New Patch Incoming!

[reddishrecue]

Yup, the sooner you get the win the less risky it is for someone else to win.

 

[liv]

So it looks like we are not going to get the patch before the 12th then. Oh well. I hoped to get ti soon

 

[Gort]

Frequent patching really isn't Firaxis' forte.

 

[Victus75]

Maybe it will drop on the 10th? I'm not sure why I always associate Tuesdays with patch days, as I'm not even sure of Firaxis' history about patching.

 

[Sherlock]

Frequent patching really isn't Firaxis' forte.

You have a talent for understatement.

 

[reddishrecue]

Firaxis has a patch tuesdays now? Were in 2015 barely..

 

[Gorbles]

You have a talent for understatement.

And yet, the game gets patches, despite your frequent doomsaying.

We even have a commitment from the developers to continue building on the product - whether that commitment is acted upon is up for debate, but I think the endless "BE is going to fail / Firaxis have dropped BE / no more patches ever" is getting a bit useless to post at this point. Which is why you're stuck saying things like this.

Firaxis' patches are regular. I'd take regular patches that aren't frequent over frequent patches that aren't regular, especially in a post-release product. Alphas / betas / Early Access get a lot more leeway, because the product isn't complete.

 

[Gort]

And yet, the game gets patches, despite your frequent doomsaying.

We even have a commitment from the developers to continue building on the product - whether that commitment is acted upon is up for debate, but I think the endless "BE is going to fail / Firaxis have dropped BE / no more patches ever" is getting a bit useless to post at this point. Which is why you're stuck saying things like this.[/quote]

It would've been a bit of a travesty if they'd released BE and not given any commitment to patch it. "Firaxis releases half-finished game and drops all support for it" would've been kind of a bad headline.

Firaxis' patches are regular. I'd take regular patches that aren't frequent over frequent patches that aren't regular, especially in a post-release product. Alphas / betas / Early Access get a lot more leeway, because the product isn't complete.

Or we could have the frequent patches other companies produce that don't introduce extra bugs to the game. It's really quite pathetic that it took them so long to patch obvious errors like autoplant trade routes and ships 1-shot-killing each other (both issues identified by MadDjinn long before release, and issues any decent Civ player would have identified in their first game), and in the patch that fixed those they also managed to make a complete mess of the affinity quest code.

 

[Gorbles]

Oh, I agree that no commitment at all wouldn't have reflected well on the game. But that commitment to further support was a recent thing - spoken at GDC after we got our Fall Patch and after the Winter Patch was announced.

Ergo, not really relatable to giving the game no support at all. I'm talking at this point in time - going forwards, and not going back to slate the game at release.

You and I have different opinions of "pathetic", but we've done this song and dance about developer competence before and I doubt you want to rehash it either.

 

[Gort]

You and I have different opinions of "pathetic", but we've done this song and dance about developer competence before and I doubt you want to rehash it either.

I think that we can agree at least that more frequent patches that don't introduce bugs to the game would be a good thing.

 

[Gorbles]

Absolutely. But I'd rather take regularity at this stage. Combined with the commitment given at GFC, we can therefore expect more quarterly patches, unless the timescale changes.

That way we can expect something, and there is more of a rationale behind being disappointed if those expectations aren't met. Instead of not knowing or being able to predict when the patches will hit, and therefore be stuck in the same negative loop people have been before the Winter Patch was announced.

 

[Gort]

Absolutely. But I'd rather take regularity at this stage.

You'd prefer patches to introduce bugs to the game, but be on a regular schedule. A glacial schedule compared to other companies making games in similar genres.

 

[Gorbles]

I didn't say that

You're doing that thing I got mad about last time, which was introducing things I never said. I would rather no bugs were introduced at all. But there's obviously a reasoning behind Firaxis' patch scheduling. No amount of snipes at other forum members will change that, and I like being able to predict the next patch.

i.e. we could expect a third major patch in the summer. They might pick up the slack after PAX (if they're at PAX) now that GDC is finished and we might some get smaller patches in the meantime. However, nobody knows. All I do know is that we're getting patches regularly, one major patch per quarter.

