New Version - 3.10.14 (September 26, 2023)

[Zhao Yun]

What's your channel? Is it English language?

English language yes, but I didn't post my misgivings ystd to promote my channel. I wouldn't find it appropriate without explicit approval by the modders.

 

[CppMaster]

English language yes, but I didn't post my misgivings ystd to promote my channel. I wouldn't find it appropriate without explicit approval by the modders.

I doubt modders would mind promoting the mod, lol

 

[4CV]

Yeah I want to stress this, the congress proposals had nothing to do with the bugs. We have had large congress deployments before, with much fewer issues.

This has been a one-off issue for this version, and that's because the devs are garbage cleaning, pulling out bad buggy code and replacing it with the good stuff. But when you take out the garbage, you get a lingering smell for a little bit until everything clears up. Its a necessary evil to move forward with the next planned phases of the project.

I get that it sucks, but I think people are overestimating the problem here. This isn't some systemic issue where now every release going forward will have 12 versions, it was a one-off issue dealing with some nasty problems in the code. I am sure things will return to normal for future releases.

I suppose you're right in saying, the congress proposals are not causing the current issues and rising the necessary quote for passing proposals is not the way to make things better. But you could consider changing the fixed rhythm of proposal phases to a more flexible one, to get a sufficient playtesting phase in situations like this.

 

[Stalker0]

I suppose you're right in saying, the congress proposals are not causing the current issues and rising the necessary quote for passing proposals is not the way to make things better. But you could consider changing the fixed rhythm of proposal phases to a more flexible one, to get a sufficient playtesting phase in situations like this.

This I do think is worth considering, have we given people sufficient playtest time before the next congress considering the number of new versions? That I think is a reasonable question.

 

[pineappledan]

I second that we should extend the playtest window for this version.

I know that the congress workshop proposal thread is getting pretty long, but it doesn't feel like there has been enough time with a stable version of the last congress' implemented changes to charge forward with more changes.

 

[JNZS13]

Moderator Action: Please cease the argument.

what's your concept as moderator to define what argument have to be ceased?

 

[ma_kuh]

The elephant in the patch is the Tribute value formula, would it be worth considering a numbers update for this element before the next congress, if it's to be delayed?

I guess we just have a shortened proposal phase and we can otherwise stick to the regular schedule. Maybe we don't need an in-between patch.

 

[rkkn]

I didn't hit any playthrough-ruining snags, myself, so I don't think congress should be delayed
Did many people avoid playing 3.9/10 due to the stability issues?

In any case, definitely do think that a tribute change should be put forth at least, if there is a delay. I would also like to see the difficulty curve tweaking done as well (less AI bonus early, more late). Neither of those need delaying.

 

[azum4roll]

I think that congress could benefit from an increased threshold needing more than 50% like 60% votes in favor to pass a proposal.

Any changes in the game will have the potential to introduce bugs regardless of the excellent developers we have. In this way we can limit congress to only the changes that are really wanted and have more stability as a result.

This only works for pure single choice Yea/Nay polls. We're using approval rating and counterproposals exist.

I agree with delaying the next congress (4.0 is coming requiring a lot more beta playtesting), but at the same time can we push through changes that are probably universally agreed like nerfing tributes?

 

[Recursive]

Yeah I want to stress this, the congress proposals had nothing to do with the bugs. We have had large congress deployments before, with much fewer issues.

This has been a one-off issue for this version, and that's because the devs are garbage cleaning, pulling out bad buggy code and replacing it with the good stuff. But when you take out the garbage, you get a lingering smell for a little bit until everything clears up. Its a necessary evil to move forward with the next planned phases of the project.

I get that it sucks, but I think people are overestimating the problem here. This isn't some systemic issue where now every release going forward will have 12 versions, it was a one-off issue dealing with some nasty problems in the code. I am sure things will return to normal for future releases.

I suppose you're right in saying, the congress proposals are not causing the current issues and rising the necessary quote for passing proposals is not the way to make things better. But you could consider changing the fixed rhythm of proposal phases to a more flexible one, to get a sufficient playtesting phase in situations like this.

This I do think is worth considering, have we given people sufficient playtest time before the next congress considering the number of new versions? That I think is a reasonable question.

I second that we should extend the playtest window for this version.

I know that the congress workshop proposal thread is getting pretty long, but it doesn't feel like there has been enough time with a stable version of the last congress' implemented changes to charge forward with more changes.

The elephant in the patch is the Tribute value formula, would it be worth considering a numbers update for this element before the next congress, if it's to be delayed?

