PolyCast Episode 175: "In Response to That"

[joncnunn]

Love the show; I started a multi-year hiatus from civ sometime during the show's first season but caught up with all the missed episodes when I came back.

 

[Buccaneer]

I think I should give this a try again. When I listened to a couple a while back, I found it was way too much joking and yucking up going on.

 

[rastak]

I first listened to the show a couple of years ago (could be longer). I only made it though about 20 minutes as it consisted of someone saying something, everyone laughing. Someone else saying something, everyone laughing. On and On. I thought it was feeding time in the Hyena pen. I turned it off.....might have just been a bad episode or it evolved since then. I listened to a couple this year and enjoyed them more or less..well, alot more than less. I'll probably throw this on tonight and am looking forward to it.

 

[rastak]

I think I should give this a try again. When I listened to a couple a while back, I found it was way too much joking and yucking up going on.

Didn't see your reply before making mine. Yea, exactly. I had to shut it off.-+

 

[Buccaneer]

Feeding time in the hyena pen. Going to have to remember that one.

 

[kingchris20]

I like the joking and banter, it's what makes the show interesting to me. If there wasn't any joking and what not, it'd be too bland. A sense of humor goes a long way.

 

[rastak]

I like the joking and banter, it's what makes the show interesting to me. If there wasn't any joking and what not, it'd be too bland. A sense of humor goes a long way.

Dude, the one I listened too was like an endless laugh track and none of the comments were particularly funny. Anyway, sorry Polycast guys and gal. Like I said, I have listened to a few this year and they were pretty good.

 

[rastak]

Now to get Mad to properly pronounce Melee like Dan does......

 

[crawf0rd]

Maddjinn is my favorite

 

[DanQ]

While most episodes of PolyCast generate some discussion here on CivFanatics, there is more in this thread for this episode than there has been for any in a good while. A welcome result, so a thanks in advance to all who have contributed thus far. I'm going to break up my reply here into two posts towards easier reading.

TBH, I started with 172 "Accept that Amendment", and I came across it here in the BNW forums

Ah -- welcome, new listener.

First time listener, and I don't know what to say really. It's a good podcast, but compared to others I listen to I found it somewhat lacking in structure. There's no "we're going to talk about this today" and there's many breaks and the talk itself doesn't feel as fluid. A little bit of speed could be useful, maybe.

While most episodes have varying pacing and fluidity (see our season archive to date as an overview), we do maintain that there is recognizable structure: there are defined segments, and topics within, that are subsequently documented in show notes. Sometimes the balance emerges as fewer topics with longer conversation, other times more topics with shorter conversations -- it very much depends on the panel which itself varies episode-to-episode (e.g. guests). This is where the breaks come in to aid in connecting what is being talked about throughout the runtime.

When you refer to the ""we're going to talk about this today"", up to and including Season 4 we used to provide such a summary in the episode itself after the introductions and before the first segment/topic. The regular co-hosts at the time, which included Makahlua and myself, decided to drop this in favour of more time discussing the topics. This is the first the point has been raised with us since shortly after the change, though it is something we re-consider returning to as part of administrative discussions at least once a year. Your comments suggests to me that you would like to see a return to this, or at least something like it; if any other listeners reading this feel the same, by all means let us know too including if it varies from what I've described.

[W]hat I thought didn't work at all was you listening up all the negative modifiers, that just get's repetitive. I'd be much faster reading it up myself (and I can't keep it in my brain for comparison anyways if I just hear it), commentary is much better here than repeating the information. (Same thing with podcasts on books, you don't need to repeat what's in the chapter word for word, I'm reading it as well. Do it rudimentary, then move on). But I did find the thoughts on Diplomacy interesting and it's definately the big place for improvements in later patches / for the next civ game.

But I'd love the discussion on India and America's UA. That was very well done.

Only the modifiers, both positive and negative, that the person who started the topic in question were certain about were mentioned. This was done not with the intention of summary in and of itself, but rather as a jumping point for conversation about one-or-more of them. This occurred on some of the points, though admittedly not others.

We work to balance those in our audience who are likely to read some or all of the topics we discuss with those whose exposure to them will be limited to the show itself; more often than not I believe we are successful with this, as received by more of our audience than not, but not always.

So yeah, good podcast. I've never produced or participated in one so I hope my criticisms aren't too hollow / production issues /etc. ...

