In my thread - turn based space combat, we started to discuss about endgame problems. In order to not derail that topic, I'm starting a new thread here.
The problem in end-game is that usually it's just cleaning out the galaxy of every last system/ship of your enemies before you finally get the victory screen.
I suggested an idea of having empires surrender to their allies or enemies, making the end-game quicker, but also potentially longer. The endgame could result in two super-powers just going in circles until one makes a mistake and the other swoop in for the kill.
I like that idea to the extent that it won't fall into the exact opposite; the game would end prematurely if the computer players "think" they are too small to take on a war against you and surrender before time. All would be good if the computer can analyze the size and fleet power of each empire and give it a definitive number for comparison purposes: less than half of the top two would force-surrender to their allies/enemies as you said. That way, until the formula returns true, the game would go on.
The usual solution is to let the player decide when to end the game (100% domination, 80% domination, 60% domination, 50% domination..).
So when a player hold more than a certain treshold of the map than the game ends. How it has worked in the civilization series and Starcraft 2.
(Nov 01, 2011 03:28 AM)Zeraan Wrote: [ -> ]I suggested an idea of having empires surrender to their allies or enemies, making the end-game quicker, but also potentially longer.
I do not think that longer is a problem for 4X players, the real point is to keep it interesting and tense all the time.
An End-of-Times full 'known space' war is always a good way to finish a game with a bang
.
Sometimes I feel that 4X games are an extremely closed world, autoreferential at the extreme.
If you ask how a 4X space game should work nine times out of ten you get the 'like MoO2' answer.
Also the definition of eXplore, eXpand, eXploit and eXterminate has been narrowed in how has been defined before and any attempt to read them in any original ways is frowned upon.
Sometime I think that one of the failing of MoO3, a flawed game that I nonetheless liked a lot, wasthe attempt to add a fifth X (eXperience) and so polluting the canon.
Why exactly the goal of a 4X game should be conquer all the map? Hey, not even Risk limit himself there.
It is a stretch, a violence and I think one of the mayor reason why 4X games fail in the ending part.
Hmm, yeah you have a point there. All 4X games basically have the elements required by default:
Explore for new planets to colonize/conquer
Exterminate the other players
Expand to other planets
Exploit by building stuff
What if we were to remove one of the X element: eXterminate? And we just forget about the victory conditions? It'll become something like a "SimGalaxy" where you try to keep your empire going as long as you can? There would be "disasters" or invaders from other galaxies, stars going nova, etc. There could also be revolts that separate your empire in parts. The goal then will be to see how long your empire lasts in face of all the challenges and problems (starvation, rioting, economy collapses, etc)
You would start off with one planet, ready to conquer the galaxy, but discover that there are more advanced empires already around, and some that haven't yet developed interstellar travel. Or you could run a scenario similar to SimCity's scenarios where your empire are pre-defined and is facing a critical problem.
I guess the victory condition could be something dramatic, maybe having your population transcend into "supreme beings"? This isn't required, but something that you can do to "finish" the game, like building enough acrologies in SimCity 2000 and having them launch into space.
Short version
Lot of time, when I'm going all in to finish the conquering of the known universe, I ask to myself: isn't it strange this acquiescence of the old established empire planets?
Long version :dodgy:
Conquering the universe in not a simple job and surely not one you can do alone.
You need your people on the same page, working hard to let you achieve your goal.
Keeping happy and bloodthirsty a couple of pages of planets seem to be too simple to be true: look around, even the most developed, pacific and rich countries have their share of terrorists/idiots to keep the news alive and compelling.
No goal is ever shared by all the population, no idea exists without someone that dispute it and that is a good, if tiring, thing.
Even in a tiny state like my host country Belgium there are more than one political party who is gunning for secession, imagine what you will have to face managing a far-flung interstellar empire.
What that means in the light of a 4X TB/CT Grand Strategy Space game?
Maybe, just maybe the victory conditions should take a sliver of realism in account. I am well aware that the first point of a game is its playability but a modern one should take steps and inventive solutions to marry playability with a more credible future development.
(Nov 01, 2011 08:36 PM)Skarion Wrote: [ -> ]The usual solution is to let the player decide when to end the game (100% domination, 80% domination, 60% domination, 50% domination..).
So when a player hold more than a certain treshold of the map than the game ends. How it has worked in the civilization series and Starcraft 2.
This.
I'm surprised that more space 4x games don't allow more tweaking of victory conditions. To me, this is a cornerstone of the space 4x game experience. Another option here could be whether to allow player surrender.
(Nov 26, 2011 10:11 AM)Rhob Wrote: [ -> ] (Nov 01, 2011 08:36 PM)Skarion Wrote: [ -> ]The usual solution is to let the player decide when to end the game (100% domination, 80% domination, 60% domination, 50% domination..).
So when a player hold more than a certain treshold of the map than the game ends. How it has worked in the civilization series and Starcraft 2.
This.
I'm surprised that more space 4x games don't allow more tweaking of victory conditions. To me, this is a cornerstone of the space 4x game experience. Another option here could be whether to allow player surrender.
Victory conditions are usually hard-coded into game, so it's not as easy to modify them as say Starcraft 2. In Starcraft 2, you can set pretty much any condition to win (build 1 marine? if so, victory!) with triggers.
While I try to make my game heavily moddable (races, technologies, galaxy shapes, etc), I'm not sure about how to make victory conditions moddable. However, if I do figure out a way, and there's enough demand for it, then I will add that.
