Will There Be A Ctp3 ? - Page 2

Inverse Icarus · December 17, 2003, 20:37

Quote:

Originally posted by alva
There's no reason to do this Civ3 versus CtP thing imo, a waste of time.

i concur. ctp sucks. no need to argue.

hexagonian · December 18, 2003, 11:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Uber KruX
i concur. ctp sucks. no need to argue.

Then stick to civ3 - after all it is the perfect game

Why even bother making changes.

Firaxis employee #1
''I have a great idea, lets get rid of the infinite Rail movement. That's a silly game rule.''

Firaxis employee #2
''Great we'll make that the centerpiece of civ4 - no need to do anything else. After all, civ3 was just about perfect anyhow.''

Sid
Cha-ching!!!!

In fact I have a better idea - every month, you can send a $40 check to Firaxis. That will save them the trouble of changing anything, and you can show your continued support to them.

alva · December 18, 2003, 11:59

exactly how many patches were released fot CTP?

hexagonian · December 18, 2003, 14:59

No argument there, although Activision's corporate problems, when CTP2 was released, were a lot deeper than concerns to release patches for a single game.

Too many comments made about this CTP/civ debate go like this.

Person 1
'I hate CTP - it sucks!

Person 2
'OK - Why?'

Person 1
'Unconventional units suck'

Person 2
'OK - What about unconventionals don't you like? Was it a good idea but poorly implimented. Was it unbalanced, and if so, would simply changing priority settings/cost/impact effect make it better?

Person 1
'I hate CTP and unconventional units - they suck!

and so on...No explanation as to why its a bad idea, or if there is an explanation, its usually based on preference and not elements of gameplay like strategy/tactics.

UberKrux sounds like he only wants minor tweaks - and is willing to continue to shell out $40-50 to Firaxis for those minor tweaks.
He's the ideal customer in a company's eyes. Minimum effort for maximum payout.

Peter Triggs · December 18, 2003, 15:00

Quote:

What really sucks are "this or that sucks" posts

Agreed.

hexagonian · December 18, 2003, 15:02

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
Still, I dare you - post in in the C3-General or C3-Conquests forum

I have posted there before - every time a CTP/civ thread comes up. but the real answer is...Why even bother???

This is the forum that will directly affect what gets on 'The List'

Kuciwalker · December 19, 2003, 00:54

Quote:

and so on...No explanation as to why its a bad idea, or if there is an explanation, its usually based on preference and not elements of gameplay like strategy/tactics.

MANY PEOPLE (I among them) have explained cogently why they are bad for gameplay reasons. They are unrealistic, gaudy, and/or bizarre. Oh no, a Lawyer is approaching my city! An abstracted espionage system is far more realistic. Why should an infiltrating "unit" take up as much space as a Tank division?

hexagonian · December 19, 2003, 11:25

I give credit to those who do take the time to explain, (and I'm glad that you have at least made the effort regarding stacked combat, because it forces me to reason through my own preferences - I still disagree with you, but at least I have a better understanding why you feel the way you do) but those who basically say 'it sucks' and then cannot explain the reasoning behind their statements or explain it with vague generalizations are wasting their breath.

In the same way, I hope you see my points about why I feel certain aspects work in the CTP series.

Face it, most gameplay issues are a matter of preference. I fully realize that I'm not going to change a die-hard on certain issues - in the same way I do not expect to be changed myself. But I want people to understand the 'why', and to basically expand their viewpoint beyond mere preference/bias.

hexagonian · December 19, 2003, 12:03

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
They are unrealistic

I could write a book about all the 'unrealisms' in these types of games (infinite RR movement vs limited air/sea movement, the timeline not lining up with movement (it takes a year to move 1-3 spaces on an unroadded tile))...

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
gaudy, and/or bizarre.

These are preferences... (And I have posted in favor of unconventionals, but if you read my response on that thread, the tone of my post was basically uncommited - it certainly wasn't set in stone.)

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
Why should an infiltrating "unit" take up as much space as a Tank division?

Easy solution...unconventionals would not be part of the unit limit placed on a stack. So its not the basic concept, but the execution of the concept that would need to be tweaked.

Tiberius · December 19, 2003, 12:41

You see, this is why civ3 people won't come here. As long as this forum will have its motto: "Let's base civ4 on ctp rather than civ3" the participation will be appalling at best.

