So, this whole crystal thing

[Kahuna]

You look at Strategy as: "Doing the same thing I want to do every single game".

As if I couldn't use the same strategy every game. At the moment I have a specific play style which works on high difficulty levels. So I will keep using it until I have time to develop a new strategy. Forcing players to do something doesn't increase strategy. It decreases it.

If I use strategy A. But a new patch would force me to use strategy B because A wouldn't be viable anymore. It means I have less strategic options. I'd only have 1, B. Before I had A and B but I only chose to use the A. I might use the B strategy when I have more time to test it and see if it's good and if I like it etc.

[Cinth]

I'm just going to throw this out there because it crossed my mind and no one else has mentioned it.

This can all turn out to be a major balancing act of our econ system.  Harvester (and upgrades) can be adjusted and CS can be changed.  We know with this comes a change in costs for ships and structures.  With that in mind anything we discuss is speculation at best (we need more input really). 

Diazo, I can only say that for
1) We need numbers.  I believe Keith mentioned making homeworlds have 6/6 M/C nodes.  Numbers would give you a better picture of how resources would flow.

2)It was mentioned earlier in the thread (between here and page 8, sorry don't remember who) that there are several categories for nodes currently.  This system only has 5.  The chances that on a simple/realistic, 80 planet map, you will have nothing but one resource or the other should be slim.  A quick check on a realistic map (80 planet), random HW, within 3 hops of my HW there were 17 planets.  Run the odds on 17 planets being all of the same resource. Random vines map had 20 planets within 5 hops.  Snake maps pose their own set of problems besides resource nodes (AI HW right in the middle for one) and probably not a good place to have any debates over (not dodging snake maps, just they present unique issues all the time). 

That's really all I can say because that's really all the info we have. 


And thread explodes while I'm writing... wheeeeee

[Kahuna]

You haven't properly explained to me how having less resources, which are completely interchangeable, changes your strategy.

Lot of resources and Energy = unlock Fortresses
Few resources and Energy = wont unlock Fortresses

[chemical_art]

? 

If you have less resources, does it change what you build?
Does it change what you unlock? Does it change anything about your strategy except the time it takes to employ it?


Yes, I go for more cost efficent units.

Because for me, it doesn't. I play games sometimes (like my current game) where I'm low on resources because I rushed a Golem after 2 planets. It hasn't changed my overall strategy at all, it's just made me unlock MK3 Harvesters to compensate. To me, the best units are still the best units. I've seen no reason to, for example, unlock high-cap swarmers in an ARS unlock...because even though they're cheaper, they make the style that I use less efficient.

So your strategy is not effected...so what?

You haven't properly explained to me how having less resources, which are completely interchangeable, changes your strategy.

I go for more cost efficient units. Generally meaning my first pic is more likely a very efficient unit, rather then an expensive unit.

[Radiant Phoenix]

Except...if you play at the right difficulty, you don't have enough resources? Which is why you don't see high ARR's with smashing the AI to submission?

Going to have to agree to disagree, since your play style always has enough resources, so any nerfs to economy don't effect you as much as others. So it goes to the core that your strategy isn't effected like others are.

We know that none of the other strategies that exist will be effected by these changes, because those strategies have already been effected (i.e., they already exist).

They might, however, be affected by these changes -- the changes might conceivably even effect the death of those strategies (which I believe is your argument).

---

Anyway, I like the idea of the military builder (and more per-planet cap structures) best.

[chemical_art]

They might, however, be affected by these changes -- the changes might conceivably even effect the death of those strategies (which I believe is your argument).

That is a core of it though.

The effectiveness of a strategy, at a very fundamental level, is how much it costs. If your strategy is "good" you hit the enemy much harder then it hits you, so it is efficent for your economy.

So if you nerf economy, the viability of all strategies is stressed, so less strategies remain viable. Which is certainly reducing strategic options.

[Wingflier]

As if I couldn't use the same strategy every game. At the moment I have a specific play style which works on high difficulty levels. So I will keep using it until I have time to develop a new strategy. Forcing players to do something doesn't increase strategy. It decreases it.

It seems that we have a very different definition of "strategy" then.

Doing the same thing over and over, regardless of the circumstances, is not strategy. It may have been the first time you did it, but after that it's just going through the motions.

Strategy to me is adapting to the situation every game. It's having to change your strategy to fit the cards you're dealt, instead of looking through the deck and picking your own hand.

I think I'm fairly safe in saying that this is what Chris originally intended the game to be. I don't know if you guys have ever read Chris' blog, but when he first made AI War, he did it because he was tired of playing against the AI in other games. Once you figured out how to beat them, you could employ the same strategy over and over and that was simply boring.

