sven wrote:Technically, this isn't true. Farm output on a garden or island work is higher than on an arid or glacier world. But, still, point taken.

My mistake, there is a yield difference after all. Looks like the marginal worlds are getting seven out of their farms instead of the nine on garden/islands and ten on Gaia. Now I'm embarrassed for not noticing that earlier

I think we need more late-game techs that give better bonuses to resource production, but there's a limit to what makes sense in gameplay terms. It's probably true that realistically, past a certain technology point, food becomes trivial to produce... but that would mean essentially removing it as a resource. What's fun about that?

Similarly, a true matter-replication technology would not only remove metal as a required resource, but should have far-reaching consequences for production. Star Trek-style transporter and matter replication technologies should allow you to construct a starship in literally a matter of seconds out of any raw material. Since you can replicate replicators, there's literally no limit to how fast you can produce things. You should be able to push a button and produce a billion starships in a single turn. It also should allow you to create whole populations, instantly, with any skills or capabilities that you desire. There's literally nothing fun in gameplay terms about this kind of capability. (Matter replicators are also not even remotely realistic, so it's not a terribly strong "realism" argument.)

mharmless wrote:Due to these two factors, I actually find myself devoting arid and glacial worlds to farming, and airless/inferno/etc rich/normal worlds to mining. The facility mechanics give these world types far more slots-per-person, which benefits the flat yields of these two resources, while the high population worlds like gardens tends to favor specializing into wrenches, wealth, or science since that's what your population can yield.

If fertility impacted farm output much as richness impacts mining output, this problem would likely not exist. It would remove the current perverse incentive to farm on the most marginal worlds, and remove the later game problem where such worlds are rarer and population is much higher due to teraforming.

This, I think, is the crux of the issue. The high level gameplay consequence that we want is for some of your high fertility worlds to become strategically important because of their food exports. But what's actually happening is that the high population of garden worlds often makes them, at best, self-sufficient in terms of food -- while the low pop cap of marginal worlds means that even though they're producing less food-per-farm, they're actually more likely to serve as productive food-export sites.

The cleanest balance adjustment I can think of atm is to dramatically increase the "active" production component of farms. I.e., to make farms more like factories, and less like mines, in that their production would have the potential to scale up significantly with high populations.

This is not hugely realistic. But I suspect it would have positive consequences for strategic balance, particularly in the mid and late game.

It's also worth noting that the food production balance problems, atm, are most apparent in large empires that have climbed fairly high up the tech tree -- so in world building terms, these empires have probably reached a point where it has become more plausible that the society should have better tools for converting energy/labor into improved food production. So, perhaps we don't really need to stretch realism *too* far to achieve a better strategic balance here.

Arioch wrote:I think we need more late-game techs that give better bonuses to resource production, but there's a limit to what makes sense in gameplay terms. It's probably true that realistically, past a certain technology point, food becomes trivial to produce... but that would mean essentially removing it as a resource. What's fun about that?

The fun is in getting to that point, you've got to survive the game through to the point of being able to do it and then start reshaping worlds because you can. There is a difference as well, it is still a resource but it is no longer a constraint - for your civilization. Perhaps you trade it with others who still cant figure out how to eat. Metals may still be a limiting factor because things like lithium, berrylium, and boron aren't made directly by stars but by cosmic ray spallation so they may be relatively more 'rare'. This means things like gas giants can become a late game strategic resource as they tend to concentrate rare matter and hydrocarbons.

On a related note, my understanding is that you plan to implement planet killing technologies. If so, I propose you also consider planets as a resource for consumption - I'd like to use some of those rock outer planets as material components to craft orbital rings and crazy things like dyson spheres or use them to accelerate other teraforming projects. If your target is small enough and your furnace is large enough refining is cake, you just melt your target and spin your furnace. The pure elements separate out by density along the axis of rotation toward the wall and you tap them off in liquid form.

Arioch wrote:Similarly, a true matter-replication technology ... construct a starship in literally a matter of seconds out of any raw material ... no limit to how fast you can produce thing ... push a button and produce a billions starships ...

