Frogboy Frogboy

1.0X Preview

1.0X Preview

This week!

I can't believe we get paid to do this. We play a computer game and as we play it, make tweaks and changes and additions.

The team has been monitoring this thread looking for little things to tweak and change.  We've also been reading through bug reports, documentation errors, that kind of thing. 

Now, the marketing side of things here thinks it's not a good idea to put out two updates so soon after release. The rationale, which I think many of you will agree with, is that it sends a message to potential critics that would say "Oh, man, they had to put out 2 'patches' in the first week to get that thing good."  Hopefully players of the game can attest that generally speaking, the game's pretty solid.

Though, we could kick ourselves for the Goto bug we introduced in the 1.0D release (the retail version didn't have the goto feature) which resulted in ship designs crashing.  I guess we got too cocky.

So why are we doing an update this week? Two reasons:

1) A lot of people didn't get their preorders fulfilled until this week. In fact, quite a few people still haven't gotten it.  If we were the emperor of Earth, we'd have more direct control.  As-is, it's hard enough getting many retailers to simply get a box shot up or list the developer AND publisher as Stardock (Take 2 is the distributor).  So getting the game on shelves in quantity is a trick.

So we want those players who get the game this week to be able to come home and know that their "wait" was rewarded with a better game.

and

2) For people who already have the game but ran into issue XYZ or really wanted some playability tweak.  We don't want them to have to wait a month to get that stuff.

So what have we done?

This is not a complete list so bear with me:

GPU Throttling. The graphics engine in GalCiv II is designed so that it will scale up.  As early modders are finding, you can put in movie quality ship models and they'll run. We don't cap polygon counts.  We use specular lighting. We use bump mapping. We use all kinds of different effects.  And the result is that it can push your video card hard. Or, more to the point, hot. 

Hot means power which means less battery life for laptop users. It also means users who have plugged in that Geforce 7800 into their existing PC may find it too hot and weird things can happen.  The framerate counter in GalCiv at full screen is unreliable on LCD monitors (it will always say 60fps).  But we have people getting 300fps.  And that's just insane.

So the throttling OPTION will be on by default and won't make any difference in performance. It simply puts a Sleep(5) in if the frame rate gets crazy.  Those 5 miliseconds can bring down a GPU temp by 20C in our testing.  For 95% of you, this means nothing but 5% out of tens of thosuands is non-trivial.

Better tooltips. Let's face it, our tooltips suck.  We're sorry. You get playing the game and you just never use them and forget that new players use them like crazy.  So we're working on making that better.

Better slider controls. It's annoying to be playing for the 11th hour straight and the various slider controls seem to lose their grip. So we've made that better.

Social Production Bonus. The Social production bonus ability that is documented but not in the game is in the game now.

New components. Telepathic Defense, Subspace Rebounder, Dynamic Shielding, Arnorian Battle Armor.

Metaverse tweaks. This is going to be an ongoing thing. So if you're dissatisfied with your score on the metaverse, definitely let usk now because we will be adjusting the system and making those adjustments retroactively. 

Versioning. Saved games will include the version now so we can warn you if a new version is going to mess up an old version. Similarly, this will help us be able to update the save game system without it affecting your ship designs. Same for race configurations.

User Interface. A ton of little UI tweaks that I suspect most people won't notice.  Fixed some typos ("high-densitive" - we made up a new word! w00t!)

Cosmetic improvements. Added icons to the trade window offer area, few other tweaks here and there to make things nicer looking.

Exploits. This will be an ongoing thing but we're trying to fix exploits since that can damage the integrity of the Metaverse.

Capturing Planets. Trade goods, galactic achievements now transfer their benefits to the conquering planet.

It's only Tuesday so we'll be tweaking more.  Tomorrow afternoon we'll start putting it through QA for a release later this week.

After that, we'll be moving on to a more significant update based on player feedback.  The ship design features in the game have clearly taken on a life of their own.  There's also a ton of tweaks, small bugs, playability issues that need to be addressed.  We also have 3 significant issues that as soon as we figure them out and can reproduce them we'll address (GF 6600/6800 disappearing mouse issue -- use the hardware mouse cursor in the meantime, loading a saved game multiple times within a game will cause a corrupt autosave on some systems - still not able to reproduce here, and the people who get random CTDs while playing, we think the heat issue will resolve most of that).  But we're still working on those.

