22-05-2002 23:02									#1
	Combatting Complexity.... Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

One of the things we really gotta watch out for when putting this beast together will be the learning curve. It's been brought up by an increasing number of people that, while all the stuff we're talking about is really, really cool, if we keep piling more and more features, spells, abilities, units, and stuff to do in general onto the heap, eventually there will be just simply an overwhelming number of choices to make that will begin to turn lots of people off for the sheer complexity of the game.

That's a bit of a two edged sword, I fear. On the one hand, we can't build a detailed, complex world without getting...well...detailed and complex. OTOH, we have to find ways to make all that complexity as accessible and intuitive as possible.

And, in the same breath, we should strive to make it so that a new player can go buy some guys, build some troops and be off and running....that is to say that the core of the game should be simple to learn, and the rest of the stuff we're adding should be seen as enhancements to an overall strategy, but not strong enough to be a strategy standing on its own (example: I shudder to imagine our game turning into one where on one side we've got an army of elementals and other summoned creatures, and on the other, we've got an army of infantry and archers and stuff. That's not what it's about...magic should never be so prevalent that it overshadows the feats of man and muscle. Magic should assist, not dominate....at least, that is how I see its role in Candle'Bre.

Same with the Influence of the church on combat (Intercession). Cool, but too expensive to use constantly.

Same with the Fates....they should be seen as means of assistance/hinderance, but not a strategy in their own right.

So...if we put the bulk of the power in the hands of men in armor with swords, bows, and lance, but fill the game up with wizards, mystery, and wonder in supporting roles, then the basic "rules" should remain fairly simple to learn, and all the subtlety of the supporting elements could be learned at the player's leisure.

-=Vel=-

	22-05-2002 23:31									#2
	Put an end to popups!

Ramses will prolly kill me for saying this but it would be possible to have options on a set-up screen to turn off or on some of the complexity of the game (or perhaps for it to be handled by the comp. This could also be tied to the difficulty level as well.

$.02

R:PM

	23-05-2002 00:34									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

That doesn't sound like too bad of an idea.

If we're going to building the game up in increments anyway then all the more simple versions of the complicated features should already be integrated into the game before the coding for the complicated bit begins.

Now, I'm not a programmer, but ... wouldn't it be fairly straightforward to then plug-in the complex game models into the existing code and only make them activated if a switch in the options is set to 'on'? That would let the player play the game with either the fancy complex stuff or the original, simpler version.

Does that make sense, or am I revealing my naivity about coding on this issue?

	23-05-2002 00:46									#4
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I dunno. If you take the best 4x fantasy TBS game ever made, MOM, it was - and is! - the champion of complexity. There are countless different strategies, a plethora of interesting and powerfull spells, critters from here to never-neverland and countless ways mere chance can affect the gameplay. But it is still a very easy game to get into, and to play. People who try it tend to love it immediately.

On the other hand, EU is complex, but has gone a long way to try to eliminate that complexity as much as possible. And while it's a great game, the learning curve is steep. I know plenty of people who bounced off EU after giving it a try.

Perhaps the best way to handle this is to introduce complexity with increasing difficulty level - newbies will not have to worry too much about effects that turn out to be crucial to attend to at higher levels.

	23-05-2002 01:45									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

No FP, that is about the way it works, abeit a few difficulties.

R:PM

	23-05-2002 03:16									#6
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by RPMisCOOL No FP, that is about the way it works, abeit a few difficulties. R:PM

That's cool. As long as those difficulties aren't too much ... but since we're talking about the commercial release here then we should have the time and resources to oversome the difficulties. The complexity could either be linked to difficulty level (as moomin suggested) or to the options screen. Or both.

However...
Wouldn't having so many different variants of the game make it even harder to get a decent AI? I like the idea of making the computer work from a simpler ruleset, but if it is working from the more simple rules for 4 or 5 game mechanics (social, military, magic etc...) then wouldn't that then be distorted to the point that is was essentially not the same game anymore?

	23-05-2002 05:15									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

This thread should be renamed "combatting cyclotron7."

