Matrix Games Forums

Sign 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 FamilyTablet Version of Qvadriga gets new patchNew Command Ops: Battles from the Bulge Update
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: 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 >> RE: Is there too much money in this game? Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Is there too much money in this game? - 5/30/2012 3:09:31 AM   
Beag

 

Posts: 90
Joined: 5/23/2012
Status: offline
English is not my primary language for starters. Understood?

Make that part of the difficulty setting then. For normal setting, giving an advantage for the AI that the player doesn´t have is in my definition, a cheat. For harder difficulties I totally agree with other possibilities, including scarcer resources near the player´s planet.

As for needing a doctor or no, anyone who has seen all the posts in this thread so far can see clearly who needs and who doesn´t. Language can be learned. Education and social skills, a bit harder. As a matter of fact this thread is already so filled with insults since page 1 (including from you, althrough the greatest mental breakdown so far came from kayoz) that nothing good can come of it anymore, a pity there doesn´t seem to be a single moderator around here.

< Message edited by Beag -- 5/30/2012 3:37:13 AM >

(in reply to jpwrunyan)
Post #: 91
RE: Is there too much money in this game? - 5/30/2012 4:44:01 AM   
Kayoz


Posts: 1393
Joined: 12/20/2010
From: Timbuktu
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Beag
English is not my primary language for starters. Understood?

You complained earlier in this thread that I was insulting your intelligence by posting a definition of a word - and now you're using your lack of comprehension as an excuse?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Beag
Make that part of the difficulty setting then. For normal setting, giving an advantage for the AI that the player doesn´t have is in my definition, a cheat.

For most people - well, for me anyhow - a "difficulty setting" is relative. How much the computer "cheats" is irrelevant. Lack of cheating is not implicit at any difficulty setting.

All that is implied is that "difficulty will change" - with no promises as to how such is achieved.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Beag
... so filled with insults since page 1 (including from you...

You see insults where there are none. You weren't being insulted. I can't guess at your linguistic heritage, but the reference to lawyers v. doctors applies to each and every country I've been in. Doctors give facts, lawyers give opinions.

< Message edited by Kayoz -- 5/30/2012 7:20:51 AM >


_____________________________

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” ― Christopher Hitchens

(in reply to Beag)
Post #: 92
RE: Is there too much money in this game? - 5/31/2012 2:17:16 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7100
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Beag

quote:

ORIGINAL: jpwrunyan

Re global reduction of resources
Depending on difficulty it doesnt have to be uniformly low. The player could start with less and the ai with more. As it is the harsh/rich home system setting is not doing it. I start in a harsh system and my homeworld still has good resources, but my system has NONE. Then I go to the next nearest system and it's like oh hi here are all the resources I need nevermind! Which is not fun.



But that is essentially cheating (that is, you´re giving more resources to the AI than the player). Also if you raise maintenance costs for the player but not the AI, it´s essentially allowing the AI to cheat as well.

If mainenance costs are raised symetrically, it will hurt the AI more than the player because as you said, all that you have to do is to focus on fewer very productive stations in planets with higher resource output (unless the AI is told to be smarter and do the same). It would be good to make AI be more opportunistic and agressivelly attack empires for resources they covet if they have the advantage. Sure, for higher difficulties your aproach of assymetrical resources is an option, but I´d rather see better AI.

As for limiting expansion I´d rather see a "balance of power" approach with empires uniting to isolate the larger power, which is usually the player. And conquered populations should be much less passive, so that either you are benevolent and risk revolts, or exterminate to get an homogeneous population and isolate yourself even more. Maybe making intelligence operations in planets full of hostile races easier as well, and corruption larger. Nowadays there is too few motivation not to use Assimilate always, because extra population outweights all maluses. Make forced migrations and extermination more viable policies.


Beag, I think you will find that most game AIs do have 'cheats' to make them competitive. It is the nature of the beast, since no AI can think on its feet like a live player. AIs usually tend to have either a speed or cost cheat imbedded in them, and all because no programmed AI has a human grasp on tactics. That is, other than basic if/then switches telling the AI when a good time to attack is etc (IE me the dumb AI needs at least a 3 to 1 firepower advantage before I go to war), then the AI will do some pretty stupid things, or not take advantage of an opening when it is available.

