RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime

RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds 1 Series

Message

taltamir -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (5/3/2010 9:03:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wicky Well what Taltamir wants to say is, because 480 capacity vs the 140 of the Megatron means +342,8% increase, while the Megatron 1.5 regen vs 1.3regen means a 15,3% better regeneration. And that's why he always wants us to use the Deucalios (?) Shield. Strange, I have already seen the name of this shield a hundred times, but I still haven't learned if it is spelled Deucalios or Deucalitos ! :) However, the AI tends to send all it's forces when under attack, and that means couple of enemy ships will be arriving at a basis of each minute to attack. It does make a difference when your shield is down from 14k to 8k when the next enemy wave arrives, and a simple math will prove that Megatron Z4 is better when you have to fight for 30 minutes. No, it will not. Simple math proves that the magatron is vastly inferior. I have done the math in this very thread. here it is: quote: That does not compute, at all... why would you have orders of magnitude more shields then weapons? that is a total waste! And the math indicates you are wrong about that assumption... put 300 shields instead of 30 and you would maintain the same type of ratios; math doesn't lie :)... especially because you should expect to field armies with 300 torpedoes against those bases... Actually, in the above example it was a capital ship with 30 shields and 30 torpedoes... A typical FLEET I make has 300 torpedoes between them. (mostly from smaller then capital ships actually). The duelc... you know what... I am just yacking when I could be mathing... give me a moment... ok so the same 30 torpedo ship is going up against a starbase with 300 shields instead of 30... I will refer to the deucalious KT900 as "D Shield" and the Metatrox Z4 shields as "MZ shield". On a 300 shield base (which will cost a LOT btw), you now have: D shields have 144,000 strength and 390 a second regen rate. MZ shields have 42,000 strength and 450 a second regen rate. It is being hit by my 30 torpedo capital ship for a DPS of 1661.54... 1661.5 DPS vs MZ shield... 1661.5 (damage) - 450 (recharge rate) = 1211.5 DPS, @42,000 shield strength that is 34.7 seconds to penetrate shields. 1661.5 DPS vs D shields.... 1661.5 (damage) - 390 (recharge rate) = 1271.5 DPS, @144,000 shield strength that is 113.3 seconds to penetrate shields. How much better are 300 D shields than 300 MZ shields? 133.3/34.7 = 3.84x as long to destroy the D shields. How much better are 30 D shields than 300 MZ shields? 8.875/2.598 = 3.42x as long to overcome the D shields. As you can see the ratio has gone UP... this means that as you increase shields the D shields become progressively BETTER then the MZ shields. Same for damage btw... as you increase the damage done to them the D shields also become superior over time. Lets test it with the IDEAL conditions for MZ Shields than... that is, 1 single torpedo weapon (since the more weapons, the more favorable the D shields get), and 1 single shield component. DPS is 55.4 for a single torpedo. DPS vs D shields is 55.4-1.3 = 54.1 DPS, @ 480 shields that means 8.87 seconds... actually what am I doing, this is exactly the same result as the 30 shields vs 30 torpedoes were... duh! what happens is, in an extreme case of 300 shields, a SINGLE weapon will not be able to overcome its recharge it. you need 8 torpedoes to overcome the recharge rate of d shields and 9 torpedoes to overcome the defenses of the MZ shields... once you have overcome it, each additional weapon added increases the effectiveness of D shields over MZ shields... at 7 neither shield would be penetrable, at 8 torpedoes, only the 300 D shields are penetrated, at 9 torpedoes both shields are penetrated (for having a 10 to 1 ratio of shields to weapons, which, is a completely ridiculous situation)

vanes -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (5/31/2010 5:00:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fishman quote: ORIGINAL: taltamir Lasers are fail, period. Yeah, can't argue with the math there. Worth considering is that laser bolts have a higher launch speed and therefore may possess greater accuracy, but I can't get any numbers on that. lasers better acc? my torpedos hit nearly all the time, but the lasers of the enemies just seem to spray in my direction, which looks cool but isn't effective. i would jump to the conclusion that they are equally accurate, but the small ai ships didn't have enough room left to convince the ai to install targeting- and countermeasure-modules. math for the shields: Deucalios KT900 offers 340shieldstrength MegatronZ4 offers 0,2shieldregeneration (per second?!) so the question is: WHEN is what shield better? at first D is better because it start with more shieldstrength, but after 340 / 0,2 = 1700s the MZ is better. 1700seconds are 28minutes and 20seconds. so the conclusion is that the MZ shield is better in fights which continue for more that 28minutes. in my expericen fightes only take seconds so the D-shiels are "always" better. quote: ORIGINAL: Fishman I think there's a simpler, more direct approach to ship design: 1. Randomly load thousands of simulated ships with parts. 2. Have them fight to the death in simulated battles until only a few remain. 3. Randomly duplicate the surviving ships, slightly varying their part compositions until there are again thousands of ships. 4. Repeat step 2. Eventually, the perfect design should emerge. even simpler, let me tell u the logical solution. speed + range(torpedos) > all - you just kill everything from range and can't be touched urself, because of ur speed/torpedo-defense. in detail, torpedos offer more: dps dpenergy dpspace range - losing more dmg per range isn't negative, because doing a bit dmg very far away(torpedo) > doing no dmg far way(laser). it also ownes the dumb ai automatically with kiting, so it's really hard to lose combine that with being faster then the enemy and ur kinda invincible... quote: ORIGINAL: Shark7 Imagine this... Hardpoints: .... HP eh? so lets remove the shipdesigning completely and replace it by hardcoded shiptemplates/restrictions so that the ai can't make poor choices and i as as human can't make good choices for the sake of balancing? just fail!

