Has anyone been to totalwar.com recently

[Wicked]

*

Glad to be of service.

[Aurelius]

Thanks, Nelson. I really mean that. I'm honestly not sure that the great patrons of the community that get so angry with us realize the impossible situation that we signed up for. At one point, every time I signed on to the .com there were over 400 people laying down posts.

I felt like there were only 40 of us, rapiers drawn, a la three musketeers...

All for one, and one for all against the tsunami.

And then some dude signs on, and in 72 hours is calling me a fascist. I ran my own board for a while, after the purge, so that we could all have 100% freedom, but I couldn't afford to maintain it. And in 8 months, I closed zero threads. Admonished, yeah, scolded, yeah, but pressed the admin buttons? Nope.

Friendship. It isn't just for breakfast anymore.



EDIT: Thanks for the asterisk, Wicked. I guess we'll see how many patrons read whole threads. Did anyone else make two or three good pals on the .com? Look at your address book, mates. Look at your address book. It isn't about selling shares. It's about sharing tales.

[Mablung]

A lot of you guys are being far too harsh on the .com mods, they give up their own time to try and keep the place in some sort of order. It is not their fault there is a lot of moderating, there is a hell of a lot of crap posted there!
The problem is the maturity level seems to have dropped markedly since the influx of new patrons thanks to Rome. When there is a lower maturity level of course there is going to be more moderating, if it was less leniant new patrons would be less likely to join as it would be hell.

Aur - have to say I have made some good mates, enjoyed having a chat to SP, Stoney, Zelda, Massa and many others. Too bad chat was taken away, still talk to some of the guys. Also, it is always good to catch up with some of the patrons that don't post over at .com anymore -- got to thank Duck and for his pond.

[Aurelius]

So... post just an asterisk.

I'm serious. I'm not gonna rope in 6700 .com lemmings to back me up. I could, but I'm not gonna do that.

I think that the .com has been a lot more important to far more people than would first appear.

That's why we spend so much time... just trying. It has nothing to do with any nefarious plot. The very idea of one site against another is ridiculous, and I for one refuse to have anything to do with it.

[Browning]

...is not to load at all.

Wait, don't bash me yet, I am also your 1-hour-every-second-evening type of guy.

And I live in Germany, which means I pay like 4 times more for the electricity than it actually costs, thus I am unwilling to leave my comp permanently on.

A possible solution, which I have just read on the .com forum, would be to HIBERNATE your comp. Basically, it writes the complete memory state onto your harddisk and then turns off. Upon start, the memory will be loaded, and you find yourself in the middle of your R:TW campaign without loading the savegame, if everything works.

I suspect, one could then copy and rename the hiberfil.sys file (and most probably the swap file?) and use it as a kind of savegame substitute. This way you avoid beeing limited to playing only one campaign on your computer. On my computer, my son plays his also, thus a straightforward solution is not the one for me...

I will test it over weekend... perhaps someone of you can do it even earlier.

[player1]

I suspect, one could then copy and rename the hiberfil.sys file (and most probably the swap file?) and use it as a kind of savegame substitute. This way you avoid beeing limited to playing only one campaign on your computer. On my computer, my son plays his also, thus a straightforward solution is not the one for me...

And how to do it, since computer after powering on, automaticly restores hyberanted state (and doens't restore it anymore until next hybernation).

.

Anyway, is it possible to make a program that could make an image of all RTW data in RAM, which could be loaded later?

[Maeda Toshiie]

Speaking as a .com mod, I have to say that Bat has done a fantastic job since the first day he began posting. It makes me feel great that he's getting the proper respect he deserves, considering the time and effort he puts into the .com site.

Speaking strictly as a member of the TW community, I would have to say that there are many, many times when frustration over bugs and game issues gets personal over there, and the colours of fact and opinion blur together, resulting in the very smog that bores into the foreheads of the more articulate patrons. On the matter of all of us being 'company men', well, that line of thinking doesn't hold water because on a forum where there are literally hundreds of repeat posts, outright garbage, and the occasional concerted effort to make the place look like a death camp, (IE: certain 'incursions' by groups from other forums), it's obvious to all concerned that some weeks we're going to look more like butchers than surgeons. Don't mistake our silence on some matters for mute acceptance of the party line. Do you think it's a coincidence that some threads, full to the brim with venom and inarticulate rubbish, get some 'official' (oh, how I'm growing to hate that word) attention when someone makes a good point? Most days I feel like an avalanche rescue worker, sticking a fibreglass pole into the white noise drifts in the hope of salvaging a good post or thread from asphyxiation. I know there are more 'refined' places to have more intricate conversations, but I also know that if every member of the .org that met some cool people at .com posted an asterisk on this thread, it would be 130 pages long, mates.

