Also, to avoid the problem of overly weird hard to pronounce alien race names. I have always thought it makes sense to name them from the presepective of the humans (terrans). Sort of the way that many real Native American tribes are named from the perspective of another tribe (i.e., "the people that live in the hills", etc.).
Along those lines, maybe think of alien race names like: "The Silent Ones" for the Filoj, "War Weavers" for the Mongyr, "The Favored" for the Vatragyr. These types of names make it easier for players to distinguish the races and fit into their backstory.
One of the problems that complex turn-based strategy games have is a sometimes steep learning curve. So, the more detail you put into the controls your player has over their empire, the more intimadating it can be to new players. One fairly obvious solution I don't feel I see enough of - is tying empire control to whatever tech tree is used so as to more slowly introduce more detail as the game progresses.
For example, think about starting your game with all or most of the control tabs you mentioned (agriculture, diplomacy, etc.) either very simple or locked. Then slowly unlock features and add more detailed control based on tech tree milestones. Something like "agriculture mgmt" as a tech to unlock the tab and expanded controls for subsequent techs (quantum agricultural mgmt, alien-hybrid farming, etc.)
I think the goal should be that the player doesn't need much instruction to get started and the complexity of the game is revealed by progressing within the game. You may have already thought about this but I think an overly complex early game is the number one mistake most strategy games make.
If tags are not solely dictated by the creator, I don't think they will imply anything about the creator's wishes (which is kinda the point, isn't it). It's like saying the author of a book gets to decide where it goes on a book shelf or in a library or that its placement says something about the author.
Tags are for topical arrangment and while it is important to let creators make suggestions when work is added, I don't see that their suggestions are more correct or relevant than other people. Obviously, licensing is a completely different issue that must remain solely in the creator's control, which is why licenses are separate from topic tags.
I think the old art school truism applies here - an audience's understanding of a work always trumps the artist's intentions.
I agree that the site would be much more useful with user tagging. In part, I disagree with some of surt's suggestions. I am referring to those that assume user tags are less accurate (e.g., separate them from owner tags, give less weight in search relevance) . I have seen research that crowdsourced tagging ends up being more accurate, so segmenting them as 2nd class tags or lowering search weight seems counterproductive to me. I agree with some of surt's concerns, however, on ability to sniff out abuse.
I would suggest user tagging with one simple rule: Only users with a certain number of points (since we already have a user points system) can add tags. This would force new users to become familiar with the content before tagging and make it difficult for malicious users to use fake accounts.
Thanks.
Both of your comments were helpful and I think I have a better handle on what to focus on. Mucho appreciated.
Also, to avoid the problem of overly weird hard to pronounce alien race names. I have always thought it makes sense to name them from the presepective of the humans (terrans). Sort of the way that many real Native American tribes are named from the perspective of another tribe (i.e., "the people that live in the hills", etc.).
Along those lines, maybe think of alien race names like: "The Silent Ones" for the Filoj, "War Weavers" for the Mongyr, "The Favored" for the Vatragyr. These types of names make it easier for players to distinguish the races and fit into their backstory.
Here is my 2-cents to chew on.
One of the problems that complex turn-based strategy games have is a sometimes steep learning curve. So, the more detail you put into the controls your player has over their empire, the more intimadating it can be to new players. One fairly obvious solution I don't feel I see enough of - is tying empire control to whatever tech tree is used so as to more slowly introduce more detail as the game progresses.
For example, think about starting your game with all or most of the control tabs you mentioned (agriculture, diplomacy, etc.) either very simple or locked. Then slowly unlock features and add more detailed control based on tech tree milestones. Something like "agriculture mgmt" as a tech to unlock the tab and expanded controls for subsequent techs (quantum agricultural mgmt, alien-hybrid farming, etc.)
I think the goal should be that the player doesn't need much instruction to get started and the complexity of the game is revealed by progressing within the game. You may have already thought about this but I think an overly complex early game is the number one mistake most strategy games make.
If tags are not solely dictated by the creator, I don't think they will imply anything about the creator's wishes (which is kinda the point, isn't it). It's like saying the author of a book gets to decide where it goes on a book shelf or in a library or that its placement says something about the author.
Tags are for topical arrangment and while it is important to let creators make suggestions when work is added, I don't see that their suggestions are more correct or relevant than other people. Obviously, licensing is a completely different issue that must remain solely in the creator's control, which is why licenses are separate from topic tags.
I think the old art school truism applies here - an audience's understanding of a work always trumps the artist's intentions.
I agree that the site would be much more useful with user tagging. In part, I disagree with some of surt's suggestions. I am referring to those that assume user tags are less accurate (e.g., separate them from owner tags, give less weight in search relevance) . I have seen research that crowdsourced tagging ends up being more accurate, so segmenting them as 2nd class tags or lowering search weight seems counterproductive to me. I agree with some of surt's concerns, however, on ability to sniff out abuse.
I would suggest user tagging with one simple rule: Only users with a certain number of points (since we already have a user points system) can add tags. This would force new users to become familiar with the content before tagging and make it difficult for malicious users to use fake accounts.