Medieval Gold Edition Patch Released

[The Shogun]

No the petition did not work. As we have clearly stated before we treat online petitions as worthless as they are not email verified and are totally open to abuse.

What we do take seriously though is polite feedback from our community. Despite what a tiny minority will try have you believe (generally to feed their inner troll) we are keen to support the community as much as possible.

[Stormcrow]

Wether it worked or not, it's here now so let's just be grateful .

[caravel]

No the petition did not work. As we have clearly stated before we treat online petitions as worthless as they are not email verified and are totally open to abuse.

Regardless of whether the petition "worked" or not. Many thanks are in order. Though it does bug me, that though the site admins have explained about the validity of the membership here, and thus the petition, that you have branded the petition thread as "worthless" and ignored their posts. I won't dwell on the subject however.

What we do take seriously though is polite feedback from our community. Despite what a tiny minority will try have you believe (generally to feed their inner troll) we are keen to support the community as much as possible.

I find the support to be fine on the whole. The issue I have always had is the reselling of old titles such as STW and MTW, particularly the former, and seemingly not confirming that they function correctly on Windows XP, and with newer graphics hardware. These issues appear to be simply hushed up at the official forums and the threads closed. STW has XP problems with the in game videos cusing crashes and various other isues, MTW has CTD problems some of which are unresolved. Considering that these games are now being resold along with RTW as the "Total War: Eras" box, with an RRP of £44.99 in the UK and MTW is also being resold as the "Gold Edition", why are further patches to fix these issues not feasible?

[Divine Wind]

Thanks Shogun and CA!

[Ludens]

Regardless of whether the petition "worked" or not. Many thanks are in order. Though it does bug me, that though the site admins have explained about the validity of the membership here, and thus the petition, that you have branded the petition thread as "worthless" and ignored their posts. I won't dwell on the subject however.

I protest the insistent offensive and arrogant behaviour of the CA representative aliased Shogun towards Totalwar.ORG community, as demonstrated at post 1187838.

I think the Shogun still has a bitter taste in his mouth because of the "Won't buy BI"-petition, which was an attempt of part of the community to force their demands down CA's throat. Then again, the main reason for this petition was (in my view) the general feeling in the community that the developers didn't listen to them anymore, so the Shogun's tone is not exactly calculated to prevent such a thing from happening again.

But the main thing is that they have provided the requested patch, for which I offer them my thanks.

[caravel]

I think the Shogun still has a bitter taste in his mouth because of the "Won't buy BI"-petition, which was an attempt of part of the community to force their demands down CA's throat. Then again, the main reason for this petition was (in my view) the general feeling in the community that the developers didn't listen to them anymore, so the Shogun's tone is not exactly calculated to prevent such a thing from happening again.

But the main thing is that they have provided the requested patch, for which I offer them my thanks.

Well I may be heavily criticised for this post but, I also protest though not with as much politic and restraint as Mouzafphaerre, they, the .com administration, basically despise criticism and try to snuff it out ASAP, and there is a general attitude, among the members, at the .com forums that if you're criticising RTW or M2TW then you must be a stupid whinger with nothing better to do, and the administration allow this to persist because it fits their agenda nicely. I mean how could you possibly prefer yucky 2D to 3D, and who cares about AI anyway? It's all about graphics! Oh but they're working on those, they're just leaving them till last! Duh! Stop complaing this game is going to pwn! - (closed)

This is the attitude of many of the members towards those that didn't go weak at the knees and goosepimply when RTW and BI were released and aren't sitting drooling expectantly over M2TW. And the mods do absolutely nothing to stop it. Doubt what I'm saying? So where are all the veteran members gone? They've deserted in droves, though there weren't really droves of them to begin with as quite alot left after Rome was released. Those members that I used to enjoy posting alongside at the .com have vanished. I feel like some kind of 'relic' there now and I am in no way a 'veteran' member, which is why I go there seldom, and when I do I'm usually flamed by a certain few sad losers, that are not noteworthy enough to mention.

There were examples in the turns thread and others, of this sort of behaviour, any critics were quickly shouted down by the masses, with no moderator intervention. Then once that person crossed the line and began to criticise CA's policies there would be quickly a few moderators on their cases. The mods are only interested in closing nationalist threads or CA criticising threads. Priorities are completely wrong.

Funnily enough you can rip the older titles like STW and MTW to pieces all you like. STW and MTW are labelled "2D risk crap" by most of the newer members, but that's fine of course... Criticise the RTW campaign map, the cartoon romans, the poor battles and the lack of good multiplayer, and you're in for a 20 page thread with at least one mod joining in on the side of the wider RTW fanbase.

Their latest bit of restriction is to stop all external linking. Apparently they just can't do it, bandwidthwise... A company like CA... not that there are that many links posted anyway. The real reason of course is that they don't want to / have time to moderate it along with all of the other big brother style stuff they're doing.

