Upgrade to 1.29

[Harovan]

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]

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]

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]

Ok sticking with 1.21

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]

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?

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

hi ,

double post

have a nice day

[Panag]

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