posted 08-15-99 01:26 PM ET        

The eagle eyes at Firaxis's QA department have let another undocumented "Feature" slip by; you can make ANY unit INDEPENDENT, AND, not have to suffer ANY negative morale effects! Here's how...

Send a unit to your nearest pact brother's base. Now, click on his city. The city display menu will pop up with your unit listed in the unit display at the bottom of the screen. Right click on it, and from the menu SELECT SUPPORT FROM HERE! It WORKS! Your unit is now supported by your loyal pact brother, but YOU keep possession of it! (actually, even though the unit support designator lists the pact-brother's city as its support base, it is actually independent; he doesn't pay support or suffer negative morale effects)

So what happens if the base gets destroyed? The unit becomes INDEPENDENT! That's right! And you STILL get to keep it! Now you Free Market Morganites can build the army of darkness at your leisure.

Thanks JKM!

BTW - I am now officially defecting. I have purchased a copy of MOOII, and have suspended playing SMAC indefinately. Until Firaxis' QA department gets their act together, they're not getting another dime of my money. I probably won't be posting here anymore, although I may pop up on ACOL or Apolyton once in awhile if things improve.

Otherwise, in liew of the literally +100 reported bugs (see the easy to read bug list, posted earlier) that the Firaxis QA department REFUSES to acknowledge or fix after four patches, i've had it.

posted 08-15-99 02:30 PM ET            

Player2,

You only just heard about this one?

posted 08-16-99 01:33 AM ET            

Or is it that player2 just thought this should have been closed out after being so widely PUBLISHED before the last 2 patches?

posted 08-16-99 12:40 PM ET            

Yet somehow JKM can't find the time to solve/admit problems like this. Methinks he's been drinking too much of that "expensive beer," and not enough time playtesting.

Kahn: I disagree about your definition of a "bug." JKM was right in his article in that its unfair for any piece of complicated software to work seamlessly with every cheap generic piece of hardware out there. A hardware conflict is one thing, and to be expected with ANY product, no matter how good the reputation of the publisher (BTW, I have had no hardware issues with SMAC).

But when the game doesn't perform as documented; when users publish a +100 long list of mostly NON-HARDWARE related issues AND the company refuses to acknowledge/fix any of them, even after four patches, that's pretty gross.

If the game had a only a few "bugs" (or features, or easter eggs, or whatever you want to call them), that's okay. If the game has LOTS of bugs but the company acknowledges them, then that's okay too, because you know they're at least concerned about making the product which you purchased work properly.

But when the game contains more in-game bugs than an ant-farm, and QA just turns the other way, that really makes my stomach turn. The missile range bug is a great example. They've said over and over again that they've fixed it. Yet any idiot who knows how to use the scenario editor can prove in 30 seconds that it has not. Are the QA people really that stupid, or are they just unwilling to admit that they can't/don't want to fix the problem. If QA would just say that they're working on these problems instead of insisting thay they've been fixed/don't exist, then I'll be happy. Unfortunately, TT's article implys that this probably won't happen.

Khan, if you didn't have to put up with SMACs hardware issues, you might have seen these in-game issues in a better light. I'm sorry that that couldn't be the case. I understand your desire to defend the game; I've been a LONG time Sid fan. Outside the in-game issues, SMACs a great game! I have the utmost respect for Sid and his programming team. But its his lazy QA department that's really dragging down what could be the greatest gaming company in the industry.

posted 08-16-99 02:28 PM ET            

In case you hadn't noticed, Firaxis's approach to your Video Driver problem would have been to instruct you to get the appropriate video card and drivers. Given this fact, why do you choose to defend the indefensible and why do you hold another company to a higher standard?

Sounds like you should give up sarcasm and focus on the word hypocrisy. In short, Player2 has it right that this is a game issue and not a system issue.

posted 08-16-99 04:02 PM ET            

I think you guys are going to get tired of blaming JM for ALL of SMAC's ills. He is only the head of Firaxis QA, and for all we know, he stood in the doors of the warehouse shouting, "No no, it can't go!" and the big corporate 3 came over (Sid, Jeff, and Brian), clubbed him on the head until he was unconscious, and said, "ship it". But more than just a "Lazy" department (or department manager) could have been at work, and probably was.

Not that I am backing down. As head of QA, it is Jeff's direct responsibility to try an insure that only the best possible product got out the door. It's also his job to get kicked squarely in the sensitive spots when users get upset at any remaining bugs. But let's face the fact that with as many trivial to non-trivial bugs that are in the game, not even Sherlock Homes (with all of his legendary observational skills) could have saved it without time and SENIOR MANAGEMENT'S support.

I do agree that JM is a proper target for our frustration, as the Firaxis's Head of QA. But I don't think he is the ONLY target. Firaxis Senior Management will always carry the weight of all that report to them. They can claim they didn't know it had so many findable bugs. They can remain silent. Without a Firaxian Insider stepping forward, we really won't know. But I would think they know what many of us think.

