Dont you find that the new public objectives are quite too easy to achieve? We did our first play yesterday and we find that the game has been very weel refined and streamlined, fact is that the objectives are too easy eveyone can achieve them and is very difficoult to stop them..

Hope they soon release a new objective deck like they do with shattered Empire... Harder, more esclusive or war related.

Maybe also some.. Win the game objective like in "fall of the empire" scenario...

Haven’t had a chance to actually play yet, can you give some examples?

I know in 3rd the stage 2 objectives always seemed just a bit too hard.

Well, public objectives could sometimes be quite easy in TI3 too, it really depended a lot on which races where in play, how galaxies were arranged and which objectives popped at which moment. Could just be a fluke. Though, it wouldn't surprise me if they were easier to fulfill, it seems the game has been streamlined to make all of the races a lot more effective.

Stage One objectives were often easy in third IMO. Second stage could be real tricky IF you weren't prepared for Them. Must read through the objective deck too see

I think the Stage I objectives are slightly less hard to complete then their TI3 counterparts. This will hopefully keep lesser players scoring more often to make the final score closer.

Spend 8 resources : used to be 10 - very easy but sets you back a turn in production

Spend 8 influence : used to be 10 - a bit harder because you permanently get behind in CC's

Control 3 planets with tech specialities : 100% map setup related, can be really easy or quite hard.

Spend 5 Trade Goods : not as hard as it used to be even for the TG "poor" races.

Have 1 or more ships in 2 systems that are adjacent to Mexatol Rex's system : Area control objective, not too hard if other players let you claim it.

Control 6 planets in non-home systems : 6 planets is about the minimum everyone should be able to claim when not doing too badly - very easy

Own 2 technologies in each of 2 colors : Requires you to purchase a maximum of 3 technologies, in two trees of your choice. Autocomplete pretty much

Control 4 planets that each have the same planet trait : Not as hard as technology specialty planet control. Map Setup dependent but doesn't seem too hard

Own 2 unit upgrade technologies : This can change the strategy you had planned if it didn't include these... but should be quite easy anyway.

Spend a total of 3 tokens from your tactic and or strategy pool : Easy to claim but annoying to do so as CC's come at a premium in TI4

In our play, everybody achieve every objective, ( the match ended with one player at 10 points, three players at 9 and one at 8) . The winner had three planet with tecnology discount adiacent to his home system and that was his way to achieve victory with the stage one objective " i control three planets with tecnology discount" . Thing is that that objective was not easy or hard but luck related only! I know that building galaxy is actually an important part.. but it's kinda strange to arrive at the end of six hour plays and thinking " oh yeah, did everything almost perfect.. but I did not draw the right planets at the beginning and now i'm out of the game.."

I really love how this game works and how the different parts of the game work togheter in the costruction of the empire, however seems to me that the objective system is too disconected from the game, too aleatory and too abastract.

I think that it could be quite a good sign that all players ended fairly equal. In the games I've played of TI3 and TI4 the best games were always the ones where players were fairly equal and racing for the finish line. In my experience TI3 struggled a bit with one or a couple of runaway players.

Also IMO if objectives are easier to score it forces players to interact more and to utilise Imperial.

Lastly, if you invade a planet in the leading players system he cannot score public objectives.

On 11/20/2017 at 5:37 PM, pella91 said:

In our play, everybody achieve every objective, ( the match ended with one player at 10 points, three players at 9 and one at 8) . The winner had three planet with tecnology discount adiacent to his home system and that was his way to achieve victory with the stage one objective " i control three planets with tecnology discount" . Thing is that that objective was not easy or hard but luck related only! I know that building galaxy is actually an important part.. but it's kinda strange to arrive at the end of six hour plays and thinking " oh yeah, did everything almost perfect.. but I did not draw the right planets at the beginning and now i'm out of the game.."

I really love how this game works and how the different parts of the game work togheter in the costruction of the empire, however seems to me that the objective system is too disconected from the game, too aleatory and too abastract.

That is really not uncommon for a typical game of TI with new players, same thing would happen in TI3. At its most basic level, the game is designed to allow players to score 1-2 points per round, ending with someone winning the game around round 6-8. Once everyone is experianced and knows how to "stop/stun" growth and play more aggressively a typical game goes to round 10-11 with points ranging from 3 to 10.

