Review-in-Progress (Open Thread)

[Sirian]

OK, so you're actually not kidding. Heh.

In GC2, I visually bunch like items when possible. This makes it easier to "read" the planet at a glance. Also, the critical part of managing planets is knowing when to do something special with them, such as leaving open slots for wonders and trade goods, or when NOT to use a planet special, as well as when to bend a whole planet around its special. If you are taking evil planet bonuses, you may also be swayed by the need to take advantage of them, putting more factories on worlds with starship production bonus, more labs on worlds with research bonus, etc.

Templates are not a good idea when that many variables are in play. For proof, just look at the AI planets. Somebody advised new players to look at what the AI does, but I would advise new players to look at what the AI does as a general example of what NOT to do! (I certainly do not build Orbital Fleet Managers on more than a handful of worlds under special circumstances, and I never build ground troop defense boosts. If you can't win in space, you've got the wrong game plan operating!)


- Sirian

[yin26]

Well, I doubt we'll see the idea implemented anyway. I just think it was a great feature, and if lazy gamers like me who generally are allergic to mirco management want to have less optimized but faster games, so be it! At least the buildings and tiles auto upgrade. Mad props to Brad for that one!

[bonscott]

v 1.1 update development plans have been posted (it's right on the home page). A couple things that have been mentioned in this thread that are included:

The ability to set a given planet as a technology, research, ship building or balanced planet, . NOT like the overall focus. It would literally add a 9% boost to a given type (or 3%, 3%, 3%).

Fleet Manager screen.

MAJORLY updated AI (not to make it tougher, to make it smarter at higher levels and dumber -- i.e. poor strategies -- at lower levels)

Unused Social Spending routed to military spending (or back to treasury if nothing is being used)

No Tech Trading option

[yin26]

EDIT: Ah, I see. These are the plans for release at the end of the month. Gives me time to finish a few more games. Can't wait!

Well, I plan to run home, use my unique serial number for the new content (you know, the system that means there is no copy protection but thieves don't get the updates), and play these awesome updates!

Very impressive. I think "No tech trading" alone will radically change the play. Can't wait!

[Solver]

If I read it correctly that's just a planned update under development currently.

I think, though, that if Brad is reading this thread, he can get quite a few good suggestions for improvement .

EDIT: I really appreciate the policy of Stardock regarding updates, though. It always feels very nice to play a game for which you know that updates are going to be released.

I also really like Brad's stand on the CD protection issue. I have done enough research in the area and am sort of involved, and I agree with Brad completely .

[Sirian]

Originally posted by bonscott
1. The ability to set a given planet as a technology, research, ship building or balanced planet, . NOT like the overall focus. It would literally add a 9% boost to a given type (or 3%, 3%, 3%).

2. Unused Social Spending routed to military spending (or back to treasury if nothing is being used)

Why jump through hoops? These complicate matters, where simplification is warranted. Why not eliminate waste from overflows? That's the problem.

Always target the root cause.


If this is the direction, I may not update (or play any more in the near future). The LAST thing I want is for roadblocks to be thrown in my way, making the gameplay more tedious instead of less. I literally lean from one 100% spending spree to the next, yet all of Brad's changes imply that he expects players to play like the AI, always with some spending in each category. That is NOT an efficient way to play.

The only reason 100% spending leans are not the norm in Civ is that Civ forces a divide on you, shields vs commerce. Civ forces balance on you. GalCiv deliberately ignores balance in favor of empowering the player to choose. GalCiv gives you one currency and lets you choose when to put it to shields and when to put it to beakers or cash. If Civ let you do that... Well, never mind. It should be obvious enough, anyway.

I'll wait until Brad sorts it out, and simply accept whatever happens. I wish him well. I'm sure he's under a lot of pressure now, and I KNOW how stressful it is to deal with people out in the open. He's got far more stamina than I do in that regard.


- Sirian

[Stuie]

Doesn't Sirian live in a cabin (wired for **** obviously) in the-middle-of-nowhere western PA?

= too much free time.

[yin26]

Sirian:

Is your point that the game is too easy to exploit?

[Sirian]

Yin: No. The point is that the game has too many interface problems already and these two changes will add two more, without fixing anything.

- Sirian

[yin26]

I must be missing something (keep in mind I'm a lazy gamer!):

1. The ability to set a given planet as a technology, research, ship building or balanced planet, . NOT like the overall focus. It would literally add a 9% boost to a given type (or 3%, 3%, 3%).

I agree I don't understand this one. If it's not like overall focus, what is it? Is this an added bonus or another way of distributing what's already there? I think Sirian might win this one...

