[AIW2] Crystal's Return Proposal

[Pumpkin]

Crystal was removed because it was uninteresting at best and annoying at worst.
This is a good think overall, but I believe there is something interesting that can be achieved with multiple resource's types.

Suggestion 1

* Each ship costs either only metal or only crystal. 1 crystal is worth 1 metal.
* Each planet has either only metal deposits or only crystal asteroids.
* Half of the ship types requires metal, the other half requires crystal.
* Each planet has exactly 1/2 chance to have metal and 1/2 to have crystal.
* One is not rarer or more desirable than the other.
* According to the ship types a player has, a planet's resource type can make it more or less desirable.
* According to the resources a player has, a capturable ship type can be more or less desirable.
* Converters can be built: each convert N resources to 1 other resource at a given rate and consume some energy. (N=3?)
* Homeworlds are special: they are half metal and half crystal (and only have an even number of resource spot). AI homeworlds follow this rule.
* Captive/Home human settlements have a corresponding Captive/Home human mining colony with same AIP cost and production rate that produce crystal instead of metal.

* Orbital scrap on human planet is properly tracked: a crystal ship adds its scrap to the crystal count.
* OCStations gather crystal and metal scrap independently.
* AI doesn't care about scrap being metal or crystal. It's supposed it can freely convert one into the other at a 1:1 ratio.

* This feature can be disabled in the lobby (in the "game option"): all ships cost metal and all planets have only metal deposits; converters cannot be built; all Captive/Home human mining colony are replaced with the corresponding human settlement.
* The ship's definitions (xml?) need to specify the type of the price (metal or crystal). All crystal prices are automatically converted into metal at load time if the option is disabled.

* How to assign metal or crystal to a ship remains to be defined.
* The split may be made over a tactical difference, like between small, fast ships and large, powerful ships (most starships would be of the same resource type, then).
* The split may be totally arbitrary, but then preferring one resource over the other is no more a meaningful strategy.
* The split may be made over hull type, but that needs to be done carefully to split the ship types in two equal parts.

Suggestion 2: further!

* If this game option is activated, a third resource type is added to the game.
* Each planet now has 3/7 chances to be metal, 3/7 chances to be crystal and 1/7 chance to be that third resource.
* 1/7 of ship types in the definition files have a cost type set to this third resource; if it's deactivated, they cost metal or crystal (they have a fallback tag); if crystal is deactivated too, they cost metal.
* Same proportions for planetary resource type. Same scrap/reprisal rules.
* However, there is no converter for the third resource, neither in nor out. Only metal-crystal conversions are allowed.
* Then, players rarely need this third resource, but if they choose to use (capture, hack, etc) they need to capture (and keep) a planet with this resource.
* This special, rare resource could be assigned to experimental ships or some with really special abilities (in the vein of the Viral Shredders, maybe the Leech starship, etc).

* On the name, it could be "advanced crystal", "liquid zerkanium", "titanyradium", ... I don't know yet.
* On the color, let's list them: metal is brown/orange, energy is yellow, science is blue (cyan), hacking is green, AIP is gray.
* Crystal used to be green, which now conflicts with hacking.
* Available colors are purple, deep blue, red... and that's all, basically.
* As purple is usually used for high rarity items (http://www.giantbomb.com/color-coded-loot/3015-4702/), purple seems more atuned with this rarer resource.
* For the smallest change, crystal could get deep blue.
* If slightly bigger change is accepted, crystal could get back the green color and hacking could take dark blue. This way, crystal would have its original color and the two "virtual" resources (science and hacking) would be two tints of blue.
* While I'm talking about color, I think AIP could be better in red because it's a negative "resource". It would be a dark red to avoid making it too bright in the HUD. Metal could also get a more reddish/orange/rusty tint to make it stands out more next to the pale yellow Energy.

