my, how fickle the masses are when they are slighted...

yay another update? cool thanks!
..
bugs fixed quickly? you're the best!
..
i don't like this change
..
this thing is annoying me
..
stardock talking out of both sides of their mouths...
..
no idea or concept
..
WTF
..
lazy programmers
..

and customers wonder why developers so rarely talk back. afterall, if they are perceived to make a mistake the customer will be polite, understanding, and reasonable, right?

seriously, i haven't had a chance to play 1.04 yet, so i don't know if the new feature/nerf is as horrific as some say but reading some of the posts here makes me wonder why there is no middle ground between "brownnoser" and "blood feud"

there is nothing to lose by making polite, reasoned posts...

There is nothing to be lost by making incremental, reasoned changes to game mechanics...

Staffa --

Trade good values appear to be altered for Normal, as well. Want to buy Diplomatic Translators, offering Aphrodisiacs and Tri-Strontium Steel, plus a few low-level techs and several colony ships plus a thousand influence points? No dice. Want to sell a trade good for, say, three low-level techs? Again, apparently a deal seems unlikely.

Just saw this thread.

Posted in the MWC thread
"I just patched my current game ( Huge painful). Everything looked fine, the War with the Yor is going ok, they got more ships ( battleships) but i got the better ones ( dreadnought's). I needed an influx of cash so i decided to trade ( +63 in dip ) with the minors races. First i try my friends the scottlings who i do most trade with, put up Frictionless Clothing ( didnt want to give em any Weapons tech at this time) i try for 100 for 10 months. NO good, ends up they only want to give me 256 for my trade good. So i try the I league, they have Exotic Alloys tech, i want that, so i put up Frictionless Clothing again. NO trade. I put Ultra Spices aswell, still no trade. i throw in all my trade goods (Frictionless Clothing, Ultra Spices, Diplomatic Translators,Gravity Accelerators, Tri-Strontium Steel) still no trade . Unless this was a bug, or glitch, What use are trade goods for there price now."

Is there any way to go back to 1.035 playing on the metaverse isnt anuff to stop my games from being fun IMO.

I'm glad to see the problem with Trade Goods addressed because they did make the game too easy. It was routine to play a game, build all of the trade goods & wonders, and then just run the table whenever I got tired of tweaking the sliders.

My only concern is that the AI value the goods the same as the human so that they are not so easy to exploit.

I thought I was being polite. Believe me...I watered down my message considerably. If you want me to be more abrasive, believe me, I can be. Devs pretty much should have thick skin or else they really have no business being in the game industry. I wasn't too particularly pleased when the Galciv teamed implied through their own statements that the top scorers on the metaverse somehow obsessed too much on their scores and were only out to break the game. They also implied that since we are in the minority only by virtue of 1) our presence in the metaverse, 2) our rank, and 3) I happen to be vocal that somehow we ought to be ignored in favor of a rather large group that doesn't happen to speak out.

They are the ones that that say they won't do things based on what this minority says, so why support the message boards or the metaverse if as they say only a small fraction of the 50,000 people use it? Then there's the indicident where Frogboy is going around and presuming people guilty of cheating, in this case Staffa. Having played alot of online games, especially Everquest, I cannot begin to tell you how many times I personally have been surprised (as well as EQ developers) always get when players found ways of doing something that are seemingly impossible. The best example of this is the 50-60 level curve. Nobody expected the 60 barrier to be hit as quick as it was. Even worse was the 61 to 65 curve, yet I've seen someone hit it in a mere 6 days. No cheating, so one can never say something is impossible. It could very well be that Staffa did something incredible in his invasions. Besides, I dont see how Brad can somehow be completely clairvoyant about what happened during an Avault Reviewers game and not figure out what happened in Staffa's game. I still haven't got a clean answer on how the Yor somehow stayed alive on a tiny map even though they had no planets.

I prefer to tell it pretty much like it is and back it up with some facts. And I hate to say it, but to sneak in a fix like what happened with the Trade goods without playtesting it is inexcusable. That's one of those cardinal laws they beat into your head in computer science classes. You always always always always regression test your changs to make sure they play out okay... ESPECIALLY IN GAMES. So yes, I can be a bit abrasive. But I get impatient when I purchase a game and see one software engineer make a huge goof that almost any other software engineer worth their salt wouldn't do (myself included)

SeanB

SeanB

To me, one of the worst parts of the trade good nerf is that there is no longer a
way to catch up if you fall behind in tech, except conquest, and that is only possible
assuming you don't fall far behind. I like the games where I'm scrambling to
stay alive, but not the ones where I make one mistake of timing, and fall irrevocably
behind the times.

