The sadest thing as I just read the Spiral by Chris and it was only 1 page. Too bad as the writing was as good as any I have seen.
Sword Of The Stars on Impulse
- Thread starter vmxa
- Start date
I have to say another large blackmark from me on AI Rebellions. This is a silly concept as implemented. No discernable reason for the event and no explanation of the level of severity.
I am not saying nothing like this should exist, but it need to make sense. The game was over for all practical purposes as I had only one AI left and they were down to 3 or 4 planets.
I had already researched all the races tree to the end. I was researching AI Virus at the time. I think it hit 8 planets, all mature save one.
I find this to just be silly and annoying. Looks like a once in a great while cycle is were this fits as I really never had what I would call fun. Only the newness and what is around the corner aspect.
I am not saying nothing like this should exist, but it need to make sense. The game was over for all practical purposes as I had only one AI left and they were down to 3 or 4 planets.
I had already researched all the races tree to the end. I was researching AI Virus at the time. I think it hit 8 planets, all mature save one.
I find this to just be silly and annoying. Looks like a once in a great while cycle is were this fits as I really never had what I would call fun. Only the newness and what is around the corner aspect.
Regarding TARs, there was a reason I pointed you to the Strategy Forum Archive link first, there are a bunch of links to some of the longer TARs by better authors on that page. The collected TARs page just tries to list everything, but as you noted the quality level is highly variable.
As far as tech A being as good as tech B goes... really? Have you tried to shoot drones with a regular mass driver? What about a ship with a deflector shield? I don't have that impression at all. Different weapons can be very appropriate or very inappropriate depending on what you are fighting. Of course if your economic and/or technologial advantage is sufficiently huge you can afford not having the right weapons/defenses for the right situations but that's only to be expected. If you have this problem with every strategy game, then I would suspect it's something unusual about your approach to strategy games. Most people want more techs, not fewer.
As far as variety goes... well in Civ terms the win conditions in this game are (a) extermination, or (b) domination, by playing the landgrab scenario, or (c) diplomatic, by getting an alliance victory (eliminating all non-alliance members.) I'm guessing you haven't played the landgrab scenario and since you never use diplomacy you're locking yourself out of that part of the game, as well as out of most of the ways a superior empire can shorten the mop up phase by demandng the surrender of relatively weak worlds or empires, so what exactly were you expecting?
The main source of variety in the game other than the random tech trees is the fact that each race plays differently, in terms of how they expand and how they wage war. Especially the hivers, humans, and zuul are all very different from each other and from the other three races. The Tarka, Morrigi, and Liir have drives that work a bit more alike bur still have significant differences. That and the fact that the random tech tree and economic variables are weighted differently for each race tends to mean that although every race is aiming for conquest in general, each goes about doing it a bit differently (or in some cases very differently.)
On the other hand, if it's just more challenge you are looking for, there are a few ways to do that. In addition to hard difficulty setting and MP potential, there are handicapping settings available on the race selection screen (after initial setup but before game start) where you can give each player position bonus cash, techs, and/or colonies. Moreover your choices on game setup can affect the challenge level; for instance certain races do better on some maps than on others.
AI rebellions I will have to address in another post. They are the way they are because of the game backstory, however.
As far as tech A being as good as tech B goes... really? Have you tried to shoot drones with a regular mass driver? What about a ship with a deflector shield? I don't have that impression at all. Different weapons can be very appropriate or very inappropriate depending on what you are fighting. Of course if your economic and/or technologial advantage is sufficiently huge you can afford not having the right weapons/defenses for the right situations but that's only to be expected. If you have this problem with every strategy game, then I would suspect it's something unusual about your approach to strategy games. Most people want more techs, not fewer.
