Frogboy Frogboy

GALCIV DEV JOURNAL: January 2018

GALCIV DEV JOURNAL: January 2018

Of Invasions and Accessibility

Happy new year!

This month marks my one-year anniversary of returning to my beloved Galactic Civilizations as its lead designer.  And since then, we've made a lot of changes much to the joy and angst of many galactic conquerors.

Unintended Consequences

With the announcement of the third expansion pack to Galactic Civilizations III imminent, this serves as a good time to look at where we stand today.

For the past year, I've been going through and weeding out improvements, events and other game modifiers that had unintended consequences.   

The very first thing I did was read all the forum posts on GalCiv3.com, Steam, Reddit, elsewhere and see a lot of criticism for what amounts to unintended consequences of multiplying bonuses.  Getting rid of these has been good for the game but not all players appreciate the changes since it dramatically nerfs their gameplay.

For example, with the right combination, you could get ships with a base speed of over 40 moves per turn.  That's without adding an engine.  There are players who have posted complaints at how slow things get when they try to move their 90 move per turn ship around late game on a ludicrous sized galaxy.

The game itself was designed (and thus the underlying engine) on the premise that you wouldn't get many ships with more than say 10 moves per turn.   

While the AI could be scripted to do the same thing, it would destroy the game.  If you think it's slow for you to move a ship 90 moves per turn, imagine 60 AI players doing it with 400 ships per turn.  Even with a multicore Astar path finding algorithm, it would make the game both unplayable and not fun (what's the point of even having defenses or a forward line if ships can swoop in from sectors away every turn?).

So there's been a lot of work to get things balanced together.  It's not a matter of trying to change the game around as much as making the game play as had been originally intended.  As a math nerd, when I came in and saw the numbers it was just a matter of time to find all these unintended bonuses and kill them off.

Version 2.8: Invasions & Accessibility

One of our Fall tasks was to do more focus testing on why people don't find GalCiv III that approachable.  From watching new players, one thing was incredibly obvious.  The DESIGNER button at the top of the screen of the main screen was killing us.

Think about it.  You're new to the game and you are just clicking on buttons and you click on the Designer button and you get a super complex screen.  It's poison to new players.

The thing is, we don't really need that button.  For one thing, players can design ships from the main menu now.  Secondly, the ship designer, while super cool, isn't one of the features you need to use to manage your empire.  It belongs as part of the shipyard.

The second big task we worked on for 2.8 was the AI managing legions.  The concept of having to train legions and then put them on transports was relatively new as of 2.5.  And while the GalCiv III AI is somewhat genetic in how it works, I still have to make the "tests" that it has to pass to determine whether it's on the right track. 

Unfortunately, I was quickly schooled by other GalCiv players in not being very good at keeping a healthy supply of legions and transports ready to deal with opportunities.  And my own weaker assumptions got passed on to the AI.  Version 2.8 addresses this. Hard.

The rest of the AI changes were small but add up to a big difference.  For instance, previously, the AI had a one-size fits all fleet size.  While good enough for most players, our better players found themselves able to actually out compete the AI even on harder levels.  Thus, the AI gained the ability to evaluate different sized fleets based on a number of galactic conditions (instead of a fixed size).

Cleaning

Most of my work was on Crusade.  We brought over features from Crusade to the base game but we didn't bring what is arguably the more important aspect of it - cleaning and streamlining.

Put  your new player hat on and load up the base game.  You have tons of technologies to choose from with lots of improvements, weapons and modules that really just are hard to grasp onto.  Thus, we streamlined the base game for 2.8 so that there are fewer techs available at the start and what they provide is more obvious and more beneficial.

Population Growth

Population growth is tricky.  On the one hand, you want it to be realistic but on the other, you don't really want it to be realistic because realism can be pretty boring.

So we have population growth default to 0.1 population growth per turn.  Many good players recognized that if you loaded up transports with tiny populations to colonize you could get huge benefits by fast expanding.  And a big part of our work has been to support tall empires and not give fast expansion too big of a benefit.

