News on the patch.

[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.

[Barry Fitzgerald]

Hmm maybe a tad harsh there!

I think maybe some are just pretty happy, and some fussy.

[Frantz]

i personally say that because i LOVE the game , i just dont understand how after all the playtesting and months of production they havent saw that enormous AI faults ...thats all

[Barry Fitzgerald]

Well I agree with frantz and econ.

I am fussy myself...but I dont think that is a bad thing really. I don't expect miracles either. Maybe well all got to expect too much...

It has to be said (and with respect to CA), clearly they are not a charity but a commercial games developer. The days of Paul woakes, and Geoff Crammond are likely over. This is a serious business, with much larger outlays for companies, pretty obvious that this time of year was the target for sales..(nothing wrong there)..

Point being deadline hits...product must be out. I am sure they knew about the numerous issues....

Is this acceptable? Well it isnt ideal is it...from a end user point of view.

[absents]

If M2TW is any indication of how you run a "serious business", I expect CA bankrupt soon enough.

[d1ng0d0g]

Well I do hope a patch appears soon, but I'm still entertained quite a bit by this game. The bugs that some people mention are actually features. Some of the features may indeed need balancing, but that's something that could be (and should be) done by volunteer modders. True bugs should be fixed.


Personally I love games that can be modified a lot and those are the games I spend money on. Infinite replayabillity, or at least, a lot more value for your buck then most non-moddable games.

I would really love to see a game producer create only an engine and provide all the tools to create a game and put that on sale. This would maybe require a really large legal team, putting to trial any who try to make a profit of your engine.

Then as a demonstration make and sell a game using that engine.

This would really improve the world of gaming a lot and keep a lot of people from screaming.

"If you don't like it, change it."

And then you could.

Dingo

[absents]

As the thread shows, fanboyism is the biggest crutch of the series. People see what they want to believe is there.

[Daveybaby]

i personally say that because i LOVE the game , i just dont understand how after all the playtesting and months of production they havent saw that enormous AI faults ...thats all

Become a software developer on a massively complex project with unmissable deadlines looming and financial constraints on how many people you can employ and how much time you can spend testing and you will begin to understand.

If M2TW is any indication of how you run a "serious business", I expect CA bankrupt soon enough.

Must... not... feed... troll... must... resist... urge... to... ridicule...

[JFC]

Become a software developer on a massively complex project with unmissable deadlines looming and financial constraints on how many people you can employ and how much time you can spend testing and you will begin to understand.

DaveyBaby, Sorry fella, but that irritated me. We, the consumer, shouldn't/don't need to understand! We want a product that works! Or at least by now have some kind of 1st patch that is starting to address problems raised to keep the interest going.
If I buy a car that gets delivered without a steering wheel and tyres I'm gonna be a bit miffed and I aint gonna become a mechanic to understand why!
It's a business I agree, however they have sold a product with problems! (and no offence to CA, quite a few!) And who decides the release date? Isn't it them and SEGA?

[Freedom Onanist]

DaveyBaby, Sorry fella, but that irritated me. We, the consumer, shouldn't/don't need to understand! We want a product that works! Or at least by now have some kind of 1st patch that is starting to address problems raised to keep the interest going.
If I buy a car that gets delivered without a steering wheel and tyres I'm gonna be a bit miffed and I aint gonna become a mechanic to understand why!
It's a business I agree, however they have sold a product with problems! (and no offence to CA, quite a few!) And who decides the release date? Isn't it them and SEGA?

Well, in your estimation it is flawed and presumably unplayable. To many others this isn't the case. CA would be liable if they had released the game you are talking about, but many people don't recognise as such. Certainly, my CA "car" has got a steering wheel and tyres. It mightn't be as responsive as I hoped in some situations, but CA are releasing the suspension and low profiles to "pimp my MTW2".

Yes the AI can be improved and CA have stated that they are working on just that. But, the AI, as it is, doesn't make the game useless, many people are enjoying themselves - maybe they don't know any better eh?.

