New Version - December 1st (12/1)

[Infixo]

iYieldHandicap = (iHandicap * iEra * iEra);

Just out of curiosity, what formula was use before?

 

[Moi Magnus]

Just out of curiosity, what formula was use before?

Three differences:
1) iYieldHandicap = (iHandicap * iEra * 5);
2) iHandicap going from 0 to 7 (now goes from 0 to 5)
3) Those yields only triggered on "pro-wide" things (new city, ...) while now they also trigger on historical events, so "pro-tall" things.

 

[hokath]

To all you people following the events scene, it should now be the case that the "meteor" event that can give all shrines +1 faith is a global event. This means that when it triggers, it will trigger for all players.

 

[Gazebo]

Did you change the deity handicap from 7 to 5 or is it still 7 ?

Starts at 5, scales down from there. We’ll see. I had some insane games with atomic around 1400 on Deity at 7 so I dropped it. It may need a higher base value though. Dunno. Thankfully if it feels too easy you can raise it back up in DifficultyMod.xml

G

 

[ElliotS]

Starts at 5, scales down from there. We’ll see. I had some insane games with atomic around 1400 on Deity at 7 so I dropped it. It may need a higher base value though. Dunno. Thankfully if it feels too easy you can raise it back up in DifficultyMod.xml

G

Would it be hard to release some alternate .dlls with formulas we can test?

Also remember to play out your games guys. If the AIs are supposed to be slower pre-ren and faster post-ren. Obviously there's a balance, but if you don't play it out we can't actually know if it's working on the other end. (It's conceivable that the balance can completely switch, where the AI falls 5-10 techs behind and then speeds past you to the finish line.)

 

[tu_79]

Would it be hard to release some alternate .dlls with formulas we can test?

Also remember to play out your games guys. If the AIs are supposed to be slower pre-ren and faster post-ren. Obviously there's a balance, but if you don't play it out we can't actually know if it's working on the other end. (It's conceivable that the balance can completely switch, where the AI falls 5-10 techs behind and then speeds past you to the finish line.)

Precisely what I was thinking. Around Renaissance, AI will be as strong as usual, but it needs to recover from the worse beginning.
I wonder if AI in information era could be too strong. You know, quadratic increases very fast in the end. If the quadratic increase is too steep, you could try with the power of 1.5. It can be easily calculated as the square root of the value multiplied three times.

Edit. Seems like Moi found a small mistake. Going to the proper thread.

 

[Txurce]

I play life on Quick Speed.

Really funny.

G

There was a typo in our computations, so current difficulty level is absurdly low. I would say that the AI lost 2 difficulty level in this version. Except for Tall AIs.

Is this hot-fixable, or not worth addressing until next beta?

 

[randomnub]

Bwahah I was just wondering. Aaaand another game trashed after 100+ turns ;(

 

[IcyAngel]

Would it be hard to release some alternate .dlls with formulas we can test?

Also remember to play out your games guys. If the AIs are supposed to be slower pre-ren and faster post-ren. Obviously there's a balance, but if you don't play it out we can't actually know if it's working on the other end. (It's conceivable that the balance can completely switch, where the AI falls 5-10 techs behind and then speeds past you to the finish line.)

The problem I had anticipated with this change is that the easiest way to win for players is to get an early advantage and use it to plow through AIs; if the AI systematically falls behind in tech early game it's a death sentence against players who are willing to use the opportunity.

 

[Txurce]

The problem I had anticipated with this change is that the easiest way to win for players is to get an early advantage and use it to plow through AIs; if the AI systematically falls behind in tech early game it's a death sentence against players who are willing to use the opportunity.

I agree that the danger is for players to snowball early, and be in position to hang on against a late-blooming AI. I'd add that an AI that picks up too much speed at the end isn't any fun, either. But I think it's still worth experimenting with the slider (so to speak) until either a sweet spot is found, or the effort is dropped as a worthy but failed experiment.

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

I agree, I hope we can find a formula that makes the early AI worse "just the right amount", the middle AI more or less as it was before, and the late AI better "just the right amount".

