List of worthless/broken game mechanics

For what's not in 'Top Priority Game Design'. Post your ideas, visions, suggestions for the game, rules, modifications, etc.

Moderator: Oberlus

Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
L29Ah
Space Squid
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2016 3:19 pm

List of worthless/broken game mechanics

#1 Post by L29Ah »

Bombardment UI is broken for years, and the effect is questionable at best: it makes more sense to capture the planet and use its productive capacity than to leave it for the enemy to observe your troops.

Bioterror is fucked up beyond any reason. Same for Artificial moon and Genome bank, since it's just useless w/o Bioterror.

Force-Energy Camouflage is completely useless.

Gaia Transformation gives a tiny bonus at quite a high cost. Artifical planet gives 5x more living space for the same cost. And you are better off capturing planets instead of improving them at such a game stage anyway.

Scrying Sphere is useless garbage.

Black Hole Collapser sounds cool, but if you're able to activate it, the system is actually much more likely to be useful to you intact.

Spinal Antimatter Cannon is trivially countered by a lot of empty hulls (that are also useful against other weapons) or otherwise small ships. No one sends capital ships w/o decoy anyway.

Shields beyond the first one aren't a good investment, but it's being worked on.

Zero-point fuel generator is garbage.

Planetary phasing cloak tech sounds badass, but has a shitload of prerequisites, and by the time you can research it, your adversary can (and will, since it improves the scanning range dramatically) just grab the next scanner tech that makes stealth obsolete altogether and costs cheaper than the cloaking tech (if you include the otherwise-useless planetary cloaking prerequisites). Planetary cloaking only works in the early game in fact, then it becomes a RP liability, since the enemy can disrupt your supply and fleet consolidation efforts even w/o seeing the planets.

Sentient hull's bonus is nil at the time you reach it. And it's inferior to its prerequisites if we evaluate its other properties.

Mini asteroid swarm has a lot of expensive prerequisites and no use cases.

Organic war adaptation and Solarweb aren't very powerful, and you're usually better off installing another laser instead (or switching to plasma altogether as it costs the same amount of RP), especially since the bonus will only get applied at the next turn after arriving in the system.

Happiness beyond 10 does nothing but a lot of stuff influences it, giving an illusion of meaningfulness.

Infrastructure does nothing, though it's displayed in the stats and even has a special that buffs it.

Panopticon special is worth half a detection tech and by the time you can defeat the monster that's guarding it the stealth mechanics is becoming useless regardless.


It might be that i've forgotten some other entities, but even now it seems like half of the game mechanics are effectively unusable.
Team S.M.A.C.: play multiplayer with us!

User avatar
The Silent One
Graphics
Posts: 1129
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 8:27 pm

Re: List of worthless/broken game mechanics

#2 Post by The Silent One »

Good list, I couldn't agree more. Any suggestions how to deal with the issues you reported?
If I provided any images, code, scripts or other content here, it's released under GPL 2.0 and CC-BY-SA 3.0.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: List of worthless/broken game mechanics

#3 Post by Oberlus »

For bombardment, it is agreed (by some at least) it has some interesting use cases, but the UI is broken.
Someone who knows C++ and FreeOrion code base should fix it, eventually, but there are other things with more priority.

Genome Bank makes Bioterror quite useless indeed. There are no suggestions to fix it AFAIK.

Artificial Moon adds half a stealth level (+10) to buildings in the planet and allied fleets in the system. Hiding your buildings to the enemy is arguably useful, but only in a very limited range of cases.
Buffing it to +20 or +30 seems reasonable, but still a bit broken because of current stealth mechanics that makes stealth completely useless late game. Anyways, should it be actually useful, it would become a spamalot building without proper upkeep mechanics.

Force Energy Camouflage adds a stealth level (+20) to all buildings, more useful than Art. Moon (not a building) but still rather limited use due to stealth mechanics.

For stealth in combat there is a proposal.
It's on my TODO (sights).
Something similar should be devised for non-combat and planetary stealth.

Gaia Transformation gives a sizeable population bonus to good planets: +37.5% population. It has its uses in certain systems. Cost is probably not properly balanced (as many other things).
It will have more interest once happiness gets more roles, as expected once Government/Influence/Multispecies-management is introduced in the game. And will probably become a policy instead of a building.

I can not see any interest for Scrying Sphere.