I wouldn't mind giving the AI a boost this way in DW. Perhaps a hardcoded thing like:

If empire is player = false,
then maintainence costs = -50%;

etc.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Beag)
Post #: 93
RE: Is there too much money in this game? - 6/2/2012 5:45:14 PM   
Registered55

 

Posts: 52
Joined: 8/1/2010
Status: offline
quote:

One more thing. I am still a big proponent of seeing mining components costs and maint go up. The reason is because I can double or triple the extraxtors on a mining station at a rich world and have no need to build another station anywhere else. Nor any need to research fast mining for that matter. Saves lots of time and money!


i actually commented this a the forum quite some time ago, before the expansions i believe, that the constructors on auto build mining stations for the sake of it, the economy stats clearly show that no more of a certain kind of resource is needed AT ALL for a long time because we already have 5 stations built for that resource, yet the AI still keeps building more and more.... and on it goes, which creates this ripple effect throughout the private economy.

i think the AI just utilizes the economy in a poorly inefficient way, but i believe that without that constant building (for the sake of it) expansion would stop, there would no longer be the need to expand ones territory, or at the very least expansion would be far slower than it is now, because the way the AI functions at the moment is like it's one big race of plotting down and securing as many mining stations as one can in the shortest available time......

to explain more so there's no confusion..... once an economy (AI or player) reaches a plateau (peak) of abundance in resources (input FAR exceeding output) of most if not all resources, at which point an empires growth becomes.... stagnant meaning there really is no need to expand any further regarding resources yet the AI if allowed still does vigorously even though the more stations you have the more you have to defend (ripple effect)

the game seems designed (has rules in place) to push expansion for no reason but to expand..... this creates an artificial element that can be seen in this game..... the economy is expanding when it doesn't need too, AI is pushing outwards when it doesn't need to...... DW is setup for WAR, it pushes AI and player for WAR(s), and we are all starting to see that it's based on fake, unrealistic elements....... and this does seem to be worse the bigger the universe is..... because expansion becomes a low priority once the economy has reached a plateau.

1. AI constructors building for no economic reason is hard to get my head around, stations need defending, stations them selves need to be maintained, having a station built for a resource that my empire already has in huge abundance is just economically stupid, and militarily unwise.

2. like mentioned above, advance technology (especially the larger vessels) should have huge cost associated with them somewhere (where and how to make that beliable and without causing issues with AI i suppose is for the developers to solve)

3. colonies grow way to fast, and right from word go newly colonised planets should cost an empire money for the privileged as colonizing no matter how advance you are is costly in resources (this would be variable based on tech level/species type) but most of the cost would be in TIME, setting up a new colony in this game is far too easy and happens to quickly..... point click, colonise..... colonization onto a new planet should be a MASSIVE undertaking for MOST (all) species.... yet in this game it seems so easy, and the planets themselves becomes profitable so quickly in doing so..... the entire system in my opinion needs to be looked at. (infrastructure is one idea, costs huge amounts of resources (money) setting up even basic infrastructure on a planet that has none, also wages/salary/ ..... the planet needs to be readied by staff who won't go there without a very LARGE incentive..... it should take an awful long time before planets become so profitable (this would slowdown the expansion race somewhat)

4. costs, this is a hard one...... one idea that comes to mind, the game has population in it...... but it doesn't have staff in it, administration if you will (admin for humans, totally different terms needed of course for alien races) but it would be the behind the scenes people that maintain logistics that makes the military run (ancillary staff) the private economy side should also have the same kind of thing after all organising military and economy can't happen on it's own, an empire would have to setup up a sector devoted specifically for handling the military, and likewise for the private economy

to breakdown number 4, as number 4 is a big one, an empire can only handle so much, even advance races would have limitations on what (how much) they can handle in regards to there projection in the universe, technology would obviously influence this capability, also the type of species would also come into play when factoring in variables on logistic capabilities, but the large the fleets the more burden on admin

fleet sizes should have limits, and if those limits are breached, than there should be penalties to pay

have buildings that are built for the sole purpose of handling admin overheads
more ships an empire has to keep track of, then the more ancillary staff needed to accomplish this task (all races need some kind of admin in one form or another)
if an empire breaches the maximum number of ships an empire can effective maintain than again.... there should be penalties in one form or another

private sector is out of control, they seem to have no rules associated to them, an empire does and will always have influence over them because it's the empire that grants them there trading licenses, an empire should be able to curb there numbers, set down some basic rules that the private sector must adhere too.... just like here on earth..... even in free trade markets there still needs to be guidelines, rules, policies that need to keep it structured.... to avoid CHAOS.... which is what DW has, the private sector in DW is a complete shambles.... it's a mess, which makes sense really when you consider that they can do what they want without any consequence aswell.