Go ahead. Keep bashing him. But I don't believe that JM and his department are SOLELY to blame. Maybe Sid's people have figured out the optimal bug's allowable per X lines, so that people won't return the game? Who knows?

posted 08-16-99 04:19 PM ET            

LenS: "Does anyone else think that SMAC was cobbled together with Civ code?"
Yes!! Analyst has also posted similarities between Civ and SMAC behavior. Civ also had an infinite missile range problem. My theory is that the old Civ code treated missile units differently from air units (which have no range problems). The AI simply finds a target for the missile, and POOF!! The missile is magicly transported from its city to the intended target. This was probably done to simplify situations where some unit or object might get in the missile's path. In short, its a very valid suspicion.

Darkstar: I agree that its likely that JKM and his team of QA monkeys aren't the only ones to blame. But my idealism, combined with my "innocent until proven guilty" attitude towards accusations like this, keeps me from passing blame unto those who have not demonstrated that they share JKMs stance on QA. JKM is the only sure target for our frustrations since he is officially responsible for QA issues, and also since his name was the only one affixed to his infamous article. So I don't think its fair to pass blame on the other guys without proof, IMHO.

Not only that, but if I found out that Sid was in on all this too, I think I'd cry

posted 08-16-99 07:42 PM ET            

Of which about two-thirds weren't bugs (AI issues, design decisions the poster didn't happen to agree with, or just plain "I want this feature!"). And a good porton of the rest were ridiculously trivial ("The scroll bar isn't aligned properly!")

> that the Firaxis QA department REFUSES to acknowledge or fix after four patches, i've had it.

(nitpick) Three patches.

posted 08-16-99 08:40 PM ET            

As I've stated many times before, Smac is an exceptionally stable game on my system. The only real problem I've had was the game filling up the free store and then starting to use virtual memory, in version 1. But that problem has been gone since March. I've seen a couple of crashes, when I tried to raise the land level above 3000m, for instance. But I have played a lot of SMAC.

Now compare this record to, say, Fallout 2, which froze solid whenever anybody tried to complete a major quest in the game( the "Lloyd" quest). And which had a number of other such freeze points, as well as a lot of "quirks". You could kill almost any enemy in hand to hand combat, by taking a 10 agility and then punching him once and retreating at high speed. Your opponent literally couldn't lay a finger on you because, by the time he reached you, he didn't have enough action points left to attack. What real world martial arts technique is this supposed to represent?

But Fallout 2 was still a great game and I enjoyed it tremendously. After playing it should I now bash SMAC, which doesn't have these problems and which has provided me with about three times as much game play? Simply because the AI can terraform the top of the volcano? No.

posted 08-17-99 11:28 AM ET            

I think you are the one who should read the posts more carefully. Each of us exactly knows what KS said as he has had the same opinion for a long time.

Fact: JKM and Fx's have publicly stated that driver and card problems are not their fault. If you accept this, then this should hold for other companies as well. However, I take issue with KS when he attacks people who voice their criticism of this issue and their card and driver problems for the sole reason that SMAC is very stable for him. This is where he is being hypocritical.

In addition, I suggest you reread Player2's post three times. The issues in question are code problems and have absolutely nothing to do with hardware components. Otherwise, we would see a situation where only certain systems have this advantage.

posted 08-17-99 01:25 PM ET            

Khan, I have Rebellion. Works great for me. I have managed to crash it on my system by playing it for 16 hours straight. That's about it.

SMAC on the other hand, hasn't proved as reliable for me. And it's NOT a matter of using cutting edge hardware and their 80% functional drivers. It's really seems like its piss-poor code discipline... not deallocating resources, that sort of thing. They have gotten somewhat better since version 1, but that tends to ALSO point at sloppy coding, from my personal experience.

I will take issue with a company for not being able to handle the mainstream hardware... Soundblasters, VooDoo, that sort of thing. But we are talking Standards or De Facto Standards. Not new or fringe stuff.

White Cat, I am PRESUMING that Player2 is using code/coding stereotypes. C or Non-OOP coding = Speghetti coding... OOP code = super structured. It's not true, but it is the prototypical sort of thing. [Player2, C++ is often just C loose coding with // for simple comments, and for (int i=1; i < Cons; i++){} ] The AMOUNT of simple implementational errors and lack of a consistancy does implie that it wasn't put all the code that does THAT in one place sort of mentality. Which some simple dissembling backs, for those people with the tools and too much time on their hands...

If SMAC has given you lots of fun, then stand up for it. But I won't claim the same. It's got some serious design issues, and I find its too heavy handed in its preferred style to goad and teach its players. Why bother doing anything past foils and Impact weapons? That's the game on anything less than large and huge maps. If the Opp Engine handled Marine Invasions better, ALL players of SMAC would be the Analyst Impact Rover Rushers. If the Opp Engine handled Air Frame units better, no pacifistic builder that hadn't built a huge interceptor fleet would survive. If the Opp Engine used Chop and Drop tactics, noone would EVER be able to reach Transcendance.

Face it. While the Opp Engine in SMAC is expanded, it's still UNWORTHY to be the Single Player Opponent. It's not aware of even basic tactics that ARE easily programmed. The Diplomacy options, while expanded, are immediately hamstringed by the SE Hatreds...

