Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 66

Thread: First Full Draft of Formal Petition (review and comment here)

  1. #1
    Senior Member Senior Member Dionysus9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Mount Olympus
    Posts
    1,507

    Default First Full Draft of Formal Petition (review and comment here)

    Alright, I've done my best to winnow the issues down to those critical issues we can all agree on. The letter is dradted on my letter head, which is why I personally introduce the Petition. Please read this through and comment--let me know if you disagree with anything or believe I've left out anything critical.

    ___________


    COX & ASSOCIATES, LLC
    Attorneys & Counselors at Law

    [address omitted]


    From The Desk Of
    Sia Rezvani

    [contact info omitted]

    [name of president]
    President of the Creative Assembly President of Activision
    [address]

    Re: Rome: Total War

    Gentlemen:

    Greetings. Please know I represent the Total War multi-player community–not as an attorney, but as a community representative of the many players of your ground-breaking series of “Total War” games. Today I present to you a Petition that has been submitted to and approved by a truly impressive number of concerned Total War players. I hope you will take the time out of your busy schedule to read and consider our concerns regarding the state of Rome: Total War’s multi-player interface.

    If you do not have the time or inclination to consider this letter, I strongly urge you to forward it to the appropriate personnel so that our concerns might properly be addressed.

    First, let me apologize for any alarm my letterhead may have caused you, as I am not making legal demands in this letter, and I am not acting as an attorney, but only wish to bring our concerns as a community of players to your attention. Our earnest hope is that our concerns will be addressed, and this format seems to be the most direct manner of bringing our concerns to you.

    Second, I feel it is important to note this petition has its genesis in the deep passion the signatories feel for the Total War series and that our only goal is to help you improve the multi-player portion of this fascinating game you have created. I hope it is obvious we would not go to such lengths as a community if we did not feel a very strong fondness for the Total War series and an equally strong desire to see the series survive and flourish. The enclosed Petition represents our passion for, and dedication to, the success of the Total War series as a multi-player experience and we feel the following issues must be addressed or the muti-player end of Rome: Total War will suffer and decline. We truly hope you will receive this Petition in the spirit of progress and cooperation in which it is delivered . Therefore, without further ado, I present to you the:


    Formal Petition of the Multi-Player Rome: Total War Community to the Creative Assembly

    We, the undersigned, humbly request the Creative Assembly address the following issues related to multi-player Rome: Total War:

    I. Critical Flaws (these flaws absolutely must be addressed:

    Synchronicity – The initial release of R:TW was critically flawed in that the “game state” would “diverge” during multi-player battles. What this means is that the game being played on Computer A is different from the game being played on Computer B. The recent readme for the initial patch (v. 1.1) indicates “some” synchronicity problems have been resolved, and initial tests indicate the problem has been improved. However, since the patch does not purport to resolve all synchronicity problems we are making this request: please ensure that the game-state stays synchronized on all computers during a battle, and that if the game-state should happen to diverge for any reason, on any computer, the divergent player is immediately dropped from the game.

    Lag–
    There are a number of reasons for in-game lag, some of which have nothing to do with R:TW coding– but many players with high-end computers are reporting significant in-game lag. If all players’ computer’s in a battle significantly exceed the minimum requirements there should not be lag, but there is. This is a major problem that needs to be addressed as soon as possible, or many players will quit in frustration and new players who read the forums will not purchase the game.

    Army Control – There are several issues with respect to moving and controlling the player’s army that should be addressed which are critical.

    * The “Move and retain facing” command has been completely removed:
    It goes without saying that a general must have a high degree of control over the movement of his army. Perhaps most importantly, the army must be able to stay in formation while on the move, and the army must be able to “wheel” to face the enemy. In Medieval: Total War the players’ control over their armies was very good, in that the players could “wheel” their army to face the enemy and then issue a movement order–and when the army arrived at the ordered destination it would still be facing the enemy. This was achieved by holding the ALT key and making a left click move order. This “move and retain facing” command was the primary method used by players to move their armies during battle. Unfortunately, this command has been completely omitted from Rome: Total War. In R:TW the “wheel” command is still present () and the move command is still present, but the two commands can no longer be used in conjunction with each other. In R:TW, as soon as an army has been ordered to “move” it forgets the direction it was facing before the move order. That was not a problem in M:TW:. Put simply, armies can no longer be moved cohesively when an enemy is nearby. This has seriously hampered our ability to control our armies and is considered a major problem by the majority of players.

