Catt,
I'm sorry if I sounded rude. I didn't intend to. I understand that lots of people didn't like he changes and I respect their opinion. Making people evil or incapable of thought was NOT what I wanted to achieve.
However:
I said "I have the feeling that ... ". Can I have a feeling without proving it with numbers, please? There were posts like these:
that made me feel (and say) what I said. My interpretation was: "So, the idea might be good, but why do they have to apply it now, ruining my archer and horse rushes?" Of course, my interpretation might be wrong, but I didn't say: "you are idiots for not liking it", I said "I have the feeling that they don't like it because ... ". Not seing (from my PoV) a valid reason against the changes (horseman losing against sprearman is not a good reason, IMHO) I assumed that there must be another reason behind the negative reaction. For me, the whole thing sounded like a Coracle chorus: "Bad, BAD changes!". Sorry for that, but this is how a felt it.
Furthermore:
I said: "Why would the new rules detract from gameplay is beyond me." That means " I don't understand why would the new rules detract from gameplay", nothing more, nothing less. I still don't understand it. So stronger units will win more often. What's wrong with that?
Seing the numbers I can understand that maybe averaging 4 results is too much, and combat results may change too drastically. Averaging only 2 or 3 results may be better, indeed. I also like a lot Spencer's idea.
I can live with the current combat system. I always thought that it is too random, but I never said that it is broken. So, when I saw that finally Firaxis considered "fixing" it, naturally I was happy. Then it came a crowd yelling that the changes are bad, so I was a bit upset, as you can imagine. Please forgive me if I hurt anyone's feelings.
I'm sorry if I sounded rude. I didn't intend to. I understand that lots of people didn't like he changes and I respect their opinion. Making people evil or incapable of thought was NOT what I wanted to achieve.
However:
I said "I have the feeling that ... ". Can I have a feeling without proving it with numbers, please? There were posts like these:
So much for ultra-early rushes!!
I'd prefer it if they saved this new formula for Civ 4.
This combat system may be a good idea in the future.
I'd prefer it if they saved this new formula for Civ 4.
This combat system may be a good idea in the future.
Furthermore:
I said: "Why would the new rules detract from gameplay is beyond me." That means " I don't understand why would the new rules detract from gameplay", nothing more, nothing less. I still don't understand it. So stronger units will win more often. What's wrong with that?
Seing the numbers I can understand that maybe averaging 4 results is too much, and combat results may change too drastically. Averaging only 2 or 3 results may be better, indeed. I also like a lot Spencer's idea.
I can live with the current combat system. I always thought that it is too random, but I never said that it is broken. So, when I saw that finally Firaxis considered "fixing" it, naturally I was happy. Then it came a crowd yelling that the changes are bad, so I was a bit upset, as you can imagine. Please forgive me if I hurt anyone's feelings.
Comment