What's this new Skyward Collapse board, you ask?

[x4000]

Cheers.

I really like Might and Magic: Clash of Heroes as well.  I didn't log nearly so many hours as you into it, but I enjoyed it while I played it.

In terms of the AI... well, all I'll say for now is we've pulled a tricky with that one.  This isn't a game that requires enemy AI in order for you to have a devil of a time winning.  This is where the "simulation game" bits come in, to begin with.  I also like to think of it a bit as "bring me the whipping switch, boy" in the sense of you're causing your own misery.   Not in a way that you're doing it voluntarily, but in the sense that you are pushed to do this in order for you to actually win or win well.  Personally it's the thing I'm most proud of with this game, as a really clever feature on the level of AI Progress.  It's dead simple, and I've not seen it before.

Anyhow, I'm excited about both games, but this one is by far my baby.

[tigersfan]

I'm also really excited for both. But, I don't know a whole lot more about Exodus than most people.

This one though I'm intimately involved with, and yeah, what Chris said.

[Wingflier]

Well Chris, that is extremely exciting.  I didn't realize you guys were already that far ahead in development.  I assumed that your work so far was mostly conceptual.

Moreso than the great AI, moreso than the INSANE replayability, moreso than the refined co-op element, moreso even than the epic space odyssey adventure that AI War offers, the AI Progress mechanic is what truly makes the game unique in my opinion, and what separates it from pretty much every other RTS out there.

If you have found something that is conceptually similar to that, and implemented it into a different genre of game, I think you are about to paint your second masterpiece.

[x4000]

I hope so! And I should clarify that this concept is nothing like AIP in terms of function or even role in the game. But it's in the same scale of "this drives everything about how you play the game even though ostensibly it seems like a small thing at first glance."

I'll be pretty surprised if we aren't into beta with this game by the end of this month.

[Wingflier]

I hope so! And I should clarify that this concept is nothing like AIP in terms of function or even role in the game. But it's in the same scale of "this drives everything about how you play the game even though ostensibly it seems like a small thing at first glance."

I'll be pretty surprised if we aren't into beta with this game by the end of this month.

Well, by similar to function in AIP, I was simply referring to the paragraph where you mentioned that the player decides how difficult the game becomes. If I understood correctly, the true obstacle is yourself.

I think mechanics which promote ideas like these are rare, even more rarely done well, and really resonate with people.

[x4000]

I gotcha -- and yeah, in that sense they are both filling the same niche.

[Misery]

Cheers.

I really like Might and Magic: Clash of Heroes as well.  I didn't log nearly so many hours as you into it, but I enjoyed it while I played it.

In terms of the AI... well, all I'll say for now is we've pulled a tricky with that one.  This isn't a game that requires enemy AI in order for you to have a devil of a time winning.  This is where the "simulation game" bits come in, to begin with.  I also like to think of it a bit as "bring me the whipping switch, boy" in the sense of you're causing your own misery.   Not in a way that you're doing it voluntarily, but in the sense that you are pushed to do this in order for you to actually win or win well.  Personally it's the thing I'm most proud of with this game, as a really clever feature on the level of AI Progress.  It's dead simple, and I've not seen it before.

Anyhow, I'm excited about both games, but this one is by far my baby.

The concept of the player's actions also creating new challenge to me sounds alot like some of the city-builder games, and some turn-based titles I can think of.   The idea makes me think of Anno 2070 in particular (since I've been playing that alot lately), where there IS AI to deal with, like the constant, CONSTANT pirates or Sokow's incredibly inept oil tankers randomly crashing into things, but half of the game's challenge is definitely from the player's actions;  the more you expand and the more you build, the more things will go horribly, horribly wrong, and the more difficult the game gets.   As opposed to it getting easier by expanding, which does happen in some games (and isnt even nearly as interesting).


Wether or not that's quite on the mark as to the sort of thing you're getting at, I'm not sure, but that's the impression I get from it.   I'm definitely interested to see this one.   A simple question:  Is it turn-based, or real-time?   It sounds turn-based to me.

Looking forward to it, regardless.  I'll definitely join in the beta whenever that pops up.

[x4000]

Turn-based!  And yeah, a number of simulation games have a similar sort of thing in terms of "getting bigger cause problems."  But in this case it's definitely not just that either.  There is AI here also, but it's more on the level of unit AI (individual dudes going around doing stuff, not an evil archenemy commander).  There's also an impetus here where you HAVE to expand, or you can't win.  And a unique thing involving the opposing faction and your relationship to them, as well.

[Wingflier]

A lot of the time, a game has the "getting bigger causes problems" mechanic, like Chris talked about, not because it was intentional, but because the developers have handled macromanagement badly, or failed the design in some way.

Even AI War is guilty of this to a certain degree with the current pathing mechanics.  When you own 12 planets all over the galaxy, and are trying to spread your forces between them, having to give them all specific commands with shift queues on how to reach their destination can be painstakingly tedious, and one small mistake can send them through a dangerous world accidentally which will cause a disaster or even end the game.

There's a fine line between mechanics which really challenge the player to overcome himself, and which are just bad coding. Luckily, the best developers like Arcen stick around long enough to make sure the former stays and the latter disappears . Most developers leave their games half-baked, and that's the sad truth of the industry.

[x4000]

I should clarify that it's not getting bigger that causes the problems.  It's actually the escalation in the conflict between you and the other faction getting more intense that is the problem.  And which is your doing.  This game only gets so big, so it doesn't have the problems that AI War does with macromanagement.  This is meant for tighter, shorter games lasting as little as 45 minutes to maybe a couple of hours.  Less or more depending on how fast you are, and how long you set each of the three rounds to last.

[Wingflier]

Wow, the more information you release, the more interesting it gets

[x4000]

That's usually a good sign. 

[Oralordos]

This is meant for tighter, shorter games lasting as little as 45 minutes to maybe a couple of hours.

This is a statement that only Arcen could make.

[Wingflier]

This is meant for tighter, shorter games lasting as little as 45 minutes to maybe a couple of hours.

This is a statement that only Arcen could make.

What is this *life* you speak of? Hahahahaha.

[x4000]

Hahahaha.    It does support savegames of course, so you can play it in more than one sitting!  Come on, there are plenty of other superlong strategy games, especially in the TBS arena.  Civilization, Total War, Galactic Empires, etc.