The bigger updates will require a beta so what you'll end up seeing on Stardock Central will be betas which you can optionally download if you want. 

It should be noted: You do NOT have to use these updates.  We just consider free updates to be part of the support you receive when you bought the game.  So don't feel you have to use these updates if you don't want. !FROGCARE!

46,346 views 74 replies
Reply #51 Top
Galciv 2 is the first game I ever preordered, and I've been playing on one machine or another since you had to load them on a tape drive. It was worth my money as released, and its only getting better.

In regards to the population growth cap and the associated racial bonus: couldn't the bonus just raise the cap? Right now it gives a bonus to population growth that makes no difference because of the cap, but a 10% (or even 5%) increase to the cap would be significant and worth it.

@Alfonse: "Buggy" games do not generate threads like this full of people praising the developers for making a great game and supporting it well. It is impossible to test such a complicated piece of code for every possible system configuration, operating system, driver set, individual quirks, etc. That's why a lot of developers won't touch the PC with a 10 foot pole; consoles are much more predictable. The best a PC developer can do is test on as broad a range of machines as possible and jump to figure out and fix issues that arise after release, which Stardock is doing.
Reply #52 Top
Alfonso, I pretty much agree with what others have been saying. The game works fine except for a few small tweaks that are needed. It sounds like you're running into a hardware problem, not a "bug". It's pretty good of Stardock to add the throttling in, IMHO...most other companies would probably consider it not their responsibility and require players to suck it up and either buy a different video card or a better cooling system.
Reply #53 Top
First of all for me patching , bugfixing and additional content is always welcome.


Regarding one reply about the techpooling

2) The AI does not discriminate who it trades with. It's a single player game so effectively sweetheart/sweetsour deals = rand()%ulNumberofPlayers

Imho the techpooling of the ai is the game worst aspect as it is now (even worst that many bonus not working).
Leaving aside the point i'm not totally convinced the ai would offer the same deals to the players as they do to each other here is why i'm currently dissatisfied about the tech trading

(In this point i would assume the ai treat the player the SAME way as other ai.. so exactly as stardock stated)

1) Tech trading since civ4 is agreed to be important, however as it is now ALMOST EVERY TIME (99%) ANY AI discovers one tech ALL OF THEM (or at the very best most of them) will have it in 2-3 turns.
This include ai which are so far behind they should not have ANYTHING to trade for....

1a) Since 1 is true all AI have exactly the same TECHS
1b) Since all of them have the same tech there is no weapon/defence specialization
1c) In the end unless you spend 5-10 minutes trading at the start of each turn in larger maps you're destined to fall behind (you can't compete with 7-8 other ai at once.. can't you?)

2) Let assume the ai would offer the same deal they offer each other, as in 1c) you can if you're very good at it trade yourself dedicating 5 minutes every turn for trade.
Now that falls to the kind of player you're.. for me it's no fun at all and should not be so important.

So since i guess there are different kind of player why not offer a slider for tech trading as how frequently the ai initiate tech tradings?
No tech trading - Rare tech trading (10% likeliness of now) - Uncommon Tech trading (30% likeliness) Realistic tech trading (50% likeliness of now) - Abunant tech trading (as it is now).
So every player can pick up the setting he likes more as all the other settings.

And if the problem is the metaverse who cares? Metaverse submitted games must have let's say the option as it is now i simply won't play in the metaverse :--)


I hope you'll consider this!!
Thank you

Reply #55 Top
I have one more suggestion for the patch, as a minor bonus tweak:

Set the default initial production capacity slider to 100% not 50%. Everyone goes to 100% production anyways, so that just starts the game a few seconds quicker...

Thanks.
Reply #56 Top
As many have already said, this is actually a cool thing rather than an avoid thing. Besides, the product stands up pretty well unpatched. I just hope the pop and research bonuses get addressed, since err, I've ran 2 civs now with those two bonuses in mind.

