of this tempted to do something I'd never dream of... go back to playing STW.

[screwtype]

Well, if the saved game bug is as bad as it could be, then Rome will be a distant memory long before any expansion comes out. We're early March now and it's an estimated 7+ months till the expansion. That's a long time to wait and another £30 of hard earned money....

What savegame bug? The only one I've heard about is the breaking of AI sieges in reloading a save.

It's a nuisance, but hardly a gamebreaker.

And I don't think 7 months is long to wait, after all we waited, what, nearly five months just for the 1.2 patch which has only fixed some of the more glaring problems.

The point I'm trying to make is that a mere patch won't fix the game's major flaws anyhow, like the ten second battles, instant routing, AI, game balance, steamroller effect, shallow campaign etc. It's going to take CA a long time to fix issues like that - assuming they ever manage to fix them. A patch that fixes stuff like savegame siege breaks or horsed archer moving fire would be nice to have, but is not going to make a critical difference to enjoyment, so why bother with one when CA will only have to spend weeks playtesting it to try and ensure it's stable? That will only put a fix for the real problems back still further.

So I'd much prefer CA put their energies into putting together a much better game for the XP and *then* start worrying about the minor glitches. I know from my own experience programming that it's a waste of time trying to nuance the details before you tackle the big issues, because there is no limit to the amount of time you can spend on details and then the big things never get done.

[screwtype]

Patch or no, the game will always be, in my eyes, Heros of Might and Magic: Total War. Because of this tempted to do something I'd never dream of... go back to playing STW.

Does STW have any good mods? I love the game but I know it so well by now it's not enough of a challenge anymore.

[tai4ji2x]

It's a nuisance, but hardly a gamebreaker.

(clip...)

A patch that fixes stuff like savegame siege breaks or horsed archer moving fire would be nice to have, but is not going to make a critical difference to enjoyment

this depends on your personal situation. if you can only play an hour or so every night or every other night, this bug will impact you greatly.

[hrvojej]

The funny thing is, that during the outcry for a MTW-VI patch, there were a lot of people saying "oooh, no, we shouldn't possibly request this, they're better off spending time to make the Rome perfect". Well, we got the Rome they were talking about, a year later than planned too. I guess the signals saying "we put all our trust that everything will be better in future" really paid off to influence the quality of subsequent releases and all that.

At least with the VI patch that game (as in: the game I already paid for, btw) was really playable. A bird in hand...

[Red Harvest]

screwtype,

CA's XPack will most likely just be more of the same. If they can't fix the engine for a patch or RTW, I doubt they will fix it for the XPack. I would rather seem them fix the problems now. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. With the severity of bugs in the current release and the AI issues, it is hard to imagine the XPack not being a rush job.

Afterall, suicide daimyo's were to be fixed in this patch among other things.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Right now, I doubt I will buy the X-Pack. I mean, what's the point? The game will still be shallow and unchallenging. They won't change the core gameplay of sucky battles and sucky AI. New bugs will pop up. I don't even play RTW now, and won't try it again until SPQR comes out.

I'm sick of giving money to CA if they lock threads about a 1.3 patch and act like we are peasants.

Crazed Rabbit

[Duke John]

we know that CA had a two patch deal with Activision and that they used up the first one as soon as RTW went gold so as to address the MP code which was absolutely terrible.

I believe that you are wrong on this. Just like with M:TW and VI CA only releases one (1) patch. They had the same deal with R:TW. Now they screwed up the MP so enormously (only 30 people could play MP at any time) that they needed to fix it as soon as possible. That 1.1 patch was just a quick fix to make MP playable and should not be seen as a normal patch that balances or fixes several bugs. The 1.2 patch was in essence the first real patch and the only one we get (probably).

[RJV]

It would be interesting to know just how much involvement Activision had in the production of RTW. Yes they will have wanted the eye-candy, the graphics, the head-hurlers et al, but are they the true problems with the game?? The majority of the complaints on here (forgive me if I simplify just for brevity) relate to game balancing, lack of challenge, stupid AI.

Are any of these things down to Activision influence?

Don't forget RTW was 12 months late anyway, and I can't bring myself to believe that it slipped a whole year because CA were forced to take the good stuff OUT

Yes, the battles are too quick, and this could well be an Activision-inspired thing - but making battles ultra-fast could have easily been achieved by increasing the base speed of the battle engine, yes? If a slow base battle speed existed, then surely the fast battles would have been implemented as the 'Arcade mode' (or it could be reversed and have slow battles implemented as an option). Logical conclusion - there is not, and never was, a slow base battle speed. At least not one that worked. Let's face it, slower battles didn't harm the sales of STW or MTW, and no way will the fast battles have, on their own, made a difference to the number of units shifted.

Do you see where I'm heading here? A lot of blame gets put on to Activision for this, but personally I'm coming to the opinion that CA just bit off a whole lot more than it could chew with elements of the game. Whether the XPack will fix any of these things remains to be seen of course, but I have my doubts.

I presume that work on whatever the next project is is well under way. they already have the 3d battle engine and campaign map, so personally I am expecting a better battle AI when we get Total War 4, NOT the xp for RTW.

Cheers,

Rob.

[SpencerH]

A lot of blame gets put on to Activision for this, but personally I'm coming to the opinion that CA just bit off a whole lot more than it could chew with elements of the game. Whether the XPack will fix any of these things remains to be seen of course, but I have my doubts.

