Firaxis where you want to go?

[hclass]

After reading tons of request, suggestion, dispute:

1) I really learn quite in depth some aspects of CIV3. e.g. how corruption system work.
2) I notice while all the discussion go on in the forums, most of the time guys from Firaxis or ATARI remain silent. They might be reading the forum or they might not. Who knows?

So base on my experience (I normally just read) in the forum activities, I am very eager to put forward 2 questions (to the game developer/publisher):

Q1) Why so many critical info are missing from the game manual?
- How corruption system (and the anti-corruption improvement) works?
- How combat system (how can one predict the success) of the next attack?
- How goodies hut system work (what is the diff at diff level of difficulty)
- How culture flipping (or the prevention) works
- How espionage system (and how anti-spy, is there any?) works

* How can a newbie start and how come all these HOWs?

Note that, I am considering myself an average game player, like many others in the same group would definitely like to know the above. I am not interested to know up to the extent of complicated math formula but (at least) some guide to a fluent (not try an error) play. E.g. how can I know that a city is far enough from the capital to have only 1 shield boosted "if" a court house is built.

Q2) Where is the direction of future CIV game?
Game type
---------
- Single P.C. game
- Multi-player game (LANS)
- On-line game (INTERNET)

Game Flavor
-----------
- WAR is the major approach
- WAR will be discouraged
- Big empire and micro management is emphasized
- Only medium or small size map shall be fun

Most upheld player group
------------------------
- MOD maker type
- Civ guru (dig to math extend)
- Normal player (know only to pick favorite options, like me)
- Participants in the Civ tournament game

How the future game will be shaped rely on how and where the developer is going to emphasize.
In my opinion, some of the above choices are against one and other, e.g. to play CIV online, the game phase has to be quicker. Features that force (directly/indirectly) a quicker game normally would NOT be welcomed by single P.C. game player.
Another example, some features that must be removed for the shake of tournament game players can mean a removal of normal player's joy. (e.g. in my case, reveal map)

To me, the most important fact is to know the standpoint of the game developer. (If Firaxis has one and is quite clear on what is next) If the next CIV product is totally not my kind of game, I might as well save my time and effort now (and of course my money in the future).
What is the point of spending hours in the forum discussing something which the developer will definitely/eventually want to "remove" or "discourage" due to the direction they want to gear the game towards rather than the like or dislike of the players?

May be it has to be many versions: Civ4 on-line, Civ4 standard, Civ 4 with mod editor ...
Just buy the one you like and have a good fight in the corresponding forum, you won't waste your time!

BTW, I don't buy any of the CIV3 expansion because from the forum I know, most of the fun (features called exploits) are removed (they opt out my joy) and the corruption system can never be corrected or correctly aligned. (I am sorry for I think Firaxis needs a miracle to have it corrected in the near future)

 

[Padma]

First, let me say that the Developers do read these forums! They may not always say much, but I see them here quite often.

Next, I am not affiliated with Firaxis, or BreakAway Games, or Atari. However, I am a professional Software Engineer, and I have talked with the game's developers on these forums, and other forums, and in the chat. So while what follows is only my opinion, it is based on an understanding of what is really going on.

Q1) The reason that so much *critical* information is missing from the manual is two-fold. First, the manual is prepared and published while the game is still in beta-test. Thus, there are many changes that can occur to the game mechanics before it is finally shipped to the public. Second, the information you asked about is *not* critical to the playing of the game, or the enjoyment of it! What was provided in the manual is *sufficient* for most casual players. Those who want more in-depth knowledge either work the algorithms out on their own, or they come to places like this for assistance.

Q2) I believe they have indicated that Civ is *primarily* a Single-player game, although they try to accommodate the MP folks, as well.

They have also said, during the early days of Civ3, that they tried to give non-warmongers a better chance at playing the game well, as compared to Civ1/2 where the optimal strategy was to build Artillery and Tanks, and go stomp all the other Civs. So War is an important aspect, but not the sole route to victory.

Finally, they have said that if they cater to *any* group, it is primarily the "normal" player, especially those that don't even know sites like this exist! After all, there are far more copies of the game sold than there are registered users of the major Civ-related sites, combined! However, they will (and DO) support we *minorities*, to the extent it doesn't screw up the basic game.

It's a balancing act, and they try to keep all of us *Content*, even if they can't make us all *Happy*.

 

[hclass]

To Padma,

If your answer to Q2 is any way near the actual idea of Firaxis, then I am glad that I still have hope to see a really good CIV game in the future.

Let's wait and see...

 

[barron of ideas]

I could be wrong (of course I am wrong, just ask my wife) but if Atari's target market, at least for the extensions like Play the world and CIv3 Conquests where you have to have Civ 3 (vanilla) to play, isn't the kind of player who frequents these boards, who is it?

If it is a gamer who doesn't have Civ 3 (vanilla) now and a continuing interest in playing the game in new and challenging ways it sure must be hard to make the sale to the disinterested.

