[quote]There are two ways to solve a thorny problem like PQ or rich-get-richer: either get rid of them entirely, which makes the game less interesting[/quote] First, I'm not aware that PQ is a problem. Second, removing something does not mean that the game gets less interesting. How interesting the game is depends on the mechanics that it [i]has[/i], not the mechanics it [i]might[/i] have had if something hadn't been removed. When I say I want population removed, I mea
[quote]-- Yes, if i confirm this decision by some reasonably strategic deduction (of my own, skillfully or even through foolishly emotional reaction) in a popup that states Yes/No.[/quote] Should the AI get a similar popup? If not, why not? [quote]-- It's pretty accurate already with the 75% influence trigger condition[/quote] That's a specific [i]victory[/i] condition, not an "he's going to win, so lets end the game". Having massive influence only wins the game becaus
[quote] better results being a twin replica of your "more optimal path s of play" used to express a similar logic.[/quote] That makes absolutely no sense in context. A ruleset that leads to having several optimal paths of play means that it is an intrinsic property of the rules that there are multiple choices that can lead to the same result (ie: victory). <p
[quote]Alright, but are we talkin' deterministic context or simulation of both good & bad decisions?[/quote] Now that I know what these mean, I can answer. In neither sense. It is obvious in GC2 that building your cities such that they spend more money than you take in empire-wide is a bad idea (unless you have reason to expect that you'll be getting more money soon).
[quote]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.[/quote] Buildings exist to [i]do something[/i]. 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 [i]need[/i] more space for them. To put it another way, your idea is backwards. You'r
[quote]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...[/quote] 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.
[quote]Alright, but are we talkin' deterministic context or simulation of both good & bad decisions?[/quote] What do you mean by that? [quote]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.[/quote] You shouldn't design a game based on what
For a [i]learning[/i] language, Perl is easily the worst of the 3. It has a lot of very strange syntax. Perl can be written in very obfuscated styles. And there are dozens of ways to do any one thing in Perl (it's even part of their design philosophy). It's generally not a good idea to use it if you don't already know the basics of programming. Python is probably the best language of the 3 for learning. However, personally, I'd suggest JavaScript (not Java); it has a pretty nice synta
[quote]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.[/quote] What part of "more is not better" do you not understand? [quote] 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 -
[quote]if someone else can distribute more efficiently and cheaper - then they are up for it, no business wants the complexity of carrying out non core activities unless its forced to.[/quote] Yes, but why would they turn to [i]Impulse[/i]? Steam: 1: Is far better established. Has been around since 2004, and all of the bugs have been worked out. 2: Has shipping games using its backend. No worries about games breaking due to poor-quality foreign code in their games
[quote]I'd rather not. I prefer not to have all my planets be exact cookie cutter images of each other, thank you.[/quote] 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. [quote]aggress
[quote]I can easily see a seaman taking command when all else fails. As long as everybody else know what to do you only need somebody that can see the big picture.[/quote] I recall a great line from DS9. Nog is a Starfleet Cadet serving on board the Defiant. He and O'Brian are talking about the current commanding officer, regardless of rank, always being called "Captain". He asks that, in an emergency when he might be called on to take command, would he be called "Captain"? O'
[quote]Have PQ be a measurement of how much development the ecology can sustain before collapsing, as opposed to amount of space.[/quote] What you consider it in terms of some "simulation of planetary development" is irrelevant; what it [i]does[/i] is what matters. What does PQ 51 give you that PQ50 does not? If the difference isn't significant, then the scale should be smaller so that such differences [i]are[/i] significant. The point is that if you have a PQ13 and a
[quote]Besides, I think the higher numbr looks better.[/quote] Who cares what they [i]look[/i] like? I don't care about whatever UI lies the game tells you. What matters is the [i]gameplay[/i]. If it makes you feel better for the UI to multiply the PQ of a planet by 10, fine. But it should have no gameplay effect. [quote]Uhh, do the math - 5% bonus on 50 tiles would give you TWO tiles. And the second 5% would give you THREE (assuming rounding rules are the same as cur
