Where is the Patch? - Page 3

vmxa1 · March 9, 2004, 13:08

All the beta patches were fine by me. I mean they were aimed at players that are on top of the game and the web. So tossing out several is no big deal. Those that would have problems with that are well advised to stay away from beta patches.

It was not very long before they came out with 1.15 and all previous beta patches could be ignored.

While I will be happy to see the next patch, it is not so important that a few more weeks is critical.

player1 · March 9, 2004, 15:11

The thing is that official patch would be over in late february if plan was to keep it same as beta 1.15.

Remember, it takes a month to switch from beta to final, if you don't change the code.

Then we would get same old 1.15 with official stamp.

Better to let them work on it a little bit more and get something better then official 1.15.

DrSpike · March 9, 2004, 15:14

Yes, some people waiting not so patiently for the patch haven't installed the 1.15 beta patch. This is insane, especially now it has proven stable. Install it now or else!

ducki · March 9, 2004, 15:22

As counterpoint to Doc, there are many people that simply don't install beta software. Period.

Nothing wrong with that. In fact, it's fairly admirable in some ways.

Personally, I'm quite comfortable with fdisk and know right where my WinXP Installation CD is, simply because some beta software is so painful that fdisk is the only way out.

This beta patch is not one of those, but I can understand why some folks would rather wait for the official patch. Especially considering the official "warnings" that accompanied both 1.12 and 1.13 and the fact that they were not all too graceful about the install/uninstall process - they were beta, after all. Me? I'm happily playing the beta patch, and happily played both 1.12 and 1.13, as any of the three are preferable to the released version of Conquests, at least in my opinion.

I wonder if we'll hear from Jesse soon...

vmxa1 · March 9, 2004, 17:33

Well beta software and patches for OS or key apps is one thing, but for a game? All you have to worry about is losing compat with the previous saves. Anyway in XP it is nothing to roll out a patch via the add/remove.

DrSpike · March 9, 2004, 18:46

Yeah, quite Vmxa1, I think that post was a tad melodramatic Ducki.

I am as paranoid as they come. It's a beta patch so I installed a new version of Civ3 to patch. I advise everyone else to do the same. Better safe than sorry.

Rommel2D · March 10, 2004, 03:02

This dribble of patches is making PBEM games a joke. From what I can tell, each version uses different calculations for each player's turn. Most players are so burnt out from the relative onslaught of beta patches, no one bothers to cooridinate what version they are using.

On the plus side, the next beta is supposed to fix the SP load bug/exploit and enforce version compatability. :-7

vmxa1 · March 10, 2004, 03:22

It has been over 2 months since 1.15 came out so that is plenty of time for all to get it. I don't think it was much more than a month from the 1.12 beta to 1.15.

Aqualung71 · March 10, 2004, 03:37

Yes, the main bugs are well fixed in 1.15b, and it seems that the official patch (1.18?) will be introducing some more game tweaks. So, better they test it thoroughly knowing we've got a very solid version in the meantime, than rush it out full of bugs that will take us right back where we started....just because "we" wanted some more goodies to play with.

player1 · March 10, 2004, 14:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Rommel2D
This dribble of patches is making PBEM games a joke. From what I can tell, each version uses different calculations for each player's turn. Most players are so burnt out from the relative onslaught of beta patches, no one bothers to cooridinate what version they are using.

Well, they can always wait for end of June, when no more new patches will be added.

Paddy · March 10, 2004, 15:27

hahahahaha

thought I heard that in December about the so called late February Patch

which was why this thread got started in the first place: to find out where was the so called late Febraury patch

alexman · March 10, 2004, 15:31

The final patch was never intended to be in February.

Paddy · March 10, 2004, 15:39

cool, but the feb patch was meant to be a substaintial patch...

better than 1.15 and 1.18

yes or no?

DrSpike · March 10, 2004, 15:39

February was a date mentioned for the first non beta patch, though earlier it was suggested the official patch would be later.

ducki · March 10, 2004, 15:45

Since I went to the trouble of finding it yesterday, I guess I should link to it.
On Jan. 15 this year, Jesse did say there would be a ... well, I was going to quote it, but I've read it half a dozen times and it's not clear if he meant there would be an official, final, release-grade patch released at the end of Feb or if he meant it would be a full compilation of all the beta fixes so far at the end of Feb., which I lean towards the more times I read it, though the cessation of beta patches mentioned is the bit that's confusing me most.
Either way, software is not like traditional forms of publishing and even less like manufacturing - projected release dates are just that - projections, predictions, estimates - and not to be taken as writ in stone. Ever.

Anyway, so as not to take any of it out of context or misquote Jesse, I'll just link to the original.

DrSpike · March 10, 2004, 16:04

That thread clearly implies a non-beta patch at the end of February, and there was another thread with the same information also. This seemed to supercede earlier info that projected a later date.

Still, I'm not really bothered, but it is true that all these people turning up have a reason to ask now.

Rommel2D · March 11, 2004, 02:11

1.12 was released Dec 22. 1.15 was released Jan 12. Inbetween somewhere, 1.13 was leaked.

It was pretty clearly stated in at least three threads a non-beta patch would be out in February. I haven't bothered with anything after 1.12 because it fixed the biggest problems and I was planning on the regular patch to be the next 'watershed'.

