So, this whole crystal thing

[chemical_art]

Except for someone who doesn't want to play paperwork jockey target designator, it is.

No.

As one of the most casual players of my length here, someone who despises paperwork jockey target designator, I can say without a doubt, no.

It is almost a fact that it is easier to take less then then the 8 or so planets needed for CSG's then not to, pre strategic reserves.

So, if anything, for those who wanted the easiest game, you would turn CSG's off. I won my first game, 7/7, with no tutorial knowing only "don't take too many worlds".

[Wingflier]

What I don't like about this discussion is the amount of closed-minded elitism happened, and that's saying something coming from me.

Just because YOU don't like playing with CSGs does not mean that the majority of players feel the same way.

Just because YOU can't see the benefit of them does not mean that they don't improve the game to the people who like to have them on.

It also doesn't make my friends simple-minded or stupid just because they don't want to have to play through a 90 minute tutorial. I can explain most of the things that tutorial covers in about 10 minutes.

There's very few people in today's gaming world that would survive a 90 minute tutorial. I'm sorry, but there's not. That doesn't make them all stupid. Impatient maybe.

[chemical_art]

What I don't like about this discussion is the amount of closed-minded elitism happened, and that's saying something coming from me.

Just because YOU don't like playing with CSGs does not mean that the majority of players feel the same way.

Just because YOU can't see the benefit of them does not mean that they don't improve the game to the people who like to have them on.

It also doesn't make my friends simple-minded or stupid just because they don't want to have to play through a 90 minute tutorial. I can explain most of the things that tutorial covers in about 10 minutes.

There's very few people in today's gaming world that would survive a 90 minute tutorial. I'm sorry, but there's not. That doesn't make them all stupid. Impatient maybe.

That's rich.

Really, really rich.

I mean, your whole premise is not to be elitist, when you yourself then spew your opinions.

Just because YOU play with CSG on, doesn't mean the majority of players do. This at least has some evidence to support it, via strategic reserves finally helping to solve the low AIP games without rails.

Just because YOU don't have your tactics and strategy not being nerfed doesn't mean strategies and tactics aren't being nerfed.

[keith.lamothe]

Far be it from me to be a stickler on staying on-topic, but I really don't think a historical debate on the CSG feature is going to be fruitful here.  I think that mechanic has some value (I don't think we'd see multiple veterens arguing in their favor if that weren't true) but was ultimately a mistake.  If it weren't for the fact that some people do in fact like it, I would have removed it.  I was angling to un-default it with the new Lazy-AI toggle but there was actually opposition to that, FWIW.


@chemical_art: yes, the "why we don't do stat-mods" argument went through my head as I was considering the simple-econ toggle.  Ultimately, though, it's actually a really compartmentalized difference between on or off.  Basically the only difference is that you no longer have to care about "does this planet have metal or crystal?", instead just "how many spots does this planet have?".  Instead of two pools, you have one, and that's the only difference.  Sure, playing with two pools will be harder, it's up to you whether you want the complexity/challenge there or somewhere else.

There are many other toggles and options in the lobby that change the game a lot more than that.


Anyway, I think I'm done tilting at this particular windmill (crystal) for a while.  Talk about the toggle idea a while if y'all would like to.  If some reasonable consensus is reached (I don't mean unanimous opinion, though I'd need more than a simple majority) then I'll consider taking action.  Otherwise I think crystal is just going to stay as-is for the forseeable future.  Or in other words: if y'all want change, it's largely up to you.  If not, that's fine too; I'm not radically displeased with the current m+c.


Just to head off a potential issue: let's stay away from personal ire and such.  Wingflier is a self-confessed elitist and this may lead to problems   Just humor him.  If things get out of hand I'll just lock (or maybe delete) the thread.

[chemical_art]

Keith, I'll just try to get on topic for a sec:

If this plan is part of a larger effort of new mechanics, strategies, etc, that ultimately are expanded by dividing M and C more clearly, I'll be OK with the pain of all the balancing.

If the idea is to keep the current toolkit of things, just wrecking and rebuilding the economy, I am not game. It just doesn't seem a good use of resources. We have plenty of things already that can be wrecked and rebuilt to expand strategies and variety (armor).

[Wingflier]

What I don't like about this discussion is the amount of closed-minded elitism happened, and that's saying something coming from me.

