No further patches for M2TW or Kingdoms (update: Kingdoms patch announced)

[Goaswerfraiejen]

I was afraid of this, which is why I didn't want to buy Kingdoms--what's the point of buying M2TW if ultimately we can't get a patch to fix the remaining major bugs without having to buy a whole new game? I've been pretty disappointed with M2TW overall, and it really saddens me to hear that it won't get patched up properly to bring the game to the level at which it should be. Makes me glad that I didn't spring for Kingdoms, and it reaffirms my conviction not to spend money on Empires or any further games--at least not until many, many years have gone by and I need only spend ten to fifteen dollars for these hyper-graphical (I know, not a word) and underdeveloped products.

A sad, sad day.

[phonicsmonkey]

Kingdoms certainly needs a patch to restore the advertised features which are broken and missing from the game.

I'm not certain there are any remaining "game-breaking" bugs which would make me believe a further patch for M2TW is a necessity. Of course, further patches are always desirable as there is always improvement that can be made.

I haven't up to now considered the poor performance of the AI in battles and on the campaign map to be a "bug", and have felt as others have described here that it is unrealistic to expect this to be improved with a patch.

Having said that, Sinan's recent post in the "Losing at M2TW" thread has inspired me to try out GrandViz's Ultimate AI 1.06.

If that makes a marked improvement, perhaps there is a case for expecting CA to tweak the AI in a patch to improve the game difficulty.

[Goaswerfraiejen]

I'm not certain there are any remaining "game-breaking" bugs which would make me believe a further patch for M2TW is a necessity. Of course, further patches are always desirable as there is always improvement that can be made.

I haven't up to now considered the poor performance of the AI in battles and on the campaign map to be a "bug", and have felt as others have described here that it is unrealistic to expect this to be improved with a patch.

Oh, I wasn't referring to the AI. My own biggest problem with M2TW as it stands now is that it's nigh impossible to deploy troops properly inside a city, and unity cohesion and pathfinding is really wonky. But really, I can't stand not being able to deploy my troops as I want them. Part of the problem, perhaps, is that Rome was very flexible with deployment and maybe I'm too used to that--hell, you could get pikes poking out of closed gates--but this is really the other extreme. After about an hour of pre-battle deployment, I still can't get them to stand where the cursor says they can stand. If I had a clue how to fix it on my own, I'd have done it a year ago.


I was also disappointed about some missing features--like Russian War Wagons or that advertised castle that looked like Krak des Chevaliers or something. I've gotten over that, but man--not being able to deploy properly for siege battles--the most common battles--really, really, really sucks.


While I appreciate that the Kingdoms dilemma is perhaps more serious, my own concerns are for the product that I bought. It's really troubling to me to see a company giving up on its game as soon as a new project gets announced publicly. Equally troubling is the importance given to the quality of the graphics over the game and its own cohesion. But I'm just beating a dead horse; we're all concerned with the same things. I've just decided that it's not worth the disappointment any more. I can't spend my free time living on anticipation. I've learned my lesson, and I'll be waiting a long time before buying anything new--long enough to find out what's up. It really bugs me that a game like Diablo got a gigantic new patch years after its release (and during a wane in popularity), but a superior game that still isn't functioning properly gets given up on a year after its release. But again, that's beside the point. I don't want to rant, I just want to express my support of the other good people here, who are rightly outraged by this announcement.

[phonicsmonkey]

My own biggest problem with M2TW as it stands now is that it's nigh impossible to deploy troops properly inside a city, and unity cohesion and pathfinding is really wonky. But really, I can't stand not being able to deploy my troops as I want them.

Fair enough. I just don't find it as annoying I guess - I concede it's more tricky than in RTW to get your guys standing where you want them, and there are some places where it seems they just won't stick, but I don't find it stops me from enjoying siege battles altogether.

I find guard mode helpful with cohesion, and clicking back and forth between loose and close formation can sometimes encourage the boys to stick together.

Pathfinding I get around with waypoints.

[Goaswerfraiejen]

Yeah, I use guard mode and waypoints extensively. It's just that bloody unit deployment that really sucks the life out of me because I spend so much time at the outset of a battle to try to get a unit standing somewhere only to realise it just won't work and I have to order it to go there during the battle--and then I discover that that doesn't work, and my beautiful traps are undone.

