Upgrade to 1.29 - Page 2

BigFurryMonster · September 18, 2002, 09:02

It strikes me that everyone is asking questions like "how many users will not be able to play the game under 1.29" but nobody ever gives an answer...

GodKing · September 18, 2002, 10:20

Epi

They can load the game now, and are involved in the game.

They do not have an option yet for 1.29, nor is Firaxis going to release a 1.29 patch for them as Firaxis plans on using PtW to do it for them.

UnOrthOdOx · September 18, 2002, 10:51

OK, I voted no.

I did so because it will alienate players, however few, from the game. 1.21 is universal, everyone can use it. 1.29 will NOT load on a 1.21 version.

I am against anything that has the potential of deminishing our population. We live off the nimber of active members online. If changing to 1.29 removes even ONE of those members, if it discourages someone from joining, it will not be worth it.

STAY 1.21! We are a global community, let our game be able to be shared globally.

Hagbart · September 18, 2002, 10:54

If the mac users cant use 1.29 we should stay at 1.21 at least till this game is finished..

adaMada · September 18, 2002, 15:04

Voted don't for the sake of the Mac/Foreign Users -- if they can't upgrade, then it isn't worth it.

Will also polish my instructions for the dual install and try to find Shiber's method of quickly changing between patches sometime soon.

-- adaMada

Aro · September 18, 2002, 15:27

The reasons to no upgrade are enough for me. Please, change my vote to “no, don't”.

E_T · September 19, 2002, 17:27

This should be along the line of an admendment. But if we get 2/3rds vote, will we have to accept it as one, even though it's not worded as one? I voted Yes, because of the healing of Armies for starters. I like the way that the AI is a bit better tactically, more challenging.

The 1.29f patch is one of the reasons that I've started to play Civ again.

E_T

Panag · September 19, 2002, 17:50

hi ,

so , we should not upgrade , because a small group says so , .......

WHAIT JUST A MINUTE

1 we are a democrazy
2 why on earth should we get behind and face some bugs
3 there is not a single good justified reason from anyone as to why the upgrade would be "bad" , .......
4 because its about time
5 no lame excuse as "i cant get it" , if you are on this site , you can have it !
6 because the banana says so

have a nice day

adaMada · September 19, 2002, 18:35

Panag,

We shouldn't upgrade for one reason and only one reason.

We are a democracy.

Democracy isn't about the majority having a say. It's about everyone having a say. It'd be unfair to 'remove' certian players from playing, assuming that there are good reasons they haven't upgraded (Which I'm willing to trust GodKing on). To upgrade if it can be shown that this would prevent some players from playing would be Unconstitutional, and I'd be fully in support of going to the court to stop such an upgrade, assuming that the court can also find proof that it'll stop people from playing.

I will be posting more complete instructions for switching between versions/dual installing shortly. I wish we could play in 1.29f too -- for a month, I didn't play civ 3 at all because of the Demogame, which is a shame. Having said that, it it's not fair to stop anyone from playing.

Once 1.29f is out for everyone (if it ever is, which sounds like no) then my vote will be a yes. Once we start the next game, my vote will be a yes. Once we can do one of these polls and have no good reasons for not upgrading, then yes. Until then, no. Sorry

.

-- adaMada

Panag · September 19, 2002, 18:41

Quote:

Originally posted by adaMada
Panag,

We shouldn't upgrade for one reason and only one reason.

We are a democracy.

Democracy isn't about the majority having a say. It's about everyone having a say. It'd be unfair to 'remove' certian players from playing, assuming that there are good reasons they haven't upgraded (Which I'm willing to trust GodKing on). To upgrade if it can be shown that this would prevent some players from playing would be Unconstitutional, and I'd be fully in support of going to the court to stop such an upgrade, assuming that the court can also find proof that it'll stop people from playing.

I will be posting more complete instructions for switching between versions/dual installing shortly. I wish we could play in 1.29f too -- for a month, I didn't play civ 3 at all because of the Demogame, which is a shame. Having said that, it it's not fair to stop anyone from playing.

Once 1.29f is out for everyone (if it ever is, which sounds like no) then my vote will be a yes. Once we start the next game, my vote will be a yes. Once we can do one of these polls and have no good reasons for not upgrading, then yes. Until then, no. Sorry

.