If a listener such as yourself feels strongly enough one way or another about how a topic is addressed, post-production is handled or what have you, than communicating that to us in a constructive (and, when conducive, timely) fashion is appreciated... such as you have done.

I look forward to the show every other week.

Overall, you have great segments. I like it when you guys discuss strategy (since that is what the podcast is supposed to be about anyways )...

Like when you debated on opening turn sequence and how civs and maps dictate openings. Very good.

Strategy topics, which is the focus of PolyCast's recurring "Senate" segment albeit not exclusive purview of, have been taking more and more of a backburner to others as the release of Brave New Word draws ever nearer in the wake of the news it generates. Post-BNW release, well, that should... change barring any unforeseen circumstances.

 

[DanQ]

Love the show, Dan.

A small complaint I have had for a while though is that there is a tendency on the show for people to over-qualify what they're about to say. I don't know if that comes from busting each other's chops over little things or what but it sometimes bogs down the discussion before it grows legs. There is also a tendency to get too much into the "it depends" conversation as opposed to discussing the talking point or question that was brought up. Everybody knows the "it depends" factor exists. It can get tiresome to always hear about it.

The "it depends" point is an in-joke of sorts that gets frequent mention though I feel we don't usually get caught up in it for any length of time. As for the over-qualification point, if I follow you correctly as I believe I do than I see this coming about at times as an over-compensation to hedge a "can you clarify?" inquiry when explaining one's view... not often an easy balance to achieve or identity. I wouldn't be surprised if this done subconsciously, myself included.

The group should let the discussions roll and perhaps you should even moderate the discussion a tad more to make sure everyone gets to share their opinion. I would really like it if you did round table discussions where everyone has a chance to speak. I really like the show though. Essentially what I am saying overall is that I just want to hear what all of the people on the show have to say

Every panelist is given an opportunity to speak on every topic. Some panelists say more on a given topic, less on others, while more generally may say more than one or even every other panelist overall whether we're talking about a regular co-host or a guest. In post-production, most of the prompting that comes up during recording to those who have said little-to-nothing on a topic is removed. It ultimately comes down to their comfort level. (Though not as common, there are times where a panelist goes Away from Keyboard (AFK) which, though typically communicated to other panelists via instant message, is unbeknownst to even those listening live.)

Just to put in a different perspective, I like the show the way it is! You guys are great!

I also liked the discussion on India and America's UA it gave a good explanation on how India UA works and how to use it properly

; how long have you been listening, and how did you first come across PolyCast, if you don't mind my asking?

Love the show; I started a multi-year hiatus from civ sometime during the show's first season but caught up with all the missed episodes when I came back.

That is very . In getting caught up, do you recall roughly how many episodes that was and over what time period? Doing so too fast with too many could lead to withdrawal upon completion.

I think I should give this a try again. When I listened to a couple a while back, I found it was way too much joking and yucking up going on.

I first listened to the show a couple of years ago (could be longer). I only made it though about 20 minutes as it consisted of someone saying something, everyone laughing. Someone else saying something, everyone laughing. On and On. I thought it was feeding time in the Hyena pen. I turned it off.....might have just been a bad episode or it evolved since then. I listened to a couple this year and enjoyed them more or less..well, alot more than less. I'll probably throw this on tonight and am looking forward to it.

I like the joking and banter, it's what makes the show interesting to me. If there wasn't any joking and what not, it'd be too bland. A sense of humor goes a long way.

I concede that there have been times where the banter has detracted in whole or in part from the show on a given episode; while I feel these instances are few and far between, I recognize that all it takes is one instance for then a listener to understandably conclude that that is a representative sample of the show and in turn tune out.

Our aim is to entertain as well as inform which is neither intended to annoy or bore in so doing respectively. I appreciate those willing to give any show a second chance, particularly if that occurs some time afterwards. I am encouraged from the above that we have improved on this balance in gaining more listeners!

Now to get Mad to properly pronounce Melee like Dan does......

Maddjinn is my favorite

Favourite what?

 

[crawf0rd]

Favourite what?

Playboy Playmate

 

[mitsho]

While most episodes of PolyCast generate some discussion here on CivFanatics, there is more in this thread for this episode than there has been for any in a good while. A welcome result, so a thanks in advance to all who have contributed thus far. I'm going to break up my reply here into two posts towards easier reading.

See, all it needs is some well timed pacing and some critical comments, after all, most people don't post just to say something is good

While most episodes have varying pacing and fluidity (see our season archive to date as an overview),...