Personal notes

* I rather like the Spirecraft MF and it's mining mechanism, but I never play it for several reasons.
* First, it only gives powerful things. At least they are less straightforward than the golems and more subtle to use, but they still are superweapons that need exowaves to balance and they bring the game to a higher powerlevel. In the emergent gameplay of AIW, I feel superweapons mostly crush meaningful choices. But that's more a personal taste and not a truly important matter.
* What is more important (IMHO) is that asteroid types brings only differences in power, no difference in kind. There is no choice to do about capturing one or another planet in regard of its asteroid load: it's only a matter of quantity and quality. I think it would be much more interesting to have planets' resources bringing differences in kind for setting more interesting and meaningful choices.
* What if each planet has between one and three types of asteroids and each spirecraft requires a specific type?
* Well, a tons of balance tweaks are needed for setting up that variant of rule (like how to determine the mark of the spirecraft? how to deal with the ship cap? etc) but it would make planet capture choices much more interesting, I guess. (Maybe a mean to steal some asteroids without capturing the whole planet would be required...)
* Anyway, this is far off topic. Just an example of how I would like to do mods and why I like the idea of different resources, despite the added complexity. That added complexity was removed for being "just annoying" and I totally agree with that.
* If that crystal / third resource idea proves to be even more annoying while bringing no interesting and meaningful choices, then I would have failed to design a good mod and it would fall into oblivion.

[Aklyon]

*Crystal

Sorry I don't have a better post right now, just wanted to point out how it was actually spelled.

[Pumpkin]

Woah. That was a mistake. Thank you so much. I think I counted more than 20 occurrences. I also corrected some other errors.

I write my long posts on vim first and past them on the forum once they're finished. Normally I then use my browser's orthographic corrector, but this time I was too tired and forget it. Sorry about that.

[Cyborg]

I hate this idea. It puts us back to where this whole problem started.

[Toranth]

I hate this idea. It puts us back to where this whole problem started.

Bluntly put, but in essence my opinion, too.

Basically, Pumpkin, why?  The entire two-resource system runs into RNG problems, or meaning problems.  If you lack crystal, but have many crystal using ships, what do you do?  If you can convert between the two resources easily, what's the point in having them separate?  If you can't convert, how do you prevent RNG from destroying your game?

The Spircecraft asteroids I think make a good second resource, although I'd prefer that system to be more flexible, myself.  If crystal worked similarly - a different resource for producing a different line of units - I might support its return.  But, even taking a quick look back at the older threads discussing the topic, there were so many problems, complaints, and potential issues that I think the best solution is simply to avoid the issue of two resources for one unit-line entirely.

[Pumpkin]

Basically, Pumpkin, why?

AIW2 will allow us, the community, to test ideas and see if they work or not. You might be totally right, but I won't stay without trying. I feel there is something interesting with multiple resources, yet I totally agree with the problems of the old system. So, basically, why do I put that here? Because when I have ideas, I formalize them and stash them for testing once AIW2 is out, while gathering comments such as yours in the meantime.

If you lack crystal, but have many crystal using ships, what do you do?  If you can convert between the two resources easily, what's the point in having them separate?  If you can't convert, how do you prevent RNG from destroying your game?

These are very clearly stated problems. Thank you for that.

Indeed, conversion kinda ruin the thing and a lack of resource is  indeed a problem. However, I feel it would be a challenge (because it would be optional) for players to use some ships instead of others or capture planets instead of other. For instance, imagine I have only one crystal ship type and too few metal: I'm challenged to use mainly this crystal ship (and the metal ships in emergency) and on the longer run either prefer capturing metal planets or hacking Data Centers for crystal ships.

While I'm speaking of it (thanks to your fine observations) I imagine Data Centers could bear two designs, one metal and one crystal, and the hacker can download only one. Also, the ARS (that can already be hacked for diversity) could be forced to have at least one ship type for each resource.

The main problem of the old system, IMO, is that metal and crystal deposits were mixed and averaged and ships had mixed prices, which rendered them indistinguishable and just annoying instead of interestingly challenging.

If crystal worked similarly - a different resource for producing a different line of units - I might support its return.

That's exactly what I'm trying to achieve: a different resource for producing a different line of units.

