RE: Two new articles about Distant Worlds 2

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Two new articles about Distant Worlds 2

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Coming Soon] >> Distant Worlds 2 >> RE: Two new articles about Distant Worlds 2

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Two new articles about Distant Worlds 2 - 12/13/2021 7:03:18 PM

Retreat1970

Posts: 948
Joined: 11/6/2013
From: Wisconsin
Status: offline

I agree it's a bonus, and a bonus is a bonus, but what good are awesome sensors to detect enemy fleets when you can't stop said fleets.

There are many different ways to play DWU but as Groundskeeper Willie once said, "No matter what happens it all comes down to mopping". In other words war. If you're behind and can't protect your assets what good is fast mining or great sensors etc...

For me, you can give me great bonuses in colonization, mining, diplomacy, entertainment, or whatever and that's neat, but I still push weapons, shields, and speed because if I don't I'm dead. Bonuses be damned.

(in reply to zgrssd)

Post #: 31

RE: Two new articles about Distant Worlds 2 - 12/13/2021 8:25:23 PM

zgrssd

Posts: 3385
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Retreat1970

I agree it's a bonus, and a bonus is a bonus, but what good are awesome sensors to detect enemy fleets when you can't stop said fleets.

There are many different ways to play DWU but as Groundskeeper Willie once said, "No matter what happens it all comes down to mopping". In other words war. If you're behind and can't protect your assets what good is fast mining or great sensors etc...

That examples sounds like you failed at translating good economy into good fleet.

You knew where the good resources were.
Or you were realy good at extracting them.
Yet you still failed at running a efficient and money-producing economy?

quote:

For me, you can give me great bonuses in colonization, mining, diplomacy, entertainment, or whatever and that's neat, but I still push weapons, shields, and speed because if I don't I'm dead. Bonuses be damned.

Then it is propably good that the game will stop you from just going one tree.

Colonisation means population and resources.
Mining means resources
Diplomacy means peacedeals, leading to resources
Entertainment - not sure if that is still a thing. But IIRC, in DW1 it allowed you to apply much higher taxes.

(in reply to Retreat1970)

Post #: 32

RE: Two new articles about Distant Worlds 2 - 12/13/2021 10:05:54 PM

Retreat1970

Posts: 948
Joined: 11/6/2013
From: Wisconsin
Status: offline

Here's the thing though: The AI makes determinations based not upon your economy or sensor tech, but upon your military strength (at least in DWU). If I am behind in military strength the AI knows and depending upon friendliness will declare war.

quote:

That examples sounds like you failed at translating good economy into good fleet.

You knew where the good resources were.
Or you were realy good at extracting them.
Yet you still failed at running a efficient and money-producing economy?

Come on dude, we've all been playing for a long time and know how to play. I never said I failed at anything (though I have), but ever since Legends came out I know how to win. Weapons, shields, speed. If there's ever multiplayer you can challenge me with your superior sensor tech :)

(in reply to zgrssd)

Post #: 33

RE: Two new articles about Distant Worlds 2 - 12/13/2021 10:17:16 PM

Jorgen_CAB

Posts: 336
Joined: 3/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Retreat1970

Here's the thing though: The AI makes determinations based not upon your economy or sensor tech, but upon your military strength (at least in DWU). If I am behind in military strength the AI knows and depending upon friendliness will declare war.

And this in my opinion is a rather bad way of assessing another society... in the end it is generally a societies willingness and economic power to back it up that matters in the end. This is true even in Distant World, even more so than most games in my opinion.

The AI should base it's decision on diplomatic ties/skills, economy and military power, probably in that order.

A strong economy will also lead to a strong military, so it is key... if you get an early economic boost from technology you will set you up for a strong military and eventually also good and strong military technology.

If given the choice I would always be ahead on economic/social technology and trailing in military technology as that will likely produce an average of better technology overall in comparison with someone doing it in reverse. The only reason for doing it in reverse would be if I could easily conquer some really worthwhile planets or empire early on.

