Alpha Feedback - Building and Research

Well you could look ahead in the tech tree too see what lies ahead. Having your hand held to closely by adivsors mean you don't have to do the thinking and decision making yourself which is what stratergy gaming is all about to do that you do need to be able to see what tech leads to what and see ahead but GC2 supported that and GC3 will as well.

I too have had similar experiences with buildings and such matters. It would be very helpful to have intelligent advisors that ask you your preffered goals early in the game and adapt to your choices and advise you accordingly as the game progresses. Something a little more personal and 'alive'than the civ5 advisors. 

Perhaps each world could have a named leader that consults you each turn. For his/her planet. 

I think that might be a little hard to manage when you have 100 planets in youe empire, making for very long turns.

While I'm not necassarily against a tutorial mode with advisors not least so you get to see members of your own race, it seem like rather a case of making a game that plays itself with minimal input from the player if taken to the sort of levels you suggest; can't see why that would be fun. For me planning my tech stratergy is actually part of the game rather than an inconvenience I'd rather have the AI take care of.

You might haven't exactly understood what I meant. I don't want anyone holding my hand I just would like to have additional ways to look at the tech and building trees. It would be great for example if I could choose strategic ideas like "I want to become a Starbase guru", or "Expansionist", or "Starship Mogul", and so on from a list (you could as well say tell them an advisor) and would in return see the technologies that are relevant for these strategic targets.

That's an interesting idea, I still think it distracts from the core gameplay e.g. working out how to become a Starbase guru for example, I can work that out for myself by looking at the tech tree. Yes it's non-trivial and involves some strategic thinking on what to research when but isn't that part of what a 4x stratergy game is all about.

If you take that away they might as well abandon tech trees and have; Starbase Guru 1, Starbase Guru 2, ..., Starbase Guru n; Expansionist 1, Exansionest 2 instead, do you get my drift?

Normally when a game like this comes out people will develop all sorts of different stratergy guides, etc. By having the game lay all the stratergies out for you I think it takes away from the fun of working it out yourself. It also limits the variety os tech strategies people try, or at least that those who want such precision advisors try to those Stardock thought of in advance.

I understand there is a trend to wanting games to play themselves today, but I think this is a step too far and actually makes for a less fun game.

I can't see how this would take anything away, or distract from the core gameplay, or would create a game that plays itself. It would just make it easier to filter and read the tech tree, help decrypt it and instead of distracting, it would let the player concentrate more on the core gameplay that by my mind happens on the the strategic map and not in the tech tree. The tech tree is a nice feature to let players diverse but should not stand in the way but currently that is exactly what it does and always did at least for the players that do not have hundreds of hours of gameplay under their belt. You still would have to balance things out and a good custom fit tech strategy that the player by himself created would still be best, it would just be easier for him to find the techs he needs to create this very own custom fit strategy.

I think we just have to agree to differ on this one too me it is part of the core gameplay to you it's a distraction from the core gameplay. For me teching up has always been one of the key things I enjoy about 4x stratergy games rather than an incidental.

Ultimatley as long as it was switched off by default I wouldn't care if the game had such technology advisors, but I wouldn't like to see it divert too many resources from what I see as more worthwhile features that I would use.

But that's just my opinion, wonder what everyone else thinks.

Why wouldn't you be able to like you say do the "teching up" thing when there were advisiors available? I don't see your point there. I said from the beginning on that I would want something like an "additional" way to look at the tech trees not a replacement. If this were advisors or just an additional filterable view doesn't matter much.

However, you do not have to agree, that is fine for me. I just would have loved to hear some solid arguments though!

What you are talking about is not another view of the tech tree though it's a built in tech stratergy guide essentially, my argument is simple working these things out for yourself is a key part of the game and to not have to do this just removes part of the fun and skill involved in playing the game.

Ultimatley of course players produce such stratergy guides over time that deal with tech as well as other elements and post them online finding and debating such stratergies is a great deal of fun. For my anything that reduces these aspects of the game reduces the fun.

I've now issue with being able to apply filters to the text view to help spot various things but ploting your path up the tech tree should really be left to the player.

I never said anything about automatically plotting a research course nor would I like to have it!

This sounds like getting a course pretty much  laid out for you also not all techs are that obvious a tech that improves how quickly you can build starships might for example be thought of as more valuable or less valuable to a "Starship Mogul" than a new drive or weapon tech.

