Baqar79 Baqar79

New player impressions about the tech tree

▼

New player impressions about the tech tree

from GalCiv2 Forums
Well technically I've had the game for a while at least I bought GC2 about a year ago when it first came out based on the rave reviews at gamespot; however I was expecting something like Moo2 and was a little disappointed with the game. I missed the tactical combat, being able to control all aspects of battle (as opposed to the automatic battle sequences on GC2), I enjoyed watching the opponents sub-systems break down as I directly inflicted damage to structural components taking out vital systems until his engines wouldn't allow for his escape and then I would board with my marines to acquire the ship for myself. I also missed the technology system of Moo2 with the not only incremental improvements in technology but also the special abilities you got with certain new weapons (ie graviton beam inflicts structural damage on top of armour damage, neutron beam kills marines, black hole generator kills units in 2 turns, time warp facilitator is a little overpowered... (although as GC2 has no tactical combat these aren't really applicable).

Now a year later I thought I would give it another try with Dark Avatar (although I had to buy the gold edition as the expansion wasn't available at the store). I know that all you guys out there must be finding quite a bit of stuff in this game worth liking to keep playing it so I tried to approach the game as more like a Civilization in space...which seems to be working so far....I'm still new to the game as I haven't played it much buy I love to figure out the mechanics of the game so I was working out taxes last night and figured out that each 1 billion citizens makes 7.75BC unmodified (woohoo I like it when numbers make sense), though I still have much to work out which brings me to my main complaint: The Tech tree

Why does the tech tree not explain what new improvements do, why hasn't this changed since GC2? (I would of thought it would of bothered a few people). I know I'm whining but heck, it would be nice to know what an Xeno lab is before researching it (Ok I have actually gotten further then this and I know it improves the basic research building from 6 to 8 but how would I know this if I didn't research it?)...same goes for weapons, laser II doesn't help me much with whether it is worth researching or not. Also pre-requisites; I admit I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but It isn't easy to figure out how to move on to the next ship design (I just read it now and it isn't quite as bad as what I thought (I am still learning) but it still doesn't describe the new hull designs at all).

Another thing that would be nice to implement is to apply racial abilities to the planetary summary window...just so you know how much of an effect that +45% research is having or that new planetary improvement tech which gives you +10 to social, military & research.

I'm trying hard to get into this game but it seems I have to research online a lot of game play features to figure out what they do...the tutorials only scratch the surface. I think if there was one thing I would most like to see improved would be to add mouse-over help on EVERYTHING; go crazy if we mouse over social tell me a breakdown of how I'm getting that amount of research eg 12 mp base + 20% bonus then break it down further 10% from Planetary improvements, 10% xeno industrial theory for a total of 14.4 mp. Apply this to research as well so it isn't a mystery until you've played the game a few times (besides research should be fun, not a "what does this do, oh well lets research it anyway"!).

If I'm the only one bothered by this so be it, then don't let me spoil your fun, but if any of you have any similar concerns or perhaps the developers would like to share about the reason for the absence of more Technology info (perhaps it's too difficult to integrate it into the engine...I'm no programmer so I'm pretty ignorant), then I would be keen on hearing opinions
27,983 views 84 replies
Reply #76 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
And, to add to what Frogboy said, this is why these forums were started and why Galciv2 is such a moddable game, it makes it so that the devs can change the major issues and those of us in the community that wish to contribute to making the game better can do so. This is one of the greatest companies that i have ever dealt with, they have forums that the devs actually read and respond to, and when there is a problem it is fixed in a timely manner. That is why i dont have any fear of pre ordering SOAS or any of their desktop enhancement software, I know that if a problem occurs it will be dealt with quickly and effectively. But now I'm on a tangent...

