OK I'm going to reiterate this as the thread has seemed to go OT
No PM me if there is an issue
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
Admission: I'm a huge 4X fan. While I love the idea of Paradox grand strategy games, I hate the historic context. I've put a few dozen hours into CK2 and EU4 and really appreciate their depth, but always bounce off them eventually as the setting doesn't grab me. I know, my loss. I love Distant Worlds and view it as the only real thing close to a grand strategy in space so far (correct me if I'm wrong!), although it has obvious flaws (besides starting to show its age) that I hope both Stellaris and Distant Worlds 2 will both improve on and surpass. All of this is to say take my thoughts as they are - from someone that understands the general mechanics of EU4/CK2 and is very excited to see them improved and applied to a space setting. Also, after reading the first few pages of this thread I skimmed the rest, which seemed to mostly repeat entrenched positions - apologies if I missed something crucial in there.
The arguments: in my mind the arguments of the two sides can be summed up as follows -
The arguments: in my mind the arguments of the two sides can be summed up as follows -
- Endless play - preference for open ended play that will allow for the most flexibility and thus emergence/replay-ability. Concerned that a finite gameplay mode would ultimately dominate development, particularly because AI would be focused on achieving set goals by a certain date and that AI would bleed into an optional endless play mode. I agree with this concern.
- Finite play - preference for finite play that includes a structured ending, providing a clearer sense of closure and reduces games dragging on indefinitely. Concerned that endless play is discouraging for players without self-made goals. I agree with this concern.
- Endless play as a baseline for AI/game design
- Civilization-specific preferences/objectives - presumably both the endless- and finite-supporters will concede that NPCs need some AI. The finite-supporters would want to leverage this AI to have NPCs pursue victory conditions. The endless-supporters would have NPCs pursue a objective-function (i.e. fulfilling their preferences). Presumably NPC victory conditions/preferences would vary across races/civilizations in both game modes. The two are not mutually exclusive - a warmongering civilization should have different victory conditions than a diplomatic one under finite-play, and similarly the two would have different preferences under endless-play. The only difference is that victory conditions at a set time add an additional constraint that potentially perverts their maximization - assuming there is consensus on how different civilizations' AIs should differ (at least generally). Again, I suggest an endless play as the baseline, so all NPCs will have their unique preferences they pursue, but they will be open ended, rather than with a clear end time.
- An additional layer on top of preferences is explicit objectives that provide some in-game reward/feedback - EU4/Distant Worlds already have something like this - in Distant Worlds it is race-specific victory conditions (which are always visible, but can be disabled as a binding end-point) and in EU4 there are unique goals (National objectives?) such as unite Spain, etc. A challenge in Stellaris is creating a rich enough list of these objectives in a blank-slate universe that a new or veteran player can always open that tab and see a list of a few possible goals to pick from if they want.
- Important: a player should be able to readily see/feel the innate preferences and current possible objectives of their civilization throughout the game, and they should shape the choices of that player (at least a new player). If I'm new to the game and have no idea what to do, but am playing a civ that is naturally a warmonger, I should be bombarded (har har) constantly with adviser suggestions and public opinions on how to fulfill that desire. More advanced or independent players can ignore/disable those popups, but will still need to find a way to satiate the population in other (likely disproportionate) ways.
- Achievements - I know many find them silly, but these are hugely important for players like me - I like poking around a sandbox game with depth, but to really invest in learning the mechanics I need some goals to strive towards. If I lack those I probably will bounce off the game. After mastering it I'll set my own goals. Achievements (and the above in-game objectives) help bridge that gap from newcomer to veteran. They certainly helped with me EU4 and CK2 - again, I hate the setting but like the mechanics, and striving towards a few achievements helped me even get to that level of appreciation.
- Note: the difference between objectives and achievements is that objectives may impact your game play (e.g. raise prestige/population satisfaction) while achievements simply earn you a badge in Steam. I believe this is an accurate description of how they worked in EU4, for example.
- Game setup screen - should default to a endless game - i.e. you select (randomize) your starting race, galaxy style, conditions, etc, and jump in.