As has been said, CA are working on a patch. If the patch is late, so be it. The complaining usually starts with "this game has been rushed to the shelves....", so i don't think you can have it both ways and complain if they are taking their time this time round.

[Quickening]

Yes the AI can be improved and CA have stated that they are working on just that. But, the AI, as it is, doesn't make the game useless, many people are enjoying themselves - maybe they don't know any better eh?.

[Doug-Thompson]

You know, enough really is enough.

I fired up my computer this morning, came to the forum, and found four patch/general bug threads on the first page. The games been out a couple of weeks.

All right. A bunch of folks not happy. You haven't been happy for weeks. The number of threads where people think their individual unhappiness deserves a thread of its own is a clear sign of that.

We all get the message. However, we got the message a long, long time ago.

If you must remind everybody at least once a day of how unhappy you still are, would you all please find one thread — one that has been created already, giving plenty to choose from — and stick to it. There'd be no danger of it sinking to the bottom. There's obviously enough misery to keep it afloat.

It's gotten to the point that you have to choose up sides between being a fanboy or perpetually p*ssed off.

[Freedom Onanist]

You know, enough really is enough.

I fired up my computer this morning, came to the forum, and found four patch/general bug threads on the first page. The games been out a couple of weeks.

All right. A bunch of folks not happy. You haven't been happy for weeks. The number of threads where people think their individual unhappiness deserves a thread of its own is a clear sign of that.

We all get the message. However, we got the message a long, long time ago.

If you must remind everybody at least once a day of how unhappy you still are, would you all please find one thread — one that has been created already, giving plenty to choose from — and stick to it. There'd be no danger of it sinking to the bottom. There's obviously enough misery to keep it afloat.

It's gotten to the point that you have to choose up sides between being a fanboy or perpetually p*ssed off.

Great idea

[Proletariat]

If you must remind everybody at least once a day of how unhappy you still are, would you all please find one thread — one that has been created already, giving plenty to choose from — and stick to it. There'd be no danger of it sinking to the bottom. There's obviously enough misery to keep it afloat.

QFT

This problem is making this forum unwieldy and unapproachable. I was checking in very frequently before, but now it's become too annoying to try and search down the actually useful threads like the General's Traits, Guild Info, and Merchant income.

This issue with all the purposeful, research threads being lost in a sea of rants/raves is the reason why I'm for a dedicated research forum for MTW2, but I believe that is still being decided by the appropriate staff members whether it's justified or not.

[Daveybaby]

DaveyBaby, Sorry fella, but that irritated me. We, the consumer, shouldn't/don't need to understand! We want a product that works!

Shrug. Not saying you have to understand, but i was responding to somebody who said they couldnt understand how the game got shipped with bugs. The reason is, basically: in software, bugs happen. The more complex the software, the more likely it is to happen. Thats how.

We'd all rather the game had been bug free, but if you can name one complex strategy game that was released in that state in the last 10 years, i'd be interested to hear it. Even bog-standard RTS-by-numbers games get patched several times after release, and most of those *still* dont do anything more complex than the command & conquer did 15 years ago.

Or at least by now have some kind of 1st patch that is starting to address problems raised to keep the interest going.

In case you havent been paying attention, there IS a patch, its in the publishers QA cycle, which means stuff like checking it doesnt format your hard drive when you install it (cos i'm sure everybody would just LOVE that) across umpteen different versions of windows and hardware, and adding the copy protection so that the all the leet crackers have something to keep them busy for another 15 minutes. This stuff takes time - about... oooooh... 2 weeks or so on average.

I think it would be nice if CA kept us a bit better informed as to whats going on, but to be honest i cant blame them for keeping their heads down until they know for definite when its going to be released, cos god forbid they give a date and then have it slip - i can just imagine the tantrums.

If I buy a car that gets delivered without a steering wheel and tyres I'm gonna be a bit miffed and I aint gonna become a mechanic to understand why!

