FreeOrion

Forums for the FreeOrion project
It is currently Thu Dec 14, 2017 10:42 pm

All times are UTC




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 123 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 10, 2003 12:32 pm 
Offline
Space Floater

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2003 7:13 am
Posts: 29
Nightfish wrote:
Personally I don't have anything against people moving their colonists if they feel like it. But if we chose your formula for growth and allow moving of colonists we give this moving process one more advantage: Moving colonists affects the number of colonists you have in total. If you keep one or two of your colonies at optimum growth rate you gain a significant advantage. And that's what I'm against.

Why are u against ? Keeping optimal number colonists on planets forces player to think, to optimize, to calculate, to develop a strategy for growth and expansion. It is really cool !

_________________
Guest


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 10, 2003 12:40 pm 
Offline
Space Kraken

Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 10:17 am
Posts: 146
He's against it because it rewards players who perform a tedious, essentially brainless task with expotential population expansion.

NF is right in that if we don't have linear growth we need to nix controlled migration--or make it expensive.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 10, 2003 12:42 pm 
Offline
Lead Designer Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 1:54 pm
Posts: 761
Location: Austin, TX
I'm not a fan of picking up colonist units and moving them. Also, not that anyone can tell as this information is living with the old bboard, but the population model we passed doesn't really allow for 'units' of population. It uses hard numbers and verbal descriptors. So there's no 'one unit' of population to move. You could move 1 billion at a time or whatever else, but IIRC, one of the reasons we passed the pop model we did was because (at the time) nobody liked the thought of just dropping colonists wherever you needed them. The only way a government could really do that is through Eminent Domain, and that's hideously expensive, such that I'd reserve it for emergencies and make the player pay through the nose for it.

_________________
Surprise and Terror! I am greeted by the smooth and hostile face of our old enemy, the Hootmans! No... the Huge-glands, no, I remember, the Hunams!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 10, 2003 12:46 pm 
Offline
FreeOrion Lead Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 6:23 am
Posts: 885
Location: Australia
drekmonger wrote:
He's against it because it rewards players who perform a tedious, essentially brainless task with expotential population expansion.

NF is right in that if we don't have linear growth we need to nix controlled migration--or make it expensive.


Or eliminate the tediousness of migration.

Maximizing growth potential in Stars! was one of it's less entertaining factors. Growth was optimal just below 25% capacity.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 10, 2003 1:36 pm 
Offline
FreeOrion Designer / Space Monster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 7:07 am
Posts: 313
Drek explained my reasons for being against it just nicely :)

Unlike Aquitaine though, I am pretty sure that our system was intended to have this "one unit" of population.

As for the reason why we dropped MoO2s system: Nobody liked having to reshuffle colonists all the time. Like relocating them between industry and research. Turning research colonies into industry colonies overnight was something we want to prevent, too. I think those were the two main reasons.

If there is no such thing as "one unit" then how do you display population? "4.623.353 people live on your planet"? "A lot of people live there"? How do I know how much stuff my colony produces and if that's good or bad compared to other planets?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 10, 2003 5:37 pm 
Offline
Space Floater

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2003 7:13 am
Posts: 29
drekmonger wrote:
He's against it because it rewards players who perform a tedious, essentially brainless task with expotential population expansion.
NF is right in that if we don't have linear growth we need to nix controlled migration--or make it expensive.


Brainless task ? I think this was the most fun part of economy in Moo2. And it forced player to think, so it wasnt brainless !

Nightfish wrote:
Nobody liked having to reshuffle colonists all the time. Like relocating them between industry and research. Turning research colonies into industry colonies overnight was something we want to prevent, too. I think those were the two main reasons.


