Twenty-second game on the multiplayer slow game server

For topics that do not fit in another sub-forum.

Moderator: Oberlus

Message
Author
wobbly
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1873
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Twenty-second game on the multiplayer slow game server

#121 Post by wobbly »

Daybreak wrote: Sun Nov 06, 2022 12:00 pm a. If I decide to wait until I have a military slot, and Exploration, before exploring so I get extra RP, how is that a mechanical flaw. Its a decision.
Its a flaw in the design of the mechanics of the policy. For a start its encouraging the complete opposite behaviour to the policy name.
Daybreak wrote: Sun Nov 06, 2022 12:00 pm b. If we are talking about that we already have a military slot, and Exploration but have to stop at a system, instead of just flying over it, then that could be said to be a mechaincal flaw.
your not being particularly consistent there, by your logic not stopping is also a decision. Fixing that would be forcing my morals on other players.
Daybreak wrote: Sun Nov 06, 2022 12:00 pm My morals comment was based on other aspects of the game, and did not feel in relation to a. above that we should dictate someones playing style.
Pretty sure your morals comment was random politics with little real connection to the discussion.
Last edited by wobbly on Sun Nov 06, 2022 12:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

wobbly
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1873
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Twenty-second game on the multiplayer slow game server

#122 Post by wobbly »

delete for double post

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5714
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Twenty-second game on the multiplayer slow game server

#123 Post by Oberlus »

Daybreak wrote: Sun Nov 06, 2022 12:00 pm Are we all talking about the same thing?
No, you are talking about something else.
Daybreak wrote: Sun Nov 06, 2022 12:00 pm a. If I decide to wait until I have a military slot, and Exploration, before exploring so I get extra RP, how is that a mechanical flaw. Its a decision.
Yes, but we are not talking about that.
Daybreak wrote: Sun Nov 06, 2022 12:00 pm b. If we are talking about that we already have a military slot, and Exploration but have to stop at a system, instead of just flying over it, then that could be said to be a mechaincal flaw.
Not talking about that either.


We are talking about having a game mechanic that enables players to make in-game decissions that feel unnatural.
We have commented on why not moving from capital at game start until finishing command center, as well as not getting RPs from previously visited systems, feels so unnatural and counterintuitive.
I see it this way: "Humans should haven't visited the moon until they got better drilling technologies because now we will never now what's in the core of the moon no matter how intensively we study the moon...".

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 3433
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Twenty-second game on the multiplayer slow game server

#124 Post by Ophiuchus »

Daybreak wrote: Sun Nov 06, 2022 10:50 am As it is there game has too many morals in it already.
I am also one who does not understand what you mean.

1) for sci-fi soap opera with roots in the nineties we have surprisingly few morals in the game.

2) i dont see the connection between morals and choice in the context you offered. so i guess you don't mean the same thing with term 'morals' which i mean with it. E.g. we offer multiple options for genocide which is connected for me with morals. so please elaborate the context/what you mean - else your statement just sounds like an unreflected rant. or even better put that in a different topic

3) we do game design here, so we design the possible choices. so maybe you mean we are making too many decisions/overthinking?

Oberlus wrote: Sun Nov 06, 2022 9:15 am People refraining from moving until Exploration is adopted is unnatural, as well as that visiting a system before Exploration makes it impossible to "explore" it later.
for the first part, fluff-wise one could say it forces to do role-playing (real exploration can only start when the empire adopted it as a goal/policy). But this feels forced to me.

I think the main problem game-play wise is that exploring without the policy takes fun out of eXploration (as in one of the 4X) because you always have that aah-another-RP-lost feeling. And one will be often forced not to apply exploration policy currently.

