Speculation: New patch and/or DLC on the 21st of november

[nokmirt]

Two separate development teams to be fair. Is it possible they could have loaned people to work on Civ5 instead? Probably. But most game studios like to have more than one product at a time. Firaxis tends to put all their eggs in one basket, so it does not hurt to have a back up plan.



Well, 2K doesn't, but that's precisely my point. Firaxis has programmers and they are working on patches. They would be only minimally involved in DLC. It's the graphic artists that do most of that work.



You do realize that Firaxis has employees that work for salaries paid for by a corporation that is designed to make a profit and, if they fail to make a profit will go bankrupt and cease to exist, right?

So the question is, what's the best use of your limited resources to ensure you stay in existence. One option involves making no money (actually, it involves losing money, since you still have to pay people). You can do this option, but you also need another option that gains revenue or you go until you run out of money from the previous game release and move on to another project. They've chosen to continue to gain revenue rather than move on early. DLC lets them patch for longer periods of time, not fewer.

Louis XXIV, I plainly do not agree with you. But I do respect your opinion. Everyone one should have the right to voice their views. The following is my take on this subject. I cannot change my views, as you probably will not change yours and that is fine. The argument is not helping us move forward. So after my reply and your following arguments which you have the right to post. Please, let's move on to something else, where perhaps we can find some common ground. Thank you.

Gamers really do not care about the corporation and their need to make loads of money. What we do expect is that they do their job and fix what is wrong with CiV. They have no shortness of money or programmers. So there is no reason for CiV to be in the state it is in. I just want the games shortcomings resolved. And thats the end of this discussion. The argument is getting very heated. If Firaxis and 2k reads posts like I have been told they do, and assume they do. Well then they have received the message. Let's see if they act on it. Now all of you know how I feel.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Gamers really do not care about the corporation. What we do expect is that they do their job and fix what is wrong with CiV. They have no shortness of money or programmers.

Actually, that's not true. Before the game was released, there was significant speculation that they were in financial trouble. They laid off a lot of programmers. So, they probably do have both a shortness of money and a shortness of programmers. And the patching process literally only loses them money. However, they continue to do it. My only point is DLC allows them to continue this process longer.

As far as gamers caring about the corporation. Gamers care if it exists. If it runs out of money and shuts down, they'll care. So, yes, they care to some extent. They might not feel sympathy for it, but I'm not saying they should. However, they need to at least understand the practical realities that games require money to be made and money to be fixed. Once there is no money, the game stops being worked on.

 

[nokmirt]

Actually, that's not true. Before the game was released, there was significant speculation that they were in financial trouble. They laid off a lot of programmers. So, they probably do have both a shortness of money and a shortness of programmers. And the patching process literally only loses them money. However, they continue to do it. My only point is DLC allows them to continue this process longer.

As far as gamers caring about the corporation. Gamers care if it exists. If it runs out of money and shuts down, they'll care. So, yes, they care to some extent. They might not feel sympathy for it, but I'm not saying they should. However, they need to at least understand the practical realities that games require money to be made and money to be fixed. Once there is no money, the game stops being worked on.

Ok, I realize that. Looks like neither of us can do anything about it. Hopefully things continue to move in the right direction even though the corporations are short of resources. Do you think something will be coming out by Christmas? Maybe a patch or DLC, what do you think? I know it is pure speculation. 2K Greg did report on Oct. 21, they were working on an update for CiV. Thats good news to me.

 

[binhthuy71]

On the more hopeful side, Firaxis/2K were good enough to release the no-CD patch for Civ IV when that game's development had run its course. That struck me as a particularly gracious move because they did not have to do it, they just did it for our benefit.

Going forward, I believe that if the work on a major patch for Civ V is either stopped cold or delayed for an indefinite amount of time the .dll will be released. That would enable our heroic modders to carry on with polishing the game.

