So, this whole crystal thing

[keith.lamothe]

Just realized this earlier statement of mine was in error:

there's not a sensible way of making these changes optional

There's actually a pretty simple method, involving the adding of one more lobby toggle: "Simple Econ" (gladly accepting suggestions for a better name, originally was "Heavy Metal", heh)

This toggle would default to off, but if on it would redirect all inflow to or outflow from crystal to be to metal instead.  In code that's actually like a 5 minute change. 
- What would take me maybe an hour longer is having all the relevant displays check for that toggle and show the right metal amounts, costs, etc, and not show crystal at all.
- And another couple minutes to make mapgen seed only metal if that toggle is on.
- Metal would also need to be able to store 1,999,999 instead of 999,999 if the toggle was on (anyone pointing out that this is actually 1 higher than 2x will be... well, they're probably enough punishment upon themselves), but that's just a few minutes since it would be able to take up more space on the resource bar anyway.

Anyway, this would go along with the changes in my last proposal (though with the "zero resources" category getting 1m/1c instead, or 2m on simple-econ), and would give you an option that's a lot like "use the historical model, but cut to the chase since m and c aren't really different anyway".  But if you wanted a bit more painstrategic decision making, well, it'll be there, mocking the people playing simple-econ (maybe I can get Wingflier to suggest an implementation for that part, I think he'd be good at it). 

To be clear, turning the new toggle on is telling the game "make this easier" (and if combined with other such options might make me not consider feedback/AARs based on it to mean anything about overall balance), but I'm confident those of you who actually want to compensate for the reduction in difficulty will somehow find a way to accomplish that.


Thoughts?

[chemical_art]

Biggest problem is actually your last paragraph.

I can't believe I'm saying it (and supporting it), but the problem with the model is the same reason you don't support mods.

You'll almost permanently split the community.

The biggest edge AI Wars that others don't is that it has a unified community. It has caused a LOT of pain over time, I won't deny, but the payoff of keeping everyone on the same page is undeniable.

It's OK to have AI response vary by toggles, but the ECONOMY ITSELF?

It is odd that I find the thought of two different economic models as scary as the new model, but there you go.

[RCIX]

Thoughts?

If you do this I want that guard post toggle

[Wingflier]

@Chemical_Art - I don't think it's as bad as you think

When you mean "split the community", you mean like what?

The people who play Fallen Spire or not? Who use Golems or not? Who use Spirecraft or not? Who play with 20 planets or 120 planets? Who use Lattice maps or Simple Hubs? Who play on 9/9 or 6/6? Who use Champions or don't use Champions? Who use handicaps or don't use handicaps? Who use CSGs or don't use CSGs?

Many of the features I've just listed are much more impactful on the game than whether you can convert one resource type into another, assuming the game gives you the ability to realistically design your army around what resources you have and/or find what you need on planets better than it does now.

I think your fear is unwarranted.

[chemical_art]

@Chemical_Art - I don't think it's as bad as you think

When you mean "split the community", you mean like what?

The people who play Fallen Spire or not? Who use Golems or not? Who use Spirecraft or not? Who play with 20 planets or 120 planets? Who use Lattice maps or Simple Hubs? Who play on 9/9 or 6/6? Who use Champions or don't use Champions? Who use handicaps or don't use handicaps? Who use CSGs or don't use CSGs?





I think your fear is unwarranted.

All those features. ALL of them. Are based on the economy. It is a CORE resource. To alter THAT would be like altering energy and K, it has ramifications across most aspects of the game.

[Wingflier]

@Chemical_Art - I don't think it's as bad as you think

When you mean "split the community", you mean like what?

The people who play Fallen Spire or not? Who use Golems or not? Who use Spirecraft or not? Who play with 20 planets or 120 planets? Who use Lattice maps or Simple Hubs? Who play on 9/9 or 6/6? Who use Champions or don't use Champions? Who use handicaps or don't use handicaps? Who use CSGs or don't use CSGs?





I think your fear is unwarranted.

All those features. ALL of them. Are based on the economy. It is a CORE resource. To alter THAT would be like altering energy and K, it has ramifications across most aspects of the game.

What Keith is suggesting does not remove the economy from the game. It simplifies it in one aspect, and makes it more complex in another. To those people who like it the way it is, you won't have to change anything. In fact, your favorite strategies will become even easier to employ. I don't see what the problem is?

And I would argue that changing the map type from mostly single connections to a whole grid of connections, with 8 different wormholes for most planets, has a much bigger impact than 2 resources which you can't convert to one another. I would also argue that the Fallen Spire campaign is much more game-altering than the proposed optional resource system.

You're saying it will split the community. It's the exact same argument we heard about CSGs. I've been there, I got the postcard. Community's fine.

[Cyborg]

You're saying it will split the community. It's the exact same argument we heard about CSGs. I've been there, I got the postcard. Community's fine.

And in hindsight, we can see that the generators add nothing to the game besides forcing you to take planets. This accomplished nothing, as the folks who want to deep strike or do whatever they feel like are just going to turn it off. The same could be said for the economy. At this point, if the original solution isn't agreeable (despite being extremely simple, I'm in favor), let's just wait until an expansion.

[Wingflier]

And in hindsight, we can see that the generators add nothing to the game besides forcing you to take planets. This accomplished nothing, as the folks who want to deep strike or do whatever they feel like are just going to turn it off. The same could be said for the economy. At this point, if the original solution isn't agreeable (despite being extremely simple, I'm in favor), let's just wait until an expansion.

