C3C game patch mid january? beta patch??

sabrewolf · December 5, 2003, 05:18

according to civ3.de, the first real patch (fixing playability issues) will be coming around mid january (see news section)

i just don't think it's so much fun playing with the serious gpt-bug and finish most games before trading techs for high gpt gets possible (so beginning around mid medieval ages)

atari/breakaway/firaxis:
why don't you just release a small "beta fix" eg. 1.03b without playtesting a lot... everyone who uses it, does it on own risk. it wouldn't be an official patch, but the community would be glad to get a hold of it. and i am willing to risk stability issues if some important gameplay stuff is corrected.

imho mainly the GPT-bug and the foreign palace one...

any chance or will this stay an unfulfilled christmas dream?

thanks anyways for a great game!

DrSpike · December 5, 2003, 06:16

I agree. There are lots of things that need to be patched, and balance issues to be considered. A proper patch will take until mid January or later. But surely they could have fixed the game breaking bugs without waiting that long?

Last time by the time the first really decent patch (1.29f) came along I had other fish to fry..........I really don't want the same to happen here.

Harovan · December 5, 2003, 07:40

I sign this petition.

Christmas would be ruined without a C3C patch.

Fried-Psitalon · December 5, 2003, 08:08

Because if they followed your suggestion about a "use at your own risk" patch they'd get hundreds of people screaming

"Those stupid !#%! at Atari, they can't even release a patch without bugs being introduced in the patch! What kind of moron releases a patch without making sure it works, blah de blah I know all about gamewriting blah de blah you guys suck"

The problem is that 99% of the customer base really wouldn't understand that the patch was a stopgap measure - and it would make people hearken back to the days of PTW and its "patches."

Harovan · December 5, 2003, 08:16

You mean that would be better than the ongoing:

"Those stupid !#%! at Atari, they can't even release a game without bugs being introduced in the game! What kind of moron releases a game without making sure it works, blah de blah I know all about gamewriting blah de blah you guys suck"

?

Aramis · December 5, 2003, 08:19

The need for a patch helps confirm my opinion that C3C was rushed out before it was ready. There's a sort of unfinished feel to the whole thing. I'd have been happy to wait a few more months, but I suppose holiday buying season necessitated the product hit the market, with 'fixes' to come later.

Fried-Psitalon · December 5, 2003, 08:21

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
You mean that would be better than the ongoing:

"Those stupid !#%! at Atari, they can't even release a game without bugs being introduced in the game! What kind of moron releases a game without making sure it works, blah de blah I know all about gamewriting blah de blah you guys suck"

?

Well since the above quote is the par for the course with any game these days.... hehe. Sad but true.

DrSpike · December 5, 2003, 09:00

Originally posted by Rob_S
The need for a patch helps confirm my opinion that C3C was rushed out before it was ready. There's a sort of unfinished feel to the whole thing. I'd have been happy to wait a few more months, but I suppose holiday buying season necessitated the product hit the market, with 'fixes' to come later.

Well lots of things don't get noticed till the masses get their hands on the product.

I admit I smiled ruefully when I saw a thread a while back with an official comment along on the lines of C3C hopefully needing no major patches.

MrWhereItsAt · December 5, 2003, 09:24

Originally posted by DrSpike
I agree. There are lots of things that need to be patched, and balance issues to be considered. A proper patch will take until mid January or later. But surely they could have fixed the game breaking bugs without waiting that long?

Sure, there are lots of little bugs and a couple of larger ones, but the game is hardly broken. If you DO believe it's broken then please go back to PtW until you are happy with it. I swear, kvetching about how broken the game is is just one step away from being Coracle.

C3C is FUN. Acknowledge the few larger problems and get over it. The patch will come and fix things. We know the approximate time. A lot of this is getting close to the sort of negativity that surrounded Civ3 on its original release. Please, for the sake of everything here, make sure you keep a hold of the perspective.

Ok all that was me getting a little worked up, but I feel frustrated whenever it looks like someone is saying the game is broken or unplayable. Then why do so many of us play it?

Alex · December 5, 2003, 10:17

the game is certainly not broken or unplayable (at least from what I've been reading here), but there are two unbalancing bugs that should be fixed as quickly as possible, IMO.

well, i'll be getting C3C in the next few days, so i'll be able to see how bad the bugs are.

Gibsie · December 5, 2003, 11:02

I bet any patch is going to be like 10 megabytes in size, or two hours downloading time for me on my penny-per-minute dial-up service

Harovan · December 5, 2003, 11:25

The game is broken. It is, of course, not unplayable. But as it stands, it is unenjoyable. Call me Coracle all you want.

sabrewolf · December 5, 2003, 11:28

i don't mind if the patch is needed (most games nowadays come out buggy) and even if the patch is 20MB (people with slow connections won't need it that urgent).
and people wouldn't be grumbling if this is a purely experimental patch. eg. you can only get it, if you go through a short EULA and vow not to negatively criticise any newer bugs and unfinished businesses.

compare it to mozilla and many larger open source projects:
- permanent nightly builds
- official updates every 1-3 months.

we don't need nightly builds, but at least one patch after max. 2 months (release was already more than 1 months ago)

asleepathewheel · December 5, 2003, 11:50

need the patch desperately. hate the corruption and gpt problems.

vmxa1 · December 5, 2003, 12:22

I would not mind a patch that was called beta level. I understand that from their view it is a lose lose deal. If they put one out and it has other problems, they will get plastered and no one will care that it was a use at your own risk.

