Preamble: When E:FE v0.915 was released, I was overjoyed to see that two new levels of play had been added to the existing seven. The range of play difficulty now runs: Novice, Beginner, Easy, Normal, Challenging, Hard, Expert, Ridiculous, and Insane. I think this is about right -- 5 levels above Normal, and 3 levels below Normal. (I think Stardock made this latest change, partly to satisfy the hard-core players, who were clamoring for ever more challenging levels.) In any event, I feel pretty confident now that all of us can find some level (or levels) that we are happy with.
Questions: Which leads to the questions ... (1) What level (or levels) are you currently playing at? (2) What are your principle reasons for playing at the level(s) that you usually choose? and (3) What level(s) do you eventually expect to be playing at, in say the weeks, or months, ahead?
I am curious to learn this Info myself; but I also think the E:FE Development team might find this interesting. ( Caveats: Obviously, this is not a scientific survey; and of course, there are no wrong answers! ) So, please consider sharing this information with your fellow E:FE players, and the developers. Thanks!
Okay, I'll get more specific in the other post that Steve made. It is actually in the CoreDifficultyLevels.xml file.
More Data ! ... and some Interesting Discussions ... Thanks, Guys
The Distribution so far:
Novice 0
Beginner 0
Easy 3
Normal 7
Challenging 10
Hard 7
Expert 3
Ridiculous 1
Insane 4
Considering the first 51 replies so far: (after subtracting the two Banner Ads, and multiple replies by single individuals), we essentially have 35 responses up to this point. Many of the respondents noted that they either have played, or still play, at multiple levels. For the purpose of assembling the distribution shown above, I settled on one level for each person, typically either: the highest level they played, or the highest level they won, or the highest level that they enjoyed -- whichever seemed most appropriate. (Obviously, my assumptions are subjective; and this still is not a scientific survey.) What is remarkable though (excluding for a moment the one vote at the Ridiculous level, and the 4 outliers at the Insane level) is how we basically continue to have a very tidy "bell curve" centered on the Challenging level.
Challenging is considered to be the best AI, which doesn't resort to cheating. Under the circumstances, I think the game developers have reason to be pretty happy with the bulk of this distribution. As for the outliers, well ... Good for them !
Continuing Discussions: One of the discussions that interested me focused on the research, enchantment, and gameplay strategies that players might use during the first 50 turns or so, to optimize their initial gameplay. (See replies #33 (Kongdej); #45 (StillSingle); and #51 (Droghar).) I think we all recognize that the starting set-up, and the early turns in a 4X game, can make a huge difference in how the balance of the game plays out. IMO, Kongdej made some good recommendations in that regard; BUT he suggested that a "very rigid" and consistent pattern would always (or usually) be optimal. StillSingle and Droghar took some exception to this view.
For my part, I tend to agree these two guys. I am happy to believe (in my innocence) that there is no single pattern of choices that is always going to be optimal. Quickly casting "Inspiration" and "Enchanted Hammers" on your first settlement MAY often be a good idea. Researching the first 3 or 4 Civilization advances (and "Shard Harvesting" from the Magic column) before tackling any other research advances MAY often be a good idea. Training your first pioneer immediately MAY often be a good idea. Setting your Tax rate to zero during the first 20-50 turns MAY often be a good idea. Concentrating on buying several champions in the early turns MAY often be a good idea. AND concentrating on leveling up your Sovereign in the early turns MAY often be a good idea.
BUT, bottom line, there is no single, rigid, course of action that is always going to be optimal. People will have their favorite approaches; different factions (and custom Sovereigns) will suggest different approaches; and the level of difficulty played upon, will permit different approaches. There are still lots of meaningful choices, and viable alternative styles of play, to experience in E:FE. Comments? ... other views? ... suggestions ??
Cant wait to see it near release
Sincerely~ Kongdej
Good points here. Also predicated on having some lvl 5 champs around and available to buy up I've had a couple of games where champions have either been lvl 1,3 or 9....... nice fat gap in the lvl distribution
Come to think of it, the free champion purchase perk is awesome
It’s probably worth adding that your first couple of champions really drive your choices. Economic abilities (governor, merchant, loremaster) can in particular are important early. If you pick up a merchant on turn 1 you are set to leave tax on zero for ages. A loremaster means you can possibly afford to leave inspiration out for a while, and a governor tends to dissuade me from taking Civics straight up as I will hit food cap anyway.
On the combat side of things, you ideally want a warrior type sovereign/champion to drive your early conquest, and troops will be largely irrelevant unless you need a bit of defence at home. You may well be inclined to invest your mana into buffs to really get things moving. However, if you’re stuck with mages early, you might choose to add a couple of spearmen to help them out, and spend your mana on hammers/inspiration.