The point is that the game has been made to be moddable so the devs can focus on the larger issues that Frogboy pointed out, while us customers can improve our own and others' gaming experience by adding in our ideas. It isn't like they make it especially hard for anyone to change what they feel needs changing, there is a wiki site, multiple modding sites, and devs and THE OWNER OF THE COMPANY HIMSELF willing to work WITH anyone that feels that they should contribute to the game. Now tell me, how many companies do that? If you think something should be done about a part of the game that is easily moddable, then i believe that you should do it yourself and leave the devs free to update the parts of the game that only they can work on.
Reply #77 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
By contrast the argument "Do as I say because I know more" is not very persuasive.


hehehe, reminds me of my childhood listening to parents and teachers. And i also remember loosing respect for any adults that used that line on me... well at least i know to treat my own children with a little respect because of that.

On a more global scale, people do tend to listen to the person speaking the words rather than judging words on their own merrits. For example, you might try to talk to a freind about the death of a loved one, but if you havn't experienced such an event, they might dissregard your words and say that you do not know how they feel. That is sad, especially if your words might have helped them.

My point is, listen to the words, not the speaker. Let the words stand on their own merrits without prejudice of who spoke them.
Offworld Trading Company
Reply #78 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Most of our budget (at least 90% of it) goes into updates that are adding new features and content, not fixes.


Like what?
Can you provide some examples? Real new features and content in updates.

As released, GalCiv II and Dark Avatar were very solid (especially compared to other titles). I really cannot think of any significant bugs that have been fixed in Dark Avatar (certainly nothing requireing a patch).


Not that there's a lack of bugs in DL that could have been fixed. Some are being fixed after DA, some are being discovered now. Of course, it's not cost effective to fix most of them, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Also, it' not just about bugs, but about unbalanced stuff, unusable stuff, irrelevant stuff, etc. All of this gets "forgotten" because it doesn't affect gameplay in a significant manner - most of it anyway.

I think most would agree that changing the flavor text of tech descriptions that have been around for a very long time would not fall under a "bug fix".


So what would you call providing *wrong* info ingame?

When users start demanding that we re-do the tech tree text to suit them as a free update, that, to me, is sending the wrong message.


I don't see anyone demanding anything here. Is anyone demanding the constructor thing be fixed? Because it's been discussed ad nauseum in a number of other threads. The thing is, it's a problem. Some people are presenting their case, and isn't that what you advertise, you listen to customers? Are you going to charge for the constructor thing? What's the difference?

If you really think there's no internal QA on these betas, then I don't know what to say to that. Do you really think that these betas are so stable on release by sheer coincidence?


It depends on what you mean by stable. I don't read the crash threads and mem problems and whanot. What I do see is one version saying some problem is fixed but that not being exactly true. I understand those are betas, but this was just an example of a very basic thing. Also note that the changes in the betas are not so extensive as to potentially make the game unstable, and those that are actually create problems.

To me, one of my gripes about the game industry is that games are released and quickly abandoned.


Abandoned or without further support? Games only really need support after release if they're not working as intended. Ok, not that simple but,

By contrast, like other software companies, we treat our games as something that continue to evolve after release.


You see, I don't think it evolves all that much. After each release I mean. It has some cosmetic enhancements to justify the continued support, of course. I'm not judging the system, I'm just counter-argumenting. I understand that yo want to defend it at all cost, but you're hardly unbiased.

think, generally speaking, the way we do updates and deal transparently with users


I think that transparency is a bit selective though.

Final note. The guy selling meat at the butchers, he may be the CEO of his own company. He still is responsible for the quality of the met he sells. And for all intents and purposes, he *is* a "clerk".



@Bleeg

Yikes, that a few nitpicker's could elicit three responses from Frogboy himself on this issue conveys the twisted power of the forum...


Hmm, Frogboy *wants* to be treated as anyone else. He replies because he wants to. He is part of the community. The balance between being CEO and one of the guys, it's something he must have considered when he chose to act this way. So this kind of comment is really absurd.

I would point out all the typos and incorrect grammar used above in the very threads doing the complaining. (Kind of a cheap shot, I know.


It's way below a cheap shot actually. if that's the best you could come up with ...