I like my "Master" TBS games to be a light beer and pretzels game on its easiest level, and a serious brain sweet, being forced to reach down deep and find some combination tactics that make use of situational factors more efficently than the Opp Engine can because it can't THINK... just decide what is best in a few hundred/thousand situations. SMAC fails at the deep end very badly... and barely rates a beer and pretzel game. For simple games, I have other things to amuse me.

Don't even THINK to trot out the "it's not an AI" line... they could have done a HELL of a lot better at setting up the Opp Engine. They didn't. As examples of how poor it is, consider this. Missile Tactics: Launch Missiles, then other units. That one thing... a simple reordering of turn movement within the Opp Engine, would make a MASSIVE difference. That's sad. So many areas of the SMAC Opponent Engine are like that. Before everyone was fighting over quality, we were fighting over Opp Engine. SMAC is the current best BR TBS Opp Engine, but its simple ALL SMAC players can name 5 things off the top of their head for improvement. And almost EVERY single suggestion would make HUGE improvements to the Opp Engine. That is a sign that little to no real work was done... or that it was all done before all the new options were added. Which is it? If the work was done BEFORE, that makes it Civ2 code... which has been fessed up to on many design points.

But, go ahead. Play that ole tired Civ engine... but you might want to play it in its proper setting... Civ. At least it does a better job of fitting in its niche then.

posted 08-17-99 07:25 PM ET            

I wasn't voicing my opinion either way.

I was merely stating that the majority of answers to Khan's first post were telling him to dump SMAC and hate it and all of that.

posted 08-17-99 08:02 PM ET            

Yes, you do need to learn more carefully.

Here's a synopsis of this thread.

P2 posted the free unit bug

TFS99 asked if he had just heard of this

KS posts his smart remark about control-alt-del

Shiny1 asked a sarcastic comment about how much Fx's cares

DS said he thought this bug was posted at Apolyton a while back

KS clarified his sarcasm, tried to call it an easter egg and described his card and driver problems

P2 discussed the coding

I chipped in with asking why KS is a hypocrite

Lens talked about coding

DS put in a pitch for opening sid's eyes on QA

White cat referenced the bug list

And finally, your pseudo defense for KS

So please, and I beg you please show me where anyone, let alone a majority of people told KS that he has to hate SMAC and send it back.

You're now just like KS. Your credibility is ZERO, so don't preach to me about adding things in when you are the one who is doing it.

posted 08-17-99 09:17 PM ET            

that's the synopsis, true;

but did you even read what i had written? all i said was that KS did not say that his video card troubles were caused by SMAC.

when i said that people may not have looked at his post clearly, i was referring to player2's comment here:
"Khan, if you didn't have to put up with SMACs hardware issues, you might have seen these in-game issues in a better light. I'm sorry that that couldn't be the case. I understand your desire to defend the game; I've been a LONG time Sid fan."

your comment here:
"In case you hadn't noticed, Firaxis's approach to your Video Driver problem would have been to instruct you to get the appropriate video card and drivers. Given this fact, why do you choose to defend the indefensible and why do you hold another company to a higher standard?"

maybe ya'll didn't tell him to hate SMAC, but ya'll suggested that he not like Firaxis' QA division.

KS even backs my small observation up here when I noted that he did not have the video card problems:
"Yes, thank you Q. I didn't mean to imply that SMAC had this bug. It doesn't. The game was Rebellion (from Lucas Arts, usually about as bug free a studio as there is). It might have been a DX 6.1 problem. But it was incredibly annoying."

i beg you, kind sir, to tell me what exactly i said that made you think that i was defending him. nowhere did i say that he was right in his arguments; nowhere did i say that you were either. my first post below did not say anything either way; my second was only to defend myself from your petty arguments.

so, do please, make sure you have good reason to argue with me.

posted 08-18-99 12:42 AM ET            

I'm not going to waste any more time on you and I no longer waste my time on flame wars. If all you can do is misquote and change your meanings, then there will never be a meaningful end to this discussion as you can never recognize the better argument. People can read your words and mine and see who is factually stating their case and make their own decisions.

posted 08-18-99 04:38 AM ET            

The dream of an open Opp Engine is the Holy Grail of TBS games. But I don't think we will see any mainstream shops do it, despite the Legends they have. The reason is simple economics... it takes longer to lay out that sort of thing, and time seems to be the critical resource for established authors. Maybe some upcoming Guru doing it as their thesis or science project for school...

posted 08-18-99 10:15 AM ET            

Unless that is the intention of the game designers, it is a bug. Period. The end. I don't care how "trivial" it is. It's a bug.

You seem to twitch and scream and knee-jerk every time someone uses the word. Why? BUG BUG BUG. It's a descriptive device. It means that code works a way not intended.

By the way, the method of reproducing this BUG is not 'convoluted'. It's very straight-forward. Walk a unit into your pact-mate's base. Ctrl-H. You have a freely supported unit. You don't think that's a potential game-unbalancing BUG? Particularly if the pact-sibling doesn't have to support the unit either?

