Overall I like the idea, but if I want to bee-line for, say, planetary invasion to overrun my neighbor quickly, I have to research a bunch of arbitrary things that aren't part of my research goal, just to get to the next 'age' so I can research planetary invasion. I guess I feel like it takes some control away from the player when planning research goals.
Great question -- more of a tuning/optimization/strategy type question than one of overall mechanics but I'll take a swing at it.
We know that in Game A I started researching PI with 15,000 points already gained. While I'm at 100 points/turn at the end of that, let's say I was at an average of 85 points/turn for the most recent 5,000, 60 points/turn for the 5,000 before that, and the same 40 points per turn for the first 5,000. That works out to 125 turns + 83 turns + 58 turns = 266 turns + 10 more for PI = 276 turns and a fairly well developed, sustainable civilization.
In Game B I beelined for PI, at which point I was turning 30 point/turn and accumulated 2,500 points. Let's say the average points/turn was 15 over this time, so that's 166 turns plus 46 more for PI for a total of 212 turns and an anemic, unsustainable civ that probably needs another 50 turns just to build a troop ship.
Now, these numbers are all ENTIRELY made up and aren't based on modding experience or anything else. I could have chosen 1,500 instead of 2,500 in my Game B example and that could change things -- that's why I consider it a tuning question rather than a mechanical one.
This is the problem with multiplayer in general. The games all devolve into a race for military techs and conquest.
Requires playtesting, but I'd think a balanced civ can field an adequate defense force against PI and maintain it far longer than one that beelines and cobbles together an invasion fleet. I have noticed that planetary defense techs and improvements seem to come earlier in the tech tree in GC3 than in GC2.
Sherlock Holmes mode!
lets look at the facts:
With ages:
1. You can't bee line for weapons.
2. Makes the game looonger.
3. Its new so it must be good...right?
4. Encourages more strategy in strategy games. (that sounds really stupid when I say it out loud.)
5. Only 1-2 are real reasons and there really isn't anything this adds more than it takes away.
Without ages:
1. The game can play freely like before.
2. Some people might not like the irritating inconvenience of researching techs they don't want to research. Or waiting for a popup of a useless tech.
3. Not having to suffer from the minority of players trying to research harpoons and PI to fast and thinking they are galactic lords.
4. Number three is a lie to start. No one ever was able to play a purely military game with PI and weapons running around like Dread Lords ignoring everything that make this game strategic!
5. To loosely quote our founding father Benjamin Franklin "Any gaming community that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security in the tech tree will deserve neither and lose both.”
DARCA.
Via la revolucion!
1. To Which weapons do you refer. I can research each of the basic weapon systems in the first age and their first upgrade.
2. For military conquest victory this is true. Not sure about the other victory conditions.
3. I'm not seeing how this could be a fact. Rebuttal for the other side "It's old so it's been tried and tested and therefore always better." I wouldn't include this in the fact list from Sherlock Holmes method.
4. I guess this is a boon.
5. What does it take away from the game?
I think the age requirement was to help prevent cross dependencies on their tech trees. Because to do Planetary invasion, I really think that the ability to colonize is an important tech. Also some logistics would be important here as well. Not to mention some zero G construction to help build these large transport ships for military use. Some life-support would be nice to include on these ships as well. Should have the basics of diplomacy to demonstrate that these people should just surrender before you. By my count that would be roughly about half of the first age before you get to the planetary invasion.
1. The game plays more like we played in Gal Civ 2.
2. This can be said of any research tree requirement.
3. ... 4. I was able to play the first by bee-lining to PI and win the game rather quickly in Gal Civ 2. Play a tiny map for yourself. Larger maps this may be true, but tiny maps not so much. Thus, 4. itself would be saying that it wouldn't matter if the age requirement was there or not.
5. What liberty are we giving up? I still have the complete freedom to MOD the game to my liking. Removal of the moddability of the tech tree would yield to loss of freedom.
Conclusion... I don't support either side, but I would like to see some more deeper arguments against the ages at the moment. Otherwise I don't think the devs will change it.
I did the same thing in my first game of GC3. I found a precursor ship, noticed that the Drengen weren't armed yet, and flew over and kicked them in the spaceports. Kept them pinned down by destroying their ports as fast as they built them while I tried to get PI -- I couldn't. I had to go umpteen number of turns researching "other stuff" before I could actually secure the victory.
So nothing actually prevented the blitz strategy, it just took a lot longer to secure, over which time the enemy could do absolutely nothing (even if it researched better ships it couldn't build them without a stardock).
If I'd beelined to fighter tech I could have done the same thing with any close enemy that didn't make the same research choices. I haven't tried that over multiple iterations though.
If it bugs you, then mod it and see what happens. Should be a piece of cake, tech trees are just XML data, right? There'll be a tag on each tech which tells you which age it belongs to, just change all of them to the same one. Search and replace FTW.
Oh yeah, make sure to backup your tech trees before trying this at home.
Hehehe h/u/m/o/r man, remember your talking to DARCA.
no dev said we could modd this, so its troublesome when alot of people don't like it and see no way out.
Really, the end point I stick to is there isn't a reason to have this. What does this add vs the old way apart from the straw man argument of weapons pushing? Though I do know it takes away, freedom.
I applaud your Sovereignty in this matter Parrotmath.
