GalCiv3 Forums
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.
I brought this up myself a few weeks ago (with other things) but im going to talk about it again here because so far in my experience, people just don't play ridiculously long games like I do. to the point of max tech and every planet claimed on an immense map. scary things happen with max tech, but first lets start at the beginning.
Firstly Ive noticed in several games of which I purposely set up teams (3v3v3) that the AI doesn't use fog of war at all. constructors go off solo into unexplored space to magically find clusters of 3+ resources. combat ships with 2 sensor range follow my ships in circles when I have them circling at 10 hexs. since I have my sensor probe ships I can see all this... but why does the AI do that? simply put... the AI isn't that good, it needs that advantage of no FOW to even attempt to keep up with you and that's fine. coding an AI isn't easy and slipping in extra perks for it to make things harder is a simple way to improve.
Which of course leads to my argument on the issue, having both the AI and the player able to see the whole map (yes on immense map) is crippling to the AI.
http://puu.sh/hTkGe/d824eaa089.jpg (can look at the mini map to see no FOW)
http://puu.sh/hTkRo/90afaf9ef4.jpg (931 sensor range on that ship, I don't know how big the immense map is, but it apparently isn't 931 lol )
if you can see all the resources early you can send ships out to take them fast (you can see my huge amount of relics in the screen) which boosts your tech/industry/income/morale to levels far above that of the AI, allowing you to outgun, outmaneuver, and outlast them in any war.
multiplayer is in the same boat, whoever gets their vision first just has that much of an advantage over the other players. the effect in multiplayer is less in that other players know to destroy your vision and starbases, but the advantages vision gives you is still quite large.
I do like arumba's solution, maybe not so harsh a decline at the start. getting around 20 range should be easy (at least on immense maps) but going past like 30 should be absorbingly expensive.
Another Idea I had was sensor jamming. The ideology perk of -25% sensor range -25% range while in ZOC tells me the coding already exists and could be implemented in a module. depending on tech level having the module would jam sensor range at a flat % and each added module would increase the AOE. falloff should be similar to sensors if implemented. that would make entering your territory a legitimate risk for enemies as they have no idea what they will encounter, which makes a hell of a lot of sense. I shouldn't know what I will encounter when I go parading in enemy territory lol
probably something like... 5 tech levels: 25% 35% 45% 55% 65%, that would put a pragmatic with max tech at 90% sensor range jamming when enemies enter your zoc if you have a jamming ship. unfortunately this wont effect the AI much....at all.
You won't have scouted that much by turn 10, without a sensor boat.
And the difference is, that in the early game, every turn counts. Again, I repeat myself: By turn 2 you have completely invalidated the early game mechanic that is exploration - scouting for colonizable planets etc.
Why? Why would the devs allow for this part of the game being skipped in this fashion? I don't understand.
And I'm tired of arguing. We have different opinions, obviously.
I don't like sensor boats. I'll build em anyway, because I have to.
I am too stingy with my BC to rush build a sensor boat. I wait until I have a couple of factories and I can build one in 8-9 turns. In a recent game I did so and it was picked off by pirates within the next 10-15 turns 
This is another good point. If the AI can take advantage of this as well, then it becomes "equally broken". And one of the things that Lead Designer Paul Boyer has said on occasion is that he doesn't mind if thigs are 'broken' if everyone can take advantage of them equally.
If the AI isn't crippled by this, then what's the real concern?
----
As for this is an "obvious" choice, I personally disagree. Maybe it's because I run on large(r) maps, but I tend to rush a couple of proto-survey ships my first few turns. They have more move, life support, and, yes, scanning capabilities than what I already have. But they are designed to explore my immediate area and then be turned into full fledged survey ships once I get Interstellar Survey (which is almost always within my first ten techs or so). Then I crank out a few Cargo Survey Ships among my Colony Ships and whatever else I am building at the time. Not so much for revealing of the map, which is nice, but to suck up all of the anomalies I can find. I find the bennies I get from the "goody huts" FAR outperform whatever advantage I might get from building a pure Sensor Boat right away.
