Upcoming patch info!

[gunter]

Deeply appreciated the patch.

I anyway do not see any mentions to the tech tree - building times relationship that often leads you to discover a new tech, build a new unit and have it finished when it is already obsolete since many turns by 1 or 2 new techs discovered by yourself.

 

[paganizer]

I'm not impressed.. At that rate, the huge amount of issues that exist, would indicate the game was rushed out 6 months too early.. atleast.

 

[paganizer]

I'm reading over your post history. All your posts are about how it's a bad game. I'm trying to find out where you said why it was, though, and I'm coming up short. I literally cannot find any criticism on a particular subject, only real general stuff. You constantly say you want stuff fixed, but even if the devs were listening, I don't think they'd know exactly what changes you'd want to make, or any specifics that you dislike.

Got a link to one of your posts?

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=384268

PS. That list hasn't been updated for 2 weeks ... so it should really be much bigger than it already is.

 

[pavel1269]

Oh, AI will finally built naval. ... I just can't wait. Also the red things, showing on map (sometimes) were not nice either :-D

 

[ohioastronomy]

I hope they also reduce the gold Scouts give when disbanded, but just didn't show it on this patch list, or Wealth still hurts players who use it:

Wealth = .25 /
Scout = .40 /

Given the poverty of hammer yields, I think that hammer:gold should be at least 1:1.

 

[kroket]

Sounds awesome. Personally havent encountered even half of the bugs but its nice to see they are gone anyway. Especially the puppet states production thing and the low res load... No solution for the grey landscape though ??

Personally for balance i would add another gold for trading post at electricity and an extra hammer at dynamite for mines. Personally i feel they come off a bit weak late game... compare it to the lumbermill that does get a bonus at steampower.

 

[Celevin]

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=384268

PS. That list hasn't been updated for 2 weeks ... so it should really be much bigger than it already is.

I must have skipped by it. Thanks for the interesting read, I agree with a lot posted. It's a lot more complete than my personal list. How many are being addressed in this patch? I couldn't find any on a glance.

Oh that is big news - a massive change to the game! It will have far reaching implications.

I'm not too worried. You know more than most the real reason gold production got out of hand in Civ4. With the slider gone, I'm sure it'll just be one of those "if I have nothing better to make".

 

[Le Roi Soleil]

The hardcore power player will imediately look for clever exploits in the new system, and we are getting a lot of feedback of this type.

This is the one kind of "bug" that is truly hard for QA departments to play test with expansive, complicated games like CIV. Balance issues and exploits are pretty much always uncovered these days by testing en masse.

The bug catcher player will look mostly for bugs in every inch of the game, doing things that the developers would never think of ("why would someone do something like that?" they might think when they bump into one of this players) because they never intended to make the game be played that way.

The anarchist will start combining things that were never intended to be combined.

The problem with the development of a game is that the ideas are implemented and everyone works around those ideas thinking solely on the purpose it was designed for and possible bugs about the implemention of the idea are treated looking if the implementation does what the idea is supose to do.

Nonsense. A good QA tester does exactly what you are describing - he plays the game in the most irrational way possible and tries to out-think the engineers and make a mockery of their code by going against the grain. You think these guys are getting paid to "win" the game?

 

[terrycrist3]

* City - Cities that are Avoiding Growth will not grow while that option is selected

This has been bugging me for a while now. I'm glad to see someone noticed.

* Military – Correct promotions for “archer-like” units (horse archers, chariots).

I see why they did this, but what is going to happen when you upgrade your chariots to knights?

 

[PieceOfMind]

I'm not too worried. You know more than most the real reason gold production got out of hand in Civ4. With the slider gone, I'm sure it'll just be one of those "if I have nothing better to make".

I'm not worried either. Excited is probably a better word.

I'm talking about potentially making warmongering and conquering even more powerful than before, or being able to sell off that useless barracks after you've built the Heroic Epic, and other such things that are fundamentally different in how the game has to be played right now.

You could sell off your workshop once your city has all the buildings it needs for its specialisation and start building only units, or delete those monuments once your city has expanded to enough plots, or delete the redundant harbor in a city that through conquest or other is linked up with your capital by railroad.

I'm not saying any of these things are bad. Just they will make playing the game quite different. I had even thought for a while there that not being able to sell buildings was a conscious design decision (because if it wasn't, why the heck didn't they do it before and are only including it in a patch?) and that it was because of things like the national wonder requirements that the decision had been made.

So my post was not just about the potential to make a quick buck from selling buildings, like in conquered cities, but I can see why that would be big in your mind.

Or perhaps I have misrepresented you?

