News on the patch.

[Veresov]

Shogun on the .ORG mentioned that some news on the patch will be released this week or next. While it is good to hear what progress is being made, this allows means that the patch isn't going to be finished anytime soon. I will not be surprised if this patch isn't released until 2007 but this is my personal opinion.

The big question in my mind is why the unpacker has not been released.. This does not require any QA and could be released now. At the very least this would be a nice gesture to the community and to those of us that have owned this game for over a month in its currently buggy state.

[IRONxMortlock]

Shogun on the .ORG mentioned that some news on the patch will be released this week or next. While it is good to hear what progress is being made, this allows means that the patch isn't going to be finished anytime soon.

Why do you think that? Wouldn't that mean it will be released in a week or two?

EDIT - Oops, sorry re-read your message. NEWS of the patch will come out in a week or two.

[Doug-Thompson]

If the game is so buggy, are we sure all the bugs have been found so they can be corrected?

[Barry Fitzgerald]

More to the point expect 3 or 4 patches to get it up where it should be. I would expect the ist patch soon ish..then a delay with a much more intensive patch..then a couple of minor ones..

[Veresov]

If the game is so buggy, are we sure all the bugs have been found so they can be corrected?

The game isn't so buggy, in fact, the game has no bugs. The patch is taking a long time so that people get impatient and irratated.

Seriously, CA apparently only wants to do one patch. There are a ton of documented bugs such as broken animations, uber peasants, a cavalry charge problem (acknowledged by CA), siege problems, and so on and so on. This is going to take some time to correct.

[Doug-Thompson]

The game isn't so buggy, in fact, the game has no bugs.

and

... There are a ton of documented bugs such as broken animations, uber peasants, a cavalry charge problem (acknowledged by CA), siege problems, and so on and so on.

Clarification, please?

[Ice]

and



Clarification, please?

I believe he was being sarcastic and was making fun of the people who think CA is only holding the patch to irritate the community.

[Aenlic]

I think his first statement was intended as heavy sarcasm while the second displayed his real opinion. At least, it looked that way to me.

[Doug-Thompson]

Ok.

[shifty157]

A day 0 patch that was released on day 0 would have been nice.


With any luck this news will come sooner rather than later.

[Kraxis]

Well... I suppose 'releaseday patch' is a rather broad term in regards to time.

Personally I would prefer weekly patches that cleaned up a little bit here and there until the game was as good as it could get (that doesn't mean perfect, just at good as possible), over a single massive patch to fix everything including the stuff fixes caused.
I mean, aren't we the best QA anyway? Aren't we the best to determine if a bug (that isn't a CTD) is playkilling?

History has shown that patches, unless absolutely critical (like the 30 or so player limit to RTW MP), will take a long time, and still include rather substantial problems (56-year bug?).

[TB666]

The big question in my mind is why the unpacker has not been released.. This does not require any QA and could be released now. At the very least this would be a nice gesture to the community and to those of us that have owned this game for over a month in its currently buggy state.

Because it requires the code that is in the first patch.
In other words even if they released the unpacker, it would be worthless since it wouldn't work until CA release the patch.

[Whacker]

Hrmmm... So I'm somewhat perplexed at this point. Been doing some searching and reading from other forum members and a few other sites, and it may turn out after all that your 95% chance may not have been even close to 95% in actuality. I'd *really* like CA to verify this, but it appears that other characters in proximity to your assassin and target can affect the outcome, such as spys/etc, and it won't show up as a factor in your displayed probability. So your 95% chance may have really been a 5% chance.

[Shahed]

I would'nt hold my breath, people. I'd say it will take a while for the first patch to arrive. Hopefully I'm proved wrong.

:)

[Quickening]

I mean, aren't we the best QA anyway?

I personally don't think so. If CA listened to a lot of complaints on this forum, the game would be worse off for it.

[Whacker]

I personally don't think so. If CA listened to a lot of complaints on this forum, the game would be worse off for it.

I most respectfully, completely disagree.

There's a difference between bugs and feature requests/balance issues, if I make attempt to paraphrase at how I read the intent of your statement.

Bugs are for the most part black and white, but there is some grey. To pick on Mr. Doug Thompson, I noticed in another thread he stated that he believes that by and large quite a few of the bugs reported so far are not bugs. My apologies Doug if I misquoted you here, no disrespect or malice intended. I must respectfully disagree with that also, by and large most of the bugs I have seen reported are what I firmly believe to be bugs. Some have been matters of taste yes, but many are bugs. By and large, the QA process should have detected quite a few of the bugs that have made their way into our beloved initial release. I still firmly believe that the QA folks probably DID find a lot of these, and upper management knowingly released the game in the condition it's in. Whichever it is, in general the most obvious ones tend to pop up quickly on release, and some of the harder to find bugs tend to crop up shortly thereafter.

