Upcoming patch info!

[jacyp]

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?

I hardly believe that the imagination of the best of the best of the QA testers can cope with thousands of different-than-his minds exploring every little detail of the game.

I agree that they can do much more than what was done in released Civ V, this much is true, but even the best of them can't nullify all possibilities.

And what I was talking about is exactly the fact of more and more games coming out with this types of bugs, perharps because the games are becoming so complex that the QA testing isn't getting the job done in time anymore.

So what I've said may be "nonsense" to you, but the fact is that what we are seeing confirms it. You can just go check the "bug reports" area of the forum to see all those types of players reporting bugs.

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.

Sorry, but at least 30% of this "huge amount of issues" that people talk about is just personal preferences that weren't satisfied because people still wanna play Civ 4 and are disliking Civ 5 for removing some of its features.

 

[Tyrael]

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!

I agree, I think it's ridiculous that you have to stop building a national wonder because a new city got built. "Hold on guys, we can't make awesome type-X building because that city doesn't even have a basic type-X building and we don't want them to feel too upset about our awesome one". Worse still, the city building the national wonder tells you to choose new production, but it doesn't tell you that your wonder didn't finish building, or if you noticed that the wonder didn't complete it doesn't tell you why it won't let you finish building it. I like your 80% idea but it runs into the same issue we have now if building a city would change you from 85% to 75% or something. Will building this city put me below the threshold? Hang on, let me count...

The reason for the change to Civ5's system seems to be to allow smaller empires to build them too, which wasn't possible in Civ4 if you had 5 or less cities (standard size map). However, we could (mostly) avoid that issue in 4 and the current one in 5 by changing it to allow national wonder construction if at least 1 of the following conditions is true:

1) 6 of your cities have the prereq building
2) All of your cities have the prereq building

This way small empires can build national wonders (the desired effect of the current system as far as I can tell). People can also build cities while building national wonders, unless they have a small empire. It still kinda sucks if you have 5 cities and want to build a 6th. In theory, by the time people want a national wonder they'll have expanded to 6 cities, but this won't always be the case. It's not a perfect solution, but it's much better than what we have now.

 

[user746383]

I hardly believe that the imagination of the best of the best of the QA testers can cope with thousands of different-than-his minds exploring every little detail of the game.

Still, they probably should have taken a few folks from the community who were Immortal+ players of the previous version. Plenty of people would have jumped at the chance, and by using competent testers they could have avoided the most obvious exploits.

That said, as long as the exploits get fixed eventually that's neither here nor there.

 

[badbonez]

How about a simple thing like: Remember last settings used when starting a new game?

 

[Bandit17]

Or the options to turn off RA's or to slow down science rates without slowing down everything else? I want more pregame options! But this patch is a good start.

 

[The_J]

I'm curious, does anybody know what the "multiplayer gift unit exploit" is that's mentioned in the changelog?

If you hit the gift button under some circunstances fast enough, the unit will get multiplied after gifting.
There's somewhere a thread around in the bugs forum.

 

[the streak]

I somehow can't help thinking that if this was a console release where it's much less practical to patch, we would be playing a far more complete and polished game right now.

 

[Venger]

How about a simple thing like: Remember last settings used when starting a new game?

Still waiting for that to be updated on CIV4... every time I go in, have to choose my Civ, add AI's... it seems so natural a thing to remember the last settings I chose, but NO...

 

[Gaizokubanou]

I like the patch list. Lot of annoying elements being fixed.

Edit: sadly still no big balance issues... like horseman.

 

[jacyp]

I somehow can't help thinking that if this was a console release where it's much less practical to patch, we would be playing a far more complete and polished game right now.

What console are you playing these days? There's almost no difference nowadays patching a console or PC release, as PS3 and XBOX 360 all have and encourage access to internet.

 

[gaiko]

No I don't think it should be set too high. Instead set gold / scout == 0, and set gold / hammers > gold / warrior.

40% gold would be more equivalent to building scout and selling it.

IMO it should be set to 50%

 

[Mongaloyd]

That one was in Civ I and Civ II, and it really is very much neded now. Just think of the first barracks you build: as a rule it becomes quite unnecessary later on because now you have another, regular unit-producing city. For example. And IRL, one can tear down houses; they don't stand forever unless the city is captured by an enemy.

In Civ I, you couldn't sell more than one building in a city per turn. The reason for that was so one couldn't queer an enemy's pitch by destroying everything before the fall of the city.

Wonder if they'll add the information that there is a Wonder in a city you have captured? Thogh simply letting you have a view of the city before deciding whether to keep it is a good idea to.

I think to make something bad even better, would be to balance the money used for upkeep on the building with giving itmore culture the longer you keep the building.

For example. If you build a castle...you should get more culture in the modern era for keeping it. Rather then a bit of money for selling the limestone...be nice to have a benefit for keeping it too.

 

[Yard Waste]

I somehow can't help thinking that if this was a console release where it's much less practical to patch, we would be playing a far more complete and polished game right now.

Revolutions ruined the future of the PC format--once the (any) game goes to console, it/they will never be as good again.

 

[JBConquests]

I would like to see the "Aggresive AI" option added that used to be in Civ IV. I have played 5 games and not been declared war on once. What do you have to do to get declared war on in Civ 5?

 

[Justicex]

I would like to see the "Aggresive AI" option added that used to be in Civ IV. I have played 5 games and not been declared war on once. What do you have to do to get declared war on in Civ 5?

Stop playing on Settler difficulty

 

[Adam7Eight]

...once the (any) game goes to console, it/they will never be as good again.

I would agree with that going by my past experiences.

 

[JBConquests]

Stop playing on Settler difficulty

Good one.

I've played those 5 games on Prince to King difficulty level.

I miss the Civ 4 days when Monty or Genghis Khan would declare war and show up with a stack then I would have to scramble to defend myself. That made for some exciting games.

This always peace business is for the birds. I've never cared much for declaring war I would rather the AI's did that.

 

[LegioCorvus]

Revolutions ruined the future of the PC format--once the (any) game goes to console, it/they will never be as good again.

Morrowind was pretty good.

Same for the KotOR series.

I could go on...

 

[JudgeDeath]

Good one.

I've played those 5 games on Prince to King difficulty level.

I miss the Civ 4 days when Monty or Genghis Khan would declare war and show up with a stack then I would have to scramble to defend myself. That made for some exciting games.

This always peace business is for the birds. I've never cared much for declaring war I would rather the AI's did that.

I don't know why you haven't had war declared, but it still exists within the game. Note that each AI leader has various things that sour the relationship, and once its bad enough they will go to war. Perhaps it's you who are too namby-pamby and they're happy to let you live!

 

[Surgeon]

Still, they probably should have taken a few folks from the community who were Immortal+ players of the previous version. Plenty of people would have jumped at the chance, and by using competent testers they could have avoided the most obvious exploits.

Have a look at the steam stats. Just 0.4% of players have the immortal achivement. The concerns of the harder difficulty people just wouldnt be ranking high on their priorities right now.