Re: Serious balance issues and suggestions summed up
Posted: Sun Mar 26, 2017 3:34 pm
@afwbkbc, you need to slow down a bit. From your various posts and commets I get the impression that there are quite some differences between your idea of what FO should be and ours. Especially your repeatedly expressed opinion on how reality should matter. This tells me that you probably haven't read our design philosophy yet, nor our take on "realism". To get you up to speed, here a few links you really need to read and commit to the principles explained there if you want your suggestions and attempts at contributing to be taken seriously:
E.g. your idea of modelling the galaxy in a recursive manner like you suggested. I can already tell you right away, this isn't going to happen. Not because the idea in itself is bad - if you aim for a game that is something like SimGalaxy that would actually fit perfectly. But FO isn't SimGalaxy, quite the opposite actually. We aim for simplicity, a minimum of micromanagement, a fast paced game. We want to provide the player with simple, yet meaningful and interesting choices.
Adopting your idea would add a lot of detail, which in turn would complicate the interaction of all other game elements with the galaxy map a lot - for what? What are the actual improvements in terms of game mechanics/dynamics? What options and choices would that give the players that would justify the increased complexity?
Something I also want to recommend to you, because (judging by your ideas) you might like it, is Aurora4x:
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/
http://aurorawiki.pentarch.org/index.ph ... =Main_Page
That's a 4X space game very different from FO, having been called the "Dwarf Fortress of space games" for a reason. It's (like Dwarf Fortress) pretty much the antithesis to FO. And don't get me wrong, I think both of those games are great! (Ok, Aurora4x is really hard in the micromanagement department, more than I can stomach, but still.) But FO isn't those games. What works for them does not work for us. And I can't see a multi-layered galaxy map working for FO.
- http://freeorion.org/index.php/Introduction
- http://freeorion.org/index.php/Philosophy
- http://www.freeorion.org/forum/viewtopi ... 9652#p9652
- http://freeorion.org/index.php/How_to_Help
- https://github.com/freeorion/freeorion/ ... IBUTING.md
E.g. your idea of modelling the galaxy in a recursive manner like you suggested. I can already tell you right away, this isn't going to happen. Not because the idea in itself is bad - if you aim for a game that is something like SimGalaxy that would actually fit perfectly. But FO isn't SimGalaxy, quite the opposite actually. We aim for simplicity, a minimum of micromanagement, a fast paced game. We want to provide the player with simple, yet meaningful and interesting choices.
Adopting your idea would add a lot of detail, which in turn would complicate the interaction of all other game elements with the galaxy map a lot - for what? What are the actual improvements in terms of game mechanics/dynamics? What options and choices would that give the players that would justify the increased complexity?
Something I also want to recommend to you, because (judging by your ideas) you might like it, is Aurora4x:
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/
http://aurorawiki.pentarch.org/index.ph ... =Main_Page
That's a 4X space game very different from FO, having been called the "Dwarf Fortress of space games" for a reason. It's (like Dwarf Fortress) pretty much the antithesis to FO. And don't get me wrong, I think both of those games are great! (Ok, Aurora4x is really hard in the micromanagement department, more than I can stomach, but still.) But FO isn't those games. What works for them does not work for us. And I can't see a multi-layered galaxy map working for FO.