Developers requesting feedback: near-term changes to mountsains & mythologicals

[Pepisolo]

I've gotta say my immediate reaction to the idea of a Master's Mood mechanic isn't that great. One thing that I think makes God Games an interesting sub-genre is the idea that you are allowed to toy with the mortal world practically at will. If I have some God-Boss coming down on me because I want to do whatever then I'm going to turn the game off and go do something else. I think people play these kinds of games because of the promise of ridiculous power and unmatched freedom, not for performance reviews and efficiency reports. Perhaps that can be done without the player suddenly feeling like they've been hobbled, but even if it's just thematic in nature I think you guys could be treading on the appeal of this type of game.

I find the idea of making human units more desirable to use the more appealing path.

Very understandable concern. However; I'm kind of relishing going against the Master's wishes -- at least some of the time. It would probably promote me to play in an obtuse playstyle just for kicks. I don't think that going against his will is going to cause a likely loss situation, it is just going to rain down more chaos on you, which should hopefully increase the fun. 

"Master, come at me Bro!" seems very interesting to me. Maybe I'm imagining something different to most people, though.

[Misery]

As the Master's Mood thing goes:


I think the actual ideas for mechanics here are very good.... the thematic part can always be changed if necessary?

Though, I dunno, I kinda like the idea of the big powerful boss guy that gets angry and makes demands.   It's a god game, sure, but it's very clear within the game that there's varying levels of power among them and that the player doesnt have infinite power, so it seems fitting too.

[Panopticon]

If it's executed in such a way that it feels like it's increasing your options instead of placing barriers to play I can see the fun.

Maybe it's a personal pet peeve but I generally do not enjoy games that tell me I'm doing terribly, even if it's just thematic.

[Mick]

I'm going to back up Panopticon in the whole "not into the master mood idea".

It sounds more stick than carrot to me - as well as sounding a bit too complex.

If the master wants to micromanage, maybe he should just do it himself!

[Pepisolo]

It's a shame that there is not universal approval for the Masters Mood/Chaos idea, as conceptually it is one of the more exciting ideas that I think has developed on the forum. I get the same feeling as when I heard about the original balance concept of SC. The idea that there is an AI behind the scenes monitoring what you're doing and trying to occasionally intervene in almost the same way that you're trying to intervene in the AI units under your power, just seems so cool. Additionally, the idea that if I so chose, I can stubbornly go against the Masters wishes if I want, raining chaos down on myself would delight me -- it always feels good sticking it to the man. Maybe my imagination has run away with me regarding this idea, though. It would probably involve a lot of behind the scenes AI coding, and would be a pretty big job to implement correctly.

I still think it could be awesome, though!

[Panopticon]

If the same thing can be accomplished by an easily understood Chaos mechanic then I'm for it. It may seem like I'm splitting hairs here, maybe I am. Still, the idea of Chaos is an impersonal and elemental force. It's something you can harness. It's something that a deity would seek to control and manipulate for his own purposes. And any negative repercussions would be perceived as the result of risk/reward gameplay. The Master's Mood concept leans too easily in the direction of Edicts in my opinion, if not in execution then possibly in perception. It thematically disposes itself as a force to be appeased, not harnessed or unleashed. Chaos on the other hand can feel like a tool in the deities toolbox, one with a natural disposal to risk/reward gameplay.

[nas1m]

I played some more yesterday and one of my major troubles during the Age Of Man playing on Hard is to cope with the Bandit keeps - not because I am not able to produce enough of a human military to take care of them, but because they simply won't do it. Instead, they beeline to the opposing faction's city to continuously attack buildings that will take them 30 turns to bring down.

And all the while the Bandit keeps keep on churning out more higher level units which eventually leads to most of my military being obliterated without taking a single Bandit with them... I am only able to break this stalemate later once I got some Myths available...

I cannot emphasize enough how much this annoys me. I mean, some unreliability is totally okay and cool (see the whole free will part etc.). I like this as well. But coming up with a starting build that is able to produce an amount of military that should theoretically be able to cope with the first few Bandit keeps at least partially and then seeing it wasting their time with pointlessly scratching the surface of near impenetrable walls is  - not fun .

Changing the target priorities of human military would be a huge step forward to solve this in my opinion .

Whoah, savegame please?  That is a bug; the humans are already supposed to be doing what you want, but apparently are not for some reason.

I will try to provide one as soon as I am able to get some quality time with the game again (my daugther is bound to keep us company on this world any day now, so I might be gone for a couple of weeks from the forums any day now ).

What is more, I think I might have been a little to drastic when describing my issue. After some more reflection I think my problem is twofold:

1. I think it might be the target selection logic (aka controlled cowardice) behavior introduced sometime during alpha that is biting me. As all Bandits emerge as one level higher than the current age, my early military is likely simply too reluctant to attack higher level Bandits (which will kill them) in most cases and go for less dangerous targets instead (aka buildings). The problem is that this prevents them from wearing down the Bandits by attacking in numbers as well.

