Current topics

EddyG17 said:
Please would you to take a look at this therad[http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=97536 and see if you could added to your list.
Click to expand...

well, i woud added to my list, but that is gramitcaly impossible ;) but i did add it to my list, i thought i already added it to my list before though :hmm:


on a side note, you guys may have noticed a...decline...in the updates to the first 3 posts, this is because, quite frankly, just about every idea has been brought up, and those that haven't are generally, well stupid (let's customize what kind of pants our infantry wear, the germans could have overalls and the british could have trousers :suicide: ).
 
Hi ya ybbor,

Don't know if you're still doing this, but I don't think any one could of missed the following thread:

Worldreligions or Generic-only-Religions

I think this a great source on the topic of Relgion within the Civ. We might even come up with a concensus - which would be amazing but I have a hunch not impossible.

regards,

menwia
 
Sorry for off-topicness, but man Shyrramar, I'm a mathematician myself (will get the official title in 8 months or so) and I for sure do think that way now ;) lol
 
Okay, look.

It's a good thing to have one of these threads around, so that redundant topics don't get posted all the time. And you formatted / organized it well, too, with links. You did everything right, except that you overdid it.

When I was reading over this list, I though "Gee, this covers everything. Is there anything taht I am allowed to post about?"

The fact that you included like 70 things not to talk about means that 1) new people are less likely to read over a HUGE list, and 2) you are being way too picky :(

____________________
Here's my personal example:

Here you have linked to a thread about Victory Conditions, and implied that people shouldn't post new victory conditions, unless it's under that thread.

What happened to me was, I glanced over this, was daunted, and didn't see that link until now.

However, now that I've looked at the link, I've realized that my post wouldn't have fit in there any way. It's too long and detailed, and nothing at all related to the things that were talked about in the thread. If everyone posted long and detailed ideas for victory conditions in that thread, then it would get hideously long, and each post wouldhave nothing to do with the ones before it and after it. Which would make it completely unreadable. It would just be a random jumble of things :(

So, if there is a certain victory condition being over-talked about, then you should mention it, but not just link to a general victory conditions thread, saying "Post your victory conditions here, instead of making new threads." After all, contributing a completely new victory condition wouldn't be redundant at all, and deserves its own thread, no?

You should try cutting it down to, say, 10 (15 max)over-discussed topics, with links to the threads like you have them. This would make it more usable and realistic.
 
wakiki said:
Okay, look.

It's a good thing to have one of these threads around, so that redundant topics don't get posted all the time. And you formatted / organized it well, too, with links. You did everything right, except that you overdid it.

When I was reading over this list, I though "Gee, this covers everything. Is there anything taht I am allowed to post about?"

The fact that you included like 70 things not to talk about means that 1) new people are less likely to read over a HUGE list, and 2) you are being way too picky :(

____________________
Here's my personal example:

Here you have linked to a thread about Victory Conditions, and implied that people shouldn't post new victory conditions, unless it's under that thread.

What happened to me was, I glanced over this, was daunted, and didn't see that link until now.

However, now that I've looked at the link, I've realized that my post wouldn't have fit in there any way. It's too long and detailed, and nothing at all related to the things that were talked about in the thread. If everyone posted long and detailed ideas for victory conditions in that thread, then it would get hideously long, and each post wouldhave nothing to do with the ones before it and after it. Which would make it completely unreadable. It would just be a random jumble of things :(

So, if there is a certain victory condition being over-talked about, then you should mention it, but not just link to a general victory conditions thread, saying "Post your victory conditions here, instead of making new threads." After all, contributing a completely new victory condition wouldn't be redundant at all, and deserves its own thread, no?

You should try cutting it down to, say, 10 (15 max)over-discussed topics, with links to the threads like you have them. This would make it more usable and realistic.
Click to expand...


but if i want to learn about new victory conditions and contribute to the discussion, wouldn't it be easier to look in one place and find what everybody thinks about than have to go to a gazillion threads and go through every idea, having every other thread be a repeat of the prebious one, as opposed to just going to one thread and say i think out of all the ideas presented x y and z are the best?
 
