The story of a fiasco

[Naokaukodem]

Yes, the only thing, and i didn't care precisely for any "policy saving problem" or i don't know what other bug or exploit.

 

[Wardancing]

The autoupdating thing was a concern of the anti-steam crowd before release. Offline mode transfers some small amount of data if it finds an internet connection. It could be sending current version, and comparing to players current version, we dont know, cause steam didnt exactly tell us what that information is. As someone in this thread stated, they didnt go into offline mode, they unplugged their net cable, and that to me seems the only way to truely accomplish an offline mode.

The other way to accomplish this, is to find every IP address that is owned by Steam and Valve, and add them to your firewalls block list. This way, you can keep an active internet connection, and disable all of steams autoupdates and version checks, and the 'this game isnt accessable, please update' crap.

Happy holidays

 

[Rohili]

That's my fault if I was not interested in patch logs? I see it as so: it is the fault of Firaxis who did not get me interested in their patch.

You complained that the social policy change wasn't communicated properly, making things "unclear, confusing and contestable". Yet when it is pointed out that 2K Greg had been constantly updating us on the patch changes, you now argue that it is their fault that you were not interested in reading their patch notes! What kind of unreasonable argument is that?

The only thing I was interested in the patch was multiplayer lags, freezes, lobby bugs and and so on, because that's why i BOUGHT the game in the first place.

That's illogical. If you were interested in multiplayer fixes, that means you would have a reason to read the patch logs, and therefore you should have discovered all the gameplay changes.

Bottomline, you are just blaming the game developers for your own ignorance and lack of initiative.

The best thing of course would have been to prompt the player if he wants to patch, butI doubt it is the case anyway it was not the case for me.

In your case, I doubt it would make any difference. Since you play multiplayer, wouldn't you have to patch in order to play with other players who would have patched their game?

(I don't play multiplayer so I don't know, but other games are like that, so I presume Civ would be too)

 

[Naokaukodem]

You complained that the social policy change wasn't communicated properly, making things "unclear, confusing and contestable". Yet when it is pointed out that 2K Greg had been constantly updating us on the patch changes, you now argue that it is their fault that you were not interested in reading their patch notes! What kind of unreasonable argument is that?

It's perfectly reasonable. Look, how could i GUESS that they would make policies not savable anymore? If I would have known, sure i would have look the changes. The best would have been a damn prompt when the game was patching, with the changes and the most game breaking changes in HIGHLIGHTS and CAPITAL letters.

Instead of what, I got nothing and even thought it was a bug in a multiplayer game so i quited, as i said previously.

That's illogical. If you were interested in multiplayer fixes, that means you would have a reason to read the patch logs, and therefore you should have discovered all the gameplay changes.

Bottomline, you are just blaming the game developers for your own ignorance and lack of initiative.

Stop trying to be rhetorical. I was not simply enough interested in their game considering the lacks in multiplayer and their past experience of online game. Not more complicated than that.

In your case, I doubt it would make any difference. Since you play multiplayer, wouldn't you have to patch in order to play with other players who would have patched their game?

(I don't play multiplayer so I don't know, but other games are like that, so I presume Civ would be too)

I thought about it. They simply should have say in their prompt something like that: "note that if you want play multiplayer, you will have to update your game". Then, as I had a game to finish, I would not have patched.

 

[Naokaukodem]

The autoupdating thing was a concern of the anti-steam crowd before release. Offline mode transfers some small amount of data if it finds an internet connection. It could be sending current version, and comparing to players current version, we dont know, cause steam didnt exactly tell us what that information is. As someone in this thread stated, they didnt go into offline mode, they unplugged their net cable, and that to me seems the only way to truely accomplish an offline mode.

The other way to accomplish this, is to find every IP address that is owned by Steam and Valve, and add them to your firewalls block list. This way, you can keep an active internet connection, and disable all of steams autoupdates and version checks, and the 'this game isnt accessable, please update' crap.

Happy holidays

Then I understand more their concerns, which I was blind of at the time.

As to unplug my internet connection, considering i go daily on internet but was not playing Civ5 daily, was not envisageable.