Its well past February and not a peep here from Jesse? In a way that's good since he's probably spending all his time on the patch, but why did the end of Feb patch turn into a beta with a bunch of mechanical adjustments that need more playtest balancing? Wouldn't it make sense to add these to the next beta after the first stable patch was released?

Paddy · March 11, 2004, 02:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Rommel2D
1.12 was released Dec 22. 1.15 was released Jan 12. Inbetween somewhere, 1.13 was leaked.

It was pretty clearly stated in at least three threads a non-beta patch would be out in February. I haven't bothered with anything after 1.12 because it fixed the biggest problems and I was planning on the regular patch to be the next 'watershed'.

Its well past February and not a peep here from Jesse? In a way that's good since he's probably spending all his time on the patch, but why did the end of Feb patch turn into a beta with a bunch of mechanical adjustments that need more playtest balancing? Wouldn't it make sense to add these to the next beta after the first stable patch was released?

That they are hard at work, and not snowboarding across Europe, ahhh, Rommel2D, yet again your optimism is refreshing

Rommel2D · March 11, 2004, 02:33

From what I've gathered, Jesse has the entire project on his shoulders, and he's with Firaxis in Maryland. If he's snowboarding across Europe, things look bleak indeed. :-/

Aqualung71 · March 11, 2004, 06:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Rommel2D
If he's snowboarding across Europe, things look bleak indeed. :-/

I'm sure Jesse wouldn't agree with that

player1 · March 11, 2004, 08:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Rommel2D
1.12 was released Dec 22. 1.15 was released Jan 12. Inbetween somewhere, 1.13 was leaked.

I think that once someone from Firaxis said that for patch to get from beta to final state, it needs at least one month.

So, realisticly, only patch we could have got at the end of the February would be 1.15f.

Now, how many people would really like to wait a months and get 1.15f?

I don't.

So obviously, if Firaxis had made more changes/fixes, that wold take about a month, and another one for beta to final transition.

So it's realistic to see patch in the middle or late March.

Gunter · March 11, 2004, 11:00

I never play betas,beeing myself lazy I do not want to be a betatester for free.

I also say that it is not a problem to wait 4/5 months more,the only issue I argued is the one related to the many problems raised with previous patches ( problems of versions of course ....first that,than that,than 1.14 if you have 1.13 but only if coming from 1.12,quite a shame indeed. )

I would like to avoid these tremendous fatigues and now after this via crucis path we have to wait several weeks more.This is the melodramatic,not complaining posts about that.

Gunter

Rommel2D · March 11, 2004, 12:59

Quote:

Originally posted by player1
Now, how many people would really like to wait a months and get 1.15f?

That's the whole point. Most people are saying 1.15 didn't have any big problems (apart from the the SP load bug, which should be a simple code fix). The main thing is they got the corruption model working the way they wanted. Why not make it non-beta and save the tweaks for the Q2 patch?

(Unless the f designation means no further changes, which isn't what anyone is talking about here.)

I chided Sir Ralph a while back about giving up so easily on the patch process, but now I'm about a week from not caring about anything except maintaining current PBEMs.

asleepathewheel · March 11, 2004, 13:12

what exactly is the difference between a beta and non beta patch, anyway? to me its a term of art only, as certainly non-beta patches can contain nasty bugs as well.

Personally, I don't see why they don't release 1.18 as a public beta, its quite solid apparently.

kring · March 11, 2004, 14:22

This was posted at Civ3.com on March 3rd.

Quote:

WHAT'S NEW - UPDATED 03/03/2004

Notice: Unfortunately, the non-Beta patch for Civilization III: Conquests will not be ready for several more weeks. We are working hard with Atari to finalize the localizations. Once this has been completed the patch will be posted immediately. We thank you for your support, and ask that you please accept our apologies for the delay.

Rommel2D · March 12, 2004, 00:58

Quote:

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
what exactly is the difference between a beta and non beta patch, anyway? to me its a term of art only, as certainly non-beta patches can contain nasty bugs as well.

It's all a matter of guaging probabilities. Do you risk destroying the confidence of your entire customer base or not? I think a good amount of vodoo must be involved. :-)

Would you stake your job on the fact that 1.18 doesn't need any debugging at this point?

Thanks kring, I was being lazy and expected something like that to show up as a news item. :-I

Antrine · March 12, 2004, 01:12

Where's the Patch? There is a nasty rumor that 1.20 sneaking about Germany, lost in woods no doubt. However, trust me, IT IS NOT THE PATCH!!!

So I ask again, Where is the patch?

DrSpike · March 12, 2004, 07:51

May I suggest you read this thread. The one entitled "Where is the patch". You know, the one you just posted in.

Edit: there is also a thread with updated info on the 1.20 patch, which seemingly will exist soon.

Harovan · March 12, 2004, 08:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Rommel2D
I chided Sir Ralph a while back about giving up so easily on the patch process, but now I'm about a week from not caring about anything except maintaining current PBEMs.

Well that's exactly what I do, although I'm growing sick even of this.

Gunter · March 12, 2004, 09:43

Actually further rumors say that the 1.20 is beeing debugged from Spirit in conjunction with Opportunity in order to exploit bugs in a " stress test " enviroment.

News will come on new soap episode.......

Gunter