I'm a research junkie kinda civ so I hope at least the research stuff gets straightened out.

Still a very good game and updates only make it better. Been here since GalCivI and based on that experience and Stardock, it was a no brainer for me and the wife for GalCiv2 and the expectations we have for such products from Frogboy et al. It's great to have devs who truly love the genre, the game, and the making of said game.

Played all of these types of games before, and experiences with MOO3 and the Star Wars MOO copy (I forget the name), definitely places GalCiv2 in very high regard. So keep it up, gang.
Reply #57 Top
I created the"Fast transport" whichstarted with a cargo hull and 2 impulse engines a troops module and extended life support. Recently I upgraded the design in shipyards chaned the enines to warp IV and removed the old troop support module and replaced it with 2 advanced troop modules. Saved the new design and upgraded. Yet every new
fast transport only allows 500 troops instead of 2000. I have rechecked the design and it is hust as I have explained.
There has to be a bug in shipyards.
Reply #58 Top
I created the"Fast transport" whichstarted with a cargo hull and 2 impulse engines a troops module and extended life support. Recently I upgraded the design in shipyards chaned the enines to warp IV and removed the old troop support module and replaced it with 2 advanced troop modules. Saved the new design and upgraded. Yet every new
fast transport only allows 500 troops instead of 2000. I have rechecked the design and it is hust as I have explained.
There has to be a bug in shipyards.
Reply #59 Top
I created the"Fast transport" whichstarted with a cargo hull and 2 impulse engines a troops module and extended life support. Recently I upgraded the design in shipyards chaned the enines to warp IV and removed the old troop support module and replaced it with 2 advanced troop modules. Saved the new design and upgraded. Yet every new
fast transport only allows 500 troops instead of 2000. I have rechecked the design and it is hust as I have explained.
There has to be a bug in shipyards.
Reply #60 Top
"There is a small programm you can download for free in Stardock central which will create a log though the programmers can sort out what happens if your game crashes and why."

I already have it, but it never does anything when GalCiv crashes. That may have something to do with the fact that I have Visual Studio installed, but you'll get my compiler when you pry it from my cold dead hands

"What would you infer from that? Obviously that the machines on which the code crashes is ill-configured. "

You're looking at it from the wrong perspective.

If my machine can run HL2 (and it can) and other modern games, why is it failing on GalCiv? The obvious factor is that GalCiv is causing a problem, not the machine.

"It's pretty good of Stardock to add the throttling in, IMHO...most other companies would probably consider it not their responsibility and require players to suck it up and either buy a different video card or a better cooling system. "

Really? Then explain why only GalCiv is causing a problem on my machine, when I can freely run a Rome: Total War battle involving literally thousands of individual guys.

The fundamental difference between GalCiv and other high-stress games is that the stress comes from a different place. The stress in R:TW comes from rendering (and thinking about) all of those guys, so it's limitted by the fillrate, T&L, etc of the card. It doesn't run at 100+fps because it's doing too much rendering to make that happen (and because when there's not enough stuff to warrent it, it doesn't let the framerate get that high).

GC2 is rendering maybe a couple of ships. Some icons. The hud. And that's it. Nothing that a TNT2 couldn't handle. But GC2 isn't (yet) smart enough to not shove this down the graphics card's throat as fast as it possibly can. What GC2 needs to do is actually lock its processing to the refresh rate, so that it waits for a vsync before starting to render the next frame.

This is a bug, not a hardware problem.
Reply #61 Top
Alfonse, the logic of your reasoning is sound except that you seem to refuse to acknowledge the fact that there are people like me who do not experience the bug you mention whatsoever.


Reply #62 Top
Just because not everyone experiences a bug, that doesn't mean that a bug does not exist.
Reply #63 Top
There's quite a lot of software out there that just plain worked without needing a patch. So, the question is, why isn't this one one of them?


Alfonse, I assure you that every game you mentioned had someone that couldn't play it on release day. Unfortunately, it's your turn to be the statistical anomoly. Fortunately, this is a situation where you can talk directly with the developers and work with them to resolve your issues. Try that with the games you mentioned, and your options are down to "suffer" or "return to store." I highly recommend you take advantage of this with Stardock, they will do the best they can to help. If you bought directly from Stardock, your odds of getting a refund are also higher than if you bought from most stores.

