Player Bonus Settings Revamp

  • Moderators

    There is a major bug for old savegames reloaded in the .4580. All players are counted at income 0%, thus they can't collect:

  • Admin

    @Cernel Good catch and thanks for testing. I forgot to set the new default to 100% for old games. Here is the fix:

    Its merged and in the latest pre-release to test.

  • Admin

    @redrum I like Cernel's suggestion/screenshot quite a bit. The PvP consideration is interesting. I think it makes most sense to group a bonus income percentage adjustment together with the bid, keep all that related functionality together in the UI. In that view it may make sense to actually take both routes, and do PvP bonus income in same place as bid options .

  • Moderators

    Yah. For the record, I still think that this feature should be default totally not visible (comprising the columns themselves), for games having no AI-assigned players, and just showing up when, either:

    1. You select any AI for a player; in this case all the column(s) showing up, but only the slots right of the AI assigned players (as you can see in my previous image here:
    2. You click on a button called "Resources Modifiers", located right above the "Cancel" button in game's selection, to have all the modifiers for any and all not-hidden players.

    Number 1, in particular, would have three positive effects:
    1a) Would look cool and professional to new players, that will see the option offered right when they need it, as most of the times you want to give some aid to the AI, and this is true for pretty much whatever not TripleA games too.
    1b) In most cases, in which you want to give the same bonus to any AI players, it would make the easiest to get around the annoyance of now having to set the bonus for each player, as, once you have selected all players for the AI, you could just blindly write it in all the slots showing up, not even keeping an eye checking you are giving it to the right ones.
    1c) Would keep the main screen clean from options that the common most popular custom maps of TripleA (think of Big World, NWO, etc.) are just not using, as they are almost always meant to be for PvP only and well balanced for it (so that also bids are rarely used, aside from not well balanced maps, and pretty much all popular maps truly created by the community, if you know what I mean, are usually played with no bid).

    I also think that the mapmakers should not be able to customise the default value in the xml (for it not being 100%), to avoid, on one hand, this option being confusingly used as part of the game's rules (like making a player more productive than another, to represent a more advanced civilization) and, on the other hand, because I don't think it makes really sense having default suggested AI challenge bonuses, since the AI is or may be continually under development, thus this is just asking for having eventually unbalanced maps in the repository, as it is not feasible all maps being continually updated and rebalanced each time the AI gets changed (when you make an AI challenge, better just assigning the challenging players to the AI default, and let the player choose how much he wants to be challenged; having the bonus slots showing up default for the AI-assigned players only will make it fairly intuitive). Also, this would avoid PvP maps spuriously having or not having AI bonuses assigned, just because the mapmaker preferred or not preferred so, like Pact of Steel 2 having a +20% AI bonus and Napoleonic Empires having a +8 AI PUs bonus, while other purely PvP maps, like Pact of Steel, Big World or New World Order have no default bonuses, while there are no reasons at all for this difference (not like Napoleonic Empires requires an AI bonus while Big World doesn't), and I think AI cheats should not apply unless the game is clearly defined as an AI challenge or the player actively wanted them.

    I think the only thing that would be good to be able to customise would be excluding or including resources for multiplication, while the default should be to multiply any resources except the ones meant not to be used to buy units (currently, only "techTokens" and "VPs").

  • Admin

    The plan is to add a button to show/hide the resource modifiers which defaults to being hidden. I'm planning to add "flat PU income" and move bid from options window to the player selection window.

  • Moderators

    @redrum While I'd let the bid stay where it is, not to mess with how the options were already configured in many maps, I'm not against it for any other reasons, and itself it makes sense. Question is, should I go ahead removing all bids from WAW 2.1.1? I would also remove 1 of the options, so to have all options on a single column.

  • Admin

    @Cernel Not until we do the next stable release.

  • Admin

    Latest changes are in this PR:

    Functional Changes

    1. Button added on 'player selection' UI to show/hide resource modifier fields to avoid overwhelming users with too much info. It defaults to hidden.
    2. Added new PU income bonus to go along with the existing income percentage field to provide instead a flat PU bonus income.

  • Moderators

    Instead of "Flat Income", I suggest just "Income Bonus".
    In the moment in which you see something like "8 PUs" under "Income Bonus", it is already clear it is flat, as well as it is clear that the other one is a percentage, when you se a "%" beside.
    Strictly speaking, beside the fact that I don't like to see "Income" and "Flat Income" one beside the other (it sort of seem like "Flat Income" is a subset of "Income"), "Flat Income", especially coherently with how "Income %" works, would mean that you are giving exactly that income, instead and in substitution of the normal one, not in addition to, otherwise it would need to be called "Flat Income Bonus" (but this would be really too long).
    I think I would also prefer "Income %" and "Income Bonus PUs" in the headers, having no writings at all beside each slot; I feel it way too busy having a bunch of % % % ... and PUs PUs PUs ... repeated everywhere.
    For the "Resource Modifiers" button, beside that I think it should be called "Resources Modifiers", I would have it lower-right, just above the current "Cancel" button (I just prefer keeping the buttons together, and the current position of that button looks stranded, when the stuff is hidden).
    Then, again, these are all my off-the-cuff feelings.
    Other things I'm wondering are how the flat will work with other resources. Will the mapmakers be able to set additional columns for each resources they want to, or maybe just able to switch this feature off, in maps in which there are too many resources, that giving only PUs would not really make sense and be too distortive. My suggestion would be to just keep it simple and have no customisation but just the flat being simply always not present in case the map has any custom resources at all (thus only for maps having PUs only, plus eventually other non custom resources like TechTokens).

