What is the problem with SE5?

[PvK]

President_Elect_Shang said:
... One thing you said gives me a new thought. How would you implement the retreat feature if you could?

Well, my design style is different from MM's in many ways, but I would do it by making it less abstract. I like the feature that allows the players to specify where within a system the ships are deployed - I think it should be applied more literally. So, the game would track where all ships are within the ENTIRE sector, meaning the sector would be much larger, and time/rate/distance would be consistent. Ships would actually travel across a sector to reach the next sector. Combat would occur and endure whilst ships were in range and engagement was imminent. In other words, continuous action, and rates/times/distances actually consistent, with no artificial rules about combat ending and restarting, or ships teleporting an entire sector, etc.

Now, that's not the only way to do it, I doubt MM would choose to do it that way since Aaron seems to like abstractions, and there are probably abstract ways to represent it that don't have so many loop-holes. For example, in SE3 I believe ships were only allowed to retreat as long as they had strategic movement left - that alone would solve one of the problems with retreating. Improving the conditions under which retreats occur would also help (i.e. realizing when ships are all running away and no combat will occur so don't record it as a combat, and realizing that slightly faster ships WILL catch someone, so make a scatter decision and then start combat only somewhat outside of range, and let it continue based on relative speeds not based on artificial distances or time limits).

PvK

[Moriarty]

Without a lengthy discourse as to the nature of the problem what is the ONE problem you have with SE5? The one and only one that eats you up more than any others?

Simple answer: "death by a thousand cuts". That's the one reason. If you want a comprehensive list there are a bunch of threads that cover those.

Uncle_Joe: I remember them pointing to a poll that they conductd on THEIR SITE about wanting multiplayer or not. They said the results were overwhelmingly against. Well, if you ask on a SINGLE PLAYER ONLY forum, its not likely that you will terribly many MP players hanging around to participate in your poll, are you?

A valid observation, but look at it another way - If they're content with their current, single player market, and that market has no interest in multiplayer, why do they need to implement multiplayer? Sure they'll get more players but they'll also gain all manner of troubles (both from a design and support perpsective).
I did see the poll in question and multiplayer lost by a long way. Also I believe this was for an addon. Who better to ask what you want in an addon than the current players?

[Atrocities]

1. The UI what stirs me are features that add nothing to game play but make it more complicated for nothing in return.

2. Why place components on ships when it does near to nothing (ships blow up so fast that the directional damage doesn't come into play anyway).

3. Why add a maintenance cost to the most basic facilities? If my Mineral Miner Facility earns 1000 and costs 100 per turn, why not just earn 900? It is much easier to understand and to calculate (for the AI, too...).

These are very valid comments. And I agree, Aaron really needs to play 150 turns to understand why the UI needs SO MUCH work.

I could go into great detail about each and every UI thing that I know needs to be addressed and or fixed, but why.. at this point the focus is on bugs and the AI. When the time comes to start addressing the UI, there won't be, if you listen to the nay sayers, any players left to play the game, or so it would seem. But hopefully by the time the UI is addressed, there will already be a huge TO DO list.

[AstralWanderer]

I'd also put the UI forward as the biggest problem - it slows everything else down and takes the fun out of SEV. If all the UI issues were magically fixed, then AI would be the next problem.

I do have to say that I am stupified that Aaron doesn't play his games. It's a bit like an artist painting blindfold ("Hey look, I managed to get a blob of paint on the canvas!") or a builder not checking for structural integrity ("Ha! I'm not going inside that pile of junk, let someone else deal with any collapse!"). If this is the case then it's a minor miracle that SEV was even able to gain the lukewarm reviews it's had so far.

As an aside to Uncle_Joe's post, I'm also one of those who don't do multiplayer (and GalCiv would likely have been worse with it added) and I think Stardock have a valid point in seeing single player games as the majority market. Half-Life is the most popular online game according to GameSpy stats (with a peak of 75,000 players online in December '06 - see Online Gaming Zeitgeist) yet this is tiny compared to the total number of gamers out there.

[Ragnarok-X]

The UI turns me off. All once in a while in turn on SEV. I play 5 turns, and quit.

[Kana]

Yeah I can't believe Aaron hasnt played the game he created, that would be like SJ making CB mod, and never playing it...

[Uncle_Joe]

If they're content with their current, single player market, and that market has no interest in multiplayer, why do they need to implement multiplayer?

and

As an aside to Uncle_Joe's post, I'm also one of those who don't do multiplayer (and GalCiv would likely have been worse with it added) and I think Stardock have a valid point in seeing single player games as the majority market.

And IMO if they want to do a single-player game then thats fine if it works (which it appears to do). But what bugs me about it is the attitude that they are so right because of their 'poll'. If you conduct a 'poll' under heavily weighted conditions, then you can get the results to favor whatever premise you choose. And thats what I feel happened there.

For example, if you went the PBW forums and asked if MP capability was important in a 4x game, I seriously doubt you'd get the same response! So to go to a game forum where mostly single-player gamers are present and conduct such a poll is equally worthless IMO.

But I do understand what you are saying ('why bother adding what their majority of their CURRENT customers dont find important?'). And it makes some sense. But the way it was presented at the time (and since) really rubbed me the wrong way. And unfortunately, it does NOT tell them how much of a market they lost by not having MP capability (and it might be tiny or it be much greater, but that 'poll' still cant measure it since the sampling is mainly of people for whom MP capability has lesser value).

[Phoenix-D]

That and its not like implementing MP takes much time or effort (with the exception of TCP/IP play).

[Kana]

At the GalCiv2 site they had a poll in May 06 asking...

Would you purchase a $20 multiplayer-only expansion to GC2?

The results were 33% said yes, and 66% said no.

Also they had a poll asking what features players would want in a sequel...

[Phoenix-D]

That is, er, the poll he's complaining about.