Stop B****ing about PTW - Page 2

Tuberski · October 31, 2002, 22:21

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Should it work on your old 486 running Win 3.11?

It says on the box what the system requirements are.

Should they have added: Programming experience recommended?

ACK!

Strakorfsky · October 31, 2002, 22:22

wiseass.....

look at their buget, considering the time and recourse poured into making a decent game like civ 3, no wonder they short comed it just to improve it later nad bulster sales.

in ptw, there are numerous mistakes about mp, the main advertiser of it was websites like apolyton, they made it seem like " everyone problem will be wooshed away"

in reality, games like ptw are trial and error, they see what works, and improve from their. beta-testing is pretty ineffectice.

the people often don't take the profesionality to look at th materials flaws, and programmers are scrambling to meet a dead-line, they wouldnt check back without extra time.

rflagg · October 31, 2002, 22:23

First off, one of the problems is Infogrames tells Jeff Briggs: Jeff, you HAVE to have civ 3 ptw out by this date, or there's no more work for you with Infogrames. So, then Jeff has to tell his team it has to be out by that date, and down the list until the programmers are forced to work very long hours (paid nicely though, at least...it is still a job, yes) in feeble attempts to get as much working as they can, meanwhile, the PR guys are talking about all the non-existant stuff that's great and wonderful in it, and all that you can do with it...if you've never heard of that before, you've obviously never worked with a companies' sales dept. It's promise first, then find out later if we can actually fulfill that promise.

Giving feedback regarding problems is a very important thing to do for each and every consumer - the more they know, the more Firaxis can focus on the *main* problems. But, saying "IT DOESNT WORK F--- FIRAXIS" solves nothing. Giving out your machine specs, your connection specs, and your specific problem is the best way to voice your opinion, and at least then it's less painful for the rest of us who are just trying to find out info about the game in the first place.

So, if it doesn't work for you, tell us..say it in all caps if you feel necessary, but be specific, and for christ sakes, disable the diseased software like NAV and what not, and try at least some troubleshooting of your own. If it works, tell us what kind of setup you're using, etc. Don't expect things to be fixed though by just flaming a company that you pretend to be an expert on because you purchase their product. And, uh, thanks.

-rflagg.

Strakorfsky · October 31, 2002, 22:25

tuberski....

many high-end games don't work on the old windows for franchise and practicality reasons.

microsoft doesn't sell any of the old windows, why would they give credence for firaxis to make it optional on that?

only somone who really needs a windows inprovement would have an older windows, which is probbaly less then 1% of the U.S. still using one of the old versions.

it is unlikely many europeans or ect... still use them.

notyoueither · October 31, 2002, 22:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Tuberski

It says on the box what the system requirements are.

Should they have added: Programming experience recommended?

ACK!

And like with a lot of other software, people will get different results depending on their specific system. Now with networking you throw in yet more variables and things that could cause problems.

At any rate, you are right to hold off, for yourself. Buy it when you're ready to based on reports here and the record of the patches. All I or anyone else can do is tell you what is involved. However, if all you ever want to buy is perfect computers and perfect software that require to no tinkering to make go, you should avoid making any pruchases for the next number of years.

Strakorfsky · October 31, 2002, 22:29

rflagg...

i assume you work for firaxis...

if so, I would emagin a VERY large amount of patiance is needed in the civ community, people expect that a new game should be all perfection, but, its like a trial and error, you go from where thigns don't work.

but all I see si rant pages about " i doesn't f***ing work", "the mp won't come on", and such.

people like hurin only make the problem worst by acting like know-it-alls. and giving false advice where they knew nothing

Tuberski · October 31, 2002, 22:32

All I'm saying is that there seems to be a lot of problems that a layman won't be able to figure out.

For example, I'll use the game Morrowind.

My system is UNDER the recommended specs, I bought it anyway and tinkered with the OS and many other things to get the game to work, and work pretty well, on my machine.

But, in that case I knew I was going to have problems running the game.

I think that is why a lot of people are pissed about PTW. All that really had to be programmed for it is the MP ability, so people figured they shouldn't have many problems with it.

Naive maybe, but not unexpected.

ACK!

Strakorfsky · October 31, 2002, 22:32

notyoueither....

you are right, systems respond weird to new software, you can only hope yours responds well to it, or ask firaxis for help on it.

all software is like a risk. it may lasta while, and accomodate many types of software, or screw you and crash the first days.

interestign so many people responding, and not that many rants.

rflagg · October 31, 2002, 22:32

double post, sorry.

Tuberski · October 31, 2002, 22:34

rflagg is a SPAMbot, apparently,

ACK!

rflagg · October 31, 2002, 22:37

Tuberski, you should get a geforce4 (if you don't have one) for Morrowind. The water, she is beautiful!

