Procyon Lotor

Members
  • Content count

    113
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Procyon Lotor

  1. Ideas for 3MA shows

    Is This A Genre? So I was pondering that X-Com is a lot like Masters of Orion I and 2, in that: (1) there is unit design; (2) those units fight in tactical battles; (3) in furtherance of your goals on the over-arching strategic layer. This is kind of an interesting discovery, especially in light of the fact that 3MA has previously poo-poo'd designs that have tactical battles and unit design. I
  2. Episode 188: We Will Be Watching, Commander

    FWIW, I've had three instances of panicked troops, none of which have resulted in friendly fire. Lots of wimpering and firing ineffectually at aliens, but no friendly fire.
  3. I feel like FTL, with its randomness, presents to you many different paths for the optimal choice. For example, a good base strategy is to improve engines and shields, then work on increasing firepower. But if you somehow find yourself with mantises and rock men in your crew, then it might make sense to grab a teleporter before doing some of your basic upgrades. Or if you find yourself with a high-power/long recharge weapon, investing in stealth makes a lot of sense (while if you find yourself with four low-power/rapid fire lasers then stealth is often wasted). I don't mean to suggest that there are not some paths that are better on average than others. I also don't mean to suggest that FTL is a game of infinite choice or variety. But it is hardly a game of roulette, either.
  4. XCOM Enemy Unknown

    I've got it on the PS3, and the interface works well. FWIW.
  5. Is that all there is to it?
  6. Episode 188: We Will Be Watching, Commander

    Bruce's problem was that he wasn't particularly articulate in spitting out his questions/criticisms. The rambling preambles made it an awkward and confusing listen. But rambling and meandering is a characteristic of all of the 3MA regulars from time to time.
  7. When you start a game of FTL you are in a weak and vulnerable ship with an inadequate crew. The path in front of you is long, dark, mysterious, and deadly. Every jump is a leap into the unknown. There is no guarantee that you are going to win. There is no guarantee that your best efforts will be rewarded. I love that about this game. You Are Probably Going To Lose, And It Might (Or Might Not) Be Your Fault. That's a huge part of the thrill. I think too often we lose sight of the fact that the choices that are made in life are only made on the information at hand, and sometimes the optimal choice leads to failure, while sub-optimal choices somehow work out. In war, sports, and business, this is the way of things. But too often people analyze these things (in hindsight and with full information) with no recognition of this basic fact. So it pleases me to play a game that doesn''t give a damn about whether I win. The universe does not care about my feelings.
  8. Episode 188: We Will Be Watching, Commander

    It's one thing to strive for perfection. It's another to call a game flawed because the twists of fate keep perfection just out of your grasp.
  9. Episode 188: We Will Be Watching, Commander

    I don't see it as a negative either, especially after playing the demo. I agree with your comments. Rob called it a "tight" design, and it is. And Nappi is right-on about the original X-Com, as well. Much of it was very labor intensive, and the strategy involved a lot of unavoidable dead soldiers, no matter what you did.
  10. Episode 188: We Will Be Watching, Commander

    Controls are one of those things that bug the hell out of you until you get used to them. (Except, I suppose, in cases of extremely inept design. I don't think Firaxis would give us something that bad.) If the game is good enough, you will get through the control system. A lot of the talk about controls strikes me as the sort of critique that is heard at/before release, but will all but disappear once the game has been out for a while as people become concerned with more substantive critiques. My concern is about the "two move" system vs. time units. I am cautiously optimistic. Time units make for a lot of strategy, but they also make for a lot of tedium and goofiness. The two-move system seems like it would cure the tedium and keep the missions moving at a brisk pace, which would be a HUGE improvement. But, as Bruce touched on, it shrinks the maps down to a series of cover points. Is that kind of combat going to be fun over the long haul? The reviews of the preview build that I've read pretty consistently say that it is. So I remain cautiously optimistic. And, yeah, I pre-ordered this game two weeks ago.
  11. . . . but you don't know what that optimal strategy is beforehand, since any strategy in this game is dependent on how events play out.
  12. Nobody has mentioned that you can hire a human named Bruce Geryk. I am not making this up.
  13. This game is a hoot. Getting a ship and crew to where it's REALLY going is so rewarding because it is so difficult and unlikely. When it happens, it's a thing of beauty. Until, of course, it all goes to hell in a handbasket. Good episode!
  14. Episode 185: Class is in Session

