Instale o Steam
iniciar sessão
|
idioma
简体中文 (Chinês simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chinês tradicional)
日本語 (Japonês)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandês)
Български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Tcheco)
Dansk (Dinamarquês)
Deutsch (Alemão)
English (Inglês)
Español-España (Espanhol — Espanha)
Español-Latinoamérica (Espanhol — América Latina)
Ελληνικά (Grego)
Français (Francês)
Italiano (Italiano)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonésio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandês)
Norsk (Norueguês)
Polski (Polonês)
Português (Portugal)
Română (Romeno)
Русский (Russo)
Suomi (Finlandês)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Relatar um problema com a tradução
Este tópico foi trancado 
Regras e diretrizes para discussões
4 
Denunciar esta mensagem
i can beat the ai on max settings without to many problems with the default races. but i played 2 for many years and still play my disk copy quite often. 2 really is a good way to learn the ropes in a long story. not the rather short annoying one in GS3 with no real clear point. you need to know the game to beat the ai on max settings. you have to know where the ai normally acts. each update like the last few makes beating the ai 5x easier. the ai update just made them stupid and clumsy. makes things too easy now. we need more control. not oh the game does all the work you just build ships and clicky clicky to win.
i majorly min-max personally. pure missiles and beam/mass defence. missiles will pump out 270+ damage per shot on all the Huge hulls. with rare mats you could in theory get over 300 damage per shot and kill any ai with a single ship. fleets would be a problem but 1 on 1 the ai wouldn't have a chance. beams and mass have good dps they just are much weaker than missiles at 270 damage you cant prevent them killing you with any custom ship i've been able to build. and the ai seems to only focus on shield and anti mass driver gear. chaff doesn't seem overly important to them.
building to your enemy's weakest point is your best chance. each ai seems to like a different weapons setup. if your killing one that loves shields and go all in on beams your gonna have a bad time. and your going to be dead in the first 50 turns. if your enemy uses mass drivers and you don't have any protection there going to wipe the floor with you in the first 50 turns.
expansion is a key part of any 4X game. if you don't expand you won't get anywhere. hell in gc2 the first to die were the minor races as they offered high level worlds with amazing upgrades yet only had one world each. even with under 20% chance the minor races were well worth taking out for the massive boost they offered. in GC3 its different minor races are not really worth taking. they don't have end game stuff at the start that changes the entire game for better or worse depending on who they die to/befriend/trade with
I never had to fiddle with the stuff in GC2. Adjust occasionally, for example when I wanted to quickly expand my navy or focus on something. I didn't need to constantly adjust them.
I do miss some things, like espionage, but even espionage in GC2 didn't require massive amounts of micromanagment constantly. Set funding for it, then waited to get spies and set them to spy on opponents or on counter-espionage duties.
Because its bad game design. It means the game is inheritly unfair and you need to cheese the system to win.
Default settings causing everyone to declare war on you easily.
After so many setting adjustments over many games, I cannot remember what the "default" setting was like when I first installed this game. As far as I remember, my experience has been different from yours from the very beginning on normal difficulty. But for the sake of discussion, I'll take your word for it. If so, it does not make sense that it only happens on "default" settings but not others, which means what you're describing is a bug and has nothing to do with gameplay design, micromanagement or strategy. Send a ticket to get it fixed. Note: By "default" settings, I understand it to mean settings when the game was first installed and EXCLUDES abstaining from micromanagement which is a fundamental game feature.
I shouldn't have to constantly mess with the Production Slider and Govern Wheel in order to perform well.
This is a completely different issue from the default setting bug you mentioned earlier, assuming it exists. You are questioning the very fundamental game design of micromanagement itself. You mention games like Civ and TW, both of which I played my fair share and I can tell you their intended mechanics and appeal are different from GC. If I remember, Civ would suit more casual 4x players as it only allows you to set a fixed level of settlement resource focus, similar to the resource focus buttons that replaced the planet wheel. But unlike Civ, GC still has the empire wheel. Looking at the many upset players after the planet wheel was removed, it would not be unreasonable to conclude that a large part of the GC player base, if not the vast majority, enjoy a relatively high level of micromanagement. And if most players wanted a more Civ styled management mechanic, the empire wheel itself would have been removed a long time ago but it hasn't which is telling.