Just because YOU don't like playing with CSGs does not mean that the majority of players feel the same way.

Just because YOU can't see the benefit of them does not mean that they don't improve the game to the people who like to have them on.

It also doesn't make my friends simple-minded or stupid just because they don't want to have to play through a 90 minute tutorial. I can explain most of the things that tutorial covers in about 10 minutes.

There's very few people in today's gaming world that would survive a 90 minute tutorial. I'm sorry, but there's not. That doesn't make them all stupid. Impatient maybe.

That's rich.

Really, really rich.

I mean, your whole premise is not to be elitist, when you yourself then spew your opinions.

Just because YOU play with CSG on, doesn't mean the majority of players do. This at least has some evidence to support it, via strategic reserves finally helping to solve the low AIP games without rails.

Just because YOU don't have your tactics and strategy not being nerfed doesn't mean strategies and tactics aren't being nerfed.

The difference is that I'm not calling certain mechanics...oh what were the exact words? "Unimaginative, Garbage Mechanics"

I did say in this thread that I don't think people who are using the same strategy over and over are playing a strategy game anymore. I never said they were unimaginative, garbage players.

There's a big difference. It's one thing to have your opinion and to present it respectfully, which I have.

It's quite another to call anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint flat out WRONG, and the mechanic they are supporting is garbage, and their friends are stupid and lazy.

If I have been disrespectful in this thread, in any way, I apologize for that. Anything I said was just reflective of my own viewpoint, and I never meant for it to be portrayed as anything else. In fact several times, I have agreed that the old mechanic of using the same strategy over and over should stay, I just think a new mechanic would be better.

Now that *I* have apologized, I also expect an apology on behalf of insulting me, and all my friends, and basically anybody who uses CSGs, which is probably the majority of the playerbase.

[keith.lamothe]

Now that *I* have apologized, I also expect an apology on behalf of insulting me, and all my friends, and basically anybody who uses CSGs, which is probably the majority of the playerbase.

I think you will find this method (demanding, or at least "publicly expecting", reciprocity) of proceeding to be counterproductive to your actual goals.  Or at least to the fruitfulness of this discussion, which I believe to be one of your goals.

[chemical_art]

The difference is that I'm not calling certain mechanics...oh what were the exact words? "Unimaginative, Garbage Mechanics"

I did say in this thread that I don't think people who are using the same strategy over and over are playing a strategy game anymore. I never said they were unimaginative, garbage players.

Just because a player enjoys a bad mechanic does not make them a bad player. I didn't even make the quote, but I won't censor my language of a mechanic because of the feelings of the players who like it.

There's a big difference. It's one thing to have your opinion and to present it respectfully, which I have.

Your past is catching up to you. Nothing wrong with being abrasive, but then don't get upset when it comes back to you.

It's quite another to call anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint flat out WRONG, and the mechanic they are supporting is garbage, and their friends are stupid and lazy.

Are you upset? Just because a mechanic is bad, and then trying to recolor a mechanic added for experienced players to a mechanic for new players on the grounds they cannot win the game without it, when they certainly can, doesn't in of itself speak ill of the players.

If I have been disrespectful in this thread, in any way, I apologize for that. Anything I said was just reflective of my own viewpoint, and I never meant for it to be portrayed as anything else. In fact several times, I have agreed that the old mechanic of using the same strategy over and over should stay, I just think a new mechanic would be better.

Now that *I* have apologized, I also expect an apology on behalf of insulting me, and all my friends, and basically anybody who uses CSGs, which is probably the majority of the playerbase.

No. I don't owe you anything, because I didn't insult you other then thinking you aren't elistist when your writing consistently says otherwise. No more then I would be insulted if I claimed all my assertions were completely well thought out and someone called me out on further assertions based on this See Keith's response to why. Just because your friends play CSG's won't stop me bashing them (CSG's, not your friends).

[Wingflier]

So you think it's okay to publicly bash people just because they do something you don't agree with, and you won't apologize for this behavior?

Thank you for clearing that up for me.

Keith, you can lock this thread.

[chemical_art]

So you think it's okay to publicly bash people just because they do something you don't agree with, and you won't apologize for this behavior?

Thank you for clearing that up for me.

Keith, you can lock this thread.

Well, you see, you are being so thin skinned that you think me bashing a mechanic that you enjoy means I insult you. I never insulted you, only your evidence.

