Suggestions and Requests

[Ivan Preuss]

What the fudge

 

[Ivan Preuss]

Dude, I think you are seeing too much in between the lines. Things that do not exist. But if that is your best judgment, farewell.

 

[JHLee]

I think Brazil, France and Rome are all fine with their current cores gameplay-wise.
What I would like better is an option for the Romans to raze Milan so they can settle Venice and Genoa.

 

[Ivan Preuss]

Já vi que a panelinha que é esse fórum por algum motivo se me mostra ligeiramente hostil, se não é que é um exagero dizê-lo. O fato, entretanto, é que não atentei jamais contra vossas honras, senão pus um pouco da usual ironia, coisa que não deve surpreender-vos, a julgar pelos teus hábitos; portanto, saio daqui, uma vez que se recusa o outro sem razão alguma lícita, pomposo, e diria ademais arrogante, se quisesse ofendê-lo, sem dever esclarecimentos à ninguém. Deixo esta mensagem somente aos meus conterrâneos.

[Google translate:]
I have already seen that the clique that is this forum for some reason is slightly hostile to me, if not that it is an exaggeration to say it. The fact, however, is that I have never considered your honor, or I have put a little of the usual irony, which should not surprise you, judging by your habits; therefore, I leave here, since the other refuses without any lawful, pompous reason, and I would say in addition arrogant, if I wanted to offend him, without any obligation to anyone. I leave this message only to my fellow countrymen.

Moderator Action: Please use English to communicate on this forum. I have provided a Google translation of the post, which you are free to edit if you find this machine translation objectionable. Be aware that continued disregard of this forum rule will lead to an infraction. -- Leoreth

 

[trevor]

Dude, I think you are seeing too much in between the lines. Things that do not exist. But if that is your best judgment, farewell.

Maybe he doesn't want to further an argument that is, at it's core (if'n you'll allow the pun), a useless one? There's a new map coming down the pike that guarantees any time spent on current stability maps is time firmly wasted.

Slightly larger than that is overriding issue of that this is, you know, a game. I don't think the task of settling socio-political scores is well-met in XML files.

 

[Ivan Preuss]

Se fosse qualquer uma dessas hipóteses a verdadeira, ele poderia muito bem as dizer, como o manda a civilidade.

[Google translate:]
If it were any of these hypotheses true, he could well say, as civility dictates.

Moderator Action: See above. -- Leoreth

 

[Leoreth]

Maybe he doesn't want to further an argument that is, at it's core (if'n you'll allow the pun), a useless one? There's a new map coming down the pike that guarantees any time spent on current stability maps is time firmly wasted.

While the chances of changing my mind on the meaning of the core were indeed low from the beginning, since it is a well proven and functional element of the mod that doesn't need changing especially not to satisfy the desire for arbitrary semantic clarity, I am usually open to both idle discussion about what ideas lie behind the game concepts we are using or constructive suggestions to improve the existing stability maps, because even if the map is going to change we can learn more to apply it to the new maps as well. In fact, I have made a note of the original post to review the Argentine and Brazilian stability maps which iirc were not given that much thought when they were first created.

What I am not interested in is a conversation with someone who I perceive as rude and unpleasant to talk to. I don't really need further justification to abort talking to someone when it becomes clear that I won't get anything further out of it.

 

[Ivan Preuss]

My dude, you are being silly. I merely asked you to consider the semantic aspect of it just as well, not to disregard the non-semantic aspect in favor of the semantic aspect only. Also, don't be dishonest: do not claim the change of the core areas were for the sake of "semantic clarity", because they were not; my arguments were above all historical. So do not lie. Furthermore, that is the problem with you letting mistaken interpretations of yours interfere with a discussion that should not be messed up by personal feelings and the like. This is a non-personal, factual and interpretative discussion. You did this, and were you simply and honestly tired of arguing, you could have said so that I would have well understood. Again, I'll leave this forum for good, since it has no more use to me as such. Also, do not take offence in me writing in Portuguese before; it's merely because I really dislike articulating my thought in English.

 

[Leoreth]

1) I am not your dude.
2) Yes, I am tired of arguing in the style of argument you wanted to pursue.
3) That is understandable, because your problems of articulating seem to affect the tone of your posts. I am not offended, I am simply enforcing the forum rules in my role as a moderator.

 

[ozqar]

For what's its worth, I thought that the suggestions on changing both the Brazilian and Argentinian core were actually quite sensible from what a historical perspective.

Indeed, the Brazilian coast should be the core, with the state of Minais Gerais, but without Brasilia, because that's where Brazil developed historically. For Argentina, the area between the Parana and Uruguay rivers, the province of La Plata and the province of Cordoba should be in the core. Uruguay indeed would make sense as a contested territory between Argentina and Brazil.

