You Clowns Better Fix This Crap!

[Zanzin]

Originally posted by Marquis de Sodaq


Quite simply, because you complained about something happening in your Civ II game. Not perfectly logical; rather heavily implied. Calm down.

Marquis de Sodaq makes an excellent point.

[Berzerker]

Urban Ranger -

Just because it doesn't work the way you want it to does it mean it's defective?

So all those patches were to fix a game in no need of fixing? Or are you referring only to the randomness of tech research? Yes, I want Civ III "fixed" so when 2 people play each other, one doesn't get stuck researching 6 techs to get to Monarchy while the other gets there in 4 techs (or 7 and 5 for republic). I also want the civs to start out with the same number of settlers and techs - not random advantages! I also want huts to be an option...


Zanzin -

Dude, you're the one who said you were going to brake my nose....you're the one talking through your computer mate

I suggest you go back and re-read your first post, "Dude". Those are called fighting words where I'm from, so dont pull this sh!t about me being the one who started badmouthing you.

You won't make it through customs friend. We don't let hyperactive trigger happy idiots like yourself into the country

I said I would break your nose, not shoot you, "idiot".

You've got me annoyed now

Uh oh.

because in my opinion, calling someone a fool doesn't warrent the breaking of one's nose

You haven't called anyone a fool to their face obviously - which was my point. Don't insult people thru a computer if you wont insult them to their face.

I call that, just slighty, over-reaction.

But calling someone a fool because you cannot figure out what they mean is not an over-reaction?

Anyway, I apologise for calling you a fool...you were talking about Civ2, so I figured you were in the wrong forum. Maybe it was my bad, maybe it was yours. Who cares, life's too short anyway

You apologise in the same post you call me an idiot? And the title is an obvious request to the designers of Civ III to fix what I believe is a problem with Civ II. If I was making the highly unlikely request for yet another patch for Civ II at this late date with Civ III on the horizon, I would have made the request in the Civ II forums.

Marquis -

Quite simply, because you complained about something happening in your Civ II game. Not perfectly logical; rather heavily implied. Calm down.

Every person who has made suggestions for the designers of Civ III did so based on what they perceive to be the shortcomings of Civ II. How am I any different? If I posted a request that they include 16 civs because I was dis-satisfied with only 7 civs, would you conclude I was asking them to "patch" Civ II? And why do I need to calm down? These people sold me a defective game which needed multiple "patches", but I'm supposed to pat them on the back? And when I express my dis-satisfaction with their product calling for an identified improvement, I'm called a fool by some guy who thinks I'm in the wrong forum! No, I'm quite calm given the circumstances...

[Zanzin]

Could one of the moderators bury this topic please? It's been a waste of time from the begining.

[rah]

This topic has a heck of a lot more significance than half the other hair brained threads in this forum.

This issue has a huge importance on game play. And changing it won't "RUIN" the game like some of the ideas I've heard. I haven't gone into those threads and laughed because I think that would be rude. Obviously not everyone thinks the same way.

But having said that, I disagreed with you (Berz) in the other forum and will here too. I like that all techs avail can't be researched. It forces people to make decisions, it's real life. It makes people have to modify instead of mindless progression through the tech tree.

I do wish it was random and not based on a formula (even though this hasn't been 100% proven, close but not 100%)

The better players will adapt and sometimes lose because of it, but overall the better players will overcome.
(And I know from experience that Berz is a good player)

So I respectfully dissagree. But agree that it is an important issue and would like to hear what others think, instead of the rudeness that has occured.

RAH

[Grumbold]

A man who takes offence at being called an idiot having just accused a group of professional people of being clowns, many of whom had no part in developing the previous game, seriously needs to evaluate his attitude. Hardly surprising an agressive post gets curt and aggressive responses.

I think it is entirely appropriate for Civ to deny you certain advanced technologies if you have roared off up one science path and have not discovered certain basic advances in other fields. That's the only time I have ever seen potential advances fail to appear and is a lot easier than cross linking all the advances more tightly together in a way that no diagram can easily display.

[Berzerker]

Grumbold -

A man who takes offence at being called an idiot having just accused a group of professional people of being clowns, many of whom had no part in developing the previous game, seriously needs to evaluate his attitude.

