[Java MOO] Thoughts on game difficulty

[Ray F]

Since this seems like the go-to forum for experienced MOO1 players, I'd like to discuss some ideas for introducing player difficulty (Easy, Average, Hard, etc) into the game.

For starters, I do not like allowing the AIs to cheat. Anything that the AI does that the player cannot do is a cheat. Anything the player can do that the AI cannot is a cheat for the player.

In JavaMOO, as it currently stands, there are no cheats. The AIs have to scout their systems, research all of their techs, build their ships, etc, and there are no special diplomatic benefits between the AIs.

This presents a problem for the player because, as it stands, the player will surely be able to beat the AIs after quickly learning their strengths and weaknesses. While I do plan to modify the AI over time, I have little doubt that good players will always be able to stay ahead of the AI on a level playing field.

I don't want to go down the path of giving various bonuses to the AI because that tends to be opaque and frustrating to players. What I'd rather do is create a system where the player can give himself strengths or weaknesses in order to get the difficulty level to something he'd prefer. This should theoretically have the same effect as making broad changes to the AI (as in other games), but in a way that the player controls when he sets up the game.

For example, a player may choose various attributes for his race:
Strong: +20% production, Weak: -20% production
Smart: +20% research, Dumb: -20% research
Beautiful: +20% diplomacy, Ugly: -20% diplomacy
Brave: +20% combat bonus, Cowardly: -20% combat penalty
Stealthy: +20% spying, Clumsy: -20% spying

A composite "Difficulty" rating can be chosen from the attributes he chooses, so that playing on "Impossible" means choosing Weak, Dumb, Ugly, Cowardly and Clumsy.

To me, this would not only be much easier to code, but also more transparent and flexible for the player.

Opinions?

[Waterd]

I like the transparency, I´m all up for transparency, I was never fan that I have to learn of the advantages of the AI through experience. Game mastering should not be about that, but about becomming better to deal with the problems a system present, not about figuring what the system is.
So im greatly in favor that whatever system is in place, be 100% transparent.

With that said, you will never ever be able to present the player with a harder game, just making better AI, we know that, we need to cheat the difficulty, that´s the nature of a singleplayer game.
I have no problem with it.

From a practical POV, if you give buffs to the computer or you give nerfs to to the player, it really its the same concept. If you are nerfing a player production, is basically the same than increasing AI production.

What im saying your proposed system, is no different than the system in place. Sadly there is no way around that (unless you have plans to shock the world with revolutionary AI making skills).

I´m against giving player customization of difficulty as a standard feature. I think it´s great for people to allow modding of the game, and give customization as an extraneous option to create whatever experience is best suited for them.
But the job of the designer is to find what is the best settings for the more enjoyable game on average.

What I mean, Is that I think the standard way it should work, is like it works right now in Moo1, there should be a ladder of difficulties and you should tune them the way that it fits best for the game. its ok to give as an alternative for those that want it, ways to modify the difficulty to their liking, but that is completely tangential. There still should be a CORE DESIGNED way, in which the game is prepared to be enjoyed.

An argument could be made that we want players to experience the game in different ways, inside a difficulty, but that is EXACTLY the job of the race selection, which to me is a great feature in the way moo1 implemetns it.

Your proposal is just to make the race selection more customization and complex, but not really adding anything new, and I dont see benefits for it.

Now we could talk bout what´s the best way to give disadvantages to the player or advantages to the pc, that lead to the best experience, that is a very interesting and hard topic indeed. But you should have clear, what you are doing there. But I think ultimately it will need a lot of testing and see what works and what doesn´t.

For starters I´m against combat penalties, as it would make the combat even less intuitive.
I think instead of spreading the advantages over a lot of topics, is better to focus on a little as possible, to make it as streamlined and clear as possible.
Changing costs of technologies is weird, it makes now players have to learn the cost of tech at different difficulties, so im against that.

Im in favor of giving AI production bonuses, mostly because the game doesnt feel that different that way as it would if the player have less production. The problem is that the AI is not efficient at using resources, so giving them more resources seems the way to go.

[vmxa]

I am fine with Ai cheats, as long as there are known. Simple things often have to give done for the AI such as letting them know the map. This is done in civ to reduce the processing and coding needed to have the ai do its routing. What I don't like is AI bonus stuff and it is hidden.

[Ray F]

I am fine with Ai cheats, as long as there are known. Simple things often have to give done for the AI such as letting them know the map. This is done in civ to reduce the processing and coding needed to have the ai do its routing. What I don't like is AI bonus stuff and it is hidden.

Just the opposite with me. I am not fine with AI cheats! I would rather let the player intentionally gimp himself to increase difficulty because he is voluntarily doing that. Sure, it has the exact same effect as traditional AI "cheats", but the player has full knowledge of the effect (like you prefer).

However, the scouting code in Java MOO already functions fine so there is no need to give the AI a free map.

[Ray F]

On a second thought what you suggest sounds perfectly simple and reasonable and what I suggested is complicated. I don't see any problem with player hadicaps to increase the difficulty. Giving various bonuses to the AI may still be nice option to have for extra variability but isn't essential.

As a developer, it's a lot simpler to impose penalties or bonuses on the player rather than bonuses or penalties on the AI, simply because you don't have to account for these effects in the AI code.

