Latest Posts

Topic: Some small Ideas, improving a lot

Nordfriese
Avatar
Joined: 2017-01-17, 18:07
Posts: 904
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: 0x55555d3a34c0
Posted at: 2020-04-12, 14:26

Yes, that is adding very nice gameplay as im watching worldsaviour going to the full hero stage, while im still at 3/4 stage, so now is the perfect timing to attack whilst hes having hes 3/4 hero in the labyrinth to upgrade.

Just to clarify, this idea will not give anyone a free win against WS – he'll still find the best tweaks to make his smiths gain experience faster so he'll have as many 3/4 soldiers as you to fend off your attacks while simultaneously training heroes already face-wink.png


Top Quote
hessenfarmer
Avatar
Joined: 2014-12-11, 23:16
Posts: 1392
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: Bavaria
Posted at: 2020-04-12, 16:06

the-x wrote:

The Altanter need something like experience in the smithy, so that not so bleak times arise that after 16 minutes you have a full hero or in the game after 19 minutes. This is way too early, not only because they have a significant advantage over the others (it doesn't help that they have fewer units to start with), there is nothing better than one full hero ... except two full heroes

The experience is an exciting thing that Sir Ver first came up with with the barbarians / empire. It works very well there, for example the mines of the barbarians or the upgrading of the inns. At the moment experience is something that seems superfluous, you have it But mans does not use either. Since it would definitely not be in the inventor's interest to gain experience, it might make sense to think about several expansion stages. These are graphically the same, so they are an effort only in terms of numbers.

Alternatively, it could be done so that the building is not expanded, but the person inside needs a certain experience based on different Making things. This is exactly the founding idea of ​​Widelands that SirVer had, for example among the barbarians. I rarely spoke to him, but some things still in my head.

Concrete:

Trident - level 0

verb. Trident - level 8

Steel trident - level 16

verb double triangle - level 32

This helps a lot to do justice to the hero of the Atlanter problem, who is too fast. It also solves the "what's stronger than a hero paradox" by always making the next stage possible after a certain time (30 min, 45 min, 1h).

Das mit der Erfahrung ist ja eine spannende Sache, die Sir Ver sich erstmals mit den Barbaren / Imperium ausgedacht hat. Dort funktioniert das auch sehr gut, beispielsweise die Minen der Barbaren oder die Aufwertung der Wirtshäuser. Momentan ist Erfahrung ja so etwas was überflüssig erscheint, man hat es zwar nutzen tut mans aber auch nicht. Da es ja bestimmt nicht im Sinne des Erfinders wäre Erfahrung raus zu machen, könnte es Sinn machen über mehrere Ausbaustufen nachzudenken. Diese sind grafisch gleich, also einzig und allein von den Zahlen her ein Aufwand.

Alternativ könnte man es so machen, dass das Gebäude nicht ausgebaut wird, sondern die Person drin einen bestimmten Erfahrungswert benötigt um verschiedene Dinge herzustellen. Dies ist auch genau die Gründungsidee von Widelands die SirVer hatte, beispielsweise bei den Barbaren. Habe leider erst selten mit ihm gesprochen, aber einiges noch im Kopf.

Konkret: Dreizack - level 0 verb. Dreizack - level 8 Stahl Dreizack - level 16 verb Doppeldreizack - level 32

Dies hilft sehr stark auch um dem zu schneller Held der Atlanter-Problem gerecht zu werden. Außerdem löst es das "was ist stärker als ein Held Paradoxon" indem immer die kommende Stufe erst nach gewisser Zeit (30 min, 45 min, 1h) möglich wird.

  1. Did you really have conversation with SirVer to claim his will in this discussions. Or are you just trying again to give your ideas more interest then they would gain without this pretention? In the latter case I would consider this the most malicious way to discuss issues here. I will write a PM to SIrVer and GunChleoc to find out if it is true what you are pretending here.

  2. It is simply not true that experience is not used. The frisians need a lot of them to be able to built their second level buildings.

  3. The different tribes have their own flavour and character this means some need experience some not. KoN's approach was much more targeted to the problem then this one.


Top Quote
the-x
Avatar
Joined: 2019-01-19, 13:23
Posts: 476
Ranking
Tribe Member
Posted at: 2020-04-12, 16:55

Well indeed hessenfarmer, please dont set bad behaviour between the players. My Intention is clearly to make the game balanced, your intention seems to set people against people.