 

[bryanw1995]

He does have a point about Steam's broken auto-update. The resell thing is just a growing problem with PC gaming in general.

yes, I'm sure that's incredibly annoying for people who buy/sell lots of games.

 

[Dale]

That's my fault if I was not interested in patch logs? I see it as so: it is the fault of Firaxis who did not get me interested in their patch.

You're an idiot mate. So not only have you pirated Civ 5 (which you admitted in a past thread), you are now saying it is Firaxis's fault for you not checking the patch thread which has been advertised many times in numerous forums for months?

Your stupidity just amazes me. I didn't think CFC could get any more stupid, yet you've just taken it to a completely whole new level.

Good job mate, good job!

Moderator Action: It's not allowed to insult other members here.

 

[sadu]

The resell thing is a biggie, and that wasn't mentioned at all on the box. Plenty of times I have bought a game for say $100 (Talking NZ dollars here, not USD) and sold it almost straight away for $70 because I just didn't enjoy it. I'm out of pockt $30, no big deal. Being out of pocket $100 is a totally different matter.

 

[Rohili]

It's perfectly reasonable. Look, how could i GUESS that they would make policies not savable anymore? If I would have known, sure i would have look the changes. The best would have been a damn prompt when the game was patching, with the changes and the most game breaking changes in HIGHLIGHTS and CAPITAL letters.

I did get such a patch log when my game was updating, so I'm not sure what you are complaining about. And seriously, you expect the game designers to highlight and capitalise the patch notes, as if they were writing a book for five-year-olds with attention deficit disorder? How would they know which patch changes are important to you anyway (what you might think is game-breaking might not be so to other players)?

So not only have you pirated Civ 5 (which you admitted in a past thread)

Lol, I guess that explains why he didn't see any patch notes then...

 

[Naokaukodem]

The resell thing is a biggie, and that wasn't mentioned at all on the box. Plenty of times I have bought a game for say $100 (Talking NZ dollars here, not USD) and sold it almost straight away for $70 because I just didn't enjoy it. I'm out of pockt $30, no big deal. Being out of pocket $100 is a totally different matter.

Yeah. I usually buy my game used for the attractive price and sell them the same price or a little lower (and sometimes higher!!!). When I buy my games unused, I sell them also when completed, unless I play multiplayer. That would have been the case with Civ5, but with this broken multiplayer, no way! The fact is that now i'm freaked.

I did get such a patch log when my game was updating

Not me. Nothing.

so I'm not sure what you are complaining about.

It's all in the first post and, sorry, but quite far of your concerns.

And seriously, you expect the game designers to highlight and capitalise the patch notes, as if they were writing a book for five-year-olds with attention deficit disorder?

LOL oh noes highlighting things is like a book for five-years-old witrh attention deficit order! Oh noes! Oh yeah, DON'T highlight things then!

Seriously, you found this alone?

How would they know which patch changes are important to you anyway (what you might think is game-breaking might not be so to other players)?

Blah blah what-you-might-think-is-game-breaking-might-not-be-so-to-other-players... are you serious? Wow, I didn't know philosophy could act in such a case! Well done Chuck Norris, you just prooved I'm wrong!

Moderator Action: Trolling
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Islet]

...how could i GUESS that they would make policies not savable anymore? If I would have known, sure i would have look the changes.

Circular reasoning. You couldn't have guessed, to know it you would have to look at the patch notes.

And if you somehow knew about it from other sources, then you'd know that policy-saving wasn't available anymore and you'd better finish your current session.

Other than that, I agree that forced patching through Steam is a bad system especially for a Singleplayer-centric game such as this, with the rules of the game up to the whims and fancy of the developer.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Circular reasoning. You couldn't have guessed, to know it you would have to look at the patch notes.

Yes it's circular reasonning but I was just answering someone who had a circular reasonning and aswered by the absurd.

And if you somehow knew about it from other sources, then you'd know that policy-saving wasn't available anymore and you'd better finish your current session.

I had the feeling i had to end sooner my game, seeing some of the changes that didn't please to me. However, it was asking too much from me to end it up that fast. I play to my own speed.

