Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Distant Worlds: RotS - impressions [SPOILER]

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds 1 Series >> Distant Worlds: RotS - impressions [SPOILER] Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Distant Worlds: RotS - impressions [SPOILER] - 12/20/2010 3:17:11 AM   
Kayoz


Posts: 1516
Joined: 12/20/2010
From: Timbuktu
Status: offline
Well, I finally got around to downloading and trying out the expansion to DW, and here are my impressions.
These random thoughts are arranged by:
UI Changes
Mechanic Changes
Non-bugs
Bugs
Wish-List

UI Changes
The UI has been tweaked and cleaned up. It's easier to use and doesn't require quite so much digging around to find things. Still room for improvement here, but perhaps there's more in the pipeline. UI changes of note are:

1. Left sidebar
Quick access to lists of your fleets, colonies, etc. Much of the information is in the expansion and fleet info dialogs, but this is a bit neater and quicker. Of particular note is the addition of potential resort locations and special locations (hyperblock zones, debris fields, moon project sites). In the case of the special location list, hunting around for these if you saw them, but can't remember where they were, was quite a chore. This eases things somewhat. As for the resort location dialog - I'm not sure why this was implemented. It's quick enough to look it up on the galaxy map - so I can't say this button gets a lot of use... but perhaps that's just my gameplay style. I tend to build a resort - and ignore it unless I have a desire to rebuild it for upgrades (perhaps once or twice in the course of a game).
2. expansion planner
There's now some colour coding on the planets list, when you are showing potential colonies. Red is for claimed systems (other players'), yellow for dangerous (pirate/creature, and green for player owned systems. This takes some of the headache out of backfilling colonization (in my case, anyhow - since I generally prefer to backfill systems I already own, and expand in specific directions otherwise).
3. construction ships
In DW, you right-click on a potential colony and build & send a colony ship. If it's already the target of a colony ship, then the interface tells you (name of ship colonizing it). RotS has added this information of a planet being targeted by a construction ship to worlds as well - so you're less likely to be trying to send multiple construction ships to build a resort at a site than before.
4. Research
There's too much to say on this topic. Suffice to say, that it's been completely reworked. You now have 3 areas of research, and can queue up your projects in each. Gone are the days of being a leaf caught in the eddies of the general research pool. You can still crash-research - but it's no longer nearly as important to do so. I won't delve into this, as the research interface on its own deserves several threads to discuss it.

Mechanic Changes
There have been some mechanics changes as well - it's not quite the same game DW was.
1. new weapons
Ion weapons, missiles and fighters. It's no longer the standard beam/torpedo choice when choosing weapons. How this stands up for balance, I can only guess. My first impression is that missiles seem rather undperforming, and fighters - whil being a godsend when dealing with creatures - aren't really worth their weight in a ship-to-ship slugfest. But there's still potential - specialty ships dedicated to lobbing missiles or carrying huge fighter swarms may play a role in some players' strategies... though AoE weapons would seem to be the ultimate fly-swatter for the fighter swarm tactic. Still, it's added some depth to the combat system.
2. new story
Shakturi - the name of the expansion is a bit of a giveaway. I haven't seen these bad-boys yet - well, I did, but it was due to my invading Ancient Guardians' HW and getting his colony ship, which had them on it. If these guys are like the Mongols of M:TW, then perhaps someone can fill me in.
3. colonization mechanics
a. racial HW type - you now start off with only being able to colonize your racial HW type - as opposed to being able to colonize continental planets AND your racial type. This means it's no longer quite the advantage it was, to be able to colonize desert as a racial off the bat. Now, if you want to colonize non-HW planet types, you need to research the tech to do so. This has been a balance issue in DW. And yes, the developers did see fit to change the planet qualities - so volcanic races won't be stuck with 5-20% worlds.
b. The minimum population for building a colony ship at a colony has been raised from 100m to 500m. This means it takes a LOT longer to "nurture" a colony to the point that you can start to back-fill your territory.
c. Initial colony population (for a fresh colony) has been raised from 10m to 30m. Colonies become money-makers far more quickly.
4. research
The interface is a whole new beast. 'nuff said.
As a note, research points are now generated by research labs, and then bonuses applied to the sum of all research in the empire. So gone are the days of mobs of research stations near black holes/in nebulae (I've put quite enough IN black holes, thank-you very much. They didn't generate any research that I was aware of.). You can have them ANYWHERE and it doesn't matter. The one on the "bonus site" merely assigns the bonus to your empire.
5. planetary facilities
In RotS, you can now build facilities at planets. Robotic troop foundries (garbage but cheap and quick troops), cloning facilities (copy your toughest troop), planetary shields and massive ion cannons. Planets are more than just cash-cows now. This adds some strategic depth to those important locations. As a note, the ancient ruins which allow you to build uber troops, does not stack with the facility. Damn - and I was hoping to turn out the invasion force from heck.

