CTP2 must be better than CTP

[Pyaray]

quote: Originally posted by jbs on 11-02-2000 01:09 PM I am senior software engineer

Yeah, me too. Been doing this professionally for over 15 years.

quote: If Activision knew exactly what was causing the bugs, then fixing them should not be hard. But if you are not sure, then deleting a feature does not guarantee that the bug is fixed and in my experience has never fixed it.

We do know exactly what is causing the bug. And we know for a fact that it won't creep into other game modes. It is specifically related to events occuring when it is the "wrong" persons turn, and causing problems. In both single player, and net play, the "right" person is always available and therefore eliminates the problem.

Pyaray

[Maccabee2]

Hmm. I read carefully what Pyaray posted, but I don't pretend to have the truth on this. I'm not an engineer. However, perhaps the review magazines have painted MPG as being an industry standard now for strategy games. Or perhaps, MPG is the industry standard. Could someone offer me enlightenment on this?
As to why Americans buy things (not just computer games) unwisely and then suffer for their gullibility, well, we elected our current president .....*twice.* I should think that no one (besides real generals) understands better than civ gamers the consequences of our loss of nuclear technologies to China. When that happened in any civ game, what was sure to follow? Blackmail and/or nuclear strikes, I seem to remember. Do we Americans really learn? What is the cost? It's just a game....unless we learn from the game.

[3rdTrial]

Pyaray, I am a software person as well. I can't really affirm that jbs is right or wrong withot seen the object strucuture or analisys/design of the game and the test sets of the alpha version, BUT what he is refering is very true. I happen to work in space research and I've seen too many times where we thought we knew what was going on.

You have trouble missing a deadline for a game and made a balancd decision, we've failed to land in MARS (not exactly an easy task!) and we were still crucified for it.....

I'm one waiting for a hotseat patch and extensive reviews, sorry!

[MidKnight Lament]

You indicated that PBEM had a lot of bugs, and that's why it couldn't be included.... Is the same true for Hotseat?

[Big Dave]

As I have been saying, Black Friday or Die is Activisions motto for the release of CTP2. Putrid marketing droids!

Pyaray, please don't misunderstand me. I really appreciate the input and the willingness of you, Mr. Ogre, and the rest of the programming team to come in here and put up with all the heat. I'm glad you folks have read our ideas and attempted to impliment them.

Now please send some of the marketing and sales droids in here. Let them see that not everyone in here is as stupid as they think we are!!!!

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

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

[jbs]

We have a game with a PBEM feature that had lots of bugs. So instead of fixing the bugs you remove the feature. Does that correct the bugs - NO. It just means they don't show up as often. So we have Activision admitting they are shipping a game with lots of bugs and everyone is still going to stand in line to buy the game. Why is everyone so willing to buy a bugsy low quality game. I am sorry, I do not understand. This is why gaminig companies like Activision constantly release low quality bugsy games because everyone is willing to buy the game whether it works properly or not. So everyone who buys this game no longer has any right to complain about anything that dosen't work, because you are all buying it knowing full well that things don't work. I do not understand why seemingly intelligent people do not learn from experience. I've stated my opinion and I give up because you are all entitled to your own opinion. Good luck with game!

[Grumbold]

If the bugs were in the processing of the hotseat/PBEM turns then there is no reason to suspect that removing the features leaves those particular bugs in the rest of the game. Indeed the whole point of removing the feature is to elimintae its bugs. It does mean that any future Hotseat/PBEM patch code is already partially implemented so we are more likely to get it.

[Aristos]

quote: Originally posted by Big Dave on 11-03-2000 12:10 AM As I have been saying, Black Friday or Die is Activisions motto for the release of CTP2. Putrid marketing droids!

yeah...
we all have to learn from germans... they are kinda technocratic (in the right sense)... you will never see a stupid marketing droid running a high tech company there... just see their company profiles... allwasy a Dr. in Engineering in the field related to the main business of the company.

That's the way! Kill the droids!

(BTW, isn't there in CTP2 some *******-unit called MBA or something, that you can kill whit great pleasure???)

