Mandatory Retirement. Why? - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  The Game
  Mandatory Retirement. Why?

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Mandatory Retirement. Why?

Szethe posted 03-05-99 12:41 AM ET
MY 2500 is just not enough time for the kind of SMAC game I like to play. Anyone else with me on this? This falls under the "what's not cool" category in my book.
Firaxis, would you consider giving access to to this setting through the ini file?
Imran Siddiqui posted 03-05-99 12:46 AM ET
You can play after the date has been reached.
Imran Siddiqui
yin26 posted 03-05-99 12:55 AM ET
You are exactly right. I am really trying to like this game, but such blatant restrictions on people's style of play is yet more proof to me that Firaxis went out of its way to needlessly impede gameplay.
Anybody who has the will-power to play that long, should be allowed to (and still earn points): even if it means having to make the player make costly upgrades to all base facilities, have the planet go dead (produce no more minerals, almost no nutrients etc.--the made dash for the few green squares left would actually be fun) or whatever that poses a plausible yet playable restriction to playing as long as you want--or can--given the environment.
yin26 posted 03-05-99 12:56 AM ET
Imran,
Do you still earn points? Now I'm confused.
Thanks.
Squire James posted 03-05-99 03:17 AM ET
I play what I see as long, excruciating games, and finish in the late 2300's. Playing until 2500-2600 seems generous to me.
In my opinion, this "mandatory retirement" is roughly analagous to the faction leader's actual lifespan. The Longevity Vaccine voiceover seemed to imply that the "going rate" on life expectancy is about 500 years. So perhaps that "mandatory retirement" is just a nice way of saying that your alter-ego has (finally) died of old age!
Besides, SOME time limit had to be placed, so there would be an effective limit to score. On the other hand, score is kinda pointless when you realize that they don't pro-rate it for larger maps. Perhaps a harsher score penalty for a late finish would be better (over and above the current time-based penalty, which usually doesn't amount to much).
MoonLight posted 03-05-99 05:27 AM ET
I must agree with Szethe on this matter. I like to play LOOOOONG sessions on a huge map where you allow the computer to strengthen his empire before you start an all-out war. If you play at Talent difficulty, this can take som time, and you don't want to advance to the Librarian level, because then you get a 100 turns less than at Talent. I don't remember how many turns you got in Civ2, but they must have been more numerous.
Squire James has a point when he writes about lifespan, but what about Civ2? Talk about lifespan!
Please Firafix, let us who wants to play a longer game do so.
WildFire posted 03-05-99 07:02 AM ET
Usually on Talent (sometimes later) with the University, by the late 2300s to early 2400s, I would have plowed my way through all the techs and well into the late-teens with Transcendental Thoughts...
So what I'm saying is that 2500 as a retirement age is quite generous. I would imagine even Miriam could to Transcendence way before she has to 'retire'..
MoSe posted 03-05-99 08:29 AM ET
So,
for someone there'are not enough turns to finish a game,
some others hardly use half ot the turns available.
The Formers (Trance... prone maybe) hence claim the game wasn't correctly designed in order to allow them too to develop their game style.
Maybe when we fail we could try to take a step back and reassess our goals and objectives (Yes, I took that from that test, Ansir IIRC, I found in the off-topic forum).
Pre-requisite: the issue here is SCORING,
otherwise you ARE allowed to go on playing as long as you like. Playing, testing & exploring possibilities, exploit the land to the last drop, wager(sp?) huge war campaigns with massive armies, ...
1. The complaint is, the game doesn't allow enough turns to play your gamestyle AND get a score in the end.
2. Enforce a Turn limit is not indeed strictly necessary, thoguh it is a viable choice in game design.
3. It has been done before (w/ some success, or few complaints at least), so we should be well accustomed to the concept in itself.
4. The problem should be then, how many turns. This has been thogroughly discussed before, if you check it it turned out that the number of turns was actually more or less similar in Civ II (being the gameplay differently developed tho).
5. If you accept the idea of a turn limit for scoring purpose, and your concern IS scoring, you should at least TRY to do with the settings the games come with.
6. When your concern is scoring, I assume your goal is winning (you get a score also in other ways, but winning you surely get a higher one). Without altering your gamestyle, you should thus seek to be more efficient and try to win faster in order to score higher.
7. I too like huge maps, huge landmass, lots of cities, develop them completely, get future techs. If that was all I looked for, (the path, not the goal), I'd enjoy building an empire just for the fun of it and I wouldn't care for the score. It is not so actually: that is the way I like to play, cause I think that way I (maybe different for others) can get the best results (i.e. score) in the game.
8. Enjoying long games doesn't mean wasting time, and using 20 turns to get the same thing you can get in 8 WITH your gamestyle. It means that my priority is to build & develop well rather than rush for conquest with clay feet, but I put all my efforts to do it in the fastest & most efficient way compatible with my gamestyle.