This largely comes out of the experiance of anticipating the actions of everyone. Learning to read the board, understanding what is important to someone and than finding a way to throw the whole thing out of wack. In TI, slowing down someone for even a single round is often enough to completly derail their game. Its a very sensitive balance.

TI3 was naturally a bit more chaotic mainly because of the expansions that added all sorts of triggers like Artifact planets for example where players could score additional points for example. But with Vanilla, short of the problems with the Imperial I card, in the hands of experianced, games would swing wildly.

38 minutes ago, BigKahuna said:

That is really not uncommon for a typical game of TI with new players, same thing would happen in TI3.

Not in my experience. With new players games almost always ended with all the new people scoring 2-3 points and, if there was an experienced player showing them the ropes, the veteran getting 8-9 be aus3 new players don’t realize how important scoring is early enough and focus on empire building for 4-5 round. It’s only after you get some experienced players that games start being more even.

And until artifacts were added in, I’d never seen a game go to 10 points. They always end at the imperium Rex card because the stage 2 objectives were so **** hard to actually score.

28 minutes ago, Forgottenlore said:

Not in my experience. With new players games almost always ended with all the new people scoring 2-3 points and, if there was an experienced player showing them the ropes, the veteran getting 8-9 be aus3 new players don’t realize how important scoring is early enough and focus on empire building for 4-5 round. It’s only after you get some experienced players that games start being more even.

And until artifacts were added in, I’d never seen a game go to 10 points. They always end at the imperium Rex card because the stage 2 objectives were so **** hard to actually score.

I suppose experiences differ, among the tables I have played over the years its always a room full of veteran gamer's, so they are quite accustomed to learning complex rules and picking up games, even ones with high learning curves fairly easily. I have never played the Imperium Rex card either, I actually forgot that it existed. I used to keep track of the scores from our games, but I think I lost that sheet.. kind of a bummer, would have been interesting to see how scoring changed from early games to late games.

To the best of my recollection, I think the more common assessment was that the more experienced players there were at the table, the lower the scores would be in general and the less experienced, the closer the games where. Our first game of TI4 is in little over a week, it will be interesting to see what happens. I'll be sure to check in with this thread.

We switched to Mike Evan's VP system a long time ago in TI3 for exactly these reasons. We will likely take it over to TI4 as well, although we might give vanilla a try before. We'll see. I never found the Public Objectives quite lining up with the gameplay we wanted to have; however, if you like the game "as written", for the reasons outlined by other commentators above, the Objectives are fine. It really depends a lot on how you want your game to "feel" like.

1 hour ago, Stefan said:

We switched to Mike Evan's VP system a long time ago in TI3 for exactly these reasons.

And that system would be....?

This one I'd assume:

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/649481/alternative-points-scoring-system

In our playgroup we are always really aggressive when it comes to letting other people score VP's... so when we see one guy has 10 planets, you can be **** sure one of those planets will be stolen right before status phase if it's one of the guys in the lead.

I quickly read over the alternate scoring mechanic. I would have to play it to see if its balanced at all. But this does make every game the same. Some of us like the surprise of which PO comes out and having to change their strategy to adapt.

In the last few years we often played the "Red Tape Bureaucracy" variant where all PO's are revealed at the start of the game, but start locked. When triggering Bureaucracy the player may choose to unlock one of the next three locked PO's, which then also gets unlocked. I like this system because you can plan ahead but still have to unlock the PO's you want in play.

Mike Evans has done a lot of really great stuff over the years, in fact along with PsiComa they are probably the TI communities greatest assets in terms of creating content beyond the base game.

That said, I think this must of been Mike Evans really early work because that variant is terrible. It basically turns Twilight Imperium into a victory point mash up Euro game. Its general impact is that it exaggerates the already significant gap between the strong and weaker races and it pushes players to focus on engine building rather than the sort of politically charged semi-war game that Twilight Imperium is.

Also I don't think that is the latest version of the adapted rules, we tried this system back in the day but I remember it was a lot more streamlined than what appears in that post.

