The Real Double God-like

[superking]

disclaimer: I personally havn't managed it yet

I'm wondering though if anyone has? and if they have, whether they would care to share how they did so?

to clarify, by the 'real' double godlike, I mean

+ 2 random difficulty 10 AI
+ 80 planets, simple complex or grid map type
+ At least one Random AI subtype that sends waves
+ Waves, CPA etc all enabled
+ Fog of War on
+ all ship types enabled
+ no other maniuplation of game settings to reduce difficulty

also, what special unit they started with?

EDIT:

to clarify, what I mean by 'Real' is

no maniuplation of lobby settings to reduce difficulty

[Giegue]

people have done it. and all you wimps do is discredit them by saying there 'weren't enough planets' or 'they had a super fortress' or something like that.

[superking]

people have done it. and all you wimps do is discredit them by saying there 'weren't enough planets' or 'they had a super fortress' or something like that.

who/where is the thread? I need advice on my own phailing attempts 

[RCIX]

Giegue is talking about the silly 10 planet "oh look i can smash an AI by bumrushing them with a zillion ships in a couple hours" attempts.

[Kjara]

Hey now, 40 minutes isn't a couple of hours .

That being said, your best bet is some sort of cheese in terms of ai type + special unit,  say starting with 2 zenith decendants and acid sprayers.

Imo doing it with 2 ai types that don't send waves is still legit, as long as you don't turn off waves as a setting, since you still have to deal with all of the extra units(and with border aggression, it might even be more difficult now).  Similarity on a 80+ planet map, any of the map types will be a challenge.

[RCIX]

Hey now, 40 minutes isn't a couple of hours .

That being said, your best bet is some sort of cheese in terms of ai type + special unit,  say starting with 2 zenith decendants and acid sprayers.

Imo doing it with 2 ai types that don't send waves is still legit, as long as you don't turn off waves as a setting, since you still have to deal with all of the extra units(and with border aggression, it might even be more difficult now).  Similarity on a 80+ planet map, any of the map types will be a challenge.

There you go, now THAT's a real double godlike!

[superking]

no other maniuplation of game settings to reduce difficulty

to clarify, I'm talking about beating the double god-like without cheesing

and there is nothing about beating two non-attacking AI types that seems like an acheivement to me.

[Kjara]

Again, the non-raiding types of ai's a) get extra reinforcements on defense to make up for the lack of raids, and b) with the new border aggression will release these units to attack you without warning.  I fail to see how this is easier to defend against than announced raids that you can funnel by killing warp gates.


One persons definition of "cheese" is another person definition of strategy.  Lets say that MLRS are a bit too powerful in the current patch(not extremely so, but still a bit better than any other special unit--note I'm not 100% sure that's true, haven't tested them enough, but they are pretty good atm, take this hypothetically).  Is taking advantage of this valid?  From your last question I would assume yes, since you explicitly leave the choice of special unit open.

For another example, say you generate random maps till you can pick a special unit that counters all(or at least most) of the ai's special units that they start with.  Again, this isn't really cheating in the sense of changing settings to be easier, but people will still be somewhat divided on if this is a valid strategy or not.  A quick example of this was in my quick game to grab double-godlike.  I kept changing ai types till I found one that didn't have any core units besides cruisers, so that my bomber horde wouldn't have any significant threats on a homeworld after a nuke.  Its extremely hard to draw the line between what's strategy at the mapgen level and what is "cheese".


My point is that coming up with arbitrary things that make it "real" is a bit silly, and what each person believes makes it invalid will differ from person to person(though with some options, such as turning off waves completely, or setting a 300% handicap for the player, most can agree on).  I listed a number of things in a previous post about this that I felt that should invalidate it, and I can agree with a map size requirement, but I don't really agree with the rest of your rather arbitrary requirements (and I'm sure you would not agree with some of mine).

