MP: Noobs & Vets: Rise of the AI Menace. EA, BI. Game Over. Team ACGHHS wins!

[chrispedersen]

I've asked a few times: Can we find out the status of helheim and TC? If they are constantly staling, can we get them set to AI.

Its kind of moot to think they may attack the blesseds - the devas are killing them.

It really distorts the game, to kill nations that are not even turning in turns....

[rdonj]

It would be best to look for subs first but yes, they either need to be controlled or set AI. On the other hand, if TC attacks its allies with its remaining armies it could be pretty painful for the remaining blessed ones. Sure, we are killing them anyway. But they really don't need to help us do it. In this particular case I think going AI might well be less effective than staling.

[chrispedersen]

As I write there are 21 hours remaining. Please do not forward the timer based on only stale nations remaining. I am requesting my players look at a couple of things.

[rdonj]

We're also counting on Caelum having a turn here over in the Devas. We have a sub lined up for this turn who should definitely be able to get one in.

[Squirrelloid]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

I'd make it even simpler.

Its almost impossible to have a game scale well for 2 player games as well as 20 player games. On top of that scale between easy research to very difficult research. 0 strength indies - 9 strength indies etc.

Nor do I think anyone should try. Balancing is roughly the job of the participants.. saying in effect.. sure you can have ashdod.

We're going to take pythium, jot, and mictlan.... (or whatever)

You can certainly do better than at present. In particular, current balance fails mostly at two points: (A) Early game where rush strategies can dominate and eliminate weak nations before they get going and (B) late game where some nations need to commit a lot fewer resources to achieve relevant endgame magic, and thus have more power in the endgame or could take better pretender options for other parts of the game (where, given they already possessed strong late game options, a stronger early or mid game translates directly into more late game power).

Solutions:

(1) Every nation should have available counters to every other nation in the early game. This isn't actually as hard as it sounds because most nations rush strategies (if they have one) fall into one of a couple of archetypes. These counters can be in the form of units or level 1-2 research for a national path. Currently only a couple magic paths have effective early rush counters, leaving nations who lack those paths and lack effective early sacreds with nothing to counter rushes with.

Early game really does come down to a 1v1 situation, regardless of how many players are involved. I've killed EA Ulm as early as turn 12 with Lanka, including successfully storming his capital. There is no way any aid was forthcoming before he was dead, and really nothing he could have done about my triple-blessed sacreds.

(2) Every nation should have something(s) effective to do during midgame that is reasonably accomplishable. (Requiring disproportionate expenditures of gems by some nations is not reasonable). This is probably where the game is best balanced at present, although there are certainly problems.

(3) Every nation should have access to magic which is effective and relevant in the endgame. The best way to do this would of course be to make every magic path relevant come endgame. This is a huge problem because so few paths currently have relevant endgame options.

(4) Everything needs a counter. Everything. The counter should become available approximately when the tactic does.

[Septimius Severus]

Addressing a few topics here:

Extensions and time delays can be painful when staling nations are present. Setting nations AI when there is a chance they might attack former teamates can be an issue until they are reduced to the point where they no longer are a threat. Then it is only a time issue really. If I know who is staling regularly (i.e. who has dropped out or is not being played by someone), I can of course force host after all active players are in.

I've been wondering about the effectiveness of the BI mod and have been trying to gauge its worth for the sequels. I'm glad I'm finally getting some more input from the players. Is the benefit to the AI sufficient to warrant the loss of pretty decent units like barbarians and such for the human players? A tradeoff between more competent AI and unit variety is what using the mod means.

I was thinking of adding the Worthy Heroes mod but it seems to have become integral to the balance mod now. The last standalone version is quite old (wonder if it is still useable under the current Dom3 patch(es)). The version that is built into CBM now, well there's no seperate .DM file for it, and I can't determine whether the heroes used now are specific to the balance mod in some way or another. If not, I could just write another .DM file using them. Squirrel, maybe you know more.

Games 2 and 3 are planned for MA, and LA respectively. You know I can't remember now whether the indies get tougher (and thus pose more problems for the AI nations) or weaker as the age progresses. I'm starting to forget more and more things ...