Of course, most systems develop from house games and since every group is different the needs and desires of the TI experience are also different. I agree with Evernoob, at least in my group, there is absolutely no way you could have a game where everyone lets everyone else just score points every round. From round 2, every player is doing everything in their power to screw someone over viciously, aggressively and without mercy. I think the only way everyone could get away with scoring 9 points each in a game is if everyone played very cautiously and peacefully. In which case, rules adaptation may be in order, this was actually a fairly common complaint about TI3 as well (too peaceful, not enough reason to act). In fact that's partially what drove the design of the expansions. Things like Artifact Planets for example where attempts to create more movement on the board, many of the objectives of the expansions where focused on forcing battles (destroy X ships or spacedock etc..). You also had the introduction of more aggressive and mobile races that could reach out into the galaxy in different ways.

As for the complaint that the objectives are too easy... I can kind of see that, I mean, I think the idea behind the design is... if you do nothing, everyone can score points easily. So you have to do something. I think perhaps the more pressing issue might be, how does aggressively stopping someone from scoring points help you?

Aggressively stopping someone else from scoring a control VP helps me when my last action, after they have passed preferably, takes control of one or more of their planets.

If at all possible I do this to players on my left, so I get to pick a lower initiative SC before them next round so I can reinforce, push on, ... Sometimes I pick my SC according to either low or high initiative numbers if I have specific strategic goals.

Capturing a planet when they were saving 8 influence or resource is especially painful to them. When this happens you could even try to sell them trade goods for the missing influence/tradegoods. I'm sure I could even get a support of the throne out of it someday. Remember, only the active player may initiate a trade under TI4, so if they have passed, they can't initiate it themselves.

13 hours ago, Forgottenlore said:

And that system would be....?

13 hours ago, Fnoffen said:

This one I'd assume:

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/649481/alternative-points-scoring-system

That's the one.

3 hours ago, Evernoob said:

In our playgroup we are always really aggressive when it comes to letting other people score VP's... so when we see one guy has 10 planets, you can be **** sure one of those planets will be stolen right before status phase if it's one of the guys in the lead.

I quickly read over the alternate scoring mechanic. I would have to play it to see if its balanced at all. But this does make every game the same. Some of us like the surprise of which PO comes out and having to change their strategy to adapt.

In the last few years we often played the "Red Tape Bureaucracy" variant where all PO's are revealed at the start of the game, but start locked. When triggering Bureaucracy the player may choose to unlock one of the next three locked PO's, which then also gets unlocked. I like this system because you can plan ahead but still have to unlock the PO's you want in play.

It's better than the random POs, but I'm still not a fan of the Objective system in the vanilla game. But again, that's a question of taste.

3 hours ago, BigKahuna said:

Mike Evans has done a lot of really great stuff over the years, in fact along with PsiComa they are probably the TI communities greatest assets in terms of creating content beyond the base game.

That said, I think this must of been Mike Evans really early work because that variant is terrible. It basically turns Twilight Imperium into a victory point mash up Euro game. Its general impact is that it exaggerates the already significant gap between the strong and weaker races and it pushes players to focus on engine building rather than the sort of politically charged semi-war game that Twilight Imperium is.

Also I don't think that is the latest version of the adapted rules, we tried this system back in the day but I remember it was a lot more streamlined than what appears in that post.

Of course, most systems develop from house games and since every group is different the needs and desires of the TI experience are also different. I agree with Evernoob, at least in my group, there is absolutely no way you could have a game where everyone lets everyone else just score points every round. From round 2, every player is doing everything in their power to screw someone over viciously, aggressively and without mercy. I think the only way everyone could get away with scoring 9 points each in a game is if everyone played very cautiously and peacefully. In which case, rules adaptation may be in order, this was actually a fairly common complaint about TI3 as well (too peaceful, not enough reason to act). In fact that's partially what drove the design of the expansions. Things like Artifact Planets for example where attempts to create more movement on the board, many of the objectives of the expansions where focused on forcing battles (destroy X ships or spacedock etc..). You also had the introduction of more aggressive and mobile races that could reach out into the galaxy in different ways.

