Team Game and Adv Research

[Ozymandiaz]

When I first got the game (some weeks ago), Adv Research only gave the one player who got it the extra ship. Now however it seems it gives both players  the ship.

Is this right, or is it a setting I overlooked?

[HitmanN]

In my first and so far only co-op game I played last weekend, both me and my team mate got the techs from adv research, so I assume this is the current setting. I also got the game itself couple weeks ago, but only play co-op whenever my cousin's around.

Although I prefer this setting at this time for practice and learning purposes, I'd prefer there to be an option to choose whether techs go to all or the planet holder. Should create more diversity in player arsenals if to only one, and add some extra planning as to who needs the new ships most.

[I-KP]

I didn't know this happened.  Interesting. 

Rather than all players getting the tech for free how about the owner of the Adv. Res. gets the tech, as normal, but all other players then have that tech available for research at a nominal Knowledge cost (1.5K say)?

[x4000]

I think there are a lot of misconceptions in this thread, so let me just explain what happens:

1. In a single or multiplayer game, capturing an ARS does not unlock any techs.  It does open a new ship class for research, of course, but that's the same as in single and in multiplayer.  You get the Mark I for free, then have to unlock II and III/IV, as normal.

2. In multiplayer, the entire team gets the new ship class -- the same new ship class.  This has always been the case, and so far as I know has had no issues with it; I suspect that in the game a few weeks ago, the player just didn't notice he had a new ship class or something.  It wouldn't necessarily have been on the far right of his list, ships have an implicit order to them, so that might have thrown him off if he was looking to the far right only.

3. There are always exactly five ARSes in a game, any game, regardless of the number of players.  In an 8-player game, making those limited by player would simply make it so that most of the players would never get any new ship classes, or only one at best.  With the implemented approach, everybody gets the same five as these are unlocked.  This is part of good co-op design, and not something I'm going to change for something so core; there is no reason to encourage players to be at each other's throats for such a finite and critical resource as ARSes.

4. Of course, in terms of golems and other capturables, those are more limited and don't get shared amongst the whole team.  But, the way those are structured is for encouraging player specialization: player A has a golem, player B has mark IV ships, player C has experimental starships, etc.  There are enough capturables that everyone can get something interesting, even in an 8-player game, but everybody doesn't get the same thing.

5. In terms of why everybody gets the same thing in the case of the ARS, this is for two reasons.  First, given that the received ship is essentially random, it makes it so that nobody on the team is getting luckier than others in terms of what is unlocked.  Second, it helps to keep the originally-chosen ships mutually-exclusive.  If you unlock microfighters at the start of a game, and I unlock parasites, then those are our specialties and you will never have parasites and I will never have microfighters in that game.  The unlocked techs from ARSes pull from the pool of classes that no one on the player team already has (and with 5 bonus ship classes, there are not nearly enough for each player to have 6 total unique classes, even in 4-player, let alone 8-player).  Also, keeping the total number of ship classes somewhat limited per game keeps the strong/weak displays shorter, and the planetary summaries less crazy, and less to focus on in that overall game.


In general, this system is not built around making the game easy or a learning experience in co-op, but rather for making it playable at all -- and for not turning this into secretly a competitive game inside a co-op game, which is poor co-op design and all too common.  Bear in mind that most of my own play with the game is in 4-player co-op, so it's not a theoretical balance based on what I extrapolate from solo play.  In most senses, I think solo play is easier in AI War, and these sorts of things in co-op are what help to make it actually possible to win on 80-planet maps against diff 7 or greater AIs.  The amount of territory controlled per player is so much less in co-op that that puts some constraints on players that are not typically there in solo (though, there are greater resources per planet).

I'm not saying that the current system is perfect by any stretch, but it's far from broken and it's definitely not a case of training wheels.  The difficulty of the game, especially in co-op, has been creeping up pretty steadily over time with improvements to the AI and changes to the game in general, and if anything I've had to make some concessions recently to make it less brutal at standard difficulty levels.

[HitmanN]

Much of that makes sense, but even so:

there is no reason to encourage players to be at each other's throats for such a finite and critical resource as ARSes.