Summary
* One ship type per resource type in each Data Center, only one downloadable.
* At least one ship type per resource type in each ARS.
* No conversion (or very poor ratio? 1:10?).

[ptarth]

So, it might be obvious, but what is the purpose of adding Crystal as a resource? To add another challenge? To increase diversity? To increase the complexity of building requirements? To...? The proposals talk about about details, but not about the main purpose behind the additional resource and how it will achieve those goals.

[Toranth]

If crystal worked similarly - a different resource for producing a different line of units - I might support its return.

That's exactly what I'm trying to achieve: a different resource for producing a different line of units.

Summary
* One ship type per resource type in each Data Center, only one downloadable.
* At least one ship type per resource type in each ARS.
* No conversion (or very poor ratio? 1:10?).

The Spirecraft line is different from the fleetship/starship lines in a couple of very important ways.
First, they're extra.  You don't need them to play the game and beat the AI, even on high difficulties.  So if you hit bad RNG, it doesn't mean much.
Second, they're individually mighty - even a few low mark Spirecraft can be very powerful.  This means that in small galaxies, or in unlucky ones, where there are few, low mark asteroids, you can still get powerful units.
Third, there's no research or permanent resource expenditures involved in acquiring or using Spirecraft.  No Knowledge required to unlock, nor to produce higher marks.  This is another anti-RNG feature that matters:  You cannot have wasted K on something that will become unavailable to you in the future (or fail to become available).

If the Crystal Ships are going to be a second line of ships, they'd need to be balanced the same sort of way.  For example, a Metal Only fleet or a Crystal Only fleet would both need to be capable of beating the AI using nothing more than units guaranteed to become available to the player.  While not impossible to split the existing fleetships up like that, I think it'd be difficult, and more a source of frustration than fun.


Now, as an alternative, there's the possibility to make Crystal something optional.  For example, you can build a basic Fighter Mk I using just Metal.  But if you build one using Crystal, you get something special - maybe a Fighter Mk II, or a Crystal Fighter Mk I with better stats.  (Too strong, it becomes unbalanced; not strong enough, it's meaningless)
You could create entirely new units for your Crystal line of ships, like the Spirecraft, but only as strong as fleetships.  If the player gets Crystal, those new units can be produced, but without it, the player still has access to all the base game Metal units.  (Significant effort for little gain; too good, essential, etc; Crystal too available, meaningless)

I'm not saying there is no way to incorporate a second production resource into AI War.  But as the original "What to do with Crystal?" discussions showed, it is more of a solution looking for a problem than a real need at the moment.  That's what I meant when I asked 'Why?'.  I understand brainstorming, and agree that discussion is useful.  But I think the first step is to come up with what purpose you intend Crystal to serve, and then proceed from there.  If your purpose is to restrict unit production using RNG, then it'll need a different approach than if your purpose is to allow more variety.

[Pumpkin]

So, it might be obvious, but what is the purpose of adding Crystal as a resource? To add another challenge? To increase diversity? To increase the complexity of building requirements? To...? The proposals talk about about details, but not about the main purpose behind the additional resource and how it will achieve those goals.

Indeed, I haven't made it clear from the start. Sorry about that. However, you guess right with your suggestions. To add another challenge, increase diversity, increase the complexity of the game (I would rather say richness, but it's only a matter of point of view)... IMO, crystal wasn't a bad idea, it was just poorly executed.

Your remarks are very interesting, Toranth. I have nothing specific to answer to them. I just can't wait to test all these ideas, mods and MF, and see how they unfold, good or bad.

it is more of a solution looking for a problem than a real need at the moment.

Indeed. I'm not trying to solve a problem. Removing crystal was a very good solution and the game is perfectly fine without it. Ah, maybe I would have better named it "adamantiryllium" or "titanotronium", it would have taped outside of the mixed-to-bad feelings about the old crystal mechanism.

But I think the first step is to come up with what purpose you intend Crystal to serve, and then proceed from there.

