Author Topic: Unit Abilities vs The Interface  (Read 20826 times)

Offline Revenantus

  • Arcen Games Staff
  • Hero Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,063
Unit Abilities vs The Interface
« on: December 30, 2009, 02:37:39 am »
What I mean by this is the use of ships with special mechanics that are used as a substitute for an interface element that achieves the same functionality. Primary, though quite different, examples of this that the player interacts with are rally posts and the new control nodes.

Though the rally post is in some ways more versatile than the interface request it was originally born from, it was at first a ‘fall-back’ solution, because the issue it was created to address could not be resolved without significant changes to the game engine. Did this make it the inferior choice?

The new control node present in the prerelease is an interesting specimen. It’s a constructible unit that affects a fairly important game mechanic, and yet the unit is not intended to interact with the other units in the game in any manner whatsoever. I don’t think that this is completely counter-intuitive, because the settings menu doesn’t contain any options that affect the game mechanics themselves, so it isn’t as though similar options are being split up in an inconsistent manner. Still, should this option be controlled by a unit, or should it be on a menu?

Looking at both of the above, it’s really a conceptual issue. In the case of the rally post, it’s a question of whether you see the functionality it provides as an order you should really be able to achieve by issuing standard orders yourself, or whether you accept it’s something that requires some special hardware. In my view, I don’t see a rally point as something that should require a unit to set, so the unit feels a bit odd to me. Alternatively, others might see it the other way and so the rally post makes perfect sense.

The control node is a bit more complicated, and the reasons behind that particular design choice aren’t immediately clear to me, but I imagine that it’s one of the reasons discussed below.

So, when it comes to issuing unit orders, the question is how do you distinguish between what should be an interface element, and what should be a unit ability?

Is it the complexity of the order? Is it right that if an order would automate behaviour to too great a degree then it should require a resource expenditure in game?

Is it down to limitations of the game engine? Is it taking a quicker route when the perceived benefit of the feature does not justify the alteration to the game engine?

Is it because a unit gives the feature additional context and makes it conceptually easier to understand and manage?

It’s a combination of the three, but an issue arises when it becomes difficult to discern whether a player should be looking at the shortcut keys or the unit tree when looking for a feature. The answer to me then is that neither approach is inherently wrong, but the approach taken must be consistent.

When considering the correct approach, I think the most important factor is the level on which you see yourself, as the player, interacting with the game, and also the perceived intelligence of the units themselves. To take some contrasting examples, I’ll consider Lemmings and AI War;

Lemmings are ‘dumb’. They do not react to their environment in any manner whatsoever. The important point is that while I can give a Lemming basic orders, it itself has no concept of its environment, and is completely unaware of the context of its task. No one has ever asked if there’s a way of ordering Lemmings to automatically place their own stoppers, because not only is that a behaviour that’s far more complex than anything else Lemmings can do, in no other areas can they interpret their environment as would be necessary to do this.

Units in AI War are not ‘dumb’. They do not simply carry out a task they are given, as Lemmings do, they will decide how to achieve that goal. You don’t tell a unit to fire, you tell it to engage a target - if that target is too far away, it moves closer, if the target is immune, it won’t fire. The ship has a decision making process it goes through when it’s issued a task, and hence is seen as having an intelligence.

Is the ship itself is doing the decision making? Or is the interface is breaking down your orders into smaller chunks based on a few rules, and issuing those to the ship? As that would make the ship itself effectively ‘dumb’. This is an interesting question, but I don’t think that it’s relevant in this context, because either way, the player would expect orders of a general complexity as defined by the existing orders to be possible in either case. In the thematic sense of a spaceship, I interpret it as the former anyway.

When a special auxiliary unit is required to achieve a behaviour that seems comparatively simple to other behaviours a unit can be issued with, and the unit has already demonstrated the ability to interpret the necessary information to carry out the behaviour in other contexts, it strikes me as counter-intuitive.



Offline RCIX

  • Core Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,808
  • Avatar credit goes to Spookypatrol on League forum
Re: Unit Abilities vs The Interface
« Reply #1 on: December 30, 2009, 04:34:31 am »
One could consider the control node to be detecting attempts to select and control ships remotely from an ally, and then re-issuing those commands so the unit listens. Perhaps, as a consequence, there should be a slight (half second) pause before executing the order?
Avid League player and apparently back from the dead!

