Jeffrey Morris: Dan Magaha said to ask you these two questions

[yin26]

Isn't 'crude' explanation enough? If you don't want the car mechanic doing your PR, keep him away from the T.V. cameras.

[Asmodean]

Isn't it amazing how some people will resort to flaming and name-calling over a computer game ?

Anyway: You're only accomplishing one thing: Making sure that Firaxis will never listen to you again.

What a way to be heard

Asmodean

[yin26]

Yep, the Big Bad Gamer scared away timid, helpful Firaxis. Ah, the humanity!

[bigboss]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil

stacked movement existed already in Master of Magic

Master of Magic is still one of the best games ever created. If I could, I would buy the source code and have someone port it to DirectX and fix a few of the small bugs. Anyone know Simtex's email address?

I think one of the major reasons stacked movement is not in the Civ games is because the combat does not take stacks into account. Master of Magic naturally would have full stack movement since they moved AND attacked in a group. In the Civ games, all units in a tile attack individually, so having all units move individually is just the obvious and easiest thing to do.

I don't recall so much fuss over Civ II not having stacks like some people are demanding.

I also don't get the whole "150 workers" thing. Unless everyone is playing huge map and has 100+ normally spaced out cities, it just seems absurd to have that many workers. I think in my current game I have about 10 workers in mid-industrial age and about 25 cities. Have to take into account that I rarely keep enslaved workers around. They usually get disbanded into population or production. I always seem to have a couple high food output cities that can easily train workers for my empire instead of letting foreign workers dilly dally around taking twice as long to create my new road.

[Libertarian]

I also don't get the whole "150 workers" thing.

I don't know whether I can address this to your satisfaction, but I'll try. Often, mutual comprehension depends so much on context and point of view. The worker question depends a great deal on your style of play.

Many of us prefer an empire building style of play, in part because the whole Civ series, including this latest installment, seems tailored in so many ways for exactly that. Now, especially, with clearly defined cultural borders, the growth of your empire is one of those visual feedback elements that players consider rewarding.

The empire builders might typically choose a tribe with an industrious attribute, primarily for the production capacity of the workers. To build an empire, you must eventually nurture every tile until it is maximized for productivity. This will mean roads and rails and mines or irrigation. The bonuses accrued from tile nurturing accumulate in proportion with your empire's size. Therefore, in a sense, the empire builder is also an expansionist — just not in the mindless, wandering here and there sense of an expansionist tribe. Empire builders don't seek just to expand outward; they seek to expand inward as well, squeezing every drop of reward possible from every tile in the empire.

All this makes workers one of the most valuable assets to the empire builder since only workers, unique among units, can achieve the primary objectives I've enumerated.

Dozens of workers are required for each city in the empire in order to nurture efficiently. But these aren't all that are required. For the industrious tribe, workers are an absolutely critical element in the strategy and tactics of battle. We use them to build roads and rails under the very feet of our soldiers as they advance to their objectives. Once a city is conquered, the empire builder sends in a swarm of workers such that the conquered city's radius is fully developed within the turn. Why is that so critical? Because it affords the empire builders with enormous advantages toward continuing the attack.

An industrious tribe, with a corps of workers assisting its army, can cut a swath across even a gigantic rival empire in a single turn. When a city is conquered, workers go to work immediately, building rail all the way to the edge of the city radius. That way, a tank in the rear that might have advanced only a tile or two into enemy territory may now advance deeply into the bowels of the enemy empire.

Whether your next advancement is one or two tiles can make or break the continuation of your attack. The ability to pull a bombardment unit just one tile closer might mean that you can take one more city, rather than waiting another turn. And in a game where war weariness is always lurking, one turn can mean the difference between winning and losing a war.

With respect to captured workers, yes they are less efficient than native workers, HOWEVER... they are FREE!. They cost no maintenance whatsoever, and are therefore critical to the empire builder's commercial success as well.

So, I hope that with just a bit of empathy, you can see how important workers can be to empire builders. Unfortunately, it is the game design itself that makes using them so necessary. Therefore, given what we HAVE to do in order to build an empire, it would be a mercy of astounding magnitude to facilitate our necessary tactics with an interface that doesn't fight against us tooth and nail every step along the way.

When you must deal with your hundreds of workers one at a time AND doing so is made hideously difficult by a bizarre and senseless unit activation sequence, late game play is simply the worst drudgery imaginable. I'm not kidding when I say that the "just one more turn" quality of previous Civ incarnations morphs for us into an absolute dread that the next turn is coming.

(Couple this with the periodic appearance of the Domestic Nag, needling us — oh lord, one at a time! — about aqueducts and hospitals, and empire builders tend to curse a lot in the late game.)

Yes, we could play some other style, maybe a militaristic crush and raze type thing, but then, to us at least, that just wouldn't seem like Civ.

