Jeffrey Morris: Dan Magaha said to ask you these two questions

[Libertarian]

Dan Magaha said to ask you. Okay, so we're asking.

-----

Presently, there are two issues that hinder — strike that — that cripple gameplay in the modern era. You know, when you're trying to build railroads (required by game design) in your ever expanding empire while waging war over necessary resources that your opponents can't see.

Group Movement

It takes 9 base points — e.g., four industrial workers and one slave, or nine slaves — to build a railroad on a mountain from scratch. It takes 6 to build a railroad on a hill.

It is most efficient to group your workers in brigades such that each brigade — a mountain brigade, a hill and forest brigade, etc. — can maximize their production per turn.

A city radius has 20 tiles (not counting the city tile itself). If 3 tiles are mountains and 4 are hills, then you need 64 worker base points ((3*9)+(4*6)+13)) to railroad the city.

Due to the intrinsic public works design requiring workers, you might typically have hundreds of these critters peppering your map.

They are why a turn can take HOURS. Is this really necessary? Can you not offer us some relief from tedium by allowing us to move an entire brigade from one mountain to another. This is maddening beyond belief. And God help you if the other mountain causes the map to recenter. Arggg! Back and forth, back and forth, back and forth... a greater tedium could not have been conceived.

This single oversight has turned Sid's famous "just one more turn" into "oh lord, not another turn".

So, the first question is please, may we have group movement?

(By the way, there have been five —5!— threads on this issue with unanimous — unanimous! — support from the players.)

Sensible Unit Activation Order

The second greatest cause of tedium is that your automatic activation of units does not hold to theaters — i.e., units in close proximity are not activated before irrelevant units far away.

For example, in a particular theater of battle, I might have a stack of four tanks. I right-click and activate them all. I attack with tank number one. Then tank number two. And then — bzzzaaaaaap! — suddenly, I am yanked away to a goofy unit (maybe a transport or something) half-way around the world. Now I must struggle to find my way back to the battle scene to try and activate my third tank. Again. So I attack with him. bzzzaaaaaap Suddenly, I find myself looking at a worker on a polluted hill near my own capital. Once again, I must find my way back to the theater of battle, now having lost my whole train of thought.

Do you consider this to be something that facilitates gameplay? Of course not. Not if you've actually played the game, anyway.

You need to activate all the units in one stack first, and then activate the units in the stack that is next in proximity. Either that, or just don't activate them at all. Let us do it manually. It would be less trouble.

(Yes, I know that you're supposed to be able to right-click and activate a group of units, BUT IT DOESN'T WORK. Mkay? A couple of them might activate as expected, but then it's right back to the random herky-jerky all over the map.)

So, the second question is please, may we have theater unit activation (or manual)? At least as an option?

-----

Thank you for your time.

(edit: corrected arithmetic... I think.)

[Jeffrey Morris FIRAXIS]

We are aware of these feature requests, and when we have something concrete to say about them, we will.

Jeff

[Libertarian]

Fair enough. I at least appreciate your, um, response.

And in that spirit, I will respond in kind. When I have a concrete recommendation for my friends encouraging them to buy Civ3, I'll make it.

[Jen Dragon]

Well I have CivIII under the tree for me....Waiting on Christmas.
I can return it unopened for another title until I'm sure. I do know i do not want to move 150 workers per turn, ever. There are a few things about CTP2 that were good ideas. Stacked Movement and Public Works, they must be copyrighted or Sid is to arrogant to admit someone could have an original thought that works. Come to think of it my boss is that way too, so its not to unusual.
But it is supposed to be a game not an exercise in moving units.
If they cant impliment these two functions I know I will never finish a game so I might as well return it for something else, Sorry I was so much looking forward to this game.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Fair enough. I at least appreciate your, um, response.

And in that spirit, I will respond in kind. When I have a concrete recommendation for my friends encouraging them to buy Civ3, I'll make it.

