Ascendancy Antagonizer note (from the publisher)
Rob C. Johnson
Besides all the insults, mudslinging, and flaming, there were
a few good points there.
1) Yes, the micromanagement is a big problem.
2) Yes, finding that last unautoed square is a pain. But then,
why do you need to? No special effects happen if the planet is
totally automated after all.
3) Yes, the computer still doesn't use automation and research
party. No idea why.
A couple you left out:
4) The strategic AI doesn't go all out colonizing like I do.
Note that even a worthless tiny planet can be worth a ruin or
allowing me to build another ship in my fleet.
5) I'd like to be able to disable the 2/3rds win, since you
can win that way despite not actually colonizing anything.
6) I'd like some of the implied win conditions mentioned in
the racial descriptions to be possible.
7) From what the folks at Logicfactory have said, and Todd,
it seems to me they didn't intend Ascendency to be a space
conquest game. Huh!? I mean, Huh!? I wouldn't mind if it
wasn't a space conquest game, I like non conquest space games,
but I can't find anything else to do in Ascendency, so what
the heck do y'all mean? Especially considering #6 I just
mentioned... The only winning condition not covered by MOO
is the own all homeworlds one, and Moo allows you to choose
not to win and go on to kill folks more. Enlightenment
would be appreciated.
Rob Johnson at rcjo...@prairienet.org
Beowulf92
Templeman ) writes:
>I don't know if that clears anything up at all, and I do think you guys
>took excessive offense at my last post (on a different thread), but
>fire away, I'll read when I can.
Let's at least pause to give Todd some credit: he does stand in there and
take the blows, even if we are dissatisfied with The Logic Factory's
product. I respect his patience.
Beowulf92
Robert Baumann
Thank you for reading our message group and replying to some of our
harsh feedback. I have spent several hours trying to find a differenct
between the Antagonizer and the regular game and I have noticed a
doubling of indurstrial output and research as well as an increase in
hostility. All three of these increases are hard to quantify so if the
actual increase is different please dont be offended. Let me assure you
that I am using the Antag.exe file to run the game. Without the
Antagonizer, a player should have 80-90 percent of the galactic economy
by day 1000(hostile universe, standard size,5 opponents) got 80 percent
my very first game and 91 percent my second game. considering how weak
the computer is in tactical combat you can see that there is no possible
challenge to be found without giving some advantage to the AI-possibly
as much as a 3 to 4 times multiplyer. With the Antagonizer I controled
about 65% of the galactic economy by turn 930-which is when I got tired
of druging through the planet management. I've heard that the
Antagonizer is 50K larger than the standard Ascend.exe(havent checked
personally) but I find it hard to believe that ratcheting up the
production and hostility took 50K. If your two month effort was spent
trying to improve the tactical combat of the computer, your efforts were
largely wasted since there is little improvement in the new version.
What really sucks the life out of this game is the lack of a decent auto
planet manager(the AI version is slightly better but nothing to crow
about). Why doesnt it produce research or hospitality when it runs out
of free pop? Why doesnt it automate something? A few lines of code in
this area would have helped the AI immensely without the Whining and
sniviling about AI cheats. It really drags when you have to spend 20-30
minutes every game day to manage your planets. With 6 menu changes for
every build/upgrade/automate we're talking about600-1000 menu changes
per planet with about 140 planets plus.(this doesnt even include all the
scrolling through the production menus for every build!!) Also
searching for an un-automated square(there is no marking to indicate
which squares have already been automated) will take an extra minute or
two as your click 10-20 times trying to find a square that hasnt been
automated. Actually this game certainly looks like it was shoved out
the door to make the deadline since the two items not finished in the
demo(AI and auto planet manager) were only marginally finished in the
full version. While you got the only on-time, bug free release in
several years most everyone feels that you have left the game
un-finished and certainly a lot less than it should be. While I believe
you may have read what was posted here and on your website I think you
are kidding yourself if you think you are listioning or you could have
easily put out the antagonizer a lot faster and the public would also
have noticed more than the ai cheats. You have responded to all hostile
posts with scarcasm and insults and done little to answer the issues
addressed in the posts. I posted three times to your website and none
of my comments was ever posted there since they were less than glowing
praise. Computer gamers in general are in the upper 20% of education
and IQ and when weeks of negative public reviews cause you to issue
messages like"we are considering issuing a patch if the public feels it
is warrented" the public starts to feel like you are jerking us around.
Outpost was roasted by the public and outpost 2 is really going to have
an uphill battle. Dont let your next game be fighting that uphill
battle.
