Patch 1.20 - Page 3

MyOlde · March 14, 2004, 08:03

Why the H are we talking about a Civ IV when we got Conquests only a little while ago? Is it really THAT old? Have we really played it THAT much? I've felt that I was just scratching the surface and that when 1.20 (should have been 2.0 by now!) came along I'd get into the game for real.

Mind you I've been busy with Railroad Tycoon 3 for a few months.

DrSpike · March 14, 2004, 09:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Ralph

Wholeheartly agreed.

I always said you were a reasonable chap.

I do feel quite strongly that releasing a second expansion that changes the game obliges the company to spend some time balancing before moving on. Otherwise it would have been preferable IMO to leave PTW and move on, or perhaps just fix the FP model. Except that wouldn't be as profitable I guess.

The Civ3 model (with many new elements) has come so far, mostly with fans acting as beta testers. Now the expansion has made the model even richer, but many of the AI tweaks from PTW are gone, and new tweaks are of course necessary.

JimMac · March 14, 2004, 14:59

Let me also agree with you about something Doc:

Quote:

Originally posted by Doc
Now the expansion has made the model even richer, but many of the AI tweaks from PTW are gone, and new tweaks are of course necessary.

While Jesse has to be thanked unreservedly for his continuing work on C3C, I am thinking of returning to PTW for our MP lan games as C3C 1.20 still seems to miss some of the 'good' tweaks present in PTW; (even ignoring the sub bug.)

Also Jesse, I wouldn't object to more definate confimation that another patch WILL be along to restore the improvements/fixes included with PTW. I'm afraid I'm so insecure that "next steps" doesnt do it for me!

Theseus · March 14, 2004, 15:22

Thanks for the update, Jesse!

Let's get 1.20f ASAP, and then let the community know if there is anything that can be done to help get further fixes in for a later patch. There are, uh, obviously a number of people who'd like to help!

Once again, thanks for the ongoing support... whatever you can do beyond your work on CIV is much appreciated.

Harovan · March 14, 2004, 16:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Doc
I always said you were a reasonable chap.

I do feel quite strongly that releasing a second expansion that changes the game obliges the company to spend some time balancing before moving on. Otherwise it would have been preferable IMO to leave PTW and move on, or perhaps just fix the FP model. Except that wouldn't be as profitable I guess.

The Civ3 model (with many new elements) has come so far, mostly with fans acting as beta testers. Now the expansion has made the model even richer, but many of the AI tweaks from PTW are gone, and new tweaks are of course necessary.

I actually appreciate the ongoing support

and would show standing ovations, if the patches would just do what good little patches are supposed to, and that is fixing game breaking or at least highly annoying bugs. And not tinker around with corruption, and not experiments with the tech tree, and not eliminating entire techs (which was uncalled for, as far as I know).

Antrine · March 14, 2004, 19:35

[QUOTE by Sir Ralph ...And not tinker around with corruption, and not experiments with the tech tree, and not eliminating entire techs (which was uncalled for, as far as I know).][/QUOTE]

Which recks havoc on hours and hours of modding.

Antrine · March 14, 2004, 19:41

I think after this, a lot us here should check ourselves in at the 'positive thinking' clinic for needed therapy.

Rellin · March 15, 2004, 03:09

Where does one apply to beta test Civ4?

Jarred · March 15, 2004, 04:46

Jesse, I just don't agree with that priority-milking the cash cow; yes, I know its unlikely C3C will make more money than it has now, but Civ 3 is STILL not finished after a few years; of course, it is an open game, but we still need a lot added to this game, and I'm not so sure I want to buy civ 4 at this point, as C3C is not old yet...it just doesn't seem like it should be a high priority yet...I think that this game should be completed, because there's no reason it shouldn't be-the engine is good enough, and there is no need for a Civ 4 yet-this strains our computers enough as is.

Fried-Psitalon · March 15, 2004, 08:33

Civ 3 strains your computer?

vmxa1 · March 15, 2004, 12:45

Huge maps with 24 or more civs and lots of water will strain any PC at times.

asleepathewheel · March 15, 2004, 12:53

yeah, I don't have a top of the line machine like Vmxa1, but max civs on huge is rough.

ducki · March 15, 2004, 14:21

Quote:

it just doesn't seem like it should be a high priority yet

Software development cycles are very, very long. 18months is considered rather short for many types of games.

