Still living up to your namesake I see...
You Clowns Better Fix This Crap!
Boy am I pissed off! We're in a tribe game and I'm about to build a wonder.
I had a new line up of techs to start researching with my choice being invented that very turn and I had 3 possible techs with wonders supposedly coming up. I wanted to build A Smith, so did economics show up as an option? Nah,I get stuck with the 3rd wonder on my wish list. This is BS!
If you have the pre-reqs, the tech should be a stinking option!!!
Still living up to your namesake I see...
Wrong forum fool
For some techs you need 2 techs at the same level in the tree. Econ is one of these examples...
Calm down! Why do you write this here? Try the Civ2(?) forum! OR have you maybe had a vision of Civ3?Hope not!
------------------
Who am I? What am I? Do we need Civ? Well....
Zanzin -Pardon me, but isn't this forum meant for suggestions to make Civ III better than Civ II? I specifically requested that this problem be dealt with before the new game is sent out. Btw, I'd have broken your ****ing nose had you mouthed off to me in person you piece of ****Wrong forum fool
Thanks, Markus
Berzerker, were you not satisfied with the responses you got for this same thread topic in the other forum?
The first President of the first Apolyton Democracy Game (CivII, that is)
The gift of speech is given to many,
intelligence to few.
Well if you'd just said that "this is a problem in Civ2, I hope it doesn't happen in Civ3" everything would have made a lot more sense.Originally posted by Berzerker
Zanzin -
Pardon me, but isn't this forum meant for suggestions to make Civ III better than Civ II? I specifically requested that this problem be dealt with before the new game is sent out.
As for that comment...why don't you come down to Oz and just try it tough guy.Originally posted by Berzerker
Btw, I'd have broken your ****ing nose had you mouthed off to me in person you piece of ****
If the voices in my head paid rent, I'd be a very rich man
Marquis -In case you didn't notice, I posted at around the same time in both forums - this one as a suggestion to the designers of civ III to fix what I perceived to be a mistake or inconsistency in civ II, and the other for discussion and any explanations as to why this occurs. Why are you and the ******* from aussieland so confused by what is a perfectly logical request/suggestion?Berzerker, were you not satisfied with the responses you got for this same thread topic in the other forum?
Zanzin -You mean you could not figure out from the title that this was my suggestion to the people designing civ III? What part of, "You clowns better fix this crap", has you stumped?Well if you'd just said that "this is a problem in Civ2, I hope it doesn't happen in Civ3" everything would have made a lot more sense.
As it so happens, I will be spending 3 weeks of vacation time down under this summer and Sydney is on my schedule. Why dont you offer an address to your house so I can come by and show you what I would have done had you mouthed off to my face the way you did while hiding behind a computer screen.As for that comment...why don't you come down to Oz and just try it tough guy
wow bezerker this is the maddest i have seen you. I hope you dont display this kind of rage when you launch an attack in our tribe game
Bravelaker, nah, I just get a bit peeved at people who "talk" through the computer in ways they would never talk to people face to face. Calling people, "fools" because of an inability to grasp the obvious is uncalled for and cowardly. When I originally bought civ II, I was especially angered by the fact the game (the Mac version) needed "patches" to make it playable. Do you expect to drive a new car off the dealer's lot with a defective power steering pump? Not me! I considered it outrageous that defective software was being sold so I really have little sympathy for Microprose and Sid Meier et al even after I learned that these bugs are to be expected or put up with when trying to expedite games originally made for the PC. Hell, there were even "patches" for the PC version!
Just because it doesn't work the way you want it to does it mean it's defective?
Dude, you're the one who said you were going to brake my nose....you're the one talking through your computer mate.Originally posted by Berzerker
Bravelaker, nah, I just get a bit peeved at people who "talk" through the computer in ways they would never talk to people face to face.
You won't make it through customs friend. We don't let hyperactive trigger happy idiots like yourself into the country.Originally posted by Berzerker
As it so happens, I will be spending 3 weeks of vacation time down under this summer and Sydney is on my schedule.
You've got me annoyed now, because in my opinion, calling someone a fool doesn't warrent the breaking of one's nose. I call that, just slighty, over-reaction. Anyway, I apologise for calling you a fool...you were talking about Civ2, so I figured you were in the wrong forum. Maybe it was my bad, maybe it was yours. Who cares, life's too short anyway
Last edited by Zanzin; May 29, 2001 at 03:12.