Well, here's a link to the thread I made on Governmental Victory.here's the main victory types thread. Do you think what I said would fit there? I don't. If I copy-pasted my post into that thread, it would interrupt what they are talking about, and it seems way too long for a "reply." Now, if, say, 10 people did that, you would have a jumble of ideas, and people discussing some newer ones, while others are giving ideas for different conditions for earlier ones, and the topics that they are discussing aren't related. :crazyeye: Also, it would get 10 pages long, which would make me not want to read it. Especially if I have to determine which victory condition they are talking about.

Wouldn't it be better to seperate this into 10 clear, concise, focused threads about specific victory conditions?

I guess this boils down to a difference of opinion. I would prefer a cluttered forum with more, clearer, and smaller threads, and you would prefer to have a board with fewer, more cluttered, larger threads. And I prefer sifting through threads in a forum, rather than through posts in a thread. :(

I can definitively say that this list won't help new posters. (It didn't help me, and I'm fairly patient.)

Also, I don't see any other threads about victory types on page one of this forum, so I don't think it's over discussed. Back when I posted on the WorldofWar.net forums, Blizzard announced that the beta would be coming soon, and I would see five threads with titles like "When's the beta?" and "Is the beta out yet?" and "OMG I can't wait for beta!" on the first page of the forum! Which is why I think you're being too picky :) Perhaps I'm just used to worse.

It's not really that big of a deal whether you decide to shorten the list. Could you at least group the ++ ones together, at the top? That would be helpful.
 
Some threads for your list.

Seasons in Civ4 (you already have alink on this but there's a bit of discussion here so might as well post it). Call it, 'Climate Changes/Alternate Terrain:'

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=2557304#post2557304

RTS-Style Resources:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=2557241#post2557241

Resource Mechanism Poll:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=112109

(Not sure of this last one applies. I would add it only if there's any relevant discussion--you'll probably see it on the first page of the forum's thread list if there is.)
 
and a big thank you to everyone who made this thread work!

:thanx:
 
The developers expect Civ IV players to have a high spec computer. Why? Civ in all it's forms has appealed more to players who wanted a more cerebral game compared to shoot-em-ups and the like. That's why it has always been a turn based game isn't it? What about us poor Civ-Civ II-Civ III exponents? We always turn off/down as many non-essential features anyway eg battle animations and wonder videos and leader negotiations as they just get in the way of the game. Each successive Civ has seen more emphasis put on fancy graphics when the effort would have been better spent on improving the game engine. I hope that the developers will produce a stripped down version of Civ IV that will play on a low spec machine under Windows 9x. it doesn't need to look too fancy. Otherwise they will lose a lot of sales to long time Civ players who are not prepared to buy a new computer just to play a game. Remember that outside of the US (oh yes, there is such a place) computers are much more expensive, particularly when measured as a proportion of income.
 
Couldn't you ask a moderator to split of the messages from the 1st posts, so that would in fact strictly remain a list of suggestions sticky, with a separate thread for reactions to that thread ? Otherwhise you'll have your list continue on page x, instead of it being all grouped together.
 
Sorry Im new at this and dont know if this is the place to post this but here it goes... I think that workers should have some type of defense whether it be punching, throwing dirt in their face or just run away. And another one that bugs me is did we really build build The Great Wall b4 bridges??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Compilation of Civ 7 suggestions I have collected from Reddit:
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
The_goggles_do_nothing
T
kryat
Borders and True Diplomacy in Civ VII
Replies
1
Views
365
luca 83
luca 83
K
Top 10 setting I liked about civ 6
Replies
1
Views
231
Bonyduck Campersang
Bonyduck Campersang
Evie
Creeds, Prophets and Revolutionaries: Culture and Religion idea
Replies
11
Views
709
Boris Gudenuf
Boris Gudenuf
G
What should the Civ VII political system be like?
16 17 18
Replies
340
Views
18K
aieeegrunt
aieeegrunt
Top Bottom