Question:

Were you or are you an only child who is used to getting his/her way all the time? Or are you naturally this self-centered and egotistical?

Do you know the world doesn't revolve around you? You do know that, correct?

Just checking.

[Gunter]

Yep, not also workers,but if you want to succeed in units managment in modern era you have to move till 150 units per turn,with a concentration till 40 units per square,in addition they go to sleep often by themselves (above all fighters on carriers) and the next turn you have to wake up 20 fighters,move 150 tanks,managing cities,obviously Libertarian is a good gamer and he is right asking a quick way to group units/workers before thinking about if it is better to differenciate modern subs attack from older ones.(This appear to be never considered from civ tester)

Cheers

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by Jen Dragon
Well I have CivIII under the tree for me....Waiting on Christmas.
I can return it unopened for another title until I'm sure. I do know i do not want to move 150 workers per turn, ever. There are a few things about CTP2 that were good ideas. Stacked Movement and Public Works, they must be copyrighted or Sid is to arrogant to admit someone could have an original thought that works. Come to think of it my boss is that way too, so its not to unusual.
But it is supposed to be a game not an exercise in moving units.
If they cant impliment these two functions I know I will never finish a game so I might as well return it for something else, Sorry I was so much looking forward to this game.

Did Civ2 have stacked movement? Did you ever have a problem moving 20-30+ settlers around trying to terraform anything? No? Did you have the option to automate the settlers in Civ2 so they'd only clear forest or jungle or only build improvements where you didn't specifically put them? How about automatic pollution removal? Was that in Civ2?

If you want to take the game back before you even try it because SOMEONE ELSE had a whine then you didn't really want to play the game anyway. That's what your post says about you.

I'd rather try something and then take it back if I didn't like it (even if I was pretty sure I wouldn't) than to always be a sheep and take something back or not try it because someone else "said so". But that's just me and not just for Civ3.

[Gunter]

Yep, not also workers,but if you want to succeed in units managment in modern era you have to move till 250 units per turn,with a concentration till 40 units per square,in addition they go to sleep often by themselves (above all fighters on carriers) and the next turn you have to wake up 20 fighters,move 150 tanks,managing cities,obviously Libertarian is a good gamer and he is right asking a quick way to group units/workers before thinking about if it is better to differenciate modern subs attack from older ones.(This appear to be never considered from civ tester)

Cheers

[Steve Clark]

Lib, I am curious, what answer would have been ideal for you? Would you prefered Jeff to say that the problem has been fixed in the code and it will be released in a minor patch on Friday? How do you know it could be this simple?

I have programmed indexing "units" on a grid and it is difficult. When the "unit" is created, it is assigned an ID pointer. Part of the information about that unit is it coordinate location, which obviously changes when it is in a different tile...but the ID may not have changed. One can have it constantly update the ID so that all units in the same coordinate would be sequential...but the cost would significant increase loop cycles each time a unit moves (by you, by the AI, by retreating or other movements). Instead of attacking quickly most of the time with one unit and then the next, you would conceptually have a noticeable pause between each and every action. Would you prefer that instead?

The above was based on real programming experience but I am not making any assumptions as to the what is going on in the Civ3 code. My point is that perhaps the fix for your problem would cause a new (and potentially, worse) problem. That happens all of the time in programming. So what I hear Jeff saying is that, "right now, there is not a simple solution for your problem and it is not known if it can solved that wouldn't cause new problems. Until we determine what the best solution is, I won't promise anything." That is what he said (reading between the lines) but you don't want to hear programming reality (or should you, imo), you just want speculative promises.

[Alex]

Yes, these are important things that could improve gameplay a lot... Especially number one, I hate to move tons of workers one by one... Sure, many people would say: automate them! But we all know what automation does... at least for me it is not an option (except in rare and unimportant situations).

