Fed up...I want an answer

[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?

[wittlich]

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.