Civ III: Conquests Patch Notice - Page 7

Harovan · December 11, 2003, 19:05

Firaxis/Breakaway don't cease to amaze me. Big thumbs up. It's a pleasure to be your customer. I don't want to say that the changes in combat system were necessarily bad. But they certainly shouldn't be in a beta patch. Changes with a big impact like this should be thoroughly tested. May be it should be made adjustable (the # of rounds being a General Setting).

sabrewolf · December 11, 2003, 19:24

i can picture coracle weaping in the corner
"why didn't they remove culture flipping that soon too?"

:up: great reflexes, firaxis :up:
the code must be well structured to remove the changes just like that

portuguese7 · December 11, 2003, 19:27

According to latest news, this is back:

Personally, I'm sorry to hear that, but if all others think other way...

Catt · December 11, 2003, 19:39

Thank you for listening to fan concerns

Catt

Harovan · December 11, 2003, 19:44

That picture is great, portugese7.

Thoth · December 11, 2003, 19:52

Thanks for listening Firaxis.

(Is anybody taking bets on when the first poster b*tches about streaky combat results after the beta patch is released?

DrSpike · December 11, 2003, 19:58

Wow, changing course like that again in response to fans' concerns is amazing.

portuguese7 · December 11, 2003, 20:06

Being such a big poster at CFC, I have to have a good hand of them...
Enjoy:

Question -

Suspicious -

Need Help -

Chinese -

Xmas -

Skull -

Floppa -

DJ -

New borg -

+1 stupid -

chair -

Job forPope-

Dead Thread-

Hug -

Supporting -

Rant -

Zzz -

Ancient -

Angel -

Dyna -

Dyna animed-

Fidel -

Che Guevara-

Hyppie -

Typing Comp-

Samurai -

WizardDraco-

007 -

Cow Smiley -

9 (cloud) -

SpearVsTank-

More:
Strange and bans-http://forums.tactical-ops.to/misc.p...on=showsmilies
LOTR smileys -http://www.council-of-elrond.com/for...on=showsmilies
Rock and Roll -http://www.gnrforum.com/misc.php?action=getsmilies&s=
(Hope this is not a problem, since it is completelly Off Topic. If this is strongly against the rules here, warn me)

Alex · December 11, 2003, 20:39

These changes were being tested in order to be included in the final patch, which will be released in 2004. We bemoaned about the lack of a patch to fix two important bugs (gpt and fp). They decided to give us a BETA patch, containing fixes for these bugs AND the changes in combat. Note: it is a BETA patch, "feel free to download it at your own risk" type of thing.

Quote:

I don't want to say that the changes in combat system were necessarily bad. But they certainly shouldn't be in a beta patch.

They wouldn't be in a BETA patch because the beta patch wasn't supposed to exist. It is being released because we complained about the bugs (which would be fixed anyway, but only in the second quarter of 2004). They're saying: "hey guys, this is a beta patch, it hasn't been thoroughly tested yet". And we say: "I don't care, I want it, but if there's something wrong with it you're all f***ed up".

Jesse Smith:

Quote:

This was the only way to get a patch posted prior to Christmas. If additional issues present themselves we will make every effort to release another BETA update.

Why to be so afraid of changes? I would be willing to test this change in combat and, if things ended up being bad, I'd just say: "look, this change breaks the combat, could you undo it? Or not include it in the final patch? Thanks."

That's just my 0.02, of course. No hard feelings.

Sarxis · December 11, 2003, 20:42

This is fine by me. Really, the only two things that bug me are the GPT and Corruption bugs (and the fact there's no replay for PBEM).

Also, I'm wondering if there are any plans to spiff up Feudalism. Its really a weak gov.

Catt · December 11, 2003, 21:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Alex
They're saying: "hey guys, this is a beta patch, it hasn't been thoroughly tested yet". And we say: "I don't care, I want it, but if there's something wrong with it you're all f***ed up".

This is the second or third time you've posted along these lines -- what are you seeing that I am not in this thread. To my eye, the vast majority (not all, but the vast majority) of the thread consisted of "thanks a bunch" followed by cogently, calmly stated concerns about the proposed change to combat. Unless my radar is not working at all, you seem to be saying that constructive criticism = **** you!