< Message edited by Jorgen_CAB -- 12/13/2021 10:18:45 PM >

(in reply to Retreat1970)

Post #: 34

RE: Two new articles about Distant Worlds 2 - 12/13/2021 10:28:41 PM

zgrssd

Posts: 3385
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

quote:

Here's the thing though: The AI makes determinations based not upon your economy or sensor tech, but upon your military strength (at least in DWU). If I am behind in military strength the AI knows and depending upon friendliness will declare war.

What Military Strenght? The actuall value (having such access is a common AI affordance)? Or the data it aquired via sensors fighting against your Jammers and sheer distance?

quote:

Come on dude, we've all been playing for a long time and know how to play. I never said I failed at anything (though I have), but ever since Legends came out I know how to win. Weapons, shields, speed. If there's ever multiplayer you can challenge me with your superior sensor tech :)

This is the thread for Distance Worlds 2.

While the bulk of the changes was to the UI, other undelying systems have changed:
Like how Exploration and Sensors work
How FTL works
How Research works
Shipbuilding and Design
The feasability and usefullness of early colony/indie planet invasion/indie annexation

Unless you are in the Beta, you have no idea if the old approaches still work.

At best I rushed the first level of each tech, so I had a component to put into my ships. But if I can pay for 3 times as many ships because my economy is leagues more robust, it does not mater if my tech is 1-2 levels behind.

(in reply to Retreat1970)

Post #: 35

RE: Two new articles about Distant Worlds 2 - 12/13/2021 10:34:23 PM

Jorgen_CAB

Posts: 336
Joined: 3/17/2010
Status: offline

One of the worst thing in DWU is that you have such perfect knowledge of the strength of other empires economies and fleets... you really should need some pretty huge effort to get to know any of that information, especially if you are not friendly with each other.

It is a really gamey mechanic that should not be there.

(in reply to zgrssd)

Post #: 36

RE: Two new articles about Distant Worlds 2 - 12/13/2021 10:51:51 PM

Retreat1970

Posts: 948
Joined: 11/6/2013
From: Wisconsin
Status: offline

So DW2 ISN'T based upon DWU? Wow my bad.

The AI knows how strong you are based upon your military strength and it's. It's how it makes decisions. The fog of war doesn't apply unfortunately. Maybe DW2 is different but probably not.

Also there's no point in arguing tactics and strategy since there's no way to compare without multiplayer. It's moot. Play your way I'll do me, but IF there ever is multiplayer look me up I'd love to discuss tactics personally :)

Edit.

quote:

But if I can pay for 3 times as many ships because my economy is leagues more robust, it does not mater if my tech is 1-2 levels behind.

This is wrong thinking and I'll try and explain. Someone else could probably do better. It's the quantity vs quality argument. Which is better? Well for example if I have 1 ship at lets say 500 power (better shields, speed, an weapons) and you come at me with 5 100 power ships it sounds even, but it isn't. As my 1 ship destroys your ships 1 by 1 my power stays 500 (granted less shields but undamaged) while your power decreases by 100 for every ship lost. At the end I may have a damaged ship but I still have a ship and you do not. Also it's hyperbole that your economy would be "leagues more robust" than mine. Better, maybe, leagues I think not.

< Message edited by Retreat1970 -- 12/14/2021 12:12:06 AM >

(in reply to Jorgen_CAB)

Post #: 37

RE: Two new articles about Distant Worlds 2 - 12/14/2021 12:05:05 AM

Jorgen_CAB

Posts: 336
Joined: 3/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Retreat1970

So DW2 ISN'T based upon DWU? Wow my bad.

The AI knows how strong you are based upon your military strength and it's. It's how it makes decisions. The fog of war doesn't apply unfortunately. Maybe DW2 is different but probably not.

Also there's no point in arguing tactics and strategy since there's no way to compare without multiplayer. It's moot. Play your way I'll do me, but IF there ever is multiplayer look me up I'd love to discuss tactics personally :)

It is probably going to be different enough that you can't just point to DWU for any particular strategy in detail, for that you will just have to wait and see.

