Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Niveras]

In regards to the background material of the game it's left rather vague of purpose I guess, so as to not offend anyone in particular by saying that it was the racists/conservatives/pastafarians or whatever that caused the Great Mistake. And while it's a total nitpick, it seems like a very convenient coincidence that the public opinion of cloning in the year 2525 just happens to be the same as it is now, in our time 

I vaguely remember running into some kind of opposition to cloning in my game, but I forget exactly where. Was it a quest? The 'pedia doesn't make any reference to it in its entry.

Regardless, it seems to me quite plausible that present day attitudes might still be around in the future. Even today we still have hangups about sin and purity, and it is so pervasive that it still informs public debate even when it is not couched in those terms or used in a religious context. Likewise, at least in the US, there is a bit of resurgence in the "young earth" theory of creationism, which is ironic since the major churches don't hold it to be true. As such, even if the debate against human cloning (more generally) or stem-cell research (more specifically) ended prior to launch, there could still be a resurgence.

I don't recall exactly how the cloning debate is framed in BE, but I could easily see logical arguments based on the ethics of creating humans out of whole cloth (easily leading into genetic engineering and concerns there), not to mention an illogical argument carried from earth's last days and limited resources, wherein people might not have faith in cloning when sufficient resources don't yet exist to support the natural-born population in comfort if not luxury (though here, it would arguably be an issue of having the manpower to extract the necessary resources, so cloning would actually be the solution there, hence why this argument would not make sense on planet).

[Sartain]

In regards to the background material of the game it's left rather vague of purpose I guess, so as to not offend anyone in particular by saying that it was the racists/conservatives/pastafarians or whatever that caused the Great Mistake. And while it's a total nitpick, it seems like a very convenient coincidence that the public opinion of cloning in the year 2525 just happens to be the same as it is now, in our time 

I vaguely remember running into some kind of opposition to cloning in my game, but I forget exactly where. Was it a quest? The 'pedia doesn't make any reference to it in its entry.

Regardless, it seems to me quite plausible that present day attitudes might still be around in the future. Even today we still have hangups about sin and purity, and it is so pervasive that it still informs public debate even when it is not couched in those terms or used in a religious context. Likewise, at least in the US, there is a bit of resurgence in the "young earth" theory of creationism, which is ironic since the major churches don't hold it to be true. As such, even if the debate against human cloning (more generally) or stem-cell research (more specifically) ended prior to launch, there could still be a resurgence.

I don't recall exactly how the cloning debate is framed in BE, but I could easily see logical arguments based on the ethics of creating humans out of whole cloth (easily leading into genetic engineering and concerns there), not to mention an illogical argument carried from earth's last days and limited resources, wherein people might not have faith in cloning when sufficient resources don't yet exist to support the natural-born population in comfort if not luxury (though here, it would arguably be an issue of having the manpower to extract the necessary resources, so cloning would actually be the solution there, hence why this argument would not make sense on planet).

It's a quest for the Cloning Centre (I think) and I believe the decision was whether to use cloning for agricultural or medical purposes. I agree that it could be around, it just seemed a bit too much exactly like the issues we face today to be particularly science fiction.

[Jelle]

Would anyone mind if I bounced some ideas on rebalancing the game? I don't want to look like I'm hijacking the thread for my own purposes.

[Levi]

Hee hee.  I've managed to win my last 2 games against my roommate because of trade routes.  Its funny how powerful they are.    

Would anyone mind if I bounced some ideas on rebalancing the game? I don't want to look like I'm hijacking the thread for my own purposes.

Do it! 

[Puzzlemaker]

So, trade routes.

They annoy me.

I wish it was more like a config screen for trading then the current unit thing.  Honestly it seems like the fact that you use units to trade is a kind of hacked together solution.

Open up config, select who you want to trade with, it stays that way until you change it.  Simple.

I do like that there are trade routes per city though, not per whole civ.

[lemon10]

I really do hope they release a patch that tweaks the trading.  I also hope they tweak the search option for techs to find, for example, that one building that gives +1 food for tundra and godamn it where the hell is it.

It's a building called Mass Digester.

In regards to the background material of the game it's left rather vague of purpose I guess, so as to not offend anyone in particular by saying that it was the racists/conservatives/pastafarians or whatever that caused the Great Mistake. And while it's a total nitpick, it seems like a very convenient coincidence that the public opinion of cloning in the year 2525 just happens to be the same as it is now, in our time 

It's one coincidence that is impossible to explain.

500 years ago, the world was so different; 500 years into the future, the world will be even more different.

I have to disagree. We share some opinions with the world of 500 years ago (eg. Murder/Adultery are wrong), and I don't think it is too farfetched to say that the people in 500 years would have a few moral stances the same as ours. Of course, odds are good that it would change, like many of our other opinions over the past 500 years (eg. Gay marriage, acceptance of heretics and heathens), but it isn't inevitable.
E: Especially if their is a good reason that everyone still hates cloning. I don't really know all the lore (or even know if their *is* lore), but I could see there being some good reasons for it being illegal, and some pretty powerful forces that would be against it.