Consider how long the publicly available beta patch process has been going on. Now extrapolate that timeframe to build an entire game (mostly) from scratch - artwork, research, writing/storylines, etc.

For us C3 players, sure, C4 is not a priority, but for a software development company, once you ship, you have to get cranking on the next title. That's why there's 1, maybe two guys working on the actual patch. There's no real revenue potential in a patch. The marketing machine for C3C is dead, so any effort expended here is for the folks that have already paid for the product. This does not take into account customer attitude/goodwill, but the beancounters are not likely to say "let's hold off on C:IV and really get this other 2-year-old game just right" even if the expansion is fairly new.

To the company(and shareholders) revenue is king and there's no revenue in non-subscription-model old releases. Once the box hits the shelf, they have to already be focusing on the next title or start "cost-cutting measures".

Jaybe · March 15, 2004, 14:39

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
Huge maps with 24 or more civs and lots of water will strain any PC at times.

For less strain on such settings, check out CFC-Rhye's of Civilization (for 1.15beta).

Brundlefly · March 15, 2004, 15:11

Unless the main features of Civ4 are a vastly improved AI and a finely balanced game, I'm not buying it. If you want a product that offers you a few new civs or new resources but fails to fix the sub bug and has an AI that continually does stupid things, go right ahead and purchase it. I'm done.

Antrine · March 15, 2004, 15:58

Vanilla is DEAD!!

Long live the great big editor in the sky!

-UNIVERSAL GAME EDITOR
-Access/Programable AI routines (sometimes referred to 'Intelligence')
-A smooth running 'event schedular' or easy to manipulate 'triggers'.

By late this summer this will be on the market and this trend will sweep all vanilla ice cream thinking machines away...

Also add, being better able to manage the 'processing load'.

By the way in one of my 'other' life's, I am a prophet.

Willem · March 15, 2004, 16:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
...and not eliminating entire techs (which was uncalled for, as far as I know).

I agree. There's so many things that could be addressed in the game as is that tinkering with the tech tree at this point seems counterproductive. I'd rather see that time and energy spent on other areas.

Willem · March 15, 2004, 16:50

Quote:

Originally posted by ducki The marketing machine for C3C is dead, so any effort expended here is for the folks that have already paid for the product.

I'm not so sure about that. If an effort was made at issueing expansion packs that really added something to the core game, Firaxis/Atari could still reap some financial benefits.

Personally, I'm not sure at this point whether I'd be interested in a Civ 4 release. I see so many things now that feel unfinished that I don't think I'd be prepared to hand over any more money on a completely new game.

vmxa1 · March 15, 2004, 17:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaybe

For less strain on such settings, check out CFC-Rhye's of Civilization (for 1.15beta).

I am amazed at the effort some have put into their mods. Looks good, but I think I am cured from huge maps for awhile.

BigFree · March 15, 2004, 19:05

Quote:

Originally posted by JesseSmith

* We need to be focused on Civ IV.

Jesse Smith

Producer, Firaxis Games

Let's see...

PTW still has some issues but Firaxis felt it was neccessary to move onto C3C.

C3C still has some issues but Firaxis feels that it should start shifting its focus to Civ IV.

When Civ IV comes out how long will it be before you brush aside its issue's to allow you to "be focused" on the next installment of Civ?

I don't like they way you made things sound at all. "We got our money for Civ 3 already; time to move onto selling Civ IV."

Who else is happy with this? Who else sees this pattern as disturbing?

I know not every piece of software will ever reach perfection, but C3C is needs a lot more TLC before I'll ever consider it done. I promise you it won't be me who won't buy Civ IV, because I'm an addict, but there will be plenty who will be turned of from it because of a bad track record of providing needed/wanted patches/features that will be reported by gaming sites.

Firaxis could be shooting itself in the foot here.

Jarred · March 15, 2004, 22:21

That's my point exactly-I don't see much possible difference for Civ 4, so they better be extremely creative...

And I'm not so sure I want to buy yet another unfinished and never finished game.