Ok. Letme just say this. Suppose you run an identical piece of (hardware independent) code on different machines, and on the majority of machines that piece of code works normal, and on a very few it crashes or causes reboots. What would you infer from that? Obviously that the machines on which the code crashes is ill-configured.


As someone that has worked in the computer industry since the 80's, I can tell you that the corner cases of bug tracking can drive you insane, even on supposedly identical software. The fact that GC2 worked without patches on most computers is a good thing. The fact that it still won't run reliably on a few people's machine is bad. Seriously, it's not like 10% of the people that bought the game can't play it. I seriously doubt it's even close to 1%.

Now, for just how insane expecting software to run flawlessly on all hardware is, let me tell you a story. This happened in the late 80's. Keep in mind, this was back when a PC cost $2000, so spending the time to track this problem down was worth it to all parties involved. Now a days, the process would stop half way through because it would be cheaper to buy a new computer than pay an hourly rate for troubleshooting.

1) Customer reports that Word Perfect is crashing if they run spell check.
2) I go to the customer's site and determine that the crash is triggered only if there's a word that starts with the letter 'N."
3) Sounds like a corrupted install, so I do a fresh install of WP. Crashes continue.
4) I take the computer back to the office and on a lark, decide to swap the HD out and into a different computer to test it there. It spell checks without crashing. So, at this point, we have an install of Word Perfect on a HD which crashes on machine A but works fine on machine B, even though machine A and machine B are identical. Same case, motherboard, CPU, memory, video card, etc. All parts were even bought in the same batches from the same vendors.
5) I start swapping parts to find out which part isn't really identical. Finally find the problem follows the video card.
6) Both video cards are the same revision of the same video card. Closer examination reveals the video BIOS on one card is slightly newer. BIOS chips swapped, problem follows the BIOS.

So, we have a case where a slightly different revision of the video BIOS was causing Word Perfect to crash during spellchecking, but only if it had to spellcheck a word starting with the letter N. In a world where something THIS specific can happen, do you really expect any software to run perfectly everywhere that meets the minimum requirements of that software? Do you really expect developers to be able to test for every possible thing that can go wrong on any possible hardware combination?

This is really what consoles have going for them. The number of variables are greatly reduced. Of course, being a strategy gamer, there's really not anything on the consoles I'm interested in.
Reply #64 Top
Oh, good grief, I have a piece of crap 2000 Dell computer with 64 ATI 9000 graphic card, a piece of crap 1.2 ghz that only workks .999, a 512 mb ram and the game works fine on my end, couple of crashes and due to over heating of my old piece of crap CPU, if the game crashes on your computer, check your graphic cards, check your CPU, check your RAM check your system and then and only then after everything has failed then come here and bitch and complain all what you want!!!! The game works fine, if the game works on my piece of crap computer it should work fine on your all high end compuiters, stop blaming the game and check your computers!!!!
Reply #65 Top
And Stardock, great job guys, many of the fixes you are doing is to please us the players, so don't pay attention to the few pain in my lower back, unhappy, frustrated, annoying, pesky drengins that show once in a while on these lands.
Reply #66 Top
And as a last comment, if anyone wants to donate a hig end computer to the Mayito8888/krazyhorse foundation please feel free to contact me.
Reply #67 Top

Well, I don't know if this is the right thread to post this in, but I ran into several bugs in my attempt to play GalCiv which I found very frustrating. It's not that they make the game unplayable, so much as they make me not want to play the game until they get fixed (because they seem so easy to fix, after all) 8). Which, as an asside, makes the idea of a second patch coming out soon a great one. I'm hoping these bugs get fixed soon, because otherwise it's quite a fun game to play 8).

First, Auto-Survey. The Auto-Survey algorithm ignores fog of war/exploration blind spots. If you set something to auto-survey it will go willy nilly to anamolies you can't see and then survey them. This is particularly nerve wracking in that it implies that the AIs' survey ships *all* behave this way. It also explains their uncanny ability to find the resources to mine before me.

