VERSION 2: Thread Managers Needed...

[yin26]

Now that the first version of the list is done, we plan to refine our system and produce a version 2 that is hopefully more responsive to what Firaxis can use--which, according to Brian Reynolds, is not just "Put cool thing X in the game" but "Put cool thing X in the game, which will affect Y by giving it +1 in battle." In other words, we need to not only generate ideas but try to provide specific ways to implement them in the game.

But before all of that, we need Thread Managers (TMs). The list so far looks like this (if I'm missing somebody, please let me know):

CIVILIZATIONS: LordStone1 (on vacation to August 1)
CITIES/CITY IMPROVEMENTS: CyberShy/VictorG. (co-hosts?)
COMBAT: ??????
CUSTOMIZATION: mindlace
DIPLOMACY: Jeje2
GRAPHICS AND INTERFACE: evil conquerer/Frank Moore (on vacation to July 27)
MAP/TERRAIN/TERRAFORMING: ??????
MULTIPLAYER: ?????
MISCELLANEOUS: ?????
RADICAL IDEAS: korn469
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT/ECONOMICS/TRADE: Harel/don Don (co-hosts?)
SOCIAL ENGINEERING: Bell
TECHNOLOGY: Snowfire
UNITS: JT3
WONDERS: EnochF

These topic might or might not be included:

RELGION: Stefu (maybe you want Miscellaneous?)
SPACE EXPLOITATION: Smilo (mabye you also want Miscellaneous?)
MOVEMENT, SUPPLY, ETC.: don Don (perhaps you could co-host the Resource Management thread?)

If you are thinking about joining the team, here are some things to consider:

WHAT IS A THREAD MANAGER (a "TM")?

A Thread Manager is somebody who has volunteered and been given the responsiblity of helping make the Wish List of ideas for FIRAXIS as they create Civilization 3. He or she will 'manage' a thread on a given topic--COMBAT, for example--by starting an official thread for that topic and helping the coversation along. But not just anybody can start a thread in the List forum and become a Thread Manager. The General forum is where people should feel free to start their own threads. But this List forum will be run by Thread Managers. We have chosen to do things this way so people know exactly where to post ideas they want considered for the Wish List. It's not that ideas on the General forum will be ignored, though they will likely be overlooked. There is no easier way to ensure those ideas are included in the list than by posting them in the offcial TOPIC threads here.

WHAT DOES A THREAD MANAGER DO?

One of the most important duties for the TM is to summarize all these ideas and put them in the Wish List forum for people to see how far we've come on the list. But that's only part of the job. Since Octopus has already said this so well, I'll just quote him:

Summarizing is a huge and difficult part of the job. The difficulty isn't just reading the posts, but trying to be fair and balanced, and trying to give concise explanations of sometimes complicated ideas. Many of us can be pretty long winded, but the summaries, for the most part, need to be made up of several line "bullet point" items. Obviously, the busier the thread, the harder the summary. The other job of a Thread Manager is fostering and "guiding" discussions, but if a thread is doing okay on its own, this is unnecessary. If your thread is going fine, then all there is to do is summarize. If your thread is stagnating or getting too focussed in on a single issue, or degenerating into an argument or a flame war, you need to step in. Being a Thread Manager is not an easy job, so don't enter into it lightly. It can be fun and rewarding, too, though.

As you can see, it can be a lot of fun being a TM, but it takes time, effort and understanding to do it properly.

BUT DOESN'T THAT GIVE THE THREAD MANAGER TOO MUCH POWER TO EDIT IDEAS?

Again, I quote Octopus:

Editing implies the capability or the authority to change things, which the Thread Managers shouldn't (and don't) really have...the job mostly involves keeping the discussion on track and producing summaries to make discussion easier.

HOW LONG DOES ALL THIS WORK NORMALLY TAKE?

In my experience, a good Thread Manager interacts with his/her thread and the site in general for 30 minutes to an hour/day. If the thread is running smoothly, that time can go down. If the thread needs particular attention, that time can go up. But there is no way to know unless you are checking the thread on a daily basis. So it takes time.
Next, the writing of a summary takes anywhere from an hour to 4 hours, depending on the number of posts in the thread, the complexity of the discussion, how fast you type, etc. Some Thread Manager have reported working 6 hours on one summary, but that is at the extreme.

