|
You’re absolutely right; gameplay needs to evolve to match these large galaxies made now possible by more computing power. It’s just that the genre has been stuck in (and failing) improving the MOO formula. To be clear, I don’t think Stardock is the company that’ll crack this nut.
|
#
?
May 12, 2021 21:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 13:23 |
|
|
uber_stoat posted:he framed the letter and mounted it on his office wall.  Good lord.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2021 00:44
|
|
|
Mokotow posted:You’re absolutely right; gameplay needs to evolve to match these large galaxies made now possible by more computing power. It’s just that the genre has been stuck in (and failing) improving the MOO formula. To be clear, I don’t think Stardock is the company that’ll crack this nut.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2021 01:50
|
|
|
On one hand, DW2 is a grog game and the UI is ever the worst part of them, on the other hand DW was heavily focused on automating stuff - so maybe!
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2021 01:52
|
|
|
I loved DW:U, but the game kept crashing in the late stages, presumably because it would eventually run out of memory once the galaxy got populated enough. Hopefully that won't be an issue with the second game.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2021 11:52
|
|
|
The trouble with scaling up empires that these games have is that delegating something to an ai governor is always going to be worse than being human controlled, so the optimal move is not to do it. You can complain that players should embrace non-optimal play in order to maintain fun, but that just isn't how human brains like to do things. We crave that sweet sweet optimisation. I think the best way to do things would be to have a finite number of "human" actions you can take a turn and everything after that gets ai controlled. Not only would this stop games slowing to a crawl in the late stages, but it gives a natural malus to large empires, and opens up a new dimension of decision making to players in choosing ai behaviours, and creates novel strategies for underdog players to attack a much larger player. Kinda similar to how Starsector does fleet battles once you ignore the player ship, where you can only issue a set number of orders at a time and rely on ai captains to work around those. Bug Squash fucked around with this message at 12:05 on May 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2021 12:03
|
|
|
Why do you have hope? One of the things that makes Master of Magic what it is is balance is a joke. The thinking's different, which means the game won't be anywhere near what you hope.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2021 12:30
|
|
|
Bug Squash posted:The trouble with scaling up empires that these games have is that delegating something to an ai governor is always going to be worse than being human controlled, so the optimal move is not to do it. You can complain that players should embrace non-optimal play in order to maintain fun, but that just isn't how human brains like to do things. We crave that sweet sweet optimisation. I would argue that this isn't necessarily true. If the game's economy is relatively simple, like the original MoO, then it's relatively easy to program an AI that can optimize the economy of a planet or planets. Give that tool to the player, and let the player optimize the empire by selecting how much production of what type they want where with some simple controls, and you have an empire building game where you get the optimization you crave (squeaking out just that little bit of extra science or ship construction), without needing to deal with fiddly planet level optimization.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2021 12:36
|
|
|
Bloodly posted:Why do you have hope? One of the things that makes Master of Magic what it is is balance is a joke. The thinking's different, which means the game won't be anywhere near what you hope. Have you played the Casters of Magic mod?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2021 13:31
|
|
|
CoM was just released as commercial product too: https://www.slitherine.com/game/master-of-magic-classic-caster-of-magic-for-windows I'd assume by the people making the remake.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2021 13:50
|
|
|
I would actually want the opposite from a 4x space game - scale it down to just the solar system, but make it possible to act and build both on the surface and in space. Turn up the intrigue and character driven narrative ck2-style. You could control a corporation, nationstate or some other group, and you need to balance external threats and challengers from inside. Maybe make communication delay a gameplay element - so that the game tracks everything in 'absolute time', but knowledge of events propagates radially at lightspeed.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2021 13:55
|
|
|
grate deceiver posted:I would actually want the opposite from a 4x space game - scale it down to just the solar system, but make it possible to act and build both on the surface and in space. Turn up the intrigue and character driven narrative ck2-style. You could control a corporation, nationstate or some other group, and you need to balance external threats and challengers from inside. Maybe make communication delay a gameplay element - so that the game tracks everything in 'absolute time', but knowledge of events propagates radially at lightspeed. That's my dream game too. Kinda like season 1 of the Expanse or Children of a Dead Earth.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2021 14:34
