Tweet
White Elk
I like "not seeing the forest for the landscape". That is very clever. I think I'll include that in my signature.
In the past 18 months in this forum, I have witnesses many conflicting viewpoints on civ elements, including how the tech research should be handled. You seem to suggest that there is a magic answer. I say that such an answer is impossible to achieve because there will always will be a subset of civers that will want/demand just the opposite.
Quite a while ago, we (mainly Civ2/SMAC vets) documented some of the complaints that the ancient age went by too fast, as well as the complaints that you can research a modern tech without having some middle ages one. That led to, in Civ3, the forced Ages, not only forcing you to research nearly all of the techs before going onto the next Age, but in forcing a 32 or 40 turn rate early on so you are forced to spend more time in the age. (My response has always been that if you want to spend more time in the ancient age, go play one of Kull's Ancient Age scenarios). But alas, since this was one of the more prominent complaints, Firaxis complied but in hindsight, many(?) of those who made the original complaints determined that perhaps the way it was in Civ2 wasn't so bad after all. So perhaps that led to the tweak in the other direction and predicatably that aliented those that liked it the other way. My only point is that there must be a design decision on the approach to this one feature and stick with it. As with all design decisions, some will love it and some will hate it. You can't expect to tweak it to death and have more people like it because using your analogy, I didn't want you to fine tune a horsedrawn vehicle in the first place, I wanted you to design an airplane.
I know this offers nothing regarding resolving or fine tuning this feature. I'm just taking a historical perspective or perhaps a more forest perspective where it doesn't make sense to fine tune a pine tree when it should be a forest of aspens (or vice-versa).
I like "not seeing the forest for the landscape". That is very clever. I think I'll include that in my signature.
In the past 18 months in this forum, I have witnesses many conflicting viewpoints on civ elements, including how the tech research should be handled. You seem to suggest that there is a magic answer. I say that such an answer is impossible to achieve because there will always will be a subset of civers that will want/demand just the opposite.
Quite a while ago, we (mainly Civ2/SMAC vets) documented some of the complaints that the ancient age went by too fast, as well as the complaints that you can research a modern tech without having some middle ages one. That led to, in Civ3, the forced Ages, not only forcing you to research nearly all of the techs before going onto the next Age, but in forcing a 32 or 40 turn rate early on so you are forced to spend more time in the age. (My response has always been that if you want to spend more time in the ancient age, go play one of Kull's Ancient Age scenarios). But alas, since this was one of the more prominent complaints, Firaxis complied but in hindsight, many(?) of those who made the original complaints determined that perhaps the way it was in Civ2 wasn't so bad after all. So perhaps that led to the tweak in the other direction and predicatably that aliented those that liked it the other way. My only point is that there must be a design decision on the approach to this one feature and stick with it. As with all design decisions, some will love it and some will hate it. You can't expect to tweak it to death and have more people like it because using your analogy, I didn't want you to fine tune a horsedrawn vehicle in the first place, I wanted you to design an airplane.
I know this offers nothing regarding resolving or fine tuning this feature. I'm just taking a historical perspective or perhaps a more forest perspective where it doesn't make sense to fine tune a pine tree when it should be a forest of aspens (or vice-versa).
Comment