Maybe Amazon selling the game for $9.99 may make a few converts, but the majority of the sales at $29.99 plus tax went to you and me and the guys and a few superior girls who hang out here, or at related sites, who are crazy enough to play a computer game for hours and hours and hours. Just ask my wife.

 

[Padma]

But, barron, *most* of the sales went to people who don't frequent these forums. They went to Joe Average, who saw the game in a store, or saw an ad, or something, and thought "Gee, this looks interesting". The people who come here are the *hard core* types - the "civfanatics" if you will.

It's not that they are "disinterested", just that they either a) don't have an internet connection, b) don't know these forums exist, c) would rather play the game than talk on a bulleting board, or d) any of several other reasons.

For myself, I played Civ2, CTP, and CTP2 without ever knowing forums like this existed! I made sure I got every Civ-type game I could find, though.

 

[Turner]

Originally posted by Padma
For myself, I played Civ2, CTP, and CTP2 without ever knowing forums like this existed! I made sure I got every Civ-type game I could find, though.

Me too. My first game related forum was for Diablo2. And even then, I didn't post there much. I was on a Civ3 forum about two months after I started playing the game. I remember my first patch. . . that's what got me on the forums, and kept me coming back.

Civ2 I still play out of the box. I don't know what version it is, but I've got the MultiPlayer Gold edition. I'm not even sure how to check for the version on that!

But Civ3 got me started on forums, after a long time out of them. In fact, I still call them 'boards' instead of 'forums'. . .tells you how long it's been since I've posted online. Hey, at least I got beyond BBS!

 

[HamaticBabylon]

I'm from Firaxis and i will put forward some of the ideas on these forums.

 

[anarres]

Wow, impressive HamaticBabylon!

But what are you doing at Oxford University?

 

[webhsu]

i've been playing civ1 since i was in middle school. now i've been out of college for a few years and have just found this site! awesome site nonetheless.

 

[hclass]

To Padma,

"...I played Civ2, CTP, and CTP2 without ever knowing forums ..."

Since, you 've mentioned CTP and CTP2, I strongly feel the "design" of CTP games were much better in one particular area, that is the embodiment of various systems. e.g. trade has route and is visible on the map. My real fear in future CIV evolution is, they try to put everything on table rather than in the field/map. Lets count: diplomacy, espionage (I still remember the black guy in Civ 2, moves like a cunning mice) and trade and oh yes air plane movement too (instead of moving on the map, it become some sort of jumping among cities). What I mean is, all these should be made clear activities on the map rather than some pop up selection (espionage screen) or that kind of stupid interface like the CIV3 diplomacy screen.

Nowadays, there are fewer and fewer turn base games in the market, if I am not wrong, CIV is the only one where turn base strategy is being materialized on a detail map, it makes CIV3 so unique. But due to the laziness (if you don't believe ask the developer), since putting up list of choices or drawing a few circle of images (as shown on the diplomacy screen) cuts down a lot of developement time (so long as visual/display is involved), the game is developed by removing more and more of its play from the map. Sincerely, this kind of development attitude will eventually kill the game. I believe, every CIV 3 player found being intterupted in the game play since they are forced to check those thing mention every (two or three) turn.

 

[Padma]

Yes, things like the trade routes being visible on the map was very nice. I, too, would like to see something like that for Civ4. Having the important information at your fingertips (i.e., on the map) is a big issue, I think.

I have been looking at some of the source code used in the corruption calculations. I think I am breaking no confidences when I say thet the development team is looking forward to writing fresh code for Civ4, rather than trying to patch poorly designed/coded things that have already been patched multiple times. There are things like: "I *know* how to do what I want this to do, but it would involve ripping out a huge chunk of code and re-doing it from scratch!" They have neither the time nor the budget for that kind of effort in a patch. With Civ4, they can start fresh, and (hopefully) do it right the first time.

 

[Longasc]

I hope they find a better and more accessible solution to the corruption concept in further civilizations... sorry, could not resist.

Civ III gets old, but the map graphics are still pleasant to the eye. Now that is something that is really great, look at other games after two years...

... and the game itself is GREAT since... I got my first PC or so, impressive.

 

[Mano3]

I didn't find the forums until last year, and that was by accident by doing a Google search for CIV III tips. Before coming to the forums, I'd been playing since the CIV I days.

I feel CIV III is a definite improvement on the game, especially in the graphics department. Also, simplifying movement (stacks) and eliminating the caravan were great.

As for the marketing of the game, I'm a bit suprised at Padma's post about the 'average Joes'. To be honest, I only know one guy personally that plays the game and enjoys it. I find that most people dislike the game because they think it's boring because it lacks the action compared to RTS games. I can't keep up with most RTS games, so CIV is perfect for me. I've yet to find any other turn-based game that has the same appeal of CIV III.

CIV III is one of a kind and will never be a perfect game to appease everyone. You have to take it for what it is and adapt and overcome the shortfalls. If the glitches really bother you, mod the game or don't play it.

Just my two cents...

