Unit retraining - a little too good?

[TheDuck]

Where did I "insult your thinking capacity"?

But dismissing the issue simply because the option to not use it exists is just sloppy thinking.

That is insulting.

I still don't understand your point then. I mean, right now, cavalry vastly overpower infantry. Is your recommendation "just don't use cavalry"? Sap points are vastly better than ladders/siege towers. Is your recommendation "just don't use sap points"? The phalanx formation involves men shuffling to the right, completely removing it as a useful defensive formation. Is your recommendation "just don't use phalanx formation"?

All of these are issues of game balance. And they don't have anything to do with "the business environment". Neither does my suggestion(s) regarding retraining. While it is certainly possible to play the game and "just not use X" for all the problem areas, fixing the problem areas is obviously the preferred solution. Ignoring the problems won't make them go away.

Bh

Game balance is of most concern in multi-player games, not single player. The issues facing a game designer in single player are more about whether the game is fun. If you think this affects your fun factor, it is your right to complain. Some folks prefer a very hard challenge, some want to role play, some want it totally easy. This makes for an audience that is very difficult to please. Its why there are so many types of games with so many different types of goals. Just because a feature exists in a single player game does not mean you have to use it (i.e. cheat codes, excessive retraining, etc.). Its all personal choice. The best game designs that have created the largest audiences seem to appeal to more than one category of player. And frequently things are not 'balanced' as you seem to want.

If I'm playing against a human, I want things totally fair. No one should have an advantage.. This is because both of us start out level. Against the AI, its all about choice. AIs will always be more stupid, and giving them advantages is good (IMO). But requiring a human to always give those advantages to the AI sells less games (by taking away features that allow a human to have an 'unnecessary advantage', which some strategy players seem to want). That is my point. Taking away retraining as it is is tantamount to taking away cheat codes. Both features (IMO) make things easier on a human, and both involve choices in single player only. Hence my comment.. 'so what?'.

Pleasing all audiences is hard, and to do so requires putting things in games that will make folks that like the challenge (like you and I) say 'why would I use that??'.

The part of me that plays for the game challenge agrees with your points.

The part of me that wants to see CA be wildly successful and create more games vehemently disagrees with your points.

I want CA to be successful.

And now I'm going to make a heretical statement to many at the ORG. We are a fraction of the percentage of players that actually buy and play CA games. We are a measuring stick for sure, but our in depth involvement with the previous games may actually be a detriment to how the game needs to be to appeal to a wider audience. Those are choices that affect success and failure in all businesses. A business that prefers minority customers to the majority will soon go out of business. So does CA pay attention to us? Or to features that sell to more than a few thousand players?

I for one like the direction CA is going in. I've never expected the AI in strategy games to give me a great game when the going is even. So I pick situations where the AI has huge advantages to make it tougher on me. RTW is by no means the only example of this. Ever RTS I ever played has been the same. In all these games the AI just sucks. So I play at the hardest settings giving the AI every advantage to give myself a challenge. Its why folks that use cheat codes mystify me. How boring. That said, those cheat code users payed cold hard cash for the game, and that keeps CA in business.. hence my current position.

[Bhruic]

But dismissing the issue simply because the option to not use it exists is just sloppy thinking.

That is insulting.

Well then I guess you have an extremely thin skin, metaphorically speaking. I certainly wasn't trying to insult you, I was just pointing out (what I believed to be) sloppy thinking on your part.

Game balance is of most concern in multi-player games, not single player.

It depends on your definition of "game balance". For example, I don't think that all of the factions should be balanced amongst each other. But when it comes to combat, I think that you need to have a balanced system. Having cavalry defeat all comers, for example, simply encourages one to build nothing but cavalry. Which begs the question, why have anything but cavalry? And why does the AI not build all cavalry?

Taking away retraining as it is is tantamount to taking away cheat codes. Both features (IMO) make things easier on a human, and both involve choices in single player only. Hence my comment.. 'so what?'.

And taking away the cavalry advantage is equivalent to taking away cheat codes? Taking away the sap point advantage is equivalent? I don't know, perhaps you enjoy having those "human exploitable" areas in the game. I certainly don't. By all means, include a cheat code for "cavalry gain +10 attack strength", or something, but the game, as shipped, shouldn't be unbalanced in such a fashion. I believe that retraining is a similar situation.

The part of me that wants to see CA be wildly successful and create more games vehemently disagrees with your points.

I want CA to be successful.

I'd love CA to be successful. I'm certainly hoping they are. But I don't agree that being "wildly successful" and having a balanced game are mutually exclusive concepts.

And now I'm going to make a heretical statement to many at the ORG. We are a fraction of the percentage of players that actually buy and play CA games. We are a measuring stick for sure, but our in depth involvement with the previous games may actually be a detriment to how the game needs to be to appeal to a wider audience. Those are choices that affect success and failure in all businesses. A business that prefers minority customers to the majority will soon go out of business. So does CA pay attention to us? Or to features that sell to more than a few thousand players?

I think you're getting much too speculative at this point. Basically, you seem to be claiming that the "masses", such as they are, would not buy/appreciate the game if retraining worked differently. I'm sorry, but that's a rather large assumption that I don't believe you have any evidence to support. I could just as easily claim (admittedly, with an equal amount, ie, no support) that the masses would just love it if retraining and hiring of new units didn't occur until the end of everyone's turn instead of the end of the player's.

I for one like the direction CA is going in. I've never expected the AI in strategy games to give me a great game when the going is even. So I pick situations where the AI has huge advantages to make it tougher on me. RTW is by no means the only example of this. Ever RTS I ever played has been the same. In all these games the AI just sucks. So I play at the hardest settings giving the AI every advantage to give myself a challenge. Its why folks that use cheat codes mystify me. How boring. That said, those cheat code users payed cold hard cash for the game, and that keeps CA in business.. hence my current position.

My expectation for AI is pretty simple - I expect a new game to give me an equal or greater challenge than the previous incarnation did. I'm not sure that RTW qualifies. But be that as it may, the degree of challenge of the game, as a whole, doesn't really enter the picture here. I'm all for a cheat code of "infinite retrains", if someone decides that's what they want. But I still believe that shipping the game with retraining as it is now was not the best way to handle it.

Bh