Fixing Influence - any ideas welcome

Describe your experience with the latest version of FreeOrion to help us improve it.

Moderator: Oberlus

Forum rules
Always mention the exact version of FreeOrion you are testing.

When reporting an issue regarding the AI, if possible provide the relevant AI log file and a save game file that demonstrates the issue.
Message
Author
wobbly
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1874
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Fixing Influence - any ideas welcome

#31 Post by wobbly »

Anyway poking fun at Daybreak and stupid arguments aside:

10 Eawax + Universial Translator = 5.03 IP
10 Ugmors + Universial Translator = 6.61 IP

10 Eawax + My current techs, buildings and policies = 10.8 PP
10 Ugmors + same = 12.7 PP

It's a bigger bonus as a % on the good influence race but not by much. I'll take good and great industry over good and great influence any day, just because the volume set to industry is greater.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5714
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Fixing Influence - any ideas welcome

#32 Post by Oberlus »

Daybreak wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 2:55 pmMaybe there is hope...
Indeed. Just play more, try more strategies, and you will understand what you are missing...

Daybreak
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 641
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2018 10:14 pm

Re: Fixing Influence - any ideas welcome

#33 Post by Daybreak »

wobbly wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 3:18 pm
10 Eawax + Universial Translator = 5.03 IP
10 Ugmors + Universial Translator = 6.61 IP

looks small, but

= 15.8 difference, and depending on your colony IP costs (using 2 to 3 colony IP costs) means 5.2 to 7.9 colonies you can set to PP or RP - not so small anymore. Depending on your PP per colony, that could mean anywhere from 50 to 160 extra PP.

add in another 1 to 3 to 3 specials, or 3 to 9 IP points

and you can add another 1 to 4.5 colonies you can set to PP or RP

Hmmm maybe a mistake in that, becuase I am unsure of you have taken out their own colony costs - either way the difference still starts to add up.

wobbly
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1874
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Fixing Influence - any ideas welcome

#34 Post by wobbly »

Daybreak wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 3:41 pm
wobbly wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 3:18 pm
10 Eawax + Universial Translator = 5.03 IP
10 Ugmors + Universial Translator = 6.61 IP
looks small, but

= 15.8 difference
I think there was some confusion here. 10 was the Pop Size

BlueAward
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 646
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2022 3:15 am

Re: Fixing Influence - any ideas welcome

#35 Post by BlueAward »

Oberlus wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 1:29 pm
Kobuntura were great at producing influence, but I had 4 set to industry and 3 to influence most of the time. 3 Kobunturas set to influence are similar to 7 average influence planets set to influence (accounting for the extra upkeep from having more colonies). So an empire without kobuntura and 34 planets can be as good as my empire.
So you are saying yourself that 3 Kobuntura planets worth of influence = 7 average planets worth of influence. In other words, all else being equal, having Kobunturas gave you 4 entire planets worth of production more (or science, or mix of both). Is it not a big advantage?

To me that sounds like a huge advantage, any day. Moreover, in the process of getting to those 4 more planets, having first one already meant more resources for colonizing second one, then even more for third etc etc.

In my experience this is a wide empire game, not a tall empire game. Having more productive planets, sooner, is most that matters. Influence mechanic is quite consciously putting a break on unfettered expansion. So yes, you need to learn how to cope with this mechanic to grow. But the exponential growth curve is still there, and the more influence you are able to offset, sooner, the more productive your empire is than another empire with worse influence game.

This is the crux of what Daybreak is saying. All else being equal, better influence gain frees up entire planets worth of production or science, which is huge advantage.

I guess what I could say as sort of counter argument is that well, it's just one more to throw on the pile of how screwed or lucky you may be depending on your starting area - what specials and natives are around and the general topography (and what species you yourself are starting with, if random). You are dealt whatever cards you are dealt, and need to adapt to make the best out of it.

