[/rant]

Inverse Icarus · April 21, 2002, 17:19

i'm officially done ranting. firaxis, thank you for trying to make a great civilization game. you have come very close, but have failed.

you have many great ideas, borders, culture, the resource system, all great ideas. kudos.

somewhere along the line, one thing or another went wrong, and the game became horribly unlike civ.

maybe my expectations from civ2 were set too high.

well firaxis, thats it. my tough love approach gets me banned and ignored, so forget it. don't adopt any of my suggestions, don't even LISTEN to me. i don't care. i'm going back to civ2mge until you sort out the whole "patch" and "multiplayer" issues.

see you then.

i hope you enjoy the quiter boards.

Securion · April 21, 2002, 17:31

I have already gone back to SMACX, wich is a game far superior to Civ3 anyway. Too bad I was so full of the Civ3 hype to realize it until now... Grr.

Bye bye Civ3, see ya when Civ is more like Alpha Centauri. (=custom units etc)

But yea, I will still read all this nice forums.

DrFell · April 21, 2002, 19:25

Another one bites the dust.

Ming · April 21, 2002, 19:28

Quote:

Originally posted by DrFell
Another one bites the dust.

Yeah... And I always love how they start a thread announcing it... thinking that Firaxis or any of us actually give a damn...

asleepathewheel · April 21, 2002, 19:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Securion
Bye bye Civ3, see ya when Civ is more like Alpha Centauri. (=custom units etc)

When Civ3 becomes more like Alpha Centauri is when I will hit the road. (though the UN could be made more similar)

Coracle · April 21, 2002, 20:04

Yes, Civ 3 has too many problems.

As for Firaxis, their arrogance and lack of responsiveness is proven by the fact that, for example, we complained for months about the game being too slow. So with patch 1.21 Firaxis makes the game even slower!!!

They also took away such as the useful "multi.sav" cheat option.

Firaxis. The Fiery Axis of Arrogance.

Ming · April 21, 2002, 20:14

Yeah... their lack of responsiveness...

They are so unresponsive that they are CONTINUING to provide us with patches, and will hold serious discussions with fans who act like reasonable adults... They do indeed tend to ingore the ranting lunatics, and I would too If I were them

Oerdin · April 21, 2002, 20:20

An ignomible ending to a honest Apolyton poster. I hope I don't meet such an end... but it seems more likely every day.

asleepathewheel · April 21, 2002, 20:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Coracle
Yes, Civ 3 has too many problems.

As for Firaxis, their arrogance and lack of responsiveness is proven by the fact that, for example, we complained for months about the game being too slow. So with patch 1.21 Firaxis makes the game even slower!!!

Wow, that is proof. I hope you never serve on a jury I'm in front of!
Actually, by decreasing the large and huge mapsizes, Firaxis has sped up the game. Less space=fewer units=faster game. But its awfully convenient to ignore contrary facts.

Quote:

Originally posted by Coracle
They also took away such as the useful "multi.sav" cheat option.

I feel little sympathy for people who can no longer use their favorite cheat.

Quote:

Originally posted by Coracle
Firaxis. The Fiery Axis of Arrogance.

Wow. impressive. You do have a way with words.

(I truly hope your last statement was sarcasm, I couldn't imagine that someone would say that in earnest. To take all of this that seriously is sad)

MosesPresley · April 21, 2002, 20:30

I have mixed feelings on this one.

I hate Firaxis' attitude towards it customers too. Their arrogance and disregard for the customers was proven when they closed the .owo boards ages ago. I think a lot of the bile towards Civ 3 on these forums is left over from that experience, as quite a few of those posters migrated to Apolyton's forums. One in particular was a major rabble rouser over there and he continued his attacks on Firaxis here.

BUT

Firaxis supports Civ 3. They keep patching it and, for me, it keeps getting better and better. I didn't like the 1.17f patch at all, and I stopped playing the game, but I knew another patch was coming and that more likely than not, my concerns would be addressed.

Now that the new patch is out, I enjoy playing the game again. I'm sure the game will eventually be patched to almost everyone's satisfaction.

asleepathewheel · April 21, 2002, 20:38

Quote:

Originally posted by MosesPresley

Firaxis supports Civ 3. They keep patching it and, for me, it keeps getting better and better. I didn't like the 1.17f patch at all, and I stopped playing the game, but I knew another patch was coming and that more likely than not, my concerns would be addressed.

Now that the new patch is out, I enjoy playing the game again. I'm sure the game will eventually be patched to almost
everyone's satisfaction.

I agree completely. Also, with each patch, the editor gains functionality, so that if you don't like something, you can change it. Now you can have bombers kill things. Or not. So everybody can play the game they want to. And you know the Xp is coming with scenarios and mp, so even more people will have what they want. You can never satisfy everyone, but I think the majority of players would say that they would rather be playing the game now rather than waiting till oct 2002, so they could get MP too.

