Macrotools

Talk about anything and everything related or unrelated to the FreeOrion project, especially Strategy Games.

Moderator: Oberlus

Message
Author
drek
Designer Emeritus
Posts: 935
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 8:07 am

#16 Post by drek »

Micromanagement is that it is fun in some situations. For example, in most games micro is fun in the beginning, sometimes also for important ("key") worlds, or when there's some kind of "crisis" (blockade, food shortage, etc.).
Since the crisis situations are what's interesting, why not special case those situations instead of bogging down the entire mid-late game with minor decisions?

Anyway, it's already been in public review: there isn't going to be extensive micromanagement of the economic sort. Aq's focus system passed, and freight ships delivering resources to various worlds have been abstracted into oblivion. Some form of Powercrazy's infrastructure is going to pass public review, as is my idea of only having a few major semi-wonder buildings. I'm 80% certain tzlaine's global PP pool will pass, either with PC's modification or in it's orginal form.

It's a done deal, and is mostly spelled out in the v.2 design document. The infra and building stuff is soon to join in the the v.3 design doc.

For those that are still interested, the coders are going to need the v.3 design doc asap. It's time to start thinking about the v.3 tech tree and buildings, and perhaps the planet specials.

vishnou00
Space Kraken
Posts: 157
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:15 am

#17 Post by vishnou00 »

drek wrote:Anyway, it's already been in public review: there isn't going to be extensive micromanagement of the economic sort. Aq's focus system passed, and freight ships delivering resources to various worlds have been abstracted into oblivion. Some form of Powercrazy's infrastructure is going to pass public review, as is my idea of only having a few major semi-wonder buildings. I'm 80% certain tzlaine's global PP pool will pass, either with PC's modification or in it's orginal form.

It's a done deal, and is mostly spelled out in the v.2 design document. The infra and building stuff is soon to join in the the v.3 design doc.
I love how you demonstrate the open mindedness and willingness of the team to question the validity of past decisions.
drek wrote:Since the crisis situations are what's interesting, why not special case those situations instead of bogging down the entire mid-late game with minor decisions?
Because the game will become an horrible state machine filled with artificial checks and formulae to identify special case. If you are so convinced an AI agent cannot cope with complex situations, how dare you suggest a game agent will coherently identify and model complex situations?
drek wrote:For those that are still interested, the coders are going to need the v.3 design doc asap. It's time to start thinking about the v.3 tech tree and buildings, and perhaps the planet specials.
When I talked about tzlaine about a design for the implementation of effects (described in this wiki article), he replied:
Zach Laine wrote:Feel free to continue to develop a strategy for implementing general game effects that lend themselves to modding, but I won't have time for talking about it until after v0.2 is complete.

Something general like this may be required when we have a more general need for effects of various kinds, but for now I just want to get v0.2 out the door.
Now don't tell the coders won't have work to do if we don't hurry, there is plenty to do.

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 13587
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

#18 Post by Geoff the Medio »

vishnou00 wrote:I love how you demonstrate the open mindedness and willingness of the team to question the validity of past decisions.
I think that old decisions would be reconsidered if there was significant evidence presented that the systems, as designed, would not work. This is not the same, however, as presenting evidence that another system could also work, which is mostly what you've been doing. (Correct me if I'm wrong on this, on either point)
Because the game will become an horrible state machine filled with artificial checks and formulae to identify special case.
This sounds like it could be a reason to reopen those debate, but I think you'll need to give some concrete examples of situations where the formulae to identify special cases and artificial checks would make the game a horrible state machine.

An example example: While I find a "nascent colony" special limiting new colony food output, and the resulting need to import food, to be an excellent game mechanic, I rather dislike having the duration of the special be a fixed number of turns. The whole idea also only really works at the very start of the game, when your first planet needs to choose between food to support new expansion colonies, and production for whatever else. I imagine that later in the game, you'll have plenty of extra planets to set to food, so will have no significant checks on expansion at this point.

drek
Designer Emeritus
Posts: 935
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 8:07 am

#19 Post by drek »

I love how you demonstrate the open mindedness and willingness of the team to question the validity of past decisions.
If something turns out to be horribly broken, then I'm sure Aq or Tyreth will make the hard choice to open the issue back up for discussion.