Strakorfsky · October 31, 2002, 22:38

wow, three pages, and its my thread

i feel a suddon on-rush of pride

Strakorfsky · October 31, 2002, 22:41

oh well, I am getting ptw tommarow

whether is floops like you all say or not, it cant be as bad as ctp multi player has gotten

anyways, i would still like to play against ai if the mp doesnt work well

Wise Ass · October 31, 2002, 22:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Strakorfsky
wiseass.....

look at their buget, considering the time and recourse poured into making a decent game like civ 3, no wonder they short comed it just to improve it later nad bulster sales.

It has nothing to do with the budget, Firaxis is a well established development company. Time was the factor and as rflagg already pointed out it was the fault of Infogrames. In most development cases the publisher has the right to cancel a project, sue for lost and expected revenue, all over a missed deadline.

Quote:

in ptw, there are numerous mistakes about mp, the main advertiser of it was websites like apolyton, they made it seem like " everyone problem will be wooshed away"

in reality, games like ptw are trial and error, they see what works, and improve from their. beta-testing is pretty ineffectice.

The whole Idea of testing is quality assurance. I am not saying I expected a perfect game, and I have yet to complain about anything other than the jewel case issue.

Quote:

the people often don't take the profesionality to look at th materials flaws, and programmers are scrambling to meet a dead-line, they wouldnt check back without extra time.

Mike has been here all day it seems

Tuberski · October 31, 2002, 22:51

Quote:

Originally posted by rflagg
Tuberski, you should get a geforce4 (if you don't have one) for Morrowind. The water, she is beautiful!

I have an itty-bitty 16meg video card.

Strakorfsky · October 31, 2002, 22:54

waseass....

please, what is the "jewel case" issue?

Tuberski · October 31, 2002, 22:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Strakorfsky
waseass....

please, what is the "jewel case" issue?

PTW apparently only comes in a paper sleeve, instead of a jewel case.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=66135

ACK!

Strakorfsky · October 31, 2002, 22:59

tuberski...

lol...

whata riot, what difference does it make, practicality, cheaper.

just make your own sotrage case

Strakorfsky · October 31, 2002, 23:06

uberkrux got banned for insulting people on firaxis

what a flamer, he really deserved it

Tuberski · October 31, 2002, 23:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Strakorfsky
tuberski...

lol...

whata riot, what difference does it make, practicality, cheaper.

just make your own sotrage case

I'd be happy if ALL my cases were the paper ones.

ACK!

werdhertz · October 31, 2002, 23:35

Ok... It seems the peopel that worked on this beta testing or whatever, are ready to stick up for it, say it works, etc. So let me ask you all a few questions, i hope youre willing to answer, since i payed MY money, for YOURE product.

My system.

2.5ghz P4
512DDR
GeForce 4 Ti4200
Soundblaster mp3+
Windows XP

All latest vid card drivers, soundcard drivers, and windows critical updates

1)Since i have installed the game this morning i have gotten 8 fatal errors. EIGHT. I have not encountered this many ever before in a single game, let alone in less than a day. These have all been either a)trying to join a game b)trying to click multiplayer on the main menu c)trying to quit a multiplayer game after joining (prior to him launching).

2)my game has frozen a total of 10 (TEN!!!) times after my install this morning. These have all been usually when the game launches, it drops to the main menu to load, than just freezes. I have waited upwards of 7 minutes (used my clock tom actually time) and had to ctrl+alt+del to escape the prog.

3)The lag is incredibly inmcredibly bad. Now, i wouldnt mind a little lag, as i am on a 56k modem connection. Some lag is nothing to me, that is why i tryed mostly 1 vs 1 player games. they all lagged so bad it took voer a second for a command to get through. This is with BOTH of our pings in the low 200s.... I am able to play Rainbow Six, as well as counterstrike, as well as half life multiplayer easily, with upwards of 5+ players, with very little lag... I tryed every single game mode (si moves, turnless, turn-based) none improved upon the other.

The crashing bugs were all at random times (although spawning from the same things, such as clickign to joina game, etc)

How is it POSSIBLE for you not to notice this? I would not really be so angered if it was only my machine, and a few others. but you CANNOT be messing all these threads and the people in the game lobby. IT WILL NOT WORK. some people might have old machines, whatever, but us with new machines, patched versions (i have patch 1.04f), STILL cannot get it to work.

Please, this is not a thread to 'flame' Firaxis. So Strakorfsky, please dont even comment on this because you seem to be a rageing fanboy, no offense. I am posting this as a consumer, using my money, that i worked for, to buy an item, that has on the very front of the box "Multiplayer" Right under the title. Am i lead to believe that i should "give them a break", because they got PBEM and LAN to work?

