suggestion box - CW edition

Let's use this thread as a feedback channel for the CW moderators to improve the game experience...

SUGGESTION:

Add more information to the ship/colony selection box. Using just the S/C number means you need to go back and forth to make sure you're dealing with the right one. Display the S/C name, type, location, or whatever else to make it more clear.

SUGGESTION:

Move "Target S/C" box over next to "Source S/C" box (and move the main order-writing box to the right) to make it follow a clear direction when you need to write complex orders.

SUGGESTION:

When displaying a colony, show the current requirements for population given current production infrastructure. So if your colony is running 1m factories, 1m mines, and 1m laboratories, show a stat prominently that states "5m professionals and 7m unskilled laborers (or their equivalent in automation) required for full production"

Same with Life Support requirements!

I love all of the above suggestions. I completely agree!

I want a rulebook and tutorials to download.

It would be great to issue orders far more simply. Say 'Make 10 scout ships.'. There should be default ship types, open colony types, and orbiting colony types that people can just use - right off the bat. New ones should be automatically available based on your own technology improvements.

I know it is probably hard to code for, and the idea is to have a complex game where you control all of the details, but this can get ugly real fast.

Think of the line of Civilization games for the computer. They have amazing complexity if you want to play them like that, but most of the time, you want far simpler decisions.

Make it so ship/colony designs don't need to have the structural units on top -- or that the tool automatically puts those lines on top.

Allow rulers to move food and consumer goods BEFORE the population grabs them for stockpiling. Maybe food/cngd *consumption* can happen when it does, but put *stockpiling* further back in the turn sequence, so rulers will have a chance to work with their supplies first.

[quote='ixnay' pid='2225' dateline='1373295639']
Let's use this thread as a feedback channel for the CW moderators to improve the game experience...

SUGGESTION:

Add more information to the ship/colony selection box. Using just the S/C number means you need to go back and forth to make sure you're dealing with the right one. Display the S/C name, type, location, or whatever else to make it more clear.
[/quote]

Darth:
I will endeavor to add some additional detail regarding the suggestions.

[quote='ixnay' pid='2226' dateline='1373295826']
SUGGESTION:

Move "Target S/C" box over next to "Source S/C" box (and move the main order-writing box to the right) to make it follow a clear direction when you need to write complex orders.
[/quote]

This would be a simple cosmetic change adding some intuitive raltionship to the order writer and I agree.

[quote='ixnay' pid='2227' dateline='1373296025']
SUGGESTION:

When displaying a colony, show the current requirements for population given current production infrastructure. So if your colony is running 1m factories, 1m mines, and 1m laboratories, show a stat prominently that states "5m professionals and 7m unskilled laborers (or their equivalent in automation) required for full production"

Same with Life Support requirements!
[/quote]

This suggestion would require adding extensive automated analysis capability to the Central Command client. A great idea which has been suggested by others to one extreme or the other. It would be nice to have a ship design tool, for example, which mapped directly to the inventory and capacities of the constructing S/C and kept account of consumption from other orders written to that point, etc. VERY complex to program relative to what we now have as a simple data reporting tool with order statement concatenator (my term).

I and others have and are developing tools in MS Excel and/or MS Access to perform some of that functionality BUT it is no small task. I do it for fun when I get the urge and have a set of evolving tools. The current database structure has had some tables split so it is taking some effort to update the old stuff I have just for myself. Some players have murmured complaint that the game is easier to play if you have better computer skills and that is probably true. Some more experienced players don't want to learn those skills and so are stuck with doing it the hard way. Back in the old days I used to get my new turn as a fan-fold green-bar paper report and would spend hours just perusing it and using several colored highlighters to simplify the simple task of locating relevant information. Paper, pencil and a six-digit LED display calculator was the best we had, unless you worked in a university or laboratory with spare computer time and the knowledge to program it. Order writing was done by hand or typewriter and then mailed hard copy which SOMEONE then had to type back into the computer input file for processing. It really has come a long way and Empyrean Challenge really was the first 4X game and the most complex game in existence. Maybe it still is the most complex?:D

EC is right up there, in terms of complexity. What's remarkable is that this complexity emerges from relatively simple mechanics. Mine raw materials, grow food, run factories, build ships from a small array of stock components -- it's all pretty straightforward, and random luck plays a minimal role in the game.

