 |
|
MyOlde
|
|
Haliburton, Ontario, Canada
Jun 1999
time: 05:34
|
|
Whether Firaxis wants to get on with Civ4 isn't the point: a patch was promised. 1.15 was called a Beta patch so that's not it. So ... let's have what was promised!
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Andydog
|
 |
London
Jan 2001
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GarP2
There is no other form of entertainment that I can carry out so cheaply, i.e., on a $/hr basis.
Book$/hr > cableTV $/hr > cable modem$/hr
|
True, if you look at it this way then the game is well worth it's money.
quote:
The lack of total functionality of the game is frustrating, as is the fact that a lot could be improved, but it's still a great game, even in its present form. The high number of posters and lurkers in the forums shows how many think so, and the little labels by the posters names (chiefton, etc) show that a lot of people get as much from discussing the game as playing it. |
And with this you touch on the real point:
Civ is indeed the ultimate strategy game that people who love strategy love to play, and that people who love strategy love to discuss. These boards contain fantastic discussions about every facet of the game. There are articles on strategy, bugs, exploits, there is even Apolyton University – a brilliant forum (which I’ve only just discovered) dedicated to addressing balance and improving AI behaviour amongst other things.
Imagine if Friaxis were to understand and make use of this resource. They only need to spend a week or so reading the articles and collating the research that has been undertaken to better understand game balance, what needs to be changed to fully balance the game, what exploits exist, and what the critical bugs are that need to be addressed.
If I were running the development team, the first thing I would do after initial game release is post a thread saying: “right chaps, give us a complete list of changes we need to make to the vanilla game, in order of priority, so that the game is balanced and free of exploits”. I’m certain I’d get a quality document in no time at all, which I could use to focus the energies of the team until all the remaining time and money is spent. I would sure as eggs be screaming at those who control the purse strings to give me the funds I need to at least address those items on the list that were regarded by the community as being critical.
(As an aside – after release of the final patch I would then ask that someone on these boards co-ordinate the production of a ‘beginners guide to Civ3’ – which I would then have printed with a page full of credits to Apolyton and to all those who contributed, and distribute it to the shops to promote game sales. Perhaps also include it with a gold edition release. The current game manual is a joke, and does nothing to help new players understand what they should be doing and thus promote game sales via word of mouth.)
And so my point is this: It's such a pity that this ultimate strategy game, the best that money can buy, the game with unlimited potential, and the game that promotes endless discussion, is tainted with a few bugs, imbalances, and exploits that will not be addressed due to mismanagement, lack of commitment, and a failure to tap the goldmine that is Apolyton that is only a few mouse clicks away.
I know Jesse makes use of us to a lesser extent – evidenced by the removal of the RCP exploit and more recently the removal of Radio from the tech tree. But it appears that nobody in Friaxis truly understands what a goldmine these forums are, and until they do, I fear we will have the same issues with Civ4.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Andydog
|
|
London
Jan 2001
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by alexman
Changes in C3C were very much based on player feedback from PTW. |
So alexman are you telling us that, for example, SGL's were introduced after discussions with players in a private forum? What about the new corruption model - was that also discussed in a private forum?
I agree (as I mentioned above) that they have taken some suggestions on board resulting from discussions in various threads, whether they be private or otherwise, but I still think they could have made better use of the community to get the game balanced and bug free, before the funds ran out.
To use my earlier example, if they had asked us for a prioritised list of desired changes to C3C when it was first released, then yes, I'm sure the response would be massive, (and forgive me if my inexperience with these forums is showing here), but I would’ve thought that this massive response could be managed to prevent it from being overwhelming. For example I would expect that a few people would take the reigns, lead the discussions, create the poles etc as required, and build the list up through a co-ordinated effort to satisfy required timescales. Am I being unrealistic here?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
alexman
|
 |
Hunt Valley, MD
Jan 1970
time: 00:34
|
|
From what I have heard, input from C3C's beta testing team was taken seriously. That team included many players from these forums. I was not one of them, but I know they had their own private forums.
SGLs were introduced because players were complaining that war in Civ3 was too powerful, and peaceful players had no equivalent of a MGL.
The corruption model was changed because of a bug found by members of these forums (the FP rank bug). Fixing the bug changed the corruption model to what it was originally intended to be. Opinion among players is divided on what the corruption model should be, so the designers stuck to their original design.
As for a list of suggestions for the C3C final patch, there is (was?) such a massive thread over at CFC, and many suggestions are not only unrealistic for a patch, but they are also conflicting. It's impossible to read that thread from beginning to end, much less make design decisions from it.
I think it's smart that Firaxis rely on limited feedback from a few people who are in touch with these forums, rather than trying to sort through all the information themselves. They can then use their limited Civ3 time fixing bugs and improving the game instead.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Willem
|
 |
Canada
Dec 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Andydog
To use my earlier example, if they had asked us for a prioritised list of desired changes to C3C when it was first released, then yes, I'm sure the response would be massive, (and forgive me if my inexperience with these forums is showing here), but I would’ve thought that this massive response could be managed to prevent it from being overwhelming. |
An approach like that would just be a waste of time. Take a look around and see how many people suggest things that are beyond the scope of the game as it is. Many of them would require a complete rewrite of the underlining code. And many of them are just plain frivolous and wouldn't add anything to the game. They'd end up sifting through so much crap, they wouldn't have the time to get anything done.
Instead, they quietly monitor the boards and try to address things that they, and the players, see as important and actually doable. Almost all the major gripes that have been aired the past couple of years have been addressed in time. Yes, there's still a few things lingering, and there's room for improvement, but the main issues have been dealt with or are being dealt with.
