Why no PBEM means game is unstable or incomplete

[jbs]

I am sorry for the long post but I wanted to explain my logic.

1. Let us start with what we know: PBEM/Hotseat worked with CTP1. CTP2 is built from CTP1. You change the AI files, you change diplomacy, you change the city management, you add turns and technology, and PBEM/Hotseat doesn't work. So tell me where the bug is: in the code that previously worked and wasn't changed or in the code that was changed or added. Now tell me how removing PBEM/Hotseat fixes the bug?

2. Why would Activision say this fixed the bug or rephrasing - why would the bug show up more often with PBEM/Hotseat. This feature adds another human player which affects the total resources of the program. PBEM/Hotseat could cause the game to crash the same reason why an application will work fine with a small data set but crash when accessing the entire database. But again actually where is the bug?

3. Why no more that 8 Civs? If Joe user can have 32 civs with a couple of simple modifications and more than 8 Civs was on the top of the wish list for CTP2, why did Activision not implement it?

a. Do not say system specs because that is a bad excuse. You could have a statement that a 233 with 32mb RAM can run 8 Civs, but to run 16, 24, or 32 the recommended specs are a 400 with 128mb RAM. When a user would select more than 8 civs a user verification screen would appear asking the user to verify the PC specs. I am NOT saying the game verifies and the game would still try to run 32 civs on a 233, but the user was warned and if the game crashes it is the users fault.

b. Adding more Civs puts stress on the game resources much the same like PBEM/Hotseat would, so the bug would appear more often. Activision's answer - cut the feature not fix the bug.

4. A review states the game's interface is slow at times and needs optimization. Now first, reviewers almost never say anything bad and sugar coat the negative aspects. The only time something negative is mentioned is if it jumps out and bits the user who would say that this problem is so obvious how come the reviewer didn't see it. What is a cause of slow interface and need optimization - problems with game resources.

5. What could be a cause of this bug? - A dangling pointer, unallocated memory, subroutines that open but don't close or call themselves. I am sure all the C++ programmers could list 10 reasons off the top of their head. However, most of these reasons are very hard to prove or disprove and could literally take months to QA the program and find such a bug.

6. What could this mean to the user who buys the game? If you play the game a long time, it may unexpectedly crash. Save the game often and reboot if necessary. Modifications like all the mods with CTP1, will add overhead and could make this bug happen more often. Send your game files to Activision. The more data they have on when and how it happens the more chance they have of isolating and fixing the problem. All of us are counting on you helping Activision correct this bug so do a good job.

7. Could it be some other reason? The new code added and changed requires some modification to the existing PBEM/Hotseat to ensure a proper interface. If that code is not done than or not done correctly than that could cause problems with PBEM/Hotseat and removing PBEM/Hotseat feature would remove that bug. But what does that tell you about the game. If simple interfaces are not done for features that have been in the game from the beginning, how ready is the game. This problem is a clear indication of an unfinished game being rushed into production and released early. Now ask the question of what other corners were cut and what other problems does the game have.

8. The indication is clear that the game is either incomplete or has bugs; yet is being released. What does that say about QA on the game? Is Activision capable of doing such a nefarious act? Yes! The same thing happened with CTP1. A clearly unfinished and unstable game was released early to beat SMAC to the market. The Christmas deadline is approaching and Activision wants to release the game at Christmas, whether it is ready or not.

9. My experience is with Graphic User Interfaces (GUI) mainly using Visual Basic or Java (similar to C++). I have programmed with C++ but in no fashion claim to be an experienced C++ programmer. So I challenge all C++ programmers to refute my logic and if they can sufficiently prove I am wrong, incorrect, or misstated the truth, I will buy the game!

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by jbs on 11-03-2000 11:03 AM b. Adding more Civs puts stress on the game resources much the same like PBEM/Hotseat would, ...

No, thats not correct.

In PBEM/Hotseat/Internet games the human players does all the initiatives and decision-making, relieving the AI from that othervise strenuous duty. All the AI has to do is to act as the go-between messenger boy, carrying out the orders.
Anyway, i hope they release the PBEM/Hotseat feature later - perhaps together with an addon-package. This requires however that the sales are great and the reviews are nice to make it worthwhile for Activision.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited November 03, 2000).]

