Here is a response by Nate (of MacSoft) on the immediate plan (provided 8-2-02).

First off, I want to point out that it is a highly unusual situation to be porting major updates to a game 8 months after it has been released. This is not something that is planned for in any project. Maintainance updates are always part of the plan, but not wholesale changes to the software. We are doing what we can to make sure everyone gets the best game we can provide.

The current plan is to get 1.21 and the editor out; it is our opinion that it has taken entirely too long to get the editor finished and that we want to get it into people's hands as soon as possible so they can start working with it. While some people might prefer to wait for 1.29, we think that most users would prefer to get an editor as soon as possible. Then we will see what kind of work updating to 1.29 entails and what happens next. Any comments on the amount of work involved in 1.29 made up to this point have been pure speculation and are not based on examination of the code. To be succinct, no decision has been made on 1.29 and none will until we have a situation conducive to making a completely informed decision.

If you want to help convince us that 1.29 is important (and by "us" I mean not me but the people who control the financial decisions, since I'd do it in a heartbeat), then be among the people who downloads the editor and uses it when it has been released.

If you want to help convince us that 1.29 is important, do not be among the people who keep sending us nasty emails or posting hate mail to bulletin boards. That does not help at all. We'd love to hear from you if you have a reasoned argument as to how we should be doing things differently; threats and flames are ignored.

Finally, while we know this has been tedious for everyone (us included), we also know that we have the best people working on Civ III. We know that when we do see 1.21 and the editor, they will be quality ports.
_________________
--
Nate Birkholz
Product Coordinator
MacSoftBack to top

Download the editor and stop sending hate(e)mail!

Thanks for the response, Nate.

...stop sending hate(e)mail!

I would hope that none of the calm, rational, intelligent and discerning members of this forum would ever do any such thing - and I'd like to beat the living **** out of anybody who would! [punch]

Yay! An Editor!

I know I'm an out-of-place idealist, but wouldn't it be great if we saw some Mac-only scenarios and maps that we could share? If the energy that we have all put into this discussion could be directed into some creative modding, I might be playing Civ3 again.

Back to AoE2, where I'm working on a Robin Hood scenario.

BTW: thanks again, dojoboy, for providing the communication with MacSoft. And gfeier for the questions to Nate on The Gamesome Mac.

*BEEP* *BEEP* OT Post

>Back to AoE2, where I'm working on a Robin Hood scenario.

Is there an editor with AoE2?

Sshh. I'll put it in brackets [there are great Editors with AoE2; SW-GB; and Warcraft3--all shipped in the box]. Not such a widespread mod community for these games as for Civ3, 'tho (back on topic, whew!).

Just so that Mac players are aware, there is a 1.21g patch being tested at this time that fixes many game bugs. So far, it seems to work great. Of course, I haven't been testing it for very long yet.

Originally posted by ferretloverdc
Just so that Mac players are aware, there is a 1.21g patch being tested at this time that fixes many game bugs. So far, it seems to work great. Of course, I haven't been testing it for very long yet.

Excellent! :)

Are we looking at two different downloads: first, final 1.21 patch then the editor second?

Westlake hasn't made any status changes for the editor on their website but surely its past alpha. Well, maybe not if 1.21 needs to be complete.

I would guess that yes - there will be separate downloads - the final 1.21 patch, then a beta editor and then probably a final 1.21 editor. Of course, that is just a guess.

Originally posted by ferretloverdc
Just so that Mac players are aware, there is a 1.21g patch being tested at this time that fixes many game bugs. So far, it seems to work great. Of course, I haven't been testing it for very long yet.

Is the patch available at the beta site? I figure it must be since I can't get in there. :aargh:

Hey, this was my 100th post! Beers are on me! :beer:

No. The patch is only available to certain official beta-testers (or, at least that is my impression). I was given the patch and informed that it was for my eyes only. I can only assume that I am not the only beta-tester.

Originally posted by ferretloverdc
No. The patch is only available to certain official beta-testers (or, at least that is my impression). I was given the patch and informed that it was for my eyes only. I can only assume that I am not the only beta-tester.

Damn! Can you at least tell us if it fixed the army cost bug?

Originally posted by ferretloverdc
No. The patch is only available to certain official beta-testers (or, at least that is my impression). I was given the patch and informed that it was for my eyes only. I can only assume that I am not the only beta-tester.

I guess an NDA wasn't part of the patch if you're on here talking about it? ;)

Brad

Well, I didn't think that mentioning that such a patch exists would be a problem. I am not sharing anything about the patch, or giving anyone info on how to get it. If it is a problem, let me know and I will not mention anything again. I just figured that mentioning that a patch is being tested wouldn't violate anything. If I am wrong, I am very sorry.

I do have an NDA with Westlake and the e-mail I got telling me where to get it said it was not for public release or viewing. It was not said in the e-mail that I couldn't mention even having it.

Again, if I am screwing up, I apologize. Please let me know. I don't want to cause any problems.

Originally posted by ferretloverdc
Well, I didn't think that mentioning that such a patch exists would be a problem. I am not sharing anything about the patch, or giving anyone info on how to get it. If it is a problem, let me know and I will not mention anything again. I just figured that mentioning that a patch is being tested wouldn't violate anything. If I am wrong, I am very sorry.

I do have an NDA with Westlake and the e-mail I got telling me where to get it said it was not for public release or viewing. It was not said in the e-mail that I couldn't mention even having it.

Again, if I am screwing up, I apologize. Please let me know. I don't want to cause any problems.