    * Army cohesion is non-existent when using roman-numeral “G”roups:
    As you might imagine, a general may wish to organize his army into segments (for example, a right-flank cavalry group, a central infantry group, and a left-flank cavalry group). The grouping system in M:TW was excellent and allowed players to move their entire army in formation while also using these types of groups. Unfortunately, in R:TW, the grouping system has been radically altered. The critical problem appears to be a bug that treats each group as a distinct army–the result is that when a player attempts to move his entire army, and the army is in groups, the groups “forget” their relationship to one another (i.e. their formation as an army) and end up piling on top of each other after executing a move order. Each “group” is independently moving to the site of the move order and forgetting its place in the army–i.e. there is no army cohesion–all formation is lost and the groups attempt to stand on top of one another when they reach their destination. This essentially makes using groups a detriment to the player, since if the units are ungrouped they will remember their formation. This has also seriously hampered our ability to control our armies and is also considered a major problem by the majority of players.

    * Grouped units often refuse to take orders (most commonly the run order):
    This is a very annoying bug that requires the player “ungroup” the units, re-group them, and then re-issue the intended command. Again this discourages the use of groups (which are a critical army control tool). This bug must be fixed or players will have insufficient control over their armies. To make matters worse, the fact that there is only a run “toggle” and not a run-key and walk-key makes it difficult to give orders to grouped units, because if some of the units in the group are already running, hitting the “R”un key makes them walk, but makes the other (previously walking) units run!? We should be able to command the group to run as a group or walk as a group, which is currently impossible.

    Testudo Formation bug--
    When a unit is in “testudo” (turtle) formation, if it touches any other unit, you lose control of the unit in testudo formation for the rest of the game. This is a bug that basically makes testudo formation unusable.

    II. Very Important Issues (these issues are very important for community growth)

    Replay Synchronicity and Information--
    The replay function is an invaluable tool for learning from one’s mistakes and also for training newer players, but it is a critical tool for community tournaments. The reason is because the rules of tournaments often disallow certain types of in-game behavior (such as remaining stationary at the top of a very large hill, or wedging one’s army in a corner [“camping”]). Also, occasionally a player will lose his connection near the conclusion of a tournament match and the tournament director may need to determine the result of the match by viewing the replay. In any case, it is critical for a thriving multi-player community to be able to view the replays of important matches. Currently the replay function is fatally flawed in that it displays a battle other than the battle that was actually fought. This makes the replay function useless. Also, the replay lacks any information regarding the types of units, the players controlling them, the fatigue level of the units, etc. So even if the synchronicity problem is fixed, the replays themselves will be virtually impossible to decipher because the unit information (the information a player obtains in battle by hovering his mouse over the unit) is missing. Neither of these issues were problems in M:TW.

    Logfile Information--
    Likewise, many tournaments have rules about which units may be fielded (or how many of a certain type may be fielded). The “logfile” is the tournament directors only way of determining whether the army selection rules have been followed, and is also commonly used to calculate a winner (by determining how many men each side fielded and lost). This information should be contained in the logfile of the battle. In M:TW the logfiles displayed detailed information about the units fielded by each player, the number of men in each unit at the conclusion of the battle, and the results of the battle. In R:TW this information is simple non-existent. The R:TW logfile does not have this critical information, and so it will be difficult or impossible to administer tournaments until the replays and logfiles are returned to M:TW standards. If a player alleges that his enemy has “cheated” in the tournament, the tourney director currently has no way of investigating or resolving the complaint.

    “Proprietary” player names –
    One of the greatest aspects of multi-player Total War is the reputation for honor and skill that players can develop with practice and by winning tournaments. Unfortunately in R:TW anyone can masquerade as a top player simply by stealing that player’s name. That was not possible in previous TW games, since player names were linked to CD keys. Currently anyone can log on and pretend to be the top tournament player, and in the process make all sorts of obscene and degenerative remarks, play poorly, and tarnish the real-player’s reputation. This makes it almost pointless to compete in tournaments or attempt to establish a reputation as a honorable and skilled player– since any little punk can ruin your reputation by masquerading under your name. The effect is to actually discourage the best players from seeking fame and glory in the community, which is detrimental to community growth (and sales).

    Lack of Map Editor and Historical Battle Editor –
    In previous TW games, many players created their own maps and historical battle for a number of different reasons, including tournaments, re-enactments, custom modifications, TW art, and simple variety of play. The ability to create these custom engagements was a touchstone of the “mod” community–and without the ability to customize maps and historical battles, that formerly sizeable portion of the multi-player community is likely to dwindle and decline. The ability to customize the R:TW experience would be a huge draw for potential new customers (players) who wish to have more control over their TW experience.