Astax -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (5/31/2010 6:19:18 PM)
There is no efficiency cost for using a longer ranged weapon beyond the silly miss chance. I think weapons need to be retooled. Long range torpedoes should use more energy. So that they are better suited for defensive installations that have energy collectors. It would actually make sense for these installations to have easier access to longer range weapons so they cant be abused from far away. Lasers should be more efficient for prolonged fight. So that using them on ships would be good. As is there are hardly any long fights, since the torpedoes wipe everything pretty fast :)

Yarasala -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (5/31/2010 7:06:17 PM)
Point defence!

Shark7 -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (5/31/2010 10:55:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vanes quote: ORIGINAL: Shark7 Imagine this... Hardpoints: .... HP eh? so lets remove the shipdesigning completely and replace it by hardcoded shiptemplates/restrictions so that the ai can't make poor choices and i as as human can't make good choices for the sake of balancing? just fail! And you have a better idea? It doesn't bother me that you don't like it, but you are not offering any better alternatives. Which is 'just fail!' to use your own terminology. Being honest, I don't like HPs either, but they do offer a codable solution to the problem. The other option is full out freedom, which unfortunately leads to what we have now...the player will always be better than the AI and the AI will never be competative. Another option would be to simply have the AI copy player designs...this of course leads to cookie cutter ships with absolutely no strengths or weaknesses. The final option I have suggested is to let the players design ships or ship templates that can be added to the game. In fact, a database where designs could be uploaded and traded would even be a good idea. Design templates that the AI as well as the players could utilize. Such a system would be far better than the current: "Let's just slap a bunch of guns on it and go blow away the AI' system we have now...which seems to be what some people want to keep. Restrictions aren't always a bad thing. Sometimes they force you to think outside the box...or to actually think...rather than just haphazardly slapping parts on a chassis.

taltamir -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (5/31/2010 11:07:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Astax There is no efficiency cost for using a longer ranged weapon beyond the silly miss chance. I think weapons need to be retooled. Long range torpedoes should use more energy. So that they are better suited for defensive installations that have energy collectors. It would actually make sense for these installations to have easier access to longer range weapons so they cant be abused from far away. Lasers should be more efficient for prolonged fight. So that using them on ships would be good. As is there are hardly any long fights, since the torpedoes wipe everything pretty fast :) weapons are being retooled completely for 1.05, this is why it is taking a while. They estimate it would be ready in mid june

the1sean -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (6/1/2010 3:14:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: taltamir weapons are being retooled completely for 1.05, this is why it is taking a while. They estimate it would be ready in mid june Good, some of the techs are quirky and not really a step forward. Like the second thrust engine sucks...

Dadekster -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (6/1/2010 7:18:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: the1sean quote: ORIGINAL: taltamir weapons are being retooled completely for 1.05, this is why it is taking a while. They estimate it would be ready in mid june Good, some of the techs are quirky and not really a step forward. Like the second thrust engine sucks... There are plenty of RL examples of things like this occurring, but it's not something I want to really deal with in game either. I can understand the concept of moving forward in one sub aspect of a technology at the cost of something else to give you an advantage in something, (engine tech upgrade = better fuel economy and power output at cost of engine being bigger and more expensive as a step up for example) but atm this does not translate into the game environment to a noticable degree. If they can fix that then an upgrade in tech would present some interesting choices come design time. Right now it's not really there imo. As others have said, hopefully the weapons balance will fix that, but weapons alone to do make the sum of a ship of war as we all know.

w3wizard -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (6/1/2010 10:49:49 PM)
Hi, I'm new to the forums, though I joined specifically because I noticed the balance issues. I was curious if anybody mentioned adding an attribute to shields that worked like a "deflection" attribute. For example, larger weapons (that do more damage in a single hit) would be less likely to be deflected such as either having no impact on the shield or having a decreased drain on the shields. So a larger weapon even though it does less DPS would hit shields harder when it hit. That and making ECM more effective against only Torpedoes (if it isn't already). Also, maybe the component sizes could be altered to help balance design?