I am not trying to insult you, or anyone else, but please, give me an answer. If you think this is rough, wait until you see reviews come in. Will this be patched shortly? If not, should i return my game and purchase something else that works as it says on the box?

EDITED: To add that i have NO programs running in the background, as i ctrl+alt+del them beforehand, and also have startup cop to disable them at startup.

Obese Monkfish · October 31, 2002, 23:53

I agree. This is an industry. This is SUPPOSED to be a multiplayer game. I have a very, very hard time believing that Civ 3 is laggy out of necessity, when such games like AoK, all the Quakes, UT, etc, ANY number of other multi games that have to be far more realtime, are so smooth!

This is ridiculous. I am very, very pissed.

Hurin · November 1, 2002, 02:04

Quote:

it doesnt work on MP smart one, not like the game crashes on single game or on lan. gosh, you must be one of those " know it alls"who think they are somehow smarter then everyone.

Do I think I'm smarter than *everyone*? No. . . some, yes. What this has to do with the issue? nothing.

So, you're saying it's totally fine to release a *primarily* Multiplayer expansion pack as long as the added civs work in single player. Oh, and lest we forget. . . radar towers!

Buddy, if the MP doesn't work, it's broken. You can dress it up and spin it as much as you want. But there's no way of getting around it.

Quote:

NOT THE GAME, BUT THE MULTIPLAYER NETWORK. sheesh, the multpilayer network isn't even runned by firaxis, b**** to gamespy, they are currently directing games on it.

Okay, two reasons this doesn't cut it.

#1. I play plenty of other games on Gamespy. They work and aren't lagged. Gamespy is primarily a *matchmaking* network. They don't actually transfer the data between the clients once the game gets going. I hope and pray that Civ3 is the same way, if it isn't, that brings us to #2

#2. If, for some un-fathomable reason, Gamespy transfers all game data through its servers, that was an incredibly assinine decision for Firaxis to make! That is an *inherently* crappy way of getting each client's data to the host.

However, I seriously doubt that's the case. . . if it is, God help us because no amount of netcode optimization is going to help. But, I just can't believe Firaxis would code the game that way.

Quote:

and as for your "bearing the problems", you don't seem to take in account th massive complexities of playing a high-end game like ptw on the internet, its not like war III and the diablo games, there are so many avriables that must be calculated that it will take long for it to work out.

LOL. I made this same argument in OSI's defense quite a lot. The only difference: Back then it was warranted. Exactly how is Civ3 more complex than. . . oh, let's say. . . age of empires?!?

This is a essentially still a turned based game. This engine has to keep track of a *lot* less than most RTS games and FPS games and has a lot more "time" to do so. Think about it: In PTW, units are single icons that are moved on a grid. Granted, units have values, and such. . . and cities do as well. But those values shouldn't take up much data. When a player changes something in PTW, he's moving a unit on a grid, one square at a time. When he changes city production, he's essentially changing a numeric value that then needs to be set to the server. Etc. That's not terribly tough!

Now, in contrast, you've got Age of Empires II: Age of Kings. Where you've got rapidly moving units doing combat in real time. . . pathfinding. . . healing. . . and their commands are constantly being changed on-the-fly by each player. Meanwhile you've got other units gathering resources and the map is constantly being manipulated by up to eight players.

Are you seriously making the argument that Civ3 is a state-of-the-art and is more complex (and therefore more difficult to make multiplayer) than FPS and RTS games? That's just plain nonsense.

Would it be easy? No, I wouldn't say so. . . and no program will ever be bug-free. But is that an excuse for releasing software in this state?

Basically, you can sum up your argument thusly:

"But, making multiplayer games is hard!"

Yeah, it is. . . but it is done all the time, and done well, with more complex systems and under more difficult conditions.

All that being said. I finally did get a successful game going. My brother and I both had to use the in-game browser because the transition between the Gamespy client and PTW itself was causing my brother's computer to crash and was making it so others couldn't connect to my server once I launched. So, there's a problem with Gamespy's implementation of PTW. But, then you get a whole mess of other problems. My brother and I had to try launching about twenty times before we could find a third person who didn't crash us (due to whatever problems that 3rd person might have been having). Of course, each time we failed to launch, it would crash everyone's system, and we had to end task. Part of the problem with getting a game started seems to be that one person's problem appears to cause a really bad day for everyone trying to join the game. Not to mention the fact that you can't kick anyone in the intitial launch screen. Well, you could, if Gamespy worked with it as it is suppposed to. But, again, that's hard.