In fact, I tend to wait till turn 70 or 80 now before making sensor boats, since my Cargo Survey Ships are are already doing the mapping job for me AND getting those precious precious anomalies before anyone else. Really if anything in this game needs nerfing, it's anomalies .
Maybe I'd do it differently on a Tiny or Small map. But on Medium and above, you'd better believe I am building my actual fleet of exploration ships before I build ONE pure "sensor boat".
In fact, I build order goes something like this:
(Proto) Survey Ships/Colony ships
Colony ships/Constructors
Constructors/Initial Military ships (if needed)
Colony/Constructors
Colony/Survey Ships
Constructors, constructors, and more constructors
Then and only then do I start to think about sending out any "Survey boats". And that's usually so I know what is going on in "my" space before I even use them to see what's going on elsewhere.
If they also fix sensors on stations to actually be useful you would not need to spam tiny hull sensor ships. If stations could get really powerful sensors then ships would only be needed to see in far away places. This would make the game more fun and more strategic with more choices to make.
Engines is as bad as sensors but life support is fine. If you want to waste space to be able to take ships around half the galaxy that is fine by me. Engines do get very silly and can be exploited in ways that simply break any AI competition.
The research argument is a bad one, that can be fixed by a better AI handling their economy and by plugging the exploits in micromanaging worlds. I know the devs think it is a good idea you can swing a planets focus from one end of the spectrum to the other on a dime, but it only function as a catalyst for exploitation which the AI can never keep up with. These are mechanics that could easily be changed and also would reduce micromanagement over all.
The upside with tapering most of the exploits in the game is that it would be much easier to build a competitive AI which would benefit all players. The only way to challenge yourself now is to play by your own house rules and avoid the worst exploits, things the AI is not able to cope with. I really don't get why one should even need to do that. I also don't see how one can feel satisfied if one beat the AI by essentially exploit obvious weaknesses in game mechanics. If you sit down and abuse them all you have practically won the game after 10-30 turns, the rest of the game are just cleaning up. You might as well just leave an "I want to win now" button in the upper screen.
Seems like a very solid and logical solution to me.
This would be the perfect solution for me. Not so game breaking, and makes perfect logical sense.
I don't use sensor boats BUT I did use a tiny hull design it as a starbase and load it up with sensors and send them out and dot them along my borders with other races as listening posts so I knew when and where someone was invading my territory in GC2.
All I can say is - A lot of people will be upset if the devs get rid of them.
This is another good point. If the AI can take advantage of this as well, then it becomes "equally broken". And one of the things that Lead Designer Paul Boyer has said on occasion is that he doesn't mind if thigs are 'broken' if everyone can take advantage of them equally.
If the AI isn't crippled by this, then what's the real concern?
----
As for this is an "obvious" choice, I personally disagree. Maybe it's because I run on large(r) maps, but I tend to rush a couple of proto-survey ships my first few turns. They have more move, life support, and, yes, scanning capabilities than what I already have. But they are designed to explore my immediate area and then be turned into full fledged survey ships once I get Interstellar Survey (which is almost always within my first ten techs or so). Then I crank out a few Cargo Survey Ships among my Colony Ships and whatever else I am building at the time. Not so much for revealing of the map, which is nice, but to suck up all of the anomalies I can find. I find the bennies I get from the "goody huts" FAR outperform whatever advantage I might get from building a pure Sensor Boat right away.
In fact, I tend to wait till turn 70 or 80 now before making sensor boats, since my Cargo Survey Ships are are already doing the mapping job for me AND getting those precious precious anomalies before anyone else. Really if anything in this game needs nerfing, it's anomalies .
Maybe I'd do it differently on a Tiny or Small map. But on Medium and above, you'd better believe I am building my actual fleet of exploration ships before I build ONE pure "sensor boat".
