Next ACDG - faction start positions (moved from "Darsnan as Game Creator" thread)

[jtsisyoda]

Originally posted by Maniac


I'm not sure how to explain it... I'll try it like this:

Situation A: Normal starting position.
By MY 2110 you're producing 10 minerals in a base (fictional example).
Faction A has 0 Industry SE. It can produce one former in two turns. 0 minerals left.
Faction B has +1 Industry SE. It can produce one former in two turns. But with 2 mins carry-over to the next project.

Situation B: Boosted starting position.
Due to the boosted starting position you're already producing 20 mins in a base by MY 2110.
Faction A - 0 Industry SE. It can produce two formers in two turns. 0 minerals left.
Faction B - +1 Industry SE. It can produce two formers in two turns. But this time 4 minerals are carried over to the next project. In situation B Faction B gets an advantage of 2 minerals more over Faction A than in situation A.

The better the starting position, the higher mineral production, the more important an Industry advantage becomes. Also those formers in the +1 Industry advantage will be produced faster and be able to start terraforming earlier etcetera, creating comparative turn advantage and further increasing the gap with faction A. My point is that gap will grow faster and earlier in a boosted starting position and mineral rich environment than in a mineral poor environment.

You still have the same relative or proportional disadvantage. In either situation, 0 Industry SE produces 9 formers in the same time it takes +1 Industry SE to produce 10. You can still produce y number of rovers while builders produce z number of formers, regardless of general map "boostedness". In either case, you just have to have faith that y rovers can defeat z formers.

[Chaunk]

Originally posted by Maniac
Btw Chaunk and Googlie, if you claim that there isn't any difference in faction advantages between a boosted starting position or a normal one, or that a boosted one is even detrimental to Morgan, then it shouldn't matter to you if we all started normal and unboosted. Right guys?

Sure why not. I'd still maintain that a properlly boosted start is fair as it amplifies advantages and disadvantages for all factions. I'm aware that I didn't make myself clear sorry.

In advocating a normal set up then, do you think we should get rid of the CMN entirly and just run off a normal game? Surely that would be fair for all?

[Snowflake]

In an SP game the starting position could be anywhere from good to bad. It doesn't matter if it is decided randomly since we all are confident that we can beat the AIs single handedly.

However if we let the game randomly choose starting position for all the human teams and if it results a situation where some teams have better starting position than others, it sure would generate different impact and may not be viewed as fair. That's why we definitely need a CMN to create the map in my opinion.

I do not mind too much whether we boost the starting position for everyone as long as they are fair. However I agree with Kody the effect of boosted starting positions is that it will speed the early game up, which is a good thing I think.

[Impaler[WrG]]

The two worst things that can happen at startup are

1 (General) Getting placed on a tiny Island and their being no unocupied Islands nearby for you to expand too.

2 (Builders) Getting placed on the same landmass with a highly agressive factions such as Sparta or Belivers (only a challenge if its a HUMAN team).

3 (Concourers) Getting started near a faction you have trouble concouring (Hive) especialy if said faction is HUMAN.


Thus I would think the best plan is to have the AI's "buffer" the Human teams, thus they act as both insulation for the Builders and meals for the Concourers and then the Human teams start to realy rub against each other.

[Googlie]

Ah - the AI "pushovers"

What do the teams want from the AI?

Sparta:

want - builders/researchers, who will grow fast, but will be weak militarily, so that conquering them will be easy

PKs, Drones, University, Cult

don't want: Strong military competitors or hard-to-take-out defensive factions

Hive, Believers, either alien faction, Pirates

Angels:

want - research powerhouses, so that probing them (and after infiltrating, tech-share benefits) will be mammoth

University, CyCon,

don't want - militaristic factions that will threaten them

Hive, Believers, either Alien faction, Pirates

Morgan:

want - Friendly builders, who will create megacities for super-profitable trade

PK's, University, Drones, Hive

don't want - Factions that don't like FM or Wealth and that are aggressive by nature

Believers, Cult, Pirates, either Alien faction

Gaians:

Not sure. Factions that plant lotsa forests so that Gaian envoys have plenty trees to run naked through? Come on, Gaians, help me out. What are you looking for in AI factions? Who don't you want?