I have to agree with econundrum1 here. I understand what you're asking for but I don't think the developers will be inclined to do it for the stated reasons, i.e., might take too much away from the individualized strategies that people come up with and this is a strategy game after all and they wouldn't want to tie you down to one particular path based on your generalized outline of being a "starbase guru", imho.

I would like to be able to filter the tech tree for relevant techs for specific targets, that's it!

When you say that this would take anything away I think you are either not understanding what I am asking for or you are just greatly exaggerating. Whatever it is, I do not get where your fear is coming from.

But be it as it may, I think I made my point clear and at the end the devs will decide what suggestions they will pick up and in which way they maybe implement it.

Totally understand.

What it will do is guide you you toward a goal thus limiting your choices based on how they would decide to implement it. As it is right now there is more than one road to the same goal, some are more direct than others. Doing as you want would "force" the developers to make certain choices for you based on what they think is the priority.

Fear? Please... There's no exaggeration here either. I think it's you who don't understand what we're trying to say here. We obviously just see how the game mechanics work quite differently. And don't get me wrong, I could be wrong in my perception of how the game mechanics work here, too. I'm saying there is more than just one route or way to go from point A to point B. Doing as you want would make the developers choose only one way to go from point A to point B thus limiting your choices/strategy.

Yes, you made your point and it is quite clear what you're asking for. The developers will do what they want that is in line with their vision of the game. Sorry opinions different to yours seem to upset you so.

That greatly depends on how it would be implemented. For example, the "filtered" view could show me the complete tech tree as always but all relevant techs for X would be highlighted and the less important they are for X the darker the highlight is. Now it is as always up to the player to choose his right and for him balanced path through the tech tree.

This is in no way limiting. Do not fear the new and trust a little more in the ability that the developers can implement it the right way so that it will not limit but enhance the possibilities for a lot of players and therefore in the end will make for example for better multiplayer games and also for a more joyful single player experience for less experienced players. And don't forget the game is in alpha so now is the time to try some things out and discuss them and fine tune them with the help of the players here in the forums.

Ok people are just being elitists here.  All he's asking for are some tools to help learn the game.  Think of it like learning a game with a friend helping you out, there's nothing wrong with that.  Civ5 advisers never detracted anything from the game.  They are a tool to help you learn, you can listen to them or not.  You can ignore them completely.  How in anyway does that detract from anyone's game play experience?

For a new player looking at a crazy daunting tech tree plus a list of planetary improvements, advisers are a really good option to help them learn without being overwhelmed.  Once you've become comfortable with the options available you can formulate your own ideas which may suit your strategy better then the advisers, but to start with it's a good tool.

There doesn't need to be an option for you to choose a strategy at the start.  Just give multiple advisers for each general direction, much like civ has done.  One for diplomacy/influence, military, economy, etc. 

Not only would this be a great tool for beginners to help them over the hump of learning a 4x game, but it would also be a way to get some personality and life in. 

For me this is some of the charm when playing a strategy game for the first time. You can't expect to do all tech choices, or other choices, perfectly compared to your playstyle from day 1. Too many pop-ups and helping screens can clutter up the interface too you know. But in time you learn and suddenly a day the AI isn't so hard to beat anymore. That is the sad day, not your first day when you are a rookie.

NB! Your taste of games is excellent, my dear Thread Starter. My 3 top favorite series of all times seems to be yours as well. My compliments for Your taste of quality.

(PS :  this and 2 below posts, became threaded into one and reedited, for consistency, is one post basically).

 Sup folks! 

 Something been always missing for me in Gal Civ 1,2 and now its starting to look it will be missing again in 3 as well. I'm not really sure how to put it, lol, but homeworld of any given side, left something to be desired. Its just me or would more people want for Homeworlds to be somehow unique from all other worlds u get to expand into? Maybe some kind of unique infrastructure, each race has, on their homeworld at start of the game? Something to reflect that, this world is unique, its a home, that was built over hundreds or thousands of years. Maybe some of that infrastructure, can not be replaced if it was destroyed or lost, to underline the uniqueness of each homeworld? Or maybe a special tile set up, that would be a different layer from all other colonizable worlds, there u don't really build anything, but sort of improve via maybe a unique skill tree for each homeworld, already present infrastructure ?   

  Why not reflect the "degradation" of some homeworlds or maybe even the larger game world, via tiles ? What do i mean ? Say, some people believe there is a global warming or some none sense like that, that they claim it "kills" our planet. Why dont we reflect this? More industry buildings you build, the more "degraded" the tiles become, getting an "environmental" debuff on planetary tiles for each factory. This will give more flavor, and force player and AI to be more careful which planets they make into factory worlds.... and pollute them. Some others, they build in a balanced way to avoid high penalties, and maybe a "green' world here and there. On the "Green" worlds, players build only population, happiness and other "environmentally" friendly structure. Each tile improvement is adding to a bonus per tile on the world. With high enough bonus achieved on planet lvl, an extra tile opens up. Alternatively, if a high enough debuff occurs, tile "closes". 