In fact, I build order goes something like this:
(Proto) Survey Ships/Colony ships
Colony ships/Constructors
Constructors/Initial Military ships (if needed)
Colony/Constructors
Colony/Survey Ships
Constructors, constructors, and more constructors
Then and only then do I start to think about sending out any "Survey boats". And that's usually so I know what is going on in "my" space before I even use them to see what's going on elsewhere.
Then I think you play it wrong for a power gamer, the game is pretty much over at turn 30 when I power game. The starting sensor ship helps me collect "goody Huts" from turn one... my first tech is Interstellar Travell and getting some source of Thulim and building one or two new survey ships is quite easy. This give me more money than the initial survey ship cost in no time and the extra research is invaluable since I can concentrate much more on industry and pump out colony ship.
By turn 30 my power rating over that closest AI are often between 3 to 5 times if not more... it depends on the habitable planets around my starting position.
By turn 30 I might have several worlds that pump out colony and constructors every turn, my research are perhaps ten times the closest AI. Money is no issue since my main revenue is my survey ships, but market world is easy to get by this point.
The only competition at this point is to give the AI extreme bonuses... but then the game just become an accounting contest against a drugged AI...
Don't get me started on abusing custom races, this is even worse if you add that on top of everything else.
My main point is... why include these pointless options in an otherwise very good game?
Way more than the relatively few ( zealots ) who campaign against them.
I have never claimed to be a power gamer. Just the opposite in fact. 
However, I find I can kick the snot out of the AI on "Normal". No big feat, obviously, and I would never claim otherwise. Next game I play I will move on to Challenging and upwards until I hit my limit.
Still, in my current I/A/A/A game, I am on Turn 91, and my ratings are:
Me: 319
Closest competitor: 73
Closest competitor 2: 69
Closest competitor 3: 68
Closest competitor 4: 67
Everyone else: 60 and under.
This game is in fact won. I am simply playing it through to refine my tactics before moving on to Challenging and above. Well, that and I enjoy the actual gameplay.:)
Way more than the relatively few ( zealots ) who campaign against them.
I doubt most people want the game to remain broken. 
How about Stardock fix the sensors, and those who want a broken game can mod in all the OP gimmicks they want?
How about we wait and see what Stardock wants to do and let the leftover power gamers mod the game the way they want it.
I have never claimed to be a power gamer. Just the opposite in fact. However, I find I can kick the snot out of the AI on "Normal". No big feat, obviously, and I would never claim otherwise. Next game I play I will move on to Challenging and upwards until I hit my limit.
Still, in my current I/A/A/A game, I am on Turn 91, and my ratings are:
Me: 319
Closest competitor: 73
Closest competitor 2: 69
Closest competitor 3: 68
Closest competitor 4: 67
Everyone else: 60 and under.
This game is in fact won. I am simply playing it through to refine my tactics before moving on to Challenging and above. Well, that and I enjoy the actual gameplay.
It is pretty normal for me to be about 50-100% above normal AI after about 50 turns when I follow these house rules...
* Only use the Empire Govern page to govern the focus of worlds (except my home world).
* Max 50% focus in any area (Manufacturing, Research, Wealth) while not at war.
* Max 70% focus in any area (Manufacturing, Research, Wealth) while at war.
* Minimum 20% focus in any area (Manufacturing, Research, Wealth) while not at war.
* Minimum 15% focus in any area (Manufacturing, Research, Wealth) while at war.
* Max 30% focus in Military Manufacturing while not at war.
* Max 70% focus in Military Manufacturing while at war.
* Max three economic star bases on any one planet.
* No exploitation of weaknesses in ship combat mechanics allowed.
* Max one sensor on tiny, small and cargo hulls and two on the rest plus a survey module.
* Max one engine on any ship hull.
* Disable tech trading.
(might have forgotten some rule though...)
My current game on Gifted difficulty using the above rules actually produced a decently challenging game, one which I enjoy. Insane map with 24 AI opponents. I have also modded the map generation files so most habitable planets are of lower class so the race for the good ones is always hard.
But why do I need to enforce these rather harsh house rules to get a real challenge?