9. In that sense, getting a score, and respecting the challenge of a turns limit, is a major component in the satisfaction I get putting to test my skills in playing the game the style I like.
10. If you have to WAIT for the AI to build up an army big enough to challenge and thrill you on the battlefield, that sounds like if you wanted you could have gone for victory before. Like it is combat fun you seek, that's good but I don't see where score caring fits in with it (in this latter perspective combat can be fun but IS a mean to an end).
11. You can always take accelerated start, or put up a scenario for the purpose of combat fun.
12. You have many options to win here in SMAC, by knowledge, by wealth, by growth, by strength. If you can't get to the end with the style you play, maybe that's not the one you're most skilled at... So take the challenge, improve and get skilled enough to have fun with your gamestyle AND win within the turns limit. Or try a different path, maybe it'll surprise you (as spartans did with a provost like me).
Hate you for luring me in keeping such a lecture.
Hey, that's just my point of view, but I'm pretty confident with it, you'd need good logic & common sense to convince me of the contrary.
Indeed I finished just two full games:
2350 UoP, huge, citizen, Transcendent V.
2220 Sparta, small, talent, conquest
I'd play two months rather than two weeks before saying something more on the subject.
Saluti
MariOne
Prerogative posted 03-05-99 10:36 AM ET
For the record, Civ and Civ II were only 500 (or thereabouts) turns long as well. This is no "restriction" on gameplay made by the evil Firaxians.
But I'm not very big on getting enormous scores anyway.
Rubikahn posted 03-05-99 10:46 AM ET
- Kudos to MoSe -
MoSe posted 03-05-99 10:50 AM ET
I want a plaque on the monument for my first kudos!
Squire James posted 03-06-99 05:08 AM ET
K K SSS
K K U U DDD OO S
KK U U D D O O SS
K K U U D D O O S
K K UU DDD OO SSS
MoSe has gotten kudos on March 5, 1999! (Brian Reynolds had already gotten the first kudos on February 6, 1999.)
Squire James posted 03-06-99 05:09 AM ET
(Boy, don't you hate it when the message board messes up about a half-hour of careful space-bar engineering?)
Imran Siddiqui posted 03-06-99 04:55 PM ET
Yeah, I don't care about score. I like to have fun playing, not just reaching for a high score or anything (or else I'd convert everything to military and conquer the world, but I don't like that).
Imran Siddiqui
Szethe posted 03-06-99 06:30 PM ET
Well this is the first game I've played that went out to 2480, when that retirement message comes up. If score is tallied only up to 2500, but I can play after that, then I'm a happy camper.
SHardy posted 03-08-99 01:15 PM ET
I recently played a game on Citizen and was able to win a conquest game going until the year 2513. I never received a mandatory retirement message at all. Are you allowed to play more than 400 turns at the lower difficulty levels? If this is in the manual I apologize in advance (I am at work and don't have it with me to check).
BTW, I have the 2.0 Patch loaded.
Steve
SHardy posted 03-08-99 01:17 PM ET
Another note to the above post:
I did receive a score after this was over. The scoring did not stop at year 2500.
thanks.
Steve
Biddles posted 03-13-99 09:44 PM ET
If your taking so long to finish the game (even empire building style) then maybe you are not exploiting your factions strengths enough.
I am usually an UoP player. In the first game that I played as Morgan I thought he was crap. Then I realised I wasn't playing right, I was still trying to go after tech and I wasn't exploiting Morgans incredible ability for generating cash. Know I still keep up with the tech, but i concentrate on making money and using that money to buy what i need.
The point of this is to say that maybe you need to change your faction or adjust your style to suit the faction.
-Biddles
Spoe posted 03-13-99 10:19 PM ET
I'd be fine with removeing the Mandatory retirement. Just follow the current formulas for scoring and long games will be penalized.
For example, with a conquest victory, you get a bonus of 1000 - (2 * turns). After 500 turns, this would become a penalty.
For Economic and Dimplomatic victories, the bonus would become a penalty after 600 turns, with Trancendence after 800.
So, I mildly agree with Szethe and yin26 on this one. I say mildly because I think mandatory retirement is a minor impediment, and definately not a step backward from Civ 2.
Spoe posted 03-13-99 10:21 PM ET
The point, Biddles, is that some people might not be playing to win within a certain amount of time but might be looking at it from a more SimCity-like standpoint. They might like just building their empire, rather than winning in the least time possible.
Pique posted 03-13-99 11:17 PM ET
FYI, on Cit and Spec levels, maybe talent, I don't remember, you get an extra 100 years before mandatory retirement. Soooo...you wouldn't get the message until the year 2600 approaches. I can't imagine a game going on that long, personally, especially at the lower difficulty levels...
