Player Bonus Settings Revamp

Cernel

@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.

Cernel

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.

Frostion

@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.

Cernel

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.

Cernel

@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.

redrum

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.

Cernel

@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

@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).

redrum

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)

Hepps

@redrum Well done sir. That was a very quick turn around. Very impressed.

redrum

@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.

redrum

Latest changes have been merged so feel free to test it out.

Black_Elk

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.

redrum

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

redrum

Latest changes are merged now so feel free to test out the pre-release and let me know what ya think!

redrum

@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?

beelee

@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

Frostion

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

Black_Elk

That looks pretty clean to me. The UI laid out like that reads well at a glance.

I definitely like the idea of income percentage where the regular default is 100%, meaning normal income. 50% would be half of normal income. 200% would be twice normal income etc. I think that just feels more intuitive, and easier to parse. It would give a lot of flexibility so I like it available to Human players as well as AI players.

I really like moving this option to the player selection screen. I think that's a great idea! Just downloaded the latest. Will see if I can get in a few rounds

Cernel

@redrum
As much as I think that moving them to the player selection screen is a great improvement to their own usability and keeps the Map Options (I still suggest to change this overly generic name to "Rules Options", as these options do not belong to the map, but to the xml, and pretty much whatever options for the map are "map options", comprising, like, how much you want to Zoom it) much cleaner, I definitely believe the main starting screen should not immediately offer options that are, either, marginal or, worse, AI only.
This assuming that the main way of playing TripleA is with no AI at all, any AI usage being never primary nor standard, but at most an alternative way of playing the game (and I still see that the tooltip of "Play Online" tells me so). It is just common sense not seeing on main screen things that are not primary.
Of course, as I said, moving to the player selection is the way to go (much better than having it in Options), for several reason I think we all see, hence my primary (first best) suggestion, would be to make these options AI only and appearing only for players specifically assigned to an AI.
This means that nothing at all would change, from the current stable, if you are selecting a game with no default AI players (you won't even see the new column), but the additional column will appear, with the thing next to the AI selected players only, only when you select players for AI, looking like this:

The things on the right, with the "100" default, would be there for AI players, or appear when you select an AI, and disappear if you select Human, while the "Income %" column would totally disappear when none of them is showing.
As you can notice, I also agree with all @Frostion's adjustments, except that I would put the Income column closer and call it "Income %", not having the percent symbol right of each thing.
If you don't agree with this proposal, and would want any part of the "Income %" (or whatever it's called) showing up always, then I surely say that this option should be not AI related at all (but working for players assigned to Human too), as I surely believe it would be bad something AI only showing up as default, especially since players are "Human" default, and should stay so (plus, if you can set it while the player being Human, it would be confusing if, then, it doesn't work).
Yet, assuming that my proposal of having any part of the Income % tab magically appearing only upon assigning some to AI is feasible and accepted, then I would have little doubt in affirming that this new feature should be limited to AI only (which would be assured as default, if following my proposal of the things appearing only right to players that are assigned to an AI).
The user-oriented main reason might be what @Black_Elk is saying, to use it as a less distortive alternative to rebalancing maps by bidding but, honestly, I don't think this usage will become popular, or, at least, I can't see people starting to do that, instead of bidding, once they can. Since, anyway, in such cases, I think it would make sense to have more of a boardgame feeling, I think this might have an actual popular following (but I still doubt) only for something being a flat bonus (like giving +4 production each round to Russians, or whatever, instead of a bid, but not a percentage, like I'm seeing here).
The user-oriented other reason I can see, for wanting the Income % option, would be for playing a map with your little brother, or something, giving him a bit more income, just to make the game some less unfair; honestly, I see uses like this one so marginal, that I would not support them, just because of how unimportant they are and, in my opinion, I would rather give some bid.
The maker-oriented main (or rather only) reason I can see is to have, like, a player that it is more productive than the average, and manages to get 50% more the income out of the same land, than another one. I guess some mapmakers might use a feature like this to represent more efficient civilizations, like the Germans getting a few more income per territory than the Italians (so, like, you prefer that the Germans take "Ukraine SSR", instead of the Italians), or the Americans making much more income per territory than the Chinese, out of the same territory. While this might feel totally rad, I'm actually thinking I'd skip it, as it would really just not jive with its normal usage as, then, you would have all of a series of bonuses assigned, and no way to add percentage AI bonuses on top of them, thus it would just make it confusing to use them for what they are primarily intended for (for example, if you want to give +25% to all AI, and you are dealing with a game with such bonuses already assigned default, for not AI reasons, you would need to think and calculate in terms of how to add this general 25% on top on the normal ones, and would be just weird.
To sum it up, if something is meant to be almost only for AI, I would help myself cutting confusion by making it actually AI only (and, of course, then it should be not possible to assign it ineffectively, or it would be even more confusing).
The alternate not-AI use of making some players themselves more productive than others is of arguable interest, but, to cut confusion, I believe it should be rather handled with another similar set of settings, not for the AI and located in the normal options, where you can have a +25% for Germans, and you can, then, still give a +25% AI bonus to them too, that would be calculated based on the income already multiplied by 1.25. Such a feature is arguably not much needed, anyways, since you can do about the same by just having some players having lower production costs for the same units (for example, in LOTR, the Goblins can buy the stabbers, that are the same as the orcs, but cost 2 instead of 3, plus have the even better shooter, making the Goblins by far the most efficiently productive civilization in that world, already), or having better units in their frontiers, also since this would feel like something you would want to relate to tech advancement, and there is no way to change properties settings, not even with triggers (thus, having the possibility of saying that a player is inherently +25% productive, or something, should be rather handled not by unrestricting the option to AI, but having a similar option not in the properties at all, but in the playerAttachments (that you would be also able to change with triggers)).

So, my definite suggestion is for these options to be AI only, but only as long as they are totally absent from main screen, when no AI is selected; otherwise, just as a matter of principle of not having AI-only options showing up at all as default, I'm definitely for them being not AI related at all, if I have to see them all the times.

Regarding the bids, just let them where they are, especially if following my suggestions here, and having this stuff AI only (while not the bids). No good enough reasons to risk disrupting the intended options listing of many maps and, in general, when in doubt about a change to something stable, don't change it. Plus, I would really not add any more columns in the player selection.