The problem is that if you treat your patrons like moronic peasants, they'll soon start to behave like that, and will also bring more of the same with them. Hence the situation at .com.

Coming here and also treating .org patrons like moronic peasants, with "this is CA, our word is law, why would you need any other opinion?" type posts (at least that's how they come across), shows exactly what CA thinks of the average gamer, and more to the point: their customers.

In reality it grates on their nerves that they can't extend their clumsy iron fist to this forum also and slam it down indiscriminately on this thread, but they can't of course, instead they simply dismiss our petition as "worthless" and claim that it didn't "work". Because what else can these corporate hard men do? They couldn't admit that they responded to the requests of customers complaining (oh no that c word again!) on both forums now could they? It would be interesting if on going to work tomorrow I could try a CA type model for customer relations, treating all of my customers like 12 year olds and basically seeing them to the door if they complain about the product. Hmmmm...

[Stormcrow]

No the petition did not work. As we have clearly stated before we treat online petitions as worthless as they are not email verified and are totally open to abuse.

I think you're misinterpreting his words. "treating it as worthless" does not mean he treats it as a bad thing. I think he means, he doesn't treat it at all. Then followed by his explanation why, not an insinuation of the Org patrons being a frauding mob.

What we do take seriously though is polite feedback from our community. Despite what a tiny minority will try have you believe (generally to feed their inner troll) we are keen to support the community as much as possible.

Instead let's focus on these words. Not because a CA representative has said them, but because they are the most constructive way to communicate in whatever situation. Treating eachother with respect get's you further than complaining about eachother.

No matter what happens on the .Com site, this is the Org, so let's handle things our own way.

I believe the Shogun when he says the petition didn't work, though the next part is debatable. Wouldn't creating a patch, testing it and going through all the administration surrounding it take a lot longer than the time between the petition getting on it's way & the time of release of the patch ?

Let's just consider the above a rethorical question. Otherwise this thread would drift off topic into a CA vs Org thread, which could be better discussed in the Watchtower?



-Stormcrow.

[caravel]

The problem is that the "polite feedback" tends to be, moreso, feedback they agree with, to the exclusion of all else. Those that suggest otherwise are obviously branded a tiny minority who complain "to feed their inner troll" or something similar. I'm not referring to the patrons that post a rant in all caps stating that they'll "never buy another TW game", I'm referring to valid criticism from long term patrons that the .com admins saw as negative and closed down.

Anyway I have no more to add, I've said my bit. I don't represent the .org so this would not be an "org vs CA" scenario. This is simply my opinion of the situation as I see it. I'm not trying to stir up any trouble, though if the .org admininstration believe that I am, then I'll remove my post (or they can remove it), so as to let this thread continue in a more positive fashion, or end.

[Stormcrow]

The problem is that the "polite feedback" tends to be, moreso, feedback they agree with, to the exclusion of all else.

I don't think that's completely fair, CA has asked for a buglist before and they have created quite a few patches after community feedback. The most obvious example I can think of being the 56-year bug.

Anyway, I'm not out for a fiery discussion, I just hope to bring people together



-Stormcrow

[NagatsukaShumi]

No the petition did not work. As we have clearly stated before we treat online petitions as worthless as they are not email verified and are totally open to abuse.

What we do take seriously though is polite feedback from our community. Despite what a tiny minority will try have you believe (generally to feed their inner troll) we are keen to support the community as much as possible.

CA are alot more helpful, imo, than ALOT of games companies and again I do think they appreciate the community they have and prove so by posting here and so on.

Thanks alot for the new patch, very helpful seen as I went and got myself the Era's pack

[Clovis]

scans the .org

sees this thread

starts to dance with a boyish glee!

downloads patch and becomes a hermit

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
I protest the insistent offensive and arrogant behaviour of the CA representative aliased The Shogun towards Totalwar.ORG community, as demonstrated at post 1187838.
.

[R'as al Ghul]

No the petition did not work. As we have clearly stated before we treat online petitions as worthless as they are not email verified and are totally open to abuse.

I wonder what "email verified" means in this context. I do need to provide an email account to log in to .org. Isn't that a verification?
Besides, in times of spam and throwaway email accounts how can an email verify anything?
The only real verification is the moderators and admins word and the post count of posters. Both have been provided and yet.....

But let's not take an individuals post too seriously, after all his account could have been hacked.

[Matty]

I would possibly have been a little less blunt when communicating with the people who pay my salary, but perhaps the same question had been asked ad nausem. Anyway, the issue was addressed and there are bigger things to worry about in the world. Like why you can't build mobile siege towers in MTW to scale the defences - wouldn't that be cool?

[caravel]

Unfortunately I can't read his words that way. The first post about the petitions and all could be tolerated but after the intervention of the ORG admin, guaranteeing the authenticity of the e-identities of ORGAHs, repeating the same accusation with no smoothened wording is unacceptable.

The ORG staff have all the authority to relocate the thread if deemed necessary.
.