So you mean the buy button? Because with the right economy I can literally construct a new 'thing' at each planet once a turn. This isn't really game breaking late game if you're focused on reshaping the stars. The difficulty of something like TNG style replicator is all the the hard radiation you'd be exposed to. A more realistic approach are swarms of assembler nano-machines or other self assembly structures which would allow you to grow your ships. Again the practical limitation is energy, if we've got antimatter power systems we're already trending toward the end of a Kardashev II civilization so it is feasible. With FTL communication, cloning, and consciousness transfer you no longer need to send transports between colonies as long is you have some industry in place. You just transfer the data and build a new body. Perhaps a better resource than 'money' is energy? If I recall correctly SMAC had energy as their 'economic' resource.

Consciousness transfer opens a new line of topics regarding cognition that might be beyond the scope of this particular thread, but if I can 'archive' my settlers to solid state media they won't need to eat. Also, they're much more likely to survive wars and the rigors of spaceflight. Also, robot bodies.

And if you've figured out how to archive people, then you can create new people with interesting traits in software - way faster than trying to grow a meat brain.

mute wrote:So you mean the buy button? Because with the right economy I can literally construct a new 'thing' at each planet once a turn.

As long as you have stockpiled enough currency, being able to build a ship every turn is not a problem. You'll eventually run out of currency. True replicators would not require any currency -- once you've built one replicator, you never need to build anything else ever again, as you can replicate anything, including more replicators. Replicating a ship requires neither significant time nor currency, only matter or energy, neither of which is modeled in this game.

mute wrote:With FTL communication, cloning, and consciousness transfer you no longer need to send transports between colonies as long is you have some industry in place. You just transfer the data and build a new body. Perhaps a better resource than 'money' is energy? If I recall correctly SMAC had energy as their 'economic' resource.

Consciousness transfer opens a new line of topics regarding cognition that might be beyond the scope of this particular thread, but if I can 'archive' my settlers to solid state media they won't need to eat. Also, they're much more likely to survive wars and the rigors of spaceflight. Also, robot bodies.

And if you've figured out how to archive people, then you can create new people with interesting traits in software - way faster than trying to grow a meat brain.

All of these concepts, while sound in terms of science fiction, have one thing in common: they break the gameplay of the empire building model. Once resources become unlimited and people become virtual, your society no longer has any need to interact with the universe or other societies (except virtually). The need to do all the things you do in this game becomes nonexistent. I don't think "your godlike people don't care anymore" makes for a very satisfactory win condition, much less playstyle.

The endgame technologies that we currently have in the game are mostly (in my opinion) power-fantasy toys that we give to a player who has already essentially won the game and is just rubbing his enemies' faces in it. Dread stars aren't meant to be a balanced fleet element, and (again, in my opinion) terraforming all your planets into Gaias removes the interesting diversity of different planet types. I think the most interesting part of a game like this is in the early expansion and the midgame power plays against the other empires.

Arioch wrote:As long as you have stockpiled enough currency, being able to build a ship every turn is not a problem. You'll eventually run out of currency ... true replicators would not require any currency ... Replicating a ship requires neither significant time nor currency, only matter or energy, neither of which is modeled in this game.

To be pedantic, there is little functional difference between the two unless you're discussing hard currency. Your current 'currency' game mechanic could be renamed 'energy' and the effect would be the same but more precise from an objective standpoint while allowing for a greater depth in gameplay. Your ability to replicate things is then limited by your generation capacity, which gives the player a reason to want to do all of the interesting end game things like build a Dyson sphere or capture a small singularity to farm the accretion disk.

Arioch wrote:I don't think "your godlike people don't care anymore" makes for a very satisfactory win condition, much less playstyle.

For myself, and I'd wager a few others, this was actually the most satisfactory win condition for Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri and arguably the cannon ending.

Arioch wrote:I think the most interesting part of a game like this is in the early expansion and the midgame power plays against the other empires.

