posted 05-27-99 08:04 AM ET     

Over the last couple of months you've been asking us for ideas on SMACX and CIV3 and we've been pouring our ideas back at you.

So tell us how's it going... How's the SMACX development ? What's the plot ? What sort of new stuff can we expect ? What's the projected release date ? Go on, give us a "Teaser Trailer" !

posted 05-27-99 10:07 AM ET            

So come on, guys... Give us some !

posted 05-27-99 05:27 PM ET            

SMACX is progressing nicely, but I think we want to keep the plot a mystery for now. Releasing that type of info generates a good amount of "internet news", which usually places it as part of the overall marketing strategy. In short, we don't get a lot of Features or articles at game sites with that info already in the public. Same with features. I don't have a clue what the release date is. Even if I did, until SMACX is closer to completion (read: we're certain we'll hit it), it's not worth much. Hey, it's software development .

Let me know if there is any other questions I can answer.

jkm

posted 05-27-99 06:06 PM ET            

Think about that.

Patch 3 entered testing at EAHQ at some point I am sure.

Even Patch 2 went through testing at EAHQ as well.

Also note it is now "Patch" 4, nice admission, thank you.

All the previous patches went through "quality" testing.

Who are these people and by what fiat do they have the right to "quality" test a third patch for a game where there are bugs that have existed from the beginning that they were to dim to find in the first place.

I can avoid the bugs, I can pretend they don't exist. But these people should be looking to break the game, make it snap in half and bleed code out of its wounds. Little 1's and 0's pouring out on the ground because it doesn't work quite right.

That is not how it seems to have worked though. No they load this most masterful of games up on their standard Dell P2 400's with 96 megs of Ram, and they dutifully "check out" the game. They make sure that the "Read Me" file is spell checked. They are absolutely sure that when they fire a missile it only goes its prescribed distance. Oh wait, here is a problem, This former wonders in circles when its AI is turned on. You think that is bad the AI Miriam just sent a whole invasion fleet over and crushed my west coast, she must have had at least three maybe four armies in that single transport. Goodness Gracious this game is tough. I'm going to go play some solitaire to calm down.

Note to Firaxis and EA for when SMACX is coming out. Don't waste your time with EAHQ. Give a copy of the game to Darkstar, one to tfs99, another to cousLee, and give one to Nell (for a woman's point of view). They'll tell you in 48 hours or less whether this puppy is ready for release or not.

Have JMorris and Tim Train sit down and play a MP game with Capt Comal, Analyst and PLayer2 will figure out if everything is working. And while they would love to be paid they'd do it for a free copy of SMACX when it is complete.

" Patch 4 has entered testing at EAHQ. "
And I am off to a BLah thread at the nearest conveience store.

posted 05-27-99 06:48 PM ET            

It would be great to get our hands on SMAC v4.0 to put it through its paces. However, barring a miracle, it seems completely unlikely.

As I posted before, I would have been happy to see the list of verified bugs so people like Darkstar, cousLee, me and all the other poor folks that posted "new" bugs to Troubleshooting could know that at least their input has been received and acted upon. That list never materialized.

I also requested a list of everything that had been reported that they could not reproduce so, again, people like Darkstar, cousLee and others could lend a hand to generate the precious .SAV file that demonstrates a problem.

It's not like we wanted to whine and kick and scream about what was included in the patch. We just wanted to help. Maybe, they were uncomfortable with the limited nature of what they were going to fix? One can only speculate and that's what is so aggravating.

What also eats me is that Darkstar has lately been posting a lot of bugs, albeit minor, and never once has Firaxis acknowledged it or said, thanks DS, but Patch 4 is now just a few days from closure and any more input won't have an impact on the issues addressed therein.

Just this casual post buried in a topic that looks like so many other topics. I mean really how many of these type of topics have we had in the past three months?

Yada yada feedback, blah blah suggestions, SMACX, patch 4 blah blah blah.

