Conquests Beta Patch Now Available

[Qitai]

I didn't buy conquest since I don't consider it worthwhile. But I have been reading it with interest. SirPleb, base on your testing, I am speculating the FP might just do this - only reduce distance corruption. Would you be able to test this? If it is done that way, then it could be intentional, although being different from the original. If not, I guess we need Alex (Phd. Corruption) to do a thorough test to know what is really going on now.

 

[SirPleb]

Originally posted by Qitai
I am speculating the FP might just do this - only reduce distance corruption. Would you be able to test this?

I think that is a very likely explanation. That speculation is what made me try that set of tests. I'm not sure how to prove it. I think it can be done with some more careful testing. I did start a series of tests to use a larger number of shields in the FP and then to find out at exactly which number of cities each change in waste occurred. I did my earlier tests by setting up each one in the editor. This test would be too tedious that way so I started with a lot of cities (FP totally corrupt) and then abandoned one city at a time. After abandoning about 30 the program crashed without any message

I lost heart at that point, don't want to test further, at least not today. The thing is that whatever the actual algorithm is, I don't like the result. The result seems to mean that:
In a game I might build up a good core around my Palace, a good second core around an FP, and then want to start taking over some of a rival near the Palace. With the way things work now, I'll constantly be wondering - should I take another city or should I stop because I'm increasing corruption in my FP region every time I take another largely corrupt city at the border of my Palace region? The result is that I'd probably be better off to just play with no FP at all, pretending there is no such thing. And in that case I'd rather play PTW

For some goals and styles of play this FP thing won't matter. OCC, 5CC, playing without FP, playing a wide build and not going for domination or conquest are examples of cases which should be unaffected. But that also leaves other goals and styles which are affected. And I don't care to switch back and forth between PTW and Conquests depending on what goal I have in my next game.

 

[HellboundHeathcliff]

I'm not too good at determining tests to use so i throw this out for consideration.

Assume 2 sets of cities centered around the FP and palace. My gut feeling is that if the only city abandoned is the FP city, corruption in the palace cities will increase, including those on the far side of the palace away from the FP. I saw this effect in my 1.02 game after loading it into 1.12 and playing around with it. But because it was an existing game, one cannot be sure of such things.

I also have the really bad feeling that we are back to the days of Firaxis limiting play style via corruption. They have never been happy with the human beating up on the AI to take over the world.

 

[SirPleb]

Kring, about the post by Tavis:

Originally posted by Tavis
It should be noted that Forbidden Palaces are not supposed to 'eliminate' corruption in the home city. They just 'reduce corruption' and act 'like a 2nd palace'. A city that has a Forbidden Palace will not be corrupt-free. However, combinations of good trade ways, city placement, government choice, local military forces, and other buildings can reduce your corruption to a minimal amount.

I did not interpret that to necessarily mean there was a change from the way FP behaved (or was thought to behave) in CivIII and PTW.
And in any case, part of it seems to be demonstrably wrong (and therefore a bug?): "... can reduce your corruption to a minimal amount". My tests suggest that there are cases where all of those techniques put together will not improve corruption at all in the FP region. In some cases it will be fully corrupt which is hardly minimal

Tavis, if you meant that there has indeed been an intentional change in the purpose of the Forbidden Palace, could you please explain the change and what the new rules for FP are intended to be?

 

[playshogi]

Tavis mentions "local military forces" as a means of reducing corruption. Exactly how can I use my military force to reduce corruption?

 

[SirPleb]

Originally posted by playshogi
Tavis mentions "local military forces" as a means of reducing corruption. Exactly how can I use my military force to reduce corruption?

A somewhat indirect way they can have an effect is using military units as MPs (in the governments which support that) to get enough happiness for WLTKD. Or perhaps he was thinking of the new police specialist? That's it for cases I can think of.

 

[JazzToucan]

Is there any way to mod the game to make the FP eliminate corruption at a more suitable level?

I guess I could always just reduce corruption percentage.

 

[Nexushyper]

I agre with many on here that the FP in C3 and PTW was to act as a second palace, and it did (as already said, that is what the Civilopedia says it does). I also do not like the idea of keeping the definition yet changing how the FP works without sayng from Firaxis, "Oh BTW, with C3C we are keeping the definition of FP, however making the FP work like a big courthouse (if that) and only reduce some corruption."

I'm sorry, no wait I'm not, why tell us it ACTS like a second palace, then code it to not act like a second palace? That makes no sense, unless of course this IS A BUG somehow related to the RCP fix as mentioned already. Now this might make sense. If city corruption is based on found date not distance from capitial (which I disagree with) then perhaps when the FP is built it is trying to act like a second palace but corruption is still higher (though a bit less then without FP) because the code is saying that it was founder way after the capitial thus give it more corruption. Just a guess.

