So, this whole crystal thing

[chemical_art]

I don't mind the idea of a resource that runs out. In pretty much every popular strategy game out there (Starcraft 2 for example), when you run out of a resource...well too bad buddy, go mine some more.

The difference is that Starcraft 2 is a zero sum game. Units don't pop out of thin air. And both players are fighting for those resources.

Since the AI doesn't produce units, and no players are competing for resources, any comparison for economy is diluted at best.

[Cinth]

Keep in mind it is Friday night, I feel like I'm stretching my mind in trying to address it. But pain be damned I want to try before I get inebriated .

Posting from the past?  Might want to recheck your favorite calender.  I would hate for you to miss something important (like work on Monday) 

[chemical_art]

Posting from the past?  Might want to recheck your favorite calender.  I would hate for you to miss something important (like work on Monday)

Oh, my shorthand kills me.

It is my Friday night. Such is life when your weekend starts when many other's ends.

[Cinth]

Posting from the past?  Might want to recheck your favorite calender.  I would hate for you to miss something important (like work on Monday)

Oh, my shorthand kills me.

It is my Friday night. Such is life when your weekend starts when many other's ends.

Well then   Cheers!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUQT4hykPd0

[Oralordos]

I like this idea. I do think that it will require such a large amount of balancing that you will want to wait until you are really working on AI War and not have the distractions of other projects.

[Wingflier]

I don't mind the idea of a resource that runs out. In pretty much every popular strategy game out there (Starcraft 2 for example), when you run out of a resource...well too bad buddy, go mine some more.

In AI War I feel like we've been coddled a little too much in this category. The fact that we're merging Metal and Crystal together after all these years, because they've become so interchangeable, is proof of that. Just like in any other strategy game (or in real-life strategy), if you're not tailoring your production and your army based on the resources available to you, then you're doing it wrong.

I do disagree with this. AI War is largely centered around you setting the pace, you claiming territory when you see a resource you really really need. Why? Because while m/c are infinite in supply, your knowledge, overall tech, and map control are dictated by your extremely finite knowledge and AI Progress resources. So, there are resources that you spend and earn that are finite. It's just that because of the nature of the game, having limited resources overall would completely screw you over and have a massive influence on how the game is played at a fundamental level. AIP would likely need a complete overhaul.

The Crystal isn't limited. It's still unlimited just like the "main" resource, but you have to find planets to mine it from.

In fact, the planets you'll be taking with those features you listed (tech, map control, factories, etc.) will most likely already have Metal and "Crystal" on them. My point is that unless you want one of your resources to stall, you'll have to tailor your Technology unlocks to whatever your resource situation is.

This isn't that difficult or strenuous on the player. If you have a lot of metal, then use your knowledge to unlock units which cost a lot of metal. If you have too much Crystal, then start unlocking those units.

If we just make the resources interchangeable as they are now, then we're just stuck in the same position.

It used to be that choosing units based on your Metal or Crystal situation was actually important, then people whined about the kind of things you are now. Instead of asking players to adapt to the game or the scenario, they wanted the game to adapt to them. Well that's fine, except it takes away a lot of the strategy. Because the resources are interchangeable, I can go the same strategy every single game, even if it is metal or crystal heavy, regardless of my economic situation. So what you inevitably lead to is a situation where the players can just do the same unlocks and builds over and over without any drawbacks.

I don't think this is the way AI War was intended to be played. This is made clear by the fact that so many elements of the game are random like ARS unlocks, fabs. and resource deposits all over the galaxy.

If you went the same strategy in any other popular RTS every game, you would lose. Yet I can pick the same bonus ship, and unlock the same things, every game, even on difficulty 9, and win every time; and nothing is stopping me from doing that. You tell me, is this the way AI War is meant to be played?

The difference is that Starcraft 2 is a zero sum game. Units don't pop out of thin air. And both players are fighting for those resources.

Since the AI doesn't produce units, and no players are competing for resources, any comparison for economy is diluted at best.