[superking]

Again, the non-raiding types of ai's a) get extra reinforcements on defense to make up for the lack of raids, and b) with the new border aggression will release these units to attack you without warning.  I fail to see how this is easier to defend against than announced raids that you can funnel by killing warp gates.

if you think that border agression from porcing AI types represents a challenge on a similar scale to difficulty 10 waves you should play a (breif) game against two difficulty 10 mad bombers to remedy your understanding 

Q: why do noobs gravitate towards non-attacking AIs?
A: because they are less likely to get wiped out in the first few hours and have to start again

One persons definition of "cheese" is another person definition of strategy.  Lets say that MLRS are a bit too powerful in the current patch(not extremely so, but still a bit better than any other special unit--note I'm not 100% sure that's true, haven't tested them enough, but they are pretty good atm, take this hypothetically).  Is taking advantage of this valid?  From your last question I would assume yes, since you explicitly leave the choice of special unit open.

taking advantage of ingame inbalances is perfectly valid. maniuplating the game settings in the lobby to reduce the challenge ingame  is not.

For another example, say you generate random maps till you can pick a special unit that counters all(or at least most) of the ai's special units that they start with.  Again, this isn't really cheating in the sense of changing settings to be easier, but people will still be somewhat divided on if this is a valid strategy or not.  A quick example of this was in my quick game to grab double-godlike.  I kept changing ai types till I found one that didn't have any core units besides cruisers, so that my bomber horde wouldn't have any significant threats on a homeworld after a nuke.  Its extremely hard to draw the line between what's strategy at the mapgen level and what is "cheese".

manipulating lobby settings to produce an easy game is not strategy. Setting the AI to anything but the random types allows the player to exploit the knowlege of their opponents disposition to choose and produce counter units. What is impressive or skillful about that exactly? I'm interested in the 'Real' double god like because a successful completion would be a feat of ludicrous skill. There is no skill involved in fiddling lobby settings to give yourself ingame advantages or handicap your opponents.

My point is that coming up with arbitrary things that make it "real" is a bit silly, and what each person believes makes it invalid will differ from person to person(though with some options, such as turning off waves completely, or setting a 300% handicap for the player, most can agree on).  I listed a number of things in a previous post about this that I felt that should invalidate it, and I can agree with a map size requirement, but I don't really agree with the rest of your rather arbitrary requirements (and I'm sure you would not agree with some of mine).

I'm not arguing that that lobby settings can be maniupulated to the effect that earning the double-godlike acheivement can be rendered easy enough for relatively unskilled players. It evidently can. I am asking if anybody has ever defeated the double-godlike without having to do so, and what method they used. If you beat double godlike on a 10 planet map with waves turned off and 300% handicap thats real impressive, were all real proud of you, but that is not what is being discussed in this thread.

[Spymine]

Hi, since i am relatively New to the Game i was wondering why only Simple complex and Grid types Maps are considered - what about snake Type Maps. Are they too easy or too hard?
Pro: only One Front
Con: high AI Progress

[superking]

For the same reason new players are attracted to the Snake map type; it hugely simplifies the strategic decision making elements of the game and removes the multiple front aspect that makes CPA attacks so dangerous. There is no reason for AIP to be especially high if you are hopping 4-5 planets at a time, 3 of which you would not have to neuter. it also makes it extremely easy to remove long chains of worlds from supply.

I'm not saying it wouldnt be difficult, but I am more interested in the strategic elements than the tactical battles

[Kjara]

if you think that border agression from porcing AI types represents a challenge on a similar scale to difficulty 10 waves you should play a (breif) game against two difficulty 10 mad bombers to remedy your understanding  

Yes, there are a few ai types that get extremely heavy waves.  Do your arbitrary double godlike rules require them to be played? No, unless I missed something (or if you are interested in changing them again).  Do I feel like border aggression represents a challenge on a similar scale to say, bully or assassin level waves(or some of the easier types that have pretty weak waves)? yes, I do though clearly border aggression is recent enough I haven't tested it that extensively.  Why not argue that nothing but 2x technologists should count for double godlike, since most other ai types don't represent a challenge on a similar scale?

taking advantage of ingame inbalances is perfectly valid. maniuplating the game settings in the lobby to reduce the challenge ingame  is not.

Ok, I'll revert back to the version where riots and transports both were way way overpowered, or go back even further to when raiders were extremely overpowered, etc.  Honestly there's at least as much room for exploitation here, since as new stuff gets introduced, it at times is extremely unbalanced.

manipulating lobby settings to produce an easy game is not strategy. Setting the AI to anything but the random types allows the player to exploit the knowlege of their opponents disposition to choose and produce counter units. What is impressive or skillful about that exactly? I'm interested in the 'Real' double god like because a successful completion would be a feat of ludicrous skill. There is no skill involved in fiddling lobby settings to give yourself ingame advantages or handicap your opponents.

