Difficulty levels

[surferx]

My response to those that say 'cash is too easy to come by and quickly spoils the game' is that, as it's a single player game, you can decide how quickly you want to make cash or ramp up your assets. Many threads here will tell you how you can make your first million or billion really quickly, but you really don't have to do it in their timescales.

I play a fairly slow progression game with relatively modest income and assets in which every long-awaited in-game achievement or victory is hard-earned but is very satisfying. It isn't all just mindless cash/rep grinding, but it certainly isn't a mad sprint with a hectic timetable either. Sure, perhaps I risk some other faction ending up ruling the galaxy by not also being a powerful intervening faction by mid game, but that's life (X4 style).

I'm glad there are many ways to advance and earn credits, so I can affect the difficulty level. For instance I just pretend there is no such thing as crystal mining. Slow progression makes me feel I'm getting more from my game. The winning is in enjoying the experience and being entertained for as long as possible, not just achieving A-B-C.....to end the game as soon as possible. I have 2000 hrs playing X4 and still enjoy it. That's my definition of winning.

[LandogarX4]

Here's another idea for a change that would, ideally, only impact the player faction and thereby avoid instability issues: Decrease resource amounts in all sectors to such a level that only the faction that owns it can reliably satisfy their resource needs from it. This way, the player would feel more need to spread out his factories and actually have to expand and explore the universe in the quest for more building materials. So if you want to dominate the universe, you have to hold a good chunk of it to actually maintain the war machine. This also would make things more difficult by spreading your forces more thinly.

A good example would be the resources in Family Nhuut. Enough to sustain ZYA, but not a sizable player complex on top.

Clearly, such a change would not be to the liking of many players who suffer from severe loss aversion. Hence, why it should be optional as part of a higher difficulty.

I'ts hard to tell right now what is a bug and what a feature with mining in the current 4.0 beta. But it seems that something similar to the above has been implemented. Resource amounts and the spread of resource fields on the map appear to have been reduced in several sectors. For example, the resources in Nopileus Fortune II have been nerfed.

Unfortunately, for those players who tuned their stations to the previous resource levels, they may need to completely revamp their stations, i.e. decrease their size or downright relocate them. For me, the change basically destroyed the save game, since my carefully built production scheme no longer works, so that I might as well start a new game. That brings me back to the topic of this thread. Wouldn't it have been safer to restrict the resource changes to a separate difficulty level, or at least to new game starts?

I do think it's a good change, but there may be some backlash from players that could have been avoided. In addition, I'm wary of other desirable changes that are not implemented because the reaction by certain parts of the player base would be even more negative. Only difficulty levels can allow for bold, exciting changes to game balance (IMO).

[dtpsprt]

Unfortunately, as I've explained before, this assumption is fundamentally flawed. Parameters that might seem "small" at first glance, such as production efficiency or Xenon strength can have a huge effect on the balancing of the game, leading to massive side effects, often in unexpected areas. Either one of these two examples could, for example, lead to a complete collapse of the in-game economy, or to one faction either completely overrunning the galaxy or vanishing from the game entirely within a few hours. This isn't just conjecture; we run regular tests in-house, and we've seen it happening. Far from requiring "very little development time", the amount of work involved to create a playable game with multiple combinations of such parameters, not to mention all the additional testing that would be required, would be very significant indeed.

I totally agree... On the other hand Egosoft has a "weapon" in it's arsenal that keeps "hidden". And that is the "Custom" gamestart. I think that fast development of this option (especially given the fact that after 2 years in circulation there are 10 times more "veterans" than rookies) would give the necessary "spice" in the game and increase the popularity and game time...

[jlehtone]

That brings me back to the topic of this thread. Wouldn't it have been safer to restrict the resource changes to a separate difficulty level, or at least to new game starts?

Then you would get:
Player: I have a problem
Dev: Show the save
...
Dev: In which version of the game did you start? We have adjusted (resources) in each release.
Player: I can't remember
OR
Dev: Old start. Release Y did fix that issue (for new starts)
Player:

[MSterling]

Thing is that the problems could theoretically be solved by "sideways thought". E.g. one reason why the HOP roflstomp is two things
1) The demeter is technically the best trader ship in the game, AND one of the cheapest. This makes it fast enough to get through with the goods no loss, cheap enough to replace QUICKLY if it does fail, and cheap enough not to require a lot of successful resupply to rebuild a lost fleet.
2) Paranid ships are premier all-round combat ships. Meanwhile Argon are not. Their main strike force Nova is the worst small superiority fighter, the Elite is cheap but woefully inadequate in combat.
So the demeter could be made more expensive and slower, the OOS combat take much more of a feature of manoeverability so that the Nova is on equal or superior footing OOS because the Perseus can't land enough blows.
Same for making the game harder without nerfing noobs
1) Xenon are less aggressive, they build up massive forces but invade with less Zerg rush numbers so that clearing them out either has to be rushed or it becomes hard to do, but you don't have to bother with them early game.
2) NPC races cooperate against existential threats like the Xenon. And you can become just such a threat.
Problems abound however.
WOULD the work?
What nerf/improvement/change would be optimal, and how would the difficulty change as those options are changed?
Are others needed? Definitely, I've ignored most of the map. How do the changes interact in their compexity?

