Influence mechanics brainstorming

For what's not in 'Top Priority Game Design'. Post your ideas, visions, suggestions for the game, rules, modifications, etc.

Moderator: Oberlus

Message
Author
User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Influence mechanics brainstorming

#46 Post by Oberlus »

drkosy wrote: Mon Sep 14, 2020 4:08 pm Why not making something like leaders in MOO2. They effect not the whole empire but only one planet / system / fleet and can be financed by influence. Maybe they even take some influence points as maintenace cost.
https://freeorion.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=11467

User avatar
LienRag
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2148
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

Re: Influence mechanics brainstorming

#47 Post by LienRag »

After the nerf on Artisan Workshops (which, indeed, was nearly a no-brainer, so had to be adjusted), the only way to have enough Influence starting late mid-game is through Vassalization, which has also been nerfed and will probably be nerfed again.

Having Vassalization being so powerful that it became a no-brainer is bad, but having Vassalization powerful enough that it makes the game playable even in the later stage is good.
And the way the Influence formula works, there is no way to find a balance between these two points.

One way to get out of this quandary is to rework the Influence formula : make the upkeep cost not take into account the planets set on Influence focus (or count them as outposts for this calculation).

In just one move the game becomes playable again without any overpowered Policy, and we can now design Policies that will help with Influence in a reasonable manner, so with different Policy (or even technological) paths.

It will also make getting out of Influence trouble way easier : just switch focus.
With the cost of focus dance, it's still a major trouble to do so, so it doesn't incite to micromanagement.
But it gives the player a real agency over Influence production, in a way that is way easier than the current formula is.

And with that we can remove any artificial cap on Influence upkeep cost.

Please note that I'm not talking about removing the Influence upkeep cost of Influence-focused planets, just to calculate the formula for upkeep without counting them (or, again, counting them like outposts).

Keeping Influence-focused planets at 1/4 of the cost in the upkeep calculation formula it a simple way to avoid the "settling everywhere" problem that Influence was meant to tackle, but it also means that on large Galaxies, Influence will at a moment or another still be soaring out of control.

Removing entirely those planets from the formula calculations may not lead to settling everything anyway, though : the limitation to settling everything would be the rising cost of settling new planets, considering that Influence-focused planets would provide only 2 Production Points by turn (if the reach 10 stability).
And that would mean that whatever the Galaxy size, Influence is always manageable.

wobbly
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1880
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Influence mechanics brainstorming

#48 Post by wobbly »

Seems to me there is a lack of scaling in how ordinary colonies set on influence perform in the later game. A colony set to influence produces around 1 IP, growing to 3 IP at pop 9? It's generally a positive compared to early game costs, and it gives a bigger bonus through moderation. In the late game influence focused colonies produced nowhere near the cost of an extra colony.It's all about having a big influence policy, like artisans, like moderation, or like artisans. Normal IP production may as well be zero compared to the costs you are facing. Maybe a couple of basic techs that increase standard IP production are in order?

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Influence mechanics brainstorming

#49 Post by Oberlus »

I'm quite sure a good solution would be to change the IP cost to take into account universe size, like in previous proposals by me.

Vezzra and Geoff think that is a bad idea, because players will always expect the IP cost for N colonies to be the same between games regardless of galaxy size, instead of varying depending on how many planets are in the galaxy.

If more player could support my proposal maybe we could get rid of this impossible-to-balance-for-different-galaxy-sizes feature that keeps sprawling discussions on how to balance influence-related stuff.

User avatar
LienRag
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2148
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

Re: Influence mechanics brainstorming

#50 Post by LienRag »

Yes, Geoff (IIRC) told me long ago that I should develop them when I asked about the absence of Influence-related techs.

And I have some ideas, if I finally understand how to make a PR I'll put my mind to it.

But whatever techs or other mechanism are developed, they'll face the same problem : sooner or later (if not completely overpowered) the cost of a new colony will override the benefit of putting this new colony on Influence focus.

User avatar
LienRag
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2148
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

Re: Influence mechanics brainstorming

#51 Post by LienRag »

Oberlus wrote: Sun Feb 11, 2024 8:54 am I'm quite sure a good solution would be to change the IP cost to take into account universe size, like in previous proposals by me.

