Old World designer notes #11: Soren Johnson on the game end

[The_J]

Soren Johnson has again published a blog post about the development work in Old World, this time about the end of the game. He describes the thoughts which went into the ambition system, the relationship to a role-playing AI, and how to make esmach game more dynamic and unique.

An excerpt:

Of course, one might ask, wouldn’t the player lose if the AI fulfills their ten ambitions first? Well, they would if the AI actually got ambitions, but I knew that would be a mistake. One of the other problems with specialized victory conditions is that because they either measure internal progress (cultural or scientific victory) or something orthogonal to most of the game (religious or even diplomatic victory), an AI victory can come as a sudden surprise. I was sure of one thing above all – a surprise ending to a 20-hour 4X game is not a good ending. Without ambition victories, the AI would clearly be playing a different game from the human, which meant that Old World would be an asymmetrical game. In reality, it just meant that we were admitting that the game was asymmetrical because there is no such thing as a symmetrical 4X game. The genre likes to pretend that it’s symmetrical, like chess or most board games, but a single-player 4X always orbits the human.

Read the whole blog post here: https://www.designer-notes.com/?p=1748

 

[PiR]

I think that post is the one that went the most off-topic with many side-stories to it

 

[The_J]

Yes, the train of thought isn't very straight ^^. Still liked to read it .

 

[steveg700]

Another blog post where I'm not really on the same page.

A game's that ends suddenly after twenty hours is one where the player needed more information as to what's going on outside of his borders. If it's a race, then the player needs to know where he is in the pack. If he's aware he's losing, it's not a surprise when he does. I'm not a fan of Civ's victory conditions, but Civ does at least do an adequate of giving players an idea where they are in the race to victory.

 

[Solver]

Taking that thought further, the issue with "sudden ending" is when you have several players doing internal races. The space victory in Civ is probably the best example. The games do provide good info about what's going on, even Civ1 did, but mechanically the space race is several individual races. Each player researches techs and builds the spaceship independently, they're not fighting over any limited resource. So if someone else is getting close to a space victory, you don't have the option of doing better in a fight for some shared resource, because that doesn't exist. Your options are to just eliminate the opponent, or to speed your own spaceship building up, but that's not really a game mechanic that interacts with the other player. So if another civ wins the space race, it's not suddenly in the sense that the game didn't warn you, but it is something that could happen without you and the other civ even interacting.

Something like the victory points in OW is a different race because most VPs come from shared limited resources - city sites and wonders. If I settle a city and gain VPs, I'm denying that city site and therefore VPs to others.

I don't know what's best, really. I agree with Soren's big picture views most of the time, but have frequently argued against him when it comes to victories. I actually like the Civ victory conditions, mostly. They're not great, but work pretty well for me. Then again, I've always preferred to play Civ in a way where I win in no great hurry, after researching nearly all the tech, I'm not into optimizing for the least amount of turns. Yes, I can win a space victory in standard-speed Civ6 around turn 150, it's thrilling to accomplish but I'll normally have much more fun with a turn 300 victory. Maybe that's why I don't mind how the Civ victories work?

 

[Stalker0]

In general I'm a pretty big fan of the core system as is right now. Ambitions are both fun and create a sense of short term urgency (especially when a leader dies). This is critical for good strategy games, as its the balance of short and long term strategy that really makes such a game great.

That said, I would still recommend some adjustments. I think the 10 ambitions are MUCH easier to win with than victory points, I can often win by Turn 110, which feels too fast. I also think that VP is a bit too focused on conquest and not enough on culture. Would still like to see legendary II, III, etc recieves 2, 3, 4 VP.... aka if you are going really tall with some cities, that should be rewarded with a few extra VP, especially considering how much investment that entails.

I think there is also room for a few more VP options. Perhaps every 5 foreign cities that has your state religion gives you 1 VP. Or perhaps every 5 units at max level. Maybe +1 per law taken (or every 2 or something). That way we round off the economic aspects of the game a touch more.

 

[Solver]

Each extra culture level past Legendary 1 should give an additional VP. A Legendary city is 4 VPs, getting to Legendary II should make it 5 VPs. Is that not the case?

 

[Uberfrog]

I really enjoyed reading this, and I found myself agreeing with pretty much all Soren says.

