Core Shield Generators- time sink

[TheMachineIsSentient]

I should state beforehand, this is not just for x4000 to read.

I quote,

"Thanks to Suzera for inspiring this new feature.
    * This new mechanic is designed to require players capture at least a certain small baseline number of planets before they can even attack the AI homeworlds. This ensures that ultra-conservative low-planets-held strategies simply aren't valid, and the alternative is somewhere the game been before: having the AI homeworlds be so beefy that they are incredibly grindy in the late game, which also isn't good. That had led to most players "declaring they had won" and stopping before they actually had won. The logical solution, then, is a multi-stage AI takedown procedure that requires you to take certain planets that it was expected you were required to take, anyway.
    * To those that would complain about how this will prevent certain playstyles: yes, it will. But only the ones that don't allow for a natural progression of AI difficulty, and so short-circuit (and thus drastically break) the game. Deep striking and raiding are still a great thing to do, and in fact may be more important than every in some circumstances now, but you can't use that in a preemptive "the enemy's gate is down" sort of fashion to win the game. If you'll recall, even the battle school teachers changed the rules after Ender used that tactic once, and for good reason: it's fun once, but leads to a broken game after that.
    * Note that achieving the alternate victory in the Fallen Spire progression will take care of this shield network for you, since that victory condition already involves taking plenty of territory, etc.

I was actually there in IRC when this discussion went down, and the proposed solution is not even close. Actually, we should congratulate suzera for coming up with the optimum solution for the AI home world victory. The solution presented merely  drags the game out longer in order to push AI progress, which in the opinion of the developer quoted above, short-circuits the game. "The game" being defined as, approaching some level of AI progress before being able to "win."

What has happened here, is just to create a few dummy planets that push progress and waste time. There is no strategic objective to capturing these planets, and it's not particularly difficult to do so. All it does is push AI progress. In game development terms, that's called a time sink. As a player, I oppose time sinks in all forms, in all games.

To look at some better design choices, we can see Light of the Spire, which offers events as natural obstacles to victory. This creates a measured approach, forcing the player to overcome some severe battles and a good variety of hurdles to win. There is no talk of pushing progress... Until now. As quoted above, you will have to take down the shields even when pursuing the quest line, which doesn't make much sense. Just have to go through the quest line and easily cruise through the shields to win.

Why is this a time sink? Because now you have to scout not for the homeworlds, but to find some certain number of generators that hold no strategic value besides "kill X of Y," which is straight out of mmorpg's, the master of time sinks. These planets offer nothing of value. There is no reward. You don't necessarily get resources, no ships, no technology, no knowledge ... Nothing. It just triggers the win condition. And now we need to go out of our way to do it even with the Light of the Spire quest.

A better solution would have been to address deep striking with the AI. I know that time is of the essence, there are release schedules, so on and so forth... But this really feels tacked on in an attempt to drag an already lengthy game out without adding any value or reward. I don't even see it as a challenge. I will never consider beforehand, "I wonder if I should go after those Shield generators," unlike every other secondary objective. This objective violates all of the old game mechanics by making it forced.

In other games, deep striking can be compared to "rushing." The AI should be able to detect and react to rushing. If it cannot, that seems to be a problem with the AI. It would be a lot more fun if the player had to work against an AI strategizing to stop a deep strike. Maybe it unleashes waves. Maybe it causes multipliers. Maybe it releases guardians, hybrids, golems... Maybe it sets up defenses. Maybe it tries to defend certain planets in order to create a longer route to the home planet. Maybe transports need a little bit of work. Maybe running spaceships through five planets and not causing a train of enemies to react against the home planet needs to be fixed.

There are a lot of options here, but the one added is just a time sink.

[x4000]

Note that Suzera didn't suggest the specific implementation, and I have no idea if he even likes it or not.

And I hardly think that having to capture 8 planets counts as a "time sink," especially when four of them -- arguably 5 -- are already ones you would be capturing, anyhow.