Otherwise, there is no willingness to question the validity of past decisions. If there was, we'd be doing nothing but debating the same old issues over and over again. For example, right now there are at least three requests I could be meetings for the team instead of rehashing things on this thread. (my own fault, I'm a board monkey.)

btw, I don't speak in an official capacity. If Aq, Tryeth, Mui, Lithium, or Tzlaine say something then it's official. If I say something, it's garbage until confirmed by one of the above.
Now don't tell the coders won't have work to do if we don't hurry, they is plenty to do.
I'm fairly certain that tzlaine will be happy to see the design doc finished sooner rather than later.

vishnou00
Space Kraken
Posts: 157
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:15 am

#20 Post by vishnou00 »

Flaw of global pooling:
Modeling blockade:
If there is to be blockade (I think it should be, as it is one of the main reason to have systems located in different places), they have to be modeled. There are different kind of blockade: a complete blockade would require enemy ships in orbit of the blockaded world, but it could be possible to blockade a system by blockading all adjecent system/starlane. What if one starlane broke the blockade, is the blockade effect is immediately totally nullified? Is there a delay? If there is a delay, how do you determine the lenght of that delay? Is partial blockade possible? Can you cut a a very efficient supply between two worlds, forcing the supply to use a much less efficient route?

These are all situation that can be coherently modeled with ships moving around, but I doubt it will be as easy and the result very coherent.

vishnou00
Space Kraken
Posts: 157
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:15 am

#21 Post by vishnou00 »

drek wrote:I'm fairly certain that tzlaine will be happy to see the design doc finished sooner rather than later.
I think nobody wants to wait for other to do work. I'm sure the audio would be happy to have a complete game with just sound and music to add. Designer would love a completely coded (with sounds graphics and all) game they can easely mod to their idea. Same thing for the graphic guys (and gals), having a complete game with only programmer's art, waiting to be prettified by their talent.
drek wrote:For example, right now there are at least three requests I could be meetings for the team instead of rehashing things on this thread. (my own fault, I'm a board monkey.)
I don't agree with everything that is already done, but I accept it. For one, the food ressource have no reason to exist, since its sole purpose it to grow population. Food should be abstracted in population. The same for research, I believe it could be happily be wrapped with industry, in a "production" element. But it is reasonable enough and I accept it.

But the building process is being designed now, I don't like the the way its going, and it is presented as (unofficially) already passed, as a direct consequence of the accepted microphobia and previous globalisation decisions. That's why I'm now preaching for macrotools and against abstracted globalisation.

Aquitaine
Lead Designer Emeritus
Posts: 761
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 1:54 pm
Location: Austin, TX

#22 Post by Aquitaine »

I'm not really interested in getting involved in what is now the sixth thread devoted to this topic, but suffice it to say that I have no phobia of micromanagement. My initial feelings on economy had nothing to do with globalizing PP.

I was won over because I think that system will work better. For what it's worth, I think a system closer to what you describe -- which is pretty much what I originally wanted -- could also work, but I see it more as a band aid on an existing problem, which is that mid-late game Civ/MOO games are expected to have a lot of micromanagement, than a really innovative solution. Now, it could be that we could develop a UI and design a clever enough system to completely bypass this problem. I think it's entirely possible and I would really love to see someone do it. But for better or worse, we do have to choose one or the other, and in my semi-professional judgment it seems that drek has made the stronger argument and persuaded more of the community. Of course, with a community as fluid as this one, that may not mean a whole lot, and if the same discussion took place in two months, things might be different. But I can't afford to be second-guessing our processes at this point, because they have served us well so far.

-Aq
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!

vishnou00
Space Kraken
Posts: 157
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:15 am

vishnou00's apology

#23 Post by vishnou00 »

About Aquitaine

I've always considered you too professionnally neutral to assiciate you strongly to any idea. The term mircophobic was originally coined by Geoff. tzlaine took the hat and drek (on that issue) was agreeing with him, so they became the microphobics, in my book.

I respect your opinion as one who have invested considerable time and efforts on the project, but it seem as you have executive role (wrapping public review, etc) people assume you have superior authority over other members with equivalent involvement. Being executive officer (design lead) is managing (doing communication, planning, resolving issue), not being a one man army doing all the work.

