Not sure if what i am about to say fits this forum but going to say it anyway.
After reading all the suggestions and ideas i came to conclusion.
If firaxis realisez just a fraction of the ideas we have Civ4 will be come so complex and complicated that we just will not want to play it anymore.
Those who ever played Master of orion may know this.
MOO1 was pretty good game for it's time, MOO2 was okay and still enjoyable,
then they release MOO3 with all the features and so much of extra stuff that killed the game. It is not playable, at least for me.
I certainly hope that Civ4 will have many nice features but you there is a fine line between many features that improve game and too many features that will definetely kill it.

The problem is that we all have different ideas that are not always compatable or similar in anyway so ideally some ideas will be included but not all of them as that would probably be impossible. Hopefully they will include the ideas that I want ;)

Everyone here has his personal Ideal civ in his mind. Fractions of this idea he/she tries to realise through modding the game. The impossible rest is in this forum. And if you thing that is complex wait to see the CIV5 Ideas Forum. Hopefully they will include sniper rifles and toss away the rest... :cry:
Too many Ideas? definitely! but still not enough... :)

Hopefully they will include sniper rifles and toss away the rest... :cry:


First person Civ? :lol:

Yeah, but it is fun to discuss them nonetheless. Since I discovered this forum I spend more time here than playing the game :lol:
@Dell19, hopefully they'll include my ideas :mad: ;)

First person Civ?
actually it reffers to a comment by Ybbor in the "Increasing..." thread ;)

Not sure if what i am about to say fits this forum but going to say it anyway.
After reading all the suggestions and ideas i came to conclusion.
If firaxis realisez just a fraction of the ideas we have Civ4 will be come so complex and complicated that we just will not want to play it anymore.
Those who ever played Master of orion may know this.
MOO1 was pretty good game for it's time, MOO2 was okay and still enjoyable,
then they release MOO3 with all the features and so much of extra stuff that killed the game. It is not playable, at least for me.
I certainly hope that Civ4 will have many nice features but you there is a fine line between many features that improve game and too many features that will definetely kill it.

I was thinking the same thing the other day. Also, some of these ideas (both the good ones and bad ones) will also change the the whole structure of the CIV feature.

Too many good features/improvements is not allways a good thing. For example, too much sun = skin cancer, too much sweets = cavities, too much Swedish Fish for the Sealman = :vomit:

Ok, since we all agree that not all ideas can make it into the game, let's erase the current postings and block this forum for further postings.

Better?

Nah just delete the ideas that the mods don't like... ;)

Clearly apart from trying to limit repeating threads there is no way of saying which ideas should actually be added and which ones shouldn't especially when these ideas can vary from just adding an old feature from Civ2 to expanding it to something that would have a major influence over the way the game is played.

I guess my orignal message was directed mostly to Firaxis.
I enjoy this forum and ideas that been posted so far and will be posted in future.
I just hope fellow creators from Firaxis will do a really good job on implementing those ideas. I didn't want to sound like this forum is useless.
I think it is great and I do hope people from FIraxis checking it out once in a while.

Our job is throw all those ideas at them and they should decide what they are going to take and implement. That simple it is. :goodjob:

Too many good features/improvements is not allways a good thing. For example, too much sun = skin cancer, too much sweets = cavities, too much Swedish Fish for the Sealman = :vomit:

Au contraire, there is no such thing as too many Swedish Fish.

Our job is throw all those ideas at them and they should decide what they are going to take and implement. That simple it is. :goodjob:

Precisely. At first glance, it does seem like there are too many ideas here, and it's true that if they tried to use any sizeable percentage of them, the resulting game would be unplayable.

But the people at Firaxis aren't idiots. They're professionals, and they know which ideas would work and which wouldn't. For all our debating about how this idea is kind of neat, and that idea sucks, and yon idea over there is so totally awesome that they simply must use it, the simple fact is that in the end, it's up to them to decide which ideas would fit their intentions of the game they're making. And we know that they read these forums, and that they value player input, so while most of these ideas won't get used, it wouldn't surprise me if some of them did get in. And if those ideas get in, it's because the people at Firaxis saw them and said to each other, "You know, that would actually work." But those ideas couldn't get in if we weren't here discussing them. So let's keep those ideas coming. :D

(With that in mind, I'd like to draw the attention of the people at Firaxis to a certain idea for implementing a system of provinces, which can be found here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=87761 The thread itself isn't very popular, but I know you fine Firaxians can recognize a good thing when you see it, and I feel confident that you will find much there to interest you. :mischief: ;) )

But the people at Firaxis aren't idiots. They're professionals, and they know which ideas would work and which wouldn't.

