Prolonging interest

[Inkling]

....

2. Is there a rubber band mechanic that we could apply as a game option?

3. Is this an area we could base events on, to give winning players the choice to accept an in game challenge?
....

Kael, I am very, very pleased to see you seem to be approaching this as an option, a choice. I implore you whatever design decission you make, please keep it that way, as a choice or option.

In all the games i've played i have never, ever seen a rubber banding mechanic that did anything more than aggrevate, unless it was to absolutely ruin the game.

also i would like to point out that a number of points above your enemy, doesn't neccessarily mean you are significantly stronger. you can accrue a high score in a variety of ways that don't denote a real advantage. controlling worthless territory, or strategicly worthless wonders. etc.
I have played many vanilla games,(bare in mind, i'm not that good) where i have had a significant point total over my rivals and yet were they to turn on me i'd likely be toast.
It might for some of you denote a huge advantage, but bare in mind you are also likely better at the game than many of us, going for only the most strategicly valueable options and thereby not inflating your score with useless points, like i often do.

if such a point gap trigger were used, i suggest you might want to make it relative to the difficulty level, perhaps depending on what it actually triggers.

 

[xienwolf]

The game keeps graphs of power score, culture score and a bunch of other things... can we make the difference between 1st and 2nd place in each of these scores have their own "Horseriders of the AC?"

So if your score in Military Might outweighs your nearest opponent by 50/75/150/200% then it will either spawn some big bad Barbarians to harass you, grant 2nd place a horde of no military upkeep units appropriate for YOUR (not his) current tech development, or automatically forge an alliance between 2nd place and various other Civilizations (at 50% him the lowest score sharing his religion, at 75% all of his religion, at 150% add all of his alignment, and at 200% everybody).

And if your culture score was up by certain percentages over 2nd place (probably the same), events can trigger like Barbarian Cities gifting themselves to the 2nd place guy, automatic Golden Ages for all opponents, free Great Bards or culture generating buildings granted in numerous cities. Can still gow with the idea that some Barbarian big-bad units spawn and attack 1st place too.

Pretty sure that something appropriate could be done for each of the scores which it tracks, I just can't remember which all it does (GNP? Tech Development?).

 

[CMHistory]

I don't know, Xien...some of your suggestions there seem pretty arbitrary. I'm in favor of solutions that come from within the normal functions of the game (Civilizations below you putting their differences aside to combine in a Permanent Alliance to defeat you, etc), as opposed to giving out free Golden Ages to civs that didn't do anything to earn them besides lose.

It just feels too high-handed to try to extend interest in the game that way. If the other civs team up on you to beat you down, I can accept that (assuming the AV and Order civs aren't PAing to bring you down, but combinations within the bonds of reason) and even encourage it.

Alternately, could High AC events be targeted more towards the player than the AI civs? The rationale being that the player is probably the most responsible for either driving up the score, or NOT driving it down when he/she had the chance. "From him to whom much is given, much is expected", and all that. Players deal with it better, anyway, and it would give the AI a chance to play some catch up while you work at clean up.

Just some thoughts...

 

[25Hour]

I like the PA and switching civ ideas; those would definitely make the endgame more interesting. Especially if the switching civs one became a victory condition-- I'd love to see that.

I also like the idea of surviving armageddon and defeating the avatar of wrath. However, I think that the avatar of wrath and his associated hordes should get an earthly ally in one of the strong existing civilizations. That way, the game wouldn't devolve into a long hunt for a single unit-- the player would have a big, obvious target to go for. The victory condition could be to destroy the civilization's heavily fortified capital (or something) before getting torn apart by the demonic hordes.

With the idea of a negative diplomatic modifier for the high score, it seems like a bit more might be needed to give the penalty teeth-- if I understand the game correctly, even civilizations that HATE you won't declare war if their military isn't up for it, which is pretty likely if you're the top score.

 

[clut]

here's an idea...

It's often bugged me that it never seems to be explained is what happens after you've won. You win the game, but does this mean you then effectively own the world??? do you crush all other civs, or simply rule them, or enslave them or what?

