Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Whiskiz

Apparently if Characters and Races don't have overpowered bonuses, then they're straight up broken.

TIL

Have you ever looked at the character stats of the random generator? It's just a dice roll of random stuff much of which is negative or not even really related to what they do in some cases. What empire has key personnel with such poor quality and consistency? Half the time your own characters are working more in your enemies favor than your own. I'm not talking about making up super characters with nothing but max bonuses as the norm. My examples were for making certain AI empires much more fun to fight against. For my own characters I typically manually edit them to remove all bonuses then use a house rule of one bad trait for every good trait and only traits specifically useful for that characters role. Hopefully the character generator for dw2 is much more consistent and useful.

Man, I swear I wasn't trying to start another character thread.

That being said I'd be very curious to see character art and mechanics on the 26th. *Whistles in the wind* [8|]

So you're not wanting what's in DW:U now and you're not wanting the only examples you gave, such as giving 100% boosts here and bonuses to multiple admirals there, or making some evil races unstoppable juggernaughts.

For my own characters I typically manually edit them to remove all bonuses then use a house rule of one bad trait for every good trait and only traits specifically useful for that characters role

Sometimes characters have -20% to something, sometimes they have +50% bonus to something. That sounds pretty much like what you're after. Sometimes they have 3 penalties to basically the same thing "construction speed"s.

It's like in real life - We all have our flaws. Our weaknesses as well as our strengths and that'd be something you'd have to deal with as an empire leader. It adds a bit more realism, depth and challenge.

So Characters already sometimes come with bonuses and penalties - sometimes only a couple bonuses, sometimes maybe penalties, sometimes a mix. Sometimes skills which can be levelled into a bonus regardless of where they started.

The only thing is sometimes maybe they have a stat change that you don't or sometimes can't use the Character for anyway, mostly more prevalent in multi role Characters like Spies.

To call Characters "straight up broken" because of that one minor thing, is being a bit of a drama queen don't you think [:'(]

Definitely room for improvement and straight up expansion, but not nearly as broken as you claimed.

Definitely room for improvement and straight up expansion, but not nearly as broken as you claimed.

Correct, but instead of broken I would say useless.

There's only two characters that really matter (maybe three): A scientist with the ultra genius trait, a spy with a high espionage or sabotage trait, and maybe a good leader BUT only in Governments that last a long time like a hive mind or monarchy.

All that being said, good or bad characters never win/lose me a game. I dismiss the baddies anyways. Just my 2c.

I mean... if we think here realistically amongst ourselves for a moment, it actually doesn't make sense for most characters to have any more of an effect on their respective empire than what they are immediately in control of. In other words, I shouldn't expect my scientist to bring about sweeping changes to government anymore than my leader towards the advancements of science. They fit their role well, stay in their lane, and seldom cause more trouble than what they're worth. I don't know what more is necessary. Perhaps characters could be more intuitive, less predictable, and ultimately more "alive," however I don't especially agree with them being called useless, as there has certainly been a time or two in my playing experience where I could prove otherwise.

I think characters are okay in Distant Worlds: Universe. They're not anything to go on about, but they serve their role fine when used, and rarely are the cause of annoyance when ignored. That much is okay.

They could be better. They could be worse.

Scientists can still give multiple bonuses to different research which is still handy. Ultra Genius is just best.

Good leader/governors are definitely good and have some of the biggest amount of bonuses and penalties that matter to work with and around. Especially since the 0% tax, homeworld pop max trick got nerfed.

As you mentioned certain skills of Spies are useful but definitely not all, Spies already mentioned as the main area with issues.

What about Troop Generals when you can't afford to spam almost a whole new colony worth of troops lol for a takeover, some good attack bonuses for heavily defended planets especially Homeworlds, or not needing nearly as many troops/maintenance overall when defending all the planets in your empire with good defence bonuses, as well as increased troop recruitment rate and recovery rate at your main troop hub amongst others also being nice.

Good ambassadors great for either staving off war with big bads or opening up more diplomatic options with races you want to ally with. Generally for better and more interaction with other races especially in unstable galaxies.

Fleet Admirals and Captains especially on those shiny Capital Ships you find early.

Then there's dealing with global maluses, like Characters reducing other Characters skills in the same place.

Traits that sometimes come with bonuses and penalties.

Working on Characters levellable skills.

Making the tough decisions whether to keep or dismiss certain Characters, based off certain penalties vs certain bonuses.

While none of that is game breaking (as it shouldn't be) there's alot to take into account, alot that's nice and some that adds variety, depth and interactivity.

