What should NOT be in the next XP? - Page 2

bobbo008 · May 12, 2003, 19:25

at least they change the songs by age, so when youre in the modern age, youre stuck with that crappy generic 80's style music.

The Templar · May 13, 2003, 01:46

How about the ability to play MP3 playlists for that matter?

marcuspeddle · May 13, 2003, 04:22

I definitely want unit trades. It was so satisfying in Civ2 to secretly give troops and military equipment to an underdog nation that was fighting the world bully. It let me stay 'neutral' but also let me see justice done in the world.
I also want the option to mediate between warring nations like in SMAC. I liked taking the peacekeeper role.

TheArsenal · May 13, 2003, 12:08

Music: You can stick a CD in your F drive and play it. Which I do. But I prefer not to have another program running at the same time. I also want music with more of a "Civ" feel than anything I have in my collection.

Acemo · May 15, 2003, 11:00

Quote:

Originally posted by gunkulator
I don't want an opening sequence that I can't click through until it changes video modes. A minor quibble, but one we have to face every time.

add:
PlayIntro=0
to your ptw.ini file

Wish granted

Nubclear · May 15, 2003, 22:43

What should NOT be in the next XP?

Any traces of Civ3 at all.

Louis XXIV · May 15, 2003, 23:08

Too late

Demerzel · May 16, 2003, 06:59

No more cheap cosmetic extras.

I don't want bloody new Civs.

I don't want useless new wonders/buildings.

--

*sigh* why do XPs these days contain lots of trite, useless "improvements" that nobody wants/uses?

Spiffor · May 16, 2003, 08:50

Well, since Firaxians probably read this, I'd like to say something :

If the game is not ready in due time, I have no problem whatsoever with it being in development 3-4 more months, or even more if needed.
Really, I was very saddened by the cold welcome of PtW because it was rushed, and I was saddened as well by the rushed out version of Civ3 back in October 2001. I will be really, really glad if Firaxis obliterates these bad memories by shipping a game that is ready and is free of any major bug out of the box.
To restore Civ's reputation, a few more months of waiting is a minuscule price IMHO

statusperfect · May 16, 2003, 08:52

We have other things to do while waiting... like waiting for the Moo3 patch....

cheers

Jon Shafer · May 16, 2003, 15:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
Well, since Firaxians probably read this, I'd like to say something :

If the game is not ready in due time, I have no problem whatsoever with it being in development 3-4 more months, or even more if needed.
Really, I was very saddened by the cold welcome of PtW because it was rushed, and I was saddened as well by the rushed out version of Civ3 back in October 2001. I will be really, really glad if Firaxis obliterates these bad memories by shipping a game that is ready and is free of any major bug out of the box.
To restore Civ's reputation, a few more months of waiting is a minuscule price IMHO

Your voice falls on deaf ears... and, you shouldn't be taking these complaints to Firaxis, but "Atari."

mrboo123 · May 16, 2003, 22:04

Quote:

Originally posted by The Templar
There won't be another XP - they've done milked it to death.(..)

Your wrong, past guy

The Templar · May 16, 2003, 23:33

Quote:

Originally posted by 123john321

Your wrong, past guy

That I am.

The XP will contain no events, scripting, or unit trading.
(May my predictive record continue ...)

Panag · June 7, 2003, 18:20

Quote:

Originally posted by The Templar

That I am.

The XP will contain no events, scripting, or unit trading.
(May my predictive record continue ...)

hi ,

vulcanoes are in , .....

and plenty of other types of events

have a nice day

GodKing · June 7, 2003, 20:37

Bringing back the dead Panag....

(in reference to this thread that has been dead for a month - in case someone doesn't get it).

I will help then.

Yes, I am having a nice day. Are you? We kicked some but tonight in the demo game, took two cities, founded 2 more, adn are generally kicking the ottomans but.

I would LIKE to have unit trading, regional governements, and an events editor similar to the one that came out with Civ2 (in the second expansion to civ2 IIRC) but that is easier to use.

I would NOT want - bugs, a downgraded AI, a high price & crapy copy protection that prohibits all the patches from being world wide.

Falconius · June 8, 2003, 02:31

Quote:

Originally posted by pedrojedi
I miss CTP space and undewater cities...

I DON'T want space and underwater cities. Ugh... too sci-fi. Not that I always dislike sci-fi. I just don't want it in my civ game. It makes it too silly.

dexters · June 8, 2003, 02:48

Considering the game won't ship for at least 5 more months, beta testing at this phase is a good sign. Most of the obvious bugs will probably be worked out.