I don't see how firaxis is arrogant. they answer questions on this board all the time. They've released 3 patches. They got a beta testing team b/c they realized they needed more testing. Is that arrogance?

Captain · April 21, 2002, 20:52

Quote:

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
Wow, that is proof. I hope you never serve on a jury I'm in front of!
Actually, by decreasing the large and huge mapsizes, Firaxis has sped up the game. Less space=fewer units=faster game. But its awfully convenient to ignore contrary facts.

I agree!
some folks are ranting about the map sizes and how long the game takes, and not even reading firaxis' explanation first. pathfinding is the major source of delay. that means as you increase the # of units and the map size, pathfinding is going to suck up exponentially more time! some complain of tedium, and yet can't bring themselves to play on a smaller map with less cities! "I have 512 cities, 1000 units, and I want more! But I don't want to wait to administer them all! This 2 minute lag is intolerable! Hell, I don't even want to look at my cities or click on my units! There should be a button to order all my units to attack all their cities at the same time! never mind, just tell me i won"

If one wants to play huge maps with billions of units and cities and 15 opponents, expect delays and expect tedium. Remember that firaxis said the game was designed for standard maps and the larger ones were thrown in later upon fan requests. it's like playing Risk with double the territories and players. It's going to take longer!

Quote:

I feel little sympathy for people who can no longer use their favorite cheat.

Gotta disagree here. I found it really useful for modding so I could see how well AI was coping with the changes I was making. Besides, cheaters are cheaters in attitude, not action. They'll find a way. Those who play honestly will do so because they don't need to. Ok, that's not what I meant to write, but rereading it, it makes sense.

Quote:

Wow. impressive. You do have a way with words.

(I truly hope your last statement was sarcasm, I couldn't imagine that someone would say that in earnest. To take all of this that seriously is sad)

Agreed. It is, after all, just a game. But, if it weren't for the noise-makers, those of us making legit-demands in civil ways wouldn't seem as moderate. We need them to make us look good.

Theseus · April 21, 2002, 20:57

What was it I said to Cathy and Bismarck last night??

Oh yeah...

Buh-bye.

asleepathewheel · April 21, 2002, 20:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Captain
Gotta disagree here. I found it really useful for modding so I could see how well AI was coping with the changes I was making. Besides, cheaters are cheaters in attitude, not action. They'll find a way. Those who play honestly will do so because they don't need to. Ok, that's not what I meant to write, but rereading it, it makes sense.

you're right of course, the multi did serve an interesting function. And it was interesting to see what the AI was doing, to see how it was operating. and cheaters will always find a way to cheat, and now they can at least reload.
So I think that in some cases, multi would be useful, in modding/scenario cases. too bad they can't compromise by having a "modding game" where it would be activated from the start w/ no score and then a regular game where you couldn't use it.

Quote:

Originally posted by Captain
Agreed. It is, after all, just a game. But, if it weren't for the noise-makers, those of us making legit-demands in civil ways wouldn't seem as moderate. We need them to make us look good.

true

Captain · April 21, 2002, 21:09

Quote:

Originally posted by asleepathewheel

you're right of course, the multi did serve an interesting function. And it was interesting to see what the AI was doing, to see how it was operating. and cheaters will always find a way to cheat, and now they can at least reload.
So I think that in some cases, multi would be useful, in modding/scenario cases. too bad they can't compromise by having a "modding game" where it would be activated from the start w/ no score and then a regular game where you couldn't use it.

good idea. I remember using civ 2's cheat a lot, so i could test my mods. make a bunch of enemy mech inf on different tiles, and then a bunch of robots troops and test how it played out - great for balancing things and checking how the defense bonuses play out on different terrain.

as it is, I can't stand having to wait to research X# techs before being able to build the unit/bldg/wonder that I want, locating an enemy AI unit that I'm interested in and testing it out against that unit. definitely need a "scenario/mod testing" option so we don't have to play out full games just to test changes we make to the modern age.

nato · April 21, 2002, 22:05

Quote:

Wow, that is proof. I hope you never serve on a jury I'm in front of!
Actually, by decreasing the large and huge mapsizes, Firaxis has sped up the game. Less space=fewer units=faster game. But its awfully convenient to ignore contrary facts.

Really that is not a solution to the problem. That is evading it, not solving it.

That is similar to saying that if the game is too slow, don't play ... problem solved!

I am sure the game would go very fast if huge maps were 16x16!

Not that I ever had a problem with game speed ... I just find that logic and tone faulty.

asleepathewheel · April 21, 2002, 22:16

Quote:

Originally posted by nato

Really that is not a solution to the problem. That is evading it, not solving it.