<shrug><sigh>

The EAHQ testing sounds to me like just a beureaucractic hoop to jump through so that Firaxis and EA will have a lame "Well, we tested it" response if any more bugs are found in v4.0.

posted 05-27-99 08:14 PM ET            

Our criteria for beta testing are fairly strict, though I would happily consider all those individuals you mentioned. But from experience, hardcore gamer's don't instantly become good testers. That's not often the case, but I've seen it enough times to know it happens. Plus, we were so happy with the public beta for SMAC that all of those testers have standing invites to return for future products. The test size will be expanding nevertheless.

Sid's game is super-double-top secret (Ultra Mega for those of you reading Cryptonomicon). I think you're going to love it.

jkm

posted 05-27-99 09:24 PM ET            

Not to be rude, but the hardcore SMACers mentioned (and some others that were not explicitly mentioned) have been the ones who have found a lot of bugs that prior "official" testing seemed to have missed in previous releases.

Doesn't that fact alone put us in a good light?

Not to mention that Darkstar, Aredhran, myself and a number of others develop and test software for a living. Of course that's when we can find time between our SMAC sessions, forum posting and general snivelling and whining.

And one more point in passing: does your post imply that the EAQA testers are not already familiar with Alpha Centauri? Hmmmmm. Yet another point in favor of the software savvy "hardcore" SMACers.

posted 05-27-99 09:33 PM ET            

jkm

posted 05-27-99 09:41 PM ET            

http://www.firaxis.com/JMQA.htm

Took me a bit to find it, so I thought I would help anybody else who was interested.

posted 05-27-99 10:52 PM ET            

Jeff, I haven't read the article yet for what you are looking for in a beta tester. But with all the previous bugs not found by them (but by those hardcore SMACer's who don't know how to look for bugs ), I'm guessing your article is only a few words. "We're looking for a few incompetent men."

posted 05-28-99 04:47 AM ET            

Ted, that "Flames R Us" line was a blast. I'm still laughing !

posted 05-28-99 05:14 AM ET            

Actually, they were burning early. Having vented most of my built up internal pressure via my flame thrower, I am in better spirits.

Submachinegun - The reason it takes LONGER to patch and test SMAC than say, STARCRAFT, is that there are more decision points in SMAC that have to be tested to insure that they function the way the designers wanted. SMAC has a lot of choices, and that means they have to test EVERY option possible. Since you can have something that affects the choices for something else, it just adds to the mess. Also, Firaxis has delayed the English language release so that all Language versions of patch/enhancement 4 are available to ALL their customers, and not favoring those that happen to speak the same language as the majority of Firaxis. I think that's a good and fair idea, and I am willing to WAIT on the new enhancement if it means my fellow SMACkers throughout the world can update theirs. I may be wrong, but I don't recall the ITALIAN version of patch 3 having been released yet.

TFS99 - I don't mind not being acknowledged. There is no reason to be. First off, they would then have to acknowledge all the others that have reported all the odds and ends. And second, it would weird me out. Especially as I tend to let the flame thrower burn pretty bright at times. I believe I understand how things in the industry and how things can come about, but I do get worked up at times. Besides, I would hate to be brought to the Light side. Remember Yin?

While I appreciate the vote of confidence, and believe it would be a good idea (!!! Of course, then I get to play version 4 before all you other SMACophants! HAHAHA! ), I doubt they would choose to do such a thing. They have their beta people. And those people did a good job keeping quiet and reporting things (as said by Firaxis). Remember, some of those Beta guys let us know that many of the bugs that were reported by people in Demo 1.0 and SMAC 1.0 were in the beta. Sometimes, it has to go out the door in a shape less than what you would accept. And its always nice to make it perfect...

But how would they get us to sign the NDA's? That would be fun. You don't expect them to trust us, do you? They make war-games. All that alpha and in-house testing should show them a glimpse of the dark side for far too long not to acknowledge it...