taltamir -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (6/2/2010 1:06:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dadekster quote: ORIGINAL: the1sean quote: ORIGINAL: taltamir weapons are being retooled completely for 1.05, this is why it is taking a while. They estimate it would be ready in mid june Good, some of the techs are quirky and not really a step forward. Like the second thrust engine sucks... There are plenty of RL examples of things like this occurring, but it's not something I want to really deal with in game either. I can understand the concept of moving forward in one sub aspect of a technology at the cost of something else to give you an advantage in something, (engine tech upgrade = better fuel economy and power output at cost of engine being bigger and more expensive as a step up for example) but atm this does not translate into the game environment to a noticable degree. If they can fix that then an upgrade in tech would present some interesting choices come design time. Right now it's not really there imo. As others have said, hopefully the weapons balance will fix that, but weapons alone to do make the sum of a ship of war as we all know. I think that if you want trade off you can do it, but not with the current system... You need to have a LOT more technologies (maybe even throw in some randomization) Ship design should be retooled so you have different component "windows" instead of one big list, an engine window, weapon window, etc... Each window should display the "best in class" in different USEFUL metrics... (with an option to just show them all) So you go to the engine window, it will show you best in class speed, best in class junp time, best in class size, best in class energy usage... The same engine can be the best in a few of those... Also, have a configurable "balanced" component which uses "points" with a set amount of points given to each engine for each of the above categories and showing the engine with the most points... so a hypothetical engine with 60,000 speed and 15 activation time is best in class at speed. a hypothetical engine with 20,000 speed and 3 activation time is best in class at activation time and an engine with 55,000 speed and 4 activation time is probably the best "balanced" engine So it is technically doable in (in a much more pleasant way)... but that still doesn't mean it should be done or that it would be a good idea.

Locarnus -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (6/2/2010 1:42:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: taltamir I think that if you want trade off you can do it, but not with the current system... You need to have a LOT more technologies (maybe even throw in some randomization) Ship design should be retooled so you have different component "windows" instead of one big list, an engine window, weapon window, etc... Each window should display the "best in class" in different USEFUL metrics... (with an option to just show them all) So you go to the engine window, it will show you best in class speed, best in class junp time, best in class size, best in class energy usage... The same engine can be the best in a few of those... Also, have a configurable "balanced" component which uses "points" with a set amount of points given to each engine for each of the above categories and showing the engine with the most points... so a hypothetical engine with 60,000 speed and 15 activation time is best in class at speed. a hypothetical engine with 20,000 speed and 3 activation time is best in class at activation time and an engine with 55,000 speed and 4 activation time is probably the best "balanced" engine So it is technically doable in (in a much more pleasant way)... but that still doesn't mean it should be done or that it would be a good idea. dont like the extra window idea. right now i must click often enough to design/redesign/update a ship, with windows the opening and closing ro each component would be tiresome especially when finetuning and experimenting with different setups... but some order is needed so why not order the list eg ----------- Reactor ----------- best output reactor best conversion reactor ----------- Hyperdrive ----------- best top speed best initialization time etc always with the same ordering of components and in the middle between the 2 lists, small icons, eg R (Reactor) H (Hyper) T (Thrusters) etc and when clicking on them both lists jump to those together with the widely proposed component grouping this would certainly help

taltamir -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (6/2/2010 2:37:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Locarnus dont like the extra window idea. right now i must click often enough to design/redesign/update a ship, with windows the opening and closing ro each component would be tiresome I agree, I don't like it either... but it the only passable way of having a system where "newer" components are not better/the same in all metrics, instead having a "next gen" tech sacrifice one area of performance for another. Either you go with the multiple windows and very complex but robust system... or just drop that nod towards "realism" and just have it where every component is in every way shape or form superior to the previous generation component (which is how I prefer GAMES to play)

Yarasala -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (6/2/2010 12:06:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: taltamir quote: ORIGINAL: Locarnus dont like the extra window idea. right now i must click often enough to design/redesign/update a ship, with windows the opening and closing ro each component would be tiresome I agree, I don't like it either... but it the only passable way of having a system where "newer" components are not better/the same in all metrics, instead having a "next gen" tech sacrifice one area of performance for another. Either you go with the multiple windows and very complex but robust system... or just drop that nod towards "realism" and just have it where every component is in every way shape or form superior to the previous generation component (which is how I prefer GAMES to play) If newer componenets are better in every respect than older ones, you take away a decision from the players what would not be a good thing. I prefer the current system but the handling of components of different tech levels in a design needs to be much better, to that I agree fully.

