Player Bonus Settings Revamp
-
@Hepps True though my goal for TripleA as a whole is that Edit mode should be a last resort for regular games (mostly should just be used if a mistake was made or something isn't working properly).
I mostly just want the available AI bonus parameters to be straightforward and feel intuitive. So if you were to say I want my AI opponents to get '+25% income' would I expect the initial resources to be increased by that as well?
-
@redrum said in AI Bonus Settings Revamp:
I'm thinking the default will be something like the following but still up for discussion:
Level 1 - +20% income, +10% unit production limit
Level 2 - +40% income, +20% unit production limit
Level 3 - +60% income, +30% unit production limit
Level 4 - +80% income, +40% unit production limit
Level 5 - +100% income, +50% unit production limitUhm, I'm thinking it would be better to allow for defining the percentage, I mean having an almost continuous slider, giving the ability of setting +25%, if wanted, without having to jump from +20% to +40%. That would allow fine-tuning a challenge, trying to inch till the uppermost level you can manage to win vs the AI. If having steps, I suggest them being 5% each (5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%...).
Also, I don't see why having the placement increasing half than the income? As I suggested, I proposed a switch for having / not having a same placement bonus as the income bonus, but maybe, instead of a boolean, you can have a percent of how much the unit production should increase with the income (so, in your case, you would set it at 50, but you can set it at 0 or 100).
If the matter is not risking, due to the placement abilities being sometimes limited and forcefully integer, the placement factually increasing more than the income, in some territories, I'd go for just having both increasing by the same percentage, but the income approximating normally, while the unit placement always rounding down. Thus, if you have 25% bonus income, you would have the following placement changes:
1->1
2->2
3->3
4->5
5->6
6->7
7->8
8->10
9->11
10->12
I would still suggest just approximating both the same ways, but I think this alternative solution would be better than having the placement increasing half than the income, which I can't really see a reason for. As you can see, the above system is already pretty modest; a 25% is pretty strong bonus, if the AI plays well, and, in common maps, would just give a +1 placement from 4 to 7 and a +2 placement for 8 or more.Tho I'm not sure I really understand, the rest of the system / concept sounds cool, but I'm personally against having a default different from no cheat. I think a game should not have AI bonuses default, unless it is clearly presented as an AI challenge. Noobs (and not only noobs!) might overlook, and you would have to wonder, in some cases, if they were using a bonus or not, if they don't have to actively choose one.
-
@redrum said in AI Bonus Settings Revamp:
So if you were to say I want my AI opponents to get '+25% income' would I expect the initial resources to be increased by that as well?
Of course waiting for others, as you already know my answer, but, just to formalise: yes, especially in the basic games in which the starting PUs are the same as the starting productions and especially (but not only) if on round 1 I get a bonus to my placement abilities.
-
A related note, since we are also talking about that in
https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/128/resource-system-assessment-and-improvements
is that we might have collection at start turn (but I don't even know if it currently exists a map that does it, actually). In that case, not multiplying starting resources would not be a big deal (the starting resources would be what the players are supposed to have saved the theorical round before the start of the game only), but I think it would be still fine to do it, or at least I would not make exceptions. -
@redrum
Yes, please keep the AI bonus system simple and correspond as much with what players would intuitively expect when the AI is getting bonus. That is also why the current multiplilying of the bank PUs is kind of wired.Please don’t forget my concerns about ALL resources types being multiplied by a factor and how it might not fit the map and the purpose of the special other resources. An XML option to turn on / off multiplication would be very welcome.
A % slider would be cool. And If a player was to get +20% bonus through the entire game, why would it be a problem that this also meant to any starting PUs? I would think that if a player was to be boosted during the entire game, then it might as well include the stating money.
Also, I like the idea about a general level setting that could raise a player’s chances, but I do have concerns about a placement bonus thing. If placement amount is a part of the map rules, like in Iron War where players might expect factories to only produce 5 units, or Age of Tribes and Dragon War where different factories also have fixed production stats, I would not like players to get confused by seeing some of these factories produce more than they should. I would prefer advantages / handicaps be “hidden” when playing, in the sense that players could just feel a bit more pressure from the player getting bonuses, not that the player getting bonus could also do stuff that normal players could not do.
-
Ideally, the best would be a "production bonus" (like you place 6 armours at the cost for normally placing only 5, and taking only 5 placement abilities), but, since you cannot really have that working well on an integer base, then my suggestion was to indirectly obtain it by boosting the income collection and starting resources; this is also why the suggestion of scaling back income when you capture it from the AI.
