Developers requesting feedback: Long-term balance discussion (warning: long).

[Zeyurn]

Building off of chemical's ideas...

What if the 'edicts' were always something that would be disastrous to one side (something that could push you to the bring of losing) but bring great rewards.  The penalty for failing them could be something like a catastrophic woe that you wouldn't want to see either, but wouldn't necessarily cause you to lose.

I like all the ideas around 'if you don't cause Chaos on your own, a Chaos meter goes up and will eventually unleash hell'.  I dislike any inclination that it's an auto-lose if this happens, just incentivize Chaos and imbalance without requiring it.

For people who like scoring, scores could be made better if the dominant civilization kills members of the weak one, therefore increasingly encouraging taking a side to the brink of disaster without them losing.  I like the score-gating but I think score should be more bragging rights, not how you win.  Winning should be taking the game to turn 90/120/150 and if you fail to be insane about it the game should be more than happy to do it for you.

[nas1m]

To put it another way, the goal is too abstract. Getting a certain score is all well and good, but you can farm points without having to do anything impressive. The goal of the game itself actively encourages players to just get the game into a situation where their score increases itself, where both sides are locked in a stalemate (albeit a violent one). In games like Civilization, this doesn't happen because the civilization you've been building still has to manage some great accomplishment in order to win, whether that be conquering the world or sending a space ship to Alpha Centauri. In A.I. War, it doesn't happen because you still have to take out the A.I. homeworlds, no matter how impregnable your defenses. You have to do something to win.

One option for this, and one that would still be in keeping with the rest of the game, would be to have a sort of final test for the world you've created. Maybe the Master doesn't much care for the world you're creating and ultimately intends to destroy it (hence the Chaos, if that's ever implemented; he's testing your defenses). The way to save your world might be to have each side create a special Mythological Token, then protect it for a certain length of time - but creating even one of the two Tokens causes the world to enter the Age of Strife, and floods the map with hostile Gods, Mythological Creatures, and Bandits who are all hell-bent on capturing and destroying the Tokens.

This would keep the early and middle games largely unchanged, as the player is just trying to get both civilizations built up to the point where they can create and protect their Token. It would make the end game much more explosive and impressive, however, as both sides will have to defend themselves against hugely powerful enemies. It would also let the player dictate the timing of the endgame, like in A.I. War, as the Age of Strife could be entered at any time, so long as the player is willing to risk defeat at the hands of the horde that comes with it.

I like this idea a lot.

[Teal_Blue]

very quick here, reactive balance, as interesting as it sounds, and it does sound good, and as many problems as it may solve... in my opinion it just makes every game the same. We have a condition that doesn't change, yes it is dynamic and different in the sense of chaos that is coming from different pieces or woes, but it is the same in that each game builds to this climax that is the same, game after game after game.

Right now that is not the case, each game is different and the ending and the situations are all different.

If there were a choose-able condition, similar to edicts, but not edicts, call it 'restrictions' instead, where the player chooses to play a game, say without mythologicals... and was able to pull off a win doing it.  Or only using level one units... and was able to pull it off... or not placing any mountains or lakes... and was still able to win... then each game would be different and each condition to win would stress a different approach by the player. And in many instances the player would try... and lose. On easy settings, on hard, on cruelly hard, on impossible... But each case there would be the possibility to win. With the variability of woes and other random events, ie the behaviour of the units, each game would be unique and should be able to prevent duplication of a exploit due to those variables. Or if not exactly right now, the units might be tweaked to allow for more random behaviour in those units to induce that variation.

That is my two cents, I like having variety, and i like having to do different things to win.

-Teal

I know that Misery proposes that Reactive Balance is more chaos instead of less, which is probably true, however, having the game ramp up to more chaos in the same way, or close to the same way that AI War does makes this game the same in the sense that every game will have this mass chaos and the player will be pitted against it, or skate past the chaos by avoiding certain conditions for every game.

 What i propose is something that will make each game different, with different tactics and different strategies that would be required to win. It would be similar to edicts, perhaps what edicts should have been,  but instead of doing something for 5 turns, or killing 50 red guys, or whatever edicts was before, we would insert 'restrictions' on those items available to us in game and see how well we can hold our own then. I guarantee it will get rough. 

