Matrix Games Forums

So, I've picked up both expansion when they were released, but never got around to play an actual in-depth game with either. Recently, I found myself in the mood for some 4X, so I installed everything and went to play a game.
Ended up playing a couple of games, really.

Anyway, here's my feedback.

Please note that I'm NOT trying to convince anyone of my viewpoint or asking for stuff to be changes to better suit my style of play, even though it might sound that way. Just saying.

Also, I'm not always clear about which feature was added by which expansions, so I can't make clear distinctions.

One of the first things I noticed was the new tech tree. And I'm not too fond of it.
I like the basic idea of HAVING a tech tree, but the implementation leaves a lot to be desired.
Basically, my problem with it boils down to the following: Early on, you are endlessly researching stuff that merely improves existing components or offers alternatives that are essentially worthless, so it takes a LONG time until playing around with one of my favorite components in any 4X game, the ship designs, is even neccessary.
Sure, I can tweak the starting designs when the game begins, but afterwards, an eternity passes before I ever enter ship designs again. And then, due to the nature of the tech tree and "natural progression" of a game - techbrokering and so on - too many techs become available in too quick succession.
Also, I'm a little disheartened by all the "cross links", i.e. you CAN go down a tech path for a limited amount of time, but eventually you'll have to research the complete other branch as well, or you'll be unable to continue.

On to the next thing - automation. I was pretty shocked to see how much of a mess this part of the game is after two expansions. Specifically ship and fleet automation is horribly messed up. It took me a LONG time to figure out how to make it so a fleet was supposedly completely under my control ... but even that only SEEMED to work - I occasionally ended up seeing my guard fleet set to defend the home system trying to assault a distant target ... stuff like that should just not happen. Especially not after years of development.

ICS in space seemed even worse than vanilla - I like the idea of system ownerships, but the AI is too keen on grabbing far away colonies in the middle of nowhere. Maybe a large power projection mechanism (ala the borders in the civ games) would help, as would a colonization range of some sort. There's endless room for improvements in this part of the game.

Ranges are far, FAR too great. Why is there no option for something like greatly limited ship ranges? It should be a challenge to cross the entire galaxy, but instead, it's pretty trivial in DW. In fact, this probably plays a big role in the ICS mentioned above, and also takes away from the feeling of the galaxy being a huge place.

Characters are a nifty idea, but essentially, they're forgettable providers of bonuses without - pardon the pun - any character. The concept isn't bad, but the implementation is endlessly disappointing.

You still cannot update remote mining bases and stuff with construction ships? It'd be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Overall, I was pretty dismayed how much of a mess the game becomes after a couple of years have passed. Maintaining your empire in an orderly manner becomes a nightmare, and it doesn't help that much of the automation insists of working against you.

But my biggest gripe with the state of the game after all these years boils down to one thing: modding.
Why can't I mod the tech tree? Or the ship ranges? Why is basically everything meaningful in DW locked away from being modded?
Also, none of the mods I looked at had been updated to DW:L, but I guess I cannot blame the developer for this.

I'll continue picking up expansions for the game, should there be more - if only to encourage a game like this being made in the first place - but I'm sorely disappointed by the expansions and would not recommend either to anyone curious about the game. MAYBE if you got out a gold edition to make the game including expansions <$50. MAYBE.

Enough ranting from me for now.
______
rezaf

ORIGINAL: rezaf
MAYBE if you got out a gold edition to make the game including expansions <$50. MAYBE.

I strongly suggest you bring this to the attention of the Matrix bods.

While I'm not that disappointed; I agree with most of the remarks here... Particularly the conjunction of the new "borders" feature with the much too long ranges, that leads to totally ridiculous situations - some empire from the end of the universe grabs a planet in the middle of your territory (but outside your borders), and then you can't even mine some world 10 parsecs away from that planet !
The tech tree is quite bland too.

