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,

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.....

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

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

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.

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.