- On game launch - additionally, there is prompt in the first play asking if you'd like advice on goal setting - to which you answer no (default) or yes. If yes, a tool tip launches that asks if you'd like to:
- Review the general preferences of the civilization you are playing - some of which are immutable, others which may be changeable over time (e.g. via propaganda or other policies).
- Select a civilization objective suitable for the early game - as in EU4, ideally from a very long list that is both general and race/civ/era/tech-level specific. I'd like there to be improved tips for beginners on how to actually pursue the goal. If I need to load up a website/Wiki within 5 minutes of launching a game the developers have failed in one very important aspect.
- Suggest/highlight some possible achievements to shoot for - this would not change the AI or game play whatsoever, but merely set an occasional reminder of your progress towards that achievement. The targeted achievement(s) could be canceled or modified throughout a game via a simple menu with no consequence on game play. I should not have to alt-tab out of the game to see the list of achievements that remain unlocked, and I shouldn't have to page through dozens of menus to figure out how close I am to the achievement I am pursuing on that play through.
- Upon fulfilling a civilization objective or an achievement - relaunch the tool tip, suggesting other options to pursue as well as the option to end the game and see a score comparison/recap.
- 2
- 1
Ok - Throughout all this I've been trying to make the argument in favor of victory conditions. Not that they should be the only way to play, quite the opposite, but that they should be included and by existing they make for a better game overall and especially hugely improves it for new players.
Why is this?
1. Victory conditions give a goal, something to work towards for the dozens of hours the game takes. Even when a game drags a bit for whatever reason (in a 4X typically waiting for new research or units to build) you know why you are waiting, why it's worthwhile. You can see what you are trying to achieve.
2. Victory conditions are a way to teach players beyond the tutorial. They show you what the game thinks you should be able to achieve by playing well. That's important to a new player who doesn't know what success is supposed to look like yet.
3. Victory conditions provide context. Even when you 'lose' you see how long it takes for someone else to 'win'. They provide time pressure to your actions because you know other players are doing the same things you are and you need to do it faster/better than them throughout the game.
4. A finite end underlines a games replay value. One game ends, another one starts. It helps to ensure that you still feel hungry, like you haven't accomplished everything you want in one single play through so you'll try again. By ending the story you're excited to start a new one.
5a. Winning feels like a real achievement.
5b. Even when you lose, surviving until someone else wins for the first time feels like an achievement.
6. Seeing alternative victory conditions makes other aspects of the game than war seem equally important. If trade or commerce or politics genuinely allow you to win by themselves then it shows you need to be paying attention to them.
All of this combined makes for a much more approachable form of the game for a new player and that's why I think that's how the game should be presented to new players. I definitely think an endless mode should be included, I even think that that should be the primary game mode (much like Ironman today) but it should be an optional thing for veterans to pick up when they want rather than the starting point for new players to try and figure out themselves. For games with this much depth and detail it's a huge missed step for anyone to be able to walk away after playing one single game feeling like they've done everything the game has to offer.
Other points that have come up -
In other games victory conditions have made for AI that will rush for an arbitary victory instead of playing a more rounded game.
That's a flaw in those games, not with the idea of victory conditions. You can set better victory conditions or make better AI or change a bunch of other stuff to fix this. PDS are good designers. They can do figure out how to make both modes good.
I like to make up my own goals and stories.
That's cool. Having one mode with victory conditions doesn't stop you doing that. You can always choose to play endless if you want.
Endless games are better than non-endless ones.
I can understand that point of view. I certainly want to play Stellaris in endless mode. But all players start out as new players and they'll only hang around for that long haul experience if the game makes them feel rewarded for doing that. At first players need goal, then as they develop they can move on to making more ambitious goal.
In closing
An endless game can make for a deeper experience and for us as long term GSG players that's almost always what we want; a challenge, something that we have to really work to achieve things in. We mostly want to make our own stories, define our own success. But that's not where we started. We'd have never got to that point if we never had the chance to feel good about our own ability. Before we can set our own goals we need to know the game's scale and scope and what the game thinks are reasonable goals for us to aspire to. Being overwhelmed is a big problem for PDS games and a lot of players only get into them at all b
The argument that the game should simply not have victory conditions is a pretty extreme position to take. I agree that all players should have the choice to play without them if that's their bag but to say that the game shouldn't have them at all forgets what it's like to be a new player being overwhelmed by everything that's happening. It doesn't hurt our experience for other players to start with a more approachable, more finite form of the game while they learn the mechanics.