Staffa, I don't know how you managed to trade trade goods away from the
computer for anything approaching the values that they will give. When I
posted earlier, I was taking Code Monkey's word for it that the computer was hard
to trade with. This evening, I tested it myself. I could get roughly 100 BC for
diplo translators. If I wanted to trade for frictionless clothing, the AI wanted
1300 BC + diplo translators (and I of course had an incredible advantage
diplomatically on both trades). By the way, this was against intelligent
opposition.

When I play, or at least played, I basically never bought trade goods because I
didn't feel it was "right." I stayed at crippling because that was where I was
having the most fun. I got mangled against incredible opponents. I'm ok with
my ranking in the 200's, and probably never would have looked at my score if
a friend hadn't asked me to join his empire. I submitted my games to help improve
the AI and for no other reason. I play for fun. I like (liked) being able to play
peacefully against opponents who didn't aggravate me, and still be able to be
competitive.

If the way trade goods were handled made it too easy on masochistic, then feel
free to change it. I still think, like Staffa, the right way was to make them (and
other wonders) unbuyable or very expensive. A close second was teaching the
AI on the higher levels to buy them. This solution isn't even a distant 42nd. This
is the only computer game I've played for 6 weeks +, but this is the first time I've
been frustrated by anything other than myself, and thus the first time I've thought
seriously about putting it away. If that was the goal, congratulations. If not,
I'll leave it you to rethink the "solution."

The AI does and always has(well sense 1.035 when I
started)buy tradegoods, just not with the cutthroat
nature a human does.

As for not being able to get tradegoods from the AI,
I didnt use credits or tradegoods(cause tradegoods are
worthless right), I used tech.

And had no problems getting the tradegoods for a
single semi decent tech.




[Message Edited]

(1) I agree with the reduction in value: they were worth too much. And I hate the alternate suggestion of making them more expensive to rush: the impact of this would be to leave me with wasted work on the good when a baddie finishes it first.

(2) This change dropped the value of "trade goods" too far.

(3) I disagree with doing it without any beta feedback - any adaption deliberately made to counter a player strategy deserves careful consideration of the relative weighting (and presenting the fact to the player community). In general, I believe player strategies should be countered by educating the AI, not changing game balance. The major concern I hear behind many of the complaints on this thread (and others) is "every time I develop a good strategy, they change the way the game works to destroy it": this paranoia on the part of players needs to be calmed (and Stardock not do it!) or GalCiv will lose its 'replayability' appeal.

(4) This 'nerf' exposes something several players have complained about before: the trading system is fundementally flawed: AI evaluation of 'value' makes no sense to players, and it should.

AI calculation of the value of a trade good (or a tech, etc) should be based on the effective value to them. This should include their general characteristcs (including race, aggressiveness, etc), as well as their general strategy (military/tech/etc), and their current situation.

For example, a civ with morale problems should pay more for a morale TG; a military civ should extra-value TriStront etc. A tech they really don't care about (and would not have researched themselves) shouldn't be worth much, but one they WANT should be worth more.

Obviously, this evaluation should be 'tempered' by their intelligence level, with more intelligent AI making both more accurate estimates of relative value, and negotiating harder.

I recognise that this sort of change would be a relatively major undertaking, but perhaps SD could commit to the idea...

(4) Meanwhile, I think there is a bug - Brad and some others suggested you can trade for 'em just as cheaply, but that ain't my experience at all (on maso), or that of #54 on this thread at painful. [And I was offering TGs, Techs, and Cash]
[Message Edited]

i believe you . it is hard to measure your own tone in text sometimes.



oh yeah, i know, i am usually pretty amused by the flame wars and vitriol when a game gets released and gamers got the short end of the stick.

but i only post on "nice" message boards usually. to see so many people get so upset over a game feature/nerf they dislike is odd to me. i remember a few month's ago brad mentioning that the bug where stardock central was formatting people's hard drives when it first came out did not generate near the number of angry posts he got over some other problem people were complaining about. edit to add: imho the post above mine is a good example of what a reasoned polite post is and how much more effective it probably is rather than just saying the same info but adding some venting in too.
[Message Edited]

I think some of you have no idea how much you suck the fun out of doing these updates.