As far as variety goes... well in Civ terms the win conditions in this game are (a) extermination, or (b) domination, by playing the landgrab scenario, or (c) diplomatic, by getting an alliance victory (eliminating all non-alliance members.) I'm guessing you haven't played the landgrab scenario and since you never use diplomacy you're locking yourself out of that part of the game, as well as out of most of the ways a superior empire can shorten the mop up phase by demandng the surrender of relatively weak worlds or empires, so what exactly were you expecting?
The main source of variety in the game other than the random tech trees is the fact that each race plays differently, in terms of how they expand and how they wage war. Especially the hivers, humans, and zuul are all very different from each other and from the other three races. The Tarka, Morrigi, and Liir have drives that work a bit more alike bur still have significant differences. That and the fact that the random tech tree and economic variables are weighted differently for each race tends to mean that although every race is aiming for conquest in general, each goes about doing it a bit differently (or in some cases very differently.)
On the other hand, if it's just more challenge you are looking for, there are a few ways to do that. In addition to hard difficulty setting and MP potential, there are handicapping settings available on the race selection screen (after initial setup but before game start) where you can give each player position bonus cash, techs, and/or colonies. Moreover your choices on game setup can affect the challenge level; for instance certain races do better on some maps than on others.
AI rebellions I will have to address in another post. They are the way they are because of the game backstory, however.
So regarding AI rebellions, the thing to note about them is that the devs have some very specific ideas about what AI development means in the context of the SotS universe. AIs in SotS are developed deliberately in a time of war to be purpose-built artificial workforce with very little say in their existence. Essentially they are artificial slaves. So, AI research in SotS is fraught with the possibility of slave rebellions. This can happen at any point where you are researching an AI tech or especially while boosting one. Also, rivals who have AI rebellions can have those rebellions spread to your empire if the rebel AIs come into contact with your AIs. AI rebels have many advantages in that they don't require colonizers to settle worlds, they can live on any climate hazard, their ships all count as having deep scan, and more, whereas you lose all benefit of AI techs unless you research AI slavery.
Researching AI is a powerful advantage, but one that is deliberately fraught with risk. Most people don't research it unless they either really need it or they are ready to deal with a possible rebellion. (Not actually that hard once you've had a few and know how rebellions work.)
Researching AI is a powerful advantage, but one that is deliberately fraught with risk. Most people don't research it unless they either really need it or they are ready to deal with a possible rebellion. (Not actually that hard once you've had a few and know how rebellions work.)
I had no need of the tech, just something to do while I took the last few planets. The idea that players should have no clue that this could happern is appalling. It is insane that I should finish research of AI Virus and then discover all 8 planets were wiped clean.
I stopped at that point, even though I could still wipe the last few planets. It just was too goofy to see that results to my colonies. A search of the forum did not reveal any details of how they occur or how to deal with them.
It is one thing to place an impediment in the game, but the minimum requirement to me is that they be defined and there be a means to remove them. I am even fine with the cure causing some losses, as long as they can replaced. You are either have to be able to avoid rebellions or be able to recover from them.
The manual covers little and is not augment with any help file. Players are left to find their own answers or scour the net.
I stopped at that point, even though I could still wipe the last few planets. It just was too goofy to see that results to my colonies. A search of the forum did not reveal any details of how they occur or how to deal with them.
It is one thing to place an impediment in the game, but the minimum requirement to me is that they be defined and there be a means to remove them. I am even fine with the cure causing some losses, as long as they can replaced. You are either have to be able to avoid rebellions or be able to recover from them.
The manual covers little and is not augment with any help file. Players are left to find their own answers or scour the net.
Agreed that for SotS1, ingame documentation is light as the devs didn't have the resources to document many things thoroughly. I am pretty sure that AI rebellions are covered in the wiki, however. And SotS2's SotSapedia should provide similar details.
We've had this conversation before, though.
Also now that you know you were dealing with an AI rebellion, you should be able to find lots of information about them with a forum search. This includes what they are and some ways to deal with them. I know there are tons of posts about them, so it would simply appear that your search-Fu could be stronger.