 

[tu_79]

I agree that the danger is for players to snowball early, and be in position to hang on against a late-blooming AI. I'd add that an AI that picks up too much speed at the end isn't any fun, either. But I think it's still worth experimenting with the slider (so to speak) until either a sweet spot is found, or the effort is dropped as a worthy but failed experiment.

I think Moi Magnus offered one very flexible formula ax^2 + bx, written as a * iEra * (iEra + b). It gives a steepness intermediate between a linear and a quadratic curve.

 

[notque]

Am I the only one that can't build plantations on tea? Bad install or something?

Reinstalling and trying again.

 

[Blue Ghost]

The ideal is for the AI to be a reasonable challenge for the player at every stage of the game, but failing that, I think it’s better to lean toward the AI being strong early and weak late rather than the other way around. Starting behind the AI and catching up leads to come-from-behind victories, which can be exciting. Whereas effortlessly surpassing the AI in the early game only for them to catch up and overtake you out of nowhere later on is less fun.

On the other hand, we’ll arrive at a good balance quicker if we overshoot from the previous position. That does mean the game will be less good in the meantime.

 

[notque]

It said tea improved with plantation, but it didn't say it could be built on them. Very few resources it listed could actually be built on a plantation. just reinstalled, and reloading but i don't think this is going to fix it for me.

EDIT: Funak says it works for him, so umm, okay. Something strange with my stuff. Grrr.

 

[Gazebo]

Hotfix for difficulty (using Handicap * Era * Era * 2) model and two smaller issues released. Savegame compatible! Link in OP.

G

 

[Grabbl]

Am I the only one that can't build plantations on tea? Bad install or something?

Reinstalling and trying again.

If you're using Redesigned Colors and Icons, that's the reason.

Don't use it as a DLC, but instead put just the Folder from RCI/Mod (named Redesigned Colors and Icons or something) into your MODS folder, that's what worked for me.

 

[Jdoug312]

The ideal is for the AI to be a reasonable challenge for the player at every stage of the game, but failing that, I think it’s better to lean toward the AI being strong early and weak late rather than the other way around. Starting behind the AI and catching up leads to come-from-behind victories, which can be exciting. Whereas effortlessly surpassing the AI in the early game only for them to catch up and overtake you out of nowhere later on is less fun.

I disagree. If we can't reach the ideal of challenging at every stage, I'd rather weaker AI early, and stronger late, so we don't have the all too common case where it's no point in finishing the game after modern era bc it's clear that we're going to win.

Weaker (if it must be the case) earlier still means that the AI you don't wipe out early will stick around, evaluate the situation the best they can and come back strong as the game progresses.

 

[Dawnpromise]

I disagree. If we can't reach the ideal of challenging at every stage, I'd rather weaker AI early, and stronger late, so we don't have the all too common case where it's no point in finishing the game after modern era bc it's clear that we're going to win.

Weaker (if it must be the case) earlier still means that the AI you don't wipe out early will stick around, evaluate the situation the best they can and come back strong as the game progresses.

I also agree that a weaker early AI game is more interesting to me then a strong early AI game. Also won't wiping out AI early cause the survivors to band together to take you down later?

Most games you can tell how thing's are largely going to play out by the time you hit the medieval era, by adding more 'oomph' to the AI late game we can address the recurring issue of 'coasting to victory' I tend to feel most games once I've established myself.

By giving the AI a 'wind up time' of sorts we can makes the games difficulty curve closer resemble the players power/growth. Also I personally hate it when AI overwhelm me in the ancient/classical eras before i even get a chance to really start the game (in fact it's my main reason for quit games right next to 'coasting to victory boredom'). Hopefully this will help address these issues.

 

[Jdoug312]

I also agree that a weaker early AI game is more interesting to me then a strong early AI game. Also won't wiping out AI early cause the survivors to band together to take you down later?

Yep, and this could be the balancing factor. Risk getting all the warmonger hate in the early game, possibly leaving you without friends with which to trade, etc, or ease up on your early conquests for diplo reasons, possibly giving your opponents a chance to catch up and fend you off later.

I like the early rushes from AI that threaten to wipe me out, but IF the situation is weaker early, stronger late or stronger early, weaker late, I'd definitely prefer the former.