 |
|
Eli
|
|
Israel
Jul 2000 time: 07:15
|
|
Agreed.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Pembleton
|
|
Cyberspace
Apr 1999 time: 23:15
|
|
EDIT: Soren has rendered this post obsolete.
Last edited by Pembleton on 05-11-2001 at 00:40
|
|
|  |
 |
|
BiggN
|
|
What was the point of them including an Editor if people didn't change the game to the way they like??
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Pembleton
|
|
Cyberspace
Apr 1999 time: 23:15
|
|
quote: Originally posted by BiggN
What was the point of them including an Editor if people didn't change the game to the way they like?? |
For scenarios. Or faster production for quicker games in multiplayer.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Soren Johnson Firaxis
|
|
Hunt Valley, MD
May 2001 time: 00:15
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Pembleton
Because the suggestion is mostly made to people who are complaining about something that hampers their playstyle. It's not usually given to people who complain the game is too easy. If the game's too easy then play at a higher difficulty level. And if Deity is too easy then it's time to suggest the editor, but at that point it would be best to change the game differently for you and the computer and I don't know if this can be done.
And it's a question of semantics about cheating. It's probably too strong a word, but I understand why it's being used. I already stated in this thread is that it is because the AI IS PROGRAMMED FOR THE ORIGINAL RULES. Not the ones you gave it. It already does a lot of stupid things. Now you are most likely giving it a handicap because its particular strategy may possibly be totally moronic because it's not supposed to be done in a particular "aritificial" environment that you gave it. |
The AI is not hard-coded with the original game rules... it should be able to adapt to most changes made to the BIC file. This is not to say that you can't create something that the AI won't know how to use (like, say, a tank which can also found cities), but making minor gameplay tweaks (like adjusting corruption) should not have a noticeably detrimental effect on the AI.
Or at least, that's the theory.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Pembleton
|
|
Cyberspace
Apr 1999 time: 23:15
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Soren Johnson Firaxis
Or at least, that's the theory. |
Well that's impressive that you tried this. I obviously did not expect this. Still though, this doesn't change my stance on why I won't change the game's rules.
I will emphasize that I have no objection to others doing it and they should feel free to do so if it fits their needs.
I want to share my game's experiences and strategies with people who are playing the same game. I apologize if I'm sounding like a broken record, but it seems clear that few people read all of the posts in the thread and always object to something I already clarified or addressed earlier.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Jamison
|
|
If people wanna change something in the editor, LET THEM! Jesus Christ, it's their own game. Get the hell out of how they do their thing. What is this; a cyber dictorship?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ralf
|
 |
Sweden
Mar 2000 time: 06:15
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Soren Johnson Firaxis
but making minor gameplay tweaks (like adjusting corruption) should not have a noticeably detrimental effect on the AI. |
Well, this is the kind of changes Im taking about. Personally, Im looking forward to play with the default rules - but I also think it will be fun to...
A: Lower the number of free units for early gov-types (in order to avoid "infinite unit sprawl")
B: Increase the war-weariness under republic/democracy even further.
C: Increase the settler pop-reduction from 2 pops to 3 (if possible)
D: Increase the corruption distance-penalty (but at the same time make courthouses and maybe some other apropriate building a little more counter-corruption effective)
E: And so on, and so on.
Its not a question of if above changes are wise, or not. Its a question of the fun with "trial and error" tweaking. If one just save the default settings, one can always change back to factory settings later.
Last edited by Ralf on 05-11-2001 at 01:07
|
|
|  |
 |
|
KoalaBear33
|
 |
Toronto
Jul 2001 time: 00:15
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Jamison
If people wanna change something in the editor, LET THEM! Jesus Christ, it's their own game. Get the hell out of how they do their thing. What is this; a cyber dictorship? |
No, I'm not trying to enforce a dictatorship. And I'm not saying that you should change nothing either (why else is the editor there for?). Let me answer the comments posted above...
Some say that they are changing the game to make it harder. This is fine but the vast majority of the people are not doing it for that reason. Most haven't finished the highest difficulties.
The biggest problem with editing things is that nothing will be standardized after a while. Posting strategies is completely meaningless if people start editing stuff. Even comments about the game will be misunderstood. For example, I might say having 8 cities is good (just made up a number) and you might say something else just because you played with a different "settings".
Significantly editing the game is clearly cheating. The reason for this is because you are avoiding a challenge. Isn't cheating all about getting out of challenging situations? Most of the changes will not really give anyone an advantage (changing an attribute will have the same effect on you as the computer). But it will make you avoid the initial challenge. I consider this to be cheating.