Why don't you start a "ctp3 List" forum? I know I don't want Lawyers or Public Works or other stupid ideas, so I believe my participation to the civ4 list ends here.

MrBaggins · December 19, 2003, 13:02

I think its pretty clear that its far from CTP enthusiasts (the dozen active ones on Apolyton) are not the only people who think that many of the concepts introduced are good ideas. Bad implementation doesn't make them bad ideas necessarily. Thats pretty clear on the polls.

As for them being "stupid ideas", stupid is in the eye of the beholder.

I might say that having 300 workers towards the end of a civ game, is far more "stupid" than PW. PW scales seemlessly, workers don't... automation or otherwise.

hexagonian · December 19, 2003, 13:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Tiberius
...so I believe my participation to the civ4 list ends here.

That's your right, I guess...though if you feel strongly enough about stuff that you want in civ4, you gotta speak your mind.

So your silence (and others who feel strongly) may effectively kill implimentation of the ideas that you hold dearly concerning civ4. Anyway, it is ultimately up to Firaxis to put in new ideas - either the list will prove worthless, or it will spark something for them.

And if they end up keeping the additions conservative (slightly different than civ3), I have enough of a life so I won't lose any sleep over it.

Solver · December 19, 2003, 13:45

True... far more people want to see stacked combat in some form than we have CtP players here.

And it's also true that CtP implementation isn't perfect... but Firaxis surely can improve on the idea, if they take it over.

Frozzy · December 19, 2003, 15:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Tiberius
You see, this is why civ3 people won't come here. As long as this forum will have its motto: "Let's base civ4 on ctp rather than civ3" the participation will be appalling at best.

Why don't you start a "ctp3 List" forum? I know I don't want Lawyers or Public Works or other stupid ideas, so I believe my participation to the civ4 list ends here.

Look. Ideas are ADDITIONS to the original game. It IS being based on Civ 3. However, we, the CtP collective, wish to see some CtP IDEAS that were good to be ADDED to the Civilization IV product IN ADDITION to the heart and soul of the Civilization genre. We are suggesting some things from CtP that were good ideas, but need improving, and that's why we are discussing them here.

As Thomas Edison said, a good idea can only come from multiple bad ideas. Well, If we say "CtP sucks. I like Civ as it is.", what the hell would be the point of this effort if we just don't come up with some radical ideas from other games that could work for Civ. I didn't necessarily like GalCiv, or the workers system from Civ, but you don't see me, or any of the other CtP players posting in every thread saying "Civilization III sucks. GalCiv sucks." "Why?" "Because it was made by Infogreed. They suck. Sid Meier is a jackass". "What makes you think that?" "Civilization III sucks".

Please... grow up

Kuciwalker · December 19, 2003, 15:37

Quote:

I think its pretty clear that its far from CTP enthusiasts (the dozen active ones on Apolyton) are not the only people who think that many of the concepts introduced are good ideas. Bad implementation doesn't make them bad ideas necessarily. Thats pretty clear on the polls.

As for them being "stupid ideas", stupid is in the eye of the beholder.

I might say that having 300 workers towards the end of a civ game, is far more "stupid" than PW. PW scales seemlessly, workers don't... automation or otherwise.

I think that it can be established pretty objectively that a frigging Lawyer unit is pretty stupid.

Frozzy · December 19, 2003, 15:41

Please provide a link where somebody has said Laywers are a good idea. Thank you.

Kuciwalker · December 19, 2003, 15:48

He said "stupid is in the eye of the beholder" in response to a post that mentioned that Lawyer units, among other things, are stupid

Frozzy · December 19, 2003, 15:50

You still haven't provided me with a link where someone has explicitly stated that Lawyers are a good idea.

Kuciwalker · December 19, 2003, 15:54

I never said anyone did. I was just saying that, despite the subjectivity involved, that they are an overall bad idea is pretty obvious

TheBirdMan · December 22, 2003, 03:42

Lawyers are good for one thing - they can nullify the damage (read loss of production) those damned corporate branches makes

The idea including business in the game is actually good - but it could surely be implemented better than it is in CTP.

