No room for civility any more?

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Trouble is...many, if not most of those criticisms were spot on....Civ3 IS a game with some problems, some of them minor, and some of them fairly major.

Oddly, after enough time immersed in the guts of the game, I "switched sides." Could no longer continue avid support of a game with what I perceived and considered too many design flaws, stemming from bedrock level design decisions.
-=Vel=-

This, to me, is a very telling aspect of the state of civ3, and should be a cause of concern for Firaxis. What I've seen over the last few months is a group of staunch defenders of the game eventually get to the point where they see the limitations and flaws of the game. And to me, the caliber of the people who have flipped on civ3 is actually very high (especially a 'certain player' whose strategy helps for SMAC are legendary...)

Your impressions of the limited strategy options in civ3 is a point that should not be ignored. At the same time, there are probably a lot of players who do not approach the game in the same way you do, so for them, that concept is a moot point.

(Actually, I was tempted at one time to start a poll on who would be the next to flip, but that was a flame war in the making....)

Lib, Venger and Yin (yes, Yin because he actually had a lot of initial positives to say about civ3 after a couple of rounds with it) all have done a 180 on civ3 (...OK, you may have only done a 150), and with the possible exception of you, have also taken A LOT of heat from the loyalist camp.

For the most point, I have felt that the issues brought up by all of them have been very valid, but at the same time, sometimes the tone of the posts has been somewhat sarcastic in tone. (Note that the recent '95 thesis' thread actually had a lot of good observations but was very heavy on the sarcasm...) The sarcasm has been mainly directed at Firaxis, but once again, the line gets blurred in the mind as to who is the butt of the sarcasm.

I make no bones about the fact that I prefer the 'CTP2 Modded' model at this point in time. Before civ3 came out, there was a civ2/civ3 loyalist who would come into the CTP2 threads - all he would say that CTP2 Modded 'sucked' and that all of us who modded the game were wasting our time because the CTP2 community was so small.

It wasn't so much his viewpoint that was bothersome, but it was the tone and language that he used to present his viewpoint that was so irritating. Even when he was pressed about his viewpoint, it came out that he had not really played the Modded versions and had based his comments on gameplay in the default mode. Again, I understand that perceptions of a game are often based on incomplete info, and I can deal with that, but this person had no other effective argument rather than 'CTP2 sucks'.

I realize that my posting on how good/bad civ3 is similar to the poster mentioned above - all I try to do is to get players to have an open mind to some of the weaknesses that are noted by civ3 players and to continue to press Firaxis to hopefully fix these issues via patch, or 'shudder', XPack. (and IMO, many of the issues that may bother some players in civ3 have been addressed in the CTP2 Modded community - and 'Modded CTP2' has pleasantly surprised some of the civ3 loyalists as of late).

For me, one thing that came out of that incident was a greater understanding of the powerful pull of so-called 'preference issues', which to me ends up causing the majority of the flame wars that have occured recently here.

There is nothing inherently wrong with holding a preference for something - let's at least agree to respect those preference issues.

[FrustratedPoet]

Originally posted by moominparatrooper

All that said; here's the off-topic material: Vel! Where's the meat about Velocigames and the Game Whose Name No Mere Mortal Can Recall? I'm dying to hear some news, man! If you're about to adapt Firaxis' doctrine on forum participation, please tell us so...

i hope Vel won't mind if i answer this ... (shhh, it's a bit OT ... if we're quiet maybe Ming won't notice).

we're steadily working our way towards a first initial playable version of the game ... most of Vel's original threads about the project have a link to our team forum at the bottom of them. there is a thread in the 'Other Games' forum (called 'Candle'Bre', i think)where you can download the rules for the game as it stands.

you're welcome to check out both...

now to get back on-topic:

yes, i think that the general feelings of dissatisfaction with civ3 have caused a lot of people to mod the game to suit their tastes (even if only a little bit, since the editor is limited). this means that for many people civ3 is a different game, and discussion of the standard version does not benefit from this - although perhaps the game itself does.

[Ming]

Originally posted by FrustratedPoet
(shhh, it's a bit OT ... if we're quiet maybe Ming won't notice).

[FrustratedPoet]

uh-oh .... busted!!!!!!



it won't happen again sir! i promise!

