 |
| |
|
|
raingoon
|
 |
Los Angeles
Aug 1999
time: 21:12
|
|
I'm confused why this is even a debate.
PW takes away the choices settlers force you to make. Can somebody tell me what PW adds to the Sid model of decision-based gameplay? If auto-worker was the only option you had to build a road, then I would understand the complaint about auto-worker. But it's not. Many players never even use the auto function and that makes it a game STYLE issue, not a game PLAY issue. If you want PW for your game style, I certainly understand. And if the auto-settlers in Civ 3 are as poorly functioning as they were in the past, you have my sympathy.
But why adcovate a style improvment at the cost of game play? You are taking away the basic mechanics and economics of the game -- such as having to choose which city will spend the resources to support the unit who builds the road to get to another city that spends the resources, and so on. If that is silly to you, than we have nothing to discuss. But these ARE the economics of the game, status quo. And having to choose between building swords or plows are extremely important economics of city production as well. Their absense from CTP is one reason why that game is nothing near the game that Civ is. Because the bottom line is each of these concepts that I mention here are represented on every Civ game map, where they can be directly opposed and defeated by an oponent.
By contrast, the PW system is abstracted at the highest level of game play, and its only contribution as far as I can tell is the afore-mentioned improvement in gaming style, a boon to those players who prefer not to micro-manage settlers.
Can somebody explain to me how PW would improve Civ for a player who neither uses auto-workers nor chooses so unwisely as to build "300 settlers" to cover the map with improvements? (This latter complaint isn't really valid because it implies a player who would remedy their own wisdom deficiency by simply taking away any choice that required it).
[This message has been edited by raingoon (edited April 14, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
dognheat
|
|
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Apr 2001
time: 05:12
|
|
What I want to know is why not a combination of the two ? You could lay down prefab packs of the improvement you want to build and then any available settler/worker that you have set to terraforming would auto-develope the tiles that had packs on them. It would still take time for the improvements to be built, but you wouldn't have to micro-manage your settler/workers in making sure they arent building farms on mountains. You could also prioritize defense improvements, roads, farms, etc..
------------------
*PLOP*
|
|
| |
|
|
|
btw, yes, settlers are winning with 51% but there is a 45% out there that wants to know: how smart are the auto-workers going to be?
and your sympathy is not enough 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
cyclotron7
|
 |
Drowning in Schnitzel
Jan 2001
time: 21:12
|
|
I for one have NEVER auto-managed my settlers (and I mean never!) and I don't see how managing settlers takes away your "fun time." I consider managing settlers to be just as fun as managing armies. I like being able to manage them... Heck, if you don't like to micromanage, there are tons of other things we can cut out, too...
It seems to me that PW is like inventing rubber gloves to deal with a leaky pen. You don't like and don't appreciate the settler system, so instead of trying to improve upon it you just decide it would be "easier" to scrap it and make some arbitrary slider for it. Heck, anything can be made into a slider, right? In the meantime, for all of us that do want to improve the settler system and see its possibilities, we get your simplistic slider. Its not very fair, is it?
------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by raingoon on 04-15-2001 03:57 PM
Neither is your " " enough to prevent you from sounding rather bitter, frankly. I am genuinely sympathetic if this is a case of a good thing being overlooked by Firaxis, I hope you can appreciate that.
|
i didnt mean to offend you in any way.
quote:
You are still talking about the time spent playing, etc., and with the possible exception of changing the game's time scale, I don't see any game-PLAY enhancements to this at all.
|
being able to spent time on more fun things is a change in the gameplay, no?
quote:
So if I understand you now, this is all based on a general lack of faith in Firaxis' ability to implement a well-programmed auto-worker.
|
it's not so much lack of faith, as being realistic(i'd like to think). making a well-functioning auto-worker will probably not be on the top of list of priorities. if you add that the problems with auto-workers will show up late in the game when they will have little stuff to do and that a common game will take lots of time, when beta testing time comes, it is more logical that testers will be looking for crashes rather than the efficiancy of the auto-workers...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ralf
|
 |
Sweden
Mar 2000
time: 06:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MarkG on 04-15-2001 12:53 PM
btw, yes, settlers are winning with 51% but there is a 45% out there that wants to know: how smart are the auto-workers going to be?
and your sympathy is not enough
|
Auto-workers are not likely to be noticeably smarter then the terraformers in SMAC. So dont use them! Adapt and change your playingstyle instead. Go for quality before quantity. Go for space-race, with max 20-25 founded cities, and perhaps max 20-25 conquered ones. Never, or seldomly above 50 cities.
The days there (some) civers enjoyed to "expand their way to success", by founding/conquering literally hundreds of cities is numbered. And thats a damn good thing. I want a "tighter" game then Civ-2 ever was: a slightly "overpressured" game, instead of an "underpressured" one. I think Firaxis actually have expressed the same thing.
As for AI-civ controlled "automated" workers & settlers:
Well thats an entirely different cup of tea. I really hope that they have made the correct game-develop decision here, and consequently choosen to bypass the whole damn "visible AI-civ controlled worker/settler" idea all together. Both "AI-city area management" and "AI-city placements" is far to important (seen from a longterm logistical viewpoint) to be left in the hands of erratically moving AI-workers & settlers. There are other, much more effective ways to deal with these problems...
