Open letter to Firaxis from the scenario community

[ravagon]

Originally posted by Case

I went to buy Civ 3 today only to find that it costs A$100! I'm saving my money untill Firaxis confirm that scenario editing tools will be made advailable.

Yeah, me too (LE is about $110 ?). The hundred I'd set aside for civ3 is now going to EU2 (12th Dec and counting ).
Civ2 was the first game I bought that really let me edit/mod/scenarioify pretty much to my hearts content. Basically my major criterion for almost all games since has been the ability to edit/modify the various aspects. Civ3 without this just is not Civ3. Maybe at some point in the future this will change but until then ...
Shame really as it sounds pretty good (bugs excepted - but these can/will be fixed anyway) but that's the way it goes.

Enough waffling.

[Harlan]

Now I finally have the game, and am enjoying playing it a lot. I think its much more fun out of the box than the CTP games. But I'm also completely staggered by the sheer uneditability of the whole thing. I never imagined that Civ3 would actually be a step backwards in editability compared to Civ2. A huge step backwards from SMAC too, from what I hear about that game.

What really blows my mind is how the game appears to be hardcoded so as to make deeper editing completely impossible. Take a look at the thread "Civilization III BIC file format" in the creation forum. For instance, wonder, small wonder and improvement effects, and the strength of those effects all appear to be completely hardcoded, so you can't ever change a wonder to a small wonder for example, or change the power of most effects.

The Firaxis team could go back and redo some of these things, but its clear that no attempt whatsoever was made to open things up for editing as the code was originally written. Activision took the completely opposite approach. Virtually everything was editable from the conception, so you could practically make a completely different game using that editor.

This really disturbs me. It would indicate that we're probably not going to get many of the features we seek cos the game just wasn't designed with editing in mind.

I'm also miffed at Firaxis's silence on these issues. They did mention at some point they'd be asking for feedback on what scenario makers wanted, once their direction was more focused. Still nothing. That says to me there are things like scripting solutions that haven't even begun to cross their radar screens.

Why do Firaxis let people twist in the wind on some issues, and respond quickly to other very trivial issues? Sometimes in the same thread. As an example, the response to the whole multiplayer issue was so wierd. At the very least they could say "I'm listening, but the legal dept. wouldn't like me to answer at this time".

I'm really frustrated. On one hand I love Civ3 for its playability, but have major issues with its editability. On the other I love CTP2 for its editability but have major issues with its playability. Not sure what to do.

[Yoleus]

"Hi, I am the undead thread and I am back!"
(bump)

[Roman]

Harlan, you raise some serious issues about the game for me (I don't have it yet). All the hardcoding you point out suggests that this game will never be very customizable.

[klesh]

but in looking at our ability to edit things, I had the same vibrations that Harlan has had. I wasn't positive, so I have waited for 'the pros' to come out and verify my thoughts. Unfortunately I cannot compare CivIII to SMAC or CtP because I dont own the latter two. But man, this is supposed to be progress you know? My hope for CivIII was that it would be totally and completely editable... I'm talking wonders effects, city improvement effects, all kinds of things. To see confirmation from 'the greats' like Harlan et al. that much of the meat of CivIII is hardcoded is highly dissapointing. Perhaps some of the proposed changes can make CivIII better than it is now for scen making, but it is becomming apparent that we may have to stick to the old standbys for the foreseeable future.


-FMK.

[Marko]

I am also worried about "culture expansion" issues. How to make war scenarios if your conquested cities simply "switch back" to enemy side with all your army inside them?
Razing of captured cities is suggested as solution but it is not an option in scenarios.

We must be able to turn off this feature in scenarios.

[klesh]

Originally posted by Marko
I am also worried about "culture expansion" issues. How to make war scenarios if your conquested cities simply "switch back" to enemy side with all your army inside them?
Razing of captured cities is suggested as solution but it is not an option in scenarios.

[sarcasm]
What?!? You mean you don't want me to raze Paris on the first turn of my Blitzkrieg, Marko!? 'Cause if I don't, the French Underground will be able to defeat my scores of Panzertruppen, you know, the same ones that the entire French Army couldn't stop just 'days' before!

Vive la France!

[/sarcasm]

-FMK.