Jeff, thanks for chiming in. But we really WOULD love a bug page that listed all reported bugs or odd behaviors that the team is aware of. And its been mentioned that tapping the Dedicated Fans to help in catching the difficult bugs has been considered. You can't do that without letting us know what to look for...

posted 05-28-99 05:29 AM ET            

Jeffrey: I think the bug fix list is a good idea, it might not seem like the best marketing in the world. After all you are kind of advertising the bugs the game has. On the other hand I'm sure most of us here have experienced the frustration of playing a game with obvious bugs and having no way to get them fixed. Having a support forum here is a great start, but I'm guessing that someone has a list of fixes with things like:

Bug 1: Fixed in V3
Bug 2: Not a bug, working as expected documentation incorrect
Bug 3: To be fixed in V4
Bug 4: Introduced because of fix to bug 2. To be fixed in V4.
Bug 5: Fixed in V2

Now it'd be great to see that, even if it was just a list of the "To be fixed in V4 bugs." presumably as it is with EA you know what they are. I don't expect, ever, to see that full list. It is more a marketing thing again I guess but I think customers appreciate honesty and clear feedback to silence.

posted 05-28-99 06:23 AM ET            

IIRC, most people including myself agreed that it would be a good thing. It does not have to be very visible, if the fear of "bad advertisement" is what is holding it back. No big red flashing button on www.alphacentauri.com necessary. Just a small link in the News section or something like that would be nice .

posted 05-28-99 10:29 AM ET            

jkm

posted 05-28-99 11:21 AM ET            

Thanks for your feedback anyway, it's really appreciated. So, how about that Swiss beta-tester seat ?

posted 05-28-99 11:21 AM ET            

Thanks for your feedback anyway, it's really appreciated. So, how about that Swiss beta-tester seat ?

posted 05-28-99 12:33 PM ET            

Boy, do I feel sorry for that SOB... I expect that they will be sobbing a lot, what with monitoring the forums, answering questions, compiling and updating the FAQ, compiling and updating the Bug lists, and keeping on top of the Web updates in general and making the occasional redesign or addition to keep the Web "Fresh". Yep... lots of sobbing! However would they find the time to play SMAC? Humm... Hey Jeff! When do you find the time to SMAC? And when do you switch over and start alpha testing Civ3 and Moo3?

posted 05-28-99 03:09 PM ET            

I wasn't suggesting Firaxis acknowledge you per se. I was bemoaning the fact that we are kept in the dark and thereby end up wasting time posting bugs that aren't going to be recognized/fixed. You were the best example that came to mind.

>>>>> Jeff Morris FIRAXIS

Man! You guys have looking for a WebHead for quite a while now. I wonder if part of the interview process is to have them read through these forums? All the candidates probably run screaming for the door!!

We all appreciate it when you make your presence known here Jeff. Thanks.

I'm wondering though, if publishing information (i.e., bug list) already assembled in house would be that difficult? Especially considering that it might reap some rewards in terms of better quality for SMAC? You do have this list in house, don't you?

Last time I checked, FTPing a file to a web server takes but a few seconds.

<shrug><sigh>

posted 06-01-99 12:50 PM ET            

It os nice to know how the genreal process works. I also realize the needs to just publish the game at some point, and deal with the problems later.

It does seem howver that even with these scalpel sharp people and others who are "professionals to the friggin' T" there were numerous bugs that had seemingly been previously unreported, maybe they were on your "kill" list. But the impression from the bleachers is that they slipped through.

SMAC is an excellent wonderful game.

It could have been so much better.

I know from my almost daily communication with the people here that there are some "scalpel sharp - friggin professionals" here. People who, through dedication to the idea of the game, want it to be 100% perfect.

I don't have too much experience in Beta testing, though I am a top notch trouble shooter (out of character to pat myself on the back but sometimes I'll throw the self-depricating humility out the window). I am very impressed by some of the people I communicate with here on an informal basis. If they put their stamp of approval on a game, and say "We found everything there was to find, some changes just couldn't be made though.", then I will say you did enough.

