Player Feedback requested - Victory Points

[madcow]

Oh right!  I was saying I'm all for a way to do that, which it sounds like VP will do.  That ends is the important part was all I was saying. If its VP or something else that would be the best way to do it, I couldn't say.

[tigersfan]

Well, for one thing, it's a LOT easier to balance. We don't have to try to figure out things like "well, is this unit worth more than that other unit?" Since individual units won't be directly scoring.

So the core was that scoring was not as implied not fun and opaque in the notes, but rather hard to balance?

Because somehow these VP's sound even less fun and opaque. There are both less ways to get them and they are now necessary.

For example god tokens- The goal may be that they are meant to cause chaos. In practice? I'll be hunting ways to isolate them so they do not cause chaos. See the disconnect? Not fun.

It's not that the points weren't fun. I think they were. The biggest reason we got rid of them was the first part of the note, they are a HUGE time sink. Seriously, I didn't get an exact count, but, there were going to be something like 500 different ways to score points under the old system (with things like edicts potentially adding multipliers, stuff like that). It was taking me hours just to come up with any kind of a decent first guess as to how those different scores should relate to one another, and it would have taken probably months of re-balancing, even after release to get it actually right. With VPs, there will be a lot fewer things to score with, and the granularity will be much lower, meaning that designing the system will take far less time.

[chemical_art]

It's not that the points weren't fun. I think they were. The biggest reason we got rid of them was the first part of the note, they are a HUGE time sink. Seriously, I didn't get an exact count, but, there were going to be something like 500 different ways to score points under the old system (with things like edicts potentially adding multipliers, stuff like that). It was taking me hours just to come up with any kind of a decent first guess as to how those different scores should relate to one another, and it would have taken probably months of re-balancing, even after release to get it actually right. With VPs, there will be a lot fewer things to score with, and the granularity will be much lower, meaning that designing the system will take far less time.

In that case, why are VP's necessary to win?

I would making a similar stink right now if scoring was necessary as well. Making it necessary is just a band aid for other issues, otherwise it wouldn't need to be necessary to win.

[Pepisolo]

Personally, I was really looking forward to the the scoring system when it was finally implemented; just saying, nah, we're not doing scoring now seems like a bit of a bizarre decision to me (edit: OK sort of understandable having read Tigers timesink post).

I thought that the scoring system was going to reflect just how much carnage you could inflict on the land without tipping the balance too far -- and ultimately losing the game. Thematically, this is great. Greek Gods in my mind wouldn't just sit around trying to maintain balance with a few units on the board. They like to have fun with their pawns, and a cause a bit of chaos for their own amusement. I thought that a way to gauge this level of carnage -- and as a means to also share this with others -- was going to be fundamental to the overall game concept. Let's not also forget that removal of the scoring system will also decrease the viral potential of this game. People love to exchange scores, get their name on a leaderboard, share their Godlike anarchy on youtube etc.

I must admit this VP system while it seems OK, doesn't float my boat to nearly the same extent as an overall Carnageometer.

To sum up, if my understanding of what the scoring system was going to be is correct, then I'm definitely not in favour of its removal.

Once again, it's a bit sad to see you guys having to make compromises with your game design due to your typically harsh deadlines no doubt caused by financial pressures. I'm really rooting for you guys to have another big hit, so that maybe for your next game you have the breathing room to adopt a more "it's finished when it's finished" approach. Then, I think we'll see the true Arcen.

[Mick]

In that case, why are VP's necessary to win?

I would making a similar stink right now if scoring was necessary as well. Making it necessary is just a band aid for other issues, otherwise it wouldn't need to be necessary to win.

I don't see what's wrong with making victory conditions (which VP is) "necessary to win", that's what a victory condition is by definition. VP is just a way to represent relative value of various conditions. The game could say "here is a list of 100 objectives, you need to complete any 20 of them to win the game." But now, you can give different values to objectives to represent the variation of their difficulties.

What alternative would you propose?

[chemical_art]

In that case, why are VP's necessary to win?

I would making a similar stink right now if scoring was necessary as well. Making it necessary is just a band aid for other issues, otherwise it wouldn't need to be necessary to win.

I don't see what's wrong with making victory conditions (which VP is) "necessary to win", that's what a victory condition is by definition. VP is just a way to represent relative value of various conditions. The game could say "here is a list of 100 objectives, you need to complete any 20 of them to win the game." But now, you can give different values to objectives to represent the variation of their difficulties.

What alternative would you propose?

None at all.

Really, I mean nothing.

If VP's are so bland that you don't notice them, then why bother having them at all aside from me having to brainstorm how to cheese them for least chaos.  If VP's are key to the game, you remove the sandbox element which I guess is not so bad except it clashes with the whole creator background. Aren't edicts supposed to do that anyway? Why the rush for VP's when even the edicts aren't seen yet?

I want a mechanic that in of itself causes chaos.

For example the god token itself doesn't cause carnage. Only when the god actually does something, like taking a town, would be better. I say better because I don't like  the idea of VP's at all, but I'm getting such a strong vibe in these posts that it is happening anyway so I'm trying to have some sort of say. I find it silly the mechanic meant to add flavor, edicts, aren't even started yet (for alpha) yet they are already deemed not enough.

[tigersfan]

If VP's are key to the game, you remove the sandbox element which I guess is not so bad except it clashes with the whole creator background...

Maybe this is where the disconnect is. This isn't, nor was ever supposed to be a sandbox game. It's first and foremost a strategy game where the goal is balance and not annihilation. The idea with the victory points is that when you do some things, it makes the balance harder. So, if you are finding ways to mitigate the effects unbalancing of the tokens, then you are doing what you're supposed to be doing. The challenge is supposed to be in finding balance in a situation that is difficult to balance.

