Инсталирайте Steam
вход
|
език
Опростен китайски (简体中文)
Традиционен китайски (繁體中文)
Японски (日本語)
Корейски (한국어)
Тайландски (ไทย)
Чешки (Čeština)
Датски (Dansk)
Немски (Deutsch)
Английски (English)
Испански — Испания (Español — España)
Испански — Латинска Америка (Español — Latinoamérica)
Гръцки (Ελληνικά)
Френски (Français)
Италиански (Italiano)
Индонезийски (Bahasa Indonesia)
Унгарски (Magyar)
Холандски (Nederlands)
Норвежки (Norsk)
Полски (Polski)
Португалски (Português)
Бразилски португалски (Português — Brasil)
Румънски (Română)
Руски (Русский)
Финландски (Suomi)
Шведски (Svenska)
Турски (Türkçe)
Виетнамски (Tiếng Việt)
Украински (Українська)
Докладване на проблем с превода
Правила и насоки за дискусии
55 
Докладване на публикацията
I think about it the same you that you for the most part. But there is one scenario you left out.
3. Using AI managers results in different play compared to the player managing things directly, at which point it can be good or bad depending on the intended experience and the mechanics involved.
If the question changes from a quantitative one such as "who's better at min/maxing production outputs - the player or the AI?" to a qualitative question like "how do I best allocate my time/influence across an entire empire" to situation changes.
I'm looking at this concept from a thematic "scaling up" perspective (which Stellaris doesn't quite do). In the early game, the "management units" are the single planets and colonies you've established - and hence you make all the direct decisions regarding their growth and development. At some-midway point, you transition control to sector governors which become the management unit, allowing you to spend your time/focus on the bigger geopolitical context, militarization, diplomacy, etc.
The missing piece is the notion of "time." In 4X games, the player is some sort of omni-present entity that can pause time and reorganize their efforts or drill down into the details for everything. But what if, for example, you as an emperor only had a certain amount of actions you could preform in a given moment of time. Would you spend those obsessing over production queues and building parks and police stations on your planets? No - you'd spend that precious time on bigger picture issues. There might still be times where you do need or want to intervene, and the system could still accommodate that.
I'm working on a 4X design that tries to get at this notion. You have a certain capacity to do things, which you budget across a number of different categories (exploration, planet control/development, research, fleets, etc.). At some point, it is desirable and beneficial across the board to relegate control of planets/systems/sectors to governors because it will only consume a little of your empire capacity to then leverage the full capacity of governors in managing all those assets. In other words, it creates a more fluid/dynamic resource for control/influence that you have to manage as part of your growth strategy.
To give an example of the system, I could invest admin capacity in supporting research projects and associated science labs. But if I only have say 10 total admin capacity to work with across my empire, I'd be much better off long-term finding a suitable cluster of colonies/worlds to develop and delegate control of lab development and research to a scientific-minded governor. Maybe they have 5 or 6 capacity on their own, but they could easily dump all of that in supporting a massive research program. This would include building up labs on planets.
The key to this idea is to make the details and number crunching pretty minimal and simple so that the AI can easily do just a good of a job as the player. Ideally, you wouldn't even see it as a separate "AI" so much as an extension of your own sphere of control. It's a different way of interfacing with a group colonies that introduces a new layer of complexity, but doesn't leave you with the angst of seeing sub-optimal decisions either.
Yeah, that sounds interesting. But it also sounds very ambitious, and I think you would need a lot of trial and error to find the implementation of it that played well, assuming it exists. My fear is that the restriction on the amount of management you can do in one turn would end up feeling arbitrary and "gamey" to players, contrary to what I'm assuming is your goal of making things more immersive. Of course, the proof would be in the pudding.
There's a 4X game that I eventually want to build that is similar to your idea, but I think it handles the concept of time in a more interesting and organic way. The basic premise is that information is not instantaneous and you can move your flag throughout the map. The closer you are to a location, the tighter the feedback loop. In other words, if you send a war fleet against an enemy a significant distance away, you don't actually hear of the result until long after the conflict is resolved. Likewise, when you first hear of an enemy incursion they migh have already taken over several systems unbeknownst to yourself. Where you move your flag determines the sphere of influence where your directives have the most effect. You can micromanage fleets and worlds when you are more or less in the same location, and the further out you go, the more general your commands need to be as the requisite tight feedback loop doesn't exist for micromanagement.
