About the Testers being sued.. - Page 2

asleepathewheel · October 5, 2003, 22:20

Thanks for the clarification Jesse

H Tower · October 6, 2003, 02:16

So once again Firaxis did something stupid? What a great company

FrustratedPoet · October 6, 2003, 04:51

I find it hard to criticise Firaxis simply because they do a few stupid things. I do stupid things all the time and I think I'm fantastic.

Gramphos · October 6, 2003, 06:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Theseus
Oh, and Jesse, about Marine+Berserk Armies...

What?

Theseus · October 6, 2003, 07:52

They are not capable of amphib attacks.

Gramphos · October 6, 2003, 09:32

No longer? They were some time in the PTW history. After a suggestion by me during a chat IIRC? (could be a coincidense, but someone @ Firaxis said it was a good idea then, and it got added in a patch later)

Did they drop it for C3C?

Theseus · October 6, 2003, 09:48

Sorry, clarification: Berserk Armies work, Marine Armies work, but Armies consisting of the two unit types mixed do not work.

FrustratedPoet · October 6, 2003, 09:50

Trust Theseus to uncover a bug involving mixed unit armies. *wink*

Asmodeus · October 6, 2003, 12:26

I'm shocked. Judging by the Multiplay gaming, I could have sworn we were all still testing a Beta product.

Gramphos · October 6, 2003, 13:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Theseus
Sorry, clarification: Berserk Armies work, Marine Armies work, but Armies consisting of the two unit types mixed do not work.

Okay. That's not as bad as droppingthechange I suggested

BTW, I've not tested this: Do you know if a paratrooper army can airdrop?

And will there ever be possible to have feets?

Master Zen · October 6, 2003, 14:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Gramphos

And will there ever be possible to have feets?

How the hell does the infantry move then?

player1 · October 6, 2003, 14:44

fleets

Master Zen · October 6, 2003, 15:33

due to the lack of smileys my post was intended as sarcasm

Theseus · October 6, 2003, 16:23

1) Para Armies cannot airdrop (I think).

2) What do you mean by fleets? "Attaching' one ship (or more) to another?

FrustratedPoet · October 6, 2003, 17:32

I think by "fleets" he means "armies for naval units".

eris · October 6, 2003, 18:01

I find it interesting to see Firaxis criticized for doing something dumb here. Perhaps it is a valid criticism. In a world where self-responsibility is so low that highways and byways are littered beyond cleanup, in a world where warez and fileswapping are considered divine rights, in a world where respect for other people and their property barely includes one's own friends, Firaxis trusted a few hundred people with their product secrets. I guess that is kinda dumb isn't it?

And then, they have the gall, the unmitigated gall, to demand that people keep those secrets, mentioning the only rule of enforcement really available to them. Terrible, just terrible. It's almost as bad as some parents insisting on their children to be polite. And doing it in public, too! Don't you just hate that?

In my opinianated view, Firaxis had every right to say "Don't do that!" as loudly and forcefully as they could, and owed not one single person an apology for doing so. Not one. And they have the right to do so as often as necessary to get it through some people's thick self-centered skulls.

But, that seems to be a rather singular viewpoint in this thread. So it must be either completely wrong or completely misunderstanding of people's behavior standards, mustn't it?

But, in my oh-so-self-righteous manner (sometimes referred to as "observant"), I learn more from the posts about the posters than I do about Firaxis.

Oh well, I think I'll go find something else to do with this soap box of mine before someone decides that they have a right to do with it whatever they want, regardless of my illusion that it belongs to me.

FrustratedPoet · October 6, 2003, 18:19

I think you're missing the point eris. There was no need for ATARI to publically threaten the beta-testers with lawsuits (especially since no sensitive info has actually been leaked) when they could have simply sent each one an e-mail reminding them of what they agreed to when they signed the NDA. That is, if they actually had a mailing list for them of course.....

I don't think you'll find anyone here who thinks that requiring beta testers to keep the information secret is stupid. Nobody has said that in this thread or in any other I've read.

Jaybe · October 6, 2003, 18:50

The only problem I had with Jesse's letter was that it implied that beta testers had already violated their NDAs when they had not (from what we were told, anyway) and public beta testing would be no more.

