1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

New Beta Version - February 18th (2-18)

Discussion in 'Community Patch Project' started by Gazebo, Feb 19, 2020.

  1. Recursive

    Recursive Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    1,425
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't like the idea of rubberband AI that gets bonuses whenever they fall behind. Rubberband AI makes victory feel kind of meaningless.

    I'd prefer a bonus that's consistent for all AI players regardless of how well or poorly they're doing.
     
  2. BiteInTheMark

    BiteInTheMark Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages:
    1,821
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany
    This is not the same. Currently, an AI with 10 cities get 5 times more hammers for entering a new era than an AI with only 2 cities. This favors wide empires much much more than tall empires.
    In my suggestion, a 5 city empire would gain 100+50 yields in total, split on 5 cities, so its 30 for each city. A 10 city empire would gain 100+100 yields, split on 10 cities this is only 20.
    Wide empires still get more yields (+33%), but per city, it is more effective on tall cities (+50%), which is in my eyes a good compromise.
    Ok, your way removes the need for another function, which checks for a maximum and minimum. But you have made a little mistake, I think, what you mean is this:
    "(AverageGlobalCitySize / max(AverageOwnCitySize, AverageGlobalCitySize))"
    My first idea was to check for the average number of buildings in each city, but I didnt knew if it is possible to count only the "standard" buildings, and not buildings from tradition policy tree, national wonders or religious buildings. If its possible to count only the standard buildings, then I would prefer that solution.
    As written, if the yields didnt scale well enough into the late game, a soft era scaler (0.9 + 0.1 * era) could be integrated.
    Stalker showed, that it is no problem to track the additional yields for each AI over the length of the game. If we can track also the medians for each yield type (should be easy too), I am able to calculate a function which give similar yields over the length of the game to each AI.

    A 5 city empire entering a new era would get 5 times culture, while its policy cost has increased to 140%.
    A 20 city empire entering a new era would get 20 times culture, while its policy cost has increased to 290%.
    The wide empire has to pay double as much culture to get a new policy, but it gets four times more culture. The "well" doing empire benefits more, so the current system misses that aim and favors runaways.
     
    Last edited: Feb 29, 2020
    Maxxim69 and Bromar1 like this.
  3. Recursive

    Recursive Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    1,425
    Gender:
    Male
    I proposed scaling it by number of cities myself. What I take issue with is the idea of rewarding AIs who are doing poorly by increasing their bonuses, not equalizing the bonuses between Tall and Wide.

    I'm not saying your system does that, just wanna make note of it. I skimmed over it and saw "median yields" and "players doing poorly get more bonuses". Am on my phone so I have trouble reading large text walls in full. :)
     
  4. BiteInTheMark

    BiteInTheMark Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages:
    1,821
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany
    Ok, the thing you and tu_79 criticise, is the rubber band mechanic. Its ok. I have personally nothing against backwater civs nor against AI runaways, but I thought doing something to decrease the extremes might be in favor.
    Then lets throw that away and make it more difficulty for the human by some era scaling:

    :c5food:/:c5production:/:c5gold:/:c5faith:
    MedianYield * AverageGlobalCitySize * DifficultyModifier * ( 0.9 + 0.1 * Era) * ( 1 + 0.1 * NumberOwnCities) / NumberOwnCities
    :c5culture:/:c5science:
    MedianYield * AverageGlobalCitySize * DifficultyModifier * ( 0.9 + 0.1 * Era) * ( 1 + [CostIncrease / 2] * NumberOwnCities) / NumberOwnCities
     
    JamesNinelives likes this.
  5. Asterix Rage

    Asterix Rage Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Messages:
    1,187
    Triplane as well !!

    "especially effective against enemy helicopters"
    is for PROMOTION_ANTI_HELICOPTER given to Jet Fighter (IMO)
     
  6. Aqinu

    Aqinu Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2019
    Messages:
    74
    Gender:
    Male
    If think that when it's fixed for fighter it's fixed for all units that use the promotion. The problem seems to be with the promotion.
     
    JamesNinelives likes this.
  7. tu_79

    tu_79 Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2016
    Messages:
    6,964
    Location:
    Malaga (Spain)
    If all players get the same bonus in a per turn basis, players that are faring poorly will get relatively bigger yields. It's also a kind of rubberbanding, although less noticeable.