As for the complaint that the objectives are too easy... I can kind of see that, I mean, I think the idea behind the design is... if you do nothing, everyone can score points easily. So you have to do something. I think perhaps the more pressing issue might be, how does aggressively stopping someone from scoring points help you?

We use a version that we altered quite a bit to suit what we wanted the game to be, and after quite a lot of test runs, we were very satisfied with it. I could send you our version if you're interested.

BigKahuna, it's funny that you think that variant was one of my early ones... it was actually one of my final contributions to the game. I designed it after years of playing the game a certain way and wanted an option to play a fundamentally different game with the same components/mechanics/flavor once in a while. If you don't want to play that kind of game, then this variant is not for you, but that does not make it "terrible." You say it pushes players to focus on engine building... that's precisely why I built it. And your declaration that it widens the gap between stronger and weaker players... I really think you'd need to play it more than once or twice to see that that is absolutely not the case. This is partly because of the trophy rule. The real "secret" of this variant, and one it takes newbies a few games to realize, is that the "spend" objectives a far more powerful than most people realize at first. Of the many times I played this variant, very often the winner of the game was the "weak" race that sat in the corner, quietly spending resources/influence and making opportunistic point seizures while his big strong neighbors fought tooth and nail with each other for territory. Remember that the victory point tally is kept secret until one player has enough points to declare victory.

Addressing the criticism about not liking the ship trophy system: It is a key part of the entire variant, and crucial to its success in my opinion. It puts a limit on those heavy production war machine races (like L1z1x) who can replace their ships as quickly as they lose them. This allows races that are weaker militarily to keep the big guys in check. It also forces you to diversify your empire building somewhat, which makes it easier for a well-rounded empire to win over one that focuses purely on military domination.

Also, the version that most people have access to is not quite exactly my original... I believe whoever distributed that modified it to their taste slightly. I don't have a problem with that, though. The rules on BGG are close enough to my original work. I am gratified that people liked the variant well enough to propagate it. I can look through my computer and see if I can find my original work, but I don't really think it's necessary. I believe somebody else entirely added the secret objectives back into the game. I do not remember having rules for them, as the entire point of the variant was to change the way the game was played on a fundamental level.

The variant is not meant to entirely replace TI4's system for every game, so I would not necessarily recommend it to new players as a variant until they've grown slightly weary of the way it's written. It is meant to provide a fundamentally different way to play the game. It is meant to directly reward players who do consistently well at empire building throughout the game, rather than giving victory to whoever can figure out how to get what I used to call a "bubble victory..." specifically, staying even or behind on points with the rest of the galaxy and then pulling off a 4 or 5-point upset to win all of a sudden.

I have long since abandoned posting my variant rules publicly. My variants were the result of hours and hours of careful pondering and playtesting. That work was based on years of experience with the game, and thousands of hours of time spent playing it. I got tired of defending my design decisions to the hordes of dilettantes who flippantly critiqued my work when they had all of 5 games under their belts, spent all of 5 minutes considering my variant, and never even tried it (or if they did, they played it once). I happily welcomed questions and constructive criticism from guys who shared my passion and knowledge of the game (like PsiComa and all of the old TI3wiki regulars) but I eventually decided that the "unwashed masses" could f#$@ the **** right off. I miss the TI3wiki very much... most of it, anyway.

Wow that was, if not third then at least a second degree...

5 hours ago, MikeEvans said:

BigKahuna, it's funny that you think that variant was one of my early ones... it was actually one of my final contributions to the game. I designed it after years of playing the game a certain way and wanted an option to play a fundamentally different game with the same components/mechanics/flavor once in a while. If you don't want to play that kind of game, then this variant is not for you, but that does not make it "terrible." You say it pushes players to focus on engine building... that's precisely why I built it. And your declaration that it widens the gap between stronger and weaker players... I really think you'd need to play it more than once or twice to see that that is absolutely not the case. This is partly because of the trophy rule. The real "secret" of this variant, and one it takes newbies a few games to realize, is that the "spend" objectives a far more powerful than most people realize at first. Of the many times I played this variant, very often the winner of the game was the "weak" race that sat in the corner, quietly spending resources/influence and making opportunistic point seizures while his big strong neighbors fought tooth and nail with each other for territory. Remember that the victory point tally is kept secret until one player has enough points to declare victory.

