ParagonRenegade ParagonRenegade

Alignment system change for the better [suggestion]

▼

Alignment system change for the better [suggestion]

from GalCiv3 Forums

Yo dawgs.

 

It just suddenly came to me in a flash of inspiration; the alignment trees need to be limited in a way. Look at my mock-up of how they are currently;

 

(I'm a professional artist as you can see)

As it stands, you can select whatever you want from the trees so long as you have the requisite amount of points from random events and stuff, meaning that theoretically, you could have all three ideologies maxed out with no repercussions. This is bad because it means that those that specialize, or otherwise RP their civilizations will be put at an extreme disadvantage for not pursuing all three branches. Specialization should be rewarded, while generalists should be limited in some way to prevent them from out competing them.

 

In that vein, here's another picture;

 

 

Here, I've selected the first tier of "Good" options, and as a direct result, the last tiers of "Neutral" and "Evil" are crossed out and unavailable. In-universe, as my civilization grows more compassionate (or apathetic, or ruthless), the more extreme aspects of the other ideologies begin to conflict with my chosen path, meaning my people won't accept them. In-game, this means that players who generalize when it comes to ideologies can only select lower-level powers and abilities.

Here's more examples;

 

The second tier of "Good" is selected, and by extension, the other two are now locked-out.

 

 

Both the first tier of "Good" and "Evil" have been chosen, locking out neutral and the top-level options for both.

 

This is the best I can explain it without getting overly-verbose. I feel this would improve how players interact with the alignments in the game, and give incentives both to specialize (To get maximum benefits from a certain path) and generalize (To get more dilute bonuses over several trees). You can extend this over more layers if you wish; it works about the same.

 

What are your opinions on this?

142,412 views 36 replies
Reply #26 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting perigrine23, reply 23
Have you actually tried climbing up multiple trees? Because I did and it became impractical fast. The game mechanic is balanced as it is. There is no real advantage in pursuing multiple trees. It becomes cost-prohibitive fast and you won't be able to reach the higher tiers without spending all your production building and destroying improvements that grant ideology on completion.

actually yes i have 18 planets ATM most capable of putting out a +20 ideology building per turn (i tested with a class 12 planet & had about 5 planets less than PQ 12 the rest were above) none of those planets had a single factory and were split 50/50 between economy/production

assuming the lowest 5 planets put out 1 building every 2 turns that is still 15.5x20 ideology per turn

that's an avg of 310 ideology per turn

 

looking at the points spent to completely (first 3 tiers) fill all my ideology trees atm are

benevolent 439

pragmatic 1335

malevolent 725

so at my 310 points per turn i could have completed benevolent in less than 2 turns malevolent in less then 3 turns and pragmatic in less then 5 turns 

now the next step that i believe Paul has said was set so high that no one should be able to reach it is set at 85034 points which would take about 275 turns annoying but completely possible if i wanted to sit down and do it 

in this case i would refocus those lowest 5 planets to be able to pump out one per turn or just quickbuy the building bumping ou my ideology production to 18x 20 and maybie pick up a couple of planets from the ai making a nice 20x20 or 400 points per turn

that would bump it down to 213 turns still annoying but still do-able 

Reply #27 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Again, I'm reserving judgment until the system gets more polished, but I do suspect either the points given will need to be reduced or the costs will need to be raised. We'll soon see how it plays out on large maps, and that should provide some insight into how the system will scale.

Offworld Trading Company
Reply #28 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting androshalforc, reply 26
looking at the points spent to completely (first 3 tiers) fill all my ideology trees atm are

benevolent 439

pragmatic 1335

malevolent 725

so at my 310 points per turn i could have completed benevolent in less than 2 turns malevolent in less then 3 turns and pragmatic in less then 5 turns 

1) Every ideology you pick up will raise the costs of the others, so your math is way off.

2) If you focus your civ on pumping out ideology you should be able to climb all the trees. My point is that in the normal course of the game it will not be optimal to jump around trees, and you will get better returns faster from climbing a single tree.

Reply #29 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting perigrine23, reply 28


2) If you focus your civ on pumping out ideology you should be able to climb all the trees.

 

Why? What makes you think this is a good thing?

Reply #30 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting perigrine23, reply 28
1) Every ideology you pick up will raise the costs of the others, so your math is way off.

 

thats the actual cost to max out all three tiers i will admit that i used the +20 buildings in the math which you wouldent have access to until i think the third tier anyway which definately would throw it off 

the point is ATM the costs to reach max in all three tiers is reletively low and i would expect the average player to complete them all in most games especially since they provide bonus's based on how many perks youve gained

even the first artificially inflated 4th tier ideology perk is within grasp if i wanted to play another 200-300 turns

Reply #31 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting ParagonRenegade, reply 29


Quoting perigrine23, reply 28

2) If you focus your civ on pumping out ideology you should be able to climb all the trees.

 

Why? What makes you think this is a good thing?

