Can a patch do the trick for civIII ? - Page 2

ColdWizard · December 5, 2001, 02:46

Quote:

Originally posted by docken
No MP in a patch? don't be so sure. If you don't believe me, check out the file 'jackal.txt' and the .jpg file in your root civ3 directory. I think you will be quite interested to read what it says, to say the least.

yeah, i read it. but there's no way a certain publisher will let MP come out in a patch when they can charge for it by releasing it separately.

Skanky Burns · December 5, 2001, 03:08

No patch Firaxis could release would satisfy everyone here. Ever.

For example, the first 'bug' listed was the 'broken' combat system. Its not a [i]bug[i/]. Its a design decision. Ancient units were designed so they could sometimes defeat modern units.

The point is that people are after different things, have different ideas about how the game should work. No matter what Firaxis do, they wont be able to please everyone.

docken · December 5, 2001, 03:14

Quote:

Originally posted by ColdWizard

yeah, i read it. but there's no way a certain publisher will let MP come out in a patch when they can charge for it by releasing it separately.

Unfortunately, I tend to agree with you.

Did I mention that I hate infogrames? It is hands down the worst "big name" publisher anyone could get, they also happen to be French- any connection?

Even microsoft is better, in part because when they act like bastards, they at least make it VERY CLEAR that they are doing so.

Dravin · December 5, 2001, 03:20

I wouldn't be so sure about Infogrames, Interplay is pretty bad, as is Activision if their Trek line is any indication.

Moraelin · December 5, 2001, 03:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Vonotar
So if I put a tent up on the piece of scrubland behind my house and start growing potatoes any potential future buyer of the land should recognize my right to that piece of land??

Colonies are not town/cities/metropolis's they'r a couple of shacks thrown together to farm a resource. Start giving them borders and rights and you might as well call them a city.

First of all, I'm a country, not Random J Squatter.

A) There are a bunch of my people there, as well as an investment. If someone came and just took over, say, one country's offshore drilling plaform (which is a pretty good modern day example of a resource colony), I do believe it would be seen as an aggression. Noone would see it as "oh, it didn't have enough population to be a city, so it's ok. They can have it."

B) Again, there are a bunch of people there. Asking that it has a border around that 1 square it occupies, doesn't seem that much. Towns have at least 3x3 area, so 1x1 for a colony wouldn't make it a cheap alternative to towns.

C) Methinks military presence alone should count for something, if we're talking countries. If I have two riflemen regiments guarding that mining outpost, I do believe that that square is mine. If another country wants it, they'd have to attack my troops, not just claim it.

In fact, even if I don't even have a mining colony there, but just decided to build a fortress in the middle of nowhere and put some troops in it, methinks that that square is mine. I was there first. You want it, go ahead and attack me.

Libertarian · December 5, 2001, 03:35

Quote:

Originally posted by yin26
I believe Civ3 is fundamentally flawed. No patch will ever make this the game Firaxis itself claimed it to be. Besides that, the company QA guy believes that bugs in a game make for a strong community, so you have programmers with very little clue how to make the game even close to the hype and a QA department that thinks giving patches is a kind of needless gift.

Add those up.

Okay.

They add up to a mousey curmudgeon who rips out tongue-in-cheek remarks from their context and misrepresents them as vain attempts to support his own lame strawmen.

Of course, we can't just add. We have to multiply. Because there isn't a converstation, nor a topic, nor a forum in cyberspace where he does not repeat his silliness. Over. And over. And over.

"Do you believe in God?"

"Oh, you mean the God of Abraham, Isaac, and the Firaxis QA guy who thinks we like buggy software?"

yin26 · December 5, 2001, 03:46

Re-read the damn article. He wasn't joking. Sorry ... is denial and poor reading your chosen advocation or just a hobby?

Libertarian · December 5, 2001, 03:48

And now a false dilemma.

