Fed up...I want an answer

[MidKnight Lament]

Well, it does happen. In fits and starts, mind you. You could almost chart it as a wave. People get more and more narky until they're reminded, and then it mostly dies off for a while. Before starting all over again...

------------------
- MKL
"And a sun that doesn't set but settles" - Augie March
Shameless Plug: http://www.poetic-license.org ............. All welcome.

[Big Dave]

quote: Originally posted by MrFun on 01-16-2001 03:15 PM And unfortunately, I don't recall anyone thanking Activision staff who did post replies here. I'm guilty of that too, so let me say - thanks towards all Activision staff who may have posted here.

I have in the past thanked the Activision staff who have posted here in their free time. I do appreciate their commitment to this site, and to their product. Now if all the marketing weenies would just crawl into a hole somewhere and die we might be able to get decent products from some company somewhere again.

When will the next patch be released?

Are you even working on one? A yes to this would give me (at the very least, maybe others, too) alot more patience with Activision.

Will PBEM and HotSeat be in the (problematic) next patch?


Or do I get to make a big post that says:

I told you so!!!!!

Touche' Big Dave!

Touche' Big Dave!

[MrFun]

Unfortunately, some people are infected by the Whining Virus. Its only known method of contagion is through posts over the Internet.

I had that virus for a short time, but fortunately, I rid myself the virus. The cure - implement the modifications that others have introduced or suggested, and god forbid - try your own modifications.

[Mike the Nuke]

quote: Originally posted by Cannes on 01-09-2001 10:00 AM Of course I agree that the game should work propably from the beginning, but the constant bickering about it won't make anything happen, we just have to accept the situation as it is and come up with the best we can, eh?

Wrong! That's the problem today. Companies put out "crap" and we the customers get 'stuck'. We're just supposed to 'like it and lump it'. BULL! The companies should put out quality, adn well tested products. Today they have unbelievable resources for improving ther products with the customer. This site is a prime example. I bet there are several people out there that follow and input to this site (non-Activision folks) that could help them test their stuff and/or patches. I just don't see Activision putting much effort into it. I read a lot of excuses (none from them as they seldom post here anymore) from various people. "Activison folks on vacation, sick, onto something new, it's not their job, their too busy, etc". If your product is "junk" or comes up "short" of expectations and hype, you should work to fix it. Why should we, the customers (and potential customers) buy any more of their products? After all, it seems like they do little to support what they have, except collect their money. Personally, I'm sick and tired of buying products from companies (not just Activision) and getting something less than what I expected in both quality and design, and then being left to like it or tough s___t!

"Screw the consumer" That must be the latest ammendment to the Constituion or something. It seems to happen all the time. We need to stick up for ourselves and force companies to create better products or boycott the 'junkie'/tropublesome ones.

I guess their comments could be, "Thanks for forking the $50 for our 'so, so' game. Hope enjoy fixing it for us so you can play it and get full enjoyment from the product. Once you make those fixes, we hope you will share them with all, so that more will buy our game and we can make more on what we delivered as an 'unfinished product' Now we're now going to create our next "money sucker" that should be out just in time for the next holiday".

[Mike the Nuke]

quote: Originally posted by Big Dave on 01-17-2001 11:54 AM I have in the past thanked the Activision staff who have posted here in their free time. I do appreciate their commitment to this site, and to their product. Now if all the marketing weenies would just crawl into a hole somewhere and die we might be able to get decent products from some company somewhere again. When will the next patch be released? Are you even working on one? A yes to this would give me (at the very least, maybe others, too) alot more patience with Activision. Will PBEM and HotSeat be in the (problematic) next patch? Or do I get to make a big post that says: I told you so!!!!!

RIGHT ON! I've also complimented them when they responded/posted. When they post, it at least gives the appearance that they care.

Ooops! i put my response inside your quote. I definately agree with your post and also wonder about the PBEM/Hot Set item.

[This message has been edited by Mike the Nuke (edited January 17, 2001).]

[Mike the Nuke]

quote: Originally posted by MrFun on 01-17-2001 09:27 PM Unfortunately, some people are infected by the Whining Virus. Its only known method of contagion is through posts over the Internet. I had that virus for a short time, but fortunately, I rid myself the virus. The cure - implement the modifications that others have introduced or suggested, and god forbid - try your own modifications.