Don't really agree with all of this. The tech tree isn't great, but it's a *huge* improvement from vanilla DW. And frankly, I can't really recall any other 4x that did it significantly better. DW's is perhaps a bit too artificial( i.e. "Here you upgrade your shields, here you upgrade your engines") and would certainly benefit from having some more flavor in that area( theoretical technologies that unlocked practical ones in different fields, for instance), but practically it wouldn't be all that different. At any rate, I find it takes me a rather short while before I have enough new components to start making new designs, even with research cost set to the highest. More disappointing to me is that there's no compromise; the last 'average' component is always the best one in all ways( with the exception of some racial techs). Would also have liked to see more 'special' components, but that's a general equipment/weapons rant.

As for automation, I think that's been working great lately. I leave all my ships on automated( with a few exceptions) and control all my fleets manually, and the only problem I've had is a recent bug( which should be fixed in next beta update) where half your ships will suddenly all start patrolling a single base. Haven't had trouble with fleets not doing what they're told.

As for the rest, that's where I'd have to start agreeing with you. I think the range problem is that actual hyperspace travel doesn't use enough fuel/energy. Combat and weapon fire balance is fine, but engines need to be much less fuel efficient when travelling at warp speeds. This would single-handedly fix the problem, assuming the AI would handle the change. An alternate or perhaps complementary solution would be to (significantly)lower the warp speed across the table too, something I've been wanting for some time.

On characters, I agree that it's a somewhat bland system, but I also can't seem to think of a better one. Sure, you could spend time making pictures and maybe even a background story for unique characters, but in the long run it would just be time wasted since the practical effect would still just be a bunch of bonuses. Keeping in mind that there's a limited amount of resources to spend on this game, I don't think I'd make this a priority given how much else there's to do.

I can't really say I agree so much on the 'maintaining my empire' part though. Maybe I've just played the game so much that I've figured out what I need to pay attention to and what I can safely ignore, but I like to think I've very good control without spending much time microing.

As for modding, there I agree wholeheartedly. Open up components, map options( physical size, # stars, colony prevalence, galaxy type, etc.), tech tree, etc. The more the merrier. A game like this really shouldn't be without that possibility.

Specifically ship and fleet automation is horribly messed up

Its not.

I thought so too at first, but what is actually messed up is the very limited amount of official documentation on controlling things in Legends. And what does exist tends to be outdated. To see how much BETTER ship and fleet control is in Legends than the preceeding versions you have to (unfortunately) scour this forum for useful information. A fellow by the name of Gelatinous Cube has put together some very detailed and informative documents. And there are others.

I strongly suggest you take the time to search out the forum information otherwise you will be missing much of the very good stuff in Legends. Not all is good I admit (IMO) but far more than you seemed to have experienced.

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
I strongly suggest you bring this to the attention of the Matrix bods.

Heh, don't worry, it was just a side remark. Didn't want to start a discussion about that topic.
I'm aware that Matrix and a lot of their fanbase disagree - and despite my rant - I don't regret purchasing the expansions, either. But still, in this day and age, I can't really recommend it to anyone when the price for the complete package with base game plus two expansions is as high as it is. I don't really see what'd be wrong in making a gold edition, either - but it's Matrix' decision, of course.

ORIGINAL: Raap

Don't really agree with all of this.

Didn't ask you to - opinions are destinied to differ. [:)]

ORIGINAL: Raap

The tech tree isn't great, but it's a *huge* improvement from vanilla DW.

From a technical standpoint - absolutely. The implementation, however, leaves a lot to be desired, imo.

ORIGINAL: Raap

At any rate, I find it takes me a rather short while before I have enough new components to start making new designs, even with research cost set to the highest.

Maybe I'm just playing wrong, but the only chance of this happening for me is to really focus on one are and get far ahead of the curve. I mean, sure, stuff like combat scanners, countermeasures, the early fighters - they become available relatively quickly, as soon as you focus on getting them.
But if you concentrate on beam weapons, for example, you get two techs that improve the naxos blaster, a possible third one and then you can branch out into two other beam weapon types, both of which have to be improved with yet another tech to make them a viable replacement for the naxos. By that point we're more than halfway through the beam weapon techtree...

ORIGINAL: Raap

As for automation, I think that's been working great lately.

