Rebalancing costs for Dark Avatar

It's a whole new world...

Published on October 22, 2006 By Brad Wardell In GalCiv Journals

Because there are asteroid fields that can be mined and provide resources to planets, we have had to relook at the planetary improvements.

Some of the changes have included:

A new type of improvement: Power Plants. These magnify the production coming in by X%.
Fertility clinics to increase population growth.
Much higher population limits so that lots of money can be achieved.
Morale is more affected by population than previously so reaching those limits will be tougher.
Lower level farms produce relatively little food so that new users won't run into big morale problems. Instead, we'll add an additional farming tech to gradually increase farming on planets.
We're adding a Food Distribution Center which will increase the % of total farm production.
Morale buildings will become significantly more powerful at the higher level so that you can keep people happy AS LONG AS you have researched the techs (entertainment networks won't be enough to get some 20+ population).
Vacation Capital Super Project will allow a single world to be a real fun place (i.e. high morale).
A new building called the Planetary Revenue Service PRS (one per planet) will increase the number of citizens that are taxed (right now a planet with 12B population only actually taxes 6B of the citizens, The PRS would increase that to ~9B which is a significant increase in the # of citizens you can get to).
Low-Level Factories won't produce as much as they currently do (making the asteroid fields more important).
Lab Networks (buildings that increase by a % your research)

The overall idea is that at the low level, money is easy to come by when you're getting started. Then it will start to try up if you don't build up your planets properly to get more population, more economic activity, etc.

For casual players, the system should be fairly straight forward -- simpler -- than GalCiv II. But for expert players, the gameplay becomes very sophisticated as planets now require a lot more choices than previous in terms of strategy. A LOT MORE.

In Dark Avatar, the relationship between food production, asteroid fields, and star bases will be very crucial. It does make writing the AI much harder (I'm going to basically toss out the planet improvement code in GalCiv II which I didn't write in the first place and that person isn't with Stardock anymore so we've been patching the planet improvement AI choosing code since release, better to scrap it and write it new with the new strategies in mind).

Another area I'm really enjoying is the re-design of ship values. A LOT More thought and experience has gone into the new values for how much hulls cost.

Basically: The bigger ships will cost a LOOOT more. But they will be a LOOOOT tougher. A capital ship should be a capital ship. It should be a big deal. We want to encourage players to make a choice between fleets of smallish ships OR capital ships and have both be valid paths. It will be very difficult to research both gigantic ships AND ultimate logistics for instance. You may not be able to get to both in a typical game which means deciding to have large fleets of small ships or smaller fleets of very very tough capital ships.

Logistics have changed as well. A huge hulled ship now uses 10 logistics points and costs 320 just for the hull. BUT, it now has 150 space (about double) and 84 HP.

So you could picture a couple of Huge hulled ships (using 20 logistics) with 300 space and 168HP having cost 640 to build...coming up against 16 small ships (48 logistics) with 384 space 128HP and also having cost 640.

The fleet of fighters would pack more punch per round but the hull ships would be able to take a bigger beating. There's so many factors to take into account (the time to research the corresponding techs, the "wastage" on building fighters -- i.e. can't build more than 1 fighter per turn, the "wastage" of a shot from a capital ship on a fighter -- a shot that does 20 damage on a ship with only 8 hitpoints isn't going to make it any deader).

The net result is that it just FEELS a lot better. Those capital ships are a big deal. There shouldn't be tons of them out there. One can imagine the best results being mixed fleets -- a couple of fighters and frigates to picket for the capital ships.

The other value I spent a lot of time on today was spies. We're going to have to put in an espionage branch because we want players to be able to put increasing amounts of money into spying.

By now, one thing you may have noticed is that money is going to be much more under control. At least, that's the intention. That it won't be nearly as hard to have lots of money to do things with but there will be a lot more choices on what to spend money on. But at the same time, we want there to be a real gulf between new players and expert players. A lot more variance in strategic options than previous.

Where before you might just throw tons of farms on a planet or tons of factories, now there are other things to consider -- asteroids? Do you build a food distribution center? Should you build a Quantum Power Plant? And if so, should you re-direct the asteroid mining to that planet instead of the closer one?

Much of the final balancing will be in the hands of beta testers starting next month.

Comments (Page 6)

Lord Reliant

on Nov 08, 2006

I'd have to also agree with the comments above. This does seem to be a feature that encourages micromanagement, of which there's enough already. It's an interesting twist on planet specialization, but I'm not a big fan of having to focus and unfocus planets to start with, so this isn't too appealing.