About "Global population"

I'm sorry if my "global population" post involved you personnaly (as what you could say). The post was meant to point out invalid aguments I often see on the board:
-Aquitaine said so, so it's good
-it is realistic, so it's bad
-it exist and is good in unrelated game, so it's good
-it involve micromanagement, so it's bad

I don't mean they are all completely the other way around (what Aquitaine say may very well be good, a good gameplay mechanic existing in other game may be good and micromanagement and realism don't always lead to good things), just that that are not sufficient, even not applicable.

I feel the need to come back to that post because it may have been misunderstood, as Aquitaine felt his integrity questionned, which was not my intention.

About the present issue

What I fear is that their systems (in general) while seeming innovating, will lead to absence of features (ie possible strategies) that people expect in a 4x game. These will require band aid solutions ("generating" the special case situations, artificial limiting formulae) that aren't very elegant. I believe my system is innovative, because it hasn't been attempted extensively in the past, while their is only replacing standard features (like local production) by features with less input. It's avoiding micromanagement by removing proven gameplay mechanics and replacing them with unproven one with seemingly less micromanagement and less possibility, out of the box.

About the methodology

I don't like drek's argument, because when I attempt to refute them, he doesn't care to refute my arguments and go on, telling he already convinced the community. I know he did, he did before I was even aware of the existance of FO. Does precedance all that matters? I'm not asking to throw away all the decisions for every new member, but I would expect an healthy debate when it isn't already available (there are comment about a past debate on the subject, but from what I've heard, it was only rightful bashing on governor AI agent systems).

About the future

Why should things would be different in two months? People involved in design won't change much (like 2 new, 1 gone), and they still won't listen to such a debate because they consider it already settled and done thoroughly (which I think it isn't).

About what I write

I may seem full of myself most of the time, it's because as a new member without any responsability or authority, I think I can say anything and people will take it only as it is, my opinions/ideas. I get the feeling a lot of people understand that, as they simply ignore my posts as if I was a troll in the forum, but it's my excuse for my indelicate style.

Aquitaine
Lead Designer Emeritus
Posts: 761
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 1:54 pm
Location: Austin, TX

Re: vishnou00's apology

#24 Post by Aquitaine »

vishnou00 wrote: I respect your opinion as one who have invested considerable time and efforts on the project, but it seem as you have executive role (wrapping public review, etc) people assume you have superior authority over other members with equivalent involvement.
What is 'equivalent involvement'? Who are the 'people' that make these assumptions? The project has a certain structure. It's very transparent (for now, since we're small enough to make it that way).

I absolutely agree that 'Aquitaine says so, ergo it's good' it most certainly not an argument -- I think, though, that the issue here is one of passed features vs. present debates. 'Because I say so' on an issue currently up for review doesn't inherently carry any more weight than anything else; if it did, I probably wouldn't have been persuaded to the exact opposite of what I originally wanted. :) However, there are several things -- like economy foci, like various things in the v0.2 doc -- that are part of the game, for better or worse, and that we won't revisit every time someone asks us to. That's also 'because I say so' because I assemble the design doc, but in that case I'm saying so just to spare the community from having to argue and re-argue every single issue.

It seems to me that one of your bigger unanswered questions is 'under what circumstances will we revisit, and, if necessary, completely rewrite something we have already passed.' The answer is 'when the consensus of the developers and the design team feels it's necessary.'
Being executive officer (design lead) is managing (doing communication, planning, resolving issue), not being a one man army doing all the work.
Tyreth is the project lead.
you could say). The post was meant to point out invalid aguments I often see on the board:
-it is realistic, so it's bad
-it exist and is good in unrelated game, so it's good
I take issue with two of your four points. The latter one first: whether or not a game is unrelated is subjective. For example, I think we, as designers, can learn from things like Chess, even though Chess and a 4X computer game don't seem to have much in common. Does this mean we should do everything Chess does because Chess is a great game? Of course not! But it doesn't render invalid any analogy simply because Chess doesn't have space monsters and death rays. I shouldn't think it'd be too much to ask of the community to weigh such arguments appropriately.

