An argument for no victory conditions

[LostAlone]

I haven't seen it, so I must have missed it somewhere.

Anyway, it's totally irrelevant to what I and others are asking for, which is an endless mode, and for mechanics/AI to not rely on victory conditions. LostAlone, you seem incapable of understanding what other people are saying to you, because every time you post, you spend about 80% of your time responding to something nobody said.

I don't know why, after I have stated REPEATEDLY. Like frigging EVERY POST. That I have no problem with victory conditions. And you are still talking to me as if you think I do.

Seriously, get over it.

So what exactly was your argument then? If you are ok with victory conditions (and thus a concrete end) then why have you been directly arguing against that in every single post?

If you just want and endless mode, and I just want an endless mode then why are you getting in a tizzy and looking up game theory and telling me that because of the literature you must be right about... Something?

 

[State Machine]

Hmph...

These kind of arguments become totally confusing to the casual reader. It would be very useful if the protagonists each post a concise argument for their position.

 

[Harle]

So what exactly was your argument then? If you are ok with victory conditions (and thus a concrete end) then why have you been directly arguing against that in every single post?

If you just want and endless mode, and I just want an endless mode then why are you getting in a tizzy and looking up game theory and telling me that because of the literature you must be right about... Something?

I can't tell if you're being serious right now. You just responded to a post I made which laid out what everyone is asking for, and it explained quite neatly. I have said it multiple times. Other people have told you directly. I explained the issues around victory conditions and their traditional impact on the way games are designed, and the way AI is designed to behave. Multiple times.

Developers have to design the AI to behave in particular ways. One of the issues with a lot of 4X games is that the AI is designed in parallel with victory conditions, such that in the core of their behavior is a tendency to chase victory conditions, in order to give the player competition, and also to prevent the player from achieving victory conditions. Typically, the closer the player gets to victory, the more and more the rest of the galaxy tends to want to fight with them. They gang up on the player like the losing players in a game of Risk dogpile on the leader in the hope of breaking their lead. Diplomacy gets harder and harder, trade goes down the toilet, allies start breaking treaties. This isn't how nations act just because another nation is successful.

This isn't even necessarily bad game design if you want to create a curated experience, but it creates scenarios where the AI are not behaving like nations, empires, leaders with people to care about and protect. They throw their own survival out the window to chase a victory conditon that they shouldn't care about.

These behaviors almost universally carry over to endless modes in these games. The AI still hates the player for being in the lead, they still chase particular victories even when they are turned off, because that is how their AI is built. Races described as peace-loving will turn on you, mercantile races will tear up trade agreements, all because you are in the lead, even though there are no victory conditions. Because the AI thinks the game is a race to be won, rather than a world they need to survive in.

That is what I don't want to see. And that is pretty important to me, because if Paradox goes that route, it will be very hard, if not impossible, for modders to change that. That kind of thing is deep-coded and usually inaccessible to modders. And however deep Stellaris may end up being as a 4X game, if I can't trust the AI to not treat the game like a race to be won, then it will be forever trapped in arcade mode, regardless of victory conditions or lack thereof.

I could not care less if there are victory conditions. More power to them. It is the typical consequences I want to avoid. Build the game as if it were endless, and then work in victory conditions. Don't treat the AI like they exist purely as an obstacle for the player achieving them.

So when you talk about 'default' that is what I am hearing from you. Please, correct me if I'm wrong, because I would love to be in agreement on this. But I will point out that this whole situation - both sides - was laid out shortly before you came in here telling everyone else how the game has to be and why.

 

[FelixG]

I prefer endless game with emergent story.

What some people seem to be failing to understand is that AN AI with end game objectives in mind and an AI with endless games in mind would be designed fairly differently, one would be oriented on a few specific goals depending on which box was clicked, or which fits better with their racial bonuses.

