But more and more players are giving me the feedback that it's a big part of what makes them quit the game.
They either feel powerless when facing AIs that are there for a while and handle much more cases than theirs or just don't feel like they are willing to spend enough time refining it to reach that level of hardly maintainable complexity.
It seems like iteration has a much bigger impact than creativity after all.
Improving by iteration is one of the many aspects of programming I want to communicate to the player with Gladiabots.
But the most interesting part for me is this creative power you feel when starting a new piece of code.
Real game designers (meaning not wannabes like me) often say that constraints can be a catalyst for creativity.
So I'm thinking about introducing some limits to the size of the AIs.
Latest tournaments seem to prove that some of you are interested by this kind of constraints.
Of course, I'm anticipating the feedback from the "oldest" players who must fear for their mighty AIs.
There won't be one magic size that satisfies all players so I'm thinking about something like the cups in Mario kart.
So different difficulty (or more accurately complexity) levels like 10, 20, 50, 100 nodes for example (don't focus on the values but on the concept).
Players would choose in which category they would like to compete.
Beginners would most likely try lower complexities first and when they feel confident enough, could try higher ones.
Already established players could find new challenges in lower ones, having to change their way of designing their AIs, focusing on some parts of their global strategy or trying to make it all fit in less space, etc.
So, what's your opinion about that?