Author Topic: Looking for a couple of players to try a map  (Read 18137 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Earthmichael

Are these pod limits implementable?
« Reply #30 on: August 28, 2013, 08:16:39 PM »
Just looked at the settings, it seems the controls are turning off:
AAs
Monoliths
Resources
Vehicles
Technologies

with no other fine tuning available. Turning off Ogres would require turning off unity everythings (assuming Ogres are included in vehicles). Turing off multiworms, xenofungus, and completion events is not an option.

Can someone with some experience chime in here?  We can leave on Monoliths and resources.  If there is a way to leave on cloning and unity vehicles, while still eliminating Ogres, that would be good.  Is there no way to eliminate volcanoes, fungal blooms, and multi-worm pops?

I know what I would like to do, but I do not know what is possible to do.  If possible, I would like to eliminate all results except:
1. A special resource is found.
2. A monolith is found. 
3. A Unity [scout,rover,transport,foil,copter] is found, or cloning the exploring unit in a differential rift.  (If copters are banned, you may never upgrade the unity copter.)
4. Forest and kelp pods.
5. Pods with EC.  If possible, limit to 75 EC or less.

Those 5 results provide a fair amount of variance, while not resulting in any game breaking pods. 

The question is: are these limits implementable?  [Can an expert chime in here, please?]

Offline ete

Re: Looking for a couple of players to try a map
« Reply #31 on: August 28, 2013, 08:40:49 PM »
I notices that your initial map did not have much variance in attitude, so I tried to add a couple of large mountains.
That's reasonable, but putting them on landmarks just looks really awkward to me. Your save was set to flattened terrain so I'm guessing that's how you play, but on unflattened it looks very wrong. Also, there is a significant ridge, a plateau, and a mountain on both sides? There are flat areas, but it does not seem to me like that part of the continent needs more variation?

You can eliminate the jungle from the starting locations very easily.  I find this causes quicker expansion and a quicker game for everyone.  For that matter, get rid of the nutrient bonuses from the starting locations.  They are only there to facilitate faster expansion,  If you want a more random look, make the start locations nothing special, no bonuses of any kind, no jungle, no nothing.  It just results in a slow start.
I made the start locations reasonably good because forcing the players to spend 3-5 turns wondering around in the dark with colony pods and ending up at the same place anyway is not interesting. I tried to make the continent as a whole roughly as fertile as a random continent, then placed the start locations on the best bits of the continent. Jungle Nut bonus squares and other extremely good start locations (in particular, removing the fungus from the uranium flats seems to make that one feel unreasonably good) are not something which feels like a natural map, and that is an issue as I'll get to at the end of this post.

The desirable spots are still going to be desirable for expansion, no matter now how good the starting spots are.  The better starting spots just tend to cause expansion to occur faster.
However improving the start locations makes the difference in quality of land between the bit that I want fought over and the bit which you start on much lower, which does disincentiveize people to fight over that land because.. they already have pretty good land.

I eliminated very little fungus from the map, primarily removing it from special resource squares. The special resources squares might as well not be there if there is also fungus, since fungus suppresses the special resources; the fungus effective removed the special resources from the early game, since terraforming will be difficult early on.  By eliminating this fungus, it gives players more strategic options in how to expand.  You can put fungus anywhere you like, but the more fungus you add, the less strategic options you are giving your players.  In my view, the fewer strategic options that players have, the less interesting the map. 
Not having those special resources available immediately is, in my view, an increase to the strategic options. It means that a player has to decide to use former turns killing fungus rather than building other improvements. I disagree that it reduces options, it just makes the start slightly less accelerated (the start is already slightly accelerated by placing them on good bits of map), and forces an extra decision about whether to remove fungus or do other things.

