PolyCast Episode 36: "Too Much Information"

[Murg]

Im a faithful listener and I enjoyed this show much like the others. I would like to offer some minor advice from a fan (not that Im in any position to give advice) in the spirit that endless accolades don't help improvement as much as reasonable constructive critism:

1. Be careful of appearing to patronizing. You guys do a great job of not being arrogant, and appear to be the sort of people that would be fun to sit down and talk about games with. Which is part of the appeal of the Podcast.

But sometimes when you discuss others ideas or posts if you blatantly say its a bad idea it makes me wonder why you decided to discuss that post if you didnt think it had any merit to start with. Either its a lack of material or its being done to highlight your own uberness at being able to discern the good from the bad. Either way you should search for discussion points that you are willing to genuinly consider. That probably means the audience is more willing to consider them as well, which is why they tune in.

I think this is more important now that Locutus was gone because he served as a bit of a foil for Dan and was more willing to entertain various ideas.

2. One of my favorite shows of the recent past was the all girl show. Which left me wondering what it was about this episode that I enjoyed so much. In the end I think it was that they covered more topics with a briefer time for each, that they were more willing to talk about their personal relationship with the game, and just that it was a different set of people to listen to.

That last point you guys do well by cycling co-hosts and such. But the other two may leave you with something to consider moving forward. Im not saying you have to cry when you talk about how your germans were defeated by the aztecs. But being more personal will be more engaging. And more brief topics will help keep the ADHD crowd (like myself) focused.

3. The cliffhanger. This is the most difficult idea to implement. The general recommendation is to to create continuity between the episdoes by carrying something over between them. This could be the results of a game that is played for a specified time each week between the members, with updates on the show. It could be an activity that is started each episode and concluded in the following episode (a challenge, map, puzzle, etc). Or it could just be a member that agrees to a play a specified civ/leader each episode and reports back on the results of that game.


Anyway, sicne I have offered critism I welcome it upon myself as well so feel free to tear apart or disregard this post entirely. Either way I definitly appreciate the podcast and everything you guys do. Please don't take this cristism as anything other than an attempt to make a great thing the tiniest bit better.

edit: cleaned up some of my horrible typing, I blame my new keyboard

[Solver]

You know, it's pretty amazing what windbags some of the people on the show are I remember when we recorded the episode in which I was a co-host, we spent about an hour and a half discussing a blog posting by Soren - which was only the first item on our topic list

[DanQ]

Originally posted by Murg
Im a faithful listener and I enjoyed the show much like the others. I would like to offer some minor advice from a fan (not that Im in any position to give advice) in the spirit that endless accolades don't help improvement as much as reasonable constructive critism:

As far as I'm concerned, you're wrong when you say that you're not in a position to offer advice. As someone who has listened to the show (regularly no less) and is willing to take the time to raise concerns and impart suggestions through constructive criticism, you are in a most excellent position to provide advice.

You guys to a great job of not being arrogant, and appear to be the sort of people that would be fun to sit down and talk about games with. Which is a great deal of the appeal of the Podcast.

Thank you kindly. We're glad that that comes across in impression!

But sometimes when you discuss others ideas or posts if you blatantly say its a bad idea it makes me wonder why you decided to discuss that post if you didnt think it had any merit to start with. Either its a lack of material or its being done to highlight your own uberness at being able to discern the good from the bad. Either way you should search for discussion points that you are willing to genuinly consider. That probably means the audience is more willing to consider them as well, which is why they tune in.

Looking back at this and past episodes, I agree with you more in some instances and less than others. If at anytime we've indicated that an idea and/or implementation we've selected to discuss is a "bad" idea, we've done a disservice to our listeners if we did not adequately explain why we believe so. The same would go for explaining why another idea or implementation we find is good. In both instances, if we come across as patronizing that's accidental and unintended. I can't recall any specifics, but I know there have been a few times in the past where that impression could reasonably be held in reaction to what one or more of us has said or how we've said it (myself included). We're certainly prepared to be "called" on it (or at least ought to be).

We try to balance what we find to be "good", "bad" and all in between on the show. I find that our talking about what we don't think is practically or even theoretically desirable is as important as what we do find desirable. That way we're addressing more than we would if we talked about all "good" and "bad" things all the same. In the end though, it's certainly a balancing act.

