New patch and the broken Mods

[Psyringe]

I think that Greg was wrong because neither he, nor almost anybody else, predicted the huge backlash when the game was released in such an unfinished state.

Possible, but that'd mean that their planning was quite incompetent. Civ5 already combined several features that guaranteed _some_ backlash:

(1) It was the sequel to a very popular game. (Which means that no matter what you change, there will be people complaining that exactly this change ruined the whole game, and if you don't change anything, there will be people complaining that the sequel contains nothing new)

(2) Its gameplay was a radical departure from previous iterations of the series, in elements of gameplay that weren't seen as "bad" or "problematic" by large parts of the fanbase. (And the more radical the departure, the heavier the backlash).

(3) It was part of a long-standing series that meant a lot to many people (hence reactions become even more emotional than they's usually be)

Even if Civ5 had played great out of the box, these factors would have caused a good deal of backlash. Now, if you also release the game in an unfinished and barely playable state, you create an _additional_ source of backlash in exactly the customer group that would otherwise stand against the usual backlash (i.e., those who appreciate the nature of the changes). That's not rocket science.

Possibly later, "traditional" patches (aka, minor ones) won't cause so many problems for mods. But right now, they're just rewriting so much of the code that's it's not surprising at all that mod's are getting broken.

Unless they incorporated some revolutionary modularity or fallback mechanisms in their engine (which I don't think they have, but my knowledge about the inner workings of Civ5 is scarce, so I may be wrong here), even small changes have a high likelihood of breaking mods. The difference usually just lies in the amount of work necessary to update the mod.

Personally, I think that it's much more likely that 2k Greg just wanted to silence an unwanted discussion, and didn't realize how outlandish his claims actually were (I'm not sure whether he has experience with modding engines and their development). I think it was a response in the same vein as 2k Elizabeth's "We're using Steam because the players asked for it" argument, for which she couldn't deliver a single proof when asked for one. In hindsight, I see a pattern of "make some strange claims in response to criticism, hopefully enough people will be stupid enough to actually believe it" in 2k's responses to the fans' concerns, and that's making me angry. A bit.

 

[Thalassicus]

It's true that basic balance fixes aren't all that difficult to correct after a new patch comes out. Changes to UI files on the other hand - those get a bit more complicated. In UI xml, the order of code matters - whereas in general xml updates/rows, order only matters in regards to the activation of files, (provided your coding is accurate in the first place). This is more where I'm coming from as far as NiGHTS is concerned. Seeing that NiGHTS focuses a great deal on UI alterations, a little documentation on hidden changes/updates to UI files would really help with the patch transitions. That being said, I realize there aren't that many UI mods out there - so the adverse effects of this latest patch may not be as deeply felt on all levels. Overall, i can't complain - as long as the base game continues to get supported.

I'll admit I've done very little modding of the interface xml files. My interface edits have been confined primarily to changing the Lua portions. The lua's easier to read so that does make it easier to update.

The annoying part of the ui xml files is when they change the whitespace method... in one file it had tab indentation in one patch, then space indentation in the next patch. Really makes it more frustrating to compare files with winmerge.

 

[Stalker0]

The only way for the dev team to help the mods out is by releasing patches in larger, less frequent occasions. This means the modders have to update less often.

Other than that, the dev team can't be expected to take all of the various mod codes into account.

 

[warden68]

I understand that the dev team can not take into consideration the work of the individual modders. but I feel as a player I am not given the choice to download a patch and break my much loved mods or not. (Thalassicus and markusbeutel without these two I doubt I would still play this game.)

In today's world of game developers squeezing pennies (dollars) out of players for countless DLC. It does not take a genius to make the correlation that working mods hinder the sale of said content. What better way to help your own cause than to force everyone to break their allegiance to a mod.

Given the system of stacking mods that was available in this game there should obviously be a way to select your base (vanilla) working system. And play based on the version you want. Letting the player decide if he wants to play Vanilla 1, 2, 3 etc. The current system where the dev is forcing us to play THEIR patch (mod) is unacceptable. Then letting the individual modders and players as a whole decide which platform is best to play on.

Stop piece mailing a broken game with DLC that should been there in the first place. When a game is great people will buy expansions. When you partially completed a game and turned to the modders to keep the magic alive dont stab them in the back every few months.

on a side note (one last gripe)

I don't get DLC of Civs or Maps. I have seen plenty of new civs provided by modders for FREE, why would I or anyone really want to buy one. And buying maps?? that's just silly. I might buy a true map editor but an actual map pack never.

rant over

 

[Seek]

At least they're throwing bones with each patch allowing more options for mods.

Some consolation..

 

[Thry]

Firaxis doesn't care, and neither should you. A mod is unofficial, and it's the mod author's job to fix whatever breaks, not firaxis'

It's not their job to stop some imbecile's mod that decided that he wanted to add ponies into the game, from breaking, etc. What they CAN do, however, is post if they're going to change something really big in the way the code responds. Blizzard does that occasionally with WoW, and it works quite well most of the time.

Moderator Action: Trolling
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[deanej]

I can't believe that people are treating mods breaking on patches as normal. The fact is, in civ4, patches NEVER broke mods (unless you edited the DLL, which you can't do (yet?) in civ5). There are two possible reasons for this change:
1. Civ5 is simply less mod friendly than civ4 (civ4 was designed for mods from the get-go; civ5 looks like modding was patched on at some point)
2. DLC: in civ4, changes that would break mods were saved for expansions. Obviously not an option for civ5's new business model

 

[Valkrionn]

Are you on something? Mods broke all the time in Civ4, even just from python/xml.