Actually the players usually never "fight" for one another's resources, the game is typically over long before that. What they will do is try to prevent another player from "expanding", or in other words deny him from increasing his own resources in some way.

That DOES exist in AI War. The AI's resource is AIP, which the player can reduce with Data Centers, Super Terminals, or by being very careful in what planets he/she takes. The AI can't take away your resources, but it can destroy your army or destroy your planets to prevent you from holding on to them.

So it's not as different as you think.

----

Finally, Keith could add a new Knowledge unlock that would transfer one resource type to another, but it should cost around 5K knowledge, and should have a pretty crappy conversion rate.

In other words, the player is ecnouraged to adapt to their own economic situation.

[Cinth]

If you went the same strategy in any other popular RTS every game, you would lose. Yet I can pick the same bonus ship, and unlock the same things, every game, even on difficulty 9, and win every time; and nothing is stopping me from doing that. You tell me, is this the way AI War is meant to be played?

This sir, is a loaded question.  I, for one, do play pretty much every game of AIW the same way.  I should think that each player here has their own way of approaching impending disaster. 

AIW and Starcraft II have at least two things in common.  One is the superior army flat out beating its opponent.  The second is economic strangulation.

[Wingflier]

Cinth, you may be content playing each game of AI War the exact same way, but my point is that I don't think that's the way it was intended to be played.

A big part of successful Strategy games (especially grand strategy games such as AI War) is being forced to adapt to your situation.

In any other successful RTS on the market right now, if you employ the same strategy every time against competent players, you WILL lose. This is because the players will catch on to your act, and begin countering your strategy.

The AI in AI War can not counter your strategy, at least directly. It can make it harder for your strategy to be employed, but that's it. The only thing preventing players from doing the same thing every game are "random" mechanics, such as resource nodes, which force you to adapt to the situation. These mechanics take the place of a true counter in other games.

So yes, I think it's important to make the player adapt to each new scenario in a meaningful way. If you don't like this, I'm sure there are difficulties at which it doesn't really matter what you do anymore.

[Cinth]

I don't play RTS against human opponents anymore.  It got boring to me after awhile. In AIW, I push the AI to the point it nearly breaks my defenses. At that point I make moves to try to finish the game. It usually doesn't play out quite the same way twice, but I enjoy the grand scale carnage that follows.

That particular strat works even in Starcraft.  Terran, and to an extent Protoss, can turtle up and tech up while letting the other player(s) attrition themselves on your "walls".  200 supply armies tend to steamroll at that point.  I know there are other strats that work just as well, mainly involving remembering unit counters and tons of harassment, but I can't remember details like that on the fly anymore.

I guess the point in all of that is that every one plays differently. You and I will never play a co-op AIW game. You would be bored to tears in my style, and I lost in yours.

And Btw.. before the last 10/10 buff I was stomping the hell out of 10/10 (AAR over --> that way). Casually I play upper 8s to mid 9s. I tool around in 7s. There is a reason I don't usually get involved in balance debates. It usually doesn't have a large effect on me.  All I want to see from this potential change is that it is "equal opportunity" and is enjoyable by all styles of play.

[Wingflier]

I don't play RTS against human opponents anymore.  It got boring to me after awhile. In AIW, I push the AI to the point it nearly breaks my defenses. At that point I make moves to try to finish the game. It usually doesn't play out quite the same way twice, but I enjoy the grand scale carnage that follows.

That particular strat works even in Starcraft.  Terran, and to an extent Protoss, can turtle up and tech up while letting the other player(s) attrition themselves on your "walls".  200 supply armies tend to steamroll at that point.  I know there are other strats that work just as well, mainly involving remembering unit counters and tons of harassment, but I can't remember details like that on the fly anymore.

I guess the point in all of that is that every one plays differently. You and I will never play a co-op AIW game. You would be bored to tears in my style, and I lost (or pissing you off) in yours.

And Btw.. before the last 10/10 buff I was stomping the hell out of 10/10 (AAR over --> that way). Casually I play upper 8s to mid 9s. I tool around in 7s. There is a reason I don't usually get involved in balance debates. It usually doesn't have a large effect on me.  All I want to see from this potential change is that it is "equal opportunity" and is enjoyable by all styles of play.