As far as multiplayer goes, my friends and I have never needed en e-peen stoker like score or victory conditions to enjoy a 4x game together, we have our goals, we either compete or cooperate depending on those goals, and just have fun together, because at the end of the day thats what it is about, its not about racing to some arbitrary finish line, its about having fun and being able to relate stories that have happened in the past and what not. "Oh yeah it was awesome when my battle station was on the verge of dewath but your titan warped in and caused the enemy to retreat!" not "Well that was a fun game, but I got to the tech victory first so hah!" or "neener neener I was the first to 5,000,000 points!"

Hell I would even argue that AI designed around victory conditions is a determent to good emergent stories, you will have things like Endless space or Civilization where you have been friends with particular people for long, long times, only to have them turn on you because you are nearing a completely arbitrary point count or victory condition and they are programmed to try to beat you there.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

So what exactly was your argument then? If you are ok with victory conditions (and thus a concrete end) then why have you been directly arguing against that in every single post?

If you just want and endless mode, and I just want an endless mode then why are you getting in a tizzy and looking up game theory and telling me that because of the literature you must be right about... Something?

Don't you read his posts...

We want the game AI to play independently and rational to their own character and survival, we do NOT want it to include any mechanics that steer it toward any particular victory condition. So no mechanics that impact diplomacy because you are about to reach some victory condition or some other such silly feature.

No one is arguing that the game can't have victory conditions for players that want to be reminded of them or working toward some goal or the game to end at a specific point, this is particularity helpful in multi-player for example.

It also is hard to understand from your post if you really want the game AI to act as if the game is a contest or not, can you please explain your position a bit better?

 

[prismaticmarcus]

My observation on an 'Endless' mode is that it would be physically impossible anyway. Presumably the game will build a history file for your galaxy. This file can only be a finite size i.e. the maximum your computer will allow. After that it's physically impossible to play any further. So the game has to come to an End.

 

[FelixG]

My observation on an 'Endless' mode is that it would be physically impossible anyway. Presumably the game will build a history file for your galaxy. This file can only be a finite size i.e. the maximum your computer will allow. After that it's physically impossible to play any further. So the game has to come to an End.

"Endless" is just a simpler way of saying that each game should come to its own natural and organic conclusion, not be constrained to arbitrary check-box victory conditions or point counts.

 

[prismaticmarcus]

"Endless" is just a simpler way of saying that each game should come to its own natural and organic conclusion, not be constrained to arbitrary check-box victory conditions or point counts.

so how do you envisage the game actually ending? what do you think The End would look like?

 

[Wenla]

so how do you envisage the game actually ending? what do you think The End would look like?

It will look like a nightmare.

 

[ashbery76]

I disagree.End game conditions should always be met before the player has finished the tech tree and got bored with mopping up.I think all 4X games need conquest and diplomatic senate victory's.This way both peacefull and aggressive races can win.

At the moment it seems you win by conquest or beating the big bad.Both are suited for warfare races and not builders.

 

[Harle]

so how do you envisage the game actually ending? what do you think The End would look like?

For those who are accustomed to endless games, the End looks like whatever we want it to. Maybe it looks like nothing. Maybe it is the aftermath of a war between the only two viable empires left who could conceivably dominate. Maybe it is the point at which you've researched everything and are well ahead of every other empire, scientifically. Maybe it's after a cataclysmic event has been cleaned up. Maybe it's the moment you decide that you want to try a different kind of empire. Maybe it's after ten years of peace between every remaining empire, and no threat of war in sight, and you decide that the galaxy has effectively stabilized. The end doesn't have to 'look like' anything. It can look like whatever you want it to look like.

If you like victory conditions, more power to you, but it's not my cup of tea. I don't like being told how to play in a sandbox, it sucks the life out of it for me. But that's unimportant, because it's pointless trying to convince anyone why a personal preference is the right way to play.