I'm writting this up as a bug in my notes as from what I can tell FP should act like a second palace and that the RCP fix is interfering with the code. (not on purpose of course, besides this is a BETA patch)

Oh, BTW, isn't corruption in the Capitial set to be somewhere between 1% - 5% so in a large size capitial you could see some corruption, is this right or wrong?

 

[Frimlin]

Originally posted by Arizona_Steve
Woah! These last two pages have been getting heated...
As a sidenote, I've been inspired to have a go at writing my own "Civ", as an interesting (and challenging) programming exercise when I have nothing better to do.

Good luck! Please keep us informed with your results.

Thanks for your message, by the way. I think people have realised slowly from my signature that I too work for a software development company, though in my case, we're games developers.

So I too know the issue from at least both main "sides of the fence" -- a customer and a developer. And so when I do thank other developers for their effort, I don't do it lightly.

If they had published a NON-beta patch, I think some of the complaints become more justified. Complaints about the original bugs are off topic in this thread -- this is about the BETA patch.

Though I personally haven't been affected by *any* C3C bugs other than no longer being able to build an FP, I will wait till the actual patch is released before I judge. A last-minute rushed BETA patch is a great offering, but -- as Firaxis knows and has said clearly -- it's but a token gesture until the patch can be completed.

Not sure if anyone has realised that the festive season has kinda got in the way here -- some of us games developers want to, and have a right to, spend this time with our families.

Still, everyone has their own opinions, and this is a public forum. But my thanks to Firaxis et al is just as valid as the complaints, so let me make my valid point, and leave it be. Quoting it and deriding it does not weaken it -- only in your own mind.

 

[Al Lowe]

Originally posted by anarres
RCP is fixed!

Ok, WHAT is RCP???

 

[tx138]

Has anyone noticed that combat has become harder with the new patch? I noticed that combat is a little more difficult when doing "regular" combat. But when I tried to take a city that had the forbidden palace in it, it was exetermely more difficult. It took me around 20-25 kossacks to beat 2 musketmen, 1 pikemen, 1 cavarly, 2 knights, 1 of those kings units. Does this possibly have something to do with linking combat with corruption?

 

[Turner]

Originally posted by Al Lowe

Ok, WHAT is RCP???

Ring City Placement. It's a way to put your cities in rings around your palace and FP, and this screws up the corruption aspect of the game. In your favor. it's supposed to be fixed in 1.12 for C3C. Not sure if it is still around in PTW or VC3. Never used it, so I'm not sure exactly what it does.

Originally Posted by tx138
Has anyone noticed that combat has become harder with the new patch? I noticed that combat is a little more difficult when doing "regular" combat. But when I tried to take a city that had the forbidden palace in it, it was exetermely more difficult. It took me around 20-25 kossacks to beat 2 musketmen, 1 pikemen, 1 cavarly, 2 knights, 1 of those kings units. Does this possibly have something to do with linking combat with corruption?

I've noticed in C3C period that combat is a bit tougher. Of course, that may have been because they changed the combat equasions in 1.00, and reverted it back in 1.12. From what i understand, for each combat sequence, there was four 'rolls' of the RNG, and it was avereaged out. This was supposed to make combat more realistic (i.e. - no more tanks losing to spearmen) but evidently it didn't work as intended. I don't know for sure, I"ve been playing C3C for less than 48 hours.

 

[Apricorn]

If Firaxis/Atari didnt release these patches free of charge and in a timely manner, then a lot of us wouldnt be buying Civ 4 or other Firaxis/Atari games So it makes sense for them to keep us happy

 

[kokoras]

I have read the posts of this thread and i realy dodn't understand why so many players are saying that we sould be gratefull for the release of the patch.Some actualy confirm that the game is ok,but have they played it or they just want to say something.The game is messed up (without a final patch).And why sould i be gratefull for something that they must do,Firaxis has released a game with major problems and now i must be content because they are trying to fix it?I don't agree,i know that when i create something that i want to sell it must be a "good" product and nothing less.Even today they have posted another revew that gives C3C 9/10.I wonder if all those magazines and revews have wasted more than an hour playing the game.I haven't asked for a quick beta patch where i will find the same faults,i care about the final solution of the Bugs that will allow me to play the game.Until PTW Firaxis was trying (succesfuly) to give us a great game (CIV-CIV2-CIV3)now i feel like an obsesed player that would buy anything that has to do with CIV even if the product isn't good.I do not like this feeling,and i do not apreciate the market ''tricks'',if all those revews as i said before had actually played the game i would expect at least a comment on these Bugs,but no,nothing,everything seems perfect for them and this is not true.Anyway i have been more than a fan of CIV for many years now that is why i expect only the best of this company (Firaxis) and this game.Please consider my words not as an unjustifyed attack vs Firaxis-Atari ,but as an oppinion from someone that cares about this game ang wants to continue on buying products from this company.