Pique
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: Mandatory Retirement. Why?
Szethe	posted 03-05-99 12:41 AM ET MY 2500 is just not enough time for the kind of SMAC game I like to play. Anyone else with me on this? This falls under the "what's not cool" category in my book. Firaxis, would you consider giving access to to this setting through the ini file?
Imran Siddiqui	posted 03-05-99 12:46 AM ET You can play after the date has been reached. Imran Siddiqui
yin26	posted 03-05-99 12:55 AM ET You are exactly right. I am really trying to like this game, but such blatant restrictions on people's style of play is yet more proof to me that Firaxis went out of its way to needlessly impede gameplay. Anybody who has the will-power to play that long, should be allowed to (and still earn points): even if it means having to make the player make costly upgrades to all base facilities, have the planet go dead (produce no more minerals, almost no nutrients etc.--the made dash for the few green squares left would actually be fun) or whatever that poses a plausible yet playable restriction to playing as long as you want--or can--given the environment.
yin26	posted 03-05-99 12:56 AM ET Imran, Do you still earn points? Now I'm confused. Thanks.
Squire James	posted 03-05-99 03:17 AM ET I play what I see as long, excruciating games, and finish in the late 2300's. Playing until 2500-2600 seems generous to me. In my opinion, this "mandatory retirement" is roughly analagous to the faction leader's actual lifespan. The Longevity Vaccine voiceover seemed to imply that the "going rate" on life expectancy is about 500 years. So perhaps that "mandatory retirement" is just a nice way of saying that your alter-ego has (finally) died of old age! Besides, SOME time limit had to be placed, so there would be an effective limit to score. On the other hand, score is kinda pointless when you realize that they don't pro-rate it for larger maps. Perhaps a harsher score penalty for a late finish would be better (over and above the current time-based penalty, which usually doesn't amount to much).
MoonLight	posted 03-05-99 05:27 AM ET I must agree with Szethe on this matter. I like to play LOOOOONG sessions on a huge map where you allow the computer to strengthen his empire before you start an all-out war. If you play at Talent difficulty, this can take som time, and you don't want to advance to the Librarian level, because then you get a 100 turns less than at Talent. I don't remember how many turns you got in Civ2, but they must have been more numerous. Squire James has a point when he writes about lifespan, but what about Civ2? Talk about lifespan! Please Firafix, let us who wants to play a longer game do so.
WildFire	posted 03-05-99 07:02 AM ET Usually on Talent (sometimes later) with the University, by the late 2300s to early 2400s, I would have plowed my way through all the techs and well into the late-teens with Transcendental Thoughts... So what I'm saying is that 2500 as a retirement age is quite generous. I would imagine even Miriam could to Transcendence way before she has to 'retire'..
MoSe	posted 03-05-99 08:29 AM ET So, for someone there'are not enough turns to finish a game, some others hardly use half ot the turns available. The Formers (Trance... prone maybe) hence claim the game wasn't correctly designed in order to allow them too to develop their game style. Maybe when we fail we could try to take a step back and reassess our goals and objectives (Yes, I took that from that test, Ansir IIRC, I found in the off-topic forum). Pre-requisite: the issue here is SCORING, otherwise you ARE allowed to go on playing as long as you like. Playing, testing & exploring possibilities, exploit the land to the last drop, wager(sp?) huge war campaigns with massive armies, ... 1. The complaint is, the game doesn't allow enough turns to play your gamestyle AND get a score in the end. 2. Enforce a Turn limit is not indeed strictly necessary, thoguh it is a viable choice in game design. 3. It has been done before (w/ some success, or few complaints at least), so we should be well accustomed to the concept in itself. 4. The problem should be then, how many turns. This has been thogroughly discussed before, if you check it it turned out that the number of turns was actually more or less similar in Civ II (being the gameplay differently developed tho). 5. If you accept the idea of a turn limit for scoring purpose, and your concern IS scoring, you should at least TRY to do with the settings the games come with. 6. When your concern is scoring, I assume your goal is winning (you get a score also in other ways, but winning you surely get a higher one). Without altering your gamestyle, you should thus seek to be more efficient and try to win faster in order to score higher. 7. I too like huge maps, huge landmass, lots of cities, develop them completely, get future techs. If that was all I looked for, (the path, not the goal), I'd enjoy building an empire just for the fun of it and I wouldn't care for the score. It is not so actually: that is the way I like to play, cause I think that way I (maybe different for others) can get the best results (i.e. score) in the game. 8. Enjoying long games doesn't mean wasting time, and using 20 turns to get the same thing you can get in 8 WITH your gamestyle. It means that my priority is to build & develop well rather than rush for conquest with clay feet, but I put all my efforts to do it in the fastest & most efficient way compatible with my gamestyle. 