What puzzles me is Firaxis' criptic answers... "Yeah, we know about that... We'll talk to you later... Somewhere... Sometime...". But I guess that they cannot say something like "these things will be in our Civ3 Gold Multiplayer Add-on SuperPack, due in May 2002!", can they?

On a lighter tone...

Back and forth, back and forth, back and forth... a greater tedium could not have been conceived.

I wouldn't call this tedious... if you know what I mean...

[ACooper]

Lib,

You've got your answer. Will you quit crying now. Go do something else. Take a walk, watch TV, find a girlfriend, anything!
Please stop taking up space on the same issue


Thanks

[Alex]

Did Civ2 have stacked movement? Did you ever have a problem moving 20-30+ settlers around trying to terraform anything? No? Did you have the option to automate the settlers in Civ2 so they'd only clear forest or jungle or only build improvements where you didn't specifically put them? How about automatic pollution removal? Was that in Civ2?

But Civ3 is not supposed to be Civ2, right? After five years and other approaches to this same problem (CTP?), one could think that we would see some improvement on worker movement. I expected to see it. Does that make me egotistical, too?

So what I hear Jeff saying is that, "right now, there is not a simple solution for your problem and it is not known if it can solved that wouldn't cause new problems. Until we determine what the best solution is, I won't promise anything." That is what he said (reading between the lines) but you don't want to hear programming reality (or should you, imo), you just want speculative promises.

Sorry, but if that is what Jeff said, why did he not write it? If I want to say "this", and not "that", I will write "this", and not "that".

But I agree with you that we cannot know what happens inside Civ3 code. Maybe to implement the unit activation system as suggested by Libertarian would be possible but would also bring new problems. Anyway, since Jeff did not say anything about it, we are left with speculations...

[Alex]

Oh, and before someone point me as a whiner, I'd like to say that I like Civ3. I like it very much. I'm having a lot of fun with this game. I think it has interesting concepts, addictive gameplay and great atmosphere.

I'm just trying to support some specific requests... features that would improve even more our fun, IMHO.

But I cannot agree with those who say: "hey, this was in Civ2; Civ2 is perfect; therefore, this is perfect". Flawed logic, if you ask me.

And I cannot agree with those who say: "this game sucks because I don't like it!". Another example of bad logic.

Now, where is the exit?

[Libertarian]

Ozymandous (sic):

You're making the baby Shelley cry.

Originally posted by Steve Clark
Lib, I am curious, what answer would have been ideal for you? Would you prefered Jeff to say that the problem has been fixed in the code and it will be released in a minor patch on Friday?

The ideal answer would have acknowledged the intelligence, humanity, and integrity of those who posed the question. Something like this:

I just want to say on behalf of Firaxis that we greatly appreciate these kinds of suggestions for improving gameplay. We can't think of everything, and so we depend on good people, like the ones in this community, to help us with great ideas like this one. I wish I could give you a definitive answer, but at this point, we're currently reviewing exactly the issue you raise. We agree that it would contribute greatly to gameplay, and if we can find a way to implement it, we'll let you know. Thanks, Lib.

How do you know it could be this simple?

As a programmer with twenty years of commercial experience, I understand completely that few projects are very simple. But difficult doesn't matter. These guys aren't hobbyists. They're professionals. If they can't code this, then they need to go program databases or something.

(edited for spelling)

[Steve Clark]

Alex, because saying something like that in a public forum would invite even more criticisms and perhaps ridicule. It is far better to say as little as possible as to nature of the code and just work out the solutions as best as you can. With code as complex as Civ3, I am surprised that even most things work as well as they do.

I recall a software product I developed that had two serious bugs (one was a memory leak) that I could not fix adequately (it uses a 3rd-party product that even their developers had less clue about it than I did). To this day, they never were fixed but my customers did not know that because I built in a workaround that slightly reduced functionality but at least it didn't cause a fatal error. That's the reality.

