View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | Date Submitted | Last Update | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0001973 | AI War 1 / Classic | Suggestion - Balance Tweaks | Dec 10, 2010 1:00 pm | Dec 10, 2010 3:37 pm | |
| Reporter | colonyan | Assigned To | Chris_McElligottPark | ||
| Status | resolved | Resolution | open | ||
| Product Version | 4.048 | ||||
| Summary | 0001973: More flexible initial knowledge point | ||||
| Description | Object -To revert back initially unlocked level one turrets and star ships to knowledge points for greater player choice on what to unlock for game progress speed improvement- A player could choose not to use certain turrets or star ship branch at all but have higher mark units/turret/star ships faster. This goes especially more so for star ships. More turrets are always useful on defense than fragile bomber or artillery base star ships. (More importantly!) On the other hand, at least one of star ship or one quarter of base kind could be ready to be used free of knowledge cost. Player could spend knowledge cost to use it to full cap number. Say for an example, there's 29 sniper turrets ready to use for trial, and player is given some extra 750 or so points to unlock the full sniper up to 117 or choose not to unlock this one and keep it for other branch and other branch's higher mark. I want more choice... | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| Internal Weight | |||||
|
|
This would have a huge impact on balance. If you want more knowledge, I suggest the cheats, or otherwise taking more planets, etc. The starting unlocks aren't something I plan to add any flexibility in, as I think it's important to have a consistent baseline starting point for non-cheating games. Specifically, how would you know which turrets or starships, etc, are any good if you can't try out their mark I versions? You might think you know all that already, but with the way the balance of the game shifts on an ongoing basis, and the way that new stuff is added, you won't forever. |
|
|
To the deleted comment: it's possible for us to do a lot of things, but we have to look to what will give the biggest impact for the most players, etc. Having techs that are sometimes assigned and sometimes not assigned to various ships would be moderately time-intensive to add, and it would take new interface elements in the lobby, etc. It's just not something I think is worth the effort. Or, put another way: you ought to feel like you have enough options with the default, singular tech tree. If not, then it's either a matter of personal preference (wanting more knowledge), or a matter of a more central design issue. Note that we didn't take any knowledge away when we gave all those turrets and starships for free. Nor did we make everything that remained more knowledge-intensive. So these were essentially freebies, which give you extra things you can build without hurting your ability to unlock other, different stuff. That's why I'm not feeling like there's a change needed here, it's not like we forced you to unlock some stuff by taking away knowledge you had. We just gave you some mark I freebies in on TOP of the existing knowledge you already had, which gives you more choices, not fewer. Hope that makes sense. |
|
|
Before, many of level 1 turrets and star ships had to be unlocked. Starting research point was 10k as now. So it took some purchase decision making to try a new kind of turrets or star ships. Instead of making mark I turrets/star ships made available free of knowledge cost, there could have been more equivalent starting knowledge point for greater player choice. From that point, player can choose to use which branch and which not. It helps establishing more personalized play style. Managing limited knowledge resource is one of favorite point of this game, why reduce the array of the player's decision making? If player disregarded needed tech and lose or spend more time, its player's fault. I think cheating has nothing to do here. (This post is response toward 0005871) |
|
|
You do not have a consistent baseline starting point for non-cheating games. You can do no wave, pair of mad bombers, 10 planets, X map, 1 difficulty, all revealed, 300% resources for humans and whatever the minimum is for AI, 8 HW, human resistance fighters and so on and it is still considered a valid non-cheat game by the game. Mk 1 is a terrible terrible benchmark for lerning what a ship is capable of. Attacking a planet with only mk 1 of a ship cap is going to tell you NOTHING about how useful it is. Some are also very good at mk 1, but terrible or less useful to upgrade for various reasons (mirrors, etherjets, paralyzers and to some extent autobombs), and some are pretty mediocre to bad at mk 1, but improve a lot if you upgrade (almost anything high armor like bombers and tanks does this). If you only ever use mk 1, you will miss ALL of that. Dumping it all on at the start, either through an option like this or "give me k" is a bad idea be though because that kicks the startgame a whole different way, but maybe it could be tied to resource handicap