Interesting...Oberlus wrote: ↑Sun Jul 10, 2022 4:07 pm OK, not so fast.
Thematically, it makes sense to unlock Confederation much earlier: it is nothing related to any technology/research in the tech tree, it makes sense to have that concept and its general techniques well developed before becoming a spacefaring species.
Let's unlock Confederation at start for everyone and allow certain species to adopt it for free?
Independent Happiness species trait could be renamed to Independent for this purpose. Independent species should not dislike Confederation.
Confederation empires should not get stability bonuses from IRAs, because it makes no sense (IRAs represent the tentacles of centralized government), and to compensate the loss of stability, Confederation could give some mild stability bonus (+1 instead of current -1). Coupled with liking Confederation, a net +3, which will be usually higher than the average bonus from IRAs. Species that dislike Confederation would have a net -1 stability from Confederation.
If, for whatever reason, the overall stability is too low for Confederation empires to be competitive with empires going other routes (Bureaucracy, Indoctrination...), Independent species could get an extra bonus from Confederation, aside from liking it. But I think to find that out will require playtesting rather than thinking.
Another random argument with Oberlus
Moderator: Oberlus
Another random argument with Oberlus
Re: State of Art for disconnected empires
LienRag, every time you quote a post (or fragment) to say "interesting" and nothing else...
Should I take those as "+1 / good idea / I like it" or just spam?
Should I take those as "+1 / good idea / I like it" or just spam?
Re: State of Art for disconnected empires
Why would it be spam ?
When I find the idea interesting, I do write that I find it interesting.
If I find that it would need testing, I write that it would need testing.
If I really like the idea and consider that I'm sure about what results it will produce, I write that it's a good idea.
You've put interesting ideas in the post I quoted, indeed.
I probably like your proposal (time will tell) but at least it's something to be explored further to see where it leads.
When I find the idea interesting, I do write that I find it interesting.
If I find that it would need testing, I write that it would need testing.
If I really like the idea and consider that I'm sure about what results it will produce, I write that it's a good idea.
You've put interesting ideas in the post I quoted, indeed.
I probably like your proposal (time will tell) but at least it's something to be explored further to see where it leads.
Re: State of Art for disconnected empires
"Interesting" is pretty ambiguous.
Spam because it contributes nothing except one more post in the thread to skim over.
Which ones? Why? Which ones are not interesting and why?You've put interesting ideas in the post I quoted, indeed.
Spam because it contributes nothing except one more post in the thread to skim over.
Re: State of Art for disconnected empires
Indeed it does, but I fail to see how it does it more so than "+1", "good idea" or "I like it".
Really ? To me it's quite clear : probably a good idea, at least a path to explore further.
At first I wanted to specify that, then I noticed that what you proposed was quite a full package and it did not make that much sense to separate the ideas from each other.
"Thematically, it makes sense to unlock Confederation much earlier: it is nothing related to any technology/research in the tech tree, it makes sense to have that concept and its general techniques well developed before becoming a spacefaring species."
I agree with that. Gaining more elaborate Empire shapes with research is a good thing, but not when deciding to go disconnected, which is an early decision.
"Let's unlock Confederation at start for everyone and allow certain species to adopt it for free?"
Logical conclusion of the former. Probably needs some testing.
Also, someone may come with an even better idea.
"Independent Happiness species trait could be renamed to Independent for this purpose. Independent species should not dislike Confederation."
Why not ?
"Confederation empires should not get stability bonuses from IRAs, because it makes no sense (IRAs represent the tentacles of centralized government), and to compensate the loss of stability, Confederation could give some mild stability bonus (+1 instead of current -1). Coupled with liking Confederation, a net +3, which will be usually higher than the average bonus from IRAs. Species that dislike Confederation would have a net -1 stability from Confederation."
Didn't think about the first proposal, it's an interesting path, certainly needs testing.
Maybe all these ideas need each other to work well, maybe they could be separated, I don't know.
"If, for whatever reason, the overall stability is too low for Confederation empires to be competitive with empires going other routes (Bureaucracy, Indoctrination...), Independent species could get an extra bonus from Confederation, aside from liking it. But I think to find that out will require playtesting rather than thinking. "
Not sure whether you plan balance though very different gameplay there or if you plan balance by making paths equivalent (like you did with LIberty/Conformance), so I can't say whether I like it or not.
Re: State of Art for disconnected empires
The "+1" makes it clear one likes/wants/approves the idea.
"Interesting" is not used to convey that meaning.
Interesting how you cannot see it by yourself.
Because, if the point of going Confederation is to have a disconnected empire without much of a loss in stability (and influence), but species intended for disconnected empires dislike the policy, the result is a species that will have a hard time going the disconnected empire route.
Also, everything needs testing, always.
