Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The critical mass problem

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The critical mass problem

    One of the problems in most strategy games is the later stages where you KNOW you've won but you have to mop up.

    We try to avoid that sort of thing in GalCiv through a variety of mechanisms. But no mechanism is as straight forward as common sense.

    In most strategy games, the AI opponents tend to gang up on whoever is winning. Hence, if you're winning the game, even your closest friends will slowly move away from you.

    Nothing causes critical mass problems more than that. And it is, IMO, a very very BAD game mechanic. In the real world, it works the opposite. The more powerful you are, the more other governments will tend to want to get along with you. Sure, they may snipe at you or whatever but they're not likely to go to war with you.

    GalCiv works along those lines. If you are winning the game, your friends remain your friends. In fact, they may want to move beyond friends and become your allies.

    As a result, mop up usually is a minor thing in the game because AI civilizations who are hopelessly outgunned will beg for mercy and want to eventually become your ally even. Failing that, they'll surrender outright.

    But as we were playing this week, it really became apparent just how much of a problem it is when AI designers decide to have relations based on inverse power -- i.e. everyone wanting to gang up on who is most powerful. If game designers would just not do this, much of the issues with critical mass would go away.

  • #2
    Read this

    Comment


    • #3
      I dunno. While there's a problem with critical mass, Roeynold's solution - punish the leader, help the laggard - isn't really what I'd like to see in a 4x game, which is all about becoming the leader, after all. Perhaps MP game balance requires it, but a game like GalCiv, being exclusively SP, can do better: acknowledge a victory and get on with it.
      "The number of political murders was a little under one million (800,000 - 900,000)." - chegitz guevara on the history of the USSR.
      "I think the real figures probably are about a million or less." - David Irving on the number of Holocaust victims.

      Comment


      • #4
        He deals with these concepts, in the last two paragraphs of 'Steady Progess'

        Comment


        • #5
          But... SP games need challenge.

          The critical component of the game remaining fun, is the maintainance of that challenge...

          Diminishing the elastic rewards/penalties that keep things close longer ultimately hurt competitiveness and ultimately diminish the fun gained.

          Games differ from reality in that their purpose is the enjoyment of those that hold the strings... not slavish devotion to 'reality'.

          Not that there's anything wrong with realism... just that it should take a back seat to fun... when it comes to games.

          MrBaggins

          Comment


          • #6
            As I see it, Reynolds and Wardell want essentially the same thing: To make a fun game. They just approach the thing differently. Reynolds' method would probably tend to prolong the game, wheread Wardell's method would tend to finish the game early. Nothing wrong with either method.

            Asmodean
            Im not sure what Baruk Khazad is , but if they speak Judeo-Dwarvish, that would be "blessed are the dwarves" - lord of the mark

            Comment


            • #7
              Well put.

              I don't agree with the "punish the leader" system taken to the nTH degree.

              If all the other players combined are much more powerful than the leader, then yes, they should see about thwarting the leader -- to an extent. If someone is allied with you or already has very close relations with you then they should remain loyal.

              But if all the players combined cannot even come close to the human player, then it's over.

              The AI *should* know when it's hopeless.

              Example from today's game:

              Comment


              • #8
                Incidentally, I wonder what the statistics are on someone FINISHING a Civ game via conquest on a very large map.

                In GalCiv, the gigantic galaxy size is 240 moves by 240 moves. That's a HUGE map to deal with.

                I can't imagine how it would be "fun" to control 90% of the map and realize that you have to mop up for another 2 or 3 hours when victory is completely inevitable.

                Now, if you only control say 40% of the map and each of the other 5 players only control 12% then that's a different story. Each of them could work to try to thwart you if they're not already allied to you or very close friends to you.

                The scenario that I personally have a problem with is where you control 40% of the map and are allied to 3 of the players who control an additional 30% when combined (70%) and then for no apparent reason they a) break their alliances with you and b) eventually go to war. No way. That's ridiculous. It completely undermines those who want to be the master diplomat.