I wouldn't worry too much. 1.21f was very obviously not ready for prime time and I assumed they had later builds by now. I imagine anyone familiar with the process had already figured that out. :)

That is kinda what I thought. Now, if I were beta-testing a game that had not even been announced, I could see that I would need to not even mention it. But revealing that a later patch exists is not a problem I would think. After all, when the 1.17f patch came out, we all knew that it wasn't final - had lots of bugs in it. Then we got a 1.17g patch. So now we have a 1.21f open beta patch, so I would expect a 1.21g or even a 1.21h patch as the final before they try to get us to 1.29 (should that happen after we get the editor).

But if Brad, Westlake or MacSoft disagree, I will happily delete my posts here and refrain from any further postings regarding anything they send me.

Of course, if they want to send the cops after me, at least I would have plenty of time to read in prison. ;-)

Originally posted by ferretloverdc
That is kinda what I thought. Now, if I were beta-testing a game that had not even been announced, I could see that I would need to not even mention it. But revealing that a later patch exists is not a problem I would think.

It's not my place to complain - this is a matter between you and MacSoft. I was mainly amused that you got a "for-your-eyes-only" build and one of the first things you did was tell the whole world MacSoft was giving them out. ;)

Brad

Originally posted by Brad Oliver


It's not my place to complain - this is a matter between you and MacSoft. I was mainly amused that you got a "for-your-eyes-only" build and one of the first things you did was tell the whole world MacSoft was giving them out. ;)

Brad

Not to me, damnit!

I hope they let him off - I'm sure it's a first offense. If not, well, I just saw a banner ad for some lawyers at the bottom of the page. ;) ;)

At least we can finally stop speculating about when the 1.21f patch will come out.

Anybody know when the 1.21g patch is coming? :crazyeye:

Gee, what a to-do about two lower case letters of the alphabet, 'f' 'n 'g'. Welcome to Sesame Street for civvers.

If we don't have an Editor, what would make Civ3 more interesting at the moment is a series of 'Public Betas' to retain our involvement. (-;

I'm cynical, but not sardonic. At one point in time Civ3 was the ultimate Mac-game experience for me; now, we're in another point in time and I'm only slightly disapointed at what might have been.

Infogrames/MacSoft: take a lesson from Blizzard. Do what you say, whan you say you will. Keep the fans/consumers involved with updates. There is a difference, of course: Blizzard is a publisher/creator and has a vested interest in all aspects of the game. Infogrames/MacSoft is a publisher, and sales must be paramount [not that's there's anything wrong with that].

Originally posted by ferretloverdc
I do have an NDA with Westlake and the e-mail I got telling me where to get it said it was not for public release or viewing. It was not said in the e-mail that I couldn't mention even having it.

Well, I'm not a lawyer, but if that's all it said, I'd guess you're OK. In fact, if that's all it said ("not for public release or viewing") it kind of sounds like you could even talk about what's changed - though I'd strongly recommend specifically checking with Westlake/Macsoft before you do. I doubt anyone would get annoyed at you for asking for clarification on exactly what you're allowed to say!

Surely, this isn't going to be an issue of any great importance. I sincerely believe if making the community aware of a new build was not what MacSoft wanted, it would've said so in the NDA.

I noticed a post by Steve Jobs in insidemacgames' forum saying any feedback on OS Xv. 2 by Glenda, Nate, et al was against their NDA w/ Apple. Well, everyone knew what was coming out. [except me]

Obviously, MacSoft is benefited by ferretloverdc's involvement in the new build. :goodjob:

Originally posted by gfeier
I hope they let him off - I'm sure it's a first offense. If not, well, I just saw a banner ad for some lawyers at the bottom of the page.

Oh boy, I feel like I've given the *wrong* impression here. While I don't work for MacSoft and *absolutely can't* speak for them, I think common sense applies here: no one is going to be getting any legal threats over a patch which everyone knew was coming. :) You know the old saying - it's just a game. :)

I also need to share something: MacSoft is, contrary to what some might think, staffed with a bunch of good and honest people who very badly want the best thing for you guys, and they're trying _really_ hard in the face of some pretty tough circumstances. In fact, I don't think they could try any harder than what they are.

It may sound ingenuine coming from me, but all throughout this, I've felt they've been more than fair to us as Mac developers, and I really respect that. Because of that, it really bothers me if I say or have said anything that might cast them in a bad light. I'm no spokesperson, and it's certainly not my place to attempt PR as has probably become apparent ;). The best thing for all of us to do is keep up a good vibe about Mac Civ3. It'll make a difference for everyone involved, I swear.

Brad

Originally posted by Brad Oliver
I also need to share something: MacSoft is, contrary to what some might think, staffed with a bunch of good and honest people who very badly want the best thing for you guys, and they're trying _really_ hard in the face of some pretty tough circumstances. In fact, I don't think they could try any harder than what they are.

I definitely believe this! As a school teacher, I experience the same stuff. Civic leaders, parents, etc. hammer the education system as if the people involved could care less. Sometimes people are just going to rant because they're frustrated, myself included.

Originally posted by Brad Oliver
It may sound ingenuine coming from me, but all throughout this, I've felt they've been more than fair to us as Mac developers, and I really respect that. Because of that, it really bothers me if I say or have said anything that might cast them in a bad light. I'm no spokesperson, and it's certainly not my place to attempt PR as has probably become apparent ;). The best thing for all of us to do is keep up a good vibe about Mac Civ3. It'll make a difference for everyone involved, I swear.

Brad, I don't think the folks posting here would ever twist your words in regards to your profession. I feel you've always attempted to help us understand the context we're dealing with, and I believe we do. I appreciate, as others do, your involvement in this forum.