So the lowest common denominator is:


PeaceKeepers,
University,
Drones,


G

[Snowflake]

I have an idea here. Let's give everybody who they don't want. I mean we all complain about what easy cakes the AIs are. At least we could nutify this complain by not given the ones you wanted.

In other words, I say give them

Hive
Believers
Pirates

[GeoModder]

Just my personal 2 cents for the Angels, but I don't see militaristic factions as a real threat to Angel security.

In the end we probe them all.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Googlie
IBut I disagree that they only penalize the Gaians and sparta, which is what I inferred from the posts. I maintain that even Morgan is comparatively disadvantaged by the giving to other factions of equal goodies.

Isn't it per definition impossible for ALL factions to be comparatively disadvantaged?

(If you freshstart a game, with "look first" disabled, then activate the Scenario editor after the first turn is complete, you'll see how the game engine allocates start positions)

I don't understand. What would I see that affects this discussion?

The usual reason, though, that a CMN boosts the start position is usually to give PBEMers something to do for those first ten to fifteen awfully boring turns

I know. If everyone is a pure builder, there's no problem with that and I would be in favour. But with the current mix of many possible playing styles...

So, to summarize, I agree that it is imbalancing, but I disagree that it affects only the Gaians and Sparta

I agree that it affects all factions. However I think that it affects especially Morgan positively and Sparta and Gaia negatively.

Anyway, you stay with your position, but besides the argument of Morganites supposedly unable to popboom (which I already replied to), I honestly can't see unanswered arguments from you or Chaunk that support your position or do harm to my position.

Originally posted by Kody
Faster development in the early game means that the mid and late game comes around faster. Hence the window for an early mometumn rush is reduced.

Heh. I hadn't even considered that. Now I'm certainly against a boosted starting position. If there will be possible momentum factions in the game, it should be done with all those extra advantages to builder strategies.

Originally posted by jtsisyoda

Do you know what comparative turn advantage means?

Originally posted by Chaunk
In advocating a normal set up then, do you think we should get rid of the CMN entirly and just run off a normal game?

I share HongHu's view on this.

Originally posted by Chaunk
However I agree with Kody the effect of boosted starting positions is that it will speed the early game up, which is a good thing I think.

A good thing for non-momentum factions you mean?

In other words, I say give them
Hive
Believers
Pirates

[Googlie]

Originally posted by GeoModder
I don't see militaristic factions as a real threat to Angel security.

Well maybe it's just more evident in SP games as the Angels, but their SE choice of democracy is at loggerheads with the Hive (their aversion).

And notwithstanding Miriam's aversion being knowledge, with her preference for Fundy she too becomes belligerent towards democracy (but co-exists with Police)

And the Pirates' (erratic aggression) priorities of Explore, Conquer (same as Miriam) often seem to be opposed to the Discover, Build of the Angels (the only faction set up with that combo - and even if a human player plays them as, say explore the AI still regards them as a Discover, Build faction

G.

[Googlie]

Originally posted by HongHu
I have an idea here. Let's give everybody who they don't want.

In other words, I say give them

Hive
Believers
Pirates

Not a bad idea. But if we are introducing "nemesis" factions, then it has to be the Cult to compete with the Gaians for planetary goodies - and in vendetta with them (future epic mindworm battles)

Even better, have the CMN set it up that each team faction has 1 "atrocity victim" (permanent vendetta), 1 neutral (but maybe set to "will shamelessly betray") and 1 "want to talk" among the 3 AI. Thus

Hive

Vendetta with Sparta and Angels
Neutral to Gaians
Talks with Morgan

Believers

Vendetta with Morgan
neutral to Sparta
Talks with Angels and Gaians

Cult

Vendetta with Gaians
neutral to Morgan and Angels
Talks to Sparta

[GeoModder]

Googlie, I know it's sidetracking, but did you ever try to make a faction that has Growth and Build as priorities?

