Don't Make Good Suck This Time!

PLEASE!

from GalCiv3 Forums

Hey. I just asked a question in another thread to Brad/Frogboy in another thread, and I felt it deserved more attention here.

 

In Galactic Civilizations 2, we had the three alignments as I'm sure most of you are aware; Good/Neutral/Evil. This trichotomy sucked the big one for a variety of reasons, most telling of which was the fact that the good alignment was absolutely terrible. It's easy to pin why this was so; it comes down to three things;

 

1. Colonization events killed you: Good, as it was called before, or benevolence, as it is currently called, had colonization events that butchered an early-game player, requiring you to take massive hits to industry, research, morale and everything else. In contrast, neutral and evil choices produced incredible benefits in the same areas with virtually no repercussions, giving those players an undue advantage. Players that wanted to be good were almost universally better off choosing assorted evil and neutral choices, then choosing good when you got Xeno Ethics at the end of the colonization rush. Which takes us to point two...

 

2. Moral choices and doing the right thing was meaningless: It's really difficult to believe your choices are meaningful and have impact when there's a technology that enables you to choose whatever alignment you want with a monetary cost that isn't even particularly bad. So a player who did nothing but slaughter and rape his way across the planets he settled could decide to make his civilization saintly with the click of a button and a low monthly fee :P. This left those who did the right thing high-and-dry, with nothing to show for it.

 

3. Benefits from being good were minimal: When you got down to it, slogging through all the BS to get to the alignment, the benefits were paltry;

- "Citizens are more loyal and less likely to defect if their colonies are under an opponent's influence" Unfortunately, this meant nothing, it just gives you a few turns of grace when you planet is going to rebel. The "Cut-off" point is still 4.00 X Native.

- "The five most populous planets have no maintenance costs for their initial Colony" Oh Em Gee! This will be so useful in my civilization of 200 planets filled with discovery spheres and industrial sectors! I'm sure my income of 75,000 BC per turn will be greatly improved.

- "Trade income with other good civilizations is increased by 25%" This may actually have been useful if trade wasn't insignificant compared to taxes and (in TA) tourism. This adds at best a few hundred BC/turn on larger galaxies.

- "Gain a Diplomatic Ability bonus when dealing with other good or neutral civilizations" Actually useful! :D

- "Unique technologies include Superior Defense" The actual defenses were useless and too expensive for their tech level, and they were swiftly replaced by Aereon Missile Defense, Invulnerability shields and the like. The passive benefits to defense (+10% Defense, +5% HP) were somewhat useful.

- "The "Temple of Righteousness" Galactic Achievement is only available to good civilizations.' Great, so I can steal a small amount of money from others, even though I'm supposed to be benevolent? The bonus is nice in larger games, maybe a few thousand BC/turn, but it's just a drop in the bucket and not really useful.

 

For changes, I'd...

 

1. Give 'good' colonization and random event choices an 'intangible' benefit in the form of approval, loyalty, influence, and planet quality etc...

2. Expunge Xeno Ethics and piss on its grave. Make your chosen ideologies permanent.

3. Make the various sub-branches of the ideology trees, not restricted to good, confer more powerful benefits that are in-character and meaningful. Latter upgrades on the tree should also confer penalties to aspects of your empire opposed to your chosen branch.


tl;dr: Make the good alignment not suck and make all ideologies carry irrevocable baggage and penalties to accompany their benefits.

 

 

91,405 views 47 replies
Reply #1 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

I am not too bothered by point no.2. This fits the GalCiv wacky atmosphere.  But otherwise I agree that Good was lackluster. I pretty much always play Evil.  

I once decided to play a game 100% good and it was to add difficulty lol.

Reply #2 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting EvilMaxWar, reply 1

I am not too bothered by point no.2. This fits the GalCiv wacky atmosphere.  But otherwise I agree that Good was lackluster. I pretty much always play Evil.  

I once decided to play a game 100% good and it was to add difficulty lol.

My righteous fleets will purge your filth from the galaxy soon enough, dog! :3

There's one exception to the rule of "good = bad" though;the Altarians.The Altarians get a metric ton of abilities and buffs from playing good, and it improves their super ability a bunch.

Galactic Civilizations III
Reply #3 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

I only play evil because their is no other reason on the game to be anything else because the random events favor only being evil. I agree something needs to change about the choices. I've noticed that they aren't planning to fix this with idealologies. I actually think they don't give you any reason to pick neutral choices. Stop only rewarding the evil choices on the random events. I've come up with two options.

1. They could give different bonuses for each choice.

2, They could have an equal number of events that give each choice the maximum reward. These three kind of events would be an equal number of choices.