5. passenger ships..... when a new world is created within minutes everyone wants to goto the new world..... something just don't feel quite right with the current system, a new world should only be able to expand slowly, there should be limits (tech modifer again) how fast the infrastructure on a planet can grow to accommodate the increase in population numbers..... what i mean is it takes time (and MONEY) to expand the necessary infrastructure to accommodate more people that are arriving to the planet by passenger ships...... millions of people arriving at a planet yearly is absurd.... impossible.... creating a new colony WILL ALWAYS TAKE TIME NO MATTER WHAT SPECIES YOU ARE (there is an exception to every rule, but in context for game balance this rule should not be broken in this game) colonies in DW grow to quickly and without any penalty to an empire...... the conlony system moves far to quickly.........

5a. it should be noted that if the colonising system is dramatically slowed down, then the player would need to be advised that the size of the universe makes a huge dereference in how long it can be before meeting another species

6. communication doesn't seem to be a factor.... ships don't have communication systems in place, the further a ship is away form there nearest communication station/sat relay then the more disruption there should be with ship to empire, that's not the CASE in DW, only fuel is the deciding factor how far away a ship can travel..... i think communication should also be a factor, or at the very least again there should be penalties in place if a ship moves out of range (exceeds current level of technology) or overburdens there communications (again because of large numbers of vessels, ships need to be in constant contact with members within there own empire) also communications would also play an important factor when ships are in fleets.....

been on the above for an hour now..... i have more but damn getting tire of all this thinking...

i just wanted to finish up by saying there needs to be more rules for empires, dynamic rules that have penalties that need to be endured if certain rules are being broken/breached, DW doesn't have that many..... one example, resources/fuel/money should not be be a deciding factor on how many ships one can have because an empire has a hole universe to tap into resources/fuel/money become moot in mid-game because an empire has all three of them when it reaches a certain size..... but there are other rules an empire in real life would have to obey to when it comes to there fleet sizes/or total number of ships they can effectively maintain....

logistics/ancillary staff/communication limits.... and many more i'm quite sure forum members here can come up with that would influence the upper limit range that an empire can support regarding there military force SHIP/ECONOMY SHIP/TROOPS at any given time....... or suffer the huge PENALTIES that the empire would have to endure if they exceed those limitations (and the penalties should increase the more those limitations are breached)

i just wished there were more systems in place that would help the mid-late stages of the game, because things are to messy with this game at those stages of gameplay, to many missing factors that would exist in real-life that this game doesn't simulate.

(in reply to jpwrunyan)
Post #: 94
RE: Is there too much money in this game? - 6/5/2012 9:41:30 PM   
collegeprof

 

Posts: 33
Joined: 11/26/2010
Status: offline
Hi. for my 2 cents worth, I question the need for money in the 1st place... To assume that other species in the galaxy use money is, well, not based on anything but our own point of view.. in fact, we here on earth are one of the only species to use money to exchange goods for services. insects like bees and ants simply do their job, and as long as they do, they get shelter, and food, and a job... so to make other species be reliant and encumberd by potential lack of money, seems ridiculous to me... we may find out humanity is the lone species that limits what it can research and build by how much money they have... other species may not even understand the concept, and instead simply do what they have to... to me, there should be a way to build a race/species that either has no concept of money, or it is given an unlimited amount to simulate a species whom does not use money... thanks... oh, by the way, love the game... would like to see more techs on lifestyle/improving the environment... not all about war ya know!

_____________________________

Helping others is the greatest reward
Consider donating to UNICEF

(in reply to onomastikon)
Post #: 95
RE: Is there too much money in this game? - 6/5/2012 10:44:25 PM   
Bebop Cola

 

Posts: 234
Joined: 5/9/2012
Status: offline
While I get your point, I think it might be useful to avoid thinking of the money in the game as dollars and cents, so to speak. Whereas for some empires that may be the literal implementation of the economic credits, I think it would be more accurate to see them as something as some manner of assessing productive effort over a period of time or "economic units."

In other words, an empire can "pay" a workforce to achieve some objective, or a given workforce can just work towards that objective at the expense of another. Some sort of economic value is always in play when a group works to achieve an objective, because a given group is unable to produce everything possible simultaneously at optimal production levels. A system of money/credits is just a simplified way to represent the productive tradeoff of pursuing one objective over another.

