Suggestions

[x4000]

Yea, non-wormhole travel would have a number of challenges, particularly balance wise.  Also, if you used some sort of stellar range then the actual x,y (z?) position of the nodes on the galaxy graph would start mattering big time and that could require some serious adjustment for all of us.

Yep, that's pretty game-changing, which is why it will be in the expansion (lots more testing needed), and it will only be in some games most likely, not all of them.  So it's then kind of an interesting new mechanic that comes up sometimes, but not a new mechanic that is replacing the old ones.

Another approach would be to have a ship that can "build" a new wormhole.  Basically it would have a build tab with one "entry point" and one "exit point" structure.  This would require an attacking force to invade via normal means and bring along the special/expensive/weak/slow wormhole planter and hold out long enough to get the exit point built (or use cloaking, if that's balanceable).  This would also give the short-circuit ability without requiring a whole new system of inter-system travel.  It could be a two-edged sword when used, as you'd have to be careful about what system you were giving them a road back to.  Or the created wormholes could be one-way and/or time limited (or destroyable).  The time limited version could make for some interesting raids, those pilots would be *very* keen on getting back on time

Haha, this is another big feature -- player-made wormholes -- that I have planned for the expansions.  Plus I also have an idea for a "Wormhole Master" AI type that would basically be able to shuffle around wormholes at will (like the staircases in Hogwarts or something), which will cause a lot of unique challenges when facing that specific AI type.

Those sorts of huge new mechanics are something that I am saving for the expansion partly just because they are so game-changing (and that's how a good expansion should feel), and partly because there is so much more programming, design, and testing effort that will need to go into those, so they don't really fit with weekly DLC.

[x4000]

I thought about the impact a range would have and yes it would need a big overhaul...all though you could just stick to an x,y range, if no planets fit into that range you would either have to wait for a better tech ship to increase range, or maybe a placing a jump beacon...

in fact you could not have range and need to deploy a jump beacon for the ship to jump too...the further away it was the more energy it would use?

just random thoughs

The way it used to be implemented was that you could jump anywhere, but it took longer to get to further locations.  Going all the way across the galaxy would take around 5 minutes during which your ships were just completely inaccessible.  Shorter hops were much quicker, but still not instantaneous.  The other thing was that things like the black holes and the asteroid belts acted as blockers, so you'd have to make multiple hops to go around those, so something behind a black hole was at less risk of unexpected pop-ins.

I imagine I'll go with something similar when this returns, probably also with a range limiter in there, but a lot of that remains to be figured out at a much later date.

[x4000]

Okay, the latest prerelease is now out with some more stuff from this thread:  http://arcengames.com/forums/index.php?topic=64.0

[Blam Stokel]

Hey, I'd just like to first say that this game is awesome, it's incredibly addictive and fun, and the need for actual strategy is something that's missing from most RTS games these days.
I have a couple minor suggestions:

1) Windowed Mode, I generally multitask quite a bit and it would be nice to be able to run things in the background more easily

2) allow units to be in multiple control groups - this is a minor gripe but I have often found myself wishing I could do it

It's rare to see a developer so open to suggestions from the users, it's quite refreshing.
Anywho, great game, I'll definitely be recommending this to everyone I know.

[x4000]

Hey, I'd just like to first say that this game is awesome, it's incredibly addictive and fun, and the need for actual strategy is something that's missing from most RTS games these days.

Wonderful!  Thanks for that.

I have a couple minor suggestions:

And that's always welcome, too.

1) Windowed Mode, I generally multitask quite a bit and it would be nice to be able to run things in the background more easily

The game as it presently stands is technically in windowed mode, just on top of all windows with the mouse snapped to the window and the window scaled to fill your entire screen.  So as far as Alt-tabbing and such goes, you don't wind up with the same sort of resource-dumping and reloading that you get with true fullscreen applications. 