Black Hole Collapser has a use: close an entrance to your space so that you can ignore that door an focus on others. Useful late game when facing more/stronger enemies than you can manage.

Spinal Antimatter Cannon "should" use a different targetting scheme: proportional to base hull structure of targets.
An example: if targets are 10 small ships with base hull structure 20 and 1 big ship with 100 base hull structure, each small ship would have 6.67% chance to be targeted and the big ship would have 33.33% chance.
It is arguably if other single-shot weapons should use the same targeting scheme.

With current (cheaper) costs, shields beyond first one are good investment for bigger hulls when facing cannons. Do the math.
The same than PD weapons are useless against enemies without fighters, shields are useless against enemies without cannons. The player should adapt his ship designs to the enemy's.

Zero-Point Fuel Generator is useful for behind enemy lines skirmishes with hulls with little fuel (which are many since last rework of fuel mechanics).

Many hulls (not only Sentient or Mini-asteroid swarm) needs rebalancing, but they are not useless. TODO.

Organic War Adaptation and Solar Web need rebalance. Doable. TODO.

Infrastructure is a tough one. It is used for defense regeneration, mostly. It might be useful for something else in the future. TODO.

Panopticon should give at least a whole detection level (+20) and be guarded by less powerful monsters. Good suggestion here. TODO.
L29Ah wrote: Fri May 08, 2020 6:50 pm It might be that i've forgotten some other entities
Don't you think these are enough for you to pick one and work on it? I understand it is easier to point out what you don't like than to fix it yourself :twisted:

User avatar
labgnome
Juggernaut
Posts: 833
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: List of worthless/broken game mechanics

#4 Post by labgnome »

L29Ah wrote: Fri May 08, 2020 6:50 pm Bombardment UI is broken for years, and the effect is questionable at best: it makes more sense to capture the planet and use its productive capacity than to leave it for the enemy to observe your troops.
Bombardment should be useful for Xenophobic species. But I don't like to play as those so I can't really give much in the way of feedback. Maybe earlier development in the tech tree? They should be cheaper than troop pods for sure. Maybe half as much?
Bioterror is fucked up beyond any reason. Same for Artificial moon and Genome bank, since it's just useless w/o Bioterror.
I've proposed making bioterror into an influence project.
Gaia Transformation gives a tiny bonus at quite a high cost. Artifical planet gives 5x more living space for the same cost. And you are better off capturing planets instead of improving them at such a game stage anyway.
I've said before that I think terraforming should be made available in the early game, among other changes to the mechanic, and that would allow gaia transformation to be moved to the mid-game.
Scrying Sphere is useless garbage.
I think that the scrying sphere is an interesting idea, and I could potentially see tying influence projects to it, but I don't have anything fleshed out yet.
Planetary phasing cloak tech sounds badass, but has a shitload of prerequisites, and by the time you can research it, your adversary can (and will, since it improves the scanning range dramatically) just grab the next scanner tech that makes stealth obsolete altogether and costs cheaper than the cloaking tech (if you include the otherwise-useless planetary cloaking prerequisites). Planetary cloaking only works in the early game in fact, then it becomes a RP liability, since the enemy can disrupt your supply and fleet consolidation efforts even w/o seeing the planets.
The upcoming New Tech Tree might be able to help address this issue.
Happiness beyond 10 does nothing but a lot of stuff influences it, giving an illusion of meaningfulness.
I've proposed adding bonuses to various planetary foci based on happiness (which might get re-named stability).
Infrastructure does nothing, though it's displayed in the stats and even has a special that buffs it.
Infrastructure controls shield/defense regeneration. But that isn't obvious. Personally I think buildings should consume infrastructure.
All of my contributions should be considered released under creative commons attribution share-alike license, CC-BY-SA 3.0 for use in, by and with the Free Orion project.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: List of worthless/broken game mechanics

