Just Askin', I don't know (Winning/Losing)

Just Askin', I don't know (Winning/Losing) (Full Version)

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

Message

JonathanStrange -> Just Askin', I don't know (Winning/Losing) (8/12/2012 4:38:32 PM)
I did do a "Search" but I may have missed the answers I seek, so...sorry. As fascinating a game as Distant Worlds appears to be, I wonder: Q: Do any of you players ever get wiped out by the AI? I mean, once you've learned the "stick them with the pointy-end" weaponry and economic nuances of the game, does the AI ever make you say, "Clever boy, caught me napping"? Or is losing more a matter of not winning. That is you lose but you've still a very strong civilization with plenty of power. Q: Are games nail-biters (will I survive?) or are they "darn, now I'm doomed to come in fourth"? Q: Do AI empires often get assimilated? Q: Is Distant Worlds more a sand-box game where you're just amused by what it does on its own (trade routes, colonizing, exploring) for its own sake or is it a cruel, indifferent executioner of the unfit?

ASHBERY76 -> RE: Just Askin', I don't know (Winning/Losing) (8/12/2012 4:48:40 PM)
I have restarted the game plenty of times after having a poor opening phase.I think most humans cheat in the sence of reloading or restarting untill the situation suits them.

Grotius -> RE: Just Askin', I don't know (Winning/Losing) (8/12/2012 5:15:31 PM)
As Ashbery says, the ability to reload a saved game -- or just to quit and restart -- is a huge cheat always available to the human player, and never available to the AI. That said, I did play out my first game of the "Legends" expansion even though I thought I was doomed after the first phase. It made for an exciting game, with comebacks and setbacks. I've posted an AAR, but it contains spoilers, so I wouldn't read it until you've played through the main "storyline" once. http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2970749&mpage=1&key= To answer your questions more methodically: 1. "Did the AI ever catch me napping?" Sorta kinda? In the AAR I've linked, I had some unpleasant surprises. I think most people would say the AI is not Deep Blue, but it can give you a good game, especially if you give it certain advantages (a tech lead, say). (I see advantages not as an AI "cheat" but as a handicap, akin to strokes in golf or giving up a chess piece before game start.) 2. "Are games nail-biters?" My first Legends game was a nail-biter. I was worried I wouldn't survive at all. Most probably aren't, possibly because people restart. 3. "Do AI empires often get assimilated?" In my games, no, because I have a peaceful-economic-diplomatic playstyles. Other people do conquer the galaxy. If the AI has no advantages, such a conquest apparently isn't that tough, but I wouldn't know. "Is DW more a sandbox game?" It can be, yes. You can turn off most or all victory conditions if you want. I leave victory conditions on, but I admit that half the fun for me is the sandbox aspect. DW is probably the most sandbox-like 4X I've played, and I've played lots (GalCiv, GalCiv2, all the MOOs, Endless Space, Space Empires, Sins, Sword of the Stars, Homeworld, Alpha Centauri, Civilization, etc). I do think a common complaint here is that DW is too easy. The way to deal with that is either to set up Victory Conditions that challenge your playstyle (e.g., no conquest victory), or to give the AI a tech lead or other advantages. And, of course, refrain from "cheating" by reloading or restarting. I do wish the AI were nastier, but I still think it's a great game. Hope this helps some.

Arcatus -> RE: Just Askin', I don't know (Winning/Losing) (8/12/2012 5:44:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JonathanStrange I did do a "Search" but I may have missed the answers I seek, so...sorry. As fascinating a game as Distant Worlds appears to be, I wonder: Q: Do any of you players ever get wiped out by the AI? I mean, once you've learned the "stick them with the pointy-end" weaponry and economic nuances of the game, does the AI ever make you say, "Clever boy, caught me napping"? No, I have not been defeated by force by the AI, but it does a good job of picking the weakspots in defenses, so leave a world undefended, and the AI will punish you for it. So yes, I have had a couple of those "Clever boy, caught me napping" moments. I have not been my downfall and defeat, but some setbacks have occurred. quote: ORIGINAL: JonathanStrange Or is losing more a matter of not winning. That is you lose but you've still a very strong civilization with plenty of power. The default victory conditions (60% IIRC) can be reached very quickly by some races. Under those conditions, you can "suddenly" loose the game. I now play at 80%-95%, so the winning empire is definitely the one with the galactic power. read: me [8D]. quote: ORIGINAL: JonathanStrange Q: Are games nail-biters (will I survive?) or are they "darn, now I'm doomed to come in fourth"? During the start of the game you may find yourself lacking key resources - the search for that resource and carefully planning every ship and base is something I enjoy. I always works out in the end (that is why it is fun) but there would have been some nail-biting involved if I had that habit. Sooner or later, I'll fall of that knife edge and be defeated by force. quote: ORIGINAL: JonathanStrange Q: Do AI empires often get assimilated? Not sure what you mean here. Assimilation of other races is not required, but highly recommended. Your income is directly linked to population, so while you can bombard - even destroy entire planents - it is often not a good idea... quote: ORIGINAL: JonathanStrange Q: Is Distant Worlds more a sand-box game where you're just amused by what it does on its own (trade routes, colonizing, exploring) for its own sake or is it a cruel, indifferent executioner of the unfit? Distant world is alive with many private ships running around, and by adjusting automation and victory conditions you can get as much - or a little - sandbox as you want.

