Request for patch info!

[anarres]

I was wondering if anyone had any information about a patch for Conquests. Not the 1.02 cosmetic patch, but a gameplay patch to deal with some of the 'killer' bugs (namely the FP bug and the RCP 'fix' bug).

Any info from anyone about the possible progression or the possible release schedule for this would be very much appreciated.

I understand why companies don't like issuing patch release dates (just look at the rush to get C3C out and the bugs introduced because of sticking to deadlines), but they must have an idea of when it will be released, and someone must have info about when that may be.

If someone has info that they don't want in the public domain then feel free to PM me in total confidence.

 

[Warspite2]

There is very recent news right here at the homepage.

 

[Jeff_ATARI]

Originally posted by anarres
I understand why companies don't like issuing patch release dates (just look at the rush to get C3C out and the bugs introduced because of sticking to deadlines).

Okay, okay, I just couldn't let THAT comment slide by.

After all the extra preparation, the long hours by testers and developers, the decisions to delay the code release over and over again, the Herculean efforts by the operations team to squeeze in CD duplication in the crowded holiday schedule, and the overall commitment by Firaxis, Breakaway, and Atari to deliver a top quality Civ experience with this expansion pack... after all that, and all the complaints from the good people here when the package was not on every store shelf on the release date... after all the sacrifices by retailers and sales staff who couldn't book circular advertisements, endcap displays, or other promotional materials for the launch date because we refused to let them handcuff us to a date at the risk of sacrificing the quality of the game... I just can't let you sweep it all aside with a statement that we rushed this game out the door...!

Best,
Jeff Foley
Atari

 

[Louis XXIV]

I'd agree with you. It seems a common statement for every game that if it has bugs, it was rushed out of the door before it was ready. Many people hate delays, but pretend they didn't mind them when they think the game was buggy and wished it had been delayed more (although they now have the game to play). But they definately mind any delay in fixing any problems with the game. I know the reality of today is that PC games have bugs, so I don't complain too much about the game having them (I definately don't restrict myself from complaining about a specific annoying bug, though).

Anyway, If any update about the patch can be said, please do so.

 

[anarres]

Originally posted by Jeff_ATARI
Okay, okay, I just couldn't let THAT comment slide by.

After all the extra preparation, the long hours by testers and developers, the decisions to delay the code release over and over again, the Herculean efforts by the operations team to squeeze in CD duplication in the crowded holiday schedule, and the overall commitment by Firaxis, Breakaway, and Atari to deliver a top quality Civ experience with this expansion pack... after all that, and all the complaints from the good people here when the package was not on every store shelf on the release date... after all the sacrifices by retailers and sales staff who couldn't book circular advertisements, endcap displays, or other promotional materials for the launch date because we refused to let them handcuff us to a date at the risk of sacrificing the quality of the game... I just can't let you sweep it all aside with a statement that we rushed this game out the door...!

Best,
Jeff Foley
Atari

Hi Jeff!

First, let me say thank-you for taking the time to reply - it is very much appreciated. Next, I have a confession - I work for a small software company and I am the release manager for all our software. I see coding being done at the last minute all the time, and I know a fair number of other people who work for other software companies who all share the same experience. By it's very nature deadlines slip - it is inherent in the industry. Code is in later than is ideal and fix's always go in to the code without time for full testing. I don't think this is a problem, and I really don't blame Breakaway or Firaxis or Atari when it happens. Sure, I may be annoyed when the release date in the UK is slipped by a week with no notice given to any software retailers or UK customers, but believe it or not I don't blame you for that either - it is just an unfortunate functioning of the industry.

To get back to the comment you quoted. You had a release date, and you had to stick to it. Some fixes were not tested as thoroughly as they could have been, I understand why this is and I really don't have a problem with it. I can't stress that enough, but believe me when I say I've seen much more buggy software going out the door and being sold to global companies for tens of thousands of dollars. This is then followed by quick patches for the worst bugs, then more patches for the less important ones. If you read my quote again in this context you will see that I am trying (and failing) to say that I understand why all software companies hate to give release dates - it puts pressure on the development process that impacts the quality of the software.