The important issue here is really not whether victory conditions or endless play is the 'better' way to play. The important issue - at least, to me - is avoiding the consequences of designing a game from the ground-up with victory conditions in mind, because AI that are trying to 'win the race' all the time are unrealistic and uninteresting. It removes variety from the AI's personality, and it trends the game toward conquest.

That is what is at stake.

 

[LostAlone]

"Endless" is just a simpler way of saying that each game should come to its own natural and organic conclusion, not be constrained to arbitrary check-box victory conditions or point counts.

I can agree with the sentiment but it's radically easier said than done. If the victory conditions aren't static you could never reach them or run into them way before you want to. At least with static ones then you clearly know what to do, and while that imperfect as a system it's better than floating, changing victory conditions where the computer is trying essentially guess when you've stopped having fun.

I prefer endless game with emergent story.

There will be an emergent story anyway, and you will have the choice (either through mods or PDS just baking it into the core game) to play an endless game. You'll get what you want.

 

[LostAlone]

For those who are accustomed to endless games, the End looks like whatever we want it to. Maybe it looks like nothing. Maybe it is the aftermath of a war between the only two viable empires left who could conceivably dominate. Maybe it is the point at which you've researched everything and are well ahead of every other empire, scientifically. Maybe it's after a cataclysmic event has been cleaned up. Maybe it's the moment you decide that you want to try a different kind of empire. Maybe it's after ten years of peace between every remaining empire, and no threat of war in sight, and you decide that the galaxy has effectively stabilized. The end doesn't have to 'look like' anything. It can look like whatever you want it to look like.

If you like victory conditions, more power to you, but it's not my cup of tea. I don't like being told how to play in a sandbox, it sucks the life out of it for me. But that's unimportant, because it's pointless trying to convince anyone why a personal preference is the right way to play.

The important issue here is really not whether victory conditions or endless play is the 'better' way to play. The important issue - at least, to me - is avoiding the consequences of designing a game from the ground-up with victory conditions in mind, because AI that are trying to 'win the race' all the time are unrealistic and uninteresting. It removes variety from the AI's personality, and it trends the game toward conquest.

That is what is at stake.

No, there's nothing at stake. PDS are going to do what they do anyway. They aren't waiting on tenterhooks to see what way this thread turns out.

You have been strongly belabouring the idea that simply becauase victory conditions exist the AI will have to be crappy and not be good for endless mode. This is not, in fact, an issue about victory conditions. It's about poor AI. And that's ok. We should all be worried about the AI. Big part of the game, right? But that doesn't explain why victory conditions shouldn't appear. The two are, in fact, unrelated. It's saying that if we don't get Endless as the core mode then Endless can't be good as an additional mode when there's no reason to believe that's so. The way to solve this is to make a better AI not to change the whole game on the off chance that PDS are crapwits with no development skills only capable of making one good game mode.

In abstract there is no better way to play between the two game modes. Again, for perhaps the tenth time, I want the endless mode. I do. I think that is the 'real' experience that 4X games have to offer. That is how I typically enjoy playing 4X games once I've learned the systems. So we are not talking at all about which of these is better. We're talking about which mode should be the first one presented to a new player. This maybe isn't the be all and end all of a games success but it is important and it does need to be hedged towards new players and to give fixed goals that help people learn and reward achievements that (to them) may or may not actually seem rewarding.

Remember; they are new players. They don't know how to set themselves goals in this world. They don't know what's possible or even plausible. And that's why they need a more closed, guided experience as their first point of contact. So they can look at the victory conditions and see what the game defines as success. It gives players a reason to look at systems they otherwise might just ignore because the game says 'Hey you can win through commerce'. That's how you take the emphasis off warfare.

In an open endless game everything always comes down to fighting. That's just the way it works. Eventually you (or someone) is going to run out of room to expand and look towards you. And this is a PDS game. The AI won't be shy about starting wars even on easy. An infinite timeline makes it certain that warfare has to be the defining factor. At least with victory conditions it ensures that other approaches are actually placed on the same level as war. Yes, it is gamey. But at least that means you can grab a win while the militant empires are too busy fighting each other to actually win the game. It rewards you for being smart and particularly as a new player it's really REALLY important to make players feel clever.