    III. Important–(things that make the game highly frustrating)

    Withdrawal/Rout function doesn’t work --
    As in the game of chess, a defeated general often wishes to “resign” from the battle by conceding defeat. This saves everyone time, saves lives :), and saves the general’s dignity. This was always possible in previous TW games, but the function has been removed in R:TW. The result is that players who wish to “quit” a game quickly must simply “drop” from the game. When that occurs, the dropped players units remain on the battle field and must be “mopped up” by the remaining players–which can take quite a long time. Also, a general may wish to feign a retreat in order to draw the enemy in (such as at the battle of Cannae). Finally, a general may wish to withdraw tired or demoralized troops before they rout and effect army morale. Currently it is impossible to withdraw units from a multi-player battle, or even to order them to flee. This is a major inconvenience and seriously hampers gameplay. A related issue is that once a player has lost all of his units he should be able to view the battle from any angle–however, for some reason if the host has selected “restricted camera” even a fully-routed player may not view the battle properly; he is instead restricted to a small area of the map which is extremely frustrating given that the player no longer has any units to command and would like to watch the battle unfold. Please allow routed players to have an unrestricted view of the battle.

    Game info is unavailable from the lobby –
    It is impossible to tell whether a game you have joined is in “arcade” mode, or whether the host has chosen “heavy rain”– both options have a significant effect on the types of armies a player will choose for the battle, and not knowing what settings the host is using is a major disadvantage for all players who join the battle. Also, unlike in previous TW games, it is impossible to tell whether a person listed in the lobby player list is “in a game” (i.e. fighting on the battlemap) or whether he is in the lobby and able to chat. In previous TW games the players’ names would “grey out” when they went in a game so that their friends in the lobby would know they could not be reached by chat.

    #Ignore and #Ban commands in Gamespy lobby are missing–
    Unfortunately modern life involves dealing with some very rude and obscene people. The R:TW Gamespy lobby is no exception, and the streams of obscenities that some people spout are truly shocking and offensive. It is currently impossible to ignore those people and their degenerative remarks (while it was possible in previous TW games). It is also impossible to ban them from joining your games (once they join you can “kick” them, but they can just rejoin, ad infinitum, to be a pain). Please bring back these two important lobby functions.

    In Game Chat is Cumbersome –
    In order to chat within the game a player must now hit a minimum of three keys, first a key to open the chat interface, then a key to determine who the chat is addressed to, then a key to determine whether the message will be “pre-recorded” or “custom”, and then finally the actual message. In the heat of battle it is difficult enough to hit one key in order to chat, let alone three. The result is that players are no longer chatting in battles. We need some sort of “quick chat” function, as in MTW (“T” was chat to all, “Y” was chat to allies; it required hitting only one key). The chat interface is now so frustrating that it is not being used during the heat of battle, which is a shame as it was invaluable in previous releases.
    In Game Army Information is Missing–
    In prior releases, the F1 key would show an overview of the battle– the teams, their designation as attacker or defender, the players on each team, the factions selected by each player, and also a list of each unit in your army together with its unique unit statistics. For no explicable reason that invaluable information is no longer available to players within the game. It is now difficult to tell which side is attacker and defender and what factions/players are on each team. There is no reason why this information should not be available to the players. Also, during the deployment phase, it is impossible to tell who has deployed their army (and is waiting to begin) and who has walked away from their computer without deploying. This is extremely frustrating as it is impossible to tell who is holding up the completion of the deployment phase (in prior versions it was always possible to tell). Please bring back this in-game information. Also, many players report having difficulty in telling which unit icons are selected because the “highlighting” for a selected unit icon is only marginally brighter than a non-selected unit. Please increase the contrast between selected and unselected unit icons.

    IV. Assorted Annoyances (these are things that would enhance the quality of play for us)

    Fixed Denari Amounts--
    In previous versions of TW, the host was able to customize the amount of money available to each player to be spent on units. In R:TW the host has a limited number of monetary selections (5k, 10k, 20k, etc. per team) and no way to allow one team to have more money than another (which is an invaluable handicapping tool). It is also impossible to standardize a florin amount, when (for example) five teams are playing, and a sixth player wants to join, or when players would like to take 5k each in a 3v3. Please allow us to customize the amount of denari per team.

    Zoom to Death of General–
    Many players are distracted by the repeated changes in battle view anytime someone’s general dies. A player may be in the midst of a complex group movement command when his view of the battle is suddenly altered and he is taken to a view showing an enemy general’s death. This is distracting and frustrating for many players, and we would prefer to be able to toggle this as an option.