Any changes for the descriptions would need to be edited and proofed for factual game information, grammar and effective prose before being updated into the commercial product. It takes time and expertise.


Which should be a given when making a game. But the really important thing here is the changes that were not integrated into the texts, the missing game-realted info, the wrong info being provided. These do not require a great effort. But people are beginning to side-track.



@eetmorsgrls

The point is that the game has been made to be moddable so the devs can focus on the larger issues that Frogboy pointed out, while us customers can improve our own and others' gaming experience by adding in our ideas.


Moddability is not the issue here. Neither is suggestions and ideas. The part of the issue being discussed here that the players can access is very limited. It's text basically. It's important for the game, but you're making it be something it's not.
Reply #79 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I don't see anyone demanding anything here. Is anyone demanding the constructor thing be fixed? Because it's been discussed ad nauseum in a number of other threads. The thing is, it's a problem. Some people are presenting their case, and isn't that what you advertise, you listen to customers? Are you going to charge for the constructor thing? What's the difference?


Moddability is not the issue here. Neither is suggestions and ideas. The part of the issue being discussed here that the players can access is very limited. It's text basically. It's important for the game, but you're making it be something it's not.


As are you, the constructor problem is unchangeable by anyone but the dev team, so why would they want to spend their time on something that anyone can change, rather than a problem that only they can fix?

So what would you call providing *wrong* info ingame?


At what point did the flavor text become wrong? As far as i can tell, this thread was started because there wasnt enough of a description in the game to let users fully comprehend the effects of the techs, not because the text itself was wrong. Correct me if I am mistaken, but it seems to me like all you want to do is complain about how little you can do as a user, but you still won't do the things that are possible. If you have all this time in game development under your belt, why haven't you looked at the game and suggested any fixes or tried to help in any way? All you have done is tell Frogboy that he has bad PR, and yet here he is talking to you personally. Tell me, how many companies have the owner personally talk to you when you believe there is something wrong with the game that should be addressed? How does actually listening to what people are saying make for bad PR?
Reply #80 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
when did this thread turn from what we would like to see in the game to attacking frogboy

i don't know if you saw it but i started a new thread moral and stuff becouse i was afriad it would get lost on this one


and i see that i was right
Reply #81 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
i stand corrected, an error was pointed out to me. "Hyperdrive used immense amounts of energy in order to slightly warp space to make a 10 million mile trip seem the same as taking a one light year trip." This is either backwards or you shuld take out the light year part, its the same as saying "to make a [53.8 second] trip seem the same as taking a one year trip"

Im also wondering about where to explain things such as AIvalue. Should i just put it in one of the descriptions (if so which one), or in all of the lowest level techs, or just leave AIvalues out altogether?
Reply #82 from Stardock Forums Top
As a brand new GalCivII buyer, this thread is a mixed pot. I should be all over the tech texts. Whining and complaining my head off. Because I'm someone that depends on those texts helping me learn the game. So far I'm about as close to accomplishing something useful in GalCivII as I am in molecular chemistry. The latter I had to look up on wiki to make sure it actually meant something.

I do question the fact noone caught on to the weak texts early on and handled it pre-release. But done is done, and nothing ever makes it out the door perfect. And once it's out the door there are limits. I don't make games, but I do make (tiny bits of) stuff that has a few hundred thousand users. We don't fix anything that has an easy workaround or is purely cosmetic very often either. It's a business, people need to accept that. Frogboy's only saying as much. And, in my opinion, not being arrogant about it at all.

My take on it? The reviewers did not have a magic button to enable better texts. They still scored it through the roof. If they can make do without the texts, so can I. I'm sure it'll have its moments ("The supergigatron boomazapper is... a farming upgrade?!"), but it's a game. And by most accounts, a very good one. If I can't get myself to liking this, I'll know for sure I'm just not wired for the genre.
Reply #83 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

Like what?
Can you provide some examples? Real new features and content in updates.

You can look at the change log and see for yourself. 

