For the Fun of the Game.... Diplo/Ideology/Other stuff

If there is one thing that is obvious in reading these forums, it is that we all have VASTLY different opinions on what is fun.


One thing that I think we can all agree on is that it is more fun to have a challenging game that is challenging from the first turn to the last turn.    It is not fun to have "won" the game by turn 100 and then spend 200+ turns "ending the game" to actually win.

 

Here's some things that need to be acknowledged.    The 64bit architecture gives Gal Civ 3 bones... big bones that can hold a lot of meat so to say.    Most of what I am going to discuss is in the future ideas area because i FULLY UNDERSTAND that this is not minor tweaks...


Issue 1.   Map Scaling

 
I think that map scaling is something that needs to be implemented sooner rather than later.     There are a lot of things that work well in bigger maps but not in smaller maps and even more that are brokenly over powered in huge maps.

Examples...  Ideology.   The ideology system is in my opinion a neat part of the game that is currently VERY limited in actual implementation.      Currently it is tied mostly to random events and planet colonization events.     Each one of the paths has a 1pt every x turns building or buildings that a player can build.     However on a map with 500 planets these mean a lot more than on a map that has 30 planets.    same with the events themselves.   More on ideology later...

Research... Unlike manufacturing which is mostly planet unique, Research is an empire wide ability.    If I have 30 planets my research is going to be much less than if I have say 300 planets.      base research COSTS for new research should scale with the map size and number of habitable planets.      There are games where I have literally researched everything in 250 turns or less....   that shouldn't be possible.

The Precursor stuff...    These should be a bonus % based on the number of total possible... not the number of station mods.    If I have 4 research stations and 5 manufacturing stations  on a small map that may be all of them on the entire map.    but there may be 20 or more of each type on the bigger maps.    it is game breaking when you can get 800% bonus to manufacturing or 1000% bonus to wealth.....

People have complained about the "unrealistic nature" of sensor and engine stacking.... the best fix here is simply to get the AI to use the same things to balance out the player doing it.    I'd also be cool with the #of Attacks being based on the highest tech level of your weapons.    Stinger ships get one attack a turn...  Harpoons get 2 etc etc etc...  then you disassociate movement from attacks.


Issue 2  Lack of balanced Victory Paths for the different Ideologies. 


As I said before the Ideologies are a neat feature, but they are very very incomplete in implementation as far as how they feel in the game.
I suspect that they were intended to be much more deeply tied to the game than they currently are and this is one of the things that is greatly affected by the limited diplomacy options.

In GCII the "good" civs would often declare war on an evil warmonger civ even if they were not allies.  The civs ganged up on each other... they acted like the ideology mattered.

I've said before that I do not think a Benevolent race should be able to declare war unless it is a RESPONSE to another race going to war.  People have replied saying that that limits the Benevolent races ability to win the game....   GOOD.  it SHOULD.  at least it should limit their ability to win via conquest.    Conquest is the path of the Malevolent and Pragmatic.

Here's the thing... the current lack of espionage and true diplomacy makes the ideologies feel very shallow and lacking.  
A benevolent society should be one that people Want to join or be part of.    A benevolent society should be able to STEAL population from other races through emigration...

One of the areas that GCIII is majorly weak in comparison to GCII is that the moral system is really rather weak...  it does not do much of anything.    In GCII it was  the limiting factor on your taxes and thus your economy.  If you taxed too much and people got mad planets would strike, or declare their independence or swap sides...   a negative moral could also slow down your growth and cause your influence to retract.   

Benevolent has one whole path related to keeping people happy...  but to what end?  what does it do that really matters for winning the game?   

Also the lack of actual political parties, voting, war weariness etc is noticeable...

The Ideologies will be incomplete until a full system of Diplomacy and Espionage is implemented in the game.
In the Final expansion of GCII the unique tech trees introduced unique techs for some of the races based on which ideology they had...  this needs to come back.

Points on this...   If Moral was actually a stat that mattered and did something quantitative Higher moral Civs should gain population from lower moral civs.   Higher moral civs should have an easier time stealing technology from other civs...   Higher moral civs should get bonuses to tourism income...

1.  The game is not going to be fairly balance for Victory Paths until Conquest is not the only means in which the AI can win the game.

2.  Benevolent civs should help each other  it is in the nature of benevolent to give for the greater good.
2a.  To this ends Benevolent Civs should have technology paths such as "Missionaries,  or "Foreign aid"  Which can be used to boost influence and promote an influence flip.
2b.  Benevolent Civs should not be allowed to declare war except in reply to an invasion, or major event...   GCII had the assassination event...  perhaps in the future the ideology linked major events can be something that with espionage other civs can learn..  OMG the Humans are Malevolent and they just murdered 2 million people for profit...  we should reprimand them... if they don't change we will save their people from them as no one should suffer.. etc etc etc..
2c.  Benevolent Civs should get defensive bonuses when they are being attacked much like the tech trees from GCII
2d. Bene Civs should not be able to do terrorist acts once Espionage is available

3.  Pragmatic Civs should be able to do everything without penalty but with lesser individual bonuses..
3a.  Pragmatic should have really good bonuses to all forms of espionage.