My perception of Firaxis is that they do support their products. A short while ago, they released a patch that dealt with some problems with SMAC when running on Windows XP. They didn't have to do that, the game was already out of print with no possibility of them making any more money on it. But they did anyway, and I was impressed with their support. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Andydog
|
|
London
Jan 2001
time: 05:34
|
|
People, please. I’m not talking about re-writing the game as Willem suggests, nor handing control of the game’s development over to the civ communities as Mr Justice suggests.
We are talking about using the communities to document game balance issues and bugs, after C3C is released, for Firaxis’ use in prioritising time and resource for future patches.
Nobody has said anything yet to show me that to produce such a document is unrealistic. Cripes, Doc summarised quite nicely the bulk of the critical issues a few pages back:
quote:
1) Fix the annoying bugs, with the sub bug only being the poster child.
2) Reinstate the AI tweaks that PTW had. Why are these gone? Why does the AI irrigate grassland in despotism? Why does it space its cities even worse than ever? Why are the barbs such wussy pink blouse wearing girls? I have more.
3) Decide whether resource scarcity is a bug or a feature. If the first state when it will be fixed.
4) Some fixable balance issues are evident. I'm not talking about major changes to what has always been a rubbish govt system, or anything like that. I just mean balancing the traits a little better. For goodness sake nerf the seafaring sink probability in ocean and sea. For god's sake take something away from agricultural, maybe no cheap aqueducts. For god's sake let's have a reasonable anarchy time (though this wont fix the govt system). I have more. |
So there they are already, nicely grouped, and nobody seems to have a problem with those do they?? I can’t see there being endless debate on any of them.
And with a bit of co-ordination, such as what we’ve seen with, for example, the Civ4 list, and for example, the Apolyton University Mod, I see no reason why a useful document couldn’t be produced that details more issues.
Firaxis can then do with it what they want. If, for some reason, they couldn’t address something regarded as important, then all they have to do is tell us why.
Anyway, obviously it’s too late for this now, what’s done is done. I’m just saying what I would have done differently to try to avoid the situation the game is now in, and I see the communities as being able to assist. I really don’t understand all this pessimism.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jarred
|
|
I think though that my core issue with this game and why I'm very critical, and I didn't put it in these terms: The simple problem with Civ 3 is it is less customizable than Civ 2 for what is seemingly availible, and this is a key issue.
We have more customization in certain respects-we can control buildings and what they do, how many civs to an extent and governments; yet, something has been missing from Civ 3-we can not control events, which even though has been long complained about, this might easily be the worst problem with the game; all attempts at scenario customization to the same extent as Civ 2 are laughable at best, and I think it causes frustration that now we have an AI that's better and more realistic borders, yet the scenarios in their scope and magnitude pale to almost anything we had in Civ 2, even with the limitations of that game; though true, not everyone plays scenarios, I am of the belief that a majority of the hardcore Civilization fans do, or at least like to see a lot of customization which unfortunately seems harder.
And, for its problems, the Civ 2 graphics editors served a purpose; though the good graphics creators did not need them or use them (As they were pretty bad...), they allowed the average player to use them-which is significant; one problem I had with ToT is the abscence of these editors because I simply did not know how to create the appropriate graphics files and when emailing Microprose, I was told it was not possible; this I find distressing, and even though it is possible with Civ 3, unit creation was better supported with Civ 2 (though simpler, granted-but once again I point out utilities such as SCURK and BAT which were in the Simcity Games).
But the worst part about Civ 3-yes, its still a good game; but I'm very disappointed lately to prefer civ 2 over Civ 3, whereas I never touch Civ 1 anymore; Civ 3 is disappointing in its replayability, while still very good, is only adequate at best for a Sid Meier Civilization game. While this is more of a bash-I like Civ 3 and I think its a good product, but once again, the flexibility issue for me is a tremendous issue I can not and will not stress enough the failure of having adequate editors to allow the community and players to do whatever they wished; maybe I've been too spoiled by Civ 2 to appriciate this...
I still think the tech tree setup is not friendly to customizing, either, but I don't want to go into that. My main point is, and I've given up on Civ 3/Conquests is for in Civ 4 allow everything to be customized; make Civ 4 the medium of the communities to create their works, instead of mods that appeal to about 10% of the populace...I mean, reasonibly-is this too much to ask for? Perhaps it is...but events existed before, and massive scenario customization existed before...why can't it now? (I would note that its impossible to play a scenario that's already started and everything is 'fresh' on the map-a big lament too).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jarred
|
|
and by laughable at best-I don't mean to belittle the scenario creators; they've created good stuff especially considering their piles of excrement handed to them by Civ 3's editing and I've enjoyed some scenarios very much. But I don't think its possible to compare Civ 3's scenarios to Civ 2: not because of a lack of talent in the Civ 3 scenario community (There might be more since they could make something out of the pile of dung in the editor) but because the lack of game options provided;
I don't think Firaxis should make the same mistake as getting rid of the "Cheat" options in Civ 4. In Civ 2, they were more than perfect. As far as being too spoiled, I think that's sad but true, because its not that Civ 3 has not fulfilled my expectations but because Civ 3 did not fulfill Civ 2's standard-which I find no excuse for.
And without the customization, it prevents Firaxis from creating revolutionary ideas for fear of destroying perhaps classical civ motifs; if we could break the bars  you can really get some nutty ideas floated and if they aren't appriciated you can fall back on a classical type game. I fear that Civ 4 won't appriciate these things and will be an upgraded Civ 3 with new features and systems and what not but will still ignore one of the main lackings of Civ 3 compared with Civ 2.
Last edited by Jarred on 26-03-2004 at 16:29
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-03-2004 21:16
so I wonder why they don't get on with it 
... 
sanity is back in our camp? 
|