Civ III: Conquests Patch Notice

[Roland Johansen]

Thank you for listening Firaxis.

 

[Sandman2003]

Originally posted by Roland Johansen
Thank you for listening Firaxis.

Yep!!!!

 

[tomart109]

Originally posted by Isak
I think this is just a smoke screen. They're telling us it won't be implemented, but they go ahead an implement it anyway secretly.
Then they'll have a good hearty laugh all of Christmas, checking in on the frustrated grognards lost for ways to prove that the new combat system is/is not in effect.

good one!
(oh, and your Santa Zappa is cool, and the quote - keeping him alive, good.)

..........My suggestions have been made already -

warpstorm's "dial-a-variance", which lets you choose between 1 and 4 (or even higher.) I would like to test 2; that might be just the ticket.
Set default to 1, and everybody's happy.

or jdurg's idea that this new system only be used in cases like the spearman-tank, where the tech gap is extreme. Most combat stays the same (especially Bombardment! Keep that the old way, please!)

Originally posted by Dominae
IMO, in a strategy game, the RNG should take part in small things that happen a lot (like combat), and not big things that turn the tide of the game (like SGL generation).

Excellent point ---- i wish Leader die rolls would be way less streaky!

 

[Charis]

If that info is correct on pulling the new combat system is correct....

* Thank you * for listening!!


Charis

PS At lunchtime I saw a special on the history channel about the history of Coca-Cola. The part about the introduction of 'new Coke' and the tremendous (and unexpected) uproar it caused was quite interesting

 

[tomart109]

Add my kudos to BreakAway/Firaxis for delivering again and so soon and so well! Hooray for Breakaway and Firaxis! And buy Mike B. a beer!

Question: this is another "beta" patch, meaning only us beta testers with the disks and all the other patches can use it?...?

Originally posted by Charis
'new Coke' and the tremendous (and unexpected) uproar

Off-topic, but tell me: why did it surprise them so? Invest so much in "brand loyalty" and then change it???

 

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by Grey Fox
You don't get it do you? I was merely doing a comparison of stats. I wasn't worried at all about the specific situation.

I could have chosen a Spearman defending in a walled town on a hill instead (defense 4.5), vs a Swordsman. In that situation the Swordsman had a good chance before, now he will have a lot less chance.

Yes I do "get it." You were complaining about a comparison in the game betwen units that doesn't occur 99% of the time once someone has a clue in the game, and using that single example as a foundation of why the proposed system is/was "broken."

My point to you was, and continues to be, to use good examples of common instances if you're going to use examples to base an argument on. In other words, who cares if a spearman caught flat-footed loses, since they do that most of the time in that situation anyway. Using such an example does little to further your argument that the combat change would be bad.

I know the chances of the units to win or lose, and it *does* matter which unit goes against which unit for parity and game balance issues, hence my poking you to either pick a valid example or quit yer whining.

 

[Grey Fox]

Originally posted by Ozymandous
pick a valid example or quit yer whining.

I was just telling someone that the chances would be MORE in favour of the unit with the higher attack value then it should. Any example would be valid (except when the value is to similar). And I wasn't whining.

 

[tomart109]

Originally posted by Tavis
Next week, we will be releasing a BETA patch (v1.10) for
C3C

Question: Does this mean that only we beta testers, with the disk and all the previous patches, will be able to use it? Or could it be added to the published game?

 

[jdurg]

Originally posted by tomart109


Question: Does this mean that only we beta testers, with the disk and all the previous patches, will be able to use it? Or could it be added to the published game?

Everybody will be able to use it. It's just called a BETA patch since it's not the final patch and all bugs may not have been worked out yet. (The final, thoroughly tested, patch won't come out for a while yet). Basically, this BETA is being released as a nice gift to keep us happy through the holidays.

 

[Thunderfall]

Originally posted by Charis
If that info is correct on pulling the new combat system is correct....

It's true. Jesse emailed me and also the Apolyton admins about it this afternoon.

"FYI, the change to the combat system has been cut from the v1.10 Patch."

 

[Aggie]

I want to echo all "thank you's" to Firaxis for listening to the community and removing the combat system change.

 

[Jaybe]

I want to encourage Firaxis to include the combat system change (or a variation of it), in either an alternate patch or (preferably) as an option in a subsequent patch or beta!

