Author Topic: AI War state of the game  (Read 45258 times)

Offline Burnstreet

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 129
Re: AI War state of the game
« Reply #180 on: November 11, 2012, 10:36:18 am »
After reading the complete thread, do I understand correctly that this is a discussion about the AI being to weak to react to a blob tactically because some players have a strategy that effectively denies the AI the resources to build up enough strength to be dangerous?

I propose to add a pro mode:
- no AIP reducers
- no additional starting structures (so smaller starting eco)
- no harvester upgrades
- 50k instead of 150k energy for free per planet

And ultra-pro mode:
- all of the above
- every 5 hours an exo wave containing an avenger hits



Offline Wingflier

  • Core Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,753
  • To add me on Steam, click the little Steam icon ^
Re: AI War state of the game
« Reply #181 on: November 11, 2012, 10:40:01 am »
After reading the complete thread, do I understand correctly that this is a discussion about the AI being to weak to react to a blob tactically because some players have a strategy that effectively denies the AI the resources to build up enough strength to be dangerous?

I propose to add a pro mode:
- no AIP reducers
- no additional starting structures (so smaller starting eco)
- no harvester upgrades
- 50k instead of 150k energy for free per planet

And ultra-pro mode:
- all of the above
- every 5 hours an exo wave containing an avenger hits
I like that idea.  I would change 50k to 100k, and maybe keep the starting structures.  Even just removing the AIP reducers and harvester upgrades would make it hilariously harder.

"Inner peace is the void of expectation. It is the absence of our shared desperation to feel a certain way."

Offline KDR_11k

  • Hero Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 904
Re: AI War state of the game
« Reply #182 on: November 11, 2012, 11:11:41 am »
Only remove the benefit of the starting structures, leave them as AIP bait.

Offline Draco18s

  • Resident Velociraptor
  • Core Member Mark V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,251
Re: AI War state of the game
« Reply #183 on: November 11, 2012, 11:19:24 am »
So I skimmed this thread, and the posts made in the last four days (I didn't have a tab open at home, only at work, and so being out sick two days I got a little behind ;) )

And I'm just going to drop this here:

http://www.arcengames.com/mantisbt/view.php?id=9301

And a few short reactions:
Smaller economy (i.e. remove harvester upgrades): +1.  While I may have rallied for them before they existed, I think the game changed for the worse because of them.

Energy changes: ambivalent.  I am unsure as to the result this change has had.  I think the amount of free energy could go down, but the level of energy needed seems to be dependent on playstyle (that is, requirements are near-constant, number of planets to produce energy isn't: people who tend to have bigger empires see an overflow of energy, people who go ultra-low AIP see a deficit*).

Superguardians: No.

Hull armor rebalance: Yes.

*I don't see this as a problem; e.g. by playing an ultra-low AIP game you should be giving up something in exchange.  But I think the number of planets Keith is envisioning as the "intended" number is about 3 too low (not that taking the envisioned number on power matches the envisioned number on other fronts--e.g. knowledge, core shields, AIP, etc. match, but that's a different discussion).

Offline Pluto

  • Newbie Mark III
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: AI War state of the game
« Reply #184 on: November 11, 2012, 11:36:28 am »
After reading the complete thread, do I understand correctly that this is a discussion about the AI being to weak to react to a blob tactically because some players have a strategy that effectively denies the AI the resources to build up enough strength to be dangerous?

I propose to add a pro mode:
- no AIP reducers
- no additional starting structures (so smaller starting eco)
- no harvester upgrades
- 50k instead of 150k energy for free per planet

And ultra-pro mode:
- all of the above
- every 5 hours an exo wave containing an avenger hits

I'd go for this over any of the other options.

Mainly, as I don't particularly like the idea of these types of suggestions as a general approach...  in my game, blobbing is a sure-fire way to die.  It's not possible for me to build up a fleet to actually be stronger than them, and after the last set of waves I lost nearly all of my starship fleet (in other words, I won't be rebuilding very easily).

I'm finding the game interesting - I'm searching for specific counters and am often required to pause and direct different units to attack based on their counters.  This is 8/8 spire hammer/heroic, 8 hybrids.  I'm starting to get stuck in a loop - the only way to survive is with missiles.  The only thing more deadlier than what I'm facing is more AIP increase.

