You're not quite getting my point. It doesn't *increase* the difficulty by even the most miniscule amount. This bug has *always* been present, nothing has changed in any way. The only thing that's changed is that now people know about the bug and before they didn't. The game has remained exactly the same, it's the people that have changed.

Your statement is not quite correct. What is correct is that this bug increases the difficulty by only a small fraction of a level over some hypothetical version of the game that doesn't have this bug. However no one has ever played such a version of the game because no such version of the game exists, has existed or probably ever will exist. The difference really *is* all in your mind.


Joe Gillis: You used to be in silent pictures. You used to be big.
Norma Desmond: I *am* big. It's the *pictures* that got small.

Initially, I played at Tough difficulty because I wanted, as much as possible, to be playing under the exact same rules the AI did while learning the game, and the documentation said that would get the job done.

An irrational desire? Quite possibly. (Though it's nice to know that you can imitate any AI tactics you see without any loss of effectiveness.)

But not an uncommon one, either. This ideal difficulty level may have never existed in practice, but that's not because people don't want it to. There's a reason why, among the twelve difficulty levels, there's one that's advertised as "fair", rather than just six that are advertised as giving you the advantage and six that are advertised as giving the AI the advantage.

Of course people want it to. There's no doubt that Stardock wants it to as well if only to be as true as possible to the claim that the AI is playing the same game that the human is. I'm sure it eventually will get fixed, the question that everyone is arguing about is one of priority.

My point is how could something that has not changed in the slightest bring down such a hue and cry about how this bug makes them not want to play the game anymore. *Nothing* has changed except peoples perceptions.

From my previous post:

The point is you played at tough and won against tough with the preception that was the 'fair' level. So it turns out that perhaps your concept of fairness is slightly strained. So now suddenly this will make you start losing at tough? There's certainly no reason it should, the game hasn't changed in the slightest. The game certainly doesn't know that now you know that things may not have been precisely as fair as you thought they were.

Simply discussing this gets into such picayune semantics that I truly wonder what all the fuss is about. Nothing has *changed*.



Chris Tucker to Jackie Chan (Rush Hour 1998): "Do you understand the words that are coming out of my mouth?"

My point was just that, as irrational as it may be, real customers make different decisions just because of this change in perception.



Look, I play at Suicidal now; this bug is a complete non-issue when it comes to my own gaming. (As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I may have even benefited from the bug since I could conquer better-developed planets. The bug doesn't improve AI populations or soldiering ability, after all.) I was just articulating why some other people are annoyed.

I don't think we have any real disagreement at all. I've already conceded that the bug is of lower overall priority than I initially thought.

We're in agreement then because I was simply pointing out that threatening to stop playing the game because nothing has changed really didn't make much sense.

It seems we are in agreement. There were a good handful of posts on the previous page where folks said things like this bug would cause them to play differently or give up the game entirely. These were the folks that my comments were directed towards. At over 100 replies I barely remember what I've said in the thread let alone kept track of everyone else's position on the subject.

If people are beating the game at suicidal, then its not really game-breaking is it? Doesn't the AI get an economy penalty on "normal" difficulty? That should more than make up for it IMO. If we have to choose, I would prefer the constructor tweak.

My problem with this Mumblefratz is the fact that when I asked if this 'bug' was NOT one of the many issues that COULD be a bigger problem, there was no answer. You know me well enough by now Mumblefratz to know that I could care less about the AI getting a 'head start'... but I want to know why CTD's occur for people with higher end systems vs. lower end systems... I want to know that the devs are trying to fix all possible bugs that could cause this issue. Graphics and additions aside, I think these would just add to the possibilities of future 'issues' since the original ones still haven't been fixed and seem to carry over from game to game.
Certain people still seem hell bent on assuming it is my rig when I can state that it is not. If it was something else, anything else, would have a glitch or hiccup. No other games or programs have a lick of problems on my rig... NONE. This game does. I can watch RAM fluctuate so dramatically that it tells me there is more going on than meets the eyes.
My vote was to fix AS MANY BUGS AS POSSIBLE for the next update, not add eye candy and features that could inherently be useless to people who experience the same things as myself. This particular bug... I could care less. I would like them ALL exterminated or at least as many as humanly possible. Until someone can clearly tell me that these 'little bugs' that have been here since the beginning are not causing our CTD's then I guess they need addressed as possible culprits and not looked at as trivialities.