#5 Post by Oberlus »

labgnome wrote: Fri May 08, 2020 10:47 pmBombardment should be useful for Xenophobic species.
Xenophobic have Conc. Camps, much better than killing population off if you can invade them.
The real use for bombardment is for behind-enemy-lines skirmishes, with fast, high fuel ships without reinforcements (no troops for invasion) that play scorched earth on enemy lands (I can't conquer you but I can screw you hard).
Maybe earlier development in the tech tree? They should be cheaper than troop pods for sure. Maybe half as much?
They are rather cheap since they don't get spend on each use. Problem is not price, problem is UI is broken, as commented in my post above yours.
I think that the scrying sphere is an interesting idea, and I could potentially see tying influence projects to it, but I don't have anything fleshed out yet.
Scrying sphere only works on other planets with scrying sphere. No body builds it and then it has no use. Something influence-based that uses it would be something different.
Planetary phasing cloak
The upcoming New Tech Tree might be able to help address this issue.
Would be interesting to know how.
I've proposed adding bonuses to various planetary foci based on happiness (which might get re-named stability).
Links? Is it developed? How does it fit with future influence mechanics regarding multispecies management?
Personally I think buildings should consume infrastructure.
And I've commented on why that would not work, several times. Example:
Oberlus wrote: Sat May 02, 2020 8:01 am
labgnome wrote: Sat May 02, 2020 4:26 amOne idea I've brought up before is having buildings cost infrastructure, and I think that having shipyards and their upgrades cost infrastructure might be a way to make that even more of a strategic choice.
Requiring infrastructure won't work either, because if you can build the shipyard facilities in a planet, then you can do it also in the rest of planets since they all have the roughly the same target infrastructure.

User avatar
labgnome
Juggernaut
Posts: 833
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: List of worthless/broken game mechanics

#6 Post by labgnome »

Oberlus wrote: Sat May 09, 2020 10:20 am
labgnome wrote: Fri May 08, 2020 10:47 pmBombardment should be useful for Xenophobic species.
Xenophobic have Conc. Camps, much better than killing population off if you can invade them.
The real use for bombardment is for behind-enemy-lines skirmishes, with fast, high fuel ships without reinforcements (no troops for invasion) that play scorched earth on enemy lands (I can't conquer you but I can screw you hard).
Bombardment still strikes me as something that should be used by xenophobes. But mostly for flavor and fluff reasons.
Scrying sphere only works on other planets with scrying sphere. No body builds it and then it has no use. Something influence-based that uses it would be something different.
My general thoughts were that scrying spheres would allow direct lines of communication and thus allow influence projects to travel through them. That that still doesn't solve the problem of no one building them. Maybe have each empire start with one one their capitol? I don't know. Although if they were a starting building I'd re-name them to "ansible". I might have them also boost supply and detection range.
The upcoming New Tech Tree might be able to help address this issue.
Would be interesting to know how.
Decoupling detection and stealth for one thing, also I said might be.
I've proposed adding bonuses to various planetary foci based on happiness (which might get re-named stability).
Links? Is it developed? How does it fit with future influence mechanics regarding multispecies management?
It was technically for "stability", and can be seen here. It doesn't do anything special with the influence mechanic or multi-species management. However I could see low happiness/stability costing more upkeep and low happiness/stability costing more upkeep.

For clarity I have quoted it here:
labgnome wrote: Sat Jun 08, 2019 12:15 am Assuming a scale of 0 to 100 stability, maybe something like the following:
  • Stability at 50: cannot produce new colony
  • Stability at 40: cannot repair ships, -20% troops
  • Stability at 30: cannot build buildings, -20% troops (-40% total)
  • Stability at 20: cannot build ships, -20% troops (-60% total)
  • Stability at 10: cannot use focus-boosting buildings (Industrial Center ect...), -20% troops (-80% total)
  • Stability at 0: planet is lost, -20% troops/0 troops (-100% total)
You could also have bonuses for high stability like the following:
  • Stability at 60: +20% focus output
  • Stability at 70: -1 ship build time, +20% focus output (+40% total)
  • Stability at 80: -1 ship build time (-2 total), -1 building build time, +20% focus output (+60% total)
  • Stability at 90: -1 ship build time (-3 total), -1 building build time (-2 total), +20% focus output (+80% total)
  • Stability at 100: -1 ship build time (-4 total), -1 building build time (-3 total), +20% focus output/2x focus output (+100% total)
Oberlus wrote: Sat May 02, 2020 8:01 am
labgnome wrote: Sat May 02, 2020 4:26 amOne idea I've brought up before is having buildings cost infrastructure, and I think that having shipyards and their upgrades cost infrastructure might be a way to make that even more of a strategic choice.
Requiring infrastructure won't work either, because if you can build the shipyard facilities in a planet, then you can do it also in the rest of planets since they all have the roughly the same target infrastructure.
It still makes the choice more strategic, if you make buildings consume enough infrastructure that you cannot build everything in the same place. IE: having to choose to specialize your shipyards as robotic, or organic or energy. Maybe having to decide weather or not to build a drydock. Yes it doesn't solve everything, and I do think that upkeep will be necessary, but I think that this is also a good measure to take. However I don't think that upkeep will solve everything either, as you can just build everything at one place, and that isn't strategic either. Upkeep will help make placement strategic by limiting the number of of buildings you can build, but have infrastructure consumption will mean each planet will only have so much room for buildings and thus force you to be more strategic in placement.
All of my contributions should be considered released under creative commons attribution share-alike license, CC-BY-SA 3.0 for use in, by and with the Free Orion project.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: List of worthless/broken game mechanics