I'm just not convinced luck should play such a big part, particularly in multiplayer environment where I think you'd rather want to give people roughly equal opportunity. Dunno, maybe there are so many random factors already, that actually people do get equal opportunities, just need to execute proper strategy. This seems to be your argument?

wobbly
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1874
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Fixing Influence - any ideas welcome

#36 Post by wobbly »

A large part of the disagreement is to do with how much hyperbole Daybreak uses in his arguments.

I don't think anyone actually believes influence numbers are necessarily "right" as they are. I'd be more surprised if they were "right" then if they weren't.

No one is actually disputing that good/great influence spieces are a big deal either. So are Great Production species like Egassem. If you have Egassem you could get the same production as human from less planets, thus costing you less influence upkeep in the 1st place. Same with Great Research species like Scyllor. It takes less planets to reach the same research numbers. e.g. less influence upkeep.

BlueAward
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 646
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2022 3:15 am

Re: Fixing Influence - any ideas welcome

#37 Post by BlueAward »

Hmm okay, thanks for the behind the scenes look.

Overall, more on the topic, I guess I would prefer more influence opportunities even though I can concede I may be biased indeed, being still more used to the old ways.

My spitballing idea was what if some growth specials could double as luxuries. You know, robotic and lithic specials double down as possible production boosters, meanwhile organics do nothing "extra". And we all know, he who controls the spice, controls the galaxy. So perhaps make organic growth factors do a double duty of being able to boost influence, if not outright being luxuries for some species.

I was thinking to mix it up even more, what if one of growth types boosted science rather than production (robotic or lithic). Or since there are three specials per three boosted metabolism, maybe have a matrix set up differently - robotic production, robotic science, robotic influence, lithic production, lithic science, litic influence, organic production, organic science, organic influence. But again was mostly thinking of giving more influence opportunities

Daybreak
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 641
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2018 10:14 pm

Re: Fixing Influence - any ideas welcome

#38 Post by Daybreak »

wobbly wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:34 pm
Daybreak wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 3:41 pm
wobbly wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 3:18 pm
10 Eawax + Universial Translator = 5.03 IP
10 Ugmors + Universial Translator = 6.61 IP
looks small, but

= 15.8 difference
I think there was some confusion here. 10 was the Pop Size
Still if you compared 10 colonies of each - same difference.

And bad influence or very bad influence would be even worse.

Hyperbole :shock: - maybe its just the way I speak - another language barrier, using less than precise words. I didn't think I was exagerating.
wobbly wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:53 pm I don't think anyone actually believes influence numbers are necessarily "right" as they are. I'd be more surprised if they were "right" then if they weren't.
True
At the end of the day, I would love every species influence to be the same, and then make adjustment down or up, as we put in policies and bonuses to reflect those changes. Thats probably too hard.
wobbly wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:53 pm No one is actually disputing that good/great influence spieces are a big deal either. So are Great Production species like Egassem. If you have Egassem you could get the same production as human from less planets, thus costing you less influence upkeep in the 1st place. Same with Great Research species like Scyllor. It takes less planets to reach the same research numbers. e.g. less influence upkeep.
Yes but, FO has had years to balance PP and RP species, and it will take some time to do the same for influence.

BlueAward wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:42 pm
Oberlus wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 1:29 pm
Kobuntura were great at producing influence, but I had 4 set to industry and 3 to influence most of the time. 3 Kobunturas set to influence are similar to 7 average influence planets set to influence (accounting for the extra upkeep from having more colonies). So an empire without kobuntura and 34 planets can be as good as my empire.
So you are saying yourself that 3 Kobuntura planets worth of influence = 7 average planets worth of influence. In other words, all else being equal, having Kobunturas gave you 4 entire planets worth of production more (or science, or mix of both). Is it not a big advantage?

To me that sounds like a huge advantage, any day. Moreover, in the process of getting to those 4 more planets, having first one already meant more resources for colonizing second one, then even more for third etc etc.

In my experience this is a wide empire game, not a tall empire game. Having more productive planets, sooner, is most that matters. Influence mechanic is quite consciously putting a break on unfettered expansion. So yes, you need to learn how to cope with this mechanic to grow. But the exponential growth curve is still there, and the more influence you are able to offset, sooner, the more productive your empire is than another empire with worse influence game.