The way I saw it also.

I wonder what "email verified" means in this context. I do need to provide an email account to log in to .org. Isn't that a verification?
Besides, in times of spam and throwaway email accounts how can an email verify anything?
The only real verification is the moderators and admins word and the post count of posters. Both have been provided and yet.....

But let's not take an individuals post too seriously, after all his account could have been hacked.

I've no clear idea what is meant by "email verified" but I can guess. I would say it refers to each petition 'signing' originating from a separate email address: check. Also it would help if each of those 'signatures' originated from a unique IP address: check. So in fact as far as the email verification goes the org had more than fulfilled that requirement.

I would possibly have been a little less blunt when communicating with the people who pay my salary, but perhaps the same question had been asked ad nausem. Anyway, the issue was addressed and there are bigger things to worry about in the world. Like why you can't build mobile siege towers in MTW to scale the defences - wouldn't that be cool?

"A little less blunt" is right. The issue over petitions has been raised time and time again over at .com. They don't allow them there. That's their prerogative of course. They don't allow petitions for one simple reason: They're afraid of the results. Petitions, depending on what they're related to, either reflect the views of the forums userbase or are a total sham based on hyperbole and a forced opinion put across by a small pressure group, and can lead to unrest among the patrons.

An example of a bad petition would be: "[something] Total War is rubbish! Sign now!"

[lines of signatures from members]

A good petition would be: "Please sign the petition to fix the bug in [something] Total War!.

[lines of signatures from members]

First looking at the bad petition. If we were to say of this "it is a possibility that the same person(s) are voting repeatedly. It is a valid suspicion, we could then check the IP addresses. The forum software would ensure that unique email addresses are used for registration of user accounts, so we don't need to worry about that. Of course it's possible that someone registered multiple accounts using their multiple email addresses, but this throws the validity of the whole "email validation" thing into dispute anyway. That sort of thing usually gets spotted sooner or later by the mods/admins when they check the poster IPs. But anyway even if we prove the signatures are legitimate it's still a bad petition based on an opinion, and a desire to force and spread that opinion.

The second one is a request for some sort of support, not an opinion as above. We could look into the same possibilities as above, though there is no motive for the cheats. This is not a "this game is crap" petition, or a "boycott this" petition, so the signatories would have no motive for cheating, this wouldn't be a pressure group trying to "feed their inner troll" by attacking the games developers, but the admins are in the position to check anyway by looking at the posting IP's of the members involved, as before.

[R'as al Ghul]

So in fact as far as the email verification goes the org had more than fulfilled that requirement.

That's my point. I guess the irony was lost in translation.
BTW, the third quote is not by me. It'd be nice if you could fix that.

[Ludens]

Caravel, I don't know whether Mithrandir wants us to continue this discusion, but I also think you are reading too much in the Shogun's words. Yes, they were ill-chosen and impolite, but I think his intention was "just" to discourage the use of petitions. After all, it is easy for the fans to sign a petition for a patch to fix siege-engine bug, but it is CA who has to do all the work (and making a patch takes a lot of work, not to mention money). Also, the IP-adres is not an unique code that can be used to ascertain identity over the internet.

You are right in that communication between fanbase and and developpers leaves something to be desired. However, this is not just a one-sided problem. The developers do listen to the community: they ask for bug-lists, they visit the forums, they even delayed the 1.2 patch to fix the primary-secondary bug. As far as I can see, support has actually improved with the take-over by SEGA. That is why I am disinclined to believe that CA is actually trying to scotch all criticism. I cannot see how they could accomplish such a thing anyway.

[caravel]

Caravel, I don't know whether Mithrandir wants us to continue this discusion, but I also think you are reading too much in the Shogun's words. Yes, they were ill-chosen and impolite, but I think his intention was "just" to discourage the use of petitions. After all, it is easy for the fans to sign a petition for a patch to fix siege-engine bug, but it is CA who has to do all the work (and making a patch takes a lot of work, not to mention money).

I'm not sure of the logic behind that, but I'll drop the subject completely.

Also, the IP-adres is not an unique code that can be used to ascertain identity over the internet.

It definitely doesn't prove identity, even in the case of a static IP, but lets say for example you see 5 people sign a petition all posting from the same IP you may be entitled to smell a rat. Even then they could be a group of individuals on a LAN using a NAT router to share a connection.

You are right in that communication between fanbase and and developpers leaves something to be desired. However, this is not just a one-sided problem. The developers do listen to the community: they ask for bug-lists, they visit the forums, they even delayed the 1.2 patch to fix the primary-secondary bug. As far as I can see, support has actually improved with the take-over by SEGA. That is why I am disinclined to believe that CA is actually trying to scotch all criticism. I cannot see how they could accomplish such a thing anyway.

You may be correct, though locking what they refer to as "CA Bashing" threads, which are usually criticism of the policy not the games, leads me, and others to believe otherwise.

Signing off.