Matrix Games Forums

New Fronts are opening up for Commander: The Great WarCharacters of World War 1Sign of for the Pike and Shot Beta!More Games are Coming to Steam! Deal of the Week: Combat Command Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great WarDeal of the Week Panzer CorpsNew Strategy Titles Join the Family
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Is there too much money in this game?

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds Series >> Is there too much money in this game? Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Is there too much money in this game? - 4/21/2012 10:39:10 PM   
Philo

 

Posts: 11
Joined: 4/17/2012
Status: offline
Usually 4x games revolve around balancing your expansion with money. But this game, the flow of money is almost infinite. And colonizing planets doesn't hurt your economy at all. My biggest gripe with the game at the moment.
Your thoughts?
Post #: 1
RE: Is there too much money in this game? - 4/22/2012 1:09:18 AM   
lancer

 

Posts: 629
Joined: 10/18/2005
Status: offline
G'day,

There has been quite a few posts about both the excess of money and the over abundance of strategic resources. Once you get past the opening and reach the middle game both money and resources cease to have much game impact which is a shame as the rest of the game is excellent.

A number of people have made suggestions, myself included, as to incorporating some means of adjusting this - a slider or options setting, for example - but to date this appears to have fallen on fallow ground.

Cheers,
Lancer

(in reply to Philo)
Post #: 2
RE: Is there too much money in this game? - 4/22/2012 1:11:21 AM   
Raap

 

Posts: 392
Joined: 1/12/2011
Status: offline
Yes, way too much money unfortunately. Basically, soon as you build any wonders on a high-pop planet your income will skyrocket. Since that can be done fairly early, money stops being an issue just a few minutes into the game. Usually you'd have to balance it with maintenance, but if you spend all your income on maintenance in this game you'll have a fleet much bigger than you need since the AI doesn't really field much firepower. Thus you'll end up with so large amounts that you can build anything you want and just waste the rest on quick-research.

This, as well as the (in-)competence of the AI, is probably the largest issue in the game. All 4x games have that 'critical mass' point in the game where you've basically won and it's just about finishing off the enemies' colonies, but in this game that point is reached almost as soon as you start( if you know what you're doing).

(in reply to Philo)
Post #: 3
RE: Is there too much money in this game? - 4/22/2012 2:36:31 AM   
Falokis

 

Posts: 132
Joined: 5/23/2010
Status: offline
Too much money for sure. I agree some strategic resources are too common, but others aren't common enough.

(in reply to Raap)
Post #: 4
RE: Is there too much money in this game? - 4/22/2012 4:13:21 AM   
Abraxis

 

Posts: 95
Joined: 1/25/2011
Status: offline
while all true, there is a lot you can do do minimize all this.

-Setting other empires 1 or 2 tech levels ahead of you and putting research cost to 900k prevents early wonder gambits.

-Increasing galactic hostility will cut down on your civilian economy income.

-Increasing corruption, reducing home system quality, and playing with the fewest independent races, will reduce early expansion potential and cut state income.

-Fiddling with colonization and border range can do wonders for keeping everyone's early game consistent with each other (160% borders on 15 sector map with 3-4 sector colonization range will give everyone a guaranteed reasonable area for expansion, but prevent anyone, including you, from spiraling out of control)

-Avoiding tech brokering in games with a lot of empires is always a good idea, since that's kind of an exploit. Trade every now and then for stuff you need, but don't individually approach 19 other empires to see what techs/money you can get every time you get a new one.

-Setting 'Difficulty' to Very Hard will allow the AI to maintain respectable a military.

-Avoid spamming custom research centers, just stick with the default port centers and specialized ones at bonus locations.

-Consider setting some asshole race like the Boskara to close proximity, or perhaps a fast expander like the Teekans.


There are just so many things to fiddle with, I think a lot of you are too quick not to make concessions against yourself at game set-up, then complain about it being too easy.

My settings for example:

Galaxy type: Varied Clusters
Star Amount: 1400
Galaxy Size: 15x15
Expansion: Young
Difficulty: Very Hard
Aggression: Restless or Unstable
Research Cost: 900k
Space Creatures: Few
Pirates: Normal/Distant
Colony Prevalence: Normal
Independent life: Rare
Colony Influence Range: 165%
Colonization Range: 2.5 to 5 sectors
Home System: Harsh
Size: Starting
Tech Level: Level 1
Corruption: High/Very High

Every other civ (19): Young/Expanding, Tech level 2 and Excellent Home system.