For 2.8, we made the minimum population you can have on a colony ship be 1.  This makes colonizing a planet somewhat more serious than previous and allows us to avoid having to do a % population growth (do the math, there's no happy ending with a flat % growth -- boring or broken).

Diplomacy

We are in the process of adding some new diplomatic modifiers.  One of which is "We have a long, happy friendship" which essentially helps reward players who have been keeping the peace a long time from suddenly having players going to conquer them.  We already have various hidden mitigating factors for this but we haven't had anything a player could visibly see.

As always...

Anything you can do to spread the word on Galactic Civilizations helps.  Sales determine how many engineers we can put on the game.

When GalCiv III first came out, it was at a supreme disadvantage because it was on a brand-new engine.  But now, as we enter 2018, it's multi-core, 64 bit engine is looking pretty awesome as the rapid progress should, I hope, make apparent.  You'll be happy to know that the Spectre and Meltdown fixes you may have heard of will affect GalCiv III very little because we don't rely on single CPU core performance.  

Those of you who have moved to 4K probably have noticed just how future-proof GalCiv III is.   As time goes on, the game gets richer, deeper and more polished and with your help, we can ensure it is the ultimate 4X space strategy game.

 

279,709 views 32 replies
Reply #26 Top

There is some really actionable feedback here.  We really appreciate that.

As for progress, I've talked about this elsewhere.  If I had a time machine, i would have done things differently.

As some of you know, GalCiv is my baby.  I wrote the first version 25 years ago when in college.

For GalCiv III, I had to choose between doing ANOTHER GalCiv III game or helping launch Oxide Games and Mohawk Games and I chose the ladder.

In hindsight, I should have led the GalCiv III effort first but it is what it is.   

I don't want revisionist history to change the status of GalCiv III at launch.  We are talking about an 83 metacritic game at the 1.0 release.  It was really good.  It was just too conservative and the priorities were placed in areas that I wouldn't have put them (the ship designer got a huge chunk of engineering time instead of the areas that I have traditionally focused).

Since returning to the project last year, I feel like we've made some terrific progress.  The game's engine is awesome.  Where other 4X games are working within the limits of their tech, we are barely touching what we can do.  That's the advantage of a 4th generation engine versus the other 3rd generation engines the others have.

However, in doing so, we have ceded the initial advantage to other 4X games who had mature engines that could focus on polish and user experience.  Now we're having to play catch-up on those areas.

 

 

+2 Loading…
Reply #27 Top

Quoting P-DEX, reply 24


*entitlement*

 


 

Yeah, this kinda self-hatred needs to stop within the gamer community, demanding and wanting quality isn't wrong.  Demanding and wanting a full product isn't wrong.  It's kinda stupid to think that game prices should never go up, and it's not remotely unreasonable to expect a higher UP FRONT price for a COMPLETE product, but that's a whole-nother thing.

 

I did notice Wardell talking about being afraid of making DLC, but that is less because gamers are selfish babies, and more because a lot of companies have given DLC a bad name via abuse.  I'm not sure what, if anything can be done to make this have less impact on GC3, but trashing your fellow gamers is NOT what will accomplish that.

Reply #28 Top

I'm  extremely happy that you came back last year and I think there is not one player that is not happy about that. The game makes big steps in the right direction and get improved and become better and better.  Great to read about the new expansion and all the plans there are in progress. 

Thank you so much for your hard work and to continue the hard work on the best game ever! 

Reply #29 Top

Perhaps this is also a function of the gaming climate of the past few years where DLC and Lootboxes have become more and more predatory. Some nostalgia may be leaking forth as well... I've seen how the game has progressed over the years, but the feeling that remains with me is that a lot of this progress should have been made before launch.

Also, I am no stranger to ill-received enterprise. I can empathize with the devs as I too have tried launching a product of my own that really went nowhere as a result of community disinterest and administrative dispassion (in my case); i.e., I am not trying to come across as unfair.