1. I could make it so that the game optionally doesn't get any larger than 1024x768 if you want (the minimum run size of the game), which would leave parts of your desktop in the background if you are on a higher resolution (but which would also make the game not widescreen if you don't have a widescreen monitor), but aside from being able to see stuff in the borders of your screen (if your screen is large enough), I don't know that it would make any practical difference.  The cursor would still be locked to the game until you hit Alt-tab or the windows key or something like that, since in order to do RTS-style edge scrolling it needs to lock the cursor for that to work. 

2. Further, I guess I could change it so that if you disable edge-scrolling (presuming you like to play with the arrow keys more than anything else), that the cursor is then not locked. 

3. That would give you windowed mode, except you still wouldn't have the "chrome" around the edges or the titlebar at the top.  I'd have to look into it more before getting that supported by the game, and it might have some issues (at first at least) with certain themes and visual styles in XP/Vista.  I'd have to look into that.

If you don't mind my asking, I'm curious what you mean by "run things in the background more easily?"  I don't need details, I'm just curious as to the sort of activities that are presently made more difficult than you prefer.  If it's just checking email and/or looking at your taskbar, then maybe just doing #1 above would be enough, if you're trying to do realtime chatting or something more complex like that (that isn't voice), then I guess #2 would also be needed.  I'm not sure what would really call for #3, except maybe just arranging things the specific way you like.  Anyway, let me know what you think about all that, and what you think will work best for you; I've added it to my list.

2) allow units to be in multiple control groups - this is a minor gripe but I have often found myself wishing I could do it

Yeah, one of my beta testers brought this up, too, but at the time I didn't want to risk adding instability by having to recode the whole control group thing.  However, now that it's come up a second time, and now that there is a bit more leeway between full releases (a week at a time? sounds like plenty of time to me.), I think I'm ready to revisit this.  I've added it to my list, and while it won't be in tomorrow's full release, I should have something worked out for an upcoming prerelease and then full release in a week or two.  Thanks for bringing this one back to my attention!

It's rare to see a developer so open to suggestions from the users, it's quite refreshing.
Anywho, great game, I'll definitely be recommending this to everyone I know.

Thanks!  I think that, most of the time, developers finish with a product and then just move on.  To a certain extent I am also moving on, as I have other projects upcoming besides AI War, but I and my playgroup are still so into the game that it will be growing and evolving for a long time, hopefully 1-2 years or more.  Part of that just depends on the level of ongoing interest from the player community, but we'll see at least an expansion pack later this year, and lots of free DLC between now and then and probably for at least 6 months afterward. 

Beyond that... it all depends on player reception, but so far things are looking quite positive that the game has a long life ahead of it (we've already got a pretty vibrant little community here, despite the low exposure of the game so far).  So, in that regard, your recommendations to friends and associates are much appreciated!  Word of mouth is crucial to a tiny (mostly undiscovered) developer like us, so that sort of support is really helpful to us.

Thanks for playing!

[Blam Stokel]

yeah what I meant by running things in the background is the ability to have chat programs and such visible while the game is running, instead of needing to alt tab to pull it up, making it harder to keep an eye on those pesky ai, especially the bloody cloaking space planes 
I already noticed that alt tabbing otherwise has no effect on the game's performance. Your idea of an optional resolution limit would be exactly the kind of thing I would want.

I noticed one other minor thing, where all units will choose to fire at a force field above all else, no matter what is around them and shooting. Even after the patch today where they prioritize fire better, force fields still manage to draw all fire, which means I have to micromanage pretty closely when taking one down. To give an example of what I mean, I have my fleet pounding away at a force field. When in range of the force field the ships will only shoot the field unless I explicitly tell them not to, even if a big pile of enemies are sitting there tearing them to shreds. It's not a game breaking problem but on higher difficulty levels it can be difficult giving attack orders against each enemy ship.

On that note, I would also propose an attack area command, perhaps holding x and dragging a box would give orders to attack the ships in that area, but that could possibly be difficult to implement.

Thanks for responding!

[x4000]

yeah what I meant by running things in the background is the ability to have chat programs and such visible while the game is running, instead of needing to alt tab to pull it up, making it harder to keep an eye on those pesky ai, especially the bloody cloaking space planes 
I already noticed that alt tabbing otherwise has no effect on the game's performance. Your idea of an optional resolution limit would be exactly the kind of thing I would want.