You've already been tagged as a liar so back peddle all you want on that one. No one cares really.
As far as these threads you bring up where people's machines have been found to be the culprit, yes, they do exist. If you had any ounce of intelligence within your cranium you would also realize that NOT EVERYONE with CTD's has crap hardware as you like to say.
Wasting my time and effort on this? Sure I am because you chimed in where your input wasn't requested or warranted. Go chide someone else who deserves it, not me. If you continue to single me out over this then you are showing which one of us truly needs to get a life... you. Again, you like to chime in on shit but you can't back anything you say so WTF?
Actually I'm a little disappointed that no one has come to my defense over this one considering enough people know my system specs.

Yep, like it was told to me, I think the positions of those who have cast their "vote" on this is already well known, so no need to drag it.
And yes, it was kind of a "blackmail" in disguise with some "divide to conquer" well placed comments. But after all this is a strategy game    I think Frogboy has to be more careful with his posts, they usually have this sort of "pointing the finger" and dismissive background noise, which is not very becoming for the CEO of the company. Some points are also weak, and not really relevant, just nonsensical elusive points. This is not an attack, just some sort of heads-up, which noone asked me for and so I'll get the appropriate flak I'm sure   



The AI makes mistakes?! That's new. Even if that was the case, it had no way to acknowledge it.



Maybe because they know there'll never be a consensus? So it's up to them to make the call, and anything else can be seen as pure demagogy. Even if the intention is good.



You *must* know it'll never work. It hasn't for other problems, never will unless it's a very serious issue and that doesn't really need a "pole", right?



Not sure if Storm can, but I can. The smaller dev companies usually have this behaviour. I've seen it too for at least one big company, relative to a modder community which was making an AI improvement mod. Not saying it's not good, just that it's not unique.



Consider the suggestion about smaller improvements by players then. You can't generalize these things, with such a big player base. Just doesn't work. Not trying to teach you anything here though.



6 year old code is not that different from 2 year old code, especially if efficiently commented. And this remark could be read as older bugs and issues will never be addressed...



Will it be a hot fix, or a real overhaul that makes it less micro? If the former, maybe there actually *is* a choice there. IIRC it's a waypoint thing?



Always!



Ask the players to brainstorm ont that. There's plenty of people that can help with that. Since you want the community involved, I don't see a problem there.



If it's just for the numbers, like many in the tree, I'd say they're not a priority at all.



I wouldn't call those a priority either, they're not the best part of the game. I somehow get the feeling that you want us to want some of these things.



Depends on what exactly is the advantage's extent. If it doesn't involve other stuff like ship movement or research for example. Not saying it does mind you. Just wondering if the full implications have been identified. Regardless of how many years the bug has been around.



If it doesn't in fact have advantages in knowing which planets to colonize, and if it doesn't have special rules when tech trading among itself, and whatever else.
Some people play fair, some don't. It's you who has to establish the limits, not point the finger at all players for what some of them do. You have to create the rules to make it fair, not hope players will collaborate with your view of what's fair or fun. The AI cannot be a function of cheaters, or an excuse for bad functionalities.

The nitpicker   

Wow....lots of passion in this thread.

I love the game. Much so, because it is stable. I don't get the CTD's that others have had, so that makes it great. I remember playing MoO and saving every turn cause I knew it would crash soon. I don't know what's involved with CTD's but that should be a priority for fixes (if it represents a sizable number) because it creates a very negative environment for those players affected.

As for the turn advantage issue. I don't care. At all. Wouldn't care if I loaded every other turn. Most games make the AI cheat to keep up with the human player. Just part of it. So are bugs. Microsoft has billion dollar budgets and they have bugs. Stardock has a budget and they have bugs. I'll notify the press.