We've had this conversation before, though.
Also now that you know you were dealing with an AI rebellion, you should be able to find lots of information about them with a forum search. This includes what they are and some ways to deal with them. I know there are tons of posts about them, so it would simply appear that your search-Fu could be stronger.
I found plenty of threads, but they never stated how the rebellions are triggered or cured. They alluded to researching techs, I think that would obvious. The question would be what techs.
Even should I know the cause and the cure, does it make sense that I should lose all infected planets by researching a possible cure. It smacks and I have no use for it. I went from no issue to rebellion to planets dead in 2 turns, huh? That is nuts.
Every time I pose a question I am told that I need to look for the wiki and I don't see why that is my job. Again, what good is a wiki to those that are not even aware of it? It may be a valid response IF the game provided a link to it.
The bottom line was the rebellion was just the straw. The game quickly became monotonous with little to do other than keep making more ships. It did not take long till the research tree had little apparent import.
I could discern little distinction between one weapon and another. Scores of techs related to the interactions of the races. So soon I was just clicking on whatever one I came upon. I could also say the tech tree was a bugger to deal with as it was spread all over the place.
I had to drill down to seperate the info from becoming a jumble, which meant I was scrolling all the time on a 24" monitor. I am glad I tried it, but frankly too repetitive, with not much pay back.
Even should I know the cause and the cure, does it make sense that I should lose all infected planets by researching a possible cure. It smacks and I have no use for it. I went from no issue to rebellion to planets dead in 2 turns, huh? That is nuts.
Every time I pose a question I am told that I need to look for the wiki and I don't see why that is my job. Again, what good is a wiki to those that are not even aware of it? It may be a valid response IF the game provided a link to it.
The bottom line was the rebellion was just the straw. The game quickly became monotonous with little to do other than keep making more ships. It did not take long till the research tree had little apparent import.
I could discern little distinction between one weapon and another. Scores of techs related to the interactions of the races. So soon I was just clicking on whatever one I came upon. I could also say the tech tree was a bugger to deal with as it was spread all over the place.
I had to drill down to seperate the info from becoming a jumble, which meant I was scrolling all the time on a 24" monitor. I am glad I tried it, but frankly too repetitive, with not much pay back.
A good guess would be any AI-related techs.
Considering that an AI rebellion means that the AI has taken over those planets and killed all your citizens on those worlds, probably in their sleep, it makes perfect sense. The cure for the AI rebellion is purging the rebellious AIs, which returns the worlds to a state where you can settle them again.
vxma, this is 2011. Everyone knows how to look for information on the web these days.
For someone who plays strategy games, and who apparently needs detailed info on how everything works beforehand and reacts poorly to surprises, I find this unwillingness to look up stuff on the wiki to be very strange. It's pretty much a requirement for ANY strategy game these days, if you want detailed info.You can boil any strategy game down to making units and killing the enemy and researching techs that don't matter in the end game. It sounds to me like you are tired and jaded with nearly the whole strategy genre, if that is your complaint.
Some people like that kind of thing and are willing to play large galaxies out to the bitter end. Personally I'm not one of them. For me, the interesting part is getting to the point where I am in a winning position, not what I do in the mop-up phase (which in my case is usually abandon the game and start a new one, or look for some other way to challenge myself.) Which techs you decide to research is much more meaningful if victory is not yet assured.
"Zed-F"
"vxma, this is 2011. Everyone knows how to look for information on the web these days. For someone who plays strategy games, and who apparently needs detailed info on how everything works beforehand and reacts poorly to surprises, I find this unwillingness to look up stuff on the wiki to be very strange. It's pretty much a requirement for ANY strategy game these days, if you want detailed info."
You are demonstratedly incorrect on this point. If you look at the number of people to come to any of the tbs webs sites, it is a tiny fraction of the the games sold.
Thus it is obvious most do not have any awareness of the web and forums.
