Open letter to Firaxis from the scenario community

[dasaecorvic]

A word from some Firaxian would be great... just to let us know what are they planning to implement in the patch...

Greetings.

[klesh]

Originally posted by BeBro
Good to see this thread here , an answer from a firaxian would be great...

Well, it doesnt seem to be carrying much weight here, does it Bernd.

-FMK.

[MagyarCrusader]

If Firaxis cannot make a very good patch by Christmas, atleast by the end of January... I say people should Boycott them until they do produce a very good patch fixing atleast all of the bugs, add missing features, a better scenario editor, etc...

Yeah, I've already boycotted this game, and Firaxis. All you suckers who bought the game have just encouraged them to be @$$holes. Thanks a lot!

[Your.Master]

Originally posted by [LordLMP]
If Firaxis cannot make a very good patch by Christmas, atleast by the end of January... I say people should Boycott them until they do produce a very good patch fixing atleast all of the bugs, add missing features, a better scenario editor, etc...

Fat chance

[Darkknight]

Originally posted by yin26

I never patched Heroes of Might and Magic 3, though I suppose there was one ... just never saw a need. Then again, I was just playing that game casually and didn't analyze it to death. Having said that, however, I never saw anything that ruined the game or distracted me from enjoying it.

I never used the civ2 patch I do have Civ2FW that loads 2.42 but I haven't installed that in my latest re-installation of civ2.

[dansch]

Another scenario designer weighs in on the side of a more sophisticated editor.

I am not terribly disturbed that it did not ship in the first version. I will not even be unhappy if it ends up being part of a future retail add-on. I just want to se it happen.

On the list of strategy games Civilization (the series) is simply and easily number one. Part of the reason is its "legs." Those legs are exceptionally long due to the scenario editor and scenarios resulting from the player community. I sincerely hope that will continue to be an important part of the Civ experience. I know I got perhaps more pleasure out of playing with scenarios designs than I did from those "just one more turn" sessions that had me draggging through work the next day innumerable times.

Civ III has already ruined a few nights of sleep for me... no complaints on the game itself.

Dan Scheltema
Slash & Burn, and a couple others I never quite published

[Jay Bee]

Hey Dan, long time no hear!

Send those unpublished scens to me, please! Same e-mail as always.

[techumseh]

It's been a couple of days since our letter was posted. It's now fair to ask if Firaxis will respond and when. I hope that if and when they do, we keep the discussion polite and to the point. Rants, angry red faces and threats of boycotts won't encourage them to discuss our concerns. So let's keep it civil.

Firaxis?

[Hoek]

Okay, but Civ II had some basic tools. Scripting language is important, but Civ III doesn't even have the basics needed for a scenario! That's a real slap in the face to the whole scenario-creation community.

The main reason that civ 2 lasted so long is because people found creative ways of using the game. Whether through creation, multiplayer, competitions, or "challenges," it was because of us, the civ players that the game lasted so long. Firaxis caved to pressure to get it out quick, which was a mistake. It shows that Firaxis isn't as committed to the community as we had thought. Now we need to pressure Firaxis to think about us more because we are customers, and I for one am not going to buy it until I see a good editor patch.

[ravagon]

Originally posted by Hoek
Okay, but Civ II had some basic tools. Scripting language is important, but Civ III doesn't even have the basics needed for a scenario! That's a real slap in the face to the whole scenario-creation community.

Exactly! One would expect later generations of a game to expand and improve upon those previous. W.r.t Customizing/scenarios/editting this one doesn't. Scenario makers basically don't seem to have the ability to do anything at all at present. A giant step backwards.

and I for one am not going to buy it until I see a good editor patch.

Ditto for me. I wouldn't even have finished my first game of civ3 before at least trying out the editting capabilities. There just doesn't seem to be enough incentive for me to buy it while such a large (potential) portion of the game is absent.
Certainly not without at least knowing what is planned for it in the near future.

[Hoek]

I'm also dissappointed at the lack of response from Firaxis yet. It's rude (and misleading) to keep your fans (especially ones who are as dedicated as scenario-makers are) in the dark. The Civ 3 website really played up the editing capabilities without actually coming through! Why is it that Dan Manghas can open a thread about the science advisor but not address the concerns of scenario-makers. I think most of us would be less upset if there was at least some basic information as to what they plan on including in the editor patches and how soon will it come.