Offline LaughingThesaurus

  • Master Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,723
Re: AI War state of the game
« Reply #185 on: November 11, 2012, 11:59:33 am »
Personally, regarding blobbing and stuff as a general tactic, the way that I play is fairly slow, methodical, and specialized based on the circumstances, you could tell me that it's a fundamental problem that it doesn't have to be played that way. You could tell me that blobbing is all you need to do. What you will not convince me of is the idea that a game needs to be torn apart from the inside out and completely restructured as a result of it. Why? Because I want to have fun with the game. If that means setting up restrictions for myself, then I will do it. I've used Mark III harvesters, and they're stupidly powerful, so I plan to avoid those upgrades in later games. After playing a game where my fleet proved to be enough, I added starships and used those as my own special forces unit because it would be more fun that way. You aren't in a pro gaming E-sports environment, and you don't need to treat everything you play as such. I know this argument is flimsy, but I believe that all of these tools are there to contribute to fun and interesting games, if you're willing to let those happen. It's like, if you played Technic on minecraft. You can generate infinite diamonds and dark matter just by building something cheap and leaving the game on overnight. But, you won't, because that isn't actually fun to do. Yeah, the game will need adjustment, that much is obvious, but it doesn't need extreme measures to harshly punish players in that sense.

The moment that you start taking measures like that, that's the moment that you immediately lock down all but the most optimal ways to play. I'll use Diablo 3 as an example. For the longest time, Inferno mode was more or less impossible. You not only needed perfect rolls on all of your gear, there were often only one or two skill builds that could even survive. Why? Because the game punished you so harshly for doing anything else. Why else do you think this mode was nerfed into the ground? Blizzard realized that games are supposed to be played, they aren't supposed to be insurmountable walls. All of the other skills that were awful were buffed, because using a variety of tactics is actually fun, yet you were never explicitly forced to do it. You were able to forge your own playstyle, around then... and that's kinda the reason why I don't think the game is as terrible anymore.

Furthermore, call the video game police on Elder Scrolls. Every game in that series can be broken balance-wise by mashing left mouse.

I dunno, the game needs adjustments, it has flaws, but some of the issues you have can be attributed to "I stubbornly use things that aren't fun and declare that the game isn't fun." That's like walking into a wall, telling us that it hurts, and continuing to do it for absolutely no reason until an architect comes in and rebuilds that part of the building to remove it. We'll see how avoiding the harvesters goes, and maybe consider sinking the 999,999 resources into merc ships as well. Keep that money spent. Challenge yourself to do stuff like that.

Offline Wingflier

  • Core Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,753
  • To add me on Steam, click the little Steam icon ^
Re: AI War state of the game
« Reply #186 on: November 11, 2012, 12:11:56 pm »
Quote
. What you will not convince me of is the idea that a game needs to be torn apart from the inside out and completely restructured as a result of it. Why? Because I want to have fun with the game. If that means setting up restrictions for myself, then I will do it.
Just seems a little silly.  If you have to place artificial restraints on yourself in order to make the game fun, it reeks of bad design.
"Inner peace is the void of expectation. It is the absence of our shared desperation to feel a certain way."

Offline Wingflier

  • Core Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,753
  • To add me on Steam, click the little Steam icon ^
Re: AI War state of the game
« Reply #187 on: November 11, 2012, 12:15:51 pm »
Quote
I'm finding the game interesting - I'm searching for specific counters and am often required to pause and direct different units to attack based on their counters.  This is 8/8 spire hammer/heroic, 8 hybrids.  I'm starting to get stuck in a loop - the only way to survive is with missiles.  The only thing more deadlier than what I'm facing is more AIP increase.
I'd like to experience this firsthand.  Can you give me your map seed please?  Thanks.

Also, are you using regular hybrids or advanced hybrids?
« Last Edit: November 11, 2012, 12:21:54 pm by Wingflier »
"Inner peace is the void of expectation. It is the absence of our shared desperation to feel a certain way."

Offline Lancefighter

  • Core Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,440
Re: AI War state of the game
« Reply #188 on: November 11, 2012, 12:17:31 pm »
Thats odd. I think people have been playing games like x3, mount and blade, etc, for a while by adding restrictions to themselves.

For instance - Ironman runs. In x3, I've seen people limit themselves to personally flying only m3 ships or smaller. Its not unheard of to play games in which you never buy ships, even. In mount and blade, doing things like only recruiting from a single faction.. I saw an AAR once where the guy refused to recruit from any land he did not own! That made for a very interesting start.

My point is the precedent for this is actually there. Would you say that mount and blade or x3 have bad game design? I know I certainly wouldnt.
Ideas? Suggestions? Concerns? Bugs to be squashed? Report them on the Mantis Bugtracker!

Author of the Dyson Project and the Spire Gambit

Offline keith.lamothe

  • Arcen Games Staff
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,505
Re: AI War state of the game
« Reply #189 on: November 11, 2012, 12:20:34 pm »
Just seems a little silly.  If you have to place artificial restraints on yourself in order to make the game fun, it reeks of bad design.
Or simply a couple numbers out of place.

I'd like to nerf harvesters again, but from what I'm seeing it would just trade back this problem for the older one it was intended to address.  Some people would be happier, some people less pleased.  Not really a net gain.

