quote:

ORIGINAL: Cindar

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Actually, I hate micro-management and usually only control colonization, Diplomacy, ship design, 1 or 2 fleets for warring and 1 construction ship to build my resort. I let the AI handle all the rest.

That's almost exactly what I usually do. Obviously you are supposed to be able to automate certain parts of your empire (like, does anyone NOT automate taxes?), but expecting to be able to automate everything AND maintain a fleet thats 3x the size of the fleet the AI has is just silly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jscott991
There isn't much you can do to affect the economy besides build new colony ships.

If I can afford something in Year 10 with 200 billion people, it makes no sense that those same items are bankrupting me in Year 20 with 300 billion people.

It makes sense if those 100 billion people are on crappy worlds paying 5% taxes. Somehow I managed to improve the economy, how was that? No, don't whine about how I scrapped ships because that didn't improve the economy, it only lowered the expenditures.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arnir

Even if they are only paying 5% taxes, it should still mean there is more money to spend to support the same level of ships, etc.  Shouldn't it?

quote:

I can't get this point across. I've made it about a half dozen different ways and with screenshots, but I've failed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

quote:

ORIGINAL: jscott991
In other words, simply not playing.

That would be called a gross exaggeration. I realize this is a major problem for your playstyle. All you would have to change in your case is one thing, either reducing the galaxy size or using a government that reduces corruption or increases income until the next update while keeping the rest the same.

quote:

Thanks for at least acknowledging a problem.

I've acknowledged that this probably wasn't working as intended from the start, based on your report, but we needed a save file to confirm this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ceyan

quote:

I can't get this point across. I've made it about a half dozen different ways and with screenshots, but I've failed.

I don't think it was the design of the system, but it actually works in a realistic scenario. After all adding new colonies and population may mean more tax revenue, but it also means more expenses in managing and supplying them until they are self-sufficient. Of course if they never become self-sufficient then that is an area of concern, but increased revenue via increased population (at least in a realistic model) does not always equal a higher profit. Also that also brings up the question of just how long does it take a colony fed with at least a few luxury goods to become self-sufficient in the game?

I know you'll come back with the same old argument, and honestly I can sort of agree shooting down the idea as a justification, but it does make sense given Distant Worlds tries to emulate a complex economy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cindar

If your method of playing is to simply sit back and watch autopilot win the game, I would think that you might as well be playing with a coaster anyway.

Seeing how this is a game, I would hope players would have to, you know, play the game in order to win.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishman

You have 10 other fleets? I had 10 *ships*, with fleets that consists of 1 ship. Anything more would have driven me deeper into the red.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arnir

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

quote:

ORIGINAL: jscott991
In other words, simply not playing.

That would be called a gross exaggeration. I realize this is a major problem for your playstyle. All you would have to change in your case is one thing, either reducing the galaxy size or using a government that reduces corruption or increases income until the next update while keeping the rest the same.

quote:

Thanks for at least acknowledging a problem.

I've acknowledged that this probably wasn't working as intended from the start, based on your report, but we needed a save file to confirm this.

Which government styles are working properly with the current corruption system?

quote:

ORIGINAL: jscott991

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rustyallan

Watching the private sector numbers is probably a better indicator of what's happening in your empire. I've never seen the empire tax income vary from the tax number in that column, but I have seen those numbers fluctuate and that's what I'm watching in my current game.

My private sector has been in the red forever.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jscott991

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arnir

Even if they are only paying 5% taxes, it should still mean there is more money to spend to support the same level of ships, etc.  Shouldn't it?

Yes.

I can't get this point across. I've made it about a half dozen different ways and with screenshots, but I've failed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: YvesDelecroix

quote:

ORIGINAL: jscott991

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arnir

Even if they are only paying 5% taxes, it should still mean there is more money to spend to support the same level of ships, etc.  Shouldn't it?

Yes.

I can't get this point across. I've made it about a half dozen different ways and with screenshots, but I've failed.

Maybe it's your methods, jscott? Have you considered that maybe whining incessantly and driving the devs up the wall was not an effective strategy?

Look, I see what you're trying to do. You see a problem and want the devs to address it. That's fair, but when you go on to spam every gorram thread on this board with anti-corruption propaganda, we can all look at that and say it's simply over the top and annoying.

One thing that I noticed is that you finally did upload a save in this thread after Erik had asked for one at least half a dozen times. That's good, that's great. Progress. But, even after he acknowledged the problem and said they'd work on it, you still complained. Ok, so they're going to fix the problem, but now you want them to fix it NOW because you can't play a video game for a week or so. Jesus, man, get a hobby. Go outside. Read a book. You don't have to play this game 24/7 and then troll these forums.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spacecadet

quote:

ORIGINAL: jscott991

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rustyallan

Watching the private sector numbers is probably a better indicator of what's happening in your empire. I've never seen the empire tax income vary from the tax number in that column, but I have seen those numbers fluctuate and that's what I'm watching in my current game.

My private sector has been in the red forever.

I'm wondering if this is part of the problem?

If the Private sector is running in the red (even with a huge cash reserve) are they less likely/willing to buy the Freighters they need to make the money to get them back in the black?

quote:

ORIGINAL: jscott991
I don't think nearly enough has been made of this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: YvesDelecroix

quote:

ORIGINAL: jscott991
I don't think nearly enough has been made of this.