instead. The handicap is essentially a modifier for necessary planets for metal/crystal requirements, and it could function the same for necessary planets for knowledge. This keeps the startgame in handicap a little more paralell to a non-handicapped start too. For "competitive" more optimal AIW play, the balance is fine as is, but that's not your entire audience. The ones who are "competitive" will probably use 100% or less. The ones that are learning really need to use full caps of mk 2 and 3 on 7.X difficulties to learn anything truly useful for higher difficulties. Using a 300% handicap that affects knowledge on a 7.X difficulty would probably be far better for learning ships or more optimal play than any lower difficulty with the current knowledge rate due to the fact that overwhelming firepower wins AIW, not a single shipcap of mk1 units. Reopened because I think your statement is in error, or at least flawed. Feel free to reclose it though. This really wasn't for my benefit as I'll never use it. |
|
|
"Starting research point was 10k as now. So it took some purchase decision making to try a new kind of turrets or star ships." Right, and that's why they no longer cost knowledge. Because most players would just not try stuff if they were worried it wasn't going to be good. Now they have the stuff and can experiment freely, and decide what they want more of. Blaming the player isn't really helpful, it's my job as the game designer to also shepherd players and protect them from their own unhelpful tendencies so that they have the best possible game experience. And I lump myself into that also, I have tons of unhelpful tendencies that the game circumvents for me. Note that to give all that as extra knowledge would be incredibly unbalancing, anyhow. That would be something like an extra 20k knowledge, which you could use to just max out a couple of starships lines and a fleet ship line; not the desired goal, I'd never give that much starting knowledge. Instead, it's giving a sampler of mark I stuff so that players can try stuff out, not so that their starting position is easier. My comment about cheating was that if you want more knowledge you can use cheats, which is true but apparently beside the point based on what you're saying. Anyway, hopefully the above makes sense. There's definitely no chance of higher starting knowledge in the base game in exchange for fewer mark I techs, in short. 1. If that were the default behavior, that would give advanced players a huge advantage and encourage reliance on "the same thing every time" type strategies, while at the same time creating a huge barrier to experimentation for players both new and experienced. 2. If that were an optional behavior, it would basically be cheat-y, because advanced players could use that to gain quite a strategic advantage if they weren't interested in as wide of an array of mark I techs. Again, this is a sampler that costs you nothing. So I view it as a request for more knowledge in general, to which my response is: there are cheats for getting more knowledge if you want. Or, take more planets. |
|
|
Wait what? Did the initial issue change while I was typing? Weird. I could have sworn I read something about just adding a bunch of knowledge to the start instead of what's there now. |
|
|
Suzera -- at the start of a game, mark I isn't a terrible benchmark for anything. Anyway, I stand by what I said. |
|
|
It thinks I put it back to resolved, which is odd because I didn't. Though, I would have, I didn't actually ever see it as not resolved. Odd. |
|
|
Actually, it still kind of is in my opinion due to the concentrated firepower having an exponential effect thing. Your game though. Not that big a deal to me anyway. |
|
|
(This post is response toward 0005883) "So these were essentially freebies" As one player, I will go even more "greedy" and ask if you give me freebies, could you give me in cash(knowledge point)? Its like me asking cash present over material present in same value. Plus, its very good to be able to try out more different items in the beginning. Meanwhile, its that after a while(after certain experience), you get used to what it is. Sometimes, you don't want to use it. Some units and its higher mark ones are more suited in certain situation. |
|
|
I don't think I'm misunderstanding. I know the question is "could you give me in cash(knowledge point)." My responses above are my reasoning for why the answer is no. From an experimentation standpoint, you won't "learn" anything from having just the knowledge to spend on narrower tech levels. The higher marks of a unit are just better versions of the mark Is that you already are getting for free, they aren't inherently different. So I think the argument that you can "try out more different items in the beginning" is flawed. And my response to the argument of "Sometimes, you don't want to use it" is: but, you have it. So figuring out a way to use it that's useful is strategically valid, if you're pinned to the wall and need every possible unit. Or if not, it's not costing you anything. I'm starting to get repetitive, though, so I'll just refer to my prior posts on the subject. The goal of the new freebies is to be a sampler of low-level stuff, that's all -- not to give experts a strategic advantage. I'm in no way inclined to change it to the latter. |