This isnt a car. You may as well make comparisons with buying a cake for all the relevance that has. Nor, for that matter, is it a shoot em up or beat em up with the exact same gameplay as last time bolted onto a swishy new graphics engine for the next generation of consoles. Crank that handle.

It's a business I agree, however they have sold a product with problems! (and no offence to CA, quite a few!) And who decides the release date? Isn't it them and SEGA?

Unfortunately, business reality sets the release date. Christmas season has a say. So do finances, profits and the march of technology. There is a window of opportunity where your product is viable, a fixed target that has to be met.

There are a lucky few (valve, sid meier) who have sufficient funds that they can dictate their own timescales, but everyone else is all too aware that it doesnt take much to sink a software house. And its usually the ones who are doing something different that are the first to go.

You can say "i shouldnt have to care" all you like. In a perfect world you would be right.

[TB666]

i just dont understand how after all the playtesting and months of production they havent saw that enormous AI faults ...thats all

That's because the AI faults was created right before the game went gold.
They tried to make the AI more aggressive on the battlefield but discovered after the game went gold that the AI was now instead extremely passive and once the game has gone gold you can't touch it unless with a patch.
If you played the pre-beta demo unscripted you can see that there is no trace of a passive AI and that the AI uses it's troops like a pro.
Good use of flanking, no suicidal generals, finding weak spots in your line etc.
I myself got beaten countless times by the AI in the pre-beta demo, it was that good.

Now CA has already fixed that huge AI bug and Palamedes thought they would release that patch on day 1 but I can guess that SEGA wanted CA to make a large patch instead that will fix any other bug that will be reported.
And hopefully that patch is soon finished.
After all Wikiman did not say that we would have it in two weeks.
He just said that would have it if testing went smoothly which if the patch is indeed delayed then it didn't go smoothly.

[Barry Fitzgerald]

I have to agree with TB666...that is my experience also. The demo was much more in yer face attacking, and using it would seem anyhow some reasoning and strategy.

Currently in the retail game it is IMO very passive and a bit feeble being honest. Every trick I try just seems to work most of the time. Flanking cavalry attacks dont get countered..or even a response until you have engaged a unit.

I have even moved whole armies right up next to an enemy..and they just stand there...nothing...this happens too often, though not all the time. People complained rome was buggy when it was out..meet the new champ!

It does spoil the game a fair bit...you cannot say what we are playing now, is really what it should be. I am not at the point where I am shelving the game, but on the other hand ist impressions count...and I am not blown away as I was with the other total war games..(and they had their faults)

So we shall see what the real game is when the patch/patches are out..until then we are really paying playtesters for an almost beta game in some respects.

[nameless]

Currently in the retail game it is IMO very passive and a bit feeble being honest. Every trick I try just seems to work most of the time. Flanking cavalry attacks dont get countered..or even a response until you have engaged a unit.

I have even moved whole armies right up next to an enemy..and they just stand there...nothing...this happens too often, though not all the time. People complained rome was buggy when it was out..meet the new champ!

It does spoil the game a fair bit...you cannot say what we are playing now, is really what it should be. I am not at the point where I am shelving the game, but on the other hand ist impressions count...and I am not blown away as I was with the other total war games..(and they had their faults)

So we shall see what the real game is when the patch/patches are out..until then we are really paying playtesters for an almost beta game in some respects.

The AI actually counters what you do, at least from what I have seen.

Missile troops go off first to lure you in. However, if you send out a unit to lure them in they take the bait and charge in en masse.

Interestingly enough they kept a few troops in the back. When I tried to get my knights and swordsmen to flank they actually deployed and charged these troops to hold them off. They eventually failed but the fact is that the AI attempted to counter my moves.

In siege battles, I usually spread out my troops to spread out the AI's own troops but eventually the AI will realize which is the most dangerous and will redeploy their troops to stop it.

[Frantz]

no nameless ... the AI 90% of time will shoot is arrows even with 1 unit of peasants while you have 10 genoese crossbowmen units ... when he have finished his arrows ( and his army is at 30% streght ) MAYBE he will charge you .... that have no excuses ...is just plain stupid

[redriver]

People complained rome was buggy when it was out..meet the new champ!

