Core Shield Generators- time sink

[Fruden]

 Hi, maybe you could also tell us the goals in terms of intended game length on top of in internal accomplishments?

 For me the current game length is already slightly longer than i'm comfortable with, so my worry with changes like this is that too many extra hours will be added to games.

[HitmanN]

I gotcha.  And your understanding is correct, in what the ramifications of these are gameplay-wise.  I think we just fundamentally disagree about the secondaries at the moment, though, and there's not much I can do about that, unfortunately.  Anyway, get some good sleep, and talk to you later on.

*ta-da-dah!* Sleep Obtained!

I would still like it if you described why the secondaries were included, and why the primary alone isn' enough as a solution. It almost seems as if you're avoiding answering that particular question with anything beyond a vague "it wouldn't be the same", which is probably true, but at the same time tells me nothing.

Here's some weird analogs for the networks as they are:

Primary network is a cake. It's yummy, and I don't mind attempting to eat most of it myself. The secondaries are an ounce of sugar added on top of the cake. With all that sugar the cake just isn't enjoyable anymore and I'm cringing my teeth.

The primary network is a huge guardian golem that has 100M health and shoots 10M damage a sec, it sits there waiting for you to challenge it. The secondary networks are similar golems, except that they only have 10M health and deal 10K damage, and they go around in circles. I need to destroy all to pass. The primary network is a real challenge. I focus my efforts so that I can bring that baby down. Then I realize there are these annoying other golems traipsing around and I need to spend time chasing after them as well, if I haven't by chance already destroyed them. It would've been more fun and challenging if the primary network had just been tougher instead.

[Ozymandiaz]

Does seem to be a lot of heated opinions on this... I will try it and see how it works out. Besides I have not been able to follow entirely what is going on anyways just yet due to being gone for some days 

[Wingflier]

Frankly I don't see why everybody is so up in arms about this change.  In some ways, it removes depth from the game I guess, but it also adds depth as well.  From a perspective viewpoint, I could see why some people would consider it to be a "superficial set of goals" or a "time sink", but like Keith said, it's ALL superficial and it's ALL a timesink.  We aren't really fighting through the galaxy as humanity's last desperate hope, or training in Battle School to be the timely commanders of a fleet dispatched long ago; this is a video game.  The relevance and sentiment you give it is your own, not Chris', Keith's, or anyone else's.  Sure, this change might make games take longer, why is that a bad thing?  The unfortunate part about words and internet forums are that they prevent you from being able to accurately gauge how intelligent somebody really is.  It has taken me awhile to see that Chris, in addition to knowing the game better than any of us (he designed it after all), has an extraordinary level of intelligence, the likes of which I've rarely seen.  Often, we need to give him more credit than we do, for doing what's best for the game.  I don't expect him to be thoroughly able to convey it all on paper, because the large majority of your thinking process happens subconsciously, and Chris has come to a revelation that makes sense in his own mind.  So is it an issue of trust?  Absolutely.  But I agree with his sentiments that if this mechanic had always been in place, nobody would have complained, and that's good enough for me.

[x4000]

Fruden -- on an 80 planet map, it's expected that games will take about 7-12 hours. But it varies a lot based on player style. I'm more of a turtle, so mine are more like 13-16, usually. This née mechanic adds zero time to my playstyle, I expect.

HitmanN -- I've already explained it pretty much every way I can think of. Of my motivations on the secondaries are clear, I suggest looking at my most recent posts about them again; I'd just be restating them I think we simply disagree at this point, though: I don't think there's much of a misunderstanding here. It seems you disagree that the benefits of the secondaries -- player choice and havoc 4 more planets that must be captured -- are worth their existence. That's okay, but I don't agree with that sentiment.

[unclean]

Can anyone explain how Suzera's strategy is done, exactly, aside from just the general idea? Like what bonus ship to choose, tech unlocks, and all that good stuff.

[wyvern83]

Can anyone explain how Suzera's strategy is done, exactly, aside from just the general idea? Like what bonus ship to choose, tech unlocks, and all that good stuff.

I'm afraid I don't follow you.. What strategy are you referring to? (to be more clear Suzera hasn't even posted in this thread and his original suggestion, which I haven't seen, was only the basis or catalyst for x4000's idea that we have now)

[TheMachineIsSentient]

This will be my last post on the topic.

All the comparisons to Ender's game, Star Wars, pastries, and various other analogies... It's hard to prove a point this way.