4.  Malevolent Civs should have a moral penalty if they are NOT at war...     like reverse war weariness
4a.  Malevolent Civs should not be immune to culture flip...  they should be immune from population loss or artificial influence....  if I have a huge civ and the Yor build a planet on some class 4 civ... It should flip cause they shouldn't have built a colony there in the first place...
4. Malevolent Civs should get bonuses to Terrorism and Sabotage.


But the biggest thing is that Ideology should be untied to the colonization events.     Honestly it should be multiple actions chosen before the first Ideology is chosen...    I think races that have a tendency to evil.. like the Drengin should have building options like Slave Pit (5pts Malevolent if built)  or Factory (5pts Pragmatic)....   Once they Unlock Malevolent the Factory option goes away and they can no longer build it.

Rush building before one has tech should be Pragmatic and give Pragmatic points...    Forced rush (slavery) should be even faster but give Malevolent...

I think that the ability to game the game and on huge maps get all the Ideologies at once is broken beyond measure and should never happen...  Once you choose Malevolent it should completely lock out Benevolent Ideologies/research options...      the Mega events that once gave Benevolent bonuses might still be available with some additional other bonus but not Benevolent.  

In this option Pragmatic should still be open for purchase but at much higher costs and possibly a completely new tree compared to the normal tree.

If a civ is Pragmatic they should get either reduced Bene/Malev options or their second choice should lock them from the third.

The point is that the three Ideologies should not be equal.. they should not play equal...   Conquest/Malevolent should be the easiest option to play with the most short cuts but the least bonuses long term.

Cultural/Benevolent should be harder  but with the biggest bonuses long term...

Right now there is on this forum a general agreement that X tech tree with X bonuses is the best way to play...       I don't think there should be a single best way to play.  I think GCIII has big enough bones to make a game that can really play shockingly different depending on which path one chooses.    It is just not quite there yet.

 

I look forward to the day that it gets there.

 

65,703 views 34 replies
Reply #1 Top


Issue 1.   Map Scaling

 
I think that map scaling is something that needs to be implemented sooner rather than later.     There are a lot of things that work well in bigger maps but not in smaller maps and even more that are brokenly over powered in huge maps.

Examples...  Ideology.   The ideology system is in my opinion a neat part of the game that is currently VERY limited in actual implementation.      Currently it is tied mostly to random events and planet colonization events.     Each one of the paths has a 1pt every x turns building or buildings that a player can build.     However on a map with 500 planets these mean a lot more than on a map that has 30 planets.    same with the events themselves.   More on ideology later...

Ideology I think works fine the way it is, personally I have no issues with it, could be a little faster on small maps, however, on insane maps it took me 350 turns to get to all of the Benevolent traits (mind you it would have been a lot faster if I wasn't playing with 70 factions and limiting colonization to 20 regular planets and 20 more extreme.)  However, maybe you are right as if I was only playing an insane map with say 10 factions I would have completed all of them by now.    Maybe with ideology scale with number of habitable planets divided by number of factions in game and, then another with map size...  

Research... Unlike manufacturing which is mostly planet unique, Research is an empire wide ability.    If I have 30 planets my research is going to be much less than if I have say 300 planets.      base research COSTS for new research should scale with the map size and number of habitable planets.      There are games where I have literally researched everything in 250 turns or less....   that shouldn't be possible.

This is one that needs scaling and there is no doubt about it.  Very slow tech/game pacing rates when one has trading/brokering on can be completed or near completed by turn 300-350.  This needs to be scaled by number of habitable planets.  Not to mention why does the nightmare torpedo research time take about 1/8th of what the missle weapon does prior to it?  That makes no sense, also not to mention the same for the other weapon techs.

The Precursor stuff...    These should be a bonus % based on the number of total possible... not the number of station mods.    If I have 4 research stations and 5 manufacturing stations  on a small map that may be all of them on the entire map.    but there may be 20 or more of each type on the bigger maps.    it is game breaking when you can get 800% bonus to manufacturing or 1000% bonus to wealth.....

This gives a lot of unbalance to the game, this should also play an extra scale for this, not to mention the AI still doesn't upgrade their survey ships and collect the anomalies.  and the +500 research points one doesn't work which I am going to create a support ticket on it one of these days ;).

People have complained about the "unrealistic nature" of sensor and engine stacking.... the best fix here is simply to get the AI to use the same things to balance out the player doing it.    I'd also be cool with the #of Attacks being based on the highest tech level of your weapons.    Stinger ships get one attack a turn...  Harpoons get 2 etc etc etc...  then you disassociate movement from attacks.

I personally do not have a major issue with this.  I am completely against different weapon types firing once/twice per turn, this is why they have rate of fire built into the weapon.  As far as taking extra turns in battle, why?  Just make the AI smart enough to pick new target if it has turns available each turn.  If one wants to limit engine and sensor stacking than I'm all for creating a diminished return option built in.  Such as Sensor 1 gives 100% view, sensor 2 provides 90% more, sensor 3 provides 81% more sensor 4 provides 72.9% more...  ect...  This way by the time one gets to sensor 20 there is almost no return on the investment but, they still get decent boosts from the first several.