As for updating the user-interface, I suggest that you and Vern consider opening up at least part of the platform for open source development. For instance, if I had an unlocked copy of the database, I could build some new reporting screens. These would have no impact on the core functionality -- they'd just display data in different ways. This would not only free Vern up to focus on the core code, it would lead to surprising innovations from players and probably accelerate game development.

Any thoughts?

[quote='ixnay' pid='2273' dateline='1373910077']
EC is right up there, in terms of complexity. What's remarkable is that this complexity emerges from relatively simple mechanics. Mine raw materials, grow food, run factories, build ships from a small array of stock components -- it's all pretty straightforward, and random luck plays a minimal role in the game.

As for updating the user-interface, I suggest that you and Vern consider opening up at least part of the platform for open source development. For instance, if I had an unlocked copy of the database, I could build some new reporting screens. These would have no impact on the core functionality -- they'd just display data in different ways. This would not only free Vern up to focus on the core code, it would lead to surprising innovations from players and probably accelerate game development.

Any thoughts?
[/quote]

I actually have several tools including an MS Access application which is linked to every table in the game database. The MDB file is NOT locked but you can screw it up. Make a copy of it somewhere else and try linking to it with MS Access or ODBC to whatever development tool you are using. I would share some of what I have been doing in the last few days but it would not be wise to disclose my details to other players.

For example, I have a simple "Inventory" report I can run which can be filtered to identify where anything can be found and their quantities. Another report just for habitability and another for just unlimited mining deposits surveyed. Such relatively brief reports are very useful for maintaining focus on objectives. There are several other reports which I have been refining too.

The suggestion to add more information to the Actor and Target selection boxes is something I had suggested too. It would basically turn the list boxes into more complex sub-reports that are selectable.

Once I get a little further along in updating my reporting tool I will apply it to the database for a sandbox game that Vern and I played over a year ago. Then I'll publish some PDF's of those reports for feedback, etc.

I will see if I can get a copy of MS Access on my home computer. (Don't want to use my work computer for this.) If I manage that, then I'll try to pry open the CW files and see if I can build some alternative reports.

Here are three reports.

[quote='ixnay' pid='2273' dateline='1373910077']
EC is right up there, in terms of complexity. What's remarkable is that this complexity emerges from relatively simple mechanics. Mine raw materials, grow food, run factories, build ships from a small array of stock components -- it's all pretty straightforward, and random luck plays a minimal role in the game.

As for updating the user-interface, I suggest that you and Vern consider opening up at least part of the platform for open source development. For instance, if I had an unlocked copy of the database, I could build some new reporting screens. These would have no impact on the core functionality -- they'd just display data in different ways. This would not only free Vern up to focus on the core code, it would lead to surprising innovations from players and probably accelerate game development.

Any thoughts?
[/quote]

I like the idea of making Central Command open source. I would need to know more about how to go about that. Any ideas? Also we need Jay to approve but I think he would. The code is in VB-6.

Making Central Command "Open Source" would be GREAT! This would allow the development of third party "plug-ins" and such that functionality could be expanded and improved without putting the burden on Vern.

I know there are a few existing players right now that could add their own tools into the mix, just as I have been doing for myself.

Also: I notice that the database schema has been revised to separate Planet data from Deposit Survey data. Though it caused me some work to update my tools, it is an improvement approaching standard "normalization" of the data structure.

Open sourcing some of it at least would be awesome, but I bow down to those of you who have the chops to do some magic. I can fart around in access, but I am no programmer.

[quote='Darth Pedro' pid='2322' dateline='1374269456']
Here are three reports.
[/quote]

The 2nd listed report is AWESOME. I LOVE that. I would chew my left pinky toenail partially off for access to such a report right now.

I have some suggestions for additional statistics for the Stats Tab:

Fuel Used by Space Drives
Fuel Used by Hyper Engines
Fuel Mined
Metals Mined
Non-metals Mined

I am sure others have though of more but these are ones I noticed a need for while writing orders.

Farm suggestions:

Make hydrophonic farms (Farm-2 and above) consume Life Support capacity when used anywhere other than an Open Colony.

Make it so farms can consume Non-Metals as fertilizer to boost productivity (or that they get decreased production without non-mets).

Add "Water" as a resource. Make it unlimited on Hab worlds and easy to "mine", but make it a consumable requirement for Farms and Life Support. Maybe even for Mining and Factory production. The point is to reflect that water, necessary for so many activities and easy to come by, still has mass and takes up space -- critical considerations for enclosed space environs.