 

Because you should be able to be good at anything if you devote your whole civ to it. If you want to sacrifice the other aspects of your civ to pump out ideology, well then you should be able to be good at ideology.

Reply #32 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting perigrine23, reply 31

Because you should be able to be good at anything if you devote your whole civ to it. If you want to sacrifice the other aspects of your civ to pump out ideology, well then you should be able to be good at ideology.

 

You'll be able to max out the tree with just events on the larger maps, easily.

 

The ideologies as-is also directly contradict each other, so adopting all of them leads your civilization to being hugely-dysfunctional and overpowered. The Ideologies touch on every aspect of gameplay, so a civ that powers through them will have an insurmountable advantage.

Reply #33 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting androshalforc, reply 30
thats the actual cost to max out all three tiers i will admit that i used the +20 buildings in the math which you wouldent have access to until i think the third tier anyway which definately would throw it off 

the point is ATM the costs to reach max in all three tiers is reletively low and i would expect the average player to complete them all in most games especially since they provide bonus's based on how many perks youve gained

even the first artificially inflated 4th tier ideology perk is within grasp if i wanted to play another 200-300 turns

Went back today and tried to climb all 3 trees again. It was much easier than I remembered. I do like the system that is in place, but it needs to be adjusted.

1) Destroying a building that grants ideology on completion should subtract the granted ideology.

2) Each time you take an ideology it should increase the cost of the next ideology in the other trees the same or more than in the tree unlocked. Example: Currently, if you take your first 20pt ideology in pragmatism it increases the price of your next pragmatism ideology to 81, and your next malevolent or benign ideology to 23. Instead, it should increase the benign and malevolent to at lest 81 as well.

There may be some additional number tweaking needed, but I think this would go most of the way to balancing ideology without gating options from the player. Also, each tree needs at least 1 (preferably multiple) repeatable ideologies at the end of their trees. This will provide incentive to keep following an ideology even late into a very long game.

Quoting ParagonRenegade, reply 32
The ideologies as-is also directly contradict each other, so adopting all of them leads your civilization to being hugely-dysfunctional and overpowered. The Ideologies touch on every aspect of gameplay, so a civ that powers through them will have an insurmountable advantage

The US is a civilization founded on liberty and freedom with slavery written into the constitution. Having conflicting or even contradictory ideology does not necessarily destroy a civilization. There are many other examples past and present, but this is among the most clear. As to the power of climbing multiple trees, you are making some big assumptions about what the power balance will be like late game considering we haven't seen the late game techs or ideologies yet.

Reply #34 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Glad to see you recognize the problem.

Quoting perigrine23, reply 33

The US is a civilization founded on liberty and freedom with slavery written into the constitution. Having conflicting or even contradictory ideology does not necessarily destroy a civilization. There are many other examples past and present, but this is among the most clear. As to the power of climbing multiple trees, you are making some big assumptions about what the power balance will be like late game considering we haven't seen the late game techs or ideologies yet.

 

So you think a race that actively encourages slaughter and brutality is compatible with one that mandates harmony and betterment of the self and others?

 

But the specifics don't matter; having too many available ideologies produces too much power relative to other civilizations that specialize in a few, even if the overall impact is low, which Stardock has said won't be the case.

Reply #35 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting perigrine23, reply 33

2) Each time you take an ideology it should increase the cost of the next ideology in the other trees the same or more than in the tree unlocked. Example: Currently, if you take your first 20pt ideology in pragmatism it increases the price of your next pragmatism ideology to 81, and your next malevolent or benign ideology to 23. Instead, it should increase the benign and malevolent to at lest 81 as well.

I agree... That's essentially what I was saying. Thanks for throwing in the actual numbers.

Quoting ParagonRenegade, reply 34

So you think a race that actively encourages slaughter and brutality is compatible with one that mandates harmony and betterment of the self and others?

But the specifics don't matter; having too many available ideologies produces too much power relative to other civilizations that specialize in a few, even if the overall impact is low, which Stardock has said won't be the case.

Regarding contradicting ideologies, they are present to a degree, and on the macro scale could represent divergent cultures across multiple worlds, or they could represent a counterculture in general. But you are right in that the US, for example, overall does not presently tolerate discrimination (at the institutional level, i.e. the law), yet discrimination in practice remains. Some people are racist, some aren't. Some believe in gender equality, some don't.

Regarding the game, you are spot on. Too many available ideologies will created too much power and would likely unbalance the game in a substantial way.

Reply #36 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

For my money, wouldn't it be easier on the whole to apply a negative value to the opposing ideology every time you get a positive point value towards a chosen direction?  That way you end up with a slider scale that moves with your decision making and rewards you for focusing while not preventing those who merely want to do the most expedient path.  You would merely have to limit or close off certain technological advancements if you get far enough away from the ideology (and even that could be a setting that could be turned on or off depending).

I can ideologically see how an empire might start down one path and then have a revelation that changes the direction.  Leaders change.  Events happen.  regimes rise and fall.