I think the tile is discriptive enough.
But for those of you who like to be specific ....
What new features do you want to see in Gal Civ 3?
Is there something that you want to see from Gal Civ 1 or Gal Civ 2, only you want it to be better?
Do you want it to have Real-Time, Control Your Warships, Space Battles?
Etc.....
So please respond.
ROCK ON!!!
Done (and by this i mean look carefully and interpret the possible situations of the *G* option on the previously linked surface with triangular based grid.)!!
(PS; Hey, i edited for TYPOS only in what you refer to, SoleSoul.)
Now that I know what these mean, I can answer.
In neither sense.
It is obvious in GC2 that building your cities such that they spend more money than you take in empire-wide is a bad idea (unless you have reason to expect that you'll be getting more money soon). It is likewise obvious that there is less advantage to building up a large positive monetary income rather than reformatting worlds with production/research buildings that spend that money intrinsically. These are fundamental parts of the rules, and a basic understanding of GC2 economics will guide you down a path of balance. Try to have your planets spend most of the money you take in.
So there are certain decisions that are demonstrably less effective for winning the game than others. How much strategy a game creates is determined by the gamespace that remains after taking away all of the obvious wrong moves. Even if only 1% of the moves are viable, the game can still have plenty of strategy if that 1% has a lot of sub-choices, where some builds are stronger in some ways than other builds. If the remaining gamespace lacks any form of choice (as in the case of Tic-Tac-Toe), then the game is solved and completely without strategy.
If there is only one optimal path of play, then the game has little strategic value. The more optimal paths of play, the more strategic value the game has.
I don't see how that works. If someone gains an advantage, the game should end instantly?
And even if they don't have to contradict one another, one statement clearly trumps the other.
And what do these "mining facilities" and "defensive satellites" do? What good is increasing a planet's sensor range?
Ex-ac-T-L_Y!
But now, have another look at my earlier definition knowing the above...
...it is a single decision taken within reasonable limit(s) dictated by a ruleset that leads to better results by deduction and not being offered multiple ways to achieve the same thing.
better results being a twin replica of your "more optimal paths of play" used to express a similar logic.
-- would do.
Oh yes, it should. Once that's made clear i will 99.99999% certainly WIN - why should i bother torturing myself through twice as much repetitive tasks as i just did to reach THAT far ahead?
In such a manner, that the UI declares the fact and provides an option for those who'd like continuing - i'd start another new game right now & then.
I am all for having more "special" improvements, but just adding more tiles would mean that players would just spam more econ, production, and reserch imps, and ignore the new ones. Instead, we eould need a system in which different improvements require different terreins to be buildable: factories would only work in deaserts or mountains (lots of minerals there), farms would only work on praeries, and so on. Maybe have terraforming techs that can turn one type of terrein into another...
Which is why I suggested that they need to be worth more.
This is the answer that I asked for when I quoted Zyx.
If they do make a system like we are describing, it might be nice to see a new layer of planet types in which some are, say, mountainous (more mountain terrein for factories), some are Pastoral (more praeries for farming & pop growth), and so on. Might add a bit of spice to the colonization rush.
Not necessarily - the ruleset becomes entirely new and alters the gameplay dynamics to a point where the newly introduced variety can be "exploited" as much as we can already with the actual "special" extras such as SP, GA & TG, etc
Theory1; (One of many other possibilities, btw) Starport capacities... we can only fit a maximum of ships in THAT stock default PI. Now comes a system where we upgrade or 'link it up' straight to the orbital layer -- giving advantages, a modular type of context like Starbases, 5+ more ships, mine fields... fine-tuning it to be more efficient.
Theory2; Don't think squares 12x6 plain and simple surface grid anymore for the following. Manufacturing *resupply* through virtual pipelines that provides raw materials acquired by the (again, new) underground layer mining facilities, water pumping stations, uranium processsing plants that even applies modifiers to the mp values. Automated as soon as you drop a factory which, in turn, can grow through upgrades represented on surfaces *polygonic* areas of control or connected through a systematic way of gaining productivity.
Theory3; Similarly to the Terrain dependant assets suggested but after having been tied up with some layers 'features' that, for example, picks up weather events or geophysic activities to INCREASE available energy as a new kind of resource. Once again, automated and linked to the nearest network of the above Factories. Bang, ThunderStorms = additional mps. Polar region and arctic supply of de-iced fresh water. Once more, and i insist... automated & NOT in any way or interpretation something more to manage.