So, you should expect at least 30 minutes to an hour for daily interaction and another hour to 5 or 6 hours for summaries, which should be written every week or so, again depending on the activity in the thread.
This means approximately 10 hours per week--but it all depends on the particular thread and how involved you are on a daily basis. The best Thread Managers, however, are normally involved to that degree.

CAN I BECOME A THREAD MANAGER?

As you saw above, some topics are still open and you should contact me if you are interested in becoming a TM. And these things change from time to time. For example, we might decide that a new thread should be started because a new topic is so popular. Or a Thread Manager might become too busy to continue and wants a replacement. The best thing to do is to watch the forum carefully, let me know that you'd like to help, and wait for an opportunity. In any case, the most important thing is posting your ideas. Without ideas, we have no list.

IS THIS A PAID POSITION?

No. This is purely volunteer work for the love of developing an awesome Civilization 3 game. Firaxis might 'thank' you in some way later on, but they are in no way obligated to do so. Listening to our feedback should be considered payment enough. Also, taking such an active role in Civ. 3's development is a rare and rewarding experience in and of itself.
__________
If anything is unclear, or if you have comments or concerns, please post them here so we can all share in the discussion. And whether you become a Thread Manager or not, please help in the most important way possible:

Post your ideas in the List threads so we can help make Civilization 3 a game that amazes us all.


<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by yin26 (edited July 17, 1999).]</font>

[Harel]

BR response for the list got me worried. very worried indeed.
Why you ask? Beacause BR asked for more "game-effecting" posts, meaning giving real ways to implamnt the ideas. Ofcourse, thats a good thing: trying to show the way the game can be effected by the changes. BUT, and this is a big but, it means that things will stay the same.
What do I mean? I quote BR:

"You should include the development of the Stirrup") with a thought out game effect ("Which gives all your horse units +1 to their attack strength")

Ok, so we put a new idea: stirrup. But it also means that horse will be the same as in civ III, using the same model! I know that many people here are hoping for a STRUCTRAL change to civ, making the entire game diffeent. More realisitic combat, city management, diplomacy, research, etc.
Indeed, and Rong can tell you this, a big portion of the suggestions are not "tweaks", like the stirrup but big, fundemntal changes.
So, like I said before, I am worried indeed. I got a feeling, that like SMAC, civ III will include many tweaks but really won't CHANGE anything.
I am alone in thinking this?

[NotLikeTea]

I'm worried about the same thing.

I played SimCity2000 for many, many hours, and loved the game. But when SimCity3000 came out, I did not buy it, because it was just the old game with new graphics and a few tweaks.

If CivIII is just CivII with tweaks, I am not planning on buying it. I bought CivII after CivI because the changes were fairly dramatic. From BR's comments, CivIII essentially sounds like an expansion pack.

[Ekmek]

I would like to add a thread and would e happy to maage it. Thread should focus on the end game. Yeah Alpha Centauri is the follow on but how you get there and right before you do does matter.
i.e. before CTP came out it sounde liket here was multiple futures (remember one was an environmental paradise another was a blade runner-esque dark world) as far as end game go I'm willin to maage a thread that focuses on how the game will end, what other possible endings are out there and what kinda of "futures" should we play in before we AC.

------------------
"No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn."
- Jim Morrison

[NotLikeTea]

Great idea E!

Though, I would call it "Winning and Loosing", and cover all the ways the game could end.

Or, to be even more broad, call it "Starting and Ending", and include starting conditions.

[Ecce Homo]

Until further notice, I can take care of the Miscellaneous (currently OTHER) thread.

------------------
The best ideas are those that can be improved.
Ecce Homo

[Harel]

I think that the goal of the 2.0 version is to shorten the list of topics. Therefor NLT, our goals it to fit the new ideas in the existing threads.
Winning conditions should be included in the "customazition" thread. However, it's a very important subject. Several people opened up similar-idea threads. The last was Theban, if I am not mistaken. However, this isn't a big enough issue to be a 2.0 thread.

[Harel]

In the spirit of things, I'll requote myself. I posted a long quote on all the possible ending conditions. This include all the ideas from SMAC, civ and some other games. I will show them here:

* Check box - allied victory. If this is checked, all your allies gain a win with you.

