Re: Ruleset complexity discussion
Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2018 11:17 pm
Well said Lexxie. Reducing the impact of strategic choice is pr. definition "dumbing down".
In the start there is basically two goals. 1. Getting more cities and 2. getting out of despotism. This can be said to be the "winning path" because if you don't do this, you won't win the game, but that does not mean that there isn't different ways of achieving this goal. I doubt anyone would say it's a bad thing that you have to expand and get more effective goverment to win the game. A very good way at becoming better in the game is to practice alone until one can reach certain measurable goals by a certain turn, and learn how different decisions affect reaching these goals.
I doubt there will come anything good from this thread so I will abandon it, unless you actually contribute to something productive. As I mentioned earlier, "you would be better off to criticize the principles, propose own principles for game (or ruleset) design, criticize the use of design principles for games or explain what is wrong with the strategy vs simulation-dichotomy rather than to just state it annoys you."
I mean what strategy one decides to follow, which can be broken down to each single action in the game. Examples of these strategic choices in early game is how fast to settle, where to settle, what tiles to improve, what to research, were to explore. Each action is a choice. Reducing the consequences of these choices "dumbs down" the game. In the extreme case where choices doesn't matter anymore and all choices are equal, we can't talk about strategy anymore, because the essense of strategy is to make decisions that give superior results.Corbeau wrote: Please explain what is a "strategic choice"? (No, not what the term means, but how it applies to this situation.)
I wrote "reading the manual, reading guides and practicing the start until they nail it.", not only "reading the manual". The serious mistakes comes from lack of knowledge of the game, the minor ones are unavoidable even for experienced players.Corbeau wrote: So, "not reading the manual" is the only reason why someone makes early mistakes? Are you saying that early game has an absolutely straightforward winning path and the only way you can diverge from it is because you "haven't read the manual"?
In the start there is basically two goals. 1. Getting more cities and 2. getting out of despotism. This can be said to be the "winning path" because if you don't do this, you won't win the game, but that does not mean that there isn't different ways of achieving this goal. I doubt anyone would say it's a bad thing that you have to expand and get more effective goverment to win the game. A very good way at becoming better in the game is to practice alone until one can reach certain measurable goals by a certain turn, and learn how different decisions affect reaching these goals.
It would be nice if you could do a real argument instead of doing an ad hominem (are you sure you aren't projecting?). If you disagree that the strategy games haven't changed since mid 90s, or that freeciv-web and isotriden aren't needed, please state so and state you reasons for believing so.Corbeau wrote:I hope you have attached weights to you feet, I'd hate to see you float into stratosphere and suffocate for lack of oxygen. When your self-complacency bloats like that, uplift can become a real problem.qrtv wrote:Because these pure strategy games aren't made anymore, and freeciv-web and now isotrident being the only online mulitplayer communities for such games, these two communities become special niches that are absolutely needed
I doubt there will come anything good from this thread so I will abandon it, unless you actually contribute to something productive. As I mentioned earlier, "you would be better off to criticize the principles, propose own principles for game (or ruleset) design, criticize the use of design principles for games or explain what is wrong with the strategy vs simulation-dichotomy rather than to just state it annoys you."