It's ok for us to ask for more choice. But we shouldn't ask for optional content other people will appreciate to be removed just because it's not to our taste. We can have the endless sci-fi empire we want while still having something more approachable and structured for new players.
We can have both.
-=Edits for formatting=-
Last edited:
- 2
- 2
- 2
I do see where you are coming from but I can't agree with it. I do not see how a victory condition (vc) does what you say it dose.
I will run through you number to highlight where I disagree
1. In principle I agree it gives a target, though in most games they are so basic no one should need to be told them. Conquer the map, be in an alliance with everyone or reach the end of the tech trees.
2. I disagree with this unless a new player is considered to be someone that regularly wins. New players should loose and if they start a new game or not has little to do with how close they got to winning. By loose I mean wiped off the map, fall into a black hole because they tried to do something too fast. The drive to work out how to win is strong than winning as a hook. My opinion only.
3. See 2, but also in a galaxy not every race should have the same goal. There should be races that do not care, ones that chase a tech even though it is plainly obviously to everyone else that doing so is hurting them. To provide a target everything most play to the same rules or there is no challenge and that is boring.
4. The replay value comes from having options and not being able to do everything in one game, not the end. I am not saying there should not be an end, well not here anyway.
5a&b. Yes they do.
6. Vcs has little to do with making combat less important. If the alternatives are fun and engaging people will try them, if not they will ignore them. Very few people will wade though dribble to claim a peaceful victory when a more engaging alternative is there.
In conclusion
I came to this thread to discuss vc not to ask for there removal. I see little benefit in vcs in any game and a splash screen saying yah congratulations generally interrupt the game more than anything else.
New player will not meet them, more experienced players will ignore them and the ones in between will either stop playing because the game is not fun or hit them once and go that was disappointing and stop playing or say what else can I do here.
- 5
I am less against victory conditions, and more worried about them failing to implement them properly. The largest failure they could do wrong is to make them too easy to reach. I fear that they will make them suit people who want shorter multiplayer games. Some people expect to be able to succeed the game in a decent amount of time, while I think it should be as difficult to win the game. Conquering the galaxy should not be easy, and normal players will not be able to do it. If that is going to be a way to win the game, either few players will be able to win, it will be a much worse victory conditions than the others, or it will be too easy.
There is three ways to do this.
1. Difficult victory conditions, like conquering the galaxy, or most of it. Most people won't make it so far, and while it will be very satisfying, it is will not be right.
2. Great victory conditions, like conquering the galaxy, but too easily, due to basing a normal game around doing this. The worst way possible, as it would be ruining the realism.
3. The best option. Decent victory conditions, like conquering a medium percent of the galaxy, or doing something of similar difficulty. Difficult enough, even with player bonuses, but does not make the game unrealistic or unbalanced.
There is three ways to do this.
1. Difficult victory conditions, like conquering the galaxy, or most of it. Most people won't make it so far, and while it will be very satisfying, it is will not be right.
2. Great victory conditions, like conquering the galaxy, but too easily, due to basing a normal game around doing this. The worst way possible, as it would be ruining the realism.
3. The best option. Decent victory conditions, like conquering a medium percent of the galaxy, or doing something of similar difficulty. Difficult enough, even with player bonuses, but does not make the game unrealistic or unbalanced.
- 4
Why not regular (saw hourly) status updates that compare you against other known empires - if you have the proper tech/intelligence capabilities. Without you'd only get a summary of your own empire. The reason I like this rather than an on the fly summary is that in reality most people in power don't have minute by minute stats, that have to wait for monthly/quarterly/annual data too.
This could help a player set their own goals "damn my welfare advisor says my people are undernourished compared to most neighbors!"
This could help a player set their own goals "damn my welfare advisor says my people are undernourished compared to most neighbors!"
- 3
Poor victory conditions in other games don't effect how they would (or should) be implemented here.
New players are going to lose, yes, but they still need to feel they are achieving something each time they try, at least getting closer to some goal.
