View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | Date Submitted | Last Update | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0026793 | AI War 2 | Suggestion | Mar 26, 2022 9:18 pm | Apr 6, 2022 9:04 am | |
| Reporter | Strategic Sage | Assigned To | Chris_McElligottPark | ||
| Status | resolved | Resolution | fixed | ||
| Product Version | 4.008 Exogalactic Wayfinding | ||||
| Fixed in Version | 4.013 Hotfixes | ||||
| Summary | 0026793: Move Dire CPA from Expert to Logistician | ||||
| Description | I suggest Dire CPAs be made available but no longer mandatory for Expert play. They appear to be pushing the same button with players that fuel does, and have some thematic/strategic overlap. I think it fits much better with Fuel that it does with the rest of the Expert feature set, which don't really push that 'balance between attack and defense' button in the same way but allow the player more freedom in how to proceed. Players would still be able to turn on Dire CPAs of course if they want to add that to the Expert experience. | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
|
|
I should add that if this was adopted, a small edit would be needed to the Expert Campaign Tip to remove the line about Dire CPAs. |
|
|
So you've been seeing player complaints about Dire CPAs in Expert mode? They basically fill the same gameplay niche as Instigators, and those are definitely enabled. Why do you think players see Dire CPAs as different? |
|
|
I wouldn't say they are seen as different. I haven't seen a lot of complaints, it's a combination of a small amount of complaints and my instincts about it basically. They are generally seen as Instigators 2.0, but the question is do they go too far in that direction. Instigators are generally not particularly punishing, while that's not true of Dire CPAs. That's the point of them of course, and they do it well. I asked on Discord for additional feedback from people and didn't get much, so I don't know how much of an issue it really is for people playing Expert. My sense of it is just that since we moved fuel to Logistician to make Expert more attractive to players, that having Dire CPAs follow would be a logical extension of that. The rest of the Expert feature set doesn't do nearly as much in terms of dictating playstyle, aside from the beachheading changes which don't affect nearly as many players. .02 |
|
|
I don't feel convinced yet on this point |
|
|
I don't have very much experience with Dire CPAs, but will offer my feedback anyway since you haven't heard from many other people. By the way, I don't feel strongly about this despite the length of this note. tldr; I lean against moving Dire CPAs to 'Logistician', but making them optional on 'Expert' is fine. Dire CPAs don't fundamentally change the game in the same way that fuel does. They should pair well with non-AI factions. They do not greatly influence which planets or ships the player captures. There are no new mechanics for the player to learn in order to manage their empire. The effects of having Dire CPAs enabled do not come into play until a few hours into a campaign. Most importantly, there are no balance considerations I'm aware of that make Dire CPAs best used along with other locked settings included in 'Expert'. We're already running around the galaxy taking out data centers, instigators, marauder bases, nanocaust centers, risk analyzers, and so on. Dire CPAs give us one more thing to manage, and this seems to be in line with 'Expert' mode's purpose of requiring more strategic game play. Other than this, Dire CPAs seem to fit right in with rest of features we can mix and match. I was somewhat against the creation of the 'Logistician' mode because we already have so many modes. In my mind, a better approach would have been to simply make fuel optional for all modes but 'Deathwish', and then use quick starts to highlight fuel as a feature. The problem with putting fuel in 'Logistician' is that it presents fuel as an expert-only or "hard" feature. I consider fuel to be an interesting feature, and something that I plan to experiment with in all modes. We have the logistician mode, and that's fine. In my head, 'Logistician' means "expert, but with fuel". It's the 'Expert' mode you might pick if you don't add many non-AI factions. I'd rather there not be any further diversion between 'Expert' and 'Logistician' than this. From HA to Deathwish, we already have a fairly fine-grained progression from "leans casual" to "leans intense". I'll choose 'Deathwish' if I want unforgiving game play, and I'll choose 'Expert' if I want high hacking responses and restricted choice compared to HA. There isn't really a game play style between the two for me. Therefore I'd rather Dire CPAs be required on 'Expert' or 'Deathwish', but not added to any mode between the two. |
|
|
I lean in the other direction, that I think we need *more* distinction between Expert and Logistician. I.e. I don't think the remaining Expert features make as much sense without Fuel as they did with it. Based on comments here and on the discord, I accept that other people don't think so. Frustrating, but it is what it is. I think examples like nanocaust, marauders, instigators are really totally different. You can almost completely ignore instigators and those other factions you don't put in unless you enjoy them. To me that's completely an apples-and-oranges comparison. I would also say Dire CPAs impact the game from the start. I'm concerned about them literally from the first second, often surviving that CPA is the key moment in deciding victory or defeat and whether or not you have the extra ships coming from the bunkers has a lot to say about that. |
|
|
I feel like Fuel is one of the most impactful things you can turn on in a game, so I'm confused why you feel that Expert and Logistician need more differentiation |
|
|
