Latest Posts

Topic: The Triple Circle System

Nordfriese
Avatar
Joined: 2017-01-17, 18:07
Posts: 826
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: 0x55555d3a34c0
Posted at: 2020-03-30, 13:20

Then we do some tests and only if we see it works out very good we will put it to discussion again?

Agreed

So I think the best way now is we try how it work in reality and also have a closer look if there would be to many changes, which is besides nice balance also important to have a look at. I hope that you can help me with the implementing - I will do all the rest but i can not put it into game language.

Not me sadly face-sad.png I'm actively working on the amazon graphics, finishing up the scenario editor feature, working on a branch with multiple major shipping fixes, have a bunch of other bugfixes in review, and I'm trying to get fri03 and fri04 completed sometime soon so they can also make it into b21. If I start with even more bigger features, all of them will just get slow and delayed…
I very much hope that another dev will agree to implement this feature with you though face-smile.png


Top Quote
JanO
Avatar
Joined: 2015-08-02, 11:56
Posts: 139
Ranking
At home in WL-forums
Posted at: 2020-03-30, 13:26

Nordfriese wrote:

Your proposed change doesn't change the 'problem' that currently health upgrades and defense upgrades do basically the same.

They don't face-wink.png Defense is the percentage of an attack that is deducted, and health is the absolute number of health points which increases by a fixed value per level. So they are similar but not identical.

I know - this affects only the upgrades, but not the fighting itself face-wink.png
But I have to change one of my points a bit. If a-x comes with 0<=x<=a this could result in a neverending fight. x has to be smaller than a without exception.


Top Quote
the-x
Avatar
Joined: 2019-01-19, 13:23
Posts: 447
Ranking
Tribe Member
Posted at: 2020-03-30, 13:53

To keep implementing work on this minimal I propose only to add the (X * Y * 0,75 per Upgrade)

attack value * number of upgrades in evade ^ 0,75

It means that the attacker values gets lower if you are having a upgrade in this one promotion that counters him.

Edited: 2020-03-30, 13:54

Top Quote
the-x
Avatar
Joined: 2019-01-19, 13:23
Posts: 447
Ranking
Tribe Member
Posted at: 2020-03-30, 13:57

Nordfriese wrote:

Then we do some tests and only if we see it works out very good we will put it to discussion again?

Agreed

I mean it needs to be tested before we can say if it really makes sence and all players can vote only if we then come to a good solution

So I think the best way now is we try how it work in reality and also have a closer look if there would be to many changes, which is besides nice balance also important to have a look at. I hope that you can help me with the implementing - I will do all the rest but i can not put it into game language.

Not me sadly face-sad.png I'm actively working on the amazon graphics, finishing up the scenario editor feature, working on a branch with multiple major shipping fixes, have a bunch of other bugfixes in review, and I'm trying to get fri03 and fri04 completed sometime soon so they can also make it into b21. If I start with even more bigger features, all of them will just get slow and delayed…
I very much hope that another dev will agree to implement this feature with you though face-smile.png

Can anyone help here?


Top Quote
einstein13
Avatar
Joined: 2013-07-29, 00:01
Posts: 1108
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: Poland
Posted at: 2020-03-30, 23:05

the-x wrote:

Can anyone help here?

You have prepared good high-level concept. I am not sure if it sticks to this game, but this is personal opinion, not fact. The fact is that you've not balanced the model yet. And balancing it after coding it is a bad idea. That is 100% sure.

This is because if you spent 100 hours on coding the changes and then you will find hard to balance (even: not able to balance), then 100 hours will be lost. Also playing testing games will never be "enough of them".

Years ago I have prepared some scripts that were used to balance the soldiers system. They are still available:

Both (my) projects are written in Python language. They are simulations, not the Widelands code itself. But Widelands changed along with this few years ago.

Edited: 2020-03-30, 23:05

einstein13
calculations & maps packages: http://wuatek.no-ip.org/~rak/widelands/
backup website files: http://kartezjusz.ddns.net/upload/widelands/

Top Quote
the-x
Avatar
Joined: 2019-01-19, 13:23
Posts: 447
Ranking
Tribe Member
Posted at: 2020-03-31, 00:18

This is very helpful - and yes, we should not waste time coding if the concept later is imbalancable. I mean by playing and checking parameters and adding formula this would be the prefered way, but this is not possible, yes? Otherwise i can try to make it theoretically but then my first question is can we change anything in the current system like a third evade upgrade for Atlanteans or should it stay exactly the same? First will be balancable in any way, the second will cause some difficulties.