"Darkstar's Alpha Centauri Enhancement 4.0"
- DACE 4

"cousLee's Alpha Centauri Expansion Set"
- LACES

"tfs99's Alpha Centauri Alternate Planets"
- TACAP

"Nell's Alpha Centauri Newts, Raves, and Wobbly Bits"

-NACNRWB (that doesn't roll off the tongue)

posted 06-01-99 01:31 PM ET            

But.

Do you still think we didn't realize how that simultaneous release issue was a joke in the first place? Please.
quote: "simulatenously".
LOL, a rocking typo of yours ! Or was it?

quote:"...we were so happy with the public beta for SMAC..."
I was in a better mood b4 I read this line. My opinions and objections have been already subsequently voiced by my SMACin fellows much better than I could do.

quote:"...I think you're going to love it.
"
Do you think we really need to be addressed like that HERE? Or you forgot to switch off the advertising mode? Were you afraid we could suspect you were thinking "we're NOT going to like it"? Or that we would excpect you to actually voice it here loud, eventually?

Still faithful and trustful, but remember not everyone is glad and prone to brainwashing tricks. (No offense intended; in case, think maybe I'm not completely aware and mastering english semantics.)

posted 06-02-99 07:25 AM ET         

......NACNRWB.....

Things rolling off tongues ?
Now newts and raves I dont mind

posted 06-02-99 10:18 PM ET            

"As a REDWARF fan, I find it amusing to refer to Sid's current new game as SMEG, or Sid Meier's Extra Game. Is this acceptable behaviour, or should I be eaten by mind worms?"

"Does SMACX have any plans to counter ICS (infinite city sprawl)? This could be achieve by reducing city mineral production, so a city can grow fast but cannot produce excess minerals. Trust me, this is still a concern."

"Sid's new game - something along the lines of Iain M. Banks Culture series?"

"Do you still need 'Confirmation' of the infinite range conventional missile problem? Or has this been dealt too. IIRC, it got downgraded on Yin's bug list to an unconfirmed report."

"If its that good, I bet your dying to tell us something about Sids new game. Come over to the dark side, JKM."

"Do you think MoSe should be eaten by mindworms anyway? Or is flaming at anything that moves something that can be viewed as an acceptable passtime?"

posted 06-03-99 03:54 PM ET            

Code segment 1 was in the general limitation range. This was corrected.

Code segment 2 was in the AI deciding to send you a planet buster. Range was NOT a factor. This has been corrected, but it doesn't bother PATHING to the target city (just see if its within move amount of tiles), and there is a random scatter added to it, so that a missile might travel 17 tiles total.

Code Segment 3 was in the AI deciding to use a MISSILE CHASSIS design (can we say PB's and Conventional Warheads?) or Conventional Warhead. It has the same bug as Code Segment 2 (due to cut/copy/paste is my bet as a coder). Brian was reported to have fixed this just before starting on SMACX. Note that the fix was stated as being that for the PB (in segment 2) which means it can go movement + 1 if they use scatter on it, and it doesn't path (meaning it just teleports). That means you can't surround the city to protect it.

Jimmy, keep a save handy for testing SMAC patch/enhancement 4. There may YET be other code segments/paths that are missing that key test condition.

Shining1 - LMOA! SMEG. Love that!

posted 06-03-99 10:02 PM ET            

Yeah, it just occured to me accidentally. SMAC - SMEG. I should design a rimmer faction, maybe?

Cheers for the missile specs. To be honest, stability is my only worry for SMAC4. HOMM3 is great fun, but a little limiting compared to SMAC. And CivII runs perfectly in all respects, except that the A.I is no challenge until it starts cheating like hell (I've never actually SEEN it steal my pieces, but it does have that Playing-Chess-With-A-Grinning-Red-Eyed-Psychopath feel to it.)