I know, but I can't listen to them all at once, my daily commute is only so long And there are so many other podcasts out there too

...we do maintain that there is recognizable structure: there are defined segments, and topics within, that are subsequently documented in show notes. Sometimes the balance emerges as fewer topics with longer conversation, other times more topics with shorter conversations -- it very much depends on the panel which itself varies episode-to-episode (e.g. guests). This is where the breaks come in to aid in connecting what is being talked about throughout the runtime.

When you refer to the ""we're going to talk about this today"", up to and including Season 4 we used to provide such a summary in the episode itself after the introductions and before the first segment/topic. The regular co-hosts at the time, which included Makahlua and myself, decided to drop this in favour of more time discussing the topics. This is the first the point has been raised with us since shortly after the change, though it is something we re-consider returning to as part of administrative discussions at least once a year. Your comments suggests to me that you would like to see a return to this, or at least something like it; if any other listeners reading this feel the same, by all means let us know too including if it varies from what I've described.

It seems to me there are three issues here, the first is a) structure. I understand that you don't want to list up all that you are going to talk about and give a content summary. That'd be bad as well. [Though it is very well done in written form, I love it there complete with minutes info and all, that is one thing I find lacking in most also bigger podcasts I listen too]. But one sentence at the start may be a good thing, and it may be good to give a b) theme to the whole podcast, the segments did feel a bit disjointed. The last thing I'd add is c) a moderator. Someone who's main task is it to bring up the next topic and ask questions. I know, you do it to a degree, but I feel there were too many breaks and pauses in there. So what I primarily want would be a bit more pace.

But then again, I've listened only once, so you may know all that already.

Only the modifiers, both positive and negative, that the person who started the topic in question were certain about were mentioned. This was done not with the intention of summary in and of itself, but rather as a jumping point for conversation about one-or-more of them. This occurred on some of the points, though admittedly not others.

We work to balance those in our audience who are likely to read some or all of the topics we discuss with those whose exposure to them will be limited to the show itself; more often than not I believe we are successful with this, as received by more of our audience than not, but not always.

Sure, it's a tricky topic, and "it depends" lol of course from topic to topic. But you agree on the goal, and it's a challenge to find the middle way every time anew

 

[shaglio]

I used to listen to these podcasts every Monday morning when I got into work. But, unfortunately, our IT guy changed our virus protection software and the URL has been blocked. Maybe I need a new job.

 

[starstx]

Wanted to pop in and say I love Polycast DanQ. I did not stumble on this until right before Civ V was released and have been listening since Season 4 when there was a lot of Civ 4 and Civ 5 topics. Not sure how I found out about it but probably on the forum. I look forward to listening to each new episode and wish it was a weekly podcast. I know you have the other podcasts and I am sure with producing etc. every 2 weeks works best for you.

I mainly listen for the strategy discussions as I am always looking to improve my game, get a better understanding of various concepts and components of the game, and hear other players POV on topics. However, I do enjoy the other discussions brought to the table. The only ones I don't like are the hypotheticals but they do merit discussion. I would agree that the strategy discussion has been lacking for some time and would like to hear more strategy discussion in upcoming episodes and double up on the content and understand we are all waiting for BNW which has a ton of changes so I am sure this will change soon.

I actually think your structure and content are great. The summary is listed on the release with links to more content I always click through. The banter is great and I am a big Madjinn fan. I think criticisms should be saved until you have listened to 3 or 4 episodes. 1 Episode is a small sample size to get a feel for the show. I think the pacing is right on.

Thanks for bringing us Polycast and looking forward to future episodes and BNW discussion. It really enhances the Civ experience to hear discussion from other players that love the game.

 

[adwcta]

Good job overall! You can't please all the people all the time, and with 175 podcasts under your belt, I'm sure you guys know what works/ doesn't work better than me, but my 2cents (listened to a handful of these in the past 3 months):

1) Structure. I like how it's broken down in the podcast itself with the breaks, but it would really help if someone would do a 30second-1minute rundown of what's going to be covered without anyone interrupting. Also, the timestamped topic list in the description has really bad formatting. Make it look like a table of contents or something more accessible.