[Big Dave]

quote: Originally posted by Ralf on 11-03-2000 01:33 PM No, thats not correct. In PBEM/Hotseat/Internet games the human players does all the initiatives and decision-making, relieving the AI from that othervise strenuous duty. All the AI has to do is to act as the go-between messenger boy, carrying out the orders. Anyway, i hope they release the PBEM/Hotseat feature later - perhaps together with an addon-package. This requires however that the sales are great and the reviews are nice to make it worthwhile for Activision. [This message has been edited by Ralf (edited November 03, 2000).]

So what you're saying is "If enough people buy the game Activision will finish writing it, they'll make it a good game"? Would you buy a car with no breaks? But if enough people buy those cars the manufacturer will add breaks!

------------------
Big Dave

Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me!

[Ralf]

Big Dave, im not *against* PBEM/Hotseat - why should i be? Because, theres so many who wanted that feature, it was of course pretty sad that Activision was forced to drop it, for the time being. They didnt *plan* to do that from the beginning, of course.

[3rdTrial]

JBS, before we go any further I agree with you and big dave.

Who told you that hotseat work well in CTP1? Try having a game in which the top player keeps changing and you will see the monument window go bananas, besides having peeks into another players maps and so forth.

Now adding more players do stress the code. But from the explanantion I received looks more like a threading problem or shared variables (things happening on another players time) then a resource problem. It is difficult to say without further insight.

I don't want to help Activision to finish the game. I have enough work already, and work that I'm paid for.

I will only buy the game if the revisions are good and if it has the features I want. That is my right as a buyer. IMO no hotseat no $$.

If they want to make christmas deadline, Fine! I don't care I'm sure I will find other game to buy. (one with hotseat.....)

[Gedrin]

Personally I think no hotseat/PBEM just means the new diplomacy model is far more interactive than we could imagine.

This entire thread reminds me of some cliche involving books and covers.

Gedrin

quote: Originally posted by jbs on 11-03-2000 11:03 AM CTP2 is built from CTP1.

you dont really know if the certain part has remained the same

quote: 3. Why no more that 8 Civs? If Joe user can have 32 civs with a couple of simple modifications and more than 8 Civs was on the top of the wish list for CTP2, why did Activision not implement it?

cause in the first case it is Joe's decision and in the second case it's Activision's. if there are problems, in Joe's case it's a minor issue. in activision's case it means need for more support, more programmers, perhaps even a negative effect from desatisifed players, etc etc etc

quote: the user was warned and if the game crashes it is the users fault.

user's fault? in my world, a program either has a feature and the developer must provide support for it, or it doesnt have the feature...

quote: b. Adding more Civs puts stress on the game resources much the same like PBEM/Hotseat would, so the bug would appear more often.

what does the one have to do with the other? i dont know a lot about programming a big game, but i dont think there is just a "bug" running around the code causing problems...

quote: 4. A review states the game's interface is slow at times and needs optimization

this has already been answered on this forum. why do you need to bring it back if you dont have anything to answer back?

quote: Modifications like all the mods with CTP1, will add overhead

modifications are just changes to a text file which the game reads anyway. there is no stress from a mod....

quote: how ready is the game

it's not released yet, so it's not ready

quote: This problem is a clear indication of an unfinished game being rushed into production and released early.

actually, it seems to me that the question was: "release on time with not pbem, or release after two months with pbem?"

quote: Now ask the question of what other corners were cut and what other problems does the game have.

if we start imagining things...

quote: The same thing happened with CTP1. A clearly unfinished and unstable game

run fine on my machine

quote: was released early to beat SMAC to the market.

smac was released on feb 9. ctp1 was released on mar 30. that is 2 months AFTER

[Atahualpa]

quote: Originally posted by jbs on 11-03-2000 11:03 AM I am sorry for the long post but I wanted to explain my logic. 1. Let us start with what we know: PBEM/Hotseat worked with CTP1. CTP2 is built from CTP1. You change the AI files, you change diplomacy, you change the city management, you add turns and technology, and PBEM/Hotseat doesn't work. So tell me where the bug is: in the code that previously worked and wasn't changed or in the code that was changed or added. Now tell me how removing PBEM/Hotseat fixes the bug?

What would telling you help?

quote: 2. Why would Activision say this fixed the bug or rephrasing - why would the bug show up more often with PBEM/Hotseat. This feature adds another human player which affects the total resources of the program. PBEM/Hotseat could cause the game to crash the same reason why an application will work fine with a small data set but crash when accessing the entire database. But again actually where is the bug?