The varied Clusters galaxy, combine with high corruption is also wonderful for determining at onset your relative economy strength all game. Depending on how you like to play, keep regenerating a map until you have a cluster of appropriate size.
-Smaller means potentially secure, but difficult to expand out of (with colonization range limited) without declaring war on someone (they're all stronger than you). Even if you manage it, the distance will mean very high corruption. You'll also have a relatively small private economy being isolated.
-Larger means lower corruption costs if you do manage to expand a bit, and potentially decent private economy. However given Aggression and early diplomatic penalties, you'll usually die, or get enveloped in someone else borders. The later isn't necessarily bad if you manage to play diplomatically and grow your private economy.
-Center/edge starting location will also determine your trade potential.

Early game this puts me in a rough situation. 1 constructor and 4 explorers is half my bank and I'm running a deficit even before their maintenance. A resort base or colony is my only only option to counter state deficit with private income. Mining bases cannot be spammed right away or I'll crash my economy, you can only afford to build the ones you absolutely need or will generate trade.

All neighbors start with around -25 diplomatic penalty upon discovery for my alien ways, this takes several years of steady interaction to reduce.
Assuming I managed to get a resort base or colony, I can only really afford 6 Destroyers without gimping my economy or growth potential. This puts me at about 1/20 the military strength of most others. Early seizures of worlds I don't have the tech to colonize can be done, but I would not survive the counter attack unless my target is already at war, and the colony I grabbed is remote from the perspective of his capital.

Mid game, if I'm still alive, I'll typically have a decent fleet for defense and a mediocre strike force, but I really have to rely on diplomacy. Trade agreements will be the only thing keeping my economy from tanking under maintenance costs, and mutual defense pacts the only thing preventing some insect race with a larger military than half the galaxy combined deciding they want to kill me. Declaring war at this point to expand can be done of course, with weaker factions, but given I'm reliant on my reputation for diplomacy, and diplomacy for my survival, it can still be very risky, and backfire very quickly. Races no one likes are simply too strong to risk a war with. Races small enough for me to take are generally alive because everyone likes them.

From there it can go any which way. But taking advantage of political climates is always a determining factor. Even in later games, where I managed to get a crazy high private income, so much so that money ceased to be an issue. The simple logistics of such a massive map, and absurd scale of some of the more aggressive races never lends itself to that 'steam rolling time' mentality mentioned. Even if you do manage to get the strongest military in the galaxy, with such a massive map, you're still vulnerable to the smallest of strike forces somewhere. The longer you're at war, the weaker you get, and the more people hate you. The size of the map guarantees that any 'steam rolling' attempt will take a very, very long time. All the while allies will turn on you, those strike forces will turn into invasion fleets, your economy will tank, planets will rebel... The sheer scale ensures that even if you can manage it, it won't be simple.

While admittedly I've never been 'beaten' at this point, I've also never really won either... usually I start a new game as it's gotten so complex that if I leave it for a day and come back, I have no idea what's going on .

All that being said, it would be nice if money were more difficult to acquire, and resources more scarce. But with all the options available, the game can certainly be made a challenge despite this.
Concerning the opinion of 'why would I limit myself to have fun, that's not fun'. A flaw in perception. All games are limits, that's what separates them from reality. If I'm playing squash with my cousin, I could kick him in the nuts and proceed to accrue every point needed to win while he's writhing in pain. I don't do this however, and further, I restrict my actions to fall within the limits outlined in the rules of the game.

A game which allows customizing said rules requires a certain ability to not perceive limits as barriers, but rather, as structure, integrity.

< Message edited by Abraxis -- 4/22/2012 5:06:23 AM >

(in reply to Raap)
Post #: 5
RE: Is there too much money in this game? - 4/22/2012 5:55:17 AM   
Philo

 

Posts: 11
Joined: 4/17/2012
Status: offline
Yeah and if you don't build or research anything for the first five years and only then start playing, boy will it be hard. See the point I'm getting at?

Basically limiting your playstyle by those options and creating an artificial challenge is not something that I want to do. It would be much better for the devs to just up the maintenance costs. Especially for new colonies. Since colonies are so influential they should really cost you a fortune to keep up.

Strategic resources should be more scarce too. You take one level up in miners research and you'll never have any problems again.