You know, we did a helluva lot of other thigns to improve the game in 1.04 and you guys fixate because you can't trade tradegoods easily. A few polite posts explaining your position would have done plenty of good in us modifying it. But instead, it seems like abuse gets heaped onto us.

Trade Goods will get more work done to them until we get a balance that people like. But you do realize that we're putting in a lot of effort to keep updating the game based on your feedback. We're not mind readers. We go by the posts we read. But it really pisses me off to see the dozensa nd dozens of updates blown off because some people want to bitch that they can't go and get Diplomatic Translators and use them to purchase a truckload of techs.

I mean really, isn't that what this boils down to? It wasn't just Staffa using this, I suspect a lot of you were doing this and then you turn around and say how easy the AI is. Well you know what? This is part of the AI too. The AI has to actually go and research all those techs and when you could buy the diplomatic translators right off the bat and get a bunch of techs basically for free, tha twas pretty imbalancing.

That said, I think that the increase in the cost of the trade goods may be nearly enough to take care of the issue. Trade goods WERE over valued by the AI. That has nothign to do with Staffa or anyone else. But they're probably not valued enough now given their cost. We'll adjust it.

It's like some of you have amnesia though. As if we put out an update and if there's somethign people don't like we don't change it. Sheesh. This is our 58th update since release, and there will be many more. But I can tell you, speakin gon behalf of the team, if the message boards jsut become abusive or plain negative, it'll get increasingly harder for me to get our developers to read through it and that will affect the quantity and quality of updates. So please, try to communicate without the vitriol. Thanks.

~SDC~

Brad, I am by no means trying to "suck the fun" out of you doing updates with my bitching. OTOH, the fact that this got snuck into the released patch without any external testing or obvious declaration gives the impression, whether merited or not, that you guys are doing what you can to "suck the fun" out of the game.

And it's not the first change that I haven't seen any satisfactory explanation for or resolution to. How many updates has it been since you *for no public reason that I've been able to grasp* removed the PQ bonuses from the endgame techs such as 'Near Omnipotence' without any reduction in their cost? How many people are even building Battle hammers any more since they were "fixed"?

I don't wan't to sound (too much) like a broken record here, but a lot of your fixes are reactionary to things that people like Staffa are doing without any seeming attention to what a more "normal" strategy gamer is doing with the game. The end result is you get the same two or three people who whine about how easy the AI is applauding every hamstring and hurdle you toss at the players while, I dare say, the majority are sitting there scratching their heads wondering why the game just got *even harder* for them.

So, for me, the neat changes to 1.04 (slider locks, yeah , better tactical combat, whee , etc.) get overshadowed by the fact that this one change did pretty much make the game seem like work instead of fun, and, I assume, that's not what any of us want.

I thank you for responding that you'll re-address the trading issue, and I hope you will continue to try and make the game more *fun* and not just harder.

Guys, I think it is time to take a little perspective here. As Brad points out, they are reading what we post - they are listening - and they are making changes. If the change in trade goods seems to be a big enough issue, Stardock will make changes. Beyond the fact that they've pledged support for a very extended time beyond release, their track record supports this assumption. They've been listening and taking suggestions and implementing them all along - why should you think they are going to stop now?

Also, if you hang around these boards, then it should be clear to you that this game is still a work in progress. No, not because it was incomplete upon release - no, because Stardock is trying something very different here, a period of extended support for player suggested changes and enhancements - all to make a better game than the release version. But common sense will tell you that they won't always get it right the first time - yes, even developers as good as Stardock aren't perfect (sorry Brad ). Concerned then? Well, wait until feedback on the newest and latest release version then. Play the older version until you read enough about the latest and feel comfortable with it's feedback. Don't like that - well, if you want a game with continuing enhancements, that's the price - because no developer will get it right everytime. Or you can always go back to playing the release version

So my point is - find a change you don't like? Let Stardock know. Explain yourself clearly and completely - but politely. There's no need or excuse for rudeness. They aren't abandoning the game, they aren't going anywhere. Rude, abrasive comments just aren't going to get you anything - and frankly, never have gotten anybody anything anyway - so why make them? I've never seen rudeness or abrasiveness get anyone anything - it's totally counterproductive in my work and life experience - and I sadly, don't consider myself so young anymore . So lighten up, guys.

Grifman

Well, I was going to post about the abusiveness of the prior poster but it seems Brad got to it first.

