Original Link
The Following is the beginings of a thread on the Empire:TW Forums i think exemplifies the issues with the game and this companies management in general.
Author
HenryClinton
CA please make the "Naval game enhancement" an optional upgrade through steam
Posts: 22
07/30/09 09:18:01
Tags : None
I am quite concerned about the "naval enhancement:" proposal to give ships of the line shorter range (and less accurate) guns than smaller ships (especially sloops)! This makes no sense as only the bigger ships could mount the bigger guns with the longer range and you wouldn't put your worst gunners and officers on your best ships! I have no problem with the smaller ships being more manueverable than the larger ships. Why is CA concerned that there are not enough smaller ships in the battles? If that is a concern, why not just make the smaller ships cheaper and the larger ships more expensive? Implementing a "rock, scissors, paper" concept into navy battles will not be an improvement if it is done by implementing wildly inaccurate changes. It appears I am not the only one concerned about the proposed "naval gameplay enhancement." Why not make it an optional upgrade?
#1
[-]
Posts: 180
07/30/09 09:23:42
Yeah i agree with the bigger ships bigger guns should have bigger range and accuracy. But there already is a naval enhancement discussion thread.
#2
[-]
Posts: 179
07/30/09 16:13:43
Yeah, how's that going to turn up in multiplayer? No thank you.
#3
[-]
Posts: 48
07/30/09 20:22:16
It's pretty dumb. I'm having a hard time understanding why they think it's such a big issue, and why they think the proposed changes would be an acceptable solution. Isn't the fact that a small ship can outmaneuver and outrun a larger ship enough of an advantage? They're also much, much cheaper. So yeah... what's the problem? And if there is a problem, why can't it be fixed by modifiying other in-game stats in more authentic and non-gamebreaking ways? Very bad idea, both historically and from a game-play perspective. Frigates and certain small vessels will emerge victorious (after very long, tedious, and unauthentic battles), while most other ships will literally be left in the dust... sea spray, whatever. I.E... Ship of the line: Pros: Can destroy anything it can catch Can take a lot of damage before sinking Cons: Can't catch anything Will take a lot of damage before sinking *yawn*
#4
[-]
Posts: 14
07/30/09 20:48:15
Yeah it sucks i know. There has already been the big outcry and CA frankly said they know what's better for us and they're doing it anyway. While they're at it though i want them to give my generals mana and spells so they have a greater role on the 18th century battle field. In addition firelock will need a bigger role also so they can go around and collect souls of the dead to provide a boost to your generals mana level. It's not exactly historically accurate i know but i'm having to make this sacrifice for a better game play experience for all Total War fans. :)
#5
[-]
Posts: 48
07/30/09 23:51:16
How about giving ships of the line the ability to summon creatures of sailor lore? Sirens could soothe the crew of enemy ships, causing them to stay still long enough for the ships of the line to catch up to them. Krakens could appear from the water, crippling enemy ships. Bring in Charybdis and Scylla from Homer's writings, etc. Age of Mythology: Total War! Hyperbole... maybe. But we're already making realism walk the plank to satisfy gameplay issues, so why not take it to the extreme... make it interesting? Or, you know, fix the issue in a way that makes more sense. The OP's suggestion of price/upkeep makes sense, or modifying the other stats slightly to accomodate whatever is broken in the view of developers. It's that or sea creatures, imo.
#6
[-]
Posts: 208
07/31/09 00:05:19
I second the original poster!
Shireknight
#7
[-]
Posts: 8816
07/31/09 00:23:43
Administrator
CA are not just waiting until the patch is ready and then throwing this addition in as the very last thing you know. Clearly Jack and other CA testers have already installed these changes in their current games and they are working just fine otherwise the naval changes would be scrapped and the chances are they would never have even been mentioned in the first place so lets wait until WE get our hands on patch 1.4 and see what we think then shall we? before we start dismissing an idea that no-one here has even so much as seen in action yet.
#8
[-]
Posts: 1709
07/31/09 00:35:09
I like these new changes! And stop being haters!!
Elyrioth
#9
[-]
Posts: 2283
07/31/09 01:03:59
Post-Captain
Given the sheer opposition to the change across multiple forums surely CA need to realize they need to give more details if they think we are wrong, or take what users actually want into account. I have seen CA backtrack before hopefully they will this time. I can't understand why they are working on unnecessary and unwanted changes when they should be working on nothing except the broken AI and Diplomacy. I am sure if CA do not make it an optional update a mod will come out rapidly to roll back the changes they made.......
Last Edited By: Elyrioth 07/31/09 01:09:02. Edited 2 times.
PDAquinas
#10
[-]
Posts: 84
07/31/09 01:47:03
Elyrioth wrote:
I can't understand why they are working on unnecessary and unwanted changes when they should be working on nothing except the broken AI and Diplomacy. +1 I can't be alone that I have shelved the game after desperately trying to forgive it's many problems for too long. I am a little stumped as to why they would be devoting time and energy to 'fixing' something that was working better than most other main aspects of the game. Unless, as I have seen a few posts suggesting, the game really is aimed at kids there is no way for me to get my head round how they think they have sold any form of strategy game. The AI and diplomacy issues leave it as a glorified battle simulator with issues combined with a broken 'campaign' walkthrough.
