The polls already been tainted and broken by fanboys AND They didn't seperate the poll between bugs and gameplay changes everyone will vote they like 1.31 just for the bug fixes. I DARE you to post a poll asking about gameplay.

You mean they aren't voting the way you wanted?

You really think that most of the people voting have even looked at this thread? Unlikely. *I* like the changes and if I had time to do another update in the near future, I'd do what was suggested earlier and make the technologies for morale and economics much more expensive.

We're not changing it back, especially for Metaverse players who just want an easy way to sit back and buy everything due to ease of getting ridiculous amounts of money. For people who are seriosuly into the enjoyment factor they have a method to make it any way they want - just change the data files.

I respect the majority view, even thou it does not agree with mine.

I voted for I like 1.31 but preferred previous versions. Which tranlates to I hate what u did with morale buildings + other nerfing but loved the better AI + bug fixes. 1.2 was the best patch ever...

I've waited long enough for people to get the chance to post regarding this one and all I can say is, let the game be, PLEASE. Updates are cool and the devs taking the time to listen to what we want is awesome. But enough is enough. I buy a game to play it. If I don't like it, oh well. If I do like it, great. The point is the game is what it is. The freedom to mod is awesome I suppose, even though I don't like to do it myself. If those of you who bought the game thought "gee, they should have added this or that", suggest it for an expansion, period. Or, if you want a game that is everything that you dreamed, go to school and learn to write code so that you can have your "ultimate game". And as for the devs at Stardock, if you want beta testers, just ask for them. I am sure alot of people on this forum would jump at the chance to playtest for you. Just don't offer the updates to the people in general. Once you know it works, (thoroughly playtested) then release it to the masses if you wish to. I've seen other websites for games offering this,,, Beta Playtesters wanted. Seriously, leave the game alone already. Make changes via expansions.

Evil Stormbringer

Are you basicly saying "Please make me spend money on expansions, free patchs are geh"? Because the only reason I did not pirate this game is because of the updates.



Frogboy

I think you have had no changes at all made to Metaverse players who play on Galactic maps because all they need is morale resources and there good, so you targeted them for being cheap and now all they need to do is get tons of Stock Exchanges. Trade is basically useless on anything over large, simply not worth it when you can rush to last Econ research and get a morale/economy boost.


40% income from trade? Maybe if I were losing money, in 1.2 I had all my trade routes going with planets pretty far away, I made like 100 BC a turn while my taxes got me 1000(I worked hard building my economy!) so unless you boost trade a ton, its not worth it. I like the things you have done, I agree that over 75% tax is mildly insane and this makes the game much harder, I disagree with what you did to alliances(Impossible when on anything smaller then large, its simply to random and difficult to play a diplomatic game, which is something I would love doing)

I hate trade routes. Never liked them in Civ either. I probably
should try them. Usually I can get by in 1.3 if I can find enough money in anomalies. But I spend a lot more time building trade centers, hoping the money lasts until I get stock exchanges. Then the morale goes up and the money rolls in.

Playing on "Challenging" (which isn't), I am finding that the AI is having
a harder time expanding and their production even in the early game is way
too low.

So early game takes longer to get going but the end game is easier since
there are few AI planets to take.

Are you basicly saying "Please make me spend money on expansions, free patchs are geh"? Because the only reason I did not pirate this game is because of the updates.

No, I am saying to make sure what the devs want to add is playtested "enough" to work out MOST of the bugs prior to letting general users download and play. I realize that alot of things released are more or less Beta versions with added disclaimers. I don't think everyone playing this game realizes that they could be unwitting "testers", even if they are told so prior to downloading. So, the way I see it, I pay for phone time and internet access, and yes I would get broadband or whatever else aside from phone lines if it was available in my area, which it isn't yet due to corporate entities vying for top dog spots. Either way the game is going to cost me money, so let me pay for the end results, not the trials and tribulations.

I don't like the changes.