< Message edited by Bebop Cola -- 6/5/2012 10:45:49 PM >

(in reply to collegeprof)
Post #: 96
RE: Is there too much money in this game? - 6/6/2012 1:50:57 AM   
lancer

 

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

I think that money in the game represents choices.

If you have bundles of the stuff then you have unlimited choices of action. Decisions over what to spend it on become fairly meaningless.

On the other hand if money is less than abundant any decisions you make become very meaningful. Which is what keeps you interested in playing.

Same with the resources. DW has a fantastic living, breathing private sector but if the end result is an over abundance of resources then all you've got is a fancy backdrop. If you're swimming in the stuff it becomes irrelevant.

As everybody has different versions of what constitutes the ideal levels of money and resources it would be nice to have an adjustable setting for the player rather than the current, give-everyone-the-kitchen-sink approach.

No need to bother the AI over this. Leave it to wallow in a deep pool of both.

Cheers,
Lancer

(in reply to Bebop Cola)
Post #: 97
RE: Is there too much money in this game? - 6/6/2012 2:03:06 AM   
ehsumrell1


Posts: 2020
Joined: 8/17/2010
From: The Briar Patch Nebula
Status: offline
Well said Lancer!

_____________________________

Shields are useless in "The Briar Patch"...

(in reply to lancer)
Post #: 98
RE: Is there too much money in this game? - 6/6/2012 3:45:21 PM   
Data


Posts: 3894
Joined: 1/3/2011
Status: offline
Freeeeeeeeeeeed

_____________________________

...Igniting stellar cores....Recharging reactors...Recalibrating hyperdrives....

(in reply to ehsumrell1)
Post #: 99
RE: Is there too much money in this game? - 6/6/2012 6:50:42 PM   
Velihopea


Posts: 67
Joined: 5/26/2012
Status: offline
Is there any reason given why this was changed? I was first playing DW without expansions and money seemed to be a problem, I was too often on the red. Now with legends I'm having more cash than I need..

(in reply to Data)
Post #: 100
RE: Is there too much money in this game? - 6/6/2012 8:30:29 PM   
Gareth_Bryne


Posts: 231
Joined: 5/16/2010
Status: offline
I have an idea: the amount of money has increased due to improvements in AI for civilian shipping between versions and expansions. So the largest part of your income comes from construction and trade.

To lancer: I agree with the idea of (un)limited choice. I find that at a certain point, within my playing style, money and resources are not the issue, but time is. At a certain point, the game starts looking more like Dominions in its approach to management - pause, overview the situation, set your orders, let some time pass, pause again, rinse and repeat. Playing against the AI is okay, but playing against a real player (theoretically) would require a limited timeout of some sorts. The AI can be defeated without that much concentration, unless you are fighting on multiple fronts. However, within above limitations, DW allows for a degree of casualness and exploration, which is fine by me. For a powergamer, that kind of tempo dilution, coupled with unlimited resources, leads to frustration. It would be interesting if the AI was more adaptive, copying the player's most efficient policies and tactics. That way the player maybe forced to utilize his resources more intensely, going into the red through military construction.

< Message edited by Gareth_Bryne -- 6/6/2012 8:36:07 PM >


_____________________________

"Only an idiot fights a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts," - Londo Mollari

(in reply to Velihopea)
Post #: 101
RE: Is there too much money in this game? - 6/6/2012 9:32:37 PM   
Bebop Cola

 

Posts: 234
Joined: 5/9/2012
Status: offline
The lion's share of my steady income still comes from taxation. I tend to have a comparatively smaller percentage coming in from my spaceports, and I'll need to check but I don't ever recall seeing much come in listed as trade specifically. Lately I've taken to ignoring luxury resources in my mining efforts in the hopes that my empire's demand for those will spur trade with other empires. Construction income from private sector construction does give the occasional boost, but I don't consider that steady income.

With the exception of a few somewhat hard to find resource types(for some reason chromium is often hard for me to come by), it's just too easy to satisfy my empire's resource demands by dropping some mining bases here and there and I presume the AI enjoys the same luxury. As such, I'm left to wonder what exactly spurs trade if everyone has everything they need. Personally, I think the introduction of some manner of trade goods might give the private sector something to spend its money on. These trade goods could be produced as a result of an increased consumption rate by the private sector of both strategic and luxury resources. With private sector coffers depleted through trade there is less of a buffer that can be counted on to allow for high tax rates, reducing tax revenue for the state sector of the economy, as well as a reduction in the free cash to buy a glut of new freighters for every new colony.