-- adaMada

hi ,

well according to the first lines the , we should stop to play then , .......

have a nice day

Aggie · September 19, 2002, 19:20

Chage my vote to no, too. We either ALL have to upgrade or NONE and I for one do not want to deny people the enjoyment of the game. Imagine if you were on of the few who couldn't, It would be horrible to be unable to participate in a game you enjoy.
Aggie

adaMada · September 19, 2002, 19:36

Quote:

Originally posted by panag

hi ,

well according to the first lines the , we should stop to play then , .......

have a nice day

Panag,

Sorry, I'm a tad confused. Which lines are do you mean? When you say "stop to play", do you mean that we should shut down the game overall? Sorry, as soon as I understand what you mean I'll happily respond, but I'm a bit confused right now

.

-- adaMada

Trevman · September 19, 2002, 20:48

We decided at the start of the game which rules we would play by including playing by 1.21. I don't believe we should change any of them including the version. However, if a significant number will be alienated from the game with the old version, then we should probably upgrade.

adaMada · September 19, 2002, 21:11

Oh yea, almost forgot to ask, OPD, is this an official thread?

If it is, I'll add it to the directory's official thread archive when it comes online. If not, then I won't

.

-- adaMada

wervdon · September 19, 2002, 22:25

I voted to go ahead and upgrade, but really it only matters what those who are in office/might be in office want to do. The rest of us don't have to load the save (and in fact it crashes my civ3 to load it anyways).

A better and more informative poll might be to divide people who might be willing to run for office someday up according to who can upgrade to 1.29 and who can't upgrade to 1.29

Something like this:
[ ] I do not see myself running for office in the foreseeable future
[ ] I might run for office and I want to upgrade to 1.29f
[ ] I might run for office and I do not want to upgrade to 1.29f
[ ] Bananna

Harovan · September 20, 2002, 03:49

There are other circumstances limiting people to run for an office. If we care for those who can't upgrade (sorry Mac users, but in return you've got a better computer), we could also care for those who have an old PC and can't load up huge crowded maps. Following this logic, why didn't we start a standard map game then, to allow the Pentium 90/32 MB players to run for an office?

Yay for upgrading.

mtgillespie · September 20, 2002, 05:26

Sir Ralph: That argument is nonsense. To follow your logic to it's conclusion, we shouldn't play the game at all as not everyone has a PC. The difference is, we are excluding people who are already involved in the game if we upgrade. We set the conditions at the start, we should stick to them until everyone can upgrade. There is also the issue of wierd effects in trades of save games started in 1.21 which are then upgraded.

mtgillespie · September 20, 2002, 05:30

Could i also point out, polls like this are the reason we need a discussion thread first. Some people who voted yes now wish to change their vote in the light of new information. Had there been a discussion first, their votes would have been cast correctly.

OPD · September 20, 2002, 05:41

Ok sticking with 1.21

Quote:

Originally posted by adaMada
Oh yea, almost forgot to ask, OPD, is this an official thread? -- adaMada

No this is not official and never was.

Clause 7 of the bill of rights says I can't play a version of the game not avaliable to all players. This was just to kinda test the water to see whether an official poll or amendment was in order.

But as there is more than 1 person voting no I can't really go any further with this.

So in conclusion we won't be upgrading.

Harovan · September 20, 2002, 06:03

Quote:

Originally posted by mtgillespie
Sir Ralph: That argument is nonsense. To follow your logic to it's conclusion, we shouldn't play the game at all as not everyone has a PC.

The logic was meant to be slant. As for Mac users, they knew the upsides (better computer, better OS) and downsides (less software/upgrades/etc.) of their machine before and met their own decision. Why should all others suffer from this?

Quote:

The difference is, we are excluding people who are already involved in the game if we upgrade. We set the conditions at the start, we should stick to them until everyone can upgrade.

That means never. And sticking with 1.21 will exclude me, because I never will downgrade or bother with a crappy dual installation. But I don't complain, because I don't intend to run for another office anyway.

Quote:

There is also the issue of wierd effects in trades of save games started in 1.21 which are then upgraded.

Never heard of that. Can you supply me with facts or a link?

mtgillespie · September 20, 2002, 06:41

Quote:

Never heard of that. Can you supply me with facts or a link?

From the version 1.29 chat log :

[jimmyh] And how is it possible for the Ai to offer me 536 gold per turn for a tech?

[SorenJohnson_Firaxis] saved games that go from 1.21-]1.29 might get a little wacky concerning tech costs.

[jimmyh] I think it was yes, but 536 per turn, come on that's quiet a lot.

I haven't heard any reports of other "weird issues", so i don't know if it's a major problem, i just thought it was worth mentioning again.

Quote:

That means never. And sticking with 1.21 will exclude me, because I never will downgrade or bother with a crappy dual installation. But I don't complain, because I don't intend to run for another office anyway.