Non-bugs - some non-bugs which I had hoped would be fixed.
1. Special Site Ownership
It seems that some sites only allow one of any type of base over them. For example, a gas giant can have one of gas mining, tech research or resort station over it. This doesn't seem to be the case with black holes (you can have any number and from any player) at a black hole. And neutron stars seem to allow only one resort station - though multiple (though only the same owner) research stations. I'm not sure if this is a bug, but having it clarified in the documentation would help. It's a tad annoying to find your construction ship idling away at the target, after having gone through the whole time to pick up the supplies and run to the location. Surely there would be a simple way to warn players that there's a potential conflict?
2. AI - target prioritization
The AI still almost entirely ignores research and resort bases. If the AI went and smacked my resorts, it would have a far greater impact on my economy than blowing up a few of my all-too-numerous mining stations. While this isn't a bug, I think it's a potential area for great improvement. As well, taking out my +35% reseach bonus site would have far greater impact than the gas mining station next to it.

Bugs
A lot of the DW 1.06 bugs are still evident in RotS. Particularly annoying and still of issue are:
1. exploding moon
Sometimes when you finish repairing a moon project, it goes pop as soon as it's done. I believe this is caused by sabotage on the construction ship adding up to all the slots in the moon project - so when it's finally done, the game looks at it and goes, "oh dear, everything is damaged - destroy ship". I think it would be a pretty trivial and not unrealistic change, to have the constructor behaviour changed so that they go back and repair what sabotage has messed up, before proceeding. This would take care of the whole "bang" problem, as well as allowing one to focus spies on delaying a repair - while not allowing them to destroy the focus of that repair.
2. claim jumping abandoned ships
This is still an issue. You still have to camp debris fields with silly numbers of ships, in order to make sure the AI doesn't wander in and claim all the ships you repair. I am aware that this has been discussed as potentially being a design feature - but the fact that the AI doesn not defend against it or react to it indicates to me that it's a bug.
3. colonization ship stopping
Sometimes colonization missions seem to stop, and the ship goes to idle (reporting completion of mission), while sitting a tick away from the colonization target. While this doesn't happen very often, it's still annoying.
4. Ancient Guardian racial behaviour
As is documented, they have no desire for expansion. They're quite happy to stay with their (uber) homeworld. So why then, do they insist on spamming mines and research sites at all the juicy locations? Their behaviour seems to be one where invasion and colonization have been scripted out for them, while retaining ALL the other behaviour. They seem to have ALL the tech in the game - so why build research stations? Why do their ports have research labs? IMO, their behaviour is buggy and needs to be altered.
5. expansion planner
Full list refresh when sending colony ships (either existing or "build & send").
This is horribly annoying. Every time you use the expansion planner list of locations, it has to refresh itself in entirety when you send out a colony ship. While this makes some sense in the case of construction ships - since it should be re-evaluating what resources are in demand (though I've never seen it change between sending a constructor and the refresh) - this seems to me to be a code fix that could be done in an afternoon. Add the flag to the planet (colonization ship targeted at planet) and redisplay the list. Egads - why regenerate the whole list again? It's not like the list of potential colonies is going to change.
6. diplomacy - warnings - "remove your military forces"
I'm not sure what this is supposed to do. All I've ever gotten from the AI has been feigned ignorance of any of their military ships in my systems. Is it a bug? I think so. I've yet to see the AI withdraw his fleets due to my warning.