(in reply to Abraxis)
Post #: 6
RE: Is there too much money in this game? - 4/22/2012 8:13:55 AM   
Litjan

 

Posts: 218
Joined: 3/27/2010
From: Butzbach, Germany
Status: offline
There is not too much money - the game is too easy because the AI isn´t smart enough - which allows you to pile up a lot of money.

Money is an indicator of you getting ahead. If you pile it up, you are not spending enough.

Buy research. Buy ships and kill everyone else. Bribe other races to do your bidding.

If you have heaps of money, you might have won already but don´t know it yet ;-)

Jan

(in reply to Philo)
Post #: 7
RE: Is there too much money in this game? - 4/22/2012 8:51:48 AM   
adamsolo


Posts: 142
Joined: 12/31/2009
Status: offline
I second this. This is a key point. Resources are not scarce enough. There should be also penalties for colonization, as they are a monstrous galactic investment.

I said this before. You should have an option slider to adjust the level of resources scarcity you want (with the nominal value being much scarcer that it is now) and another option slider with the unevenness distribution level of resources, i.e. the distribution pattern: uniform (evenly distributed everywhere around the galaxy - I think this is how it is now) or concentrated resources in some regions. This would build-up tension and create much more interesting fights.

Resource scarcity and fight for resources is a VERY important aspect of a strategy game in my opinion. Right now I don't feel this too much in the game.

< Message edited by adamsolo -- 4/22/2012 8:52:49 AM >


_____________________________

SpaceSector.com
Your source for Space & Sci-Fi Strategy Games

(in reply to Litjan)
Post #: 8
RE: Is there too much money in this game? - 4/22/2012 8:59:55 AM   
Abraxis

 

Posts: 95
Joined: 1/25/2011
Status: offline
This game is in an of it self an artificial challenge. Every game that has ever existed is an artificial challenge. That's exactly what a game is, a set of artificial rules structured in such a way to obstruct, resist, and challenge the player. Whether it's Codeforce's 'default' rule set or your own, what difference does it make? Further, codeforce doesn't have a 'default' rule set. These options are provided for a reason, to offer varying degrees of difficulty and to accommodate different play styles. There is even and 'alternate playstyles' entry to the galactopedia suggesting further limitations one can impose on himself to achieve different variances in play, or to experience different roles within the galaxy.

so... yes, Philo, I see the point you're getting at, I saw it before as well. It just strikes me as odd, unhealthy even, that you distinguish rules laid out by others as natural, and rules laid out by yourself as artificial. There is no right way to play this, or any other game.
For more established games; chess, for example, rule sets have been tempered by generations of players and solidified into a general idea of 'fun' or 'challenge'.
If I challenged you to a game of chess, then suggested that we could begin the game by placing our pieces in any order we saw fit withing the first two lines, you would consider that an 'artificial' rule. I would consider it a variance upon artificial rules.

I have to wonder if it's the security of established practices you require, a guarantee that if you play it like this it'll be easy; play it like that it will be moderate; play it that other way and it will be hard. The only difference between that and what I'm suggesting is the former rule sets are laid out by the developers, while the later is laid out by you. One is no less valid than the other.

If it will make it easier I could call you out and say you can't win if you play with the settings I outlined above . I have myself developed those rules specifically, over many games, to nullify my strengths and provide myself the challenge I desire. Consider it "Hard" mode.

And... concerning your suggestion of letting the game run for 5 years before you start playing. I wholeheartedly agree that would increase the challenge. So if it's a challenge you're looking for, concentrate less on the absurdity of the notion and more on its validity.

< Message edited by Abraxis -- 4/22/2012 9:07:17 AM >

(in reply to Philo)
Post #: 9
RE: Is there too much money in this game? - 4/22/2012 10:02:26 AM   
Litjan

 

Posts: 218
Joined: 3/27/2010
From: Butzbach, Germany
Status: offline
Well, there are many ways you could make the game harder...

You could also make it a house rule to disconnect the mouse and only type buttons with your nose while you run the game at 4x speed.

Just kidding, of course. I agree that games need a way to adjust difficulty - but hobbling yourself artificially to make it a challenge can hardly be a valid way.

Writing a good AI is a challenge that even big companies like 2kGames fail miserably at. Instead an accepted way over the last years was providing "unfair" boni to the AI. This is something that Distant Worlds does, too. But it can´t be an excuse to provide an AI that is as challenging as possible and also to provide a "set" of rules that all players have to go up against.