Quote:

Why to be so afraid of changes?

It is not a question of fear. Certain players feel they have a very good understanding about how the various game concepts, including combat, interact. The proposed changes were entirely straightforward mathematically and easily reduced to hard numbers. The extent of the potential ingame changes introduced by the nature of the change was debateable, but some players felt pretty confident that at least some of the ingame effects were entirely predictable and detracted from gameplay unless extensive other changes were made.

Quote:

I would be willing to test this change in combat and, if things ended up being bad, I'd just say: "look, this change breaks the combat, could you undo it? Or not include it in the final patch? Thanks."

Would you care to test the following changes: (1) all mountains and hills are impassable to all units; (2) strategic and luxury resrouces are disabled; (3) all units except for warriors require a certain (disabled) resource; and (4) you may not build settlers? Certainly you wouldn't want to spend much time testing this, right? You can see just by looking at the changes that the game perhaps wouldn't offer the same depth as an unmodded game of Civ 3? The above example is of course silly and extreme - the point is that some players feel they are more than competent enough with the basic game functionality to comment on likely ingame effects of the proposed combat changes. You may disagree and you may also be willing to play with the proposed change yourself. That doesn't make others' criticsm equate to a "**** you!" nor does it indicate any sort of "fear of change" among other posters.

By all means express your opinion on the issue - but no need to again jump into the discussion only to harp on others for expressing their reasoned opinions of the effects of the proposed changes.

Catt

ducki · December 11, 2003, 22:36

Quote:

Originally posted by OPD
It would be interesting if it were to come into play only when units from different classes are fighting.
So cav vs spears, tanks vs spears, pikes etc are less random but horse vs spear remains the same......

Hmmm.... so:
----
int nNumRolls = 1;
nNumRolls = nNumRolls + abs(GetAttackerAgeIndex() - GetDefenderAgeIndex());

Roll(nNumRolls);
----

I like it.

MrWhereItsAt · December 11, 2003, 22:36

I think I understand what Alex is getting at - Al, you have made your point, and I'm sure you'll agree, that, if you see someone starting to edge towards irritation at the same point, then it might be time to let it alone, just for a while. Trust me, as I have recently come close to this with the "When do we have AU?" poll. No hard feelings, but if we leave it then those who may get annoyed don't have to.

Common ground: thanks to Firaxis and Breakaway for listening to us and doubtless many others on sites all over the place. I doubt that we convinced you to reverse the beta patch change on our own, but this is pretty clear indication that we are being watched here, and actually paid attention to, when we are being serious about it all!

Jeem · December 11, 2003, 22:52

Quote:

Also, I'm wondering if there are any plans to spiff up Feudalism. Its really a weak gov.

Not to mention completely different from what the manual states!

However, I don't think it's all that weak. You get the 3 policing units and can still safely hit a golden age knowing that you'll get a big benefit. The main difference between Feudalism and Monarchy is that you now don't need to research Monarchy in order to have a decent government - that's a BIG bonus. Feudalisms own Despotisms in every way and it's a viable step up from Despotism which fits quite nicely within the game parameters I think.

You don't want to be stuck on it for ages by any means.

Vince278 · December 12, 2003, 00:40

Quote:

Originally posted by portuguese7
-[IMG]
http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads2/cloud9.gif[/IMG]

Cloud nine? Looks like a smilie passing gas.

Theseus · December 12, 2003, 01:22

I am... impressed.

No, more than that.

A long time ago, with the earliest C3 patches, I made the argument that we are entering a new era of technology, where the evolution of products is the result of a "conversation" between developers and customers / fans.

I don;t think the concept was very well received at the time, as with the advent of the Internet the general wisdom was that developers were pushing out buggy products and releasing iterative and easily distributable patches just to make up for flaws.

Well, that may have been somewhat true, of course, but I maintain this is an evolution, and that Firaxis is getting ahead of the curve.

"Pre-release beta patch fan critiquing" is quite the concept... and Civ is the perfect game for it. As someone on CFC said, there have been PHDs all over the world secretly ignoring their work and focusing on the impacts of a change of 1 to 4 iterations in the combat model!! How many FPS fan communities can be expected to do the same?