[quote](Dunno, possibly Industrial Sector number 10 instead of 9!)[/quote] And what does that matter, once they drop the number of resources they generate due to the fact that you have more tiles? The game's interface is already fantastically stupid in that it forces you to have to build dozens of replicas of the same building. To make you build scores rather than dozens isn't helping. [quote]I'm pretty sure everyone has experienced claustrophobia when the Howeworld do
[quote]Now I realize that there is a second , physical improvement: most PQ bonuses are in the 5-10% range. If you apply this bonus to a planet that is less than class 10, it is rounded off and disappears. With bigger numbers, it is not rounded off, and you can see the bonus.[/quote] Then change the bonuses themselves. Further, with your suggestion, there would be no difference: a 5% PQ bonus on a class 50 planet might still not result in an extra tile. I don't care if a plane
[quote]No, the reason morale is screwed up is because your VRC which gives 40% morale only gives 4% when you have 25B pop on the planet, and perhaps more to the point, your people aren't any more pissed off about having 100B pop on the planet than 25B pop.[/quote] Yes, and the reason behind making those choices, as I outlined, was because of the overcomplicated production model and the use of morale as the money balancing agent. If they used a simpler, more reasonable, production mode
[quote]See, that gets into how royally screwed up morale is in GC2-a subject I'm not sure I even want to touch.[/quote] But that's exactly the point. The reason Morale is so screwed up is that GC2 overcomplicated its production model and had to use Morale as the primary balancing agent to keep money in line. Money is the root of everything in GC2. It is consumed by research, all forms of production, espionage (in any form), and so on. Because of that, a player
[quote]And now this new movie seems to be going that way once again the dark side of Star-trek, I say about time![/quote] The "dark side" of Star Trek? According to this trailer, an enlisted man will be made captain of a starship. This is like a seaman on his maiden voyage being made admiral of a BattleShip. There's nothing "dark" in that. DS9 would never have done anything so nonsensical. Honestly, that's my only real beef with this take on Trek (anymore. I've made my
[quote]The point of the Complexity for its own sake is meaningless, and ultimately detrimental to the overall quality of the game. As with anything else, a game should be as simple as it needs to be, and no simpler. [quote]Further, I don't think I've ever seen a 1% bonus. Even in the instance that it's a p
[quote]I wouldn't agree with how you've applied that rule to the rest of your comments in the thread.[/quote] So tell me: what good does it do to have a number where a +1 bonus is so insignificant as to be insubstantial? If only a +50 bonus is significant, then why not just round off to the nearest 50th? Look at D&D vs. Final Fantasy. Until 4th Edition, D&D was doing just fine with 300 Hp being considered "very high" (in Epic-Level 4th Edition, high Hp takes on new mea
[quote]just takes development will to go for it and throw the comfort blanket of the old rule book away.[/quote] The "comfort blanket"? You mean the "being able to write reasonable and easily debuggable code, thus ensuring that our shipped product is reasonably bug-free, stable, and easy to develop for" blanket? Screw that. Writing code for GPUs is a pain; it's not worth the trouble for something as large and complex as a game engine. [quote]First of all, a larger numb
[quote]The updates are an extra by the makers of the game, not by valve.[/quote] Um, it was Team Fortress 2. Made by [b]Valve[/b]. [quote]Their DRM necessitates that they modify the new versions to work with it, if they do not do so in a timely manner they are betraying their customers.[/quote] I don't know what this has to do with the Scout update. Was TF2 broken for some length of time that I don't know about?
[quote]I think there should be admirals or something with a rank that you can customize to say whatever you like. These admiral rank officers can be assigned to a fleet and provide a state bonus, Again this bonus can be customized much like the states for a custom race.[/quote] You could always take a page out of the Total War book, where you have special characters who affect the fleet they are in or help the planet they govern. I don't know about constructing such people, as there i
[quote]Games 10 years ago also had brand new (for the time) game engines, which was just as hard to develop as a game engine today, given the technology and software that they had back then.[/quote] No, they were not. Your basic premise is that the primary cost of videogames is software. It isn't; it's art and game design. Art requires artists. More complex art requires more artists. In the old days, you could bash out a first-pass model with 1,000 polygons in a day. F