How about when you've got a large score lead... large enough to assume victory, there is a chance of a WORLD EVENT occuring. This world event would be a threat to every civ on the planet.
One possible scenario is the following:
A number of fractures appear on the map, which act like late game lairs from which units of a new civ appear. This civ has a bunch of insanely strong units and declares immediate war on ALL existing civs.

Fractures could continue to open and close at any location on the map over a period of time. This means the threat is continually shifting, and therefore a threat to all civs as the enemy units would most probably attack one of the closest cities to where they have appeared.

As the score leader, you are voted to lead the defense. All current wars cease and all civs gift a number (%?) of their units to you, plus they give you an amount of gold per turn (the amount will depend on the civ). As you effectively own the world, you are charged with defending the world from the new threat.

Victory could be awarded based on a number of targets....

1) Don't allow more than X cities (anyones cities) to fall to the enemy.
2) Don't allow a single civ (or X number of) to be wiped out by the enemy.
3) Don't allow a single capitol city to be destroyed.

I'm sure there are other criteria that could be defined to determine a win or a lose.


The basic idea behind this is not to penalise the player for doing well, or to aid the AI for doing badly, but rather to reward the player by giving them another task, and more responsibility once they've proved they are worthy of it.

 

[Caradoc]

If "you" means the leader, then the idea of taking over another civilization appeals to me. (We already have Mercurian and Hyboreum options.) Perhaps in an event the leader is exiled and you have the option of relocating or enduring prolonged unrest. For a new victory condition, destroy your original civilization.

 

[Toryn]

I really like the idea of an outside challenge arising..

MOO2 had the Antarans who were a high tech faction that made periodic strikes against the player that gradually increased in intensity and threat. This was great as their tech level was incredibly high...but they were low in numbers. Towards the end of the game when you had already won it was an interesting challenge to pit your empire against the Antarans to see how you 'really stacked up'.

I liked that about MoO2 and I think it would play well with FFH2. I'm not such a fan of switching empires midgame as I've spent the last couple hundred turns building something up...I want to test what I've made and see how it does in a struggle with the satisfaction of watching it succeed or fail. Watching the AI mismanage and lose a great empire is only heartbreaking...not entertaining.

For me, an external late game threat is best. Perhaps integrate armageddon a little better?

 

[Inkling]

I really like the idea of an outside challenge arising..

MOO2 had the Antarans who were a high tech faction that made periodic strikes against the player that gradually increased in intensity and threat. This was great as their tech level was incredibly high...but they were low in numbers. Towards the end of the game when you had already won it was an interesting challenge to pit your empire against the Antarans to see how you 'really stacked up'.

I liked that about MoO2 and I think it would play well with FFH2. I'm not such a fan of switching empires midgame as I've spent the last couple hundred turns building something up...I want to test what I've made and see how it does in a struggle with the satisfaction of watching it succeed or fail. Watching the AI mismanage and lose a great empire is only heartbreaking...not entertaining.

For me, an external late game threat is best. Perhaps integrate armageddon a little better?

under the category of rubber banding never works, i feel compelled to point out

the antareans in masters of orion attacked indiscriminitely, if you had more territory you were more likely to be attacked, but it was just as likely your enemies would be crippled or wiped out by them. The raiders dispatched were not only easily dealt with, they were also easily exploited. focus on boarding parties and troop combat technologies and you could sieze a few of these raiders, reverse engineer them, and have an enourmous technological boost. sure some selfdestructed when you captured them, but you generally got a couple. i usually found myself wanting to be attacked by the antareans, not fearing them.

i bring it up to point out that such a mechanic is likely going to be easily countered by the more experienced and adaptable players who are doing to the complaining. It will work the first time maybe, and then they'll likely figure it out, and prepare for it, and you will be back to square one.

 

[Roghar]

Its true that you normally have to work really hard to get in front, and once you are there its too easy. However, the main problem I have is that once you reach that point it still takes hours to actually win, resulting in hours of meaningless gameplay to actually complete a game

I don’t believe in rubber band effects, in any strategy game the main thing that stops the leader from dominating is that everyone else gangs up on them. This happens to some extent in civ but the AI is normally a bit too daft to do this effectively. Any improvements in AI will I think change the current situation – essentially as soon as you are enough ahead to get past the difficulty level penalties, its all over as you are a much better player than the AI.

