While We Wait: The Next Generation

[Birdjaguar]

Quite.



You could get a rudimentary understanding of how things work by targeting selectively with spending certain areas over a number of turns. That would allow you to get a gauge on the possible band range that you could expect per unit of expenditure. The band range wouldn't be all that great, no matter how much you claim otherwise otherwise you would be mooting the whole point of using a complex set of stats to approximate reality.

Reality is that some are simpler than others to see the effects, but to figure out the specifics would be pretty difficult. For example, spending on weapons research will increase your progress up the tech tree, but there are at least six other items you can spend on that also effect that progress at different rates.

Factions are less difficult to figure out unless there are other players sowing the seeds of discord among them. If a player figures it all out in 10 turns, god bless 'em, but it will be pretty clear to me that they have. I have built in ways to dampen down game breaking system failures. I had some spending this update that I had not foreseen and needed to adjust one of the trade calculations to accommodate it.

My whole plan is to free players from feeling the need to find a system based edge and let them concentrate on thoughtful playing instead. If it doesn't work, then I will figure out another approach.

From a moderating standpoint it makes the bulk of the stat updates pretty easy and fast and I don't get many "Oh my stats are wrong!" questions. When I do find errors and there are some, I can just fix them next turn.

 

[Luckymoose]

I thought this site was going to be down for a couple hours.

 

[Adrogans]

look whos loged on its : AdrogansBananaLeeflyingchickenfoolish icarusLuckymooseMasterofDisastaNeverwonagame3

They lost the seperators.

Dang they fixed it.

 

[LightFang]

I was bored, so I made a Never Ending Story group.

 

[Angst]

Good idea, how do you create a group??

 

[Kraznaya]

Web 2.0 hits Civfanatics!

 

[Angst]

Really interesting... And you can do private discussions with it. Also just noticed that the single user view interface has been overhauled. My traditionalist view cared more about the older one though

 

[Kraznaya]

Private Discussions might be cool for diplomacy.

 

[LightFang]

Good idea, how do you create a group??

Head to the Groups area and click "Create New Group"

 

[Angst]

Head to the Groups area and click "Create New Group"

I hate you.

EDIT: Woa, a friends request? What's this, a social forum?

Private Discussions might be cool for diplomacy.

And we'll soon be seeing thousands as alliances being founded as groups...

 

[LightFang]

I hate you.

And I love you too, dearie!

And we'll soon be seeing thousands as alliances being founded as groups...

So, private discussions are allowed (as you've said earlier)? Between multiple people? How does one get about doing that? As in, other than creating a group specifically for that purpose and starting a thread (or, rather, a discussion). Seems like we'd kill the server...but maybe as long as we remembered to kill the group when the NES was over, they'd tolerate our actions.

 

[Kraznaya]

EDIT: Woa, a friends request? What's this, a social forum?

I told you, it's CFC gone Web 2.0.

So, private discussions are allowed (as you've said earlier)? Between multiple people? How does one get about doing that? As in, other than creating a group specifically for that purpose and starting a thread (or, rather, a discussion). Seems like we'd kill the server...but maybe as long as we remembered to kill the group when the NES was over, they'd tolerate our actions.

I really don't think a few more diplo posts would kill the forum.

Do try to keep in character while in alliances though. :|

 

[Angst]

I think it would be fine, really; it's better than starting a new thread anyways, and I think mods can view the private discussions.

Also, I just randomly added a number of NESers to the new Friends list; just add me if you're not invited yet, it's not personal.

 

[Kraznaya]

By the way, are we sure that in-group discussions are private? Is there any way to make group membership exclusive/invite only?

 

[LightFang]

By the way, are we sure that in-group discussions are private? Is there any way to make group membership exclusive/invite only?

Based on some preliminary testing with Chronic, who may not be the most reliable person, discussions appear to be public.

Groups have 3 settings: public, moderated, and invite only. I'm not sure what "moderated" means.

 

[Angst]

I, lord_joakim am hereby asking Birdjaguar or Turner for a public MOD statement regarding the use and privacy of Private Group Discussions.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Web 2.0 hits Civfanatics!

I thought we already were at Web 2.0. Web 3.0, maybe? Web 2.5?

 

[Angst]

I thought we already were at Web 2.0. Web 3.0, maybe? Web 2.5?

Just asking, but are you serious? Are those actual updating versions of "Web" or are you just making fun for the sake of it?

 

[Dachs]

I thought we already were at Web 2.0. Web 3.0, maybe? Web 2.5?

Just asking, but are you serious? Are those actual updating versions of "Web" or are you just making fun for the sake of it?

He's making fun of the fact that "Web 2.0" is mostly just a buzzword for increased functionality apps on the internet, especially as regards social networking.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Indeed. Not that I consider it a bad thing.