(also if you could post specific non-Early Access examples of comparative games with a faster patching schedule that weren't arguably more broken upon release, I'd love to have a list of them)

 

[Gort]

I didn't say that

I said "I would like more frequent patches that didn't introduce bugs" and you said "I'd rather take regularity at this stage".

Therefore you would prefer regular patches that introduced bugs to the game. The patching schedule we have seen so far is glacial compared to other companies who make similar games.

Where do you feel you have been misrepresented?

(also if you could post specific non-Early Access examples of comparative games with a faster patching schedule that weren't arguably more broken upon release, I'd love to have a list of them)

The examples I gave last time we did this were Endless Legends and Europa Universalis 4 and you ignored my examples and told me to leave you alone.

Europa's had a patch on average every 24 days since release a couple years back. I would like Beyond Earth to get a similar treatment.

 

[Gorbles]

In that sentence, right there, you missed two statements of agreement and a whole post. That's the misrepresentation.

And you can only name two comparative products, one of which has a horrendous history with bugs, stability and game performance (something Civilisation is pretty solid on, especially by comparison) - that would be EU for reference. And the other is a title I asked for a non-Early Access variant. Since December, Endless Legend (as I own the game, this is pretty easy to check) has received two major patches, the latter of which was a huge bugfix patch and nothing in the way of content / improvements / balance barring about ten minor changes.

I've shown my point well enough I think. More patches could always improve the game, and you're most obviously twisting my posts to suit. Peace out

 

[Gort]

In that sentence, right there, you missed two statements of agreement and a whole post. That's the misrepresentation.

When you said, "I'd rather have regularity" in response to "more frequent patches that don't introduce bugs to the game would be a good thing", you did not mean that you would rather have regularity instead of more frequent patches that don't introduce bugs to the game?

And you can only name two comparative products, one of which has a horrendous history with bugs, stability and game performance (something Civilisation is pretty solid on, especially by comparison) - that would be EU for reference.

I disagree. Europa 4 is a very stable game that performs very well and doesn't have many bugs. How come it has five times the players of Beyond Earth if it's so horrendous?

And the other is a title I asked for a non-Early Access variant. Since December, Endless Legend (as I own the game, this is pretty easy to check) has received two major patches, the latter of which was a huge bugfix patch and nothing in the way of content / improvements / balance barring about ten minor changes.

Endless Legend released from Early Access on the 18th of September last year (not in December), so it fit your criterion of "Not Early Access". Since that time it has had nine updates, about five of which I'd describe as full on patches with big change lists.

If Beyond Earth had a patch schedule like that I'd be very satisfied with it.

More patches could always improve the game

I agree on this point. They need to release more frequent patches that do not introduce further bugs into the game.

 

[player1 fanatic]

I'm ok with slower patching schedule, but only and only if any newly introduced bugs are fixed with the hotfix, without waiting 3 more months to fix something that previously worked.

To me it is uacceptable to have mess with quest system introduced in patch and then have to wait another couple of months to get it fixed. In fact we do not even know if this winter patch would fix what they broke in december.

If not, you would be expected to wait 3 more months to get it fixed.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Putting together my new PC now--can't wait for the patch so I can do a fresh new install and a fresh start!


(if I don't break this thing that is)

 

[Barathor]

What I really wish for is the return of public betas. I thought they were successful with Brave New World when Firaxis tried them out.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Firaxis just tweeted that the patch will be live on steam TODAY at Noon EST.

Firaxis Games ‏@FiraxisGames 15m15 minutes ago
The Winter 2015 Patch for Civ:BE is scheduled to go live today on Steam at 9am PT/12pm ET/5pm CET today. http://2kgam.es/1AcMjkl