#7 Post by Oberlus »

labgnome wrote: Sat May 09, 2020 2:25 pm Maybe have each empire start with one one their capitol?
Start the game with a mid-end game building supposed to be powerful... Seems like a bad idea.
What I meant by "would be something different" is that they should be something totally different, not the current mechanic of "planets with a scrying sphere can see each other". Just something totally different like "scrying spheres are some sort of amplifying antennae for panfrequency waves", that does not need scrying spheres on destination to work. That is: reuse the art and nothing else.
Decoupling detection and stealth for one thing
That can be done in this tech tree too. It would solve some of the problems.
labgnome wrote: Sat Jun 08, 2019 12:15 am [Stability]
It would be good to have that fitting in current tech tree, with current mechanics (I see this thread more about current tech tree anyways). For that we need techs and ways to increase happiness, for now we just have some default values and very few stuff that increases it.

It still makes the choice more strategic, if you make buildings consume enough infrastructure that you cannot build everything in the same place. IE: having to choose to specialize your shipyards as robotic, or organic or energy. Maybe having to decide weather or not to build a drydock. Yes it doesn't solve everything [...] Upkeep will help make placement strategic by limiting the number of of buildings you can build, but have infrastructure consumption will mean each planet will only have so much room for buildings and thus force you to be more strategic in placement.
Maybe you are not very to typical ways of playing FreeOrion when adversaries are capable of some skilled play?
Usually, one goes for a single hull line (going for two is suboptimal).
Even if you go for several hull lines, there is no problem at all in building each set of shipyard upgrades in a different planet.
And you can build the drydock for a non-robotic ship-bulding system in a planet different than the one with the whatever-other-hull-line shipyard planet.
Really, labgnome, that suggestion solves absolutely nothing.

The only effect of it is forbidding a player to build all the stuff together, and that is not something we need to enforce in the game. What if I want to have a huge Trantor world with everything centralized on it (along with a Stargate)? Is that bad for gameplay in any way? Not a all. You might think that is not strategic at all, I might agree with you, or not, but that is not the point because that is nothing related to the game goals (avoid micromanagement and no-brainers, among others). In fact, being able to do things in different ways is certainly a good thing to have.

Upkeep might not solve everything, but solves many things, and certainly more than zero. Also, upkeep is something already decided (AFAIK) and that is out of discussion in this thread. I just wanted to point out that your suggestion of requiring infrastructure for buildings serves no purpose.

Summing up: we want to force placement of buildings to be something to be decided upon because of pros and cons, but not to limit those strategic decisions. That is, we don't wont to force the player to do (subjectively) wise decisions, we just want to avoid no-brainers (there is always a best decision, no need to think) and micromanagement (click, click, click, click):
  • "Close to border or away from it? All key buildings centralized with a strong defense or distributed between separate systems harder to defend but more esilient? Hmm... I can't build everything everywhere so I better decide wisely" <- OK.
  • "I can afford building everything everywhere so what's the point on choosing between centralized and distributed or close? " <- WRONG
  • "I can only do it distributed" <- WRONG

User avatar
labgnome
Juggernaut
Posts: 833
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: List of worthless/broken game mechanics

#8 Post by labgnome »

Oberlus wrote: Sat May 09, 2020 5:55 pmStart the game with a mid-end game building supposed to be powerful... Seems like a bad idea.
But is it? No one uses it. Maybe if it did something else, but right now the problem is that no one has any motivations to build one. I do thin it should at least be earlier in the game, as by the time you can research it most of the galaxy is explored, so even using it to find other scrying spheres is kind of a moot point. It's supposed to be powerful, but it just doesn't really do anything.
What I meant by "would be something different" is that they should be something totally different, not the current mechanic of "planets with a scrying sphere can see each other". Just something totally different like "scrying spheres are some sort of amplifying antennae for panfrequency waves", that does not need scrying spheres on destination to work. That is: reuse the art and nothing else.
I think that the fact that that's the only mechanic is part of the problem. Also, I said I was apt to change the name to ansible. I do understand that this would be significant a change in the mechanics of the scrying sphere.

