General Category > Stars Beyond Reach Beta Phase 1-2 Discussion

Cyborg's updated review

<< < (3/4) > >>

kasnavada:
::)

Another thing to consider is how it's going to affect the player.
- As a 4X player, I think I should expand because I've got something to do. My economy crashing if I don't expand all the time is not going to be very popular. I can't really pinpoint why but the idea of buildings giving less money as time go buy sounds like forcing me to rush all the time.
- It's certainly a "unique" idea. Then again, why didn't anyone implement that ? I don't have the reasons here but I think it's worth looking up. Sometimes no one stumbled upon something, other times it's because no one ever made it work and fun.
- On an gameplay point of view, it adds a layer of complexity for min-maxers as it's plain better to build in batches rather than rewarding planning. Also there is a need to view how you can fit destroying and destroyed building in there. It looks like it's going to be very complex to put in place, complex to use, for meager benefits.
- what is it planning to accomplish ? Giving mid / end game goals ? There are other ways to give "fun" to the player, proved one, which exist in the competition (from Civ5 alone: conquering an opponent, getting new ressources when you unlock one, making a new city, new "missions" from city states, new menaces like barbarians and wars...). And there still is original ideas and other competition to look at.

So... no I'm not convinced. Maybe it can work.

Zebeast46:

--- Quote from: kasnavada on July 02, 2015, 01:51:36 am ---::)

Another thing to consider is how it's going to affect the player.
- As a 4X player, I think I should expand because I've got something to do. My economy crashing if I don't expand all the time is not going to be very popular. I can't really pinpoint why but the idea of buildings giving less money as time go buy sounds like forcing me to rush all the time.
- It's certainly a "unique" idea. Then again, why didn't anyone implement that ? I don't have the reasons here but I think it's worth looking up. Sometimes no one stumbled upon something, other times it's because no one ever made it work and fun.
- On an gameplay point of view, it adds a layer of complexity for min-maxers as it's plain better to build in batches rather than rewarding planning. Also there is a need to view how you can fit destroying and destroyed building in there. It looks like it's going to be very complex to put in place, complex to use, for meager benefits.
- what is it planning to accomplish ? Giving mid / end game goals ? There are other ways to give "fun" to the player, proved one, which exist in the competition (from Civ5 alone: conquering an opponent, getting new ressources when you unlock one, making a new city, new "missions" from city states, new menaces like barbarians and wars...). And there still is original ideas and other competition to look at.

So... no I'm not convinced. Maybe it can work.


--- End quote ---

Yeah, I am not really sure it will work and you gave good points,, I guess i should thank everyone who responded with feedback.

tombik:
Now I got your point, also read kasnavada's comment and i have one more thing to add:

- losing some buildings in endgame would be devastating with needing more buildings to sustain themselves.

kasnavada:
;)

I still think you can propose it. Well Chris will read that eventually, maybe it'll spin his head into something great.

tombik:
Btw, I just came up with a more balanced implementation for inflation.

If it is correlated with total number of buildings in the world -not with time-, it will be balanced, and cant be manipulated that easily. With also more interaction between physical wealth versus financial wealth (factories and banks and optimal mix of them), race for dominating economy would be interesting enough for being a victory condition :)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page