New Founding Cities Mechanic [IMPLEMENTED]

Discussion in 'Civ4Col - We The People' started by raystuttgart, Dec 30, 2019.

?

Should new "founding cities mechanic" be implemented?

  1. Yes, it adds the need of strategical decisions and more realism.

    78.8%
  2. No, it is just tedious and difficult to understand for new players.

    21.2%
  1. Red velvet

    Red velvet Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2020
    Messages:
    5
    Why not create a new wagon unit which requires resouces to build then require the unit to be filled with a colonist, food, and tools. The food and tools are consumed every turn it moves. If it runs out of food/tools the unit dies. You could make cost dependent on the terrain and variable. This would truly simulate the pioneer experience
     
  2. raystuttgart

    raystuttgart Civ4Col Modder Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    7,516
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Stuttgart, Germany
    Well, about your concept:

    A) It is much more complicated for Players than equipping a Profession (as Players are already used to do for e.g. Pioneers)
    B) It would be way more effort to implement even the basic functionality - not even speaking of teaching it to AI

    And also, it is simply too late:

    A) devolution and myself - both understanding AI and both working on AI - agreed that the current concept is technically the best solution
    B) Schmiddie already created all graphics necessary
    C) I have already created the technical concept for this and even started implementing parts of it
    D) devolution is already deeply digging into AI code to figure out all places in code we need to adjust

    General Comments:

    This feature should simply get rid of "city spamming" by introducing some cost (in terms of equipment).
    Thus introducing the need of strategic decision to invest in new settlements or something else.
    We try to do this in an "immersive way" without "building Humans", without "beaming goods" and without "simply paying boring gold".
    • This feature is not meant to become tedious by making founding of cities too expensive or too time consuming.
    • The feature should not be difficult to understand or use. (A Profession is really simple to use.)
    • The feature should not be impossible to teach AI. (By using a Profession, we can still use some standard AI logic patterns.)
    • This feature should not ruin stability or performance. (We avoid implementing overly complicated logic.)
    • This feature should blend smoothly in RaR / WTP architecture and game design. (Professions reflecting "Jobs", Units reflecting "Skills", ...)
    • An implementation effort of about 32 hours is acceptable to me, 80+ hours is not
    We have thus long discussed and chosen a well considered concept.
    We also tried to listen to feedback of community and discussed and explained our reasons.

    Summary:

    Yes, like always there is personal taste (of the team) involved as well even though we listened and explained to community. :dunno:
    To a huge degree it is simply also about effort and motivation of the modders that have to implement it.

    Realistically - since we have already started - the only thing to stop this concept now is a veto of a team member.
    (And if a team member gives a veto the whole idea will most likely simply be dead - no alternatives will be implemented either.)

    Thus there is simply no point anymore in questioning the general design concept.
    The choice is reduced to "Yes, I want this" or "No, I do not want this" :dunno:

    The only things that might still change are small details (like balancing of equipment needed, "some easier rules for AI", Colopedia texts, ...)
    But in the current phase it is way to early to discuss these details because we first have to solve much bigger issues (especially AI).

    If team and beta-testers (some of our most loyal community members) do not like the final result however,
    this feature will not be integrated into WTP core-mod.

    We will give it a try though and are confident that this will be a cool feature. :)
    (First tests of gameplay for Human already feel good but we still have the challenge to teach this to AI.)
     
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2020
    Schmiddie likes this.
  3. raystuttgart

    raystuttgart Civ4Col Modder Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    7,516
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Stuttgart, Germany
    It is implemented now and working fine so far. :)
    (Until now all tests positive.)

    It is currently in internal testing though.
    (Also I still need to write some texts for Colopedia.)

    AI uses the feature (Profession "Settler") and is founding its Settlements nicely.
    It also equips enough Units in Profession "Settler" so it also founds enough Settlements.

    And actually there are even some really positive side effects for AI.
    (e.g. AI does not waste more valuable Professions like Pioneers for founding Settlements anymore)
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2020
  4. raystuttgart

    raystuttgart Civ4Col Modder Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    7,516
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Stuttgart, Germany
    @team + supporters:

    Please test
    this new feature and give me feedback. :thumbsup:

    For further Infos see team chat.
    You will need to start a completely new game.