[Mike the Nuke]

To Mark G: Typical...reads two lines and that's it. As Kautilys stated, my main topic was NO HOTSEAT. I have NO ill feelings towards the desires of other players. I've played the game over the internet several times. While it was fun, it took too long and opponets often dropped off. Thanks for the info on what PBEM stood for. I never used the email option because all of that played it were at the same place. It may be a very good option. It appears to be very important to a lot of people and now that aI know what it is, I can understand why. Try reading messages in FULL before reponding 'off the cuff' in the future.

Kautilys: Thanks for reading the message in full.

Jbs: I agree with most of what you are saying, although I am not a programer nor do I pretend to be one. I truly feel that Activision needs to work hard on many of these features and not just 'give up'.

MadWoodstar: I also agree with your feelings. You enjoy the single player mode. So do I, at times. I prefer the Hotseat mode as I can not only play against the AI but also against friends and family on one computer. We always had great games and hours of entertainment.

3rdTrial: Your right on the nose. I'll have to wait too. I and my family and those who came over to join in our games, are extremely dissappointed. We were counting the days to the 'new and improved game' only to be severely let down by a marketing ploy.


Pyaray: I respect you efforts and spirit to keep coming back on line and getting bashed. I am very curious about what events occurred out of turn in the Hot Seat mode? We never found a problem in CTPI with the mode. Out of all the games we played we only had 2-3 freeze ups where the game was lost. In these games nothing (wonders, buildings, advances, etc) had occuured. I always assumed it was background software that jammed the game. We have played close to a hundred Hot Seat games utilizing 2-5 human (geniuses or dummies) and enough AI's to make up to 8 civilizations on the largest (gigantic) maps we could create with as many or few goods and types of land masses available.
If it worked in CTPI, why not CTPII? I'm beginning to believe that the 'bean counters' are truly controlling the CTPII game. Yes. Christmas is an important marketing time, but not all the best selling games came out at or just before Christmas. Skip the excusses, fix the problems and make a product that your customers (remember us?) want. Remember..If you have no customers, you have nothing!

Others: I cna't figue why greater than 8 Cis should be a problem, except that the maps would get crowded fast and the game would take more memory to play. We played with 8, but usually less, so our maps would not be so crowded and you could work on stratgies (advances, wonders, etc) rather than fighting some one all the time.

I, and my family and friends, thoroughly enjoyed CTPI and looked forward with great expectations to CTPII, I hoped they would correct some unit flaws. Aircraft carriers were a joke in CTPI. In real life, modern aircraft carriers with all their compliment of aircraft types, could easily wipe out a fleet of the best battleship known (almost simultaneously). Only submarines can give aircraft carriers a severe threat. In CTPI submarines were too easy to find and also had very few weapons (other than nukes until they were wondered out, no tomahacks or other missles). The phantoms in CTPI were visible to opposing players (even when cloaked) thanks to the shields being visible. It appears that CTPII is getting rid of space instead of balancing the units. Thats ok, I guess, as it sounds like they are improving the sea colony stuff.
Stealthy units needed to be much harder to detect.

[Pyaray]

quote: Originally posted by Mike the Nuke on 11-04-2000 05:57 PM Pyaray: I respect you efforts and spirit to keep coming back on line and getting bashed.

I have a lot of fortitude, and this isn't exactly the first time I've had to wear my asbestos underwear.

quote: I am very curious about what events occurred out of turn in the Hot Seat mode?

Well, other things being rewritten affected it. As I mentioned in another post, it has to do with events occuring when it's not the appropriate players turn. There is logic to not give messages to the wrong players, yet the game expects answers to some messages prior to allowing it to continue. So you get in this stuck position where it won't procede without an answer, but it can't ask the question cause it's not their turn. This may sound like a very simple thing, but believe me, it's not. And for everyones knowledge, Hot Seat, and PBEM pretty much use the same logic.

quote: If it worked in CTPI, why not CTPII? I'm beginning to believe that the 'bean counters' are truly controlling the CTPII game.

Hopefully my explanation above is sufficient. But I assure you that was a technical decision, not a bean counter one. It is true that the decision did have to do with time frame. But that time frame isn't exactly something new to us, we've been committed to our ship date for a long time. And we can't just arbitrarily change things like that because we want to squeeze in "one more feature". I know this may sound like we're cheezing out or something, but that's not the case. We made what we feel is an appropriate and educated decision based upon the quality of the game we want to ship. And we do want to ship a quality game, and we believe that's exactly what we're going to be doing.

quote: Skip the excusses, fix the problems and make a product that your customers (remember us?) want. Remember..If you have no customers, you have nothing!