taltamir -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (6/2/2010 4:16:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yarasala quote: ORIGINAL: taltamir quote: ORIGINAL: Locarnus dont like the extra window idea. right now i must click often enough to design/redesign/update a ship, with windows the opening and closing ro each component would be tiresome I agree, I don't like it either... but it the only passable way of having a system where "newer" components are not better/the same in all metrics, instead having a "next gen" tech sacrifice one area of performance for another. Either you go with the multiple windows and very complex but robust system... or just drop that nod towards "realism" and just have it where every component is in every way shape or form superior to the previous generation component (which is how I prefer GAMES to play) If newer componenets are better in every respect than older ones, you take away a decision from the players what would not be a good thing. I prefer the current system but the handling of components of different tech levels in a design needs to be much better, to that I agree fully. It IS a good thing to take away that decision... Too much "decisions" means cumbersome micromanagement... There are lots of design decisions you can and should be making, using obsolete tech because its in some way better means having to deeply analyze and understand every single tech component, and then calculate which one to use... it is a PITA and it is VERY frustrating when you try to implement an "upgrading" system (click a button to upgrade all components on the ship), a working AI (normally the AI would just use the latest gen tech), or just play the game without having to understand it to that level. Tech X > Tech X-1 is one of the most fundamental things for a game. We don't need this kind of "choice" where tech X might or might not be better than tech X-1 (because it might be a trap) thank you very much. Now, if you want to implement different "types" of components, thats where differentiation comes into play... you could have it as different types of weapons (aka, lasers, mass drivers, missiles)... or you could have some other sort of categorization... such as "long range lasers" vs "short range lasers"... but its better to have those as "modifiers" like in MOO2 (maybe somewhat improved)... ideally you would want them both to work off of the same tech and be a design choice the player applies; such as bigger mount or small mount. And each weapon tech should be better then the previous one (something that sadly was not the case with moo2... i just finished a game of it this very second...)

Yarasala -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (6/2/2010 7:45:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: taltamir quote: ORIGINAL: Yarasala quote: ORIGINAL: taltamir quote: ORIGINAL: Locarnus dont like the extra window idea. right now i must click often enough to design/redesign/update a ship, with windows the opening and closing ro each component would be tiresome I agree, I don't like it either... but it the only passable way of having a system where "newer" components are not better/the same in all metrics, instead having a "next gen" tech sacrifice one area of performance for another. Either you go with the multiple windows and very complex but robust system... or just drop that nod towards "realism" and just have it where every component is in every way shape or form superior to the previous generation component (which is how I prefer GAMES to play) If newer componenets are better in every respect than older ones, you take away a decision from the players what would not be a good thing. I prefer the current system but the handling of components of different tech levels in a design needs to be much better, to that I agree fully. It IS a good thing to take away that decision... Too much "decisions" means cumbersome micromanagement... There are lots of design decisions you can and should be making, using obsolete tech because its in some way better means having to deeply analyze and understand every single tech component, and then calculate which one to use... it is a PITA and it is VERY frustrating when you try to implement an "upgrading" system (click a button to upgrade all components on the ship), a working AI (normally the AI would just use the latest gen tech), or just play the game without having to understand it to that level. Tech X > Tech X-1 is one of the most fundamental things for a game. We don't need this kind of "choice" where tech X might or might not be better than tech X-1 (because it might be a trap) thank you very much. By "we" you mean "you" ... [;)] Obviously we have a different opinion about that matter, we'll see what route the game will take. Anyway, I would like those decisions that are in no way cumbersome to me. And about the AI and upgrading, yes, it would be more difficult for it to find the best solution, but I don't find it too hard to implement. Just give the AI some "focus" attributes per component area, e. g. "speed" for hyperdrives so it will always upgrade to the fastest drive. I described elsewhere how the upgrade button could work: if pressed, check the design(s) and upgrade only those components that are most advanced and leave all others alone. But if the player could also specify "focus" like the AI, then the upgrade button could follow the same logic. quote: ORIGINAL: taltamir Now, if you want to implement different "types" of components, thats where differentiation comes into play... you could have it as different types of weapons (aka, lasers, mass drivers, missiles)... or you could have some other sort of categorization... such as "long range lasers" vs "short range lasers"... but its better to have those as "modifiers" like in MOO2 (maybe somewhat improved)... ideally you would want them both to work off of the same tech and be a design choice the player applies; such as bigger mount or small mount. And each weapon tech should be better then the previous one (something that sadly was not the case with moo2... i just finished a game of it this very second...) I could live with those modifications but I think that would need to much alteration of the current system to be viable (but of course I may be wrong). Furthermore I do not see the difference in AI decision finding and upgrading per button with those modifications compared to the system with components that are not better everywhere than their predecessors, it seems even more complicated to me ...