Since I love extra features, and have absolutely no idea how programming really works, any spurious ideas I come up with should simply be responded to be saying "sure, ok cyclo" with a resassuring grin.

If you do that, the battle against complexity will be half won already.

	23-05-2002 10:10									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Sure, ok Cyclo

	23-05-2002 13:38									#9
	Re: Combatting Complexity.... Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Some of the (enormous plethora of) ideas presented do seem almost hideously complex - at least for the original game. ie: only 60 provinces. Perhaps some of these could be left for Vels proposed expansion into the rest of the world (completely forgotten what that was called or where it came up)?

From the initial concepts this seemed to me to be aiming at a complexity somewhere between EU and Axis & Allies. Now it's starting to look much more complicated than EU (although for all I know this may have been the intent all along) ...

	23-05-2002 13:42									#10
	Re: Re: Combatting Complexity.... Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by ravagon Perhaps some of these could be left for Vels proposed expansion into the rest of the world (completely forgotten what that was called or where it came up)?

Candle'Bre: Play the World? ....

or perhaps Forgotten Worlds?

	23-05-2002 17:53									#11
	Re: Re: Combatting Complexity.... Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by ravagon Some of the (enormous plethora of) ideas presented do seem almost hideously complex - at least for the original game. ie: only 60 provinces. Perhaps some of these could be left for Vels proposed expansion into the rest of the world (completely forgotten what that was called or where it came up)? From the initial concepts this seemed to me to be aiming at a complexity somewhere between EU and Axis & Allies. Now it's starting to look much more complicated than EU (although for all I know this may have been the intent all along) ...

Shhh! Don't tell him that most of that stuff won't be in the game. Let the man dream!

Actually, if this keeps rollin', I suspect that a lot of this "proposed" stuff will eventually make it in a game, maybe even CB

R:PM

	25-05-2002 01:26									#12
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Complexity is definitly something we need to address. I was one of the people that intially put EU on the shelf after playing for a few hours. It wasn't till later on when I gave it a second chance that I realized how good a game it was.

Something along the lines of what FP and RPM brought up would be the best (though perhaps not the easiest) way of doing things, in my mind at least. Players new to the game would be advised to try the game without any of the complex systems. As they learn more and more about the game they can pick what interests them more. That way players interested in a strategic combat game can turn on the tactical combat system ... those more interested in the social aspects can turn on the social system ... etc.

That does mean that for almost every system in the game two versions will be needed, a simple and a complex one. And they need to co-exist in the same instance of a Candle'Bre game. That's where I see the snag too. I'm not sure how well we can pull off something like that. But it would be great, since as Vel pointed out over and over again, the AI could use those simple rules to keep their coding within the realm of the possible.

	25-05-2002 04:20									#13
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Ram - so you thought that using the easy system the human player would tap into the AI rules? It might become addictive, you know.

	28-05-2002 18:56									#14
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by xRamsesx Something along the lines of what FP and RPM brought up would be the best (though perhaps not the easiest) way of doing things, in my mind at least. Players new to the game would be advised to try the game without any of the complex systems. As they learn more and more about the game they can pick what interests them more. That way players interested in a strategic combat game can turn on the tactical combat system ... those more interested in the social aspects can turn on the social system ... etc. That does mean that for almost every system in the game two versions will be needed, a simple and a complex one. And they need to co-exist in the same instance of a Candle'Bre game. That's where I see the snag too. I'm not sure how well we can pull off something like that. But it would be great, since as Vel pointed out over and over again, the AI could use those simple rules to keep their coding within the realm of the possible.

Ram, excellent point. The way that I envisioned it was to have a working model of the simple wywtem in place and a playable game to boot. Then in a modular fashion add the bells and whistles of all of the features that we can or have time for. Isn't that what makes OOP great?

An example that I can think of is the antareans switch in MOO2. Turn it off and they are out of the game. I'm sure that there are others.