I'm just trying to hold the breach so that there's a chance that .com patrons can make the sort of friends that I have since I started skulking back in the Shogun days. Please don't paint me with a fascist brush. We all have our moments, but for pity's sake realize that the place just blew past 22,222 today as far as posters go. It isn't fair to compare a forum that's advertised in who knows how many countries to the private forums that the dedicated TW heads set up. It's the difference between a guy who has every Grateful Dead album ever released on their label, and the guy who has been obsessively looking for the gig that was taped by hand on Jerry's last birthday. ( I was there- does anyone have it? )

I'm trying to be as honest and earnest as possible in this post.... I hope I've succeeded.


Enjoy Being.

EDIT: Don't cut that bastard Wart any slack. LMAO !!

@Aure, forget it. There are many people out there who can neither be tolerant of the view points of others nor be able to see the other sides of the picture. .com moderators have always been viewed as facists since the Purge (or even before). Nothing can be said that will change the impression of others. .com are the official forums and certain standards have to be enforced. Some cannot accept this fact. It is a fact of life, else why is there never peace in this world?

I know that I have not been around for long, since I only joined .com in January last year. I also know that there are those out there who have less than polite things to say about me. I dont care. Neither do I care about the thousands of posts that I have made in the MTW forum. Sometime from now when I finally disappear, all that wouldnt matter to me at all. I am not here to make a mark in the community. I just want to help others enjoy their games.

Fact: Activision is the publisher and hence the final authority in Support. Support at .com has always been provided on an ad hoc basis. It was never official. Just ask Erado.

Fact: Activision limited the number of patches for RTW (AND the expansion) to a single patch. VI 2.01 was a patch made on the free time of CA's developers. If you think CA didnt care about their games, would they have gotten out the patch on their own time (on top of their official work) to fix the cavalry and 56 years bugs?

In other words, if RTW is to ever have a 1.3 patch, the devs would have to work on their own time (on top of their work on the expansion).

Activision paid CA for the development. You paid Activision for the game.

I recall the big outcry on the state of multiplayer back when the game was just released. People complained about CA focusing on SP and neglecting multiplayer. Right now, everyone here is switching their tune and start bashing CA for focusing on the multiplayer and ignoring problems in SP?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From what I can see, after observing the threads on the loadgame bug, I am inclined to believe that the issue runs deeper than just the AI forgetting. Siege lifting may well be just a very obvious symptom of something else. It have something to do with the basic design of the game AI. If that is so, it may not be something so easily addressed by a patch or even an expansion. It is hard to say since we have no concrete idea regarding how the AI works. We can only wait and see.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Haters of .com forum staff can flame all you want. I dont care.

[Butcher]

I generally start of slowly, so my first 20-30 turns fly by (just the way I play, I like to give the a.i a chance!). I notiec that generally I do the first 30 turns without reloading, as I do it in one sitting. The map changes shape a lot then. On reloading, the pace of change drops drastically, In my current Carthage campaign, Parthia has stagnated in an uber empire form after a massive 30 year rush at the start. It has not conquered anywhere near as much as it did, as my turns are longer and I cannot play for extended periods.
The Parthians and Egyptians started a war against each other, i watched it through spies etc for about 15 turns, and they werer really getting stuck in, with jerusalem exchanging hands often.
Now, after a reload, both just sit there even though they are still at war. the Parthians even broke of a siege when there was only 1 Egyptian unit in the city.

You don't need to convince me there's something odd in that, Given that Parthia had them on the ropes..

'Feature' my arse..

[Calmarac]

*

[Calmarac]

Don't mistake our silence on some matters for mute acceptance of the party line. Do you think it's a coincidence that some threads, full to the brim with venom and inarticulate rubbish, get some 'official' (oh, how I'm growing to hate that word) attention when someone makes a good point? Most days I feel like an avalanche rescue worker, sticking a fibreglass pole into the white noise drifts in the hope of salvaging a good post or thread from asphyxiation.

Excellent image there :) Or maybe like a farmer picking over the Midden to rescue a few blooms that appeared overnight, before today`s lorryload of manure gets dumped on top

Keep the faith

[Nefarious]

@ Aur,

*




'Mumblings in the alleyways...wait. What...? Where'd he...? How did he find...?'