Multi-player is also not really a good way to solve what strategies are good or not, especially not if multi-player is king of the hill type of structure.

(in reply to Retreat1970)

Post #: 38

RE: Two new articles about Distant Worlds 2 - 12/14/2021 12:19:00 AM

Retreat1970

Posts: 948
Joined: 11/6/2013
From: Wisconsin
Status: offline

Idk Jorgen, I feel like I would be able to play DW2 without reading anything. It doesn't seem that different. Yeah it looks better and has some different approaches, but it seems the same you know. Idk.

I sort of disagree about the multiplayer thing though. Once the AI tricks and shortcomings are known the game is the same every game. With a human opponent all bets are off and the strategies have to be better to win.

(in reply to Jorgen_CAB)

Post #: 39

RE: Two new articles about Distant Worlds 2 - 12/14/2021 12:58:12 AM

Jorgen_CAB

Posts: 336
Joined: 3/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Retreat1970

Idk Jorgen, I feel like I would be able to play DW2 without reading anything. It doesn't seem that different. Yeah it looks better and has some different approaches, but it seems the same you know. Idk.

I sort of disagree about the multiplayer thing though. Once the AI tricks and shortcomings are known the game is the same every game. With a human opponent all bets are off and the strategies have to be better to win.

I agree that human interaction makes for a better experience, but I don't think that "King of the Hill" kind or contest is a good measure. So it depends on the motivation for playing the game in multi-player.

(in reply to Retreat1970)

Post #: 40

RE: Two new articles about Distant Worlds 2 - 12/14/2021 2:34:16 AM

Retreat1970

Posts: 948
Joined: 11/6/2013
From: Wisconsin
Status: offline

Just to argue (and I love to argue because I learn so much), aren't all games "king of the hill" games? Militarily, economically, diplomatically, etc...? I don't think I've ever played a game to be second, but that does give me a scenario idea where I'm a larger powers vassal. I do love the role play.

(in reply to Jorgen_CAB)

Post #: 41

RE: Two new articles about Distant Worlds 2 - 12/14/2021 5:07:34 AM

beyondwudge

Posts: 74
Joined: 12/22/2020
Status: offline

I think DWU is a fun game. Often, I let the AI just play for me and watch what it does. I think for any game that has a built-in one-click game editor / cheat menu in main functions bar, I'm guessing the developers want me to have a blast playing with the system.

Anyways, if you guys think the game is about competition or fine-balancing, then be my guest, knock yourself out trying to game it. :) I can remember when I used to do that sort of thing.

Be sure to post pictures of what you guys find out. I'm sure a lot of people would enjoy it.

< Message edited by beyondwudge -- 12/14/2021 5:43:37 AM >

(in reply to Retreat1970)

Post #: 42

RE: Two new articles about Distant Worlds 2 - 12/14/2021 6:15:17 AM

Jorgen_CAB

Posts: 336
Joined: 3/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Retreat1970

Just to argue (and I love to argue because I learn so much), aren't all games "king of the hill" games? Militarily, economically, diplomatically, etc...? I don't think I've ever played a game to be second, but that does give me a scenario idea where I'm a larger powers vassal. I do love the role play.

That is the thing.. it is not... you just assume that people play to just "win"... there does not have to be a single person "winning" not in a game like this. Not if you treat it as an empire simulation game which you can use it as such.

So no... king of the hill... is not a good judge for ultimate strategy as it produce artificial competition that often produce gamey behaviours in empire decisions such as diplomacy that are not "realistic"... all because there ultimately need to be a "winner".
There is a big difference between playing as this is your only real life, in life you only get the one chance to do it right if your life is at stake. That is the difference between competition and real life and if you treat the game as a simulation that is how you treat your decision making... that it the difference between role-play and competition... in competition you always get a second chance, a next game.

Very simply put... is your main goal to play the journey or the destination?
In competition (king of the hill type games) it is the destination... I would only ever play with friends that treat the journey as the main goal of playing the game which produce the most interesting tactical challenges and it is as "competitive" but in a different way that in my opinion is more dynamic. There also don't need to be a winner and you can play in a much bigger galaxies and games can span over allot more time as the point is producing a fun story. Problem is to organise such multi-player games is allot harder.