JonathanStrange -> RE: Just Askin', I don't know (Winning/Losing) (8/12/2012 7:54:09 PM)
Thanks for the replies. I like 4X games where survival itself is on the line but I'm open-minded. I welcome any impressions, anecdotes or thoughts on Distant World's capacity to challenge you.

Grotius -> RE: Just Askin', I don't know (Winning/Losing) (8/12/2012 8:23:02 PM)
I hope other people post here, because I'm curious what people think. I personally find plenty of challenge in Distant Worlds, but I'm not a warmonger type. I hope some of those folks weigh in.

Blueberry -> RE: Just Askin', I don't know (Winning/Losing) (8/12/2012 10:00:04 PM)
I always start at the edge of the max size galaxy and though i do get a great number of opponents, I also always get some space to expand peacefully/gracefully. I mean if you know what you'r doing and are used to the game's mechanics you won't get too much trouble even early on. Diplomacy is a great tool that helps you survive long enough to become a true bully later on. Late game becomes easy since income reaches ridiculous levels and the player ends up paying less and less attention to ship/base construction costs and maintenance element.Wish we had some deeper diplomacy with a bit smarter AI and some limited income making sure the player cries for every single ship he/she looses during a conflict. Suppose it also depends on the race of the empire. I find bugs a bit (still not enough though) more challenging to play with since one can get a start surrounded by humanoids and then the game can offer something interesting.You defend your assets carefully and patrol borders well enough and that 'clever boy' stuff won't get ya. Automated fleets with appropriate posturing are nicely implemented. Lately, I've been playing without any victory conditions on. I just play the game without them. Personally, I prefer it this way. Feels more realistic. As long as my empire becomes the most powerful that no other civilization dares to mess with, I am happy. Military strength and technological advancement that ensures security and some happy well-supplied population are the factors that I care about. Whether I get there in 20 years or 200.... Doesn't matter. Other empires do get assimilated since the bonuses those offer are too groovy to ignore. But I do wipe out almost everyone once I get bored. Only keep rats as me pets. By the way, I also appreciate the way Grotius plays it. Used to play that way myself. Certainly makes for a different experience. It also makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Distant worlds is a great game. It most certainly is my favorite 4x game ever. Like so many other gamers on this particular forum, I've also played a great many strategy games and this one just tops the list. It has the character and I like the way it is presented. Its quite unique and feels more alive than anything else on the market. Hope for a greater challenge in the near future. Looking forward to the expansion and the latest official release of the patch for legends. Hope that helps....

jpwrunyan -> RE: Just Askin', I don't know (Winning/Losing) (8/13/2012 2:48:20 AM)
I never get wiped out by the AI anymore. I have found some simple strategies that appear OP to the point of being exploits: 1) when losing a war, persistently offer subjugation. The ai always accepts and you can ready your defenses* 2) sell tech as often as possible. Use the money to crash research new tech.* 3) research area weapons. Put them on your starports. 99% of the time you will annihilate an enemy fleet when at war in the early game. 4) maximize mining station extract rates and build fewer of them. Nuf said.* 5) steal research. If your game has ancient guardians, they are an infinite source of advanced research. >50% of the time you get a spy with espianage. Nurture him. 6) seek out resort spots. Build resort stations. Make stupid amounts of money. These arent the only things I do. But they are what I do that seem OP against the AI. *stuff I dont do no more coz too eezy