* * *

I apparently missed reading some of these posts when they went up. I would like to try building some reports out of Access. I'll see if I can crack the game files open and put something simple together as a test.

Farm's do consume LFS capacity due to the personnel used to operate them. Botanical farming is the primary vein of development for life support systems...in other words, it IS the LFS as a byproduct of it's existence.

If you want to use MS Access to mine the game data, make a copy of the game.mdb file and use the linked table manager to link ALL of the tables. You can open the game.mdb file directly and peruse it. Look especially at the relationships diagram. There are some convoluted relationships most of which revolve around having two basic types of entities which can have duplicated ID numbers (Colonies and Ships).

There is the Life Support requirement for the people working the farm, and then there is what the farm itself needs. It takes a lot of water and air to grow plants, so I think it merits having farms consume Life Support capacity (over and above their workers needs.) I guess the main problem I have with the way hydroponic farms work now is that they require NO inputs if running in orbit. It's not realistic, and I imagine it would be a fairly simple change to make operating farms depend on Life Support.

The Water idea is probably somewhat more complicated to develop, but still worth doing I think.

Suggestion for POWER MANAGEMENT:

Currently everything but energy weapon/shield systems (EWP & ESH) and propulsion systems (HEN & SPD) are powered by FUEL CONSUMPTION AND/OR POWER. Remember those Power Plants (think hydroelectric)?..they can't provide energy for EWP's or ESH's...BUT if they required POWER in the following context...

How about Power Generators that consume FUEL to generate POWER which is then consumed by all items in place of the FUEL/POWER solution as it is now? Then you could add a superconducting energy (POWER) storage (SES) plant and also portable BATTERIES which would have two states; charged (BATC) and discharged (BATD). The batteries would be able to draw POWER from the energy storage or as produced at a rate of charge proportional to TL. Batteries would provide a LOW MASS way to haul around readily useable POWER that has been produced and stored in them. They could be recharged and/or jettisoned if desired.

Solar Power would require Solar Collector Arrays (SCA) which could only be installed on OBC's and/or Surface Colonies. OBC mounted SCA's would generate Solar Power at a rate proportional to the TL of the Solar Collector and inversely proportional to the square of the Orbit (out to orbit 11 if desired). Solar Collector Arrays on Surface Colonies would additionally be reduced in output based upon atmosphere for Habitable planets and also reduced a large percentage for the diurnal cycle. Solar Power would need to be consumed as generated or the surplus stored in an Energy Storage unit... otherwise it is LOST.

In all cases, the burning of FUEL would not directly power anything except propulsion systems and POWER GENERATORS. Energy Weapons and Shields would be powered by POWER and NOT FUEL. Power Generators could be assembled in any S/C.

The above scenario would add some complexity but also provide some versatility to the game. I believe it would also add a dimension of realism.

I like this idea. I would couple it with perhaps a reduction in the amount of fuel available to mine, to make energy management part of the whole puzzle of force readiness. Solar arrays, inner orbits, and planets with bigger fuel deposits would take on great significance. It seems like a logical extension of the whole "power" concept introduced in these alpha games. (We never had power stations in the old EC days...)

I'm not fond of this idea. While it would add more "realism", the game is already quite complex enough, and FUEL is already a major concern. No we're not constantly in brown-out mode, but later in the game it does become a challenge with maintaining an adequate resource supply. While it is acknowledged that different people get their enjoyment from different things, and most of us do enjoy a level of complexity in our gaming (or we wouldn't be here), the game is not created for us alone.

If we accept the premise that the goal is to eventually have this game reach commercial viability (ignoring the current decimation of the pay-to-play online market), then it has to remain playable enough to attract new players, and more players. As such, I would not add to the complexity at all, although I wouldn't decrease it much either. If I were to make any change of complexity, it would either be: to remove the whole CNGD / rebel / police / agent dynamic, as well as the private population stockpiles of FOOD and CNGD; or, it would be to provide a great deal more documentation covering the workings of this system in explicit detail. I managed to narrowly avoid both the FOOD and CNGD shortfalls, but it was not a pleasant game starting maneuver. I did not get food into my few scouts on turn 1, and so was delayed by some turns in getting them out, but I wasn't happy about it. I do have to say that it was effective in serving as an early game lesson / reminder in the importance of food management.

