Ideas on how to implant the endless hords of ideas

[SWPIGWANG The Second]

Well, about every idea that can be thought up for a TBS game have been posted in all the thousands of posts.

Now come the real problem, what to do with all the ideas. There are some ideas that are rejected stright out early on, but a majority of them is still in the fuzzy zone.

Here is a idea to deal with the ideas. ALLOW EVERYTHING (not literly) to be Optional. Optional not in a mechincal, artifical way. For example, settlers must be used to build cities in government like dicatorships while people automaticly build cities in democracy. Allow the the micro-management of resouces for commies and hide that option in Free markets. In this way, a player can control the amount of micromanagement and style of play to fit his/her need.

[Deathwalker]

No, a bad idea.

------------------
I have walked since the dawn of time and were ever I walk, death is sure to follow

[Biddles]

Not just a bad idea, a terrible one.

------------------
- Biddles

"Now that our life-support systems are utilising the new Windows 2027 OS, we don't have to worry about anythi......."
Mars Colonizer Mission

[SWPIGWANG The Second]

Hey, can someone explain why its a bad idea?

Another example:

Everybody remember the public work vs settlers debate? Why can't we have settlers at first and allow public works after some teching(which originally gives you engineers).

[Zer0_T0lerance]

quote: Originally posted by OrionRed on 11-16-2000 11:41 AM I think everyone has missed the point. We are here to do a job....to create CivIII...NOT to put a bandaid on CIVII. The comment that all is going to be done for CivIII is to update the AI and a few other tweeks. If this is true im very upset. Id rather play CTP2 (acually it looks like CTP2 is doing the same thing but i have not played it so i dont know) My point is you can only help a game so much before you either have to make a new "next generation" keep the name (just like cars)or scrap the name entirely. Work on something new. If you guys dont do something different on this one to capture the stagnant game play on one and two strike three your out. Ironic really. A new AI is not going to intice me to buy civIII. If ppl like civII let them play civII, your job is to create the same theme but make it better hense the III. Better means incorporate enough of the old to keep the name, but also new to create the fact that your selling us a program that is NEW. Graphics are a big part in game play. However this is a game where a 3d map would be VERY time consuming to construct on a world level and thats all that matters. (ppl will upgrade to play a game they want..i have 3 times) So my oppinion is to update the graphics. FULL 2D ZOOM capible. While zooming in your fleet of two carriers and 3 submarines signafied on the main level map as ONE carrier with a number 5 signifying 5 units....close up the abillity to see the fleet. I know for normal game play most of us will lose this however when i get bored of the game play in general i like looking at the little things in the game such as this. That is all

It's not a bad idea and I STRONGLY AGREE with the above statement that OrionRed made in the "2D or 3D Animated Maps" thread. Yes, it seems as if almost all the members here want is nothing but a few measly tweaks. And if that is what you want, then you're not asking for an entirely new version of Civ; what you're asking for is merely a patch upgrade and that's it. That's all a few tweaks is worth, and that's NOT something I would be willing to spend money on! And I don't think a lot of other people here would either! We must push firaxis beyond the limits--and hell, we might not get there, but we will certainly get a hell of alot closer to it than we would if we just asked for a few measly tweaks! Trust me--keep holding things back and you'll be dissappointed by the time the game has been out for awhile and you've played it long enough; you'll be bored of it before you know it, wanting something more! And then you'll just be sitting around smacking yourself upside the face and hoping for a much bigger upgrade from Civ III to Civ IV.

------------------
Zero
[This message has been edited by Zero_Tolerance (edited November 18, 2000).]

[Tical_2000]

Buddy, "we" are not "here" to make Civ3. Firaxis is "here" to make Civ3. All we can hope is that a few of our petty requests have been considered and implemented by the Great One himself (Sid, that is). I was wondering, zero tolerance for what?

[Urban Ranger]

I don't know. Sometimes a few tweaks go a long way. On the other hand, Civ is an idea of growing a civilization, not about a bunch of mechanics stitched together.

Between these two extremes there is a lot of room to maneuver.

There are alot of ideas floating around. Some are design elements. Some merely affects the gameplay. The first group is more important though sometimes badly flawed interface, etc. can be enough to kill a game with innovate ideas.

[Builder]

nah....

I dont like...

[DarkCloud]

quote: Here is a idea to deal with the ideas. ALLOW EVERYTHING (not literly) to be Optional. Optional not in a mechincal, artifical way. For example, settlers must be used to build cities in government like dicatorships while people automaticly build cities in democracy. Allow the the micro-management of resouces for commies and hide that option in Free markets. In this way, a player can control the amount of micromanagement and style of play to fit his/her need.

What a good idea for Government style.

[Shogun Gunner]

I can't say that I even understand this idea fully.

What's the option? All commies are micromanagers? Will Democracy civs run by humans lose the option to pick what a city produces? Isn't the commy govt advantages/disadvantages represented by the lack of corruption as distance from capital increases and an economic system that is better than Monarchy but worst that Republic/Democracy?

Are you talking about removing the player from making decisions even in a free market economy? As discussed on other threads there is a separation between governments and economics systems.

As I understand your post, I would say I'm against.

Maybe some more information to explain your idea...

[SWPIGWANG The Second]

quote: What's the option? All commies are micromanagers? Will Democracy civs run by humans lose the option to pick what a city produces? Isn't the commy govt advantages/disadvantages represented by the lack of corruption as distance from capital increases and an economic system that is better than Monarchy but worst that Republic/Democracy?

What I am trying to do here is to represent a government using the game interface and the fundemental of how the game is played, not some dumb looking numbers.

Democracy civs will still get the option to pick what to build, but what I'm saying is that we can implant the self migrating population system under it.

quote: Are you talking about removing the player from making decisions even in a free market economy? As discussed on other threads there is a separation between governments and economics systems.

The government (aka player) should have no control over a free market economy...or else it is no longer free. The resources I was saying is like the ones stated in countless threads which demand a 'improved' build system. A city should auto-mine what ever resources that earns the most money when it is under a freemarket and production output(shields) would be near zero and rush build cost would be very low and the trade($) production would be high. Yes, governments systems and economics systems should be separated. But the type of economy used in a civ is controlled by the government(player).

[Certhas]

Interessting idea.

Planescape Torment has pulled it off brilliantly for RPGs, the game, story characters the feel of the game, the flow of the narrative, adapts perfectly naturally to your playing style without you ever noticing, not by carefull behind the scene balancing but due to the inheerent nature of the game.

Pulling something like this of for TBS would be a worthy challenge for Civ3 indeed.