What does different mean?

[labgnome]

So in several threads I've come across what seems to be something of a divide in what people seem to want for this game. As it would ultimately relate to game balance, I think this might be the best place to post this. I'd like to get an idea of that people think, and hopefully give everyone working on the project a better idea what all of us want. Most people seem to say they want a different gameplay experience for different species, but there seems to be a divide over what that actually means when translated into the game itself. It seems like a lot of us were approaching this simply assuming our idea was the only, logical, or best way to get there, without considering that other people might have a different perspective.

I invite everyone to post as to what they think this means in greater detail, and even what they think this should mean as far as the direction of the game's development. Weather you have a short comment as to why, or a great manifesto for your vision for the game in this area I think it would be good to have.

My goal here isn't to have one "side" of this debate win or loose, but to hopefully through information and discussion create a general consensus as to what this means, and/or reach a solution or compromise that can satisfy everyone. I thoroughly enjoy this game and believe it has a lot of potential, and appreciate the community I see here around it. I don't just want people so see how many people like one idea or another, but why they like that idea, and what they think that looks like or even how they believe we should get there. We have a lot of really smart people here, and I think together we can make a solution that makes this the best game possible.

[Chriss]

I'd like to throw the Goo species from Grey Goo into the mix. Have a look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOGlrDkYI-s please. I like the no base but mothership like idea, which is really different and seems to work nicely for that game. Maybe we can do something like this for a really different species?

[labgnome]

I'd like to throw the Goo species from Grey Goo into the mix. Have a look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOGlrDkYI-s please. I like the no base but mothership like idea, which is really different and seems to work nicely for that game. Maybe we can do something like this for a really different species?

From looking at the species.txt file it looks like some of the species had this trait but it was taken out. I don't know if it was because it was just unbalanced, or if it just didn't make sense for species to be colonizers but not ship-builders or some other reason.

Though as far as making different species different experiences what would that do, besides more colonizers?

[Chriss]

That's not the point. There was some talk about other production and research centers than colonies. Basically the point of the Goo is that they do not have a base. They do not have buildings. They just have their Mothers, which can move. Here, it would be something like a Mothership, or a Generation Ship instead of a colony. Something like a species which can move their colonies. Or not have colonies in the classic sense at all. That would be different for me. Really different. I don't know how easy that would be to actually implement and whether or not it would be fun to play in that style. I just like the Goo.

[labgnome]

That's not the point. There was some talk about other production and research centers than colonies. Basically the point of the Goo is that they do not have a base. They do not have buildings. They just have their Mothers, which can move. Here, it would be something like a Mothership, or a Generation Ship instead of a colony. Something like a species which can move their colonies. Or not have colonies in the classic sense at all. That would be different for me. Really different. I don't know how easy that would be to actually implement and whether or not it would be fun to play in that style. I just like the Goo.

Well we already have a technically grey-goo type of species, as a conquerable native called Beige Goo. There has also been talks of "nomadic" species that would work like what you are describing. It sounds like an interesting play experience, and certainly distinct. But I also don't know how implementabel it would be. This might be a good species idea for that board though.

[Vezzra]

I don't know how easy that would be to actually implement

AFAIK the planet/colonies/resourcecenter/popcenter code has already been designed and implemented with this idea in mind. It's probably not exactly a piece of cake, but the codebase is prepared for that.

I think by far the most work will be needed to get the AI handle this kind of species...

[Dilvish]

AFAIK the planet/colonies/resourcecenter/popcenter code has already been designed and implemented with this idea in mind. It's probably not exactly a piece of cake, but the codebase is prepared for that. I think by far the most work will be needed to get the AI handle this kind of species...

The primary planet/resourcecenter/popcenter classes were prepared with this in mind, but there are still (I'm pretty sure) a great many other places both in the content scripts and C++ code (including human client UI, ValueRefs etc.,) where it is currently assumed that the only popcenters/resourcecenters are planets. So, I don't think there is much, if any, true restructuring of the main engine needed, but I think there would be a fair bit of cleanup required in many places, not just the AI.

[labgnome]

I suppose that after letting this sit for a bit, it's as good a time a any to put out what I'd like to see.