I think there is a lot of truth to this. Theres no doubt that building a challenging strategic and tactical game is a massive undertaking, essentially it's two games in one. If they had been able to use MTW's tactical engine but improved the strategic portion alone, that would have been enough for me.

It seems to me to have been a management/philosophy shortcoming. If you've taken on more than its possible to do given the time constraints, how do you handle the situation? CA seems to have chosen to put out a working (but flawed) game with the expectations that it will be completed with the XP. Personally, I wonder how many units of the XP will be sold. I think a lot of hardcore players will "wait and see" and I think that the new players will move on to CIV4 (which may be out late 2005) or some other RTS or RTS-like game. I believe that when they realized their situation (if they ever did) CA should have used their fanbase (us) to find the game problems. If the demo had been released earlier I think that we would now have a relatively bug-less game.

[Old Celt]

It seems to me that CA is screwed as of this moment. They obviously compromised their principles to sign a deal with the ActiVision devil. They bit off more than they could chew for the project requirements and exacerbated the situation by coming to release over a year late. Then all the flaws of the product are "discovered" by the discerning players, even though CA HAD to know about 99% of them already. When you put these events together, it seems unlikely the project has even been profitable so far, and it makes CA look bad to potential financial backers for future work.

My view is that the only hope for survival now is for CA to say: "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" What I mean by that is that CA must prioritize doing the right thing for its customers, even if it means negative consequences with the publisher. These forums have value to CA because they quickly show the mood of the gaming community and how satisfied/dissatisfied they really are. It would be greatly in CA's interest to search out beta test people here and use their feedback in design decision/implementation.

If CA believes they are contractually in handcuffs, then they need to find a way to leak patch code to modders who can distribute it to the community to solve problems like this save game bug prior to the X pack. It is also absolutely vital that CA handle all the known bugs being discussed here with X pack development. There's absolutely no excuse not to: they are being paid for it.

[Duke John]

Things might be more complicated than just blaming ActiVision. Just look at this game:
http://www.madminutegames.com/
It's a strategy game about the Civil War and is made by enthusiasts. It's got a entire modding section on the site explaining things in detail. There is no indiciation that they plan to forget support after a single patch. These guys love what they made and they want to share it with the community. Now here's the catch; it's published by ActiVision. That makes you think, doesn't it?

[Puzz3D]

Things might be more complicated than just blaming ActiVision. Just look at this game:
http://www.madminutegames.com/
It's a strategy game about the Civil War and is made by enthusiasts. It's got a entire modding section on the site explaining things in detail. There is no indiciation that they plan to forget support after a single patch. These guys love what they made and they want to share it with the community. Now here's the catch; it's published by ActiVision. That makes you think, doesn't it?

I have that game. It's not a strategy game; it's a tactical game written by two programmers, and very well done. However, they have the same problem with Activision in that any patch they produce has to go through Activision QA for approval. They don't have the problem that Creative Assembly has in that Rome is a major game in Activision's portfolio, and subject to more interference from Activision. Bull Run is an Activision "value" release priced at less than half the price of Rome, and I've seen no statements in the Minuteman forums that Activision interfered in the game's developement.

We know that Activision caused delay in Rome's development. Activision rejected the minimal_ui, and made CA create that grotesque UI that shipped with Rome. That's more time taken away from AI development and debugging. The game shipped with hundreds of bugs. We also know that Activision wanted some of the "spectacular" graphic effects which not only took time to produce but also altered the playbalance. Players have confirmed that stuff such as "jumping" horses damaged the playbalance by changing the effectiveness of the phalanx.

[Red Harvest]

RJV,

I think the battle speed and movement speed issues are tied to initial decisions made in the architecture by CA. I don't really think Activision had much input on them (purely unbridled speculation, of course.) The reasoning I have is that chance of a kill is one of the fundamentals in the attack and the attack ratings all seem to be tied together in some way. So I suspect the very base value being used is a bit too much--and/or the base level defense is too low. Base attack has a 0 to 63 range, ditto for defense and armour, while shields are 0 to 31. I'm not sure what happens with charge bonuses, and mount bonuses, etc. that exceed the 63 total. Notice how almost all base unit stats fall into the very low end of the ranges, yet we have very high kill rates? That strongly suggests that the overall base attack efficacy is too high (or base defense is too low.)

The speeds are tied to the animations and skeletons. There are several things I am seeing in the unit choices and skeletons that tell me this was all rushed. First, there are not all that many skeletons and from what I can tell they must take a lot of time to develop. This is why we have only two horse speeds (ignoring fatigue.) Second, there are some rather basic unit types that don't exist at all or that have been changed from historical contexts. The ones I am thinking of are primarily javelin units: British chariot archers were actually javelinmen according to Caesar, javelins were often used by elephant crew, and many barbarian infantrymen had both throwing spears (javelins) and thrusting spears--yet you can't make any of these units in the game without doing extensive modding. There are also allusions to other weapon types in the files that are currently absent.

[BeeSting]

I look forward to the day where corporate game brokers no longer stands between those with passion for pc gaming, especially in matters of strategy games for which I know these guys only yawn at. All TW modders should unite and create a game on their own, and freely publish it via internet. I’m tired of waiting year after year for something good to buy off the shelves. What’s there to lose? We will only create games that we will love to play ourselves. If CA with 25 developers could create something like this, then the modding communities with their vast pool of volunteers could easily come up with something better. Who needs office hours? Thanks to the advent of internet, we could come together electronically. We could literally find hundreds of volunteers from a vast pool of talents to easily share the load. F@$% Activision! It's time we show them what money can't buy