I guess we just have a shortened proposal phase and we can otherwise stick to the regular schedule. Maybe we don't need an in-between patch.

I didn't hit any playthrough-ruining snags, myself, so I don't think congress should be delayed
Did many people avoid playing 3.9/10 due to the stability issues?

In any case, definitely do think that a tribute change should be put forth at least, if there is a delay. I would also like to see the difficulty curve tweaking done as well (less AI bonus early, more late). Neither of those need delaying.

This only works for pure single choice Yea/Nay polls. We're using approval rating and counterproposals exist.

I agree with delaying the next congress (4.0 is coming requiring a lot more beta playtesting), but at the same time can we push through changes that are probably universally agreed like nerfing tributes?

Delaying the next VP Congress session would only be helpful if it were for the benefit of the players. There's roughly three weeks remaining until players would actually be voting, which I think is enough time for playtesting even with 4.0 around the corner. We had extra playtesting time this phase, and the instability has only been a thing for the past two weeks.

Proposers seem to have a lot of ideas already prepared, and if not, the garbage cleaning, as Stalker aptly put it, is a particular issue with this version, not the plan for the future. I was anticipating only a few hotfixes, not the 14 that ended up being needed, although the pace was rushed because I wanted to prepare for the 4.0 release, which will make modifications to the database for the upcoming session and any future ones much simpler (in addition to fixing numerous bugs).

I'm further disinclined to delay because there are clearly some major balance issues that were raised recently, such as tribute, difficulty bonuses, and multiple proposals for espionage, and I'd like for the community to have some say on this sooner rather than later. Selecting only proposals with widespread consensus would require voting to be sure. Estimating is the kind of contentious judgement call I'd rather not make.

I acknowledge the instability has been frustrating to deal with. Because of the nature of the problem (replacing the vast majority of the game's RNG, and making it multiplayer compatible, in addition to identifying and fixing numerous preexisting bugs) there wasn't really a better way to handle this, as otherwise there would be undefined behavior all over the DLL.

I've also been ill and dealing with some extremely stressful events in my life, which limited my ability to do testing myself.

There will likely be more garbage cleaning of this nature in the future, but it shouldn't be so widespread after 4.0, which will be the culmination of a lot of sweeping up. We've burned through many bugs recently and made progress on the backlog.

However, if this kind of instability is expected again, I'll make a separate beta version thread for those changes so that those who want a stable experience can stick to the current version. That seems like the simplest solution to this problem without reinventing the versioning system.

 

[Recursive]

what's your concept as moderator to define what argument have to be ceased?

I'm not sure whether you're questioning the specific argument I was asking for you to cease or my authority to moderate discussions.

People are welcome to express their views for and against the current direction of development, and I am not trying to silence that.

Imho, too much meddling by too many people causing too many problems.

1 contractor w 10 workers or 10 ppl that only gives opinions?

Comments like this, however, make the discussion unnecessarily personal, focused away from the issue, and thus derail the thread. Ad hominem (attacking the opponent, not the argument) discourages people from contributing, is not conducive to discussion, and is just generally unhelpful.

Under the CivFanatics site rules, moderators have authority to keep threads on topic and free of personal attacks:

Spoiler Rules Excerpts :

Spam
Spam is posting something that does not make a significant contribution to the discussion at hand. The forums are discussion forums, and it is therefore expected that posters will post in a way that contributes to discussion. It is also expected that new threads will promote discussion.

CIVILITY & DISCUSSION
A primary goal of CivFanatics is to promote interesting and useful discussion of topics that interest our members. Not being civil in your posts will result in you being infracted by the mods and could result in bans from the site or forum if you continue to post in such a manner after having been told to stop. Trolling, flaming, name calling and insulting are not permitted. Direct threats of violence to other posters, sincere or not, will likely result in an immediate ban.

Identifying flaming and trolling posts can be a very subjective decision depending upon the context. At CFC our moderators make the call on what is acceptable and what is not.

Flaming
Flaming is essentially posting something that insults, or is intended to insult, another poster. Flaming is not limited to only direct insults. Indirect insults, such as posts which characterize an opinion, a person or a group of people negatively are also not tolerated.

Examples:
You are an idiot.
This is a direct insult, and is not allowed.

Anyone who thinks [related to opinion poster is debating issue] is an idiot.
This is an indirect insult, and is not allowed.

Only an idiot would say that.
Again, this is an indirect insult, and is not allowed.

Everyone defending this is an idiot.
Again, in context this is an indirect insult, and is not allowed.

Flaming is generally limited to forum members. "Flaming" of celebrities or public figures etc. is generally tolerated, provided that the aim of this is not specifically to annoy supporters of that celebrity on the forums.