( Ill finish this later  sadly need to do other stuff with my computer at the moment)

That's no fun, I guess I agree to disagree with this point.  Why do you start a post and then not finish it.  It's not fair.....

Reply #2 Top

Quoting Seilore, reply 1


( Ill finish this later  sadly need to do other stuff with my computer at the moment)



That's no fun, I guess I agree to disagree with this point.  Why do you start a post and then not finish it.  It's not fair.....



Sorry... I had an emergency come up and there is no.. save draft option.   it has been updated

Reply #3 Top


If there is one thing that is obvious in reading these forums, it is that we all have VASTLY different opinions on what is fun.



Right now there is on this forum a general agreement that X tech tree with X bonuses is the best way to play...      

 

I don't think there should be a single best way to play.  I think GCIII has big enough bones to make a game that can really play shockingly different depending on which path one chooses.    It is just not quite there yet.

 

 

 

I agree with the first section and mostly agree with the third section, but I I have troubles with the X tech tree with X bonuses.  I am not convinced there is truly such a consensus.  Would you care to offer a suggestion as to what the two Xs are that are this general agreement?  For example, many people seem to consider Malevolent to be the primary Ideology, when I find myself abusing the heck out of Benevolent. 

 

Reply #4 Top

Quoting erischild, reply 3


 

I agree with the first section and mostly agree with the third section, but I I have troubles with the X tech tree with X bonuses.  I am not convinced there is truly such a consensus.  Would you care to offer a suggestion as to what the two Xs are that are this general agreement?  For example, many people seem to consider Malevolent to be the primary Ideology, when I find myself abusing the heck out of Benevolent. 

 




It is strongly argued that the Thalan's have the best tech tree bonuses...  mostly due to the hive improvmement and the quantum size bonuses letting them get crazy high capacity ships.

And I was more meaning the starting traits...     The "Ancient" trait that the Altarians start with that gives % bonus to research for building on the Precurser anomalies is crazy crazy over powered at the moment....

+1 Loading…
Reply #5 Top

I agree with many ideas here especially map scaling and research and ideology costs. 

 

I completely disagree with your thoughts on limiting war based on ideology or locking out ideologies completely. 

 

I would rather see  your make choices but the other two trees cost 3x a much and each pick in the primary tree 'scales up' which in turn MUST be tied to map scaling. Thus on Insane maps you can get all trees but you must work for it. Remove the points given to buildings over time or allow the player to only get one per empire and then give a percentage increase to te amount of points you get for in game events. 

 

  • Colonization always forces you to have a choice.
  • Invasion ALWAYS forces you to have a choice and will affect how effective your invasion is. This allows all players to get points for invasions not just 'evil' ones. 

Some players play on insane but very few habitable planets. Having scaling works but also giving out more points as  you enter each tier of tech and also based on percentage of planets left to colonize. Once all planets are colonized and you are in 2nd or 3rd tier tech then you would get points on global (MUST HAVE MORE RANDOM POPUP) events and invasions. 

 

Again allow the player to get all as well as the ai but make the cost higher each time the cross out of their main one. 3x for 2nd pic, 4 orr 5x on 3rd. So you pay 10 points for the first choice in malevolent, then the same first building in either bene or prag would be 30 and then the first building in the final ideology would cost 50 points. 

 

Do not restrict the player ever should be the mantra, instead give him options and let the player play how he wants to. The ai an if it wants to get all but will be intent on filling out its one preferential tree first. 

 

Great thread.

Reply #6 Top

Quoting Larsenex, reply 5


I completely disagree with your thoughts on limiting war based on ideology or locking out ideologies completely. 

I would rather see  your make choices but the other two trees cost 3x a much and each pick in the primary tree 'scales up' which in turn MUST be tied to map scaling. Thus on Insane maps you can get all trees but you must work for it. Remove the points given to buildings over time or allow the player to only get one per empire and then give a percentage increase to te amount of points you get for in game events. 

    • Colonization always forces you to have a choice.

 

    • Invasion ALWAYS forces you to have a choice and will affect how effective your invasion is. This allows all players to get points for invasions not just 'evil' ones. 


 (MUST HAVE MORE RANDOM POPUP) events and invasions. 

Again allow the player to get all as well as the ai but make the cost higher each time the cross out of their main one. 3x for 2nd pic, 4 orr 5x on 3rd. So you pay 10 points for the first choice in malevolent, then the same first building in either bene or prag would be 30 and then the first building in the final ideology would cost 50 points. 

Do not restrict the player ever should be the mantra, instead give him options and let the player play how he wants to. The ai an if it wants to get all but will be intent on filling out its one preferential tree first. 

Great thread.

I agree with you on most things Larsenex, but here here I am going to have to respectfully disagree... 

An Ideology should represent the primary or overriding view of a civilization.    The Pragmatic view that you have about wanting it all is unrealistic.     People have argued that you can be Benevolent to your own people and Malevolent to others.....  that would be best categorized as Xenophobic...