* Vendetta - The first to destory an X number of enemies wins. With allies, the number if cumultive ( 3 allies, 3 times the kills ).
* Dominion - gaining 75% of all popultion ( with allies ).
* Presdient - elected world president by 66% of votes.
* Space race - arriving to alpha centaury. You can build the ship with allies.
* Last standing - only you your allies are alive ( no more then 20% may ally ).
* Team game - 5 groups of teams. Must destory all other civ.
* Biggest is best - you are the biggest civ after X turns ( shared with all allies to groups ).
* Singulary plant - a huge wonder that gives you ultimte power, winning the game. Can be replaced by any appriopte wonder. You can build the wonder with allies.

Other victory conditions that doesn't fit in civ:

* Tech - reaching some sort of high-end technology.
* Ancient enemy - destorying some big "boss", like in master of orion II.
* Cornering market - ala SMAC, controling the world market.

[Shining1]

Hi,

Yin has asked me to handle the recruitment of the TM's for version 2. Naturally, this needs to be done quickly - without the TM's, there are no threads, and no suggestions!

In addition, MarkG wants to reorganise this thread to prevent non-TM's from posting new threads, etc. So it's important to know exactly who the TM's are.

Hence we need a full list ASAP. If all Apolyton TM's can post here, stating their thread topic and their plans for that thread, it would be most apprediated. As well, anyone who wants to fill a vacant topic, or start a new thread (E H for instance) should also post here.

While it has been suggested that some threads be combined, I would personally favour dividing them into groups, where appropriate, so that TM's with similar topics can work more closely together (for instance, the combat and unit threads, or the Citys and Regions thread and the City Improvements thread).

Again, quick responses to this thread are most appreciated - the sooner this is done, the sooner we can get version 2 of the list properly underway.

Shining1
(Comoderator of the Civ 3 list)

[Maniac]

I'm willing to take over Terrain/Terrain Improvements from EnochF and Government/Social Engineering from Bell.
May a thread master also post his own ideas because I am thinking about a complete SE system ?
Yin, where can you post ideas about City Growth? There was a big discussion about that on Civ3-General/Suggestions, but I don't see it mentioned here in Civ3-The List of ideas for Firaxis. Shouldn't there be a thread about victory conditions?

[Jon Miller]

Hi

I might be willing to temp as a TM if somebody needed to go for a week or something, if asked of course


Jon Miller

[Ecce Homo]

A bit late, I should inform that I will be off-line until July 31st. Can somebody please water my plants, mow my lawn and see to it that the OTHER thread does not get spammed?

------------------
The best ideas are those that can be improved.
Ecce Homo

[Shining1]

Ecce: No Problem. Jon, are you up for this?

Maniac: To be honest, I'd like to see terrain and terrain improvements moved into a single thread, called terrain and terraforming. As for Social Engineering, you are welcome to take this thread over if EnochF no longer wants the job. And yes, you are still able to post your own ideas, provided that your summary remains fair and open (which I'm sure it will). Read one of the old TM's pledge type threads for more details about this - basically, your job is to summarise the list, including all ideas, and relevant feedback from posters.

Shining1
(comod)

[Jeje2]

Hello Shining1,

First I am glad that you are working as Yin's right hand. (He needed one baadly)

I have been working with DIPLOMACY and would like to continue with it. (But if you have someone better, I understand.)

Currently I am still on my holiday for one week more.

I plan to do my resume right after we have agreed on HOW v2 should be like.

So as soon as we have some TM's, we need to talk about what v2 shall be. (Just tossing my two cent's)

[Lohrax]

Although (potentially) new to thread management, I've logged several multi-day marathons and hundreds of hours with the various Civs over the past ten years. The series has cost me two girlfriends already (they just don't understand the megalomaniacal satisfaction...) - but it's been worth it! I would be honored to TM the terrain/map/terraforming thread.

[Theben]

I'll do the COMBAT thread. I'll also suggest that UNITS be split up somehow...it's pretty long.

[Shining1]

Jeje2: Thanks for the support.

As for the direction of the 2nd list, here are my thoughts so far. Brian has suggested two things: That the original list be maintained and added too, and that suggestions be phrased along the lines of ingame effects. While the second of these is obviously dependent upon the suggestion itself, the first is where I plan to go from. As such, the second part of the list should also include some more feedback on current ideas, so that BR can get a more general idea for how the civ community feels about them.