What's about the purpose? Was it really that unclear or uncanny or unbelievable? To enrich the game. Maybe because it's named crystal that peoples around think I'm trying to solve a problem. Ah, well, silly me.

TL;DR:
My goal:
* to solve the already solved crystal problem
* to enrich the game with an old idea that got removed for very good reasons

[Toranth]

Enriching the game is good, and a goal I'm all in favor of.  But by itself, that's not enough of a goal to help plan something like a new resource.

I mentioned two simple ideas earlier that could use Crystal:  Creating enhanced variants of existing ships, or a line of new Crystal-only vessels designed from scratch to be Crystal only.

Pick an idea, like that, and then develop your ideas from there.  Your original suggestion, splitting the current fleet into two groups, was close - I just feel it would be very difficult to manage without frustrating many players that may feel like they're losing something.  If you want to pursue that path, have fun, but there will plenty of people to nay-say on your parade (like me >D ).  Similarly, I'm sure that if you follow any other path, you'll get many others with different opinions.

Don't let finding a lack of agreement put you off from suggesting things, though.  There are already any number of issues that split the AIW community anyway (chokepoints, armor, CSGs), and we carry on anyway.  Even if the community never comes to agreement, Keith and others reading the discussion can often come up with good ideas of their own.

[Pumpkin]

Enriching the game is good, and a goal I'm all in favor of.  But by itself, that's not enough of a goal to help plan something like a new resource.

What about "enriching the game and providing players with more strategic choices"?

I mentioned two simple ideas earlier that could use Crystal:  Creating enhanced variants of existing ships, or a line of new Crystal-only vessels designed from scratch to be Crystal only.
Pick an idea, like that, and then develop your ideas from there.

I acknowledged they were good ideas, but I believed you would have preferred to develop them yourself. If you want me to develop these two ideas, I definitely can (and will)!

(I'm not confident with the correctness of "I believed you would have preferred". Is this the good way to formulate that?)

Your original suggestion, splitting the current fleet into two groups, was close - I just feel it would be very difficult to manage without frustrating many players that may feel like they're losing something.

I would believe it if it would have been a mandatory change in the base game. Did you took into account it would be an option? (Like a MF; more specifically in the "game's options"; see my lobby revamp proposal, ctrl+F for "crystal".) For sure some players would be frustrated by such mechanism, just like I am with astro trains, for instance. But I also believe (rather "hope") some players would really like to deal with resource management, like sending only one type of ships into a suicidal fight, hacking ARS to chose a ship based on resource type, or including the resource type of the planets in the capture decision process.

Don't let finding a lack of agreement put you off from suggesting things, though.

Do I give this impression? I'm totally not. I'm a big boy, I can take a constructive criticism. This debate is very interesting and opens new perspectives and brings new ideas. At least for me. I just need time to build a coherent proposal. And it was not an evasive maneuver when I said "I can't wait to test these ideas". I really can't wait.

So you want me to develop and formalize your ideas? If so, it will be my pleasure.

Creating enhanced variants of existing ships, or a line of new Crystal-only vessels designed from scratch to be Crystal only.

[Toranth]

Enriching the game is good, and a goal I'm all in favor of.  But by itself, that's not enough of a goal to help plan something like a new resource.

What about "enriching the game and providing players with more strategic choices"?

I mentioned two simple ideas earlier that could use Crystal:  Creating enhanced variants of existing ships, or a line of new Crystal-only vessels designed from scratch to be Crystal only.
Pick an idea, like that, and then develop your ideas from there.

I acknowledged they were good ideas, but I believed you would have preferred to develop them yourself. If you want me to develop these two ideas, I definitely can (and will)!

(I'm not confident with the correctness of "I believed you would have preferred". Is this the good way to formulate that?)

Your original suggestion, splitting the current fleet into two groups, was close - I just feel it would be very difficult to manage without frustrating many players that may feel like they're losing something.

