[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Comments on CMA 2.6

[Jason Dorje Short <vze2zq63@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Christian Knoke wrote:
> 
> Am Sonntag, 21. Oktober 2001 21:20 schrieb Raimar Falke:
> > On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 08:41:05PM +0200, Christian Knoke wrote:
> > > Am Sonntag, 21. Oktober 2001 19:51 schrieb Raimar Falke:
> > >
> > > > Example with only two stats: food and shield. The city may
> > > > provide the following combinations (all surplus): (f=0,s=10),
> > > > (f=2,s=7), (f=11,s=2) and (f=12,s=-1). You now search the maximal
> > > > sum of sum=food_weight*food_surplus+shield_weight*shield_surplus.
> > > >
> > > > food_weight shield_weight best_sum  best_combination
> > > >     1             1           13      (f=11,s=2)
> > > >     2             1           24      (f=12,s=-1)
> > > >     3             1           35      (f=11,s=2) or (f=12,s=-1)
> > > >     4             1           47      (f=12,s=-1)
> > > >    10             1           120     (f=12,s=-1)
> > > >
> > > >     1             2           20      (f=0,s=10)
> > > >     1            10           100     (f=0,s=10)
> > > >
> > > > Was this clear?
> > >
> > > Yes. So the maximal ratio is 1:25, i.e. give up 25 food for
> > > a single shield (f=25, s=1). That is pretty much. 1..10 or
> > > even 1..5 would be sufficient, don't you think so? I never
> > > want to loose 10 gold for 1 shield e.g. On the other hand,
> > > if you reintroduce the zero, one could claim the food (surplus)
> > > not to be weighted at all. Or do I miss something?
> >
> > With say 1..5 you may not be able to set every ratio. For example the
> > current server ai has:
> >
> > #define FOOD_WEIGHTING 19
> > #define SHIELD_WEIGHTING 17
> > #define TRADE_WEIGHTING 12
> >
> 
> Well, these are valid for the whole game, whilst the human user
> adapts the values to the actual game needs.

Right; Raimar's point was that with 3 resources (food, shield, trade),
you need more options to be able to get any possible ratio you might
need.

Also, a 25:1 prod:trade weight might be desired if you want production
to be your only consideration, with trade being considered only as a
tiebreaker.

Really, though, all these numbers are cool if you want to absolutely
micro-manage but not so useful if you are a beginning player.  What
about having two ways to enter the values: a drop-down menu with easily
understood options like "very important", "somewhat important", ...,
"unimportant" as well as a textbox entry that experienced players can
use to get any combination they want.  (This leads to more customization
possibilities, but they can be added later if desired.)


Christian Knoke wrote:
> 
> Am Sonntag, 21. Oktober 2001 19:51 schrieb Raimar Falke:
> > On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 07:26:15PM +0200, Christian Knoke wrote:
> > > Am Sonntag, 21. Oktober 2001 15:01 schrieb Raimar Falke:
> > > > On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 01:29:42PM +0200, Christian Knoke wrote:
> > > > > Am Sonntag, 21. Oktober 2001 09:08 schrieb Raimar Falke:
> > > > > > On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 12:54:23AM +0200, Christian Knoke wrote:
> > > > > > > The resolution for the sliders is to high.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't understand.
> > > > >
> > > > > Left side sliders: You'll never need -2..-20 surplus for
> > > > > anything. Just allow negative surplus or not.
> > > >
> > > > Ack.
> > > >
> > > > > Why not: (negative, 0, positive) three possibilities, where
> > > > > positive is just (+1).
> > > >
> > > > No. You may need +2 or +3 to finish your unit in n turns. So a
> > > > slider is still needed.
> > >
> > > Yes, but really really seldom. You'd rather buy. Too much hassle
> > > with the agent. In high production phases, you would need to set
> > > +30 e.g.
> >
> > No problem of expanding the value range.
> 
> But a problem for the user to set the right value.

Not if you allow the user to enter a textbox (integer) value rather than
use a slider.

jason