Civ V - One World Speculation Thread!

[filli_noctus]

Patch notes are more likely to just be looked at by a couple of people to check accuracy and if they're hypothetically involved enough in the hypothetical expansion with the hypothetical flip mechanic they conceivably wouldn't register the mention of the hypothetical mechanic as something not in the vanilla/G&K mechanics because they've been so involved in the the hypothetical development of the hypothetical expansion that it seems normal to them. Then it gets signed off by a couple of managers who glance at it for a second and released to the public when then use it for baseless speculation.

 

[fufie]

Religious flipping might be a bit...overboard, don't ya think? Cultural flipping at least makes sense from a realism perspective, but religious doesn't.

Not 100% on the details here, but I am pretty sure there was some religious flipping during the thirty years' war. Also there were some cantons in Switzerland that changed side, but may be closer to a city changing religion + "purge".

 

[anandus]

So the hotfix just came out. Has anybody already torn all the changed files apart for clues?

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

So the hotfix just came out. Has anybody already torn all the changed files apart for clues?

I'm not competent enough for that, but they've "accidently" placed components from future content in patches before. I think some of the Natural Wonders from God & Kings were named in a patch sometime before it was announced.

It'd be worth taking a look for some one who knows what they are doing.

 

[Deggial]

And - more often than not - patches broke things that worked perfectly before...
Are there already any indications?

 

[Trias]

It would be unlikely because the patch notes will be proof-read by someone from every department down the line, and it's unlikely that a fix for a bug in a, as you say, speculative and by no means confirmed future expansion could be released to the unwashed masses in a patch notes list from a different expansion.

If it has happened, unlikely as it is, then someone will have to answer for it, but I expect it's probably just dev-speak for what Austria can do or when the surrendered cities have finished rebelling or something harmless like that.

My point was that the bug is in fact a bug in the vanilla game, but that it may have been noted (and fixed) because its effects where exacerbated by a new feature that the beta testers where testing. (e.g. it always occured when a city changed sides through gifting (a relatively rare occurrence), but also when cities changed hands peacefully through other means such as a new flipping.)

Given that the patch notes are clearly not copy editted to make them understandable to people outside the test and dev teams. It is not that unlikely that nobody noticed that the patch notes (also) referred to a mechanic that was not yet in the released game.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

So, activity on the Facebook/Twitter. A patch coming out. The Civ-team at Pax.
Something's afoot!

Is that by accident or are you quoting Tarzan from Survivor: One World

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Or you're all wrong and are, like supposedly me, reading too much into it.

they said flip/gift, instead of flip or gift

So what I'm thinking is when you gain ownership of a rival city (thus, flipping the city).

 

[JanghanHong]

I suspect "Flip" means (to civ V devs) to switch a city from puppet to annexed.

If that's what flipping means, then flipped cities never had the lack of city tile production, only traded cities did.


I am convinced from a previous post that they found this bug intolerable after the One World Beta. Flipping mechanism through religious/cultural/colonial pressures would work similarly to peacetime city trade in either case, there was no military takeover that called for a piece of code that does population/building reduction and city tile worked re-assignment that apparently prevents the city-tile yield loss from happening.


One of the reason why this specific piece of bug went unfixed for so long is that for many players, you will rarely ever see them or care too much about it. If you had sold a city to an AI civilization and they suffered from lack of tile yield, it wasn't the player's concern. But, if someone had beta-tested a run of Portuguese cultural game where they intentionally conspired against Zulu cities to flip to their influence only to find out that they had the same bug that kept flipped cities from working city tiles, that would be the first thing to fix. Since the flipping mechanism relies on basegame code, fixing the basegame would fix the problems they saw popping up frequently in One World.


And yeah, some hapless writer saw flipped/gifted cities and probably didn't think too much about how CIV in the present state don't even have flipping mechanism. To me, this is the strongest evidence that there is an expansion. I mentioned in another thread that this specific problem went unaddressed for so long, there must have been a reason why they were compelled to address it after being reported as a bug for more than a year. It suddenly turns from a nuisance from a headache if and only if you rely on a culture/colonial/religious flipping mechanism to expand your borders.


Also, for people who think flipped city is another way of saying trade/gifted, a "flipped city" was a real thing in Civilization IV and was part of many cultural player's strategy, it's an actual term for a game mechanism that was dropped in Civilization V. Because it's an actual term that was used to describe a situation that happened all the time in IV and never happens in V, I have never heard anyone with past experience in CIV calling city trades/puppet/annexation that. It is not a "descriptive" term people use fluidly to describe anything else other than cities changing ownership through soft power.

 

[TimeWeaver]

JanghanHong: A big, warm virtua-hug from me!

That was brilliant reasoning filled with so much hope that the movie "A New Hope" feels worthy of a new title, "Good ol' Despair".

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

If that's what flipping means, then flipped cities never had the lack of city tile production, only traded cities did.


I am convinced from a previous post that they found this bug intolerable after the One World Beta. Flipping mechanism through religious/cultural/colonial pressures would work similarly to peacetime city trade in either case, there was no military takeover that called for a piece of code that does population/building reduction and city tile worked re-assignment that apparently prevents the city-tile yield loss from happening.