If we followed this level of niceness, there would be no discussion.

[keith.lamothe]

So you think it's okay to publicly bash people just because they do something you don't agree with, and you won't apologize for this behavior?

Thank you for clearing that up for me.

Keith, you can lock this thread.

Oh, it didn't get that bad.  But perhaps it would be better if you moved on from the discussion. 

If the two of you have actual problems with each other I suggest voice chat or a telephone call or something in a day or so.  You're both rational people in your own ways (speaking from interacting with you both for a while) and I'm sure you can come to an amicable resolution.

[Winge]

Well, AI War players are nothing if not passionate

[ontopic]
I think Keith has the right idea.  Having two separate resources does add a little bit of strategy, in that some strategies can be hindered (partially, due to conversion ratios) by having unbalanced resource flows.  No, it's not the strongest mechanic, but it's not broken either.  It would be nice to find something stronger to replace it, but I haven't seen any suggestion that ranked high enough in the community to warrant that kind of change.  Since we aren't dealing with a broken mechanic, it makes sense to give the discussion a bit more time to percolate and the developers and players to come up with a few other alternatives.
[/ontopic]

[offtopic]
I have mixed feelings about CSGs.  My first non-tutorial game, I was really frustrated when I got to the AI Homeworld and got completely destroyed by a Neinzul Melee Guard Post.  I couldn't figure out why I couldn't even tell my ships to attack it...none of the immunities seemed to be a problem.  Basically, I had little to no idea what the CSGs even did at that point.  I was actually very surprised when I found out why I couldn't damage the Core Guard Posts, and wondered why the tutorials didn't even mention such a fundamental aspect of the game.  So, I would disagree that they act as a guide for newer players--the tutorial does a good enough job of that, IMO.

That said, I play with CSGs on, in low AIP games.  Why would I do that?  Well, I see AI War as a sort of RTS puzzle.  The enemy has built up massive defenses that I have to crack in order to succeed.  But, I only want to take so many planets, because the AI is not very nice if I just start taking over the galaxy.  CSGs are one more piece of that puzzle to me.  How can I take planets in an efficient manner to:

• Keep the AI from destroying me in some humiliating way (ie low AIP...not that it prevents the AI from humbling me repeatedly )?
• Avoid deepstrike threat (get stepping stones to the AI Homeworld)?
• Destroy the AI's defenses (includes CSGs, among other things)?
• Acquire the technology I need to crack defenses (somewhat overlaps with CSGs)?
• Have enough resources (M, C, & E) to sustain a fleet (also somewhat overlaps with CSGs)?

Are CSGs the best mechanic since sliced bread?  No.  But, I haven't felt irked at them enough to shut them off either.  And, quite frankly, I still haven't seen a mechanic that would do their job well, or even adequately (force the strategic capture of a few planets and limit the minimum AIP before finishing the AI Homeworlds).  I don't think that's from lack of developers and players trying--it's just a difficult portion of the game to balance without making the game too difficult or too easy.
[/offtopic]

My 2.72 cents.

[Kahuna]

You're looking at the entire game of AI War, and all the tens or hundreds of thousands of choices available to you, and distilling them down into Option A), B), or C).

I know AI War more strategies than just A B and C. It was just an example.
3-2=1
and 10000-10=9990
It doesn't matter how many different strategies AI War has. Now I'm not saying absolutely any strategy should be viable (Engineer rush..) Removing some of the strategies means there's less strategic options left.

[Cinth]

Anyway...

When you guys are finished with all that, we can get back to discussing potential changes.  I'd much rather chat about the economics we have here than the armor changes

[chemical_art]

Anyway...

When you guys are finished with all that, we can get back to discussing potential changes.  I'd much rather chat about the economics we have here than the armor changes

Sure.

Anything that removes conversions causes headaches for me. The more lopsided units are, the more headaches are caused. Meaning if everything was 50/50, it would still cause headaches, but having varying units would cause more headaches.

These changes need to part of a larger goal. That something becomes better. Really better. More opportunities for unique units. Or something. Something that can only be unlocked because of all these changes, something that cannot be used with the current system.

If it can be shown that the headaches generated is overcome by increasing the toolkit of the player, then I'll be considering it. If it simply just makes things "less good", via difficulty, bookkeeping, nerfing, constraining, etc, then I won't like it.