I apparently do a poor job of making my points as every seems to think I need spreadsheets or details. Over the time I have been on CFC or Poly or the old Atari boards I pretty much had no interest in the internal workings of the games.
I do think it is reasonable to want a definition of key things. I react poorly to not having any data on such a significant function as a planet wiping rebellion.
The way a web base help should work is like it does in many games such as Space Empires. You get a hyperlink to the web pages. If not that then even an in game help ala Moo3 or even Moo2.
Simple information is not in the manual, that is fine. You do need to provide some resource that provides it. Here we are 3 expaqnsions later and not even a web page address to the wiki is available via a help function key.
I do not have a problem with looking it up pn the web. I have a problem with them not even providing me the link.
"You can boil any strategy game down to making units and killing the enemy and researching techs that don't matter in the end game. It sounds to me like you are tired and jaded with nearly the whole strategy genre, if that is your complaint."
I don't think that is a true statement and again I bare the blame for poorly making my poin of view. Games of this genre typically have some form of improvements required to planets or cities.
This can range from improving what you can do in terms of research or production to the units you can build. We have no such thing here, a throw back to Moo1 I guess.
Even in Moo1 you got some feedback for things like terraforming pop. Here is the main failure for me, you get no real feedback for techs that improve things. I learned a tech for structure increase or pop increase, but I do not really sense it in any tangible way.
This is what reduces it to a just make ships, not that it is inherent to tbs. I understand the desire to not have to manage planets, but there needs to be an obvious way I get satisfaction for learning a terraforming tech. I want to see the planet is now better. I suspect I could, if I wanted to write down what it was before and after. I do not want to do that.
To me I do not draw any satisfaction from getting to the point where I know I have won, as that is a given. I enjoy seeing my empire/civilization getting bigger/better.
I enjoy the rare time when I get in a bind and get out of that bind. Maybe even go down swinging on Sid. Getting to that tech that provides me a unit or weapon that can change the game situation.
Getting that tech that lets me travel faster or farther, this they actually have in the game.
I do not enjoy a tech tree that is massive and cannot even be seen in more than a fraction at once. I do not enjoy having to double click to get soem details and then double click again to pull back. When I pull back, it also seems to shrink the screen so now the info lines are over lapping again. I then have to scroll In or out to read them.
Let me make it clear I am not going to tell people this is a bad game. I am not going to remove it from my HD. I may be interested in the next version. It is not going to be on my frequently played list.
"vxma, this is 2011. Everyone knows how to look for information on the web these days.
For someone who plays strategy games, and who apparently needs detailed info on how everything works beforehand and reacts poorly to surprises, I find this unwillingness to look up stuff on the wiki to be very strange. It's pretty much a requirement for ANY strategy game these days, if you want detailed info."You are demonstratedly incorrect on this point. If you look at the number of people to come to any of the tbs webs sites, it is a tiny fraction of the the games sold.
Thus it is obvious most do not have any awareness of the web and forums.
I apparently do a poor job of making my points as every seems to think I need spreadsheets or details. Over the time I have been on CFC or Poly or the old Atari boards I pretty much had no interest in the internal workings of the games.
I do think it is reasonable to want a definition of key things. I react poorly to not having any data on such a significant function as a planet wiping rebellion.
The way a web base help should work is like it does in many games such as Space Empires. You get a hyperlink to the web pages. If not that then even an in game help ala Moo3 or even Moo2.
Simple information is not in the manual, that is fine. You do need to provide some resource that provides it. Here we are 3 expaqnsions later and not even a web page address to the wiki is available via a help function key.
I do not have a problem with looking it up pn the web. I have a problem with them not even providing me the link.
"You can boil any strategy game down to making units and killing the enemy and researching techs that don't matter in the end game. It sounds to me like you are tired and jaded with nearly the whole strategy genre, if that is your complaint."