What I DON'T WANT from Conquests is more of the same.

More units - good
More techs - good
More buildings - good

I think those are in for sure. But the stuff that are so so, and unkowns are

1) Diplomacy. -- Fixed alliances are going to be huge gameplay wise. It will be a lot of fun. But will AI be able to use it well? What sort of options do we have or is it just a glorified MPP? We don't know

2) Since Conquests feels like an XP for the single player fans of Civ III, I don't want the same AI from PTW. I want "upgrades" to quote Neo from the Matrix Reloaded. Loopholes closed. Exploits weakened, and most importantly AI that can put up a decent fight into the industrial age as well as giving the AI needed modifications so it can fight well with RR and 3 movement units, a continuing weakness on its part.

RR allows for force concentrations at any location in an AI civ's territory. They can move units from as far back as their core cities to harass the heck out of an invading force, and for 2+ movement units, there is usually enough movement points left for the units to then retreat back to their home cities and act as if nothing happened. We don't get that. We have cavalry taking really strange routes to the front where it leaves itself wide open for counterattack. We have defenders in the deep territory doing nothing while the invaders divide and conquers. The AI certainly has come a long way since 1.07f, but as always, there is room for improvement.

3) I don't wan't the same so so naval algorithms that seem to make the AI display inconsistent behavior. I've seen the AI display increadible power navally. Lots of ships blowing up your improvements.

Their invasions however, remain meek and more a distraction. That is why even when the AI fight against other AI civs, the only invasion that ever work are ones targeted against poorly defended islands. I almost never see an AI civ, any AI civ, land a force on a continent, capture a city, reinforce the city and then push inland and grab more cities (and I'm talking about AI vs AI here). That needs to be changed. And I have faith it will be.

Panag · June 9, 2003, 09:19

Quote:

Originally posted by GodKing
Bringing back the dead Panag....

(in reference to this thread that has been dead for a month - in case someone doesn't get it).

I will help then.

Yes, I am having a nice day. Are you? We kicked some but tonight in the demo game, took two cities, founded 2 more, adn are generally kicking the ottomans but.

I would LIKE to have unit trading, regional governements, and an events editor similar to the one that came out with Civ2 (in the second expansion to civ2 IIRC) but that is easier to use.

I would NOT want - bugs, a downgraded AI, a high price & crapy copy protection that prohibits all the patches from being world wide.

hi ,

no sweat , like i did not know what you did , .....

anyway , i just seen a new type of copy ptw , mamamia , .....

the read only files are a mix of both french and english , .....

thanks infogrames , Firaxis , Atari , this is one thing that should not go into the next game , .....

and at least could someone tell them to stay with one company for "protection" and not move around and not create needless files , ......

and we dont need a 30 seconds advertising from that copy protection firm , ....

have a nice day

tomcat ha · June 9, 2003, 16:10

I want the civ 2 music back to iritaite my sises again :P
wow my first post in half a year or more

statusperfect · June 9, 2003, 17:37

i don't want any new game mechanics

just 16 new civs

10 new wonders

and an upgrade to commercial docks

cheers

Panag · June 9, 2003, 17:40

Quote:

Originally posted by statusperfect
i don't want any new game mechanics

just 16 new civs

10 new wonders

and an upgrade to commercial docks

cheers

hi ,

huh , we allready have com docks , ..... what you mean

have a nice day

dexters · June 9, 2003, 20:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Anatolia
I definitely want unit trades. It was so satisfying in Civ2 to secretly give troops and military equipment to an underdog nation that was fighting the world bully. It let me stay 'neutral' but also let me see justice done in the world.
I also want the option to mediate between warring nations like in SMAC. I liked taking the peacekeeper role.

Unit trading is on a lot of people's wishlist mine included.

But the way you describe it, it's more like unit giving with a big sticker that says "HUMANS ONLY".

If that's the case, and if someone is now running off to think of some way to make the game easier by exploiting it then bragging about it here, then I'd rather not have it.

If Unit trading is in, it must meet 2 conditions
1) AIs can use it against each other and against a human player
2) Not exploitable

If Firaxis can't do it, then I'd rather them not include it and spend their programming hours improving something else. It's that simple.

Atahualpa · June 10, 2003, 03:03

I thought I read that the expansion pack will not be made by Firaxis itself but by one of their "partners" instead.

Can't find it now though. I thought they said so in their press announcement (the E3 thingie).

ata

Panag · June 10, 2003, 03:54

Quote:

Originally posted by dexters

Unit trading is on a lot of people's wishlist mine included.

