As the game is theoretically leaving beta soon, its probably the last chance to address any core issues with the game (its maybe past time but no time like the present)
When I say core, I don't mean bugs, and I don't mean balance issues. For example, I think influence is too strong on small maps right now. That's a balance issue, easily addressed with some number tweaks.
Core issues to me are areas where the game is "going in the wrong direction". The gameplay itself is something we don't like.
So with that in mind, I encourage people to post their feelings on core issues. Here are mine:
1) Ideology System. Right now the core of ideology is stemmed on expansion, which is simply a bad way to balance things. It scales horribly with map size and number of planets, and forces players into wide styles to take advantage of it. I feel that the ideology system needs to change into something the player has more direct control over without expansion.
2) Constructor Spam. There is a very good thread on this topic already, but to reiterate. Constructor Spam is a problem, and honestly not a UI one imo. I think that requiring a player to spend a good portion of their micro time and energy building and tending to constructors is simply not fun. The shipyard system was a great direction to reduce micromangement of ship building, and I feel similar treatment should occur for constructors.
Starbases are one of my favorite parts about the GalCiv series, yet constructor spam is one of my most hated parts.
3) Combat System.
Gal Civ's RPS system is fine by me. But a lot has been added, range, weapon speed, tactical speed, evasion. Endless Space had similar mechanics, and ultimately fell apart imo for 2 reasons:
a) It was terribly obscure to the player. There were so many numbers, and very little info on exactly what they did.
b ) The illusion of choice. For all the choices you were offered, in reality the differences were so minor (or some choices so bad) that there were actually very few choices in the game.
I feel like Gal Civ 3 is going in the same direction with its combat system currently. That could be because of the lack of concrete combat details, but the UI doesn't help me currently (I have a 16 missile ship vs a 8 kinetic with 40% tactical speed bonus...except I didn't know about the speed bonus).
Let me provide an example to illustrate the point. So I can add a tactical speed bonus to me ship. Gets me in quicker, lets me evade better. Great. But...how much does that speed really help me? Would it have been better just to put on another weapon module? Is the evasion that good, worth giving up a defense module? OR...is it so good I will always get the boost instead of weapons and defense?
Balancing this many pieces can be difficult, and ultimately is it worth the added complexity? Is the combat system really that much richer for having these options...or is this the illusion of choice concealed by difficult to understand mechanics?
4) Tech Tree. A big portion of the tech tree can be summed up as: Make numbers better.
That is fine and good for a portion of the tree, most 4x players like seeing the big numbers. But I don't think there is enough that spices up the gameplay. Starbase range +2 changes the gameplay, carriers change gameplay, support modules change gameplay. I think there needs to be more of these types of techs, and less of the +X to Y techs.
Quick start crashes when used.
2. Ideologies tier 5is not enough. Have they fixed where can't switch between. When are they actually use way of thought like survival of the fittest, help those in need . Rationale thinking, enviroment being the most important, everything has a purpose.
Piggy backing on your comments on the combat system, I feel the numbers surrounding planet improvements are also too obscure to make me feel like I'm making a good choice. A good wiki article could solve this for me, but it is very intimidating when you only have a basic understanding of the mechanics. Whatever more can be done with tool tips to simplify my decision making process would be amazing.
I want to see the result of my placement, before I place it. Tell me that if I place that factory there, it will boost the planet's net manufacture by 2.3 (for example). I don't want to feel like I need to pull out a calculator to get the best efficiency.
Or am I just dumb?
The game itself to me plays very close to GC II and that for me is a good thing. Addressing your concerns...
1). The ideology system has been reworked to a good event. You are correct in that the points you get are primarily driven by expansion. What we need are more 'ideological choices' that are not triggered simply by colonization. They are adding more via exploration of anomalies and galactic events. Overall I feel some tweaking with the system addressing map sizes is valid but over all I like it the way it is (points and how acquired).
2). Constructor spam is inherent in the game and always has been. They put in some tools to help you 'cue up' constructors or request them. I dont have a problem with the spam some much as keeping track of who goes where and such. What would help is a full size page of management tools, say the same kind of map that you get for trade routes but one that shows mining and galactic resources tied to bases and how much each output it is. Core-wise this mechanic is fine for launch but tools like I am asking for might be a DLC (since you can play without it) at a later date.
3). I currently have always enjoyed the combat system. It just got so much better on pacth .83 as well. Further tweaking and adjusting combat values will continue to make it that much better. One thing that amazes me is people comparing GC II with our current game. Remember that GC II had 2 MAJOR expansions fixing bugs and improving combat. I feel the combat is fine right now and ready for launch. I would like better 'viewer' options. The free cam is hard to use and if chosen should have a default snap to your fleet so you can adjust it from there.
4). Tech tree. This comes down to personal preference. Many here like the small incremental and there are many vocal ones who want 'more bang for my tech bucks'. As long as I am more effective than the next guy with my new disrupters I am fine. They recently nerfed defenses to make combat go 'faster'. Personally I like higher values which cause combat to take longer. We have a x10 speed let that be used. I want to see epic battles which we have a bit slower so I can appreciate the effort the Dev team did with those models and particle!
