1upt

[blightmoon]

Actually, I think the energies of the people here are better used in suggesting/ discussing possible improvements on gameplay or interface, particularly with regard to 1upt since that is the thread topic. That's the next move from that "saturation point", right?

I just posted a suggestion on another thread though.

 

[bitula]

Actually, I think the energies of the people here are better used in suggesting/ discussing possible improvements on gameplay or interface, particularly with regard to 1upt since that is the thread topic. That's the next move from that "saturation point", right?

I just posted a suggestion on another thread though.

Well actually I did suggest the so called sub-map combat, which would eliminate all problems of current 1UPT.

 

[bitula]

1UPT is probably the least controversial of the changes and have routinely polled well on this site as a feature.

I think what's controversial here is your tone and your very broad and still unsubstantiated claim that 1UPT is 'simplistic' and did I mention your tone?

Uhm, you know, this sounds like a personal attack on a forum member ...

 

[dexters]

Uhm, you know, this sounds like a personal attack on a forum member ...

Just calling an apple an apple. I've stayed out of your little rants/discussions because I didn't want to get personal.

As you noted (just now!) the beef you have with 1UPT is you can't stand people liking it. That unfortunatelly is not a good reason to say the feature isn't a feature or is simplified compared to SOD.

 

[CoolLizy]

Well actually I did suggest the so called sub-map combat, which would eliminate all problems of current 1UPT.

And introduce completely new ones. Personally, I don't really want to have separate tactical and strategic combat in the game.

 

[bitula]

Just calling an apple an apple. I've stayed out of your little rants/discussions because I didn't want to get personal.

As you noted (just now!) the beef you have with 1UPT is you can't stand people liking it. That unfortunatelly is not a good reason to say the feature isn't a feature or is simplified compared to SOD.

Ah, so you admit, that you've got personal. No problem, just wanted to be sure about that...

 

[dexters]

Ah, so you admit, that you've got personal. No problem, just wanted to be sure about that...

I admit i'm calling it the way I see it and as others have pointed out, the discussion is mostly wasted in you getting incredulous at other people's responses to your rants.


I could say a lot more if I got personal, trust me, I'm not. But if you can't stand criticism, you shouldn't be suggesting anything.

 

[bitula]

And introduce completely new ones. Personally, I don't really want to have separate tactical and strategic combat in the game.

There was a very long thread long time ago called how would you change 1UPT. There are tons of ideas there including the sub map. Others are for example, the packing and unpacking an army. I just didnt want to repeat it here, since normally I try to avoid redundancy, well unless its important to restate something because of the topic flow.

 

[bitula]

I admit i'm calling it the way I see it and as others have pointed out, the discussion is mostly wasted in you getting incredulous at other people's responses to your rants.


I could say a lot more if I got personal, trust me, I'm not. But if you can't stand criticism, you shouldn't be suggesting anything.

Sure, feel free to be personal, I dont care. Just asked it because of the forum rules, and you know, you just admit it yourself, which is strange... I didnt rant anything here, I thought I was quite creative. You confuse me with someone.

 

[blightmoon]

Well actually I did suggest the so called sub-map combat, which would eliminate all problems of current 1UPT.

Kind of like FF Tactics and the very old versions of Romance of Three Kingdoms (KOEI)? Interactions between more than 2 civs could be problematic to say the least.

I find traffic jams on non-combat units not much of a problem though, and may be fixed with some programming without much radical change in gameplay.

 

[dexters]

Sure, feel free to be personal, I dont care. Just asked it because of the forum rules, and you know, you just admit it yourself, which is strange... I didnt rant anything here, I thought I was quite creative. You confuse me with someone.

Your behavior has been less than admirable. You claim to be a programmer, but don't respect other people's work. You won't take no for an answer and your claims on 1upt are pretty ridiculous (or did you pretend the whole SOD vs. 1UPT argument you had didn't happen?).

I noted I'm calling an apple and apple, not that I'm getting personal. If that turn of phrase is too abstract for you, I'm calling you out.

 

[bitula]

Your behavior has been less than admirable. You claim to be a programmer, but don't respect other people's work. You won't take no for an answer and your claims on 1upt are pretty ridiculous (or did you pretend the whole SOD vs. 1UPT argument you had didn't happen?).

