Matrix Games Forums

It largely depends upon the magnitude and frequency of the requirements. For a given tech locked behind a requirement, if the requirement tends to be lower than what most players will have by the time they can research it, then the mechanic will have a low impact on the player's experience and their behaviour. If you find the requirement is often higher, it will have some impact. If you find the requirement is a lot higher, then it will have a big impact. This of course is relative to the number of locked technologies and the importance of getting those technologies with respect to time. Some technologies will effect your empire as soon as you obtain them and others, like weapons, can be of limited effect until actual combat (and war) takes place. Some locked weapons might be of little impact because the player doesn't need it yet and can wait until their empire has grown enough before selecting it. However, a powerful locked economic bonus might force the player to immediately get more research bonuses, because the boost to the empire's growth is too much to miss out on.

Without actual numbers and some idea of how hard it is to get a research bonus level of X vs a requirement of value Y by a given time t_0, with respect to the number and quality of locked technologies encountered, it is actually pretty difficult to say just how much of a difference it will make.

ORIGINAL: beyondwudge

It largely depends upon the magnitude and frequency of the requirements. For a given tech locked behind a requirement, if the requirement tends to be lower than what most players will have by the time they can research it, then the mechanic will have a low impact on the player's experience and their behaviour. If you find the requirement is often higher, it will have some impact. If you find the requirement is a lot higher, then it will have a big impact. This of course is relative to the number of locked technologies and the importance of getting those technologies with respect to time. Some technologies will effect your empire as soon as you obtain them and others, like weapons, can be of limited effect until actual combat (and war) takes place. Some locked weapons might be of little impact because the player doesn't need it yet and can wait until their empire has grown enough before selecting it. However, a powerful locked economic bonus might force the player to immediately get more research bonuses, because the boost to the empire's growth is too much to miss out on.

Without actual numbers and some idea of how hard it is to get a research bonus level of X vs a requirement of value Y by a given time t_0, with respect to the number and quality of locked technologies encountered, it is actually pretty difficult to say just how much of a difference it will make.

The only requirements to reserach a technolgoy seems to be:
- have a link to it
- have the required percentage
- having the nesseary resources

There seems to be no "tech tier" system. Or rather the percentages are the Tech Tier System. You basically have a "maximum tech level" for each category - based on your Bonus Percentages.

Note that we got some example numbers:


My guess is, that having a Racial bonus to a category or a luck with finding and securing a anomaly with a research bonus would be relevant. Not only do you research faster, you also unlock higher level tech.

At the same time, I would strongly asume/advise for the player to have some way to build the generic bonus. That way, even if you got unlucky - you got no anomaly or the game might not have spawned any +Sensor one - you could still unluck all advancements eventually.

It will be interesting to play it.

I think a neat thing with the bonuses requirement is that now every faction will be diverse in their technological make up and fit the theme in sci-fi where one group is better at something than another because they have expertise in something..

I think it's better than giving racial bonuses from the get go and instead allowing us to develop our own 'bonuses' based on how we develop in a particular game. So one game I might have my Human empires brilliant in shield tech but in another game based on the map I'll have them leading the way in scanner tech.

It depends. It can be really good for a game that a player can associate a picture (portrait) of a race (faction) with a specific set of bonuses, behaviours and in-game objects (technologies). It creates expectation and and a sense of accomplishment as they can recall the race and know what they need to do in response to it. Experience with the game and long-term memory is rewarded and even a player with limited ability can learn over time how to improve their gameplay.

In contrast, if the faction is different every game, then the player has to look and read carefully each time they encounter them. It results in a very different kind of interaction. There is a lot more short-term memory and calculation involved. For some players, it might be really unclear why what worked last time might not work this time. The results of a particular game have to be generalised and the lessons learnt limited as you might with a scientific experiment or academic report. This tends to be more interesting to people who are good at analysis and synthesis or have a lot of time on their hands.

Fundamentally, we are talking about the issue of constant mechanics vs. variable mechanics. Some game rules and mechanics lend themselves to variability and others to constancy. Often a good game implements constancy and variability in different parts using their return on investment as a guide. Just because you can make the race technology more variable, doesn't mean that there wasn't another part of the game where that variability wouldn't have been even more fun, without taking away from the players who really enjoyed the race-specific tech.

To be honest, I'm half-and-half about it all. I have played games with both systems and I can't really say that either was perfect. I think there is a generally better way to do it, for a given player base and game feature set, but as Distant Worlds is still adding new core-mechanics to its body-of-rules it's a bit early to say which will result in a generally more enjoyable and interesting game.

For me there is the big three I care about: Weapons, shields, and speed. Everything else is secondary. I can't win being great at sensor tech (though I've never tried).

I don't think this new research mechanic will completely lock us out of the core technologies but rather make it require more of en effort to get slightly sub par versions of that tech if you don't have the research bonuses or the tree simply decided it would not reveal a specific technology this time around. You would have to spend more time and resources reaching a less powerful or versatile version of the technology such as shields or engines for example.

We would still be able to research those categories but at a slower overall pace and with less choices and perhaps lacking some valuable traits.

It will be up to you if you want to spend allot of extra time to catch up in shield technology rather then benefit from the bonuses you have in engine technology and adapt your tactics and strategy to that. Perhaps you keep investing in engine technology as you have good bonuses for it and only basic or weak shields as you have no good bonuses for it, then once you manage to secure some good shield bonuses you switch research focus to that field. You could of course instead do just average engines and average shields but at a greater cost in research, this is up to you.

Personally I probably would be going for focusing on what I'm good at and developing those areas ahead of those areas I'm not. The other areas I wold only develop into the bare minimum necessary. I would then try to lean on the technologies I'm good at. If I have good stealth and scanning technology I could use that to my advantage even if my ships are individually less powerful than the opponent. I could hit them where they are weak using numbers to take them out and they will not be able to react in time... just as one example.

I also would likely favour none military technology over military technology most of the time, engines being the most important and that is important for both economy and military. So good engine technology is generally just good.

ORIGINAL: Retreat1970

For me there is the big three I care about: Weapons, shields, and speed. Everything else is secondary. I can't win being great at sensor tech (though I've never tried).

In DW2 you might win with Sensors. Have you read up on the Exploration Mechanic?

Exploration goes from 0 to 100, with only a active colony, advanced survey or realy advanced sensors being able to hit 100.
If you find stuff first, you can grab it. Before others even know there is something to grab.
It is a longterm investment, but then any colonies are.

Also note that the images do show a lot of values on the Jammer. "Empire Masking Power" sounds like the enemy might not even know if that ship comming in is a ally or a enemy.

I'm sure if you put the difficulty to easy, you can win with sensors.

ORIGINAL: beyondwudge

I'm sure if you put the difficulty to easy, you can win with sensors.

When you think about it, isn't a missile just a way to find out the structural integrity of a target?
Isn't a Laser Gun just a overpowered rangefinder?

In all seriousness however: I do think that having a species with Sensor bonus would be quite usefull.
Sensors (and sensor jammers) have a lot more details then just "can see up to distance Y".
As a result, having good sensors early can easily be a consierable bonus.

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

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

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

ORIGINAL: Retreat1970

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ORIGINAL: Retreat1970

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is the thread for Distance Worlds 2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit.

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

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

ORIGINAL: Retreat1970

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ORIGINAL: Retreat1970

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

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

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