The title was addressed to the people who created and sold Civ II with it's "bugs" AND who are involved with Civ III (I believe Sid Meier would be one). How did you conveniently arrive at the conclusion I was attacking people who had nothing to do with these games? Oh, I see, your comment would have no relevancy without your convenient conclusion. And these "professionals" sold a partially defective product in need of "patches" AFTER tricking people into buying said product. If I sold you a new car and the wheels fell off as you got home, you wouldn't have harsh words? I was very angry when I bought Civ II only to learn it wouldn't work for internet play. The patches they provided did not cure all the bugs and I spent quite a bit of time rebooting and rejoining because of their so-called "professionalism"!

Hardly surprising an agressive post gets curt and aggressive responses.

Yeah, I'm not too impressed by people defending these "professionals" who sold us a defective product, but the "curt and aggressive" responses came from someone who thought I should not be offering my "suggestion" for the designers of Civ II/Civ III in a forum for Civ III suggestions.

I think it is entirely appropriate for Civ to deny you certain advanced technologies if you have roared off up one science path and have not discovered certain basic advances in other fields.

That would make the advertized tech trees somewhat irrelevant now, true? After not getting economics and having to settle for Theory of Gravity, economics came up the next time. Is the Theory of Gravity a pre-req for economics? Not according to the tech tree...

That's the only time I have ever seen potential advances fail to appear and is a lot easier than cross linking all the advances more tightly together in a way that no diagram can easily display.

What "basic advances" are needed for Monarchy other than alpha, law code, and burial? How about Republic?

RAH -

I disagreed with you (Berz) in the other forum and will here too. I like that all techs avail can't be researched. It forces people to make decisions, it's real life. It makes people have to modify instead of mindless progression through the tech tree.

The pros and cons are a legitimate debate, but when we play, we do so with 2 settlers each and no host techs because we are trying to eliminate advantages stemming from randomness. I'd have less (perhaps none) of a complaint if I knew this tech randomness was hitting everyone rather than allowing one player to hit Monarchy in 4 techs while someone else gets stuck researching 6 techs to get there. That randomness can be the difference in the game. I'd be quite happy if the designers of Civ III allowed us the option of randomness, but it appears they wont be revamping the game all that much. Having said that, huts provide another source of randomness that can impact a game, but at least they are also a source of fun and mystery. Yet I enjoy games where the huts have been removed because they level the playing field even more, that too I hope is an option.

Zanzin -

Could one of the moderators bury this topic please? It's been a waste of time from the begining

I dont enter your threads calling you a fool and asking the moderators to shut it down. If you dont like my thread, STAY THE HELL OUT!

[rah]

"The pros and cons are a legitimate debate, but when we play, we do so with 2 settlers each and no host techs because we are trying to eliminate advantages stemming from randomness"

I don't think we are eliminating advantages from randomness. We are just trying to make the start as even as possible because it is the one thing we can control. And I like the game to go a few turns before the whining starts.

The second a person moves, randomness becomes involved and I don't want it controlled. How many times after placing your capital that you realize that if you had looked one square off the river, you would have found the perfect city location instead of wandering for 6 turns. (assuming you were lucky enough to start near a river). And huts, yes, they can make a big difference. But to me, that is the point. When I play with people like you and War4, we are all about the same level of proficiency. We each have a handful of different strategies that are quite similar. If every game was played without the randomness, it would get boring quite quick and we would have stopped playing this game.

What difference if it's a hut that adds the randomness or the luck of finding your opponents second city on the turn it is discovered when he has no money to rush build a defender. Or the luck of having a movement point left on your horse when you find an enemy wandering for huts. Or the randomness of barbs keeping your opponent from sending settlers in a certain direction. Or even cashing 5 more barb kings then your opponent. Or the luck of winning a battle you statistically should have lost, or the opposite. The whole game is based on randomness and probability. The better players, which I consider you one, adapt.

So I want more randomness. (to a point) to keep the game interesting. There is nothing better than having your diplos ready in range of one of your opponents cities waiting for them to develop a tech that you are researching in an attempt to steal it and leapfrog past them. This takes some planning. The thrill comes from when the plan works, and the agony comes from when the diplo fails or you get the wrong tech or you get the right tech and it won't let you select the right one next.