Again, what would it help if we knew where the bug is?

quote: 3. Why no more that 8 Civs? If Joe user can have 32 civs with a couple of simple modifications and more than 8 Civs was on the top of the wish list for CTP2, why did Activision not implement it? a. Do not say system specs because that is a bad excuse. You could have a statement that a 233 with 32mb RAM can run 8 Civs, but to run 16, 24, or 32 the recommended specs are a 400 with 128mb RAM. When a user would select more than 8 civs a user verification screen would appear asking the user to verify the PC specs. I am NOT saying the game verifies and the game would still try to run 32 civs on a 233, but the user was warned and if the game crashes it is the users fault. b. Adding more Civs puts stress on the game resources much the same like PBEM/Hotseat would, so the bug would appear more often. Activision's answer - cut the feature not fix the bug.[/qutoe] You answered the question for yourself, but I go with a. And its no bad excuse, its the truth. [quote]4. A review states the game's interface is slow at times and needs optimization. Now first, reviewers almost never say anything bad and sugar coat the negative aspects. The only time something negative is mentioned is if it jumps out and bits the user who would say that this problem is so obvious how come the reviewer didn't see it. What is a cause of slow interface and need optimization - problems with game resources.

The build they had was a month old! (according to Pyray)

quote: 5. What could be a cause of this bug? - A dangling pointer, unallocated memory, subroutines that open but don't close or call themselves. I am sure all the C++ programmers could list 10 reasons off the top of their head. However, most of these reasons are very hard to prove or disprove and could literally take months to QA the program and find such a bug.

I guess: Code not optimized.

quote: 6. What could this mean to the user who buys the game? If you play the game a long time, it may unexpectedly crash. Save the game often and reboot if necessary. Modifications like all the mods with CTP1, will add overhead and could make this bug happen more often. Send your game files to Activision. The more data they have on when and how it happens the more chance they have of isolating and fixing the problem. All of us are counting on you helping Activision correct this bug so do a good job.

Basically the thing with Bugs is, that there are some that depend on your System Specs, or driver incompability. But others are Game Bugs. If you find such, you report it to Activision, or not, that depends on you. If you want to have it fixed report it, if not let them find out for themselves, which may take longer.
Besides I am sure they dont stop QA after the release, but keep on testing the game if they find bugs for themselves.

quote: 7. Could it be some other reason? The new code added and changed requires some modification to the existing PBEM/Hotseat to ensure a proper interface. If that code is not done than or not done correctly than that could cause problems with PBEM/Hotseat and removing PBEM/Hotseat feature would remove that bug. But what does that tell you about the game. If simple interfaces are not done for features that have been in the game from the beginning, how ready is the game. This problem is a clear indication of an unfinished game being rushed into production and released early. Now ask the question of what other corners were cut and what other problems does the game have.

I can understand your fear. Its the same I have, but as for the reviews again: The build was a month old. About PBEM: Maybe they found out, that PBEM would require too much additional testing and they dont want to include unfinished features. So they will add it with a patch.

quote: 8. The indication is clear that the game is either incomplete or has bugs; yet is being released. What does that say about QA on the game? Is Activision capable of doing such a nefarious act? Yes! The same thing happened with CTP1. A clearly unfinished and unstable game was released early to beat SMAC to the market. The Christmas deadline is approaching and Activision wants to release the game at Christmas, whether it is ready or not.

Sorry I am not from Activision and dont know about their plans.

quote: 9. My experience is with Graphic User Interfaces (GUI) mainly using Visual Basic or Java (similar to C++). I have programmed with C++ but in no fashion claim to be an experienced C++ programmer. So I challenge all C++ programmers to refute my logic and if they can sufficiently prove I am wrong, incorrect, or misstated the truth, I will buy the game!

If they used Java for their GUI than it explains why it is slow
Besides Programming is up to them. It wont help us when they tell us what bugs they have and what may cause it. Besides if they ask us for help I already know what you will be rocking about

ATa

[Maccabee2]

Maybe CTP2 should have been named Test of Time II, since we've waited all this Time just to Test it.
I gotta agree with JBS, and my sentiments line right up with Big Dave. I'm not inclined to buy this unless the game has stunningly rave reviews from the majority of ...er...more affluent...game buyers. ;0) There's too much choice out there...including good books!

