Abuse is abuse. Words like moron and idiot tend to point back at yourself as much as the person they're directed at. The direct confrontation makes both of you look bad. Who's "right" begins to hardly matter at all. It soon becomes "he said, she said", which of these do you chose to be?

(Again hopefully taken as "friendly advice"    )

Updates have to do with a budget, not people.

If I have $X available to do updates, I have to decide how to spend it.

You might want to try out The Corporate Machine.

Well, I think semantics are important. Else how do you know what was *really* meant?
Anything else? Game related stuff too?



Seems there'll be other fixes. What was being argued was if this should be one of them.
Or the only one, which doesn't make sense.



GC2 has the same problems GC1 had. Converting another game's engine to GC seems like a huge task in terms of manpower and budget. Going by how GC2 was done, and what has been said here (even considering update vs new game), it doesn't seem too realistic to expect that. Possible, sure. It's just that when you consider everything that will have to be done in GC3 (and it's not a given yet that it will exist), you wonder.
Anyways...

Yes please. If you can. Frogboy already defined that. Any other fix will take hours, the point was which should be done. Grammar school.



Helping *me*?! You're not paying attention.



Most you know.



You definitely haven't been paying attention. My issue?! Read the thread please, then reply.



Again, read the thread. It's not my wishes. He didn't reply to me. I was just part of the discussion too, like many other people, each with his own opinion. I don't think this kind of reply, uninformed (not being rude, you assumed it yourself) doesn't really help. It might help braindead feel important, but that's it   



For the third time...



Of course I do, I just think that advice should be soundly fundamented. Doesn't seem to be the case.



I'd like to reply to this, but frankly you look like a retard in your writing. Maybe if I read it 20 times...
Shame you can't get past those few words in your limited vocabulary... so much so that you must justify yourself to others. That's so low.



That's why I said "when it comes to people".    I was refering to a particular hindrance. The limited budget comes down to priorities, and that's what's being discussed. I think that's pretty obvious, I don't know why the insistence on this...



Thanks, I'll pass   

Sigh. Nice catch. Personally, I vote no to spending $$ on fixing this. There are plenty of other improvements that will be noticed more. Changing starbase upgrading micro management, fixing defense/combat, adjusting trade, improved AI, etc. etc. will all matter for all the times that you are not saving and loading.

I'm biased, I play games in a few hours, this bug doesn't effect me. However, I think there are other players like me that this either doesn't effect or who aren't going to lose a game by the AI getting an extra turn here or there.

If you are at a point that you are losing because the AI gets an extra turn or two, lower the difficulty. If you are losing on cakewalk because the AI gets an extra turn or two, you may want to invest time in finding another game to play.

Good luck out there.

I appreciate and acknowledge the lack of rudeness , however there are way too many words in this thread that I have way too little interest in to justify re-reading it. So as far as being uninformed as to your part in the discussion I will indeed plead guilty. However, I am informed enough to know that Kryo suggested some settling down was in order and I have enough respect for his opinion that I have no doubt it was warranted. It's even easier to tell that it was warranted in at least one other direction as well. But enough of this.   

I have no issue with rational discourse and it does seem that is (mostly) the content of your posts. From my uninformed perspective if Brad suggests that there is a choice between fixing the AI so that it can’t rush buy twice in a single turn versus implementing changes to ease the micromanagement pain of dealing with constructors then I have no reason to question his opinion. When he also expresses the willingness to allow the consensus opinion of the community to direct his development efforts, I can only say what more could anyone ask for even though he might not be totally serious in the offer. However, on the off chance that he is serious I want to make sure that my vote gets counted towards easing the micromanagement pain of dealing with constructors. I would also suggest that your opinion on this matter is well known by now and continuing to argue the same position is merely beating a dead horse.

It also seems that you’re mature enough to take this in the friendly spirit that I intended.   

You see, Kryo made 2 posts, this one for me:

At any rate, ToS, you really need to settle down if you want your complaints to be heard (here and on other threads). "You'll get more flies with honey than vinegar" and all that. Taking such an adversarial (and often nitpicky) stance is not at all condusive to getting people on your side of the argument.

And I really don't see any warning there. Advice maybe, not warning. His next post wasn't for me, but for Evil and TLHeart. So again, you may be wrong   



Well, it was a pretty run of the mill discussion until he dropped in. But he is still pissed at me for running him down pretty badly on some other thread, and it seems he hasn't learnt a thing... he is seeking revenge, that's all. He stands no chance though, and he knows it. He's just being rude for the sake of it, since he has nothing to point at my posts really. Notice how he didn't reply to *anyone* else, and plenty of people have the same opinion as me. Notice anything strange in that?   



