Discussion about Different Playstyles

[Wingflier]

I think the "Discussion about Blobbing" thread got a little off track because we ended up polarizing two groups of players.

I started thinking about it afterwards and realized that wasn't my intention (and probably not the intention of the OP either).

More specifically, some people LIKE blobbing their units into 1 giant horde and sending them into the enemy, and while some of us might find this boring or repulsive, shouldn't they be able to play that way if they like?

Zerging is another common tactic that many people (including me) like to do.  Zerging basically consists of getting an inexpensive, spammable, and effective ship type (or types) and simply FRDing them onto a planet.  Zerging is (as blobbing) pretty mindless, but definitely a joy to watch.  I can see why people like doing this.

However, if blobbing and zerging are both effective and useful strategies, shouldn't people who enjoy squad-based micromanagement be rewarded with their playstyle too? 

In other words, I don't think we necessarily need to polarize this issue.  If we want to keep blobbing in the game, that's fine with me, because some people like it.  However, shouldn't squad-based strategies also be part of the game?  There's been talk that micromanaging individual parts of your fleet has a huge impact on the outcome of the battle, but I haven't seen this.  There's been talk that all three Triangle ships are just as useful but I haven't seen this either.

The biggest resistance to nerfing bombers and buffing the other two fleet ships (and their counterparts) seems to be the worry that it will somehow eliminate blobbing from the game, or remove people's favorite playstyles.  I feel that this is an irrational fear.  The biggest reason we should nerf Bombers and buff the other two types is that it gives the player more strategic and tactical options, instead of just the default of upgrading Bombers every game and blobbing all your stuff together for maximum efficiency.

Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse here, but the point I'm trying to get across is that we shouldn't let our fear of change, or losing our favorite playstyle from improving the game.  I'd personally like to see an AI War were a multitude of different playstyles, whether on the strategic, or tactical level are encouraged. 

There have been some great suggestions about how to improve the Triangle, and I certainly hope we can take an objective look at those in the future without people becoming irrationally afraid that improving the game will make them hate it.

Thanks for reading.

[relmz32]

Wingflier is correct.
+1 for justice and good sense.

I had some bs about micro, but never mind. Spire Maws are the best, though. Omnomnom.

[Hearteater]

I don't believe changing how the triangle ships works has anything to do with de-blobbing.  They are two unrelated issues, both of which I don't support, but for entirely different reasons.

That being said, there is a limited amount of "stuff" a game can incorporate before it becomes an unworkable mess, so that may be why squad-level tactics won't work in AI Wars.  And really, squad-level tactics are just "more than one blob" tactics.  Now if you want to see how effective they can be in the game currently, turn off Schizo waves.  Against, for example, a wave of Fighters, you can get massively better results with proper Missile Frigate kiting.  In fact, there is no question that blobbing is the inferior approach if the fight is at all remotely dangerous to the player.

But when the player is on offense, the AI's response is always a mixed force so blobbing generally wins.  If some planets had a very strong "theme" of units, more "squad"-work would be the result.  Consider if Guard Posts had a "Detachment Type" randomly assigned at the start of a game.  Most Guard Posts would get General Detachments, which could have any unit spawn for Reinforcements.  But sometimes a Sniper Detachment would get assigned to a Guard Post, and it would only get until with sniper range.  Or a Stealth Detachment.  Or Close Combat.  And maybe Close Combat detachments only got assigned to Worm Hole Guard Posts, and maybe units in a Sniper Detachments didn't sit at their Guard Post, but spread out around the system edge.  What about a Fighter Detachment that got Fighters and they'd prioritize player Bombers?

[Kahuna]

What do people even mean by "squad-based micromanagement" multiple ship "balls/blobs" instead of 1 big?

[Draco18s]

But when the player is on offense, the AI's response is always a mixed force so blobbing generally wins.

That's the critical issue, right there.

Also, I'd like to see the bonus ship types separated a little more for the AI types.  E.g. turtle will pick tanks, armor ships, FF bearers, etc. more often than the mad bomber will.

It gets really "samey" when you're fighting etherjet tractor ships every game (no really, out of the last four games I've played with random AI types, I've seen etherjets three times).

[Wingflier]

I don't believe changing how the triangle ships works has anything to do with de-blobbing.  They are two unrelated issues, both of which I don't support, but for entirely different reasons.

I think they're strongly related.

For example, by buffing the speed and power of Fighters, and nerfing the speed of Bombers, you've now encouraged the player to send Fighters in their own squads to take out Bombers, instead of just sending your whole ball against them (since Fighters on their own are inadequate).