1.6 has a new graphics engine. That certainly wasn't a bug fix and took considerable amounts of time. But for players playing on a  large galaxy with lots of ships, faster performance certainly improves the game experience.

I think it's time for TOS to go away though.  At some point, it just gets old (hundreds of posts saying how bad the game is - fine you think the game is bad, we get it). Having read thorugh his posts, I can see that he clearly isn't happy with the game or the forums and has nothing to add but just unpleasantness. Hundreds of posts over the past year all on the same rant add nothing constructive and frankly, I'm weary of it.

I'm going to lock this thread since, as others have pointed out, it's become strictly about ranting about their own pet peeve.  We want to participate in the forums but we're not here to be punching bags.   

Reply #84 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I do question the fact noone caught on to the weak texts early on and handled it pre-release.


Yep, when the budget was higher. The problem *now* is the budget, what was it then? AFAICT, it must have taken what, 5 min to come up with say the extreme planets text descriptions? The problem isn't it not getting caught, it's obvious, it's nothing was done when it should have. It's not a problem in the updates, that's what it's being passed as.


@eetmorsgrls

As are you, the constructor problem is unchangeable by anyone but the dev team, so why would they want to spend their time on something that anyone can change, rather than a problem that only they can fix?


Nope, I'm not. You quoted correctly, you just forgot to read it. Updates are free. Correcting texts is not fun. Is enhancing constructors fun? Because they work as they are now, they just aren't efficient. Most text based issues work, they just aren't efficient, and sometimes incorrect. Can all text based issues be fixed by the community? Not all. It's not just about the tech descriptions. But even those, there's lack of, or misleading, or wrong info. You went on a tangent about modding capability - completely unnecessary, since any game has modding capability. The game wasn't made to be modded with the intention of "letting" players enhance the tech tree description or whatever else; that's what you made it sound like.
But in the end, it all comes down to the free updates thing. It's a de-responsabilization (?) argument, that coming from their own way of doing things, sounds really bad.

At what point did the flavor text become wrong?


It's not just the tech tree descriptions. But one example is the speed bonus, if you need to know.

Correct me if I am mistaken, but it seems to me like all you want to do is complain about how little you can do as a user, but you still won't do the things that are possible.


Well, you're mistaken, let me correct you. Regarding the subject at hand, as a user I'd like a game with texts that are informative, accurate, clearly descriptive and well written. It's not the case. As a *user*, it's not my job to do that. As a user, I'll want *modding* capabilities (well, not me specifically), which is a very different thing, and that's where you confused things.
I'm (somewhat) complaining about the bad texts, I'm not complaining about if anything is done or not. Just presenting my arguments, because there's a lot of "fog" surrounding this (and other) discussions.

If you have all this time in game development under your belt, why haven't you looked at the game and suggested any fixes or tried to help in any way?


I think you may be taking me for someone else. You might as well read things properly, and identifying who posts what. And I did suggest a number of things over time, maybe you just didn't read them - which makes me question why you should post this kind of crap that doesn't help at all...

All you have done is tell Frogboy that he has bad PR, and yet here he is talking to you personally. T


I think he is pretty much used to it    Did he ask you to defend him BTW? Am I forcing him to talk to me? Maybe he is interested? Why don't you mind your own business?

Tell me, how many companies have the owner personally talk to you when you believe there is something wrong with the game that should be addressed?


Actually, the two games I've worked with. If you want to include a number of games in sourceforge for example, that's a bunch more. And other minor stuff. This argument is always being tossed as if it was a powerful weapon, but it only really works for people that haven't had any experience working with small dev companies. Guess what. Doesn't impress me. It's worn out.

How does actually listening to what people are saying make for bad PR?


Don't take what you *think* you know as an unshakable truth. We're having a dialogue with Frogboy here, about an issue with the game. He acknowledges it's an issue. I don't care about the way he does it, but he must be careful about what he claims or it might turn against him. I'm not going to go any further because it has gone far enough. You getting into the discussion is only taking the focus away, and side-tracking to irrelevant paths.