In infinite game how is playing a peaceful race of traders even plausible? All the resources are going to be taken. There has to be scarcity and so has to be conflict. And if you haven't been keeping pace with the size of your forces and your military tech then boy are you just the most tempting target.

You say you don't just want warfare, then what you are really looking for is a game mode where the resources won't necessarily all be used up, where there is enough space for everyone, at least for long enough for the victory conditions to show up. Running out of space and resources guarantees war is the only answer. No matter how peaceful you as a player want to be, a good, rational AI (that you're so concerned about) will figure out that you are an easy target.

 

[Harle]

No, there's nothing at stake. PDS are going to do what they do anyway. They aren't waiting on tenterhooks to see what way this thread turns out.

It's at stake for me. My longterm enjoyment of the game hinges greatly on whether or not this is the case. Unless you think we should all just stop talking about anything, since PDS is going to do whatever they are going to do.

You have been strongly belabouring the idea that simply becauase victory conditions exist the AI will have to be crappy and not be good for endless mode. This is not, in fact, an issue about victory conditions. It's about poor AI. And that's ok. We should all be worried about the AI. Big part of the game, right? But that doesn't explain why victory conditions shouldn't appear. The two are, in fact, unrelated. It's saying that if we don't get Endless as the core mode then Endless can't be good as an additional mode when there's no reason to believe that's so. The way to solve this is to make a better AI not to change the whole game on the off chance that PDS are crapwits with no development skills only capable of making one good game mode.

Oh, he's just going to continue on. Okay, I guess the earlier statement was a false alarm.

So here's the thing; they are related, and you are wrong. AI is not developed in a vacuum. The developers don't cloister themselves in another room and slap together AI, completely oblivious of the design goals of the game. The AI of a game is built alongside the rest of the game, and the AI typically has the same goals and motivations that the developer expects the player to have. If the game is designed with victory conditions in mind, the obvious thing to do - and when I say obvious, I am not assuming anything, I am pointing out that virtually every 4X game built on a traditional victory condition system does this - is to design the AI to compete directly with the player for 'victory.'

This notion that Paradox would have to be 'crapwits' to not do the exact same thing that every commercially successful 4X game (and a majority of the less successful ones) have done, is just mind-boggling. You are saying that it should go without saying that Paradox would break with tradition. I have faith in PDS too. I actually think it is more likely that they will break with tradition than won't. But to stand there and say that they would have to have no development skills is so ignorant that I have to question whether you have ever actually played a 4X game before.

We're talking about which mode should be the first one presented to a new player. This maybe isn't the be all and end all of a games success but it is important and it does need to be hedged towards new players and to give fixed goals that help people learn and reward achievements that (to them) may or may not actually seem rewarding.

You are talking about this. And you still haven't define what that means. Are we going to be forced to play a victory condition game before we can play endless? Is that your suggestion? Because if so - and I am putting this politely - go pound sand. Because otherwise, I have no idea what you're talking about. 4X space games almost universally allow you to choose which, if any, victory conditions you want to use. So given the options of Conquest > Diplomatic > Science > Economic > Endless, what are you proposing we do to 'present victory conditions first?' Do you just want them at the top of the list? Do you want to grey out Endless until they've played one of the others? Do you want to allow them to select it but pop up a dialogue box warning players that they should try victory conditions first? What are you even talking about?

In an open endless game everything always comes down to fighting. That's just the way it works.

I am going to try to put this as concisely as I can:

It works that way, because 4X games program their AI to do this. They program their AI to turn on the 'winner' even when there are no victory conditions, not explicitly, but by virtue of building the AI's decision-making process to specifically weigh the player's achievements: things like score, technological progress, empire size, military strength, and progress in victory conditions. Because writing AI is hard, and having the AI pay attention to the player is the easiest way to prevent the game from being too easy, and it is a lazy but successful way to make the AI feel responsive.