I'm working out the additions to the UCC and will make a couple of diagrams showing what we have now versus the new POWER GRID concept.

This is a tricky issue.

On the one hand, the moderators have trimmed EC/CW somewhat since the old days. No more gold or markets, simplified espionage rules, etc.

On the other hand, they've added power generators, beamers, new missile rules, labs, etc.

The game continues to be pretty complex, but now benefits from a power-assisted database client tool to make order-writing easier and less error-prone.

My own opinion is that complexity is not the problem with CW -- indeed it is as you suggest, one of the things that drew us in to the game in the first place. The problem is the interface is not refined enough. I should have buttons and sliders on a web page to set up my orders. I should have warnings displayed when my food production is all being siezed by hungry peasants. I should have an automated advisor telling me that 3 planets in my home system still haven't been surveyed. I should have a live display telling me how many of my professionals will be employed with a given order-set, and how many still idle.

Look at the interface for Civilization 4 (computer game) -- it handles deep complexity with elegant controls and expert advice to make an otherwise tedious game accessible to the masses.

[quote='Darth Pedro' pid='2480' dateline='1378845611']
Suggestion for POWER MANAGEMENT:

The above scenario would add some complexity but also provide some versatility to the game. I believe it would also add a dimension of realism.
[/quote]

It would indeed add complexity and realism. Might as well add nuclear power both fission and fusion. Also BAT should very inefficient until past TL - 10. Not necessarily against this, I just think you would have a whole new game if you add enough.

[quote='ixnay' pid='2226' dateline='1373295826']
SUGGESTION:

Move "Target S/C" box over next to "Source S/C" box (and move the main order-writing box to the right) to make it follow a clear direction when you need to write complex orders.
[/quote]

This has been done.

What about food spoilage? Have four categories for inventory similar to manufacturing quarters only in reverse. If not consumed it spoils. What to do with the rotten refuse? Fertilizer!

Shouldn't you be able to use AUT for CNW? I think so! Or make a special new class of widgets. AUT for MINs, LABs, FCTs and FRMs, MRBs for SLDs, why not something for CNWs????

The new Orders tab is awesome! It is great to have all the orders available without having to open the Order Writer. However, it only includes orders written this turn.

Can you add the standing orders that would apply to the current turn as well?

The improved orders tab with execution phase is fantastic! I am in the process of redesigning ships with new HE and LFS tech and it is nice to see what takes place when. What would be even better, but maybe hard to implement, would be a sort selection in the order writer, like the s/c sort in the imperial directory, which would sort ALL orders based on the order number or by execution phase.

I WANT A TURN PREVIEW RESULTS CAPABILITY -- NOW!

Basically, I want to see if the orders I have crafted, as entered, will screw anything up in my plans when the turn is run. While I am sure this is not an easy thing to do, IT WOULD ENHANCE THE EXPERIENCE GREATLY for me at least.

Nothing makes me want to drop this game more than when I realize I have yet again made a crapload of mistakes mainly due to miscalculating TPT capacity, or LFS capacity, or that I won't have any food on a ship, or crap like that. Or turn sequencing. There should be an EASIER way to re-do orders that are in a bad sequence than deleting the out of ordered set of say, ASSEMBLE orders and re-entering them all in the order so you can prioritize what gets done first without having to re-enter a bunch of orders.

Theres should at least be a WARNINGS TAB in the interface showing you all of your failed orders (and reason code), places where you lost a lot of POP, ships with no/low FUEL (or LFS, or food, etc). Where rebel activity has increased. All of this should be in ONE TAB, maybe color coded in RED or yellow depending on the severity of the problem area.

I have run into the same trouble repeatedly. While I agree that a certain amount of player error can enhance the game and contribute to the Fog of War, there comes a point where the unforgiving interface can doom someone to dust. And since this is a play-test, this is a good time to make suggestions like this.

I would also add some more suggestions for Vern:

1. Can we make this a 1-week turnaround instead of 2-week? I am schedule-challenged to begin with, and it would actually be easier for me to stay on-schedule if it ran weekly.

2. Will there be a second test game starting up at any point? I have made so many mistakes this game that I would love to run a new position the "right way". I don't know how labor-intensive this is for you, so feel free to shoot this down.