I see your points, but I disagree with the entire premise.  Yes, this is a "no rushing until X" rule.  As intended.

Whenever I add rushing deterrents, people just do it anyway and complain that it's grindy.  And/or it makes the game grindy for those who play legitimately, without rushing.  Hence this.  I'm not feeling at all swayed on this matter at the moment.

[Dreadknoght]

OK, overall, I think that some people do or does not like it, so i suggest:

1. Ether there be a toggle for the Core Shield Generators,  for the people that doesn't find it that intriguing.
or
2. Make it so there is some kind of gain for destroying the Shield Generators, for the people who are a little sketchy on the idea (I.E. A few new unit types that you unlock (not necessarily powerful) when you destroy it).

Just a little suggestion, might not be that great, but I hope you think it is 

[Vinraith]

OK, overall, I think that some people do or does not like it, so i suggest:

1. Ether there be a toggle for the Core Shield Generators,  for the people that doesn't find it that intriguing.
or
2. Make it so there is some kind of gain for destroying the Shield Generators, for the people who are a little sketchy on the idea (I.E. A few new unit types that you unlock (not necessarily powerful) when you destroy it).

Just a little suggestion, might not be that great, but I hope you think it is 

#1 wouldn't work because the entire point here is to prevent exploitative play. Making the pill go down easier for the "power players" by sugar coating with some light but useful unlocks might not be a terrible idea, though. Personally I think the whole situation's rather foreign, as it would never have occurred to me to play the game in a way where these shield generators wouldn't end up destroyed anyway.

[x4000]

Making them optional would defeat the whole purpose of them: the people that like them the best are the ones this isn't thwarting.

And you DO get something for almost all of them.  The primary ones also get you an ARS: new ship type, hooray.  Two of the secondary ones get you an advanced factory and a fabricator of some kind, which you should also already want.  That leaves two planets you have to take that don't have a guaranteed bonus on them, but due to the size of the networks it's likely you can find something you want out of them: a good position, a bunch of resources, some other fabricator or special unit, or at least more knowledge.

For those who missed it, an extended version of my motivations are here: http://www.arcengames.com/mantisbt/view.php?id=1706

I really don't understand the opposition some folks have to this.  It seems based on "I haven't tried it and I'm worried it will be complicated" or "it's making me actually take some planets -- noes!"  I've addressed the former in other posts, and to the later I say: yes, that's the idea.  It kills off a few play styles that these same people were complaining was broken anyway.  But what they really wanted was for me to fix their playstyle without killing it off, which is something I don't think is possible without adversely affecting other, more central playstyles.  And I've spent the last year and a half trying to balance that, and have come to the conclusion that's not possible.

Having intermediate goals other than just "kill those two planets" isn't exactly a crisis.  Now it's "kill those two planets, and these other 8, 5 of which you'd likely have taken anyway unless you're trying to subvert the normal flow of the game."

[PineappleSam]

In the middle of a multiplayer game with a new player at the moment, so I haven't had any experience with the new mechanics, but a possible compromise would be to make the AI homeworlds far tougher that they currently are, and by taking out/control of certain structures on other planets you can soften them up again. Perhaps turrets that are to normal turrets what golems are to fleet-ships? Name the structures on other planets "Super turret power generators" or something slightly better and away you go! It increases the choices available to the player, without forcing them to take particular planets.

I'll need to play some more with them first though before I can offer a proper opinion 

[x4000]

PineappleSam -- that's a really interesting idea as a possible additional mechanic.  I really like that sort of thing a lot, actually (the stuff by superking was interesting, too).

The problem is, I do want this to be a binary switch sort of thing.  You must collect 70 stars before you can even fight bowser.  You must play through these dungeons before you can face gannon.  You must go through these segments before you get to the final boss in silent hill.  The "you must buff this much, or do these side quests" route of JRPGs is actually what I'm trying to move away from. 