Wish-List - Things I'd like to see in the next update:
1. ancient ruins
Those ruins, which in RotS show the colony in blue on the expansion planner list (eg: tech sites, tougher troops, etc) - adding this text into the colonies (your colonies) list text colouring, would be appreciated. How else is one to try to figure our how important a planet is (or if you can build some uber troops on it), unless you either remember it or go through the planets one-by-one. Also, having these specials as a potential selection on the galaxy map would be incredibly handy (ie: knowing where to hit your opponents). This would be a pretty noddy design change.
2. Game generation - derelict fleets/moon projects
It's my pet-peeve, but these are complete game-changers that the AI doesn't make use of. I'd really love to see them as optional in game generation.
3. Game generation - player spacing
Randomly created galaxies seem to locate all the AI positions based on the human player's position. If you start in the bottom-left corner, then it's VERY rare that there's ANYONE in the upper-right corner. This wouldn't be that difficult to implement, and would increase the replayability of the game.

**Edit log
1: punctuation
2: spelling

< Message edited by Kayoz -- 12/20/2010 4:25:28 AM >
Post #: 1
RE: Distant Worlds: RotS - impressions [SPOILER] - 12/21/2010 10:19:04 AM   
Aures

 

Posts: 343
Joined: 9/13/2010
Status: offline
Nice comments, very thoughtful. I agree with your observations but I have some comments to add. As I have something to say about most points I will respond with something to all of them in turn.

UI changes
1) Using the galaxy map you have to click on each resort site to see the bonus that applies, much quicker to use the navigation tool if there are a lot of potential locations.

2) Have you noticed that ships available in the dropdown now have a crosshair showing their location on the galaxy map? Makes it very easy to see what the best ship to assign is.

3) There is no lack of control over what you are researching for crash researching to alleviate but it is still very useful, it triples your research speed on top of whatever other bonuses you have.

Mechanic changes
1) Missiles are actually quite well balanced, they are not really worth it once everything has been researched but they are my mainstay tactic in the early game. Early on their accuracy/range/lack of damage drop off make them pretty hard to beat. They are great for mining and other bases since you can research them early and they don't ever have to be upgraded to a new component. Fighters are great because they don't have a specific range, a fleet with a lot of fighters can gank enemy ships really quickly. The are also good for space ports and other bases. My default military strategy is now all about the fighters and missiles until the late game. I have never been a fan of AoE weapons, any single ship going up against my fleet that uses them dies really quickly and any group of ships that uses them shoots itself in the foot. Missile bombers also attack at greater ranges so are less affected by AoE so there is some nice synergy there. Imho if fighters or missiles were any better they would be unbalanced.

2) More like the Timurids than the Mongols. Be Afraid, be very afraid.

3) The changes to colonies are great, have you noticed that just as the quality of volcanic/ice worlds has gone up you will now be hard pressed to find a 100% quality continental world? They were everywhere in the original on some settings.

4) You can place the bulk of your labs anywhere, but obviously it is helpful to put them somewhere you can defend.

5) I haven't tested it for a while but my experience is the troop academy does stack with the troop strength bonus ruin. I wouldn't expect the cloning facility or troop foundry to stack with it, can you confirm which facilities you are talking about?

Non-bugs
1) If you are sneaky you can fit your own labs onto a bonus location that is already occupied by someone else (hint, put labs on some other kind of base). I haven't tested every possible scenario (such as resort bases on planets with bonuses) but I would also like confirmation of how this is supposed to work. And it could definitely use a tweak, it should either not let you queue up the base or (preferably) should let you build it. Making conflict over scarce bonuses may be somewhat desirable, but I would rather everyone be able to get along if they want (plus it looks cool when war breaks out and all the high firepower research/resort bases start blowing the heck out of each other).

2) Agreed, the AI routines for valuing research and resort locations for trade (try having one in an enemy system and see how often they demand you fork it over) are pretty good but they aren't high enough up the list of targets to hit in a war.

Bugs
1) Haven't run into this one personally, but I agree it should not happen. If you have a save file a little before it goes bang I'm sure Elliot would be interested in it. I doubt that it is desired behaviour.

2) I have been told ownership is determined by the ship with the greatest firepower in the area rather than the number of ships. I haven't confirmed it personally but it doesn't seem a totally unreasonable way for it to work. But, I agree that the AI should put a high priority on getting a ship with greater firepower into the area if one is available and due to the AI being limited to stock designs it would still be very easy to counter.

