Ive beaten masochistic through military conquest.

Once using cultural flipping and once through actual
pure military conquest. So no, its not only possible
through cheese tech victory.

On the bright side, it looks like trade goods have been re-updated rather quickly.

Haven't played with the latest patch, but that's some quick response time.

Tact is something I chose not to do because I liken it to political correctness (which is also likend to watering down beer or soda... ) If you water down your message, the message becomes lost.

I'll tell you, I'm perhaps one of the last people to ask if you want the bottom line on something. If you code sucks for example. I'll say so. If you ask if such and such makes you look fat and it does, I'll say yes. I call it brutal honesty....something sorely lacking in todays society (American society in particular)

Honestly if I thought GalCiv sucked.... I'll say so. The criticisms I'm leveling are based on my experience as a software engineer, one of them being you don't sneak changes into the code without testing the code first. Far too many bugs have been sneaking in that should've been caught on regression testing.

The comparison I made with Moo3 is a proper one in the context I made it in. Simply that Moo3 made a change at the last second without sufficient testing that made the AI too easy. GalCiv did the same thing only they made the AI much harder. The similarity...neither group sufficiently tested... as such the comparison was very much appropriate.

SeanB

I just had a funny 1.04 Maso encounter with the Drengins. They have incredibly poor show (15 planet) in this game and DT as basically their only asset (I dont understand how they managed to get it but thats another story). I bought it now with heaps of tech ... BUT IT DIDNT SHOW UP in my list. The Drengins are still there too. A bug? What else could have happened?

Force, there is a difference between being honest and
being brutal.

And believe me, when you are being brutal, the only
message your getting across is your feelings for the
person your addressing. Why you feel that why will be
competely lost as the person your addressing assumes
a defensive stance against your personal attacks.

I am a very honest and straight forward person, I
have on occasion taken the road you now take, and I
admit, it can feel good to vent frustration.

But if you want something changed, you get much better
results by just being honest. In fact you almost never
get what you want(unless you just want to piss someone
off) by being a rude.

I fail to see how brutal is different from honest. I'd prefer it if you cite examples rather than blanket everything I say as one or the other. And lets face it... if someone's code stinks and I say so, they're going to get defensive no matter what. So the other way around is to water down the message, but then the message is lost.

And I was just being honest. If its brutal to tell someone they should've tested it first and that is inexcusable to do otherwise, then you must have a warped sense of what brutal is or are hypersensitive...I dont know which.

Believe me, if I were venting frustration, the messages would've been alot more irrational. If you take a look at most of my messages, I at least base my observations with some facts (even if as what happened with the trade good thing gets a little math intensive)

And lest I remind you.... at no point did I start swearing or call Stardock names, or say that Galciv was crap. What I did say is that Galciv nerfs without regards to the consequences (read: insufficient testing), I backed my trade good issues with facts. I argued that the metaverse is a joke (ageing issues penalizing players that have been with the game since the beginning versus newbies), the inability to use the AI automatically in games (was promised on gamespot), and various other bugs. Now if you want to somehow equate that to personal attacks, then anyone who ever points out a bug or dificiency in the game is guilty. Hell, I even stook up for you when you were accused initially of cheating.

But unless you have more specific examples, then I have to assume you're making an overgeneralization or an inaccurate statement, but none of my attacks were personal I assure you

SeanB

sure you don't have to have tack. and they don't have to update the game. they can proudly point to the editor choice awards the game got out of the box and call it a day. the updates we're getting are out of the goodness of their hearts.

so you don't need tack but you could use wisdom.

Examples, fine

"if someone's code stinks and I say so, they're going to get defensive no matter what."

Exactly my point, perhaps you shouldnt use the word
stinks?

"So the other way around is to water down the message"

No, its called not using offensive language, unless
the point of the message is to be offensive?

"but then the message is lost."

Actually when you are offensive, that is the message,
any other message you may intend is lost as people
get defensive.

Wisdom in what sense? If wisdom = common sense, then common sense tells me that people rarely respond to ultra-tactful messages. People do take notice on brutal honesty. There is the expression "truth hurts", and unfortunately it does here. And believe, me, there are far less tactful responses floating around here than what I'm made. Again I remind you, I wasn't the one who started swearing in this thread, nor have I responded in kind.

I understand they don't have to support the game. That of course is their perogative. If the suddenly ceased support, then I'm sure that will inspire equally intense anger within the user community. I may lack tact, but unlike trolls, I back up my lack of tact with facts, and constructive suggestions to get around the aforementioned issue (and I do try to tailor suggestions so as to either minimally impact the general user base or perhaps enhance the experience).

So unless their is some specific example you wish to cite, then I'll respectfully disagree with you.

SeanB

FI: You are entitled to your opinions. I happen to disagree with your opinions. But don't delude yourself into thinking your opinions are facts.

For example: The original cost of the Diplomatic Translators was 300. That's how much it cost to build it in IUs. But the AI valued it at 1,500.  In 1.04.58, the AI valued it at 500 rather than 1,500 (the cost was increased to 500). Similarly, the AI has always roughly valued techs by the IUs involved.

