Disappointing PFO email from Stardock Support team

...and then, the opposite from another team member?

from Stardock Forums

Just received this from Stardock via email:

XXXX XXXXX [email protected]

2:05 PM (3 hours ago)

Hello,

Sorry to hear you are having trouble.

Your question \ observation seems valid, however, it is more of the game play \ mechanic nature and not one that seems related to the game actually working. Support primarily is utilized for installation, multimedia and product failure issue. For your issues, you would be best served by posting in the products respective forum as other experienced players and monitoring developers alike would be better suited to answer them.

Please let us know if you should have any further questions/concerns.

XXXX XXXXX

Technical Advisor

Stardock Corporation

https://www.stardock.com 

 

Ticket Details

Ticket ID: UFU-619-47650

Department: GalCiv III - SDGame

Type: Gameplay

Status: Closed

Helpdesk: https://esupport.stardock.com/index.php?

 

Well that's insulting, considering the original post of this thread, titled "Worthless Carriers and Customer Complaint" got no reply from Stardock at all after a full week. The feature of the game is clearly not functioning as intended. This piece of software is a game, and the gameplay elements are its features, so submitting a bug report on a broken feature seems reasonable to me. I expected that Stardock would appreciate having easily reproduceable defects reported to them.

Next in my inbox was the following response to another bug that I reported. My original defect report was:

(Playing on version 2.31.4)

I promoted one of my Commanders to a Privateer. The promotion happened, and the citizen is now labeled as a Privateer, but nothing else happened. I didn't get my new "pirate ship", and the Commander is still in the fleet and still on a regular command ship.

I also attached a savegame file. This is the response I received today:

YYYYY,

Thank you for this. Do you think you could produce a video of it? Jing is a free application you can use to do just that:

http://www.techsmith.com/jing.html

Thanks,

-

XXXX XXXXXX

Support Manager

Now THAT'S what I was expecting! They acknowledge my request, would like me to provide a video clip that shows the defect occur, include a link to a capture utility if I need one, and thank me for the bug report.

I don't mind taking a break from my gaming to report a bug if I think it will help the developers address problems more easily. There's nothing in it for me, other than a chance at seeing bugs fixed in a game that I'm interested in. That first response was rather discouraging.

15,951 views 7 replies
Reply #1 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

With various support ticketing systems I've used, support has to ask the customer for permission to close the ticket.   And then if you have the occasional PITA customer who refuses to close the ticket unless you give him the game for free and start the game with 1000000bc, there is an escalation process.  The team has weekly meetings with a spreadsheet of open tickets on the projector, and for long-open tickets, the manager asks for an update.   These "you're stupid.  Case closed" incidents simply don't happen.  

Reply #2 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Oh hey, thanks for trying to champion my "cause". I wouldn't worry about it too much. The issue is already kind of "resolved" to me; as I said I won't be purchasing Stardock products until they are at cheap bargain basement prices on Steam from now on. Their games are enjoyable, but the quality is not worth a premium price anymore. Just my opinion. It really doesn't matter to me if anybody from the company responds.

 

Thanks for trying to fight the good fight though, thumbs up to you sir.

 

The Political Machine 2024
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top

I did hear back from Stardock about this post, and the related support tickets that I had submitted. In short, it was a friendly email that gave me the impression that Stardock is working on open defects with Galciv III.

Here is the latest update in the ticket that I submitted regarding the Assault Carrier module bug:

Hey XXXXX,

Response from our dev:

+ Removed the Interstellar drives, and life support from spawned fighters (They do not need or use them), to stop assault fighters from spawning as Guardians.

Please let me know if you have any further questions/concerns.

Reply #4 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Am I missing something?   Carrier fighters don't need hyperdrive or life support--true--but shouldn't the game hard-code assault fighters as assault?  Regardless of the modules in them? 

Reply #5 from Stardock Forums Top

I think its related to the default role that a ship is assigned in the designer. Seems based on the components you put on the ship model. Maybe hardcoding the role isn't easy for them to code? Just a guess.

Reply #6 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting ProudCanadian, reply 5

I think its related to the default role that a ship is assigned in the designer. Seems based on the components you put on the ship model. Maybe hardcoding the role isn't easy for them to code? Just a guess.
End of ProudCanadian's quote

You are correct it is based on the components (and other.. hull size).  It is hard coded that way based on value, defense and threat.  I believe it is well documented in the wiki

Reply #7 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting tetleytea, reply 4

Am I missing something?   Carrier fighters don't need hyperdrive or life support--true--but shouldn't the game hard-code assault fighters as assault?  Regardless of the modules in them? 
End of tetleytea's quote

This is the way it should work. The value, threat, fortitude system is pointless and just creates weird results.

Good that they finally removed those modules, but the real issue is the weapons assigned. If they don't fix that they don't understand what the problem is.