(in reply to Gareth_Bryne)
Post #: 102
RE: Is there too much money in this game? - 6/7/2012 8:16:02 AM   
Gareth_Bryne


Posts: 231
Joined: 5/16/2010
Status: offline
Bebop Cola, here's another thought, thanks to you: Depending on the government, the maximum tax rate should be limited; for example, a Democracy can tax up to 20%, a Republic up to 30%, a Monarchy up to 50%. That would influence the importance of trade, and give more rationale for using the other government types apart from roleplay.

_____________________________

"Only an idiot fights a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts," - Londo Mollari

(in reply to Bebop Cola)
Post #: 103
RE: Is there too much money in this game? - 6/7/2012 4:34:38 PM   
Bebop Cola

 

Posts: 234
Joined: 5/9/2012
Status: offline
In the real world, there's nothing that prevents a government from high tax rates aside from public discontent so I see no reason to break from that mold. However, with the dynamics of the power relationship, it does make some sense that certain government types have a tolerance for different tax rates as a result of citizen resignation to the relationship with government. As such I don't think I'd set a limitation on tax rate by government type, rather I'd have population discontent with taxes receive a modifier based on it.

That said, the various government types need a bit of work as well, in my opinion. In this case, for example, what then prevents players from simply choosing the government with the greatest tolerance for high tax rates? There should always be a tradeoff of some sort, and I just don't see enough of those in the existing governments. At the very least there should be greater animosity between different government types. Democracies and Republics should not be as buddy-buddy with Monarchies and Feudal governments, few to no people should be friendly towards despotisms and military dictatorships, and Hive Minds are just alien to non-insectoid species. Everyone should hate the empire on Way of Darkness, and that Way of the Ancients guy is probably a patronizing ass even if he is otherwise decent enough. That, however, is another matter.

(in reply to Gareth_Bryne)
Post #: 104
RE: Is there too much money in this game? - 6/8/2012 2:59:25 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7100
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: lancer

G'day,

I think that money in the game represents choices.

If you have bundles of the stuff then you have unlimited choices of action. Decisions over what to spend it on become fairly meaningless.

On the other hand if money is less than abundant any decisions you make become very meaningful. Which is what keeps you interested in playing.

Same with the resources. DW has a fantastic living, breathing private sector but if the end result is an over abundance of resources then all you've got is a fancy backdrop. If you're swimming in the stuff it becomes irrelevant.

As everybody has different versions of what constitutes the ideal levels of money and resources it would be nice to have an adjustable setting for the player rather than the current, give-everyone-the-kitchen-sink approach.

No need to bother the AI over this. Leave it to wallow in a deep pool of both.

Cheers,
Lancer



Lancer, I think you got it right.

I fit into the category of people who don't really want to have to deal with money and micromanagement so much...I just want to build fleets and conquer. Still for the added challenge I'd go for a place somewhere in the middle, rather than full on easy mode. Leaving it up to me with an 'economy slider' where you have different levels (IE Very Easy to Insane) where at each level you either get a bonus or penalty to maintenance etc, would be ideal.

IE:

Very Easy = -75% maintenance +50% taxes where insane might be Very Easy = +75% maintenance -50% Taxes, etc.


_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to lancer)
Post #: 105
RE: Is there too much money in this game? - 6/8/2012 4:05:07 PM   
Francoy


Posts: 76
Joined: 3/10/2005
Status: offline
An easy solution would be to allow negative numbers in the races files.

For example:
ShipMaintenanceSavings ;-50

A new value like "TaxRateBonus" would be great to modify tax rate...

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 106
RE: Is there too much money in this game? - 6/8/2012 4:39:37 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7100
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Francoy

An easy solution would be to allow negative numbers in the races files.

For example:
ShipMaintenanceSavings ;-50

A new value like "TaxRateBonus" would be great to modify tax rate...


While that is true, what we are looking for is something that is modifiable by the player at game start, not through modding the files, so it won't affect the AI. The AI can roll in cash without affecting gameplay, its when the player has too much cash that the game goes into super easy mode.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Francoy)
Post #: 107
RE: Is there too much money in this game? - 6/8/2012 11:00:09 PM   
Beag

 

Posts: 90
Joined: 5/23/2012
Status: offline
If the player doesn´t have to spend money it´s a sign of lack of AI pressure. Therefore it´s the AI that should be looked into first. Handicaps are for harder difficulties.