[Steve Clark]

Originally posted by Libertarian
I just want to say on behalf of Firaxis that we greatly appreciate these kinds of suggestions for improving gameplay. We can't think of everything, and so we depend on good people, like the ones in this community, to help us with great ideas like this one. I wish I could give you a definitive answer, but at this point, we're currently reviewing exactly the issue you raise. We agree that it would contribute greatly to gameplay, and if we can find a way to implement it, we'll let you know. Thanks, Lib.

Lib, that's just pure ego stroking and adds absolutely nothing to the solution or progress, imo. As a programmer yourself, can you have mutual respect for them instead of expecting them to bow down and kiss your feet?

[Akka]

Originally posted by Ozymandous


Did Civ2 have stacked movement? Did you ever have a problem moving 20-30+ settlers around trying to terraform anything? No? Did you have the option to automate the settlers in Civ2 so they'd only clear forest or jungle or only build improvements where you didn't specifically put them? How about automatic pollution removal? Was that in Civ2?

Let's go for some more stupid logic :
1) Civ 1 was VGA, 320x200 and 256 colors. So Civ 3 doesn't need to be in 1024x768 and 16 bits colors. Let's keep the VGA. I had no problem with the graphics in Civ1. No need to improve them.
2) Mongolian conquered most of the world with bows and horses. It's totally irrelevant to build tanks. Just tale bows and horses and conquer the world.
3) People had no trouble without electricity in the middle-age. We should get rid of the electricity.

I could go on for hours with this, but I think that you could understand : it's called Civ 3 because it comes AFTER the 1 and the 2, so it SHOULD be better. It IS better in many places. But it SHOULD be better in ALL places.

Lib, I am curious, what answer would have been ideal for you? Would you prefered Jeff to say that the problem has been fixed in the code and it will be released in a minor patch on Friday? How do you know it could be this simple?

I have programmed indexing "units" on a grid and it is difficult. When the "unit" is created, it is assigned an ID pointer. Part of the information about that unit is it coordinate location, which obviously changes when it is in a different tile...but the ID may not have changed. One can have it constantly update the ID so that all units in the same coordinate would be sequential...but the cost would significant increase loop cycles each time a unit moves (by you, by the AI, by retreating or other movements). Instead of attacking quickly most of the time with one unit and then the next, you would conceptually have a noticeable pause between each and every action. Would you prefer that instead?

The above was based on real programming experience but I am not making any assumptions as to the what is going on in the Civ3 code. My point is that perhaps the fix for your problem would cause a new (and potentially, worse) problem. That happens all of the time in programming. So what I hear Jeff saying is that, "right now, there is not a simple solution for your problem and it is not known if it can solved that wouldn't cause new problems. Until we determine what the best solution is, I won't promise anything." That is what he said (reading between the lines) but you don't want to hear programming reality (or should you, imo), you just want speculative promises.

I'm quite simple on this subject :
stacked movement existed already in Master of Magic (yes, it's even prior to Civ2). So it IS possible to include it in a game. Then if it's not included already, it's because either they oculd not (huge incompetence for programmers) either because stacked movement was not considered very important (huge incompetence for designer), either they would rather take time to make childish clownish animations for leaders than take time to program stacked movement (huge incompetence for project leader).
I don't like to bash people that took a lot of time working and that listen to their fans, even if they don't answer often.
I hate to talk bad about people that use their own free time to continu working on a game.
But I just can't come to another conclusion : no stacked movement is the direct result of incompetence at some point in the game creation. I hope this will be corrected, but still...

Question:

Were you or are you an only child who is used to getting his/her way all the time? Or are you naturally this self-centered and egotistical?

Do you know the world doesn't revolve around you? You do know that, correct?

Just checking.