3. Tech levels seem to be going up too vigorously. At this point, I am making close to 30M research per turn, which is letting me jump old techs up very quickly. Maybe this is a feature? Maybe raising certain techs becomes ineffective due to the law of diminishing returns? I don't know. I remember reading hints of Energy-weapon-60 last game, and thinking maybe this was going too far or too fast. Maybe tech level costs should go up faster?

4. Was there ever a point where factory groups could enjoy an economy of scale? Like if you have at least 100k factories building something, they get a 10% discount? Or you could give them a small-but-growing discount the longer they make something?

5. Given that it takes 4 turns to produce a good out of a factory, I think it should take 4 turns to build the hull of a ship, depending on the size.

6. I still think hydroponic farms should consume life support capacity. Besides, life support (along with automation) becomes an early-game production end-zone. If you produce enough LFS (or AUT) to support, say, triple your current population, then you never need to make it again. Making Farms depend on LFS would keep LFS in the supply chain.

7. There ought to be an "armor" thing, at least for ships and orbiters.

8. Same thing for fighters. We ought to be able to build space fighters and carriers.

9. Same thing for space mines, automated weapons platforms, cloaking devices, etc. -- all the typical sci-fi ship technologies from the space operas.

I have to disagree with some of these points, as well as the previous message.

I don't mean this as any sort of personal offense to anyone, but if you need an error checker, then create one. I'm not a programmer, so I couldn't pursue it that way, but I ended up creating a spreadsheet in excel to verify my production resource needs, including PRO and AUT/USK. I also have one to verify adequate CNW and TPT capacity. Sure, it takes a while to enter the data, and for some reason, I haven't been able to get the resource needs exact, but it puts me in the ballpark.

For the other points:
1 - 1 one week turn around would knock me out of the game due to my amount of time commuting.
2 - I had this feeling too. I don't regret my start, but certainly see ways to improve it in hindsight. I'd love another test game.
3 - They do seem to be going up much faster than in the previous playtest game, but I don't know about going exponential.
4 - Challenging enough without adding that in. Interesting idea, but we're not creating a simulation. Also, as FCT TLs go up, groups may get smaller just due to a lack of need to so much output.
5 - Colonizing is already slow enough. Don't want to make it slower.
6 - Heavily disagree here. If anything, hydroponic farms are a form of LFS, as they add oxygen and humidity to the environment. Again, this isn't meant to be a simulator. If I were to suggest anything, it would be the opposite - eliminate FOOD and FRM and the 5-turn cache. But, that would be changing the basic game mechanics, which I disagree with doing, so I don't suggest it. FOOD and CNGD do serve as the driver for malcontents and rebels, police and SAGs, and I haven't thought of a better way to do that.
7 - there is. You could use STR-2 instead of LTS/SLS, and you could pack your ship with FOOD.
8 - fighters can exist, but the combat formulae don't permit them to be effective.
9 - It's a great game, do we need to change it?

[quote='jwsosus' pid='3235' dateline='1399431909']
I don't mean this as any sort of personal offense to anyone, but if you need an error checker, then create one. I'm not a programmer, so I couldn't pursue it that way, but I ended up creating a spreadsheet in excel to verify my production resource needs, including PRO and AUT/USK. I also have one to verify adequate CNW and TPT capacity. Sure, it takes a while to enter the data, and for some reason, I haven't been able to get the resource needs exact, but it puts me in the ballpark.
[/quote]

I am on the fence. I see the fog-of-war stuff. It should be relatively straightforward to check ones orders. And player errors are made in just about every PBM game I have ever heard of. But if, in this case, the player is prone to such errors that they don't want to play, then it's not good. Maybe SOME of the error-checking suggestions could be implemented, or maybe we should just share some good spreadsheet tools.

1 - 1 one week turn around would knock me out of the game due to my amount of time commuting.
2 - I had this feeling too. I don't regret my start, but certainly see ways to improve it in hindsight. I'd love another test game.
3 - They do seem to be going up much faster than in the previous playtest game, but I don't know about going exponential.
4 - Challenging enough without adding that in. Interesting idea, but we're not creating a simulation. Also, as FCT TLs go up, groups may get smaller just due to a lack of need to so much output.
5 - Colonizing is already slow enough. Don't want to make it slower.
6 - Heavily disagree here. If anything, hydroponic farms are a form of LFS, as they add oxygen and humidity to the environment. Again, this isn't meant to be a simulator. If I were to suggest anything, it would be the opposite - eliminate FOOD and FRM and the 5-turn cache. But, that would be changing the basic game mechanics, which I disagree with doing, so I don't suggest it. FOOD and CNGD do serve as the driver for malcontents and rebels, police and SAGs, and I haven't thought of a better way to do that.
7 - there is. You could use STR-2 instead of LTS/SLS, and you could pack your ship with FOOD.
8 - fighters can exist, but the combat formulae don't permit them to be effective.
9 - It's a great game, do we need to change it?

