Patch v1.17f

[Shadow_Cougar]

Originally posted by Dry

Geez, you mean you have an optical computer? Like a cristal or so?
Mine is still electronical, move only at 2/3 speed of light [+ io time]

Wow, I have met very few people who could tell the difference between the speed of light and a mere 100,000 miles per second.

SC
I think my flashlight is slow

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Libertarian
I believe that I'm safe in saying that my source is considered highly credible among the critics and the sycophants alike. Due to ethical considerations, I cannot divulge his or her identity.

sycophant

a servile self-seeking flatterer
synonym see PARASITE

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by Ming
I see nothing wrong with people raising legitimate concerns about the game... even months after it's release.

Face it... (and I do enjoy the game) there are problems with it...
Granted, there will never be agreement on every feature or lack of a feature... that's personal opinion... But the so called "whiners" raise valid points about many problems that I think most of us can agree with. (I will still disagree with how they go about it )

So I look forward to seeing the readme file... and I look forward to continual discussion on what still needs to be done to make Civ III a game that all of us can agree is better than Civ II.

This patch will not address every concern we have... and will probably not answer many specific points that have been raised...
But Firaxis is continuing to support the game... and that's good enough for now.

Legitimate concerns are one thing, but continually posting stating the game is half-finished, pure-trash, etc because it doesn't have the features YOU (a single player wanted) or doesn't play the same as SMAC/Civ2, is nothing BUT a whine.

Umm, as far as a "valid points" that "most of us agree with", well.. Maybe you need to stop listening to all the "experts" here and talk to the average gamer, like the people I work with, who have NO issues with the game and equate it to crack.

Some don't like combat, some do. Some don't like resources, some do. Having a complaint about areas that are IN the game AS designed doesn't make it "valid", just that you don't like how the game was designed. Fine, go play something else, but don't continually ***** and moan because the game isn't how *you* want it.

This is the difference between "discussion" and "*****", some people still don't know the difference. These are usually the same people who post over and over about how the game sucks, is broken, useless because *their* feature isn't in. These same people will ***** and moan if their feature isn't in the patch as well.

Don't legitimize all the people who don't like the game as designed yet refuse to go away, all you do is encourage them. Hopefully they have recieved their refund and voiced their opinion of the game as best they can, with their wallets, and that is how Capitalism works.

EDIT: Oh, BTW, is anyone else not surprised by the apparent fact that CivFanatics heard about the patch first and then the news trickled here? I could be completely off base and maybe Mark & gang heard the news at the same time but if not... If I were Jeff I would send info to CivFanatics as well, the climate seems better over there...

[Kilroy_Alpha]

Originally posted by Shadow_Cougar


Wow, I have met very few people who could tell the difference between the speed of light and a mere 100,000 miles per second.

SC
I think my flashlight is slow

I usually judge speed by looking at length contraction

[Kilroy_Alpha]

Originally posted by Dan Magaha FIRAXIS
You can specify player starting positions, as you always could. The ability to assign a specific civ or player to that starting position has not been implemented as of v1.17f.


Dan

Jeff Morris said this at civ3.com
Firaxis is very interested in Civilization III having an active mod community, but need to know where our efforts are best spent.

Huh.

I guess technically Firaxis said that they are only interested in an active MOD community, as opposed to SCENARIOS. Which is obvious since they still haven't supplied an editor with the ability to do something so PROFOUNDLY IMPORTANT such as PLACE UNITS ON THE MAP, THE ONE THING, ABOVE ALL ELSE, THAT THE MOD AND SCENARIO COMMUNITIES NEED.

[Libertarian]

If I were Jeff I would send info to CivFanatics as well, the climate seems better over there.

Fortunately for Jeff, that says nothing about him.

[ACooper]

Originally posted by Libertarian


Fortunately for Jeff, that says nothing about him.

Perhaps it says something about us.

[Libertarian]

Indeed. Where we stand in agreement or disagreement with the assertion speaks to our maturity and our business acumen.

[ACooper]

Libertarian, sometimes you are a real philosopher.



Wait... did I just aggree with Libertarian?


No! I do not want a hospital

[Blaupanzer]

ACooper, you may need to tone down your meds. Now you are sounding nice too. Want to know when, if ever, we'll be able to play scenarios. That can't happen until those that like to design can do that.

[Skanky Burns]

No, Shaggy, NO!!!

Turn away from the "Dark Side^TM" while you still can!!

[beyowulf]

* Fixed bug which allowed the AI to keep trying to build cities if the city limit had been reached.

What I want to know. Does this mean that the AI won't try to implement ICS itself. I've seen it expand across an entire large continent. So will it stop when it reaches an optimum size?

[Mongoose]

I think that refers to the global city limit, after which number is reached no new cities can be built anywhere on the map, as opposed to a civ-specific optimal number of cities.

Some players, used to playing the larger maps, reported huge delays in the game as the AI would repeatedly attempt to found a new city after the limit had been reached.