That is similar to saying that if the game is too slow, don't play ... problem solved!

I am sure the game would go very fast if huge maps were 16x16!

Not that I ever had a problem with game speed ... I just find that logic and tone faulty.

Whats faulty about that? The amount of units affects the speed of the game? True or not true? the more cities you have, the more units you can support. True or not true? So if you decrease the map size, you decrease the over all amount of units, correct? Thus speeding up the game.

Wheres the faulty logic in that?

A real solution: get a computer made in the 21st century, or play on standard maps. They aren't called standard for nothing, eh? Like Captain said above, Firaxis listened to consumers and gave larger maps, and now has to listen to whiners complain about the slowdown. Firaxis really can't win, can they?

Capt Dizle · April 21, 2002, 22:23

I beg to differ. The larger maps were nothing new. They were standard in Civ2 and SMAC. Slowdown on larger maps is a design flaw. Trying to mask it by reducing the default size of maps in the game is consistent with prior patching, namely, lame and not fooling anyone.

One of the user friendly elements of earlier Civ line games was the fact that they tried to design games that would not exclude the many folks
who did not have state of the art machines. Firaxis's failure to stick to this philosophy is one of the many nails in their coffin.

jt

Capt Dizle · April 21, 2002, 22:28

BTW, Firaxis has flat lied about more than one thing related to Civ3. The implementation of culture drastically slows down the game, but Firaxis won't admit it. But in earlier comments they did.

Inverse Icarus · April 21, 2002, 22:30

... fighting ... urge ... to ... rant ...

... damn ... apolyton ... addictive ...

... must ... head ... to ... OT ...

Capt Dizle · April 21, 2002, 22:31

no, go ahead and let it out........

asleepathewheel · April 21, 2002, 22:31

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmytrick
BTW, Firaxis has flat lied about more than one thing related to Civ3. The implementation of culture drastically slows down the game, but Firaxis won't admit it. But in earlier comments they did.

Can you prove this? where are these earlier comments?

you could run a game on a huge map, where you turned off all of the culture of all of the buildings, and play through the modern age, to show that the lag is no longer there. post that and then I will believe you.

nato · April 21, 2002, 22:39

Quote:

Whats faulty about that? The amount of units affects the speed of the game? True or not true? the more cities you have, the more units you can support. True or not true? So if you decrease the map size, you decrease the over all amount of units, correct? Thus speeding up the game.

Wheres the faulty logic in that?

I wouldn't go on at length about this, but since you ask...

Here is the fault: keep following that train of thought to its logical conclusion.

According to that idea, the optimal game would be on a map composed of one tile ... after all, that would be the least units and least cities, so it would be the fastest!

The point is, the units and cities are the game. So minimizing them to increase speed is not really a solution ... sure, if you have less game, it will go faster ... but the problem is, you have less game.

A real solution would increase speed while holding all else equal. That is why it is an evasion rather than a solution.

Not that I am bitterly complaining, I don't really have a problem with the speed. But it is not really something I would praise.

Quote:

A real solution: get a computer made in the 21st century, or play on standard maps. They aren't called standard for nothing, eh? Like Captain said above, Firaxis listened to consumers and gave larger maps, and now has to listen to whiners complain about the slowdown. Firaxis really can't win, can they?

Blaaa

My computer is fine. I agree people with speed problems should have played on normal size maps probably, though that is not ideal, since it reduces their game.

However I disagree that reducing map size is a solution to the slowdown. It doesn't solve the problem, it sidesteps it by providing less game.

Maybe this was the best that could be done, fine. But it is not the same thing as solving the slowdown. BTW I am not whining, I am discussing ... I am generally fine with the speed.

I will agree that Firaxis can't win with EVERYONE ... there will always be some people unhappy, through no fault of Firaxis's. However, the game and Firaxis's communication could have been better.

Capt Dizle · April 21, 2002, 22:40

Do you really want proof that they lied? Hmm, Multiplayer. Scenarios. Editor. Heck, as Vel so eloquently put it, a note from the designer is NOT designer's notes.

Civ3=The Big Lie

You would have to be a chump or a chimp not to recognize that.

asleepathewheel · April 21, 2002, 22:48

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Do you really want proof that they lied? Hmm, Multiplayer. Scenarios. Editor. Heck, as Vel so eloquently put it, a note from the designer is NOT designer's notes.