Trolling
Trolling is posting something with the intent to annoy or to generate a negative reaction from other people. It can be interpreted as anything for which it is reasonably foreseeable (in the moderators' opinion) that someone will react to it. It can be a very grey issue, and moderators will use their discretion and judgment. Examples of things that are generally considered trolling are as follows:
--Extending a negative issue to a wide group of people. For example, if one member of a group, religion, political persuasion or ethnicity does something bad, a post that implies that all members of this group, religion, political persuasion or ethnicity are similar, this is considered trolling.
-- Posting a very negative topic or post about a certain group. E.g,. "Why are all (race, gender, ethnicity, political affiliation) stupid / fat / boring" etc.
-- Discussing the person, and not the topic. Ad hominems are generally not tolerated. We want people to focus on the discussion topic, not on the people discussing it. As a guideline, if your post only discusses the person (eg. their opinions, their background etc.) and is not related to the topic, you may be considered to be trolling. Discussing the poster, when civil and directly relevant to the topic, may be tolerated.
--Using personal information gained about people to attack them, or to get them to react in an unrelated thread. E.g. if you know that someone has gone to a certain university, works a certain profession, or is a certain religion, making oblique comments about this may be considered trolling (even if you don't mention the posters specifically).
-- Mocking someone by copying their posting style, thread topics, spelling, language etc.
--Posting a thread on a controversial topic, but not posting anything that is really a point for discussion.
--Generally being rude. Being overly critical, or expressing your opinions in a rude manner.
--Passing comments on the style with which another poster posts, or the quality of their posts - stick to discussing the points they are making.

In short, be civil, polite and discuss the topic. If you disagree with someone's opinion, you are free to state why you disagree with it, but you must be polite in doing so.

You should not pass negative judgment on the quality of other peoples' arguments (e.g., referring to their opinions or posts as 'clueless', 'moronic', 'ignorant', 'stupid', 'fail'; etc). Some leeway is allowed to discuss the quality of peoples' posts or what you believe their intent is, provided it is not rude or abrasive ("Nope, you haven't convinced me", "You should post some evidence to support your position").

We also have a rule against public discussion of moderator actions (PDMA) for the same reason: it derails the thread by turning it into a discussion of the moderator action instead of the original topic. I'm responding here as my initial direction was insufficiently clear, but in the future, please take up issues with moderator actions in a Conversation with the relevant moderator(s) or by hitting the Report button.

 

[JNZS13]

Ad hominem

Ah...this...again...

Got it

 

[Anarcomu]

Ah...this...again...

Got it

I go from time to time in the Stellaris Forum (not so much lately), and indeed, some discussion turns as "ad hominem" and it is very frustrating. Like, I'm here for informations and opininons. Not to see people being hateful one towards the other.

It is easy to fall into that old trap, and it might be human in nature. I do think that taking effort to void it as much as possible is vital for the sanity and cohesion of any forum.

 

[CppMaster]

That's true, but also:

nah, just kidding.

 

[JNZS13]

im so sorry guys..illl talk to my shrink and work on this

 

[FinMc]

im so sorry guys..illl talk to my shrink and work on this

There is no better sign of an internet community's health than the ability to productively address and resolve disagreement.

Good stuff

 

[Recursive]

We also have a rule against public discussion of moderator actions (PDMA) for the same reason: it derails the thread by turning it into a discussion of the moderator action instead of the original topic. I'm responding here as my initial direction was insufficiently clear, but in the future, please take up issues with moderator actions in a Conversation with the relevant moderator(s) or by hitting the Report button.

I appreciate the realizations and constructively moving on, but let's stop discussing this topic now, please.

 

[Recursive]

Testing 4.0 now.

 

[ryanmusante]

People are welcome to express their views for and against the current direction of development, and I am not trying to silence that.

For what it's worth, you and others work on this mod unpaid and in your free time. I appreciate all of it. And I also appreciate that this forum is much more open and amicable than some Linux forums I used to frequent in the past. I can say I've never had any problems at civ fanatics. Even the lead forum moderators seem to be friendly and welcoming. They added my request for the option of gifting people subscriptions. Soon after (this was a few years back) , I purchased a few people in the sub community here with lifetime supporter status.

 

[Chorda]

Oof, I barely manage to report untill new version is on-line. The latest hotfix on espionage brought back spies to operate in foreign cities, but they don't provide any yields, despite of "success" in reports. It is still broken.
Also, defensive operation regarded "tune up defenses" is bugged too.

Spoiler img :