Boycott Faction DLC until game completed/fixed.

[PeonKing]

No offense but I can't believe I'm reading this. Why would anyone in their right mind pay for something fundamental that should have been in the game in the first place? A dlc had better be something more than an unlocked faction or filler for missing features in the main game. Anything less is unacceptable.

Well I wouldn't just buy the faction pack DLC just based on the fact that it's a faction pack, as I was trying to point out with the steppes factions, because I didn't think there was enough content. I haven't paid for a DLC for Rome II yet, so for reference I would say a faction pack like the Ikko Ikki or Otomo faction packs from Shogun II were a good benchmark. It's two factions that played differently than the others, and also introduced some unique units. Turns out my Otomo and Ikko Ikki campaigns were some the campaigns I enjoyed playing the most in Shogun II. I bought this game fully understanding that I wasn't going to be able to play as all the factions, it was pretty clearly stated, but I'm also not going to pay for just faction unlocks, it actually needs to be a faction they interest me in paying for because it provides a different play style.

As for the siege DLC I was trying to outline there, it would really depend on how much content, but I'm referring to adding whole new features, like being able to sap, and landscape changes if a siege has lasted over time, like the development of earthen siege constructions and stuff. I would expect a siege DLC to be almost like adding a whole new facet to the game the size of a political system, where you might even be able to customize your garrisons more as well as customize the type of siege you were putting on more than just 'build ladders, then build rams.'

What example did I make counts is a fundamental feature? Hell you'd think blood would be fundamental for a game called TOTAL WAR, but evidently people buy that. I mean I've already put 100 hours into this game, and I'm already taking a break because I'm not going to have internet for like 3 months so I'm going to need something to do then, I think I've got my moneys worth out of it, people are acting like CA mugging them or something. I paid 60 bucks for Bioshock Infinite, which I got like, tops 30 hours out of because I beat it more than once. I pay 60 bucks for a total war game, and I can play that for hundreds of hours, and honestly I enjoy Rome II more than Bioshock, nothing against Bioshock, but it's just a different preference. I'm not saying we shouldn't strive for a quality product from CA, and forums are probably the most proper form of communicating distaste with a product I can think of, but there's still a limit. It's becoming a point where people aren't looking for improvements, but they seem to be seeking vengeance for CA doing a bad job. I just want CA to improve the game, and be gracious about it, which they seem to be doing so far since I haven't paid them a dime since release and have already gotten extra content and several patches that have improved my experience since release.

[AngryTitusPullo]

I'm going to boycott it if they are selling. I'm not boycotting it if they're free.

[Jester]

well, i dont think i have to explicitly boycott. for me it s pretty simple.... i just wont buy anything as long as the core game is not enjoyable, because it doesnt make sense. simply adding more stuff to sth which is broken wont fix anything.

they could give us 1000 new factions and units and that would still not make the game any better for me.

[alQamar]

Patch 7 is in Beta now.

http://wiki.totalwar.com/w/Total_War...I:_Patch_Notes

People forget you can actually look this stuff up.



Complaining actually works. But dont be s.

This patch is great in many ways still most miss the fire at will for pila etc. Ensuring attack without any unit movement and maintaining a freaking battle line! Some seem to forget Rome 1 was 9 year ago perfect enough to deal for history channel replays.

[fws2468]

Well I wouldn't just buy the faction pack DLC just based on the fact that it's a faction pack, as I was trying to point out with the steppes factions, because I didn't think there was enough content. I haven't paid for a DLC for Rome II yet, so for reference I would say a faction pack like the Ikko Ikki or Otomo faction packs from Shogun II were a good benchmark. It's two factions that played differently than the others, and also introduced some unique units. Turns out my Otomo and Ikko Ikki campaigns were some the campaigns I enjoyed playing the most in Shogun II. I bought this game fully understanding that I wasn't going to be able to play as all the factions, it was pretty clearly stated, but I'm also not going to pay for just faction unlocks, it actually needs to be a faction they interest me in paying for because it provides a different play style.

As for the siege DLC I was trying to outline there, it would really depend on how much content, but I'm referring to adding whole new features, like being able to sap, and landscape changes if a siege has lasted over time, like the development of earthen siege constructions and stuff. I would expect a siege DLC to be almost like adding a whole new facet to the game the size of a political system, where you might even be able to customize your garrisons more as well as customize the type of siege you were putting on more than just 'build ladders, then build rams.'

What example did I make counts is a fundamental feature? Hell you'd think blood would be fundamental for a game called TOTAL WAR, but evidently people buy that. I mean I've already put 100 hours into this game, and I'm already taking a break because I'm not going to have internet for like 3 months so I'm going to need something to do then, I think I've got my moneys worth out of it, people are acting like CA mugging them or something. I paid 60 bucks for Bioshock Infinite, which I got like, tops 30 hours out of because I beat it more than once. I pay 60 bucks for a total war game, and I can play that for hundreds of hours, and honestly I enjoy Rome II more than Bioshock, nothing against Bioshock, but it's just a different preference. I'm not saying we shouldn't strive for a quality product from CA, and forums are probably the most proper form of communicating distaste with a product I can think of, but there's still a limit. It's becoming a point where people aren't looking for improvements, but they seem to be seeking vengeance for CA doing a bad job. I just want CA to improve the game, and be gracious about it, which they seem to be doing so far since I haven't paid them a dime since release and have already gotten extra content and several patches that have improved my experience since release.