Were it not a BUG, it would be one of the worst stupid design decisions ever, which would /still/ make me unwilling to buy any further Firaxis products.

Q3:

KS said he took a game back because it was screwing with his video card. Someone said "if you'll take back a game for a reason like that, how can you possibly rag on us for being upset with another company with similar problems? You hypocrite." I agree. KS is a hypocrite. You, on the other hand, are just a moron.

Both KS & Q3 and anyone else: SMAC HAS BUGS. DEAL WITH IT. IT HAS THEM AND WE HAVE A RIGHT TO POINT THEM OUT. I AM SHOUTING BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SEEM TO DEAL WITH THIS BASIC FACT. No matter how many times you say "oh, that's just a quirk", I hate to point this out to you, but a 'quirk' is the same thing as a BUG. BUG BUG BUG. If it doesn't work the way it was supposed to, it's a BUG. There are minor bugs and major bugs and those in between, but A BUG IS A BUG.

The sooner you get over your knee-jerk reaction to the word BUG the sooner I will stop swooping in here every week or so to whap someone upside the head with a post.

posted 08-18-99 11:35 AM ET            

In many games you can skip whole levels by entering a few keystrokes. How can designers keep missing such an obvious bug? It's almost as if they keep putting this HUGE bug in games just to annoy their loyal customers. What sort of devious mind would do something like this? (Note for our "simpler" readers. The previous section was sarcasm. The same applies to this next section.) When you kill an enemy in most FP Shooters their body ends up halfway through a wall. What kind of idiot would program something like this? A four-year old would have better sense than that. And these so-called "programmers" claim to have advanced physics degrees and twenty plus years of programming experience? Yeah, right. If I were programming a game I know I wouldn't leave any stupid bugs in it. It's just a disgrace that every single software company in the world can't figure that bugs aren't good. Idiots. I mean, how hard can it be to keep trivial errors out of a hundred thousand lines of programming?

You know guys, if these bugs are such boneheaded programming errors, then you should be able to disassemble the program, quickly find the error and then send a suggested solution to Firaxis. I'm sure they'd be glad to recieve help from such a powerful bunch of wizards. It shouldn't take you any longer than the time you waste posting these sarcastic "bug reports". You do know Pentium asm, right? Tell you what, I'll make it even easier for you. I've got some powerful tools here. I'll disassemble the relevent sections for you, complete with the common library calls and a probable VC++ annotation. With that sort of help it shouldn't take you long to sort out the problem, right?

posted 08-18-99 11:41 AM ET            

But, KS himself said that he did not return SMAC due to the video card problems in this thread. That's all I ever said, and that's all I ever meant. See those two posts that I answered to.

And note that I haven't disagreed with any of you in saying that SMAC has bugs.

So, do please listen now:

I KNOW SMAC HAS SEVERAL FRIGGING BUGS!!! ITS A WELL CRAFTED GAME, VERY ENJOYABLE, BUT IT STILL HAS SEVERAL FLAWS WHICH FIRAXIS HAS NOT ADDRESSED!!! I STILL DON'T CARE, SINCE I ENJOY THE GAME SO MUCH!!!

I NEVER STATED MY OPINION ON THIS BEFORE NOW IN THIS THREAD, AND I MAINTAIN MY STANCE ON KS'S POST. I'M NOT DEFENDING, AND NEVER WILL DEFEND SOMEONE ELSE WHO DID NOT ASK ME FOR ASSISTANCE.

posted 08-18-99 11:47 AM ET            

I love you and I want to have your baby!

ERR, well uh maybe I got a little carried away.

In any event, thank you for so succinctly stating my position. You have a drink on tab any time you want it.

KS,

I'll waste just a little more time with you.

Please keep your sarcasm and haughty airs to yourself. Just beacause I'm not a programmer doesn't mean that I can't request and expect a quality product. Nor does that mean that I can't find something that someone else missed. If you can't see that, then keep your mouth shut the next time your taxes are raised. Also, if you're such a programming whiz, then why didn't you trouble shoot the problems on the game you just took back? More hypocrisy?

One final thing. You'll soon run of of feet to stick in your mouth if you keep shooting them off.

posted 08-18-99 05:48 PM ET            

Your comment is akin to Mark Mcguire telling someone to stand in the batters box and knock one out of the park. There are very few PROGRAMMERS who can do what you suggest.

Just because you're some kind of "meat hacker" programmer doesn't impress me. It probably doesn't impress anyone you work with either.

If you displayed the same cavalier attitude about bugs in your code, I'd can your ass in an instant.

And taunting people to become programmers and to analyze disassembled Windows code is just plain asinine! Hell, FurXs (R) has the source code and they don't seem to be able to analyze the same bugs!

I'd love to see YOUR source code. Probably a swirling mass of poorly documented, poorly thought out spaghetti. A shame you can't see it for the crap that it probably is. Programmers like you are what gives the others a bad name. Grow up and think about somebody else for a change.