Which is perhaps where you vision as a creator and my desires as a player differ. To me, the endgame is the most interesting part. The midgame issues are trials to overcome, and you've done well making them a true and interesting challenge. Because they are a challenge to overcome, the satisfaction received by the endgame becomes a function of these challenges. But the endgame rewards feel so unsatisfying. It makes me wonder why I invested the time in playing. For the player who has already 'won' what is the harm in being able to replicate massive fleets at will? This is in part what made the actual playing of SMAC so satisfying and repeatably playable to me, I could simply manage my diplomacy and tech without having to resort to bloody conquest - which always presented new challenges. A play style abiding by the non-aggression principle was equally viable as a crusader conquer strategy. And I'll add that it was extremely satisfying endgame to goad your much more aggressive but far less advanced neighbors into conflict: as their troops began to march across your borders, your quantum singularity powered war-machines would simply materialize inside their city domes.

I'm looking for a particular experience as a 4x player, and between Sven and yourself you've gone a long way toward providing it. There is a real depth and detail which I appreciate that you have put into this game, I'm sure this carries over from your other work. It is analogous to the level of consistency, story, and detail which was lavished on SMAC. However, in making the creative choice to go for that level of consistency, those areas where the SIC world is less though out or inconsistent become glaring obscenities. It also means that your player base will quickly begin to ascribe their own meaning to your game - this is something which only happens when such a world is produced. This is a good thing, because people really like a story and good stories will sell. Because you, as a creator, find the early expansion and midgame to be interesting it is necessarily the most well though out and polished - it is a joy to experience, even in beta form. Having said that, SIC has the potential to be something even greater providing you find the time to develop the endgame to a similar level, some real GOTY potential honestly. Don't try to dismiss the story your players may want to tell about their empire by throwing up some tired argument about balance.

mute wrote:I'm looking for a particular experience as a 4x player, and between Sven and yourself you've gone a long way toward providing it. There is a real depth and detail which I appreciate that you have put into this game, I'm sure this carries over from your other work. It is analogous to the level of consistency, story, and detail which was lavished on SMAC. However, in making the creative choice to go for that level of consistency, those areas where the SIC world is less though out or inconsistent become glaring obscenities.

Excellent! I'm very glad you've become so passionate about the game -- Arioch and I have spent a long time living with buggy builds, incomplete feature sets, and the slow march incremental improvements. It's great to hear that, for someone coming into the beta test fresh, the game is, in many ways, working pretty well.

While we are closing out on our feature list (only diplomacy and sound effects remain as big "TODO" items), the game, in my opinion, is still very much a work in progress. And there's a lot of fleshing out to do in terms of the world building, the late game techs, and balance.

One of the things that most often disappointments me, in 4X games, is the lack of a satisfying conclusion. Alpha Cent's epilogue text + history statistics made for one of the better post game wrap ups out there -- and I'm hoping that we'll be able to do at least as well.

You probably won't see any Dyson spheres in-game, but, Alpha Centuri style epilogues have always been a part of our planned feature set. And if all we need to do is write about them, the odds of serious mega structures making their way into the game world become far more likely

mute wrote:Because you, as a creator, find the early expansion and midgame to be interesting it is necessarily the most well though out and polished - it is a joy to experience, even in beta form. Having said that, SIC has the potential to be something even greater providing you find the time to develop the endgame to a similar level, some real GOTY potential honestly. Don't try to dismiss the story your players may want to tell about their empire by throwing up some tired argument about balance.

I hope you'll check back with us in a few months, when the build is much closer to release. We'll be fleshing out the end game techs considerably, between then and now, and I suspect the changes we have planned will go some distance towards improving your impression of the game. Um, we probably don't have the capacity to put out a GOTY title, but, if what you're really after is a strong late-game experience, you should find things significantly improved

mute wrote:

Arioch wrote:As long as you have stockpiled enough currency, being able to build a ship every turn is not a problem. You'll eventually run out of currency ... true replicators would not require any currency ... Replicating a ship requires neither significant time nor currency, only matter or energy, neither of which is modeled in this game.

To be pedantic, there is little functional difference between the two unless you're discussing hard currency. Your current 'currency' game mechanic could be renamed 'energy' and the effect would be the same but more precise from an objective standpoint while allowing for a greater depth in gameplay. Your ability to replicate things is then limited by your generation capacity, which gives the player a reason to want to do all of the interesting end game things like build a Dyson sphere or capture a small singularity to farm the accretion disk.