Here is my question to the founders why did you make a game that favors evil. Hey Max it doesn't bother me that you want to play evil, but wouldn't it be nice that the other civs would at least have a fair chance.

Reply #4 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

From what I remember, Good was supposed to suffer short-term, but gain long-term bonuses by having much better relations with the other races. Evil, on the other hand, was supposed to have short-term benefits, but suffer in the long term by having terrible relations with the other races. This was very apparent in GalCiv 1. The other races quickly dogpiled on you, if played Evil. This made playing Evil much harder. Although, maybe that was just my experience. <_<

In GalCiv 2 this changed, because the bonuses Evil received were much higher, than any of the penalties. So what, if you suffer diplomatically and are constantly at war? The bonuses you already received made you much stronger than any of the other races, and you want to conquer them anyhow (making you even stronger in the process).

Reply #5 from GalCiv3 Forums Top
I found playing good was almost always more difficult than playing other alignments.
Reply #6 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Superior military strength is my favorite method of making my neighbors like me.

Reply #7 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting EvilMaxWar, reply 6

Superior military strength is my favorite method of making my neighbors like me.

I've always found it strange that I can butcher trillions of people as an aggressor and still be considered 'good'... it's intriguing.

Reply #8 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting ParagonRenegade, reply 7


Quoting EvilMaxWar, reply 6
Superior military strength is my favorite method of making my neighbors like me.

I've always found it strange that I can butcher trillions of people as an aggressor and still be considered 'good'... it's intriguing.

 

the winners write the history books / tri-vids.

Reply #9 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Gaunathor, reply 4
In GalCiv 2 this changed, because the bonuses Evil received were much higher, than any of the penalties. So what, if you suffer diplomatically and are constantly at war? The bonuses you already received made you much stronger than any of the other races, and you want to conquer them anyhow (making you even stronger in the process).

My problem with Galactic Civilizations II Twighlight of Arnor was that being good, I always found myself at war with all the evil and neutral races very early on, and most of the "good" races were so weak that they were no help and were easily exterminated. 

I always played good side of alignment with random alignments from the other races.  Although I would choose evil for any planet quality bonus, but all others I would choose good, then align with good with xeno ethics :)

 

Reply #10 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Seilore, reply 9
My problem with Galactic Civilizations II Twighlight of Arnor was that being good, I always found myself at war with all the evil and neutral races very early on, and most of the "good" races were so weak that they were no help and were easily exterminated. 

Sounds like you didn't build a strong enough army. The AI will exploit this, no matter your alignment.

Reply #11 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

I favor a Sovereign ideology for the game. Which is closer to neutral, or the Arceans, which I love.

I think what their doing is making your ideology absolute. Choices will still impact your civ, but your ideology can't be effected by regular events. (a mega event might change it.)

 

Quoting admiralWillyWilber, reply 3


1. They could give different bonuses for each choice.

2, They could have an equal number of events that give each choice the maximum reward. These three kind of events would be an equal number of choices.

I agree, with number one.

2., They should be called...political events, they can by positive or negative in effects ( culture and military could also play a factor in the out come)

Quoting admiralWillyWilber, reply 3
 

a game that favors evil.

 

 

 

nothing but slaughter and rape  

 

 

I am glad those aren't the real game reviews, and Stardock isn't made of maniacs with WARdell being the evil leader. Lol.

 

DARCA

Reply #12 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Gaunathor, reply 10
Sounds like you didn't build a strong enough army. The AI will exploit this, no matter your alignment.

Never had a problem defending myself... :P

Reply #13 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Haven't they already said that this is all changed in 3?

Reply #14 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Tridus, reply 13
Haven't they already said that this is all changed in 3?

The stuff in the Founder's Vault (like Brad.pdf) suggests that at least part of the change is just cosmetic. For example, page 7 of Brad.pdf includes an image of a colonization event involving research that I'm fairly certain that any who played GCII will be familiar with, but with Good/Neutral/Evil relabeled Benevolent/Pragmatic/Merciless. For the event in question, Benevolent gives no gains and suffers no penalties; Pragmatic and Merciless are strictly beneficial, with Merciless more so than Pragmatic. Moreover, the same document lists some benefits and penalties for each viewpoint, and in my opinion Benevolent seems less beneficial than either Pragmatic or Merciless/Malevolent (see pages 10 and 11 of Brad.pdf).

The choice of ideology names also doesn't do it any favors as far as getting away from the whole Good/Evil thing, either - malevolence and mercilessness are frequently associated with evil, benevolence with good, and the indicated bonuses and maluses for Benevolence and Malevolence are in line with those for Good and Evil in previous games. I rather suspect that I'd call them Good and Evil sooner than I'd call them Benevolent and Malevolent unless I was being picky about sticking with exactly what things are named in the game.

