I'm forced to agree here, large numbers simply for the sake of large numbers is not a good idea. Large numbers in the service of something else can be worthwhile. More on this later.

Individually less valuable, yes. Insignificant - not necessarily. Again, it would depend on rounding issues and other factors. Besides, aren't you the one insisting small bonuses should make a visible difference? This would allow those bonuses to be visible and functional, rather than rounded out of existence.

I'd rather not. I prefer not to have all my planets be exact cookie cutter images of each other, thank you.

Maybe not for you. Some of us disagree - this type of bonus harvesting is the reward for out-colonizing your opponents and aggressively surveying anomalies. And as usual, your example is flawed - a dollar to a millionaire is at most 0.0001% of his net worth, while a 1% bonus to a game stat is three or four orders of magnitude more significant.

For the record, I checked my current game (Thalan tech tree with extensive tech trading):

120% soldiering bonus from tech, 52% from anomalies and ethics events, 172 total.

Nearly a third of my bonus, or 19% of my total ability, comes from collected bonuses.

I'd rather not be at the mercy of the random number generator as far as whether my starting location is a viable place. One of the big problems with the "best get better" issue is that oftentimes the guy who happened to be "best" got that way because they were lucky. They didn't earn it, so the other players are cheated out of their victory.

So your idea of fun is moving a ship around looking for pennies hoping you'll collect enough to matter? Not to mention it's totally random, so you might just run into a string of crappy bonuses.

I don't see the need for retaining this kind of random element. The game's planet and tile placement is random enough. It's route busywork; the AI is just as good if not better at it than the human player.

And how exactly does that fit into dealing with the very real issue of having hundreds of planets to maintain? That's not unusual on the larger galaxy sizes. The more complex basic econ management becomes, the fewer planets you can have before the micromanagement gets out of hand.

Also, this is not strategic. Strategic would suggest that there are multiple ways to achieve the same effect, but with different side effects. All this is is adding a puzzle game element to planetary development: how to fit all the stuff you want onto this arrangement of tiles. What's worse is that it is a solved puzzle; the computer can brute-force it in less than an eye-blink. Doing work that a computer can do doesn't interest me.

Lastly, it screws up the notion of PQ as a way to gauge the usefulness of a planet. Is that PQ26 a good planet? Maybe; it depends on the arrangement of tiles. It could ultimately be far worse than a PQ12 you might find. Adding such an indeterminant dimension to planetary development is painful in too many ways to calculate.

That is an excellent idea. A slight expansion: you would have access to smaller versions of each improvement: they would cost less, take up fewer tiles, and have a proportionately lesser bonus. If the terrain was not to your advantage, you would be forced to build a bunch of little improvements instead of one big one. Why would this be a difficult choice? Because if there was a bonus tile, the bonus would- of course- apply only to the mini-imp built on the tile, as opposed to the entire big improvement. One question: why didn't I come up w/ this?

Well, even if i could only get a percentage of 288 tiles, it still represents potential for *more* gameplay features that i wouldn't otherwise get ON that specific planet.

Going from YOR to green tiles through three terraforming levels give us extra space to increase the effectiveness of ALL planets even if, as you use yours, the Homeworld could produce more money since it can be developped further. Once we reach THE maximum on any PQs range(s), we must look somewhere else for additional numbers (ships, BCs, techno points, etc) -- colony rush or conquest, btw.

Sooo, in retrospect -- there are consequences to any additional Tiles IF the ruleset provides us with the actual potential.

 

No UI has ever enforced me into building what i don't want to... if i decide to have 20 labs on a PQ21 while contemplating the BIGGEST beakers row i can fit in while knowing maintenance is certainly higher than what the local unhappy population does to my overall economy - that's MY risk to take or not. Add 10 more tiles to this surface, maybe i'd still want a much bigger row of Beakers by putting an additional 10 labs *or* (hold on tight to your pocket calculator) NOT.