This is why we still play the game. How many computer games have had a shelf life like this. Not many.

RAH
Always a pleasure to cross swords with you.

[Berzerker]

RAH -

I don't think we are eliminating advantages from randomness. We are just trying to make the start as even as possible because it is the one thing we can control.

And I am just asking for a little more control.

How many times after placing your capital that you realize that if you had looked one square off the river, you would have found the perfect city location instead of wandering for 6 turns.

True, but this is due to the ignorance we (settlers) have of the world nearby. It is perfectly logical that a settler would not know a region without exploring first. And actually even providing us with a tech tree advertising future technologies is illogical since we could not know what the distant future holds. But we would just end up writing our own trees if not provided with one. Maybe the designers could provide (for Civ IV) a floating tech tree so that within certain parameters designed for realism, the techs show up in a more random order. Why not the wheel or construction before the alphabet and writing? Like I said though, this randomness should be an option so that people who want to play straight up can do so.

And huts, yes, they can make a big difference. But to me, that is the point. When I play with people like you and War4, we are all about the same level of proficiency. We each have a handful of different strategies that are quite similar. If every game was played without the randomness, it would get boring quite quick and we would have stopped playing this game.

Yeah, that and terrain which is another random act. I agree to a degree My anger with these people is not solely over the tech tree, but that broke the camel's back so to speak. The randomness within the tech tree is not why I enjoy the game, but if all randomness was removed it might lessen the experience for some.

What difference if it's a hut that adds the randomness or the luck of finding your opponents second city on the turn it is discovered when he has no money to rush build a defender. Or the luck of having a movement point left on your horse when you find an enemy wandering for huts. Or the randomness of barbs keeping your opponent from sending settlers in a certain direction. Or even cashing 5 more barb kings then your opponent. Or the luck of winning a battle you statistically should have lost, or the opposite. The whole game is based on randomness and probability. The better players, which I consider you one, adapt.

These are good points, but we know about these factors. If Markus is right about why this tech tree randomness occurs, I'm just learning about it now. The manual instructs us about these other random events while leading us to believe the tech tree is valid.

So I want more randomness. (to a point) to keep the game interesting.

I'd like the option. We play for fun and we play on a regular basis so the randomness will hit us all over time. But I also play tribes and would play more tourneys and these formats call for less randomness in my opinion.

There is nothing better than having your diplos ready in range of one of your opponents cities waiting for them to develop a tech that you are researching in an attempt to steal it and leapfrog past them. This takes some planning. The thrill comes from when the plan works, and the agony comes from when the diplo fails or you get the wrong tech or you get the right tech and it won't let you select the right one next.

Aside from the last part, this is strategy.

Always a pleasure to cross swords with you.

Tomorrow night I suspect

[Jason]

*sigh*

As per Berzerker's request, I'm posting this instead of using ICQ, which I felt was more appropriate.

Seems to me that Zanzin was very reasonable in saying "wrong forum, fool," since, on the one hand, there was nothing to suggest since you didn't have a legitimate complaint, and on the other you showed yourself foolish with that whole business of threatening people with physical violence.

It would be fair to say I'm not afraid of Apolytoners coming around and beating me up Nevertheless threatening violence is just sad over a matter of forum selection.

And then to justify it based on the fact that people make empty threats because they are hiding behind their computers? While you make empty threats? That's hilarious, you really intend to commit felony assault because someone identified you as a fool. Hilarious.



It isn't crap, they aren't clowns, and you just need to pay more attention to the tech tree. If this is not true, feel free to challenge me to a duel, sabres at dawn, whatever.

[Zanzin]

Jason, thankyou for being another voice of reason.

[rah]

I'll ignore the wasteland of the last too posts.
This is a valid discussion for civ III, obviously some people don't know what a means, but you shouldn't have let them bait you that easy.


But Back to the point.

"I'd like the option. We play for fun and we play on a regular basis so the randomness will hit us all over time. But I also play tribes and would play more tourneys and these formats call for less randomness in my opinion."

So, I finally see the crux of your frustration. It was a competition that was being scored. In a regular game you don't have a problem with it. Having no desire to play in ultra competitive play where I would start having to worry about people bending the rules (which has been shown to be quite easy) I hadn't taken that into account.