I don't think that is a true statement and again I bare the blame for poorly making my poin of view. Games of this genre typically have some form of improvements required to planets or cities.
This can range from improving what you can do in terms of research or production to the units you can build. We have no such thing here, a throw back to Moo1 I guess.
Even in Moo1 you got some feedback for things like terraforming pop. Here is the main failure for me, you get no real feedback for techs that improve things. I learned a tech for structure increase or pop increase, but I do not really sense it in any tangible way.
This is what reduces it to a just make ships, not that it is inherent to tbs. I understand the desire to not have to manage planets, but there needs to be an obvious way I get satisfaction for learning a terraforming tech. I want to see the planet is now better. I suspect I could, if I wanted to write down what it was before and after. I do not want to do that.
To me I do not draw any satisfaction from getting to the point where I know I have won, as that is a given. I enjoy seeing my empire/civilization getting bigger/better.
I enjoy the rare time when I get in a bind and get out of that bind. Maybe even go down swinging on Sid. Getting to that tech that provides me a unit or weapon that can change the game situation.
Getting that tech that lets me travel faster or farther, this they actually have in the game.
I do not enjoy a tech tree that is massive and cannot even be seen in more than a fraction at once. I do not enjoy having to double click to get soem details and then double click again to pull back. When I pull back, it also seems to shrink the screen so now the info lines are over lapping again. I then have to scroll In or out to read them.
Let me make it clear I am not going to tell people this is a bad game. I am not going to remove it from my HD. I may be interested in the next version. It is not going to be on my frequently played list.
Regarding the many people who choose not to visit fora for retail boxed games, I would submit this is less relevant for games such as SotS which are distributed purely or almost purely by online distribution. Even so, I kind of feel we've worn this sub-topic out. Yes there could be more pointers toward documentation and there will be in SotS2. You will in many cases still need to expect the unexpected, though, as the devs are big believers in learning by experimentation. The universe is a big place and not everything will be a known quantity to start with. Hopefully you will find this easier to appreciate in a new game than in a several-years-old one.
Agreed that most of the traditional micro-oriented builder elements such as building buildings on every planet are abstracted out of SotS, as the game devs have found these tend to add more busywork than fun. Comparing the game to MOO1 is apt in that regard. The economy model is fairly deep for all that but you are right, you need to actually watch your economic growth closely if you want to see the effects of economy techs in many cases. If having buildings to build and worker units to micro are your kind of thing then SotS won't satisfy in that regard (and probably never will, as the series aims to be anti-micro and to please those who find overly fiddly economic micro to be a burden rather than a pleasure.)
That said, there are a few builder-oriented things to note in SotS, such as the construction of well-staffed trade networks and orbital stations. Of course these are in space, not on the surface, because part of the SotS design philosophy is that if it is important, you should be able to blow it up, and there is no ground combat or precision orbital bombardment (yet - SotS2 may have more granularity here.)
Regarding techs that change the balance of power, these are definitely present in SotS, but of course you need to not have already reached a winning position for them to have that impact. Going up against a Zuul cruiser rush where they have cruiser CnC can be instructional to the value of CnC if you are sitting back with only DD CnC because you have been paying more attention to building your freighter network than on war techs, for instance. The first time you field impactors can come as quite a shock to your opponents, for another example... at least until they counter with deflector shields. And then the shoe's on the other foot.
That said, I appreciate that you find the presentation of the tech tree frustrating; it doesn't bother me but you are not the first person to have that complaint. Flattened out tech tree graphics are available on the wiki, but for extensive linking between tech icons and detailed tech descriptions we will have to wait for SotS2 and see what happens then.
Agreed that most of the traditional micro-oriented builder elements such as building buildings on every planet are abstracted out of SotS, as the game devs have found these tend to add more busywork than fun. Comparing the game to MOO1 is apt in that regard. The economy model is fairly deep for all that but you are right, you need to actually watch your economic growth closely if you want to see the effects of economy techs in many cases. If having buildings to build and worker units to micro are your kind of thing then SotS won't satisfy in that regard (and probably never will, as the series aims to be anti-micro and to please those who find overly fiddly economic micro to be a burden rather than a pleasure.)