Reply #15 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Personally what I'd like to see is an option like so there are more than 3 options, see below...

 

Benevolent:  Stay away from feline population, allow to exist in native habitat (-15% planet quality +1000bc)

[If choose this there would be a random chance that the feline's would increase productivity, or research by xx% or add to weekly income by 100bc]

Pragmatic:  Allow feline population to remain, move to limited camps decided by government (-1% approval)

[If chose would cause random uprisings potentially damaging/destroying buildings depending on approval]

Merciless:  Exterminate vast majority of feline population, keep few left to put in rare exibits around the planet (+8% planet quality +500bc -3% approval)

[If chose may cause planet to rebel against government with-in certain number of turns]

Quality Boost:  Learn how to work with feline population to increase hability, melt into society (+25% planet quality +2% approval -50% population cap) 

[If chose would put somewhere between Benevolent and Pragmatic]

Credit Boost:  Use feline population to test cures for random illness's (+2500bc -5% approval)

[If chose would double the weight of Merciless]

 

Reply #16 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Good vs. Evil is a terrible, flawed system where there is absolutely no good reason to be moral at all. Promoting evil in such as way is stupid, why would anybody want to take penalties so they can get good benefits that are no where near as good as neutral or evil choices.

consider These 2 things.

A) Fuck the good vs. evil system, I believe this has already been confirmed they were scrapping it the past, moving on

B) whatever system is in its place, people who play strategy games will ALWAYS choose the most logical choice over a moral choice, look at every other tittle and you will see.

 

Reply #17 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

I thought I remembered Frogboy saying people overwhelmingly played good over anything else. The only difference is that Good players researched Xeno Ethics as soon as possible to stop the events while neutral/evil players delayed XE for as long as possible to milk the bonuses.

Reply #18 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting WIllythemailboy, reply 17

I thought I remembered Frogboy saying people overwhelmingly played good over anything else.

actually it's the opposite. Even when I am in a deep role playing mood as a good civ, I just can't do it because it sucks. Luckily stardock is creative, listens to players, and let's me modd how I want. (and with the right programs the hardcoded files too :) )

DARCA

Reply #19 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Even if players overwhelmingly played good; that would not negate the fact that if you went strait to Xeno ethics you would still lose the treats that Stardock waives in front of you to be evil when you colonize planets. Meaning even with that tactic you lose the advantage of being evil. Evil gets treats and bonuses when they play evil. Good just gets bonuses.

Reply #20 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Tyrantissar, reply 16

Good vs. Evil is a terrible, flawed system where there is absolutely no good reason to be moral at all. Promoting evil in such as way is stupid, why would anybody want to take penalties so they can get good benefits that are no where near as good as neutral or evil choices.

whatever system is in its place, people who play strategy games will ALWAYS choose the most logical choice over a moral choice, look at every other tittle and you will see.

Isn't the point of being good doing something because it is the right thing and not for some reward? 

Reply #21 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting joeball123, reply 14
Moreover, the same document lists some benefits and penalties for each viewpoint, and in my opinion Benevolent seems less beneficial than either Pragmatic or Merciless/Malevolent (see pages 10 and 11 of Brad.pdf).

As far as I understood it, those are ideas as for what mechanics each ideology could affect, not what they currently do.

Reply #22 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Don't forget that some people sometimes approach playing games like GalCiv as role playing experiences.  

Reply #23 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Rhonin_the_wizard, reply 20

Isn't the point of being good doing something because it is the right thing and not for some reward? 

Even most 'morality' systems have tangible benefits for doing both the 'good' or 'bad' paths. The issue most people have is that the 'tangible' benefits for beign good seem to not benefit the player vs being bad.

Reply #24 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Rhonin_the_wizard, reply 20

Isn't the point of being good doing something because it is the right thing and not for some reward? 
Yes, when there's actual people involved. When it's just C++ object instances, "doing the right thing" and "not doing the right thing" do not involve actual morality, no one dies from the consequences of your choice. Which means it becomes a fake choice, one being clearly better than the other to obtain the only thing that's at stake, victory.

 

But frankly, I just wish Stardock actually got rid of "Good" vs. "Evil" and let us graduate from D&D.

Reply #25 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Werewindlefr, reply 24
But frankly, I just wish Stardock actually got rid of "Good" vs. "Evil" and let us graduate from D&D.

The devs have announced that the alignment feature (Good/Neutral/Evil) was being replaced. I can't find it now, but it may have been in one of the interviews they did with one of the game review sites (access to those interviews vanishes after a short time). I think they said it was being replaced with something called "Ideologies", but I can't be sure without the link to where the announcement was made.