Specific Start points??

Spec · April 19, 2002, 22:28

Do we have that now? If so, how does it work??

Thanks.

Spec.

Tuberski · April 19, 2002, 22:28

From what I hear...No.

Spec · April 19, 2002, 22:31

What?! OMG you can't be serious!!

I'm dissapointed, really dissapointed. I always defend firaxis when whiners come around but now......I'm sorry but Firaxis sucks.

How hard is it to make specific start points?!

Spec.

AJ Corp. The FAIR · April 19, 2002, 22:43

I definitely agree Spectator.

I've been mentioning it into some of my recent posts, but as Mike claimed several months ago (here on Apolyton!!!!!) that he was working on it, I wonder why it isn't here/finished yet !!!!

It's quite embarassing actually: they provide TWO WORLD MAPS in the official game release WITHOUT CORRECT STARTING LOCATIONS

(you get the point Firaxis?) ,

then they claim to be 'working' (I repeat 'working') on it, and now we wonder ...

I don't consider myself a whiner, but this is really too uncomprehensible after all the requests that have been posted here.

And worse: NOT EVEN A SINGLE WORD (or did I miss out on something here?) about it!

That's just being rude all the way and definitely

UNFAIR !

Fair enough Firaxis?
AJ

PS: the longer you wait clearifying this up , the more it will become as a boomerang into your faces (and to your pockets

as well)

Spock · April 19, 2002, 22:43

I start when and where my wife lets me....and she is very specific about it.

But really.....if Westwood can do it with C&C....so can Firaxis.

ixnay · April 19, 2002, 23:09

I asked about that in the chat today. From what I can gather, the "set specific civ" option in the editor will eventually be used to place specific start points as well as cities, units, etc.

notyoueither · April 19, 2002, 23:24

Many are choked today, but bet good money on them playing tomorrow, or the next day. When the thing is done.

They can't do everything at once guys... That's how we got AI self destruct in 1.17, remember?

Random Passerby · April 20, 2002, 00:52

There seemed to be quite a few internal changes in this patch. This points to an even more hurried release than was apparent on the surface--since they were hoping for this all along, they're now seemingly undoing all the junk work they had to quickly throw together to get the game out the door and replacing it with better, more modifiable code (for them, of course, but more modifiable code for them means more and better features they can add for us).

Inverse Icarus · April 20, 2002, 01:05

Quote:

Originally posted by ixnay37
I asked about that in the chat today. From what I can gather, the "set specific civ" option in the editor will eventually be used to place specific start points as well as cities, units, etc.

eventully. a word firaxis loves to throw around. a word from their tounges means nothing. we shall have multiplayer. eventully. we shall have a "robust scenario editor". eventully. we shall have everything they promised. eventully. in the mean time, what do we have exactly? if you think logically, and i'm not being a whiner or jacka$$ right now, but really think. if they claimed top have multiplayer, and claimed to have a "robust scenario maker", and delievered niether, we have an unfinished project. i'm not calling it a "beta" because technically the game is playable, but with bugs / faulty promises it closely resembles one.

i think the wc3beta has crashed less than civ3, and thats a pirated beta on pirate bnet servers. it really makes you think.

eventully.

Grrr · April 20, 2002, 02:46

Quote:

Originally posted by ixnay37
I asked about that in the chat today. From what I can gather, the "set specific civ" option in the editor will eventually be used to place specific start points as well as cities, units, etc.

It sounds like a later patch is going to be really good.

asleepathewheel · April 20, 2002, 03:17

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX

eventully. a word firaxis loves to throw around. a word from their tounges means nothing. we shall have multiplayer. eventully. we shall have a "robust scenario editor". eventully. we shall have everything they promised. eventully. in the mean time, what do we have exactly? if you think logically, and i'm not being a whiner or jacka$$ right now, but really think. if they claimed top have multiplayer, and claimed to have a "robust scenario maker", and delievered niether, we have an unfinished project. i'm not calling it a "beta" because technically the game is playable, but with bugs / faulty promises it closely resembles one.

i think the wc3beta has crashed less than civ3, and thats a pirated beta on pirate bnet servers. it really makes you think.

eventully.

does this mean that firaxians are poor spellers, or what? Is that what I'm supposed to think?