This is the exact situation that turns up in many 4X games. This is the issue we are trying to avoid in Stellaris. This is what I have been talking about all this time.

So thank you for proving my point.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

No, there's nothing at stake. PDS are going to do what they do anyway. They aren't waiting on tenterhooks to see what way this thread turns out.

You have been strongly belabouring the idea that simply becauase victory conditions exist the AI will have to be crappy and not be good for endless mode. This is not, in fact, an issue about victory conditions. It's about poor AI. And that's ok. We should all be worried about the AI. Big part of the game, right? But that doesn't explain why victory conditions shouldn't appear. The two are, in fact, unrelated. It's saying that if we don't get Endless as the core mode then Endless can't be good as an additional mode when there's no reason to believe that's so. The way to solve this is to make a better AI not to change the whole game on the off chance that PDS are crapwits with no development skills only capable of making one good game mode.

In abstract there is no better way to play between the two game modes. Again, for perhaps the tenth time, I want the endless mode. I do. I think that is the 'real' experience that 4X games have to offer. That is how I typically enjoy playing 4X games once I've learned the systems. So we are not talking at all about which of these is better. We're talking about which mode should be the first one presented to a new player. This maybe isn't the be all and end all of a games success but it is important and it does need to be hedged towards new players and to give fixed goals that help people learn and reward achievements that (to them) may or may not actually seem rewarding.

Remember; they are new players. They don't know how to set themselves goals in this world. They don't know what's possible or even plausible. And that's why they need a more closed, guided experience as their first point of contact. So they can look at the victory conditions and see what the game defines as success. It gives players a reason to look at systems they otherwise might just ignore because the game says 'Hey you can win through commerce'. That's how you take the emphasis off warfare.

In an open endless game everything always comes down to fighting. That's just the way it works. Eventually you (or someone) is going to run out of room to expand and look towards you. And this is a PDS game. The AI won't be shy about starting wars even on easy. An infinite timeline makes it certain that warfare has to be the defining factor. At least with victory conditions it ensures that other approaches are actually placed on the same level as war. Yes, it is gamey. But at least that means you can grab a win while the militant empires are too busy fighting each other to actually win the game. It rewards you for being smart and particularly as a new player it's really REALLY important to make players feel clever.

In infinite game how is playing a peaceful race of traders even plausible? All the resources are going to be taken. There has to be scarcity and so has to be conflict. And if you haven't been keeping pace with the size of your forces and your military tech then boy are you just the most tempting target.

You say you don't just want warfare, then what you are really looking for is a game mode where the resources won't necessarily all be used up, where there is enough space for everyone, at least for long enough for the victory conditions to show up. Running out of space and resources guarantees war is the only answer. No matter how peaceful you as a player want to be, a good, rational AI (that you're so concerned about) will figure out that you are an easy target.

I still don't think you actually stated your actual fundamental and practical point... can you answer this simple question in one sentance...

Do you want the AI to be hard coded to reach a particular victory condition or not?

Everything else you say are completely pointless since no one is arguing for victory conditions to be excluded from the game.

As far as I know Paradox have never used victory condition weighted AI programming in their other titles, not even in such a goal driven games such as HoI. So I really don't think they will in this game either. They have said that technology will not be finite and time will never end but there will be some sort of ending if one prefer it. If this means you can ignore it and the AI is not hard coded to reach that end (which I doubt it will) then I will be satisfied.

 

[FelixG]

so how do you envisage the game actually ending? what do you think The End would look like?

Any way the player whos story that particular game is wants it to end. Has your race spread to the far reaches and taken over all their primary competitors? Thats where you can end. Has the federation of which you are a member gathered into its ranks all of the power players in the galaxy? Thats where you end. Did you defeat the robot uprising in your empire and establish a new peace? Thats where you end.