Anyway, I've gone too far into my personal gripes, I think. Suffice it to say that this is disappointing news indeed, and that as a long-time player and customer, I feel very much alienated.

[Dead_Like_Me]

Well guys ... can't say I was surprised by this either. CA actually disappointed me much more with 1.3 it was clear after that what we are dealing here with.

Patching takes time so basically its a its a pro-gamer move by a company to create patches for their games ... you can see on the market games that had a great patch support even EA games that got really good patching support but there are several bad examples like CoD 2 1.3 patch which killed the online community and patch 2.101 in CoH which actually drove me away from the game and many others. However in Medieval 2:Total war the case is diffrent because well I am not looking for a patch that fix balancing and so on... which as I said is a pro-gamer move ... I look for a patch that will fix the game I paid for and will bring up the feature that were promised, Try imagine what will costumers of Crysis will buy the game and will find out the power suit that were showed so many times in the trailers will not arrive with the game although it is even written in the manual ? I think the buyers will be pretty mad about that buying a half game with missing features ... well players pay for the game usually with support but online support so they can complain about overpowered units but the company doesn't have to fix it but the costumers that pay full price for a game that promise a feature like being able to buy forts and then it is not possible in the game or even buying a game that promise 150 diffrent units with it and then the game arrive with a a bug that makes a two handed soldiers to not attack is a serious problem that should be fix by the company.

one of the major things hat disappointed me was the so called "hot-seat" CA released with Kingdoms, at first it was suppose to be released with 1.3 which was a pro-gamer move but CA decided that they want money so why give something like that for free... so they published it with kingdoms... kingdoms one was as bad as the modded one in the Medieval 2. they didn't do anything but adding it to the Multiplayer section... now it was suppose to be in the grand campaign as well as published but then again CA was to tired and to lazy to actually put the feature in the Multiplayer section of Medieval 2. this is a perfect example what you should expect from CA. At first I though they will do their best implant features that maybe will allow to use battle multilayer to play the "hot-seat" campaign's battles. But instead I got a brocken "Hot-seat" with no defensive battles option ... and many more bugs that make it unplayable.

to summery - No Empire for me unless CA will fix this they releasing to the market. And I hope you guys are a man of your word and you won't go to buy the new game letting yourselves get fooled again by CA to believe they will actually made something to improve the game they release. Can't wait to see the new sea battles in empire ( which means - if they will exist ) and to see if it will be with all the features CA publishing ... HHHH.

If you guys won't fight this ... no one will ... if CA don't want to be pro-gamers then ok ... but if CA release a broken game its a must for them to fix it and include all promised features.

[hellenes]

What makes me wonder the most is this whole tendency to ignore the fact that CA has a monopoly over this genre...name one game thats better than TW games...that combines both tactical and strategic interaction...and no AoE wont do...

[marrow]

Even though it has been said many times before I am still staggered that neither CA, nor SEGA have actually bothered to respond to this barrage of accusations! This points to shocking arrogance on behalf of the publisher and thus I also urge all players gathered here, at the org, to refrain from buying ETW hot off the shelf. This will let us make an informed decision about buying the game and also limit any whining from the disappointed who rushed to the shops first thing on the morning of the release. On top it will hit SEGA's initial sales and maybe get them to respect their customers a little more.
I cannot lie to you all saying I will definitely not buy ETW, I may, but only after I have read all reviews and comments and I know what I'm getting myself into!
After all, for many it's not just 40 quid they're spending on the game. It's money spent on the graphics card, possibly new proc or memory. I did an upgrade for M2TW (almost £200!!!) and wish I never had bothered.
Demand quality and don't remunerate mediocrity, SEGA laughs at your complaints and already counts the money they'll make on ETW, no doubt. Prove them wrong if you have any dignity, people!

[Slug For A Butt]

This points to shocking arrogance on behalf of the publisher

Agreed, couldn't have put it better myself.

I cannot lie to you all saying I will definitely not buy ETW, I may, but only after I have read all reviews and comments and I know what I'm getting myself into!

I will not lie either. I will not be touching another TW game (M2TW was my last) until it is available for £5 on Ebay... SecuRom permitting. Shame as I've bought everything CA had to offer before.

