Author Topic: Gameplay thoughts from a newer player  (Read 4736 times)

Offline lanstro

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 100
Re: Gameplay thoughts from a newer player
« Reply #30 on: May 04, 2010, 07:22:21 pm »
Alright, thanks for the responses.  Your last suggestion sounds like something that I'd like to try out, especially if it occurred relatively regularly (say, once every 2 hours).  In addition to the AI building a new ship-type enabling structure, how about letting the AI build a range of the other special buildings which are currently just randomly placed at the start of the game?  Eg Co-processors, raid engines, and the other things that it can't buy from the Zenith trader?  Perhaps it should cost the AI a bit of progress to do so.

Once again what I'm getting at is that the AI is very predictable in how it responds to human behaviour.  It controls on a micro scale well enough, but there is a non-existent macro plan.  It just spawns a bunch of ships every x minutes and goes straight for the nearest planet.  Every y minutes some fraction of its ships get freed up and swarm the humans.  It doesn't reinforce planets that it knows is important to its survival and the humans' plans.  It doesn't expand its means of waging war.  It doesn't probe the humans' defences, looking for the weak link, and then executing the right strategy to crack it.  It doesn't take back planets.  It effectively sits there, waiting for death.  It only wins if the humans fail to scout something important, or underestimate a risk, or make some other mistake.  The range of neutral AI factions eases this predictability, but it is superficial.  You can paper over the inherent weakness in the AI with more neutral factions but it doesn't get at the core issue. 

Returning to Doddler's analogy earlier in the thread with the chess game:

Quote
After playing the game for a while, you don't feel the AI is an opponent.  You're really playing the game against yourself.  It's like playing a game of chess, where one player starts normally and the other has pieces aranged out on the board seemingly at random.  The opponent doesn't make moves.  It will take your pieces if you move them in a position that it can attack you, but otherwise, it does not make moves.  The ball is always in your court, and more often or not you can use your advantage as the only active player to force the opponent to make bad moves.  It's a neat thought puzzle, but it doesn't feel like a real game unless the other player is going to have to start moving their pieces on their own.

AI factions are akin to a randomiser force, which comes along at random intervals to rearrange parts of the board, forcing you to change your plans.  But it falls well short of actually having an opponent which moves its pieces.

Offline Doddler

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 287
Re: Gameplay thoughts from a newer player
« Reply #31 on: May 05, 2010, 06:45:46 pm »

3)
Quote
Another thing in AI Wars that is more restrictive than in other strategy games is the ability of the player to affect the AI's means of waging war.
Personally I would absolutely love to be able to smash up the AI economic and industrial infrastructure (and to see a separate economic, industrial, and research component to AI Progress, but that's just not going to fit the game)... but this is getting into one of the other big, huge, nasty problems that AI War's core design is dead-set-against: getting to the midpoint of the game and you've clearly won, it's all just easy mop-up.  Granted, some players still get to a mop-up point by mid-game, but they have to be careful even during that phase or they can get torn to bits.  So any exposure of the AI's infrastructure would have to either be really superficial or the destruction of it would have to shift the challenge to another aspect rather than just remove it.


The way I see it, there are roughly 3 'stages' in the game.


Stage 1: The start of the game.  You have limited resources and are unable to react rapidly to incoming threats.  You may not know what type of opponent you are fighting, which adds to the uncertainty. You also don't have a very good idea of what's around you.  A mistake at this point, overestimating an AI force, not spotting an alarm post or raid engine, will end the game very fast.  This is the riskiest part of the game, as your homeworld is most vulnerable to attack.

Stage 2: You have taken adjascent systems to your homeworld, and building up a reasonable resource pool and fleet.  You are no longer directly at risk, the AI can no longer directly threaten your homeworld without fighting their way through buffer systems.  You have a good idea where the AI homeworlds may be, and are planning a desirable expansion towards those objectives.  You might not be nimble enough to stop the AI from destroying command centers in your outlying systems, but this is more of a nucance than anything.  Rebuilding is cheap and easy.  Your important structures are well secured and unlikely to break.  You should be able to attack and clear Mk III and Mk IV systems at this point.

Stage 3: You have a solid, defended cluster of systems which the AI is unlikely to be able to threaten effectively.  Resources are no longer an issue, as you easily build to ship cap and start storing up metal and crystal.  Even if you lose all your ships, your resource stockpiles could allow you to rebuild thousands of ships in very short order.  You are likely just a few hops from the AI homeworlds, or can easily extend your reach to them if you wanted.  The AI waves are no threat, you are too heavily defended for an attack to penetrate your defenses.  Even against a CPA, you have enough ships to protect yourself.  If you lost now, you would not feel out played by the AI, as it makes no thoughtful moves against you, you would probably simply blame yourself for not reacting or preparing properly.