However some people don't want their games to end there, some want to keep going, and reach other victory conditions they set for themselves, and both playstyles are valid, you don't need an arbitrary point count or checkbox to tell you "You are winar!" to have a satisfying conclusion to your game.

 

[State Machine]

Hmph...

These kind of arguments become totally confusing to the casual reader. It would be very useful if the protagonists each post a concise argument for their position.

To quote myself... And to add that I should have continued with something like "because a summary of the major points often clarifies the true issues at hand and simplifies the argument(s)".

Let me take a stab at summarizing the variants for "game end".

Endless
a) well... just that, no game end.
b) see "Soft" Victory Conditions, below.

Victory Conditions
a) game end when some entity (player or ai) achieves the pre-defined conditions.
b) ditto, but the game can still be played.
c) players (ai as well?) choose a "personal" VC. That is, the VC can be variable within the constraints the developers set. But the prior two items are relevant as a result of achieving VC.
d) see "Soft" Victory Conditions, below.

"Soft" Victory Conditions
In an Endless or VC game players might establish "one time" VC for a game. This could be the individual deciding to end an SP game when X occurs, or an MP game where the "VC" is established upfront or even in-game at some point. An aside, the classic board game, Diplomacy (which is botched every few years in computer ports including by Paradox), it is very common in casual games to define the VC at a mutually agreed "game end" (it's a MP game) .

Complications
a) ai programming trying to achieve the VC. Philosophically, I have no problems with an ai that is coded to achieve VC. After all, if VC is defined, then surely the ai should try to achieve victory.
b) however, ai programming is hard enough, and generally not very effective the more variable, and complex, and especially the longer the simulation runs. I could go on quite a bit here, referring to concepts like "state-full" and "state-less" (which, btw, is part of the inspiration of my nick ), but simply, the ai has enough problems dealing with short-term things to "worry" about long-term things (or, better, super long-term things). It seems I'm biasing my otherwise neutral approach with this point...

Cheers,

State

 

[Fuu]

In the Iain M Banks universe of the Culture novels, any sufficiently advanced civilization can decide to transcend the material universe, a process called "subliming". Subliming is a delicate political event in the galaxy, since it leaves all the material possessions of that civilization behind. Remaining civilizations, of varying technological sophistication, may squabble over the remains unless some kind of inheritance process is agreed upon and enforced by the most powerful of those remaining civilizations. Some civilizations consider subliming as the ultimate achievement; others as taking the easy way out.

Subliming is in effect the "end condition" for civilizations in this fiction, and I wonder whether a similar kind of transcendence could work well as an end condition in Stellaris. Once you're advanced enough (very advanced), you could transcend whenever you like. The in-game galaxy could even still go on with you taking control of another faction. It wouldn't necessarily matter if another faction transcended before you; you would still be present in the galaxy and you (and the wider galaxy) may benefit or suffer from this potentially dramatic change in the power structure.

And "end condition" like this could give closure to your civilization and game experience, without constituting a "victory condition" and all that that entails. In that way you wouldn't have to be concerned with the game ending prematurely because of other factions completing it before you, or with other factions attempting to prevent you from transcending just because they "don't want you to win". Instead, an end condition like this could even enrich the late-game experience, which is typically the least interesting in strategy games, since one faction could resist or even promote the transcendence of another, if they stand to suffer or benefit from it.

 

[Orctavius]

We don't know what the other victory conditions will be yet, but I specifically hope that total galactic conquest is extremely difficult and unlikely to be achieved by players of an average skill level (including myself).

 

[The Dark Warmonger]

WHY DONT YOU JUST HAVE BOTH LIKE IN DISTANT WORLDS WHERE YOU CAN DO BOTH. THIS HAS BEEN VERY ENJOYABLE FOR ME