Top Quote
the-x
Avatar
Joined: 2019-01-19, 13:23
Posts: 476
Ranking
Tribe Member
Posted at: 2020-04-12, 16:59

Nordfriese wrote:

the-x wrote:

The Altanter need something like experience in the smithy, so that not so bleak times arise that after 16 minutes you have a full hero or in the game after 19 minutes. This is way too early, not only because they have a significant advantage over the others (it doesn't help that they have fewer units to start with), there is nothing better than one full hero ... except two full heroes

The experience is an exciting thing that Sir Ver first came up with with the barbarians / empire. It works very well there, for example the mines of the barbarians or the upgrading of the inns. At the moment experience is something that seems superfluous, you have it But mans does not use either. Since it would definitely not be in the inventor's interest to gain experience, it might make sense to think about several expansion stages. These are graphically the same, so they are an effort only in terms of numbers.

Alternatively, it could be done so that the building is not expanded, but the person inside needs a certain experience based on different Making things. This is exactly the founding idea of ​​Widelands that SirVer had, for example among the barbarians. I rarely spoke to him, but some things still in my head.

Concrete:

Trident - level 0

verb. Trident - level 8

Steel trident - level 16

verb double triangle - level 32

This helps a lot to do justice to the hero of the Atlanter problem, who is too fast. It also solves the "what's stronger than a hero paradox" by always making the next stage possible after a certain time (30 min, 45 min, 1h).

If this experience threshold is set fairly high, this means we would have several game stages where the soldiers players can have successively grow from quarter-trained over half-trained and three-quarters trained to hero.
Now this is an idea I love very much! face-smile.png

Yes, that is adding very nice gameplay as for example Player A going to the full hero stage, while Player B is still at 3/4 stage, so now is the perfect timing to attack whilst hes having hes 3/4 hero in the labyrinth to upgrade. It adds somce nice elements and stategies.

So back to topic, how can we achieve this?

several game stages where the soldiers players can have successively grow from quarter-trained over half-trained and three-quarters

Very nice Idea


Top Quote
Nordfriese
Avatar
Joined: 2017-01-17, 18:07
Posts: 904
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: 0x55555d3a34c0
Posted at: 2020-04-12, 17:14

Well indeed hessenfarmer, please dont set bad behaviour between the players. My Intention is clearly to make the game balanced, your intention seems to set people against people.

I don't know whether you are aware of it, but you do have a way of presenting your suggestions in a way that can seem importunate. In your posts you frequently give the impression that a certain suggestion has been approved by many people already even when this is not the case. For this you are being frequently criticised but you did not change your style of writing. It is not hessenfarmer's intention "to set people against people" but to chastise you for this habit of imposing your ideas upon others by inventing agreement that was not given yet. No hard feelings, but this behaviour is not tolerable in such a friendly community as this.
That said, I'd like you just to notice that by behaving (consciously or not) in this way you are making yourself unpopular with most people here, and this always influences the way people look at your suggestions. If you want your suggestions to be actually accepted and implemented, it's also in your own interest if you read through your posts once or twice before submitting and check that you did not (knowingly or accidentally) implicitly claim that any suggestion has been approved, or put words into someone's mouth they did not write, or offend in any other way. Then everyone will be much more happy to listen to what you write, and discuss and evolve your contributions so they may become part of the official game.

So back to topic, how can we achieve this?

This will require some overhaul of the productionsite program parsers: We'll need a conditional switch that allows starting a given program only if the worker is of a given level or higher. (This is too big a change to start working on before this suggestion has been approved by the community.) Then we change the smithies of all tribes in such a way that higher-grade weapons and armour require higher worker levels, and set reasonable worker experience thresholds for smiths. And then it will need to be balanced carefully, which will be the hardest part…


Top Quote
the-x
Avatar
Joined: 2019-01-19, 13:23
Posts: 476
Ranking
Tribe Member
Posted at: 2020-04-12, 17:30

Again I will explain why this is not true: If you have four races and one is high-tech right from the start, it is logical that one has a massive advantage. You can't balance that, because on small cards this always has an advantage, on large cards it always has a disadvantage, right?

Wenn man vier Völker hat und eines vom Start an Hightech ist, ist doch logisch das eines einen massiven Vorteil hat. Das kann man auch nicht ausbalancieren, da auf kleinen Karten dieses immer einen Vorteil, auf großen immer einen Nachteil hat, stimmts? Außerdem bin ich der Meinung dass wir das Spiel im Sinne von SirVer führen sollen und finde es einfach schade wenn dann persönlich so hart attackiert wird, dann setzt man die Ideen einfach nicht um, aber jemanden als Außenseiter darzustellen, nur wenn man Mut hat für Positionen einzutreten finde ich nicht fair. Wir sind ne demokratische Gesellschaft und da kann man verschiedene Meinungen ausdiskutieren, wenn nachher nur die Umgesetzt werden die den Entwicklern gefallen ist das doch in Ordnung. Nur sollte man verschiedene Meinungen aushalten.