I know people like the Civ victory conditions, but I’ve really found them to have grown stale. The main problem for me is the endless clicking through to victory. There comes a point when you are clearly ahead, but need to collect X more of whatever victory point you need to end the game. It’s anti-fun and I hate feeling put out by the need to finish a game I had previously been enjoying. The “double victory” and better yet the rather snappy ambition victory in Old World do a good job of avoiding this.

 

[Dale]

Taking that thought further, the issue with "sudden ending" is when you have several players doing internal races. The space victory in Civ is probably the best example. The games do provide good info about what's going on, even Civ1 did, but mechanically the space race is several individual races. Each player researches techs and builds the spaceship independently, they're not fighting over any limited resource. So if someone else is getting close to a space victory, you don't have the option of doing better in a fight for some shared resource, because that doesn't exist. Your options are to just eliminate the opponent, or to speed your own spaceship building up, but that's not really a game mechanic that interacts with the other player. So if another civ wins the space race, it's not suddenly in the sense that the game didn't warn you, but it is something that could happen without you and the other civ even interacting.

Something like the victory points in OW is a different race because most VPs come from shared limited resources - city sites and wonders. If I settle a city and gain VPs, I'm denying that city site and therefore VPs to others.

I don't know what's best, really. I agree with Soren's big picture views most of the time, but have frequently argued against him when it comes to victories. I actually like the Civ victory conditions, mostly. They're not great, but work pretty well for me. Then again, I've always preferred to play Civ in a way where I win in no great hurry, after researching nearly all the tech, I'm not into optimizing for the least amount of turns. Yes, I can win a space victory in standard-speed Civ6 around turn 150, it's thrilling to accomplish but I'll normally have much more fun with a turn 300 victory. Maybe that's why I don't mind how the Civ victories work?

On this we disagree. I agree with Soren that specialised victory breeds specialised play style. Too many games I'd dump because I didn't get some key element, like Eiffel Tower chasing a culture victory.

But I also disagree with Soren locking AI out of ambition hunting.

Ambition should be the victory path, with VP a backup.

 

[steveg700]

I really enjoyed reading this, and I found myself agreeing with pretty much all Soren says.

I know people like the Civ victory conditions, but I’ve really found them to have grown stale. The main problem for me is the endless clicking through to victory. There comes a point when you are clearly ahead, but need to collect X more of whatever victory point you need to end the game. It’s anti-fun and I hate feeling put out by the need to finish a game I had previously been enjoying. The “double victory” and better yet the rather snappy ambition victory in Old World do a good job of avoiding this.

The Old World certainly falls prey to the very same snowball issue, so I'm not sure what Soren or you are talking about. As long as a 4X game is about claiming as much of a map as possible and taking away what others have spent time building, you're talking about a game with snowball factor.

On this we disagree. I agree with Soren that specialised victory breeds specialised play style. Too many games I'd dump because I didn't get some key element, like Eiffel Tower chasing a culture victory.

But I also disagree with Soren locking AI out of ambition hunting.

Ambition should be the victory path, with VP a backup.

Yes, and it's worth underscoring that--unlike the Civ space race that you mention--Old World's ambitions could incorporate competitive component. Multiple leaders could have the ambition to kill 10 units with their leader as general.

 

[Uberfrog]

The Old World certainly falls prey to the very same snowball issue, so I'm not sure what Soren or you are talking about. As long as a 4X game is about claiming as much of a map as possible and taking away what others have spent time building, you're talking about a game with snowball factor.

My point isn’t about the snowball, which I agree is inevitable to some extent, but how long the game forces you to play on when the victory is assured. In Civ 6 this can be a very long time indeed in the case of the Science victory, and in the case of a Culture victory, quite opaque.

I admittedly have only finished a few games of Old World, but the endgame was much less of a chore.

 

[Solver]

Old World doesn't have the perfect solution to snowballing, but sort of sidesteps the issue by having shorter games, so in my experience it feels like less of a snowball. The double victory helps with that, once you've reached the tipping point where you're about to crush everyone, you're supposed to be within arm's reach of a double victory. I feel it generally works - if I'm dominating, I can secure the double just by conquering another city or boosting culture for a bit, or building a wonder. I don't go on for 150 turns with victory assured.