Now if Galactic Civ used a two axis  Extrovert/Introvert    Benevolent/Malevolent   alignment system where someone could be Benevolent/Xenophobic   such that would be an argument... But that is not what the game has.  these choices Should be mutually exclusive...    If you can give an example why it improves the game to not make them so other than... I get more perks and more perks are better...  I'll listen.


BUT I'd rather they work on tying the Ideology to diplomacy and research options and making them genuinely unique and play style altering... than just the current I got x many points in Pragmatic so now no one can declare war on me nah nah!  now go go get points in Malevolent and build an uber fleet while no one can retaliate...     the AI is not capable of scheming like this and asking it to is really expecting too much in my opinion. 


Now to your other points...  I've never once chosen anything other than normal invasion....  until they actually modify the invasions and make them more than an auto win for the invader, there is no point.      This is also a broken option for getting Ideologies.


I agree with the more events... I think rather than being tied to the invasion, there should be a micro event every turn that gives you a micro ideology question... mix those into the big events and we are all set.   no need for the colonization events at all.


Either way I think it is wrong that the VERY first colonization event sets the tone for the whole game....     this needs to change...


Another good way to do Ideology points is via the Diplomancy...  if you  see that a neighbor is unable to defend and you GIVE ships   that should get you Bene... if you Sell ships  you should get Pragmatic.. and if you threaten them with war... Malevolent..

The choices we make in game play should dictate the Ideologies and then the ideologies should give us changes in play-style and options..

A benevolent society should act like it... 

Right now in actual game mechanics and play there is no real difference between Benevolent and Pragmatic and Malevolent...     they get some different bonuses but in actual play none...  and that in my opinion is not fun and should be improved.

 




Reply #7 Top

Invasions can and will be changed 'dramatically' There are other types (of Invasions) and I always beeline for bio-warfare. My issue with locking ideologies is you inherently restrict a player based on what you think the game should be. If we had your way, then all Benevolent would be locked on only using info warfare for invasions as that is the least 'evil' of the invasion types.  Again I like  your ideas but we should not be removing player options in a single player game. That's my opinion others may agree with you. 

 

As a compromise I say we have another yes or no option at start up or check box which says 'Lock ideologies'? (Y/N) and let the player play  how he wants. 

 

Lots of things I loved about GCII can and will come to GCIII it just takes time to get us there. I love how Distant Worlds gives you TONS of options on how you want your game/galaxy and how the ai performs at start up along with how you  and your empire start up. 

+1 Loading…
Reply #8 Top

Quoting Larsenex, reply 7



Lots of things I loved about GCII can and will come to GCIII it just takes time to get us there. 


Yeah,... GCIII's 64 bit implementation gives is an insane amount of lee way for mods and internal growth.    The game is already good... it can just be better and it WILL be better.

I'm also not saying that options for play in game should be limited...   but options for getting the Different Ideology bonuses should.    There is a saying that war is hell...  I have argued that Nuking Japan was the most benevolent option as it ended the war faster than any other form of invasion would have....

Yet it was bombing a primarily civillian target.. so a lot of non-combatants died   so many people can and do argue that it was a horrible action to take...  

All I am saying is that once an Ideological path is chosen the other paths should not be eligible for purchase in the ideology grid. 

Reply #9 Top

Quoting Taslios, reply 8

All I am saying is that once an Ideological path is chosen the other paths should not be eligible for purchase in the ideology grid.

Why?  Why would you limit this?  In life normally one tends to lean one way or the other, however, there are times and situations that one may choose to go the other way.  This should not be limited and should remain as is.  If it was a little more expensive to cross back and forth so be it, however, don't limit that ability of choice.

Reply #10 Top

Quoting Seilore, reply 9


Quoting Taslios,

All I am saying is that once an Ideological path is chosen the other paths should not be eligible for purchase in the ideology grid.



Why?  Why would you limit this?  In life normally one tends to lean one way or the other, however, there are times and situations that one may choose to go the other way.  This should not be limited and should remain as is.  If it was a little more expensive to cross back and forth so be it, however, don't limit that ability of choice.

 

I agree with you Seilore, in that I don't want to lose choices, but I do think we could make the system more clear, and nuanced, by showing your ideology as a score, that is based on your choices. Races of different ideologies dislike races with high scores in a opposing ideology more than those with low scores in a ideology.

For example, say my choices are 2 Pragmatic, and 3 Malevolent. Then I would be classed Malevolent, with a fairly low score (lets just say its a score of 10 for each majority ideology pick you've made).

A race which is benevolent 10 dislikes me, but would hate a malevolent 40 much, much more. Those who truly pick one of each ideology choice, becomes "neutral". Which I'll note, will also make pragmatism a more obvious and unique choice that ISN'T neutral, just different. This I think solves some of the concerns different players have that the ideology system is too flexible, by both rewarding and punishing one's extremism in any given tree (or one's lack of commitment).

 

 

PS: The reason I said a score of 10, is to give us room to award tinier point allotments for certain things, like possible event or diplomatic choices. I strongly believe your actions in the game should impact your ideology more than anything. Being at war with benevolent forces constantly, should perhaps make you malevolent lol. But that isn't relevant here, and has some serious complications to consider.