One final point KS:

Why don't you ever address any of the more serious bugs? Why do you persist in sarcastically attacking some of the more minor ones?

Only weak people consistently aim at the biggest, easiest targets.

Try being a man for once.

posted 08-18-99 06:26 PM ET            

Some of these bugs would be incredibly easy to find with a debugger. Fixing would be harder.

My personal view is that FurXs (R) could really give a darn. They have so much as said so.

And would you quit perpetuating the myth that all people harp on are "little bugs"?

posted 08-18-99 07:57 PM ET            

Because, and let me say this slowly, ---programming--is--complicated. I don't have to be a programming guru to tell you that. You shouldn't really need to have it pointed out to you either, unless you're really, really.... well, let's just say you shouldn't need to have it pointed out to you. But thanks for proving my point, anyway.

You certainly have a free speech right to demand a quality product. Of course, you already have a quality product with SMAC, one of the year's best games, but if you want to complain about how the AI can terraform the hole in the volcano or about
how you can make independent units by cheating, well, I certainly can't stop you.

But I also have a right to express my opinion, just as you do. And my opinion is that this sort of mindless bashing displays a complete ignorance of the reality of computer gaming. I mean what is with this "I'm shocked, positively shocked, to find bugs going on here" nonsense? Where have you guys been? Is this your first experience with interactive entertainment? Never owned a game before?

Hello! Yeah, games have bugs. Most companies never get around to even fixing the serious ones. Firaxis, however, has gone above and beyond the call of duty to fix bugs that most companies would have regarded as too trivial to even note down. I hate to break this to you, but even games that look bug free have plenty of bugs as serious as the ones you people are complaining about. You just can't see them because all the combat and economic information is hidden from you.

But Smac's interface is so transparent that you anal types can spot all the little glitchs that complex games have. Then you get to hurry off to the forums and whine about how you've been cheated. You don't even realize that you've been had far worse by others. And you aren't quite bright enough to catch on that the whole point of computer gaming is enjoyment and that you should really just relax and play. SMAC is really quite an interesting little game, you know, if you ever take the time to play it.

Regarding you suggestion that I keep my sarcasm to myself: As far as I know I don't need your permission to post in these forums. I'll post my sarcasm wherever I like, thank you very much. However I am very careful to only post flames or sarcasm where I think they are appropriate. I was sarcastic here only because player2's original post was sarcastic. I answered sarcasm with sarcasm. Fair is fair. You'll note that I haven't posted a unkind word in any thread that seems to be reasonable and constructive. Even Yin's "Patch5" posts, which I frankly think are stupid, do not seem to me to be fair game, so I have left them alone. But if you want to do flames, well, I CAN do flames.

posted 08-18-99 10:28 PM ET            

Glad to see that you at least tried a more civil tone this time.

However, you and diverge on a number of issues and we'll just have to learn to live with it.

1) You think SMAC is great. Good for you, but I don't. It's only good and should have been a lot better. Regardless of how you try to hide behind your programmer's arrogance, 4 patches is an insult to quality workmanship. Especially when they are things so simple like proper calculation of unit costs and infinite missile ranges.

2) I agree with you that it is impossible to make a bug free product. However, you again put me down as too stupid to see it. Not fair and shame on you. I am saying that we should demand a quality product as this is what we demand from any manufacturer. You on the other hand twist that to say that we demand perfection when we can't deliver it ourselves and this is unfair to those you admire. Please, go ahead and continue to misquote. You can even go on living in a dream world where you think I am proving your points for you. Like I said before, people will read things for what they see and your position is vacuous.

3) I've never said that you do not have a right to express your opinions. So please don't misquote me as such. I do take issue with your obvious hypocrisy as you consistently give Fx's a pass where you do not tolerate from others. Please explain why.

4) Actually, I don't have a problem with sarcasm and you certainly don't need my approval. OTOH, you and your buddy Imran have no clue what sarcasm is, so I won't bother explaining it to you for the 5th time. Remember, your noblese oblige prevents you from learning anything from someone as unwashed as me. However, I will concede the point that what I should have typed is "KS please keep your snide remarks and putdowns to yourself". Therefore, you have my humble apology for mischaracterizing your words as sarcasm. You're right though, P2 was sarcastic and damn funny at that!

5)If you are willing to accept sub-par products and be happy with them, well I can't fault you for that. However, then get the heck out of our way as we make it an even better product. In the long run our efforts should make you happier. Or is it your programmer's arrogance that get's in your way? I learned a long time ago that listening to constructive criticism makes you better in every way. Why do you find it so objectionable?

Finaly, as I have said before, I have no time for flame wars. You can flame me if you want to, but I won't respond. I'll tell you why. Because flaming is the recourse of a coward who only does it because of the ananonymity given by the screen name, keyboard and monitor.

So if you want to be a man and discuss things, then I am for you. If you want to be a coward, then I have no time for you. It's as simple as that.

posted 08-18-99 11:53 PM ET            

I really hate to keep pointing out the obvious, but it seems to me that calling me arrogant, hypocritical and cowardly is flaming me. By your OWN standard that makes you a "coward". Not that I can see any logical connection between flaming and cowardice. But they're your own words...