Vezzra and Geoff think that is a bad idea, because players will always expect the IP cost for N colonies to be the same between games regardless of galaxy size, instead of varying depending on how many planets are in the galaxy.

And I am against it because it means that playing on a big Galaxy will be the same than playing on a smaller one, instead of producing different challenges.

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

Re: Influence mechanics brainstorming

#52 Post by Ophiuchus »

Removing influence cost for planets set to influence focus basically would side step the snowballing restriction too easily I think. I prefer making-use-of-neutrals I think. Anyone knows where exobots are currently standing?
LienRag wrote: Sun Feb 11, 2024 9:05 am
Oberlus wrote: Sun Feb 11, 2024 8:54 am I'm quite sure a good solution would be to change the IP cost to take into account universe size, like in previous proposals by me.

Vezzra and Geoff think that is a bad idea, because players will always expect the IP cost for N colonies to be the same between games regardless of galaxy size, instead of varying depending on how many planets are in the galaxy.

And I am against it because it means that playing on a big Galaxy will be the same than playing on a smaller one, instead of producing different challenges.
Lets say that would be true (the same challenges no matter the galaxy size).
It would only be true in terms of universe saturation and maximum empire growth speed.
So for everything else, the challenges would still be different. To name one: number of empires will hugely influence it. Also just because the default formula takes universe saturation into account does not mean that one can not change parameters to create different challenges.

My vote would be for
  • an influence cost formula which can be tweaked to have roughly have the same universe saturation challenges for any universe size (may be that the current formula already can do this)
  • have the necessary parameters exposed to the galaxy setup (its possible that a single parameter like IP cost multiplier is enough)
  • in universe set up default to universe-size-independent scaling (e.g. name the parameter saturation scale and calculate the influence cost formula parameters dependend on that) or have an easy way of defaulting to it (e.g. a button 'Set influence cost so 90% of the universe can reasonably be populated' which calculates and sets the parameters in the set up UI).
Such a calculator/better UI there could probably accomodate the objections by Geoff, Vezzra, and LienRag while still allowing for taking universe saturation into account by regular players.
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!

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Influence mechanics brainstorming

#53 Post by Oberlus »

LienRag wrote: Sun Feb 11, 2024 9:05 am And I am against it because it means that playing on a big Galaxy will be the same than playing on a smaller one, instead of producing different challenges.
Incorrect, as I already told you several times in the past years: There are parameters for that. You could have a small galaxy that is impossible to conquer due to IP cost or a big galaxy that can be conquered with no IP-focused planet.

With current implementation, the size of the galaxy determines the playstyle, invariably.

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

Re: Influence mechanics brainstorming

#54 Post by Ophiuchus »

Oberlus wrote: Sun Feb 11, 2024 9:57 am
LienRag wrote: Sun Feb 11, 2024 9:05 am And I am against it because it means that playing on a big Galaxy will be the same than playing on a smaller one, instead of producing different challenges.
Incorrect, as I already told you several times in the past years: There are parameters for that. You could have a small galaxy that is impossible to conquer due to IP cost or a big galaxy that can be conquered with no IP-focused planet.

With current implementation, the size of the galaxy determines the playstyle, invariably.
the two of you are in a loop again
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!

wobbly
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1880
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Influence mechanics brainstorming

#55 Post by wobbly »

Ophiuchus wrote: Sun Feb 11, 2024 9:49 am My vote would be for
  • in universe set up default to universe-size-independent scaling (e.g. name the parameter saturation scale and calculate the influence cost formula parameters dependend on that) or have an easy way of defaulting to it (e.g. a button 'Set influence cost so 90% of the universe can reasonably be populated' which calculates and sets the parameters in the set up UI).
Such a calculator/better UI there could probably accomodate the objections by Geoff, Vezzra, and LienRag while still allowing for taking universe saturation into account by regular players.
I guess an alternative to changing upkeep costs based on universe size is changing the quantity of resources specials. Calculate how many specials are needed to support a 90% colonized universe.

User avatar
Vezzra
Release Manager, Design
Posts: 6095
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:56 pm
Location: Sol III

Re: Influence mechanics brainstorming

#56 Post by Vezzra »

Oberlus wrote: Sun Feb 11, 2024 8:54 am I'm quite sure a good solution would be to change the IP cost to take into account universe size, like in previous proposals by me.
Well, aside from the problem of IP costs varying dependent on galaxy size, if you want take that approach, I think you also need to take into account the number of players (human and AI). There is a very big difference between 2 or 40 players playing on a map of the same size.

