Topic: Discussion about (barbarian) economy

11 — 17 of 17 Posts ‹‹ previous 1 2

WorldSavior Topic Opener Joined: 2016-10-15, 03:10 Posts: 2094 OS: Linux Version: Recent tournament version One Elder of Players Location: Germany	Posted at: 2017-03-03, 07:30 king_of_nowhere wrote: well you can calculate exactly how the fight of two soldiers will go statistically. but you cannot simulate an in-game economy. you can calculate how many resources are needed to make a soldier, but deciding which of those resources are of more worth is a completely different matter I think so as well einstein13 wrote: king_of_nowhere wrote: but you cannot simulate an in-game economy So what the game is doing? Simulating an economy. you can calculate how many resources are needed to make a soldier, but deciding which of those resources are of more worth is a completely different matter I think that it is doable. The ways of creating each resources are finite. For example you can produce bread only in one way: grain + water. All of it can be calculated as time, needed resources (to build up), and needed space. I understand that whole economy is a complex machine, but it is still mathematical model. Well, there are many buildings which need more than time, building-costs and space: Mines, foresters, woodcutters, fishers, hunters etc. ;-) And that totally depends on the map and on the match-state Currently I don't have enough data to collect all costs and say that (example) Barbarians are weaker than Atlanteans, but testing (tournaments) shows that balance is rather equal: every tribe has a chance to win with other tribe. On most maps, the chances to defeat atlanteans in an autocrat match are not that good. But for them, in a wood gnome match versus empire, the chances are worse than 50:50 (if the chance to turn the match in an autocrat-match are not so high, if you know what I mean) Wanted to save the world, then I got widetracked Top Quote

Nordfriese Joined: 2017-01-17, 17:07 Posts: 1954 OS: Debian Testing Version: Latest master One Elder of Players Location: 0x55555d3a34c0	Posted at: 2017-03-03, 10:07 @WorldSavior: If you think I bombarded you with numbers: I´ve got more But I won´t mention any in this post. I enjoy making such statistics, so if you want any more, just drop a hint that they might help... I was asked why I want to change barbarian economy at all. I´m not saying that it isn´t good as it is now. I only have some suggestions that (at least in my opinion) would make it better. And if one should "never change a running system", then does that mean that you don´t want Widelands to be under further development at all? I think that even though Widelands is really good at the moment, there is always a way to make it even better. And anyone who likes the game and thinks he sees such a way should suggest and discuss the changes. I agree that, however detailed my statistics are, they can never be a completely accurate description of a game as complex as Widelands. So, instead of refining them yet again, I simply took version bzr8298 and changed it in the way I proposed in my last post in "Bugs". I wanted a quick game (so I let myself be defeated) and instead quickly made some enhanced mines and breweries. Although this test game wasn´t long enough for a thorough test, I noticed some changes: It was easier to make snacks and meals. Operating the enhanced mines went well. The bakery, which now produced 1+1=1, was much more efficient. The micro brewery needed more water and was cheaper to run (1+2=2 instead of 1+1=1). Because of the longer working time, it seemed as if it was actually slightly less efficient than before, although it actually worked faster. I had expected the brewery to be less efficient because of the need for hop. Instead, hop was plentiful but the shortage of wheat was a real problem. The taverns were very efficient. Ration making was faster now: Although I had to wait until the tavern´s stock was at least ¼ full, 4 rations were produced in a short work time (the magic innkeeper is useful, but I miss the logic in my own suggestion). The inns became significantly better. For the same cost which normally produces a snack they now produced a snack and a ration. Because bread and beer became cheaper, they were easier to supply. The big inn was the hardest to run. The need for 2 bread per working cycle made it hard to get enough meals. While I was relying on the big inn for rations as well, my level 1 mines were therefore hard to supply. It was an interesting experience to have to build another building (hop farm) with a small working radius like the fernery. I found that, compared to the farm, it worked too fast. All in all, I found that gameplay became easier (where mine production was concerned) in the early game, before I had a bakery. When I needed more wheat (for brewery and bakery), it became harder, more like current barbarians. The only great difference is that there was no huge jump from smoothly running level 1 mines to the much more expensive level 2. The level 3 mines seemed easier to operate than before, and the wheat shortage was the greatest speed limit for production. Of course, it was a short game where I didn´t much care that I was giving my opponent an easy victory. I didn´t even get a training building. Much more testing is needed to see how it affects gameplay and balance in a real game. So I think that neither the balance of the tribes nor the great advantages/disadvantages of the barbarians would change significantly by the changes I propose. Nonetheless, it becomes a bit easier to build up a good economy and a lot easier to upgrade mines without risking half your economy breaking down (as it happens so easily with current barbarians if the player isn´t fast enough with building dozens of farms and lots of bakeries). To come back to the question why I want to change anything at all: If gameplay becomes easier without changing anything much in the economy in general, then I think it only increases the fun the player has while playing. And it doesn´t get so easy it´s boring, and anyone looking for a real challenge should play empire anyway (since they´re supposed to be hardest). Top Quote

