Column #142; By Raingoon

November 26, 2000, 00:28

Raingoon is back with a message to Firaxis: what to do and what not to in CivIII in his latest article entitled "Memo To Firaxis: Now That CTPII Is Out". Comments/questions welcomed here, or you may contact the author directly.

If you would like to write for The Column, a weekly feature here on ACS driven by user-submitted papers, please read and fill out our Article Submission Form.

----------------
Dan; Apolyton CS

Zer0_T0lerance · November 26, 2000, 01:14

Well, it just doesn't make sense. You know, if Einstein has said "If at first the idea is NOT absurd then there is no hope for it," then the idea of having 164+ civs in a game must have hope!

------------------
Zero (formerly jrhughes98)

zyxpsilon · November 26, 2000, 01:31

An overall insightfull commentary you made there, Raingoon.
They MUST listen to their fan base if they ever want to interest even more new customers.
If CIV3-design is aimed at the suggestions described by the "LIST", we should get what we asked for >AND< surprizingly, FUN with strategy but more importantly...
instantaneous INNOVATION to something already revolutionary in the gaming world.
NOT Mario's, NOT Demons & Wizards, NOT even nail-biting horror phantoms and First-Person shooters;
BUT what players want!!
That's what differs our community from the rest.

SnowFire · November 26, 2000, 15:38

Erm, since when is Social Engineering in Civ3 out? Social Engineering was one of the great triumphs of SMAC...

Shogun Gunner · November 26, 2000, 17:16

Great article, Raingoon. We are all hoping for a great Civ III product!

The Joker · November 26, 2000, 17:21

Once again a lot of brilliant ideas from Raingoon. Will he never stop?

Wish you'd come back to us.

------------------
"It ain't broke, so BREAK it."
- Raingoon

GGS Website

Zealot · November 29, 2000, 08:37

YES, it's border negotiation that I want! That was something really important missing in SMAC. Why must I have to conquer every minor enemy city that enters my city-tiles? If they whant a piece of my territory come and get them (and eat some plasma shards!) The problem is that I have to break trade treaties, and I don't want to.

UltraSonix · November 29, 2000, 10:42

quote:

Erm, since when is Social Engineering in Civ3 out? Social Engineering was one of the great triumphs of SMAC...

I read the column before, but just like in cartoons, this has just hit me on the head - days later!

Those SE choices was what made SMAC so good - more replayability!

edit: it's 2am

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary... (And no, koalas don't usually speak!)
[This message has been edited by UltraSonix (edited November 29, 2000).]

raingoon · November 29, 2000, 14:44

Joker, thanks for the welcome back! A lot of us have been away it seems like. Good to see Harel, et al. Lots of new folks here.

Ultra, I am on record dissing the SE system with no offense meant to anybody. A lot of brilliant ideas went into creating some SE models for Civ 3 that really rock. And let me agree with you that SE really is in part what made SMAC as good as it was.

But the final reason I don't think it will end up in Civ 3, aside from the more important reasons mentioned in my previous column on the subject, is because "Social Engineering" is decidedly a Sci-Fi concept. It belongs in a sci-fi game. That's my humble. This is one that Sid will have to decide.

Once again everybody thanks for the feeback!

hHydro · November 29, 2000, 21:46

True, Social Engineering as it was used in SMAC might not have a place in Civ 3. I think the reason why I LIKED the social engineering might be transferrable though.

SE had two great points as I see it. One was that it helped the replayability immensely. Aside from having 7 factions, was the incredible fact that any given faction played completely differently under democ/freemarket/know than it would under Police/green/power or Fanat/planned/power, ad nauseum.

Two, (and to an extent, this is what made the 7 factions different in the first place) the SE 'table' provided all the statistics (police, planet, econ, probe) that made it so easy to customize the factions in the first place. There aren't many hardcore modders out there, but I bet there are a lot more people how at some time tried to create their own faction.

This system of "+2 food, +2science, -1money" could still very much have a place in a historic earth game.

...Whoops. That's not really the thread though is it?

uuh... great post raingoon. Negotiable borders are a great idea, though I'd hate to be the poor sod who has to program AI for it..

Mercantile · December 12, 2000, 14:02

many great ideas expressed by Raingoon of course. i agree that ctp2 is way too slow especially with all those civs running around. I echo the 16 civ max and the neogotiable borders. I believe Sid needs to look at ctp2 feats and faults to make a brilliant game. Nice half time chat btw

Shadowstrike · December 12, 2000, 14:11

But we've got to remember that by the time Civ3 is out we'll all have 2 Ghz comps for sure!

Ralf · December 12, 2000, 17:32

quote:

Originally posted by zyxpsilon on 11-26-2000 12:31 AM
They MUST listen to their fan base if they ever want to interest even more new customers.

Thats true, Zyxpsilon! But, on the other hand: They shouldnt listen TOO much either.

Its also a question of what is workable and feasible solution for the programmers point of view, as well. Many gamers just take this or that Civ-2 or SMAC solution, and then try hard to come up with much more complicated and more "accurate to our real world" type of suggestion, as a replacement.
They just dont understand what exponentially increasing AI-calculation problems and AI-developing and debugging problems, that adding this or that complicated suggestion, actually would create for the developers. That is, if they actually where foolish enough to slavishly implement it.

There are workarounds for making a better AI - and, at the same time; add some very few and carefully selected new parameters (my favourite is the "health" concept), but thats about it.
There are many other features, changes and addons they can do, that dont charge the AI the same way of course.

But, anything unnecessary complicated for the AI; like replacing resource-shields with multiple sub-variants, for example - is from a AI-programming point of view, more or less suicide - especially, if its added to all the other equally "make the game more complex" type of suggestions.

My bottom line is this. On one hand:

They BETTER listen to us fans, because we represent an enormous amount of Civ play-test and game-experience time, that would be very foolish for them to ignore.

On the other hand:

They should always remember, that once the Civ-3 game is released, there are only two player complains, that towers highly above anything else:

- "My God, this Civ-interface/game-feedback really stinks!"
- "What a piece of crap this AI is. Its useless".

Any player-suggestions that makes it harder for Firaxis to successfully combat above problems, should unceremoniously be ignored and scrapped. If this means that perhaps 95% of all player-suggestions must be ignored: they must do this.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited December 12, 2000).]