Obviously this forum is just to jump start Firaxis' brainstorming. If enough people talk about the same thing then odds are Firaxis is already considering tweaking that thing.

If you don't ask, you won't get.

Still asking doesn't mean you will get it... I usually like to see ideas where there has been some expansion on how it would be implemented as I feel this shows that the poster has considered how it could actually be added to the game...

I usually like to see ideas where there has been some expansion on how it would be implemented as I feel this shows that the poster has considered how it could actually be added to the game...

I completely agree. Unfortunately, my experience has been that the more thought has been put into an idea, the longer the post explaining it will have to be. And the longer a post is, the less likely it is to receive attention from the other posters. Most people simply don't like to read long, detailed posts. So the ideas that were given the most consideration before posting are typically the ones that end up being most ignored.

@Loaf Warden: That is why some of us are trying to consolidate some of the best ideas and put them into a single post. We are also hoping that some kind moderator will sticky it. This will permit those who have ideas to see if their ideas have already been posted (you would be surprised at how many repeats there are).

OK, I have said this elsewhere, but it does bear repeating here. I admit that I throw a LOT of ideas out there, and I equally admit that not all of my ideas appeal to everyone here on this forum. I simply put up what I would IDEALLY like in the game IF I could have 100% my own way in this. I am a realist though, and recognise that as much as 80% of my ideas will probably NOT get in or, if they do, get in a much less complex form. To me, though, even 10-20% of my ideas getting across the line would be soooo excellent!! Given that close to 40% of what I wanted for civ3 found its way into the game in some way, I think its a fairly reasonable expectation ;)!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Well i think everone here has similar ideas...There are some people that want the space wars...and colonization of space...that's just not practical...

Well i think everone here has similar ideas...

I humbly disagree. There so many mutually exclusive and impractical ideas here thatit would be impossible to get one clear picture of what people want.

Ah, but they're not just trying to get a picture of what people want, they're looking for ideas and new 'killer features'. Of course, a lot of that I'm sure they can think up on their own, but we're still here to argue about what we want.
And if we keep arguing, talking and chatting about the same thing, it's importance is accentuated.
For example, I think it's pretty unanimous that we want some sort of 'civil war' system back (From Civ2). There have been hundreds of posts on that subject. That's a flag for Soren & Co. that it might be something to pay attention to and think about.

Alas, the only two things that we are guilty about are:
1) we like the CIV series and want it to be better and better
2) we are all egoists and want "our" vision implemented

Both are fine till we become fanatical about our own ideas (look who's talking :lol: )

-kirby

Well i think everone here has similar ideas...

I humbly disagree. There so many mutually exclusive and impractical ideas here thatit would be impossible to get one clear picture of what people want.

Allow me to offer some parity.

There's a lot of disagreement. And when you get down to the smallest details, there's absolutely NO agreement except between groups of 3 people at a time.

But there's also quite a few things that people are agreeing on.

People are generally happy with religion, even if there's all kinds of ideas of what it should / will do. Almost everyone will argue about it doing more to tear people apart, while others add that it should have a greater role in building law and trust. And people can't decide if civs are born with religions, if they pick one, or if they make one up.

People want provinces -- even if they can't decide whether it'll add civil war, allow you to acquire vassals, or change the way domination is done.

People want more freedom in government -- but can't decide on the government types, the bonuses and penalties, or if there should be sliders allowing you to modify existing governments.

People are even cool with quantifying your resources -- but can't decide on if they should run out, what should happen if they run out, if there would be a technological solution to running out, or the economic implications of having a supply.

People want more uniqueness to civs -- but can't decide if that's more new units, new technologies, new traits, evolving traits, unique tech TREES, unique game-art, grouping civs together, or what.

Some people agree the game has boring parts, but can't decide if that's because of micromanagement throughout the game, the repetitive expansionist rush at the start of the game, the modern malaise of having no new frontiers to expand into, or if the game actually needs new ages altogether.