 

[Commander Bello]

Originally posted by Padma
To those who complain about "shoddy" products:

I have been working in software development fo over 20 years. I know haow difficult it is to get a quality product out the door. I know what it's like to "burn the midnight oil" to make sure the product is finished on time. I know what it's like to finish my product, hand it over to testing, and have it returned with pages of bugs. I know what it's like to have the product pass my testing, my company's testing organ, and hit the stereets, only to be faced with pages of bug reports from unsatisfied customers.

Currently I work with critical system software, where a mistake can cost lives. We TRIPLE-check everything, from requirement statements, to design, to code, to integration, you name it. And still occasional bugs get through.

Software development is a very complex process, with a myriad of ways errors can creep in undetected. I am not going to complain when a game company releases a product that is *almost*, but not quite, perfect for what I want, and then releases free fixes for it. They are not charging a dime for the fixes. How can I complain that they are money-grubbing, lazy bums when they go out of their way to satisfy their consumer?

Padma,

I agree with you on the fact that the more complex the software is, the more unlikely it is to expect it being 100% perfect at release date.
As I earn my bucks in the software consultancy field, I know about these problems (which you descibed) as well.
AND, I really appreciate that companies try to fix bugs as soon and as good as possible.

Nevertheless, I really understand people who are feeling sad when having spent their money - for which they had to do their very best as well! - and having gotten a bugloaded game.
For that, I agree with the opinion of JazzToucan (post#124) and alfeas (posting #125) in this thread.

Although I am quite sure that the individual programmers and developers did their (individual) best - what is very honorable -, we as customers have quite some right in not likeing the idea of the banana principle: let it ripe at the customer.

If I buy a car with a defective steering unit, the solution cannot be to avoid mountain roads. The only solution IS to have it fixed ASAP! And there won't be any thankfulness from my side if that doesn't cost me a penny - it will be just a plain matter of course.

So, I really don't see any need to bow and scrape, just because someone got my money and then generously decided to throw another crumbs at me, being kneeling down in the dust.
And some postings here in that thread almost gave me the impression, that we as customers are behaving like that.

Again, I absolutely do not blame anyone personally at Firaxis or whatever other company being involved in that. But they should know and respect, that we had to work for our money as well!

As far as I understand it the two who I've quoted are just saying this, not more.

 

[joycem10]

i have trouble believing that anyone would prefer to have more corruption in the game. personally, i liked the old FP system.

i dont have a problem with the patch as it stands, so long as the bugs are eventually addressed and changes are documented. remember how long it took to get the original release into decent shape and the multiple patches for mutilplayer.

is the FP change intended or a bug. i would really like to get some input here. if intended, i really have to question the developers goals with Conquests. i dont like the fact that firaxis appears intent on tinkering with the game at this stage. why make changes to the FP (or the proposed changes to the combat system) when there are issues that customers have been screaming about for years.

finally, if the patch version of the FP is working as the developers intended, im glad this is a beta patch because im going to scream my lungs out for a return to the old system until the next patch is finalized.

 

[Commander Bello]

Originally posted by tx138
Has anyone noticed that combat has become harder with the new patch? I noticed that combat is a little more difficult when doing "regular" combat. But when I tried to take a city that had the forbidden palace in it, it was exetermely more difficult. It took me around 20-25 kossacks to beat 2 musketmen, 1 pikemen, 1 cavarly, 2 knights, 1 of those kings units. Does this possibly have something to do with linking combat with corruption?

Personally, I've got the impression that at least in the epic game, combat was already changed. I've encountered a lot of frustrating results - and I don't refer to "Yiieek! I lost ONE swordsman against one spearman!".
I've played some six or seven epic C3C games and in ALL of them I faced that attacks of mine with stacks of units against definetely weaker units resulted in major defeats. For example, attacking a city size 9 with a garrison of 2 (!) spearman of 4 and 2 HP's left with a stack of 3 Ancient cavalry, 3 crusaders and 3 bowmen (all of them being at least veterans) resulted in loosing 8 of my units with the last retreating AC being slaughtered by a swordman popping up at the next turn (most probably rushed). So, it definetely was an attack 9 vs 2.
And this is just one example of many! So I stopped playing C3C epic games on release 1.00 (and I have a history of some hundred epic PTW games, so I am familiar with random results, btw)

Funny enough, those strange results haven't been observed in the conquests.

That makes me think that they DID change the combat system somewhere deep in the engine - but either didn't notice themselves, or just decided not to mention this negligeable fact

 

[CivCube]

This argument is getting a little off-topic regarding morality. Here's a new thread in OT to take it to:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=72954

 

[Black Waltz]

Oh my word. There are some whinging people around right now. *huggles Firaxis*

 

[cgannon64]

So, is it true that the FP now does very little as an actual second Palace but istead lowers total distance corruption (i.e. increasing the effect of your palace)?

So this means it doesn't matter where you place it, as long as you place it somewhere?

This thread is getting cluttered and hard to read so maybe someone can answer my question. I wouldn't really object to this change, but I'd like to know.