What do you want the Champion to be?

[Kahuna]

I want it to be something like a Golem or a Spirecraft ship. Dunno if that counts as "A ship which requires constant attention (Micro-management heavy, dedicated player)". w/e

[Wingflier]

I want it to be something like a Golem or a Spirecraft ship. Dunno if that counts as "A ship which requires constant attention (Micro-management heavy, dedicated player)". w/e

I agree with Kahuna.  I think simply buffing the Champion's overall firepower at each level would be a big step in making it more "interesting", especially for dedicated players.

To combat this, the enemy Nemesis Champions are similarly powerful, leading to many "Battle of the Titans" type events. As I said before, Nemesii won't attack you unless provoked. They would probably roam the galaxy a lot like Special Forces, except they immediately respond to Champion attacks on their planets. Once provoked, they'll basically chase the Champion down and try to kill it until it becomes an extremely bad idea to do so.

To make up for this new power, I think the player should have to pay resources to "resurrect" the Champion as it were. Perhaps initially it wouldn't be that expensive, say 20k/20k, but maybe the later versions would cost up to 100k/100k. Which isn't a crapton lategame, but might make the difference between winning and losing a battle if get yourself into a sticky situation and can't rebuild it fast enough.

[KDR_11k]

I think late game the champion is plenty, at least at the difficulties I've played with it (7-8). Again there might be a problem here because the AI's physical strength varies with difficulty so stats that allow the champ to solo high mark systems in one difficulty could still make it useless in another. The frigate hull is a joke though, the combination of having very few modules and low marks puts it far below the destroyer hull in strength, so much so that the destroyer feels like you're finally getting to use the champ for anything useful. Most scenarios also get a lot easier after the jump to the destroyer.

Definitely don't want to see the champ as powerful as a golem unless there's a significant rebuild cost for losing it. It's even more disposable than swarmer ships right now whereas with a golem the main concern is not losing it because it had a significant strategic cost and you can't replace it.

Now I wouldn't mind a serious rebuild cost for the champ but that obviously makes it hard for champ-only players.

[Wingflier]

Now I wouldn't mind a serious rebuild cost for the champ but that obviously makes it hard for champ-only players.

Also makes it more interesting.

Can you think of a popular "Champion-esque" game out right now (DotA, LoL, etc.) that doesn't impose some kind of penalty on the player for losing his champion?

Even most RPGs have some kind of penalty, however lenient.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained is my philosophy on it.

[LaughingThesaurus]

The problem with champions costing resources to bring back is that the champion player doesn't have resources. The biggest resource champion players really have is shadow energy and XP, and XP penalties are generally hated on pretty hard. Now if you're talking about a resource penalty for a Normal+Champ player, then fine, but then champ-only wouldn't really have a penalty or would directly screw over their allies.
One of the big things in MOBA games is that dying makes the enemy stronger while giving you less time to gain exp/gold. You could go for simulating that somehow, by making the AI get a shark-like reaction to killing a champion. Dying in a nebula scenario probably doesn't really merit that, because you lose quite a bit of time spent not helping your team in that case... exactly like a MOBA game.

[Wingflier]

The problem with champions costing resources to bring back is that the champion player doesn't have resources. The biggest resource champion players really have is shadow energy and XP, and XP penalties are generally hated on pretty hard. Now if you're talking about a resource penalty for a Normal+Champ player, then fine, but then champ-only wouldn't really have a penalty or would directly screw over their allies.
One of the big things in MOBA games is that dying makes the enemy stronger while giving you less time to gain exp/gold. You could go for simulating that somehow, by making the AI get a shark-like reaction to killing a champion. Dying in a nebula scenario probably doesn't really merit that, because you lose quite a bit of time spent not helping your team in that case... exactly like a MOBA game.

Hmm, you have a good point. However, it is a team game. And if you want to know the truth, the most efficient way for it to be played is for one person to take over the resources completely.

Why? Because knowledge is limited, resources are not. The only limit on resources are time. So if one player in a multiplayer game goes MKIII Harvesters, and MKII Command Stations of whatever type, then proceeds to take all the planets, he can share his "overflow" with everybody else. As I said, this is technically the most efficient way to play. Otherwise, everyone has to spend their knowledge on upgrading Harvesters, and you end up wasting knowledge needlessly.