If it's a problem that there's too much food in this area and that this will be unbalanced, then perhaps we might reduce the food resources, at least in the earlier years. On the other hand, it would be reasonable to expect Brazil to be somewhat stable while occupying all of South America; for Argentina, it would be more of a stretch, so slightly unstable while occupying all of South America would sound reasonable.

In any case, I think it's quite valuable that he brought this up and good to know Leoreth has taken note of that original post.

@Ivan Preuss, in case you're wondering, it's not that the little gang here is being a bit hostile towards you. If you read the initial responses to your proposal, people were considering it, with its pros and cons, for gameplay. It's just that you can't expect people to agree with all your arguments all the time. I agree with you in believing that historical resemblance should take priority in this case, and that we can work around the other issues (such as core vs non-core pop) to maintain a stable gameplay. Others won't have the same priorities. Moreover, for this particular case, you might was well just have showed the Brazilian and Argentine maps, explained your proposal, avoided the whole discussion on semantics and the comparison with Rome and France, and would've probably received better results. But regardless of the content and arguments you had, the problem was the tone. You can't talk to people like they're idiots, or to Leoreth like he's working for you, and expect a dialogue in return or that people will accept your ideas (or expect a response at all).

 

[Leoreth]

Patreon $20 perk: talk to Leoreth like he's working for you once a month

 

[Enyavar]

I have already seen that the clique that is this forum for some reason is slightly hostile to me, if not that it is an exaggeration to say it.

Hey Ivan, you made a good point in your first post, which had a very polite pitch. That was a good start.

Note that "we" are not a clique, just many fellow civ players who have little in common but the interest in this mod. We all have different ideas where the mod should go, and argue often about the best approach...

In the short time I have been part of this little community, I made at least a dozen suggestions. I think ALL of them have been noted by Leoreth. He doesn't act on them immediately, in fact he doesn't act on most of them ever. If we're lucky, he tells us folks why this or that idea is not technically possible, or why it's not the way he wants to go.

"Our" reaction was, among others, telling you about the current project timetable, and that it might take a while. You have been now told that Leoreth is going to review your suggestion, at some point in the future, which is certainly more than >80% of my suggestions got (they are mostly overly complicated, and I'm not the one who has to program and test them).

There was no need to insist that your idea is the only way to go. There was no need to repeatedly give condescending lectures on the (really) muddled concept of our game's core/historical/foreign areas. That is a topic where every redblooded patriot looks at the maps and wonders how and why it's so imprecisely partitioned. I think all of us fully understand your rightful wish to have your country properly represented, instead of a halfbaked caricature. But the tolerance towards each other's wishes ends when they distract from the common goal of having fun with a history sim/game.

We all better keep in mind that this mod was made for a halfway realistic gameplay on all sides. It's not perfect.
The v.1.15 has a lot more gamebreaking oversights/errors than the original, officially-tested RFC. (to fix them, a dedicated player can use the WBuilder, or even modmod)
But despite all the issues, I prefer DoC over vanilla RFC; and from all the development announcements I read here, I will love v.1.16 even more (and you bet that it will have lots of small and large mistakes just as well).

 

[Leoreth]

Actually when I don't respond to an idea it is usually for these reasons:
- the idea is too far removed from what is currently possible/being worked on in the game to really remark on it
- explaining why I don't think it would be a good idea would take more effort than writing the original suggestion (consider that everyone is essentially talking to / expecting a response from me so even equal post length results in a significant writing overhead for me)
- I actually agree with the idea and have made note of it, but actual implementation may be so low priority that it'd take a while to get to it

I know it's confusing that the possible reasons are so different but I have no clue how to communicate this better without spending even more time typing posts.

 

[Enyavar]

I think most of us got that and I wasn't complaining: I know why my oh-so-brilliant daydreams tend to not work out as part of a mod.

But thanks for clarifying (again): Long debates via forum posts take time away from productive work, whether you are reading, writing or moderating.

 

[Leoreth]

I know, it just seemed like this needed clarifying for everyone. It's not that this directly costs modding time (right now the impediment here is me not having sufficient windows of time to get into it) but it still is a time sink in my life.

 

[TJDowling]

I get a response like 1 out of 20 times partially because I'm an idealistic idiot and most of what I suggest is A) stupid or B) wrong and I'm okay with that. I'm happy when I get a simple like on an idea I'm really passionate about from some folks who do most of the leg-work on this mod and other mod-mods. I think a simple "like" can often be the best sign like, "Good idea, that could happen at some point". Sometimes we get really defensive and argue because the direction is different from our individual interest and that's okay, we move on.