Hmmmmmmm. But it doesn't change by opinion. The thought of playing on a designed map where everyone starts on a river with one gold, one wine, one buffallo and one wheat and no huts doesn't thrill me. (at all) We would all turn into robots following preprogrammed scripts. Gee maybe that why I don't do those types of games. And again, unless you've see the map, once you move, random elements have been introduced so I see no reason to not desire more. In any sport, there are random elements and I do believe over time (sometimes a long time) they will even out. I have no problem losing a game every now and then due to a little bad luck. Luck will always be a factor, but all in all, skill will win in the long run. Hopefully no one will every be accused of being a loser or acclaimed the best from one game.

So while I'm still not convinced, I can now understand and respect your position on this, but I respectfully dissagree and realize that no amount of arguments will change either of our opinions on this. But you are right, if this was made an game option to choose, it would satisfy more people. But it probably become another source for discussion/arguments before a game could start.

RAH
I'll be at the river boat on Friday, but be looking on Saturday early evening. (since the Wife will be at a family function that I have been given a free pass on. )

[Zanzin]

RAH, this would have been a valid topic if the first post had made even just an ounce of sense

[Berzerker]

Jason -

Seems to me that Zanzin was very reasonable in saying "wrong forum, fool," since, on the one hand, there was nothing to suggest since you didn't have a legitimate complaint, and on the other you showed yourself foolish with that whole business of threatening people with physical violence.

Hey Jason, your second "reason" is invalid since I did not threaten him until long after his so-called reasonable post accusing me of being a fool. And I asked you to present your arguments for the position you took via ICQ but all you've done is tell me I didn't have a legimate complaint without explaining why. Do you often "debate" people with nothing more than claims of, "you wrong, me right"? And I did not initially threaten him with violence, I told him what I would have done had he made his comment to my face (with smilie). He then challenged me to come down to Australia to punch him in the nose (I guess that was reasonable, huh?). As I said earlier, where I live, if you walk up to a stranger and call them a fool, it is not unreasonable to get punched in the face. That was the point I was trying to impress on Zanzin, a point lost on both of you. Oh, btw, you really think it is reasonable to call people fools when you ascertain the illegitimacy of their statements? Ok, FOOL! Gee, I really wish I was there as you walk around calling people "fools"...

It would be fair to say I'm not afraid of Apolytoners coming around and beating me up

Gee, you're so very brave, or has it dawned on you nobody is going to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars to pay some as$hole a visit - assuming the as$hole even gave an accurate address - just for the little satisfaction of punching a hypocrite?

Nevertheless threatening violence is just sad over a matter of forum selection.

But calling someone a fool because you cannot figure out that a suggestion for the makers of Civ III belongs in the "Suggestions for Civ III" forum is acceptable?

And then to justify it based on the fact that people make empty threats because they are hiding behind their computers? While you make empty threats? That's hilarious, you really intend to commit felony assault because someone identified you as a fool. Hilarious.

Do you understand that smilies are used to put words into a special context? What is hilarious is that there is not one accurate or sensible statement in your entire post. He challenged me to commit felony assault, you got that backwards - par for your post.

It isn't crap, they aren't clowns, and you just need to pay more attention to the tech tree. If this is not true, feel free to challenge me to a duel, sabres at dawn, whatever

Umm... Jason, where on the tech tree does Theory of Gravity appear as a pre-requisite for Economics? And they are worse than clowns, they sold a product advertised as playable for the internet that was in fact not playable but so "bugged" some of us had to wait for months for patches which needed even more patches.

Zanzin -

Jason, thankyou for being another voice of reason

ROTFLMAO!!! What a suprise

[Berzerker]

Zanzin -

RAH, this would have been a valid topic if the first post had made even just an ounce of sense

You signed onto this thread to inform me I was a fool for choosing the wrong forum, now you have a different accusation - back it up with a substantive argument instead of "self-supporting" statements. I said I wanted the tech tree to be accurate and the game to progress without research detours. How is that unsensible?

[Cyclotron]

I would just like to say that although this is a good possible discussion and a valid topic, I think all of you are scaring away anybody who might want to add their opinion for fear of a flame war. I would suggest that you guys just drop it; there is no reaon to spoil a potentially good post.