Probably the best would be if the AI gets the income bonus right when spending it, but only for the income actually spent (thus, like the old system, but excluding to multiply saved income). I don't know if this would be feasible, but I'd rather suggest going that way, if it is (for example, when the AI has 24 PUs and a bonus of 25%, it will be able to spend 30 PUs using 24 PUs or spend 27-28 PUs using 22 PUs and saving 2 PUs). This would remove the need of multiplying any starting resources, as well as not worrying about capturing income, and would work the best in case you switch a player between human and AI, during the game, as the income would be just multiplied right before spending it and only if you spend it, not in the bank.@Frostion Not sure, but I tend to agree. Likely better to apply the placement bonus only to factories following the rule of placing depending on what the territory allows (usually placement equal to territory production), not to those factories that have a fixed production per turn, regardless of the territory they are in. For example, in 270bc, the city should get the placement bonus, but not the legionaire (building 1 fort per turn regardless). This means that factories like Age of Tribes, in which you have the caves producing 1 in any, the forts producing 2 in any etc., would probably better not get any placement bonuses, as it would really make sense only if you are using them at 100% (doubling all). However, I believe this can be argued both ways; it is just a problem relative to having to round it to integer levels, while factories may be just production 1, 2 or so, so it would take some thinking at what level they get the +1, eventually (plus people may wonder if a 2.5 would be rounded up or down).
Yeah, I saw that this topic would have been not that easy to sort out.
-
@Frostion said in AI Bonus Settings Revamp:
Also, I like the idea about a general level setting that could raise a player’s chances, but I do have concerns about a placement bonus thing. If placement amount is a part of the map rules, like in Iron War where players might expect factories to only produce 5 units, or Age of Tribes and Dragon War where different factories also have fixed production stats, I would not like players to get confused by seeing some of these factories produce more than they should. I would prefer advantages / handicaps be “hidden” when playing, in the sense that players could just feel a bit more pressure from the player getting bonuses, not that the player getting bonus could also do stuff that normal players could not do.
In a map where all factories always produce 5 units I guess this can be left just totally to the players if they want a +20% bonus to raise factory production to 6 or not.
-
So I've decided to get rid of the idea of increasing unit production for now. I think it ends up complicating things a lot as many maps have different unit production systems.
@Frostion Yeah, the plan is to move the AI bonuses to the player selection window instead of settings window. So they would be alongside the dropdowns where you select AI vs player for each nation. I do also plan for the bonus to apply to all resources by default but have the ability for mapmakers to disable bonuses for certain resources where it doesn't make sense.
-
@redrum
Another idea, going a very different way, may be having a % chance of unit duplication upon placement.Meaning that if you set it at 25%, each time the AI places 1 unit there is a 25% of another unit being added up for free (not taking placement spots, either).
Otherwise, I agree that adding (or not) placement expansion should be left for for a second time, after the system is otherwise in its final form. And, it should definitely be an optional choice if to have any bonus placement or not.
-
@Cernel said in AI Bonus Settings Revamp:
@redrum
Another idea, going a very different way, may be having a % chance of unit duplication upon placement.Meaning that if you set it at 25%, each time the AI places 1 unit there is a 25% of another unit being added up for free (not taking placement spots, either).
Nevermind about this weird idea. There is the problem that additional fighters may not have a carrier to land on, tho they could be redirected to the land territory, if they don't. But probably this is just too random a bonus; duno. Tho it could like apply to the starting setup too, besides the new placement. Probably just too strange / random a bonus tho, on a second thought (maybe noone would like such a thing).
-
Next set of changes are submitted: https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/pull/1791
Highlights:
- Bonus income now works for all resources
- Starting resources are increased by bonus as well
- Updated wording of bonus in history and end turn report
- Adjust bonus income range to only be positive (0-999)
-
@redrum Well done sir. That was a very quick turn around. Very impressed.
-
@Hepps Thanks. Any feedback is appreciated.
My next steps are to move the AI bonus properties to the player selection screen and then add XML parameters for maps to customize which players bonuses are available for, which resources are influenced, and set recommended bonus levels.
-
Latest changes have been merged so feel free to test it out.
-
Will grab this and play a test game when I get home from work.
These days I basically use tripleA as a player, so that's my main frame of reference. In early days though I used to make maps for tripleA, so I have a little bit of that perspective too.
I think as a map designer the idea of players messing with things on the fly can be a little unnerving. I'm sure Larry feels this way about bids in A&A for example. And anytime someone modifies something that has been carefully designed in such and such a way, there's some reason for pause.