You don't want a flame war? Fine with me. It's not like I started this one. You did, with this little remark:

"Sounds like you should give up sarcasm and focus on the word hypocrisy."

Again, by your own (lame) definition, you're a coward. But let's forget that, since it doesn't seem to make any sense. Let's instead deal with your OTHER statements that don't make any sense.

1. Four patches(as I pointed out) is NOT a insult to quality workmanship. It is a SIGN of quality workmanship. Most game companies basically throw their products out into the marketplace and then (maybe) issue one patch to deal with any crash bugs and with whatever else they can find in the four weeks after the game goes gold. Anything else is the consumer's problem. I have twenty games on my shelf that have major unpatched bugs in them. Four patches by Firaxis just shows how much harder they have worked to make SMAC great.

2. Well, I did call you stupid. There's no getting around that. But hey, is this a flame war or knitting bee? I can take the heat if you can. With regard to the "you proved my point" comments, well, I didn't think you'd understand this argument. You're too....oh, sorry.
(To be fair I don't really think you're stupid. Your prose style is clearly that of an intelligent person and you make some good arguments. This is just a simple flame. You did call me a hypocrite, after all.)

3. "Please keep your sarcasm and your haughty airs to yourself". Direct quote from your post. I was replying to it in the spirit it deserved.

4. "have no clue what sarcasm is". Sorry, I am unable to parse this. Obviously I know what sarcasm is, and how to use it. I assume what you mean to say here is that my sarcasm is bad. I'll concede this point, since you are clearly well qualified to know what bad sarcasm is.

5. I'm not willing to accept sub-par products. That's why I kept SMAC and took Rebellion back. Or haven't I made this clear in only a hundred repetitions?

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

Thank You! You've been wonderful. The flame war is now over. Please leave by the clearly marked exits. And remember to stop by the gift shop on the way out to pick up a little keepsake of your time here with us. Good night everybody!

posted 08-19-99 12:57 AM ET            

Your last post was a total waste of time and another collection of word twists and misrepresentations.

Case in point, I define a flamer as a coward and said that I won't go there as has been a rule that I have held myself accountable to since the venomous days of March. You despicably twist this as a name calling event as to attack my credibility.

Clearly this shows that you have no intention of discussing facts, that you are just using debating tactics to get a rise, that you really have nothing of value to discuss in any regard and that you are so immature to see a difference of opinion as an insult.

Good bye. I'm done wasting my time with you.

posted 08-19-99 01:36 AM ET            

I guess I can throw my 2 cents into all this. Why not?

First, we could argue forever about whether FIRAXIS is a hard working company or not. If we compare them to some companies, they look like superstars. If we compare them to others, they look pretty sad, at least in certain areas. My personal take, which means nothing, is that they do pretty well once the problems are made clear to them, but (I guess?) they are so overworked and understaffed that they are more than willing to blow things off and redirect blame. Add to this the fact that they are doing a fair amount of resting on their laurels and you get plenty of targets for the firing range. I, and others, don't want to see FIRAXIS get fat on the legends of Sid. So far, it's been pretty much status-quo from the Hunt Valley team. Personally, that's a disappointment.

Second, the number of patches a company releases is not by default a measure of it's attention to quality. The ONLY reason a company spends money on developing patches is to help increase profits. That's it (with a few--very few--exceptions of small developers or individuals who truly want their games to be "perfect"). If FIRAXIS had left SMAC at ver 1.0, they'd be in a world of hurt right now. The question is whether or not most people are happy with SMAC after ver. 4.0. They obviously feel that they've done enough work on the game and deserve the right to move on. And you agree. Let me be the first to say that I sympathize with your view that my call for a 5.0 seems "stupid." It's most likely "stupid" because 1) FIRAXIS won't care and/or 2) (in your and other people's opinions) the game is good enough as it is. All I can say is, I'm basing some future buying decisions on how FIRAXIS deals with our request for a 5.0. But that's just me. Call me silly or stupid or lame...As for #2, I don't think the game is finished yet. Patch 4.0 actually slows the game down for God's sake, which makes me think 4.0 was pushed out the door just to appease the masses rather than improve a faulty (in many people's view) game. Again, that's just my opinion, and I certainly respect your view to the contrary.

Third, it's clear that we all have a different tolerance level when it comes to this stuff. Personally, I truly wish I could overlook bugs (big or small, real or imaginary) and simply enjoy the damn game. I also wish I could read Jeff's article and just laugh, just ignore that he's the QA Director and will be overseeing the quality of Civ3, a game I'm investing great personal time in by directing the development of a wish list (which will soon reach version 2, to the great dismay of my free time). Honestly, I wish I could just smile and enjoy it all. Unfortunately, I've never been like that and never will. Don't get me wrong: I've enjoyed many games despite bugs (Half-Life, for example) and felt totally satisfied. But there are just so many issues with SMAC and FIRAXIS that irk me (and many that are great, too), that I'm still around here doing a version 5.0 thing. I realize that SMAC made it into the top 10 best sellers for the first half of '99, and by all measures it was a smash hit. But a great majority of those sales were based on trust for a quality game because Sid and Brian's names were on the box. Civ3 will be a smash hit for the same reason--whether the quality of the game is truly there or not. In other words, I don't think sales figures from FIRAXIS games will reflect the true worth of the product until after Civ3, but by then the time to voice our concerns (those of us who have them) over quality issues will have passed.