... Im not saying you have to do a Hillary Clinton tear up when you talk about how your germans were defeated by the aztecs. But being more personal will be more engaging. And more brief topics will help keep the ADHD crowd (like myself) focused.

We try to talk about our specific games in relation to the topics we're covering where we find them applicable, but you're right in that we have rarely talked about our specific games just 'for themselves'. Bits and pieces can and have also come across in the intro/outro banter but nothing routine or structured.

I believe I speak for the entire team when I say we'll see what we can do.

3. The cliffhanger. This is the most difficult idea to implement. The general recommendation is to to create continuity etween the episdoes by carrying something over between them. This could be the results of a game that is played for a specified time each week between the members, with updates on the show. It could be an activity that is started each episode and concluded in the following episode (a challenge, map, puzzle, etc). Or it could just be a member that agrees to a play a specified civ/leader each episode and reports back on the results of that game.

Hmmmm... could be a bit of an undertaking as you allude to , but I can see potential value in it (in part because of the very possible undertaking involved). We'll see what we can do on it as well.

Anyway, sicne I have offered critism I welcome it upon myself as well so feel free to tear apart or disregard this post entirely. Either way I definitly appreciate the podcast and everything you guys do. Please don't take this cristism as anything other than an attempt to make a great thing the tiniest bit better.

I hope that the combination of the nature, detail and timing of my reply demonstrates how your feedback is appreciated by the team. We're always open to suggestions on how to make this podcast better; when they're constructed not just constructively but practically as well -- i.e. suggestions on what to do in response to the criticisms offered themselves -- they're of great added value. Kudos to you, sir.

[DanQ]

Originally posted by Solver
You know, it's pretty amazing what windbags some of the people on the show are

I remember when we recorded the episode in which I was a co-host, we spent about an hour and a half discussing a blog posting by Soren - which was only the first item on our topic list

-- and so was born a two-parter.

[EPW]

Originally posted by Lancer


EPW, would you have prefered that someone contacted you and shared with you on what basis the powers that be were going to disagree with your assertion thereby giving you a chance to respond?

Here's how it might go...

DQ & team "We don't agree with what EPW says about using the CTP combat system in CivV because blah. Here's how EPW responded to blah..."

Someone reads EPW's response... "yadda yadda"

EPW, would it have made you feel better about having your idea summarily dismissed if you had been able to defend it?

That would be nice. there are more qualified people who happen to be staff members of this site who agree that CTP1/2 style stacked combat should be in Civ4 or 5.

[LordShiva]

CtP2

[Locutus]

Originally posted by Murg
That last point you guys do well by cycling co-hosts and such. But the other two may leave you with somethign to consider moving forward. Im not saying you have to do a Hillary Clinton tear up when you talk about how your germans were defeated by the aztecs. But being more personal will be more engaging. And more brief topics will help keep the ADHD crowd (like myself) focused.

I agree. I suggested a while back to steal the concept of a Whatcha Been Playin' segment that other gaming podcasts and forums have, but that never got off the ground somehow. Hereby a reminder to the PolyCast crew


Regarding stacked combat, that topic has come up in previous shows and has been discussed somewhat more in-depth there (though probably not exhaustively). You can't really expect that every single time someone mentions a topic like that it's discussed to death -- that would make every single show at least 5 hours long and lead to a lot of repetition It was sort of an off-hand remark here so not much was made off it, which is fair IMO (maybe not so fair to slight it but you should hear us on Macs ) You could ask for a more detailed discussion, but I'm not necessarily convinced that the current panel is terribly equipped to do it justice -- I believe Kelly is the only one who *might* have played CtP and I'm not even sure of that. Should've brought this up a few months ago

On ModCast we intend to spotlight Dale's Combat Mod for Civ4 at some point though, I'm sure we'll talk plenty about stacked combat there.

[Dale]

Originally posted by EPW


That would be nice. there are more qualified people who happen to be staff members of this site who agree that CTP1/2 style stacked combat should be in Civ4 or 5.

There are some even who added stacked combat to Civ4.

[Lancer]

Nice to get a reply EPW, thanks. I was thinking my posts were cloaked or something.