Geeze people.. one aspect of the game gets 'nerfed' to a point you don't agree with, and suddenly a support team that has easily been the *best* I've seen in almost 20 years of computer gaming is run through the wringer. Way to make 'em feel appreciated! Please, by all means insult them because you feel slighted, since the few opinions of the 'expert' players are so important, decency and politeness can go out the window.

Why don't you spare the venom for a support team that deserves it? Thick skin is required?! Why pray tell? Because you are a consumer and you are ENTITLED to be rude? Get off your high horses, if you don't mind. A few nasty opinions can ruin it for thousands of legit buyers who don't even post here.

Since release, when has an issue NOT been addressed in a timely, quick manner? Please name one other game that receives this level of support.

Just because you are entitled to your opinion doesn't mean you need to be nasty and unreasonable about it. The trade good issue did need a nerf, it was overpowered. They nerfed it, and they didn't get it right on the first go, and they are relegated to terms such as 'lazy'. Wonderful, very mature, thanks.

Brad, many of us DO appreciate the excellent support. The gaming masses have been subjected to some nasty support in the past, so I at least admire the dev team for their active and ongoing updates, balance fixes, and hard work. Thanks!!


fleabitfox

What happened to the big fancy claim that the Metaverse could be used to give the AI the ability to use some human players' strategy?

Why isn't Frogboy working on how the AI could do the same exploits instead of just nerfing them for the human?


~SDC~

Oh yes, and one more thing. Please name the # of games where the CEO of the company himself takes the time to sticky idea threads, post links to OTHER game companies games, chat with Joe Public Gamer, and have the consideration for general opinion.

Take your time trying to find one.

fleabitfox

I make no apologies if you're directing this in part to me. If I water the message down, people don't notice. I've never been known for political correctness and never will be. If something is wrong, then I will point it out. If its hard to swallow, then I'm sorry, but I'm not going to change.



I am one of those ones that doesn't parlay diplo translaters (dont want the AI to have an advantage). I usually will parlay aphrodisiac or frictionless clothing. Now if getting a total of 3 to 5 technologies out of those trades is what you consider a truckload, then guilty as charged. Wasn't aware getting 2 technologies per trade was out of line. (and lets think about this one a second, I probably paid a whole lot more to get that technology than the computer did to get their two technologies)



I would agree with the idea of boosting the cost, but then turning around and nerfing the ability to trade them. I still wonder why the AI doesn't rush buy these things itself.



By which count? From what I've seen released on Stardock, the number is optimistically half that... and I'm thinking closer to 10 to 15.

I just re-read parts of the post concerning the diplo for techs thing. Again I disagree partially with the assessment that you're getting the techs for free. When you rush buy the thing, you're shelling out about 1000 bc plus about 10 for at least a couple hundred turns. This amounts to a cost of 3000bc. To build normally would take 60 turns. So here's what happens. I'm handing the AI a +20 diplo advantage in return for 2 techs that probably took only 15 turns to build under normal circumstances. The AI doesn't have to tie up its social queue to build it normally nor take the huge economic hit otherwise. In the grand scheme of things, they probably got a bargain out of it. After all, the player is out the 3000 credits...not the AI. Now if you paid out cash for those same techs (and if I'm recalling correctly, they were nano mining tech and trade), I could get them for 1000bc cash. So lets see.... 1000 bc plus another 2000 in interest for +20 diplo advtange item or 1000 bc in cash? Trade goods are definitely not valuable enough.

Again...those are the facts

SeanB

Freddybear.. perhaps if you took the time to read the newest update changes, you would realize the irrelevancy of your question. Knowledge and silence looks much better than blathering ignorance.

And the point is not to give the AI exploits. The point is to make it so neither the human or the AI players can use exploits. The dev team has already taken away what could be cosidered ai exploits because they were unbalancing.

fleabitfox

Here here guys. It seems the better the community has it- the more they whine... Ive been on many game forums where devs have come out and said "yeah, we know its unbalanced- but there's no money in it for us to patch it"
These guys actually care about making a fun balanced game and have and by anyone's standards there has been a TON of support for it by the devs. I really don't think these people realize how good they have it. They constantly make tweaks and changes, many of which are based on your input... they are making an expansion, for free and what do you do when you feel a balancing tweak goes to far? You insult and berate them. Where did these people decide that the only way to get noticed was to be rude and offensive? Sure, there's still balancing to be done- but that doesnt mean we should beat the devs with a stick until they do what we want. If anything, people should realize by now that they take notice of suggestions and particularly when there is a broad consensus they take action- no need to behave like children.