[MWatts]

I would disagree with your conclusion that the game is buggy because PBEM had to be taken out.
The first reason is because of a post from a while back in another topic. It stated that a programer from outside Activision had looked at the code, and called it a bunch of spaghetti code. If true that may explain why the addition of PBEM has problems.
The second is about the memory leak you talked about in an earlier post of this topic. I have had the same problem in other games. One that comes to mind is SIM CITY 3000. When the game runs a long time it slows down and I have to save and reboot or the game can become unstable and or crash. Normaly I would say that that game has a problem as well, but the same thing occurs at work. Don't play games there, just use mirosoft products. Could it be a problem in the operating system it's self?

[Grumbold]

The original post is simply bursting with assumptions. The conclusions drawn are only reliable if the initial premise is correct. Ctp2 has certainly been heavily influenced by Ctp1 but to suggest that they took Ctp1 code then just expanded a few subroutines is very unlikely.

If, instead, you begin by assuming that every bit of code is being rewritten around the new city, production, combat, science and diplomatic models then things are very different. Only standalone subroutines which are unaffected by the rules and interface changes can be pulled in intact from Ctp1. Items like PBEM and hotseat become last minute icing that cannot be fully implemented until the core functionality is fully resolved. Not surprising under those circumstances that they might still be buggy when the main game features are not.

[jbs]

Yes, my original post is bursting with assumptions and my logic could be comparied to a slipperly slope argument. I have an opinion that the game is being rushed to market, ready or not, to meet the Christmas marketing season the same as CTP1 was rushed. Instead of just stating my opinion, I attempted to back it up, hoping for a fair discussion. I had hoped that other people could back up why they thought the game is good and worth buying. Also note that every official statement by Activision (like the one on why no more than 8 Civs) supports my assumptions (that dosen't mean they are true - just not refuted). I find it disappointing that many people will just buy the hype and buy the game without any consideration on Activision's past history (remember the hype and the ensuing disappointment of CTP1) or without even asking why certain features were deleted. The statement of PBEM/Hotseat had many bugs we could not correct in time, so we deleted the feature to give you a quality gold code, sounds like pure marketing BS. Why does everyone think the game is going to be good - just because Activison and Nark G. say so - I feel Activision lied to me with CTP1 so why should I trust them. The indications are that Activision did not listen to the customer when designing the game and Activision is trying to convince us to buy the game based on two changes, diplomacy and the way the game manages city growth. The fact that CTP1 still has known bugs that Activision refuses to correct with a patch is enough reason not to buy CTP2. Although my heart says hope and buy the game, my head and more importantly my gut says don't be a fool again. I could be wrong and I really hope I am, but I win both ways. If the game is good I can always eat crow and buy it, but if its like CTP1 then I either save my money or buy it 4 months later after users fix the game for free.

[Atahualpa]

quote: Originally posted by jbs on 11-07-2000 03:22 PM Yes, my original post is bursting with assumptions and my logic could be comparied to a slipperly slope argument. I have an opinion that the game is being rushed to market, ready or not, to meet the Christmas marketing season the same as CTP1 was rushed.

Other (like me) share that opinion. Though I also think they know that fans never forget and can hardly forgive. They know very well what will happen when CtP2 will be a pain in the ass. Believe me! They know!

quote: Instead of just stating my opinion, I attempted to back it up, hoping for a fair discussion.

Backed it up? huh? Guess I did miss that. Besides, who was unfair?

quote: I had hoped that other people could back up why they thought the game is good and worth buying.

I addressed all of your points, if you noticed.

quote: Also note that every official statement by Activision (like the one on why no more than 8 Civs) supports my assumptions (that dosen't mean they are true - just not refuted).

I think this sentence explains a lot:
Pyray: "Also, it's really not cool to make a game where the minimum spec system can't play the "full game"
Have you read that the amount of work for the Computer doubles when you add 2 civs?

quote: I find it disappointing that many people will just buy the hype and buy the game without any consideration on Activision's past history (remember the hype and the ensuing disappointment of CTP1) or without even asking why certain features were deleted.

Its up to time wether they buy the game or not.

quote: The statement of PBEM/Hotseat had many bugs we could not correct in time, so we deleted the feature to give you a quality gold code, sounds like pure marketing BS.