If the scrying sphere appeared earlier in the tech tree, one other change we could make is to have the spawned scrying spheres always be with some other special.
This way you might be motivated to build the scrying sphere to find other scrying spheres as they might lead you to a valuable special.
Decoupling detection and stealth for one thing
That can be done in this tech tree too. It would solve some of the problems.
True, but I didn't know if significant changes to the tech tree were currently on the table.
It would be good to have that fitting in current tech tree, with current mechanics (I see this thread more about current tech tree anyways). For that we need techs and ways to increase happiness, for now we just have some default values and very few stuff that increases it.
Happiness is actually something I would not like techs to increase. Happiness should be more circumstantial than the way technologies work in Free Orion.

Now we could start by changing the default value from 20 to 55. Then we can implement some of the proposed bonuses and maluses.
...
That is your opinion and you are entitled to it but I still disagree with you.
All of my contributions should be considered released under creative commons attribution share-alike license, CC-BY-SA 3.0 for use in, by and with the Free Orion project.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: List of worthless/broken game mechanics

#9 Post by Oberlus »

labgnome wrote: Sat May 09, 2020 7:27 pm That is your opinion and you are entitled to it but I still disagree with you.
Not only my opinion:

As Vezzra said once:
Vezzra wrote: Sun Jul 28, 2019 4:30 pm [...]
Oberlus has made some important points regarding the issues/problems of such a mechanic, and he is right, if all such a mechanic accomplishes is adding micromanagement because you now need to take infrastructure consumption of buildings into consideration when placing them, without really achieving the intended goal of making building placement more of a strategic choice, the mechanic is pointless.

That said, I would not rule out that the proposed mechanic can't be designed in a way that actually achieves the intended goal. Maybe it only needs more thought and a few good ideas to make it work. Then again, given the current game mechanics, that might turn out to be quite difficult to get right. Too many buildings where location isn't important (aside from having to be supply connected, which is negligible since you always strive to have your entire empire supply connected), too many buildings which are already tied to specific locations anyway, too less buildings which would actually have to compete for placement on the same colony.

I want to cautiously question the validity of the centralized vs. decentralized argument in this context though: While it is true that piling all important buildings in one place (your capital in most cases) has the disadvantage of loosing them all if you loose that location, the advantage of the easier defensibility far outweighs this drawback (especially in single player games), so this decision is a no-brainer. Which in turn makes if you see being able to pile buidings without restrictions as an issue a matter of personal preference, where one is as good as the other, and thus can't really be used pro or con the proposal.
[...]
As Vezzra points out in the second paragraph I quote, maybe something could be done with infrastructure. IFF something can be sone with infrastructure for it to be very limited in most planets without making it a new problem (by not letting the player decide where to place buildings, or by forcing him to only have a very limited number of buildings on each planet), then it could be a nice idea.
Meanwhile, what that idea achieves is nothing.

In any case, as Vezzra comments in the third paragraph, FreeOrion mechanics should not forbid the player to put together in a single planet all important buildings, because that is legit. That you don't like that strategy is not a reason to disallow other players to do it, as long as it is not against FreeOrion principles (and it isn't).

User avatar
labgnome
Juggernaut
Posts: 833
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: List of worthless/broken game mechanics

#10 Post by labgnome »

Oberlus wrote: Mon May 11, 2020 12:23 am
labgnome wrote: Sat May 09, 2020 7:27 pm That is your opinion and you are entitled to it but I still disagree with you.
Not only my opinion:
Dude, don't drag other people into this just because you want to argue. I don't see any point to it.

In fact if you had actually bothered to read through that thread you can see that I offered a compromise whereby the capitol could have significantly more infrastructure, specifically so that people could centralize if they wanted to. For me the idea that buildings should consume infrastructure just makes intuitive sense. However you seem to be vehemently opposed to the idea for some reason that's beyond me and I can't understand why it triggers such a strong reaction in you.

