Stormrage
Ever Present Taskmaster
Wow, you can pick the setup of the tiles in your game? Cool!
About That Source Code ...
- Thread starter Ozymandias
- Start date
@Steph - I certainly don't doubt your skill, yet I believe you are seriously underestimating the effort to write AI routines.
As enough people (26 at the most recent count) are interested in whatever useful we can get, I'll try another run up that hill this week.
Best To All,
Oz
As enough people (26 at the most recent count) are interested in whatever useful we can get, I'll try another run up that hill this week.
Best To All,
Oz
Ares de Borg
Norman Knight
You have my support, for what it's worth.
Never under-rate moral support.
I'm not. What I'm saying is even if we don't change anything in the AI, we still need the full access to the source code. A "byte mapping" would not be enough.
Imagine we add "submarine" and a "antisubmarine" flags in the editor, wit the goal to give x2 strength to the antisubmarine against a submarine.
Even if we don't change the AI at all, we still need access to:
- The data model to add this flag, save it and load it properly in the biq file.
- The editor so we can actually set it.
- The combat function, so if (AttackingUnit == Submarine and DefendingUnit == antisubmarine) then DefendingStrength = DefendingStrength * 2) or something like that.
Then we can or not decide to upgrade the AI so it knows how to use this flag properly. But first it needs to actually have an effect in game.
We need the full source code to be able to propagate the changes we make in one place to any place where it is relevent.
If we get only an API (which probably doesn't exist), or just a bit mapping, we'll achieve nothing, except a big waste of time and a lot of accumulated frustration.
I'm not against pushing them. I'm against a compromise that would be inefficient.
We need all the necessary code to be able to really change or fix something. Not something that will be running on 3 legs, would be unstable and inefficient.
Of course I support any endeavor to improve Civ3 and add my morale support. However I agree with Steph you need full access of the code in order to ensure the AI recognizes and uses the changes. Even something as simple as making the AI resolve his combat turn by first using any bombardment units artillery, aircraft, ships prior to melee would be a vast improvement on the current AI combat engine.
I'd like to be clear.
I'm not saying we need the full access to fix the AI.
I'm saying we need full access so our basic changes actually do something, wether the AI knows how to use it.
Without this full access, the change may very well not even work for the human player.
I'm not saying we need the full access to fix the AI.
I'm saying we need full access so our basic changes actually do something, wether the AI knows how to use it.
Without this full access, the change may very well not even work for the human player.
I understand that, I was just posting one simple example. Since the AI uses a tree for decision making it should not be beyond the expertise of programmers to make that change with full access. I understand any changes made to the editor also have to be added to the basic game code in order for it to be applicable in game.
That's not sure. We don't know how the AI is working.
I think we can handle some AI changes, depending on how the AI is actually programmed, and what type of changes.
But we can probably correct some of the major flaws.
*sigh* I suppose you are correct. I was hoping that external subroutines and tables would allow us to achieve our objectives (i.e., that there's a semi-decent API or its equivalent ...)
Let me mull over how to proceed on this end; any and all thoughts and/or efforts along these lines are encouraged (my principal potential contact is on the Board of T2).
Best,
Oz
Gen. Rommel
Wüstenfuchs
I also say we hit them for everything...and I mean without any other ultimatum! It's obvious that they are currently not taking the fan community (which is going damn strong after all these years might I add) into consideration at all. I think Take 2 is showing considerable disregard for the people that essentially sponsor their further future gaming plans.
Let's stop being so nice, as it's apparently not working! Let's place a little more pressure on these guys, as they apparently don't understand who's the most important in the game development equation: the FANS!
I proposed we threaten with boycotting the company as a whole! We should SHOW them, not describe what possible consequences not listening to the fans could have. We are a big community, once they see this in plain letters, they'll surely understand that they should at least start delivering us some needed answers rather than leaving us sitting in the dark. How about a list of all the members ready to take the next step if they refuse to negotiate with us?
A list of people ready to boycott the company's products is MUCH more effective than a petition of peaceful civers "asking nicely" for some changes. Think about it, in the latter situation, we have no leverage what so ever. In the former, however, the funds/income of the company are on the line. Refusal to negotiate will result in the downfall of the company!
I am being completely serious, BTW. Boycotts have shown in the past that they can be extremely effective in the political spectrum (and this is indeed politics...politics in gaming). I wanted to throw the idea out there, because without enough support, this movement will die before it has started! Who will show their support?!?!
Let's stop being so nice, as it's apparently not working! Let's place a little more pressure on these guys, as they apparently don't understand who's the most important in the game development equation: the FANS!
I proposed we threaten with boycotting the company as a whole! We should SHOW them, not describe what possible consequences not listening to the fans could have. We are a big community, once they see this in plain letters, they'll surely understand that they should at least start delivering us some needed answers rather than leaving us sitting in the dark. How about a list of all the members ready to take the next step if they refuse to negotiate with us?