_ _ ---------------------------------------------------------------
|_|_| PC-OHIO PCBoard OIS pcohio.com HST 16.8: 216-381-3320
|_|_| The Best BBS in America Cleveland, OH V34+ 33.6: 216-691-3030
---------------------------------------------------------------
DBLUMGART
To begin with, I want to thank Logic Factory for investing unpaid time
and sweat in developing the Antagonizer module. I wish I could say that
it allows Ascendancy to achieve its potential to rank with Civilization
and Master of Orion, but I'm afraid it does not.
It is obvious that LF put a lot of care and thought into Ascendancy,
with some very startling, interesting races and technologies, and great
graphics and music. But the first thing a strategy game must do is
challenge the player to think. Ascendancy's computers opponents, even
with Antagonizer upgrade, fail that test. The patch does help; I can see
definate improvement, but if the player can get the smallest foothold the
COs are simply no match for even the most modestly capable player.
I understand Logic Factory is a small company with limited resources,
and must focus a few things, or even just one thing, at a time. But as
things stand today, it is my sad judgement that the care and talent you
invested in Ascendancy over the last few years will have gone for nothing,
so serious is the play balance flaw. Might it not be better (and more
profitable) to invest just a little more and make this game into the true
classic it could be? You can see Ascendancy's potential so clearly,
glittering just out of reach.
In closing I'll remind you that SimTex released three patches for Master
of Orion (and Magic) before they felt they had achieved what they wanted.
For their efforts they were rewarded with continous and steady sales that
extend to this day. In the state it's in now, I'm afraid Ascendancy is
fated for the $10 bins this time next year.
But I'm not sorry I bought Ascendancy, even as it stands. If it's a
failure, its a magnificient faliure.
David Blumgart
DBLUMGART
>It seems that the automatic management of planets needs some work.
>I think that would be the single, most significant, improvement since
>that would help the AI as well. If that were fixed, I think that you
>would have the best game of '95.
You've nailed it right on the head. If LF could fix planetary
management, (and help the CO's expand more than they do) they'd fix the
game. Hope they're listening.
David Blumgart
Todd Templeman
Hi Robert:
Thanks for the note and your sincerity is apparent and appreciated.
The reason I almost never respond to harsh or positive critiques is
because they, even when presented with reason and good argument, are
still matters of opinion. The first time I posted on this newsgroup a
couple of months ago I asked for some advice from anyone who cared to
give it. The most consistent and common advice was to avoid responding
to critiques and concentrate on posting purely factual information.
Now I know I didn't follow that advice to a T, but I have been doing my
best to only post announcements and/or general statments about my point
of view. When it comes to gaming details there are a few reasons why I
don't get involved:
-As much as I crave to respond to the harsh criticisms, I have to let
the game stand on its own and take its licks. If it's a good game then
there will be others who can argue for the game, without a bias on
their part (that last part is absolutely the biggest reason I try to
stay out of it).
-You guys are our core audience, but other than PR, since we're a small
company, I have to wear a lot of hats. I'm currently working on moving
our customer support to new offices and beefing it up in every way.
Also working on distribution in any country that doesn't yet have the
game, researching the best way to port the game to Win 95 and Mac etc.
etc. etc. It's all a blast by the way, so this isn't complaints, it's
just that I really am unable to respond to each comment or question on
the board. As you know, there get to be so many repeats.
-If I did break down and respond, there is no doubt in my mind that I
would be starting a long debate. This is an opinionated crowd (which
is great) and I'm opinionated too. If I tried to engage in a debate my
arguments would always hold less water than someone who wasn't biased,
defending the game from the same position as anyone else who is
attacking it.
So I do read this group, and I know I'm not responding to many of your
comments above, and I hope you understand.
Well that's it, I hope it makes sense. I am honestly surprised that
you think my responses to the harsh criticism have been full of sarcasm
and insults. I mean, maybe a little sarcasm, but definitely no
intented insults.
And I really gotta run...
Good luck!
Todd
Rhonda Wilson
:
: Let's at least pause to give Todd some credit: he does stand in there and
: take the blows, even if we are dissatisfied with The Logic Factory's
: product. I respect his patience.
Yes! Thanks for listening Todd.
There is much about the game to be
proud of. I especially love the system display. I never liked that
in MOO, a star system == a planet. I like having a unique mix of
planets in every system. It makes them more interesting and fun to
explore.
It seems that the automatic management of planets needs some work.
I think that would be the single, most significant, improvement since
that would help the AI as well. If that were fixed, I think that you
would have the best game of '95.
--
Rhonda rho...@hpdml92.boi.hp.com
"And now I'm serving time for mistakes made by another, in another
lifetime."