So when you look at it from that perspective (i.e., the most logical way to play multiplayer games), anytime your allies lose their forces, you (the economy player) *ARE* paying for their army, or at least the vast majority of it. All that asking the economy player to do in paying for a champion is to use already existing game mechanics...

Keith has already expressed his dislike on making the "Shark" reaction part of the regular game. Asking someone to pay a little extra resources is one thing...they're infinite. Asking them to face a permanently harder opponent is quite another.

I was thinking about this a little. What if we made the "Champions" scenario optional. You would turn it on just like Fallen Spire, and it would have different "levels". At 1/10, the Champion would be the weakest, and would cost nothing to rebuild. At 10/10 it would be the strongest (as in massively increased survivability and damage), but would cost a *LOT* to rebuild. The enemy "opponent strength" (Nemesis or whatnot) would obviously scale with this mechanic.

[LaughingThesaurus]

I didn't realize that shark was permanent. I typically don't try on the brutal aspects of the game. You could say that I'm not always in the mood for Fun. I was thinking more like, the AI just gets stronger for a bit and attacks harder or more frequently. After a while, it cools down as the balance of power evens out again (as would happen in a MOBA... if people didn't constantly die on one side or the other).
Time is actually finite in certain situations, as well. I guess having the other players pay resources isn't a problem if it doesn't cost that much... but if the cost is trivial then why is there a penalty in the first place? If it costs a lot, it takes time to get the resources, so people are waiting around... namely any champ-only players. If it costs little and the build time is long, it's just flat-out adding a time sink to the player who is champ-only, and as you said, time isn't actually in particularly short supply so it doesn't add any kind of excitement or Fun. So, what you do is you force players to wait around a bit more which isn't really all that exciting. My idea forces the AI to be more aggressive for a short while, which will cost a variable amount of resources and force some more exciting situations as time goes on. Even if the champion respawns without any other penalty, dealing with some increased aggression could be pretty Fun.

[Wingflier]

Time is actually finite in certain situations, as well. I guess having the other players pay resources isn't a problem if it doesn't cost that much... but if the cost is trivial then why is there a penalty in the first place?

As I said in my suggestion, the cost scales with the Champion power.  So if you make the "Champion" scenario 1/10, it doesn't cost anything, but the Champion doesn't make as big of an impact on the game.

On 4/10, it has a significant cost to rebuild (scaling with MK), but also is much more powerful, and has a bigger impact on the game.

At 10/10, it has a HUGE impact on the game (like a mobile Golem), but costs quite a lot to rebuild.

The reasons for a mechanic like this are self-explanatory. If you're person playing the solo Champion, you want it to have a big impact on the game. As of now, the Champion just can't do much on its own outside of nebula scenarios. It can take out maybe a guard post or two, depending on difficulty, before it dies and has to be rebuilt. On the higher difficulties it will be lucky if it can even do that.

Part of it is the novelty factor. It's supposed to be a CHAMPION. If the best way to use it is to continually suicide it into enemy guard posts until you kill them, then that's not enjoyable at all, that's just grinding.

But what if the Champion is a powerful, 1-ship army that can take on hordes of enemy ships and wreak massive havoc just by itself? Well then it's a lot more fun to use. It's even more fun to use because there is an actual penalty for losing it in the cost of resources. You say that making the enemy temporarily stronger is a better solution because you aren't punishing your partner, but you ARE punishing your partner. He's the one that has to defend his base and control the galaxy. You've just made that significantly tougher on him. I would much rather ask my friend to pay a specific resource cost (based on the scenario level) than to force him to defend some massive attack because of my screw-up. He can rebuild my ship on his own time, but the attack punishment is inevitable, and may come at a horrible time.

What if your Champion dies during an Exo-wave, do you really think it's a good idea to make that even worse by increasing the enemy strength?