It's extremely optimistic to suggest that not every empire should have the same objectives, especially in a 4X with symmetric starts. In an RPG (or a book or film) having races with different perspectives and philosophies can be very interesting but in a 4X that's just silly. If any side in the game simply can not or will not pursue anything that's clearly to their advantage then they are hamstrung; trying to succeed without a bunch of stuff that everyone else has. Writing a back story to say 'Oh but they are just peaceful space lizards who don't like fighting' won't improve the game play.
Finite endings really do increase replay value. It's why shooters are always set up as short, finite matches. Play for five minutes then wipe the scoreboard and start over. For successful players it lets you 'win' but also gives you a score to beat next time. For less skilled players it makes you feel like your bad performance is gone and you can do better this time, not spending the rest of your career with those thousand stupid newbie deaths hanging around your neck.
Non-combat victory conditions really do ensure players understand that non-combat elements are still really important. When the game puts controlling 70% of the galaxies trade on the same pedestal as conquering the universe then yeah, it sends a clear signal that this is important and rewarding and pursuing that as your goal is just as worthwhile. Look at EU4. The reward for being a dominant trade empire is pretty minimal. You get money but everyone has money. Even if you could somehow control all the worlds trade it makes no real difference. The game doesn't reward you for that, but it hugely rewards you for conquering people. At least a victory condition gives you something for your hard work. Maybe it's hard, maybe it's less fun for the player but being able to win that way is important and especially for the AI because that means the player can never just ignore a smaller empire.
You really underestimate just how important it is for players to get their first victory in a game. The game needs to reward your time and effort.
And yes, you're right that older players will just play without victory conditions. But that's ok. I've never said that victory conditions should be the only way. I've said so very many times now that we should have an endless mode too and that veteran players should probably be playing there. All I've ever been trying to say is that victory conditions help new players learn and rewards them for getting better, which is why new players should start there.
Again - We can have both. If you don't want victory conditions don't play with them. No-one is going to force you to see a victory screen but that doesn't mean that screen isn't rewarding and important to people who aren't you. Since we can have both, why does it even matter if you like victory conditions or not? Other people do want it and will appreciate it and they won't in any way effect the game that you get.
- 5
Ok I am going to spell it out for
I AM NOT SAYING REMOVE VICTORY CONDITIONS.
I am disagreeing with them doing what you say they do.
Also way does every race have to try and win? If there are 4 or 5 that are a real challenge early on and 1 or 2 that are a challenge late in the game why is it silly to have a few that are pushing towards a goal that makes no sense to me. A galaxy of Aliens that think the same is just stupid.
I think we are now just going round is circles where there is a misunderstanding in my point and I do not seem to be able to get it across to you. Therefore I will exit the stage.
- 3
They aren't trying to "win", they are maximizing objective functions based on the temperament/preferences of their civilization. Surely all NPCs must have goals.
I disagree that the victory conotions must be set in stone to satisfy the player. See Distant World's for a good example - during game setup you can choose which VCs to enable, increase or decrease their thresholds, or disable them entirely. Whether they are on or off doesn't impact the AI - it will fulfill race specific objectives regardless. Not sure why this concept is so alien to this forum, given it is likely how the AI in other PDS games works.
- 1
- 1
Edited for what stands out to me.
You've said similar statements multiple times, and I feel like we fundamentally disagree on this. Not only do I personally not care about a victory screens, I don't even know anyone who cares about them. I love playing PDS games so much specifically because they're different from so many other games in that they don't give you a gold star and call you a winner just because you tried.
Literally everyone has been agreeing that we can have both. Those on the pro-endless side simply also raises concerns about the AI being made to act irrationally to fulfil those victory conditions because that is what literally every other 4X game has done. Yes, that doesn't necessarily mean that PDS will do it as well with Stellaris, but I'm sure you can see why we're cautious about it when there is such a strong precedent for it.
- 5
- 1
To the pro-endless side:
- What will govern AI actions under your preferred mode? What will NPCs strive for? Surely something.
- Why couldn't a set time be an option tacked on which doesn't impact the endless AI (ie the AI is blind to the end date)?
- Why couldn't a summary stats screen be presented at this time which again doesn't impact the AI designed for endless?
- Why couldn't PDS or mods highlight certain scores to strive for/surpass, again with no change to the endless AI?
