How many patches?

Trancas

Chieftain
Joined
Oct 13, 2001
Messages
19
Location
Lisboa, Portugal
The amount of bugs and gameplay problems I'm hearing about are simply more than I expected. :eek:

Really, I was expecting something more solid.

How many patches do you ppl thing will be necessary?

I foresee at leat 3 or four.

One probably shortly, to correct glaring bugs.

Hopefully one adding multiplayer (please. come on, I will NOT buy a multiplayer add-on!!).

And perhaps a last one correcting multiplayer issues :D and remaining correctable bugs...

Trancas
 
In my opinion, there is one issue that warrants a patch NOW.

Air superiority.

It cannot be truely that difficult to give us a small fix for that. It is not an balancing issue as there is nothing to balance. It is not a conceptual issue.

This feature is simply broken and is a lynchpin in gameplay. I cannot believe Firaxis is sitting on their ass telling us "oh, maybe later on in the month you'll get a fix for it".

Games come out with bugs. This one is no exception. But goddamn it, almost everyone else releases a patch to fix the glaring issues and is out before the end of the week in which it was released.
 
Originally posted by Mike C
In my opinion, there is one issue that warrants a patch NOW.

Air superiority.

It cannot be truely that difficult to give us a small fix for that. It is not an balancing issue as there is nothing to balance. It is not a conceptual issue.

This feature is simply broken and is a lynchpin in gameplay. I cannot believe Firaxis is sitting on their ass telling us "oh, maybe later on in the month you'll get a fix for it".

Games come out with bugs. This one is no exception. But goddamn it, almost everyone else releases a patch to fix the glaring issues and is out before the end of the week in which it was released.

true!

Especially since the SAM missile battaries are broke too but the AI can use the air supiority feature so games in modern age are very unbalanced D:
 
People keep talking about "the number of bugs"...

But, other than the Air Superiority issue (which is a MAJOR one), I am not really aware of any other urgent matters. The game does seem solid...how many of us have experienced crashes or glitches that caused us to lose our game? I certainly gave not.

In fact, other than Air Superiority, and maybe the oil in coastal waters thing (which I have never seen), the only other change I can see is perhaps a slight decrease in corruption/waste (personally I hope that it does not change too much).

I would hardly say that the product is bug-ridden.

Jaguara
 
Originally posted by jaguara
People keep talking about "the number of bugs"...

But, other than the Air Superiority issue (which is a MAJOR one), I am not really aware of any other urgent matters. The game does seem solid...how many of us have experienced crashes or glitches that caused us to lose our game? I certainly gave not.

In fact, other than Air Superiority, and maybe the oil in coastal waters thing (which I have never seen), the only other change I can see is perhaps a slight decrease in corruption/waste (personally I hope that it does not change too much).

I would hardly say that the product is bug-ridden.

Jaguara

Not bug-ridden in a technical sense. Bug-ridden in a conceptual and implentation senes.

Technical
-Air Superiority. This is a game-stopping bug which is just as bad as a crash bug.

Conceptual
-UN victory (if you don't build the UN in time, you are potentially screwed with no way out)
-Culture flips, even with an army stationed there. Not only do you lose the city, you lose the army with it.
-Corruption is something I don't mind but many have expressed a desire to lower it.
-Armies especially since they are not upgradable are next to useless

Features
-Poor editor. No where close to the Civ 2 in flexibility in allowing the creation of scenarios.


Most games with show-stoppers ala Air Superiority in their release versions typically have patches to alleviate that problem within the week of their release. We are approaching THREE weeks and nothing has yet been released yet.

Most games have balancing patches and fixes in poorly implemented concepts at the 3 week mark.

And what do we get from Firaxis? Maybe, if your good little boys, we'll come out with a patch but we aren't even going to tell you what we are fixing or not fixing.

For all we know, it could be a speed patch to speed up the AI turns and address none of the issues. We deserve something from them, not just groveling and licking up scraps of information. Just because its Sid's company doesn't mean they get to feed us dog food and think that is fine.
 
There is also a bug with some (all ?) nVidia graphic cards : if you put the full graphic acceleration (which the normal thing when you paid hundred of buck for one card :D), it slows down the game.
It's not a game killer, but it's a technical bug anyway :)

I would try to point out too that the easy level should be REALLY easy. I know you become quickly used to the AI and that you can kick its butt without too much effort, but well at the Chieftain difficulty setting, you should not even have to make any effort to win, which is not the case.
 