TW's focus isn't on micromanagement but it's real time battles, and hence was designed to appeal to players inclined towards such a preference. You can't take mechanics from games like these and project them on to GC expecting GC to play the same way as those games. If that were so, I would not have bothered getting this game if it would just be a repetition of the same mechanics in other games.
To be honest, I have not played GC2. But the issue is still the same. Are you saying you didn't need to micromanage to win on normal difficulty in GC2 than in GC3? If that's the case, why not try easy difficulty instead if you're going to "handicap" yourself by not making use of the empire wheel, which again is a fundamental game feature btw? And let the majority of players who play on normal decide for themselves if they want to micromanage or not on that difficulty.
And I'll say it again. FInd me a strategy game that doesn't have min-max and metagaming in it?
The game is complex and the AI can only do so much in a complex game.
"Has" and "required to win" are different thing. Everygame has possibility to min-max and metagame. It's inherit in the nature of video games.
However, I should not have to resort to them to win.
Galciv 3. Like Civ V. Like Starcraft. Like every other strategy game, is a game of two entities of equal starting point facing off against eachother, leaning on their unique quirks and their management skill to win.
The very nature of the game is a minmax arms race between multiple entities to accrue the most power in the least amount of time and thus overpower the others and win. While there is multiple ways to accomplish this, it is how the game works and is designed to work.
The AI itself is coded around the idea of this being a competitive game centered around accruing as much power as possible in as little time, and will thus attempt to do so within the confines of its programming. Increasing/decreasing the AI will give it bonuses or penalties, but the core idea of it trying to win is the same. For the sake of fun, it is obviously not perfect at this, but it is designed to at least -try-
It would not make sense for the AI to actively try not to win in a competitive game.
For comparison, the reason you do not have to for, say Civ V, is because the AI in Civ V is about as smart as two rocks in a sack. Not one rock because one rock at least doesn't actively destroy itself if jostled about at all.
IT'S BACK!!!!!!
I don't need to meta-game and min-max to win at Civ V. I don't need to do it in StarCraft (actually, you even can't min-max in StarCraft...) and metagame in that is based around multiplayer, not single player. I don't need to min-max and metagame in Endless Space and I didn't need in GalCiv 2. For ♥♥♥♥♥ sake, I didn't have to do it in Masters of Orion 2, the best 4X, the one that every other space 4X is compared to.
You say that they are possible, without actually explaining how it is good desing to force players to use them. Being forced to metagame and min-max is same as cheating, and being forced to cheat to win is bad game desing.
Imagine if only way to win at Mario was to use glitches to bypass an impossible enemy. Would you accept that as OK? Would you think it OK to make a boss able to survive all daamge, suffering only 1HP damage and give boss billion hitpoints, then create obvious hole in its AI to allow players to cheese? Would you accept that only way to beat such boss would be to cheese it?
Being forced to metagame, min-max, cheese and cheat isNOT a good desing. It's bad desing, one that does not allow player to win via skill and strategu, but rather through exploitation of game mechanics.
AI should play to win, but it should play by the same rules as the player and still give fighting chance to player. AI that is impossible to beat unless cheating is badly designed AI. So, with you saying that being forced to cheat is OK, you are flat out admitting this game has horribly desinged AI.
And horribly desinged AI is bad thing.
GalCiv 2 didn't require me to metagame, min-max, cheese or cheat to win, unless I was playing above normal. The fact that GalCiv 3 demands me that even on easy difficult is a mark against it.
If the game is not designed to suit your preferred playing style, it's not the game's fault if you have difficulties with it. Some say that the game must be designed to suit all playing styles, which is as good as saying that there should be no rules because specific rules do not inherently allow for every possible playing style.
Even when I micromanage on normal difficulty, I have noticed that my race ranking is still around the same score or less than some other races, unlike in the past when I would be way ahead of them. This leads me to think that the AI perhaps has been improved to keep up with the abilities of the average "normal" player who knows all the basic mechanics well. On gifted or harder, the AI's bonuses puts it way ahead of the player even when micromanagement is used.