[Jelle]

Hee hee.  I've managed to win my last 2 games against my roommate because of trade routes.  Its funny how powerful they are.    

Would anyone mind if I bounced some ideas on rebalancing the game? I don't want to look like I'm hijacking the thread for my own purposes.

Do it! 

Alright here goes!

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Obviously trade routes need toning down. About a third of the yields they give right now should be more balanced. Still giving more than buildings and improvements in terms of resources for having to defend them. An internal trade route really shouldn't be giving a combined resource (food and production on both sides) of up to 20 for a single cheap to produce unit. Easy enough to change.

Next I'm finding forest utterly useless. At best they're a neglible production boost, at worst a nuisance. Given how the new world is supposed to learn from the mistakes of the old, harmony players especially would be concerned with preserving the planets ecosystems, so I want to tie them in with health somewhat like in civ 4. Maybe I could change xenonurseries from boosting xenomass wells (because seriously 3 building to boost xenomass wells is just too much) to giving one health per forest tile. They'd give lackluster resources but useful health. Might need to make xenowells and biowells not constructable on forests to balance it out though.

Hills are a problematic terrain due to its low yield which is supposed to be counterbalanced by the high yield on standard mines, but this doesn't work when you have resources ontop of hills which end up being worse than resources on plains, having one more yield overall. One more production for hills and one less for basic mines means more flexible improvement options for hills.

Specialists are utterly pointless unless your city has next to no useful tiles in its range (in which case why place a city there  ). Not sure what to do with those, maybe I can decrease their food consumption so you can sustain more of them, and thus more science in trade of lower yields? Right now there's not use for them as basic unimproved tiles are just as good.

And obviously a bunch of cultural traits need balancing, the investment trait especially. I'll worry about those later.

[Levi]

How do you feel about Terrascapes?  I've been mentally calling them TerrorScapes because all my automated workers tend to spam them and my energy income does a sky-dive.    I haven't actually made up my mind on whether or not they are worth it yet.

[Rakonas]

There really needs to be a better ecological paradigm going on. SMAC did it rather well and it's lack is one of the worst parts of BE.

[Jelle]

How do you feel about Terrascapes?  I've been mentally calling them TerrorScapes because all my automated workers tend to spam them and my energy income does a sky-dive.    I haven't actually made up my mind on whether or not they are worth it yet.

I can't really tell, I haven't played a game where I didn't have an abundance of energy yet so it's hard to weigh the costs. It looks like it would be a good improvement if you want to invest a lot in culture. You could plop down some generators since their base yield is quite high with a 2 energy right off the bat, improvable to 3 and another production a bit further off. Applied aesthetics virtue to get some of the energy invested back, and technoartisans to top it off, xenomauleum rush for insanely powerful generators. The frenchies would probably be best for that strategy.
Could work, but I haven't really tried it so don't know. It seems like a very scalable source for culture.

[GiglameshDespair]

Don't domes give you more culture as well, and they don't cost nearly so much and don't reset the tile yield.

[Levi]

Another thing I found entertaining about this game is the complete badassitude of an Explorer unit with one point of Purity.  I've had him stand in a valley and stare down a siege worm until the siege worm turned around and walked away.  I've had him protect the flank of a soldier unit clearing out an infested island.  I've had him single-handedly take out multiple alien hives.  1 Purity point explorers are pretty impressive.   

[Rakonas]

Don't domes give you more culture as well, and they don't cost nearly so much and don't reset the tile yield.

Yeah, terrascapes aren't ideal at all. You even improve the dome with techs. The energy wasted is better spent on maintaining and purchasing buildings and internal production routes.

[Niveras]

Another thing I found entertaining about this game is the complete badassitude of an Explorer unit with one point of Purity.  I've had him stand in a valley and stare down a siege worm until the siege worm turned around and walked away.  I've had him protect the flank of a soldier unit clearing out an infested island.  I've had him single-handedly take out multiple alien hives.  1 Purity point explorers are pretty impressive.   

Yeah, and it doesn't even make sense to me. Like, one point harmony maybe, since isn't the point of harmony being to work with the native life?

One point purity should be something like 150% strength bonus for explorers versus wildlife.

Supremacy can go sit in a corner playing with its polandballs, no one cares about supremacy.

[IronyOwl]

I think a problem with the whole "bland leaders and uninspired quotes" is that the game is trying really hard to capture the uniqueness of Alpha Centauri, but you can't just recreate inspiration on demand.

I keep seeing this notion brought up, and I keep having to wonder if that's actually what they were going for, or if people are just seeing enough similarity to hope followed by enough difference to despair. I mean, nobody calls out post-AC Civ games for "trying to differentiate factions AC-style and failing." Is that because they weren't but BE is, or because BE looks close enough to AC to disappoint people hoping for a direct sequel?

I agree that it could be around, it just seemed a bit too much exactly like the issues we face today to be particularly science fiction.

I assume it's trying to be "looks like the future" rather than "completely different" science fiction. Similar to why not all combat is undertaken by killbots or in digital terms- it's just not as comparable to the current world, and potentially less interesting.