 

[hnrysml]

I'll occasionally make suggestions, but more often if there is anything small I think should be changed in a release, I will do my best to mod it in myself, as most of these things such as core changes can easily be done by an individual for themselves. Sometimes it's great to get passionate about big ideas for this mod and ways it could better represent some grand overarching sense of history, but it's important not to get carried away as ultimately Leoreth works very hard to make the best possible game for all of us

 

[Ivan Preuss]

I just returned here out of both having nothing to do this weekend and simple curiosity, and now that I'm already here, might as well type a thing or another.

I'll not use this quote feature because I find it annoying.

Ozqar said:

"It's just that you can't expect people to agree with all your arguments all the time"

I wasn't even expecting such a thing. On the contrary, I was expecting people would have some interesting historical arguments to back the implementation of Br. and Arg. core areas as such. I thought such choices were something well thought, since the implementation of such an all-encompassing mod - such as this is - would require a good deal of knowledge and general erudition from the modder's part, or so I presumed. The purely practical arguments presented to me, however, while at the very least just as valid as those, are not nearly as interesting to me.

"Moreover, for this particular case, you might was well just have showed the Brazilian and Argentine maps, explained your proposal, avoided the whole discussion on semantics and the comparison with Rome and France, and would've probably received better results."

That is possible, but what crossed my mind back then was to deal with the issue broadly. In any case, it seems Leoreth failed to understand the purpose of my abstraction; he most evidently seemed to believe I was attempting to convince people of, let's say, "the true meaning of core areas"; and not simply trying to ascertain a more or less precise definition of it, based on a tacit use of the undefined concept within the game itself (which was, to me at least, undoubtedly what I was trying to do).

"But regardless of the content and arguments you had, the problem was the tone. You can't talk to people like they're idiots, or to Leoreth like he's working for you, and expect a dialogue in return or that people will accept your ideas (or expect a response at all)."

I don't know to which particular instances of my writing in this thread you are referring to, but if, among many, you happen to be referring to this:

"Why do I have to think about it semantically?"

To which I answered:

"Because I've asked you to do so. Is it really that hard?"

You gotta first analyse how this same phrase would sounded in the head of any ordinary Brazilian, only after which you can conclude that it does, indeed, intrinsically coveys rudeness or whatever ill qualities you wish; and that these qualities do not simple exist inside your head, and as such were never intended.

Sadly, you cannot do this unless you are, of course, Brazilian; so you'll have to trust me on this one.

In Portuguese, this same phrasal construct would very well, and likely have appeared before us as such:

"Por que eu tenho que pensá-lo semanticamente?"

Or:

"Por que eu tenho que pensar a respeito disso semanticamente?"

To which my answer would be:

"Porque eu pedi para você fazer isso. É realmente assim tão difícil?"

All in all, the phrase being inserted in its due context, it would not come off as rude to Brazilians in general. I can now see, however, that it does imply a certain level of colloquiality and familiarity with the interlocutor, which might be considered inappropriate in certain cultures as a way of communication between people who do not know each other. On the other hand, I have to remind you all, for the sake of a correct judgment, that we are on the internet, after all, and that the barrier between formal speech and informal speech naturally decays within such a medium. Furthermore, even Brazilian formal speech is remarkably retentive of certain colloquial elements. In fact, common usage of formal speech in Brazil is not accompanied by the <<respectful>> and more austere aspects of formality so dear to certain countries and cultures, of which I could mention most prominently the British, the Germans and the Japanese. What I mean by "respectful", of course, is to signify "respect" as shown through what I would say is "the use of certain norms and mores inherent to formal discourse, or otherwise to a formal situation". It doesn't means that Brazilians do not show respect to one another when in formal occasions; merely that such is not done just as much through the use of certain codes and, generally, etiquette. Also, this very same formal discourse in Brazil, if you'll allow me to be brutally honest, has historically constituted itself of nothing more than a superficial embellishment (yes, in the sense of mere aesthetics) of what is in essence a vulgar conversation. Much different, I believe you'll all agree, when compared to the norms and social regulations concerning a formal meeting anywhere in Europe, at precisely the same moment in time as such occurred in Brazil. As such is that Brazilians have went so far as to produce an entire pantheon of sentences that are formal, scholarly embellished, incomprehensible, and at the same time demeaning to whom it was first directed as an insult of sorts, or just very vulgar in its basic spirit (not necessarily in the bad sense of the word). There is an immense deal of such phrases, even within Brazilian popular memory, and such is truly regarded as almost an art among some folks, perhaps more playfully so than seriously. Anyway, do allow me to demonstrate it with some rather easy examples of this peculiar art:

"Pouco se me dá que claudique a onagra, o que me apraz é acicatá-la."