Arcatus -> RE: Just Askin', I don't know (Winning/Losing) (8/13/2012 9:19:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jpwrunyan (...) 3) research area weapons. Put them on your starports. 99% of the time you will annihilate an enemy fleet when at war in the early game. (...) Interesting strategy. I stopped using area weapons on startports long ago, as it was devastating. Every time a pirate or minor threat came close the area weapons went off, and destroyed all docked ships, ships under construction and any other friendly ship unfortunate enough to be nearby. Auch. How do you get that work?

jpwrunyan -> RE: Just Askin', I don't know (Winning/Losing) (8/14/2012 4:14:28 AM)
Frankly I just dont worry about it. The area weapons are essential to my early game strategy, though. I start with minimal resources and other races more advanced. This means that if I get a start next to the boskara or gizurean, i should expect a war immediately. I have probably already fielded as many military ships as my economy can since i am utterly poor. And frankly, losing civilian ships is a blessing since it will inject my regime funds with money from the private sector (which I otherwise cant get at). They show up with 15 ships, and get grinded up by the starport giving me much breathing room. Now I can attack their infrastructure while rebuilding my own. Like I said, this is absolutely the only way to survive higher difficulty levels early game. Other than offering subjugation, which I think is more exploitative. Here I just exploit the ai's suicidal tendency. But even in late game I use area weapons and pulsars. Again, I dont worry about civilian ships. Why? Just build more? The ai doesnt seem to care either. And that new remote colony is better served by 4 area weapons than 4 cruisers. The cost in time and resources is vastly cheaper. In fact, I only use fleets for offense. It takes far less time to build a defense base than to build a spaceship at port, let alone fly your fleet halfway across the map to defend a planet when it should be attacking the enemy's. A minimal 1 hab/sup defense base with area weapon, modest shields and armor does fantastic damage for time/expense. When the enemy is on course, or I predict they will be, put up 4 or 5 in orbit and chances are you will keep your planet. The defense bases may die, but so what? They did their job. Area weapons are simply awesome.

jpwrunyan -> RE: Just Askin', I don't know (Winning/Losing) (8/14/2012 4:17:26 AM)
Also, pirates dont attack my starports. They always attack my mining stations. I still occasionally put area weapons plus missiles on important mining bases though. The above thinking holds true in these edge cases as well.

Igard -> RE: Just Askin', I don't know (Winning/Losing) (8/14/2012 4:37:26 AM)
I'd say I'm more of a sandbox player. I enjoy watching the galaxy live and breath in front of me. I like to set the game up to maintain a balance of power, I'm not interesting in winning or losing. I don't like losing colonies, but I see them more as setbacks than defeats. I often set my game up when testing my mods, which means a variety of different tech levels and empire sizes at start. When I'm handicapped, I usually try to maintain a low profile and grow slowly and avoid confrontation, but when I start to lose colonies that I know I'll not get back without hours upon hours of gameply, I'll usually admit defeat at that point.

ehsumrell1 -> RE: Just Askin', I don't know (Winning/Losing) (8/14/2012 5:07:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Igard I'd say I'm more of a sandbox player. I enjoy watching the galaxy live and breath in front of me. I like to set the game up to maintain a balance of power, I'm not interesting in winning or losing. Spoken like a true Romulan! [sm=00000280.gif]

jpwrunyan -> RE: Just Askin', I don't know (Winning/Losing) (8/14/2012 8:13:55 AM)
Like i said, when the boskara are your neighbors, you cant just sit back and sing kumbaya. That only seems to provoke them even more. Area weapons are the singular defensive solution. I learned this as the teekans. Note that even if I play non-militaristically, I still grab this tech first thing. It's cheap so I can often get it with just one or two weapons research labs and have time to spare--spending the rest of my research in hightech or energy.

Anthropoid -> RE: Just Askin', I don't know (Winning/Losing) (8/16/2012 3:38:23 PM)
Interesting stuff :)

Blueberry -> RE: Just Askin', I don't know (Winning/Losing) (8/18/2012 3:47:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jpwrunyan 5) steal research. If your game has ancient guardians, they are an infinite source of advanced research. >50% of the time you get a spy with espianage. Nurture him. Playing keratovs makes that way too easy. Like stealing phasers from a baby. 50% spying bonus. No need for research. [:D]