When it finally did work, I can't really say the experience was satisfying. We had 3 players, Tiny map, turnless. It was a lag-fest.

But apparently, I should be happy with what I got, because making these games is hard

Seriously though, this is enlightening. I used to stick up for gaming companies just like you are right now. I probably will again, when it's warranted. But now I know what I sound like.

You actually sound like a guy who's saying: "I'm not even that excited about multiplayer. I will just play against the AI. Single player is fine with me! So stop complaining!"

I remember how much fun CivNet was. . . single player isn't what we all want to play and we have every right to be disappointed and frustrated with how poorly the *core* of this expansion pack has been implemented. If it's not important to you, fine. . . but again, we have every right to post the problems we have been having, and our disappointment with Firaxis for releasing something that really appears to be in very shoddy shape. Again, if you don't wanna hear, you don't have to read. And, if you really wanna stick up for Firaxis, why don't you wait until you have at least *seen* the game (especially its shoddy in-game browser) before you comment further.

Best Regards,

H

Dominae · November 1, 2002, 03:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Obese Monkfish
I agree. This is an industry. This is SUPPOSED to be a multiplayer game. I have a very, very hard time believing that Civ 3 is laggy out of necessity, when such games like AoK, all the Quakes, UT, etc, ANY number of other multi games that have to be far more realtime, are so smooth!

This is ridiculous. I am very, very pissed.

Amen. I don't think I can add anything do this perfect post. I don't care if it works for some people (or most playtesters), it should at least work for most people, regardless of system specs (or whatever other variable you care to hide behind).

Dominae

vmxa1 · November 1, 2002, 03:32

I guess we now know why MP did not get included in original release.

notyoueither · November 1, 2002, 05:22

werdhertz,

1. I do not get that many crashes. I get very few actually.

2. 'Freezing' for 7 minutes is unusual. I had it go for 10 once while going to the MP set up screen with 7 players spread over the Americas and Europe. It worked in the end.

3. 56K modem? Sorry. I know a fellow who gave up. He could get in, but the games were... bad. I really hope they brush up the net code so that this is not the case anymore.

I am sorry you are not having any joy. I truely am. However, I can say that all of the testers (save 1 or 2) were able to get going. None of us reported 10 crashes per day with any recent version that I know of.

Grumbold · November 1, 2002, 06:13

Quote:

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
NYE:

The first time I loaded up MP, it worked. Am I just lucky? I disabled firewall and norton. Found one person, and went to work.

didn't seem very complicated to me.

I'm not the worlds greatest expert on networking, but am I the only person who is sitting here thinking you must be absolutely insane to disable the only devices protecting you from internet invasion before going online to play a game over the internet?!!? I thought the whole point of firewalls is to allow you to open specific channels but deny all the rest. Similarly if we expect software to work with all common graphics cards and sound cards we should expect them to work with common antivirus packages if they have an online element. All business software packages manage to do it successfully. Online games like PtW should be held to the same standard.

Athitis · November 1, 2002, 06:37

I have read so many posts complaining about PTW, they make me think PTW is a mistake! Come on, soon I will have to decide whether to buy it or not.......You guys suggest I don't? I do not believe it's unplayable!
Some have no problems at all, others regret spending their money on it.

Do u use the recent patch for PTW, 1.04?

I am confused........

Wise Ass · November 1, 2002, 07:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Athitis
I have read so many posts complaining about PTW, they make me think PTW is a mistake! Come on, soon I will have to decide whether to buy it or not.......You guys suggest I don't? I do not believe it's unplayable!
Some have no problems at all, others regret spending their money on it.

Do u use the recent patch for PTW, 1.04?

I am confused........

Here I would keep an eye on that thread for what will hopfully be the more non-biased accounts of PTW games. It is hard to say what you should or shouldn't do but the game is admitedly hard to get going. If you know how to get the perfect set-up odds are you will only play 1 out of 5 tries and only 1/4 of those will be lagless. But As I have said many times before, Firaxis is not going to let the game remain in the state it is.

asleepathewheel · November 1, 2002, 12:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Grumbold

I'm not the worlds greatest expert on networking, but am I the only person who is sitting here thinking you must be absolutely insane to disable the only devices protecting you from internet invasion before going online to play a game over the internet?!!? I thought the whole point of firewalls is to allow you to open specific channels but deny all the rest. Similarly if we expect software to work with all common graphics cards and sound cards we should expect them to work with common antivirus packages if they have an online element. All business software packages manage to do it successfully. Online games like PtW should be held to the same standard.

paranoia strikes deep in the heartland.

This isn't the first game that i've disabled the firewall for.

I'm willing to risk the consequences (which are exaggerated, IMHO), i put it back up after playing. Of course, i'm fairly naive