In 1.04.58 they're valued at 1,500 again but the cost has been icnreased to 500 from 300 which makes them tricker to build. At the highest level though they are only valued at 750 now (still better than 500).

You are certainly free to be brtually honest. But we are also free to ignore you. That is, we're people too, and there is nothign that makes your opinion any more valuable than anyone else's here. So if we find your postings abusive we'll simply skip over them.

My advice to you in the future is to remember that our history has shown that we do update the game based on feedback and that, shocking enough, we were able to make this game without your input in the first place. Not every change needs a public beta test to go over it.

My opinion is that trade goods are still OVER-valued but that we have to deal with the reality that people are used to the game behaving a certain way. IF the game had shipped with the trade goods being valued as they are now, people would have found different strategies and not had a problem. Since our goal is to make a game that people will enjoy, we adapt based on general feedback.

But we have and continue to focus on the needs of the majority of players and not worry too much about the top half dozen to dozen players who are playing the game in a very...unique way.

We're comfortable with the quality of the computer AI out of the box and the game's AI is leaps and bounds better than it was out of the box.

Similarlly, we are pleased with the Metaverse overall. You may disagree and that's your right. But your opinions do not determine objective reality. The metaverse does what it was supposed to do and we're quite happy with how it's worked out.

Staffa....if you or others wish to quibble with me over this stuff offline...

[email protected]

I won't hide behind this BB alias. I'll be more than happy to discuss this with you. But I'd rather not clog this board with these quibbles

SeanB

I think part of the reason people are getting so angry is that there's nothing more annoying than being six hours into a game before you realize that you're going to lose because the tactics that used to work don't work any more...
There are many possible ways to fix a problem like players always winning by lease-rushing trade goods.
One way is to make the AIs be less willing to buy them. This is unsatisfying because it makes them seem really illogical. I offer someone a great deal if they'll just give me a tech that I can get from someone else anyway, and they say something like, "Are you crazy? Why on earth would I accept this?" It makes it feel like they're all ganging up on you.
Some other ways might be:
Make the AIs be as eager as the player to rush-lease trade-goods and sell them on. This would lead to a fair game, but a slightly limited one where rush-leasing is the only way to win.
Make trade-goods be really difficult to build. This would make such tactics so expensive that they wouldn't be too good.
Make trade-good bonuses smaller. Then it would be perfectly reasonable for AI players to only offer a small amount for them.
Make long-term leasing more expensive. I recently bought a Galactic Stock Exchange with a deal that required about 1200 months of payments. Since the game is unlikely to last that long, I reckon I've got a bargain.

(By the way, some people who have messages here seem to believe that when you buy a trade good off someone you are allowed to sell it on to anyone else who doesn't have it. I don't think you can.)

Matthew,

Did you read Frogboy's post above? He stated that the trade goods are now valued as they were before, albeit are more expensive. Except at the 'harder' levels, which i guess is intelligent and above, they are valued at half what they would be at lower levels. Seems like they already did much of what you suggest. Why not try the new patch 1.04.058 and see if you like it. For me, instead of getting mad, i wait until things have settled down *then* get the patch. Also, really, really don't update in the middle of a game. I have reports from several people saying they couldn't submit it to the metaverse when they upgraded.

OK, constructive comments time since even I'm sick of the negativity:

One of the corners that I keep seeing Stardock paint themselves into in regard with patches and updates of game mechanics/score processing is attacking things from obtuse directions instead of directly. This trade good issue is a perfect example of this. In theory, the trade good represents galactic monopoly held by one race. It by all rights should have significant value because once someone else builds it, the only way you are going to get it is by paying them for the license. The real problem is a combination of three things: the imbalance of the Mitrosoft lease relative to other leasing options, the ability to rush buy "wonders", and the propensity of players to rush while the AI only does so sporadically. The situation could have been improved by altering any of those three elements without in any way altering their in-game function/role. How did Stardock approach balancing it: by taking a galactic monopoly and making no more valuable than a non-monopoly tech - and one that unlike a tech, ties up your social queue if you don't get it by rush buying adding to its relative cost to the owner. In terms of the causes of the trade good loop hole, they took the least appropriate path to fixing things.

Another good example was their "fixes" of scoring for Beyond Human and Cultural wins. These two victory paths were out scoring other victory methods due to a combination of factors. The chief one is that on a huge or gigantic map, these two paths are the least headache for the player - it's not a coincidence that since most big scoring metaverse players stick to huge and gigantic maps because of their higher potential, they took the path of least resistance. The second set of factors is that because games last more turns as a rule when pursuing either of those paths, things that up your score like population, total influence, etc. are greater than if you go for the quicker military or alliance win. Much as with the trade good issue, the fix would seem to have been to either try to address why players find winning by military/alliance to be more trouble than it's worth on huge/gigantic maps, or to have changed things such that more arbitrary factors, particularly population, had very little effect on the score (PQ controlled was a great suggestion from the players). Yet, Stardock chose to try some sort of victory condition dependent formula based around the idea that these were "easy wins" - the result, you could score more than 20X as much just by culturally flipping everything down to just a handful of planets, then busting out the military because that counted as a military win versus a cultural one.