R:PM

	29-05-2002 07:44									#15
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Make sure there is enough eye candy and "rewards" to keep the neophyte involved at lower levels. As people move up the scale they will get interested in strategy more than "hearing the Leo's song" or "watching the camels walk past the Pyramid" or "laughing at Elvis".

But that stuff is important at the beggining of the learning curve...

	29-05-2002 07:50									#16
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by GP Make sure there is enough eye candy and "rewards" to keep the neophyte involved at lower levels. As people move up the scale they will get interested in strategy more than "hearing the Leo's song" or "watching the camels walk past the Pyramid" or "laughing at Elvis". But that stuff is important at the beggining of the learning curve...

It Is? I always turn all that crap off
Just so long as there are options to ignore all the multimedia drek, ol' stick-in-the-mud will be happy


Now the different-level-complexity model idea can maybe work. We've talked about it for Clash, and people generally liked the idea. But remember you Already likely don't have enough resources to do what you're doing, so think Very carefully about every straw you add to the coding metaphorical camel's back... OTOH if you can make the AI decent enough, one complex model that the player can give simple orders to if they desire will suffice. Then you don't need to worry about "docking" the models so they produce the same results, or nearly so, under most circumstances.

	29-05-2002 10:36									#17
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

well...this is more discussion of the commercial model as opposed to the demo model.

	31-05-2002 08:50									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by moominparatrooper Ram - so you thought that using the easy system the human player would tap into the AI rules? It might become addictive, you know.

Sorry moomie, I must have missed your post as I scanned through the thread after.

Are you saying that maybe the player will stop using the more complex rules to play the simpler ones instead? Well if they so choose, why not? If players choose not to manage a complex system then why not? The advantages of using the more complex system would be an increased control over the game that gives you as a player better results.

And I think it should be AI tapping into the simplified human rules, not the other way around. The AI might need slightly different rules to make things simpler for it.

Regardless, as GP has pointed out, that thought was for the commercial version. Just like Mark said, we don't have the resources to implement such game complexity. Wishful thinking, basically

	02-06-2002 18:55									#19
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by RPMisCOOL Ramses will prolly kill me for saying this but it would be possible to have options on a set-up screen to turn off or on some of the complexity of the game (or perhaps for it to be handled by the comp. This could also be tied to the difficulty level as well. $.02 R:PM

Not sure I agree with this one guys. As GP said, player rewards are important, specially at the beginning of the learning curve. Now in my mind the biggest player reward is to get to play around with cool features, wampum big spells of doom, summoned elementals of utter woe to thine enemy etc. Some of these features will naturally only become available towards the end of the game, or once some more basic infrastructure has been put in place. So you get a 'now I'm getting a handle on some of the basics/ have survived this long, I get some cool stuff' feeling.

The idea of feeding in the features gradually, would reduce the easier difficulty levels to overly extended tutorial games and I think, would put off the more casual strategy gamer. There's no point in having the world's best game, if a player has to be an absolute master/obsessive bean counter, to play the game at a level where all the best features become available.

just my 2p worth though.

Rich.

	02-06-2002 21:07									#20
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by xRamsesx Sorry moomie, I must have missed your post as I scanned through the thread after.

That's quite all right. Happens to the best of us occationally

quote: Are you saying that maybe the player will stop using the more complex rules to play the simpler ones instead? Well if they so choose, why not? If players choose not to manage a complex system then why not? The advantages of using the more complex system would be an increased control over the game that gives you as a player better results.

Well, as I understood it, the plan for making all those exiting building/magic/whatever ideas that've been thrown around here lately for the commerical release work, the AI would operate on a simpler ruleset, effectively removing constraints (and penalties) imposed on human players. Now I also understood your earlier proposal to mean that at the lower difficulty levels at least the HP would get to enjoy AI rules. If I misunderstood one or both of these points then forget about it.

If not however, then I think it's the wrong way to go about it. The proper mechanisms should always be present, it's just that the penalities should be harsher at higher difficulties... think something along the lines of how many happy city dwellers you get at different difficulty levels in Civ.