 I call them 'restrictions', because basically it means playing the game with one of my hands tied behind my back, or sometimes even both hands. 

 Here is a list, tentatively, that we could start with, realizing that playing this way means that each end condition is different and requires a different approach or strategy by the player, and it also makes it difficult as heck to cheese.

I think these should be choose-able by the player, and if the player can go 90 turns and meet their score requirement and meet the end condition, then they win. 

End Game Restrictions List -

1. Play with No Mythologicals in the game.
2. Play with only level 1 units.
3. Play without placing any mountains or lakes.
4. Play with 50% less Red units (including the 2 weakest Mythologicals)
5. Play with 50% less Blue units (including the 2 strongest Mythologicals)
6. Play with Double the frequency of Woes.
7. Play with Half resources.
8. Play with No Siege units.
9. Play with Only Siege units, (no human soldiers, archers, myths, etc...)
10. Play with Myths only.
11. Play with melee units only.
12. Play with ranged units only.
13. Play with no God powers.
14. Play with only God powers, (meaning no soldiers, myths, direct actions, land tile placement)
15. Play with no direct actions, (no increase level, no smite, no resource drops or bldg repair, or commandments)
16. Play with only direct actions, (meaning no soldiers, myths, direct actions, land tile placement)
17. Play with Twice as much Red/Blue army units (with twice as many units it may get closer to solving issues, but it may also cause twice as much chaos trying to deal with that many units.
18. Play with no Smite. (I have to live with what i place or what the game places, or replace tiles)
19. With Smite only, (meaning no soldiers, myths, direct actions, land tile placement). Tough huh?
20. Play with 100% more Bandits.
21. Play with 100% more Bandits and Yellow Myths.
22. Play with 200% more Bandits and Yellow Myths.
23. Play with 300% more Bandits and Yellow Myths.
24. Play with 400% more Bandits and Yellow Myths.
25. Play with 500% more Bandits and Yellow Myths. (Am i being kicked or what?)
26. Play with only 25% resources available.
27. Play with only 10% resources available.
28. Play with less than 10% resources available. (Can i pull off a win, or do i keep losing?)
29. Play with ramped up 200% age of man, 300% age of monsters, 400% age of gods Reds.
30. Play with ramped up 200% age of man, 300% age of monsters, 400% age of gods Blues.
31. Play with ramped up 200% age of man, 300% age of monsters, 400% age of gods Reds and Blues.
32. Play with No player placed land tiles.
33. Play with 50% chance of (turn yellow) God Powers. (half the time they are fine, half their bandits)
34. Play with 50% chance of (turn yellow) Myths.
35. Play with 50% chance of (turn yellow) Red units.
36. Play with 50% chance of (turn yellow) Blue units.
37. Play with 50% less points multiplier. (Is it easy to make my score now, or do i have to sweat?) 
38. Play with 50% less wood and iron (buildings).
39. Play with 50% less incense, diamonds and clay. (playable but restricted myths)
40. Play with tiles that have become destroyed, or turned into ruins by the loss of a unit or building at that location. Making that tile become impassable. Making the tiles impassable forces all units to find new paths around the impassable tiles. It also slows units on their way to where ever they are going, it also slows or prevents re-enforcements to areas that may be farther away, or completely cut off. It may cut off units and or town centers, in effect causing me to lose (possibly).

So, that is my take on what edicts perhaps should have been, rough stuff that isn't easy and gives us variety and different winning conditions that require new approaches, strategies and is different every time i play a new game and try a new 'restriction'. 

Thank you for listening,
-Teal

[solosol]

In my 3rd game (so I'm totally newbie and playing in easy, take it into acount please), i've just reached Age of Gods, and reading the post here:
1. Mythological creatures are much stronger than human ones.  Thus without an incentive to build human units, the tendency to just use the former arises.

Came to my mind that Age of Gods needs something more to unleash chaos. At this point, i got around 6 towns each faction (with some losses too xD) and many resources that i'm not using. Just adding another unit (yeah, its a god, but it is limited too). So i think that this Age should open at least one new myth, token and unit-pick token per faction. With high requeriments and diverse power, to spice this age in a more distinctive way.

