Why no responses by Firaxis?

[OneInTen]

Partial quote follows, as I believe it cums up Charles' last few posts, I am making every attempt not to take it out of context, but please correct me if I have.

but that they keep in mind this game DOES have problems that need to be addressed and to not get in the way of that.

I respectfully disagree with this, for three reasons.

a) I can play a game and enjoy it. So can many others. There is no need for anything to be addressed at this point. Sure, you want some things addressed, and so do I, but to make out that there's some drastic need is incorrect. So please, cut the melodrama.

b) In the threads about bugs and suggestions for improvement that I have seen (ie the threads that actually dop address the problems), there's been very little of people "get[ting] in the way". People are happy to let the discussion flow there, it's only in the opinion threads that I really see people who like the game doing what you describe as "get[ting] in the way".

c) Certainly the same standard should apply to threads where people wish to discuss what they enjoy about the game and how they might enhance their enjoyment, and also strategy threads. Yet most of those threads get thread crapped/hijacked/whatever you want to call it almost immediately by someone who dislikes the game. If you're going to criticise the "fanboys" for "get[ting] in the way" then surely that criticism applies equally, if not more so, to the whiners (I say more so since this is supposed to be a fan site). For whatever reason, you neglect to mention that
your standard should cut both ways.

PS: Charles, feel free to send me whatever lists you like, I should be reachable by email via here, but don't be surprised if it doesn't change my mind - I've never said civ 3 is perfect or has everything I think it should have.

[Ming]

Originally posted by OneInTen
As for group movement, it's not unanimous. I couldn't give a rats behind about it. It would add absolutely zero to my game experience, since I wouldn't make much, if any, use it with my style of play. In fact, it's likely to detract from it due to the risk of new bugs being introduced by adding features. I'm sure I'm not the only civ 3 player who doesn't have the need for group movement - and I wouldn't be surprised if Firaxis considers adding such a feature a rather delicate issue for the reasons I state of risk management vs reward.

HUH!!!!!!! How the heck do you play the game? You must be really bored if you find moving units on a one by one basis interesting or as something that adds to your "gaming experience". Either that, or you don't build many units

While it may not be unanimous, I'll bet it's close to 99%. I'm a strong supporter of Civ III, and even I see that group movement is a must. I derive no enjoyment by having to move fleet of ships one by one... or workers, one by one... or land forces, one by one... I don't care what the "risk" is... give us group movement please!

[Libertarian]

So why do so many continue to speculate about [Firaxian nonresponsiveness]?

Because that's exactly what nonresponsiveness does. It perptuates speculation.

Or perhaps they've been on Chrismas break and then been working hard on whatever it is they're working on, and only now had some small amount of spare time which they can devote to answering questions on some unofficial forum such as this?

No. They've answered the questions to a small cabal of their favorites, as I explained in some detail in the closed thread. It takes no more time to write a post here then it does to write an e-mail.

As for group movement, it's not unanimous.

Then where were you when the four threads that screamed for this feature with absolutely zero dissent languished until it became clear that no answer would be forthcoming?

In other words, they answer the questions they can give a conclusive answer to, and don't answer the questions which they can't.

Nonsense. Why do you make all these assertions that are demonstrably false? Particularly in a public forum where everyone can see the questions, such as whether it's possible to turn off the shading of pop numbers.

Or rather, the hallmark of not wanting to give up any information they can't be sure about.

What on earth do you image they're doing at Firaxis, contemplating their navels and hoping that someone will think of something to keep them busy? Are you saying they've been completely rudderless since their last webpage update?

Given the express hostility towards Firaxis from yourself and others here, no, I'm not sure I see what Firaxis has to gain by responding to you at this point.

Redemption.

[CharlesUFarley]

Originally posted by OneInTen
So why do so many continue to speculate about it?

They don't, I believe the silence has agrivated the wound and this is a result of it.

Even if that hostility didn't exist, apolyton and other such forums are isolated markets that it really doesn't make huge financial sense to sink too much time into, at least in the short term. And the more I think about it the more I'm convinced that Firaxis isn't in any position to focus on any intangible long term benefits of goodwill - they're a small company in an unstable industry during an economic downturn. Their priorities have to be on their immediate bottom line to survive and prosper!

Does it cost them money to simply "update" their website with a progress report every now and then?

Charles.

[CharlesUFarley]

Originally posted by OneInTen
Partial quote follows, as I believe it cums up Charles' last few posts, I am making every attempt not to take it out of context, but please correct me if I have.