Other than that, I agree that forced patching through Steam is a bad system especially for a Singleplayer-centric game such as this, with the rules of the game up to the whims and fancy of the developer.

Yes, that what made me uninstal that game... default unable to save SPs is really a rape, obviously there's something wrong at Firaxis...

 

[Dralix]

Seriously OP, there are two things you should learn here, that you should keep with you for every game you play.

First, when a patch is released, err on the side of "my current save game might be incompatible with the new patch." If it's important to you to complete the current game, then don't patch.

Second, when a patch is released, it's in your best interest to read the patch notes before applying.

When we throw Steam auto update into the mix, it adds another lesson. Don't log on to Steam if you don't want to apply the patch. This one I'll agree kind of sucks, and maybe Steam updates can be a little less automatic, like maybe give you the option of declining the update, even if that means you are not able to play in online mode. But again, best to err on the side of "logging on to Steam will update my game."

 

[Islet]

Don't log on to Steam if you don't want to apply the patch.

Steam refuses to run unless its updated to its latest version. Kinda forces the update upon the player against his wishes. Why Firaxis chose Steam as its preferred DRM is none of my concern, but as a customer, I want to have an option for a separate retail version.

seeing some of the changes that didn't please to me

That means you already knew the contents of the patch. Hence, either you've read the patch notes or already roughly heard about the patch contents from external sources. So then, why did you claim that you were misinformed about the patch?

 

[Naokaukodem]

That means you already knew the contents of the patch. Hence, either you've read the patch notes or already roughly heard about the patch contents from external sources. So then, why did you claim that you were misinformed about the patch?

READ. I read the log once, but not when it has been updated.

Enough of that rhetoric and "all what you will say will be withheld against you" crap now please.

 

[Deussu]

I understand the OP's frustration. I had read the patch notes well in advance and I never approved the bit about social policies. I find it important to be able to save them, so that those industrial policies could have some love too.

Sure, someone could use them to suddenly go for honor etc. when an attack occurs.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Sure, someone could use them to suddenly go for honor etc. when an attack occurs.

Nothing wrong with that. After all, you would not have any benefit during the time you save them.

 

[Islet]

Now, I can agree with you that the patch contents were not particularly good, I can agree with you that auto-updates through Steam is a bad system.

What I cannot agree with you is your claim that you were misinformed about the patch contents.

Your scenario of events is wildly inconsistent when various posters came forward and told you that you weren't misinformed.

Here is your version of events:

And how should I have know that there was an incentive for not patching in the first place? First time i discovered we couldn't save policies by default anymore with the new patch, it was in multiplayer and i thought it was a bug... that's just a sum of things that makes the situation unclear, confusing and contestable.

You said that you first discovered no SP saving via Multiplayer, suggesting that you didn't read the patch logs. Maybe you did, but no one can be certain

That's my fault if I was not interested in patch logs? I see it as so: it is the fault of Firaxis who did not get me interested in their patch.

Okay, then you said you weren't interested in reading the patch logs

The only thing I was interested in the patch was multiplayer lags, freezes, lobby bugs

Immediately, afterward you said you were only interested in multiplayer fixes in the patch logs (Inconsistency #1)

I had the feeling i had to end sooner my game, seeing some of the changes that didn't please to me. However, it was asking too much from me to end it up that fast. I play to my own speed.

Following which, you said that some changes in the patch didn't please you and you had to end your (Single-player) session soon. This meant that you had read about the changes to Single-player in the patch logs, when you earlier claimed that you were only interested in Multiplayer (Inconsistency #2)

READ. I read the log once

And finally, you claimed that you've read the logs all along (Inconsistency #3)

You thus couldn't have been misinformed by the patch contents as you've already read it.

Even if I accept your latest claim that you only read the earliest patch logs and not its subsequent updates, you already knew a patch was coming and there would be changes to your singleplayer game. Hence, you were not misinformed, but simply didn't want to be informed about the patch contents.

But, yes, autoupdates are a real pain.

 

[Soronery]

Play strategic balance resources. This really should have been standard.

 

[JohnnyW]

I wish this forum had a +1 system so I could upvote Islet.