{Emily Saliers}
Roberto Ullfig
|> Beowulf92 (beow...@aol.com) wrote:
|> :
|> : Let's at least pause to give Todd some credit: he does stand in there and
|> : take the blows, even if we are dissatisfied with The Logic Factory's
|> : product. I respect his patience.
|>
|> Yes! Thanks for listening Todd.
|>
|> There is much about the game to be
|> proud of. I especially love the system display. I never liked that
|> in MOO, a star system == a planet. I like having a unique mix of
|> planets in every system. It makes them more interesting and fun to
|> explore.
|>
|> It seems that the automatic management of planets needs some work.
|> I think that would be the single, most significant, improvement since
|> that would help the AI as well. If that were fixed, I think that you
|> would have the best game of '95.
|>
|> --
According to the interview with the designer, on their web page, the auto
planet management was *intentionally* made to be inefficient as it currently
is. The reason was to make it "realistic" or something like that.
--
Roberto Ullfig - ull...@fnrobo.fnal.gov
monkeyman
> I posted three times to your website and none
>of my comments was ever posted there since they were less than glowing
>praise.
This implies that the Logic Factory is editing out unfavorable comments
from the "Comments" section of the Web site. This is absolutely UNTRUE.
We do not edit the comments except to fix line feed problems. Also,
when the comments file gets unreasonably large for download times, we
move it to the "Old Comments" section. If you have posted three times,
then there must be some error.
Be careful in your accusations please.
jp
Timothy Burke
Ullfig) wrote:
> According to the interview with the designer, on their web page, the auto
> planet management was *intentionally* made to be inefficient as it currently
> is. The reason was to make it "realistic" or something like that.
Yeah, so I've heard. I don't believe it for a second, of course.
Timothy Burke
(DBLUMGART) wrote:
> Dear Mr. Templeton:
>
> To begin with, I want to thank Logic Factory for investing unpaid time
> and sweat in developing the Antagonizer module. I wish I could say that
> it allows Ascendancy to achieve its potential to rank with Civilization
> and Master of Orion, but I'm afraid it does not.
>
> It is obvious that LF put a lot of care and thought into Ascendancy,
> with some very startling, interesting races and technologies, and great
> graphics and music. But the first thing a strategy game must do is
> challenge the player to think. Ascendancy's computers opponents, even
> with Antagonizer upgrade, fail that test. The patch does help; I can see
> definate improvement, but if the player can get the smallest foothold the
> COs are simply no match for even the most modestly capable player.
What he said. I appreciate the work put into the game and the patch, and
it produced a game which for the first hour I played it, I was in love
with. After that, though, it was a real turn-off, even with the
Antagonizer patch, which, as DBlumgart says, helps a bit. It helps in
terms of making the computer more aggressive, perhaps a bit smarter
strategically (though not particularly tactically). It doesn't help in
terms of relieving the burden of micromanagement or helping the computer
to manage planets any better. And the tactical combat system, with its
restriction to 1 action per round, is still so deeply flawed as to
approach unplayability.
I bought Ascendency from Egghead after having read William Trotter's
review in -PC Games-. I figured it would be good enough not to have to
return. I'm regretting that decision now. (I'm not going to be reading -PC
Games- any more in the future. One quasi-corrupt review is all the chance
you get in this marketplace, as far as I'm concerned. I haven't read
-Strategy Plus- since their positive two-issue review of Outpost, which
incidentally happened to precede a major advertising supplement from
Sierra).
What frustrates me is that this is a game which could have achieved
greatness. You can *see* the potential in every second it's up on the
screen. In a genre crowded with good games, this might have been the best
or one of the best. But as it stands--even with the patch--it's not even a
competitor.
I appreciate that you guys are a small company and that you need to
balance your time and effort carefully. But in this marketplace, your
premiere game has *got* to be a real winner, particularly if you're going
to pick a genre where your competitors include the still-very-playable
Master of Orion. Ascendency just doesn't measure up. Unless another two or
three months of design work would have been the difference between you and
bankruptcy, it would have been worth your while to hold on to the game a
bit further and address these problems. Unless, of course, you never
noticed these problems until you released the game. If that's the case,
you need better playtesters.
an22...@anon.penet.fi
I think the outcry of negative response to this game is mostly a
result of it's potential. Everyone thinks the game is on the verge
of greatness. The graphics and screen layout is very good. We are
all frustrated that you are not going to fix the many problems. You
just can't say you think it's OK as is. Nobody believes that.
ie...
Only one of my five ships and 3 planets gets to fire during a turn.
Automanage builds a hundred planitary defense systems instead of
factories.....
You get the point, the game (with the Antagonizer) is decided in the
first few hundred moves, if you get established the AI is defeated.
The game has never beat me on any setting.