In my opinion, Stage 1 is obviously the most fun.  There's a lot of unknowns and you have to change your plans a lot, especially on higher difficulties to not get overrun at this point.  You have a very clear goal: secure your position against the AI.  This isn't always easy, and how you achieve it varies quite a bit from game to game.

Stage 2 lacks direction, you have no real goals or objectives that you don't make up yourself.  It might be by design, but the game does little to push your hand.  You make yourself a shopping list of planets you want to get based on their value, and then you go out and take them.  There's little urgency, the AI has no plans to get you, and you have no way of hampering the AI.  You know the AI you're fighting, know how it will act and how it will react. This part is still sort of interesting, because there's a lot that can go wrong and managing AI attacks can still be difficult, but it doesn't have much direction.  Stage 2 doesn't vary much from game to game.

Stage 3 is usually when I stop playing.  It's just not interesting.  Once you're at this point, every game plays out more or less the same.  You've got your chokepoints with superfortresses and shield boosters and hundreds of turrets with a near limitless supply of fodder ships to back it up.  Some players have shown resiliance against an AI progress as high as 3000+.  At that kind of game, it's not really interesting.  The AI has no new cards.

For that kind of reason I'm unsure some of the current endgame scenario ideas really help.  The Avenger is an interesting idea, and quite a brutal ship to fight, but it doesn't really change the endgame.  It's something that can be beat by throwing more time into preparation, not necessarially making it more interesting.  And that's true for most of the ideas I've read.  Having to kill objects to get to the AI homeworld, AI counterattack, they're interesting, but they don't make stage 3 any more interesting and if anything, it stretches it out.

I guess my main complaint, and the complaint of the OP, is that the AI doesn't do anything.  Waves and CPAs are scheduled, the AI doesn't use them as tools, they are simply 'events' that occur randomly.  A seasoned player will know exactly how the AI ships will move and react to the players, and know exactly the reaction the AI takes to specific events.  Minor factions add variety but they still don't give the AI the ability to act.

It's maybe out of the scope of the game, and it may be unfeasible, but what I would kind of like to see would be:

1) AI Awareness of Opportunity.  The AI should be aware of what the player has.  It should have an idea where the player homeworld is, where his fabricators are, factories, power generators, and resources.  It could assign a score (with some variance) to these systems, and make some kind of attempt to send wave attacks against the juicier targets rather than simply being random (although they should be somewhat random because being predictable isn't good either).

2) AI Awareness of Risk.  The AI throws ships against the player seemingly at random, which isn't really effective nor is it particularly challenging for the player to overcome.  Even if the AI has thousands of ships, it won't have much meaning if they throw it directly into your meatgrinder.  The AI could decide which planets are more dangerous to attack, and weigh that against the opportunity available.  It doesn't really have to know what ships you have there, it just needs to remember it's past history.  The AI thought process could be "Well, I sent 500 ships here 20 minutes ago, and I only maintained a 10% kill to loss ratio.  I should try striking somewhere else for now".

3) AI Desire to overcome Obstacles.  If the AI is unable to make any headway, your systems are so bottled up that his attacks don't make a reasonable dent in your defenses, he should plan accordingly.  If you've got a chokepoint and the AI can't get through it, then sending more waves won't really change that.  In this case, the AI could hold back waves and launch a larger assault later.  At higher AI progress, the AI could literally start building powerful ships such as Golems to use offensively to break these strong worlds, or at very high progress it could even begin production of say, an Avenger.  These are objects you might go out of your way to stop, unlike regular minor factions that simply result in AI progress, these things result in widespread destruction of your faction.

Those are my two bits!  It would be really cool if some of the AI logic were open in lua or something like that, there's some of us here that would love to come up with some crafty behaviors. :D

Offline superking

  • Hero Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,205
Re: Gameplay thoughts from a newer player
« Reply #32 on: May 05, 2010, 06:59:11 pm »
For a similar plot, or perhaps instead of (still working it all out, maybe they could work well together), I'm hoping to implement a sort of "Showdown" plot where once you're on a more-or-less even footing with the AI (either when you destroy the first AI home command station, or something like that), it basically makes an all-out attempt to kill you, and if you survive you can probably win in an hour or less.  The idea is, for those who want this, to condense the challenge of that second half of the game into one really intense series of battles.  The design challenge there is manifold, in that simply freeing all AI ships to attack will basically kill your framerate, and even aside from that there are many players who set up such effective defenses that this would be suicidal behavior on part of the AI.  So either it would need ways of bypassing normal defenses (spawning new exo-galaxy wormholes, special siege-weapon type units to smash stuff, etc), which I personally would find frustrating (not the end of the world), or we'll need to find some other way of making sure it's still fun.

sign me up for this one, the Showdown plot sounds criminally awesome

Back to the infrastructure thing, I think it would be possible to have a sort of minor-faction-type-event where instead of "Mining Golem Going to Pwn Murdoch in 1:34:22" it's basically "AI 2 Finishes Construction Of New Fabrication Complex in 0:25:00", and when they finish it they get a new bonus ship type, and when you destroy it it goes away.  This wouldn't change the basic AI behavior, it would really be just as much a surprise to it as you from a code perspective, but it would provide a new "mission type" for the humans to go out on, and give you a way/motivation to strike at the AI infrastructure without reducing the difficulty (to make it a little less one-sided, the destruction of the complex could reduce AIP a little, or maybe the humans could use it like a core fabricator, etc).

core fabrication also sounds relavent to my interests  ;)
« Last Edit: May 05, 2010, 07:00:56 pm by superking »

Offline Nemo

  • Jr. Member Mark III
  • **
  • Posts: 93
Re: Gameplay thoughts from a newer player
« Reply #33 on: May 08, 2010, 11:58:37 pm »
The showdown plot could be fairly intense, especially if the AI with the showdown plot kept their unique behavior. For example a Golemite AI with the Showdown plot might free one or more of its Golems to participate in a CPA or have a Golem unit type that arrived with waves once the plot was activated. The Showdown plot might not mix well with some types though but sounds interesting overall I say.

Offline ShadowOTE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 517
Re: Gameplay thoughts from a newer player
« Reply #34 on: May 09, 2010, 12:29:28 am »
I like the showdown plot. Sounds like its got potential.

Offline lanstro

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 100
Re: Gameplay thoughts from a newer player
« Reply #35 on: May 10, 2010, 06:42:49 am »
Sounds interesting, but it doesn't get at the root of the problem that I'm harping on about.  It's just another thing that players will know the AI can and will do, so it doesn't remove any of the predictability or passiveness of the AI.

So Arcen, are you likely to work on introducing options that make the AI more dynamic and unpredictable (basically toning down the tower defence aspect of the game and toning up the strategy aspect) or is the current player-driven gameplay, with its fundamentally passive AI, intended by design?

Offline keith.lamothe

  • Arcen Games Staff
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,505
Re: Gameplay thoughts from a newer player
« Reply #36 on: May 10, 2010, 08:27:14 am »
Quote
are you likely to work on introducing options that make the AI more dynamic and unpredictable (basically toning down the tower defence aspect of the game and toning up the strategy aspect) or is the current player-driven gameplay, with its fundamentally passive AI, intended by design?

Well, the answer is yes to both, actually.  The player-driven experience is the intended one.  However we are quite happy to add options for folks who want the AI to... well, I'm still not entirely sure what you want it to do, but my current guess is that you want it to unilaterally and unpredictably execute its own plans (in the in-game galaxy, as opposed to the alluded-to stuff keeping it busy elsewhere) which either increase its own production capabilities, involve a direct planned attack upon the humans, or do something else interesting.  In order for this to get to a point where you're really happy with it, it will take quite a bit of time on our part since we don't have tons of time to devote to particular niches (and tend to focus on easy-to-implement options) and a fair bit of time on the part of players with interests like yours to work with us to come up with ideas that will work in the current design and meet your goals (and then test to see if they do).  It won't happen overnight, for sure.

Anyway, I'm interested in providing options that will make part of the AI's "resources" (or just an extra additional chunk) go towards more "planned" fleets and attacks (specifically, fleet composition, movement, destinations, and targets could be decided ahead of time for those specific spawns), most of which I don't want to talk about too much because there are still some basic design issues to work out and I'd have to get Chris's approval before adding them anyway. 

I also would like to add more AI-doing-its-own-thing optional plots that the player would not be able to readily predict the timing of (though the possibility of them would be set in the lobby, short of a randomizer option like with AI types). 

These are basically just more things tacked onto the same fundamental AI design, though as with other "options" they can be ratcheted up to the point that they're really just replacing the normal behaviors.  Obviously said behaviors would have to be very toned down at the beginning of the game (either by time or AI progress; I imagine random-and-time would be better to provide a less player-driven option) or a "strategic" AI is just going to kill you and go off to mid-morning tea.

There's also the scenario editor planned for the next expansion (which is when we might be likely to have time to implement some of the more intensive things discussed here), which _might_ allow for more "balanced" starting scenarios where the AI doesn't have to pull its punches nearly so much.  Can't really promise much there, as I'm thinking there's quite a bit of other stuff that would have to change to make that kind of experience "work" all around without gaping holes in balance or whatnot.

Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games? Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!