[Thrawn05]

I think you did yourself in FrustratedPoet.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by FrustratedPoet
yes, i think that the general feelings of dissatisfaction with civ3 have caused a lot of people to mod the game to suit their tastes (even if only a little bit, since the editor is limited).

IMO, the main reason for the existence of so many mods is the lack of any scenario editor. Therefore, a lot of 'creative' energy goes into modding the basic game - and while there are a good deal of mods that aim to 'smoothen out' the rules (korn's blitz mod and vel's no-name mod being the most ambitious of them), even more modders (at least in my perception) are busy with creating maps and additonal units - the basic essentials of scenarios.

[Velociryx]

Thanks for the assist, Stoo! Vel's home sick today...UGH...nasty sore throat (and since much of my job involves talkin' on the phone fixing computer troubles, I figured I'd prolly not be of much use to them).

To glide off topic for a sec. again (using what mastery of The Force I have to make Ming look t'other way for a second), yep, what FP said! We're over at my site The Renaissance Portal in the trenches and working toward the first playable version of Candle'Bre! (v0.1). This first version will be playable from start to finish, but will be the game in its most raw, basic form (essentially, it'll be a matter of getting the map done, and testing the combat engine, with only the bare bones economic model in place--just enough to play a complete game).

In my mind, unit balancing will be among THE most critical elements of making the game a cult classic, and once we get v0.1 done, we'll be able to spend a TON of time making damn sure we don't have any uber units/useless units. As we continue to hash out the design, I'm noticing that the units are getting a lot more specialized, and that's a good thing, IMO. That, taken together with the fact that combined arms are a necessity to excel, should make for some *exquisite* game play, even with the bare bones version.

I could ramble on about it a lot more, but...lol...Ming's attention will only be diverted for just a second more, so back on topic....

Every time I check back here, I'm more and more heartened by all the different names I see....posting here, mostly in agreement
(and with one notable exception, even those who disagree have been doing so...civilly), and giving this thread a thubms up! That tells me that there's more than enough civility on this board to turn the tide....a very good thing, IMO.

And yep...definitely up to us....

-=Vel=-
(back to nyquil and bed with me)
PS: To get to the latest stuffages on Candle'Bre, follow the link above, click on "Discussion Forums" - Candle'Bre will be at the top!

[Spaced Cowboy]

Just wanted to say that even though I'm a newbie to posting, everyone here has been helpful and has managed to do so without trashing me.

I lurked for a long long time before my first post. I have to admit that I'm a little intimidated by some of the folks around here, even though I work with computers/email every day and have for a long long time.

I agree that people can argue, but should do so without flaming each other. I guess that is the way that they show that their arguement is weak.
RPM

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by RPMisCOOL

I agree that people can argue, but should do so without flaming each other. I guess that is the way that show that their arguement is weak.
RPM

That's true, I think being uncivil and flaming others, like us newbies, makes people tend to ignore what you are trying to say, like the "95 things..." thread, he had good points but who really got those on the first read through. I didn't just seemed like whining to me.

right now, the game is what the game is, until it's fixed- this is what we have to work with.

[Just My 2 Cents]

Hi, I'd like to chime in with my opinion, for what it's worth:

I'm a member of several forums, they cover the spectrum when it comes to topics. Some were nice but most have turned into what the chatrooms did once the internet started being used for purposes its developers did not intend (chat rooms, fps multiplayer, pron, blah blah blah):

every forum has it's share of "civilized posters". Just to pick one off the top of my head, let's use Vel as an example (and I'm just choosing him because I've never read a post where he was deliberately rude to another poster, even if that poster disagreed with him and even if the other poster was becoming hostile). these civilized posters usually generate 75% of the posts worth reading regarding strategy, etc... usually because they are open-minded and are willing to try someone else's idea even if it's contrary to the way they like to play (what many have seemed to forgotten is it's just a f***ing game, afterall). arbirtrarily let's say such posters make up about 10% of the board.

the majority of the boards make up another 50% (arbirtary), and I'll label them as sheep. I call them sheep because they're usually newbies, they have many questions to ask, they are not very experienced in Civ 3 (or even Civilization as a series) and they tend to agree with whomever seems to be the most popular poster at the moment. This goes back to me picking Vel. I've never met the guy, I've never emailed the guy, I probably will never do any of the above but just by reading his (very helpful) SMACX guide I figured he had some tips that might be worth listening to. I'm not going to agree with everything he says because frankly I don't. I just think his "online persona" is cool because he's one of the few civilized posters left on the internet. that's just my opinion and it ain't ass kissing. however it's funny to watch Vel or (insert nick here) make a post and see 15 other posters say, "Dude you're so smart, why didn't you design the game." Think for yourselves, man! Half the time I wonder if some of the regulars log on as different aliases to further a thread, we've all seen it before and frankly it's funny most of the time.