 

[nokmirt]

On the more hopeful side, Firaxis/2K were good enough to release the no-CD patch for Civ IV when that game's development had run its course. That struck me as a particularly gracious move because they did not have to do it, they just did it for our benefit.

Going forward, I believe that if the work on a major patch for Civ V is either stopped cold or delayed for an indefinite amount of time the .dll will be released. That would enable our heroic modders to carry on with polishing the game.

Yes indeed! There is more than one way to skin the cat.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Ok, I realize that. Looks like neither of us can do anything about it. Hopefully things continue to move in the right direction even though the corporations are short of resources. Do you think something will be coming out by Christmas? Maybe a patch or DLC, what do you think? I know it is pure speculation. 2K Greg did report on Oct. 21, they were working on an update for CiV. Thats good news to me.

Complete speculation, but I hope so. It'll be longest we've gone since DLC and patches that polish would be great (I feel they've locked down a decent game balance, so bugs and expansion of features is preferable).

There's been talk of the .dll being in BETA since June. It would be great if that can be released with the next patch. Really, I think there needs to be better mod support in general.

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

Complete speculation, but I hope so. It'll be longest we've gone since DLC and patches that polish would be great (I feel they've locked down a decent game balance, so bugs and expansion of features is preferable).

There's been talk of the .dll being in BETA since June. It would be great if that can be released with the next patch. Really, I think there needs to be better mod support in general.

Better mod support will happen once everyone stop buying their junk DLCs.

 

[apocalypse105]

And tell me exactly how a graphics artist can fix the AI? [ETA: If you want DLC to add new concepts, you realize that will divert programmers who could be working on patching and would especially be a distraction for AI programmers. That's not very consistent]



And DLC ensures they keep that incentive. I agree they also just want to produce a good game so they do want people to be consistently playing, but you can't run a financial model based around good feelings.

IF they want people to play the game they need to fix major issues that a lot of people thinx is anoying like diplomacy and tactical combat AI and other stuff...


As you said creating a new civilization or senario will ask for resources (personall,money) as result the patching of the game improving has less resources available...


Thats my problem with DLC fix the game first before adding new stuff this game is far from good

 

[anandus]

IF they want people to play the game they need to fix major issues that a lot of people thinx is anoying like diplomacy and tactical combat AI and other stuff...


As you said creating a new civilization or senario will ask for resources (personall,money) as result the patching of the game improving has less resources available...


Thats my problem with DLC fix the game first before adding new stuff this game is far from good

On the other hand the DLC creates revenue for Firaxis to keep the programmers making patches in the first place.

Unfortunately a proper patched game isn't a right (although some believe it is) and us consumers just need to hope that some (if any) patches are made after the initial release of a game (as nowadays a bugfree game on release is a true exception).

I'd rather have them make half-fixing patches alongside DLC than no patches at all.

Mind you, I'm not saying this is perse the case, but it is something to take in recognition.

 

[spicytimothy]

so... DLC or no?

 

[Louis XXIV]

Better mod support will happen once everyone stop buying their junk DLCs.

That's a pretty bold assumption. What makes you think they wouldn't just move all their programmers to CivWorld where there is at least revenue?

As you said creating a new civilization or senario will ask for resources (personall,money) as result the patching of the game improving has less resources available...

Once again, how is an artist supposed to patch the game? The scenario requires programming resources, I agree, but it's still less. Money spent on artists would be lost either way unless they fired them all, which isn't a very good strategy.

 

[apocalypse105]

On the other hand the DLC creates revenue for Firaxis to keep the programmers making patches in the first place.

Unfortunately a proper patched game isn't a right (although some believe it is) and us consumers just need to hope that some (if any) patches are made after the initial release of a game (as nowadays a bugfree game on release is a true exception).

I'd rather have them make half-fixing patches alongside DLC than no patches at all.

Mind you, I'm not saying this is perse the case, but it is something to take in recognition.