If we weren't going for your money, you wouldn't have gotten as much value for it!

Oh, wait... *causation loop detonates*

Offline x4000

  • Chris McElligott Park, Arcen Founder and Lead Dev
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,651
Re: Unit Abilities vs The Interface
« Reply #2 on: December 30, 2009, 10:30:18 am »
Well -- in the case of control nodes, they are global unit behavior shifts. As in, you build it and things are then different in this one game only. These are not things that need to be toggles on and off during the game, presumably. If I had made these an interface based thing, by the way, I would have needed to make a new per-player-per-game settings menu, which struck me as more obtuse.

In many ways, I see the control nodes as more civilization-customization as in other rts games. Some civs have special abilities in other rts titles, and these affect that. So far these are all free, bit later I may charge some knowledge for some future ones. This, too, then becomes an aspect of civilization customization.

With rally posts, those also could have become an interface element, but they would have required new hotheys, which are somewhat obtuse. It would not have been particularly more difficult to code in either case, but I would not have been able to charge knowledge for the rally post.

In any case, I do see you point, very much. Ai war is a complex, complex game, though and there is no one-size fits all approach. The general rules:

-global interface updates, graphics/audio/networking options are in the settings window. These are identical between all games and are the least frequently changed.

-per-campaign options are all set in the lobby before game start. These things all combine to create a scenario being played.

-per ship options that are temporary and need to be issued quickly are hotkeys or buttons in the interface.

-per-player per-campaign options that affect global behavior of all ships or certain types of ships for the current player are control nodes. If it affects how ships act at all, you will never see it in the settings window. So the thing about engineers assisting docks automatically or not will be a control node, too.

-other specialized effects that do not have a counterpart in other rts titles in the main are generally going to be ships. Rally posts, cleanup drones, and rebuilders are great examples of this. These usually have a per-planet effect or even less. This lets ship behavior be expressed in terms of new units with specialized functions, which makes it clearer at a glance what is going on, and easier to manage individual functions. It also prevents the need for color-coding more compared to if I were just to stack abilities more. This again also lets there be a k cost with some of them.

Clearly defined for experienced players, once they know the pattern? Yes it will be. Immediately clear to new players? No it won't be -- can't be. Any game with hundreds of "settings" options and key combos will never be crystal clear at the start. Plenty of hames have settings files, ini files, match start options, key combos (many undocumented by the developers!), and more. In the case of ai war, the key to retaining accessibility is to highlight important features through the interface or tutorials, but by the same token not to put all of those options in front of new players right at the start. Hence the key combos, the extra tabs of various settings and options, etc. Players should start with the basics, and then explore around to see what is available as they go. Finding more options that changes something in a way you want is exciting, I think. And at any rate, in my long experience with exceedingly complex business software design (in a system with literally over 35,000 interface screens), I have learned that dividing up options and introducing them graduLly is key. That is what the current ai war design is meant to do.
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games?  Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline aspo

  • Newbie Mark II
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: Unit Abilities vs The Interface
« Reply #3 on: December 30, 2009, 01:42:18 pm »
It seems to me that if the control nodes are units they should act like units.  Having to make them free units that can't be destroyed just makes it more obvious that they are the wrong tool for the job.  Right now there's only one control unit, so it's not that big of a deal, but if you ever have more than just a couple of them I think  you are going to regret going the unit route.

Why didn't you want to have a in game settings menu?  Because if it's for simplicity's sake there's no way "oh yeah you have to build this special unit from this special menu to turn on that in game option" is simpler.  And every time I go to build a something now there's another menu my brain has to process, even though 99.999% of the time I'm never going to want a control unit.  If it's for ease of use there's no way having to remember where you placed your control unit to turn it off, or if you want to build a new one and want to keep them all together.

I don't know what your plans are for control units, but right now the feel like a serious hack.

(Rally points also feel a bit hackish, but at least they make a little sense.  After all your rally points can be destroyed (wait, can they?) which will throw your defense out of whack.  Still I do wish it was easier to give cross planet control to your units.  I know there's technical reasons, but every time I try to reinforce one battle from another planet it really feels like I'm fighting the interface not the gameplay.)