einstein13 Joined: 2013-07-28, 23:01 Posts: 1118 One Elder of Players Location: Poland	Posted at: 2017-03-04, 00:20 Probably my thinking here has some mistakes, because I don't play Barbarians. Making level 10 soldiers is hard work here. Also upgrading the mines is sometimes (not always!) irritating. Maybe you're right about them and it should be changed something to make their game EASIER. For sure we shouldn't make it harder! @Empire: I always play this tribe. Why? Because I learned with them about Widelands. I don't get all the Atlanteans economy (two types of grain, threads and such stuff makes me crazy :P). In my opinion Empire is the easiest tribe to play. I think that every player thinks about his/her preferences about the tribe and it is fine with Widelands' idea. einstein13 calculations & maps packages: http://wuatek.no-ip.org/~rak/widelands/ backup website files: http://kartezjusz.ddns.net/upload/widelands/ Top Quote

king_of_nowhere Joined: 2014-09-15, 17:35 Posts: 1668 One Elder of Players	Posted at: 2017-03-04, 02:41 @ barbarian economy: as I already said, in practice the transition is smoother because you need farms anyway, to provide bread and strong beer needed to train the soldiers. without farms all you can produce are the weaker soldiers in the game, and a small number of promoted soldier can dispatch a virtually unlimited number of those with negligible losses. einstein13 wrote: @Empire: I always play this tribe. Why? Because I learned with them about Widelands. I don't get all the Atlanteans economy (two types of grain, threads and such stuff makes me crazy :P). In my opinion Empire is the easiest tribe to play. I think that every player thinks about his/her preferences about the tribe and it is fine with Widelands' idea. see, i find atlanteans easier to play because once you set up the economy, it will stay the same. you won't need to upgrade mines every minute or two, and you won't need to suddenly make more farms or change resources, and that is well worth a bit more complication at the beginning. Top Quote

WorldSavior Topic Opener Joined: 2016-10-15, 03:10 Posts: 2094 OS: Linux Version: Recent tournament version One Elder of Players Location: Germany	Posted at: 2017-03-04, 14:09 Nordfriese wrote: I was asked why I want to change barbarian economy at all. I´m not saying that it isn´t good as it is now. I only have some suggestions that (at least in my opinion) would make it better. And why should we make it even better? I think that barbarians are better in autocrat than the empire at most of the maps, and almost as good as atlanteans. They are not bad at wood gnome and they might be better than atlanteans at collectors. And if one should "never change a running system", then does that mean that you don´t want Widelands to be under further development at all? No: Sometimes, Widelands doesn't run. For example if you play a huge match on the nile which crashes and cannot be continued. Or if you discover that removing annoying sounds results in an incompatibility with other online gamers. But as far as I know, the economies of the different tribes are running systems. Might be possible that we need more balancing, but as balancing depends highly on the maps anyway, I don't see yet big problems. I had expected the brewery to be less efficient because of the need for hop. Instead, hop was plentiful but the shortage of wheat was a real problem. Why intruducing on more new ware? Come on, there are already rather too much The taverns were very efficient. Ration making was faster now: Although I had to wait until the tavern´s stock was at least ¼ full, 4 rations were produced in a short work time (the magic innkeeper is useful, but I miss the logic in my own suggestion). And you increased the speed of taverns by the factor 3.5 approximatley? Are you sure that you are not just trolling everyone here? The big inn was the hardest to run. The need for 2 bread per working cycle made it hard to get enough meals. While I was relying on the big inn for rations as well, my level 1 mines were therefore hard to supply. When I play barbarians which are not able any more to run normal mines, my big inns produce basyicly only meals. But you want to force the poor big inns to make always one ration and one snack before they can produce a meal. This would basicly kill the barbarians in the late game. Congratulations. Great improvement for atlanteans and empire einstein13 wrote: Probably my thinking here has some mistakes, because I don't play Barbarians. Making level 10 soldiers is hard work here. Well, on big maps it's rather easy. Also upgrading the mines is sometimes (not always!) irritating. Maybe you're right about them and it should be changed something to make their game EASIER. For sure we shouldn't make it harder! But their game is easier than the game of the empire. Barbarians have to transform their economy just one time, while the empire has to transform it often two times. And there are two possible scenarios how that happens. Complicated. Or you run out of easy ores and out of fish at the same time, that would be a 3th scenario @Empire: I always play this tribe. Why? Because I learned with them about Widelands. I don't get all the Atlanteans economy (two types of grain, threads and such stuff makes me crazy :P). The two types of grain are less complicated than the fact that the empire needs wheat and wine. And the threads are not a big problem. The cloth productions of Atlanteans and Empire are almost identical, and the atlanteans need their cloth-industrie instead of the much more complicated marble industrie, more or less. And building a goldweaver is not a big business In my opinion Empire is the easiest tribe to play. It's funny that this is the opposite of my opinion. Atlanteans are the easiest tribe by far in my opinion king_of_nowhere wrote: .... a bit more complication at the beginning. Did I miss anything? Edited: 2017-03-04, 14:37 Wanted to save the world, then I got widetracked Top Quote