The big question is, where the AI should be improved.

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 108
RE: Is there too much money in this game? - 6/9/2012 12:44:31 AM   
ASHBERY76


Posts: 1969
Joined: 10/10/2001
From: England
Status: offline
The A.I is always being worked on.The bloated economy has been in effect for 2 expansions now.It makes gameplay choices pointless and should be adressed.It's nothing to do with handicaps but balance.I would like to see the economy factors modable because it is clear the developer is not changing this aspect.

Play EU3 and add a 100000 money cheat and it destroy the game mechanics.

(in reply to Beag)
Post #: 109
RE: Is there too much money in this game? - 6/9/2012 4:57:40 AM   
Fascist Dog


Posts: 157
Joined: 4/6/2012
Status: offline
I stopped playing about a month or so ago simply because I was finding it too easy to generate enormous sums of cash quite early in the expansion phase of the game. I had 1 million credits and counting in my account and I could afford to buy huge fleets of large ships and recruit massive armies whenever I wanted. For me, the challenge goes when I have too much money and the fun stops.

Here are a couple of points I'd like to add.

First, big ships, Cruisers and upwards, IMO are far too cheap to build and maintain. There is a reason why only a few nations in the world can boast a navy with aircraft carriers and cruisers while almost everyone with a coast has some sort of gun boat. Battleships and carriers should be massively expensive to build and maintain.

Second, in the real world economy, when the market is flooded with a resource, the price goes down. So, this happens in the game already, right? But what happens in real life? The mines producing these resources close down because it costs more to extract the stuff than it does to sell it. So, when priices fall below a certain level, the player must pay subsides to maintain his mines or they close down and are lost.

< Message edited by Fascist Dog -- 6/9/2012 4:58:12 AM >

(in reply to ASHBERY76)
Post #: 110
RE: Is there too much money in this game? - 6/9/2012 9:00:31 AM   
MartialDoctor


Posts: 383
Joined: 3/7/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76
It's nothing to do with handicaps but balance.I would like to see the economy factors modable...


I second that

(in reply to ASHBERY76)
Post #: 111
RE: Is there too much money in this game? - 6/11/2012 1:40:23 AM   
unclean

 

Posts: 163
Joined: 12/31/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76

I would like to see the economy factors modable because it is clear the developer is not changing this aspect.


It is though? At least, I don't remember seeing any of this stuff in ROTS:

TradeBonus (affects colony income)
FreeTradeIncomeFactor
TourismIncomeFactor
ResourceExtractionBonus

ShipMaintenanceSavings
TroopMaintenanceSavings

edit: nm, should have read the thread better. Modding guide says these accept 0-100 only :(

< Message edited by unclean -- 6/11/2012 2:35:02 AM >

(in reply to ASHBERY76)
Post #: 112
RE: Is there too much money in this game? - 6/11/2012 2:27:09 AM   
jpwrunyan


Posts: 445
Joined: 12/3/2011
From: Uranus
Status: offline
Stop harping on the ai. Make stuff cost more for the player and eliminate exploits. Stop harping on the ai!!!!

Hey you know what would be great? If spock programmed the ai. Its not going to happen. Simple fixes people! Simple fixes!

(in reply to unclean)
Post #: 113
RE: Is there too much money in this game? - 6/11/2012 5:08:43 PM   
Beag

 

Posts: 90
Joined: 5/23/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76

The A.I is always being worked on.The bloated economy has been in effect for 2 expansions now.It makes gameplay choices pointless and should be adressed.It's nothing to do with handicaps but balance.I would like to see the economy factors modable because it is clear the developer is not changing this aspect.

Play EU3 and add a 100000 money cheat and it destroy the game mechanics.


Well you can´t really compare DW to EU 3 because of the assymetrical starting positions. Playing as France with so much money would make the game a cakewalk; with a one province minor, not as much. In fact it´s impossible to compare DW to a Paradox game because despite being real time and pausable, it is a much simpler game (no casus-belli mechanics, manpower pool, shallow diplomacy etc).

Also, the mod that made the game very challenging (Magna Mundi) did give some bonuses for the AI as well as negative events that happened only with the player, thus adding an element of uncertainity in it. Considering that for the average player Magna Mundi was considered way to difficult, I think such approaches wouldn´t work here.