Quickening, if I may take your meaning, I believe that your comments are directed towards the 2nd category, feature requests/balance issues. So far for M2TW, I'm half agreeing and disagreeing with you as a matter of my personal taste. I've seen some suggestions that I think are great, like the inquisitors being overpowered, assassins being underpowered, charges being bugged, etc. Others I think are horrid, such as the suggestion that micromanaging charges is a good thing, if that is indeed CA's intent to make it as such.

Also please consider that there is some gray and uncertainty. Take the inquisitors for example, I listed that as a feature/balance issue, but is it really? Perhaps they really are intended to be as powerful as they are, and people (for the most part as I've seen, me included) don't like it and want it neutered. Perhaps it really *is* broken, and due to bad code they're far more powerful than they should be. Which is it? Bug or feature?

Cheers!

[Quickening]

I agree with everything you said. I just think that CA are in the best position to judge what should be changed and what should not.
I also read Doug Thompson's post and I happened to agree with it especially since after constant playing I have seen nothing of these "bugs" that some call "game breaking". There have been times when things have seemed strange at first but after some trial and error I have discovered that it was not a fault with the game but with they way I was using the unit in question. Don't get me wrong, I know there are bugs there, but I also think a lot of complaints should be taken with a pinch of salt.
I know it might seem arrogant to believe that just because I have not experienced the issues in question, I would presume that they don't exist. But by the same token it may also be arrogance to assume that when having a problem it is a fault of the game and not of what you are doing yourself.

But maybe there is no point in debate. Im someone who will never use mods precisely because they are essentially "homemade". And while Im sure there are some amazing mods out there, Im just not willing to use anything unless it comes from official sources. And I think it maybe this same mindset that makes me hope that CA will do what they feel is right with this patch and not be presurised into making changes that they had not intended.

What I was getting at in the post you quoted was that some people seem to be mistaking personal preference as bugs. To take your Inquisitor example, I don't believe that to be a bug. I believe it was intended and this is a good example of my own personal experience going against what some people claim. I have had no trouble with them. They may be a hassle once they are hunting you but the key is surely to stop that happening in the first place. I have successfully done this in every game. If it were a bug I think that I would have felt it's effects by now. Especially since I never play on anything less than VH/VH.

I just don't want lots of people complaining about something that not everyone is having trouble with, forcing CA to change it. Because it isn't necessary. There are things which are obviously bugs and to me, the distinction is clear. If CA decide that Inquisitors are indeed too powerful and change them then it's all good to me. The same applies to all other balancing issues.

Real bugs such as cavalry getting stuck on hills is something I of course agree needs to be addressed.

Anyway sorry if the above post seems incoherent. It's 0426 here The damn game has succeeded in keeping me up to stupid hours in the morning again

[Kraxis]

Did you notice the bug fixer thingy we had here for RTW and BI?

Had nothing to do with gameplay (other than the obvious). It was simply fixing a lot of small bugs, typos, mistakes, glitches, counterproductive traits (a lot of bugged up traits)... ect ect.

Gameplay issues are less easy to get a clear bearing on. But troops with disjointed arms or carrying torches in daylight, well that is pretty clear.

[Whacker]

Did you notice the bug fixer thingy we had here for RTW and BI?

Had nothing to do with gameplay (other than the obvious). It was simply fixing a lot of small bugs, typos, mistakes, glitches, counterproductive traits (a lot of bugged up traits)... ect ect.

Gameplay issues are less easy to get a clear bearing on. But troops with disjointed arms or carrying torches in daylight, well that is pretty clear.

Indeed I did, player1 is a god amongst men. I've exhorted CA in a number of my other posts to please for crying out loud USE the content and knowledge that went into community efforts like bugfixer for M2TW. There's no shame in doing so, if anything I'd think it'd be outstanding that CA would be willing to publicly acknowledge such an effort and work WITH us as the community to help make their product better. Arrogant "it doesn't exist!" or "we refuse to acknowledge organized customer movements or complaints!" type attitudes from software publishers don't exactly endear them to me, not that I'm exactly accusing CA of doing so.

[screwtype]

They can take as long as they like on the patch, but I personally won't even consider buying the game until (a) the patch is out, and (b) it's been tested and confirmed by the community that the major bugs have been fixed and no new ones introduced.