(in reply to Retreat1970)

Post #: 43

RE: Two new articles about Distant Worlds 2 - 12/14/2021 6:29:38 AM

beyondwudge

Posts: 74
Joined: 12/22/2020
Status: offline

And think just how much effort it is for the developers to listen and cater for all the different ways people play their game. I think they've done a great job so far.

(in reply to Jorgen_CAB)

Post #: 44

RE: Two new articles about Distant Worlds 2 - 12/14/2021 6:58:31 AM

Retreat1970

Posts: 948
Joined: 11/6/2013
From: Wisconsin
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: beyondwudge

And think just how much effort it is for the developers to listen and cater for all the different ways people play their game. I think they've done a great job so far.

No kidding. I haven't played any other game for 10 years even MMO's. Kudos.

To Jorgen: I guess for me it's both the journey and destination, but there has to be an end eventually or there are no new beginnings. Multiplayer would work if there was some sort of lobby where someone would host a game with his rules and people could accept the rules and join. something like: "2 player 700 star co-op vs 8 AI no tech trading no Quameno" or whatever you get the idea. Then you could play with friends the way you want. Game speed would be adjustable by consensus and windows wouldn't pause.

(in reply to beyondwudge)

Post #: 45

RE: Two new articles about Distant Worlds 2 - 12/14/2021 7:14:44 AM

Webbco

Posts: 682
Joined: 2/6/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorgen_CAB

quote:

ORIGINAL: Retreat1970

Just to argue (and I love to argue because I learn so much), aren't all games "king of the hill" games? Militarily, economically, diplomatically, etc...? I don't think I've ever played a game to be second, but that does give me a scenario idea where I'm a larger powers vassal. I do love the role play.

That is the thing.. it is not... you just assume that people play to just "win"... there does not have to be a single person "winning" not in a game like this. Not if you treat it as an empire simulation game which you can use it as such.

So no... king of the hill... is not a good judge for ultimate strategy as it produce artificial competition that often produce gamey behaviours in empire decisions such as diplomacy that are not "realistic"... all because there ultimately need to be a "winner".
There is a big difference between playing as this is your only real life, in life you only get the one chance to do it right if your life is at stake. That is the difference between competition and real life and if you treat the game as a simulation that is how you treat your decision making... that it the difference between role-play and competition... in competition you always get a second chance, a next game.

Very simply put... is your main goal to play the journey or the destination?
In competition (king of the hill type games) it is the destination... I would only ever play with friends that treat the journey as the main goal of playing the game which produce the most interesting tactical challenges and it is as "competitive" but in a different way that in my opinion is more dynamic. There also don't need to be a winner and you can play in a much bigger galaxies and games can span over allot more time as the point is producing a fun story. Problem is to organise such multi-player games is allot harder.

For me it's the destination. I work with young people all day long which is all about the "journey". Therefore when I come home and want to relax I want something which will have a clear beginning and end where I win, even if the ending comes several days later!

(in reply to Jorgen_CAB)

Post #: 46

RE: Two new articles about Distant Worlds 2 - 12/14/2021 7:57:36 AM

Jorgen_CAB

Posts: 336
Joined: 3/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Webbco

For me it's the destination. I work with young people all day long which is all about the "journey". Therefore when I come home and want to relax I want something which will have a clear beginning and end where I win, even if the ending comes several days later!

I have to also state there is no right and wrong in these two approaches, just that mixing players who expect different things probably is a bad idea.