Why even use population as a basis for getting more metaverse points if you then prevent people from trying to get a higher population? Makes no sense.

Why even bother having morale buildings in the game now? Why even bother having bonus food tiles in the game? They are now useless. No more specialty economic planets. Never was a real need for influance buildings or bonus tiles, there are much better things to do with the space. Seems to me, this creates a cookie cutter style way of playing for everyone. Basically only one logical way to develop your worlds now, depending on planet size, 3-5 factories, a couple labs, one or two farms with no bonus tiles, no morale buildings or influance buildings, and everything else stock exchanges. Might as well have it so the computer automatically develops your worlds for you, and set the tax rate so it cannot be changed by the user: no decisions to make. No fear of one player using a different strategy for deveoping their worlds then everyone else, right?

Maybe it is just me, but, I think a strategy game is best when it has more strategic options, not less.

Maybe it is just me, but, I think a strategy game is best when it has more strategic options, not less.

Amen, Brother, Amen.

There are very large elements of truth in the things you say. However, the changes are not without some benefit. Elimination of the save/load no production bug is large from my point of view. Also, early colonization is strangely different and a bit more difficult. It's making me think a bit more and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

I was very critical of exactly the things you mention, but if the changes have made development more cookie cutter, I haven't figured out the formula quite yet. In the end, we're all playing the same game and facing the same difficulties. At this point I'm still in the colonization phase of my first v1.31 game so I'm willing to give the game an honest play and reserve my final judgement at least until I finish. Of course, my final judgement won't make a bit of difference so I guess I'll just learn to live with it.

At this point I'm still in the colonization phase of my first v1.31 game

After reading my reply to this I can see that I was kind of "wrong". Nevermind my earlier issues with this game altogether. I think it's an awesome game. The changes in 1.31 are definitely noticeable and completely destroyed my basic strategy for early game, which was planet grabbing. Seems no matter what diff I play at (barring cakewalk of course)my economy will fail miserably if I attempt to use my old ways. As I replied elsewhere, after just six colonies I found my treasury in the tank. True, I did finance a few colonizers, and maybe that was the downfall. Regardless, my economy could never recover unless I destroyed every last colony, even all of my homeworld improvements save for the starport. 1.31 hands down is number intensive IMO but that just means a new strategy on my part. Mumblefratz, if your headed down this road early game, land grabbing that is, I don't know how well it will work. If this is your strat and you manage to make a go at it without tanking your economy, please let me know, since above all else, I love to grab those planets.

I'm still fumbling with it at this point. Previously, I quickly got manufacturing capital on my home planet and with 100% approval and the 70% pop growth racial bonus had no real problem pumping out a colony ship with 500 colonists every other turn. Pretty much colonizing from only my home planet I was able to slightly out colonize suicidal AI's on a gigantic abundant all galaxy.

Now I don't really know what it is, it's like morale is a touch lower, income is a touch lower, the effect of taxes on morale is a touch higher, plus you start with a higher pop on your home planet. Anyway, I can't seem to keep the morale on my home planet at 100% as I used to. So I still make my home planet my manufacturing capital but I produce a colony ship of 500 every third turn by adjusting the slider more towards research.

In v1.2 colonizing a planet every other turn I simply let the planets develop themselves, generally starting the build sequence with a market or advanced market. I would keep my taxes low by deficit spending from my initial 5000 bc plus whatever money anomalies my survey ship could find. By the time my colonies get to be about 5B pop they essentiall supported themselves. Once I had a dozen or so profitable planets it was off to the races.

Now to compensate for the slower colony ship production I spent money rush buying mainly econ buildings on my first two colonies so that they begin producing colonies themselves ASAP. Still it takes about 8 months till they begin producing colonies. Also since I spent a fair amount of my initial cash on my first two colonies, I have to be even more frugal with money. I do this by allowing my colonies (other than my first two) to build 3 or 4 econ buildings on their own (econ buildings have 0 maintenance) before I start building factories. As it stands I'm getting near the end of the colony rush and I have 30 planets while the AI's have an average of 40 planets each. I think I'm doing OK but I certainly don't feel a win is by any means certain. I'll let you know more how it turns out.