Civ3=The Big Lie

You would have to be a chump or a chimp not to recognize that.

looking at the Civ3 box now

hmm
nope . no mention of multiplayer
hmmm
nope. no mention of scenarios
hmmm
editor? well. I have an editor that fulfills my expectations
"game editor suite lets you create customized civilizations, maps, and rules"

where is the lie there? have you actually looked at the editor? you can change almost every part of the game. and the patches are increasing the functionality.

hmm
designer notes"
granted, what they gave was incredibly pointless, but if you were buying the game for designer notes, then I think you have other issues.

you would have to be a chump or chimp to buy a game without reading the box.

asleepathewheel · April 21, 2002, 22:51

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmytrick
One of the user friendly elements of earlier Civ line games was the fact that they tried to design games that would not exclude the many folks
who did not have state of the art machines. Firaxis's failure to stick to this philosophy is one of the many nails in their coffin.

jt

well, when civ 1 was released, what was the standard pc? 386, 486? w/ 2 mg ram?
a lot easier to make a game that everyone could play, as there was little variance in pcs

[/lecture on]
now with computers so standard in homes, the variation in computers is so much more drastic. I have a 1.7 ghz w/ 512 mg ram, many have better computers than me, many are running 350 mhz machines w/ 32 mg ram. Quite a drastic difference, eh?
The realities of computing today are different from the day of civ1, so a comparison is faulty.
[lecture off/]

Firaxis did include small and standard maps so that people with older computers can play at a reasonable pace. What is wrong with that?

asleepathewheel · April 21, 2002, 23:13

Quote:

Originally posted by nato
Here is the fault: keep following that train of thought to its logical conclusion.

According to that idea, the optimal game would be on a map composed of one tile ... after all, that would be the least units and least cities, so it would be the fastest!

of course you can take this to a ridiculous extreme.

Quote:

Originally posted by nato
My computer is fine. I agree people with speed problems should have played on normal size maps probably, though that is not ideal, since it reduces their game.

However I disagree that reducing map size is a solution to the slowdown. It doesn't solve the problem, it sidesteps it by providing less game.

You're right, of course. But shouldn't people realize that if they want to play a massive game, it might tax their system resources? I know that you are not whining about it, but others are. It seems to me that there are people who don't like the slowdown and can have reasonable discussions about the problem, and there are those who just hate the game and criticize every facet of it.

In this case, maybe Firaxis was acting as a babysitter. Some people complain that the game isn't fast enough, but refuse to play on smaller maps, so Firaxis changes it for them. is this right? probably not, but it can just be changed in the editor.

Further more, did I say that Firaxis solved the time problem? No. I said that firaxis sped up the game. Which is true.

Quote:

Originally posted by nato Maybe this was the best that could be done, fine. But it is not the same thing as solving the slowdown. BTW I am not whining, I am discussing ... I am generally fine with the speed.

I'm not saying that I like the slowdown or that it doesn't affect me. I'm just saying that people should take some responsibility for themselves.I want to play the huge maps, 16 civs. I understand that that will cause some delay. its requiring a lot of memory to process all of that information. I've run taskmanager while thats going on and it sucks up basically all the free ram i have. And sure, does decreasing the map size solve the problem? no. but I don't know what would? I'm not a programmer, I don't know what it would take to decrease the lag.

Quote:

Originally posted by nato
I will agree that Firaxis can't win with EVERYONE ... there will always be some people unhappy, through no fault of Firaxis's. However, the game and Firaxis's communication could have been better.

agreed

as this is my third post in a row on this topic, i will stop now. thankyou

Capt Dizle · April 21, 2002, 23:16

You can't possibly try to take the position that Firaxis didn't lead everyone to expect multiplayer. That is ridiculos.

From an interview given during the development process:

Sid: We're working on a really fun and unique multiplayer concept that we'll talk more about when we're closer to completing it.

Reportedly they are working on it still, but apparently are still not close enough to talk about it (or even admit that they are going to charge the suckers for it).

notyoueither · April 21, 2002, 23:21

I don't hear too many people complaining about stupid path-finding. Maybe that's because the path-finding implemented is very good, however it takes horse-power. On very large maps the amount of horse-power required is beyond the ability of most 3 year-old computers to accomplish quickly. Firaxis has admitted this. Maybe it would be better if Firaxis changed things to stupid path-finding. Then people would complain about that...

simwiz2 · April 21, 2002, 23:22

"Firaxis did include small and standard maps so that people with older computers can play at a reasonable pace. What is wrong with that?"

Nothing, except 1.21 breaks the game's speed on slower computers EVEN ON A TINY MAP. The game is constantly getting stuck on my units with no moves left, and this happened only rarely in 1.17. It takes almost 10 seconds for it to figure out how to make the roads dissapear after I bombard them, and it takes almost 20 seconds to realize that when a unit has no moves left, its time to go to the next one. 1.21 has completely broken the industrial/modern ages for me. it just becomes so tedious, and no turning autosave off did not help.

Whatever they did, it either drastically increased the demands on the computer, or added a lot of unit-moving bugs. I know this isnt quite the same as the AI turns taking forever, but it is a serious speed problem.