Because nobody wants to have to build multiple morale buildings, they are considered a necessary evil.

I think this quote really says it all. Well, by that argument, why not just use the money cheat? Nobody wants to have to put any effort to have a valid strategy.

Food provides a population cap.

Stock Markets increase the income from that population.

Virtual Reality Centers determine what % of that cap your planet can reach.

And once again - what exactly is stopping you from opening planetaryimprovements.xml, finding the morale benefits of entertainment networks or whatever and increasing them to say 50%?

BTW, there was a poll on v1.3 vs. 1.2 and it was overwhelming that people preferred 1.3 to 1.2. 

If you want my opinion on the whole issue, i think what we have is that was harder to game the Metaverse scores than 1.2 and hence the source of grief.  That strategies that involve having 20,000 net income per turn were no longer realistic -- which they weren't supposed to be in the first place.

BTW, there was a poll on v1.3 vs. 1.2 and it was overwhelming that people preferred 1.3 to 1.2.

I believe the majority of those, initially preferred it because of the bug fixes, not the game changes. At least that is what most have been saying in the forums.

Besides, I thought you said "I don't make games based on committee. I make the games I want to make. If people don't want to play the games that I make, then the economic forces will push me into a different market." So if you don't care what the people prefer, why do you care what the poll results were?

Q. Frogboy were any changes made for the latest update > 1.4 to 1.4RC or is a name only change?

Many thanks & thanks for continuing to update this great game FOR FREE!!

Drengin

Besides, I thought you said "I don't make games based on committee. I make the games I want to make. If people don't want to play the games that I make, then the economic forces will push me into a different market." So if you don't care what the people prefer, why do you care what the poll results were?

I do care about people's opinions. I listen to them. But I am not going to override my own judgment on a feature. I was also pointing out that in this case, there is very little evidence that people really object to the changes other than the people who are not really playing the game but are really just playing the metaverse.

We're putting up RC2 now which has bug fixes over RC1.

and i am looking forward to it too

Any update is always appreciated!!

I have a few questions/comments:

1. In my current game, I was sizing up the Yor Collective when I noticed they hadn't colonized Iconia V for some reason. I checked their star system, and it turns out that they have a very good reason: It wasn't there. I know it used to be there; I have an old save file with it. What happened to Iconia V?

2. Concerning unarmed defenders: I know that they are built to stop transports from just going in to thake planets. However, why are some built with defense modules? If I understand the combat system correctly, a Huge ship filled with nothing but Invulnerability Fields (is that what the ultimate shield is called) will be destroyed by one Tiny ship armed with one Particle Beam eventually; the only difference is that it'll take a very long time in the tactical viewer.

3. What determines the political party of various alien races? I see that they're not all Federalists anymore like I seem to recall them being previously, but there's still an awful lot of Federalists, a couple of War Party members, and one Pacifist (the Altarian Republic) in my game now (as Terran Alliance vs. all but Iconians and Thalans). Also, while I can see the Drengin for the War Party, the other one is the Torians, who don't really strike me as the War Party type.

Yes, I would say having to be able to maximize based on tile location takes more skill than the easy money maximization that was going on pre 1.3. Do planets tend to look the same? Maybe, but there was an optimal planet build BEFORE 1.3, it was just that there were so many other easy exploits that you weren't penalized for going off on a strategic tangent. And based on tile bonuses there are other builds that can make sense. Based on the circumstances in the individual game, its that descsision between the generic money planet and the partially specialized one that are crucial; this is better than the "any choice will do" that predominated pre 1.3.

Good players will be able to pull off those suboptimal builds while still making headway in game. You can still build your specialized planets and even your population monsters (though they will be lower at the end point; big deal, the scale has changed), but to do it while winning takes more genuine ability.

The v1.4 changes are not really *that* great. The changes from v1.2 to v1.3 were far greater. I think it's reasonable to calmly argue your opinion. But the reasonable person realizes when it's time to give up the argument, and that time is clearly past.

Unlike some others, I have not made the slightest hint that these changes were something that in any way would make me want to give up the game. I played v1.2 and enjoyed it. When v1.3 was proposed, I argued against some of the changes, gave up arguing when it was apparent it was useless, and, am currently playing my first v1.3 game and enjoying it. When I finish my current v1.3 game I'll download v1.4 and I'm sure I'll enjoy it. When DA comes out I'll buy it and gladly play it.

With some trepidation, I'd like to make a slight digression from the topic for a moment to ask a question about an attitude that runs throughout this discussion.

Why are people that enjoy competing in the metaverse vilified so?

The general, mostly unspoken, attitude seems to be that anyone interested in metaverse play is either an exploiter or cheese monger or worse. I don't think this generalization is fair.

