C3C game patch mid january? beta patch??

[Paddy]

[uglyduck]

Wow! ... and I *thought* I was enjoying the game as it is at the moment .... just shows you how wrong I can be ...

[vmxa1]

That was my whole point, why not use the free beta tester in a massive way as the did with GalCiv.
The game is hailed in most all of the reviews now.
The net allows for speedy feedback and implementation. Waiting until you have most of the bugs identified and then patched makes the process too long.
Their way gets rid of all the requirements to document all of the tester work. With socre or even 100 testers you have to control things to attempt to get all the bases covered. With 1500 players or more you don't need that as the pool is large enough to ensure all aspects are tried.

[sabrewolf]

they could even nominate few people at ACS, CFC and similar larger sites to bundle and summarize the issues, so they wouldn't even need to browse the forums.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by pauli
it's less broken than smax, and nobody calls THAT unenjoyable.

How is SMAX broken? The only serious problem I've seen discussed is how the Data angels don't really get their probe bonus, and given that they're not an essential part of the game, that doesn't make it unplayable. On the other hand, taking the one way to reduce the ridiculous amounts of corruption and simply breaking it, as was done in Conquests, really does make it unenjoyable later in the game.

[WarpStorm]

How was SMAX broken? AI that just wasn't there. It never even played the satellite game in any game I played. The implementation of collateral damage makes no sense. It was really easy to mount an effective military campaign. Just to name a few. (This is not to say I didn't enjoy it, I did. I still consider it broken, though).

[Harovan]

Originally posted by sabrewolf
they could even nominate few people at ACS, CFC and similar larger sites to bundle and summarize the issues, so they wouldn't even need to browse the forums.

For the FP and corruption fixes, all they need is alexman.

For the gpt fix, all they need is any player who is able to add two numbers together.

I don't care much about other, "minor" fixes. They can take their time with them till mid of next year for all I care. It's the FP, RCP-fix and GPT bugs that make the game broken.

[alva]

For the FP and corruption fixes, all they need is alexman.

Hehe, I did think it was kind of funny that 5 minutes after he installed C3C he came up with it, something no-one else had noticed before... (or just didn't or wasn't allowed to mention )

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph

For the gpt fix, all they need is any player who is able to add two numbers together.

I think they have too many people who like adding two numbers together, when perhaps one will do.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
I don't care much about other, "minor" fixes. They can take their time with them till mid of next year for all I care. It's the FP, RCP-fix and GPT bugs that make the game broken.

Exactly my sentiment. At the moment, I'm modding based on the C3C editor, but playing PtW v1.29.

(I'm even tempted to mod Conquest features in PtW as far as possible, e.g. higher upgrade costs. )

[Phatphal]

I seem to be crashing to desktop alot. Every 2-4 hours of gameplay it would display a message about buffering or something along those lines then crash. Thank god for autosaves. If this one problem was fixed I wouldn't mind waiting a year between patches.

Has anyone noticed how laggy it is in multiplayer ? I played a lan game and there was a 1.5 second delay on moving troops and accessing towns. Since i'm pretty much a newb to the multiplayer seen in civ3 i was wondering if anyone knew a quick fix for this

[MrWhereItsAt]

Originally posted by DrSpike


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.

Sorry, but I am really quite surprised by the reactions, as I have not seen any issue in several games. I have noticed the FP creating extra corruption near the Palace, but without deliberate RCP it is not devastating, nor is it something I consider game-breaking. The gpt thing I haven't even noticed, and overall the game is working fine (if perhaps my mastery of the SoZ has been a little too much for the poor AI! )

I just don;t like seeing statements that remind me of when Civ first came out. THAT was nasty, and I hope none of us get all sulky just in case some of these "bugs" are not fixed.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt


Sorry, but I am really quite surprised by the reactions, as I have not seen any issue in several games. I have noticed the FP creating extra corruption near the Palace, but without deliberate RCP it is not devastating, nor is it something I consider game-breaking. The gpt thing I haven't even noticed, and overall the game is working fine (if perhaps my mastery of the SoZ has been a little too much for the poor AI! )

I just don;t like seeing statements that remind me of when Civ first came out. THAT was nasty, and I hope none of us get all sulky just in case some of these "bugs" are not fixed.

Well you're entitled to think that. But many players who started out by making such arguments changed their minds when they looked a little harder at the game.

I think a distinction should be drawn between people whinging at game features they didn't like when Civ3 came out, and whinging at what I will once again call a range of game-breaking bugs now.

Twice you've made posts to imply you think that they might not even be bugs, and hence might not get patched, like some of the new Civ 3 features 2 years ago. To be honest I really don't see how any experienced player could think that.

[Harovan]

Most of us do not "whine" about the game. Speaking for myself, I actually consider C3C to be a very good game, it's for certain the best Civ game that was ever released. I think the game is well balanced, the unit concept very good and the Conquests scenarios just awesome. I expect from this game the best playing experience and many, many joyful hours. But the current state of the game is, that it is ridden by major bugs, which are enormous fun killers, especially in the higher difficulty levels, where every shield and every gold counts. To play with a broken game would frustrate me, and I just don't want to get frustrated over Conquests. Therefor I use it for scenario creating only and wait for the true release of Conquests (the day the game breaking bugs are fixed), while playing PtW v1.27.

[Stuie]

I seriously doubt we are going to see a beta patch. Atari doesn't seem to work that way.

It's a shame, too, because the game just feels like it is so close to being where it should be. In fact, I am playing into the Modern Era and not getting bored for the first time since way back when Civ3 first came out. I usually wrap up a game as soon as the UN becomes available, because I just can't be bothered with the tedium of researching the Modern tech tree. But that appears to have changed - I'm actually in a Modern was with an AI that can fight back. Very nice.

Anyway..... I get the feeling we'll have to wait. Let's just hope they get it right the first time.