king_of_nowhere Joined: 2014-09-15, 17:35 Posts: 1668 One Elder of Players	Posted at: 2017-03-04, 15:27 @ balancing issues: well, I am in favor of balance fixes if I am convinced they are needed, and in fact I proposed a few of those myself, but they are the kind of balances that do not change the way the game is played. Like increasing the attack-bonus-per-promotion of barbarian soldiers, so that their level 10 soldiers are as strong as those of anyone else; that's something that was done at my suggestion, and I think most players (who do not read the forum) did never notice it. Or adding gold to the cost of atlantean labyrinth so that one could not get a fully promoted soldier with just the starting resources, a strategy that only a handful of players know how to enact. Or decreasing/increasing a bit the working time of some building. Stuff that don't change your strategy, except that you may need a bit more or less of a certain building, or that a game-breaking strategy is not viable anymore. Reworking an economy is something I'd not consider except as a last resort. Mind you, if barbarians did not need farms at all, I'd be in favor oof changing them. But since you need to give experience to a brewer before you can promote your soldiers to evade, which is the most important promotion, barbarians need farm pretty early, possibly even earlier than others. Otherwise, they will never keep up with the other tribes when those start upgrading soldiers. So barbarians have to change their economy, but no more than empire. @ tribe difficulty well, atlanteans are undeniably the more difficult triibe to start an economy. barbarians only need a hunter, a tavern, an iron and a coal mine, a smelting work, an ax workshop, and with six buuildings they are already making new soldiers. And those buildings can be made with their starting resources. Certainly that is easier than having to work through farms, blackroot farms, spider farms, weaving mills, millls and bakeries and smokeries you need to start producing atlantean soldiers. Furthermore, atlantean smoked fish require logs, and most noobs make insufficient woodcutters; they need many hours before they can get a working mine. Empire is probably the most straightforward. Certainly it is the tribe where I first learned to micromanage level 10 soldiers, because it is very easy: you need a soldier with evade to be sent to a training camp fully stocked, and they don't need to upgrade buildings for it (esxcept the arena). But getting enough marble to start in a reasonable time is a real pain, and piggeries are also a big bother. Top Quote

WorldSavior Topic Opener Joined: 2016-10-15, 03:10 Posts: 2094 OS: Linux Version: Recent tournament version One Elder of Players Location: Germany	Posted at: 2017-03-07, 23:56 king_of_nowhere wrote: @ balancing issues: well, I am in favor of balance fixes if I am convinced they are needed, and in fact I proposed a few of those myself, but they are the kind of balances that do not change the way the game is played. Like increasing the attack-bonus-per-promotion of barbarian soldiers, so that their level 10 soldiers are as strong as those of anyone else; that's something that was done at my suggestion, and I think most players (who do not read the forum) did never notice it. Or adding gold to the cost of atlantean labyrinth so that one could not get a fully promoted soldier with just the starting resources, a strategy that only a handful of players know how to enact. Or decreasing/increasing a bit the working time of some building. Stuff that don't change your strategy, except that you may need a bit more or less of a certain building, or that a game-breaking strategy is not viable anymore. Reworking an economy is something I'd not consider except as a last resort. Mind you, if barbarians did not need farms at all, I'd be in favor oof changing them. But since you need to give experience to a brewer before you can promote your soldiers to evade, which is the most important promotion, Could you explain why you think that it is more important for barbarians than the ax-promotions #1 and #2? barbarians need farm pretty early, possibly even earlier than others. Otherwise, they will never keep up with the other tribes when those start upgrading soldiers. So barbarians have to change their economy, but no more than empire. @ tribe difficulty well, atlanteans are undeniably the more difficult tribe to start an economy. barbarians only need a hunter, a tavern, an iron and a coal mine, a smelting work, an ax workshop, and with six buuildings they are already making new soldiers. And those buildings can be made with their starting resources. That strategy would be good in an extreme case of direct confrontation like on "desert tournament". But if the distance to the enemies is bigger, I would rather do only promotions than recruiting new soldiers. Am I mistaken about that? Certainly that is easier than having to work through farms, blackroot farms, spider farms, weaving mills, millls and bakeries and smokeries you need to start producing atlantean soldiers. But it's not so hard to start the labyrinth as starting to recruit many new soldiers here. And in comparison to the barbarians: The weaving mill is more important than the lime kiln, but still comparable to it (as the weaving mill needs the spider farm, but the lime kiln needs a coal mine). Furthermore, atlantean smoked fish require logs, and most noobs make insufficient woodcutters; they need many hours before they can get a working mine. Well, Atlanteans just need more wood... But I don't think that it's harder to play with them because of this fact. Without a toolsmith, they can get the best wood industrie. If you don't have enough wood, you can easily make more, especially in the next matches... Wanted to save the world, then I got widetracked Top Quote

‹‹ previous 1 2