Don't worry how, just revel in the 'same teamness'.
Nef

[Benny Moore]

VI 2.01 was a patch made on the free time of CA's developers. If you think CA didnt care about their games, would they have gotten out the patch on their own time (on top of their official work) to fix the cavalry and 56 years bugs?

From what I can see, after observing the threads on the loadgame bug, I am inclined to believe that the issue runs deeper than just the AI forgetting. Siege lifting may well be just a very obvious symptom of something else. It have something to do with the basic design of the game AI. If that is so, it may not be something so easily addressed by a patch or even an expansion. It is hard to say since we have no concrete idea regarding how the AI works. We can only wait and see.

Herein lies the problem. You say that Creative Assembly does care, and indeed this is supported by the information in your first statement. However, your second statement admits that there is a problem. Creative Assembly does not, and they moreover insulted nearly the entire forum for saying that there is one. I'm sure you've heard the quote, probably even in this thread, where one of the Creative Assembly tells the forum something to the effect of "You just want to complain and will never be happy with the game. The bug you are complaining about now doesn't exist, and you have no clue how the game works."

[Aetius the Last Roman]

I personally feel quite responsible for this thread,
starting out as a mini-protest I expected to disappear into the nexus of the colosseum we have gone on to a seven-page political slandering of the authority of the the community and .com, as if they are immensely great forces. True, no-one really cares for .com anymore and .org has pretty much become the official site but is there any need for a great debate over the rights to TW?

My regrets for starting this conflagaration,
Aetius.

BTW, what and when on earth was this 'purge' of the .com?

[ShellShock]

I suspect that CA has already drawn up its development plans for the next year, and have fully allocated its resouces (people) to the various projects:

RTW Expansion
Spartan Total Warrior
Successor to RTW

It create patch 1.3 for RTW they would have to take people off these projects, which would delay their delivery; some of these existing projects deadlines may be set in stone. Also, they would not earn any tangible revenue from another patch, although they would get appreciation from many RTW players, which could have intangible benefits in the future (better sales of forthcoming products).

So, for a CA project manager, this could be a difficult decision to make.

[player1]

It create patch 1.3 for RTW they would have to take people off these projects, which would delay their delivery; some of these existing projects deadlines may be set in stone. Also, they would not earn any tangible revenue from another patch, although they would get appreciation from many RTW players, which could have intangible benefits in the future (better sales of forthcoming products).

Does not need to be like that.
To create solid expansion, you need to take care of worst bugs from non-expanded game. If you do fix them for expansion, it would not be too much difficult to incoporate them in small hotfix for base game (although there is a small problem of maintaing two code bases in same time).

[Browning]

@Aure, forget it. There are many people out there who can neither be tolerant of the view points of others nor be able to see the other sides of the picture. .com moderators have always been viewed as facists since the Purge (or even before). Nothing can be said that will change the impression of others. .com are the official forums and certain standards have to be enforced. Some cannot accept this fact. It is a fact of life, else why is there never peace in this world?

Calling modeators of an internet forums fascists is just... wrong. Fascism (sided by communism) is a single most evil creation of the human mind in its recorded history. Humans following these evil ideologies killed millions of other human beings without any justifiable reason and changed the history and the spirits of whole nations in a way that these nations will never be the same.

Whatever one does on an internet forum just cannot be compared to that. It is wrong even if the word "fascist" is used as a parabola because some words just must not be abused. In fact I consider using this word in such a stupid context an insult for all those who suffered because of and who fought against this evil.

This beeing said, I want to ask you, Meada, to think about the policies of the moderators on the .com forum. This is not a flame. And please don't tell me you don't care. You should care about the opinion people have about that forum because you give that forum a shape.

Such a forum must be moderated - there is no doubt of it. There are enough people in the world who behave like morons when anonymity protects them. Taking part in unmoderated forums is just a waste of time. But there is another opposite and it is also bad, and the .com is close to that opposite. There were important things said in some threads that disappeared. True, some of the posts in the mentioned threads were far from being mature, but a moderator has tools to remove/edit single posts rather than an entire thread. As it happened - the threads containing info on the flaws of the product were de-facto removed - and this creates a bad air. Combined with some posts by the developers, which even with a best of goodwill could be understood equivocally, this created a _very_ bad air.

Fact: Activision limited the number of patches for RTW (AND the expansion) to a single patch. VI 2.01 was a patch made on the free time of CA's developers. If you think CA didnt care about their games, would they have gotten out the patch on their own time (on top of their official work) to fix the cavalry and 56 years bugs?

Fact: there is a bug that needs fixing.