It's still doable, I grabbed 77 planets in the colony rush in my current game -- 1.31, suicidal, gigantic, 9 opponents, approx 470 habitable planets.
Kept my spending at 100% and I am going to win the game -- just took out my 2nd civ.
Guess I just keep increasing my skill faster than they make the AI better.

FYI, they increased the basic population growth rate from 3% to approx 5% I believe with 1.31. However, they did not change the basic population growth max of .075.
basic = no bonus's

The economy is tougher in 1.3. Did it improve the game? I think it did not. Games are simply harder and longer now. I can still do the same things I was doing in 1.2, it just takes longer. Sorry to say, I feel 1.2 was a more rewarding and enjoyable game (less the annoying bugs of course, but 1.3 has some new annoying bugs).

For better or worse, I don't think it's a good idea to attempt large changes to game mechanics this long after the game's initial release. If the game is "off balance", then it's something that should have been addressed, ideally, before the first release. Lots of things can be easily changed that have a big impact, but I don't think it's necesarily a good idea to be mucking around with it now. It just alienates customers.

GC2 is one of those rare games that has a long shelf life. That being the case, we can still look forward to whatever updates come along. At this point, I would have expected updates to be limited to bug fixes and additional content, not major changes to game mechanics. Even 1.1 would have been a bit late for those.

I sort of disagree with you on this CraigHB, I like Stardock continueing to rebalance the game.

I didn't play 1.0 for a full game but from what I saw I do not think that 1.0 was much more than an average game.

1.2 was a very good game by my estimation and just cleaning up all the bugs would have been just fine by me.

However, there must have been a strategy that some players were using that Brad just found totally unacceptable. I have no idea what it was but cann't believe it was just being able to do 100% morale with 80% tax rate and just stock markets for morale on planets with populations of 10-19B. For one it is still possible to do that with lower populations and still have a workable economy.

I wish that Stardock would continue to update and rebalance GC2 -- I think it could be turned into a much better game eventually. However I can understand why they are moving on to DA and I certainly feel I've gotten a very good game in 1.31 for my money.

And I think we'll get an awful lot for our money in DA -- Stardock is just calling it an expansion when in my estimation it is closer to a sequel with gameplay elements that make it a very different game from GC2 1.31.

You mean they aren't voting the way you wanted?

Those polls are BS and you know it.

The second answer is always the correct choice of the players.

9% Said they are happy with it but liked 1.2 better. (correct)

84% said they are happy with it (fanboys deleting cookies over and over to destroy poll)

I don't like the changes. Why even use population as a basis for getting more metaverse points if you then prevent people from trying to get a higher population? Makes no sense. Why even bother having morale buildings in the game now? Why even bother having bonus food tiles in the game? They are now useless. No more specialty economic planets. Never was a real need for influance buildings or bonus tiles, there are much better things to do with the space. Seems to me, this creates a cookie cutter style way of playing for everyone. Basically only one logical way to develop your worlds now, depending on planet size, 3-5 factories, a couple labs, one or two farms with no bonus tiles, no morale buildings or influance buildings, and everything else stock exchanges. Might as well have it so the computer automatically develops your worlds for you, and set the tax rate so it cannot be changed by the user: no decisions to make. No fear of one player using a different strategy for deveoping their worlds then everyone else, right? Maybe it is just me, but, I think a strategy game is best when it has more strategic options, not less.

Ahmen!

Those polls are BS and you know it. The second answer is always the correct choice of the players. 9% Said they are happy with it but liked 1.2 better. (correct) 84% said they are happy with it (fanboys deleting cookies over and over to destroy poll)

LOL! Just because the poll doesn't support your opinion doesn't mean the poll was rigged. It just means you're in the minority, it doesn't even mean you're wrong. But making up conspiracy theories doesn't make you right, either.