I was actually asking for information as to the possible release schulde and approximate release dates because I run a small PBEM site (Civ3 Duel Zone) dedicated to Civ3. We have just over 100 members, many of whom are waiting to start new PBEM games because they think a patch is around the corner. Since PBEM games take anywhere from 1 month to a year it makes sense to wait for a patch if it is coming in the next month or so. If it will be longer we will start new games in PTW while we wait.

I really hope you read this - it would be a shame if you thought I was badmouthing Firaxis.

 

[anarres]

Originally posted by Louis XXIV
I'd agree with you. It seems a common statement for every game that if it has bugs, it was rushed out of the door before it was ready. Many people hate delays, but pretend they didn't mind them when they think the game was buggy and wished it had been delayed more (although they now have the game to play). But they definately mind any delay in fixing any problems with the game. I know the reality of today is that PC games have bugs, so I don't complain too much about the game having them (I definately don't restrict myself from complaining about a specific annoying bug, though).

Anyway, If any update about the patch can be said, please do so.

1) Read my post above. I'll think you find I am not one of those people...

2) Jesse Smith says a patch will be out (hopefully) mid Jan, but this is subject to change (main page announcement).

 

[Vietcong]

how in the world did u let the communisam hq and hp bug get past ya??

 

[Craterus22]

and the overall commitment by Firaxis, Breakaway, and Atari to deliver a top quality Civ experience with this expansion pack...

Please add a new step to the release schedule...

PLAY the game once before release.

 

[Bam-Bam]

[soapbox]

Ok, the last two comments were a bit over the top. Alexman found the corruption bug(s) by building on the hundreds of hours of work he and others had done to expose RCP and the rank corruption bug in PTW. There was a huge outcry to Breakaway/Firaxis to fix these issues. To my knowledge, the beta testers did not find the new bug, and the mountains of work the folks at Breakaway/Firaxis/Atari were doing to keep to the release schedule and ensure non-crashing software were tremendous.

We as a community have invested hundreds of thousands of hours playing the game, and some of these issues were not found until months and years after Civ3 and PTW were released. Civ3 had lots of exploits/bugs and balance issues, and Firaxis/Atari have been extremely committed to fixing these issues. Many of us may argue about whether PTW was a worthy expansion, but most of us have also gotten hundreds of hours of quality gameplay from it as well.

It is very easy to throw rocks, and to do so based on the hard work of the CFC community that has played and analyzed the game in GREAT depth. To my knowledge, the entire Civ3 experience has been very positive from the aspect of post-release support. If you compare it to other games (MOO3 as an abysmal example of support) (D2 and D2LOD as examples of major changes in game balance not necessarily for the good), I think Civ3 and its expansions stand up as one of the best examples of post delivery support.

I do not like the bugs that are in C3C today. It has severly limited my epic game play, and has put on hold any tournament play for this expansion for the community in which I play most of my Civ3 games. That being said--the Firaxis/Atari community HAS committed to a patch to address these issues. The information about this may have been slow, but the explination given by Smith and Foley makes sense. We are a demanding community, and it does not make sense to promise the world if you haven't yet got a handle on what the workscope is to make the fix (not to mention, I expect the scope is affected by the overall sales of the expansion--more sales means more desire and funds to implement fixes).

Let's all relax, take comfort in being part of a supported game, and then judge the Firaxis/Atari team based on what we get in the patch. [/soapbox]

 

[alpha wolf 64]

Maybe its because I'm only redoing the Pacific scenario, but I've had a blast tinkering with the game, because most of the bugs dont affect me. So if you cant play the epic game, write some scenarios that wont be affected

 

[SirPleb]

Anarres and Jeff, I'm glad you are both writing on this thread; you are both making important points.

One thing I want to comment on.

Originally posted by anarres
By it's very nature deadlines slip - it is inherent in the industry. Code is in later than is ideal and fix's always go in to the code without time for full testing. I don't think this is a problem, and I really don't blame Breakaway or Firaxis or Atari when it happens.

I emphatically do think this is a problem. It has indeed become the way things are done in much of the computer industry. So much so that these days it is largely accepted as inevitable and as somehow inherent in the process.