I for one, am amazed by the amount of support this game has gotten (its one of the reasons I bought it) and I can honestly say that I am literally disgusted by some of these whiners.... so go ahead and flame me.

To the devs, please realize that the majority of people that come to a forum do so because they want to complain about something not being to their liking. So, please don't assume that the proportions of bitching and whining that go on here are representative of the general gaming populace.... most of us really appreciate the work you do. Ive been reading these forums for a long time now- but this thread is the 1st thing that really motivated me to post.
[Message Edited]

I stand corrected on my diplo assesment...its 9300 normally, or about 32000 if you do the cheap lease. And in return the computer pays only 200 for it.

Now if you want to call this whining xiahou, then guilty as charged. I suppose anyone who dissents or has a legitimate complaint is also a whiner. How elitist of you. My sole interest is that this game either be fun or get better... not become tedious

SeanB

Now I'm usually an irreverent slapstick artist that really doesn't take much seriously, but sometimes ya just gotta comment on the silliness.

Frogboy: YOu don't update for the 2% that come in here and whine and cry like babies. You update for the 98% of us that like em, evaluate em, then make suggestions off them. You guys have gone above and beyond trying to give us a challenge. You don't always agree with my suggestions and sometimes your fixes don't quite work. But thank you to you and your staff. You've gone above and beyond. More than I've ever seen out of most companies. Just remember us next time you get angry at the 2%.

Now it's pretty clear that some of you want easy wins and points. It's also pretty clear that I am no Staffa. Not that I can't win (I always do) but but I can't run up points or crank out games like he can. I just don't have the patience he does. I never will. And I for one thought the dang thing was too easy with the trade goods. That Gravy train is gone. I will find another one. I have yet to be in serious jeapordy of losing. And on painful, I should lose IMO about half the time. With the trade goods, I easily whipped Painful. It's supposed to be painful. I should lose about half the time.

I'm amazed at how many of you don't know simple economics. Buy cheap, sell dear. There's a change in the system. Something is relatively more cheap. That means something else is relatively more dear. Adjust your strategy accordingly.

There will always be rule changes. A rule change merely requires a change in strategy. But this game remains the same. This is a power game. He who has the power, usually wins.

Codemonkey: You haven't had a kind word to say to Frogboy, or anyone else here yet. Why don't you actually practice some of that "personal accountabilty" you preach?

To the one that cursed up a storm: You are lucky I'm not Frogboy and don't work for him, though I think video game design would be my dream come true. Because If I were an empoyee here, you'd get the old ban cookie on your harddrive in a flash. And it would be the kind that you have to reformat the thing to erase.

Repeat after me.

It's a game.
It's a game.
It's a game.
It's for amusement only
It's for amusement only
It's for amusement only
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Ohhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Nope, Id call that a logical argument. If you and others wouldve replied like this originally instead of being abrasive and condescending like in ....#44 I doubt we'd be discussing this. My problem is how quickly people are willing to crucify the devs and tell them they are ruining a game, while demanding immediate changes in all of a 48hr period. That's ridiculous.
Good job calling me an elitist though- you really prove your point there. LOL

'I suppose anyone who dissents or has a legitimate complaint is also a whiner.'

Airing your issue in a polite, mature manner = good. Calling devs who have put out a plethora of updates even in between E3 and making an expansion lazy = rude.

gotta call a spade a spade.

fleabitfox

'I suppose anyone who dissents or has a legitimate complaint is also a whiner.'

Airing your issue in a polite, mature manner = good. Calling devs who have put out a plethora of updates even in between E3 and making an expansion lazy = rude.

gotta call a spade a spade.

fleabitfox


Well put fleabit.

I dont recall calling them lazy although I broached the idea that not testing a game properly after making updates is inexcusable, as there have been several incidents already where bugs have crept in, this build included (Terrorstars anyone). That's what I thought was the point behind the 1.04 beta test.

No, rude is saying that Moo3 with its code patch would be better than Galciv on 1.04 (and I'm not prepared to make that leap just yet)

Personally I'd like to see some of the bugs fixed such as disappearing starbases or ships, the Yor staying alive even though they have no planets, the MASSIVE slowdowns that take place on huge to gigantic galaxies, especially if military production > 0. Load times taking in excess of 5 to 10 minutes on an Athlon 1700+

SeanB