Complaint - Lack of Game Variation = Boredom

from Stardock Forums
I think GalCiv is a real gem, and I'm VERY glad I bought it. It has the best AI I've ever had the pleasure of facing. But...

Like others have mentioned, I'm starting to get burned out of the game after 4 weeks. I've always had trouble finishing my games before I lose interest (I've only submitted 3 to the metaverse), and I've found it impossible to play anything larger than a medium sized galaxy. While this has something to do with my UI complaints (moving ships, building/maintaining starbases efficiently, and tweaking sliders), most of it is due to the lack of variation in the game material.

(Now, I'm not saying the game isn't deep. Chess is deep, but the rules of Chess never change.)

Here are the four fundamental truths about GalCiv.

1. Almost all techs are the same.
2. Almost all improvements are the same.
3. Almost all ships are the same.
4. Almost all events are the same.

(#4 is beyond the scope of this discussion. Thus, I'll leave it alone for now.)

Games like MoO 2 or Civ 3 had an overabundance of techs and specials that did something to change the fundamental game mechanics. If you researched Jump Gates in MoO 2, you could instantly warp ships between colonies. Food replicators let you convert production into food. You could mine your solar system to damage incoming enemies. You could isolate your empire from spies (and get a nifty Sun Tsu quote to boot). You could build planets!!! Getting techs in these games gave you more options. Teching up was FUN.

In GalCiv, teching up is tedious. I've gotten to a point where I just research the cheapest tech, because it doesn't seem to matter *what* I pick. Everything looks the same after many sessions of play.

Some techs add a flat, boring stat bonus. Others allow you to construct buildings that ONLY provide boring stat bonuses. You may get the option to build wonders, achievements, or trade goods that ONLY provide boring stat bonuses. (No Hunter-Seeker Algorithm) Starbase modules may seem better than boring stat bonuses, but in the end, that's all they are. 10% Mil & Social production. +2 Attack Assist. 25% Influence. Let's face it...Most techs are all about boring stat bonuses.

Then you have the techs that let you build ships. Aside from the very few special-purpose ships, all ships are generally alike. They only differ in their stats, and the differences aren't enough to make them unique or to have any special role in a well-rounded fleet. GalCiv's rule of thumb is "The bigger, the better".

The only interesting techs are the ones that let you do something unique. The Universal Translator, Trade, Diplomacy (possibly), Instant Communication (possibly), Alliances, Stellar Cartography, Terror Star Construction, and (possibly) Cloaking are the only techs I can think of that do something besides offering a boring stat bonus.

What needs to be done to correct this?
A. Add more unique techs that do something other than facilitating a stat bonus.
B. Create new buildings that do something than adding stat bonuses.
C. Make wonders more wonderful - have them do something other than adding stat bonuses.
D. Keep adding ships into the game that have unique strategies associated with them (like the Missile).

Am I off base here? Or am I just rambling?

- Nobody
1,951 views 44 replies
Reply #2 from Stardock Forums Top
I think that the principal reason for the simple +X% to something nature of techs and improvements and the x/y/z nature of all ships is the AI.

It would be very difficult to make the AI react reasonably to very diverse improvements and/or techs. By keeping them simple it is possible to devise an AI that is able to somehow assess them. Still the AI is quite stupid (IMHO), but with complex game rule changes it would be completely helpless. Like it is in most games.

Creating those extra features would take a lot of work, so it is possibly a resource problem, too.

But, IMHO, the game does not need very much anything more than the +x% techs and such. It is deep enough already; if only would they document the game mechanics better, currently it is like playing chess without knowing the rules.
Offworld Trading Company
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top
I think there is plenty enough variation. Once more modded events take place, and the expansion is released, it will be even better.

Like some board games (Risk, etc), strategy is the game. Diplomacy and logistics are what make this game fun, *especially* on the larger maps. I only play huge+ sized maps. It makes the game very interesting.

Civ IMO didn't have that much 'variation'. I by far, was more bored with Civ III than with GalCiv. I've played this game a rather lot since it came out, and I am not bored yet. :p

fleabitfox
Reply #4 from Stardock Forums Top
I don't know what else there'd be besides stat bonuses? You mean, like things that enable new abilities and such? If you look at the heart of it, everything is pretty much going to eventually lead to a stat bonus.
Reply #5 from Stardock Forums Top
I'm inclined to agree. My policy has been since my 3rd game to simply always go after the cheapest tech. After all, the computer AI will get the rest of the techs for me, and unless I am destined to lose (something that is determined VERY early in the game), I am guaranteed to get them all from the AI one way or another.