[AussieGiant]

In the end guy's, what we really need is a CA dude or dudett available to ask all these questions.

Sooo many of the issues (not defining them as bugs or balancing deliberately) can only be correctly addressed in conjunction with CA's involvement and input.

I'm totally sure their QA department is aware of most of the issues, plus a good proportion of new ones are added due to our gaming feedback.

In the end it is a cyclical process and things will have to be left out and therefore included in the next cycle in order to meet deadlines. When this is the situation then we are all ok...when it isn't then that is where we have problems.

The RTW load/save ai bug is an example of this cycle deteriorating...to the point where it was quite ugly. In the end I never read who was responsible for this very ugly situation. Was it the publisher simply not wanting to invest resources in resolving it? Or was it the developer not wanting to do the same thing? Only those closer to the whole situation will know.

One thing that is clear, is ,TW has a very vocal and passionate following and the only way to service that group and the users as a whole is to impliment an ongoing patching/balancing program.

I think due to the complexity of the game this is the best solution as a whole. It is simply too detailed to do otherwise. We have seen the results of trying to fob off sections of the community with; "its's not a bug but a feature" type responses.

In my opinion, with a game like this, and the current level of community involvement, 3, 4 or 5 patches by CA depending on how good their initial code is, would be more than enough to keep the community and the fanbase happy. As long of course as they keep producing a new game every 3 years or so

More importantly they must communicate this to the community or they simply run the risk of antagonising large sections of us the due to lack of information being distributed.

Better yet if they actually published a patching/balancing schedule (and stayed true to it) then you have not only won the community over as a whole but don't have to spend further resources communicating it.

Could you image a schedule being published.

Patch/balancing catchment cycles:

Nov-Dec 06: Release Early Jan 07
Jan-April 07: Release Early May 07

etc etc. up to 3 4 or 5 cycles. Now of course this might just some crazy idea, but after a certain period of time I beleive CA could even communicate a reduction or stop to patching. Most groups know if all issues are addressed and everyone would be far happier about an open and frank series of Public Address on the various sites. Given the modding community, then smaller issues could deal with even the most hard core fanatics.

You could call this idea a merging of my formal education in PR and Marketing with my actual career in technology. I don't see any major flaws. And it would certainly be something new for CA and Sega.

[Fisherking]

They can take as long as they like on the patch, but I personally won't even consider buying the game until (a) the patch is out, and (b) it's been tested and confirmed by the community that the major bugs have been fixed and no new ones introduced.

I have seen some games where this was the best plan. But this one is not like that at all.

Some of us may think that it needs some things need changed, but I have encountered very few actual "bugs". I am not saying that it is perfect and I would love to see some changes but as far as game releases go I would say it pretty problem free.

But they need to put something out soon...the unpacker...so we can mod this thing.

[mor dan]

Having been a beta tester and forum correspondent i have to agree...

Listening to the community at large would ruin the game.


When I was doing Star Wars Galaxies there was always public outcry for the dev team to listen to the forums about what they should do. For a long time the dev team refused to listen, and in that frame I would have agreed. They should have listened to us. However, after they totally screwed up the game mechanics they started listening to the community. The resulting chaos is a game that contains Star Wars name and places, but plays like a very, very bad version of World of Warcraft.

What the dev team did wrong is they strayed from the orginal plan to make SWG take place in a time period beginning between Empire and Jedi. We learned from the mistakes in SWG taht the community all ave different ideas and thoughts of how the game should play, but the reason the people went out and bought the game was because of what Star Wars is. Had they stuck tot heir guns people would have left. Had they done everything we asked, people would have left. Had they done nothing, people would have left.

The truth is, some of you played Shogun and liked it. Then you played MTW and didn't like the changes. Then you played RTW and didn't like the chagnes. Now you've tried M2TW and guess what? You still don't like the changes. Some of you just started playing with RTW. Others have played many other RTS games, and this is your first veture into the Total War series. You've played it and decided if you like it or not.

If the dev team used all the forums on the Total War site to determine what to change/fix or patch they would constantly be changing, fixing, and patching because some people are just never satisfied. No, they need to stick with their idea of what the game should be and allow the modding community to do what they wish for the style they like. This is the ultimate plan, anyway. In fact, I think more gaming companies should take the lead on that and do the same thing. Create the game you want and leave it moddable. Some will play your vanilla and love it for generations. Others won't and will seek other mods or create their own. In this way, no one feles like they got cheated out of their $50.


