 |
|
Red Archer
|
|
I was wondering if anybody heard anything concerning the latest (5?) patch for SMAC/SMAC-X. There was talk about the patch around a month or two ago but since then I have not heard or seen any information. Does anybody have any info?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
I have no info at all, but I doubt we will ever see it...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Helium Pond
|
|
Los Anheles, California, Good Ole U S of A
Nov 1999 time: 05:13
|
|
I've held out hope for a long time, but it's pretty depressing when even MarkG says that the outlook isn't good. Didn't the guy who's updating the SMAC webpage say he'd see what kind of answer he could give us? How come we never heard from him?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Aredhran
|
 |
Geneva, Switzerland
Apr 1999 time: 06:13
|
|
The last I heard (from Dan Magaha) is... There will be no patch. Actually, his exact words were:
quote:

As far as any patches go, alas, I really don't know anything about that,
unfortunately; as the sign on my door says, I'm just "the webmonkey".. =)
I really couldn't speculate on the chances of any patch being released, to
tell you the truth. Everyone seems very entrenched in the dino game and Civ
III (which is really looking cool, by the way, I think it's going to really
please the most die-hard Civ II fans), so I really don't know what to tell
you =(
 |
Aredhran
PS: Dan, I hope you won't mind me quoting you
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Adam_Smith
|
|
The Raisin Capital of the World
Dec 1999 time: 05:13
|
|
People here are way too hard on Firaxis. There are no perfect games. Smacx actually have reletively few minor bugs compared to other games (ok maybe CIV2 was less buggy). Anyway, from my experience the remaining bugs are only a minor inconvenience. I know there are some people who get crashes, but those are specific cases. CTP1 is crap from what I hear and it can't even be compared to SMACX. I really don't want a patch if it means that CIV3 will be delayed.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Mongoose
|
|
Harrisburg,PA USA
Apr 1999 time: 00:13
|
|
For the record, PBEM was NOT advertised with the original release.
It WAS retrofitted, at the demand of the playing public. (on the old boards at alpha.owo)
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Adam_Smith
|
|
The Raisin Capital of the World
Dec 1999 time: 05:13
|
|
Those are RTS games. I don't know much about programming, but it seems to me that those games would be much more simple since there are less aspects to the game.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Basil
|
 |
Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Apr 2000 time: 21:13
|
|
MarkG: I wasn't around for the first version of SMAC. But I did buy CtP when it first came out, and sold it as a used game after 3 or 4 attempts to play it, simply because version 1.0.0 - and I emphasize v. 1.0.0 - was so buggy (so many random crashes) that I found it impossible to play.
Regarding SMAC, I'm surprised by what people are saying in this thread. Like most of the rest of the people here, I'd like a patch to fix the remaining bugs. But I find the bugs a nuisance, not a game-killer: if it were just the bugs I wouldn't much care about another patch.
The thing that I really want, that I think should have come in the original game and whose lack I think greatly reduces the quality of the game, is better AI. 4 major faults in the AI (that the AI doesn't know how to terraform effectively, that the AI doesn't know when to build facilities, that the AI doesn't know how to run an air war, and that the AI doesn't understand that effiency in SE settings is more important when you have more bases) mean that solitaire games basically end when you get Doctrine: Air Power. As a result, everything past that is just SimCity Centauri. It's as if you bought a chess program that had no idea how to play once you got out of the opening moves. And the really frustrating part is that they did 99% of the necessary work, but just didn't put in that last 1% which would have made a very interesting game into a very interesting and challenging game. And that there's little to nothing you can do about it.
Now I can see why it makes commercial sense for Firaxis, and other companies that produce closed-source games, to spend far more time on the art than they do on the AI. They get their $whatever whether you play the game for 3 hours or 300, the art does more to make the sale while the AI just makes for better value to the customer - which in the closed-source game model doesn't bring the developer any money. But this conclusion doesn't make me any likelier to buy Civ III, which I expect (given the trend line of Sid Meier's games) to have an AI that's completely out of its depth. Instead, I'll go to FreeCiv when the time comes.
What I dream about (I hardly dare say this because it's just my dreams, not in any way connected to reality), would be Firaxis making SMAC open source after its commercial life is over. Not likely! But that would be much better than any patch.
- Basil
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999 time: 21:13
|
|
Basil, As to the AI, making it more "thoughtful" could quickly make the game unplayable. With most chess games I have played, after the opening moves, the AI seems to play all possible moves to a varying depth depending on skill level, etc., and give each resulting position a score. If the SMAC AI did something similar, the game would quickly bog down while the human player waited minutes, hours for the AI to complete its turn.
In my view, there are only two things that can make the AI better and keep playability. The first is to have the AI continuously calcuate "strategy" while the human is playing so that it can add the current game situation as a whole to the rules-based decisions when it is its turn to move.
The second is teach it how to provide a coordinated attack. For example, I rarely see the AI land more than one or two, usually inferior, combat troups as its invasion force. This mimics its land combat pattern of uncordinated individual tatics. The AI needs to know to "wait" until it has amassed sufficient resources to prevail against a normally prepared opponent.
I still fondly remember CIV I. This game seemed to have a much better AI from this latter point of view.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Helium Pond
|
|
Los Anheles, California, Good Ole U S of A
Nov 1999 time: 05:13
|
|
Do you think it would be effective to press for a very, very limited patch? Like, what if we came up with the top five bugs, and made a valiant lobbying effort to Firaxis? Do you think we could get them to do it? I mean, they did promise "a quick incomplete patch, and a later patch that fixes everything else". Well it's pretty obvious that was an outright lie, and we'll never see another major patch. But if we made a really small demand--c'mon Firaxis, just these five bugs, just fix these teeny little bugs for us, pleeeeeeeze? do you think we might be able to sway them? Surely five bugs couldn't take more than a month?
What would be the top five? We would have to make them actual fixes--nothing like "better AI" or "more balanced factions." Off the top of my head:
1) Disappearing factions. I've never had this happen, but I've seen people report it, and it's a doozy of a bug.
2) Fake drones.
3) MP: Probe team notifications sent to wrong player.
4) MP: Demanding withdrawal from a human player via a right-click menu gives the request to the AI instead of opening the diplomacy screen.
5) The crash that happens during automatic aircraft interceptions (this also doesn't happen to me, so I hope I've described it correctly; it also seems pretty major).
It's farfetched to hope they'll ever look at the huge bug list. But what if we sent them a really really tiny one? Is it too much to hope they might do a mini-patch, of just the most game-breaking bugs?
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:13. Apolyton Time is 00:13. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|