I think the problem here is as you said. You have a tech called "Star Creation." Can you create a star? Nope. I know it says something in the descrip to prevent you from wanting to make a star, but when that comes up on the tech tree, you expect something bigger. The ending techs make your race out to be minor gods, but don't give you any phenomenal cosmic powers to go with it.

You can build a Terror Star (well, actually in more than 50% of my games the UP has outlawed them), but it's completely useless to deploy. I've completed the game before my Terror Stars have ever blown up a planet. Once, I even built a Terror Star in the home sector of an opponent and they simply defected the next turn.

This game is all about forced choices and building constructors. Since you have pretty much set your course in the game the first fifty turns or so, the remainder is something of a grind to get to the end so you can hit "submit to multiverse." And if you are a modder like me, that carrot is unavailable for the near future until Stardock works out their fair modding policies (which is of course a good thing).

I have played fourteen games. Never have built a fleet after Dreadnaught. Never have encountered a critical concern after I have contacted and located the races. Never felt the need to alter my strategy (the one I use in SMAC and Civ).

Now, before you make this out to be hideous flaming, this is my opinions on what could be improved on the game. Reading many of the tech descriptions, I believe that Stardock is using the money from the initial sales to us to write in end-game techs for the "expansion pack" (= three-six extra development months). Hopefully they take this stuff to heart and do it!

M
Reply #6 from Stardock Forums Top
As I was finishing my last game I had a similar nagging thought. I haven't gotten to your point, yet, though I see it on the horizon.

/ds
Reply #7 from Stardock Forums Top
Yin,

I don't play larger maps because of the UI problems. Starbase management (2 bases per sector) is bad enough at Medium, and the ship movement animations kill my free time.

---

Bonkku,

I'm not asking for more depth. I'm asking for more width. More variation. When I build a building, I want to feel like I'm building up more than just a stat. And when I build a wonder, I want my foes to tremble.

I don't have that now, but that's what I'm asking for.

---

Fleabitfox,

"I think there is plenty enough variation. Once more modded events take place, and the expansion is released, it will be even better."

Modded events will not make the game more varied. They will only serve to add more boring stat bonuses. That's all that modders CAN do, it seems. You need access to the source code to make game-altering events.

(I mentioned Civ 3 for the wonders, by the way. MoO 2 was the game that had tremendous amounts of variation.)

---

Cheez0r,

Not all added abilities would necessarily lead to a stat bonus. Take a diplomatic option such as a trade embargo for example.

---

Malleus,

Thank you. Your words were more eloquent than those that I could muster after being up 20 hours or so. I especially agree with your assesment of forced choices. Very well said.

- Nobody
Reply #8 from Stardock Forums Top
I think I agree with Nobody on some points. I also wish that wonders were more meanigful than just a stat. I also wish there was more meaningful techs. I really like the game but it seems that most of the techs are the same and people seem to just research the cheapest tech.

Bilas
Reply #9 from Stardock Forums Top
Nobody:

Ah, well I was heading to a conclusion myself that GalCiv in its current build is best played on smaller maps. Medium is even too big, I think.

Why? On small maps you don't run through tech., the overall pace is faster, you don't get as much time to build your initial base of planets in peace, etc.

So although larger maps seem to get more Metaverse points, I think the smaller maps actually present a more challenging *strategy* experience. Of course, larger maps are challenging primarily because of the grind...
Reply #10 from Stardock Forums Top
Ultimately it breaks down to what sort of gamer you are - the longterm players of this game are going to be stathounds, I just don't see anyway around that given its core design. Everything you play on a computer is just a bunch of mathematical algorithms bouncing off of one another - it just gets prettied up with graphics and fancy names to make it more fun. This game, as much as anything else, is an economic and diplomacy game, even the military aspects are tied in very closely with the economic ones to the point that it's stat manipulation or not much else. I also think the comments about radical game changes make it harder to make a good AI - the best AIs I've played are always built around relatively simple game mechanics.