If the voices in my head paid rent, I'd be a very rich man
Quite simply, because you complained about something happening in your Civ II game. Not perfectly logical; rather heavily implied. Calm down.Originally posted by Berzerker
Why are you and the ******* from aussieland so confused by what is a perfectly logical request/suggestion?
The first President of the first Apolyton Democracy Game (CivII, that is)
The gift of speech is given to many,
intelligence to few.
Marquis de Sodaq makes an excellent point.Originally posted by Marquis de Sodaq
Quite simply, because you complained about something happening in your Civ II game. Not perfectly logical; rather heavily implied. Calm down.
If the voices in my head paid rent, I'd be a very rich man
Urban Ranger -So all those patches were to fix a game in no need of fixing? Or are you referring only to the randomness of tech research? Yes, I want Civ III "fixed" so when 2 people play each other, one doesn't get stuck researching 6 techs to get to Monarchy while the other gets there in 4 techs (or 7 and 5 for republic). I also want the civs to start out with the same number of settlers and techs - not random advantages! I also want huts to be an option...Just because it doesn't work the way you want it to does it mean it's defective?
Zanzin -I suggest you go back and re-read your first post, "Dude". Those are called fighting words where I'm from, so dont pull this sh!t about me being the one who started badmouthing you.Dude, you're the one who said you were going to brake my nose....you're the one talking through your computer mate
I said I would break your nose, not shoot you, "idiot".You won't make it through customs friend. We don't let hyperactive trigger happy idiots like yourself into the country
Uh oh.You've got me annoyed now
You haven't called anyone a fool to their face obviously - which was my point. Don't insult people thru a computer if you wont insult them to their face.because in my opinion, calling someone a fool doesn't warrent the breaking of one's nose
But calling someone a fool because you cannot figure out what they mean is not an over-reaction?I call that, just slighty, over-reaction.
You apologise in the same post you call me an idiot? And the title is an obvious request to the designers of Civ III to fix what I believe is a problem with Civ II. If I was making the highly unlikely request for yet another patch for Civ II at this late date with Civ III on the horizon, I would have made the request in the Civ II forums.Anyway, I apologise for calling you a fool...you were talking about Civ2, so I figured you were in the wrong forum. Maybe it was my bad, maybe it was yours. Who cares, life's too short anyway
Marquis -Every person who has made suggestions for the designers of Civ III did so based on what they perceive to be the shortcomings of Civ II. How am I any different? If I posted a request that they include 16 civs because I was dis-satisfied with only 7 civs, would you conclude I was asking them to "patch" Civ II? And why do I need to calm down? These people sold me a defective game which needed multiple "patches", but I'm supposed to pat them on the back? And when I express my dis-satisfaction with their product calling for an identified improvement, I'm called a fool by some guy who thinks I'm in the wrong forum! No, I'm quite calm given the circumstances...Quite simply, because you complained about something happening in your Civ II game. Not perfectly logical; rather heavily implied. Calm down.
Last edited by Berzerker; May 30, 2001 at 05:10.
Could one of the moderators bury this topic please? It's been a waste of time from the begining.
If the voices in my head paid rent, I'd be a very rich man
This topic has a heck of a lot more significance than half the other hair brained threads in this forum.
This issue has a huge importance on game play. And changing it won't "RUIN" the game like some of the ideas I've heard. I haven't gone into those threads and laughed because I think that would be rude. Obviously not everyone thinks the same way.
But having said that, I disagreed with you (Berz) in the other forum and will here too. I like that all techs avail can't be researched. It forces people to make decisions, it's real life. It makes people have to modify instead of mindless progression through the tech tree.
I do wish it was random and not based on a formula (even though this hasn't been 100% proven, close but not 100%)
The better players will adapt and sometimes lose because of it, but overall the better players will overcome.
(And I know from experience that Berz is a good player)
So I respectfully dissagree. But agree that it is an important issue and would like to hear what others think, instead of the rudeness that has occured.
RAH
A man who takes offence at being called an idiot having just accused a group of professional people of being clowns, many of whom had no part in developing the previous game, seriously needs to evaluate his attitude. Hardly surprising an agressive post gets curt and aggressive responses.