Seems to me, this creates a cookie cutter style way of playing for everyone. Basically only one logical way to develop your worlds now, depending on planet size, 3-5 factories, a couple labs, one or two farms with no bonus tiles, no morale buildings or influance buildings, and everything else stock exchanges.

Is this supposed to be an obvious best strategy? Because it's not. Stock exchanges still produce more money when on planets with high populations, so it still makes sense to put the stock exchanges on planets with high populations, and put population on planets with lots ot stock exchanges. Those stock exchanges each have a 10% boost to morale, so a lot of them in one place lets you have a high population there. This strategy is okay before you get stock exchanges, but it isn't any better than putting your labs and banks on seperate planets.

The only change with 1.3 that matters here is that morale buildings are weaker, so I build stock exchanges instead, and lower the tax rate or population cap to compensate. My current strategy is to build production planets that are all factories and labs (no farms, morale buildings, or stock exchanges), and set my tax rate so these planets are at about 40% approval at 5 billion population. My money planets have as many stock exchanges as possible and enough farms to keep the population growing. So, I don't like the changes to morale buildings in 1.3 because now they're useless compared to stock exchanges, but it hasn't exactly wrecked the game.

Yea, I think the biggest arguable change is the morale buildings. The change to farm bonuses is probably not so significant. I'd like to see a pole regarding that specific change. Obviously, I feel it was a bad idea. In my case, I went from a strategy that inlcuded the use of morale buildings to one that does not use them at all.

Nullspace: It is not just that the morale buildings are weaker, they also made it so the morale gets a lot worse then before with higher populations. I believe the cut off point is around 19 billion now, anything over that takes a very serious morale hit making it not possible to get the higher scores for a high population. I would be surprise if you could have a population of 45 billion on a economy planet and be able to have enough stock exchanges to keep the morale at a reasonalbe level, have you managed that? Using the 300% food bonus always made it difficult to come up with enough morale buildings to keep the morale up, I don't think you can use it at all now and keep your morale at a resonable level. If you leave your morale as low as your are saying, how do you win any elections?

By using high morale and econcomic bonuses I can still build a decent economy, but it takes much much longer to accomplish everything, and never can get as good as it would before. The problem with using lots of factories as you mentioned is that they were weakened so much in the 1.2 patch that I feel it is better to get the high economy and buy as many things as you can instead of waiting for them to be built.

I still build one large specialty planet for research with a research capital and all labs, but only one. And one economic planet with a economic capital, but I feel it is too risky to put a high population on it with the morale settings as they are.

You of course should still be able to win the game, that is not the issue, but it now takes so much longer to accomplish the same things. It makes the games longer to develop and more boring in my opinion. And makes some aspects like the morale buildings useless. Having a slower economy makes developing everything else slower, from research to military fleets. It just makes the game less enjoyable, more tedious, taking so long to accomplish everything.

I'm having huge problems with 1.3 right now. The game is much much harder, and I'm not talking about the AI.

I haven't played for a month or so, but felt the urge, updated, and went to town. I couldn't figure out WHY I was having such a hard time making money - I had to go through and analyze all of my colonies.

I restarted the game about 6 times before I figured out what was going on. Colonizing too much too quickly just completely bankrupts you now. Sure, you'll grab a lot of worlds, but then you won't be able to do anything until your population starts increasing enough to bring in some tax revenue to make up for the massive maintenance costs.

Then, I got a game to about mid-game, and ran into further moral/economic issues. I agree with the people who have been saying that managing moral and economics has become too much of a focus of the game. I can't even try out the enemy AI right now. I am doing a splendid job of ruining my empire from within without even being attacked. Every turn is focusing on how much moral I have, and my economic model. I was doing fine for awhile, until the Galactic Conference restricted Evil races to only 3 trade routes, and then my economy collapsed.

I am willing to concede that the strategy for playing the game has significantly changed, and I just need to "relearn" a few things... but this patch is a pain in the butt thus far.