For the second part I think that it is counter intuitive against fluff and against consistency and actually feels arbitrary/like a very strange design choice.
Oberlus wrote: Sun Nov 06, 2022 9:15 am Maybe add another "state" for each system-empire: one is "visited" and another is "explored", and the second can be set only when Exploration is adopted an a ship stays put for a turn in that system (no meter issues like the ones commented in the linked thread: the ship gets the RP for a single turn, as currently).
yes, backend change makes that implementation cleanly possible. Though i would rather add generic tag-per-empire or special-per-empire on universe objects than another state. On the other hand such a hierarchy (unknown-detected-visited-explored) also has its merits; it takes up a lot less memory; hmmm.
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

Daybreak
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 641
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2018 10:14 pm

Re: Twenty-second game on the multiplayer slow game server

#125 Post by Daybreak »

Oberlus wrote: Sun Nov 06, 2022 12:32 pm We are talking about having a game mechanic that enables players to make in-game decissions that feel unnatural.
But is it not just - We are talking about having a game mechanic that enables players to make in-game decisions.
In MP21 I stopped my scout in a meteor storm to soak up RP - it was a decision, and one I later regretted as I did not explore enough above me. Was that also unnatural or just a mistake?
wobbly wrote: Sun Nov 06, 2022 12:18 pm Its a flaw in the design of the mechanics of the policy. For a start its encouraging the complete opposite behaviour to the policy name.
Call the policy "System Research" or "System Analysis" which is more consistent with how it operates.
But even that, does not solve the problem, and the problem as you already realise and are already grappling with, is difficult to solve- how to stop someone making that decision to not explore.

At the end of the day, its still a decision they make, even if we think its wrong,

but if you really have to stop them, then its simple-

a) get rid of the policy, and just have 1rp per unexplored system stopped at; or
b) give everyone a military slot from the beginning
I like both.

Ophiuchus wrote: Sun Nov 06, 2022 6:30 pm 2) i dont see the connection between morals and choice in the context you offered. so i guess you don't mean the same thing with term 'morals' which i mean with it. E.g. we offer multiple options for genocide which is connected for me with morals. so please elaborate the context/what you mean - else your statement just sounds like an unreflected rant. or even better put that in a different topic
It probably should be in a different thread, so I wont expand on it too much

we offer multiple options for genocide
Do we? Concentration camps are not available, unless you go the racial purity path
Scorched earth strategy is being nerfed or already has been - a strategy valid in any war, but not here.
Bombing strategies are only for unowned planets and are still there, however further up the tech tree, and I bet if used in a scorched earth situation, will be quickly nerfed.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5714
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Twenty-second game on the multiplayer slow game server

#126 Post by Oberlus »

Daybreak, I throw the towel. It's as if we were talking different languages, but we are not. Not big deal. Cheers.

Daybreak
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 641
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2018 10:14 pm

Re: Twenty-second game on the multiplayer slow game server

#127 Post by Daybreak »

Oberlus wrote: Sun Nov 06, 2022 8:40 pm Daybreak, I throw the towel. It's as if we were talking different languages, but we are not. Not big deal. Cheers.
sorry - I just dont agree with the way you look at it.
You see it as a game mechanic that is making people play unaturally. I get it.

Whats your solution?

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5714
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Twenty-second game on the multiplayer slow game server

#128 Post by Oberlus »

Daybreak wrote: Sun Nov 06, 2022 10:49 pm Whats your solution?
For the issues that you don't see, I already commented, and Ophiuchus went much further.

For the nonsensical discussion in which we seem to talk about different stuff and can't explain or understand better, the solution is to stop discussing.

Daybreak
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 641
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2018 10:14 pm

Re: Twenty-second game on the multiplayer slow game server

#129 Post by Daybreak »

Oberlus wrote: Sun Nov 06, 2022 11:23 pm
Daybreak wrote: Sun Nov 06, 2022 10:49 pm Whats your solution?
For the issues that you don't see, I already commented, and Ophiuchus went much further.