Here's five bucks. Go buy a new song.

yin26 · December 5, 2001, 03:50

My new song: I'll go around with the same 'Get a new song' song. Brilliant!

yin26 · December 5, 2001, 03:50

Oh, and I'll be sure to make claims I can't support.

Libertarian · December 5, 2001, 03:52

If nothing else, I'll say this for you: you have a sense of humor and irony, having chosen Yin over Yang.

Nurse Ratchet, I want MY cigarettes!

yin26 · December 5, 2001, 03:53

That's the only insightful comment you've made in the past 10 minutes. Bravo!

Libertarian · December 5, 2001, 03:55

Stop that. You're making me horny.

yin26 · December 5, 2001, 03:55

I got there first.

Nadexander · December 5, 2001, 04:10

Quote:

Originally posted by DATarbell
Everything can be fixed, and anything can be changed via a patch. However, many of the things that are being complained about on these boards are design and gameplay issues, not programming flaws or technological limitations.

Firaxis isnt producing database software. Design and gameplay issues that reduce the fun-factor of a game are just as serious as software bugs.

Quote:

Originally posted by DATarbell
What is most interesting to me is how many of the complaints have to do with features that were specifically requested on these very forums while the game was in development. That, and the fact that the game is simply harder to beat, requires new and varied strategies, and so forth than any of the previous Civ's (at comparable difficulty levels).

Well firaxis could have made it so that AI cities grow 5 times faster than human cities and never have unhappiness and we couldnt complain that the game wasn't harder to beat. Im not upset with what firaxis has made though i am upset at their decision to release without a public beta and without any serious attempt at play testing (did anyone even make it through their first game without noticing the air superiority bug?)

Really the ball is in firaxis' court right now. Either they can catch up and reallly wow us with a steady series of patches addressing gamer's key concerns or they can toss us a minor bug fix or two and make us hope (vainly) that the game play balacing/improvement comes along with the inevitable expansion pack that turns out to be 4 new civs, some bug fixes that should have been caught in the first beta and 17 more tracks of kenny G for our listening pleasure

.

Come on Firaxis! Take the high-road. Show us you are still a civ addicts best friend!

mfauzi · December 5, 2001, 05:05

Quote:

Originally posted by yin26
I believe Civ3 is fundamentally flawed. No patch will ever make this the game Firaxis itself claimed it to be. Besides that, the company QA guy believes that bugs in a game make for a strong community, so you have programmers with very little clue how to make the game even close to the hype and a QA department that thinks giving patches is a kind of needless gift.

Add those up.

Hmm.. you sound as if it's a cospiracy that they're deliberately not going to release a patch to fix the game

mfauzi · December 5, 2001, 05:14

Quote:

Originally posted by yin26
I got there first.

I don't know if I'm been working too much, or my mind just isn't adequate for this sort of thing, but I have no idea what you guys are even trying to do here. Where did this argument even start from? Don't stop now, I'm laughing and I have no idea why

Ozymandous · December 5, 2001, 09:39

Quote:

Originally posted by mfauzi

Hmm, can't be, or the democracy of US would have crumbled by now

No offence meant to any americans... just saying what it would be like if the real world reflects the corruption system in Civ III

See, that's why Civ3 is a GAME. You know, NOT REALITY?? Some things, like corrpution, were an attempt by Firaxis to stem folks with huge empires.

After all, most people seem to think Civ2 was "too easy", especially after they learn to "manipulate" the game to take advantage of it's flaws.

What's most amusing is to hear all the whining about how Civ3 isn't simply CIv2 or SMAC with simply a new interface and graphics. Umm, hello all you people who want Civ2 with new graphics, this isn't going to happen.

Will patches "fix" the game, yes, because eventually the editor will be robust enough for people to change their individual games to reflect how easy or hard they want the game to be (probably skew it in favor of the human and then complain it's too easy to beat as usual).