Shark7 -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (6/2/2010 7:56:59 PM)
Hmm, would it not be better to have a click list of the componant types (IE Reactor, Shield, Lasers, etc) that opens up a window or drop list to all componants of that type? A window with some minimal comparison filters might even be more desireable...for example: I need to add a reactor. I click on reactor from the componant type list and a box opens up with my 3 reactor types and their basic important stats... Reactor A: 22 Size, 20 Generation Reactor B: 12 Size, 10 Generation Reactor c: 28 Size, 50 Generation Then I can choose the one that best fits my design. The only problem would come in the mass auto-upgrade feature, since it would automatically upgrade everything to the newest (not necessarily most appropriate) tech level.

taltamir -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (6/3/2010 3:20:28 AM)
quote: I could live with those modifications but I think that would need to much alteration of the current system to be viable (but of course I may be wrong). Furthermore I do not see the difference in AI decision finding and upgrading per button with those modifications compared to the system with components that are not better everywhere than their predecessors, it seems even more complicated to me ... It is significantly more doable... If "long range" is 2x the range, 50% more damage, and 2x the size and cost (eg, the heavy mount in MOO) you can just have the upgrade button always use the latest laser TYPE and keep the modfications... aka, 3 point defense lasers and 10 long range lasers would upgrade to 3 point defense phasers and 10 long range phasers. simple. However, it is not necessarily a good idea to have such a system... quote: By "we" you mean "you" ... Obviously we have a different opinion about that matter, we'll see what route the game will take. Anyway, I would like those decisions that are in no way cumbersome to me. And about the AI and upgrading, yes, it would be more difficult for it to find the best solution, but I don't find it too hard to implement. Just give the AI some "focus" attributes per component area, e. g. "speed" for hyperdrives so it will always upgrade to the fastest drive. I described elsewhere how the upgrade button could work: if pressed, check the design(s) and upgrade only those components that are most advanced and leave all others alone. But if the player could also specify "focus" like the AI, then the upgrade button could follow the same logic. By we I mean everyone... you might THINK you want it, and maybe you are the one in a million who would actually enjoy it... in which case I recommend you try a game called Master of Orion 3... there is a reason why MOO3 was a colossal failure. Abstraction = Good thing. Moo3 sacrificed one game play mechanic after another on the altar of "realism" (and then it failed miserably with basic realism notions in order to accommodate it, such as ships being build on planet A are available immediately for deployment in planet B, ugh).

Yarasala -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (6/3/2010 9:43:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: taltamir quote: I could live with those modifications but I think that would need to much alteration of the current system to be viable (but of course I may be wrong). Furthermore I do not see the difference in AI decision finding and upgrading per button with those modifications compared to the system with components that are not better everywhere than their predecessors, it seems even more complicated to me ... It is significantly more doable... If "long range" is 2x the range, 50% more damage, and 2x the size and cost (eg, the heavy mount in MOO) you can just have the upgrade button always use the latest laser TYPE and keep the modfications... aka, 3 point defense lasers and 10 long range lasers would upgrade to 3 point defense phasers and 10 long range phasers. simple. However, it is not necessarily a good idea to have such a system... Ok, it may work that way, but dependent on the situation and the characteristics of the next component that may not be the best upgrade choice. If you (that is, the AI) have to take all variables into consideration when upgrading (in this case the basic characteristics of the beam weapons and the combination of all possible modifications and their effects), then the more variables there are, the more miserable the life of the AI will be ... [;)] quote: quote: By "we" you mean "you" ... Obviously we have a different opinion about that matter, we'll see what route the game will take. Anyway, I would like those decisions that are in no way cumbersome to me. And about the AI and upgrading, yes, it would be more difficult for it to find the best solution, but I don't find it too hard to implement. Just give the AI some "focus" attributes per component area, e. g. "speed" for hyperdrives so it will always upgrade to the fastest drive. I described elsewhere how the upgrade button could work: if pressed, check the design(s) and upgrade only those components that are most advanced and leave all others alone. But if the player could also specify "focus" like the AI, then the upgrade button could follow the same logic. By we I mean everyone... you might THINK you want it, and maybe you are the one in a million who would actually enjoy it... in which case I recommend you try a game called Master of Orion 3... Where do you take the notion from that you speak for more people than yourself? As far as I am concerned, I state my own opinion and have no idea how others think about my suggestions if they don't answer like you do. And yes, I don't mind a bit of micromanagement if it's not too much and fun. Playing with component constellations would mean fun to me and I wouldn't consider that to be too much micromanagement. But as I said, that is only my opinion. quote: there is a reason why MOO3 was a colossal failure. Abstraction = Good thing. Moo3 sacrificed one game play mechanic after another on the altar of "realism" (and then it failed miserably with basic realism notions in order to accommodate it, such as ships being build on planet A are available immediately for deployment in planet B, ugh). I played MoO3, in fact that was the game I waited for the most eagerly in my whole life - only to experience the biggest disappointment in my whole gaming life. MoO3 just didn't work, and I was so upset that I didn't bother to try any fan mods either ... Anyway, I think we have both made clear our opinion.