Finally, I thank you for considering my 5.0 threads "off-limits" from more criticism. I'd like to think that, even if you disagree with us, you'd download a 5.0 patch and enjoy the benefits all the same. It's clear you think the game is good enough now, but I'm sure you wouldn't mind if we got FIRAXIS to agree to make it even better. You'd be crazy otherwise!

Anyway, I personally would love it if you could post a few things you'd like to see fixed. If they fix it, great. If they don't, I know you won't care. But the bottom line, in my view, is that we can make a difference on future games from FIRAXIS by letting them know that we are a (too?) demanding group of (still?) dedicated fans. I don't see this as an attack on FIRAXIS. I see it as extrememly helpful feedback. Well, whatever happens, I understand your point of view and respect it.

posted 08-19-99 02:25 AM ET            

Khan Sing, I presumed you don't post in the Patch 5 for the simple reason that you have nothing constructive to add. Especially with comments like "You guys suck! Get a life!" really make you stand out as a most cultured and reasonable fellow.

A bug free product IS possible. The question is one of economics. I don't expect my games to be worth didly squat, code quality-wise. Why? Most authors don't seem to care about quality. Heck, JM explained in his article to us how the Hype Machine is more trusted to produce money than the actual product. Scary stuff, but understandable from a management view, as its how a large bit of the entertainment market works. Movies. Certain sectors of Music.

That bug example of yours is a poor one. Independant Units for the cost of time travelling is something that would be of serious concern to MP players. MP is very popular, making that a real issue for a large sector of the fan base. Choose the version 4 graphical paint problems, in which units and cities disappear from the display. Just not painted, until you force a repaint event. That's a lot more trivial. Aggravating, but trivial.

3 patches could be taken as care or bad workmanship. That can be argued either way. But let me ask you this... Settlers 3, by Blue Byte, has had close to 40 minor incremental patches. Is that loving and caring for your product and customers, or poor craftmanship? Without using the product, you can't tell, can you? (I think they have done well, other people might disagree.) SMAC shows signs that make many think it wasn't produced with the... attention to detail, shall we call it?... that Civ2 was made. And Civ2 had many incremental patches.

You can make the case that Firaxis couldn't take the time or money to make SMAC that they could do as Microprose on its Flagship product. That would be a legitimate claim, in my opinion. But I would like to point out to you that SMAC, for all intents and purposes, is Civ3. They are modding the SMAC code into Civ3. Heck, aside from the movies, they are about done, from the noises we have heard leaking. A little Opponent Engine Tweaking, and some evaluating... poof. Done. So this isn't JUST about SMAC.

If you are just after a pissing contest, there will be those that oblige.

Oh, just so you don't think I'm being to civil... I can debug their code. Can't you? It is possible, easily to some. But I don't get PAID to, and I certainly don't love SMAC that much. NOT that I believe Firaxis would BELIEVE you if you isolated the exact wrong instructions and informed them. They don't acknowledge bugs or patches, although they can be informed of the bugs we (the SMAC community) think deserve ATTENTION. The Yin Patch 4 List proves that.

posted 08-19-99 12:11 PM ET            

SHUT YOUR FRIGGIN MOUTHS AND ENJOY THE GAME.

posted 08-19-99 12:40 PM ET            

And do be careful about saying SMAC isn't the end all and be all around here. You'll get lumped in with the rest of us idiots who whine about the bugs (and some of which are doing what can be done to remove them, or at least alert Firaxis to the fact that it needs attention before its a permanent "feature" of Civ3). Then noone but us will listen to you. You wouldn't want that, I'm sure.

posted 08-19-99 12:50 PM ET            

Take it easy.

posted 08-20-99 09:08 AM ET            

I will not try to attack you, I'm not able to flame, best I can wield is an hairdrier.
With all the 2� dropping around here, I guess I can as well throw my dime like in St.Patricks Well (or do you say pit?). I'll try to comment not taking deliberately one side or the other, although one's opinions can never be neutral.

Khan Singh, you are WRONG.

I tried it to be sure. Both under NT4sp4 and Win95c. If you hit Ctrl+Alt+Del the game doesn't crash. You get instead a system dialog or screen, giving you the option to hit the keys again to reboot or any other to resume('95), or some buttons which allow you to "logout" "shutdown" "cancel"... (NT).

I think I know what sarcasm is, usually, not always, I can even recognize it when I read. And I dare to use it too, sometimes.

It's a well known pattern to push a concept to its limits, and beyond, into an absurd statement, in order to show the flaw in the original statement.