I respectfully disagree with this, for three reasons.

a) I can play a game and enjoy it. So can many others. There is no need for anything to be addressed at this point. Sure, you want some things addressed, and so do I, but to make out that there's some drastic need is incorrect. So please, cut the melodrama.

Sorry, but these are FACTS and common sense. Many games with design flaws were play-able and many people enjoyed them, but no one was rediculous enough to deny that those flaws didn't exist. You're going to have to do better than that!

b) In the threads about bugs and suggestions for improvement that I have seen (ie the threads that actually dop address the problems), there's been very little of people "get[ting] in the way". People are happy to let the discussion flow there, it's only in the opinion threads that I really see people who like the game doing what you describe as "get[ting] in the way".

Well I guess that thread is the only spot where flaws and criticism can be found. I'm sure your intelligent enough to admit that the constitution of the negative criticism is much larger than what you'll find on a website. Use your emagination to start, and journey down that road of reason and I'm sure you will deduct logic and find that obviously if the element of "complaint" exists then there is a basis or reasoning behind it.

c) Certainly the same standard should apply to threads where people wish to discuss what they enjoy about the game and how they might enhance their enjoyment, and also strategy threads. Yet most of those threads get thread crapped/hijacked/whatever you want to call it almost immediately by someone who dislikes the game. If you're going to criticise the "fanboys" for "get[ting] in the way" then surely that criticism applies equally, if not more so, to the whiners (I say more so since this is supposed to be a fan site). For whatever reason, you neglect to mention that
your standard should cut both ways.

Well I don't honestly believe in these silly notions of "whiners" and "fanboys" because when you hack away at the truth we're all fans, some of us happy and some of us unhappy. And what it ends up turning out to be is a dog chasing its tail. Occasionally its mildly amusing, but most of the time it becomes frustrating as I am sure you will agree. But regardless of forum-topic everyone should be able to express themselves as they see fit (within site policy ofcoarse). It's when you attempt to cross the streams of the two matters that begins to create the real problem. But I kid you not (and I hope you will beleive me on this) there are existing design flaws and problems of a large list that would only apply to those whom it bothered. As you said before, they probably exist but it doesn't bother everyone. That's just a level of appeal and game standards to the individual preference I suppose. But some of them are not.

PS: Charles, feel free to send me whatever lists you like, I should be reachable by email via here, but don't be surprised if it doesn't change my mind - I've never said civ 3 is perfect or has everything I think it should have.

Well now that you agree that there are imperfections there is no need for me to spend more time typing the already growing list of problems/issues with the game. But if you require proof, I definately have it - in the form of facts.

Charles.

[OneInTen]

HUH!!!!!!! How the heck do you play the game? You must be really bored if you find moving units on a one by one basis interesting or as something that adds to your "gaming experience". Either that, or you don't build many units

Well, lets break it down to where stack movement would be useful:

With workers, in the early game, they're too precious a commodity to stack and risk wasting turns by applying extra work to a square than is required. By the time I have workers coming out my ears and I really don't care (usually at the time when it becomes railroad building & polution cleanup only), I can generally do everything I need to with one or two workers (almost always play industrious civs) so I don't see the benefit there.

Besides, it's mostly about military units as I understand.

My style does lean towards the peaceful, so I don't do much offensive moving of units in a lot of games. In which case stacked movement offers no help.

When I do go on the attack and am playing a warmonger game, I'll send all my units with goto to the point I wish to start my attack from. I don't find this difficult, as usually I've been pushing them towards that point for several turns before hand, as when I'm not in a war it makes more sense to have units spread out. Therefore, again no help from stacked movement.

Unless we're talking about adding stacked combat (which would be a major change to the gameplay at this point), stacks don't help you making the actual attack, since units will still attack seperately.

Finally, for the issue of reinforcements, my style is to set them on goto and let them arrive in a disorderly manner. I'm sure there's merit to gathering a second invasion force and moving them all together, but I've tried both ways, and for me, I'm more comfortable with letting reinforcements join the main group as they catch up, rather than starting a second group of units. Therefore, stacked movement would be no help either.

I don't deny that some people would probably benefit from stacked movement. I'm saying that just because you want it doesn't mean everyone wants it. I don't think it's as trivial to add in as most people think, not only from the point of view of bugs, but also because it affects the UI drastically. To properly design, implement and test such a feature is a major undertaking, and thus I'm not surprised we haven't seen it yet, and Firaxis is not commiting publically to implenting it.

Frankly, I think there are other, easier to fix, issues that should have higher priority - hence my comment that desire for stacked movement is not unananomous.