Finally, making everything more expensive (that is making the economy less "bloated") for the player AND the AI won´t change ANYTHING about the difficulty of the game. Only thing that would change would be the number of ships floating around. Unless for some reason the AI used resources much better than the player, which isn´t the case.

(in reply to ASHBERY76)
Post #: 114
RE: Is there too much money in this game? - 6/11/2012 6:36:25 PM   
Bebop Cola

 

Posts: 234
Joined: 5/9/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Beag
Finally, making everything more expensive (that is making the economy less "bloated") for the player AND the AI won´t change ANYTHING about the difficulty of the game. Only thing that would change would be the number of ships floating around. Unless for some reason the AI used resources much better than the player, which isn´t the case.

It seems reasonable that while the effect on the overall difficulty might be debatable, tightening up the economy at least with an optional resource slider would be of benefit.

Then again, while the AI will certainly sink or swim on its own merits, swimming in cash and resources may very well be what keeps it as competitive as it currently is(your mileage may vary). I'd be inclined to apply any economic restrictions to both player and AI equally as I'd be concerned that an AI flush with cash and resources may upset an intertwined economic system(dropping resource prices as supply goes up, excess money to buy technologies, etc), but if the AI needs that buffer just to survive due to inefficiencies it might be beyond simple fixes.

(in reply to Beag)
Post #: 115
RE: Is there too much money in this game? - 6/12/2012 3:00:53 AM   
Fishman

 

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

ORIGINAL: Fascist Dog

First, big ships, Cruisers and upwards, IMO are far too cheap to build and maintain. There is a reason why only a few nations in the world can boast a navy with aircraft carriers and cruisers while almost everyone with a coast has some sort of gun boat. Battleships and carriers should be massively expensive to build and maintain.

That's really a scale issue. Battleships and carriers are "expensive" to build and maintain because a battleship is 50000-ton battleship is 10x bigger than 5000-ton destroyer. For the price of that one battleship, you could therefore have 10 destroyers, which is in turn 10x more expensive than a 500-ton cutter. This level of scale just doesn't EXIST in DW. The big ships aren't actually that much bigger. Even my 1500-size Leviathan Battleships are only maybe twice the size of the AI's 750-size versions.

The real reason you end up swimming in money is somewhat more basic. Ever notice that no matter how undersupplied a resource is, its price appears to be capped and no strategic resource ever exceeds a price of 2.5, even when the demand exceeds the supply by an entire order of magnitude? Additionally, since the price of each resource appears to be global rather than empire-specific, it's unclear how or why trade occurs.

(in reply to Fascist Dog)
Post #: 116
RE: Is there too much money in this game? - 6/12/2012 7:10:41 AM   
Shark7


Posts: 7100
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishman

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fascist Dog

First, big ships, Cruisers and upwards, IMO are far too cheap to build and maintain. There is a reason why only a few nations in the world can boast a navy with aircraft carriers and cruisers while almost everyone with a coast has some sort of gun boat. Battleships and carriers should be massively expensive to build and maintain.

That's really a scale issue. Battleships and carriers are "expensive" to build and maintain because a battleship is 50000-ton battleship is 10x bigger than 5000-ton destroyer. For the price of that one battleship, you could therefore have 10 destroyers, which is in turn 10x more expensive than a 500-ton cutter. This level of scale just doesn't EXIST in DW. The big ships aren't actually that much bigger. Even my 1500-size Leviathan Battleships are only maybe twice the size of the AI's 750-size versions.

The real reason you end up swimming in money is somewhat more basic. Ever notice that no matter how undersupplied a resource is, its price appears to be capped and no strategic resource ever exceeds a price of 2.5, even when the demand exceeds the supply by an entire order of magnitude? Additionally, since the price of each resource appears to be global rather than empire-specific, it's unclear how or why trade occurs.


Most nations with a coast line that use PGs and PTMs would love to have CGs and DDGs. Its not a matter of want, its a matter of what they can afford. Most third world navies can barely afford their PGs (as in most of them are broken down more than they are at sea), much less a ship of corvette size or larger.

So in DW, it all does come back to 1. the economy and 2. ships being totally open design. IN DW your frigate can cost as much as your battleship because both can be identical. Now if there were some mechanism to enforce both size restrictions (like a hardpoints system) and cost, then perhaps it would balance out as you'd have a large navy or smaller ships, a small navy of very large ships, or go the middle route and balance it.