Which is why this should be an option, not a default setting.

I for one wouldn't call it co-op to begin with if the players weren't filling in that role of their own will. Trying to make the game force a person to play co-operatively is a bit of an artificial method, I think. If you want to play co-op, you'll discuss with others who needs a new ship type most before taking the ARS. I for one wouldn't want to play co-op with anyone who wasn't intending to do teamwork in the first place. I think co-op would be more rewarding if it wasn't an automated process. Not saying that's a problem as a whole with AI War or anything, but making lasting decisions with others is a very co-op thing, and thus favorable for a game intended for co-op.

First, given that the received ship is essentially random, it makes it so that nobody on the team is getting luckier than others in terms of what is unlocked. Second, it helps to keep the originally-chosen ships mutually-exclusive.  If you unlock microfighters at the start of a game, and I unlock parasites, then those are our specialties and you will never have parasites and I will never have microfighters in that game.

This is a good point, but not really a reason why specialization shouldn't be allowed to be taken further if so wished by all the participating players.

(and with 5 bonus ship classes, there are not nearly enough for each player to have 6 total unique classes, even in 4-player, let alone 8-player).

...which is also why there could be an option to choose how many ARS's there are. Even without changing the current ARS sharing, this sort of option would probably be welcomed by many. The more ways there are to play a game each time, the more variety to each campaign! Someone might even prefer zero ARS's. Maybe a dropdown box where you select a multiplier for the amount of ARS's? Just a thought.

Also, keeping the total number of ship classes somewhat limited per game keeps the strong/weak displays shorter, and the planetary summaries less crazy, and less to focus on in that overall game.

Again, if this change doesn't bother the participating players, let them allow more ARS's and/or single-player owned ARS's. You shouldn't try to decide what's good or bad for each player. Let the players make that decision themselves, as long as they're aware of the consequences. These consequences are pretty easy to explain in short in the lobby's tooltips.

Just voicing my opinions. Not so much trying to debate, because I usually suck at it, lol.

[x4000]

Well, here's the thing: there's pretty much infinite number of things that could be made customizable, if we really come down to it.  How many golems?  What mix of every last kind of capturable?  How might we alter various game mechanics?

The thing is, there are two forces working against that: first, that takes a ton of time to do in aggregate, which is something that is in short supply, and second it makes the lobby even more overwhelming despite the fact that most players won't really make use of all of those options.  Lastly, it makes the game pretty much impossible to balance in a grand strategic sense, as the ratios would all be off and thus the diffuculty would be skewed much easier or harder than players expect.  That doesn't sound bad on the surface, but when games last as long as these do, if a player is halfway through before they realize it's a pushover compared to normal, they've just wasted a lot of their time and are going to be pretty irritated.

But, I guess more than anything else, there are pretty much infinite "this could be customizable" options with any game like this. Due to the scope of AI War, there are even more than normal.  Where it makes sense, and where I think it will benefit a ton of people, I've put in options.  I may put in more over time, but at the moment I think there are a lot of other fixes and enhancements that I'd rather direct my and Keith's time towards.  But overall, I'm also trying to emphasize exploration and The Unknown in the galaxies, and to a certain amount that means letting the procedural generator do its thing, and putting more ships out there to discover, rather than letting the players script out every last aspect at the start.  If players script out everything to just the perfect way that they want, then that's the only way they'll play and they'll get bored of it quickly -- same as finding optimal build paths in other RTS games.

Now, the above might cause a flurry of responses to the contrary, about how game designers need to just let players do exactly what they want, but listen: if people can always play their exact preferred method, that's all most will ever do.  In any good game, it's about give-and-take, you are trying to do what you want but being thwarted by the scenario, or your opponent, until you overcome it.  If players could just do what they wanted, in JRPGs they would start maxed out and just cast the Ultimate Spell that kills all enemies very quickly each time.  That's what New Game+ is about in those, and that's cool, but that's for after the main quest.