My secret (well not so secret anymore) agenda is to have my game surpass the Master of Orion series, but the only way to do so (they're almost perfect already) is to add moddability which MoO series don't have
So I will continually look for ways of improving my game as long as there are interest in it.
(Nov 27, 2011 01:07 PM)Zeraan Wrote: [ -> ]Victory conditions are usually hard-coded into game, so it's not as easy to modify them as say Starcraft 2. In Starcraft 2, you can set pretty much any condition to win (build 1 marine? if so, victory!) with triggers.
Oh, I didn't know Starcraft 2 had that capability. It sounds
really interesting though - basically an extreme form of what I was thinking of.
You're right, of course, that victory conditions are usually hard-coded into games. My point was simply that that makes those games less flexible. I, for one, would like to see more space 4x games with more dynamic victory conditions.
(Nov 27, 2011 01:07 PM)Zeraan Wrote: [ -> ]While I try to make my game heavily moddable (races, technologies, galaxy shapes, etc), I'm not sure about how to make victory conditions moddable. However, if I do figure out a way, and there's enough demand for it, then I will add that.
Sure, that's fine. It's your game, after all.
If your game is turn-based (which I assume it is, from watching your gameplay video - nice work BTW!), then presumably you have code that checks for the victory conditions(s) on each new turn. So it would "just" be a question of making that code more elaborate. Perhaps there could be an object for storing the victory-condition settings, or those could be part of an overall game-settings object. I could even help you code this up, if you'd like.
(Nov 27, 2011 01:07 PM)Zeraan Wrote: [ -> ]My secret (well not so secret anymore) agenda is to have my game surpass the Master of Orion series, but the only way to do so (they're almost perfect already) is to add moddability which MoO series don't have So I will continually look for ways of improving my game as long as there are interest in it.
Moddability is always a nice feature to have, although I'd suggest developing the actual game mechanics first. (You may be already doing this, in which case this suggestion is moot.
) I don't quite agree that MoO 1 and 2 are almost perfect already, but then again I actually favor RTS games over TBS games.
Anyways, when it comes to moddability, simply allowing a user to use different images for things like races, planets, ships, etc. is relatively easy to code up. When it comes to allowing a user to use different races, technologies, etc.
per se, it's trickier. The reason is that that kind of moddability necessarily depends on the game mechanics. If those change after you've already coded the moddability aspect, then the latter will be at odds with how the game works until you change it as well.
(Nov 28, 2011 02:27 AM)Rhob Wrote: [ -> ]If your game is turn-based (which I assume it is, from watching your gameplay video - nice work BTW!), then presumably you have code that checks for the victory conditions(s) on each new turn. So it would "just" be a question of making that code more elaborate. Perhaps there could be an object for storing the victory-condition settings, or those could be part of an overall game-settings object. I could even help you code this up, if you'd like.
Yes, it is turn based. Thanks for the praise! That's true, I think I may know a way of modding the victory conditions. I could compile the game's data into variables that I can pass into a script, and run that script each turn. However, that'd be quite some work to do, so I'll save it for later after other stuff are done. Thanks for bringing this point up!
Quote:Moddability is always a nice feature to have, although I'd suggest developing the actual game mechanics first. (You may be already doing this, in which case this suggestion is moot. ) I don't quite agree that MoO 1 and 2 are almost perfect already, but then again I actually favor RTS games over TBS games.
Anyways, when it comes to moddability, simply allowing a user to use different images for things like races, planets, ships, etc. is relatively easy to code up. When it comes to allowing a user to use different races, technologies, etc. per se, it's trickier. The reason is that that kind of moddability necessarily depends on the game mechanics. If those change after you've already coded the moddability aspect, then the latter will be at odds with how the game works until you change it as well.
My game currently supports basic modding. This includes basic technologies without scripts, races (complete with custom artwork), and galaxy generation scripts. I'm focused on finishing the non-combat screens right now. When those are done, I will then delve into scripting for technologies. By this, I don't mean "do 20 damage on hit" basic kind of scripting. The scripts will be pretty advanced. For example, I could script a tesla cannon that creates a zig zagging path for its beam (not just visuals, also the physics checking of ships in its path), or a missile that spawns 5 smaller missiles after a certain time period, and so forth. I could script an overpowered technology that spawns 100 of the same projectile in all directions when the projectile impacts (which would repeat itself for every impact).
If I wanted "black hole generator" from moo 1, I would create a beam type technology that spawns a shockwave on impact, and the shockwave would use sprites that looks similar to the black hole from moo1, and have 75% chance of destroying ships instantly. So yeah, technologies will be a big thing in my game. It won't be "laser 1, laser 2, plasma (but really just a better laser but with different graphics)", but a wide range of unique items. A shield that bounces back projectiles? Possible! A shield that "blinks" a missile to the other side of ship? Possible! I'm really excited for this!
eXplore, eXpand, eXploit, eXterminate.
4X definfining the game field, can each of them have a dedicated and well defined victory condition?
eXplore should have a balanced (but dynamic) mix of map exploration, technology discovery, diplomacy contact conditions.
eXpand can be the size of the empire or his diplomatic reach or his cultural influence reach.
eXploit, for the more management types, should be more about the efficiency of the state but also with high minimum levels of production, population, cash etc.
eXterminate, the ultimate warmonger goal, should be about the complete domination of the known space and the destruction of anybody not strictly controlled. Client states with draconian limitations on their military capability can be let survive I think but no concurrents can be allowed.