The idea:
Add a feature where when generating maps and spawning positions the map is tested by populating it with all AI which have negative relations and simulating a set amount of tick’s. then if the top ai is significantly more powerful then the bottom AI the algorithm adjusts the map slightly. This repeats all over again till we determine that the map and spawning positions are fair.
This would not remove all luck in the game as experimentation and just bad players (afk or just not nice players) would still exist but i think it would improve the game significantly because it is extremely frustrating to spawn in a very unfair environment and frustrating to other players when you quit because of it.
1
What or how would the map be adjusted ?
2
Most of the time it is new and inexperienced players that will AFK or QUIT
during the early cycles of the game. These can be thought of as random events in the game.
Veteran players tend to fight through whatever map problems.
New inexperienced players should seek out & join alliances with veteran players, and then
learn to improve their way of playing the game.
-
one possibly give home star more resources, start with more cash or bring stars closer to players Homestar so they can expand quicker.
-
I guess I cant argue with that though if a map is all veterans then it becomes a issue because a small headstart can snowball.
-
@BelSon said it can take a lot of computational resources slowing down the game for everyone else and my response is one new games aren’t made that often, it could be made a optional local thing for those creating games (this is when argument no.2 would probably be valid) and I doubt it actually takes that much computational resources as the actual game is not extremely complex (maps could be generated slowly in the background as previous games fill up as not to cause big spikes of lag).
Hi OneBlue,
These features that you are bringing up, as well as other you have brought up in other threads seem to follow the general trend of adding information to the game. I thought I’d give you my insight as an individual who had a lot of similar ideas when I first joined the game.
I was a bit of an ‘info-addict’ when I joined. I loved the intel screen, looking at other players, working out their stats, their possible advantages and disadvantages etc. The game is to a large extent deterministic, you can calculate worst case scenarios, battles and project future growth of players if you really have the time, which back then I did.
A lot of the recent feature requests that have been popping up are aimed at either getting more information, making things fairer or easier. My opinion is that if something works it should be left as it is, but alas if people want change they should get it. The trend however seems to be that anyone who has a few victories and a few good alliances under their belt will quickly see that the present state of the game not only leaves just enough unknowns to reward those who are willing to take the time and interpolate them, something that quickly becomes second nature, but also provides just enough randomness that each new game provides a level of variability to the challenge and keep the engagement.
Regarding this suggestion I have one comment. I currently work with genetic algorithms, which is very close to what you have described above. The problem is that it is an incredibly time consuming process not only to code and optimise (How do you define success etc), but especially to run. Assuming this has been overcome the new problem is that it is essentially a random process. Meaning it can take 3 minutes and be satisfied or run for 3 days and still be optimising. And of course you cant run a single simulation and adjust, because a(n) (un)lucky spur may produce a vastly unfair (or very boring) map. It is also unnecesary since a very simple set of rules produces a large variety of consistently good (IMO) maps.
These are all problems that could be addressed, however it is very unlikely that the work required will return anything significant for the community. It is possible to code this yourself, and you can test this by creating your own custom galaxy in the ‘Create’ menu.
The truth is, if it is too fair/balanced, it stops feeling like a random galaxy. I personally enjoy when I start a game in a crappy position and use alliances to work my way to the top 3, and yes, sometimes it does not work.
Well… i guess your right in everything you said and of course this is as suggestion it is there to be argued for and against and i think generally i am being convinced that it probably is not the best of ideas’ though some parts of it are still valid in my opinion (for example privet games having option to use this feature to make more strategic and less diplomacy based games like chess).
your last paragraph also made me realize that the feeling of being in a unfair situation and being able to rise up is much more rewarding then just wining because you are better then everyone else balancing out or even outweighing the cons of the feeling of losing because it is just unfair.
thanks for the feedback (and excuse my punctuation)!