Lib,

You've got your answer. Will you quit crying now. Go do something else. Take a walk, watch TV, find a girlfriend, anything!
Please stop taking up space on the same issue


Thanks

I find amusing that Libertarian, who was not so long ago one of the worst fanboy of the forum, always acting as a holy defender of the game, is now bashed as a whiner just because he started to calmly, politely and thoughfully post that he though which parts of the game should be improved.
Or how you are considered a whiner as soon as you point some flaws in a game

Welcome among the whiners, Lib, it's a pleasure to see some "converted" people

[Max Webster]

Great post Lib, its great that you are posting about these two issues that I too find to be troublesome. Its better to point them out than to keep quiet I think.

Its too bad programming has to get in the way of the making of a great game.

[Barchan]

Originally posted by Steve Clark


Lib, that's just pure ego stroking and adds absolutely nothing to the solution or progress, imo. As a programmer yourself, can you have mutual respect for them instead of expecting them to bow down and kiss your feet?

Well, to be fair, there is a happy medium between "we are aware of these feature requests, and when we have something concrete to say about them, we will" and the rather over-the-top suggestion (designed, I think, to be that way) by Libertarian. I mean, really, Jeff's response wasn't particularly PR-friendly. I'm not disagreeing with what he said, but how he said it. I understand that Firaxis cannot quickly change game fundamentals, and is probably not inclined to anyway. But the rather imperious tone with which Jeff responded to a fairly polite, decently-couched request was, well . . . let's just say it wouldn't win any popularity contests. It wasn't far from “Yeah, yeah, yeah. We heard you. Don't call us again, pal; we'll call you.” Who wants to be on the receiving end of that treatment from *any* company? I’m no spinmeister, but even “we are aware of these feature requests, but are sorry to say that we don’t have any information available for you at this time” would fly better than “we’ll speak when we’re damn good and ready to”.

[Libertarian]

That pretty much nails it.

I guess that if a man tells me he's thirsty, I won't likely hire twenty virgins to hover over him and give him wine to sip, but neither would I extend him a vinegar-soaked sponge on the end of a stick.

Jeff's response tasted like pickles.

[XPav]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Ozymandous (sic):
I just want to say on behalf of Firaxis that we greatly appreciate these kinds of suggestions for improving gameplay. We can't think of everything, and so we depend on good people, like the ones in this community, to help us with great ideas like this one. I wish I could give you a definitive answer, but at this point, we're currently reviewing exactly the issue you raise. We agree that it would contribute greatly to gameplay, and if we can find a way to implement it, we'll let you know. Thanks, Lib.

Do you want this type of answer to EVERY question that people ask? I mean, seriously? Are the NON-PR volunteers at Firaxis supposed to spend hours creating flowering verses for every single question that people ask?

I can think of a whole pile of suggestions that's been mentioned in the Forum, with a "Firaxis please respond" appended at the end. Do you want to them to "blah blah we respect your opinion blah blah" for everything?

What happens when they have to say no?

Do you want PR folks to come in here to stroke your ego?
or
Do you want game designers to tell you what they can?

Make up your mind.

As a programmer, you should know better. Imagine your customer (or whoever ends up using your software) demanding a paragraph long flowery suck-up paragraph in response to every single question. That's right -- YOU. Now have 20 people a day asking you questions.

Lets see how long you can keep up the prose before resorting to form letters.

[Steve Clark]

I think Jeff has better things to do (like finding a solution for stack movement, if possible), than to waste time in a fan forum like most of the rest of us are doing at work.

[pchang]

Originally posted by Steve Clark
Lib, that's just pure ego stroking and adds absolutely nothing to the solution or progress, imo. As a programmer yourself, can you have mutual respect for them instead of expecting them to bow down and kiss your feet?

Ego stroking it may be, but it is also the right way to respond if you care about your public image. Making the customer feel good is the essence of good client service and public relations.

[Libertarian]

I was told by a Firaxis employee to ask Jeff. I asked Jeff. He said that he would answer whenever he felt like it. I said that I would extend him the same treatment in recommending the game to my friends.