Okay, great -- I'll try to put something together tomorrow for that (#1 from above), since that will at least handle most of what you need.  And then beyond that, we'll see what you and others think and if we need to look at #2 and #3.

I noticed one other minor thing, where all units will choose to fire at a force field above all else, no matter what is around them and shooting. Even after the patch today where they prioritize fire better, force fields still manage to draw all fire, which means I have to micromanage pretty closely when taking one down. To give an example of what I mean, I have my fleet pounding away at a force field. When in range of the force field the ships will only shoot the field unless I explicitly tell them not to, even if a big pile of enemies are sitting there tearing them to shreds. It's not a game breaking problem but on higher difficulty levels it can be difficult giving attack orders against each enemy ship.

Wow, this is a really good observation, I had not really noticed that.  Most ships don't explicitly try to hit the force field per se (except maybe bombers), but if there are some weak ships under there they might be trying to hit those, not really paying attention to the fact that there is a fricking force field in the way.   That's a great find, I'll try to have a fix for that in tonight.

On that note, I would also propose an attack area command, perhaps holding x and dragging a box would give orders to attack the ships in that area, but that could possibly be difficult to implement.

Ha, that's funny -- the same beta tester who mentioned the multiple control groups also mentioned this.  The main thing is that it would be really challenging in a lot of ways to design the AI logic that would prioritize the targets thus selected, and this could also really degrade network performance.  This is one I'm going to have to hold off on for now, unless I can think of some way to mitigate those issues.  A combination of Attack-Move and Free-Roaming Defender modes should hopefully make this point moot though, anyway.  Let me know what you think, if you haven't seen those modes before.

Thanks for responding

My pleasure!

[Blam Stokel]

Yes, so far the attack prioritization other than the force field issue has worked in pretty much every situation I've been in, and the free roaming defender mode is a lifesaver as well. It's nice to see the prioritization going for the ships who can actually fire back, in older versions it could be frustrating watching cruiser missiles fly past a swarm of approaching fighters to hit a tractor beam.

Good stuff so far, if I think of any other suggestions to pester you with I'll be sure to let you know

[x4000]

Yeah, I know what you mean about the past version.  Awesome about the rest!

[x4000]

Okay, new version time:  http://arcengames.com/forums/index.php?topic=70.0

[Blam Stokel]

I would love to see an armored or cloaked research ship, something that could survive in an enemy territory gathering knowledge but at a penalty to the knowledge income rate or something like that. I recently had a game where I was pinned down with two class IV ion cannon planets preventing me from expanding beyond three planets, which crippled my knowledge income. it would be cool to be able to collect knowledge from enemy territory without dying immediately. This could be something extremely expensive like perhaps a research starship class.

Also I would like to see more cruiser sized bonus ships, like more long ranged/high health/slow units.

[x4000]

I would love to see an armored or cloaked research ship, something that could survive in an enemy territory gathering knowledge but at a penalty to the knowledge income rate or something like that. I recently had a game where I was pinned down with two class IV ion cannon planets preventing me from expanding beyond three planets, which crippled my knowledge income. it would be cool to be able to collect knowledge from enemy territory without dying immediately. This could be something extremely expensive like perhaps a research starship class.

Great idea!  I love this.  In today's release there will now be a Science Lab II (which does not need to be unlocked, since obviously you need knowledge if you want this!).  It costs 8x as much as a regular science lab, and only gathers knowledge at half the normal rate (1/s), but it is immune to ion cannons and mines, tractor beams, reclamation, and snipers.  Plus it has 3x the health of a normal science lab, and 5x the shields.

This provides some interesting options, because the Science Lab I is clearly the better value when there is any choice in the matter, but if you are knowledge-starved and need to go steal knowledge from high-level planets (or pass your lab(s) through some high-level planets), then this provides an expensive option to do so, just as you were suggestion.  Awesome idea, I think this adds a nice option.

Also I would like to see more cruiser sized bonus ships, like more long ranged/high health/slow units.