Originally posted by Mike C

Conceptual
-UN victory (if you don't build the UN in time, you are potentially screwed with no way out)
-Culture flips, even with an army stationed there. Not only do you lose the city, you lose the army with it.
-Corruption is something I don't mind but many have expressed a desire to lower it.
-Armies especially since they are not upgradable are next to useless

Features
-Poor editor. No where close to the Civ 2 in flexibility in allowing the creation of scenarios.

UN Victory - Maybe they should trash the space race too. After all, if somebody else builds their ship first, you lose. That's hardly fair now, isn't it? I've never even had a game end diplomatically, let alone to have lost this way. The only 'knock' I have against it is that there should be an option to refuse the UN vote in which you would then have to slug it out against the rest of the world. If you don't like it, the shortsighted folks at Firaxis *did* include a little option up front to turn this condition off if you want to.

Cuture Flips - But it's probably OK if you assimilate an AI city and get their units stationed there. It works both ways. If one of your cities harbors such a strong dislike for your civilization that they feel the need to revolt and join a new one, I don't see it as being outside the realm of possibility that any troops based there might feel the same way. Civil wars have been quite common in history.

Corruption - I agree that it could be lowered a bit. But I also think that much of the screaming against it (most of which came in the first few DAYS after Civ3 was released...how much can you know about the nuances of a game in 48 hours??) is unfounded. In my modern democracies, I've found corruption to average around 7.5%...which I don't see as something to get in a huff over...I think of it as 'pork'. Anyway, Firaxis has all but flat-out stated that corruption will be lowered in the patch.

Armies - They don't run rampant over the globe, they're quite rare. When and how to create an army is a strategic decision. A decision that *you* make. To top it off...I don't think I've ever even seen an enemy army, so it's not like you're getting screwed left and right.
 
-costal fortress doesn't work
-sam missile battary doesn't work
-sometimes you can't launch the spaceship(happened to me)
-sometimes the game crashes when you have selected an unit, hold down left mouse(for goto command) and then scroll. happened to me about 5 or 6 times
-sorting stuff in the city advisor screen only last till you take your mouse from the icon(you can't scroll while sorted).

add those 5 to the technical bugs!
 
I said it before, and I will do so again int eh hope someone at Firaxis reads this. Fortresses and cities should have Zones of Control against friendly and unfriendly units. It's no good having a fortress on the mountain passes, if "friendly" units can walk past them into your territory. When you ask them to leave, they can declare war and then what good did your fortress do? This happens without a Right of Passage agreement. In the current situation there is no reason to build a fortress anywhere other than on top of a resource you want to protect or steal.
 
I wouldn't call any issues with the game concept bugs. That;s simply a difference of taste/style. You can not like parts of the game, but don't go trying to convince everyone that it's a flaw in the game. I have no problem with the UN. I've either crushed the computer by the time it comes around, built it myself, or diplomized myself into a win.

I wouldn't say armies are useless...just not the overpowering force people had built them up to. Be realistic, having something that much more overpowering throws the balance out of whack. People want a challenge, not an easy win.

Culture flips work both ways. I've taken them as well as given them. Work with it.

I have to say, corruption is much more of a factor...I don't feel it's unbalanced, it just requires a new skill to work with. Instead of just building instantly productive colonies...you have to work them into productivity. I've done it effectively, and it does take a lot of work. But it is doable.

Really, if you don't like the features they've implemented...perhaps you really just want to play Civ II? And if the only way to feel satisfied is with an assured win...perhaps you really don't want to play games at all?
 
I say they could do it in 2. One to fix current problems and then another for MP. But realisticly I'd say 3. Another one for fixing the problems MP causes! :)
 
Originally posted by shirleyrocks
UN Victory - Maybe they should trash the space race too. After all, if somebody else builds their ship first, you lose. That's hardly fair now, isn't it? I've never even had a game end diplomatically, let alone to have lost this way. The only 'knock' I have against it is that there should be an option to refuse the UN vote in which you would then have to slug it out against the rest of the world. If you don't like it, the shortsighted folks at Firaxis *did* include a little option up front to turn this condition off if you want to.

A space race can't be won by a great leader rushing it. A space race can't be won without controlling a large number of resources. A space race requires almost 5 times the effort in production over the UN.