    So, what I suggest is something looking like this (the points are just for spacing; don't look at them):

    ....%........Bonus PUs


    (the points are because this forum doesn't allow me to show multiple spaces (let me know if there is a way I can do it))

  • Moderators

    If it is preferred as it is, my only suggestion would be then to change "Flat Income" to "Income Bonus", for the reasons I explained.
    I really don't like "Flat Income".

  • @Cernel Income bonus is more universally understood and means the same thing. Personally, i use the income 'flat' bonus all the time in games to make the AI less squishy. To avoid run-away games I tend to avoid the % income bonus.

  • Admin

    The latest changes are merged into the pre-release now. I'll give a few days for feedback then consider changing the name of the 'flat income' column. I think I still prefer having PUs next to each field as it makes it easier to read even if there is duplication.

    Functional Changes

    • Button added on 'player selection' UI to show/hide resource modifier fields to avoid overwhelming users with too much info. It defaults to hidden.
    • Added new PU income bonus to go along with the existing income percentage field to provide instead a flat PU bonus income.

  • @redrum Thanks for all your hard work and dedication redrum. They are not just of duty, but obviously come from love of the game. After Veqryn stepped down there are many of us who feared that TripleA was soon dead. I was one, and am delighted you have proven us wrong. Thanks again.

  • So apparently there will be a re-issue of AA50 this Fall. My guess is that this will be the last medium scale world theater A&A board for the foreseeable future, and I'm definitely glad they chose the best of the best for that.

    I suspect that v3 will see a spike in popularity (over v5 which never really took off anyway). I've been focusing on the AI for Iron War lately, but I think I'm going to start running some v3 games again to see how it holds up under the latest build.

    I think in general the AI should do pretty well there, especially with the option to use an income boost for the AI.

  • Moderators

    @Black_Elk said in AI Bonus Settings Revamp:

    So apparently there will be a re-issue of AA50 this Fall.

    Will the interceptor and turkish straits official options (currently in the errata) make it in the box then, on the same level as the objectives and tech options?
    Or is the plan reprinting all "as was", not even correcting the stricht errata in the rulebook, or like the fact that heavy bombers use the best dice, not both?
    Just curious.

    V5 is not bad. The only reason why I don't play it is armour at 6 and artillery at 4. That definitely makes the armour into something like WWI cavalry, rather than a WWII armour unit. I could accept armour at 6 if artillery would be at 5, tho surely this would make artillery quite marginal a unit. I also dislike the India factory, as you should not be able to produce, like, armours or warships, there.

    The Anniversary thing I believe sort of backfired, as what came after ended up being seen as a downgrade, aside from Global, of course.

  • My understanding is that Kevin was able to update the manual with revisions and material left out during the last run. So fingers crossed!

    V5 is alright, but the balance issues are pretty pronounced, and it seemed kind of rushed (with misprints and such). Just a less engaging game overall in my view. V3 by contrast had a clean map, slick packaging, 2 scenarios, 6 players, technology, the 5 spot tank, and a lot of other things going for it that make it feel like a much better legacy board.

    I also think 60th anniversary has a better ring to it, than yada yada second edition, so hopefully it stands out a bit more too, just from a branding standpoint.

  • Donators Moderators Admin

    @Black_Elk Who the hell is Kevin?

  • Donators Moderators Admin

    @Black_Elk wow thanks for the info i might have to buy another box 🙂

  • Admin

    So I'm pretty happy with the changes for now and think its in a decent place. If anyone has any final requests around player bonus settings let me know. Otherwise I'll consider it done for now.

  • @Hepps He's Krieghund

    Saw the announcement on the Larry boards, in one of his posts in the War Room section. Then on A&Aorg in this thread, and another linked there...

    Pretty happy news, since I know a lot of people who've wanted to pick up a copy, but don't want to drop several hundred dollars on ebay. I know I got mine originally for only like 80 bucks back in 2008, so hopefully the pricepoint for the reprint is as reasonable.

    For the AI, I think it plays pretty well right now from what I'm seeing. At least the AI does a fairly standard opener, and doesn't do anything too crazy in early rounds. Some VC or Objective logic would of course be killer, but even just fumbling about trying to take PU's the AI does a pretty decent job. It makes occasional bombing runs, and sometimes invests in tech (if the option is left on) which can give it a surprise edge. My guess is that a small resource modifier bonus could make it pretty challenging for solo play. I think V3 is at the ideal scale for PvP (whether live or PBEM), but its nice to know that there is a solo option for the AI for those who might like to try it on for size before going head to head.