As for the PW-system. Well, I never liked the idea of being forced to move around that damn map anyway, in order to click-and-paste all those terrain-improvements. The map should autocenter automatically, with flashing units, and possibly also cities!! I want to have the option to be automatically guided. I dont want to be forced to manually drag around the whole damn map back and forth, each and every turn, just to check and doublecheck if I havent missed anything.
Anyway, since a majority (although a small one) actually have voted for the settler-modell - why not just give the thing a rest, heh? The choice between "PW" and "Settler" is a pretty fundamental one - something they most probably already have decided, perhaps 8-10 months ago. So any ideas of pursuade them to make such drastic reversal changes is pretty futile.
Besides; 51% is still 51%!  If they instead would have chosen the PW-modell, then only 45% would be happy with it. Would that be a more vise decision, from Firaxis point of view? Theres an old saying...
"If you try to please everybody, you might end up with pleasing nobody".
[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited April 16, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
hey raingoon!
Settlers vs Public Works
* Settlers-type model 97 / 50%
* Public Works-type model 90 / 47%
* Dont know/Dont care 4 / 2%
Total Votes: 191
|
|
| |
|
|
|
so the fact that auto-settlers run around like... lemmings doing nothing is a game rule?????? 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
1) when i spoke about deficiencies i was referring to badly fucntioning auto-workers. when you responded a "general level" talking about game rules, i replied to that...
2) i never connected PW with a strong AI. on the contrary, PW doesnt need any fuctions to move settlers around, it just needs the functions to figure out where to place improvements. therefore it needs LESS ai(which is good cause good ai is hard to program )...
3) given that the majority of the people use auto-settlers to a smaller or bigger amount(dont tell me to do a poll about it), a good AI for the settlers is in fact crucial...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
airdrik
|
 |
Nampa, ID, USA
Oct 2000
time: 22:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MarkG on 04-16-2001 05:41 PM
2) i never connected PW with a strong AI. on the contrary, PW doesnt need any fuctions to move settlers around, it just needs the functions to figure out where to place improvements. therefore it needs LESS ai(which is good cause good ai is hard to program )...
|
And why can't it use the same functions to get where to move the settlers to build next?
A worker on auto-mode is finished with what he is doing. The computer runs it's function to see what it will improove next. The unit is moved using the go-to command. When the unit gets there it starts working.
The only difference between this and the public works is that public works doesn't have to move the unit there, but they both get the job done, and in fact if you have more workers working in an area then they will actually work faster than the public works will.
Also, What if you don't want to improove the area around a city? If you want to restrict the growth of the city for some reason, work all the tiles but just not grow? Like if you know that improoving a certain tile will lead to unneeded pollution, or you are playing ICS and don't want to improove the surrounding tiles. With PW you have to let the computer improove the tiles, but with a settler/worker system you can improove exactly how you want.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
cyclotron7
|
|
Drowning in Schnitzel
Jan 2001
time: 21:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MarkG on 04-17-2001 05:54 PM
you're wrong
the problems in auto-settlers are two:
- settlers have to move to the next spot that needs to be worked and their paths are often not the best
- settlers must always have something to do
none of the above exists in PW
|
Well, I happen to think you're wrong.  Yes, settlers do have to move. But isn't that good? It gives you more strategic lataitiude and gives you greater control. I for one like to maneuver my units. Also, settlers don't have to always have something to do. You can make them rejoin a city to add population.
Mark, I think our difference lies here:
- You dislike managing your own units (too much time, you say) so you would rather have the AI do it for you. If I were dependent on the AI, I too would support PW.
- I see managing units as fun, and I would rather have the multitudinous options and tactics you get from the settler system than the limited PW system.
Mark, you are evaluating the settler system purely by the auto workers. Many people (most people I've asked) don't even use auto workers. You say this is because the AI is bad... I for one knew about the feature but never even used it for the first few years I owned the game, because I thought "why would I ever want to give up managing my settlers?" When I tried it, yes, it did stink. So my solution for you is to actually use settlers as they are meant to be used: By the player!
------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chronus
|
|
"... use settlers as they are meant to be used: By the player!"
YES! How in the world did the issue of auto-settlers creep into this discussion anyway? That takes all the fun out of it. I don't anyone (personally) that uses the auto-settler feature either. And all this talk about improving the automating features ... do you want to play the game or simply watch it?
Hmmmm, here's an idea:
Maybe Firaxis can PERFECT the automating features and then automate the military units instead of the settlers! By doing this, I can now happily move my settlers about, perfecting my infrastructure, while my military advisor automatically moves my military units and engages in war with utter PERFECTION! I won't even have to think about the war ... because my advisor knows what's best ... what fun! ;-)
I like havng to take a few seconds to study the map to determine the best route for my settler ... I like yelling out "DOH!" whenever I accidently move them off the road because I wasn't paying attention (and knowing I'll waste another turn putting them back on the road) ... I like having to rush out the military units because a hoard of barbarians suddenly show up, threatening my settlers ... I like building fortresses in key locations out in the middle of nowhere ... I like helping my allies clean up their pollution ... etc.
Aggrevating? Yes, at times. Fun? Yes! Yes! YES!! :-)
p.s. please pardon the sarcasm above ... I was having too much fun. ;-)
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:12.
Apolyton Time is 00:12. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-04-2001 02:21
Artificial intelligence has its very specific built-in limitations in any large random-map multi-optional game like Civ, whether one understand this or not. If the public-works system where such a wonder-recipe for a strong AI, why wasnt the AI in the CTP-2 game that god then? 
|