Wealth can be expressed in terms of energy, as they can be converted back and forth, but they're not the same thing. In game terms, they're functionally opposite. Economic activities consume energy to produce wealth. Powerplants consume wealth to produce energy. Markets do not produce energy. Putting a market in your starship will not make it go.

Arioch wrote:Wealth can be expressed in terms of energy, as they can be converted back and forth, but they're not the same thing. In game terms, they're functionally opposite. Economic activities consume energy to produce wealth. Powerplants consume wealth to produce energy. Markets do not produce energy. Putting a market in your starship will not make it go.

What point are you trying to make here with respect to the game mechanics of the player clicking a button and producing a thing? I'm having difficulty following how this relates to the topic. Perhaps you could define for me your terms so we can operate off a similar framework. The above implies that you can put wealth into a star ship and make it go, which from a mechanical standpoint is what you use for the game. There is a joke somewhere in there about owning a boat.

My point is you could recognize this functional equivalency, call it energy and thereby expand the list of things to do in game vis. the tech tree and planetary improvements. What purpose does the game mechanic of currency serve by being constrained to solely to the market improvement and the construction of transports? If you're uninterested in adding depth I can appreciate that. I raise these issues because I am curious as to what process led you as the designer to reason to this particular mechanic and what the intended purpose of the mechanic is. Depending on that answer there may be a more optimal mechanic that the game could use.

mute wrote:What point are you trying to make here with respect to the game mechanics of the player clicking a button and producing a thing? I'm having difficulty following how this relates to the topic.

The point I was trying to make was that walking too far down the logical path of replicators, matter transmission, etc. eventually breaks the resource model that we've set up for the game. Having some variety in resources types and different things that different resources can be spent on (and only limited ways in which you can convert one resource to another) creates, in my opinion, some interesting complexity in gameplay.

Civilization: Beyond Earth made a curious design decision to replace their gold/currency resource with Energy. This makes a little bit of scifi sense in terms of units (though tying a currency to any commodity is problematic), but it introduces some logical mismatches in terms of the source of the resource and the things it's used for. The energy found in a derelict reactor or produced by your powerplant can be used to buy things or pay people, even without any apparent way to convert energy into wealth, and the wealth you can get in trade from a neighbor can be used to power things, even if you have no powerplant in your city or energy transmission infrastructure between you and your neighbor. Energy and currency are not the same thing. To me that's immersion-breaking and undesirable, even if it doesn't negatively impact gameplay.

However, if you run the technological clock forward far enough to the point where energy becomes the only real currency (as it can be converted via your transmogrifier into anything that you desire), then that does negatively impact gameplay. Normally, currency can be used to speed the production of a ship, but not beyond the point where you've run out of metals. If you make it so that you can convert currency into any desired resource, then there is no need to collect any resource other than currency. Stockpiling currency to exclusion of all else becomes the one and only optimal strategy.

mute wrote:If you're uninterested in adding depth I can appreciate that.

Maybe I don't understand correctly what it is that you're suggesting, but I don't see any way in which it adds depth.

Have you changed the terraforming recently? The "Atmosphere Regeneration" allows to terraform Hot Barren planets. I thought the "Orbital Mirrors" where needed for that.

bjg wrote:Have you changed the terraforming recently? The "Atmosphere Regeneration" allows to terraform Hot Barren planets. I thought the "Orbital Mirrors" where needed for that.

What's the size of the planet? And what you able to terraform it too? Some terraforming options have different prerequisites than others, and size, as well as temperature, can impact the allowed transformations. (If all of this sounds like it might be overly complicated... well, I do fear it might be overly complicated )

Up to Small. Can terraform to Arid (if Hot).
I remember that it's complicated. Just thought it was different in the previous game (but could be mistaken).

bjg wrote:Up to Small. Can terraform to Arid (if Hot).
I remember that it's complicated. Just thought it was different in the previous game (but could be mistaken).

Barren -> Arid is currently an easy transformation -- right all you need is a temp that's not "Cold". Turing a small Arid world into something more useful is harder. Atm, I think the only transformation that would work, (assuming you unlocked the whole paleontology try), is "Arid->Hive'.

What do "Orbital Mirrors" do than?