There is a diference between folks 'whining' and being upset at being taken. Here's a little scenario for you:

You decide that you want to update or make improvements to your house (assuming that you own one; not trying to be derogatory here, just making this assumption). You hire contractors (electrical, building, plumbing). You pay them when they finish the job (completion of the job is like the product, everthing looks good visually and generally appears to work as does the game packaging and many of it's features). You proceed to use the bathroom. When you flush the toilet, you find that the contents are sent to your bathtub (sort of nasty). You turn on your lights and the power trips to your house. After some 'excuses' and "oh, we're working on that", these folks come back and "fix" things (a patch). Now when you try the toilet, it's contents are delivered to your kitchen sink! You turn on the lights and the garage door opens. Now you try to contact them and 'they're hard to reach', 'don't respond','it must be something your doing wrong', 'let somebody else fix it', etc. I bet you're not going to be one to complain(after all you wouldn't want to be thought of as a 'whiner'). You'll just try to make the 'best of it', right? I doubt. Yes, CTP2 is only a game. It only cost $50. No one is going to die or have anything bad happen to them, nor will the world come to an end because the 'stupid' game doesn't function as expected or comes up short of what was hoped for. But, the analogy is similar. Quality. You pay for something and you should get the quality product (or workmanship) that you were paying for along with the continued support, respect and concern until the product works properly (any mods you do would not be covered, guarenteed or warrented).

There's an old saying that says, "The 'squeaking' wheel gets greased". If enough people complain loud enough (or 'whine', as you prefer to call it) about the problems they are having or 'short comings' in the product that they have found, maybe (just maybe) they will get fixed. If we all sit around like we're 'fat, dumb and happy' , well, that's just what they will think. And if we all try to fix all their 'screw-ups' for them, well, it will sure make them happy. And finally. All the mods that folks try, do not necessarily fix problems. More often than not, they create new ones, which of coures Activision will not support (not that they seem to be supporting much now, but hopefully they are working on some improvement/fix-it patches). Make them fix their 'junk', then they will have to support their own 'fixes'.

[Pyaray]

quote: Originally posted by Mike the Nuke on 01-17-2001 10:04 PM You decide that you want to update or make improvements to your house (assuming that you own one; not trying to be derogatory here, just making this assumption). You hire contractors (electrical, building, plumbing). You pay them when they finish the job (completion of the job is like the product, everthing looks good visually and generally appears to work as does the game packaging and many of it's features).

WARNING: Ranting about to take place.

Let's try another analogy shall we. Let's say you buy a book that you've been wanting to read for a very long time. But the ending doesn't turn out how you wanted it to. And there were a few typographical errors. Would you expect a new version of the book to be published to fix all the things about the book you didn't like?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the bugs are acceptable and just live with it. It's just comparing bugs in a game to your house falling apart is a little extreme. In the case of your house falling apart that will ruin your life. In the case of a bad book, or a problematic game, it's just an interuption of your pleasure activities. Also, in one case you paid the contractors to build things in the exact specification that you asked for, in the other case you're buying a prepacked thing that all the decisions were made by the author. If you wanted to pay for the development of a game, you'd get exactly the game you wanted. However, most, if not all, of you are unwilling to pay several million dollars for a game.

And writing software is a lot more like writing a book than building a house. No software ever written has satisfied every single person who used it (unless that software was written for like 3 people), and likewise no book has ever satisfied everyone.

If you look at all the things people are asking for in "Patch #2" and break it up into actual bugs, where something doesn't work, and into the "wish list", things people want but weren't in the game. You'll find that there are actually very few in the bugs list. I just looked at the (first page) of the "Path #2 Wishlist" thread in the other forum. And there are very few actual bugs that people are talking about. The one that seems to be mentioned more than any others is "Hotseat". Well I'm afraid that't NOT A BUG. That was a design decision. And while many of you are not happy about it being removed, you can't compare the fact that we removed that feature to flushing your toilet and having it fill your bathtub.

OK, I'm done with my soap box now. Anyone else want to use it?

Pyaray

[Big Dave]

Thanks Pyaray, I'll take that.

I really appreciate your views since you come from inside the industry we're displeased with at the moment.

Alot of the griping here (at least by me) is because I've paid for C:CTP and it was just released the last November, at which time I'm expected to pay for it again. So, trying to filter out my past history with this product and regain some objectivity, let me take a stab at this.

Bugs. Bugs come in two types. The first one is a bad or faulty concept that produces an undesirable result. E.G. In C:CTP (and CTP2 AFAIK) gold is too easy to get. The 2nd type is when a function of the program does not work as designed. E.G. CTP2's diplomacy. The AI agrees not to trespass, then drops a boatload of units into your territory. (Pyaray,I know that as a programmer you are already aware of these distinctions, this is for anyone who isn't aware of them.)

Now the diplomacy in CTP2 just doesn't work as advertised (unless I'm doing something majorly wrong, which is possible, I don't have time to play that much). This is a bug, by the 2nd definition I gave.

PBEM was in C:CTP, and it was expected in CTP2. It's obvious that much of the code was written, it just couldn't be debugged in time for a Thanksgiving release. Therefor, it was commented out of SLIC but the basic code was left in the main CTP2 engine.