^ to add to the idea, it can even be a larger game mechanic. Say every planet by definition can have a maximum of 25 tiles. But all races at turn one, start with a maximum amount of tiles they can use at turn 1, around 5-8 (depending on race and bonuses) From here on, while skill tree can unlock maybe some tiles, its a buff-debuff game. Depending on how a player builds his/her civilization he/she will have the amount of available tiles appropriate. Say Terrans have 8 planets, and they been doing that we humans always like to do, pollute everything, and build lots of war factories (+ a bunch of opulent and vain monuments in celebration of our ignorance, ha). This empire has a lot of production, but is limited to around 15 tiles per world because of all that industry. Then they dissapear, and Torians arrive, and capture those same 8 planets. Now they strike me as hippies, so lets say they plant gardens and population buildings and so on, and have less industry overall [Or they have a clean and a very expansive + inefficient industry, or other measure of perks, more in next post, lol] . However, because of lower debuff, those same 8 planets can now support 20 tiles instead of Terran 15. Now those hippies, may suddently feel a little bit more human, or lets make them morph into Drengi, (haha that would be particularly Yor thing to do... be4 they kill those mutant Drengi-Torian meat bags anyway). They completely rebuilt their green civ, into hvy industry war machine, and so they can build a lot of ships now, but have around 10 tiles to work with and a smaller population. Basically, this allows for each player to decide how many tiles will become available to them on any given world. This is defined by their individual play styles ( + a flat bonus of a few tiles, which can be opened via research regardless of environmental toll).                 

^ Oh and, because each race has its own unique skill tree, or some part of it, there can be different kinds of industry in the game. Cheaper but more polluted, and more expansive but also more clean ([Relevant to last paragraph] Pairs example : Clean + Inefficient + Cheap. Dirty + Efficient + Expansive. Inefficient + Dirty + Cheap. Clean + Efficient + Expansive. Dirty + Inefficient + Expansive. Clean + Efficient + Cheap. Clean + Inefficient + Expansive). This will make different civilizations even more different in their approach to colonization, from each other. Who stopping those [ civ name here ] from buying out some of that tech from friendly races.... with money or bullets, to use for them selves?  or maybe even combine those for different kinds of worlds and industry ? Can get alot of fun from here on.

    Currently if you research something, say "Laser", u get 3 smaller research options to improve that one tech. Nice. But why stop there? Add 18 more! in pairs of 3, each pair of 3 exclusive of the other 3 out of total of 21 perks. Say u research a Xeno factory. Now u have 21 choices how to make that one tech work : 1) clean 2) efficient 3) high tech 4) chemical 5) electronic and so forth. Once u research those 3 perks, that one tech becomes unique. This way playing as same race 7 different games, u will have 7 different ways to build 1 Xeno Factory, making it more clean but maybe less efficient or the other extreme of very efficient and not very clean, and some 5 pairs of 3 * (or flat total of 15X3) options in between. After Xeno factory there is another tech, Xeno factory2. Now because of the choices u made in tech Xeno factory 1, some of the most opposite choices for Xeno factory2 tech, are no longer available. Endless replay ability right there. In thus way, even two or tree Terran civs on same map, will "evolve" differently with different tech, maybe even tradable modules/improvements (such as different way to assemble a human laser or Xeno factory), versions of same one unique racial skill tree, and that is on top of different tech trees of different civs. Racial tech tree it self, with this mechanic does not have to be very long in base tree/GalCiv3 base game. Perks are. However, each expansion can add to that tree meaningful content, enlarging the tree and perks. The tile problem of people wanting more or less tiles per planet seems solved as well, since each player will get the amount of tiles depending on his/her game play, it becomes the issue of balancing tech tree perks and those of buffs/debuffs on tiles them selves.

(Oh and btw, Drengi are not all that evil.... they are honest about wanting to eat you. Humans on the other hand, smile and tell of their undying friendship.... then really all they want to do with you... is eat you haha. Drengi are inferior at being evil. Maybe humans should be inclined towards malevolent at start and not neutral ?! Then we humans, where ever neutral about anything, then there was a clear choice to do something evil instead? ) Anyway, Cheers.