This game used to have choice. Now we are being told what planets to take, how to play, and being forced into whatever style this is. I'm attaching an image. You will notice that 75% of the map are mark three or higher planets, with the most annoying core shield generator shown on the filter. I have turned off fog of war, but imagine scouting all of these, and then trying to pick which route you would like to take for positions that are meaningless strategically. It's going to take a lot of time to fight my way around to capture all of these -1. I have not showed the other letters, but be assured they are equally annoying. For technologies and planets I don't want. I don't want to be forced into this. It's a waste of time.

The whole thing is an overreaction to the deep strike problem. The solution is inelegant and exposes a serious flaw in the AI. This could not be taken care of with the AI or existing mechanics,  so instead we now have forced targets around the map. Fantastic.

I want to address the definition of time sink.

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).

-Keith

I don't know which definition you are referring to. But I can address these. Having two different AI's provides two different AI mechanics (hopefully rolled different AI types). It also may have different plots. This adds choice and can change a person's strategy.  The different AI types alone provide thorough variety and change the way the game is played from start to end. That's fun. The core shield generators are more about pushing progress and wasting time, as the targets themselves may not even be valuable. For the guard posts, I assume this is to ensure  that taking over a core world is suitably devastating. Requiring five cities, it's really a different game at this point for the latest expansion, and hard to compare. I don't feel like you have taken anything away (at this point) by providing this alternate path, but you are right that this could be a time sink- if it's not fun. Luckily, there are enough events and variety to make the expansion fun while you mess around with cities. There are also better rewards. My definition of time sink includes fun factor. Otherwise, all game playing can be reduced to being a time sink, and indeed it has. You have to consider fun factor. Forcing targets that have no strategic value is not fun. Wasting my time by sending me all around the galaxy for these targets is a time sink and removes a fairly open world concept.

Lastly, it seems Chris thinks that every one of his ideas was infallible at the time they are made, so it's all but impossible to have a discussion about this. Especially when anyone who doesn't "understand"(I think you mean agree) with the master plan(if there is one) is a "dolt." There's really no point in posting about this from my point of view. I am going to play 3.120 and 4.041 unless this game becomes fun again. This has broken the game. It's not fun anymore.

I don't know what's changed Chris, but we used to have an open world with as much as we wanted to do, and now we have your forced play style and forced track for this game, forced planets, forced targets... That's not what I want to play.

[HitmanN]

HitmanN -- I've already explained it pretty much every way I can think of. Of my motivations on the secondaries are clear, I suggest looking at my most recent posts about them again; I'd just be restating them I think we simply disagree at this point, though: I don't think there's much of a misunderstanding here. It seems you disagree that the benefits of the secondaries -- player choice and havoc 4 more planets that must be captured -- are worth their existence. That's okay, but I don't agree with that sentiment.

I've tried to see an answer somewhere, honestly, but I haven't. It's all been very roundabout and vague. I want to understand the necessity of the secondary networks but I just can't, because so far I only know how they work, not what prompted the concept to even begin to materialize in the first place. What prompted the "we need more than one network" mindset. It's as if the secondaries exist for the purpose of existing. If you've really answered these questions directly somewhere, then please, if it wouldn't be too much work, can you copy-paste it, or post a link to it? I'd appreciate it.

I don't completely disagree with the benefits, I disagree with the way the related task is presented. The main point is, it's just such an uninventive an repetitive addition, it cheapens the value of the main network, and it adds more litter around the galaxy, most of which just magically disappears without ever being of any real value. If there was at least some sort of way to benefit from the secondaries instead of the primaries, it'd add choice, and still require expanding around. For instance, choosing to destroy one node from each network, or all nodes from one network, or something of that sort.

Overall, along with many of the changes with 4.0 and beyond, I'm starting to feel the original AI War is sinking under some sort of new gameplay. "Every planet is a choice" was one of the slogans I was often shown back when I bought the base game. This slogan no longer holds true. Can't these new mechanics be introduced in a way where choice remains? That's why I think having a lot of primary nodes and only one network would be much better, with maybe having to destroy half of the nodes, but there being more in total. The nodes would be spread far and wide, and even if you'd choose the easiest ones, you'd still need to spread around half the galaxy, yet you'd have more choices about which noded planets you take. It DOES solve all the problems you listed:
1. You need to take more planets.
2. You have zero chance of attacking AI home before the network is down.
3. You are not forced to take any specific planets, you can choose from a range of options.
4. It is definitely not hard to code, nor to understand.
5. You can't win by turtling, because of the wide-spread layout of the noded planets and necessity to capture a number of them, some definitely far from home.

I'm definitely Mantis-ing suggestions regarding this though, so if you could just one more time try to point me to the answers I'm seeking, and I'll leave it at that for the time being. Thank you for the patience.

[wyvern83]

The core shield generators are more about pushing progress and wasting time, as the targets themselves may not even be valuable.

How are 4/5 ARS's, 1 Adv. Factory, and at least 1 Fabricator not valuable? (CS-A through C) Do you really go without some or all of these in your playstyle? (like taking only 1-3 ARS's for example?) Are you actually saying you find a lot of unlocks and fabricator options to be worthless?

If you are a minimalist and I assume you planet hop, would taking a far flung CS-D or E planet really be outside of your regular plans? Its random and there's no guarantee one of each will be in such a spot but there are quite a few to choice from; esp. once the spawning was fixed. Is the added consideration for potential forward basing what's really bothering you for those two secondary networks?

[keith.lamothe]

Lastly, it seems Chris thinks that every one of his ideas was infallible at the time they are made, so it's all but impossible to have a discussion about this. Especially when anyone who doesn't "understand"(I think you mean agree) with the master plan(if there is one) is a "dolt." There's really no point in posting about this from my point of view. I am going to play 3.120 and 4.041 unless this game becomes fun again. This has broken the game. It's not fun anymore.

Machine, you're being an ass, stop it

[keith.lamothe]

HitmanN, the secondaries are there because we want to require the capture of at least 8 planets, rather than at least 4.

There are other ways this could be accomplished, but this is the one Chris chose (and when I saw his notes while he was working on it I didn't think it was a problem).

[TheMachineIsSentient]

Machine, you're being an ass, stop it

... Better that than a hole.  

[HitmanN]

How are 4/5 ARS's, 1 Adv. Factory, and at least 1 Fabricator not valuable? (CS-A through C) Do you really go without some or all of these in your playstyle? (like taking only 1-3 ARS's for example?) Are you actually saying you find a lot of unlocks and fabricator options to be worthless?

Sorry to hijack this conversation, but ARS's, Adv Factories and Fabricators ARE generally valuable, but with this setup we're not capturing the planets because of those, but because we have no other choice if we want to every complete the game. They are no longer a strategic choice. And let's face it, sometimes the unlocks aren't worth a huge detour. This sort of stuff should always be for the player to decide. If they purposely want to try to get by with smaller selection of ships, that really should be up to them to decide. If you want to force expansion, fine, but do it in a way that doesn't force players to do those things in very specific places. This sort of stuff sounds more like a sub-quest fitting for a LotS setup or somesuch, not for an average game.

I don't mind going after one network, if there are choices in how to do that, but having to go after multiple networks and multiple specific planets really drives AI War away from its origins, having choices.

I am going to play 3.120 and 4.041 unless this game becomes fun again. This has broken the game. It's not fun anymore.

I concur. I have no desire to update the game to have this sort of setup as a whole. Something needs to be different about it, seriously.

I don't know what's changed Chris, but we used to have an open world with as much as we wanted to do, and now we have your forced play style and forced track for this game, forced planets, forced targets... That's not what I want to play.

Seconded, but then again I already said just about the same earlier. Hardly a coincidence.

HitmanN, the secondaries are there because we want to require the capture of at least 8 planets, rather than at least 4. There are other ways this could be accomplished, but this is the one Chris chose (and when I saw his notes while he was working on it I didn't think it was a problem).

The fact that that requirement is achieved with such a complex, multi-layered solution is a problem, and the fact that it takes away freedom of choice and forces to take planets with ARS's, etc, etc... it causes so many small flaws to surface, all for the purpose of what exactly. You can get players to expand and capture planets with other means that don't involve forced specifics. Increase the rewards for doing so, and increase the penalties if you don't, but seriously, keep the limits to what you are forced to do at bare minimum. AI War has been fine so far with having basically freedom to advance as you like. The extent to which these changes go to from the the get-go are simply too huge, too sudden, and feel like they haven't been thoroughly thought-out.

Great idea, but flawed execution.

[ShadowOTE]

HitmanN, it sounds like you've got some valid complaints, but what would you suggest as solutions? I personally like the idea of keeping a few primary core generators that you HAVE to take and putting them on worlds with Factories so you HAVE to take at least one factory, which fits with the game and isnt too terrible an imposition. At the same time, so that players of all play styles have a choice it seems like earlier discussion on having the other secondary nodes provide substaintial boosts to AI homeworld defenses would be an excellent way to balance this issue. It discourages rushing by making it far more difficult to pull off, but avoids grind scenarios. The big question is whether it takes a lot of development time to implement.