March Patch Notes (formerly february)

[noncognosco]

By the same token, no shooter should ever again use a combination of WASD and mouse to control movement .

I am not saying it should not be used again just because it has been done before (that is too close to hipsterism in my opinion). I am saying that you should not use "it was in the previous game" as an argument to prove that it is a good idea. There were plenty of things in Civ 4 that did not work especially well and just continuing them over to Civ 5 on the basis that that is the way it was done before is foolish.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I am not saying it should not be used again just because it has been done before (that is too close to hipsterism in my opinion). I am saying that you should not use "it was in the previous game" as an argument to prove that it is a good idea. There were plenty of things in Civ 4 that did not work especially well and just continuing them over to Civ 5 on the basis that that is the way it was done before is foolish.

However, Lump sums of gold for continuing agreements is not Necessary... if I have 300 gold to giv... I can also give 10 gpt for 30 turns.

Actually, since Technology Trading has been eliminated, the only "one time only" items are

1. Cities
2. Research Agreements* (these are a good risk element.. but Both sides lose if they are broken)


It would probably be a good idea to have the AI NEVER give a lump sum of gold unless the agreement includes Cities or Research Agreements

 

[Martin Alvito]

However, Lump sums of gold for continuing agreements is not Necessary... if I have 300 gold to giv... I can also give 10 gpt for 30 turns.

Sure, but I'd much rather receive 300 up front for my luxury, and pay 10/turn for 30 turns for his. The computer doesn't realize that the two deals are not equivalent, which is pretty strange since it does realize that now > later when making loans. Although I'd argue that it doesn't fully appreciate the degree of that relationship.

It would probably be a good idea to have the AI NEVER give a lump sum of gold unless the agreement includes Cities or Research Agreements

Yup.

 

[Sneaks]

Frankly, I don't even think cities should be available for trade outside of peace negotiation. I know there are historical examples of this (Alaska, Gadsen, Louisiana purchases). However, city bargaining seems to be beyond the scope of the AI, and unlike those previous examples, city buying tends to be land well developed by the previous owner. (Tile trading, however, I would love to see in a mod down the road).

There are several issues with the pillage and resell piece. One, it shows the high exploit-ability of any lump sum arrangement. Take for example, the human player being able to take loans from the AI (You give GPT for cash now. Feel free to DoW the next turn and use their money against them), but the AI does not ever ask or attempt for loans themselves. This really needs its own Loan mechanic, where breaking the agreement would have horrible diplomatic repercussions abroad, and have some financial hit at home.

Diplomatic trade, simply put, is an unrefined beast full of loopholes and AIs incapable of understanding.

 

[Drawmeus]

You got it wrong, it works like this: You sell your resource, pillage it's tile, then repair the improvement, and then you can sell it again.

That makes more sense. Problem needing a fix!

Though in single player at least, probably not a big deal. This isn't a degenerate strategy like ICS, it's an obvious abuse of an exploit; I'd say this is more comparable to reloading or using a cheat to add units than anything else.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

I'm a bit confused, is the patch out yet or not? If not, it will either come monday, or they cheated us.

Exaggeration at best... if i even have to wait until mid-march or after, it will only mean that;
1) 2KGreg wasn't told (or eventually will be) of unforeseen delays,
2) Firaxis staff & devs cared enough to work on some additional features while holding facts from all,
3) The actual Release will offer supplemental fixes since it is a ONE time opportunity for a stable code that normally last 2-3 Months (which is, by any standards - an extremely fast pace).

But cheated?
Not at all.

 

[Guardian_PL]

However, Lump sums of gold for continuing agreements is not Necessary... if I have 300 gold to giv... I can also give 10 gpt for 30 turns.

Actually, since Technology Trading has been eliminated, the only "one time only" items are

1. Cities
2. Research Agreements* (these are a good risk element.. but Both sides lose if they are broken)


It would probably be a good idea to have the AI NEVER give a lump sum of gold unless the agreement includes Cities or Research Agreements

Of course, but that's apparently a taboo because such mechanic was used in Civ4! It doesn't matter that it makes sense, or that it would work

Honestly, lump gold could be used in peace negotiations, to convince AI about signing Defensive Pact, or to attack other player. Add to that scaled cost research agreements and we're set.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Sure, but I'd much rather receive 300 up front for my luxury, and pay 10/turn for 30 turns for his. The computer doesn't realize that the two deals are not equivalent, which is pretty strange since it does realize that now > later when making loans. Although I'd argue that it doesn't fully appreciate the degree of that relationship.



Yup.

Well the ideal solution would be for the AI to have a decreased value for "per turn" v. "lump sum"

say Interest factor * Trust Factor

Interest factor... works both ways.
At 80%, An AI looking for a fair deal will give you 10 gpt(30) for ~240 lump sum gold.. and vice versa
(I think 60-80% would probably be good..only take loans when you need the money now)

Trust factor.. works one way only (this is "how long will you uphold the agreement")
[in the other direction, the human player can get info on the 'AI trust factor']

Trust would be capped any time the human player ever broke a treaty... with Anyone.

So if you stopped delivery on a 'per turn' treaty 20% into it, then the AI would assume that you would NEVER go above 20%

Trust would slowly increase (but never above the cap) when you fulfilled a per turn for lump sum agreement completely.

Trust would be much lower for an AI that was planning to go to war with you... or had reasons that you might go to war with it. (so if a player is labeled a warmonger, the trust factor goes down)

Trust would have a starting value based on game difficulty.
ie on Prince.. starting value of 90%
Deity.. starting value of 50%


Of course what that boils down to is eliminating lump sum gold in almost every case. (you won't 'take loans' from the AI except in extreme cases)

I think it might be simpler+easier to just eliminate lump gold entirely.