There is one other change that isn't documented that is in 1.4RC2:

Your population provides more money per citizen than previously.

Who cares about the assumption- it's your game, and since it lacks MP, there's no reason to whine about cheese. Part of me thinks that MP would unravel a lot of GC's gameplay- as real cheese no one has thought about would be discovered.

As for avoiding the optimal build syndrome- there are counters to each build, I'm sure. A heavy money strategy can be countered by a heavy building and war strat/rush, or maybe influence. Perhaps have an economic starbase upgrade in DA that can cause stock market crashes? If Mega Events get implemented- you could have Stock Markets activate events- some good, some bad.

There are ways to rebalance things- an optimization will always be found, but if done right- it can change from game to game.

BTW is RC2 out yet?

Why are people that enjoy competing in the metaverse vilified so?

I've noticed the same phenomenon. To the point that I have refrained entirely from posting my opinions in some threads.

A few months back, there was a whole lot of whining and biatching from metaverse players who were unhappy about how their scores were being calculated, and this continued throughout a lengthy recalculation project because scores from one of the betas weren't redone right away.

At this point, my sympathies were with everyone else, wishing the whiners would STFU, get on with their lives, and stop cluttering the forum; even though my scores were affected too. I said nothing either way because I didn't want to add to the negativity, and ultimately because it just wasn't that big a deal to me.

Since that time I've seen several posts to the effect of:
- "If you don't like [x], just mod the game."
- "I like to play on the Metaverse, and mods don't work there."
- "Too bad, go cry in the corner then."
...and not all of these types of posts are from other players.

9Continuing here because the whole thing was too long and choked the server)


Now I see a post from frogboy in another thread that there will never be another game with a metaverse component (can't find the thread at the moment, but I read it last night). Presumably because of the amount of complaints that have been posted, I'm not 100% sure.

Has the gross immaturity of about ten or fifteen people really generated that much hostility toward the entire metaverse concept? Or was there some other transgression that I missed while I was on vacation this summer? Is it simply too expensive to maintain the code and the hardware?

For my part, the ability to post scores in the metaverse is about the only thing that keeps me interested enough to finish games once they get to the point where I know I've already won. I don't think the game is easy; I don't win all of my games; and I've had many games that were close and intense up until that turning point, but the little bit of bragging rights offered by the metaverse gives me incentive to mop up the rest of the map (or research the last tech, etc.).

Plus, the metaverse gives players this option without having to deal with a multiplayer clickfest full of idiotic taunts and crybabies who quit in the middle of games.

I don't mind that the game changes from time to time; in fact, I like the fact that I have to adapt my game play to stay on top of the AI. Who wants to play the same exact strategy every single time? Or, if you do, how long can you keep that up before you get sick of it and go on to another game?

At the risk of being the vox climantis in deserto, frogboy: Please continue to work to make Galactic Civ a better game, and please don't give up on cherished features just because of a small percentage of players who would only continue complaining about something else.

Has the gross immaturity of about ten or fifteen people really generated that much hostility toward the entire metaverse concept? Or was there some other transgression that I missed while I was on vacation this summer? Is it simply too expensive to maintain the code and the hardware?

Speaking just for myself, it's not just that there's 10 to 15 people complaining about a change in the game that makes it more difficult for them to game the Metaverse, it's that it is an ON-GOING thing.

Every new release, small or large, there is always a contigent of Metaverse people complaining about the change.  I hear how 1.2 was this golden age. That's not how I remember it. I remember complaints about the AI being able to win via technology victory which goofed up some Metaverse strategies that involved turtling in the corner and trying to get a tech victory.  I recall the improvements to the AI being unfair because we didn't increase the points for victory.   I recall complaints that the amount of money received for citizens had decreased slightly over 1.1 and that farms get "nerfed".

What I've found most discouraging in this thread is that the Metaverse people who are complaining about 1.4 haven't even played it. All they know is that their easy victory strategy of building a planet full of stock markets so that they can get so much money to buy up everythign will no longer function.

We've looked at the Metaverse data. We know how people "beat" the AI. There's very little as, as the AI developer, can do to stop the strategies because to do so would be to cripple the 95% of players who just want to have maximum flexibility and play the game as intended (i.e. where morale buildings increase morale and money making buildings increase money).

If I could see some benefit of the Metaverse, I'd be keen on keeping it.  That is, if it is helping build the community and helping with word of mouth. 

Because at the end of the day, that's the deciding factor -- the negatize buzz Metaverse people create each new build vs. the benefit of long-term players hanging out on the forums.

I'm sorry that thing posted twice. After it hung up three times, I tried breaking it up and it posted immediately that way. If the mods can remove that second instance, please do so - the soapbox really ain't that big...