I am intending to use the simplist ranked list method with each team getting their highest ordered uncontested picks. I can simply specify that no team has both Gath and Neifel in their list. That will take care of the deadly due issue. I will balance that with swaps using the Agema method. I don't intend on going into ABCDDEFGH, or any of that other nonsense though.

[Gandalf Parker]

[quote=Squirrelloid;727871]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

You can certainly do better than at present.

You make great points. But it still sounds as if it all should be in the CBM thread.
The faults seem to apply mostly to CBM type games, and are areas which CBM specifically is geared up to fix.

We agree that the problems are not necessarily problems in other styles of the game. So general game fixes of those problems would have an impact on other types of gaming which would just cause those people to complain or fix it with mods.

But your points are valid.

[Squirrelloid]

Gandalf - how does this apply mostly to CBM type games? What settings make these concerns go away, considering there are issues at both ends (early and end game)?

[Gandalf Parker]

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

Gandalf - how does this apply mostly to CBM type games? What settings make these concerns go away, considering there are issues at both ends (early and end game)?

Some of the concerns are more about the type of game preferred and the type of settings preferred. You said that large maps do address many of the issues. As do solo play and team games. Also some nations pros and cons can be altered by game settings such as research, resources, victory points. So what is a downside in one type of game is a balancing factor or even preferred facet of the game in another.

The competitive dueling MP style of play definitely did need maps and a balance mod to focus on their needs.

There are also maps and mods which target the opposites. Ones which add opponents, more pretenders, more magic sites, more spells, more equipment. Much of which would be quite the reverse of the type of balance that competitive MP requires.

Your points were excellent. Im just saying that they would likely get more discussion in the thread for CBm than for example the thread in one of the game expansion mods.

[Squirrelloid]

Originally Posted by Gandalf Parker

Some of the concerns are more about the type of game preferred and the type of settings preferred. You said that large maps do address many of the issues. As do solo play and team games. Also some nations pros and cons can be altered by game settings such as research, resources, victory points. So what is a downside in one type of game is a balancing factor or even preferred facet of the game in another.

The competitive dueling MP style of play definitely did need maps and a balance mod to focus on their needs.

There are also maps and mods which target the opposites. Ones which add opponents, more pretenders, more magic sites, more spells, more equipment. Much of which would be quite the reverse of the type of balance that competitive MP requires.

Your points were excellent. Im just saying that they would likely get more discussion in the thread for CBm than for example the thread in one of the game expansion mods.

CBM has addressed many of the problems and continues to address them, but as a matter of philosophy will not make some changes no matter how necessary (no new spells, for example). The real point is that they apply to any MP game. The discussion is in this thread because the belief was expressed vanilla is balanced (its not).

A sufficiently large map addresses early game concerns, but not endgame concerns. If there are, say, 50 provinces/player there is no early game, sure, but nations which don't need their pretender to provide death access (for example) have a substantial advantage because they can tart farm easier and can build their pretender with a better early game in mind - leading to more mid and late game advantage. And since everyone is going to tart farm, the person who can do it best wins. Also, 50 provinces/player is *insane*. How many games like that have you seen start? Actually end? Without rampant quitting and general unhappiness about the game?

I am only convinced team games address issues if the people choosing nations for a team do so wisely. Or if someone takes the time to pre-choose team arrangements for nations so the teams are choosing nations as a block. The Blesseds sort of shot themselves in the foot with their nation choices since they have a bunch of nations that all do the same thing - raid. Obviously what nations are desirable are somewhat different in a team game environment, and depend on what nations are already on your team, but there are still winning and losing combinations, and winner/loser nations. (That Ermor went unchosen in this game is still shocking to me).

SP is only 'balanced' because the AI is bad and anything can beat it, and its metric of when it has the advantage is horribly flawed. It never uses good tactics like SCs or thug raiding. It can be artificially induced not to declare war on you by doing things like buying decent PD along your border. Talking about balance in the SP game is ridiculous because the concept is meaningless. Balance is only a concern for MP games.

Balance should also concern itself with default settings. Unusual settings are obviously going to not necessarily be balanced - and that's more ok. But the defaults should offer something resembling reasonable balance.