Well if you RUSH the AI early, and it's already defeated, they can't do shit since they already lost the game. No bonus will help them out at that point. That's exactly my point, they AI is too weak against being rushed early. And a successful rush wins the game (both because you eliminate the other players and because you control their territory. You win this game by conquering, if it happens too early, nothing stops you later.)
|
Todo list for 5.44
|
|
Uhm, that's another discussion though - the rush vs economy race. And even after a rush you still need to play well otherwise the AI should be able to capitalse from any mistakes... In theory.
But without a progressive bonus that's not happening. I've found myself several times in the condition of having to face comparable opponents that were borderline easy but that a progressive bonus would have made much less obvious. I can take some risks and it usually pays off, because I can still cope with what the AI has running around. Usually that happens between the second and third AI, after commons when things get very random. Other examples, screenshots and records, posted on the forum have reminded me of the same situation. Also the end boss is simply not such without a bigger bonus.
September 22nd, 2018, 16:11
(This post was last modified: September 22nd, 2018, 16:18 by Nelphine.)
What year do you get between second and third AI? Recall that by the testing balance seravy does on Expert, where he does see strong late opponents, he doesn't expect the second AI to be defeated until 1410, or later. So if you're defeating it even a few years earlier than that, then yes, the third AI does end up seeming too weak. But that's not the AI being weak, that's you playing a strong strategy.
As an extension to this (which ties into the rich advantage discussion elsewhere), the first ai shouldn't be defeated (and this means you're doing everything possible to defeat them, not just farming them until that date ) until at least 1405 (which means capturing ai cities to get a big ore advantage should take long enough to actually be a problem.)
A progressive bonus would only do one thing, make all except rush unplayable. Let's not try to balance some overpowered human strategies by giving the AI more bonus that also works against nonrush where it's not needed.
We'll need to take some selective measures to fix those few rush strategies that are really to fast instead. (last year we've already toned down retort stacking summons and improved AI fortress defenses so you can't banish an AI with your first 9 bears in 1401 anymore for example. Other problems are starting to only surface now. (werewolves and adamantium anything seem to be the two most obvious so far. I'm not including heroes for now because you still need quite a bit of a luck for a good hero run, or one of the other strategies to boost your early economy into cheap spammable summon hero and high skill for item making. I've played Spiders and Gargoyles a lot and while powerful they seem to be reasonably balanced. Gnolls seemed fairly balanced too. I'm yet to play Barbarians, Trolls and Dwarves.)
September 22nd, 2018, 18:24
(This post was last modified: September 22nd, 2018, 18:25 by Nelphine.)
That also still leaves retort stacking death for undead creation.
Which really leaves, abusing adamantium on rich, abusing undead creation, and abusing strategic strength, all 3 of which require retort stacking. (September 22nd, 2018, 17:46)Seravy Wrote: A progressive bonus would only do one thing, make all except rush unplayable. That's a pretty bold claim... I agree on nerfing the OP stuff, but I'm not talking about that. Really, this isn't about rush. Let's use an example. Your game here, http://www.realmsbeyond.net/forums/showt...#pid687517 Just by looking at the map I can see that you have already won. Because you are in complete control. The worst that can happen to you is that the match takes a lot of time (I remember that some time ago this happened already to you: you forfeited a match despite knowing you'd have eventually won it, for the super slow advancement). Why? Because of the lack of a progressive bonus. You can now take your time and calmly find the best tool for anything the AI has in garrison.
The whole point of fixing rush is to make sure the board DOES NOT look like that in 1408. If it does, it's too late. We aren't supposed to fix something that's not supposed to happen in the first place, we should make sure it does not happen. (and if it still does by some miracle or an extremely skilled player, let them enjoy their well deserved victory - there is no rule saying the AI always has to win.)
I outnumber red on the map 3 to 1 in cities. So the "progressive" bonus would need to be +200% to break even, as early as 1408. That's almost twice as much as Lunatic gets over normal (+150% in the highest category, +50% in the lowest). And since it's progressive, even if only linear and not exponential, in 1416 it would be double that which is outright unbeatable. (and the Myrran wizard also gets the bonus, who doesn't need one. The Myrran wizard is THE progressive bonus in the game. They have a larger territory so they can keep growing when everyone else cannot. Which has already been causing serious problems with balance. ) Or you could just use your common sense. A progressive bonus means the same enemy in the same territory is stronger later. So striking them down early is unaffected, but striking them down late becomes a lot harder. Thus, it's a major nerf to slower strategies while faster strategies are unaffected. That is not a solution to the AI losing too quickly.
If the board looks like that in '10 or '11 my conclusion is the same, right now. The myrran cannot compete because you're absorbing the cities of 3 AIs, which gives you more resources - the myrran needs to colonise, spending hammers/gold and - more importantly - population. You keep thinking that I've asked to reduce difficulty. That's not the case. I proposed to increase it.
But not from the beginning as it's already pretty crazy - it's eat or get eaten in lunatic. Make it gradual instead. On your % calculations: no, the intention is clearly not to compete with AIs that you've fought against winning. This has nothing to do with rush. A growing level of challenge can benefit both. Your intention to review excessive rush strategies is good and valid, independently. Once your intention was acted upon, rush should then suffer a progressive bonus more than economy because per definition, rush is strong early but weak late (once balance is achieved - if it's strong early and late then there's no balance yet). Having the progressive bonus now makes it easier to obtain the balance that you seek because it gives you the baseline over which to work.
September 24th, 2018, 12:11
(This post was last modified: September 24th, 2018, 12:13 by Nelphine.)
If you've already defeated (or effectively defeated by weakening them such that they are no challenge) 3 AI by 1411, you have successfully rushed, even if not a crazy super rush. The third is expected to be a strong challenge, and not be defeated significantly earlier than 1415.
So, if you're strong enough to have defeated 3 by 1411, then you're too strong - NOT the AI being too weak. I don't necessarily agree with this concept, as particularly on lunatic, I think it's not reasonable, but that's the design goal. So if you defeat an ai before 1405, then you snowball and then a second before 1410 then double snowball. These acts are putting you outside the expected - progressive wouldn't solve that, the AI would still be dead already, and things like expected research get thrown out the window. (September 22nd, 2018, 17:46)Seravy Wrote: A progressive bonus would only do one thing, make all except rush unplayable. Let's not try to balance some overpowered human strategies by giving the AI more bonus that also works against nonrush where it's not needed. I totally agree. I even want to suggest more snowballing effects. When I play to a point, that I think I can win, but too lousy to win.... I quit the game, since it is too boring. I am too powerful, but can not end the game fast... too boring. I suggest: When a wizard is banished for more than one (perhaps two) times, he/she can not cast spells in the following battles until his/her word of return spell is completed. This makes snowballing easier. |