We all spend hours playing this game. Whatever makes that more enjoyable and more productive I'm for. I think the graphics are knock out right now for a strategy game. Tweak here and there for some ship display issues and its more than dead on.
I play with starbases. They are a bitch to construct. If frogboy can make that easier for me I get to enjoy more and be more productive. That's a win.

I played a game and the AI gave me a snarly ass response to what I was doing that really made me laugh. "You are an embarassement." Hadn't seen that one before, so guessing it was added in one of the recent releases. These are things that really make it enjoyable. It's like playing a new game when new stuff happens.

I'm embarassed that Frogboy and Kyro and Cari have to read some of these comments. This is a great community that's always willing to help when a question is asked, regardless of how dumb it might be. I don't know what has triggered all the negativism and bashing that has come out of it. But when this doesn't stay fun for our authors/devs, then my guess is the budget for improvements (after they have gotten our money) will shrink considerably. That's not to say we shouldn't be critical of things that we'd like to see done different. Just do it like you'd ask your wife or mom to do something different instead of your neighbor's dog.

That's my 2 cents worth and afterall, we were asked for our opinion. What a revolutionary concept that is for a developer.

Why? This is what they asked for when they started these forums so if they ask, we will tell. Sure some of us, myself included at times, don't make impressive arguments, come off as an ass or generally just haven't 'thought out' what the hell we are trying to get across. But understand that sometimes this can be frustrating. I will show you how/why with this comment that I am about to make...

Regardless of what was put out here in this thread, regardless of Brad asking us what 'we' want for the next update, the 'small' number of people with issues such as myself will probably get no resolutions nor will our vote be heard. Sure, we are the minority and why the hell would Brad listen to us? After all this is a democracy so...
There's more of you who have stable games than those of us who don't. Not all of us have crap for PC's so we shouldn't be having these problems. Is this fair to us to not get the fixes we need vs. getting more 'bling'? Hell no. Is it fair that those who have no issues would have to wait for another update to get their bling? Again, no because they shouldn't be 'punished' either. So where's the happy medium? Brad has stated that it will be one or the other, not a mix of both. Of course the minority will lose out on this one. If we do get what we want then other people WILL single us out. My example would be:
Stardock releases an update that is claimed to be nothing but 'fixes'. Those of us who have been drooling for this update will probably come to find that it doesn't fix our issues, probably not all of them anyways, and that will be it. Our one and only chance for some fixes will have been used to no avail. From there on out anything else down the pipeline will be for the masses, all of the extras and bling and additions. Sure there maybe a line or two devoted to clearing up some minor bug, but that will be it.
Then the 'bashing' will start because people like TL will tell us to shut up since it is OBVIOUS that it is our machines not the software, when in reality it is still due to some buggy code somewhere.
I truly believe that those of us who are considered 'troublemakers' for our opinions will be punished through all of this. Hell, at this point I am willing to ship my whole rig over to Stardock and let them pick it apart... hell, I'll even pay them to look at it, just to prove my point. Any devs bothering to read this rant take note, as I am not kidding with this one. I will gladly ship you my CPU and even pay you a fair hourly rate to dig into my system and tell me how my rig is the culprit of all of this. If you can network online with my PC I am willing to do it that way as well. Seriously. I will pay for anything you ask me to pay for to get this done.
Yeah, it's me and my PC... Hello, HP Support, yeah this is so and so. Hey I want my PC fixed under warranty... what's wrong? I really don't know but because this ONE game doesn't run right on my PC I guess there's something wrong with my system. Can you fix this for free for me? Hello? Helloooooo?

ok...i've not read the whole thread.

and being a programmer, i understand whatever brad & co decide to do.

the funny thing is (and if memory serves me right), this bug (or something similar: the AI gets an extra turn at load or save) was also present in MOO3.

and being a programmer, i can kind-of see how this bug may have eventuated.