    Unable to Chat in Host Screen after Selecting Army--
    For some reason it is impossible to chat with other players in the game after you have selected your army and hit the lower-right “ready” arrow. This is very frustrating in that you are unable to communicate with allies or players who are dawdling in army selection without becoming “unready” which indicates to other players that they have more time to select their army because you aren’t ready. This is very frustrating and results in extended delays, especially when newer players are involved.

    No Shell-to-Desktop
    It is no longer possible to use ALT-TAB to shell to the desktop while in the Gamespy lobby (it creates major problems). This is frustrating when you are waiting for a friend to show up in the lobby and you need to check an email or post in a forum.

    “Spanish” Faction
    Several Spanish players have taken exception to the characterization of the hispanic faction as "Spanish" and they are requesting a change to "Celtiberian" or "Iberian" or "Hispanic.” This is regarded as a major historical error in that “Spain” did not exist until 1300 AD.

    One Faction Limit
    For some reason, players are prohibited from taking more than one of the same faction per game. This means it is impossible to have Carthage vs. Carthage (civil war) or three Carthage armies against three Roman armies (for historical re-enactments of large battles). Please allow us the option of toggling this limit on and off.

    Full Screen (no Mini-map) Option
    Many players find the R:TW minimap to be of little or no use and instead find that it takes up valuable screen space. Please allow us to toggle the mini-map and other interface clutter on and off.

    4v4s–
    This is a major concern in the community, but we realize it is a command decision that has been made by the developers and that it may be related to the lag problems. At the very least, please allow those of us with high-end computers the OPTION of having 4v4 battles. With normal unit sizes and a good computer it should be possible. This feature was a mainstay of Total War for years. Instead we now have 3v3's with 20 units per player (120 units total) whereas before we had 4v4's with 16 units per player (128 units total). We don’t understand why this huge leap backwards has occurred. We would be happy to take only 10 units per person if we could have 5v5s– so please at least allow us the option of having 4v4's (even if we have to take less than 16 units to make it playable). The team cooperation and camaraderie that is built in a 4v4 is unparalleled and it is now gone completely.
    Realistic Fatigue--
    We recognize that some new players may not be interested in realism and may want a more “arcade” style game, and that is fine– but we should at least be able to toggle realistic fatigue on and off. What is the point of having a “historic battle” where fatigue is not an issue? Fatigue is the fourth dimension of battlefield tactics and it has been reduced in importance to the extent that it can now be ignored. Please allow us to restore fatigue to the importance it really has in war.

    V. Requests for Information

    Combat Equation–
    In order to determine what tactics will be most effective, we must have some idea of how combat is being resolved. What is the effect of adding one unit of valor? What is the effect of having 22 defense as opposed to 20? We currently have no idea how the unit stats relate to one another and how combat is being resolved. Please provide us with some insight into how combat between two units is being resolved.

    Location of Speed Attribute–
    Many players are unhappy with the running speed of various units and would like to modify the unit statistics to their own liking– however we are presently unable to locate the speed statistic so as to modify it. Any light that could be shed on its location would be much appreciated.

    Permanent Liaison–
    We also request that the Creative Assembly appoint an employee to act as a liaison between your company and the multi-player community so that we can address these concerns in more detail and help to avoid similar debacles in the future. We are willing to contribute incredible quantities of man-hours to the beta-testing, focus grouping, and overall improvement of the Total War series and thus far that potential marketing boon has been ignored. We can be reached en mass at either www.totalwar.org or www.totalwars.net.

    Thank you very much for taking the time to understand and address our concerns.

    Signed,



    . . . . .



    We wish you the best of luck in expanding the playership of Rome: Total War and we would like to thank you for developing this truly incredible game. Thank you again for your time and consideration.


    Best Regards,


    Sia Rezvani, aka |Prophet|Bachus

    cc: The Creative Assembly Customer Support, via email; Activision Customer Support, via email, “The Shogun” at www.totalwar.com, via email; by posting at www.totalwar.org, www.totalwars.net, and www.totalwar.com.
    Last edited by Dionysus9; 10-08-2004 at 22:20.
    Hunter_Bachus

  2. #2
    Member Member d6veteran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Bainbridge Island, WA.
    Posts
    140

    Default Re: First Full Draft of Formal Petition (review and comment here)

    Impressive. Well written. Sign me up.
    Jacta alea est!

  3. #3
    Senior Member Senior Member FearZeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    66

    Default Re: First Full Draft of Formal Petition (review and comment here)

    seems your interested now, what took you so long, welcome aboard ;) rofl

    Bachuss well done mate and thx, we still need to chat though! *imortant issue*

  4. #4
    Clan Takiyama Senior Member CBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    4,408

    Default Re: First Full Draft of Formal Petition (review and comment here)

    No need to sign up yet as this is just a draft.