Finally, my previous post was in some way a letter to myself; i.e., a manifestation of the thoughts that have been brooding for several years now as I've seen the gaming market develop. In a way, I wanted the words out there so that others could see them.

GLHF 

 

+1 Loading…
Reply #30 Top

Hi Frogboy, this is my first post on the forums.

My first post and why I've hesitated
I've been reading over the GalCiv III forums since the game launched, and have wanted to ask a question for a while that I felt others tried to ask, but then it seemed to disintegrate into unproductive arguments.  I suppose I hesitated to write because I'm anticipating salty responses.  I really enjoyed GalCiv II, but stopped playing due to the absence of one feature that was essential for me, personally.  I haven't purchased GalCiv III due to the absence of that feature (see below), but if it was added I'd jump on board right away.  Perhaps there are others out there who dismissed GalCiv III, but would end up prioritizing it over Stellaris or others if it was added?  I'll explain below. 

A possiblity that it may happen?
Your May 2017 Journal post gave me a glimpse of what could happen.  You mentioned the potential consideration of "letting flees that are commanded by an Admiral have tactical control over their battle." and that "right now, GalCiv III has tactical battles, it's just that they are forcibly put to auto-resolve.." (https://forums.galciv3.com/483144/galciv-journal-may-2017) Is the idea of adding admiral control or enabling some mod to that effect still under consideration? 

Solidifying GalCiv III as the 4x leader
I haven't purchased GalCiv III due to the absence of an option for more tactical control in battle.  It doesn't have to be turn-based tactical control, but I've always been seeking for a vs. AI option that would give me the same involvement with ships I design as is possible with colonies, diplomacy, etc.  Articles at explorminate.net describe these key 4x immersion factors well.  If it some aspect of tactical control vs. AI was added I'd jump on board right away. 

I realize this differs from your initial vision for the game, but if this was an optional expansion of sorts, would it give you a chance to emerge with a unique advantage over your competitors?  You, Stellaris, Endless Space, and others (like GalCiv III) have established themselves as the top 4x leaders.  As with GalCiv III, I haven't bought these games either because each of them lacked the immersion in combat that I've desired.  (I did buy the latest Master of Orion, StarDrive 1/2, Stars in Shadow, Dawn of Andromeda, but they all failed to do this in my opinion). 

GalCiv III has already established itself as one of the leaders, so if you expanded outside expectations by possibly adding a feature like this, could it bring in other players who tried and were disappointed with these other games, or who wanted the feature in Endless Space and Stellaris but couldn't get it?

Please note that my suggestion is about a game option that could be turned on or off, or perhaps are only available vs. the AI, and so would be an option a player could disable if it disrupted his/her vision of how the game should be.  I keep hoping to see a press release that announces something like "GalCiv III to offer major feature option not found in other leading 4x games:  tactical combat!"

AbsoluteZero

Reply #31 Top

Quoting AbsoluteZer0K, reply 30


A possiblity that it may happen?
Your May 2017 Journal post gave me a glimpse of what could happen.  You mentioned the potential consideration of "letting flees that are commanded by an Admiral have tactical control over their battle." and that "right now, GalCiv III has tactical battles, it's just that they are forcibly put to auto-resolve.." (https://forums.galciv3.com/483144/galciv-journal-may-2017) Is the idea of adding admiral control or enabling some mod to that effect still under consideration? 

I must say I like this idea, but to differentiate it from auto-resolve, it'd have to have different admiral types that use different tactics.  

Reply #32 Top

Quoting erischild, reply 25

I consider my initial buy-in to be finally paying off.  I have enjoyed the game since Beta, but have been waiting for Brad to get hands on with the AI.  It bothers me that so much in the mechanics has gotten nerfed in the name of progress, but it has been progress.  All I can say is please Brad don't stop now.  Thanks!

Same, except I wasn't enthused with the game at launch. For all the reasons that were listed in Frogboy's first paragraph, and many other things which have mostly been fixed. Just like with Stellaris, a lot of things that didn't work all that well game-design-wise were identified and fixed, and that's really good news.