Note on whinging

[econ21]

Oj, I missed this somehow...

Don't worry, I didn't miss it.

[Myrddraal]

Neither did I

Every member here who whines or whinges, who gets bitter or angry, frustrated or even disappointed, has been loyal above all else to the TW series. We love it for what it was and for what it could be but we despair that certain things have happened, wanting them to be remedied and most of all wanting to say Congratulations CA, you did a Great Job!

Orda, what I don't understand is (to use the phrase of another) the polarisation of this thread. You talk to me about 'we' the upset veteran players. I'm not criticising dissapointment (how could I).

Though I joined the .org two years after you, I've played the entire series, STW, Mongol Invasion, MTW, VI, RTW, BI, and modded MTW, VI, RTW and BI.

I've seen the changes over the years, I'm not blind. I don't agree with lots of them, particularly many that came about in the jump from MTW/VI to RTW/BI.

When one reads the last page of a book, all one knows is its ending. To comment on the book one needs to read its contents

I was upset because, with that sentence you strongly imply me as a 'new player' who hasn't considered the background of the total war series, and is blinded by shiny graphics. I take offence to that.

Re-reading my own post, I see nothing malicious, or at least, nothing intended as such.

I do give allowance for the fact that it was a new engine, nonetheless I'm dissapointed in RTW.

I'd be willing to bet there isn't a grievance you have that I don't share. It's the manner of expressing those grievances that sometimes gets on my nerves, and the seeming lack of hope for the future that I disagree with. The automatic defensive reactions in this thread are something I'd lump in with the stuff that annoys me (though in this case, the first post doesn't really help much)

Take screwtypes thread on comparisons with LOTR2. It makes a good read, makes good observations. In short, it's enjoyable to view. When I read yet another comment about CA's lack or respect/ability/etc, which has little or no constructive criticism and is entirely fixed on the RTW experience rather than the possibilities of M2TW, it certainly isn't enjoyable to read. After all, are we not all here because we enjoy discussing the series with (mostly) like-minded people?

So to the people who say give them another chance, I am saying how many times are we going to do just that?

You know you want to give them another chance really. Go on, you know you do, or else why are you here?


I realise that maybe the pills comment was out of order, but it was genuinely meant as a joke. Maybe that's just my upbringing, keep taking the pills is commonly used by members of my family, not that we're nuts or anything.

@ Puzz, I don't know if you took offence, but please accept my appology, I am posting with good intentions.

[Orda Khan]

Orda, what I don't understand is (to use the phrase of another) the polarisation of this thread. You talk to me about 'we' the upset veteran players. I'm not criticising dissapointment (how could I).

No, I have tried to stay on topic and any we reference is to we the ones who whinge.

Though I joined the .org two years after you, I've played the entire series, STW, Mongol Invasion, MTW, VI, RTW, BI, and modded MTW, VI, RTW and BI.

I never said that you did not.

I was upset because, with that sentence you strongly imply me as a 'new player' who hasn't considered the background of the total war series, and is blinded by shiny graphics. I take offence to that.

I already explained that. You misunderstood. I will explain again.

So to the people who say give them another chance, I am saying how many times are we going to do just that?

That was my explanation of this

People suggest we should all give CA a chance (yet again) Well all I can say is this......
When one reads the last page of a book, all one knows is its ending. To comment on the book one needs to read its contents

I clearly wrote people, I did not mention your name and I was talking about giving CA a chance. Where my post was directed at you was my initial response and your quote above. In the following paragraph (and back on topic) I directed my response to people so I fail to see how you can take offense or deduce that I question your knowledge of the TW series.

Re-reading my own post, I see nothing malicious, or at least, nothing intended as such.

Not even this?

Your bitterness about RTW permeates everything you post in this forum.

That is the particular sentence that I find offensive. You may think these things but I question whether you should actually post them, or at least not until you have some justification such as a similar attack on yourself.

You know you want to give them another chance really. Go on, you know you do, or else why are you here?

I have been asking myself that very question for quite some time. For the first time I will go on record as saying I will not be rushing to purchase MTW II and will instead wait for feedback. I never thought I would say that because somebody has to buy the product to test it but considering how little I actually played RTW, I must ask myself if I can really afford to squander money in this way. For the price of RTW and BI, I could have made two dozen arrows.

Just to make my own grievances clear, my main concerns are....