This is the crux of what Daybreak is saying. All else being equal, better influence gain frees up entire planets worth of production or science, which is huge advantage.

I guess what I could say as sort of counter argument is that well, it's just one more to throw on the pile of how screwed or lucky you may be depending on your starting area - what specials and natives are around and the general topography (and what species you yourself are starting with, if random). You are dealt whatever cards you are dealt, and need to adapt to make the best out of it.

I'm just not convinced luck should play such a big part, particularly in multiplayer environment where I think you'd rather want to give people roughly equal opportunity. Dunno, maybe there are so many random factors already, that actually people do get equal opportunities, just need to execute proper strategy. This seems to be your argument?
Nailed it, in much better language than I could have used - The reult of hating english, and the teacher hating me.

Keep in mind Wobbly, my original argument was to drop influence cost by 40%, which I calculate would mean planets being 33% focused on influence and the balance of 67% focused on PP, IP, etc. Essentially I wanted to give other players that did not find good natives and specials a fighting chance. AND I only wanted to do it as test in the next MP game.

and then agreed with Geoff the medio that it could be through bonuses and policies, but felt that those could be implement later, as I know it will take some time to work them all out.

BlueAward wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 7:40 pm My spitballing idea was what if some growth specials could double as luxuries. You know, robotic and lithic specials double down as possible production boosters, meanwhile organics do nothing "extra". And we all know, he who controls the spice, controls the galaxy. So perhaps make organic growth factors do a double duty of being able to boost influence, if not outright being luxuries for some species.
Good idea- I always wondered why species for example Kombuntura liked Positronium Ash and Probiotic Soup which is only relevent if they are in the same system as one of those specials. Coupled with capital markets for export, it provides more variety.
BlueAward wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 7:40 pm I was thinking to mix it up even more, what if one of growth types boosted science rather than production (robotic or lithic). Or since there are three specials per three boosted metabolism, maybe have a matrix set up differently - robotic production, robotic science, robotic influence, lithic production, lithic science, litic influence, organic production, organic science, organic influence. But again was mostly thinking of giving more influence opportunities
Another good idea - these could be tech or policies/bonuses, as Geoff the Medio suggested.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5714
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Fixing Influence - any ideas welcome

#39 Post by Oberlus »

Daybreak wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 8:58 pm Hyperbole - maybe its just the way I speak - another language barrier
Maybe. But probably not. RIS are not OP early game, you say they are. Language barrier there?

wobbly
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1874
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Fixing Influence - any ideas welcome

#40 Post by wobbly »

Decreasing the gap between average and good influence is actually pretty easier if the change is needed. It's currently +50% on good and +100% on great. It's also possible to change the order of operations, currently Tae Ghris are doubling the bonus from resource specials.

Hyperbolic statements like 1st player to get a good influence species wins isn't so convincing. Neither is questions like why doesn't everyone agree with me.

Daybreak
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 641
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2018 10:14 pm

Re: Fixing Influence - any ideas welcome

#41 Post by Daybreak »

Oberlus wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 9:54 pm
Daybreak wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 8:58 pm Hyperbole - maybe its just the way I speak - another language barrier
Maybe. But probably not. RIS are not OP early game, you say they are. Language barrier there?
We already had this argument, and we will disagree on it. I stated they are overpowered and a solution, but you and wobbly disagreed, again quoting how inexperienced I am, as you do every time you dont agree. I actually feel you did not play the advantage of RIS well in the end.

wobbly wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 7:41 am Decreasing the gap between average and good influence is actually pretty easier if the change is needed. It's currently +50% on good and +100% on great. It's also possible to change the order of operations, currently Tae Ghris are doubling the bonus from resource specials.

Hyperbolic statements like 1st player to get a good influence species wins isn't so convincing. Neither is questions like why doesn't everyone agree with me.
Changing the wording that players who get early influence bonuses egt a huge advantage to your version of 1st player wins, to fit your own story.......

again exagerating what you think by saying I said "why doesn't everyone agree with me" instead of I do not understand that you do not see it again is very different.

