Civ III: Conquests Patch Notice

[Harovan]

Firaxis/Breakaway don't cease to amaze me. Big thumbs up. It's a pleasure to be your customer. I don't want to say that the changes in combat system were necessarily bad. But they certainly shouldn't be in a beta patch. Changes with a big impact like this should be thoroughly tested. May be it should be made adjustable (the # of rounds being a General Setting).

[sabrewolf]

i can picture coracle weaping in the corner
"why didn't they remove culture flipping that soon too?"

:up: great reflexes, firaxis :up:
the code must be well structured to remove the changes just like that

[portuguese7]

According to latest news, this is back:



Personally, I'm sorry to hear that, but if all others think other way...

[Catt]

Thank you for listening to fan concerns

Catt

[Harovan]

That picture is great, portugese7.

[Thoth]

Thanks for listening Firaxis.


(Is anybody taking bets on when the first poster b*tches about streaky combat results after the beta patch is released?

[DrSpike]

Wow, changing course like that again in response to fans' concerns is amazing.

[portuguese7]

Being such a big poster at CFC, I have to have a good hand of them...
Enjoy:

Question -
Suspicious -
Need Help -
Chinese -
Xmas -
Skull -
Floppa -
DJ -
New borg -
+1 stupid -
chair -
Job forPope-
Dead Thread-
Hug -
Supporting -
Rant -
Zzz -
Ancient -
Angel -
Dyna -
Dyna animed-
Fidel -
Che Guevara-
Hyppie -
Typing Comp-
Samurai -
WizardDraco-
007 -
Cow Smiley -
9 (cloud) -
SpearVsTank-

More:
Strange and bans-http://forums.tactical-ops.to/misc.p...on=showsmilies
LOTR smileys -http://www.council-of-elrond.com/for...on=showsmilies
Rock and Roll -http://www.gnrforum.com/misc.php?action=getsmilies&s=
(Hope this is not a problem, since it is completelly Off Topic. If this is strongly against the rules here, warn me)

[Alex]

These changes were being tested in order to be included in the final patch, which will be released in 2004. We bemoaned about the lack of a patch to fix two important bugs (gpt and fp). They decided to give us a BETA patch, containing fixes for these bugs AND the changes in combat. Note: it is a BETA patch, "feel free to download it at your own risk" type of thing.

I don't want to say that the changes in combat system were necessarily bad. But they certainly shouldn't be in a beta patch.

They wouldn't be in a BETA patch because the beta patch wasn't supposed to exist. It is being released because we complained about the bugs (which would be fixed anyway, but only in the second quarter of 2004). They're saying: "hey guys, this is a beta patch, it hasn't been thoroughly tested yet". And we say: "I don't care, I want it, but if there's something wrong with it you're all f***ed up".

Jesse Smith:

This was the only way to get a patch posted prior to Christmas. If additional issues present themselves we will make every effort to release another BETA update.

Why to be so afraid of changes? I would be willing to test this change in combat and, if things ended up being bad, I'd just say: "look, this change breaks the combat, could you undo it? Or not include it in the final patch? Thanks."

That's just my 0.02, of course. No hard feelings.

[Sarxis]

This is fine by me. Really, the only two things that bug me are the GPT and Corruption bugs (and the fact there's no replay for PBEM).

Also, I'm wondering if there are any plans to spiff up Feudalism. Its really a weak gov.

[Catt]

Originally posted by Alex
They're saying: "hey guys, this is a beta patch, it hasn't been thoroughly tested yet". And we say: "I don't care, I want it, but if there's something wrong with it you're all f***ed up".

This is the second or third time you've posted along these lines -- what are you seeing that I am not in this thread. To my eye, the vast majority (not all, but the vast majority) of the thread consisted of "thanks a bunch" followed by cogently, calmly stated concerns about the proposed change to combat. Unless my radar is not working at all, you seem to be saying that constructive criticism = **** you!

Why to be so afraid of changes?

It is not a question of fear. Certain players feel they have a very good understanding about how the various game concepts, including combat, interact. The proposed changes were entirely straightforward mathematically and easily reduced to hard numbers. The extent of the potential ingame changes introduced by the nature of the change was debateable, but some players felt pretty confident that at least some of the ingame effects were entirely predictable and detracted from gameplay unless extensive other changes were made.

I would be willing to test this change in combat and, if things ended up being bad, I'd just say: "look, this change breaks the combat, could you undo it? Or not include it in the final patch? Thanks."

Would you care to test the following changes: (1) all mountains and hills are impassable to all units; (2) strategic and luxury resrouces are disabled; (3) all units except for warriors require a certain (disabled) resource; and (4) you may not build settlers? Certainly you wouldn't want to spend much time testing this, right? You can see just by looking at the changes that the game perhaps wouldn't offer the same depth as an unmodded game of Civ 3? The above example is of course silly and extreme - the point is that some players feel they are more than competent enough with the basic game functionality to comment on likely ingame effects of the proposed combat changes. You may disagree and you may also be willing to play with the proposed change yourself. That doesn't make others' criticsm equate to a "**** you!" nor does it indicate any sort of "fear of change" among other posters.

By all means express your opinion on the issue - but no need to again jump into the discussion only to harp on others for expressing their reasoned opinions of the effects of the proposed changes.

Catt

[ducki]

Originally posted by OPD
It would be interesting if it were to come into play only when units from different classes are fighting.
So cav vs spears, tanks vs spears, pikes etc are less random but horse vs spear remains the same......

Hmmm.... so:
----
int nNumRolls = 1;
nNumRolls = nNumRolls + abs(GetAttackerAgeIndex() - GetDefenderAgeIndex());

Roll(nNumRolls);
----

I like it.

[MrWhereItsAt]

I think I understand what Alex is getting at - Al, you have made your point, and I'm sure you'll agree, that, if you see someone starting to edge towards irritation at the same point, then it might be time to let it alone, just for a while. Trust me, as I have recently come close to this with the "When do we have AU?" poll. No hard feelings, but if we leave it then those who may get annoyed don't have to.

Common ground: thanks to Firaxis and Breakaway for listening to us and doubtless many others on sites all over the place. I doubt that we convinced you to reverse the beta patch change on our own, but this is pretty clear indication that we are being watched here, and actually paid attention to, when we are being serious about it all!

[Jeem]

Also, I'm wondering if there are any plans to spiff up Feudalism. Its really a weak gov.

Not to mention completely different from what the manual states!

However, I don't think it's all that weak. You get the 3 policing units and can still safely hit a golden age knowing that you'll get a big benefit. The main difference between Feudalism and Monarchy is that you now don't need to research Monarchy in order to have a decent government - that's a BIG bonus. Feudalisms own Despotisms in every way and it's a viable step up from Despotism which fits quite nicely within the game parameters I think.

You don't want to be stuck on it for ages by any means.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by portuguese7
-[IMG]
http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads2/cloud9.gif[/IMG]

Cloud nine? Looks like a smilie passing gas.