[Hoek]

Here's the latest "developer's notes" from the Civ 3 website:

By Jeff Morris
Firaxis Games

One of the enduring strengths of the Civilization franchise has been its ability to be customized by the fans. It's really a matter of 'resolution'. Whereas the developers of the core game take upon themselves the challenge of surveying the entirety of human history, the fans can render specific periods of time in as much detail as they can muster. This versatility is a real marquee feature, transforming a title about mankind's civilizations into a gaming construction kit for any setting imaginable.

When we approached the editing tools for Civilization III, we were determined to offer a contemporary customization environment. In previous incarnations of this franchise, users were capable of making radical changes to the game systems, but often needed to locate and edit text files to do so. In Civilization III these changes are still possible, but can now be made within an application that follows the interface rules of standard Windows programs. This editor not only allows you to alter game elements such as advances, civilizations, units and wonders (to name a few), but also includes a robust map editor. Using the editor, users are empowered to create scenarios that we never dreamt of during development.

The editors in Civilization III are only the beginning. Based on feedback from the mod and scenario community we will make additional improvements and incorporate new features. The editors are just tools, ones that the fan community needs to make meaningful by creating new scenarios with. As those in the 'trenches' of creating new content run into limitations, we'll work on eradicating those barriers. Firaxis is very interested in Civilization III having an active mod community, but need to know where our efforts are best spent. Together we can make Civilization III a potent platform for not only exploring factual history, but also your creativity and interests.

and here is a screenshot of the editor:








From the looks of it, they built the editor into the system, and actually used it themselves to set the rules for the game. The interface of the editor is very nice, and it seems to do a very nice job at easing up text editing. However, it's clear that the designers of the game were on a strict time budget. You know, now that I think about it, it might be possible that they held off on editing changes until they got a better idea of what kinds of things to include. I don't know, though.

[Hans2]

There is nothing wrong with the editor except for two things:
1) You can't place cities on the map
2) You can't place units on the map
If I had to add a third thing, it would be setting civ specific starting locations. Everything else is great. But WTF?! I mean, it is IMPOSSIBLE to create a 'scenario' without these two abilities. To not include them because they didn't know if their 'efforts would best be spent there' is plain foolish. Do you think we're idiots? I mean, come on guys, this stuff is so basic.

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by Hans2
There is nothing wrong with the editor except for two things:
1) You can't place cities on the map
2) You can't place units on the map
If I had to add a third thing, it would be setting civ specific starting locations. Everything else is great. But WTF?! I mean, it is IMPOSSIBLE to create a 'scenario' without these two abilities. To not include them because they didn't know if their 'efforts would best be spent there' is plain foolish. Do you think we're idiots? I mean, come on guys, this stuff is so basic.

SCRIPTING!?!

[Hoek]

Scripting language is nothing without the ability to place units and cities

[dasaecorvic]

Originally posted by Hans2
There is nothing wrong with the editor except for two things:
1) You can't place cities on the map
2) You can't place units on the map
If I had to add a third thing, it would be setting civ specific starting locations. Everything else is great. But WTF?! I mean, it is IMPOSSIBLE to create a 'scenario' without these two abilities. To not include them because they didn't know if their 'efforts would best be spent there' is plain foolish. Do you think we're idiots? I mean, come on guys, this stuff is so basic.

You are right Hans2. Placing units and cities on the map, and deciding the starting location are basic issues.

Greetings.

[Barnacle Bill]

Another issue that I really, really want addressed is the ability to restrict techs to certain civs and deny them to others. You could do that in Civ2, by assigning the tech a prereq of "no" but then giving it to the civ(s) you wanted to have a different tech tree (and using it as a prereq for others). Unfortunately, the AI's would trade this stuff and screw it up, so you also had to prevent the AI's from talking to each other. That last was a limitation I had hoped to see fixed for Civ3. Instead, the "no" prereq setting is absent, plus if you give a civ a free starting tech it doesn't really get it until it has all the prereqs so it wouldn't work anyway. So, in Civ3 there is no way to do it at all. This is a step backwards. It is somewhat mitigated by the new ability to limit units to select civs, but what about other stuff (buildings, governments, etc...)?

