SteamDB: "Bison" Depot??

[fuzzatron717]

We seen conquest of the new world scenario deluxe in some of the advertisements when Brave new world was being made. Then it was cut out.

 

[Magma_Dragoon]

Then why is it that bison has been there for months and this has a real name the moment it appeared?

 

[PrimoXanthous]

We seen conquest of the new world scenario deluxe in some of the advertisements when Brave new world was being made. Then it was cut out.

Yes, but nobody here knows when would it be released, would it be next month after the BNW, after 5 months? after Scramble map packs? who knows? But today what we know is that it would be on the next DLC.

Then why is it that bison has been there for months and this has a real name the moment it appeared?

who knows??? Firaxis got creative minds.

 

[Magma_Dragoon]

Any way to compare the file sizes?

 

[mitsho]

Publishing a deluxe (=final) version of a scenario means they do not intend to add any more mechanics (otherwise you'd want those to be included in the scenario) which I'm totally fine with. Civ5 is polished enough and it only makes sense to update the old scenarios nobody plays anymore (as they're outdated). You end with a polished product you can then sell as a "yes, this one is now really totally complete" edition which doen't take up that many ressources.

Doesn't mean they can't add more civs though. (Doesn't mean they should or will either )

And it's clear that many of the old scenarios will profit a lot of the new mechanics, i.e. trade routes instead of 'treasure ships' for New World. I just hope they won't overdo it with the number of civs and map size as in the Into the Renaissance (which is practically unplayable for me due to being huge AND empty (!)). Maybe they'll have two sizes...

 

[PhilBowles]

If this is being marketed as a scenario pack - and the name we have indicates they're selling it on the basis of the scenario rather than a civ - then it's unlikely to produce any associated civs; Wonders of the Ancient World added no civs from that scenario to the game. It will probably add something moderately minor to the main game, as that scenario did with the missing Wonders.

That doesn't mean there won't necessarily be an attendant civ pack release - Wonders of the Ancient World was released alongside Korea. But it's unlikely the civ will be themed to Wonders of the New World (for a start they'll want one they can give a scenario of its own), and in any case if the Deluxe scenario - which already had a decent civ complement - adds the relevant civs from later expansions such as the Dutch and Maya, it will already have more civs than most scenarios.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

The Bison thread seems to believe that this is Bison as Bison disappeared when this appeared.

I'm hoping for a civ or other main game content to come with it. A scenario by itself does nothing for me. Not to mention that this deluxe version of the scenario was seen on a menu during BNW development. Has it really taken this many months to polish it? I think there is something else wiith it.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

We know this scenario was on an in game menu during BNW development. It was probably at least in alpha testing. So why does it take nine months for it to be released? I think there will be other content with it, just based on development time.

 

[Browd]

Moderator Action: Merged with existing Bison thread.

 

[Scirocco16V]

Then why is it that bison has been there for months and this has a real name the moment it appeared?

My understanding is a different company, not Firaxis, does the Mac ports. As a result, I see 3 possibilities: 1) The 2nd company wasn't told Firaxis was intentionally hiding the name and screwed up by revealing it. 2) the DLC is so close to release that Firaxis doesn't care any more whether we know. 3) possibly a trick by Firaxis to make us think the DLC is less than it really is.

On a separate note, I'd think the DLC would need to be pretty close to finish before the 2nd team could start work on porting it. This may mean it'll be released soon.

 

[PhilBowles]

Publishing a deluxe (=final) version of a scenario means they do not intend to add any more mechanics (otherwise you'd want those to be included in the scenario) which I'm totally fine with.

It's not clear why it would imply anything of the sort. It's not usual for Firaxis to released revised versions of older scenarios at all, but as they are it might mean nothing more than that the game mechanics since G&K demand updates to the combat system and civ selection in the scenario. Unless they change the combat system again, they can happily update the rest of the game with new features without revisiting the scenarios a second time.

Also, the last scenario pack did add features to the main game - I never played Conquest of the New World so I'm not sure what it did differently, however thematically it could add something like a colony mechanic (although the sorts of colony represented in Civ IV are a later development than the initial settlement of the Americas)

And it's clear that many of the old scenarios will profit a lot of the new mechanics, i.e. trade routes instead of 'treasure ships' for New World. I just hope they won't overdo it with the number of civs and map size as in the Into the Renaissance (which is practically unplayable for me due to being huge AND empty (!)). Maybe they'll have two sizes...