Everyone think espionage sucks the way it is, but don't know if that's means assassins or secret arms deals or installing your own puppet dictator, and some people think espionage is a waste of time altogether!

Everyone wants better AI -- but nobody can agree on something better than Civ 2 (unrealistically gangrape the leader) and Civ 3 (play so realistically that you don't care about winning).

Likewise for better multiplayer -- nobody knows what that will mean in terms of making the regular game run faster. You can't have a 250-turn 2-minutes-per-turn game and have a fun multiplayer game.

Firaxis should not even BOTHER trying to sort through the detalis, but they'll find new fans for the game if they expand any of those concepts in a word. ... and make the hardcore players happier than if they listened to every detail.

I really don't want too many changes for the next Civ. If Civ become TOO complex it might loose some of the fun.

I would just like to see Civ improved.....

Better graphics\battle animations
Better\smarter AI
Better\smarter diplomacy

A few new units
A few new Civs

A few new abilities, like building bridges over lakes and short areas of ocean, building canals...a few things like that.

That would make me happy.

It could just be a $20-$30 upgrade from Civ3.

With all the ideas combined (on this forum), Firaxis could make 10 new games :)

-kirby

With all of the suggestions on this forum, Firaxis has no excuse to not at least include a few novel concepts (whether in the form suggested here or of their own making is less important). Whatever happens, I hope that Firaxis recognizes that Civ4 better be a new version of Civ and not a third expansion pack for Civ3!

If they do one thing, I'd like to just see better AI. Less bells and whistles in thge end, let's work on making the Ai play better.
Afterall, in the end, we can pretty much mod anthing we'd like but the AI.

With all of the suggestions on this forum, Firaxis has no excuse to not at least include a few novel concepts (whether in the form suggested here or of their own making is less important). Whatever happens, I hope that Firaxis recognizes that Civ4 better be a new version of Civ and not a third expansion pack for Civ3!

Amen! I certainly hope you're right.

I feel that Trade-Peror makes a fairly good point. I for one do not post all of these ideas in the belief that ALL of them will be taken up in full. This is not only unrealistic, it would also be incredibly arrogant. Instead I just hope that, along with all the other ideas posted here, it will give the Firaxis a wealth of items to pick and choose from when deciding what goes into the next game :)!
As I have said previously, I also posted a huge number of ideas prior to Civ3's release, and about 30-40% of those ideas got through in one form or another-which I consider a good strike rate. If I achieve that again, then I WILL be happy :)!

I suspect that the ideas and comments are mostly entertainment for the writers and readers more than anything else...(besides bug complaints) When conquests came out it appeared that the makers neglected most ideas and came up with their own (which i believe is more important anyway...the guys creating this stuff need to have their own ideas, not pander to everyone else's. That destroys creatvity. )
and by the way...there should only be armies, no individual units, i mean when a civ was threatened it did not send out groups of men to counter the problem...it threw together an army...which would make the game more streamlined and would still allow for individual units to be made and utilized.

You mean somthing like the locking of units in Call to Power I Torytheface?

I think it is important we voice our opinions about what we want and dont want in Civ4. Such as combining Civ4 with a FPS and Future Techs (true ideas, check the forum)... most of the people on this forum do not want these.

One of my favorite FPS (yes i play FPS....so what?!?! I LIKE sniping people) Ghost Recon, was, IMO totally screwed over for its sequel, Ghost Recon 2... Im hoping that our ideas here on this forum might give the developers an idea of what REAL CIVERS want in a game... and what we DONT want.

So, while I have to agree that there are alot ideas floating around here... I also have to agree that keeping quiet would be much worse.

POWER TO THE CIV-gamers!!!

peace out

to Crimson- not neccessarily, but i think that style worked and in many ways made more sense in so far as the second rank bombarding first. But more importantly it is a way to reduce the number of units moving around-a part of the game that is not all that interesting after 20 seconds.

Whatever happens, I hope that Firaxis recognizes that Civ4 better be a new version of Civ and not a third expansion pack for Civ3!

They do. I suspect that those who want Civ3+more+more+more will be disappointed, but those who want a game that feels like Civ but with some new twists will be happier.

One of my favorite FPS (yes i play FPS....so what?!?!)