First of all, I'm not making "excuses". I'm explaining decisions. We made a decision, people are unhappy with that decision, and I'm trying to explain that it wasn't just a "let's screw our customers" type of decision, we actually made the decision to benefit the customers by giving them a higher quality game rather than "one more feature". As for customers, if we didn't remember the customers, why would I be posting here. Our customers do come first, but sometimes we have to make decisions that not all of our customers like, and this just happened to be one of those.

quote: Others: I cna't figue why greater than 8 Cis should be a problem, except that the maps would get crowded fast and the game would take more memory to play.

I explained this today in a fair amount of detail in another thread, hopefully that will cover that issue for everyone.

quote: Aircraft carriers were a joke in CTPI. In real life, modern aircraft carriers with all their compliment of aircraft types, could easily wipe out a fleet of the best battleship known (almost simultaneously).

That's not entirely true. If a battleship finds an aircraft carrier with all it's planes on deck, it's a sitting duck. The reason an aircraft carrier is tough is because of it's planes. And if you have an aircraft carrier in CTP with planes circling it at all times, I think you'll find it's a lot easier to protect. But most people don't keep their planes airborn, they just use the carrier as a transport... Just some food for thought.

On a related note, all of the units have been rebalanced.

quote: It appears that CTPII is getting rid of space instead of balancing the units.

I wasn't around for that decision, but when I heard that was what the decision was, I was pleased. I suspect that a lot of people agree with that one.

Pyaray

[joseph1944]

Pyaray

With today US Navy a battleship would not catch an Aircraft Carrier with it Aircraft on the Deck. Every time one of them sail, they have support ships with them. Destroyer, Cruiser, Frigates and other ships.
These other ships can hear very well. Plus I believe the E-2 EAW aircraft are up and flying. Maybe Mike the Nuke could tell us since he served on the Enterprise. Mike I Worked at MINSY until its closure (Navy + MI 33 years) and back in 1976 (May) I worked on the Enterprise at Alameda N.A. in MMR2 I believe doing the Vent. mods. And is that Oakdale Calif. you live in or is there another Oakdale in the world?

Joseph

------------------

[Pyaray]

quote: Originally posted by joseph1944 on 11-04-2000 11:06 PM With today US Navy a battleship would not catch an Aircraft Carrier with it Aircraft on the Deck.

That's actually my point exactly. Yet how often does it happen in games like Civ & CTP, where you send your Carriers off with nothing airborn, and no protection? That's why they're so weak.

Pyaray

[Mike the Nuke]

Mr Pyraya

In your game, they are so weak because you gave them NO aircraft. As Joseph said we had aircraft in the air and escort ships. But the offensive and defensive capabilities of modern aircraft carriers is in no way exibitied in your game. You give us only fighters? Read some books. Carrier aircraft have the capability of delivering alot more than bullets. Carrier aircraft, as Joseph could probably tell you, can maintain a strong defense of the ship (with or without other escort ships) and deliver severe mortal blows utilizing up and including nuclear weapons. You need not make it the strongest ship in you game, but at least make it worth building. The you all rated it, they were nothing but fishing boats. The ease of find subs in your game ws also pathetic. Even your own Phantoms were pathetic. Opposing players could find them even when cloaked by visually locating the shields. I'm sure glad our modern subs and carriers were not desine by you guys. Ever heard of F/A-18 Hornets, F-14 Tomcats, tomahawk missles, pheonix missles, or the phalenx (spelling is probably wrong) defense system. Ever wondered why there are no "active battleships' (yes for about 3-5 years we brought them back, but now we can do with smaller ships and carriers everything they could do and more and faster).

Oakdale....Joseph...not far from you...I'm sure you can agree that the carriers and subs in the CTP game are not as weak as they are made out to be. In the game, I wipe out civilizations with fleets of Battleships, carriers are useles in the game (having only fighter aircraft). The bombers that can be used in the game that can land on carriers become obsolete once the stealth advance is attained. Funny, the USAF has stealth fighters and bombers and the Navy still has fighter/attack aircraft that can and do deliver bombs.