KUDOS, Firaxis, for trying to understand how to do 'this' (i.e., customer involved development) better, and having the guts to do it! I am not aware of any major commercial software developers that are so far along as you in this approach (not including small community stuff like Mathematica, nor of course the open sourcers).

As a matter of interest: As indicated by Mike B., it seems you all were not expecting the explosion of commentary on this issue... I assume some of you have been monitoring this thread and its equal at CFC... what in the varied postings triggered the decision not to include the change in this first patch? (if you can answer)

Again, THANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOU, you guys ROCK!! Everything: C3, patches, PTW, patches, C3C, beta patch, revised beta patch, final patch, Civ4 in the planning... my god, my first three children are gonna be named Firaxis Podos, Breakaway Podos, and Atari Podos (well, we'll see what Amy has to say.

).

Oh, and one more thing...

Any thoughts on Marine+Berserk Armies?

notyoueither · December 12, 2003, 01:59

This is good.

I wonder if it would be good to have a beta crew left to tackle changes like averaged combat and vet them before release?

Theseus · December 12, 2003, 02:35

I'd volunteer for that (like I volunteered for the C3C beta... and WASN'T included

).... I was actually starting to get intrigued from a non-warmongering Seven Pillars standpoint.

Sarxis · December 12, 2003, 03:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Jeem

You don't want to be stuck on it for ages by any means.

The one thing that scares me about Feudalism is the 3gpt upkeep of units. Yeah, you are going to get a few free ones with your towns, but the whole point of the 3gpt was it would be offset by the free improvment maintenance.

Its just scary.

Tiberius · December 12, 2003, 04:21

Quote:

Originally posted by portuguese7
Personally, I'm sorry to hear that, but if all others think other way...

You are not the only one

I have the feeling that most of people don't want the change because it'd change their style of playing, their good old strategies and tactics that worked so far. It doesn't really matter whether this is good or not, it is just: "Oh My God, what will happen now with my horse rush?"

Since it is a beta patch, it'd have made sense to test this new combat model.
I hope that for the final patch they will make it a general option in the game preferences.

DrSpike · December 12, 2003, 05:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Catt

It is not a question of fear. Certain players feel they have a very good understanding about how the various game concepts, including combat, interact. The proposed changes were entirely straightforward mathematically and easily reduced to hard numbers. The extent of the potential ingame changes introduced by the nature of the change was debateable, but some players felt pretty confident that at least some of the ingame effects were entirely predictable and detracted from gameplay unless extensive other changes were made.

Stuie · December 12, 2003, 10:35

Quote:

Originally posted by MarkG
from Jesse (via mail)
The change to the combat system has been cut from the v1.10 Patch

i suppose they'll work more on it for the final patch

Honestly I wouldn't mind if they had kept the change, but reduced the "die rolls" to two for averaging instead of four. Better yet, just make it available in the editor. But maybe that's what they now have in mind.

Now just remember, keep you submarines covered!

Alex · December 12, 2003, 10:50

Quote:

This is the second or third time you've posted along these lines

Sorry to annoy you all. As MWIA said, one has to know the moment when it's wiser to silence about something. I'm silencing now.

Quote:

It is not a question of fear. Certain players feel they have a very good understanding about how the various game concepts, including combat, interact. The proposed changes were entirely straightforward mathematically and easily reduced to hard numbers. The extent of the potential ingame changes introduced by the nature of the change was debateable, but some players felt pretty confident that at least some of the ingame effects were entirely predictable and detracted from gameplay unless extensive other changes were made.

I understand your point. It is a valid one.

Quote:

By all means express your opinion on the issue - but no need to again jump into the discussion only to harp on others for expressing their reasoned opinions of the effects of the proposed changes.

Never wanted to offend anyone. Maybe I've exaggerated some things, but it was just to highlight my position. Peace.

Quote:

I think I understand what Alex is getting at - Al, you have made your point, and I'm sure you'll agree, that, if you see someone starting to edge towards irritation at the same point, then it might be time to let it alone, just for a while.

Doing it now.

Quote:

I have the feeling that most of people don't want the change because it'd change their style of playing, their good old strategies and tactics that worked so far. It doesn't really matter whether this is good or not, it is just: "Oh My God, what will happen now with my horse rush?"