Top Quote
WorldSavior
Avatar
Joined: 2016-10-15, 04:10
Posts: 1582
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: North of Germany
Posted at: 2020-03-31, 14:19

the-x wrote:

To keep implementing work on this minimal I propose only to add the (X * Y * 0,75 per Upgrade)

attack value * number of upgrades in evade ^ 0,75

It means that the attacker values gets lower if you are having a upgrade in this one promotion that counters him.

No, actually the second formula means that the value is the higher the higher the number of uprades is. And what is the first formula about?

the-x wrote:

The main point is you will come to if you play the third game against the same player it nearly gets the same everytime, you know at 0:55 he will have his hero finished and you will have your hero at 1:05 Really? You and me played dozens of matches and has this ever happened? I don't think so.

so only if your enemy doesnt make a big mistake the outcome of the game is clear before you start the game.

It's not clear at all, in this situation it can be very luck-based. If both sides have only one elite-soldier, nobody will risk this soldier unless he is the weaker player. And the match stays still interesting, because everyone can try to attack the elite-soldier with weaker soldiers in order to send the own elite-soldier immediately afterwards.

. By this you keep the strong player faster

Can you explain this please?

the-x wrote:

It makes 2v2 games extremly fun cause you pick your civilisation depending what all other 3 players do.

Only for those who can pick last. It's not fun if you have to pick first - it's unfair!

evade > defense > amor > evade > defense

The highest upgrade will be relatively expensive so we will also have technology over time development in it without explicitly making something as research.

Be A, B, C upgrades in level 1, 2 or 3

then 1A against 1B is simply 1 attack value per round vs 0.5 attack value per round

then 2A against 1B is simply 1 attack value per round vs 0.4 attack value per round

then 3A versus 1B is simply 1 attack value per round vs 0.3 attack value per round

.

then 1A against 1B is simply 1 attack value per round vs 0.5 attack value per round

then 1A against 2B is simply 1 attack value per round vs 0.7 attack value per round

then 1A against 3B is simply 1 attack value per round vs 1 attack value per round

.

then 1A against 1B and 1C is simply 1 attack value per round vs 1 attack value per round

then 2A against 1B and 1C is simply 1 attack value per round vs 0.7 attack value per round

then 3A versus 1B and 1C is simply 1 attack value per round vs 0.5 attack value per round

.

then 1A and 1C against 1B is simply 1 attack value per round vs 1 attack value per round

then 2A and 2C against 2B is simply 1 attack value per round vs 1 attack value per round

then 3A and 3C against 3B is simply 1 attack value per round vs 1 attack value per round

.

then 1A and 1C against 1B is simply 1 attack value per round vs 1 attack value per round

then 2A and 2C against 1B is simply 1 attack value per round vs 1.5 attack value per round

then 3A and 3C against 1B is simply 1 attack value per round vs 2.25 attack value per round

This seems to be not even working if a soldier is upgraded in multiple categories!

Some tribes don't even have "defence", how would this work without changing the game completely? Frisians don't have Evade...

What about the Atl Labyrinth? It simply upgrades in all three categories.


“It's a threat to our planet to believe that someone else will save it.” - Robert Swan

Top Quote
the-x
Avatar
Joined: 2019-01-19, 13:23
Posts: 447
Ranking
Tribe Member
Posted at: 2020-03-31, 16:55

the-x wrote:

The main point is you will come to if you play the third game against the same player it nearly gets the same everytime, you know at 0:55 he will have his hero finished and you will have your hero at 1:05 Really? You and me played dozens of matches and has this ever happened?

So what happend instead? Even with you its mostly the same build up every game and you know the outcome before the game face-wink.png

so only if your enemy doesnt make a big mistake the outcome of the game is clear before you start the game.

in this situation it can be very luck-based. If both sides have only one elite-soldier, nobody will risk this soldier unless he is the weaker player. And the match stays still interesting, because everyone can try to attack the elite-soldier with weaker soldiers in order to send the own elite-soldier immediately afterwards.

You think that everyone plays the perfect solution - but in many cases widelands is played for fun and player dont play in perfection - and if they randomly play for example vs you they play only one game and never again which we should change by making better balance possible. If you think, i try this solution and maybe i have the - real existing chance - to win, they will be up for another game which makes multiplayer more fun and alive. Im playing lots of games with you, cause for me personally the outcome of the game is not important, if i lose or win doesnt matter as long as the games are fun - but also i know for many the outcome is more important and thats why it gets boring and many stop playing where we could be such a great community.