Maybe if you're very careful and know what you're doing, you can make it happen. But the whole process is WAY too fiddly and has too many BUT's. You can automate single ships. You can automate a fleet seperately.
A fleet's default stance allows it to be called to anywhere on the map. Etc.
If you set everything up correctly, it MOSTLY works. But not always. And it should be WAY simpler.
A single checkbox: This ship is controlled manually. The AI should NEVER, for NO reason mess with it.
Maybe a second checkbox allowing "low brain" functions to work - automatic refuelling, fleeing when below the threshold set in the design etc. But not: Look, there's a pirate attack half a dozen sectors away, let me try to get there in time. Or: Lemme just fly all the way back to the homeworld to load some troops, just in case.

ORIGINAL: Raap

I think the range problem is that actual hyperspace travel doesn't use enough fuel/energy. Combat and weapon fire balance is fine, but engines need to be much less fuel efficient when travelling at warp speeds. This would single-handedly fix the problem, assuming the AI would handle the change. An alternate or perhaps complementary solution would be to (significantly)lower the warp speed across the table too, something I've been wanting for some time.

Agreed. On the smaller maps, you can basically fly to every system in the known universe from your homeworld, right from the start. Even on big maps with standard fuel cells, your range is at least a couple of hundred percent too big. I'd be all for leaving this as it is on default - as long as it was adjustable like tech speed or universe size.

ORIGINAL: Raap

On characters, I agree that it's a somewhat bland system, but I also can't seem to think of a better one. Sure, you could spend time making pictures and maybe even a background story for unique characters, but in the long run it would just be time wasted since the practical effect would still just be a bunch of bonuses. Keeping in mind that there's a limited amount of resources to spend on this game, I don't think I'd make this a priority given how much else there's to do.

Well, but why bother adding the characters in the first place, then?
Pictures should at least be moddable so each char can have a different face, but fluff text is unneccessary.
Still, if you want to see a good character system, check out Paradox' Crusader Kings. It's MUCH more complicated, that's true, but for a game like DW, you could throw out large parts of it, like marriage, offspring and all the dynastic stuff.
But imagine if your characters could make personal friends and enemies, could have a small amount of "interests", could trigger personal events every now and then...
I agree that this isn't exactly the first area further developments should be focused on ... but as I asked, if you're not going to make them count, why implement characters in the first place?

ORIGINAL: Raap

I can't really say I agree so much on the 'maintaining my empire' part though. Maybe I've just played the game so much that I've figured out what I need to pay attention to and what I can safely ignore, but I like to think I've very good control without spending much time microing.

I'm sure experience with the systems at work plays a role there, yes.

ORIGINAL: Harry2

I thought so too at first, but what is actually messed up is the very limited amount of official documentation on controlling things in Legends. And what does exist tends to be outdated. To see how much BETTER ship and fleet control is in Legends than the preceeding versions you have to (unfortunately) scour this forum for useful information. A fellow by the name of Gelatinous Cube has put together some very detailed and informative documents. And there are others.

I strongly suggest you take the time to search out the forum information otherwise you will be missing much of the very good stuff in Legends. Not all is good I admit (IMO) but far more than you seemed to have experienced.

Well, while that's better, it's also not. Heh. You can't rely on your forum members to document your game features for you.
I admit a lot of the features work pretty good - for example, refueling etc. was a MAJOR pain in vanilla, but it functions as good as I'd expect it to now. The whole trade/economy automation seems to work great as well.
It's only when you try to adjust one detail, but leave another on auto when the system comes crashing down on you.
But yeah, I guess the beef of it is bad documentation and a relatively small number of flaws that are now more apparent since everything else works so good. That sound better?
______
rezaf

ORIGINAL: rezaf

Heh, don't worry, it was just a side remark. Didn't want to start a discussion about that topic.
I'm aware that Matrix and a lot of their fanbase disagree - and despite my rant - I don't regret purchasing the expansions, either. But still, in this day and age, I can't really recommend it to anyone when the price for the complete package with base game plus two expansions is as high as it is. I don't really see what'd be wrong in making a gold edition, either - but it's Matrix' decision, of course.