2. Unused Social Spending routed to military spending (or back to treasury if nothing is being used)

I don't see how this is bad other than "not fixing waste" to begin with. While I obviously agree with just getting rid of waste (as Civ 4 has done, if I understand that change), but for the moment at least, is this not better than simply losing spending? And there is no planyer input required, so for me that's a plus...

[yin26]

Originally posted by Stuie
Doesn't Sirian live in a cabin (wired for **** obviously) in the-middle-of-nowhere western PA?

= too much free time.

By the way, I understand the impulse to think Sirian is going overboard, but I "know" him well enough by this point to say he's probably just a few (if not several) steps ahead of us. I, for one, appreciate his input. Of course, he has admitted himself that he's a ruthless critic and some people should ignore him if they want to enjoy the game, but I think he's going to be a great help to Brad, if Brad is reading.

[Solver]

Sirian might be a ruthless critic, but he's a fair and constructive one. And he should be thanked for much of what is done right in the Civ4 SP game .

[Sirian]

Originally posted by yin26
I must be missing something (keep in mind I'm a lazy gamer!):

I don't see how this is bad other than "not fixing waste" to begin with.

It's bad in a couple of subtle ways:
* It is one more mental twist for player to track. (The player's attention should only be focused on things that really matter.)
* If you are building social projects and not spending anything on military, this will cause some military spending that you can't control. You may get another copy of an old ship design produced. (And while it is true that this is a pitfall that also plagues the "focus" buttons, it only means it is ALSO a problem with the focus buttons, rather than not being a problem).
* It's another option in the category of the focus buttons, which themselves are godawful. They are all the micromanagement but only half the control. That is literally the worst of both worlds!

If Brad doesn't want to give the player micro control, he doesn't have to. But by golly, choose one or the other! These clumsy micro controls that let you solve "part" of a problem leave players frustrated but yet require the full amount of MM work for a partial result. ... Players will do it (I do it) because it lends SOME advantage, but this is the same trap that befell the MOO3 designers, sticking micro in to their game left and right but tying players' hands to prevent them from actually CONTROLLING the micro elements the way they want. ... That is really REALLY not good.

A far stronger approach, in my view, would be to have the game look after all the overflows. If we don't want players to micro, take out the micro! There's no NEED to micro if the overflows carry on to the next project. Or... If we do want them to micro, give them control, too. Let each planet have the option to set an independent spending rate, so my 3-Lab Mars can stay on Research all the time, and I can shut down my Manufacturing Capital completely when I don't want it working on wonders or ships. Don't make players labor with blunt knives and broken screwdrivers. In for a pound or not. Sleek and precise micro controls or no micro at all.


No, the social-to-military fix does not actually make in-game results worse. In the handful of cases where it will get used, it will save none, some or all of the waste, but won't ever add to the waste. However, in the big picture, it's one more game element stuck in limbo. Like the AIs who surrender to drag out the game, but will give you planets after you beat on them for a while, we are looking at systems within the same game that produce opposite results!

Brad has moved his game toward micro. Period. That is what he has done with the Logistics system, with the Ascendancy-style planetary economy, with the shipyard. The shipyard is fun because players can do what they want to do with it. They can make it do specific things that are pleasing.

Let's take a look at the logistics system. Imagine if you could not control your fleet formations. What if you could only press a button that will assemble a fleet for you automatically. If you don't like the fleet you get, you can disassemble it and go back to individual ships, but if you press the fleet button again it assembles the SAME fleet as before! You cannot control what goes in the fleet, but only whether or not the ships fight as a fleet at all. ... That's what the economic system is like at the moment!

Anything that is not part of an effective solution is getting in the way. It becomes part of the problem. The update process is either advancing or decaying, and to me at least, these two items do not appear to be advancing.


- Sirian

[yin26]

You've hinted at how you'd approach the game here and there. Would you mind providing the Sirian Blueprint (tm) so we could get a sense of how you'd see the game playing? Bonus, of course, would be a blueprint that is within the relm of Brad's ability and budget. I, at least, would be interested.

[EternalSpark]

thieves don't get the updates

Actually, thieves can get the updates just fine - they use someone's key to get them. I'm not advocating this, nor am I saying it was me. A friend let it slip that he and a couple others didn't buy the game, they downloaded it and used another guy's key.

These complicate matters, where simplification is warranted.

I dunno, it seems transferring un-used social into Military is a simplification. Instead of complicating things by having to pay a tax on a Developed Planet to build things on New planet, now we can set Social to a certain point and not have to worry about paying badly for it.

Sirian - I'd agree with you, but I think you're forgetting that, unlike Social, Military spending isn't paid for if nothing is building. If I get +6 military points (or whatever) because of Unused social, I don't have to pay for it. If you're not forgetting that, and I'm not understanding, I apologize.