Hey, you won't hear a complaint from me. I play them too, as well as playing RTS games. But, I don't want either mixed in with Civ's TBS gameplay nor do I want Civ to migrate into either of these genres,

Thankfully, I think Firaxis realizes this.

With all the ideas combined (on this forum), Firaxis could make 10 new games :)


Only 10? I think it could be quite a few more.

I agree to some extent that if there are too many little things included in the game, it'll soon feel like too much and you lose interest. The thing is that it takes forever to learn it, but once you do you often come to absolutely love the game. I also think it comes down to how much you've played Civ1 and Civ2. There is a learning curve, where every game enjoys improvements. If you've played them all you've learned all the new things piece by piece. I'm all for improving the game as much as possible, but too many innovations at the same time can cause fatal confusion.

The problem with games is that if the first 15 minutes don't grab you and get you into the game, most players won't bother with the learning curve.

Firaxis can't cater only to those players who have played the previous civ games. If they did they would have a continuously decreasing market share. The game has to be able to be played within the first few minutes by those players new to the series if they don't want the series to plunge into a death spiral.

I'd be all for reforming the start of the game. Let war be something that happens right off the bat. This would piss off a lot of civ-loving players now, but a handful of people have suggested barbarian city states at the start of the game. I know as a civ lover, even if I want big changes, this feels a little drastic to me, and I'd rather see changes elsewhere...

But how compelling would the first 15 minutes be if you could just start pumping out a military and go invading? I think you'd get a lot more casual players into the game.

Agreed. Whats worse is its impossible to get a consensus on anything.

Why should it be possible to get a consensus with this many people? Would it even be a good idea? A consensus means that some people are agreeing just to move things forwards, not because they actually agree with what you are saying.

There is nothing in it for me to agree to anything on this forum just for the sake of getting a 'consensus'. In fact, if I am a dissenter on something that the majority agrees on, it is in my personal best interest to speak up against it.

In any case, Firaxis has absolutely no need for a consensus in this forum. They can ultimately do what they want (assuming the publisher likes it enough to keep sending money). It's their game.

I don't think pushing a consensus is important in the least. But you'll see that there's already a consensus on a few general ideas (until you get into the details).

The only thing that matters is there are a lot of people who want to see a killer new feature or two in Civ 4. Including the people who aren't on these forums, who didn't get hooked on Civ 3.

Those ideas can be inspired by talks on these forums. The details will not make it in, there's no way. But something like "more espionage" SHOULD be listened to, even if Firaxis does it in their own way (and I hope they do, since they're the ones most likely to think about user freedom, usability, and fun). They'd be foolish not to, when hardcore players and non-players alike could get into it just as a bullet point on the back of the box.

Box: "Civ 4, now with more espionage!"
Fanboy: "WHOA!!!!!!!!!!"

I'd like to think that for a presentation that dedicated a large segment to user cynicism, and reaching new audiences, they don't expect this to happen:

Box: "Civ 4, now with a new hat!"
Fanboy: "WHOA!!!!!!!!!!"

Okay, one thing I disgaree with is quantifying resources. Needless micromanagement. Sure it's realistic, but I don't care and I don't want it.

I also dissent on the very idea of provinces. Don't like it. Sorry, it wouldn't feel like civ to me if the emphasis was shifted from cities. (Not that it wouldn't make a good game, just not a Civ game).

So, in fact, I disagree with a quarter of your big categories (not the details, the whole category) that there is a 'consensus' on.

Soren, I'll buy you lunch at Andy Nelson's next week if you don't change these.

I have posted some ideas here and there, one of the things I wish to see is merchant ships, so that the navy will finally get a proper role. But the one thing I really, really want to see is supply lines. I can cope with all my ideas being totally ignored as long as supply lines come into play. But that's just an industrial age warmonger like me, I don't expect the lot of you to agree wholeheartedly. Still wanna see 'em nevertheless.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=85496

Fair enough. I gracefully retract the "consensus" stuff. But as you might see, those are some general enough categories that you could execute on half of them and people would be generally pleased.

Although as a side point, quantifiable resource resources is no worse than religion. "Sure it's more realistic, but I don't care and I don't want it."

We cannot even get a consensus on what we have a consensus on! :crazyeye:

Seriously though... I suppose you are right, there is no need for one.