Addressing the criticism about not liking the ship trophy system: It is a key part of the entire variant, and crucial to its success in my opinion. It puts a limit on those heavy production war machine races (like L1z1x) who can replace their ships as quickly as they lose them. This allows races that are weaker militarily to keep the big guys in check. It also forces you to diversify your empire building somewhat, which makes it easier for a well-rounded empire to win over one that focuses purely on military domination.

Also, the version that most people have access to is not quite exactly my original... I believe whoever distributed that modified it to their taste slightly. I don't have a problem with that, though. The rules on BGG are close enough to my original work. I am gratified that people liked the variant well enough to propagate it. I can look through my computer and see if I can find my original work, but I don't really think it's necessary. I believe somebody else entirely added the secret objectives back into the game. I do not remember having rules for them, as the entire point of the variant was to change the way the game was played on a fundamental level.

The variant is not meant to entirely replace TI4's system for every game, so I would not necessarily recommend it to new players as a variant until they've grown slightly weary of the way it's written. It is meant to provide a fundamentally different way to play the game. It is meant to directly reward players who do consistently well at empire building throughout the game, rather than giving victory to whoever can figure out how to get what I used to call a "bubble victory..." specifically, staying even or behind on points with the rest of the galaxy and then pulling off a 4 or 5-point upset to win all of a sudden.

I have long since abandoned posting my variant rules publicly. My variants were the result of hours and hours of careful pondering and playtesting. That work was based on years of experience with the game, and thousands of hours of time spent playing it. I got tired of defending my design decisions to the hordes of dilettantes who flippantly critiqued my work when they had all of 5 games under their belts, spent all of 5 minutes considering my variant, and never even tried it (or if they did, they played it once). I happily welcomed questions and constructive criticism from guys who shared my passion and knowledge of the game (like PsiComa and all of the old TI3wiki regulars) but I eventually decided that the "unwashed masses" could f#$@ the **** right off. I miss the TI3wiki very much... most of it, anyway.

I did point out that every group is different and group dynamics may very well render the same variant that works great for one group, crap to another, however I think your being pretty ungrateful. I mean consider what your doing. You create something, post it online with a tag line that says "try this and tell me what you think" and then you give people the third (or second degree) if they actually downloaded and applied it to their games and ended up not liking it? That's pretty ungrateful. Opinions will vary, some will like it, some will think its crap. You have to be able to take a criticism and listen to an observation without going off on an internet rant, especially with an elitist attitude. You're not the only one around who is a veteran TI player, I have been playing TI3 since the day it released, I have at least 150 games under my belt and I'm sure there are plenty of other TI vets around here lurking in the shadows.

I don't think you should have abandoned posting variants publicly, what you should have done is abandoned feeling obligated to defend your work and grew a thicker skin.

My post wasn't really directed at you specifically, so I'm not sure you need to act like it was. Based on your posts you are not some newbie schmuck with 5 games under his belt. You said yourself you knew about me and PsiComa, so you're an OG and don't qualify. But hey, I'll bite. If you actually tried that variant, you'd be in the 1% of detractors who ever did try something they didn't like. Though I would bet you good money right now that you didn't play it more than once, let alone consider the finer points. And you are perfectly welcome to not like it, and even express your thoughts to that matter. But I also have the right, maybe even an obligation, to defend the work.

Yes, I could ignore it, but it's better for posterity if the defense is there. It increases the odds that somebody reading the thread will say "huh, that guy knows what he's talking about and clearly thought this through" and take the next step of printing out the variant and trying it with his buddies. If I let the litany of bad critiques mix in with the ones that actually have a point, then my ideas will be weighed down under all of it and it will sink into the muck. When an academic writes a dissertation, he must defend his work to prove its worth. But how does that academic feel when half of the auditors are incoherent monkeys flinging poo? It gets old. Fast. And you get **** in your mouth while you try to have a discussion with the real people in the room. I remember once I said I thought it was hopeless and wondered whether it was worth the effort. I got more than one private message from lurking readers imploring me to keep it up because there were people out there who appreciated what I was doing. That kept me going, for a while.