That points to a more fundamental issue, as is brought up from time to time: revisiting the economy design in general.  But how much better we can do than what's already there, I don't know.
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games? Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline Wingflier

  • Core Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,753
  • To add me on Steam, click the little Steam icon ^
Re: AI War state of the game
« Reply #190 on: November 11, 2012, 12:24:21 pm »
Thats odd. I think people have been playing games like x3, mount and blade, etc, for a while by adding restrictions to themselves.

For instance - Ironman runs. In x3, I've seen people limit themselves to personally flying only m3 ships or smaller. Its not unheard of to play games in which you never buy ships, even. In mount and blade, doing things like only recruiting from a single faction.. I saw an AAR once where the guy refused to recruit from any land he did not own! That made for a very interesting start.

My point is the precedent for this is actually there. Would you say that mount and blade or x3 have bad game design? I know I certainly wouldnt.
My personal stance is that a game which requires the player to put artificial restrictions on themselves is bad design.

I guess I subscribe to Sirlin's "Playing to Win" philosophy though.  Winning is the pinnacle of the experience for me, and so I'm going to do whatever it takes to do that.  To do anything less than try my best would feel horrible to me, it would ruin the entire experience.
"Inner peace is the void of expectation. It is the absence of our shared desperation to feel a certain way."

Offline Lancefighter

  • Core Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,440
Re: AI War state of the game
« Reply #191 on: November 11, 2012, 12:26:51 pm »
I would say then, by that logic - You have beaten the game. Congratulations.

I would recommend you find a different game with which to hold your interest. Might I recommend the starcraft ladder?
Ideas? Suggestions? Concerns? Bugs to be squashed? Report them on the Mantis Bugtracker!

Author of the Dyson Project and the Spire Gambit

Offline Wingflier

  • Core Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,753
  • To add me on Steam, click the little Steam icon ^
Re: AI War state of the game
« Reply #192 on: November 11, 2012, 12:29:27 pm »
I would say then, by that logic - You have beaten the game. Congratulations.

I would recommend you find a different game with which to hold your interest. Might I recommend the starcraft ladder?
That seems pretty all-or-nothing. 

There are plenty of games outside of Starcraft which I can lose even when I try my best.

I like AI War, I think the concept and many aspects of the design are fantastic.  I just think it could be better than it is.  The game could easily become something that would be much deeper and more challenging for everybody, even with just a few minor changes.
"Inner peace is the void of expectation. It is the absence of our shared desperation to feel a certain way."

Offline KDR_11k

  • Hero Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 904
Re: AI War state of the game
« Reply #193 on: November 11, 2012, 12:37:58 pm »
I'd like to nerf harvesters again, but from what I'm seeing it would just trade back this problem for the older one it was intended to address.  Some people would be happier, some people less pleased.  Not really a net gain.

What was it intended to address?

Offline Pluto

  • Newbie Mark III
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: AI War state of the game
« Reply #194 on: November 11, 2012, 12:39:05 pm »
Quote
I'm finding the game interesting - I'm searching for specific counters and am often required to pause and direct different units to attack based on their counters.  This is 8/8 spire hammer/heroic, 8 hybrids.  I'm starting to get stuck in a loop - the only way to survive is with missiles.  The only thing more deadlier than what I'm facing is more AIP increase.
I'd like to experience this firsthand.  Can you give me your map seed please?  Thanks.

Also, are you using regular hybrids or advanced hybrids?

Advanced Hybrids, yes.  1959556009, 5 HW start, 3 champions (total, 1 + 2 player slots), low caps.  I wouldn't consider myself a 'good' player, and I'm playing with fairly high AIP already.  600 or so hybrids in the next system over is deadly though (when a 100 attack, too, it's cruel), I can't break out without a combo EMP/lightning, and I get walked over by the waves from the Heroic.  The Spire Hammer's not bad as I swarm it with younglings.

Also have FS, Golems, Spire, Botnet all on 7/hard, but I haven't had an exo-wave yet.  Spire civilian leaders, no auto AIP.

The 5 HW and extra champs is most certainly what's bringing the pain; the unlimited energy, extra income, and higher ship caps aren't compensating in the slightest for the pain I get to deal with.

With regards to income, if I don't build anything for a short time, I hit max fast, but I generally have more than enough to build to tank my income at all times.  It would have been game over a long, long time ago without all the harvester upgrades.

I like AI War, I think the concept and many aspects of the design are fantastic.  I just think it could be better than it is.  The game could easily become something that would be much deeper and more challenging for everybody, even with just a few minor changes.

This is interesting to me, because generally anyone that I know that has started playing the game are overwhelmed, and have to play several games before they win one (including reloading saved games).

The problem you are describing sounds very similar to how I felt when I played Dwarf Fortress; after a certain critical point, I knew all the intricacies of the game, and it was no longer challenging to me.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2012, 12:41:10 pm by Pluto »