< Message edited by Jorgen_CAB -- 12/14/2021 9:58:29 AM >

(in reply to Webbco)

Post #: 47

RE: Two new articles about Distant Worlds 2 - 12/14/2021 9:33:31 AM

zgrssd

Posts: 3385
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Retreat1970
This is wrong thinking and I'll try and explain. Someone else could probably do better. It's the quantity vs quality argument. Which is better? Well for example if I have 1 ship at lets say 500 power (better shields, speed, an weapons) and you come at me with 5 100 power ships it sounds even, but it isn't. As my 1 ship destroys your ships 1 by 1 my power stays 500 (granted less shields but undamaged) while your power decreases by 100 for every ship lost. At the end I may have a damaged ship but I still have a ship and you do not. Also it's hyperbole that your economy would be "leagues more robust" than mine. Better, maybe, leagues I think not.

This would be a good argument. Except DW1 had component based damage. And I asume DW2 has too.

You get a bit of mileage from shields and armor having to be overcome first. But afterwards, your weapons, jammer and sensors will fail from damage while my 3 ships still have full firepower.

In fact, you might be at a disadvantage as you have to retarget on a new ship, overkill ships with a slow firing weapon, etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorgen_CAB
It is probably going to be different enough that you can't just point to DWU for any particular strategy in detail, for that you will just have to wait and see.

Exactly what I am trying to point out. It just does not seem to reach.

quote:

ORIGINAL: beyondwudge

And think just how much effort it is for the developers to listen and cater for all the different ways people play their game. I think they've done a great job so far.

And that was with them being limited by the design debt in DW1. 64bit and a modern UI design can be such a game changer.

(in reply to Retreat1970)

Post #: 48

RE: Two new articles about Distant Worlds 2 - 12/14/2021 10:08:45 AM

Jorgen_CAB

Posts: 336
Joined: 3/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Retreat1970
To Jorgen: I guess for me it's both the journey and destination, but there has to be an end eventually or there are no new beginnings. Multiplayer would work if there was some sort of lobby where someone would host a game with his rules and people could accept the rules and join. something like: "2 player 700 star co-op vs 8 AI no tech trading no Quameno" or whatever you get the idea. Then you could play with friends the way you want. Game speed would be adjustable by consensus and windows wouldn't pause.

Well, there really don't have to be an ending if the journey is all you care about. Personally I NEVER play games like this to the end... I usually get bored of my empire long before that happen and just start a new game.

When I think I reached my goals to the degree I like that is it, time for a new game and new challenges.

This is what happens in many other games with my small dedicated MP group of players when we play strategy games as well. When we think the game have given us the enjoyment enough it is more interesting to start a new game than play it to its eventual conclusion, even if there is no clear winner... probably one or two potential winners... but that is not important and is not important to everyone.

Just don't conflate competitive or difficult with these different play-styles, they are equally difficult and competitive, just with different rule sets. We don't play Cooperative play, we just don't need one person to win... there can be more than one person to claim that at the end or not, nothing is declared from the start, no teams or anything. Sure... if you play a WW2 strategy game there are no real freedom of diplomacy so sides are set and it is a different thing. But a sandbox game like DW is not set in stone.

< Message edited by Jorgen_CAB -- 12/14/2021 10:11:40 AM >

(in reply to Retreat1970)

Post #: 49

RE: Two new articles about Distant Worlds 2 - 12/15/2021 3:15:59 AM

beyondwudge

Posts: 74
Joined: 12/22/2020
Status: offline

It seems to me that there are at least three basic kinds of wargame flavour. Games that focus on certainty. Games that focus on fun. Games that focus on logic. Games that focus on certainty often do well with systems of quick and exact measurement, using squares as a fundamental unit of space. Games that focus on fun often do well with simple, concrete, uncomplicated systems of measurement, favouring literal points, lines and circles as fundamental units of space. Games that focus on logic do well with systems that handle irregularity and imbalance between elements, favouring triangles and hexagons as the basic unit of measurement.

However, it also seems to me that there is only one kind of commercially successful wargame. Games that give you a mix of all three flavours.

The market for wargames is simply too segmented to amass enough players for a single flavour. Indeed, the 'war' in wargames makes it extremely difficult to represent all the elements of war with one flavour. '4X' games are simply wargames that are deliberately trying to give a better mix of flavours in each playthrough than older campaign or scenario driven titles. I think the commercial success of 4X games compared with older games offers some credibility to my conclusion: if you don't give a variety of flavours you will lose players to other games with more ambition in this area.

