6 new categories and 72 new items added to the shop!Fake forum EC for posting doubled everywhere to help pay for them!
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Most of these mods and opinions are completely subjective and lacking rationalization. They maybe correct and right on the point but lack of objectivity
denies any further shared discussion
and mutual contribution in term of gradual modifications.
1. Do you think the idea of evaluating and comparing social effects is helpful for SE mod designers at all or it is a complete waste of time?
2. Do you think my idea of converting the one social effect impact to another using game mechanics is legit? In other words, is the correct way of comparing social effects in general?
3. If you answered yes to both above then what do you think about my assumptions about the game progress and averaging? Is this on target? Any suggestions or statistics to add?
Quote from: tnevolin on October 05, 2018, 06:32:33 pmMost of these mods and opinions are completely subjective and lacking rationalization. They maybe correct and right on the point but lack of objectivity
Fairly quickly, I moved quite delibreately towards a gradual system of SE choice effects. I wanted the player to usually be considering a +1 or -1 change to their SE choices, not a +2. I didn't want the player to be able to easily blow the lid off of the top range of effects, as that's generally just a waste of resources. In many cases I did achieve this, if not all. My SE table is designed for much more of a "mix and match" style of gameplay than the original game.
Looking at your various proposed weights, I think your rating of SUPPORT is far too low. My opinion is it's the single biggest game breaking variable of them all.
The value of ECONOMY is skewed by the AI's unwillingness or possible inability to rush production. You seem to have proposed a human-centric value for this weight.
I'm not really sure if GROWTH is as important as you're making it out to be. In my mod, following the trend you observed with other modders, I made it more difficult to pop boom. Nevertheless the AI seems to grow big cities just fine when food is available.
The use of this weight is to detect SMs those would rarely be used by human.
Other than I don't think anyone cares much whether AI is using some models more often then others or how much it benefits from them.
That translates to minerals yield increase and energy yield increase
I believe you are making an important mistake on SUPPORT vs. INDUSTRY. If you achieve +3 SUPPORT, you get support equal to 4 or the size of the base. The relationship is nonlinear. It's complex according to base size. If your model were to compare base sizes, you'd also need to compare a faction's ability to grow and hold onto bases. Which invokes map size, start position, and quality of defense. This makes other SE factors non-trivially important as otherwise you aren't going to have beautifully large bases.
QuoteThe use of this weight is to detect SMs those would rarely be used by human. But you are assigning the weight, not detecting something.Also if your end goal is to opine what SE choices are "rarely used", your exercise is inherently fruitless. All of the models get used at various times in a game according to what faction one is playing and what else is happening. There's no such thing as a "never used" SE choice in unmodded SMAC. My weight of evidence in this regard is over a year's worth of AARs available in the AAR section of this site.
QuoteOther than I don't think anyone cares much whether AI is using some models more often then others or how much it benefits from them.Um, I think it's fundamental to improving AI performance without actually patching the .exe. Also, the AI vs. AI behavior is the only thing you can test relatively rapidly. Relatively rapidly. I sure spent a lot of time today waiting for results, and it's delaying the release of my next mod iteration.
QuoteThat translates to minerals yield increase and energy yield increaseYou're assuming a lot about the quality of the land at your disposal, the speed at which you can improve it, and its defensibility. Particularly from an onslaught of Needlejets against your Formers. GROWTH unfortunately does not offer a straightforward benefit, because there are several other limiting factors. One thing is certain though: any faction starting on the Monsoon Jungle dominates the early game. Until possibly someone shows up midgame to take it away from them.
Imagine we are about to start a game with completely random factions both you and AI (or all AI). Can we say that redesigning SMs would make AI play better? I don't think so.
Social engineering is there for everybody with same exact effect.
In this study I am trying to give better game variability perception to human player and don't care about AI performance.
QuoteImagine we are about to start a game with completely random factions both you and AI (or all AI). Can we say that redesigning SMs would make AI play better? I don't think so.You are wrong. This is proven on my box using my mod all the time. Of course one has to set an expectation for how much better. There's a point at which I can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, it takes .exe patching to do that.
QuoteSocial engineering is there for everybody with same exact effect.Not true. Most factions have restrictions of things they can't use, and leanings towards things that make it more optimal for them to use. This is inherent to the notion of "having factions". If we didn't have factions, we'd just have generic nationalities ala Civ II.
QuoteIn this study I am trying to give better game variability perception to human player and don't care about AI performance.But this doesn't have to be inherently meaningful, because the dynamic range of human strategic choice is much larger than the AI's. What do your equations have to say, for instance, about a Recon Rover rush?
You could learn something differentially about SE values, if you ran AI vs. AI tests, on the same faction for all 7 players, changing only 1 variable by +-1. So any given SE choice, you could test the -3, -2, -1, 0, +1, +2, +3 versions with AIs, by making custom factions. That may only measure starting / early game advantage, as when the game progresses, more SE choices may blow the lid off of the value range. Although, it may also result in cost shifting, if the AI is given flexibility to choose whatever they like.
How do you set up AI only game? I never did this before.
I probably can figure it myself too but you can push me there faster.
What are criteria you use to measure effect of your changes? Like you give some bonus to one faction and then what? Do you count how much more often it wins?
Do you measure how bigger faction power it gets at certain point in time?
How do you stop and restart AI only game at certain points?
Like if you want to stop at 100th turn, write down some statistics and then continue?
How do you make it run fast? Do you blacken screen so you don't see AI moves?