If I had treated my customers that way, I wouldn't still have a business. [...shrug...] Maybe it's a Southern thing. We don't think courtesy is a waste of time. What Jeff did exactly was to waste time. His. Mine. And yours. His rude brush-off was uncalled for.

It went from "it's not my job" to "bug off". Yin is right. They don't know PR from BS.

[XPav]

Originally posted by pchang


Ego stroking it may be, but it is also the right way to respond if you care about your public image. Making the customer feel good is the essence of good client service and public relations.

Firaxis' client is Infogrames.
We are Infogrames' customers.
PR is not Firaxis' job, it's Infogrames.

There is nothing that says Firaxis has to be here. Every person that comes here is a volunteer. Dealing with the forum people is not their primary job.

Once more: Do you people want PR, or do you want to talk to the developers?

[Steve Clark]

Originally posted by pchang
Ego stroking it may be, but it is also the right way to respond if you care about your public image. Making the customer feel good is the essence of good client service and public relations.

But that's where the difference of opinions (or perceptions) lie, I don't think this is the right way to respond. I couldn't care less if Firaxis or their products make me feel good. If I enjoy their product fine, if I don't (like with Paradox' EU), I move on. I won't try to conform their product to my image because that would be selfish. I may report bugs and offer suggestions, but I know that I am just one of perhaps a million customers and that my input should have no more weight than any other customers, regardless if they post in a fan forum or not.

[gachnar]

Libertarian:

While I dont disagree with your suggestions, I am frankly embarrassed by they way to actually executed them.

You whined endlessly about how no one from Firaxis would respond to your question which was suggested many times before you first asked it. It was like a whiny 9 year old, who couldn't get his/her parents to pay attention to them while they were talking to other adults.

Dan actually gave you an answer, which was, to sum up: "Jeff would know. I dont". But that wasn't good enough for you. So you whined some more. You insulted Firaxis. You insulted Dan and Jeff personnally. You insulted people who disagreed with you.

So now you ask again. This time with all the tact and social grace of a snubbed 13 year old. With colored writing even. You asked the same questions that you already knew the answers to with such an arrogant tone, that I'm shocked Jeff would even respond.

But he did. He gave you the response you expected. The response Dan said he would. And now you're even more upset. You want him to give you an official response congratulating you for pointing out something that many, many people have suggested.

Wake up from your dream world. Dan, Soren, and Jeff are not PR guys. If you really are a programmer, you should be able to comprehend whats going on.

[XPav]

Originally posted by Libertarian

If I had treated my customers that way, I wouldn't still have a business. [...shrug...] Maybe it's a Southern thing. We don't think courtesy is a waste of time.

Some customers aren't worth the trouble.

Is it worth it, to me, as a business owner, to spend a weeks worth of work on a customer that will buy, at most, $1000 worth of stuff?

This happens at my business. We sell one piece of hardware, worth around $1000. Once we figure in distributor margins/cost of goods, we end up with around $300 or so (rough figures, but you get the idea).

Figure out the salary for a programmer for a week.

As a business owner, the choice is clear.

Firaxis' first loyalty should be to their people. The idea is to make enough money to make the ends meet so that everyone can get paid and go home to their family and pets and buy Christmas presents for everyone.

Their second loyalty should be to the people that are sending them the checks -- Infogrames & Electronic Arts. Those are the companies that have paid, upfront, the million or so dollars needed to make Civ3.

Their third loyalty is to the end customer.

Priorities are important if you're running a business.

[Libertarian]

Good lord.

You'd think I had asked for some sort of personalized customization, rather than asking for an answer to a question that had received unanimous support in five previous (and ignored) threads.

If you people would prefer to play your late games without group movement and with bizarre unit activation, please feel free to speak up.

[MarkG]

Originally posted by Libertarian
I was told by a Firaxis employee to ask Jeff. I asked Jeff. He said that he would answer whenever he felt like it.

now you're acting like a whiner Lib. What he really said was that he would answer when he would be able to give you a concrete answer