It’s interesting to know of the bug, but I’m not sure it is a big deal. After all, it is now apparent how to minimize it - don’t reload. This does to some degree affect the level of difficulty due to AI advantage, and if it the bug presents too much of a challenge I can just move to a different difficulty level. Fair is fair.

That said, I am by no means a power player: I play for fun, and GalCiv2 if fun. Brad and his team have done an outstanding job and I appreciate their efforts.

Hydro

Hello there all,
I'd like to put in my 2bc worth here.

The reload turn bugs (and there are more than one of them) and their importance is really a big game/small game question. In a small game that lasts only a few hours there is seldom need to reload more than 2-3 times and if you are doing so, you are probably doing so in order to use an exploit (I am reminded of the reload movement bug back in the original Civilization that gave units that already moved before saving all their movement points back.) This seems to be the kind of game that Frogboy plays the most from what I have seen on these forums. I and some others (Mumblefratz comes to mind) like to play something I call maximized games. I always play in any startegy game like this the largest game possible. In CG2 this is a gigantic galaxy with everything set to abundant, nine opponents, and scattered stars. In DA this leads to a game with nearly 1000 worlds on the map. A short game on these settings will last over 100 hours of playing time. Now I am 37, married and have four kids and there is no way on earth that I could possibly keep the game up on our families main computer for a hundred hours of playing time. In order to play one of my games through, I expect to have to have to reload it 30-40 times, and believe me I wouldn't do so if I didn't have to. It takes me 20 minutes or more for each reload on my old slow computer. Even switching out to the desktop so that someone else can use the computer, it takes 10 minutes for the game to come back up each time.
Add to this that by the time the colony rush is over I usually have over 200 worlds to manage. By this time if there is a war going on, it often takes me over an hour per turn to manage my empire. Because of this, even though I consider myself an avid player and playtester, I have only played 10-15 games to conclusion. I am sure that I have put in more play hours than many who have played ten times as many smaller games.
I say all of this to say that the reload turn bugs really effect my games alot. From the middle of the game on I am lucky if I get 2-3 turns in per reload and I often only get one. This would lead to my opponents getting 30-50% more production than they should be. Add this to the influence bug (which I have documented and sent in on several occasions) on the reload turns and this has a major effect on large games.
Frogboy and all the others at Stardock, from my perspective and playstyle, this is the largest and most game altering bug in the game and the one I would most like to see fixed. On the other hand I understand that I am in a distinct minority and there are other problems and issues that effect a much larger share of the game's palyers that may have a higher priority. Reguardless of when or if this bug or any other that I experience and report are fixed, this is the very best computer strategy game that I have ever played and I will remain a devoted fan.
Scincerely,
[email protected]

If you take that into consideration, then perhaps you could adjust the difficulty level accordingly. Difficulty levels are a matter of how many bonuses (or penalties) the AI gets, and this one is only affecting production as far as I understand it. It's really not a huge bonus if you're playing up around masochistic and above, though I understand that that little bit more could be enough to push you over your comfort zone. Well, now you know, so hopefully you can choose your settings with even more accuracy now.

I personally wouldn't see it as a big deal at all unless the AI were getting that bonus every turn.

And it might be possible to look at it in the following way. Giving the AI the ability to rush-buy for a few turns over you, even in the beginning of the game when it's most critical, could be to its DISADVANTAGE. It could get itself into money trouble pretty quickly, especially with any bonus tiles it might be developing first. It's getting ONLY bonus production, after all, and not a bonus to pop growth, economy, military, or research, except insofar as its improvements are enhanced by the extra turn. It would take a great deal of study and an in-depth presentation to convince me that it's always to the AI's advantage to have that extra production boost in the beginning. I'm not naive enough to think it would usually be a disadvantage, only that it's not nearly so clear IMO as some here seem to imply.

I was thinking about this reload issue and i realised a possibility....

Somone who keeps reloading a game in order to get a better combat outcome or whatever would be penalised once only for that same reload... however somone who kept reloading a game, then played a bit and saved a new game each time would be much more harshly penalized - so yea, people with busy lifestyles who cannot play for very long would be the ones copping the greatest dissadvantage, not cheaters,,, does that sound rite?