Offline x4000

  • Chris McElligott Park, Arcen Founder and Lead Dev
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,651
Re: Unit Abilities vs The Interface
« Reply #4 on: December 30, 2009, 08:43:35 pm »
The next prerelease, which will be out in about an hour and a half, should make the design intent more clear.
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games?  Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline Nailer

  • Newbie Mark II
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: Unit Abilities vs The Interface
« Reply #5 on: January 02, 2010, 08:00:20 pm »
In my opinion, I would move the control nodes to different menus.

Some kind of context menu that comes up in addition to any buildings the selected unit can build.

Here are some suggestions:


Quote
-New Control Node: Auto-Build Engineers Mark II.  Each command station you control will automatically maintain one Mark II Engineer at each planet you control.  Building  multiple of this control node causes multiple engineers to be maintained at each planet. Replacement engineers will only be built if there are fewer than 100 mobile enemy ships on the planet.

-New Control Node: Auto-Build Engineers Mark III.  Each command station you control will automatically maintain one Mark III Engineer at each planet you control.  Building  multiple of this control node causes multiple engineers to be maintained at each planet. Replacement engineers will only be built if there are fewer than 100 mobile enemy ships on the planet.

-New Control Node: Auto-FRD Engineers.  Automatically places all of your engineers (including secondary engineers such as remains rebuilders) into Free-Roaming Defender mode if they are on planets you control.

I would put these on a context menu that pops up when you select the command station in a system. Meaning you could limit your auto-building to each and every planet you control.

Quote
-New Control Node: Auto-FRD Mobile Military.  Automatically places all of your mobile military ships into Free-Roaming Defender mode if they are on planets you control.

This node should definitely be put as something you can toggle on and off on a per stardock/starship builder basis. Or at least pr. planetary system basis as mentioned above.

Quote
-New Control Node: Engineers To Not Auto-Assist Queues.  Prevents your engineers from automatically assisting build queues (keeping them on repair duty only, unless they are given explicit orders to accelerate a queue).

-New Control Node: Engineers To Not Auto-Assist Allies.  Prevents your engineers from automatically assisting any allied ships (though you can still manually assign them to assist specific allied ships).

This should be toggled on a pr. engineer basis. Like in Warcraft 3 where you can right-click the "heal" spell of the priest to make them auto-heal nearby units.

Offline Fiskbit

  • Arcen Games Contractor
  • Master Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,752
Re: Unit Abilities vs The Interface
« Reply #6 on: January 02, 2010, 09:22:31 pm »
My opinion on control nodes is that they have 2 strengths, but if those aren't being utilized, they make for a clumsy, unintuitive menu replacement. Those two strengths are:

-Per-planet settings (place a control node on the planet you want that setting enabled for)
-Cross-player settings (settings where it takes multiple players for a setting to matter)

The latter is a less important case than the former, as it still works in menus without too much trouble, but the former is really the big selling point for these, as doing this per-planet in a menu would be clumsy. Currently, nothing is per-planet (though perhaps some should be), so everything that's in there strikes me as things that should be in a menu (some sort of behaviors menu, which I would tie with profiles so that the settings are set to the player's default preference when starting a new game and can be changed mid-game on a per-game basis).


My question for control nodes is: What problem do they solve? If the answer to this question is "per-planet settings" or maybe even "cross-player settings", then I think there's reason to go with these over some sort of interface for them, but they still strike me as unintuitive; for example, having to look around for where I put a setting so I can disable it is a little weird, and putting down settings requires some sort of organization or else they'll get spread everywhere and maybe get in the way. Furthermore, I would make an effort to make these distinctly non-ship-like; settings being able to die is potentially awful as users expect a setting to be enabled and it's not. Imagine if the auto-save setting were a control node, or window size. Those being destroyed would be irritating; for auto-save, it could be devastating. Assume a player won't notice that the enemy has changed one of his settings, and then imagine the bad things that could result from this. I don't think anything should be messing with these settings short of a stray cosmic ray striking one's computer in just the right way.