As for the realism bit, the proper phrasing would be 'it's realistic, so it's irrelevant.' We wasted a lot of time early on with realism arguments. For better or worse, the FO team has come to the realization that we simply aren't concerned with it. Realism is not one of our goals and whether or not something is realistic has no bearing on its gameplay value, from our perspective. More than anything else, I would expect this to be the case throughout the entire project.
I feel the need to come back to that post because it may have been misunderstood, as Aquitaine felt his integrity questionned, which was not my intention.
Not at all; I'm not worried about my integrity. :) One of the parts of my job is to keep our process as transparent and well-understood as possible. This gets harder the bigger we get, but for so long as it can be done, I'm happy to take the time to do it.
What I fear is that their systems (in general) while seeming innovating, will lead to absence of features (ie possible strategies) that people expect in a 4x game. These will require band aid solutions ("generating" the special case situations, artificial limiting formulae) that aren't very elegant. I believe my system is innovative, because it hasn't been attempted extensively in the past, while their is only replacing standard features (like local production) by features with less input. It's avoiding micromanagement by removing proven gameplay mechanics and replacing them with unproven one with seemingly less micromanagement and less possibility, out of the box.
For what it's worth, I agree with you. Unfortunately, after numerous brainstorming sessions, a 25+ page DESIGN thread, and two public reviews, that's not the direction that we're going in. I would expect that it's the kind of thing that would appear as a mod after our v1.0 release, though, because it is, as far as I'm concerned, a very valid design choice.
I don't like drek's argument, because when I attempt to refute them, he doesn't care to refute my arguments and go on, telling he already convinced the community. I know he did, he did before I was even aware of the existance of FO. Does precedance all that matters? I'm not asking to throw away all the decisions for every new member, but I would expect an healthy debate when it isn't already available (there are
Our design team is expected to thoroughly discuss a matter when it is in the DESIGN thread phase, and then in the public review. After that, if anybody takes the time to argue it again, it's a courtesy to help somebody new understand why we got to where we got to. The converse of what you are indirectly suggesting is that we should always let every aspect of this game be open to challenge whenever anybody with a modicum of eloquence shows up to challenge it.

We are in an unfortunate position, having moved forums twice in the last year, where a lot of our early debates are no longer here. That should not happen again (for various reasons), so I should think that the number of invisible debates establishing FO canon would decrease as we move on.
Why should things would be different in two months? People involved in design won't change much (like 2 new, 1 gone), and they still won't listen to such a debate because they consider it already settled and done thoroughly (which I think it isn't).
What is it, exactly, that you expect to be different? We get new people every couple months and we lose people every couple months. When the FO design team collectively decides that an issue is settled -- which it does through the process of public review -- then you're exactly right, we won't be stirred into a wholly new debate on the subject, no matter the extent to which you or anyone else feels unconvinced.
I may seem full of myself most of the time, it's because as a new member without any responsability or authority, I think I can say anything and people will take it only as it is, my opinions/ideas. I get the feeling a lot of people understand that, as they simply ignore my posts as if I was a troll in the forum, but it's my excuse for my indelicate style.
I don't really know what you're referring to. It seems to me as though you respectfully disagree with what we've decided. There is nothing to apologize for in that. Being vocal about your ideas isn't a crime. If you'd been trolling, you would've been warned about it or banned. Don't imagine a 'us versus them' mentality here where none exists.

Aq
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!

drek
Designer Emeritus
Posts: 935
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 8:07 am

#25 Post by drek »

I don't like drek's argument, because when I attempt to refute them, he doesn't care to refute my arguments and go on,
I can't refute your arguements, because they are generally preferences. You like one kind of game, I like another. It's like debating the merits of vanilla vs. strawberry.

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 13587
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

#26 Post by Geoff the Medio »

drek wrote:I can't refute [vishnou00's] arguements, because they are generally preferences.
That's not always true. I think a better way to describe it would be to say that the arguments given are too theoretical and "abstract" (heh), so you both end up saying "this way would work, the other could have problems" but can't actually give useful descriptions of what the problems would be. Thus the argument becomes about which sort of problems would be "worse" (typically "too much micro" or "specific situation not easily abstracted"). This is confused with arguing about preferences, but isn't quite the same thing, imho.

vishnou00
Space Kraken
Posts: 157
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:15 am

Re: vishnou00's apology

#27 Post by vishnou00 »

Aquitaine wrote:For example, I think we, as designers, can learn from things like Chess, even though Chess and a 4X computer game don't seem to have much in common. Does this mean we should do everything Chess does because Chess is a great game? Of course not! But it doesn't render invalid any analogy simply because Chess doesn't have space monsters and death rays.
That's what I meant:
vishnou00 wrote:a good gameplay mechanic existing in other game may be good
Maybe I should have used an entire paragraph to explain, as you did in yours. I consider "not sufficient, even not applicable" being two way.


