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.

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?"

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.

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.

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   

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?

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.