March Patch Notes (formerly february)

[I_qua_I]

The improved turn times really make this game much more fun for me to play. It still is unfortunate though that there is no "quick move" option.

 

[JohnnyW]

For whatever reason, they didn't do it that way. Maybe they could change it without a tremendous effort, maybe not - none of us know. The question we have to ask ourselves is, where would we rather have them devoting their programming resources - AI/diplomacy/other gameplay issues, or changing the way the game loads?

Why do we "have to ask ourselves" this question? I'm not managing their staff, my thoughts won't influence how or what they do. Significant aspects of the game (multiplayer for example) are pretty broken and many minor things continue to hang around as annoyances.

As a consumer I'm displeased at all of the negative aspects of this game and haven't played it in over a month. This patch looks like it's made some good changes, but not enough for me to try it out again, so I will wait for another patch.

As for whether or not I will ask myself where I would "rather have them devoting their programming resources" - I don't care. They haven't seemed to do too much right so I don't put much faith in their future efforts. If they get it right, good for them. I've given them my money already and won't give them any more. Maybe some day I'll be able to milk some more value out of the money I've already spent, but that day is not today.

 

[AfterShafter]

Why do we "have to ask ourselves" this question? I'm not managing their staff, my thoughts won't influence how or what they do. Significant aspects of the game (multiplayer for example) are pretty broken and many minor things continue to hang around as annoyances.

As a consumer I'm displeased at all of the negative aspects of this game and haven't played it in over a month. This patch looks like it's made some good changes, but not enough for me to try it out again, so I will wait for another patch.

As for whether or not I will ask myself where I would "rather have them devoting their programming resources" - I don't care. They haven't seemed to do too much right so I don't put much faith in their future efforts. If they get it right, good for them. I've given them my money already and won't give them any more. Maybe some day I'll be able to milk some more value out of the money I've already spent, but that day is not today.

Pardon me, let me rephrase it. You SHOULD ask yourself that question. Why? Because if you complain hard enough about things that aren't top-of-the-list-important, they might devote valuable and limited resources to those things and leave the real top of the list stuff for a later date. They DO pay attention to these forums - been proven time and again by the content of patches. Personally, I'd *much* rather have them deal with AI/diplomacy than some minor loading inconvenience which may or may not be a big deal to fix.

You're talking like they have a magic fix wand that they choose to wave over some things and other things not, and it's only out of laziness/spite/ignorance/whatever that they aren't doing so - and that maybe if you complain about everything really hard, they'll wave the wand around like mad. The fact that you've given them money doesn't give them the power to fix things with a snap of a finger, and there are simple realities we have to deal with. Some of them are that the game ain't perfect, they have limited resources with which to fix it, and how they apply those resources will either make the game better at a slower pace or a faster pace.

Ultimately, you're saying that you might play next patch when it's up to your standards, and you say "you don't care" how they utilize their resources. The thing is, how they utilize their resources will be key as to whether the next patch is the one that brings it up to your standards - or if you're stuck here after the next patch saying "FIX IT ALL! I don't care how" If you care about actually getting them to get the game to whatever point that is that you'll like, you should probably care about how they use those resources. And since our comments/critiques/complaints can indirectly affect how they utilize their resources... Well, you work it out.

I point out important stuff first, less important stuff when the important stuff is done. You? Do what you want. But hey, when next patch rolls around and the AI still needs a ton of work but the loading issue is fixed, perhaps it'll be a good time to contemplate how much time was spent fixing the loading issue that could have been spent improving the AI

PS - why bring up giving them more of your money? I don't recall that having much to do with prior discussion on this subject.

 

[spider1]

I must be very lucky I haven't had one crash, glitch or anything like that pre OR post patch. I have a great machine so maybe that is heading off the crashes before they begin?

I've never had Civ V crash on me, or any of my games. My computer runs just fine because I keep up to date on all my drivers and Microsoft updates. I hear a lot about folks having applications and games crashing, I've never had a problem with that.

When I used to build my own computers I had problems, but since I've been buying Dells it's been smooth sailing.

 

[JohnnyW]

Pardon me, let me rephrase it. You SHOULD ask yourself that question. Why? Because if you complain hard enough about things that aren't top-of-the-list-important, they might devote valuable and limited resources to those things and leave the real top of the list stuff for a later date. They DO pay attention to these forums - been proven time and again by the content of patches. Personally, I'd *much* rather have them deal with AI/diplomacy than some minor loading inconvenience which may or may not be a big deal to fix.

So when are they changing the scale of combat and fixing multiplayer?

