|
As a French person I feel like it's my duty to explain strikes to you. - AdrienIer |
|
A new mod enters the ring - Introducing "Close to Home"
|
|
I guess Amica's war just felt faster when I was playing lol. Its probably because Jowy and I stopped making progress for what felt like a lot of turns.
I also forgot about the island for some reason. Amica could have had the lovely experience of WW because someone had 1 city left they couldn't take. 
September 21st, 2021, 05:37
(This post was last modified: September 21st, 2021, 06:01 by Amicalola.)
Thanks Charriu, those are really good numbers, I love your writeups like that. It's good to see I'm not crazy. I would also mention again that if WW had been turned on, the whole game would have looked very different. We would not have been able to create our army the way we did, and so the conquest could likely not have happened at all. Also as Mjmd mentioned, the island would have been a big strategic disincentive. But either way you are correct that we definitely would not have won by T191.
 It's also good to see how much of a difference Colosseums made. They felt really helpful in PB58 as well.
Something else to take into consideration; AGGressive boosts production for Jails, which actually get a pretty large economic benefit with WW on.
The problem with "well just build buildings to reduce (coliseum ect)" is that you A) have to be in a horrible situation already where more units aren't going to be better (ie enemy on an island) B) you just spent hammers that aren't going to help your long term economy or help you conquer someone else faster. IE WW reduction buildings help 0% the actual problem of WW benefiting people who conquer faster vs slower.
Police state being sooner reduces power of pyramids (maybe fine). I don't hate it, but I don't love it either. My proposal is someone start a WW on pitboss as part of the original game set up. Make it a mostly land map. Get all the people who really want to make WW work for some odd reason join. We end up with fewer people wanting WW  Problem solved  . I get a pitboss to lurk  .
(September 21st, 2021, 05:04)Charriu Wrote: Amicalola: I want to return to the two questions I posted earlier. 1. Way back I proposed to change the increase of WW. For a quick summary you get WW everytime one of these happens: a) You attack a unit and win b) You attack a unit and loose c) You are being attacked and win d) You are being attacked and loose e) You capture a unit f) A unit is being captured g) You capture a city h) You are hit by a nuke i) You attack with a nuke My proposal back then was to not increase WW if you are winning, which would be like removing a), c) and e). Now how do Jowy's and Amicalola's numbers change without these: WW Amicalola: 27500 WW Jowy: 15100 Amicalola: 17 pop city = 8 unhappiness 10 pop city = 4 unhappiness 5 pop city = 2 unhappiness Jowy: 17 pop city = 4 unhappiness 10 pop city = 2 unhappiness 5 pop city = 1 unhappiness Amicalola with colosseum: 17 pop city = 6 unhappiness 10 pop city = 3 unhappiness 5 pop = 1 unhappiness Jowy with colosseum: 17 pop city = 2 unhappiness 10 pop city = 1 unhappiness 5 pop city = 0 unhappiness Overall this looks a lot more managable and it does not punish winning. Now as for the second question. What if we allow peace-time WW reduction during war turns without fighting. For this I want to focus on Amicalola alone with 40400 WW and only look at his capitol with 17 pop. This got 12 unhappiness at the end. Now if we apply the reduction every turn after T167 we get the following decline: T167: 12 unhappiness T168: 11 unhappiness T169: 9 unhappiness T170: 8 unhappiness T171: 8 unhappiness T172: 7 unhappiness T173: 6 unhappiness T174: 5 unhappiness T175: 5 unhappiness T176: 4 unhappiness ... T189: 0 unhappiness This is without a colosseum. We can see that over the course of 10 turns the unhappiness fell from 12 down to 4, which is it a managable level. I think the biggest problem with WW in an MP game is that players stay in war to hurt their enemy. With WW this is bad for the winning enemy, but even without WW it hurts the overall turn pace. I think applying the peace-time reduction during non-fighting turns is a way to reduce this. There is still incentive to sue for peace because that gets rid of all the WW unhappiness immediately. I'm not sure if this convinces the "WW-haters", if I'm allowed to use that term. Question is, is there any way to make WW work for the "WW-haters" or do we need to run separate PBs as Mjmd jokingly suggested.
