temple_dan temple_dan

Worried after Podcast

▼

Worried after Podcast

from GalCiv3 Forums

So I just listened to the podcast.  I liked the enthusiasm of Paul, but grew concerned at the focus of most of the interview being on the interviewers complaining about how difficult it was to understand the slider interface and how great it would be if there were advisors like in Civilization.  I remember reading a lot of reviews on GalCiv 2 and I can't remember a single complaint about the interface.  Could it be improved?  Sure - but there is always diminishing gains to be had here - and I worry when resources are being spent on chasing demographics that aren't likely to be interested in the game in the first place.  I'm not trying to be snarky here - but if someone is having difficulty understanding the concept of the slider system on spending then they are probably not a demographic you should be trying to entice in the first place.  Personally - I hate RTS games - but even I agree it would be foolish for a company to neglect or "Streamline" or "Make more Approachable" the core mechanics in an attempt to woo me over.  Don't bother - keep your fan base happy by doing what it was that made them love the previous games and improve what they didn't like.  When it comes to Gal Civ 2 the only thing I hear people sort of meh on was the Combat and the Tech Tree.

As for what should be improved on - why I would say it is the politics.  The only thing I agreed with in the entire interview (When I wasn't gritting my teeth about the slider and advisor suggestions) was when they defined GalCiv 2 as primarily an economic and political simulation.  Absolutely!  So expand the richness of these areas.  Build a whole host of gameplay mechanics that encourages factions to interact or plot against each other.

The two most brilliant mechanics in GalCiv 2 IMHO were

1)  The enormous power of trade to increase over time - now I can't afford to let Power X gobble up my trade partner

2)  The ability to sell ships to factions.  Such a simple thing and yet it opens up such glorious possibilities.  I have propped up entire nations by selling/giving them hardware and got the thrill of seeing said hardware stop invasions cold.  Giving a lump sum of cash is not the same thing.  I have no idea if this helps - but when I see ships that I sold driving out the invaders ... ahhh ... I feel like a real PARTICIPANT in this glorious space opera.   I have also fostered terrible wars and sold arms to both sides.  I was disappointed to see this mechanic absent in both Civ 5 and Fallen Enchantress for Gal Civ 3.  Please, PLEASE do not get rid of this mechanic.  Some may complain it is exploitable but it gives such rich interactions and allows me to always participate in various proxy wars rather than the very tired strategy of turtling up until I reach God Tech.  And if it IS an exploit (rather than just ruthless politics) then crank up the difficulty.  These things that make me feel like a PARTICIPANT in this dynamic story is what is gold - slightly better interfaces, advisors or bling on my space ships - not so much.

Please expand on these types of participatory mechanics.  Other ideas

Galactic Council interactions much like Civ's latest expansion.

Different kinds of Trade agreements - Maybe I will help you in a war if you sign agreement where you profit little to none but I profit like a bandit.

Unmarked ships - Allow me to raid and attack but if destroyed there is a chance your meddling will be found out and your reputation take a hit

Perhaps your reputation will take a hit the more friendly your status is with someone before declaring war on them.  Perhaps you need to actively work to change your status as sort of a light casus belli system

Space Terrain with real strategic factors

When I demand something let me also do it in a way "Or There will be War".  They can call my bluff and I can not go to war, but at the cost of my reputation across the universe.

62,926 views 38 replies
Reply #26 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting WIllythemailboy, reply 23


Quoting michaelwhittaker, reply 22
Oh yeah this was miner, but I noticed things like when I made something like a research facility I didn't get the research or manufacturing points it promised. I assumed that this was called becaise the civilization screen worked of divying up whatever. Maybe I'm not clearly explaining this. All I'm saying is how come I never got all the points for stuff I built when I built it. This was minorly irritating that I could never get what exactly I built. Can someone comment on this to explain this.

That is exactly what I posted about. If your civilization was set up to run at 1% military, 39% social, 60% research (my most common starting configuration), your research buildings ran at 60% capacity. Your factories ran at 39% capacity when building structures and 40% when building ships (because unused social production was rolled into shipbuilding, but without any bonuses to ship building your empire might have).


Quoting Frogboy, reply 21
Unlike GalCiv II, players will be able to control individual colonies much more precisely (IF THEY WANT).  