Rommel2D · March 16, 2004, 01:20

I have no idea what the state of the code actually is, but the story goes that Civ3 is built upon the code for SMAC, which is built upon the code for Civ2. All this legacy code is supposedly what makes simple changes like fixing the sub bug or adding new editor features a difficult process likely to mess up other parts of the program. I'd suppose the more whinging (thanks for the new word, Doc :-) about these problems here, the more reason Firaxis has to abandon Civ3 and focus on 4 (written from scratch), since it does actually offer alot of promise to break the deathspiral pattern of buggy code and prolonged beta testing.

Word was a couple weeks ago that after the public patch, the next beta would heavily focus on editor enhancements, but Jesse's post could be read to indicate it isn't a big priority anymore. I don't think its Firaxis that's shooting itself in the foot...

I'm trying not to feed the rumor mill , but krikey, some people are taking his message and drawing alot of conclusions from it.

Follow The Gourd!

No, The Shoe! Follow The Shoe!

Harovan · March 16, 2004, 02:54

Most of us have done so the past 2 1/2 years. We have shown a lot of patience. We are those who were called fanboys two years ago. We didn't leave it, we stuck with the game and tried to make the best out of it. So what's the situation now? Conquests looked promising, when it came out. I thought, just a bit and we have the perfect game. The countrary happened. The game has been ruined with rampant corruption, resource scarcity, the stealth units (which play a big role now in the game and especially the conquests) are completely broken, ditto the units with hidden nationality. I still cannot close the game by using my keyboard, even this is broken.

I don't want to "whinge" (what an atrocious new word that is). All I want is a playable, enjoyable game while waiting for Civ4.

Ah well, I have BG2, NWN and many others. And I'm not really waiting for Civ4 anymore.

notyoueither · March 16, 2004, 03:07

Very sorry to hear that, Sir Ralph. I am not really playing ATM. Revisiting MoO3 with patch (call me a glutton if you will

). But not looking forward to the next Civ? I couldn't imagine that.

vmxa1 · March 16, 2004, 03:41

NYE how is it with the patch? I have been trying to get back to try it.

Sir Ralph it is sad to see you not playing.

notyoueither · March 16, 2004, 04:33

It works! It is still hideously complex. I think the complexity is what turned most people off.

The goal was to reduce Micro. The effect was to make it very difficult to figure out what was 'optimal' for any given move. Combined it makes it impossible to build the 'perfect' empire.

However, since it moves generaly in the direction I push it, I feel less frustration. And the matter of the game killing bugs being fixed (that I know of) make it engrossing in all the detail. alexman could lose 5 years in this game, I would warrant.

player1 · March 16, 2004, 04:40

Well, I played MOO3 onlt with patch.
And I liked it.

But, I don't think that's its game for eveyone.

EDIT:
My gripes:
Why are humans so weak?
Why is ship model upgrading such pain?

Harovan · March 16, 2004, 06:22

Speaking of fanboys

, Civ3 could use some votes in the 4th Official Top Games Poll in the Other Games forum. At the moment, CtP2 is in the lead after some heavy advertising, so I have no qualms to advertise here too. I won't vote myself, as I'm too mad at Civ3 at the moment, though I still love it.

MyOlde · March 16, 2004, 08:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem

Personally, I'm not sure at this point whether I'd be interested in a Civ 4 release. I see so many things now that feel unfinished that I don't think I'd be prepared to hand over any more money on a completely new game.

I agree with Willem. If Conquests is the end of the line for Civ3 then that's the game I'll stay with. A few new Civs won't cut it for me.

I'd like to add that, while Civ 3 may be described as a 2-year-old game, PTW and Conquests certainly can't be. I got Conquests last October, pretty close to the time it was released. That's a new game as far as I'm concerned. (In the advertising biz, you can call a product "new" for a year.) If they want to plow ahead with Civ 4, fine, but someone should be left in the shop to make sure the original works as advertised.

player1 · March 16, 2004, 08:59

Well, I'm pretty sure that we won't expect Civ4 before 2006 (or late 2005 at best).

You need more then 2 years to make complete new game.

So there is enough time to play Civ3.