Does this help you at all toward a better understanding?

[Barchan]

Originally posted by Spiffor
If I understand, Firaxis answers (roughly) "When we have something to say, we'll say it".
What is wrong with this attitude ? They don't know any information, should they invent one just to please you ?

Spiffor, put yourself in the shoes of the person who asked the question and I think you'll find out what's wrong with the attitude. Perhaps it all boils down to a question of form over substance, but the problem was with the treatment of the person asking the question. Seriously, how'd you feel about the following dialogues?

You: Hey, Doc, are there going to be new treatments for my disease?
Doc: When I have something to say, I’ll say it.

You: Excuse me Police Commissioner, but what are you doing about corrupt police?
The Commish: When I have something to say, I’ll say it.

You: Senator, can you tell me where my taxes are going?
Senator Kennedy: Er, eh, when I have, eh, something to say, I’ll, eh, say it.

You get the idea. The point is if you have questions, you’d like answers. If there are none, that’s OK, but when you get shut out or stonewalled, you don’t like it.

And, frankly, “when we have something concrete” is a throwaway response. Nothing is ever really “concrete” (excepting concrete itself, of course), since there’s always something (even if it’s a thermodynamic miracle) that can change things, so based on that you don’t ever really have to say anything. It’s not the same as saying “Well, the report isn’t final yet so I can’t comment on it, but I’ll notify you as soon as it’s complete.” It’s more like saying “we haven’t yet considered every fact that ever was and ever will be; once we do, though, we’ll tell you.” If you base your timeline on events that you define yourself, you can very easily control the flow of information, to include choking it off completely.

Not that Firaxis can win here, anyway. The only alternatives are obvious form responses (Dear , thank you for your insightful suggestion…) or personalized, well thought out responses. The first is nearly as bad as what was originally made, and the second just takes way too much time. Still, IMHO, a simple “Thanks, we’re looking into it” would have been better than the “concrete” brush-off.

[CharlesUFarley]

Originally posted by Spiffor
If I understand, Firaxis answers (roughly) "When we have something to say, we'll say it".
What is wrong with this attitude ? They don't know any information, should they invent one just to please you ? I think they understood the lessons of their past failures : they announcd a super-duper editor, with scenarios etc. and the editor didn't support scenarios (it is pretty good for modding rules). Now they say : "We have no information, we won't want to disappoint you", and some people are still complaining ? I don't understand...

You guys are !@#$'n halarious. I can't stay away. Because spiffor, Jeff gave Lib a half-ass answer. Not to mention that he dodged the question quite swiftly.

Like I said before, Firaxis has a choice... do some PR and keep sales, or neglect the PR and lose some. It's their choice. And there are many ways for them to do PR without losing money.

Firaxis : please be be much less transparent as you have been before, especially about the date releases (of future patches, of the gold edition). That way, we couldn't be disappointed. And please don't answer questions for which you don't know the answer.

The fact is they DO know. They just choose not to answer because they're lazy and evasive. Again, that's only my opinion though!

To the people who complained about the answer from Firaxis : why did you complain ? PLease explain it to me clearly ? I don't get the logic here (excepet that the answer was crude...)

Aren't we the clever one. He didn't answer it! I didn't see any answer, all he said was "he knows nothing" kind of an *Area-51* tactic if you ask me!

Charles.

[CharlesUFarley]

Originally posted by XPav


Do you want this type of answer to EVERY question that people ask? I mean, seriously? Are the NON-PR volunteers at Firaxis supposed to spend hours creating flowering verses for every single question that people ask?

Oh, you're a bright one. I thought I addressed this issue with you in another thread, I guess you though that by moving somewhere else that I wouldn't notice you eh? Nice try. You're exagerating this issue. No one is asking Firaxis for verses, flowers or royal treatment. We're asking to be treated as a customer would in a store. Would you ever talk to your customers that way, not a chance. If you don't give customers the information about the product, they simply become un-interested and go to another store. Lets talk facts, not crap. It seems like so many people are struggling with the fact that WE ARE THE CUSTOMERS! Think about this!

I can think of a whole pile of suggestions that's been mentioned in the Forum, with a "Firaxis please respond" appended at the end. Do you want to them to "blah blah we respect your opinion blah blah" for everything?

Ah... YES. We paid for the product didn't we! "Customer is always right". So what if they get flak'... big deal... if you take offense to what someone says in an email thousands of miles away, your not only un-proffesional but imature. Lets be serious, they have no excuse. The fact is they NEVER answer our questions.

Fan: Are you currently working on the stacked movement feature?
Firaxis: I dont have any information, therefor I wont say anything.

What !@#$'n kind of answer is that? If I treated customers that way, I would get fired faster than I can say "Civ3 sucks".

What happens when they have to say no?

Then they say "no" so what! It's not like we're going to commit suicide over a game. They're answers should carry information, not vague evasive cop-outs!