That's definitely fair.

People should be able to play however they want. If some people enjoy a particular tactic, and want to employ it every game, that should be considered too.

I'm just not sure how to make that possible without turning the new "Crystal" mechanic into what we already have (an interchangeable resource). Like I said, giving a Manufactory unlock for 5k Knowledge could allow the player some freedom in building whatever he/she wants; but it wouldn't be exactly the same as before, because you'd have to spend Knowledge on it, and the conversion rates would probably be worse.

I'm not sure how you would solve something like this without making the new resource mechanic optional.

[Cinth]

I'm game with the proposed changes as they are.  It's going to be the devil in the details for some stuff though.  Balancing Golems, Spirecraft and FS to fit the new model and require a lopsided econ is going to be interesting to say the least. Trader toys I could see being ALL crystal heavy but G, S, and FS need to be balanced within reason. Like I said, devil in the details

It's also why I'm glad the idea in the OP hasn't been scrapped.  There is potential there for something that is openly accessible to expanding everyone's toolkit. To me, that is very appealing.

If this is done right, we won't need a M <-> C converter for K.  Actually, I think the model should be built assuming there won't be one.  If the distribution of nodes is fairly even across the board, then you basically take planets with the resources you need.  Right now, you take any planet with a good amount of node (more is better). Under the new model, you take good planets but you have to take what you need into consideration too.  In a low AIP game, you (CSG enabled) take 8 planets. I could see us taking one or two more just to even out the resources and build up a slightly larger force.

I think 210~220 AIP is going to end up the new target with "Lazy eye" off.  I'm probably wrong there but meh .  That's about 11 controlled planets worth of firepower. 

Going to stop here because I think I'm rambling on.

[Toranth]

Second, your proposed distribution isn't really 4.8 resources per system - it's actually 2.4 metal or 2.4 crystal.

Mathematically, how do you get that?  And under that figuring, what does the current system (which gives randomly 0-4 of each resource) give?

By my figuring our current system gives an average of 2 metal and 2 crystal per planet, where the one I proposed would give an average 4.8 metal or 4.8 crystal.

As Cinth said, in a universe where there is no M<=>C conversion, you can't add M+C anymore.  E(x) = 12 resources of each type, among 5 systems = 2.4 of each type.  Total resources is 4.8, but each type is only 2.4.  In the current system, the expected is 2/2, but about 60% of systems are 3/1 to 1/3.  Also, 60% of systems have at least 4 resources, which due to conversion means at worst 3 of the type you want.

Of course, the other way to look at it is:  "Given that the system has the resource you want, the average number of resources for that system is 6" which sounds a lot better, doesn't it?

Change number 2 would be to add a little variety to the categories - say +-1.

What does that really add, though, other than fuzzing up the picture for the player reading the galaxy map?  I think strategic decision making (as opposed to just ignoring resource spot count, or treating it as highly secondary) is more likely when there are fewer discrete states to consider.  If additional discrete states actually add enough to the game, then fine, but do they?

You are correct that it doesn't add any real benefit.  It's mostly my opinion - I like the minor variety, even if it doesn't add strategic depth.

Upon thinking about it, I realized that splitting the energy converter into two types, one which burns metal for energy and one which burns crystal for energy, would be an excellent "relief valve" for players in a situation where they have few planets and thus energy problems: they can burn the resource they use less.  If they have enough planets to not have energy problems, they've probably at least had a fair opportunity to pick up an 8-spot planet of the resource they prefer.

Like this idea a lot.  It's kind of an indirect conversion - M->E or C->E, rather than M+C->E.

In fact, I think those units cost so much that the system I've proposed would have early results that hammer crystal a lot harder than metal.
But with the relative needs for replacement, it's possible fleet ships and lower-mark ships could pull ahead in total outlay.  Dunno.