I come from an RTS background so maybe I'm expecting something different (RTS games are online oriented so they are standardized). All I can say is that, in the RTS genre, you don't change anything unless you are doing scenarios or something. No one ever goes around changing unit statistics in a normal game, for example, because it completely alters the tactics in the game (RTS games rely on tactics more than strategy). If you are doing a scenario, say an "RPG game", go ahead and bump up the hero's health to 1000 or something. That's ok but you just don't do it for a "regular" game. Having said this, if there are flaws in the game or if the majority of the people accept a certain change, then it's all right. In Starcraft (an RTS) for example, a map called BGH with "infinite" resources became popular so it's accepted now (BGH destroyed SC IMO but that's another story ).
Let me give you my opinion on what I think is all right to change in the game. If you are doing a particular scenario or something logical it's all right. For example, if you think the governments are too simplistic and too similar (I think they are ) then go ahead and alter effects of govt in a scenario or something. Similarly, you can alter units to accurately reflect say World War II if you are building a scenario.
Where I have a problem with people is... when people keep telling a person encountering difficulty to go and change it in the editor. For example, someone might say that science is too slow and he/she is having problems. Many people respond to that person by telling them to change it in the editor. That totally defeats everything. Using the editor should be the laste option--not the first! 
KoalaBear33
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Pyrodrew
|
|
quote: How come the solution to everything that you don't like is to change it in the editor? This is cheating and I can't believe so many people are endorsing/doing it. |
Cheating is giving the human player an advantage over the AI players. And I agree that is wrong. However, my suggestions to increase the # of resources on a map (not a game currently in progress) is NOT cheating since that quantity of resources is equally distributed among ALL the players. Same with corruption... decreasing corruption on a map (not a game in progress or only for 1 player) affects ALL the players. You cannot give yourself an unfair advantage over others if you give EVERYONE the same advantage.
quote: Because the suggestion is mostly made to people who are complaining about something that hampers their playstyle. |
Some people have a play style that they prefer a map with arid & cold terrain while others prefer a wet & warm map. Yet those options in the beginning are not "cheating"... and if Civ3 designers add an option for say Resources being "Rare Normal Abundant" to choose from, that is NOT cheating either. Cheating is giving oneself an unfair advantage over others (giving themself 200 F-15s). I agree with you that cheating was too strong of a word to use.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
yavoon
|
|
ur all taking this out of context. yes everyone is welcome to use the editor, no1 is gna stop you. yes you can use the editor to make it harder for urself too. but wut the post was in resposne to was basically ppl playing civ3, finding a challenging part, resource scarcity, ai diplomacy, corruption, nething relaly. claiming its "broken" then valiantly nominating a change to the editor to rectify this "heinous" situation.
and I think thats bullshit too. running around w/in a week of release lessening the hardships of the game.
now to address the other naive observation. that changing a rule will affect you and the ai equally. nothing could ever be farther from the truth. the ai is very hardwired, it can't adapt. hell you can still wombat it to death. changing rules is VERY likely to benefit you, much mroe than the ai. especially considering that the rules ppl are changing at present are all the parts of the game they have trouble with. but like I said, as soon as the good players settle down, and effective strategies begin to become widespread, the editor changing newbies will slink back.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Leonid
|
|
"ur all taking this out of context. yes everyone is welcome to use the editor, no1 is gna stop you. yes you can use the editor to make it harder for urself too. but wut the post was in resposne to was basically ppl playing civ3, finding a challenging part, resource scarcity, ai diplomacy, corruption, nething relaly. claiming its "broken" then valiantly nominating a change to the editor to rectify this "heinous" situation.
and I think thats bullshit too. running around w/in a week of release lessening the hardships of the game.
now to address the other naive observation. that changing a rule will affect you and the ai equally. nothing could ever be farther from the truth. the ai is very hardwired, it can't adapt. hell you can still wombat it to death. changing rules is VERY likely to benefit you, much mroe than the ai. especially considering that the rules ppl are changing at present are all the parts of the game they have trouble with. but like I said, as soon as the good players settle down, and effective strategies begin to become widespread, the editor changing newbies will slink back."
DITTO
I agree with koala and yavoo. Peeps here are using the editor to cheat and make th egame "easy". To em editors totallyu ruin the game. Hell, why your at it why dont ya give yourself a few B2 bombers to help ya battle those pesky Roman legions in the stone age?
Personally I like a challange. I hate mods and editors myself for the most part. The only one I ever thought was kinda cool was the civ 2 mod replacing fundamentalism to facism and those fundametalist osama bin laden wannabe units with Nazi stormtroopers.
Other than that I am not messing with the editor. giving the map tons more resources kills the challange, BORING. I like having to search for that strategic deposit of iron and fighting tooth and nail for it and possibly going to war ove rit. Now thats cool. If everyone had iron, rubber, and oil deposits all over the map..that defeats the entire reaon for strategic resources and trades. SHEEESH you people!! 
Last edited by Leonid on 05-11-2001 at 03:06
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15. Apolyton Time is 00:15. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|