Who should get Handicap Bonuses?

[Infixo]

Maybe this simple poll will help with discussions about bonuses? It is a directional question, regardless of the mechanism itself and its implementation.

Poor and good means „poorly performing” and „well performing” in a given game in comparison to other players in that game.

 

[ridjack]

Not sure why I'd want the AIs to have rubberbanding, and really not sure why I'd want snowballing runaway AIs to get even more bonuses.

 

[Moi Magnus]

I suggest :
+ Poor : no bonuses
+ Middle-poor : some bonuses
+ Middle-rich : a lot of bonuses
+ Rich : some bonuses

 

[tu_79]

I'm pro-runaway, but with a weaker effect.
Flat culture to everyone. (Because in my opinion, culture is the most runaway yield of them all)
Food and science to good wide civs.
Gold and production to good tall civs.

Actually, current method already avoids giving food and culture to good tall civs.

Rubber-banding won't be exciting (facing all civs with the same strength steals its epic). Neutral would be fairer, but then it will be too difficult for some AI to beat another ones. Pro-runnaway is better, but the effect is a bit too strong right now, there is usually just one monster runaway civ, and I'd rather have 2-3 strong civs to face.

 

[Infixo]

Actually, current method already avoids giving food and culture to good tall civs.
.

Food and production go to cities.
Each civ gets science, culture, gold and GAP.

 

[PapaRockett]

I'm 100% anti runaway (like seriously, how do you win when China has 15+ more techs and is in the Atomic era)?

 

[MorphBer]

I would be stongly against rubberbanding, I my opinion the AI is allready too bad at taking over waeker civs when it should be easy for them. I dont like draging as many civs as possible into the late game, which should make winning easier for humans.

 

[tu_79]

Food and production go to cities.
Each civ gets science, culture, gold and GAP.

There's a code that prevents giving some yields

bool IncludeCities = true;
if (eHistoricEvent == HISTORIC_EVENT_GP ||
eHistoricEvent == HISTORIC_EVENT_WONDER ||
eHistoricEvent == HISTORIC_EVENT_DIG ||
eHistoricEvent == HISTORIC_EVENT_TRADE_CS ||
eHistoricEvent == HISTORIC_EVENT_TRADE_LAND ||
eHistoricEvent == HISTORIC_EVENT_TRADE_SEA)
{
IncludeCities = false;
}

if (IncludeCities)
{
int iLoop;
CvCity* pLoopCity;
for (pLoopCity = firstCity(&iLoop); pLoopCity != NULL; pLoopCity = nextCity(&iLoop))
{
if (pLoopCity != NULL)
{
pLoopCity->ChangeJONSCultureStored(iYieldHandicap);
pLoopCity->changeFood(iYieldHandicap);
pLoopCity->changeProduction(iYieldHandicap);
}
}
}

This means that for events GP, WONDER, DIG, TRADE, there are no culture border growth culture, food or production.

EDIT. Other events, get the full set of bonuses.

 

[ElliotS]

I take serious issue with the poll. You've poisoned the well by associating not giving [as many] bonuses to poorly performing civs with runaways.

This is a blatantly untrue. You can balance the bonuses so that the top AI civs will stay even to the player while civs you've crushed will fall behind. This isn't pro-runaway, it's anti-rubberband/anti-welfare.

This entire thread is based on a disgustingly malformed poll so I'd like to point out we can't take the results seriously whatsoever.

 

[Asterix Rage]

Transparent for me

Just a discution. A poll is everything but a revolution

 

[Txurce]

Transparent for me

Just a discution. A poll is everything but a revolution

As long as it's everything but actionable, it's okay with me, too.

 

[Infixo]

There are easily 5000+ people playing Vox Populi. Whatever opinion is presented here, it’s just a personal one, faaar from being representative of what players think.

And nobody is forced to vote, right?

 

[tu_79]

There are easily 5000+ people playing Vox Populi. Whatever opinion is presented here, it’s just a personal one, faaar from being representative of what players think.

And nobody is forced to vote, right?

That many? Now I feel responsible.

 

[Infixo]

That many? Now I feel responsible.

I have 2700 subs for ENW mod and 2100 for VPEE. I don't believe everyone who plays subscribed , more like 1:3 or 1:4, hence my rough estimate.

 

[Gazebo]

I have 2700 subs for ENW mod and 2100 for VPEE. I don't believe everyone who plays subscribed , more like 1:3 or 1:4, hence my rough estimate.

Back before I switched to MEGA, I had over 100k unique IP actions on VP’s download repo... now granted, most people are on dynamic IPs, but that’s still a lot. If I had a dollar per download...

G

 

[BiteInTheMark]

Everyone is discussing the way and height of yields and their distribution among AI, created by events/ historic events.
May I ask the question, the very simple question.... WHY DO WE NEED HANDICAP YIELDS FOR EVENTS?

With higher difficulty the player get:
less happiness, free unit support, Gold from barbarian camps, barbarian bonus
more aggressiv diplomacy, DOW

While the AI get:
more barbarian bonus, starting units, worker speed, free experience, city growth, unit support
less unhappiness, production and training costs, upgrade cost
and finally, values rise with every era and difficulty.

So.... why do we need ADDITIONAL yields for events? And not simply tweek the numbers we are already using? Instead creating a more and more complex, artificially system, which is hard to balance?