That said, there are a few builder-oriented things to note in SotS, such as the construction of well-staffed trade networks and orbital stations. Of course these are in space, not on the surface, because part of the SotS design philosophy is that if it is important, you should be able to blow it up, and there is no ground combat or precision orbital bombardment (yet - SotS2 may have more granularity here.)
Regarding techs that change the balance of power, these are definitely present in SotS, but of course you need to not have already reached a winning position for them to have that impact. Going up against a Zuul cruiser rush where they have cruiser CnC can be instructional to the value of CnC if you are sitting back with only DD CnC because you have been paying more attention to building your freighter network than on war techs, for instance. The first time you field impactors can come as quite a shock to your opponents, for another example... at least until they counter with deflector shields. And then the shoe's on the other foot.
That said, I appreciate that you find the presentation of the tech tree frustrating; it doesn't bother me but you are not the first person to have that complaint. Flattened out tech tree graphics are available on the wiki, but for extensive linking between tech icons and detailed tech descriptions we will have to wait for SotS2 and see what happens then.
Zed it seem no matter what my analogy is, it seems to be interpreted differently than I intended. When I say I get little in the way of feedback and then use a structure as a reference to some feedback, that does not meanI wish to buiild things. That is not done in Moo1 and I still get feedback.
Every single version of civ5 requires goling online to play, but still only a fraction use the forums. As you say that is a dead horse as all of this is just beating a dead horse.
The trade net is a funny one to mention, but it does give feedback. It is a builders delight and MM workload though. I have to come through all the planets and check for routes to add or freighters to build. Understand that is not big deal, just seems to be what you would find a drag.
Probably the easiest part of the game to have made into a macro, rather than a micromanage function. none of this bothers me, I only mention the feedback as I realized that is one of the reason the game is not grabbing me.
Every single version of civ5 requires goling online to play, but still only a fraction use the forums. As you say that is a dead horse as all of this is just beating a dead horse.
The trade net is a funny one to mention, but it does give feedback. It is a builders delight and MM workload though. I have to come through all the planets and check for routes to add or freighters to build. Understand that is not big deal, just seems to be what you would find a drag.
Probably the easiest part of the game to have made into a macro, rather than a micromanage function. none of this bothers me, I only mention the feedback as I realized that is one of the reason the game is not grabbing me.
Yep. SotS2 has promised more feedback. We'll have to see whether what they deliver works for you.
The trade net is not too bad if you do it from the trade tab, 'cause it puts all the planets on one page, and just requires a few clicks to build more freighters, but it is one of the more MM heavy parts of the game. (You should have seen it before the trade tab tho!
) Still nothing compared to MMing workers in Civ, mind. Fortunately trade will be more under the control of civilian authorities and require less imperial management in SotS2, so we can anticipate less micro required there.
The trade net is not too bad using the tab.
Carl Von Uber
Warlord
I have SotS complete also and I love the game. I have had for a little while but havent had time to play. I also have seen you Zed-F on the SotS forums. I am AeonofHorus on thier forums.
Three issues that make the game less appealing to me:
1) planets names not visible from a normal zoom.
Here I mean that if you have a view that shows about 60 planets, you have no way to see the planets names. When the alert box comes up and you scroll through the list of events and they list say 2 ships built on planet Gia, I do not always know where Gia is on the map.
The alert box does not seem to zoom to the location of the event ala Space Empires, so I am forced to try to find the planet from memory. Sometimes that wokrs well for me and other times I start to get annoyed as I click planet after planet and fail to find the correct one.
2) I have not found a way to see the damage done to a target ship or planet during combat. I am fine, if that required a tech and even a device, but I am not aware of any method. That may be my fault and it may exist, but like so many things they are not intuitive.