After all, for many it's not just 40 quid they're spending on the game. It's money spent on the graphics card, possibly new proc or memory. I did an upgrade for M2TW (almost £200!!!) and wish I never had bothered.!

Yup, I used to upgrade my PC for TW. Not a chance now! It's one thing to take money off me for a game that doesn't deliver, but to also to force me to spend £300 upgrading for a game that doesn't deliver makes me very angry.
Bye Bye CA. Unless you start treating me like a customer I will not buy from you.

[Jambo]

Actually, the link between time being wasted on graphics and there being poor AI is unimportant. The people responsible for the eye-candy, e.g. artists and animators, are not the same as the code monkeys that are responsible for the AI.

Without being too condescending toward the graphics guys, I'd generally argue that it's easier to make competent graphics than it is to program effective AI. What I would like to see CA do, is bring strategy back to TW games. They've become a little too formulaic for my liking.

[econ21]

Even though it has been said many times before I am still staggered that neither CA, nor SEGA have actually bothered to respond to this barrage of accusations!

Have you read this thread? CA staffers have posted several times about a patch for Kingdoms. As far as I can make out, the issue is still under consideration.

But if you are expecting a point by point response to every poster's pet hate, you will be disappointed. I suspect CA staff are wise enough to follow the maxim never wrestle a chimney sweep.

[Goaswerfraiejen]

Actually, the link between time being wasted on graphics and there being poor AI is unimportant. The people responsible for the eye-candy, e.g. artists and animators, are not the same as the code monkeys that are responsible for the AI.

On the other hand, there's a direct link between the money spent on graphics development and the money available for testing, patching, and AI improvement. Some areas of a game naturally have to be prioritized, and unfortunately I think that a great many of us feel that the wrong area has been given priority.

[Puzz3D]

Without being too condescending toward the graphics guys, I'd generally argue that it's easier to make competent graphics than it is to program effective AI.

You see the graphics immediately when you create them, but the strength of the AI isn't apparent until it's been extensively tested. One problem in the new engine is that the unit speeds are being determined by skeletons that CA is loath to change later due to the amount of work involved, but the unit's speeds directly affect playbalance on the battlefield. You can't possible get the tactical playbalance optimized if you aren't willing to go back later and adjust the unit speeds. CA has apparently concluded that the phantom majority doesn't care if the playbalance is not optimized.

They had a highly effective AI in the MTW/VI engine. You can prove it by playing the Samurai Warlords campaign on the normal difficulty setting. The strategic AI almost always attacks a province with enough force to win the battle. The tactical AI does a few things very well such as: it chooses advantageous matchups in melee with the combat situational factors properly taken into consideration, it only attacks when it has an advantage, it uses archers to shoot low armored units, it responds to ranged attack, it flanks with cavalry, it holds back its general. it does not attack piecemeal, it coordinates allied armies on the battlefield and in seige attacks it keeps the bulk of its army out of range until a breach is made in the castle wall. In Samurai Wars, the RPS system is strong like it was in STW. This is great for the AI since the AI is designed for such a system. There is no artillery which is good because the AI doesn't know enough to protect its artillery. The tactical AI is capable of handing your head to you in an even contest.

Contrast this with the RTW AI which intentionally underestimates the strength of the player's armies on the strategic map, charges weaker units into stronger units on the tactical map, suicides it's general, thinks it has all day to set up flanking maneuvers with infantry, attacks with units in piecemeal fashion, doesn't respond to ranged attack, doesn't know its units have shields, doesn't coordinate allied armies and places its army inside the range of castles. This is what Creative Assembly claimed was an improved AI. I don't see how the developer can really improve the AI when they are in a state of denial about the quality of the AI they are now producing. When you try to help them improve the game, the way you did in previous years, they turn around and tell you that the game is not intended for hardcore players. End of story. So you now have a game where all you have to do is make a very large number of mouse clicks and you win. Yay!

[alpaca]

Actually, the link between time being wasted on graphics and there being poor AI is unimportant. The people responsible for the eye-candy, e.g. artists and animators, are not the same as the code monkeys that are responsible for the AI.