I think Distant Worlds is a game of real ambition, as is Shadow Empire and a number of other new wargame titles in the last decade. I also think that many of the player-bases that are trying these ambitious titles out are colliding with each other because they used to games being much more specific in flavour. They are used to not needing to accomodate anyone that plays the game differently.

(in reply to Jorgen_CAB)

Post #: 50

RE: Two new articles about Distant Worlds 2 - 12/15/2021 5:06:15 AM

beyondwudge

Posts: 74
Joined: 12/22/2020
Status: offline

For example, take a game like Valor and Victory. I just started playing it. From what I have seen of the most basic scenario, with the most basic units, is it is a logic game. It has hexes signifying the unevenness of the mechanics and factional balance. It seems that good performance from my play relies upon in-depth knowledge of how each mechanism works, including of the turn counter and its victory conditions.

There are a few ways to approach a logic game. One of them is to sit and read extensively, working through each mechanic and what its possible outcomes are and weighing them in your mind until you formulate a winning strategy, this we could call by theory. Another one is to sit and try something simple, see how it works by sheer repetition, give weight to the tactic and then try something new, this we could call by experiment. A third way might be to read a forum or game-guide and see what other players have worked out through experience, this we could call by community.

Right now, I am trying an experimental approach. It relies upon repetition. The game's user-interface is starting to irritate me, because it has put in numerous dialog boxes (that I have to click through every turn) and delays (usually for sound, that I must wait for to end with minor visual feedback). However, I use irritate in a technical fashion, like a rough surface irritates the skin on your hand. Is it the game's UI that is the problem or is it my approach, refusing to seek out the manual or the help of a community? Am I just rushing because I'm impatient, or is do I have a personal aversion to the sheer randomness of the gameplay?

Indeed, look at my emotional language as I start to talk about the game. Look at the adjectives I'm starting to use, the describing words giving a particular tilt to the observations I'm making. I'm not being very impartial. Logic games aren't something I easily enjoy.

However, the reason why I am playing the game isn't really the point. Whether I enjoy it or like it's mechanics aren't the point. My reaction though is and that can be generalised to many other games, like Distant Worlds. Should I get on the Valor and Victory forum and beginning lobbying for changes that fit how I want to play the game? Is my irritation really that important -- compared with the fun all the other people are having who are fine with it? Maybe I shouldn't be trying to experiment so quickly, or indeed, be using an experimental approach at all. Then I'm not irritated anymore and I might enjoy the game more. I really can just play the game differently and try the experimental method with some other game more suited to it.

I think players are complicated as all people are and it isn't easy to always work out what they want or what, more curiously, will actually satisfy their needs and resolve their problems.

< Message edited by beyondwudge -- 12/15/2021 7:28:17 AM >

(in reply to beyondwudge)

Post #: 51

RE: Two new articles about Distant Worlds 2 - 12/15/2021 1:18:49 PM

Jorgen_CAB

Posts: 336
Joined: 3/17/2010
Status: offline

Well... I agree that we all seek different things in games, that is just the nature of personal choice and preference.

A game such as Distant Worlds obviously is a hybrid between fun and a logical game and you probably will embrace both of these approaches to enjoy the game. How much you enjoy the fun versus the logic is obviously different for different players I guess. I do feel bad for the people that skip on the fun part though and just stick to logic... but I can't say it is wrong. I do think though there are better games out there if you are a logic junkie. If you completely ignore the logic part of the game I think is less problematic but again not wrong, but I do think you get more out of game like DW going for the Fun angle rather than the Logic angle. Games like these often have unbalanced elements in them by design (that is the fun part) which will limit the logical choices in the game to some degree. We also quite often see the Gamers who rely mostly on logic complain on those elements. Too much balance often produce less fun... such as making it more bland or simply too much rock/paper/scissor type balance.