Their advantage is in that they show how you don't have to take a direct route to "difficulty", but the direct route is at least easily comprehended, even if it doesn't work, so it is "little work" if it DOES work, and wasted if it doesn't. Thinking outside the box needs to be tested before you can see anything clearly, and that testing ain't easy.

[MSterling]

I have never made a "real" game and I am not claiming that I know how to.
If I made a space game like X4 where small changes to some mechanic of the universe very often resulted in an unstable system,

The stock market is made up of rules run by computers, with the OK given by humans. It is inherently unstable. When the changes took days or months to react to, the system was stable, if exploitable (See The Count of Monte Cristo). This game is inherently unstable because it has many interacting parts. Any simulation will have problems with complexity, even if it is a simple three-body problem with point objects of mass interacting gravitationally. And if the game is slowed down, it becomes "A Grind" or "Boring".
A space-centered time-centered simulation of a physical fluid dynamic system is inherently unstable. To fix it, somewhat, the lives of thousands of mathematical geniuses had to work on just the maths theory alone.
Good simulations are hard. In all sorts of ways.

[capitalduty]

The new difficulty levels would require very little development time...

Unfortunately, as I've explained before, this assumption is fundamentally flawed. Parameters that might seem "small" at first glance, such as production efficiency or Xenon strength can have a huge effect on the balancing of the game, leading to massive side effects, often in unexpected areas. Either one of these two examples could, for example, lead to a complete collapse of the in-game economy, or to one faction either completely overrunning the galaxy or vanishing from the game entirely within a few hours. This isn't just conjecture; we run regular tests in-house, and we've seen it happening. Far from requiring "very little development time", the amount of work involved to create a playable game with multiple combinations of such parameters, not to mention all the additional testing that would be required, would be very significant indeed.

Maybe it could be a lot less complex if you make it a late game option (balance wont matter that much)...basically a increased difficulty in a player dominated enviroment will not change balance more than the player already did in many game hours, also you can warn the player of their action having lots of concequences.

For example this could be a side-mission of PHQ where end result its a massive increase in military capacity of certain faction (normally via more military jobs) so the player could fight it or help allys to fight it, the marked faction should have production elements as shipyards and wharf adjusted to oil the war machinary and finally resourses should come in hand of new conquest of many territories. This will make massive fleets battles in late game...fun and good for the economy!!

[Manawydn]

Nice Necro!

Anyways, the only "difficulty slider" I would like to see is jobs adjustments, since that can determine how powerful/aggro/expansive a faction is. It would be nice to have one baked in to vanilla, but until then I will use the usual mods - Faction Enhancers, FOCW, Deadair's tweaks etc.

[rubahax4]

I think an interesting complication will cause the limitation of resources in the universe, and a difficult set of reputation.
Plus access to headquarters much later.
(playing without headquarters)

[Falcrack]

Some difficulty levels which would be simple to implement would be lowering the price NPC traders are willing to pay for inventory items. Also lower mission payouts. These things would only affect the player, and not affect NPC or the wider NPC economy.

Other difficulty levels could affect the strength of encounters sent against the player, decrease reputation gains for the player, increase reputation losses for the player, and increase the likelihood that hostile forces will target player assets specifically.

[jlehtone]

These things would only affect the player, and not affect NPC or the wider NPC economy.

This is the key requirement.

[LandogarX4]

Some nice ideas on how to increase late-game difficulty in this thread. I will summarize them so far.

1) Add end-game mission that allow the player to increase/decrease Xenon strength (for example via Dal Busta). This way the resulting instability is player-made and comes at a time in the game where the player can ensure that the simulation remain stable. You could make a nice challenging quest around it: You have to board a Xenon I to be able to change the Xenon Branch's programming in a way that the player finds beneficial. Here, the boarding would be similar to the 'Star Trek' episodes where the crew boarded Borg ships. The boarding crew do not take control of the Xenon I, but instead just work inside and then activate the self-destruct before abandoning ship. Now that would be a fun and challenging end-game mission and create more fun down the line. Xenon aggression, production rates, strategies (i.e. whom they attack through which sectors), ship strength, etc. could be modified this way.

2) Add missions that increase\lower the strength of particular factions. Rumour has it that terraforming rewards are along those lines.

Both 1) and 2) can be implemented without difficulty levels that are chosen at game start. But others may need to be locked behind difficulty levels. Such as:

3) Increase difficulty of (campaign) missions, e.g. by increasing amount and size of spawned in enemies. Downside is that this may require a lot of testing to ensure that missions still work, so not sure if this can be implemented.