    Map Editor and Historical Battle Editor has been promised so no need to include that.

    And that important issue can wait a bit Zeus


    CBR

  5. #5
    Senior Member Senior Member FearZeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    66

    Default Re: First Full Draft of Formal Petition (review and comment here)

    just to clarify, everyone must still sign in the petition list, not here! Lets keep it organised folks ;)

    Well CBR if bacchus don't get back to me it won't make that list! But it's an issue that needs discussing ;)

  6. #6
    Clan Takiyama Senior Member CBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    4,408

    Default Re: First Full Draft of Formal Petition (review and comment here)

    Well its not like bachus is in a hurry. We can spend a few days discussing and changing this draft and we can see how it looks after the weekend.


    CBR

  7. #7
    Senior Member Senior Member FearZeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    66

    Default Re: First Full Draft of Formal Petition (review and comment here)

    Add this to the list inm the critical bacchus

    1. FAILED TO CONNECT.

  8. #8
    Member Member d6veteran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Bainbridge Island, WA.
    Posts
    140

    Default Re: First Full Draft of Formal Petition (review and comment here)

    Quote Originally Posted by FearZues
    seems your interested now, what took you so long, welcome aboard ;) rofl
    My lengthy posts in the other threads wasn't for lack of interest! Zues, your enthusiasm is great but there isn't a rush. It's been 2 or 3 days if that.

    It seems like this is a different ship sailing so welcome aboard yourself ;)


    +++

    I'm assuming that once this is draft is finalized that there will be a new sign up thread to make it legit?
    Last edited by d6veteran; 10-09-2004 at 00:31.
    Jacta alea est!

  9. #9

    Default Re: First Full Draft of Formal Petition (review and comment here)

    Very well done Bachus with the reasoning behind each point clearly stated.

    _________Designed to match Original STW gameplay.


    Beta 8 + Beta 8.1 patch + New Maps + Sound add-on + Castles 2

  10. #10
    Guardian of the Fleet Senior Member Shahed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Leading the formation!
    Posts
    7,918

    Default Re: First Full Draft of Formal Petition (review and comment here)

    Good work indeed ! Please add my name to the list if it's not too late:

    Shahed Osman Kazi aka Sinan
    If you remember me from M:TW days add me on Steam, do mention your org name.

    http://www.steamcommunity.com/id/__shak

  11. #11
    This comment is witty! Senior Member LittleGrizzly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    The wilderness...
    Posts
    9,215

    Default Re: First Full Draft of Formal Petition (review and comment here)

    Bachus congrats well written with each point explained
    In remembrance of our great Admin Tosa Inu, A tireless worker with the patience of a saint. As long as I live I will not forget you. Thank you for everything!

  12. #12
    Senior Member Senior Member Dionysus9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Mount Olympus
    Posts
    1,507

    Default Re: First Full Draft of Formal Petition (review and comment here)

    First, there is no hurry. Its not like we are afraid they are going to fix these issues before we can issue the petition! heheh. . . we have time to tweak it.

    It would be best to have a fresh Petition List thread after we have finalized this petition. In my mind this is just the first full draft, and a second draft would be adviseable. And then a final draft to be submitted and signed by all. I recognize that these are urgent issues and that they must be brought to the forefront as soon as possible-- but it does not good if we do not truly have a consensus. You cannot vote for a proposal before it has been made, just as you cannot sign a petition that has not been drafted yet. So, I think perhaps Zeus has charged a bit early. . .

    *hovers mouse over Zeus's general*
    *mouse indicates Impetuous Charge*

    lol :) but seriously--Zeus, your passion for progress and the game itself are commendable and if we had more folks around here like you there is nothing we couldn't achieve. But if CA looks at this and sees it has been done backwards, it will not help us. So I think as frustratingly slow as it may seem, we must do it right.

    d6 and Yuuki--Thank you for the "thumbs up" as to form and content. Having satisfied both d6 and yuuki at the same time makes me feel like I have succeeded in crafting a document that captures our community consensus.

    Zeus, what do we know about the "failed to connect" error? Why is it occurring? Under what conditions? Do we know? I thought it was a firewall problem that was resolved when the true ports were discovered. It seems that it only happens to some people and not others (when a person with a firewall is hosting, nobody can join their game). Can someone shed some light on this error and help me determine whether it is a bug?

    You've seen the style of how the Petition raises these types of issues, so maybe you could draft a proposed "Failed to Connect Error" description which I could cut and paste into the Petition.

    Also, what about this "Incompatible" error--I ask the same questions. Is this occuring on pirated copies only? Only to certain people? etc.