|
|
I do not see anything wrong with a player end up with playing with his fixed unlock choice. If player can win with his formula, that means game's predictable. That means game offers too much initial game settings and not enough random element. Which making game predictable. Or even if it is random, you will sense it as you play it. (like personality) Having more initial point doesn't necessary means one will use all right away. Can't there a situation like, player have to keep some reserve knowledge store in case of AI behavior change? If you don't like player to have more than 10 000 points, why not make player home planet knowledge point higher so it take while to harvest it? Research station cost could be little higher. Also, it is quite easy to have extra 10 000 points in game start phase given that AI progress is relatively low and easy to defend Level III lab. |
|
|
The experts probably aren't going to set the handicap to above 100%. I'm actually against the idea in the initial issue post. You'll probably still use the mk 1s, but as far as fleet ships go at least, you're not going to learn much about them when they can't do much of anything on their own and their effect is likely to be lost outside of a few specific ship types that are markedly useful as mk 1 only like paralyzers or sometimes etherjets. They'll be useful, but someone learning the game probably won't learn why or by how much from mk 1 alone, and having more mks via handicap but playing on a higher difficulty setting to make up the handicap would I think further learning faster. I'm already well past that point so it's not something for me personally. I just love debate. :) Again, your game though. |
|
|
(responding to 0005898) I disagree: it means that the player is too timid to try different things. We are all creatures of habit. Even if it takes 300% more effort using method A than using method B, if we aren't sure about that and we've been using method A, we often keep using method A instead of ever even trying method B. My reason for this change is based on long observation of players and their statements about how they play, etc. I'm not likely to change my mind on that. |
|
|
At any rate, this is getting nowhere. I maintain the core argument here is "give us more knowledge in general, because I don't like the stuff in the sampler." My response is, still, negative on that. The sampler is just a sampler. If you don't like it, don't use the stuff in that. It hasn't cost you anything, in that sense. But giving you the "cash value" of that sampler in knowledge isn't on the table. |
|
|
Experience talks. Now I feel sorry for I made you write all these. Cheers making fun game! |
|
|
All good! Thanks! |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 10, 2010 1:00 pm | colonyan | New Issue | |
| Dec 10, 2010 1:25 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0005871 | |
| Dec 10, 2010 1:25 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Status | new => resolved |
| Dec 10, 2010 1:25 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Resolution | open => won't fix |
| Dec 10, 2010 1:25 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Assigned To | => Chris_McElligottPark |
| Dec 10, 2010 2:16 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0005883 | |
| Dec 10, 2010 2:23 pm | colonyan | Note Added: 0005889 | |
| Dec 10, 2010 2:26 pm | colonyan | Note Edited: 0005889 | |
| Dec 10, 2010 2:28 pm | Suzera | Note Added: 0005890 | |
| Dec 10, 2010 2:29 pm | Suzera | Resolution | won't fix => open |
| Dec 10, 2010 2:29 pm | Suzera | Note Edited: 0005890 | |
| Dec 10, 2010 2:30 pm | Suzera | Note Edited: 0005890 | |
| Dec 10, 2010 2:30 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0005891 | |
| Dec 10, 2010 2:31 pm | Suzera | Note Added: 0005892 | |
| Dec 10, 2010 2:31 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0005893 | |
| Dec 10, 2010 2:32 pm | Suzera | Note Edited: 0005892 | |
| Dec 10, 2010 2:32 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0005894 | |
| Dec 10, 2010 2:34 pm | Suzera | Note Added: 0005895 | |
| Dec 10, 2010 2:34 pm | colonyan | Note Added: 0005896 | |
| Dec 10, 2010 2:34 pm | Suzera | Note Edited: 0005895 | |
| Dec 10, 2010 2:39 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0005897 | |
| Dec 10, 2010 2:54 pm | colonyan | Note Added: 0005898 | |
| Dec 10, 2010 2:57 pm | colonyan | Note Edited: 0005898 | |
| Dec 10, 2010 3:00 pm | colonyan | Note Edited: 0005898 | |
| Dec 10, 2010 3:00 pm | Suzera | Note Added: 0005899 | |
| Dec 10, 2010 3:01 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0005900 | |
| Dec 10, 2010 3:02 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Edited: 0005900 | |
| Dec 10, 2010 3:03 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0005901 | |
| Dec 10, 2010 3:09 pm | colonyan | Note Added: 0005902 | |
| Dec 10, 2010 3:37 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0005904 |
