Core Shield Generators - Discussion

[KingIsaacLinksr]

Your thoughts above explain why the changes don't bother me.  Enjoy the adventure than trying to get to the end is how I like games these days.  What's that old saying, its not the destination that counts, but the journey?  I like that AIW takes days for me to complete a single game because that gives an awesome amount of re playability.  (By days, I mean 2ish hour segments done multiple times ofc).  

If I want short and quick RTS games, Starcraft or any AAA title have a lot of it.    

King

[Echo35]

There will ALWAYS, in every game ever (That changes anyway) be some people that don't like some change or another. You can't please everyone. But this is a large part of the reason I play AI War in the first place. It's very dynamic, and you're always hitting us with new stuff, most of which comes from us in the first place anyway (Oh, and is free most of the time). Personally, finding some one hit wonder tactic in a game completely kills it for me, and I refuse to play it anymore. If I can find such a glaring problem, why couldn't the developer?

As far as Deepstrikes go, I agree they shouldn't be a large scale strategy. Going after a specific planet or target, sure, it's a great tactic. But playing the whole game like that? It's completely against the point of AI War. It never used to be that way anyway. Deepstrikes were never a solid plan in the long run in the old versions, and they shouldn't be now.

[x4000]

Machine -- I really hate to lose you, though of course it's your prerogative to go.  And you are very right in the fact that it's anyone's choice to not upgrade.  I don't care if people want to play older versions, that's their right.  What does bug me is when people threaten me with "I'm not upgrading unless you change this."  I don't know how else to take that than as an ultimatum.  No one was calling you a terrorist, but I maintain that we felt like that was an ultimatum, and that that isn't something we use in our decision making.

My point in my last post on that other thread was not to get any "last digs in," but simply to explain my thinking and why things escalated the way they did.  It was a plea for a little trust and understanding, not for you to leave.  You've been an absolute wonderful help, and I really want you to know that we are extremely grateful for all the time you spent.  You've been one of the largest supporters of us in terms of your time and efforts both in mantis, on the forums, and of course with helping convert others to enjoying the game as well.  You converted over a ton of bug reports, and you're one of the biggest bug reporters and feature suggesters yourself.  That's all extraordinarily valuable, and it's not been my intention to antagonize you.

Similarly, perhaps ironically, HitmanN is also most at odds with this and is a uniquely helpful contributor.  He's been doing all this art that he graciously lets us use for free, and in general has been helping with suggestions and bug reports close to as much as you have.  The last thing I would want to intentionally do is drive either of you away.  Just from a selfish standpoint, it would be stupid.  But driving customers away isn't good business, in general.  If you're feeling unwanted, that's not the intent, but by all means if there are other ways you'd rather spend your time, that's your right.  I can't expect everyone to stay around forever, though it makes me more than a bit sad every time someone disappears -- especially if there's bad blood, as seems to be the case here.

Sigh.  It seems that with my big explanation post, I made things worse rather than better.  But the points, boiled down as succinctly as possible, are simply this:

1. We made some poor wording choices (the "terrorist" thing in particular), but the underlying intent of what we were saying was not meant to be aggressive or harmful.  I for one apologize if those came across wrong, as clearly they did.

2. When disagreements arise, we don't make decisions on who shouts the most or repeats themselves the most, and there was a lot of that in that thread.  If we as the game designers can't agree with whatever customers, we have no judgment to go on but our own, as we're the ones doing the work and taking the risks.  It's not a matter of us being more important or "commander in chief," but a fact that it's our responsibility to shepherd the game, and the "buck stops here" to use another US idiom.  It just means I can't debate endlessly when it's clear we won't agree; it's not a good use of my time, it's very draining on my morale (as, clearly, it was to yours), and nobody wins.  As evidenced here.  This is a falling-out that never should have happened.

Sigh.

[keith.lamothe]

I'm a bit confused in how the term "deepstrike" is being used here.  Deepstriking in the sense of sending a fleet over (say) 3 hops out is still alive and well.  Indeed, many people would choose to cope with the core shield network requirements by doing exactly that to the necessary planets that did not fit within their turtle cluster (and lose out on taking full advantage of the AIP spent, but that's a complex tradeoff).

Of course, I'm not aware of a pre-existing term for the playstyle being invalidated here, except perhaps "rushing" or "ultra-low-planet-count win".

[x4000]

Keith: all true.