My experience, both with myself and with testers, has been that if you give players too many options those options become meaningless and the players just either use the defaults or pick at random, then stick with what they know.  Analysis paralysis is well documented.  Does this mean that I'm against customization, or that I won't ever make more lobby options or whatever?  Certainly not, I add them pretty regularly as you can see from the past.  But every time I add a new feature, I don't add ten ways to customize it.  At some point with a game, the design has to sort of be what it is, rather than being an ephemeral mass of options.  We still give more options than most games, already, though.  But it's not a true sandbox in the sense of something that is infinitely moddable.

I know that's probably not the answer that some people want to hear, and I'm sorry about that, but in the case of ARSes I don't feel like they are a priority to revisit at the moment.  I'm sure I will make some adjustments and extensions to them at some point in the future, and there are a variety of possibilities surrounding them, but nothing has struck me as being the perfect solution yet, and there's not a whole lot of impulse for me to do a ton more with them right now.

[HitmanN]

Fair enough. I can understand the work requirement aspect of additions and changes, and that there should definitely be a limit to the amount of options. Seeing two threads witha similar topic could indicate that this might be one of those worthy additions though. That's just me and couple of others though, I guess.

I find the following statement a bit contradictory in the last post though:

If players script out everything to just the perfect way that they want, then that's the only way they'll play and they'll get bored of it quickly -- same as finding optimal build paths in other RTS games.

Not giving players many options will also result in repetitive games that are all the same. Aren't additional options a way to prevent the players from having to play same scenarios again and again? With more options it will also take a longer time to find the optimal setting, and thus prolongs the game's life.

Likewise, a larger variety of options means that the players have more chances of finding that 'perfect' setup, something they enjoy playing much more many times than a less optimal setting. Chances are they would've gotten bored with the game quicker if they hadn't had those options. The sooner players are forced to replay a setting they didn't find enjoyable enough last time, the sooner they are likely to switch game, I believe.

The fact that more options are being added to AI War at times is a sign that they are needed, or the game could start feeling repetitive an thus boring otherwise. It seems it's a bit of a requirement for an average gamer these days that they constantly get more options and new things to play with, so that they can avoid playing the same scenarios again as much as possible. Only totally dedicated and hardcore fans will stick around once that flow of new stuff stops, usually.

[x4000]

Fair enough. I can understand the work requirement aspect of additions and changes, and that there should definitely be a limit to the amount of options. Seeing two threads witha similar topic could indicate that this might be one of those worthy additions though. That's just me and couple of others though, I guess.

Thanks for understanding.  But, you should see the development discussion area -- I have plenty of threads in there with half a dozen or more people talking about a given topic, and those have not yet gotten attention.  I try to balance it with what people are interested in with at the main, and in what I am also interested with and have a clear design for.  Right now there are no design shifts for ARSes that I am completely comfortable with being ready to make, so that makes me just wait.  At some point, angels descend and the one true path opens up.

Right now there are so many suggestions that I doubt they could be completed in a year even if Keith and I worked fulltime on just AI War during that time (which isn't going to happen, anyway).  So I have to pick and choose, and it boils down to my judgement as to what I think will best serve the game at the time, what I am comfortable with, what fits into the allotted time, what has maybe been on the queue for longer and needs to be resolved, etc.

I find the following statement a bit contradictory in the last post though:

If players script out everything to just the perfect way that they want, then that's the only way they'll play and they'll get bored of it quickly -- same as finding optimal build paths in other RTS games.

Not giving players many options will also result in repetitive games that are all the same. Aren't additional options a way to prevent the players from having to play same scenarios again and again? With more options it will also take a longer time to find the optimal setting, and thus prolongs the game's life.

Likewise, a larger variety of options means that the players have more chances of finding that 'perfect' setup, something they enjoy playing much more many times than a less optimal setting. Chances are they would've gotten bored with the game quicker if they hadn't had those options. The sooner players are forced to replay a setting they didn't find enjoyable enough last time, the sooner they are likely to switch game, I believe.

The fact that more options are being added to AI War at times is a sign that they are needed, or the game could start feeling repetitive an thus boring otherwise. It seems it's a bit of a requirement for an average gamer these days that they constantly get more options and new things to play with, so that they can avoid playing the same scenarios again as much as possible. Only totally dedicated and hardcore fans will stick around once that flow of new stuff stops, usually.