That is at least my opinions on the matter... personally I'm about 1/3 logic and 2/3 fun focus in games such as DW... I also happen to really love pure logical games and board games especially. But I want such games to be pure logical with a nice theme (theme is always important to me as that touches the fun gene in me), but I need those games to be pure logic.

(in reply to beyondwudge)

Post #: 52

RE: Two new articles about Distant Worlds 2 - 12/17/2021 3:50:12 AM

beyondwudge

Posts: 74
Joined: 12/22/2020
Status: offline

Well, here is an interesting question. In DWU, when you construct a ship on a planet with all the necessary resources, is the build time variable or constant? That is to say, is the build time different each time you click 'build' or does it always take the same amount of time?

Another question, when you have some process in the game like mining that happens every X days, is the number of days for each mining cycle the same or does it differ each time?

You might delve a little deeper and find a whole lot of squares hidden away in the mechanics of the game. A lot of certainty and a lot of predictability. On the surface, there are logical questions like "each tech at a particular tier is uneven in effect, which one of these should I get first" and fun interactions like multiple fleets all warping in from different directions into one fight, each ship coming in one by one in a literal manner from the direction they enter the location from at the exact frames (time) the game engine calculates they'd arrive on. However, under the hood there seems to be a lot of very regular, certain interactions between the game elements that makes those logical and fun elements happen consistently.

If you messed with those certainties, you might find the logic and fun parts would start to break or at least, become so difficult to follow that you'd be left confused by what is going on most of the time.

(in reply to Jorgen_CAB)

Post #: 53

RE: Two new articles about Distant Worlds 2 - 12/17/2021 8:42:53 AM

Jorgen_CAB

Posts: 336
Joined: 3/17/2010
Status: offline

In DWU it is very difficult to make absolute prediction on most things as almost everything is at some point dependent on some random roll somewhere. You might be able to predict how much resources you get from a mining station but you can't accurately predict when and where that resource will be available for construction. The same goes for building a ship, it can be difficult to know if a certain place will have enough resources at the right time to build what you intended, this could unexpectedly extend the time it takes to build something.

Even if you have some mechanic that are predictable they are so dependent on other more unpredictable elements it is really hard to make accurate prediction in that sense. I think, for the most part, you play the game more from a macro scale rather than micro scale, at least in terms of long time planning. You try to minimize the random element as good as you can, but it is really difficult to eliminate the unpredictability in the logistic system for example.

The same goes for the order in which you research technologies as well, I think this is as much a decision in fun as it is logic, it is almost impossible to know which are the best technology to research at any given point.

< Message edited by Jorgen_CAB -- 12/17/2021 8:44:55 AM >

(in reply to beyondwudge)

Post #: 54

RE: Two new articles about Distant Worlds 2 - 12/17/2021 11:06:05 AM

beyondwudge

Posts: 74
Joined: 12/22/2020
Status: offline

How well do have you explored the underlying mechanics? I mean, I'm still working them out so perhaps you have more knowledge than I do. Are you sure they are dependent on random rolls?

Complicated systems aren't unpredictable by default. In fact, even systems that rely upon pseudo-random number generation can exhibit predictable trends. There is a gross distinction between "you can't tell how many resources will be on a planet at a given time" and "you can tell how many will probably be there, within a given plus or minus range" to "you can't be sure the exact number but there will always be more than enough for the given magnitude of request".

For instance, it might not be easy to determine when a rim world planet will receive what it needs for a project but it is easy to determine that a core world with an enormous stockpile can handle a certain class of requests of a certain order of magnitude. Likewise, it might not be easy to determine when a rim world receives certain resources, but that if you send in a certain number or type of request, that under peaceful circumstances (no blockades for example) that you could plot the probability of resource fulfillment vs time and establish an upper and lower bound, to some level of accuracy such as 95%.

What I mean is this, you could break down a lot of the 'random' parts of the game into various common classes of situation and test them numerically and statistically to establish within a good degree of certainty what will happen. This is how the very computer you are using works. Electrically, there is a phenomenal amount of complication but by dividing the problem up into numerous parts and working through them one by one you have CPUs that can operate at a few billion arithmetic cycles per second.