Hence my conclusion that the marketing weenies pushed this unfinished mess out the door prematurely.

I might also add that I did not see this kind of "negativity" in the SMAC forums, nor in the Civ2 forums. (I'll be watching the Civ3 forums when it comes out.) So, of all the Civ-style games, only CTP attracts "whiners"?

Yes, WesW, Alpha Wolf, and others will make this into a mostly playable game. But they can't add HotSeat or PBEM.
Respectfully,

David

quote: Originally posted by Big Dave on 01-18-2001 06:29 PM I might also add that I did not see this kind of "negativity" in the SMAC forums

yeah, well, say the word "firaxis" to some people in our smac forums or acol and you'll see...

quote: nor in the Civ2 forums.

if you expect to see people whining about civ2 five years after the release i dont even want to start thinking what kind of stuff you have been drinking

[Pyaray]

Two further points I'd like to make.
(Much longer than I had originally intended, sorry for ranting so much today, just had stuff to say I guess.)

quote: Originally posted by Big Dave on 01-18-2001 06:29 PM Bugs. Bugs come in two types. The first one is a bad or faulty concept that produces an undesirable result. E.G. In C:CTP (and CTP2 AFAIK) gold is too easy to get. The 2nd type is when a function of the program does not work as designed. E.G. CTP2's diplomacy. The AI agrees not to trespass, then drops a boatload of units into your territory. (Pyaray,I know that as a programmer you are already aware of these distinctions, this is for anyone who isn't aware of them.)

Actually, the 2nd one you mention may not be a bug at all, and without access to the code, I can't confirm one way or the other. The question is if the AI agrees not to tresspass and then decides to break that agreement, or whether the AI truly doesn't know it has that agreement. If it doesn't know it has the agreement and tresspasses unaware of any kind of hostile action then yes that's a bug. If on the other hand it is simply choosing to ignore the agreement, then that is a design issue, and not necessarily a bug. I don't know which one it is, and since I don't have access to it, I can't really check. I had very little to do with the AI of the game, so that's the area in which my knowledge is probably the most limited. As for the first one you mention, that gold was too easy to get in CTP1, well that's not a bug at all, that's a design flaw. The distinction is important mostly because of who would be responsible for fixing it. Bugs are for programmers, that involves changing code. Design issues and balance issues are simply changing data files to make things play better, and tend to be much more subjective. An example is that maybe someone else thought that there should be more gold given out in CTP1, I doubt it, but it's possible for someone to feel that way.

My 2nd point is this, I'm not saying, nor have I ever said, that you don't have a reason to be displeased. There are people out there who like CTP2, and there are people who do not. There are things about the game that I don't like as well, but for the most part I think it's a good game. I have never posted anything saying that you shouldn't complain about the problems, or that the game is perfect, etc.. The points I was trying to make is: #1 It's not like the issues in this game are going to ruin your life (like flushing your toilet and having it fill your bathtub would invariably do.) #2 Saying that it is missing features that you think it should have is not the same as saying that it's buggy. And #3, Activision doesn't have a "screw the customer" attitude. They do know that it's the customers that pay the bills, but they also know that they can't please all the customers all the time.

I'll go ahead and make a 3rd point as well, the decision to cut PBEM and Hotseat were not Marketing decisions. We as developers had a schedule, and we had a list of things we wanted to accomplish. We could not accomplish everything we wanted within the schedule that we had committed to. We were committed to that schedule for a long time. So the result was that we made the decision of what things to cut. And the PBEM and Hotseat were one of the things we decided to cut in order to meet our schedule. Some would argue that the schedule isn't as important as the features in the game, but time IS MONEY. If it took us twice as long to complete the game as we had scheduled, it would end up costing twice (or maybe more) as much money. Activision is in the business to make money. If the game cost twice as much to develop, then I doubt they would ever be able to recoup the cost of development. If they can't make a profit on a game, what's the point in making it in the first place?

So, for all of you who don't enjoy the game, I'm sorry you feel that way, but there is nothing I can do about that. For all of you who enjoy the game, great, I'm glad we could make something you enjoy (and according to that poll that was finished recently, there actually are more people enjoying it then hating it.) And for all of those "waiting for another patch", ask youselves this, will a patch fix what your problems are with the game? Or is it that you want a different game that this game is not? I suspect that most of the people who want the patch actually want the game to be something it's not, and are hoping that another patch would transform the game into what they actually want. This suspicion is based upon my purusal of what people want to see in another patch in the other forum. Most of the things that I read in there were not fixes, they were changes. Patches are for fixes, not really for changes.

Dang, there was just this stack of soap boxes lying around today.....

Pyaray

quote: Originally posted by Pyaray on 01-18-2001 08:36 PM Dang, there was just this stack of soap boxes lying around today.....