    @community:

    Let us first do some more internal tests to check if details like balancing and texts are ok.
    Most likely we will have further small updates in the next days anyways.

    Without knowing how to compile yourself there is no way to try to grab this from somewhere.
    So please do not try it for now. Just have a little patience please.

    If I involve too many people in such an early test phase, it will take me too much time to communicate, provide DLL updates, collect feedback ...
    Meaning for the moment I would prefer to have this only in the hands team and supporters that contribute in some way.

    If the team is happy with this, we might simply publish a new Release 2.8.1 in a few weeks, when some other things are finished as well.
    (We have already had some small other improvements and several small fixes as well.)
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2020
  5. Andrefab

    Andrefab Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2016
    Messages:
    2
    Hello. Newbie here. (multidecade Colonization player though).

    This is a very interesting thread. Though I think excitement and challenges have made this endeavour a bit too enticing for your team of awesome developers. Pioneering needs to be looked at for what it was and not what it does to gameplay, at least from a philosophical perspective. All sorts of professions were pioneers, and the idea that a city is what is being founded is not entirely true. A doctor looking to leave Europe may have set up a homestead, all by himself. Then others would be drawn to that location. But in the beginning, he was not versed in pioneering at all. (This distinction is already easily defined in the differentiation between a PIONEER (caps for ROLE/bold for the profession) and a Hardy Pioneer. There are the obvious other examples of the NATIVE TRADER, INFANTRY, COLONIAL MILITIA, etc vs their respective advanced professions.

    So from a completely non-programming background, the idea of anyone becoming a SETTLER just needs supplies and a penalty. The penalty is turn-based. A fraction of resources for a length of time, which will be reduced if there are additional newcomers to the colony before the time period (X) from the founding of the settlement reaches some arbitrary point. You could go further and get rid of place holder settlements, by having settlements that do not grow within a specific period could be forced to die. ( Would be cool if they remain for a period time as ghost towns and can be repopulated. But I digress.

    Settlers are not this hard. all the structure for them exists, there is evidence of adding new ROLES and professions relatively easily. There is even the ability to define which who has permissions to found a Settlement.

    To take it a step further, you create a "Settlers Wagon" as the definitive unit, that can carry a person (any profession) modified to SETTLER. With two cargo spaces for wood and food. Without all this, you start at a the lowest place

    BASECAMP
    TOWN
    ETC...
     
  6. raystuttgart

    raystuttgart Civ4Col Modder Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    7,516
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Stuttgart, Germany
    The feature is already implemented as planned and explained in the concept. :)
    (And again, the concept was chosen for very good reasons.)

    I suggested a concept that I could implement with reasonable effort and it works fine (in all tests so far).
    It is still in internal testing and improvement phase though.

    There is simply a limit in complexity and effort that is realistic. :dunno:

    The main limitation is AI - simply because it is not as smart as a Human player.
    But AI was implemented to be able to understand and use this concept as well and seems to be working fine so far.

    If anybody feels that he can implement a better concept, go ahead. :thumbsup:
    (Including to implement it in a way that AI understands and can handle.)

    Summary:

    Either it gets integrated into WTP core mod - as it is - or not. :dunno:
    (Of course bugfixes and necessary improvements will be done according to our test phase.)
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2020
  7. Juku Salonen

    Juku Salonen Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2017
    Messages:
    19
    I see that the current implementation ignores this aspect completely, perhaps for good reasons. Would it be too much to ask for an option to have settlement take time, similar to how pioneers work? Could be a global setting, could be something in the profession's XML file.

    If you have concerns about the AI, you can just have it as human-only. Maybe even a difficulty option, like the one-city challenge. Although I don't know if the AI is going to be significantly affected because the colony now takes some more turns to complete. Are there even any routines that assume a colony is founded instantly?
     
  8. raystuttgart

    raystuttgart Civ4Col Modder Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    7,516
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Stuttgart, Germany
    No sorry, I am against that. :nope:
    (I first considered it but for good reasons, e.g. effort, balancing and potential side effects / bugs I decided against it.)