But it has to be balanced. It should not be done so that the only thing the player can afford is the equivalent of row boat with an M2 mounted on the prow.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Fishman)
Post #: 117
RE: Is there too much money in this game? - 6/12/2012 7:42:43 AM   
jpwrunyan


Posts: 445
Joined: 12/3/2011
From: Uranus
Status: offline
The price cap on strategic resources is lame, but I suspect it is more to the benefit of the ai than the player. I would rather it not exist at least for the player so they could sink if they pushed their economic demand off a cliff. But the ai would need some guarnteed start situation so that they wouldnt go off the same cliff. Even then this may not be easy to do and leads back to why I think the price controls are primarily to keep ai economies from going insane.

Just my theory.

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 118
RE: Is there too much money in this game? - 6/12/2012 11:14:22 AM   
Fishman

 

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

ORIGINAL: Shark7
Most nations with a coast line that use PGs and PTMs would love to have CGs and DDGs. Its not a matter of want, its a matter of what they can afford. Most third world navies can barely afford their PGs (as in most of them are broken down more than they are at sea), much less a ship of corvette size or larger.
And that's because they can't build a ship that big. They don't have enough Construction research, and they can't afford to actually maintain what they do have, because they don't have the resources for it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7
So in DW, it all does come back to 1. the economy and 2. ships being totally open design. IN DW your frigate can cost as much as your battleship because both can be identical.
You can do that in real life, too. In fact, we *DO* do this in real life. The US Navy produces "destroyers" that are basically the modern equivalent of battleships in all but name. They're way bigger and more expensive than any destroyer of the past, and function in the same roles that one might have formerly found a cruiser or even a battleship: They're not the expendable, cheap destroyers of the World Wars. Similarly, I'm sure some nation would love to call their crappy little boat a frigate, except for the problem of being laughed at.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7
Now if there were some mechanism to enforce both size restrictions (like a hardpoints system) and cost, then perhaps it would balance out as you'd have a large navy or smaller ships, a small navy of very large ships, or go the middle route and balance it.
But then it wouldn't be DW anymore. It'd be one of those OTHER games where hull types are rigidly set in stone by some cosmic universal force, and where you know that any "destroyer" you encounter will always be comparable in size and capability to yours, regardless of their tech level. In fact, the smaller hulls quickly become obsolete. You see this in games like the Master of Orion games, where you quickly stop producing the "lesser" classes and fleets are composed entirely of battleships serving as destroyer screens for Titans and more.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7
But it has to be balanced. It should not be done so that the only thing the player can afford is the equivalent of row boat with an M2 mounted on the prow.
That exists in DW already. I routinely encounter "row boats with an M2 mounted on the prow" in DW. My 1500+ firepower battleships routinely find themselves under assault by some two-bit backwater empire's "rowboat" destroyers with obsolete Maxos blasters. I have 10x their speed, 20x their firepower, and a hundred times their shielding and armor. I have a battleship, one meant to do battle against the Shakturi...they have a rowboat. This already exists in DW. Of course, I'm pretty sure THEY thought their ship was pretty impressive. I mean, they call it a destroyer, and built them by the hundreds, which is probably why their economy sucks. I call it target practice. Also, for some reason, they're inexplicably hostile and keep trying to blockade my colonies, which is why these fights occur.


quote:

ORIGINAL: jpwrunyan

Even then this may not be easy to do and leads back to why I think the price controls are primarily to keep ai economies from going insane.
The AI is very good at driving the economy insane, that's for sure, doing asinine things like queuing up hundreds of ships at once at a single 4-arm spaceport, crashing the entire game. It should REALLY STOP QUEUING MORE ORDERS THAN THERE EXISTS CONSTRUCTION SLOTS.

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 119
RE: Is there too much money in this game? - 6/12/2012 1:28:10 PM   
Beag

 

Posts: 90
Joined: 5/23/2012
Status: offline
Good post (funny too )

Well the AI isn´t that stupid with designs, I once had the bad luck of attacking a base that had the super area weapon and wasn´t pretty (so they do upgrade stuff sometimes instead of only using the uberpotent Maxos). But yes, AI designs could be looked into a bit.

As for the US modern destroyers, I´d say that a good battleship with Rihanna on board is still better and can kill aliens (don´t throw rocks at me I didn´t see that movie!)

About resources, so maybe more modern weapons should use more resources then, instead of increasing maintenance cost (since increasing resource cost will mean more maintenance, after all)? Always thought a Titan beam should be more costly than a Maxos.

(in reply to Fishman)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds Series >> RE: Is there too much money in this game? Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   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

0.131