Especially as a seafaction it's a real bugger to break in my experience.

[Googlie]

Originally posted by GeoModder
Googlie, I know it's sidetracking, but did you ever try to make a faction that has Growth and Build as priorities?

No - I was never much into faction creation - I just created aquatic versions for waterworld games, and faction clones for PBEMs like the Forum Wars series, where several teams wanted the UoP, for example (the Varsity, the Space Academy) or the Drones (the Workers, the Marxists)

[Googlie]

Originally posted by Maniac

I don't understand. What would I see that affects this discussion?

You'd see that Morgan is almost always started with a river and a rocky tile in the base start location, and almost always pops a nut as a first podpop (whereas all other factiuons almost always pop a monolith with the first podpop)

So the game engine, when assessing start positions, looks at factions in the game, comparitive start positions, and adjusts accordingly.

Chris Pine, writing for the Prima Guide, says (my italics):

Written by Chris Pine in the Prima Guide

How is my Starting Position determined?

The game picks spots randomly until it finds one that seems eligible. Eligibility is based on a lot of factors, such as proximity to other factions, amount of decent farmland and so forth , amount of total territory available, etc. The more spots it has to pick without finding an "eligible" one, the more tolerant its definition of "eligible" gets.

Once a spot has been picked for every player, the spots are compared and evaluated. Players who are judged to have poor starting locations often get bonuses - an extra colony pod, or some extra Unity seed pods. it will also sometimes give a foil unit to players who start on very small land masses

I submit that if we are going to direct the CMN as to how we want the start locations determined, it should be obligitory for all the debatees to start ten games with these factions and, as i say, open up the game thru the SE after 1 turn to see just how the game mechanics interprets start positions. (Those of us who CMN'ed several games have all done that at some point in time to gain a "feel" for how the game judges relative worth of start positions - it's in the "CMN'ing 101 manual")

Originally posted by Chaunk
In advocating a normal set up then, do you think we should get rid of the CMN entirly and just run off a normal game? Surely that would be fair for all?

Not in a competitive PBEM. Player 1 starts the game, assigns his own password, plays the turn, then saves and exits (turn complete) then passes on to player 2, and so on. So far so good.

Then player 1 re-opens the start and instead of passing on to player 2 hits the spacebar or enter key, thus opening player 2's turn, and sees and notes that start position, then moves on to player 3's, etc

Meanwhile, player 2 has now re-opened his turn and simnilarly mnoves to player 3's and so on, noting start positionsa s he goes.

Poor Dude 7 knows only his own position, player 6 knows his own and seven's and so on down the line.

I never play in 'selfset" PBEMs - only those established by a CMN

G.

[Hydro]

Googlie,

I see your point on starting positions, but I have to say I'm disappointed since I assume that the players here are honest and will not use slime-ball tactics like you describe. Frankly, I would not have even thought of that, much less used it. Guess that makes me a babe-in-the-woods.

I've been leery of being in multiplayer/PBEMs because of my impression that they are cut throat and, well, nasty. Perhaps this impression isn’t' too far from the truth? Competition is one thing, but having every game devolve into weasel tactics and flying nerve gas is not my idea of fun.

Hydro

[Googlie]

Hydro:

It's not as though every PBEM player stretches the rules - many of us just play to have a stronger challenge than the AI can give and it's no biggie if we win or lose

But there are some (especially in "official" tourneys) who'll look for the slightest advantage - bragging rights apparently being more valuable than integrity.

But there are still new players coming to the smac universe - I'm in a game with one who was unaware - as I was - of the extent to which the mouse right-click menu differs from the keyboard - or left hand screen menu. Particularly with the airdrop issue of not being able to commence a drop if not in a base - the mouse circumvents that (as it also does the 2 + hops in one turn - which I did know about). So we learn something new every day, almost.

And the "Tass Manoever" of the current game was stumbled onto inadvertently

So many of these "bug exploits" may indeed be inadvertent, but all the more reason for a competent CMN to set up the games

Googlie