1. The Tactical AI......which has become steadily worse since STW.
2. Game speed ....Simply too fast to be believable. IMO any motion capturing did not include weapons or armour.
3. Faction Imbalance ....harder to remedy but not impossible.
4. MP Lobby.....The current one is so bad that no words can describe it.
5. Map Editor......Let's have it as an option without altering the target address and maybe make it a little more user friendly. I did enjoy the challenge of creating nice fair maps that people enjoyed using.

Finally, it was nice of Captain Fishpants to air his views but I tend to agree with Duke John's reply

........Orda

[sunsmountain]

You have to be kidding. What they care about is bad publicity, and I've posted a lot about the gameplay.

I'm not kidding, the list you gave (i hope you copy-pasted that from your archives somewhere) is written in an imperative way: Do this, do that, as if CA was some kind of obedient dog.
And while I agree with most of your "commandments", it would be better to summarize them in a non-imperative way and give examples of reproducable ingame behavior. I know you already lost a lot of time, but given your "Posts: 3,958" I cannot imagine this taking that much more time...
...if one of the moderators could then sticky it CA wouldn't have to look through piles of old posts...

There are also some of your remarks i do NOT agree with, like:
"Make the loyalty of a province dependent on distance and isolation from the faction leader"
and
"Get rid of exploding rocks"

That faction leader is too reminiscent of STW/MTW to me and I didn't like it back then, nor do I now, certainly not under the present (and may i say much better and clearer) loyalty system. But I do like exploding rocks

To give you more examples of what I mean:

"Increase the rock, paper, scissors back to the level it was in STW"
This is too general and impossible given the difference number of units,

"Make the AI understand how to use a shield"
This is too judgemental and vague (unclear which situations you mean here).

If I were a programmer there would be little I could do with it. Given objective facts, however, I could make a rational decision and justify it to my business manager who is obviously only caring about bad publicity and money.

[Puzz3D]

I'm not kidding, the list you gave (i hope you copy-pasted that from your archives somewhere) is written in an imperative way: Do this, do that, as if CA was some kind of obedient dog.

I didn't copy the list from anywhere. Those are the issues I have with the game, and there are even a few more that I forgot to mention. I intend to continue to state things in an imperative way. CA can take it or leave it.

There are also some of your remarks i do NOT agree with, like:
"Make the loyalty of a province dependent on distance and isolation from the faction leader"
That faction leader is too reminiscent of STW/MTW to me and I didn't like it back then, nor do I now, certainly not under the present (and may i say much better and clearer) loyalty system.

Simplistic things are clearer. So you like the new simplified system where loyalty is tied to the straight line distance from an instantly relocatable capital, and it doesn't matter whether or not there is a logistical path back to the capital. In the new system, you don't have to be concerned about where your heirs are located since it doesn't matter. Let's find a nice word that puts a positive spin on simplification: Streamlining. That has a nice ring to it.

and
"Get rid of exploding rocks"
But I do like exploding rocks

Then be happy. The game has exploding rocks, and they aren't being removed. You aren't concerned that I have any influence with CA are you? I certainly do not.


"

Increase the rock, paper, scissors back to the level it was in STW"
This is too general and impossible given the difference number of units

That's right. They overloaded their combat system with too many units. This has also made it impossible for them to balance.

""

Make the AI understand how to use a shield"
This is too judgemental and vague (unclear which situations you mean here).

My intention is to be judgemental. Take a horse archer, ride up to shooting range off the right flank of the enemy battleline and start shooting into the right side of the enemy infantry unit that's there. Dumbo unit will just stand their facing my battleline which is nowhere near them. Those men have a shield which they could use to protect themselve, but they don't use it. Another example is: watch the enemy AI advance a single, lightly armored unit, with a shield while under ranged fire, half-way across no man's land, turn it around and walk back to it's battleline and be decimated because its shield no longer protects it. I've seens this hundreds of times. It happens in virtually every battle where the AI has weak units.

If I were a programmer there would be little I could do with it. Given objective facts, however, I could make a rational decision and justify it to my business manager who is obviously only caring about bad publicity and money.

Well that's naive. The only way the programmer will get a change is if he can convince the manager that it won't hurt sales and the game will still be fun and spectacular. It doesn't matter how logical the change might be from a gameplay perspective. If it's something he hasn't been told not to change, he might change it on his own initiative. Just look at the years changed into turns to see irrational gameplay that is apparently rational from a business perspective.