taltamir -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (6/3/2010 11:03:13 AM)
quote: Ok, it may work that way, but dependent on the situation and the characteristics of the next component that may not be the best upgrade choice. If you (that is, the AI) have to take all variables into consideration when upgrading (in this case the basic characteristics of the beam weapons and the combination of all possible modifications and their effects), then the more variables there are, the more miserable the life of the AI will be ... Which is only a problem if you maintain the trap components which are inferior to previous versions... this is meant as a replacement to such a system, not to complement it... if the new beam is "exactly the same or better in size, cost, damage, range and energy consumption" then there is no complication at all, it is in every way better, you don't have to mix and match various tech levels. quote: I played MoO3, in fact that was the game I waited for the most eagerly in my whole life - only to experience the biggest disappointment in my whole gaming life. MoO3 just didn't work, and I was so upset that I didn't bother to try any fan mods either ... Anyway, I think we have both made clear our opinion. Have you stopped to think why MOO3 was such a disappointment? Certain mechanics simply make for terrible game-play.

Yarasala -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (6/3/2010 1:48:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: taltamir quote: I played MoO3, in fact that was the game I waited for the most eagerly in my whole life - only to experience the biggest disappointment in my whole gaming life. MoO3 just didn't work, and I was so upset that I didn't bother to try any fan mods either ... Anyway, I think we have both made clear our opinion. Have you stopped to think why MOO3 was such a disappointment? Certain mechanics simply make for terrible game-play. Since is such a long time ago I can't exactly remember what exact issues annoyed me. But I doubt it had to do especially with ship component selection, at least if it was implemented properly. But then, not very many things were implemented properly in MoO3 ... [8\|]

alexalexuk -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (6/3/2010 1:59:57 PM)
im still annoyed by the lack of progress made by the devs to clean up the AI's races loadout techniques, and NOT adapting to human players ships. makes for a boring game that im beginning to play less and less of.

taltamir -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (6/4/2010 5:15:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yarasala quote: ORIGINAL: taltamir quote: I played MoO3, in fact that was the game I waited for the most eagerly in my whole life - only to experience the biggest disappointment in my whole gaming life. MoO3 just didn't work, and I was so upset that I didn't bother to try any fan mods either ... Anyway, I think we have both made clear our opinion. Have you stopped to think why MOO3 was such a disappointment? Certain mechanics simply make for terrible game-play. Since is such a long time ago I can't exactly remember what exact issues annoyed me. But I doubt it had to do especially with ship component selection, at least if it was implemented properly. But then, not very many things were implemented properly in MoO3 ... [8\|] MOO3 has a bazillion tech levels, with tiny incremental upgrades. You need to redesign (using "auto design) your ships EVERY TURN. Your ships cannot be retrofitted. The redesign is so tedious that you auto design every ship, there are dozens of roles (long range, short range, indirect fire, carriers, point defense, etc etc), there are dozens of sizes, your planets can't just build the latest size, each has their own limit, so you need to have designs of each size... the result was about 20 to 50 designs that each turn you have to obsolete all of them one by one, then "auto design" (manually select create new design, select size, select role, then click auto design, then click confirm)... each round... If you didn't the AI would kick your ass due to having up to date ships. The game explicitly states that old designs would be automatically obsoleted and new designs made in their place... however that is NOT the case, they never implemented that... you have to do that manually. Also they had retarded forced "balancing" between large and small empires. Individual planet construction was best left on auto because it was unmanageable by a human being. And so on and so forth... mods could NOT (EDIT: I accidently left off the NOT part) fix a lot but the biggest problem remains the ship redesign issue. which stems from too many components with no auto-design/auto-upgrade capability (both of which are found in distant worlds btw; in 1.05 the lasers sucking problem will be addressed which would improve things further). Anyways... the moo3 design thing gave you TONS of choices... so many that a human being could not handle it and it should have been 100% automated (but it WASN'T)