Alizea1
#11
[-]
Posts: 48
07/31/09 02:10:20
Elyrioth wrote:
Given the sheer opposition to the change across multiple forums surely CA need to realize they need to give more details if they think we are wrong, or take what users actually want into account. I have seen CA backtrack before hopefully they will this time. I can't understand why they are working on unnecessary and unwanted changes when they should be working on nothing except the broken AI and Diplomacy. Amen. That should be priority #1. If they don't fix those issues, patch 1.4 fails. Sure we can wait for the patch to come out to comment, but what's wrong with speculation given that we have some of the details which we know are a bit far-fetched? Why were those details provided if not to give us an idea of changes to come? You don't always need to have your hands on something to have an idea of what it will be like. Also, whatever changes go live are unlikely to be changed, reverted for quite some time. This seems like the perfect time to speak out against it. I've seen plenty of things go live, let alone just make it to the testing phase, that were not good ideas for a game. I feel this is one of them, and obviously a lot of people agree. It's not a matter of "hating"... quite the contrary, it's speaking out on behalf of a game you like. I would not even be on these forums if I was not enjoying this game & had no desire to see it improve.
Master of War
#12
[-]
Posts: 208
07/31/09 04:55:51
PDAquinas wrote:
I am a little stumped as to why they would be devoting time and energy to 'fixing' something that was working better than most other main aspects of the game. Unless, as I have seen a few posts suggesting, the game really is aimed at kids there is no way for me to get my head round how they think they have sold any form of strategy game. The AI and diplomacy issues leave it as a glorified battle simulator with issues combined with a broken 'campaign' walkthrough. Halleluja! I agree on the first one - naval battles are one of the features of this game that actually work! Why bother making any changes!!!! And even more so on the second one!! So true. And in the words of Metallica and so many others: Sad but true.
HenryClinton
#13
[-]
Posts: 22
07/31/09 05:41:04
Ingkala - What's going to happen to multiplayer when legions of players won't be playing online because they don't want the naval "enhancement" that comes with the new patch? If CA plows forward with this concept over the objections of the bulk of its most vocal fans many will be left with a hard choice: Do I live with the game in its present state including bugs in trade, the inability to kick a common enemy out of an ally's port, some flaws in the AI and a broken fast forward button (it kind of speaks to the overall quality of the game that it is otherwise good enough that I am still playing with these issues) or do I download a patch that might fix some or all of these problems, but that may completely ruin the naval experience? At least if the "naval enhancement" was optional the choice would come down to only this: Do I care enough about the ability to play multiplayer that I will live with the "naval enhancement"?
Fencible
#14
[-]
Posts: 76
07/31/09 08:52:12
HenryClinton wrote:
I am quite concerned about the "naval enhancement:" proposal to give ships of the line shorter range (and less accurate) guns than smaller ships (especially sloops)! This makes no sense as only the bigger ships could mount the bigger guns with the longer range and you wouldn't put your worst gunners and officers on your best ships! I have no problem with the smaller ships being more manueverable than the larger ships. Totally agree! Proposed changes ruin the naval game for me, unless they can assure us that their changes can be reversed by modders. Sorry to all those who prefer adding magic bonus laser guns to sloops to make things more 'fun' - but I just can't agree with you. It does NOT make the game more fun for the rest of us - it cheapens and degrades it. Sloops are already too powerful for no visible or logical reason! There is always 'Warcraft', and dozens of other such wearisome games for those who prefer total fantasy 'fun'. I prefer that 'Empire' remain an alternate history sort of game, not an alternate physics fantasy world. Sincerely, Fencible
ShadeWar
#15
[-]
Posts: 99
07/31/09 09:09:47
Wasn't there another game that released a patch called 'the NGE' anyone remember what happened to that game, specifically what the fans did?
EQ Snarf
#16
[-]
Posts: 63
07/31/09 09:15:16
While I'm not opposed to the changes (I'm sure modders will undo the changes) I do agree that there are better things to spend their time working on.
Blackula
#17
[-]
Posts: 9
07/31/09 11:49:27
ShadeWar wrote:
Wasn't there another game that released a patch called 'the NGE' anyone remember what happened to that game, specifically what the fans did? Haha yeah...this other game was Star Wars Galaxies. I started playing it after the NGE hit but what happened in a nutshell was SOE made massive changes to the core of the game. It caused a majority of the playbase to quit & the game never really recovered.
/END Post (as of 7/31 1500 Eastern time)
I suspect this thread will go to the land of locked and/or deleted as do most posts of a less than complentary nature on this forum.
Anyways, I promised one of those Nazi's i wouldnt post on their forums anymore so therefore...
The proposed changes and time-sink those still working on this project from Creative Assembly (Sega rather, CA claims "we are one! haha) are unneeded and pointless as well as ridiculus for Multiplayer vrs purposes. As this thread is headed in a amusing direction of making examples of what other games have done I must say thus' There is one key difference, with Empire, they already have our money. Its not like we can get it back.
Shireknight- you sir, are a fuckwit kiss-ass. The same people you are constantly so religiously defending also released this game in the laughable state it STILL FUCKING IS IN 6 MONTHS LATER. And they even called it "finished" and defended it as so. so fucking funny.
It must be cheap to bribe game mags & reviewers...or perhaps there really was some benefit to being in Mother Sega's pocket.
{this post has not been proof read or spell checked in any way whatsoever, obviously. :) }
No comments:
Post a Comment