There's always the: "If the game is too easy, play on a higher difficulty setting", point as well.
I mean, if we're into the One Liner/Fit On A Bumper Sticker stage of the argument and all.
=====
NOTE: The one-liners and [implied] casual insults are the main reason I had until this point sat this discussion out - I had thought this was going to be a slightly different discussion when seeing the thread title. Should have known this was a bump of a weeks old one though
Really, different people play differently and find different challenges in the game. Is this so bad? And MUST we resort to the "Why Don't You Just Press the I WIN Button"/"Why Don't You Just Intentionally Cripple Yourself If You Find Things Too Easy" strawmen (to take the extremes of both sides)?
It makes discussion so very very boring.
Power gaming is pointless as is raising the level much above Normal, the AI does not get smarter just more bonuses. It is still super easy to beat at the max difficulty if you abuse the system. It just entails horrible micromanagement and you spend 90% of the game just mopping up the map. This is no "real" challenges, just work.
How about we wait and see what Stardock wants to do and let the leftover power gamers mod the game the way they want it.
A certain Mr B.Wardell has made it known on the dev streams that he likes using sensor boats and that's why he created the sensors the way they are and have been since GC2 
But we'll see what happens and why should I mod-in what the games creator put in in the 1st place? That's like say huge hulls are too OP lets pester the devs to take them out and anyone who wants to build a titan size ship has to mod it back in? (BTW I cant mod for toffee even after watching Derek vid stream)
I have never claimed to be a power gamer. Just the opposite in fact. However, I find I can kick the snot out of the AI on "Normal". No big feat, obviously, and I would never claim otherwise. Next game I play I will move on to Challenging and upwards until I hit my limit.
Then you did not see Brad's stats on the player skill level distribution. The fact that you look at any of these factors at all, let alone enough to argue about them vehemently, shows you are indeed a power gamer whether you claim the title or not. Very few people on these boards seem to recognize how unrepresentative we are in our collective way of the actual player community collective play levels and patterns. None of us have the one true way of any one game, let alone something as wide spectrum as GalCiv.
Face it, you're a gamer geek like the rest of us, and normal people think we are a crazy obsessed bunch of people. I think they're right.
I think I just heard a power gamer mating call. You have to be one to hear it.. or something...
What some call "work", others call "Farmville".
<<I say that because Paul once joked in a devstream, IIRC, that one can turn GC III into Galactic Farmville by playing after you win the game.>>
Slightly more seriously, I have always maintained that one puts in as much micromanagment as one wants into the game. Nothing says one must improve all starbases to maximum ability. Nothing says one must be able to see every tile on the map. Nothing says one must make all planets as perfect or near as perfect as possible. That a player is "rewarded" for micro is more like a spectrum on how much one is willing to do said micro.
Take me for instance. I see the people who talk about putting 13 starbases around a planet and just shake my head. I could never ever ever put up with that level of micro. Just thinking about it makes me break out in hives. I find it tasking enough to have two fully upgraded eco starbases around my planets. I usually just have one period. Maybe a second or third on overlaps for systems that are close enuf.
Why? Even though I could make Super Death Planets if I just optimized a little more (OK, a lot more ;))? Because the micro would crush my spirit, that's why. :p Yet, I realize other players do it differently and I wouldn't take their playstyle away from them.
For me, I play for the thrill of exploring the map. Getting to a tech before other races. Scattering their ships and hearing the lamentations of their significant others. That sort of thing. I'll move up the difficulty levels as I get bored. But, ultimately the above is what I want to do. eXplore, eXpand, eXploit, and eXterminate as it is put by some. Catchy term, not that I think about it. 
) who campaign against them.
I doubt most people want the game to remain broken.
How about Stardock fix the sensors, and those who want a broken game can mod in all the OP gimmicks they want?
Hey the game is fine as it is. How bout you mod the senors the way YOU want to play and leave the game as it is. It is not hurting you how me or anyone else plays.