In other words, if RTW is to ever have a 1.3 patch, the devs would have to work on their own time (on top of their work on the expansion).

Fact: if I break something I usually repair it.

Activision paid CA for the development. You paid Activision for the game.

Yes I paid for a software product and I expect it to function. A software with a dysfunctional save-load feature is a dysfunctional software unless it is a demo.

I recall the big outcry on the state of multiplayer back when the game was just released. People complained about CA focusing on SP and neglecting multiplayer. Right now, everyone here is switching their tune and start bashing CA for focusing on the multiplayer and ignoring problems in SP?

Let me propose a revolutional solution: both SP and MP should work...!

[Bhruic]

Fact: Activision limited the number of patches for RTW (AND the expansion) to a single patch. VI 2.01 was a patch made on the free time of CA's developers. If you think CA didnt care about their games, would they have gotten out the patch on their own time (on top of their official work) to fix the cavalry and 56 years bugs?

You know, I hear this a lot. Well, actually, I hear 2 patches a lot. I hear lots of things about limits to patches a lot. But no one has ever presented any evidence to support their claims.

Have you a quote from Activision or CA backing up this "fact"? Have you seen the contract the two of them have?

I recall the big outcry on the state of multiplayer back when the game was just released. People complained about CA focusing on SP and neglecting multiplayer. Right now, everyone here is switching their tune and start bashing CA for focusing on the multiplayer and ignoring problems in SP?

Wait, where did they focus on multiplayer? Did they put out a new multiplayer patch that I'm not aware of? Seems like they've neglected both MP and SP. Not exactly praiseworthy behaviour.

Bh

[Mablung]

True, no-one really cares for .com anymore and .org has pretty much become the official site but is there any need for a great debate over the rights to TW?

My regrets for starting this conflagaration,
Aetius.

BTW, what and when on earth was this 'purge' of the .com?

Not true, how can it pretty much be the official site for TW? CA owns the .com fora, they are for the TW series, it is the one and only official forum.

As for the purge, it happened before I arrived - well over a year ago, don't know how long ago. This was when there were signatures and avatars and .com - they were removed after misuse and then there was a Stalinistic purge of the patrons. Many of the older forumites - Goats and Uglies either were banned or left.

Aetius - good on you mate, takes a man to admit regret.

[player1]

For me, the only reason why I prefer these forums, is that ezBoards suck simple as that.

You can't subscribe on post and get just one single mail, you'll get dozen of them (one per every post). And subscription mail link leads you to first page of the, post, not the last.

No avatars, no signatures...
Nuff said...



P.S.
At least it's not as bad as RtW Heaven forums were you can't subscrite to threads at all.

[Simetrical]

You know, I hear this a lot. Well, actually, I hear 2 patches a lot. I hear lots of things about limits to patches a lot. But no one has ever presented any evidence to support their claims.

Have you a quote from Activision or CA backing up this "fact"?

I can tell you that I saw devs say straight-out that CA and Activision have a two-patch deal, with no ambiguity. Unfortunately, I don't know if any such dev statements still exist on the .com forums, since every topic that reaches the end of the twentieth page is deleted. Probably someone quoted one of the devs on this somewhere here or at TWC, if someone feels like searching.

-Simetrical

[Attalus]

I can tell you that I saw devs say straight-out that CA and Activision have a two-patch deal, with no ambiguity. Unfortunately, I don't know if any such dev statements still exist on the .com forums, since every topic that reaches the end of the twentieth page is deleted. Probably someone quoted one of the devs on this somewhere here or at TWC, if someone feels like searching.

-Simetrical

Are you sure about that?

The only thing that I remember reading was in theshogun's pre-patch announcements.

Something about.."We may only get one run at a patch"...or words to that effect.

Hardly conclusive.

Now..if'n a certain aquatic marine life wearing officer were to post a definitive answer...well.

Perhaps the tone and flavor of alot of posts both here and at the .com would see some significant improvements.

No patch...no trolls. What's to whinge about for more than one post?

'member this?



rightieo.

[Bhruic]

I can tell you that I saw devs say straight-out that CA and Activision have a two-patch deal, with no ambiguity. Unfortunately, I don't know if any such dev statements still exist on the .com forums, since every topic that reaches the end of the twentieth page is deleted. Probably someone quoted one of the devs on this somewhere here or at TWC, if someone feels like searching.

If that's true, why was Maeda claiming that it was a "fact" they only got one patch? Last time I checked my math, 1 != 2.