- 2
Also, I think one flaw with the pro-endless camp is the attitude of: I don't care about victory conditions, so no one should.
Why not instead emphasize endless play that uses the missions function in EU4 as guidance/goals for new players to set near and long term goals under endless play?
Why not instead emphasize endless play that uses the missions function in EU4 as guidance/goals for new players to set near and long term goals under endless play?
- 2
- 2
This is what the argument is about:
- The pro-endless side doesn't want a mandatory victory condition, or a game that is heavily focused on them, or AI that illogically works towards such goals or works against the player achieving such goals. If none of these problems appears, they will be happy. They also don't want a mandatory score screen, with no continue button.
- The pro-victory condition side wants victory conditions. As long as the victory conditions is well made, they will be happy. Some wants what the pro-endless side doesn't want, but most seems to agree with the pro-endless side about them.
- There is someone who wants a victory condition mode where the AI will be tailored around victory conditions, but with another AI for endless mode. Thus resulting in far more work.
- Missions. I'm pretty sure most people here wants smaller ingame missions in the game.
- Achievements.
- Score.
- 1
About "I don't care about victory conditions, so no one should":
- Some pro-victory condition people tried to explain that "most player want victory conditions."
- Some pro-endless mode people stated that the other paradox games didn't have victory conditions, and that they were popular.
- It ended up in a long argument, full of misunderstandings and miscommunication.
- 2
I am only stepping back in because the recent Dev Diary actually shed a little light on the AI debate, specifically.
The recent dev diary actually outlined how NPC faction behavior will be differentiated, how they will pursue technologies, whether they tend toward peace or war, etc. It is actually very compelling, and if you haven't read it already, I'd recommend it. It isn't necessarily mutually exclusive to AI designed with victory conditions in mind, but it is a comforting reassurance that victory conditions, at the very least, will not form the core of their behavior, as it does in most 4X games.
The recent dev diary actually outlined how NPC faction behavior will be differentiated, how they will pursue technologies, whether they tend toward peace or war, etc. It is actually very compelling, and if you haven't read it already, I'd recommend it. It isn't necessarily mutually exclusive to AI designed with victory conditions in mind, but it is a comforting reassurance that victory conditions, at the very least, will not form the core of their behavior, as it does in most 4X games.
As Zukodark just pointed out, nobody has a problem with optional end-points and victory conditions. I'll let his points stand, because I want to focus on the AI comment above, but I wanted to just point his two posts out as a response, because I agree wholeheartedly with them.
- 2
IMO:
The Victory Conditions should be loosely Ethos based.
(where being a Fanatic at it may helpout, but not necessarily)
WIN via Military Conquest (75% of total population goal - easier by subtracting enemy pops) or Pacifist (75% of total population goal - easier by adding friendly pops - Farming Bonus).
WIN via Xenophobe (75% of other players population under your control via slavery, including AI and dead players) or Xenophile (75% of other players alliances via diplomacy on your side, including AI and dead players).
WIN via Spiritual (75% of total 'Spiritualism' ; soft sciences achieved in the universe compared to all others), or Materialist (75% of hard sciences achieved in the universe compared to all others) .
WIN via Collectivist (75% of government wealth in the universe per empire), or Individualist (75% of total individual wealth in the universe per empire).
The Victory Conditions should be loosely Ethos based.
(where being a Fanatic at it may helpout, but not necessarily)
WIN via Military Conquest (75% of total population goal - easier by subtracting enemy pops) or Pacifist (75% of total population goal - easier by adding friendly pops - Farming Bonus).
WIN via Xenophobe (75% of other players population under your control via slavery, including AI and dead players) or Xenophile (75% of other players alliances via diplomacy on your side, including AI and dead players).
WIN via Spiritual (75% of total 'Spiritualism' ; soft sciences achieved in the universe compared to all others), or Materialist (75% of hard sciences achieved in the universe compared to all others) .
WIN via Collectivist (75% of government wealth in the universe per empire), or Individualist (75% of total individual wealth in the universe per empire).
I have pretty much not seen ANYONE who argued in this thread there could be NO victory conditions in the game or a scoring mechanic. So why some poeple bring that up is beyond me.