If they promote their product with conduct diplomacy with real leaders and magazines like gamespot, IGN. It even says it on the box. Then i actualyl want to conduct diplomacy not just see wicked AI leaders who are out of there mind and atack everyone I paid for that So I feel ripped of

Thats why I hope the fix it but hey if they dont then I know i dont have to buy the next part

 

[binhthuy71]

If they promote their product with conduct diplomacy with real leaders and magazines like gamespot, IGN. It even says it on the box. Then i actualyl want to conduct diplomacy not just see wicked AI leaders who are out of there mind and atack everyone I paid for that So I feel ripped of

Thats why I hope the fix it but hey if they dont then I know i dont have to buy the next part

If you haven't yet bribed an AI civ to DoW another AI civ then you're missing a part of the game. What sort of diplomacy do you feel deprived of? If civ was all diplomacy, all of the time I'd go back to playing MS Age of games.

 

[headcase]

That's a pretty bold assumption. What makes you think they wouldn't just move all their programmers to CivWorld where there is at least revenue?

Without revenue they have less reason not to open the code up to modders which can't take all that much effort. With DLC revenue, they won't want to give away that code as modders can more easily replicate the DLC with it. I'm not directly making a case against DLC in general, just speculating.

 

[apocalypse105]

If you haven't yet bribed an AI civ to DoW another AI civ then you're missing a part of the game. What sort of diplomacy do you feel deprived of? If civ was all diplomacy, all of the time I'd go back to playing MS Age of games.

Well that you can maintaine relationships with some leaders and play peacefully and not forced to wage war because thats currently how it is. You have to play agressive because the AI is all of them not just the warmongers..

Would love to have the feeling I had of civ 4 where you knew you could win in about 4 ways. Space culture diplomacy and military. I had never had that in any game amazing!!!!! But in civ 5 yeah there are other victories but it is just war

 

[nokmirt]

Well that you can maintaine relationships with some leaders and play peacefully and not forced to wage war because thats currently how it is. You have to play agressive because the AI is all of them not just the warmongers..

Would love to have the feeling I had of civ 4 where you knew you could win in about 4 ways. Space culture diplomacy and military. I had never had that in any game amazing!!!!! But in civ 5 yeah there are other victories but it is just war

I agree with this 100%. Maybe a screenshot or two will help people understand the unforgivness of the AI! I'll be back with them.

Ok these next two screenshots should give people an idea of the AI and its unforgiveness. Keep in mind most of these AI civs have attacked a CS themselves, yet they are friends with each other and at war with me. You'll notice I have one true blue friend Russia. Now to make things worse Russia even says that I am a warmongering menace to the world, but Catherine is still friendly. Isn't this a double standard?

Spoiler :

Here is a screeny of the stupid AI, who should have taken this city like 70 turns ago. It is ridiculous.

I have captured the Siamese capital. Now the thing that gets me about diplomacy in CiV is this. In this current game the only way to win is through domination and there is no time limit. So how can AI civs get mad for warmongering when war and conquest is the only way to win. This makes no sense. Many things about the game make no sense. Like how Russia can be my friend even though I am a warmonger and the rest of the world hates me for it. On top of that most AI civs themselves, most of them attacked City States, but are friends with each other, yet I am labeled the menace to the world. PLEASE FIRAXIS FIX DIPLOMACY AND THE AI!

If this is not understandable, well then I don't know what is???

 

[apocalypse105]

If this is not understandable, well then I don't know what is???

Lol What makes me laugh is if you look at the global politics screan you see the AI just go nuts with decleration of friendships and denouncings...

This can go really wrong russia just denounce the hole world and declares on everyone yeah not really balalanced out...

to make the friendships and find a comman enemy system work it is required that the global situation stay this way a amount of turns. But it changed every turn(or 10 turns)

Why should I make a delceration of friendship when I know it is going to hurt me because every AI is a warmonger and will denounce eventually a lot of people

This system would work if the game starts that a AI leader will pick a enemy or more that he will hate and denounce and some leaders who he wants to be friend with.. So that you can actually have a benefit in signing a decleration of war and denouncing someone. This system was used in civ 4 it worked perfectly.