Either you can see both the stats AND the game elements and enjoy this game longterm, or you focus too much on one or the other and you'll lose interest. The stat focused players will either see it as too dry, or if they actually like that aspect, they'll soon figure out some sort of nigh unbeatable min/max strat and move on. The more casual gamer may see it like you do, not enough game variation, not enough flavor, just a lot of math crunching which you don't find fun. There's nothing wrong with that outlook, it just may limit your longterm enjoyment of the game.

That said, I do hope the expansion does liven up some of the strats, and I would like to see things like the Phoenix and other smaller fighters have their mechanics tweaked so it isn't just a matter of bigger is better. But the tech tree is what it is given the game and nothing is going to really change those elements for you significantly.
Reply #11 from Stardock Forums Top
I agree with Yin that the game is much more fun when playing the smaller maps. I have never had the time or patience to complete a game beyond medium. I can't understand how anybody is able to play the bore gigantic maps. Turn after turn after turn nothing happens, except micro-management.

Playing on medium, and focusing on slaying the aliens fast, is the way I like the game. There is no point in competing who-spends-most-time-with-his-computer to get the metaverse points. Too bad the scoring system makes the metaverse _completely_ useless, at least for me.
Reply #12 from Stardock Forums Top
I agree with yin about the size of the maps. I think tiuny and small maps are the most interesting, because it is more of strategy. Actually, tiny with as little yellow stars as possible is what I prefer. That makes the game more like chess, thus not very wide indeed.
About modded events, I think you can allow for invasion tactics which kick in only if you know a given tech, so this one wouldn't just be some stat bonuses.
I also agree that creating a star would be fun, if nothing else, but I am not sure it would be very useful in order to win the game, then wouldn't provide long term appeal.
Now if they provided some abilities to some ships (cloaking - right now it is almost totally useless), that could be interesting.

To me, the problem in replayability lies with the fact that the game is decided in the early rush/expansion. That is what makes big maps boring to me. You know you won or lost, and may just play it through. Random events can make a difference, but there aren't enough of these that you won't have seen them all after a while (the war declaration and Fundies being the only ones I saw which could change a game outcome late in the game, while planet quality boosts and tech-sharing can help in the beginning or maybe mid-game).
I still have to beat the ai at masochistic, though, so I still have some time before getting bored.

I must also say that I like a lot the "only + %" buildings and, particularly, techs.
I think the ai can judge things based on their value instead of some heuristics/arbitrary stuff put in some script file, so it can be better thanks to that approach.
Combat would benefit from some combined forces tactics. It's not really a tacic, it's just that in chess you don't send a bishop attacking without another piece (specifically NOT the other bishop) to support it. Starbases are the only combined tacics available (constructor for starbase + ship for dealing damage/protecting starbase).
Some special ship abilities could be used with the current system:
*ship better at attacking ships in orbit than in space
*ship better against starbases
*ship with a possibility to disengage rather than fight to death
*first strike in defense
Right now we only have terror stars, transports/colony ships, missiles and survey ships which have something special.
The problem with such options is that the ai has to be aware of them , which means they haev to be able to either simulate the fights or (eek) have hard-coded tasks for specific ships.

If stardock can provide one or two more concepts that become available when some techs get uncovered, that would be cool.
Things like a starbase causing global damage to enemy ships in sector (reverse of repair), or other tricks which don't require a change in game mechanics but happen only with better techs:
For example:
Starbase dealing X%damage per month to non allied ships in sector,
Galactic wonder turning one planet into a minor race (allow defection of an enemy planet),
Galactic wonder for star creation which allows to add one nifty PQ 15 planet in the stellar system it is built in, or
Enable a single starbase to be changed into a star+planet (reverse terror star).
Galactic wonder which unleashes hordes of space monsters through the galaxy (should be easy to code, and fun for evil races?)

etc.

I think stardock can also come with events that will happen only if you have researched a given tech, are good/evil, etc.

Hopefully these can deepen game experience. Particularly if that allows to see more of the back story, which is quite easy to forget right now.
Reply #13 from Stardock Forums Top
I'm also not at the boredom point yet, but I tend to agree with the sentiments here. I think the "problem" is that almost everything in the game is evolutionary, not revolutionary. Very rarely do you get something new that changes the way you play; you usually just get things that are bigger, better, or more.

One of the more exciting things I've found is when a race suddenly stumbles on one of those crystals or whatever that may wake something evil (that I understand is a BAD THING). When this happens, my strategy immediately shifts to taking out that race at all costs. It doesn't upset the balance, but it makes me react to the situation.

I'm not really in favor of balance-shifting random events, but it does seem like there could be more variations. However, given the development of this game so far, I'm reasonably sure that new things will come along to keep my interest up!
Reply #14 from Stardock Forums Top
I had played on Small maps, until this last game I tried a Medium map.

I found the Medium map too big! I wound up having all my planets send constructors to a central sector and built a whole bunch of starbases there, pumping up my economy. But... it's boring. And despite my strong economy, and decent sized military (it's necessary to have a decent military otherwise the AI attacks you), I don't feel like I have the military power necessary to take over any of the AI players. Seems easier just to build more starbases. But it's boring.

I'm going to go back to the Small map.
Reply #15 from Stardock Forums Top
All of that is true and I was the combat had more meaning, that also has to be more like more MOO2.
Reply #16 from Stardock Forums Top
Bobo say do anything long enough and get bored. Try other game sometime. Maybe sign off computer two minutes a day. Watch TV. Read book. Go on date. Build mini particle diffusion device. Then play games again.
Bobo ask if find game that NEVER get boring even if played nonstop, please tell Bobo. Bobo like that game because Bobo never find game like that unless count game Bobo say too stinky to play until end.
Bobo think Civ2 greatest game in turn based history. But Bobo not play over and over until bored. Bobo rotate games(Bobo use big word again, him smart.)
Reply #17 from Stardock Forums Top
Yeah, I agree with you on how homogenous and fairly boring all the techs and upgrades are. I don't necessarily agree about the small map thing. If someones loses bad during the rush in a large map, sure the rest of the game can end up moot and monotonous. But if there is some parity, a larger map will give the players more time to develop stronger defenses and more ships. Once the size and developement of empires dominates individual statistical superiority, I think strategic/tactical decision should become more important.

~SDC~
Reply #18 from Stardock Forums Top
This has to be one of the silliest posts I've read in a good while. Not enough variation? This 4x game has more viable ways to play than any other one I know of. If you choose to repeat the same play style over and over until you can't stand it that's perfectly within your rights, but to act as though your limitations are the game's limitations is grossly inaccurate.

Yeah, the tech tree is boring, there are only dozens of different ways it can upgrade your civ, but besides those it's really limited. *rolls eyes*

This is IBNobody's second wildly inaccurate post in two days, one saying that updates take away more than they add (incredibly untrue), and now this one.

The only part of this game that ever repeats for me is the very opening moves. I'll go for communication/translators to get the bank, then switch to medical/enviromental to get habitat. After that I have no idea what I'll do next, each game varies. Am I boxed in by other civs? Better go with a military tech strategy. Too long of a distance between me and my next cluster for expansion? Better go with range tech (or sacrifice a constructor for a starbase refueling station). Am I good at diplomacy? In that case I can ease up on research and focus on military/social. Is my neighbor rushing military? Better get going on that defensive tech. Etc., etc., none of it is predictable, unless you are the type to always play the same way regardless, in which case I say good luck at the high difficulty levels because that lack of flexibility is going to cause you real problems.

I loved Moo2, Civ (not so much Civ2, AI cheating too horrendous to love), MoM, Moo, SMAC, etc., but GalCiv by far has the biggest 'What if?' factor and it shows up often right at the very start. Those other games just didn't have that much variation (MoM probably the most because you could choose several different ways of approaching it, SMAC a close second with the variation of who would be your neighbors).
Reply #19 from Stardock Forums Top
Vorlin, I don't think nobody's post was silly at all. He mentioned that he found that the game was getting boring, and explained why. Even if you disagree, to dismiss the post as "one of the silliest posts I've read in a good while", and reply with snide sarcastic remarks to his valid points is extremely childish.
Reply #20 from Stardock Forums Top
download more evnets from the library.

Also ask the developers for a setup option to allow
you to adjust the frequencny of events and up meetings to take place
Reply #21 from Stardock Forums Top
How about the ability to pick a unique unit at the beginning of the game, much like Civ III?

One of the things I liked about Civ III was the ability to play different Civilizations, along with their unique units.

I also like Birth of the Federation, since I could play as the Romulans, Ferengi, etc.

Perhaps, while picking unique traits at the beginning, we could also pick an 'uber' unit, building, or Wonder that would be available only to the humans.

At the same time, each of the other Races could have something similar.

I think this would help a LOT in re-playability terms.
Reply #22 from Stardock Forums Top
My problem is that i just don't get pulled into the game. The alien races don't draw me in, i just don't get a evil scary feeling from some of them. its not like im fighting the borg or darth vader, just some bobbing head with evil sounding music playing.

as for the wonders, when i built them i expected a little movie scene to play like in civ. often times the only reason i built stuff was to see the little movie scene. i know some of you may see that as asking for too much and will complain that im not seeing how good the game is now but it would make a real difference to see a little movie scene of people waving their hands around at a stock market with some aliens mixed in.

i also feel it is kind of lame how all wonders do is add a stat bonus. remember things like the great wall of china which provided a wall defense in all your cities? how about building the manhattan project and having the ability to use nuclear weapons. i wouldnt mind using some type of nuclear missile when attacking planets that lowers the quality of the planet but kills off mass numbers of people.

more depth on the spy side wouldnt hurt either. how about the ability to build a spy ship that goes in and does spy missions on enemy systems, it could look like one of your enemies ships. so you would see a constructor moving around and youd realize they had sent a spy into your system.

as the game is now i only get half that feeling of playing in an epic sci fi space opera. when i discover a worm hole why does it disappear? there are no permanent wormholes like in deep space nine. or asteroid fields or blackholes. nebula that i can hide my ships in. carrier space ships that launch fighters and bombers to attack enemy ships. mine fields that are spread out over entire systems. how about a gradual increase in the usefulness of the universal translator.
rather than it working all at once you have to research a couple different things.

all im saying is that variety is the spice of life. and this game could use a couple more standard sci fi things tossed on. like the ability to use nanotechnology to assimilate other cultures into your empire. muahahahaha. :d
Reply #23 from Stardock Forums Top
Although the original sentiment may be true to some degree, I don't really see that it's relevant. To some degree, all games lack variation because their rules are basically fixed... eventually, you'll discover pretty much everything that the game has to offer, and after that it's up to the player to enjoy it or not. I still play Cleopatra and RRT2, even though the novelty has completely worn off.

However, there is certainly scope in both the code and the game mechanics for mixing the game up a little... perhaps the player could choose a couple of UP resolutions or events that are activated from the get-go, such as fast constructors or hypersensors.

Also (and this is one of my pet features that I've wanted in every tech-tree since I started playing 4X games) I'd like to see mutually exclusive techs... e.g. you can research branch X, or branch Y, but not both. Maybe X has more speed and trade upgrades, but Y has more armor and weapons upgrades. Something like that. I think trade goods that unlock special units or projects would also be very natty, and probably help make them game better for people sharing your disposition.

Personally, I plan to play the game until my eyes bleed :)



~SDC~
Reply #24 from Stardock Forums Top
Chess doesn't have much 'variety' to speak of unless, of course, you are talking about strategic variety. In the same way, I see GalCiv as not only rich in strategic variety (which is what I really want in a strategy game!) but also quite ingenius in the way it strives to keep things as fresh as possible.

All in all, when I think about the free updates coming our way, this has to be absolutely one of the best game purchases I have *ever* made.
Reply #25 from Stardock Forums Top
It seems possible to modify attack/defense percentages based on the make-up of an opposing fleet, however this game isn't using a true fleet at the moment anyway, with only one ship at a time participating in combat, (which is completely beyond comprehension). The combat would be so much deeper if small ships had a negative to-hit modifier when the attacker is a large capital ship, etc. You could then off-set with either adding point-defense ships to the fleet, or even research and apply point-defense to the capital ships, if willing to lose some attacking power since you've replaced some weaponry with point-defense. There are so many possibilities, none of which would require tactical fighting, simply adjustments to the fleet make-up, and so forth.

Additionally, nebula areas could be added, ala Space Empires IV where fleet statistics would be modified, or fleets could even hide for surprise tactics. Again, simply some statistic modifications for the most part, yet the strategy would be much more involved and variable. Writing the AI to take advantage is another matter of course... but that's why the lack of multi-player is so damaging long-term. If the AI isn't modified to take complex matters into consideration, then in the end we'll be stuck with a fairly predictable game in the long run.

In reality, there are a great many things that could be done to make improvements, perhaps some of them are already in the works, we'll have to wait and see. But hurry up already would ya?! ;p (j/k)

~SDC~