I think it is important for many players to "benchmark" themselves against something. This can only be done if you have standardized rules. You can say "I can beat the game on hard level" and someone else will understand what that means. But if you have to specify 10 different parameters to describe your "challenge level" it becomes meaningless.

I think Distant Worlds tries to cater to every whim - you can set all sorts of parameters - but in the end this means taking away the challenge to win against a set of rules that the game (life) deals you. I want someone to create a set of rules and challenges, and I struggle against them.

Currently Distant Worlds is like a game of Basketball where the player can set the distance for 3-point throws, the size of the playing area, the number of opponents, the height of the basket, and so on. Fun to tinker with, but hardly a fix challenge to go against. And no one knows how hard it is to beat the game, since the rules aren´t set.

Jan

(in reply to Abraxis)
Post #: 10
RE: Is there too much money in this game? - 4/22/2012 10:47:58 AM   
ASHBERY76


Posts: 1969
Joined: 10/10/2001
From: England
Status: offline
The game does not scale the economy based on galaxy settings.You can play on 400 or 1400 and the economy is the same.The game should incease buying costs when playing bigger maps.I usually play 1000 and I think buyign costs need to be increased 75%.

Ship costs,diplomacy and pirate bribe cost and facilities are irelavent after 10 years.Being able to rush and buy research so easy is not good gameplay.

(in reply to Litjan)
Post #: 11
RE: Is there too much money in this game? - 4/22/2012 11:16:18 AM   
Litjan

 

Posts: 218
Joined: 3/27/2010
From: Butzbach, Germany
Status: offline
I agree - better scaling is needed.

But if the AI also bought research, bribed and rushed after amassing huge fleets the disparity wouldn´t be so stark.

I have gotten myself into situations where I suffered from severe material shortages. Usually by not protecting my mines and not having enough constructors to replace the lost ones... If the AI had the wits to wage smart economical warfare (killing mining stations and research stations with hit+run, for example) and also spend it´s surplus in a smart way (buying stuff) the appearant surplus of money and material wouldnt be a problem, I think.


(in reply to ASHBERY76)
Post #: 12
RE: Is there too much money in this game? - 4/22/2012 2:04:14 PM   
Abraxis

 

Posts: 95
Joined: 1/25/2011
Status: offline
Has anyone tried playing with the largest map with very few stars and potential colonies turned way up?

Might cut down on excess resources while still maintaining the same amount of viable colonies.

(in reply to Litjan)
Post #: 13
RE: Is there too much money in this game? - 4/22/2012 2:43:42 PM   
WiZz

 

Posts: 304
Joined: 9/28/2011
From: Ukraine
Status: offline
This issue has been discussed previously in my topic

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3032519



< Message edited by WiZz -- 4/22/2012 5:07:00 PM >

(in reply to Abraxis)
Post #: 14
RE: Is there too much money in this game? - 4/22/2012 7:45:07 PM   
Rtwfreak

 

Posts: 382
Joined: 12/11/2011
Status: offline
quote:

I think a lot of you are too quick not to make concessions against yourself at game set-up, then complain about it being too easy.


Yeah I agree with you most players setup games in favor of "themselves" and then whine and cry when they see how easy the ai is to beat when they exploit everything in the book against it with minimal settings in favor of the ai.

Like you showed one can certainly setup this game to make it extremely hard and almost impossible to win against if one just puts some effort into giving the ai plenty of advantages and handicaps.

(in reply to Abraxis)
Post #: 15
RE: Is there too much money in this game? - 4/22/2012 9:23:15 PM   
Philo

 

Posts: 11
Joined: 4/17/2012
Status: offline
The point is not even that the game is too easy. But just that there is too much money. Having 300 000 all the time even while spending it on buying ships and crash researching is just stupid. The point of money in 4x games is supposed to be you making choices:

Do I put more emphasis on research but leave my army a bit undeveloped for the meanwhile? Do I try to expand and grab territory but be very poor for some time?

Right now you can just do everything, expand, build your fleet, crash research almost everything. And still have some spare cash to bribe allies and pirates.

(in reply to Rtwfreak)
Post #: 16
RE: Is there too much money in this game? - 4/23/2012 3:02:07 AM   
lancer

 

Posts: 629
Joined: 10/18/2005
Status: offline
G'day,

I think that Philo has hit on a key point here.