Reply #11 Top

Gauntlet, 

 

I like that idea. Better yet why not simply display the points you spent in each tree on the side and in our diplomacy screen you can also see the points spent as a tool tip on each major faction. Also how about a tipping point warning that is also color coded?


Altarians are like Benevolent ~ 185 pts


Drengin are Malevolent ~ 165 pts.


^^^ both factions are 'red' to each other and would get warnings that the next purchase in that ideology will make war imminent with races of other ideologies. 


Picking other ideologies can either lower your point threshold or not. I say vote on it. So if a player filled out ALL Ideologies he would be 'neutral' with most folks but red to ones who had no ideology points or ones only 1/2 way up their respective line...

Reply #12 Top

Ok guys  can anyone answer me these three...   I'm interested in your opinions because these are questions I have on "should this be part of the game"  that I cannot answer for myself.

1.  How do you get the AI to do this as well?  If the AI is not able to do this then it is broken or a "Gamey" mechanic.

2.  how does having the option to go down all three paths improve the game play?    



I'll state one last time that under current game mechanics the Ideologies simply provide perks and do not actually change the game play.        I suspect that once the diplomacy and espionage is implemented it will actually change the game play and make them play differently....     so on that..

3.  Why should a civilization logically have more than one ideology?

Reply #13 Top

1) There isn't a great answer to this, and ultimatley, if the AI could perfectly do everything a human player does, then the humans would never win a single game lol. So some flaws we just have to live with.

2/3 I can answer together.

 

I agree with you, that current system is pretty broken. Mostly, because it does not TELL you, what ideology you really are, even if you select ALL three in equal portions. But, locking the player into a single branch for the entire game, limits their ability to roleplay and explore the true greyness of ideology/morality.

My biggest hangup, is that they bothered with such a ludicrous looney toon version of ideologies to begin with. Seriously the Drengin are cartoonishly evil. We basically just have "ridiculously good, hilariously evil, and Blandly Neutral Err... I mean, no, not neutral, because everyone hates neutrals too!" 

 

IF you took away the ability to pick from all three, your races, all of them, suddenly get locked into those charactures entirely. Right now, you can at least simulate some nuance. The system I suggested above, enhances that nuance, and most importantly, adds that enhancement/nuance to the game's diplomatic model. Which, is obviously gameplay related.

So no. Locking us in would not be a solution. It locks in every race I make into a linear path, with the intellectual capital of a dead monkey. Giving me options, lets me roleplay a more diversely, but an improved system would both reward and punish me for my choices based on what other AI were doing. The AI personality traits should of course, assist them in determining which traits to take.

 

Xenophobic, Spiritual, Aggressive would equal TOTAL malevolent for example. 

 

 

I hope this helps explain my reticence to remove the player's choice to define their own path through "good and evil and something else"

+1 Loading…
Reply #14 Top

Quoting Taslios, reply 12

1.  How do you get the AI to do this as well?  If the AI is not able to do this then it is broken or a "Gamey" mechanic.

The AI doesn't always pick, choose the same ideology path it will pick and choose as well, this is one thing that is not an AI exploit.

Quoting Taslios, reply 12

2.  how does having the option to go down all three paths improve the game play? 

Because I can choose to get 3 free constructors in the Pragmatic path, get the free colony ship in the Benevolent path, and get the free frigate in the Malevolent path.  The problem I face as a human player is by doing this I slow the "better" rewards down any path because anytime I choose an ideology item the next item increases in cost making it longer/harder to unlock.

Basically as a player I'm not locked and frustrated that I can't do something I want because the game traps me and locks me into one static choice.  The greatness of this game is that it is a sandbox game, letting us as players the ability to do whatever we want within the game itself, by not boxing one in.

Quoting Taslios, reply 12

3.  Why should a civilization logically have more than one ideology?

Why does anyone vote for people of different parties?  This may become even more prevalent in the US in the next 7 months or so.  Some who vote normally Republican won't vote for Trump, some who normally vote Democrat won't vote Clinton, those people will either choose to vote for a "minor" party or the other party that they normally don't vote for.  After that they may then vote, their normal way for Senate/Governor races, ect...  As you point out most of the time these different political parties normally have vastly different ideological views, yet it's a great point that one may choose logically to vote the other way.

Civilization wise, things change.  At the beginning of the game maybe I want to focus on expansion and number of planets, the Benevolent path seems great for me to do this.  Once that part of the game has past and I have grown as an empire now I realize that I have a lot of enemies in the galaxy and that Malevolent path looks very good for me to go down getting the extra war ships and bonus for invading and destroying my enemies.

 

 

Reply #15 Top

Gauntlet, Selore,  Thank you for replying.

Have either of you ever played Dungeons and Dragons?      

When you talk about roleplaying the game and all.


It looks like we can agree that the current system doesn't really work.       I think the biggest issue I have is that it Locks you in on the FIRST freaking pick...  and then as Gauntlet says doesn't really tell you what you are or why you are that.

in GC2 you had to research the morality and then pay buku bucks if you wanted something outside of how you had been playing previously....  