Mods: RtR CtH
Pitboss: PB39, PB40, PB52, PB59 Useful Collections: Pickmethods, Mapmaking, Curious Civplayer Buy me a coffee (September 21st, 2021, 07:16)Charriu Wrote: I think the biggest problem with WW in an MP game is that players stay in war to hurt their enemy. With WW this is bad for the winning enemy, but even without WW it hurts the overall turn pace. I think applying the peace-time reduction during non-fighting turns is a way to reduce this. There is still incentive to sue for peace because that gets rid of all the WW unhappiness immediately. Lol was not joking. I was very pro WW as "it was part of the game, gotta play with it" camp. Having even one or two people get involved in long already frustrating wars, to then also get frustrated with WW is a sure way to get more votes no in the future. The core problem with WW is that it is an anti-catchup mechanic. The core idea behind the mechanic is to hurt you. Maybe that's fine in theory, the problem is in practice in multiplayer games that fast conquests are already better. So I'm not just a pure complain guy. I do try to think of solutions (I'm assuming can't fall off like whip unhappy?). What if the higher your WW is the more capture gold you get (maybe put turns at war as part of calc?)? I was just trying to think of a way that WW doesn't just utterly screw you........ Not even sure that I like my own suggestion, but chucking it out there. But yes anything to reduce the pain when people do play with it is probably worthwhile, but to answer your question I will probably still not vote for it. (September 21st, 2021, 08:13)Mjmd Wrote:(September 21st, 2021, 07:16)Charriu Wrote: I think the biggest problem with WW in an MP game is that players stay in war to hurt their enemy. With WW this is bad for the winning enemy, but even without WW it hurts the overall turn pace. I think applying the peace-time reduction during non-fighting turns is a way to reduce this. There is still incentive to sue for peace because that gets rid of all the WW unhappiness immediately. Sorry, I took it as a joke because of the smileys. I also absolutely see your constructive input to the whole issue, never wanted to suggest anything different. I wouldn't say that the mechanic is meant to hurt you, rather to limit you in your war efforts the same as health and unhappiness limit you in your growth potential. The reason why it feels painful is because it is harder to anticipate how much it will effect you and because you have to fight when you are in the situation. Implementing WW to fall off like whip unhappiness is possible. It's just a lot of work and changes necessary to achieve that, which is why I proposed more doable solutions. More capture gold is definitely easier to do then the fall off effect, but I doubt that it will be able to ease the pain caused by WW. It also won't help you if you are stuck in a stalemate without cities changing owners.
Mods: RtR CtH
Pitboss: PB39, PB40, PB52, PB59 Useful Collections: Pickmethods, Mapmaking, Curious Civplayer Buy me a coffee
September 21st, 2021, 09:48
(This post was last modified: September 21st, 2021, 09:51 by T-hawk.)
 (September 20th, 2021, 16:33)BING_XI_LAO Wrote: it'd be easy to avoid the situation Superdeath mentioned where someone crippled him by just refusing to sign peace.The real answer is there. WW should be independent of your current war/peace status, since you can't control that but it depends on someone else's spitefulness. So make it decay at the same rate both in war time and in peace, and have its effect even in peace time as well. I don't know the numbers you'd want (reach zero after 15 turns or something like that) but that seems like the right principle. It feels like the decay should always be percentage based (not like whip anger), like it shouldn't cripple you longer if a conquest war happened to take 80 units compared to 40. Ignoring war/peace status should include the case of player elimination too (you should still have WW in effect even if that opponent got eliminated), to get rid of any perverse incentives about eliminating or not. That might be a bit tricky to code.
Separating war weariness from war / peace makes sense to me. I think the mechanic works in single player because you can nearly always have peace - for a price. This keeps war weariness in the "choices and tradeoffs" category instead of an unavoidable penalty.
Fighting wars is already the strongest game plan, removing a mechanic that keeps warring in check feels like the wrong way to tweak the game. The trick is to find an implementation that allows players to make tradeoffs instead of solely punishing them. Tradeoffs like this are what make much of the game fun. Of course, take this all with a grain of salt. I'm not a good player and I have no idea what I'm talking about. |