 

[Celevin]

I'm not worried either. Excited is probably a better word.

I'm talking about potentially making warmongering and conquering even more powerful than before, or being able to sell off that useless barracks after you've built the Heroic Epic, and other such things that are fundamentally different in how the game has to be played right now.

You could sell off your workshop once your city has all the buildings it needs for its specialisation and start building only units, or delete those monuments once your city has expanded to enough plots, or delete the redundant harbor in a city that through conquest or other is linked up with your capital by railroad.

I'm not saying any of these things are bad. Just they will make playing the game quite different. I had even thought for a while there that not being able to sell buildings was a conscious design decision (because if it wasn't, why the heck didn't they do it before and are only including it in a patch?) and that it was because of things like the national wonder requirements that the decision had been made.

So my post was not just about the potential to make a quick buck from selling buildings, like in conquered cities, but I can see why that would be big in your mind.

Oh crap - I thought you were talking about the change to building gold from 10% to 25%. My bad!


About the selling of buildings, I never thought of the useless workshop/barracks selling. That's much further reaching than I was thinking. I was focusing too much on selling walls. Currently even if I'm in a big war with an obvious border city, I really don't want to build/buy those walls because I don't want to suffer a maintenance cost for the rest of the game.

I will still hold that the national wonders should be around 80% of your empire having the building. It's really crappy to not want to build a new city until you finish your wonder. Secondly all the nationals have useful pre-requisites except the Heroic Epic. In one Civ iteration, I'd like it to be useful to have a barracks useful in more than 2-3 cities. Enough of this 1 city military producer with insane bonuses!

 

[r_rolo1]

I had even thought for a while there that not being able to sell buildings was a conscious design decision (because if it wasn't, why the heck didn't they do it before and are only including it in a patch?) and that it was because of things like the national wonder requirements that the decision had been made.

Do you think that the lack of research overflow is intentional as well ?

I always considered this as a oversight. True, undiscriminate sell might be a little off, but, given the way buildings pay maintenance, there needs to be a way of selling them ,especially when they are not from your doing ( like the ones that come with conquered cities ... the ones that eat resources are the worst ). it might be with a fee, it might need a hammer investement for the sell, or what ever penalty you want, but the thing has to be there

Just to end, if the national wonders don't cease to function when you get a new city that does not have the prereq buildings, I don't see why nat wonder requirements would be a argument against selling buildings. Both situations are very similar in this regard and the devs chose to make the nat wonders to work even if not all the cities have the prereq building....

 

[Arrogant]

By the time they will have made a solid game out of this mess (which will probably happen more than a year from now), the original manual will be completely useless. It is half-useless already.

 

[Willowmound]

By the time they will have made a solid game out of this mess (which will probably happen more than a year from now), the original manual will be completely useless. It is half-useless already.

That's why it's an updateable pdf.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Do you think that the lack of research overflow is intentional as well ?

A rhetorical question I hope . Of course my answers is no, just in case.

Because they have addressed micro aspects of the game in terms of implementing hammer overflow and also allowing fractional amounts of currencies (if I'm not mistaken, all of science, gold, culture and hammers are collected fractionally now, rather than just rounded at each city or rounded at the balance sheet), I believe it was not their intention to force micro upon us by omitting beaker overflow.

I always considered this as a oversight. True, undiscriminate sell might be a little off, but, given the way buildings pay maintenance, there needs to be a way of selling them ,especially when they are not from your doing ( like the ones that come with conquered cities ... the ones that eat resources are the worst ). it might be with a fee, it might need a hammer investement for the sell, or what ever penalty you want, but the thing has to be there

Yes, I agree that buildings should be sell-able. That's about all I need to say I think.

 

[Mokupo]

Good, but not enough...

Atleast there is another patch after this one Or atleast 2K says so

True. But at least, this shows that they are actually worried with the opinion of the players and are working on the improvement of the game as a whole.

 

[Red Adept]

* Economy - Can now sell Buildings in a city (to help lower maintenance for obsolete buildings later in the game).

Yay!

more to the point, "Help lower maintenance costs for puppet cities that the AI governor built that you in your right mind would NEVER build..."

 

[lloxdg]

That's obviously good, but sadly there are almost no updates for multiplayer and the main ones - animation and turn-based mode.

 

[gunter]

By the time they will have made a solid game out of this mess (which will probably happen more than a year from now), the original manual will be completely useless. It is half-useless already.

You are not arrogant, you are correct in this statement.

 

[ryandlor]

That's obviously good, but sadly there are almost no updates for multiplayer and the main ones - animation and turn-based mode.

Ditto

Wheres the patch info to fix the gameplay issues, speed, lag etc?