|
|
|
I'm fairly sure there was a top-down game recently where you control a whole sector and it did exactly what you guys describe, thought the title eludes me.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2021 15:24
|
|
|
Terra Invicta is kind of like a cross between this and X-com, and I am very excited for it You are one of 7 secret shadowy international factions and the aliens are coming. Subvert governments, colonise space Kerbal-style, and get ready to fight aliens! Or bargain with aliens. Or welcome the aliens. Definitely fight other factions who have different approaches to aliens though. https://store.steampowered.com/app/1176470/Terra_Invicta/?Youtube
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2021 15:27
|
|
|
IIRC that's the game made by the guy that did the Long War mod for XCOM.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2021 15:45
|
|
|
It is, yes. And Long war 2 for Xcom2
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2021 15:49
|
|
|
I'd say somone on the model team was a big fan of Babylon Five. https://youtu.be/0qPGcO514Us?t=45
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2021 16:42
|
|
|
Quoting myself from the OW thread as it's pretty dead:Darkrenown posted:I guess there's not a huge amount of interest, but the 2nd scenario, this time about the origins of Carthage is out now: (the first scenario was a "raging barbarians" type survival mode)
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2021 23:03
|
|
|
Bug Squash posted:I think the best way to do things would be to have a finite number of "human" actions you can take a turn and everything after that gets ai controlled. Not only would this stop games slowing to a crawl in the late stages, but it gives a natural malus to large empires, and opens up a new dimension of decision making to players in choosing ai behaviours, and creates novel strategies for underdog players to attack a much larger player. I like this. I'm imagining how this might work in Civ - something like 'the player can directly control X cities and must rely on governors in the others'? Doesn't stellaris kinda do this with sectors? I recall there a limit to how many systems you can have in your core, directly controlled sector. Been a while since I've played it though. For unit control, Old World makes use of an Orders resource (though AI doesn't get to move units when you run out, as I understand it) grate deceiver posted:Maybe make communication delay a gameplay element - so that the game tracks everything in 'absolute time', but knowledge of events propagates radially at lightspeed. I long for an RTS with a lightspeed delay  I don't think it would necessarily make a good game but I'd love to see it made as a proof of concept.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2021 07:29
|
|
|
I'm honestly surprised that Stardock is still around. Between Wardell being a shitlord, all of their games being huge failures since Elemental's release, and Kael being hired and..never really doing much, I don't really know what's keeping them going. Been a long time since GalCiv2's release and they were praised for being the only strategy company with good AI.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2021 07:42
|
|
|
And only because GalCiv2 was, in truth, a ridiculously shallow game that an AI could play well only because all a player can do is make their numbers bigger. drat shame the Sins of a Solar Empire people are under their umbrella, that's a game I legit really like.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2021 07:44
|
|
|
Super Jay Mann posted:Have you played the Casters of Magic mod? No. The instant I saw Rincewind as a portrait, it turned me right off. I mean, at least use Ridcully.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2021 10:00
|
|
|
Beamed posted:I'm honestly surprised that Stardock is still around. Between Wardell being a shitlord, all of their games being huge failures since Elemental's release, and Kael being hired and..never really doing much, I don't really know what's keeping them going. Been a long time since GalCiv2's release and they were praised for being the only strategy company with good AI. Stardock also does non-gaming software which I assume gives them some steady revenue, though I haven't followed Stardock in like a decade+ so I couldn't say what their current lineup there is like.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2021 11:08
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:I like this. I'm imagining how this might work in Civ - something like 'the player can directly control X cities and must rely on governors in the others'? Doesn't stellaris kinda do this with sectors? I recall there a limit to how many systems you can have in your core, directly controlled sector. Been a while since I've played it though. There used to be. They changed this because, surprise, it was extremely unpopular. For that matter I also recall it being a design goal of MOO3.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2021 17:19
|
|
|
Bremen posted:There used to be. They changed this because, surprise, it was extremely unpopular. For that matter I also recall it being a design goal of MOO3. I feel its important to point out that it was extremely unpopular because it sucked Lets be honest, Paradox AI has never been great, and putting that AI in charge of the players stuff where it can be monitored was never going to last.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2021 18:33
|
|
|
