I'm surprised I have yet to see the best argument against cargo ship sensors. Multiplayer. When I thought about it I wonder if each ship should be limited to one sensor module. Then SB sensors would be far more useful as a bonus.
What does everyone think.
You see, I personally consider multiplayer to be the worst possible reason to make changes to a game, if you lack any other reason for the changes. You know why? Because I have no interest in it. As long as the single player game is fun, I don't see "but it's imbalanced in multiplyer" as a reasonable sole justification for making changes. Multiplayer balance can be a part of the justification for a change, but it's never a justification that has anything remotely approaching the greatest importance to me.
Also, "multiplayer" is not a real argument against sensor ships. "Removes most risk from early exploration" is a real argument against sensor ships. "Sensor ships give players who use them a significant advantage over those who don't" is a real argument against sensor ship (which, incidentally, applies to both single player and multiplayer, under the assumption that the computer players are affected by the fog of war). Come up with a justification for the change, don't just say "multiplayer." Especially since I have a suspicion that the majority of players will either never play multiplayer or, if they do play multiplayer, will not play it much in comparison to how much they play single player.
That said, I agree that shipboard sensors probably need to be changed. I don't think I'd go all the way down to a one-per-ship model, but I could go for a cap on the maximum sensor range bonus from each type of sensor.
This was talked about in today's dev stream. While a cap is unlikely, diminishing returns on stacking sensor parts is likely.
But why is Multiplayer an argument? Anyone can build them - it's not hard to build - thus nobody gets an unfair advantage.
I just feel that you shouldn't be able to load any ship with sensors and reveal the whole map... Now I've used it before and found it almost cheating myself, to me it should stack by loosing a certain percentage as they stack based on a log scale for instance 1248163264 Let's say the first gives you 6.4 view, second would only add 3.2 the next only adds 1.6 next 0.8 next 0.4 and so on... that way they do stack but you loose value on it...
I have no problem with it and like to use them as is.
But most people don't wanna cheat themselves out of a more meaningful experience. Sensor stacks are a cheap gimmick.
Might as well turn off fog of war.
Then.... Don't build them?
And as for "most people", unless I see a scientific survey on this I will treat the claim as dubious at best.
Then.... Don't build them? And as for "most people", unless I see a scientific survey on this I will treat the claim as dubious at best.
"Then don't build them" has never been a good argument in any game ever.
Deliberately giving yourself a handicap because of a silly game mechanic? Who would do that.
Imagine devs releasing a completely unbalanced game, and the forum response to unbalanced tactics would be: "Well then don't do that".
It would be an easy job being a dev.
Anyway, the devs just need to put their foot down on this. If they like ships with 50 sensor range - which ruins maps of a certain size ("Well then don't play those maps lul"), then they are free to do so. However, let the rest of us mod it out, and fast.
There was a really interesting reply to my video about a few 'exploits' in the game, here is what he said and suggested:
(From 'Dare Daemon')
The issue with the sensor range is easily fixed once you look at what's going on. All parts provide a linear upgrade that stacks, sensor range is no exception to it. The thing is that the stat the player cares about isn't really sensor range, it's the derived value of sensor area, ie: the amount of stuff we can see. Which means that adding sensors gives a quadratic instead of linear boost to the value players care about. The simple fix then would be to have parts provide sensor power instead of sensor range, adjust the values on the parts so a single sensor part will still have roughly the same impact after this change, and then use make the sensor range the square root of sensor power. The base vision range appears to be two hexes, so the base sensor power should be 4. A sensor that currently adds 3 hexes of vision range would then be (2+3)^2-4=21 sensor power. This results in 2 of those sensors sensors giving you 6.78 sensor range, 3 giving you 8.19 sensor range, 4 giving you 9.38 sensor range and 5 giving you 10.44 sensor range. Assuming normal rounding rules, that means using only those sensors, you have a progression of 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 hexes as you pile on more sensors. At this stage the current model gives you 17 hexes of sensor range.
Seems like a very solid and logical solution to me.
Yeah that would be the intelligent solution.