However Wobbly I can see that you are testing it now, and leaning a little bit my way.

I struggle to explain things, always have.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5714
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Fixing Influence - any ideas welcome

#42 Post by Oberlus »

You missing the point: we disagree because we have different perceptions of game, not because language.

BlueAward
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 646
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2022 3:15 am

Re: Fixing Influence - any ideas welcome

#43 Post by BlueAward »

Daybreak wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 8:58 pm Nailed it, in much better language than I could have used
Thanks! However, try to understand the other side as well. For example similar thing could be said about Scylior. 3 Scylior planets is like 7 average planets in terms of research (maybe more... Scylior get 200% bonus but also 125% population so really you get more like 250% research, so 3 * 2.5 = 7.5 actually, and with non-population bound bonuses it might even be closer to 8 planets then). So, having Scylior could also mean you get 4 entire planets worth of production more. I'm sure there are more similar considerations, and cases like this seem to weaken arguments about influence in particular.

Of course, in Scylior case, you only need so much research; production looks to be more important in grand scheme of things. So maybe the science effect is similar, but it eventually trails off. Meanwhile, influence stays with you, specifically to put a soft cap on the size of your empire, and I think the difference on the cap is indeed substantial depending on how much influence you get, but don't have numbers to back it up.

It seems the argument is that it utlimately makes no difference, particularly in multiplayer game, because you won't be having big enough empire anyway to notice things like whether you get more production due to better influence or better science or better... well, production to begin with. At least as long you get at least one good thing. The journey of how you get to empire size X is a complicated one and no single factor can be distilled?

Daybreak
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 641
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2018 10:14 pm

Re: Fixing Influence - any ideas welcome

#44 Post by Daybreak »

BlueAward wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 8:39 pm
Daybreak wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 8:58 pm Nailed it, in much better language than I could have used
Thanks! However, try to understand the other side as well. For example similar thing could be said about Scylior. 3 Scylior planets is like 7 average planets in terms of research (maybe more... Scylior get 200% bonus but also 125% population so really you get more like 250% research, so 3 * 2.5 = 7.5 actually, and with non-population bound bonuses it might even be closer to 8 planets then). So, having Scylior could also mean you get 4 entire planets worth of production more. I'm sure there are more similar considerations, and cases like this seem to weaken arguments about influence in particular.

Of course, in Scylior case, you only need so much research; production looks to be more important in grand scheme of things. So maybe the science effect is similar, but it eventually trails off. Meanwhile, influence stays with you, specifically to put a soft cap on the size of your empire, and I think the difference on the cap is indeed substantial depending on how much influence you get, but don't have numbers to back it up.

It seems the argument is that it utlimately makes no difference, particularly in multiplayer game, because you won't be having big enough empire anyway to notice things like whether you get more production due to better influence or better science or better... well, production to begin with. At least as long you get at least one good thing. The journey of how you get to empire size X is a complicated one and no single factor can be distilled?
True, but PP and RP have had years to be adjusted. Influence has not. Possibly MP21 will show it as well, that empires with early IP boosts will do better if they are reasonable players. Well thats my opinion anyway.

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 3433
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Fixing Influence - any ideas welcome

#45 Post by Ophiuchus »

BlueAward wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 8:39 pm Of course, in Scylior case, you only need so much research; production looks to be more important in grand scheme of things. So maybe the science effect is similar, but it eventually trails off. Meanwhile, influence stays with you, specifically to put a soft cap on the size of your empire, and I think the difference on the cap is indeed substantial depending on how much influence you get, but don't have numbers to back it up.
that is in my opinion mostly because we did not balance research costs when we introducing influence.

before influence we had unhindered exponential growth in number of colonies. so also research points were increasing in an exponential way.
That is what the tech costs are based on, so of course late tech can be waaay to expensive, shifting power balance away from research.
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

Post Reply