EIn Punkt der mir wirklich am Herzen liegt, vielleicht schaffen wir es endlich mal die Ideen unabhämgig von der Person zu bewerten. Wenn es auf der sachlichen Ebene nichts zu sagen gibt, eine Idee einfach gut ist ... sehe ich leider immer häufiger, dass dann versucht wird die Person schlecht darzustellen, die diese Idee gebracht hat. Ich meine derjenige hat sich bestimmt auch Mühe gemacht und hat damit bestimmt ne gute Absicht oder will das Spiel verbessern, warum also reden wir ihn runter? Es ist doch okay wenn Ideen nicht gemacht werden, aber man sollte wenigstens Vor wie Nachteile bereden und sich anschauen dürfen. Und halt die Fähigkeit von Sachthemen wie Personen zu trennen. Ich fühle mich hier immer öfter wie bei einer politischen Schmutzkampagne wo man einfach immer versucht die Person schlecht darzustellen, auch wenn einige Ideen richtig gut sind. Manche zu schwer umzusetzen oder mit zu hohem Aufwand verbunden, weshalb sie auch nicht gemacht werden.

Edited: 2020-04-12, 18:13

Top Quote
hessenfarmer
Avatar
Joined: 2014-12-11, 23:16
Posts: 1392
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: Bavaria
Posted at: 2020-04-12, 17:33

Nordfriese wrote:

We shouldn't hardcode such times as the ideal strategy will differ between maps depending on size and resource availability. But yes, teaching the AI to attack less often and with stronger total forces would be good.
Btw, I believe the AI already cheats by counting how many soldiers with which promotions are in a given enemy milsite (or at least it could do this easily), this info should be used for estimating whether an attack makes sense now or whether to wait.

In theory it is used and shopuld be evaluated. However for an yet uinknown reason this is not working as intended.

Allowing the AI to choose which soldiers to attack with is easily possible, but for now it just selects the number of attackers without handpicking the best, this should also be changed.

Yes but makes only sense in fixing the above one to be compatible.

if this is not enough, we can add randomly generated soldiers for AI after 2 hours, 3 hours, so you are not sure you win when you survived the first wave

I have thought about game mechanics changes for the AI again. And in my opinion those should be avoided because it's just plain cheating; it's unfair to the human players. Currently all players start with the same resources and the game outcome is based entirely on who makes the better decisions. Letting the AI win through cheating even when it makes worse decisions is not fair to the average non-champion player.
We should aim to make the AI make better decisions, then it won't need to cheat like that.

We already have the Ai cheating a bit and we should give them probably some advantages in some sectors where this could help otherwise we won't have the need for any differentiation into normal, weak and so on. However this cheating should be done in a reasonable way. Reasonable means it must fit into the normal gameplay and we need to be sure the AI really can handle the advantage. For the rest we need top teach it how to play and how to play in different situations. Currently I followed the eliminate one weakness or bug after the other. This worked not that bad also sometimes we had new issues arrived. The fact that AI can handle 5 different tribes is not a bad sign in its potential if only we get it's obvious weaknesses sorted out. After we will be confident we have achieved this, more training rounds make sense as well. However all of this is some not neglectable effort. And currently my motivation to do something about this is not that high.


Top Quote
hessenfarmer
Avatar
Joined: 2014-12-11, 23:16
Posts: 1392
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: Bavaria
Posted at: 2020-04-12, 18:09

@ the-x:
1. discussion means to exchange opinions based on arguments that are based on facts. If your argument gets proven to be not true, you need to reconsider your opinion in a discussion. So far a lot of arguments on all these topics have been provided by different users including me.
2. discussion also means to stick to some rules like don't hijack a discusiion about a topic with your own topic, don't cite people shortened or out of context, don't edit your posts content without declaring it, don't pretend things that can not be proven, etc. All of this discussion rules had been disregarded by yourself so many times, although you have been told them.
3. by this you finally achieved that I will not discuss anything any further you bring up on this page, cause I am too tired to do so. I won't continue to feed a Troll anymore.

@ Nordfriese: thanks for the approach to mediate, but I am finally fed up with this. If you are willing to implement any of the issues of the-x feel free to do so, I'll comment on Github perhaps, but not here in the forum anymore.


Top Quote