Has Civ 4 been abandoned by Firaxis?

[Solver]

You're right. But that's something Methos explains in his CFC writeup, when answering the question of why Firaxis can't produce such quick fixes the players can. Concisely, the answer is that Firaxis isn't even allowed to work on or release a patch as they see fit. They're not allowed to decide, oh, let's make a quick hotfix for the culture display bug (though it'd be easy to).

[Supr49er]

I don't blame them for not giving a date either. It's human nature to lock onto a date and expect it by then. When they don't make the date, they are torched.

Better to get it right than fast.

[Sirotnikov]

solver, dude, either explain what Methos wrote or link to his post.

I mean, I could go look it up myself on CFC, but then I'd have no reason to remain on your site.

[Jaybe]

There are VERY FEW bugs in 3.13 (after Bhruic's unofficial patch is added).
Maybe none at all, just PERCEIVED bugs.

[Todd Hawks]

I'm not sure I even want another patch. Considering how they screwed up 3.13, do I really want another patch that fixes some of the bugs (that Bhruic already fixed anyway) and then introduces a lot more of them again? No, thanks.

[Wiglaf]

Todd Hawks, you're one angry mofo. And I like that. Keep giving it to the man

[Ming]

MP players need an official patch that corrects the problems. As much as Bhruic's onofficial patch solves a lot of problems, unoffical patchs are not good for MP players since everybody has to have the same version for it to work.

Bring on the patch

[Solver]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
solver, dude, either explain what Methos wrote or link to his post.

I mean, I could go look it up myself on CFC, but then I'd have no reason to remain on your site.

I do not remember the link to that thread, you know

[Todd Hawks]

Wow, you know you said something wrong when Wiglaf starts to side with you.

Wiglaf, I am not angry (anymore), just extrapolating past patching performance to a possible future patch. I like CIV very much and I'm happy with the current status (if only due to Bhruic's patch). "The man" did an overall good job on CIV and its expansion packs, so no need to "give it to him".
All I'm saying is that we shouldn't automatically equal a new patch with the disappearance of all bugs.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Solver


I do not remember the link to that thread, you know

Then please tell what he has said, or explain a bit more about the patch production process, since you obviously posses that information.

What you do is keep pointing to CFC and actively encourage me to go to that site, instead of providing me with a better answer on this site.

If you keep pointing at CFC because "they already have a feature on this" instead of providing your own version, people will get used to the idea that they should go to CFC first.

This is bad policy, especially for a staff member. After all, both sites are competing for audience members, and Poly isn't winning as of lately. Even I'm considering going to CFC for Civ IV info, and I'm a die hard polytubby.

[Solver]

Okay okay, here it is:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=249578

There are cases when not referring to material at CFC would be silly. It's a good writeup and I can't give a better answer than it has. Same goes for, say, modding guides. If there's an in-depth guide at CFC, I wouldn't be able to give a better answer here.

We have fair competition here, after all I'm quite the Apolytoner (and quite the civver), and I also go to CFC often for certain things.

[Kuciwalker]

You could quote the writeup.

[Solver]

That'd be copy-paste, not quoting

[Kuciwalker]

You wrap it in quote tags, then it's quoting.

[Solver]

No, that's plagiarism