[Case]

Here's a question for programmers: Is it easier to hard code a game or 'soft code'(?) it so that it's open to editing?

[MarkG]

Originally posted by Case
Here's a question for programmers: Is it easier to hard code a game or 'soft code'(?) it so that it's open to editing?

partial answer: it has been said that there is a binary file format with the rules(the .bic files) instead of text files in order to have low loading/saving times

[Hans2]

Personally, I'm going to wait for the first patch before I blast the programers. In reality there is only a few more things needed to make the editor excellent. Ability to add cities and units, ability to turn off razing, and scripting language. Once this stuff is added the editor will be pretty good.

[ravagon]

Originally posted by Hans2
Once this stuff is added the editor will be pretty good.

Sounds good to me but at this point I think the more accurate phraseology may be IF ALL this stuff is added the editor could be pretty good.
Without it the scenario community is pretty much up the creek without a paddle-shaped object, especially if the in-game coding is not easily accessible to whatever custom-made editors people can come up with.
Henceforth this thread...

[Yoleus]

"with just these two features more, the game will be fine"
Yes, but would you merrily pay for an expansion, or do you expect a patch? I fear an eventual patch will just solve basic
gameplay issues, or worse just some "game variables" (like the corruption level) arbitrarily set before release waiting for the buyers' playtest... "they like to have less corruption! Ok, let's make (fake?) a patch to tune the game". Kind of paying beta testers.
But the scenario fixing can come up LATER in the scenario edition: "new extended scenario making capabilities! Even more than in the basic game!"
How much do you think will be patch and how much expansion pack?

[Roman]

Originally posted by Hans2
Personally, I'm going to wait for the first patch before I blast the programers. In reality there is only a few more things needed to make the editor excellent. Ability to add cities and units, ability to turn off razing, and scripting language. Once this stuff is added the editor will be pretty good.

Sure, once all of this is added the editing tools will be good. This, however, is no small task. I doubt a scripting language is even possible with so many things hardcoded in the game.

[Roman]

Actually, I am pondering whether to get the game at all. Where I live, it has been out for a while now, but I was not in the least bit tempted to get it after hearing about the impossibility of making scenarios and the lack of multiplayer. The fact is that I only ever play scenarios or multiplayer (ok, maybe 1 or 2 games of SP to learn the concepts), so there is little point in buying a game that does not have either.

[techumseh]

Any news, Markos?

[MarkG]

here are some news: there will be a reply. but i dont know anything on how soon it will be or how good news it will bring, except that there will be an update on the editor(something that has been said several times of course)

[Case]

Originally posted by MarkG
here are some news: there will be a reply. but i dont know anything on how soon it will be or how good news it will bring, except that there will be an update on the editor(something that has been said several times of course)

Stop the presses!

[MarkG]

Originally posted by Case
Stop the presses!

it's amazing, you guys bump this thread every couple of hours, but when i actually post some news it takes 14 hours for someone to comment

[ravagon]

Originally posted by MarkG
it's amazing, you guys bump this thread every couple of hours, but when i actually post some news it takes 14 hours for someone to comment

I think people were just so stunned by your groundbreaking news Mark

[techumseh]

Originally posted by MarkG
here are some news: there will be a reply. but i dont know anything on how soon it will be or how good news it will bring, except that there will be an update on the editor(something that has been said several times of course)

Who are you and what have you done with the real Mark G?

[Nuke gay whales]

There have been too many complaints about advanced units losing battles to vastly inferior units, which is not conducive to fair play - especially when units like tanks could just run over units like spearmen (I would love to hear the sound effect for that! )

But that is not the issue. We ALL know that a tank being defeated by a spearman makes no sense, so there is no point arguing in circles about it. Why don't we try and come up with a solution instead?

I strongly think that there should be a "non-competition" factor when certain units battle each other. If there is a two age period difference between the units, the inferior unit automatically surrenders and returns to their side of the border - with the option for the superior forces to wipe out the unit instead of allowing them to retreat, with a political penalty imposed by the rest of the world.

I know that this is not something that can be "patched", but I like the sound of this type of combat system better than the existing one... . I do not enjoy the careful building of a modern army after advancing ahead of my enemies in the science race just to have my tanks lose a fight against pikemen.

Any other suggested solutions out there?