 

[tu_79]

Everyone is discussing the way and height of yields and their distribution among AI, created by events/ historic events.
May I ask the question, the very simple question.... WHY DO WE NEED HANDICAP YIELDS FOR EVENTS?

With higher difficulty the player get:
less happiness, free unit support, Gold from barbarian camps, barbarian bonus
more aggressiv diplomacy, DOW

While the AI get:
more barbarian bonus, starting units, worker speed, free experience, city growth, unit support
less unhappiness, production and training costs, upgrade cost
and finally, values rise with every era and difficulty.

So.... why do we need ADDITIONAL yields for events? And not simply tweek the numbers we are already using? Instead creating a more and more complex, artificially system, which is hard to balance?

Because it adds some epic to the game. You'll be specially annoyed at some stronger civs, they'll be a grain in your..., It's only that currently there are very few runaways, maybe only one, and the other ones not a threat.

 

[IcyAngel]

Everyone is discussing the way and height of yields and their distribution among AI, created by events/ historic events.
May I ask the question, the very simple question.... WHY DO WE NEED HANDICAP YIELDS FOR EVENTS?

With higher difficulty the player get:
less happiness, free unit support, Gold from barbarian camps, barbarian bonus
more aggressiv diplomacy, DOW

While the AI get:
more barbarian bonus, starting units, worker speed, free experience, city growth, unit support
less unhappiness, production and training costs, upgrade cost
and finally, values rise with every era and difficulty.

So.... why do we need ADDITIONAL yields for events? And not simply tweek the numbers we are already using? Instead creating a more and more complex, artificially system, which is hard to balance?

Go in the files and eliminate handicap yields. Start a game on your usual difficulty level. Realize that it feels like playing on Settler difficulty. Realize that the non-yield bonuses the AI gets would have to be increased multiple-folds, and more bonuses created -for cheaper policies, techs, etc.- in order for the AI to be competitive.

Regardless of our modders' amazing work, the AI in a game as complex as Civ 5 simply cannot compete without massive help.

 

[Infixo]

So.... why do we need ADDITIONAL yields for events? And not simply tweek the numbers we are already using? Instead creating a more and more complex, artificially system, which is hard to balance?

Regardless of our modders' amazing work, the AI in a game as complex as Civ 5 simply cannot compete without massive help.

AI needs help - nobody questions that. I believe what @BiteInTheMark meant is that there are mechanisms in place already that can be used / tweaked to provide more help if we deem necessary (and we do). Maybe instead of adding an entirely new mechanic that needs testing, balancing, adjustments, etc. we could reuse existing ones and just focus on balancing.

Example.
There is a parameter that says how much cheaper is building for an AI (AIConstructPercent or AICreatePercent) It is 90 for King, 80 for Emperor/Immortal and 70 for Deity. It basically says that AI gets a production bonus every time it creates a building (because it is cheaper). But that is not enough, there are events that add Production to cities. And we think AI needs more in later Eras.
So I say - why not make this parametr dynamic? Just lower it with every passing Era a little bit. This way AI will get more production bonuses with passing Eras.
E.g. iDifficulty * iEra / 3. Then on King you start with 90, and in Information you end up with 90-4*7/3=81. On Emperor, start with 80 - end up with 80-5*7/3=69. On Deity, start with 70, end up with 70-7*7/3=54. There are parameters for science and culture that can be treated the same way (ResearchPercent, PolicyPercent).
This approach treats all Civs the same, but at the same time promotes well-performing ones a bit - you get to next Era little faster, you trigger the bonus little earlier.

 

[tu_79]

AI needs help - nobody questions that. I believe what @BiteInTheMark meant is that there are mechanisms in place already that can be used / tweaked to provide more help if we deem necessary (and we do). Maybe instead of adding an entirely new mechanic that needs testing, balancing, adjustments, etc. we could reuse existing ones and just focus on balancing.

Example.
There is a parameter that says how much cheaper is building for an AI (AIConstructPercent or AICreatePercent) It is 90 for King, 80 for Emperor/Immortal and 70 for Deity. It basically says that AI gets a production bonus every time it creates a building (because it is cheaper). But that is not enough, there are events that add Production to cities. And we think AI needs more in later Eras.
So I say - why not make this parametr dynamic? Just lower it with every passing Era a little bit. This way AI will get more production bonuses with passing Eras.
E.g. iDifficulty * iEra / 3. Then on King you start with 90, and in Information you end up with 90-4*7/3=81. On Emperor, start with 80 - end up with 80-5*7/3=69. On Deity, start with 70, end up with 70-7*7/3=54. There are parameters for science and culture that can be treated the same way (ResearchPercent, PolicyPercent).
This approach treats all Civs the same, but at the same time promotes well-performing ones a bit - you get to next Era little faster, you trigger the bonus little earlier.

Handicap yields from events were already in place, nobody complained. Only it has been increased to include some pro-tall events. And scaled stronger in late game.

If we tie some yields to some kind of events, then it's possible to change how they are distributed. For example, if culture was the only yield to be granted by the DIG event, there would be a spike in culture by that time. Because DIG events are not evenly distributed. SETTLE is more common in Ancient. So forth. For culture handicap to be believable, it needs to be more common after guilds are in place.