The game is NOT broken with sensor ships. Not at all. Game runs fine. Plays fun and can kill dozens of hours per sitting.
Of course you are free to mod all you like. I will likely mod my game after we get a few bug patches done.
Face it, you're a gamer geek like the rest of us, and normal people think we are a crazy obsessed bunch of people. I think they're right.
Oh, I am a "gamer geek". That I never denied. What I said is, "I am not a power gamer". Certainly not as described by this board nor by the greater gaming community, I would think. And I also said in my post I just made this is this more of a spectrum than a simple is/isn't equation.
More to the point, I absolutely saw Brad's post on current usage. In fact, I posted several times in that thread and argued why I think it's a bit premature to take anything out of that quite yet. Why you presumed I hadn't seen it, I wouldn't care to guess.
But let's say you're right. Let's say that the vast majority of the peeps will always play on Tiny and Small (and Terran faction). Let's say the vast majority of casual gamers never ever step outside of that small confines.
Point taken in advance.
What makes one think that these casual gamers will actually employ a [so-called] power game tactic in the first place? Seems to me the stereotypical "casual gamer" is more likely to go all blaster-wizard and try to get pewpewpew ships as soon as possible.
Near as I can tell, it is a subset of power gamers complaining about this. When and if so-called casual gamers complain about this, that might be something. Until then, well, maybe they don't need us to speak for them.
Something unbalanced can be fair - it can also make the game boring. Unbalance removes choices by making strategies too good to pass, or even mandatory - if it's too good you can't think of a reason NOT to use it, then it's no longer a real choice. Thank god Paradox Studio has a much finer approach to balance than this.
The other problem of the sensor boat, as it is, is that it makes other game elements irrelevant. Why even have the option of puting sensors on starbases ? It's a newbie trap as it is.
I wish SD would give you a job as game mechanics designer...
Way more than the relatively few ( zealots ) who campaign against them.
Or the few (zealots) who campaign for them.
I posted a solution to this issue on the other thread but I will repost it here as I believe only one person gave it any consideration before the on going argument resumed losing my solution amongst them.
May 13, 2015 7:03:21 fromGalactic Civilizations III Forums
Let me start by saying I enjoy the larger map sizes and I like Sensor ships because scouts are just too inefficient when you've got so many star to explore it's highly frustrating and if you think micromanaging constructors is bad then doing so with 50 odd scouts that need manual routing for efficiency is a whole new ball game I assure you.
However I sat back and though I know what would not only keep sensor ships in the game for fast exploration but also bring Starbase sensors up to par which would be levels of stealth tech that hide ships from classes of sensor. I can't imagine it would be too hard implement even different grades of tech that provide cover against levels of sensor. That way you could simply increase the potency of Star base sensors automatically but require ship sensors a lot of room and research to counter the various stealth techs. This gets even more interesting if you start having holographic false image techs as well as it could cast false readings to where the enemy fleet is and thus allow them to sidestep an intercepting fleet to hit something more juicy. Obviously this is in the realms of expansion of DLC but its a huge area that could really sort these worries out while actively providing more choice and more depth to the core game.
I'm fairly sure that most other players that like sensor buoys for larger map sizes are much like myself its about getting a decent overview of the map so you don't waste 2 hours on a false start because you couldn't find habitable planets or resources in those first 15 systems you explored because you went the wrong way. The extra level of stealth and having layers of effective cover would only add to the game and its strategies while even better not having to use a system of invisible ships constantly, as the ships are fully uncovered by a couple of Star base sensor upgrades at each tech level.
Honestly I feel that something like this will solve all the issues people have about invalidating other sensors and provide hard limitations on what normal sensor ships can achieve in terms of data gathering but it does not in any way restrict the freedom of those who want to be able to build without restriction. It also has the benefit of featuring a way of incorporating stealth mechanics into the game in a way that's got counters and restrictions to prevent it becoming overpowered.
Food for though anyway. Thanks for reading
crimsonsun
LOL, I got em, I don't have to campaign for them. 
You should learn to like them.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