As for the other "lump" supplies...
Defensive Pact /Agreement to Attack can also be considered ongoing things. (ie if they agree to attack someone, and they make peace with them, and you don't... then the have defaulted on the agreement too)
For that matter so is a research agreement

Then all that we're left with is cities. Which are complicated to value as is.. since they can Cost you Happiness. (and gold)

Perhaps cities can be left on the
1. Peace Table
or
2. Gifts/City Exchanges

 

[MadDjinn]

In case no one was looking at the other forums:

Hey guys, it's pretty uncommon for a company to release a patch on Friday. The reason being that if there are issues, it might not be possible to get them resolved before people go home for the weekend. So don't hold your breath for today.

 

[spider1]

In case no one was looking at the other forums:

Well, crap. I was looking forward to trying out the new stuff this weekend.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

Right before he went to Lunch in California...
-phone rings off the hook,
-Hello, it's Dev X... we'd like you to get online and tell everyone the Patch will be ready at 5:00PM today.
-2K office, as usual are emptied by 3:00PM on Fridays.

Monday morning (noon here)
-Answering machine spits out truth.
-2KGreg, goes online.
-Expect everything on Steam later *THIS* afternoon.

Conclusion? bad timing.

 

[Lecksa]

Right before he went to Lunch in California...
-phone rings off the hook,
-Hello, it's Dev X... we'd like you to get online and tell everyone the Patch will be ready at 5:00PM today.
-2K office, as usual are emptied by 3:00PM on Fridays.

Monday morning (noon here)
-Answering machine spits out truth.
-2KGreg, goes online.
-Expect everything on Steam later *THIS* afternoon.

Conclusion? bad timing.

So patch is still going to come today friday?

 

[Martin Alvito]

Well, crap. I was looking forward to trying out the new stuff this weekend.

*nod* Disappointing. I just need a few hours with the new patch to show why the new Meritocracy is absurdly broken, and I was hoping to get that knocked out today or tomorrow.

So patch is still going to come today friday?

No, 2KGreg's statement suggests that it will not be released today.

 

[Mustakrakish]

What I would like to see fixed in the patch is AI's unwillingness to attack cities. One picture is better than a thousand words:

Spoiler :

That city should not be 10 turns ago... and yet it stands still. They could take the city without any unit losses, but they just refuse to attack until city health is reduced to a certain point. The problem is that due to their mad skillz at handling siege units it simply won't happen.

And I saw this happen plenty and plenty of times... Where AI could have taken the city, be it mine or other AI's, but no...

IMO this is the biggest fixable problem with "tactical" AI. Just make them more trigger happy, what's the big deal? They can't use siege anyway...

In this particular scene Monty dragged that poor trebuchet around here and there around the city and never managed to properly use it. Eventually after 30 or so turns I got tired of watching that trebuchet dragging around and occasionally firing and wiped out the city myself with 2 longswordsmen units without any siege...

 

[Lheim]

I am not saying it should not be used again just because it has been done before (that is too close to hipsterism in my opinion). I am saying that you should not use "it was in the previous game" as an argument to prove that it is a good idea. There were plenty of things in Civ 4 that did not work especially well and just continuing them over to Civ 5 on the basis that that is the way it was done before is foolish.

I'm sorry if you thought that was what I was implying.

No, I simply meant that WASD and mouse movement was an idea that worked great. By all means, steal ideas that worked great in previous genre games. On the contrary, for example, stacks and siege didn't work so well in Civ 4, I wouldn't deny that - it was a bit tedious, so by all means try to change and improve the mechanic.

 

[Venereus]

I'm sorry if you thought that was what I was implying.

No, I simply meant that WASD and mouse movement was an idea that worked great. By all means, steal ideas that worked great in previous genre games. On the contrary, for example, stacks and siege didn't work so well in Civ 4, I wouldn't deny that - it was a bit tedious, so by all means try to change and improve the mechanic.

This reminds me of this little experiment. I wonder what will happen in a Civ4 SoD versus Civ5 1UPT encounter.

 

[Camikaze]

Well, there's just over 36 hours left in February here, so there's still a bit of time for 2K to meet their commitment. Imagine if they advertised a 'February' patch and it wasn't released in February for people in certain time zones...

 

[Buccaneer]

Well, there's just over 36 hours left in February here, so there's still a bit of time for 2K to meet their commitment. Imagine if they advertised a 'February' patch and it wasn't released in February for people in certain time zones...

Of course I then realize some here would love for them release a patch that may have last minute issues just so the ranting and ravings can start anew. But if they delay the patch to fix said last minute issues, the ranting and ravings from certain CFC contigent would start on Monday as well.

 

[Camikaze]

Of course I then realize some here would love for them release a patch that may have last minute issues just so the ranting and ravings can start anew. But if they delay the patch to fix said last minute issues, the ranting and ravings from certain CFC contigent would start on Monday as well.

Oh, I'd rather they actually fix issues with it rather than release something incomplete, but it certainly wouldn't seem a very professional approach to not release a patch in the month it is named after.

 

[Valkrionn]

Well, there's just over 36 hours left in February here, so there's still a bit of time for 2K to meet their commitment. Imagine if they advertised a 'February' patch and it wasn't released in February for people in certain time zones...

Given the fact that Firaxis is based in Maryland, I find it extremely unlikely that they would worry about Aussie time for their releases.

Even more unlikely when you consider the fact that 2K is based out of California.