    The current "Settler Profession" needing equipment should really be enough. :thumbsup:
    Let us please not overexagerate and make it more difficult than needed.
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2020
  9. Juku Salonen

    Juku Salonen Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2017
    Messages:
    19
    Not enough for me. I want more obstacles to my imaginary imperialism. :D And I didn't ask for this feature to be turned on by default.

    Well, given that these minor features seem to be implemented according to whatever takes your fancy, I guess I'll have to live with it. I'm not setting up a C++ dev environment and maintaining my own branch of WTP for just one feature. :undecide:

    Unfortunately, the only 'good reason' I can see is effort. Perhaps extending pioneer code that way is indeed more than it's worth to you for a feature you don't like or want, and being semi-retired as well. Can't fault you there.

    On the other hand, balancing can be waived by considering it an additional difficulty option, just like there's no balancing for one-city challenges or the 'only one colonist can learn at native villages' option.

    Edit: I also didn't ask for it to be balanced. There are other options that are purely there for the challenge or just because. Always war/peace, one-city-challenge, no goodies, no events, no animals, etc.

    And the 'potential side effects' thing is much bigger from just this feature existing, not a minor refinement. As far as I can tell, this reasoning is used against features you don't like and ignored for things you do like with little rhyme or reason, so you could have just outright said so and left it at that.
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2020
  10. raystuttgart

    raystuttgart Civ4Col Modder Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    7,516
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Stuttgart, Germany
    Please accept that our time is also limited and I do not want to implement stuff that is bugged and later on causes lots of trouble.
    So yes, effort and side effects / bugs are good reasons.

    See, I try to give team and community features they like, but yes I have personal taste as well.
    So absolutely true, I will not implement things that I do not like.

    Being able to also fulfill your personal wishes is one of the privileges and sources of motivtion of being a modder yourself.
    I try to explain my reasons though and I am also not forcing things into the mod if community majority and team do not like it.

    ----

    Every team member can simply say "no" to a suggested feature or change.
    (That is not my personal privilege by the way - every team member has it.)

    This feature as it is was accepted though. :thumbsup:
    (And I really do not want to make it more complicated.)

    And so far the player feedback was also really good. :)
    (But of course every player has a slightly different personal taste.)

    ----

    What else should I tell you? :dunno:
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2020
  11. Juku Salonen

    Juku Salonen Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2017
    Messages:
    19
    That you don't have the motivation to do something that you don't consider a net gain and that it will mess up your current testing schedule. These are all the actual reasons for it, and they are enough. I've been on the same side of the equation sufficiently many times now that I have no issues with that.

    But hiding behind
    while the actual explanation is the same list of 'bugs, balancing, effort, personal taste, team vetos' with no elaboration whatsoever, time and again, wins you no friends. :(

    Edit: For example, this
    is at least halfway untrue, since the community hasn't said a peep about the proposal yet. It hasn't simply come up in the thread. I don't know about your internal discussions, of course.
    /Edit

    I think I've written a small novel's worth of actual explanations for my current mod. This has helped me learn from player feedback, fix issues I didn't think were issues due seeing them from another perspective, and repeatedly said that if they really want something I dislike, they'll have to do it themselves. And helped them do it if they wanted to do so, even added similar 'hidden' options to ease the process. The whole thing is of course massively easier than modding Civ4Col since the whole game runs primarily on Python and is its own compiler and interpreter. And no AI. :badcomp:

    Edit2: I'd also like to think it's made the game more accessible and more fun, since not everybody code-dives. But, eh, who really knows? :undecide:
    /Edit2

    I acknowledge that I might have weird taste and weirder obsessions, including bugging people to actually do what they claim to do, but I don't think that you're all that different in this regard, either. :p
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2020
  12. raystuttgart

    raystuttgart Civ4Col Modder Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    7,516
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Stuttgart, Germany
    See it is very simple:

    If you have ideas that we do not like we will not implement them. :dunno:
    If you have ideas that we like we will consider to implement them, when we find time and motivation. :)

    Please do not try to talk me into implementing your personal taste if it does not fit my own personal taste. ;)
    You would really be wasting both of our time.
     