the next 10% I'll label the jerks. these guys get off on pissing people off and 90% of internet users have to learn that acknowleding a jerk's posts actually encourages him. the smart thing to do if a guy is pissing you off is just to ignore him, you don't know him, he doesn't know you, why the f**k do you care what he thinks? I could give a rat's ass about what anyone who reads this post thinks, most likely very few people actually will get around to mine. this is for me, doods, and that's what a forum should be about, pick up some tips, try to be polite, if you're really into that sort of thing, then hell, go ahead and try to make an online cyber-pal. but this is not real life, the only thing most of us share in common is that fact that we like (or intensely dislike) civ.

and that brings me to the final 30%, the lurkers. the guys who read posts occasionally and even less occasionally actually make a post. they sit back and try to distill some diamonds from the rough when it comes to strategy tips (and believe me it's been slim pickings lately, the 1.17f patch really hosed a certain poster's "guaranteed" approach to beating the game on diety level, and I don't think that's a bad thing). half the time they laugh at the little wars going on. a lurker rarely posts (and if you've read this far you're near the end) because this is how most forums work:

-the polite 10% and the jerky 10% make most of the "important" posts.
-if you are not "known" by either of these 20%, chances are you will be ignored or flamed, depending on which "class" responds.
-if you dare question the veracity of either class, you also risk being flamed by not only the polites and the jerks (I forgot to mention "civilized posters" can also flame you but they are very careful about how they do it to maintain their "rep") but also by the 50% "sheep" posters

in summary, a forum is really a small group of guys (and oh yes, it's almost all males, I don't know that many hot girls but the ones I know think civilization is a high-school history course) who exert their opinions on the sheep who bother to post, and revel in the satisfaction of making a person who in reality is probably a fairly level headed dude their "*****".

"Playing militaristically is SO boring. It's pixel pushing. It's not real Civ. It's not what the designers intended. Anyone who plays an agressive militaristic game isn't a very good Civ player."
-Popular Civilized Poster

"Oh man you're so right. I realize now that all my militaristic wins were cheap victories and I was cheating myself. Even though it's really hard to win on the higher levels without fighting at least one major prolonged war, I'll try to do it the hard way because that's how all the "experts" do it and only they can tell me how to play Civ."
-Sheep 1

"Well, I've never posted before but I think since it's just a game, and most of us play games to win, how you win the game doesn't really matter, unless you cheat, in which case that's your decision and no one else should really tell you how to play the game. We can offer opinions but since you bought the thing play it how you like it and most importantly have fun doing it."
-Lurker

"You're a f**king idiot. PCP just told you how to play the game and you come onto HIS forum and question him? Who the f**k do you think you are?"
-Jerk 1

"Now, now. No need for profanity. But thanks for your support, Jerk 1. I choose to ignore this peon, no one cares what he thinks and it's quite obvious he still hasn't grasped the game."
-Popular "Civilized" Poster

"You're all going to be my *****es when Civ multiplayer comes out, I'm going to use ICS, I'm going to go for an early game warrior rush and my pixellated minions will rape your pixellated women!!! Empire Earth RULZ!!!!"
-Jerk 2

OK that went on way to long but that's what I think, I really don't give a f**k if anyone agrees or disagrees, remember the problem with a democracy is even an idiot is allowed an opinion... which bring me to this: since everyone is entitled to an opinion, why can't we respect each other's? There's no right and wrong when it comes to a subjective decision yet I read flame wars between to parties who are arguing about what is the equivalent of "I like Techno music, you like Rock music, you're an idiot because you don't agree with me."

[faded glory]

I take a different I dont flame anyone. Unless they attack me. I just had a run in with somebody in the "Stalingrad" thread. I didnt mean it to be a flamefest, I just was attacked bye some guy who looked like he had a bone to pick. I dont know if its all frusteration. I think Velo, its more people who want to see things fixed.(People A).are fighting with people who like the game as is (call them people B). And to the people who think this game needs some fixin (People A), the peolple B are clearly acting as Obstructionists.