I feel the game is ready for release. I see so much negative on Steam and I realized its from a generation that feels entitled. They want everything now and flawless and for free. It simply amazes me, but that is another issue entirely.
Has nothing to do with generational entitlement. I'm so sick of hearing that crap. People are jerks, especially on the internet, no matter when they were born. In my experience, there are just as many entitled 45-60 year olds as there are 15-35 year olds or whatever else.
"In my day we had to walk 30 miles through the snow just to have the privilege of having a CTD!"
All this post is to me is a lot of complaining over minor issues, nothing that's going to have a huge impact on the game. One main reason I would look at something as complaining versus feedback or an issue, is if there is any suggestions on what could improve or make it better. So with that being said how would you improve all your points?
I agree with everything Larsenex said except the "entitlement" part, just because "entitled" is a red flag word/concept that derails perfectly good conversations.
1. I think that the present system is sound. It needs what was promised, which is alternate sources of Ideology points. I also think it needs more than just balancing on the whole switch Ideology mechanic. Possibly it should affect diplomacy and Trade more, since I believe in having the different subsystems interact as much as possible. I don't want to force the player into just one tree, but you should be judged by your majority decisions somehow, in a way that is perceptible.
2. I love constructors. I guess we have to agree to disagree from there. It really confuses me that you love starbases but not constructors. I want to ask "Are you serious?", but I am certain that you are.
3. Here, I see a major lack of explanatory documentation. Since the balancing is on-going and that makes all the numbers moving targets, I don't blame them for not having that smoothly done yet. From what I can see, they need to expand their tooltip hover system so that everything explains itself as much as feasible.
If it turns out that its too much for tooltips, they are going to have to figure out what does fit and then put the rest somewhere convenient for the real min-max players, especially when it involves combat. I don't see the system as flawed as much as my understanding of it. But there seem to be enough factors that the battles look organic, and that is a very good start.
4. I am of two minds on unique techs. Flavor ones that add bonuses and such are fine by me and I do not understand why people denigrate them as uninspired. I can use the specialization choices to inspire a lot about my race and its directions in history. Then it gets mixed in with what I trade for with other races. How can I not appreciate such richness of history and preparations for domination? I want more of this tying mechanics together.
Actual unique techs are something that the tech trees need more of, but I do not want them to dominate the tech tree systems. I have enough troubles figuring out what gets hidden where under what pseudo-science name. I expect to lose some of that battle to more popular tastes in tech, but I can speak up for my side. I like how they set up the pick your own tree in custom races. That can accommodate a lot of tastes in this area.
I was thinking about it as what I found broken or badly missing. I think Diplomacy seems to be the biggest gap. The basic elements are there, but it needs much more options and sophistication. I expect it to evolve as the AI evolves and I expect that to continue long after release. There is no substitute for patience on that progress.
The part I hesitate to mention is the Invasion Viewer. I would have to put that as a feature that is not ready for release.
1) Ideology System.For me, the ideology branches are too small, they need more levels per branch (ex: 10 levels instead of 5 levels).And the traits are always the same, this will quickly become repetitive after a few games.I made a suggestion to make the traits random for each game, so the player can have a different experience with each game and not chooses the same traits almost always in the same way.2) Constructor Spam.There is a lot of threads about constructors/starbases problem. It means something is wrong the way it work currently.The developers should look at this.3) Combat System.I still have not really tried the combat system.But yes, it should be clear to the player the way it work.4) Tech Tree.The tech trees are too similar for me, there should be plenty of specific technologies for each race.And yes, the steps are too small + 5%, + 5%, + 5%, I should prefer larger gaps + 100%, + 100%, + 100%, with longer time to research the techs, and different techs that really change in a significant way the game play.Per example, the steps between different levels of weapon techs are much better in GalCiv3 than in GalCiv2 (the steps are greater).*I add:The improvements are also too similar for me (many civilizations have the same improvements), each civilizations should have different improvements.*Some weirdness in the tech trees.Per example, % bonuses used for Move, Ship Range and Sensor Range systems.These systems are all based on hexes."Move 1" = 1 hex displacement."Ship Range 20" = 20 hexes max range displacement."Sensor Range 4" = 4 hexes range visibility.10% for 1 move will be 1.1, rounded down to 1,10% for 9 move will be 9.9, rounded down to 9, etc.This tech is useless before the ship has at least a speed of 10 moves.*The user interface.For me, the user interface is currently below average.And I find it sometimes too cumbersome to use with the current tooltip system.
I like this idea, good suggestion, I still think it would be nice to choose several more than once at increased cost that may become too costly to really make it a choice.
Instead of just saying it's broken or somethings wrong with it, how would you improve it? If you are unable to think of anything better than, that's most likely why the dev's have it this way to this point.
@Seilore
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