Rushers benefit more than builders from the better starting locations, because builders will just expand to whatever good locations they can get to.  If builders are saddled with bad starting locations, they look for better locations for their expansions.  So the rushers (or momentum players) benefitted the most from my changes, because it meant their starting locations were good enough to fuel a war economy, without having to start their priorities on expansion, to get enough resources to fight.
I can see the line of reasoning, but feel it is more than outweighed by diluting the advantage of holding the useful middle ground since the middle ground is no longer that much better than the start locations, arguably worse especially with the two very large mountains.

I think you should rethink how much you want your map to look like a random map (how important is that to you), and who will benefit most from good starting locations.  I think you will find the builders are not so dependent upon good starting locations, but are keen to find decent secondary locations.  It is the momentum factions that benefit most from good starting locations.
More than wanting it to look like a random map, I want it to play and feel like an extremely balanced random map. The reason for this is that I view alterations to the.. base natural state of the game as arbitrary unless well justified. Mirroring and various forms of balance are well justified alterations to the base state of the game, in my opinion, because they make the game more fair and make more factions and strategies viable. Likewise removing pods near start locations and making the sea more attractive to reduce luck and diversify strategies are well justified alterations. Modifying natural landmarks to make them have higher altitude so you can get more energy without investing so many former turns in landscaping does not seem strongly justified, but more of a personal preference. The same goes for other unnaturally fertile land, except the separate continent which is designed for an AI to live on to give the AI a chance. Having a land bridge, while high land is an option, does slightly go against the base state of the game, but it is absolutely required if the rush factions are to be balanced with the builders so is also, in my opinion, justified.

If momentum factions do need a boost, I would rather look into ways of giving them an advantage which make it feel like a natural start still, such as reducing the rush distance or improving the land they are fighting over.

Offline Earthmichael

Re: Looking for a couple of players to try a map
« Reply #32 on: August 29, 2013, 03:05:10 AM »
One can play of any kind of map, as long as it is balanced.

I like some variation elevation, and it seemed reasonable to me that a couple of the already labeled areas we the best choice for adding more altitude.  After all, if the region is already a landmark, better to work with that, than to add an even high elevation that is not a landmark.

Fungus on special resource squares is another judgment call.  I generally don't bother to remove the fungus early on except on an exceptionally good square, because it takes longer than just building a forest somewhere.  Better to just build the forest.  I always wondered why the map builder put on the special resources, then sabotaged them with fungus. 

A couple of recent maps have had very weak terrain, except in some very special locations, like WFOS.  I just build a lot of formers and built a lot of forest.  I don't think that is as interesting as having a place or two where solar panels work well, or other choices.  So I try to make some terrain with some variety of how it could be improved: forest, mines, solar panels, farms, etc.  Otherwise, the default best is just put forest everywhere, boring.

I did not create the original or balanced Vets maps, but these reflect a very good standard in design that have stood the test of time.  Many of the concepts I tried to bring to your map were inspired by the Vets map.

Same with views on pods.  I personally prefer a game with few or no pods, but I will play a game with pods.  I really don't want so many pods that they overbalance the cities.

Offline roninscg

Re: Looking for a couple of players to try a map
« Reply #33 on: August 29, 2013, 09:44:06 AM »
I like both maps, however I like faster start for that reason I think it is better in my case * Balance0.5EM map,
if you agree EM,  we can play on that map?

I only in doubt with which combination of factions to play :D

Too bad we can not play with the four factions  ;lol  :danc:

What do you think is it possible that in game is more than seven factions? is there a way to do it?

Offline Earthmichael

Re: Looking for a couple of players to try a map
« Reply #34 on: August 29, 2013, 02:09:21 PM »
I think the game is very SLOT oriented with the factions, so I think 7 is the limit.  I frankly find 3 factions plenty to manage!

If we cannot restrict the pod results (funny, I thought there was a way to do that, but I am not trained to moderate), then I would like to greatly scale down the number of pods on the map, to half or less.  Roninscg, would you like to try your hand at editing the EM0.5 map and see if you can get rid of half or more of the pods in a balanced way.