An extremely odd and foreign-sounding construct. Although its origin is believed to be the mouth or the feather of Ruy Barbosa (1849 - 1923), its meaning is extremely simple and of a truly plebeian clarity. It means: "I don't care that the mule goes on limping; what gives me pleasure is to poke it until it moves".

There are also superb sentences of such a sort by Jânio Quadros (1917 - 1992), such as:

"Bebo-o pois liquido é, se sólido fosse, comê-lo-ia."

A very sophisticated construct; it features an interesting use of mesoclisis, a process more commonly used in written texts, rather than spoken sentences. Furthermore, isolating the excerpt "pois líquido é", we have an inversion of the more common construct "pois é líquido", which only goes to show how "empty" all this erudition is at its core. The meaning of the phrase, just as much as deprived of any sophistication, consists simply of a response to a journalist (I believe) which asked Mr. Quadros why did he drank so much. Mr. Quadros' response, then, was to state that "I drink it because it is liquid; were it solid, I would eat it". And this guy was nothing short of the president of Brazil.

As you can see, all these phrases do is to serve and attest a very simple mentality: full of that same practicality of the common folk, and not truly a sophistication of the stern and contained elite; thus expressive of a very "vulgar" essence, not necessarily in the bad sense of the word. Let me also end this with a honest conclusion, which is that I did not meant to speak and be understood in a way that is considered inappropriate. You may, of course, not lecture me on how to behave among Brazilians or on how to behave in situations which are given under a jurisdiction of Brazilian customs and codes, so to speak, but you may have something to say regarding different situations, such as this, and if, and only if, reconsidering such previous judgments of yours, in view of common internet etiquette, or the lack of, perhaps more appropriately, you still find that I somehow engaged in inappropriate acts.

Furthermore, and putting an end to this long apologia, a similar critique is in the words of Enyavar, which says:

"There was no need to insist that your idea is the only way to go. There was no need to repeatedly give condescending lectures on the (really) muddled concept of our game's core/historical/foreign areas."

To which I can only insist that, for the second remark, such commentator has, alongside with Leoreth, misunderstood the point of my dissertation on the meaning of core, historical and foreign areas.

I, of course, do not deny that I have argued over the precise definition of cores areas. However, I only did so motivated by my own understanding of what they represent as per the game's usage of such; and not in a way prescriptive in relation to the game's definition. On the contrary, my definition, as I've argued, arrived exclusively from the experience with the game itself; and in a way that is a posteriori. That I considered Br. and Arg. core areas were wrong, was only so because I thought they diverged from the common consideration of core areas used in the rest of the maps.

I would add just as well that such misunderstanding really carries with it something of a backlash, which would justify branding you all a "panelinha"; because that is how a "panelinha" works. I, being the different one, came here with a new idea; which you all quite obviously did not very well understand. The reaction, being fruit of this misunderstanding, brings to my mind the conservative reaction of a crowd feeling intimidated by any sufficient change of sorts. Indeed, imagetically at least such phenomena appear to me as identical representations of a same substance, that is, merely different instances of a single social mechanic.

As for the first point, I can only claim, to my memory correctly, that I did not just blankly insisted that my idea for the core areas of Br. and Arg. were superior; instead, I gave you arguments that are historical, and these historical arguments were not countered by opposing historical arguments. Instead, the counter-arguing was mainly technical - to which I recognized the validity of such argumentation -, but ultimately found it insufficient.

 

[Ivan Preuss]

However, since I'll likely not return, or at the very least, return only much later, I would like to fully state something that I would have fully stated before, if I were only and not already preoccupied with a very simple piece of criticism, which to my mind, back then, was either very important, due to it being very easily a way to improve the quality of game play a lot, in comparison to efforts demanded; or, on the contrary, revealing of some deficiency of knowledge, or incorrectness of opinions or assertions, on my part - something to which you, of course, would know better - . And such being what it was, I would like to state my most honest congratulation and admiration for the accomplishment that is this mod; which brings CIV to its apex and its almost sublime consummation. The criticisms I have inferred, in comparison, become obscure and, pushing it a little bit, detalhísticos (I couldn't find a translation for that word). I affirm again what I have previously stated that, for it to become truly sublime, only a few more civilisations are needed; and let's not forget WWI tanks.

 

[Ivan Preuss]

In a last note, it just crossed my mind that there is a consistent semantic inequivalence between the words "ask" and "pedir", where ask can be interpreted as a command of sorts - something which "pedir" cannot; being in this sense more appropriately translated as "to solicit"; whereas "to ask", in that sense, could very well be understood as "to request". The difference is small, but it can amount in a causal way as to why Leoreth understood my words in a bad sense.

I, of course, then ignorant of such a vicissitude inherent to the word, failed to realize it could carry such a connotation.