However the point I was trying to make is: you are not going to convince me otherwise.
All of my contributions should be considered released under creative commons attribution share-alike license, CC-BY-SA 3.0 for use in, by and with the Free Orion project.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: List of worthless/broken game mechanics

#11 Post by Oberlus »

labgnome wrote: Mon May 11, 2020 12:41 pm However you seem to be vehemently opposed to the idea for some reason that's beyond me and I can't understand why it triggers such a strong reaction in you.

However the point I was trying to make is: you are not going to convince me otherwise.
I don't see a strong reaction by my part, I just don't want others pushing ideas into the game that could make things worse for no reason, and I was trying to make you understand the failures of your idea. To no avail, it seems, if you keep dragging it into a personal level instead of a debate.

Also, I'm not opposed to the idea per se, just to a bad realization that serves no purpose and bothers players. Before you posted this rant, I already did a proposal for some buildings reducing infrastructure that could work, maybe.
But I don't need you to be convinced of anything, just to thonk better your ideas instead of repearing them without polishing them out.

User avatar
labgnome
Juggernaut
Posts: 833
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: List of worthless/broken game mechanics

#12 Post by labgnome »

Oberlus wrote: Mon May 11, 2020 1:01 pm I don't see a strong reaction by my part, I just don't want others pushing ideas into the game that could make things worse for no reason, and I was trying to make you understand the failures of your idea. To no avail, it seems, if you keep dragging it into a personal level instead of a debate.
I'm not dragging it to a personal level. I also wasn't really interested in debating the merits of weather or not to have buildings consume infrastructure. I just find your reactions unnecessarily strong, and honestly rude. Although I don't know that it's entirely your fault. I think things can get a little toxic around here as people get attached to ideas.
Also, I'm not opposed to the idea per se, just to a bad realization that serves no purpose and bothers players. Before you posted this rant, I already did a proposal for some buildings reducing infrastructure that could work, maybe.
But I don't need you to be convinced of anything, just to thonk better your ideas instead of repearing them without polishing them out.
I mean my sticking point would be that buildings you build at a colony (not outpost) should consume infrastructure. On just about everything else I'm flexible.

Also I'm pretty sure thonk and repearing aren't actual words, but if I get the gist of what you are saying its that I should polish out my ideas better. Maybe I should, but that's not really how my mind works. I have to move quickly when inspiration strikes or I will likely forget the idea I have. That's just the way I work and I won't apologize for that.
All of my contributions should be considered released under creative commons attribution share-alike license, CC-BY-SA 3.0 for use in, by and with the Free Orion project.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: List of worthless/broken game mechanics

#13 Post by Oberlus »

labgnome wrote: Mon May 11, 2020 1:49 pm I just find your reactions unnecessarily strong, and honestly rude.
I sincerely apologize for that.
Not the first time, right?

I thought you were defending the idea that buildings should consume infrastructure so that only a few can be built in any planet, because that would be the best strategy for all players, regardless of that being of no help at all for the building spamming problem (i.e. lets solve a no-problem creating a problem), to which I HAD to answer. I'm sorry if I get rude and rash to quickly when I see the other is not making any effort to understand or review older threads before pushing his/her ideas.
Also I'm pretty sure thonk and repearing aren't actual words
:lol:
I hate this laptop's keyboard.
Maybe I should, but that's not really how my mind works. I have to move quickly when inspiration strikes or I will likely forget the idea I have. That's just the way I work and I won't apologize for that.
I also won't apologize for letting you know that saying in several threads "I already commented/proposed/suggested that <insert here idea that has been debated and discarded because of some problems that I will not bother to devote any time into fixing it>" is not helpful nor interesting.
Also, I know you can develop your ideas when you get the time for it, there are several rather-long threads with lots of ideas of yours that get polished BY YOU by considering the objections/contributions of other forum users (including me), so I think this "that's how my mind works" is in fact and excuse.
What I think that might have been the problem here is that you forgot the objections that the infrastructure idea had in principle, while I didn't, and I guess I let you know it in not the most polite way (ehem), which moved you to stick to your position and argue with me, and I with you, etc.

It would be cool if you get time to think about the recent infrastructure proposal for anti-building-spam here.
I don't discard that I don't like your answers there and I start a new argument about centralized vs decentralized or whatever. But still, it's good for me to get more POV.

Post Reply