I won't be doing any more bonus ship classes except in expansions (that's going to be one of the defining things of the expansions, as well as other larger game-changing additions that you expect from a good expansion), but I will definitely keep this in mind for the expansion ship types -- I think it is a good idea.  In the meantime, you might find that you like Anti-Armor ships, which have a fairly high range (about 4/7 that of a cruiser, if I recall) and fire armor-piercing missiles at that range.

Great ideas!

[netWilk]

On that note, I would also propose an attack area command, perhaps holding x and dragging a box would give orders to attack the ships in that area, but that could possibly be difficult to implement.

Ha, that's funny -- the same beta tester who mentioned the multiple control groups also mentioned this.  The main thing is that it would be really challenging in a lot of ways to design the AI logic that would prioritize the targets thus selected, and this could also really degrade network performance.  This is one I'm going to have to hold off on for now, unless I can think of some way to mitigate those issues.  A combination of Attack-Move and Free-Roaming Defender modes should hopefully make this point moot though, anyway.  Let me know what you think, if you haven't seen those modes before.

Perhaps a system similar to setting priority for planets could be done to setting priority for targets (2 or 3 levels should be plenty though).  The priority would be one of the factors considered in doing AI target selection sort.  And it shouldn't add too much overhead to network communication.

[x4000]

Perhaps a system similar to setting priority for planets could be done to setting priority for targets (2 or 3 levels should be plenty though).  The priority would be one of the factors considered in doing AI target selection sort.  And it shouldn't add too much overhead to network communication.

Well, there's not really time to set priorities in the heat of most battles, I really meant for the AIs to do selection of targets when you are selecting (for instance) a few hundred minor targets.  If you want to queued up major targets to destroy, you can do that currently just by holding shift and right-clicking each one.

The overhead for the network communications comes in with all of the commands if you are telling 200 of your ships to attack (say) 200 enemy ships, you have 200x200= 40,000 commands being sent in one turn.  Presently even if you had 6,000 ships selected (which can happen), you'd only have 6,000 commands sent at the outside.  But to take that extreme case, if you had 6,000 of your ships selected and you targeted even just 2,000 enemy ships, that would be 12 million commands.  Now, a lot of those can be combined somewhat, but ship commands are per-ship due to the individual nature of them, and so this would still cause network paralysis rather quickly, unfortunately...

[netWilk]

Perhaps a system similar to setting priority for planets could be done to setting priority for targets (2 or 3 levels should be plenty though).  The priority would be one of the factors considered in doing AI target selection sort.  And it shouldn't add too much overhead to network communication.

Well, there's not really time to set priorities in the heat of most battles, I really meant for the AIs to do selection of targets when you are selecting (for instance) a few hundred minor targets.  If you want to queued up major targets to destroy, you can do that currently just by holding shift and right-clicking each one.

I was more thinking of selecting the group of enemy ships, and then hitting priority button.  Not too complex in a middle of a fight.  Say, double-click the offending cruisers to select all on screen, and hit a P9 button.  This would be more to guide the AI rather than override its target selection logic outright.

The overhead for the network communications comes in with all of the commands if you are telling 200 of your ships to attack (say) 200 enemy ships, you have 200x200= 40,000 commands being sent in one turn.  Presently even if you had 6,000 ships selected (which can happen), you'd only have 6,000 commands sent at the outside.  But to take that extreme case, if you had 6,000 of your ships selected and you targeted even just 2,000 enemy ships, that would be 12 million commands.  Now, a lot of those can be combined somewhat, but ship commands are per-ship due to the individual nature of them, and so this would still cause network paralysis rather quickly, unfortunately...

I was thinking that this command would set the priority on the 2000 enemy ships, and then tell the 6000 ships to re-prioritize targets.  Only 8000 commands.  Alternatively, perhaps it's time for a multicast attack command. Say attack( firer array, target array).  Then of course you would need code to figure out what multicasts to send...

Oh, and I second the vote for explicit Windowed mode (where I can resize the window, and where the mouse is not snapped to the window).