Aquitaine wrote:What is 'equivalent involvement'? Who are the 'people' that make these assumptions? The project has a certain structure. It's very transparent (for now, since we're small enough to make it that way).
Involvement is a very subjective measure of invested time and effort.

Again, it's just a feeling I have and I can't point out anybody right now (because I can't think of anybody in particular). It was a feeling from reading the forum.



Aquitaine wrote:Tyreth is the project lead.
I can't find the document, but I vaguely remember you being design lead, tzlaine being programming, Tyreth project lead, miu graphic lead and LithiumMongoose being audio lead.




Aquitaine wrote:As for the realism bit, the proper phrasing would be 'it's realistic, so it's irrelevant.'
I'm not adamant on FO being realistic, but I consider reality being a coherent, intuitive system. I think FO should aim to reach those qualities, as such, reality is a relevant model, but it is by no mean the only one. I feel one always have to tip-toe talk about reality based model, paraphrasing "reality" with the likes of "coherent system" and "intuitive model". There is some kind of witch hunt being waged against reality arguments.




Aquitaine wrote:The converse of what you are indirectly suggesting is that we should always let every aspect of this game be open to challenge whenever anybody with a modicum of eloquence shows up to challenge it.
Converse is not an expression I'm familliar with, but it you mean "a theorem formed by interchanging the hypothesis and conclusion of a given theorem", I already answer directly:
vishnou00 wrote:I'm not asking to throw away all the decisions for every new member,
Or do you mean I would want you to make exception for "anybody with a modicum of eloquence", suggesting I am one with a modicum of eloquence. Thanks for the compilement, but I'd prefer you to stand by my direct answer.




Aquitaine wrote:What is it, exactly, that you expect to be different?
You just take me for a fool when you suggest things could be different, when you are well aware that nothing will change:
Aquitaine wrote:and if the same discussion took place in two months, things might be different.



Geoff de Medio wrote:arguments given are too theoretical and "abstract" (heh)
drek wrote:It's like debating the merits of vanilla vs. strawberry.
An example that things that I would like your input is my concern that the abstracted model you defend (ex. pooled empire production) is inelegantly handling situation (a captured shipyard in enemy territory spewing ships of a whole empire) with extensions to the model (devising new formulae to limit produductivity by limiting with the infrastructure development which in turn is limited by planet development states, such as nascent, mature or ruin, etc).

You could answer straight with something along the line of "I'm am confident that my great design ability will solve every unforseen consequences of my non-simulationist model by spewing new formulae, checks, variables, meters and states. Players will love to wrap their mind around my model's formulae." Or address the specific issue by presenting your latest fix. I expect you to come up with something better than that suggested answer.

drek
Designer Emeritus
Posts: 935
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 8:07 am

#28 Post by drek »

You could answer straight with something along the line of "I'm am confident that my great design ability will solve every unforeseen consequences of my non-simulationist model by spewing new formulae, checks, variables, meters and states. Players will love to wrap their mind around my model's formulae." Or address the specific issue by presenting your latest fix. I expect you to come up with something better than that suggested answer.
If there's no unforeseen consequences of a simulation, then it's a crappy simulation. If there's no unforeseen consequences to a complex macrotool, then a perfect God has directly intervened in the design and implementation.

The results of a highly abstracted simple model should be easier to predict. Still I suspect that there will be problems, including a few that no one's anticipated.

An abstract model should also be easier to design and implement. Plus, with a little restraint, it has the advantage of not requiring sophisticated automation or macrotools.

And again, automation has never really worked right. Comprehensive macrotools of the variety you are proposing are untested, adding to the potential errors we can make in design. If comprehensive macrotools are required for the game to be fun in mid to late game, then we are fubar if they never work right.

Frankly, messing around with the sort of tools you've described doesn't sound like a lot of fun to me. On the other hand, I like vanilla ice-cream. You might like strawberry.
inelegantly handling situation (a captured shipyard in enemy territory spewing ships of a whole empire)
I don't see that as a big problem. Others did; solutions got proposed.

If I continue advocating infinite capacity shipyards, no doubt I'll be out-voted/vetoed/pelted with rotten fruit. So, that's the end of infinite capacity shipyards--iI plan on working with the assumption that there will limited capacity shipyards. Perhaps I can fix the problems I have with the idea.
Or address the specific issue by presenting your latest fix.
You are overestimating me.