Oh please God tell me this means I might be able to set planetary spending completely independently, and the empire spending balance simply shows the aggregate of what all my planets are doing. Let people grab and drag the pointer thing on the empire page if they want to move their empire as a whole, which would adjust individual planets to reflect how the pointer was moved. I doubt I'd use it much, but it would be a great beginner-level way to adjust your empire.
End of WIllythemailboy's quote

 

This is true.  It always bothered me that the total spending seemed to be redundant.  If we got rid of that total spending slider I could set research to 100%, and Manufacturing to 100%.  Then if I needed to make a cut I could cut just research or just manufacturing depending on my need at that time.

After all there is a maximum spending you can use built into the research stations.  They cap at say 4 billion upkeep and 4 research points.  If I have 4 of them then 100% is 16 billion and 16 research (for 16 more BC total 32 BC upkeep)  I don't know why the simpler more straightforward system wasn't used in the first place. Especially since it gives better control. <_<  

 

Anyway, :frogboy: 's quote makes me happy.

Reply #27 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting temple_dan, reply 25
Great - happy to hear that the core elements of what IMHO made GalCivs great will be maintained.  I guess the spamming of (IMO) inane complaints from the interviewers really grated on my nerves and made me worry that the focus was shifting to make the game more casual . 
End of temple_dan's quote

Space Game Junkies is one of the podcasts I normally listen to. If you listen to the previous episode they pretty much announced they weren't fans of the other games GalCiv games as well. They also did an episode where they pretty much are tired of the 4x genre as a whole.

They did bring up a few good questions on the other hand. Even their thoughts on making the game easier I agree with. While I love the challenge, GalCiv2 can be difficult for a new player to fully get the grasp of. And frustrating a new player can make them feel betrayed by the developer.

They actually didn't mention too much on making the game casual. They focused more on easing the player into the experience. The GalCiv2 Dread Lords campaign is frustrating, even the first mission. Considering most people look at the campaign as the tutorial, it's generally a good idea that at least for the beginning part it works like such. 

DeskScapes - Bring your desktop background to life.
Reply #28 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

If your wondering what happened to Michael Whittaker he died and was replaced with a clone named Willy Wilber, and he now is a admiral of the galactic armada.

Are you asking for an easy setting on the game with an easy interface. I never had a problem using the interface even in the beginning. Granted I didn't know everything off the bat. I learned everything I needed to know, and gradually learned some of the unneeded elements of the interface. I always thought the interface was simple and straightforward. I guess on the easy level you could use an easier interface; maybe not having all the function of the normal interface, and yes this is spawned because of the above comment.

Reply #29 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting admiralWillyWilber, reply 28

If your wondering what happened to Michael Whittaker he died and was replaced with a clone named Willy Wilber, and he now is a admiral of the galactic armada.

Are you asking for an easy setting on the game with an easy interface. I never had a problem using the interface even in the beginning. Granted I didn't know everything off the bat. I learned everything I needed to know, and gradually learned some of the unneeded elements of the interface. I always thought the interface was simple and straightforward. I guess on the easy level you could use an easier interface; maybe not having all the function of the normal interface, and yes this is spawned because of the above comment.
End of admiralWillyWilber's quote

The interface is deceptively easy.  For example, if you are new and just researched advanced extreme world colonization (it doesn't matter which) your economy might suddenly tank.  Advanced players would recognize that the increased production on a lot of worlds all at once might hit the account, but a novice will have no idea what hit them. The podcast player had that same issue, he researched a new improvement (science was it?) and his economy tanked. (I suspect he had too many farms as well.) He was blind sided.  After he went broke his popularity went down and he tried to fix that by lowering taxes.  Except that running a deficit lowers popularity as well.  Down he went.

His logic wasn't that bad, he just didn't know enough about the game to spot the problem.  And here is the important part, there is not a difficulty setting in the game that would have told him what he did wrong.  There is not an adviser. There is not an in game civilopedia.   He was done in by hidden game mechanics that he had no chance of spotting beforehand without reading a lot first.

That was his point. And I think it was a good one.

Reply #30 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

I like the idea of advisors.

There could be something that explains that when you hit the economic wall it's not a bad thing in the turorial. That would have helped me in the beginning. It was kind of hard to manage an empire without an understanding that you are garanteed to go broke, A heads up warning on that is kind of nice. I forgot that did cause me a lot of problems until someone told me that was supposed to happen. Its all right.

Maybe a tutorial on what to research would be nice. This is a good path. Shoot for sensors. Then go for planetary improvements. Then economics. Also if you find anything on flat rate military production it is almost essential to pick up. When your cash is down around $1000 if you haven't done it by now you should research morale techs. Also trade with the Thalans for morale techs as soon as possible. I guess a tutorial or advisor that tells you this would be nice.