When you are the leader you never let the grunts tell you which direction to go. How could a general who let such a thing happen ever maintain positive control? No, you lead and others who are like minded follow. Those who aren't get off the band wagon. If I suggested every weaponsmith Idea I got from the community and Thunderheart and the dev team went to work on everything I requested nothing would have ever gotten done because not everyone agreed what needed to happen. It is the same for any game anywhere. We all have different ideas we think are great.



that's probably not a well put together thought, but it's after 1am and i'm tired...

[Lord Condormanius]

I have to admit, I did see some random daylight torches.

[Furious Mental]

I agree that the devs should definitely ignore all of you. But they should definitely listen to everyone I say.

[cambrax]

I mostly agree with mor dan, and I think the examples of Inquisitors and Assassins perfectly illustrate the problems inherent in taking your developmental lead from gaming geeks who live on the internet.

I don't think either assassins or inquisitors are in any way broken, I think they are exactly how they are meant to be and work in an effective and (more importantly) balanced fashion. With a bit of forethought, I have dodged most of the Inquisitors in my games, and when I have been caught out by them it's just another factor to deal with. Issues of historical accuracy aside, just because they burnt my favourite general doesn't mean the game is broken.

As for assassins, I think they are perfect. Really hard to train up, but if you get the guilds going and concentrate on assassination and subterfuge over blunt warfare, then you can easily have four or five maxed out assassins running about the map (I have on vh with Milan). If it was easy to off opposing generals and characters the game would become farcical.

Even given that both these parts of the game are (imho) balanced, there is still a huge outcry in places like this for them to be recognised as a bug/flaw and for them to be changed in a patch. It's an easy cop out to say the game is broken just because there's an aspect of it that is difficult to deal with or not exactly the way you want it. After all, this is still just the vanilla setting, and I'm sure people can tweak the balance of the game how they want when they get modding.

[Sir SillyDuck]

Everything you say you mean? w/e..

I played them all, all the TW releases, from the moment they came out, except BI. I liked them all, for what they were worth, and I liked the improvements some mods did for RTW. MTW2 is pretty, PRETTY good. I just wish there was an UH (ultra-hard) setting for the battles.. Or a setting in which the AI comes to battle with advanced troops, earlier in the game. If u dont *&^% up, you can win most if not all battles with a few less units than the AI.. I like the AI in MTW2, except for that it is a bit inactive at times (patch please), but I do miss the setting in which you could make it really really hard on yourself as u could in RTW. RTW I liked the least of all TW games, but the VH setting meant a proper disadvantage in the battles. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying anybody should like this, but the difficulty setting is changable, so..

[AussieGiant]

I think many of the issue are easily resolved and hopefully so, by being correctly distinguished by the CA Q&A team.

You both (cambrax and mor dan) point to examples that are in fact balancing issues not bugs.

I'm totally sure that CA is able to determine what is a balancing issue or a bug based on feedback because they do know how it is designed to work.

Either way, I don't expect CA to do everything the community asks for.

What I do expect CA to do is sift through all the feedback, determine what is a bug and what is a balancing issue, and with their own understanding, find a solution to bugs that they ID using our feedback and re-balance those issues that were not designed to be so extreme or the way things are occuring in the game.

For example. Inquisitors. I believe they in fact may be balanced, because if you keep your standing above 8 at all times, you seem to be able to avoid them.

CA will know this because they understand HOW they want it implemented. Maybe they lower the standing to avoid serious levels of inquisitor burning becuase they have determined it is in fact too extreme and beyond what they wanted because it was not meant to be so harsh...

we will never know...but I expect CA to be able to easily work that out themselves and make the adjustments if necessary.

[Frantz]

played the game for many hours and the only real problem for me is the AI on tactical battles ... a game fail when you realize tht you are playng alone against a stupid computer ... MTW2 is so near to be a perfect game that is a shame to see 500 knights massacred by 2 units of militia crossbow ( if the game isnt patched i will halve the amount of arrows/darts when possible )
but lets help CA with some heavy scripts :

IF you have 1 unit of archers and the opponent 12 THEN attack !!
IF you your units are standing for more than 5 minutes THEN move your a...
IF you are getting to the ram and the door is already open THEN leave it and enter the door !!
IF you sustain more casualties by arrows than your opponent THEN retreat or attack !!
and build more ladders !!!

[absents]

Wow, you people just keep on bending backwards for CA that has consistently kept on NOT improving the games they make.
Good for you, I guess. There's a saying in my country; if one is given with a spoon, can't demand with a scoop.