It was a real grind, though. For every decent critique with cogent arguments or questions, I'd have to sift through 10 pieces of garbage. Sometimes it was an indignant proclamation that our lord and savior Christian Petersen created a game that was perfect, I was a an idiot heretic for having an idea for a house rule. It's sad how many people poke their heads into variant threads for the sole purpose of raining on somebody's parade. (Check out the X-Wing Miniatures forums here on this site.... at least 70% of the total content on that board is precisely that) Most of the time is was just somebody who came in, decided "that will never work," after reading half a paragraph, and felt entitled to share their half-baked opinion. I stopped posting in the X-Wing forums when three of my threads in a row were pooped on by people who admitted that they didn't even bother to read the original post. It's very frustrating to put in time and thought on something you love and then be expected to debate people who don't have the decency (or attention span) to even read what I wrote, let alone think about it properly. And it definitely colors my dealings with people who haven't proven themselves to be better than that. If any of that makes me an elitist, then I'll accept the title gladly. But don't mistake my rancor for thin skin. I'd say it's closer to cynicism and "battle fatigue."

But Ungrateful? Who's ungrateful? Are you kidding me? I said I was gratified that people were still propagating my work years later. I just looked it up... 'gratitude' and 'gratified' are literally derived from the same latin word: "F rom medieval Latin gratitudo , from Latin gratus ‘pleasing, thankful.’" I also said that I welcomed constructive criticism from people who knew what they were talking about. Some of my favorite TI3 memories are of heated-but-friendly debates I had with PsiComa. I fondly remember when somebody ran a "create your own race" group thread. I had an idea that I thought was great, but a guy named Grummore raked it over the coals. But his points were all good ones. If I were thin-skinned or ungrateful, do you think I would have taken that well? Instead, I took his advice, hammered out a new version of the Mahact Resurgence, and ended up winning the poll for favorite entry.

I would not consider your opinions above to be anywhere close to that, either in tone or content, so you'll pardon me if I'm not "grateful" for your well-thought-out(?) critiques.

The TI3 Wiki was (mostly) populated by wonderful people with a true passion for my favorite game. I made friends there that I have to this day. Robofish lives on the other side of the globe and stayed with me (and played a game) when he visited the States this past summer! I get a Christmas card every year from another friend, and have hosted and traveled to play with many more great people! But even in an environment with a high percentage of good discussion, I got tired of the grind. When a troll hacked the wiki and it got taken down, the only alternative places to discuss the game had ten times the noob nitwits, and I was already thinking about quitting. Then I had kids and my business grew, and I went into Twilight Imperium hibernation for a good 6 years. With the new edition, I've poked my head up to take a look around, and I see things are pretty much the same. Oh well. I may continue to poke around once in a while. I might even write some strategy guides or a review. But I'm very leery of sharing my thoughts about or variants.. I don't have the time or patience to cultivate the right community for it anymore... that ship sailed 6 years, two children, and a business ago. Hmm, maybe I need to make a blog or something, where I can approve (or disable) comments. That's a thought.

Well hostility and subtle insults aside, I do think a Mike Evans blog would be a fantastic contribution to the community. As a long time blogger ( gamersdungeon.net ) and generally opinionated guy I can tell you that there are many great advantages to a blog that circumvent some of the issue's that have lead you to stop posting your work, which my opinion of this particular variant aside I think is a real shame. I almost regret calling your variant terrible, if the result of sharing an opinion like that ultimately leads you to stop sharing your variants and designs.

For one with a blog you can turn comments off and it can became a white board for your opinions, a place to share designer notes and thinking behind your creations. Secondly, its a place to organize your files and share content and keep it updated, which typically results in people less sharing your files and more sharing links to your blog creating a more direct route to content rather than the often randomness of trying to google something. Finally, a blog is an easy outlet for people who follow your designs and work to keep up, via simple RSS feeds etc.