2) Discussion. The banter for the fun stuff is nice, and you guys have great chemistry. The discussion for the serious game-mechanics is a bit off though. Most of the time, you guys seem to be talking past each other, never addressing each other's points. I get that sometimes one of you is just flat out wrong (or has a really non-mainstream opinion that you don't have enough time to properly defend), and it would be mean to be called out for it in the podcast, but I'm left with "A says it works, B says it doesn't work, C agrees with A", which is not very helpful, instead of "A says it works, B says it doesn't work in situations X, Y, Z, C mostly agrees with A and notes now it could work in situation Z as well". I think Maddjinn has the most well thought out and well defended points most of the time, but even he sometimes just goes "meh, I think it's fine" without telling us why it's not working for the other guys. Maybe it's just me, but I don't want to hear three viewpoints in a podcast, I want to hear three viewpoints interacting and shifting.

3) Substance. Personally, I would prefer more strategy discussion than other stuff, especially speculative stuff. It's a strategy podcast right? It's been 75%+ about BNW, which I think only one of the podcast members has played so far. G&K's only been out for a year, and the fall patch only 6 months, so surely there's still more to discuss there. I know that's the #1 topic these days, and I hope this will fix itself once BNW releases. I hope it will shift into more focus on strategy discussion instead of 40 minutes of "what would make this game better?". Speculation (or sometimes outright fantasy) is fun, but I'd rather hear discussion on strategy in a strategy game.

 

[starstx]

3) Substance. Personally, I would prefer more strategy discussion than other stuff, especially speculative stuff. It's a strategy podcast right? It's been 75%+ about BNW, which I think only one of the podcast members has played so far. G&K's only been out for a year, and the fall patch only 6 months, so surely there's still more to discuss there. I know that's the #1 topic these days, and I hope this will fix itself once BNW releases. I hope it will shift into more focus on strategy discussion instead of 40 minutes of "what would make this game better?". Speculation (or sometimes outright fantasy) is fun, but I'd rather hear discussion on strategy in a strategy game.

Agreed. Would like to see 75/25 split on strategy vs. Other Stuff at least. Lately it seems to be 10/90 and before BNW it still seemed like a 25/75 or 50/50 split at best. The best part for me is the strategy discussion I can relate to my current games. The least favorite are discussions on posts in the forum where a player proposes a completely new game mechanic or idea not in the game which results in all the members talking about the 1,000 ways it is ridiculous, wouldn't work, or maybe could work but it has 0% chance of becoming part of the game. It may be fun to talk about but it has no benefit for the listener looking for strategy discussion. I am not saying it is not worthy of a mention as a thread on the forum but it is my least favorite types of topics on the show. The other stuff I do like is information relating to the gaming industry, Firaxis, 2K games, interviews, recent discussion of Air Patrol etc. I find these informative and like having them included as a change up.

 

[Buccaneer]

I will be happy when MadDjinn starts doing his strategy LPs again. I must've listened to him (alone) for over a hundred hours.

 

[mitsho]

I think criticisms should be saved until you have listened to 3 or 4 episodes. 1 Episode is a small sample size to get a feel for the show. I think the pacing is right on.

But it made you post your posts 30 and 31. So my goal was achieved, there's a discussion And I always go with it's better to say something than to say nothing. I did put a caveat that I am going to listen to older podcasts as well, so I'm not unfoundedly critical or malevolent. Or I hope so

So, my other unfounded responses

• Substance: I like the "fantasy" aspects since it can lead to good ideas for mods and even if they have zero chance of inclusion, they are good "ground" discussions that can lead to simple question. Like, what is represented by production really? Or should we rename happiness to stability? (would that clear up many complaints by rabid fans on here?). And why DID the Mayans get a unique calendar? I want one too for the Arabs and Romans.
  That said, I do think those are better left as a separate segment that crops up only every few podcasts, but then takes up more. Having written that, I want to point out again that I'm willing to listen to more of the podcasts
• I do understand there's a separate Mod podcast but it's not very active. I can see why since the general modding community moves too fast and only presenting the new stuff isn't the best idea either. Also, many of the bigger mods have smaller communities that already know everything. But maybe "present" one of the big ones (i.e. NIGHTS, R.E.D, Communitas, whoward's Pick'n'Mix, Pouakai's More Wonders). Again, probably for the other podcast...
• So generally, I agree, better to have more Strategy than News Discussion. But I like "gaming industry thingies" as well
• I personally support banter as well (but as pointed out, it needs balance )

 

[rastak]

Listened last night, still too much banter but I enjoyed most of it. I enjoy listening to strategy tips as well as people having differing opinions about the same things, a different perspective. That was certainly there in 175.