Now that's definitely not true.  CSGs are extremely helpful for new players, possibly even more than the tutorial itself.

Using the Core Shield Generator display tab on the galaxy map, a new player instantly has a set of objectives and a set of places to go. One of the main complaints before these were added was that AI War was too "open-ended" and confusing to new people. A lot of new players find the "objective-style" of the CSGs to be a huge benefit to the game, even if that wasn't their original intention.

Secondly, the people who wanted to deep strike after they turned it off COULD keep doing that, but then they can't just come into the forum and complain about it can they? That's what it was, complaining. I remember when Suzera and few others said the game was too easy because of low AIP deepstriking. Chris put in a solution. If you don't like it fine, but don't complain anymore when you bypass it.

Maybe the more important question is whether Keith would want to use an option like this. If Keith wouldn't play with the new Crystal mechanic on, then I wouldn't want him to spend all this time implementing it just for our benefit.  Personally I think it's really cool and I would definitely use it, but I'm not the one who has to spend the time and energy (and crystal) to make it happen.

[Cyborg]

Now that's definitely not true.  CSGs are extremely helpful for new players, possibly even more than the tutorial itself.

No.

Using the Core Shield Generator display tab on the galaxy map, a new player instantly has a set of objectives and a set of places to go.

Busywork somehow explains to the player they need to find and destroy the enemy AI? I think the tutorial does a fine job of explaining defense, knowledge, economy, and attacking. Did you not understand the tutorial?

One of the main complaints before these were added was that AI War was too "open-ended" and confusing to new people.

No, it wasn't. The goal is to eliminate the AI. The tutorial explains how. Rails are not necessary; AI War players are smarter than you think.

A lot of new players find the "objective-style" of the CSGs to be a huge benefit to the game, even if that wasn't their original intention.

It is an unimaginative, garbage mechanic that was added to the game to hotfix deep strikes. It was never intended nor spoken to be about teaching new players how to play.
 

I remember when Suzera and few others said the game was too easy. Chris put in a solution. If you don't like it fine, but don't complain anymore when you bypass it.

Because he didn't have either the time or the inclination to modify the AI. And I really don't mind having it as an optional plot for folks who like it, but it's not well-thought out nor even fun to play with. Because it is optional, you may as well not even have it because folks are going to turn it off or on depending on their preferences. I remember Suzera, and this person could have easily chosen any of a number of plots to increase the difficulty. Especially nowadays, we have so many modifiers that are much more elegant solutions if the authors feel like the game is too short.

[chemical_art]

CSG's were not implemented to help new players, they were designed as hard hand holding for low AIP games.

Only because they were used for nice toys did their defenders think it was meant for new players. But they were not added for new players. At all. They were added for experienced players.

The fact the new strategic reserves were added, so as to hinder (keyword: hinder. Not prevent) low AIP games is evidence that CSG's did not accomplish their original objective, precisely because they were so unpopular, railing, and toggleable.

[Wingflier]

It is an unimaginative, garbage mechanic that was added to the game to hotfix deep strikes. It was never intended nor spoken to be about teaching new players how to play.

It absolutely was.  Chris talked in great length about how CSGs gave players a more streamlined set of goals and objectives, and many players at the time thanked him for it.

If you turn on CSGs, you can even go to the Stats->Objectives panel and it includes them on your list of things to do.

You may think that it's not helpful to new players, and that the tutorial is better, but I've invited at least 5 friends to play with me, and none of them have had the patience to get through the entire tutorial.

Maybe they're just lazy, but it's pretty easy to just show them the Core Shield Generator display on the galaxy map, and say, "You see those 'Type A planets', that's where we're going." They instantly get a sense of what's important in the game and why, instead of me having to go and Priority 9 everything on the map that could be important which is extremely tedious and much harder to see.

Because he didn't have either the time or the inclination to modify the AI. And I really don't mind having it as an optional plot for folks who like it, but it's not well-thought out nor even fun to play with.

That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it, but from what I've observed on the forums over the years, most people prefer to play with it on.

[Cyborg]

You may think that it's not helpful to new players, and that the tutorial is better, but I've invited at least 5 friends to play with me, and none of them have had the patience to get through the entire tutorial.

How do they play a normal game if they can't handle the tutorial? If your friends can't handle the 90 minute tutorial (is it even that long?), I don't know what to say. How do they not understand "find the AI then destroy it?" You are either portraying your friends as incredibly simple or you are not giving them enough credit to understand an extremely simple concept.

Again, I don't care if people play with it on.

[RCIX]

The game gives no clue how to do that. Seriously. its "here are the AIs, heres you, here's an assload of planets with random stuff on them, go figure out what works". And it gives a very few tactics in the tutorial.

FWIW, I like CSGs because they tell me "you need these planets and then you can go kill the AI". Simple, direct, and clear.

[chemical_art]

"you need these planets and then you can go kill the AI"

But. That. Is. Not. True.

You don't have to take any of those planets, if you have a bigger plan. And on some maps, if you take all the planets needed for CSG rather then some, you will lose.

[RCIX]

"you need these planets and then you can go kill the AI"

But. That. Is. Not. True.

You don't have to take any of those planets, if you have a bigger plan. And on some maps, if you take all the planets needed for CSG rather then some, you will lose.

Except for someone who doesn't want to play paperwork jockey target designator, it is. I'm fine with picking some targets but give me 80 planets and no direction and I'll implode.