Corruption, weaker units beating stronger units, etc, are NOT "bugs" or "flaws", they are part of the game design and the intent was (I'm sure) to have people find NEW ways to beat the game and find interesting solutions to new problems, NOT to have them try their same old tactics and then whine and complain when they don't work anymore.

If old tactics worked then this wouldn't really be a new game, now would it???

Ozymandous · December 5, 2001, 09:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Moraelin

First of all, I'm a country, not Random J Squatter.

A) There are a bunch of my people there, as well as an investment. If someone came and just took over, say, one country's offshore drilling plaform (which is a pretty good modern day example of a resource colony), I do believe it would be seen as an aggression. Noone would see it as "oh, it didn't have enough population to be a city, so it's ok. They can have it."

B) Again, there are a bunch of people there. Asking that it has a border around that 1 square it occupies, doesn't seem that much. Towns have at least 3x3 area, so 1x1 for a colony wouldn't make it a cheap alternative to towns.

C) Methinks military presence alone should count for something, if we're talking countries. If I have two riflemen regiments guarding that mining outpost, I do believe that that square is mine. If another country wants it, they'd have to attack my troops, not just claim it.

In fact, even if I don't even have a mining colony there, but just decided to build a fortress in the middle of nowhere and put some troops in it, methinks that that square is mine. I was there first. You want it, go ahead and attack me.

lol, have you lived in the real world for long??? Let me clarify your "examples".

The US has troops in Germany, Korea, England and other countries all over the world. These self-same troops have barracks, depot's, etc, where they are. By your example the US should then OWN that land and the soverign nation that has borders all around that area has NO claim to that area.

Want to bet that in reality, if one of these countries told us to leave that we would? You can bet we would, regardless of what we left behind. If you don't believe it go check out the abandoned air bases in the Phillipines and in other countries that didn't want us around anymore.

THink of your colony disappearing as simply the country that dissolved it as saying "hey, thanks, but we don't want you around anymore". It's not hard to do.

In NO way should ANY empire IN THE GAME be able to stake a claim simply because they have a colony or manned fortress on any tile. THis would be grossly unbalancing for the game, and I don't think you'd see many folks claiming to like it much if the AI was programmed to take advantage of it as Human players surely would.

Akka · December 5, 2001, 09:49

Quote:

Corruption, weaker units beating stronger units, etc, are NOT "bugs" or "flaws", they are part of the game design and the intent was (I'm sure) to have people find NEW ways to beat the game and find interesting solutions to new problems, NOT to have them try their same old tactics and then whine and complain when they don't work anymore.

They are here as a matter of helping the AI. Not that they are turned against the player, just that they tend to egalize all the civ and diminish both the ability to get far ahead and the advantage of being ahead.

Moraelin · December 5, 2001, 10:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Ozymandous The US has troops in Germany, Korea, England and other countries all over the world. These self-same troops have barracks, depot's, etc, where they are. By your example the US should then OWN that land and the soverign nation that has borders all around that area has NO claim to that area.

Hello? Have you even read what I wrote there. Well, let me try again. This time try reading please. I've said "I was there first".

So, no, it's not the same situation. The US wasn't there first.

The closest analogy to what I was actually talking about, is if someone made a fort on some small uninhabited island that noone claimed before. Let's say a volcano erupts, and a new 1 square mile island pops up. And let's say the US wants to claim it and builds a fort there and some troops. No proper city, just a military base. Now let's say Cuba sends 1000 settlers to settle on that island. What do you think happens? Do you think they just take control of the US military base on account that "you may have been here first, but you didn't actually build a proper city?" (Which is what happens in in Civ 3.)

Or let's say the US has a military base on right on the border with Mexico. And let's say Mexico builds a city right next to it, in their own side of the border. Do you think they just push the US border back and take control of the military base? Just because their city must have a minimum 1 square culture radius, and now the US installation falls within that? And they just tell the US to retreat their troops from what is now Mexican teritory? No, really. Can you see that happening?