3) the view of the tech tree is very annoying and I long for an option to see all the trees in one view or even two clicks. Right now, I have to zoom down to get some trees spaced enough to read the names. I also have to scroll around a great deal to see what my options are and then recall where the one I prefer is located.
Yes this is not an issue for those who have lots of games under there belt and play frequently. Not very helpful to the rest of the world.
These three things dramatically detract from the fun factor, regardless of any other aspects good or bad and there are some of each.
That said I find it is more playable than GC in all of its iterations and I have them all except Twilight.
1) planets names not visible from a normal zoom.
Here I mean that if you have a view that shows about 60 planets, you have no way to see the planets names. When the alert box comes up and you scroll through the list of events and they list say 2 ships built on planet Gia, I do not always know where Gia is on the map.
The alert box does not seem to zoom to the location of the event ala Space Empires, so I am forced to try to find the planet from memory. Sometimes that wokrs well for me and other times I start to get annoyed as I click planet after planet and fail to find the correct one.
2) I have not found a way to see the damage done to a target ship or planet during combat. I am fine, if that required a tech and even a device, but I am not aware of any method. That may be my fault and it may exist, but like so many things they are not intuitive.
3) the view of the tech tree is very annoying and I long for an option to see all the trees in one view or even two clicks. Right now, I have to zoom down to get some trees spaced enough to read the names. I also have to scroll around a great deal to see what my options are and then recall where the one I prefer is located.
Yes this is not an issue for those who have lots of games under there belt and play frequently. Not very helpful to the rest of the world.
These three things dramatically detract from the fun factor, regardless of any other aspects good or bad and there are some of each.
That said I find it is more playable than GC in all of its iterations and I have them all except Twilight.
Double click on the event box and it will take you there.
You are not intended to be able to see this precisely during combat on a hit-by-hit basis, but ships do show visible damage as they get closer to destruction. You can see the overall health of your own ships represented as a green, yellow, or red cross while in sensor view by turning on the 'i' button toggle (this will also show ship classes of friendly ships, or even enemy ships if you are close enough and have a ship equipped with deep scan in your fleet.)
Also, after battle you can see the summary of how all weapons did overall on the after-battle report, with IIRC an 'i' button available for more information. This does include damage numbers. Advanced Sensors (Deep Scan section) and Data Correlation techs can help here to identify which enemy ship is which later on.
It might be useful for you to keep a copy of the tech tree image from the wiki on hand, or even print it. You'll find all techs laid out on a flat map and even the percentage chance each race has to have it initially available to research. You can find it here:
http://sots.rorschach.net/File:SotS_ANY_TechTree.png
I have never been able to get the double click to work reliably. Most of the time it does not go anywhere, rarely it goes to the correct location. Maybe it fails for me, because I do not understand what mechanism they are using to distinguish the target from the rest of the map.
I am not taking to a location and often there are many stars flashing, so I just do not detect the position of the event.
I may only barely be able to see the ships in some cases as they are so far off at times. Some feed back is fine, details not a must (not a bad thing either). The summary is often of little value to me as I am not always sure what weapons (of those shown in the summary) are mine and what are not.
It does not appear that they are split left for me and right for them. This is especially true, if we both have the same weapons.
Again these are things that are swell for those with lots of experience with the game and a big void for the rest of us. IOW not intuitive and not explained.
The tech tree is another case of they want me to stop what I am doing and leave the game and find some other source for interpreting the game. This kills any though or feel that you are immersed.
I have a couple of spreads of the techs, but it is annoying to scroll around the what is now a large layout as I have had to zoom in to read the text. Not a big deal a couple of times, but what about 50 times, 90 times?
Even when I already know what I want as the next chocie I still have scroll around to find it.
I did not even mention the 4th item. That the game does not have any draw or depth for me. You just go ahead and make lots of ships and keep spreading out. Other than seeing the empire grow, I have no satisfaction.