A list of people ready to boycott the company's products is MUCH more effective than a petition of peaceful civers "asking nicely" for some changes. Think about it, in the latter situation, we have no leverage what so ever. In the former, however, the funds/income of the company are on the line. Refusal to negotiate will result in the downfall of the company!
I am being completely serious, BTW. Boycotts have shown in the past that they can be extremely effective in the political spectrum (and this is indeed politics...politics in gaming). I wanted to throw the idea out there, because without enough support, this movement will die before it has started! Who will show their support?!?!
Yes! Let's start with the grand total of 33 people who have posted in this thread!
Oh, some posters posted several times...
Well, let's make it a grand total of 10 people who will not buy any more game from Take2!
I'm sure they will be terribly afraid!
I have a better idea. Send me a lot of contribution so I can work on my game, and recruit artists, then we'll show them what talented and dedicated people can do! Then, when we have sold millions of copies of our game and drain all their customers away, they'll be left with only their eyes to cry!
The contribution can be with graphics (terrain, units), ideas, and most importantly money! I need to pay for my next summer vacation in Tahiti!
Oh, some posters posted several times...
Well, let's make it a grand total of 10 people who will not buy any more game from Take2!
I'm sure they will be terribly afraid!
I have a better idea. Send me a lot of contribution so I can work on my game, and recruit artists, then we'll show them what talented and dedicated people can do! Then, when we have sold millions of copies of our game and drain all their customers away, they'll be left with only their eyes to cry!
The contribution can be with graphics (terrain, units), ideas, and most importantly money! I need to pay for my next summer vacation in Tahiti!
Gen. Rommel
Wüstenfuchs
You're thinking far too minimalistic! I was not only referring to the people that have posted in here...nor solely the Civ III community. I want a movement encompassing the thriving Civ community as a WHOLE, which means both Civ III and Civ IV. You'll ask, why would the Civ IV gamers care...well that's easy! Because they will surely have wishes and suggestions for Take 2 which they would like taken into consideration as well. We need merely get support together for people who want to be listened to, the details can be worked on later, with each group negotiating their respective terms. But with the kind of pessimism you are voicing Steph, I doubt anything will ever happen.
Virote_Considon
The Great Dictator
I don't think it would work, either...
I'm not pessimistic as a whole. I'm saying boycott is not the correct solution.You're thinking far too minimalistic! I was not only referring to the people that have posted in here...nor solely the Civ III community. I want a movement encompassing the thriving Civ community as a WHOLE, which means both Civ III and Civ IV. You'll ask, why would the Civ IV gamers care...well that's easy! Because they will surely have wishes and suggestions for Take 2 which they would like taken into consideration as well. We need merely get support together for people who want to be listened to, the details can be worked on later, with each group negotiating their respective terms. But with the kind of pessimism you are voicing Steph, I doubt anything will ever happen.
You will never find enough people tp make it work, and beside, if Take2 is not selling enough copies of their next game... How can they tell if it is because they were boycotted or because they refused to expand Civ3?
That's why with my approach toward Take2, I'm trying to present what could be the benefits for them, with virtually no cost.
Gen. Rommel
Wüstenfuchs
Of course everyone can agree with you here, and the approach is quite good...if the other party were taking the community seriously. I feel that they currently don't see our proposals as realistic and more like the pointless rabble of a naive little child.
If I was the leader of a nation, I don't think I would consider the proposals of a child either, even if he did have the answer to save my nation from total destruction (which wouldn't appear as the solution to me in that moment, since it came from a kid and is therefore uninteresting, from the perspective of an adult at least).
I can't see Take 2's opinion of us changing...why should it? Nothing has happened that should make them think differently of us.
What approach do you consider the more childish?
Approach 1) If you don't give me the source code, I'll won't be your friend anymore. I'll sulk. And I'll hold my breath until I become blue. Oh, and I won't buy your next game.
Approach 2) Trying to propose a business plan with analysis of cost / benefits?
Spoiler :
general-jcl
King
I would be rather of an intermediate opinion. Let's say that the amicable negotiation must last a certain time. Beyond a reasonable delay, if the civ3 community is always ignored and that all things remains in the dead end, it is necessary to consider less "friendly" means as the threat to make the reverse engineering on the code. It would be regrettable to envisage this last solution but in my opinion, it is the only case where little conciliatory interlocutors would consider to negotiate in the hope to harvest a little money of a code that, anyway, will escape to them. This measure is a lot more efficient than a boycott. People like skyer is probably able to do that...
Reverse engineering is not worth it.
It would be much faster to make a new game.
I know. I tried both.
It would be much faster to make a new game.
I know. I tried both.