If the players don't want to pay for a resource cost, that's fine! Just keep the Champion scenario at 1/10. I'll bet you my life's fortune though that most people are going to be playing on the higher level scenarios though, because the risk, and the power, would make using a Champion that much more engaging.

[KDR_11k]

I think the champion's strength should be tied directly to the AI difficulty. Increased physical strength for the AI cannot really be compensated for by better play since your options are so limited. Some RPG players think of difficulty as meaning you need to grind more but we don't want that, right?.

The problem with champions costing resources to bring back is that the champion player doesn't have resources. The biggest resource champion players really have is shadow energy and XP, and XP penalties are generally hated on pretty hard. Now if you're talking about a resource penalty for a Normal+Champ player, then fine, but then champ-only wouldn't really have a penalty or would directly screw over their allies.
One of the big things in MOBA games is that dying makes the enemy stronger while giving you less time to gain exp/gold. You could go for simulating that somehow, by making the AI get a shark-like reaction to killing a champion. Dying in a nebula scenario probably doesn't really merit that, because you lose quite a bit of time spent not helping your team in that case... exactly like a MOBA game.

Keep in mind that death in MOBAs screws your allies over too which is why the communities are so damn hostile, one bad player can tank the whole team and it's easy to blame others.

[Kahuna]

ai war isnt moba and it shouldnt be

[chemical_art]

Champions are equal to if not more micro intensive then Fallen Spire.

However, with Fallen Spire, if you follow it to the end, you win outright. Not so with Champions.

[Wingflier]

ai war isnt moba and it shouldnt be

Nobody is saying that it should be. We're just acknowledging the fact that the "Champion" idea was, at least in part, inspired by the success of those games. I'm pretty sure Keith even said that when he first announced the AS expansions.

Nobody here wants to turn AI War into a MOBA, nor an RPG, nor a TBS, etc. But that doesn't mean that we can't take some of the best ideas from those genres and incorporate them into our game. One of the things that the most successful RPGs and MOBAs do is offer the player a significant punishment for losing their Champion. I've been studying these games for over 10 years now. One of the biggest appeals to them is the sense of connectivity you glean from using your Champion, and that sense of connectivity is absolutely bolstered when you experience a sense of loss after they die. Please realize this appeals to RPGs as well.

That moment when your adrenaline is pumping, your hands are shaking, and your mind is racing as you desperately try to keep your hero alive because it may mean the difference between victory and defeat: These scenarios can't be replicated if your champion gets to respawn for absolutely free. There's really no argument you can make against this.

I realize there are people who don't really care about that, that's why the ability to pay for Champion respawns should be optional, but scale accordingly with increased Champion power. If you're fine with the Champion just being a bit of a support unit as it is now, which is expendable and can be suicided into the enemy force over and over to accomplish its mission, then that will still exist. However, if you're the kind of person that likes to CONNECT with his champion (i.e., every RPG and MOBA player out there), then you should also have the option of having a much more powerful unit, at a significant resource cost etc.

The reason Chris and Keith even made this expansion, I'm assuming, was to reach a larger audience. Yet the Champion mechanic doesn't even resemble the mechanic in the games it was taken from. This is why new players are constantly making topics in the forum complaining about how weak and boring Champions feel.

[chemical_art]

That moment when your adrenaline is pumping, your hands are shaking, and your mind is racing as you desperately try to keep your hero alive because it may mean the difference between victory and defeat: These scenarios can't be replicated if your champion gets to respawn for absolutely free. There's really no argument you can make against this.

Yuck. And they don't respawn for free, there is a timer.

[Wingflier]

That moment when your adrenaline is pumping, your hands are shaking, and your mind is racing as you desperately try to keep your hero alive because it may mean the difference between victory and defeat: These scenarios can't be replicated if your champion gets to respawn for absolutely free. There's really no argument you can make against this.

Yuck. And they don't respawn for free, there is a timer.

I'm pretty sure the timer only exists when they have no "Champion energy" or whatever. In most scenarios they respawn fairly instantly. At most you may wait 10 seconds, which is hardly noticeable.

[chemical_art]

If you are not waiting long, it is because you are not using its abilities. Which I think is a valid strategy in its own right.