To an extent, the game's character system also provides possible setbacks along the way that feel fair. When a good leader dies, I've certainly had my power decrease temporarily if the new leader was disliked by families and just had mediocre stats. That's another difference from Civ, where it's unusual for you to get weaker even temporarily.

 

[PiR]

To an extent, the game's character system also provides possible setbacks along the way that feel fair. When a good leader dies, I've certainly had my power decrease temporarily if the new leader was disliked by families and just had mediocre stats. That's another difference from Civ, where it's unusual for you to get weaker even temporarily.

Sounds like a "Dark Age" of Civ VI, no?

 

[Solver]

In theory maybe, but the Civ6 dark ages have just a minor penalty that isn't always relevant, and in certain cases it's actually advantageous to enter a dark age, like a Renaissance dark age can be quite powerful.

 

[steveg700]

To an extent, the game's character system also provides possible setbacks along the way that feel fair. When a good leader dies, I've certainly had my power decrease temporarily if the new leader was disliked by families and just had mediocre stats. That's another difference from Civ, where it's unusual for you to get weaker even temporarily.

Sometimes reasonable, sometimes not.

Leaders die, but that's actually a good thing in many ways. If I spent eras playing a game with statesmen, I may find myself in a position where it's time to have a military leader to expand. It's maybe a setback, but it's one of that can be prepped for and even turned into an opportunity.

On the other hands...

The component where at the start of the turn the player will be notified that someone in your line just became Cruel, Drunk, Foolish, or decreased in one of their rankings, that seems completely unattached from any choices the player makes and is just a pointless assignment of penalties that isn't a consequence or an opportunity.

 

[alcaras]

I'm inclined to agree with Solver. If there was transparency as to the AI's progress toward Ambitions (as there is in MP), you would have to react to try to stop them from winning by ambition (by conquering them, presumably -- which might not be to everyone's tastes). Might need to be able to see what ambitions they have.

As is, Ambitions feels drastically easier to win with in Single Player, so I tend to play with it turned off, since I feel that when I win with ambition, the game is just getting going. It also encourages strange non-interactive playstyles where I can just make nice with the AI by buying them off while quietly pursuing an ambition victory. Not sure if Play to Win means the AIs will come after you if you get close to winning via ambition or whether PtW only looks at score -- I've won ambition victories without being anywhere near the top of score.

 

[steveg700]

I'm inclined to agree with Solver. If there was transparency as to the AI's progress toward Ambitions (as there is in MP), you would have to react to try to stop them from winning by ambition (by conquering them, presumably -- which might not be to everyone's tastes). Might need to be able to see what ambitions they have

if you're in a position to conquer your rivals rather than out-compete then in ambitions, then transparency of AI progress is rather moot.

Same conundrum of every 4X game, and why it's bizarre anyone plays a 4X game in MP. There are other games that focus on total war, after all.

 

[PiR]

Surely we can be more creative than just conquest we are not (always) filthy barbarians!
For example, all could try the same ambition. The first who gets it.e.g. build a wonder: will your leader step down for a builder in order to secure the ambition?
Also it could be the highest number of x by y turns. Like a Civ VI world competition.
etc.

 

[steveg700]

Surely we can be more creative than just conquest we are not (always) filthy barbarians!
For example, all could try the same ambition. The first who gets it.e.g. build a wonder: will your leader step down for a builder in order to secure the ambition?
Also it could be the highest number of x by y turns. Like a Civ VI world competition.
etc.

Yes, that's the stuff. Throw some of that into the mix. Now, building a wonder is not one to put in that category, because you lock everyone out as soon as you start the wonder. But having a wonder might be what unlocks a competitive ambition. Or having leaders from the same school (philosoophy, politics, etc). Maybe even a cooperative ambition where all the nations that have a wonder get one ambition and all the ones that haven't have another.

In some ways we are talking about a version of Old World that has undergone some big shifts. The whole design where you have a fixed number of city-sites needs overhaul. The indefinite camping of sites seems to be encouraged. Poaching the capture of cities is a problem in this design as well. Basic design elements wind up with a lot of civ's getting hedged out of the ability to realistically contend for any sort of victory and surviving only at the sufferance of campers and poaches.

 

[PiR]

Now, building a wonder is not one to put in that category, because you lock everyone out as soon as you start the wonder

For my example I meant the first to finish the construction of any wonder, therefore the choice of a builder leader.