I noted I'm calling an apple and apple, not that I'm getting personal. If that turn of phrase is too abstract for you, I'm calling you out.

I just wonder how much personal attacks are allowed in a row... I do respect other peoples work, but anyway what does a programmer has to do with respecting other peoples work. You mean by definition a programmer is a person who respects other peoples or other programmers work? If I do not respect the work of XY person or programmer, then I am not a programmer you mean?

 

[Trias]

Look, Im talking about Civ4/5 1UPT and MUPT, and not abstractions of these notions or theoretically minimalistic implemetations of these which are not suitable for games. If you agree that these need to be handled by the player, and not just theoratical abstracions, then MUPT is harder to implement.

Hey, you were the one that said that we should not consider the coding implications for other aspect of the game such as the AI in considering the complexity of the feature. If you don't count the impact on the AI, then it is only reasonable that you also don't the impact on coding a user friendly UI.

And if you are going to count the impact on the UI, then you should also consider the impact on the AI and unit pathing. I think the troubles with this last two aspects in civ5, are proof enough that this aspects are much harder to implement for 1upt than mupt.

 

[bitula]

Hey, you were the one that said that we should not consider the coding implications for other aspect of the game such as the AI in considering the complexity of the feature. If you don't count the impact on the AI, then it is only reasonable that you also don't the impact on coding a user friendly UI.

And if you are going to count the impact on the UI, then you should also consider the impact on the AI and unit pathing.

But why? I mean I just dont get it. Why cant I say that A B and C constitutes feature X, while D and E are different features in themselves. Maybe you donot like this seperation, thats one thing, but most certainly a composite feature includes and excludes things. So if you have a better definition for 1UPT as a feature, you can make an argument for that. However I feel that seperating AI and Tactics from 1UPT is valid, because those are distinct features in themselves. Whereas mechanics, controls, GUI and combat aspect should be part of the feature, since these are the constituents of the feature and not worth discussing as a separate feature.

 

[Trias]

But why? I mean I just dont get it. Why cant I say that A B and C constitutes feature X, while D and E are different features in themselves. Maybe you donot like this seperation, thats one thing, but most certainly a composite feature includes and excludes things. So if you have a better definition for 1UPT as a feature, you can make an argument for that. However I feel that seperating AI and Tactics from 1UPT is valid, because those are distinct features in themselves. Whereas mechanics, controls, GUI and combat aspect should be part of the feature, since these are the constituents of the feature and not worth discussing as a separate feature.

I would argue that AI implementation is an essential part of the implementation of a feature. (Much more so, than non essential UI improvements that only serve to make the feature easier to use.) If there is no AI implementation for a feature, then the feature is useless.

But even if you don't count the AI, then there is still the unit pathing, which is an interface issue. I think you would agree that programming unit pathing with 1upt is considerably more complicated than with mupt.

 

[mercury529]

No problem Mercury, your style of communication disgusts me too Moderator Action: That's over the line now. and what you write is totally out of context, probably because you donot care to read the thread, just reply to isolated posts, which ofcourse you completly misunderstand.

I have read every single post in this thread, and I read your posts multiple times to ensure I was not misinterpreting you.

The message that comes across is that you believe 1UPT cannot be considered a feature because it is a simplification. You supported that by claiming it was easier to implement a system with a restriction (1 unit) than a system without a restriction (stacks). I explained, with an example, how the addition of restrictions often increases the complexity of a software project. Your argument seemed to suggest to me you were unaware of that fact.

You then proceed to tell me that you have 20 years of software development experience. Despite what should be a thorough knowledge of programming, you made dismissive statements about the work of talented professionals whose jobs you should understand the complexity of. And considering many of those statements were generalizations that likely do not apply to this specific instance, it is insulting to the hard work the developers put into this game.

But beyond my discontent with your insult to the development staff, I asked you to at least evaluate the complexity of path-finding and AI in an environment with the 1UPT restriction versus a stacked environment. You made no comment as to that. That is suspicious considering that if you are familiar with software concepts, you know very well it is more difficult to path find in a 1UPT environment and that implementing a successful and efficient AI is far more complex for a 1UPT environment.

 

[The_J]

Moderator Action: Everyone calm down, please...

Moderator Action: Everyone in here failed to follow this order. And if everyone doesn't listen, then everyone has to bear the consequences.
-> Thread closed.