I would not mind getting rid of all of the pods, but I will leave that up to you, Roninscg.   If you want pods, then pods are fine, but not such a quantity.   This is far more than I would expect from a random map!  So get rid of as many pods as you want (at least half) and then we can look at starting the game.

ete, do you want to set up the game and moderate?

Offline roninscg

Re: Looking for a couple of players to try a map
« Reply #35 on: August 29, 2013, 03:25:42 PM »
I removed pods from the map  :)
I have upload it as an attachment,

as far of pods you can menage some parameters such as: whether to give monoliths, vehicles, etc.

Offline ete

Re: Looking for a couple of players to try a map
« Reply #36 on: August 29, 2013, 09:17:37 PM »
ete, do you want to set up the game and moderate?
Yep, but still need some more info from you (exact factions and start locations, rules).

Offline roninscg

Re: Looking for a couple of players to try a map
« Reply #37 on: August 29, 2013, 09:41:26 PM »
Earthmichael`s tim:  Univ/Aki/Drones

Roninscg`s tim:  Hive/Gaia/Cult

start locations and pass we sent to ete`s inbox PM.

We play with Yitzi patch and with modified alphax files that  rising water off, and the ecodamage bug fix, No building and destroying building for ecodamage gain.  Worm pops do not increase with ecodamage control buildings.
Map: * Balance0.5EMnoPods.MP
No attrocities allowed.
No copters allowed
Starting Colony pods: 2
Starting Scout Patrols or rovers or  mindworms or probe teams : 4
Starting Formers: 4



and everything else as before:
SetupPreferencesRoninscgEarthmichael
Yitzi patchGame: SMAX & patchesYitzi patchYitzi patch
confirmedFactions** (turn order)1,2,34,5,6
Balance0.5EMnoPods.MPMapBalance0.5EMnoPods.MPBalance0.5EMnoPods.MP
customSizecustomcustom
customOcean coveragecustomcustom
customErosive forcescustomcustom
customNative life formscustomcustom
customCloud covercustomcustom
OffUnity podsOffOff
TranscendDifficulty level--

SetupPreferencesRoninscgEarthmichael
OnAllow Victory by TranscendenceOnOn
OnAllow Victory by ConquestOnOn
OffAllow Diplomatic VictoryOffOff
OnAllow Economic VictoryOnOn
OnAllow Cooperative VictoryOnOn
OnDo or Die: Don't restart eliminated playersOnOn
OnLook first: Flexible starting locationsOnOn
OffTech stagnation: slower rate of research discoveriesOffeither
OffSpoils of war: Steal tech when conquer baseOffOff
OffBlind research: cannot set precise research goalsOffOff
N/AIntense Rivalry: Opponents more aggressivN/AN/A
OnNo Unity Survey: World Map not visibleOnOn
N/ANo Unity Scattering: Supply Pods only at landing sitesN/AN/A
OnBell Curve: No Random EventsOnOn
customTime Warp: Accelerated Start*(on/off/custom)customcustom
4Colony pods at start22
8Scout Patrols (1-1-1)44
4Starting Formers)44
ONIron Man: Save/Restore restricted to exit--
N/ARandomize faction leader personalitiesN/AN/A
N/ARandomize faction leader social agendasN/AN/A
min.1-2/dayExpected turn rate (usually 24h)few/day1-2/day
N/ANumber of days to wait before turn is 'pushed' N/AN/A

* Note: scouts being special depending upon the faction.
**Note: teamed factions are in contact from the beginning (they have each other's commlink).

For example:
1. Sparta: all 4 scouts can be 1-1-2 rovers.
2. Prophets: all 4 scouts can be mindworms.  (They suck so bad they need the advantage!)
3. Angels: any of the 4 scouts can be probe teams if desired (still only a total of 4 scouts)
4. Gaia: if the automatic first capture is messed up by the scenario, Gaia should start with one mindworm and 3 scouts.  This should be tested.  Gaia  is supposed to have a guaranteed first capture.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2013, 02:21:43 PM by roninscg »

Offline ete

Re: Looking for a couple of players to try a map
« Reply #38 on: August 30, 2013, 01:25:23 AM »
Okay, I can build the game tomorrow. I don't have either of your exact team+start locations yet, or preferences about team ordering, or passwords. If I don't get those by tomorrow, I won't be able to make the game until at least the 3rd, maybe a bit later.