You're talking like they have a magic fix wand that they choose to wave over some things and other things not, and it's only out of laziness/spite/ignorance/whatever that they aren't doing so - and that maybe if you complain about everything really hard, they'll wave the wand around like mad.

Actually, I'm talking like they don't have a magic wand and don't have the competency or devotion to solve problems they created and in addition to that complaining has only a very minor outside chance of potentially making the most miniscule difference.

The fact that you've given them money doesn't give them the power to fix things with a snap of a finger, and there are simple realities we have to deal with.

I think that's pretty obvious. That's why I'm not playing the game until it's fixed or giving them any more money at all.

Some of them are that the game ain't perfect, they have limited resources with which to fix it, and how they apply those resources will either make the game better at a slower pace or a faster pace.

Or it's mostly busy work ripping from mods that other people put tons of time and effort into creating while adding just a little bit of carrot on the stick to drag people along to play the game again (faster load turn times - which is a really good benefit of this patch I'm not arguing against that).

Ultimately, you're saying that you might play next patch when it's up to your standards, and you say "you don't care" how they utilize their resources. The thing is, how they utilize their resources will be key as to whether the next patch is the one that brings it up to your standards - or if you're stuck here after the next patch saying "FIX IT ALL! I don't care how" If you care about actually getting them to get the game to whatever point that is that you'll like, you should probably care about how they use those resources. And since our comments/critiques/complaints can indirectly affect how they utilize their resources... Well, you work it out.

You're really good at talking *at* people. Maybe you should read and understand what I'm saying more clearly so we could have a discussion rather than you just typing whatever it is you want to say packaged in a format that makes it look like a response to my post.

I point out important stuff first, less important stuff when the important stuff is done. You? Do what you want. But hey, when next patch rolls around and the AI still needs a ton of work but the loading issue is fixed, perhaps it'll be a good time to contemplate how much time was spent fixing the loading issue that could have been spent improving the AI

PS - why bring up giving them more of your money? I don't recall that having much to do with prior discussion on this subject.

My point is that this game fell way short of my (and many other people's) standards. I regret putting money into the game. I'm glad they're still working on it, but it won't be worth the money I've paid for it for some time. Until it gets to that point I'm not going to spend any energy worrying about it anymore. I'm playing a couple of other fun games that are way cheaper and way more enjoyable in my free time now.

Once the game comes around I am hoping to milk some more value out of it because I have enjoyed previous civ games and would like to enjoy this one again (I did enjoy it briefly when I first began playing it). I don't expect that day to come until at least late this year. I might give it a shot after the next patch if it's pretty significant though.

 

[Valkrionn]

Or it's mostly busy work ripping from mods that other people put tons of time and effort into creating while adding just a little bit of carrot on the stick to drag people along to play the game again (faster load turn times - which is a really good benefit of this patch I'm not arguing against that).

This is absolutely not true. The changes may be similar, but none were simply ripped from a mod.

 

[Paul+C]

That's why I'm not playing the game until it's fixed or giving them any more money at all.

You're really good at talking *at* people. Maybe you should read and understand what I'm saying more clearly so we could have a discussion rather than you just typing whatever it is you want to say packaged in a format that makes it look like a response to my post.

And maybe you should play the game before you get so judgemental? Honestly, after about 10,000 negative posts about the game, it gets a little tiring. I mean, really, find a game you LIKE, somewhere, and post on its forum. You'll be happier.

 

[JohnnyW]

And maybe you should play the game before you get so judgemental? Honestly, after about 10,000 negative posts about the game, it gets a little tiring. I mean, really, find a game you LIKE, somewhere, and post on its forum. You'll be happier.

What makes you think I'm not happy? Just because I'm dissatisfied with this product I've bought?

I'm quite happy, actually, just disappointed with this game. Also, I've played the game over 150 hours, just none in the last month+. The latest patch didn't address enough of my concerns to want to play again at this juncture, but I'll probably play it again if it keeps progressing. I just don't expect that to be any time soon.

Also, I hope you're not suggesting I stop expressing my opinions simply because you don't like them.

 

[Blue Oyster]

Also, I hope you're not suggesting I stop expressing my opinions simply because you don't like them.

I don't read the comments that way at all, JohnnyW. If I get the gist right, you've been encouraged not to stop expressing your opinions, but rather to try writing some new ones.

 

[JohnnyW]

I don't read the comments that way at all, JohnnyW. If I get the gist right, you've been encouraged not to stop expressing your opinions, but rather to try writing some new ones.

My opinions will change more drastically when the game does. My opinions about this game have changed a lot since I created my account here. Also, this is what he wrote:

Honestly, after about 10,000 negative posts about the game, it gets a little tiring. I mean, really, find a game you LIKE, somewhere, and post on its forum.