Maquiladora · December 22, 2003, 05:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Tiberius
You see, this is why civ3 people won't come here. As long as this forum will have its motto: "Let's base civ4 on ctp rather than civ3" the participation will be appalling at best.

Why don't you start a "ctp3 List" forum? I know I don't want Lawyers or Public Works or other stupid ideas, so I believe my participation to the civ4 list ends here.

I dont see that motto in bold at the top of the forum, its upto the individual if they want to give their ideas.

One poll goes the way of a CtP concept and youre crying into your 'special edition' tin. Like Firaxis cant do their own job and decide for themselves

asleepathewheel · December 22, 2003, 13:13

Isn't this thread a bit premature? I mean, isn't CtP2 still in production?

Kuciwalker · December 22, 2003, 16:38

Huh? Aren't you a little behind the times?

asleepathewheel · December 22, 2003, 18:46

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
Huh? Aren't you a little behind the times?

I thought the kind souls at Apolyton were in the process of finishing up CtP2. Perhaps I was mistaken.

MrBaggins · December 22, 2003, 18:54

Thats not CtP3 per se, though.

Anything that we might produce will be a patch on CtP2... and thus be at most CtP2.9999, even if its significantly different.

Martin Gühmann · December 22, 2003, 20:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Tiberius
To quote skywalker:
Over my dead body

I really hate it. Implement it in Civ4 and I won't buy it.

Quote:

2) public works.

I don't really care about these.

Now, what else what that great about CTP, that it should be blend with civ3 into a new civ game? I would stay far away from it, both in ideas as well as implementation.

If they do not implement it or find another solution that wouldn't make meto move around 200 units each turn then propably I won't buy Civ4. I did buy Alpha Centauri and Civ3 for that reason. So why do you hate public works?

Quote:

Originally posted by Tiberius
You see, this is why civ3 people won't come here. As long as this forum will have its motto: "Let's base civ4 on ctp rather than civ3" the participation will be appalling at best.

If noone from Civ3 visits this forum then there opinion doesn't count here, because they don't express their opinion here. So the discususion leads into that direction that is determined by the people who participate in them. So don't cry if noone is here.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tiberius
Why don't you start a "ctp3 List" forum? I know I don't want Lawyers or Public Works or other stupid ideas, so I believe my participation to the civ4 list ends here.

Noone ever announced a CTP3 so there is no forum for that necessary, and actual we don't need to discuss what some company could do, we have the source code and can do the changes we consider are worth do be done on our own. But we think that Firaxis should at least listen what we consider as good.

-Martin

Kuciwalker · December 22, 2003, 21:43

Quote:

Originally posted by asleepathewheel

I thought the kind souls at Apolyton were in the process of finishing up CtP2. Perhaps I was mistaken.

It is already "finished". The Source Code project is changing the final product.

Tiberius · December 23, 2003, 03:17

skywalker, I think sleepy was beeing sarcastic.

TheBirdMan · December 23, 2003, 03:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Tiberius
skywalker, I think sleepy was beeing sarcastic.

Either that

or he has choosen a perfect name for himself

Keygen · January 9, 2004, 17:23

Not sure of the meaning of this Civ vs CtP funs debate if you take in account the title of this thread and its obvious purpose: "Will There Be A Ctp3?". I see no "Will CtP features be included in Civ4?" or "Is CtP better than Civ3?" in the title or implied in any way

It is entertaining however to watch trolls throwing their arrows on their first chance even if that means being completely off topic. No offence there but you're out of line

As already mentioned in this thread Activision is no longer developing games, only publishing games developed by other companies that do not have the means to publish them themselves. Of cource it wouldn't surprise me if in the future Activision would resume its old habit and come back in the game development bussiness but it is common sense in the CtP community that the sequel won't continue for sure, at list from Activision hands. However if the source code release of CtP2 takes much publicity in the future it wouldn't be unlikely that a company would buy the right of the sequel from Activision and develop a CtP3.

For the time being there is a project and a team working on the code in a first attempt to release a patch for CtP2 with good results so far. Also there is a lot of discussion going on for many features of CtP2 and how they could be improved. Depending on the amount of the volunteers and their time and abilities it wouldn't be out of the question to see a CtP3 or something close to it from this community in the future. For more information about the project visite the respective forum if not already. A link to the sign up thread is also available on my signature below.