[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Project goals - Game balance

[saywhat@xxxxxxxxxxxx]

banjo <banjo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi 
>
> Part II: Game Balance 
>
> saywhat@xxxxxxxxxxxx feels that the map or the empires or the game is 
> too big. 
>
> saywhat@xxxxxxxxxxxx said:
> > I believe that supporting 30 players (and the large map that is
> > needed to support that many players) is the most problematic feature
> > of FreeCiv.  Why?  One equation sums it up:
> > Large map + Large number of players = lots and lots of choices 
>
> These are options that can be set at the console.
  True.  The issues that I was trying to highlight are some of
the drawbacks of large games: 

1) Repetitious tactics 

     E.g. When building your first 3 cities, it's unlikely that
 they will progress identically (due to differences in terrain,
 the order that they were founded, distance from enemy units,
 etc.).  In contrast, when building your 15th through 20th
 cities, it's likely that *most* of them will progress very
 similarly to some of the cities that you built earlier. 

2) Game design changes can get lost in the "noise" of large game. 

     E.g. Consider a change to the AI that, in a game with a
 small number of players, causes a city to be built two turns
 sooner or a treaty to be made (one that wasn't under the
 previous AI). 

     If that same AI change is tested in a game with a large
 number of players, it's possible that the effect of the change
 could be negated by the actions of nearby players. 

> saywhat@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Lots and lots of choices means that each decision is less
> > important.  But isn't making resource management decisions what
> > makes 4x games fun?  When such decisions become so numerous that
> > they become a chore instead of an interesting choice, then the
> > game has failed (as a form of entertainment). 
>
> One of the things i like about 4x games is their depth, which is why
> i wrote rndCiv, i found that once i had plumbed freeciv's depths for
> the umpteenth time, i wanted to make it richer and more complex. What
> i was after was the feeling of coming to the game for the first time,
> being overwhelmed with strategic and tactical choices, and having to
> think very carefully about what i was doing.
  And rndCiv sounds like a great idea.  I look forward to trying
it soon.  Thanks for writing it.  For me, the technological and
economic development aspect of Freeciv is the most rewarding part
of the game. 

  I agree, that the "... game for the first time" feeling *is*
special.  Variables in games (random maps, different numbers of
opponents, game options, etc.) help to recreate it.  AIUI rndCiv
adds differing tech trees to those variables.  Great. 

  IMO, the reason that those variables are desirable features
is that we *like* the underlying game.  If we didn't, then we
wouldn't play the game enough to get the itch to explore
variations in it. 

  OTOH, the speed at which players move from playing Freeciv in
vanilla mode to trying variations might be considered a red flag.
IOW if the vanilla Freeciv game held players' interest longer,
then maybe there would be less demand for variants.  IMO it is
something to consider. 

> Of course repetitive resource management decisions are a chore, that
> is what the cma is for.  Build lists would be nice, although not too
> useful for rndCiv - where every game has different units. 
>
> saywhat@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > I once tried altering the cost of a settler to 9999 shields
> > (in the ruleset file). What happened? The AI refused to use any
> > of its precious initial settlers to found a city. :-) 
>
> Try setting the settlers flag to NoBuild, i haven't tried this but
> it should work.
  I'll try that.  Thanks. 

> saywhat@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > Your first post mentioned multi-player games with up to 30
> > players.  I proposed a limitation on city construction as a way
> > to limit the size of Freeciv games (in order to make all the
> > Freeciv design issues more manageable). 
>
> saywhat@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > Arbitrarily limiting the number of cities will turn players away from
> > the game in disgust. 
>
> I agree, and if it were added at all it should be a server option.
  Absolutely, it should be an *option*.   I'm saying that, when
it comes to design issues (AI in particular), please make the
design work for 5 cities *first*; worry about how it works for 50
cities later (perhaps *much* later).  IMO, of course. 

> Benedict Adamson wrote:
> > I think we should also decide whether we really want to support
> > different rulesets. Proper AI support for really different rulesets,
> > in my opinion, is broken and requires considerable work. 
>
> I use a different ruleset every time i play. If you read the Civ forums, 
> most of them want a new game, new modpacks, new units new wonders, etc.
> This is a sign of success, it shows people love the game so much they'll
> devote time to making and seeking out expansions and variations. 
>
> Doom was a success partly because they allowed people to make and share
> their own wads.  I am biased here because i think rndCiv is a whole new
> and exciting way to generate novelty. 
>
> But on a different level, i think that the ai is weaker *because* there
> is only one ruleset it's tested against.  rndciv exposes many ai issues
> that are not so noticeable playing the default ruleset. As an ai layman
> (i read many ai papers though, yah citeseer), it seems better to evolve
> in an changing environment, you get to hone the truly general aspects &
> not get caught in local maxima.  I also suspect that this would simplify
> the code, pushing more of the specializations out to config files, like
> the units.ruleset "roles" field, and the recent ai.ruleset proposal.
  I'm torn on this one.  I agree that a good AI should be able
to handle variant rulesets (because all rulesets have to define
things in the same game terms).  And variant rulesets (from
rndCiv or elsewhere) *can* help expose weaknesses in the AI that
may be rooted in hidden assumptions. 

  OTOH, if I had to choose between: 

1) An AI opponent that could play well - but only under Freeciv's
 default ruleset and options 

2) An AI opponent that could play a mediocre game on a variety of
 rulesets and options 

  I'd choose 1).  Of course, in that situation, the designers'
choices of the defaults for Freeciv (the ruleset as well as other
options) would become much more important to me than they are
now.  :-) 

<snip discussion of world conquest and proposed rules to make
conquest in Freeciv harder> 

> saywhat@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > Sounds good. How about adding a separate set of conditions
> > (at higher values) to serve as "end of game" (or victory)
> > conditions? 
>
> I'm all for more options, especially if they can be server options
> or defined in rulesets somewhere (effects seems the right place).
> The new options outlined above would make it far harder to conquer
> the world, and therefore rulesets will need to be able to define new
> and exciting ways to win.
  Agreed. 

-Eddie