News on the patch.

**Quickening** · 11-30-2006, 04:39

Originally Posted by Kraxis

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** · 11-30-2006, 05:02

Originally Posted by Quickening

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** · 11-30-2006, 05:29

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** · 11-30-2006, 05:48

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** · 11-30-2006, 05:53

Originally Posted by 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.

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** · 11-30-2006, 06:06

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.

**Fisherking** · 11-30-2006, 07:40

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

**AussieGiant** · 11-30-2006, 06:32

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.

**Lord Condormanius** · 11-30-2006, 08:13

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

**Furious Mental** · 11-30-2006, 08:49

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

**cambrax** · 11-30-2006, 10:28

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** · 11-30-2006, 10:33

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..