Inverse Icarus · April 20, 2002, 13:20

no, apparently i'm a poor speller. thank god i didnt have to spell on the SAT

eventually

nationalist · April 20, 2002, 13:55

I refuse to play on a world map when the civs are in the wrong locations. Until Specific starts come around, I'm going to just play random maps. Why not? They are both equally fictional. No, the Germans didn't originate in Australia.

asleepathewheel · April 20, 2002, 14:10

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX
no, apparently i'm a poor speller. thank god i didnt have to spell on the SAT

eventually

you're a good sport Krux

Immortal Wombat · April 20, 2002, 14:40

Actually, as Civ3 stands at the moment, it is probably quite hard to implement specific start points. I'm guessing (and hoping) that some time in maybe a few months there will be a patch/Xpack probably for sale, rather than to download, which will include MP and scenario support.

asleepathewheel · April 20, 2002, 15:28

I definately agree that they should have included this in the initial release of the game, pretty strange that it did not.

But, for me, the resource system makes me not want to play using the world map. How much fun is it when you know exactly where to place your cities, so 3k years later you get rubber or oil? Especially when the AI doesn't know about it. I could see people sending out settlers to far places just to try to claim all of the latter resources. Would the AI ever do that? Is there anyway to randomize the resource placement? I'm not sure, but I think that would make it a lot of fun, some unknown in the world

notyoueither · April 20, 2002, 15:54

Actually atw, it appears the AI does know where hidden resources are. Evidence for this is strong from Aeson's experiments with ICS. The AI would gladly give him 1 pop cities to renegotiate peace with some exceptions. The exceptions were when there was a resource there (hidden or not).

Grrr · April 20, 2002, 16:04

We already knew that. The AI always does that. Play a game on Chieftain, get well ahead of AI in the tech tree. (We have tanks, they're building musketeers), and you'll notice them building cities on and next to oil, rubber etc.

asleepathewheel · April 20, 2002, 17:15

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Actually atw, it appears the AI does know where hidden resources are. Evidence for this is strong from Aeson's experiments with ICS. The AI would gladly give him 1 pop cities to renegotiate peace with some exceptions. The exceptions were when there was a resource there (hidden or not).

Right, i should have been more clear.
What I meant was (and I have played marla's a few times) is that say I am the Iriqouis or Americans. no rubber in NA, so I float a galley around to the amazon and secure the rubber in 1k bc. I know the AI does settle according to resourcees, but I have never seen it go out of its way to settle the resource, only if its in the normal progression of its civ. Since those rubber plants are in the Amazon, it would take quite a while for the Aztecs to grow in that direction, thus allowing me to sweep in early to secure.

Another example is the South Pacific and Australia. There are no civs starting out there and it takes a while for the AI to plant cities there, even if it knows about the resource. I can send out my first galley or caravel and claim the resources in Australia.

Basically what I am saying is that I can structure my game by sending out early settlers to claim the resources. Will the AI go for those resources? Right away I don't think so, they will exand outward. Will they eventually? Of course.

Hey, it might be fun to try to secure monopolies on the later strat resources early in the game, by sending out settlers to the far corners of the world.

I'm just saying that it takes away a lot of the fun for me if I know exactly where everything is going to pop up.

notyoueither · April 20, 2002, 18:37

atw. Good point, but the solution is equally good. Don't do what you have described.

asleepathewheel · April 20, 2002, 18:49

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
atw. Good point, but the solution is equally good. Don't do what you have described.

nye, i am a weak man.

OTOH it would be interesting in MP as people would beeline for resources, thus leaving themelves weaker at home, with the hope that they can hold their distant cities til the resources appear. intriguing. Just my opinion about the whole matter.

Akka · April 20, 2002, 21:55

Quote:

How much fun is it when you know exactly where to place your cities, so 3k years later you get rubber or oil?

Pleasure to redo the history of the known world.

AJ Corp. The FAIR · April 22, 2002, 11:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Akka le Vil

Pleasure to redo the history of the known world.

and right you are.

Q: Ask 100 (civ) gamers what they expect from earth maps that are included in the official release. Will most of them answer
'to play games with different starting locations compared to real life's history?'

A: approx. 80 - 95% of players: 'no, to play with correct starting locations'

A by Firaxis: 'What do you mean by correct starting locations?'

A by Mike: 'Three/four months ago I started working on it ..., couldn't figure out what you all were talking about though ...'

(that is WHENEVER they care to answer and that's pretty rare on this one; embarassment's running high, no doubts)

AJ