I don't get why the AI is so terrible at governering. If anything AI should be good at optimizing output. Instead they are making GBS threads out unneeded buildings and districts, having them sit at idle and eating up maintenance, and I don't really remember in what other ways Stellaris AI are terrible because I stopped giving them anything to run when they start building the 20th mining district when the planet only has 3 pop.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2021 18:53
|
|
|
The problem is that if the AI is better than the player, the player figures "why play the game" - but if the AI is worse than the player, the player gets frustrated with using it "because it's not optimal". AI control is something that people say they want, but are invariably wrong about. There's no middle ground to aim for here. The only way to do it is to change the mechanics of the game entirely to support it, which *surprise!* people won't allow either because it's not the accepted way that 4x games are played. I think the only possible way to do it is to remove information from the player, such that they cannot find out how good/bad the AI is doing aside from some really abstracted value (e.g. "this AI guy is 66% efficient versus this other lady that is 75%"). Which, no surprise, is kind of what Crusader Kings does - and even then people get mad about demesne limits, or break the game wide open from ignoring said limits. Beamed posted:Kael being hired and..never really doing much IIRC he did a bunch of work on Fallen Enchantress, basically by ripping out a ton of lovely ideas that didn't pan out. Still never came close to as good as the Fall From Heaven mod. Apparently he's a company VP now.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2021 18:54
|
|
|
pedro0930 posted:I don't get why the AI is so terrible at governering. If anything AI should be good at optimizing output. Instead they are making GBS threads out unneeded buildings and districts, having them sit at idle and eating up maintenance, and I don't really remember in what other ways Stellaris AI are terrible because I stopped giving them anything to run when they start building the 20th mining district when the planet only has 3 pop. The Stellaris thing is genuinely dumb because it's a complete waste of the AI personality system that they are basically unable to follow thematic builds that can easily be made up and tailored after sitting down with a high level multiplayer group.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2021 19:30
|
|
|
orangelex44 posted:The problem is that if the AI is better than the player, the player figures "why play the game" - but if the AI is worse than the player, the player gets frustrated with using it "because it's not optimal". AI control is something that people say they want, but are invariably wrong about. There's no middle ground to aim for here. The only way to do it is to change the mechanics of the game entirely to support it, which *surprise!* people won't allow either because it's not the accepted way that 4x games are played. There is more to a 4X game then managing colonies. In fact in the end-game that is literally the more boring part. Let me the player build my bespoke home planet and let the AI optimally manage my worlds that I've tagged as "research" or "Industry" etc. As the player I want to manage my fleets, conquer planets, choose my long term research strategy. If the game mechanics support it (they probably won't) let me do some diplomacy and trading. Maybe some Espionage etc. There is a ton of room for the player to do things they find fun that an AI can't do better. As for an AI better then the player I'm not worried about that, if a perfect god-like AI is invented, then I'll play on an easier difficulty level.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2021 20:56
|
|
|
I genuinely really want a CK-style space empire game. Call it not a real 4X if you want, I don't care, but IMO CK2&3 are the best map painting games precisely because they take away so much of the control from the player and force you to interact with internal factions as a matter of absolute "they'll murder me/secede from the country if I don't" necessity.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2021 21:47
|
|
|
Zurai posted:I genuinely really want a CK-style space empire game. Call it not a real 4X if you want, I don't care, but IMO CK2&3 are the best map painting games precisely because they take away so much of the control from the player and force you to interact with internal factions as a matter of absolute "they'll murder me/secede from the country if I don't" necessity. Something like the universe of Dune just before the events of the first book go down would be fabulous. Dozens of competing houses trying to accumulate planets and power, and weirdo factions trying to breed superman or corner a market. All held together with mad social science and drugs.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2021 22:05
|
|
|
Zurai posted:I genuinely really want a CK-style space empire game. Call it not a real 4X if you want, I don't care, but IMO CK2&3 are the best map painting games precisely because they take away so much of the control from the player and force you to interact with internal factions as a matter of absolute "they'll murder me/secede from the country if I don't" necessity. I feel like a decent number of people thought this way about Star Dynasties recently.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2021 22:35
|
|
|
