Unit Abilities vs The Interface

[vonduus]

I don't think it is an optimal way to do UI, nor do I think it is an optimal solution to the problems that prompted Chris to introduce the concept (those problems are wider scope than just UI).  But I wouldn't call it a bad solution.  It actually works very, very well for a lot of the recent features we've added, and actually make a lot of sense in some of them

When I first time saw the control nodes I found them funny and innovative. I was not aware that they were a workaround, so I took them at face value, and I thought that they were quite cool. Now that I know they are 'just' a way to get around some limitations in the engine I still think they are funny and innovative, and as a workaround I find the word 'elegant' most fitting. Only problem is that it may become a bit crowded on my home planet.

This is a challenge: Show me one situation where I am better off without power optimization. If PO nodes were free, everybody in their right mind would build one right away. But this would effectively take the basic game economy out of the game, in a way so it would make more sense to just make power optimization transparent by letting it be the default game behavior. Is this what we want, a strategy game where we don't have to think on the economy at all? This is what we will get, if  PO control nodes are free.

It is a common mistake to believe that you can define or stipulate problems away. If it is a real problem (and not just a misunderstanding) it has its own life beyond theory.  The problem here is that what intuitively appears to the theoretical mind as a clear and universally valid rule - like 'if a control node provides nothing new, it shall be free' - in some limiting cases seems to lead to unwanted consequences in the real game, like making the whole economy superflous. 

The limiting case here is Power Optimization: A PO control node would provide nothing new, I am manually optimizing power stations all the time. So according to the rule it should be free. But my experience with computer automation in general tells me that computers are far better at boring repetitive tasks. So much better that in the long run this limiting case might be equivalent to conquering several rich planets in AIWar, without the AIP penalty. There is nothing really new in terms of quality, but in terms of quantity the PO control node will give you a substantive advantage. So this case must be one of the explicit exceptions to the general rule. 

So even if it provides you nothing new, PO nodes are gonna cost you.

But why knowledge?

Knowledge is the only real scarce ressource in this game, so it hurts every time you have to spend knowledge on anything other than combat ships. I always force myself to buy my mk II command station right at the beginning of the game, because I know that I will never manage to convince myself to do it later on. This should illustrate how I would hate to pay knowledge for power optimization nodes. On the other hand, the advantage in PO is so huge, that I somehow feel it would be unfair to the ai to let the players get it for free.

So I thought: Why not charge a medium or even a big amount of ressources? It will not hurt in the same way as if you had to pay knowledge, as you can always let time pass and mine the ressources (now you even got the automatic PO to help you). But it might hurt you strategically. I have abandoned a lot of games because I simply did not manage my time properly. Ressources are not scarce given enough time, but enough time seems to be scarce.

The deal I am proposing is this: I can do PO manually and accept that in my hands it is not an exact science, meaning it will be more or less effective. Just like it is now. Or I can buy a PO node, it not only frees me from a repetitive task, it also makes me a lot of extra income because it is 100% effective all the time. The catch is that the node is so expensive in ressources that I cannot buy anything else for the next half hour.

[keith.lamothe]

I don't think it is an optimal way to do UI, nor do I think it is an optimal solution to the problems that prompted Chris to introduce the concept (those problems are wider scope than just UI).  But I wouldn't call it a bad solution.  It actually works very, very well for a lot of the recent features we've added, and actually make a lot of sense in some of them

When I first time saw the control nodes I found them funny and innovative. I was not aware that they were a workaround, so I took them at face value, and I thought that they were quite cool. Now that I know they are 'just' a way to get around some limitations in the engine I still think they are funny and innovative, and as a workaround I find the word 'elegant' most fitting.

There's more to their motivation than working around engine limitations, though some of their usages are that basically that.  You may see some more interesting ones in the future, just depends on ideas making sense.  Anyway, I'm glad you like them; it is an innovation, it just doesn't seem that way to everyone

Only problem is that it may become a bit crowded on my home planet.

Really?  I don't think you really need to put them under the force field since they're cloaked, have an insane amount of health, and build with extreme rapidity... but I might be remembering some old data.

This is a challenge: Show me one situation where I am better off without power optimization. If PO nodes were free, everybody in their right mind would build one right away.