Don't let you company get the reputation of putting out a crappy
product. If you have been around cuputer games long you know the
reputation of a company is VERY important to the buyers.
If you want to sell another software product some day, tell us you
are fixing this one!
>Hi Robert:
>Good luck!
>Todd
Mul...@FBI.gov
The Truth Is Out There.
Trust No One!
Robert Baumann
planet management by the AI. AI doesnt colonize as fast as a human
because there are no resources to colonize with. Even late in the game
AI home worlds rarely have an industry above 10! Weak AI challenge-AIU
cant afford to buy enough or good ships. AI behind on research-not a
good enough economy to keep up with the human. It takes 30-40 minutes
to manage 1 days worth ofcolonies(I had 130 colonies at turn 1050)
meaning it takes days of playing to get your ships from one end of the
galaxy to the other(thats real days not game days!). You dont dare
auto-manage your planets as they will even rip up your factorys to buidl
tractor beams and observation posts ant then shut off production
completely. Logic Factory is complaining about limited resources but
they added 50K worth of code trying to improve things OTHER than the
planet management and got zero results other than ratcheting up the AI
industry and Research. I 'm sure that didnt take 2 months to program.
despite HUNDREDS of posts they refused to do what was needed when
hundreds of people were screaming in thier face and printing it in bold
letters. If these guys werent so stubborn they wouldnt have every one
picking on them.
Old Man
: In article <49d8ni$c...@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>, to...@ix.netcom.com (Todd
: Templeman ) writes:
: >I don't know if that clears anything up at all, and I do think you guys
: >took excessive offense at my last post (on a different thread), but
: >fire away, I'll read when I can.
: take the blows, even if we are dissatisfied with The Logic Factory's
: product. I respect his patience.
I respect his patience also. But I also notice the fact that in his
posts he never addresses the bugs that almost every player mentions, the
buggy AI, micromangagement, etc. Instead of discussing these issues and
why they exist and if any efforts were to be made to improve them, he
doggedly evades the questions and instead chooses to focus on who is
laying the blame.
--
"All sentient beings are created unequal. | Email: old...@cyberverse.com
The best society provides each with equal | Web: http://
opportunity to float at his/her own level." | www.cyberverse.com/~oldman/
- The Dosadi Experiment |
an22...@anon.penet.fi
either.
There must indeed be some kind of problem, i wonder what it is!
jp...@eden.com (monkeyman) wrote:
Jason Decker
> Logic Factory is complaining about limited resources but
>they added 50K worth of code trying to improve things OTHER than the
>planet management and got zero results other than ratcheting up the AI
>industry and Research.
The Antagonizer, I think, does a fair job of increasing the performance of
planetary management for both the CO and the player. I know it doesn't fix
everything, but once you get a planet started, switching to automanage doesn't
exactly shoot you in the foot.. Have you noticed that CO's use tractor beams,
and hide their planets with cloakers?? It shows that there was more to the
planet management patch than just cranking up productions for CO's..
JD
Jacob Daniel Walter
: In <49t0ag$d...@brionne.cyberverse.com> old...@brionne.cyberverse.com
: >I respect his patience also. But I also notice the fact that in his
: the
: >buggy AI, micromangagement, etc. Instead of discussing these issues
: and
: >why they exist and if any efforts were to be made to improve them, he
: >doggedly evades the questions and instead chooses to focus on who is
: >laying the blame.
: >--
: > "All sentient beings are created unequal. | Email:
: old...@cyberverse.com
: >The best society provides each with equal | Web: http://
: >opportunity to float at his/her own level." |
: www.cyberverse.com/~oldman/
: > - The Dosadi Experiment |
: After reading everyone's gripes about Ascendancy, I'm glad I waited.
: I'm also glad I ignored the "best thing since sliced bread" rating PC
: Gamer gave Ascendancy. Now I know it's a safe bet to wait for Master of
: Antares.
: Damien
Safe bat? We are talking about the MicroProse playtesters, right? :)
JUST REMEMBER, it could turn out worse than Ascendancy.
BTW, I like Ascendancy, but not for it's strageic parts (It's got alot of
good stuff in there, but it needs another few months of devlopment).
Jake
--
******************************************************************************
"If Jesus came back to earth today and found out that Pat Robertson was
his spokesman, 42% of all americans believe we'd all be in big trouble"
-TV Nation Poll
******************************************************************************
Jake Walter: ja...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu
******************************************************************************
THIS SPACE FOR RENT (just as long as the ad does not include the words
make, money, or fast).
Damien
ryokan
Too bad.
You are missing a great game.
Why not play the demo for free and see for yourself?
Try it.
You may change your mind....
ryokan