March Patch Notes (formerly february)
- Thread starter lietkynes
- Start date
- Status
There's only ONE good way to do that.
In a civil manner which brings facts in focus rather than spoiling it all with vitriol and perplexing methods.
I always presume anyone and everyone is well versed and educated.
When i'm upset, i make a fist and slam the WIND.
Only to realize my emotions are empty and that it too doesn't hit back.
To Quote Bruce Siu-Long Lee in Enter the Dragon.
All opinions count. But a rubber band snaps if you bend it too much.
Proudly or not, gameplay evolves.
AfterShafter
Deity
I think the production focus in the new patch, along with increased building functionality and decreased maintenance/cost for early buildings, is part of an effort to deal with the almost fundamental complaint of "the game has nothing for builders." I've already heard some positive feedback on this front and, simply put, in the games I've played I've found myself making the decision to get my cities working on buildings a lot more than I did pre-patch. The lack of builder stuff was definitely one of the top complaints in the game, so I'd say they were actually attacking a major issue.
I also think heavily buffing the two non-war oriented initial SP's was done in the same vein, but I do agree - I think they may have gone too far with it, if only just a little. At least oligarchy isn't as easy to use offensively any more though, while not being nerfed into oblivion.
When you start thinking that there is only one solution to a problem then you make it into a bigger problem.
Anyway, yes gameplay evolves. Or devolves. Games in general are being dumbed down for the new generation. Final Fantasy is a great example.
The future is bleak.
TheHarshax
Warlord
Anybody notice they didn't fix the Uranium count? I've played 3 games, and twice I teched atomic theory and noticed that every uranium resource I had was singular.
No citation, sorry. Just something I (think I) remember reading around the December patch.
That's fair enough. You're right that that has been a big issue (although easily solvable by just tweaking values). I guess I don't appreciate it as much as others -even though this was a major issue for me as well- because I realize that this is one of the aspects of gameplay they should have addressed before release with even minor playtesting. It would have taken little work to address and little effort to find (again, with proper playtesting and actually listening to feedback).
Other issues like 1UPT I will give them more leeway on in terms of time it will take to fix because it is a far more invasive "problem" (talking about the scale issues again - I actually like 1UPT combat) than just tweaking some values in the xml. It was a design decision that they could have thought would work as they programmed the game but wouldn't have time to change (if they wanted to) later. Again, you might disagree that this is a problem, but to me the scaling is somewhat important.
Add to the everything I've already said the fact that the AI will take a long time to actually become competitive and this game just isn't something I want to spend time playing until more changes are made. I feel the need to restate that I am glad it is making progress, but I am also not holding my breath.
SammyKhalifa
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2003
- Messages
- 6,308
To me the scaling is not and won't be an issue (though it's fine that you do). It just took my caravel about 500 years to sail around the world. That's not a CivV problem--it's always been that way. We just accept that it that way becase a). that's the way it's been since the first game; and b). the game just works better that way. So we've always accepted crazy time scaling because it makes it a better game. I'm okay with distance scaling if it makes the combat a little better.
As far as this patch goes--yeah, the AI is still pretty dumb, but I'm more willing to put up with that now because there are way more interesting decisions to make along the way. The AI's always been dumb, but that fact was put to the forefont in CivV because of the lack of anything to do except fight and that there are no stacks to cover it up.
You should try it with the new patch--way better. Don't just dismiss it out of hand without trying first.
As far as this patch goes--yeah, the AI is still pretty dumb, but I'm more willing to put up with that now because there are way more interesting decisions to make along the way. The AI's always been dumb, but that fact was put to the forefont in CivV because of the lack of anything to do except fight and that there are no stacks to cover it up.
You should try it with the new patch--way better. Don't just dismiss it out of hand without trying first.
The version 5.0 TBC patch notes are now up on civmodding.wordpress.com, on target for a Thursday release for compatibility with patch 1.0.1.217.
About time! I cannot updated CCMAT II until you update your public version! Oh, the troubles!
Blue Oyster
Stealth is an Illusion
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2006
- Messages
- 84
Interesting idea, to have unit "ranges" vary with map size.
I always assume the CiV "planet" is the same size, and the map-size is just an adjustment to tile "resolution" on the globe surface.
The givens are: d = vt; "t" = 1 "turn"; the number of tiles a unit moves is fixed; the map size (and therefore the "scale" of a tile") is allowed to vary.
If we wished for it always take the same amount of "time" (i.e., "turns") for a caravel to circumnavigate the globe, then the number of "tiles" a caravel may travel in one turn must be permitted to vary with the "resolution" of the map, n'est-ce pas?
Just remember the game is played in the abstract.. not everything is going to appear realistic.
Sounds like you could use a custom, gigantic map, and then a mod to double (or treble) all unit movement values.
Exactly how many times does a game have to be nerfed before it can be labelled as a complete fowl up?
And if you nerf a nerfed game are you admitting failure in your previous nerf(s) or failure in the game itself?
let's discuss this, over a game of Civ 4... (or in three years, Civ6)
And if you nerf a nerfed game are you admitting failure in your previous nerf(s) or failure in the game itself?
let's discuss this, over a game of Civ 4... (or in three years, Civ6)
I'll throw you a curve ball, swing.
Strike three is actually v1217. You're out.
The Label spins so fast, nobody can read Rawlings on it or keep up with the current relief pitcher in the 8th inning.
We're heading to extra innings. Have a seat.
Home run.
Firaxis wins.
AfterShafter
Deity
Can we at least give it half as many years of repeated major updates, changes, and patches as Civ IV had before we declare Civ V an utter failure and, sick of the product requiring patches to improve, go back and revel in the triumphant success of... Civ IV
Mathalamus
Emperor of Mathalia
as i said before, a product has to build on the previous successful product. failure to do so results in Civ5 for example.
Not just more cows, but less wheat, the most annoying resource.
I'll throw you a curve ball, swing.
Strike three is actually v1217. You're out.
The Label spins so fast, nobody can read Rawlings on it or keep up with the current relief pitcher in the 8th inning.
We're heading to extra innings. Have a seat.
Home run.
Firaxis wins.
Indeed.
I think this might be the first time waiting for the patch to fix a broken game has actually worked out. The game is GOOD post-patch. Legitimately good. Not perfect, but if they keep up the support it will be great in the long run.
hardcore_gamer
King
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2009
- Messages
- 672
Don't care.
I deleted Civ 5 from my PC yesterday and I have pretty much given up any hope that it will ever be any good.
I deleted Civ 5 from my PC yesterday and I have pretty much given up any hope that it will ever be any good.
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
