 |
|  |
 |
|
Locutus
|
|
ACS CTP1/2 Manager & Civ4 Co-Manager
|
 |
Hengelo, The Netherlands
Nov 1999 time: 06:32
|
|
Making the player colors optional would require a lot of work probably and only lead to a lot of work, so I doubt that will be done soon (though it'd be nice to have eventually). Other than that, moving some of the options in userprofile.txt to the game setup screen is something that certainly wouldn't hurt anyone and could be included in an early patch, providing it doesn't involve too much work.
I think my view roughly coincides with Keygen (I wrote this earlier today, it roughly comes down to what Keygen already said):
I think there people's ideas on what changes to make to the game with the source code can be divided in roughly 3 philosophies:
1) Keep the game (nearly) identical to how it is now, only fixing known bugs and maybe extending SLIC and mod functionality and similar stuff, but not (or hardly) touching gameplay at all (not dissimilar from the Apolyton Pack philosophy), leaving that to modmakers.
2) Making minor improvements to gameplay (i.e. rebalancing some things, improving the AI, streamlining some awkward SLIC workarounds in C code (e.g. unit updater), etc), but not completely rewriting the existing engine. Most if not all of this could be made optional.
3) Developing a full fledged sequel (or at least an expansion pack), with maybe new combat and economic models, maybe religion, strategic resources, new victory types and Mr Ogre knows what else... These features would require changes in all parts of the game and would be a pain in the @ss to make optional, and also not make much sense since their impact on gameplay is just too huge.
To cater to everyone's wishes, we could develop 3 versions of the game: a v1.2 patch, maybe eventually v1.3 to cater to philosophy #1. A v1.5 upgrade (and later maybe v1.6, v1.7, etc) that caters to philosophy #2 and a v2.0 version (CtP3, if you like) that caters to philosophy #3.
We can work on v1.2 and v1.5 concurrently, adding some improvements just to v1.5 and others to both v1.5 and v1.2. This is basically what's already happening (except that we're not really releasing stuff yet). v2.0 is currently in the early design/brainstorming phase and still a long way off.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Keygen
|
|
Athens, Hellas
Jan 2000 time: 07:32
|
|
BTW, in case there is any improvement or addition to the code from now on and there is a dispute or uncertainty whether it should be included in the first patch post it here for discussion.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
drulius
|
|
Lubbock, Tx USA
Jan 1970 time: 23:32
|
|
I think it would be entirely possible to first release all three (2.1.2, 2.1.5, 2.2.0) patches at the same time, in the sense that some changes that are already done might go in all three and some others might only go in one, but whenever one of them is "done" the others could get released at their most recent playable state for playtesting. Of course the 2.2 mod might easily drift far away from the other two, but probably sometime after the first patch release when all the smaller fixes are already made.
Then the debate can center around what kind of changes belong in which patch, instead of which changes deserve priority to be in the first patch release.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
kaan
|
|
Aarhus
Mar 2001 time: 05:32
|
|
quote: Originally posted by MrBaggins
An issue with the current strategy we've been considering here is that the AI needs to be able to deal with anything we include in a patch...
thus if we...
bug fix -> improve the AI -> make significant game balance/improvement alterations
.. then the AI will probably be badly equiped to deal with those changes, and thus we'll need to repeat at least some of the effort, after those changes.
So, in my view, maybe, after we fix the bugs that make sense to fix, we should get together the ideas that are achievable to code, and then vote on those... then code... then do some structured playtesting.. probably with MP.
Thoughts? |
I cant see the problem in workin in iterations.
We analyse the problems, design the solution, implement the design in the code, test and bugfix the whole thing and then make the AI cope with it.
Thats the way i see it anyway, also we are in the test and bugfix fase right now as we got the code delivered at that stage 
|
|
|  |
 |
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Well.. we will be working in interations... absolutely... but I'm thinking that dealing with the AI is theoretically the largest job, and thus the one we wish to repeat as little as possible...
Just my 2 pennies.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Tamerlin
|
 |
Toulouse (South-western France)
Apr 2002 time: 06:32
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Locutus
I think there people's ideas on what changes to make to the game with the source code can be divided in roughly 3 philosophies:
1) Keep the game (nearly) identical to how it is now...
2) Making minor improvements to gameplay (i.e. rebalancing some things, improving the AI, streamlining some awkward SLIC workarounds in C code (e.g. unit updater), etc), but not completely rewriting the existing engine. Most if not all of this could be made optional. |

Thanks Locutus, this is exactly what I am waiting for at this moment, a bug free CtP2 (philosophy #1), a better AI and why not some optional changes (philosophy #2)...
quote: 3) Developing a full fledged sequel (or at least an expansion pack), with maybe new combat and economic models, maybe religion, strategic resources, new victory types and Mr Ogre knows what else... |
Now we are talking about another game, though this is not what I am waiting for from the source code I would nonetheless test such a game. 
But I am convinced that some changes should still be optional (like strategic resources)... if it is possible.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
MrBaggins
|
|
The work up until now is partially pre 1.10, partially 1.10 and partially post 1.10.
We've fixed some glaring bugs and omissions, done some SLIC 2.1 functions.
The main area that the patch dealt with, IIRC, was MP stuff, thats not been touched.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
MrBaggins
|
|
There are several of us with full versions of Visual Studio 6, I believe... compiling a test .exe shouldn't be too big of a problem.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Keygen
|
|
Athens, Hellas
Jan 2000 time: 07:32
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Pedrunn
Why dont we publish a patch with what we have right now? |
Not until we have all known bugs that are not hard-coded fixed.
In the meanwhile nothing stops you from downloading and compiling the latest developer releases or less frequently compiled executables that are released for testing purposes from time to time.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Keygen
|
|
Athens, Hellas
Jan 2000 time: 07:32
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Solver
We still don't know the exact changes that the Activision 1.1 patch made about MP.
However, unless all SLIC functions from 1.11 are reimplemented in our patch, the game patched with it wouldn't support the popular mods. Other than that, our fixlist already looks great. |
For more detailed changes made with patch 1.1/1.11 or others that are not mentioned in the readme file post them in the Patch 1.1/1.11 list of changes thread.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32. Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|