That said, the reason why I like income modification as an approach to game balance, is because it just seems a lot less extreme.
When it comes to things like adding units, changing how combat works (altering how the dice work, or changing the abilities of units directly), altering production, or introducing new rules or new core features like resources, my opinions there all over the place. I like having a bunch of novel solutions for these sort of games. But one thing I'm pretty confident about is that most perceived imbalances in A&A style games (whether between players or within the game itself) can be corrected by simply changing the money.
Another approach not really mentioned much is to change something about the turn order (I would include there the idea of the restricted opening which skips the combat phase.) But just sticking with the money for now...
One thing I really wish we had, since all this stuff is still under discussion, is a very basic Bid that only goes to starting income.
I'm not talking about pre-placement bid, which involves a purchase phase and adjusting the starting unit distribution. I mean simply adjusting the starting values of a player/nation's starting income.
This was the earliest bid convention, even before the bid for preplacement units, (despite the fact that the later was ultimately more popular with Classic), so it would be cool if the player/designer had this as a simple default option for the bid too. In other words a way to prevent the bid from being used outside of the normal phases. Right now this can be player enforced PvP, but the default for the AI is to immediately spend the bid for pre-placement units.
We should have an option to turn that off entirely if desired. So among the various standards that have been discussed (whether the bid can be spent on units in such a such a place, or under such and such conditions) I'd dig if there was also a standard option there that says the bid cannot be spent at all, except during the normal purchase phase of the first turn.
These bids are of course often higher than a similar amount spent on extra starting units. But they are also less disruptive to the opening TUV trades.
I know this is among the simplest things to edit, but if we're talking about establishing defaults and standard practices, that seems like it my be a good one to have as a possible option.
Again talking about PvP as well as the AI.
I guess I'd also stress that I like being able to control for the thing that's being modified as a game balancing mechanism. So having the ability to adjust resources or production seems like it would be cool for a lot of maps, but I have misgivings about a single option that tweaks all the stuff at once.
Just to give an example. The v6 map is extremely low income and low production. This is a map where Cernel's idea of being able to increase production is really applicable. But in that case I don't know if having proportional increases for income and production would necessarily be ideal. You might want to increase the production by doubling it while doing something different to income. Or as in the bid concept above, just with a starting income bid. Or maybe a lower income percentage, or much higher one. In any case I see a definite case to be made for having them as separate. My guess is that resources are probably much the same, where proportional increases might not be constructive as say having a consistent ratio, but with different values for each. Or turning on one, but not the other.
Really great stuff by the way! Just wanted to say that too. I'm glad to see this generating a robust discussion and some very helpful changes to the UI. It's something I think a lot of people will get excited about.
More functionality for the game options (and the edit mode too), and lately the cool stuff for the AI and quality original maps in the pipeline, is really what sets TripleA apart from other ways to play these sorts of games.
-
PR for the next set of changes: https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/pull/1800
Main changes:
- Move bonus income percentage to player selection UI
-
Latest changes are merged now so feel free to test out the pre-release and let me know what ya think!
-
@Black_Elk Some good ideas. The idea around extra starting income (bid that can't be immediately purchased/placed) is something I do like.
My thought now is to make 'standard' bonus levels that could be customized per map but still allow users to edit bonus directly if they want. This will help less experienced users get a feel for what standard AI bonuses should be on a map.
Questions to all:
- Should we move bid input from the settings UI to player selection screen? This would seem to make settings screen much cleaner and allow all 'per player' properties on the player selection screen.
- Should income bonuses be available to human players or just AI players? Should map makers be able to disable bonus for certain players?
-
@redrum
I guess it depends on how much room it'd take for #1. if it stayed on the same line and just went to the right of the AI it'd probably be ok. I guess quite a few of the popular maps use bids where they might not change much in settings so would be one less click. Maps with lots of players might get crowded if they have to have their own line.I'd say yes for #2. The more flexibility the better imo
-
Here is what I see when I open it up:
• The headlines are confusing atm. It looks like it states “Alliance Bonus Income Precentage”.
• The default set income could be 100 as this would prevent any confusion IMHO.
• Also, I would like to suggest adding the possibility to have lower that 100% income, like handicaps. In SP games if people find the AI to cleaver they could handicap it. Also Possibility for lower than 100% would mean the opposite than flooding the map with more units in the effort to balance powers.
• I hope this bonus system can work with Humans and AI alike, I don’t see any reason why this should not be a possibility.I would suggest something like this, as it would be easily understood and simple (made with paint
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login