    Neither of these errors has happened to me and they haven't really been addressed in detail by the community.

    Lets see what other issues rear their ugly heads over the weekend and let everyone get in their 2 cents on this draft. If, come Monday, all indications are a "go" then we can add/change whatever we decide on, wrap this puppy up, and post fresh petition lists here--at the .org--and at the .net. And then we can send around volunteers to all the clan sites, posting the petition at their clansite and asking them to visit one of the three forums to sign the petition list.

    Don't worry about "losing" signatories because we have to ask them to sign again. Most will understand exactly why we are asking them to re-sign, and even if they don't understand I'm sure we can hunt them down individually and explain it to them. More likely than not we will get far more signatories by taking our time--since the word will spread quickly once the final call for signatures goes out to the clans.

    So, I would just ask for a little restraint in terms of pushing forward with what many of us see as a bit too much haste. Lets step back a bit, slow it down, get this Petition tightened up (you see already we are adding issues :))--and once we are all satsified with its content, and with the full support of everyone, then we will get new signatures.

    Is that cool, Zeus? I mean, I don't want to step on your toes here because you are certainly the driving force behind this-- I just think we need to slow it down a tad.

    *bows low*
    Last edited by Dionysus9; 10-09-2004 at 02:19.
    Hunter_Bachus

  13. #13
    Member Member alioven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Galicia - Spain
    Posts
    127

    Default Re: First Full Draft of Formal Petition (review and comment here)

    When the list is agreeable, be sure "some" celtis will sign ;)

    Btw, my opinnion (not that I consider bad the text) is that the attorney stuff should be kept out of it, as we are only an online community, and Bachus himself states in the text that it is not an legal document or something related to his job (except for his clear writing abilities).


    Reconquista Mod v0.3 Home Page Toda gloria es efímera, pero el honor perdura por siempre

  14. #14
    Member Member Tera's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Kenchikuka Library
    Posts
    349

    Default Re: First Full Draft of Formal Petition (review and comment here)

    Thank you very much Bachus, such format-type was just what we were missing. Excellent. The issues are explained in detail and the reasoning behind every one of them reflects very well our thoughts and concerns.

    We really wish to collaborate with the developers who have given us such a great franchise, and this is the way to go. Thanks to everyone who has given momentum to this idea.


    The Order of Kenchikuka

  15. #15
    Senior Member Senior Member FearZeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    66

    Default Re: First Full Draft of Formal Petition (review and comment here)

    Bacchus I drive a civic type R, Ofcourse i like things done fast ;) 2 things m8

    1) ofcourse I don't mind, carry on
    2) The petition is just that, and without it we would not have known who was going to back us, so therefore we where never moving too quick! however had that draft already been finalized and sent then I too think that would have been premature.

    I would also like to point out that while I may have been the driving force behind the this, I could not have done it without been continuously pushed by kyolic and wolfgrizzly (notice it was 2 wolves) who have been by my side all the way through this, not to mention scar (while full of flu) CBR, spoon, tera all played the part early in the game while most peeps where still thinking about it!

    All in all I want no praise for what has unfolded, it's just my passion for the game, which btw is very sadly lacking compared to MTW/STW.

    Thx everyone for your support, but the road is still long!

  16. #16
    Moderator Moderator Gregoshi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Central Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    12,980

    Default Re: First Full Draft of Formal Petition (review and comment here)

    Bachus - nicely done. You all did a great job of getting to the key issues and organizing them.

    Change for consideration: while I think the detail of each problem is appropriate for the CA/Activision programming and support staff, it may be too much information for the Presidents of CA and Activision - well, maybe not CA's president - since they might not be familiar with the TW games. The issues need to be listed and organized as they are, but perhaps a one or two sentence summary of the significance of the problem might do for the presidents. My wife is a (very good) middle manager and I've learned a lot about communications from her. One of those lessons is that the higher level managers don't need to know the detail - that is for others to deal with. What they do need to know is just enough detail to make a decision. Example: Logfile Information: logfiles, which were included in STW and MTW, are missing from RTW. These files are critical for running online tournaments. That is all you would have to say to the presidents.

    Quibbles: "little punk" in the player name section seems out of place with the refined nature of the rest of the letter. Can we assume that the president of Activision knows what "M:TW" and "TW" stand for? Maybe spell them out the first time: "Medieval: Total War (M:TW)".