I do not even have to bother to look at my planets as there is really nothing for me to do there, once I start it other than make ships. Once you get Biome the planets can be up in a hurry.
This is not a killer for me, if the other three things were not so annoying. I can shrink the first two by playing on smaller maps. It helps with #1 and #2 will be reduce with few battles. Actually #2 is not a killer either.
It would just enhance the fun, by getting some feedback. Maybe I can get there with a bit more experience in the combat screen.
I guess the good news for me is that I find it has more to offer than GC and I paid less. If it was just a piece of junk, I would not have gotten this far. I found it a bit sad that the people at the forum were not interested in how new players saw things. I guess they just saw any question as a complaint and not worth addressing.
I doubt that will help with aquiring more customers though. Techies forget that they are also representatives and customers pay their wages. It is in their interest to not run them off.
I am not taking to a location and often there are many stars flashing, so I just do not detect the position of the event.
I may only barely be able to see the ships in some cases as they are so far off at times. Some feed back is fine, details not a must (not a bad thing either). The summary is often of little value to me as I am not always sure what weapons (of those shown in the summary) are mine and what are not.
It does not appear that they are split left for me and right for them. This is especially true, if we both have the same weapons.
Again these are things that are swell for those with lots of experience with the game and a big void for the rest of us. IOW not intuitive and not explained.
The tech tree is another case of they want me to stop what I am doing and leave the game and find some other source for interpreting the game. This kills any though or feel that you are immersed.
I have a couple of spreads of the techs, but it is annoying to scroll around the what is now a large layout as I have had to zoom in to read the text. Not a big deal a couple of times, but what about 50 times, 90 times?
Even when I already know what I want as the next chocie I still have scroll around to find it.
I did not even mention the 4th item. That the game does not have any draw or depth for me. You just go ahead and make lots of ships and keep spreading out. Other than seeing the empire grow, I have no satisfaction.
I do not even have to bother to look at my planets as there is really nothing for me to do there, once I start it other than make ships. Once you get Biome the planets can be up in a hurry.
This is not a killer for me, if the other three things were not so annoying. I can shrink the first two by playing on smaller maps. It helps with #1 and #2 will be reduce with few battles. Actually #2 is not a killer either.
It would just enhance the fun, by getting some feedback. Maybe I can get there with a bit more experience in the combat screen.
I guess the good news for me is that I find it has more to offer than GC and I paid less. If it was just a piece of junk, I would not have gotten this far. I found it a bit sad that the people at the forum were not interested in how new players saw things. I guess they just saw any question as a complaint and not worth addressing.
I doubt that will help with aquiring more customers though. Techies forget that they are also representatives and customers pay their wages. It is in their interest to not run them off.
Zed thanks again for the help. It seems that the issue with the event log is that I need to double click in the center. I was often db clicking on the edges and that was not working. With that issue resolved the biggest problem is removed.
Will try to get a handle on the damage feedback next. I have not really put much effort into the combat to this point.
Will try to get a handle on the damage feedback next. I have not really put much effort into the combat to this point.
You are going to get this in any 4X game with a sufficiently large tech tree, which is most of them. Very possibly there is a way they could have easier navigation, but you're going to have some kind of scrolling pretty much no matter what.
In Civ or MOO you just keep pumping out units until you win too.
Like all other 4X games, the depth is not in the 'what' but the 'how'. I tend to find if you're just mindlessly spamming units until you win, then you haven't set the game up to be sufficiently challenging for yourself -- and this is true in any 4X game. For me at least, the fun is in finding out how deep a hole you can set up for yourself and still climb out through good play.
It really depends on how you approach the forums. The Kerberos forumites have lots of patience for questions about 'how does this work?' or 'why does this work the way it does?' They tend to have a limited amount of patience for 'I think this aspect of the game is not good, you should change it to be like X.'
Similar threads