Yes, Ikko and Otomo are dlcs that I'd consider "proper". About a siege dlc, you mentioned new siege units and different siege techniques. It's a fine line between creating truly new features and letting CA get away with lazy fragmentation of factions and units just for the sake of selling them as separate dlcs. Now if they want to deviate from history a little to create other units for a separate dlc like say bullet proof samurai in Shogun 2, I won't object as it's their marketing plan. Compare this to say for example selling onagers and ballistas as separate dlcs. That's taking away from the fundamental historical experience and definitely unacceptable.

If I remember, sapping was already available by default in Rome 1 but they took it away here. If you know of any other games that offer such dlcs, it might give a clearer picture of how substantial such features are to justify a separate dlc. Otherwise, these should just be part of the main game.

I agree the blood pack should have been a fundamental part of the main game, but that's because I see it as a control option. Though some may consider it important, it's not a big deal to me, if I wanted to see blood and gore, I'll watch Kill Bill or something.

I'm not a game basher but at the same time, we must not send CA the message that it's ok to release poorly developed games as long as they give us a few dlcs to keep the fan base happy. Like others have said, you could give away multiple dlcs for free and it won't change a thing if the fundamental AI is not fixed.

[alQamar]

▲and additionally to this it is hurting when you know things are in the game at release and locked just for sake of sales. At least it was not CA started this business practice.

[PeonKing]

Yes, Ikko and Otomo are dlcs that I'd consider "proper". About a siege dlc, you mentioned new siege units and different siege techniques. It's a fine line between creating truly new features and letting CA get away with lazy fragmentation of factions and units just for the sake of selling them as separate dlcs. Now if they want to deviate from history a little to create other units for a separate dlc like say bullet proof samurai in Shogun 2, I won't object as it's their marketing plan. Compare this to say for example selling onagers and ballistas as separate dlcs. That's taking away from the fundamental historical experience and definitely unacceptable.

If I remember, sapping was already available by default in Rome 1 but they took it away here. If you know of any other games that offer such dlcs, it might give a clearer picture of how substantial such features are to justify a separate dlc. Otherwise, these should just be part of the main game.

I agree the blood pack should have been a fundamental part of the main game, but that's because I see it as a control option. Though some may consider it important, it's not a big deal to me, if I wanted to see blood and gore, I'll watch Kill Bill or something.

I'm not a game basher but at the same time, we must not send CA the message that it's ok to release poorly developed games as long as they give us a few dlcs to keep the fan base happy. Like others have said, you could give away multiple dlcs for free and it won't change a thing if the fundamental AI is not fixed.

Yeah I think we are actually on the same page then. I'm talking about thorough DLCs, not just adding features that should've been there in the first place. The siege thing I'm talking about is probably more of just a pipe dream probably, I think it would be a great addition but CA would likely get a better bang for there buck from faction DLCs.

It's a fine line when you look at it alQamar, since I would think that they have DLCs they want to release planned out before the game is even out, so that in a way makes them unlockable. It becomes a point where they have the power to choose how much time and effort needs to be put into a game for release, instead of it being in the hands of the players because it used to be once it was out, you couldn't sell them any additions, you might be able to patch some stuff, but that's it. It's become a practice now that a company can say, 'okay this much content is the main game, and we are going to add a few little trinkets that people can pay for later' instead of just putting everything in there that they could possibly want there. But on the other hand, the DLC system is a motivation for CA to continue to add content to the game because there is actually additional revenue to be made after the initial sale. You have to judge for yourself if a DLC is useful. A few bad examples are the FotS faction packs, I didn't end up buying any of those because there was very little difference in those clans versus every other clan in the game. I also think the blood and gore pack is not worthy of a DLC, but then again, with what people pay for cosmetic downloadable content these days I can't really be surprised.

[Goudvinger]

Am I the only one getting tired of the endless bashing of the game? As a Total War veteran I acuatally enjoy the game, despite it's flaws. Everyone knows CA is dealing with the issues and they are putting a lot of effort into our complaints, as they have proven with previous patches and new features introduces in Rome 2. People boycotting DLC is fine with me, but what does it change to the patching process? Should they let a 3D artist co-work AI behavior? As I understand it, they already have maximum capacity working on the problems. Some people behave like the fight harder ability.

[Lucius Verenus]

I wont be buying any DLC's for R2- because I haven't and wont ever buy this game.
Which is a real shame as it's a favourite period, I still have R1, BI, M2 & Kingdoms all on my pc and play (with mods).
But after the marketing they 'pulled' on Empire, I said I would never buy pre-order or at release again and have kept to that.
I did buy Napoleon, several months after release, as it was a decent release but haven't bought anything since.
I felt they made Shogun 2 and FOTS seem better due to the far more limited scope of the games.
Now they have again pulled a marketing 'job' on the fans and released another badly made game.
I don't care how well they fix it or how good it has become in two years or whatever. I don't buy from that kind of business.
I will play some Invasio barbaorumj and wait patiently for EBII to come out for a fantastic Rome period game.
I sincerely doubt I will ever buy another CA game unless they change the way they market them and the state they release them in dramatically..

Cheers
Lucius