Yes, it is. I may not be totally understood at times, maybe because - and I refuse to use this as an excuse - english is not my native language. Sometimes I seem to run into a dead end when trying to explain something, in terms of language I mean, so the ideas don't seem to be fully laid out as I wish they'd be. But mostly I think I can make my point across.



I'm trying to see other perspectives. For instance, *my opinion*, drop the gfx upgrades he mentioned in passing as part of a list of things for 1.7, and fix more issues. Trade hours for hours, instead of "all this OR that".



Talk is cheap. And I don't mean to be mean or sarcastic with this. If you equate the possibility of him not being totally serious with that, there's something there. Maybe the difference is I don't have a problem saying it out loud (IF I think there's something to say that is)   



Maybe true, even though this has gone beyond my position on the OT. So I should just drop the issue and let all the continuous replies go unanswered, like I'm actually giving in and pleading guilty? I'm sure you know how this goes, you're an experienced guy.



Of course I am. I only treat retards like retards. Criticism is always welcome, as long as it's something with some sense. "You suck, shut up" and "You're wrong, but I don't have the time to prove it" are stupid and a waste of everyone's time.


A suggestion for Frogboy, if I may.
Instead of starting threads like "What would you like..." why not something like "Suggest changes for balancing races/alignments/abilities/etc", choose 2 or 3 veteran players, let them use the thread to come to a consensus on stuff that can be easily fixed, and then implement those changes in the game? Involves the community in the process, speeds up fixes, saves engineering hours, the whole deal. Get someone they can trust to edit the xmls accordingly and send them back to them, with a changes log. It's not really that hard, and I'm sure their rep would benefit greatly.

Ok, I'm done here.

well, my thoughts have run the gamut here from start to finish.

i've done a complete 180 on it and i don't think it should be fixed in gc2. something does need to be added to the manual, and perhaps even a disclaimer on the loading screen is in order.

it's kind of funny, because this bug definitely affects me pretty severely. i'm not one to reload after a couple bad turns, but i am one to only play a couple turns per night. hey, when you work 10-12 hours a day it's hard to spend more than 90 minutes running your galactic empire on the side.

so when the going gets tough and the galactic balance is at the tipping point, and you need to check each planet and each fleet every turn (to make sure queues you made even 5 turns ago are still on point,) giving the ai an extra turn of social production every 2nd or 3rd turn can make quite a difference.

for me, i'm just happy to know there was something else going on. until now, i'd assumed it was just my feeble memory to blame when i would find my doomsday fleet assembled, but have no clue as to why i couldn't figure out what the hell it was supposed to do from there or why the hell i'd assembled it so prematurely.

now i know:

the ai had an extra chance (or a third of a chance {does it apply to military and/or research production, as well?,}) to respond to every move i made.

what was the effect? it just dragged out the nail-biting, edge-of-the-seat stage of the game where 'every click counts.' or, imo, the funnest part of the game.

Well, i've spent a fortune on my computer and this game crashes constantly and yes I've bitched about it before. btw, i do program and i have built computers so i'll turn that wagging finger back around. Something is amiss in the coding to cause the video card to heat so dramatically even when all the high-end graphics options are turned off. I'm running my game at the lowest possible settings and still get crashes. I never had a problem with DL running at the highest possible settings. So, no;it's no just us and our crappy machines.

The turn zero bug would be a major rewrite I'm sure; so how about a "cheat" for us to balance the equation.

Don't you love how he attempts to recast his earlier arguments so as to salvage his fast sinking reputation? That's the classic moron I know and love (not really).

Brad/Kyro/Carl

I was wondering now that we are discussing possible changes in the next update, couldn't trade be more beneficial? It's helpfull for your diplomatic relations, but not so much the trouble worth for economic reasons. At least that is what I read from the experts.

2nd q: Will there be a next update for DL?

Yea people should be advised that a reloaded game is not identical to when it was saved, and that it could affect your score.

Not everyone has the time to asses the dynamics of the thread to the point of your comment so it might help to quote who your talking about. (Not that i support being rude)

Even ignoring the second language issue, it's often difficult to fully understand what others are saying. So much of communication is non-verbal. The same exact sequence of words could be considered critical, constructive, sarcastic or well intentioned. Simply the tone of voice could easily make the difference in a very wide range of meaning. In a forum environment like this with no visual clues you can pretty much take anything to mean anything you want.