In general, I think that if something can be part of the interface and is preference or control related, it should be part of the interface. This applies to both rally posts and control nodes: rally posts help solve a limitation in the game engine, and control nodes modify ship behavior. The former is control, and the latter is both preference and control. If rally posts are really a solution to not being able to specify off-world orders, then I think they should be permacloaked, invincible, blind, and free, perhaps with a ship cap so they don't just get spammed. Similarly for control nodes: if they aren't going to be a menu (which they could be), then they should be permacloaked, invincible, blind, and free. Charging knowledge for interface extensions strikes me as a problem because it penalizes people for things that are giving them more control over their game. An advanced warp sensor is candy tech because it's simple, cheap, helps the player a little, and is rarely worth it to more experienced users. It's not really an interface extension, but rather is a way for players to 'cheat' by giving them additional knowledge about the enemy so they can better prepare. Having your ships on your world automatically go into FRD mode isn't the same and only removes the player's need to specific that command himself. It's preference and control only.

Anyway, those are my thoughts; I have to head out, so I have to cut this off now. Might have more to say later, but I hope this is helpful in some way.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2010, 09:34:48 pm by Fiskbit »
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games?  Click here to get started with Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports.  Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline HellishFiend

  • Hero Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 758
Re: Unit Abilities vs The Interface
« Reply #7 on: January 02, 2010, 09:56:40 pm »
About the per planet nodes, what if we eventually had something like "Planetary Enhancement nodes" (I'd say governor nodes, but that would sound too much like MoO3), of which you can only have one per planet. One would boost metal output.. another would do crystal output..  maybe even ship attack/defense or production speed. The nodes could also have drawbacks, such as larger incoming waves or reduced resource output for the military nodes, and maybe one of the nodes could even function as a taunt that would make the AI more likely to attack that planet?
Time to roll out another ball of death.

Offline Revenantus

  • Arcen Games Staff
  • Hero Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,063
Re: Unit Abilities vs The Interface
« Reply #8 on: January 03, 2010, 03:13:47 pm »
About the per planet nodes, what if we eventually had something like "Planetary Enhancement nodes" (I'd say governor nodes, but that would sound too much like MoO3), of which you can only have one per planet. One would boost metal output.. another would do crystal output..  maybe even ship attack/defense or production speed. The nodes could also have drawbacks, such as larger incoming waves or reduced resource output for the military nodes, and maybe one of the nodes could even function as a taunt that would make the AI more likely to attack that planet?

I'd actually prefer it if control nodes were to become exclusively per planet objects, as that would justify, to me at least, why they are constructable units - is it really the best option to have units that govern global interface options exist on a single planet? Maybe it is, but it still doesn't feel right to me, I'm sure I'll get used to it over time either way. Many of the control nodes, such as those that specify the maintenance of engineers, would be significantly more useful were it possible to configure them on a per planet basis. The truly global effects, such as allowing allies to issue orders to your units, might be better as profile options. They could be accessible mid campaign via a quick menu. A quick menu on the interface would allow all the options to be kept in one place, and accessible without having to swap planets.

Offline x4000

  • Chris McElligott Park, Arcen Founder and Lead Dev
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,651
Re: Unit Abilities vs The Interface
« Reply #9 on: January 03, 2010, 03:52:36 pm »
Well, for the short term, this is the way they work.  I don't have time to change this, and I don't find it to be unwieldy.  Having to build these sorts of nodes on every planet I control seems like it would be a pain (talk about micromanagement).  Having yet another menu seems extremely undesirable -- players will discover control nodes through play, whereas TONS of players never even discover the View Controls button in the in-game menu.  Granted, the new menu could be triggered by another HUD button, but that strikes me as then adding yet more clutter for something that is going to be accessed infrequently.

Plus, some of these control nodes (as now) are things that I wanted to have be unlockable via techs, to customize the players' civilizations.  Right now the model is that all techs correspond directly to a ship, which I'm not inclined to change and thus add complications to.  I also prefer that new functionality be expressed through ships whenever possible, as I think that makes it easiest to look at the board and know what is happening (though that is only tenuously related to this, it's relevant to the somewhat related Rally Posts in particular).  Also, this is not something for people's profiles, because: a) a lot of people don't even really look at their profiles, and would never see these options, and b) these options need to be per-campaign.  If I play with a core group, with my wife, and with strangers, I might have different settings for stuff like team control of my ships.

Yes, I'm sure people can poke some holes in some of my arguments, but that is also true of the counterarguments being leveled so far.  There are undesirable aspects to any way proposed thus far.  I went with the current approach because: a) it makes the functionality most likely to be discovered by players without being constantly in their face, and b) it was fastest to implement during a time where I wanted these features and am incredibly pressed for time, and c) I felt like perhaps I could extend on the concept of control-nodes-as-units later with potentially interesting results -- it felt like something that would open up new future design avenues.

For now, that's the end of the story, I don't have time to constantly rework this.  For now, this works, the new functionality is there and is useful, and it meets the design criteria that I had in mind.  I might revisit this in the future (post-January DLC) if lots of people still have strong feelings about it after playing with it some more, but for now there are simply places where I have to draw lines in the sand: I need to get this expansion finished and fully tested and released, and that's much more important than whether a fully-functional new feature would be better done as a menu or not.

I might change my mind in the future, but at the moment this is the best design for the criteria I have at the moment.  As control nodes grow and evolve, that could easily change.  I'm a fan of iterative design, recall.  But even if somebody plunks down the ideal design in this thread later today, it's not going to get my attention for the moment, because time is the limiting factor at the moment.  And, I want to give this feature a chance to really be looked at beyond the initial cries of "it's different! aah!"

There have been some very well-reasoned arguments against control nodes in this thread, but the main one seems to be that they simply don't feel right semantically to some players.  My experience is that generally when you start out with a feature like that (such as the asymmetrical AI, to name but one), it later evolves into something really different.  I have vauge ideas of later capitalizing more on the unit nature of control nodes, making them have some sort of interaction with each other or with other ships or something, though those are pretty hazy ideas at the moment.  But with these already established as units for now, it leaves the door open for further innovation with them down the line (when I later have time to really look at them more again).  As a designer, I can only see around so many corners at once, but this felt like the right direction to go for the moment.  I don't know where this will end up, but it's something I want to pursue for now.
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games?  Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline tombom

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: Unit Abilities vs The Interface
« Reply #10 on: January 08, 2010, 04:58:04 am »
As an additional consideration, I don't really understand why some control nodes have to be researched. To me, there doesn't seem to be a major difference between auto-building an engineer and auto-building a reclaims rebuilder. They would both take about the same amount of work to do manually.

Offline Buttons840

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 559
Re: Unit Abilities vs The Interface
« Reply #11 on: February 04, 2010, 12:02:23 pm »
Lemmings are ‘dumb’. They do not react to their environment in any manner whatsoever. The important point is that while I can give a Lemming basic orders, it itself has no concept of its environment, and is completely unaware of the context of its task. No one has ever asked if there’s a way of ordering Lemmings to automatically place their own stoppers, because not only is that a behaviour that’s far more complex than anything else Lemmings can do, in no other areas can they interpret their environment as would be necessary to do this.

Units in AI War are not ‘dumb’. They do not simply carry out a task they are given, as Lemmings do, they will decide how to achieve that goal. You don’t tell a unit to fire, you tell it to engage a target - if that target is too far away, it moves closer, if the target is immune, it won’t fire. The ship has a decision making process it goes through when it’s issued a task, and hence is seen as having an intelligence.

I think this is a perfect argument for having control nodes all be completely free.  A player should not be punished, in the form of knowledge, for wanting smart behaviour from their command stations and constructors.  By your definition the building of engineers is "dumb", it does not automatically react to the environment in any manner whatsoever.  With macro-management (meaning very little micro-management) being a key focus of the game I don't understand why there is any debate on this matter.  If you give me free control nodes I will use them to reduce the number of mundane tasks I have to perform, if you charge for them then I will elect to pause the game and click click click and micro-manage my way to the same effect; the only difference being I have less fun doing the latter.

This game is the worst possible candidate for micro management because of the high unit count and the extremely uninteresting environments when view on a micro level (space, no obstacles, nothing to see or look at, nothing).  This game shines on the macro level and forces interesting macro-strategy decisions.  Any feature that moves the focus from micro-management to micro-strategy should be encouraged, and at the least freely available to those who wish to use it.



If an ability helps me to achieve my goal quicker, easier, or faster and that same goal could be achieved through micro-management that ability should be free.  The end effect of having this ability is more fun, and nothing more.  It may appear to also provide some gameplay advantage at first glance, but this is dispelled by the fact that the same thing can be achieve through many yawns and much micro-management.

If an ability provides something that can be achieved in no other way, then this ability is a candidate for costing in-game resources (knowledge, etc).

The prime difference between an interface feature is this:  Does this allow me to do something that I couldn't do before in any way?

If the answers no, then it's an interface feature.  A mere convenience.  A curtsey to the players saying "you can now focus on the truly interesting points of the game, rather than micro-managing a few thousand units."

Offline keith.lamothe

  • Arcen Games Staff
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,505
Re: Unit Abilities vs The Interface
« Reply #12 on: February 04, 2010, 12:45:12 pm »
With macro-management (meaning very little micro-management) being a key focus of the game I don't understand why there is any debate on this matter.
Just to clarify, there isn't a ton of macro management and that isn't a focus of the interface development.  Mostly what we're going for (if I'm understanding Chris correctly) is facilitated micro-management, where you still make all the "creative" decisions but you don't have to click for every little step in the implementation of those decisions.  So if you want that specific group of cruisers to form a circle x radius from that specific wormhole you can (though we're still working on finding a decent key combination for that), but you won't get a control node saying "redirect 1 out of every three newly constructed long-range ships to join circles around hostile wormholes".

So we want to save you time and clicks, but you're still going to need to tell the interface what you want it to do, it won't make decisions for you.  At least that's the idea.
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games? Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline Lyrae

  • Newbie Mark II
  • *
  • Posts: 14
Re: Unit Abilities vs The Interface
« Reply #13 on: February 04, 2010, 12:55:45 pm »
With macro-management (meaning very little micro-management) being a key focus of the game I don't understand why there is any debate on this matter.
Just to clarify, there isn't a ton of macro management and that isn't a focus of the interface development.  Mostly what we're going for (if I'm understanding Chris correctly) is facilitated micro-management, where you still make all the "creative" decisions but you don't have to click for every little step in the implementation of those decisions.  So if you want that specific group of cruisers to form a circle x radius from that specific wormhole you can (though we're still working on finding a decent key combination for that), but you won't get a control node saying "redirect 1 out of every three newly constructed long-range ships to join circles around hostile wormholes".

So we want to save you time and clicks, but you're still going to need to tell the interface what you want it to do, it won't make decisions for you.  At least that's the idea.

Right, but that's not his point.  His point is that if he can achieve something by pausing, micro'ing, and wasting time doing mundane chores, he shouldn't have to pay knowledge costs for it.

I agree, I can't see why there is any debate on the issue of knowledge costs for control nodes.

Edit: I should just say that I think control nodes in general are a bad idea.  It a bad solution to a UI problem.  Maybe add two new menus ("tabs", whatever those buttons are when you select a CS) to the home command station, one for global settings (just the same as control nodes, you just don't have to research/build them) and one to performs overrides on each planet.  So home world would have global/override and all other planets would just have overrides.  Again though, the important part is that they shouldn't cost knowledge.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2010, 01:02:37 pm by Lyrae »

Offline vonduus

  • Sr. Member Mark III
  • ****
  • Posts: 439
Re: Unit Abilities vs The Interface
« Reply #14 on: February 04, 2010, 01:01:55 pm »
I agree, control nodes should be free.  My friend is a control freak, he never uses control nodes but  always prefers to micro things himself. I love the functionality of control nodes, and I always use (some of) them. But I cannot help feeling a little jealoux when I see what he bought for his knowledge points. From a hardcore gamers view (ai level 10) control nodes will probably be something that you habitually dispense with, because the scarce knowledge can be put to better use in buying more weapons, after all it is only a way of conveniencing the player.

edit to be more precise: He is doing it his way, I am doing it my new way, the result is the same, so why do I have to pay extra?

The only way I can be 100% sure to always be able to find my control nodes is to place them on my homeplanet. There might be a problem if a lot more control nodes are introduced to the game, my home planet force field is pretty crowded already with docks, spare plants, metal and crystal factories and now control nodes.

On the rally points: A rally point to me is a kind of beacon, that interacts with mobile ships by attracting them, so they make perfect sense as an onboard mobile unit. I don't even have the imagination to figure out how a rally point could be an interface element in a menu? 
« Last Edit: February 04, 2010, 01:08:06 pm by vonduus »
If you miss the alert, you die. If you get the alert, you die. Summa summarum: You die. (Kierkegaard on CPAs)