I'm not sure what pricing has to do with the fan base. It entirely a business decision. Based on Matrix pricing so far, they seem far more interested in squeezing their fan base than expanding it.

ORIGINAL: rezaf

...if you concentrate on beam weapons, for example, you get two techs that improve the naxos blaster, a possible third one and then you can branch out into two other beam weapon types, both of which have to be improved with yet another tech to make them a viable replacement for the naxos. By that point we're more than halfway through the beam weapon techtree...

I'm not sure I understand your complaint here. You're annoyed with the lack of "new" toys as opposed to "upgrades" - which I don't understand your complaint. As I see it, the tech tree serves to give the player a choice of investing in technology areas so that he can have a competitive advantage. If that advantage comes in upgrades to existing weaponry or a new weapon, what difference does it really make? Who cares if the supermarket offers you a dozen varieties of ice cream or if they offer you a "new" product - isn't the real issue whether or not it serves its purpose (return on investment)?

It's far more of a problem, the fact that you don't really PAY for any of the research - so you're never really faced with the choice, "do I continue to research the new weapons to gain an advantage LATER on, or do I build a bunch of ships NOW?". I think that's a far greater issue, than the lack of new toys to put on one's ships. Additionally, you have to consider the balance - gradual gains in efficiency/effectiveness are easier to test for gameplay balance, than surges (which one usually sees in "new" items).

The current mechanics do, however, make research something that you have to invest in the long-term for. Doubling your research output isn't, for example, a trivial matter of moving a slider on your expenses interface.

ORIGINAL: rezaf

Agreed. On the smaller maps, you can basically fly to every system in the known universe from your homeworld, right from the start. Even on big maps with standard fuel cells, your range is at least a couple of hundred percent too big. I'd be all for leaving this as it is on default - as long as it was adjustable like tech speed or universe size.

Indeed. The old issue of keeping your fleet in supply is not a problem. You can hit anyone, anywhere for the most part. Why fight the opposing empire in a border-war over brand-new colonies, when you can just point your fleets at all the established colonies (including the homeworld) and have a FAR greater impact. In most games, "zones of control" and supply lines would make attacks deep into enemy territory a distinctly dangerous prospect - but in DW, it's a matter of course.

ORIGINAL: rezaf

You can't rely on your forum members to document your game features for you.

You're preaching to the converted. Far too many aspects of DW are documented poorly or not at all in the in-game documents - and the only place they ARE documented is in the forums - documented by forum members. Documenting something like DW isn't a trivial matter - but Martix/CodeForce doesn't even seem to be trying.

ORIGINAL: Kayoz

I'm not sure what pricing has to do with the fan base. It entirely a business decision. Based on Matrix pricing so far, they seem far more interested in squeezing their fan base than expanding it.

I thought you were being sarcastic there. Matrix have this strange misconception (that was true years in the past, I'll give them that) that the only way to sell the games they make is to sell few for a lot.
While the marketplace has actually moved on from that.
I've repeatedly stated that I'd probably pick up half the Matrix catalogue for a decent price, but Matrix insists on high prices, so they'll just have to live with me (and other customers like me) just buying a handful of titles they really want and letting their ten year old games still sold for full price rot on the servers. Fair enough, I guess. Look, you got me to debate this despite me claiming the opposite. Let's just leave it at: You and I agree, Matrix disagrees, ok?

ORIGINAL: Kayoz

I'm not sure I understand your complaint here. (snip)

Well, it's really the implementation. That and, like I wrote, I enjoy to design ships in 4x games, so I dislike how small a part of DW this aspect is.
I like the ideas of balancing off improving exiting tech vs developing something new, I just think it's been pretty badly implemented in DW.
______
rezaf

rezaf,

Good points, all.

I hope Matrix pays attention, and the fanatical fan-boys don't flame you too bad.