Without being too condescending toward the graphics guys, I'd generally argue that it's easier to make competent graphics than it is to program effective AI. What I would like to see CA do, is bring strategy back to TW games. They've become a little too formulaic for my liking.

Not quite because the same codemonkeys who would create the AI will have to work on that new feature in the graphics engine that allows real bowstrings or whatever the artists come up with next. The problem is simple: SEGA/CA does not make gameplay a priority. It obviously ranks fairly low in the company's considerations for what their games should be nowadays. The same goes for quality of work and in general "finishing the job".

Note that this is not about the individual developers/employees who may or may not support their management's policy. Since I can't discern whether or not they do, this is merely a statement of my impression about the company's decision-making processes.

[Lusted]

Not quite because the same codemonkeys who would create the AI will have to work on that new feature in the graphics engine that allows real bowstrings or whatever the artists come up with next.

No different programming teams work on different things. There will be a team for graphics, a team for AI, a team for naval battles, a team for land battles and a team for the campaign.

[lancelot]

...As far as I can make out, the issue is still under consideration.

Well, given the response below that open this thread-

Originally Posted by Caliban (CA)
There are no plans for a patch at the moment.

- I dont really think CA's 'response' to this issue can be considered as under consideration...

Granted, CA was smart enough to add the caveat at the moment but when a game has a laundry list of known issues, for the developers to say 'no plans for a patch' at this relatively early stage, the writing seems to be on the wall- for me at least anyway.

[Cheetah]

No different programming teams work on different things. There will be a team for grpahics, a team for AI, a team for naval battles, a team for land battles and a team for the campaign.

Is there a team for Kingdoms patch too?

[Zoring]

"Under Consideration" is just business speak for 'No, but it will stop them complaining for a little while'.

[wumpus]

Me, I don't mind where the patch came from or who made it--for me, a good patch that works is a good patch. But better if the game or mod doesn't need an patch at all anymore.

[icek]

Is there a team for Kingdoms patch too?

yeah, the team with theme " hi guys we are working on smh so stay pacent because youll never see it ".

[hrvojej]

It's interesting that there won't be a team for quality assessment and/or playtesting, which is something that is sorely needed.

[Lusted]

I was talking about programming teams, of course there's a QA team. And i didn't mention design or art teams either.

[econ21]

Well, given the response below that open this thread-
I dont really think CA's 'response' to this issue can be considered as under consideration

I was referring to the CA response to this thread, which is in this post:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...4&postcount=31

I would summarise that post as "no plans but under consideration".

[alpaca]

No different programming teams work on different things. There will be a team for graphics, a team for AI, a team for naval battles, a team for land battles and a team for the campaign.

Will be?

A team for AI sounds promising though, I hope that all of these different teams which probably consist of one to three persons each will interact on a regular basis.

[Zenicetus]

I was referring to the CA response to this thread, which is in this post:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...4&postcount=31

I would summarise that post as "no plans but under consideration".

They have said nothing at all about addressing the SecureRom issues in Kingdoms, either in that thread or anywhere else. And they've been asked directly about it, multiple times.

[Lusted]

Will be?

As in on a project there will be, it's how it works on Empire as well.

[Zenicetus]

As in on a project there will be, it's how it works on Empire as well.

See what I mean? CA reps will talk about anything, except removing invasive software left behind, after you've uninstalled the game. That sends a clear message, and we get the message.

[Lusted]

Unless i'm posting under the CA badge, i'm not a CA rep.

[Slug For A Butt]

Unless i'm posting under the CA badge, i'm not a CA rep.

Cop out?
You cannot speak with authority on the subject and then claim that because you are posting on your old account it shouldn't be taken at face value, surely? Surely we are talking semantics here?

[Lusted]

Cop out?
You cannot speak with authority on the subject and then claim that because you are posting on your old account it shouldn't be taken at face value, surely? Surely we are talking semantics here?

Basically, if i was posting under my official account it would be to do make an official post on the subject of this thread, whereas i am using my other account to answer some questions not directly relating to the topic at hand(programmer teams) as if i posted under my official account it would not be very fair to you guys as it would not contain an answer to the topic at hand.

We have not forgotten about this issue, it is not being sidelined, and when there is an official answer, i'll put on my official account and post in this thread.