What is your greatest wish for Civ 4?

[DrSpike]

I like the ones related to real gameplay factors (I am not really much of a Simser), but many were kept for Civ3. They could add more though, and bring back the ones they didn't keep.

[thinkingamer]

-First of all, one word: I don't have time for 12-24 hour single game. One of the greatest reason why Homm2-3 was popular (even among some of the rts worshipers) because the a single map playing time was about 2-4 hours each. When Homm4 made the game significantly longer, (about 1-2 hours more each game) with more micromanaging, and other "time wasting mechanics" (such as micromanaging hero portions, ugh!) I believe that was one of the main reason that it turn me off at Homm4.



-Less luck plz.

1) The random map should be at least as balanced as Age of Empires 2 random map.

2) Plz Firaxis, do not implement ideas like a some kind of a elit unit "promoted" to leader in one of random combat win, then able to sac. it to finish a wonder.

3) In general, less rolling die, and more strategy (the amount of rolling die should not exced that of Civ 2)


-manual details. I won't spent any more of my precious time to find a basic detal written in a some "strategy guide" a basic information in a game. For example, in SMAC: formulas like percentage chance for ecological damage = MODIFICATION x DIFF x TECHS x (3-planet) x LIFE /300 was writen in a strategy guide that cost that I paid 10-14.95$. WELL, lets me say something that is no STRATEGY, BUT BASIC INFO.!!!

Well, at least Civ 3 's manual was not as bad as Europa Universalis 2' manual (it full of useless info and just description). Also, another tip: in order to make the manuals shorter, less words, and more number charts.

Some examples of an outstanding manuals:

IceWind Dale: not just includes most of DnD 2nd edition rules, including nice background-tutorial stories (not required, but nice), etc.

Homm3: perhaps they missed one or two very specific info, but very organized and simple, and most importantly, the information it provides about the game is near-complete.


All I want is a very refined Civ4, without all its time unefficiency (for example, instead of moving workers around, why not improve the land within the city micromanaging screen, ala queve?)

Provably I already pissed some ppl in board with my opinions... I'll stop now.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by AeonOfTime


I agree - but I don't think that will be the case. From what Soren said, the featureset of the game is implemented, until release they are only giuong to do some polishing and betatesting/balancing gameplay. If they do that for four months straight, it may very well be the most bugfree and balanced Civ yet. It better be!

Unfortunately, it wont work in practice. A few gametesters cannot think of everything a large group of dedicated players will.

As long as they are willing to tidy up afterwards it's fine. But of course many of the loose ends in Civ3 were never tied up - a fact many have not forgotten I'm sure.

[yin26]

thinkingamer: I don't see a thing wrong with what you wrote. Good manuals are rare these days, and the "strategy" guides are a rip off. As for less rolling of the dice, I think I know what you mean, but how would you do it in practice?

DrSpike: It will be interesting indeed to see what the "new and improved" Firaxis will do with QA this time around. In fact, that's obviously where the future of the series lies at this point.

[AeonOfTime]

@thinkingamer: formulas like percentage chance for ecological damage = MODIFICATION x DIFF x TECHS x (3-planet) x LIFE /300 was writen in a strategy guide that cost that I paid 10-14.95$. WELL, lets me say something that is no STRATEGY, BUT BASIC INFO.!!!

Expectations have limitless variations in all possible directions. You seem to like numbers and tables (and I agree that these come in very handy) - but do not forget there are players that actually do not like numbers at all, and that are absolutely fine with basic explanations that help them just play the game.

What you want, and which many Civvers here on apolyton like too is getting deeper in the game, and play it on a much more detailed level. I think a good thing would be a complete reference in the manual, or even a separate booklet in which we can look up all those shiny numbers

@thinkingamer: All I want is a very refined Civ4, without all its time unefficiency

There again, Civ demonstrates how flexible a game it is in that it offers a lot of different playstyles under the same hood. I don't know any civ veteran who does not turn off unit animations to have more time to focus on the action - but then there are those who like to play with them on because it gives the game another feel.

@thinkingamer: Plz Firaxis, do not implement ideas like a some kind of a elit unit "promoted" to leader in one of random combat win, then able to sac. it to finish a wonder.

Why not? I thought that was quite a cool idea - and not that unrealistic. There have been many great leaders in history who had so much influence on the people that they accomplished wonders in their names.