Then once you get off on the wrong foot with someone the worst is always the first thing to be assumed. When you give folks the benefit of the doubt and give them a chance to explain, it usually turns out folks that may seem to be a pain in the @$$ at the outset are actually decent folk. In reality everyone can be a pain in the @$$ and I believe that everyone can be decent as well. There are a few legitimate exceptions to this rule although (eternal optimist that I am) I still hold out hope that such folks may yet redeem themselves (I'm not referring to anyone that's contributed to this particular thread although I'm sure a lot of folks do know who I'm talking about here).

  

Actually, this "bug" is a nice feature. It is a nice way to keep some people from reloading (constantly) now that it is out in the open and also can be used as an exploit for some people who want more of a challenge from the AI I myself really dont care if it gets fixed before GC3. There are more important features and bugs to fix in the game than this.

This is similiar to my situation also. If this issue is not fixed then I may just stop playing this game for awhile and go back to Civilization IV and some others. Civilization IV, Beyond the Sword expansion is due out in July!

-Wade

go pheonixstorm... i agree, the bug actualy makes the enemy a challenge, i personaly like coz then when i take over the planet i get all those improvements FREE  . i know it's evil thinking, but then again i am an evil person.

Hmmm...I was on the fence with this one. But, the more I consider this - I will definately be playing more of Civ IV and others until this bug is fixed. I am not one to play for a long time and now I feel forced to play on and not give the AI an advantage.

I really don't understand how folks can say this bug really hurts them or it makes the game unplayable or they have to change their style of play because of it. I mean the game is no different than it was before. The only thing that's different is your preception of the game.

In other words you can play the game exactly as you always have with no significant difference as long as you don't worry yourself into a tizzy over something that has existed throughout every game that anyone has ever played.

This is an interesting case.

I agree that the impact of the bug is really just psychological -- it increases the difficulty by only a small fraction of a level.

On the other hand, "the customer is always right". Customers' purchasing decisions are often influenced by "irrational" reasons, and a software developer is best off coddling that to some extent.

Yet, on the other other hand, most people won't know about this bug anyway, while they're more likely to know about significant new features or massive performance enhancement.


It looks like I initially overestimated the fraction of people who would be bothered by the reload bug (when I said "a majority"). The fraction is still significant enough that, in an ideal world, fixing the bug would be better than not doing so, but I accept that this is a lower priority than I previously thought.

You may as well drop it, this is not going to go anywhere. Only SD knows how much work would be needed to fix this bug, and if they say, "well we could, but you'd have to give up other cool new features", then the conversation is over because SD has declared a preference, and they've also given enough incentive to ensure other players won't agree enough to change their mind by comparing a single bug fix to "new features".

Evil, Frist wife, three kids, 5 grandkids, divorced now for 16 years....

Second wife, married, honeymoon, died in a car wreck 28 days after we were married. I do not consider myself a widower, as we did not have that much time together. I consider myself divorced.

But if you want to knit pick go ahead...for it is your right to be vocal about all your problems, while many of us have not had the problems you have. And if your researched the forums, most of the Isolated problems with the game comes down to the persons computer, and not the game.

Interesting you would even put any energy into the issue, and still call me names.

You have your attitude leave it at that.

I think this is a good idea. But wouldn't this be simpler for Stardock if we went ahead and hammered together improved XMLs first, and got a reasonable fraction of the community to prefer them to the prepackaged ones? I mean, the only major difference between using the official XMLs and a mod is the metaverse, and that difference no longer feels very major to me now that I've figured out most of the scoring system. If we do a truly outstanding job of creating a balance mod, official recognition will most likely come, and even if it doesn't, we're still free to play exclusively with it.

This is, of course, totally off-topic, so if anyone else wants to follow up on this idea, we should create a new thread.

(Incidentally, I'm trying to take a similar amount of initiative in fixing autopilot, but unfortunately I don't have the option of running an "autopilot mod" if Stardock doesn't cooperate. I'll see how that goes. But with these XMLs, we don't need any cooperation at all!)

Been reading this thread with much interest. Here is a suggestion.

Since the concern is that AI gets an 'advantage' with every restart, would it be possible to balance this by giving the player a similar advantage? In other words the player will start with one basic factory in place. With every retart the player will have completed one turn.

From a programing perspective this may be easier to implement, especially the first time start up. Adding a turn to player at each restart may be more tricky.