DESIGN: Wonder limits & limited wonders

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by The Big Mc
One word for you MrBaggins

Compensation

Have the left over go on what they are next building (baring wonders)

Players and AI's can already switch production (although the fact that its lossless is a big problem).

Wonders are the only game object (except for the Gaia Controller) where the building of it, is contested, and the only problem where the AI has a hard time in construction, BECAUSE its a contest, and smart contestants win... hence the AI basically won't, if the human is determined.

If you remove the contest aspect, you still have wonders, and proportional costs for proportional effects... limited, minor or whatever you want to call them, wonders give opportunities for runner-ups to build lesser versions of wonders, mimicing history, and retaining game balance (although these should be more of a consideration, with high cost and limited returns.)

[The Big Mc]

Hmmm

It’s the ai that wants it head looking at then no the wonder system.

The ai use of the technology tree will always prevent them from getting wonders. So wonder limiting will only feel like what I have been told civ 3 feels like that you are linked to your ai to tightly and science stagnates.

I hate the dark ages I really do the game would balance if it was not for them

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by The Big Mc
Hmmm

It’s the ai that wants it head looking at then no the wonder system.

The ai use of the technology tree will always prevent them from getting wonders. So wonder limiting will only feel like what I have been told civ 3 feels like that you are linked to your ai to tightly and science stagnates.

I hate the dark ages I really do the game would balance if it was not for them

You'll never make an AI as sophisticated as a human player... however, so you deal with the issue in the viable way, instead.

As for the wonder system as a whole, it still rewards success with yet more success. The civ with more wonders can do yet better in constructing further wonders. "The rich get richer"

If you limit wonders you not only make them more special... of more individual consequence, but ensure that you don't get the same kind of self-sustaining improvement loops.

Also, since there will be a distribution of wonders throughout the civ opponents, that will give each civ flavor...

The civ that builds Great Lighthouse would have obvious naval power, the civ that builds Collosus of Rhodes would be an economic powerhouse, the civ that builds the Appian Way could have a far-flung empire, and so on.

Civs gain individuality, without specific traits being set, but on the choices they make, instead.

[child of Thor]

I'm probably the only one, but i never build the wonders for the benefits they give me - i build them because i like to be the owner/builder of these wonderous things.

So having a choice of lesser wonders and a limit on the amount of big wonders each civ can build, would seem a nice way to counter balance the problem of the human player being able to better utilise wonders in the game.

[drulius]

I think maybe Wonders should stay as powerful as they are and we might add victory conditions to the game setup so that:
hardest: turn off wonders for human and leave them available for the ai to build.
next:turn off wonders for all civs
next:human can build but gets no effects, just enjoys making the ai lose the production when it loses in a race. Also allows building wonders for spite, just so the ai can't have them. ai gets full effects if successful.
next:flipside, ai can build but gets no effects, human gets full effects if successful
next:both sides "compete" freely, like it is now
easiest:turn off wonders for the ai, leave them on for the human, who can then leisurely build them all if so desired. This is assuming that the ai learn to avoid shooting themselves in their feet by internally executing their wonder runs more efficiently.

Also consider games with 30 ai civs, just that numerical competition alone should help even the playing field.

[tyrantpimp]

Limited wonders sounds like a great idea to me. I havent thought much about the balancing aspects of the wonder races. Now that you bring it up though it is rather imbalanced. Reading the comments of the others i think theres room to mix and match some of the suggestion and make something viable. Either way im looking forward to the enhancement


Heres a thought about scrubbing a wonder, instead of transferring the production to another building. What if there was an option to sell the production for gold or pw or something else like that. It could simulate a nation dismantaling their failed wonder and pawning the materials. I have figured about a third of the value should be lost, chalk it up to deconstruction costs.

[The Big Mc]

Originally posted by tyrantpimp
Heres a thought about scrubbing a wonder, instead of transferring the production to another building. What if there was an option to sell the production for gold or pw or something else like that. It could simulate a nation dismantaling their failed wonder and pawning the materials. I have figured about a third of the value should be lost, chalk it up to deconstruction costs.

That sounds good we could also keep some "materials" back to make the small wonder.

and a further suggestion what if the money left other goes into science that way the ai has a science advantage reedy for the next race.

[MrBaggins]

The ideas so far for dealing with "losing" a wonder race don't seem terribly elegant.

I've got another idea: add an extra requirement to building a wonder, given this system... a time to build requirement. Maybe globally, maybe on a wonder-by-wonder basis, or an age-by-age basis.

For example... say you have the Pyramids which require, say, Stoneworking. If you require just the tech to build it, and then preclude any other civs from starting it, thats a problem, since it unfairly biases wonder choices towards scientific nations, or in the case of a wonder with a tech prequisite that everyone starts with, the first player.

If you have the wonder be available to a civ on a first-come-first-basis, for tech prequesites AND a build time prequisite of, say 50 turns, then it wouldn't be instantly buildable by size 1 cities.