Since it is a beta patch, it'd have made sense to test this new combat model.
I hope that for the final patch they will make it a general option in the game preferences.

Totally agree with you. You expressed it much better than I did.

Just so people don't think I'm an ungrateful bastard, I'd like to say "thank you Firaxis and Breakaway for all the incredible support and for listening to the community".

jshelr · December 12, 2003, 10:57

Let me just state that Catt's comment is right on this issue, leaving out the usual polite IMO.

As a matter of perspective on game realism, I'm from the Vietnam generation. You know, the generation that fought the backward South East Asians using our overwhelming technological superiority. They didn't have a chance, although I wish someone had told them that.

Let the spearman win once in a while. It is realistic, not to mention more fun and produces the game balance Catt is talking about.

Dominae · December 12, 2003, 11:48

I agree.

Once I first played Civ3, the two things that struck me as great gameplay design decisions were: 1) Settlers cost 2 pop, and 2) no Firepower (or whatever it was called in Civ2...gee it's been a long time).

As your tech lead increases, the odds are appropriately in your favor to win battles given what's good for gameplay. That's all I need. If I lose a Tank to a Spearmen, I deal with it, knowing that I've got more Tanks in reserve (usually in this situation my opponent does not have a superior economic base that will overwhelm my Tank offensive with swarms of Spearmen).

Dominae

Tiberius · December 12, 2003, 12:01

The vietnamese didn't win because two or three vietnamese spearmen randomly won against two or three american tanks. They've won because of the advantegeous a civ fighting for his own homeland has against an invader. (which btw was addressed by Firaxis, in certain limits).

That being said, I'm OK with the combat model as it is. I know that odd results do happen in real life too, now and then. I don't have the slightest complain about it when playing against the AI. I am able to defeat it with or without luck. However, I do have a problem with the RNG since I am playing PBEM. To quote somebody I am fighting against:

Quote:

I have never known anyone to have such bad luck with the RNG

Having a few turns of bad luck when playing against humans can be game-breaking.

Why would the new rules detract from gameplay is beyond me. I have no means to prove it whatsoever, but I am confident that if the new, now withdrawn model, had been applied from the very beginning of civ3, the crowd now asking for its withdrawal would have asked to keep it.

Just my 2 cents, and by no means am I whining. It is great that Firaxis and Breakaway listened to the community. It's fantastic, really. I am just sad that those who were hoping in a less random combat model are in a minority. (and I maintain my opinion that for most of the new model's opponents it is the natural, human emotion of fear from change).

vmxa1 · December 12, 2003, 12:16

I do not see how making the out come of a given combat more predicatable would hurt game play. Weither or not the proposed change would accomplish that is another story.
I would be very happy to see any smoothing of the RNG. It would make sense and help demo games.
I doubt it would stop the spear thing or any such odd ball out comes completely and that is fine.

Arrian · December 12, 2003, 12:25

I'd like to add my voice to the chorus thanking Firaxis for listening to its fanbase (both by agreeing to release a beta patch at all, and they pulling the combat change - which did seem a little extreme - for now).

Thanks!

-Arrian

RobC · December 12, 2003, 13:25

It's great that Firaxis & Breakaway listen to their fans, although I personally would have loved to at least try it out...perhaps in the next patch (assuming there's another before the 'final' patch) we can get the 'adjustable variance' setting that Brian and I suggested so people can try it out for themselves...

SpencerH · December 12, 2003, 14:08

For a period of about 1/2 hr I was thinking of buying C3C today. Its $15 and a beta patch is coming soon. Great! On top of that there will be changes to the 'combat streakiness' (which pisses me off no end) I dont mind losing a cav to a spearman once in a while, but for my money it happens too often and with not enough HP loss to the uberspearman. Now, the changes to combat are on hold and so is my purchase

Let me contribute this to the discussion though. Is there a way to use the combat averaging idea to bring back the firepower concept from civ2.

ancient unit v ancient unit no averaging
ancient unit v middle age unit average of 2
ancient unit v industrial age unit average of 3
ancient unit v modern age unit average of 4

etc

How would such changes effect the game?