On the other hand, Galciv 3's AI is able to
-run a balanced economy
-trade amongst eachother
-capture and control resources
-build decently well equip worlds
-micromanage said worlds
-build armies somewhat intelligently (it may not be GOOD at it, but it's not Civ V levels of stupid)
-set up logistics and trade
-kill pirates instead of losing settlers or colony ships to them
The AI in Galciv 3 still has bugs on some of this stuff, but it's not Civ V level of self destructing while cheating.
As for starcraft? Trust me, the AI in starcraft is shackled to a positively insane degree. Do you have any idea how powerful they could have made the AI if they took all the restraints off? Frame perfect activity across the entire map at once to the point where professional eSports players would get destroyed. The reason you do not have to minmax in starcraft is because the AI is not actually designed to play like the player or compete at all, but rather, to fill a narrative in campaign, and to follow a specific set of build orders and play them out instead of reacting to the player.
Galciv 3's AI on the other hand
-Builds defenses to counter the player's attack
-Picks it's fights based on if it can win.
-Tries to attack the weaker areas.
Galciv 3's AI is, for all its many, many, MANY faults in the intellect department, is actively trying to win, and playing the same game as the player. This does not mean it is cheating or bad and I can personally walk all over it even on higher difficulties. It simply means that it is competent and demands you play the game with the same competence.
Well, after reading through the entire topic (not sure why I did it to myself), I pick this particular quote to response to. Frankly, I think you're simply not combatible with the game design. That doesn't particular say you have bad taste, but neither it implies a badly design game. It seemly is a matter of taste.
The reason I picked out this particular quote because I think you're being extremely harsh in your definition of min-maxing, you're free to believe so of course but I want to point out why I wouldn not agree.
Why would you consider design a ship to counter the Krynn min maxing? In a game that's allowed customization for ship and distint seperated path of research, isn't that the whole point? To bring the most effective force against an appointment when you're able, isn't that the natural thing to do? How is this different than:
- Playing total war: I field spearmen when I see a lof of calvalry, I bring shield troop when I am against a superior acher force.
- Playing Homeworld: I will produce toperdo frigate if I see the enemy is amassing corvette, I will build iron canon if I see they brings destroyers.
You mentioned somewhere that one can't min/max in Starcraft ... and I'm not sure how that can be true. Scouting is always like the #2 most important thing, because you always want to know what your enemy is building and build the specific counter to it. In fact during my time with it, the only people who are more min/max than starcraft players are world first raiders in MMORPG. Oh btw, the #1 most important thing is to know your first 5min build order and be quick about it, I find a small game in Gal-Civ to be quite like starcraft in that regard ... start on the wrong foot and you get stormed to the ground. Min-maxing at its finest imo.
- Also, when I build a ship template to defend my planet, why do I need to throw support and warp module on it? When I build a patrol fleet with the purpose of quickly responsding to enemy incursion, is it cheesy if I give it enough engine to go 3 times as fast? When I want to build a ship for explorer, rigging it with sensor module is reasonable yet? Will you call these as "min/maxing" as well?
Again, in a game that offer different research path (instead of a single linear one), complete freedom in ship design, and those empire management tools were given to be used, it's quite obviously where the design philosophy is. I think as you play the game and picking up more "experience", you will start to see and use these tools as a natural way to play the game. So instead of demanding something like "I should not have to do these tools to win", you should try to learn the merit behind them.
I won't offer game play advice since you already got a few, but I would make a recommendation: play on big or huge galaxy. In any game, I hate rushing at the beginning, play on a big map enough and you eleminate that. By the time of first contact, every faction should have a footing that give them a fair chance. Also a large map I find offer a lot more tactical and strategic vareity toward the end. You'll never have enough ship to cover your territorries, so things like creating outpost, having buffer zones on your flank is a must. Ship have to be customized for specific purposes, picking your enemies carefully, and sometime even playing the politcal game. It's the kind of game that I don't really play to win (as in to see the scoreboard at the end), in fact, my game tend to be so big I rarely finish them. But I play them as a space opera, and I find them extremely enjoyable.