Twenty years ago software was generally written to a higher standard of quality. That wasn't because it was simpler in those days (try reading and debugging a few hundred thousand lines of self-altering assembly code ) It was because expectations were higher. Software with serious flaws was not acceptable, period.

Times change. Personally I believe that Microsoft has a large responsibility for the current prevailing attitude that bugs are inevitable and acceptable - they've been setting the standard and the expectations in this regard. But there are still companies who produce complex software which is of high quality when first released. It can be done.

As to how to do it, that's a much longer story. An important starting point is an assessment of the relative priority of features/tweaking vs. quality

 

[Cartouche Bee]

The RCP problem should never have been declared fixed, in Sept., if it was not tested. I know there were plenty of capable people doing testing that would have identified the current problem in less than a day if they had been allowed a chance to test the validity of that claim prior to release. It was not the beta testers that were at fault for this bug being released, the onus lies somewhere else and for me it currently lies with the party that brazenly claimed it was fixed. 2 months was plenty of lead time to have a competent fix in place, IMO.

 

[Bamspeedy]

Twenty years ago software was generally written to a higher standard of quality. That wasn't because it was simpler in those days (try reading and debugging a few hundred thousand lines of self-altering assembly code ) It was because expectations were higher. Software with serious flaws was not acceptable, period.

There was no internet to download any patches, so it HAD to work perfectly.

Not simpler? There is no way Pac-man or Tetris would be as hard to program (and test) as Civ or any other recent game. The number of variables and possibilites of what you can do in recent computer games are astronomical compared to those older games. There was only so many places Mr. Pacman could go to, or dots for him to gobble.

(Sort of off-topic rant)
Speaking about quality in general (not just computer games)Sadly, consumers want things cheap and they want it NOW. There are too many things (restaurants, gas stations, grocery stores, etc.), where there are just too many consumers who look at the cost and speed of service, instead of at the quality of the product or quality of service. Of course, everyone wants better quality, but not if it comes at a higher cost. In order to compete, companies have to keep prices low so that you buy their product. In order to keep those prices low, they have to save money wherever they can, so they have less time and resources to devote to the product (which often sacrifices quality). Take too long getting the product out and a competitor beats you to it or the demand drops. That is why the Walmarts are booming while the mom and pop stores are dying out. Walmart certainly doesn't give better service or better products, but they do offer lower prices.

How much competition was there for computer software 20 years ago, compared to today? From my experience, increased competition does drop prices, but rarely increases quality. Computer games have gotten better due to technology, not from the increased competition, IMO. Super Mario Land had more replay value for me than some of the games that are currently being released in the market today. You do need some competition, but not the insane competiton like there is today. If you don't try to compete in prices and timing, you will be out of business. How many different types of computers/hardware did these older games have to work on compared to today (for the crashes/compatability issues)?

From doing the beta test, I got the impression that Atari/Breakaway/Firaxis was more like the friendly, eager-to-help, listen to the players kind of group like what the mom and pop stores would do for their customers 15-20 years ago. Not what the other current companies/corporations do now who just treat thier customers as the 'mindless masses'.

 

[SirPleb]

Originally posted by Bamspeedy
There was no internet to download any patches, so it HAD to work perfectly.

Which brings to mind an interesting comparison in current times - suppose that Zelda Wind Waker had serious bugs at release time? It had to work, so its creators made it so. At the heart of all this is the issue of motivation. Not necessarily investment. The absolute requirement (self-created or externally imposed) that it will be done right.

Originally posted by Bamspeedy
Not simpler? There is no way Pac-man or Tetris would be as hard to program (and test) as Civ or any other recent game.

I wasn't comparing with games actually I said software, and had in mind large and complex OLTP commercial applications. They aren't any different from games when it comes to issues like this. Nor is there an important difference between an ancient monster mainframe and a modern PC. Software development issues remain exactly the same.

 

[tomart109]

Originally posted by Bamspeedy

Walmart certainly doesn't give better service or better products, but they do offer lower prices.
From my experience, increased competition does drop prices, but rarely increases quality.
You do need some competition, but not the insane competiton like there is today.