One thing I can tell you is that, opinions are neither expected or required to be constructive. Its a bad practice to treat your creations as dissertation, because dissertations are less creative and more analytical. Variants are a design, its in a sense an opinion of what you think is good and as such, its just like a board game. People will play it and form opinions, some will be based on observations and fact based assessment, others will simply be a guy who plays it and simply didn't like it because it was blue rather than red, even though you made it blue very intentionally (if you get my meaning). More to the point however when you are defending a dissertation you are not defending yourself, it's not an attack on you, its not even an attack on your work, its a test of your knowledge of the subject matter, dissertations do not need to be proven true, it simply needs to be proven that you have considered all aspect of the topic and while I do think its good to share designer notes and reasons behind a design, you owe no one a explanation or defense for why you created something.

You certainly shouldn't take an opinion on your work as an insult, in particular in a text based internet forum where language and meaning can easily be misconstrued (aka what I mean and what you think I mean etc..).

So for you Mike, a blog, in fact, if you like I would be happy to host it for you for free indefinitely if it convinces you to use it as an outlet for your work. Its a shame how much of the old Ti3wiki work was lost.

You almost regret, huh? That sounds like an almost apology. And you are correct that that sort of talk is exactly the sort of the thing that convinced me to stop trying. But let me be crystal clear: I don't take negative reviews of my work as a personal attack. In fact, I'd RATHER somebody come in and make a personal attack, because it's more socially acceptable for me to tell them to **** off. But even if I know it's not personal, I can still be annoyed by it.

I welcome criticism when it has merit, is carefully considered, and/or comes from people who can actually contribute to the conversation intelligently and with constructive intent. Intent is a big part of that, btw. I love that kind of criticism even if (maybe especially if) it tears my idea apart and forces me to reconsider from the ground up. What aggravates me is somebody who comes and shares an opinion that is incorrect, mistaken, counterproductive, or just rude. It's almost always due to one of the following reasons, in order of frequency:

a) They're offended that somebody thinks anything should be house ruled because the game is perfect as-is. This is disturbingly common.
b) They missed something critical because they didn't read the entire post. Also alarmingly common. RTFPost, guys, or GTFO!
c) They have an opinion that is demonstrably faulty, but stick to it because they think they are experts because they played half a game once. They also usually refuse to actually try the idea because they "know they're right" and don't want to "mess up their next game."
d) They're experienced players, but made a snap/premature judgement or don't understand what I'm trying to do. In the rare super-rare case that they DO play the variant, they don't give it enough of a shake to really grok how it works. Or they're mistaking personal taste for quality. I'd put my run-in with you in category D. The rarest category, but it still happened plenty.

Guys in the A and B category are easier to deal with. You can just point out they're being rude and tell them to take a hike. It took years for me to learn how to deal with these guys but they still get to me. The real problem is Guys in the C and D categories. They are by far the most time-consuming ones to handle, because they're like a dog with a bone. You get into the "you can't convince anybody of anything on the internet" problem here and the entire thread goes out the window.

16 hours ago, BigKahuna said:

One thing I can tell you is that, opinions are neither expected or required to be constructive.

Then what is the point? I often hear the phrase, "Opinions are like **** holes, everybody's got one." Yes, this is true, but some are crappier than others, and not everybody wants to get close and personal with yours. If somebody is just trying to rain on your parade, they should go away. If I see a variant that I think has no merit or that I have no interest in, I usually don't say a word. I hit the "next thread" button and go along my way. If I'm feeling benevolent and have the time I might try to steer them in a better direction, but I generally try to do that diplomatically. In my younger forum days I didn't always follow that rule, and I regret any time I was guilty of that.

16 hours ago, BigKahuna said:

Its a bad practice to treat your creations as dissertation, because dissertations are less creative and more analytical.

Perhaps I used a bad analogy, then. Perhaps I should have likened it to standing on a crowded street corner and trying to share an idea where half the people who can hear you are downright hostile, a quarter are nitwits or too stuck in their ways, and the few people you want to connect with can't hear you over the shouting.

Some of my ideas, esp. the half-baked ones, I've actually just thrown at my old TI3Wiki buddies via facebook. I cut out the entire "public" part and just go straight to the folks who I know will give me the feedback I'm looking for. Unfortunately, that's a pretty small number of people. I thought about making my own forum, invite-only, but I know that it would never reach a critical mass.