When they have to meet the deadline they have to. The programmers cant escape the evil marketing people and what we not want are unfinished features. I begged them not to release it that soon, but well.... Counting the situation its the best thing they have done. Would you be satisfied when you got the feature, but it wouldnt work? And dont know say: They shall not release it that soon, cause that will be just a drop in the ocean.

quote: Why does everyone think the game is going to be good - just because Activison and Nark G. say so - I feel Activision lied to me with CTP1 so why should I trust them.

Its MarkG! If you are dissapointed about CtP1 and dont want anything to do with CTP anymore, may I ask you then what exactly you are doing here? If you dont like CtP at all and dont want anything to do with CtP2 then why are you here?

quote: The indications are that Activision did not listen to the customer when designing the game

A big LOL here! Exactly the opposite is the case. ATVI have listened to the customers. What did they like about CtP what not and implemented this in CtP2. And they said that very often. Jesus what are you talking about?

quote: and Activision is trying to convince us to buy the game based on two changes, diplomacy and the way the game manages city growth.

Actually Activision doesnt convince anyone.

quote: The fact that CTP1 still has known bugs that Activision refuses to correct with a patch is enough reason not to buy CTP2.

Thats true, though its not enough reason, but the fact that they left CtP1 unfinished is a big FAT minus.

quote: Although my heart says hope and buy the game, my head and more importantly my gut says don't be a fool again.

Oh so you plan to buy the game? Sorry for me assumption above. Thought you have given up on the series.
You know, you and me are not that different (in this point)

quote: I could be wrong and I really hope I am, but I win both ways. If the game is good I can always eat crow and buy it, but if its like CTP1 then I either save my money or buy it 4 months later after users fix the game for free.

Its a Win-Win Situation for you, so why arent you happy?

aTa

[Mike the Nuke]

I still contend that Hot Seat worked well in CTP I. We've played at least (if not more) than hundred games. We've played with polution on and off, Bloddlust on and off, various levels of Barbarians and accomplished gotten nearly every wonder (some were never pursued by the players or became obsolete before they could be achieved) and all (every single) advancement possible (though we didn't build every unit or utilize every form of government in every game). We played with various combinations of human and computer players up to 8. We started staying with 2-4 humans and 1-2 AI (or about 1 AI for every 3 humans) to keep the maps from getting overcrowded. It also got boring going to war with some AI within the first 4-10 turns and constanly being at war through violation of tresspassing agreements, etc.(I under stand from reading that the new game has better AI diplomacy and will probably stop these 'stupid' AI actions).

I read in one message that a player noticed that opponets maps could be come partially visible during turn transfer and that the monuments would be 'screwed' in hot seat mode. For one, I hit the 'x' (close option) the minute the 'stupid' monument screan comes on. Whoopee...a coliseum turns into a palace (again...) or a well turns into water fountain or statue. Like the opening videos, the monument screen is one big bore after the first couple of times you see it/them. Sorry if I appear to degegrade (spelled wrong, I Bet) the hard efforts of the game programers, it is not my intent, but they really are not that important to me in the or with the game. As far as the opponets map being partially visible. This is/was true under two cases. If ships were moving (you had set movements longer than allowed in one turn during the previous turn and didn't change there action in this turn, they would continue to move, even while the next players turn screen promp was up. Sometime the map quickly scrolled around after you closed your turn, just before your opponet could open his/her. The second opponet screen vision occured if the plyer before you had click on a city to manage its workers and place his/her workers and did not close that screen before quitting his/her turn. That city would remain visible to the next player until they open their own plaer screen. If you close all you city screens and wait until all you piece movements occur and allow the graphics to stabilize before calling the next player to the computer, these problems have little or no effect on the game or game play. We never had any wonder or advancements occur out of turn or improperly stated.

We never played the PBEM option, so I cannot answer for these problems, if they occur there also. Over-all, BIG DEAL.

My question has alway been...

If Hot Seat (and PBEM) worked in the first game, why not the second. If the bugs in those options occur due to the 'new and improved' AI diplomacy, then maybe its the diplomacy logic where the 'bug' lies or maybe the new AI diplomacy feature is not compatible with Hot Seat or PBEM. If that is the case, why not just make thes function/options availbale for 'human players' only with no AI until the problem can be fixed, then give us a patch (if it can be fixed). This would probably make the greater number of people happier than to just skip these option completely. Personally, I get bored with AI players, they are too prdictable, reguardless of how much effort the programers put in. AI's can only do as their logic code says. Humans, on the other hand, can have their own set ways or do thing radically diferent for no other reason than they felt like.