A little thread restructuring is also in order, and I'll be suggesting that TM's take control of a general area, such as the aforementioned terrain and terraforming, or else (if possible, to avoid being overworked) split into small groups with a common subject - for instance Cities and Regions, City Improvements, Resources, and T&Tera all need to work closely, because these elements interact closely, and a good suggestion in one thread might be a great idea for another.

Lohrax: I'll pencil you in tentatively for this one. Welcome aboard!

Theben: Right. Combat. And I'll check out the units thread, although, like the Technology thread, I suspect much of this stuff belongs together.

[Iceman88888888]

I would like to do a Thread but not one there how about a EXPLORATION etc Thread. I would Host That. Thnxs

I thought we were trying to conform, more or less, to the topics as chosen by Firaxis? We have a couple threads they haven't incorporated into theirs, but we don't need to multiply that number.

Harel and I are going to expand Econ/Trade to include Resources (i.e., unit support integrated with econ/trade). Next iteration thread will have new title.

[Lohrax]

Cool. This will be fun!

I agree that several threads (T/T, City, TI, etc.) will probably have overlapping ideas. Perhaps a forum feature where we can forward a posting to a different thread?

[Shining1]

Lo: Probably not, but certainly it would pay to mention any related threads in the intro to a thread, and to suggest that ideas be sent to every thread that shares the topic.

[Brian Reynolds FIRAXIS]

Hi All,

Your list is looking great, as I said before. I wanted to reply to a couple of comments above...

To Havel... suggestions are assumed to be in the context of the original game system (the only common context we all have right now) unless of course the suggestion is to change the game system in some way, in which case other parts of the game system are assumed to remain the same unless the suggestion also affects them. What I'm saying is that nothing in my reply should be taken to indicate a lack of ambition on my part. ;-) But I find your suggestions more useful the more you take the time to put them in context of a specific implementation you envision.

To NotLikeTea... believe me, it won't "just be an expansion". Our plan is to be even more of an advancement over Civ2 than Civ2 was over Civ1, and that is certainly the thrust of our design efforts.

Looking forward to version 2...

BR

[Maniac]

BR, who is Havel?

[smilo]

I'm still available for the space exploitation thread. It has become a pretty busy thread lately, so I propose it can stay a thread on its own. If it is removed, well then I'll do the Misc one.

[Jon Miller]

I think that maybe we should not stop after v 2, perhaps we should find somebody else to take over Yins place (he did do a good job, but if hes tired?)

Jon Miller

[Harel]

Maniac, I am HAVEL.
A small type-O. Guess that BR is human too.

But, gosh, BR talked to me. I think I am going to put the monitor on a shelf and just worship it from a far.

No, seriously now.
I am glad that Brain takes the time and interst to post here. But, I refuse to just accept what he said.
BR said that CIV III would be more different then CIV II was to CIV I. Well... what did they really have apart? A few more techs? Spiffy wonder videos? Nicer graphics?
The advisors were a nice touch. The fundemnatalist and the new units were also a good attachment. But were they really that different? NO.
Well, blimey, even if CIV III would be as far from SMAC as SMAC was to CIV II, i won't be satesfied. I repeat, I want a FUNDEMNTAL change. We can't, and shouldn't, use CIV II as refernce since what we want is miles away.
People suggest change to every section of the game: economy, technology, graphics, cities... even if BR would take just a few ideas from every thread, the game would be SO different from civ II that we will have no relevnce to measure it upon.

However, I AM very glad that Firaxis is full with so much zill. BTW, BR: when can we expect a formal site?

And, can we get some replies on the list? What you liked, why you didn't approve off... what do you know for sure that you are going to add... things like that. It would really push things a lot here.

[raingoon]

I have to say, in reply to Harel...

Not to diminish in any way your impassioned plea for real change and something NEW and exciting -- isn't that out purpose, after all? -- but I read BR's post slightly differently.

Francis Ford Coppola once said when he writes a script, he changes it, quoting ver batim, "in baby steps -- have to go in baby steps." And he was emphatic about this. He didn't mean he's not interested in ending up at point Z eventually. He meant that there was no value in jumping there from A without going through B,C,D, etc., first.