Then maybe we should have a poll purely for people who may run for office in the future. There is certainly no need to download the save unless you are in office (although it may be interesting), as it's perfectly possible to follow from the reports and maps.

And it will be a great shame if you do not run for office again, as your contribution has been invaluable so far. May i ask why you are not considering it, as i am certain you would get huge support for any position you chose?

Harovan · September 20, 2002, 07:10

Tech costs and the AI's approach to trades has been slightly changed, but there's nothing that makes the game broke. And these differences will level out very soon.

As for my running for office: I ran once because I was asked to, but in general I haven't got the time for a very active participation. Family first, then job, then AU games and the C3DG. I will keep to let my contributions and recommendations coming anyway and hope they are of use.

adaMada · September 20, 2002, 08:42

Quote:

Originally posted by OPD
Ok sticking with 1.21

No this is not official and never was.

Clause 7 of the bill of rights says I can't play a version of the game not avaliable to all players. This was just to kinda test the water to see whether an official poll or amendment was in order.

But as there is more than 1 person voting no I can't really go any further with this.

So in conclusion we won't be upgrading.

OPD,
I totally understand where you're coming from, and agree with both of your decisions -- to post the poll, and to decide to leave it where it is.

The 'official' question was just so I could get a head start on the directory -- official polls are always filed away, others are optional.

-- adaMada

Reddawg · September 20, 2002, 11:21

I should have looked into this thread earlier..

Hello, my name is Reddawg, and I am a Mac user.

I don't want to have ppl saying "oh look at him, he thinks he's all special and that we shouldnt upgrade just b/c of him" etc etc... but um, if you all do upgrade and i cant access the saves anymore, it'll be very hard for me to still do the stats/maps/ and now my job as MoE. I can get access to some PC's but when it comes to making my charts and maps, it may not be possible (until, obviously PTW comes out)... I dont think the benefits of upgrading are worth it. We've played three terms on 1.21 why not finish the game on it?

Panag · September 20, 2002, 11:40

hi ,

double post

have a nice day

Panag · September 20, 2002, 11:43

Quote:

Originally posted by adaMada
Panag,

We shouldn't upgrade for one reason and only one reason.

We are a democracy.

Democracy isn't about the majority having a say. It's about everyone having a say. It'd be unfair to 'remove' certian players from playing, assuming that there are good reasons they haven't upgraded (Which I'm willing to trust GodKing on). To upgrade if it can be shown that this would prevent some players from playing would be Unconstitutional, and I'd be fully in support of going to the court to stop such an upgrade, assuming that the court can also find proof that it'll stop people from playing.

I will be posting more complete instructions for switching between versions/dual installing shortly. I wish we could play in 1.29f too -- for a month, I didn't play civ 3 at all because of the Demogame, which is a shame. Having said that, it it's not fair to stop anyone from playing.

Once 1.29f is out for everyone (if it ever is, which sounds like no) then my vote will be a yes. Once we start the next game, my vote will be a yes. Once we can do one of these polls and have no good reasons for not upgrading, then yes. Until then, no. Sorry

.

-- adaMada

hi ,

okay , a bit more of explanion as you requested , ....

if we are a democrazy , okay fine , they way it works we can write books about it , .....

now , if we have to take everyone in account , ... well that simply just not possible , .....

we should stay with the choice that gets the most votes , ....

example , some people are not happy because the GL was used to build sun tzu , so , what do we do then , .... and this is just one example , .....

we now that the game is far from its final state , so for those who really cant get an update , sorry , but thats the way it goes , .....

you should have either bought the us version , or waited , ....

if we have to start every single opinion into account , well we just simply cant play anymore , ....

thats why we have votes

an other thing on votes , ones you voted , you voted , point , you cant go around and say , oops sorry , actually i want this , .... in the real world it aint happening neither , you made a choice , point , if you did not like it , well you should have though about before you voted , .....

for the very small group that really cant upgrade , like the MAC users , start your own game then , .....
or switch between the two , ....

why on earth would you not want to upgrade , so actually , the most people are forced to stick with an old version , a version that has more bugs , less options , ....

only because of not even 5% , ....... thats not the way a democrazy works , ..... thats for sure , ....

if we really have to wait because there is omeone with a local version , and the distribution of the patch takes two months there , well sorry , ......

then something else , some people claim they cant get the patch , well thats nonsense , its here on this site

and will the no voters please give some good valid reasons as to why they vote no , ..... thanks , this way we can understand what ever problem that might be overlooked , ....

NYE , what do you have to say from a legal point of view , ....?

have a nice day