DracoRedux -> RE: Just Askin', I don't know (Winning/Losing) (8/19/2012 12:50:13 AM)
I never have been wiped by the AI, but I have had the AI simultaneously invade and take over 8 colonies. I didn't have enough naval power in the vicinity to prevent it. Needless to say, it was a "clever boy, caught me napping" moment. I responded by preparing a 15 pronged (the number of colonies the AI empire had) invasion.[:D] The major advantage you have as a human player is your adaptability. The AI has a much harder time countering fleet composition. You'd be amazed what a 100 speed torpedo destroyer/cruiser can accomplish. In my opinion, the only possible way to lose the game is to start 10 insect empires as old at max tech level and declare war on them simultaneously as soon as you find them all(lol, that should do it). -Draco

jpwrunyan -> RE: Just Askin', I don't know (Winning/Losing) (8/20/2012 3:45:58 AM)
@re ketarov Yes I know its too easy which is why i dont play them anymore. Also the ungari can start out with a super spy at base +50 espionage which is an exploit. I have beefed that guy up to over +100 espionage before. They need to really nerf some of the starting characters.

JonathanStrange -> RE: Just Askin', I don't know (Winning/Losing) (8/23/2012 2:47:42 AM)
Thanks for the interesting comments. I like it when a game works at defeating you: your empire's been a long-term enemy and the AI comes to teach you a lesson you won't soon forget. I've been playing another 4X strategy game (which I won't name for fear of thread derailment) where, in over a double dozen games, I've rarely lost a colony, the enemy virtually never builds many top-of-the-line combat ships, or does much of anything aggressive beyond attempting to colonize everything in the 'verse. Anyhow: Anyone fight their way back from behind? Do people just resign 'cause defeat is inevitable? Enjoying the responses. Thanks.

Haree78 -> RE: Just Askin', I don't know (Winning/Losing) (8/23/2012 3:08:15 AM)
I have been wiped out but almost always from near the start of the game. When I stack the odds in my opponents favour or the Galaxy heavily stacks it against me, like 3 insects on my borders. I have also lost from the Shakturi a number of times. Generally though this game suffers a little from steam roll after you start to win syndrome that all games Vs the AI suffer. Oh and I've fought back from being behind plenty of times, that's what it's all about. Definitely more fun when I put the difficulty 1 above the level I am comfortable with :)

jpwrunyan -> RE: Just Askin', I don't know (Winning/Losing) (8/23/2012 3:24:28 AM)
So far the game difficulty seems confined to the early game with the exception of the shakturi (whom I rarely encounter <sadface>). Part of this is due to problems with game balance talked about exhaustively before, part of it is the snowball effect. Snowballing can be dull, but on the other extreme are capricious events and ai cheats that effectively make pointless any skilled play on your part. Even if you played against another human, if you played better than them you could still snowball. My point is snowballing sucks, but is a sign of a weak opponent more than anything. Luck can also cause snowballing of course but I believe its pretty mitigated in this game. So to address snowballing is to address the ai. I like the idea of playing a game with no races of your family so all other ai empires ally with each other and against you.

BigWolfChris -> RE: Just Askin', I don't know (Winning/Losing) (8/23/2012 4:26:57 AM)
Like all games, once you learn how to play to a decent level, AI opponents are simply speedbumps to your ensured victory You just alter the length of time to victory and how steep those speedbumps are through handicaps to yourself (or advantages to AI) I've yet to play a game that is otherwise - and I don't include games where the AI blatantly cheat, as that is not competitive AI, just lazy programming

jpwrunyan -> RE: Just Askin', I don't know (Winning/Losing) (8/23/2012 9:06:45 AM)
In defense of programmers everywhere, giving the ai unfair advantages at higher difficulty levels can still yield better results than more advanced ai logic. As a player also I feel some satisfaction beating a cheating ai. Remember that moo2 gave its ai more racial picks at higher difficulty. This had a pronounced effect on game play and made things more challenging at all stages of the game. It also felt good winning against an opponent as an underdog having only your human intellect as an advantage. I think ai cheats, when done right, can be very effective and satisfying challenges. And they have the benefit of being easier to implement than deep blue.

JonathanStrange -> RE: Just Askin', I don't know (Winning/Losing) (8/23/2012 2:54:16 PM)
"Snowball effect" or as I usually call it "Steamroller" effect: I think that's a good point to bring up. Once your (hopefully it's your) empire, space navy, military, economy or whatever gets ramped up in many games, victory becomes a bloody drill of knockin' out the enemy one by one. Or being knocked out. I've no problem with the AI occasionally ganging up on a winning empire. Does the AI do that? It feels real that the alien empires would notice that the herd was being thinned out and they'd do more than just mention at the local space cantina, "You don't see too many Heechee anymore, do you?" They'd, one would hope, would ally against someone's steamroller. Wouldn't they?

