Runaway Fleet and Redundant Teching Syndromes

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Runaway Fleet and Redundant Teching Syndromes

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 >> Runaway Fleet and Redundant Teching Syndromes

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Runaway Fleet and Redundant Teching Syndromes - 12/3/2011 1:28:06 AM

Tormodino

Posts: 107
Joined: 3/27/2010
Status: offline

Evening, gents!

Good game and high-fives in an all around direction. The constant beta updates are simply

I have an enormous list of nit-picks, suggestions and me-wants, though, cause that's the way I am, but I just want to get the word on two things that have been bothering me since the very first iteration of the game.

1. Does my strongest fleet really have to travel half-way across the galaxy to attack a pirate base or mining base, in the middle of a war when there is reinforcing of colonies and invasions of ripe targets to be done?

Loaded question for sure, but this simply makes no sense to me. The ai does a fair job running things on the surface, but that is just retarded. It makes no sense at all. I don't even know how it is possible for it to prioritize that way. Any of my strike fleets could easily take out a mining base or pirate base.

2. Why does the ai research things that are borderline worthless? Prime example being when it researches top-tier naxos blasters when I already have impact blasters/long range lasers. The cost in time and resources when retrofitting and the overall power of the weapon makes it very hard to defend any such choice.

In the same vein... Make it stick to one type of engine/jump drive/reactor etc unless there is a really good reason not to.

I'm seriously wondering if there is a good reason for it doing these things. Am I missing something?

My argument is that this skews the game in favour of an ai player who makes the "right choices". If one ai empire researches a sequence of very good techs, without researching redundant/useless ones in the meantime, it will get an advantage over its opponents akin to a steamroller effect.
It messes with the balance in a way that has nothing to do with strategy, and it means that the player can always tech better than the ai since you can simply pick a direction and stick with it, skipping any redundant techs.

P.S. I know I can micro my fleets and research, but that is not my point. This gimps the ai in general, which means all my opponents are far less effective than they could be. Exception to this are the Shakturi who don't need ai since their tech is insane and they can simply steamroll anyone who haven't teched more or less perfectly.

Post #: 1

RE: Runaway Fleet and Redundant Teching Syndromes - 12/3/2011 11:01:34 AM

Bingeling

Posts: 5186
Joined: 8/12/2010
Status: offline

I believe the interesting fleet usage is because the AI is mostly reactive. It does not watch the big picture, or imagine what it would need in 5 seconds. There are of course some mechanisms to limit the damages a little, and in war you can now see it picking some targets and putting force behind its ideas.

This is quite different from how I try to play the game. I try to distribute fleets to receive any enemy action. Notice "try". The AI attacked some defensive bases (good choice) yesterday, and I seemed to somehow have sent all the fleets previously stationed in the general area into attack mode. That was actually quite annoying, especially since I could not find any way to put the blame on the AI.

And as for research - I completely agree.
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=2966752

(in reply to Tormodino)

Post #: 2

RE: Runaway Fleet and Redundant Teching Syndromes - 12/3/2011 3:14:58 PM

Erik Rutins

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

The AI does actually try to plan ahead, but there are also some instances where it will react to an immediate event. I have some theories on what happened in your case, Tormodino, but it would be great to see a save file if you have it and can upload it.

Regarding the second point, yes we need to do some more work there.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Bingeling)

Post #: 3

RE: Runaway Fleet and Redundant Teching Syndromes - 12/3/2011 3:41:37 PM

Tormodino

Posts: 107
Joined: 3/27/2010
Status: offline

I didn't save when it happened last, but I will remember to save the next time I see it.

I don't know if this is sufficient to fix it, but one thing that could help is if fleets were only assembled by the ai for the purpose of engaging other fleets or invading planets, and strike forces were constantly zipping around shipping lanes and waging economic warfare.

Basically, limit the more excessive actions of the ai:
20 ships vs mining station = disallowed unless very close. 20 ships vs 4 = disallowed unless opponets are very strong. 20 ships travel 4 sectors to attack a fleet that will be gone 3 minutes before you get there = disallowed.
Perhaps the ai could benefit from some stricter guidelines.

Also, when a minority of ships in a fleet or strike force have very low or no fuel, they should ideally detach to prevent the fleet from moving at a snails pace. It goes a bit hand in hand with the above issue.
Considering that one ship can slow down a fleet of 20, this is another issue that is hampering the ai.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 4

RE: Runaway Fleet and Redundant Teching Syndromes - 12/4/2011 2:53:11 AM

Fishman

Posts: 795
Joined: 4/1/2010
Status: offline

I dunno. 20 ships vs. a mining station seems reasonable to me. I make some pretty mean mining stations. I once had this epic battle that occurred over such a mining station, at least a hundred ships from 4 different sides showing up at once to attack it (and each other). There was shrapnel everywhere.

The Mining Station won.

Admittedly, I rarely make mining stations except when intended to serve as a part of a major fleet base, so they're sort of designed to be armed to the teeth and capable of withstanding an assault by multiple battleships, which in turn are designed to capable of devastating entire enemy fleets, so that mining station basically has twice as much firepower as the entire rest of the galaxy put together.

(in reply to Tormodino)

Post #: 5

RE: Runaway Fleet and Redundant Teching Syndromes - 12/4/2011 12:25:34 PM

Tormodino

Posts: 107
Joined: 3/27/2010
Status: offline

While I like the idea of behemoth mining stations owning fleets, it's not really applicable to what I was talking about.
If the ai consistently did what you do, then of course it would be different.

As an counter-point to that strategy, if the ai researches short range weaponry or insufficiently powerful long range weapons, his mining stations can be as buff as they want to be.
They still won't survive against an fleet with long range weapons.

I'm mainly trying to point out that bad target prioritization causes the ai to gimp itself. I see strike forces attacking planets with heavy orbital defences and fleet presence (and not running away immediately, thus getting killed).
Fleets are invading planets with a 1 to 1 troop ratio.
etc.

The game itself runs fine, and the player can counteract almost every problem he encounters, but the ai is at the mercy of its apparent randomness of choice. I know there is weighting and prioritizing, but limiting some of the choices at the extreme edges of the spectrum could possibly make the ai a more capable opponent, since it would not send its homefleet half a galaxy away to fight pirates.

(in reply to Fishman)

Post #: 6