Ah, so we have a new "rule" where one must now also choose from random types.  Must these be any random type or only random hard types?  It seems that allowing random easy types would dilute the challenge.  


To be pedantic, to be skillful at something depends on the skill in question.  If the skill in question is how well can you fiddle lobby settings, then someone who is good at fiddling with lobby settings could display a feat of ludicrous skill.  If the skill in question is how well can you play ai war, well, I would argue that understanding how to use lobby settings to overcome a challenge is part of the game.  Clearly you don't agree, and I think we will just have to agree to disagree on that point.

Personally I have at times impressed by how good people can be at exploiting weakness in games.  For example the sequence breaking/speed runs of Super Metriod, where they exploit the knowledge (and bugs) of the game to do some pretty cool stuff.

I'm not arguing that that lobby settings can be maniupulated to the effect that earning the double-godlike acheivement can be rendered easy enough for relatively unskilled players. It evidently can. I am asking if anybody has ever defeated the double-godlike without having to do so, and what method they used. If you beat double godlike on a 10 planet map with waves turned off and 300% handicap thats real impressive, were all real proud of you, but that is not what is being discussed in this thread.

Can we at least avoid personal attacks?  To correct your mistake, handicaps have always disabled double godlike, so had I gotten it, clearly I couldn't have had a 300% handicap.  Anyhow, my point remains that I at least don't agree with some of your arbitrary decisions on what makes it real or not.  I'm glad that you (and everyone else you speak for) are proud of me though .

How about this for a true test of skill--the new "über-mega-real" double godlike:

2 diff 10 ai random technologists
Must be played in 1 sitting (pauses are ok, but no saving/loading).
No hands (feet are allowed unless people feel this makes it too easy).
Monitor must be turned off after game is launched (I think we can allow speakers unless someone has an objection).
Must be played in wine (the first challenge is getting it to run in the first place!).

[superking]

Must be played in 1 sitting (pauses are ok, but no saving/loading).
No hands (feet are allowed unless people feel this makes it too easy).
Monitor must be turned off after game is launched (I think we can allow speakers unless someone has an objection).

thats how I play normally 

I think you misunderstand the philosophy of actively seeking out challenges and worthy opponents

To begin your training, download and complete I Wanna Be The Guy: http://kayin.pyoko.org/iwbtg/

[Kjara]

Edit: And I manage to display one of my "godlike" skills, derailing a thread off topic.  This post is more philosophical than having to do directly with the double-godlike challenge.

I've played it a bit--not really a test of skill in the type of skills I find useful (aka there's at least an argument that some rts skills transfer to the real world at least in terms of problem solving and being able to view the big picture, possibly in being able to design code (the ability to reduce a large, overwhelming problem into a sometimes non-obvious series of smaller manageable problems)--I don't generally find twitch/muscle memory/timing type skills as useful for what I end up doing).  Not a huge fan of performers honestly, though I don't mind a bit of an exploration based platformer for relaxation rather than challenge (say something like knytt stories or within a deep forest).

If I truly want the highest level of challenge (and worthy opponents), I generally prefer human opponents--At least in the past 4 or so years I've mostly been hitting the MOBA genre for this(Dota/LoL/HoN).  I mean the ai is pretty good here, its still far far more predictable than anything you can get from humans (intentionally in some cases).  Not to say that it doesn't require skill (or whatever one wants to call it), but even with this ai, there are a number of set "strategies" that one employs for a good chunk of the game, and adaptation, while still somewhat important, is less so than in a well designed pvp game (where the "meta-game" often changes at a pretty frequent rate).  I still enjoy the game though, since at least personally I'm not always 100% focused on challenge, but still want a reasonable challenge, and that's where AI's shine, since they are so customizable.  Its pretty much the same reason I never quite got to being able to beat deity AI's in Civ IV.  When I wanted that level of challenge, I usually found it in other games, and when I wanted a bit less challenge, then Emp or Imm was enough to be challenging without requiring far far too much micro/exploiting of the ai to be fun.

[soMe_RandoM]

+ no other maniuplation of game settings to reduce difficulty

would selecting the Ai modifyer? schynoyzer then 1/2 waves, make it harder