Considering all the 4x games I've played the ones that I've enjoy the most are those where I'm forced to make decisions as to where to allocate scarce resources - whatever that particular games resource may be.

These resource allocation decisions are the underlying meat of the game. I have all manner of different things that I can do but I only have enough resources to do some of them.

The more the game confronts you with these difficult decisions the more enjoyable it is, regardless of the rest (graphics, features, etc.). It's these decisions that provide the tension and the impetus to keep playing 'one more turn'.

In the case of the current iteration of Distant Worlds (I've got all the expansions) the initial early game gives you a run of these decisions but pretty soon you have so much money and so many strategic resources that you can do whatever you want.

I been playing the game, off and on, for a while now and I play with what most would consider harsh settings.

Doesn't mean that I'll win every game or even most of them. The point being that I'm not being confronted by any difficult resource (money or actual strategic resources) allocation decisions and from here on in the game - despite its many attractions - becomes a bit of a yawn as the challenge and the tension have gone. The vast majority of games, once I get to the point of being swamped with money and resources, I don't both playing any further.

I'm not inferring here that I'm an expert at the game 'cause I'm far from it. Only that the absence of any ongoing resource or money scarcity takes away most of the fun and challenge. DW, especially with the last expansion, can feel a lot like being married to the world's most beautiful woman who caters for your every whim. One that doesn't argue, fight, nag, offer a differing opinion or have to be convinced of anything.

A month of that and you're bored.

Which would be my personal opinion. Yours may well be different.

Cheers,
Lancer

< Message edited by lancer -- 4/23/2012 3:05:23 AM >

(in reply to Philo)
Post #: 17
RE: Is there too much money in this game? - 4/23/2012 4:04:01 AM   
jpwrunyan


Posts: 445
Joined: 12/3/2011
From: Uranus
Status: offline
Colonies should cost more. Remote colonies should cost even more. Corruption should induce negative income (thus draining your economy). Remote colonies should rebel and go independent if not kept happy (and spy missions to sow unrest should cause this to happen).

Right now what does it matter if my colony is in my capital sector or five sectors away? It doesnt matter economically speaking.
And dont tell me turn up corruption. I have. It doesnt matter.


< Message edited by jpwrunyan -- 4/23/2012 4:06:23 AM >

(in reply to lancer)
Post #: 18
RE: Is there too much money in this game? - 4/23/2012 5:37:55 PM   
Registered55

 

Posts: 52
Joined: 8/1/2010
Status: offline
the AI will not be able to handle low resource situations, sorry but it's just that simple.

you can make maintenance of ships higher for yourself, or lower for AI & also like mentioned above, put yourself behind in research.

it also helps if research is expensive for player but not so much for AI.

all this can be done modding the races if you will, balancing takes a bit of time, mainly because each one of us requires different difficult settings.

the AI is what it is, what we need first and foremost, is accept that, then once that fact is accepted, adjust the AI a little to give them some REALISTIC advantages, or low give the PLAYER the opposite.

i agree that silly AI bonuses i don't like, but that's why i like modding the Race.txt file, that way we can give AI races advantages that the player don't have, that is realistic, and can be believed, Humans for example being the underdogs in the galaxy, and having to go up against races that have many superior traits over humans.


what i'm trying to get at is, we can make small believable adjustments to the AI without getting in the realms of silliness.

startrek setting, playing as a minor faction for example, and not humans.
Babylon 5, one of the minor league factions.

fact is, there are many examples where the player can be someone that is not part of the big league so to speak.

however in this game, if you want a challenge, and yet still be apart of the big league...... not gonna happen, it will always be too easy, just like EVERY OTHER GAME OUT THERE, you would need a AI powerful like the FRITZ chess engine, but for a computer game.... yeah, maybe in 30 years, but not anytime soon.

it's hard, but force yourself to be a player that is not one of the big boys, then play that game, hard, frustrating, resource managements problems, challenging.
just takes some time getting the numbers right though in race.txt file.