[Libertarian]

The only reason it is not unanimous now is because you have lately weighed in on it for reasons that, frankly, I find dubious. I suspect that you simply lashed out in irrational disagreement with me because you are determined to disagree with whatever I say.

And the reasons you've given for not needing group movement belies your familiarity with the game, particularly the late game, where even the peaceful player must either supervise the activities of scores of necessary workers (made necessary by the game's own design) or else trust an untrustworthy automation system.

That your units have not been ambushed on their way to their goto destinations indicates that you likely play on Chieftain level where your decisions have negligible consequence anyway, and automation is less of a concern.

At any rate, we clearly must stop saying now that the desire for group movement is "unanimous". But maybe you should change your username to OneInAThousand.

[OneInTen]

Because that's exactly what nonresponsiveness does. It perptuates speculation.

Where as answering the question of what they're working on would promote speculation also, would it not?

No. They've answered the questions to a small cabal of their favorites, as I explained in some detail in the closed thread. It takes no more time to write a post here then it does to write an e-mail.

You mean they've answered the questions of the people they knew wouldn't flame them mercilessly in response? Well, I'm surprised.

Then where were you when the four threads that screamed for this feature with absolutely zero dissent languished until it became clear that no answer would be forthcoming?

Because I don't care whether the game has the feature or not. I'm just not clamouring for it based on the fact I'd find little to no use for it. Lack of disapproval != approval.

Nonsense. Why do you make all these assertions that are demonstrably false? Particularly in a public forum where everyone can see the questions, such as whether it's possible to turn off the shading of pop numbers.

Is it a thread posted recently while someone from Firaxis was actually posting? It could have easily been missed if not (certainly I don't recall seeing such a thread, but admittedly I don't read every single message in every single thread).

Maybe they missed it too. Maybe the poster got busy and didn't have time to read that thread. There are a number of explainations that don't involve Firaxis deliberately trying to deceive you. Why must everything be attributed to malice on Firaxis' behalf?

What on earth do you image they're doing at Firaxis, contemplating their navels and hoping that someone will think of something to keep them busy? Are you saying they've been completely rudderless since their last webpage update?

I'm saying that they can't be sure they'll release feature X until they complete design, implementation and testing of feature X. Therefore, they do not announce feature X until they have done so. This certainly doesn't mean they're not working on anything.

Redemption.

Well, on reading that, a line from the "Redemption Song" by Bob Marley came to mind - "Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery, None but ourselves can free our minds". I don't know if he was singing about Firaxis and Civ 3 though.

[Ming]

Originally posted by OneInTen
I don't deny that some people would probably benefit from stacked movement. I'm saying that just because you want it doesn't mean everyone wants it.

Huh... you obviously don't follow these forums
Change the above word "some" to "MOST" and you would be closer to the mark. It is one of the most valid complaints about the game to date. More threads have been started on that subject than ANY other.

While I can understand you wanting to defend the game (I do so also), you lose any credibility when you make statements like that

[OneInTen]

Perhaps the reason I'm chiming in now is because you said it was unanimous and I really don't think you speak for me, or anyone else who didn't post in that thread. Anyway, as I say in my post above this, lack of disagreement != agreement.

In the late game, there's only polution to clean up. Not much bother for me, a shortcut key or two and it's done. Concievably I could save that second shortcut key with group movement. Frankly I find it hard to care much about the 0.1 of a second or whatever it takes me to hit the keyboard a second time.

Now if automate workers to clean up polution actually worked sensibly (ie they went sentinel in cities until polution happened, and then they went out and cleaned it without my intervention), that would be atleast 100 times more important to me than group movement.

Units being ambushed on their way to their destination isn't a problem for me - I find the settings that let units stop when an enemy threatens them to be more than adequate to prevent that from being likely. As for your snide remark about difficulty levels, well although I believe the opinions of someone who plays on chieftan are just as relevant as someone playing on deity, I play on regent and up.

I agree that should stop saying things are unanimous when you really mean unanimous between the people who bothered to reply to your thread. That's about as reliable a methodology as those phone in polls that TV shows run (ie not at all reliable). If you'd simply said "many people desire group movement" I would have let it pass. I don't like being spoken for.

FWIW, If given a yes/no vote, I'd vote for group movement. But if given a yes/no/don't care vote, I think you know where my vote would go.

[OneInTen]

Not wanting to have a grammar war, but "some" is inclusive of "most" (at least to me, some means anywhere between 1 and 100%, most means anywhere between 50% + 1 and 100% - 1).

It was a minor nitpick about Lib claiming to speak for everyone. I guess I was being excessively prideful in not wanting to be spoken for.