I'm in the camp of making things different over better or worse, or at least making them different first. While this game is very enjoyable, it's also very obviously a work in progress. From that perspective I think that the first priority should be to try to get as much of the game balanced a possible. Also we don't seem to have to clear of an idea of what "balanced" even really means yet. Trying to put specialists in (as anything above flavor) this early could be a bad idea, the Egassem, for example seem to be woefully difficult, though characteristics like "ultimate production" might make them seem like good specialists. Though I haven't played them yet, the Trith also seem to be unbalanced, but in the other direction. Trying to make everyone specialists at this point probably isn't a good idea. Also I'm reminded of the phrase "if everyone's a special snowflake, then no-one's a special snowflake", so if we eventually make everyone into a specialist, then being a specialist at something isn't special anymore.

One of the few thing there seems to be a general consensus on is that the game isn't balanced in a number of areas. The playable species aren't balanced against each other. The native species available aren't balanced. The different ship lines aren't balanced. So before we even ca really know what a FO "specialist" is supposed to be we need to actually create an "average" for that species to be properly specialized with respect to.

This is where my preference for "different" over "better/worse" comes in. Poorly created balance can often make a game where the choice of species/faction/nation, or even subsequent choices like research focus can be largely irrelevant. However choices should matter, not just in a victory vs. defeat kind of way, but in a way that makes the gameplay experience qualitatively different, not jut quantitatively different. Each initial choice, should be balanced so that your tarting point doesn't give you an easier or harder path to victory, but might make you have to choose a different one. Preferably all the available victory options should at least be plausibly possible for all the playable species, even if more or less challenging. The different options should make the game "feel" different, so when I play Cray one game and George another I should feel like it's a different experience. Right now the biggest difference to "feel" is what the kind of planet your species prefers looks like. While the idea of native species being an inherently "bad grab" is nice for getting the player to be tactical about invasions, the idea of playable species being a "bad grab" is a bad one. Picking a "bad grab" playable species just makes trying to get though the game frustrating, especially as a newcomer. Likewise, picking an overly good species off the bat can create a sense of false expectations when playing the others.

This is where I think things like tying bonuses to things like ship-lines to metabolism types could give the game more of a different feel. Your choice of metabolism type would determine what kind of fleet is easier for you to build, and thus the look and tactics of your fleet. Likewise to breaking up the growth technologies along metabolism lines would mean that you would have to focus your research, and the benefit would only be distributed across the species of your empire with that metabolism. If this is implemented, there should be some semblance of balance between the metabolism types, at least as far as diversity of natives, and particularly between the organic, robotic and lithic species for their growth specials. Otherwise these changes would mean that some species researching along the line for their own metabolism type would actually be a disadvantage, which it really shouldn't be. Ultimately I think it would be good for all qualitative species traits to be tied to more in-game examples like ships, buildings, parts and techs.

This focus on metabolism type for game-flavor makes sense to me, because they seem to be set up to be broad categories of the "type" of species in the game universe. Similar species should feel at least a little similar and different species should feel noticeably different. From a "story" perspective not only should species that prefer different planets be living on different worlds, but radically different kinds of species should essentially be living in different worlds. A living mineral's sensory crystals should work different than the sensory organs of a biological creature, the sensors of a robot or whatever an energy life-form would use, and the same for their tool-using appendages. This should make different things easier, or harder for them to do, while also meaning that they would adapt those particular things to be optimized for them.

I do have ideas for where specialization could play an important role further down the road. Perhaps at some point the empire-building species you have access to are also determined by difficulty level. So "easy" or "beginner" give you access to powerful, easy to play species with good bonuses and few maluses. A "moderate" level of difficulty would give you access to still good, but not great species, most of whom are probably at least a little generalized, so later in the game if you have to change your strategy it's still possible. Then "hard" or "expert" difficulty would give you access to challenging to play (strong maluses, few bonuses) and/or highly specialized species (IE: they are probably built for only one victory condition, and not any others). This way unprepared players probably won't stumble into trying to play a species that's probably only manageable for someone who' an expert at 4X games, strategy or even just FO, and people who are expert are or enjoy challenges can have them.

[Dilvish]

Trying to put specialists in (as anything above flavor) this early could be a bad idea, the Egassem, for example seem to be woefully difficult, though characteristics like "ultimate production" might make them seem like good specialists.

Playing without natives will make a specialist much more difficult, but at least with natives the Egassem don't seem super tough to me, just play to their strengths. But even accepting arguendo the POV that they are very difficult to play, I don't at all see how that leads to the conclusion that no specialists should be in the game, or even to the much more limited conclusion that the Egassem should not be as they are. Not every playstyle needs to have the same level of ease.