  13. Juku Salonen

    Juku Salonen Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2017
    Messages:
    19
    Yes, I think that's my entire problem with the the way you communicate. You leave the impression that you're seeking feedback when you're only after validation. :(

    Fortunately, from what I can tell, it doesn't extend to other members of the team.

    Well, I think we can consider this matter closed. Instant settlers it is.

    P.S. And I do appreciate all the things you've done. From what I can tell, you're the main person behind these small but neat additions that visibly add spice to the mod. We just seem to have irreconcilable differences on how to communicate and what a modder's responsibilities are. :undecide:
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2020
  14. raystuttgart

    raystuttgart Civ4Col Modder Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    7,516
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Stuttgart, Germany
    Maybe. :dunno:

    To clarify the responsibilities:

    No team member will be forced to accept something to be added to the mod that he does not like.
    Every team member can give a "veto" anytime to a suggestion. We only implement things that all of us agree.

    We try to listen to community suggestions and to figure out if we like them - but there is absolutely no obligation to actually implement them.
    Nobody has to work on something that he is not motivated to work on. Modding is for fun and only works voluntarily.

    We agreed that if community majority does not like a feature suggestion or change, we will not add it to the mod.
    But even if community majority likes a feature suggestion a single team member can still say "no".

    ----

    Of course we try to stay friendly and polite in communication and keep good contact to community.
    But we are also open and honest and at least try to keep our promises.

    What is wrong about honestly saying "No, I do not like it and I do not want it in the mod."? :confused:
    Should I lie to you? And the reasons I gave you as explanation are also valid.

    I can fully understand that you do not like that answer.
    But please accept it anyways - because it will not change.

    ----

    We have never made a secret out of it that team members have the last word on feature and change decisions.
    We are not paid for this, we do it in our spare time for fun.

    It is pretty simple actually and ensures that all team members stay content and happy with the mod we create and thus continue modding on it.
    It also ensures that community will generally like the mod we create, because we will not force features into the mod against "community majority".

    ----

    We simply try to make both team and community happy - fulfilling all personal tastes is never possible though.
    It is also not possible to make community happy for the cost of a team member becoming unhappy.

    Anybody who wants to implement features or changes of WTP that we do not like can always create a modmod.
    He can of course also publish them himself if he gives appropriate credits. :thumbsup:

    ----

    Those are the responsibilities we have - nothing more. :thumbsup:
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2020
    Schmiddie likes this.
  15. Juku Salonen

    Juku Salonen Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2017
    Messages:
    19
    As I said, we have irreconcilable differences of opinion.
    Spoiler Opinions no-one cares about. :
    Mine is that if you release a mod - as opposed to just doing it for yourself - and solicit feedback, you should listen to it and actually engage people who provide it. That's one third of why I don't want to create a modmod for WTP.

    Yours is 'we do what we want and read feedback, but don't really want to discuss it'. I guess yours is essentially the industry standard for game developers, so I can't exactly fault you there.

    I just wish you didn't go about leaving the impression that you're actually interested in discussion. My fault for taking it so seriously, probably.

    Nothing, as I've said twice now. That's not (all of) what you did, though.

    Maybe they are. Zero argumentation for most of them, though. That's what I don't like, the 'trust us' mentality that's gotten so many gamers permanently suspicious of such statements. I'm perfectly capable of judging whether your arguments about game balance or workload work or not, your code's public and I've played the mod before.

    Could possibly help me decide if I really, really want to do it so much that I end up forking WTP because there's only modder dislike blocking interesting stuff, instead of what I'd consider actual technical or balance issues. But your posts have nothing but 'because reasons', while you're definitely in a position to explain much better. I don't think I've actually ever seen or heard someone's words match that meme so well. :wow:
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2020
  16. Nightinggale

    Nightinggale Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Messages:
    4,934
    I disagree. I don't recall having seen "the quest for validation". In fact I see lots of proposals and quite a number of them are changed or discarded due to feedback. In fact we set as a goal to get the community more involved.

    What I see here is objections after we agreed how we would want this to work and after the feature has been coded. If you want a build a house, you don't tell somebody to build a house for you and then it's done, you will tell if you want it or not. Instead you tell how you want the house to be. It's the same here. The feedback phase is mainly prior to coding starts.