Theory4; What is your "take" on the Asteroids principle? Minerals, right? Supply. Then, what IS actually on real planets, space debris or apple trees, etc? Sure, it is presumed as being all there indirectly. But if you'd stare at tiny left-bottom-side icons (sounds familiar - Bonuses!) that indicates locations of optimal *resources* for any type of other new PIs... say, what would you do with a natural BlackHole that outputs 75+ energy wattage steadily? Lab, Factory, Market, Morale or not, btw. Repeating -- a_u_t_o_m_a_t_e_d feature.
Theories x+y+z; you do the math.
That makes absolutely no sense in context. A ruleset that leads to having several optimal paths of play means that it is an intrinsic property of the rules that there are multiple choices that can lead to the same result (ie: victory).
"Deduction" is what a player does, not a ruleset. Thus "better results by deduction" refers to what the player does, not what the rules do.
Modifying my quote doesn't actually mean you've made a valid point.
That's one of the reasons it would be good if progressing towards victory inhibited you from progressing up the tech tree. For example, if you had to dedicate yourself to producing ships to the extent that you had to reduce your research in order to be reasonably successful in a full-scale war, then warfare would be a speed-bump for you. Those who aren't involved in war would be able to advance faster, thus allowing them to catch up.
Progressing towards a tech victory could require you to build the equivalent of several world wonders as well as absorbing 80% of your research. Thus, you would have to stop advancing, which allows someone else to catch up and slow you down.
Things like that. What would be best is if advancement up the tech tree and exploiting the fruits of that tree in some way were semi-mutually exclusive.
Furthermore, how do you propose that the game estimate that you're "99.99999%" sure to win? Will you accept losing if the game decides that an AI opponent is equally assured of victory? Are you willing to trust the game to end itself at the "proper" time? I mean, GC2 can't even accurately estimate the military strength of an enemy.
That's because most of these ideas are simply small modifications to what GC2 does. Add more tiles, add different types of tiles, etc. It's not useful to discuss these ideas outside the context in which they were proposed.
And if they were proposed as part of a larger context, then that context needs to be defined. Not simply glossed over with a "make whatever other changes are necessary to make this work."
My ideas are usually much more radical: remove population and morale, combine espionage and influence into a single, unified system, etc.
-- Yes, if i confirm this decision by some reasonably strategic deduction (of my own, skillfully or even through foolishly emotional reaction) in a popup that states Yes/No.
-- It's pretty accurate already with the 75% influence trigger condition, does that make absolute sense to you in ANY context other than whatever supplemental ways for you to contradict me - again? Please no answer, i figure everyone reading is smart enough to at least grasp the essential logic behind a (or many) Victory condition pre-defined by the current ruleset.
Sooner or later, you are going to have to admit that MAYBE you are somehow wrong with your ideas ***IF*** someone or a majority of people here in this thread could prove it to you or be bothered enough to try explaining. I haven't seen any evidence yet that mines are better or worst than yours.
I think it may work, it's my opinion. Fine. Cope with it.
Yes, your ideas are generally about removing aspects of the game, rather than tweaking them. When you're done removing things, let us know what you have left.
Why can't we fix things that are broken, instead of getting rid of them?
I second that!
Ok Seriously I will post my blob sometime tommorrow after work... I MEAN IT!
Should the AI get a similar popup? If not, why not?
That's a specific victory condition, not an "he's going to win, so lets end the game". Having massive influence only wins the game because there's a rule that says if you have massive influence you win the game. It says precious little about your relative military or economic strength.
What I was talking about is you being in a dominant military/economic position, one that could spend 300-500 turns cleaning everyone up. But one that, with reasonably competent play, would clearly win, and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
In Chess, this happens when there is a sequence of events that directly leads to mate and there are no other alternative moves that can save you. The rules of Chess are simple enough that it makes determining this fact rather easy. The rules of a TBS game are complex enough that such determination is difficult if not impossible.
Because fixing them would simply be making a patch to GC2 instead of designing a proper sequel.
You can't add mechanics adnausium (and have a good game); at some point, you have to remove old stuff to make room for the new. And for a game as mechanically full and interdependent as GC2, increasing complexity in one domain requires decreasing complexity in another.
If you change a mechanic, that means you get rid of the old one. There are two ways to solve a thorny problem like PQ or rich-get-richer: either get rid of them entirely, which makes the game less interesting, or hash them out at a dev conference or on the forums until you get something that works.
First, I'm not aware that PQ is a problem.
Second, removing something does not mean that the game gets less interesting. How interesting the game is depends on the mechanics that it has, not the mechanics it might have had if something hadn't been removed.
When I say I want population removed, I mean exactly that: it goes away. Now there's a hole in the game; room for a city-based mechanic for producing money. What will that mechanic be? It's a two-step process, but the particulars of the second step don't need to be worked out before the first step is decided on. The reasons for removing population are because it is a bad mechanic, not necessarily because any particular replacement is better.