@thinkingamer: Provably I already pissed some ppl in board with my opinions

There are many open-minded people here, and I for one am always open for new ideas, so shoot away. You will probably get to defend your opinions, but the occasional clashes are mostly due to a good amount of thickheadedness

@DrSpike: Unfortunately, it wont work in practice. A few gametesters cannot think of everything a large group of dedicated players will.

We have absolutely no idea of how many people Firaxis has for betatesting, but you can be sure they also have a few dedicated players there to betatest. It's not like they don't know the game at all... hell, they have been bathing in it for years. Most of them are probably as addicted to the game as we are.

You will have to agree that the fact alone that they invest so much time in betatesting can only be good. I find it very reassuring, because they won't release the game for christmas just because they need the sales and do a patch afterwards: they will release it because it will be as good as it is going to get without us testing it

And I'm sure they know we are ferocious beasts and that we will do what ferocious beasts do with their lunch when it does not comply

[yin26]

By the way, on the issue of beta testing, it really must ruin the gaming experience. Any thoughts? I know some great players who won't agree to beta test just for that reason. And while I'm sure the group they are using is top-notch, I just can't help but feel that some of the best people to test Civ 4 just aren't interested in doing so for fear of ruining their enjoyment of the game overall.

Of course, the bigger issue really is not just number of beta testers but number of various computer configurations. The first is a gameplay/balance issue while this second is a no less tricky stability issue. So a release to the wild is the only real way to move forward at a certain point, and this is where the QA response is critical. Patches that are done merely to fulfill a contract with the publisher (and not done in the spirit of building your franchise) run the risk of leaving gamers feeling betrayed if a few key issues aren't fixed.

It seems these days that two patches is what publishers will allow, so if the first one is spent quickly fixing issues that in all likelihood were already known before the game goes "gold" then you've really only got one more patch to get at a whole lot of larger issues that take time and careful planning to address. So if the first patch is almost just bringing the game up to code so to speak, there's a lot at stake with that second patch, and that's the one I hope Firaxis take a good long time to put together.

[yin26]

Hey, so that's my wish: A patching process that a) doesn't buckle to the masses' wish for a quick release and b) that doesn't look merely to plug the more glaring holes but also looks to build substantially on real-world feedback developed over several months.

Pro-active. Long-ranged.

[AeonOfTime]

A patching process that a) doesn't buckle to the masses' wish for a quick release and b) that doesn't look merely to plug the more glaring holes but also looks to build substantially on real-world feedback developed over several months.

BTW, there is one company that does this: Stardock. I experienced it first hand with Galactic Civilizations, and enjoyed it enormously.

[yin26]

Yeah, Brad Wardell is a unique figure in gaming. In fact, I just bought Political Machine for a kick--a kind of show of support (that game is really pretty bad, though, and their official Website is gone already). Part of his secret is direct distribution and the success of his other projects like the desktop stuff and JoeUser.com

If anything, I hope he brings his focus back to gaming, but I'm really pulling for him and others to show that direct distribution can go a long way to unlocking the publisher shackles!

[AeonOfTime]

direct distribution can go a long way to unlocking the publisher shackles!

I agree. I really like that distribution model - in many ways it is also easier for the customers, at least if you have an internet connection. Their total gaming network is also a good idea, but it needs more games. I'd really like to buy Civ that way

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by yin26
Hey, so that's my wish: A patching process that a) doesn't buckle to the masses' wish for a quick release and b) that doesn't look merely to plug the more glaring holes but also looks to build substantially on real-world feedback developed over several months.

Pro-active. Long-ranged.

Yes, and Firaxis have done neither with Civ3. Beta-testing should make the release version better than Civ3 was, but beta testing by its nature has its limits. It's (b) that makes the game stay the course.

Here's to hoping.

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by yin26
By the way, on the issue of beta testing, it really must ruin the gaming experience. Any thoughts?

Of course, playing it "as a job" ruin the experience after a short time.
I suppose the same would happen to having s.e.x. as a job ...but I digress.

Originally posted by yin26
It seems these days that two patches is what publishers will allow, so if the first one is spent quickly fixing issues that in all likelihood were already known before the game goes "gold" then you've really only got one more patch to get at a whole lot of larger issues that take time and careful planning to address.