Yarasala -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (6/4/2010 8:37:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: taltamir quote: ORIGINAL: Yarasala quote: ORIGINAL: taltamir quote: I played MoO3, in fact that was the game I waited for the most eagerly in my whole life - only to experience the biggest disappointment in my whole gaming life. MoO3 just didn't work, and I was so upset that I didn't bother to try any fan mods either ... Anyway, I think we have both made clear our opinion. Have you stopped to think why MOO3 was such a disappointment? Certain mechanics simply make for terrible game-play. Since is such a long time ago I can't exactly remember what exact issues annoyed me. But I doubt it had to do especially with ship component selection, at least if it was implemented properly. But then, not very many things were implemented properly in MoO3 ... [8\|] MOO3 has a bazillion tech levels, with tiny incremental upgrades. You need to redesign (using "auto design) your ships EVERY TURN. Your ships cannot be retrofitted. The redesign is so tedious that you auto design every ship, there are dozens of roles (long range, short range, indirect fire, carriers, point defense, etc etc), there are dozens of sizes, your planets can't just build the latest size, each has their own limit, so you need to have designs of each size... the result was about 20 to 50 designs that each turn you have to obsolete all of them one by one, then "auto design" (manually select create new design, select size, select role, then click auto design, then click confirm)... each round... If you didn't the AI would kick your ass due to having up to date ships. The game explicitly states that old designs would be automatically obsoleted and new designs made in their place... however that is NOT the case, they never implemented that... you have to do that manually. Also they had retarded forced "balancing" between large and small empires. Individual planet construction was best left on auto because it was unmanageable by a human being. And so on and so forth... mods could fix a lot but the biggest problem remains the ship redesign issue. which stems from too many components with no auto-design/auto-upgrade capability (both of which are found in distant worlds btw; in 1.05 the lasers sucking problem will be addressed which would improve things further). Anyways... the moo3 design thing gave you TONS of choices... so many that a human being could not handle it and it should have been 100% automated (but it WASN'T) Ok, thanks for remembering me (I had completely forgotten - perhaps subconciously voluntarily [;)]) - about that). I assure you that I don't want to have such a convoluted system. But if the choices are so that a human being can still handle them and the auto upgrade function works sensibly then I would enjoy that.

VarekRaith -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (6/4/2010 8:47:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: taltamir quote: ORIGINAL: Yarasala quote: ORIGINAL: taltamir quote: I played MoO3, in fact that was the game I waited for the most eagerly in my whole life - only to experience the biggest disappointment in my whole gaming life. MoO3 just didn't work, and I was so upset that I didn't bother to try any fan mods either ... Anyway, I think we have both made clear our opinion. Have you stopped to think why MOO3 was such a disappointment? Certain mechanics simply make for terrible game-play. Since is such a long time ago I can't exactly remember what exact issues annoyed me. But I doubt it had to do especially with ship component selection, at least if it was implemented properly. But then, not very many things were implemented properly in MoO3 ... [8\|] MOO3 has a bazillion tech levels, with tiny incremental upgrades. You need to redesign (using "auto design) your ships EVERY TURN. Your ships cannot be retrofitted. The redesign is so tedious that you auto design every ship, there are dozens of roles (long range, short range, indirect fire, carriers, point defense, etc etc), there are dozens of sizes, your planets can't just build the latest size, each has their own limit, so you need to have designs of each size... the result was about 20 to 50 designs that each turn you have to obsolete all of them one by one, then "auto design" (manually select create new design, select size, select role, then click auto design, then click confirm)... each round... If you didn't the AI would kick your ass due to having up to date ships. The game explicitly states that old designs would be automatically obsoleted and new designs made in their place... however that is NOT the case, they never implemented that... you have to do that manually. Also they had retarded forced "balancing" between large and small empires. Individual planet construction was best left on auto because it was unmanageable by a human being. And so on and so forth... mods could fix a lot but the biggest problem remains the ship redesign issue. which stems from too many components with no auto-design/auto-upgrade capability (both of which are found in distant worlds btw; in 1.05 the lasers sucking problem will be addressed which would improve things further). Anyways... the moo3 design thing gave you TONS of choices... so many that a human being could not handle it and it should have been 100% automated (but it WASN'T) True, though I could at least deal with the ship design issues. What I couldn't deal with? That fool viceroy in full control of DEA upgrades. Annoyed me to no end that I couldn't control what was added to a DEA and when. [:o]