However, even if a game does not include something, that does not mean the "something" is bad. It just means it was not included. The game might be better with it than it currently is without it. As a general rule, there is an optimum amount of mechanics that a game should have to be interesting. If there are significantly more, the game is too hard and no one will want to play it. If there are too few, the game is boring, and no one will want to play it. This isn't a matter of making the game as complex as humanly possibe, OR as simple as possible, but a matter of finding the middle ground.
No, this is backwards. If you're going to replace something, you damn well better know what you're replacing it with first. Otherwise lazy and/or overworked devs will simply leave that hole in the game and ship it.
I read your post with your 17 or 19 "remove this" things. I don't remember seeing any (there may have been one) suggestions on what to replace them with.
Bad mechanics are bad mechanics, period. Games should not have bad mechanics, therefore saying that something should be removed does not require detailing what it replaces.
Um, so? If they're willing to ship a game in such a state, they wouldn't have made a good game to begin with. It's the game developer's responsibility to take an idea to fruition. Not people on a forum.
Are you sure you actually read my post? I just re-read it, and I don't see any request for removal that doesn't at least have a "add a mechanic that has an "add a mechanic that has X behavior" tag on it. Well, except for Diplomacy and Range, but those are just bad ideas. Especially diplomacy.
Also, please note the way I talk about "nebulous" mechanics like that. It isn't a request for "more" or a half-idea with a lot of holes in it. It's phrased as "whatever performs the following function." That's what matters for a mechanic: what it does for the game as a whole.
That's what I'm getting at when we're talking about stuff like "more tiles," "more types of buildings," etc. What does it actually cause the player to do? How should mechanics interact, and what kind of gameplay experience should it create?
"Replace it with something that doesn't suck" doesn't count.
Just out of curiosity, have you played Sins? It would seem to meet as many of your requests as any game is ever likely to do.
Two things:
1: I later posted an idea about combining influence and espionage. So there.
2: That still doesn't change the fact that you grossly mischaracterized my list.
I played the tutorial in the demo, but I never really understood how the game worked, so I didn't bother to buy it.
Well, I re-read it (again), and I'm still not impressed. Fully half of it is either "remove x and don't replace it" or "remove x and replace it with", and I quote, "something that doesn't suck", albeit not always in those words. In other words, you really have no idea what you want to replace a number of x's with.
I must have missed your post(s) about combining influence and espionage. I'll have to go back and have a look. I must admit that sounds interesting.
The demo for Sins is actually quite lenient; I would recommend redownloading it and playing around in a real game. It's true the tutorial is somewhat lacking. Theoretically you're limited to 90 minute games in the demo and you can only use the one small map, but since you can play as many games as you want, it's not that big of a deal. And being limited to the small map helps the learning curve somewhat.
It's worth noting that Sins has bombers and fighters, so not all of your requests were met, but I don't believe any game ever will meet all of your requests.
I have to agree with Sole here: you talk about removing things, but rarely provide any replacement ideas. The ideas you DO present sound workable & interesting, but you are definately a minimalist when it comes to mechanics. Me, Zyx, Sole, and apparently a lot of other people LIKE lots of mechanics. No game is going to please everyone, and sometimes you have to bow to the majority here.
The reason we are all in this forum is for the reason it was written: to give the devs an idea of what the players want to see in GC3, in the hope that they will use some of our ideas. If we want to do that as well as possible, and give the devs as much detail as possible to use in 3, then we have to continue under the assumption (however wrong it may actually be) that they WILL use our ideas. If not, there's really no point to this entire conversation.
Which half? The only ones I can see where I don't describe what the effect of the replacement system should be are:
6, 14, 18, 27, 30, and 32.
22 doesn't count, as it's a warning not to add these to the game.
Yes, but again, my premise is that things that are bad should be removed; that the decision to remove them should not have to wait for an adequate replacement to be designed. Also, I know what the replacement system should do. That I can't explain the mechanisms involved in creating that effect is fairly irrelevant.
That's because, in any actual game design process (which we are not a part of), the specific mechanics will change. What matters is what the mechanics should be trying to accomplish, not exactly how they go about doing it.
For example, Elemental's resource system has the goal of removing production time or lessening its importance as a factor for unit construction. Exactly how it goes about these things? Well, that's something that will be ironed out by the process of game development. There are several ways of going about it, and they one they're choosing is just one of them.
What matters to me is what the big, important decisions are. It doesn't matter exactly how you allow defensive ships to work in the game, whether it is a flat bonus to defense for ships in orbit, fleeting all orbiting ships, or something else entirely. What matters is whether the game should provide mechanics to do that or not.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
