[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Comments on CMA 2.6

[Raimar Falke <hawk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 10:51:45PM +0200, Christian Knoke wrote:
> Am Montag, 22. Oktober 2001 05:26 schrieb Jason Dorje Short:
> > 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.
> 
> I did understand Raimar's point; my point was, when I'm playing,
> I always have a clear preference what my cities shall do at a given
> time: grow, research, produce, aso. The CMA (better name for it?)
> gives me the tool to realize these preferences. I won't do strange 
> calculations for the weights, with a result e.g. as above. What is
> needed, is a good way to *change* the preferences.

I understand: not all of the flexibility of the CMA core is needed in
the human interface.

> When I'm producing units, I want probably a 1:4 ratio for gold vs.
> shields, or at most 1:5. When I'm producing a marketplace, I won't
> go over 1:2, because I can buy each shield for 2 golds.
> 
> >
> > 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.
> 
> For that case, I suggested a 0 (zero) weight. Everything considered
> as not important can have a 0.

Technically the core CMA needs non-zero weights. However the interface
doesn't have to use these weights. It may map them to other using a
different scale of example.

> Then setting prod=5 and trade=1 gives you that. But you won't go
> over 1:5, because money can buy units, too.  Or, lets say 1:8, then
> you're on the safe side.

> > 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.)
> 
> A textbox entry is not an option, I think, not even for experienced
> players. Personally, I don't like drop-down menues, too. About the
> option names, I think numbers are quite clear; just call it "weights".
> Checkboxes or sliders will do (we're talking about the right side
> sliders).
> 
> Idea: what about a logarithmic scale for the weights; or a linear
> or whatever scale: (0, 1, 1.5 , 2.1 , 3, 4.5, 6)  ? That's not
> accidentally: a 1:1.5 ratio is probably useful.
> 
> The CMA is very fine tunable, but you don't want to confront the user 
> with his complexity - and there is no need to do so. The best we can 
> do is make it handy, so that most people can use it.
> 
> <speculating about the future> When we have a CMAMA, it probably
> can make most use of the CMAs options </speculating about the future>

CMAMA == CitizenMangementAgentMetaAgent??

Ok so for the weights we want between 5 to 8 values?! (the solution
with the least work for me is to keep the current interface and just
decrease the range).

So what about the surplus (the left sliders)?

        Raimar

-- 
 email: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 "Life is too short for reboots."