I think it is entirely appropriate for Civ to deny you certain advanced technologies if you have roared off up one science path and have not discovered certain basic advances in other fields. That's the only time I have ever seen potential advances fail to appear and is a lot easier than cross linking all the advances more tightly together in a way that no diagram can easily display.
To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection.
H.Poincaré
Grumbold -The title was addressed to the people who created and sold Civ II with it's "bugs" AND who are involved with Civ III (I believe Sid Meier would be one). How did you conveniently arrive at the conclusion I was attacking people who had nothing to do with these games? Oh, I see, your comment would have no relevancy without your convenient conclusion. And these "professionals" sold a partially defective product in need of "patches" AFTER tricking people into buying said product. If I sold you a new car and the wheels fell off as you got home, you wouldn't have harsh words? I was very angry when I bought Civ II only to learn it wouldn't work for internet play. The patches they provided did not cure all the bugs and I spent quite a bit of time rebooting and rejoining because of their so-called "professionalism"!A man who takes offence at being called an idiot having just accused a group of professional people of being clowns, many of whom had no part in developing the previous game, seriously needs to evaluate his attitude.
Yeah, I'm not too impressed by people defending these "professionals" who sold us a defective product, but the "curt and aggressive" responses came from someone who thought I should not be offering my "suggestion" for the designers of Civ II/Civ III in a forum for Civ III suggestions.Hardly surprising an agressive post gets curt and aggressive responses.
That would make the advertized tech trees somewhat irrelevant now, true? After not getting economics and having to settle for Theory of Gravity, economics came up the next time. Is the Theory of Gravity a pre-req for economics? Not according to the tech tree...I think it is entirely appropriate for Civ to deny you certain advanced technologies if you have roared off up one science path and have not discovered certain basic advances in other fields.
What "basic advances" are needed for Monarchy other than alpha, law code, and burial? How about Republic?That's the only time I have ever seen potential advances fail to appear and is a lot easier than cross linking all the advances more tightly together in a way that no diagram can easily display.
RAH -The pros and cons are a legitimate debate, but when we play, we do so with 2 settlers each and no host techs because we are trying to eliminate advantages stemming from randomness. I'd have less (perhaps none) of a complaint if I knew this tech randomness was hitting everyone rather than allowing one player to hit Monarchy in 4 techs while someone else gets stuck researching 6 techs to get there. That randomness can be the difference in the game. I'd be quite happy if the designers of Civ III allowed us the option of randomness, but it appears they wont be revamping the game all that much. Having said that, huts provide another source of randomness that can impact a game, but at least they are also a source of fun and mystery. Yet I enjoy games where the huts have been removed because they level the playing field even more, that too I hope is an option.I disagreed with you (Berz) in the other forum and will here too. I like that all techs avail can't be researched. It forces people to make decisions, it's real life. It makes people have to modify instead of mindless progression through the tech tree.
Zanzin -I dont enter your threads calling you a fool and asking the moderators to shut it down. If you dont like my thread, STAY THE HELL OUT!Could one of the moderators bury this topic please? It's been a waste of time from the begining
"The pros and cons are a legitimate debate, but when we play, we do so with 2 settlers each and no host techs because we are trying to eliminate advantages stemming from randomness"
I don't think we are eliminating advantages from randomness. We are just trying to make the start as even as possible because it is the one thing we can control. And I like the game to go a few turns before the whining starts.
The second a person moves, randomness becomes involved and I don't want it controlled. How many times after placing your capital that you realize that if you had looked one square off the river, you would have found the perfect city location instead of wandering for 6 turns. (assuming you were lucky enough to start near a river). And huts, yes, they can make a big difference. But to me, that is the point. When I play with people like you and War4, we are all about the same level of proficiency. We each have a handful of different strategies that are quite similar. If every game was played without the randomness, it would get boring quite quick and we would have stopped playing this game.
What difference if it's a hut that adds the randomness or the luck of finding your opponents second city on the turn it is discovered when he has no money to rush build a defender. Or the luck of having a movement point left on your horse when you find an enemy wandering for huts. Or the randomness of barbs keeping your opponent from sending settlers in a certain direction. Or even cashing 5 more barb kings then your opponent. Or the luck of winning a battle you statistically should have lost, or the opposite. The whole game is based on randomness and probability. The better players, which I consider you one, adapt.