I think it comes down to that.

Thats my 2 cents

[notyoueither]

Yes FG.

I'm sure the following outburst encouraged constructive debate:

Originally posted by faded glory
E ****in relevent

The "Kill 60 units to take this heavily armed city only to have a bunch of starving, rag-tag civilians destroy the city and declare it independent cause of culture difference" is fvckin stupid.

Yes, that's a good way to get civil discussion going. Always works for me.

and then there's this one:

Originally posted by faded glory
Stop defending this piece of **** with historical analogys

It just doesnt happen like that. You dont move into a city EVERYTIME, just to have it ****in revolt. This Bull----......It needs to be fixed NOW!

On a roll now. I'll bet everyone on Poly was PMing there buds to come see this one.

Then someone points out that you might not have discovered how to combat your peeve in the game and they are greeted with this:

Originally posted by faded glory
Ohhh.......Im sorry Moron Of course dont blame the ****in game!?

Its not the devolopers fault it is a flawed pile of ****! Its yours for reading into the phoney hype!

Well...you can go to hell.

Now you have truely obtained orbit. Did your civ get credit for a space victory?

At the risk of seeing this sort of thing spill over to here, I believe that your behaviour is exactly what this thread is intended to address. Or maybe it's just me.

Salve

[asleepathewheel]

Faded Glory:

I would take your dichotomy and stretch it further into 3 groups:
A) those who enjoy the game as it is, or have minor annoyances, and will occassionaly post constructive critisisms

B) those who are unhappy with the game and post constructive critisisms without resorting to flaming or name calling etc.

C) Those who, for some reason or another, have to refer to the game as a "piece of ****" or a "flawed pile of ****" and then make disparaging remarks about the developers of the game and even those who enjoy the game (newbies who "just like the cool graphics and eyecandy")

While you may argue that group A is composed of "obstructionists", I think very few, if any, are actually trying to keep the Firaxis from improving it. After all, i think few would argue that the game is better completely unpatched?

I see the first 2 groups as supporting the game, helping its evolution, and the third merely as trouble makers. They could be arguing the points of the game constructively, as the first do, but instead they resort to ranting about the game ad naseum.

I would argue that this third group is actually composed of the obstructionists. After all, it seems they delight in the problems they perceive the game has. If these were the only people who purchased the game, would Firaxis continue to support it? or would it flounder like CTP and CTP2? The way these people rant, it would appear that the game is unsalvageable, so why should firaxis fix it? But, luckily for those who enjoy the game, the third group is having negligible effect on the game, it continues to be a top selling game which makes it more likely to be improved by firaxis.

Then I guess the question is, if I think the third group is essentially irrelevant, why do I even bother to post this or read their posts?

the answer? I don't know, maybe I'm masochistic

[Immortal Wombat]

AND BY DOES NOT HAVE AN E!!!!!!!

[faded glory]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Yes FG.

Of course, kiddy points out what I said. But not what was said to me


Faded Glory:

you may not be aware that there are numerous threads dealing with how to prevent cultural flipping. And with the most recent patch, it is possible to remove the possibility of reversion entirely

Don't refer to a game as a piece of **** when you don't understand how the mechanics of the game work, or if you do understand the game, but refuse to adapt, don't blame the game.

With regards to this being an unlikely event in reality, while that may be true, what in the game IS based in reality? eh? the names of the units I suppose. Maybe some other things, but not much. Does any Civ-type game simulate reality? Any game at all?
----------------------------------------------
To which I replied.

Ohhh.......Im sorry Moron Of course dont blame the ****in game!?

Its not the devolopers fault it is a flawed pile of ****! Its yours for reading into the phoney hype!
--------------------------------

To which you replied...

>>Ohhh.......Im sorry Moron Of course dont blame the ****in game!?

Hey there, no need to devolve into name calling, eh?

>>Its not the devolopers fault it is a flawed pile of ****! Its yours for reading into the phoney hype!

It's my fault that you think the game is a flawed pile of ****? What are you talking about? It was a concious design decision by the programmers. There are several ways to avoid the flips, and if you can't deal with it and destroys the game for you, then play a different game.

>>Well...you can go to hell.