Well what do you want done about it? The devs drawn and quartered for making a slight mistake, or at worst, a very correctable error? The problems with the system now are bugs, not necessarily design flaws.

The plain and simple fact is that you've done enough trumpeting of your own cause around here for the devs to notice you. If they don't change their development plans now, they're not going to just because you flame more.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jscott991

quote:

ORIGINAL: YvesDelecroix

quote:

ORIGINAL: jscott991
I don't think nearly enough has been made of this.

Well what do you want done about it? The devs drawn and quartered for making a slight mistake, or at worst, a very correctable error? The problems with the system now are bugs, not necessarily design flaws.

The plain and simple fact is that you've done enough trumpeting of your own cause around here for the devs to notice you. If they don't change their development plans now, they're not going to just because you flame more.

Flaming? That's hilarious.

The only flaming that has occurred here are the legion of people that, with no data and obviously no gameplay experience at this, leaped into action to argue that there was no problem at all.

This is exactly what occurs with every Matrix game. You play the game enough to discover a problem. You point the problem out. An army of people tells you there is no problem. You present proof that there is. People keep denying it. And then the devs say, "oh, there was always a problem."

What I don't understand is why a bunch of people who obviously don't play the game are always so quick to defend it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: taltamir

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cindar

If your method of playing is to simply sit back and watch autopilot win the game, I would think that you might as well be playing with a coaster anyway.

Seeing how this is a game, I would hope players would have to, you know, play the game in order to win.

That doesn't mean the game shouldn't have a competent autopilot to control the things you aren't currently focusing on.
I want to be able to take over a fleet or two to wage a war... and have my other 10 fleets wage the other wars as controlled by the AI in the meanwhile.

quote:

ORIGINAL: YvesDelecroix
One of the only reasons people are so adamant about defending it and "flaming" is because of your caustic remarks. I can understand pointing out a problem, I can understand recommending a solution or even having a good debate, but I've looked at your other posts and for the most part they were either insulting or extremely standoffish. That's what gets on people's nerves.

quote:

You present proof that there is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cindar

Yes, you can wage war all you want. There is nothing wrong with having 10 fleets. The problem is expecting to support a fleet 5x as strong as the other AI's while using the AI to run your entire empire. There is a reason the other AI's in his empire had much smaller fleets, its because thats all their economy can support. So if you are letting the AI run your own empire, you can't expect to make a fleet significantly stronger then the other AI economies. Its not exactly hard to significantly improve on the AI's economy, but if you purposely neglect to do that then don't complain that you aren't making enough money.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ceyan

quote:

You present proof that there is.

I've tried to keep quiet on the subject, but I have to step in here. Fact of the matter is as soon as someone who was pushing and pushing that a corruption bug existed (primarily you and Fish) got around to actually doing what Erik asked (posting a savegame), he readily admitted that the problem was confirmed thanks to the proof. The problem was you (and others pushing the issue) sat on your butt for days after Erik first asked for a save.

Strut around that you were right, because you were, but quit with the ridiculous criticism that somehow the developers weren't listening, or switched their stance out of nowhere, when as soon as someone stood up and gave them what they wanted you finally got the answer you wanted.

Edit:
And before you come back with the obvious loophole hit, regardless of whether they should have needed a save to identify the problem or not, they requested it and you can fault them for not confirming the problem until you proved it by giving them what they asked for in order to show proof.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jscott991

You've said this a lot. I've rebutted it a lot.

In year 100, I could afford a fleet of 300 ships and run a positive. In year 200, despite nothing but growth (both in terms of population and new colonies), I could not afford a fleet of 300 ships.

That isn't logical economic design. I can't make it any simpler than that. The savegames are there. They show a constant fleet size and a lessening ability to pay for that fleet, despite nothing but growth in terms of population.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jscott991

quote:

ORIGINAL: ceyan

quote:

You present proof that there is.

I've tried to keep quiet on the subject, but I have to step in here. Fact of the matter is as soon as someone who was pushing and pushing that a corruption bug existed (primarily you and Fish) got around to actually doing what Erik asked (posting a savegame), he readily admitted that the problem was confirmed thanks to the proof. The problem was you (and others pushing the issue) sat on your butt for days after Erik first asked for a save.

Strut around that you were right, because you were, but quit with the ridiculous criticism that somehow the developers weren't listening, or switched their stance out of nowhere, when as soon as someone stood up and gave them what they wanted you finally got the answer you wanted.

Edit:
And before you come back with the obvious loophole hit, regardless of whether they should have needed a save to identify the problem or not, they requested it and you can fault them for not confirming the problem until you proved it by giving them what they asked for in order to show proof.

This is a blatant falsehood and exaggeration. This entire thread is like some kind of Lewis Carroll-induced nightmare.

This problem was pointed out on 5/8.

I uploaded savegames and screenshots starting at 10 AM on 5/9 (a Saturday morning).

Seriously, what more could you ask? I would have uploaded before, but I can't connect to the FTP server, something I've pointed out in the past.

And the loophole isn't a loophole at all. As you showed, you can produce this problem in like 5 minutes by generating old empires. You certainly can produce it in a few hours of automated colonization.

quote:


I would appreciate if this potential bug were not assumed to be the intended design.