Seilore's example of "what is best for me now" rational is probably actually one of the main things that bugs me about the whole Ideology "Perks" as they currently exist.     None of these things actually change game mechanics or game play...  it either prevents something (culture flips, people declaring war) or gives you some small bonus (Extra tiles, "free" ships)   Why does Benevolent get more research?   Why does the Malevolent have the ability to FEAR someone into defecting to them?    Most of the options are simply perks and not actually indicative of either A. Morality or B Personality, or C Outlook.

and because of that it currently just feels very gamey...    If I do this I get this.. and then I can do that and get that... and then I can do this other thing and do this other thing...    

I do this now cause I can...  I've gone down all three paths...       I still feel that I should not be able to and if the Ideologies were properly tied into Diplomacy, Espionage, Colony Moral, Civ rulership options, and Fleet management... I probably would not want to.  < THis is the point I'm making     I don't want to leave it how it is and lock people out of stuff..

I want the choices to actually mean something... and give you things that are mutually exclusive and rationally either cannot be both chosen or should not be both chosen...

like... Benevolent perk "Self Actualization"  Gives bonus to Research and Happiness as people are free to explore who they are..  Vrs Malevolent "Frontal Lobotomy"  Citizens no longer revolt and are % more efficient in your factories...     these are mutually exclusive things...    and yes it does lock a race into the classic and cartoony "sooo evil"  or Soooo "good"

But then perhaps we need some additional sub trees... or a  Lawful/Chaotic  or   Trusting/Suspicious  or  some other axis to give the game a bit more flexibility...

 




Reply #16 Top

Well, at one point I had investigated modding the ideologies. Other priorities became more pressing, and, I got frustrated that I couldn't change the NAMES of the ideologies in the graphics/etc. Which I know is somewhat vain, but people would constantly bicker at me if I setup a different ideology, and it still was labeled benevolence at the top of the screen lol.

My plan, bearing in mind that I can't change everything I want... was to ensure that...

1) replace benevolence, pragmatism, and malevolence, with: Unity, Consumption, and Supremacy. These align somewhat, with the existing lines, but take out the idea of there being a universal "good" and "evil" which is especially silly in a galaxy of multiple species who would naturally have different outlooks on these complicated issues.

Unit/Harmony (still pondering the name) would be about coexistence with other races and the environment: they would gain planet, morale, diplomacy, and some influence bonuses. Consumption/Greed gets influence, monetary, extra mining, some military. Supremacy, gets military, planet resistance, production bonuses.

 

2) The big thing here though, and the part I think you would appreciate, is that every perk, while not necessarily altering playstyle significantly, would also come with a negative modifier. The Supremacy tree, will have numerous diplomacy penalties, basically, if you pursue a course of military and genetic/cybernetic supremacy over all your neighbors and the environment, they are going to be offput by you, even if they themselves are ALSO supremacy players. Subsequently, a Unity player can pretty easily sway anyone to their side, even a Supremacy player, because they are naturally cooperative, they simply convince the supremacy player that he is getting the better deal, when reality he isn't. The consumption player will earn lots of money, be able to get more resources, and have an insidious influence (think Coca Cola and McDonalds circa 1950s to 1980s), but suffer larger and larger morale issues to their planets as they continue down the tree. The Unit player, suffers from production and military penalties, as their citizenry devalue the idea of conquering other worlds and constantly seeking a harmonious approach with their environment.

 

Now I'd love to change other mechanics, because as you say, some of these should be mutually exclusive, which is why I would prefer one tree for each overall "chain" with three ideology choices and you have to pick one, but I wouldn't lock you from taking a different ideology choice on the next choice.

 

For example, each ideology has 5 chains (I think, I might be wrong here). I would arrange the five to be universal to all ideologies, say:

 

1) Planets                2) Infrastructure     3) Relationships     4) Governance      5) Culture

Level 1) Choose!

A Extra tile

B Extra Colony Ship

C Extra production

Level 2) Choose!

A) Etc.

B) Etc.

C) Etc.

 

See? So basically, while your overall ideology isn't defined strictly, you get SOME mutual exclusivity, by making a choice for each perk level. You could go all one ideology on Planets, a mix on Infrastructure, all another on Relationships, etc. This way, while you personally might not think the race makes sense, at least you know the other player couldn't have ALL cake and eat it all too! Because your right, issue by issue, you shouldn't be able to say "well my people both believe in letting people choose their jobs, but also in enslaving all life".

But I think its fair that an alien species would have somewhat radical views that may be jarring between these categories. "Yes people choose their jobs, we should live in harmony with nature, but those other aliens? KILL THEM, KILL THEM ALL!"

 

Stardock's current system was meant to create exclusivity in a loose manner by limiting how much ideology points and such you could get, but it completely relies on colonies/planets and in larger galaxies it becomes somewhat silly. Ultimately, they prioritized maximum player freedom, and I agree, it weakens the overall experience for more thoughtful players.