But the way you describe it, it's more like unit giving with a big sticker that says "HUMANS ONLY".

If that's the case, and if someone is now running off to think of some way to make the game easier by exploiting it then bragging about it here, then I'd rather not have it.

If Unit trading is in, it must meet 2 conditions
1) AIs can use it against each other and against a human player
2) Not exploitable

If Firaxis can't do it, then I'd rather them not include it and spend their programming hours improving something else. It's that simple.

hi ,

with unit trading we should be able to keep the tech , ....

actually we should be able to decide wheter or not we give the tech with the unit , .....

have a nice day

dexters · June 10, 2003, 04:33

Panag, that's problematic. You might as well just gift them the tech then give them the units. It's just a matter of timing.

There's a lot of opportunity for human exploitation here. It would be nice if the AI is some sort of neural network that can learn from being exploited and then try to avoid it next time. It is not, and there has to be strict controls in what the AI and humans can do before unit trading can be FUN and FAIR.

Like I said, AI must be able to do with between each other and with you too. Although the AI to AI trade bonus applies, so they will always ask for higher values before they help you.

dexters · June 10, 2003, 04:46

Quote:

Like I said, AI must be able to do with between each other and with you too. Although the AI to AI trade bonus applies, so they will always ask for higher values before they help you.

In case what I said here is not entirely clear, think of it this way.

If you're in trouble, the AI may choose to help you. It will calculate a value of this help based on a formula, with perhaps some random factor as a coefficient to add some human randomness to the procedure.

If the AI gets a value of 4.5 for example, that will translate to some level of help.

for example

4.5 X 10 = 450 gold worth of help, techs, money or units.

If it is another AI needing, it will still give 450 gold worth of help even if the value is less than 4.5. Say 4.5/1.1 if you're in chieftain. 1.1 being the AI to AI trade bonus.

This sort of valuation would allow AI to give varying degrees of help depending on your position and relationship in a game. I would think that to avoid exploitation, unit trading must be allowable only under Gracious conditions. A condition that only happens when you are allied militarily, with MPP or ROP or, have common enemy.

The fixed alliance system may also benefit from some sort of unit trading and I would propose allowing unit trading to happen ONLY in alliance circumstances. There is then some incentive not to screw around with your alliance partners for various alliance related reasons.

BulMaster · June 10, 2003, 12:32

GAL CIv has a prety cool feature for learning. The metaverse after each game info is submited on how players play. The they improve the AI so it's more competitive. I would like also to mention they have five different engines for the AI and one for the minor races and the gane runs prety fast compared to civ. Yes I know ther we have 5 here 16 civs but lol 5 different engines for the ai makes the CPu work harder than for civ. So a feature like that will be cool. If i racall well in Dungeon Keeper 2 was a feature that after each skirmish game the ai remebers the tactic you used and can counter it or even reproduce it. Of course after you un install and re install the AI is stupid as usual but there should be a way yo keep the brain part of it

. So it's possible but if they will put i dunno besides they know that if they make some cosmetic improvements ppl will buy the game still. We have to show that we won't if we really want improvements otherwise why improve something if the market still demands it in it's crap state? Simple economic reality my friends. If there is demand for a produc why spend money changing it? If there is no demand then changing will help demand rise. As long as we buy all the civ games don't hope to a major change, except the cosmetic thingies. And i don't want an AI that is designed to play against me only. In galciv this is cool cause the AI competes with each other and against the human. In CIv the main target is always me and if it can trade with another ai than me it will always prefer the other bastard. This i don't want any more, since MP is really bad they can me SP more realistic

statusperfect · June 10, 2003, 14:06

Quote:

Originally posted by panag

hi ,

huh , we allready have com docks , ..... what you mean

have a nice day

i'm just being a sarcastic ******* while trying to point out that i don't care as long as they give me more stuff to drool over

i like the game as it is so i wouldn't mind if the new expansion was just more fluff

cheers

Falconius · June 10, 2003, 21:24

Quote:

Originally posted by tomcat ha
I want the civ 2 music back to iritaite my sises again :P
wow my first post in half a year or more

Glad you're holding off posting to just say important things!

Just kidding. Welcome back!

WarpStorm · June 10, 2003, 21:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Atahualpa
I thought I read that the expansion pack will not be made by Firaxis itself but by one of their "partners" instead.

Most of it's being done by Breakaway. They have a real good track record for doing expansions to other companies' games.