The mods breaking most are interface based; OF COURSE they're going to break if the interface changes.

 

[deanej]

I have NEVER heard of a python/xml only mod breaking except between expansions. Granted, I started modding around the time BtS was announced; was it different in vanilla?

Also, when I say breaking, I mean the mod doesn't work anymore (ie, it crashes or throws error messages). If a modder has to update to include the changes Firaxis made in a patch but the mod works fine, I'm not counting it as broken.

 

[Valkrionn]

IIRC it did, when more was changing in those files.

And things break in the interface due to the way it's structured. If you mess with core interface files (NOT advisable, but sometimes necessary), changes will quite often kill the mod. There is a system in place for completely modular additions to the interface, with very minimal changes to core files, but it's not always adequate. And only covers additions, not changes, IIRC.

 

[The_J]

A simple additional tag in one of the XMLs in the Civ4 files would break every mod. And i guess that happened in between.

But i also consider this normal. If patches wouldn't break mods, then it would mean that they'd work without any of the benefits from the patch...and this again would mean that there's something wrong with how the core files are loaded.

 

[sharkles]

Not sure how this is a problem or how one could not see it coming from a mile away.
The mods will survive the patch. And probably get better.

 

[markusbeutel]

Not sure how this is a problem or how one could not see it coming from a mile away.
The mods will survive the patch. And probably get better.

It's a given to modders that patches will break their mods. What would be nice is for some sort of option that allowed players to play the game on previous builds so mods could still be played while they're in the process of being fixed for the latest patch. That, along with a list of individual files that the patch alters - in conjunction with the gameplay changelogs that are currently provided - would make these transitions virtually seamless.

Unfortunately, Steam randomly resets the check-box to avoid keeping a game up to date, making the above a mute point.

 

[Keejus]

On the subject of backwards compatibility, maybe he was referring to saved games from older versions. I can still play my game that I started the day the game was released, which is pretty solid backwards compability, I think. They can't really cover every mod.

Stop piece mailing a broken game with DLC that should been there in the first place.

I don't understand this train of thought. Sure, making Babylon DLC was a greedy move, but why are you objected to the other DLC? Did you also hate having to pay for Warlords, since they should've just put vassals and those civs in the original game?

 

[baldfalk]

Ever tried to raid on WoW patch day when everyone's scrambling to fix their broken custom UIs?

Yeah.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

When i keep stating that the ruleset must be sealed asap, i'm serious.

It's not that MODs are being broken by the game itself - it's that authors need to follow a given gameplay as (re)designed consistantly.
Patching will eventually stop, DLL will be released and -much of the work already done by modders- will become a solid structure of assets to build upon with supplemental features instead of "adaptative" re-coding of specific elements.

In of itself, the activity(ies) of re-balancing proves how interactively solid the context is.

 

[Psyringe]

On the subject of backwards compatibility, maybe he was referring to saved games from older versions.

This kind of raises the question why I even bothered to look up the specific statement before I quoted it, and posted a link to the source ... ah, well. I guess links can be missed. But if you follow the link, you'll see that 2k Greg's statement about backwards compatibility is the answer to this question: "When Steam auto-patches Civilization V, will mods cease to function until they are updated for the new patch?"

So, no, 2k Greg was specifically referring to mods and whether the patches would break them ... it's even more obvious in the second quote, where a user described, weeks before release _exactly_ the situation that we have now with every patch, and Greg rejected it as "jumping to conclusions".

 

[Zyxpsilon]

What they CAN do, however, is post if they're going to change something really big in the way the code responds.

VFS was an early step in more ways than most of us ever could be privy of.
But i was particularly surprised by the December patch when they had to re-activate exposed functions such as ScriptData.

 

[Valkrionn]

For what it's worth: They didn't think ScriptData was used much and had a replacement on the way.

 

[warden68]

On the subject of backwards compatibility, maybe he was referring to saved games from older versions. I can still play my game that I started the day the game was released, which is pretty solid backwards compability, I think. They can't really cover every mod.


I don't understand this train of thought. Sure, making Babylon DLC was a greedy move, but why are you objected to the other DLC? Did you also hate having to pay for Warlords, since they should've just put vassals and those civs in the original game?

Game development has changed in the last 3-4 years
previous to the current piece mail DLC that is often put into production before the game is released. A game had to be good first. Then if the game was good the developer would create more content that was worthy of a second or even third purchase. Personally I would of preferred they just included all of these civs and charged $70-$80 for the game upfront.

now they take a popular game community toss out an incomplete game and see how much they can squeeze out of you with DLC. they are not the only ones, EA and activision do the same thing.

how many Civilization/leaders were available at the end of civ4 bts or even from civ4 vanilla. now you create a new game and you go to less choices??? and only some of the leaders are animated (personally this was the laziest thing i have seen). How much programming does it take to add a non-animated civilization that you already had done in the previous game. Is someone going to say Spain was not in the game from the start?

I dont mind the breaking of the mod, I only mind that i do not get the choice of installing the patch. or the ability to go back to a previous version. its like service packs or updates from windows if i dont want them i can delay them till i am ready to move ahead. that's all i want is a pop up that says hey we have a new patch do you want it? shall i ask you again in a few days?

In answer to your question... no I didnt buy warlords, but i did buy BTS and colonization (waste of money)