Close-mindedness In The Forums

[Wizzington]

Well the thing that's fun about losing is losing slowly; trying to bail the boat out as you slowly sink, and having perhaps some point you reach which affords you a moment's respite before you do it all over again. Actually I think a lot of games are like that really.

IDK, I've seen plenty of people burn their countries to the ground in EU4 because they refuse to cede 1 of their 312 provinces after being defeated in a war. People like to feel as if they're losing and then pull an upset win, most people don't like to feel like they're losing and then... lose.

 

[REDDQ]

Like, how are they actually, physically stopping the Blorg from using that system?

NATO counters would be awesome optional addition to Stellaris!

Spoiler

 

[Tim_Ward]

You're a NATO counter

 

[Wizzington]

My impression was that people didn't like it because it seemed arbitrary and unfair, because there's no clear sense of what was actually being represented by the border projection that stops the Blorg colonizing those systems.

When gamers start using words like "magically" and "teleport" to describe game mechanics they don't like, that's usually what's going on. In my experience at least.

But nobody would have cared if they'd done that to another country, it's just that it was done to 'them'. Nobody has ever complained that their borders are an invisible forcefield, just that the borders of others are as well. This is basically 'I get upset when the game thwarts my plans' problem, and once they're already upset they look for reasons to justify that feeling, so of course the realism arguments come out. You can argue for or against literally anything in a game with realism, which is why I generally consider it a nonstarter of an argument.

 

[TheBeautifulVoid2]

No worries, it's rewarding for me too. Even if I get frustrated sometimes because the HOI4 community won't shut up about NATO counters.

Wait until the Stellaris community discovers that spacecraft don't need fuel.

 

[Maizel]

IDK, I've seen plenty of people burn their countries to the ground in EU4 because they refuse to cede 1 of their 312 provinces after being defeated in a war. People like to feel as if they're losing and then pull an upset win, most people don't like to feel like they're losing and then... lose.

A game with ups and down is way more fun for me. Having unbridled growth and never any adversity is just no fun. I found that out when I stopped being a compulsive save-reloader in CK2 a few hundred hours of playtime ago. Only Ironman for me now, really.

Wait until the Stellaris community discovers that spacecraft don't need fuel.

Hah!

 

[BrokenSky]

IDK, I've seen plenty of people burn their countries to the ground in EU4 because they refuse to cede 1 of their 312 provinces after being defeated in a war. People like to feel as if they're losing and then pull an upset win, most people don't like to feel like they're losing and then... lose.

yeah that's true too. It's not that bailing out a sinking ship is fun, it's that games which make losing fun do so in my experience as a game player (I'm not a developer, I may well be completely wrong for the reasons you outlined before) by making losing slowly fun, and giving you the chance to strive to mitigate damage and maybe claw your way back to dominance. If it feels like losing one war ruins your chance at winning though, it doesn't matter how slowly you lose if loss feels inevitable.

 

[Wizzington]

A game with ups and down is way more fun for me. Having unbridled growth and never any adversity is just no fun. I found that out when I stopped being a compulsive save-reloader in CK2 a few hundred hours of playtime ago. Only Ironman for me now, really.

Sure, I'm this way too. People are different though, and even I can get frustrated in a pure loss situation (see: my ragequit when the AI completely boxed me in my home system with frontier outposts).

 

[Madzai]

Frontier Outposts drain influence, so you can't just spam as many of those as you want, though. Colonies are still important for borders.

But that's the cost of a colony, especially if you get 2-3(maybe 4?) star system together with a single colony? That's why it feels gamey - two or three colonies if you put all available resources into it, in right conditions, allow you to have successful Empire later and cut off your neighbors. In such conditions rush would be an only valid strategy, a thing, a lot of people don't quite are fond of. Sure, rush must be one of the successful strategies but not the only one as for games like GC3.

 

[Skyhunteren]

I do think though that the disagree button is a lazy kind of feedback. A reply, even if short, is always better.

I disagree with you and it is all about moving the discussion forward and not cluttering the thread. As part of my daily job I do lots of meetings and often with a large amount of people. Think 100+ It is horrible when people everybody needs to say "I disagree with that" or "I agree with that person" it slows down meeting terrible and at an online forum it can bloat a thread. Look at how many agree and disagree there is in this thread. If those had been posts instead, then this thread would be so large that few people would consider reading it. So a comment is not always prefferable, because we don't want 9 out of 10 comment to be "I disagree with X and agree with Y".