In a strategy context, it's either too grindy or too easy to exploit/manipulate unless your balance is rock solid.  And in a game as varied and as ever-changing as AI War, the reality that is just never going to be possible.

Ways I can think of to exploit the super-turrets thing, for instance:
1. Rush for the biggest golems/spirecraft ships and flood the planet with those.  Because hey -- if that doesn't work, then you don't really have a choice anyway, you have to kill those turret power generators.
2. Hit them with wave after wave of something like siege starships next to scout starships, which likely outrange them.  Of course, you can make the super-turrets outrange siege starships, but then again it's pretty much a "you must kill those turret power generators."

And I'm sure there's others, but those are just off the top of my head.  Of course, I'm sure there are others.  And the point is, that any time I introduce some new ship or mechanic, there's a huge risk that the endgame suddenly gets wicked hard or easy.  That's basically what happened with 2.0 (where it got wicked hard), and 4.0 (where it got wicked easy if you used a certain rushing strategy).

This is the core challenge here, is that we have a moving target.  That's why the solution has to have a certain robustness to it.

[keith.lamothe]

Machine,

1) Yea, this is totally different than what we talked about in irc, because Chris didn't hear any of that until after he had seen a separate report from Suzera and already developed his plan for dealing with it.  Not that it would particularly have mattered, because when I told him about what I had planned he very correctly pointed out that a) it would not really solve the problem, and b) he didn't want to penalize deep striking.  I've thought about this one a lot, and his solution is a lot better than the one I cooked up

2) I guess I can see why you would see this as a time sink, but it sounds like special pleading because I don't see why it's not also (by that definition) a time-sink to have:
- 2 AI homeworlds instead of 1.
- The core guard posts provide external invinciblity for the AI home command stations.
- 80 planets be the default size instead of 40 (or less).
- The fallen-spire campaign require 5 cities rather than 4 (or less).

Also, I'm not really sure this change will increase the length of normal games.  To be perfectly honest, I still think Suzera will be able to pull off a 2-4 hour (maybe 3-5) win on diff 7 or diff 7.6, it just won't be quite as much of a snipe.

3)

but to find some certain number of generators that hold no strategic value besides "kill X of Y,"

Taking an ARS has no strategic value?  Taking an advanced factory has no strategic value?  That's 5 of the 8 generators right there.  Even the fabricator one should be of some benefit, we've made several changes in recent months to make those at least a bonus rather than a pain.

4)

And now we need to go out of our way to do it even with the Light of the Spire quest.

Well, as the release note was intended to communicate, if you follow that all the way to its conclusion it will destroy the core shield network for you.  I guess I can see why my "already involves taking plenty of territory" note is misleading there: I was just explaining why it's not unbalancing just short-circuit that for you: you've already taken way more than 8 planets to get that far.

5)

Maybe running spaceships through five planets and not causing a train of enemies to react against the home planet needs to be fixed.

Chris did change a couple core aspects of the emergent behavior in the last couple patches, notably one where coming in with an overwhelming force (2x firepower of the garrison) will free all the ships on that planet to either try to fight you or to retreat for future attacks on you.

Anyway, give Chris a break

[x4000]

One more note: as always, I want to make it clear that I'm not saying that I'll never change this, or that I won't consider other ideas.  But, the suggestions that have come up so far are already things I've considered and discarded for good reasons, and/or which otherwise violate the core design principles of this thing I'm trying to accomplish.

To make things easier to discuss, here are those core design principles for this new mechanic:

1. It must require that players take a certain number of planets, at least probably 8 on the low side (on a 40/80 planet map), but more likely 10-12.  

This is non-negotiable, as the ultra-low-planet-counts are something that I've been fighting for a long time and don't find to be a valid way to play this specific strategy game, because it's just too exploity and/or relies on the players grinding away at sacrifice of their personal time in exchange for the satisfaction of having pulled one over on the game ruleset.  