(in reply to jpwrunyan)
Post #: 19
RE: Is there too much money in this game? - 4/23/2012 8:15:45 PM   
onomastikon

 

Posts: 182
Joined: 11/29/2011
Status: offline
To be more precise: there is too much money starting in the latter phase of the mid-game. By the end-game, there are not enough cash sinks.
The game does well with constraints early-game, but in terms of money and the two sets of resources. Yet when the mid-game ends, I invariably have 10 or more luxury resources (and no lack of them, hence all my colonies have maximum bonuses) and no shortage of any resource worth fighting over, plus enough cash to make just about any "choice" a no-brainer (buy it).
I have played with maximum corruption, but that helps me not at all (since I never seem to have notable income from other colonies, only enemy homeworlds I have conquered).
I have suggested numerous times separate slider settings in game setup for luxury resources (very sparse - sparse - few - default - common - prolific) and for strategic resources. If possible, cash income could also be set this way, but perhaps with an additional slider: an (artificial) constraint, call it "Inflation", which you could set to off (default), difficult, problematic, epidemic, and panepidemic: this setting would gradually penalize income the more cash there is, so that income would "scale" with game progression.

(in reply to Registered55)
Post #: 20
RE: Is there too much money in this game? - 4/23/2012 9:04:09 PM   
Registered55

 

Posts: 52
Joined: 8/1/2010
Status: offline
yes, but it will choke the AI!

ultimately empires of such scale has almost limitless resources at it's disposal anyway, only thing that could drain it would be a very long engaging war (when i say long i mean decades, perhaps even a century of nothing but WAR)

other than that, one would expect an empire with multiple planets to be very rich.

inflation doesn't quite work with such an advance race,

one could argue what your suggesting is unrealistic, an advance empire that is being penalised for being too rich?

there are many ways of making the game more difficult, but your suggesting making the mid to late game the same as if you just started, and your empire doesn't have many resources available, sounds like you want some kind of arbitrary penalization for being rich???

I don't quite understand that?

(in reply to onomastikon)
Post #: 21
RE: Is there too much money in this game? - 4/23/2012 10:24:29 PM   
Philo

 

Posts: 11
Joined: 4/17/2012
Status: offline
Why is everybody acting like this is a common thing that happens in any 4x game? It's not. Galactic Civilizations II for example, you will be actually running a deficit on money in the early to mid game. This is if you early expand (which I think is the most common tactic in the game). The AI will at times punish you for it by having just colonized a few worlds and building up a military which then eradicates you.
There's where the tactic and choices comes in. Do I expand early but risk having litte to no military and mediocre science? And etc.

Also, same thing with Civilization IV (Realism Invictus mod) . You can't really afford to expand too fast cause you'll crash your economy VERY badly. And also, if you put too much emphasis on just building offensive military the other civs might just be building some cheap but very cost efficient defensive units and wonders.

It's not like all 4x games you play you're sitting on hundreds of thousands of cash. Distant Worlds is the first of that kind for me at least.

(in reply to Registered55)
Post #: 22
RE: Is there too much money in this game? - 4/24/2012 3:05:40 AM   
adecoy95


Posts: 405
Joined: 3/26/2010
Status: offline
money is pretty abundant, legends made it a bigger issue with all the new techs and characters adding to the problem

< Message edited by adecoy95 -- 4/24/2012 3:06:47 AM >

(in reply to Philo)
Post #: 23
RE: Is there too much money in this game? - 4/24/2012 4:46:14 AM   
jpwrunyan


Posts: 445
Joined: 12/3/2011
From: Uranus
Status: offline
I agree with Philo above.
I would add that the best economic game I have played is Caesar 3 where your economy is a constant balancing act all throughout its growth. Do I want DW to be Caesar 3? No. But I want it to be challenging the same way as Caesar 3.

Now about the AI... These are not AI issues, I believe. But for the sake of argument, lets say they are: sanity check exceptions may be made behind the scene to make sure the AI is still competative. Did the AI run out of steel and now gone broke? Give it a break and dump a free steel stockpile in its capital so that it can still build bases. Again, these sorts of things are not intrusive to the player. The end result may be the same, but I resent opening the game editor to boost the AI, but I have no prob if the game does this behind the scenes.

Finally, the point of games is to play optimally. Playing sub-optimally for the sake of "challenge" is lame. I can play a "competetive" game of basketball with a 6-year-old if I want by getting on my knees, letting him score before I do, and lowering the basket for him. But it still isnt fun, and I dont get any better at playing basketball.

(in reply to adecoy95)
Post #: 24
RE: Is there too much money in this game? - 4/24/2012 7:26:01 PM   
Registered55

 

Posts: 52
Joined: 8/1/2010
Status: offline
so you want the AI to be allowed to CHEAT?

generally most players of any game don't like it when the AI is allowed to cheat!!!

have you tried modding the races files like i suggested, it worked for me!!