As an aside, civ does have some in0-built rubber band mechanics. The maintenance costs fo an expanding empire make you less efficient, and limits on heroes and national units mean that for the most part your army strength is not in hordes but in a small number of units. If the AI learnt to accumulate and use those well, the game would stay balanced for a lot longer

 

[Willgar]

maybe instead of convoluted ways to make the end game harder - why not make it easier to win with a victory condition that allows you to win when you have a dominant position or through the completion of a quest only available to the top ranking player.

If i do well, through good strategy in the early game - i dont want some random event to either drag the envitable victory out even longer or worse, snatch victory from me in an unfair way. I agree the end game can drag sometimes, but i personally think that making "gamey" events to retain interest is a stop gap solution ahead of an AI upgrade.

Maybe better to save the effort and just get to the AI upgrade?

 

[clut]

I really like the idea of an outside challenge arising..

For me, an external late game threat is best. Perhaps integrate armageddon a little better?

I agree, maybe it could be tied in with the AC, although they'd have to find some way of balancing it with the score gap. For example, a player could have built a large builder style empire and be winning in points without any warring, therefore the AC would likely be low still, however We'd still need a world event to be triggered due to the score gap.

Maybe the AC counter could be used to determine whether the infernals join with the new threat (high AC means they do). I'm sure there are other ways to have the AC effect the event. In fact this would help the make the event less predicatable, or at least less repetative.

 

[Tarquelne]

I don’t believe in rubber band effects, in any strategy game the main thing that stops the leader from dominating is that everyone else gangs up on them. This happens to some extent in civ but the AI is normally a bit too daft to do this effectively.

Well, if the AI wasn't basically daft we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.

But I agree with you, in that I think any rubber band mechanism should be unobtrusive. It should flow directly from the setting or gameplay. The AIs ganging up on the leader may or may not be too obtrusive, depending on how much they seem to be jeopardizing their own post-game chances. Not a problem in a completely abstract game. In civ, where we might assume the winning civ doesn't automatically wipe out all the losers, it can be a problem. In FFH2, though, a fight-to-the-last-angel-or-demon fits.

So, for example, while "Cheating Angels" would be horribly obtrusive in most games - deus ex machina - it might work for FFH2.

Maybe the best way to go about this is to think of features that'd be welcome on their own merits but that also, as it happens, act as rubber band mechanics. The switch-civs thing is an excellent example of that. Judged merely as a way to make the game more difficult it'd be horribly obtrusive. But it's also an interesting feature completely apart from it's role as victory-postponer.

Though, come to think of it, I'd rather switch to a civ on the same "side" - religion? alignment? - as the one I left. That'd make my efforts on the new civ's behalf part more of a continuation of the same struggle.

 

[Bad Player]

Your talking about a "rubber band" mechanic. Its a hard subject to brooch because it punishes players for playing well. Whats the point of takign the risk and doing the work to take the lead if the game comes back and punishes you for it?

A few things to consider (I dont know the answer but id be interested to hear what your ideas are):

1. Is there a way to change the handicaps so that they arent so punishing in the begining but provide a bigger threat later in the game?

2. Is there a rubber band mechanic that we could apply as a game option?

3. Is this an area we could base events on, to give winning players the choice to accept an in game challenge?

4. Are there some flavorful victory conditions that could provide a new challenge for players that have mastered the normal game?


As an example of the 3rd I have been thinking about an event where, if you are the highesst ranked player, you get approcahed by the lowest ranked civilization and asked to lead them. To do so you abandon your civilization and from that point on you play the loser civ, trying to bring them back.

As to question 4 I have been thinking that if we put that former event in we could force it to trigger in certain conditions (if you are the lead player and such) and the victory condition would be that you would have to take over the loser civ and raise them to be the most powerful 3 times (or whatever).

Maybe the lower ranked civs could band together to take down an upper ranked civ if they were to get too far behind. Perhaps even some kind of formal alliance but probably just a "look we're going to die unless we join forces and take down one of the big guys" cooperation.

This would work if a human is in the lead (or even 2nd or 3rd) or if an AI is in the lead. This means that there is no AI cheating going on AND it provides a late game challenge.