4) Realistic diplomacy, where the player cannot have high rep with two factions while selling military equipment to both of them. For example, selling weapon components to faction A would increase the rep with them, but decrease rep with faction B who are enemies of faction A. Ideally one would make a distinction between military and civilian goods. Selling water to a faction's enemy should not have the same consequences as selling them destroyers. Such a system would make it really interesting to balance short-term profits and medium/long-term diplomatic consequences.

5) Nerf the profitability of overpowered mining and crystal farming. Again, it seems that something along these lines was already done with the latest beta. More aggressive changes may be better placed behind higher difficulty levels.

6) Nerf defense stations. Right now, just a few million credits can buy you a defense station that completely shuts down a gate, no matter how many capitals are sent through. As such, defense stations are wat too cost-effective and make the universe stale very quickly. One approach could be to decrease the amount of turrets per defense module, or create workforce requirements to keep them operational.

7) Nerf profitability of shipyards. Might be part of the current beta.

8 ) Decrease resource amounts in sectors controlled by non-player factions to a level that they only sustain the faction's economy plus a little bit left for the player. This way, the player would feel more need to spread out his factories and actually have to expand and explore the universe in the quest for more building materials. So if you want to dominate the universe, you have to hold a good chunk of it to actually maintain the war machine. This also would make things more difficult by spreading your forces more thinly. A good example would be the resources in Family Nhuut. Enough to sustain ZYA, but not a sizable player complex on top. While resource amounts have been nerfed in the current beta, more aggressive changes may be better placed behind higher difficulty levels.

9) Similarly to the above, tax the player for mining operations in sectors controlled by non-player factions. This would also serve as an incentive to the player to explore and expand (and push out factions out of their preferred sector instead of coexisting).

10) Increase aggressiveness of factions towards player, where they send raiding parties against your assets.

[capitalduty]

I am in favor of any challenge that does not involve time / resources grind or unnecessary game rules being changed between player and faction economy (player and AI factions should have a similar set of rules for immersion purposes ) ... IMO real challenge comes from a better ai faction, more interesting and reactive factions that are really trying to "win" the game, that is complete domination, by military or economic means!

[Bozz11]

there is no real winning in x4 except for xenon if they wipe out the whole galaxy...
But yeah better faction AI where they would have enough firepower and skill to go after the player asssets send whole fleets to destroy your sector/stations would be nice, right now they can barely defend their territory because they have very limited military assets so they really never gonna be able to go after a player systeme...

[rubahax4]

For me, a decrease in rewards for missions and inventory items kills the interest in doing this business.
In the latest versions, on the contrary, prices have been added, and this encourages playing in the first person.

[Roeleveld]

I am in favor of any challenge that does not involve time / resources grind or unnecessary game rules being changed between player and faction economy (player and AI factions should have a similar set of rules for immersion purposes ) ... IMO real challenge comes from a better ai faction, more interesting and reactive factions that are really trying to "win" the game, that is complete domination, by military or economic means!

I think a player isn't really a "faction", until he/she actually owns a sector.
Till then, it's a private citizen/company that should be paying taxes.

And to avoid players from simply building admin-stations to claim neutral sectors right at the start: A negative standing with a faction can attract military attention from those factions into your sectors.

[EmperorDragon]

Another user previously mentioned taking a single destroyer into an enemy sector and destroying their stations without the enemy faction responding to it - and that's the real problem. As long as strategic AI is as lacking as it is now, challenge will be lacking also.

Egosoft now tried quick and dirty methods to improve challenge by increasing production time and decreasing resource output. All this will achieve is make people wait longer and impact performance since you'll need more ships and stations for the same industrial capacity.

So you may wait longer for that destroyer to build and require more ships and stations to supply the materials for building it but, once it is built, you can just go into an enemy sector and blow up stations again with little to no response from the AI.

Tedium doesn't equal challenge when we will just end up wiping the floor with unresponsive AI factions anyway. Fix the strategic AI. Without it, the game will always end up without real challenge.

[jlehtone]

So you may wait longer for that destroyer to build and require more ships and stations to supply the materials for building it but,

All my destroyers are result of boarding. The SCA will presumably spawn as fast as before, so I predict no need to wait at all.

[Sledo]

...

I completely agree. But for some reason, developers prefer to think for us.

The new difficulty levels would require very little development time...

Unfortunately, as I've explained before, this assumption is fundamentally flawed. Parameters that might seem "small" at first glance, such as production efficiency or Xenon strength can have a huge effect on the balancing of the game, leading to massive side effects, often in unexpected areas. Either one of these two examples could, for example, lead to a complete collapse of the in-game economy, or to one faction either completely overrunning the galaxy or vanishing from the game entirely within a few hours. This isn't just conjecture; we run regular tests in-house, and we've seen it happening. Far from requiring "very little development time", the amount of work involved to create a playable game with multiple combinations of such parameters, not to mention all the additional testing that would be required, would be very significant indeed.

I ask you very much - no need to think for the players what we will like and what not. Make a beta version where you think the balance will be completely upset, but which will fully meet the needs of the players - let them play at your own peril and risk. And I'm sure this beta version will become more popular than the official one.