    Again, excellent job folks in putting this whole effort together.
    This space intentionally left blank

  17. #17
    robotica erotica Member Colovion's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Victoria, Canada
    Posts
    2,295

    Default Re: First Full Draft of Formal Petition (review and comment here)

    I propose that if it is completed in time we should wait until the first patch is released before sending off the Petition. Granted, it will take longer because new grievances may have to be brought up and old ones deleted - but it would give CA the benefit of the doubt that they aren't ignoring us and will also give them a chance to do something which they know needs doing before we start bullying them into doing what they had planned to do all along.
    robotica erotica

  18. #18
    Senior Member Senior Member Dionysus9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Mount Olympus
    Posts
    1,507

    Default Re: First Full Draft of Formal Petition (review and comment here)

    Quote Originally Posted by alioven
    When the list is agreeable, be sure "some" celtis will sign ;)

    Btw, my opinnion (not that I consider bad the text) is that the attorney stuff should be kept out of it, as we are only an online community, and Bachus himself states in the text that it is not an legal document or something related to his job (except for his clear writing abilities).
    Well, I see your point and maybe we should remove the lawyer language and take it off the attorney letterhead-- but the idea was to send this as a letter, in the mail, directly to the presidents of both activision and CA. If it is handwritten on a napkin, their secretaries will just throw it out.

    My experience with executives of large corporations is that they will not even look at anything unless it is on a letterhead. We have to have a "hook" to get them to read it-- in this case the hook is supposed to be "why in god's name is this attorney sending me a letter?" A secretary wont throw it out if it is on a letterhead from an attorney. I guarantee you the president will see it.

    ALSO--at the .net Kalle had a good point--the complex chat feature is really more of a problem for the MP community than the testudo bug. What do you think of changing their priority on this list?
    Hunter_Bachus

  19. #19
    This comment is witty! Senior Member LittleGrizzly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    The wilderness...
    Posts
    9,215

    Default Re: First Full Draft of Formal Petition (review and comment here)

    good thinking greg

    ive already gone round the majority of clan sites for the petition so i'd happily do it again once the petition is completed (i can't on non-ezboard non-english clans as registering an account is to difficult for me)
    In remembrance of our great Admin Tosa Inu, A tireless worker with the patience of a saint. As long as I live I will not forget you. Thank you for everything!

  20. #20
    1000 post member club Member Quid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Confoederatio Helvetica
    Posts
    1,026

    Default Re: First Full Draft of Formal Petition (review and comment here)

    It seems a good enough petition and I agree with most if not all. I think what Greg said should also bear some weight as he is right in pointing out that there is too much 'drivel'. I think the points have to be brought across short and clear. So, perhaps a little refinement would do the trick (a more extensive and detailed supplement can be sent with it with the exact description of the problem/suggestion so that the developers can actually test and fix). Unfortunately, only few people take the time to REALLY read long letters or hand it down the line from the beginning on.

    Otherwise, splendid and commendable work. Well done.

    As for the time issue. I think there is plenty of time to send this letter. No haste is needed. It is paramount that we get this right the first time.

    A fellow clan member has posted a link to this page in our forum, so we would all very much appreciate it if this discussion stays here henceforth as it is tiresome to have to check several different threads on the same thing.

    Again, thank you very much for your work and time you all have put into this. I am sure that you can count on strong support of the community if it is done right. The door is open; we now have to go through it.

    Quid (Head of the Legions, Clan {LORE})
    ...for it is revenge I seek...


    Cry Havoc and let slip the dogs of war
    Juleus Ceasar, Shakespear

  21. #21

    Default Re: First Full Draft of Formal Petition (review and comment here)

    great work again Bachus san !!

  22. #22
    Member Member alioven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Galicia - Spain
    Posts
    127

    Default Re: First Full Draft of Formal Petition (review and comment here)

    Aha, Bachus, if that is your objective, then I agree with you. However, Gregoshi points an interesting fact: letter wouldn't be the same for programmers and for presidents, so we could make a double version, with a easier one for presidents?


    Reconquista Mod v0.3 Home Page Toda gloria es efímera, pero el honor perdura por siempre

  23. #23
    Clan Takiyama Senior Member CBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    4,408

    Default Re: First Full Draft of Formal Petition (review and comment here)

    The list really should be MP specific although army controls are for SP too..


    CBR

  24. #24
    Clan Takiyama Senior Member CBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    4,408

    Default Re: First Full Draft of Formal Petition (review and comment here)

    The way chat works in both lobby and in battle are big issues for me as they seriously degrade the experience. Some CA dev might not have considered it important as he is not the one who is going to use it the next 2 years but for us it is, and thats what this petition is about, telling them its not just a handful of old veterans that just want old STW/MTW back.


    CBR

  25. #25
    Clan Takiyama Senior Member CBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    4,408

    Default Re: First Full Draft of Formal Petition (review and comment here)

    Just to add a few details..