Do you want PR folks to come in here to stroke your ego? or
Do you want game designers to tell you what they can?
Make up your mind.

Yeah, but what they "tell" us, better carry some weight and answer our questions! Not "Sorry no information, no answer". An answer is defined by a response carrying not only helpfull information, but truth as well. Niether of those are used!

As a programmer, you should know better. Imagine your customer (or whoever ends up using your software) demanding a paragraph long flowery suck-up paragraph in response to every single question. That's right -- YOU. Now have 20 people a day asking you questions.

Who said anything about "flowery suck-ups" .. I think your putting words in everyone's mouth. Your exagerating this issue to favor your weak point. Fact is, a one on one response is not required when anyone from Firaxis can post a public message addressing all matters in the form of ONE POST. That doesn't take any time at all. Considering all the people complaining have "common" problems. get it ?

Charles.

[Libertarian]

He's using a classic strawman tactic. Rather than address the argument on the table, he prefers to modify it into an inferior argument and then assail his own caricature.

[Max Webster]

Originally posted by Steve Clark
Personally, I can see where this would be more convenient but many of us was able to play Nemo's SF and RF without stacked movement (and enjoy it!).

and alot were turned off by the fact that they had to move too many units around. Lovely scenarios especially RF, but you really really had to love them to play them. I don't love civ3 that much.

[Max Webster]

Originally posted by bigboss
I don't recall so much fuss over Civ II not having stacks like some people are demanding.

It irritated the heck out of me. I don't know how many games I stopped midway through because things just go too boring, repetitious and tedious. I don't how a playtester could not notice this when he was testing the game. It was one of the first things i noticed when i started playing civ2.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Ozymandous (sic):

Ah, I KNOW it's mispelled. I also know that before I realized it was mispelled I hgad already been using it as a "handle" and when I went to change the name someone else had already been using it.

You have a problem with the name then fine, but don't display even more of your "heh, look, I've zinged you" attitude instead of trying to prove a point as all it does is make you, IMHO, look even more of an egotistical ass.

The ideal answer would have acknowledged the intelligence, humanity, and integrity of those who posed the question. Something like this:

I just want to say on behalf of Firaxis that we greatly appreciate these kinds of suggestions for improving gameplay. We can't think of everything, and so we depend on good people, like the ones in this community, to help us with great ideas like this one. I wish I could give you a definitive answer, but at this point, we're currently reviewing exactly the issue you raise. We agree that it would contribute greatly to gameplay, and if we can find a way to implement it, we'll let you know. Thanks, Lib.

Hmm, good thing I have waders at my house, it's starting to get deep in here.

As a programmer with twenty years of commercial experience, I understand completely that few projects are very simple. But difficult doesn't matter. These guys aren't hobbyists. They're professionals. If they can't code this, then they need to go program databases or something.

So, tell me, in all your years of coding, have you EVER directly answered or even acknowledged all of the end-users who might employ your software and told each and every one of them what you stated above??

Have you EVER, in all your whole twenty years of coding commercial software had an application that was used by more than a thousand or so people? Have you EVER in all your years of producing "commercial" software even went back and added FREE features to your products after it shipped? Or did you charge folks for the "add-on" features, even if some folks thought they should have been in there to begin with?

My guess is that most of these are no. Even if you did reply to the limited (guessing) people who give feed-back on the product you don't put out FREE improvements. Trust me, I have been USING commercial software for at least 10 years and have YET to see any major improvements in said software without paying. As for your comment of "we're so sorry we didn't answer each and every *****, whine or complaint, how may we spend time doing that instead of actually WORKING on these features" spew, well, I have said it before and I'll say it again.

I'd RATHER have the prgrammers and sesigners working on trying to add the stuff we suggest than to have then here stroking a few people's reproductive organs just because said people want to feel good about themselves.

You've gotten your response from Jeff, he knows what people want, what the hell more do you want, other than having your "ego" stroked???

[Ozymandous]

Re: Re: Yep, that says a lot about you.

Originally posted by Akka le Vil


Let's go for some more stupid logic :
1) Civ 1 was VGA, 320x200 and 256 colors. So Civ 3 doesn't need to be in 1024x768 and 16 bits colors. Let's keep the VGA. I had no problem with the graphics in Civ1. No need to improve them.
2) Mongolian conquered most of the world with bows and horses. It's totally irrelevant to build tanks. Just tale bows and horses and conquer the world.
3) People had no trouble without electricity in the middle-age. We should get rid of the electricity.

I could go on for hours with this, but I think that you could understand : it's called Civ 3 because it comes AFTER the 1 and the 2, so it SHOULD be better. It IS better in many places. But it SHOULD be better in ALL places.