1 - wouldn't want anyone to drop the game!

2 - the main problem with restarting would be for those people who are actually happy with their positions. we have all invested hours into this game, so it might suck for them to restart. anyone else want to chime in here?

3 - the high tech expansion might be mitigated by the fact that upgrading from Energy Weapon 59 to Energy Weapon 60 doesn't significantly upgrade performance (36000 damage up from 34810 damage - 3.4% bump), while costing 59M research.

4 - I could have sworn that in some earlier version of EC factory groups did get a quantity discount. Anyway, this wouldn't add much complexity -- it would just add incentive to dedicate production lines, and cost to retool.

5 - I hear you. But expounding on this, instead of making ship hulls take longer to build, what about making different products take different lengths of time to build? For instance, Consumer Goods could be produced in one turn, while hyper engines could require 8 turns. This would probably cause so much recoding as to be impossible, but I thought I'd throw it out there. Another option -- what about making ship hulls static, once built? So that it's expensive or impossible to expand or shrink a ship?

6 - Farms presumably include livestock, which causes pollution. And everything needs clean water, which can be considered part of LFS. As for removing food/farming from the game, sure, that's possible. Basically you could abstract away all the needs of your population, and just have to pay maybe a maintenance cost in terms of "resource points" to maintain ship/colonies, population, etc. But that might just make this game like most other space empire games, and diminish the awesome supply-chain planning and tactile sci-fi feel of CW.

7 - Yes. You can simulate armor by using STUN and FOOD. To me, that's a hack. I'd rather see an armor option. With tech levels.

8 - Fighters? The size and scope of production goods that go into a space-drive, a weapons rack, life support, etc, looks more like corvettes or gunboats than fighters. Plus the whole food thing. I just always like using fighters in other games, and think it would add a new weapons platform dimension to the two we have (beams and missiles).

9 - I will concede that we don't need to make CW more like other games. So no, we don't necessarily need cloaking devices. But each new game seems to have a few new items or rules-tweaks, so it's worth brainstorming. Beamers and Robot Probes have added to the game, in my humble opinion, and they are new.

[quote='jwsosus' pid='3235' dateline='1399431909']
but if you need an error checker, then create one.
[/quote]

I find this PoV frankly, insulting to players, and indicative of the exact mindset in PBM gaming that led to its stagnation, decline, and potential failure as a mode of gaming in the modern world.

PBM interfaces were obtuse and not user-friendly in the past because it was a limitation of the medium. This limitation no longer applies.

What is the game about? Is it a game of Interstellar exploration, colonization and conquest? Or is it game about creating programs and spreadsheet to model data with a space empire theme? The latter sounds like a fun university project for data modeling or programming courses, not a game.

Unless the obtuseness is a game mechanic, it should be smoothed out as much as possible given the medium.

Again, I did not mean to offend anyone, and I stated that up front. I recognized that I had the same need, and I found a way to take care of it that worked for me to a certain extent. Some of the current and previous players in the game are/were programmers, and found ways to create programs that met their needs. I'm not a programmer.

As far as what is the game about, that includes planning, detailed production, resource use, and population dynamics - it is NOT a typical 4X game. Different people like different details in their games, and EC/CW is one of a very few that are made for people who like this detail. There are many games that meet the typical non-detailed 4X mechanism, and frankly, many of them have now gone visual for playing either in a real-time, or in short-time turn based format. People who like that format have many other places to look, and typically either don't look, or don't stay with EC/CW. I love the concept of PBM games, but there aren't many out there that have a mechanism that appeals to me.

I will grant that the order writer allows for huge, or even catastrophic mistakes, errors, or fat-fingers. I recognize that an error checker would be helpful, but didn't want to pressure the moderator to deal with it in the short term, as he is correcting other details. I do have to say that the moderator has been equitable about fixing the things that are truly catastrophic to a player's position, and letting you learn from the lesser ones. I myself have said in the past that one should be defeated by other players, and not by the order writer. While I still agree with that statement, I try to play more carefully now.