I would put it this way - I think I'm just seeing these features differently than other players do. For example, say you start a default HA game and say we're going to pick either Dire CPAs or fuel at random to add. The consensus seems to be that Dire CPAs are a minor little thing and Fuel is going to have a far more drastic effect on gameplay. I think it's much, much closer than that. I would still say Fuel is more impactful but not by all that much.; Dire CPAs have a *major* impact on how I move through the galaxy, and just as importantly, at what pace I attempt to do so. I.e. it's a far, far bigger jump from Challenger to Expert than it is from Expert to Logistician as the campaigns are currently constituted. As one example the beachheading restrictions were specifically made as stringent as they are because fuel didn't make sense otherwhise. It wasn't just 'we want to make beachheading harder', it was 'Fuel won't work unless beachheading is sufficiently hard, so we have to find a way to make this happen'. Distributed Economy was left alone only because Fuel handled the economic balance. The 'Take it Or Leave It' element is another one that plays into more strategic decisions in capturing territory, and likely wouldn't have been there if Expert was being designed independent on Fuel. Etc. As I said, I accept - as respectfully as it is within my ability to do so - that I'm in the minority here. But that's my why. |
|
|
I would say it like this: when I see Fuel, I feel defeated and lose the will to play. It's a psychological effect more than anything else. On paper, the methods for holding territory and such sound great, but for me when I am faced with trying to make choices, I just get tired. Dire CPAs or other mechanics that are just going to make me more likely to lose are in a totally different category. Something I have to go shoot sometimes, or something I can go shoot for a bonus, or something else I can capture, doesn't have that same sort of psychological tax. If Dire CPAs are not bothering people too much, then I'd say they should stay forced on for Expert. For me, Expert is "Logistician minus the part that makes me want to give up while feeling stupid." |
|
|
I think these are totally fitting for expert mode fwiw |
|
|
From my perspective the psychological tax is higher for Dire CPAs. I spend more time thinking and worrying about them when playing. They play a bigger role in making earlygame decisions difficult. Fuel feels more like a natural extension of the game - I say 'feels' for a reason, that's not just a 'I designed and like it so I have to stick by it' thing. I'm talking about for example when I'm working on my current Logistician playthrough. I don't think my experience with it is any more or less valid than Chris's or anyone else's. All of that is subjective. Which is why I focus as much as possible on the *objective* gameplay impact. It does strike me as - the kindest word I can use honestly is unwise - that it seems we are taking cues for the balance primarily for people who weren't bothered by the HA meta and weren't proponents of the original design goals in the first place in terms of wanting to play it themselves. I.e. Chris, Badger, Zeus all have thoughtful opinions, but Expert wasn't designed *for them*. It'd be like me saying 'Sandbox should have these sliders' or trying to impose my perception of what AI War 2 is on playing Necromancer. I think it's a fair statement of my overall contributions that I haven't tried to do that. Whatever else can be said about my perspective, I'm just trying to make the best version of Expert that is still possible given that the carpet's been pulled out from what it was intended to be. .02 |
|
|
These are fair points, and I think we can go ahead and move it to be only forced-on for expert. In a lot of ways, the Logistician role has moved to what Expert was, and that's not something I would question you about. I don't think anyone particularly would. For my mind, Expert has become "what parts of Logistician can we remove that make lots more people enjoy it, but are the fewest changes?" And from that perspective, that's why I had been leaning on the perspective of others instead of you. Regardless, I think your instinct on this is likely correct, so we'll make the swap. |
|
|
* Adjusted Dire CPAs to no longer be forced on until Logistician mode, rather than being forced on in Expert mode. They are still optional in any lower mode. ** Thanks to Strategic Sage for suggesting, and for being patient with our second-guessing of him on it. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 26, 2022 9:18 pm | Strategic Sage | New Issue | |
| Mar 26, 2022 9:18 pm | Strategic Sage | Note Added: 0065601 | |
| Apr 2, 2022 7:41 pm | BadgerBadger | Note Added: 0065686 | |
| Apr 2, 2022 8:49 pm | Strategic Sage | Note Added: 0065689 | |
| Apr 3, 2022 4:40 pm | BadgerBadger | Note Added: 0065713 | |
| Apr 4, 2022 9:26 pm | trabbo | Note Added: 0065756 | |
| Apr 4, 2022 9:27 pm | trabbo | Note Edited: 0065756 | |
| Apr 4, 2022 10:00 pm | Strategic Sage | Note Added: 0065766 | |
| Apr 4, 2022 10:00 pm | Strategic Sage | Note Edited: 0065766 | |
| Apr 4, 2022 10:02 pm | Strategic Sage | Note Edited: 0065766 | |
| Apr 4, 2022 10:06 pm | BadgerBadger | Note Added: 0065767 | |
| Apr 4, 2022 10:22 pm | Strategic Sage | Note Added: 0065770 | |
| Apr 4, 2022 10:31 pm | Strategic Sage | Note Edited: 0065770 | |
| Apr 4, 2022 10:54 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0065772 | |
| Apr 5, 2022 2:27 pm | ZeusAlmighty | Note Added: 0065782 | |
| Apr 5, 2022 8:24 pm | Strategic Sage | Note Added: 0065792 | |
| Apr 5, 2022 9:35 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0065793 | |
| Apr 6, 2022 9:04 am | Chris_McElligottPark | Assigned To | => Chris_McElligottPark |
| Apr 6, 2022 9:04 am | Chris_McElligottPark | Status | new => resolved |
| Apr 6, 2022 9:04 am | Chris_McElligottPark | Resolution | open => fixed |
| Apr 6, 2022 9:04 am | Chris_McElligottPark | Fixed in Version | => 4.013 Hotfixes |
| Apr 6, 2022 9:04 am | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0065813 |
