Balance Switch

Suggest or Vote on new features here.
User avatar
ALEX|D
Posts:306
Joined:Fri Jul 29, 2005 12:54 pm
Location:Germany NRW
Contact:

Postby ALEX|D » Wed Aug 03, 2005 3:44 pm

This is exactly my point. What people are complaining about when it comes to balance is that it is a gamble. High cost picks should yield less risk. The map is pretty random right now. I think you should at least get bare minimum for your race to survive.

I think picks and pick costs should be weighted in when it comes to map generation. There should be some randomness to things but not as much as there is.
Aqua = 5 Picks (tundra, swap = terran; ocean, terran, gaia = gaia)
More Food and great maxpop on wets.

Sub = 6 Picks (tiny+2maxpop, small+4, med+6 ... +GrCom+10 on defending)
More Maxpop on all planets, but not more food.

Aqua gets a "minimum" of wet planets, in neighbourhood, to be able to grow ?

User avatar
Gusset
Posts:99
Joined:Sun Jul 24, 2005 3:36 am
Location:Vancouver, WA, USA
Contact:

Postby Gusset » Wed Aug 03, 2005 6:39 pm

I guess I'll add my 2 cents worth.

While I have no HUGE problems with it, I would be mildly opposed to any re-distribution of planets that was intended to balance things based on race, for the following reasone:

1. The lesser of my reasons is this: There is often talk of which race is better in which situation. Admit it, we all engage in it. (Spoken as someone who is constantly being told that their race of choice to play is inferior ;) ) Simple equalization of immediate stellar neighborhoods (without balancing per se), so that each player has the same stuff to start with, will force players with potentially different races to have to deal with the same situations. I think that would be a good thing. Skill of play would become a larger variable in the outcome of a game.

2. Speaking pragmatically, I don't see how an algorithm for rating planets based on race can be arrived at without leaving a lot of holes. Demo, uni, dict, lith, tol, sub, aqua, +production, +research, +farming...against planet type, size, minerals, artifacts (yes, artifacts would have to be included), and possibly system planet count. That's a fair number of variables to have to balance without devaluing one or more race picks in the process. This is what was behind my question in my earlier post ("how?").

I guess an example situation, though just a tad extreme, that might be useful to discuss is this: Let's assume that a map has nothing but barren abundant planets, except for one large terran world (also abundant). If balancing were attempted, and only one player gets the terran world, it's likely then that whoever gets that diamond in the rough planet wins the game on the first turn. This could reasonably be said to not be an improvement over the random placement of this planet that existed at the start.

-Gusset

User avatar
dirt-bag
Posts:33
Joined:Sun Jul 31, 2005 8:16 pm

Postby dirt-bag » Wed Aug 03, 2005 7:42 pm

there already is a balance switch

chess

unbalance switch = moo

User avatar
siron
Posts:504
Joined:Fri Jul 22, 2005 12:35 pm
Location:Hamburg
Contact:

Postby siron » Thu Aug 04, 2005 3:13 am

I see from what you both have stated, you seem to have read that I think all races should be equal.
This was not my point. I am sceptical that you will have success. (similar doubts like gusset when you just look at the variables.)

High risks that you cause further imbalance.

My balance-idea:

1. Analyze current map statistics (sadly, I have no tool for it...just maplevel but you cant export the results to excel.)

2. Analyze the quadrant statistics

3. Think about a measure to calculate the difference from galaxy mean. (Almost as difficult as your idea.)

4. You should have nice info for your "neighboorhood-planet tables" then.

But nowhere I would take racepicks into account.
-- -------------------

But I guess mirror maps are quite easier....and there are prolly some ladder freaks who like them.

User avatar
Cybersaber
Posts:14
Joined:Thu Aug 04, 2005 8:36 pm
Contact:

Postby Cybersaber » Thu Aug 04, 2005 9:20 pm

Once again, I find myself strongly in agreement with Siron. I think "equal" Home Systems are important, but I would not personally be too interested in a "balanced" neighborhood, as I think balance depends too much on race picks, and adjusting for race picks acress a wide sector of the map destroys the scissors/paper/rock risks one takes when one chooses a race.

The issue of an "equal" home system also depends upon race. The same identical empty planets can have very different utility for different races. Here I think some control is good. I do have a concrete suggestion. Back when we used to use the Map Leveller, each player would pick a planet he wanted for his race, and then each player would get his own planet AND his opponent's planet edited into his home system. If we could use the switches or an in-game screen to specify home system planets (4, for up to 4 players), then the game creator could create equal home systems for all participants, but each participant could voice his planet pick in advance. In this way the equal start would incorporate something good for each player's race pick, instead of being randomly good for some races and bad for others.

User avatar
PK
Posts:88
Joined:Sun Jul 24, 2005 3:47 pm
Location:Poland
Contact:

Postby PK » Fri Aug 05, 2005 7:18 am

In my opinion there should be a switch called "/equalhw". It would generate 2 same home world`s planets. I do this often manually by editing both hws.

PK
PK

User avatar
siron
Posts:504
Joined:Fri Jul 22, 2005 12:35 pm
Location:Hamburg
Contact:

Postby siron » Sat Aug 06, 2005 1:40 pm

In my opinion there should be a switch called "/equalhw". It would generate 2 same home world`s planets.
Good Idea. Already proposed by Gusset and Cabman IIRC.