[chemical_art]

Maybe this is where the disconnect is. This isn't, nor was ever supposed to be a sandbox game. It's first and foremost a strategy game where the goal is balance and not annihilation. The idea with the victory points is that when you do some things, it makes the balance harder. So, if you are finding ways to mitigate the effects unbalancing of the tokens, then you are doing what you're supposed to be doing. The challenge is supposed to be in finding balance in a situation that is difficult to balance.

I didn't mean sandbox as in do anything, I meant sandbox in the realm of like AI War, in that you have many wrinkles for several avenues toward success. But if that is considered bad, and instead is increasing the railroading because the current game is too open...

*shrug*

My interest keeps falling the more I hear. Makes me sad, and worried. Haven't even got to play past the tutorial. Now I'm not sure if even after it is fixed I would want to. I mean I will, since I volunteered to giving an open opinion, but even AVWW 2 didn't cause this much apathy in me so early.


Parting shot of thought: Make some NPC's with godlike powers, encouraging players to use their own rather then bash their heads if they don't use something they don't need.

[Mick]

Well "several avenues toward success" is exactly what I'm trying to suggest. The edicts alone don't have that because you have basically an avenue toward success where you make things super easy for yourself, and an infinite number of avenues where you make things difficult for no reason whatsoever.

As the edicts are written now, I can see many players simply ignoring much of the game's content because it hurts you more than it helps. VPs are a way to counterbalance that. If you focus on nothing but VPs, you will lose by genocide. If you focus only on preventing genocide, then you won't get enough VPs. Harder difficulties can make that balance more razor thin.

[tigersfan]

"Several avenues toward success" is the goal. I don't see how having VPs negates that. If VPs are balanced correctly, you'll be encouraged to use the more powerful god abilities because it will get you to your VP goal faster. But, if you want to just get to your goal by going up 1 or 2 VPs at a time, that's fine, but then you run the risk of running out of time. So you have to determine the best way to get to your VP goal before you run out of turns in which to score them.

[madcow]

My biggest question regarding VP is what is to going to prevent somebody from using a God on one side, while offsetting it just by dropping a similar god on the other side to counterbalance it?  They get VP for plopping a God on both sides, but it doesn't really put much at risk if the gods effectively cancel each other out.

[tigersfan]

My biggest question regarding VP is what is to going to prevent somebody from using a God on one side, while offsetting it just by dropping a similar god on the other side to counterbalance it?  They get VP for plopping a God on both sides, but it doesn't really put much at risk if the gods effectively cancel each other out.

Both sides get gods, always, and there is nothing to prevent it. The gods themselves don't award points, as they are just simply part of the game.

The god's POWERS however (which is what the tokens represent) will award VPs. Some gods are more powerful than others, some gods help with the more peaceful routes to victory (trade, diplomacy) and other gods are much more face-bashing.

[madcow]

My biggest question regarding VP is what is to going to prevent somebody from using a God on one side, while offsetting it just by dropping a similar god on the other side to counterbalance it?  They get VP for plopping a God on both sides, but it doesn't really put much at risk if the gods effectively cancel each other out.

Both sides get gods, always, and there is nothing to prevent it. The gods themselves don't award points, as they are just simply part of the game.

The god's POWERS however (which is what the tokens represent) will award VPs. Some gods are more powerful than others, some gods help with the more peaceful routes to victory (trade, diplomacy) and other gods are much more face-bashing.

I see, my concern was more along the lines of saving up Gods powers/tokens to use them to counter balance each other at the same time. One war power played against another war power on each side for instance.  I'm not sure if the edict system will counter balance that or not?

A universal resource pool so that you can't just do that might help in that regards.  Or if the tokens you had access to were random - maybe they change up at random every X turns. Basically equivalent to playing cards from a hand, and redrawing a new hand every so often.  I guess its too early to say if it'll be a problem, but it's something I see a potential issue with.

Edit: I actually really like the idea of randomizing/changing up what god tokens you have access to. Would keep things fresh if you have to balance using a power you really like at a less than optimal time, or using a less than idea power to accomplish what you want at a given time.

[orzelek]

I like the idea with small drawback.
I really don't like reducing possible number of turns per game. I was playing now with 40 and 60 per round and planning to try for larger also.

I'm assuming that capturing towns of other side would also give some VP?

[tigersfan]

I like the idea with small drawback.
I really don't like reducing possible number of turns per game. I was playing now with 40 and 60 per round and planning to try for larger also.

I'm assuming that capturing towns of other side would also give some VP?

Well, the problem of course is that if we say "you need to have 50 VPs to win" this is much easier to do in a 60 per round game than in a 40. So, the VP goal would really lose all meaning then.

Yeah, capturing a town would be worth some points. Not sure how many exactly yet.

I see, my concern was more along the lines of saving up Gods powers/tokens to use them to counter balance each other at the same time. One war power played against another war power on each side for instance.  I'm not sure if the edict system will counter balance that or not?

A universal resource pool so that you can't just do that might help in that regards.  Or if the tokens you had access to were random - maybe they change up at random every X turns. Basically equivalent to playing cards from a hand, and redrawing a new hand every so often.  I guess its too early to say if it'll be a problem, but it's something I see a potential issue with.

Edit: I actually really like the idea of randomizing/changing up what god tokens you have access to. Would keep things fresh if you have to balance using a power you really like at a less than optimal time, or using a less than idea power to accomplish what you want at a given time.

Well, each god only gets 3 tokens each, and each side only has two gods per game. And, one sides' god powers won't necessarily counter act the others, as not all god's powers are equal in strength.

Also, their use does require resources. That's what Moonstone/Sunstone are for.