The argument is about AI behavior and that is the key issue. I'm almost 99% sure there will not be an AI that universally will target any specific victory condition. I'm pretty sure the AI will work as en extension of its personality and its present situation with both short and long term goals, just not specifically directed against the player or for domination of the galaxy.
When you have a galaxy filled with dozens or more empires even the AI should be mostly focused on survival as will the player. That is making friends and allies to form strong factions to dissuade more aggressive species from attacks. There are no reason why species whose ethos are more commercial or peaceful should not work towards those goals while more xenophobic and aggressive species try to survive through war or threats of war if you dare to venture into their space.
None of this remove the option of using scores or optional victory condition.
Most other Paradox games work perfectly alright without any victory condition although there is always some kind of ending which I believe that Stellaris will have as well. Exactly what it will be is en entirely different matter.
Why anyone even tries to convince people there is a need for most people to work toward a victory condition beats me and I don't think there are any proof that this is the case.
The argument is about AI behavior and that is the key issue. I'm almost 99% sure there will not be an AI that universally will target any specific victory condition. I'm pretty sure the AI will work as en extension of its personality and its present situation with both short and long term goals, just not specifically directed against the player or for domination of the galaxy.
When you have a galaxy filled with dozens or more empires even the AI should be mostly focused on survival as will the player. That is making friends and allies to form strong factions to dissuade more aggressive species from attacks. There are no reason why species whose ethos are more commercial or peaceful should not work towards those goals while more xenophobic and aggressive species try to survive through war or threats of war if you dare to venture into their space.
None of this remove the option of using scores or optional victory condition.
Most other Paradox games work perfectly alright without any victory condition although there is always some kind of ending which I believe that Stellaris will have as well. Exactly what it will be is en entirely different matter.
Why anyone even tries to convince people there is a need for most people to work toward a victory condition beats me and I don't think there are any proof that this is the case.
- 1
I bet you there are not going to be any such VC in the game... I'm also sure that Ethos can change during a game, I see no reason why they could not change over time.
I could see that if a large portion of the population switches over to some other ethos they could pressure the government and eventually you would have to choose civil war or change your ways.
The only end that I can see would be from some story arc, some final mission you manage to complete. But other than that there would only be your own goals that set the end of any particular game.
I'm not even convinced that the game will have any traditional VC at all. It might just be an option to activate the story line or play a complete sandbox game, your choice.
Yeah, PDS games typically allow you to change your cultural/political values gradually over time. Especially with pops having their own ethos, factions being able to grow and make demands, it would be very strange if the game didn't allow changes to your ethos from time to time.
I guess that isn't necessarily incompatible with victory conditions being tied to ethos (if your ethos changes, so does your related victory condition), but that is certainly a good point.
I myself am skeptical about claims that the devs have stated there would be victory conditions in the sense of the word as it's used in this thread. The terms 'endgame content' have been floated around, and the devs have given some examples of late-game stuff triggered by overzealous scientists and other events, and they might consider that to be a 'victory.' My impression was that each galaxy is given a sort of 'story' that can be followed somewhat through to its natural conclusion, and that it will be different each time you start a new galaxy. But they've been a bit vague on it, so it's hard to say.
I guess that isn't necessarily incompatible with victory conditions being tied to ethos (if your ethos changes, so does your related victory condition), but that is certainly a good point.
I myself am skeptical about claims that the devs have stated there would be victory conditions in the sense of the word as it's used in this thread. The terms 'endgame content' have been floated around, and the devs have given some examples of late-game stuff triggered by overzealous scientists and other events, and they might consider that to be a 'victory.' My impression was that each galaxy is given a sort of 'story' that can be followed somewhat through to its natural conclusion, and that it will be different each time you start a new galaxy. But they've been a bit vague on it, so it's hard to say.
- 3
The thing is though; if you aren't arguing for zero victory conditions at all; that they should be optional in some sense, what are we even arguing about? Because that's literally exactly the thing I've said the game should have. Optional victory conditions.
So if you want that too, why is everything I say treated with such disdain? Why is there this constant 'anti-everything I say' sentiment here if we think the same thing? What do you want that differs from what I want? What have I been saying that is actually being argued at? Is it seriously because I think victory conditions should be on by default? Is that literally it? And we agree on everything else?
Can you please state clearly how your position differs?
- Status