(in reply to Jorgen_CAB)

Post #: 55

RE: Two new articles about Distant Worlds 2 - 12/17/2021 12:49:36 PM

LordMM

Posts: 574
Joined: 5/29/2016
Status: offline

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foM6G3R5NgE

Starting at 6.29

_____________________________

It is better to live your own destiny imperfectly, than to live somebody else's life with perfection.

(in reply to beyondwudge)

Post #: 56

RE: Two new articles about Distant Worlds 2 - 12/17/2021 1:14:53 PM

beyondwudge

Posts: 74
Joined: 12/22/2020
Status: offline

Looks great. :)

(in reply to LordMM)

Post #: 57

RE: Two new articles about Distant Worlds 2 - 12/17/2021 4:40:30 PM

Jorgen_CAB

Posts: 336
Joined: 3/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: beyondwudge

How well do have you explored the underlying mechanics? I mean, I'm still working them out so perhaps you have more knowledge than I do. Are you sure they are dependent on random rolls?

Complicated systems aren't unpredictable by default. In fact, even systems that rely upon pseudo-random number generation can exhibit predictable trends. There is a gross distinction between "you can't tell how many resources will be on a planet at a given time" and "you can tell how many will probably be there, within a given plus or minus range" to "you can't be sure the exact number but there will always be more than enough for the given magnitude of request".

For instance, it might not be easy to determine when a rim world planet will receive what it needs for a project but it is easy to determine that a core world with an enormous stockpile can handle a certain class of requests of a certain order of magnitude. Likewise, it might not be easy to determine when a rim world receives certain resources, but that if you send in a certain number or type of request, that under peaceful circumstances (no blockades for example) that you could plot the probability of resource fulfillment vs time and establish an upper and lower bound, to some level of accuracy such as 95%.

What I mean is this, you could break down a lot of the 'random' parts of the game into various common classes of situation and test them numerically and statistically to establish within a good degree of certainty what will happen. This is how the very computer you are using works. Electrically, there is a phenomenal amount of complication but by dividing the problem up into numerous parts and working through them one by one you have CPUs that can operate at a few billion arithmetic cycles per second.

It really does not matter... pretty much everything in the universe is predictable when you get down to it... you just are not capable of calculating everything... the same is mostly true of complex game systems such as the ones in DW. They are sufficiently difficult to calculate so for all intents and purposes they are unpredictable.

There also are a fair amount of randomness in many elements of the game so it is enough to impact the whole game experience.

(in reply to beyondwudge)

Post #: 58

RE: Two new articles about Distant Worlds 2 - 12/19/2021 3:06:07 AM

beyondwudge

Posts: 74
Joined: 12/22/2020
Status: offline

Well, I'll quite happily model the game and use the results in my play. I don't find gambling particularly fun.

(in reply to Jorgen_CAB)

Post #: 59

RE: Two new articles about Distant Worlds 2 - 12/19/2021 11:06:49 AM

Jorgen_CAB

Posts: 336
Joined: 3/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: beyondwudge

Well, I'll quite happily model the game and use the results in my play. I don't find gambling particularly fun.

It is not really possible though, there are too many factors and enough random rolls you can never do that... I also don't see what gambling have anything to do with anything?!?

Random is a simulation of unknown factors that is NOT modelled in the game, it is the fact that not everything is modelled so you can't make perfect predictions. This is the simulation part of the game, otherwise we might just play Chess if every move was perfectly predictable.

We are also modelling intelligent beings with wants and flawed logical thinking that is not always going to do what you like but rather what they like, that is the role-play or the simulation part of a game like this. This is the FUN part of simulating a living civilisation. You can never really know for sure when and how the civilian part of your empire will act at every turn, that is near impossible to do. You can guide and mould it but never really tell it what to do and in what order they do something, there are allot of randomness involved here to reflect simulation. You also need some randomness so the AI don't get stuck in endless loops too often, either that or you need neural net AI which I'm pretty sure they don't have.

(in reply to beyondwudge)

Post #: 60