So I want more randomness. (to a point) to keep the game interesting. There is nothing better than having your diplos ready in range of one of your opponents cities waiting for them to develop a tech that you are researching in an attempt to steal it and leapfrog past them. This takes some planning. The thrill comes from when the plan works, and the agony comes from when the diplo fails or you get the wrong tech or you get the right tech and it won't let you select the right one next.
This is why we still play the game. How many computer games have had a shelf life like this. Not many.
RAH
Always a pleasure to cross swords with you.
RAH -And I am just asking for a little more control.I don't think we are eliminating advantages from randomness. We are just trying to make the start as even as possible because it is the one thing we can control.
True, but this is due to the ignorance we (settlers) have of the world nearby. It is perfectly logical that a settler would not know a region without exploring first. And actually even providing us with a tech tree advertising future technologies is illogical since we could not know what the distant future holds. But we would just end up writing our own trees if not provided with one. Maybe the designers could provide (for Civ IV) a floating tech tree so that within certain parameters designed for realism, the techs show up in a more random order. Why not the wheel or construction before the alphabet and writing? Like I said though, this randomness should be an option so that people who want to play straight up can do so.How many times after placing your capital that you realize that if you had looked one square off the river, you would have found the perfect city location instead of wandering for 6 turns.
Yeah, that and terrain which is another random act. I agree to a degreeAnd huts, yes, they can make a big difference. But to me, that is the point. When I play with people like you and War4, we are all about the same level of proficiency. We each have a handful of different strategies that are quite similar. If every game was played without the randomness, it would get boring quite quick and we would have stopped playing this game.
These are good points, but we know about these factors. If Markus is right about why this tech tree randomness occurs, I'm just learning about it now. The manual instructs us about these other random events while leading us to believe the tech tree is valid.What difference if it's a hut that adds the randomness or the luck of finding your opponents second city on the turn it is discovered when he has no money to rush build a defender. Or the luck of having a movement point left on your horse when you find an enemy wandering for huts. Or the randomness of barbs keeping your opponent from sending settlers in a certain direction. Or even cashing 5 more barb kings then your opponent. Or the luck of winning a battle you statistically should have lost, or the opposite. The whole game is based on randomness and probability. The better players, which I consider you one, adapt.
I'd like the option. We play for fun and we play on a regular basis so the randomness will hit us all over time. But I also play tribes and would play more tourneys and these formats call for less randomness in my opinion.So I want more randomness. (to a point) to keep the game interesting.
Aside from the last part, this is strategy.There is nothing better than having your diplos ready in range of one of your opponents cities waiting for them to develop a tech that you are researching in an attempt to steal it and leapfrog past them. This takes some planning. The thrill comes from when the plan works, and the agony comes from when the diplo fails or you get the wrong tech or you get the right tech and it won't let you select the right one next.
Tomorrow night I suspectAlways a pleasure to cross swords with you.
Last edited by Berzerker; May 31, 2001 at 19:33.
As per Berzerker's request, I'm posting this instead of using ICQ, which I felt was more appropriate.
Seems to me that Zanzin was very reasonable in saying "wrong forum, fool," since, on the one hand, there was nothing to suggest since you didn't have a legitimate complaint, and on the other you showed yourself foolish with that whole business of threatening people with physical violence.
It would be fair to say I'm not afraid of Apolytoners coming around and beating me up
And then to justify it based on the fact that people make empty threats because they are hiding behind their computers? While you make empty threats? That's hilarious, you really intend to commit felony assault because someone identified you as a fool. Hilarious.
It isn't crap, they aren't clowns, and you just need to pay more attention to the tech tree. If this is not true, feel free to challenge me to a duel, sabres at dawn, whatever.
Jason, thankyou for being another voice of reason.
Last edited by Zanzin; June 1, 2001 at 21:54.
If the voices in my head paid rent, I'd be a very rich man
I'll ignore the wasteland of the last too posts.
This is a valid discussion for civ III, obviously some people don't know what a
But Back to the point.
"I'd like the option. We play for fun and we play on a regular basis so the randomness will hit us all over time. But I also play tribes and would play more tourneys and these formats call for less randomness in my opinion."
So, I finally see the crux of your frustration. It was a competition that was being scored. In a regular game you don't have a problem with it. Having no desire to play in ultra competitive play where I would start having to worry about people bending the rules (which has been shown to be quite easy) I hadn't taken that into account.