My biggest dissappointment is that the game (CTP II) sounds great. It appears that a lot of effort went into it. There may be some bugs that players will find (hopefully not, and I'm sure not intentional) but the biggest software company in the world, Mr Gates' Microwsoft, puts out operating systems (Win3.1, 95, 98, 2K) full of bugs, and we survive. At my house, we played the game exclusively in the Hot Seat mode, so the new game (no matter how exciting it sounds) would be of little use to us without that option. I'll watch Activision's site for patches to the game, and if/when they come out with the HOt Seat patch, I will immediately buy the game. I want to play it, but have more that enough Human verse computer games thrown around the house. I don't need another.


I also found some information stated on this site that ansered some questions I had with CTP I and SimCity 3000, the freeze up/crashes after long use. I only mention this to say thanks to Mark G and partners for putting a site like this together where info like this can be shared for the benifit of all. Sometimes things that may be simple to some, may not be known to or realized by others.

thaks

[Mike the Nuke]

Sorry for my typing/spelling mistakes. I'm helpless without a spell checker to catch these errors and I often do not catch them until after I've clicked submit. I apologize for it. It is very irriating to me.

[jbs]

I will clarify my position and then drop then drop the argument giving you the last word. I followed this web site prior to CTP1's release and bought the game soon after it was released. I was very disappointed with the game, removed it from my hard drive and didn't continue trying to play the game. After the first patch was released and after CD released 4.2, I started playing again or I should say modifying. Following CD's example, I felt I could fix a lot of the problems in the game. If not for CD, I would not have played the game nor would I be even considering buying CTP2. I have been playing/modifying the game off and on since Jul. With the second patch and with TP's powerslices and the Awesome AI's in addition to CD's mod, CTP1 became a good game for me. I would recommend CTP1 but only if those user mods are included. The point is that the customer fixed the game for Activision. I have been following the release of CTP2 and been looking forward to buying the game. I was leaning towards even buying the game upon release again. The review of the game being slow concerned me, but not enough to keep me from buying the game. However, when I learned that hot seat was dropped (because of bugs) and no more than 8 Civs (and yes I understand Pyray's comments). I became very concerned. I have programmed and I have designed many GUI's and for me those two items indicate some deep unresolved problems in the game coding. Now factor in Activision's history with CTP1 and the fact that this release is timed for Christmas and the impression grows that the game is being rushed just like CTP1. Now the review comments that I dismissed earlier become important again. My gut tells me that like CTP1, after two official patches and three user patches, we might have a good game. Will Activision support the game with patches? Currently Activision's position is no support. If Activision is not willing to commit themselves to supporting the game prior to release why should I commit my money. Just think. Hot seat was pulled because of bugs that couldn't be fixed before the e deadline (indicating rushed release) - no statement that a patch will definitely be released (indicating Activision is uncertain if they can fix the bugs which indicates unresolved coding problems even in the released game). I am not against CTP2, but I am against everyone just believing all the marketing hype. I am just asking people to think before buying.

quote: Originally posted by Mike the Nuke on 11-07-2000 10:57 PM If Hot Seat (and PBEM) worked in the first game, why not the second.

cause it's another game. of course they share parts of code or other parts of code are based on ctp1 code. still, it's a another game, with many things added/changed

quote: Originally posted by jbs on 11-08-2000 11:41 AM The point is that the customer fixed the game for Activision.

actually, some customers(not all of them) modified the game to be play better according to a large part of the customers

it is also true that another large part of the customers have never played with a mod, and enjoyed it!

quote: I have programmed and I have designed many GUI's and for me those two items indicate some deep unresolved problems in the game coding.

so what? are you not buying a game because of "unresolved problems" somewhere in cut features instead of actual problems in the released game?

so, you're not buying the game not because it's bad and it has problems, but because it could be better if they worked more on it?

quote: Will Activision support the game with patches? Currently Activision's position is no support.

actually, the response from Pyray was "I dont know" and was specifically for a pbem/hotseat patch

quote: If Activision is not willing to commit themselves to supporting the game prior to release why should I commit my money.

if you want to include patches in the price of the game, aren't you excusing the existance of bugs, which you also consider unforgivable?