Ceaser 3 is not a good example, like i said we are playing with RACES that are extremely ADVANCE.

why not just try lowering the maintenance bonus, in fact why not make ships really expensive to maintain... see how that works for you, again the game is modable to everyone..... i don't understand why your not adjusting the game yourself, and instead asking the developer to make global adjustments that suit your type of gameplay???

the game is modable.... so mod it!





< Message edited by Registered55 -- 4/24/2012 7:30:25 PM >

(in reply to jpwrunyan)
Post #: 25
RE: Is there too much money in this game? - 4/24/2012 7:42:00 PM   
ASHBERY76


Posts: 1969
Joined: 10/10/2001
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Philo

The point is not even that the game is too easy. But just that there is too much money. Having 300 000 all the time even while spending it on buying ships and crash researching is just stupid. The point of money in 4x games is supposed to be you making choices:

Do I put more emphasis on research but leave my army a bit undeveloped for the meanwhile? Do I try to expand and grab territory but be very poor for some time?

Right now you can just do everything, expand, build your fleet, crash research almost everything. And still have some spare cash to bribe allies and pirates.


Indeed even when playing late game EU3 with a huge empire I still have to make choices about money.DW is way of out sink with scaling.Some guy just posted a screenshot in DW of having 21 million space cash and had 800 ships..

This is nuts.

< Message edited by ASHBERY76 -- 4/24/2012 7:50:01 PM >

(in reply to Philo)
Post #: 26
RE: Is there too much money in this game? - 4/24/2012 8:11:15 PM   
Registered55

 

Posts: 52
Joined: 8/1/2010
Status: offline
so your comparing an extremely advance intergalactic race that has multiple planets and tens of Billions of subjects in it's realm, to a 17th century empire made of of a few million subjects? Oh my god.... you just don't get it do you....


maybe you could ask the developer to allow the ship maintenance in the races file to be pout in negative mode

what i mean is,

'Ship Maintenance Savings: percentage rate of savings on maintenance costs for ships and bases
ShipMaintenanceSavings		;-40


probably doesn't work, maybe ask for that in the feature request post, that way you can make ships very expensive to maintain.

i have not checked if negative numbers work or not, perhaps someone can quickly confirm if negative bonus actually does give negative effect.



< Message edited by Registered55 -- 4/24/2012 8:14:01 PM >

(in reply to ASHBERY76)
Post #: 27
RE: Is there too much money in this game? - 4/24/2012 8:34:08 PM   
ASHBERY76


Posts: 1969
Joined: 10/10/2001
From: England
Status: offline
Hey OCD guy you cleary can`t see the forest for the trees.


Diplomacy spamming bribes cost 8000
Pirate bribes 1000
Planet special building 100,000

Hmm tough gameplay choices.

My budget





(in reply to Registered55)
Post #: 28
RE: Is there too much money in this game? - 4/25/2012 6:21:10 AM   
Lihnit23

 

Posts: 37
Joined: 10/3/2010
Status: offline
Following off of Registered55's "modifing the game to make it tougher" ideas, I did some experimenting with creating a custom empire leader that has huge negatives on skills (the skills can be from -100 to +100).

Setting the leader's military ship, civilian ship, and military base maintenance costs skills to -100 turned a 10k maintenance cost to 18k maintenance cost.

Setting the leader's colony income skill to -90 turned my home planet's 171k income to 14k income.

I figure if you create 10 custom leaders or so (for when they get replaced), you can thoroughly gimp your cash for the whole game.

A fun skill to modify I think would be the mining rate. Set it to -100 and you have to build twice as many miners to get the same production. This of course would increase maintenance costs.

There are more skills than these 4 to modify income, but you can only set 4 per leader (you can also use colony governers for similar effects).

(in reply to ASHBERY76)
Post #: 29
RE: Is there too much money in this game? - 4/25/2012 7:57:11 AM   
onomastikon

 

Posts: 182
Joined: 11/29/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76


Diplomacy spamming bribes cost 8000
Pirate bribes 1000
Planet special building 100,000

Hmm tough gameplay choices.

My budget







Precisely.
Especially if I have enough of everything else (resources) as well.

(in reply to ASHBERY76)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds Series >> Is there too much money in this game? Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





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


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.113