Assumption:

 It's not a bug, it's a gameplay fix.

Hostility:

Ripping the company for caring enough about the game to fix game breaking balance issues?  We get that you don't understand it, and we have no problems explaining why the change was made, but calm down.

You were saying...?

As someone who develops software professionally for a living, I completely support this statement.  Hell, in some outfits you're lucky if the user is  even provided with a decent changelog.

There you go making assumptions again...LOL.  And by the way...when you come out of the gate being rude...you give up your right then and there about calling anyone else rude.

Again...more assumptions from you in your first sentence.  Whether you believe it or not, I am a developer and one of the main things I consider when developing any project is to create it so that it is as easy as possible for the end user.  Not make it so that it requires extensive research to use.

It is a reasonable expectation for anyone who purchases a game to be able to play said game without having his games broken without first being notified and given the option of whether to allow/accept said changes or not.

Hm, looking at the post history, I'd say you were already out of the gate by the time I got there.  It might be time to take your own advice.

If you're looking for some retraction on my original "rude statement", that's fine.  It was inappropriate, and even though I feel strongly that you're being immature on many levels it wasn't the best response.

As I and others have said...you were rude with the "Stop whining" comment.  And since then you clearly haven't read anything else but my first post too try to jusify your rude comment and trolling behavior (which you are failing miserably at btw).  If you care, which I know you don't as you are just trolling...I posted a longer message explaining where my frustration in my first post came from.

And what you describe as "game breaking"...that being, a game play style that you didn't like is not in fact "game breaking"....forcing without notification an update to the game on people that results in.."your saved games are not BROKE and you can't finish them"...IS "game breaking".

Then I suggest you look at the post history a little more closely without your trolling intentions...:)

Breaking a few savegames is a small price to pay for fixing severe balance issues.  I find it hard to understand how you can be so critical of the devs when it comes to a game as complex as this - particularly when by your own admission you haven't actually played for very long.

As with everything...there is always better and there is always worse.  Pointing out the "worse" does not excuse simple oversites by the devs of this game that could have easily been avoided.

I have to assume, which I even stated as such. Without concrete knowledge of who you are and what experience you have there is no other alternative. Typically we must take what most people claim of themselves online as a grain of salt and focus more on the actual issue at hand.

My observations so far based on your comments is you are likely new to software development or have never managed a large scale software deployment across thousands of different systems and configurations.

I'm not sure how much more standard or straightforward Steam can be. But if you want to complain about the features of Steam, of which many do- you should direct those to Steam itself. 

Someone around here has to be.

Yeah, steam really should have an option to prompt users if they want to update their game when an update comes out. To my knowledge though that isn't an option even if Stardock wanted to do that, it seems steam likes to keep everyone on the same version.

Huh, its probably too late now but I would have liked to have seen a replay showing that. I've never seen that in nearly 300 hours of playing, I just assumed the AI was too stupid to realize its starbases could jump and continued to treat it as a normal starbase. Perhaps it really was just the high research requirement all along.

The problem with this is you don't know the conditions under which the devs made the change.  You can't instantly assume that your idea of how things should work is even viable when you have no idea how the codebase works at any level.  Could they have salvaged your savegames?  Maybe.  However if you were a dev, as you claim to be, you'd know there are always a lot of mitigating factors in any fundamental change to a codebase.  It's not always as simple as "I think it should be done this way, so it should have been done this way".

I think more likely it simply wasn't worth the time investment to write migrations for the savegames, and rather than go about introducing more potential bugs they used the method they knew would work.

1.) the "severe balance issues" is an opinion that you have made clear already...but it is still just that ...and opinion.  And not one that is shared by everyone.

2.) as I stated I have only played THIS VERSION of the game for a short period of time but played the original for much longer.

3.)  The amount of time that I have played the game is not even a factor and I paid the same price as everyone else did to play it.  If anything the fact that everyone else was given such a longer period of time to enjoy this aspect of the game makes your argument backwards.

4.) Including a simple text notification during install and or update time giving users the option to allow/accept said updates is a small step to prevent "beaking the savegames" for the people who don't want them broken.

It's called common sense..perhaps you've heard of the concept?

You could grant the AI all research and let it go in the dev.exe.

Now I really wonder how much development experience you have.

Not really sure what comments lead you to that assumptions but to clear up your confusion I've been a software developer for over 15 years.

Or I can complain about the steam requirement imposed on this game that did not previously exist...lol

No, it's a fact.  One that is backed up by many players, and one the devs seem to agree with since they listened to the community.

OK, so lets assume you were on trinity, vanilla, or one of the exapnsions.  You didn't even have phase jumping starbases since they were introduced in rebellion.

Yes, absolutely it's a factor.  The game is complicated, and there's a lot to understand.  If you haven't spent much time experiencing the gameplay you're going to have a hard time understanding why things are the way they are from a balance perspective.

That isn't an issue with ironclad or stardock, it's an issue with steam.  If you don't want steam to send updates automatically, turn automatic updates off.

The irony is you accuse me of trolling.

I am stuck there man... Pot meets Kettle... stoner tea?

It seems that you think that I am calling for a change in the game code when it is clear that it was people like you who called for that in the first place which lead to the changes made.  As I have stated many times, which you should know since you claim to have read the post history.  All I am saying it that a simple text notification should have been included at install and or update time that prompts a user to allow/accept said update.  This is not something would require a "time investment" of more than 5 mins.

About 15 years...now you can stop wondering..lol

+1 LOL

I was more bothered by your lack of insight into software deployments. It implied a lack of experience.

I would probably have some serious issues if you interviewed with that mindset considering the size and scope of the projects I lead.

And 15 years, assuming (again) that this is accurate and doesn't include schooling or when you wrote your first BASIC program would still be less than my own experience by several years. 

I will give you your first Karma for sticking with your opinion at least 

You clearly don't know the difference between a fact and opinion.  Just because you agree with an opinion does not magically transform it into a fact.  A fact is not something that requires the "backing" of anyone and if it did it would require the backing of all players not "many" player.  If not all players "backed this up" then it is clearly an opinion not a fact.

Not at all relevant to the point you have clearly missed.

Again...totally missing the point.

And here is the point that I have been saying all along....there is no notification when you install the game that automatic updates are in fact turned on in the first place.

hmmm lets see...you came into MY thread and clearly want to argue back and forth (apparently for the rest of our lives) about why changes were made to a game and how stupid I apparently am for not agreeing with you when I don't care if the changes where made or not.  I simply would have like the simple option of whether to allow/accept the update or continue to play my single player game without changes that were made for other peoples preferred gameplay.  This would have made everyone happy.  You would have gotten the changes you clearly feel were "badly needed" and could play the game the way you want to play.  And I could have kept the game I downloaded and was enjoying.  Your gameplay would not have affected my gameplay in any way, shape or form and my gameplay would not have affected your game play in any way shape or form.

Well thank you for your unsolicited opinions and assumptions but fortunately I already have a job and have no interest in "interviewing" with you.

And I'll return the favor...developers have to stick together even when they don't see eye to eye...lol