On the other hand the agree and disagree button is actuelly really helpful, especially if one or more people explain why they disagree. If for example I start a thread where I suggest that this game needs huge organic ships shapped as huge teddy bears, the first poster under me disagree because he don't want organic ships, but teddy bear ships are cool and the poster afterwards disagree because he think teddy bear ships are silly, but thinks that organic ships are cool. By looking at how people agree/disagree on those three posts we get a good understanding about what the majority of people think when it comes to organic and teddy bear ships.

 

[Wizzington]

But that's the cost of a colony, especially if you get 2-3(maybe 4?) star system together with a single colony? That's why it feels gamey - two or three colonies if you put all available resources into it, in right conditions, allow you to have successful Empire later and cut off your neighbors. In such conditions rush would be an only valid strategy, a thing, a lot of people don't quite are fond of. Sure, rush must be one of the successful strategies but not the only one as for games like GC3.

Most systems don't have habitable planets so it would be pretty difficult to build a star empire if colonies didn't project borders beyond their system.

 

[Dessic]

You know what else doesn't make realistic sense? Pretty much everything about the game. That's because it's a game, and not real life. You have the power to enforce your borders because the game is better that way. That's all there is to it, and that's all there needs to be to it.

I think there is a difference between 'realism' and 'verisimilitude' -- the illusion of plausibility. FTL travel is not realistic, but it's accepted as plausible in a far future setting in which people travel across interstellar distances.

 

[Denkt]

It can be, but usually it isn't, at least in the immediate term. If it was, difficult games would be far less niche than they are.

I did never talk about difficulty, but it is RP that keep many games alive for years to come. Crazy stuff like staying at tech 3 in europa universalis and see how long you can survive can be fun.

Stellairs seems to be all about RP, Im pretty sure I would get bored very quickly if I tried to do everything the best way possible.

In HOI4 maybe it will be fun to play with artillery only, it is those creative and crazy ways to play games that keep them fun.

I think the Stellairs stream is much better then it would be if you did not RP the game, what fun is it to watch a stream and the one playing the game say if we do so we get 0.1 more mineral per month

 

[Metztli]

And? What's your point? As long as a video game franchise entertains me I'm going to give them money. If they start making games I don't like I'll stop giving them money. It's not a hard concept.

I don't like being abused in that way.I guess you like it.Oh, well people are different

 

[Acularius]

From the stream last week.
The colony ship costed 350 minerals, which took a while to accrue.
Furthermore while the colony was undergoing the 'founding', it took a year with a monthly cost if 7.5 energy credit, which was most of his income. He certainly wouldn't have had 2 on the go.

 

[Wizzington]

I think there is a difference between 'realism' and 'verisimilitude' -- the illusion of plausibility. FTL travel is not realistic, but it's accepted as plausible in a far future setting in which people travel across interstellar distances.

Sure, immersion is important, but just because people are complaining about something from a realism standpoint doesn't mean the root cause of the problem is lack of immersion, because as I said, once people are bothered by something they will seek out justification for their feeling and realism is a super-easy way to critique a game... because games are not realistic.

 

[serpentskirt]

But that's the cost of a colony, especially if you get 2-3(maybe 4?) star system together with a single colony? That's why it feels gamey - two or three colonies if you put all available resources into it, in right conditions, allow you to have successful Empire later and cut off your neighbors. In such conditions rush would be an only valid strategy, a thing, a lot of people don't quite are fond of. Sure, rush must be one of the successful strategies but not the only one as for games like GC3.

I have written it several times in the other topic that with mechanics like divergence drift tied to happiness (tied to planetary type) and special events (like asteroids/pirates) one cannot transfer colony rush experience from the other games. You will not have ideal planets in close proximity most of the time to make it worth dumping all your resources in building new colonies alone.

 

[hjarg]

Sure, I'm this way too. People are different though, and even I can get frustrated in a pure loss situation (see: my ragequit when the AI completely boxed me in my home system with frontier outposts).

Ok, i'm not so sure about the range of wormhole portals, but basically, portal opens a wormhole beyond the enemy territory, you pass through without touching any hostile territory and you can to the other side without violating borders. Kind of makes sense...
Borders in deep space are dubious things anyway.

 

[REDDQ]

Getting kicked from a planetary system because other empire colonized neighbouring one is almost semi-realistic... is it good game mechanic though?

 

[Wizzington]

Ok, i'm not so sure about the range of wormhole portals, but basically, portal opens a wormhole beyond the enemy territory, you pass through without touching any hostile territory and you can to the other side without violating borders. Kind of makes sense...
Borders in deep space are dubious things anyway.

Fairly certain you can do this, as you won't path through any systems controlled by others. Haven't actually tried it though so can't say for 100% sure.

Getting kicked from a planetary system because other empire colonized neighbouring one is almost semi-realistic... is it good game mechanic though?

Yes, it is.