The UN? I beat you in a shield production contest and if you were going for a military victory, even if you control half the planet, guess what? You lose!

Originally posted by shirleyrocks
Cuture Flips - But it's probably OK if you assimilate an AI city and get their units stationed there. It works both ways. If one of your cities harbors such a strong dislike for your civilization that they feel the need to revolt and join a new one, I don't see it as being outside the realm of possibility that any troops based there might feel the same way. Civil wars have been quite common in history.

Thats right, troops from your own country just finished stomping an enemy civ's country and are holding 3 cities. What happens? All of a sudden they decide join the Egyptians and overthrow the local government because....because...they like Egyptian ice cream better?! :rolleyes:

Even if we take your case of civil war, we don't even have that option to send troops to take it back. It just belongs to the other guy and there is NOTHING you can do about it without having to declare war.

I am sure if maine all of a sudden decided to join mexico, the US army would roll right without having to declare war with Mexico.

Stop making lame excuses to justifiy something that was obviously overlooked in play testing.

Originally posted by shirleyrocks
Corruption - I agree that it could be lowered a bit. But I also
think that much of the screaming against it (most of which came in the first few DAYS after Civ3 was released...how much can you know about the nuances of a game in 48 hours??) is unfounded. In my modern democracies, I've found corruption to average around 7.5%...which I don't see as something to get in a huff over...I think of it as 'pork'. Anyway, Firaxis has all but flat-out stated that corruption will be lowered in the patch.

Of all the things that we could be complaining about, you complain about corruption, something which is not a significant problem in the game. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by shirleyrocks
Armies - They don't run rampant over the globe, they're quite rare. When and how to create an army is a strategic decision. A decision that *you* make. To top it off...I don't think I've ever even seen an enemy army, so it's not like you're getting screwed left and right.

I am not complaining about the lack of them. I am complaining how they offer very little and in many cases can be a disadvantage over just keeping a stack of units.
 
Originally posted by Gnarlyhotep
I wouldn't call any issues with the game concept bugs. That;s simply a difference of taste/style. You can not like parts of the game, but don't go trying to convince everyone that it's a flaw in the game. I have no problem with the UN. I've either crushed the computer by the time it comes around, built it myself, or diplomized myself into a win.

The fact remains, if you were going for a military victory, and you fall behind (just one mistake, just one) its game over for you. Regardless, that sucks.

Neither should we just turn it off for our own sake just because we are not intending to go for a diplomatic victory.

Originally posted by Gnarlyhotep
I wouldn't say armies are useless...just not the overpowering force people had built them up to. Be realistic, having something that much more overpowering throws the balance out of whack. People want a challenge, not an easy win.

Make the units in the army upgradable and all problems are solved. I see no reason, gameplay wise, or logic wise, why they shouldn't be upgradable.

Originally posted by Gnarlyhotep
Culture flips work both ways. I've taken them as well as given them. Work with it.

I am not complaining it works one way. It happens to the AI too. But regardless its is stupid that your entire army would decide to defect because the citizens in the city they are occupying doesn't like the new ruler.

Originally posted by Gnarlyhotep
I have to say, corruption is much more of a factor...I don't feel it's unbalanced, it just requires a new skill to work with. Instead of just building instantly productive colonies...you have to work them into productivity. I've done it effectively, and it does take a lot of work. But it is doable.

Agree. Ironically, Firaxis is fixing a non-problem.

Originally posted by Gnarlyhotep
Really, if you don't like the features they've implemented...perhaps you really just want to play Civ II? And if the only way to feel satisfied is with an assured win...perhaps you really don't want to play games at all?

Fixing culture flips don't give assured wins.
Fixing the UN doesn't give assured wins. In fact, keeping the UN is the way it is is an assured win. You just have to build it first.
And if you don't want assured wins, then lets take out the space ship victory which gives you an assured win.

I am asking for a patch to remedy technical problems NOW and extensive play testing to release a patch to fix the conceptual problems. And they are problems because the things that happen are plain stupid. It isn't an issue of a work around. It is plain stupid.

I plunked down 50 dollars for this game, I am not walking away from it just because someone is too lazy to complain about getting this product fixed up.
 