I just want them to update 1066: Year of Viking Destiny. Love the scenario, but it's all combat start to finish and so is hurt particularly by how outdated the vanilla combat mechanics now seem (the Samurai Invasion of Korea would have a similar issue).

My understanding is a different company, not Firaxis, does the Mac ports. As a result, I see 3 possibilities: 1) The 2nd company wasn't told Firaxis was intentionally hiding the name and screwed up by revealing it.

This is where I'm puzzled. "Old scenario name + Deluxe" really doesn't sound like a name planned as final for the release, particularly since Conquest of the New World wasn't the name of the original DLC; it feels like a placeholder itself (and quite possibly for Colonization III). But it makes little sense, if Bison and Conquest Deluxe are the same, to have a codename to disguise a placeholder name.

 

[Scirocco16V]

Any way to compare the file sizes?

Well, each depot seems to have a field called "maxsize".
266721 has a maxsize of 227920340
266720 has a maxsize of 239051777

Those are pretty similar at 228M - 240M, assuming that it's measuring Bytes.
The numbers seem very specific, not just approx.
No way to know if it's the size of the install pack or the installed size on a computer.

 

[Scirocco16V]

Publishing a deluxe (=final) version of a scenario means they do not intend to add any more mechanics (otherwise you'd want those to be included in the scenario) which I'm totally fine with. Civ5 is polished enough and it only makes sense to update the old scenarios nobody plays anymore (as they're outdated). You end with a polished product you can then sell as a "yes, this one is now really totally complete" edition which doen't take up that many ressources.

I don't think that publishing a deluxe version means that they'll never do a 3rd version of it. Also, even if it is the final version of the scenario I don't see how that prevents adding any more mechanics to the base game. I just played the BNW Civil War scenario and it turned off happiness, religion, trade, culture, etc.

The only things I think can be read into this is that Firaxis is willing to keep making content for Civ 5, they think enough people will buy this scenario to make the effort worthwhile, and they think there is room for enough improvement on the base scenario to make a deluxe version marketable.

 

[Scirocco16V]

I just want them to update 1066: Year of Viking Destiny. Love the scenario, but it's all combat start to finish and so is hurt particularly by how outdated the vanilla combat mechanics now seem (the Samurai Invasion of Korea would have a similar issue).

That would be nice. I'd pay a bit for that. Updated Into the Renaissance would also be nice, but the G&K scenarios still feel current: they play like BNW with certain features turned off. Vanilla scenarios play like an older version of the game, with different mechanics/rules.

 

[shaglio]

I just want them to update 1066: Year of Viking Destiny. Love the scenario, but it's all combat start to finish and so is hurt particularly by how outdated the vanilla combat mechanics now seem (the Samurai Invasion of Korea would have a similar issue).

I played that scenario for the first time a couple months ago. I played as Denmark and an English Huscarl was approaching. I thought it looked menacing, but when it attacked it only did 5 points of damage. I thought, "that's not so bad." Then I looked at the health meter, saw my unit was half dead, and realized it was 5 points on the 10HP scale, not the current 100HP scale. I immediately lost the urge to play the rest of it (not because the Huscarl did so much damage, but because I was reminded that I was playing under the outdated rules). I too would love to see this scenario updated.

 

[mitsho]

I don't mean that they later can't change their decision and add more content, but I find it highly unlikely that they'd plan to add a scenario and then add different content. It'd only make sense to do this the other way around. Doesn't mean either that the Scenario doesn't add content or that "small stuff" is out of the question. I believe the Ancient Mesopotamia Scenario was referenced but that just added wonders, nothing decisive.

I do no think btw. that they'd update a scenario twice, so I still believe contrary to your objections that a deluxe scenario is a sign (! - not proof) that nothing gamechanging will come (unless of course they'll change their opinion once again).

I'd also like to point out that someone is complaining that the 1066 is only combat while someone else points to the Civil War scenario turning of gaming system as a reason why scenarios are independent of the main game's mechanics. What now exactly?