Bh

[hellenes]

If that's true, why was Maeda claiming that it was a "fact" they only got one patch? Last time I checked my math, 1 != 2.

Bh

Well if 1.1 was a patch we are getting to stage 2.9 with the various mods, what we need is not imaginative patches but some real ones...

Hellenes

[Puzz3D]

CA has always followed a one patch policy: STW v1.12, MI v1.02, MTW v1.1, VI v2.01 and now RTW v1.2. There were two quick patches STW v1.01 and RTW v1.1 each aimed at fixing a multiplayer connection issue, but I don't count those as full blown patching efforts.

[Attalus]

CA has always followed a one patch policy: STW v1.12, MI v1.02, MTW v1.1, VI v2.01 and now RTW v1.2. There were two quick patches STW v1.01 and RTW v1.1 each aimed at fixing a multiplayer connection issue, but I don't count those as full blown patching efforts.

Agreed, Puzz. The reasoning is a litle flawed though...'It's what we ALWAYS do...' Sheesh.

However, the silence and lack of 'ownership' still irks me.

[Bhruic]

CA has always followed a one patch policy: STW v1.12, MI v1.02, MTW v1.1, VI v2.01 and now RTW v1.2. There were two quick patches STW v1.01 and RTW v1.1 each aimed at fixing a multiplayer connection issue, but I don't count those as full blown patching efforts.

Sure, I'm not disputing the history. I'm just looking for a reason. Is it because that's what they're contracted for? Is it because they believe they can fix everything with one patch?

I guess I'm looking to see who my ire should be directed towards. If it's part of the contract with Activision, then that's who's to blame. If it's simply that CA believes they've fixed the bugs they need to fix, then it would be CA's fault. It's an important issue for the future, now that they are owned by Sega, because if it was Activision's fault, then we can reasonably hope that things will improve. But if it's CA's idea, then changing publishers isn't going to help.

Bh

[Red Harvest]

However, the silence and lack of 'ownership' still irks me.

And there you have hit one one of my "hot buttons." Lack of ownership. I've seen that too often in engineering. Some groups, vendors, contractors seem to feel no obligation to answer questions, fix problems, or in any way help out after their "deliverable" has shipped and been signed off on. Whereas my approach has always been that I would do my best to provide assistance even if you call me 10 years after my work was completed (and yes, I've fielded calls ten years later.)

[Turbo]

What we have with CA is a classic business study of how not to conduct business. Take a successful product line with a strong customer following. Release a new product with shoddy quality then refuse to address/recify the quality after customers complain. There are dozens of companies that followed this same pattern, adopted arrogance, then went under as their customer base fled. The once mighty Avalon Hill and SSI are prime examples.

Blaming Activision for the situation is ridicious. CA is the developer with the reputation on the line.

[Marcus Maxentius]

look at gamespy's mailbag section. Talks all about games being rushed out the door. They mention Activision and how they hurt developers with their bloated business model. They release too many crappy games and then use the revenue from one popular game to cover their losses. There was an example of Troika which designed Vampire the Masquerade game with the HL2 engine. They were given a set development time for the game, but it still had a lot of bugs. The games released had to be delayed until HL2 came out. They could've done extra work now that they had time, but there was no money from Activision for the patch. But they do say the blame is on both sides. Like developers often think too big and have way too big hopes for their game and that creates bugs. This might be the case with CA

[sik1977]

Sure, I'm not disputing the history. I'm just looking for a reason. Is it because that's what they're contracted for? Is it because they believe they can fix everything with one patch?

I guess I'm looking to see who my ire should be directed towards. If it's part of the contract with Activision, then that's who's to blame. If it's simply that CA believes they've fixed the bugs they need to fix, then it would be CA's fault. It's an important issue for the future, now that they are owned by Sega, because if it was Activision's fault, then we can reasonably hope that things will improve. But if it's CA's idea, then changing publishers isn't going to help.

Bh

Just wanted to point out and clarify, that SEGA not only is the future publisher for CA, but has also acquired CA in the sense one company buys 50%+ shares in another company and takes over its management. Thus CA is now a subsidiary of SEGA. Activision was simply a publisher, and the right and duties of parties (Actvi. & CA) were contractual in nature.


And I do clearly remember reading Shogun's post on .com after he released the readme file before the release of the Patch 1.2, where he clearly said this would be the last patch. In fact lots of patrons questioned the 'last patch' policy at the time and showed concerns about an eventuality where the 'last patch' may introduce fresh problems specially due to the large number of changes and fixes in the patch. However, CA never responded to any of those concerns.

Hope it clears a few things.