ARS, bonus ships, usefulness, costs... random thoughts

[HitmanN]

Along with the discussion about the Core Shield Generators and related mechanics, I've seen this mentioned several times.

"ARS's are not a useful capture, because the Bonus ships are often not worth upgrading."

I started to ponder why exactly is it so, in my case. Why do I skip upgrading many bonus ship types beyond Mk1 and see them as a lesser choice. Why is it that triangle ships always get upgraded first. Sometimes it's the ship's stats and my personal feeling towards them, but more often I find myself choosing other upgrades, instead of higher Mk bonus ships, even if I have bonus ships that I feel could be useful.

I've started to get the feeling that it could be the K cost of upgrading. Many of the bonus ships ARE useful, but not in the manner the triangle ships are. The caps can be low, they can be cannon fodder, they may require special tactics, etc. When I place just about any bonus ship next to a triangle ship, and both have the same cost to upgrade... the triangles almost always win, because I feel I get more quality for the investment.

So... I'm throwing this idea out there. What if upgrading bonus ships was cheaper? Maybe not much, but enough to maybe make them slightly more desireable from an economic perspective. Like 500/1000K less for Mk2/3?

Lower K costs could also make ARS's slightly more tempting, as the ships you get from them are cheaper to upgrade than the triangle stuff. You don't only just get more options, you get cheaper-to-upgrade options, which acts as an additional reward for capturing the ARS.

Thoughts?

Also, this thread could be used to generally discuss how to make bonus ships and ARS's a bit more tempting objective to capture, upgrade and use on average, without actually forcing to capture or use them.

[Echo35]

Agreed. Most of the time when I have the Knowledge I usually spend it on Starships (As they are MUCH more powerful these days) or turrets or something. I usually don't bother with the ARS ships unless they're something I really wanted, but usually that's no the case as I've already started the game with the special ship I wanted the most.

[wyvern83]

So... I'm throwing this idea out there. What if upgrading bonus ships was cheaper? Maybe not much, but enough to maybe make them slightly more desireable from an economic perspective. Like 500/1000K less for Mk2/3?

Lower K costs could also make ARS's slightly more tempting, as the ships you get from them are cheaper to upgrade than the triangle stuff. You don't only just get more options, you get cheaper-to-upgrade options, which acts as an additional reward for capturing the ARS.

You make a very convincing case there Hitman, I've never thought of ARS's as potentially offering alternative cheaper bonus ship upgrades. It would definitively be an additional reward worth considering as you point out.

[Nightchill]

I find that an ARS either gives me a ship that doesn't fit my play style, or if it does the ship cap is so low it isn't worth the knowledge cost to go to the next mark just for a few more. (5k knowledge to go from mark 2 to 3 and be able to build  7 Mk 3 zenith electric bombers)

ARS would be more useful if you could chose the ship, and they had a reasonable ship cap

[Vinraith]

When it comes to this ARS question, my first reaction is "what are you spending Knowledge on instead of bonus ships?" The answer usually seems to be "starships" which brings us back to the fleet ship vs. starship balance problem.

That said, I wouldn't be opposed to something like bonus ships being 2000 Kn for Mk 2, 4000 Kn for Mk 3. To be honest, I go after all the ARS's anyway, partly because I simply enjoy doing so and partly because I see it as a good gamble. I usually get at least a couple of ships I DO want to get higher marks of from that process, and since I'm not playing some kind of ultra-low AIP strategy the cost/benefit works out pretty well for me as long as I have at least average luck.

[Kemeno]

I think this is a spectacular idea. With knowledge so limited, I always upgrade the triangle ships first, because I know they'll 'just work'. Later on I'll upgrade bonus ships that look good if I have nothing more specialized to spend knowedge on. This would definitely encourage me to play around more with the bonus ships types I get. 

[Lancefighter]

what if ars did something like gave you mk2 of the ship they unlock? Or just add in the myriad of 'make ars useful past unlocking a ship' suggestions..


Or, add starship bonus ships so I am more encouraged to play 'the ars lotto'. 

[Arcain_One]

The ARS could give us a few choices to steal plans from the AI, maybe even as vague as kind of ship (tactical, support, suppressor, exc...)
though, this has already been addressed in the AIWar wiki.

[Rustayne]

Why not instead of making it a lotto, give you say 3-4 possible choices when you capture it what you could get.  This way, you can pick what suits your playstyle best, and also would encourage grabbing them, because there is more of a chance to get what your desiring.  With all the new ship types and such, I think giving the option to choose what ship out of a selection would be best.  

[Vinraith]

Why not instead of making it a lotto, give you say 3-4 possible choices when you capture it what you could get.  This way, you can pick what suits your playstyle best, and also would encourage grabbing them, because there is more of a chance to get what your desiring.  With all the new ship types and such, I think giving the option to choose what ship out of a selection would be best.  