One of the reason why this specific piece of bug went unfixed for so long is that for many players, you will rarely ever see them or care too much about it. If you had sold a city to an AI civilization and they suffered from lack of tile yield, it wasn't the player's concern. But, if someone had beta-tested a run of Portuguese cultural game where they intentionally conspired against Zulu cities to flip to their influence only to find out that they had the same bug that kept flipped cities from working city tiles, that would be the first thing to fix. Since the flipping mechanism relies on basegame code, fixing the basegame would fix the problems they saw popping up frequently in One World.


And yeah, some hapless writer saw flipped/gifted cities and probably didn't think too much about how CIV in the present state don't even have flipping mechanism. To me, this is the strongest evidence that there is an expansion. I mentioned in another thread that this specific problem went unaddressed for so long, there must have been a reason why they were compelled to address it after being reported as a bug for more than a year. It suddenly turns from a nuisance from a headache if and only if you rely on a culture/colonial/religious flipping mechanism to expand your borders.


Also, for people who think flipped city is another way of saying trade/gifted, a "flipped city" was a real thing in Civilization IV and was part of many cultural player's strategy, it's an actual term for a game mechanism that was dropped in Civilization V. Because it's an actual term that was used to describe a situation that happened all the time in IV and never happens in V, I have never heard anyone with past experience in CIV calling city trades/puppet/annexation that. It is not a "descriptive" term people use fluidly to describe anything else other than cities changing ownership through soft power.

While I don't disagree, I can't help but smirk that the only evidence of you believing there's an expansion pack is the presence of a single word in a hotfix patch notes.. naah, forget the fact that One World is listed in Steam Database, forget the sudden activity of 2k, forget all that. Flip. yes, this confirms the existence of a second expansion pack

(If this sounds condesending, I apologize, it's not meant to be)

Like I said before, all of this could simply mean is the trade of cities, because they didn't say flip or gift, but flip/gift.

But "flip" has never been used in Civ V before by anybody as far as I know, so that makes sense as to why there's the suspicions.

 

[JanghanHong]

While I don't disagree, I can't help but smirk that the only evidence of you believing there's an expansion pack is the presence of a single word in a hotfix patch notes.. naah, forget the fact that One World is listed in Steam Database, forget the sudden activity of 2k, forget all that. Flip. yes, this confirms the existence of a second expansion pack

I thought One World steam database or sudden activity of 2K could also lead to some spinoff game like Colonization, but a hint of mechanism that has been established in previous franchise that's not currently available in V, and impossible to implement in mere patch and must be brought in through expansion pack? yeah, I thought it was a stronger evidence of an "expansion pack" than all the other indicators.

 

[Menzies]

Hmmm... new patch, maybe they'll announce it tomorrow to hype it up before PAX?

...maybe I should just shutup now.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I thought One World steam database or sudden activity of 2K could also lead to some spinoff game like Colonization, but a hint of mechanism that has been established in previous franchise that's not currently available in V, and impossible to implement in mere patch and must be brought in through expansion pack? yeah, I thought it was a stronger evidence of an "expansion pack" than all the other indicators.

I think a lot of people who are observant knew there would be at least a second expansion pack, which would've been released approximately a year after the first one, because that's been the pattern for the past 3 civ games (III, IV, and V)

Also, it cleary stated that One World was an expansion, it didn't say DLC, or off-spin, and I would assume that One World would've had a seperate entry instead of being put inside the Civ 5 database.

 

[AbsintheRed]

Hmmm... new patch, maybe they'll announce it tomorrow to hype it up before PAX?

...maybe I should just shutup now.

No, keep it up
Tomorrow is Thursday after all

 

[anandus]

We need more oracle bones

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Strategy Masterminds Mega Panel - Behind the Scenes at Firaxis Games
Join us for never-before-seen footage and big reveals and announcements for upcoming Firaxis Games projects! Moderated by Russ Pitts, current Features Editor at Polygon and former Editor-in-Chief of The Escapist, this panel takes a look behind the curtain at Firaxis Games with the development teams responsible for the critically acclaimed XCOM: Enemy Unknown and Civilization franchise. What is in the Firaxis DNA and how do they make incredible strategy games? Come find out! You won’t want to miss this panel, so be sure to come early to secure your seat.

PANELISTS:
Jake Solomon [Lead Designer, Firaxis], Greg Foertsch [Lead Artist, Firaxis], Ed Beach [Lead Designer, Firaxis], Dennis Shirk [Senior Producer, Firaxis], Russ Pitts [Editor, Polygon]

I think this is the biggest evidence in the world of an expansion pack frankly.

By 5.30 next saturday (9 days time), it will be public.

How about them bones.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I think this is the biggest evidence in the world of an expansion pack frankly.

By 5.30 next saturday (9 days time), it will be public.

How about them bones.

Yes, when I saw that, it pretty much gave a timeframe for what we all suspected was coming. I still hope they do a preliminary announcement to get attention leading up to the PAX expo.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Yes, when I saw that, it pretty much gave a timeframe for what we all suspected was coming. I still hope they do a preliminary announcement to get attention leading up to the PAX expo.

I think the wording of that suggests they won't - never before seen footage and big reveals and announcements

To me that sounds like they are going to announce it all there. You can't reveal something that's already been revealed.

 

[Browd]

Don't be surprised if they tease everyone at PAX, but announce nothing.

"We see lots of potential for new game play features elements media architecture blah, blah, blah [no details], and are constantly testing new yadda, yadda, yadda [still no details], but all I can say right now is that we're still very committed to the Civ franchise. Stay tuned for an exciting future."