3) Again, I haven't experienced this so if you have save files that demonstrate the issue I'm sure they will be helpful. Colony ships now report if they are unable to complete a mission but they should never say mission completed if the mission was to colonize.

4) Agreed, Guardians have no need for labs. If they are spamming mining bases everywhere then that is also an issue.

5) Agreed, I would also like it if clicking the build and send button didn't take the focus away from the list making you unable to use the up and down keys to select the next target. Ideally there should also be a way to activate build and send via the keyboard so the entire process can be done without the mouse.

6) There are legitimate cases where they may feign ignorance so it is hard to tell if this is being improperly activated, especially since the races that are likely to have ships in your system and attack your stuff without declaring war are also the most likely to ignore calls to remove their ships/stop attacks.

Wish-List
1) Agreed on both points.

2) These are optional (or are supposed to be) as they are part of the original DW storyline. Playing with the expansion story enabled but the original disabled makes for a much tougher game and will disable the debris fields etc. Are you suggesting they should be separated out from the rest of the original DW story?

3) The problem is the distance setting when it is set to near, medium or far rather than random. I agree that for quick starts and auto generated empires there should not be a lot of clumping around the player's start location. I usually play with manually generated empires either set to random distance or one of the other options if I set my empire to generate near the center of the galaxy but this should not be necessary to get a good distribution of empires.

A number of points you bring up were brought up during testing. Although the NDA has lapsed I am still wary about going into specifics. Suffice it to say in some cases it wasn't possible to address them for the initial release but for others these issues were actually addressed, indicating that further adjustments are needed and/or that something that worked in earlier builds has become broken and/or that the fix is not working in all circumstances.

_____________________________

Most of my Empires are too big


(in reply to Kayoz)
Post #: 2
RE: Distant Worlds: RotS - impressions [SPOILER] - 12/22/2010 7:08:34 PM   
Kayoz


Posts: 1516
Joined: 12/20/2010
From: Timbuktu
Status: offline
Aures,

Just to make myself clear - I think they've done a marvelous job with DW. It's probably the most serious contender to pick up the throne most recently occupied by MOO. The throne has had many pretenders (including its bastard son-of-Excel "MOO 3"), but no serious occupiers. How many decent 4X space games have there been since MOO2?

None of the issues I pointed out are game-breakers. They're teething problems. CodeForce very likely doesn't have the financial backing of HALO - and can't be expected to turn out a super-slick game on the first try. What they HAVE done, is a damned fine job. Room for improvement, but a bloody fine foundation for future progress.

I've heard the argument that the strategy gaming business model is doomed to failure, as some people like to point to the landscape littered with the corpses of failed attempts. But if you accept that argument - then you'd have to say tha MMO gaming is bollocks - how many successful MMO games have there been out there? Surely looking at the spectacular failures in MMO, the argument should say that investment in MMO gaming is a black hole - right? I'm sure Blizzard would be happy with that assessment. How much $$$$$ are they making?

Anyhow, I've ranted enough. I think in the meantime, there really should be a FAQ - clarifying points on how things work - like the abandoned ship issue, so that new players don't go, "WTF? That's my ship you b*stard!" - when the AI waltzes off with them. Surely someone's cobbling one together?

(in reply to Aures)
Post #: 3
RE: Distant Worlds: RotS - impressions [SPOILER] - 12/23/2010 5:03:17 PM   
JosEPhII


Posts: 173
Joined: 1/17/2010
From: Cornfields of Western IL. USA
Status: offline

I was looking for the FAQ when I stumbled upon this thread.

What I wanted to know is How do I know if I'm playing the Standard DW vs the Expansion? Is it the 2 checkboxes about storylines on the last setup screen?

Sorry for highjacking the thread with my questions.

JosEPh


_____________________________

"old and slow.....Watch out!"

(in reply to Kayoz)
Post #: 4
RE: Distant Worlds: RotS - impressions [SPOILER] - 12/23/2010 6:09:36 PM   
Spacecadet

 

Posts: 1780
Joined: 4/18/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JosEPh_II


I was looking for the FAQ when I stumbled upon this thread.