That's the whole point. If I was there first, it's my land. Regardless of whether I have a proper city, or a mine, or just a regiment of tanks. I was there first. If you want that land, fight me for it. If you want those resources I'm mining, you'll actually have to send someone to take them. And they better bring a lot of firepower with them, 'cause I'm sure as heck not going to simply hand them over. Definitely not only because of "culture radius".

Moraelin · December 5, 2001, 10:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Ozymandous
What's most amusing is to hear all the whining about how Civ3 isn't simply CIv2 or SMAC with simply a new interface and graphics. Umm, hello all you people who want Civ2 with new graphics, this isn't going to happen.

Have you actually read the complaints before writing that? My chief complaint was precisely that it IS a Civ2 or SMAC, only with new graphics and a handful of stupid hacks that don't even work. I expected a new game, not a broken SMAC with higher res Civ2 graphics. The whole thing looks to me like just milking a franchise, and uninspired milking at that.

There were so many things that could be done to actually make a new game. But instead we get... what? An even more simplistic combat engine, a tech tree that's actually a step back, an AI that's even more stupid than ever, and so on. And a few totally minor tweaks that either make no real difference (whoppee! now rivers are between tiles. Big deal.) or just reward mediocrity and mindless clicking (the tech caps, for example.)

There are exactly TWO changes which would actually count as new. Culture and air missions. And both are broken. Whoppee. That's got to be good design.

Quote:

Corruption, weaker units beating stronger units, etc, are NOT "bugs" or "flaws", they are part of the game design and the intent was (I'm sure) to have people find NEW ways to beat the game and find interesting solutions to new problems, NOT to have them try their same old tactics and then whine and complain when they don't work anymore.

Who said they don't work any more. I know it's more comforting for the ego to assume that all the "whiners" are simpletons who can't win the game. But if you had actually bothered reading what's written, it's quite the opposite.

No, I don't have any problem winning against a totally lobotomized AI. It's so predictable and ineffective, even though it cheats, that it's hardly any challenge. Yes, I can win against the AI without any problems. In fact, most of the stuff I'm complaining about isn't actually stuff that happens to my cities, it's stuff I exploit to take over the AI's cities. He doesn't win my cities because of the broken culture, I take over his. He doesn't take my colonies, because I don't bother making stupid colonies, I take his.

But guess what? Simply whether I win or lose doesn't automatically make a game good. It's still crap.

gnome · December 5, 2001, 10:36

Quote:

Originally posted by mfauzi

Hmm.. you sound as if it's a cospiracy that they're deliberately not going to release a patch to fix the game

Personally I think the patch will be a great help, and I enjoy the game already. But what you're seeing is some of the cynicism left over from the SMAC/SMACX experience, I'll bet.

SMAC timeline:

1. Release of buggy game.

2. Patched to tolerable.

3. Release of expansion pack with worse bugs than ever.

.
. (LONG wait)

.
4. Release of patch that resolves only a relative handful of the bugs.

hexagonian · December 5, 2001, 11:31

As a fence-sitter on all this I have to say that Moraelin makes the better argument...The simple fact that he is cleaning the AIs clock should stop any additional comments to the contrary.

Firaxis will not patch issues that are inherent design concepts (HP/Firepower in combat, intense late game micromangement). Some players prefer these things anyhow. Ultimately, players will decide to buy the game based on what they want to do - if you like to micromange, and move 100-200 units per turn, if it does not bother you to lose Modern units to a bunch of rock-throwing primatives, if you want to wait 10-15 minutes per turn in the late game for large maps, then civ3 is for you.

It probably will not be for me though. But I want to see the readme and exactly what the patch will fix before deciding.

dweez · December 5, 2001, 12:04

Am I really the only one enjoying this game?

I think the concept is good, but the bugs are annoying. The bugs can be and will be fixed (or so I hope).
I don't really understand the complaints that say that the game is broken because in reality this and in reality that. Let's face it: in reality you won't ever be conquering the world, so why not settle for a computer game?