I would believe it if it would have been a mandatory change in the base game. Did you took into account it would be an option? (Like a MF; more specifically in the "game's options"; see my lobby revamp proposal, ctrl+F for "crystal".) For sure some players would be frustrated by such mechanism, just like I am with astro trains, for instance. But I also believe (rather "hope") some players would really like to deal with resource management, like sending only one type of ships into a suicidal fight, hacking ARS to chose a ship based on resource type, or including the resource type of the planets in the capture decision process.

Don't let finding a lack of agreement put you off from suggesting things, though.

Do I give this impression? I'm totally not. I'm a big boy, I can take a constructive criticism. This debate is very interesting and opens new perspectives and brings new ideas. At least for me. I just need time to build a coherent proposal. And it was not an evasive maneuver when I said "I can't wait to test these ideas". I really can't wait.

So you want me to develop and formalize your ideas? If so, it will be my pleasure.

Creating enhanced variants of existing ships, or a line of new Crystal-only vessels designed from scratch to be Crystal only.

I hardly feel ownership about any ideas I've ever had about Chris and Keith's game, so if anything I've tossed out there inspires you, please!  Run with it.  I'm very much in favor of anything that makes AI War more fun, even if it turns out to be nerfing a favorite feature or going the exact opposite direction of my ideas.  All I really care about is the end product:  can I have fun getting my butt whipped by 10/10 AIs?

Although, if AI War 2 is extremely mod-able, it may be easy to just try out these ideas, because mods become like lobby options: include if you want it, or don't.


To expand on what I said about goals, though, let me talk about something I said in an earlier post.  I mentioned I didn't like the way Spirecraft are produced now.  Personally, I feel annoyed that I can build a Mk I Siege Tower from a Reptite, but if I've got a far more rare Titanite asteroid, I can't build one at all.
Personally, I'd prefer that mining an asteroid gave a certain number of Spirecraft resource points, with rarer asteroids giving more resources.  Then use those resources to produce Spirecraft.  If I wanted to use that Titanite to make 6 Mk I Siege Towers, fine.  Or if I wanted to use 5 Reptites to make just one Mk V Siege Tower, sure.
My goal for this would be to make it easier to produce the Spirecraft you want, especially higher Mark units.  It also allows much better fine tuning of the costs of Spirecraft units, because you can now adjust the points directly.  If Mk V Siege Towers are too powerful, up the cost a little.  No need to adjust an entire asteroid rarity level and risk making it impossible to produce the unit at all.

So in this case, my goal is to make it easier to get the specific type and Mark of Spirecraft I want, with a secondary goal of making it easier to balance Spirecraft costs against each other.  My suggestion for doing so is to switch from directly converting asteroids to units to using a resource points system.  The fine details of how many points, costs, conversions, etc, can all come later.

[Pumpkin]

Merdemerdemerde!

My post has been deleted in the site's host switch.

Well, I don't feel like rewriting a long post right now, so I'll be brief.

I remember your idea of points for spirecraft's asteroids. While I like it, my goal is to achieve difference in kind rather than difference in scale. See this episode of Extra Credit. Applying it to the spirecraft, I would have made each kind of spirecraft require a specific asteroid type. The asteroid types would have rarity corresponding to the spirecraft's power (and your idea of many for bigger would fit nicely). That's the very short version of this idea. I could expand it specifically on spirecrafts but I feel here and now aren't the place and time.

Back on crystal. So my goal is a difference in kind. Then a new proposal would be to make crystal a rare resource: some planets are randomly picked and their metal deposits are all transformed into crystal asteroids. Some ships with special or unique ability (viral shredders, powerslavers, tackle drone launchers, etc) have a cost in crystal only. Crystal can be converted to metal but crystal can't be produced from metal. Each ARS has at least (or exactly) one crystal design. This way, going crystal or not would be a choice inducing a difference in kind. Did I said short explanation?

I would expand and formalize these ideas later.

[Mánagarmr]

I don't like complexity for complexity's sake. The crystal return has to have a real gameplay benefit, otherwise it's just making things complicated for no reason and that's why crystal was removed in the first place.

[Pumpkin]

Okay. Naming that "crystal" was the worst idea ever.