Beta 0.806-7 now out. Perfoooormance! :D

[x4000]

Release notes: http://arcengames.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Stars_Beyond_Reach_Beta_Release_Notes#Version_0.806

Boy it sure is a joy having Keith back fulltime, I have to say.  He's done some incredible work on the performance yesterday and today, and that is now released for your enjoyment.  There is still more to be done prior to 1.0, because some turns still take around 6 seconds or so in the late game, but we'll get to that a bit later on once we've settled down with some of the rest of the tuning of what is going on.

You can also once again see why a given placement location is invalid, which is... pretty key, actually.

And then the way resources work has been shifted to be a little more Civ-like, I suppose you could say.  No longer stockpiling them, but instead "having them or not" on a given turn.  It's a much cleaner approach that avoids some incentives for fiddling with enabling and disabling buildings to play optimally when you're an advanced player who is also a perfectionist.

Enjoy!

UPDATE: http://arcengames.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Stars_Beyond_Reach_Beta_Release_Notes#Version_0.807

The main purpose of that update is to fix the "cheap diners make no meals" bug (hard to play with that on, even though you could edit the file yourself to fix it), and then there's some other stuff that tagged along.

[TheVampire100]

That was fast oO
Hm, less resources. I think this is good. It bugged me a little that you can hoard huge amounts of resources without even knowing what they do or how you can use them. It was too easy to get a big amount of them. But maybe this needs to be tweaked higehr again, we have to see.

[crazyroosterman]

o my giddy aunt 3 updates in one day! I think I need to go to a dark room for a few seconds and calm down 0_0

[ptarth]

I actually liked the idea of stockpiling resources and having no idea what to do with them. Then, possibly later, being able to sell off my stockpile for millions to the AI, or being able to use it myself at a truly outrageous rate (e.g., Helium in the U.S). It made me think of the 2nd video animation as well. I never got the resource model functional enough to really care about them, so I suppose I don't much to say about their usefulness or importance.

[x4000]

UPDATE: http://arcengames.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Stars_Beyond_Reach_Beta_Release_Notes#Version_0.807

The main purpose of that update is to fix the "cheap diners make no meals" bug (hard to play with that on, even though you could edit the file yourself to fix it), and then there's some other stuff that tagged along.

----

Re: stockpiling resources.  While I do like being able to do that to some extent, anything that you can stockpile is something that often is hoarded.  In Final Fantasy 6, for instance, I get all these single-use throwing stars and whatnot for Shadow, and I never use them EVER because "I might need them later."  I've 100%ed that game half a dozen times at least, and yet despite my encyclopedic knowledge of most of that game, I still can't ever bring myself to use those weapons.  I'm not a hoarder normally, but when something is that hard to come by and seems to have disproportionate value, it makes for analysis paralysis for a lot of players.  It's had some interesting articles on Gamasutra about that, actually.

Anyway, that's bad enough, but then the other tendency which we've been all too familiar with from AI War is that if players feel like they can minmax by turning on and off little things -- even if it is boring as heck -- they will do it.  The whole "manufactories" thing in AI War probably chronicles that saga the best, but there were other examples as well.  Turn off the things you aren't using this instant in order to save whatever resource, then quickly turn them on when you need them, etc.  It's actually why there is a power cost to re-enable buildings in this game, come to that.

In general I never wanted to have a situation where the player was going "well I have all this Techetium, and I can either trade it for some benefit, or I can use some of it on this building over here, but only for a while because I don't want to waste it on that building when I'm not actually making full use of that building, and so maybe I'll just let the stockpile grow for now," etc.  That gets so so messy in terms of where the player's mind goes and how they choose to act.  Not everyone, but enough people that it's something that eventually winds up getting revised in order to appease the most hardcore players, so I might as well cut that issue off at the pass right now, heh.

[Cyborg]

UPDATE: http://arcengames.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Stars_Beyond_Reach_Beta_Release_Notes#Version_0.807

The main purpose of that update is to fix the "cheap diners make no meals" bug (hard to play with that on, even though you could edit the file yourself to fix it), and then there's some other stuff that tagged along.

----

Re: stockpiling resources.  While I do like being able to do that to some extent, anything that you can stockpile is something that often is hoarded.  In Final Fantasy 6, for instance, I get all these single-use throwing stars and whatnot for Shadow, and I never use them EVER because "I might need them later."  I've 100%ed that game half a dozen times at least, and yet despite my encyclopedic knowledge of most of that game, I still can't ever bring myself to use those weapons.  I'm not a hoarder normally, but when something is that hard to come by and seems to have disproportionate value, it makes for analysis paralysis for a lot of players.  It's had some interesting articles on Gamasutra about that, actually.

Anyway, that's bad enough, but then the other tendency which we've been all too familiar with from AI War is that if players feel like they can minmax by turning on and off little things -- even if it is boring as heck -- they will do it.  The whole "manufactories" thing in AI War probably chronicles that saga the best, but there were other examples as well.  Turn off the things you aren't using this instant in order to save whatever resource, then quickly turn them on when you need them, etc.  It's actually why there is a power cost to re-enable buildings in this game, come to that.

In general I never wanted to have a situation where the player was going "well I have all this Techetium, and I can either trade it for some benefit, or I can use some of it on this building over here, but only for a while because I don't want to waste it on that building when I'm not actually making full use of that building, and so maybe I'll just let the stockpile grow for now," etc.  That gets so so messy in terms of where the player's mind goes and how they choose to act.  Not everyone, but enough people that it's something that eventually winds up getting revised in order to appease the most hardcore players, so I might as well cut that issue off at the pass right now, heh.