The map size certainly is the more important factor in late game, when empires start to encompass significant parts of the entire map, but in early game I think the more important factor is the systems per player ratio.
Vezzra and Geoff think that is a bad idea, because players will always expect the IP cost for N colonies to be the same between games regardless of galaxy size, instead of varying depending on how many planets are in the galaxy.

If more player could support my proposal maybe we could get rid of this impossible-to-balance-for-different-galaxy-sizes feature that keeps sprawling discussions on how to balance influence-related stuff.
I do acknowldegde that problem, I'm just not sure if scaling IP costs with map size is the best solution.

Just a thought: Maybe an approach where there is a cap on the max IP costs for a colony could work? The fundamental problem is (if I understand correctly), that at a certain point the IP costs for a colony becomes so high that balancing them against other things breaks down, the extreme case being that those costs become higher than IP production even with all colonies set to Influence focus (basically a colony costs more IP than it can produce when set to influence focus).

Initially that cap can be set to high that this scenario (too high IP costs when your empire gets too big) can happen, so in the beginning there actually is a restriction on how big you can grow. But you can lower that cap by researching certain techs (and gaining certain specials, adopting certain policies, etc).

Which means, if you get the cap low enough the IP costs for your colonies would start to only increase linearly instead of exponentially after you reach a certain empire size. Maybe, if balanced carefully, that would allow us to retain the anti-snowballing effect for the early and mid game (up to medium sized empires), while preventing IP costs getting too high in the late(r) game, when empires reach critical sizes?

What do you think? Could such an approach address the issues caused by the current formulas?

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Influence mechanics brainstorming

#57 Post by Oberlus »

Vezzra wrote: Sun Feb 11, 2024 6:15 pm Just a thought: Maybe an approach where there is a cap on the max IP costs for a colony could work? The fundamental problem is (if I understand correctly), that at a certain point the IP costs for a colony becomes so high that balancing them against other things breaks down, the extreme case being that those costs become higher than IP production even with all colonies set to Influence focus (basically a colony costs more IP than it can produce when set to influence focus).
That would be an improvement. I hope to find time to work on a proposal (if no one beats me to it).

wobbly
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1880
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Influence mechanics brainstorming

#58 Post by wobbly »

Oberlus wrote: Sun Feb 11, 2024 6:59 pm
Vezzra wrote: Sun Feb 11, 2024 6:15 pm Just a thought: Maybe an approach where there is a cap on the max IP costs for a colony could work? The fundamental problem is (if I understand correctly), that at a certain point the IP costs for a colony becomes so high that balancing them against other things breaks down, the extreme case being that those costs become higher than IP production even with all colonies set to Influence focus (basically a colony costs more IP than it can produce when set to influence focus).
That would be an improvement. I hope to find time to work on a proposal (if no one beats me to it).
You had some old numbers "somewhere" about where additional influence colonies hits negative benefit. You don't happen to know where?

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

Re: Influence mechanics brainstorming

#59 Post by BlueAward »

wobbly wrote: Fri Mar 08, 2024 7:40 am
Oberlus wrote: Sun Feb 11, 2024 6:59 pm
Vezzra wrote: Sun Feb 11, 2024 6:15 pm Just a thought: Maybe an approach where there is a cap on the max IP costs for a colony could work? The fundamental problem is (if I understand correctly), that at a certain point the IP costs for a colony becomes so high that balancing them against other things breaks down, the extreme case being that those costs become higher than IP production even with all colonies set to Influence focus (basically a colony costs more IP than it can produce when set to influence focus).
That would be an improvement. I hope to find time to work on a proposal (if no one beats me to it).
You had some old numbers "somewhere" about where additional influence colonies hits negative benefit. You don't happen to know where?
Was something I wrote a lot about, maybe put into some large language model to summarise xD
BlueAward wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 6:13 pm Some more influence math for consideration. Not sure if I'm providing a new perspective to anybody but interesting for me at least and I'm sharing it

I talked about upkeep cost being limiting factor on empire's size. Assuming no outposts, I understand that the total upkeep cost is:

U = 0.4 * sqrt(n) * (n-1) - 3

0.4 sqrt(n) is upkeep cost per colony, but capital seems not to get that cost, hence times (n-1). Meanwhile, Imperial Palace gives +3 influence, so I've added that to the mix (as -3 to upkeep cost, though might have put as +3 to influence gain, same thing really - prefer it on the cost side though)

And now you want to pay that upkeep with x planets put on influence focus, with average influence output per planet being I

U = x * I

So you may ask, at what point x = n? In other words, what is the amount of colonies that means all of them have to be put on influence focus to pay for the upkeep? Adding any more would mean you can no longer pay the upkeep at all, so that's a pretty hard limit

If you plug in I = sqrt(30), it comes to... drumroll... 190 planets. Plugging in I = sqrt(36), or I=6, gives 227 planets:

U = 0.4 * sqrt(n) * (n-1) - 3 = 0.4 * sqrt(227) * 226 - 3 = 1362.01 influence upkeep cost

Meanwhile, 227*sqrt(36) = 1362 influence income (so ok, the roudning to 227 actually gives a wee bit not enough)

Things stop making sense before hitting that cap, though. There's a point where adding more planets causes having to switch other planets to influence, to pay for the upkeep, so fewer and fewer planets get production or science focus

Thinking about upkeep as function of number of planets n, U(n), you want the difference between U(n) and U(n+1) to be lower than I, otherwise the newly added planet can't even pay for itself i.e. forces other planets to switch to influence focus

So new planets are able to pay for themselves as long as

U(n+1) - U(n) <= I

Plugging in I = sqrt(30) and the formula for U(n) = 0.4 * sqrt(n) * (n-1) - 3 you get... drum roll.. 83 planets (~83.4989). Any new planet after that can't pay for itself in terms of influence, though other planets may pick up slack until the previously mentioned "harder" cap. For I = sqrt(36), you get 100 planets.

And of course any policy / species considerations change these numbers. For I = sqrt(30)*1.5, you get 187 planets instead of 83, how about that? Granted, for 83 planets and I=sqrt(30), you get 295.822 upkeep cost, and can pay for it barely not enough with 54 planets, so you'd need 55 on influence with some influence surplus, leaving you with only 28 useful planets (about 34% useful planets). For good influence species, the 187 planets cost 1014.40 influence and are covered by 124 planets set to influence, so you're left with 63 productive planets (again about 34%)

Hmmm were you designing things so roughly 2/3 of end game planets would need influence focus to pay for the most possible otherwise "productive" planets?

But note 63 productive planets are 225% of 28, not 150%. Then, it says nothing about dynamics of getting there to that theorized end state. So maybe still better to consider that for 83 planets, 150% species would need 37 planets on influence, not 55, so 46 productive planets, 164% of 28

The nature of this is discreet and considerations above don't describe the dynamics, so it may well make sense to stop even before the discussed caps, because more and more new planets need to be set to influence as opposed to anything else even before they stop being able to pay for themselves altogether, needing other planets to flip. So it's harder and harder to justify new planet even if it still could pay for itself and then some. You'd keep getting fewer and fewer production points extra, and even those would be even lower and lower percentage of what you already have, really diminishing the returns. But it's harder for me to put it into some equation


(EDIT: FWIW, if you set I = sqrt(30) + 4, as in artistic bonus, you get 249 planets instead of 83 on "soft cap", and 563, nearly 564, on hard cap, instead of 190! if you plug in U(n) = 0.4 * sqrt(n)*(n-1) - 3 - n, as in divine authority bonus, you get 116 planets on soft cap instead 83, and 265 on hard cap)
There's more on that thread including some pretty pictures and Oberlus trying to roll with it and parameterize formula based in galaxy size which never got thru tho

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

Re: Influence mechanics brainstorming

#60 Post by BlueAward »

Note I was plugging in sqrt (30) to be some average influence output, which comes about 5.5 influence, or sqrt(36) for 6, but in practice, particularly under vassalization, influence focused planets may produce a lot more influence. You can come up with whatever value you find attainable end game and plug that into the equation to get the flex point/soft cap. Impact of that is shown in my citation too, where I counted +4 from artisan workshops (which now is +2 but it's just an illustration)

Post Reply