Bug Squash posted:Something like the universe of Dune just before the events of the first book go down would be fabulous. Dozens of competing houses trying to accumulate planets and power, and weirdo factions trying to breed superman or corner a market. All held together with mad social science and drugs. weren't pdox planning on doing something like Dune but ultimately decided against it? feel like i read that somewhere.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2021 22:42
|
|
|
I want Stellaris where your government type actually alters the way you play. Like a Feudal government works like CK with titles / succession and balancing relationships. Dictatorships have to curry favor with the military / police state / ruling class and set up competing internal systems that prevent one from becoming powerful enough to pull off a coup. Democracies have public opinion / actual elections and a campaign promise like Tropico etc.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2021 22:44
|
|
|
Personally I find internal strife to be nothing but a chore. "Oh no, I have to make sure this bar is above 50%, and it goes down every turn randomly, how engaging!" Better click on this guys portrait and give him 5 bear asses so that the bar goes up 10%. Why do I care about that? How is that fun? It just doesn't seem to work when the player isn't a actually a character in the world but instead some kind of immortal omniscient being. If that guy is unhappy, I can just kill him and he'll be replaced with an identical version of the unhappy guy, but he'll be happy for the next 20 turns and I can do things that actually matter like raising armies, or moving them around, or fighting or whatever.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2021 22:59
|
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:Why do I care about that? How is that fun? From a simulationist perspective, it's a far, far better emulation of societies than everything under your banner having perfect, unwavering loyalty and dedication to the cause of painting the map in your colors. From a gamist perspective, it makes the things a lot more interesting. It lets you associate a name and face with something causing you problems, which makes it personal. It gives the player more things to interact with between wars. It gives context to things like corruption, piracy, and rebellions, making them into more than just "number went past 50%, suffer penalties".
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2021 00:09
|
|
|
From a simulation of society perspective, I'm the omniscient immortal emperor of an empire that has hundreds of billions of citizens. Who the hell is this guy asking me for bear asses? For gaming, again I am the omniscient immortal emperor of a space faring FTL capable civilization, there is supposed to be a galaxy full of threats, if I'm still worried about some guy asking for bear asses then you are distracting me from the purpose of the game. Basically internal strife is a crutch bad game designers, like paradox, use because their game systems don't work, their AI can't play their games and their already sandbox heavy games would have nothing happening in it's universe without random events like a huge army appearing out of thin air in the middle of the players empire, i.e. a "rebel" army. It's bad design and I find it tedious at best. I like my games tight-knit with game systems that matter and will naturally enable opponents to attempt to win on their own and provide conflict to me, the player, that is measurable and and possible within the games mechanics.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2021 01:32
|
|
|
Paradox explicitly avoids putting internal strife in their games, and refused to allow sectors to have any internal politics at all in Stellaris, because one of their designers hates the idea of internal politics. So, I think you need to work on your examples a bit - I think the idea that internal strife is a crutch for broken game systems is in fact backwards, and broken game systems avoid internal strife to cover up shortcomings in abstraction.quote:I like my games tight-knit with game systems that matter and will naturally enable opponents to attempt to win on their own and provide conflict to me, the player, that is measurable and and possible within the games mechanics. e: Fwiw, I think the actual problem you're highlighting here is correct - games like to simultaneously depict you as an omniscient god-emperor of a nation state (even before the concept existed!), but also an agent of government. And.. you can't really do both, at the same time. Beamed fucked around with this message at 01:49 on May 15, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2021 01:46
|
|
|
Do you not watch or read any kind of sci fi/fantasy, or even real history/politics? External threats rarely mean an end to internal strife, and if it does for a time it rarely lasts. It's a very strange view to have, as is thinking that internal conflict = bad design. If you don't want it in games you play, fair enough, but those are some weird reasons.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2021 01:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 13:23 |
|
|
Darkrenown posted:Do you not watch or read any kind of sci fi/fantasy, or even real history/politics? External threats rarely mean an end to internal strife, and if it does for a time it rarely lasts. It's a very strange view to have, as is thinking that internal conflict = bad design. If you don't want it in games you play, fair enough, but those are some weird reasons. This bodes good things for Old World 
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2021 01:55
|
|