2. I think there might be the need for some amount of target reconsideration in the AI of human units. Attacking buildings and ignoring Bandits is okay to some degree, but not if said Bandits are about to destroy the faction's hometown, i.e. I would like to see units turn around and protect their homeland if need be. Currently I have the feeling that, even though I have a couple of units hacking away at an enemy town, my town is helpless against attacks until the next wave spawns because existing units simply don't give a  d**m.

Alternatively, if 2 turns out to be too complex, a "town bell" action could be provided e.g. for town centers, which causes all units (maybe only in a certain, very wide radius) to home in on the respective town to protect it and attack units along the way as dictated by their standard AI.

[chemical_art]

Quick interjection:

Master idead i hate. chaos much more palatable

[Pepisolo]

Sounds like the reaction to giving the Master a bit more of a presence has been generally negative, then. It seems like people think that the idea of a "boss" figure would be too overbearing and stifling. The original Chaos interpretation, though, seems to be a bit more popular despite not being as thematic, because it seems simpler to grasp and less complicated overall. OK, I'm down with that. The important thing is that the reactive balance mechanics seem to be fairly popular, at least. I haven't read much negativity about the raw mechanics. It's a slight shame from my perspective, but no biggie. Maybe my perception on this occasion is flawed and the whole Master thing wouldn't play out as cool as I think.

[Misery]

Sounds like the reaction to giving the Master a bit more of a presence has been generally negative, then. It seems like people think that the idea of a "boss" figure would be too overbearing and stifling. The original Chaos interpretation, though, seems to be a bit more popular despite not being as thematic, because it seems simpler to grasp and less complicated overall. OK, I'm down with that. The important thing is that the reactive balance mechanics seem to be fairly popular, at least. I haven't read much negativity about the raw mechanics. It's a slight shame from my perspective, but no biggie. Maybe my perception on this occasion is flawed and the whole Master thing wouldn't play out as cool as I think.

Aye, this.

I'm a bit lost on where the negativity is coming from.

Note though that I mostly mean the actual mechanics.... the story/theme/whatever stuff, while I think the "master" idea is kinda neat, it could really be anything.... typically in most games I dont care all that much about or even notice story stuff too much (I'm the sort that automatically skips cutscenes most of the time), so pretty much all of my liking of it here is the mechanics.

And even mechanically, it sounds *very* near to the "chaos" idea.


But, whatever.    So long as SOMETHING is put in to fill that particular purpose, I'm fine, really.

[Pepisolo]

And even mechanically, it sounds *very* near to the "chaos" idea.

Yeah, both ideas are very very similar. I guess the major difference is that with the Master idea you are going to be getting occasional text interjections saying stuff like  "Don't keep doing that or else" or "You better shape up fool or" which people find bossy. With the Chaos idea... actually there is no feedback as I understand it. You're just going to get instances where the game would just generally punish you for playing a cheesy game, or avoiding combat, or abusing mythos etc. It's simpler and more in the background I guess, so I can see why some people might prefer it.

[Teal_Blue]

Ahaaaaa, another feedback thread.

Okay, let's have a look here:


#1:  That sounds like a fine idea, BUT, you'd have to make sure there was some incentive to use the units that were capable of it.  Otherwise you'd basically just get a reaction of: "Well, why would I want to use this unit?  He'll just bypass my mountain barrier!".   Not to mention that the mountain walkers would have to be very strong, or they'd still simply be no threat against a walled off city/area.   And typically normal, non siege human units arent meant to damage cities.

This though goes along with another issue that I've been aware of, which is:  How do you give the player incentive to use the units with more requirements?   Like the Norse archery ranges, it's easy for someone to plop those down and spam thrower types.... and that's it.   I keep thinking there needs to be a bit more incentive to drop down some of the other things like wells and deer parks or whatever to get the units that want them, instead of just being content with letting these buildings put out just one unit type over and over, which I strongly suspect is what alot of players do.   So.... yeah.   I dont mean to bring up even MORE issues in the feedback thread, hah, but this suddenly reminded me that I'd been meaning to mention this one anyway.  It seems important, particularly if you're doing things like giving some of them mountainwalk or whatever.


#2:  Hm.... having mountains not affect line of sight normally doesnt entirely make sense to me.   It's a bloody mountain;  how does one see past it?   I could see it INCREASING line of sight (and maybe range?) if something is on top of it, but.... yeah, not blocking line of sight is likely just going to seem illogical.   I can see siege units firing OVER it though, maybe.

#3:  That sounds fine.  I assume units could overspend in that way as well, then?  I know attacks work that way but I dunno how it is for movement.


#4:  The soul idea sounds really good!   Getting the human military units to fight is pretty much half the point of the game, so having a resource like this sounds like a great way to entice the player into doing it.   Particularly when they're already at a score gate point.    You could probably do alot of interesting things with this idea;  not just with the myth units, but with other stuff, and it might open up even more once you guys get to the point of doing add-ons and such.   It might indeed solve the problem of players using JUST myth units without any normal army nearby.

