Topic: Constructing a trainingscamp
|
teppo Topic Opener
Joined:
2012-01-30, 09:42 UTC+1.0
Posts: 425  Tribe Member |
Posted at:
2014-03-10, 10:59 UTC+1.0
There are some maps where barbarians are really strong already. With those particular maps, barbarians would benefit.
I'll invite you, if I happen to see you in the internet gaming lobby. You pick barbarians, I pick the map to be played 
Top
Quote
|
fk
Joined:
2013-07-30, 22:58 UTC+2.0
Posts: 150  At home in WL-forums |
Posted at:
2014-03-10, 12:59 UTC+1.0
It is too early to expect that there is going to be any change in the game, but if so, I will be glad to accept the challenge, provided that you will not pick the barbarians, and that I can veto the map.
Top
Quote
|
|
einstein13
Joined:
2013-07-29, 00:01 UTC+2.0
Posts: 1116  One Elder of Players Location: Poland |
Posted at:
2014-03-10, 16:09 UTC+1.0
Settlers II (gold edition) is possible to download from polish site: http://redakcja.pccentre.pl/bigm/download/Settlers-2-Gold-Edition.zip (Probably in Poland the law is not so strict :P) In my opinion the economy in the Widelands is not so far from the Settlers. Version II or I. Only some resources are added, but main game is the same: roads, planning, map shape. The major difference is for me that the game is 32-bit and has more possibilities (more units can be deployed, bigger maps) And to the toppic: You should calculate, how long the Bootcamp and Trainingscamp will build. I think, that it will not help the Barbarians to win. They will have more problems. Longer time and more resources to build one 10/10 soldier.
Edited:
2014-03-10, 16:20 UTC+1.0
einstein13
Top
Quote
|
|
fk
Joined:
2013-07-30, 22:58 UTC+2.0
Posts: 150 At home in WL-forums |
Posted at:
2014-03-10, 17:17 UTC+1.0
S1 is also 32 bit (and large resolution, press v), but enough said.
That doesn't solve the problem, i.e. that the Barbarians would be stronger before they have built a trainingscamp and are the only ones with attack/defence points.
Top
Quote
|
|
SirVer
Joined:
2009-02-19, 15:18 UTC+1.0
Posts: 1442 One Elder of Players Location: Germany - Munich |
Posted at:
2014-03-10, 22:22 UTC+1.0
Isn't it interesting? We have a proposed change and some people believe it makes barbarians stronger (because they can train sooner), some believe it makes them weaker (because they need to enhance a trainingsbuilding before taking full advantage of it) and some believe the change is huge while others believe it will not make a big change. And all we have are arguments, since we have no idea how to come by data. We could implement the change and play a game or two, but this will still not make a big difference though, because other factors could dominate. We could let the AI play several games and even compare a barbarians tribe with the change against one without the change, but again, the other factors are probably a too big an influence to be really sure about what actually made the difference. How can we solve this problem in a more principled manner?
Top
Quote
|
|
einstein13
Joined:
2013-07-29, 00:01 UTC+2.0
Posts: 1116 One Elder of Players Location: Poland |
Posted at:
2014-03-11, 00:30 UTC+1.0
Probably most of us can't tell anything. For example my opinion is not so valuable- I usually don't play barbarians. We need a "voice of experts": some people playing only barbarians. They know if current game gives equal chances or not. Another thing is to find a map and players who are almost equal: one barbarian and second empire or atleanths. Sometimes one will win, and other time- the second player. Then we can give them a change for barbarians and see what happened then. But this experiment is a bit hard to make (long time of testing and how can we find people for that?) Also we can take a team of some barbarians and maybe empires ones einstein13
Top
Quote
|
|
teppo Topic Opener
Joined:
2012-01-30, 09:42 UTC+1.0
Posts: 425 Tribe Member |
Posted at:
2014-03-11, 04:00 UTC+1.0
That would be straightforward, I guess. With b19 still far enough, there would be time to roll back. Has testing like that ever resulted into a rollback?
A bit braindead, unless there is a way to loop AI-only games without human intervention, go get reasonable statistics.
Top
Quote
|
|
SirVer
Joined:
2009-02-19, 15:18 UTC+1.0
Posts: 1442 One Elder of Players Location: Germany - Munich |
Posted at:
2014-03-11, 07:08 UTC+1.0
no, never. And this is no surprise, we are usually none the wiser after implementing a change like this - there are too many other factors influencing how a game plays outs.
sure, there is a way. But it will not help much: running a full game takes at least 10 minutes and we ideally want thousand of samples to help against all the other influencing factors. But even then - how can you be sure that the AI has no systematic problems with a new change (for example figuring out when to upgrade a buildings is much harder then just building one).
Top
Quote
|
|
teppo Topic Opener
Joined:
2012-01-30, 09:42 UTC+1.0
Posts: 425 Tribe Member |
Posted at:
2014-03-11, 15:28 UTC+1.0
We seemingly have mixed opinions. Somebody should count the votes. I do not mind being in the opposition this time.
Top
Quote
|
|
einstein13
Joined:
2013-07-29, 00:01 UTC+2.0
Posts: 1116 One Elder of Players Location: Poland |
Posted at:
2014-03-11, 22:36 UTC+1.0
According to the discussion above: Against (2): fk (gold issue) einstein13 (time used to build trainingscamp) For (2): teppo (his idea) SirVer (would like to check it) Am I understanding it wrong? einstein13
Top
Quote
|
The test will be quicker and more reliable. There are some maps, where the fight can be done soon and there are possibilities to expand a lot.