View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | Date Submitted | Last Update | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0015037 | The Last Federation | Gameplay Issue | May 8, 2014 8:26 am | May 12, 2014 5:22 pm | |
| Reporter | Warpstorm | Assigned To | keith.lamothe | ||
| Status | resolved | Resolution | fixed | ||
| Product Version | 1.016 (Finish Him!) | ||||
| Fixed in Version | 1.017 (Back From A Long Quest) | ||||
| Summary | 0015037: I mainly build attitude buildings that the host race hates | ||||
| Description | I find that min/maxing the use of these I am mainly buying ones that the host race dislikes. For example, I buy the Andorans a Gladiator Arena as it won't change their attitude. This means that once I get through my round of manipulative purchases to set up some potential likes and dislikes, most races are seen by the other races as something that is totally opposite of their actual character, such as Pastoral, Philosophic Burlists. While there is a certain evil charm to this, ultimately it feels like an exploit. My proposal: Make it so that the buildings that a race would dislike aren't available for that race to build. This would eliminate about a quarter of the buildings and there may not be good coverage of race. This may mean that a few more buildings would need to be created if this changes balance in an undesirable way. An alternative could be to have a topical event based on the undesirable building, say, a gladiator led uprising on the Andoran homeworld if you built a Gladiator Arena there, but this would likely be a bit more work that just disallowing it. | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| Internal Weight | New | ||||
| related to | 0014806 | new | Feedback on attitude buildings |
|
|
These buildings are already lack luster enough - the only thing that makes them at all fuctional is because they can ignore the host penalty. (Personally, i think the whole thing needs an overhaul.) Err, I mean "Of course they don't like it themselves, that's why they EXPORT it... ;) Honestly, there's plenty of non-race hating buildings to build if you want an every race federation: http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,15497.0.html |
|
|
I agree. can get rid of this problem in one of these ways: 1. (from above) Races cannot build the buildings that they hate. or 2. If you build a building that a race hates on its own planet, that decreases its attitude towards the Hydral per month instead of doing nothing to itself. |
|
|
I don't see how either of those really *fix* anything. Attitude buildings should be removed, and the function of making races like each other moved to several other options. Nerfing them simply restricts your choices on racial alliances more, rather than making racial attitudes an interesting part of the game. |
|
|
If these building are removed its hard for non trading focus faction to get 300 attitude,but definite need a better solution |
|
|
That's why you add in new ways to make races like each other in the same patch you remove the attitude buildings. Several other options, so you can give the player some choices to make. The important part is to give them good and bad things they do other than make races like each other more. |
|
|
GC13, the issue that I am concerned with is not balance, but rather theme. For the story line, these particular buildings don't really make sense (given that attitude buildings exist). And, IMPO, it would *fix* the thematic issue I am having with option. timfortress, that is why I suggested that some new buildings also be added. Ones that would help provide the coverage lost by roughly a quarter being unavailable. |
|
|
You don't care about balance? Do you care about gameplay? Because that's the real problem with the attitude buildings. |
|
|
I didn't say I didn't care about balance, it's just that I feel as strongly about theme. I am more likely to play an unbalanced game with a theme I like than a balanced game with a theme that doesn't work for me. I'm all for the game being more balanced. |
|
|
I pointed out that the optimality of building attitude buildings a race objects to feels wrong for role-playing reasons when attitude buildings were first introduced [1]. There are other problems with attitude buildings: The penalty for attitude buildings is too steep, the fixed nature of what they do to relationships makes the game too predictable, and overall they're too powerful. I feel like they should be removed entirely or substantially re-thought -- but that should wait until there are more quests and other player-influenceable relationship building systems in place to replace them. [1] http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,15478.0.html |
|
|
For 1.017: * The Property Development dispatch can no longer be used to construct Attitude buildings of which the client actively disapproves. Thanks :) On the subject of attitude buildings just being overhauled or flatly removed, I'm not sure if Chris has seen the comments here. Though he probably has seen the other mantis records linked. Anyway, just saying that I didn't think this change somehow magically addresses all your feedback here, just dealing with the immediate thing I was pointed at. |
|
|
This looks like a bad change, and I suspect it will end up as a net negative. This makes most attitude buildings zero-sum, so that my killer strategy of "form Federation For Safety and kill everyone else" is less of a cheesy way to win the game quickly and more of a shortcut to what you'll have to do anyway. |
|
|
The change simply removes an exploit (a net positive influence) that did not fit in the theme anyways. I won a game fine before attitude buildings even existed in the game. A large part of this game is setting your own goals. If you want an 8 race federation now, you cannot exploit these buildings to get positive feelings all around. Now it is just another method in the toolbox for manipulating relationships with a high opportunity cost (both the months to build, and the negatives in some relationships). |
|
|
I'm thinking of : all attitude buildings are locked at start of the game , but if you manage to get 100+ attitude towards that races they will allow to you to build positive attitude buildings to other races towards the 100+ race with you. But this cant solve the negative attitude part .So lets try 1.017 first |
|
|
Of course you won games without attitude buildings, topper: we all did. Back then trade routes were much more powerful, and the requirements to join the Federation were much lower. This change doesn't remove an exploit, it continues a trend of making the game more tedious. There is no way to get an eight-race Federation without attitude buildings being "exploitable", because without that "exploit" there are very limited ways to actually interact with making the races like each other (i.e. very little gameplay, and with a either pre-defined cutoff far before the needed point [dispatch] or very little the player can do to affect it [available trade routes]). The game is still about counting to 300; that hasn't changed. It just means your two founding races, and perhaps a third race, are going to find themselves embroiled in wars while you wait for their attitude to climb up, and if you're really lucky you'll be able to stop them from forming a Solar Axis Pact before they get up to 300 attitude. |
|
|
I'm not trying to argue, since I totally agree with you that we need more ways to interact with and manipulate race relations. If we come up with those ideas, im sure it will make the game a lot deeper strategically. It seems like the devs continue to remove the "low hanging fruit" when it comes to easy ways to make a federation. The purpose would seem to be to make the player need to consider all the options at their disposal instead of there being any apparent "push to win" button. Every decision needs a cost, and now this one is more balanced towards that end (and fits thematically now too). I agree that the danger with pushing it farther this way is that the game becomes too random or hard to make progress in. On a side note, I think the 8-race federation is equivalent to a hard-mode difficulty victory condition and purposefully should not even be possible in every game without excellent strategic play and a little luck. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| May 8, 2014 8:26 am | Warpstorm | New Issue | |
| May 8, 2014 10:02 am | Drak | Note Added: 0037721 | |
| May 8, 2014 12:35 pm | Histidine | Relationship added | related to 0014806 |
| May 8, 2014 2:20 pm | topper | Note Added: 0037736 | |
| May 8, 2014 3:29 pm | GC13 | Note Added: 0037738 | |
| May 8, 2014 4:15 pm | timfortress | Note Added: 0037739 | |
| May 8, 2014 4:21 pm | GC13 | Note Added: 0037740 | |
| May 9, 2014 11:51 am | Warpstorm | Note Added: 0037785 | |
| May 9, 2014 12:05 pm | GC13 | Note Added: 0037786 | |
| May 9, 2014 1:05 pm | Warpstorm | Note Added: 0037791 | |
| May 10, 2014 1:06 pm | windgen | Note Added: 0037838 | |
| May 12, 2014 10:17 am | Chris_McElligottPark | Assigned To | => keith.lamothe |
| May 12, 2014 10:17 am | Chris_McElligottPark | Status | new => assigned |
| May 12, 2014 3:16 pm | keith.lamothe | Internal Weight | => New |
| May 12, 2014 3:16 pm | keith.lamothe | Note Added: 0037914 | |
| May 12, 2014 3:16 pm | keith.lamothe | Status | assigned => resolved |
| May 12, 2014 3:16 pm | keith.lamothe | Fixed in Version | => 1.017 (Back From A Long Quest) |
| May 12, 2014 3:16 pm | keith.lamothe | Resolution | open => fixed |
| May 12, 2014 4:00 pm | GC13 | Note Added: 0037915 | |
| May 12, 2014 4:10 pm | topper | Note Added: 0037916 | |
| May 12, 2014 4:10 pm | timfortress | Note Added: 0037917 | |
| May 12, 2014 4:12 pm | timfortress | Note Edited: 0037917 | |
| May 12, 2014 5:04 pm | GC13 | Note Added: 0037926 | |
| May 12, 2014 5:22 pm | topper | Note Added: 0037927 |