It becomes a race, of sorts, for any wonder, but without the messy situation of lost production.

This benefits the AI, especially, since you no longer have the problem of powergamed wonder races, through mass disband-rushing and/or rushbuying, which is difficult to strategize for the AI. It takes initial productive power to be able to start the wonder.

Thoughts?

[The Big Mc]

Come on you are trying to do far too much with wonder rebalancing.

It’s going to help some one who is builder with loads of production power at his disposal, an economist who can rush buy. A scientist because he will get to the tech first. We are not talking about wonder balancing but general AI improvements.

If we had a working AI who could keep up with a human the gap in wonders would not be so bad if we add small wonders to the that builds the owned first would only gain a small amount compared to the small wonder maker plus the small wonder maker would have an increased tech bonus to help them if they fail a wonder race.

Do we need to re think wonders of rethink the AI


Brain wave

What if when the tech for a wonder becomes available to the player the all other players get the tech too. Just say they have diplomats who look at envy at are (wonder name) . we can then stop 100% rush buying say 40% of the wonder the other 60 would have to come form production.

[MrBaggins]

Not really... At 1/50th... you only require 120 shields for a 6000 shield wonder. Hardly a metropolis. Not a size 1 either, though...

Actually... wonders wouldn't need to be as expensive in general, any more... because... they'd be limited.

This is all a side discussion anyway; the *choice* of which wonder isn't terribly important if they are about equal in power... IF you limit wonders.

The system I've suggest doesn't seriously reward the builder with loads of production power... just gives first choice... which shouldn't necessarily be so significant... in fact... much less significant than having building races.

[child of Thor]

Interesting stuff so far

Are we(as human players) really worried if we lose all our production if we lose in a wonders race?
I can see it being a problem if the AI does, so why not just let the AI keep whatever level of production in the Wonder its got to and transfer it all to another Wonder? But if the player loses - they lose it all?

This would stop the player getting a monopoly on building most of the wonders(which happens quite often in my games).

If it seems too extreme we can always vary the amount of production the human player keeps(10%?).

This is also a simple rule to enact in game.
(I guess its also AI cheating )

[MrBaggins]

Problem is... wonders cost a lot more than regular units/buildings... generally speaking. So, if you just had left over production go to whatever... then a lot is lost, unless you incorporate some mechanism to retain it, until the "lost" production is all spent.

It may be useful, or it may not: AI Civs shouldn't *always* be building. Sometimes they build themselves into the ground. (overwhelming unit support costs and occassionally pointless city improvements, when what they should be doing is switching to more PW and improving their tiles, perhaps.)

I'm also pretty sure that unless we include some uneven mechanism for AI/humans... humans can and will exploit it... and I've even thought of one already: human player engages in a wonder race he doesn't intend to win. He effectively does a massive prebuild that gets carried over from turn to turn... that prebuild being delayed so he can rush build 5 tanks... that he *just* got the tech as he lost the wonder race.

"Raceless" wonders are the only way to ensure that the AI doesn't do stupid construction in their regard.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by The Big Mc
So wonder limiting will only feel like what I have been told civ 3 feels like that you are linked to your ai to tightly and science stagnates.

This was an old comment... but I just want to respond, since its an important point.

Civ3 does somewhat tie your civ to the AI's. Thats necessary for game balance, challenge, and ultimately fun. Brian Reynolds emphasised this, in his article on game balance.

The issue with the Civ3 system isn't that the "solutions" or "limitations" went too far... its that they didn't go far enough in many ways.

For instance...

• Science development relatively tough
• Science trading relatively easy

So players just ignore signficant internal scientific development and, for instance... develop an advance that other civs don't have. Trade to several civs, simultaneously getting other ignored advances. A broad tech tree becomes irrelevant. Tech is essentially a free-for-all.

Another example would be wonder building.... AI's get significant production bonuses and expand well in early/mid game, comparitively to humans... and so they have a wonder advantage. Humans therefore wonder rush to certain key wonders, and let AI's get the others. The human then takes the advantage of the AI's strategic weakness and conquers those wonder cities, doing an end-run on wonder construction.

The moral of the story is that humans will find any and every exploit, imagined and unimagined. If you want a reasonably challenging game to play, then you should definitively close loopholes.

[tyrantpimp]

Saving the "lost production" from a wonder to build other stuff is a weak idea if not for just the reason pointed out as its potential use as an exploit. I say the resources should be divided up into p/w, science gold, and treasurey gold. This could be on a sliding scale per instance of wonder.

So if player has 7 cities all building the same wonder and the ai builds it first only the one furthest along gets the full division.

Alternatively could have it so only city can build a wonder at a time.

The later seems ideal as it would take away one of the oldest tricks of building a wonder to switch prod to something else.

[KHOMAR]

What do you think of scriptable evolutive wonder benefits, by age.
for example pyramids initially granted spiritual power to greats leaders of ancient egypt,after what it remains a element of prestige,and in our time it's a cause of tourism