    "Learning to get good at a strategy game" ought to be where all the fun is. Isn't that the "Chick Parabola"? For me, I start a game by first playing without aid or help. If the game gets a hold of me and I want to keep playing, I hit the forums and the youtube "let's plays" to see how other people do it. Just when I start to finally get really good at a game I get bored and move on to the next. I particularly enjoy watching youtube "let's plays." They let you actually watch how another player conducts his/her turn, and this gives you a lot better insight into the thought processes and considerations that a more advanced player goes through.
  15. Anyone else using that GamersGate version of Take Command not able to move units!??
  16. The 3MA Canon

    Dom3 is definitely "unwieldy, archaic, and niche", but I'd put it in the "canon" because it's a game you've got to try. Maybe we should have a HoF Canon (Civ, Total War, etc) and a Games of Interest Canon (Dom3).
  17. The interlude music made me laugh out loud!
  18. Episode 179: Spy Games

    As the forum's resident Civ5 apologist, I feel obligated to disagree with Rob's dislike of the G&K spy system. I think the Civ AI plans its wars several turns ahead of declaring war. In fact, this happened in Civ 4, and you could find out when they were making war plans by finding a particular response to mousing over one of the diplomatic options. (They said something like "we are busy right now" which always meant that they were getting geared up for war). I think the Civ 5 spy mechanic simply makes that explicit to you, telling you that a particular AI is actually in the process of planning a particular war. I've seen the invasion fleets en route after learning about these sneak attacks. And, as they always have, the AI has retained the option of pulling back from the brink if they don't think it's going to work. Again, I've seen those same invasion fleets mill around for a while before simply turning and heading home. In sum, I think it's a cool little mechanic, which I suspect simply takes advantage of the existing AI routines.
  19. Episode 178: Unit Customization and Game Design

    I wish there would have been more discussion about specific 4x games that have used customization, and what worked and what didn't. In my humble opinion, unit customization works great in MOO1 and MOO2, but not so much in GalCiv2 and Alpha Centauri, an opinion that I think is consistent with the general consensus (except, perhaps, rregarding GalCiv2). Instead, there was too much discussion about either liking customization completely (Cliff), hating it completely (Rob & Soren), or sometimes liking it and sometimes not (Troy). I think the more interesting discussion would be about why unit customization sometimes works and why it sometimes doesn't. With this panel, that would have required Troy to debate himself.
  20. Episode 175: Gods and Kings

    I think that's one of the interesting (and great) things about Civ -- you can play it to win, or you can play it to play. Like you, I typically play it just to play. In nearly every game I won pre-Civ 5 was via spaceship, since that is the default victory a peacemonger. It's an interesting point, because the Civ constituencies often talk past each other. I am sure that my points are unintelligible to a multiplayer only guy, as his points make no real sense to me. Anyways, kudos to Civ for offering such a variety of game experiences.
  21. Episode 176: We're Building a Better World

    Great episode. Frankly, I found myself agreeing with . . . everyone. On every point. That's schizophrenic, I know, but this topic is a real head-scratcher. Why the hell can we be so charmed by the "world" in one game, indifferent to it in the next, and completely thrown off by it in another? And why do I think MOO and MOO2 were so flavorful, when really they weren't? Great topic, great discussion. And I think Cory was an excellent addition to this podcast. His contributions kept the pot stirring, which makes for a good discussion.
  22. Episode 175: Gods and Kings

    You are probably right on the money.
  23. Episode 175: Gods and Kings

    There is some serious food for thought being passed around here. I'm going to need some time to digest it!
  24. Episode 175: Gods and Kings

    I change my mind again. Civ II was the peak of all Civs. WE NEED THESE GUYS BACK:
  25. Episode 175: Gods and Kings

    It could be a change between what it meant to be a superpower in 1990, in the unipolar world that existed immediately after the fall of the Soviet Union, versus the multipolar world that many expect to emerge in the near future. That is certainly an interesting take on it. I think this probably goes to the quick of why some people find Civ 5 so off-putting, but Civ 5's superpowers are only "strangely neutered" vis-a-vis the hyperpowers of previous Civ installments. The kind of global juggernauts that you saw in previous Civ games have no real historical analog (no one has ever actually conquered the world.) Civ 5 superpowers are more like historical superpowers: they can bash heads, threaten people, burn cities, but they don't actually incorporate the entire globe. Again, I prefer the Civ 5 take on it, but I'm a builder and a turtle, so it suits my gameplay.