    Ok, I understand now. These yields are for every city, so that's why you divide it by the number of owned cities.
     
    JamesNinelives likes this.
  8. Recursive

    Recursive Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    1,425
    Gender:
    Male
    Rubberbanding is when the AI gets progressively stronger the more they fall behind and/or progressively weaker the more they get ahead.

    It's a fair point that with a consistent bonus, weaker AIs benefit more than stronger ones, but it's not rubberbanding; the stronger ones would still receive the same bonus, and it wouldn't be as ridiculous as, say, an 8th place AI vassal receiving huge Production bonuses for being far behind.

    Some level of AI catchup is inevitable if you give them all a difficulty bonus, due to the nature of the game.

    I think we can give the revised event-based system a shot next version, anyway.
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2020
  9. beginner_

    beginner_ Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2020
    Messages:
    4
    I just finished a conquest game with the 2/18 patch. Cities are way, way too weak. While I agree that cities in BNW are OP and too strong, in this patch I feel they are a lot too weak especially against melee attacks.

    I was ahead a bit on science but not by much really. Especially the strongest opponent was fielding similar units. Riflemen vs rifleman. My advantage was landships and simply more units.

    The problem are melee attacks. Especially landships and tanks and even more so Ironclad and destroyers. In fact these do more damage than ranged attacks including artillery or bombers. In fact it makes artillery or other ranged units pretty much useless as it's too slow if you have an army of tanks.
    in fact early on I was behind in science and already noticed that I don't really need siege units and could take cities with mandekalu cavalry (I played as songhai, random). Didn't think too much about it then but the issue as mentioned above just got worse and worse.

    I could take a city with a single tank that had blitz. It inflicts a huge amount of damage while barley taking any. 2 turns with 1 tank and city is mine. same with a destroyer with blitz.(yes they had a garrison in it)

    Previous versions were much better in that regard. relatively weak city attack so that one could go near it and siege without too much risk but then you did need ranged/artillery support to take it.

    IMHO these last patches overdid the city defense weakening.

    This forces one to build a lot of units or else one will lose cities. It forces a waring style. When I have to invest a ton in units, I want to use them, offensively else they are a waste of resources.

    On top of that the India-Religion Growth thing seems to be extremely OP at least on lower difficulty. (see attachment)
     

    Attached Files:

  10. Misanthrop

    Misanthrop Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2005
    Messages:
    45
    how do you have 3 natural wonders within 7 tiles of your capital? did you edit the map? with barringer / sri pada / kailash in your first 3 cities it's hardly surprising that the game becomes too easy tbh.
     
    vyyt likes this.
  11. Cokolwiek

    Cokolwiek Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2019
    Messages:
    333
    Gender:
    Male
    This, and also population numbers seem tripled, or at least doubled they should be.

    Calcutta with basically 2 deer tiles and most of rest snow, coast, or tundra without forest size 37? Dear God, my capital in most games don't come close.
     
    vyyt likes this.
  12. tu_79

    tu_79 Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2016
    Messages:
    6,964
    Location:
    Malaga (Spain)
    Gazebo had the idea of using the average era for handicap scaling, as I've noticed viewing my logs that the most advanced civ is gaining more than double the yields by handicaps than the losing ones, from the same events. As it turns out, handicaps are scaling based on the era that civ is at the moment, so a civ that has reached a new era before the others gets quite more yields than the rest.
    I believe this can bridge the gap.
     
  13. beginner_

    beginner_ Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2020
    Messages:
    4
    Partially true. I used Really Advanced setup to place 1 random NW somewhere around my spawn (+ abundant resources). The other 2 NW were pure luck. But the don't explains the extreme city sizes which means a lot of science.

    Yeah, that's why I say OP: This is due to Indias UA:

    Each Follower of your primary Religion in a City increases Religious Pressure and Growth.

    Since I was on my own small continent there was only my religion. Hence lots of growth. Deli was huge because of food trade routes. I mostly use trade routes to grow the capital.
    Calcutta as far as I remember also had 1 fish and 2 towns but yeah the size is mostly due to the UA.
     
    vyyt likes this.
  14. TranceBlossom

    TranceBlossom Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2018
    Messages:
    135
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Tokyo
    *sends food trade routes to the capital as India*

    *capital grows huge*

     
    JamesNinelives likes this.

Share This Page