I don't have the game myself but I know somebody who got a brand new high end system with best pretty much everythin' and a fata$$ LCD sceen ontop just for this game. after playin' it for less than a week he just shelved it and downloaded Chivalry to play RTW until the patch comes out.
the guy was like really hyped 'bout the game and now he tells me it's only good for eye candy and even then RTW still looks better now that he can run it on max settings too lol

[Quickening]

I don't have the game myself but I know somebody who got a brand new high end system with best pretty much everythin' and a fata$$ LCD sceen ontop just for this game. after playin' it for less than a week he just shelved it and downloaded Chivalry to play RTW until the patch comes out.
the guy was like really hyped 'bout the game and now he tells me it's only good for eye candy and even then RTW still looks better now that he can run it on max settings too lol

I bought a new PC specially for this game as well and Im happy. And your friend is clearly mad if he really thinks that Rome looks better.

[Orda Khan]

I've never read anyone arguing otherwise or wanting to play with a v1.0 TW game rather than the final patched version.

Well I am one and I think Louis would agree also.....MTW v1.0
Gameplay was far superior, the final patch helped in some ways but it did absolutely nothing to reinstate the valuable role of spears. The final v2.01 patch may have solved the cav swipe bug (which never really troubled me) but it totally screwed MP and reduced it to boringly low levels of cav/sword, cav/sword, cav/swo zzzzzzZZZZzzzzz.

That's because the AI faults was created right before the game went gold.
They tried to make the AI more aggressive on the battlefield but discovered after the game went gold that the AI was now instead extremely passive and once the game has gone gold you can't touch it unless with a patch.
If you played the pre-beta demo unscripted you can see that there is no trace of a passive AI and that the AI uses it's troops like a pro.
Good use of flanking, no suicidal generals, finding weak spots in your line etc.
I myself got beaten countless times by the AI in the pre-beta demo, it was that good.

Which is why so many have posted their dissatisfaction....much like you did only a few posts later......

Oh how I miss the pre-beta AI.
I miss how it attacked your line and at the same time sent 2-3 units on the flanks to go behind your lines and attack your ranged units.
It was a beautiful manouver by the AI

And considering the STW AI did this six years ago, who would not be frustrated with the game in its current state?

Jambo is true , there are bugs but come on there are 1000 other fantastic things that make you play and play again .... yours is a point of view a bit too negative and not objective , sad to say that ... shelve the game ? come on ...

1000? OK name them.
A strategy game is supposed to be challenging and M2TW is not, so what 'other' things are supposed to keep anyone playing again and again? Jambo is not the kind of person to make a statement like that without good reason.

Personally, I think CA have realised they have a hell of a lot to sort out and are beginning to wish they had never been so confident as to suggest the patch would not be long because they were aware of the passive AI and had it solved already. If it surfaces this side of Christmas I will be very surprised.

And no, I would not call the game a beta, I think it's awesome, but that does not prevent me from expecting a patch for the passive AI bug and some other minor bugs.

Contradictory. How can the game be awesome if the AI has a MAJOR bug? It has to be called a Beta when it was released in this state and the problem was KNOWN.

AI is dumb dumb dumb..not helped by the campaign problems also...

It can be fixed for sure...let us hope...but it aint good at present...least not in the game I am playing

There are some who will not agree with you and I can not understand why they feel the need to be so positive.

We, the consumer, shouldn't/don't need to understand! We want a product that works! Or at least by now have some kind of 1st patch that is starting to address problems raised to keep the interest going.
If I buy a car that gets delivered without a steering wheel and tyres I'm gonna be a bit miffed and I aint gonna become a mechanic to understand why!
It's a business I agree, however they have sold a product with problems! (and no offence to CA, quite a few!) And who decides the release date? Isn't it them and SEGA?

Precisely. And if that statement is expanded, six years down the line one would expect them to learn by previous mistakes

It mightn't be as responsive as I hoped in some situations, but CA are releasing the suspension and low profiles to "pimp my MTW2".