So, while I love Brad and Company (I wouldn't have subs to OD, Drengin, and WinCustomize if I didn't), I would like to see more direct attacks at what causes imbalances/loopholes instead of so much indirect attempts at fixing things.

~SDC~

How about if there is a "Director's Cut" after the expansion, with all the variables and mods set as you wish they had been set in Version 1.00?

That's a bunch of crap - yeah, I'm calling it like I see it Tact is not the same as political correctness - if you don't understand the difference, I suggest you don't use either term. As for your assertion that "watering down your message" means the "message is lost", that's a bunch of crap also. All it means is you think you are better than others and don't need to treat them with respect. Try your current communicating skills in the business world which I work in and see how far it will get you. Frankly, your communication "skills" such as they are, say far more about you than anything else.

Grifman

#114 CodeMonkey

Omg, I agreed with everything you said, I think the
world ends tomorrow

Btw, one minor correction, you can culturally flip
the last system of a major and get a military win.
No need to do anything horrid like killing people

Well, it is a TRADE good, so one would assume that maybe it would function as such? The name is rather misleading if you feel they are not valuable goods to trade.

In any case, I'm surprised at how easily you gave in. I don't know why exactly, but it doesnt really inspire confidence in me that you guys break your necks to recall a minor nerf that a couple kids are crying about on the forums. There are a lot more serious issues that would be much more deserving of your balancing and coding time (ie: the entire combat system, which is terribly boring and not fun in any way).

We nerfed the value of trade goods because an item that costs 300 resources to build should not be valued at 1500.

In effect, that trade goods were valued so much could be considered a bug. It's just that it took time for someone to uncover this bug and at that point we addressed it.

Every other thing on the trade screen has some relationship to how much it costs to build a given thing. When you trade ships, it takes into accoutn how expensive the ship was. Same for techs and obviously the same is true on money. Yet trade goods were handled differently.

The problem is that many players treated trade goods as a crutch. In 1.04.58 they were made to be similar in value to other things -- based on their cost. People objected to this so we've taken a compromise view - raise their cost and make their value 3X their cost (i.e. a 500 trade good is worth 1500 in trade).

Trade goods are there to be traded and you could trade them even in 1.04.58. I think 1.04.59 is more balanced and I haven't heard any complaints yet about the new balancing.

 

BTW, "mas$e", if you find the combat system "no fun in any way" I suggest playing a different game.

It's not a matter of "giving in". You seem to imply that there is some sort of adverserial relationship. Us giving people what they want isn't us "giving in". We're on the same side.

Whereas complaints about things like the combat system are kind of...well pointless. The combat system works as designed. Whereas how much a given "thing" in diplomatic trading is worth is a much more fluid ideal.

Frogboy, You guys are the best. Never have I seen such support for any product in my life.

Just unbelievable.

To continue with my trend of constructive criticisms: the potential bug is that you can rush them, not that they were valued at 5X (or even 10X). Built normally, trade goods represent a huge risk, particularly on map settings where every planet really counts. You can be 99% of the way done with a given TG, but if you get beat to the finish line, oh well, you're out both the time and money invested with nothing to show for it.

Similarly, if the Drengin have Tri-Strontium, and you want it, you are going to them to get it, no ifs, ands, or buts. With any other tech in the game, you have the option of researching it yourself, you have the option of shopping around, there is competition.

My opinion is that you are missing the forest for the trees. Assuming you removed the ability to rush build them (or fixed the leasing system which I think is what was uncovered as a "bug"), 3X for such a risk and a monopoly is undervalued. You don't have to agree with me, but this whole situation really seems to have arisen because you don't want to address some game mechanics (leasing) but are more than willing to tinker with something that I don't think was ever broke to begin with.

My that reasoning, galactic achievements and wonders are pointless.

Game-wise, a trade good is a tradeable galactic wonder.

I probably should keep my keyboard silent on this issue, but I just can't resist.

I work as a software engineer myself, and in my experience I have found that whenever you offer a customer more than they ask for or expect, you've opened yourself up for additional criticism, however unfair that criticism may seem. After all, you've given them "more" than they should have expected.

On the other hand, one of the absolute worst things that can happen is to have something not working correctly and have no one report the problem. They just keep using it (or avoiding it), cursing all the way, when it could have easily been corrected if their was more feedback.

Such strong feelings and feedback at least shows that there are a lot of people who really care about this product and, as good as it is, see so much more potential.
[Message Edited]

Frogboy,

As in G.C. The counsel vote's on things that effect the community. It would be nice for the community to vote out DESTRUCTIVE PEOPLE who have no perpose here other then to cause TROUBLE! If you felt someone fit that speck, than post their remark on the board for a VOTE to kick out for a month.

P.S. If none come's to mind perhaps you may take RECOMMENDATIONS.