By the way, since my first poll response I've been playing on Hard. 2 games and quit in dominant positions in both.
Orion, what you describe is the ideal--that there are many choices that MAY be a good idea depending on the circumstances. I'm sad to say that I just don't agree with you. The circumstances just don't change that much.
The reality is that there are many different strategies that you CAN use to win, but I doubt there are more than a couple that can be considered optimal strategies.
There is not enough variation in strategic circumstances to give rise to a variety of optimal strategies at present. Early game is pretty much the same early game on every start. The only variety of strategies we have at our disposal are inherent in our sovereign/faction starting characteristics. It is these characteristics that determine a single optimal starting strategy for that particular trait set.
What I would love to see more of is the environment (through resources and monsters) determining what an optimal strategy should be. At the moment resources play a very small role in influencing strategy.
What could also add further to the strategic experience is making treasure influential on strategy as well. This could only work if there was more balance in the random loot acquired (maybe determine quality of loot by Sovereign/Champion level). A change like this would also urge you to alter your strategy to maximise the benefit an item gives you.
All these arguments all boil down to the same suggestion I made a while ago though--the game needs to be more "rock, paper, scissors"-like in order to give rise to complex strategy. There should be strong counters in all aspects of the game (not just combat) to provide for a strategic immersive experience.
Thanks for your Reply #57, MiamiBigAl. I think you make some good points ...
I may have overstated the point I was trying to make, by straying into the use of a concept like optimal strategy . I probably should have talked more about viable alternative strategies . I still think that the game (that I am playing) preserves a fair number of those; depending on the type of Sovereign/Faction I play, and especially if I create a custom Sovereign and faction. On the other hand, the game I am playing differs from the one that you are playing in one significant respect. I am still playing half my games on the Easy level, and the other half on Normal. From your Reply # 20 above, I can see that your recent games have been on the Hard and Expert levels. I would naturally expect that the number of viable alternative strategies would tend to diminish, as you play at increasingly difficult levels.
However, I think we can agree that the game would be improved if (as you say) there were "strong counters in all aspects of the game (not just combat) to provide for a strategic immersive experience". Those aspects should at least include the Economic model, the Technology/Research model, and the starting location/resource availability model. Certainly, there is room for improvement in those areas ...
Incidently (as you are probably aware) there is a pretty vigorous ongoing discussion on this and related topics in StevenAus's excellent Discussion thread, entitled: "Discussions on Starting Location Characteristics and City Booster Spells, i.e. Making the Start Less Rigid."
Promotion Pitch for this Discussion thread: For newcomers who haven't already provided responses to the 3 questions I posed at the beginning of this thread, I would love to get more data! Please consider sharing Info on the Difficulty levels, of E:FE, that you are playing. I'd like to update the data (see my Reply #52 above) at least one more time, before the Beta 4 is released. Thanks!
Yes, I'd agree with everything you have just said. I like playing the game competitively rather than casually so i am very interested in high level viable strategies, which usually means high level optimal strategies in order to actually win. I am sure Beta 4 is going to involve a whole lot of new content, including a brand new city resource they have already hinted at, so hopefully we'll get closer to a diverse game for all!
I usually play on Easy.
I've tried playing on Normal, but I found that I couldn't balance my production between building improvements and training troops without getting totally stomped by superior(number, stats and champion levels) enemy armies.
I play on hard. Tried two games on Challenging at .915 launch, but found myself prolonging the game unnecessarily just to explore endgame content. On hard I either steamroll or screw up and die relatively early 50% of the time and have a good challenging game 50% of the time.
I planned on going up a level, but life got in the way and I haven't played recently.
(already voted)
you guys might try mixing the difficulty lvl, say having 20 opponents= 10 normal + 6 challenging + 4 hard or somethin, as this allows for some powerhouses to develop in the realms & really changes the mood of game play for me having at least some kind of 'minor factions' (even better the more factions you use). A hard ai is hard but if you surround them with weaklings, then they really become difficult
I've been trying to beat the AI on insane with a particular custom strategy. It's difficult. I managed it on ridiculous without much difficulty. I suspect with some refinement, insane will fall into line.
Try looking at the date of the post...
~ K
Normal with dense monsters.
It would be curious to see if the difficulty distribution has changed after those months.
Challenging with Dense monsters too
Challenging. I try hard not to exploit AI stupidity to make it fair.
Challenging, huge maps (mod) with a couple dozen AIs. Unfortunately my own I is not equal to the A's and I always lose. Love the game and can't wait for the expansion!
Hard. Ready to move up after this game.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