I originally tried to combat that with the energy reactors having lowered efficiency per planets, etc, but the ZPG sort of bypasses that and players were able to work around it anyway.  But fortunately, the energy reactors are at least required to be spread out (and thus more vulnerable), which was a secondary (but almost equally important) goal of the reactor efficiency thing.  So that mechanic still has purpose and stays.

2. It must prevent the player from having any hope whatsoever -- I mean black and white 0% chance -- of winning the game before #1 has come to pass.

This is the one that people have the most issue with, I think.  They don't like the feeling of options being taken away.  But "please play the game" isn't really an ultimatum when it comes to game design, I don't think.  Had it been this way from the start, people would never have complained, I feel quite sure.  Who's complained that it takes 70 stars to reach bowser?  What, you only want to do 50 before you quit playing the game?  Why not just do 50 and stop if that's how you feel, honestly -- it's about the journey, not just about finishing as fast as possible.

And there are, of course, those who feel that this is just padding out the game.  But I hardly think so: the majority of players already play in this style, anyway, where they take a certain number of planets.  It's the natural way to play unless you're trying to turtle or you're trying to rush, both strategies of which the game actively -- and unapologetically -- tries to quash.  "Hi, my name is Chris, and I'm a turtle.  If the game let me, that's all I'd do."  Seriously.  The game is built to break that habit.  And it's similarly built to break the rushing habit.  Or at least it's supposed to be.  This is a 4X at heart, not starcraft.

3. It must not restrict players to taking a specific arbitrary set of planets.

Now THAT'S a horrible reduction in choice.  Having to take the two AI homeworlds is different and interesting, because they're special and built unlike other planets.  They're the final boss.  No problem.  Having your roadmap laid out for you on what exactly other planets you have to take on the way there is incredibly lame.  

That's why there are networks here.  Sure, it makes you take 4 out of the 5 ARS planets, but again you really ought to be doing that anyhow.  For the rest of the networks, it gives you a choice of at least two planets, and often quite more than that.  It covers enough territory that you can choose your various four secondary-group planets from half or more of the galaxy.  If you're telling me there aren't four planets in half the galaxy that you want... well, that comes back to being either a turtle or a rusher.  The mechanic is here to help.

4. It must not be ridiculously over-complex to play with, or to code.

Clear enough, I'd imagine.  We have limited time, and while this issue is important it is only important for a subset of players: since, again, most players would already be playing in such a way this would barely if at all impact, anyway.

5. Players shouldn't be able to just turtle up in one corner with all their planets next to one another.

This one was a late-add oversight.  But it basically answers the question of "why not just make players capture x number of planets to bring down the shields."  The answer is that, as hinted at above, this is meant to prevent players from turtling.  If all the rule says is "your big fortress must be bigger before you raid the AI into oblivion," that means very little, right?

An example: in Chess, you can't just keep all your pieces on the back three rows, safely ensconced, while your queen rampages around the board.  That wouldn't be much of a game.  But, if players could just rebuild their queen every time they lost one, given enough time passing, that's what many might do.  It becomes a war of attrition.  And those are really lame.  That's what many RTS games are, and I hate that.  That's not strategy.

In the case of AI War, the fact that your pieces are not a finite resource is a necessary byproduct of the expectations of the genre, but it means it also comes saddled with the usual baggage of the genre.  Players don't want to open themselves up for attack if they feel like they don't have to, and players don't want to feel like decisions they make are choices that are one-way doors.  Those are uncomfortable.  But that's where a lot of the true strategy comes from.  If you make a mistake and then just hit the undo button, where's the strategy?  Real strategy is about risk and reward, and it's true that minimizing risk is a huge factor there, but risk shouldn't be able to be eliminated all together.  And that's what this turtle-raider strategy lets players do.


Further, to be clear:

It might sound like those three non-negotiable goals are just a way of saying that I won't consider ideas other than the one I implemented -- which is suspiciously tied to all of them, right?  That's not the case.  However, that's a pretty exclusive list of non-negotiable conditions, simply by nature of the problem I'm trying to solve and the larger mechanics of the game into which the problem fits, which means there are a pretty limited number of possible solutions.  That happens sometimes in game design.

However, as the game evolves, new possibilities might open up.  That happened with the hull types, with the shot mechanics, control nodes, and with various other things where I argued against the community and later changed my mind.  At the time, I maintain I was right not to change things.  Too much was resting on those particular supports to remove them or severely alter them.  There wasn't a clear other path that didn't have serious flaws or shortcomings.  But as the rest of the game evolved, things got to a point where the players were overwhelmingly right, and I had no reason to object.  This is an evolving game.

That is all.

[Vinraith]

Now if we could just get these things working do that the secondary networks actually self-destruct when they're supposed to...

[x4000]

Now if we could just get these things working do that the secondary networks actually self-destruct when they're supposed to...

Yeah, I'm about to look into that, and will have a patch out tonight for that.

[Vinraith]

Now if we could just get these things working do that the secondary networks actually self-destruct when they're supposed to...

Yeah, I'm about to look into that, and will have a patch out tonight for that.

Have I mentioned recently that you guys rock? 

[x4000]

Thanks.

[Lancefighter]

Well, to be fair, capturing an ars is nowhere near as strategically valuable as creating a single choke point for hostiles to come through..

Often, in my solo games, I completely ignore most ars unless they are conveniently on the way or something - most of the time, an ars just isnt worth very much to me. I end up with 3-4 extra ship types that I rarely unlock mk2 of, and only ever produce them for a static defense fleet.

Dont take this to say I think they are all useless - some unlocks I will use, most notably a cloaking/raiding type, or suicide ships.. But only because there is not a starship counterpart to fill that minor niche.

To me, this means slightly more hunting to kill ars just 'because i must', which is indeed something I do not like. I dont like parts of the game that make you do things just 'because i said so'.. however I predict this will only cause minor agony in 'wasted time'.. and I've yet to play a game to length testing this. At worst, its just a minor timesink (it takes all of what, 20 minutes to steamroll a planet if you are trying and its not too reinforced?). At best, its just one more thing to keep your eye on as the game progresses.

[x4000]

Those too-safe single chokepoints are the thing I'm warring against, specifically.  I use that tactic too, heavily, and it's not good as the sole way to play.  I use it because I'm a turtle, but others use it for setting up a raiding base.

Granted, having part of your empire safely walled off behind a choke point like that is entirely valid.  I don't think the game would be winnable without that sort of thing, you don't have enough thousands of troops.  But a lot of my recent changes (counterattack guard posts, carriers, warp gate guardians, and this) are all aimed at making players come out and at least have some of their empire not be so nicely-safeguarded.

And, hey, it's thematically valid.  The rebels didn't have to go to Endor's moon "because I say so."  It's because that's where the shield generators were.  People make it out as a little more arbitrary than it is: basically, what Keith said.  When you come down to it, it's all arbitrary.  Why are the AI home planets where they are?  Why are the data centers or advanced research stations where they are?  Why do you have to take any more planets at all to get more resources?

And the answer is, unanimously: because that generally leads to the most interesting, overall-balanced game I can make.  If folks keep playing the "I win by raiding easy, haha" game, they'll just get bored and quit.  I would.  A chief benefit of AI War is that I fix that sort of thing.  People don't always like the fixes, but it keeps the game playable over the long term.  Man, the agony when I nerfed parasites way back when.  Some people were just super unhappy about that.  But it was good for the game health, and people who came after never even think to question "why don't parasites let me build armies of infinite size enemy ships?"  Of course: that would be super unbalanced.

Most people are inclined to take territory.  It's fun.  It feels like progress.  It accomplishes various sub-goals.  And the more you do that, the more you need the ARS.  It's kind of a circular cycle when you don't expand, of course you don't need as many ships to cover your empire.