Patch 1.20

[alexman]

From what I have heard, input from C3C's beta testing team was taken seriously. That team included many players from these forums. I was not one of them, but I know they had their own private forums.

SGLs were introduced because players were complaining that war in Civ3 was too powerful, and peaceful players had no equivalent of a MGL.

The corruption model was changed because of a bug found by members of these forums (the FP rank bug). Fixing the bug changed the corruption model to what it was originally intended to be. Opinion among players is divided on what the corruption model should be, so the designers stuck to their original design.

As for a list of suggestions for the C3C final patch, there is (was?) such a massive thread over at CFC, and many suggestions are not only unrealistic for a patch, but they are also conflicting. It's impossible to read that thread from beginning to end, much less make design decisions from it.

I think it's smart that Firaxis rely on limited feedback from a few people who are in touch with these forums, rather than trying to sort through all the information themselves. They can then use their limited Civ3 time fixing bugs and improving the game instead.

[DrSpike]

Quite! And if they'll hold off for a bit going all out on Civ4 so they can finish C3C everyone will be happy.

[Andydog]

I'm not suggesting that Firaxis sift through a massive uncontrolled ‘patch suggestion’ thread.

Rather that they ask us to provide controlled feedback on various game issues. My example again: "Apolyton [CFC or whoever], here is C3C. Please now provide us with a document that clearly details changes you'd like us to make to better balance the game and to eliminate exploits. Please group the changes into Units, Civ Traits, Tech Tree, AI [etc] and prioritise into Critical, Strongly Desired, Nice to Have [etc] and supply in 1 months time.”

They could then focus on the obvious issues and later use this document to better prioritise their precious remaining time and resources. I used that example because we’ve already seen Firaxis prioritising things in their patch that shouldn’t have been, but I’ve banged on about that before.

All I’m saying is that I believe it is possible for them to make better use of the various communities, who love nothing more than to discuss and debate Civ3, to help them make a better game which would ultimately make them more money.

[Mr Justice]

im no expert on Civ or apolyton of CFC.

but i do know people.

the idea of the community providing firaxis with a base set of ideas to be implemented is unrealistic, unworkable and above all costly for firaxis.

i think its unrealistic to expect firaxis to hand over responsibility for what is essentially the design document to a community that, while they love the game, neither feels bound by finicial or technical limitations.

i think its unworkable becuase in something like that everyone is going to want to offer their 2 cents worth. if they feel strongly enuf about it they will persist in bringing up their idea even if the general community dosnt generally accept their ideas. to try limit this then firaxis might "appoint" a reprensentative from the community to coordinate this. that person is naturally going to favor their own ideas and ideas they favor. which leaves the posibility that the whole "approching the community" is meaningless becuase really they would just be getting one or a selected few opinions.
essentially this is what their private forum is. a group of selected peoples opinions.

lastly it will be costly becuase as much as this community knows Civ, we have no real idea of the xact technical details. i admit their is an astounding level of knowledge here, but we are not the programmers. so to implement some of the things that the community want could be costly becuase we dont consider the design impelcations. also it could be costly in terms of the fact that if Firaxis dont do what the community wants then its seen like their backing down oin an agreement and wouldnt be taken lightly but the community.

just my 2 cents

[Willem]

Originally posted by Andydog


I prefer Apolyton over CFC so I don’t spend as much time there – has anyone else from Firaxis posted there asking for input into any specific issue?

Yes, a number of them have poked their heads in the door, so to speak, at both sites the last couple of years, even Soren. Mike B. was fairly active for awhile, here and at CFC, as well.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Andydog

To use my earlier example, if they had asked us for a prioritised list of desired changes to C3C when it was first released, then yes, I'm sure the response would be massive, (and forgive me if my inexperience with these forums is showing here), but I would’ve thought that this massive response could be managed to prevent it from being overwhelming.

An approach like that would just be a waste of time. Take a look around and see how many people suggest things that are beyond the scope of the game as it is. Many of them would require a complete rewrite of the underlining code. And many of them are just plain frivolous and wouldn't add anything to the game. They'd end up sifting through so much crap, they wouldn't have the time to get anything done.