	03-06-2002 01:42									#21
	Support Apolyton

One simple way to combat complexity is to have time restrictions per turn. Both competitive chess and scrabble are turn based, but have time limits. This type of system allows you to MM when your civ is small. (and since there's not much to do to otherwise that is good.) When your civ becomes big, you are forced to give moer control to governors (knowing that they are imperfect!) and conentrate on strategy. You would still have the option of diving down to lower levels in specific cases but would have to make a decision to do so. This makes the game more strategic and less of a click fest the way RTS is. You would obviously need some combat governors and a system of combat which allows strategic orders to be issued (rather than the unit by unit method of civ.)

This is a pretty decent represantation of how leaders in the real wordl actually do things.

Of course, confirmed MM wouldn't like it...but than again, they feel no need to remove MM. They are wimpy builders...or nonstrategic thinkiers who get pissed off and start whining threads every time they lose a combat battle in Civ3.

	03-06-2002 02:18									#22
	Tired of ads?

Hmmm....now that's an intriguing notion....especially if we combine it with our latest thinking on GP's as rewards instead of punishments.

What if we had a "set" time limit per turn (this could be yet another configurable option at game start), and allow the aforementioned purchase of "Agents of the King" which would, instead of giving you so many GP's per turn, say for each one you purchased, it "bought you" another 20 seconds of turn time. It would be possible then, to micromanage every minute detail of your empire IF you were willing to pay the added beurocratic costs associated with doing so (represented in the per turn upkeep costs of your Agents).

In the early game, as you say, you'd have plenty of time to do absolutely everything and then some. In the late game, it would be MUCH more of a balancing act.....

-=Vel=-

	03-06-2002 02:43									#23
	Increase Your PM Length

That's an option. However, JUST having time limits means you can do away with the complexity of IFP system.

In actuality, I worry that either of these systems is a bit complex for CBR. We are statring to talk about the ulitimate game, here. And I don't think CBR can be that. It should be more focused and more of an easy win. (Given the lack of design experience in the team.)

	03-06-2002 02:46									#24
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by GP Of course, confirmed MM wouldn't like it...but than again, they feel no need to remove MM. They are wimpy builders...or nonstrategic thinkiers who get pissed off and start whining threads every time they lose a combat battle in Civ3.

Somebody's bitter...

I've never been a fan of time limits, because I'm a perfectionist. If somebody takes too long in MP, my point of view is: don't play with them. I think that a streamlined system would be much more effective at removing clutter and making MM reasonable than a time limit.

	03-06-2002 03:03									#25
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by cyclotron7 Somebody's bitter...

Yes...at least I try to be funny about it...

quote: I've never been a fan of time limits, because I'm a perfectionist. If somebody takes too long in MP, my point of view is: don't play with them. I think that a streamlined system would be much more effective at removing clutter and making MM reasonable than a time limit.

I think for those who want to, they should be able to turn the time limits off. And if you really want to be perfect and still not have tedium, one solution is to play OCC or a "small empire" size game. But if you want to have complete perfectionist, down to the smallest level MM; AND have a big empire; AND have a fast game; you are probably out of luck. not really possible. A few things can be done for you...for instance having user freindly interfaces that allow you to better monitor the empire...but that is just a stopgap, probably not enough to resolve the inherent conflict.

	04-06-2002 08:04									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I am against time limits for games with any significant complexity.

Chess is fine, since Chess is simple and any good players would have a large store of opening moves.

	04-06-2002 08:19									#27
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

scrabble takes on a whole new dimension under time pressure. People tend to ahve a hard time with it...but it's a much more interesting game under the clock.

	04-06-2002 15:05									#28
	Tired of ads?

Time limits have their place. Single player isn't one of them, I feel.

	04-06-2002 18:13									#29
	Inflate your Upload Space

Time limits do have their place in games. I believe that they are called RTS.

R:PM

	04-06-2002 19:10									#30
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I just gave examples of very strategic, turn based games which are played under the clock. That is...if you're not a wimp.

And ok, lots of customers are wimps. So maybe the time limits should be rethought...