User avatar
yurop
Posts:21
Joined:Tue Sep 06, 2005 6:48 am
Location:Sol III, Hungary

Postby yurop » Tue Sep 06, 2005 7:03 am

I don't think there is a perfect solution for this problem. (an other example is the tolerant pick: in it's ten points price it's already included that you don't care about the starting system too much)
Anyway I also like this idea:
In my opinion there should be a switch called "/equalhw". It would generate 2 same home world`s planets
(and a question: I'm a newbie here and I'd like to know how can I use these switches. Can I use them in a singleplayer game? Do I need a patch? How can i ad them to ehe game? thanks!)

User avatar
siron
Posts:504
Joined:Fri Jul 22, 2005 12:35 pm
Location:Hamburg
Contact:

Postby siron » Fri Sep 23, 2005 2:17 pm

(and a question: I'm a newbie here and I'd like to know how can I use these switches. Can I use them in a singleplayer game? Do I need a patch? How can i ad them to ehe game? thanks!)
See the faq for an overview: http://lordbrazen.blogspot.com/2005/01/ ... h-faq.html

It is explained in 3.1-3.3

User avatar
dirt-bag
Posts:33
Joined:Sun Jul 31, 2005 8:16 pm

Postby dirt-bag » Sat Sep 24, 2005 12:09 pm

there already is a map 'balancing' function in the generation process. that it does not work well is another story. but i can gaurentee that the game looks at the races and builds the map accordingly, with some randomness thrown in
bok bok

User avatar
siron
Posts:504
Joined:Fri Jul 22, 2005 12:35 pm
Location:Hamburg
Contact:

Postby siron » Sat Sep 24, 2005 4:08 pm

but i can gaurentee that the game looks at the races and builds the map accordingly, with some randomness thrown in
Why do you think so? I doubt this.

Jaded Tortoise
Posts:10
Joined:Thu Feb 09, 2006 5:11 am
Location:New Mexico

Postby Jaded Tortoise » Mon Feb 13, 2006 1:05 am

How about something simple like this.

assign each planet within 6 parsecs of homeworld
(2x food+prod+science)x size not taking into account race picks

these are questionable bonuses x2 splinter, +3x size natives

artifacts is partially taken into acount by the + in science but maybe add a fixed +5 for the free techs.

Also maybe a reduction for having monster in system as these can seriously slow down colonization

Find the average for each quadrant and add or remove or change planets to reach it.

This still leaves the map totally different in each sector, but a similar amount of total prod/food/science should be available. I doubled food because food prod is from 0-4, prod is 1-8 and science is 3-5 (with artifacts) However it may make more sense to cut the prod value in half and leave science and food both at full or just leave them all at no multipliers.

I think my biggest problem with balance though is having your hw start right in a corner, this ussually leaves you with under half the average number of systems within the 6 parsecs. If you could remove all systems from being chosen for homeworld if they were within a certain distance from the map corners this might fix it for the most part on its own.

User avatar
Matthew
Posts:186
Joined:Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:06 am

Postby Matthew » Sat May 05, 2007 3:45 pm

I've thought of a different way to go about doing this that should produce less boring maps than using the mirroring method.

First, you need to having a scoring system for systems and planets.

This is what I came up with.

Code: Select all

Planet Scoring & System Scoring The System score is the number of planets (NP) plus the value of the system special (VSS) plus the combined value of the planets (CVP). System score = NP + VSS + CVP. The Planet score is value of the planet size (VZ), plus the value of the environment (VE) plus the value of the gravity (VG) plus value of the minerals (VM) plus the value of the base food (VF) plus the value of the planet special (VPS). Planet Score = VZ+VE+VG+VM+VF+VPS
Then you would sort the systems by their XY position to calculate the quadrant scores by adding up all the system scores within each one.

Once you can calculate the value of quadrants you can balance the map by making minor changes to the systems. You then just go through a loop to correct imbalances until each quadrant has a score that falls within the specified tolerance range. Some things would automatically be excluded from being changed, like Orion (if it exists) and the player's homeworlds.

It would be a complicated algorithm but I think it's worth doing.

(Cross posted from map balance thread.)

User avatar
Time
Posts:220
Joined:Wed Mar 22, 2006 4:27 pm
Location:Orlando, Florida, USA, Earth, Human Empire

Postby Time » Tue May 08, 2007 7:13 pm

I have seen much discussed about balanced HW and balanced neighbourhood. How about a difficulty number 1-5. (Simple, Easy, Avg, Hard, Impos)
So, if someone wants a challange, he could make his starting conditions more difficult than the other player.

/P1balHW3balHood
/P2balHW2balHood

both would have balanced neighborhoods, but player #2 would have HW conditions similar to Easy, where, Player #1 would have conditions similar to Average.

good if you want to teach someone the game, but, still want a challange for yourself.

It could result in one player having a monster nearby, and the other having the same system, but, no monster, for example.
MOO1 Fan, MOO2 Fan, MOO3 needed too many changes = hopeless, getting older waiting for a MOO4 (still).

marhawkman
Posts:67
Joined:Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:30 pm

Postby marhawkman » Thu May 10, 2007 12:21 am

Erm... dealing with a monster early game is largely impossible. It gets worse when you have to go through them.


Return to “Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests