 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Alex
|
 |
Brasil
Mar 1999
time: 02:32
|
|
These changes were being tested in order to be included in the final patch, which will be released in 2004. We bemoaned about the lack of a patch to fix two important bugs (gpt and fp). They decided to give us a BETA patch, containing fixes for these bugs AND the changes in combat. Note: it is a BETA patch, "feel free to download it at your own risk" type of thing.
quote:
I don't want to say that the changes in combat system were necessarily bad. But they certainly shouldn't be in a beta patch. |
They wouldn't be in a BETA patch because the beta patch wasn't supposed to exist. It is being released because we complained about the bugs (which would be fixed anyway, but only in the second quarter of 2004). They're saying: "hey guys, this is a beta patch, it hasn't been thoroughly tested yet". And we say: "I don't care, I want it, but if there's something wrong with it you're all f***ed up".
Jesse Smith:
quote:
This was the only way to get a patch posted prior to Christmas. If additional issues present themselves we will make every effort to release another BETA update. |
Why to be so afraid of changes? I would be willing to test this change in combat and, if things ended up being bad, I'd just say: "look, this change breaks the combat, could you undo it? Or not include it in the final patch? Thanks."
That's just my 0.02, of course. No hard feelings. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Anun Ik Oba
|
 |
Grace of God
Sep 1999
time: 00:32
|
|
This is fine by me. Really, the only two things that bug me are the GPT and Corruption bugs (and the fact there's no replay for PBEM).
Also, I'm wondering if there are any plans to spiff up Feudalism. Its really a weak gov.
Last edited by Anun Ik Oba on 12-12-2003 at 06:06
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Catt
|
 |
California - SF Bay Area
May 2002
time: 21:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alex
They're saying: "hey guys, this is a beta patch, it hasn't been thoroughly tested yet". And we say: "I don't care, I want it, but if there's something wrong with it you're all f***ed up". |
This is the second or third time you've posted along these lines -- what are you seeing that I am not in this thread. To my eye, the vast majority (not all, but the vast majority) of the thread consisted of "thanks a bunch" followed by cogently, calmly stated concerns about the proposed change to combat. Unless my radar is not working at all, you seem to be saying that constructive criticism = **** you!
quote:
Why to be so afraid of changes? |
It is not a question of fear. Certain players feel they have a very good understanding about how the various game concepts, including combat, interact. The proposed changes were entirely straightforward mathematically and easily reduced to hard numbers. The extent of the potential ingame changes introduced by the nature of the change was debateable, but some players felt pretty confident that at least some of the ingame effects were entirely predictable and detracted from gameplay unless extensive other changes were made.
quote:
I would be willing to test this change in combat and, if things ended up being bad, I'd just say: "look, this change breaks the combat, could you undo it? Or not include it in the final patch? Thanks." |
Would you care to test the following changes: (1) all mountains and hills are impassable to all units; (2) strategic and luxury resrouces are disabled; (3) all units except for warriors require a certain (disabled) resource; and (4) you may not build settlers? Certainly you wouldn't want to spend much time testing this, right? You can see just by looking at the changes that the game perhaps wouldn't offer the same depth as an unmodded game of Civ 3? The above example is of course silly and extreme - the point is that some players feel they are more than competent enough with the basic game functionality to comment on likely ingame effects of the proposed combat changes. You may disagree and you may also be willing to play with the proposed change yourself. That doesn't make others' criticsm equate to a "**** you!" nor does it indicate any sort of "fear of change" among other posters.
By all means express your opinion on the issue - but no need to again jump into the discussion only to harp on others for expressing their reasoned opinions of the effects of the proposed changes.
Catt
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ducki
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by OPD
It would be interesting if it were to come into play only when units from different classes are fighting.
So cav vs spears, tanks vs spears, pikes etc are less random but horse vs spear remains the same...... |
Hmmm.... so:
----
int nNumRolls = 1;
nNumRolls = nNumRolls + abs(GetAttackerAgeIndex() - GetDefenderAgeIndex());
Roll(nNumRolls);
----
I like it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrWhereItsAt
|
 |
New Year's Resolution: 2005 is the year of Where It's At - come get some.
Nov 2001
time: 17:32
|
|
I think I understand what Alex is getting at - Al, you have made your point, and I'm sure you'll agree, that, if you see someone starting to edge towards irritation at the same point, then it might be time to let it alone, just for a while. Trust me, as I have recently come close to this with the "When do we have AU?" poll. No hard feelings, but if we leave it then those who may get annoyed don't have to.
Common ground: thanks to Firaxis and Breakaway for listening to us and doubtless many others on sites all over the place. I doubt that we convinced you to reverse the beta patch change on our own, but this is pretty clear indication that we are being watched here, and actually paid attention to, when we are being serious about it all!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jeem
|
|
Ayrshire, Scotland
Sep 2001
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
Also, I'm wondering if there are any plans to spiff up Feudalism. Its really a weak gov. |
Not to mention completely different from what the manual states!
However, I don't think it's all that weak. You get the 3 policing units and can still safely hit a golden age knowing that you'll get a big benefit. The main difference between Feudalism and Monarchy is that you now don't need to research Monarchy in order to have a decent government - that's a BIG bonus. Feudalisms own Despotisms in every way and it's a viable step up from Despotism which fits quite nicely within the game parameters I think.
You don't want to be stuck on it for ages by any means.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Theseus
|
 |
The warmonger formerly known as rpodos. Gathering Storm! Apolyton Spirit!!
Apr 2002
time: 00:32
|
|
I am... impressed.
No, more than that.
A long time ago, with the earliest C3 patches, I made the argument that we are entering a new era of technology, where the evolution of products is the result of a "conversation" between developers and customers / fans.
I don;t think the concept was very well received at the time, as with the advent of the Internet the general wisdom was that developers were pushing out buggy products and releasing iterative and easily distributable patches just to make up for flaws.
Well, that may have been somewhat true, of course, but I maintain this is an evolution, and that Firaxis is getting ahead of the curve.
"Pre-release beta patch fan critiquing" is quite the concept... and Civ is the perfect game for it. As someone on CFC said, there have been PHDs all over the world secretly ignoring their work and focusing on the impacts of a change of 1 to 4 iterations in the combat model!! How many FPS fan communities can be expected to do the same? 
KUDOS, Firaxis, for trying to understand how to do 'this' (i.e., customer involved development) better, and having the guts to do it! I am not aware of any major commercial software developers that are so far along as you in this approach (not including small community stuff like Mathematica, nor of course the open sourcers). 
As a matter of interest: As indicated by Mike B., it seems you all were not expecting the explosion of commentary on this issue... I assume some of you have been monitoring this thread and its equal at CFC... what in the varied postings triggered the decision not to include the change in this first patch? (if you can answer)
Again, THANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOU, you guys ROCK!! Everything: C3, patches, PTW, patches, C3C, beta patch, revised beta patch, final patch, Civ4 in the planning... my god, my first three children are gonna be named Firaxis Podos, Breakaway Podos, and Atari Podos (well, we'll see what Amy has to say. ).
Oh, and one more thing... 
Any thoughts on Marine+Berserk Armies? 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Alex
|
|
Brasil
Mar 1999
time: 02:32
|
|
quote:
This is the second or third time you've posted along these lines |
Sorry to annoy you all. As MWIA said, one has to know the moment when it's wiser to silence about something. I'm silencing now.
quote:
It is not a question of fear. Certain players feel they have a very good understanding about how the various game concepts, including combat, interact. The proposed changes were entirely straightforward mathematically and easily reduced to hard numbers. The extent of the potential ingame changes introduced by the nature of the change was debateable, but some players felt pretty confident that at least some of the ingame effects were entirely predictable and detracted from gameplay unless extensive other changes were made. |
I understand your point. It is a valid one.
quote:
By all means express your opinion on the issue - but no need to again jump into the discussion only to harp on others for expressing their reasoned opinions of the effects of the proposed changes. |
Never wanted to offend anyone. Maybe I've exaggerated some things, but it was just to highlight my position. Peace. 
quote:
I think I understand what Alex is getting at - Al, you have made your point, and I'm sure you'll agree, that, if you see someone starting to edge towards irritation at the same point, then it might be time to let it alone, just for a while. |
Doing it now.
quote:
I have the feeling that most of people don't want the change because it'd change their style of playing, their good old strategies and tactics that worked so far. It doesn't really matter whether this is good or not, it is just: "Oh My God, what will happen now with my horse rush?"
Since it is a beta patch, it'd have made sense to test this new combat model.
I hope that for the final patch they will make it a general option in the game preferences. |
Totally agree with you. You expressed it much better than I did.
Just so people don't think I'm an ungrateful bastard, I'd like to say "thank you Firaxis and Breakaway for all the incredible support and for listening to the community".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
I agree.
Once I first played Civ3, the two things that struck me as great gameplay design decisions were: 1) Settlers cost 2 pop, and 2) no Firepower (or whatever it was called in Civ2...gee it's been a long time).
As your tech lead increases, the odds are appropriately in your favor to win battles given what's good for gameplay. That's all I need. If I lose a Tank to a Spearmen, I deal with it, knowing that I've got more Tanks in reserve (usually in this situation my opponent does not have a superior economic base that will overwhelm my Tank offensive with swarms of Spearmen).
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tiberius
|
 |
Europe
Jan 2000
time: 06:32
|
|
The vietnamese didn't win because two or three vietnamese spearmen randomly won against two or three american tanks. They've won because of the advantegeous a civ fighting for his own homeland has against an invader. (which btw was addressed by Firaxis, in certain limits).
That being said, I'm OK with the combat model as it is. I know that odd results do happen in real life too, now and then. I don't have the slightest complain about it when playing against the AI. I am able to defeat it with or without luck. However, I do have a problem with the RNG since I am playing PBEM. To quote somebody I am fighting against:
quote:
I have never known anyone to have such bad luck with the RNG |
Having a few turns of bad luck when playing against humans can be game-breaking.
Why would the new rules detract from gameplay is beyond me. I have no means to prove it whatsoever, but I am confident that if the new, now withdrawn model, had been applied from the very beginning of civ3, the crowd now asking for its withdrawal would have asked to keep it.
Just my 2 cents, and by no means am I whining. It is great that Firaxis and Breakaway listened to the community. It's fantastic, really. I am just sad that those who were hoping in a less random combat model are in a minority. (and I maintain my opinion that for most of the new model's opponents it is the natural, human emotion of fear from change).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
RobC
|
|
It's great that Firaxis & Breakaway listen to their fans, although I personally would have loved to at least try it out...perhaps in the next patch (assuming there's another before the 'final' patch) we can get the 'adjustable variance' setting that Brian and I suggested so people can try it out for themselves...
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-12-2003 04:05
Thank you for listening to fan concerns 
).... I was actually starting to get intrigued from a non-warmongering Seven Pillars standpoint.
|