Note, I don't know BR and what they're doing. I don't know that your alarm isn't 100% justified. I'm just saying when I read BR's post here, I get the same creative attitude as in my little Coppola reference. Point A is the best context for discussing point B, and point B is likewise the best place to talk about point C... If we want to reach the moon, we need to discuss our dream in terms of that old nag, gravity.

But to stress -- I think you're right to demand radical change -- and I'd err on your side rather than mine. I'm definitely trying to think radically with our new model in the religion thread. I just wanted to make that other observation as well.


<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by raingoon (edited August 07, 1999).]</font>

[Shining1]

Harel: I agree, but remember that CivIII is going to be CivIII, and not a whole new game.
Expect evolution, especially, if what Br posted in the SMAC forums turns out to be turn, in the ICS/city management part of the game.

[Maniac]

Harel : I agree, fundamental changes!

BTW, why do you ask Brian Reynolds if he likes certain things? We are the one that have to like them, he is just the programmer. The game may not be influenced by his personal playing stile.

If he would affect it, you get a disaster. Example : SMAC.
I thought in the SMAC forums was mentioned that BR's favorite faction was the Believers(=conquerors), and yes indeed SMAC is a conqueror's game.

So don't ask BR's opinion. He wants to change as little as possible (less work for him) and if he changes something it will be to make it easier for conquerors.

M@ni@c
Heavily doubting Brian Reynolds ambitions to create a good game.

[Metamorph]

The lack of perception, or perhaps the willingness to perceive, the fundamental flaws in the nature of the current versions of the various civlike games is what drove me to giving up entirely on the project of addressing their problems and potentially fixing them in current and/or subsequent versions.

It chills me to the bone to hear Brian Reynolds talk about how much Civ2 is an improvement over Civ1. It makes me doubt my own sanity. What can he possibly see that I, that all of us, do not?

I think it's something more fundamental than that. I think that developers, or in any event, the specific developers in question, those who are making the civlike games these days, look at their games in lump sum. Well, the gameplay has problems... but the graphics are stunning and the music and this and that and these frills over here... So it all averages out to a pretty good game, in their eyes.

Whereas we judge a game from the bottom. If most of the features of a game are good, but a few important ones suck, how do we rate that game? Do we average it out? Do we shrug and say, oh well, every game has its little quirks? No. A game is only as good as its problems allow it to be -- to me, anyway, and I daresay to many, if not most, of you. We're gamers; this is a game. And it's only fun if it works, all the way through. It is not a sum of its parts; it does not average out.

Has Brian, or any of the developers for that matter, come onto this forum and stated, point-blank, that they screwed up any one particular aspect of any one of their games, that they could have done it better, that they apologize and will do whatever it takes to fix it in the next version? I for one would bend over backwards to admit a mistake I made when designing a game, and all but grovel and beg for players to suggest how I can make the game that much better.

"...the "ICS" commentary points out a very valid criticism of the system..." This is the most I've ever heard Brian yield on this particular subject. And I daresay it's the most we all will ever hear. Considering it's my pet peeve, I find it extremely difficult to generate the motivation to struggle to express my views. Particularly when the designers don't seem all that interested in believing what I have to say.

Maybe they take it personally. I suppose I take it personally when somebody points out a problem in one of my programs, at first. This thing, this creation of mine, is a part of me. How dare you trash it! But then I swallow my pride, and take the objective point of view. Crud, he's right. That _is_ a problem, a mistake, an oversight, a lacking, a flaw. It's my responsibility to fix it. And I should _thank_ that person for pointing it out to me!

At least, that's my opinion. Apparently, many software developers as of late feel otherwise. So as heartening as some find it that Brian and others are supposedly willing to listen to our ideas, I for one remain pessimistic in the belief that they aren't truly objective about seeking improvement on a fundamental game level.

Seeing all this activity has prompted me to perhaps email Brian directly. I'd like him to explain to me, straight-facedly, just exactly what his opinion is on ICS, for example. Does he acknowledge it even exists? Is it a problem? In which games? Is it important? Does it affect game play? Is it a significant factor? Does it concern him? Does he believe it concerns anyone? What is he thinking?

I've always been sharply critical of this particular category of game designers and programmers for the above reasons. Unfortunately, I lack Yin's optimism that something can be done about it. And I will continue to maintain that disposition until a glimmer of hope appears.

- Metamorph