And about the warmonger of the menace part to be honest I thinx this is just a modifier " you are winning and we hate you for it" its a modifier when the human player is winning all AI will atack him. Back to civ 2 and 1 again?(if you ever played it they used this system)



There are just so many modifiers to bash on the human player yeah exactly there is actually no diplomacy all AI are programmed to hate the human player just like a turn based war game.


"Civilization 5 is a example of how to choose the wrong typ of AI"
(choosing a AI that plays to win in a game with diplomacy isn't right)



Why dont see people that this system needs a fix especialyl on higher difficulty. Its like you know you are sick but you dont take you're medication

 

[nokmirt]

Lol What makes me laugh is if you look at the global politics screan you see the AI just go nuts with decleration of friendships and denouncings...

This can go really wrong russia just denounce the hole world and declares on everyone yeah not really balalanced out...

to make the friendships and find a comman enemy system work it is required that the global situation stay this way a amount of turns. But it changed every turn(or 10 turns)

Why should I make a delceration of friendship when I know it is going to hurt me because every AI is a warmonger and will denounce eventually a lot of people

This system would work if the game starts that a AI leader will pick a enemy or more that he will hate and denounce and some leaders who he wants to be friend with.. So that you can actually have a benefit in signing a decleration of war and denouncing someone. This system was used in civ 4 it worked perfectly.




There are just so many modifiers to bash on the human player that doesn't make sence it seams firaxis just want to make a wargame of it well just make it a wargame then and remove diplomacy so the game actually makes sence.

Why dont see people that this system needs a fix especialyl on higher difficulty. Its like you know you are sick but you dont take you're medication

Before I started playing this game, I vowed not to declare DoF with any civ. The only one I did it with was Siam. The reason I did was because I read this post by Madjinn describing denouncements and what to look for in an AI civ. By visiting them over several times you can consider their reactions to you, and therefore whether you can trust them or not. Siam gave me every indication that it was friendly and wanted to work with me in friendship. He never gave me a harsh word, never coveted my lands none of that. Then all of the sudden one turn, he just stabbed me in the back for no reason I can determine. So Madjinn was wrong in this case, you can't trust that AI at all, no matter how friendly it may seem. I did DoF with Russia, only after it declared DoW on the whole world later on. So we'll see if they continue to be my one and only friend.

Also, when you say, let's take out diplomacy and make it a wargame. I agree and they can just simply concentrate on having the AI try to win through war. An AI comparable to playing Panzer general. What is known as "Good AI" (An AI out to beat the human), as opposed to what CiV has, which is an AI "playing to lose" or "Fun AI."

 

[CivOasis]

Clearly, you were a warmonger. Their reaction is logical.
Actually, to be quite honest I've never had issues with AI diplomacy, even before patches.
If you don't go around wiping out civs (or only do it once), diplomacy functions very well, and relations can improve quite quickly.

 

[apocalypse105]

Clearly, you were a warmonger. Their reaction is logical.
Actually, to be quite honest I've never had issues with AI diplomacy, even before patches.
If you don't go around wiping out civs (or only do it once), diplomacy functions very well, and relations can improve quite quickly.

Why should the human player get a signifigent warmnger penalty and the AI doesn't simple because the AI at some point declares war at you if you are winning.... (it isn't a diplomatic hit simply a other word for the AI trying to stop from letting you win)


On higher diiffculty diplomacy is olmost impossible to manage just crazy. So i can imagine that you can handle diplomacy I can do it to on prince and king. But I am playing now on immortal..

Yeah did you ever played civ 1 2 they used this system and a lot of people hated it

They changed this in civ 4 But apperently they thought it was a good idea to go back to the origanal idea that everyone disliked