Offline Earthmichael

Re: Looking for a couple of players to try a map
« Reply #39 on: August 30, 2013, 03:20:23 AM »
I emailed my preferences.  I don't care if I play North or South, Roninscg can pick if he likes.

I looked forward to the game!  Thanks!

Offline Earthmichael

Re: Looking for a couple of players to try a map
« Reply #40 on: August 30, 2013, 03:21:54 AM »
Please let me know if I need to load some correct settings for Yitzi's patch.  I am not all that familiar with how to set the options.

Offline ete

Re: Looking for a couple of players to try a map
« Reply #41 on: August 30, 2013, 12:38:59 PM »
Okay, got your details. If I get roninscg's details within the next couple of hours I can do this today. I'll give you both an alphax with the correct settings.

Offline roninscg

Re: Looking for a couple of players to try a map
« Reply #42 on: August 30, 2013, 01:34:42 PM »
 factions for me Hive/Gaia/Cult/

I choose the upper side and turn order 1,2,3 Of course if that's ok with you EM?

and i sent pass and start position to ete  :-)

sory for delay busy week :-)

Offline ete

Re: Looking for a couple of players to try a map
« Reply #43 on: August 30, 2013, 03:07:55 PM »
Okay, this was ridiculously rushed but I think it should all work (one known issue: supply crawler will not auto-prototype, but you can do that). If you want me to check carefully, it'll be a few days.

Version used:
Flood bug avoided (started with randomized map): yes
Requested alphax changes: need 600 times normal eco damage to cause floods
Difficulty: transcend
Force current difficulty: ON
Human starting units (include Morale): 2 CPs, 4 scouts (swapped for special units where needed, morale set), four formers (morale set)
Human starting techs (check for selectable techs like Uni):
Human diplomatic relations: perma-pacted teams of 3
Human explored areas: fixed
all rules should be right

sorry for rush, wait if you want.. but i think I got everything.

Offline Earthmichael

Re: Looking for a couple of players to try a map
« Reply #44 on: August 30, 2013, 06:39:12 PM »
That is all fine with me.

I made a last second change to Uni/Morgan/Drones.  Hope that is OK.  I will go 4,5,6 that is fine.

 

* User

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?


Login with username, password and session length

Select language:

* Community poll

SMAC v.4 SMAX v.2 (or previous versions)
-=-
24 (7%)
XP Compatibility patch
-=-
9 (2%)
Gog version for Windows
-=-
103 (32%)
Scient (unofficial) patch
-=-
40 (12%)
Kyrub's latest patch
-=-
14 (4%)
Yitzi's latest patch
-=-
89 (28%)
AC for Mac
-=-
3 (0%)
AC for Linux
-=-
6 (1%)
Gog version for Mac
-=-
10 (3%)
No patch
-=-
16 (5%)
Total Members Voted: 314
AC2 Wiki Logo
-click pic for wik-

* Random quote

As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
~Commissioner Pravin Lal 'U.N. Declaration of Rights'

* Select your theme

*
Templates: 5: index (default), PortaMx/Mainindex (default), PortaMx/Frames (default), Display (default), GenericControls (default).
Sub templates: 8: init, html_above, body_above, portamx_above, main, portamx_below, body_below, html_below.
Language files: 4: index+Modifications.english (default), TopicRating/.english (default), PortaMx/PortaMx.english (default), OharaYTEmbed.english (default).
Style sheets: 0: .
Files included: 45 - 1228KB. (show)
Queries used: 40.

[Show Queries]