I am guilty of all of these behaviors, as a player.

[x4000]

I wasn't specifically thinking of you, but in retrospect you are definitely one of the key ones that I recall being involved in all that.  And frankly I'm guilty of most of those behaviors, too.  Except that I just throw my hands up with the minmaxing past a certain point and just go "f it, I could be a better player if I did that, but I only care up to a certain point and I'd rather have fun."  So I don't get the same frustration you do of actually DOING the minmaxing in that case, but I do get the same disgruntled feeling of doing things in a "nonoptimal" way.

Honestly I think it's important for a game to try to avoid putting the player in those positions, because it's a natural tendency of people.  Particularly detail-oriented people, which is most strategy game players.

[Misery]

Hey, performance update!  That's good, those long turns had been testing the patience that I dont actually have.

Though I havent been able to play much over the last couple of days (arm flared up again, I'm blaming the weather) but I'll be starting a new game (again) a little later in the night here. 

By the way, what's the point of the civic center?  It seems to start new cities, but I could never get it to do so while not being attached directly to the main city, which means.... it's still the main city essentially, which is confusing....

[Captain Jack]

Oh geez, I was getting by the musicless beta with podcasts, but now I'm going to put the FFVI ost on a loop, and that's going to make me want to play it again, and look there go my productivity numbers. Thanks Chris. Thanks a LOT.

(Not that it wasn't going to happen anyway, my copy of Xenoblade 3D just arrived...)

[crazyroosterman]

you know for some reason I thought I the cheap diner thing was intentional 0_0(still glad its fixed though middle eateries are to bloody expensive to be putting down willy nilly)

[ptarth]

By the way, what's the point of the civic center?  It seems to start new cities, but I could never get it to do so while not being attached directly to the main city, which means.... it's still the main city essentially, which is confusing....

You can place them within the personal transport range of your city. Personal Transport range is increased by Helipad and Air Cargo bays. However, they only generate it from their locations. So you'll need to build a chain of Helipads to the location of your new city, then place the civic center.

My problem isn't that I don't use them. It's that I don't see a need for a second city. Managing the first one is hard enough, and there really isn't a good way to have cities support each other. It does spread out the population penalty, which makes things easier, but in the end I just need the one-mega city.

[x4000]

Cheers guys.

Regarding second cities, there actually are some extremely viable reasons for wanting to do that, but it's not something I'd recommend for new players.  For one thing, you can put smog and whatnot over there, and it will ship to your secondary city.  The other cities will also take trash overflow and whatever else if they have the room.  With the electrical towers you can ship electricity from one to the next.

If you're doing something that is very likely to piss off the planet a lot, you can concentrate that in a smaller city that is very heavily defended and that doesn't have your key other buildings in it, and then have the planet really bang on that smaller city while leaving your main one more alone.

A lot of those things don't have much relevance now since the AIs and the planet don't come after you aggressively, if at all.  When just looking at a civilization as an isolated thing unworried with outside forces, yes there's practically no reason for multiple cities.  When you start looking outward, and there's legitimate pressure, there's a host of good reasons though.

[Misery]

Regarding second cities, there actually are some extremely viable reasons for wanting to do that, but it's not something I'd recommend for new players.  For one thing, you can put smog and whatnot over there, and it will ship to your secondary city. 

Haha, I read that (incorrectly) and my first thought was "But wait, why would I want them to ship me even MORE smog?"   Oh geez that's a sign I should really get to bed already here.

If I'm understanding it correctly, the concept sounds quite interesting, though I guess not quite ready for experimenting with in the game's current state.  Though at the speed you guys typically do things it probably wont take long, hah.

[TheVampire100]

If you're doing something that is very likely to piss off the planet a lot, you can concentrate that in a smaller city that is very heavily defended and that doesn't have your key other buildings in it, and then have the planet really bang on that smaller city while leaving your main one more alone.

Question time!
This bothered me a long while: What does the planet actually dom, when you make him angry? He is no faction on his own,s o he has of course no army he can send to you. Unless these monsters are part of the planet but even then, they don't attack. Or will he produce new tiles like volcanoes? Or is it even not implemented yet?

[x4000]

Haha, have a good sleep.   

And yep, at the moment there's no real reason TO have two cities... but I can't really think of many reasons not to, either.

Oh, actually: disease is a big one.  If you have a front-line city that is doing all the fighting with enemies, then that one will be the one to contract all the diseases.  Not having that spread to your larger-population main city would save you a ton of grief, and a CDC in the main city could still get a vaccine out there.  Being sick in your attacker city would make it so that you'd be less able to attack and do things there, but it wouldn't slow you down in your main city.

Having multiple cities in general creates a certain amount of firewalling.  If you lose a reactor in city A and there is a bunch of crime and whatever, then that doesn't affect city B, making it easier for you to rebuild, etc.

Oh!  And larger cities have bigger problems with crime and trash and whatnot in general.  It's not linear growth, so two cities of 10k citizens each will have less combined trash and crime than one city of 20k will.  I'm not sure exactly what the difference is in that particular example, but it might be on the order of 20% less trash and crime there.  Maybe as little as 10%, but it's definitely nontrivial.

So it turns out there are some good reasons for multiple cities even now, but they are subtle.