I just checked a few recently played games.  My triangle ships died at the rate of roughly 500/hour.  I'd lost 4000 of each at the end of a victorious 8 hour game, 6000 at the end of a 12 hour, and about 8000 of each at the end of a losing 18 hour game.  Starships, on the other hand, died MUCH more rarely.  The 18 hour game, for example, I only built 10 Spire and 8 Zenith - and they went out with the fleet every time.  So fleetships were 10x as likely to die as my starships (including deliberate suicide runs).

Change number 1 would be two figure out what the average metal/crystal ratio would be, and adjust for that.  So instead of 2.4 metal or 2.4 crystal, if twice as much metal is needed over crystal, then perhaps 3.2 metal and 1.6 crystal.  (I would actually try to determine the two distributions independently - so your five categories for metal might be 0/4/0/8/0, but 0/0/2/0/5 for crystal... whatever works).

I'm ok with that in theory.  But I'm not out to make starships-heavy harder (as lower crystal distributions would do), so I'm kind of in wait-and-see there.  Doesn't need playtesting per se, but some fairly solid mathematical analysis based on real play experiences (in terms of how much of what is built in what playstyles, nowadays).

I dunno about solid math, but here's some lazy math for you:

	Mk I M	Mk I C	MK II M	MK II C	MK III M	MK III C	MK IV M	MK IV C	MK V M	MK V C
Lowcap Average	44633	44633	80341	98194	142828	214242	187462	348144	214242	499900
Midcap Average	61011	0	122022	0	231842	12202	329460	36606	414876	73213
Highcap Average	48709	0	97418	0	194836	0	292254	0	389672	0
Starship Average	50330	148207	83884	313192	134215	659938	139575	990925	124066	1383266
Triangle Sums	307200	0	614400	0	1167360	61440	1658880	184320	2088960	368640

So, starships cost about 2x the lowcap ships, 3x midcap, and 4x highcap.  And all in crystal. 
The low mark Triangle ships are going to be the workhorse of the player for a good chunk of the game, and they are all metal.
Given my (anecdotal) 10-1 death ratio, that's not too much crystal demand for early-mid game.  Late game, though...

On the extreme end, Golems, Spirecraft, FS, and Trader goods being all crystal would put HUGE demands on crystal.  Enough that playing with those enabled basically means taking nothing but Crystal-8 systems.  I mean, Botnet?  20,000,000 * .75 * .25 = 3,750,000 crystal right there, plus a 1,400 a second while operating.

Maybe crystal spawn rates should depend on what options are enabled?

[Kahuna]

Jesus this amount of text............
Anyway.. why planets couldn't have both resources? Why only either Metal or Crystal? I can't simply capture any planet I want. It's not like if I need metal I would "simply capture a planet with 8 Metal Asteroids". If that planet is in a crappy position I'm not going to capture it.

If there's a planet in a good position but it only has the resource I don't need then it would be almost same as if that planet had 0 resource asteroids. Especially when it wouldn't be possible to convert resources.

At the moment if a planet is in a good position and it has 2 metal and 2 crystal asteroids I'm totally going to capture it. Even if it had 3 resource asteroids I'd probably capture it.

[chemical_art]

Sleeping on this, I just keep finding headaches.

Headaches in trying to figure out which planets to take. On how to balance it in base game. On how to balance minor factions which will have exponentially higher crystal needs. Balancing out so that "X only games" (which are already fairly hard) aren't hit harder, while "build everything and blob" games don't get the easiest hit of the stick. Of how to balance MK increases. Of how defenses must be balanced. Of how to compensate for an unfair RNG...

And lastly, for all this work. Work that is almost of a similar magnitude to redoing armor, I must ask.

Does the dev time, and overall growing pains for all, really justify the "benefits"?

[Cinth]

Kahuna, care to theorycraft a minute? With the soon to be added AI Homeworld changes (Operation Lazy Eye), do you see your AIP target changing? Do you see maybe 210 or 220 being possible (within the bounds of your game style).

@Chemical_art: Lol. Don't over think it. Remember K.I.S.S.