    Bugs and balancing are major issues. We will ruin the game if we ignore those. Maybe you won't notice because we don't screw it up, but you will if we do. Effort is also a major issue because we have works for years to come because the number of modding hours every week combined is far less than what we would like.

    Lesson 5: don't confuse "interesting" with "fun".
    You argue that this is how it should be mainly because it's more historically accurate. Maybe, but where is the fun gameplay? I don't like this for the gameplay value. Also I don't like the coding part of making this optional. It may not be as trivial as you would expect.

    We are trying to get rid of human only features and we already removed the one-city challenge.

    The lesson is from here (starting at 14:36)
     
    raystuttgart and Schmiddie like this.
  17. Juku Salonen

    Juku Salonen Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2017
    Messages:
    19
    Well, apparently the team is unified in this. I really hoped they were more open to discussion, but well, can't have everything. :( At least the mod's good.
    Spoiler More opinions no-one cares about :

    If you can't see that this, for example, is essentially an echo chamber as far as discussion goes, nothing I say will convince you otherwise. Your mod, your community, your rules. But this pretty much kills any desire of mine to become a part of any of it.

    I wasn't here during the agreement/brainstorming (which of course means nothing from your POV), but that kills your house analogy stone dead. All I asked for was a challenge option that's only loosely tied to the whole concept. Heck, I'd have wanted it even without the settler profession itself. I objected to none of what's already present.

    Sure. I just spent a few hours fixing mine. But a blanket statement 'There might be bugs and balance issues, therefore discussion is closed' is in extremely poor taste. You can argue anything that way. Flying pigs, no flying pigs, a Donald Trump cameo, DT as a FF, the string "donald" banned from the codebase, etc etc etc.

    Yes, and I would have taken that as an answer in itself. And I'd have appreciated an additional technical elaboration like 'pioneer code is operating on incompatible assumptions like [this] and [that]'. From a brief code-dive, it really doesn't look like this is the case, but I could be very wrong here. Or a game designer answer like 'animals will kill your first colony before it's built, then'. Something. None of that happened.

    Unlike many people, 'interesting' and 'fun' are very closely related for me. :crazyeye: I didn't ask this to be enabled by default, either.

    Moreover, difficulty levels/options etc are by nature more in the "fun because it's interesting" camp rather than "fun because it's engaging". MTG is also a social and commercial game, which WTP isn't, so the analogies don't carry over fully.

    And are pioneers "fun" or are they not? I didn't just propose a wild idea, like Andrefab. That I can agree was excessive complexity for complexity's sake, with little precedent in the game.

    Where do you get that? If I've given any reason for wanting this, it's this:
    Historical accuracy is just a bonus.

    Waiting for the good stuff. Anticipation. Do you open all your presents three days before Christmas?

    It's much more immediate than for pioneers, too, since you only build a limited number of cities and each of them noticeably changes your progress in the game.

    What are your reasons for disliking it?

    For a practical reason, or for code unification/aesthetics?

    I didn't ask for a feature, I basically asked for a game option/difficulty setting.

    It looks like you want the game played in a less freeform manner, then. Goes against the modding ethos of 'making impossible things possible' IMHO, but it's your mod.

    TLDR, your reply is brings nothing new to the table, since it's basically a rephrasing of Ray's position of "We do stuff we find interesting, when we like it, and we won't discuss anything in detail, either". Sure, I do the same thing, but I at least explain my designer thoughts behind including or excluding something, and I occasionally change my mind because players show me I was wrong.
     
  18. Ramstormp

    Ramstormp Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2020
    Messages:
    116
    Gender:
    Male
    Very interesting and fun video. I liked:
    "Stop worrying about evoking a negative response, and start worrying about evoking a strong response."

    & for my limit loving self:
    "Restrictions breed creativity."
     
    raystuttgart likes this.
  19. raystuttgart

    raystuttgart Civ4Col Modder Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    7,516
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Stuttgart, Germany
    Ok, I will give some explanations. :thumbsup:

    Spoiler :

    1. I really do not like it for gameplay reasons - but ok it is simply my personal taste.
    (I just do not want to wait for X turns until the City is founded - and from what I have understood other team members agree.)