taltamir -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (6/4/2010 9:26:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VarekRaith quote: ORIGINAL: taltamir quote: ORIGINAL: Yarasala quote: ORIGINAL: taltamir quote: I played MoO3, in fact that was the game I waited for the most eagerly in my whole life - only to experience the biggest disappointment in my whole gaming life. MoO3 just didn't work, and I was so upset that I didn't bother to try any fan mods either ... Anyway, I think we have both made clear our opinion. Have you stopped to think why MOO3 was such a disappointment? Certain mechanics simply make for terrible game-play. Since is such a long time ago I can't exactly remember what exact issues annoyed me. But I doubt it had to do especially with ship component selection, at least if it was implemented properly. But then, not very many things were implemented properly in MoO3 ... [8\|] MOO3 has a bazillion tech levels, with tiny incremental upgrades. You need to redesign (using "auto design) your ships EVERY TURN. Your ships cannot be retrofitted. The redesign is so tedious that you auto design every ship, there are dozens of roles (long range, short range, indirect fire, carriers, point defense, etc etc), there are dozens of sizes, your planets can't just build the latest size, each has their own limit, so you need to have designs of each size... the result was about 20 to 50 designs that each turn you have to obsolete all of them one by one, then "auto design" (manually select create new design, select size, select role, then click auto design, then click confirm)... each round... If you didn't the AI would kick your ass due to having up to date ships. The game explicitly states that old designs would be automatically obsoleted and new designs made in their place... however that is NOT the case, they never implemented that... you have to do that manually. Also they had retarded forced "balancing" between large and small empires. Individual planet construction was best left on auto because it was unmanageable by a human being. And so on and so forth... mods could fix a lot but the biggest problem remains the ship redesign issue. which stems from too many components with no auto-design/auto-upgrade capability (both of which are found in distant worlds btw; in 1.05 the lasers sucking problem will be addressed which would improve things further). Anyways... the moo3 design thing gave you TONS of choices... so many that a human being could not handle it and it should have been 100% automated (but it WASN'T) True, though I could at least deal with the ship design issues. What I couldn't deal with? That fool viceroy in full control of DEA upgrades. Annoyed me to no end that I couldn't control what was added to a DEA and when. [:o] Right... or the fact that once your tech upgraded a bit you were making a bazillion food and no production, because it didn't cut down on food production as technology improved. (food production should be done as a percentage penalty to industry... a percentage of your population and/or industry is dedicated to food production... with variation for planet type... so "dead" planets would require lots more industry because you need self contained hydroponics systems, and so on) The entire DEA was a misapplied notion... it increased complexity without increasing realism... But yea, there were LOTS of issues with the game, the ship design just the one I found most glaring.

Pipewrench -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (6/5/2010 3:23:36 PM)
to throw out a thought on how to give the AI the best chance at the best design just have a pool of designs submitted for every race covering all the techs and sizes by players. have a 1 person 1 vote to ween out bad designs and set certain rock/paper what ifs for the AI to implement. It would be nice in my opinion to have hull designs that are obsolete to some major breakthru techs. engines, reactors etc. This could also bring to life a tech that worked on minuturization that could give that old hull a new use if the player wanted to spend the coin but only to that specifc tech and design. The AI might emplode on adding that many variables but if you brought in human design to counter other human designs things should even out and it would just be the little tweaks that carry the day...but would you post your winning formula knowing you would face its wrath in future. .....???? edit: also keep the pool without author credit and no comments on the vote and that will help submissions to the pool.email the winner on the next voluntary update but do not divulge the race or ship class name and let people download the new pool on the members page. this would also help with pirates as they need that new file from the developer to play against the new designs. I think this would create real competition in players to outthink designs encountered and kill quickly "I always win with this design" and lastly ...all you have to do it create 2 or 3 new techs in the tree and there is your expansion with a quick beta to build up a new starting database for the AI to pull from that will always improve.

the1sean -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (6/5/2010 4:17:06 PM)
Hmm, I think that many players want ship design to be some overly complicated spreadsheet task. I dont like teching that doesnt give you a definitely better component. It is also hard for the AI to manage designing with a crazy overly detailed tech-tree. Just my two cents.

taltamir -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (6/5/2010 5:35:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: the1sean Hmm, I think that many players want ship design to be some overly complicated spreadsheet task. I dont like teching that doesnt give you a definitely better component. It is also hard for the AI to manage designing with a crazy overly detailed tech-tree. Just my two cents. Agreed... Lets not have the game become an excel spreadsheet. Simple, linear tech improvements... not the most realistic, but the most fun.

Pipewrench -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (6/6/2010 9:58:10 PM)
true but is not any war really based on exel? [;)]

Shark7 -> RE: my custom ships wipe the AI's plate clean - everytime (6/6/2010 11:48:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: taltamir quote: ORIGINAL: the1sean Hmm, I think that many players want ship design to be some overly complicated spreadsheet task. I dont like teching that doesnt give you a definitely better component. It is also hard for the AI to manage designing with a crazy overly detailed tech-tree. Just my two cents. Agreed... Lets not have the game become an excel spreadsheet. Simple, linear tech improvements... not the most realistic, but the most fun. Personally I'd like to see a system that upgrades the components incrementally to a point where you get a new part. IE: Standard Laser Mark 0 starts at 100, is upgradable to 200 (at Mark 99) by increasing 1 point at a time, then at what would be the 201 improvement you get the Enhanced Laser Mark 0. This way you use the parts longer, and its not a race to see how fast you can crash the programs all the time. It would still be simple. The new componant is exactly the same as the Mark 99 version of the previous part, but now you can upgrade it another 99 times....etc etc. Not perfect, but hopefully not overly complicated and I do like that kind of system.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

8.75