Trying to make everyone specialists at this point probably isn't a good idea.

I agree with this statement, even without the phrase, "at this point". I wasn't even aware of anyone contemplating such a thing.

so if we eventually make everyone into a specialist, then being a specialist at something isn't special anymore.

Hmm, well I don't think you need to worry about all species being made specialists, but for those that are, the point is generally not to be 'special', but simply to be different in a meaningful way, as you note you like (as do most of us).

The ... species aren't balanced against each other... So before we even ca really know what a FO "specialist" is supposed to be we need to actually create an "average" for that species to be properly specialized with respect to.

There is already a very clear definition of "average", and the human species is one example of that (except of course, we have "style" ). I think the challenges with balance do not really stem from difficulty in recognizing specialties.

This is where my preference for "different" over "better/worse" comes in.

With the understanding that a preference for "different" does not need to exclude some aspects or even the gestalt having some degree of "better/worse" then I expect this preference would very broadly held. But if we restricted ourselves to differences that inarguably have no individual aspects better or worse, then I think the set of available differences would be much less interesting.

However choices should matter

Yes. I kind of think that is one of our design tenets.

in a way that makes the gameplay experience qualitatively different, not jut quantitatively different.

So that a qualitatively different experience is available, yes. But of course, there are many, many individual choices that will inescapably come down to simple quantitative difference. It sounds like you want to have a class of decisions, such as starting species choice, that are devoid of any hint of quantitative difference, but I'm not following your chain of reasoning.

Each initial choice, should be balanced so that your tarting point doesn't give you an easier or harder path to victory, but might make you have to choose a different one.

I will do my best to accept it could be a reasonable preference to prefer that all starting points have the same ease of path to victory. But I will firmly assert that has to be recognized as a preference, and is not a broad statement of objective truth. I'm also pretty sure that this is *not* one of our design tenets, and I'm not seeing any argument I find persuasive to adopt it.

Preferably all the available victory options should at least be plausibly possible for all the playable species, even if more or less challenging.

If that were taken as a soft preference, or rather perhaps "all" ==> "most", as in some exceptions could be allowed, then yes, I think that would be broadly shared. I also think it's true for all current species. A very important thing to keep in mind is that the player's empire is not perpetually characterized by its starting species, except in a solo game with no AIs and no natives. I think the dev team is much more interested in figuring out good ways to have early game decisions such as starting species have more long lasting effects than they currently do, not so much in how to remove current differences.

The different options should make the game "feel" different, so when I play Cray one game and George another I should feel like it's a different experience. Right now the biggest difference to "feel" is what the kind of planet your species prefers looks like.

For some A:B species comparisons planet preference might indeed be the only difference, and that's fine for at least some portion of those matchups. If (ignoring planet preferences) you find Cray and George to be too alike, yet want to avoid more heavily specialized species, then I find myself truly confused.

the idea of playable species being a "bad grab" is a bad one. Picking a "bad grab" playable species just makes trying to get though the game frustrating, especially as a newcomer.

I can understand that could be frustrating to a newcomer. My strong preference would instead be a solution along the lines of noting at the beginning of the respective species description that the species is generally regarded as more difficult (or easy, as the case may be) as a starting empire species, with perhaps some suggestion of the reason why.

[MatGB]

I quite like the idea of a note in the species descriptions actually, never been 100% keen on a blunt edged "difficulty" setting for this game, but makign it more obvious what each of the choices means to a newer player is definitely a good one.

I definitely like having specialist species, but some are harder to play than they need to be, in some cases because they need more work, in others because there are some glitches with the way the code works (Trith can be incredibly powerful but there are some issues surrounding habitability, Egassem's Ultimate Industry bonus currently only applies to their base production and not after bonuses, which is sub optimal).

The other issue is that the choice of a player to pick a species that suits a specific strategy isn't something that, currently, the AI is good at, I'm doing some work to balance off the way the Laenfa work, but that involves weakening them a bit if AI controlled until/unless Dilvish then makes some changes, but potentially strengthens them in the hands of a human, for example. We keep tweaking Egassem (their supply bonus is new) but we'll need to do a more general revamp in part to ensure that they genuinely are different.

For what it's worth, I find the difference between Cray and George in gameplay to be quite substantial, but it does of course make a difference depending on how you want to win (my warfleets are always mighty and my grasp all encompassing )