[ShadowOTE]

That makes a great deal of sense. My thought was that deep strike games would be very situational, best in situations where you're racing against the clock, but as you've pointed out not only is that potentially game breaking to balance, but in many ways goes against the spirit of the game. While deep strikes as a tactic are perfectly valid, and indeed an impressive show of a player's mastery of the game, as a strategy it doesn't work. However, that said I see no problem with players trying to play a very low AI progress game, provided they meet your ideal criteria of taking at least 8-9 planets before they can consider hitting the AI. There are players that greatly enjoy the (hopefully added) challenge of pulling off such a win, and punishing them by confusing a pure deepstrike strategy with a minimalism strategy doesn't strike me as wise. Regardless, it's a work in progress, and given how much work you've put into AI Wars I don't foresee this being a long term problem.

[Wingflier]

Last comment on this game.

The problem remains. It's forcing which planets you have to take. Your AI is not suited for deep strikes, and this is the hard mechanic you are going to use to stop it. That's fine, you are the chief, you can do that. I don't see how you have made the game more fun with this solution, but I know that somehow you will find a way to rationalize it as being necessary medicine.

And as far as not upgrading, that's the choice a consumer makes. That happens all the time in business. It's not an ultimatum, it is a simple comment that the new mechanics are game breaking for some of your existing constituents. I have not encouraged anyone to join me, and it's not as if I suggested a boycott. I stated simply, I'm not moving further if the game is going to be broken like this.

If you want to go in a different direction for your audience, by all means. And from the consumer standpoint, it's the same decision. Nobody has to be here. I continue to reject your affirmation of terrorism comparisons. I think it's in poor taste and an ad hominem. All ready to move on, but you want to get one last dig in. Again, unprofessional.

The funny part is, this whole thing probably is going to go away anyways and change into some other mechanic, unless you want to make a point that you are commander-in-chief at the expense of the good of the game. I wonder how long that will take.

Just so you know, I have contributed to buying copies for other people, assisting you when and where I can, videos, technical support...and for you to launch personal attacks against your customers... I just don't get it. Hope this goes where you want it to, I'm out.

Machine, you are a cool guy and I respect your opinion, but I get the impression that you have now lost all objectivity on this issue, in favor of an overwhelmingly emotional response.

First of all, Keith never called you a terrorist.  He said "Fight terror with terror", which, as Chris said, is a pretty popular political phrase in America.  Is it stupid?  Absolutely, it sounds like something George Bush would say, but that's beside the point.  He wasn't attacking you, he simply meant to say that Arcen Games is not going to give in to ultimatums and angry demands, because it's bad practice that makes them look spineless.

Chris and Keith even "retracted" their statements, very clearly pointing out that it was never meant to be a personal attack, and apologizing, yet you are still talking about it like you have been somehow wronged.  You are showing every sign of being emotionally compromised in your responses, and in all honesty I don't think the things you are saying are fair to anybody.

Honestly I think several members of this forum need to take a step back and just be GRATEFUL the developers even have conversations with us at all.  I don't know how long you guys have been around, but I've been to literally dozens of different forums for dozens of different games, and I can say that without a doubt, you will not find another game with developers so open and willing to discuss their developer decisions. DO NOT TAKE THIS FORGRANTED, I CAN NOT STRESS THIS ENOUGH. 

I know exactly why developers stop interacting with their communities, and it is situations like this.  1 person can ruin what should be a wonderful and healthy designer-community relationship for everybody, and I just want the developers to know right now that we DO appreciate you and we DO love how you interact with us, even if it doesn't always seem that way.  Yes, I am speaking for everybody else, this is something you should trust me on.  If you don't think you appreciate it, you will after it's gone and you'll be kicking yourself in the foot.

[Nightchill]

I have been playing my current game for about 18 hours so I most probably won't update until it's finished (I'm on 4.042)

I have 20 planets and am about to attack the 1st AI homeworld.

If using the latest beta I would not be able to.
I only have 3 of the 5 ARS. (one is too far from anything to be worth going after, and the other is closer to the 2nd homeworld than I want to be at the moment)
I don't have either of the advance factories yet (as I have captured many mark IV ships, an AF would not really let me build much).

[keith.lamothe]

Yea, if you're taking only 8 planets the data centers should be able to compensate for that entirely, though I'm not sure how many are actually seeded nowadays.  Add co-processors and the super terminal into that and you could still be riding the floor with considerably more than 160 "spent" AIP.

Which I suppose begs the question of whether the shield network would really prevent the rush strategy after all.  I think it would make the solution to the "puzzle" more complex (and thus presumably at least somewhat more interesting), but it seems like the same fundamental situation exists.  But I'm just theorizing, hard to tell without folks seeing how it actually works.

[x4000]

That makes a great deal of sense. My thought was that deep strike games would be very situational, best in situations where you're racing against the clock, but as you've pointed out not only is that potentially game breaking to balance, but in many ways goes against the spirit of the game. While deep strikes as a tactic are perfectly valid, and indeed an impressive show of a player's mastery of the game, as a strategy it doesn't work.

Cool.

However, that said I see no problem with players trying to play a very low AI progress game, provided they meet your ideal criteria of taking at least 8-9 planets before they can consider hitting the AI. There are players that greatly enjoy the (hopefully added) challenge of pulling off such a win, and punishing them by confusing a pure deepstrike strategy with a minimalism strategy doesn't strike me as wise.

Oh, absolutely.  And that's another reason why "hold X planets" or "must get X AI Progress" don't appeal to me as well.  Or at least the latter, mainly.  At the moment, you're required to basically take (realistically) about 8-12 planets total, which would be 160-240 AIP.  Given that there are probably a good 8 data centers around on average, you could probably be hitting the first AI Planet still with only 80-160 AIP total.  Of course there would be miscellaneous extra, but probably not more than 40-50 or so.  And there are still co-processors and superterminals that can be used if players like.  In the past, some players were hitting the AIP floor and pushing it even way further below, which was the biggest problem.

So I think it already meets this, but I could be wrong.  If people find that's not the case, definitely let me know.

Regardless, it's a work in progress, and given how much work you've put into AI Wars I don't foresee this being a long term problem.

Thanks.

EDIT: Ninja'd by Keith.   But, I don't think this is entirely without merit.  Those data centers were there already, so that would make it 160 AIP lower before the data centers, which is where you get into the AI being so incredibly puny it's pointless.  This might not be the end-all fix, and I never claimed it was, but it at least fixes the worst of the offenses of being able to raid immediately.

It also takes time and effort to capture those additional 8 planets, and it causes other AI planets time to reinforce, and it gives the AIs each 8 more reinforcement points per reinforcement event.  Even outside of AIP increases, those things can make a huge difference in the epicness of that final battle.  And it might well make it so that many players will choose to take another planet or two for the extra knowledge or resources or position to let them just do a full assault via transports in the situations such as those.  Not that then deepstriking isn't possible.

But it also increases the risk of the rushing strategy.  If you can't rush until after taking those many more planets from around the galaxy, then that means your rushing has to work a larger percentage of the time for it to be an overwhelmingly good thing to do.  That alone could make it so that if the deepstrike/rushing thing still works in some circumstances, at least it's fundamentally altered enough not to cause it to be an exploit any longer.

But mainly, time will tell.

[keith.lamothe]

He said "Fight terror with terror"

Er, actually the phrase I used was different than that

Anyway, just wanting that side discussion to go private now, unless some public component is helpful for reconciliation.

[wyvern83]

Wingflier, Machine's post is just fine. I thought what he wrote expressed his thoughts rather well.

[Winter Born]

bun-bun rules  


http://www.sluggy.com/comics/archives/weekly/970915

and yes this is off topic -- but there has been a lot of pain today.

Will remove it tomorrow

[x4000]

I know exactly why developers stop interacting with their communities, and it is situations like this.  1 person can ruin what should be a wonderful and healthy designer-community relationship for everybody, and I just want the developers to know right now that we DO appreciate you and we DO love how you interact with us, even if it doesn't always seem that way.  Yes, I am speaking for everybody else, this is something you should trust me on.

We know that's how you guys feel.  Keith and I have both been on the your side of the other kind of developer relationship enough to know what it's like.  We were both gamers for 20-something years before ever being professional game designers.  Conflict like this won't impact how we do business or treat our customers, it just makes our job temporarily unpleasant and gives me a really sick feeling in general.  But I get the feeling that when this sort of thing happens, the other side is feeling just as bad.  It's nobody's fault.  While I appreciate your support -- very much so -- I also want to make sure that we're not just ganging up on Machine even more.

[Fleet]

Hi x4000 and Keith. Your conversations here are a testament to your willingness to communicate to the player base. I think you are handling the situation in a respectful manner and I applaud your time investment into communicating with the players extensively. Thanks for much more player-created DLC to come!