Top Quote
WorldSavior
Avatar
Joined: 2016-10-15, 04:10
Posts: 1582
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: North of Germany
Posted at: 2020-03-31, 18:35

the-x wrote:

the-x wrote:

The main point is you will come to if you play the third game against the same player it nearly gets the same everytime, you know at 0:55 he will have his hero finished and you will have your hero at 1:05 Really? You and me played dozens of matches and has this ever happened?

So what happend instead?

Something else: I might have used elite-soldiers, but you countered them with barracks and partly-trained soldiers with some so success. So I realized

that I have to change my strategie (on small maps).

On bigger distances this is not true, but you didn't train heroes there or only rather late and rarely.

Even with you its mostly the same build up every game and you know the outcome before the game face-wink.png

You could try different "build ups" and we know now that the outcome is not clear if you team up with two additional players face-wink.png

so only if your enemy doesnt make a big mistake the outcome of the game is clear before you start the game.

Why? Couldn't you play like your "enemy"?

in this situation it can be very luck-based. If both sides have only one elite-soldier, nobody will risk this soldier unless he is the weaker player. And the match stays still interesting, because everyone can try to attack the elite-soldier with weaker soldiers in order to send the own elite-soldier immediately afterwards.

You think that everyone plays the perfect solution

No, I don't. It's obvious that most players play far below perfection.

  • but in many cases widelands is played for fun and player dont play in perfection - and if they randomly play for example vs you they play only one game and never again which we should change by making better balance possible. If you think, i try this solution and maybe i have the - real existing chance - to win, they will be up for another game which makes multiplayer more fun and alive.

I don't see why beginners should be able to win against me or other strong players like for example you or king_of_nowhere. This would require Widelands to be a luck-based game instead of skill-based. It's normal for skill-based games that beginners have no chance against top-players.

Back to the triple-circle-system: Would it be possible to implement such a thing as a variant of Widelands? Like a special win condition where normal soldiers are not able to fight, they would have to be changed into system-compatible soldiers which are able to fight. By a special building for example. There might be an easier way though.


“It's a threat to our planet to believe that someone else will save it.” - Robert Swan

Top Quote
the-x
Avatar
Joined: 2019-01-19, 13:23
Posts: 447
Ranking
Tribe Member
Posted at: 2020-03-31, 20:50

WorldSavior wrote:

the-x wrote:

the-x wrote:

The main point is you will come to if you play the third game against the same player it nearly gets the same everytime, you know at 0:55 he will have his hero finished and you will have your hero at 1:05 Really? You and me played dozens of matches and has this ever happened?

So what happend instead?

Something else: I might have used elite-soldiers, but you countered them with barracks and partly-trained soldiers with some so success. So I realized

that I have to change my strategie (on small maps).

On bigger distances this is not true, but you didn't train heroes there or only rather late and rarely.

Yes, these are these things that make fun, we definitely need more of them. what would you think if a weak player plays against you and choses A while you randomly chose B - and he has an advantage so the game will be completely different. you struggle to go to defense and in the meantime try anyhow to pruce the counter C - and this also is a new challange in time, while your oppoenent maybe can expand and with low win chance even win the game. So you as an expert player are also challenged and this only by randomness. I see very high potential in this.

Even with you its mostly the same build up every game and you know the outcome before the game face-wink.png

You could try different "build ups" and we know now that the outcome is not clear if you team up with two additional players face-wink.png

so only if your enemy doesnt make a big mistake the outcome of the game is clear before you start the game.

Why? Couldn't you play like your "enemy"?

in this situation it can be very luck-based. If both sides have only one elite-soldier, nobody will risk this soldier unless he is the weaker player. And the match stays still interesting, because everyone can try to attack the elite-soldier with weaker soldiers in order to send the own elite-soldier immediately afterwards.

You think that everyone plays the perfect solution

No, I don't. It's obvious that most players play far below perfection.

  • but in many cases widelands is played for fun and player dont play in perfection - and if they randomly play for example vs you they play only one game and never again which we should change by making better balance possible. If you think, i try this solution and maybe i have the - real existing chance - to win, they will be up for another game which makes multiplayer more fun and alive.

I don't see why beginners should be able to win against me or other strong players like for example you or king_of_nowhere. This would require Widelands to be a luck-based game instead of skill-based. It's normal for skill-based games that beginners have no chance against top-players.

In my opinion a mix of 75% skill and 25% luck would make it even more interesting

Back to the triple-circle-system: Would it be possible to implement such a thing as a variant of Widelands? Like a special win condition where normal soldiers are not able to fight, they would have to be changed into system-compatible soldiers which are able to fight. By a special building for example. There might be an easier way though.


Top Quote