Maybe another defensive building. At this point, 1/3 of the map is wrecked or more. Thinking in just survive the game if things get too disembalanced.
Another building for a special human unit. Maybe not a hero, but something different. A healer, a knight,  a human shield, a crazy necromancer, or whatever that could offer some help to fighting myths. That building could be constructed only once per town, as a restriction, and have high reqs.

Thinking in how Woes may have changed the game since them, I'd like to have more of them, so each game will be a totally different experience. The Gods should have also some kind of free will. Maybe not moving, but summoning weird "pets" to give them some conversation. I can't imagine what "pets" could heimdall summon when he wills, but...that shoud be playing with gods...more prob that chaos arises...

[Pepisolo]

Thinking about the whole Armageddon idea. What if the player was allowed to initiate this Armageddon at any time in the game. Let's say for some rough mechanics that initiating Armageddon drains all available resources and converts them into board units for each side. The player would then not be able to control the game any more, but simply have to watch it play out and hope they make it to the end with both factions still standing. The playback would switch to not following each unit, but instead just allow you to view units moving simultaneously in order to accelerate this segment and increase that feel that it is an all out war (mechanically not sure how this would work or if it would work at all). Alternatively, maybe just 16x speed would be activated.

What's the point of this? Firstly, just watching the epic brawl would be amusing, secondly you would get bonus points for destruction during this phase and thirdly it would be a thrilling gamble .

Let's say that you play the Armageddon card after 10 turns just for a laugh. The probability is that you are going to lose the game. The chances of lasting all the way through the age of Gods without you physically intervening is going to be almost non-existent. It'd be kind of like portaling through to Lavos in Chrono Trigger at the earliest possible opportunity. You'd be lucky to last 10 turns.

Let's say that you are in the Age of Gods, though, with maybe 20 turns remaining. You're comfortable. You've met the score requirement. You have two options then. Coast through to the finishing line and guarantee victory or play the Armageddon card. Playing the card means that rather than dragging out the rest of the game you instead get to view an epic brawl while at the same time putting your winning position in jeopardy for the reward of juicy extra points. The earlier you hit a score requirement, and the earlier you become comfortable, the longer the period you have for the Armageddon bonus phase to rack up points. This is rewarding good early destruction with a potential end-game pay-off.

This provides more of a climax to the game and helps prevent the game from becoming stale once you hit that score requirement. It also provides a use for any stockpiled resources.

Any thoughts on this?

[Winge]

I kind of like that idea, Pepisolo.  That said, it would have to provide a lot of points for me to not just go through the motions until I reach the end--tokens already give me great points granting opportunities, typically with a controllable risk.

Another idea would be to have "Armageddon Woes."  Like Cataclysmic Woes, these would be selected randomly from a pool.  They would have a longer duration than other woes, and would happen just before the end of the game (so, a 10 turn Armageddon Woe in a 30 turn game would be unleashed during turn 80).  They would be much more devastating than even the Cataclysmic Woes, but they would be announced right at the start of the game.  That gives you something to work towards during the entire game, similar to the AI Homeworlds in AI War--you, the Creator, are the only one who knows the threat facing your creation, and you are desperately trying to get them to prepare to survive it.  After all, not only will the human race be annihilated if you fail...you'll get fired too!

[chemical_art]

Most curious Pepisolo.

The only problem I think of immediately after reading that, though, that since you can just save before attempt, it really isn't risky, although it can be a great time saver.

[Pepisolo]

The only problem I think of immediately after reading that, though, that since you can just save before attempt, it really isn't risky, although it can be a great time saver.

Oh, and playing the card will wipe all your saves games... just kidding. It's hard to tackle that issue really. Unless your game is designed with a strict save mechanism such as those in permadeath titles there's always going to be the possibility of reloading, although you might lose some pride. How about Skyward Collapse: Ironman mode which saves on quit only and if you lose wipes the save.

[chemical_art]

Oh, and playing the card will wipe all your saves games... just kidding. It's hard to tackle that issue really. Unless your game is designed with a strict save mechanism such as those in permadeath titles there's always going to be the possibility of reloading, although you might lose some pride. How about Skyward Collapse: Ironman mode which saves on quit only and if you lose wipes the save.

Would suffer the same problems that perma-death games have: Unless it is saved online, a user will find a way to circumvent it, making it aggravating for casuals but not stopping vets.