No, I am saying to make sure what the devs want to add is playtested "enough" to work out MOST of the bugs prior to letting general users download and play. I realize that alot of things released are more or less Beta versions with added disclaimers. I don't think everyone playing this game realizes that they could be unwitting "testers", even if they are told so prior to downloading. So, the way I see it, I pay for phone time and internet access, and yes I would get broadband or whatever else aside from phone lines if it was available in my area, which it isn't yet due to corporate entities vying for top dog spots. Either way the game is going to cost me money, so let me pay for the end results, not the trials and tribulations.

I would like to point out that every single one of our updates was in beta for weeks before we released it, and there was still stuff that we and the people who downloaded the betas did not catch.  Do you know why? Because people didn't want to beta test it.  They wanted to play the metaverse so that they could keep their scores up. 

So are you saying, Evil Stormbringer, that you didn't bother to play the betas, and now you're complaining about the results?

 

So are you saying, Evil Stormbringer, that you didn't bother to play the betas, and now you're complaining about the results?

Wow CariElf, that post of mine was from the 19th of September. Did you just catch it now? And if so, then my more recent post from the 29th of Sept. basically changed my position. And yes, I've played/tested everything that you guys have had to offer since I bought this game so.... I guess I am missing what you mean. As far as beta playtesters/Metaverse.... are you saying that people didn't want to test first? I am kind of at a loss, imagine that, over your quoting my post from a few weeks ago. My intent was to say that I have seen other game sites where they do ask for beta testers prior to releasing an update/expansion/patch. Sign me up if you need one, because I would devote as much time as I could to it. Sorry if you took what I posted wrong or something though Cari, I truly am. You've got to realize that I have never ever ever played a game that required so much of me just to get it to run, so at times my responses may be agitated to say the least. I am a gamer. I buy it, install it, and play it. Since GC2 I have been into parts of my computer that I have never had to be in before, whether that is good or bad, I don't know. In all honesty, you guys have made me seriously consider going back to school for programming!!! Seriously!!!!

I'm sorry, that last line was uncalled for and I can only say that I am just really sick of hearing people say things like "I can't believe this made it out of beta!" 

I did see your further post, but at that point I was already seeing red and it didn't contradict my impression that you were complaining after not having played the beta, which is how I interpreted your comment about having to pay for the dial up time, etc.

The (sore) point I really should have stuck with is that I read posts where people un-installed the betas (and advised others to do the same) because they were more interested in keeping their metaverse scores up.

 

I am the idiot that started this thread:

What I was looking for is not whether 1.2 is better or worse than 1.31, but whether the economic/morale changes were for the better. A much narrower question because obviously 1.31 fixed a bunch of other problems.

Again I wouldn't mind if they put the morale/econ numbers somewhere in between 1.2
and 1.31.

And stock exchanges are too powerful. But don't take them away now. They are only way I get into the black.

Stormbringer, make no mistake, if you're going to make personal attacks, we will remove you. Consider this your warning.

We like the changes. The majority of users seem to like the changes. You don't. I'm sorry for that. Perhaps the next update you'll like better. 

But as the designer of said game, I can assure you that it was never intended so that people could just crank up their taxes to 70%+ and go crazy.  Everything in the game was originally balanced on the premise that going above 50% in taxes would be very VERY difficult to do. 

1.3 didn't make it impossible to have high taxes. It simply requires more effort to do so.

Stormbringer, make no mistake, if you're going to make personal attacks, we will remove you. Consider this your warning.

What are you guys talking about?!? I am missing something so please point me that way okay? Who did I attack, and with what? Are you sure you are quoting something that I have typed? I saw no attack on my part. Seriously, what are you talking about?
I went back and reread my two replies about this after posting this reply, I don't see any personal attacks. What am I missing. This is gonna drive me nuts people. I will apologize if necessary but I want to know what I am apologizing for, wouldn't you?