In your first post, I even succeded in getting the point you felt the need to explicitly explain in length after. I could see your point, and could PARTIALLY agree with it too.
Nevertheless, you did overshoot. You spoiled you sarcasm, the absurd example HAS to be right and consistent in itself, if it turns out to be WRONG, the sarcasm doesn't work.
I didn't say you are an hypocrite. But the Ctrl+Alt+Del post is a request for being flamed, nothing more, nothing less. You called for it, I'm surprised you showed yourself surprised after, after your [/sarcasm] off bracket.

Now, my lacksicon lacks the exact significance for "quirk", although I think I get its general meaning. With my limited expression, I might call it a leak.
I hope we agree, that if a program lets you do something it wasn't supposed to, you're not forced to do it. Just don't do it, and the problem won't show. I was ready to agree with that, and with the term bug being not the fittest for such a case.
At least tho, you could say that the program is NOT fool proof there. And if it's not fool proof, it's also NOT user friendly, coz even if it's easy to use, when it doesn't help you in absorbing your input errors without consequences, you can't call it friendly. And making a game not user-friendly, methinks it's missing one of the product goals.
So, that's not a bug, but this leak is neither a nice thing to find in a program.
Nothing to be compared with cases when the program DOES something it's NOT supposed to, and you can't do anything to avoid it, I agree. Not to mention malfunctioning and crashes.
But there's maybe more in it. You can play MultiPlayer games here too. In the end they're all based on mutual trust. But I can't avoid to be nonetheless a bit more worried each time a new possibility of cheating is let thru in this not perfectly, and neither very good, programmed game.
So, this is just one more LEAK. Gameplay is not sound. It's a defect in the game interface, that allows for one more cheat in multiplayer. Saying just "don't do it" is a rather simplistic (sp?) attitude, rather cheap copmpared with the portait you sketched of yourself with all your -sarcastic & non- statements here. I can keep on playing with it. But nobody can blame me if I care to be at least annoyed with it, and politely complain.

My programming skills are rudimental and obsolete. I understand, and studied too well at the time, that debugging is very hard and complex.
But in this case, I figure that it all stems down from pressing Ctrl+H. In Win3.1 APIs, a message was generated in the message queue, I don't know how the input is handled in win 95. I can't see anything else here more than
-intercepting an input
-verifying some side conditions
-perform an action

the conditions being, test if the keys are pressed while an unit is active, and if that unit is inside a base. Well, the structure is already there. You don't have to alter or throw up anything. Just add one more IF statement to the list that's already there, if the base in question belongs to the unit's faction. I can imagine that they skipped this test because they *overlooked* that a unit can be stationed in a base you do not own, a PactBrother's base indeed. I put my bet that they said "the unit is in base, you can home it in your base".
Maybe with my overall perparation and my under-average skills I don't know how to do things, and I don't know the details of how they're implemented and of everithing that may be envolved with them, but I do can understand how the work in principle.
So, with a straightforward and simple thing like the one in subject of this thread, calling in the major difficulties that debugging brings in, sounds to me a little overpitched, like puffing up a smoke-curtain.

I disagree with all my friends that attacked and insulted you here. Some misunderstood your points, as you did with theirs. But YOU called for it with your attitude IN THE FIRST PLACE, so, it doesn't seem appropriate to me here that you play the noble victim.

As I stated before I do not esteem myself above average in any field, and that's not a false modesty understatement, on the contrary, I easily admit that in many things I am under-average.

But I need to point out one thing here:
I can learn from people who are more skilled than me, but I claim I'm also able to learn from persons who are LESS skilled, smart or whatever. I've been teaching "computers" for some time in past years, and I know a little what learning is about.
Why do I say that. Well, because also the opposite stands. I know that there are some people who, no matter how clever and smart and skilled they are, their attitude hinders them to be of any use to their fellows or neighbors.
And from what I read here from you, I can tell you are amongst those.

You surely know and can do much more things than I do. But your words are arid to me, not because I won't listen or because I can't understand. The flaw is in your attitude. You've nothing good to give to anyone who reads you there.

MoSe
-what is everybody still doing here anyway?

posted 08-20-99 09:41 AM ET            

Thank you tfs for acknowledging my FurXs� here!

posted 08-20-99 10:18 AM ET            

Back to Topic:
I like SMAC i like to play it.BUT
-Bugs (Faults, Features...) ar a pain in the a**.
-The AI is BAD.(and clearly the same as in civII)

So what about the Bugs. They didn't disturb my fun in the game. But when firaxis says: Bug? no Bug. I go -->

Thats the thinkin of MS: oh we got a major security fault in Win98. Hmm... don't worry it's a feater.(Many Users reporting Security Probs)
Oh, wait we do a Patch.(Some month later)
Patch is there. Slowing the whole System down.
MS: feater ...

I like the way blizzard did with StarCraft:
Delaing until produkt is bugfree. Then releasing patches to improofe imbalances, minor bugs and AI improofments(oh and they did security fixing too).

MS is the bad, black clothed guy.
Blizzard is the old yoda.
Firaxis is a little boy from a not yet released film (here in europe).

hope u get my point firaxis