 

[Nad]

Thanks guys, good to see you listen to your fans and you're also brave enough to reconsider your decisions

Now, I can't wait for the patch, as I can finally start playing conquests for real. Great Christmas present!!

 

[player1 fanatic]

One, simple question.

Since this patch is beta, it does not go through Atari?
Right?

If so, does it mean that it has no cd-protection placed (since CD-protection is done by Atari), nor will it be placed on official civ3.com web-page for donwload?

 

[Dragonlord]

Personally, I'm disappointed not to be able to try out the new combat system! IMO this beta patch would have been a golden opportunity to actually try out a potentially unbalancing feature before it becomes final!

Now what are they going to do? Either implement it or not in the final patch - THEY will make the decision, not we! This is not to knock the Firaxians, but I feel all the theoretical ranters here have shot themselves (and us) in the foot! It's all very well to make statistical analyses, nothing against it, but actual playtesting is something else entirely ... great work taking away our chance!
The one thing I don't understand is everyone making such a fuss over a preliminary change - it could have been eliminated from the final patch if it was REALLY as bad as many of you were saying...


That said, I have actually been convinced (sort of) that there are better options available for reducing random chance. My personal favorite would be increased hitpoints by era, e.g. all medieval units having one more HP than ancient age etc.

Actually, a lot of this discussion would be moot, if only Firaxis would allow modded games in the Hall of Fame - then everyone could fix his game as he liked it.. Modded games could be marked with an asterisk, so purists could still compare their unmodded games.

My 2 cents...

 

[player1 fanatic]

Originally posted by Dragonlord
Actually, a lot of this discussion would be moot, if only Firaxis would allow modded games in the Hall of Fame - then everyone could fix his game as he liked it.. Modded games could be marked with an asterisk, so purists could still compare their unmodded games.

If (*) is eventually added, it would be good to add some filter in HoF too (unmoded/moded games).

 

[Aggie]

Originally posted by Dragonlord
....This is not to knock the Firaxians, but I feel all the theoretical ranters here have shot themselves (and us) in the foot! It's all very well to make statistical analyses, nothing against it, but actual playtesting is something else entirely ... great work taking away our chance!

I judge Firaxis higher than that! They listened to the remarks, thought it over and made their OWN decision! I am certain that they themselves admitted what the negative consequences of this change would be.

Originally posted by Dragonlord

The one thing I don't understand is everyone making such a fuss over a preliminary change - it could have been eliminated from the final patch if it was REALLY as bad as many of you were saying...

The thing is that we all feel that the patch is a MUST. We have to install it to get rid of the corruption and gpt bugs. So we then would have a NO choice than to play with the RNG changes, which eliminate a lot of depth of the game. Waiting for a new patch is no option for us CIV-addicts!!

EDIT: The posters you refer to in this thread are all HIGHLY regarded in the civ-community. Some of them are master CIV players and others have created great strategy articles in which they uncovered the mysteries and mechanics of the game!

 

[SirPleb]

Originally posted by Aggie
I judge Firaxis higher than that!

Well said Aggie!

Originally posted by Aggie
The posters you refer to in this thread ...

It has been wonderful seeing so many great players coming together in this thread! There are many civil players of this game whose posts here have been a joy to read. It is enough to make me want to join a succession game or two after the first blush of Conquests fades next year

 

[kokoras]

Originally posted by Aggie

The thing is that we all feel that the patch is a MUST. We have to install it to get rid of the corruption and gpt bugs. So we then would have a NO choice than to play with the RNG changes, which eliminate a lot of depth of the game. Waiting for a new patch is no option for us CIV-addicts!!

Exactly,the thing is that there is a huge problem with corruption at the moment,so for now it is more than enought to have the patch that solves this.After that any change is possible,but for being sure that it wan't create any other problems it is better to have it checked out well first,and that means that they must have all the time they need for testing it.Maybe they thought this and decided to cut the new combat system or maybe they just show that we didn't like the new idea,anyway the fact remains that what Firaxis/Atari did shows that they do care about what we think and they follow the best possible way for satisfy us.
So once more

 

[col]

Excellent news - and it gives me a real feeling that what we do and say here on this forum does count for something.