Richard, very classy!

[Freyland]

Hello Instar. I never said the game was unstable. If you have actually read the "fix" lists, you know what I mean. Now who is talking without knowledge?

Richard, I called Courageous a fool because he made an incorrect accusation of me in an argumentative tone. You posted several times after that without saying anything, and then all of a sudden got a bug in your bonnet and posted about "banning". Give me a break! Try to be fair, and try to be realistic. Sure, you're the moderator, and it's your world. Ban me if you wish, but I think it would be unfair and FOOLish to ban me for defending myself without penalizing the other party. As for the other board, it is very well moderated. You should visit more often. As far as saying badly, here were my actual words:

<p>
Hi Lindan
What amazing timing. For the Last several days I have been persona non-grata over on that forum because of my complaints of the game being incomplete, and the AI being absolutely mediocre. At this time, I cannot recommend it. However, there is a beta patch due out ~12-19-00 with a list of fixes as long as my arm, so the opinion may change after that time, and I will gladly share mine again. There are at least two others from this board whom I have stumbled across over there, so perhaps they will comment as well.

Yours,
Jonathan

<p>

I hope that answers your questions. I really wish you had not suddenly felt the need to threaten penalty to me then, Richard. I had come to the conclusion that it is not my duty to disuade the sycophants of this world, and was going to just shut up. Why did you get all indignant all of a sudden?

Jonathan

[Jason2]

Jonathan,

I think you're a fool You are clearly a person non-grata because you have a chip on your shoulder a mile-long. Others have posted here about the bugs and frustration with AI (including me) but it seems you deserve the award of "most immature" Good Job, Jonathan - every board has to have one - you get the honors here.

J2

[Courageous]

I guess I missed it. What was this fool
comment all about?

C//

[C4]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason2:
Jonathan,

I think you're a fool You are clearly a person non-grata because you have a chip on your shoulder a mile-long. Others have posted here about the bugs and frustration with AI (including me) but it seems you deserve the award of "most immature" Good Job, Jonathan - every board has to have one - you get the honors here.

J2

---

I for one do not see Jonathan as trolling at all. He's a very active/experienced gamer and I don't feel he has made any points that are not valid.

IMHO, Jonathan's particular frustration is having his objective criticisms written off by representatives of Shrapnel as "misconceptions."

In fact, the one thing that a majority of people agree on is that the AI is poor. Well, everyone except for Richard and I wouldn't expect him to say it.

However, to write off the feedback of experienced gamers as "misconceptions" on other forums can be perceived as demeaning.

To say that there is nothing wrong with the AI and that you're just tweaking it is what you would expect from a marketing dude, but I don't think anyone posting here would support that opinion.

If there were nothing wrong with the AI, it wouldn't be a number one priority with MM to "tweak" it.

I for one would feel less frustrated if Shrapnel would come out and say, "Yup, the AI can be better and our Users let us know that. We're working on it."

There are other ways to field the question than portraying it as a misconception. For example if this were my game and experienced gamers said the AI sucked, I would probably say something like, "While some Users have found it challenging, we don't feel we've done our jobs until the AI can kick everyone's butt. We're working on it."

In this case, there are major issues with the AI. It's not just a matter of skill. It's certainly not a misconception that the AI is poor.

[Courageous]

I think everyone understands that the AI
still needs quite a bit of work to present
a player with a reasonable challenge. What
I personally object to is characterizing
SEIV as a "bad game" or as "buggy". It's a
stable game with good design; and given
MM's business model of continuous-improvement
based-on-feedback, people really ought to
count their blessings. Few games have
developers which care about them like that.

So instead of posting "this AI sucks" or
whatever, try focusing on specific recommend-
ations for what the AI *ought* to do or
exactly how it might be improved to present
a better challenge.

C//

[Instar]

Um, seeing that I am a beta tester, I have to (and I do) read the fix lists.

"so the opinion may change after that time, and I will gladly share mine again."
And I bet they will be so overjoyed to hear it.

[Richard]

*sigh*

Johnathan I never said a word about banning you. I did mention that I thought folks should lighten up and keep the discussion civil. Again I never even mentioned anything about giving you any sort of personal penalty. As far as my timing I didn't really look at this thread until I recieved an email complaint about the tone from one of the forum readers. Once I recieved that I investigated. As far as the BTS forum I read it every day, I ama big Combat Mission fan.

My point is that the game is not "imcomplete". The game could use some work in several areas, the AI being the most noticable. However (as I said earlier) I will take our game and rate it with any other Space based 4X game at time of release made in the Last 5 years.

In any case the point still stands, I have no issue with dissent here, but at the same time I will pop in to give my POV on the matter. Just keep it civil.

------------------
Sarge is coming...

Richard Arnesen
Director of Covert Ops
Shrapnel Games
http://www.shrapnelgames.com