@rezaf
I have only bought DW with all its expansions, AI war with all its expansions and Armada from Matrix so I haven't fully experienced the long-run problem you are describing. But, I see your point and am not denying it. Matrix has a bit odd habit of pricing games, especially older games and games that have several expansions, DW being an example here.
I personally am not complaining as I enjoy DW so much that I gladly pay what has been asked for it. Also, I like to support Elliot and CodeForce. World needs more great 4X.
Still, I hope there will be some kind of "gold" version of DW with all expansions.

On ship design: The current major problem with ship design is that AIs default designs just can't compete with optimized, human made designs, making the ship designing a bit trivial sometimes. Next patch is supposed to tweak the ship design and AI designs. We'll see...
I personally haven't had that much problems with ship design, and I enjoy the freedom it gives when you get hang of the system and its tricks. Yes, it's a bit simple and streamlined but that's not always a bad thing in my opinion.&nbsp;

In short, and I may have said this somewhere elso, I think that DW is a big rough diamond; It has its problems but still shines brightly enough to make it a highly enjoyable game.

And I'd like to point out that constructive criticism is welcome here, as long as you keep it civil.

ORIGINAL: rezaf

Ranges are far, FAR too great. Why is there no option for something like greatly limited ship ranges? It should be a challenge to cross the entire galaxy, but instead, it's pretty trivial in DW. In fact, this probably plays a big role in the ICS mentioned above, and also takes away from the feeling of the galaxy being a huge place.

I think the range problem comes from the nature of ship design. Ideally, the player should begin the game with only escorts, the smallest vessel class. This would force the player to research larger and larger vessels for greater capabilities. If you tie range to vessel size, a logical connection, that would eliminate the whole range issue as it would take some time to work your way up the tech tree to the point where you could field truly long range ships and long range tech.

I know I keep beating this horse, but DW would be so much better off without dumping all available class sizes into the players lap from the get-go. It would make the tech tree more interesting, and resolve a number of other problems as well.

ORIGINAL: RooksBailey

I think the range problem comes from the nature of ship design. Ideally, the player should begin the game with only escorts, the smallest vessel class. This would force the player to research larger and larger vessels for greater capabilities. If you tie range to vessel size, a logical connection, that would eliminate the whole range issue as it would take some time to work your way up the tech tree to the point where you could field truly long range ships and long range tech.

I'm not sure about this. What about colony ships, freighters, construction ships and so on?
I think it's not so bad that in space, there basically is no size limit. Even the limitations imposed by the construction techs could be removed, I guess, but I'm basically fine with the way the game handles size.

Usually, I'd expect time (read: lifespan) to play a major role in space travel. Since in DW, time progresses at a snail pace compared to other 4x games, this would feel very forced here.
So I think the limitations should be imposed by fuel cells / engines.
Components that allow refuelling "anywhere" should be very far down the techtree, early on the gases used for propulsion should require some preprocessing/refinement that can only be done on a planet or big spacestation.
Then, a fuel cell would only get you so far, especially with the early-game engines which should not be very efficient. The typical early-game configuration would only take you to maybe two or three neighboring systems unless it's a ship dedicated to exploration, which would have maybe double that range.

I'm not saying that's the only solution, but right now, the vastness of space in DW is a joke.
______
rezaf

ORIGINAL: RooksBailey

ORIGINAL: rezaf

Ranges are far, FAR too great. Why is there no option for something like greatly limited ship ranges? It should be a challenge to cross the entire galaxy, but instead, it's pretty trivial in DW. In fact, this probably plays a big role in the ICS mentioned above, and also takes away from the feeling of the galaxy being a huge place.

I think the range problem comes from the nature of ship design. Ideally, the player should begin the game with only escorts, the smallest vessel class. This would force the player to research larger and larger vessels for greater capabilities. If you tie range to vessel size, a logical connection, that would eliminate the whole range issue as it would take some time to work your way up the tech tree to the point where you could field truly long range ships and long range tech.

I know I keep beating this horse, but DW would be so much better off without dumping all available class sizes into the players lap from the get-go. It would make the tech tree more interesting, and resolve a number of other problems as well.