P.S. Make it more likely to happen if the civs teaming up are of the same alignment.

 

[Nikis-Knight]

Actually, I have doubts about the popularity of this civ switch event feature--not wanting to abandon the current civ was why several people said they didn't care for the mercurians & infernals last time there was a poll.
But so long as the event has a 'no' option, no reason not to try it out.

 

[Kael]

Actually, I have doubts about the popularity of this civ switch event feature--not wanting to abandon the current civ was why several people said they didn't care for the mercurians & infernals last time there was a poll.
But so long as the event has a 'no' option, no reason not to try it out.

Yeap, it definitly gives the option to not do it (with warning that you will be abandoning rulership of your current civ).

 

[Mortenart]

How about when you've got a large score lead... large enough to assume victory, there is a chance of a WORLD EVENT occuring. This world event would be a threat to every civ on the planet.
One possible scenario is the following:
A number of fractures appear on the map, which act like late game lairs from which units of a new civ appear. This civ has a bunch of insanely strong units and declares immediate war on ALL existing civs.

This is similar to the idea I had, and think it would be an excellent soultion to the `end game conqueror doldrums`. Once you reached a certain number of points ahead of your nearest rival, an end-game scenario could trigger, which could take the form of one of a number of different challenges. One could be similar to clut`s idea, but you could have others such as your populace beginning to lose faith in your leadership or your religion, leading to a schism in your Civilisation that could rip it in two. You would then probably be behind 2 or 3 of your rivals in terms of points, and have to face the rigours of a civil war whilst attempting to fend off the circling vultures of the other Civs. There could be several other scenarios, which would help to avoid repetition and knowing exactly was going to happen in the end game, and thus being able to prepare for it too easily and effectively.

I do think that something like this is needed, as I rarely finish a game due to running out of techs to discover and/or overpowering the other Civs. With each different scenario that is triggered in the end game, a different set of new techs could be unlocked, which could either be related to the scenario that was triggered, or, again, random. Some scenarios would introduce new enemies, some would simply bring new challenges, be they environmental, cultural, or just plain surreal (ancient sea creatures rising from the waters to reclaim their once-blue realm!)

 

[clut]

Mortenart,

I like the direction you are going in, however it would need to be an option that you could turn on or off. I'd hate to see my civ get torn in two just because I was doing well.
If I understood that might happen IF I'm doing too well, to prolong the challenge then I'd be happy.

I'm only saying that because people will complain about being penalised for winning. If it's an option then you set it yourself knowing it (or more accurately, something) can happen then people can use/not use it at will.

 

[clut]

Whilst we don't have any details yet (correct me if I'm wrong), we shouldn't forget that quests are going to be a part of FfH.

One idea would be to scale the rewards of the quest with the civ's score. For example... If you have the highest score, and complete a quest then you are justly rewarded. However, if one of the bottom scoring civs completes the quest then maybe their reward is somehow increased, like an 'against the odds bonus'.

Of course, this would also apply if the player had a low score, they would get a higher reware than if the AI finished the quest.

This would obviously have to be balanced to make it still worthwhile doing the quest if you're winning, and not overpowering if you complete the quest whilst scoring low.


This system would not penalise the leader for having a high score as they would still recieve the quest reward, AND this system would not unfairly assist a low scoring civ for completing the quest as you'd imagine a low scoring civ would be less likely to complete it (less units, gold, territory and resources to dedicate to the quest). Therefore the greater reward for a lower civ will be deserved.

 

[Mortenart]

Mortenart,

I like the direction you are going in, however it would need to be an option that you could turn on or off. I'd hate to see my civ get torn in two just because I was doing well.
If I understood that might happen IF I'm doing too well, to prolong the challenge then I'd be happy.

Yes, I agree, it would need to be an optional thing to be included or excluded at the beginning of the game, or at least be a very small chance for something like civil war. The possibility that it could happen would certainly keep you on your toes though!

 

[Mailbox]

Adding a lot of the Revolution mod's mechanics in would be a very interesting addition to FfH2. I had wanted to do this at some point in the future, but it's a lot of work to have to redo every time the team releases a new version, so I was going to wait until v1.00 or something was released.