I understand your point of view. However I strongly dissagree with it. It is too late now, beacause you guys already set these things up. But I just want to say : NF u cant say "nobody liked it". This is far from the truth. Very far. I know many, many people who loves this system, so please dont say things like that. I know you and many FO creators dont accept it but it is a system which worked fine and it is still workin great. So after 7 years Moo2 is still alive ! And it is alive beacause people still like to change all those tiny things in their empires as they fit them best.
Generally he is my point of view :
If you maximize a number of tweaks and options in game; build a balanced eco/war system from tiny empires to huge empires; give to player a way to total control all parts in the game, game will live as long as Moo2 or even more. You have the chance to create it immortal ! Dont loose it plz. :wink:

_________________
Guest


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 10, 2003 6:04 pm 
Offline
FreeOrion Designer / Space Monster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 7:07 am
Posts: 313
PD, if you read my post carefully you'd have noticed I was refering to the decision made on the old forum. In that discussion nobody liked having to reshuffle colonists. period.

I am painfully aware of the fact that MoO2 is still very much alike and have been annoyed with that fact to the point that I start to dislike MoO2. I really like(d) MoO2, but recently there have been a lot of posts saying "make everything exactly like MoO2" and that is starting to wear on my temper.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: I see.
PostPosted: Thu Jul 10, 2003 6:36 pm 
Offline
Space Floater

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2003 7:13 am
Posts: 29
Sorry but I didnt understand it as u say it now. I dont know old forum, so I cant be aware of some stuff. :roll:

_________________
Guest


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 10, 2003 9:26 pm 
Offline
Creative Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 2:35 am
Posts: 383
Location: Texas
i remeber the old pop model. But we were lacking a formula. Linear growth is not only boring thogh, it might negatively affect gameplay. If we take examples from other 4X games Civ/Smac/Moo/Moo2/galciv Almost any you can think of. none have linear growth. The most likely reason is that it IS boring. And might unbalance the game. A new colony would develop too quickly, or worse not quickly enough. The only thing i'm against though is moving colonists. HAving to shuffle colonists everyturn just to stay competitive was quite tedious. And once i got powerful enough i'd just start glassing/destroying planets. Because when you have no planets there is no shuffling pop.

So if you prefer NF propose a linear growth formula and we can debate in the game features thread. And of course we'd need to decide what type of migration/moving colonists we'll have (if any).

_________________
Aquitaine is my Hero.... ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 10, 2003 10:33 pm 
Offline
Lead Designer Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 1:54 pm
Posts: 761
Location: Austin, TX
Plasma Dragon wrote:
I know many, many people who loves this system, so please dont say things like that. I know you and many FO creators dont accept it but it is a system which worked fine and it is still workin great. So after 7 years Moo2 is still alive ! And it is alive beacause people still like to change all those tiny things in their empires as they fit them best.


From a design standpoint, it does not matter if one person likes the system or if a hundred people like it. I can get a hundred people to agree with me if I really want to no matter what I'm arguing, and you can do the same. The number of bodies supporting a thing could not matter less. The number of people involved in FreeOrion who make persuasive arguments about the issues they really care about do matter. Where 'persuasive argument' is not 'everyone in the state of Louisiana really thought this was a great idea.'

Quote:
If you maximize a number of tweaks and options in game; build a balanced eco/war system from tiny empires to huge empires; give to player a way to total control all parts in the game, game will live as long as Moo2 or even more. You have the chance to create it immortal ! Dont loose it plz.


And here is my opinion:

There are dozens and dozens of people who appear, make tremendous, far-reaching, blanket statements about how we should do things ('total control all parts in the game') and promise that, if we would only listen to them, we'll have the best game ever (although this is the first time eternal life has come into the equation).

I'm not trying to belittle your argument, because you do have a point. I'm simply saying that the almighty warning that 'if you all would only do things my way, this game could be great!' doesn't convince anybody, and that's why we're all here -- to convince and be convinced. That's why Nightfish is one of our core designers, even though he and I disagree on quite a lot of things (and he and Drek, and Drek and I, and and and...).

Aquitaine

_________________
Surprise and Terror! I am greeted by the smooth and hostile face of our old enemy, the Hootmans! No... the Huge-glands, no, I remember, the Hunams!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 11, 2003 3:38 am 
Offline
FreeOrion Lead Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 6:23 am
Posts: 885
Location: Australia
Back on thoughts of population growth, I don't understand clearly how linear growth can be boring.