You know, when you complain about stupid logic you shouldn't use "stupid logic" to support your complaint.

lol, are all 2003 car's radically different than 2002 cars? Do they have better everything or just a few things? Are movie sequals radically different than the original or just better in a few areas (or worse). Just because something is named 2,3,4 or 100 doesn't mean that EVERYTHING will be improved.

Not to say it shouldn't all be improved but that doesn't mean it should ALL be improved either.

I'm quite simple on this subject :
stacked movement existed already in Master of Magic (yes, it's even prior to Civ2). So it IS possible to include it in a game. Then if it's not included already, it's because either they oculd not (huge incompetence for programmers) either because stacked movement was not considered very important (huge incompetence for designer), either they would rather take time to make childish clownish animations for leaders than take time to program stacked movement (huge incompetence for project leader).
I don't like to bash people that took a lot of time working and that listen to their fans, even if they don't answer often.
I hate to talk bad about people that use their own free time to continu working on a game.
But I just can't come to another conclusion : no stacked movement is the direct result of incompetence at some point in the game creation. I hope this will be corrected, but still...

Master of Magic, different engine and different company made it. Your point?

Hmm, so everything that's not in the game is from gross incompetence? Tell me, how many games have you designed and coded? Well? Where are they so we can play them and then point out every single thing you missed putting in that we think is "obvious".

Well? We're all waiting anxiously.

I find amusing that Libertarian, who was not so long ago one of the worst fanboy of the forum, always acting as a holy defender of the game, is now bashed as a whiner just because he started to calmly, politely and thoughfully post that he though which parts of the game should be improved.
Or how you are considered a whiner as soon as you point some flaws in a game

lol, you think he's being bashed because he posts suggestions? No, he is bashed because he DEMANDS that FIraxis answer EACH AND EVERY post he makes regardless of how minor it may be.

Oh, and you're right about how he was a fawning "fanboy" and now derides the company that made the game. I guess what they say about "fair weather friends" and all that is true, eh?

Welcome among the whiners, Lib, it's a pleasure to see some "converted" people

lol, glad to see how "impartial" you are. *smirk* I guess everyone who doesn't whine and complain is a fanboy, eh?

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by Max Webster
Great post Lib, its great that you are posting about these two issues that I too find to be troublesome. Its better to point them out than to keep quiet I think.

Its too bad programming has to get in the way of the making of a great game.

He's posted this at least twice in other threads and been answered and acknowledged by at least two people from Firas thus far. Maybe if they had everyone from Firaxis sign on and reply to his posts he'll have his ego adequately stroked and go away?

Nah, would only make him worse.

Yes it is too bad programmeing has to get in the way of making a great game, of course I guess the game isn't programmed to begin with, it just auto-magically appears, right?

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by Barchan


Well, to be fair, there is a happy medium between "we are aware of these feature requests, and when we have something concrete to say about them, we will" and the rather over-the-top suggestion (designed, I think, to be that way) by Libertarian. I mean, really, Jeff's response wasn't particularly PR-friendly. I'm not disagreeing with what he said, but how he said it. I understand that Firaxis cannot quickly change game fundamentals, and is probably not inclined to anyway. But the rather imperious tone with which Jeff responded to a fairly polite, decently-couched request was, well . . . let's just say it wouldn't win any popularity contests. It wasn't far from “Yeah, yeah, yeah. We heard you. Don't call us again, pal; we'll call you.” Who wants to be on the receiving end of that treatment from *any* company? I’m no spinmeister, but even “we are aware of these feature requests, but are sorry to say that we don’t have any information available for you at this time” would fly better than “we’ll speak when we’re damn good and ready to”.

Well.... You DO realize that this is at least the second thread Libertarian started on this SAME subject, correct?

You DO realize that Dan M, from Firaxis, already responded to his previous thread at least three times, correct?

You DO realize that Soren said that he knew that people wanted stacked movement like a day or so after tha game came out, correct?

You DO realize that Jeff Morris said he hadn't posted any information on the previous patch until it was confirmed that it would be released because he didn't want to start rumors, correct?

If you are unfamiliar with any of the above then I hope this is a little more knowledge for you. Essentially Jeff posted exactly as he should, acknowledging the suggestions that had been made. The previous thread(s) were full of this same crap about "why can't Firaxis stroke my "ego" some more and directly answer me", so I guess no one should have been surprised when the same person who complained about not being acknowledged WAS acknowledged but then complained about how he was answered.

Hint for you, major game development companies don't always tell their customers what they plan to change or even ACKNOWLEDGE their fans. Some examples...

Blizzard: Don't tell fan's what they plan to change until the fan's read the readme. Also does not even acknowledge fan suggestions.
Ensemble: Don't tell fans what they plan to change until the readme.

Some people should just offer suggestions and then quit pestering the folks at the companies. Questioning is fine, essentially being a whiney-kid throwing a tantrum is not.