Could we request a method for filtering/categorizing build lists on planets in DA? Late in the game when you have many options of things to build, a list of 20+ things to build on a new planet was frustrating to look through and easily prone to double-clicking on the incorrect build item. I found myself building things on planets just to remove them from the list and make it easier later on.

One other concept here, kind of taken from the Heroes of Might and Magic series as well as RTSes- what about build prerequisites? For instance, should you be able to just build/buy a Technology Capital right after you colonize a new planet? This would prevent some abuse and also filter out some of the worthless items early on. Granted, it would give an advantage to larger planets, but they should be more valuable anyway.

Jeff Graw

on Nov 08, 2006

Could we request a method for filtering/categorizing build lists on planets in DA? Late in the game when you have many options of things to build, a list of 20+ things to build on a new planet was frustrating to look through and easily prone to double-clicking on the incorrect build item. I found myself building things on planets just to remove them from the list and make it easier later on.

There's an easy solution to that. Make a color-coded border around the icon corresponding to what that improvement affects. Then group icons of the same color together. For example, industry upgrades could be red, farms green, research blue, starports black, and galactic achievements white. In this way you give the player a visual indication of where to find a specific building in the list.

The other thing that could use improvement on the planetary management screen is the actual build queue. It's a real pain to have to move improvements up and down. I think the best way to rectify this would be to have a system that worked like dragging icons on your desktop when auto-snap is on, only in this case the order of your icons would affect their place in the build queue. You could also select a whole bunch of buildings via drag select, and drag them to a different location in the queue. It would be a fast, lean system; far superior to what is currently in place.

Jeff Graw

on Nov 08, 2006

Also, it's great that you guys also see the danger with adding unnecessary complexity to planetary management. Hopefully Stardock will listen to us.

thehandofzarquon

on Nov 09, 2006

*ugh* and *ugh* again. Those new building types you described are a *very bad* thing to add game play wise. It comes down to this: KISS (keep it simple stupid). There is no practical need for more than one type building (one that makes a resource, the other that multiplies the production of that resource by some constant) as you will only build complexity while adding *nothing*, not one iota to game play. Now the player needs to worry about the ratio of producers to multipliers, and all of the sudden actual math is involved in everyday planetary management. Multiply that by a dozen or more planets to get a good indication of how not fun that is.

To boot, self sufficient planets are now at a huge disadvantage over specialized planets as you want to maximize on only on type of production in order to get the biggest bonus. In effect you’re trying to get your civilization as efficient as possible instead of actually having fun playing the game.

Also, the food distribution centers are seemingly pointless. You generally build far less farms than research centers or factories. Farms need a percentage bonus least of all.

You guys are walking a very dangerous line here. A far better thing to do would be to simplify planetary management so that most, if not all of it, could be accomplished directly from the galaxy map (think MoO 1). Again, multiply that by a dozen or more planets and you can witness how much more streamlined the game will become.

A slightly better solution would be to only allow one of these buildings for each planet, but again you’re better off just scrapping the idea. Cluttering the building screen with dozens of different buildings is still a bad thing.

Please, I’m begging you; scrap this horrible decision before it’s too late.

Geez... I think you need to re-read the post again. The extra buildings (power planets, etc) were added because it could be entirely possible to fund a planet's production/research/etc from just asteroid fields' resources. If you don't have a lot of asteroid fields, factories/research centers are better, but if you have a lot... the new power plants and lab networks are better.

As for Food Distro... if you read it again, you'll note that they are raising the population cap to a much higher limit... and Farms produce much less food. In the end, the Food Distro is a way to reach these population caps without as many farms.

Lastly, we really don't know if we can have more than one of these buildings. I'd give the designers a little more credit than taking a preview post verbatim.

Still, I'm waiting for the beta before I give any real opinion on the changes, but I suppose I can say that the system has a lot of promise in my eyes.

Jeff Graw

on Nov 09, 2006

I did read his post, and I get the reasoning behind these new aditions, but and I still don't agree with either of you. It should be entirely possible to fit in asteroid fields without 'multipliers', as long as you do the balancing right (actually, it should be a lot easier to balance asteroid fields without multipliers... it is always easier to balance a less complex system).