I have no problem with Atari's "forcefull reminder" in principle.

asleepathewheel · October 6, 2003, 21:35

eris:

I don't find what Firaxis did, objectionable per se.

I just think it could have been handled more appropriately in house.

I'm not sure how long you've been around Civ3, but nearly every step of the way something has gone wrong, from Civ3 requiring nearly a years worth of patches (some hurting the game more than it helped) to the PTW debacle.

And thats not to mention the hard earned reputation of Infogreed.

Are the leakers wrong? Of course. They should be the first against the wall. But Atari has always been clumsy on the PR front, and this is just one more example, IMHO.

Master Zen · October 6, 2003, 22:07

Ok, since there wasn't any leak apparently I do agree that the message should have been worded differenty. EVERYONE I know who saw this thought stuff had been leaked, myself included.

I would have probably written something like "We would like to thank the beta testers bla bla bla, C3C is looking good, bla bla bla, and please don't forget that the NDA is still in effect until the final resease of the game and we will sue your ass if you violate it..."

Kinda like a thanks-but-beware. Softens up the blow and nevertheless makes potential leakers think twice before they do their hineous act.

JesseSmith · October 7, 2003, 06:11

I agree completely Master Zen! The statement was not an Atari announcement and not even a Firaxis Company statement/press release. It was just me stating the obvious. I am still trying to remember that my statements can/will cause ripples. My focus has been on polishing the game, not rewording community messages. That should change very soon.

Hopefully everyone will forgive my blunt words when they are absorbed in the Conquests experience.

JesseSmith · October 7, 2003, 06:21

BTW, Unfortunately you can not airdrop w/ a paratrooper army...

Tiberius · October 7, 2003, 06:56

At first, I wanted to state my opinion that I don't understand the announcement. Either it was a leak that should have been handled inhouse + issuing a friendly public warning for the other testers, or there wasn't a leak and then what's the point of such a strongly worded announcement ?

But then I saw Mr. Smith's posts, and all I can say is

(for admiting the mistake and apologizing)

Just release the damn thing already 'cause I want to play it!!

Edit: Ohh, and my message for the leaking testers:

(there is no smoke without fire

)

Tiberius · October 7, 2003, 07:05

Btw, if I worked for Firaxis I'd have talked with Master Zen to make me a banner instead of that announcement

(I'm afraid only those involved in the ISDG will understand this)

Alfonso · October 7, 2003, 08:20

Jesse, when the new 'Meet the Civ3 Civs' with civs new in the Web (civ3.com)?

Jesse, thanks for the new delivery of Civilization: Conquests, have very good dot.

asleepathewheel · October 7, 2003, 08:39

Quote:

Originally posted by JesseSmith
Hopefully everyone will forgive my blunt words when they are absorbed in the Conquests experience.

Yes, I know I won't remember or care about this when I start playing C3C. Probably won't remember much of anything.

eris · October 7, 2003, 16:31

This is me, sans soapbox.

I have re-looked at the thread and find that although there was some criticism of Firaxis, (The phrase "Firaxis should live with it" comes to mind.) still, the majority of people were supportive of the confidentiality needs of the beta process. The comments that the statements could have been made more softly have some validity, but I am not sure that a very strong wording isn't what is required to get some people's attention. I will be glad to let that stand as a difference of opinion.

To someone's question about my awareness of the history of Civ3 and bugs and patches: Yeah, I know about that, but don't think it has anything to do with a beta test of C3C. Past history with the company is no excuse for bad behavior on the part of the Civ community, and upon review I find that most people here do understand and live by that point.

So, I will continue to stand by the general content of my ravings, but maybe next time, I will temper those ravings down a little. But then again, considering who I am, maybe not.

Master Zen · October 7, 2003, 18:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Tiberius
Btw, if I worked for Firaxis I'd have talked with Master Zen to make me a banner instead of that announcement

(I'm afraid only those involved in the ISDG will understand this)

Something like this?

(copied from my ISDG campaign)

asleepathewheel · October 7, 2003, 18:41

Sweet

vmxa1 · October 7, 2003, 19:24

It is pretty good, but needs some color.