As far as what may have led to a decline in PBM players, I think you might find that many left because of age, some left because of cost (although running a game costs money), and the younger generations can play many games for free, or can play games (for money even) that offer more instant gratification rather than requiring the patience that goes with the PBM format.

I would like to see Beamers capable of transporting people. Either only once you reach a certain tech level, or separately having to research it. And maybe only then can you beam them in system, and only max orbital distance of say, Beamer tech level divided by 10.

It would also be nice to develop HEN/BEamers, where you could beam things between systems, again either separately researched, or only when you receive a high tech level. And then you can only beam, say and 1/2 or 1/3 the range of your HEN tech.

Just some ideas.

ASC can fly, right? Why can't they transport themselves instead of using TPT capacity? Historically, real combat aircraft have been both shipped and flown to combat zones. I understand it is cheaper to ship them due to fuel constraints, but the military just doesn't sit back and wait for a cab!

Conditional orders.

For anyone who ever had an OBC end up in the wrong tactical coordinates (like I did) or had a ship JMP out of system before it was ready, no explanation is needed.

IF "S1234,TMV,0,0,0" {
S1234,STP,OBC
list of stuff
}

IF "S1234,DOC,C1234" {
C1234,LOAD,stuff
S1234,JMP,8,3,9
}

Do you know what I mean?

[quote='Pool Boy' pid='3226' dateline='1399297211']
I WANT A TURN PREVIEW RESULTS CAPABILITY -- NOW!

Basically, I want to see if the orders I have crafted, as entered, will screw anything up in my plans when the turn is run. While I am sure this is not an easy thing to do, IT WOULD ENHANCE THE EXPERIENCE GREATLY for me at least.

Nothing makes me want to drop this game more than when I realize I have yet again made a crapload of mistakes mainly due to miscalculating TPT capacity, or LFS capacity, or that I won't have any food on a ship, or crap like that. Or turn sequencing. There should be an EASIER way to re-do orders that are in a bad sequence than deleting the out of ordered set of say, ASSEMBLE orders and re-entering them all in the order so you can prioritize what gets done first without having to re-enter a bunch of orders.

Theres should at least be a WARNINGS TAB in the interface showing you all of your failed orders (and reason code), places where you lost a lot of POP, ships with no/low FUEL (or LFS, or food, etc). Where rebel activity has increased. All of this should be in ONE TAB, maybe color coded in RED or yellow depending on the severity of the problem area.
[/quote]

There is a Move button in the Order Writer. Select an order, click the Move button, an entry box appears, enter the new order number, click ok.

[quote='Ramblurr' pid='3239' dateline='1399487658']
[quote='jwsosus' pid='3235' dateline='1399431909']
but if you need an error checker, then create one.
[/quote]

I find this PoV frankly, insulting to players, and indicative of the exact mindset in PBM gaming that led to its stagnation, decline, and potential failure as a mode of gaming in the modern world.

PBM interfaces were obtuse and not user-friendly in the past because it was a limitation of the medium. This limitation no longer applies.

What is the game about? Is it a game of Interstellar exploration, colonization and conquest? Or is it game about creating programs and spreadsheet to model data with a space empire theme? The latter sounds like a fun university project for data modeling or programming courses, not a game.

Unless the obtuseness is a game mechanic, it should be smoothed out as much as possible given the medium.
[/quote]

Just so you know, the official plan is to add an order test feature. It will allow players to submit orders for testing which will return a report of what would go wrong.

My suggestion is people play the game to actually try and win! It's supposed to be an individual game, what I see is everyone banding together with all their friends in some mega alliance. Gee, real hard to do well if 80% of the players in the game are in the same alliance. That's risking it.

Talked to Vern about this already. I guess in a real game, this would not happen if you cannot intentionally join the same game. But where's the sporting in this game!? I guess it's "safer". So much for newbies though.

Playing anonymously has shown me a lot about how that works. Which is what I was trying to test, how much do pre game friends come into play? Basically, the entire game is being decided by it. So, it needs to change before going to real games. Would never join such a game as is. It's ridiculous.

Not sure why it's so difficult to attack someone you know. It's a game! Mix it up. Try and win individual victory.