 

A ruleset, gameplay designed to maintain some rational limitations. True. But, i'm into the abstract speculation with this whole PQ bar raising here - that, again, opens up the deck beyond lower values.

 

Use, as in LIMITED rules that i do comprehend and must cope with. Then, it begs the question; what is the fundamental difference between these two situations?

1-- A tiny map with 60 planets that contain (on average) 14 tiles on each - which gets distributed to two players. 840 tiles.

and...

2-- The same tiny map -- but with 14+29 *improvable tiles* (which become available after a more complex Terraforming process or not, btw) on each. Two thousands five-hundred and eighty tiles, baby.

 

To make everything immuned to spying, to defeat the *all PIs single type strategy*, to fill a bunch of Starports rapidly,  to balance the overall economy in a tighter cluster of Core planets and use the outside rims production power to conquer & invade - player or algorithmic wise, btw.

Quicker production of anything, faster Research and much tighter interaction with neighbors. Presuming a planetary Governor (fixed) is in proper use, not even more micman for the extra potential either.

Rapid wars and swift combat rounds also - from the number of fleets cranked out by all.

How so? Should i ask.

The precious extra single tile isn't enough of a potentially useful location to you?

See, we all are *limiting* ourselves into thinking in terms of grid development that has a simplistic 12x6 matrix - i thought the triangular surfacing structure example i linked too was obvious.

6 for a Factory, 9 for the Starport, 1 to beam me up Scotty, 1 to dig down for metals & resources, 12++ for more advanced PIs.

 

It's fairly simple, in fact.. my scientific & manufacturing intuition tells me that 72 squares is a GLOBAL opportunity and that anything less *instinctively* lowers that potential when i compare TWO of my planets (a PQ4- with a PQ28+). It is what i always see, it is what gameplay distributes at random or otherwise, it is shown to me every time i click any planets on the list when i must take a decision to drop the next useful Market center or that other juicy TradeGood.

Making an hexagon out of a square will be exactly the same, i KNOW that... but if it takes 28 triangles to build a GA (in orbit, mind you!), you'll think twice before exploiting your real estate in a certain way or within a ruleset that allows it.

Hitting the nail sharp & square.

You mean -- How else would (or couldn't) SoleSoul interpret the stuff i linked you all to? And, believe it or not even I wasn't the first to try braking the one tile per PI limit!

Alfonse does have a valid point regarding the odd shapes that the tiles can form on planets and how a planet that otherwise looks like a dream world could wind up being useless because you wouldn't be able to fit anything there.

I'm not aware if there's a real solution to this, as making all planets cookie-cutters definitely isn't going to fly (in my book, either), but perhaps the assignment of the tiles could be somewhat more intelligent.  That said, while I very much like the idea of improvements taking up multiple tiles, there does not seem to be any reason, from my point of view, for the tiles to necessarily be square, or even contiguous.

It could be argued that all this does then is place four factories each at one fourth of the former output to achieve a single factory, but even that much of an element of chance would produce the desired strategic change-without making things too overtly complex.

This is where i must object. My definition of Strategy is waaaayyyy different; it is a single decision taken within reasonable limit(s) dictated by a ruleset that leads to better results by deduction and not being offered multiple ways to achieve the same thing.

It's also highly automated. Besides the decision to devote resources to building survey ships and the occasional AI search pattern correction, the AI *is* doing all the work.

I actually considered putting this in the original post, but dropped it to keep it more concise. Four basic factories scattered to make the most use of individual tile bonuses? Two intermediate factories (twice the output, two spaces required) to make beter use of a couple bonus tiles? One industrial sector (four spaces, six times the output) to really capitalize on the two bonuses near each other, or that one 700% tile? Which is better? That's what I meant by more strategic planet development, as which is better woud change based on how exactly the planet is set up.

Honestly, what I had in mind was a cross between the original SimCity and the various C&C Red Alert building mechanics.