[Hail]

For example, a player may choose various attributes for his race:
Strong: +20% production, Weak: -20% production
Smart: +20% research, Dumb: -20% research
Beautiful: +20% diplomacy, Ugly: -20% diplomacy
Brave: +20% combat bonus, Cowardly: -20% combat penalty
Stealthy: +20% spying, Clumsy: -20% spying

A composite "Difficulty" rating can be chosen from the attributes he chooses, so that playing on "Impossible" means choosing Weak, Dumb, Ugly, Cowardly and Clumsy.

To me, this would not only be much easier to code, but also more transparent and flexible for the player.

Opinions?

normalize the base and set the lowest to zero and move away from pejorative terms.
as like "Hercules +40% prod; Strong + 20% prod; Normal +0% production.

no one wants to be/feel "Weak", "Dumb", "Ugly", "Cowardly" and "Clumsy".

frankly, I have doubts that your game will be fun to play. and rename the title, since Wargaming asked you to drop MOO from the title. am I right?

on the topic in general, I agree with your line of thought. imo there should be two sliders: player handicap and "AI difficulty".

is your AI rule-based or something else?

[Ray F]

normalize the base and set the lowest to zero and move away from pejorative terms.
as like "Hercules +40% prod; Strong + 20% prod; Normal +0% production.

no one wants to be/feel "Weak", "Dumb", "Ugly", "Cowardly" and "Clumsy".

The whole point is to succintly describe the effects of the handicap the player is accepting. Hopefully, no one is projecting those chosen limitations onto themselves.

frankly, I have doubts that your game will be fun to play.

It is designed to be as fun as MOO1. If you hate MOO1, then you will probably not like this game.

and rename the title, since Wargaming asked you to drop MOO from the title. am I right?

Yes, I approached them about the name to avoid any potential conflict and they asked me to not use "Master of Orion".

on the topic in general, I agree with your line of thought. imo there should be two sliders: player handicap and "AI difficulty".

Can you explain what you see as the difference between handicapping players and increasing AI difficulty?

is your AI rule-based or something else?

Yes

[Hail]

normalize the base and set the lowest to zero and move away from pejorative terms.
as like "Hercules +40% prod; Strong + 20% prod; Normal +0% production.

no one wants to be/feel "Weak", "Dumb", "Ugly", "Cowardly" and "Clumsy".

The whole point is to succintly describe the effects of the handicap the player is accepting. Hopefully, no one is projecting those chosen limitations onto themselves.

I am trying to make a point about player psychology.

an effect can be best described by numbers. you want to hide the numbers behind descriptions?

frankly, I have doubts that your game will be fun to play.

It is designed to be as fun as MOO1. If you hate MOO1, then you will probably not like this game.

I remember little of MoO1. where can your game be played?

Can you explain what you see as the difference between handicapping players and increasing AI difficulty?

if you had a planner AI, you could limit the depth of a search to differentiate AI's difficulty levels.
I dunno about rulebased AIs. maybe tweak AI's state (strategy) weights leaning toward the more optimal strategies as AI's difficulty level increases

[Ray F]

The whole point is to succintly describe the effects of the handicap the player is accepting. Hopefully, no one is projecting those chosen limitations onto themselves.

I trying to make a point about player psychology.

an effect can be best described by numbers. you want to hide the numbers behind descriptions?

Yes. Those labels are meant to be descriptive, and therefore immersive. Also, I read your link. I am not concerned with the psychological states of players. If someone is so self-conscious that they are psychologically bothered because playing an intentionally weakened race in a video game is described "Clumsy" or "Dumb" or "Weak" (which they chose btw), then they should seek a licensed therapist for treatment instead of hoping a computer programmer will change a line of code. It's open-source, they can do it themselves if they want.

I remember little of MoO1. where can your game be played?

On my computer. It is unfinished. You can follow development at www.RemnantsOfThePrecursors.com if you'd like.

if you had a planner AI, you could limit the depth of a search to differentiate AI's difficulty levels.
I dunno about rulebased AIs. maybe tweak AI's state (strategy) weights leaning toward more optimal strategies as AI's difficulty level increases

Easier said than done. There's a reason why you don't find any AIs that work like that.

The whole purpose of the proposed difficulty system is to allow me to focus on making the best AI possible, without having to worry about varying shades of complexity or depth. Then, if the player thinks it is too easy, he can increase the challenge of the game by gimping his race. If the AI is too hard, then he can give his race bonuses to compensate.

This way, all of the work for increasing or decreasing the difficulty of the game is under the control of the player, where it is most appropriate.

[Hail]

Easier said than done. There's a reason why you don't find any AIs that work like that.

by that you refer to rulebased?

F.E.A.R's AI uses GOAP.
S.T.A.L.K.E.R.S.'s A-Life uses GOAP.

besides GOAP (and rulebased) there many other AI techniques: behavior trees, finite state machines, hierarchical finite state machines, genetic algorithm(s), neural networks, etc.

The whole purpose of the proposed difficulty system is to allow me to focus on making the best AI possible, without having to worry about varying shades of complexity or depth. Then, if the player thinks it is too easy, he can increase the challenge of the game by gimping his race. If the AI is too hard, then he can give his race bonuses to compensate.

imo I would avoid any plans to make anything the best ever. it has to be "good enough", otherwise you will never release your game.