I'll get right on that
---------------------------

Then I was savagly attacked bye a lamer.


Why should he blame the excellent game for you inability to placate your victims. Cities do flip in my games. Mostly to me. Hardly ever the other way. I like that.

quote:


Its not the devolopers fault it is a flawed pile of ****! Its yours for reading into the phoney hype!



It is the developers fault that the game works pretty well most of the time. Including culture flipping. Now I don't like the loss of troops. That is really annoying. So I don't leave my troops in. I just wipe out the civ in those rare cases where they have much more culture than I do.


quote:


Well...you can go to hell.



My how illuminating. I can see why you can't use culture flipping to your advantage. Uncultured lout. Much like the Assyrians. Conquered large territories and then culture flipped to be indistinguishable from the conquered.

quote:


Its obvouisly the fault of the devolopers. Oh I refuse to adapt?
Thats a load of bull kiddo





Don't you roll your eyes at me little boy. Now clean up your room and put the toy soldiers away. Your not treating them very well and they may run away to the neighbors little boy. He is much nicer to his toys.

quote:


The fact is the whole war thing is a fuxin mess. Almost all the cities you capture are raised.



Thats can be very true. The cities in my games were almost all RAISED out of the mud the late unlamented enemy had dragged their unfortunate populace through. In my last game I RAISED Thebes from the Egyptian capitial to become MY capital. Launched the Space Ship from it.







Ming I'll chill out. Sorry for the flames. I just had to say that!




Sorry you felt the need to show how poorly you deal with both culture and flames. Do try to get some culture for yourself. Perhaps if I was to point you to some nice Bach or Beethoven recordings or maybe some good musuem sites on the web.



Too which Idiot replied, (after being warned bye ming)

Newbie is youbie. I have been playing computer games since the Apple ][ and cassette tapes. Played Civ since it was an English boardgame. Not even all that new here. Just decided to stop lurking. I figured I would have gotten myself banned if I was dealing with Lib. I wouldn't be able to help myself.

quote:


What game are you playing? And why should I have to Raze entire Civ's to the ground? What the hell kinda simulation is that? It makes the game incredibly lame....




Civ III 1.17f. The one this part of Apolyton is for. The game you don't know how to play. I have no idea why you have to raze entire civs to the ground. I just take them over. Use their cities for my designs. Its not the game that is lame if I can do it and you can't.


quote:


uh?? Your a moron. Culture plays almost 0 in real conflict. West bank anyone? I dont see Israeli troops defecting or getting kicked out so easily.



I am not the one that can't flame without getting banned. I don't have to call people morons to show who is and who isn't. I don't see the PLO having a capital. I don't see the PLO having any culture. I don't see the PLO having a chance in Civ III.

I do see pictures of Genhis Khan and somehow he looks Chinese even though the Mongols were more likely caucasion at that time. They were culturly conquered by China and they took so many Chinese women as wives they ceased to exist as a seperate gene pool.

And the Romans turned so Greek they had the same gods under different names. Alexander started wearing makeup to copy the Persians. His general in Egypt changed his name to an Egyptian one. Ptolomy.

Care for more?

quote:


uh.....nice Thanks kiddo. But if you werent such a ****** and actually read my post. I wasnt talking to you.



If you weren't so terribly, hideously, culturaly deprived you would have noticed that this a largely open forum. Anyone that can keep their temper seems to be welcome.

You will never become a succesfull flame warrior if you can't keep your temper.

quote:


no need to foam at the mouth jr.




I take it you are quoting someone in the room with you. Wipe the drool off you chin and no will mistake it for foam.

quote:


Nice flames. And you accuse me? Iwas over the flames jr. But seeing as how you attacked me like so!? Let the flames (in your case) the Lames! Fly



Over the flames? Is that why you are near to taking a trip to Mingapulco?

Flaming is an art form. That means you need some culture to be good at it. You are in danger of culture flipping.

quote:

Oh your a true warhorse now Bet your daddy is proud! !



He died in 1976. So I suspect that pride is somewhat beyond his present capacity.

Don't bring a knife to a flamethrower fight.

I like culture flipping. I use it. Its good for builders. Its not there for the warmongers.

They really don't need any help anyway. Any competent warmonger should be able to win, corruption and culture or not. A dozen strong producing cities should be enough to take over the world. The rest are there as rest stops on the way to domination.