Why would a 1x2 be a straight doubling of a 1x1 production facility? Or a 2x2 a quadrupling of a 1x1 facility? Why not make them better than an equivilant ammount of smaller buildings? This can be achieved by having lower mantinence costs or increased production. Such things make sense due to having large facilities that can be more efficent, or being able to handle different kinds of resources, or just having more room.

A 1x1 Factory could have a mantinence cost of 1bc and output of 8bc. A 1x2 Factory could have a mantinence cost of 1bc and a output of 24bc or 32bc. A 2x2 Factory could have a mantinence cost of 2bc and a output of 72bc or 128bc. That's 1.5 or 2 times as much output for the same ammount of space and half the mantinence cost as the next smallest building, with an exception in cost for the largest building.

4 1x1 Factories; Cost: 4bc; Output: 32bc
2 1x2 Factories; Cost: 2bc; Output: 48bc/64bc
1 2x2 Factory; Cost: 2bc; Output: 72bc/128bc

I like x1.5 output over x2, less of a slippery slop.

I kinda like how these conversations evolve... sure, we all have a right for opinions and nobody HAS to agree with everything we suggest or care about but in the long term (if anyone at SD is carefully monitoring this whole thread) only good GC3 planning & development choices by staff can be the result.

I prefer constructive criticism and clear expression of ANY of our ideas (in my case, this is somehow harder and many of you know that and why already!), cuz we only have one shot at it & the chances are slim that we eventually get some of our wishes (for gameplay or features) answered.

Regular users & players can only provide a way for developpers to make a better design no matter how chaotic or weird whatever is or will be here until a formal GC3 project is announced.

What part of "more is not better" do you not understand?

All that does is exacerbate the "rich get richer" problem: the side that first gets those techs will get better disproportionately faster than the side that doesn't. And the side that is already in the lead is more likely than others to get those techs.

My point is that, right now, there is a significant difference between PQ13 and PQ14. Expanding the range will remove this difference.

I'm not; I don't see tiles as having a position at all. Tiles are a number; a resource. A resource that is consumed by buildings.

That doesn't make it better. It's still just a random roll of the dice.

By your definition, Tic-Tac-Toe is "strategic". It follows your definition: deduction leads to better results based on a rulset that provides for decisions that have reasonable limits. The fact that it is a solved game is not taken into account with your definition.

Chess and Go are strategic because there is no notion of a "right" move. The games aren't solved yet; therefore, there is no one optimal sequence of play. Tic-Tac-Toe is solved; a 7 year-old can solve it. It is mathematically proven; optimal play by both sides leads to a stalemate.

Tic-Tac-Toe has 3 initial moves (due to symmetry): Center, Corner, and Side. But it is a mathematical fact that Corner is the best move. So how is it "strategic"? The other moves are mathematically inferior.

So I reject your definition of "strategic", as it includes brainless "decisions."

Because each production unit must be paid for with 1bc, the maintainence cost of production buildings tends to be negligable. What does it matter that 4 1x1 factories cost 2 extra bc over a 2x2 factory, when they're able to produce more resources? The more resources will cost money too, so its going to be more expensive anyway.

Alright, but are we talkin' deterministic context or simulation of both good & bad decisions?

 

Oookay... but i think you should know that my goal(s) in any TBS-4X games are based on a simple toggle switch; Win-Lose. No matter what_how_much_why_when & IF stands in between the two.

If the gap is too close, does that make up for a tougher sense of gameplay? Presuming that too far apart implies the winning conditions are TOO easy to get?

Technically, if i *can* get richer faster than opponents because my strategy is better the WIN factor switches on.

 

Too less is certainly boring or as easy as Tic-Tac-Toe to reuse your analogy.

I must expand in that 4X game, once i hit a wall i can either turn around or try thinking my way into breaking through. Micro-managing MORE planets (again) to obtain a gameplay status that delivers the very same results in equal amounts of tiles in a 288 framework means only one thing - LESS planets to scan for. In which case, "more is worst".