I'm not sure what game you're playing, but the only time I've ever seen all ship class sizes available is if I start with at least Tech 5 (maybe higher) - unless you're talking about being able to build a micro miniature Cruiser, Carrier or Capital ship [:)]

Sure I can build a typical Escort and change it's functionality/Class to Capital, but it's still a size 100-200 ship.
Not very practical.


As for range, that doesn't really bother me for a number of reasons which I've gone into before (Reator type/size, time on station, etc.).
The bigger concern is speed.
I don't care if I can fly back and forth several times from one end of the Galaxy to the other without refueling, it still takes time to get there.

For a simple example:
As it is now, I need to make sure the ships I'm sending to help defend a Colony have enough fuel to get there and have enough left to be able to fight/engage the enemy.

Weapons fire and Shields consume far more energy than travel.
This is where you need to worry, not whether you can get there a dozen times over, but what can you do once you get there before having to bug out to refuel.

On top of this, I need to make sure I can get there in time to help - the Colony could well be gone by the time I get there.


Just food for thought, there are more intricacies to this game than you can see on the surface.

Really new here. Got the game about a month ago (all expansions). I really like the game, but I mostly agree with the OP. Especially related to the speed and ability of ships to get around a universe. They move way to fast and have much to large of a range. Its a common issue I have with space games though. Star Ruler has the same problem. You can build a 100 scouts pretty quick right from the beginning and have dozens of systems explored in minutes.

Anyway, DW has great automation so the speed and range of ships isn't a issue per se, but I would love a option to limit ship range or increase fuel usage in hyperspace.

Ship design is also something I take a bit of issue with. There just isn't enough variety of components throughout the stages of the game. End game there is a nice variety, but beginning and middle you rarely have to design ships.

Don't want to make it sounds like I dislike the game, far from it. Its a great game, but the issues laid out here could be fixed pretty easily I think.

As for price, I'm willing to pay for a good game (certainly have bought enough bad games at full price ), but paying for the original, plus two rather important expansion costing upwards of $70 is quite the barrier to entry. A gold edition would have been a wonderful thing...

Just some thoughts.

ORIGINAL: Nori

Anyway, DW has great automation so the speed and range of ships isn't a issue per se, but I would love a option to limit ship range or increase fuel usage in hyperspace.

*cringe* I wouldn't call ship automation "great" - not by a long shot. Refuelling is a serious pain in the arse later in the game, when you have bigger, fuel-hungry ships that can suck a gas mining station dry in seconds - but the fleet automation sends the ENTIRE fleet to that one overwhelmed gas mining station...

As for range limits - ship range is not a problem. You can hit anyone, anywhere. The vastness of space is rather meaningless if all it takes to deal with it, is slap a few extra fuel tanks on your ships (trivial size) and send them off to attack a planet halfway across the map - with no worries of interception.

ORIGINAL: Nori
Ship design is also something I take a bit of issue with. There just isn't enough variety of components throughout the stages of the game. End game there is a nice variety, but beginning and middle you rarely have to design ships.

Don't want to make it sounds like I dislike the game, far from it. Its a great game, but the issues laid out here could be fixed pretty easily I think.

Variety is one thing - I find the ship design interface to be clunky and a pain to use. Why can't I see the DPS and range effectiveness comparison per weapon in a simple infographic? No, I have to squint and try to read the tiny text and work out the differences myself. Why do I have to hunt and peck through the ship component list for the engine I want to replace rather than having a list that has clearly marked sections showing the weapons separated from, for example, scanners or fuel tanks?

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
[...]
Variety is one thing - I find the ship design interface to be clunky and a pain to use. Why can't I see the DPS and range effectiveness comparison per weapon in a simple infographic? No, I have to squint and try to read the tiny text and work out the differences myself. Why do I have to hunt and peck through the ship component list for the engine I want to replace rather than having a list that has clearly marked sections showing the weapons separated from, for example, scanners or fuel tanks?

I agree about the need to show DPS (which btw should be the fire power instead of the misleading "first salvo" value we have now) but we do have a range effectiveness graphic. It's in the weapon's list under the ship's component list.
Also the whole ship design is said to be overhauled in the next update.
So be positive [:D]