Far from broken or even useless overall.

Far from broken or even useless overall.

It's all relative. You like all characters and I don't. There's no right or wrong.

It's not relative.

It's not a disagreement on which Characters we like or don't like - i listed all the reasons and mechanics as to why the Character system is objectively far from broken/useless.

Whether you care about or engage with those mechanics or not.

You might not need to worry about things like Troop Generals and increasing troop strength/defence to save on maintenance costs of lots more Troops, in your RetreatUE mod, where you've blown out the economy to the point of it being meaningless and just throwing hordes of ships at eachother, but that doesn't mean it isn't a thing and not important otherwise [:'(]

Edit: I think the issue here might be that the Characters aren't interactive enough. I mean it's all well and good having somewhat stronger ships from a fleet admiral and/or ship captains, not needing as many Troops and saving maintenance, having a bit better colony pop growth and happiness for a bit better tax rates and so income, even a bit better chances at completing spy missions successfully - but at the end of the day you don't really notice those effects, especially not cumulatively.

There's already a little interaction: Spy missions, moving around and protecting Scientists, moving around Ambassadors, weighing bonuses/penalties for potential dismissal, looking out for penalties that negatively affect station/fleet wide, moving Troop Generals with your groundforces etc - but not much and most not as meaningful as it could be.

I'm not sure how Characters could be made more interactive, more unique and fulfilling without affecting the game more (which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing?) but i feel like that's the main issue here.

Some didn't really care about some of the bonuses and effects Characters have on the game, while others could appreciate them and what they could do with them/how they can change gameplay somewhat.

Because after all most of it is just number modifiers.

Any ideas?

Man, you just have to win an argument.

You are 100% right. You win.

It's not really about winning or losing - it's more about you making such strong, final statements like:

"There's two tiers:

1. Weapons, shields, warp, size.

2. Everything else.

If I stick to tier one and you don't I will win every time."

Or

"Correct, but instead of broken I would say useless."

Without even the possibility of evidence to back the first claim up and discounting all the mechanics and almost entire design behind the second claim.

I might keep arguing but i don't just baselessly declare something - i didn't just say that you're flat wrong about Characters or that they aren't useless/broken - each response i provided new facts, examples, lists, reasoning and arguments as to why i feel that way.

It's on you if you can't then turn around and do the same as to why i'm wrong or what i say is inaccurate.

Try not making such big, dismissive statements that are so easily picked apart if you can't handle follow up debate about them.

Besides i don't know about you, but it's interesting to me talking about game design even if it is sometimes just debate, since that's about all we can do until the game releases.

Theorycrafting is some of the best part of games.

If anyone has played Star Wars: Rebellion. The character system in that was brilliant. You had main named Heroes with combat and leadership traits in addition to that you could Train special units for sabotage, assassination, espionage, rescue etc... You could send them as a group in missions. The Number of defending units and the detection capability of defending troops and the stats would define the success or failure of the mission.

ORIGINAL: Whiskiz


Because after all most of it is just number modifiers.

Any ideas?

Some, like myself, hold that characters are essential to identity-building and storytelling. And that those can turn around a game's greatness. Crazy, isn't it?

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4932506

So was there any ideas to enhance identity-building, storytelling, roleplaying and gameplay through Characters in DW2?

That would be a shame, obviously, given how considerably characters contributed to roleplay and gameplay in DWU - at least for me

I'm glad there's another person that enjoyed Characters in DW:U, finding they added to roleplay and gameplay, but i'm not sure especially how much roleplay you could've done in the first game when the Characters were mostly portraits and number modifiers.

They aren't individually crafted characters in vanilla DW:U, it's true, but I would argue that it's better this way - same as in Stellaris. The identity-building I'm talking about is not a predefined one, but one that is built with every game you play. That's the power of it. Your characters just have names and some defining skills, but they will acquire new ones and develop their own history as your campaign progresses. They will carry your story, in fact, give faces to it, in a way a bit more humane (or alien!) than your ships or stations will.

However, yes, it did not go very far in terms of trait development and skills. Adding some RPG mechanics of skill progression to make characters more effective could certainly be an improvement over what was proposed in DW:U.

Edit: In fact, scratch that. I loved the randomness (true randomness?) of it in DW:U. Characters can evolve in ways you can't control. Acquire beneficial or detrimental traits. It's part of the storytelling unique to your game's story. Yes, sure, they were a bit too often drunkards. But it's best if characters don't just become tools, at least to my taste. We can brainstorm more on improvements after DW2 has been undressed, if the beta leaves room for changes in that area.