I guess 'or something'.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by snoopy369
You can add y-wrap to x-wrap to have a true sphere, if you want... it's very odd but possible

You aren't getting a sphere, you get a torus. And no, that's not the same.

[Lancer]

Murg makes an excellent point here...

"But sometimes when you discuss others ideas or posts if you blatantly say its a bad idea it makes me wonder why you decided to discuss that post if you didnt think it had any merit to start with. Either its a lack of material or its being done to highlight your own uberness at being able to discern the good from the bad. Either way you should search for discussion points that you are willing to genuinly consider. That probably means the audience is more willing to consider them as well, which is why they tune in."-Murg

I don't believe it's lack of material, the show isn't that long and the Civ IV forum has plenty even when it's slow.

Highlighting uberness...well I hope that's not it.

So what is the criteria for picking out a talking point that you guys think is stupid enough to just dismiss and chuckle about?

Why do that?

[DanQ]

Originally posted by Lancer
So what is the criteria for picking out a talking point that you guys think is stupid enough to just dismiss and chuckle about?

Why do that?

If you're referring to the stacked combat point in this episode, it wasn't a topic -- it was mentioned incidentally in the course of a related discussion. As Wouter mentioned stacked combat was looked at more in-depth in an earlier episode (though I don't believe exhaustively so either).

Are you referring to something else in particular?

[Murg]

I cant speak for Lancer but I can provide more clarity around my thoughts:

Forum Topics:

1. Poster requests combat favor the attacker:

Dan: "How do we spell no again? Is that still an N followed by an O?"

Other hosts reiterate the fact that its a bad idea. No one offers a contrasting opinion. This topic shouldn't have been selected unless it was felt their was some value in discussing the idea.

2. How could a Civ5 be better than a Civ4?

I don't have a problem with this topic, I think its generally handled well and was a decent forum post to pick up for coverage.

Though late in this topic the hosts do go through a series of suggestions given in the thread that they mock for various reasons. There is a fine line here, when hosts mock each other its fine and funny. When they mock posters on the forum it comes across as patronizing (even if that isn't the intent).


Research Lab:

1. Random "9 tenets" effects of religiions.

This sparks a good discussion. No problem with this topic. Even when the hosts don't agree with the topic, they provide alternatives and ideas along the same lines.

2. Patrol route idea.

The hosts agree with the suggestion. This is a great inclusion, which should highlight the best ideas of the community.

3. Goody huts on sea tiles

The hosts generally agree with this, another good topic for inclusion.


So in my opinion the research lab picks were pretty good. But the Forum Topics are probably what lead me to think that if it is taken to far it could turn some people off. When I origionally posted the recommendation I wasnt talking about stacked combat comments at all.

[DanQ]

On the first Forum Talk topic in this episode, we felt there was value in discussing the suggestion even though we didn't agree with it. Having just listened to that topic again, I can see (hear? ) how some if not all of us could have explained our position a little better in some instances... particularly given all our strong feelings about it. I believe part of the reason this didn't occur is because we were all in agreement. I referenced either turning to a real-time strategy game or, still within the CivIV environment, modding possibilities. In hindsight I could have elaborated on my point, e.g. having a system favouring the attacker more than the defender coming across to me as a more tactical than strategic approach to combat.

On the second FT topic, as you say Murg, it's a "fine line" when it comes to mocking oneself and mocking others. Given that we are more than prepared to mock ourselves and accept being mocked by others in the fashion that they do, I believe it's fair game for us to mock forum posters' suggestions -- within reason -- so long as we also adequately explain why. (But not forum posters personally.) What's adequate is a subjective call, and again I can see how our some of our positions in this topic could have had added value had we explained ourselves more in certain places. While I don't agree that we mocked enough to be patronizing here, I respect and acknowledge how that impression could be left with listeners in the moments you describe.

Thank you for your detailed follow-up. While again I don't agree with everything you have said, I am grateful for the time and care you took in communicating what you have said once again. Constructive criticism is welcome at any and all times. We will take your arguments in your posts to date here into greater consideration and I'm confident that we will act on at least some of them. I hope you will continue to be a faithful listener.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Murg
I cant speak for Lancer

Nobody can!