 

[Arrogant]

Originally posted by Padma
I think I am breaking no confidences when I say thet the development team is looking forward to writing fresh code for Civ4, rather than trying to patch poorly designed/coded things that have already been patched multiple times.

Patched code is not "worse code". It usually is "better code". Remember, bugs creep in new, fresh code. If we assume that they recycled Civ2 code to design Civ3, then I am horrified when I think of how buggy Civ4 is going to be if they write it from the scratch. It will certainly have lots of new features and all of them would be un-debugged

I'd prefer a handful of radically new features, and a lot of gameplay polishing.

 

[Padma]

Originally posted by Mano3
IAs for the marketing of the game, I'm a bit suprised at Padma's post about the 'average Joes'. To be honest, I only know one guy personally that plays the game and enjoys it. I find that most people dislike the game because they think it's boring because it lacks the action compared to RTS games. I can't keep up with most RTS games, so CIV is perfect for me. I've yet to find any other turn-based game that has the same appeal of CIV III.

You're right; I should have caveated that as "Average Joes (who like playing TBS games).

I was merely referring to the masses who buy and play the game without ever visiting sites like this.

 

[hclass]

To Mano3,

"Also, simplifying movement (stacks) and eliminating the caravan were great."
Do you find checking out (every turn or few turns) what trade has been done by all the AI players as GREAT?
Do you find testing out the minimum/maximum amount A.I. player is willing to accept or offer GREAT?
If your answer is NO (as I feel angry when first facing this kind of game feature), then I will say better keep the caravan.

"You have to take it for what it is and adapt and overcome the shortfalls"
It is this kind of opinion discouraging the improvement of any game. Praising everything Firaxis offered is stupid, and trying to come up with whatever there in the game is not much different from that.

"If the glitches really bother you, mod the game or don't play it."
You are a selfish Civ mod type player...

 

[thetyper]

Originally posted by Arrogant


Patched code is not "worse code". It usually is "better code". Remember, bugs creep in new, fresh code. If we assume that they recycled Civ2 code to design Civ3, then I am horrified when I think of how buggy Civ4 is going to be if they write it from the scratch. It will certainly have lots of new features and all of them would be un-debugged

I'd prefer a handful of radically new features, and a lot of gameplay polishing.

This is generally true when you are patching something for the same features. For example - Windows 95 to Windows 98 (OK - bad example )

It was my understanding that the engine for Civ III was based on Alpha Centauri's engine or an even older engine. While the games have similar concepts there are major differences. I've read on these forums where the developers have felt constrained by some of this old code that is lingering around.

To make it worse - they've gone through several teams of developers. So they are looking at code that is old and has passed thru several hands. As a semi-professional coder I can tell you that this is not optimal.

So yes - patched code is generally better code. But in this case I think there are enough differences between what the old engine does, and what we'd like the game to do now.

 

[wilbill]

Originally posted by hclass
Do you find checking out (every turn or few turns) what trade has been done by all the AI players as GREAT?
Do you find testing out the minimum/maximum amount A.I. player is willing to accept or offer GREAT?
If your answer is NO (as I feel angry when first facing this kind of game feature), then I will say better keep the caravan.

My answer to both questions is "No." But I'd much rather have an improved Trade Advisor interface that let me see what trades the AI's are involved in and a diplomacy screen that simplifies the trading process than revert to the arcane, clumsy caravan system.

"If the glitches really bother you, mod the game or don't play it." You are a selfish Civ mod type player...

Rather than either accept what Atari hands us or spend time complaining about the game, a lot of players choose to mod their game. It's not my preference, but I don't see that it makes them selfish. If anything, since they usually make their mods available to anyone who wants to try them, I'd say they're quite a generous group.

 

[hclass]

To Wilbil,
"... revert to the arcane, clumsy caravan system ..."

Caravan thing is not really good, but at least it is on the map. It is not my intention to start off this thread to discuss what is good or bad of certain feature but the game developer attitude for future development. So, if you get me right, then you should understand I am not suggesting a REVERT (instead, I use the word KEEP) of caravan. They should not have changed trade system at all if they really have not enough time or budget to come up with something better. In fact, I strongly doubt the BARGAINING way in trade screen is an idea of SID, it is most likely from an old lady or a housewife (who enjoy bargaining when shoping).

"... but I don't see that it makes them selfish ..."
So do I.
The word selfish is targeted at the phase "... or don't play it."
The author is telling those who prefer certain thing to mod the game or give up playing. I think even FIRAXIS who offers the game editor dare not say something like that. Instead they do offer options for user (it is however far less than what average players want).

 

[hclass]

Oh, sorry I have to make a correction to my opinion regarding the "options page" offered by Firaxis in Civ3.

It is not as simple as "it is however far less than what average players want" but:
EVERY player will find something he/she want, not in the option page.
Even for those who use game editor find things not available in the editor.

As of this writing, I still don't understand what is the different un/checking certain option. It is not explined in the manual, not in readme file (not on this planet)...