That would seem to be a reasonable option, actually, if it wasn't too much trouble to code.

[ShadowOTE]

I like that idea, though it would have to be handled carefully. Also, multiplayer might require seperate logic.

[TechSY730]

I'm pretty sure any suggestion involving letting people choose or even influence the bonus ship type is going to be rejected, as stated in the FAQ, one of the reasons for the randomness is to "force" players to use other play-styles, or not use the bonus ships at all. You can find their stance on this at http://arcengames.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=AI_War_-_Design_Complexity#Why_Does_The_Game_Force_Variety_On_The_Player.3F

Warning: long philosophical rambling ahead.

I will be completely honest. I think many of the design philosophies behind AI war need some rethinking. Note, that this will be no small change, but many of these complaints are actually complaints about things stemming from the very goals of this game.

Such as forced variety. While done right, it can make the game fun, when you make it a central pillar, gamers will try to find a way around it.
We, as gamers, like "the optimal strategy", which in many cases means focusing less on the random aspects (aka. the variety) and more on the static aspects (like star-ships, the triangle ships, etc). I don't take it to quite this extreme, but from what I have seen, alot of "pro" players do. And even if you aren't a pro player, this design philosophy seems to clash a little with what many RTS players try to get out of a game. Forcing variety, thus interferes with this process, thus it can interfere with the "fun factor". Generally speaking, for many players, some of these noble, unique design philosophies make the game a little (or in some rare cases, a lot) less fun.

So yea, this tension is sort of caused by a fundamental difference in game philosophies. Thus, there is no easy answer about how "fix" this. In other words, even if everything is balanced according to the game's philosophy, some of the more "annoying" aspects players have been complaining about since forever will still remain, due to differences in philosophy between he devs and "average" RTS players.

Also, I am not saying the Arcen should just completely change their design goals for this game; I love this game to death. However, maybe you can make some of the more controversial goals (read, goals that can reduce "fun") a little less central to the game. Again, there are no easy answers for these types of problems. For example, I like the heavy focus on variety. But making it such that "every time I start a new campaign I am presented with practically a fresh game" seems a little too far. (quote directly taken from the FAQ)

Woa, really started to ramble there. I'll shut up now  

[Vinraith]

@techsy

The design philosophies you're talking about there are the things that make AI War something other than a typical RTS, so no I don't think you'll see them changing. They're also the kind of thing that Chris is talking about when he says he designed this game to push him out of his comfort zone for playing this kind of game. Players that don't like being forced to play outside their traditional RTS habits really are playing the wrong game, here. One of the real strengths of AI War, at least in principle, is that you can't just play it the same way every time. If you could, I know I for one probably wouldn't still be playing it.

[TechSY730]

@techsy

The design philosophies you're talking about there are the things that make AI War something other than a typical RTS, so no I don't think you'll see them changing. They're also the kind of thing that Chris is talking about when he says he designed this game to push him out of his comfort zone for playing this kind of game. Players that don't like being forced to play outside their traditional RTS habits really are playing the wrong game, here. One of the real strengths of AI War, at least in principle, is that you can't just play it the same way every time. If you could, I know I for one probably wouldn't still be playing it.

Agreed. I like these design philosophies, I explicitly state in that in my previous post. It's just that in some cases, some players think they are being taken too far. Me, personally, I think they are about right as they are now (the philosophies that is, the actual game needs some serious balancing). However, some of the recent changes have been scaring me a bit about them moving in a direction that is a little too far.
To be fair though, I don't think that they would push these goals to such lengths to alienate much of their market (indie RTS players).
Then again, it is really late in my time zone as I write this, so I am probably not in the best place to be reviewing game design and philosophy choices with regards to game theory and "fun theory".  

[Suzera]

Some things should be reduced in effectiveness, like the floor AIP strategy. It really had no equal. When one particular thing in an aspect of the game is far superior, it essentially cuts out the rest. Ideally, it WOULD be a fresh game everytime you seed a new map, but a fresh game you can still use your favorite kinds of strategies, but not to the point where the entire game is laid out as soon as you hit the start button. I stopped playing the first time because it was the same every time unless I took an artificial gimmick challenge.

Back on the thread topic though, if ARS were more useful, it wouldn't feel like forcing. You would just get them because they are useful. Right now they apparently aren't so the core shields feels a lot like forcing to a lot of people. I don't particularly care about the core shields much because I treat it as a mini-challenge and ignore the new ship type (barring a very short list of useful ships I might attempt to get knowledge for). I think less knowledge scarcity and improving the 1/2 of the ship list that is well underpowered would go a long way to improving the value of ARSes, and then maybe it won't seem like a big deal to take the core shields, because it will overall make the game go faster than not taking them, even if the core shields didn't exist.

I laid out a list of the ships that are pretty much entirely outclassed by the triangles in the other thread about this that was posted yesterday before this one.