Instead, they quietly monitor the boards and try to address things that they, and the players, see as important and actually doable. Almost all the major gripes that have been aired the past couple of years have been addressed in time. Yes, there's still a few things lingering, and there's room for improvement, but the main issues have been dealt with or are being dealt with.

My perception of Firaxis is that they do support their products. A short while ago, they released a patch that dealt with some problems with SMAC when running on Windows XP. They didn't have to do that, the game was already out of print with no possibility of them making any more money on it. But they did anyway, and I was impressed with their support.

[Andydog]

People, please. I’m not talking about re-writing the game as Willem suggests, nor handing control of the game’s development over to the civ communities as Mr Justice suggests.

We are talking about using the communities to document game balance issues and bugs, after C3C is released, for Firaxis’ use in prioritising time and resource for future patches.

Nobody has said anything yet to show me that to produce such a document is unrealistic. Cripes, Doc summarised quite nicely the bulk of the critical issues a few pages back:

1) Fix the annoying bugs, with the sub bug only being the poster child.

2) Reinstate the AI tweaks that PTW had. Why are these gone? Why does the AI irrigate grassland in despotism? Why does it space its cities even worse than ever? Why are the barbs such wussy pink blouse wearing girls? I have more.

3) Decide whether resource scarcity is a bug or a feature. If the first state when it will be fixed.

4) Some fixable balance issues are evident. I'm not talking about major changes to what has always been a rubbish govt system, or anything like that. I just mean balancing the traits a little better. For goodness sake nerf the seafaring sink probability in ocean and sea. For god's sake take something away from agricultural, maybe no cheap aqueducts. For god's sake let's have a reasonable anarchy time (though this wont fix the govt system). I have more.

So there they are already, nicely grouped, and nobody seems to have a problem with those do they?? I can’t see there being endless debate on any of them.

And with a bit of co-ordination, such as what we’ve seen with, for example, the Civ4 list, and for example, the Apolyton University Mod, I see no reason why a useful document couldn’t be produced that details more issues.

Firaxis can then do with it what they want. If, for some reason, they couldn’t address something regarded as important, then all they have to do is tell us why.

Anyway, obviously it’s too late for this now, what’s done is done. I’m just saying what I would have done differently to try to avoid the situation the game is now in, and I see the communities as being able to assist. I really don’t understand all this pessimism.

[Mad Bomber]

Well, I'd at least like to think that my endless *****ing about the lack of crusiers brought about their return for C3C.

Firaxis does pop in the boards from all of the Civ sites (not just 'poly and civfanatics) but they mainly lurk and don't post unless they need to do so, or unless a topic actually interests them. It's also my experience that their activity peaks after the initial design is complete and they have a bit of time to screw around.

With most of the time devoted to Civ 4 though, I doubt we will see them for a while.

[Cartouche Bee]

Originally posted by alexman

The corruption model was changed because of a bug found by members of these forums (the FP rank bug). Fixing the bug changed the corruption model to what it was originally intended to be. Opinion among players is divided on what the corruption model should be, so the designers stuck to their original design.

I know this is the official line about the corruption fix but I find it hard to believe that the designer did not know things did not work as they had intended for more than 2 years.

Let's not forget the root reason for the corruption model was to curtail the human; by preventing the unbridled lopsided expansion that was available in Civ2 by techniques like ICS. Now, with C3C, the changes uncork all the advantages to ICS expansion again by allowing too many ways to make too many cities productive. ( The new solution as a whole, is a step backwards in my opinion. Yes, I think RCP and the city ranking needed to be fixed but I don't think the current patch solutions work very well against a determined player.)

[Fistleaf]

Andydog is right. All we need is a poll to decide which are the major issues that need to be tackled, and then somebody respectable (like MarkG) can consolidate the list and present it to Firaxis as "The Apolyton C3C bug list". It's not too hard. Maybe we can restrict the list to 10 items to make it easier for Firaxis.

[vmxa1]

I am not sure why it is so hard to have a beta tester or some other person close to the company scan in the thread and review it. It does not have to cost any money, I suspect they could get reliable help for free.

[Andydog]

So do I.

And even if they did have to pay someone, what would be more effective and cost efficient – that or paying a bunch of testers and relying on their input to identify bugs and game imbalances? The choice is clear to me - use the thousands of fanatics, who probe every facet of the game and debate it extensively.

