Starting again - Whats new?

[keith.lamothe]

I moderately enjoyed the first battlezone, didn't hear about the second one.  The first one would have been more enjoyable to me if the interface had more traction; for that reason I tend to prefer turn based games (or games like AIW that fully support giving orders while paused and generally make it easy to have and understand comprehensive intel of at least your own surroundings).

[zoutzakje]

that's pretty much the reason why I almost only play turn based strategy games (AI war being one of the few exceptions). Usually there is so much stuff to learn in strategy games... I just like to take my time for it and see how things work etc.... So only turn based strategy games without a time limit for making decisions (unless you get loads of time) or real time strategy with a pause button and still being able to give orders while paused.
Seriously, I spend about half of my AI war time paused lol

[Phyrex]

The map generator works by voodoo magic. If you want to get a planet with a good starting location and a good starting ship, I suggest sacrificing a chicken first.

That's really too bad. I remember hating the random and often ugly galaxy map seeds. Unfortunately that hasn't changed and even more unfortunate; I don't have any chickens (or goats).
I got the expansions working now, at least some of the new galaxy options are my taste. I think "maze D" is nice, although I wished it had a couple more connections like how maze A & B have a secondary option. (just my luck)

Any reason why there never was a map editor by the way? Just being able to move a few points around or add/remove a connection line would already be great.

[x4000]

This explains the philosophy behind that, actually: http://arcengames.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=AI_War_-_Design_Complexity#Why_Does_The_Game_Force_Variety_On_The_Player.3F

[Phyrex]

Hmm, seems a bit arbitrary to limit players in this choice when there is basically an option for everything else.

This game has always been about finding the right difficulty that suits you. Whether it's an AI 3 or AI 10 technologist. It doesn't matter if you're a noob or pro, if it's too easy or too hard the game is no fun. All the countless of settings will influence the difficulty already. No core shield generators or astro trains for example... it's up to the player to make a choice that's right for him/her. Yet with the galaxy layout it seems you expect players to pick an equivalent AI 1 Turtle just to have an easy game...
Besides, I rather play on a galaxy map I prefer with AI 9 than on a crappy map with AI 8 for example.

In my opinion there are other good ways to promote randomness other than limiting players in their options. Perhaps a 'random galaxy' score bonus or a separate scoreboard, or make the final achievements: 'random map' only.
I for one do spend much time clicking the random button. Right now I want to learn the game to a friend and start out next to him with him having ship X. Even those simple parameters cost me 15-30 minutes to find a decent one (in vanilla at least).

In many of the games I've played I actually liked the creativity of using a map editor the most. I was really hoping to have standardized maps aka custom campaigns/missions that are the same for everyone so you can challenge people to beat it and where people can do for example speedruns against each other.
I see the expansions add some new map types like Circle or "X". They both allow for some great new gaming experiences that players apparently wanted. But what about Square or "Y"? On the one hand you already allow people to greatly alter galaxy map layouts, especially "X" is very characteristic and always the same (with the crossroads in the middle), yet you don't want players to come up with their own creative layout because you expect the lack of randomness will ruin their game? Come on.

Randomness is great and all but so is the option to set the game parameters just the way you like it.

[TechSY730]

There used to be the ability to move planets around in the galaxy map (only changed the display, not the actual wormhole structure), but sadly, that has not been ported over yet.

Ideas about a more flexible map structure system have been brought up before; here are two such ideas I proposed:
http://www.arcengames.com/mantisbt/view.php?id=2200
http://www.arcengames.com/mantisbt/view.php?id=2665

EDIT: Also, keep in mind the design goal "Why Does The Game Force Variety On The Player?", so it is unlikely we will ever be able to get complete control over the game creation process (except for the case of my campaign designer idea, but those would not be normal games of course)

EDIT2: Basically ninja'd (Keith posted before I posted my first edit) on that part of the issue, but you can still check out the post to get some deeper explanations on the topic. I would agree that this design goal is easily the most controversial of all the design goals for this game, but it is also quite likely the one that Chris (x4000) has been the most adamant and "stubborn" about.

EDIT3: Derp, Chris himself beat me to by quite a long shot. That's what I get for not keeping up with the thread.

[keith.lamothe]

Hmm, seems a bit arbitrary to limit players in this choice when there is basically an option for everything else.

You are free to continue banging your head into this particular brick wall (i.e. our intentions), but understand that this is one particular design decision that has survived far, far longer than the ones we've changed our minds on