[MarkG]

Originally posted by techumseh
Who are you and what have you done with the real Mark G?

huh?

[ravagon]

Originally posted by MarkG
huh?

Your announcement post wasn't quite in your usual "style" Mark

[MarkG]

Originally posted by ravagon
Your announcement post wasn't quite in your usual "style" Mark

and what kind of style is that?

[wotan321]

So I guess we can expect some sort of editor patch in the weekly "Friday update" today?

When that occurs, the floodgates of commentary will open, so let me put my 2 cents in before that.

I HOPE that the editor update provides the ability to stop tech advancement. In the old Civ2 Rules.txt file, we could put a "No" in a prereq for an advance, and you could not research it. That way, in a scenario you could avoid stealth bombers in the War of 1812 scenario. A nice little check box in the Civ Advances tab would be nice. This is also essential for scenario creation, just as flat maps and city/unit placement is.


oh, and I'd like landmarks back too.

BTW.....the boycott seems to be picking up steam! Number one AND number two in sales last week! Whooohooo! We've got 'em right where we want 'em! LOL! Okay, its time someone came up with a plan "B" since the boycott doesn't seem to be working.... The reviews in almost every major gamemag are through the roof, so you cannot expect them to point out that the game wasn't finished when it was released. I guess we are just going to have to hope Firaxis shows some mercy and fixes the problems out of some sense of kindness or dedication to their fans. Lets see what happens today.

[protista]

I am in total agreement that some changes need to be made, in a reasonable time, and that we should certainly at least have some communication from the publishers/programmers as to what is being planned, being done, and when it will be available. This is ridiculous for a program which cost me $59!

[Akka]

It's perhaps that I did not understood all, but, when I see people saying that the RULES editor allow nothing to be edited, I wonder if they actually had only a look at it...

Actually, what the editor CAN'T do is :
- makes scripted events
- makes specific start locations for specific civ
- change the engine (ie : how the fight work, how the pollution work, etc...)
- the features that the cheat mode has in Civ 2 (create units, cities, change your civ to take another one, etc...)


That's all.

ALL the rest can be edited/changed.
In fact, the rules editor is actually GREAT. To take more precise examples :

wonder, small wonder and improvement effects, and the strength of those effects all appear to be completely hardcoded, so you can't ever change a wonder to a small wonder for example, or change the power of most effects.

You CAN change a wonder in a small wonder, and you CAN change the effects. Some effects are hard-coded, but you can choose to put them in one wonder, or a small wonder, or even a city improvement. You can make a temple being a great wonder that cause 5 unhappiness in all the city, or change the Pyramids to a -5 pollution standard city improvement that cost 10 and that reduce war weariness.

All the hardcoding you point out suggests that this game will never be very customizable.

It's already customisable, from the color of each civ to the abilities of units and the frequency of ressources. The only limit is the events, locations and game engine.

I HOPE that the editor update provides the ability to stop tech advancement. In the old Civ2 Rules.txt file, we could put a "No" in a prereq for an advance, and you could not research it.

Already doable in the editor. Just change the era of the tech to "none".

I mean, this game is full of flaws and has a lot of places where it's a step back from Civ2 and AC, so why bash it where it's better ???
No scenario sucks, but rules are customisable to the bones.

[wotan321]

Already doable in the editor. Just change the era of the tech to "none".

Thanks. I am sorry I did not notice that. I was still thinking like I was in Civ2. I appreciate your help.

[Roman]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
It's perhaps that I did not understood all, but, when I see people saying that the RULES editor allow nothing to be edited, I wonder if they actually had only a look at it...

Actually, what the editor CAN'T do is :
- makes scripted events
- makes specific start locations for specific civ
- change the engine (ie : how the fight work, how the pollution work, etc...)
- the features that the cheat mode has in Civ 2 (create units, cities, change your civ to take another one, etc...)


That's all.

ALL the rest can be edited/changed.

Well and these things it cannot do are exactly crucial for making scenarios. Heck, without the placement of civ specific starting locations, cities, units, etc. it is NOT EVEN POSSIBLE TO MAKE SCENARIOS.

[MarkG]

Originally posted by wotan321
So I guess we can expect some sort of editor patch in the weekly "Friday update" today?

naah....

the editor update will most propably be part of the patch...