Or if Fighters become more of a threat to the player, you're encouraged to actually send your Frigates against them individually, instead of ignoring them and taking out the more important threats first etc.

In addition, Bombers seem to be the only Fleet Ship right now worth sending on its own to take out Guard Posts or Guardians since the other two types either lack the damage or staying power.  If Fighters were buffed, I would use them in their own strike forces all the time because they are cheap and easy to replace. Now it just doesn't seem worth it, it's more of a suicide mission.

So I guess what I'm saying is that by properly rebalancing the Triangle, it may not cause YOU to blob any less, but that's because you enjoy blobbing.  It would definitely give other players a new opportunity though.

That being said, there is a limited amount of "stuff" a game can incorporate before it becomes an unworkable mess, so that may be why squad-level tactics won't work in AI Wars.  And really, squad-level tactics are just "more than one blob" tactics.

This is what micromanagement means ;p

If you want to call squad-based tactics, "more than one blob", then any RTS game can have "more than one blob", but what differentiates the good players from the bad is how good they are at controlling these "multiple blobs" in a limited amount of time.  I realize some people don't like that, but it also adds a lot of depth to the game by taking into account a person's multitasking and critical thinking skills under pressure.  People should have the option to do this in AI War if they want, it just shouldn't be the ONLY strategy.

But when the player is on offense, the AI's response is always a mixed force so blobbing generally wins.

This could also be looked at in the future.  There's not much strategy when the game just comes down to mixed force v.s mixed force - it's basically a battle of:  "May the best blob win!" 

We could buff Guardians significantly and reduce the rate that they seed significantly, so that countering them took more thought than just sending your whole blob, but sending the most effective counter(s) their way.  We could also have each planet favor a certain type (or types) of fleet ship, so that attacking that planet is less of a schizophrenic mess.

[KDR_11k]

Well, you won't really need to react to fighters since they'd have to cross the range of your frigs first and the AI doesn't concentrate forces in-system enough to breach that line.

I've seen Starcraft described as a mixture of a strategy game and an action game due to the heavy emphasis on micro. That's what micro is, ordering units around a lot to make up for unit AI deficiencies (basic examples are kiting and keeping them away from their counters but in games with more advanced combat models you can also dodge shots, take cover and whatnot).

There's a bit of micro you can do (in fact have to do, e.g. to make fighters intercept bombers before they hit your frigs since the bombers outrange the fighters) but the most annoying part is giving attack orders on high threat targets (e.g. making your frigs shoot the damn autobombs before they impact or dealing with nasties like zombie guardians). Too bad the target finding is too CPU intensive to make more advanced prioritization feasible... Stuffing the targets into a priority queue won't do, right?

[Hearteater]

As far as I can tell, you really, really, want to buff Fighters.  And you are using the issues with blobbing as support for your buffing Fighters.  But buffing Fighters will have zero impact on blobbing.  If you want to buff Fighters, don't lump it in with an unrelated issue.  It just gets confusing.  Allow me to explain why your points trying to relate Fighter buffs to blobbing don't work:

For example, by buffing the speed and power of Fighters, and nerfing the speed of Bombers, you've now encouraged the player to send Fighters in their own squads to take out Bombers, instead of just sending your whole ball against them (since Fighters on their own are inadequate).

Or if Fighters become more of a threat to the player, you're encouraged to actually send your Frigates against them individually, instead of ignoring them and taking out the more important threats first etc.

What Bombers?  The AI doesn't have a lot of Bombers you need to take out.  The AI has a huge mix of random ships.  The only reason you put your Fighters in front is because they are cheap to replace, not because they kill Bombers.  And, by the way, they do a good job as cannon fodder already.  And when does the AI have a credible Fighter threat?  Not on its planets.  Again, only in waves does this concentration of ship types appear for the AI, and it is already a good idea to micro your blob by ship type for optimal performance in those cases.

In addition, Bombers seem to be the only Fleet Ship right now worth sending on its own to take out Guard Posts or Guardians since the other two types either lack the damage or staying power.  If Fighters were buffed, I would use them in their own strike forces all the time because they are cheap and easy to replace. Now it just doesn't seem worth it, it's more of a suicide mission.

Guard Posts are made of wet paper.  A single cap of Mark I Fighters will kill a Missile Guard Post in 4 seconds.  In that time, the Missile Guard Post will kill zero Fighters.  The stats are very similar across the rest of the non-Core Guard Posts.  Unless Force Fields or Worm Hole Guard Posts are involved, Bombers aren't particularly important for killing run-of-the-mill Guard Posts.

[Minotaar]

Completely agreed with Hearteater. If the AI sends a mixed force, the proper way to respond is to send a mixed force as well because all of your ships will find good targets. You don't just send your Fighters to deal with Bombers, you also have to contend with Frigates along the way. I also like the idea of having a mono-unit force attached to some Guardposts, instead of complete randomness all the time.

Your proposed fighter, Wingflier, literally IS Etherjet tractor. And I must say that that unit is a complete PITA to use and needs to be babysitted the whole time. But it's a bonus type, so I can just not pick it. You want to replace the fighter with it, that would affect everyone. This kind of ship is almost completely useless when not microed, and you aren't looking for that, I suppose.

But these are minor points. The major problem with micro being very effective in obvious ways is that the game can't be balanced around it, not even because some people won't do it period, but because there is a pause button. Pause button means anyone patient enough can do it, and I think many will feel as if they are forced to do it because they are giving up too much otherwise. I know I would.

Micro not being necessary is in the manifesto of this game and it goes to great lengths to achieve that. What other game has an auto-targeting system this sophisticated? None have, as far as I know. But that doesn't mean there is nothing to be gained by microing well, the incentives are just not built in, you have to find ways to take advantage of it that were overlooked and not replaced with automation. Isn't this an interesting challenge for those of you who enjoy micro?

[Kahuna]

Just attacking/defending with everything in 1 big blob often isn't the best choice.

If there's AI Bombers, Fighters and Missile Frigates you shouldn't just send everything (You can but that's not optimal). First you destroy the Fighters with your Missile Frigates so your Bombers wont get destroyed. Then you send Bombers and Fighters. If the AI Missile Frigates are separated from the Fighters and Bombers (because they out range them and are slower) just select all bombers and send them to destroy the Missile Frigates.

If there's an MRLS Guard Post you're not gonna wanna attack that with your Fighters.

But sometimes there's just no reason to use more than 1 blob. Not sure what's the problem.

EDIT: "non blobbing" is sometimes more effective than "blobbing"

[keith.lamothe]

Micro not being necessary is in the manifesto of this game and it goes to great lengths to achieve that.

I wouldn't go so far as to call it the manifesto (that, I think, is providing a singleplayer/co-op experience that is always genuinely challenging if you ask it to be), but yes, there is a lot of design and implementation effort that's gone into cutting down the need to micro to get sane results.

[Diazo]

For example, by buffing the speed and power of Fighters, and nerfing the speed of Bombers, you've now encouraged the player to send Fighters in their own squads to take out Bombers, instead of just sending your whole ball against them (since Fighters on their own are inadequate).

Where did this come from? It's due to the Attack Multiplier true, but fighter curb-stomp bombers, hard.

I feel there is a significant underestimating of fighters going on, it's just the fact that bombers do great against stationary targets and fighters do great against mobile targets means the bomber overshadows the fighter.

In addition, Bombers seem to be the only Fleet Ship right now worth sending on its own to take out Guard Posts or Guardians since the other two types either lack the damage or staying power.  If Fighters were buffed, I would use them in their own strike forces all the time because they are cheap and easy to replace. Now it just doesn't seem worth it, it's more of a suicide mission.

But that's got nothing to do with the fighters being weak. By killing the guard post with bombers, all the AI ships (which are what the fighters are good against) turn into threat and head for your worlds where turrets, not fighters, kill them (usually without losing a single turret).

So I guess what I'm saying is that by properly rebalancing the Triangle, it may not cause YOU to blob any less, but that's because you enjoy blobbing.  It would definitely give other players a new opportunity though.

You have not convinced me buffing fighters would do anything beyond make the fighters an overpowered unit. I agree you have a point about the bombers being too good against too many things but making a second unit too good is not balancing anything.

But when the player is on offense, the AI's response is always a mixed force so blobbing generally wins.

This could also be looked at in the future.  There's not much strategy when the game just comes down to mixed force v.s mixed force - it's basically a battle of:  "May the best blob win!"

And here is where fighters shine, or they would if most of these defensive fights did not take place in your own system where the turrets do magnitudes more damage then your fighters do.

I still see this suggestion to miss the point.

Bombers are the offensive unit and they are excellent on the attack taking out stationary, defensive structures. And they shine at doing this because there is nothing better in the game at doing that then them.

Fighters are the defensive unit to destroy AI ships when they attack you and they are great in this role, but turrets are better so whenever possible players have these defensive fights take place in range of turrets. Because of this most of the time these fights are won by the turrets, not the fighters so the fighters are seen as not pulling their weight when in fact they do pull their weight, they just never get a chance to show it.

There is a reason I usually unlock both Mk II fighters and bombers at game start, the fighter is a strong defensive unit that is worth the knowledge (at least to me.)

D.

[TechSY730]

Agreed. Blobbing should be feasible, but so should more granular, "microish" tactics. Right now, for a variety of reasons covered in the other thread*, non-blob, focused purpose fleet management styles are often not rewarded enough for many players to even consider using it in all but the most pressing of circumstances.

AKA, both playstyles should be feasible, but there should be reasonable circumstances where one could be more worthwhile than the other.


*some highlights of these reasons are (and not all of these are bad things, many just are)
-The AI tends to have a very small say in the "tempo" of the game, by design
-The AI tends to have an "boolean" nature to their responses of human activity
-AI planets, on average, aren't all that well defended (OK, this one is a bad thing for all but the hyper-aggressive AI types)
   (as a sub point of this, all but the core guard posts are really weak right now)
-The AI tends to use mixes of units, insentivising the player to use large mixes of units

BTW, I like the idea of not only tying initial unlocks to AI types, but having certain AI types have a list of "preferred" ship unlocks, for both their initial and subsequent ship unlocks, that they are more likely to choose whenever they get a new bonus ship. Also, allowing the AI players to choose separate unlocks for their later game unlocks (that is, the AIP triggered unlocks they get, it already allows this for the initial game seeding unlocks) would be cool too.

We could also have each planet favor a certain type (or types) of fleet ship, so that attacking that planet is less of a schizophrenic mess.

There is (or was) logic that when the AI chooses which ships to reinforce at a guard post, it is more likely to choose ships that are already there (or in greater numbers compared to the others types there, scaling for ship caps)
Making this logic a bit stronger (especially if there is only one fleet ship type at a guard post at the time of the reinforcement of that post), combined with making the initial seeding giving some guard posts an almost if not fully single type distribution of ships would accomplish this without too much extra bookkeeping. There could be a smaller chance that a planet as a whole would get this logic applied to it as well.

[Minotaar]

Micro not being necessary is in the manifesto of this game and it goes to great lengths to achieve that.

I wouldn't go so far as to call it the manifesto (that, I think, is providing a singleplayer/co-op experience that is always genuinely challenging if you ask it to be), but yes, there is a lot of design and implementation effort that's gone into cutting down the need to micro to get sane results.

I said it was in, not the manifesto, of course.

[Wingflier]

Where did this come from? It's due to the Attack Multiplier true, but fighter curb-stomp bombers, hard.

I feel there is a significant underestimating of fighters going on, it's just the fact that bombers do great against stationary targets and fighters do great against mobile targets means the bomber overshadows the fighter.

The Bombers also does well against mobile targets as well, in fact, many more mobile targets than the Fighters (including Frigates, Golems, Hybrids, and many types of Guardians).

But that's got nothing to do with the fighters being weak. By killing the guard post with bombers, all the AI ships (which are what the fighters are good against) turn into threat and head for your worlds where turrets, not fighters, kill them (usually without losing a single turret).

Okay? So where does the usefulness of Fighters come into play here?

You have not convinced me buffing fighters would do anything beyond make the fighters an overpowered unit. I agree you have a point about the bombers being too good against too many things but making a second unit too good is not balancing anything.

Fighters directly counter Bombers.  By buffing Fighters you are countering Bombers.  Secondly, Fighters have such crappy multipliers against most things that even tripling their damage would only put them in line with where Bombers currently are now in terms of usefulness. 

And here is where fighters shine, or they would if most of these defensive fights did not take place in your own system where the turrets do magnitudes more damage then your fighters do.

I'm sorry, I'm just not seeing how Fighters excel any more in defensive situations than they do in offensive situations.  Their damage seems lackluster, they die in swarms to Guardian Raids, and the AI can basically ignore them without much repercussion (they often do).

If you wanted to make the argument that FRIGATES are crappy on offense but great on defense I'd buy that.  Frigates can outrange most things and are immune to aoe splash, so they're great for drawn-out defensive situations, and do enough damage at a long enough range to be of great value in a defensive situation.  Unfortunately, Frigates aren't Fighters.

So please explain better why Fighters are better on defense than say Bombers or Frigates, or in fact just your turrets?  Classically, the Fighter has always been an offensive unit, which considering its speed makes much more sense and is a much more intuitive role for it to have.

If Fighters are great on defense, it's only because Bombers are so overpowered and they just happen to counter them.  That's not a very good argument.