    Lack of Map Editor and Historical Battle Editor

    JeromeGrasdyke stated 2 days ago that:

    We will be releasing a battle editor (which also includes an integrated terrain editor) for generating stand-alone battles with a future patch, and also a rough modding guide which may be added to over time as people run into problems. Other tools, such as the sprite generator or some of the Excel spreadsheets, may be released after a while; again, no decision has yet been made on this.
    Location of Speed Attribute

    He also explained how speed is related to the animations itself.

    It can be found here: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=37359


    Sinner has experimented with it: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=37601


    CBR

  26. #26

    Default Re: First Full Draft of Formal Petition (review and comment here)

    Ok I see a problem in the section on fatigue. What is "realistic fatigue"? I think this is vague. The request is to increase fatigue, but I've been playing with a 20% slowdown on units movement and a reduction in fighting speed, and the fatigue seems fine when playing like that. I'm not able to go running around in battle and ignore fatigue. So, if you plan on using some mod to reduce the speed in online battles and CA increases the fatigue, you may end up with too much fatigue, and we all know how too much fatigue adversley affected MTW.

    I know the request is for a switchable fatigue, but we've been asking for more than on/off settings on fatigue for 3 years, and it has never been implemented. The rebuttle they have used against more than two settings on features like ammo, morale and fatigue is that it will confuse players. So, the argument in that section on fatigue is probably too weak to effect any change.

    Also, I've seen some people posting that exhasted units can still run. They have the full speed running animation, but if you look closely they are not moving ahead at full speed. So, I think it betrays a misunderstanding of the game to say fatigue is "not an issue" or "can be ignored".

    In anycase, this is just a minor point, and I'm not suggesting the section be changed because I don't know what to change it to. However, the balance between fatigue, speed and ranged unit effectiveness strikes right at the heart of the gameplay.

    _________Designed to match Original STW gameplay.


    Beta 8 + Beta 8.1 patch + New Maps + Sound add-on + Castles 2

  27. #27

    Default Re: First Full Draft of Formal Petition (review and comment here)

    Very well written Bacchus!
    A Member of Clan SG


    "水无常形,兵无常势"

  28. #28
    Clan Takiyama Senior Member CBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    4,408

    Default Re: First Full Draft of Formal Petition (review and comment here)

    Yes fatigue is still in the game and it cant be ignored. As it looks now we can finally march long distances without worrying too much and thats what a lot of us has asked for. IMO I dont see that as valid point in the list.


    CBR

  29. #29
    Member Member Skomatth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Kenchikuka Kitchen
    Posts
    782

    Default Re: First Full Draft of Formal Petition (review and comment here)

    What about a sort of executive summary to clear up the problem Greg mentioned? (about President reading all the details).
    Take off your pants, baby. -Ernest Hemingway, A Farewell to Arms

  30. #30
    Senior Member Senior Member Tomisama's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    2,836

    Default Re: First Full Draft of Formal Petition (review and comment here)

    You are "the greatest" Bach
    An “excellent” step in the right direction!

    I would like to suggest three things.

    1. That the letter head be changed to:

    TOTAL WAR MULTIPLAYER’S ASSOCIATION, with “TM” traded mark identifier appropriately following TOTAL WAR.

    (They might object to us asserting direct affiliation, and we can change that at their direction. But if they do not object, it is a most appropriate title.)

    2. That we establish a mail box dedicated to direct communication between their liaison and the body of associated multiplayer’s. And that all Association/CA correspondence* would be public information, and posted on the major community forums at the earliest opportunity.

    *This posting would exclude “real name” and email address requested below.

    3. That anyone wishing to “officially” sign the “Petition”, send an email with their “real name” and “player name” to that mail box. This would provide a “private” mailing list of concerned players that could be presented with the “Petition” to CA.

    Important Note:
    Please understand that the TWMA is “not” intended to be an organization, only a medium to deliver “credible” signatures (verifiable by email to real people) with the above request.

    Of course the mail box could be maintained for future use under the complete understanding that every request for signings is totally separate from any other request. And that the requested complied mail list will be discarded after the associated “Petition” has been sent to CA.

    Whatdayasthink

    Edit:

    Went ahead an set this up. If you don't need it, no problem

    MultiplayersAssociation@hotmail.com

    Sent you the password, if you did not get it, you know how to contact me.

    P.S. A cover letter could be created for brief introduction, and the expanded technical information attached.
    Last edited by Tomisama; 10-09-2004 at 20:32.
    HONOUR IS VICTORY - GO WITH HONOUR - KEEP THE CODE

    http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198003816474

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO