Hot posts in thread: Pre-Alpha 11 Unstable is now available!

You are right, it is a debate worth to think about teh pros and cons. and while I also say it should be done from left to right, positive to negative as well as we read, it would be easier to grasp this way.
Now to say it more clear: When I do a command, i expect the button to answer the question when everething is correct, to be at the left side.

now in ISG the concept is behaving the other way around.

if so, in my feeling, the buttons in the load screen should be changed in order.
because the "positive" button when loading a game would not be the delete button.

 

Sehr geehrte Entwickler von ISG !



Nach einigen Spielen mit dem neusten Baustein möchte ich eine erste Einschätzung des Spieles in mehren Antworten aufgeteilt geben. Es ist natürlich meine persönliche Sicht auf das Spiel.

Los geht es mit der Sternkarte.

Diese ist immer noch an das Vorbild Master of Orion 2 (Ich habe mir zu Testzwecken eine Version besorgt und ausprobiert.)angelehnt , wirkt aber dem Fortschritt entsprechend weicher und natürlicher. Besiedelbare Sternsysteme sind immer noch gut von den anderen Sternen zu unterscheiden. Beim Streckensystem wird jetzt, glaube ich, genau die Phase der Strecke angezeigt wo das Schiff langsamer fliegt (in Nebeln). Der einzige wirkliche Kritikpunkt den ich hier habe, ist das Nachrichtensystem. Speziell die Forschungsnachrichten könnten für meine Geschmack zusammengefasst werden. Wer mehr wissen will klickt ohnehin auf die Systemansicht.
Optional (meckern auf hohen Niveau) könnten die Sternen- und Planetennebel etwas intensiver leuchten das würde sie strukturierter und nicht so matschig wirken lassen . Außerdem lassen sich die Darknebel kaum erkennen. Mit einem optischen Trick könnte man sie besser sehen – man generiert einfach an ihren Rändern ein paar Statistensterne oder lässt sie in einen hell leuchtenden Planetennebel ragen.

Die Systemansicht wurde radikal verändert und ist jetzt ein echter Hingucker. Vor allem die Sonnen haben es mir angetan. Man kann hier die Sonnenaktivität sehen gelber und roter Stern recht gleichmäßige Aktivität, bei weißen Zwergen“Action“ in der Korona einfach super.Auch sonst gefällt mir die Ansicht recht gut,- man kann alles was man wissen muss gut abrufen. Sogar die Flotte ist zu sehen. Was könnte man noch besser machen? Asteroidengürtel könnten sich in Planetensystemen auch mal zwischen den Planeten befinden. Bei Räuberplaneten sollten keine Planeten welche eine Sonne brauchen (Terra- Sumpf- und Acidplaneten) zu finden sein. Planeten- und Sternnebel könnten entweder durch ein Symbol oder noch schöner durch um hertreibende Wasserstoffwolken uns daran erinnern das es hier zu Einschränkungen kommt. Optional würde ich mir hier noch mehr Vielfalt bei den Gasplaneten ( Farbgebung, Saturnringe) und einige Planeten mit Monden wünschen.

Ebenfalls ein Höhepunkt die neue Kolonie Ansicht. Hier besonders gut gelungen die Gestaltung der Terra- Sumpf- Wüsten- und Barrenplaneten. Ich schaue schon mal drei Minuten bis sich die Wolken verziehen um die Raumstation zu sehen. Auch die 3 D Modelle der Gebäude können sich sehen lassen.Mein persönlicher Liebling hier ist der Weltraumaufzug. Eigentlich müsste er ja eher wie ein umgekehrter Trichter aussehen, aber dieses Modell erinnert mich an Raumschiff Voyager wo Tuborg und Neelix so ein Teil repariert haben. Bei der Ikon Kunst im linken Teil hat sich auch viel getan, hier finde ich den Gravitationsgenerator den Wurmlochstabilisator und die Gegenspionageeinrichtung(wer ist auf die Idee mit dem Raumschiff gekommen) sehr schön. Neue Vorschläge habe ich hier keine nur eine Erkenntnis das im alten Master of Orion 2 wo die Planeten immer unter einem dunklen Sternenhimmel gezeigt wurden- wirkt sehr schön, wenn die Gebäude gut beleuchtet sind – man könnte sich das Räuberplaneten zu Nutze machen. PS.: Auf Sumpfplaneten könnten noch mehr Bäume stehen.

Damit schließe ich für heute.

 

I did not have that much time to play, but I already played at some days and had some time.
Thank you for that much effort you put into it!
Thank you for the better visible turn-pop up, thank you for the zoomable galaxy, I really missed that! And thank you for the system view - excellent! Thank you! And thanks for the new music!!

Now I come to the things that came to my mind recently:

1) I was wondering for not only the latest version why you place always the YES button to the right and the NO choice at buttons to the left. The standard is the opposite. Is there any reason to this? I got the hang now to it, but at the beginning it is irritating and will for sure be for the most other people too. So you must have a reason. But why? I mean it is like this from the first version (that I know of) and I never thought about asking but now I dare to ask you

2) The Music is nice and so calm, but when I am done with a reasearch, it sounds just the same as the music in MOO(4). Noo, please, is there another option? Maybe just let the music still play? Because a, the break is too harsh and:
2b) after the research report, the music track is replaced by another one. And just before the next music played through, a new research is done. so... I never hear one track in whole.

3) hmmm, just a tiny wish, maybe I asked before.. sorry, maybe for later?! Double clicking a save loads the game?!

Well thats all! I enjoy playing and zooming and exploring. WOW, You just did a great job!

 

I'm with Konstantine on this one. Maybe limit them asking to dismiss a rival leader to maybe once every so many turns would be good. I'd say maybe 2/3 to 3/4 as often as it is now...

 

Liebes ISG Team !

Vielen Dank für das umfangreiche und aus meiner Sicht außerordentlich gelungene Update. Es sind momentan zu viele Änderungen, um auf alle in einem Beitrag eingehen zu können. Ich melde mich bald wieder, mit Gedanken zur Sternen- und Systemkarte und zur Kolonieansicht. Es macht aber jetzt schon großen Spaß mit ISG zu spielen. Bis bald.

 

Adam, I definitely agree with you. I checked out both of Mezmorki's links, but in my opinion, that was a tempest in a teapot. Give me a good game that I can get seriously involved in, and the ending is just icing on the cake. My only wish for ISG end game is please don't load it with a ton of micromanagement, such as in Alien Crossfire (and to a somewhat lesser extent) MoO2. BTW Mezmorki, this is just my preference, not a criticism of your ideas. I like to think it's important that we all have our say, although I also believe it will not be possible to incorporate everyone's ideas into this or any game.

 

Thanks for your thoughts Adam.

I just want to clarify a few things regarding my perspective:

I'm not suggesting we double down on making improved victory systems at the expense of having engaging, deep gameplay throughout the game. Rather, I feel the greatest games do both.

I'm also not advocating for MORE victory conditions in a given game. I'd be fine if a game only has one victory condition. What I AM advocating for is to have whatever the victory conditions are, whether there is just one or many, be designed thoughtfully and with an eye towards providing something new and interesting.

I'm also of the opinion that victory conditions that connect to the game's narrative (not just the story but also the emergent narrative created through play - as you mention) are better and present a more satisfactory conclusion to the game, compared to the arbitrary ones typically employed (yay! you control 66.6% of the galaxy - you win!). Ultimately, a thematically-based victory question would answer this essential question: "why are we fighting to dominate other empires?"

Last, I'm of the opinion that having a strong victory system - especially if its just one condition - can be something that the gameplay can be oriented around and which will make the overall gameplay BETTER.

Let me break down that last point a little bit more.

4X games tend to have a steamroller problem (aka the rich get richer) - which you're certainly aware of. At the most simple level, controlling more planets gives you more resources, which lets you build more fleets to take over more planets, and so on. The player able to get ahead first tends to snowball in power towards their inevitable victory. The same process works for other typical victory conditions too - e.g. investing in tech means you unlock more ways to research faster, which lets you unlock more tech more quickly, etc. Obviously there are things that can and should be employed to mitigate the above.

The snowball situation is, I'm convinced, a function of the typical victory conditions. This is because "reinvesting in your empire" over the course of the game is simultaneously and directly moving you down one of the victory paths. The outputs of the "engine" of you empire get fed back into the machine and your outputs grow and grow until you cross some winning threshold.

The opportunity for 4X games to break from this situation is by having a victory system that requires investing your empires outputs in a direction that doesn't simultaneously continue to build your empire.

If you have to make choices all throughout the game of whether to (A) invest in getting more planets/tech/econ to build your empire engine vs. (B) invest in advancing progress towards a victory state - suddenly all of those turn-by-turn decisions get a lot more interesting. Suddenly the game isn't about perfectly optimizing your growth and outputs (subject to random events and all that of course), but you're always faced with an interesting risk-reward or push your luck decision. Do you start investing in victory early and often at the expense of slowing down your growth a little, or do you try grow huge first for a big investment at the end?

These alternative lines of investing in victory don't have to be complicated. In fact the games that have done this well a have kept it pretty simple.

AoW3 Seals victory is one great example. You have to leave armies (usually strong ones) sitting on the seals to control them. That means that army isn't out expanding your empire and growing your engine. You have to make a choice of when to invest your military power in pursuit of victory and controlling the seals provides no other benefit to your empire other than accumulating points towards victory. Moreover it builds in some catchup mechanics - the player to first conquer a seal has to fight a huge neutral army, which can weaken their forces for a bit and create an opening for other players. The seals also periodically respawn large defending forces, which incurs attrition on your forces trying to hold it. Moreover, by having armies tied up trying t hold seals - it create a window of opportunity for other, perhaps weaker empires, to gain a relative advantage in attacking your cities and trying to build up power conventionally. It all works super well and captures what I'm getting at here. FWIW, Total War: Warhammer 2's Vortex Campaign works on much the same principle.

This got way longer than I intended - but hopefully you see what I'm trying to get it. My points aren't about adding more victory conditions - as if that's some magic band-aid. Rather it's about focusing on fewer conditions but making sure they provide something interesting and fresh while strengthening the rest of the gameplay and at the same time resolving many of the problems that have plagued 4X since forever.

 

Haven't gotten too far into it yet, one session at about 140 turns, but I can see the point @Joe3 is trying to make.
Managing their desires is kinda cool, a leader suddenly getting the envious trait (happened twice in this session so far), and asking me to dismiss another leader... not so cool. I said no, and it pissed off the leader enough where he became useless to me, so I dismissed him. Having already given said leader some love and nurturing, I wasn't too thrilled to see him go, it felt like wasted effort. Maybe a cap on how many times this can happen would be cool?

 

As I said on your site itself, if you are getting tired of traditional 4x gameplay, then maybe go play something else? Rather than want traditional 4x games to change to whatever you want them to be.

Meanwhile, for those of us that aren't, contrary to your assertion, there isn't a "crowd". We get maybe one traditional 4x game a year

Sometimes different is better. Sometimes its not. Master of Orion 2 was vastly different than the original Master of Orion and for the better. But then Master of Orion III was radically different and for the worse, killing off the brand and maybe even the company. Meanwhile Civilization has not really changed much and is still a big deal to this day. Had Master of Orion 3 not been so different, we'd probably see Firaxis making Master of Orion games every year, all like Moo 2, rather than the IP left in the dirt for any random company to pick up.

However, since Firaxis isn't, it's left to people like Adam Solo to pick up the torch. And they've done a fine job with it. ISG will likely never be a huge seller (like Civ) simply because it's from a small company, with little in way of press contacts with major sites, and it doesn't have the fancy graphics. It won't be because of jaded former 4x fans.

 

Is it fine if I record some play of this new build and put it up on youtube?

 

Thanks Adam (and aReclusiveMind). It's not a game breaker for me, just a matter of MY personal preferences. I was looking at it (kinda, sorta) from the point of view of Juvenal's Quis custodiet ipso custodes. You go, guys!

 

Thanks for the new release will have a go at it.

 

Looking forward to jumping into this and getting a feel for things.

As an aside - Adam and co., I'd like to suggest you give a listen and read to the following (if you haven't already):

https://explorminate.net/2018/10/08/the-inglorious-state-of-4x-games-an-exposition/

https://explorminate.net/2018/10/29/strategic-expanse-34-strategic-warfare-part-2/

The article and podcast above both dig deep into the topic of endgame arc's and how it relates to victory conditions.

I'm not sure what you have planned for the final game here, but I HIGHLY, HIGHLY, HIGHLY urge you to think creatively about how to add or work in an interesting victory trigger that goes beyond the typical conquest/council/econ/tech style victories we see. Even something akin to the seal's victory in Age of Wonders 3 (which is basically a multi-point "King of the Hill" scenario) does wonders (no pun intended) for orienting the game-play towards a more interesting objective and - crucially - cuts out the tedious mop-up portion of the late-game that plague most 4X games.

I have high hopes for ISG, and as a traditional 4X game it's overall mechanics are very well thought out and do a great job creating interesting choices. If all of this fine work can be coupled with an overall structure to the gameplay that ties it all together in a compelling way, I think the game will go far. If it doesn't address these late-game concerns (and I'm not passing any judgement yet on how much of an issue it will be in ISG, since we're still talking alpha), then I think it's going to be an uphill battle to get the game to standout.

I can only speak for myself and those I know more personally - but a lot of us are getting burned out on the traditional 4X gameplay arc. If there is anything that can be done to generate a different experience it will help your game stand out in the crowd.

EDIT: I have a LOT of ideas on this front, so if you want me to brain dump here or via PM let me know - I'd be happy to share.