Suggestions for Space Empires V

[spoon]

That would be fine if one game had anything to do with the next... But they don't (and IMO, they shouldn't)

They don't because there isn't anything connecting them. Add experience, and they do.

[Suicide Junkie]

But why should they have anything connecting them?

It would be like playing Doom, and starting out with a blue armor because I got to level 10 before dying in my last game.
Makes no sense!

[spoon]

Making sense < Having fun.

People like the sense of gaining experience. Doesn't have to be completely logical. SE4 isn't a sim game, and so it shouldn't worry about realism if it gets in the way of fun.

[Suicide Junkie]

spoon said:
Making sense < Having fun.

People like the sense of gaining experience. Doesn't have to be completely logical.

No, it dosen't. But it has to make some sense, or its just arbitrary and silly.

If you set limits on the racial experience allowed in your EMPs, then everybody will have to make theirs *just* that high by playing a single player game until they get it.
Its no different from allowing more racial points in the game setup as far as I can see, except more work before you even start the game.


I guess the real question is; how is it fun if you have to play 50 turns singleplayer just to set up your race for the real game?

[spoon]

Suicide Junkie said:
No, it dosen't. But it has to make some sense, or its just arbitrary and silly.

It's abritrary and silly that all these races exist at the same time and have the same tech level and similar planet values at the start of the game. Should those be changed to something more realistic as well? It's a game. Games are allowed to be arbitrary. I wouldn't find a mechanic like this to be "silly" at all. Just a game reward for time played.

And remember, this would be a predominantly single player thing. For single player games, having experience is fine, since you opt into it and don't have to worry about balance so much. For multiplayer games, of course most people aren't going to want to play a game where somebody has 5000 more points to spend. You can just give everyone the same number of points via a bonus.

[spoon]

Suicide Junkie said:
Its no different from allowing more racial points in the game setup as far as I can see, except more work before you even start the game.

More work, as in a couple more buttons to click during game creation: Allow x Racial XPs; Equalize Races.

So, yes, in multiplayer games, it would be the same as just assigning more points. But like I said, this is mostly a single player feature. The difference here, as I said before, is it represents a reward that the game gives you rather than a "reward" that you give yourself. This makes a big difference in terms of satisfaction.

[Suicide Junkie]

I'm still not seeing any reason why though.

It would be like starting with armor and/or guns in Doom because you got all the way to level 10 without dying last time.
Or starting with three settlers instead of one in Civilization because you conquered the world so fast in your previous game.
Or making PacMan move 10% faster because you got to level 50 on your previous quarter.

Why in the world should the game be getting easier when you do well?
If you win, it is time to increase the difficulty, not decrease it!

Automatic cheat codes when you least need them don't make any sense to me!

[Suicide Junkie]

To put it in RPG terms, it would be like starting a new game with a level 1 Barbarian who has a +20 Hammer of Skull Smashing.
And the only reason you justify that with is because in the previous game, your party was able to kill 99 imps in a row.

I don't see how that kind of thing can be justified.

[spoon]

Suicide Junkie said:
I'm still not seeing any reason why though.

It would be like starting with armor and/or guns in Doom because you got all the way to level 10 without dying last time.

This is essentially what happens in Counterstrike. Each side gets money after completing each round, regardless if you live or not. The better you did, the more you get. Warlords III (or was it IV) had persistent heroes. Lots of games do this. It's not about realism. It's about gradual increases in power and/or creating a "bond" with empires or characters. Because those kinds of things make the game more enjoyable to a lot of people.

Or making PacMan move 10% faster because you got to level 50 on your previous quarter..

You joke, but this would actually have made the game even more addictive. Or does this violate your concept of the PacMan universe somehow

Why in the world should the game be getting easier when you do well?
If you win, it is time to increase the difficulty, not decrease it!

I think the OP said something about helping out when the game is too hard. Additionally, you could ramp up the AI on a seperate power curve. The AI bonus could be tied directly to Racial XPs on new games. Games you lose could be restarted without the AI getting their extra bonus.

Automatic cheat codes when you least need them don't make any sense to me!

I agree completely. But I don't think a Racial XP system needs to be implemented in the off-balancing ways you are suggesting it would be. To me, it's all gravy to the kind of people that like that sort of gameplay, and completely optional to those that don't.