I'm unclear of what he intended to say exactly, that's why I was inquiring.

Anyway, the main points behind all of my posts are this:
1) Game did not meet purchase value.
2) Game has not reached purchase value.
3) I have stopped playing game.
4) Game is showing slow improvement.
5) Game may reach purchase value eventually.
6) I will play the game at a later date to re-evaluate.
7) I want to enjoy this game in the future.
8) I do not expect to enjoy this game any time in the *near* future.

 

[AfterShafter]

So when are they changing the scale of combat and fixing multiplayer?

Sooner than later if they aren't worried about changing other less important things. I think that's something we can obviously agree on, right?

Actually, I'm talking like they don't have a magic wand and don't have the competency or devotion to solve problems they created and in addition to that complaining has only a very minor outside chance of potentially making the most miniscule difference.

Ok then. Let's say they are lacking in competency and devotion to solve the problems they created. Does increasing the urgency that they get to less important issues help them lazily meander their way to the more important issues? Obviously not.

As for the "very minor outside chance"... In the five years I've been here now (I need to get a life ) I've seen quite a few community concerns translate almost directly into patches. You're underestimating influence what is said here has on their patching process - we are, basically, free testers who are generally quite systematic in pointing out exactly what is wrong. There is some importance on us telling them exactly what we want to get what we want.

I think that's pretty obvious. That's why I'm not playing the game until it's fixed or giving them any more money at all.


Or it's mostly busy work ripping from mods that other people put tons of time and effort into creating while adding just a little bit of carrot on the stick to drag people along to play the game again (faster load turn times - which is a really good benefit of this patch I'm not arguing against that).

This sounds very conspiracy-theory'ish. But, whether that's the case or not, this again comes down to limited resources for whatever reason... If they're too busy doing all these other things to devote much time to legitimate patching, don't we want them to devote as much of that time as possible to patching the right things?

And, you mention "ripping from mods" and such like it's a bad thing. Someone put in the work to do something good that would help the game. Isn't everyone better off for them seeing a good thing and putting it in the game? Or should they be saying "Wait, wait, this is someone else's - let's leave it be." In Civ IV, when a guy like Bhruic made an unofficial patch, he was basically hoping that as much of it as possible would end up in an official patch.

You're really good at talking *at* people. Maybe you should read and understand what I'm saying more clearly so we could have a discussion rather than you just typing whatever it is you want to say packaged in a format that makes it look like a response to my post.

Ok, I'll try and be more direct.

My point is that this game fell way short of my (and many other people's) standards. I regret putting money into the game. I'm glad they're still working on it, but it won't be worth the money I've paid for it for some time. Until it gets to that point I'm not going to spend any energy worrying about it anymore. I'm playing a couple of other fun games that are way cheaper and way more enjoyable in my free time now.

Once the game comes around I am hoping to milk some more value out of it because I have enjoyed previous civ games and would like to enjoy this one again (I did enjoy it briefly when I first began playing it). I don't expect that day to come until at least late this year. I might give it a shot after the next patch if it's pretty significant though.

So, here's me being direct. For whatever reason - you seem to think it's incompetence/apathy/too busy stealing from others - they have limited time and resources to spend on improving the game so that the people who are unwilling to play it now will want to play it again. That being the case, wouldn't it be ideal that it's totally clear that some issues (AI/diplo/etc) should be much higher priorities than other issues (cosmetic changes in how the game loads)? I think the obvious answer is "yes." Pair this with the fact that they do pay attention to this forum, shouldn't our complaints reflect the priorities we want the problems to take? An attitude of "I'm a consumer, I'll complain about anything and everything, I ain't playing any more and they get no more of my money until it's fixed!" without any rhyme or reasoning to the critiques/complaints is only going to slow down the important issues getting dealt with.

 

[AfterShafter]

Anyway, the main points behind all of my posts are this:
1) Game did not meet purchase value.
2) Game has not reached purchase value.
3) I have stopped playing game.
4) Game is showing slow improvement.
5) Game may reach purchase value eventually.
6) I will play the game at a later date to re-evaluate.
7) I want to enjoy this game in the future.
8) I do not expect to enjoy this game any time in the *near* future.

Just to re-emphasize, I'm pointing out that your manner of complaining is likely to keep step four slow, make step five less likely, is counterproductive to seven, and make your expectations in eight more likely to be true.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

I think that's pretty obvious. That's why I'm not playing the game until it's fixed or giving them any more money at all.

I'd recommend you to stop bothering coming here in a Civ5 Forum where active players feel that in order to judge a game for what it really is they must play it often enough to share facts rather than the usual tons of Rants we've been enforced to endure over the last six months.
You're actually throwing gazoline on a fire. It's called annoyance - to be polite.
Moderator Action: Don't flame other members.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

I regret putting money into the game.