They could increase the chance of sucess by only correcting the corruption issue in the first pass. The gpt is less of a killer and more of a hinderence.

DrSpike · December 5, 2003, 12:40

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt

Sure, there are lots of little bugs and a couple of larger ones, but the game is hardly broken. If you DO believe it's broken then please go back to PtW until you are happy with it. I swear, kvetching about how broken the game is is just one step away from being Coracle.

Ouch that hurt!

I'm playing and enjoying at present.........but only up till AD or so. For the purposes of seeing some of the new things and kicking about possible strat changes it is playable. But make no mistake about it, the 2 bugs in question are immensely huge, and make playing on the highest levels problematic. Sure on Monarch the problems are more hidden, because you can pretty much do anthing and still easily win.

Overall I do feel, as do many others, some surprise that 2 immensely huge bugs could get through the testing process.

alva · December 5, 2003, 12:42

why don't you just release a small "beta fix" eg. 1.03b without playtesting a lot... everyone who uses it, does it on own risk.

Not to mention they would get better (more complete) feedback.

Gramphos · December 5, 2003, 14:02

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
You mean that would be better than the ongoing:

"Those stupid !#%! at Atari, they can't even release a game without bugs being introduced in the game! What kind of moron releases a game without making sure it works, blah de blah I know all about gamewriting blah de blah you guys suck"

?

Ever since internet became a medium useable to get out patches to games the number of patches for has increased. And the games are less complete from start. Of course it's also related to the games being bigger, but the fact that it is easy to releas a patch makes heavy testing less needed as errors will show once a game is out.

DrSpike · December 5, 2003, 14:04

Undoubtedly true, but it doesn't make being a guinea pig any easier.

vmxa1 · December 5, 2003, 14:49

I would expect the impact of the WWW to be the opposite. I would think it would now be easier to recruit lots of skilled players to beta a game and get most problems identified.

This is not the case of course, since that is not what happens.

pauli · December 5, 2003, 17:40

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
The game is broken. It is, of course, not unplayable. But as it stands, it is unenjoyable. Call me Coracle all you want.

it's less broken than smax, and nobody calls THAT unenjoyable.

asleepathewheel · December 5, 2003, 18:36

Originally posted by pauli

it's less broken than smax, and nobody calls THAT unenjoyable.

hmm

sabrewolf · December 5, 2003, 18:50

Originally posted by vmxa1
I would expect the impact of the WWW to be the opposite. I would think it would now be easier to recruit lots of skilled players to beta a game and get most problems identified.

This is not the case of course, since that is not what happens.

before the www, distribution was just way too costly to allow a serious bug in a game.
now it's not really a problem... in the worst case everyone can download at a friends place and burn the patch on CD.

somewhere (i think at the official UFO:Aftermath forum) i read that programmers usually get paid for the game plus one patch. now if you make the game perfect, the patch would need to have new features inside (i have heard people calling PTW the first proper patch for multiplayers).

btw: if any firaxian, breakawayian or ataran is reading: can you just post to confirm, that a beta-patch can will only be a dream or even better: say, that you're considering this

DrSpike · December 5, 2003, 18:52

It is, I fear, just a pipe dream.

Theseus · December 5, 2003, 19:26

Nah, there'll be a patch.

I like the beta ideas... they could distribute them only at the top Civ3 sites, and expect the bunch of us to deflect the complainers.

SirOsis · December 5, 2003, 20:31

Where did this temininlogy come from anyway? A "patch"? Why not a "splint" or a "tourniquet"?

PTW when released needed a tourniquet but C3C needs more of a patch.

WarpStorm · December 5, 2003, 22:25

A patch is called a patch because in the old days it wasn't compiled in, but rather 'patched' in by hand. I remember many a long day trying to find a set of instructions that would correct the problem and still fit into the allocated memory (not to mention typing in octal patterns).

vmxa1 · December 5, 2003, 23:00

Originally posted by WarpStorm
A patch is called a patch because in the old days it wasn't compiled in, but rather 'patched' in by hand. I remember many a long day trying to find a set of instructions that would correct the problem and still fit into the allocated memory (not to mention typing in octal patterns).

Holy cow are you as ancient as me? We did binary coded decimal patches, feed in via paper tape to real core in the early 60's.

vmxa1 · December 5, 2003, 23:04

Originally posted by sabrewolf

before the www, distribution was just way too costly to allow a serious bug in a game.
now it's not really a problem... in the worst case everyone can download at a friends place and burn the patch on CD.

somewhere (i think at the official UFO:Aftermath forum) i read that programmers usually get paid for the game plus one patch. now if you make the game perfect, the patch would need to have new features inside (i have heard people calling PTW the first proper patch for multiplayers).

That did not stop them from putting out broken games. You used to have to get them sent to on floppies. In some cases even send back your CD and get a new, in the very early days of games on CD.

Dominae · December 5, 2003, 23:17

I like what they did with patches and whatnot in GalCiv.

They used the internet community as guinea pigs, and fed them with new/fixed stuff every few weeks (even days!) or so after the game was released. Most players were happy with this model because: 1) they knew their concerns would be addressed in a timely fashion, and 2) they felt they were an important part of post-development.

IMO all game companies/publishers should use a similar model. I'm sure we would all be more than happy to download many patches in December if it were to help make the "big" patch in January worth the wait.

Dominae