I think cooperative multiplayer would be especially fun for this theoretical game, where different players can be at different parts of the same empire, assuming players can be trusted not to share information in real time outside of the game.
One of the differences between games from the 90s and now is that older games played with immersion and illusion more. For example, in Jagged Alliance 2, most of the game's menus are accessed via an in-game laptop, with its own desktop and icons. When you hired characters, you actually held a little job interview with them. None of that adds to gameplay I know, but it really adds to atmosphere. I think the old Civ 2 Advisors had a similar effect, but instead of improving on them they were abandoned (probably for some good reason). Modern games play better in general though.
I imagine adding character to a 4X would take lots of work, especially now that people expect voice acting and a certain degree of randomization. Dynamic dialog in diplomacy would be cool though lol.
Interestingly(?), the original design of MOO3 had something like this. They called it "imperial focus". See eg.:
http://www.quartertothree.com/features/interviews/emrich/emrich_2.shtml
Like many things in MOO3, however, it was scrapped during development.
To simply model something like this, I guess you could always give the player a time limit for their turns, or not allow pausing in games like Stellaris :)
I know that some people like the idea of constraining a player's actions each turn, but let's not forget that there are two reasons for this approach:
1) Reduce end-game micromanagement
2) Make it more difficult to over-maneuver the AI
I posit that neither of these reasons will apply to ROTP. For starters, the game design is modeled after MOO1 so end-game micro is much more easily managed. It is not much more difficult to manage 100 systems as it is to manage 10, nor is a ship battle with 5000 ships any more time-consuming than one with 50. Secondly, there will be a sustained effort to improve the AI so that player micro will not create such an advantage.
Honestly, I do not think many people are aware of, much less appreciate, the dramatic reduction in micro provided by MOO1 compared to almost every other 4x on the market.
I have a co-worker friend who is a CK2 fanatic and is now immersed in Stellaris. Last time I checked, he is already on his 7th or 8th Stellaris game. He tells me how great the game is, but he's never actually finished one :/
I think the approach I'm looking for is to design the game and its complexity as if it were a boardgame first and foremost. There is a certain need to buy into the level of abstraction in a given boardgame, but once you do the decision space can be crafted a number of interesting ways that video games tend to avoid. It might be a fatal flaw in the approach. But I know first hand (having designed a published a 4X boardgame and played many others) that abstraction can be used as tool for focusing attention around the interesting decisions in a game and stripping the dull parts away.
The other example I've been drawing from for this idea is King of Dragon Pass. Basically, each turn in KoDP is 5 seasons. And each season you can perform two major actions. KoDP has a budget of sorts (using magic points) that you distribute across different fields that boost your action choices. The system I'm looking at is similar, but with the amount you invest in a given category determining, essentially, how many actions and/or initiatives you can support in that arena.
https://remnantsoftheprecursors.com/2016/05/21/meklar-council-image/
I have Windows 10, 64 bit, and 8gb RAM if that helps.
Look at the instructions for manually starting the game in this post: https://remnantsoftheprecursors.com/2016/06/01/play-the-rotp-alpha/
For example, to allocate 1G of memory, run the following command in the same directory as the RotP.jar. My advice is to place it in a .BAT file so you can easily run it:
For 1G memory:
java -Xmx1g -jar RotP.jar
For 2G, this one:
java -Xmx2g -jar RotP.jar
How much memory you allocate to the game affects how large the maps can be for the games.
It looks like this is a common enough problem that I am going to have to make a separate launcher for the game to ensure enough memory is allocated at startup. Blah.
https://remnantsoftheprecursors.com/2016/06/03/alpha-patch-2-02-is-ready/
You don't need to make a launcher for the alpha testing. Your suggestion to use a batch script is a good one. Tomorrow I can create a batch script that people can use to launch the game if that would help.
Besides, it will be fun to make a launcher. That's why I'm a programmer.
Any thoughts about wrapping JRE into your install? I'm not a huge fan of installing JRE onto my system.