yay, had to bring up this topic, controversial stuff is fun
"huh? no galaxy sizes in 4X? blasphemy, we need a stake over here!"
should galaxy sizes be fixed?
pro:
- easier to balance
- easier to learn (stats don´t change depending on size)
- micro/macro system can be better adjusted to player´s needs
- polished gameplay
con:
- slightly decreased replayability
- players may be annoyed if it´s missing
if this sounds stupid to you: what would you think if a company would start to manufacture chess-boards in the sizes 12x12, 16x16 and 20x20?
I cant belive we are having a descusion on the REMOVAL of one of the few things we actualy have in the game so far, theirs absolutly no reason to remove Galaxy/Map size its a linch pin of the whole strategy genra as we know it!
just an example: lost temple is the ONLY starcraft map that is played, all tournaments are lost temple or variations, and 3 out of 4 custom games. it´s known as the best balanced map, and although there are maybe 20-30 other maps, nobody plays them online. ppl don´t like to adjust to different terrain or different stats, they want a game with fixed rules so they can quickly start to improve.
of course, starcraft is a game that is way more competitive than 4X games, so the priorities are a bit different here. but i think it´s still worth a thought. what were the arguments when it was decided to keep it in?
i'm with drek here.
I like larger galaxies (compared to the amount of players) to leave some breathing room and make the feel of the game less competitive. Others like the opposite. So, the "right balance" you're talking about may be different depending on player-taste - whats balanced for you, may be too competitive for me.
"You don't need to travel to far-away lands, just to find worlds which are inside of yourself."
Big Game Hunters is still there, but not as much as before. i don´t even consider that as a game type
btw. "balanced" means "fair". in a well balanced map, all strats/units/races/starting postitions etc. have an equal chance to win. for example pumping out a small fleet to attack right in the beginning may be too effective in small galaxies, but a waste of resources in big galaxies.
Satyagraha wrote:what were the arguments when it was decided to keep it in?
There was never an arguement to not include variable galaxy sizes. But as it is *already implemented* and a part of both published design documents, it's in the game.
Backtracking past decisions is generally not done, otherwise we'd be doing nothing but rehashing old debates.
Last edited by drek on Sat May 15, 2004 10:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
We will not consider having a single galaxy size. Multiple sizes are in and will stay in.
The important thing with starcraft - so far as I understand it came with multiple levels initially, and only after a lot of gameplay and competitions was the favourite chosen. If FreeOrion has tournaments that have a single standard map in the future, then so be it. It doesn't mean we need to limit that now. Starcraft still allows you to play different maps if you choose
We can still choose one galaxy size/type to focus on later for balancing purposes, if necessary. Should we decide to do so, there would be one "official most balanced" galaxy. No need to drop the other ones though.
Still I don't think that will be necassary, if players decide to play an "unbalanced" galaxy size/type, so be it
Idealy we will have a lot of elements in the game that scale things to the maps size.
For example in SMAC tec costs incresses as the map grows large, the result is that on a larger map your advancement is slower overall. Thus by the time you come in contact with others your at roughly the same tec level.