Second, Auto-Explore. Is broken. Maybe this is part of the goto bug, I can't say. But, ships set on auto-explore will get.. stuck. On edges of the map typically. And stop exploring. No message, they just turn of auto-explore. You may have entire sectors of unexplored space within that ships flight range, but it won't go explore it, because... I don't know why. And the interface for it is off puting. You check auto-explore and close the window, and it unchecks it as the window closes and the ship sits there. No dialog or message or beep or anything. I did it like three times before I realized it had just.. given up. I think this may be related to map bug which I'll mention next, because it was always on the top part of the map.

Map offsets. So the maps I played on, the maps were skewed. About.. I don't quite recall now, it's been a few days--half a sector? Maybe 3/4 of a sector on my gigantic maps showed up on the mini-map but fell outside of my map borders. This had a truely damaging effect on the entire game. Every AI that started on that side of the universe was gimped. The algorithm that balances stellar densities and what not, considered those planets to be accessible, but they weren't. Not to mention it made my maps artificially sparse. It's funny, because I vaguely recall seeing a similar bug in another version of GalCiv. Back... when... sometime ago... hrmm.. Anyway...

As a total and complete asside, in thinking about the background to the game. So we have hyperdrive and that's great and all but. Where are all the stargates? There are no stargates 8). Doesn't effect my enjoyment of the game, but.. it is funny 8).
Reply #68 Top
the first thing that comes to my mind is clearly that to fix all bugs related to production, morale,population growth, research.I would also ask to fix if not in this patch probably it is too late to request now, but at least in a near future patch the management of planetary invasions which if not bugged are really unbalanced, soldiering now is a race ability with really nosense because there is no hope to defend yourself from an invasion.
Reply #69 Top
I posted a message in the "bugs" forum regarding the improved (thru soil enhancement) planet quality (i.e improved from 11 to 12) reverting back (from 12 to 11) after the game is saved and then reloaded from that save game. Therefore, the final result is that the planet quality is shown as 11 but I can count 12 usable tiles.

My questions are:
(1) is this a bug?
(2) does this bug where the planet quality not "matching" the number of usable tiles on the planet screen affect any of the game play elements that I should be aware of ?
(3) is this just a "cosmetic" bug that can (and will) be fixed in a future update?

Thanks,

Jorge
Reply #70 Top
I see so many people complain about the tech trading that it worries me that you will change it. It doesn't need to be "fixed" as they say it does. It is my favorite part of this game that you can get "fair" market value for things. I like that friendly civs trade with each other. It helps me develop to trade techs with the computer as I play. It usually ends up that the good civs have similar techs because they trade with each other, and evil civs have similar techs because they trade with each other, and I think this is how it should be. I see no problems with the way it is now.
Reply #71 Top
Jorge I think that is a cosmetic bug as you pointed out and the devs will pay attention to those details, I believe there is goin to be another release of a patch this Friday.
Reply #72 Top
I won't blast your marketing team directly... but if a game requires the patches to make it work, then why would you want to hold back? Bad PR will happen if I can't play a game that's already been paid for. If I have to wait a week or two for a patch that's going to fix the game crashing out on me... and the reason why the patch isn't release is because of the way people *may* potentially view it, most likely I'm going to lose interest and potentially return the game to you as being unplayable.

So I say patch away. And if your marketing department is really worried about PR... it's their responsibility to deal with it after it happens... not before. If the game wasn't ready for release and pushed through... then bad on you... but I don't think that's the case... I have a save game that always crashes in the exact same spot. (you'll be hearing about it l8r through your support team ) Keep up with the right decisions and one more word of advice for your marketing department... Think of the customer that's already purchased the game... not just the customer that may purchase... It's a lot easier and less costly to maintain a customer (loyalty+quality releases=constant revenue stream) than it is to find a new customer. Case in point... BioWare... I own everything they've ever come out with for the PC...
Reply #73 Top
The original post makes alludes to the possibility of releasing the 2nd patch on Thursday (March 2nd).

Well, since it's now Friday, is there an updated ETA on the release?
Reply #74 Top
Quality has been long dead and burried for PC video games. The true king is Support


Sadly this is a true statement.