I now dub you Parrotman! Can I please please please please please call you Parrotman! Jk*
you know MODDING is nice and I like it ALOT. But as testers we are supposed to help with the actual game. And alot of people have openly said they don't like it and others indifferent to it. So it sounds like a open and shut case to me.
Well, it's not like GC3 starts at the end of GC2 (at least in sandbox mode). In GC3 you're still starting your civ at the beginning of deep space travel, with basic hyperdrive and moving out into the stars for the first time.
The problem I have with this type of speculation is that we have NO idea what is being added or removed for features or functions. Unless it references an issue one of us is having (like a note earlier today that stated the Devs are making any AI moves instant that are covered by FoW), the information given to us on upcoming changes is non-existent.
We know that some things are changing, some removed completely or incorporated into another function/ability, but no indications of what, when, how, or why.
As an Investor (which is what this Founder's program really is, just with future Xpacs and DLC's instead of monetary return), I would expect a bit more transparency with the test group to know where to focus our efforts and what to ignore.
./endrant
Yeah, you can call me parrottman as I've been called that before
I know the modding thing is overboard for the most part, I was hoping to see deeper arguments to try and see the point one way vs. the other.
The rush in the beginning is supposedly being looked at, and diplomacy is being worked on and I would hope the enemy has the good sense to surrender when they have no hope of winning. The Tech ages has got to be something tested in multiplayer on a medium map to see if it really impedes the user. I've no doubt that this is a different feel to the tech tree and I've not had enough test runs of GalCiv 3 to determine if I like it or not. But at the moment, I can't say one way or the other for it, since I already do the average researching.
They really want all our feedback and they read most of the forum posts / if not all. They don't always reply here on the forums because I think they like to watch us argue with each other then they have arguments themselves that they never tell us about (with nerf guns) and then they make a change and we finally learn which side won the developers over I think this argument is still young and hasn't see a lot of arugments beyond "I don't like it because I can't do a particular strategy." Whether being able to do this strategy is good or bad is also up for debate.
I've not been swayed one way or the other at the moment. Is there anyone that feels strongly toward having the ages?
Im not strongly in favor of the ages themselves but feel that there should be some impediment to beelining for specific techs
i just imagine these cavemen sitting around a fire communicating in monosyllables and then picking up a disintigration rifle to defend themselves with complete understanding of the weapon.
bee-lining is a valid strategy and should be available to the player if they want. Remember, it comes at a cost. If you head straight for one certain tech, then you aren't advancing in any other area. It certainly isn't something that's overpowered and needs to be done away with.
...
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Anywho... I guess I might be swayed a bit better on this if there were some restriction on survey rewards being equal to the level of your current tech ability, or even along the lines of your current research path.
(Adding to that, being pounced by "lost" combat ships gets old fairly quickly, especially when you are still trying to reinvent the wheel. It might be better to change that back to a GC2 style +(insert ability/tech here) on the next upgrade of the discovering ship. But I digress...)
It feels like they are trying to implement some sort of armistice during the first "age" (as mentioned) to prevent Zerg attacks. But, as the DE start with weapons, and the a fore mentioned lost combat ships... what's the point?
As the game matures and they release more of the system, it will likely (we hope) balance out better than it is now.
The problem is that this is still a strategy, the route is just not as obvious anymore. You can beeline toward a tech, but part of the tech requirements are half of the particular ages tech is researched. I think it is a good way of not forcing cross tree tech requirements, otherwise, I think planetary invasion should require at minimum the colonization tech.
I've basically stayed out of this thread because I don't have any definitive opinion yet. It's too early for me to make a decision because the game is so incomplete, and I haven't played it long enough with the way it is to feel strongly one way or the other. Once we get into the Beta stage where most things are in and I have a few games under my belt with it then I'll feel more able to throw in my .02 on the matter. The jury is still out.
I think it is a good way of not forcing cross tree tech requirements, otherwise, I think planetary invasion should require at minimum the colonization tech.
Personally, I think that some technologies Should require some cross development to be researched. Example: Blocking higher "warp" speeds without corresponding life support AND gravitational control research (both of which could easily tie into various teraforming abilities).
But, as devil's advocate, which comes first? The chicken or the egg?
Obviously it can be modded out, but the point of these alpha discussions is to see what works and what doesn't work and what should be in the finished game.
I swear Parrotman says he impartial, but with so many people openly against it already he comes across as defending it! (super orgasmic enthusiasm laugh)
it might not be fair for us to move on before we know if the starports are still vulnerable...
Now who's obsessive?
ME!
I may appear to be defending it because in order to find a good argument you need somebody on the other field to battle. I tend to take an opposite viewpoint just to see if the opposition has a good argument. Maybe I was opposed to something and realize that I was mistaken, by taking the other viewpoint I learn from both sides and come to a better compromised solution. You'd be surprised how many times I support a side that I do not favor just to learn more. Currently I neither support nor dis-support that side, take it as in D&D neutral, given the balance of arguments I should be on the defending side
Cross tech requirements are nice, but given the current UI it becomes difficult to show the player the cross tree requirement. With the age requirement you are basically enforcing this without showing the arrows. The amount you have to research might be exactly the amount to unlock the other techs given the cross tree requirements.
And now with my reply being the fiftieth this is officially a hot topic thread!
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