 

I think the above system is enough of a compromise to greatly improve the game even with benevolence, malevolence pragmatism, it also isn't a dramatic change to the game system. Its not necessarily making new abilities more expensive.

 

 

 

As for roleplaying! Yes, I've played DnD, though not much, I got into other roleplay games though, and eventually ran my own in my own little intellectual property. I haven't roleplayed though in probably 8 years though. Ultimately, while I appreciate pure strategy, in games like chess, go, etc. games like this, where you are creating a civilization, with ideology choices and such, are clearly meant to be played with some "immersion". Which, if the player is successfully immersed, he/she is effectively roleplaying, whether they intended to or not.

Hence why I think it was a poor move to make all ideologies and all perk selections completely inclusive of each other, it breaks the immersion, and if I'm not roleplaying a space emperor... well why not just get rid of the graphics, the images, the cutesy/sassy dialogue, etc.?

Thanks for reading, I know its a long post. 

+1 Loading…
Reply #17 Top

This ^^^

 

Reply #18 Top

Talios, 

 

I am pretty sure most of the Alpha Elites and Founders have or currently play: D&D, Pathfinder, Vampire, Mage, Wraith, Werewolf, Shadowrun, G.U.R.P.S, Marvel Superheros, Twilight 2000, Traveler,  or some form of Table top {pen and paper} RPG. 

 

You can count me on all of the above and more....including Advanced Squad Leader every other Saturday. 


In D&D  you can change alignment even as a player but at a cost. In 30 years of gaming I never penalized a player who strayed far. If a Paladin murdered the Goblin family because he felt he was preventing future deaths, there would be a severe removal of powers and a quest required to atone but he still got to do what he wanted.  Original D&D was far too black and white so I DM'd with more leniency which was fun all around. 

 

Gauntlet and Seilore explained how I feel and Guantlets ideas are excellent. We need to ask Stardock for more support to create full change game mods so ideas like his can be done. 

 

I am for not limiting the player and keeping choices open. It does not hurt the game to have them but will make another players game enjoyment less if you lock him and remove choices she or he may want for his empire. 

Reply #19 Top

Quoting Larsenex, reply 18


In D&D  you can change alignment even as a player but at a cost. In 30 years of gaming I never penalized a player who strayed far. If a Paladin murdered the Goblin family because he felt he was preventing future deaths, there would be a severe removal of powers and a quest required to atone but he still got to do what he wanted.  Original D&D was far too black and white so I DM'd with more leniency which was fun all around. 

 

 

I've DMed for nearly 20 years now....    Player choice is a huge part of what makes games fun...  however as you just pointed out choices come with cost.


A paladin cannot become a Death Knight AND still have his paladin abilities...     the player changed through the game great... but that change also came with cost. 

in GCIII there is no cost other than time to get everything when it comes to the Ideologies...   and that is silly broken in my opinion.

+1 Loading…
Reply #20 Top

Truthfully, after all said and done, could ideologies be done differently, sure, is this was a huge issue.  Unfortunately this is one thing that is more of an opinion issue and not a issue on if anything is actually working (for the most part).  

I would rather see fixes to the following prior to anything suggested here.

Crash fixes (including unrecoverable crashes still present in 1.61)

Multiplayer stability, lobby, and other general love (some things are being done in 1.7)

Exploration Treaty slowdown fix.  (No comments from Stardock on this)

AI work (Need to use Mercenaries, use Diplomacy better, Trade, Collect Anomalies more like human, War)

Mercenaries tweaks.  (Allow them to be viable mid to late game not just early game, upgrading ect...  Also more of in larger games aka 100 player maps).

DLC's/Expansion work. (may include ideology rework)

Other tweaks, such as this....

Reply #21 Top

The thing of it Seilore is that mechanical/functional fixes are constantly being done.    Each patch has fixed something or added something.       

The game almost never crashes anymore.. in fact I've not had a crash since probably 1.4.   I suspect that some of the crashes are computer hardware related more than software and will never fully be fixed.

Multiplayer...    I think this is something that StarDock does not have a lot of experience with and will probably be a constant learning curve for them.    I also suspect that the majority of people playing the game don't care much for Multiplayer so it will always be sadly a lower priority.

Treaty slowdown... again I cannot reproduce this on my system... I've tried.    Probably a hardware or driver issue.   I suspect this will be fixed sooner rather than later though since as I said I cannot reproduce this on my own system.

 

AI work...   well this IS part of my above suggestions.   The AI needs to play differently between the civs.    Currently the only viable win scenario for the AI is via conquest.   

The Diplomacy is underwhelming...   if diplomacy was stronger or more directly linked to other parts of the game it would enhance the game experience...


Early in Beta I complained that I thought the tech trees needed to branch more and be less linear...

I think the linearness of the game in general is a big thing holding it back...   Money is not tied to anything but money..   Planet moral does not have an effect on government.   Planets do not defect or go on strike.        There is no population cap or crowding issue...   in GCII a population of 20 was possible but once you went much higher the "too many people" penalties got insane....

There are not checks and balances...   



These future improvements are what will really bring this game into its own....        this thread was some of the areas I think need a bit of TLC...