MartialDoctor -> RE: Just Askin', I don't know (Winning/Losing) (8/23/2012 7:30:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Haree78 I have been wiped out but almost always from near the start of the game. When I stack the odds in my opponents favour or the Galaxy heavily stacks it against me, like 3 insects on my borders. I have also lost from the Shakturi a number of times. Generally though this game suffers a little from steam roll after you start to win syndrome that all games Vs the AI suffer. Basically, I'm in a similar boat with Haree... I have only been challenged very early in the game; only losing if the AI either is far too powerful for me to handle, since I always start them much larger than myself, or the AI sneaks in and takes my homeworld. If I manage to get to mid-game, it's basically all finished and lacks any challenge. Although the Shakturi can add some challenge mid-game. Hopefully, we can see some AI difficult level additions / modifications and a change in AI behavior in the next expansion. If they'd actually start spending money on ships, among other things, the AI would be far superior to what it is now. If those changes happen, this game will change from a really cool game that is far too easy to a game that is truly excellent in all respects. We then won't be having these types of posts anymore [:D]

BigWolfChris -> RE: Just Askin', I don't know (Winning/Losing) (8/23/2012 7:38:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jpwrunyan In defense of programmers everywhere, giving the ai unfair advantages at higher difficulty levels can still yield better results than more advanced ai logic. As a player also I feel some satisfaction beating a cheating ai. Remember that moo2 gave its ai more racial picks at higher difficulty. This had a pronounced effect on game play and made things more challenging at all stages of the game. It also felt good winning against an opponent as an underdog having only your human intellect as an advantage. I think ai cheats, when done right, can be very effective and satisfying challenges. And they have the benefit of being easier to implement than deep blue. I think you may misunderstand what I mean by AI cheating Giving the AI something like more racial points or bonus to production I would call handicapping the player, I don't object to this to much, since game AI will probably never match human intelligence (I say never because games are more and more ignoring AI forgetting not everyone has time or desire to play against humans), and normally the player chooses the AI to have these advantages, either through the difficulty level What I mean is, AI being able to ignore rules/physics of the game, like having no fog of war, not even needing to explore, some versions of both Civilizations and Gal Civ have been proven guilty of this at one time Another being knowing how to counter every single one of another players design without ever setting eyes on them, either in combat or through espionage, or which planets are weakest with no recon - this one I think DW may actually do itself And there are other methods used as well (Some FPS AI well known for sniper accuracy using standard firearms at ranges no human player could ever recreate for example) Alot of it is lazy programming, quite often given with the excuse to save CPU cycles... and these examples and some I've not said are blatant AI cheating TL:DR - AI having an advantage is fine for a challenge (but at a player choice for it) is fine AI being able to ignore the rules/physics of the game that the player cannot is cheating, and is to be avoided at all costs

BigWolfChris -> RE: Just Askin', I don't know (Winning/Losing) (8/23/2012 7:45:34 PM)
Also, programmers need to stop doing this, AI is there to occupy the players time, type of design AI should being having their own goals and be doing what it can to reach them, regardless of what the player is doing If the player isn't seen as a threat to it's goals by that particular AI, then the player is not factored These goals would be picked from the same options as the players (domination, culture, etc) Some games have pulled off this type of AI to a small extent (Civ V claimed to... but last I checked the AI was poor throughout in that game), but really this is the ultimate type of AI for a game, because that's how most humans play, we ignore other players/AI unless we think they are a competitor/threat to our own goals

jpwrunyan -> RE: Just Askin', I don't know (Winning/Losing) (8/24/2012 7:52:22 AM)
@bigwulf I dont think we really disagree. I wanted to draw a distinction between ai cheating and player handicap. I think you concluded my sentiment well. And I agree that there are satisfactory ways to compensate ai that feel like handicaps and unsatisfactory ways to compensate that feel like ai cheating. Wasnt it unreal tournament that had excellent ai bots while its competitor quake 3 (4?) had ai that one person described as: "easy mode ai acts like a spastic monkey, hard ai acts like a spastic monkey that never misses". Ah unreal tournament... The memories.

Grotius -> RE: Just Askin', I don't know (Winning/Losing) (8/24/2012 6:32:48 PM)
I also draw a distinction between cheating and handicapping. I don't mind handicaps in a game vs the AI; in fact, for most computer strategy games, such handicaps are essential to provide a challenge. Cheating by the AI is different: that's when the AI gets completely different rules to play by. That's less satisfying.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.96875