[Mike the Nuke]

Mr Pyraya:

What messages our you talking about. Please give examples. In over 100 Hot Seat games, we never had any problem. Never played the PBEM option. I could see some of the problems that might occur there. The two options may be similar, but they are not. Hot Seat is done form one computer, utilizing one key boards, etc. PBEM requires that data be sent via email to another location and that a response be given. We've built nearly every wonder and achieved every advance playing in Hot Seat and peformed nearly (if not all) combat attacks, etc in at least one of our Hot Seat games without a hitch. We've played with civilizations of 2-5 humans and the rest being AI with up to 8 total. We usually play with 4-6 civilizations, so the maps aren't as crowded and you can do more strategic planning (studies, advancements, etc) without having to fight somebody off all the time. We got bored of the staight all out war from the first trun on deal a long time ago (8 civs, smaller maps). I rspect your response, but do not feel the answer is complete. Hot Seat worked great in CTP I. It IS THE ONLY REASON WE STILL PLAY THE GAME! Without it, we'd discard it along with all the other old worn out single player games. Hell, mays as well play chess by myself or against the computer all the time. YIPPEE!

Carriers always fly air cover when under way in hostile waters. They can launch planes very qyickly in time of need. During peace time we did not always have aircraft in the air except during special exercises. We did have aircraft (Tomcats) on the alert catapult and had far reaching radar to track possible approaching enemies. A battle ship could not even get within firing range of a modern aricraft carrier in it's wildest dreams. Subs are another animal all together. Your aircraft carriers have little or no offensive capabilities. Remember, it's not the aircraft carrier, its the aircraft, of which you gave basically none.

[Mike the Nuke]

Joseph:

Your right about the E2 aircraft being in the air while the ship is deployed. We didn't always have them deployed except during flight exercises or while in "potentially hostile" areas. In friendly seas (off the US coast, etc) they weren't deployed> In the Indian Ocean and open Pacific they were. The ship also was equippped with long range radar. The E2's extended the range further and provided extended targeting for the aircraft. This could be simulated by several methods in the game.

1) Add these units, to be built and deployed on the carrier. The downside would be the addition of another unit to the game adding more complication and building time/cost for the city/empire.

2) Automatically implement this unit as part of every aircraft carrier. this would provide carriers in the game with the long range detection of aircraft and ships (and moderate improvement in sub detection) that real carriers have.

3) Alert fighters were always on the ready on the flight deck. This is simulated quite well in the Sid Meyer Civ II game. Any aircarft carrier attacked that has fighter aircraft deployed on it (even if not flying) are automatically placed airborn to defend the ship.

4) The phalenx (missed spelled, I'm sure) shipboard defense system could be simulated the same as fighter aircraft in item 3 above, except that this item would need to be a unit that could be purchased/built and added to every ship.

5) Helicopters provided anti sub detection on real carriers as well as aircraft recovery assistance. I believe I read that the new game is including helicopters as units.

MR Pyayar (I'm sure I misspelled it, sorry. Didn't have it written in front of me)

I've read many of the messages (almost all) on this site. The Hot Seat, which works well in CTP I (we have never had problems) can be simplified (if the AI is causing the bugs, which I believe is the problem because the AI has so much to consider and respond to, especially with this new 'diplomacy stuff') by allowing it to be utilized with human palyers ONLY, no AI (computer players). Personally, I have become bored with the AI players in all games and prefer real human players (some are smart, some average, some senseless). AI players can only do what they are programed to do and often (even with all the best efforts of the game programers) become predictable. Humans also become predictable, if you know that human's tendancies, but humans can change or try things radically different for no reason at all. I do not understand why Hot Seat seemed to work so well in CTPI with mixtures of human and computer (AI) players, but maybe if it is designed for human player use only on CTP II it could work. If it is placed in the game, I would definately buy tihe new CTP II game, as many of the new unit, graphic, and game play changes sound very good. PBEM could also (possibly) be set up for human players only. Since barbarians do not really build anything, they would not seem to be a problem in Hot Seat or PBEM options.


Mark G:

From reviewing the site, it appears that you have a hand in it. If so, I must compliment you on your efforts. Nice job. It seems to be updated daily (at least). All participants should be compliment on there fairly professional effort. No one (except for the Dangerous guy) has taken 'pot shots' at anyone else, making the site very informative and useful.

thanks