I probably could've used a tutorial that explains wjy I need to pay attention to my approval both in the civilization screen and on the planets would be nice. watch my building with spending and expenses.

Sometimes I forget the small stuff. I guess that would be a nice addition to the tutorial. We also could have advisors. Your right it could be explained a little better, and please give us a link to a descent first and advanced player tactical manual. I guess I should apolagise for forgetting. So you think nonething of my new name.

Reply #31 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting admiralWillyWilber, reply 30
So you think nonething of my new name.
End of admiralWillyWilber's quote

I like it. 

Reply #32 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

I found the pod cast difficult to understand at times. It almost seemed like the host was asking the guest about morale in GalCiv 2, but then the guest answered with how things will be in GalCiv 3. Similar stuff with other questions. At least, I assume one was talking GalCiv 3 otherwise the guest is out to lunch as to how GalCiv 2 plays. Probably confused the host in the process. The guest practically needed a GalCiv 2 veteran to keep his facts strait. I'm not exactly motivated at this time spend another hour to listen to the pod cast once more to double check what I heard though.

Anyways, I heard something in the podcast about population growing beyond food supply and that making people unhappy. Anyone hear that too? Do we really need more problems with population?

Reply #33 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting DivineWrath, reply 32

I found the pod cast difficult to understand at times. It almost seemed like the host was asking the guest about morale in GalCiv 2, but then the guest answered with how things will be in GalCiv 3. Similar stuff with other questions. At least, I assume one was talking GalCiv 3 otherwise the guest is out to lunch as to how GalCiv 2 plays. Probably confused the host in the process. The guest practically needed a GalCiv 2 veteran to keep his facts strait. I'm not exactly motivated at this time spend another hour to listen to the pod cast once more to double check what I heard though.

Anyways, I heard something in the podcast about population growing beyond food supply and that making people unhappy. Anyone hear that too? Do we really need more problems with population?
End of DivineWrath's quote

I heard that too, but that was talking about GC2.  Specifically, the host was talking about his last try at GC2 and hoped they would do something to clue in people in GC3. As we know in GC2 the population doesn't grow beyond food supply they were just out to lunch with their understanding.

The host was a newb and like most newbs didn't know what was relevant. (ironically making his point in the first place.) I suspect the guy had too many farms per planet.  The SD guy, who's name escapes me at the moment, didn't remember how it worked in GC2 for certain and even said in the podcast that he didn't want to go into detail in case he remembered wrong.

Reply #34 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

+1 for sliders, Cliff Harris proved you can make great games using only sliders and flow charts.

Reply #35 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting lecek, reply 29


The interface is deceptively easy.  For example, if you are new and just researched advanced extreme world colonization (it doesn't matter which) your economy might suddenly tank.  Advanced players would recognize that the increased production on a lot of worlds all at once might hit the account, but a novice will have no idea what hit them. The podcast player had that same issue, he researched a new improvement (science was it?) and his economy tanked. (I suspect he had too many farms as well.) He was blind sided.  After he went broke his popularity went down and he tried to fix that by lowering taxes.  Except that running a deficit lowers popularity as well.  Down he went.

His logic wasn't that bad, he just didn't know enough about the game to spot the problem.  And here is the important part, there is not a difficulty setting in the game that would have told him what he did wrong.  There is not an adviser. There is not an in game civilopedia.   He was done in by hidden game mechanics that he had no chance of spotting beforehand without reading a lot first.

That was his point. And I think it was a good one.
End of lecek's quote

Yeah, I agree with that. The new UI in the founders vault is a pretty big improvement that way. If your economy suddenly tanks, that screen will show the negative value, and you move the thing in the triangle up towards wealth until it turns positive. Done.

Reply #36 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting temple_dan, reply 25

Great - happy to hear that the core elements of what IMHO made GalCivs great will be maintained.  I guess the spamming of (IMO) inane complaints from the interviewers really grated on my nerves and made me worry that the focus was shifting to make the game more casual <shudder>. 
End of temple_dan's quote

 

I think your fears are perfectly rational. What I suspect you don't want to happen is for SD to 'Civ 5' GC3. I played (and modded) the Civ series I-IV to death. I still play and mod GC2. I played 1 full game of Civ 5. Just one. There's a lesson in there somewhere and I think it echoes much of the above.

That said, I can't think of better hands than SD's in which to have a game series and I was greatly comforted by the phrase "I want GC3 to be what GC2 would have been if it were made now."

Reply #37 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Holy necrobump Batman!

Reply #38 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

oops