Oh really? So how often would you buy a car from that dealer before asking why you can't have one that does not require after sales work?

Yes the AI can be improved and CA have stated that they are working on just that. But, the AI, as it is, doesn't make the game useless, many people are enjoying themselves - maybe they don't know any better eh?.

Well maybe they don't, I guess ignorance is bliss.

As has been said, CA are working on a patch. If the patch is late, so be it. The complaining usually starts with "this game has been rushed to the shelves....", so i don't think you can have it both ways and complain if they are taking their time this time round.

Is this the first TW game you have purchased? I have to ask because it certainly seems like. The game IS rushed out and this is not the first.The patches take AGES. Would it not be a good idea to at least provide a small patch to improve the passive AI? Considering the blog and how brilliant the AI is supposed to be? I seem to recall that on VH it would be a challenge for TW vets? LOL

.........Orda

[Frantz]

thank you TB666 , now i feel better :)

[Darkmoor_Dragon]

That's because the AI faults was created right before the game went gold.
They tried to make the AI more aggressive on the battlefield but discovered after the game went gold that the AI was now instead extremely passive and once the game has gone gold you can't touch it unless with a patch.
If you played the pre-beta demo unscripted you can see that there is no trace of a passive AI and that the AI uses it's troops like a pro.
Good use of flanking, no suicidal generals, finding weak spots in your line etc.
I myself got beaten countless times by the AI in the pre-beta demo, it was that good.

Now CA has already fixed that huge AI bug and Palamedes thought they would release that patch on day 1 but I can guess that SEGA wanted CA to make a large patch instead that will fix any other bug that will be reported.
And hopefully that patch is soon finished.
After all Wikiman did not say that we would have it in two weeks.
He just said that would have it if testing went smoothly which if the patch is indeed delayed then it didn't go smoothly.

Ttbeofk the demo was scripted - there were practically no AI actions in it at all.

[Darkmoor_Dragon]

There is no denying there is a great game buried in MTW2 but its partially hidden behind some fairly serious balance issues and a mediocre to awful AI on the tactical battle maps and on the campaign.

There is an excuse with software that if you ship it broken you can always patch it later. The legitimacy vanishes when that starts to become be the deliberate action, rather than the unfortunate circumstance.

CA should be experienced enough to know that friggin' with the code, especially the AI which has ALWAYS been their Achilles heel, is quite literally suicidal and whoever made that decision bears the ultimate responsibility for the subsequent disenfranchisement of a substantial proportion of their fan base.

CA promised (again) that THIS time it would be different, we would be awed by the AI on both battle and campaign modes - but yet again it isn't and we certianly are not.

As one reviewer succinctly put it -

" Yet, while Creative Assembly has addressed some issues, others continue to plague them. Worse, these problems have existed throughout the series and considering this is the fourth game in the franchise and the second with this engine, patience has worn thin to say the least".

I've got plenty enough experience with designing, playing, testing and writing about games to say that I'm aware of the vast majority of "issues" surrounding a game development, testing and release - but come on folks, as much as we LOVE CA for making the series, as much as we LOVE the potential, as much as we LOVE the improvements... what gives with them (CA) messing with the code and releasing it (essentially) untested when they KNOW that AI will ultimately make or break the game for a massive (and it is massive) number of buyers?

I mean, batter your head against a brick wall or what?

CA, get a grip: your (SP) game is utterly reliant on the capability of the AI, it makes or breaks the entire (sp) game.

And I'm thinking of those members of CA i've spoken to in person and/or interviewed for magazines and I'm thinking "Which one of you was the total Numpti-foo" who made that brilliant decision?

(And I wonder if anybody {still} in the press will ever have the balls to ask them to their face?)

[Jambo]

There is no denying there is a great game buried in MTW2 but its partially hidden behind some fairly serious balance issues and a mediocre to awful AI on the tactical battle maps and on the campaign.