Then most people should not build them. Easy Peasy, Japonesy
what others do in a single player game does not affect you.
Lowering the sensor range robs me of a more meaningful experience. I like cheap gimmicks
Then most people should not build them. Easy Peasy, Japonesywhat others do in a single player game does not affect you.Lowering the sensor range robs me of a more meaningful experience. I like cheap gimmicks
How original
It's not even "cheap gimmicks" I like, it's the early game ability of being able to see more than two friggin squares away from my ships. I wouldn't mind a "reasonable" restriction (GC II's of 12[?]) on the maximum distance. But being able to see five or seven squares away on early ships is a strategic choice. I sacrifice engine speed and life support range to add sensors.
The idea that it is in fact "free" and "cheap" doesn't hold water, IMO. In fact, even the stationary "survey boats" are still a strategic choice. Do I put engines on them to get them somewhere faster? Do I put armaments and defenses on them so pirates or other factions won't blow them up? Do I stack defenders with them, but not send those defenders elsewhere? Do I build those instead of building constructors or battle ships? What takes priority and when?
Can it be exploited? Sure. So can 50 bazillion other things. But make no mistake, it IS a strategic choice. And one that isn't always the right one.
The problem with strategies in computer games: When one is obviously superior to all others, then it becomes the norm - the thing you MUST do. (Yes I'm a min/max'er - who isn't these days)
As Arumba reposted:
I've highlighted the problem.
The problem is, that with very little effort (just a few clicks), you know where all the good resources are, where all the planets are, where the pirates are, and where your AI neighbours are. The value of this information is so immense, much more than paying for a quick sensor ship, which, granted, is pretty expensive from an early game standpoint.
So it invalidates exploration, it invalidates pirates, it invalidates being ambushed by the AI (they did that in GC2, not sure they can do that yet in GC3) and it invalidates having sensors on all other ships (which makes them cheaper).
By the time you have taken all the resources you can see in your vast sensor range, you will have an even better sensor ship, with good range, etc.
Overpowered? Yeah I kinda think so. Especially in MP as the OP mentioned.
Ps. Has anyone stopped to think why there even was a hardcap in GC2?
My only argument against sensor boats in current form is why then do we even have FOW?
That's why I'm all for stacking with limited returns for sensors.
Anyways there is always going to be arguments on this and no matter what the outcome, there are always going to be people that don't like it.
The devs have spoken on this numerous times. There are no plans to change sensors.
Of course you are free to mod them out. Whoever said you weren't. If they change their minds and nerf them I will damn sure mod them back in.
You deliberately resist using easy console cheats every time you play. What's the difference in resisting the siren song of sensor boats? It is not like they are in the build queue to tempt you. You have to design them for god sake. Just don't!!
You know, I don't even use the damned things that much, but this ridiculous, "If I can't have them neither can you", attitude just irritates the shit out of me.
There has been some discussion on this topic as well between Paul, Brad and Adam, in fact it was even questioned to Mr. Paxton yesterday. It seems like that same argument is going on in house on to do something, if they are going to do something then what and why?
Either way the topic is not dead and is very much alive.
Of course they could always change their minds and some already want it changed. The mind that needs to be changed is Brad's, who has seemed more inclined to leave it alone since it is a player option anyway.
But why is it only sensor boats are some people want to get hit with the neft stick right now? Why not complain about Infinity-move ships? After all, it is trivial to be able to get ships that can move 20 or 30 tiles and still be able to mess people up real good.
Is there going to be a call to nerf that next?
And what about life support? Again, it is trivial to be able to design ships that can travel all across the map. Why design starbases if one can just stack up the life support? Why not just get rid of range altogether? Well, I guess those should be hit with a nerf stick too.
In fact, why should ships be able to stack so much defense (or offense) that they can never be touched by early opponents? Again, one can bee line relatively early to create ships that can't be touched by pirates or other opponents who aren't keeping up on the tech race. Especially on lower difficulty settings.
These are ALL strategic choices. All are exploitable to one degree or another. Yet I don't see people clamoring to nerf engines (though I'm sure they are out there). I don't see (many) people clamoring to nerf life support. And I certainly don't see people clamoring to nerf Death Ships.
Yet for some reason the sensor boats are the topic du jour. Beats me why, as there are just as many other things presently in the game that operate the same way.
It's all about choice.
Besides, say we nerf sensor boats. All that's gonna do is get people to spam out mini-sensor boats in response. Which can lead to complaints about tedious micromanagement.
In a way, nerfing sensor boats will lead to MORE problems.
Why? Because the brake on the sensor boat is.... cost. That is, I just can't crank out sensor boats from any ol' starbase. I need a relatively up to speed one if I want to crank them out. But if some sort of limit is put on them, I'm much more likely to just crank out a huge amount of tiny hulled ships with one or two sensors on them. And those would be able to be built even by the rawest of of starbases.
Don't believe me? Well, take a look at this screenshot of one of my GC II games (in tactical mode):
See all those dots ALL OVER THE MAP? Those are my tiny hulled sensor boats that I had scattered around the map. I made sure I got the "Eyes of the Universe" GA before anyone else could (free 12 range sensors on all ships). Then I cranked out tiny hull ships EVERYWHERE and dotted the map so I could see everything everywhere. Now there is no EotU in GC III. Yet. So it would be a little more expensive to do the above. But not nearly as much as people think. Getting a 10 tile sensor tiny hulled ship with absolutely nothing else on it would take around, what, 46 manufacturing points? Less depending on techs?
You'd better believe that if sensor boats get nerfed to any great degree I am going back to spamming out low cost tiny hulled ships.
So, really, it comes down to: Few Long Range Sensors or Spamming Out Low Cost Sensors. Depending on how much one hates micromanagment and spamming, it's six of one, half dozen of another. The only place it really hurts is actual honest to goodness exploration ships. Which, if one recalls, are the ones which are SUPPOSED to be able to see far.
Figures.
BuckGodot, so I took the time to read that entire thing, but it seems like you didn't read mine, as I addressed some of this stuff in my previous post.
I guess I can make a TLDR here:
TLDR;
At turn two, you can have a sensor boat out, that shows you: Planets, AI, Pirates and resources, in a wide radius.
The value of the information is immense; much more than the cost of the sensor boat. GC3 wallhack basically.
Lategame: Who cares what goes on there. Anything goes.
Woops, double post.
Turn 2, turn 10? What's the difference? If I am forced to put out four sensor ships in eight turns, that's not really that big of a brake. Especially if I have faster move as a racial trait.
----
Now I did make the mistake of not factoring in map size. Tiny maps have an initial survey range of 2 for their initial tech, while the main tech I am thinking of will have a range of four.
Great wonderful. Even with a cap, I can still crank out enough ships easily enough to see enough of the map very very early on a tiny or small map. Not turn 2 early, but early enough to still make it more than worth my while.
And IF the complaint here is that this makes Tiny/Small maps 'too easy', well I am going to flip the words of Frogboy on its head when he was addressing complaints about the Large Empire Penalty and very large map sizes: Different maps will play differently. If that is true of the LEP on large maps, then the same is true when it comes to the FoW on small ones.
Basically I am highlighting why 'nerfing' the so-called sensor boat thing isn't quite as cut-an-dried as some think it is.
I am with Buckgodot on this. Two things.
Regarding Iluanas argument. Brad has stated that no part of the game will be modified to 'balance' multi-player in any way, period. As it should be. While some things should be tweaked for multi-player, I do not feel this is one of them.
We are talking about a single player game. I personally like the idea of Sensor boats moreso on Insane maps where you need them!
+2 cents
-double posted apologies-
I was a little worried about this until I saw the the AI running around with the sensor ships I designed. Now I figure all is fair. Also, those sensor ships are super fragile and cost you 1/2 your initial credits, so its not like it is a choice without risk or opportunity cost.
My main argument still is present then why have FOW?
That's why I'm for sensor boats but, just make the sensor module have smaller returns the more you put on.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