I would say, have varying amounts of "soul energy" or whatever depending on the unit.  That bit about differentiating units might come in handy here.   Harder to get units (AKA, the ones that require more resources or more types of resources, or both) could be worth more, enticing the player to try to use them when they can.  These might also be ones that could get mountainwalk or other abilities, to differentiate their function.


And finally, about the issue of complexity:

While I agree that you need to be careful, and at least try to keep things somewhat accessible, I also think that there's only so far you can go with pure accessibility before it starts actually impeding on the design.   You can really only worry about this one so much, particularly with a deep strategy title like this one.  Chances are, alot of the players that are going to really be interested in this game are probably used to alot of complexity in their games as it is.   I think this is one of the appeals of this one.   And really, for all of it's parts, the game seriously is not that hard to learn.   The only part people seem to get a bit stuck on is the production-goods, but that's fine.   Everything else?   Nobody really seems to have too much trouble with.   But yeah, worrying about that one too much is only going to stifle things, and that'd be a shame.    One way or another you're GOING to run into a point, probably sooner rather than later, where the complexity is going to go up no matter what.   Particularly as you get into expansions, or bonus DLC, or whatever.


The trick isnt so much keeping complexity away.... the trick is just making sure that your mechanics make sense (which for the most part they currently do) and are explained well by the game.  If you do this, and also explain them well in your patch notes, and if player questions continue to be promptly answered as so far they have been, then I dont think you'll have any issues.   And in the end, the game will be better for it.




So, that's some of my thoughts on this.... hope it helps.

Wow Misery, you always have these really nicely thought out ideas!    It really is cool reading your posts. Even when i don't really agree, sometimes, i still think you try to look at all the sides, which is cool. 

-Teal

[Teal_Blue]

From Misery :  That being said, the resource-bloating over the course of the game DOES tend to mean that numerous resources become unimportant in the second half as the player has so many that it just doesnt matter.... that's always been a bit of an issue.

Would restricting the resources as we move into the later ages, or difficulties make it more interesting and limit the over abundance of resources typically found in those games? Or is leaving it as is, with the player having the freedom to finally move and place pieces better?

-Teal

[Teal_Blue]

A few more ideas for dealing with mythos and the whole mythos vs troops balance:

- One solution is that bandits could have magician units they'd put out that were very weak against regular units, but could capture and turn mythological units.
- Mythos could lose interest in fighting the enemy, get bored, and walk to random parts of the map. This is an interesting idea because placement is one of their big advantages, but what this idea means is that without placement, they'd be useless. i.e. placement is the only thing that counters their lack of focus.
- Another way to look at it is that mythos already have a disadvantage: they destroy towns. The problem as seen from this perspective is that it's too easy to rebuild towns, since a mytho-dominated strategy requires that you constantly rebuild. If town building costs (especially town centers) went up as you built them, you'd have an incentive to appreciate the scalpel-like troops rather than the hammer that is a mythological creature. This would also give you something to spend your built-up resources on, which is an issue by the mid-game.

You have an interesting point, but i'm not sure that always using troops in place of myths is a good idea, as that ties us into always doing that action. If we leave myths and troops as they are now, troops are still effective if we can't produce myths, but so are myths effective and it gives us a choice in our strategy and two options and tools instead of just one.

Just my opinion,
-Teal

[Teal_Blue]

Ok but I still think you have options available to fix this problem without adding more mechanics to a game that already feels a bit over-burdened with them. For example what if the AI behavior of human and mythological units was different? Human units might be more inclined to hunt down bandits where mythological units would have a high chance to bee-line to the heathens. This would make building military far more important. It would also make building isolated resource only towns dangerous because if they're blocked off by mountains and a bandit fort spawns by them they're screwed. And it maintains mythological units place as balancing pieces between blue and red. That kind of solution would solve multiple problems without adding non-intuitive arbitrary rules like mythologicals not being able to damage bandit forts.

I think this change alone might have a very significant positive impact on how the game plays out.

I played some more yesterday and one of my major troubles during the Age Of Man playing on Hard is to cope with the Bandit keeps - not because I am not able to produce enough of a human military to take care of them, but because they simply won't do it. Instead, they beeline to the opposing faction's city to continuously attack buildings that will take them 30 turns to bring down.

And all the while the Bandit keeps keep on churning out more higher level units which eventually leads to most of my military being obliterated without taking a single Bandit with them... I am only able to break this stalemate later once I got some Myths available.

I cannot emphasize enough how much this annoys me. I mean, some unreliability is totally okay and cool (see the whole free will part etc.). I like this as well. But coming up with a starting build that is able to produce an amount of military that should theoretically be able to cope with the first few Bandit keeps at least partially and then seeing it wasting their time with pointlessly scratching the surface of near impenetrable walls is  - not fun .

Changing the target priorities of human military would be a huge step forward to solve this in my opinion .

I see your point and am thinking that if we changed only the lowest troops, to actually target bandits first and then buildings, and leave the others the way they are now, then most of our troops would rush off to fight buildings, but in those areas where there are bandits, we would still have a force, perhaps not the best, but something before we have to wait for myths that we can use against bandits.
  Just a thought,
-Teal