 

What do you mean by that?

You shouldn't design a game based on what allows a player to win. You design it based on what makes for the best gameplay for all players.

 

But you haven't put forth a reason why you need 4x as many tiles. You simply say that we should have 4x as many tiles.

Then I will.

We need more tiles so that we have enough space that we can have enough improvements that aren't industry/research that players will actually build them.  Which of course necessitates making said improvements more useful as well...

But 288 tiles is a bit overkill almost any way you slice it; apart from using some combination of Willy's proposed method and my proposed modification, there's simply no need for that many.

 

I disagree; simply making them useful enough so that they can contend with industry/research/econ buildings is enough to encourage people to build them where reasonable.

I'm not sure you understand.

I want more non-industry/research/econ buildings.  Vastly more.  Hopefully providing bonuses that aren't even in GC2.

And then of course I want more space for them.

Buildings exist to do something. If you don't have any specific idea as to what you want these buildings to do, then you have little grounds to say that you need more space for them.

To put it another way, your idea is backwards. You're saying, "We need more different kinds of buildings, and we need more space for them. And these buildings should do... something we'll work out later." Instead, you should be thinking in terms of, "I want planets to be able to do X, Y, Z, W, and Q. Each of these resources has a specific function in the game's overall economy. Therefore, I need buildings that provide these. And that will tell me how much space to allocate for buildings, and thus how many tiles the average planet needs."

I want planets to be able to do more.  I don't know what that more is in its entirety yet, but that doesn't prevent me from reaching the logical conclusion: That we need more improvements, and hence more space.

Queen takes Rook on A8 is deterministic. The player is both aware of the movement steps necessary to get that piece captured and of the gameplay strict & direct rules that allow him to do so. It's predictable and always happens in the same fashion.

Touching the Queen and being forced to play it differently than taking the Rook on A8 by capturing the Knight on C2 is a simulation of a "bad decision" if dictated by a rule that clearly states a piece touched must be moved or if a player makes that "error" consciously or otherwise. Good, being Queen takes opponent's Queen on D5.

 

Both these statements need not be contradictory to be efficient when USED together during design.

 

Starports on "tiles" found only in the Orbital layer of 72. Mining facilities in the Underneath layer (NOT factories, btw). An astronomy LAB up in the Atmosphere that increases sensors range (interference dust, lens effect) when if directly on the ground cost less. Defensive Satellites in orbit. I leave the rest and more to everyone's wild or STRATEGIC imaginations.

And-so-on.

 

PS: Heck, i'll even admit SoleSoul overkill obversation is absolutely correct if taken into many variable contexts; I can mustard plenty of multiples of 4 deployed even on irregular grid shapes too... 32x4=128 (square tiles that is)... 5x5=25x4 layers=100. Suit your favorite optimal figures.

 

Then, i'd recommend playing (sorry, guys but this situation is relevant!) X-Worlds (for DA) and TRYING to monopolize all 28 Trade-Goods from Ais for a demonstration. On a tiny map. Against 9 opponents.

Firstly I'm going to compliment you on by far the clearest post you've ever made on these forums.  While it still leaves something to be desired, I only had to read it twice to understand it.  You're getting better.

Oh my.  And then you went and edited it and now I'm lost again.  Oh well.  It was nice while it lasted.

Secondly, while your point is valid, I'll go ahead and refute it so Alfonse doesn't have to and can find something else to complain about (probably something in one of my posts, but c'est la vie): That's all well and good but it doesn't necessitate more tiles.  It just requires having them arranged differently, and in any case while it would be very nice and would help the immersion process somewhat, it is for almost all intents and purposes a purely graphical change-there wouldn't be terribly much functional difference between that system and the current system, regardless of how you set it up.  Unless you had ideas on that, which, provided you can be as clear and concise as you were in that post, I'd be very much interested in hearing.