For the nonsensical discussion in which we seem to talk about different stuff and can't explain or understand better, the solution is to stop discussing.
Oh you mean how to actually make getting that 1rp point, and changes to FO on how it would be triggered and saved either visited or not - If you reread, you will notice I did not particpate in that discusssion, as you failed to see and are now saying I dont understand. Ophiuchus seems to have it well in hand looking at possibilities, I could never hope to help with.

There were two parts to the conversation, and I only participated in the players waiting for exploration, before exploring part.

If Ophiuchus's work manages to tag systems as not visited, then it only fixes part of the problem.
Yes players may then explore more prior to getting the exploration policy, and not try to touch down, but poor scanning at the beginning of the game, means that for unexplored systems they either have to touch down, or they shift click and return to their point of origin, meaning less fuel to explore more. If they touch down then they have lost the RP point.
Let the players decide if they want to do that or not.

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 3433
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Twenty-second game on the multiplayer slow game server

#130 Post by Ophiuchus »

Daybreak wrote: Sun Nov 06, 2022 10:49 pm If Ophiuchus's work manages to tag systems as not visited, then it only fixes part of the problem. ...
I think you did not understand. We were already further in the discussion and in the context of this thread talking about discriminating between visited and explored systems. Then one can visit a system without exploring it.

Your suggestions are possible solutions
Daybreak wrote: Sun Nov 06, 2022 10:49 pm a) get rid of the policy, and just have 1rp per unexplored system stopped at; or
easy to implement, is not as thematic as with the policy; probably a bit better than completely removing the research bonus. at least there is interaction with the map and a bonus for far exploration.
Daybreak wrote: Sun Nov 06, 2022 10:49 pm b) give everyone a military slot from the beginning
easy to implement, while the mechanism stays as ugly as it is this makes it possible to decide for exploration from the start. big balancing change. dunno
Daybreak wrote: Sun Nov 06, 2022 11:53 pm Let the players decide if they want to do that or not.
please stop that line of argument, it seems everyone here calls it bullshit. that kind of decision is arbitrary and ~small and invoking the anonymous mass of unknown players is also not generating much confidence in your argument.We add and remove the opportunity for such decisions (i call it artifacts) all the time with each changed single line of code.

Deciding for or against exploration is a valid gameplay decision for me.
With the current implementation: Not deciding early for exploration precludes one from reaping the benefits when deciding later for exploration.
If you want to keep that (and i am not sure you want but it looks like it) maybe rather argue why it is a good thing for gameplay.
Daybreak wrote: Sun Nov 06, 2022 8:03 pm how to stop someone making that decision to not explore.
anybody can "not explore" if they want to; nobody tries to stop that
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5714
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Twenty-second game on the multiplayer slow game server

#131 Post by Oberlus »

Ophiuchus wrote: Mon Nov 07, 2022 8:31 am
Daybreak wrote: Sun Nov 06, 2022 10:49 pm a) get rid of the policy, and just have 1rp per unexplored system stopped at; or
easy to implement, is not as thematic as with the policy; probably a bit better than completely removing the research bonus. at least there is interaction with the map and a bonus for far exploration.
Scouting, i.e. knowing where good assets are and what enemies are doing, is paramount for an empire's success.
Before Exploration policy, not scouting was never an asset, except sometimes for xenophobic species that increase their maluses the more foreign species they discover.

Therefore, removing the policy and granting one RP per system in which you stop is a bad idea, since it punishes even more empires that for whatever reason can't explore early on.
I'm totally against such a solution.
Ophiuchus wrote: Mon Nov 07, 2022 8:31 am
Daybreak wrote: Sun Nov 06, 2022 10:49 pm b) give everyone a military slot from the beginning
easy to implement, while the mechanism stays as ugly as it is this makes it possible to decide for exploration from the start. big balancing change. dunno
I like the "build first your CC for military slot or your AHA for extra RP or a colo/outpost ship for faster expansion or a warship for faster native's conquering...".