Hmmmmmmm. But it doesn't change by opinion. The thought of playing on a designed map where everyone starts on a river with one gold, one wine, one buffallo and one wheat and no huts doesn't thrill me. (at all) We would all turn into robots following preprogrammed scripts. Gee maybe that why I don't do those types of games. And again, unless you've see the map, once you move, random elements have been introduced so I see no reason to not desire more. In any sport, there are random elements and I do believe over time (sometimes a long time) they will even out. I have no problem losing a game every now and then due to a little bad luck. Luck will always be a factor, but all in all, skill will win in the long run. Hopefully no one will every be accused of being a loser or acclaimed the best from one game.
So while I'm still not convinced, I can now understand and respect your position on this, but I respectfully dissagree and realize that no amount of arguments will change either of our opinions on this. But you are right, if this was made an game option to choose, it would satisfy more people. But it probably become another source for discussion/arguments before a game could start.
RAH
I'll be at the river boat on Friday, but be looking on Saturday early evening. (since the Wife will be at a family function that I have been given a free pass on.)
RAH, this would have been a valid topic if the first post had made even just an ounce of sense
If the voices in my head paid rent, I'd be a very rich man
Jason -Hey Jason, your second "reason" is invalid since I did not threaten him until long after his so-called reasonable post accusing me of being a fool. And I asked you to present your arguments for the position you took via ICQ but all you've done is tell me I didn't have a legimate complaint without explaining why. Do you often "debate" people with nothing more than claims of, "you wrong, me right"? And I did not initially threaten him with violence, I told him what I would have done had he made his comment to my face (with smilie). He then challenged me to come down to Australia to punch him in the nose (I guess that was reasonable, huh?). As I said earlier, where I live, if you walk up to a stranger and call them a fool, it is not unreasonable to get punched in the face. That was the point I was trying to impress on Zanzin, a point lost on both of you. Oh, btw, you really think it is reasonable to call people fools when you ascertain the illegitimacy of their statements? Ok, FOOL! Gee, I really wish I was there as you walk around calling people "fools"...Seems to me that Zanzin was very reasonable in saying "wrong forum, fool," since, on the one hand, there was nothing to suggest since you didn't have a legitimate complaint, and on the other you showed yourself foolish with that whole business of threatening people with physical violence.
Gee, you're so very brave, or has it dawned on you nobody is going to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars to pay some as$hole a visit - assuming the as$hole even gave an accurate address - just for the little satisfaction of punching a hypocrite?It would be fair to say I'm not afraid of Apolytoners coming around and beating me up
But calling someone a fool because you cannot figure out that a suggestion for the makers of Civ III belongs in the "Suggestions for Civ III" forum is acceptable?Nevertheless threatening violence is just sad over a matter of forum selection.
Do you understand that smilies are used to put words into a special context? What is hilarious is that there is not one accurate or sensible statement in your entire post. He challenged me to commit felony assault, you got that backwards - par for your post.And then to justify it based on the fact that people make empty threats because they are hiding behind their computers? While you make empty threats? That's hilarious, you really intend to commit felony assault because someone identified you as a fool. Hilarious.
Umm... Jason, where on the tech tree does Theory of Gravity appear as a pre-requisite for Economics? And they are worse than clowns, they sold a product advertised as playable for the internet that was in fact not playable but so "bugged" some of us had to wait for months for patches which needed even more patches.It isn't crap, they aren't clowns, and you just need to pay more attention to the tech tree. If this is not true, feel free to challenge me to a duel, sabres at dawn, whatever
Zanzin -ROTFLMAO!!! What a supriseJason, thankyou for being another voice of reason
Zanzin -You signed onto this thread to inform me I was a fool for choosing the wrong forum, now you have a different accusation - back it up with a substantive argument instead of "self-supporting" statements. I said I wanted the tech tree to be accurate and the game to progress without research detours. How is that unsensible?RAH, this would have been a valid topic if the first post had made even just an ounce of sense
I would just like to say that although this is a good possible discussion and a valid topic, I think all of you are scaring away anybody who might want to add their opinion for fear of a flame war. I would suggest that you guys just drop it; there is no reaon to spoil a potentially good post.
Lime roots and treachery!
"Eventually you're left with a bunch of unmemorable posters like Cyclotron, pretending that they actually know anything about who they're debating pointless crap with." - Drake Tungsten
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks