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.
Okay, so the game should be fundamentally changed because you and a few others can win the game in 50 turns if and only if, you choose to use sensor ships?What about the vast majority of players who do not gain the overwhelming advantage you describe from a 20 hex sensor buoy. What is your advice, practice, practice, practice?Sorry does not compute
Yes, a change should be made so that you can't easily win a game with 7 godlike AI on an immense map in 50 turns after only ever playing this game for a week. Is that a fundemental change? I wouldn't say so.
I'm glad you understand. Fixing the godlike AI so that they don't need map-hacks colony edge (while you are blind) to compete, or preventing turn 1 40hex sensor ships would be great.
Not the biggest concern in the world, but one that is simple enough to fix that it should warrant some attention soon.
If you don't understand that if 1 option out of 3 is 20 times as powerful as the other two, be it by buff or nerf, that the relative effect is the same, then typing to you is a waste of time. It is not an inversion, it is the same problem looked at using terminology you aren't biased towards. You could also look as if kinetic weapons did 500% of current damage, and beam and missiles did 110% of current damage, so that the hypothetical functions with the interactions of defense systems. The solution would be to nerf kinetic weapons a bunch, and beam and missile weapons a bit to bring them in line with defenses. Increases through buffs, or decreases through nerfs are both methods to the same goal of balancing an intricate system of interacting functions, and to differentiate between them from any basis other than balance doesn't make sense. The best I can guess is that you have some extreme irrational negative connotation towards the term "nerf", that you impose on discussion about balance changes. Regardless of the effects of sensor boats on viability of other opening options and breaking the AI for auto-wins, my point is towards your absolute statement about "nerfs in a single player game", which is a cheap nonsensical cop-out from an actual discussion.
Ok, I see. Address the obvious straw man, and still claim it's relevant, then ignore the rest of my post, where I ask for hard examples. Fine. I'll break down the straw man instead.
You want a real world application of your statement? Nuclear arms are 200000 times as powerful as an other singular weapon system on the planet, yet somehow we've been able to avoid using them for the last 70 years. Everyone wants one, but that's just to get a seat at the nuclear table. War is still as 'popular' as ever around the world though.
What you are describing in your paragraph is a lack of balancing. However the modules in the game are balanced when used reaistically. You and others have discovered an advantage to stacking modules in an unrealistic way. If you don't like the effect then by all means, don't use it.
But how do you think you have a right to affect my game, just because you don't have the ethics to not use what you consider a cheat? (And yes, when you say you can't help but use what you see as an explot, I see that as an ethical problem.)
Honestly, there's no "Right" answer here. This is a rules decision, and rules, by their nature, are arbitrary.
Remember, there are two main audiences for GC3:
1) the "causal" player; people who are going to spend 10-20 hours/month playing. They're not going to know advanced strategies, and they're going to play the "surface" of the game. Rules for them need to make sure that there's no major cheats easily available, and no super-powered strategies that always win AND are easily executed, because then they'll not play the game at all after figuring that out. So, they'll probably avoid the DLC/Expansion packs, since the game isn't as fun as they thought.
2) the "hard-core" player. Those of us (mainly on this board) who will easily spend 100 hours/month. We'll try all sorts of different strategies (including some brain-dead or low-probability ones), just to test out where the edges of the system are. Rules that constrain play for us tend to be bad, unless the behavior is truly game-breaking.
Sensor boats are something that really shouldn't be available for #1, because they're going to be playing on smaller maps (because they want to finish within a reasonable amount of time), and they severely reduce the challenge of the game.
For #2, it's more of just a majority opinion about the "brokenness" of sensor boats.
Personally, I'd go for a default rule that constrained sensor boats, to keep the default behavior OK for group #1. StarDock could add a "cheat code" to type in, which would enable some of the more "power player" abilities. Since I expect that there's going to be lots of these kinds of things.
That is, my opinion is that we should make the game default to being "fun" for the casual player, and then allow hard-core players to enable different rulesets via "cheat codes" - they're not really cheats, it's just altering the base behavior.
I like toggle options. The more the better IYAM.
I agree with your overall conclusion, but wouldn't modding serve the purpose for the solution you are suggesting? Most of the players in group 1 will never mod anything. Most of the players in the second group will know how to mod and will do so regardless of the outcome of the sensor issue.
I like toggle options. The more the better IYAM.I agree with your overall conclusion, but wouldn't modding serve the purpose for the solution you are suggesting? Most of the players in group 1 will never mod anything. Most of the players in the second group will know how to mod and will do so regardless of the outcome of the sensor issue.
The minority of people who thinks game designers shouldn't even attempt to balance single player games should mod cheap exploits in to their full content, then.
No need to mod pal, sensors are in the game and you are a minority.
Ok, I've read this whole thing.
So we have two camps:
One camp likes sensor boats because:
- The AI cheats with map vision; we should have similar options.
- On large maps a 40 range sensor boat doesn't reveal THAT much.
- Lategame I wanna watch my borders.
Did I forget anything?
Other camp:
- Early game, the value of 40ish vision is too great.
- It kills early game exploration, you know where to expand etc. "3X" was mentioned.
- Tiny maps: Can be fully explored in something like 10 turns. "Small" - a little longer. Etc.
- When a "best" strategy becomes apparent, it becomes the norm. Would hurt MP games.
Can we come to a compromise here?
How about early game, we are limited to something that maybe has 10 range max. But lategame, when you research it and put a lot of effort into it, you could have 200 range, no problem. Or more.
If not, I haven't seen a lot of actual arguments why a turn 2 range 40 sensor boat is OK, that weren't arguments from passion. Can someone list them?
Do the naysayers not like the strategic element that FoW provides?
I'm sorry but I'm 100% sure the majority of player want a well balanced game. The majority of players play on smaller maps and there turn one sensor boats are severely broken, thus unbalanced.
Yes there is... it is called diminishing return on the sensors. It still allow for decent range on sensors but not cracy strong sensors. They will still be sort of broken on the two smallest maps but still better than the current state.
With a diminishing return you might get 10-15 range in a turn one sensor ship and a late one might be 100 range instead of 200-300 range. That are probably what we are fighting about...
Yes there is... it is called diminishing return on the sensors. It still allow for decent range on sensors but not cracy strong sensors. They will still be sort of broken on the two smallest maps but still better than the current state. With a diminishing return you might get 10-15 range in a turn one sensor ship and a late one might be 100 range instead of 200-300 range. That are probably what we are fighting about...
Yeah I saw that. But no one ever addressed that solution. It was conveniently ignored while we were fighting.
I'm ok with that solution. It's not like putting 5 Hubble telescopes on your spacecraft would allow you too see 5 times as far anyway.
I would be willing to bet that I am more amenable to reasonable compromise than the power players that are pushing for the nerf.
First of all, the largest sensor buoy I have built (I have never rushed built) was 22 hexes I think at about T10. It certainly was nowhere near 40. If a 20-24 limit was acceptable I would agree to it, but I don't speak for others. I suspect the dissenters will still think that is broken and some of the sensor proponents might not be willing to surrender what they already have..
The main point for leaving the game alone is that the sensors, as is, allow an option to build them or not while nerfing them removes an option, and imposes the preference of a few power players on what I believe is the majority of average players.
I ask this question, would the dissenters agree to a toggle option for power sensors? If the answer is yes, then why can't they just choose not to design and build them without a toggle? The sensor boat is not a core ship, so it is not there taunting them to build it.
In the end it is going to be up to Stardock to leave it like it is or change it. They have been disinclined to change it, but there is some support for scaling sensors among the devs. So far the right dev has not been convinced.
If they are even aware of the dispute they may be giggling at the exchange and focusing on higher priorities. That is what I would be doing, and more or less what I am doing.
First of all I hate min-max and power play... I have only done it to see how broken it really is. Otherwise I play with very heavy restriction on my play, no fun otherwise. Since I rarely get to more than mid game or late mid game the best sensor I have ever done so far is about 15 hexes. This is in my real games, not the ones I just played to test the limits.
So I'm far from a power player... I heavily role-play all my decisions in the game so I don't always make the best choice, I make the choice I feel should have been made in that situation given my factions ideology choices and overall character.
I just dislike to be forced to gimp my play-stile and use a complete set of rules than the game allows me to use. GalCiv must be one of very few games that are this unbalanced with its core mechanics.
The 'average' player we assume will have his fun diminished if we leave them in?
I am a GOOD player and I have been playing since early Alpha. I just started using Sensor ships. Its not a big deal. I do not find them making the game any less fun.
I seriously doubt that leaving the sensor boats in is going to diminish another players fun. I also doubt they are even aware you can do it. Again who cares? It is not hurting you, or anyone else on this board that someone might get the idea to STACK Sensors and say HEY I can see the WHOLE map..wow! I better tell the devs.
Its a single player game first, which means leave it in and let the player make the choice to stack modules (Engines, Life support, Sensors, Weapons, Defenses). Why would you want to impinge on another persons game?
Weapons? Sure lets take a look at that. The Developers are going to make another pass at balancing the weapons. Those do require review. There are 3 items and all three should be somewhat balanced so each is viable to a player.
Sensors, Life support, Engines, all of these are SUPPOSED to stack so a player can get creative and design ships with odd combos.
Why there is such a debate here on such a trivial thing is pretty funny. In the end they are likely to get 'diminishing' returns but even then someone will complain.
Yeah I saw that. But no one ever addressed that solution. It was conveniently ignored while we were fighting. I'm ok with that solution. It's not like putting 5 Hubble telescopes on your spacecraft would allow you too see 5 times as far anyway.
I had to chime in here. Your exact example while technically valid is not really true. We have recently discovered that linking LOTS Of telescopes let us see farther, the VLA (Very large Array) is a great example. Also if you did have 5 Hubble scopes you would see farther and in better detail as you would be collecting 5x the light and getting FAR better resolution.
How can we even compare a primitive thing like the VLA with sensors in GalCiv. The VLA look at light that has traveled for thousands or even billion of years. That has nothing to do with GalCiv sensors in any way. That is like comparing using a binocular with an airborne advanced radar system, more or less.
deketed
Still the concept of stacking light viewers to see farther applies. The VLA is still state of the art technology and that farm is still growing! The more radio scopes they add the farther out and more area they can 'see'.
How is this example not a good reason to leave the sensor stacking as is?
An issue with MP can be solved by house rule, or a hard MP-only option if sensor boat rules are unenforceable (I assume they are)
Possible solution: Give AI the ability to hack into/mess up your sensors, making your sensors see the wrong things in the right spot/the right things in the wrong spot...
And also galaxy conditions - asteroids, extreme planets etc etc - affect sensor power/accuracy.
The range of effect is a certain number of hexes from the conditions/AI/Other player (if MP).
This allows those of us who want to the ability to build sensorships for Africa, but also makes you aware that you may well have to send a ship to that far away planet anyhow just to make sure it really is a 22. As to how the game would show planets that are definite versus planets that your sensor might be seeing in error, some graphical shimmer or something would work.
Too complicated? Is this making sensors worthless by stealth (ie nerfing them in a round about way)?
That argument is getting you nowhere mate.
Lets say there was a way to get a power 50 laser in turn 2. Would that affect the game? Of course it would. In a positive way? Nope
Lets say I was a proponent of the strategy that got a power 50 laser in turn 2. I could spout the same nonsense that "removing it would be removing my choice", and thus it should stay in, because it allows an option.
Should a power 50 laser be possible at turn 2? Of course not, that would be imbalanced, just as a range 40 sensor is.
It is too valuable that early in the game.
As I have pointed out elsewhere we are currently cataloging every comet and asteroid in our solar system and we already know more about the nearby stars and their planets than we are allowed to know on turn one in GCIII. It is definitely a losing argument to suggest that we should not have amazing capabilities in a scifi game that takes place 200 years from now.
I think that we all should agree that realism is not the issue.
Just one comment on self restriction in the game. If I am playing on a smaller map, up to and including large, I would damn sure not build a 20+ sensor buoy and I would not even be tempted to do so.
On the big maps I have been playing I absolutely do not see the early 20-25 hex boats as game breaking unless you are "min/maxing" as y'all like to refer to it. Since I do not consider that an acceptable/reasonable way to play the game. I refuse to consider it an acceptable argument against stacking sensors.
Yeah I'm aware, maybe not the best analogy, but I'm betting it wouldn't be exactly 5 times as good. I'm all for the diminishing returns suggestion.
That argument is getting you nowhere mate.Lets say there was a way to get a power 50 laser in turn 2. Would that affect the game? Of course it would. In a positive way? NopeLets say I was a proponent of the strategy that got a power 50 laser in turn 2. I could spout the same nonsense that "removing it would be removing my choice", and thus it should stay in, because it allows an option.Should a power 50 laser be possible at turn 2? Of course not, that would be imbalanced, just as a range 40 sensor is. It is too valuable that early in the game.
Yes, it's impossible to reason with a fanatic.
Power 50 laser?
Is a power 27 laser ok?
if you want to stack ridiculousness, you can get anything overpowered. Stop shooting the sensor messenger and stop using exploitative tactics.
-Edit-
You can actually stack that ship to 33 laser, but it's too expensive to rush then.
Ahum... Game Balance?
Completely broken on smaller maps, where most players play their games and completely ruin the exploration part of the early game on the largest map. Late game sensor boats get ridiculous ranges, even on Immense map standard.
This has nothing to do with real world physics and I would love to see any telescope that could see a star ship move "more or less" in real time (FTL) tracking. There are just no way to apply any semblance of logic to this.
The fact that we can't see stars and planets at the start of the game are simply a game balance decision and has nothing to do with real world physics... we can't even see the brightness of the stars... what does that tell you?
The "You can ignore it" comment is just getting old and is completely invalid in any game. Players don't make up the rules, the game does... period!!
If you use all the tools available to you the game is broken on all maps, this is not just sensors... it adds up quickly.
Why would this be in any way overpowered. Exactly what do you gain out if it that is OP given its price tag and usefulness?
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
