[C4:AC][Writing] Changes in Mission Statement?

[binTravkin]

(..)
Our goal is make an clone of the original game Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, and its expansion, Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire without changing or adding any gameplay elements. Our second goal is to correct the most obvious bugs in the original game and the expansion like social engineering rollover bugs.
(..)

I aprreciate Illuminatus' work in compiling this, but I think we should change this.
It makes no sense from programmatic viewpoint to first program bugs and lesser level mechanics (I expect there will be some) in, overriding the base code, and then attempting to fix the bugs.

Also, there has been a popular idea supported by this statement from Firaxis Civ4 World Builder Manual

MANAGING THE SCENARIO
If you have never managed a project before one of the first things you will notice is that interest will rise and fall like a number of civilizations in history. You need to capitalise on the rises in interest and try to minimise the falls in interest. Aim to have the bulk of the heavy work done during rises in interest. Have someone do all the XML for the tech tree, or someone to create the map and city placements. Hopefully you will have interested a python scripter to do scripts during these highs. When interest begins to fall is your big moment. You need to consolidate what has been done during the highs and compile them into something that can be played. The easiest way to minimise (and hopefully avoid) a low in interest in your scenario is to have something that can be played. If people are playing your scenario (even if it’s only ¼ finished) then interest will be generated again. Then can you look to implement the next set of changes/features. By riding and manipulating the interest of people you can fulfil your original goal of creating a fun scenario. Sure, it does take time to create a good, fun, playable scenario. But in the end there is only ONE person who is required to maintain a high interest throughout the entire scenario’s lifecycle: YOU!
Good luck and good designing.

that we need to make changes in small, yet visible to players, steps and keep the mod playable and updated regularly and often.


Therefore I am posting this poll and asking the comunity to decide:

1) "Yes to goal issue, yes to update issue" - means you agree that both the Goal paragraph in Mission Statement must be changed to better represent reality and the mod must done step-by-step and playable all the time (as per paragraph above)

2) "Yes to goal issue, no to update issue" - means you agree that the Goal paragraph in Mission Statement must be changed to better represent reality but the continuability of mod shouldn't be ensured the proposed way (you are welcome to post your own proposal)

3) "No to goal issue, yes to update issue" - basically vice versa of 2nd option, also you are welcome to post a proposal of Goal if you think it should be changed in some other way than proposed.

4) "No to both" - again, you're welcome to express any proposal on any of them.

5) "XenoBanana" - if you just wondered here and dont know what the guys here are all about, this is the option for you.


THIS THREAD IS NOT FOR DISCUSSIONS, IF ANY DISCUSSION QRE NEEDED, YOU ARE WELCOME TO MAKE A NEW THREAD WHERE TO DISCUSS. IF THIS RULE IS BROKEN, I WILL ASK ILLUMINATUS TO MOVE THE POSTS TO NEW THREAD.

And one more - it is recommended to post about which option you voted and the reason/comment you have on it.

Thank you for voting,
bT

[binTravkin]

My vote goes for 1st option, I have posted the reasons several times now.

[Chaos Theory]

I never interpreted the Mission Statement as saying we should program bugs deliberately, then rip them out. The "second goal" is not the goal that is finished second.

On the other hand, since we're starting with a playable game, we should have a playable game at every step of the mod.

[Darsnan]

Originally posted by Chaos Theory
I never interpreted the Mission Statement as saying we should program bugs deliberately, then rip them out.

I agree. I have personally never interpretted the mission statement the way that bT has stated, which is to program in bugs then take them out. I don't know why bT interpretted it this way, but I think I speak for the rest of the group when I say that this was never our intention.

Originally posted by Chaos Theory
On the other hand, since we're starting with a playable game, we should have a playable game at every step of the mod.

I really like Blake's idea on this as it very quickly gets something into the hands of the people who will be working on the mod: for me that is significant as I have no interest whatsover in playing cIV, so the sooner he can get me something that has a SMAC(X) flavor, the better.


So, to summarize, I would vote for #1, but I am withholding my vote due to my not agreeing with the reason bT has posted as to why we should change the Mission Statement.


D

[Senethro]

I would vote for option 1 if I knew what I was voting for.

Gradual updates is a no-brainer, of course we should have them. Even though the word clone has been thrown about, it doesn't mean that a series of halfway house versions wouldn't exit. Kind of like a very extended beta testing... Rome wasn't built in a day after all.

As for the goal, I don't understand what we're voting for here. If we're voting to update the wording to more accurately describe the reality, then yes.
If we're voting to open up months of discussion with no consensus about what Civ4 features we keep or change for the mod, no. If we start picking and choosing we could end up looking at CTP and every other TBS under the sun on the same justifications.

[binTravkin]

I will post a dissection of my idea shortly.

[Illuminatus]

Originally posted by Chaos Theory
The "second goal" is not the goal that is finished second.

[binTravkin]

The "second goal" is not the goal that is finished second.

As I already said in private discussion, it's understandable of us, first members, but for a newcomer it's confusing.
It is also confusing if one uses this as a reference in a heated discussion and bends the entire argument around it.

[Illuminatus]

Write the explanation paragraph and I'll add it. Simple as that.

[Kataphraktoi]

Apologies to Illuminatus for his job in compiling this, but I think we should change this.

i think you mean

I aprreciate Illuminatus' work in compiling this, but I think we should change this.

I agree. I have personally never interpretted the mission statement the way that bT has stated, which is to program in bugs then take them out. I don't know why bT interpretted it this way, but I think I speak for the rest of the group when I say that this was never our intention.

thats my stance here as well

[PJayTycy]

I guess I'll abstain.


gradual updates : ofcourse we have them, why did you ever think not to have them ?

changed goal : before voting to dismiss the current text, I'd like to read the possible replacement

[binTravkin]

Thanks Cata, fixed!

[Kinjiru]

Option 1 for me...

Gradual updates are key IMHO.

[binTravkin]

See this thread for my proposal.

[Senethro]

Not to be alarmist, but we've actually got a new reason for making this mod. SMAC is quite literally dying.

The only other forum on the internet that really remembers Alpha Centauri is the Games forum on somethingawful.com. They're still running their bi-annual democracy game at the moment.

And every couple of weeks a new thread is posted or an old one is bumped where someone cannot play the game or even install it. The SA goons tend to be ahead of the crowd as regards computer hardware and are not prone to simple mistakes. But for some people, patches and forceoldvoxel are no longer making it playable. The ones who managed to install the game at all, that is.

This also correlates with my experiences on trying to install SMAC on friends' computers.

Unless you're prepared to hang onto old computers just to play SMAC, 3 years on you'll have trouble being able to play it.