AI War was made in a way that the game would force variety on the player. They couldn't just do the same thing twice and ensure victory.

Over time the game has slowly drifted away from that into something allows you to simply do the same things over and over again, and the players have become used to that, but I don't think that's good design, or what Chris intended, and I don't think we should keep it that way.  I've spoken about this topic many times before in many different threads and I've received huge resistance about it.

I've also given the same response each time:  If changing the game in a way which forces you to adapt to the situation makes your current difficulty too hard, then lower the difficulty until you no longer have to adapt to the situation anymore. I honestly don't see what the problem is.

It's like players want to keep playing at 9 because it strokes their ego or something.

[chemical_art]

As if I couldn't use the same strategy every game. At the moment I have a specific play style which works on high difficulty levels. So I will keep using it until I have time to develop a new strategy. Forcing players to do something doesn't increase strategy. It decreases it.

If I use strategy A. But a new patch would force me to use strategy B because A wouldn't be viable anymore. It means I have less strategic options. I'd only have 1, B. Before I had A and B but I only chose to use the A. I might use the B strategy when I have more time to test it and see if it's good and if I like it etc.

This is good.

The most efficient strategies are the most economical ones, so nerfing econ won't effect them. So these strategies remain the same.

Only the less efficient ones are removed, and even then, they will just be "shifted" to the better ones.

It doesn't, inherently, make the number of strategies greater, it makes them less.

[Wingflier]

I feel I'm dealing with ignorance at this point, and it's starting to get frustrating.

The new resource system wouldn't be as bipolar as either Strategy A) or Strategy B).

The fact that you can even think of AI War that way just shows how bad the game has become in removing strategy.

Theoretically, with the amount of Knowledge unlocks you have, and the amount of ARS hacks you can receive, and Fabs you can shoot for, and stuff like that, there are tens of thousands of different strategies you can employ.

It's not just A), B), or C).

When you say "Well I can't do option A, so I'll just do option B", you obviously don't understand the implications of the new resource system. What if option A and B don't work? Then you have to choose from thousands of different options until you can't just assign all your options a letter anymore. Yes, that INCREASES strategy. That's the way it should be.

[Kahuna]

Strategy to me is adapting to the situation every game.

That's tactics.

Like in Starcraft before you start a game you have a strategy which you're planning to use but you will have to adapt and change that strategy depending on situation.. that's tactics. Tactics alter the strategy. Strategy + tactics = different variations of the strategy. With your logic 4 gating or going muta banelings aren't strategies anymore because they have been used more than once.

[Kahuna]

I feel I'm dealing with ignorance at this point, and it's starting to get frustrating.

Take deep breath and a candy.

[Diazo]

Okay.

Before we get too off-topic, this is the crystal changes threat, not the strategies thread.

So, in the over all strategy of the game, how important should resource nodes, whether metal or crystal, be to the "should I take this system" equation?

Should resources be tied to the number of systems you control so if two different players capture the same number of system in different games, their economy is roughly equal?

Should it be a major factor where the player who picks his systems based on resource nodes have a significantly stronger economy then a player who values other factors higher and does not care about resource nodes?

That's really what you guys are talking about, should the number of resource nodes be a strategic consideration, or should all worlds be roughly the same power economically?

D.

[Hearteater]

Resource conversion is pointless because all it does is make metal and crystal into a single resource.

If this was true, we could remove resource conversions right now with no repercussions. But isn't pointless, because it is used to address a variety of concerns.

Read my post again, because you've completely misread it.

[orzelek]

This thread is an interesting read.
I'm not exactly sure if I would agree with direction it's taking.

I understand that simple crystal removal is not an option due to empty space it will leave. And it seems that by this occasion there is an intention to make game more complex by varying actual resource usage of ships and making resources allocation less granular with more significant steps.

This will lead to some of following:
1. More of the "wait while watching" syndrome. Since you will need more of one resource if you don't have enough you will need to wait longer to build all the stuff you think you need.
2. Current issue with harvester upgrades being mandatory will become more.. mandatory. It might only split because you will need more of one harvester type.

Theoretically you will be able to compensate by finding and taking proper planet that has abundance of the resource. In practice I don't see it working - taking any planet is not usually first tactical choice you make. There are so many other considerations about planet capture that trying to force player to find and take planet for resources is not very likely to work. Current trends with buffing harvester upgrades (quite long time ago) shows that taking planets doesn't seem to be a players choice for solving resource problems.

[Kahuna]

What if option A and B don't work?

I choose C.

Yes, that INCREASES strategy.

Removing strategies A and B decreases strategy. For example.. 3 strategies: A B and C. Removing A and B means there's 1 left. 3-2=1. Not 4, not 5, nor 6.