Dont worry Pyaray, I'll order some more tomorrow...


seriously, it's good to hear the developers' point of view every now and then(beyond the gamers' one)
[This message has been edited by MarkG (edited January 18, 2001).]

[Radical_Manuvr]

I'm just guessing here but I think the AI ignores agreements by design. I don't know if anyone tries to win this way but the game is more difficult to win by world peace when you have some of the other civs breaking agreements and pissing you off. It seems like a test of patience to me.

[Bluevoss]

Thank you, Mike. Damn true.



------------------
Bluevoss-

[Dale]

Read the comments in diplomacy.slc that came with CTP2 and you'll see that the AI refuses EVERYTHING by default.

------------------
Author of Diplomod. The mod to fix diplomacy.

Rommell to a sub-commander outside Tobruk: "Those Australians are in there somewhere. But where? Let's advance and wait till they shoot, then shoot back."

[Flash]

Greetings All,

I just finished reading this thread not long ago. It too has made me alittle upset. I do appreciate everyone's opinion. But I would like to give my 2 cents for what they're worth.

First off, I'm one of those poor folks who by unfortunate circumstances was't able to finish retrainning in school when I couldn't find work in my previous degree. I was working on my Computer Science Degree, so I understand how tough it is to program. I even had a class where they brought in a teach who had previously worked in the corporate sector and wanted to teach her class like it was a corp. (problem was she was never around to properly teach or give support to our projects).

Well, I'm now married have a lovely baby girl. We both have low paying jobs so money isn't the best. So we have to be careful on what luxeries we want.

Now we come to CTP2, I figured from previous experience that the game wouldn't work right. That there would be a few patches out that should fix the game. So I waited until Christmas to get it. I understand about schedules and deadlines, what college student doesn't, but even they teach you to get it right before sending it to market.

I understand that there are features that were left out of the game, I'm not complaing. What I am complaining about is a faulty product. I mean they say we can mod the game, I planned on it, but when I found out about the "save game/Load game" problem of some fan based senarios, I'm thinking what is the point if my personal senario is going to have the same problem. or if you look at all the files that where put on my harddrive that have been labeled "obsolete" and has been said that removings some of these files could crash the game or finding out that there could of been some very nice features implemented but weren't activated because of schedule. I don't get it? I wish someone could explain it too me.

In closing, I understand their possible motivations. But when you are on a budget and have to make some tough choices, you want a finished product. Schedules be damned. If it doesn't work fix it. If it isn't finished either finish it or don't release it. I would rather pay some more money for a product that I really thought would be special because a company cared enough to do it right. Features are one thing, having it work is another. I think this game has potential, and I won't give up yet, but I wish companies would consider the consumer and their hard earned cash who are willing to pay for a quality product.

Flash

Note: What are colleges for if they try to teach effeciency and accuracy, when companies want speed, schedules and money (time is money, accuracy less important)

[Seaman]

quote: Originally posted by Pyaray on 01-18-2001 08:36 PM ... As for the first one you mention, that gold was too easy to get in CTP1, well that's not a bug at all, that's a design flaw. The distinction is important mostly because of who would be responsible for fixing it. Bugs are for programmers, that involves changing code. Design issues and balance issues are simply changing data files to make things play better, and tend to be much more subjective. An example is that maybe someone else thought that there should be more gold given out in CTP1, I doubt it, but it's possible for someone to feel that way. ... Pyaray

So... is the fact that the AI is kind of stupid (like sending 5 hoplites one and one against you instead of stacking them together) and very reluctant to attack a *bug* or *design issue*?

This distinction could prove important for the willingness of Activision to fix this problem. If it's deemed a bug, then maybe there will be a patch to fix it, if it's a design issue - well, then it seems like it will be forever upon all the good moders here at Apolyton to fix the problem.

Anyone having thoughts on this?

Yes Seaman, here's a thought - think long and hard before you purchase another game from Activision - I know I will

[Pyaray]

quote: Originally posted by Seaman on 01-19-2001 10:39 AM So... is the fact that the AI is kind of stupid (like sending 5 hoplites one and one against you instead of stacking them together) and very reluctant to attack a *bug* or *design issue*?

I don't know. It could be either.

By the way, I sort of over stated my point. There actually are some design issues that require code changes. I only mention this in the interest of accuracy. The point I was making before is that bugs are when the code doesn't react as designed. If the design wasn't right, and the code does what it was designed to do, it's not a bug. A bug is only when it doesn't perform as designed.

More than likely with the issue you mention above, the agressiveness can be modified by changing data files, but the stacking is more than likely a code issue. But once again, this is still a section of code that I am unfamiliar with, so I'm uncertain as to whether that is correct or not.

Pyaray

[sleeperservice]

I read what Activision had to say and I can say this .I dont like it.