9. In that sense, getting a score, and respecting the challenge of a turns limit, is a major component in the satisfaction I get putting to test my skills in playing the game the style I like. 10. If you have to WAIT for the AI to build up an army big enough to challenge and thrill you on the battlefield, that sounds like if you wanted you could have gone for victory before. Like it is combat fun you seek, that's good but I don't see where score caring fits in with it (in this latter perspective combat can be fun but IS a mean to an end). 11. You can always take accelerated start, or put up a scenario for the purpose of combat fun. 12. You have many options to win here in SMAC, by knowledge, by wealth, by growth, by strength. If you can't get to the end with the style you play, maybe that's not the one you're most skilled at... So take the challenge, improve and get skilled enough to have fun with your gamestyle AND win within the turns limit. Or try a different path, maybe it'll surprise you (as spartans did with a provost like me). Hate you for luring me in keeping such a lecture. Hey, that's just my point of view, but I'm pretty confident with it, you'd need good logic & common sense to convince me of the contrary. Indeed I finished just two full games: 2350 UoP, huge, citizen, Transcendent V. 2220 Sparta, small, talent, conquest I'd play two months rather than two weeks before saying something more on the subject. Saluti MariOne
Prerogative	posted 03-05-99 10:36 AM ET For the record, Civ and Civ II were only 500 (or thereabouts) turns long as well. This is no "restriction" on gameplay made by the evil Firaxians. But I'm not very big on getting enormous scores anyway.
Rubikahn	posted 03-05-99 10:46 AM ET - Kudos to MoSe -
MoSe	posted 03-05-99 10:50 AM ET I want a plaque on the monument for my first kudos!
Squire James	posted 03-06-99 05:08 AM ET K K SSS K K U U DDD OO S KK U U D D O O SS K K U U D D O O S K K UU DDD OO SSS MoSe has gotten kudos on March 5, 1999! (Brian Reynolds had already gotten the first kudos on February 6, 1999.)
Squire James	posted 03-06-99 05:09 AM ET (Boy, don't you hate it when the message board messes up about a half-hour of careful space-bar engineering?)
Imran Siddiqui	posted 03-06-99 04:55 PM ET Yeah, I don't care about score. I like to have fun playing, not just reaching for a high score or anything (or else I'd convert everything to military and conquer the world, but I don't like that). Imran Siddiqui
Szethe	posted 03-06-99 06:30 PM ET Well this is the first game I've played that went out to 2480, when that retirement message comes up. If score is tallied only up to 2500, but I can play after that, then I'm a happy camper.
SHardy	posted 03-08-99 01:15 PM ET I recently played a game on Citizen and was able to win a conquest game going until the year 2513. I never received a mandatory retirement message at all. Are you allowed to play more than 400 turns at the lower difficulty levels? If this is in the manual I apologize in advance (I am at work and don't have it with me to check). BTW, I have the 2.0 Patch loaded. Steve
SHardy	posted 03-08-99 01:17 PM ET Another note to the above post: I did receive a score after this was over. The scoring did not stop at year 2500. thanks. Steve
Biddles	posted 03-13-99 09:44 PM ET If your taking so long to finish the game (even empire building style) then maybe you are not exploiting your factions strengths enough. I am usually an UoP player. In the first game that I played as Morgan I thought he was crap. Then I realised I wasn't playing right, I was still trying to go after tech and I wasn't exploiting Morgans incredible ability for generating cash. Know I still keep up with the tech, but i concentrate on making money and using that money to buy what i need. The point of this is to say that maybe you need to change your faction or adjust your style to suit the faction. -Biddles
Spoe	posted 03-13-99 10:19 PM ET I'd be fine with removeing the Mandatory retirement. Just follow the current formulas for scoring and long games will be penalized. For example, with a conquest victory, you get a bonus of 1000 - (2 * turns). After 500 turns, this would become a penalty. For Economic and Dimplomatic victories, the bonus would become a penalty after 600 turns, with Trancendence after 800. So, I mildly agree with Szethe and yin26 on this one. I say mildly because I think mandatory retirement is a minor impediment, and definately not a step backward from Civ 2.
Spoe	posted 03-13-99 10:21 PM ET The point, Biddles, is that some people might not be playing to win within a certain amount of time but might be looking at it from a more SimCity-like standpoint. They might like just building their empire, rather than winning in the least time possible.
Pique	posted 03-13-99 11:17 PM ET FYI, on Cit and Spec levels, maybe talent, I don't remember, you get an extra 100 years before mandatory retirement. Soooo...you wouldn't get the message until the year 2600 approaches. I can't imagine a game going on that long, personally, especially at the lower difficulty levels... Pique