You can all continue to debate the issue for another 30 posts for all I care, but I'm letting it drop.

[OneInTen]

Does it cost them money to simply "update" their website with a progress report every now and then?

Do web designers work for free where you live? Please supply some names, I'm sure the company I work for would love to hire a few!

Anyway, I'm reasonably sure we're not going to see a progress report until the next patch (or possibly it'll be an expansion pack, who knows) is ready. Not for financial reasons, but simply because as Firaxis have already made it abundently clear, in the interests of not making a public commitment that they can't meet, they will not be releasing details of what they are working on until they're sure they'll release it.

What is so hard to understand about such a policy? It's pretty industry standard, why does everyone act like Firaxis is going out on a limb here?

[OneInTen]

Charles:

Of course there are design flaws and problems with the game, as with any game.

You've got to be careful about saying that it's a fact that something is a design flaw though. One man's design flaw is another man's feature.

Example that comes immediately to mind for me is rocket jumping in quake. That was an unintended side effect of the physics model being used. Yet some fans adopted it, it became used, and now appears in most FPS games. You never can tell.

So what people consider as design flaws is going to vary from person to person. You might consider feature X to be a design flaw, but to some other player, it might be the most enjoyable part of the game.

Some examples of such features/design flaws that come to mind in civ 3 are:
Culture flipping
The corruption model
Dropping of civ 2's firepower system

All of those are considered fatal flaws by some people while applauded by others. And there are valid arguments on both sides. Who is right? Which group has the facts?

What if Joe User really likes RTS games and feels that it's a design flaw of civ that it's a TBS not a RTS? Is that also a design flaw? Where do you draw the line?

Yes, there are some issues that are facts, like the problem that sometimes the game crashes when a city goes into disorder. It's reproducable, it crashes the game, it stops you from playing (well, without using work arounds). There's no doubt it exists, and also no doubt it's a problem. That's what I consider a fact.

But these sorts of things that can be definitively put in the issues basket are pretty few and far between and mostly minor (at least since the patch, air superiority not working was a biggy).

The rest are just matters of who you like vs what I like vs what a million other players like. On the whole I guess you can say that if the majority of players dislike something, then maybe it shouldn't have gone in. But we don't have access to the majority of players, and apolyton is hardly a representative sample of the world's civ players. So we'll probably never know for sure.

Every game is going to have things that people dislike, and every game is going to have people who dislike it as a whole. That's why, as I believe I said to you over at civfanatics, that the true measure of a game isn't what people dislike about it, or even how many dislike it, it's how many people find fun and enjoyable things about the game.

Which in combination with some of the other threads gives me a bit of an epiphany, the real problem with game reviews is they start from 100% and subtract marks. Really they should look at the game and find reasons to like it, rather than look at it and find reasons to mark it down, since it's certainly possible to make a game that has great graphics, a funky soundtrack, cool storyline, and state of the art editing tools and yet still fail to have that X factor that makes it a classic.

Anyway, post your facts if you want to, but I'm probably going to have to disagree that most of them are facts, even if I'll probably agree with a lot of the things you say detracting from my game experience (though not necessarily about the degree of importance).

Ugh, 2:30am, tomorrow morning I'm going to yet again wish I was a morning person not a night person.

[Willem]

Originally posted by CharlesUFarley

Don't either of you have something constructive or even the least - meaningful ...

And what's so terribly construcitve about jumping down anyone's throats just because they have a different opinion from you? All you've managed to accomplish is to make it clear that you're extremely close minded with no tolerance for anyone's opinions if they don't happen to jive with your own.

Becuase here you two are spending so much time and effort trying to convince everyone to become utopian and just love the game.

If you would "take the time to do some reading ", you'd probably find that I've voiced a few complaints of my own around here. I'd hardly call my position "utopian".

Originally posted by CharlesUFarley

But you're both being completely irritating and somewhat ignorant, ...

I'd suggest you look in the mirror on that score.

Move along or pay more attention to the problem(s) and listen to people rather than spending so much time trying to correct everyone with cheap sarcasm and degrating cut-downs.

Man you should SO listen to yourself once in awhile. But I guess in your world, calling people ignorant and irritating doesn't qualify as a "degrading cut-down". And no I won't move along, I have just as much right to voice my opinions here as you do. And if you don't like it to ****ing bad! Deal with it!

[ACooper]

No. They've answered the questions to a small cabal of their favorites, as I explained in some detail in the closed thread. It takes no more time to write a post here then it does to write an e-mail.

Teacher's pet, Teacher's pet.