Unit Abilities vs The Interface

[Revenantus]

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.

Much of the post wasn't entirely specific to AI War, but I should clarify that when I use the term player I'm referring to any participant of the game, be them human, AI, or even otherwise if that's possible. The point there was just that if there's a non-idealized player in the game, that is one that is constrained by any combination of their skill, patience, or time availability, then there's no such thing as an interface element that won't be at least indirectly relevant in terms of the tactical decision making.

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 any 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).

In the case that the game contains only the hypothetical idealized players, then any aspect that could falls under the definition of interface element as defined by ,“A gameplay element can directly affect the tactical decision making process of an idealized player, an interface element cannot.”, has absolutely no impact on the flow of the game. For all intents and purposes, the interface elements are irrelevant in this case and only the gameplay elements will affect the outcome. The earlier discussion attempted to show that the interface elements only contribute to the decision making process because of the fact that there's unlikely to ever be a game that only contains idealized players.

So, let's consider your case of the scout on the planet versus having a zenith mirror stationed there. Assuming you have unlimited time and patience, whether or not you have access to the planetary summary will not affect your decision making process, because either way you ultimately have access to the same information, so I'd consider it to be an interface element.

So, now assume that you don't have unlimited time (i.e. the pause feature is unavailable for whatever reason) - now having that scout is potentially useful because it provides an intel summary at a glance that you couldn't quickly compile for yourself. Now, knowing that you'll be constrained by time availability, your opponent might decide to destroy your scout to make things more difficult. Therefore, that interface element has affected the flow of the game indirectly, because your opponent has decided upon a different course of action not because of the specific effect of something on the game map, but an understanding of your limitations in terms of the interface. If you were an idealized player, your opponent would have no reason to attack your scout over anything else.

[Revenantus]

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.

Perfectly tenable viewpoints, but I'm not actually attacking the fact that there's a resource cost attached to the use of certain interface elements, in fact in many cases I'd defend it, though that wasn't the main focus of the earlier argument so I only hinted at it.

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.

I intend to address the issue of resource costs of interface elements more completely when I make my post on consistency.

[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....

 

You both seem to be taking the view that which elements are interface and which are gameplay is objective. It isn't. It is entirely subjective to the player. (or is whether it is subjective or not subjective...? Bwahahahaaaaaa)
I am not at all clear what 'idealized player' means, nor can I infer it from the context.
As far as I am concerned when I read a book I try to appreciate the intention of the author, when I watch a film I try to experience the effect intended, without getting distracted by the room temperature or the size of the screen, or even to a degree, say, the quality of the sets - if I can tell what was intended then it has succeeded.
On the other hand, when I play a game I enjoy 'going along' with the game, or 'joining in' the game the developer has made. It is part of the fun.
The developer puts in fighters, or wormholes, or golems, or whatever, and I go, 'oh goody'. I'll have some fun with those. Similarly there are knowledge cost to control nodes that are so negligible as to be insignificant, and in fact give me a hook to invent some reason for them, and I go 'I'll play with those then....new toys...'
On the other hand, if the position of a ship is misrepresented because of an interface error, or an energy number does not represent the effect of the value, without an in-game reason - either discoverable or explicit, then I cry "Interface problem..."
Does that mean I am not an 'idealized player?'
Anyway, I can't resist a good debate.

[Revenantus]

You both seem to be taking the view that which elements are interface and which are gameplay is objective. It isn't. It is entirely subjective to the player.

You are correct that there isn't a completely objective definition of either - that's inherently true because they're both human created concepts. In my earlier post I was attempting to invent a generally acceptable definition of both, as it seems surprisingly difficult to pin down in the context of a game. Whether my suggested definition is actually any good is another matter.

I am not at all clear what 'idealized player' means, nor can I infer it from the context.

I used the term in my earlier post as part of my definition of gameplay and interface elements, again, it's not a universal term, just one I needed for my argument.

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.

As far as I am concerned when I read a book I try to appreciate the intention of the author, when I watch a film I try to experience the effect intended, without getting distracted by the room temperature or the size of the screen.
On the other hand, when I play a game I enjoy 'going along' with the game the developer has made. It is part of the fun.
The developer puts in fighters, or wormholes, or golems, or whatever, and I go, 'oh goody'. I'll have some fun with those. Similarly there are knowledge cost to control nodes that are so negligible as to be insignificant, and I go 'I'll play with those then....new toys...'

I'm not attacking the interface in general here, or saying that the information given to the player is correct or incorrect, and I'm happy to see resource costs attached to certain elements of the interface as long as it's done consistently. The post was an attempt to classify game elements based on their effects on gameplay, and was almost entirely philosophical, and shouldn't impact how you perceive the game when you're actually playing it.

Yes, I did launch a small attack on control nodes for a different reason, but I admitted that was on a subjective basis.

On the other hand, if the position of a ship is misrepresented because of an interface error, or an energy number does not represent the effect of the value, then without an in-game reason - either discoverable or explicit, then I cry "Interface problem..."

True, that's an interface bug, but those are a different issue.

Does that mean I am not an 'idealized player?'

My 'idealized player' is largely hypothetical, and no human fits the definition. Maybe I should have chosen a better name, because it wasn't meant to imply that anyone should be striving to become this thing.

Anyway, I can't resist a good debate.

Cool.

[deMangler]

You both seem to be taking the view that which elements are interface and which are gameplay is objective. It isn't. It is entirely subjective to the player.

You are correct that there isn't a completely objective definition of either - that's inherently true because they're both human created concepts. In my earlier post I was attempting to invent a generally acceptable definition of both, as it seems surprisingly difficult to pin down in the context of a game. Whether my suggested definition is actually any good is another matter.

I am not at all clear what 'idealized player' means, nor can I infer it from the context.

I used the term in my earlier post as part of my definition of gameplay and interface elements, again, it's not a universal term, just one I needed for my argument.

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.

As far as I am concerned when I read a book I try to appreciate the intention of the author, when I watch a film I try to experience the effect intended, without getting distracted by the room temperature or the size of the screen.
On the other hand, when I play a game I enjoy 'going along' with the game the developer has made. It is part of the fun.
The developer puts in fighters, or wormholes, or golems, or whatever, and I go, 'oh goody'. I'll have some fun with those. Similarly there are knowledge cost to control nodes that are so negligible as to be insignificant, and I go 'I'll play with those then....new toys...'

I'm not attacking the interface in general here, or saying that the information given to the player is correct or incorrect, and I'm happy to see resource costs attached to certain elements of the interface as long as it's done consistently. The post was an attempt to classify game elements based on their effects on gameplay, and was almost entirely philosophical, and shouldn't impact how you perceive the game when you're actually playing it.

Yes, I did launch a small attack on control nodes for a different reason, but I admitted that was on a subjective basis.

On the other hand, if the position of a ship is misrepresented because of an interface error, or an energy number does not represent the effect of the value, then without an in-game reason - either discoverable or explicit, then I cry "Interface problem..."

True, that's an interface bug, but those are a different issue.

Does that mean I am not an 'idealized player?'

My 'idealized player' is largely hypothetical, and no human fits the definition. Maybe I should have chosen a better name, because it wasn't meant to imply that anyone should be striving to become this thing.

Anyway, I can't resist a good debate.

Cool.

Thanks, that clears things up for me,
BTW, I accidently quoted my own post in that last post of mine.... Doesn't matter now anyway - at least I can agree with myself....

[RCIX]

I am not at all clear what 'idealized player' means, nor can I infer it from the context.

See:

To clarify what I mean by an idealized player, I mean a player that is not constrained by their skill, time availability, or patience.

This is why i chose to draw the line of gamepaly element at that which affects the flow of the game more than a small amount whether it be through direct interaction with other elements through channels designed for that, or through performing nontrivial tasks the user would find overly tedious. Granted, this is a subjective definition (in "small" and "overly tedious"), but it's much learer, neater, and more logical than the one Revenantus uses at least IMHO.

[Buttons840]

This is why i chose to draw the line of gamepaly element at that which affects the flow of the game more than a small amount whether it be through direct interaction with other elements through channels designed for that, or through performing nontrivial tasks the user would find overly tedious. Granted, this is a subjective definition (in "small" and "overly tedious"), but it's much learer, neater, and more logical than the one Revenantus uses at least IMHO.

FRD affects the flow of the game more than a little bit through direct interaction with other elements (it controls your ships directly) and it performs nontrivial (important) tasks that the user would find overly tedious.

Control nodes affect the flow of the game more than a little bit through direct interaction with other elements (it builds and controls your ships automatically) and it performs nontrivial tasks that the user would find overly tedious ("time to check up on my units" = tedious).


Logically these seem to be in the same category.  I don't understand why you separate them?

[RCIX]

This is why i chose to draw the line of gamepaly element at that which affects the flow of the game more than a small amount whether it be through direct interaction with other elements through channels designed for that, or through performing nontrivial tasks the user would find overly tedious. Granted, this is a subjective definition (in "small" and "overly tedious"), but it's much learer, neater, and more logical than the one Revenantus uses at least IMHO.

FRD affects the flow of the game more than a little bit through direct interaction with other elements (it controls your ships directly) and it performs nontrivial (important) tasks that the user would find overly tedious.

Control nodes affect the flow of the game more than a little bit through direct interaction with other elements (it builds and controls your ships automatically) and it performs nontrivial tasks that the user would find overly tedious ("time to check up on my units" = tedious).


Logically these seem to be in the same category.  I don't understand why you separate them?

This is the "subjective" part i'm talking about.

I don't consider FRD a gameplay element because it isn't automatically activated at any time it is sensible to use (which means the player still has to explicitly order it's use).

I don't consider control nodes (at least the ones that are in the game, with maybe a couple exceptions) a gameplay element because there isn't any logic behind it: they behave in a somewhat similar manner to interface toggles (and to assuage any new protestations of "why can't they be interface toggles then", they offer the ability for whatever features implemented to be come gameplay elements), simply changing a relatively minor aspect of one unit or class of unit's behavior.

[Fiskbit]

(and to assuage any new protestations of "why can't they be interface toggles then", they offer the ability for whatever features implemented to be come gameplay elements)

I don't understand. If they behave like interface toggles, then they can be interface toggles, so why not make them interface toggles?

Telling ships to attack other ships (right click on enemy ship) is an interface option. Telling ships to automatically attack other ships (v+right click anywhere) is an interface option. Telling ships to automatically automatically attack other ships (build FRD control node) is not an interface option?

I don't see why it's so different.

Strategy games are about strategy, and I think that any way for the game to make expressing oneself easier is a good thing. I believe that players shouldn't be charged because they want the game to be more about that strategy and less about polling their units until they're ready. Anything that adds to one's ability to express oneself in the game while not allowing something that wasn't before possible is interface, not gameplay.

[RCIX]

(and to assuage any new protestations of "why can't they be interface toggles then", they offer the ability for whatever features implemented to be come gameplay elements)

I don't understand. If they behave like interface toggles, then they can be interface toggles, so why not make them interface toggles?

Telling ships to attack other ships (right click on enemy ship) is an interface option. Telling ships to automatically attack other ships (v+right click anywhere) is an interface option. Telling ships to automatically automatically attack other ships (build FRD control node) is not an interface option?

I don't see why it's so different.

Strategy games are about strategy, and I think that any way for the game to make expressing oneself easier is a good thing. I believe that players shouldn't be charged because they want the game to be more about that strategy and less about polling their units until they're ready. Anything that adds to one's ability to express oneself in the game while not allowing something that wasn't before possible is interface, not gameplay.

My other backup point, is that control nodes force you to choose on a per-game basis whether you need them. You're liable to forget about an interface option then get all mad at your game for doing something that didn't make sense.

Now, i do agree with you that some of the control nodes that are nodes now could be interface toggles, but the concept of a control node is a good one. It's just that these nodes which shouldn't be nodes are muddling the issue and causing all this confusion.

[Fiskbit]

Well, but you can enable and disable nodes by building and scrapping them. That's like toggling group move or even pressing a key, just more cumbersome.

The thing about the current nodes is that they don't need to be what they are. Most of them could work well as control nodes if they were changed to affect only the current planet, though.

[RCIX]

Well, but you can enable and disable nodes by building and scrapping them. That's like toggling group move or even pressing a key, just more cumbersome.

The thing about the current nodes is that they don't need to be what they are. Most of them could work well as control nodes if they were changed to affect only the current planet, though.

So, to summarize what a control node should carry be (at least 2 of these items):

 * A device that allows you to set a per-planet preference for something
 * A per-game setting
 * Provide a service for players which makes something easier at a cost

[Fiskbit]

I still disagree. I think that these 'per game settings' should be in an interface menu tied with one's profile. In your profile (that thing that keeps your name and color), you'd set the defaults for these various options, and these settings would be kept in saved games with your name so that you can change the settings for an individual game if you want it to differ from usual for that game. This way you don't have to be changing settings every time a game begins. The global settings are largely based on the player's overall game preferences and are unlikely to change much for a given user, so it's a little weird for them to have to reset them every time they start a new game.

To summarize and clarify: you'd put defaults for settings in your profile, and a copy of preferences is kept in the save for your name per-game so you can have settings in a game that differ from your profile defaults.

And I maintain that 'making something easier at a cost' is bad. We're talking interface. Making something easier is a wonderful thing, but not at a cost. Users should not be penalized for using an easier way to express their commands in-game. Nothing so far has convinced me that there's merit in that, and I think I've highlighted some good points in my previous posts as to why it doesn't make sense to do. That said, I'm only one person who plays this game and I don't set policy. I just think that it makes the game less fun; I don't want to be in a position where I lose because I didn't have quite enough knowledge to unlock that ship I really needed to win just because I wanted to be able to control the game more easily. I'll pause and queue up orders before I do that, and if I have to expend too much of my limited time or try my patience too much doing that, I'll stop caring about that aspect of the game and call it a loss (like rescuing low-health parasited ships during battle) or I'll stop playing altogether. These artificial restrictions don't have to exist because the solutions are implemented, so why am I putting up with them? They make my experience less enjoyable, and that's not something I look for in a game. I'm sure there are others who react similarly.

[deMangler]

I still disagree. I think that these 'per game settings' should be in an interface menu tied with one's profile. In your profile (that thing that keeps your name and color), you'd set the defaults for these various options, and these settings would be kept in saved games with your name so that you can change the settings for an individual game if you want it to differ from usual for that game. This way you don't have to be changing settings every time a game begins. The global settings are largely based on the player's overall game preferences and are unlikely to change much for a given user, so it's a little weird for them to have to reset them every time they start a new game.

To summarize and clarify: you'd put defaults for settings in your profile, and a copy of preferences is kept in the save for your name per-game so you can have settings in a game that differ from your profile defaults.

And I maintain that 'making something easier at a cost' is bad. We're talking interface. Making something easier is a wonderful thing, but not at a cost. Users should not be penalized for using an easier way to express their commands in-game. Nothing so far has convinced me that there's merit in that, and I think I've highlighted some good points in my previous posts as to why it doesn't make sense to do. That said, I'm only one person who plays this game and I don't set policy. I just think that it makes the game less fun; I don't want to be in a position where I lose because I didn't have quite enough knowledge to unlock that ship I really needed to win just because I wanted to be able to control the game more easily. I'll pause and queue up orders before I do that, and if I have to expend too much of my limited time or try my patience too much doing that, I'll stop caring about that aspect of the game and call it a loss (like rescuing low-health parasited ships during battle) or I'll stop playing altogether. These artificial restrictions don't have to exist because the solutions are implemented, so why am I putting up with them? They make my experience less enjoyable, and that's not something I look for in a game. I'm sure there are others who react similarly.

Proabably lots of people feel the same. I don't.
By all means put what colour your team is or some icon defaults, window sizes whatever in a default player settings file.
But please don't start putting stuff like default ship behaviour prefs in it over having an in-game immersion enhancing toy. Might just as well have an 'adjust the .ini game'.
Might as well have a preference for whether you will win the game and cut out all that awkward interaction with the game universe altogether.
dM

[Buttons840]

FRD affects the flow of the game more than a little bit through direct interaction with other elements (it controls your ships directly) and it performs nontrivial (important) tasks that the user would find overly tedious.

Control nodes affect the flow of the game more than a little bit through direct interaction with other elements (it builds and controls your ships automatically) and it performs nontrivial tasks that the user would find overly tedious ("time to check up on my units" = tedious).


Logically these seem to be in the same category.  I don't understand why you separate them?

This is the "subjective" part i'm talking about.

I don't consider FRD a gameplay element because it isn't automatically activated at any time it is sensible to use (which means the player still has to explicitly order it's use).

I don't consider control nodes (at least the ones that are in the game, with maybe a couple exceptions) a gameplay element because there isn't any logic behind it: they behave in a somewhat similar manner to interface toggles (and to assuage any new protestations of "why can't they be interface toggles then", they offer the ability for whatever features implemented to be come gameplay elements), simply changing a relatively minor aspect of one unit or class of unit's behaviour.

I think we're finally in agreement.  Neither of these are gameplay elements.

I consider them both interface elements, or interface assists, and they should both be freely available IMO.  Or they should both cost some amount of resources, which I don't support, but at least it's consistent.


In response to deMangler:

...don't start putting stuff like default ship behaviour prefs in it over having an in-game immersion enhancing toy.

This ship behaviour is already possible through tedious micro-management.  Does removing this tedious micro-management lessen the immersion?  Having the pause the game and click click click your way through a dozen planets while checking up on your units is the antithesis of immersion.

Furthermore, all we are proposing is helpful control options for those players who wish to use them.  You do not have to use them; and you will not be at a disadvantage for not using them because this game is not competitive.