Originally posted by Akka
There is also a bug with some (all ?) nVidia graphic cards : if you put the full graphic acceleration (which the normal thing when you paid hundred of buck for one card :D), it slows down the game.
It's not a game killer, but it's a technical bug anyway :)

I would try to point out too that the easy level should be REALLY easy. I know you become quickly used to the AI and that you can kick its butt without too much effort, but well at the Chieftain difficulty setting, you should not even have to make any effort to win, which is not the case.

that's EXACTLY the bug i'm experiencing!

I have a GeForce3 Ti 500 and the game is SLOOOOOOOOWWWWW slower then when i had my Kryo 2 in there!
 
add this: Espionage is worthless. The cost is impossibly high.
And to the cheerleaders who say gameplay issue are a matter of taste: the game features were designed by a dozen or so people. Now you have tens of thousands of people pooling their intelligence and critical thinking into refining some of the concepts.
To claim that they should be left alone borders on the absurd.
There is nothing that can not be improved.
 
Originally posted by jaguara
People keep talking about "the number of bugs"...

But, other than the Air Superiority issue (which is a MAJOR one), I am not really aware of any other urgent matters. The game does seem solid...how many of us have experienced crashes or glitches that caused us to lose our game? I certainly gave not.

In fact, other than Air Superiority, and maybe the oil in coastal waters thing (which I have never seen), the only other change I can see is perhaps a slight decrease in corruption/waste (personally I hope that it does not change too much).

I would hardly say that the product is bug-ridden.

Jaguara

*raises hand*

It fatal errored on me when i hadnt saved it in an a while. No biggy though, most games crash more than 1 every 3 days for me :D
 
My biggest rant is on Communism. I was up on everything as a german civilization taht was prospering. I had taken over England and a decent chunk of france and was generally whipping poeple around (O, and after having at least 50 elite units fight battles, I am still heroloess). So... I research communism and think... o joy, now i can lower corruption in my off the continent islands, I for one was excited because they were gettin stampeeded with corruption, producing 10-12 shields and using one, i figured they could get it up to 7 or 8 with communism. After all communism's corruption is communal, that is every city outside the capitol experience the same low corrruption. HA!! HAHAHA! Boulderdash. After six period of a painful anarchy where the computer picked up some slack on the research game, my german communism was in place... My gold per turn (unfiltered between science and all) had dropped from 650 down to 500... thats not good, I looked around my home continent and as expected corruption went up a little in some cities because it is communal but I looked over seas... Was it communal? NO, those long range cities were still producing just one out of 10-12 shields! I looked over my continent ranging from the closest to my capitol to the furtherst. Was it communal and minimal? Hell NO! So off my country went to waste another six turns getting back into a monarchy.

That my friends, is ridiculous.
 
I'd like to add a few problems.

V1.07

On the HUge earth map :

I cannot build the UN !!!!

My civ starts off in Australia, I need at least 3 more Forbidden palace to control the world properly. & for the guy who said 7.5% average corruption, I get 95% with my city in london.

I cannot build parts for the spaceship !! there is nothing left to research & I have all the minerals I need.

Also :

I miss being able to save my games as scenarios. I like building & fighting hi tech, so I like to tech the tree out & fight with stealth, not pickaxes
 
Well, air superiority doesn't seem to do anything, but if you run a bombing mission using a jet fighter it seems to kill the interceptor about half of the time. The only difficult part about this is that I have yet to see an enemy bomber get shot down, which means the only way to deal with it is to take the city the unit is stationed in (luckily, I like to do this anyway :) It is a little sad though, when enemy turns start taking over 10 mins becuase every single bomber and ship needs to bombard you, and you can't do anything about it.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by shirleyrocks
UN Victory - Maybe they should trash the space race too. After all, if somebody else builds their ship first, you lose. That's hardly fair now, isn't it? I've never even had a game end diplomatically, let alone to have lost this way. The only 'knock' I have against it is that there should be an option to refuse the UN vote in which you would then have to slug it out against the rest of the world. If you don't like it, the shortsighted folks at Firaxis *did* include a little option up front to turn this condition off if you want to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't see why all you guys are crying about things that are easily taken care of. If you don't like the UN or space race victories just TURN THEM OFF! Fraxis was very good about letting you decide how the game should end. They let you click these little boxes when you create a game that say the game rules and how you can win. So stop crying and just turn that option off.

The only bugs I see in the game is that the computer takes way too long to move and you can't (that I know of) turn of seeing the computer moves like you could in Civ II.
 
Top Bottom