What are the areas that you would  add to or improve.. not just fix.. but change for the better, adjust... or alter?

 

 

 

Reply #22 Top

So we are getting 1.7 today. Keep in mind that Brad has stated that we are at an end of what would be termed 'Free features'. I agree with Brad on this. If all the features we got last year were rolled into Mercenaries the reception for the Expansion would have been FAR greater. As it was, personally I think 1.7 does (for me) more than Mercs did. 

We are likely not going to see major changes to gameplay till the next Expac. We may see a diplomacy DLC but honestly something that big should be rolled into an expansion like the expand-alone. 

Changes to Ideologies will happen. Keep civil threads like this going and Frogboy and Mormiegle will both pop in with comments which is what we want. Another way to get your ideas is to attend TODAY's stream and ask about your ideas directly to Paul. 


Let the streams stream!

Reply #23 Top

Quoting Taslios, reply 21

The game almost never crashes anymore.. in fact I've not had a crash since probably 1.4.   I suspect that some of the crashes are computer hardware related more than software and will never fully be fixed.

What settings are you playing on, I play on insane maps with 80+ AI, in-frequent crashes still happen, and there has been 1 50+ hour game since 1.61 that has been started and got to a point where the game would crash constantly upon loading, (unrecoverable crash).  Hardware not an issue.  The problem is with these games it takes so long to get there to test any fixes.

Quoting Taslios, reply 21

Multiplayer...    I think this is something that StarDock does not have a lot of experience with and will probably be a constant learning curve for them.    I also suspect that the majority of people playing the game don't care much for Multiplayer so it will always be sadly a lower priority

True, however, it is a feature and, I'm glad it does get love from time to time.

Quoting Taslios, reply 21

Treaty slowdown... again I cannot reproduce this on my system... I've tried.    Probably a hardware or driver issue.   I suspect this will be fixed sooner rather than later though since as I said I cannot reproduce this on my own system.

Again, all comes down to type of game playing.  if playing with less than 20 factions or on smaller maps this doesn't seem to be as much of an issue.  When you're talking exploration treaties with 80+ factions on an insane map and no sensor boat, this becomes an issue.  Not only with longer turn times but, choppy ship movement on your turn just changing the FOW.  Sensor boats eliminate the choppy ship movement because it already has a larger FOW area revealed.

Quoting Taslios, reply 21

Currently the only viable win scenario for the AI is via conquest.   

I've seen/heard the AI winning via tech victory, however, yes the AI needs to have a victory focus section.  When you create a custom faction maybe have a rank as far as how the custom faction will attempt to win with conquest first, culture second, tech third ect....

Quoting Taslios, reply 21

The Diplomacy is underwhelming...   if diplomacy was stronger or more directly linked to other parts of the game it would enhance the game experience...

This part I agree, in the current method it appears everything is assigned a credit value which things can't be.  For instance being that planetary resources stack the AI should look at these and only trade one planetary resource for one planetary resource unless given like 5x's credit or something else needed greatly by the AI.  Same thing with general trade resources.  Tech's should be traded only for other techs.  All this again should be fine to trade across categories but, only in unique situations such as I have negative budget I will give you a deal for Tech a if you give me x credits, however, if AI doesn't really need the tech or almost has it researched already than will offer almost no credit value.  On the other hand if the AI needs tech because they need to upgrade their weapons as they are being eaten by the Drengin Empire, than maybe they offer more credits than it's worth (although they most likely don't have the cash).  Mind you this will all be a pain to code I'm sure but, there needs to be a lot of work done here.  Not to mention the AI needs to trade with each other if it's enabled in the game and, take advantages of it themselves.

Either that or you implement a benefit/risk formula for each trade option.  Such as I offer you two snuggler colonies for 5 durantium,  If the AI has 50 durantium already than why would it want to give me something for 5 more durantium ect...  I think something like this would be ideal but, now to come up with the correct formula for all the variables :)

Reply #24 Top

When it comes to ideology, I see something similar to Gauntlet's approach being best really - split the ideologies into 4 separate sub-groups (say diplo, social, military and economics) each of which mutually exclude with the same sub-group in other ideologies. So say you pick from the 'social' line of maleviolent, you lock out the bene and pragmatic 'social' lines - but not the other rows on those two ideologies. That'd give us a fair number of possible combinations, without the present situation where you can max out all the trees if you want to.

Reply #25 Top

Quoting naselus, reply 24

When it comes to ideology, I see something similar to Gauntlet's approach being best really - split the ideologies into 4 separate sub-groups (say diplo, social, military and economics) each of which mutually exclude with the same sub-group in other ideologies. So say you pick from the 'social' line of maleviolent, you lock out the bene and pragmatic 'social' lines - but not the other rows on those two ideologies. That'd give us a fair number of possible combinations, without the present situation where you can max out all the trees if you want to.

While I'm not against this idea, I just hate being limited in choices.  I would be in more favor of this if instead of 15 ideology choices increasing this to 30 or 45 so that way this continues to work with you for most of the game.  Right now the only way to max out all three, if everyone has a reasonable number of planets