From my experience, I don't see people using the lobby options much for extra variety (aside from things that are clearly for variety, like minor factions, starting ships, map styles, and ai types).  But rather, when people don't like astro trains or cloaking, they never play with them.  And that's a way to get around a big annoyance for those folks, which helps make the play experience more comfortable.  Similarly, for those who want a handicap for themselves to make the game go faster, or with multi-planet starts, they tend to always play with that.  The ARS options would be something that some people would set in order to make the game different for them all the time, and that would be it.  I agree that it might "perfect" the play experience for those players who were dying for that feature, but I don't think would add any variety for them or anyone else, because people gravitate to certain core settings and largely stay there in this or any game (with some refinements over time if the existing settings turn out not to be ideal, obviously).

To your point about avoiding repetition, that's where content comes in, and why that is such a focus for me.  More things to spend knowledge on, more things to find out in the galaxy, etc.  That's what maintains the spirit of exploration, and what more players will encounter.  Best of all, those are things that they will encounter during their games, rather than having to contemplate them in advance in the lobby.  And the double bonus is that it inserts those into existing savegames, so that players don't have to finish a campaign and restart another one to get any benefit from the new stuff.

I very much agree that sort of continual growth in content and gameplay options are needed, it helps in so many ways.  But lobby options... the job of the lobby is to let people do, in general, what they want, rather than providing variety except in the scenario seeds such as starting ships, AI type, minor factions, etc.

Semantic differences, semantic differences... but that's the mindset I'm making decisions on what to do and what not to do, anyway.

[HitmanN]

Totally new stuff sounds good too. For some games it has been the source of a long life. Total Annihilation comes to mind. I just loved how they released a new unit for the game every week between the release of the original and the expansion. Later on, modding became easy(ish) and people started making custom units, maps and mods for the game. Me included. Game was released in '97, and I was still making custom stuff in 2003. The variety of units was certainly, and still is one of the game's best aspects, right next to moddability.

If AI War turns into another TA with a truckload of units to play with... I certainly ain't complaining.

[x4000]

That is exactly the sort of end-state goal I'm shooting for with AI War.

Lots of free DLC for a long time, then expansions every so often, and then eventually just open-sourcing the whole thing when I am no longer interested in maintaining it myself (5-10 years from now, hopefully more towards 10).

[HitmanN]

Nice. In that case I should probably concentrate my attention in the unit suggestions forum. I'll live with the ARS settings for now, lol.

Thanks for all the replies.

[x4000]

Sounds good!  I'm also particularly interested in balance tweaks, in-game interface tweaks and additions where those make sense, and other things along those lines.  Those are my focus at the moment, anyway.

[Ozymandiaz]

Seems my innocent question started an interesting discussion .

But overall, I'm also trying to emphasize exploration and The Unknown in the galaxies, and to a certain amount that means letting the procedural generator do its thing, and putting more ships out there to discover, rather than letting the players script out every last aspect at the start.  If players script out everything to just the perfect way that they want, then that's the only way they'll play and they'll get bored of it quickly -- same as finding optimal build paths in other RTS games.

I, for one, agree with this. I like lots of different ships, lots of unknowns to find in the vast not-so-emtpy space. I.e. the Zenith expansion added some pretty nifty stuff that I enjoy, it adds flavour and strategic elements. And imo, this also makes a better game in the long run then settings and options.

[Florian]

In general, this system is not built around making the game easy or a learning experience in co-op, but rather for making it playable at all -- and for not turning this into secretly a competitive game inside a co-op game, which is poor co-op design and all too common.

Along these lines:
Wouldn't it make sense to also share the output of advanced factories and core factories? The only possible problem introduced by that would be that each player effectively has his own factory where the team should only have one in total, but this could be handled by making the build point rate of the factory anti-proportional to the number of players in the game.
The current system of gifting factories seems to be avoidable work to me and can also create unnecessary competition.

I mentioned that in http://arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,3300.0.html, but I'm not sure how many people frequent the game mechanics sub-forum.