    2. The effort for this "delayed founding of a settlement" is much higher than you might expect.
    (I would probably be busy for at least a complete weekend - which I am simply not motivated to do for a feature I do not even like.)

    3. We can not simply give "Pioneer Code" (or something similar) to a "Settler" without adjusting UNITAI_SETTLER (which AI and automated Player Units use).
    (It is possible of course, but it is a lot of effort.)

    4. While the "Settler" would be busy establishing the Settlement it would be completely unprotected and an easy target for attackers - e.g. Wild Animals.
    (Again, a Human Player can most likely handle it, but AI logic for that additional strategic consideration does currently not exist.)

    5. There are several small features attached to "founding Cities" - e.g. when the City is founded (the command is given, e.g. "B") there is a feature triggered,
    that checks if the City would be built on Native Terrain, how many plots it would take and then starts a Diplomacy Dialogue for "buying the land".
    Thus changing the "founding Cities" logic could and most likely will impact several of them and could cause bugs or cause them to simply not work as desired anymore.

    6. A "Game Option" would not solve any of these issues, because even if we implement it as a "Game Option" it should still be bugfree and working for AI.
    (Game Options do not mean that we can release them in bad quality - they still need to work.)

    7. We had a discussion about "Game Options" recently and all of us agreed that we want to limit their numbers for Player customization we consider valuable for gameplay.
    It is also related to the fact of offering such choices causes additional effort to implement, additional effort to maintain and additional effort to analyze bugs.
    (Thus simply adding a "Game Option" carlessly is nothing we will do.)

    8. All of us agreed that we will not add further "Human only" features and are trying to remove all "Human only" logic step by step.
    We got a lot of feedback from other Players as well that they felt like that was cheating by AI.
    (So adding more "Human only rules" is also an extreme exception we will also not make carelessly.)
    ....

    ------

    Summary:

    This "minor refinement" (as you called it) of "delaying actual settlements" (similar to a Pioneer Action taking time) most likely will:
    • negatively impact my personal gameplay experience
    • cause massive efforts (code changes and later fixing bugs)
    • negatively impact AI and thus damage gameplay
    • cause lots of side effects to other small features
    And again, a Game Option is something we do not want to add carelessly.
    (Yes, for personal taste we could turn it off, but it still would cause efforts, problems to AI and lots of side effects.)

    Human only code we will also only have as absolute extreme exception.
    (Only if the gameplay value of the feature or change is really really big - in our opinion.)

    ------

    I hope you do understand a little bit better now, why I said:
    So yes, please do trust us, when we talk about effort, risks, side effects and bugs.
    Considering technical impacts we really know what we are talking about - and we are not lying.

    And if we "simply do not like a feature" is not because we are "bad people".
    • We are players as well and thus also have our personal taste for gameplay.
    • As modders our time and motivation is not unlimited and we need to choose carefully what we will invest it for.
    ------

    About my own reaction:

    I am human as well and sometimes I am tired after work and my answers are a bit short.
    Sometimes I also do not direcly see futher questions because I just quick read for "important stuff" I need to react on.

    And also I am German and we have a special attitude sometimes. ;)
    I may react a little bit more straight forward and direct than other nationalities.

    If you really want to get more information and explanation, simply ask politely.
    But please do not get personal again, just because a team member refuses a change or feature you suggest.

    Please also do not try to somehow "prove" that I am wrong or my personal taste is not valid.
    I accept your personal taste as well and there is no point in arguing about personal taste anyways.

    So this is kind of an apology from my side. :)

    ------

    To close this:


    Let us simply behave like grown ups and forget this small argument - we all have bad days sometimes. :)
    Of course you are still welcome to discuss with us because we are happy about every single fan WTP has.
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2020
  20. Hrvoje193

    Hrvoje193 Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    176
    Location:
    Zagreb
    I like the general idea of settler profession, but it caused me a bit of a problem.When playing older mods usually I liked to start on West coast via adding unit in World Builder.Now I can't do it because there is no WB option to change profession.
    Any idea how to solve it?
     

Share This Page