What I wanted to know is How do I know if I'm playing the Standard DW vs the Expansion? Is it the 2 checkboxes about storylines on the last setup screen?

Sorry for highjacking the thread with my questions.

JosEPh



The checkbox for Shakturi has the Expansion enabled.

There are basically four ways to play now:
1. Without any stories - both checkboxes unselected.
2. Original story mode - Shakturi unchecked.
3. Shakturi mode enabled - Shakturi only checked.
4. Both original and Shakturi enabled - both boxes checked.





(in reply to JosEPhII)
Post #: 5
RE: Distant Worlds: RotS - impressions [SPOILER] - 12/24/2010 11:06:56 AM   
Aures

 

Posts: 343
Joined: 9/13/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Spacecadet
The checkbox for Shakturi has the Expansion enabled.

There are basically four ways to play now:
1. Without any stories - both checkboxes unselected.
2. Original story mode - Shakturi unchecked.
3. Shakturi mode enabled - Shakturi only checked.
4. Both original and Shakturi enabled - both boxes checked.


There are many more ways to set up the game than that if you include other settings . But yes, only 4 combinations of storyline options. Anyone feel inclined to count how many total variations there are on vanilla galaxy setup (including figuring out how to count the 999 different research speeds you can use and all the different hyperdrive speeds), seems like a big task in itself.

_____________________________

Most of my Empires are too big


(in reply to Spacecadet)
Post #: 6
RE: Distant Worlds: RotS - impressions [SPOILER] - 12/24/2010 4:07:32 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline
On the exploding planet destroyer thing...

I honestly think there should be a chance of the whole thing going boom anyway. You are attempting to repair an ancient alien technology...there is a significant chance of a catastrophic failure from a mistake you make in the process.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Aures)
Post #: 7
RE: Distant Worlds: RotS - impressions [SPOILER] - 12/30/2010 4:01:48 PM   
Kayoz


Posts: 1516
Joined: 12/20/2010
From: Timbuktu
Status: offline
exploding world destroyer
If there's a chance of it going pop - then why does this not happen with any other ship repair?

claim-jumping on ships
I can't really argue the mechanics (good or bad), because it's opaque. As in, not transparent. It makes little or no sense. What determines who gets the ship? Biggest ship in the area? Number of ships? Combined firepower or ships? What about bases - surely the large space port in the system, which is bristling with guns, should have some influence on it - but does it?
My main concern here, is that there's no explanation. To a new player, finishing repairing of an abandoned ship, and seeing it go "ping", another race's ship - that has got to be frustrating. Is this the intent of the developers, to frustrate players?

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 8
RE: Distant Worlds: RotS - impressions [SPOILER] - 12/30/2010 4:09:51 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz

exploding world destroyer
If there's a chance of it going pop - then why does this not happen with any other ship repair?


claim-jumping on ships
I can't really argue the mechanics (good or bad), because it's opaque. As in, not transparent. It makes little or no sense. What determines who gets the ship? Biggest ship in the area? Number of ships? Combined firepower or ships? What about bases - surely the large space port in the system, which is bristling with guns, should have some influence on it - but does it?
My main concern here, is that there's no explanation. To a new player, finishing repairing of an abandoned ship, and seeing it go "ping", another race's ship - that has got to be frustrating. Is this the intent of the developers, to frustrate players?


I think it should have a chance to happen with all derelicts.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Kayoz)
Post #: 9
RE: Distant Worlds: RotS - impressions [SPOILER] - 12/30/2010 4:36:30 PM   
Spacecadet

 

Posts: 1780
Joined: 4/18/2010
Status: offline
On the claiming ships, I think it's whoever has the most firepower/ships in the immediate area.

For the exploding Planet Destroyer I'm starting to think that may be an Espionage mission (sabotage) of another Empire.

I always wondered if any of those Spy missions really did much of anything, then I had game with a system bordering the Sluk.
I had a Medium Spaceport in the system so I was using it to build some larger ships.
They never seemed to show up and I could never find them.
Just so happens I was examining the planet/spaceport some time later when I saw a ship explode at the spaceport.
This was sandwiched in between a series of "Spy Captured" & "Spy Escaped" messages, so it pretty much made sense.





(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 10
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds 1 Series >> Distant Worlds: RotS - impressions [SPOILER] Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.109