I did read his post, and I get the reasoning behind these new additions, but and I still don't agree with either of you. It should be entirely possible to fit in asteroid fields without 'multipliers', as long as you do the balancing right (actually, it should be a lot easier to balance asteroid fields without multipliers... it is always easier to balance a less complex system).

Planetary management is the part of the game that you want to avoid making overly complicated at *all* costs. Why? Because it's boring. You have to go through the exact same (or at least very similar) motions for ever planet you control. On the other hand, ship design, race customization, and diplomacy *are* fun when you add a degree of complexity to them. Why? Because unlike planetary management, where you are repeating the same annoying task over and over, these elements encourage creative thought, which is easier to exercise when you have a plethora of options.

Overly complicated planetary management is what killed MoO 2 (although it was still a pretty good game, it could have been *so* much better if it kept the MoO 1 system of managing planets) and I'll be damned if I just sit back and watch Stardock make the same mistake. Brad once said,

"A lot of 4X games will throw in all kinds of extra complexity for the sake of having “depth” and will often have interfaces that require a lot of clicking to get what you want done. We tend to try to keep the game mechanics very straight forward and have the interface designed so that the player can accomplish what they want very quickly."

Yet here Stardock is adding complexity for complexities sake alone.

DARI

on Nov 09, 2006

...you should know that the competition *cough* SE5 *cough* already has customizable build order lists to allow for almost automated planetary construction !

for MOO2 i had my custom build list written on a paper right beside my mouse -
i want to avoid that with GC2 !

Philocthetes

on Nov 09, 2006

adding unnecessary complexity to planetary management.

It seems to me that the real rub here is UI design and not the underlying game models. To maximize the range of player types who might enjoy the game, more options are better, but a click-intensive UI is worse. For folks like me who prefer long, large games, Brad's announcement of new build choices is, well, appetite-whetting. But I'm also already on record here as one of the folks who think that the GCII UI is biased twoards the kind of small, quick games that the devs are necessarily limited to.

But I'm also awaiting the beta before working up a "serious" opinion. For this thread, though, I must affably scoff the complexity-phobes and most heartily second those pleading for the ability to create re-usable build lists, or at least one default list that you could update as you climb the tech tree.

Jeff Graw

on Nov 09, 2006

...you should know that the competition *cough* SE5 *cough* already has customizable build order lists to allow for almost automated planetary construction !

...and most heartily second those pleading for the ability to create re-usable build lists, or at least one default list that you could update as you climb the tech tree.

Build order lists won't work too good for Galciv in its current incarnation; there are just far too many planet types. For example, you could have 3, 12, or 27 usable tiles! Not to mention that certain tiles have bonuses and just applying a build order to that planet could waste those tiles resources. Lastly, if the multipliers in DA are actually added, it will be even harder to create a build order list, as the new system requires some amount of math to get the most out of your planets, and you cannot just figure out that math first and apply it to a build order. Each planet varies in size, so that amount of producers and multipliers as well as the ratio will vary for most planets.

for MOO2 i had my custom build list written on a paper right beside my mouse -
i want to avoid that with GC2 !

It is common knowledge that the planetary management system of MoO 2 was its largest, most glaring flaw.

You're getting close to understanding the root of the problem, but you still aren't seeing the big picture. You correctly identified that the UI of GCII is currently unsuited for large build lists, and other people in this thread have already complained about the current build list being somewhat cumbersome, however, you aren't able to see the obvious solution to the problem of planetary management. First of all, just going into and out of the planetary management screen wastes time and 'clicks', so any planetary UI that takes you to a separate screen is somewhat flawed by default. The best solution is to be control planets from the galaxy screen itself. The perfect example of this is MoO 1, where you manipulate your planets in just a couple clicks via a system of sliders on the main galaxy screen. You can also do a lot more micromanaging with the MoO1 UI (micromanaging isn't actually bad, although tedious micromanaging is. The problem here is that most micromanaging is tedious, which gives rise to the false beleif that all micromanagement = bad) as you could be very precise with exactly how a planets resources are divided. Galciv needs a planet UI more like MoO 1, and less like MoO 2, which it currently, more or less, resembles. The only reason why MoO 2's planetary management severely limits the game, while Galciv's is only a minor annoyance, is because the build list in MoO 2 is several orders of magnitude more complex. As you increase complexity, Galciv will run into the same problems that MoO 2 had.

If you want complex planetary management the only (good) way to do it is from the galaxy screen, and with sliders. Otherwise you’re just going to waste the player’s time as he goes through the same time consuming motions over and over again.

But I'm also awaiting the beta before working up a "serious" opinion. For this thread, though, I must affably scoff the complexity-phobes

Heh, I'm guessing this part is addressed to me more than anyone else. Very well, I'll respond.

Firstly, I would hardly call myself a "complexity-phobe". For proof, let me present Star Fleet 2: Krellan Commander, an old '89 DOS game, and one of my favorites. The manual is over 100 pages long, and its required reading if you want to even attempt to play the game. You probably haven’t played anything half as complex as that game in your life.

It comes down to this basic rule: complexity is good for game play, but will limit your audience. Unneeded complexity will ruin game play and limits your audience even more. Multipliers are nothing more than a more complex system that accomplishes the same thing that a less complex system is already doing perfectly well, hence it is unneeded. I don't need to beta test the game to figure that part out.

Philocthetes

on Nov 10, 2006

You probably haven’t played anything half as complex as that game in your life.

Hay, I said "affably"

(And you are not alone in lobbying for more simplicity)

Seriously, though, Jeff's take reminds me that I'm among those who need to suffer *much* tedious clicking before I start grumbling about micromanagement. And I'm not so fond of games that *don't* have detailed sub-units like the planetary screens. Seeing such an interesting overlap of likes and dislikes between me and Jeff makes me very glad I'm not a game developer!

My real hope for the GC lineage is that Stardock will master the fine art of deploying *options* for complexity. And I guess that changes that sound attractive to me (the OP here) don't end up driving away players like Jeff and taking the development funding they represent with them.

Jeff Graw

on Nov 10, 2006

Hay, I said "affably" (And you are not alone in lobbying for more simplicity)

Heh, that's my fault for not knowing exactly what 'affably' meant

My real hope for the GC lineage is that Stardock will master the fine art of deploying *options* for complexity. And I guess that changes that sound attractive to me (the OP here) don't end up driving away players like Jeff and taking the development funding they represent with them.

It would be nice to have a planet UI on the galaxy map where you could do the more common aspects of planetary management, and a second, more in-depth UI that has its own dedicated screen.

In any case, the less tedius clicking the better, no matter if some players have a higher resistance than others. That's the strength of a streamlined UI.

Philocthetes

on Nov 10, 2006

the less tedius clicking the better, no matter if some players have a higher resistance than others.

I'm all for that. My "tolerance" has helped put me permanently in wrist braces for computing, although most of the damage was from hardcore keyboarding in grad school and for work.

DARI

on Nov 10, 2006

Star Fleet 2: Krellan Commander

..good ol'times

The manual is over 100 pages long, and its required reading if you want to even attempt to play the game

well it was not required - maybe for that last tech planets that were technological superior and members of that defence alliance

at least it had a kind of diplomatic

option to allow the enemy colony leaders to surrender or face orbital bombardment

btw. its "rewards" screen is something i like to see in GC2 - you know enemy popul...erm soldiers killed/lost, planets conquered/lost , ships (number and hitpoints) destroyed/lost almost like the endgame stats but accessible in a running game

back to the topic:

what we (..that is me ) really need is just a few class of buildings that add a specific amount (definded by techlevel) of
1.food / or other variant of sustainable population capacity
2.productioncapacity
3.researchcapacity
4.morale support
(5).economic multipliers (really not needed if not for the weird taxsystem that out-of-the-box GC2 use - not to mention the extreme moneywasting used by those three spending sliders)

Jeff Graw

on Nov 10, 2006

Cool, another Star Fleet player. Have you also tried the Staflight series by chance?

I know that I didn't get very far with Star Fleet 2 until I read the manual, and that's coming from playing Star Fleet 1. Maybe you are quicker at learning games than I am.

SrGalen

on Nov 10, 2006

Quick question - is there going to be a beta (or even alpha) manual to go along with the beta?

Philocthetes

on Nov 11, 2006

s there going to be a beta (or even alpha) manual to go along with the beta?

Have y'all thought about using the wiki to get your beta crew working the docs as well as the game? I really meant to do steady work over there, but between the game itself and my (surpise to me) interest in the forums, I haven't.

Maybe including a major gal-wiki expansion for the DA beta could help raise overall participation. I know from experience that getting some devs to help with documentation (or submit to editing of what they write solo) can be like pulling teeth with no novocaine. (Yes, I know some very literate dev types, but few with time for writing both tight code and tight English.)

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!