I do appreciate your offer to host a blog for me. I don't know the first thing about how to do any of that, though. I assume there are services that allow one to do that, but I have no idea how much they cost or what they entail. That's my biggest barrier to entry... I am so busy with my business and family that I don't really have time to sit down and learn how to do that stuff.

Well I can tell you that with a properly setup blog, their is quite literally nothing to learn. You write, you post, its no more complex than making a forum post. A blog like mine would take me about 2.5 minutes to setup and it would cost nothing unless you want your own domain name in which case its like 20 bucks every couple of years. There are a few preference things with widgets (stuff in the sidebars), but generally speaking its a peace of cake. I do understand real life, I have posted articles when inspired and often very sporadically over the last 4 years on the blog (real life is busy). One thing I can tell you is that a creative outlet like a blog, in particular one which is one directional (aka you say what you have to say and ignore all responses) is a incredibly useful tool for creative people.

I mean I don't know you, but it takes one to spot one, what I can tell you from personal experience is that creative people need creative outlets, like they need food and water. Your very defensive about your work and I get that, our creations are our babies to a degree, but you really have no reason to be. Sometimes people will simply not like something you created, their opinion is based on their own experiences/preferences and I think what you have to understand is that people's experiences differ, they might not understand your experience and you don't understand theirs. Justifying to yourself that some people's opinions are invalid, wrong, misguided or otherwise faulty is a dark rabbit whole. One thing I always tell creative people is, create, put it out there and move on to the next project. Don't wait for the accolades or criticisms, if your creating something with the hope that someone will pat your on your back, your doing it for the wrong reasons and it will ultimately slow you down and act as a barrier for your next creation. Creativity always has to be one directional.

Now opinions and feedback, are not the same thing. But when you get feedback, the relationship should be the same. Read it, absorb it and decide if it should affect your creation. If not, move on. Arguing with opinions and feedback, is really just a way for you to justify what you created, it really is the kiss of death for creative people, it will suck the joy right out of what you do.

I don't know if it makes any sense, I guess what I'm trying to do is encourage you to keep making stuff. We (your audience) will judge your work, but those discussions are up to us (your audience) to discuss with each other, they really aren't there for you to participate.. absorb it, consider it, but don't participate. If you ever wonder why FFG designers & artist don't participate and engage in the forums... this is exactly why. You can bet they read it and consider it, but they very actively and very specifically don't engage, because they shouldn't.

Mike, I for one would be very happy to have you around. Below I'll post my alterations to your variant, that suited our playstyle. Maybe you or anyone is interested in discussing how it can be applied to TI4. That the old wiki was taken down...that was really a bad day in the history of this series. Man, do I miss some of the games. Even the RPG, though it never quite worked out the way I intended

Hi guys,

in TI3, we used a modified version of Mike Evan's alternative VP system, which we'd like to carry over to TI4. What do you think needs alteration to adapt to the new mechanic realities of the fourth edition? You can score this every round, rest should be self-explanatory.

COMBAT
Destroyed ships as attacker (max. 5VP)[1 per 4 resources]
Destroyed other units as attacker (max 5VP)[ 1 per 4 resources ]
Destroyed ships as defender (max. 5VP)[ 1 per 6 resources ]
Destroyed other units as defender (max. 5VP) [ 1 per 6 resources ]
Leader killed/captured/released 1 / 1 / 1
Enemy Flagship destroyed 3
Enemy mercenary destroyed 1
Won a Space Battle as attacker 1
Acquired enemy controlled planet 1
CONTROL
Mecatol Rex 2
Mallice 1
Systems outside Home System [ 1 per 2 systems ]
Other Player’s Home System 2
Non-Control of Home System -2
3 Space Docks on board 1
Administration post 2 per post held - -
ACHIEVEMENTS
Votes cast in Agenda voting [ 1 per 5 votes cast ]
Technology acquired 2 / 1 / 1 / 1 / …
Flagship built 2
SPENDING (Maximum of 3VP)
2 Resources 1
2 Influence 1
1 Action Card 1
1 Command Counter 1


Winning VP counts usually were around 70 to 80 by round 7 or 8.