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Hoek
Scripting language is nothing without the ability to place units and cities

If all else fails, use the scripting language to place units, cities, buildins and wonders in cities, tile improvements, terrain changes, everything.

Admittedly an easier way would be nice, but still...

[H Tower]

did the letter get emailed to firaxis? they might not have seen it in all the flood of civ3 threads created after the game was released.

[techumseh]

They're on this site every day. They've seen it alright, it's at the top of the forum. They're just choosing not to respond. If you read the transcript of the 'Chat with Soren', you'll see that the issues raised in this letter were brought up near the start and ignored. Later the issue of multi-player was raised and ruled out of order by Mark G. They'll only participate in discussions in which they can look good. It's not communication, it's marketing.

[Chris 62]

This really seems a forlorn hope, but I will add my name to it.

Alcibiaties of Athenae, Scenario review editior, Civfanatics.com

AoA@Civfanatics.net

It would seem that something besides "good will" is needed to stir this particular company to action.

[Case]

Originally posted by techumseh
It's not communication, it's marketing.

In all fairness to Firaxis, they do have children to feed and bills to pay and you can't really blame them for wanting to sell as many copies of Civ 3 as possible
[though in my opinion, these sales can best be sustained by Firaxis encouraging a healthy mod/scenario community]

The last paragraph of the Jeff Morris article quoted by Hoek is encouraging (though I don't know how they're expecting a 'scenario community to develop and aid them when you can't make scenarios! )

[MagyarCrusader]

They'll only participate in discussions in which they can look good. It's not communication, it's marketing.

Bingo, and that's why they haven't gotten a cent out of me!

[Deathray]

Originally posted by techumseh
They're on this site every day. They've seen it alright, it's at the top of the forum. They're just choosing not to respond. If you read the transcript of the 'Chat with Soren', you'll see that the issues raised in this letter were brought up near the start and ignored. Later the issue of multi-player was raised and ruled out of order by Mark G. They'll only participate in discussions in which they can look good. It's not communication, it's marketing.

He told you the reasons for that:
The discussion was meant to be about AI. The questions about the editor and multiplayer weren't.
He's not allowed to discuss the patch in detail to make sure that we're not disappointed when it comes out.

[techumseh]

Originally posted by Deathray


He told you the reasons for that:
The discussion was meant to be about AI. The questions about the editor and multiplayer weren't.
He's not allowed to discuss the patch in detail to make sure that we're not disappointed when it comes out.

He's not allowed to? And that's the reason? Well, that's good enough for you!

[Jason]

They'll only participate in discussions in which they can look good. It's not communication, it's marketing.

Suddenly everything anyone from this company has ever said is "marketing" because they are pointedly not talking about 2 features you want included? Fascinating interpretation.

[Father Beast]

Originally posted by Hans2
There is nothing wrong with the editor except for two things:
1) You can't place cities on the map
2) You can't place units on the map
If I had to add a third thing, it would be setting civ specific starting locations. Everything else is great. But WTF?! I mean, it is IMPOSSIBLE to create a 'scenario' without these two abilities. To not include them because they didn't know if their 'efforts would best be spent there' is plain foolish. Do you think we're idiots? I mean, come on guys, this stuff is so basic.

You Are Absolutely Correct. this stuff is basic, as the letter says.

and this basic stuff was available in civ2. from the beginning. unpatched.

[Father Beast]

Originally posted by dasaecorvic
A word from some Firaxian would be great... just to let us know what are they planning to implement in the patch...

Greetings.

I wonder.... Firaxis at civ3.com has announced a feedback form. I wonder if we can use that to make our voices heard. if everybody who signed this letter went there....

Be Right Back

[Father Beast]

OK, I used the feedback form at civ3.com to post my thoughts and I also pasted the whole letter onto the form.

I hope everyone who agrees with the letter will do the same. It is a whole lot more difficult to ignore a bunch of mails to your official forum (where the market researcher is looking over your shoulder), than it is to ignore a bunch of people on a fansite (where a market researcher should go, but probably doesn't).

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by Hoek
Scripting language is nothing without the ability to place units and cities

I did not say otherwise.