There is an excuse with software that if you ship it broken you can always patch it later. The legitimacy vanishes when that starts to become be the deliberate action, rather than the unfortunate circumstance.

CA should be experienced enough to know that friggin' with the code, especially the AI which has ALWAYS been their Achilles heel, is quite literally suicidal and whoever made that decision bears the ultimate responsibility for the subsequent disenfranchisement of a substantial proportion of their fan base.

CA promised (again) that THIS time it would be different, we would be awed by the AI on both battle and campaign modes - but yet again it isn't and we certianly are not.

As one reviewer succinctly put it -



I've got plenty enough experience with designing, playing, testing and writing about games to say that I'm aware of the vast majority of "issues" surrounding a game development, testing and release - but come on folks, as much as we LOVE CA for making the series, as much as we LOVE the potential, as much as we LOVE the improvements... what gives with them (CA) messing with the code and releasing it (essentially) untested when they KNOW that AI will ultimately make or break the game for a massive (and it is massive) number of buyers?

I mean, batter your head against a brick wall or what?

CA, get a grip: your (SP) game is utterly reliant on the capability of the AI, it makes or breaks the entire (sp) game.

And I'm thinking of those members of CA i've spoken to in person and/or interviewed for magazines and I'm thinking "Which one of you was the total Numpti-foo" who made that brilliant decision?

(And I wonder if anybody {still} in the press will ever have the balls to ask them to their face?)

Yup, excellent post. There's too many that accept mediocrity. Maybe it's because the community has a lot of TW freshmen experiencing a TW game's style of play for the first time? I do remember how enchanted I was when I first played Shogun TW. On the other hand maybe for some it's just blind fanboyism?

There is a lot to admire with the TW games - they are bold and ambitious and deserve the accolades they've received, but like DD has just posted, the features and graphics aren't really worth much without clever supporting AI to use them. Instead, they really should be playing second fiddle to the AI and that's not really been the case.

I haven't not played M2TW because I'm trying to make a statement to CA or you guys. Rather it's that I'm not satisfied or enjoying the level of competition I'm being challenged with. If it was a MP only game much like BF2142, they at least have the advantage of the AI being done for them. That is not the case with the meat of TW games.

[TB666]

Ttbeofk the demo was scripted - there were practically no AI actions in it at all.

However if you removed the script there was plenty.
Pre-beta demo unscripted= AI is good, better then in RTW 1.5 and more like what they promised
Gold demo unscripted= the same thing we see in M2TW now.

[econ21]

Wow, you people just keep on bending backwards for CA that has consistently kept on NOT improving the games they make.

If you are talking about patches - as we are - then you are quite wrong.

The patched MTW/VI was significantly improved over MTW 1.0 and RTW 1.5/1.6 is significantly improved over RTW 1.0 (if you doubt me, ask the EB or RTR teams why they are porting to 1.5 from 1.2).

I've never read anyone arguing otherwise or wanting to play with a v1.0 TW game rather than the final patched version.

[Jambo]

What Shogun posted is not what I'd call news. Wikiman already said there would be further news in 2 weeks approximately 2 weeks ago! All Shogun has done is repeated that statement and the sycophantic fanboys go delerious for a few days giving CA some more time. If I was being cynical I'd say it was simply a stalling tactic, and it's worked. They now have till next week to come up with something, whatever that may be. As I count it that means the proposed release day patch, a promise that suckered me into purchasing the game, has now become at best a 4 week patch, possibly longer, since in true CA form nothing concrete has been stated. In fact, it's entirely possible that the patch won't even be out next week... most likely it'll just be more "news"...

I've played the game only 4 days before the niggles bothered me enough to shelve the game. The passive AI, the inability of the some units to actually inflict damage on cavalry, the buggy siege AI, the massive lag during certain sieges, the pathfinding frustrations, etc, etc.

[Frantz]

Jambo is true , there are bugs but come on there are 1000 other fantastic things that make you play and play again .... yours is a point of view a bit too negative and not objective , sad to say that ... shelve the game ? come on ...