                If I'm at 40% of the map and the other guys are all neutral to me, then they can and will conspire against you. Similarly they will conspire WITH you against someone else if they're in the same situation.

                But when someone controls 90% of the map it's over. It's time to reward the player and expidate the end of the game so that they can move on to other challenges.

                Comment


                • #9
                  True... but *EVERY* effort should be made to ensure that the situation doesn't get to that point... THAT is Brian Reynolds point...

                  He actually pointed out that the game should end instantly... at the moment that victory was assured... or defeat certain.

                  Delay... and continuation of a viable challenge, is desirable, if the game experience is enhanced by late game technologies or situations.

                  If the late game technologies, are just same-ish... then I guess it doesn't really matter.

                  Since modern techs make for such different war possibilities... in an 'Earth-like' technology situation, you should want to stretch the game out.

                  MrBaggins

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Are you suggesting that Civilization 1, 2, or 3 (particularly 2) don't have serious critical mass issues?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      yes... they obviously do.

                      ICS reigns supreme, and at the other end... and at the other end, large 'cities' are positive-feedback loops.

                      I'm fixing this... in a game engine that allows the game defects to be fixed.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        He actually pointed out that the game should end instantly... at the moment that victory was assured... or defeat certain.
                        I don't believe I'd want my game to end just because the AI feels I can't win. I'm not through until I see the transports screaming through the atmosphere of my last system.

                        I'm glad Stardock is addressing the critical mass issue and feel they've taken a good approach to it. I've never played Civ, but in MOO it got very tiresome MMing hundreds of planets trying to find that last colony ship the Darlocks sent to BFE right before I slagged their last planet.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I don't believe I'd want my game to end just because the AI feels I can't win. I'm not through until I see the transports screaming through the atmosphere of my last system.
                          That should be achieved by them massively ganging up on you, and giving you no quarter... as you fight to your last man... *smiles*

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            The big difference between the approaches lies in the effects on gameplay:
                            By thwarting every player's moves when they become stronger and promoting ganging up against a leader, you make it very hard for someone to ally themselves with someone else, and thus promote more war-like behaviour. That, IMO, limits the number of options. In contrast to Reynold's approach, GalCiv promotes various ways to win. I doubt they could do it with a "punishing leadership" route. In particular becasue you may want to lead in one area and leave the others undevelopped, but if you are penalized for being leader in a single area (like tech in civ), then what's the point in specializing?
                            I feel punishing the best means punishing good gameplay. Games should provide challenges by providing choices. Additional choices mean you can't lead in all areas at once. If you do and have contact with all opponents, then you have won and the game should be over soon. ICS is a problem here in fact because it allows to increase every area of the game (population, trade and production all at once for little cost). Big cities are less of an asset if confronted to a good opponent, because you would face pillaging which effectively destroys the city effectiveness.
                            Clash of Civilization team member
                            (a civ-like game whose goal is low micromanagement and good AI)
                            web site http://clash.apolyton.net/frame/index.shtml and forum here on apolyton)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              harry: The human player can play to the bitter end. But the computer players will generally resign if they think it's hopeless. Or more to the point, they surrender to a player.

                              They may surrender TO you or if there's someone they think has a chance to defeat the leader they'll surrender to the toughest opposition to try to strengthen them.

                              But what you don't usually have to deal with is the scenario where you control 300 planets and your opponents control a dozen across the galaxy.

                              When the player has won, the game should acknowledge that. Not just because it moves things forward more quickly but because it's fun to see computer players say things like "You've crushed our civilization, we beg for mercy and surrender to you and your greatness!"

                              We want groveling!

                              Or as the Torians so meekly put it when you talk to them in situations like the above:

                              "I don't feel I'm even worthy to speak to such great and powerful beings. But I will try my best. How may we humbly serve you?"

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X