Since this doesn't solve the ugliness...
(of why I have to not-visit-a-system-until-you-have-Exploration to not lose RP? why can't I Explore later? That's already a seemingly decision, "RP now rushing the slot for the policy or RP later after other stuff", not a no-brainer.)
... and it also allows for weird choices (adopt first continuous scanning, then finish CC and adopt Exploration) I also dislike this solution.

Daybreak
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 641
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2018 10:14 pm

Re: Twenty-second game on the multiplayer slow game server

#132 Post by Daybreak »

Ophiuchus wrote: Mon Nov 07, 2022 8:31 am
Daybreak wrote: Sun Nov 06, 2022 11:53 pm Let the players decide if they want to do that or not.
Deciding for or against exploration is a valid gameplay decision for me.
I agree - its what I am arguing for - others are saying it is unatural, and should be changed
Ophiuchus wrote: Mon Nov 07, 2022 8:31 am With the current implementation: Not deciding early for exploration precludes one from reaping the benefits when deciding later for exploration.
If you want to keep that (and i am not sure you want but it looks like it) maybe rather argue why it is a good thing for gameplay.
In this case they are not exploring until they have the Exploration policy in place, so they do gain the 1 rp reward afterwards.
I am not a fan of this strategy, but I believe they have the right to pursue that strategy if they want.
Ophiuchus wrote: Mon Nov 07, 2022 8:31 am
Daybreak wrote: Sun Nov 06, 2022 8:03 pm how to stop someone making that decision to not explore.
anybody can "not explore" if they want to; nobody tries to stop that
Not at the moment - but thats what part of this conversation is about - others dont agree with players who decide not to explore until they have the policy "Exploration" in place

Oberlus wrote: Mon Nov 07, 2022 9:08 am Therefore, removing the policy and granting one RP per system in which you stop is a bad idea, since it punishes even more empires that for whatever reason can't explore early on.
I'm totally against such a solution.
Would or could that happen where any species cant explore early on - and would it matter - later they could - and the 1rp will still be there.

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 3433
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Twenty-second game on the multiplayer slow game server

#133 Post by Ophiuchus »

Daybreak wrote: Mon Nov 07, 2022 11:31 am
Ophiuchus wrote: Mon Nov 07, 2022 8:31 am
Daybreak wrote: Sun Nov 06, 2022 11:53 pm Let the players decide if they want to do that or not.
Deciding for or against exploration is a valid gameplay decision for me.
I agree - its what I am arguing for - others are saying it is unatural, and should be changed
nobody said that
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5714
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Twenty-second game on the multiplayer slow game server

#134 Post by Oberlus »

Daybreak wrote: Mon Nov 07, 2022 11:31 am Would or could that happen where any species cant explore early on - and would it matter - later they could - and the 1rp will still be there.
I can't understand that sentence (or sentences).

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 3433
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Twenty-second game on the multiplayer slow game server

#135 Post by Ophiuchus »

Oberlus wrote: Mon Nov 07, 2022 11:45 am
Daybreak wrote: Mon Nov 07, 2022 11:31 am Would or could that happen where any species cant explore early on - and would it matter - later they could - and the 1rp will still be there.
I can't understand that sentence (or sentences).
had also troubles parsing, but i think that meant that if one does not explore early, one could get the RP later on.
Oberlus wrote: Therefore, removing the policy and granting one RP per system in which you stop is a bad idea, since it punishes even more empires that for whatever reason can't explore early on.
I'm totally against such a solution.
i dont see the punishment here. Investing in a big exploration force early for reaping early RP is legit. It could be overpowered if too early/shifts some balance to bad research and/or good industry species. If you have 5RP/turn, 1RP/turn is already a lot. Scaling basic RP could be a solution.
Adopting and keeping the policy incurs a cost/delay. Note that military command building also is more accessible to industry species, but it also incurs a cost/delay.

i strongly prefer keeping a commitment/cost (which can be tweaked more easily) - but i wont be able to do the backend changes any time soon, so if nobody else steps up this is more a next year thing.
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

Post Reply