Excellent, and troubling points. Is this loss of quality an inherent result of unbridled capitalism, free-market forces at work, or the result of a poor economy?

As for the Breakaway/Firaxis commitment to quality, I have nothing but praise for their efforts and dedication, and close involvement in a well-run beta. We and the civ3 game(s) are well-served, and should be grateful.

............ that said, I could wish that they weren't so focused on stamping out every last obscure "exploit"...
I mean, it's a solitaire game! The choices of how to play should be ours to make, and "exploits" are simply extra optional adjustments in difficulty.

 

[JimMac99]

Originally posted by tomart109
............ that said, I could wish that they weren't so focused on stamping out every last obscure "exploit"...
I mean, it's a solitaire game! The choices of how to play should be ours to make, and "exploits" are simply extra optional adjustments in difficulty.

Except for those, admittedly few, of us who play as much CIV multiplayer as single player. And there may be some who if pushed by the AI will have a 'weak' moment, and take advantage of an exploit to stay competitive; a terrible slur, I know!

On topic: I also wish to commend Fraxis/Breakaway/Atari for their continued support and commitment to quality, and look forward the next patch.

 

[BomberEscort]

Originally posted by Vietcong
how in the world did u let the communisam hq and hp bug get past ya??

Good question... more importantly were the beta testers aware of this and did Atari et. al. ignore them or were the testers a bunch of 'kids' that did little to no testing and only joined the beta-test to get a copy of the game before everyone else. I fear we may never know, given the nature of their NDAs. The problem could be with Atari et. al. or the beta testers... How much testing was done in-house and how much was done by the beta-testers? Either way, things were 'missed/ignored' that should not have been, and this is very disappointing.

 

[etj4Eagle]

Originally posted by BomberEscort


Good question... more importantly were the beta testers aware of this and did Atari et. al. ignore them or were the testers a bunch of 'kids' that did little to no testing and only joined the beta-test to get a copy of the game before everyone else. I fear we may never know, given the nature of their NDAs. The problem could be with Atari et. al. or the beta testers... How much testing was done in-house and how much was done by the beta-testers? Either way, things were 'missed/ignored' that should not have been, and this is very disappointing.

Quite a few of the major posters on this board were apparantly beta testers. And these posters are not ones to try for a free ride. But with any beta test, there are so many things to test and try. And some of the bugs/exploits are not simple things to find without specificily going out to test just that. And then of course there is the whole issue of fixing one bug making or revealing another one.

 

[zurichuk]

Originally posted by Bamspeedy


There was no internet to download any patches, so it HAD to work perfectly.

partly quoted above but only for a small comment not disagreement as i thought this was a well thought out constructive post,

i bought many a game that was bugged almost playability even before the internet, First Encounters is the one that springs mainly to mind (that may coincide with early internet), also some platform game on the Speccy, can't remember the name, Eugene was a character, that had bad bugs

 

[Padma]

Originally posted by BomberEscort

Originally posted by Vietcong
how in the world did u let the communisam hq and hp bug get past ya??

Good question... more importantly were the beta testers aware of this and did Atari et. al. ignore them or were the testers a bunch of 'kids' that did little to no testing and only joined the beta-test to get a copy of the game before everyone else. I fear we may never know, given the nature of their NDAs. The problem could be with Atari et. al. or the beta testers... How much testing was done in-house and how much was done by the beta-testers? Either way, things were 'missed/ignored' that should not have been, and this is very disappointing.

As one of the beta testers, I resent your implication, BomberEscort! There were many serious testers involved, some who knew Civ3/PTW inside & out (and could beat Sid!) and some who were totally new to Civ. The final *free* Conquests CDs were not given out too freely - I didn't get one, because I was unable to participate to the level they desired. I did what I could to help, though. I believe they went only to the *short list* that you see listed in the Credits. (Short compared to the hundreds that were involved.)

Many, many bugs were found, and fixed, by the deadline. A lot of game balance was tweaked, over and over again, to get it just right. And then, when the public beta was over, there were further fixes and refinements, that were tested "in-house". Yes, this was a *big* bug, and I don't know how it got missed. Certainly not from lack of trying.