Perhaps you could address the specific issue by presenting *your* latest fix.

I reserve the right to heckle if your fix involves automation or Turning Complete macrotools.

vishnou00
Space Kraken
Posts: 157
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:15 am

#29 Post by vishnou00 »

drek wrote:If there's no unforeseen consequences of a simulation, then it's a crappy simulation. If there's no unforeseen consequences to a complex macrotool, then a perfect God has directly intervened in the design and implementation.
I don't pretend there won't be unforseen consequences with a simulation, only that the way it will come to be (emergeance of the consequence or additionnal behaviour to the system) will garantee coherence, because:
-emergeance is a consequence of a system
-if individual behaviour of a system is coherent, its consequences will be coherent
It doesn't garantee they will be predictable, only that they will make sense as much as the elements of the system.
drek wrote:The results of a highly abstracted simple model should be easier to predict. Still I suspect that there will be problems, including a few that no one's anticipated.
The difference between an abstracted model and a simulated one is that the behaviours of the abstracted ones are individually complex but their interactions are simple. In a simulation, the individual behaviour are simple and the interactions are complex. This is why an abstracted model is easier to predict, but they require careful design for each situation that must be handled to mantain coherence and intituiveness.

These are the merits of strawberry and vanilla. Simulation is coherent and abstraction is predictable.
drek wrote:An abstract model should also be easier to design and implement. Plus, with a little restraint, it has the advantage of not requiring sophisticated automation or macrotools.
I digress. Each gameplay mechanics will have to be implemented. It is certainly also true for a simulation, but in a simulation, these mechanics are in fewer number and are less complex.

For example, a supply route is a consequence to be able to move cargo ships containing supply. In an abstracted model, you have to have pooling of some kind.
drek wrote:And again, automation has never really worked right. Comprehensive macrotools of the variety you are proposing are untested, adding to the potential errors we can make in design. If comprehensive macrotools are required for the game to be fun in mid to late game, then we are fubar if they never work right.
Abstracted models are much more studied field, as board games are abstracted design. Computer, with their ability to handle a lot of simple instructions (the essence of a Turing machine) enable the use of simulations.

Abstracted models are perfect for board game, as it is the way games are designed, but we are not designing a board game here. But again, this is arguing the merits of strawberry and vanilla, but IMO, simulation is for computer games and abstraction is for board game. I think the game you are designing could be much more fun as a board game than it would be as a computer game, so why waste design efforts making a lesser experience (a computer game that feels like a board game)?
drek wrote:Frankly, messing around with the sort of tools you've described doesn't sound like a lot of fun to me. On the other hand, I like vanilla ice-cream. You might like strawberry.
inelegantly handling situation (a captured shipyard in enemy territory spewing ships of a whole empire)
I don't see that as a big problem. Others did; solutions got proposed.
And those solutions are, new things to design and implement, new complex elements to the simulation (as an abstracted model is no less a simulated, it's just that the elements are more complex and less intricate).
drek wrote:If I continue advocating infinite capacity shipyards, no doubt I'll be out-voted/vetoed/pelted with rotten fruit. So, that's the end of infinite capacity shipyards--iI plan on working with the assumption that there will limited capacity shipyards. Perhaps I can fix the problems I have with the idea.
Or address the specific issue by presenting your latest fix.
You are overestimating me.

Perhaps you could address the specific issue by presenting *your* latest fix.
That would be encouraging you in your wrongful design philosophy (that I think is perfect for board games, but inappropriate for computer games). When things will be set in stones (implemented into the game) we (the people worrying about game design) will all have to fix the gameplay to turn it into a fun game to play. Then again, I might consider that vanilla ice-cream is litteraly fubar ("f***ed up beyond all repair") and go on making strawberry elsewhere.
drek wrote:I reserve the right to heckle if your fix involves automation or Turning Complete macrotools.
Tools will be fail if they are too weak (ineffective), unintuitive or incomprehensible (unusable). The consequence of failure is simple: the game will rely on micromanagement. Since I cannot stand micromanagement any more than you, perhaps even less, I won't let that happen.

Aquitaine
Lead Designer Emeritus
Posts: 761
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 1:54 pm
Location: Austin, TX

#30 Post by Aquitaine »

Thread locked. This isn't productive.

-Aq
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!

Post Reply