Some propose exponential growth, but I don't think this is accurate. If a colony is at it's early stages and considers itself small, then it should grow at a much faster rate than a larger colony. Rate of population growth is tied too closely with culture and environment, and it seems to me we can make arguments about which is more accurate - but the truth is no two places should be the same. We are trying to make generalised statements that we say apply everywhere. So we should choose the model that works best in gameplay unrelated to what we perceive as the realities of population growth.

I'm thinking the best way to resolve this is to come up with some actual numbers we can play with, to see how they span over time. From there we can see what works well, and what doesn't.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 11, 2003 3:57 am 
Offline
Programming Lead Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 1:33 pm
Posts: 1092
PC made me think of something interesting in his last post. After he mentioned Civ, I realized that Civ has a arithmetically regressive pop growth scheme. Each pop point made it harder to grow (rememeber the extra column of food required in the granary for each new pop?), if you discount land improvements and techs. I think this is actually preferable to the low-high-low growth rate models previously suggested and previously used in other MOOs. The fact that the MOO system has a sweet spot contributes quite a bit to the amount of microing required to maximize your growth rate. If I remember, the Civ system makes it a lot easier to maximize growth without a lot of paying attention to details. This is only preferable of course if it is decided that shuffling pop to maximize growth is a desirable game feature at all.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 11, 2003 8:30 am 
Offline
Space Floater

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2003 7:13 am
Posts: 29
Aquitaine wrote:
I'm not trying to belittle your argument, because you do have a point. I'm simply saying that the almighty warning that 'if you all would only do things my way, this game could be great!' doesn't convince anybody, and that's why we're all here -- to convince and be convinced. That's why Nightfish is one of our core designers, even though he and I disagree on quite a lot of things (and he and Drek, and Drek and I, and and and...).


Yes we are all here to be conviced to someptin. However you have the power to create this game and stay with your point of view, we have only power to convice. It is like 2:1 for you 8)
I tried to convince you about my point of view and vice versa. We failed. Why ? My roots are too deep in Moo2, yours are too deep in somptin else. We can compromise in some small things but mayor stuff will always look different for us. I thought my game expirience will allow me to be more convincing. I think if we really want to understand ourselfs each side should walk in other side`s shoes for some time. Feel a point of opposite side on his own skin. This would be a TRUE compromise ! However this is immpossible. :wink:

_________________
Guest


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 11, 2003 11:27 am 
Offline
Creative Contributor

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 12:58 pm
Posts: 244
Location: Bulgaria
The MoO2 type of growth is better for gameplay than A linear growth system, because

1) small colonies take a while to take off;
2) it takes a long time to fully max-off older colonies afetr they reach abou 2/3.

So in effect: you need to keep your new colonies well-protected for a while, which somewhat diminishes the otherwise significant effect of one player colonising a world just before another player could. Then, if it turns out he is capable to defend it till it reaches about 1/3 it quickly raches something like 2/3 of the pop max, that's when differences in max pop show. And then it slows more and more till it maxes out - you have growth to wait for for a longer time - obviously good.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 11, 2003 8:49 pm 
Offline
Space Squid
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 1:13 pm
Posts: 82
Location: Ottawa
tzlaine wrote:
PC made me think of something interesting in his last post. After he mentioned Civ, I realized that Civ has a arithmetically regressive pop growth scheme. Each pop point made it harder to grow (rememeber the extra column of food required in the granary for each new pop?), if you discount land improvements and techs.

I think that Zach is on to something. 8)

tzlaine wrote:
This is only preferable of course if it is decided that shuffling pop to maximize growth is a desirable game feature at all.

You need not worry about population shuffling very much with this scheme.

MOO2 vs Civ
MOO2: Colonize planet. Build Auto Factories, Robo Mining, Cloning Center(maybe?) and Housing.
When population hits 2 (after a couple of turns), move the second guy off. Repeat until other colonies are full.

Civ:
Irrigate on a flood plain or something.
Wait for pop growth.
Build a Settler unit.
Move Settler to other town.
Build into other city.

It's just not worth it in the Civ scheme.

I think using Nutrients for growth purposes though isn't a good one if we were to incorporate a civ-style scheme. We could just import nutrients.

@Impaler:

Can you expand a little bit on your bio idea?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 123 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group