Yes, and as you say it would basically remove the mechanic of manually balancing off/on energy reactors.  Energy reactors would basically be like metal/crystal extractors except you'd still have to build them manually and they would have a metal/crystal cost if they needed to be on.

But that brings up a previous example: why does the game auto-build metal/crystal extractors for you, and rebuild them automatically if they get destroyed?  Wasn't that part of the game before?  Do you even think about building those any more?  Do you think of them at all except to prevent the enemy from destroying them on border planets?

I don't think I want to see that happen to energy management, but with folks saying that it's the least fun part of the game... well, where do we go with that? Do we make them pay a cost for a node that just removes some interface micro that they don't like doing?  Then I would have the joy of more pages of passionate forum argumentation about how awful it is to charge for nodes

So I think just not do the node at all for now (not sure Chris likes the idea anyway) and work on other stuff to add fun.  Manual energy management should be a fair bit easier now that you can open the all-energy-reactor pop-up tab and just shift click to turn them on and off (that was a few prereleases ago, I forget which one).

[Buttons840]

An interface element is one provided to make it easier to issue orders in some fashion, or performs a small amount of work for the user which would be tedious to carry out otherwise.
A game element is any item that directly interacts with other units, structures, or mechanics in the game to alter the flow of gameplay or offload a relatively large amount of work from the user.

...

 * FRD Mode: an interface element. It makes it easier to issue orders.

If a PO node is considered to directly interact with other units because it turns off reactors automatically, then I think by the same logic I would think FRD mode also directly interacts with other units by issuing move and attack orders automatically.  This suggests that FRD should be considered a game element.

We then must decide whether issuing orders to thousands of units spread over several planets is a small or large amount of work.  (Again, thinking of FRD.)

This may just be my own opinion, but an auto-energy-management node that only did what you could do just faster and with less effort on your part would be a free node.  If we're going to provide that interface option it shouldn't be a gameplay tradeoff.

Now would we provide that option?  Dunno.  I talked to Chris about it a little while ago and it sounds interesting but it's basically removing part of the "game".  Do that in enough places and there's not much game left   But perhaps managing which reactors are on and off is part of the game that can just go away for those people who don't need more fine-tune control.

Anyway, a node that tripled energy output would be distinctly a gameplay thing rather than an interface thing, because you as a player can't just triple energy cost without spending resources (or cheating).  In this respect whether something is an UI element (like the handicap percent thing at the start of the game) or a control node is really not important.  Basically the question is:

Could I do this for free without the control node?

I agree completely that a PO node should also be free if one is put in at all.  I think back to you saying earlier that the game isn't about macro-management, and I realized that the ultimate in macro-management would be nothing more than a simulation - not a game.  So there is the question of where do you draw the line and where do you stop doing things for the player?  A PO node might be getting close to this line - I don't really have an opinion on it, except that it should be free if its there at all.  Although it's not as though were suggestion a node which "automatically builds the optimal units and conquers planets for you."  I guess that's the another question to ask.  Do you want conquering planets and building units to be part of the game?  Obviously yes.  More thoughtful questions are: Do you want reactor management to be part of the game?  Do you want "checking up on your units" to be part of the game?

[x4000]

Cross-posted from a new wiki entry I just made:

Why Doesn't The Game Automate Scouting or Reactor Management?

Q: I can derive a lot of metal/crystal savings by closely monitoring and enabling/disabling energy reactors. Why doesn't the game just automate this for me, disabling whatever reactors are not needed at the moment, and then enabling them as my energy needs grow?


Response from Chris Park, AI War's Lead Designer:

My thoughts on the reactor auto-management are as follows:

    * 1. The game is built around expecting players to build enough reactors to maintain all of their ships.
    * 2. Some players like to micromanage the reactors to gain an added advantage. This is fine, but I'm not going to go out of my way to make that easier; they are deriving an advantage out of this that is not really intended.
    * 3. Sometimes when things are going really poorly and you just lost a bunch of ships, you need to turn off excess reactors in order to save on the metal/crystal costs. This is expected, and is pretty infrequent, and we recently made it really easy to do with the shift-clicking the reactor entries in the quick-button menu at the bottom of the screen.
    * 4. Therefore, I don't see a need for a reactor automation node at all. The only thing that it would do is help all players derive an advantage from auto-microing their reactors, in which case I would then have to rebalance the game around that, in which case you're back to square one of it not mattering at all.

Things like this are always an arms race. When you give the AI a new ability, the game gets harder. When you give the player one, the game gets easier. Etc. And in the middle are various micro-intensive activities that players can optionally do in order to gain some sort of specific advantage if they are so inclined. Keyword there is optional. These are not really intended strategies that the game expects players to use in order to win, but rather are sideways solutions that players work out in order to maximize their effectiveness given the game rules (at a cost of their time and attention to the micro).

Examples include:

    * 1. Micromanaging scouts to get really far with low-level scouts.
    * 2. Micromanaging unit tactics and positioning in battle.
    * 3. Micromanaging reactors.
    * 4. Micromanaging low-power/full-power ships to minimize energy footprint.
    * 5. Micromanaging engineer positioning and usage so as to reduce the number of engineers needed in the galaxy.
    * 6. Micromanaging the positions of shield and munitions boosters to provide maximum coverage.

And so on. These are things that I have no intention of making easier, because they are entirely optional (in the sense of not required to win on standard difficulty levels) and things that some players enjoy doing to gain an added advantage. If those become automated and mainstream, there is no longer any advantage to them. In other words, the opportunities for clever sideways solutions to tactical and strategic problems goes down, and down by a lot -- which is bad. Under normal play, none of the above are required (though some degree of tactical management of battles is always a good idea).

However, in extreme circumstances where a campaign would otherwise be a loss, players can either opt to A) concede defeat, since they have lost; B) get really tricky and do all sorts of micro-intensive activities to claw their way back in. This is very much like regular warfare, and most players will simply opt for option A. Which is fine. But for those players with a certain personality, having the ability to choose option B is the difference between a shallow strategy game and a robust one. Given that I am often in group B myself, that's not something I'm going to sacrifice. Given my above notes about the game being an arms race of difficulty between the AI and the humans, it wouldn't accomplish anything except to make games more homogenized -- again, not a goal at all.

By contrast, reason I previously automated the building of metal and crystal harvesters is because there is no strategy to them at all, it is simply a "click to replace" type of activity that is short and pointless, something that is a time-tax more than anything else. Removing the need to build them doesn't affect overall strategy at all. I don't see the above list of things as being at all the same, because there are plenty of alternatives to all of the above:

    * 1. Use larger groups of scouts, or higher-level scouts.
    * 2. Build large numbers of ships, build really effective ship mixes, use Mobile Repair Stations, etc. (And, to an extent, tactical micro as an option is a big part of the genre).
    * 3. Take more planets in order to increase your metal/crystal income, and thus reduce the load of the energy reactors on your economy; or, find a Zenith Power Generator or similar (in the expansion, anyway).
    * 4. Same deal as #3, basically.
    * 5. Same deal as #3 and #4.
    * 6. Simply throw them into your group and they will provide a benefit commensurate with what the AI typically gets out of them.

Why The Emphasis On Taking Many Planets?

Q: Following the above topic, and other comments made elsewhere by Park, it seems clear that there is an emphasis on not having players take very low numbers of planets in a campaign (such as 6 out of 80 planets rather than the "expected" 20-30 out of 80 planets). Why is that?


Response from Chris Park, AI War's Lead Designer:

Continuing the discussion from the topic above: In the end, what the automation of energy reactors boils down to is that some players want to capture as few planets as possible, and thus make the game easier via having a lower AI Progress. That's fine, to a point, but again that's not something I'm going out of my way to make easier -- rather, I've explicitly made that more difficult by adding the concepts of Supply and Reactor Efficiency. The only use I see for reactor auto-management is to maximize your economy while minimizing the number of planets you hold. If you're taking option B from above and clawing your way back from defeat, then you'll appreciate the ability to tune your energy reactors by hand to get the desired result. If you're trying to play a super-low-AI-Progress game, then you're doing it to yourself by fighting the normal game flow. That's certainly allowed, but if you don't like the micro that causes, then don't try to circumvent the game by not taking enough resources to support yourself.

That might seem harsh, but we're back again to the arms race: if taking a low number of planets is easy to do and convenient, then everyone should be doing that in order to keep AI Progress low, right? If that's the case, then there's never a reason to take many planets at all, and the game is artificially easier and in need of rebalancement. My take is that taking very few planets is less fun, in a general sense, because you get to do less capturing and you have fewer options overall. Also, it is harder for the AI to be very interestingly effective against you, because there are so many fewer ingress points. So you wind up having less fun of a time, and a less interesting AI opponent; sounds like a bad deal to me.

But, given the current game design, some players delight in having a super low planet count simply because of the fact that this is a unique, difficult, off-the-beaten-track way to play, and it helps them be experts in an unusual specialty. This, again, is fine, and something I like to support as much as possible. So as I've added mechanics to the game such as Supply and Reactor Efficiency, I have always been balancing the needs of the standard game against at least making the low-planet-count games possible, if not easy. That sort of style of play is not something that I personally enjoy, but, since some others do, it's not something I want to kill because it does add variety and is fun for some. The problem comes when a tactic like that is too much of an exploit (which it once was), or when the players who enjoy that style of play start recommending it to all newbies -- who then take it at face value that this is the normal and expected way to play, and then come away feeling like that is a frustrating and micro-intensive way to play (and it is).

Bottom line there is that if you're the sort that enjoys a micro-intensive challenge specifically to thwart the normal play conventions of a game, then there are things you can do such as having a super low planet count. That's a certain kind of person who enjoys that sort of metagame, and I wish them well with it so long as it doesn't turn exploitative to the point where it is legitimately the one best way to play (currently it is not). For anyone not fitting the above description, they should generally instead focus on playing the game the way it was designed, which is much more fun for most people.

[Kjara]

Hey now, you don't have to have huge of energy problems or have to do alot of energy micro when you only take 6 or 7 planets, turret balls with mkII reactors on enemy planets ftw .

Honestly I tend to play that way for a good chunk of my games(not all by any means) and the most micro I do is I tend to do is to have a few extra mkIII reactors sitting around paused for when I lose a planet and need to make up for the large energy loss each planet loss costs me.

I do agree its not the only way to play (though I probably have been guilty of suggesting it to newbies I'm afraid .

On the whole reactor automation I'm mildly against, just due to the fact that it really isn't necessary most of the time, and it would remove one aspect that you can tweak when you really really need it for a really close situation.

If you guys feel that it would give you such a huge advantage to have slightly higher metal/crystal income, raise arms with me against the randomness of distribution nodes!

[RCIX]

Hey now, you don't have to have huge of energy problems or have to do alot of energy micro when you only take 6 or 7 planets, turret balls with mkII reactors on enemy planets ftw .

Honestly I tend to play that way for a good chunk of my games(not all by any means) and the most micro I do is I tend to do is to have a few extra mkIII reactors sitting around paused for when I lose a planet and need to make up for the large energy loss each planet loss costs me.

I do agree its not the only way to play (though I probably have been guilty of suggesting it to newbies I'm afraid .

On the whole reactor automation I'm mildly against, just due to the fact that it really isn't necessary most of the time, and it would remove one aspect that you can tweak when you really really need it for a really close situation.

If you guys feel that it would give you such a huge advantage to have slightly higher metal/crystal income, raise arms with me against the randomness of distribution nodes!

It's not slightly higher. Hang on, let me do the math...

If you have this node and you just build an MkI, II, and III pgen on your home planet, then at first only the MkII will run. This saves you 42 metal/crystal/second until you actually need it. Now, you could do that yourself, but when you get up to six planets, you can just plop down a few reactors on each, and automatically get the best bang for your buck. This means that you can be saving what is probably 50 to a couple hundred crystal/metal a second because you're simply not dealing with anything but the most efficient reactors, and then only the ones that need to be on.

But, this point is moot because such a node isn't going in.

[Kjara]

So theres 3 possible levels of micro here(actually probably many more, but these 3 levels are enough to make my point):
No micro
Minimal micro
Extreme micro

You are comparing a no-micro level to an extreme micro level. 

I think most of the complaints are people going to the extreme micro level.
If you instead play with a more moderate level of micro at the start(when it really matters the most anyway), and stop worrying about it nearly as much at the 5-6 planet point, it won't make a huge difference generally(especially if you don't just build plants to build plants--if you likely to ever need the power, don't build the mkIII plant--save the 21k crystal).

Yes, if you don't plan on using that mkIII plant, you should stick it in low power, and for your first planet, it probably makes sense to build it and toggle it some depending on needs.  Later in the game I almost never build mkIII plants, and the most micro I have to do is to turn a mkII plant on or off if lose a good chunk of my fleet or something. I generally have at most 2 extra mkII planets on when I don't need them at a given point(and this never really happens till I have at least 4 or 5 planets--before then I use up the power as fast as I can generate it with mkII plants): that's about 24 min+crystal per sec that I could be saving.

For this to match what a distribution node gives(say it gives 50k) would take 2083 seconds or 34 minutes, ignoring the fact that having the minerals/crystals now vs later makes a huge difference. 

Finally, I feel that someone who just builds every reactor on every planet they take should be penalized over someone who thinks about what reactors they actually need, even if its only that the person who isn't thinking incurs more micro for themself(and wastes the power plant costs).

[RCIX]

Finally, I feel that someone who just builds every reactor on every planet they take should be penalized over someone who thinks about what reactors they actually need, even if its only that the person who isn't thinking incurs more micro for themself(and wastes the power plant costs).

Exacticly! The node would remove that...

[Kjara]

and that's why I'm against it....

[Buttons840]

There are two other things I consider to be in the same category as the control nodes:

1) Scouts causing the unit overview (you know, the thing on the right side of the screen) to work, or not to work.

Sometimes I'll attack a planet without having a scout, and I notice that the unit overview doesn't show the enemies.  "That's inconvenient, but no matter."  I pause the game and then look around manually and find out the exact same information, only it took a little more effort.  Not having scouts is thus an interface inconvenience but ultimately I'm just as likely to win without a scout as with a scout.  To fix I would suggest either providing a real penalty (something more than an interface gimp) for not having scouts present or just cause the unit overview to work at all times.

I'm also looking at the full fog of war which disables the mini-map when no scout is present?  I literally NEVER look at the mini-map anyways.  Maybe if you couldn't see enemy ships at all without a scout present?

2) Rally points.  I don't use these, because they're not worth researching when I can do the same thing by hand.  Again, the trusty pause feature is helpful.

If they had something like a long range repair beam on them to repair damaged ships which are gathering around them, this would be nice.  Beware that it could be abused because there is no limit on how many you can build and they are cheap, so you might need to associate a higher energy cost or something with these.  Then again a high energy cost would limit their true use, which is as an interface assist.

[deMangler]

There are two other things I consider to be in the same category as the control nodes:

1) Scouts causing the unit overview (you know, the thing on the right side of the screen) to work, or not to work.

Sometimes I'll attack a planet without having a scout, and I notice that the unit overview doesn't show the enemies.  "That's inconvenient, but no matter."  I pause the game and then look around manually and find out the exact same information, only it took a little more effort.  Not having scouts is thus an interface inconvenience but ultimately I'm just as likely to win without a scout as with a scout.  To fix I would suggest either providing a real penalty (something more than an interface gimp) for not having scouts present or just cause the unit overview to work at all times.

I thought it was the interface correctly showing a lack of intel because there is no scout. I never saw it as an interface gimp.
Hmmmm...
dM

[Buttons840]

I thought it was the interface correctly showing a lack of intel because there is no scout. I never saw it as an interface gimp.
Hmmmm...
dM

If there is a lack of intel then let there be a lack of intel.  Currently I can pause the game and asses the situation in a matter of seconds and learn how enemy units there are and where they are located.

Or, look at it this way.  The way the game is currently set up you either:
1) Have a scout, and have intel.  In this case you can know how many enemy ships there are and where they are located.
2) Do not have a scout, and do not have intel.  In this case you can, still, know how many enemy ships there are and where they are located.

[Revenantus]

My first concern on this front is the blurring of what a gameplay element is versus an interface element. I’ve spent some time contemplating how to distinguish them, perhaps the following is sufficient;

“A gameplay element can affect the tactical decision making process of an idealized player, an interface element cannot.”

To clarify what I mean by an idealized player, I mean a player that is not constrained by their skill, time availability, or patience. I think this particular distinction is important because no human is an idealized player, so while, for example, attack-move does improve a player’s chances of success, it is still an interface element. If one was unconstrained by time and patience they could achieve the same effects as attack-move mode by issuing more basic orders manually. The point there is that interface elements can still make the game easier for human players.

But there’s a problem. What about having access to the planetary summary on a given planet? Now, all the information provided by the planetary summary is available to the idealized player without access to a scout, so at first, according to my earlier definition, this looks like an interface element. However, the idealized player might be fighting against a human. So perhaps more accurately, access to the planetary summary is a gameplay element because the idealized player might actively try to destroy the human scout to prevent the human from having access to that data. In this way, full access to the planetary summary has affected the idealized player’s decision making process, so it can be considered to be a gameplay element.

This extends further, what about attack-move from the point of view of the idealized player fighting the human? The fact that the human can issue that order might affect the idealized player’s actions, even though attack-move isn’t used by the idealized player. In truth, nothing would fall under the definition of interface element using my original definition, so I’m going to update it for the purposes of actually being able to continue with my line of thought;

“A gameplay element can directly affect the tactical decision making process of an idealized player, an interface element cannot.”

I’ll consider the changes in the idealized player’s decision making process caused by the non-idealized player’s use of interface elements as indirect effects on the decision making process. This was I can still consider attack-move mode and the planetary summary to be interface elements. What I consider to be interface elements will still affect the flow of the game - I don’t think there’s any escaping that.

So, It follows from this that interface elements are necessarily built on top of gameplay elements. For example, would one say that issuing a unit with a move order is an interface element or a gameplay element? The method of actually issuing the order is the interface element, but the fact that it is possible to issue a move order is a gameplay element. This can be seen in that even an idealized player would play differently if it weren’t possible to issue move orders, so the decision making process is directly affected. So if the fact that it’s possible to issue move orders is a gameplay element, why don’t I consider the fact that it’s possible to issue attack-move orders to be a gameplay element? Because the existence of attack-move is irrelevant to the idealized player - their patience is infinite and they’re unconstrained by time so they can achieve the same results by issuing move and attack orders.

To summarize here, we have the possibility of attacking and moving as gameplay elements, and the methods of actually effecting these actions, or combinations of them, as interface elements.

Since humans are in fact not idealized players, interface elements can and will affect the difficulty of the game. So, what sort of interface elements should be provided? If the provided interface elements are too basic, the player will be forced to perform mindless repetitive tasks. Too many sophisticated elements, and potential enjoyment of the game that could be derived from difficulty and development of player skills could be lost. Almost without exception, I think AI War strikes this balance brilliantly. Chris’ earlier post in this thread makes a strong case for why reactor management and scouting aren’t handled automatically, which I agree with.

Having established that interface elements can make the game easier, despite them being irrelevant to idealized players, it could make sense to charge the player resources for the privilege of having access to them. I think the way to proceed with this question is to start by looking at it from a thematic view point.

The answer to the above depends on the creator’s design philosophy. Is the interface we use to interact with the game actually external to the simulation, or is even the interface itself part of the simulation? Put another way, is the interface we use to command ships in AI War actually a simulated interface that the human commander we’re supposed to be is using?

Supposing we consider the game to be simulating the interface that an actual commander would be using, then it does make sense the in-game resources could be used to upgrade it. In contrast, if the interface is external to the simulation, then it’s clearly absurd, at least from a thematic standpoint, to charge in-game resources for access to certain features of it.

If we take the view that the interface is external to the simulation, then all possible inconveniences, such as difficulty issuing specific orders or displaying summaries of information that we already have access to in other, albeit less convenient, forms, are the result of imperfections in the interface and should be rectified by the developer. Arguably true in some people’s eyes, but that’s only true if the interface is supposed to transcend the game. I think a more appropriate way of looking at things is to consider the interface of the game to be displaying only the information that the supposed human commander would have access to if they were actually coordinating the simulated battle. In this way, everything that might have been considered an ‘imperfection of the interface’ in the previous case is really just an aspect of the game. I wholly ascribe to this view.

An example of the above is again not having access to the full planetary summary without the presence of a scout. Some might say that it’s an imperfection because they have access to that information by simply looking at the ships on the planet, so it’s pointless to just not provide the information all the time regardless of whether a scout is available. Alternatively, we might assume that the actual human commander is having to base his decision on only having access to the visual data with no way of processing it into a  planetary summary, and so this limitation is an intentional challenge.

Does this mean we should never be requesting interface upgrades? No, because even if they’re really aspects of the game, we don’t have to like and agree all those aspects, and so improving them can improve the overall gameplay experience. In the same way that updated gameplay mechanics can eliminate tedious aspects of play, so can interface updates.

In my mind, control nodes are in a real gray area. Control nodes are effectively ignored by the AI - they aren’t there to affect the choices the AI will make. However, control nodes are also units, which represent physical structures in the simulated environment. This is admittedly semantics, but it leads me to describe control nodes as ‘phantom units’, which is really an oxymoron.

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

Still, if control nodes were an asset to be defended which the AI would actively seek to destroy in order to hamper the player’s operations, they would make sense, I would see them as supplementary AIs to assist in my operations. As it stands, they are like a physical manifestation of a settings menu. I have to admit that this issue has no objective basis, but the above thinking is the main reason that I’ve been opposed to them.

The only objective measure of ‘correctness’ I can then see is consistency. Okay, done ranting, I’ll continue with my thoughts on what I mean by consistency later.



[Buttons840]

My first concern on this front is the blurring of what a gameplay element is versus an interface element. I’ve spent some time contemplating how to distinguish them, perhaps the following is sufficient;

“A gameplay element can affect the tactical decision making process of an idealized player, an interface element cannot.”

To clarify what I mean by an idealized player, I mean a player that is not constrained by their skill, time availability, or patience. I think this particular distinction is important because no human is an idealized player, so while, for example, attack-move does improve a player’s chances of success, it is still an interface element. If one was unconstrained by time and patience they could achieve the same effects as attack-move mode by issuing more basic orders manually. The point there is that interface elements can still make the game easier for human players.

But there’s a problem. What about having access to the planetary summary on a given planet? Now, all the information provided by the planetary summary is available to the idealized player without access to a scout, so at first, according to my earlier definition, this looks like an interface element. However, the idealized player might be fighting against a human. So perhaps more accurately, access to the planetary summary is a gameplay element because the idealized player might actively try to destroy the human scout to prevent the human from having access to that data. In this way, full access to the planetary summary has affected the idealized player’s decision making process, so it can be considered to be a gameplay element.

I read this much and agree completely.  A great line of thought.  But I got lost at the next paragraph which began talking bout "player vs human" gameplay.  Humans are the players, and player vs player gameplay isn't part of this game.  I read a blip here and there afterwards, but it was all a bit philosophical for me.


How about an ideal player vs an ideal player.  An ideal player couldn't care less about scouts, or destroying his opponents scouts, because both know that the other doesn't need scouts.  Scout are still a cheap fast cloaking unit which are great for maintaining constant visual on a planet, but I currently don't consider a scout sitting at a sector any different than say a Zenith Mirror sitting on the same planet (although the mirror isn't cloaked, so might not last long).


It boils down to this for me:
Want to charge for control nodes?  Then I wont use them.  (I actually don't use them even after they're free because I got used to ignoring them.)
Want to take away my intel summary because I don't have a scout?  I'll form my own intel summary.


I think your line of thought is the best I've seen for separating game from interface.

[deMangler]

I don't see gameplay elements as an obstruction to playing the game, even if those elements do obstruct me being able to interact with parts of the game world. I play the game because gameplay elements (such as needing scouts for intel, etc) are a part of the game I want to play.
Still, the good thing about AI War is that the player is not railroaded into playing in a very narrow way. As you say, if you don't want to use scouts for intel, there are other ways.
There are lots of ways to win, and lots of ways to play.
The whole game is an interface in a very literal sense, it is an interface for the process of playing the game.
The attraction of a game like AI War, is that it is a creative process for the player, creating a journey from the start of the game to the end, lose or win. Not just a challenge. Without tools for that creative process, such as using scouts, and all the other things, I don't know what the game would be.
Interesting stuff, topics in this forum rarely seem to stay superficial for long....