AFAIK the problem with frequent patching is about "no regression test" effort.
Anytime you change the source code, you should repeat a whole set of test, just to check no new bugs are added. That's fine if you can automate the check, but it's a nightmare if you must replay every step by hand.
So you must chose one: to make frequent patch and take some risks to do more damage, ruining already working features, or reduce the number of tests and squeeze all the code changes into a couple of batches.
Economics at work, and the bad industrialization of programming art.

[AeonOfTime]

By the way, on the issue of beta testing, it really must ruin the gaming experience. Any thoughts? I know some great players who won't agree to beta test just for that reason.

It can be disappointing at first if you have difficulties accepting that you don't have a finished product in your hands (beta-testing has always had that romantic touch of having the game before everybody else). But if you can accept that fact, it can be very gratifying when you experience the improvements live and if some of your findings/suggestions are suddenly in the game.

It has never ruined the gaming experience for me, but you really have to have a lot of time and to be able to accept the developer's choices. So yes, it can ruin the gaming experience but not necessarily.

@Adm.Naismith: Of course, playing it "as a job" ruin the experience after a short time.

As always, that depends on the individual. I am sure that a few of the guys at Firaxis working on the game or betatesting the game still play it at home and will play the final game even though it's also their job. That's the nature of passion - I know, as my passion is Web Development and even though it has also been my living for about six years, I continue having fun with it at home.

@Adm.Naismith: Anytime you change the source code, you should repeat a whole set of test, just to check no new bugs are added. That's fine if you can automate the check, but it's a nightmare if you must replay every step by hand

If you know that, you also know that this is predictable and highly dependent on the structure of your application. If you have a clear API and modular structure, Unit tests can be automated and changes tracked easily.

If you don't know what a specific change may do to part x of your application or do not even know that part x depends on what you are changing, you can't be helped anyway. I hust hope that Firaxis knows what they are doing

[Harovan]

Originally posted by yin26
By the way, on the issue of beta testing, it really must ruin the gaming experience. Any thoughts? I know some great players who won't agree to beta test just for that reason. And while I'm sure the group they are using is top-notch, I just can't help but feel that some of the best people to test Civ 4 just aren't interested in doing so for fear of ruining their enjoyment of the game overall.

I am very confident, Firaxis has the best people they could possibly get to betatest Civ4. If Civ4 will be a failure (which is NOT what I believe!), it will not be because of the wrong people testing, but for other reasons.

The worst thing being the time factor, and a lot of discipline. What use has a prolongued betatest, that writes up a huge list of bugs and issues, if you don't take your time to actually squash them one by one? There are STILL bugs left in C3C, which were already reported during its beta multiple times.

And what use has it, if you declare the betatest over due to the lack of time until release, burn the remaining bug list and introduce HUGE changes in the game code, which would have needed a careful testing and balancing, but never were sufficiently tested? As seen with the corruption model in the first few patches of Conquests. It was a sheer disaster. The betatesting had been done not by volunteering testers, but by paying customers. Result was a quick succession of official and inofficial patches and hotfixes, each of which fixed an issue or two and created a new one. This was pure poison for Play By EMail games. At times, I had three different versions installed, just to be able to play my PBEMs. This is NOT how you treat customers.

Judging by the features leaked and officially stated so far, I am sure, Civ4 has the potential to become the best turn based strategy game of all times. This includes SMAC. Yes, Yin.

The only thing, that can possibly go wrong now is again ignoring the time factor. Please, both developers and publishers, don't repeat Breakaways/Ataris mistakes from the Conquests beta.

Let the betatest be over, when the list of bugs and issues is empty. And empty means empty. Nothing. Zero.

And after the beta is over, DO NOT TOUCH THE CODE UNTIL RELEASE!

[yin26]

Ralph: Now you're talking!

EDIT: By the way, I'd rather have 5 features working well than 10 with problems. Now before people get on me about "But Yin you're on record for wanting major changes to the game!" that's true, but I'd much rather see a few significant changes (like my city to state concept) than a whole roster of fluffy things that prove hard to balance and patch later.

By the way, isn't the alpha phase the point at which real gameplay issues are handled? By the time of a beta, you're usually just looking for stuff like "Clicking four times on a plains tile causes CTD" and a bit of balance/exploit issues. So at the end of the day, I don't look for the beta testers to save a bad design (if there is one). They can only do so much!