[Pepisolo]

Would suffer the same problems that perma-death games have: Unless it is saved online, a user will find a way to circumvent it, making it aggravating for casuals but not stopping vets.

There are always ways to circumvent it, yeah. You've really got to love the whole permadeath concept -- as I do -- to pick an Ironman mode and not be tempted to cheat in some way. I don't think such a mode would ever be on the cards for this game as it's not really desired unless something like this Armageddon idea was implemented. If it was implemented, casuals could just play normal mode, though, as in a game like Dungeons of Dredmor which offers both permadeath and non-permadeath modes.

[chemical_art]

There are always ways to circumvent it, yeah. You've really got to love the whole permadeath concept -- as I do -- to pick an Ironman mode and not be tempted to cheat in some way. I don't think such a mode would ever be on the cards for this game as it's not really desired unless something like this Armageddon idea was implemented. If it was implemented, casuals could just play normal mode, though, as in a game like Dungeons of Dredmor which offers both permadeath and non-permadeath modes.

The appeal of it though, at least for me, is not that its a risky gamble. It's appeal is it is a time saver / satisfying end. The only other real result is the units are insta spawned, but even then, that goes back to a satisfying end. Actually, that fact would probably cause more problems if there is any sort of chokepoint, and even if in normal gameplay there were none, having potentially a hundred or more units appear instantly would probably cause one though.

The real risk in gameplay is simply not being able to respond to things. Can't plob a mythological to take care of outspots, can't react to woes, ect. That alone is enough. Make it wipe saves feels  added on, totally out of place, and ultimately will just cause frustration and in the end not stop players who don't like it anyway.

[Pepisolo]

Yeah, I don't think it's something that would require adding a permadeath mode into this game for, certainly. If people want to reload and try again then just let them. Although I am a fan of permadeath modes in general.

[Teal_Blue]

For the moment disregarding all the 'extra' ideas from everyone on the forum, including myself, i think I liked the original traders and chapmen and civilians part of the alpha game., It would be interesting to see if there were a way to bring that back and fold it in nicely with the game. Having the civilian parts in certainly made for added tasks that kept the player busy and the resources lower than now. As well as giving the whole 'strategy' thing a broader meaning as there were Trade and Diplomatic ways to win the game, instead of concentrating on the battle side only.

People are talking about expansions already and i can imagine that Arcen are certainly glad to hear that after the long struggle with other recent games they have made, and certainly that probably puts pressure on to create a game that is full of what the most players are talking about, such as more factions and more woes and more myths... etc... which is understandable, it means a longer life for this game.

But i really think that going back to some of the original ideas for the game could expand the ways to approach the game and have a variety of other play styles emerge. Certainly the battle side is popular, but returning a civilian and trade and diplomacy side to the game, that could include trade and diplomacy types of woes, such as my wheat crop suddenly failing in a plague of frogs. Or having the Blue and Green (Greeks and the Egyptians) suddenly join forces in a diplomatic pact against my Norse could be interesting woes that have a different 'flavor' and style than many which are combat or 'devastation' oriented.

Of course it is a devastation game, but there are degrees of devastation. both sudden and miltaristic, but also, slow and subtle and at the edge where my Ale-houses all fail due to an infection in the barley crop, which causes all my soldiers to become despondent (who wouldn't become despondent without their beer?) and lose their damage bonus for the duration?

Of course, more than any of my additions here or there, what i would really like to see, is a return of the civilian side of the game, certainly the devs could think up some very interesting uses and additional units and building types as well as woes and myths and all the rest.

I just think it makes for a fuller game, and one i think would have broader appeal, and hopefully have great appeal for those who are playing the game now as well. 

Thanks for listening, take care,
-Teal

[Teal_Blue]

I was looking for Pepisolo's thread on comments from players on Steam, but I saw this Let's Play on YouTube for SC and it was very good and informative and supportive of the game, so i wanted to mention his video and also note that he had said in his video that he would like to see something new with each age, which i thought was a marvelous idea and so i wanted to pass that along to the community and the devs. What that something is, is really up to the devs, if they feel it is even needed, but if they do, they can certainly probably think of something interesting to put in.

Thanks for listening,
-Teal

p.s.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbav3_8s_h0