 

[Scirocco16V]

Doesn't mean either that the Scenario doesn't add content or that "small stuff" is out of the question. I believe the Ancient Mesopotamia Scenario was referenced but that just added wonders, nothing decisive.

This reminded me that when the Spain & Inca civ/scenario DLC was originally released, the accompanying patch added some new natural wonders, 3 I think, like El Dorrado and Fountain of Youth. However, you didn't have to buy the DLC to get them, because they were in the patch.

I'd also like to point out that someone is complaining that the 1066 is only combat while someone else points to the Civil War scenario turning of gaming system as a reason why scenarios are independent of the main game's mechanics. What now exactly?

If you haven't played Vanilla, or haven't played it since G&K was released, go back and try it. Everyone talks about religion & spying being added w/ G&K, but I think the largest changes were to the battle system. 100HP instead of 10HP, crossbows upgrading to Gatling guns instead of riflemen, siege units doing less damage to units than to cities, melee ships, removal of the city garrison button.
The Civil War scenario included with BNW plays like G&K or BNW with lots of systems turned off because it uses the updated combat systems. The 1066 and Korea scenarios play and feel like something different and more primitive, because they use the Vanilla combat systems, even though they have more systems turned on than the Civil War.

 

[PhilBowles]

I do no think btw. that they'd update a scenario twice, so I still believe contrary to your objections that a deluxe scenario is a sign (! - not proof) that nothing gamechanging will come (unless of course they'll change their opinion once again).

You seem to be working from the assumption that Civ V development was heavily pre-planned, but this is not the case.

The developers' own admission is that they had originally never intended to make an expansion, only the DLC, and that it was player interest in an expansion that prompted Gods & Kings. That itself was designed as a one-off; it wasn't until they realised support existed for a second, and decided to focus the second on the late game, that they retroactively decided G&K was an "early game" expansion and advertised the two "halves" as complementing one another somewhat more than they actually do.

Nothing at all is stopping them from making further changes as substantial as any in the previous expansions if they think it will be popular or come up with a specific idea they think will sell - if they'd planned the progression we've seen from the start, they likely wouldn't have released scenarios of the form they did to begin with.

I'd also like to point out that someone is complaining that the 1066 is only combat while someone else points to the Civil War scenario turning of gaming system as a reason why scenarios are independent of the main game's mechanics. What now exactly?

Sorry, it's not clear at all what you're trying to say here, particularly as you're somehow conflating two different points made by two different posters.

The 1066 issue (it's not a complaint about the scenario being combat-focused - as I say, it's a very good scenario) has nothing to do with mechanics being left out because they don't fit (that scenario turned off science), it's simply observing that it uses older mechanics to do the same thing as the main game - combat. There's pretty much universal agreement that the G&K combat mechanics were an improvement over the ones in vanilla; requesting that the scenario be revised to incorporate a better system that does the same thing has no bearing at all on whether scenarios and the main game can or should implement different game systems.

If you haven't played Vanilla, or haven't played it since G&K was released, go back and try it. Everyone talks about religion & spying being added w/ G&K, but I think the largest changes were to the battle system. 100HP instead of 10HP, crossbows upgrading to Gatling guns instead of riflemen, siege units doing less damage to units than to cities, melee ships, removal of the city garrison button.

This is very true, and I've been guilty of thinking of G&K as a fairly 'light' expansion because its headline features were much less significant than the headline features of BNW. However, in the same vein that BNW has been pushed as mostly focusing on the late game and yet its biggest changes are to game-long economic and culture systems, G&K's revision of the combat system was probably at least as substantial as BNW's changes to the way gold is generated.

 

[mitsho]

Oh no, I agree with you, maybe it was phrased a bit problematic.

That is why I think that if they update a scenario, they won't add anything major anymore. (And btw. I'd add the new trade route system and the "updates to AI who now f.e. spends its gold" as valuable systems I couldn't play without anymore).

EDIT: (see, I show my edits ): I did read your comment on 1066 quite lightly and must agree, but it's a very minor sidepoint as I was just trying to point out how big the differences in opinion can be on these topic. My main point however still stands as I'm just saying that this late in the production cycle, it's unlikely (for me) that they'll make a change like you describe above again. It looks like final adjustments to me rather.

 

[Magma_Dragoon]

Fanatic bison21

Maybe he knows something?