Unless you are saying "I think this is bad, although it might be good, although I can't say why", and in that case you are saying something useful: there is at least one player that thinks the idea is bad.
"Interesting" is not used to convey that meaning.
Annoying comment with no information that you place in some other recent post of yours. But I know you are not a bot.
Interesting how you cannot see it by yourself.
A question. Good.
Because, if the point of going Confederation is to have a disconnected empire without much of a loss in stability (and influence), but species intended for disconnected empires dislike the policy, the result is a species that will have a hard time going the disconnected empire route.
Something you didn't think about is interesting to you. Uninteresting.
Also, everything needs testing, always.
Maybe this is good, maybe this is bad. Maybe this can be done, maybe this cannot be done. May this, maybe the opposite. But you don't know, so what's the point on saying anything in the first place?
Unless you are saying "I think this is bad, although it might be good, although I can't say why", and in that case you are saying something useful: there is at least one player that thinks the idea is bad.
Maybe you need to think about it before you can say anything interesting about it.LienRag wrote: ↑Mon Jul 11, 2022 2:13 pm "If, for whatever reason, the overall stability is too low for Confederation empires to be competitive with empires going other routes (Bureaucracy, Indoctrination...), Independent species could get an extra bonus from Confederation, aside from liking it. But I think to find that out will require playtesting rather than thinking. "
Not sure whether you plan balance though very different gameplay there or if you plan balance by making paths equivalent (like you did with LIberty/Conformance), so I can't say whether I like it or not.
Re: Another random argument with Oberlus
Indeed.
That's why I write "interesting" : it summarizes the whole in one word, when detailing the explanation, as you just saw, doesn't add much more usable information.
That's why I write "interesting" : it summarizes the whole in one word, when detailing the explanation, as you just saw, doesn't add much more usable information.
Re: Another random argument with Oberlus
Interesting.
Re: Another random argument with Oberlus
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.
Look, ma... four combat bouts!
Look, ma... four combat bouts!
Re: Another random argument with Oberlus
I do listen, doesn't mean that I will agree if the argumentation is not logically valid.wobbly wrote: ↑Sun Jul 31, 2022 4:43 amYou don't ever listen to people do you...
https://www.freeorion.org/forum/viewtop ... =2&t=12481
I may stop doing it for your or Oberlus' posts if it (for apparently no reason) bothers you, I will certainly not stop doing it about other people's posts as long as it doesn't bother them.
Re: Another random argument with Oberlus
LienRag, my argumentation was logically valid. You disagree on my axioms (the meanings of "interesting" and the usefulness of using it as the only content of a post).
You are quite full of yoursef if you think that anything you disgree with is automatically invalid.
You are quite full of yoursef if you think that anything you disgree with is automatically invalid.
Re: Another random argument with Oberlus
Most people will be too polite to tell you it bothers them. Or they'll think it not worth the effort, as you have a clear and visible history of not listening when people try to tell you these things.
Re: Another random argument with Oberlus
You guys always jump the wrong way. Is not Lienrag actually complimenting you, and its just a language barrier issue
If I wrote -
Thats an interesting concept, and I would like to come back and discuss it further, when I have thought about it a little more.
Achieves nothing, but is polite, and complimentary, indicating I am thinking this has merit, but I may not understand it yet and would like to think about it.
Yes you can argue there is no abosulte reason to type anything, however some people are just like that and it can be a honest attempt to just say "Wow thats smart, and I want to help"
If I wrote -
Thats an interesting concept, and I would like to come back and discuss it further, when I have thought about it a little more.
Achieves nothing, but is polite, and complimentary, indicating I am thinking this has merit, but I may not understand it yet and would like to think about it.
Yes you can argue there is no abosulte reason to type anything, however some people are just like that and it can be a honest attempt to just say "Wow thats smart, and I want to help"
Re: Another random argument with Oberlus
Then you'd have used a full sentence and I'd understand the meaning through the context.
Interesting by itself is meaningless. Interesting good. Interesting bad. Interesting weird. The word interesting as a response is quite commonly used as a subtle way to poke fun at someone speaking, due to the fact it can have multiple meanings, depending on interpretation.
Re: Another random argument with Oberlus
Yes to me and you, and others.wobbly wrote: ↑Mon Aug 01, 2022 4:04 amThen you'd have used a full sentence and I'd understand the meaning through the context.
Interesting by itself is meaningless. Interesting good. Interesting bad. Interesting weird. The word interesting as a response is quite commonly used as a subtle way to poke fun at someone speaking, due to the fact it can have multiple meanings, depending on interpretation.
For example look at this heading of this thread - Another random argument with Oberlus
Lol, I PM'd Lienrag, and asked him why was he baiting Oberlus, but he did not understand what I meant. He honestly wanted to discuss it with Oberlus, but felt he would not get anywhere.