I don't expect that day to come until at least late this year. I might give it a shot after the next patch if it's pretty significant though.

1) And it shows.
2) See you then.

 

[JohnnyW]

Just to re-emphasize, I'm pointing out that your manner of complaining is likely to keep step four slow, make step five less likely, is counterproductive to seven, and make your expectations in eight more likely to be true.

I've expressed my concerns elsewhere in the past. Lately my attitude towards this game has been apathy since I feel the gap between current value and purchased value is too large for me to worry about it at this juncture. If you look at my sig I actually started a project to try to help people with modding efforts that I put a decent amount of time into (formatting alone).

And to the most recent poster, if they haven't addressed my most major concerns with the game, why would playing the new version change my view on those concerns? Did they change the scale of the map and not document it? Did they fix multiplayer and not document it? Did they fix how powerful RAs and great scientists are and not document it? Adding hammers fixes easily addressable problems (that mods already had fixed for months). That's like pulling a splinter out of the skin. The issues I'm worried about take a deeper cut to address. And to dismiss my posting as ranting and annoying is offensive.

edit:

2) See you then.

I'm not going anywhere.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

I'm unclear of what he intended to say exactly, that's why I was inquiring.

Anyway, the main points behind all of my posts are this:
1) Game did not meet purchase value.
2) Game has not reached purchase value.
3) I have stopped playing game.
4) Game is showing slow improvement.
5) Game may reach purchase value eventually.
6) I will play the game at a later date to re-evaluate.
7) I want to enjoy this game in the future.
8) I do not expect to enjoy this game any time in the *near* future.

Well, lemme give it a different perspective...

a) At 50$, it's beyond *MY* hopes for a sharp switch to gameplay novelty.
b) Patches fiddled with some of the reasonable & rational flaws.
c) Your choice.
d) Wrong. By any standards, patches every second months is an *EXTREMELY* fast pace for a product this complex.
e) See a, b.
f) No need to repeat, we saw it earlier. Keep watching us.
g) Most of us do and will.
h) Near, later, soon, yesterday, in two months... what's the difference? Maybe you expect too much.

 

[JohnnyW]

h) Near, later, soon, yesterday, in two months... what's the difference? Maybe you expect too much.

I think expecting the game to be enjoyable in a year's time is expecting very little. And that is exactly what I'm expecting from the developers: very little.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

I'm not going anywhere.

Keep stinging like the proverbial wasp and we'll find something better to do than having a conservation where *any* whiners participate.

 

[AfterShafter]

And to the most recent poster, if they haven't addressed my most major concerns with the game, why would playing the new version change my view on those concerns? Did they change the scale of the map and not document it? Did they fix multiplayer and not document it? Did they fix how powerful RAs and great scientists are and not document it? Adding hammers fixes easily addressable problems (that mods already had fixed for months). That's like pulling a splinter out of the skin. The issues I'm worried about take a deeper cut to address. And to dismiss my posting as ranting and annoying is offensive.

I think part of your problem is that you're looking at some things that are not necessarily bugs/problems/issues, but rather matters of taste preference, and calling them as such.

Scale of the map? I've never had problems with it, and many others are OK with it as well. I've heard quite a few expositions on the subject from multiple angles (England is only one square! Not enough room for tactics! Etc etc!), but, while I sympathize that the game isn't doing what they want, it's doing what I want just fine. Is that something they should "fix"? I can think of a few games that implemented certain elements in ways that I wasn't so fond of but others weren't, but I had to stop myself and say "Is this a bug or is it just something I don't like?"

RA's and great scientists are powerful, but I'm totally not convinced they're overpowered. Scientists aren't always the GP I go for, and I oftentimes find ways to spend my money other than research agreements.

Multiplayer fixes? Well, it's more stable. The saving and move-at-end-of-turn-issues are still pending and need looking at - which brings me back to my original point... If you complain about the loading screen, some guy who may be put to work fixing those things may well be put fixing the loading screen. So, pick your priorities for complaining to increase urgency on the more important issues.

Also, I think the hammer/gold changes were *quite* the significant changes and this last patch addressed a lot of very major concerns over the viability/effectiveness of being a builder. The balance implications are really quite major based on looking at peoples' initial comments.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

I think expecting the game to be enjoyable in a year's time is expecting very little. And that is exactly what I'm expecting from the developers: very little.

Oh, well... if i read this right - you're saying (in a different way) that the devs are a bunch of incompetent people. Derogatory, at best.

They'll do as much as possible to please even the worst of complainers, AFAIC.