Dear Developers and CEO,

I acquired this game exclusively for the well documented, non-cheating AI (on intelligent level).
This game was praised to the skies on the respective websites and magazines and now such amazingly lame excuses from the devs, very disappointing.
I am a casual player with limited time so naturally I reload a lot. Pretty normal proceeding I guess. And in fact I prefer huge galaxies with abundant everything.
So under this basic conditions the "feature" might be truly gamebreaking indeed, especially if you are new to this game.
Hiding behind some "nobody noticed in five years, so where is the big deal ?" argument unfortunately smells of some fairly unprofessional marketing answer.
And I assume if this thread continues to draw some attention sooner a later gamespot, gamespy etc. might get notice of it and then the miraculous AI is officially demystified.
Wirklich bedauerlich.

Regards,
sal42

I am with you on this. Some are saying it is no big deal and only psychological, because you can beat the AI like you did before you know the cheat existed.

I don't care. I bought both DL and DA cause I like the idea of a no cheating feature...hmmm..that too was psychological I guess...so, I hope it gets fixed.

When it comes to game mechanics, graphics etc. there are much better titles on the market imho. Sadly, all of them suck big balls when it comes to AI behavior and cheating.
HOMM V is a recent example for the perfect AI failure.
My personal favorite is "Age of Wonders - Shadow Magic" from Triumph Studios.
Beautiful game but even on the highest level (when the AI cheats like hell) it plays like a moron. So for me this "issue" is INDEED a big deal.
And adding new features, maps and eye candy is clearly less important than fixing bugs but that's only me it seems (and the CTD plagued guy above

That would be me!!!! YEAH BABY!!!!
I seriously doubt I am the ONLY one with CTD's but you never know!

Speaking for myself, I think a slight bonus at the start of the game does not sound so terrible, but I also have a busy life and can't sit and play a game in 1 or 2 sessions. It takes me about a month to finish a game on gigantic with everything set to rare. Given that I will save/load many times to finish a game (not to "go back in time", but to genuinely set a stopping point for the night) it's unsettling I am effectively stacking the odds further against me with each play session. Personally, I'd like to see this fixed. Prettier graphics/effects are nice, but bug fixes and improving gameplay elements (in that order) are more important to me as a player.

Okay... so I am now starting to see some more 'votes' being cast towards fixing issues vs. additional content. Has anyone started taking notes on how many "yea's" we have against how many "nay's" we have yet?
Come on guys, if this is truly supposed to be up to us then regardless of which way we are 'casting our votes' we should be doing so in an effort to resolve what the devs will be doing for the next update.

A poll sounds good. As before I would vote for new stuff, as I don't see it as a big problem. However, I do agree with what someone said before - as long as the problem is there, you can't claim the AI isn't cheating.

Yea so even if the bug isn't worth fixing, like i said before Stardock could always simply explain to people that a reloaded game is not identical to the saved game and what the implications are.

I did recall a nice feature from the old Alpha Centauri game... there was a game option called 'iron man' which would dissalow saving/reloading except on game exit/entry.

This feature would seperate the 'men from the boys' so to speak except where a cheater is determined enough to actually reload the whole game over and over!

I'm strongly in favor of this bug fix over new features!
I imagine game starts are going to feel really frustrating for me now. It is psychological, but before knowing about this bug I wouldn't really get annoyed if an AI beat me to an early resource or planet. I just chalked it up to me being outplayed or the AI going into early debt. It will be way, way, way more frustrating if its due to AI cheating. That was a major feature that swayed me into purchasing this game.
It also makes me concerned about other bugs in the game. If Stardock doesn't take this seriously and fix this bug, how can I trust them to fix other bugs?
I love the features that get added in updates but consider them extras and second in importance to bug fixes.
I do feel Stardock provides stellar support for this game though, I just feel that this bug is not being taken with enough concern.