Jesse himself has said that there is no better way to identify these sorts of issues than to release them to the masses. I know that the civ community would be only too happy to help - everyone wants a bug free balanced game in the end. Yes, I realise that different individuals may have different views on what makes the game balanced, but debate it, poll it, summarise the results and hey presto, Firaxis has the best information it can possibly get for use in allocating time and resource.

Just take a look at the Apolyton University Mod discussions to see how game balance issues are debated and decided upon to good results.

Anyway, that’s all I have to say on the subject. I’m getting bored with it and I’m sure others are too.

[Jarred]

I think though that my core issue with this game and why I'm very critical, and I didn't put it in these terms: The simple problem with Civ 3 is it is less customizable than Civ 2 for what is seemingly availible, and this is a key issue.

We have more customization in certain respects-we can control buildings and what they do, how many civs to an extent and governments; yet, something has been missing from Civ 3-we can not control events, which even though has been long complained about, this might easily be the worst problem with the game; all attempts at scenario customization to the same extent as Civ 2 are laughable at best, and I think it causes frustration that now we have an AI that's better and more realistic borders, yet the scenarios in their scope and magnitude pale to almost anything we had in Civ 2, even with the limitations of that game; though true, not everyone plays scenarios, I am of the belief that a majority of the hardcore Civilization fans do, or at least like to see a lot of customization which unfortunately seems harder.

And, for its problems, the Civ 2 graphics editors served a purpose; though the good graphics creators did not need them or use them (As they were pretty bad...), they allowed the average player to use them-which is significant; one problem I had with ToT is the abscence of these editors because I simply did not know how to create the appropriate graphics files and when emailing Microprose, I was told it was not possible; this I find distressing, and even though it is possible with Civ 3, unit creation was better supported with Civ 2 (though simpler, granted-but once again I point out utilities such as SCURK and BAT which were in the Simcity Games).

But the worst part about Civ 3-yes, its still a good game; but I'm very disappointed lately to prefer civ 2 over Civ 3, whereas I never touch Civ 1 anymore; Civ 3 is disappointing in its replayability, while still very good, is only adequate at best for a Sid Meier Civilization game. While this is more of a bash-I like Civ 3 and I think its a good product, but once again, the flexibility issue for me is a tremendous issue I can not and will not stress enough the failure of having adequate editors to allow the community and players to do whatever they wished; maybe I've been too spoiled by Civ 2 to appriciate this...

I still think the tech tree setup is not friendly to customizing, either, but I don't want to go into that. My main point is, and I've given up on Civ 3/Conquests is for in Civ 4 allow everything to be customized; make Civ 4 the medium of the communities to create their works, instead of mods that appeal to about 10% of the populace...I mean, reasonibly-is this too much to ask for? Perhaps it is...but events existed before, and massive scenario customization existed before...why can't it now? (I would note that its impossible to play a scenario that's already started and everything is 'fresh' on the map-a big lament too).

[Jarred]

and by laughable at best-I don't mean to belittle the scenario creators; they've created good stuff especially considering their piles of excrement handed to them by Civ 3's editing and I've enjoyed some scenarios very much. But I don't think its possible to compare Civ 3's scenarios to Civ 2: not because of a lack of talent in the Civ 3 scenario community (There might be more since they could make something out of the pile of dung in the editor) but because the lack of game options provided;

I don't think Firaxis should make the same mistake as getting rid of the "Cheat" options in Civ 4. In Civ 2, they were more than perfect. As far as being too spoiled, I think that's sad but true, because its not that Civ 3 has not fulfilled my expectations but because Civ 3 did not fulfill Civ 2's standard-which I find no excuse for.

And without the customization, it prevents Firaxis from creating revolutionary ideas for fear of destroying perhaps classical civ motifs; if we could break the bars you can really get some nutty ideas floated and if they aren't appriciated you can fall back on a classical type game. I fear that Civ 4 won't appriciate these things and will be an upgraded Civ 3 with new features and systems and what not but will still ignore one of the main lackings of Civ 3 compared with Civ 2.

[Antrine]

Very well said Jarred !!! I concur COMPLETELY, add one thing, let us even move forward and ADD access to AI routines, for to better put 'intelligence' unique and otherwise into the acronym AI.